Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Home , Umbagog Lake, Umbagog Lake State Park

The Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement

November 2008

This goose, designed by J.N. “Ding” Darling, has become the symbol of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fi sh, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefi t of the American people. The Service manages the 95-million acre National Wildlife Refuge System comprised of more than 545 national wildlife refuges and thousands of waterfowl production areas. It also operates 65 national fi sh hatcheries and 78 ecological services fi eld stations. The agency enforces Federal wildlife laws, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally signifi cant fi sheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, administers the Endangered Species Act, and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Assistance Program which distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fi shing and hunting equipment to state wildlife agencies.

Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long term guidance for management decisions and set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes and identify the Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for stafﬁ ng increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.

2 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement

Refuge Vision “We envision Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge as an essential link in the Statement network of conservation lands in the Northern Forests. We will showcase science-based, adaptive management in a working forest landscape and provide an outstanding center for research. We will achieve this through strong partnerships with State agencies, conservation organizations, land managers, and neighboring communities.

“Our management will perpetuate the diversity and integrity of upland spruce-fir and northern hardwood forests, boreal and riverine wetlands, and lake habitats for the continued health of native fish and wildlife populations. These habitats will provide an important regional breeding area for migratory land birds, waterfowl, and other species of regional significance, such as the common loon and bald eagle.

“Visitors of all ages will feel welcome to enjoy the full complement of priority wildlife-dependent public uses. We will foster their knowledge of and support for conserving northern forest habitats through exceptional outreach and visitor programs. We want all our visitors to return home filled with enthusiasm for promoting and practicing resource stewardship in their own communities.

“We hope residents of neighboring communities in Maine and New Hampshire will value the refuge for enhancing their quality of life. Within the National Wildlife Refuge System, the refuge will be treasured for conserving Federal trust resources and providing inspirational outdoor experiences for present and future generations of Americans.”

3 Abstract

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

Type of action: Administrative

Lead agency: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service

Responsible official: Marvin Moriarty, Regional Director, Region 5

For further information: Nancy McGarigal, Planning Team Leader U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 5 300 Westgate Center Drive Hadley, MA 01035 (413) 253–8562; [email protected]

This Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (CCP/EIS) for the Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge fully compares three management alternatives. Its 16 appendixes provide additional information supporting our analysis. Appendix O includes our responses to public comments on the Draft CCP/EIS.

Alternative A.— Current This “no action” alternative, required by regulations under the National Environmental Management: Policy Act of 1969, would simply extend the way we now manage the refuge over the next 15 years. It also provides a baseline for comparing the two “action” alternatives. We would continue to protect the refuge from external threats, monitor its key resources, and conduct baseline inventories to improve our knowledge of its ecosystem. We would continue our public use programs for wildlife observation, hunting and fishing, allow snowmobiling and camping at their present capacities in designated areas, and offer limited environmental education and interpretation. We would continue to acquire from willing sellers 7,482 acres within the approved refuge boundary, adding to its current 21,650 acres.

Alternative B.— We recommend this alternative for approval. Its highest priority is to protect the biological Management for Particular integrity, diversity, and environmental health of Umbagog Lake and its associated rivers Habitats and Focal Species and streams. Its second priority is to conserve the upland mixed forest and sustain (Service-preferred): those native species dependent on the forest. Management would focus on enhancing habitats for selected refuge focal species, including species of regional conservation concern whose habitat needs generally represent the needs of many other federal trust resources. Alternative B would improve the quality of our wildlife-dependent recreation programs and result in several new public uses being offered. We would also strengthen our partnerships with state and local entities offering similar recreational programs in the area. Another partnership would focus on developing a Land Management Research Demonstration (LMRD) program for applying the best available science in management decisions that affect wildlife resources in the Northern Forest. This alternative includes expanding the refuge as part of a network of conservation lands by acquiring 47,807 acres from willing sellers: 56 percent in fee simple and 44 percent in easements. These proposed additions to the refuge are important for conserving refuge focal species and other federal trust resources. Alternative B also proposes a new refuge headquarters and visitor contact facility. Refuge staffing and budgets would increase commensurately.

Alternative C.— This alternative focuses on sustaining natural ecological communities, rather than Management to Create selected species. It would result in passively or actively manipulating vegetation to create Natural Landscape or hasten the development of natural communities, landscape patterns and processes. Composition, Patterns and Similar to alternative B, it would improve wildlife-dependent recreation, strengthen our Processes: partnerships, develop the LMRD program, and add a new headquarters and visitor contact facility. It would expand the refuge by 74,414 acres, which we would purchase in fee simple from willing sellers. Our target would be to create contiguous blocks of hydrologically connected conservation habitat greater than 25,000 acres: the size we estimate as the minimum necessary to facilitate the natural progression of ecological processes in the Northern Forest conservation network. Abstract 5 The Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

Table of Contents

Refuge Vision Statement ...... i

Chapter 1 Purpose of and Need for Action

Introduction ...... 1-1 The Purpose of and Need for Action...... 1-2 Regional Context and Project Analysis Area...... 1-3 The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning . . . . . 1-6 Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project ...... 1-9 Refuge Establishment Purposes and its Land Acquisition History ...... 1-16 Refuge Administration...... 1-19 Refuge Operational Plans (“Step-down” Plans)...... 1-19 Refuge Vision Statement ...... 1-19 Refuge Goals ...... 1-20 The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process ...... 1-25 The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process & NEPA Compliance...... 1-26 Issues, Concerns and Opportunities ...... 1-27 Other Issues ...... 1-35 Issues Outside the Scope of this Analysis or Not Completely Within the Jurisdiction of the Service ...... 1-35

Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative

Introduction ...... 2-1 Formulating Alternatives ...... 2-1 Actions Common to All of the Alternatives ...... 2-3 Actions Common to Alternatives B and C Only ...... 2-15 Alternatives or Actions Considered but Eliminated from Further Study ...... 2-21 Alternative A. Current Management ...... 2-24 Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative) ...... 2-39 Alternative C. Management to Create Natural Landscape Composition, Patterns and Processes...... 2-86 Summary Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative ...... 2-104

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Introduction ...... 3-1 The Upper Androscoggin River Watershed and the Northern Forest ...... 3-1 The Landscape Setting ...... 3-1 The Historical Picture ...... 3-1 Current Conditions ...... 3-6 Regional and Local Economic Setting ...... 3-10 The Refuge and its Resources ...... 3-13 Refuge Administration ...... 3-13 Refuge Natural Resources ...... 3-19 Soils ...... 3-20 The Mixed Forest Matrix and Habitat Types ...... 3-22 Upland Habitats...... 3-31 Fish and Wildlife ...... 3-34 Cultural and Historic Resources ...... 3-42 Priority Public Uses ...... 3-43

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 7

The Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Introduction ...... 4-1 Effects on Socioeconomic Resources...... 4-3 Effects on Air Quality ...... 4-11 Effects on Soils ...... 4-16 Effects on Hydrology and Water Quality ...... 4-22 Effects on Open Water and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation and Wetland Habitats and Species...... 4-26 Effects on Floodplain, Lake Shore, and Riparian Habitats and Species ...... 4-38 Effects on Upland Forest Matrix Habitats and Species ...... 4-47 Effects on Public Use and Access ...... 4-54 Effects on Cultural Resources ...... 4-57 Cumulative Impacts ...... 4-58 Relationship between Short-term Uses of the Human Environment and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity...... 4-65 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ...... 4-65 Potential Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 4-65 Environmental Justice...... 4-66

Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination with Others

Background ...... 5-1 Planning Updates, Issues Workbook, and other Newsletters and Publications . . . . . 5-1 Public Scoping Meetings — Meeting Our Refuge Neighbors at Open Houses...... 5-1 Updating Various Constituents on Our Progress ...... 5-1 Meeting with State Partners and Other Conservation Experts...... 5-2 Briefing Elected Officials and Others ...... 5-6 Public Release of Draft CCP/EIS ...... 5-6 Updating Various Constituents on Draft CCP/EIS ...... 5-7

Chapter 6 List of Preparers

Members of the Core Planning Team ...... 6-1 Assistance from Other Service Personnel ...... 6-3 Assistance from Others...... 6-4

Glossary

Glossary ...... Glos-1 Acronyms ...... Glos-22

Bibliography

Bibliography ...... Bibl-1

List of Figures

Figure 1.1. The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process ...... 1-26 Figure 2.1A The mixed forest matrix landscaping setting ...... 2-62 Figure 2.1B The three embedded upland forest types within the mixed forest matrix ...... 2-62 Figure 3.1 Umbagog Lake daily headpond elevations 1992–2002 ...... 3-21 Figure 4.1. U.S. Census blocks surrounding the refuge ...... 4-68

8 Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action The Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

List of Tables Table 1.1. Land acquisition history of the Lake Umbagog refuge (*as of January 1, 2008) ...... 1-17 Table 2.1. Potential number of refuge focal species breeding pairs/singing males supported in refuge’s upland forest habitat types under alternative B management...... 2-71 Table 2.2. Highlights of respective alternative’s actions as they relate to goals and significant issues...... 2-104 Table 3.1. Local and regional population estimates and characteristics...... 3-11 Table 3.2. Refuge staffing and budgets, 1998–2005 ...... 3-14 Table 3.3. Local purchases by Lake Umbagog refuge staff FY 1999–2005 ...... 3-15 Table 3.4. Refuge revenue sharing payments to towns, 2001-2007 ...... 3-16 Table 3.5. Camp lot lease information and revenues generated, 1996–2007 . . . . 3-18 Table 3.6. Soils mapped on the Lake Umbagog refuge (USDA 2004) ...... 3-22 Table 3.7. Habitat types and acres in the approved Lake Umbagog Refuge boundary...... 3-23 Table 3.8. Maine and New Hampshire State-listed species that occur or likely occur on the refuge ...... 3-35 Table 4.1. Impact contexts for Service actions under CCP at Lake Umbagog Refuge ...... 4-2 Table 4.2. Estimated annual refuge visitation by visitor activity for alternative A . . 4-4 Table 4.3. Economic impacts of all refuge management activities for alternative A (2005, $,000) ...... 4-5 Table 4.4. Estimated annual refuge visitation by visitor activity for alternative B. . . 4-6 Table 4.5. Change in economic impacts under Alternative B compared to Alternative A (2005, $,000)...... 4-8 Table 4.6. Estimated annual refuge visitation by visitor activity for alternative C. . . 4-9 Table 4.7. Change in economic impact under alternative C compared to alternative A (2005, $,000)...... 4-11 Table 4.8. Annual refuge visits by alternative ...... 4-13 Table 4.9. Manageable forest habitat on the Lake Umbagog Refuge in next 15 years under the CCP ...... 4-20 Table 4.10. Wetland acquisition by alternative (acres) ...... 4-31 Table 4.11. Floodplain, lakeshore, and riparian habitat acquisition proposed by alternative ...... 4-41 Table 4.12. Upland mixed forest matrix habitat acquisition proposed by alternative ...... 4-49 Table 4.13. Socially disadvantaged community indicators for areas surrounding the refuge ...... 4-69 Table 4.14- Summary of the effects of management alternatives on Lake Umbagog refuge resources ...... 4-70

List of Maps

Map 1-1 Upper Androscoggin River Watershed and Conserved Lands ...... 1-4 Map 1-2 Project Analysis Area ...... 1-5 Map 1-3 Current Refuge Ownership Status...... 1-18 Map 2-1 Floating Island National Natural Landmark–Proposed Expansion . . . . 2-16 Map 2-2 Woodcock Focus Areas ...... 2-17

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 9

The Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

List of Maps (cont’d)

Map 2-3 Expansion Proposal Considered But Not Fully Developed ...... 2-23 Map 2-4 Alternative A – Habitat Type Predictions...... 2-25 Map 2-5 Alternative A – Designated Routes of Travel and Public Use ...... 2-27 Map 2-6 Alternative B – Proposed Refuge Expansion ...... 2-40 Map 2-7 Alternative B – Habitat Type Predictions...... 2-41 Map 2-8 Alternative B – Proposed Designated Routes of Travel and Public Use ...... 2-43 Map 2-9 Alternative B – Proposed Designated Snowmobile Trails ...... 2-44 Map 2-10 Deer Wintering Areas ...... 2-65 Map 2-11 Alternative C – Proposed Refuge Expansion ...... 2-88 Map 2-12 Alternative C – Habitat Type Predictions...... 2-89 Map 2-13 Alternative C – Proposed Designated Routes of Travel and Public Use ...... 2-90 Map 2-14 Alternative C – Proposed Designated Snowmobile Trails ...... 2-91 Map 3-1 Existing Refuge Habitat Types ...... 3-25 Map 3-2 Designated Routes of Travel and Public Use ...... 3-45

10 Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action Chapter 1 Carolina Ferro Vasconcelos/USFWS Carolina Ferro Umbagog Lake

Purpose of and Need for Action Introduction

Introduction The Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge (NWR; refuge) consists of 21,650 acres in Coos County, New Hampshire, and Oxford County, Maine. Established in 1992 with the first land purchase, its purposes are to provide long-term protection for unique wetlands, threatened or endangered species and migratory birds of conservation concern, and sustain regionally significant concentrations of wildlife. Approximately half of the refuge consists of forested and non-forested wetland habitats and water, and half of forested upland habitat typical of the Northern Forest ecosystem.

This final plan combines two documents required by federal law:

■ a comprehensive conservation plan, required by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-57; 111 Stat. 1253).

■ an environmental impact statement, required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; 83 Stat. 852), as amended.

Chapter 1 explains the purpose and need for preparing a Final CCP/EIS, and sets the stage for 5 subsequent chapters and 16 appendixes. It

■ defines our planning analysis area,

■ presents the mission, policies and mandates affecting the development of the plan,

■ identifies other conservation plans we used as references,

■ lists the purposes for which the refuge was established and its land acquisition history,

■ clarifies the vision and goals that drive refuge management,

■ describes our planning process and its compliance with NEPA regulations, and

■ identifies public issues or concerns that surfaced during plan development.

Chapter 2, “Description of the Alternatives,” presents three management alternatives with different strategies for meeting refuge goals and objectives and addressing public issues, for example, continuing our present management of the refuge unchanged, or managing it according to our Service-preferred alternative. It fully evaluates three reasonable alternatives for achieving the goals and addressing the public issues below. Following public review of this Final CCP/ EIS, our Regional Director’s decision on the management alternatives will be documented in a Record of Decision indicating which management alternative is being adopted as the CCP that will guide refuge management decisions over the next 15 years. We will also use the final plan to promote understanding and support for refuge management among state agencies in New Hampshire and Maine, our conservation partners, tribal governments, local communities and the public.

Chapter 3, “Description of the Affected Environment,” describes the physical, biological, and human environment of the refuge.

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 1-1

The Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

Chapter 4, “Environmental Consequences,” evaluates the environmental consequences of implementing each of the three management alternatives. That is, it predicts their foreseeable benefits and consequences for the socioeconomic, physical, cultural, and biological environments described in chapter 3.

Chapter 5, “List of Preparers,” credits this plan’s contributors.

Chapter 6, “Consultation and Coordination with Others,” summarizes how we involved the public and our partners in the planning process. Their involvement is vital for the future management of the refuge.

Sixteen appendixes provide additional supporting documentation and references.

The Purpose of and We propose to develop the CCP for the refuge that, in the Service’s best Need for Action professional judgment, best achieves the purposes, goals, and vision of the refuge and contributes to the National Wildlife Refuge System’s mission, adheres to Service’s policies and other mandates, addresses identified issues of significance, and incorporates sound principles of fish and wildlife science.

NEPA regulations require us to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives, including our preferred action and no action. The no-action alternative can mean either (1) not managing the refuge, or (2) not changing its present management. In this plan, alternative A is the latter.

The purpose of a CCP is to provide each refuge with strategic management direction for the next 15 years, by

■ stating clearly the desired future conditions for refuge habitat, wildlife, visitor services, staffing, and facilities;

■ explaining clearly to state agencies, refuge neighbors, visitors, and partners the reasons for management actions;

■ ensuring that refuge management conforms to the policies and goals of the Refuge System and legal mandates;

■ ensuring that present and future public uses are compatible with the purposes of the refuge;

■ providing long-term continuity and direction in refuge management; and,

■ justifying budget requests for staffing, operating and maintenance funds.

There are several reasons we identify a need for this CCP. First, the Refuge Improvement Act requires us to write a CCP for every national wildlife refuge to help fulfill the mission of the Refuge System.

Second, the Lake Umbagog Refuge lacks a master plan to accomplish the actions above, yet its environment has changed dramatically over the past decade. For example, the economy and land ownership patterns in local communities have changed; pressures for public access have continued to grow; and new ecosystem and species conservation plans bearing directly on refuge management have been developed.

1-2 Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action Regional Context and Project Analysis

Third, we need to evaluate locations for a proposed new refuge headquarters and visitor contact facility.

Fourth, we have developed strong partnerships vital for our continued success, and we must convey our vision for the refuge to those partners and the public.

Finally, we need a CCP to guide us in conserving land to protect federal trust species in the Northern Forest. The refuge has acquired most of its land in the last 5 years.

All of those reasons clearly underscore the need for the strategic direction a CCP provides. To help us resolve management issues and public concerns, our planning process incorporates input from the natural resource agencies of New Hampshire and Maine, affected communities, individuals and organizations, our partners and the public.

Regional Context and The regional context for our analysis is the Upper Androscoggin River watershed Project Analysis Area (map 1-1). Our analysis uses the definition of the watershed developed by the Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC; Publicover and Weihrauch 2003). The AMC defines a larger watershed than does the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The AMC-defined watershed includes an area below Shelburne Dam draining south of the Mahoosuc Range and Elephant Mountain that shares many of the “north country” characteristics north of the Mahoosuc Range (Publicover and Weihrauch 2003).

The watershed boundary on map 1-1 defines the socioeconomic and ecological context for evaluating the relationship of the refuge to regional resources of concern. The land ownership, land use or management patterns in that political, social, and ecological environment may affect our management of the refuge. Of particular note, map 1-1 also depicts the regional land conservation network in and around the watershed. More than a dozen partners cooperate in that network, of which the refuge lands form an integral part.

The watershed covers more than 2,300 square miles in northern New Hampshire and western Maine. At its northernmost point, it drains the south slopes of the mountains along the Canadian border. It includes all areas that drain into the Androscoggin River upstream of its confluence with the Web River in Dixfield, Maine. The Androscoggin River starts at the outlet of Umbagog Lake.

Forest covers most of the rugged mountains, steep slopes and narrow valleys in the watershed landscape. Human population densities there are relatively low; many of the northern reaches lack permanent populations. The AMC “Ecological Atlas of the Upper Androscoggin Watershed” (Publicover and Weihrauch 2003) provides more details on the land use history, land ownership patterns, natural history, habitat types, and conservation challenges in the watershed.

In cooperation with our state partners, we also developed a project analysis area within the watershed: an area of influence immediately around the refuge (map 1-2). Management or other activities in our project analysis area could directly affect refuge resources or influence our ability to achieve its purposes, vision, or goals. We did not distinguish among the types of private land ownership or land development within that boundary. It includes the incorporated towns of Errol, New Hampshire, and Magalloway and Upton, Maine; the unincorporated towns of Wentworth Location and Cambridge, New Hampshire; private land trusts, undeveloped lands owned by timber companies, and conservation lands owned by state or federal agencies.

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 1-3

Regional Context and Project Analysis Map 1-1

1-4 Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action Map 1-2 Regional Context and Project Analysis

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 1-5

The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife The Service is part of the Department of the Interior. Our mission is “Working Service and its Mission with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.” Congress entrusts to the Service the conservation and protection of these national natural resources: migratory birds and fish, federal-listed endangered or threatened species, inter-jurisdictional fish, wetlands, certain marine mammals, and national wildlife refuges. We also enforce federal wildlife laws and international treaties on importing and exporting wildlife, assist states with their fish and wildlife programs, and help other countries develop conservation programs.

The Service manual, available online at http://www.fws.gov/policy/manuals, contains the standing and continuing directives on fulfilling our responsibilities. The 600 series of the Service manual addresses land use management, and sections 601-609 specifically address management of national wildlife refuges.

We publish special directives that affect the rights of citizens or the authorities of other agencies separately in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR); the Service manual does not duplicate them (see 50 CFR 1–99 online at http://www.access. gpo.gov/nara/cfr/index.html).

The National Wildlife The Refuge System is the world’s largest collection of lands and waters set aside Refuge System and its specifically for the conservation of wildlife and the protection of ecosystems. Mission and Policies More than 545 national wildlife refuges encompass more than 95 million acres of lands and waters in all 50 states and several island territories. Each year, more than 40 million visitors hunt, fish, observe and photograph wildlife, or participate in environmental education and interpretation on refuges.

In 1997, President William Jefferson Clinton signed into law the Refuge Improvement Act. That act establishes a unifying mission for the Refuge System.

“The mission of the System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” —Refuge Improvement Act; Public Law 105-57

It also establishes a new process for determining the compatibility of public uses on refuges, and requires us to prepare a CCP for each refuge. The act states that the Refuge System must focus on wildlife conservation. It also states that the mission of the Refuge System, coupled with the purposes for which each refuge was established, will provide the principal management direction on that refuge.

The Refuge System Manual contains policy governing the operation and management of the Refuge System that the Service Manual does not cover, including technical information on implementing refuge polices and guidelines on enforcing laws. You can review that manual at refuge headquarters. These are a few noteworthy policies instrumental in developing this CCP.

Policy on Refuge System Planning This policy (602 FW 1, 2, and 3) establishes the requirements and guidance for Refuge System planning, including CCPs and step-down management plans. It states that we will manage all refuges in accordance with an approved CCP that, when implemented, will help

1-6 Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning

■ achieve refuge purposes;

■ fulfill the Refuge System mission;

■ maintain and, where appropriate, restore the ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System;

■ achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System and the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; and,

■ conform to other mandates.

That planning policy provides guidance, systematic direction, and minimum requirements for developing all CCPs, and provides a systematic decision-making process that fulfills those requirements. Among them, we are to review any existing special designation areas or the potential for such designations (e.g., wilderness and wild and scenic rivers); and, incorporate a summary of those reviews into each CCP (602 FW 3).

Policy on Maintaining Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health This policy provides guidance on maintaining or restoring the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System, including the protection of a broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources in refuge ecosystems. It provides refuge managers with a process for evaluating the best management direction to prevent the additional degradation of environmental conditions and restore lost or severely degraded environmental components. It also provides guidelines for dealing with external threats to the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of a

Marvin Moriarty/USFWS refuge and its ecosystem (601 FW 3). Umbagog Lake in winter Policy on Appropriateness of Refuge Uses Federal law and Service policy provide the direction and planning framework for protecting the Refuge System from inappropriate, incompatible or harmful human activities and ensuring that visitors can enjoy its lands and waters. This policy (603 FW 1) provides a national framework for determining appropriate refuge uses in an effort to prevent or eliminate those uses that should not occur in the Refuge System. It describes the initial decision process the refuge manager follows when first considering whether or not to allow a proposed use on a refuge. An appropriate use must meet at least one of the following four conditions:

1) The use is a wildlife-dependent recreational use as identifi ed in the Refuge Improvement Act. 2) The use contributes to fulfi lling the refuge purpose(s), the Refuge System mission, or goals or objectives described in a refuge management plan approved after October 9, 1997, the date the Refuge Improvement Act was signed into law. 3) The use involves the take of fi sh and wildlife under State regulations. 4) The use has been found to be appropriate after concluding a specifi ed fi ndings process using 10 criteria.

This policy can be viewed on-line at http://www.fws.gov/policy/library/06-5645.pdf.

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 1-7

The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning

Policy on Compatibility This policy (603 FW 2) complements the appropriateness policy. The refuge manager must first find a use is appropriate before undertaking a compatibility review of that use. If the proposed use is not appropriate, the refuge manager will not allow the use and will not prepare a compatibility determination.

This policy and its regulations, including a description of the process and requirements for conducting compatibility reviews, can be viewed on-line at http:// policy.fws.gov/library/00fr62483.pdf . Our summary follows.

■ The Refuge Improvement Act and its regulations require an affirmative finding by the refuge manager on the compatibility of a public use before we allow it on a national wildlife refuge.

■ A compatible use is one “that will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge.”

■ The act defines six wildlife-dependent uses that are to receive our enhanced consideration on refuges: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation.

■ The refuge manager may authorize those priority uses on a refuge when they are compatible and consistent with public safety.

■ When the refuge manager publishes a compatibility determination, it will stipulate the required maximum reevaluation dates: 15 years for wildlife- dependent recreational uses; or 10 years for other uses.

■ However, the refuge manager may reevaluate the compatibility of any use at any time: for example, sooner than its mandatory date, or even before we complete the CCP process, if new information reveals unacceptable impacts or incompatibility with refuge purposes (602 FW 2.11, 2.12).

■ The refuge manager may allow or deny any use, even one that is compatible, based on other considerations such as public safety, policy, or available funding.

Other Mandates Although Service and Refuge System policy and the purposes of each refuge provide the foundation for its management, other federal laws, executive orders, treaties, interstate compacts, and regulations on conserving and protecting natural and cultural resources also affect how we manage refuges. A centralized library of Service-wide policies, executive orders, director’s orders, and the “Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service” can be viewed at http://www.fws.gov/policy/.

Federal laws also require the Service to identify and preserve its important historic structures, archaeological sites, and artifacts. NEPA mandates our consideration of cultural resources in planning federal actions. The Refuge Improvement Act requires that the CCP for each refuge identify its archaeological and cultural values.

The National Historic Preservation Act (Pub. L. 102–575; 16 U.S.C. 470) requires federal agencies to locate and protect historic resources—archaeological sites and historic structures eligible for listing or listed in the National Register of Historic Places and museum property—on their land or on land affected by their activities. It also requires agencies to establish a program for those activities and carry them out in consultation with State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs).

1-8 Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project

The NHPA also charges federal agencies with locating, evaluating, and nominating sites on their land to the National Register of Historic Places. We maintain an inventory of known archaeological sites and historic structures in the Northeast Regional Office and file copies of the sites at each refuge. Our regional historic preservation officer in Hadley, Massachusetts, oversees our compliance with the NHPA and our consultations with state SHPOs. We must also comply with the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (Pub. L. 96–95, 16 U.S.C. 470aa-mm). It requires that we protect our archaeological sites from vandalism or looting and issue permits for site excavation.

The Service also owns and cares for museum properties. The most common are archaeological collections, art, zoological and botanical collections, historical photographs, and historic objects. Each refuge maintains an inventory of its museum property. Our museum property coordinator in Hadley, Massachusetts, guides the refuges in caring for that property, and helps us comply with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001, et seq.) and federal regulations governing federal archaeological collections. Our program ensures that Service collections will continue to be available to the public for learning and research.

Chapter 4, “Environmental Consequences,” evaluates this plan’s compliance with the cultural and historic acts cited above, as well as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and Endangered Species Act (ESA). We designed this Final CCP/EIS to fulfill our NEPA compliance. Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project Birds of Conservation The Service developed this report (USFWS 2002) in consultation with the leaders Concern 2002 Report of ongoing bird conservation initiatives and partnerships such as Partners In Flight (PIF), the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) and Joint Ventures, the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (NAWCP), and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. The report fulfills the mandate of the 1988 amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. §§2901 et seq.) requiring the Secretary of the Interior, through the Service, to “identify species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory non-game birds that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.”

The 2002 report contains 45 lists that identify bird species of conservation concern at national, regional, and landscape scales. It includes a principal national list, seven regional lists corresponding to the seven regional administrative units of the Service, and species lists for each of the 37 Bird Conservation Regions designated by the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) in the United States. NABCI defined those Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) as ecologically based units in a framework for planning, implementing, and evaluating bird conservation. The refuge lies in the Atlantic Northern Forest Bird Conservation Region (BCR 14; see additional discussion below).

Our agency’s overarching goal in developing that report is to stimulate federal, state, and private agencies to coordinate, develop, and implement integrated approaches for conserving and managing the birds deemed most in need of conservation. The report is available online at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/ reports/BCC02/BCC02.pdf.

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 1-9

Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project

North American Bird The Atlantic Coast Joint Venture partnership created this blueprint in response Conservation Initiative: to the NABCI challenge of building on existing partnerships to plan, implement, Blueprint for the Design and evaluate cooperative bird conservation across North America. You may and Delivery of Bird read the entire text of this document, “Blueprint for the Design and Delivery of Conservation in the Bird Conservation in the Atlantic Northern Forest,” online at http://www.acjv. Atlantic Northern org/documents/bcr14_blueprint.pdf. It presents a strategic design of the key Forest- Bird Conservation components that this BCR initiative will need to implement to maintain healthy Region 14 (2005) populations of birds native to the Atlantic Northern Forest BCR, more commonly referred to as BCR 14. Specifically, it establishes a series of goals for moving BCR 14 toward a vision of sustained bird populations; it presents the biological foundation for its recommendation; and, it lays out a framework for implementing and evaluating them (Dettmers 2004).

The BCR 14 blueprint identifies 53 bird species designated “highest” or “high” conservation priority in the region, and 15 habitat types important for supporting one or more of those priority bird species during at least one of their life stages. Those habitats either need critical conservation attention, or are crucial in long-term planning to conserve continentally and regionally important bird populations. Of the 53 highest and high-priority birds, 21 breed on the refuge, and several others migrate through. The refuge offers them 9 of the 15 priority habitat types. We considered each of those species and habitats in writing appendix B, “Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern,” and in developing our habitat goals, objectives, and strategies. Some examples of priority species identified in the plan for different habitat types include:

■ Mixed forest: Canada warbler, wood thrush (highest); black-throated blue warbler (high); blackburnian warbler, black-throated green warbler (moderate)

■ Coniferous forest: Bay-breasted warbler, Canada warbler (highest), boreal chickadee (high), black-backed woodpecker (moderate)

■ Deciduous and Mixed Forest: Canada warbler, wood thrush (highest); black- throated blue warbler (high); ovenbird (moderate)

■ Shrub-scrub: Canada warbler, American woodcock (highest), rusty blackbird (high), palm warbler, yellow-bellied flycatcher (moderate)

■ Forested wetland: American black duck (highest), common goldeneye, rusty blackbird (high); wood duck (moderate)

■ Palustrine emergent marsh: American black duck (highest); northern harrrier, Wilson’s snipe, American bittern (moderate)

■ Freshwater lakes, rivers, and streams: American black duck (highest), common goldeneye (high); wood duck, bald eagle (moderate)

Partners In Flight Bird In 1990, PIF began as a voluntary, international coalition of government Conservation Plans agencies, conservation organizations, academic institutions, private industries, and citizens dedicated to reversing the population declines of bird species and “keeping common birds common.” The foundation of its long-term strategy is a series of scientifically based bird conservation plans using physiographic areas as planning units.

The goal of each PIF plan is to ensure the long-term maintenance of healthy populations of native birds, primarily non-game birds. The plan for each physiographic area ranks bird species according to their conservation priority, describes their desired habitat conditions, develops biological objectives, and recommends conservation measures. The priority ranking factors in habitat loss, population trends, and the vulnerability of a species and its habitats to regional and local threats.

1-10 Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project

Physiographic Area 28—Eastern Spruce-Hardwood Forest (Draft June 2000).— Our project area lies in Physiographic Area 28, The Eastern Spruce-Hardwood Forest. The Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan for Physiographic Area 28- Eastern Spruce-Hardwood Forest, represents a bird conservation plan for the subsection of Bird Conservation Region 14 in which the Refuge is located.

In developing our habitat goals and objectives, we referred to its draft plan, now online at http://www.blm.gov/wildlife/plan/pl_28_10.pdf.

The plan (Rosenberg and Hodgman 2000) includes objectives for the following habitat types and associated species of conservation concern on the refuge.

■ Northern hardwood and mixed forest: Canada and black-throated blue warbler, wood thrush, and veery;

■ Mature conifer (spruce-fir) forest: bay-breasted, Cape May and blackburnian warbler, spruce grouse, and red crossbill;

■ Boreal peatland: spruce grouse and olive-sided flycatcher;

■ Early successional forest/edge: American woodcock and olive-sided flycatcher; and,

■ Freshwater wetland/rivers/lakes: American black duck

North American Originally written in 1986, the NAWMP Plan describes a 15-year strategy Waterfowl Management for the United States, Canada, and Mexico to restore and sustain waterfowl Plan (NAWMP; populations by protecting, restoring and enhancing habitat. The plan committee, update 2004) including representatives from Canada, the United States, and Mexico, has modified the 1986 plan twice to account for biological, sociological, and economic changes that influenced the status of waterfowl and the conduct of cooperative habitat conservation. The most recent modification in 2004 updates the latest needs, priorities, and strategies for the next 15 years, and guides partners in strengthening the biological foundation of North American waterfowl conservation and stakeholder confidence in the direction of the plan. You may review it online at http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/NAWMP/images/ implementationframework.pdf

To convey goals, priorities, and strategies more effectively, that 2004 modification comprises two separate documents: Strategic Guidance and Implementation Framework, the former for agency administrators and policy makers who set the American black duck direction and priorities for conservation. The latter includes supporting technical in flight information for use by biologists and land managers.

The plans are implemented at the regional level in 14 habitat Joint Ventures and 3 species Joint Ventures: Arctic Goose, Black Duck, and Sea Duck. Our project area lies in the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture, which includes all the Atlantic Flyway states from Maine to Florida and Puerto Rico. The part of the refuge in Maine lies in the “Inland Wetlands” focus area; the part in New Hampshire lies in the “Lake Umbagog Focus Area,” an indication of the importance of the refuge. You may view a map of focus areas for New Hampshire and Maine online

North American Waterbird The waterfowl goal for the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture is “Protect and manage Conservation Plan priority wetland habitats for migration, wintering, and production of waterfowl, (Version 1, 2002) with special consideration to black ducks, and to benefit other wildlife in the joint venture area.”

The Black Duck Joint Venture plan also relates to our project. Black ducks use the refuge during their breeding season and fall migration. The Black Duck Joint

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 1-11

Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project

Venture Plan, Final Draft Strategic Plan (USFWS/CWS 1993) resides online at http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bdjv/.We used both plans in developing the objectives and strategies in goals 1 and 2.

This plan (Kushlan et al. 2002) is an independent partnership among individuals and institutions interested in or responsible for conserving water birds and their habitats. The plan is just one element of a multi-faceted conservation program. The primary goal of the plan is to ensure that the distribution, diversity, and abundance of populations and habitats of breeding, migratory, and non-breeding water birds are sustained or restored throughout the lands and waters of North America, Central America, and the Caribbean. It provides a framework for conserving and managing colonially nesting water-dependent birds. In addition, it will facilitate continent-wide planning and monitoring, national, state, and provincial conservation, regional coordination, and local habitat protection and management.

A Mid-Atlantic/New England/Maritimes Regional Working Group has been established. It is a regional partnership of organizations and individuals working to facilitate waterbird conservation in this region. Their overarching goal is to help local resource managers within the region protect waterbirds and their habitats. This will be accomplished by facilitating the development and distribution of information on the status and conservation needs of waterbirds and habitats, and by building partnerships between wildlife managers, scientists, conservationists and supporters.

You can access the continental plan online at http://www.nawcp.org/pubs/ ContinentalPlan.cfm. You can access information on Mid-Atlantic/New England/ Maritimes Regional planning online at http://www.fws.gov/birds/waterbirds/ MANEM/. We used information from both those sources in developing our objectives and strategies for goals 1 and 2.

U.S. Shorebird (2001, 2nd Concerns about shorebirds led to the creation of the U.S. Shorebird Conservation ed.) and North Atlantic Plan in 2000. Brown, et al. published a second edition in May 2001. Developed Regional Shorebird Plans under a partnership of individuals and organizations throughout the United States, the plan develops conservation goals for each U.S. region, identifies important habitat conservation and research needs, and proposes education and outreach programs to increase public awareness of shorebirds and of threats to them.

In the Northeast, the North Atlantic Regional Shorebird Plan was also drafted to step down the goals of the continental plan to smaller scales to identify priority species and habitat and species goals, and prioritize implementation projects. You may read the U.S. Shorebird Plan online at http://www.fws.gov/shorebirdplan/

USShorebird/downloads/USShorebirdPlan2Ed.pdf The North Atlantic Regional Shorebird Plan appears online at http://www.fws.gov/shorebirdplan/ RegionalShorebird/RegionalPlans.htm. We used both plans in developing our objectives and strategies for goals 1 and 2.

Northern States Bald This plan describes actions necessary in the 24 states it covers to ensure the Eagle Recovery Plan survival and recovery of bald eagles. Its primary objective is to reestablish self- (USFWS 1983) sustaining populations of bald eagles throughout the Northern States Region. Its initial goal is 1,200 occupied breeding areas with an average annual productivity of at least 1.0 young per occupied nest in at least 16 states. Specific recovery tasks fall into these four general categories.

1) Determine current population and habitat status; 2) Determine minimum population and habitat needed to achieve recovery; 3) Protect, enhance, and increase bald eagle populations and habitats; and

1-12 Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project

4) Establish and implement a coordination system for information and communication.

Due to its success under the Endangered Species Act, the Service delisted the bald eagle. It continues to be protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. In any case, there will remain a significant need to permanently protect bald eagle habitat and ensure the species’ future success. We used this recovery plan as we developed our management goals, objectives, and land acquisition proposal.

Partners in Amphibian Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (PARC) was created in and Reptile Conservation, response to the increasing, well-documented national declines in amphibian National State Agency and reptile populations. PARC members come from state and federal agencies, Herpetological conservation organizations, museums, the pet trade industry, nature centers, Conservation Report (Draft zoos, the power industry, universities, herpetological organizations, research 2004) laboratories, forest industries and environmental consultants. Its five geographic regions—Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, Southwest and Northwest—focus on national and regional herpetofaunal conservation challenges. Regional working groups allow for region-specific communication.

The National State Agency Herpetological Conservation Report (NHCR), a summary report sponsored by PARC, provides a general overview of each state wildlife agency’s support for reptile and amphibian conservation and research through September 2004. Each state report was compiled in cooperation with its agency’s lead biologist on herpetofaunal conservation. The purpose is to facilitate communication among state agencies and partner organizations throughout the PARC network to identify and address regional and national herpetological priorities.

PARC intends to expand the scope of the NHCR to include other states, provinces, and territories. It will also include other state agencies that are supporting herpetofaunal conservation and research, such as transportation departments, park departments, and forest agencies. The states of New Hampshire and Maine have completed reports included in the NHCR online at http://www.parcplace.org/documents/PARCNationalStates2004.pdf. The next NHCR will also integrate the list of species of conservation concern into each state’s comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy (see below). We used the latest draft NHCR plan in developing objectives and strategies for goals 1, 2, and 3, and in developing appendix B, “Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern.”

Eastern Brook Trout Joint In 2004, in recognition of the need to address regional and range-wide threats Venture to brook trout, a group of public and private entities formed the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture (EBTJV) with a mission to halt the decline of brook trout and restore fishable populations. Its unique partnership has grown and now includes state and federal agencies, regional and local governments, businesses, conservation organizations, academia, scientific societies, and private citizens. It is the nation’s first pilot project under the National Fish and Wildlife Initiative, and is a geographically focused, locally driven, and scientifically-based effort to protect, restore and enhance aquatic habitat throughout the range of the Eastern brook trout. The EBTJV has been modeled after the joint ventures aligned with the North American Waterfowl Management Plan.

The EBTJV is developing a draft Conservation Strategy that identifies current threats to Eastern brook trout, proposes a general strategy to deal with these threats, and outlines potential corrective measures. One important technical report is “Distribution, Status and Perturbations to Brook Trout within the Eastern United States.” It will categorize a variety of threats to brook trout and their habitat and helps to identify restoration and protection priorities. This and other products will then be used to formulate operational plans to begin

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 1-13

Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project

Brook trout Duane Raver/USFWS

implementation of high priority programs. More information is available online at http://www.fishhabitat.org.

Native brook trout occur in our project area and we have identified them as a species of conservation concern in appendix B. Sub-watersheds in our project area represent most of the intact brook trout habitat remaining outside of Maine. Maine is considered the last true stronghold for brook trout in the eastern U.S. We will continue to consult with Service and state fisheries biologists involved in the development of the EBTJV Conservation Strategy to assist us in developing objectives and strategies related to brook trout and other associated aquatic resources.

New Hampshire Fish In 2002, Congress created the State Wildlife Grant Program (SWG), and and Game Department, appropriated $80 million for state grants. The purpose of the program is to help Wildlife Action Plan state and tribal fish and wildlife agencies conserve fish and wildlife species of (WAP 2005), and State greatest conservation need. The funds appropriated under the program are of Maine Comprehensive allocated to states according to a formula that takes into account their size and Conservation Strategy population.

To be eligible for additional federal grants and satisfy the requirements for participating in the SWG program, each state and U.S. territory must develop a statewide “Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy” and submit it to the National Advisory Acceptance Team by October 1, 2005. Each plan must address eight required elements, identify and focus on “species of greatest conservation need,” yet address the “full array of wildlife” and wildlife-related issues, and “keep common species common.”

The New Hampshire and Maine plans (NHFG 2005; MDIFW 2005) resulted from that charge. The goal of each plan is to create a vision for conserving that state’s wildlife and stimulate other states, federal agencies, and conservation partners to think strategically about their individual and coordinated roles in prioritizing conservation.

In addressing the eight elements below, those two plans supplement and validate the information on species and habitat and their distribution in our analysis area, and help us identify conservation threats and management strategies for species and habitats of conservation concern in the CCP. The expertise that convened to compile those plans and their partner and public involvement further enhance their benefits for us. We used them in developing objectives and strategies for goals 1, 2, and 3, and in developing appendix B, “Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern.” These are the eight elements.

1) Information on the distribution and abundance of species of wildlife, including low and declining populations, as the state ﬁ sh and wildlife agency deems appropriate, that are indicative of the diversity and health of the state’s wildlife

1-14 Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project

2) Descriptions of locations and relative condition of key habitats and community types essential to the conservation of species identifi ed in element 1 3) Descriptions of problems that may adversely affect species identifi ed in element 1 or their habitats, and priority research and survey efforts needed to identify factors that may assist in restoration and improved conservation of these species and habitats 4) Descriptions of conservation actions necessary to conserve the identifi ed species and habitats and priorities for implementing such actions 5) Plans proposed for monitoring species identifi ed in element 1 and their habitats, for monitoring the effectiveness of the conservation actions proposed in element 4, and for adapting those conservation actions to respond appropriately to new information or changing conditions 6) Description of procedures to review the plan at intervals not to exceed 10 years 7) Plans for coordinating, to the extent feasible, the development, implementation, review, and revision of the plan strategy with federal, state, and local agencies and Native American tribes that manage signifi cant areas of land and water within the state, or administer programs that signifi cantly affect the conservation of identifi ed species and habitats 8) Plans for involving the public in the development and implementation of plan strategies

Other Regional Information We also consulted the plans and resources below as we refined our management Sources objectives and strategies, especially those with a local context.

■ Finding Common Ground: Conserving the Northern Forest. 1994. Northern Forest Lands Council, Concord, New Hampshire; copy available at refuge headquarters.

■ The Northern Forest Lands Study of New England and New York: A report to the Congress of the United States on the recent changes in landownership and land use in the Northern Forest of Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont. Governors’ Task Force on Northern Forest Lands. 1990. USDA Forest Service, Rutland, Vermont; copy available at refuge headquarters.

■ 10th Anniversary Forum, Final Report: Recommendations for the Conservation of the Northern Forest. 2005. Northern Forest Lands Council, Concord, New Hampshire; copy available at refuge headquarters

■ Maine State Forest and Conserved Lands plans for Dodge Point, Richardson Lakes, and Days Academy and Sugar Island (Public Reserved Lands) and Kineo and Farm Island (State Park Lands); copy available at refuge headquarters.

■ New Hampshire State-wide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP); available online at http://www.nh.gov/oep/programs/SCORP/documents/scorpsummaryreport.pdf

■ Maine State-wide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan; available online at http://www.state.me.us/doc/parks/programs/SCORP/index.html

■ Connecticut Lakes Headwaters Plan; available online at http://www.nhstateparks.org/ParksPages/CLHWF/CLHWFinterminPlan.html

■ New Hampshire Forest Resources Plan; available online at http://www.ceinfo.unh.edu/Pubs/ForPubs/NHFRP01.pdf

■ White Mountain National Forest Plan; available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/white_mountain/projects/forest_plan/

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 1-15

Refuge Establishment Purposes and its Land Acquisition History

■ Society for the Protection of NH Forests, New Hampshire’s Changing Landscape, 2005; available online at http://www.spnhf.org/research/research-projects.asp#nhcl

■ New England Forestry Foundation Plan; available online at http://www.newenglandforestry.org/forestry/rfmp.asp

■ Northern Forest Canoe Trail plan; available online at http://www.northernforestcanoetrail.org/

■ Appalachian Trail, National Park Service, Strategic Plan and other resources; available online at http://data2.itc.nps.gov/parks/appa/ppdocuments/05Strategic%20Plan.doc

■ GORP Adventure Travel and Outdoor Recreation with information Appalachian trail; available online at http://gorp.away.com/gorp/resource/us_trail/guid_app.htm

■ Rangeley Lakes Heritage Trust; available online at http://www.rlht.org/index.shtml

One source used for regional information

Refuge Establishment The Service established the refuge with its first land purchase in 1992 for the Purposes and its Land following purposes and under the following authorities. Acquisition History “… the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions” (Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, 16 U.S.C. 3901(b));

“… for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds” (Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 715d); “… for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources…” (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956; 16 U.S.C. 742f(a) (4)); and,

1-16 Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action Refuge Establishment Purposes and its Land Acquisition History

“… for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude” (Fish and Wildlife Act; 16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1)) .”

Map 1-3 depicts the current refuge boundary. Table 1.1 summarizes the land acquisition history of the refuge.

Table 1.1. Land acquisition history of the Lake Umbagog refuge (*as of January 1, 2008) Calendar Year Acres* Funding Source# 1992 128 LWCF 1993 41 LWCF 1995 5,986 LWCF, MBCF 1996 203 LWCF 1998 214 MBCF 1999 2,488 LWCF, MBCF 2000 1,309 LWCF, MBCF 2001 8,847 LWCF, MBCF 2002 191 LWCF 2003 1 LWCF 2004 8 LWCF 2005 1,097 LWCF, MBCF 2006 406 MBCF 2007 727 MBCF Total All 21,650

Table Notes * The Service owns all acreage in full fee simple, except for a conservation easement on 6.01 acres. Acreage is approximate, as numbers are rounded up and it derives from these three sources of varying accuracy: (1) land deeds (2) surveys or (3) GIS digitizing. For ease of presentation, the maps throughout this document do not show Service ownership of the lake bottom, or the road easements outside the approved refuge boundary. However, all summaries of refuge acres, including table 1.1, include that ownership.

#LWCF—Land and Water Conservation Fund.—funding sources include revenues from the sale of surplus federal real property, motorboat fuel taxes, fees for recreation on federal lands, and receipts from mineral leases on the outer continental shelf.

#MBCF—Migratory Bird Conservation Fund.—the funding source is receipts from the sale of Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps.

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 1-17

Refuge Establishment Purposes and its Land Acquisition History Map 1-3

1-18 Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action Refuge Administration

Refuge Administration The refuge now has four full-time permanent staff positions: refuge manager, deputy refuge manager, refuge wildlife biologist, and maintenance worker. In addition, the refuge shares a full-time law enforcement officer with the Silvio O. Conte Refuge. Seasonal staff positions will vary between one and ten each year. The Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) program adds an adult crew leader and up to five youths each summer.

Refuge Operational Refuge planning policy lists more than 25 step-down management plans that Plans (“Step-down” generally are required on refuges. Those plans contain specific strategies Plans) and implementation schedules for achieving refuge goals and objectives. Some plans require annual revisions; others require revision every 5 to 10 years. Some require additional NEPA analysis, public involvement, and compatibility determinations before we can implement them.

The status of step-down plans on the refuge follows. This document incorporates by reference those that are up to date. Chapter 2 provides more information about the additional step-down plans needed and their schedule for completion.

The following plan is up to date with current management.

■ Hunt Plan, 2007; including amended EA and FONSI (USFWS, 2007)

We are preparing and incorporating this step-down plan into this CCP.

■ Land Protection Plan (LPP)

We will need to complete additional plans after the adoption of the final CCP. The precise list of plans may vary depending on the alternative selected for the final CCP.

Refuge Vision Very early in the planning process, our team developed this vision statement to Statement provide a guiding philosophy and sense of purpose in the CCP. “We envision Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge as an essential link in the network of conservation lands in the Northern Forests. We will showcase science- based, adaptive management in a working forest landscape and provide an outstanding center for research. We will achieve this through strong partnerships with State agencies, conservation organizations, land managers, and neighboring communities.

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 1-19

Refuge Goals

trust resources and providing inspirational outdoor experiences for present and future generations of Americans.”

Refuge Goals We developed these goals after considering that vision, the purposes of the refuge, the missions of the Service and the Refuge System, and the mandates, plans, and conservation initiatives above. These goals are intentionally broad, descriptive statements of purpose. They highlight elements of our vision for the refuge we will emphasize in its future management. The biological goals take precedence; but otherwise, we do not present them in any particular order. Each offers background information on its importance. In Chapter 2, “Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative,” we evaluate different ways of achieving these goals.

Goal 1. Manage open water and wetland habitats to benefit Federal trust species and other species of conservation concern.

Background A rich variety of wetland communities on the refuge supports an array of habitats benefiting widely diverse species of animals and plants. The Magalloway River, Whaleback Ponds, Greater Floating Island, Mountain Pond, Tidswell Point, and Dead Cambridge areas all contain extensive wetlands, some with such rare species as heart-leaved twayblade or bog sedge. Rapp (2003) documented an unusual occurrence of a circumneutral fen at Tidswell Point. The refuge peatlands are among the largest and most diverse in the state (Sperduto et al. 2000).

The Service, other federal and state agencies, conservation organizations, sporting groups, and local residents recognize the importance of those unique wetland and wildlife resources. Protecting the lake and its associated rivers and wetlands was a principal reason for establishing the refuge. Those habitats support threatened and endangered species, waterfowl and other migratory species of federal and state concern and populations of mammals, reptiles, amphibians and fish and rare plants. As we mentioned above, New Hampshire lists the refuge as a priority for protection under the NAWMP, as does the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (USFWS 1991).

The refuge is unique in the region for its diversity of breeding waterfowl. Its marshes and backwaters, forested and shrub wetlands and adjacent forested and cut-over uplands provide important nesting and brood-rearing habitat for such waterfowl as black duck, ring-necked duck, and cavity-nesters, including common goldeneye, wood duck, common merganser, and hooded merganser. Blue-winged teal, green-winged teal and mallard also nest in the area.

Lake levels on Umbagog Lake are managed by the operator of a dam at the outlet of the lake in accordance with a license issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The current license issued by FERC is for the Errol Project (FERC no. 3133). It was issued in 1983 for a 40-year term, and both it and this CCP will therefore expire in 2023. The license is currently held by Florida Power and Light Energy Maine (FPLE). The current license requires that the licensee “…conduct a study to determine the reservoir surface elevation and time of year at which stable waters levels should be maintained for the protection of nesting wildlife at Lake Umbagog.” The licensee is further required to “… develop a plan to regulate the level of Lake Umbagog for the benefit of wildlife species and the water users downstream of the Errol Project.” In the past, this has meant limiting water level fluctuations during the loon nesting season in June and July. Wetlands management by the refuge must therefore recognize that water level fluctuations are neither entirely natural nor directly controlled by the refuge. The FERC license and related issues are further discussed in Chapter 3.

1-20 Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action Refuge Goals

Goal 2. M anage floodplain and lakeshore forests to benefit Federal trust species and other species of conservation concern.

Background The refuge floodplain and lakeshore forests lie next to water bodies and non- forested wetlands, and typically have high species richness with dynamic and complex biophysical processes. These habitats are important for many wildlife species of concern, including nesting and foraging waterfowl, bald eagles, ospreys, and many migratory songbirds. They provide important structural components, including large nest trees for eagles and ospreys and cavity trees for nesting common goldeneye, wood duck, and certain songbirds. These habitats also help control erosion and sediment loading into the lake and its tributaries. Without forested shorelines, stream banks in this area are more susceptible to erosion. The New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau (NHNHB) has defined an area along the Magalloway River as a rare type of silver maple floodplain forest community of conservation concern.

Most of the vernal pools on the refuge are embedded in floodplain forested habitats. A vernal pool is a small body of water that lacks a permanent, aboveground outlet. In the Northeast, snowmelt and spring and autumn rains fill vernal pools. They typically dry by mid-to-late summer, or earlier in years of drought. How long water stays in a vernal pool is its hydroperiod, which varies depending on the pool and the year. Maintaining vernal pools with a range of hydroperiods is important in sustaining vernal pool biodiversity. Because of that periodic drying, vernal pools do not support breeding populations of fish. The vernal pools on the refuge contribute to its native biodiversity by providing essential habitat for several obligate amphibian species, including blue-spotted salamander, spotted salamander and wood frog.

The restoration of developed floodplain and lakeshore riparian areas involves removing cabins and other structures, purchased from willing sellers, as funding

©Robert Quinn and staffing allows. In 1996, the refuge acquired cabin leases on the land Purple-fringed orchid purchased from the James River, Boise Cascade, and Mead Paper companies. These acquired leases include stipulations to allow their continued use, but requires there be minimal impacts on resources. All leases expire at 50 years.

Goal 3. Manage upland forest habitats, consistent with site capabilities, to benefit Federal trust species and other species of conservation concern.

Background Forests cover 90 percent of the Upper Androscoggin River watershed. The dominant tree species include red spruce, balsam fir, sugar maple, red maple, yellow birch, and white birch. At the landscape level, the matrix forest is a mixed spruce-fir/northern hardwoods forest; although embedded in that matrix, three broad vegetation types are found in varying amounts: spruce-fir, mixed softwoods-hardwoods, and northern hardwoods. The spruce-fir type is dominated by at least 75 percent red spruce and/or balsam fir at higher elevations, above 2700 ft., on thin, rocky soils at mid-elevations and on nutrient-poor soils in valley bottoms. The mixed hardwood-softwood forest type includes varying amounts of the major tree species in the region, depending on site conditions (Publicover and Weihrauch 2003). Bill Leak, a forester with the U.S Forest Service’s Northeast Forest Experiment Station, considers a stand with 25 percent to 65 percent softwood a “mixed wood” stand (Leak, personal communication, 2004). White pine, hemlock, white spruce, northern white cedar, tamarack, black spruce, yellow and white birch, and red maple are also present in varying amounts. The northern hardwoods type is a mixture of at least 75 percent sugar maple, yellow birch, and beech on fine-textured soils at lower and mid-slopes.

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 1-21

Refuge Goals

Forest ecologists believe that the forest in the Upper Androscoggin River watershed of 150 years ago was also a mixed forest matrix; however, it supported more softwoods than we see on the landscape today (Kuchler 1964; Charlie Cogbill, personal communication, 2004). Multiple cycles of timber harvesting during the past 150 years affected forest composition. The selective harvesting of softwoods has converted many spruce-fir stands to mixed stands, and mixed stands to hardwood stands. In the absence of further human disturbance, natural succession and disturbance patterns will shift these forests to a higher proportion ©Robert Quinn Black-backed woodpecker of softwood (Publicover and Weihrauch 2003). Our analysis for this CCP confirms that this mixed forest type, with a high proportion of softwoods, has the highest natural potential for growth in our area. That analysis included a site capability assessment using The Nature Conservancy (TNC) ecological land units (a combination of elevation, bedrock geology, and topography), Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soils surveys, and aerial photo interpretation.

Pre-settlement forests are believed to have been multi-aged with a diverse structure including a variety of tree sizes, many large-diameter trees, multiple canopy layers, deep forest duff, and a “pit-and-mound” forest floor. The canopy, shrub, and herbaceous layers of the mixed forests around the refuge today have varying composition and coverage depending on specific site conditions and disturbance history (Rapp 2003).

The breeding bird survey data over the last 30 years shows the importance of this mixed forest habitat for species of concern such as blackburnian warbler, Canada warbler, and black-throated-green warbler (appendix N). A structurally complex (e.g., vertical diversity, coarse woody debris, large-diameter trees with cavities) mixed forest landscape also supports large, wide-ranging mammals, including marten, fisher, bobcat, and lynx (Ray 2000).

Although no stands of old growth forest are present on the refuge, it contains a few conifer stands with some late-seral characteristics, such as large-diameter trees. Hagen and Whitman (2004) report on the looming loss of late-successional forest in working forest landscapes including northern New England and the negative consequences for forest biodiversity. They note that forests develop along a continuum and, despite a harvest history, a stand can retain and develop such old growth characteristics as large live trees 100–200 years old, large dead trees, and fallen logs. Species associated with those characteristics include mosses, lichens, fungi, and insects.

Natural disturbance regimes affected by long-term climate change and disturbance patterns on the landscape are highly influenced by soil, topography, and forest type (Lorimer 2001; Lorimer and White 2003). Natural disturbance patterns for this region occur at two different scales. Large-scale, stand replacement disturbances from fire and wind occur infrequently, on the magnitude of 1000+ years. Small-scale disturbances, creating single tree-fall gaps, occur frequently (50–200-year return rates) (Lorimer 1977; Seymour et al. 2002). Pure stands of spruce and fir are much more susceptible to windthrow, insect outbreaks, and crown fires than associated hardwood species, because of their shallow root system, prevalence in swamps and on upland sites with thin, stony soils or on upper slopes exposed to high winds. Large areas of mixed spruce-hardwood that typically grow on better soils are rarely destroyed (i.e., stand replacement) by large-scale disturbances (Lorimer and White 2003).

Goal 4. Provide high quality wildlife-dependent activities such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, as well as camping and boating in support of those activities.

Background Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography are four of the six priority public uses designated by the Refuge Improvement Act. The other two priority

1-22 Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action Refuge Goals

uses are environmental education and interpretation (see goal 5 below). The Act stipulates those six uses are to receive enhanced consideration in refuge planning. Opportunities to engage in them should be provided to the extent compatible with refuge goals and objectives. Our objectives aim at providing high-quality opportunities for each of these four activities in ways consistent and compatible with the priorities of our other refuge programs, including opportunities for the other two priority uses. The Refuge Improvement Act does not establish a hierarchy among the six uses, but provides for refuge managers to determine whether any or all are appropriate and compatible. The ability to fund the management of these activities is also a factor for refuge managers to consider in determining their compatibility. Service policy requires that refuge managers set limits on, and establish stipulations for, any of those activities as warranted to ensure their compatibility.

Each of these activities is already facilitated on current refuge lands; however, we propose to improve current opportunities through new infrastructure or improved access.

Goal 5. Develop high-quality interpretative opportunities, and facilitate environmental education, to promote an understanding and appreciation for the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats, as well as the role of the refuge in the Northern Forest.

Background This goal complements goal 4 by recognizing the importance of the remaining two priority public uses: environmental education and interpretation. Its objectives focus on providing informational and educational opportunities about the significance of the refuge and its role in conserving the Northern Forest to audiences of all ages. We strive to foster our visitor’s appreciation of wildlife conservation and encourage them to make responsible environmental decisions in the future.

Our proposed future programs will achieve our objectives through increased visitor contacts, on-site programs, and new and improved infrastructure. Our emphasis will be on providing interpretive resources with planned infrastructure (e.g. trails, roadside pullouts, and a visitor contact facility). We will facilitate the use of refuge lands for educational purposes; however, we will look to our state and conservation partners, local and state educators, Friends Group, and/or volunteers to lead the development of educational programs.

One desired outcome of our programs is that participants recognize we manage the refuge to provide a variety of habitats to benefit Northern Forest wildlife, with particular emphasis on migratory birds and wetlands. Through high-quality programs, visitors will gain a better understanding of the unique and important contribution of this refuge to migratory bird conservation and the Refuge System.

Goal 6. Enhance the conservation and management of wildlife resources in the Northern Forest Region through partnerships with public and private conservation groups, private landowners, State and local entities.

Background The Northern Forest stretches from the St. Croix River in Maine westward through New Hampshire and Vermont across the Adirondack Mountains to the Tug Hill plateau in New York. It includes the largest contiguous forest remaining in the eastern United States. Those 26 million acres encompass the most remote, pristine lakes in the Northeast, the headwaters of the Hudson, Connecticut, St. John and other great eastern rivers, and vast tracts of forest that provide habitats for an impressive array of species, including many that are federal-listed

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 1-23

Refuge Goals

as threatened or endangered or regional or state species of high conservation concern. Close to a million people live in that landscape, and many of them depend on the forest to sustain their communities and quality of life.

In the last decade, significant changes in land use have threatened the natural landscape, culture, and communities of the region. Huge forest landholdings, many owned by multinational corporations, are being sold at an accelerated rate.

Many of the large, contiguous tracts are being divided into smaller tracts and sold to developers or institutional investment corporations, including insurance companies and bank trusts, whose interests are purely economic. Those sales raise concerns about the rising trend of unsustainable timber cutting, forest subdivision, and other permanent development, particularly around lakefronts and in secluded forest tracts. In addition to fragmenting the forests, those developments destroy wildlife habitat, restrict public access, degrade water quality, spoil the remote and scenic beauty of the forest, and undermine the hope of a sustainable, forest-based economy to support Northern Forest communities. More recently, a shift to renewable energy sources may impact forest management on a regional scale. In May, 2007 New Hampshire enacted the Renewable Energy Act, which codified the renewable portfolio standards for the state. This law requires that all suppliers of electricity in the state demonstrate that they are obtaining 25% of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2025. Included in the list of renewable energy sources are biomass, wind, hydropower, and solar, among others. Since biomass energy production facilities can utilize wood products not traditionally used by the pulp and paper industry, a large-scale shift to electricity production from biomass facilities has the potential of altering forest stand structure, rotation ages, species composition, soil nutrient levels, and wildlife habitat on a landscape scale..

Those concerns underscore the need for partners who will work together to permanently conserve the ecological integrity of the Northern Forest, preserve public recreational opportunities, and promote the economic sustainability of a forest-based economy. Fortunately, an impressive partnership already exists in the region including over a dozen federal, state, non-governmental, and private entities, who share this common mission. In addition, these partners’ landholdings collectively create a conservation lands network, as depicted on map 1-1, which provides a basis for further connecting and conserving resources of conservation concern. The Service is a key partner in this effort, and refuge lands are integral to the land conservation network. Chapter 2 discusses alternative ways of sustaining the partnership and the Service role in it. Appendix A, “Land Protection Plan,” presents our preferred vision for expanding our contribution to the partnership and the land conservation network, all in support of sustaining Federal trust resources.

Goal 7. Develop the refuge as an outstanding center for research and development of applied management practices to sustain and enhance the natural resources in the Northern Forest in concert with the Refuge System Land Management and Research Demonstration Area program.

Background In 1999, the leadership of the Refuge System published their vision for its programs and management priorities in a publication titled “Fulfilling the Promise, the National Wildlife Refuge System” (USFWS 1999). Forty-two different recommendations were identified. One of those was to designate Land Management and Research Demonstration (LMRD) Areas. They envisioned LMRD areas as “places where new habitat management techniques and approaches are developed, implemented, and showcased…places where

1-24 Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process

professional land managers and others come to learn about cutting edge habitat management techniques and technology, and carry back with them the information and knowledge which allows them to better manage their own lands.” Specifically, the recommendation was to designate areas “to facilitate development, testing, teaching, publishing, and demonstration of state-of-the- art management techniques that support the critical habitat management information needs for fish, wildlife, and plant conservation within the System and other lands” (USFWS 1999).

The implementation of that recommendation has begun. Nationwide, 5 of the 14 LMRD areas approved by the Directorate are now funded and in operation. Those are (1) Hanford Reach National Monument and Saddle Mountain refuge in Washington, (2) the National Elk refuge and National Bison Range in Montana, (3) the Rachel Carson and Parker River refuges in Maine and Massachusetts, (4) the Neal Smith and Northern Tallgrass Prairie refuges in Iowa, and (5) the Bosque del Apache refuge in Arizona. Each of those LMRD areas has a different habitat management focus. Lake Umbagog refuge, in partnership with the Moosehorn refuge and the Nulhegan Division of the Silvio O. Conte refuge, is another approved LMRD area, but lacks funding to implement programs.

Its focus is the management and restoration of habitats in the working forest landscape of the Northern Forest ecosystem. Research will be implemented in cooperation and coordination with other northern forest research entities, such as universities, Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, and the U.S. Forest Service Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory.

The Comprehensive Service policy establishes an eight-step planning process that also facilitates Conservation our compliance with NEPA (figure 1.1).1 Our planning policy and CCP training Planning Process course materials describe those steps in detail. We followed that process in developing this Final CCP/EIS.

Since 1992, we have focused on conserving land within the approved refuge boundary, facilitating wildlife-dependent public uses, managing habitat for several focus species, such as common loon and bald eagle, and establishing relationships with the community and our partners. In 2001, we began to prepare for developing a CCP by collecting information on refuge resources and mapping its habitats. We convened our core team, which consists of refuge staff, regional office staff, and representatives of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) and the New Hampshire Fish and Game (NHFG). We discussed management issues, drafted a vision statement and tentative goals, and compiled a project mailing list of known stakeholders, interested individuals, organizations, and agencies. We also conducted a wilderness review, evaluated wild and scenic rivers potential, and summarized our biological inventory and monitoring information. We initiated all of those steps as part of “Step A: Preplanning.”

In August 2001, we initiated “Step B: Initiate Public Involvement and Scoping” by distributing a newsletter to announce that we were beginning the planning process and ask if people wanted to be on our mailing list. In June 2002, we distributed approximately 1,000 copies of a Planning Newsletter and Issues Workbook to everyone on our mailing list. Those workbooks asked people to share what they valued most about the refuge, their vision for its future and the Service role in their community, and any other issues they wanted to raise. We received 131 completed workbooks.

1 602 FW 3, “The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process” (http://policy.fws.gov/602fw3.html)

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 1-25

The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process

On July 16, 2002, we formally announced the start of the planning process in a Federal Register Notice of Intent. During that July and August, we held eight public scoping meetings to identify public issues and concerns, share our draft vision statement and tentative goals, describe the planning process, and explain how people could become involved and stay informed about the process. We announced their locations, dates, and times in local newspapers and special mailings. More than 115 people attended. Those meetings helped us identify the public concerns we would need to address in the planning process. We also solicited public issues and concerns at our booth at the August 2002 Umbagog Wildlife Festival.

A. Preplanning: Plan the Plan NEPA tQVSQPTFBOEOFFE

H. Review & Revise Plan B. Initiate Public NEPA Involvement & Scoping t/&1"DPNQMJBODFBOEQVCMJD NEPA JOWPMWFNFOUXIFOBQQMJDBCMF tOPUJGZUIFQVCMJD tJOWPMWFUIFQVCMJD tTDPQFUIFJTTVFT

The Comprehensive Conservation Planning G. Implement Plan, Monitor & C. Review Vision Statement & Process & NEPA Evaluate Goals & Determine Compliance NEPA Significant Issues t/&1"DPNQMJBODFBOEQVCMJD NEPA JOWPMWFNFOUXIFOBQQMJDBCMF tJEFOUJGZTJHOJGJDBOUJTTVFT

F. Prepare & Adopt Final Plan D. Develop & NEPA Analyze Alternatives tSFTQPOEUPQVCMJDDPNNFOU NEPA tJEFOUJGZQSFGFSSFEBMUFSOBUJWF tSFBTPOBCMFSBOHFPGBMUFSOBUJWFT tQSFQBSFBOEEJTUSJCVUFGJOBM$$1BOE t/P"DUJPOBMUFSOBUJWF /&1"EPDVNFOUBUJPO tBDDFTTFOWJSPONFOUBMFGGFDUT tQSFQBSFBOEEJTUSJCVUF'0/4*GPS&" tUIF1SPQPTFE"DUJPO PS30%GPS&*4

E. Prepare Draft Plan & NEPA Document NEPA tQSFQBSFBOEEJTUSJCVUFESBGU$$1 BOE/&1"EPDVNFOUBUJPO tQVCMJDDPNNFOUBOESFWJFX

Figure 1.1. The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process

We worked on “Step C: Review Vision Statement, Goals, and Identify Significant Issues” and “Step D: Develop and Analyze Alternatives” concurrently in 2003 and 2004 in two technical workshops: one on upland forest habitat management

1-26 Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities

and one on wetlands management. We invited resource professionals and scientific experts to share their opinions on the significance of refuge resources, namely, their assessment of the health, diversity, and integrity of its habitats. We also met with elected officials, our state partners, and other Service divisions to apprise them of the status of the project and exchange technical information. For much of 2004 and into 2005, we compiled and analyzed various management alternatives to serve as the foundation for developing the Draft CCP/EIS. In August 2005, we distributed a newsletter summarizing the alternatives in detail and updating our planning timeframes.

Also in 2004 and into 2005, the USGS Fort Collins Science Center helped us develop and implement a stakeholder survey to provide us with information on public satisfaction, preferences, and expectations regarding our current and proposed refuge management. The final survey report provided valuable information for our management proposals. We distributed an Executive Summary of the results in November 2005. You may request the full report from refuge headquarters in hard copy or CD-ROM, or view it online at http://www.fort.usgs.gov/products/publications/21507/21507.asp.

We completed “Step E: Prepare Draft Plan and NEPA document,” by publishing our Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Federal Register announcing the release of the Draft CCP/EIS and distributing it for public comment. During that 77-day period of public review, we held public hearings to obtain comments. We received comments by regular mail, electronic mail, and as testimony in those public hearings. We reviewed and summarized all of the comments and developed responses to them. A summary of public comments and our responses to them are presented in appendix O this Final CCP/EIS.

We are now releasing our Final CCP/EIS for a 30-day public review period. Its availability has been announced in a NOA in the Federal Register. After the public review period, we will prepare a Record of Decision (ROD) for our Regional Director. If he approves and signs the ROD this will complete the planning process. We will announce the availability of the ROD in another NOA in the Federal Register. That will complete “Step F: Prepare and Adopt a Final Plan.” We can then begin “Step G: Implement Plan, Monitor and Evaluate.”

We will modify the final CCP following the procedures in Service policy (602 FW 1, 3, and 4) and NEPA requirements as part of “Step H: Review and Revise Plan.” Minor revisions that meet the criteria for categorical exclusions (550 FW 3.3C) will require only an Environmental Action Memorandum. We must fully revise CCPs every 15 years.

Issues, Concerns and From our Issues Workbook, public and focus group meetings, and planning Opportunities team discussions, we developed a list of issues, opportunities, or any other item requiring a management decision. We concentrated further on those issues, as they drive our analysis and comparison of alternatives. We will address three categories of issues in the CCP/EIS.

Significant issues.—Our partners or the public brought these issues to our attention during the scoping process. Our discussions generated a wide range of opinions on how to resolve them, summarized below. We applied those in creating the primary distinctions among the objectives and strategies in each alternative in chapter 2. Ultimately, they will influence our final decision, because their resolution falls within the jurisdiction and authority of the Service.

Other issues and management concerns.—These issues are narrower in scope or interest than the significant issues, but still in that range of opinions. The alternatives resolve them similarly (see “Management Actions Common to all Alternatives” in chapter 2).

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 1-27

Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities

Issues and concerns outside the scope of this analysis.—The resolution of these issues falls outside the scope of this EIS or outside the jurisdiction or authority of the Service. Although we discuss them briefly in this chapter, we do not address them further in this Final CCP/EIS.

Significant Issues Addressing the 11 significant issues below will help us achieve the seven goals above. Chapter 2 describes in detail how the alternatives address these significant issues, and how addressing them will help achieve refuge goals.

1. Which wetland habitats and wetland-dependent species should be management priorities? How will we manage for them on the refuge?

Because one of the purposes for establishing the refuge is to conserve wetlands, addressing this issue is a high priority. It is also a challenge. The water levels in Umbagog Lake directly influence most of the refuge wetlands. The holder of the FERC license controls those water levels, which fluctuate according to releases at Errol Dam. The current licensee, FPLE, meets with the Service annually, as required by its license, to agree on water levels in June and July when birds are breeding and nesting.

To offset our limited direct influence on water levels, some input we received recommends we manage refuge wetlands by planting wild rice, promoting beaver activity, reducing or eliminating external threats of erosion or pollution, controlling access to wetlands, and eliminating invasive species. We believe, as do wetland experts who provided input on this issue, that managing water levels more effectively throughout the year would improve habitat quality for species of conservation concern and other wetland-dependent native species, and sustain such unique wetland types as the Floating Island National Natural Landmark (FINNL).

Those recommendations vary considerably on the timing, extent, and focus of wetlands management. Some suggest we establish more baseline biological information before we manage the refuge wetlands. Others suggest we first work with the current holder of the FERC license, to discuss a year-round regime of water levels that will be more beneficial for wildlife and wetlands. As in any aspect of refuge management, our decisions on managing refuge wetlands could benefit one species of conservation concern, but adversely affect another.

2. Which upland forest habitats and forest-dependent species should be management priorities? How will we manage for them on the refuge?

The decision document establishing the refuge (USFWS 1991) also recognizes that its upland forests play a crucial role in conserving the lake, its rivers and associated wetlands. This document recognized that the refuge was part of a larger conservation partnership to protect and manage timber, wetland, and wildlife resources of the Umbagog area. Conservation easements held by the State of New Hampshire on some of the upland portions of the Refuge specifically granted timber management rights.

Uplands compose at least 58 percent of the refuge. During the last 10 years, we acquired much of that upland forest from timber companies who harvested it intensively before selling it to the Service. The vegetation now growing back on some of those areas lacks the natural species diversity, age-class distribution, and structural components of healthy native forests in the Upper Androscoggin River watershed.

Only in the last 5 years have we acquired enough contiguous forested upland to form efficient management units. Primarily for that reason, we have not managed the vegetation on those lands. During our public scoping, many people

1-28 Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities

encouraged us to manage those areas to bring them into a more natural, healthy forest condition. Some would like us to manage the upland forests on the refuge exclusively as working forests to promote tree growth and productivity for commercial purposes. Others would like us to initiate some action to get those areas on a natural path sustainable without further human intervention. Some suggested we focus our management on benefiting species that depend on upland forest habitats, particularly, migratory songbirds that regional and state conservation plans have identified as conservation concerns in the last 5 years. Some of those species require mature forest stands, while others prefer a mix of age classes and types. Again, our management decisions could benefit one species of conservation concern but adversely affect another.

Other individuals and organizations encouraged us to expand the refuge as a means of conserving large areas of undeveloped forest lands to benefit species that require contiguous interior forest habitats. Still others expressed an interest in our conducting very little to no active vegetation management in the uplands. Some believe “nature should take its course,” and that the forested areas will recover without our help.

3. What is the appropriate level for each of the six priority public use programs on the refuge? What means of access will we allow for those activities?

The Refuge Improvement Act does not establish a hierarchy among its six priority, wildlife-dependent compatible uses. At times, they may conflict. At other times, the refuge may lack sufficient resources to promote all of them equally. Some people expressed concerns that we may allocate refuge resources disproportionately toward one use to the detriment of another. Service policy authorizes the refuge manager to allocate time and space for those uses to reduce conflict, or terminate or disallow one or more of them. The refuge manager must evaluate, among other things, which use most directly support the long-term attainment of refuge purposes and the Refuge System mission.

During the public scoping process, we heard from many people concerned about a rising number of conflicts between visitors in motorboats and visitors in canoes and kayaks. Both groups typically are involved in priority public uses such as fishing and wildlife viewing. Those promoting motorboats suggest limits on the number of kayakers and canoeists or the size of groups, because the increase in large group trips affects the ability of motorboats to maneuver on the river corridors. Those promoting kayaks and canoes voice their concern over the noise and speed of motorboats disturbing wildlife and affecting viewing opportunities. They also express concern about their own safety, because of the wakes motorboats create. Some motorboat operators suggest that kayakers and canoeists could create more wildlife disturbance by their access to small, quiet coves where some wildlife hide or rest.

Unfortunately, we get reports each year of verbal confrontations between users of motorized and non-motorized boats. Although we cannot prevent all such encounters, our enforcement focuses on people operating boats in a reckless manner, or in a manner that endangers or is likely to endanger any person, property or wildlife.

An additional challenge for the refuge manager and our state partners is determining the capacity of the refuge and the lake to support these priority compatible uses and still provide visitors with a quality experience. We also need to be aware of their impacts on adjacent lands. Several landowners expressed concern that increased boating has increased trespassing onto private land. Boaters have left behind trash and human waste, and have parked or camped where they do not have permission.

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 1-29

Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities

4. How will we manage furbearer populations?

The term “furbearer” includes all mammals that possess some form of hair (TWS 2001). However, we use the term to identify species hunted or trapped for their fur, including carnivores and rodents. Beaver, bobcat, coyote, fisher, fox, marten, mink, and muskrat are common furbearers on the refuge. Furbearer populations are dynamic; many are capable of doubling their populations in a single year, while others are more subject to limiting habitat factors. For example, muskrat populations can fluctuate dramatically each year. They can decline by 75 percent in the winter and rebound completely by the next fall (TWS 2001). As land managers, we become concerned when furbearer populations meet or exceed the biological carrying capacity of refuge habitats.

The complex subject of furbearer management is also controversial at the national and state levels. Most of the controversy surrounds regulated trapping. We heard from people who object only to certain trapping methods, particularly the foothold trap on land. However, other opponents have moral and ethical objections to killing animals, and do not support any form of trapping.

We also heard from proponents of regulated trapping who believe it provides an important, effective method for managing furbearer populations, is a sustainable use of wildlife resources, and allows for a rural, self-sufficient, subsistence lifestyle of historical significance in the Northern Forest. Supporters acknowledge the Refuge System mission to conserve, protect, and enhance viable populations of native wildlife such as furbearers, but contend that harvesting some furbearers does not threaten the continued survival of their populations (TWS 2001). They often compare it to our hunting and fishing programs in that regard. However, trapping is not one of the six priority public uses in the Refuge Improvement Act.

5. How will we manage compatible, non-priority recreational uses on the refuge?

Some of the historical uses on the refuge are not priority uses, nor are they wildlife-dependent, but the refuge manager may determine them compatible after further analysis in this Final CCP/EIS. However, Service policy provides that a use that might be compatible, in the sense that it may not materially interfere with the purpose of the refuge or the Refuge System’s mission, but may nonetheless be inappropriate based on compliance with other laws and policy, the availability of resources to manage the uses, possible conflicts with other uses, safety concerns, or other administrative factors.

Snowmobiling on the refuge Marvin Moriarty/USFWS

1-30 Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities

We heard from people both supporting and opposing certain non-priority uses that have historic precedence in the area. Most frequently discussed during public scoping were (1) snowmobiling, a very popular recreational activity, and increasingly important to the local economy; and, (2) furbearer trapping, a recreational activity with cultural and historic roots in the region. We discuss our proposed recommendations for those two activities in chapter 2. We also present in Chapter 2 those activities the refuge manager has previously determined not appropriate and his rationale for not evaluating them further.

For non-priority activities to be compatible and allowed, they would have to be managed so they do not conflict with the goals and objectives for biological and visitor services priorities in the final CCP, are consistent with public safety, and are manageable within the limitations of the refuge budget and available staff. If a priority and non-priority public use conflict, the priority public use will take precedence (603 FW 2). Some people we spoke with argued that these activities detract from our ability to provide priority public uses. They pointed out the limited refuge staff and annual funding of recent years, and did not believe we can manage these activities properly in addition to higher priority programs. Others simply stated they do not believe these activities are appropriate for a national wildlife refuge, and informed us they will review and be critical of any compatibility determination that allows them. That opposition ranged from those opposed to certain activities on ethical and moral grounds, to those concerned with visitor safety and those concerned with direct impacts on wildlife and habitats. We also heard from individuals who support many of these activities.

6. How will we manage camping in remote areas on the refuge?

A developed campground in Umbagog Lake State Park on the south end of the lake is accessible by car from Route 26. The park also includes 30 remote camping sites around the lake, all seasonally open and administered by the State of New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development (NHDRED), Division of Parks and Recreation. Fourteen of those camping sites are on refuge lands; of which 12 are on the lake, and 2 are on rivers. Our ongoing partnership with the state to conserve Umbagog Lake is a very successful, valuable relationship that facilitates wildlife conservation and provides unique recreational opportunities in the Northern Forest. The remote camping sites are extremely popular, and are consistently occupied during the open season. We hear from many people that the highlight of their trip is the opportunity to hear and see loons calling near the campsites at dusk and dawn.

Although we heard from individuals who advocate maintaining camping at its current level, we did not hear from anyone who recommended increasing the number of sites. Some, who expressed support for camping in general, would like to see a reduction in the total number of sites because they are concerned about the total number of visitors to the area, and believe camping encourages group activities. Others felt that continuous use had adversely affected some of the sites, and would like to see them restored.

Some people told us that they do not believe camping is appropriate in a national wildlife refuge, especially if site development or intensive use adversely affect natural habitat. Others expressed concern that the remote sites only encourage inexperienced boaters to get out onto the lake and jeopardize their safety and that of others.

7. How will we manage outfitters and guides on the refuge?

We heard a range of opinions about the desirability of the current level of guided or group tours which occur on adjacent ownerships. Several individuals

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 1-31

Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities

expressed concern that guided tours have increased over the last five years, but do not appear to be regulated by any agency. Some of the same people believe that outfitting and guiding is already at its capacity, and opposed group tours because they facilitate getting more visitors to the lake and its surroundings. Others supported guiding as an activity, because it was their livelihood, or because they believe it enhances visitors’ experiences by providing safe and successful opportunities for viewing wildlife, photographing nature, hunting, or fishing.

According to Federal regulations and Service compatibility policy (603 FW 2), we may only authorize public or private economic uses of the natural resources on any national wildlife refuge in accordance with 16 U.S.C. 715s and 50 C.F.R. 1(29.1) when we determine that the use contributes to the achievement of the refuge purposes or the Refuge System mission. We may authorize an economic use, such as commercially guided trips, by special use permit only when the refuge manager has determined the use is appropriate and compatible. The permit must contain terms, conditions, and stipulations to ensure compatibility.

Our authority to administer these activities on Umbagog Lake is limited to the lands and waters where the Service has an ownership interest. We have not evaluated these activities because we have had no requests to do so. Once a request is received, we will evaluate the use for appropriateness and compatibility.

8. What should be the refuge role in conserving land in the Upper Androscoggin River watershed? Should we pursue a refuge expansion?

Goal 6 describes significant changes in land use in the Northern Forest and our role in the existing collaborative partnership helping to conserve important habitats, maintain outdoor recreational opportunities, and sustain a viable economic and social quality of life. Our partners and we will continue to use many tools and techniques for accomplishing this mission which range from outreach and education, research and demonstration areas, private lands assistance programs, cooperative management agreements, conservation easements, and land acquisition. Each of those is a tool, although our ability to use these effectively will depend on other factors previously discussed, such as refuge staffing, funding, and the continued strength and collaboration of our partnerships.

In that list of potential methods, land conservation garners the most public attention and interest. We heard a wide range of opinions on whether the refuge should continue to expand. Some people expressed concern that federal ownership will result in a greatly diminished local voice in how those lands are managed and used, and they expect the result will be additional restrictions on non-priority public uses, which they view as “traditional” uses. They believe the Service will not be responsive to local concerns, and that the lands will no longer be subject to local influences. Many people specifically fear a significant loss of commercial timber harvest and its potential impacts on the local economy. Others are concerned about the loss in property taxes, because the Federal Government does not pay property taxes.

However, many expressed support for land conservation for the reasons identified in goal 6 above, including the fact that owners are selling huge landholdings and subdividing them into smaller tracts at an alarming rate. Some people expressed the opinion that state agencies, local governments, or non-governmental entities should take the lead in land protection, and that the Service should play only a supporting role. Others suggested that the Service pursue conservation easements and private lands cooperative management agreements instead of fee

1-32 Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities

simple purchases as a means of protection. They mentioned that this would also alleviate concerns about the impact on local property taxes.

On the other hand, we heard from many people that Service acquisition of fee title lands was the only way to guarantee the permanent conservation and management of the lands to support native wildlife. Some recognized the importance of the land conservation partnership and lands network that exists and encouraged our continued active involvement, including support for a refuge expansion. They mentioned the benefits of permanently conserving important habitats, the increased opportunities for public access and recreation in areas either not currently open or not guaranteed to be open long-term. Finally, they pointed out that expanding the refuge would maintain the rural character and quality of life so important to many.

9. How can the refuge and its staff be an asset for local communities and support their respective vision and goals for the area?

Our goal is to become an integral part of the economic and social health and vitality of local and regional communities. The challenge for us is to understand the visions of the respective communities and our role in them while staying true to our mission. We need to determine how best to cultivate relationships in the area, reach out to raise our visibility, and identify the resources we have to contribute. During public scoping, the comments we heard and the results of our stakeholder survey indicate some disappointment in the level of communication from refuge staff, and various levels of mistrust of what our agency does communicate.

Others mentioned that this situation is improving, but could be better. Several individuals requested a more transparent planning process with frequent opportunities to participate and share information. Others felt well informed about refuge activities, and valued the contribution of the refuge to their quality of life. Gaining community understanding, trust, and support for refuge programs is very important for our success in managing the refuge and contributing to conservation in the Northern Forest.

10. What staffing, budgets, and facilities are needed to effectively administer the refuge? Where should they be located?

Many people expressed concern about our ability to maintain existing and proposed infrastructure and implement programs on this refuge, given its current levels of staffing and funding. Some told us they recognize the logistical challenges for our four field staff in trying to manage the refuge land base, which straddles two states, is difficult to access in some places, and is significantly affected by Umbagog Lake and Errol Dam, neither of which falls under the direct authority of the Service. Fortunately, our strong partnerships with natural resource agencies in New Hampshire and Maine allow us to resolve most concerns expeditiously.

Some people expressed the opinion that the refuge needs a presence directly on the lakeshore to facilitate administration, outreach, and education of visitors on safety, lake use etiquette, and resource protection.

We also heard interest in insuring that there is adequate law enforcement capability on refuge lands. That is increasingly becoming a concern to many as public use on the refuge and adjacent lands increases. Our hope is that our new half-time refuge law enforcement officer and a full-time law enforcement zone officer shared among the refuges in Maine, northern New Hampshire and Vermont will meet our law enforcement needs and public expectations.

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 1-33

Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities

Some people are concerned that any new proposals in this CCP will fall substantially above current budget allocations, thus raising unrealistic expectations. One individual pointed out that budgets can vary widely from year to year because they depend on annual congressional appropriations. Other people supported our pursuit of new management objectives and strategies in the hope that the CCP will establish new partnerships and sources of funding. In fact, several people made specific recommendations on sources of grants or ways to collaborate in certain programs or fund new infrastructure and other projects.

The alternatives recommend varying amounts of funding and staffing, (both permanent and seasonal), to implement programs over the next 15 years. In all of the alternatives, we recommend as essential the minimum staffing levels already approved for the refuge. Appendix H presents staffing recommendations by alternative. Appendix F identifies the funding needs by priority project identified in the 2005 Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) and Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS). We regularly

©Robert Quinn update those databases. Whaleback Pond 11. What actions can Service staff implement on refuge lands to minimize the projected impacts from global and regional climate change?

Climate change is an issue of increasing public concern because of its potential effects on land, water, and biological resources. The issue was pushed to the forefront in 2007 when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), representing the world’s leading climate scientists, concluded that it is “unequivocal” that the Earth’s climate is warming, and that it is “very likely” (a greater than 90 percent certainty) that the heat-trapping emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities have caused “most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid- twentieth century” (IPCC 2007). The Northeast is already experiencing rising temperatures, with potentially dramatic warming expected later this century under some model predictions. According to the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment team, “continued warming, and more extensive climate-related changes to come could dramatically alter the region’s economy, landscape, character, and quality of life (NECIA 2007).

Other predicted climate-related changes, beyond warming temperatures, include changing patterns of precipitation, significant acceleration of sea level rise, changes in season lengths, decreasing range of nighttime versus daytime temperatures, declining snowpack, and increasing frequency and intensity of severe weather events (TWS 2004). Since wildlife species are closely adapted to their environments, they must respond to climate variations, and the subsequent changes in habitat conditions, or they will not survive. Unfortunately, the challenge for wildlife is all the more complicated by increases in other environmental stressors such as pollution, land use developments, ozone depletion, exotic species, and disease. Wildlife researchers and professionals, sportsmen, and other wildlife enthusiasts are encouraging positive and preemptive action by land managers. Some recommendations for action include: reducing or eliminating those environmental stressors to the extent possible;

1-34 Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action Other Issues

managing lands to reduce risk of catastrophic events; managing for self- sustaining populations; and, looking for opportunities to ensure widespread habitat availability (TWS 2004).

All of the alternatives would manage wildlife and habitats under an adaptive management framework, and all would increase biological monitoring and inventories. These two actions are critically important for land managers to undertake in order to effectively respond to the uncertainty of future climate change effects. The alternatives differ, however, in the extent to which they take other specific actions to reduce environmental stressors, manage for self- sustaining populations, or ensure widespread habitat availability through land protection and conservation.

Other Issues We explain how we will address the following issues and concerns in “Actions Common to all Alternatives” or “Actions Common to Alternatives B and C” in chapter 2. We organized them under their respective subject headings.

■ What should be the Service role in protecting national and local landmarks, and cultural resources in the Umbagog Lake area?

■ What is the refuge role with respect to water level management in Umbagog and associated lakes?

■ How can the refuge promote responsible use of Umbagog Lake in cooperation with other jurisdictional and management agencies?

■ How will existing camp lease agreements, under special use permits (SUPs), be affected by the CCP process?

■ How will we protect and manage deer winter yards?

■ How will we coordinate resource management with other state and federal agencies in the Upper Androscoggin River watershed?

■ How can we work with other agencies to manage invasive plants and animals (e.g. small mouth bass and milfoil) on the lake?

■ How will we manage fires (management-prescribed burns and wildland fires) on the refuge?

Issues Outside 1. Changing the timeline for FERC re-licensing of Errol Dam or changing the the Scope of this terms and conditions of the license Analysis or Not Some people expressed concerns with water level management in Umbagaog Completely Within Lake, namely due to the management of Errol Dam. We heard concerns with the Jurisdiction of water levels being too high, affecting waterbird breeding and nesting habitat. the Service Others mentioned concerns with low water levels during the summer, exposing mudflats and affecting shoreline access to open water. Yet others indicated that if the Service or states had more control over water level management, habitat conditions for species of concern, and wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities, could be enhanced throughout the year.

Water levels are controlled, as noted above, by the holder of the license issued by FERC for the Errol Project (currently FPLE). Once FERC has issued a license, any party wanting FERC to change the terms must petition FERC to reopen the license in order to effectuate any change in its terms. The procedure for doing so requires the petitioner to supply a detailed administrative record justifying a change in the license terms, sufficient to convince FERC that the analysis it did

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 1-35

Issues Outside the Scope of this Analysis or Not Completely Within the Jurisdiction of the Service

in issuing the license is no longer accurate, and that a change in the license terms is necessary. The licensee has a right to full administrative process under FERC regulations before its license can be changed by that agency. Such a challenge falls outside the scope of this CCP. Its purpose is to provide the Service with detailed goals and objectives for managing refuge lands, not to provide guidance to the Service concerning matters within the jurisdiction of a different federal agency. However, in chapter 2, alternative B proposes that we continue to meet annually with the licensee to discuss current terms and conditions of the license that relate to wildlife management during the breeding and nesting seasons and to discuss opportunities for habitat enhancement throughout the year.

The timeline for FERC re-licensing is also beyond the control of the Service, and hence beyond the scope of the CCP. The current FERC license for the Errol Project is due to expire in 2023, as will this CCP. Prior to 2023, the Service will be involved in both the drafting of a new CCP and in the licensing process for a renewal of the FERC license (assuming the licensee pursues this). This CCP is not intended to control either the Service’s opinions in the next planning cycle or its position before FERC in re-licensing, though actions taken under the CCP may affect environmental baseline conditions for both processes.

2. Giving or transferring refuge lands back to private or town ownership

We heard people express the opinion that the Service should give back, trade, or sell refuge lands to an entity more amenable to the local culture and history. The USGS stakeholder survey (Sexton et al. 2005) indicates that some local respondents do not trust the Federal Government to manage lands on their behalf. Issue 8 above identifies other concerns people expressed about Service ownership.

We established the refuge in 1992 with the first purchase of land after producing a draft and final environmental assessment (Service 1991). Both of these documents extensively evaluated the proposal to create the refuge, and alternatives to that proposal, and included public review and comment. We based our proposal on a strong federal-state partnership to cooperatively protect and manage nationally significant habitats in the area, with strong collaboration among the Service, New Hampshire and Maine state agencies, conservation organizations, and three principal landowners: the James River Company, Boise Cascades Paper Group, and Seven Islands Land Company. We agreed the Service was to take the lead in establishing the refuge on core lands, and New Hampshire and Maine were to take the lead in acquiring conservation easements in adjacent agreed-upon areas.

In addition to the 1991 Final EA establishing the refuge, our 2001 Regional Director’s decision to further expand the refuge addressed public and partner comments on land acquisition. Both decisions required the regional director to prepare a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to disclose that the proposed land acquisition complies with federal laws and does not have a significant impact on the human environment.

The purchase of lands within the approved acquisition boundary represents the Service commitment to honor its responsibilities agreed to in the final decision. Although the Service can exchange refuge land for other land of equal or higher conservation value, a lack of trust in the Federal Government does not constitute a basis for transferring refuge lands to private or town ownership.

1-36 Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action Chapter 2 Tom Meredith/USFWS Tom Harper’s Meadow with loon

Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative Introduction

Introduction This chapter presents:

■ Our process for formulating alternatives;

■ Actions that are common to all alternatives;

■ Actions or alternatives considered but not fully developed; and,

■ Descriptions of the three alternatives we analyzed in detail.

At the end of this chapter, table 2.2 compares how each of the alternatives addresses significant issues, supports major programs, and achieves refuge goals. Formulating Alternatives Relating Goals, objectives Refuge goals and objectives define each of the management alternatives and Strategies identified below. As we described in chapter 1, developing refuge goals was one of the first steps in our planning process. Goals are intentionally broad, descriptive statements of the desired future condition for refuge resources. By design, they are less quantitative, and more prescriptive, in defining the targets of our management. They also articulate the principal elements of refuge purposes and our vision statement and provide a foundation for developing specific management objectives and strategies. Our goals are common to all the alternatives.

The next step was to consider a range of possible management objectives that would help us meet those goals. Objectives are essentially incremental steps toward achieving a goal; they also further define the management targets in measurable terms. They typically vary among the alternatives and provide the basis for determining more detailed strategies, monitoring refuge accomplishments, and evaluating our success. The Service guidance in “Writing Refuge Management Goals and Objectives: A Handbook” (USFWS 2004a) recommends that objectives possess five properties to be “SMART”: (1) specific; (2) measurable; (3) achievable; (4) results-oriented; and (5) time-fixed.

A rationale accompanies each objective to explain its context and why we think it is important. We will use the objectives in the alternative selected for the final CCP in writing refuge step-down plans. We will measure our successes by how well we achieve those objectives.

We next identified strategies for each of the objectives. These are specific actions, tools, techniques, or a combination of those that we may use to achieve the objective. The list of strategies under each objective represent the potential suite of actions to be implemented, and by design, most will be further evaluated as to how, when, and where they should be implemented in refuge step-down plans.

Developing Alternatives, After identifying a wide range of possible management objectives and strategies including the “No Action” that could achieve the goals, we began the process of crafting management Alternative alternatives. Simply put, alternatives are packages of complementary objectives and strategies designed to meet refuge purposes, the Refuge System mission, and goals, while responding to the issues and opportunities identified during the planning process.

To this end, we grouped objectives that seemed to fit together in what we loosely called “alternative themes.” For example, we considered such themes as “current management,” “passive management,” “focal species management,” and “natural processes management.” These were firmed up into four, and then later three, management alternatives after further evaluating how respective objectives

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-1 Formulating Alternatives

would interact, their compatibility with refuge purposes, and the reality of accomplishing the objectives in a reasonable time frame.

We fully analyze in this final CCP/EIS three alternatives which characterize different ways of managing the refuge over the next 15 years. We believe they represent a reasonable range of alternative proposals for achieving the refuge purpose, vision and goals, and addressing the issues described in chapter 1. Unless otherwise noted, all actions would be implemented by refuge staff.

Alternative A satisfies the NEPA requirement of a “no action” alternative, which we define as “continuing current management.” It describes our existing management priorities and activities, and serves as a baseline for comparing and contrasting alternatives B and C. We suggest you first read Chapter 3, “Description of the Affected Environment,” for detailed descriptions of current refuge resources and programs.

Many of the objectives in alternative A do not strictly follow the guidance in the Service’s goals and objectives handbook because we are describing current management decisions and activities that were established prior to this guidance. Rather, our descriptions of these activities were derived from a variety of formal and informal management decisions and planning documents. As such, alternative A objectives are fewer and more subjective in nature than alternatives B and C.

Alternative B, the Service-preferred alternative, combines the actions we believe would most effectively achieve refuge purposes, vision and goals, and respond to public issues. It emphasizes management of specific refuge habitats to support focal species whose habitat needs benefit other species of conservation concern in the Northern Forest. In particular, we emphasize habitat for priority bird species of conservation concern identified for BCR 14.

Alternative C emphasizes management to restore where practicable, the distribution of natural communities in the Upper Androscoggin River watershed that would have resulted from natural processes without the influence or intervention of human settlement and management. While this alternative does not propose breaching the Errol Dam that expanded Umbagog Lake, it proposes actions to modify the flow and timing of water to mimic the annual natural historic high and low water events, within the requirement of the existing FERC license. In the uplands, it proposes actions to restore the structure and function of native vegetation which resulted from natural historic ice and wind storm events.

We have developed a habitat map for each alternative, presented with each respective alternative’s discussion later in this chapter, to help readers visualize how the refuge vegetation would look over the long-term after managing under each respective scenario. Using Geographical Information Systems (GIS) mapping tools and data sets, our habitat maps are a graphic representation of the potential vegetation that may result under each respective alternative at a coarse scale, and over an approximate 100-year time frame. While we describe in detail possible vegetation management actions within the 15-year CCP planning horizon for alternatives B and C, most of the distinct habitat changes would not be observable at this scale for at least 50 years. The maps are meant to compare the potential distribution of those habitat changes, but are not meant to identify exact locations for implementing a particular strategy on the ground. It will be up to our refuge staff to decide during the implementation phase what specific strategy applies to a particular site, at what level or timing it should apply, and exactly where it applies on a given site. These actions will be detailed in the

2-2 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Actions Common to All of the Alternatives

annual HMP (see “Refuge Step-Down Plans” below) and annual work plans. Appendix K provides additional, more specific details on our forest management proposals. It also includes a map of our habitat management units on current refuge lands, within which we propose that more active management would occur over the next 15 years (see map K-1).

Actions Common to All of the alternatives share some common actions. Some are required by law All of the Alternatives or policy, or represent NEPA decisions that recently have gone through public review, and agency review and approval. Or, they may be administrative actions that do not necessarily require public review, but we want to highlight them in this public document. They may also be actions we believe are critical to achieving the refuge’s purpose, vision, and goals.

Service planning policy identifies 25 step-down plans that may be applicable on any given refuge. We have identified the 10 plans below as the most relevant to this planning process, and we have prioritized them. Sections of the refuge HMP which require public review are presented within this document and will be incorporated into the final version of the HMP immediately upon CCP approval. We will also develop an Annual Habitat Work Plan (AHWP) and Inventory and Monitoring Plan (IMP) as the highest priority step-down plans, regardless of alternative selected for implementation. These are described in more detail below. They will be modified and updated as new information is obtained so we can continue to keep them relevant. Completion of these plans supports all seven refuge goals.

All of the alternatives schedule the completion of these step-down management plans as shown.

■ A HMP, immediately following CCP approval (see discussion immediately below, and discussion on NEPA requirements on page 2-16)

■ An AHWP, within 1 year of CCP approval (see discussion below)

■ A IMP, within 2 years of CCP approval (see discussion below)

■ A LPP will accompany the final CCP (see appendix A)

■ A Hunt Plan (last revised April 2007), within 2 years of CCP approval we will conduct separate NEPA analysis to update our Hunt Plan

■ A Fishing Plan, within 2 years of CCP approval

■ A Fire Management Plan within 2 years of CCP approval

■ A Visitor Services Plan, within 3 years of CCP approval, and assuming a Visitor Services Professional (VSP) is hired; would incorporate hunt and fishing plans noted above

■ A Law Enforcement Plan, within 3 years of CCP approval

■ Facilities and Sign Plan, within 3 years of CCP approval

Habitat Management Plan A HMP for the refuge is the requisite first step to achieving the objectives of goals 1–3, regardless of the alternative selected for implementation. For example, the HMP will incorporate the selected alternative’s habitat objectives developed herein, and will also identify “what, which, how, and when” actions and strategies

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-3 Actions Common to All of the Alternatives

will be implemented over the 15 year time frame to achieve those objectives. Specifically, the HMP will define management areas, treatment units, identify type or method of treatment, establish the timing for management actions, and define how we will measure success over the next 15 years. In this CCP, the goals, objectives, and list of strategies under each objective identify how we intend to manage habitats on the refuge. Both the CCP and HMP are based on current resource information, published research, and our own field experiences. Our methods, timing, and techniques will be updated as new, credible information becomes available. To facilitate our management, we will regularly maintain our GIS database, documenting any major vegetation changes on at least a 5 year basis. As appropriate, actions listed below in “Actions Common to All Alternatives” will be incorporated into the HMP.

Annual Habitat Work Plan and Inventory and Monitoring Plan The AHWP and the IMP for the refuge are also priorities for completion upon CCP approval. Regardless of the alternative chosen, these plans are also vital for implementing habitat management actions and measuring our success in meeting the objectives. The AHWP is generated each year from the HMP, and will outline specific management activities to occur in that year. The IMP will outline the methodology to assess whether our original assumptions and proposed management actions are, in fact, supporting our habitat and species objectives. Inventory and monitoring needs will be prioritized in the IMP. The results of inventories and monitoring will provide us with more information on the status of our natural resources and allow us to make more informed management decisions.

Coordinating Umbagog Under all alternatives, we will continue to work cooperatively with the FERC Lake Water Level licensee of the Errol Project, FPLE. Specifically, under Article 27 of the current Management license, we would continue to develop a yearly water level management plan with the licensee and other regulatory agencies “to benefit nesting wildlife.” While we and others have expressed concerns about the impacts from fluctuating water levels, these concerns have not been evaluated and researched in sufficient detail for us to seek to modify the current water level plan. As such, we will continue to promote stable water levels during the nesting season to the extent possible. We will also work to complete a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with FPLE, the holder of the FERC license for the Errol Project, to coordinate activities within the FERC boundary. In addition, although not binding under the current license, we will continue to recommend to FPLE that they voluntarily manage water levels at other critical times of the year (e.g. during fall migration) to benefit wildlife.

Under alternatives B and C, objective 1.5, we have identified several future studies, and inventory and monitoring projects that will assist in evaluating the impacts from water level fluctuations. Implementing this activity supports refuge goal 1 relating to the conservation of open water, submerged aquatic vegetation, and wetlands habitats.

Control of Invasive Species The Refuge System has identified management to control the establishment and spread of invasive species as a national priority. Fortunately, on this refuge, the threat is currently low. However, our objective is to ensure no new invasive species become established, and we will mange to control the spread of what does exist. To the extent possible, we will physically remove invasive species where they are encountered. Although we have not previously had the need, we propose to use approved glyphosate-based herbicides when determined by the refuge manager to be necessary to control invasive plants, after regional office review and approval. Of particular concern on the refuge are purple loosestrife, Phragmites, Eurasian milfoil, and Japanese knotweed.

2-4 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Actions Common to All of the Alternatives

In conjunction with the HMP and IMP, we will develop a list of species of greatest concern on the refuge, identify priority areas with which to be vigilant, and establish monitoring and treatment strategies. Refer to the National Wildlife Refuge System Invasive Species Management Strategy released in May 2004 (USFWS 2004b) for additional tools, processes, and strategies. The 2004 report is complimented by a technical report issued in May 2005 by USGS, titled: The Invasive Species Survey: A Report on the Invasion of the National Wildlife Refuge System (USGS 2005). These reports together give both a status review and a management strategy for combating invasive species. In addition, we will stay abreast of Service policy revisions currently being reworked to facilitate implementation. Other

Ian Drew/USFWS strategies include: Aerial view of a portion of the Floating Island ■ Survey the Floating Island National Natural Landmark (FINNL) and other National Natural unique or rare plant communities as a priority to ensure invasive plants do not Landmark threaten the integrity of these sites and implement treatments as warranted (see additional discussion on FINNL below);

■ Institute proper care of all refuge equipment to avoid introduction or transport of invasive plants; Require researchers on the refuge to take steps to prevent transport of aquatic invasive plants and pathogens;

■ Continue to work with state agencies to prevent introduction of invasive species to all water bodies on the refuge; increase enforcement to check boats and equipment to protect against invasive plant transport;

■ Implement outreach and education programs, including signage, where appropriate, and actively support state initiatives on this topic; and,

■ Develop special regulations on the refuge as warranted to control spread of invasive species.

Implementing this program supports refuge goals 1-3 relating to the conservation of open water and submerged aquatic vegetation, wetlands, floodplain and lakeshore, and upland forest habitats.

Implementing and Establishing a foundation of information, or a baseline, from which to make Prioritizing a Biological management decisions is critical to achieving our goals. There is much we Monitoring and Inventory would like to know about the refuge’s resources, including how they function or Program move across the landscape, and what threatens them. Unfortunately, there is not enough time or funding to accomplish all we would like to know. There are several studies we initiated recently, or plan to initiate, as soon as funding is available, including:

■ Visitor use (initiated in 2007);

■ Wildlife disturbance study (initiated in 2007);

■ Other top priority activities we have identified as funding allows include:

✦ An ecological systems analysis to identify the ecological processes that histoubrically and currently influence the lake, determine lake bathymetry, identify wetlands functions and measures of integrity, and evaluate water quality; and,

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-5 Actions Common to All of the Alternatives

✦ Baseline contaminants assessment.

✦ In conjunction with development of IMP, identify what inventory methods should be implemented to confirm the status and critical components necessary to sustain focal species and habitats identified in objective statements. Prioritize list and begin implementing by re-directing refuge biologist’s time to priority inventory and monitoring activities;

✦ Continue to coordinate with state agencies and FPLE in the monitoring of bald eagle, osprey, and loon nests, and to evaluate the effectiveness of our protection measures. Objectives 1.6 and 2.3 identify the protection measures we currently implement, or propose to implement, to protect these birds from human disturbance during the nesting season under each alternative; pursue expanding this cooperative monitoring effort to forest dependent raptors suspected to be in decline;

✦ Within 3 years of CCP approval, in cooperation with the Lynx Recovery Team, determine whether a monitoring or inventory program on the refuge is warranted for lynx. Implement a program if there is consensus on its value. If survey results are favorable, and recovery experts agree the refuge can make an important contribution to lynx recovery, we will amend the HMP to include measures to sustain and enhance habitat for lynx; and,

✦ See discussion below on “deer wintering areas,” “vernal pools” and the “Floating Island National Natural Landmark.”

Implementing this program supports refuge goals 1-3 relating to the conservation of open water and submerged aquatic vegetation, wetlands, floodplain and lakeshore, and upland forest habitats.

Protecting Vernal Pools Vernal pools and other unique or rare natural communities are important to the and other Unique or Rare health, integrity, and biodiversity of the Upper Androscoggin watershed. Despite Communities the small size, patchiness, and ephemeral nature of some of these habitats, their value is disproportionately significant. All alternatives recognize their importance and propose to promote their conservation.

Our objective is to conserve and maintain all natural vernal pools, including those pools imbedded in wetland or riparian habitats, on existing refuge lands and within the respective refuge expansion areas. Also, we will conserve and protect cliffs, talus slopes, and other unique, significant, or rare upland habitat types identified by Maine Natural Areas Program (MNAP) and NHNHI on these same lands.

Strategies: ■ Within 5 years of CCP completion, complete inventory for vernal pools and map in GIS. At a minimum, prior to any forest management activities, survey stands for vernal pools and insure best management practices are followed;

■ Establish criteria for ranking vernal pools as to their conservation concern and need for management based on size, location, threats, productivity, seasonality, species diversity, and other parameters;

■ Within 7 years of CCP completion, develop and implement management standards and guidelines to conserve vernal pool habitat; determine which pools should be protected by a no-disturbance buffer vs. those that should be managed and restored;

2-6 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Actions Common to All of the Alternatives

■ Evaluate effectiveness of management and protection zones;

■ Promote vernal pool conservation in refuge outreach programs;

■ Within 7 years of CCP approval, cooperate with NHNHI and MNAP to inventory and map the other rare and unique types in a GIS database; develop standards and guidelines for the protection and management of these types

Implementing this program supports refuge goals 1-3 relating to the conservation of open water and submerged aquatic vegetation, wetlands, floodplain and lakeshore, and upland forest habitats.

Removing Unnecessary All alternatives include restoring to natural conditions, as soon as practicable, Structures and Site developed sites that are no longer needed for refuge administration or programs. Restoration Strategies: ■ Within 3 years of acquisition, continue to remove dwellings, such as cabins or other developed sites or structures, if determined they are surplus to refuge needs, and assuming funding is available. Re-grade sites to natural topography and hydrology and re-vegetate to establish desirable conditions.

■ Within 3 years of CCP approval, complete demolition of the 12 camps already acquired as planned.

■ Within 5 years of CCP approval, inventory and assess all access roads within the refuge, and on any newly acquired lands, and implement procedures to retire and restore unnecessary forest interior and secondary roads to promote watershed and resource protection. All off-road (ORV) and all–terrain vehicles (ATV) trails, and all unauthorized snowmobile trails, will be eliminated.

■ Implementing this program supports refuge goals 2-3 relating to the conservation of floodplain, lakeshore and upland forest habitats.

Maintaining Partnerships All of the alternatives would maintain the existing partnerships identified in chapter 3 and under Goal 6, objective 6.1, while also seeking new ones. These relationships are vital to our success in managing all aspects of the refuge, from conserving land, to managing habitats and protecting species, to outreach and education, and providing wildlife-dependent recreation. The NHFG and the MDIFW have been particularly important and valued partners. We will pursue new partnerships in areas of mutual interest that benefit refuge goals and objectives. We highlight two partnership efforts below. Implementing this program supports all refuge goals, with particular emphasis on goal 6 relating to conserving and managing wildlife resources through partnerships.

Land Conservation One of our biggest partnership programs is focused on land conservation in the region. The decision document establishing the refuge (USFWS 1991) emphasized that the refuge was part of a larger conservation partnership to protect and manage timber, wetland, and wildlife resources of the Umbagog area. We carry that emphasis forward in the present plan. All alternatives include our continued participation in those partnerships with the goal to permanently protect and sustain Federal trust resources and other unique natural resource values in the Umbabog area and the Northern Forest ecosystem. An important component of this goal is an objective to improve connectivity between existing conservation tracts and preserve working forest and public access. Conservation partnerships in the region have evolved into a dynamic, landscape-level, multi-partner effort.

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-7 Actions Common to All of the Alternatives

The list of partners is extensive and includes the Service, other Federal agencies, state agencies, private conservation organizations, local communities, private landowners, and private businesses. Appendix A, the LPP, includes a detailed description of some of the important accomplishments, as well as some current land conservation projects.

While the LPP focuses on land acquisition as a conservation strategy, we are also working with our partners to cooperatively manage important natural resources on other ownerships. One example is in Maine. In 2005, we assessed a U.S. Department of the Navy Training Facility in Redington, Maine, a unit of Brunswick Naval Air Station, which was included on the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure list. This property has since been removed from the Closure list. At the time, we determined the property had high Federal trust resource value and expressed an interest in acquiring it if it is ever officially excessed. In the meantime, we are pursuing a cooperative management agreement with the Navy to assist in managing its natural resources.

Community Relations We will continue to work within community forums such as the Umbagog Area Chamber of Commerce and town meetings, and other venues. In addition, we will host one informal meeting each quarter in the area to share information or discuss topics of interest.

Permitting Special Uses, All of the alternatives would require the refuge manager to evaluate activities Including Research, that require a special use permit for their appropriateness and compatibility on a Economic Uses and Camp case-by-case basis. All research, commercial or economic uses, and camp leases Leases require special use permits. Implementing this program supports refuge goals 1-3 relating the conservation of open water and submerged aquatic vegetation, wetland, floodplain, lakeshore and upland forest habitats, and goal 6, relating to conserving and managing wildlife resources through partnerships.

Research Research on species of concern and their habitats will continue as a priority. Generally, we will approve permits that provide a direct benefit to the refuge, or for research that will strengthen our decisions on managing natural resources on the refuge. The refuge manager also may consider requests that do not relate directly to refuge objectives, but to the protection or enhancement of native species and biological diversity in the region and support the goals of the proposed Umbagog Lake Working Group, or recognized ecoregional conservation team, such as the Atlantic Coast or Eastern Brook Trout joint ventures.

All researchers will be required to submit detailed research proposals following the guidelines established by Service policy and Refuge staff. Special use permits will also identify the schedules for progress reports, the criteria for determining when a project should cease, and the requirements for publication or other interim and final reports. All publications will acknowledge the Service and the role of Service staff as key partners in funding and/or operations. Researchers will be required to take steps to insure that invasives and pathogens (particularly aquatic invasive plants and pathogens) are not inadvertently introduced or transferred to the Umbagog system. We will ask our refuge biologists, other divisions of the Service, USGS, select universities or recognized experts, and states of New Hampshire and Maine agencies to peer review and comment on research proposals and draft publications, and will share research results internally, with these reviewers, and other conservation agencies and organizations. To the extent practicable, and given the publication type, all research deliverables will conform to Service graphic standards.

Some projects, such as depredation and banding studies, require additional Service permits. The refuge manager will not approve those projects until all

2-8 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Actions Common to All of the Alternatives Actions Common to All of the Alternatives

Working in partnership to develop goals and objectives USFWS required permits are received and the consultation requirements under the ESA have been met.

Commercial and Economic Uses All commercial and economic uses will adhere to 50 CFR, Subpart A, §29.1 and Service policy which allow these activities if they are necessary to achieve the Refuge System mission, or refuge purposes and goals. Allowing these activities also requires the Service to determine appropriateness and prepare a compatibility determination and an annual special use permit outlining terms, conditions, fees, and any other stipulations to ensure compatibility.

Cabin (Camp) Leases No modifications are proposed for the 29 cabin leases that currently exist under special use permit. These permits are renewed every year, assuming the terms of the permit are met, and until the 50 year lease is up. In addition, there are 4 properties under life-use agreements within the refuge boundary which are observed as private landholdings until the end of their life use.

■ The cabin leases include certain conditions, such as (1) the camps must be maintained in a manner compatible with the purposes of the refuge and produce the least amount of environmental disturbance; and, (2) no new permits will be issued for construction of new camps on the properties. Most of these structures were built as summer fishing camps or seasonal cottages, but some have become year-round cottages. All the camp leases expire in 50 years from date of Service acquisition. We are not proposing any changes to lease agreements within the context of this CCP.

Distributing Refuge As we describe in chapter 4, we pay the following localities annual refuge revenue Revenue Sharing Payments sharing payments based on the acreage and the appraised value of refuge lands in their jurisdiction: Errol, Cambridge and Wentworth Location in New Hampshire; and, Upton and Magalloway Plantation in Maine. These annual payments are calculated by formula determined by, and with funds appropriated by, Congress. All of the alternatives will continue those payments in accordance with the law, commensurate with changes in the appraised market value of refuge lands, or new appropriation levels dictated by Congress. Additional towns may be added with future acquisitions.

Conducting a Wilderness As we described in chapter 1, Refuge System planning policy requires that Review we conduct a wilderness review during the CCP process. The first step is to inventory all refuge lands and waters in Service fee simple ownership. Our inventory of this refuge determined that no areas meet the eligibility criteria for a wilderness study area as defined by the Wilderness Act. Therefore, we

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-9 Actions Common to All of the Alternatives

did not further analyze the refuge’s suitability for wilderness designation. The results of the wilderness inventory are included in appendix D. The entire refuge will undergo another wilderness review in 15 years as part of the next planning process. Specifically, any lands acquired in fee by the Service in the interim, along with existing refuge lands, will become part of that wilderness review in 15 years.

Conducting a Wild and Service planning policy also requires that we conduct a wild and scenic rivers Scenic Rivers Review review during the CCP process. We inventoried the river and river segments which occur within the refuge acquisition boundary area and determined that five river segments met the criteria for wild and scenic river eligibility. These river segments and their immediate environments were determined to be free- flowing and possess at least one Outstandingly Remarkable Value. However, we are not pursuing further study to determine their suitability, or making a recommendation on these river segments at this time because we believe the entire river lengths should be studied (not just those on refuge lands) with full participation and involvement of our federal, state, local, and nongovernmental partners. The results of our Wild and Scenic River inventory are included in appendix E. All alternatives would provide protection for free-flowing river values, and other river values, pending the completion of future comprehensive inter-jurisdictional eligibility studies.

Fire Management None of our alternatives propose to utilize management-prescribed fire as a habitat management tool within the 15-year life of this CCP. While the chance of natural ignition is low, should a wildland fire occur, all alternatives also propose to rapidly and aggressively suppress it in areas where property is likely to be threatened according to the guidance in appendix I, “Fire Management Program Guidance.” Our suppression objective is to avoid property damage, minimize human health or safety concerns, and reduce the likelihood of resource damage. Fire is not a prevalent natural ecosystem process in the Northern Forest. It has been suggested by researchers that stand-replacement fire intervals are at 800+ year intervals in most regional forest types (Lorimer 1977). However, given Northeast Regional climate change predictions, the average temperatures may increase, especially in the summer, will be coupled with little change in summer rainfall and result in more frequent, short-term droughts (NECIA 2007). This, in turn, could alter the natural fire regime and result in more frequent fires, or a catastrophic one. We will use an adaptive management approach and monitor changing conditions. If necessary, we could conduct prescribed burns to minimize the threat of a catastrophic fire event.

Protecting Cultural As a Federal land management agency, we are entrusted with the responsibility Resources to locate and protect all historic resources, specifically archeological sites and historic structures eligible for, or listed in, the National Register of Historic Places. This applies not only to refuge lands, but also on lands affected by refuge activities, and includes any museum properties. As described in Chapter 3, “Description of the Affected Environment,” consultation with the Maine and New Hampshire SHPOs indicates there are five recorded archeological sites within the refuge area. Considering the topography of the area and proximity to water courses, it is likely that additional prehistoric or historic sites may be located in the future. Archeological remains in the form of prehistoric camps sites or villages would most likely be located along streams and lakes where early inhabitants would have ample water, shelter, and good fishing and hunting opportunities.

Under all alternatives, we will conduct an evaluation on the potential to impact archeological and historical resources as required, and will consult with respective SHPOs. We will be especially thorough in areas along the lake and streams where there is a higher probability of locating a site. These activities

2-10 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Actions Common to All of the Alternatives

will ensure we comply with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, regardless of the alternative. That compliance may require any or all of the following: a State Historic Preservation Records survey, literature survey, or field survey.

Refuge Staffing and Staffing and operations and maintenance funds over the last 5 years are Administration presented in chapter 3. Below we describe activities related to staffing and administration that are shared among the alternatives; some are new, others are on-going. Implementing these activities supports all seven refuge goals.

Permanent Staffing and Operational Budgets Under all alternatives, our objective is to sustain annual funding and staffing levels that allow us to achieve our refuge purposes, as interpreted by the goals, objectives, and strategies. Many of our most visible projects since refuge establishment, including land acquisition, were achieved through special project or “earmarked” funds that typically have a 1- to 2-year duration. While these funds are very important to us, they are limited in their flexibility since they typically can not be used for any other priority project that may arise.

In response to Refuge System operational funding declines nationwide, our region plans to initiate a new base budget approach in FY 2007. The goal is to have a maximum of 75% of a refuge station’s budget cover salaries and fixed costs, while the remaining 25% or more will be operations dollars. The intent of this strategy is to improve the refuge manager’s capability to do the highest priority project work and not have the vast majority of a refuge’s budget tied up in inflexible, fixed costs. Unfortunately, in a stable or declining budget environment, this may also have implications to the level of permanent staffing.

Appendix F lists our RONS and SAMMS construction and maintenance projects currently listed in those databases, and indicate the regional and refuge ranking. We also included new projects not yet in the databases, but proposed under alternative B. Once approved, if funding is not available, we will continue to seek alternate means of accomplishing our projects; for example, through our volunteer program, challenge cost share grants, or other partnership grants, and internships. The SAMMS projects include a list of backlogged maintenance needs.

Under all alternatives, and within the guidelines of the new base budget approach, we would seek to fill our currently approved, but vacant positions which we believe are needed to accomplish our highest priority projects. Alternatives B and C also propose additional staff to provide depth in our biological and visitor services programs. We identify our recommended priority order for new staffing in the appendix F RONS tables. The alternatives also seek an increase in our maintenance staff since they provide invaluable support to all program areas. Appendix H identifies the staffing requests under each alternative.

Youth Conservation Corps All alternatives would maintain the annual youth conservation corps (YCC) program which has generally consisted of a crew of four to five persons (15-18 years old), and a crew leader. This has been a very popular program in the local community because youth employment opportunities are limited in this rural area. The crew accomplishes many important tasks in support of our biological and visitor services programs. If enough funding can be secured, we will expand this program to support two crews.

Facility and Fleet Maintenance All of the alternatives include the periodic maintenance and renovation of existing facilities to ensure the safety and accessibility for staff and visitors. Our

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-11 Actions Common to All of the Alternatives

current facilities are described in chapter 3. They include administrative facilities such as refuge quarters, refuge office, and the maintenance shop off Mountain Pond road. Visitor facilities to be maintained under all alternatives include: the 1/3 mile Magalloway River trail and new ¼ mile extension, sign, and viewing platform; and, 2 roofed, wooden information kiosks. A Magalloway River canoe trail and launch site project will be opened in 2008 and will also require periodic maintenance. Any new facilities recommended in the final CCP, once constructed, will be placed on the maintenance schedule. All facilities and fleet maintenance and upgrades would incorporate ecologically beneficial technologies, tools, materials, and practices.

Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Chapter 1 describes the requirements for appropriateness and compatibility determinations. Appendix C includes proposed appropriateness findings and compatibility determinations to support the activities in alternative B, the Service-preferred alternative. Our CCP will include the final approved compatibility determinations for the management alternative selected. We will only allow activities determined compatible to meet or facilitate refuge purposes, goals, and objectives.

The following are stipulations to incorporate into existing or future compatibility determinations:

■ Access for non wildlife-dependent activities on the refuge will occur only on certain designated trails.

■ Visitor motorized vehicle access on refuge roads is limited to street-registered passenger vehicles up to one-ton hauling capacity in designated areas; no ORV or ATV use will be allowed.

■ When the Service acquires land in the proposed expansion area in full, fee-simple ownership, we would allow public access and compatible public recreation, and other refuge uses, consistent with what we currently allow, or propose to allow, on the existing refuge lands. When a conservation easement, or a partial interest, is purchased, the Service’s objective is to obtain all rights determined necessary to insure protection of Federal trust resources on that parcel. Typically, at a minimum, the purchase would include development rights. However, we may also seek to obtain the rights to manage habitats, and/or to manage public use and access, if the seller is willing and we have funding available.

The refuge manager has determined that all six priority public uses are compatible, although some have stipulations as detailed in appendix C. Non-priority uses that the refuge manager proposes are compatible on this refuge with stipulations are also detailed in appendix C. These include forest management, research, camping, recreational gathering of blueberries, blackberries, strawberries, raspberries, mushrooms, fiddleheads, and antler sheds, snowmobiling, horseback riding, bicycling, and dog sledding.

Activities Not Allowed The 1997 Refuge Improvement Act states that “compatible wildlife-dependent recreation is a legitimate and appropriate general public use of the System.” Compatible hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation are the priority general wildlife- dependent uses of the Refuge System. According to Service Manual 605 FW 1, these uses should receive preferential consideration in refuge planning and management before the refuge manager analyzes other recreational opportunities for appropriateness and compatibility.

2-12 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Actions Common to All of the Alternatives

We have received requests for non-priority, non- wildlife dependent activities that have never been allowed on this refuge. Activities evaluated by the refuge manager and determined not to be appropriate on refuge lands include: ATV, ORV or motorbike use, field trials for dogs, and geocaching. Appendix C documents the refuge manager’s decision on their appropriateness. Most of these activities are sufficiently provided elsewhere nearby on other ownerships, so the lack of access on the refuge does not eliminate the opportunity in the Umbagog Lake area. According to Service policy 603 FW 1, if the refuge manager determines a use is not appropriate, it can be denied without determining compatibility.

Refuge Operating Hours All of the alternatives will open the refuge for public use from ½ hour before sunrise to ½ hour after sunset, seven days a week, to insure visitor safety and protect refuge resources. The only regular exception is for overnight use by visitors with camping permits in designated camping sites. However, the refuge manager does have the authority to issue a special use permit to allow others access outside these timeframes. For example, research personnel or hunters may be permitted access at different times, or organized groups may be permitted to conduct nocturnal activities, such as wildlife observation, and educational and interpretive programs.

Jennifer Casey/USFWS Jennifer Boating Access Sunset on Harper’s Under all alternatives, we would maintain the Meadow following boat access sites: the Upper Magalloway River car-top launch; the current office headquarters (Brown Owl) boat launch; and the Steamer Diamond boat launch. Our plans are to open the Upper Magalloway launch site and restroom in 2008. The current office headquarters site will have some minor improvements done to increase visibility for those using trailers and to provide additional signage to warn oncoming traffic.

Changing the Refuge’s Name Under all alternatives, we propose to change the name of the refuge to “Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge” for several reasons. The refuge consists of lake, riverine, and significant uplands habitats. The current name focuses entirely on the lake. In addition, an expansion of riverine and upland habitats is proposed under alternatives B and C, some of which lies as far as 6 miles from the lake. Also, this is a name recommended to us by local residents. We believe the new name is a better representation of the broader geographic context and management emphasis we would pursue under all alternatives.

Adaptive Management As has been the case in the management of this refuge to date, all of the alternatives will include flexibility in management to allow us to respond to new information, spatial and temporal changes and environmental events, whether foreseen or unforeseen, or other factors that influence management. Our goal is to be able to respond quickly to any new information or events. The need for

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-13 Actions Common to All of the Alternatives

flexible or adaptive management is very compelling today because our present information on refuge species and habitats is incomplete, provisional, and subject to change as our knowledge base improves.

We will continually evaluate management actions, both formally and informally, through monitoring or research, to consider whether our original assumptions and predictions remain valid. In that way, management becomes a proactive process of learning what really works. On March 9, 2007, Secretary of the Interior Kempthorne issued Secretarial Order No. 3270 to provide guidance on policy and procedures for implementing adaptive management in departmental agencies. In 2007, an intradepartmental working group developed a guidebook to assist managers and practitioners: “Adaptive Management: The U.S. Department of Interior Technical Guide.” It defines adaptive management, the conditions under which we should consider it, and the process for implementing it and evaluating its effectiveness. You may view the guidebook at http://www.doi.gov/initiatives/ AdaptiveManagement/documents.html.

Adaptive management, as it relates to refuge management, promotes flexible decision-making through an iterative learning process that readily responds to uncertainties, new information, monitoring results, and variability in the ecosystems. It is designed to facilitate more effective decisions and enhance benefits. This process will be especially critical as we deal with the uncertainty surrounding the extent and potential impacts of climate change. Given that climate change is expected to exacerbate the current rate of habitat loss, change habitat composition and structure, simplify and fragment habitat, increase the prevalence of weed and pest species, and degrade water quality and alter hydrology, it is incumbent on us a land managers to continually evaluate our management activities and the status of the refuge’s resources, and respond to those impacts in a meaningful way as quickly as possible

Many of the management actions we propose in the alternatives could help minimize the regional impacts of climate change. Our landscape-level partnership with numerous conservation organizations, coupled with our refuge expansion proposals, would result in more stable, resilient habitats across the landscape, and help reduce other anthropogenic (non-climate) stressors. Conserving and connecting protected lands provides wildlife migration corridors, maintains a refugium for species on the edge of their range, removes dispersal barriers and establishes dispersal bridges, protects hydrology, and increases the ecological, genetic, geographical, behavioral and morphological variation in species. Our plans to control invasive plants, maintain the integrity and function of forest floodplains and wetlands, and promote forest health and diversity, could also minimize climate change impacts.

At the refuge level, monitoring and assessing management actions and outcomes, and tracking critical resources and indicators of forest ecosystem health, will be very important. The refuge manager will be responsible for changing management actions and strategies if they do not produce the desired conditions. Significant changes in management from what we present in our final CCP may warrant additional NEPA analysis and public comment. Minor changes will not, but we will document them in our project evaluation reports or annual reports.

Generally, we can increase monitoring and research that supports adaptive management without additional NEPA analysis, assuming the activities, if conducted by non-refuge personnel, are determined compatible by the refuge manager in a compatibility determination. Many of our objectives identify monitoring elements. Our Inventory and Monitoring Plan (IMP; see discussion on step-down plans below) will determine what we plan in the future. Also, see the discussion on additional NEPA analysis requirements below. Implementing an adaptive management approach supports all seven goals of the refuge.

2-14 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Actions Common to Alternatives B and C Only

Actions Common to Alternatives B and C Only Implementing Forest Alternatives B and C propose forest management, including tree cutting, as one Management to Achieve of several tools to achieve respective habitat objectives for the Federal trust Habitat Objectives resources, specifically the refuge focal species, identified in goal 3. Under both alternatives, all commercial and non-commercial tree cutting would adhere to accepted silvicultural prescriptions, and the best management practices in each respective state at a minimum. Management activities would be planned to insure that habitat for species requiring large unfragmented habitat blocks is not compromised. Appendix K, “Forest Management Guidelines” describes desired future conditions, silvicultural methods and treatments, and other operational guidelines we would utilize, and identifies proposed locations for management. However, these details may be refined as we acquire site-specific stand exam data.

Regardless of alternative, we expect that forest management to support habitat and focal species objectives in the next 15 years would primarily occur on Service-owned fee lands within the current, approved refuge boundary and in the management units identified in appendix K. In particular, at this time we do not predict that we would conduct any commercial tree cutting in the proposed expansion areas during the 15 year life of this CCP for several reasons. We cannot accurately predict, but assume it is years away, when we would acquire forest tracts large enough to make a meaningful forest management unit and to create an economically-viable, commercial harvest operation. In addition, once acquired, and assuming funds are available for project work, we would need to conduct a stand exam; map habitat management units and management operational zones; develop management prescriptions; conduct field site-prep and layout work; and, write and implement a contract. However, more importantly, it is our expectation that any forested lands acquired in the proposed expansion areas within the next 15 years, would be harvested to a low stocking density by the current owner before property transfer, and thus, would preclude a commercial harvest in support of our management objectives. This has been our experience with past refuge acquisitions of forested lands. As a result, under either alternative B or C, we predict at this time that our management activities in the proposed expansion areas, within Forest regeneration on refuge land the 15 year life of this CCP, would be more pre-commercial operations in nature, such as thinning, habitat restoration (e.g. restoring log landings, slash piles, etc), and/or vegetation manipulations to create openings and enhance woodcock habitat in woodcock focus areas (map 2-2).

Prior to implementing any forest management under alternatives B and C, we would plan to collect detailed stand-level information in the proposed forest management areas to insure that management prescriptions and decisions are based on the best available information. We would also evaluate the effects of our management on a refuge-wide scale, to insure that management activities do not adversely impact species requiring unfragmented habitat. Additional strategies are noted below. Implementing this program supports refuge goal 3 relating to the conservation of upland forest habitats.

Strategies: ■ Hire a forester and begin a detailed forest inventory and stand map on currently owned refuge lands; within 4 years of CCP approval, complete a forest management plan, amending the HMP as warranted. Consider using a contractor to conduct field work if a

Bill Zinni/USFWS forester position is not filled, so that timeframes can be met.

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-15 Actions Common to Alternatives B and C Only Map 2-1

2-16 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Map 2-2 Actions Common to Alternatives B and C Only

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-17 Actions Common to Alternatives B and C Only

■ On lands we acquire in the future with management potential, and if they are acquired in at least 200 acre contiguous, viable management units, we would plan to complete a stand-level evaluation, and map habitat management units and management operational zones within 2 years of acquisition; amend the HMP as warranted.

Expanding and Protecting In chapter 3 we describe the establishment of the FINNL in 1972. It was chosen the Floating Island by the National Park Service (NPS) as an example of an exemplary native bog National Natural Landmark community. It is currently 860 acres and lies entirely within the refuge boundary.

In cooperation with the NPS, alternatives B and C would expand the boundary of the FINNL to one that is more ecologically-based using the 2002-2003 vegetation survey results (see map 2-1). This new boundary would encompass 2,181 acres. Within 5-10 years of CCP approval, we would conduct all administrative procedures with NPS to expand the boundary and convene a workshop with wetlands ecologists to determine what information should be collected and what monitoring should occur to document any potential loss or degradation of the area. We would also establish a baseline from which to compare subsequent information.

Implementing this program supports refuge goal 1 relating to the conservation of open water and submerged aquatic vegetation and wetland habitats.

Creating an Umbagog Lake Alternatives B and C propose that within 3 years of CCP completion, an “Working Group” Umbagog Lake Working Group would be created. Members would include representatives from those state and federal agencies with management authority of the lake and its natural resources and recreational opportunities, as well as the holder of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license, Florida Power and Light Energy (FPLE). The mission of the group would be to voluntarily coordinate, facilitate, and/or streamline management as a partnership to reduce resource threats and resolve user conflicts on the lake and associated rivers. This partnership would not function as a regulatory or enforcement entity, although members may propose changes in existing regulations to their respective regulatory authorities to facilitate a management goal. Some of the priority projects we propose the working group consider are listed below; additional strategies specific to alternatives B and C are included in objective 6.2:

■ Work with states to eliminate the use of lead fishing tackle; in conjunction, evaluate the potential for wildlife to ingest lead (bio-availability) from this and other sources in the surrounding lake and rivers;

■ Work with State of New Hampshire to evaluate no-wake exemption on Magalloway and Androscoggin rivers which allows high speed boat operation within 150 feet of shoreline

■ Cooperatively evaluate area closures to determine if changes to current protection measures are warranted;

■ In coordination with states of Maine and New Hampshire agencies, conduct outreach at known user conflict sites such as the Rapid River, and boat launch sites;

■ Develop boater ethics programs for the lake and rivers and develop outreach materials for distribution at boat launch sites; and,

■ Identify sources of point and non-point sediment and nutrient loading (e.g. septic systems, erosion, forest and other land use practices, etc) impacting refuge wetlands, Umbagog Lake, and associated lakes and rivers, and address these sources where possible.

2-18 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Actions Common to Alternatives B and C Only

Implementing a Furbearer Our objectives under Alternatives B and C discuss specific habitat conditions Management Program and bird breeding densities (e.g. nesting pairs) and productivity goals. There are times when individual furbearing animals, or local concentrations of those animals, impact our ability to achieve priority resource objectives. Protecting human health and safety, maintaining roads, trails, houses and other infrastructure, as well as concerns with impacts on other native wildlife and habitats are a few of the other reasons furbearers might need to be managed. Both non-lethal and/or lethal techniques could be employed in any given situation. We would analyze each situation where these techniques would be employed and choose the most appropriate method to achieve our goals. Trapping is one tool that could be used at the refuge manager’s discretion to achieve an administrative or resource management objective. We intend to consider public trapping to achieve our goals if active management is identified; however, the actual details of how to accomplish this objective would require further analysis of possible alternative methods, and would be laid out in a Furbearer Management Plan, in a separate NEPA process. Implementing this program supports refuge goals 1-3 relating the conservation of open water and submerged aquatic vegetation, wetland, floodplain, lakeshore and upland forest habitats.

Strategies: ■ Within 3 years of CCP approval, begin NEPA analysis, including public involvement, associated with developing a Furbearer Management Plan; establish furbearer management units as warranted; identify where habitat management or reintroductions, increases, or reductions of native furbearer species, such as beaver, is desirable.

■ Work with States of New Hampshire and Maine to determine population estimates and how refuge fits into the state’s management strategies.

Hunting and Fishing For the next two years, we would continue to implement our current hunting Programs program, which we describe in chapter 3, except for one minor change. That change is that we would work with the local waterfowl club to evaluate placement of the existing six blinds.

Within two years, however, under alternatives B and C we would begin the administrative process to expand our hunting program, in particular, to accommodate a turkey hunt in both states, and a bobcat hunt in New Hampshire. We would conduct a separate NEPA analysis and include public involvement during that evaluation. If approved, we will update our Hunt Plan and complete all other administrative requirements to create an opening package.

With regards to fishing, we plan to formally open the refuge to fishing, which has not been done to date. Within 2 years of CCP approval, we would complete a Fishing Plan and all other Service administrative process requirements to officially open the refuge to fishing.

New Refuge Headquarters New Refuge Headquarters and Visitor Contact Facility and Visitor Contact Facility Alternatives B and C seek a new location for the main administrative and program headquarters office. In conjunction with our state partners, Service Visitor Service’s Specialists, and the core planning team, we identified a list of site selection criteria. Four prospective sites on current refuge lands met most, if not all, of those criteria. We hired Oak Point Associates to evaluate the feasibility and economics of constructing a facility at those four prospective sites, as well as compare them to upgrading our current headquarters office on Route 16 in Errol. Their January 21, 2005 final report can be reviewed at refuge headquarters.

In summary, some of the site-selection criteria include a location: on existing refuge lands, have ready access to the lake for both staff and visitors; on a site already developed or disturbed; on a site immersed in a natural setting with

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-19 Actions Common to Alternatives B and C Only

a diversity of habitats to facilitate an interpretive trail, visitor programs, and outreach on refuge purposes, management, and the refuge’s role in wildlife resource conservation in the Northern Forest. The four new sites were all located at the southern end of the lake and referred to as: the Potter Farm site, Thurston Cove site (option A and B), and the State Border site.

Our evaluation of the Oak Point Associates report, together with discussions and a concurrence by our state partners and local Errol officials, resulted in a consensus to propose the new facility be located at the Potter Farm site. While the Potter Farm site is common to alternative B and C, the size of the facility differs depending on the alternative. Alternative B proposes a small office facility, as defined by the new Service facility standards, while alternative C proposes a medium office facility. Under alternatives B and C, the existing headquarters building would be maintained as a research or auxiliary field office. In addition, alternatives B and C would remove the adjacent small cabin at the current headquarters site.

Our Director, via Director’s Order 144, and our regional leadership team have identified facility energy and resource conservation as a priority. As such, any new buildings or building upgrades will incorporate ecologically sound and environmentally beneficial technologies, tools, materials, and practices, including building design and construction, water and energy consumption, wastewater management, and solid and hazardous waste management.

Providing Other Visitor In conjunction with the proposal to develop a new administrative and visitor Service’s Facilities contact facility, alternatives B and C propose to construct a series of interpretive trails at the Potter Farm site. A conceptual design and tentative location for a Potter Farm trail were identified by Oak Point Associates in their report. The proposed trail is approximately 2 miles long, and would be designed to allow travel by people with disabilities.

Alternatives B and C also propose additional visitor facilities along major travel routes, including roadside pullouts on Routes 16 and a roadside pullout with overlook platform on Route 26. Each of these sites would have an information kiosk, and provide parking for several vehicles. Both alternatives include a ¼ mile loop extension to the Magalloway River trail accessible to people with disabilities (see maps 2-8 and 2-13). Each of these projects would facilitate wildlife observation, nature photography and interpretation of the refuge’s resources. Implementing these activities would support goals 4 and 5 relating to opportunities for high quality hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation.

Both alternatives B and C deal with public road access similarly. Maps 2-8 and 2-9 depict our proposal on which roads to designate as public routes of travel on both current and proposed expansion refuge lands. The public will be allowed access over these designated roads at their own risk and under the current conditions. It is our intention to maintain the designated roads in a way similar to how they were maintained under previous landowners. Major maintenance of designated roads will occur periodically, especially prior to, during, and post, logging operations. Otherwise, only minor maintenance will occur until the roads are needed again for management purposes. Road maintenance will be done both by refuge staff and private contractors.

Additional NEPA Analysis NEPA generally requires site-specific analysis and disclosure of impacts in either an environmental assessment (EA) or an EIS for all major federal actions. Other routine activities are categorically excluded from the NEPA requirements to prepare detailed environmental documents. Those generally include administrative actions, and are listed in chapter 4.

2-20 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Alternatives or Actions Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Study

Many actions that are proposed in the three alternatives are described and analyzed in enough detail to comply with NEPA, and would not require additional environmental analysis. Although this is not an all-inclusive list, the following project examples fall into this category: the HMP, including its forest and wetlands habitat management programs; the IMP; expanding or reducing priority public use programs, including the fishing program, but excepting the hunting program; new visitor services infrastructure planned; development of a new headquarters and visitor contact facility; and controlling invasive plants

We acknowledge that the proposed additions to the hunt programs under alternatives B and C, and the proposal to implement a furbearer management program (assuming it includes a general public trapping season), are not analyzed in sufficient detail in this document to comply with NEPA and would require further environmental analysis before implementation.

Alternatives or Based on public scoping and internal agency discussions, the following Actions Considered alternatives or actions were considered, but eliminated from further study. but Eliminated from 1) Allow a commercial entity to run campsites on refuge lands. Further Study Since the refuge was established, a cooperative management partnership between state and federal agencies has been in place to conserve the unique wildlife habitat and recreational experiences at Umbagog Lake. Having the NH DRED- Division of Parks and Recreation manage the remote lake campsites on the refuge, as well as on those on adjacent state lands, provides maximum flexibility in campsite management on the lake. This arrangement allows us to work directly with the state to adjust campsite locations, level of use, and time of operation, in order to meet our biological objectives. Given this consideration, allowing a commercial entity to run the camp sites was eliminated from further study.

2) Recommend Errol dam removal. This alternative was considered not practicable, due to the current hydroelectric facility and the significant impact to the local socio-political environment. Additionally, insufficient information is known on the effect such an action would have on existing refuge resources.

3) Recommend the Service purchase and manage the dam, or advocate for another conservation owner to purchase the dam. This alternative was considered but eliminated from further study, as insufficient information is available to determine if current management is having a significant effect on refuge resources, or if alternative management would assist the refuge in accomplishing our goals and objectives. Nor do we have information indicating that continued operation of the Errol dam for hydroelectric power generation is inconsistent with achieving our goals and objectives. Accordingly it is not clear that it would assist in accomplishing our goals and objectives. Should such information come to light, the Federal Power Act provides the government with the right to pay the licensee the value of the dam and take it over on expiration of the current license. As noted on page 1-36, however, the license and this CCP both expire in 2023, and actions in re-licensing are beyond the scope of this CCP. Accordingly the option of taking over the dam during the remainder of the current license was eliminated from detailed study for this CCP. It may be revisited as an option in the next planning cycle, and when considering the Service’s position in re-licensing.

4) Petition FERC to reopen the license and renegotiate the terms. This alternative was considered but eliminated from further study because, as discussed on page 1-36 reopening the license is outside the Service’s jurisdiction. Additionally, as noted above, insufficient information is available to determine

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-21 Alternatives or Actions Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Study

Tyler Cove Ian Drew/USFWS Ian

if current management is having a significant effect on refuge resources, or if alternative management would assist the refuge in accomplishing our goals and objectives. Nor do we have information indicating that continued operation of the Errol dam for hydroelectric power generation is inconsistent with achieving our goals and objectives. Accordingly, it is not clear that re-opening the license and re-negotiating its terms would assist in accomplishing our goals and objectives. If sufficient information is obtained over time indicating that different license articles would be more protective of refuge resources, different terms may be pursued in re-licensing. As noted elsewhere, the Service’s actions in re-licensing are beyond the scope of this CCP, because this CCP will expire at roughly the same time as the current license.

5) Manage the refuge’s forests for present net value and operate similar to a commercial private timber company. The 1997 Refuge Improvement Act identifies wildlife conservation as the refuge’s primary mission. Commercially-driven forest management actions may meet some of the refuge’s biological goals and objectives. In those cases, we may manage similar to a private timber company; however, insuring a profit would not be the principal motivating factor for the management prescriptions. Rather, our management objectives would be based on providing the greatest benefit to focal species, their habitats, and other resources of concern. This alternative was not fully developed because, in and of itself, it would not meet the goals and objectives we have established for the refuge.

6) Consider a refuge expansion alternative that includes only the approximately 8,578 upland acres in Upton, Maine that was identified for protection by the Lands for Maine’s Future Board in the original 1991 refuge decision document (map 2-3). In the 1991 decision to establish the refuge, there was a recommendation, based on agreements with state partners during the cooperative planning effort, that certain lands adjacent to the refuge be acquired by respective state agencies to insure the permanent conservation of the lake and its resources. Most of the lands originally identified are in conservation status except for an area in Upton, Maine including B Pond and B Brook. The state of Maine has not conserved

2-22 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Map 2-3 Alternatives or Actions Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Study

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-23 Alternative A. Current Management

these lands to date and it does not appear they will have the resources to do so. This entire area, approximately 8,578 acres, is encompassed within both our alternative B and C expansion area proposals. As such, it is included as part of a larger conservation proposal. In our opinion, it is an important component of both expansion proposals, but in and of itself, would not achieve our goal to make a significant contribution to watershed protection for current refuge resources, habitat conservation for focal and trust species such as blackburnian warbler, nor would it provide the level of connection to other conserved lands for wide-ranging mammals.

Fall colors on the refuge USFWS

Alternative A. Introduction Current Management This alternative portrays current management, including activities previously undertaken, or already planned or approved, and is the baseline for comparing the other two alternatives. Our biological program would continue its present priorities such as: cooperating with partners in the monitoring of loon, bald eagle, and osprey populations on the lake; protecting loon, bald eagle, and osprey active nest sites from human disturbance on refuge lands; and, conducting annual bird and amphibian inventories according to regional protocols. We would continue these projects with the help of volunteers, our conservation partners, and using our own staff as funding and staffing allow. Biological research studies would continue to be facilitated if they would benefit the Service and are determined compatible by the refuge manager. Map 2-4 depicts the broad habitat types we predict would result under implementation of alternative A management objectives after approximately 100 years. This map should be compared to maps 2-7 and 2-12, predicting the long-term habitat changes under alternative B and C implementation, respectively. The acreage figures presented are approximations based on GIS mapping from several data sources.

2-24 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Map 2-4 Alternative A. Current Management

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-25 Alternative A. Current Management

With regards to visitor services, we would continue to offer hunting and fishing opportunities on refuge lands, and respond to requests for interpretive and school programs; however, we would not to be able to meet most requests due to limited staff and resources. We would also continue to partner with the State of New Hampshire to provide remote camping sites on Umbagog Lake. Snowmobiling would continue to be allowed with use confined to the designated trails. The Magalloway River Trail would continue to be the only walking trail maintained on the refuge. We would continue to coordinate two annual community events: the Wildlife Festival, and Take Me Fishing. Map 2-5 depicts the public use facilities under current management.

We would continue to seek acquisition from willing sellers of the 7,482 acres that remain within our currently approved acquisition boundary.

Goal 1 Manage open water and submerged aquatic vegetation and wetlands to benefit Federal trust species and other species of conservation concern.

Objective 1.1 (Fen and Flooded Meadow) Manage 566 acres of fen and flooded meadow within the existing, approved refuge boundary for breeding and migrating American black duck, and other waterfowl species of conservation concern, including ring-necked duck, common goldeneye, and common and hooded merganser.

Rationale Umbagog Lake is identified as one of three waterfowl focus areas in New Hampshire under the NAWMP (Atlantic Coast Joint Venture 2005). The Refuge supports the highest concentrations of nesting black ducks and ring-necked ducks in New Hampshire (USFWS 1991). The black duck is a species of concern in the NAWMP because of the historic decline in their population, with habitat loss an important contributing factor. The regional importance of Umbagog Lake to black duck was one of the reasons the refuge was established. Though black duck populations are stable or increasing, they are listed as highest priority for conservation in BCR14 (Dettmers 2005).

Other important justifications for establishing the refuge were: conserving the regional ecological significance of the wetlands including and surrounding Umbagog Lake; conserving the diversity of wildlife supported by these wetlands, including several rare and declining species; and, the protection of water quality. Refuge designation was encouraged to ensure the permanent protection of important wetlands since land development and other land use changes seemed imminent and had the potential to adversely impact the biological integrity, diversity, and health of these wetlands habitats. Wetlands protection and American black duck management is the most important goal we have identified in this CCP.

Besides continuing to acquire land from willing sellers within our approved refuge boundary, our current management strategy in this habitat type is “passive.” Our definition of passive management is “to protect, monitor key resources, and conduct baseline inventories to improve our knowledge of the ecosystem.” In other words, we have not actively managed it, but have focused more on collecting baseline information to determine what vegetation is present in this habitat type; how it may be affected by changes in water level; what wildlife are using this habitat type; and what S. Maslowski/USFWS

2-26 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Map 2-5 Alternative A. Current Management

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-27 Alternative A. Current Management

the potential threats are. The information we collect will help support future management decisions to benefit this habitat type and the species dependent upon it.

Strategies In addition to those strategies listed under “Actions Common to All of the Alternatives” affecting this habitat type:

■ Repeat the aquatic invertebrate survey at wetland edges every 5 years to monitor system health and waterfowl food resources

■ Continue to support research to determine the impacts of water level management on fen and flooded meadow habitat

■ Continue to establish baseline inventory and permanent markers in this habitat type. Revisit these plots every 5 years.

■ Continue spring and fall migratory shorebird and waterfowl surveys.

■ Continue to conduct breeding marsh bird surveys according to Regional protocol

■ Continue to acquire up to 79 acres of this habitat type still in private ownership within the existing, approved refuge boundary, from willing sellers, and manage similar to current refuge lands under objective 1.1

Objective 1.2 (Boreal Fen and Bog) Manage 1,402 acres of boreal fen and black spruce bog within the existing, approved refuge boundary, including the Floating Island National Natural Landmark, to conserve the diversity of wetlands and to provide watershed protection consistent with the refuge’s establishment purposes.

Rationale Same as Objective 1.1

Strategies In addition to those strategies listed under “Actions Common to All of the Alternatives” affecting this habitat type:

■ Continue to establish baseline inventory and permanent markers in this habitat type. Re-survey and photograph plots every 5 years.

■ Continue to survey for birds, especially birds of conservation concern known in this cover type, such as palm warblers and rusty blackbirds, to evaluate implications from management on their habitat requirements.

■ Continue to acquire up to 167 acres of this cover type still in private ownership within the existing, approved refuge boundary, from willing sellers, and manage similar to current refuge lands under objective 1.2

Objective 1.3 (Northern White Cedar) Manage the 1,031 acres of northern white cedar forest within the existing, approved refuge boundary to conserve the diversity of wetlands and to provide watershed protection consistent with the refuge’s establishment purposes.

Rationale Same as Objective 1.1

2-28 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Alternative A. Current Management

Strategies In addition to those strategies listed under “Actions Common to All of the Alternatives” affecting this habitat type:

■ Continue to inventory small mammal and amphibians using this cover type

■ Continue to acquire up to 202 acres of this cover type still in private ownership within the existing, approved refuge boundary, from willing sellers, and manage similar to current refuge lands under objective 1.3

Objective 1.4 (Scrub-Shrub Wetland) Manage 940 acres of scrub-shrub wetland within the existing, approved refuge boundary to conserve the diversity of wetlands and to provide watershed protection consistent with the refuge’s establishment purposes.

Rationale Same as Objective 1.1

Strategies In addition to those strategies listed under “Actions Common to All of the Alternatives” affecting this habitat type:

■ Continue to support research to determine the impacts of water level management on this cover type

■ Continue to acquire up to 258 acres of this cover type still in private ownership within the existing, approved refuge boundary, from willing sellers, and manage similar to current refuge lands under objective 1.4

Objective 1.5 (Open Water and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation) In partnership with the states of Maine and New Hampshire, and the holder of the FERC license for the Errol Project, FPLE, manage the open water, and floating-leaved and submerged aquatic vegetation habitat within the existing, approved refuge boundary to maintain high quality loafing and foraging areas for waterfowl and other water birds, and to maintain high water quality to benefit other aquatic life.

Rationale Same as objective 1.1

Strategies In addition to those strategies listed under “Actions Common to All of the Alternatives” affecting this habitat type:

■ As previously planned, map distribution of submerged aquatic vegetation – species, density, size of beds.

Objective 1.6 (Common Loon) Protect and monitor naturally occurring common loon nest sites on Umbagog Lake, in partnership with state of New Hampshire and Maine wildlife agencies, conservation partners and the holder of the FERC license for Errol Project, FPLE, to serve as an “indicator species” for other wetland-dependent nesting wildlife.

Rationale See rationale for alternative B, objective 1.6, for a description of the importance of common loon management on Umbagog Lake. With regards to water level management on Umbagog Lake, nesting common loon are regarded by the

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-29 Alternative A. Current Management ©Derrick Z. Jackson/Boston Globe Common loon Service as the “indicator species” to represent the effectiveness of water level management on nesting wildlife.

Strategies In addition to those strategies listed under “Actions Common to All of the Alternatives” affecting this species:

■ Continue to monitor loon populations in partnership with the states, conservation organizations, and the holder of the FERC license for the Errol Project

■ Continue to support research to determine causes and implications for decline in number of loon territories on Umbagog Lake

■ Continue annual meetings with FERC licensee or representative to advise on lake water levels to benefit nesting loon, within the conditions of the FERC license and Article 27

■ Continue to protect active loon nests in spring and summer from predators and human disturbance using outreach and visitor contact, buoy lines, restricted access, and other tools as warranted

■ Continue to develop and maintain an Umbagog Lake loon dataset in partnership with NHFG, MDIFW, and private conservation organizations Goal 2 Manage floodplain and lakeshore habitats to benefit Federal trust species and other species of conservation concern.

Objective 2.1 (Wooded Floodplain) Manage 1,293 acres of wooded floodplain within the existing, approved refuge boundary to provide watershed protection consistent with the refuge’s

2-30 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Alternative A. Current Management

establishment purposes. Also, continue to manage the 245 acre Magalloway River floodplain to maintain its ‘exemplary’ site status as identified by the NHNHI.

Rationale Under goal 1, objective 1.1, we described the significance of the wetlands including and surrounding Umbagog Lake in the establishment of this refuge. While it is true that protection of the wetlands, associated wildlife, and water quality were cited as the primary reasons to create the refuge, the decision document and supporting environmental assessment also describe the importance of adjacent lakeshore and upland habitats to the protection of those wetlands and their watersheds (USFWS 1991).

Similar to the rationale for objective 1.1, since refuge establishment, we have focused on acquiring land from willing sellers to ensure adjacent land uses will not impact the resources the refuge was established to protect. Otherwise, our current management strategy in this habitat type is primarily passive. We have not actively managed it, except to restore some former cabin sites and unauthorized camp sites to native vegetation. Instead, we have been collecting baseline information, as funding and staffing allows, in support of future management decisions designed to benefit this habitat type and the species dependent upon it.

Strategies In addition to those strategies listed under “Actions Common to All of the Alternatives” affecting this habitat type:

■ Continue to acquire 153 acres of this cover type still in private ownership within the existing, approved refuge boundary, from willing sellers, and manage similar to current lands under objective 2.1

■ Continue to restore natural vegetation on unauthorized campsites

■ Continue to remove surplus cabins that we have acquired as funding allows. Restore site (e.g. loam, seed and/or plant) to native vegetation.

■ Continue vernal pool, small mammal and amphibian surveys

■ Continue to include this habitat type in breeding bird surveys

Objective 2.2 (Lakeshore Pine-Hemlock) Manage 520 acres of lakeshore pine-hemlock within the existing, approved refuge boundary to provide wetlands and watershed protection consistent with the refuge’s establishment purpose.

Rationale Same as Objective 2.1

Strategies In addition to those strategies listed under “Actions Common to All of the Alternatives” affecting this habitat type:

■ Continue to monitor habitat impacts from public use

■ Continue to mitigate significant recreational impacts as needed

■ Continue to record wildlife use of this habitat type

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-31 Alternative A. Current Management

■ Continue to acquire 288 acres of this cover type still in private ownership within the existing, approved refuge boundary, from willing sellers, and manage similar to current lands under objective 2.2

■ Also see objective 2.3.

Objective 2.3 (Bald Eagle and Osprey) Protect and maintain super-canopy nesting trees for bald eagles, and protect all osprey nests within the existing, approved refuge boundary.

Rationale See rationale for alternative B, objective 2.3, for a description of the importance of bald eagle and osprey management on Umbagog Lake.

Strategies In addition to those strategies listed under “Actions Common to All of the Alternatives” affecting these species:

■ Continue to protect super-canopy nesting trees on current and future refuge lands.

■ Continue to inventory active and historic nesting sites each year

■ Continue bald eagle and osprey surveys in conjunction with the States of Maine and New Hampshire, and conservation partners

■ Continue to maintain and/or install as warranted, predator guards on active nesting trees

■ Continue to implement area closures around bald eagle nest trees; place visible floating buoys and signs to alert all boaters to closure area

■ Continue to work cooperatively with State agencies and (Non -Governmental Organization) NGO’s on bald eagle and osprey management

■ Continue to support efforts to eliminate practices that contribute lead and other contaminants to the environment Goal 3 Manage upland forested habitats, consistent with site capabilities, to benefit Federal trust species and other species of conservation concern.

Objective 3.1 (Mixed Spruce-Fir/Northern Hardwood Forest Matrix) Manage the refuge’s upland forests, including its 3 habitat types: spruce-fir (approximately 3,302 acres); conifer-hardwood mixed woods (approximately 6,313 acres); and, northern hardwood (approximately 6,068 acres) on Service- owned lands within the existing, approved refuge boundary to provide watershed protection consistent with the refuge’s establishment purposes.

Rationale We define the “forest matrix” as the most extensive, most connected, and most influential landscape type across the Upper Androscoggin River watershed basin. Throughout the watershed, and including the refuge, the forest matrix is a mosaic of forest types and is described as an overall mixed spruce-fir/northern hardwood forest (see chapter 3 for more details). Within this mixed forest matrix; we identify 3 component forest habitat types: spruce-fir; conifer-hardwood mixed woods; and northern hardwood. The Umbagog Lake landscape of today supports a larger percentage of hardwoods than occurred over the last 150 years (Charlie

2-32 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Alternative A. Current Management

Cogbill, personal communications, 2004). This reflects a forest composition that was affected by multiple cycles of timber harvesting over those 150 years. Selective harvesting of softwoods has converted many spruce-fir stands to mixed stands, and mixed stands to hardwood stands. In the absence of further human disturbance these forests, through natural succession and disturbance patterns, will shift to a higher proportion of softwood (Publicover and Weihrauch 2003). Unfortunately, this assumption may be complicated by climate change predictions. We will continue to use an adaptive management approach as we learn more about the implications and impacts of climate change. See the section earlier in this chapter, “Actions Common to All Alternatives” for our discussion on adaptive management.

We state in our rationale for objective 2.1 that the refuge was principally established to protect wetlands and associated habitats, and water quality. These resources are all potentially impacted by land uses in the adjacent uplands in the watershed, so protection of these uplands has also been a goal. Our primary management strategy has been to acquire these habitat types from willing sellers within our approved acquisition boundary. Otherwise, our current management strategy has been passive and we would continue to be focused on collecting baseline information and monitoring key resources.

Strategies Spruce-fir Habitat Type ■ Continue to acquire 956 acres of this cover type still in private ownership within the existing, approved refuge boundary, from willing sellers, and manage similar to current refuge lands under objective 3.1.

■ Continue to work with state partners to identify and protect critical deer wintering yards (see map 2-10).

Mixed Woods Habitat Type ■ Continue to acquire 2,454 acres of this cover type still in private ownership within the existing, approved refuge boundary, from willing sellers, and manage similar to current refuge lands under objective 3.1.

Northern Hardwood Habitat Type ■ Continue to acquire 1,428 acres of this cover type still in private ownership within the existing, approved refuge boundary, from

Ian Drew /USFWS Ian Drew willing sellers, and manage similar to current Upland forest in winter refuge lands under objective 3.1.

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-33 Alternative A. Current Management

Goal 4 Provide high quality wildlife-dependent activities such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, as well as camping and boating in support of those activities.

Objective 4.1 (Hunting) Continue to operate under the 2007 Amended Refuge Hunt Plan (USFWS, 2007).

Rationale Hunting is one of the six priority public uses to receive enhanced consideration on national wildlife refuges according to the 1997 Refuge Improvement Act. Hunting is also an historic, traditional, and very popular activity in the Umbagog Lake area and in other rural parts of New Hampshire and Maine.

Strategies In addition to those strategies listed under “Actions Common to All of the Alternatives” affecting this program:

■ Continue to offer a hunt program following state of Maine and New Hampshire regulations. The only exceptions are that we do not allow turkey hunting anywhere on the refuge and we do not allow bobcat hunting on refuge lands in Maine (on New Hampshire lands, bobcat hunting is not allowed by state or refuge regulations). Also, no special refuge permits are required for hunting on refuge lands.

■ Continue to maintain six waterfowl hunt blinds; maintain a reservation system for the blinds where the maximum stay is one week

Objective 4.2 (Fishing) In accordance with states of Maine and New Hampshire regulations, continue to allow access for fishing, except in sensitive areas during wildlife nesting seasons.

Rationale The rationale is similar to objective 4.1.

Strategies In addition to those strategies listed under “Actions Common to All of the Alternatives” affecting this program:

■ Continue annual “Take Me Fishing” event

■ Continue to restrict fishing access around loon and bald eagle nesting sites

Objective 4.3 (Wildlife Observation and Photography) Provide developed, accessible wildlife viewing and photography opportunities on the Magalloway River trail, and upon request, in the six waterfowl blinds.

Rationale Wildlife observation and nature photography represent two of the six priority public uses to receive enhanced consideration on refuges according to the 1997 Refuge Improvement Act. Opportunities to view and photograph wildlife in a natural setting abound on this refuge due to its rural, undeveloped landscape. Moose and loon are two popular attractions that can be viewed roadside or from boats on the refuge’s lakes and waters. The 1/3 mile Magalloway River trail, with its viewing platform along an oxbow of the Magalloway River, is the only walking trail maintained by the refuge. It is accessible to people with disabilities. A ¼ mile loop extension is planned for 2007-2008.

2-34 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Alternative A. Current Management

Strategies In addition to those strategies listed under “Actions Common to All of the Alternatives” affecting this program:

■ Continue to maintain Magalloway River trail and viewing platform

■ Continue to evaluate new opportunities upon request

Objective 4.4 (Camping) Continue to maintain the 14 remote campsites on refuge lands (12 lake sites; 2 on river) in their current locations to provide a unique hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography opportunity associated with an overnight stay on refuge lands.

Rationale Remote camping on Umbagog Lake provides the unique opportunity to view and hear loons during dusk and dawn when they are most actively calling, while totally immersed in a quiet, private natural setting. It is becoming an increasingly rare experience, except in very remote northern areas. Camping is a very popular activity on Umbagog Lake and in other rural parts of New Hampshire and Maine. Over the past few years we have implemented several actions at those camping sites on refuge lands in order to minimize the impacts on natural resources. We are seasonally closing certain sites during the loon nesting season if they are in proximity to active territories. We are phasing in a probation on pets, to be completed in 2009, to minimize disturbance to wildlife and the noise disturbance to adjacent campers, namely from dogs barking. Also, eliminating pets reduces the contribution of feces waste (a potential disease vector for wildlife). We have been recently placing limits on where campers can erect tents at certain sites to minimize soil and vegetation impacts. At certain sites we have initiated restoration projects, or modified site infrastructure, to reverse those impacts.

Strategies ■ Continue to close certain campsites which lie adjacent to loon territories during active loon nesting periods

■ Continue to work toward prohibiting pets

■ Continue to prohibit gathering of firewood on refuge lands

■ Continue to limit campsite size

■ Continue to maintain and improve campsites on an annual basis

Objective 4.5 (Boating) Maintain one developed and one unimproved boat launch site, with no established restrictions on use, except limiting access to sensitive areas when they are closed during the wildlife nesting season.

Rationale Canoes and kayaks are one of the most popular means of accessing Umbagog Lake and experiencing the refuge. We maintain two boat launch sites to facilitate this use. Motorized boat users primarily launch from off-refuge sites. We believe there has been a dramatic increase in boat use over the last eight years, but have not had the resources to measure this observation. Some of the indications have been increased boater conflicts observed by us, or reported to us, and the frequency that parked cars have overflowed onto the highways. We expect this

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-35 Alternative A. Current Management

use to continue to increase, with a commensurate increase in conflicts among users, until or unless a coordinated plan to manage visitor use is developed among the agencies with jurisdiction on the lake.

Strategies In addition to those strategies listed under “Actions Common to All of the Alternatives” affecting this program:

■ Continue to maintain closures around certain bald eagle and loon nesting territories in partnership with the states

■ Continue to distribute pamphlet on recommended day-use canoe and kayak trails, which also alerts boaters to closed areas.

■ Continue to monitor boat use by counting numbers from a fixed location on peak use days

■ Continue to coordinate with states to address increased use Goal 5 Develop high-quality interpretative opportunities, and facilitate environmental education, to promote an understanding and appreciation for the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats, as well as the role of the refuge in the Northern Forest.

Objective 5.1 (Interpretative Programs) Respond to requests for interpretive programs as time and staffing permits with programs focusing on the Refuge System mission and refuge purposes.

Rationale Interpretation is one of the six priority public uses required by the 1997 Refuge Improved Act to receive enhanced consideration on refuges. Given our small staff size and available funding, it has been necessary to make hard decisions on where our resources should be allocated. We have chosen to focus on our biological program priorities, and have limited ourselves to responding to only a few requests for specific interpretive programs each year. Currently, we are not able to meet the demand for these programs.

Strategies In addition to those strategies listed under “Actions Common to All of the Alternatives” affecting this program:

■ Continue to hire up to two seasonal interns/year, if resources allow, to help accomplish visitor services program priorities

■ Continue to offer programs on a request basis only; usually a minimum of 3, and up to a maximum of 12 annually, focused on presenting the Refuge System mission and refuge purposes. Typical audiences have been students or senior citizen groups

■ Continue to develop and distribute standard interpretive brochures (e.g. refuge brochure, species lists, etc)

■ Continue to seek funding to finish construction of the Magalloway River trail, with interpretive signage, and make it Americans with Disability Act (ADA) compliant

■ Continue to develop/construct self-guided Magalloway River Canoe Trail and boat access

2-36 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Alternative A. Current Management

Objective 5.2 (Community Outreach) Provide at least 2 opportunities each year to raise awareness within the local community and among summer visitors about the refuge and its resources.

Rationale It is particularly important that local year round and seasonal residents and regular summer visitors understand, appreciate, and support the Refuge System mission and this refuge’s unique contribution to that mission. It is through these outreach efforts that we hope to garner support for refuge management priorities. In addition, through this outreach, our volunteer program could grow, Ian Drew/USFWS and our Friends group could see enhanced membership and support. Activities at the Wildlife Festival Strategies In addition to those strategies listed under “Actions Common to All of the Alternatives” affecting this program:

■ Continue to coordinate a minimum of 2 visitor outreach events annually that showcase refuge resources; for example, the Wildlife Festival and Take Me Fishing event

■ Continue to distribute brochure and literature on impacts to loons and other wildlife from lead fishing tackle to discourage their use Ian Drew/USFWS Goal 6 Enhance the conservation and management of fish and wildlife resources in the Northern Forest Region through partnerships with public and private conservation groups, private landowners, State and local entities.

Objective 6.1 (Partnerships) Continue to work cooperatively with regional partners engaged in conservation- based regional and community development activities consistent with the Refuge System mission and refuge purposes.

Rationale The refuge has benefited immensely from our existing partnerships in a variety of ways. These include: the sharing of technical expertise to support wildlife and public use management decisions; research that provides valuable information on refuge resources; collaborative land conservation planning to insure that important wildlife habitat is conserved throughout the Northern Forest, and cooperative outreach and enforcement of refuge regulations. These activities have particularly benefited us as we have not always had the resources to accomplish this work on our own.

Strategies In addition to those strategies listed under “Actions Common to All of the Alternatives” affecting this program:

■ Continue to work with such partners as:

Conservation organizations: Trust for Public Lands, The Nature Conservancy, Audubon Society of New Hampshire (ASNH), Loon Preservation Committee, New England Forestry Foundation, Mahoosuc Land Trust, Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, Androscoggin Watershed Council, Rangeley Lakes Heritage Trust, The Conservation Fund, Trout Unlimited;

Town and county governments: Towns of Upton, Errol, Magalloway Plantation, and Coos County;

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-37 Alternative A. Current Management

Spruce-fir forest Bill Zinni/USFWS

Private entities: FPLE, Wagner Forest Management;

Universities and other educational institutions: Dartmouth College, University of Vermont, University of Massachusetts, Hurricane Island Outward Bound, The Chewonki Foundation, and the Northwoods Stewardship Center; and,

State agencies: MDIFW, NHFG, NH DRED; and, NH Office of Energy and Planning.

Objective 6.2 Continue to promote responsible use of Umbagog Lake and its tributaries on the refuge.

Rationale Umbagog Lake is one of the crown jewels in the Northern Forest lake system and has increased in popularity over the last decade as a destination. As we described under objective 4.5 above, we expect visitor use to continue to increase, with a commensurate increase in user conflicts. We recognize that it is imperative that we promote, through as many forums as possible, responsible use of the lake. We have also suggested the need to develop a coordinated management plan among the agencies with jurisdiction on the lake to manage visitor use.

Strategies In addition to those strategies listed under “Actions Common to All of the Alternatives” affecting this program:

■ Continue to include instruction on boater safety and responsible fishing at the annual “Take Me Fishing” event.

■ Continue to include instruction on “Leave No Trace” ethics, boater safety, and responsible fishing at the annual “Wildlife Festival.”

■ Continue to work with state partners to manage public use in ways that benefit wildlife, such as implementing access closures around sensitive nesting areas.

2-38 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

Alternative B. Introduction Management for Alternative B is the alternative our planning team recommends to our Regional Particular Habitats Director for implementation. It includes an array of management actions that, in our professional judgment, work best towards achieving the refuge’s purposes, and Focal Species the vision and goals, and would make an important contribution to conserving (Service-preferred Federal trust resources of concern in the Northern Forest. It is the alternative Alternative) that would most effectively address the significant issues identified in chapter 1. We believe it is reasonable, feasible, and practicable within the 15-year timeframe.

This alternative is designed to emphasize the conservation of a mixed forest matrix landscape and its component habitat types for which we believe the refuge can make the most important ecological contribution within the Upper Androscoggin River watershed, the larger Northern Forest landscape, and the Refuge System. The habitat types we describe support a wide variety of Federal trust resources, in particular, birds of conservation concern identified in the BCR 14 region and wetlands. We identify “focal species” for each habitat type objective, whose life requirements would guide management activities in that respective habitat type. Focal species were selected because they are Federal trust resources whose habitat needs, in our opinion, broadly represent the habitat requirements for a majority of other Federal trust species and native wildlife dependent on that respective habitat type.

Appendix N describes in greater detail our process for selecting habitat types and focal species. Our objective statements for Goals 1-3 below identify the habitat type, acres to be conserved, and the focal species that will be a target of our management. An accompanying rationale statement identifies each focal species’ particular habitat needs. The strategies represent potential management actions for accomplishing the objectives and meeting those habitat needs. Map 2-7 depicts the broad habitat types we predict would result after approximately 100 years of implementing alternative B management objectives for upland habitats.

Similar to alternative A, and in keeping with the original purposes for which the refuge was established, the wetlands objectives under goal 1 are our highest priority biological objectives to implement. Protecting the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of Umbagog Lake and its associated rivers is paramount. As our second highest habitat management priority under alternative B, we propose implementing the objective under goal 3, which would promote and sustain a mixed forest matrix; that is, a mosaic of spruce-fir, mixed woods, and northern hardwood habitat types, with emphasis on promoting the conifer component. Our analysis indicates that the refuge is in a unique position, based on site capability and natural potential, to make an important contribution to the mixed forest matrix in the watershed, as well as in the larger Northern Forest landscape, and within the Refuge System. As our third habitat management priority, we propose to implement those actions that would improve American woodcock habitat. These actions are identified under objectives 1.4, 2.1, and 3.1.

In support of these priorities, and our other habitat goals and objectives, alternative B proposes to expand the existing, approved refuge boundary by 47,807 acres through a combination of Service fee-simple (56%) and conservation easement (44%) acquisitions (map 2-6). All lands proposed for acquisition are: undeveloped; either are or have the potential to be high quality wildlife habitat; occur in an amount and distribution to provide us management flexibility to achieve our habitat goals and objectives; and, would collectively result in a land base that affords a vital linkage to other conserved lands in the Upper Androscoggin watershed and Northern Forest region. As we acquire lands in fee, we would manage them by the goals, objectives, and strategies under this alternative.

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-39 Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative) Map 2-6

2-40 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Map 2-7 Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-41 Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

Our land conservation objectives are the result of a very active regional partnership and fully complement the management on adjacent conserved lands, both public and private. The proposal also complements the original purpose and intent for which the refuge was established. Our expansion proposal, detailed in appendix A, “Land Protection Plan” (LPP), identifies the significance of the refuge expansion in contributing to the current and planned network of conservation lands and wildlife resources in the regional landscape. Working in partnership with these surrounding landowners is critical to its successful implementation. The detailed strategies in the LPP were developed cooperatively with our state fish and wildlife agency partners, and supported by our other land conservation partners working in the Northern Forest region.

Regarding our visitor services programs, alternative B would enhance the existing priority public use opportunities for hunting and fishing by providing better outreach and Ian Drew/USFWS Fishing on Umbagog Lake information materials, and improving access and parking (maps 2-8 and 2-9). Opportunities for wildlife viewing, photography, and interpretation would be expanded primarily by providing new infrastructure such as trails and viewing areas. In addition, new roadside pullouts, informational kiosks, and viewing platforms are proposed along the major travel corridors. Further, new visitor infrastructure, including a series of interpretive trails, would be developed in conjunction with the proposed new location for a refuge administrative headquarters and visitor contact facility at the former Potter Farm site. We would also pursue a partner-managed, regional visitor contact facility in the Town of Errol.

Concerning other refuge uses, we would continue to allow snowmobiling on the existing designated trails. Remote camping on the existing, 12 designated lake sites would also continue to be allowed and managed cooperatively with NH DRED, although we would increase monitoring of individual sites, and rehabilitate or relocate those lake sites in need of restoration. We would eliminate the 2 river sites, and not replace them. We do not plan to increase opportunities for either snowmobiling or camping.

Under alternative B, lands we acquire in the proposed expansion area would be open to long-term public access for compatible, priority public uses such as: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography and environmental education and interpretation. We would maintain open the major road corridors as designated routes of public travel in the expansion lands to facilitate access to these activities (see maps 2-8 and 2-9).

We would also enhance local community outreach and partnerships, continue to support a Friends Group, and provide valuable volunteer experiences as we implement alternative B. As described under goal 7, we would pursue the establishment of a Land Management and Research Demonstration (LMRD) site on the refuge to promote research, and the development of applied management practices, to benefit the species and habitats identified in this alternative.

2-42 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Map 2-8 Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-43 Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative Map 2-9

2-44 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

Goal 1 Manage open water and submerged aquatic vegetation and wetlands to benefit Federal trust species and other species of conservation concern.

Objective 1.1 (Fen and Flooded Meadow) Manage 669 acres of fen and flooded meadow on Service-owned lands, within the current and expanded Refuge boundaries. Provide nesting and brood rearing habitat for American black and ring-necked ducks, pied-billed grebe and other marsh birds, and brood rearing habitat for wood duck and common goldeneye. Also, manage undisturbed staging areas for migrating waterfowl and stopover areas for migrating shorebirds from late August through mid-October.

Rationale The fen and flooded meadow habitat type encompasses medium fen, cattail marsh, seasonally flooded mixed graminoid meadow, eastern tussock sedge meadow, spikerush shallow emergent marsh, and few-seeded sedge-leatherleaf fen (appendix M). The wetter edges of these natural communities are functioning as “emergent marsh” habitat for waterfowl and other marsh and water birds.

The refuge currently owns, or has approval to acquire, 566 acres of this habitat type. Under the alternative B expansion proposal, we recommend Service acquisition of an additional 123 acres of this habitat type (103 acres in fee; 20 acres in conservation easement). Our management emphasis over the next 15 years would be to identify the habitat attributes most important for sustaining the focal species identified in the objective statement, and enhancing, and/or restoring, those attributes. We describe some of those attributes in the species’ discussions below.

Umbagog Lake is identified as one of three waterfowl focus areas in New Hampshire under the NAWMP (Atlantic Coast Joint Venture 2005). The Refuge supports the highest concentrations of nesting black ducks and ring-necked ducks in New Hampshire (USFWS 1991). The black duck is a species of concern in the NAWMP because of the historic decline in their population, with habitat loss an important contributing factor. The regional importance of Umbagog Lake to black duck was one of the reasons the refuge was established. Though black duck populations are stable or increasing, they are listed as highest priority for conservation in BCR14 (Dettmers 2005).

Black duck pairs arrive in Maine by April with the peak hatch from June 1-10. They are quite intolerant of human disturbance even during brood stage; therefore, minimizing human disturbance from late May through June may be important. They are generalists in their nest site selection and locate well- concealed nests on the ground in uplands near beaver flowages, floodplains, alder-lined brooks, and other wetlands. On the refuge, black duck and other waterfowl brood rearing habitat is in the “emergent marsh” around the edges of Leonard Marsh, and Harper’s and Sweat Meadows, and the backwaters of the Magalloway and Dead Cambridge rivers. These shallow, permanent fens with abundant emergent vegetation, sedges, floating-leaved plants, pondweeds, and scrub-shrub vegetation rich in invertebrates, are favored brood rearing areas for waterfowl. Ducklings feed mostly on larvae of flies, caddisflies, mayflies, and other insects. Adult ducks eat the seeds of bur reed, sedges, pondweeds, and other aquatic plants as well as insects and other invertebrates (Longcore et al. 2000). In the expansion area, critical waterfowl areas proposed for acquisitions include: the extension of the Magalloway River; Swift-Cambridge River; and, the Mollidgewock Brook.

Ring-necked ducks nest much closer to water than black ducks and are susceptible to water level changes. Therefore, the ring-necked duck may be an

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-45 Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

important indicator for the effects of water level fluctuations in Umbagog Lake. They build a nest usually on floating hummocks and islands in dense emergent vegetation, especially Carex sedges mixed with other herbaceous or woody plants. These ducks nest May through June, later than black ducks, with peak hatching occurring later in June. This diving duck forages in shallow water usually less than six feet deep. Their primary food sources are seeds and tubers of submerged and emergent plants and some aquatic invertebrates; the young depend entirely on aquatic invertebrates during their first two weeks (Bellrose 1976; Jerry Longcore, U.S. Geological Survey, personal communication, 2004).

The bathymetric study of the lake, proposed under all alternatives, would help determine the effects of water level changes on waterfowl habitat. Water level changes that occur after mid-July would likely not have a significant effect on duck broods. Ducks with broods are not territorial and will keep moving around in the large inter-connected waterways of Umbagog Lake (Jerry Longcore, U.S. Geological Survey, personal communication, 2004).

Umbagog Lake is also an important migratory staging area for the waterfowl mentioned above as well as such species as scaup, scoters, and Canada geese. Many migrating waterfowl feed among the fen and flooded meadows on seeds and tubers of aquatic plants, while other species such as scoters, forage along the rocky shallow water areas of the lake.

Marsh birds using Leonard Marsh, Harper’s Meadow, and Chewonki Marsh include Wilson’s snipe, Virginia rail, American bittern, pied-billed grebe, and sora. The pied-billed grebe is listed as endangered in New Hampshire. The grebe typically builds a floating platform nest over shallow water attached to the stems of emergent vegetation. There is some indication that water depth (>10 inches to enable predator escape and nest construction) and density of emergent vegetation (≥4 in2 of stem basal area/yd2) are important criteria and the pied-billed grebe may shift its nesting activity within and between nesting seasons in response to changes in water levels and availability of emergent vegetation cover (Muller and Storer 1999).

Our ability to benefit migratory shorebirds will depend on our ability to work with the holder of the FERC license for the Errol Project, FPLE, to affect water level management outside of June and July. Peak shorebird migration times for the Umbagog Lake area are mid-May to early June during spring, and late-August through mid-October for fall migration (Bob Quinn, private consultant, unpublished data, 2004). Shorebirds forage in exposed mudflats. Exposed mudflats occur irregularly in the fall depending on the lake levels, and occur most commonly where the Androscoggin River leaves Umbagog Lake in the Leonard Pond area. Inland freshwater wetlands and mudflats are thought to be particularly important for migrating spotted and solitary sandpipers. The most common shorebirds using the refuge are Wilson’s snipe, spotted sandpiper, greater yellowlegs, and solitary sandpiper. The North Atlantic Regional Shorebird Plan lists greater yellowlegs as a high conservation priority (Clark and Niles 2000).

Strategies In addition to objective 1.1 strategies under alternative A:

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Design and implement an expanded waterfowl, shorebird, marsh, and wading bird breeding survey program to include migration and brood surveys.

■ Evaluate, and implement where appropriate, opportunities to expand wild rice and other vegetative food sources for migratory waterfowl.

2-46 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

■ Survey aquatic invertebrate availability during spring and fall migration periods for shorebirds and waterfowl.

■ Evaluate isolated backwater areas with high potential for waterfowl brood rearing (e.g. quiet backwaters w/ combination of forest cover, submerged aquatic vegetation, and intermixed emergent wetlands in Dead Cambridge and Upper Magalloway rivers) to determine if seasonal boat access closures would reduce habitat disturbance; implement if beneficial.

Within 5-10 years of CCP approval: ■ Initiate study to determine the water level regime most beneficial to waterfowl at each important stage: breeding, brood rearing, and spring and fall migration.

■ Acquire 123 acres of this habitat type within the expansion area, from willing sellers, and manage the fee lands as described in objective 1.1.

Within 10-15 years of CCP approval: ■ Evaluate the impacts of various water levels on shorebirds, waterbirds, and marsh birds.

■ If necessary, discuss with the hydropower facility owner/operator the possibility of altering water level management during waterfowl and shorebird migration periods to improve foraging and staging habitat conditions. This would occur voluntarily and within the bounds of, and during the remaining duration of, the current FERC license.

Objective 1.2 (Boreal Fen and Bog) Manage the 3,679 acres of boreal fen and bog on Service-owned lands, within the current and expanded refuge boundaries, to sustain the health and integrity, and uniqueness of the rare species and natural communities, such as the Floating Island National Natural Landmark, the circumneutral pattern fen, and other peatlands.

Rationale The boreal fen and bog habitat types encompasses leatherleaf poor fen, medium shrub fen, sub-boreal dwarf-shrub fen, circumneutral pattern fen, black spruce wooded bog, black spruce-larch swamp, and spruce-fir swamp (appendix M). “Peatlands” are another commonly used term to describe some of these plant communities. We recognize these plant communities as important components of the region’s native biological diversity and seek to maintain the health of these areas in keeping with the Service’s Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health policy (601 FW 3).

The refuge currently owns, or has approval to acquire, 1,402 acres of this habitat type. Under the alternative B expansion proposal, we recommend Service acquisition of an additional 2,684 acres (2,277 in fee; 407 in conservation easement). Our management emphasis over the next 15 years would be to complete an inventory of the unique and rare community types, and establish what measures of ecological health and integrity should be monitored over time.

On the western side of Umbagog Lake is a large 870-acre peatland complex encompassing four areas: Leonard Marsh, Sweat Meadow, Harper’s Meadow, and Chewonki Marsh. A 750-acre portion of the complex, known as “Floating Island,” was designated as a NNL in 1982 (Nazaire 2003). These areas and associated wetlands form one of the largest peatland complexes in New Hampshire and harbor a high diversity of vascular plants, mosses, and liverworts (Dan Sperduto, NHNHB, pers comm.). The peatland complex is impacted by water level fluctuations in Umbagog Lake, although the impacts on community structure

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-47 Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

and species diversity and abundance are unknown (Nazaire 2003). In a study of a similar ecosystem in Sweden, Nilsson and Keddy (1988) found a direct correlation between the duration of flooding and species diversity and abundance, with long flood periods reducing plant diversity and abundance.

A rare fen of high regional significance, the circumneutral- patterned fen, is found near the center of Tidswell Point. Most of this fen is on land owned by the State of New Hampshire as part of the Umbagog State Park, with a portion on the refuge. Only a few locations of this natural community type are known to occur in New England. A large, high quality northern white cedar swamp surrounds the fen (Dan Sperduto, NHNHB, pers comm).

Protecting and sustaining the floating bog, patterned fen, and other unique peatlands on the refuge requires increased efforts to identify and understand the factors that determine the occurrence and persistence of these peatland communities. We plan to monitor and manage the factors USFWS that affect the peatlands. Pitcher plant Many birds use peatland habitats for breeding, foraging, during migration, or in winter. These include palm warbler, rusty blackbird, black-backed woodpecker, yellow-rumped warbler, northern water thrush, and swamp sparrow, among others. Mink frog, a host of other amphibians, and a diverse suite of small mammals, including many shrew species and bog lemmings utilize this habitat as well. All of these species would benefit from the refuge’s objective of conserving the boreal fen and bog habitat.

Strategies In addition to objective 1.2 strategies under alternative A:

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Conduct a comprehensive inventory of the FINNL to better define criteria for monitoring and managing its diversity and integrity over the long-term.

■ Work with the NHNHB and MNAP, and NPS to identify and refine monitoring and management criteria for the FINNL and the other unique wetlands.

■ Work closely with State Non-game and Natural Heritage programs to identify and monitor rare species occurrences in this habitat type.

■ Establish buffer zones around these sensitive natural communities based on best management practices published by both states; evaluate their effectiveness and appropriateness in protecting these habitats over the long- term.

Within 5-10 years of CCP approval: ■ Develop a proposal to NPS to modify the current natural landmark boundary to more accurately encompass the natural system.

■ Initiate a detailed study to assess rare plants and animals, especially invertebrates, associated with this habitat type.

2-48 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

■ Acquire 2,684 acres of this habitat type within the expansion area, from willing sellers, and manage the fee lands as described in objective 1.2

Within 10-15 years of CCP approval: ■ Conduct a hydro-geologic study of groundwater and nutrient flow that are maintaining these peatlands. Address issues or threats as necessary.

Objective 1.3 (Northern White Cedar) Manage 1,031 acres of northern white cedar on Service-owned lands, within the current and expanded refuge boundaries, to sustain the health and diversity of natural and rare ecological communities in the Upper Androscoggin watershed.

Rationale Northern white cedar habitat encompasses a suite of natural communities, all dominated by northern white cedar (appendix M). Northern white cedar is a boreal species that occurs as far south as Carroll and Grafton Counties in New Hampshire. NHNHB considers northern white cedar swamps a “signature- community” of the north woods and hence an important component of the region’s biodiversity (Sperduto and Engstrom 1998). We recognize these plant communities as important components of the region’s native biological diversity and seek to maintain the health of these areas in keeping with the Service’s Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health policy (601 FW 3).

The refuge currently owns, or has approval to acquire, 1,031 acres of this habitat type. Small, scattered stands likely occur within the proposed expansion area, but they are not discernable within the data sets that we used for our vegetation mapping. Should stands be acquired under the alternative B expansion proposal, we would manage them similar to on-refuge stands. Our management emphasis over the next 15 years would be to complete an inventory of this type, and establish what measures of ecological health and integrity should be monitored over time.

The largest (80-100 acres) northern white cedar swamp in New Hampshire surrounds the Whaleback Ponds and extends toward the Magalloway River. This wetland basin is within the refuge acquisition boundary but only a portion is currently under Service ownership (Dan Sperduto, NHNHB, pers comm).

Several northern bird species use this habitat type year-round including boreal chickadee, gray jay, black-backed woodpecker, spruce grouse, and more rarely, American three-toed woodpecker, (a New Hampshire threatened species). White- tailed deer find cover and forage in northern white cedar stands. Ten species of amphibians and 7 species of small mammals are known to occur in this habitat type on the refuge, and will directly benefit from our objective to maintain it.

Strategies In addition to objective 1.3 strategies under alternative A:

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Establish buffer zones to protect these sensitive natural communities using best management practices developed by states; evaluate their effectiveness and appropriateness in protecting this habitat type over the long-term.

■ Work closely with State Non-game and Natural Heritage programs to conduct more detailed surveys of rare plant and animal occurrences in, and the overall condition, of these natural communities.

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-49 Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

■ Ensure that the HMP addresses competition from balsam fir and hardwoods resulting from disturbance or management actions.

Within 5-10 years of CCP approval: ■ Evaluate and monitor regeneration of northern white cedar including potential impacts from deer, snowshoe hare, and moose browsing; ensure that the HMP addresses the effects of browsing by these species if relevant.

■ Evaluate the habitat requirements of boreal species utilizing this habitat type, such as black backed woodpecker, and if appropriate, manage to enhance habitat components for these species.

■ If this habitat type is acquired within the expansion area, from willing sellers, the fee lands would be managed as described in objective 1.3

Within 10-15 years of CCP approval: ■ Evaluate land use changes and management actions (e.g., timber harvest) and how they might affect the hydrology of northern white cedar swamps.

■ Restore up to 150 acres over 15 years of northern white cedar in areas where past land use practices have converted it to another habitat type; consider winter cutting and other accepted silvicultural practices that would promote cedar stands.

Objective 1.4 (Scrub-Shrub Wetland) Manage 1,730 acres of scrub-shrub wetland on Service-owned lands, within the current and expanded refuge boundaries, as foraging and brood habitat for American woodcock, and to provide nesting and migratory habitat for birds of Scrub-shrub wetland on conservation concern, such as Canada warbler. Dead Cambridge River Rationale Scrub-shrub wetland encompasses speckled alder peatland lagg, speckled and/ or green alder shrubland, speckled alder swamp, and sweetgale mixed shrub thicket (appendix M). The refuge currently owns, or has approval to acquire, 940 acres of this habitat type. Under the alternative B expansion proposal, we recommend Service acquisition of an additional 906 acres of this habitat type (790 acres in fee; 77 acres in conservation easement). Our management emphasis over the next 15 years would be to identify the habitat attributes most important for sustaining the focal species identified in the objective statement, and creating and/or enhancing those attributes, especially in woodcock focus areas (map 2-2). Bill Zinni/USFWS We describe some of those attributes in the species’ discussion below.

The Service developed the American Woodcock Management Plan in 1990 to help stem the decline in American woodcock (USFWS 1990). Long-term trends show a decline of –1.3% per year from 1993-2003 and –2.3% per year from 1968- 2003 in the eastern United States. Between 2002 and 2003 Maine reported an increase in the breeding population, yet the overall trend in Maine since 1968 is still negative. New Hampshire showed no significant increase from 2002 to 2003, but it is the only eastern region state showing an increase from 1968 to 2003. Recruitment rates (number of immature birds per adult female) in recent years are 18% below the long-term regional average. The major causes for these declines are thought to be loss and degradation of habitat on the breeding and wintering grounds, resulting from forest succession and land use changes (Kelley 2003). The 2005 Maine CWCS identifies habitat conservation, and additional surveys and monitoring, as the two highest priorities in the state for conserving woodcock populations (MDIFW 2005).

2-50 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

Functional foraging habitat for woodcock occurs on moist, rich soil dominated by dense shrub cover (75-90%); alder is ideal, although young aspen and birch are also suitable as feeding areas and daytime (diurnal) cover. Woodcock require several different habitat conditions that must be in close proximity to one another. These include clearings for courtship (singing grounds), large openings for night roosting, young second growth hardwoods (15-30 years) for nesting and brood- rearing, and functional foraging areas (Sepik et al. 1981; Keppie and Whiting 1994).

The Canada warbler is declining across much of its range and is listed as highest priority in BCR 14 (Dettmers 2005). PIF has a goal of increasing the Canada warbler continental population by 50% (Rich et al. 2004). It breeds in a range of habitat types including deciduous forested swamps, cool, moist, mature forest or streams and swamps with dense undergrowth, streamside thickets, and cedar bogs (Conway 1999). Although shrub-scrub is an important habitat component over some of its range, it may be of lesser importance in the northeast. It nests on or near the ground, generally near water. Suitable habitat often has a layer of moss and an uneven forest floor; however, they may be less common in shrub wetlands (Conway 1999). On the White Mountain National Forest in New Hampshire and Maine they occur in northern hardwoods with a softwood understory (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001). In central Maine, Collins (1983) found the Canada warbler in forests with a high percent shrub cover (70%), moderate canopy cover (64%), and minor component of conifers in the canopy. Hagan and Grove (1999) suggest the species is likely adapted to natural tree fall gaps, hence their positive response to forest management that creates dense deciduous understory with some overstory remaining. Canada warbler will also benefit from the proposed management in mixed woods and northern hardwoods (see alternative B, objective 3.1). The 2005 Maine CWCS identifies habitat conservation and research as the two highest priorities in the state for conserving Canada warbler populations (MDIFW 2005).

Other birds that nest in scrub-shrub habitat include swamp and song sparrows, common yellowthroat, yellow warbler, and alder flycatcher.

Beaver can be ecologically important to creating and maintaining scrub- shrub and other wetlands environments that also provide important habitat for woodcock and Canada warbler, other focal species such as black duck and wood duck, and culturally important species such as moose. Our proposal to analyze opportunities for furbearer management would consider the impacts of managing local beaver populations to improve habitat and meet refuge goals.. Beaver occupy small to large slowly flowing, wooded streams, rivers, or lakes and rarely occur in fast-moving waters. Howard and Larson (1985) described the best beaver habitat as occurring on relatively wide streams with low gradient on soil with poor drainage. Nearby food sources are also important including the roots and tubers of aquatic vegetation for summer diet and the bark of deciduous trees for fall and winter caching (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001). Stream gradients less than 3 percent are optimal, while narrow, steep valleys are less suitable.

Strategies In addition to objective 1.4 strategies under alternative A:

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Develop and implement a plan to improve habitat for nesting and migratory birds of conservation concern, such as Canada warbler.

■ If furbearer management plan is appropriate (see “implementing a furbearer management program” earlier in this chapter under “Actions Common to Alternatives B and C only”) implement strategies to manage beaver populations to achieve refuge habitat goals and objective.

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-51 Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

Within 5-10 years of CCP approval: ■ In woodcock focus areas (map 2-2), develop and implement a plan to manage this habitat in proximity to upland nesting areas. Create and maintain alder in suitable age/size class to maintain quality foraging and brood areas. Alder would be maintained on approximately 20-year rotations

■ Manage concurrently for Canada warbler in woodcock focus areas..

Within 10-15 years of CCP approval: ■ Acquire 867 acres of this cover type within the expansion area, from willing sellers, and manage the fee lands as described in the objective 1.4.

Objective 1.5 (Open Water and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation) In partnership with the States of Maine and New Hampshire, and the FERC license for Errol Project (FPLE), as appropriate, manage the estimated 5,880 acres of open water on Service-owned lands, within the current and expanded refuge boundaries, to maintain floating-leaved and submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) and native fish such as brook trout, provide loafing and foraging areas for water birds, and to maintain high water quality to benefit other native vertebrate and invertebrate aquatic life.

Rationale The refuge currently owns, or has approval to acquire, an estimated 5,834 acres of this habitat type. Under the alternative B expansion proposal, we recommend Service acquisition of an additional 69 acres of this habitat type (46 acres in fee; 23 acres in easement). The refuge’s open waters encompass the rivers and backwaters, small ponds, and the portion of Umbagog Lake that extends from the current shoreline to the original, pre-1851 shoreline, including the zone of floating-leaved and submerged aquatic vegetation. These open waters provide loafing areas for many birds and harbor important plant and other food resources below the surface. Our management emphasis over the next 15 years will be to inventory and map the extent of SAV and mussel beds, and establish parameters, and implement a program, for monitoring water quality and the effects of water- level fluctuations on resources of concern.

Umbagog Lake has some unique features, perhaps related to its extensive shallow areas. The average depth of the lake is 15 feet. Aside from the Magalloway and Androscoggin rivers, most of Umbagog functions as a lake ecosystem. However, little is known about how the riverine and lake aquatic system functions. The lake has vast mussel beds that extend through much of the lake, at least on the New Hampshire side. The enormous collective filtering capacity of this community may contribute much to the high water clarity of the system. More study is needed to understand how the mussels affect the rest of the Umbagog Lake food web and how water level fluctuations affect the mussels (Jim Haney, University of New Hampshire, personal communication, 2005).

SAV, with their flexible stems and leaves, are rooted in the sediment and completely covered by water. These plants produce oxygen, filter and trap sediments, absorb nutrients, and provide food and shelter for fish and wildlife. Plants such as pondweeds, bulrushes, and wild celery produce seeds and tubers critical to foraging waterfowl. SAVs host many aquatic invertebrates that are, in turn, food for waterfowl and their broods. The distribution of these plants in the lake is affected by water depth, water clarity, and sediment type. SAVs typically occur on muddy or soft sediments rather than on sand or gravel sediments (Stevenson et al. 1979, Krischik et al. 2005). Different water levels on Umbagog Lake affect the extent of ice scouring and freezing of the lake bottom and consequently the distribution of SAVs.

2-52 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

The Magalloway River and Umbagog Lake are important wintering habitat for native brook trout from the Diamond River watershed (Diane Timmins, NHFG, personal communication, 2004) and Rapid River (Boucher 2005). MDIFW is concerned about potential recruitment of smallmouth bass into the Rapid River and the Cambridge River systems and the bass dominating critical habitat and food resources to the detriment of “an extraordinary brook trout resource” (Boucher 2005). Smallmouth bass were illegally introduced into Umbagog Lake around 1985. Prior to this release, the major fishery in the lake was a cold water fishery around the mouth of the Rapid River and warm water fishery for pickerel and yellow perch. In addition to potential impacts to brook trout, there are indications that the number and behavior of anglers has changed on Umbagog Lake with the arrival of bass. Bass anglers fish more intensively than other anglers and tend to fish in shallower water, close to shore, and spend more time in one spot. The impacts to this increased fishing pressure on loons and other wildlife is unknown (Forrest Bonney, personal communication, 2002). The 2005 Maine CWCS identifies surveys/monitoring and research as the two highest priorities in the state for conserving brook trout populations (MDIFW 2005). In addition, we will work with our state partners to implement the goals and objectives of the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture, an interagency partnership which is currently developing a strategic plan.

Strategies In addition to strategies under “Actions Common to All of the Alternatives” affecting this habitat type:

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Initiate mapping project to determine distribution of submerged aquatic vegetation – species, density, and size of beds.

■ Initiate mapping and monitoring program to evaluate native mussel beds; survey lake and associated rivers for rare and invasive species.

■ Determine, in cooperation with state partners, the holder of the FERC license for Errol Project, FPLE, and the Umbagog Working Group, how best to implement the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture goals and objectives in this area

Within 5-10 years of CCP approval: ■ Evaluate littoral zone sediments where submerged aquatic vegetation is sparse or non-existent, and re-establish vegetation where appropriate to enhance or improve food resources for waterfowl.

■ Monitor water quality, chemistry, and water levels for potential effects on aquatic vegetation, fish, and waterfowl.

■ Inventory macro-invertebrates and fisheries resources.

■ Evaluate the potential use of fish barriers to prevent non-native fish species from becoming established in water bodies surrounding Umbagog Lake;.

■ Acquire an estimated 69 acres of this habitat within the expansion areas and manage the fee lands as described in objective 1.5

Within 10-15 years of CCP approval: ■ Evaluate point and non-point sources of pollution affecting refuge lands and work with State, private and local entities to improve water quality.

Objective 1.6 (Common Loon) Within 15 years of CCP completion, and cooperating with state partners, and the holder of the FERC license for Errol Project (FPLE), as appropriate, conserve

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-53 Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

and manage common loon territories to support a 5-year annual average of 14 nesting pairs on Umbagog Lake and its tributaries, and 4 additional pairs within the expansion area, and achieve a 5-year average annual productivity of 0.5 chicks per nesting pair. Management activities will be focused in fen and flooded meadow, floodplain and lakeshore, and open water and submerged aquatic vegetation habitats.

Rationale Umbagog Lake and its associated rivers and backwaters are important breeding areas for the common loon in the Northeastern United States. This refuge is one of only 3 in the Refuge System in the lower 48 states that support breeding common loons. The common loon was also one of the key species specifically identified for conservation at the time of refuge establishment. The BCR 14 plan lists the common loon as a species of moderate conservation concern.

Regional threats to common loon include habitat loss due to shoreline development, water level fluctuations, human disturbance (recreational pressures), environmental contaminants, oil spills, lake acidification, mercury poisoning, and lead poisoning among other threats. The proposed Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) for mercury in adult loon blood is 3.0 ug/g (Evers et al. 2004). Because blood mercury levels from adult loons sampled from Umbagog Lake during 1994-2004 have never reached this proposed effect level, mercury does not appear to be a risk factor to adult loons in this system. Lead fishing tackle does pose a significant threat to loons. From 2000-2004, six loon carcasses found on Umbagog Lake were submitted to Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine to determine the cause of death. All six (100%) were attributed to lead poisoning (Mark Pokras, Tufts University, unpublished data).

The Service and cooperating partners monitor and manage activities on Umbagog Lake to benefit loons. They work annually with the holder of the FERC license for the Errol Project, FPLE, who manages water levels, and by closing nesting areas, and installing educational signs. In spite of these management activities, the LPC reported that the Umbagog Lake loon population declined from 31 territorial pairs in 2000 to 15 territorial pairs in 2002 (Taylor and Rubin 2002).

The majority of loon nests on Umbagog Lake are established from mid-May to mid-June with hatching dates from mid-June to late July. Nest site selection is often opportunistic with loons using island and mainland marshes, muskrat Common loons and chick feeding mounds, floating bogs, and logs. Loons also readily accept floating on the Magalloway River platforms (McIntyre and Barr 1997). Common loons are strongly territorial and the territory size they will defend is highly variable depending on lake size, suitable nesting sites and land features that provide privacy from other pairs (Lang and Lynch 1996). Umbagog Lake’s large size and prevalence of coves and islands offers many potentially suitable territories for common loons.

Using summary data from LPC reports from 1991 to 2005, the number of nesting pairs were analyzed in 5 year intervals to develop a target number of nesting pairs of common loons. From 1991-1995, the average number of nesting pairs was 17.4 + 3.44, from 1996-2000, the number was 18.4 + 2.30 and from 2001-2005, the number was 14.0 + 2.92. The historical average from 1976 to present (14 pairs) is reflected in the most current 5 year average. This

Ian Drew/USFWS number of nesting attempts by common loons also

2-54 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

reflects current conditions with confounding variables including the presence of 4 nesting pairs of eagles. The refuge and cooperating partners will work to keep the number of nesting pairs at the approximate historical average of 14 pairs. The refuge and cooperating partners will also work toward increasing production of those 14 pairs to an average of 0.5 chicks per pair based on the rate of 0.48 chicks fledged per pair for a self-sustaining population (Evers 2004). This objective is not intended to maximize the number of common loons in the area, but to achieve a level which reduces negative interactions between common loons and between common loons and other waterfowl. The four additional pairs within the expansion area include territories on: 1) Sturtevant Pond, 2) B Pond, 3) C Pond and 4) Pond in the River.

Strategies In addition to objective 1.5 strategies under alternative A:

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ As studies are completed on Umbagog Lake, validate the loon nesting and territorial carrying capacities, and further determine whether 14 nesting pairs on the lake, and 4 nesting pairs in the expansion area, remain appropriate targets for these areas.

Within 5-10 years of CCP approval: ■ Monitor angler use. and map locations of fishing pressure and other recreational users, in relation to common loon territories and other breeding wildlife

■ Develop and implement a study to evaluate interactions of loon with waterfowl during the breeding season; specifically, evaluate how waterfowl interact at high loon densities.

■ Develop and implement a study to examine interactions between loons and other piscivores (eagles, osprey, etc.), including competition for food and nest sites.

■ Evaluate the need for predator control around common loon sites; consider predator control measures targeted at individual animals

■ Evaluate the availability and quality of natural nesting habitat for common loon. Goal 2 Manage floodplain and lakeshore habitats to benefit Federal trust species and other species of conservation concern.

Objective 2.1 (Wooded Floodplain) Manage 1,416 acres of wooded floodplain on Service-owned lands, within the current and expanded refuge boundaries, to provide habitat for nesting cavity- dependent waterfowl and other priority bird species of regional conservation concern, including northern parula and rusty blackbird. In addition, manage perching areas for bald eagle, and brood foraging areas for American black duck and other waterfowl. Also, where this habitat type overlays woodcock focus areas, manage for feeding and nesting American woodcock.

Rationale Wooded floodplain habitat on the refuge includes the following National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS) associations: red maple floodplain forest, red maple-balsam fir floodplain forest, white spruce-balsam fir berm woodland, red maple-tussock sedge floodplain woodland, black ash-mixed hardwoods swamp, and red maple-black ash swamp (appendix M). This habitat type, which constitutes 5% of refuge acres, contributes significantly to the

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-55 Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

wildlife diversity known on the refuge. For example, we have detected over 75 bird species from point locations in this habitat type during our breeding bird surveys.

The Magalloway River floodplain, ranked as an S2 (imperiled) community by NHNHB, and approximately 245 acres in size, offers quality habitat for waterfowl, providing the combination of large cavity nesting trees and river bottomland areas with submerged and floating leaf aquatic plants and abundant substrate for invertebrates. Common goldeneye, wood duck, and hooded and common mergansers nest in cavities in live trees with a diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) of 18 inches or more (Tubbs et al. 1986).

The rusty blackbird, a watchlist species for BCR 14 and PIF 28 bird conservation planning areas, nests in riparian areas, boreal wooded wetlands, and beaver flowages (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001; Rich et al. 2004). According to the species profile in the 2005 NH WAP, this species has declined dramatically; BBS results from 1996-2001 indicate a 10.7% decline (NHFG 2005).

We have documented rusty blackbird breeding in the Magalloway River floodplain. It builds a nest near streams, ponds, bogs, and fens with a conifer component, usually less than 10 feet above the ground in thick foliage near the trunk of a young spruce or fir or in a shrub thicket. It will also utilize the spruce-fir and mixed woods habitat types between 1000 ft to 4,000 ft in elevation in refuge uplands. During migration rusty blackbirds congregate in flocks in wooded swamps (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001) and migrating flocks are documented for Umbagog Lake (Brewster 1937), although they may be less common now (Richards 1994). The rusty blackbird shows some aversion to clearcutting that creates suitable habitat for competitors including red- winged blackbird and common grackle (Dettmers 2005). Some disturbance (e.g., windthrow, beaver activity) creates forest openings allowing regeneration of softwoods and resulting in potential rusty blackbird nesting habitat (Avery 1995). The New Hampshire WAP identifies the use of pesticides on the breeding and wintering grounds, destruction of wintering habitat, acidification of water bodies on the breeding grounds and efforts to control blackbirds on winter roosts may be the contributing to the decline of this bird.

The northern parula is associated with mature moist forests and forested riparian habitats dominated by spruce, hemlock, and fir with an abundance of lichens (especially Usnea) in which they build their nests. There are indications that the northern parula population decline is related to the decline of Usnea, a lichen sensitive to air pollution (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001). PIF considers the northern parula a moderate priority for BCR 14, although the region supports 23% of the population (Dettmers 2005). The northern parula is rarely in deep woods, but also avoids clear cuts and may be sensitive to forest fragmentation (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001). It may require at least 250 acres to sustain a breeding population (Robbins et. al. 1989). The 2005 Maine CWCS identifies habitat conservation and research as the two highest priorities in the state for conserving rusty blackbird and northern parula populations (MDIFW 2005).

Through managing this habitat type, and the vernal pools embedded within it, other native species will benefit including a rich diversity of amphibians such as mink frog, spotted and blue-spotted salamanders, and wood frog. In addition, sustaining this habitat would benefit several bats including little brown, hoary, and northern long-eared that roost in tree cavities, under loose bark, or under dense foliage.

The refuge currently owns, or has approval to acquire, 1,293 acres of this habitat type. Under the alternative B expansion proposal, we recommend Service acquisition of an additional 136 acres of this habitat type (123 acres in fee; 13

2-56 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

acres in easement). Our management emphasis over the next 15 years would be to identify the habitat attributes most important for sustaining the focal species identified in the objective statement, and enhancing, and/or restoring, those attributes. We describe some of those attributes in the species’ discussions below. We would manage this habitat type on current refuge lands within the habitat management units we have identified in appendix K.

Given our habitat management and land acquisition proposals under alternative B, we estimate refuge fee lands could provide high quality breeding habitat to support 115 pair of northern parula (based on an estimated density of 12.35 ac/ pair), and 58 pair of rusty blackbird (based on an estimated density of 24.71 ac/ pair), thus contributing directly to the BCR 14 goals for both of these species of conservation concern (Randy Dettmers, personal communication, 2006). These values may be over-estimates, since not all wooded floodplain habitat is equally suitable for these two species.

Strategies In addition to objective 2.1 strategies under alternative A:

Within 5 years of CCP approval: Identify suitable habitat, and assess habitat quality and habitat use by migratory birds such as northern parula and rusty blackbird. Document habitat use using regional Service protocol for breeding bird surveys, or other appropriate protocols..

■ Develop and implement a plan to improve habitat for nesting and migrating birds of conservation concern, such as northern parula and rusty blackbird.

■ Retain the majority of trees with cavities, standing dead trees, downed logs, large trees, and large super-canopy trees in the riparian areas.

■ In woodcock focus areas, develop prescriptions to enhance habitat type for this species.

Within 5-10 years of CCP approval: ■ Manage lowland hardwood and alder to provide adequate food resources for beaver to promote a natural cyclical succession of this habitat type driven by beaver.

■ Map and monitor the rare floodplain forest type that occurs along the Magalloway River.

■ Acquire 136 acres of this cover type within the expansion area, from willing sellers, and manage the fee lands as described in the objective 2.1.

■ Evaluate isolated backwater areas with high potential for waterfowl brood rearing (e.g. quiet backwaters with the combination of forest cover, submerged aquatic vegetation, and intermixed emergent wetlands in Dead Cambridge and Upper Magalloway Rivers) to determine if seasonal boat access closures to reduce disturbance; implement closures if beneficial.

Within 10-15 years of CCP approval: ■ Maintain, enhance and/or create cavity trees within a range of diameter classes in close proximity to water to provide roosting and nesting areas. Maintain suitable habitat between snags (standing dead trees) and feeding areas.

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-57 Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

■ Restore the hydrology of the Day Flats area by plugging ditches and re-contouring the disturbed areas.

■ Evaluate the dynamics and succession of the red maple/black ash type and relate its importance to focal species. If warranted, restore and maintain it to sites where site capability is high for this type and it is part of the predicted potential natural vegetation.

Objective 2.2 (Lakeshore Pine-Hemlock) Maintain 520 acres of lakeshore pine-hemlock on Service-owned lands, within the current and expanded refuge boundaries, to provide nesting and migrating habitat for birds of conservation concern; to sustain the vegetation diversity within this type, such as the jack pine component; to maintain nesting habitat for bald eagle, osprey, and other raptors; to protect water quality; and, to maintain the scenic and aesthetic values of the Umbagog Lake and other lake shorelines.

Rationale The lakeshore pine-hemlock habitat type is comprised of the following NVCS associations: hemlock mesic forest, hemlock-hardwoods forest, hemlock-white pine-red spruce forest, red pine-white pine forest, and jack pine/blueberry/ feathermoss forest (appendix M).

The refuge currently owns, or has approval to acquire, 520 acres of this habitat type. Small stands likely occur in the proposed expansion area, but they were not discernable in the data set we used to map vegetation. Should stands be acquired in fee under the alternative B expansion proposal, they would be managed similarly. Our management emphasis over the next 15 years would be to protect and sustain existing and potential nest stands and perch trees for bald eagle and osprey, and to inventory and monitor the jack pine stands to serve as a basis for future management.

On the refuge, bald eagle and osprey often nest in large supercanopy trees (large white pines that stick up above the other canopy trees), or in tall snags (standing dead trees) in this habitat type. Additional information on bald eagles and osprey is discussed under objective 2.3. Jack pine communities are rare in New Hampshire and Maine and the stands around Umbagog Lake are the only low- elevation occurrences in New Hampshire (Publicover et al. 1997). The jack pine stands at Umbagog Lake are scattered along the rocky eastern shore and islands of the lake.

Through managing this habitat type, other native species will benefit, including nesting merlin and sharp-shinned hawk, olive-sided flycatcher, veery, and yellow- bellied sapsucker, among many other common species.

Strategies In addition to objective 2.2 strategies under alternative A:

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Develop and implement a HMP to perpetuate this habitat type, giving priority to water quality protection and aesthetic values

■ Maintain large diameter trees for raptor perch trees and future nest trees (also see objective 2.3 immediately below)

■ Ensure the HMP addresses recruitment of super-canopy pines.

Within 5-10 years of CCP approval: ■ Work with NGO’s and States to increase monitoring and protection of raptors, and if feasible, implement cooperative procedures to protect merlin and other forest dependent raptors of conservation concern.

2-58 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

Within 10-15 years of CCP approval: ■ Where jack pine occurs, map and monitor this type, and consult with state heritage program and other regional ecologists to determine if special management is warranted to sustain this rare ecological community in the Upper Androscoggin watershed; amend HMP to include management prescriptions.

Objective 2.3 (Bald Eagle and Osprey) Maintain habitat within one mile of high quality bald eagle foraging habitat to support 3-4 nesting pairs of bald eagle with a minimum annual 1.0 chick/ pair productivity level over a 5 year average. Given this bald eagle density, and recognizing inter-specific competition, maintain habitat to support 15 nesting pair of osprey on existing and proposed refuge expansion lands, with a minimum annual 1.0 chick/pair productivity level over a 5 year average.

Rationale The protection of these two species was a primary reason the refuge was established, and they have been a management priority since then. As such, we believe their management warrants special consideration in a separate objective statement.

Bald eagle The bald eagle is listed as endangered in New Hampshire and threatened in Maine and continues to be protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. In New Hampshire and Maine, bald eagles are found along major rivers and lakes or near the coast in relatively undisturbed forest patches. Bald eagles perch on, nest in, and hunt from tall, coniferous and deciduous trees or snags (standing dead trees) near water. In the Northeast, white pine is the most common nest tree. Nests are usually within 250 feet of open water near quality foraging areas.

Fish are the preferred food source, although eagles also take waterfowl, aquatic mammals, and scavenge for food. Eagles fish mostly in shallow, low-velocity waters. Chain pickerel, brown bullhead, suckers, white perch, and yellow perch are typical prey in interior Maine (Charles Todd, MDIFW, unpublished report). Bald eagle In winter, some individuals may leave the breeding areas and congregate in areas with large expanses of unfrozen, open water. A forest stand that offers thermal protection from inclement winter weather is needed for communal night roosting. Night roosts are most often found near foraging areas, but may be further away if the roost is more protected. Umbagog Lake does not support a winter roost site, although some eagles remain in the area (along the Androscoggin River) and scavenge on the lake.

The main goal of the Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (USFWS 1983) is to reestablish self- sustaining populations of bald eagles throughout the northern states region. The initial recovery plan objective is to have 1,200 occupied breeding areas distributed over a minimum of 16 states with an average annual productivity of at least 1.0 young per occupied nest. From 1994-2002 the Leonard Pond nest on Umbagog Lake produced an average of 0.89 chicks/year. A second nest, near Tidswell Point, has produced 1.5 chicks/year from 2000-2005. Umbagog Lake is at the headwaters of the Androscoggin River, and as such, the eagles on the lake

USFWS are an extension of the Maine eagle population.

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-59 Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

Charlie Todd (MDIFW, personal communication, 2005) determined that Umbagog Lake has the potential to support two to three successful nesting pairs of bald eagles given the separation distance that eagles typically establish from one another. Todd (2005) evaluated several large live white pines near the dead nest tree in Leonard Pond to determine the potential for alternative nest sites in the area. Alternative nesting trees appear to be available to the eagles should they decide to use an alternative site.

Osprey The Upper Androscoggin River watershed is an important breeding area for osprey. At the core of this area, Umbagog Lake and its associated rivers and backwaters, was the only part of New Hampshire that maintained a breeding population of osprey through the region-wide decline from the 1950s through the 1970s (NHFG 2005). Osprey are listed by the State of New Hampshire as a threatened species. Regional threats to osprey include predation, shoreline development, human disturbance, electrocution, mercury, lead shot and sinkers, non-point source pollution (contaminants), and wetland loss (NHFG 2005). Osprey populations have experienced strong recoveries on the statewide scale since the early 1980s (Martin et. al. 2006).

Osprey nesting in the U.S. will winter in the Caribbean, Central America, and South America (Henry and VanVelzen 1972; Environment Canada 2001). Osprey breeding on the east coast of the U.S. will winter primarily in northern South America and sometimes in Cuba and Florida (Martel et. al. 2001). Female osprey generally winter farther south than males and individuals of both sexes show strong fidelity to wintering and breeding sites (NHFG 2005).

In northern New England, osprey will typically establish breeding territories near large lakes, major rivers, and coastal estuaries. A habitat model developed for the Gulf of Maine watershed (USFWS 2000) found that 90% of 200 osprey nests were located within 0.6 miles of major rivers or lakes greater than 100 acres in size. Osprey generally require areas with dependable fishing sources within 2 to 3 miles, standing trees or other suitable structures located in wetlands, and an ice-free period of no less than 20 weeks (NHFG 2005). Ospreys nest atop a variety of structures including natural snags (standing dead trees) and artificial poles in or near water with good visibility (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001).

Over the past 25 years, the ASNH, through a contract with NHFG, has monitored nesting attempts, and also began augmenting nesting sites with artificial nesting structures around the lake in 1977 (NHFG 2005). In 2005, through a contract with the refuge, ASNH and the Biodiversity Research Institute (BRI) conducted aerial surveys for osprey in addition to the ground surveys used from 1996 to 2004. A similar method of aerial surveys had been used by ASNH from the mid-1980’s to 1996 when they were discontinued due to a lack of aircraft and qualified pilots. Seven new nests were discovered (5 in New Hampshire, 2 in Maine) and field observations were conducted on 26 osprey nests in the study area. The 2005 survey data estimated 17 territorial pairs of osprey, with 14 of those pairs actively engaged in nesting and 12 of the 14 nesting pairs successfully fledged a total of 18 young (Martin, et. al. 2006). ASNH has found osprey numbers to be variable over time. The 14 nests discovered in 2005 more than doubles the number of active nests found in 2004 (Martin et. al. 2006).

Charlie Todd (MDIFW, personal communication, 2005) suggested a link between an increasing bald eagle population and declining osprey numbers as a result of increased competition and territoriality. He has observed that bald eagles will appear in an area with many ospreys; with time the osprey may decline and

2-60 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

eventually there are osprey areas and eagle areas with no overlap. Bald eagle population recovery has been reported to displace osprey pairs to less optimal nesting areas that are further from preferred foraging areas (Ewins 1997).

Strategies In addition to objective 2.3 strategies under alternative A, and objective 2.2 strategies immediately above:

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Protect super-canopy trees within 1 mile of high quality foraging habitat to support nesting and perching by bald eagles and osprey.

■ Protect individual nest trees with at least a 600-foot buffer area.

■ Continue to protect active bald eagle and osprey nests from predators and human disturbance using outreach and visitor contact, buoy lines, restricted access, predator guards and other tools as warranted.

■ Protect historic nest sites, nest trees, and partially constructed nest trees.

Within 5-10 years of CCP approval: ■ Manipulate pines in high quality raptor habitat areas to promote new nesting sites.

■ Develop and implement outreach methods designed to minimize discarded fishing tackle and lines.

Within 10-15 years of CCP approval: ■ Ensure recruitment of new nest trees; identify stands with potential. Goal 3 Manage upland forest habitats, consistent with site capability, to benefit Federal trust species and other species of conservation concern

Objective 3.1 (Mixed Spruce-Fir/Northern Hardwood Forest) Conserve the mixed spruce-fir/northern hardwood forest on Service-owned lands within the current and expanded refuge boundaries, to sustain well-distributed, high quality breeding and foraging habitat for species of conservation concern, including blackburnian, black-throated green, and Canada warblers, and American woodcock. Also, where consistent with management for those refuge focal species, protect critical deer wintering areas and provide connectivity of habitat types for wide-ranging mammals. Chan Robbins/USGS Black-throated green Rationale warbler As we mentioned under goal 3, alternative A, we define the “mixed spruce-fir/ northern hardwood forest matrix” as the most extensive, most connected, and most influential landscape type across the Upper Androscoggin River Watershed basin. Knowing the mixed forest matrix is important because it can influence ecological processes that may affect biodiversity, including the amount and distribution of wildlife species. Others have also defined the mixed spruce-fir/ northern hardwood forest as the past, current, and potential future dominant landscape type in the Upper Androscoggin River Watershed basin (Kuchler 1964; Charlie Cogbill, pers comm, 2004). Embedded in the mixed forest matrix landscape, we also define three dominant habitat types: spruce-fir; conifer- hardwood mixed woods; and, northern hardwood (see figure 2.1A and 2.1B). Each of these individual habitat types is found in varying amounts on the refuge and in

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-61 Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

the surrounding landscape. We have developed separate sub-objectives for each type as outlined below.

According to Cogbill, during the last 150 years, the mixed forest included more conifer than occurs today, particularly in the lowlands, and contained little aspen or white pine (Cogbill pers comm. 2004). This is also consistent with Kuchler’s potential natural vegetation types, and our analysis of the site capabilities on refuge lands (Kuchler 1964). Site capabilities were interpreted from ecological land units (ELUs), a combination of elevation, bedrock geology, and topography, which are three physical characteristics that strongly influence what types of plant communities may be found there (Anderson 1999).

In the Partners in Flight (PIF) Eastern Spruce-Hardwood Physiographic Area 28 Plan, the mixed forest is identified as a high priority habitat that is critical for “long-term planning to conserve regionally important bird populations” (Rosenberg and Hodgman 2000). Our breeding bird survey data shows the elevated importance of the refuge’s mixed forest matrix for blackburnian, Canada, and black-throated green warblers in the area. We have selected these, and the American woodcock, as our refuge focal species for management. These species habitat requirements are described below.

The selection of our focal species resulted from a landscape analysis described in appendix N. It was after this analysis our planning team determined that sustaining a mature mixed forest, with a high conifer component and high structural diversity, was the most important ecological contribution the refuge could make through management to the Upper Androscoggin River watershed,

the Northern Forest, and the Refuge System. As such, after goal 1, this goal would be the next highest habitat management priority under alternative B. To accomplish this, we would manage our forest to achieve a mix of regeneration, mid-, and mature age classes, and retain snags (dead or dying trees that are

2-62 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

still standing), and other wildlife trees, downed wood and super-canopy trees. Some areas in all forest habitat types, may be retained as unmanaged ‘control’ or comparison areas, as part of forest management research projects. Additionally, forestry industry inoperable and high resource sensitivity zones will receive little or no active management. In low and moderate resource sensitivity areas, we will primarily use uneven-aged management techniques to convert the existing, predominantly even-aged forest stands to a multi-aged, multi-structured condition. Even-aged management techniques may also be used in certain stands, such as those with healthy, advanced regeneration of spruce and fir, woodcock focus areas, or in deer wintering areas. Appendix K provides important details on how we plan to manage our forests. It includes additional information, supplementing what is provided below.

The 15 year scope of our CCP falls far short of the decades used to measure tree growth and stand development in the mixed forest. This objective requires consideration of a much longer timeframe within which to measure and achieve results. As such, our expectation is that it would take at least 100 years to accomplish this objective. This timeframe is based on our prediction of how long it would take to achieve the forest and stand composition and structural characteristics targeted for our refuge focal species identified in the objective statement.

Our habitat type classifications are based on grouped National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS) “associations.” A cross-walk between refuge forest habitat types, NVCS associations, Society of American Forester types, and other vegetation classification systems is included in appendix M.

General Strategies (also see strategies for the three specific habitat types in sub-objectives below) In addition to alternative A:

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Conduct breeding bird surveys according to regional Service protocols to track breeding bird trends on the refuge.

■ Conduct a detailed inventory in each of the three habitat types to identify or refine specific silvicultural prescriptions.

■ Conduct resource surveys prior to forest management to ensure that resources of concern are identified and impacts minimized or eliminated

■ Perpetuate, through accepted silvicultural practices, the three habitat types through time, distributed within the refuge based on site capability and our ability to access and manage them. Insure that habitat patch size and connectivity are sufficient for species requiring large blocks of unfragmented habitat

Within 5 -10 years of CCP approval: ■ Acquire up to 23,501 acres of upland forest within the expansion area in fee simple, and 20,427 acres in conservation easements, from willing sellers, and manage as described in objective 3.1.

Sub-Objective 3.1a (Spruce-Fir Habitat Type) Manage the refuge’s 17,778 acres (approximately) of spruce-fir to: ■ Sustain singing, nesting and feeding habitat for blackburnian and black- throated green warblers (refuge focal species) by perpetuating a high (>70%) crown closure, favoring spruce during stand improvement, and maintaining super canopy trees

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-63 Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

■ Maintain at least 50% of deer wintering areas (map 2-10) as quality shelter at any given time, consistent with management of our focal species

■ Provide connectivity of forested habitat types for wide-ranging mammals, consistent with management for our focal species

■ Provide other structural characteristics to improve stand diversity for other native wildlife species dependent on this habitat type. This will include retention of approximately 6 live cavity trees or snags (standing dead trees/ acre, with at least 1 of these exceeding 18 inches/dbh, and 3 others exceeding 12 inches dbh, and retaining coarse woody debris and super dominant or super canopy trees.

■ The spruce-fir habitat type includes both high and low elevation spruce- fir. It is comprised of the following NVCS associations: lowland spruce- fir community, red spruce rocky summit, and a black spruce-red spruce community. It is an important ecological component of the diversity of the Upper Androscoggin River Watershed and supports many species of conservation concern.

The 1995 New Hampshire Forest Resources Plan describes the spruce-fir habitat type as supporting more rare animal species than other major habitat types and considers mature spruce-fir a rare habitat type (New Hampshire Division of Forests and Lands 1995).

While we believe this habitat type was much more dominant historically in the mixed forest matrix than we see on the landscape today, its extent and age class distribution in New Hampshire and Maine has been affected by natural disturbances such as spruce budworm and bark beetle outbreaks, and from human disturbances, primarily logging. The 2005 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) identifies development, timber harvest, non-point pollution, and altered natural disturbance regimes as the most challenging issues currently facing the conservation of this habitat type (NHFG 2005).

Given the apparent decline in spruce-fir habitat, its significance to our mixed forest focal species (blackburnian and black-throated green warblers), and its importance in State conservation plans, the spruce-fir habitat type will be our highest priority for upland forest management. Since our management will tend to create larger blocks of mature spruce-fir on the landscape, we anticipate that a by-product of our management will be the improvement of habitat quality for species more closely tied to this habitat, such as bay-breasted warbler, boreal chickadee, and gray jay, among others

Specific Strategies for the Spruce-fir Habitat Type (see appendix K for additional details) ■ Improve habitat structural diversity for refuge focal species through pre- commercial and commercial thinning and/or other stand improvement operations, as appropriate. We will favor spruce during all stand improvements.

■ Regenerate this habitat type through accepted silvicultural practices. Methods include, but are not limited to:

■ Utilize primarily single tree or group selection uneven-aged management techniques, and to a lesser extent, clearcutting, or shelterwood even-aged techniques, 2) treatments should be timed to optimize the ability of the site to regenerate spruce and other conifer, 3) target age class goals under management will range from 100-130 years; and, 4) the size of each treatment action and cutting interval will be determined by management unit size, silvicultural prescription, and rotation age.

2-64 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Map 2-10 Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-65 Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

■ In critical deer wintering areas (map 2-10), maintain updated maps of critical areas and manage these stands, to the extent compatible with management of Federal trust resources, to ensure long-term continuation of this habitat. The overall target would be to maintain a minimum of 50% of a deer wintering area as quality shelter at any point in time. Quality shelter includes softwood cover over 35 feet tall and 70% or higher crown closure (Reay et al. 1990). Refuge staff will assist state agencies with ground surveys of wintering deer areas on refuge lands.

Sub-Objective 3.1b (Conifer-Hardwood “Mixed Woods” Habitat Type) Manage the 11,354 acres (approximately) of conifer-hardwood mixed woods with a high conifer component to:

■ Sustain singing, nesting and feeding habitat for blackburnian and black- throated green warblers (refuge focal species) by perpetuating a high (>70%) crown closure, favoring spruce during stand improvement, and maintaining super canopy trees. Enhance foraging habitat for the black-throated green warbler and other native species dependent on this habitat type by developing small gaps to promote a diverse, layered understory. We will favor conifers wherever possible based on site capability.

■ Provide connectivity of forested habitat types for wide-ranging mammals, consistent with management for our refuge focal species.

■ Provide other structural characteristics to improve stand diversity for other native wildlife species dependent on this habitat type. This will include retention of approximately 6 live cavity trees or snags (standing dead trees)/ acre, with at least 1 of these exceeding 18 inches/dbh, and 3 others exceeding 12 inches dbh, and retaining coarse woody debris and super dominant trees.

The conifer-hardwood mixed woods habitat type is comprised of the following NVCS associations: aspen-fir woodland, successional spruce-fir forest, and red spruce-hardwood forest. We believe the conifer component within this habitat type was much greater over the last 150 years than it is today, due to the past 20 years of logging practices. The New Hampshire WAP identifies development and acid-deposition as the most challenging issues facing this habitat type (NHFG 2005). The 2005 Maine CWCS identifies large-scale forestry operations that result in habitat fragmentation, change in over- and under-story species composition (stand conversion), reduction in rotation length, and loss through development as major threats to this habitat type (MDIFW 2005a).

Specific Strategies for the Mixed Woods Habitat Type (see appendix K for additional details) ■ Improve habitat structure for refuge focal species through pre-commercial and commercial thinning and/or other stand improvement operations. We will favor spruce during all stand improvements.

■ Regenerate this habitat type through accepted silvicultural practices. Favor conifer on appropriate sites. Methods include, but are not limited to:

On conifer dominated sites - Utilize primarily single tree or group selection uneven-aged management techniques, and to a lesser extent, clearcutting, or shelterwood even-aged techniques, 2) treatments should be timed to optimize the ability of the site to regenerate spruce and other conifer, 3) target age class goals under management will range from 100-130 years; 4) the size of each treatment action and cutting interval will be determined by management unit size, silvicultural prescription,

2-66 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

Mixed woods on the refuge Ian Drew/USFWS

and rotation age. 5) in areas of advanced, healthy conifer regeneration, we will implement silvicultural techniques to protect it.

On hardwood dominated sites - 1) utilize small group selection with up to 1/5 to 1/2 acre group sizes, 2) target age class goals under management are 100-200 years, and 3) cutting cycles will be 15 to 20 years in order to maintain understory development.

Sub-Objective 3.1c (Northern Hardwood Habitat Type) Manage the 9,872 acres (approximately) of northern hardwood habitat type on those sites optimally suited for hardwood growth to:

■ Provide foraging habitat for blackburnian and black-throated green warblers (refuge focal species) by developing multi-aged stands and a mid- to high canopy closure

■ Sustain breeding, nesting and foraging habitat for Canada warblers, a refuge focal species, by developing openings, a diverse, layered understory, and promoting the aspen and birch community. This management would also benefit American woodcock (see discussion below)

■ Provide other structural characteristics to improve stand diversity for other native wildlife species dependent on this habitat type. This will include retention of approximately 6 live cavity trees or snags (standing dead trees)/ acre, with at least 1 of these exceeding 18 inches/dbh, and 3 others exceeding 12 inches dbh, and retaining coarse woody debris, and super dominant trees. Where possible, we will maintain and encourage the development of mast producing trees (e.g. black cherry, mountain ash, beech).

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-67 Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

The northern hardwood habitat type is comprised of the following NVCS associations: red maple-yellow birch early successional woodland, northern hardwood forest, semi-rich northern hardwood forest, and paper birch talus woodland. This habitat type is more extensive on the landscape today than probably occurred over the last 150 years (Charlie Cogbill, personal communication, 2004). Similar to the spruce-fir type, its distribution is largely due to site capability and land-use changes over time. It is also an important ecological component of the diversity of the Upper Androscoggin River watershed.

The northern hardwood habitat type is a deciduous forest dominated by sugar maple, yellow birch and American beech on well-drained soils on mid-elevation slopes. American beech becomes more common in older stands. Most of the area covered by this community was logged at some time in the past (Rapp 2003). Aspen-birch is another forest component of this habitat type, although it can also be a temporary, early successional feature of any of the three broad upland habitat types on the refuge. White birch, quaking and bigtooth aspen, and pin cherry can dominate an area following a large disturbance such as fire or clearcut; however, these shade intolerant species are eventually replaced with more shade tolerant species characteristic of the particular site conditions.

Specific Strategies for the Northern Hardwood Habitat Type (see appendix K for additional details) ■ Improve habitat structure for refuge focal species through pre-commercial and commercial thinning and/or other stand improvement operations.

■ Regenerate these habitat types through accepted silvicultural practices. Methods include, but are not limited to:

1) Utilize single tree or small group selection of up to 1/2 acre group sizes, 2) target age class under management are 100-200 years; and, 3) cutting cycles of 15 to 20 years in order to maintain understory development.

Sub-Objective 3.1d (Woodcock Focus Areas) Manage the 2,664 acres in woodcock focus areas to provide and sustain all life stage habitat requirements for woodcock.

■ Use accepted silvicultural practices in woodcock focus areas (map 2-2) to create openings, promote understory development, and sustain early successional habitat for American woodcock and Canada warbler. Generally, use group selection, clearcuts or patch cuts of up to 5 acres in size. Some larger roosting fields may also be maintained. Cutting cycles will be approximately 8-10 years on a 40 year rotation. Some 3-5 acre openings may be permanently maintained primarily by mowing and brush clearing using mechanized equipment.

■ Perpetuate aspen-birch communities where they exist, and strive to achieve an appropriate distribution of regenerating, young, mid and mature age classes

■ Conduct woodcock singing male surveys to document wildlife response to habitat management.

Focal Species Habitat Requirements The blackburnian warbler is associated with mature conifer habitats (> 80% canopy cover) of spruce, fir, hemlock, and pines, and in spruce-fir/hardwood mixed habitats including deciduous stands with patches of conifers. It nests and gleans insects in the upper canopy of conifers, especially spruce and hemlock, if present, and rarely pines (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001). Males sing from the tops of the tallest conifers, preferably over 60 feet. The blackburnian warbler is

2-68 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

a moderate priority with a high regional responsibility within Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 14 (Dettmers 2005). Approximately 25% of the global population occurs in this region. This warbler is of conservation concern because of its relatively small total range, its preference for mature conifers, and its restricted winter range in the subtropical forests of northern South America. Declines are recorded for New England although the overall population appears to be stable. It is considered a forest interior species, susceptible to forest fragmentation and short rotation timber harvesting (50 years or less) (Hagen et al. 1996; Morse 2004). The effects of forest fragmentation, loss of hemlock to wooly adelgid, and deforestation on the wintering grounds are issues of concern to the conservation of this species (Morse 2004). The 2005 Maine CWCS lists the loss of hemlock as the chief threat to this species’ conservation in Maine and identifies habitat conservation and research as the two highest priorities in the state for conserving their population state-wide (MDIFW 2005a).

The Canada warbler is declining across much of its range and is listed as highest priority in BCR 14 (Dettmers 2005). This bird is found throughout the watershed, and is not tied specifically to any of the three refuge upland habitat types, but may be tied more directly to a well-developed understory or shrub layer. PIF also has a goal of increasing the Canada warbler continental population by 50% (Rich et al. 2004). The Maine CWCS identifies habitat conservation and research as the two highest priorities in the state for conserving Canada warblers (MDIFW 2005a).

The black-throated green warbler is one of the forest-interior species most closely associated with a mixed forest. Black-throated green warblers are a moderate priority in BCR 14, with a high regional responsibility (18.4% of the global population), and a moderate regional threat level. This species is generally abundant and stable in the region. Although it occupies a wide range of forested habitat types, in the Northeast, it occurs at highest densities in closed canopy mid-to-mature forest with a significant conifer component. This foliage- gleaning warbler generally forages high in the canopy, but at a lower height than blackburnian warblers (Morse 1967). Spruce (particularly red spruce) and paper birch are favored foraging substrates. Although it will nest in deciduous trees, preferred nest sites are in dense conifer foliage on a limb or tree fork, at a height of about 20 ft. (DeGraaf 2001; Foss 1994). Large spruce trees are favored male singing perches (Morse 1993). Black-throated green warblers appear to require fairly large forest patches and a generally forested landscape (Norton 1999). Askins and Philbrick (1987) found that they disappeared from a 250 acre forest tract that became isolated from other forested habitat. Black-throated green warbler densities also decline in heavily thinned forest (Morse 1993). However, structurally heterogeneous forests that include small gaps provide improved foraging opportunities for this warbler (Smith and Dallman 1996).

The American woodcock is a highest priority species in BCR 14 (Dettmers 2005). Woodcock require several different habitat conditions that should be in close proximity to one another, and can consist of both uplands and wetlands habitat types. These include clearings for courtship (singing grounds), large openings for night roosting, young, second-growth hardwoods (15-30 years) for nesting and brood-rearing, and foraging areas (Sepik et al. 1981; Keppie and Whiting 1994). These habitat conditions occur naturally on the refuge and can be expanded through habitat manipulation. Lorimer and White (2003) estimate that natural disturbances in the pre-settlement forests created about 1-3% early successional habitat in mixed woods and northern hardwood forests and up to 7% in spruce flats that are more susceptible to blowdown.

Other Species Benefiting From Our Focal Species Management As we described in the introduction to this alternative, we selected focal species, in part, because we believe their habitat requirements also represent the habitat

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-69 Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

needs for many other Federal trust and native wildlife species dependent on that respective habitat type. For example, other birds of high conservation concern in BCR 14 that breed or forage in the mixed forest which we expect will benefit over the long-term from our management include: bay-breasted warbler (BCR highest priority), and boreal chickadee, Cape May and black-throated blue warblers (BCR high priority). Cape May and bay-breasted, in particular, prefer stands dominated by conifer, or pure conifer, which our management under this alternative would emphasize. While these species do not presently occur at high densities in our area, we predict their presence and breeding pair numbers would increase as our forest management tends toward favoring spruce, and as we allow for some stands to tend toward older age classes. Specifically, we may begin to see direct benefits to Cape May and bay-breasted warblers after 25-50 years of our proposed forest management under this alternative.

Our management for focal species on both currently-owned and proposed refuge lands, would also serve to ensure long-term conservation of critical deer wintering areas, and provide habitat connectivity for wide-ranging mammals including American marten, fisher, bobcat, black bear (Ray 2000), and potentially for the Federal-listed lynx, although it has not been documented in the immediate area (re: chapter 3, mammals discussion). Both state agencies have identified certain deer wintering areas as critical to maintaining the region’s deer population and both have regulations and policies in place for their protection. In these areas, deer annually congregate in large numbers for protection and survival against wind, deep snow, and extreme cold. Typically, the deer wintering areas lie in lowland conifer or conifer-dominated mixed stands, 35 feet or taller, where there is a high crown closure, approximately 70% (Reay 1990). In addition, there are patches of hardwoods or softwoods within or near the core of the area at a height accessible to deer as browse. We predict that management strategies for our focal species would provide these stand attributes, and thus, management of deer wintering areas complements our habitat management priorities. Map 2-10 identifies critical deer wintering areas on or adjacent to the refuge provided by NHFG and MDIFW.

The 2005 New Hampshire WAP includes a list of “important wildlife” that may benefit from conserving mixed forest habitat types (NHFG 2005). Besides the species mentioned previously, species known on the refuge include: Cooper’s hawk, hoary bat, northern goshawk, American three-toed woodpecker, blue- spotted salamander, northern myotis, ruffed grouse, wild turkey, veery, wood thrush, yellow-bellied sapsucker, American redstart, ovenbird, blue-headed vireo, and rose-breasted grosbeak. Appendix N, table N.1, lists additional species of conservation concern that will benefit from our management by habitat type.

Summary of Upland Forest Management Proposal Our management emphasis over the next 15 years would be to maintain, enhance, create and/or restore the habitat attributes important for sustaining the focal species identified in the objective statement. Appendix K provides additional guidance we are proposing to follow. During the next 15 years, we would primarily manage the mixed spruce-fir/northern hardwood forest on current refuge lands within the habitat units we identify in appendix K.

The refuge currently owns, or has approval to acquire, 15,683 acres of upland forest. Under the alternative B expansion proposal, we recommend Service fee simple acquisition of an additional 23,501 acres of upland forest, and purchase of conservation easements on another 20,427 acres. Fee acquisition would allow for full management capability on those lands. On these easement lands, our objective would be to purchase the minimum rights necessary to insure quality wildlife

2-70 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

habitat would be permanently sustained. Typically, we would purchase at least development rights; however, we could purchase additional rights as needed. The Service works on a willing seller-only basis, and it would be up to the landowner to determine what additional management rights, if any, would be sold.

Given our long-term habitat management and land acquisition proposals under alternative B, we estimate refuge fee lands could provide high quality breeding habitat in the mid- and mature-aged spruce-fir and mixed woods habitat types to support up to approximately 3,975 pairs of blackburnian warblers (based on an estimated density of 4.94 acres/pair), and 2,892 pairs of black-throated green warblers in (based on an estimated density of 6.79 acres/pair) (Randy Dettmers, personal communication, 2006). In addition, refuge fee lands could provide high quality breeding habitat in the mixed woods and northern hardwoods habitat types to support up to approximately 1,036 pairs of Canada warblers (based on an estimated density of 13.84 acres/pair). In the refuge’s woodcock focus areas (map 2-2), there would be high quality habitat to support up to approximately 280 American woodcock singing males (based on an estimated density of 23.8 acres/ singing male) (Andrew Weik, personal communications, 2006). We recognize, however, that these estimates are based on habitat acres alone, and may not fully take into account intra-specific competition among other breeding bird species in the same area.

In summary, and presented in table 2.1 below, our management would have the potential to directly contribute towards the BCR 14 goals for each of these species of conservation concern (Randy Dettmers, personal communication, 2006).

Table 2.1. Potential number of refuge focal species breeding pairs/singing males supported in refuge’s upland forest habitat types under alternative B management

Number of Potential Breeding Pairs/ Refuge Focal Species Refuge Habitat Type Singing Males Supported Mid-and mature aged spruce-fir Blackburnian warbler 3,975 pair and mixed woods Mid-and mature aged spruce-fir Black-throated green warbler 2,892 pair and mixed woods

Canada warbler Mixed woods and northern hardwoods 1,036 pair

American woodcock Woodcock Focus Areas 280 singing males

In addition, results from a Canadian study evaluating mean total density of all birds in various habitats indicate that under full implementation of this objective, over the long term, refuge fee lands could contribute a potential mean total density, inclusive of all breeding birds, of over 8,538 bird pairs in the spruce-fir and mixed woods habitat types combined (based on an estimated mean total density of 2.3 acres/pair), and 3,981 bird pairs in the northern hardwoods habitat types (based on an estimated mean total density of 2.48 acres/pair) (Kennedy et al. 1999). Goal 4 Provide high quality wildlife-dependent activities such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, as well as camping and boating in support of those activities.

Objective 4.1 (Hunting) Within 3 years of CCP approval, at least 80% of hunters on the refuge will report that they had a high-quality experience.

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-71 Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

Rationale Hunting is identified in the 1997 Refuge Improvement Act as a priority public use. Priority public uses are to receive enhanced consideration when developing goals and objectives for refuges. Further, hunting is an established traditional use in the local area. We have implemented a hunt program on the refuge during the past 6 years.

In April 2007 we issued an amended Refuge Hunt Plan and environmental assessment after a 30 day public review and comment period. With our stated hunt program objectives, we intend to: 1) maintain a diversity of habitats within the refuge that are capable of supporting a diversity and abundance of wildlife species, and 2) provide wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. We recognize hunting as a healthy, traditional, outdoor pastime that is deeply rooted in American heritage and, when managed appropriately, can instill a unique understanding and appreciation of wildlife, their behavior, and their habitat needs. It is also a priority public use on national wildlife refuges.

The refuge hunt program was first implemented during 2000, consistent with state regulations, and additional refuge regulations stipulated in 50CFR. Refuge lands were opened to migratory game bird and waterfowl and small and big game hunting. In April 2007, we amended the 2000 Refuge Hunt Plan and associated environmental assessment, and our Regional Director issued a new Finding of No Significant Impact. The amendment was completed to provide a more detailed analysis of the potential cumulative effects of the current hunt program.

Under alternative B, as we described earlier in this chapter under “Actions Common to Alternatives B and C Only”, within two years we propose to evaluate new hunting seasons, such as a turkey hunt on refuge lands in both states, and a bobcat hunt on refuge lands in Maine, consistent with both states’ regulations. However, as we stipulate in that earlier section, additional NEPA analysis and public involvement would need to occur before an expanded program could be implemented.

Providing a high-quality hunt on the refuge promotes visitor appreciation and support for refuge programs. A quality hunting experience is one that: 1) maximizes safety for hunters and other visitors; 2) encourages the highest standards of ethical behavior in taking or attempting to take wildlife; 3) is available to a broad spectrum of the hunting public; 4) contributes positively to or has no adverse effect on population management of resident or migratory species; 5) reflects positively on the individual refuge, the System, and the Service; 6) provides hunters uncrowded conditions by minimizing conflicts and competition among hunters; 7) provides reasonable challenges and opportunities for taking targeted species under the described harvest objective established by the hunting program; 8) minimizes the reliance on motorized vehicles and technology designed to increase the advantage of the hunter over wildlife; 9) minimizes habitat impacts; 10) creates minimal conflict with other priority wildlife- dependent recreational uses or refuge operations; and 11) incorporates a message of stewardship and conservation in hunting opportunities. These are all criteria we will use to evaluate our hunt program.

Strategies In addition to objective 4.1 strategies under alternative A:

Within 2 years of CCP approval: ■ Evaluate the potential for a turkey hunt on refuge lands in both states, and a bobcat hunt on refuge lands in Maine. If appropriate, develop a new Hunt Plan opening package, including new NEPA document, Federal Register notice, and public involvement opportunities. Both new hunt additions will be consistent with respective states’ regulations and refuge regulations.

2-72 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Establish an inter-state (New Hampshire and Maine) and Service Umbagog Lake Working Group to annually review hunting seasons in an effort to make seasons as consistent as possible

■ Develop annual hunt plan after annual state meetings

■ Evaluate numbers and distribution of waterfowl blinds each year, including placement of blinds on Maine side of refuge. Work with local waterfowl clubs to improve construction and placement of blinds, and evaluate and manage wood duck boxes.

■ Waterfowl hunters would have priority for using blinds during the hunt season

■ Establish additional parking areas off of the current road network to facilitate hunting in the expansion area as lands are acquired

Within 5-10 years of CCP approval: ■ Provide literature, training, and other outreach tools targeting accurate identification of species of concern on the refuge (e.g. at check stations, kiosks, signage)

■ Conduct surveys, or develop reporting system such as check station or permit system, to collect data for evaluating numbers and quality of program

Within 10-15 years of CCP approval: ■ Evaluate pull-outs and parking areas for safety, and improve or relocate where necessary; also evaluate opportunities to provide access for people with disabilities

■ Try to distribute the hunting pressure through use of maps and outreach

Objective 4.2 (Fishing) Within 4 years of CCP approval in cooperation with the states, provide opportunities such that at least 80% of anglers on the refuge, or accessing the lake through the refuge, report they had a high-quality experience.

Rationale Fishing is identified in the Refuge Improvement Act as a priority public use. Priority public uses are to receive enhanced consideration when developing goals and objectives for refuges. Providing high quality fishing opportunities for the public to engage in this activity on the refuge promotes visitor appreciation and support for refuge programs.

We would continue to allow access for fishing, in accordance with states of Maine and New Hampshire regulations, except in sensitive areas during nesting season. We propose to develop a new fishing access site on existing refuge lands at Mountain Pond, in conjunction with new trail and parking area plans. We define a high quality fishing program as one which 1) maximizes safety for anglers and other visitors; 2) causes no adverse impact on populations of resident or migratory species, native species, threatened and endangered species, or habitat; 3) encourages the highest standards of ethical behavior in regard to catching, attempting to catch, and releasing fish; 4) is available to a broad spectrum of the

USFWS public that visits, or potentially would visit, the refuge; 5) provides reasonable Preparing to fish on the accommodations for individuals with disabilities to participate in refuge fishing lake activities; 6) reflects positively on the Refuge System; 7) provides uncrowded conditions; 8) creates minimal conflict with other priority wildlife-dependent

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-73 Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

recreational uses or refuge operations; 9) provides reasonable challenges and harvest opportunities; and 10) increases visitor understanding and appreciation for the fishery resource

Strategies In addition to objective 4.2 strategies under alternative A:

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Assist partners in conducting creel and angler surveys

■ Work with partners to maintain or restore a quality brook trout fishery wherever appropriate in the Umbagog watershed, including the Rapid, Dead Diamond and Dead Cambridge rivers and tributaries, and C and B Ponds; cooperate with partners in maintaining and improving existing fish barriers to protect trout; work with Umbagog Working Group to implement recommendations from the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture once their strategic plan is completed

■ Officially open the refuge to fishing through 50CFR regulations and develop a fishing plan

■ Continue to restrict anglers from sensitive nesting areas or other areas determined to be high wildlife impact areas; establish thresholds of acceptable change when restrictions may be imposed to minimize impacts; Distribute angling pressure through maps and outreach

■ Continue annual “Take Me Fishing” event

■ Work with states through interstate commission, or other forum (e.g. proposed Umbagog Lake Working Group), to develop consistent fishing regulations on lead tackle

■ Increase educational outreach to public on dangers of lead tackle and other debris to wildlife.and the environment.

■ Within 5-10 years of CCP approval:

■ Provide improved shoreline access (e.g. trails, docks, etc)

■ Improve opportunities for handicapped access to high quality fishing areas

■ Construct safe pullouts

■ Establish additional parking areas off of the current road network to facilitate fishing in the expansion area as lands are acquired

■ Provide walk-in fishing access to Mountain Pond in conjunction with new trails and parking area plans

Within 10-15 years of CCP approval: ■ Work with states to eliminate fishing tournaments on Umbagog Lake to maintain reasonable solitude and a natural experience for anglers and other users.

Objective 4.3 (Wildlife Observation and Photography) Within 2 years of CCP approval, at least 80% of refuge visitors engaged in wildlife viewing and nature photography will report a high quality experience

2-74 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

Rationale Wildlife observation and photography are identified in the Refuge Improvement Act as priority public uses. Priority public uses are to receive enhanced consideration when developing goals and objectives for refuges. Providing high quality opportunities for the public to engage in these activities on the refuge promotes visitor appreciation and support for refuge programs.

This alternative expands upon alternative A by enhancing infrastructure to increase wildlife observation and photography opportunities. Additional trails would be created on refuge lands in the Potter Farm and Thurston Cove areas, and Mountain Pond (see map 2-8). These trails would be supplemented with observation platforms and photography blinds. Location of the trail, platforms, and blinds are planned to provide visitors with quality viewing opportunities without disturbing the wildlife. Refuge trails and roads would remain open year- round from ½ hour before sunrise to ½ hour after sunset, except as otherwise permitted under a special use permit. Access to trails is by foot travel, including snowshoeing and cross country skiing, or by snowmobile on refuge-designated snowmobile trails.

We have also identified one trail in the expansion area we would like to develop for year round use once those lands are acquired. It parallels Route 16, connecting Wentworth Location to Errol, and we preliminarily refer to it as the potential “Long Pond Trail.” It is currently a snowmobile trail, but could also be developed to provide a year round viewing and photography opportunity. Also in the expansion area, generally, we would plan to keep designated major gravel roads open to vehicle travel to afford additional opportunities for wildlife observation and photography.

We define high quality wildlife observation and photography programs as those in which: 1) observation occurs in a primitive setting or use safe facilities and provide an opportunity to view wildlife and its habitats in a natural setting; 2) observation facilities or programs maximize opportunities to view the spectrum species and habitats of the refuge; 3) observation opportunities, in conjunction with interpretive and educational opportunities, promote public understanding of and increase public appreciation for America’s natural resources and the role of the Refuge System in managing and protecting these resources; 4) viewing opportunities are tied to interpretive and educational messages related to stewardship and key resource issues; 5) facilities, when provided, blend with the natural setting, station architectural style, and provide viewing opportunities for all visitors, including persons with disabilities; 6) observers understand and follow procedures that encourage the highest standards of ethical behavior; 7) viewing opportunities exits for a broad spectrum of the public; and 8) observers have minimal conflict with other priority wildlife- dependent recreational uses or refuge operations.

Strategies In addition to objective 4.3 strategies under alternative A,

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Provide literature on wildlife viewing opportunities at kiosks and visitor contact facilities

■ Designate self-guided canoe trail, with information on wildlife viewing, on Magalloway River

■ Close wildlife viewing sites as warranted during nesting season or other sensitive times of the year

■ Develop web-based or other wildlife viewing reporting system

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-75 Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

Within 5-10 years of CCP approval: ■ With partners, promote an Upper Androscoggin watershed regional wildlife viewing trail system (e.g. auto, boat, snowmobile, etc) across ownerships

■ Construct wildlife viewing pull-outs at safe, strategic locations (e.g. moose wallows) on Route 16 and 26

■ Provide sensitively placed access to view unique fens and bogs

■ Create webcam near loon, eagle, and osprey nests

■ Work with partners to identify and promote wildlife viewing opportunities on and off the refuge

■ Provide ADA compliant photo blinds

■ Consider use of temporary blinds for photography in certain sensitive locations where permanent blinds are not appropriate

■ Construct new trails: the Potter Farm and Thurston Cove group of loop trails, Mountain Pond area trails, and along Route 16 in the expansion area; make at least one of these ADA compliant to the extent feasible (see Map 2-8)

Objective 4.4 (Camping) Maintain overnight lake experiences on refuge lands, on no more than 12 remote lake sites, to facilitate compatible, safe and unique hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and photography opportunities.

Rationale We currently allow camping on refuge lands on 12 remote sites on Umbagog Lake. Two additional river sites are planned for elimination and rehabilitation. Our lake camping program is administered by NH DRED- Division of Parks and Recreation in conjunction with their management of other camping sites, on state and other ownerships, and the management of the Umbagog State campground. Remote camping on Umbagog Lake provides the unique opportunity for visitors to view moose, and hear loons during dusk and dawn when they are most actively calling, while allowing the visitor to be totally immersed in a quiet, private, primitive, and natural setting. Remote lake camping is becoming an increasingly rare experience in the Northeast, except in very remote northern areas. Similar to hunting and fishing, camping is an historic, traditional, and very popular activity on Umbagog Lake and in other rural parts of New Hampshire and Maine.

Under alternative B we would plan to enhance our current camping program and increase site monitoring to ensure: site conditions are not deteriorating; wildlife is protected; and, campers adhere to regulations. We would complete a formal cooperative agreement with NH DRED- Division of Parks and Recreation. Our agreement would include the provision that we would not increase the current capacity for camping on refuge lands. In cooperation with NH DRED- Division of Parks and Recreation and other partners, we would establish thresholds on what is acceptable change to resources and determine when restrictions or mitigation measures should be imposed to reverse impacts before any damage is permanent. We would also require campers to adhere to “Leave No Trace” principles. The Leave No Trace program is a nationally recognized curriculum of outdoor values that promotes visitors’ ethical use of recreational lands. Our outreach program would include distribution of literature and demonstration of Leave No Trace principles.

2-76 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

Strategies In addition to objective 4.4 strategies under alternative A:

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Complete cooperative agreement with NH DRED. It will include: 1) setting fees; 2) limits on number of campers at individual sites; 3) sanitation requirements, 4) resource, and long-term site protection and restoration needs; 5) required orientation to campers; and, 6) boat access only, no personal water craft;

■ Manage camping through site locations, and scheduling of day and season lengths, to provide a quality experience while providing maximum protection for wildlife resources

■ Establish a program of increased outreach on-site, and increased enforcement of rules and regulations to minimize illegal camping

■ Consider designating some sites as “two nights only” for paddlers moving through the area

■ Provide campers with an orientation and overview of rules and regulations and Leave No Trace program

■ Restore sites or seasonally close sites as needed to protect resources

■ Remove river camping sites at North 1 and North 2, administered through Mollidgewock State Campground, along Route 16

■ No pets; no loud music (external speakers)

Within 5-10 years of CCP approval: ■ Establish inter-governmental and inter-jurisdictional Umbagog Lake Working Group to develop formal cooperative management agreement encompassing cooperative management of the entire lake area.

■ Improve campsites to address safety, long term sustainability without degradation, provide a diversity of site locations and opportunities, and resolve social, environmental, and resource issues,

Objective 4.5 (Boating) Within 4 years of CCP approval, at least 80% of boaters passing through the refuge on the Magalloway and Androscoggin rivers, and associated designated waterways, will report they had a high quality experience based on the following criteria: a) suitable access; b) minimal conflict with other users; c) safe experience; and d) a reasonable chance to view wildlife in a natural setting with minimal disturbance.

Strategies In addition to objective 4.5 strategies under alternative A:

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Develop an interpretive self-guided canoe/kayak trail for the Magalloway River; interpret management activities and habitats visible from trail; promote a “Leave No Trace” boater ethic

■ Improve maps and interpretive literature for boaters

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-77 Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

■ Place registration boxes at boat launches to obtain better information on group size, seasons of use, destination, etc.

■ Work with recreation specialists to determine the best way to document use and identify conflicts

■ Continue outreach program to alert boaters to closed areas and its purpose to protect nesting wildlife

Within 5-10 years of CCP approval: ■ Work with partners, including proposed Umbagog Lake Working Group, to manage boater access (types, numbers, and distribution) along lakes and rivers; establish thresholds of acceptable change identifying when restrictions may need to be imposed to maintain visitor experiences and protect

Ian Drew/USFWS natural resources Boating on the refuge ■ Seek opportunities with partners to evaluate visitor opportunities within an Upper Androscoggin River watershed regional context (e.g. regional auto, walking, and boat trails, visitor centers, tours, etc)

■ Develop water ethics/etiquette brochure and interpretive literature at strategic locations (e.g. boat launches, kiosks, offices)

■ Provide restroom facilities for boaters at Steamer Diamond, Wentworth Location, current refuge office (Brown Owl), and proposed new refuge office at Potter Farm

Goal 5 Develop high quality interpretive opportunities, and facilitate environmental education, to promote an understanding and appreciation for the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats, as well as the role of the refuge in the Northern Forest.

Objective 5.1 (Interpretative Programs: on-refuge emphasis) Every year, at least 80% of visitors contacted after attending refuge interpretive programs will be able to identify one of the following: 1) be able to identify the refuge’s purpose; 2) name at least one refuge focus species and a management action to benefit the species; 3) describe the refuge’s role in conserving the Northern Forest, 4) understand the refuge’s contribution to the Refuge System and to regional migratory bird conservation.

Rationale The National Association of Interpreters defines “interpretation” as a communication process that forges emotional and intellectual connections between the interests of the audience and the inherent meanings in the resource. Interpretation is a priority public use identified in the 1997 Refuge Improvement Act and it is one of the most important ways we can raise our visibility, convey our mission, and identify the significant contribution the refuge makes to wildlife conservation. Public understanding of the Service and its activities in the states of New Hampshire and Maine is currently very low. Many are unaware of the Refuge System and its scope, and most do not understand the importance of the refuge in the conservation of migratory birds.

2-78 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

Providing high quality opportunities for the public to engage in environmental interpretative activities promotes stewardship of natural resources, and an understanding of the refuge’s purpose. They also garner support for refuge programs and help raise public awareness of the role of the refuge in Northern Forest and its contribution to migratory bird conservation.

We define high quality interpretive programs as those which: 1) increase public understanding and support for the Refuge System; 2) develop a sense of stewardship leading to actions and attitudes that reflect concern and respect for wildlife resources, cultural resources, and the environment; 3) provide and understanding of the management of our natural and cultural resources; and 4) provide safe, enjoyable, accessible, meaningful, and high quality experiences for visitors increasing their awareness, understanding, and appreciation of fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats.

We have identified several new trail opportunities on current refuge lands and one in the expansion area. These were described under our wildlife observation and photography discussion above. As additional lands are acquired in the expansion area we would also evaluate their potential to provide high quality interpretive opportunities.

Strategies In addition to objective 5.1 strategies under alternative A:

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Hire a VSP to implement programs and develop a Visitor Service’s step- down plan incorporating objectives, finalizing strategies, and coordinate the evaluation of visitor numbers, visitor satisfaction, visitor impacts, carrying capacity, and thresholds of acceptable change.

■ Improve on existing brochures and develop new ones interpreting management practices and focus species needs; also, develop self-guided walking trail guides as new trails are constructed

■ Establish a self-guided interpretive canoe/kayak trail along the Magalloway River

■ Establish self-guided interpretive signs along approved snowmobile trails in partnership with local snowmobile clubs and businesses

■ Assess interpretive opportunities in expansion areas as lands become available

■ Provide interpretation signs at the Magalloway River trail; including information at trailhead

■ Construct information and interpretive kiosks at boat launches, overlooks, roadside pullouts, and any new trailheads

Within 5-10 years of CCP approval: ■ Provide a limited number of interpretative programs at two State campgrounds each year, in cooperation with State Parks Staff; utilize volunteers or Friends Group to the extent possible

■ Sponsor a limited number of guided interpretive programs on refuge via walks, canoes, kayaks, and/or pontoon boat; utilize volunteers or Friends Group to the extent possible

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-79 Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

■ Incorporate into Visitor Services plan a procedure for evaluating effectiveness of programs by doing a pre-test, then a post test, or design an evaluation into each program

■ Continue to seek funding to finish construction of self-guided Magalloway River trail and new loop extension, and make it ADA compliant

■ Construct new interpretative trails: the Potter Farm and Thurston Cove group of loop trails, Mountain Pond area trails, and one along Route 16 in the expansion area trail; make at least one of these ADA compliant to the extent feasible

Within 10-15 years of CCP approval: ■ Develop at least 2 pull-outs off Highways 16 and 26 on the refuge where wildlife viewing opportunities exist

■ Develop an overlook at Route 26-New Hampshire state line

Objective 5.2 (Community Outreach) Each year, provide at least 10 outreach efforts for elected officials, local community leaders, neighbors, and other stakeholders to become more informed about the refuge and its resources and our management priorities.

Rationale Greater outreach efforts will increase recognition of the refuge, the Refuge System, and the Service among neighbors, local leaders, conservation organizations, and elected officials. We will strive to annually increase outreach efforts toward the local citizenry. This publicity will also help generate support for similar conservation efforts in the region.

It is particularly important that local residents understand, appreciate, and support the Refuge System mission and this refuge’s unique contribution to that mission. In addition, our volunteer program could grow and our Friends group could see enhanced membership and support. The proposed Refuge Headquarters and visitor contact facility will serve as an important resource for refuge visitors and local community, providing educational and recreational opportunities, as well as meeting and exhibit space for local conservation organizations.

Gaining support from local community, private landowners, private conservation groups, Congressional, State, and local elected officials, for refuge programs is essential to meeting our goals. This can only happen when these elected officials understand and appreciate the nationally significant contribution of the refuge and its programs to the permanent protection of Federal trust resources. We need to impress upon these individuals the importance of refuge lands to current and future generations of Americans.

Strategies In addition to objective 5.2 strategies under alternative A, expand activities to:

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Update refuge fact sheets

■ Create press kit continue to promote events scheduled on refuge

2-80 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

■ Respond to requests for presentations at local service organizational meetings, chamber events, etc

■ Participate in those community service, professional associations, and chamber events throughout Upper Androscoggin watershed that would provide the greatest benefit to achieving goals and objectives and furthering the mission of the Refuge System

■ Maintain web page

■ Establish/maintain a regional media list including newspapers, radio, television

■ Foster relationship with selected individuals; personally invite them to refuge activities

■ Contact landowners each year to inform them of refuge activities.

■ Consider having annual meetings with interested adjacent landowners to facilitate communications, raise awareness and understanding of, and seek support for, refuge management programs

Within 5-10 years of CCP approval: ■ Consider a webcam at eagle and loon nesting sites

Within 10-15 years of CCP approval: ■ Develop web-based outreach and interpretive materials, e.g. virtual tour

Objective 5.3 (Visitor Awareness) Within 2 years of CCP approval, at least 80% of refuge and Umbagog Lake visitors will be aware of public use opportunities and restrictions put in place to protect trust resources and provide quality public use opportunities.

Rationale Same as rationale for objective 5.2 strategies under alternative B

Strategies Within 5 years of CCP approval:

■ Place informational signs at critical spots (visitor concentration areas)

■ Develop and distribute map and other outreach materials for visitors to understand where permitted activities can occur and how they can access; map will portray closed areas, gates, etc; other outreach materials will why area Refuge webpage closures and other restrictions are necessary to protect resources

■ Utilize refuge web site to distribute information; update and maintain current its information

■ Also, see other objectives under goal 4 for specific program recommendations

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-81 Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

Within 5-10 years of CCP approval: ■ Develop a public access management plan, working with States and other partners providing public access to Umbagog Lake; establish thresholds of acceptable change which, when exceeded, may warrant that access restrictions be put in place

■ Utilize public forums to raise awareness and explain access restrictions

Objective 5.4 (Environmental Education Opportunities) Facilitate environmental education opportunities on the refuge, in partnership with other educators, to explain the importance of conserving and managing the natural resources in the Northern Forest to students, teachers, and other visitors. All who participate in environmental education programs on the refuge will be able to 1) understand the need for migratory bird conservation; 2) identify the refuge’s role in the Refuge System and in conserving Northern Forest Federal trust resources, and 3) name at least one refuge focus species and a management action to benefit the species.

Rationale Environmental education is a process designed to develop a citizenry that has the awareness, concern, knowledge, attitudes, skills, motivations, and commitment to work toward solutions of current environmental problems and the prevention of new ones. Environmental education is identified in the 1997 Refuge Improvement Act as priority public use. Providing high quality environmental education opportunities for the public on a refuge can: promote stewardship of natural resources; develop an understanding of the refuge’s purposes and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System; and, help raise awareness, understanding, and an appreciation of the role of the refuge in the Northern Forest and its contribution to migratory bird conservation. It also can garner support for other refuge programs.

As we evaluated the future of this program, in comparison to our other priority public use programs, we determined our emphasis would be to facilitate the use of the refuge for educational programs, but look to our partners, Friends Group, and/or volunteers to develop any curriculum and to lead those programs. This recommendation is based on consideration of this plan’s 15-year timeframe and what we can reasonably expect for staffing and operational funds, and because we believe our other priority public use programs would be more effective in reaching more visitors. We do not want to imply that we do not value environmental education, but only wish to convey that, on this refuge, the majority of our limited visitor services resources would be best spent in other priority public use programs.

Strategies Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Provide educational materials on the refuge web site

■ Provide materials to local schools, upon request, as they develop curriculum related to refuge resources

■ Facilitate opportunities for state and local partners, colleges or universities, or other educational program coordinators to lead nature-based educational programs on refuge lands

Within 5-10 years of CCP approval: ■ Evaluate potential for state and other partners to provide opportunities for adult education programs, such as Elder Hostel

■ Work with NHFG, MDIFW, and university extension and conservation education partners to facilitate complementary programs and to seek assistance in implementing program requests

2-82 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

Goal 6 Enhance the conservation and management of fish and wildlife resources in the Northern Forest Region through partnerships with public and private conservation groups, private landowners, State and local entities.

Objective 6.1 (Regional and Community Partnerships) Actively engage in regional and community economic development and conservation partnerships and initiatives, consistent with the Refuge System mission and refuge purposes.

Rationale: These objectives would encourage broader cooperation between the Service and local communities. Partnerships are essential for this refuge to accomplish projects and programs. Further, the Service can provide valuable technical assistance to local conservation organizations, particularly on management of habitat for migratory birds. In addition, the potential for the creation of a regional Umbagog Area Friends Group would be explored.

This objective also builds on alternative A by fostering relationships with elected officials and business leaders, thereby strengthening political support for the refuge and its programs. This objective would also raise the awareness of opportunities for compatible outdoor recreational uses. These uses will attract visitors to the area and contribute to the local economy.

Law enforcement staff plays an important role on the refuge. Officers not only enforce regulations, but just as importantly, they conduct outreach and serve to raise the visibility of the Service in local communities while out on patrol. It will be even more important in the future, should we implement this alternative with new programs and new regulations, that we have the capability to alert people to these changes and can enforce them, as necessary. We believe that a law enforcement partnership could substantially increase our ability to effectively manage and conserve refuge resources.

Strategies In addition to objective 6.1 strategies under alternative A,

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Share resources, equipment, and expertise with State and private landowners.

■ Become a member of established associations, such as the Upper Androscoggin Advisory Committee

Within 5-10 years of CCP approval: ■ Work with conservation partners to achieve common goals; establish MOU, Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and cooperative agreements as appropriate

Objective 6.2 (Cooperative Management of Umbagog Lake) Promote responsible use and management of Umbagog Lake, associated rivers, and adjoining uplands in partnership with other jurisdictional and management agencies (see also Goal 4, Objective 4.4).

Rationale: See rationale for objective 6.1 under alternative B.

Strategies In addition to strategies under “Actions Common to Alternatives B & C Only” affecting this program:

Within 5-10 years of CCP approval: ■ Exchange with partners, techniques and ideas on managing public use on Umbagog lake, its tributaries, and associated uplands

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-83 Alternative C. Management to Create Natural Landscape Composition, Patterns, and Processes

■ Work with States of New Hampshire and Maine to establish an Umbagog Lake Working Group with responsibility to develop consistent regulations and best management practices for activities on the lake and rivers, including: a) wake zones; b) fishing regulations, including fishing tackle; c) boating regulations; d) allowed events/tournaments; e) invasive species management, such as plants and bass; f) outfitter and guide licensing; g) boater ethics program, including waste disposal protocol; h) camp site management; i) other motorized activities, including PWC, float planes; j) promote/develop appropriate locations for access; k) launch sites

■ Also, specifically work with Umbagog Lake Working Group to resolve the Rapid River user conflicts among anglers and boaters; develop management strategy (e.g. control access, require permits, schedule launches, limit numbers, etc)

Objective 6.3 (Partner-managed Visitor Facilities) Within 10 years of CCP approval, develop a visitor contact facility in Errol with partners, where all the visitors to this facility have access to information on outdoor opportunities in the Umbagog area. The Services’ role in the facility is to interpret the refuge’s contribution to the conservation and management of the Northern Forest and its wildlife resources.

Rationale: See rationale for objective 6.1 under alternative B.

Strategies

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Explore other opportunities to display refuge visitor contact information at strategic portal areas (e.g., Evans Notch Visitor Center, Colebrook center, Northern Forest Heritage Park)

■ Provide map with what’s open; e.g. roads snowmobile trails, pull outs, parking, boat launches, river trail

■ Within 5-10 years of CCP approval:

■ Work with chamber of commerce, NHFG, MDIFW, and New Hampshire Division of Parks and Recreation, Town of Errol, local businesses, conservation organizations to evaluate regional opportunities for visitors services that include the refuge

■ With partners, develop an MOU to create a staffed visitor contact facility in town; refuge would only provide supplemental support for staffing. Purpose of facility is to allow visitors to: 1) receive information on what nature-based opportunities are available in the local area; 2) know where to go; and 3) make whatever arrangements and contacts needed for their visit.

■ Pursue alternative funding sources (e.g., State highways grants, main street grants, scenic byways, SAFETEA) to maintain partner run facilities that promote refuge vision and goals

■ Provide services such as selling hunting permits, providing maps, making reservations. Also, offer limited interpretative program, develop exhibits, provide basic orientation: short video; interactive kiosk, some natural history museum pieces (native wildlife displays)

■ Provide visitors with information on programs available on the refuge

2-84 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Alternative B. Management for Particular Habitats and Focal Species (Service-preferred Alternative)

Goal 7 Develop Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge as an outstanding center for research and development of applied management practices to sustain and enhance the natural resources in the Northern Forest in concert with the Refuge System Land Management Research Demonstration (LMRD) program.

Objective 7.1 (Research and Applied Management) Within 5 years of CCP approval, establish a forest research and management Surveying program on refuge lands that enhances the best available science for making vegetation management decisions which benefit wildlife resources. on the refuge Rationale Fortunately for us, researchers from many universities, state and Federal agencies and non-governmental organizations have conducted research and provided us with valuable information on refuge resources. Without these partnerships, we would not have had the staff or funding to accomplish this important work on our own. We will continue to support cooperative research that benefits the Refuge System, refuge purposes, goals, and objectives. Some of the projects that are on-going, or a priority for us to implement after approval of this CCP, are discussed under “Actions Common to All of the Alternatives” above. Other desirable research projects are identified as

USFWS strategies under objectives statements.

We describe the Service’s support for an LMRD area to represent the Northern Forest ecosystem in chapter 1 under the Goals discussion. In summary, LMRD areas were envisioned “…to facilitate development, testing, teaching, publishing, and demonstration of state-of-the-art management techniques that support the critical habitat management information needs for fish, wildlife, and plant conservation within the System and other lands”(USFWS 1999).

Lake Umbagog Refuge, in partnership with the Nulhegan Division of the Silvio O. Conte Fish and Wildlife Refuge, and the Moosehorn Refuge, developed a proposal to be included in the LMRD program. It was one of 13 LMRD proposals approved at the national level. Through this LMRD program and our partners, as explained in Goal 6, we would be able to expand the contribution we are making to the focal species in this alternative by exporting our forest management techniques to proposed easement lands as well as private and public lands beyond our conservation proposal. Currently, we do not have funding for this program. Our objectives below outline a course of action to establish an LMRD program on this refuge.

Strategies In addition to the strategies under “Actions Common to all of the Alternatives” affecting this program:

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Hire an LMRD coordinator with sufficient project funding and integrate with existing refuge staff, who will work with partners to: a) establish and prioritize forest research needs; ; b) identify and coordinate with on-going northern forest research projects at universities and other agencies (i.e. Forest Service) in order to complement on-going research and avoid duplication of effort) c) facilitate forest management research on Northern Forest public and private lands; d) coordinate the exchange of research results among Northern Forest landowners; e) publish research findings in peer-reviewed publications

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-85 Alternative C. Management to Create Natural Landscape Composition, Patterns, and Processes

■ Conduct a research needs assessment for the refuge; emphasize research projects that evaluate our assumptions, objectives, strategies, and techniques on focal species management

Within 5-10 years of CCP approval: ■ Develop a mission and framework for a research program, including research criteria, protocol, and approval for activities on refuge lands

■ Facilitate priority research and publish findings in peer-reviewed publications; all research products, including presentations, posters, and/or journal articles done by others will acknowledge the role of the Service, refuge staff and/or Refuge System lands, as appropriate, as key partners in the research effort.

Objective 7.2 (Outreach for Research and Applied Management Program) Demonstrate habitat management techniques to partners, the scientific community, and the public to promote conservation of wildlife in the Northern Forest. Distribute findings regularly through various media.

Rationale Same as objective 7.1 under alternative B

Strategies Within 5-10 years of CCP approval: ■ Facilitate demonstration areas on both refuge, and other ownerships, that showcase habitat management techniques for species of concern in the Northern Forest.

■ Cooperate with the Partners for Wildlife Program to accomplish outreach and applied management activities; coordinate with their staff, and funding sources

■ Provide forums to present and discuss research findings

■ Conduct a series of workshops and courses

■ Develop a website for others to access research findings; publish findings

Alternative C. Introduction Management to This alternative strives to establish and maintain the ecological integrity of Create Natural natural communities within the refuge and surrounding landscape in the Upper Androscoggin watershed. Ecological integrity is defined by having all native Landscape species present, ecological processes and natural disturbance events, occurring, Composition, Patterns within their respective distribution, abundance or frequency, and natural range and Processes of variability, characteristic of that community type under natural conditions. A natural community with high integrity is also defined as being resilient and able to recover from severe disturbance events (Roe and Ruesink 2004). Management under alternative C would range from passive, or “letting nature take its course,” to actively manipulating vegetation to create, or hasten the development of, mature forest structural conditions shaped by natural disturbances. No particular wildlife species are a focus of management.

As a priority, we would implement studies, consult experts, and conduct literature reviews, to further refine our knowledge of disturbance patterns and structural conditions in both wetlands and uplands natural communities. Under alternative C, we would continue to recognize the current FERC license; however, we would also discuss with the licensee opportunities to manage at water levels that mimic a more natural hydrologic flow throughout the year. Our wetland management

2-86 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Alternative C. Management to Create Natural Landscape Composition, Patterns, and Processes

would also pursue restoration projects where past land uses hinder natural hydrological flow and wetlands development.

In refuge uplands, we would manage to restore the forest communities predicted as the “potential natural vegetation,” using both Kuchler’s delineations of types and ELU’s , as the basis to determine which types are best -suited and most capable of growing on these sites (Kuchler 1964; Anderson 1999). Our management would be designed to create similar mature stand structural conditions that would be expected from natural disturbance events which shaped the Northern Forest landscape. These disturbance events include hurricanes, flooding, ice storms, and small blow-downs. The frequency and intensity of these events may change in light of predictions on climate change. As we describe earlier in this chapter under “Actions Common to All Alternatives” this uncertainty necessitates our use of an adaptive management approach.

We would manage forest age-class, species, and diameter distribution, understory development, amount of dead and dying and cavity trees, large and old trees, coarse woody debris, and canopy closure indicated by historic accounts and/or as described by experts. Notwithstanding these actions, we would also ensure protection of current or future threatened and endangered species, and control the establishment and spread of any non-native, invasive species. Introduced pests and pathogens, including beech-scale disease, gypsy moth, and hemlock and balsam wooly adelgid, may present management issues in the future that require intervention. Map 2-12 depicts the broad habitat types we predict would result after approximately 150 years of implementing alternative C management objectives.

The proposed refuge expansion of 74,414 acres is essential to the success of alternative C (map 2-11). Experts have suggested that 25,000 contiguous acres, connected hydrologically and in a relatively undisturbed condition, is a reasonable approximation of the minimum size within which ecological processes, structure and function, and including the disturbance events identified above, could occur naturally (Anderson 1999; Roe and Ruesink 2004). As such, our expansion proposal under alternative C is designed to protect and conserve large, contiguous habitat blocks exceeding 25,000 acres and connect them to other conserved lands. Unlike alternative B, our need for adjacent conservation landowners to work cooperatively and complement our management is less important because the extent of lands we propose to acquire would allow us to meet our objectives independent of adjacent lands. All 76,304 acres identified would be acquired from willing sellers in fee simple by the Service. Fee simple acquisition ensures full management control and flexibility. As we acquire these lands, we would manage them by the goals, objectives, and strategies under this alternative.

Compared to the alternative B proposals for visitor services programs and refuge uses, alternative C would limit new infrastructure for wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation to those around the Potter Farm facility and roadside pullouts along Routes 16 and 26; however, it would similarly enhance the existing opportunities for hunting and fishing (map 2-13). Similar to alternative B, it proposes to pursue additional analysis in support of a furbearer management plan within 3 years of CCP approval. If the refuge is opened to furbearer trapping under permit, we would expect the alternative C program to emphasize natural furbearer population dynamics. Like alternative B, remote camping on the existing designated lake sites would continue to be allowed, although we would increase monitoring of individual sites, and rehabilitate, or close permanently or seasonally those in need of restoration. Snowmobiling would also continue to be allowed on designated trails (see map 2-14).

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-87 Alternative C. Management to Create Natural Landscape Composition, Patterns, and Processes Map 2-11

2-88 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Map 2-12 Alternative C. Management to Create Natural Landscape Composition, Patterns, and Processes

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-89 Alternative C. Management to Create Natural Landscape Composition, Patterns, and Processes Map 2-13

2-90 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Map 2-14 Alternative C. Management to Create Natural Landscape Composition, Patterns, and Processes

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-91 Alternative C. Management to Create Natural Landscape Composition, Patterns, and Processes

Refuge forest, fen and flooded meadow, and open water habitats on the refuge Bill Zinni/USFWS Also similar to alternative B, under alternative C, we would enhance local community outreach and partnerships, continue to support a Friends Group, and provide valuable volunteer experiences. We would also pursue the establishment of a LMRD site on the refuge to promote research, and the development of applied management practices, to sustain and enhance the natural composition, patterns and processes within their range of natural in the Northern Forest.

Goal 1 Manage open water and submerged aquatic vegetation and wetlands to benefit Federal trust species and other species of conservation concern.

Objective 1.1 (Fen and Flooded Meadow) Manage 775 acres of fen and flooded meadow on Service-owned lands, within the current and expanded refuge boundaries, to reflect the composition, function and diversity of these wetlands as they would occur under natural environmental influences.

Rationale Dan Sperduto and Bill Nichols of the NHNHI surveyed peatlands in the Umbagog area in 1998 and reported the peatlands in and around the refuge to be among the state’s largest and most diverse. The fen and flooded meadows of Leonard Marsh and Harper’s Meadow form an extensive acidic fen complex. These marshes and peatlands support a diverse array of waterfowl, marsh birds, shorebirds, songbirds, and amphibians as well as rare plants. Bird species associated with shrubby swamps and bogs include palm warbler, olive-sided flycatcher, yellow-bellied flycatcher, Nashville warbler, black-backed woodpecker, and rusty blackbird among others. These natural communities and associated plants and animals have developed over the past several hundred years following the damming of the Androscoggin River and concomitant water level changes.

2-92 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Alternative C. Management to Create Natural Landscape Composition, Patterns, and Processes

As in the other alternatives, under alternative C we would conduct an ecological systems analysis to create an historical profile of Umbagog Lake and associated wetlands processes and succession. This would help provide a strong foundation for managing the wetlands within a natural range of variability, and within the context of an impounded system.

Strategies In addition to objective 1.1 strategies under alternative A,

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Conduct a literature review of historical wetland distribution, vegetative composition, and bird communities to establish a benchmark of natural environmental influences. Manage to attain this historical distribution and composition where feasible and reasonable

Within 5-10 years of CCP approval: • Remove roads, culverts, and any other obstructions that affect natural wetlands development, or interfere with natural hydrologic flow, unless human health or safety would be compromised.

■ Determine the area of influence around wetlands (e.g. the area affecting flow and nutrient input) and define an ecological protection boundary within which no degradation of wetlands would occur

■ Acquire 209 acres of this habitat type in fee simple, from willing sellers, and manage as described in the objective 1.1 under alternative C.

Within 10-15 years of CCP approval: ■ Open discussions with hydropower facility owner/operator, FPLE, to discuss the feasibility of managing water levels, within the limits of the FERC license, to mimic a more natural hydrologic flow throughout the year.

Objective 1.2 (Boreal Fen and Bog) Manage 4,624 acres of boreal fen and bog on Service-owned lands, within the current and expanded refuge, boundaries to reflect the composition, function and diversity of these peatlands as they would occur under natural environmental influences.

Rationale Same as objective 1.1 immediately above; also see objective 1.2 under alternative B.

Strategies In addition to objective 1.2 strategies under alternative B,

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Implement a peat coring study to determine the age of these peatlands and whether peat accumulation rates have changed over time.

Within 5-10 years of CCP approval: ■ Conduct pollen analysis of peat cores to study changes in forest composition around the peatlands over time.

■ Acquire 3,222 of this habitat type in fee simple, from willing sellers, and manage as described in objective 1.2 under alternative C.

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-93 Alternative C. Management to Create Natural Landscape Composition, Patterns, and Processes

Objective 1.3 (Northern White Cedar) Manage 1,031 acres of northern white cedar forest on Service-owned lands, within the current and expanded refuge boundaries, to reflect the composition, function and diversity of this habitat type as it would occur under natural environmental influences.

Rationale Northern white cedar swamps have the highest plant species diversity of any of the refuge’s plant community types. The largest northern white cedar swamp in New Hampshire occurs north of Whaleback Ponds and is also found in the Mountain Pond drainage and the Dead Cambridge River. Sperduto and Nichols (2004) provide a detailed description of the plant species associates and ecological conditions typical of a northern white cedar swamp with the Umbagog Lake vicinity offering good examples. Northern white cedar is a long-lived species with individual trees over 100 years old. Magnolia warbler, red-eyed vireo, olive- sided flycatcher, Swainson’s thrush, winter wren, and Canada warbler are some of the bird species found in this habitat. Northern white cedar swamps provide important winter cover and food source (as evidenced by browsing) for white- tailed deer. Beaver are often present in these swamps that are associated with perennial streams playing an important role in the natural disturbance regime (Thompson and Sorenson 2000).

As mentioned under alternative B, there are likely scattered stands of this habitat type in the expansion area, but it was not discernable in the datasets we used for vegetation mapping. If this type is acquired by the Service in fee, it would be managed as stated under this objective.

Strategies In addition to objective 1.3 strategies under alternative A,

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Consult experts and literature to determine what natural disturbances historically shaped the structure, composition, and regeneration of this cover type

Within 5-10 years of CCP approval: ■ Evaluate land use changes and management actions (e.g., timber harvest) to determine how they might have affected the natural development of this habitat type on the refuge

■ Establish management boundaries based on soil conditions, wetness, and topography to be able to effectively manage these sensitive cover types using best management practices developed by states; evaluate and quantify appropriate protective buffer widths and their effectiveness over time

■ Work closely with state non-game and natural heritage programs to conduct more detailed surveys of rare plant and animal occurrences in, and the overall condition, of this cover type

Objective 1.4 (Scrub-Shrub Wetland) Manage 1,981 acres of scrub-shrub wetlands on Service-owned lands, within the current and expanded refuge boundaries, to reflect the composition, function and diversity of these wetlands as they would occur under natural environmental influences.

Rationale The alder shrubland is found on mineral soils along stream floodplains that experience overbank flooding with shrubs dominating the vegetation community (70% or more). The most extensive areas are found in the Dead Cambridge

2-94 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Alternative C. Management to Create Natural Landscape Composition, Patterns, and Processes

River floodplain. Similar scrub-shrub wetland communities include speckled alder swamp and speckled alder peatland lagg—alder swamps on peat or muck substrate that are not influenced by alluvial processes (i.e., river flooding). The sweetgale mixed shrub thicket occurs in lakeshores, beaver meadows, and fens (Rapp 2003).

Shrubland communities that are affected by periodic flooding typically persist for long periods, perhaps decades or centuries, without some other major disturbance. Alder swamps without flooding influences may succeed to forest wetlands in relatively short periods (Thompson and Sorenson 2000). Beaver can play a role in maintaining the shrubby conditions as well. These scrub-shrub wetlands provide breeding and/or foraging habitat for alder flycatcher, common yellowthroat, yellow warbler, swamp sparrow, catbird, veery, and American woodcock and year round habitat for wood turtle, river otter, mink, muskrat, and beaver.

Strategies In addition to objective 1.4 strategies under alternative A:

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Manage to encourage the natural role of beaver in maintaining this wetland type; manage habitat to encourage numbers comparable to those within the natural, historic range of density found in suitable habitat in northern New Hampshire and Maine.

Within 10-15 years of CCP approval: ■ Acquire 1,041 acres of this habitat type in fee simple from willing sellers, and manage as described in objective 1.4

Objective 1.5 (Open Water and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation) In partnership with the states of Maine and New Hampshire, and the holder of the FERC license for Errol Project, FPLE, manage an estimated 5,934 acres of open water and floating-leaved and submerged aquatic vegetation on Service- owned lands, within the current and expanded refuge boundaries, to maintain a healthy aquatic system, including native species diversity, consistent with the results of the wetlands system analysis.

Rationale Same as objective 1.5 under alternative B

Strategies In addition to the strategies under “Actions Common to all of the Alternatives” affecting this program:

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Map and monitor native mussel beds.

Within 5-10 years of CCP approval: ■ Monitor water quality, chemistry, and water levels for potential effects on aquatic vegetation, fish, and waterfowl.

■ Evaluate macro-invertebrates and fishery resources.

■ Acquire an estimated 100 acres of this habitat type in fee simple from willing sellers, and manage as described in objective 1.5

Within 10-15 years of CCP approval: ■ Implement actions, where practical, that would re-establish or maintain naturally sustainable native fish and aquatic plant species; utilize Umbagog Lake Working Group partnership to identify which resources would be a priority

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-95 Alternative C. Management to Create Natural Landscape Composition, Patterns, and Processes

■ Evaluate point and non-point sources of pollution in the entire Upper Androscoggin Watershed and work with private, State, and local entities to improve water quality.

Objective 1.6 (Common Loon) Manage wetlands according to objective 1.1 under alternative C, with no particular emphasis on enhancing habitats specifically for common loon, except to protect active nesting sites from human disturbance.

Strategies Same as objective 1.6 under alternative A

Goal 2 Manage floodplain and lakeshore habitats to benefit Federal trust species and other species of conservation concern.

Objective 2.1 (Wooded Floodplain) Manage 1,433 acres of wooded floodplain on Service-owned lands, within the current and expanded refuge boundaries, to reflect the composition, function Lakeshore pine- and diversity of these habitats as they would occur under natural environmental hemlock forest along the influences. Androscoggin River Rationale Sperduto and Nichols (2004) highlight the balsam fir floodplain along the Magalloway River as a good example of this S2 community type. Red maple floodplain forest, currently described as a more southern community type, occurs over an extensive area along the Magalloway River (Rapp 2003). These riparian ecosystems are areas with high species richness with dynamic and complex biophysical processes. Cavity nesting birds, waterfowl with broods, a diverse amphibian community, and roosting and foraging bats are among the wildlife community that utilizes the wooded floodplain.

Wooded floodplains throughout the region are heavily impacted by agriculture and development, making the Umbagog area floodplains of particular importance to maintaining biological diversity. A priority of the refuge under this alternative is to restore the developed floodplain

Ian Drew/USFWS following removal of cabins and other structures.

Disturbance is an essential and regular dynamic within wooded floodplains. This feature also makes them particularly vulnerable to non-native invasive plants that thrive in disturbed areas. Exposed soils offer prime sites for invasive species to colonize and spread. Although not yet documented on the refuge, floodplain forests in other areas are particularly affected by several invasive plant species including garlic mustard, common buckthorn, ground-ivy, European bush honeysuckle, Tartarian honeysuckle, moneywort, and Japanese knotweed (Thompson and Sorenson 2000). If any of these species become established, the refuge may need to intervene with control measures to maintain the ecological integrity of the floodplain ecosystem.

The refuge currently owns, or has approval for, 1,293 acres of this habitat type. The alternative C expansion proposal includes Service acquisition in fee simple ownership of an additional 140 acres of this habitat type. Fee ownership allows for full management capability on these lands.

2-96 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Alternative C. Management to Create Natural Landscape Composition, Patterns, and Processes

Strategies In addition to objective 2.1 strategies under alternative A,

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Assess floodplain community ecology and dynamics to conserve the natural range of variability in species, density, distribution, and diameter of standing snags (standing dead trees), downed woody debris and live riparian trees. Create standing snags and downed logs, and manage live vegetation, as warranted. While active management may be required within the next 15 years to establish some minimum structural or composition thresholds, ultimately, the objective is to create a habitat complex that is sustained by natural processes.

Within 5-10 years of CCP approval: ■ Restore the hydrology of the Day Flats area by plugging ditches and re-contouring the disturbed areas, assuming that preliminary site surveys determine that invasive plants would not be a threat

■ Acquire 140 acres of this habitat type in fee simple, within the expansion area, from willing sellers, and manage as described in the objective 2.1 and to preclude development and maintain flood control and storage capabilities.

Objective 2.2 (Lakeshore Pine-Hemlock) Manage 520 acres of lakeshore pine-hemlock on Service-owned lands, within the current and expanded refuge boundaries, to more closely reflect the composition, function, and diversity of this habitat as it would occur under natural environmental influences.

Rationale Same as objective 2.2 under alternative B

Strategies In addition to objective 2.2 strategies under alternative A,

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Develop and implement a habitat management plan to perpetuate this habitat type, giving priority to water quality protection and aesthetic values.

Within 5-10 years of CCP approval: ■ Allow windthrow events to occur. No salvage harvest to occur after these events.

Objective 2.3 (Bald Eagle and Osprey) Same as objective 2.3 under alternative B

Goal 3 Manage upland forested habitats, consistent with site capabilities, to benefit Federal trust species and other species of conservation concern.

Objective 3.1 (Mixed Spruce-Fir/Northern Hardwoods Forest Matrix) Conserve the mixed forest matrix, by managing 3 dominant forest habitat types: spruce-fir (approximately 14,770 acres); conifer-hardwoods mixed woods (approximately 34,231 acres; and, northern hardwoods (approximately

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-97 Alternative C. Management to Create Natural Landscape Composition, Patterns, and Processes

36,384 acres) on Service-owned lands within the current and expanded refuge boundaries, in >25,000 acre contiguous, unfragmented blocks. Create a mosaic of forested stands in a mix of age, composition, and structure that would occur under natural environmental influences.

Rationale As we described under alternative B, goal 3, the forest matrix in the Upper Androscoggin River watershed was historically, and is currently, an overall mixed spruce-fir/northern hardwoods forest. We also mentioned that there are 3 habitat types embedded within this mixed forest matrix. We describe these habitat types in more detail below.

The refuge currently owns, or has approval to acquire, 15,683 acres of mixed forest matrix, composed of the 3 habitat types. Under the alternative B expansion proposal, we recommend Service fee simple acquisition of an additional 69,702 acres of the mixed forest matrix. Fee acquisition would allow for full management capability on these lands.

Spruce-Fir Habitat Type Red spruce and balsam fir are the late successional dominant tree species in the lowland spruce-fir habitat type. Species composition varies depending on soil conditions; black spruce is common on wetter soils and white pine is often a component of the canopy on dryer soils. Hardwoods such as red maple, yellow birch, and paper birch can be mixed in as well, and white spruce is common in some areas. Overall plant diversity in lowland spruce-fir forests is low compared to other forest types. Shrubs such as mountain holly and wild raisin are scattered in the understory, while mosses and liverworts often dominate the ground layer. Scattered patches of herbs such as common wood sorrel, bluebead lily, and shining clubmoss persist in dense shade on the forest floor (Roe and Ruesink 2004).

Insect outbreaks are the most frequent and influential natural disturbance in lowland spruce-fir habitat type. Pests such as spruce budworm and spruce bark beetle occur in 50 to 100 year cycles, creating large patches of dead and dying trees up to 2,500 acres in area. Wind and fire also affect these forests, with wind the more important of the two. Red spruce tends to experience a long disturbance cycle of 200 or more years, which is driven by wind, fire, or insects. Balsam fir stands cycle at an interval of roughly 75 years primarily in response to insect outbreaks. The canopy is not continuous; lowland spruce-fir forests tend to have a moth-eaten appearance, with a coarse-grained uneven mosaic of medium and large patches (25 to 2,500 acres in size) in a patchwork of multi-cohort stands (Roe and Ruesink 2004). Lorimer (1977) estimated that pre-settlement spruce-fir forests in Maine supported about 2 percent recently disturbed stands (0-10 years old) and 60 percent older aged stands (>150 years).

Lowland spruce-fir forest is a common community type on the refuge, forming large stands in lower elevation areas on gentle slopes and flats, although logging disturbed much of the habitat. The largest remaining stands are in the Mountain Pond and Sunday Cove areas as well as in the Whaleback Ponds, Mile Long West, and Dead Cambridge areas. Other spruce-fir types include black spruce-red spruce forest such as the area near Sunday Cove and the moose wallow 1.5 miles northeast of the refuge headquarters. Red spruce-rocky summit occurs on ridge tops and steep, rocky slopes in the Errol Hill, Mile Long, and Whaleback Pond areas (Rapp 2003).

The New Hampshire Forest Resources Plan noted declines in mature spruce fir forests and concluded that this habitat type supports more rare animal species in New Hampshire than other major forest types (New Hampshire Division of Forests and Lands 1995). Bird species associated with this habitat type include boreal chickadee, magnolia and blackburnian warblers, yellow-bellied

2-98 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Alternative C. Management to Create Natural Landscape Composition, Patterns, and Processes

flycatcher, purple finch, red crossbill, spruce grouse, pine grosbeak, gray jay, and black-backed and American three-toed woodpeckers. Several of these species’ populations fluctuate with spruce budworm outbreaks. Although spruce budworm was present in pre-settlement forests, the frequency and intensity of outbreaks is unknown, with some evidence that budworm was not a major disturbance factor until the early 1800s and now occurring on shorter cycles (Lorimer 1977; Charlie Cogbill, personal communication, 2004). Black-backed and American three-toed woodpeckers specialize on wood-boring insects in spruce and fir while magnolia warbler and yellow-bellied woodpecker inhabit young spruce-fir stands.

Mixed Woods Habitat Type Red spruce-northern hardwood or mixed woods occurs on shallow soils or those with a hardpan that creates moist soils conditions. Mean gap size tends to be larger than in northern hardwoods, as the shallow, moist soils make it more likely that small groups of softwoods topple to the ground. Small, frequent gaps may range up to 0.5 acres in size. Several long-lived tree species – especially red spruce and hemlock – that can live for 400 to 500 years are abundant in these forests. Currently, natural species composition is significantly altered on many sites that should support a spruce/fir-northern hardwood forest. According to historical records, red maple was an uncommon tree in pre-settlement forests, yet it is common in mixed forests today. Current conditions, such as low soil pH, high soil aluminum concentrations, and selective removal of softwood species on moist sites, appear to favor red maple germination and growth. In addition, previous logging activities have reduced softwood abundance below natural levels on many sites (Roe and Ruesink 2004).

Northern Hardwood Habitat Type Northern hardwood forests, dominated by American beech, yellow birch, and sugar maple, occur at elevations less than 2,700 feet. Striped maple, hobblebush, and shadbush are common understory shrubs. Tree fall gaps are dispersed and frequent. Moderate-sized blow downs occur at 25-year intervals, while large stand-replacing disturbances occur at 500 to 1,000 year intervals. Fires and pathogens are not significant factors in northern hardwood forests. Natural conditions within northern hardwood forests include an all-aged structure, trees 150-200 years old on average, the oldest trees reaching 300 years, and less than 1% of the canopy disturbed annually by tree mortality (Roe and Ruesink 2004).

Overall, most northern hardwood forests currently under management would need a long “recovery” period to create all-aged stands that include trees in the oldest age classes. Any restoration silviculture should use small and dispersed single-tree and small group selection cuts with no canopy openings greater than 0.25 acres. This will lead to a very fine-grained, all-aged condition. Large legacy trees and other structural elements, such as large standing and downed dead wood, should be retained. Median canopy tree age should be approximately 150 years, and stands should include mature trees that are 300+ years old (Roe and Ruesink 2004).

Strategies In addition to objective 3.1 strategies under alternative A,

Specific Strategies for the Spruce-Fir Habitat Type Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Identify and protect biological legacies such as large diameter dead and dying trees.

Within 5-10 years of CCP approval: ■ Develop recently disturbed stands with only young spruce and fir under a canopy of aspen and white birch.

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-99 Alternative C. Management to Create Natural Landscape Composition, Patterns, and Processes

■ Acquire 11,468 acres of this habitat type within the expansion area, from willing sellers, and manage as described in the objective 3.1.

■ Across refuge, develop multi-cohort stands with scattered canopy red spruce >150 yrs old and an understory of spruce and fir up to 75 yrs old (Roe and Ruesink 2004).

■ Develop multi-cohort stands with canopy red spruce 75-150 yrs old.

Specific Strategies for the Mixed Woods Habitat Type Within 5-10 years of CCP approval: ■ Increase the softwood component to approach the natural range of variation of the mixed cover type by using small group selection on up to 0.5 acres (Roe and Ruesink 2004).

Within 10-15 years of CCP approval: ■ Acquire 27,918 acres of this habitat type from willing sellers, and manage as described in objective 3.1.

Specific Strategies for the Northern Hardwood Habitat Type Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Identify and protect biological legacies such as large-diameter coarse woody debris and standing snags (standing dead trees).

Within 5-10 years of CCP approval: ■ Promote natural tree species composition and reproduction.

■ Promote natural, all-aged stand structure.

Within 10-15 years of CCP approval: ■ Acquire 30,316 acres of this cover type from willing sellers, and manage as described in the objective 3.1.

Goal 4 Provide high quality wildlife-dependent activities such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, as well as camping and boating in support of those activities.

Objective 4.1 (Hunting) Within 3 years of CCP approval, create a high-quality hunt program (as defined by alternative B), that is designed for a backcountry, remote, low density and with generally unimproved access.

Strategies Same as objective 4.1 strategies under alternative B, except:

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Limit access; no developments or facilities; no improved access, emphasis is on a back-country experience. Much is walk-in only

Within 5-10 years of CCP approval: ■ Consider a permit system and designated hunt areas once quality of hunt is affected by numbers and/or distribution or the ability to achieve refuge resource objectives are compromised

Objective 4.2 (Fishing) Within 15 years of CCP approval, provide an angler experience that is remote, low density, and generally, with unimproved access. On the Rapid and Dead

2-100 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Alternative C. Management to Create Natural Landscape Composition, Patterns, and Processes

Cambridge rivers, the angling experience would be based on a native brook trout fishery.

Strategies Same as objective 4.2 strategies under alternative B, except:

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Limit access; no developments or facilities; no improved access

Within 5-10 years of CCP approval: ■ Consider a permit system and designated fishing areas once quality of angling experience is affected by numbers and/or distribution or the ability to achieve refuge resource objectives are compromised

Objective 4.3 (Wildlife Observation and Photography) Same as objective 4.3 under alternative B

Strategies Same as objective 4.3 under alternative B, except:

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ No new infrastructure except near visitor contact facility, wildlife viewing pull-outs along Routes 16 and 26, and we would complete Magalloway River Trail expansion

■ Establish restrictions on access to sensitive, easily impacted areas such the unique fens and bogs

Objective 4.4 (Camping) Same as objective 4.4 under alternative B

Strategies Similar to objective 4.4 strategies under alternative B, except:

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Infrastructure at sites will be reduced to a low impact, leave-no-trace program, requiring campers to bring portable toilets, and no fires will be allowed.

Objective 4.5 (Boating) Within 4 years of CCP approval, at least 80% of boaters passing through the refuge will report they had a high quality experience based on the following criteria: a) backcountry boating experience b) few contacts with other users; c) a positive, personally-challenging experience; and d) a reasonable chance to view wildlife in a natural setting.

Strategies In addition to objective 4.6 strategies under alternative A,

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Limit interpretive tours by staff, volunteers, or partners, especially those that involve large groups > 20

Within 5-10 years of CCP approval: ■ Limit boat access to canoe and kayaks only; car-top launching only from refuge lands; acquire other boat accesses

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-101 Alternative C. Management to Create Natural Landscape Composition, Patterns, and Processes

Goal 5 Develop high quality interpretative opportunities, and facilitate environmental education, to promote an understanding and appreciation for the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats, as well as the role of the refuge in the Northern Forest.

Objective 5.1 (Interpretative Programs: on-refuge emphasis) Every year, at least 80% of visitors attending refuge interpretive programs will be able to identify one of the following: 1) be able to identify the refuge’s purposes and describe its role in conserving the Northern Forest, 2) identify at least one community type and its associated species, 3) identify how natural and human processes have altered the landscape over time.

Strategies Same as objective 5.1 strategies under alternative B, except limit new developments to:

Within 10-15 years of CCP approval: ■ Develop an interpretive trail at the Potter Farm once the refuge headquarters is constructed; make it ADA compliant to the extent feasible. With the exception of new wildlife viewing pullouts, no other new facilities would be constructed

Objective 5.2 (Community Outreach) Same as objective 5.2 strategies under alternative B

Strategies Same as alternative B, except:

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Expand activities to include more activities off-site since fewer facilities on refuge.

Objective 5.3 (Visitor Awareness) Same as objective 5.3 under alternative B

Strategies Within 5-10 years of CCP approval: ■ Develop an access management plan working with States and other partners providing public access to Umbagog Lake; establish thresholds of acceptable change which restriction would occur. Emphasis in uplands will be dispersed, back-country recreational opportunities, with limited developments (e.g. Trails and roads).

Objective 5.4 (Environmental Educational Opportunities) Facilitate environmental education opportunities on the refuge, in partnership with other educators, to explain the importance of conserving and managing the natural resources in the Northern Forest to students, teachers, and other visitors. All who participate in environmental education programs on the refuge will be able to 1) understand the need for migratory bird conservation; 2) understand the role of natural processes in the development of the forest ecosystem; 3) identify the refuge’s role in the Refuge System and in conserving the Northern Forest; and, 4) name at least one natural community type in the Northern Forest.

2-102 Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative Alternative C. Management to Create Natural Landscape Composition, Patterns, and Processes

Strategies Same as objective 5.4 strategies under alternative B

Objective 6.1 (Partnerships) Same as objective 6.1 under alternative B

Objective 7.1 (Research and Applied Management) Same as objective 7.1 under alternative B except:

The focus of research and applied management would be on natural systems and ecological processes of the Northern Forest

Objective 7.2 (Outreach for Research and Applied Management Program) Same as objective 7.2 under alternative B, except:

Demonstrate management techniques to partners, the scientific community, and public that enhance the natural diversity and promote natural ecological processes of the Northern Forest. Ian Drew/USFWS Studying bald eagles on the refuge

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative 2-103 2-104 Summary Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative Summary Comparison Introduction of Management Chapter 2, Part III, “Actions Common to All the Alternatives” describes many important actions which are not discussed in the table below. Those actions include: developing refuge step-down plans, coordinating lake water level management, Actions by implementing and prioritizing a biological monitoring and inventory program, protecting deer winter yards, protecting Alternative vernal pools and other unique or rare communities, expanding and protecting the Floating Island National Natural Landmark, maintaining partnerships, permitting special uses, distributing refuge revenue sharing payments, conducting wilderness and wild and scenic rivers reviews, protecting cultural resources, and refuge staffing and administration. The reader is encouraged to review this section for a complete perspective on each alternative.

Table 2.2 highlights those actions that distinguish the alternatives, how they relate to our goals, and how they address the significant issues identified in chapter 1. Please refer to the glossary to interpret any acronyms.

Table 2.2. Highlights of respective alternative’s actions as they relate to goals and significant issues

Refuge Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred the Alternative Including Considered, Alternatives 2. Chapter or Program Current Management Service-preferred alternative

Goal 1. Manage open water and wetlands to benefit Federal trust species and other species of conservation concern Responds to Issues: Which wetlands habitats and dependent species should be a management priority? How will we manage for them on the refuge? How will we manage furbearer populations?

Fen and Flooded Continue “passive” management on In addition to alternative A: In addition to alternative A: Meadow; Boreal 1,722 acres of these habitat types; Fen and Bog we defi ne passive management as Actively manage to promote high quality habitat for focal Remove roads, culverts, and any protecting, monitoring key resources, species identifi ed in objective 1.1 and 1.2 (e.g. various other obstructions not needed for and conducting baseline inventories waterfowl, marsh and wading birds), to the extent possible administrative purposes or priority to improve our knowledge of the under the existing FERC license programs, that affect natural wetlands ecosystem development or interfere with natural Expand alternative A bird surveys to include nesting, brood- hydrologic fl ow Continue spring and fall migratory rearing and migrating waterfowl, shorebird and marsh wading waterfowl and shorebird surveys and birds Determine historical distribution, breeding marsh bird surveys composition, and development of Evaluate recreational impacts on waterfowl and water bird wetlands prior to dam establishment Conduct other baseline species and brood rearing in the Magalloway and Dead Cambridge river and evaluate whether historical vegetation monitoring and inventories areas context can be reestablished as funding allows, including in the 860 acre Floating Island NNL Expand production of wild rice and other high energy food Determine an annual hydrologic fl ow sources for waterfowl that more closely mimics a natural Continue to support research to regime, and initiate dialogue with the determine impacts on resources of Initiate studies to determine a more favorable year round water holder of the FERC license for the Errol concern from water level management level management regime for conserving priority habitats and Project (currently FPLE) to determine focal species, including NNL, and initiate dialogue with the feasibility of implementation holder of the FERC license for the Errol Project (currently FPLE) to determine feasibility of implementation Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred the Alternative Including Considered, Alternatives 2. Chapter Refuge Resource Alternative A Alternative B or Program Current Management Service-preferred alternative Alternative C

Goal 1. (cont’d) Manage open water and wetlands to benefit Federal trust species and other species of conservation concern

Fen and Flooded Conduct other baseline species and Expand production of wild rice and other high energy food Determine an annual hydrologic ﬂ ow Meadow; Boreal vegetation monitoring and inventories sources for waterfowl that more closely mimics a natural Fen and Bog as funding allows, including in the 860 regime, and initiate dialogue with the (cont’d) acre Floating Island NNL Determine a more favorable year round water level holder of the FERC license for the Errol management regime for conserving priority habitats and focal Project (currently FPLE) to determine In cooperation with NPS, expand NNL species, including NNL, and initiate dialogue with the holder feasibility of implementation boundary to include 2,181 total acres, of the FERC license for the Errol Project (currently FPLE) to and establish permanent monitoring determine feasibility of implementation Increase permanent conservation of program to insure no loss of diversity these habitat types through Service or integrity Conduct a hydrologic study of groundwater and nutrient ﬂ ow in acquisition in fee simple of 3,551 acres; Leonard Marsh and Harpers Meadow all acquisition would be from willing Continue to support research to sellers determine impacts on resources of In addition to alternative A acquisition, increase permanent concern from water level management conservation of these habitat types through Service acquisition in fee simple of 2,573 acres, and 358 acres in conservation Continue to acquire up to 170 acres easement; all acquisition would be from willing sellers from willing sellers within current, approved boundary Summary Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative

Northern White Continue passive management on the Expand alternative A surveys to include more detailed surveys In addition to alternative A: Cedar 829 acres in this habitat type of rare plant and animal occurrences; and, working with state Heritage Programs, establish measures of ecological integrity Determine historical distribution, Continue to inventory small mammals and develop a monitoring program to evaluate overall condition composition, and development of this and amphibians as funding allows habitat type prior to dam establishment Restore northern white cedar on sites where land use and evaluate whether historical Continue to acquire up to 202 acres converted it to another type; treat competing vegetation on up context can be reestablished from willing sellers within current, to 150 acres in 15 years approved boundary In cooperation with state heritage Evaluate habitat needs of boreal species using this habitat type; programs, conduct baseline studies manage to enhance those features, if not present of rare plant and animal occurrences within this type, establish measures of ecological integrity and develop a monitoring program to evaluate overall condition 2-105 2-106 Summary Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative Refuge Resource Alternative A Alternative B or Program Current Management Service-preferred alternative Alternative C

Goal 1. (cont’d) Manage open water and wetlands to benefit Federal trust species and other species of conservation concern

Scrub-Shrub Continue passive management on the In addition alternative A research: In addition alternative A: 682 acres in this habitat type In woodcock focus areas which overlap this habitat type, Use beaver to sustain this habitat Continue to acquire up to 258 acres identify treatment areas and actively enhance woodcock type; begin NEPA analysis, including from willing sellers within current, foraging and brood-rearing habitat by creating and maintaining public involvement, associated with approved boundary alder on approximately 20-year rotations developing a furbearer management plan to help manage beaver Continue to support research to Begin NEPA analysis, including public involvement, associated populations within their historic, determine impacts from water level with developing a furbearer management plan to help manage natural range of density/mile (in management beaver populations where practical and consistent with habitat suitable habitat in northern NH and objective. ME)

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred the Alternative Including Considered, Alternatives 2. Chapter In addition to alternative A acquisition, increase permanent Increase permanent conservation conservation of these habitat types through Service acquisition of this habitat type through Service in fee simple of 790 acres, and 77 acres in conservation acquisition in fee simple of 1,041 acres; easement; all acquisition would be from willing sellers all acquisition would be from willing sellers

Open Water Continue passive management on the Work with states, to protect and enhance SAV beds, improve In addition to alternative A: and Submerged 5,033 acres in this habitat type water quality, and increase production of native brook trout Aquatic Establish water quality monitoring Vegetation Continue to map distribution of SAV Initiate mapping and monitoring of native mussel and SAV beds program, identify pollution sources beds as funding allows in the Upper Androscoggin River In addition to alternative A acquisition, increase permanent watershed, and determine impacts on Continue to acquire up to 801 acres conservation of these habitat types through Service acquisition aquatic resources; from willing sellers within current, in fee simple of 46 acres, and 23 acres in conservation approved boundary easement; all acquisition would be from willing sellers Increase permanent conservation of this habitat types through Service acquisition in fee simple of 100 acres; all acquisition would be from willing sellers

Common Loon Continue to monitor and actively In addition to alternative A, initiate surveys and studies to: Same as alternative A protect loon nesting sites (e.g. restricted public access, buoy lines, Map and monitor recreational use and pressure near loon nest observers and monitors, outreach nesting territories and education) in partnership with states and with the holder of the FERC Evaluate loon interactions with waterfowl during the breeding license for the Errol Project, FPLE season and determine impact of predators in loon nesting success; manage loon predators as warranted Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred the Alternative Including Considered, Alternatives 2. Chapter Refuge Resource Alternative A Alternative B or Program Current Management Service-preferred alternative Alternative C

Goal 1. (cont’d) Manage open water and wetlands to benefit Federal trust species and other species of conservation concern

Common Loon Continue annual meetings with FERC Once study and inventory results available, review loon nesting (cont’d) licensee or representative to advise carrying capacities identiﬁ ed in objective 1.6. on lake water level management; continue to use breeding and nesting Evaluate availability and quality of natural nesting sites loons as bio-indicators of water-level management impacts Continue to support research into the decline of the local loon population; also, develop and maintain a permanent dataset at LPC and the refuge on this Umbagog Lake population

Furbearer No management Within 3 years, begin NEPA analysis, including public Same as alternative B Management involvement, associated with developing a Furbearer Management Plan. The plan will evaluate the need for active

management, and where and how this might occur. Summary Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative This does not preclude the refuge manager from using trapping as a tool in the interim if safety, health or resource values are jeopardized when it is done as an administrative activity by refuge staff, their agent, or a contractor.

Goal 2. Manage floodplain and lakeshore habitats to benefit Federal trust species and other species of conservation concern

Responds to Issue: Which habitats and dependent species should be a management priority? How will we manage for them on the refuge?

Wooded Continue passive management on the In addition alternative A: In addition to alternative A: Floodplain 1,140 acres in this habitat type Actively manage to promote high quality habitat for focal Determine historical distribution, Continue to restore natural vegetation species identiﬁ ed in objective 2.1 (northern parula and rusty composition, and development on unauthorized camp sites and blackbird); where practical, create those forest stand structural of this habitat type and evaluate surplus cabins sites that have been attributes determined to be a limiting factor for breeding and whether historical context can be removed nesting focal species (e.g. cavity trees, rich understory) reestablished; management objective would be to create a habitat complex Continue vernal pool, small mammal, Protect/retain large legacy trees, and large standing and that would eventually be sustained amphibian and breeding bird surveys downed dead wood for cavity tree-dependent wildlife through natural ecological processes as funding allows without further intervention 2-107 2-108 Summary Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative Refuge Resource Alternative A Alternative B or Program Current Management Service-preferred alternative Alternative C

Goal 2. (cont’d) Manage floodplain and lakeshore habitats to benefit Federal trust species and other species of conservation concern

Wooded Continue to acquire up to 153 acres Restore the hydrology of the Day Flats area by plugging ditches Restore the hydrology of the Day Floodplain (cont’d) from willing sellers within current, and re-contouring the disturbed areas Flats area by plugging ditches and re- approved boundary contouring the disturbed areas Work with NHNHB to defi ne the rare Magalloway River fl oodplain type, and establish measures of ecological integrity; Increase permanent conservation implement a monitoring program of this habitat type through Service acquisition in fee simple of 140 acres; Evaluate isolated backwater areas with high potential for all acquisition would be from willing waterfowl brood rearing habitat to determine if seasonal boat sellers access closures would enhance habitat quality; implement closures if determined benefi cial

Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred the Alternative Including Considered, Alternatives 2. Chapter In addition to alternative A acquisition, increase permanent conservation of these habitat types through Service acquisition in fee simple of 123 acres, and 13 acres in conservation easement; all acquisition would be from willing sellers

Lakeshore Pine- Continue passive management on the In addition alternative A: In addition to alternative A: Hemlock 232 acres in this habitat type Work with NHNHB to establish measures of ecological integrity Determine historical distribution, Continue to restore natural vegetation and implement a monitoring program in the jack pine type composition, and development on unauthorized camp sites and of this habitat type and evaluate surplus cabins sites that have been Protect/retain large legacy trees, and large standing and whether historical context can be removed downed dead wood, or any tree observed to be used by eagles reestablished; overall objective would and osprey for perching be to create a habitat complex that Monitor habitat impacts from public would eventually be sustained through use and record wildlife use when natural ecological processes with stafﬁ ng and funding allows minimal intervention Continue to acquire up to 288 acres from willing sellers within current, approved boundary

Bald Eagle and In partnership with NHFG, MDIFW, In addition to alternative A, protect: Same as alternative B Osprey and other conservation partners, continue to conduct annual bald eagle All active nest trees with a 600 foot no-disturbance buffer and osprey nest surveys Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred the Alternative Including Considered, Alternatives 2. Chapter Refuge Resource Alternative A Alternative B or Program Current Management Service-preferred alternative Alternative C

Goal 2. (cont’d) Manage floodplain and lakeshore habitats to benefit Federal trust species and other species of conservation concern

Bald Eagle and Continue to actively protect nest sites All historic nest sites, nest trees, and partially constructed nest Osprey (cont’d) where warranted (e.g. restricted trees public access, buoy lines, predator guards, outreach and education) All stands with replacement potential as nesting habitat Protect super-canopy trees Support efforts to eliminate practices that contribute to lead and other contaminants

Goal 3. Manage upland forested habitats, consistent with site capabilities, to benefit Federal trust species and other species of conservation concern

Responds to Issues: Which upland forest habitats and forest-dependent species should be a management priority? How will we manage for them on the refuge?

Mixed Forest Continue passive management on the Actively manage to promote and sustain high quality habitat Manage mixed forest matrix Matrix 10,845 acres in this habitat type Actively manage to promote and sustain high quality habitat development across the refuge Summary Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative for refuge focal species identifi ed in objective 3.1 (e.g. landscape to approximate the native With 3 embedded Continue to work with NHFG and blackburnian, Canada, and black-throated green warblers, species and the ecological processes, habitat types: MDIFW to identify and protect all deer and American woodcock); within habitat management units, including natural disturbance regime, winter yards establish treatment areas and manage to promote desired characteristic of the mixed forest 1) Spruce-Fir forest stand conditions using accepted silvicultural practices. matrix within their natural range of Continue to conduct annual breeding Protect/retain large legacy trees, and large standing and variation; overall objective would be to 2) Mixed Woods bird surveys downed dead wood and favor the spruce component in create a mosaic of habitat types that (spruce-fi r- management activities. See appendix K for additional details on would eventually be sustained through hardwood mix) Continue to acquire up to 4,838 acres forest management guidelines. natural ecological processes with from willing sellers within current, minimal intervention 3) Northern approved boundary Continue to conduct alternative A breeding bird surveys; Hardwood cooperate with NHFG and MDIFW in developing management Utilize the TNC publication “Natural plans, consistent with priority focal species management, for Dynamics Silviculture” (Roe critical deer winter yards to ensure their effectiveness over the and Ruesink 2004) as a guide for long-term management Work with lynx recovery team to determine any future In addition to alternative A acquisition, management potential increase permanent conservation of the mixed forest matrix through In addition to alternative A acquisition, increase permanent Service acquisition in fee simple of conservation of these habitat types through Service acquisition 69,702 acres; all acquisition would be in fee simple of 23,501 acres, and 20,427 acres in conservation from willing sellers easement; all acquisition would be from willing sellers 2-109 2-110 Summary Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative Refuge Resource Alternative A Alternative B or Program Current Management Service-preferred alternative Alternative C Goal 4. Provide high quality wildlife-dependent activities such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, as well as camping and boating in support of those activities Responds to Issues: What is the appropriate level of use for each of the six priority public use programs on the refuge: hunting, fi shing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation? What means of access will we allow for these activities? How will we manage remote camping on the refuge?

Hunting Continue to offer a hunt program, In addition to alternative A: Same as alternative B, except the consistent with respective state objective is to promote a backcountry, regulations and seasons and annual Improve information materials provided to hunters (e.g. allowed low density hunt experience. Actions Refuge Hunt Plan, except no turkey access, other restrictions) that would differ include: hunting on refuge lands, and no bobcat hunting on refuge lands in Increase knowledge of refuge harvest information and hunter Establish hunting units and distribute satisfaction; in cooperation with state, local hunt clubs, use and limit numbers through free Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred the Alternative Including Considered, Alternatives 2. Chapter Maine volunteers, or other partners, establish refuge check stations special use permit program; Continue to maintain 6 waterfowl and/or issue free special use permits and require reporting hunt blinds and allow use under a No new developments, facilities, or reservation system Within 2 years of CCP approval, evaluate the potential for a improved access would be provided; turkey hunt on refuge lands in both NH and ME and a bobcat majority of area is walk-in use only hunt on refuge lands in Maine, consistent with respective states’ regulations. If appropriate, develop a new Hunt Plan opening package, including new NEPA document, Federal Register notice, and public involvement opportunities

Fishing Continue to allow fi shing, consistent In addition to alternative A: Same as alternative B, except the with respective state regulations and objective is to promote a remote, low seasons; except public access may be Complete all administrative actions to offi cially open the refuge density angling experience. Actions restricted in certain areas to protect to fi shing that would differ include: loon, bald eagle, and osprey nests Provide improved lake and river shoreline access at designated Consider permit system once Continue to host Take Me Fishing sites, and new proposed sites, including provisions for anglers thresholds have been breached event with disabilities at new Mountain Pond fi shing access No new developments, facilities, or In cooperation with the states of New Hampshire and Maine, improved access would be provided; increase knowledge of refuge harvest information and angler majority of area is walk-in use only satisfaction through creel surveys; and Work with NHFG and MDIFW to maintain a high quality brook trout fi shery in the Rapid, Dead Diamond, B Brook, and Dead Cambridge river drainages. Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred the Alternative Including Considered, Alternatives 2. Chapter Refuge Resource Alternative A Alternative B or Program Current Management Service-preferred alternative Alternative C Goal 4. (cont’d) Provide high quality wildlife-dependent activities such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, as well as camping and boating in support of those activities

Wildlife Continue to maintain Magalloway In addition to alternative A: In addition to alternative A, the Observation River trail and viewing platform objective is to promote a backcountry, and Nature Create safe, accessible wildlife viewing pull-outs on Route 16 low density wildlife observation and Photography Continue to allow use of waterfowl and 26 in partnership with NHFG, MDIFW, and state highway photography experience. blinds under a reservation system departments which, in addition to hunting, provides The only new developments would be for observing and photographing Provide other new infrastructure, including trails, identiﬁ ed around Potter Farm facility and the wildlife under “Goal 5: Interpretation” discussion roadside pullouts on Routes 16 and 26. No other facilities, or improved access Work with NHFG, MDIFW and other partners to develop on-refuge would be provided; majority regional wildlife viewing trails across ownerships (e.g. auto, of area is walk-in use only. canoe/kayak, walking, snowmobile, etc) with associated visitor contact materials Develop a wildlife viewing reporting system (e.g. on-line web- based)

Camping Continue cooperative program with In addition to alternative A: Same as alternative B, except the Summary Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative NH DRED-Parks and Recreation objective is to promote a primitive, low allowing them to administer 14 remote, Complete cooperative agreement with NH DRED-Division impact experience. Actions that would designated camp sites on refuge lands of Parks and Recreation to formalize administration, differ include: (12 sites on lake; 2 on river) implementation and stipulations; Limit infrastructure at camping sites, Continue to maintain and improve Close the two river camp sites and rehabilitate them to native limit number of campers/site, do not campsites on an annual basis vegetation allow ﬁ res, and require campers to bring portable toilets Continue seasonal closures of certain Utilize the proposed Umbagog Lake Working Group to help sites when warranted to reduce develop a voluntary, interagency plan for remote camping impacts to nesting loons and other across ownerships and jurisdictions. Such considerations as wildlife setting fees, limits on camper numbers and use restrictions, distribution of sites, safety, site protection and restoration, season length, and reservation system would be explored 2-111 2-112 Summary Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative Refuge Resource Alternative A Alternative B or Program Current Management Service-preferred alternative Alternative C Goal 5. Develop high quality interpretive opportunities, and facilitate environmental education, to promote an understanding and appreciation for the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats, as well as the role of the refuge in the Northern Forest. Responds to Issues: What is the appropriate level of use for each of the six priority public use programs on the refuge: hunting, ﬁ shing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation? What means of access will we allow for these activities?

Interpretation Continue to respond to requests for In addition to alternative A: Same as alternative B, except, only the Continue to respond to requests for Potter Farm trail loop, which requires programs when stafﬁ ng and funding Develop Visitor Services Plan and implement all programs new construction, would be included. allows; demand would continue to far identiﬁ ed under goals 4 and 5; seek funding to hire a VSP Other trail options may be considered exceed staff’s ability to respond in the future if no new construction is Increase interpretive programs by providing guided walks and necessary. Continue efforts to complete boat trips, or other programs at state campground Magalloway River interpretive trail, The overall objective is to promote a Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred the Alternative Including Considered, Alternatives 2. Chapter including its ¼ mile loop expansion, Improve self-guided interpretative information at Magalloway backcountry, low density experience. and the Magalloway River self-guided River trail and along approved, designated snowmobile trails. Actions that would differ include: canoe and kayak trail Insure proposed walking and canoe/kayak trails (e.g. new walking trails at Potter Farm, Thurston Cove, and Mountain Limit group size to <20 individuals Pond areas, and along Route 16: and, Magalloway River self- guided boat trail) have high quality, self-guiding interpretive Maintain interpretive signage only at materials trailheads See also Goal 6: “Partner-managed visitor facilities”

Community Continue to coordinate two annual In addition to alternative A: Same as alternative B Outreach community events: Umbagog Wildlife Festival, and Take Me Fishing. While Create new, and improve existing outreach materials the main venue for these programs (newsletter, website, media and press kits, fact sheets, virtual are in town, include coordinated on- tours of refuge and webcams at bald eagle and loon nesting refuge programs when staffi ng and sites) funding are available Coordinate with states and Umbagog Lake Working Group to Continue to distribute brochures and develop lake access management plan and outreach materials; literature on impacts to wildlife from better explain where public access is allowed and why there lead fi shing tackle are area closures and other restrictions to protect resources; also, cooperatively implement an informational sign program in visitor concentration areas Conduct outreach specifi cally targeted at refuge neighbors to encourage their awareness, interest and involvement in refuge activities See also Goal 6: “Partner-managed visitor facilities” Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred the Alternative Including Considered, Alternatives 2. Chapter Refuge Resource Alternative A Alternative B or Program Current Management Service-preferred alternative Alternative C Goal 5. (cont’d) Develop high quality interpretive opportunities, and facilitate environmental education, to promote an understanding and appreciation for the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats, as well as the role of the refuge in the Northern Forest.

Environmental No current program Facilitate partner-led educational program development and Same as alternative B Education implementation on the refuge; refuge staff and resources would be limited Evaluate potential for adult educational partnerships through universities or programs such as Elder Hostel

New Refuge No change Seek a new location for the main administrative and program Same as alternative B except the size Headquarters and headquarters offi ce and visitor contact facility. Preferred of the facility would be “medium” as Visitor Contact location is the Potter Farm site. defi ned by the new Service facility Facility standards. The size of the facility would be “small”, as defi ned by the new Service facility standards. The existing headquarters building would be maintained as a research or auxiliary fi eld offi ce; however the adjacent small cabin would be removed. Summary Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative Goal 6. Enhance the conservation and management of fish and wildlife resources in the Northern Forest Region through partnerships with public and private conservation groups, private landowners, State and local entities

Responds to Issues: What should be the refuge’s role in land conservation efforts in the Upper Androscoggin River watershed? Should we pursue a refuge expansion? How can the refuge and its staff be an asset to local communities and support their respective vision and goals for the area?

Regional and Continue working with the numerous In addition to alternative A: Same as alternative B Community partners identiﬁ ed under objective Partnerships 6.1 to address both regional Explore the potential for a regional Umbagog Area Friends (e.g. Northern Forest and Upper Group Androscoggin watershed) and local (town, individual resource or program) Participate in regional and local community economic issues and opportunities development and conservation partnerships and initiatives, such as Upper Androscoggin Advisory Committee 2-113 2-114 Summary Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative Refuge Resource Alternative A Alternative B or Program Current Management Service-preferred alternative Alternative C Goal 6. (cont’d) Enhance the conservation and management of fish and wildlife resources in the Northern Forest Region through partnerships with public and private conservation groups, private landowners, State and local entities

Cooperative Nothing formal established, but In addition to alternative A: Same as alternative B Management of continue to work with NHFG and Umbagog Lake MDIFW to conduct boater and Promote the establishment of an interagency, inter- angler safety and ethics outreach jurisdictional Umbagog Lake Working Group to recommend during festivals and individual visitor consistent regulations and best management practices, and to contacts address user and resource issues that cross ownerships

Partner-managed None With local business and town ofﬁ cials and state partners, Same as alternative B Visitor Facilities develop a visitor contact facility in Errol to orient visitors to the Umbagog region Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred the Alternative Including Considered, Alternatives 2. Chapter

Goal 7. Develop Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge as an outstanding center for research and development of applied management practices to sustain and enhance the natural resources in the Northern Forest in concert with the Land Management Research Demonstration (LMRD) Program Responds to Issues: Same as goals 1-3 and 6.

Research No program Seek support and funding to establish the refuge as an LMRD Same as alternative B, except program and Applied site; hire an LMRD coordinator to facilitate implementation emphasis is on natural landscape Management composition, patterns, and processes Conduct a research needs assessment for the refuge and develop a mission and framework for a research program

Outreach for None Facilitate demonstration area on-refuge, and on other Same as alternative B Research and conservation ownerships, that showcase applied management Management to beneﬁ t natural resources Programs Cooperate with Partners for Wildlife program to accomplish outreach, demonstration projects, and seek funding Conduct workshops, courses, and other technical forums Publish research ﬁ ndings in peer-reviewed publications Chapter 3 Ian Drew/USFWS Vernal pool

Affected Environment The Upper Androscoggin River Watershed and the Northern Forest

Introduction This chapter describes the physical and socioeconomic settings of the refuge in both a regional and local context. We first describe the regional landscape, including its historical and contemporary influences. Next, we describe the refuge and its resources in a local context. The Upper Androscoggin River Watershed and the Northern Forest

The Landscape Setting The refuge lies in the Upper Androscoggin River watershed, in a broad valley near the rugged White Mountains, where dozens of peaks rise more than 3,500 feet in elevation. Mount Washington lies to the south at 6,288 feet. It is the highest peak in the Northeast (Publicover and Weihrauch 2003). These lands, clothed in trees, are part of the 26-million-acre region known as the Northern Forest, which stretches from eastern Maine through northern New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York (Northern Forest Lands Council 1994).

Maine and New Hampshire are the most heavily forested states in the Nation, and the Northern Forest one of its largest contiguously forested regions. Those forests, waters, and wildlife profoundly influence the culture and economies of the northern reaches of the two states. The refuge lies in the transition zone between the vast spruce-fir, boreal forests of Canada and the maple-beech-birch northern hardwoods to the south. That mixing of forest types, combined with the rugged terrain, diverse geology, and myriad lakes, bogs, and other wetlands supports a richness of flora and fauna (Dobbs and Ober 1995).

The Northern Forest produced more timber than any place in the world during the 1800s (Dobbs and Ober 1995). Until the 1980s, nearly 85 percent of the Northern Forest was privately owned: much of that by large paper companies. The culture of the region is rooted in the traditions of hunting, fishing, and working in the woods. By the 1980s however, 75 million people lived within a day’s drive of the region, and the expanding global economy was putting pressure on the large commercial landowners. In 1988, 1 million acres of land formerly owned by Diamond International Corporation went on the market. That marked the beginning of major shifts in land ownership patterns that continue today (Northern Forests Lands Council 1994).

The Historical Picture Glaciation The Earth has experienced several glacial periods; the last, known as the Pleistocene Ice Age, began about 2 million years ago. Glaciers advanced and retreated over time as temperatures fluctuated. The most recent period to affect Northern New England was the Wisconsin Glaciation, which reached its maximum extent about 18,000 years ago. A one-mile-thick sheet of ice, known as the Laurentide Ice Sheet, covered the region until its retreat from the Upper Androscoggin River watershed 10,000 years ago.

As glaciers retreat, they leave behind piles or layers of sediments, rocks and other debris known as glacial drift. These surficial deposits over bedrock come in two types in our region: glacial till and glacio-fluvial. Glacial till is a mixture of sand, silt, clay, and rock ground up by the glacier and dropped as it retreated. It covers most of our region, deepest on lower slopes, and thin or absent on mountaintops and ridges. Glacio-fluvial drift develops from the transport, sorting, and deposit of material by flowing glacial meltwater. Larger gravels and stones settle out at higher gradients, while finer silts, sands, and clays settle out at as the waters slow at valley bottoms (Sperduto and Nichols 2004).

After the Ice Age Ten thousand to 12,000 years ago, the retreating ice sheet scraped and molded the valleys, slopes and mountaintops, leaving behind a landscape bare of

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3-1 The Upper Androscoggin River Watershed and the Northern Forest

vegetation. However, at the southern edge of the glacier, plants survived and immediately began to re-colonize the newly exposed soils (Marchand 1987). Large mammals, including mastodons, wandered the spruce parkland and grassy savanna, but disappeared quickly at the same time as the glacier receded and humans advanced across the region. Thirty-five to 40 large mammal species became extinct 9,000 to 12,000 years ago, while other mammals that were around then, such as timber wolf and white-tailed deer, are still present today (Pielou 1991; Askins 2000).

Continual weathering and erosion of rock over time released nutrients and created new soils for plants to grow. Sedges and dwarf shrubs dominated the tundra-like landscape for several thousand years. As the climate warmed, these plants and animals followed the glacier as it receded north. The tundra continued to retreat, eventually restricted to the highest mountaintops (Davis 1983; Marchand 1987).

Hardwood and softwood tree species advanced independently of one another, creating different forest communities through time (Davis 1983). Graham (1992) reported a similar individualistic response by mammals to the post-glacier climate changes. Spruces were the first trees to colonize, nearly 2,000 years after the ice melted. Pollen records show balsam poplar and dwarf birch in the mix with spruce (Davis 1983). The sequence of plant species arrivals as the glacier receded was different at different sites (Davis 1981). In Northern New England, northern hardwoods—American beech, sugar maple, and yellow birch—established their dominance 2,000 years ago, while spruce regained dominance on the middle slopes, following an earlier dieback (Davis 1981, 1983; Marchand 1987; Pielou 1991).

Native People Evidence from archaeological sites in the region documents human habitation in the Umbagog Lake area as far back as 11,000 years ago (Hanson 1996). Those early inhabitants traveled along the region’s waterways and camped at numerous sites along headwaters of the Androscoggin River watershed (Hermes and Pollock 2001; Gramly 1982, 1984). Native American influences on the spruce-hardwood forests of northern New Hampshire, however, were thought to be minor compared to those of indigenous populations further south. They used fire to clear land for agriculture, improve habitat for game, or facilitate travel through the forest in the drier hardwood forests of southern New England (Cronin 1983). The more sedentary, concentrated populations in coastal southern New England likely set repeated fires that had a more lasting impact on the landscape. In interior and northern New England, native people were more mobile, traveling by boat rather than on foot, gathering food from rivers and the sea rather than by farming, and rarely using fire. Wild foods, including fish, game, roots, and berries were abundant, and the local climate was unsuitable for growing crops (Patterson and Sassaman 1988).

Human Land Use Last 200 Years Farming, harvesting timber, building dams, and developing land are the primary forces that have shaped the Upper Androscoggin River watershed region in the past 200 years.

The first explorers did not reach this region until the 1780s. Early pioneers arrived in Errol in 1806, and by 1831 there were enough inhabitants to hold the first town meeting (Annis et al. 1999). The first residents settled along the river, where they cleared land for agriculture. Many families brought cows, sheep, and pigs from their previous homes, and needed to raise feed for the livestock as well as grain for their own use (Littlehale et al. 1975).

Agriculture remained the primary land use of the fertile floodplain soils well into the twentieth century, as evidenced by the presence of open fields in the major valleys today. Horse logging required hay and grain to maintain the logging company teams from the late 1800s into the 1930s, when diesel engines began to

3-2 Chapter 3. Affected Environment The Upper Androscoggin River Watershed and the Northern Forest

take over. Dairy herds were introduced during the 1940s, but many farms were abandoned as people sought other work (Annis et al. 1999; Littlehale et al. 1975), and some of the agricultural lands have reverted to forest.

Timber harvesting In the 1820s, commercial logging began in earnest as mills were built in the towns along the Androscoggin and Magalloway rivers to facilitate the transport of logs. Early loggers used hand axes and crosscut saws, skidded the logs using horses, and floated the logs to the mills on the rivers. That was the typical practice until the Great Depression in the 1930s. Thereafter, chain saws, motorized skidding, and overland hauling of logs replaced axes, horses, and most of the river drives. The railroad arrived in Gorham in 1851 and in Berlin in 1855. The last long-log river drive on the Androscoggin River occurred in 1937, although pulpwood was moved downriver until the early 1960s (Publicover and Weihrauch 2003). The boom piers visible in the river north of Berlin are stone and wood structures used until the mid-1960s by the two large paper companies, International Paper Company and Brown Company, to separate their respective logs traveling downriver. The boom piers were also used to separate long lumber logs from the shorter length pulpwood (Northern White Mountain Chamber of Commerce, 2005).

White pine was harvested for local building material and, eventually, for export downriver. Those trees, up to 7 feet in diameter, grew abundantly along the shores of lakes and rivers (Wood 1961). The New Hampshire Legislature chartered a toll dam in Errol in 1837, and incorporated the Androscoggin Boom Company in 1851 to control the rafting of pine logs down the river. The use of red spruce for lumber began in 1845 on the Penobscot River, and spread to the headwaters of the Kennebec in 1850. Although not as massive as the pines, spruce trees grew to diameters of 2 feet. The abundant spruce of the Magalloway region impressed the crews surveying the Maine-New Hampshire boundary during the 1850s, and the first drive of spruce logs on the Androscoggin River occurred in the 1860s. Other tree species used included hemlock bark for tanning, tamarack for ship knees, northern white cedar for shingles, and balsam fir for boxes (Foss 2003).

The demand for lumber increased dramatically after the Civil War (Whitney 1994). That increased logging pressure depleted the growing stock of large pine, and spruce had become the primary lumber species by the 1890s. The pulp and paper industry began during the 1870s and 1880s, providing a market for smaller diameter spruce trees. The consolidation of family businesses and local cooperatives led to the formation of large industrial logging companies in the late 1890s, and the rate of harvest continued to increase. Berlin Mills Company and International Paper Company began to buy up land and control the harvest in the Androscoggin River valley (Smith 1972). By the first decades of the twentieth century, little virgin forest remained in the Northeast.

Harvesting declined following the boom years of the mid-1800s to the early 1900s, but started up again in the economic expansion following World War II. The early twentieth century saw the emergence of silviculture: the application of forest management principles to the growing and harvesting of trees to sustain a wood flow over time. New and bigger mechanized equipment was introduced to the forest, allowing more trees to be harvested in a shorter time, providing additional flexibility in applying silvicultural practices, and improving worker safety. Today, sustainable forestry and the global economy are the driving, and sometimes opposing, forces behind the timber industry in the Northern Forest (Publicover and Weihrauch 2003).

Dam Building For hundreds of years logging has been a central part of the region’s economy. Prior to the mid-1800s logs were floated downriver without the aid of dams to

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3-3 The Upper Androscoggin River Watershed and the Northern Forest

control water levels. Log drives were limited to spring flood events and took up to four years to reach their destination. The desire to move logs more quickly led to the first dams built on the Rangeley Lakes by the mid-1800s. The power of flowing water aided the onset of the Industrial Revolution. Greater demands for power led to rebuilding the dams to allow larger volumes of water storage. Union Water Power Company incorporated in 1878 and took over management of the dams in the Rangeley chain of lakes with an interest in power generation. Today, water flows are regulated to generate electricity for paper mills and other uses, control the impacts of flooding, create recreational opportunities, and manage community wastewater treatment systems (FPLE undated). Errol dam The first dam in the Upper Androscoggin River watershed was built in 1836 on Rangeley Lake. Over the next 75 years, several more dams were built on the lakes and rivers in the watershed. The major water users of the time signed an operating agreement in 1909 that regulated water flow and storage; the agreement was modified in 1983, and still largely governs the region today. In 1999, FPLE purchased the rights to operate the dams and manage the reservoir storage in the headwaters of the Androscoggin River. They are the current holder of the FERC license for the Errol Project. FPLE regulates water levels through a series of dams on the Androscoggin River (Errol Dam), Lower Richardson Lake (Middle Dam), Upper Richardson Lake (Upper Dam), Rangeley Lake, and Aziscohos Lake (FPLE undated). Map 1-1 includes the locations of major dams on

Ian Drew/USFWS those waterways.

The 1909 Androscoggin River Improvement Company agreement, as it is known, states that the river flow at Berlin should be maintained at “as high a point above the minimum as shall be consistent with proper and economical use of the stored water.” FLPE keeps the Berlin flow above 1,550 cubic feet per second (cfs) when possible. In 1998, a cooperative agreement among the power company, state and federal agencies, and conservation groups as part of the FERC license was signed to further guide the water levels and flows specifically to protect fish and wildlife.

Development The Upper Androscoggin River watershed is still a largely undeveloped region; at least it was until the building boom of the 1980s opened the region to speculators and second home development. In the early decades of settlement, homes were clustered around towns and sparsely scattered along the rivers and lakes. With logging roads and bridges still the dominant features in the forested uplands and hinterlands, development along rivers and lakeshores has steadily increased in the past two decades. In just the past few years, more large landholdings were sold and subdivided, and homes are creeping up the hillsides.

Much of the shoreline of the Androscoggin River south of Milan, New Hampshire, has some low-density rural development, as does the shoreline of Rangeley and Mooselookmeguntic Lakes in Maine. The shorelines of Umbagog, Aziscohos, and Richardson lakes remain largely undeveloped (Publicover and Weihrauch 2003). The spurt of development that began in the 1980s prompted conservation groups to pursue permanent land conservation in the region, including supporting the creation of the refuge (Dobbs and Ober 1995).

Climatic Effects and Natural Disturbances “It is said that nowhere else at the same latitude in the northern hemisphere is it as cold as in the Northeast, except perhaps in northeastern China and Hokkaido, Japan” (Marchand 1987). The reason for the region’s cold climate is partly a result of the pattern of atmospheric circulation in this hemisphere. Low-

3-4 Chapter 3. Affected Environment The Upper Androscoggin River Watershed and the Northern Forest

pressure systems all converge on New England regardless of their origin, and pull cold Canadian air in behind them as they pass over the Northeast (Marchand 1987). New England weather conditions are influenced more by the North American landmass than by the Atlantic Ocean except along the coastline (Taylor et al. 1996).

Natural disturbances vary across New England, depending on geographic location, forest type, and local conditions. For example, hurricane damage is greater on exposed versus sheltered slopes, lightning fires are more frequent on exposed ridges and on sandy versus loamy soils, and shallow root systems make softwoods vulnerable to wind-throw, particularly on shallow and poorly drained soils.

In general, historically, a gradient of decreasing disturbance frequencies extends from coastal regions to interior uplands and mountains. In pre-settlement times, coastal oak-pine regions likely had >10 percent in early successional forest conditions, while interior northern hardwoods had 1 percent to 3 percent of young forest. The proportion of young forest in spruce swamps and spruce flats may have been as high as 7 percent. Northern hardwood and mixed woods may have higher proportions of early successional stages today than historically, based on disturbance patterns (Lorimer and White 2003).

Native insects and disease, ice storms, droughts, floods, landslides, and avalanches have caused minor and major disturbances. For example, spruce budworm periodically affects millions of acres of spruce-fir forest in northern New England and southern Canada, and the 1998 ice storm damaged forests, particularly hardwoods, across 12 million acres in northern New England (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001). Lorimer and White (2003) depict hurricane frequencies as varying from 85 years in southeastern New England, 150 years through central Massachusetts and the southeast corner of New Hampshire, to 380 years or more in northern New England. Lorimer (1977) estimated catastrophic disturbances from fire and wind throw at intervals of 800 and 1,150 years, respectively. In contrast, small gap disturbances were frequent in our forests, and may have occurred at scales smaller than what are currently delineated as “stands” today (Seymour et al. 2002).

Although called “spruce budworm,” this native insect has a significant impact on balsam fir during periodic outbreaks that are part of the natural cycle in northern forests. Records dating back to the late 1500s indicate that budworm outbreaks occur on about a 40-year cycle. The last in northern New England occurred in the 1970s and 1980s. Large areas of balsam fir and white spruce are defoliated, followed by high tree mortality, then re-growth and recovery of the forest through seedling and sampling release in the newly opened canopy (Boulanger and Arseneault 2004).

Global climate changes will affect natural disturbance patterns over time (Lorimer 2001). The greatest effects of climate change will be on regional air and water temperatures, precipitation patterns, storm intensity, and sea levels. These effects are predicted to influence natural disturbances by resulting in an increase of freeze-free periods, decreased snow cover and lake ice duration, increased storm intensities and frequencies, increased likelihood and frequency of droughts, damaging ozone, and an increase in the spread of invasive species and disease (NH WAP 2005). The resulting effects on wildlife and habitats are expected to be variable and species-specific, with a predicted general trend of ranges shifting northward. Impacts will likely be most severe for habitats with narrow temperature and water level regimes, such as alpine, high and low elevation spruce-fir forests, coastal islands, vernal pools, and aquatic habitats (NH WAP 2005). The uncertainty about the future effects of climate change requires managers to use adaptive management to maintain healthy ecosystems in light of that unpredictability (Inkley et al. 2004).

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3-5 The Upper Androscoggin River Watershed and the Northern Forest

Wildlife Changes Wildlife populations ebb and flow as habitat conditions vary in space and time. Change is inevitable and natural, although human activities in the last 200 years have significantly altered the landscape compared to the previous 10,000 years when humans first colonized the Northeast (Foss 1992).

The 1800’s witnessed the demise of many forest wildlife species in New England from the loss of habitat (forest clearing), bounty and market hunting, millinery trade, and natural history specimen collecting (Foster et al. 2002). Mountain lion, gray wolf, elk and caribou were extirpated by the mid-1800s or early 1900s, and only the gray wolf recently returned to the region in small numbers in Maine. Other forest species declined, including moose, black bear, beaver, wild turkey and pileated woodpecker. Heath hen, passenger pigeon, great auk, Labrador duck, and sea mink became extinct at the hand of humans during the same period (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001; Foster et al. 2002). In contrast, grassland species such as meadowlark, bobolink, upland sandpiper, and woodchuck increased as hayfields and pastures expanded during the early 19th century (Foss 1992; Foster and Motzkin 2003).

After farm abandonment escalated in the early 1900s, grassland species ebbed, while species of thickets, brush lands, and young forests surged (Litvaitis 2003). Populations of black bear, bobcat, and broad-winged hawks increased. At the same time, intense logging followed by intense fires and heavy rains continued to wreck havoc on forest habitat and associated wildlife species in northern New England (Foss 1992; DeGraaf and Yamasaki, 2001). The young hardwood forests that emerged in the 1920s and 1930s, after the old-field pine harvests, provided premier habitat for ruffed grouse and American woodcock (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001). Continued forest maturation caused those early successional Moose are common species to decline to levels approaching pre-settlement levels (Litvaitis 2003). on the refuge Nearly all the forest species that were extirpated or decimated have re-colonized the region. Some species arrived for the first time more recently. Eastern coyotes were first sighted in northern Maine in the 1930s, in Vermont and New Hampshire in the 1940s, and in Massachusetts in the 1950s (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001). DeGraaf and Yamasaki (2001) reported three major trends in New England’s wildlife: forest species are increasing (e.g., bear, beaver, deer, wild turkey, pileated woodpecker), grassland and shrubland species are declining (e.g., bobolink, upland sandpiper, whip- poor-will), and many southern species are expanding

J. & K. Hollingsworth/USFWS their ranges northward (e.g., Carolina wren, northern cardinal, mockingbird, Virginia opossum). A few species, such as raven, fisher, and moose are expanding southward. A group of species remains regionally extirpated, including wolverine and mountain lion, although lynx have returned to northern Maine and New Hampshire (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001).

Current Conditions Climate The climate of the Upper Androscoggin River watershed is temperate continental, with warm summers, cold winters, and a relatively even distribution of precipitation throughout the year. The region has four distinct seasons. Winter temperatures, December through February, average only 14o F, w ith minimum temperatures as low as -34oF. The summer months, June through August, average 62oF, reaching highs of 96oF or more. In Errol, the town closest to the refuge headquarters at Wentworth Location, summers average about 60o–70oF. Precipitation in the watershed varies from 33 inches to more than 80 inches per year; most towns in the watershed receive 40 inches to 45 inches

3-6 Chapter 3. Affected Environment The Upper Androscoggin River Watershed and the Northern Forest

per year. The average precipitation in Errol is 36 inches per year (Publicover and Weihrauch 2003).

Generally, Umbagog Lake freezes in December or January, and “ice-out’ typically occurs in May. Ice on the lake can reach depths of 18–24 inches or more. Areas near river inputs and outputs can remain open throughout the year. The rivers associated with Umbagog Lake also freeze intermittently in the winter.

Hydrology The Upper Androscoggin River watershed is part of the larger Gulf of Maine watershed: the latter being the geographic area from which all water drains into the Gulf. It is an immense area, extending from eastern Quebec to Cape Cod, Massachusetts, with a land base of 69,115 square miles and a water surface of 33,054 square miles. Maine is the only state located entirely within its boundary.

The waters of the Androscoggin River begin their journey in Maine along the anadian border. Rainfall and snowmelt gathers in small streams that eventually join to form the northern tributaries to the Androscoggin River: the Swift and Dead Diamond, Magalloway, Cupsuptic, and Kennebago. Those rivers flow into these lakes of the Rangeley Lake chain: Rangeley, Mooselookmeguntic, Cupsuptic, Upper and Lower Richardson, Aziscohos and Umbagog lakes. The Androscoggin River begins at Umbagog Lake and flows south, then turns east back toward Maine. Many other tributaries flow into the Androscoggin River as it continues its journey through Maine before finally meeting the Kennebec River in Merrymeeting Bay and emptying into the Gulf of Maine (Publicover and Weihrauch 2003).

Water Quality Historically, the Androscoggin River experienced a period of degradation followed by recovery. Even as late as 1970, the river was considered one of the most polluted in the United States. Untreated effluent discharged into the river from the large paper mill was sufficiently noxious before the middle of the 20th century to produce fumes “rumored to peel the paint off houses.” Low dissolved oxygen in the river made it unsuitable for most aquatic life, while foam and dark colors made it unappealing. The river made a remarkable recovery after the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, which forced the cleanup of point source pollution sources, including wastewater treatment plants and paper mills (Publicover and Weihrauch 2003).

Under the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets standards on a set of “criteria pollutants”: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and lead (Pb) (EPA 1993). Those standards are referred to as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Areas that do not meet the standard for a particular pollutant are considered “non-attainment areas.” The states of Maine and New Hampshire also have standards on other toxic pollutants. The only non-attainment areas in Maine and New Hampshire are in their southern portions, around more urban areas for ozone and in New Hampshire for small particles (PM2.5). Coos County in New Hampshire and Oxford County in Maine meet the standards for all six criteria pollutants (US EPA 2005).

Evers (2005) documents a growing concern over mercury emissions and accumulation in aquatic and terrestrial systems in the Northeast. Mercury is emitted into the air as a byproduct from coal-burning power plants, incinerators, and other industrial plants. Once emitted into the air, mercury can travel for days before deposition through dry gases and particles, rain, or snow. The impact of mercury on humans and the environment depends on whether it converts into the toxic form of methylmercury. That form, if consumed, bioaccumulates as it

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3-7 The Upper Androscoggin River Watershed and the Northern Forest

moves up the food chain, causing various reproductive and neurological problems for fish and wildlife. New models indicate that the greatest amount of mercury is deposited in forested and mountainous terrain, and scientists detected mercury accumulation in birds of mountain areas (e.g., Bicknell’s thrush) as well as at lower elevations (e.g., northern waterthrush). Evers (2005) reports a suite of “biological hotspots,” where mercury concentrations are elevated in fish and wildlife, which included the Rangeley Lakes region. All surface waters in New Hampshire and Maine are impaired for fish and shellfish consumption due to elevated levels of mercury in tissue (NHDES 2004; MDEP 2004).

Several water bodies in the Upper Androscoggin River watershed are listed as impaired waters that do not meet one or more of their uses, with the added condition that they require a total maximum daily load study. This study is designed to identify and reduce pollutants that are present in a lake or stream in order to attain an acceptable water quality standard. The Upper and Lower Richardson Lakes, parts of the Azicoshos The CAA Amendments of 1977 Lake, Signal Pond, and the Androscoggin established a program for the prevention and Diamond rivers are in this category of signiﬁ cant deterioration of air quality. (NRCM 2005). Certain wildernesses and National Parks established before August 1977 were Air Quality designated by the CAA as mandatory EPA regulates six criteria pollutants Class I areas. A Class I designation under the Clean Air Act of 1990 (CAA): allows small increments of additional air ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, pollution above baseline levels within the particulate matter, sulfur dioxide and area so long as the national ambient air lead as well as hazardous and other quality standards are complied with and toxic air pollutants, including mercury, the Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs) under the CAA Amendments of 1990. of the Class I area are not adversely States, tribal governments, and some affected. (USFS, 1991) Class I areas in local governments manage air quality the New England states are shown here: in their administrative jurisdictions. The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES), Air Resources Division and the Main Department of Environmental Protection Roosevelt Campobello IP (Maine DEP), Bureau of Air Quality Moosehorn regulate criteria pollutants emitted in or Acadia transported into their respective States. Great Gulf Presidential Range-Dry River For each criteria pollutant, EPA has established a maximum concentration Lyle Brook above which adverse effects on human health may occur. These threshold concentrations are called National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Areas of the country where air pollution levels persistently exceed the NAAQS may be designated “nonattainment.” When an area does not meet the air quality standard for one of the criteria pollutants, it may be subject to the formal rule-making process to designate it as nonattainment. The Clean Air Act further classifies ozone, carbon monoxide, and some particulate matter nonattainment areas based on the magnitude of an area’s problem. Nonattainment classifications may be used to specify what air pollution reduction measures an area must adopt, and when the area must reach attainment (40 CFR 81).

September 2005 data indicate that southern NH and coastal ME are nonattainment areas for ozone but the refuge counties of COOS County, NH and Oxford County, ME are in attainment for all criteria pollutants. Of recent

3-8 Chapter 3. Affected Environment The Upper Androscoggin River Watershed and the Northern Forest

concern, however, in the refuge area are

ground-level ozone and fine particulate Ozone (O3) (ground-level) – A colorless gas matter (PM2.5). Both are respiratory formed in chemical reactions between oxygen, irritants (text box) that can cause volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) is the major constituent serious health effects in susceptible of photochemical smog. Sources include individuals; though ozone is a concern vehicles, factories, landﬁ lls, industrial solvents, in the Umbagog area only during the gas stations, lawn equipment. Irritates the warmer months (text box). respiratory tract; impairs lung functions such as ability to take a deep breath; causes throat Air quality monitoring records for Coos irritation, chest pain, cough, lung inﬂ ammation, County, NH and Oxford County, ME and possibly susceptibility to lung infection; aggravates existing respiratory conditions (EPA 2005) indicate that ozone and like asthma in certain individuals; may reduce PM2.5 have recently exceeded levels yield of agricultural crops and injure forest considered safe for sensitive subgroups. and other vegetation. Ground-level ozone, Air quality index measures show that more commonly called summertime smog, in 2004, O3 exceeded sage levels on 3 is measured in parts per billion (ppb). The days and PM2.5 exceeded safe levels on federal health based standard for an 8-hour 2 days in Coos County. Oxford County concentration is set at 80 ppb so levels above this standard are considered to be unhealthy. had a single day in 2004 with unhealthy Ozone is a summertime pollutant so wintertime PM2.5 leves. Monitoring in 2005 monitoring is limited and no wintertime forecast through September indicates O3 and is provided. Full monitoring, reporting, and PM2.5 levels in the moderate range just forecasting for ozone occurs from April through below unhealthy levels. September.

A related concern in the region is the Particulate Matter (PM) – Solid matter or effect of air pollutants on visibility. liquid droplets from smoke, dust, ﬂ y ash, and Visibility is affected by ozone and by condensing vapors from burning of wood, diesel and other fuels; industrial plants; fine particulate matter (PM2.5) which agriculture (plowing, burning off ﬁ elds); manifests as regional haze in rural unpaved roads and construction. Causes nose areas and is of particular concern and throat irritation, lung damage, bronchitis, in the Class I areas of designated and possibly prematu re death. Children, the wildernesses (text box), including elderly, and people suffering from heart or lung the nearby Great Gulf Wilderness disease are especially at risk. Also damages and Presidential Range –Dry River paint, soils clothing and furniture, and reduces visibility. Particulate pollution (small particles) Wilderness, located about 50 miles consists of both solid and liquid particles south of Umbagog NWR in the White that are less than 2.5 microns in diameter Mountains NF. (USFS 1991) (a micron is a millionth of a meter). Particle concentrations are measured in micrograms On a global scale, carbon emissions per cubic meter (ug/m3) and levels above 40 and other greenhouse gases (GHG) ug/m3 over 24 hours are considered to be are recognized as contributing to unhealthy. Monitoring and reporting of small particles occur year-round. global warming. Carbon sequestration, (Source: NH DES 2005) creation of complex organic matter through photosynthesis, locks up carbon organically in forest and other biomass “sinks” such as peat soils. The potential for managing carbon levels through forestry is significant. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second Assessment Report found that during the period 1995–2050, slowing deforestation, promoting natural forest regeneration, and encouraging global reforestation could offset 220–320 billion tons of CO2 (12– 15%) of fossil emissions. Carbon sequestration may be accomplished through forest preservation to reduce deforestation; forest management techniques to enhance existing carbon sinks; creating new carbon sinks by planting on pasture, agricultural land, or degraded forest sites; and storing carbon in wood products (Dayal 2000). In the refuge area, acquiring forested lands that might otherwise be developed would allow preservation of forest cover, managing refuge forest lands for older-age stands would lock up more carbon for a longer time, and using tree plantings to restore old logging roads and camps would create additional forested land.

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3-9 The Upper Androscoggin River Watershed and the Northern Forest

The ability of forests to serve as carbon sinks is related in turn to air quality. The forests of the New England region currently store 20 million metric tons of carbon per year, but poor air quality adversely impacts potential photosynthetic capacity, especially in sensitive species. Exposure of white pine to ozone in excess of 60-80 ppb, will result in a 15-20% reduction in annual wood production. If air quality can be improved for the region, wood production (carbon sequestration) would increase. Reducing CO2 and NOx emissions by improving gas mileage and reducing automobile traffic would effectively reduce ground-level ozone, and thus improve the carbon sequestration capabilities of regional forests (NERA 2002).

Conserved Lands Network About 25 percent of the Upper Androscoggin River watershed is under some form of permanent conservation (map 1-1). This includes more than 200,000 acres owned in fee simple by federal and state agencies or conservation groups, and about 165,000 acres covered by conservation easements (Publicover and Weihrauch 2003). In addition to the refuge, the primary conservation lands in the Upper Androscoggin River watershed include the White Mountains National Forest, Appalachian Trail, Connecticut Lakes Headwaters, Pond of Safety, Connecticut Lakes Headwaters, Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands, Rangeley Lakes Heritage Trust lands, and Pingree Forest Partnership easements.

Regional and Local We have taken the following information from a U.S. Geological Service, Fort Economic Setting Collins Science Center report (Koontz et al. 2006), which we funded as part of this CCP/EIS. Appendix G holds the entire report.

Regional and local demographics The refuge is located in Coos County, New Hampshire, and Oxford County, Maine. Table 3.1 shows the population estimates and trends for the regional area and communities near the refuge. Although Coos is the largest New Hampshire county in total land area, it is the smallest in population, accounting for less than 3 percent of New Hampshire’s total population in 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). From 1990 to 2000, New Hampshire’s overall population increased by 11.4 percent, while Coos was the only county to lose population, decreasing by 4.9 percent over the same period. According to High et al. (2004), Coos County has not been able to benefit from population growth that accompanies economic development or interstate access to the same extent as counties in south and central New Hampshire.

In 2000, Oxford County accounted for approximately 4 percent of Maine’s total population (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). From 1990 to 2000, the population growth rate for Oxford County was approximately 4 percent, which was similar to Maine’s overall population increase (table 3.1).

The towns of Upton and Bethel in Oxford County and the towns of Errol, Berlin, Gorham, and Colebrook in Coos County are the primary communities near the refuge. Errol and Upton are closest to the refuge, and are the smallest communities in the area near it. The town of Errol is close to the western side of the refuge, and is the town nearest the refuge headquarters. In 2000, the population of Errol was 298 residents, averaging 4.9 persons per square mile. Upton is a very small community near the southern end of the refuge, with a population of 62 residents averaging 1.6 persons per square mile. Berlin is the northernmost city in New Hampshire, and is located approximately 30 miles south of the refuge near the White Mountain National Forest. The town of Gorham is located just south of Berlin. Colebrook is approximately 25 miles northeast of the refuge in northern Coos County, at the junction of the Connecticut and Mohawk rivers. Bethel is located approximately 35 miles southeast of the refuge on the Androscoggin River.

3-10 Chapter 3. Affected Environment The Upper Androscoggin River Watershed and the Northern Forest

Table 3.1. Local and regional population estimates and characteristics

% Population Projected % Population in 2000 Change Population Change

Persons per Residents Square Mile Median Age 1990 to 2000 2000 to 2010 New Hampshire 1,235,786 137.8 37.1 +11.4 +12.7 Coos County, NH 33,111 18.4 41.5 -4.9 -6.0 NH Communities near refuge Berlin 10,331 167.4 42.5 -13.0 -7.0 Colebrook 2,321 56.6 41.2 -5.3 -6.4 Errol 298 4.9 47.2 +2.1 -7.1 Gorham 2,895 90.7 42.0 -9.5 -6.7 Maine 1,274,923 41.3 38.6 +3.8 +4.6 Oxford County, ME 54,755 26.3 40.2 +4.1 +3.5 ME Communities near refuge Bethel 2,411 37.2 40.8 +3.2 +2.6 Upton 62 1.6 56.0 -13.9 +16.1

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2005), Maine State Planning Office (projections compiled Dec. 2001 based on past trends), and New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning (projections compiled Sept. 2004 based on past trends). Economic Sectors, Including Timber and Tourism According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, most jobs in Coos and Oxford counties were in the industries of manufacturing, health care and social assistance services, retail trade and government agencies. Compared to counties in southern New Hampshire and Maine, Coos and Oxford Counties have slower economic growth and a greater dependence on traditional natural resource based manufacturing activities (High et al. 2004). According to the New Hampshire Economic and Labor Market Information Bureau (2003), Coos County employment projections for 2000 to 2010 suggest most new jobs will be in service-related industries, especially in the fields of health services, amusement and recreation services, and business. Timber and tourism, the prominent natural-resource-based industries with ties to the refuge, are described in more detail below.

Timber Harvesting and Production Industries Forests cover 95 percent (17.7 million acres) of Maine and 84 percent (4.7 million acres) of New Hampshire (NEFA 2004a, 2004b). Maine is the major timber producer of the larger North East State Foresters Association (NEFA) region (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York), accounting for roughly half of wood produced annually (NEFA 2004a). In 2003, Maine harvested 5.9 million cords and processed almost as much (5.6 million cords) in-state (MDOC 2004). According to NEFA (2001a), imports to Maine in 2001 were dominated by pulpwood, and nearly 67 percent of its exports were high-value softwood sawlogs. In 2003, Oxford County accounted for 8 percent of the total amount of timber (sawlogs and pulpwood) harvested in Maine, ranking sixth in the state (MDOC 2004).

In contrast to the timber industry in Maine, New Hampshire is cutting much more timber than it is processing (High et al. 2004). In 2001, the amount of timber processed in New Hampshire accounted for approximately 83 percent of the

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3-11 The Upper Androscoggin River Watershed and the Northern Forest

amount harvested within the state (NEFA 2001b). However, part of that difference could be due to the brief closing of the primary pulp mill near Berlin from October 2001 to June 2002. In 2002, Coos County accounted for 16.5 percent of the total timber harvested in New Hampshire, ranking second in the state to Cheshire County (USFS 2002).

In 2001, forest-based industries employed more than 21,600 people in Maine and 9,800 in New Hampshire, and generated more than $1 billion in income in Maine and $333 million in income in New Hampshire (NEFA 2004a, 2004b). According to NEFA, each 1,000 acres of forestland in New Hampshire supports 2.0 forest-based jobs, while 1,000 acres of forestland in Maine supports 1.2 forest- based jobs.

The New Hampshire Economic and Labor Market Information Bureau (2003) identifies the lumber and paper products industries as the mainstay of employment in Coos County. One integrated pulp and paper mill in the region is located between Berlin and Gorham. When the mills shut down between October 2001 and June 2002, they reopened under the ownership of Nexfor, Inc., of Toronto, Canada, and now employ about 500 union workers and 100 salaried workers (USFS 2005).

Pulp and paper industries accounted for the largest portion of regional forest related output (67 percent) and employment (44 percent), followed by the timber harvesting and logging industries, which account for approximately 15 percent of output and 24 percent of employment. Four thousand one hundred forty-eight jobs link directly to forest related industries, and account for 9.5 percent of the overall employment (43,570 jobs) in Coos and Oxford counties. This picture has changed in recent years.

In recent years, employment in the lumber and paper industries has declined (Maine State Planning Office 2005; New Hampshire Economic and Labor Market Information Bureau 2003). Coos County employment projections for 2000 to 2010 suggest the lumber and paper industries will continue to decline, possibly by a substantial amount, with workforce decreases of nearly 24 percent in paper industries and 39 percent in lumber industries (New Hampshire Economic and Labor Market Information Bureau 2005). Although employment and the number of mills in operation has decreased, the remaining mills maintain a production output for the region that is almost as large as it was four decades ago, due to improved machinery and greater yield from each log (NEFA 2004a, 2004b).

According to High et al. (2004), the increasing pressure from the global paper industry, increasing recycling of wastepaper, increasing efficiency in the pulping process, and the increasing loss of market share to other regions has contributed to the slower than expected growth in the regional pulpwood market. Trade agreements such as the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement of 1994 also have affected trends in the regional timber market by creating opportunities for international trade, resulting in increases in exports from Maine and New Hampshire to Canada, while at the same time allowing new competitors into local markets (Innovative Natural Resource Solutions 2005; High et al. 2004).

Resource-based Recreation and Tourism The travel and tourism industry continues to be a significant, growing contributor to the economies of Maine and New Hampshire. A survey of Maine visitors in 2003 estimated resident and nonresident visitors spent $6.1 billon in Maine, which directly and indirectly (i.e., the multiplier effect as initial spending is recycled through the economy) generated: $13.4 billion in sales of goods and services; 173,181 jobs; $3.8 billion in income; and $549 million in state and local tax revenue (Longwoods International 2004). Results suggest overnight visitors come to tour the state (36 percent), enjoy Maine’s superb outdoors (24 percent),

3-12 Chapter 3. Affected Environment The Refuge and its Resources

take a beach vacation (12 percent), and attend a special event (10 percent). In 2003, the Maine lakes and mountains region was the primary regional destination for 15 percent, and was visited by 19 percent of those traveling in Maine (Longwoods International 2004).

In New Hampshire, resident and nonresident visitors spent $3.7 billon in 2002 (an increase of 2.9 percent from 2000): accounting for the multiplier effect, that spending generated $9.8 billion in sales of goods and services; 88,427 jobs; and $419 million in state and local tax revenue (Goss 2003). A recent survey of New Hampshire visitors in 2003 and 2004 by the Institute for New Hampshire Studies reports that popular visitor activities include sightseeing, skiing or snowmobiling, shopping, and scenic drives (Thurston 2004). The White Mountain region of New Hampshire was reportedly the most visited region in all seasons, followed by the lakes region (except in winter). Although the White Mountain region includes the southern section of Coos County and extends into Oxford County, the area around the refuge is known as the Great North Woods region. Survey results reported New Hampshire’s Great North Woods region was visited by 15 percent of the visitors to New Hampshire during the summer and fall, 10 percent of winter visitors, and 7 percent of spring visitors (Thurston 2004).

Located within the Northern Forest, Coos and Oxford counties provide abundant year-round recreational opportunities. For example, in Coos County, 271 recreation areas cover nearly 30 percent of the county’s total acreage (New Hampshire Office of State Planning 2003). Coos County employment projections indicate the amusement and recreation services industry will contribute 260 new jobs between 2000 and 2010 (New Hampshire Economic and Labor Market Information Bureau 2003).

Popular activities on or near the refuge include hiking, camping, wildlife viewing, picnicking, snowmobiling, fishing, hunting, boating, canoeing, and cross-country skiing. The area is also a nationally recognized destination for fall foliage enthusiasts. Appendix G provides details about the economic contributions of wildlife viewing, fishing, hunting, boating, and other recreational activities in Maine and New Hampshire.

Land Values With approximately 25 percent of the Upper Androscoggin River watershed under some form of conservation protection, some residents in northern New Hampshire have expressed their concern that those conservation ownerships are having an economic impact on land values. The protection of land from development has resulted in a high demand for private lands in the are a and a subsequent increase in property taxes. About 75 percent of the shorefront properties on Umbagog Lake are protected from development through state or federal ownership, or through the dedication of development rights to land conservation groups. The limited supply of property available for development means that land in the private sector is in high demand (Personal communication: Mark Danowski 2003; Peggy Gallus 2003; Brian Lessard 2003). The limited supply of property available for development has increased that demand for land, and has led to spin-off development around Akers Pond, northwest of Errol (Personal communication: Mark Danowski 2003; Peggy Gallus 2003; Brian Lessard 2003). Although that new property development has increased local property tax collections, thus helping offset the loss in taxes from state and federal government ownership, it has also raised concerns about habitat fragmentation and the loss of traditional recreational access with future development. The Refuge and its Resources Refuge Administration Establishment The original proposal to establish the refuge represented a partnership of protective efforts, involving the participation of the states of New Hampshire

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3-13 The Refuge and its Resources

and Maine, timber companies, conservation organizations, private landowners, and the Service to cooperatively protect important lands surrounding Umbagog Lake. The larger effort was conceived to preserve existing land uses, including wildlife habitat, timber management, and traditional public uses on lands in the vicinity of the lake. The proposal was initiated in response to several events that were occurring in the region.

In the 1980s, the long standing tradition of timber companies owning the mills and the land shifted, and lands once thought to be held in perpetuity by the large timber companies started to come on the market. Nash Stream State Forest was created in 1988 when Diamond International put 90,000 acres up for sale in northern New Hampshire and Vermont, part of 1.5 million acres of forestland across northern New England and Bill Hanson FPLE Maine Hydro/USFWS Bill Hanson Bald eagle chicks New York split off from the mills by an investor, and resold in smaller in nest parcels for development. At the same time, despite a national economic slowdown, New England was experiencing an unprecedented building boom. Local residents and conservation groups were nervous about the possibility that James River would sell its high value shoreline property to developers and second-home buyers. Residents and environmentalists had stopped earlier threats to the lake, including plans to mine its shallow bottom, build a floating restaurant, and add a hydro dam with high-tension lines (Dobbs and Ober 1995).

In 1988, a pair of bald eagles started building a nest atop a tall white pine on the edge of Umbagog Lake in Leonard Pond. The following spring, they returned to that nest, built in the same tree that eagles had last nested in 40 years before. The desire of the James River Corporation to ensure the long term protection of the unique characteristics of the Umbagog lake area, and the establishment of a second pair of eagles in 1990, provided significant impetus for creating the refuge. Initially, many local residents strongly opposed federal ownership of the lands around Umbagog Lake. Through many meetings with small groups, the Service garnered the support of many who initially opposed the concept (Dobbs and Ober 1995).

As we mentioned in chapter 1, Congress authorized the establishment of the refuge for the purposes of conserving the unique diversity of wetlands habitats and associated wildlife and protecting water quality in the area. The Service has acquired 21,650 acres as of January 2008. An additional 7,482 acres are approved for acquisition from willing sellers.

Staffing and Budgets The annual budget appropriation from 1997-2005, shown in table 3.2, has very little available discretionary funding. Operating budgets have increased as staffing levels have increased, and reflect annual funding for special projects, moving costs for new employees, and equipment purchases. Maintenance budgets remained relatively stable over the last 5 years.

Refuge operations and maintenance spending contribute directly to the local economy.

Table 3.2. Refuge staffing and budgets, 1998–2005

Operations Seasonal Staff (Including Salaries) Maintenance Total Full-Time¹ Staff 1998 $138,900 $26,300 $165,200 3 0 1999 $232,500 $0 $232,500 3 1 2000 $273,440 $31,000 $304,440 4 1 2001 $264,620 $33,000 $297,620 4 1

3-14 Chapter 3. Affected Environment The Refuge and its Resources

Operations Seasonal Staff (Including Salaries) Maintenance Total Full-Time¹ Staff 2002 $450,890² $34,400 $485,290 6 0 2003 $423,162 $390,553³ $813,715 61 2004 $416,620 $169,341³ $585,961 5 0 2005 $410,926 $163,906³ $574,832 5 1 2006 $430,630 $259,271³ $689,901 5.5 0 2007 $395,970 $99,600 $495,570 4.5 0

Notes ¹ Appendix H depicts staffing positions currently filled and vacant. ² Includes two new staff positions and special funding to conduct wildlife surveys ³ Includes facility construction, building removal, and equipment replacement Our staff has tracked refuge purchases in the local community for fiscal years 1999 through 2005, shown in table 3.3.

Table 3.3. Local purchases by Lake Umbagog refuge staff FY 1999–2005

Errol/ Wentworth Berlin/ Location, NH/ Gorham/ Bethel/ Oquossoc/ Annual Wilson’s Mills, Milan/ Colebrook, NH Mexico/ Rangeley, ME TOTALS ME Dummer, NH Rumford, ME

1999 # Vendors 10 18 2 5 2 37 Total expenditure $29,401 $17,695 $295 $2,623 $8,704 $58,719 2000 # Vendors 6 26 1 4 1 38 Total expenditure $77,320 $7,696 $2,000 $4,729 $4,209 $95,954 2001 # Vendors 6 26 1 4 1 38 Total expenditure $73,927 $13,442 $9,973 $12,030 $131 $109,503 2002 # Vendors 9 27 6 2 1 45 Total expenditure $67,361 $16,995 $5,257 $347 $294 $90,255 2003 # Vendors 10 27 9 7 1 54 Total expenditure $27,201 $16,140 $7,416 $21,282 $78 $72,116 2004 # Vendors 14 26 6 2 1 49 Total expenditure $53,270 $12,002 $3,638 $468 $85 $69,481 2005 # Vendors 20 21 8 4 0 53 Total expenditure $52,073 $6,064 $5,990 $2,161 $0 $66,288

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3-15 The Refuge and its Resources

Refuge Revenue Sharing Payments Land in the refuge is not on the local tax rolls. The Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (16 U.S.C. §715s) offsets the loss of local tax revenues from federal land ownership through payments to local taxing authorities. In both Maine and New Hampshire, those payments go to the townships. The annual payments are calculated on the appraised value for tax purposes, and are reduced proportionally based on the amount appropriated by Congress. For fiscal year (FY) 2005, payments represent 44 percent of the fully funded revenue sharing formula. Our sources of payment funds are revenues or income generated within the Refuge System from such programs as mineral and facility leases, timber harvest and grazing permits. As shown in table 3.4, the Service made the following refuge revenue sharing payments to local townships in recent years.

Table 3.4. Refuge revenue sharing payments to towns, 2001-2007 Township 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Magalloway, ME $5,543 $5,657 $5,285 $5,709 $5,049 $5,702 $5,278 Upton, ME $5,911 $6,828 $7,079 $6,804 $6,018 $10,376 $10,936 Cambridge, NH $744 $759 $709 $681 $603 $681 $630 Errol, NH $11,517 $11,755 $22, 948 $22,056 $19,509 $25,973 $24,039 Wentworth Location, NH $3,112 $4,959 $6,057 $6,119 $6,467 $7,304 $7,041

Refuge Headquarters and other refuge buildings The refuge headquarters is located in Wentworth Location on New Hampshire State Route 16, approximately five and a half miles north of the Town of Errol, New Hampshire. The office complex includes an office building, cabin, parking lot, and boat launch on the east side of Route 16, and a parking lot and storage shed on its west side. The office is on the bank of the Magalloway River, a major tributary to Umbagog Lake.

The office building was built in 1996 as the administrative headquarters, including staff offices, a lobby or reception area for visitors, literature and displays, a small meeting room, and public rest facilities. In addition to refuge staff, the office also hosts a Regional Refuge Field Biologist whose duties cover activities throughout the Northeast Region. The office working space is inadequate and cramped for existing staff. The visitor contact area in the front office is also very small with limited room for interpretation and information displays. A small cabin next to the office serves as overflow office space (particularly for seasonal interns), and houses a GIS lab, a biology lab, and storage. Parking for six visitor cars is next to the office building, but staff parking is across Route 16. The refuge places floating docks in the Magalloway River behind the office during ice-free months to moor refuge boats. A public docking area provides lake access for canoes, kayaks, and other boats. A picnic table and small parking area make this a popular stopping place for visitors.

Due to the configuration of the office site, which is on a parcel approximately 80 ft wide, the current office location does not comply with local and state setbacks from the river. The site also provides no room for expansion to alleviate that concern or mitigate its other shortcomings. For example, if the footprint of the building were expanded, parking adjacent to the building would be reduced, forcing most visitors to park across Route 16. That parking area is already a safety concern, as log truck traffic can be quite heavy on this road, which offers poor sight distance.

3-16 Chapter 3. Affected Environment The Refuge and its Resources

A maintenance shop that stores all of the refuge’s large equipment was built in 2005 at the south end of the lake, off Mountain Pond Road. In addition to the refuge headquarters complex and maintenance building, other refuge facilities include the “Potter Farm” and three houses used as quarters for interns, volunteers, and researchers. The Potter Farm is located on the west central shore of the lake on Potter Cove, and includes a large, deteriorating farmhouse overlooking Umbagog Lake and a large barn. Both the house and barn have been determined unsafe for occupancy in their current condition. The fields associated with this property are used for events such as “Take Me Fishing.” The three houses used as quarters are located north of the refuge office on Route 16 in Wentworth Location, New Hampshire, and Magalloway Plantation, Maine. We plan to remove some secondary outbuildings associated with those houses.

Research Refuge staff, graduate students, conservation organizations, and others have conducted numerous surveys and studies on the refuge. A sampling of those efforts follows. Additional information on these studies can be obtained from refuge headquarters.

Regional amphibian monitoring: Regional study from 1999-2002 to gather baseline data on presence of breeding amphibians. Anuran call counts were conducted at four locations on the refuge: Leonard Marsh, Harper’s Meadow/ Sweat Meadow, Dead Cambridge River, Magalloway River.

National marshbird monitoring: Regional study from 1999-2005 to gather baseline data on breeding marsh birds. Call playback point counts were conducted at 3 locations on the refuge: Leonard Marsh, Harper’s Meadow/ Sweat Meadow, Dead Cambridge River.

Loon, bald eagle, and osprey breeding surveys: Annual surveys and reports prepared by various contractors for the refuge.

A study of the vegetation and floristic diversity of two peatland complexes of post-settlement origin in Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge, Coos County, New Hampshire: Conducted by Maire Nazaire in 2005. Master’s Thesis, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont (Nazaire 2005)

Macro-invertebrate assessment report: Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge. Conducted by Rick Van de Poll in 2004. Ecosystem Management Consultants, Sandwich, New Hampshire (Van de Poll 2004)

Ecological Communities of the Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge: Classification and Mapping with the National Vegetation Classification System. Conducted by Josh Rapp 2003. University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont. (Rapp 2003)

Inventory of wetland communities around Umbagog Lake. Conducted by D.D. Sperduto in 1999. New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory, Concord, New Hampshire. (Sperduto 1999)

Water quality surveys on the refuge between 1979-1995 by New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, Ecological Services

Contaminant surveys, primarily focused on mercury in fish and fish-eating birds since the early 1990s. Conducted by the by Biodiversity Research Institute, Maine and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services (BRI 1997)

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3-17 The Refuge and its Resources

Special Use Permits The refuge manager issues special use permits on a case-by-case basis after determining whether the use is compatible with refuge purposes. All special use permits have a one-year term. Since 2000, we have issued annual special use permits for such activities as surveying and monitoring wildlife, trimming brush; installing a fire hydrant; accessing private lands on Big Island; and, allowing hunters with disabilities to use ATVs for hunting big game.

Camps We also issued special use permits for 25 cabins leased on the refuge. Most of the current cabin sites were acquired in an agreement when the original refuge lands were purchased from James River and Boise Cascade companies. With the purchase of lands from the Mead Paper Company in 2000, we agreed to an additional five leases. Most of the leases are located in Thurston Cove; five are in the Chapel Hill Road development; one is in Upton; and one is on Big Island.

Those privately owned cabins are on leased lands owned by the refuge and governed by special use permits. Those leases expire at the end of a 50-year period from when the refuge purchased the lands and include certain conditions, such as (1) the camps must be maintained in a manner compatible with the purposes of the refuge and produce the least amount of environmental disturbance; and, (2) no new permits will be issued for the construction of new camps on the properties. About a third of the lease owners are local residents from the Errol, Berlin, Gorham, and Milan area; a third are from other towns and cities in New Hampshire; and a third are from other states, including Maine, Georgia, and Texas. Approximately 10 leases have changed ownership at least once or twice since the refuge was established in 1992. The remaining camp lots have continued to be leased by the same individual(s) since 1992. Table 3.5 below identifies the annual revenues generated by issuing these camp lot leases. The proceeds from the camp lot leases go into the Refuge Revenue Sharing Account.

Table 3.5. Camp lot lease information and revenues generated, 1996–2007 Year No. of leases Range of fees charged Total lease revenue for year

1996 24 $50-$1,881 $27,461

1997 24 $50-$1,515 $27,032

1998 24 $50-$1,515 $27,077

1999 23 $70-$1,650 $29,289

2000 26 $1-$1,650 $31,603

2001 29 $1-$1,650 $39,944

2002 25 $1-$1,650 $32,524

2003 24 $1-$1,650 $32,530

2004 26 $1-$1,650 $31,160

2005 25 $1-$1,650 $30,248

2006 28 $1-1,650 $33,773

2007 27 $1-1,650 $33,703

3-18 Chapter 3. Affected Environment The Refuge and its Resources

Status of Step-Down Plans and Compatibility Determinations As we mentioned in chapter 1, Refuge System planning policy identifies at least 25 potential step-down plans. Although not all on that list are relevant for this refuge, we completed a Hunt Plan in 2000 and a Continuity of Operations Plan in 1999. See Chapter 2, “Description of the Alternatives,” for our schedule for completing additional step-down plans, including a HMP, IMP, FMP, and VS plans.

We have completed compatibility determinations for the special use permits mentioned above and for our hunting program. Appendix C includes new compatibility determinations for our current and proposed programs.

Refuge Natural Hydrology Resources Umbagog Lake is the centerpiece of the refuge, lying in a broad, flat basin along the Maine-New Hampshire border for a linear distance over 7 miles. The westernmost of the Rangeley Lakes chain, Umbagog Lake was only a thousand acres, until in 1851 a dam was built to power a sawmill. As the dam was enlarged and improved, it eventually flooded more than 7,000 additional acres of low-lying forest and floodplain. For more than 100 years, those saturated lands developed into peatlands, cedar swamps, floodplain forests, and lakeshore swamps (Dobbs and Ober 1995). Aerial photographs show a decrease in emergent vegetation in the Leonard Marsh and Harper’s Meadow area since the early 1970s, a time when impounded water may have been maintained at lower levels.

Three significant rivers drain into Umbagog Lake. The Magalloway River enters the lake on the northwest side, draining a 300-square-mile area of nearly undeveloped yet actively harvested forest. The Magalloway starts at the Canadian border, flows through Parmachenee Lake, Aziscohos Lake, and Sturtevant Pond in Maine before entering New Hampshire and draining south into Umbagog Lake. From the west, the Swift and Dead Diamond rivers are major tributaries to the Magalloway as it enters the Umbagog Lake backwaters. The Rapid River enters Umbagog Lake from the east, draining the entire 500-square-mile Rangeley lakes region of western Maine. The much smaller Dead Cambridge River flows into Umbagog Lake from the southeast. The Androscoggin River forms the outlet, leaving Umbagog Lake near the mouth of the Magalloway River.

Magalloway River Ian Drew/ USFWS Ian Drew/

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3-19 The Refuge and its Resources

The refuge encompasses four small ponds on the New Hampshire side of the lake: Mountain Pond (19 acres), East Whaleback and West Whaleback ponds (8 acres and 9 acres, respectively), and Brown Owl Pond (27 acres). Other small tributaries also feed into Umbagog Lake.

Errol Dam The Androscoggin River Improvement Company originally built Errol Dam in 1852. The dam controls water flows and levels in Umbagog Lake. Union Water Power Company (UWP) owned and operated the dam from 1878 and was the owner-operator at the time the refuge was established. UWP managed the water levels in Umbagog Lake, along with those in other Rangeley lakes, to maintain flow in the Androscoggin River and provide hydropower under a license issued by FERC. Article 27 of FERC license #3133–001 for Errol Dam requires UWP, in consultation with appropriate agencies, to conduct a study to identify the reservoir surface elevation and time of year at which stable water levels are needed for the protection of nesting wildlife on Umbagog Lake, and to develop a reservoir level management plan (FERC 1983).

UWP developed a water level management plan in consultation with the Service, NHFG, MDIFW, and ASNH, represented by the LPC. One major objective of the plan was to “minimize impacts on fish and wildlife which result from the flow management of the Androscoggin River, while balancing commitments to downstream user, regulating flood flow protection, and maintaining the most expedient water level regime for enhancing fish and wildlife within the Umbagog Reservoir.” The plan also provided for continuing review and input into water level management through annual meetings of the power company with the state agencies, Service, and LPC.

UWP agreed to maintain water levels based on a level set on June 1, and to restrict change to no more than a six-inch increase or a one-foot decrease. That agreement was amended in 1998 to specify that the water level be maintained at a 1,246-foot mean sea level (msl) elevation as of June 1, and held constant until 75 percent of loon nests were established (generally by June 20). A gradual six-inch drawdown then was initiated over a two-week period. That lower level was to be held constant for an additional month, until after 75 percent of the nests had hatched, or approximately July 20. After July 20, UWP could fluctuate lake levels (Fair 1998; Paul Dunlop, UWP, telephone communication 1998). FPLE manages under the same FERC license as UWP, which require them to limit water level fluctuations during the loon nesting season of June and July, based on the annual conservation partner meetings. The reservoir water level management plan is for the benefit of wildlife species and the water users downstream of the Errol Project.

Over the past 10 years, the river levels at the Errol Dam generally were maintained at 1,245.5 feet to 1,247.5 feet msl from the end of April through early March. Levels are drawn down to 1,243 feet or lower between early March and the end of April. A less pronounced drawdown occurs from mid-September through the end of October. In approximately 1 out of every 5 years, unusually low or high water level “spikes” occur, making it difficult for UWP to manage water levels within the current agreement. Figure 3.1 displays daily Umbagog Lake headpond elevations from 1992 to 2002.

Soils The Natural Resource Conservation Service completed an updated soil survey on the refuge in 2004 (USDA 2004). Most of the soils that cover the hillsides and upland forests in the refuge area derive from glacial till. The soils formed in alluvium, glacial outwash, lacustrine sediments, or organic materials, though less extensive in area, are significant, as they support diverse habitat types surrounding the lakeshore. Table 3.6 presents the major soil types on the refuge.

3-20 Chapter 3. Affected Environment The Refuge and its Resources

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3-21 The Refuge and its Resources

Table 3.6. Soils mapped on the Lake Umbagog refuge (USDA 2004) Soil Code Soil Name, Slope Origin Drainage 14B Sheepscott cobbly fi ne sandy loam Glacio-fl uvial/outwash Moderately well drained 27B/C Groveton fi ne sandy loam Glacio-fl uvial/outwash Well drained 28A Madawaska very fi ne sandy loam Glacio-fl uvial/outwash Moderately well drained 36B/C Adams loamy sand Glacio-fl uvial/outwash Excessively drained 55C Hermon sandy loam Glacial till Somewhat excessively drained 57D Becket fi ne sandy loam Glacial till Well drained 59B/C Waumbek sandy loam Glacial till Moderately well drained 61C/D/E Tunbridge-Lyman-Rock outcrop complex Glacial till Well drained 73D Berkshire very fi ne sandy loam Glacial till Well drained 77C/D/E Marlow gravelly fi ne sandy loam Glacial till Well drained 79B/C/D Peru fi ne sandy loam Glacial till Moderately well drained 143C/D/E Monadnock fi ne sandy loam Glacial till Well drained 169B/C/D Sunapee fi ne sandy loam Sunapee Glacial till Moderately well drained 214B Naumburg fi ne sandy loam Glacio-fl uvial Poorly drained 247A/B Lyme fi ne sandy loam Glacial till Poorly drained 415B Moosilauke loam Glacial till Poorly drained 470B Tunbridge-Peru complex Glacial till Well drained 523E Stetson fi ne sandy loam Glacio-fl uvial Well drained 549A Peacham muck Glacial till Very poorly drained 559A Skerry fi ne sandy loam Glacial till Moderately well drained 560C Tunbridge-Plaisted-Lyman complex Glacial till Well drained 567B/C/D Howland silt loam Glacial till Moderately well drained 579B/C/D Dixmont very fi ne sandy loam Glacial till Moderately well drained 590A/B/C Cabot gravelly silt loam Glacial till Poorly drained 613B Croghan loamy fi ne sand Glacio-fl uvial Moderately well drained 632B Nicholville very fi ne sandy loam Glacio-lacustrine Moderately well drained 633A Pemi silt loam Glacio-lacustrine Poorly drained 647B/C Pillsbury sandy loam Glacial till Poorly drained 670C Tunbridge-Berkshire-Lyman complex Glacial till Well drained 670D Tunbridge-Plaisted-Lyman complex Glacial till Well drained 995A Wonsqueak muck Organic materials Very poorly drained A=0%–3% slope; B=3%–8% slope; C=8%–15% slope; D=15%–25% slope; E=25%–30% slope

The Mixed Forest Matrix We define the “forest matrix” as the most extensive, most connected, and most and Habitat Types influential landscape type across the Upper Androscoggin River watershed basin. Knowing the matrix is important because it influences ecological processes that may affect biodiversity, including the amount and distribution of wildlife species. In the Upper Androscoggin River watershed, the forest matrix is not dominated by any one forest type, but is a mosaic of many types, and is often

3-22 Chapter 3. Affected Environment The Refuge and its Resources

referred to at the larger landscape scale as a mixed spruce-fir/northern hardwood forest (Kuchler 1964; Charlie Cogbill, personal communication 2004). As we further delineate the mixed forest matrix, at the refuge scale, we define three predominant forest types embedded in it: spruce-fir; conifer-hardwoods mixed woods; and, northern hardwoods. We refer to these three forest types in this document as “habitat types,” along with eight other habitat types we propose management objectives for: fen and flooded meadow, boreal fen and bog, northern white cedar, scrub-shrub wetlands, wooded floodplain, and lakeshore pine- hemlock. Each of those habitat types is found in varying amounts on the refuge and in the surrounding landscape.

Table 3.7 summarizes our classification of those habitat types for the refuge. We derived them from several sources. Our primary source was a cooperative mapping project with the University of Vermont, Spatial Analysis Laboratory, using the NVCS (Rapp 2003). We supplemented those data with aerial photo flights and interpretation generated in 2004 by the James W. Sewall Company of Old Town, Maine. The acreages in the table are approximations based on digital boundary mapping and photo-interpretation using a GIS database.

We grouped several natural communities into broader habitat types shown in table 3.7. The habitat groupings provide a coarser, more practical scale for mapping and applying management actions in the field. Wildlife, our main management focus, typically responds to habitat conditions at that broader scale. In addition, many of the natural communities we have grouped under a single habitat type occur naturally together as an ecologically system, often with one community merging into another. Thus, they often function ecologically as one habitat.

The following habitat type descriptions correspond to the list in table 3.7 and to the depictions on map 3-1. In addition, appendix M presents a cross-walk table of NVCS association, and various other vegetation classification systems and their relationship to refuge habitat types.

Table 3.7. Habitat types and acres in the approved Lake Umbagog Refuge boundary Acres owned Acres not owned Habitat Type NVCS Association (UVM 2003) by the refuge* by the refuge Totals Wetlands Medium fen-wet phase Medium fen Cattail marsh Fen and Flooded Meadow Seasonally flooded mixed graminoid meadow 487 79 566 Eastern tussock sedge meadow Spikerush shallow emergent marsh Few-seeded sedge-leatherleaf fen Leatherleaf poor fen Medium shrub fen Sub-boreal dwarf-shrub fen Boreal Fen and Bog Circumneutral pattern fen 1,235 167 1402 Spruce-fir swamp Black spruce wooded bog Black spruce-larch swamp Northern white-cedar- balsam fir peatland swamp Northern white-cedar-black ash swamp Northern white-cedar-boreal conifer mesic forest Northern White Cedar Northern white-cedar peatland swamp 829 202 1,031 Northern white-cedar seepage forest Northern white-cedar wooded fen

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3-23 The Refuge and its Resources

Acres owned Acres not owned Habitat Type NVCS Association (UVM 2003) by the refuge* by the refuge Totals Wetlands (cont’d) Speckled alder peatland lagg (Speckled, green) alder shrubland Scrub-Shrub Wetlands Speckled alder swamp 682 258 940 Sweetgale mixed shrub thicket Open Water and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation** Water *** 5,033 801 5,834 Floodplain and Lakeshore Red maple floodplain forest Red maple-balsam fir floodplain forest White spruce-balsam fir berm woodland Wooded Floodplain Red maple-tussock sedge floodplain woodland 1,140 153 1,293 Black ash-mixed hardwoods swamp Red maple-black ash swamp Hemlock mesic forest Hemlock-hardwoods forest Lakeshore Pine-Hemlock Hemlock-white pine- red spruce forest 232 288 520 Red pine-white pine forest Jack pine/blueberry/feathermoss forest Uplands Lowland spruce-fir forest Spruce-fir Red spruce rocky summit 2,346 956 3,302 Black spruce - red spruce forest Aspen-fir woodland Mixed Woods Successional spruce-fir forest 3,859 2,454 6,313 Red spruce- hardwoods forest Early successional aspen-birch forest/woodland Red maple-yellow birch early successional woodland Northern Hardwoods Northern hardwood forest 4,640 1,428 6,068 Semi-rich northern hardwood forest Paper birch talus woodland Other Recently Harvested Recently disturbed 1,058 551 1,609 Fields and Residences Residential 109 145 254 TOTAL 21,650 7,482 29,132

Table Notes *These values primarily represent Service-owned refuge lands, fee ownership only. The only exception is a 6-acre Service easement in the Potter Farm area that is incorporated into the spruce-fir type. Data sources include a NVCS map created by University of Vermont, Spatial Analysis Laboratory in February 2003; supplemented with a timber stand map created by Sewell, Inc. in December 2003, and additional Service photo interpretation in 2005. The acres are approximations based on digital mapping in a GIS database.

**Water acreage does not include Great Ponds in either state, but does include acres under rivers and other small water bodies. Refuge ownership on Umbagog Lake includes all acquired shoreline extending to the original Great Ponds, which existed before the lake’s impoundment.

***Floating-leaved and submerged aquatic vegetation communities have not been mapped, but likely include associations in the following NVCS Alliances: White Water-lily-Yellow Pond-lily species Permanently Flooded Temperate Herbaceous Alliance and Pondweed species-Coontail species-Waterweed species Permanently flooded Herbaceous Alliance.

3-24 Chapter 3. Affected Environment Map 3-1 The Refuge and its Resources

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3-25 The Refuge and its Resources

Wetlands, Floodplains, Peatlands and Open Water and Peatlands are a wetland type whose soils are “peat”— Submerged Aquatic partially decayed remains of dead plants. Peatlands Vegetation Habitats are described by topography: fl at or level, on slopes, or Approximately 10 percent raised. They also are classifi ed by their water and nutrient of the wetlands in the entire characteristics. upper Androscoggin River watershed is on the refuge, Minerotrophic peatlands receive water primarily from underground or surface sources; the water picks up nutrients and those are the most as it passes through soil and bedrock. Ombrotrophic extensive and diverse in the peatlands receive their water from precipitation. Oligotrophic upper watershed (Publicover peatlands are between the other two in nutrient richness. and Weihrauch 2003). The wetlands, floodplain and A fen is a strongly enriched (primarily minerotrophic) lakeshore forest, and open peatland, while a bog is a rain-fed (largely ombrotrophic) water cover 47 percent peatland. The northeast supports a range of peatland types, with many different types often occurring together in large (9,555 acres) of the refuge. peatland complexes (Johnson, 1985). Fen and Flooded Meadow Fen and flooded meadow habitat covers<3 percent (482 acres) of refuge lands. This habitat type encompasses several plant communities defi ned by NVCS. Those include medium fen, cattail marsh, seasonally fl ooded mixed graminoid meadow, eastern tussock sedge meadow, spikerush shallow emergent marsh, and few-seeded sedge- leatherleaf fen (Rapp 2003). Fen and fl ooded meadow is found primarily in the backwaters of the Magalloway River, along the southern and eastern edges of Leonard Marsh, in Leonard Pond, Harper’s Meadow, Sweat Meadow, and Chewonki Marsh, along the mouth of the Rapid River, and in the Mountain Pond and Dead Cambridge drainage.

These communities are found on seasonally or temporarily flooded to semi- permanently flooded areas with acidic soils. Depending on the specific community type, sedges, grasses, cattail, and sphagnum are the dominant herbaceous plants. Leatherleaf, sweet gale, and spireas are common shrubs in those communities. Although soil substrate and soil pH vary among these communities, all are located in stream floodplains, beaver meadows or along lake or pond shorelines. Snags are still visible in some areas of the fen and flooded meadow, an area of low-lying forest before the Errol Dam was built and raised the water levels (Little 1974).

Fen and flooded meadow is nesting and brood rearing habitat for American black duck, ring-necked duck, and mallard. Several marsh birds, including pied-billed grebe, sora, Virginia rail, American bittern, and Wilson’s snipe, nest in these wetlands. Cavity-nesting wood duck, common goldeneye, common and hooded merganser also forage here with their broods. During fall migration, waterfowl— the nesters as well as migrant scaup, scoters, and snow geese—use the wetlands as secure foraging sites. When water levels are low during spring and fall migration, several shorebird species (e.g., greater yellowlegs, solitary sandpiper, killdeer) stop over at the refuge. Northern leopard frog and mink frog also occur in these wetland habitats.

Rare Plants in the Fen and Flooded Meadow Meagre sedge is state-listed as threatened (S1) in New Hampshire. That rare plant was detected in the seasonally flooded graminoid meadow and in the circumneutral-patterned fen described below.

Boreal Fen and Bog Boreal fens and bogs cover 6 percent (1,184 acres) of the refuge, and include the NVCS communities leatherleaf poor fen, medium shrub fen, sub-boreal dwarf- shrub fen, circumneutral-patterned fen, spruce-fir swamp, black spruce wooded

3-26 Chapter 3. Affected Environment The Refuge and its Resources

bog, and black spruce-larch swamp. Distinctions among those community types are based upon water levels and pH as well as the extent of shrub layer present, and typically are classified as peatlands (see sidebar).

In addition to the rare and unique plant communities described below, these peatland complexes support many northern breeding species, including rusty blackbird, palm warbler, and mink frog. The peatlands also support diverse amphibians, including spring peeper, gray treefrog, bullfrog, American toad, and northern leopard, green, pickerel frog and wood frog.

On the western side of Umbagog Lake is an 870-acre peatland complex encompassing four areas: Leonard Marsh, Sweat Meadow, Harper’s Meadow, and Chewonki Marsh. A 750-acre portion of the complex, known as “Floating Island Bog,” was designated as a National Natural Landmark in 1972 (Nazaire 2005). Leonard Marsh and Harper’s Meadow form an extensive acidic fen complex with a pH of 4.0–4.7. Fens differ from marshes and streamside meadows by the absence of mineral soils at the surface and the presence of peat deposits and extensive layer of Sphagnum moss. These areas and associated wetlands form one of the largest peatland complexes in New Hampshire. This acidic fen complex harbors a high diversity of vascular plants, mosses, and liverworts. For example, the NHNHB found 16 species of Sphagnum moss at Sweat Meadow (Sperduto 1999).

The Leonard Marsh-Harper’s Meadow peatland complex consists of a unique suite of open and wooded types identified by Sperduto (1999):

■ extensive, open floating moss lawns dominated by aquatic Sphagnum sp. (e.g., Torrey’s sphagnum and Golden Bog-moss)

■ moss carpet fens dominated by non-aquatic Sphagnum species (e.g., peat moss) and dwarf and medium-height heath shrubs

■ moss carpet fens dominated by sedges (such as few-seeded sedge, quagmire sedge, and other unique “bog plants” such as pod-grass

■ various mixes of black spruce-larch woodlands and sparse woodland fens dominated by heath shrubs and Sphagnum mosses.

Nazaire (2005) conducted a floristic inventory and vegetation analysis of the 452-acre Leonard Marsh from 2002 to 2004, documenting 14 community types and several rare plants, including narrow-leaved cotton-grass, heart-leaved twayblade, and creeping sedge. Peat depths in Leonard Marsh ranged from 26 to 92 inches (Nazaire 2005).

Floating Island National Natural Landmark In 1972, the Secretary of the Interior designated part of the wetlands at Harper’s Meadow as an NNL. That designation recognizes the floating bog and wetlands as a significant natural area, one of a very special group of places illustrating the diversity of the country’s natural history (Favour 1971). The National Park Service administers the NNL program, which is a voluntary program for landowners (USDOI 1999). The current size of the NNL is 860 acres (map 2-1).

A rare fen of high regional significance, the circumneutral-patterned fen is found near the center of Tidswell Point. Most of that fen is on land owned by the State of New Hampshire as part of the Umbagog State Park, and a portion is on the refuge. The pH in the fen ranges from 6.3 to 8.4. Only a few locations in New England of this natural community type are known. Patterned fens consist of long, linear, raised hummocks and intervening low hollows. Circumneutral fens, typically part of larger peatlands, are calcium-enriched from groundwater,

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3-27 The Refuge and its Resources

supporting a characteristic set of plant species that are often rare. A large, high- quality northern white cedar swamp surrounds the fen (Sperduto 1999).

The patterned fen hummocks are dominated by stunted and heavily browsed northern white cedar. The hollows support several rare plants, including meager sedge, livid sedge, thin-flowered sedge, and moor rush. Other rare and uncommon plants growing in the fen include the state-listed endangered dragon’s mouth and the state-listed threatened Pursh’s goldenrod, cotton bulrush, orchids rose pogonia, and grass pink (Sperduto 1999).

The southern side of the more eastern Whaleback Pond supports an open floating bog mat dominated by Sphagnum rubellum, scattered dwarf heath shrubs, pitcher plants, and several other mosses (Sperduto 1999).

Black spruce wooded bog composes part of the large peatland complexes. Tree canopy cover of black spruce, larch, and hemlock varies from 10 percent to 60 percent. Shrub cover, dominated by Labrador tea and rhodora, reaches 80 percent. Sphagnum covers nearly the entire wooded bog. In addition to being part of the Floating Island, black spruce wooded bog occurs around Mountain Pond and Tidswell Point. Black spruce-larch swamp has many of the same species as the wooded bog, although it is not typically part of the large peatland complexes (Rapp 2003).

Northern White Cedar Northern white cedar forest covers 4 percent (829 acres) of the refuge. The natural communities in this grouping all have northern white cedar (nwc) as a dominant plant. The communities include nwc-balsam fir peatland swamp, nwc- black ash swamp, nwc-boreal conifer mesic forest, nwc-peatland swamp, nwc- seepage forest, and nwc-wooded fen. These soils are typically moist to saturated peat or muck, and are highly to moderately acidic. Examples of northern white cedar communities on the refuge are in areas north of Whaleback Ponds, downstream of Mountain Pond, and above the outlet of the Dead Cambridge River into the lake.

Northern white cedar is a boreal species that occurs as far south as Carroll and Grafton counties in New Hampshire. The NHNHB considers northern white cedar swamps a “signature-community” of the north woods, and hence, an important component of the region’s biodiversity (Sperduto and Engstrom 1998). The largest northern white cedar swamp in New Hampshire (80 to100 acres) surrounds the Whaleback Ponds and extends toward the Magalloway River. This wetland basin lies within the refuge acquisition boundary, but only a portion is now under Service ownership. The acidic cedar swamp is large, uniform, and largely undisturbed, with an abundance of Sphagnum moss, shrubby understory and slightly stunted canopy cedars, and is 120 to 200 years old (Sperduto 1999).

The NHNHB identified a 20-acre mixed hardwood-conifer seepage swamp in a shallow bedrock basin that empties into Umbagog Lake near Thurston Cove. The seepage swamp contains a large amount of northern white cedar around the margins of a boreal dwarf shrub fen. The swamp shows evidence of past logging, but is currently more than 200 years old (Sperduto 1999).

Several northern bird species use this habitat type year-round, including boreal chickadee, gray jay, and spruce grouse. White-tailed deer find cover and forage in the northern white cedar. A dusky salamander was recorded from a cedar swamp near Harper’s Meadow during a 1999–2002 amphibian and small mammal survey in cedar swamps and riparian habitats. American toads were abundant in that survey, and other amphibians were detected in the cedar swamp, including wood and green frogs, spotted and blue-spotted salamanders, spring peepers, and eastern newts. A diversity of small mammal species were identified in the

3-28 Chapter 3. Affected Environment The Refuge and its Resources

cedar swamp habitat, including masked, northern water and short-tailed shrews, southern red-backed voles, and several bog lemmings (species unknown).

Scrub-Shrub Wetlands Scrub-shrub wetlands cover 3.2 percent (655 acres) of the refuge. Scrub-shrub is found in areas that are seasonally flooded, such as riparian areas, floodplains, or around the edges of beaver-flooded wetlands in patches that average 7.5 acres. The natural community types are speckled alder peatland lagg, (speckled, green) alder shrubland, speckled alder swamp, and sweetgale mixed shrub thicket. Shrub cover dominates those areas, with speckled alder, sweetgale, and leatherleaf as the most common species. Trees generally are absent or very sparsely distributed; if present, they typically include balsam fir and red maple. Sphagnum, ferns, dwarf black berry, sedges, and grasses dominate the understory. Soils vary from strongly to moderately acidic.

The largest example of alder shrub land is in the floodplain of the Dead Cambridge River above its confluence with the Swift Cambridge River. Smaller examples are in cut-off oxbows located along the Magalloway, Rapid, and Androscoggin rivers (Rapp 2003).

Bill Zinni/USFWS Beaver, American woodcock, and Canada warbler are wildlife species associated Scrub-shrub habitat on with scrub-shrub habitat. refuge Open Water and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Open water, floating-leaved, and submerged aquatic vegetation habitat includes the aquatic bed (submerged lands extending from the current shoreline to the pre-dammed lake shoreline; or, the lake shoreline prior to impoundment) In addition, open water habitat includes the riverbeds and small ponds. Open water or submerged lands of the original Great Ponds in both Maine and New Hampshire are not included and are owned by the respective states. Open water and submerged and floating-leaved aquatic vegetation on the refuge encompasses 24.5 percent (5,033 acres) of current refuge ownership.

Umbagog Lake is the second largest lake in New Hampshire. Its average depth is 15 feet. It includes extensive shallow areas with unconsolidated bottom, a reflection of the historical conditions that created much of the lake: that is, the flooding of low-lying forest. Two deeper pools of more than 50 feet lie near the mouth of the Rapid River and off the northern cliffs of Sturtevant Cove (Van de Poll 2004).

Umbagog Lake is largely homothermous—the same temperature from top to bottom—creating warm summer temperatures (Boucher 2005). However, Umbagog Lake is important wintering habitat for native brook trout from the Diamond River watershed (Diane Timmons, NHFG, personal communication, 2004) and from the Rapid River. Smallmouth bass were introduced illegally into Umbagog Lake during the mid-1980s, and have since migrated to other connecting waters, including the Rapid River. Smallmouth bass, introduced into New Hampshire in 1865, are predators and competitors of brook trout (Boucher 2005).

We have very little information on the refuge open water habitat that is composed of the river tributaries and ponds. We have not conducted any bathymetry or water chemistry studies, nor have we conducted any fish or aquatic invertebrate studies. Our only wildlife study in this habitat was a stream salamander survey in a few locations in 2001 and 2002. Two-lined salamanders were abundant at those sites. A spring salamander was recorded in Bull Moose Stream at the southern end of the lake. A dusky salamander was reported in a stream flowing into Mountain Pond.

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3-29 The Refuge and its Resources

Wooded Floodplain Wooded floodplain covers 5.5 percent (1,140 acres) of the refuge. Found primarily along the Magalloway, Dead, and Swift Cambridge rivers, its natural communities include red maple floodplain forest, red maple-balsam fir floodplain forest, white spruce-balsam fir berm woodland, red maple-tussock sedge floodplain woodland, black ash-mixed hardwoods, and red maple-black ash swamp. Red maple, silver maple, and balsam fir dominate the closed to intermittent canopy along with yellow birch and white spruce. Red maple floodplain forest approaches its northern limit on the Magalloway River.

The entire Magalloway River shoreline offers the best example of the wooded floodplain forest community on the lake. The NHNHB lists it as a good example of a “balsam fir floodplain forest” community type.

The wooded floodplain supports a rich diversity of wildlife, including cavity- nesting ducks (e.g., wood duck, common goldeneye, common and hooded merganser), nesting songbirds (e.g., rusty blackbird, northern parula), and foraging waterfowl (e.g., black duck). Large floodplain trees offer perching sites for bald eagle, osprey, belted kingfisher, and other birds. It also supports a rich diversity of amphibians, including mink, wood, green and pickerel frog, spotted and blue-spotted salamander, American toad, spring pepper, eastern newt, and bullfrog.

Woodplain floodplains also host several bat species, including little brown, hoary, and northern long-eared bats. Those bats roost in tree cavities, under loose bark or dense foliage (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001). Other small mammals detected in this habitat were masked, short-tailed and smokey shrews, southern red-backed vole, meadow jumping mouse, eastern chipmunk, and a bog lemming (species unknown).

Lakeshore Pine-Hemlock Forest Lakeshore pine-hemlock forest covers 1.1 percent (232 acres) of the refuge. Natural communities in this habitat type include hemlock mesic forest, hemlock- hardwoods forest, hemlock-white pine-red spruce forest, red pine-white pine forest, and jack pine-blueberry-feathermoss forest. The canopy layer in each of those plant associations is dominated by varying mixtures of conifers (white pine, hemlock, red pine, red spruce, jack pine); all occur on well-drained to excessively well-drained soils, typically near lakeshores.

Some of the best examples of the lakeshore pine-hemlock natural communities occur along the lake near Tyler Point, Big Island, and Tidswell Point, as pines dominate the eastern shore of Umbagog Lake. The jack pine-blueberry-

A little brown bat USFWS

3-30 Chapter 3. Affected Environment The Refuge and its Resources

feathermoss community occurs in small groups or as individuals along the lakeshore.

Jack pine is rare in New Hampshire, where it grows at the southern limit of its range (NH S1 rank). This community is the only low-elevation occurrence of this type in New Hampshire.

A northern occurrence of hemlock mesic (moderately moist) forest is found along the lake on Tyler Point.

Many of the large, mature, “super-canopy” trees are in the lakeshore pine- hemlock habitat. Their size and proximity to open water makes them ideal nest trees for bald eagle and osprey. Sharp-shinned hawk, merlin, and olive-sided flycatcher are a few of the other species that nest in this habitat.

Upland Habitats Forests are the dominant landscape type in northern New England, and 90 percent of the Upper Androscoggin River watershed that encompasses Umbagog Lake is a mixed forest matrix as described above. However, it is important to note that the mixed forest matrix of today supports more hardwoods than over the last 150 years (Cogbill, personal communication, 2004). That reflects a forest composition affected by multiple cycles of timber harvesting. Selective harvesting of softwoods has converted many spruce-fir stands to mixed stands, and mixed stands to hardwood stands. In the absence of further human disturbance, these forests, through natural succession and disturbance patterns, will shift to a higher proportion of softwood (Publicover and Weihrauch 2003). That prediction is also consistent with the site capabilities of the refuge expressed through the ecological land units (a combination of elevation, bedrock geology, and topography).

As we mentioned previously, three broad upland habitat types embedded in the mixed forest matrix are found in varying amounts: spruce-fir, northern hardwoods, and mixed wood. These three habitat types encompass 48 percent (9,913 acres) of the refuge.

Spruce-Fir The spruce-fir habitat type covers 9.5 percent (1,947 acres) of the refuge. Natural communities in this habitat type include lowland spruce-fir forest, red spruce rocky summit, and black spruce-red spruce forest.

This spruce-fir habitat type is dominated by red spruce, balsam fir, and paper birch. Other typical plant associates include lowbush blueberry, mountain ash, American fly-honeysuckle, bunchberry, wood sorrel, wild sarsaparilla, and bluebead lily, among others. Logging heavily affected the lowland spruce-fir community type, and large areas now mapped as successional spruce-fir forest or recently disturbed will likely shift to spruce-fir over time. The largest remaining stands grow on gentle slopes and flats in the Mountain Pond, Sunday Cove, Whaleback Ponds, Mile Long West, and Dead Cambridge areas (Rapp 2003).

Red spruce and balsam fir are both late successional, shade tolerant, and shallow rooted. Balsam fir is an abundant seed producer, is highly susceptible to heart- rot, and is at risk from wind damage and uprooting. Fir is the preferred host of spruce budworm, and is affected by balsam wooly adelgid. Spruce budworm outbreaks occur on 40- to 70-year cycles, although outbreaks may have been less frequent historically when balsam fir was less abundant. The life span of fir ranges between 40 and 70 years, depending on site conditions. Red spruce seeds infrequently, and is highly resistant to decay, resulting in a long life span (300+ years) (Seymour 1992).

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3-31 The Refuge and its Resources

The black spruce-red spruce community type is difficult to distinguish from the lowland spruce-fir. It occurs along wetland borders, and is dominated by red and black spruces. The canopy is typically quite dense, with little understory; mosses dominate the forest floor. The “fairy forest” near Sunday Cove is a good example of this type. Disturbed versions of this community type, such as the moose wallow 1.5 miles northeast of the refuge headquarters, typically have little spruce, and are instead dominated by balsam fir or larch (Rapp 2003).

The red spruce rocky summit community type is uncommon and restricted to ridge tops and steep, rocky slopes such as in the Errol Hill, Mile Long, and Whaleback Pond areas. Soils are usually acidic, and outcrops are evident. Red spruce is the dominant species, with lesser amounts of balsam fir and paper birch (Rapp 2003).

Lowland spruce-fir is important for a range of wildlife species that depend on it for nesting habitat and winter cover. Softwood-associated bird species include bay-breasted, Cape May and blackburnian warblers. Many other songbirds occur in this habitat including 13 other warblers: magnolia, northern parula, black-and- white, Canada, black-throated blue, American redstart, common yellowthroat, Nashville, black-throated-green, yellow-rumped, chestnut-sided, yellow, and northern waterthrush. Other bird species of note that appear here include hermit and Swainson’s thrushes, veery, winter wren, yellow-bellied flycatcher, yellow- bellied sapsucker, and swamp sparrow.

The spruce-fir habitat type supports some of the most important deer wintering areas. Bobcats use the conifer-dominated ridge tops, and martens are common inhabitants of spruce-fir.

Mixed Woods The mixed conifer-hardwood habitat type covers 17 percent (3,478 acres) of the refuge, and includes red spruce-hardwood forest, successional spruce-fir forest, and aspen-fir woodland natural community types. The communities are distinguished primarily by the dominant canopy species that in turn are influenced in large part by specific site conditions and disturbance history.

This habitat type is the most widely distributed habitat type on the refuge, occurring on all but the highest elevations. It is especially prevalent in the Errol Hill, Mile Long, Whaleback Ponds, and Sunday Cove areas. In addition to red spruce, the dominant plant species include yellow birch, red maple, striped maple, and woodfern. Sugar maple and American beech are often present in this mixed woods habitat type. The successional spruce-fir forest type usually develops after disturbance to lowland spruce-fir. It usually has fewer northern hardwood species present with red spruce and balsam fir dominant in the understory. This community will typically succeed to lowland spruce-fir. Aspen-woodland is dominated by quaking aspen and balsam fir. It is most common around Mountain Pond but found in small patches throughout the refuge on lower slopes with well- drained loam soils (Rapp 2003).

This habitat type supports species that depend on a combination of hardwood and softwood tree species such as blackburnian and black-throated green warbler, or utilize a successional stage of this habitat such as Canada warbler and American woodcock. Mixed woods support many of the species mentioned under spruce-fir but in higher numbers.

Northern Hardwood The northern hardwood habitat type covers 21.9 percent (4,488 acres) of the refuge. The natural community types include northern hardwood forest, semi- rich northern hardwood forest, early successional aspen-birch forest/woodland,

3-32 Chapter 3. Affected Environment The Refuge and its Resources

red maple-yellow birch early successional woodland, and paper birch talus woodland. These hardwood forests are dominated by sugar maple and yellow birch, with other common species including American beech, red spruce, striped maple, hobblebush, and woodfern.

Northern hardwoods occur on well-drained loam soils at mid elevations. The forests typically have a closed canopy with variable shrub and herbaceous layers depending on local conditions and disturbance history. Most of the northern hardwoods were logged once or more in the past. It is found throughout the refuge, with good examples on the eastern slopes of Errol Hill and Mill Mountain, on Tyler Point, south of the Whaleback Ponds, and at the base of C Bluff cliff. A small patch of the semi-rich northern hardwood forest occurs in the vicinity of C Bluff; small pockets of enriched soils occur within northern hardwoods elsewhere on the refuge (Rapp 2003).

The aspen-birch woodland types become established after logging or some other disturbance. The early successional aspen-birch woodland is dominated by quaking aspen or paper birch with high shrub density including beaked hazelnut and several viburnum species. Occurrences on the refuge include the Dead Cambridge, Tidswell Point, Mountain and Mile Long ponds, areas where logging has occurred in the last 50 years. A similar early successional type is one dominated more by red maple and yellow birch. This occurs in the Whaleback Ponds, Mile Long and Mountain ponds, on Big Island, and near the eastern lakeshore (Rapp 2003).

The paper birch talus woodland is a single occurrence at the base of C Bluff. Paper birch is growing on a stabilized granite boulder talus with slopes between 30 percent and 45 percent. Soils are thin and patchy. Shrub cover is high and dominated by mountain maple. These talus slopes provide denning habitat for mammals including porcupine and bobcat. A peregrine falcon was heard from in the C Bluff area, one of the largest cliffs in the area (Rapp 2003).

The northern hardwood habitat type is important to landbird species of concern such as black-throated-blue warbler, American woodcock, and Canada warbler. Black-throated blue warbler nest in hobblebush and other understory vegetation, while American woodcock and Canada warbler utilize the early successional stages of these same forest types. This type also supports high numbers of many common nesting songbirds, including red-eyed vireo, ovenbird, hermit thrush, winter wren, scarlet tanager, and yellow-bellied sapsucker.

Recently Harvested Recently harvested, or early successional (disturbed) forest, covers 4.6 percent (938 acres) of the refuge. This community is more ephemeral than most others, because it has experienced recent disturbance, usually in the form of logging. One particularly notable example of this type covers much of the upland areas of Tidswell Point. We are not actively managing any of the upland cover types now. These early successional stages, as noted above, are important to a suite of species such as woodcock, chestnut-sided warbler, morning warbler, white- throated sparrow, and snowshoe hare. The latter is an important food source for lynx, bobcat, and other mammals.

Fields and Residences Fields and residences cover 0.5 percent (107 acres) of refuge lands. These areas are actively maintained for human residential or commercial purposes, including buildings, lawns, and other development. The Potter Farm and the Chapel Hill Road community are two examples. These areas are maintained for administrative purposes and provide little or no wildlife habitat value.

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3-33 The Refuge and its Resources

Rare or Unique Habitat Types and Rare Plant Populations Several rare or unique habitat types and rare plant populations are not displayed in this document because their small size does not show up in relationship to the map scale used for the other habitat types, or because the refuge has not identified all their specific locations. These areas include vernal pools (see discussion below) and other small, uncommon wetlands, cliffs, and talus slopes (see northern hardwoods discussion). In addition, appendix B lists more than 30 species of rare plant populations known on the refuge and their state status. Digital information on those rare habitat types and plant species we have mapped can be obtained at refuge

Marvin Moriarty/USFWS headquarters. The former Potter Farm is now part of the refuge Vernal Pools A vernal pool is a small water body lacking a permanent aboveground outlet. In the northeast, vernal pools fill with winter snowmelt, spring rains, and autumn rains. They typically dry by mid to late summer or earlier in drought years. How long water stays in a vernal pool is known as its hydroperiod, which varies depending on the pool and the year. A vernal pool, because of its periodic drying, does not support breeding populations of fish. Vernal pools on the refuge provide essential habitat for several obligate amphibian species, including blue-spotted and spotted salamanders and wood frog, contributing to refuge biodiversity. Maintaining vernal pools with a range of hydroperiods is important in sustaining vernal pool biodiversity. Most of the vernal pools on the refuge are embedded within the floodplain and riparian habitats.

Invasive Plants We have not carried out any systematic surveys for terrestrial or aquatic invasive plants. However, our staff and interns are continually on the lookout for these plants. We have mechanically treated or hand-pulled Phragmites, purple loosestrife, and Japanese knotweed from localized areas, often where fill has been brought in. Examples of areas we have treated include the refuge headquarters parking lot, the Magalloway River Trail, and skid roads.

We are not aware of any aquatic invasive plants, but continue to be vigilant for the presence of non-native milfoil.

Fish and Wildlife The refuge’s diverse assemblage of upland and wetland vegetation—the lake, the Androscoggin and Magalloway rivers, and many other ponds and streams—hosts a wide variety of terrestrial and aquatic animal species described below.

Federal- and State-Listed Wildlife Species There are no federally listed species on the refuge, since the bald eagle was de-listed in 2007. Bald eagles nested near Umbagog Lake during the first half of the 20th century, but there was no successful nesting in the area from 1950 though 1988. One breeding pair established a nesting territory on the northern half of the lake in 1989. In 2000, biologists confirmed that a second breeding pair had established a territory on the southern half of the lake (Martin 2001). The refuge and surrounding area also support non-breeding immature bald eagles year-round. This includes some individuals migrating from as far away as Florida; those were tracked using satellite technology. For more on bald eagles, see below.

3-34 Chapter 3. Affected Environment The Refuge and its Resources

Thirteen bird species known to use the refuge are on the Maine or New Hampshire state lists of endangered and threatened wildlife (table 3.8). One species of New Hampshire threatened mammal has been confirmed to occur on the refuge.

Table 3.8. Maine and New Hampshire State-listed species that occur or likely occur on the refuge BIRDS STATE STATUS American pipit Endangered in ME (proposed breeding population only) American Three-toed woodpecker Threatened in NH Bald eagle Endangered in NH (proposed Threatened), Threatened in ME Black tern Endangered in ME Common nighthawk Threatened in NH Common loon Threatened in NH Common nighthawk Threatened in NH (proposed endangered) Common tern Endangered in NH (proposed Threatened) Cooper’s hawk Threatened in NH (proposed de-listed) Golden eagle Endangered in both NH and ME Northern harrier Endangered in NH Osprey Threatened in NH Peregrine falcon Endangered in NH (proposed Threatened), Endangered in ME Pied billed grebe Endangered in NH (proposed Threatened) MAMMALS American marten Threatened in NH Northern bog lemming Threatened in ME Small-footed myotis Endangered in NH

Birds Written documentation on bird populations in the Umbagog Lake area extends back more than 130 years. Noted 19th-century ornithologist William Brewster spent extensive periods studying the birds of the area from 1871 through 1909 (Brewster 1924). Observations from the past 55 years by an increasing number of professional and amateur ornithologists contribute to a general understanding of local bird populations: for example, a series of periodicals published under various names by the ASNH from 1921 to1982, the National Audubon Society’s Christmas Bird Count data for Errol, New Hampshire from 1958 to 2003, and the New Hampshire Bird Records database from 1982 to 2003. Our refuge bird list includes 229 species that have been observed on the refuge during one or more seasons.

In 1980, the NHFG and the ASNH initiated a statewide cooperative endangered and threatened species bird monitoring and management program (Robinson 1999). The Umbagog Lake area was included in the monitoring particularly for common loon, pied-billed grebe, bald eagle, osprey, peregrine falcon, and northern harrier.

Waterfowl The refuge is unique in the region for the diversity of waterfowl that breed here. Umbagog Lake marshes and backwaters, forested and shrub wetlands, and adjacent forested and cutover uplands provide important nesting and brood- rearing habitat for such waterfowl as black duck, ring-necked duck, and cavity- nesters including common goldeneye, wood duck, common merganser, and hooded

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3-35 The Refuge and its Resources

merganser. The refuge supports the highest concentrations of nesting black and ring-necked ducks in New Hampshire (USFWS 1991). Blue-winged teal, green- winged teal, and mallard also nest in the area. It is one of three high priority waterfowl focus areas in New Hampshire (Atlantic Coast Joint Venture 2005). Ducks are most commonly observed in backwaters along the Magalloway and Androscoggin rivers, Leonard Pond, Leonard Marsh, Harper’s Meadow, Sweat Meadow, Chewonki Marsh, the outlet of Umbagog Lake and, to a lesser extent, in Tyler Cove and near the outlet of the Dead Cambridge River.

Umbagog Lake is also an important migratory staging area for the waterfowl mentioned above, as well as for greater and lesser scaup, bufflehead, white- winged, surf and black scoters, and Canada and snow geese. The NHFG surveys waterfowl on the refuge annually, just before the duck-hunting season opens. We also conducted a few limited fall waterfowl surveys from 2000 to 2002.

In 1940, the most common nesting waterfowl on Umbagog Lake (in order of abundance) were goldeneye, black duck, common merganser, wood duck, hooded merganser, and blue-winged teal (Provost 1940). That survey reports goldeneye and common merganser as common ducks on the Androscoggin River above the Errol dam, and goldeneye, black duck and wood duck as the most common species in Harper’s Meadow. According to Provost (1940), waterfowl were more abundant during the 1920s, when local hunting clubs planted wild rice around the lake. In 1940, emergent vegetation around the lake (presumably Leonard and Chewonki Marshes) produced an average of one duck per 1.5–2 acres (Provost 1940).

Although we have no quantitative data on nesting waterfowl, our observations indicate that the most common species in recent years are black ducks, common and hooded mergansers, and ring-necked ducks. This information is also based partly on waterfowl species observed during a general refuge breeding bird survey by Bob Quinn in 1999 and 2000.

Common Loon Umbagog Lake supports one of the highest concentrations of breeding common loons in New Hampshire. However, it falls below other lakes in terms of hatching success, chick survivorship, and overall productivity (Taylor et al. 2004). In recent years, the number of territorial pairs on the lake is around 17. Loons arrive on territories as early as mid-May, particularly on the rivers. The nesting season of common loons on Umbagog Lake starts around May 20. In most years, the majority of nests are established between June 1 and June 20. Hatching generally occurs between July 1 and July 20.

The most productive loon territories, located primarily on the north end of the lake, are the Magalloway River, Harper’s Meadow, Sweat Meadow, Pine Point and Sunday Cove. Moderately productive sites include Sturtevant Cove, Leonard Marsh, Leonard Pond, and Southeast Arm, at the southeast end of the lake. The least productive sites include Sargent Cove, B Brook, and Thibodeau, south of Sunday Cove.

In 1985, a water management agreement among the owners of the Errol dam and conservation agencies and organizations reduced the rate of water level change during the loon-nesting season (see hydrology discussion, page 3-20). In addition to managing water levels, buoy lines and educational signs are employed to minimize disturbance and promote increased hatching success. Artificial nesting rafts were deployed in the 1970s to increase productivity; however, those have since been removed, with the shift toward natural nesting structures.

The LPC has intensively monitored the loon population since 1976. Productivity was low at that time due to frequent flooding during the nesting season. The number of loon nesting territories increased from 9 in 1976 to 32 in 2000 around

3-36 Chapter 3. Affected Environment The Refuge and its Resources

the Umbagog Lake and on the Magalloway and Androscoggin rivers. The number dropped to 16 territorial pairs in 2002. Comparable declines were not observed on nearby lakes during the same period. Since then, the numbers have fluctuated around 18 to 20 territorial pairs: in 2003, 19; in 2004, 20; and in 2005, 20. The cause(s) of the 2000 to 2002 decline have not been identified. A dozen or so unpaired adult birds are on the lake each year as well.

Although 20 or more loon pairs establish territories on Umbagog Lake and its tributaries in a given year, 75 percent or less actually nest, and many fewer hatch chicks successfully. In 2005 for example, of 20 territorial pairs, 13 nested. Of those nesting pairs, six pairs successfully hatched a collective eight chicks and only four of those survived. Predation on eggs and chicks was the primary cause of nest failure. Raccoon, mink, fisher, herring gull, bald eagle, and raven are known to prey on loons; mammalian predation is the most prevalent (Taylor et al. 2005).

More than 75 individual common loons were banded and sampled for contaminants between 1993 and 2003 as part of a regional study on common loon reproduction and blood chemistry. Two loons were equipped with radio transmitters in 2003. Both of those birds migrated to the coast of Maine in the fall: one near Saco Bay and the other near Penobscot Bay. Another bird was equipped with a transmitter in 2004, and has also migrated to the coast of Maine to Muscongus Bay. Another 14 loons were captured, banded, and color-marked in 2005, and 12 loons were evaluated for eight different avian diseases (Yates and Evers 2005).

In 2002, the cause of death of three loons in Umbagog Lake was attributed to lead poisoning from ingesting lead sinkers. At least one loon was also infected with the West Nile virus. Blood samples from Umbagog Lake loons were analyzed for methylmercury, and were found to contain moderate levels lower than other reservoirs in the Rangeley Lakes chain. The highest mercury concentrations on the refuge were in loons nesting on the Magalloway River and in the southeastern section of Umbagog Lake (Biodiversity Research Institute 1998). Moderately high levels were also found in Leonard Pond, Potter Cove, Black Island Cove, Absalom, and Gull Island birds. The lowest levels of mercury were in birds on the Androscoggin River. Mercury levels were higher in males than in females. The Magalloway River flows out of Lake Aziscohos, which has high mercury levels (ECSMarin 2003).

Common snipe Marsh Birds Marsh birds, including American bittern, Virginia rail, sora, Wilson’s snipe, and pied-billed grebe breed in the marshes and other wetlands on the refuge. Two non-active great blue heron nests were reported on the refuge in 2002. Umbagog Lake is one of just a handful of locations in New Hampshire where the black tern is observed repeatedly during the breeding season, although no nests have been confirmed.

Volunteers using taped broadcast callbacks surveyed breeding marsh birds ©Robert Quinn annually on the refuge from 1999 to 2002. Surveys were conducted along three transects: one each along the Dead Cambridge River, in Leonard Marsh/ Leonard Pond/Chewonki Marsh, and one in Harper’s and Sweat Meadows. The most common targeted marsh birds recorded were Wilson’s snipe, Virginia rail, American bittern, and alder flycatcher. Sora, pied-billed grebe, marsh wren, and belted kingfisher also were noted. Other birds that forage or nest in the wetlands were recorded on this or other surveys; they included common yellowthroat, great blue heron, Lincoln’s sparrow, northern waterthrush, palm warbler, red- winged blackbird, rusty blackbird, and swamp sparrow.

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3-37 The Refuge and its Resources

Common terns have been observed perching on exposed rock outcrops on the lake both historically and in recent years. However, those records involve small groups of migrating or non-breeding individuals. They do not indicate that this species has ever attempted to breed in the Umbagog Lake area (Brewster 1924).

Shorebirds Shorebirds migrate through the refuge mid- to late April through mid-June (spring) and late August through early to mid-November (fall), congregating in relatively low numbers on the margins of wetlands. Only a few species of shorebirds are known to breed on or near the refuge, including spotted sandpiper, Wilson’s snipe, and American woodcock. We have not conducted woodcock surveys; however, in 2006 we plan to establish singing ground surveys on the refuge to gain additional information on their breeding status.

We conducted a few limited spring and fall shorebird surveys from 2000 to 2002. Bob Quinn compiled a list of shorebird sightings on the refuge from 1990 to 1998. The most common species are Wilson’s snipe, spotted sandpiper, greater yellowlegs, solitary sandpiper, and killdeer. During migration, large mixed flocks are sporadically seen feeding on the exposed mud flats that appear when the water levels are low. Other migrant shorebirds that are seen on rare occasions include semi-palmated and black-bellied plover, red-necked phalarope, red knot, semi-palmated and least sandpipers, dunlin, short-billed dowitcher, Wilson’s phalarope, and lesser yellowlegs (Quinn 2005).

Bald Eagle Bald eagles were absent from the refuge between 1949 and 1989, a result of widespread use of DDT that caused major population declines across their range. The bald eagle made a remarkable recovery, along with many other raptors, after DDT was banned and the eagle was protected on the Endangered Species List. Since 1980, ASNH, through a contract with the NHFG, has monitored bald eagles and ospreys in New Hampshire.

Nesting bald eagles returned to Umbagog Lake in 1989, after a more than 30-year absence. In 1989, a pair nested in a live white pine tree on an island in Leonard Pond on the refuge, near the confluence of the Magalloway and Androscoggin rivers. That nest was continuously occupied until 1994. In 1994, the pair moved to a tree on Pine Point on the eastern shore of the lake. That year, the adult male eagle died, apparently from ingesting lead shot, and the Pine Point nest failed. The remaining adult female paired with another male and re-established the nest at the Leonard Pond site. That nest has continued to be occupied each year from 1994 to 2004. From 1990 to 2002, the nest produced an average 1.2 chicks/year. During that 12-year period, nest failures occurred four times (i.e., no chicks fledged): in 1994, 1997, 2000, and 2002. By 1992, the original nest tree had died, although nesting continued in the snag that remained. In 2002, the eagle pair dismantled the Leonard Pond nest, but remained in the vicinity. A mate change apparently occurred in 2001 (new male), and in 2003 the female was replaced. No eggs hatched successfully in either 2003 or 2004 (ASNH unpublished data).

In 2000, a second pair established a nest on the east side of the lake in a white pine tree on Tidswell Point, approximately half a mile inland from the lake. That nest produced two chicks in 2000, one chick in 2001, one in 2002, two in 2003, (only 1 of these survived to fledging), and two in 2004. In 2006, a third pair established a nest in Sweat Meadows and successfully fledged 2 young in 2007.

The refuge eagles likely remain in the general vicinity of the refuge year-round. The adult male was confirmed on or near the lake every month of the year except January (ASNH unpublished data).

3-38 Chapter 3. Affected Environment The Refuge and its Resources

The Leonard Pond eagles generally forage around the north end of the lake, from Errol Dam to the Rapid River and southeast to Tyler Cove. The Tidswell Point eagles were observed foraging primarily around the southern end of the lake. In 2005, ASNH documented three territorial pairs of eagles, although only one nest was successful: two young fledged. A varying number of immature eagles are also observed from time to time on the lake and rivers during the breeding season (Martin et al. 2006).

Umbagog Lake breeding eagles start nest building in March, and start incubating in early April. One to two eggs hatch around May 6 through May 22, and the young fledge between July 30 and August 17. Eagle fledglings typically disperse from mid-September to early October.

Public access to the Leonard Pond nest is restricted by buoys and signs placed about 500 feet away from the nest. Buoys are left out from shortly after ice-out through the end of October (ice-out on Umbagog Lake averages around May 2). Predator guards were installed on both the Leonard Pond and Tidswell nest trees. In 1990, ASNH surveyed boat activity around the Leonard Pond eagle nest during May through August. Visitation reached a high of 133 boat approaches to the nest site in one day (349 people). The highest visitation rates occurred on Saturdays (mean of 6.6 boats/hour) and on August weekends (mean of 9.4 boats/ hour). Lowest levels of visitation were in June (mean of 3.3 boats/hr). The majority of the visitors obeyed the closure signs, although a few canoeists violated them. ASNH also observed some visitors attempting to feed fish to eagles (ASNH unpublished data).

Osprey Osprey Ospreys were considered common summer residents around Umbagog Lake as far back as the late 1800s. Populations across the eastern United States declined precipitously beginning in the 1950s, and by the late 1970s, just three or four breeding pairs remained in the entire State of New Hampshire, all of which were located near the refuge.

Since 1980, ospreys have monitored by ASNH, NHFG, or the refuge. Within the refuge acquisition boundary, approximately 23 nest site locations are

USFWS recorded for osprey over the past 20 years. However, in the past 10 years, a gradual decline was noted in the number of osprey pairs nesting within the four townships surrounding the refuge: Cambridge, Errol, Second College Grant, and Wentworth Location (Martin 2002). The factors contributing to that apparent local decline have not been completely identified. At the same time, osprey populations elsewhere in New Hampshire are increasing. An apparent decrease in active nests in the Umbagog Lake area occurred from about 1996 to 2001, and was followed by an apparent increase in 2002 (Martin et al. 2006).

In 2006, there were 11 territorial pairs of osprey engaged in active nesting attempts, and 15 fledglings were produced. The majority of nest trees have had predator guards placed around the bottom of the tree.

Other Raptors Peregrine falcons, although never common in the area, were eliminated from their historical breeding sites in both Maine and New Hampshire, including several areas near Umbagog Lake, by the late 1950s. Four historical nesting cliffs are within view of the lake, likely chosen by peregrines for their proximity to a good food supply of ducks, shorebirds, and songbirds. Today, the lake, marshes, and other open areas on the refuge provide stopover habitat for migrating peregrines passing through the area in both the spring and the fall.

Confirmed intermittent sightings of individual golden eagles continue in areas near the refuge, mostly during migration and in winter, typically associated with

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3-39 The Refuge and its Resources

a temporary local abundance of carrion. For several decades, the Umbagog Lake area annually has supported from one to five breeding pairs of northern harriers. Cooper’s hawks are longtime occupants of the Umbagog Lake area (Brewster 1924), and merlins are regular nesters on the refuge.

Other Birds The upland forests and diverse wetland communities on the refuge support more than 100 breeding species of songbirds, and offer stopover habitat for dozens more during migration. The peatland communities in particular support a suite of birds with boreal forest affinities, such as gray jay, spruce grouse, black-backed woodpecker, and palm warbler, which approach their southern range limits in this area. Other northern coniferous forest birds known to breed on the refuge include pine grosbeak, white-winged crossbill, and red crossbill.

Bird surveys conducted on the New Hampshire side of the refuge from 1999 to 2004, mostly within the mixed woods and hardwood floodplain, recorded more than 40 bird species, including several species of conservation concern: ovenbird, black-throated-blue warbler, American redstart, veery, yellow-bellied sapsucker, black-throated-green warbler, Nashville warbler, and northern parula. In 2005, we established five additional transect surveys focused in softwood habitat types such as cedar swamps, black spruce, and spruce-fir. More than 67 landbird species were recorded, including the following species of concern: yellow-bellied flycatcher, Canada warbler, blackburnian warbler, ovenbird, black-throated blue warbler, American redstart, black-throated green warbler, bay-breasted warbler, chestnut-sided warbler, northern parula, veery, purple finch, boreal chickadee, yellow-bellied sapsucker, eastern wood peewee, Cape May warbler, and ruffed grouse.

Mammals Based upon known regional distributions and habitat requirements, the refuge supports approximately 50 different mammal species. At least 36 of those are confirmed on the refuge, including 7 types of shrews or moles, 4 bats, 10 rodents, and 12 carnivores, as well as moose, white-tailed deer, and snowshoe hare. Common carnivores include black bear, eastern coyote, red fox, fisher, and river An American marten at a otter. bait station on the refuge For 3 years, we conducted limited field surveys of small mammal populations to establish baseline data for the refuge. The masked shrew was most frequently detected. We also initiated surveys of mid-sized carnivores, including fisher, marten, bobcat, and lynx (see lynx discussion below), using techniques such as snow tracking and photography at remote bait stations. From 2002 to 2004, we assembled seven camera bait stations around the refuge. Most were kept up for approximately 1 month in January or February, except for two sites on Sunday Cove, which were up from March to early June. Fisher were detected at five sites; marten at three sites; and, bobcat at one site. Coyote and short- and long- tailed weasel also have been observed on the refuge. USFWS

Moose, white-tailed deer, and beaver are common in the area of the refuge, and are known elsewhere to exert particularly strong influences on the local plant community, affecting both the composition and age structure of the forest. However, we do not have local information to that effect. No surveys for these species have been conducted on the refuge.

From 1992 to 1995, refuge staff mapped active beaver colonies along the Magalloway and Androscoggin rivers, the Mountain Pond drainage, and the north end of Umbagog Lake. The colonies mapped range from 6 to 11. That mapping predates any of the current staff. Records on the methodology the

3-40 Chapter 3. Affected Environment The Refuge and its Resources

survey used are lacking. It appears to have been an effort to characterize wildlife activity in the area of the refuge and begin collecting baseline data.

Lynx Lynx are Federal-listed as Threatened. As mentioned above, we used camera bait and tracking surveys from 2002 to 2004 to detect small mammals and midsized carnivores such as lynx. We detected no lynx on the refuge, although their presence has been confirmed approximately 10 miles away in Magalloway Plantation, Maine. State lynx experts have told us that those occurrences are considered to be individuals dispersing from their breeding areas, since the closest confirmed breeding location in Maine is approximately 90 miles from the refuge (J. Vashon, MDIFW, personal communication, 2006). In New Hampshire, researchers discovered a lynx track in January 2006 along Route 2 in the town of Jefferson, approximately 45 miles southeast of the refuge (NHFG 2006).

Lynx are medium-sized cats that are adapted to life in deep, deep snow and are specialist predators on the snowshoe hare. Their adaptations to life in a typically boreal forest give them a competitive edge over such other species as bobcat and coyote. Northern New Hampshire is the southern edge of lynx habitat. Given their dependency on snowshoe hare, lynx must occupy large home ranges to ensure access to sufficient prey. Snowshoe hare are most abundant in forests with dense understory that provide forage, escape cover, and protection during extreme weather, and therefore, hare densities are generally higher in regenerating, earlier successional forest. Lynx also require lots of coarse woody debris, such as downed logs and windfalls, as safe den sites (Federal Register 2005).

In Maine, lynx use spruce-fir dominated regenerating stands that develop 15 to 30 years after forest disturbance. The Service has proposed more than 10,000 acres in Maine as “critical habitat.” The refuge does not provide large areas of either the late- or the early seral conifer forest preferred by lynx, although refuge habitats may serve as dispersal habitat for lynx (Federal Register 2005). The Service has not proposed any areas as critical habitat solely because they provide habitat for dispersing animals.

White-tailed deer wintering areas The NHFG and MDIFW identified many areas of lowland conifer forests on and near the refuge that provide critically important winter cover for white-tailed deer (map 2-10). Up to 100 deer are known to congregate in some of these areas on the refuge (Will Staats, NHFG, personal communication, 2003). Triggered to some extent by increasing snow depths, deer usually migrate to those areas in the late fall. Those areas are also important during periods of intense cold, even during snow free winters. The deer create a vast network of trails throughout the wintering area, traveling along those trails to search for food or escape predators.

Quality deer wintering habitat consists of two components and their proximity to each other: cover to protect the deer from the elements, and access to browse. Softwood stands (primarily spruce-fir) at least 35 feet tall with a crown closure that averages about 70 percent or more is ideal winter cover (Reay et al. 1990). Older, taller stands that are generally stronger provide the best cover-branch structure for intercepting snow. Those older stands often begin to develop gaps, which stimulate regeneration and provide browse for deer. Younger, denser stands are also desirable if they have small openings, about a quarter of an acre in size or less, so that the deer have access to browse and sunlight for warmth.

In the 1990s, MDIFW staff conducted aerial and ground surveys of Region D in Maine. Those surveys determined that Upton and Rangeley had the

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3-41 The Refuge and its Resources

most extensive wintering habitat for deer in the entire region, which includes 115 organized towns and townships (Chuck Hulsey, MDIFW, personal communication, 2006). Unregulated timber harvesting continues to threaten valuable winter shelter in Upton, which is strategically important to regional deer populations. The conservation of that habitat is of the highest importance for achieving deer population objectives set by public working groups (Chuck Hulsey, MDIFW, personal communications, 2006).

Fish Based upon available local documentation and a list compiled by MDIFW, at least 24 fish species are present in water bodies on the refuge. Major changes in both the abundance and species composition of the Umbagog Lake fishery during the past 150 years have created a fishery today that bears very little resemblance to that present before the establishment of the first Errol Dam in the 1850s. During the 1800s, the lake supported a thriving brook trout population (Bonney, personal communication, 2002). Today, only portions of Umbagog Lake and the Rapid River support a native brook trout population.

Before 1900, however, Atlantic salmon, chain pickerel, rainbow smelt, brown bullhead, and several other species were introduced into the Androscoggin River or the Rangeley Lakes. Changes that are more recent include the introduction and subsequent population expansion of smallmouth bass, introduced into the lake in 1995. Northern pike have also been observed in the lake in recent years, but their present population status remains unclear (Bonney, personal communication).

Green frog Amphibians Spring surveys of singing frogs (1999–2002) and stream surveys (2001–2002) have recorded 16 amphibian species on the refuge: seven salamanders, eight frogs, and one toad. Those include northern two-lined, northern red-backed, dusky, and spring salamander in or along streams. The fen and flooded meadows, peat lands, cedar swamps, and floodplains support diverse frogs and toads; the most common include bullfrog, green frog, spring peeper, American toad, and mink frog. Other species include northern leopard, pickerel, and wood frog. Blue- spotted and spotted salamanders and eastern newts were found in vernal pools in floodplains and cedar swamps.

Invertebrates As part of a water quality study in 2003, 20 sites on Umbagog Lake, the lower Magalloway River, and the upper Androscoggin River were surveyed for aquatic macro-invertebrates (Van de Poll 2004). Van de Poll collected 120 taxa representing 14 classes, 28 orders, and 79 families of macro-invertebrates. No obvious indications of a reduction in community diversity or severe pollution

John Mosesso, Jr./NBII were found. Some of the higher diversity sites for macro-invertebrates were the fringes of wetlands on the lake. The most groups of invertebrates collected were little pond snails and the shrimp-like scuds, followed by midges, mayflies, caddisflies, and beetles (Van de Poll 2004). We have not conducted any other invertebrate surveys.

Cultural and Historic Invasive Animals Resources We have not systematically surveyed for invasive terrestrial or aquatic animals. We are not aware of any invasive terrestrial animals on the refuge, and our primary concern about aquatic invasive species focuses on the many introduced fish species, such as smallmouth bass.

We have not conducted a detailed archeological and historic survey of all refuge lands. However, we have conducted some specific project surveys to determine further the eligibility of certain sites. In New Hampshire, we know of one historic

3-42 Chapter 3. Affected Environment The Refuge and its Resources

and three prehistoric archeological sites on refuge land. In Maine, we know of one prehistoric site on refuge land. We expect that a detailed, systematic survey would likely reveal many more sites that are prehistoric.

Several limited historical architectural surveys on the refuge determined that its buildings were not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. In October 1992, the Maine SHPO concurred with our regional archeologist in finding the Stranger Farm ineligible. In 1993, our regional HPO determined that the Potter Farm, which includes a house and two outbuildings more than 50 years old, is ineligible, because they have been altered since their original construction. We forwarded that assessment to the New Hampshire SHPO but received no response, indicating tacit concurrence with the Service assessment. An associated cemetery, the Stone cemetery, lies on the private Kronck property, on which the Service owns an easement. In 1995, we also assessed and determined ineligible the now demolished Priest cabin. In 2004, our regional archeologist evaluated the cabins in the area of Chapel Hill Road, and determined none eligible. We have forwarded that assessment to the New Hampshire SHPO, and are awaiting their response.

We have not surveyed other cabins, several more than 50 years old, on refuge lands. The Service may acquire more cabins with future acquisitions.

The refuge has only a few archaeological artifacts for museum property. They are stored in the Regional Office. There are no important museum property issues at the refuge (D.H. Hurd and Company 1982; Dobbs and Ober 1995).

Priority Public Uses We describe below current opportunities on the refuge for engaging in the six priority public uses of the Refuge System Improvement Act: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation.

The refuge area is a very popular destination, especially for water recreation. Many visitors return year after year. Refuge lands provide year-round activities; the most popular include motor boating, canoeing, kayaking, remote lake camping, observing and photographing wildlife, hunting, and snowmobiling. All activities are allowed from half an hour before sunrise to half an hour after sunset, with the exception of camping in designated sites on designated days, which provides for overnight use. The waters in and around the refuge undergo the most recreational pressure during the summer (USFWS 2000b).

We have not conducted formal surveys of annual refuge visitation, despite their desirability. Limited funding and staffing, numerous access points, and the confusion of many visitors about whether they are on refuge or state lands have proved challenging. However, for the purposes of this CCP/EIS, we have estimated annual visitation based on a variety of sources, including visitor contacts at refuge headquarters, boat activity surveys between 2000 and 2004, reservations for the duck hunting blinds, and general observations by refuge and state agency personnel. We estimate our total annual visitation at approximately 49,500 visitors over the last 5 years. Most visitors are non-local residents. Appendix G, table G.6, summarizes our 15-year projection of visitation by activity.

Hunting After completing a refuge Hunt Plan, we opened the refuge officially in fall 2000 for hunting for waterfowl, migratory game birds, upland game and big game. We amended that Hunt Plan, and its accompanying EA, most recently in April 2007. Alternative 2 in that EA represents our current program. The objectives of the hunt program include providing the public with a safe, high-quality recreational experience, providing an opportunity to utilize a renewable natural resource, and

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3-43 The Refuge and its Resources

providing a tool to help maintain wildlife populations at levels within the carrying capacity of their habitat (USFWS, 2007). We estimate 5,650 hunter visits on refuge lands annually. The refuge lies in New Hampshire Wildlife Management Units (WMU) A and WMU C2, and Maine WMU 7.

All federal and the respective state hunting regulations apply, including seasons, bag limits and license requirements, along with additional, special refuge regulations (listed in 50 C.F.R. 32 sub-part B). The only exceptions to state regulations are that we do not currently allow turkey hunting on refuge lands and we do not allow bobcat hunting in Maine. Since the New Hampshire-Maine state line crosses the refuge, hunters are responsible for knowing which state they are in and hunting according to the regulations for that state. Hunting seasons generally are between early September and the end of March. No refuge permits are required, and no fees are charged. Enforcement is primarily by the respective state game wardens. The most commonly hunted species in and around the refuge are waterfowl, ruffed grouse, woodcock, moose, white-tailed deer, and snowshoe hare.

In 1999, we instituted a waterfowl blind reservations system allowing hunters to sign up on a first-come, first-served basis for one of six permanent waterfowl blinds on refuge waters (map 3-2). We do not have quantitative data on harvest levels, but hunters using blinds have recorded harvest of: black duck, mallard, common merganser, Canada goose, wood and ring-necked duck, blue-winged and green-winged teal, scaup, bufflehead, and Wilson’s snipe.

Harvest levels have not been determined for any mammal or upland game bird species taken from the refuge. However, NHFG and MDIFW data from both of the respective WMUs or associated townships provides some information on harvest rates. The refuge represents only a very small proportion of each WMU, 2.12% of WMU’s in New Hampshire, and 0.57% of WMU 7 in Maine, and therefore, only a very small proportion of the reported harvest would be considered as coming directly from refuge lands. In 2004, New Hampshire deer harvest rates for the townships of Cambridge, Errol, and Wentworth Location were 0.41 deer/sq mile; 0.39 deer/sq mile, and 0.36 deer/sq mile, respectively. In Maine, deer harvest rates for WMU 7 were reported to be 0.37 deer/sq mile.

Also in 2004, 4 bear and 34 moose were taken in the township of Errol. In Maine’s WMU 7, 198 bear and 112 moose were taken. Of the 198 bear taken, only 31 were taken using methods allowed on the refuge. In addition, 26 turkeys were harvested in New Hampshire’s WMU C2, but only four were taken in towns next to the refuge.

Fishing We have not officially opened refuge lands to fishing, but we plan to do so after completing the CCP. Most anglers who visit our area want to fish on the lake and in other state waters; fishing from the lake’s shoreline is less popular. We estimate approximately 11,000 visitors per year are fishing on the refuge or accessing lake fishing through the refuge. We currently provide access to these state waters via several boat landings (map 3-2). Our primary concern about current fishing activities arises when anglers access sensitive resource areas administratively closed, such as the eagle, osprey, and loon nesting sites.

Fishing from boats on Umbagog Lake and its tributary rivers falls under state jurisdiction, and state regulations apply for seasons, creel limits, and license requirements. Licensed New Hampshire or Maine anglers may fish any part of the lake with their license, and certain sections of the rivers, including the Androscoggin River upstream of the Errol Dam and the Magalloway River within New Hampshire, and on the Rapid River in Maine upstream to the marker at Cedar Stump.

3-44 Chapter 3. Affected Environment Map 3-2 The Refuge and its Resources

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3-45 The Refuge and its Resources

Anglers fish Umbagog Lake for a variety of both cold and warm water species. The most popular are smallmouth and largemouth bass, landlocked salmon, brook trout, and lake trout. Local streams and rivers, (e.g., the Magalloway, Androscoggin, and Rapid rivers), are also noted for their excellent fly-fishing opportunities.

The abundant, well-established population of smallmouth bass illegally introduced into the lake in the mid-1980s recently colonized the Rapid River as far as Pond-in-the-River, and are now a concern among state agencies managing the native brook trout. Since that introduction, the number of bass boats on the lake has increased, and bass tournaments there have become increasingly popular. The State of Maine sets restrictions on those tournaments to allow only one permit on a water body for a specific date, no tournaments until June 15, five tournaments annually on water bodies greater than 3,500 acres, and a maximum of 100 boats per tournament.

Ice fishing is also becoming increasingly popular, and ice-fishing camps appear on the lake throughout the winter, primarily on state jurisdiction. Although fishing remains popular, mercury contamination throughout the region has led to recommendations on limiting fish consumption (NH DES 2004). Mercury deposition affects all of the freshwater lakes in New Hampshire and Maine, not just Umbagog Lake (NH DES 2004; MDEP 2004). Observing wildlife on the refuge Wildlife Observation and Nature Photography Wildlife observation and nature photography are major attractions in the Umbagog Lake area, and we have noticed public participation increasing over the past 5 years. Loon, bald eagle, and moose are the major viewing attractions, as are bird watching and leaf peeping in general. We allow access by foot, snowshoe, cross-country ski, and motorized or non-motorized boat. We estimate that 18,500 visitors annually engage in viewing and photographing wildlife on the refuge.

We maintain one trail, the Magalloway River Trail; accessed off Route 16 approximately 2 miles north of refuge headquarters (map 3-2). The trail follows a gravel road built for a proposed subdivision cul-de-sac, and is now part of the refuge in an area known as the “Day Flats.” That area supports a major moose wallow, and has the potential for restoration to a wooded wetland habitat. It is approximately one-third of a mile long, and has a viewing platform at its end that USFWS overlooks a backwater oxbow in the river. We plan a quarter-mile loop extension of that trail for 2006.

Interpretation and Environmental Education Our staff conduct interpretive programs as funding and staff time allow, typically about three each year. The demand for programs from local schools, scouting, and other groups far exceeds our ability to provide them. A limited amount of interpretive literature (e.g., handouts or brochures) is available from displays at the refuge headquarters.

We participate in two very popular outreach events each year: the Wildlife Festival and the “Take Me Fishing” Day. Since 1997, our staff and the Umbagog Chamber of Commerce have sponsored the annual Wildlife Festival in Errol in early August. More than 300 people have attended this event in some years. The “Take Me Fishing” event, also held in August, recently was combined with the Wildlife Festival on the same day. The fishing event is also offered in cooperation with the Umbagog Chamber of Commerce, as well as Orvis, Shakespeare, and other local companies, and is held at the Potter Farm. Up to 50 people have participated in that fishing event in a given year.

3-46 Chapter 3. Affected Environment The Refuge and its Resources

We have not developed a curriculum for environmental education programs. We have been involved in fulfilling requests from teachers at local schools to provide programs that supplement their curriculum. Generally, one or two school programs are given in a given year.

We have regularly supported college interns: namely, graduate students from Vermont and New Hampshire universities who seek on-the-job experience while achieving college credit. They have completed a variety of projects: namely, research on habitat and species of concern to us.

Remote Camping on Umbagog Lake The State of New Hampshire operates the Umbagog Lake state campground at the southern end of the lake: 37 developed shoreline sites and 30 remote lake camping sites in various locations on the lake (map 3-2). Twelve of the remote lake sites are located on refuge land. A cooperative agreement between the NHDRED and the Service will formalize the administration of those sites. They are a very population destination, and typically are full to capacity in July and August, and often into September. A 3-year average from 2001 to 2003 showed 4,700 campers in July and 5,347 for August. Overall, use has declined in recent years, but only because several sites were closed to retain the remote backcountry quality of the camping facilities (New Hampshire Division of Parks and Recreation 2004). Two other river camp sites (North 1 and North 2) occur on refuge lands but their removal and restoration is planned. In addition to the state park, other private campgrounds with facilities are available in the surrounding area.

Boating One improved and two unimproved public boat launch sites along the Magalloway River are on refuge land (upper Magalloway River car-top launch, a launch at refuge headquarters, and one at Parson’s landing (map 3-2). One other launch site exists on refuge land on the Androscoggin River, above the Errol Dam (Steamer Diamond landing). The launch at Parson’s landing has been heavily impacted,and is therefore, planned for closure. Improved launch sites are also located off refuge land near the Errol Dam on the Androscoggin River and at the south end of Umbagog Lake, at Umbagog State Park. The park rents boats and motors, and offers pontoon boat tours of the lake. The State of Maine requires that all motorized watercraft on inland waters, including Umbagog Lake, display a “Lake and River Protection” sticker.

We estimate that 14,000 visitors are boating on refuge waters, mostly in conjunction with viewing and photographing wildlife and fishing. Rough estimates by our interns in June and July indicate that the use of motorized boats and canoes or kayaks were roughly equal from 2000 through 2004. However, we have observed a rapid increase in motorized boating over the past few years, much of it attributed to bass fishing. A much smaller percentage of jet skis, sailboats, and pontoon boats are used on the lake.

The Androscoggin River, Umbagog Lake, and the Rapid River are highlighted as part of the Northern Forest Canoe Trail. That trail extends 740 miles from Old Forge, New York, to Fort Kent, Maine. At least six local outfitters and campgrounds offer canoe and kayak rentals and guided canoe or kayak tours of the lake, and some offer paddling instruction on the lake and in surrounding rivers and streams. College, school, and summer camp groups also use the lake for paddling trips. Canoe and kayak use has increased dramatically.

Snowmobiling Snowmobiling is another activity we have observed increasing markedly on refuge and surrounding lands in recent years. With hundreds of miles of groomed

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3-47 The Refuge and its Resources

snowmobile trails, the Umbagog Lake area is very popular and local businesses target this audience through advertisements (Umbagog Chamber of Commerce 2005). It is a significant economic activity for the area during winter.

We estimate 20,000 snowmobile visits occur each year on refuge lands as part of a regional trail system (Gray, New Hampshire Bureau of Trails, personal communication, 2005). Snowmobile use on the refuge is permitted on designated trails only. Map 3-2 depicts trail locations authorized by the refuge manager on the refuge in both New Hampshire and Maine. Unfortunately, several unauthorized spur trails on the refuge are an enforcement issue.

Snowmobiling on the refuge Marvin Moriarty/USFWS

Certain activities evaluated by the refuge manager were determined not to be appropriate on refuge lands including: ATV, ORV and dirtbike use, competitions or organized competitive group events (e.g. fishing derbies, dog trials, or bicycling, and cross-country skiing), and geocaching. Appendix C includes negative findings of appropriateness. which document the refuge manager’s rationale.

Furbearer Trapping The refuge is not open for trapping. However, we suspect that beaver trapping is occurring in some areas of the refuge. The NHFG and MDIFW have asked us to open refuge lands to furbearer trapping consistent with their respective state seasons. Those agencies maintain that trapping is a traditional, historic use in the area, was established well before the refuge was created, and was allowed by previous owners. They also promote trapping as a wildlife-dependent activity that is an effective tool for managing furbearer populations.

Off-road Vehicle Use ORV and ATV use is not allowed on the refuge except by special use permit on a case-by-case basis to allow hunters with disabilities reasonable access to hunt and retrieve their game.

3-48 Chapter 3. Affected Environment The Refuge and its Resources

We have been involved in many partnerships since refuge establishment, which would not have been possible without the cooperation of the states of New Hampshire and Maine, timber companies, conservation organizations, private landowners, local elected officials, and town and county community leaders. Those partners continue to be active in land conservation for the common goal of maintaining the aesthetic, cultural, economic, and ecological values of the region for future generations.

Our partnerships continue to expand to include not only groups and individuals interested in land conservation, but also those interested in habitat and species management, recreation and visitor services, and education and public outreach. A list of our current partners follows.

Conservation organizations: Trust for Public Lands, TNC, ASNH, Loon Preservation Committee, New England Forestry Foundation, Mahoosic Land Trust, Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, Androscoggin Watershed Council, Rangeley Lakes Heritage Trust, The Conservation Fund, Trout Unlimited;

Town and County Governments: Towns of Errol, Upton, Magalloway Plantation, and Coos County;

State agencies: NHFG, MDIFW, NHDRED, New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning;

Private companies: FPLE, Wagner Forest Management; and,

Universities and other educational institutions and organizations: Dartmouth College, University of Vermont, University of Massachusetts, Hurricane Island Outward Bound, The Chewonki Foundation, and the Northwoods Stewardship Center.

Friends Group The Friends of Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge assist in the development and implementation of interpretive programs and tours on the refuge. Members also participate in the annual Wildlife Festival and Take-Me-Fishing events. They are invaluable in supporting those priority programs and helping us respond to the requests for progras that far exceed our ability to meet them.

Volunteer Programs Our active volunteer program involves student interns from all over the country, as well as local residents, clubs, and organizations.

Every summer and fall, we host three to four volunteer student interns, who are generally college-aged students or recent graduates. Interns spend 10 to 12 weeks assisting with various refuge projects in return for housing and a small stipend. Their duties include working on maintenance, collecting biological data, monitoring public use, leading nature walks and interpretive programs, helping with the Wildlife Festival and Fishing event, monitoring public use, designing educational displays, greeting the public, and maintaining the refuge GIS system.

Four or five volunteers, generally local or from elsewhere in New Hampshire, assist us each spring in surveying land birds, marsh birds, and shorebirds. Ten to 25 volunteers assist the refuge each year at the Wildlife Festival. Volunteers run information booths and lead birding tours (by canoes, pontoon boats, or walks). They also spend a day helping with various refuge projects. Past projects have included cleaning up the refuge and surveying for waterfowl broods, ospreys, eagles, and other raptors.

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3-49 The Refuge and its Resources

Five volunteer local anglers assisted with the first Take Me Fishing event in 2002. They set up displays, demonstrated fly-tying and fly-casting, and guided fishing trips on the lake.

Several organizations bring volunteer youth groups to perform service work on the refuge each summer. Those include Hurricane Outward Bound, The Chewonki Foundation, and the Vermont Leadership Center. Past projects have included clearing trails, building fences, and painting, assisting in biological surveys, and restoring campsites. Group sizes average from 5 to 10 volunteers.

Every year, anywhere from two to five individuals contact us to volunteer their help for one or more days. In the past, those volunteers have assisted with maintenance, biological surveys, public outreach and visitor services, the design of an interpretive trail, clerical work, and research. The duration of the work has varied from just a few hours up to 2 months. We provide housing for volunteers who contribute more than one day and come from locations that are more distant.

Youth Conservation Corps Program We also host a YCC summer program, typically for 4 to 5 youth between the ages of 14 and 18. An adult coordinator is also hired to supervise them. The YCC program includes an environmental educational component in addition to their paid work assisting with refuge studies, facilities maintenance, and other activities. This is a popular program in the area, as summer outdoor employment for youth is limited.

Youth Conservation Corps crew on the refuge Ian Drew/USFWS

3-50 Chapter 3. Affected Environment Chapter 4 Ed Henry/USFWS Sunset on Umbagog Lake

Environmental Consequences Introduction

Introduction This chapter describes the environmental consequences we predict from implementing the management alternatives presented in chapter 2. Where detailed information is available, we present a scientific and analytic comparison between alternatives and their anticipated consequences, which we describe as “impacts” or “effects.” In the absence of detailed information, we make comparisons based on our professional judgment and experience. We specifically predict the effects of implementing the management actions and strategies for each of the three alternatives: alternative A (Current Management), which serves as the baseline for comparing alternative B (Focal Species: the Service-preferred alternative), and alternative C (Natural Processes Management).

We focus our discussion on the impacts associated with the goals and significant issues identified in chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action. Direct, indirect, short-term, beneficial and adverse effects likely to occur over the 15-year life span of the plan are discussed. Beyond the 15-year planning horizon, we give a more speculative description of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. At the end of this chapter, table 4.14 summarizes the effects predicted for each alternative and allows for a side-by-side comparison. Finally, this chapter identifies the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources from our proposed actions, as well as those actions relationship between short-term uses of the environment and long-term productivity, their cumulative effects, and the relationship to environmental justice.

As required by CEQ and Service regulations implementing NEPA, we assessed the importance of the effects of the CCP alternatives based on their context and intensity. The context of the impacts ranges from local and site-specific to regional and broad-scale, for example, direct impacts to soils at a kiosk construction location would be highly localized. Impacts on common loon reproduction would directly affect the common loon population on Umbagog Lake and indirectly affect common loon populations in the larger context of New Hampshire and Maine. Improvements in breeding habitat for Canada warbler would benefit this species of conservation concern in the context of BCR 14 and throughout its range. Although refuge lands comprise a small percentage of these larger ecosystem or regional contexts, all alternatives were developed to contribute towards conservation goals in these larger geographic landscapes. Table 4.1 provides some context for our discussion.

The proposed species and habitat actions are consistent with the states of New Hampshire and Maine comprehensive wildlife conservation strategies, and national and regional conservation plans identified in chapter 1. At varying levels, they would each make positive contributions to these larger landscape- scale conservation endeavors.

We evaluated the intensity of impacts based on the expected degree or percentage of resource change from current conditions, the frequency and duration of the effect, the sensitivity of the resource to such an effect or the natural resiliency of the resource to recover from such an effect, and the potential for implementing effective preventative or mitigation measures to reduce the effect. Duration of effects vary from those that would occur only once for a brief period of time during the 15-year planning horizon, for example, the effects of visitor center construction, to those that would occur every day during a given season of the year, for example, impacts from snowmobiling.

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-1 Introduction

Table 4.1. Impact contexts for Service actions under CCP at Lake Umbagog Refuge Kiosk Footprint 0.005 acre Vernal Pool 0.001 to 0.5 acre Deer wintering areas 9,221 acres (including proposed expansion lands) Woodcock Focus Areas 6,664 acres (including proposed expansion lands) Refuge Habitat Management Units 722 to 4,173 acres (1.1 to 6.5 mi2) Umbagog Lake >8,500 acres (13.3 mi2) Refuge lands > 20,500 acres (25.4 mi2) Coos County, NH 1.15 million acres (1,801 mi2) Oxford County, ME 1.33 million acres (2,078 mi2 Upper Androscoggin Watershed 1.47 million acres (2,300 mi2) Atlantic Northern Forest – Bird Conservation Region 14 87.3 million acres (137,500 mi2 in U.S. & CAN) Eastern Spruce-Hardwood Forest (Partners-in-Flight Area 28) 90 million acres (140,685 mi2 in U.S. & CAN)

There are certain types of actions identified in chapter 2 that do not require additional NEPA analysis because they are “categorically excluded” from further analysis or review and, as such, their consequences are not further described in this chapter. The following group of “management activities” are not analyzed because they would qualify for categorical exclusion under applicable regulations if independently proposed, and are minor in effect and common to all alternatives.

■ environmental education and interpretative programs (unless major construction is involved, or a significant increase in visitation is expected)

■ research, resource inventories, and other resource information collection activities

■ operations and maintenance of existing infrastructure and facilities (unless major renovation is involved)

■ routine, recurring management activities and improvements

■ small construction projects (e.g. fences, berms, small water control structures, interpretative kiosks, development of access for routine management purposes)

■ vegetation plantings

■ minor changes in amounts or types of public use

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

■ law enforcement activities

In chapter 2, under the section “Actions Common to All Alternatives; Additional NEPA Analysis” we acknowledge that, in order to implement any additions

Ian Drew/USFWS to the hunt program proposed for consideration Mixed woods on the refuge under alternatives B and C, and the consideration

4-2 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Effects on Socioeconomic Resources

of a furbearer management program, we would need to conduct additional environmental and impacts analysis and public involvement to comply with NEPA. While we describe some of the anticipated impacts in this chapter, we would plan to fully evaluate those program additions in a separate NEPA analysis to be initiated after CCP approval.

We have organized this chapter by major resource heading. Under each heading, we discuss the resource context and the types of benefits and adverse impacts of management actions that we evaluated. We then discuss the benefits and adverse effects that would occur regardless of which alternative is selected and finally the benefits and adverse effects of each of the alternatives.

Effects on In support of analyzing the socio-economic consequences of the actions proposed Socioeconomic in the three draft CCP/EIS alternatives, we enlisted the assistance of economists Resources at the USGS - Fort Collins Science Center. Their full report, a regional economic impact analysis, is included as appendix G. It provides detailed information on the current economic setting, and provides a means of estimating and comparing how current management under alternative A, and proposed management under alternatives B and C, could effect the local and regional socio-economic environment. The economic impacts were estimated using the “Impacts Analysis for Planning” (IMPLAN) regional input-output modeling system developed by the U.S. Forest Service.

For each alternative, regional economic effects from the IMPLAN model are reported for the following categories:

■ Local output represents the change in local sales or revenue

■ Personal Income represents the change in employee income in the region that is generated from a change in regional output.

■ Employment represents the change in number of jobs generated in the region from a change in regional output. IMPLAN estimates for employment include both full time and part time workers, which are measured in total jobs.

This type of analysis provides two critical pieces of information: 1) it illustrates a refuge’s current and potential future economic contribution to the local community; and, 2) it can help in determining whether local economic effects are, or are not, a real concern in choosing among management alternatives. Below we provide a summary of the USGS report’s conclusions by alternative.

Socio-Economic Effects Refuge Revenue Sharing of Alternative A (Current Under provisions of the Refuge Revenue Sharing (RRS) Act, local towns Management) receive an annual payment for lands that have been purchased in full fee simple acquisition by the Service. Payments are based on the greater of 75 cents per acre or 0.75% of the market value of lands acquired by the Service. The exact amount of the annual payment depends on Congressional appropriations, which in recent years have tended to be less than the amount to fully fund the authorized level of payments. Comparing the last few years, fiscal year (FY05) had the lowest appropriation where actual RRS payments were 41% of authorized levels. We use that as our benchmark for comparing the alternatives’ future contribution since it offers a conservation estimate.

In 2005, payments to local townships were $5,049 to Magalloway, ME, $6,018 to Upton, ME, $603 to Cambridge, NH, $19,509 to Errol, NH, and $6,467 to Wentworth Location, NH for a total payment of $37,646. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, RRS payments for alternative A generate total annual economic impacts of $51,700 in local output, $30,700 in personal income, and 1 job in Coos and Oxford counties.

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-3 Effects on Socioeconomic Resources

Refuge Visitor Expenditures in Local Economy Table 4.2 summarizes estimated refuge visitation by type of visitor activity for alternative A. The visitation estimates for alternative A assume a ten percent increase over the previous five year average annual refuge visitation estimate of 49,500 to reflect the increasing trend in regional visitation.

To determine the local economic impacts of visitor spending, only spending by persons living outside the local area of Coos and Oxford counties are included in the analysis. The rationale for excluding local visitor spending is two-fold. First, money flowing into Coos and Oxford counties from visitors living outside the local area (hereafter referred to as non-local visitors) is considered new money injected into the local economy. Second, if residents of Coos and Oxford counties visit Lake Umbagog Refuge more or less due to the management changes, they will correspondingly change their spending of their money elsewhere in those counties, resulting in no net change to the local economy. These are standard assumptions made in most regional economic analyses at the local level. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, spending by non-local refuge visitors for alternative A generates total annual economic impacts of $1.05 million in local output, $365,400 in personal income, and 15.6 jobs.

Table 4.2. Estimated annual refuge visitation by visitor activity for alternative A

Percentage Number of Number of Total # of (%) of non- Total # of non- hours spent at non-local Visitor Activity visits local visits local visits refuge visitor days¹ Consumptive Use Fishing 11,000 70% 7,700 8 7,700 Big Game hunting 2,500 67% 1,675 8 1,675 Upland game hunting 3,000 67% 2,010 8 2,010 Waterfowl and migratory bird hunting 150 60% 90 8 90 Non-Consumptive Use Wildlife viewing: boating/water use 14,000 60% 8,400 8 8,400 Wildlife viewing: nature trails and other 4,500 85% 3,825 2 956 wildlife observation

Other recreation (snowmobiling) 20,000 60% 12,000 1 1,500

Total 55,150 35,700 22,331 ¹One visitor day = 8 hours. Impacts from Refuge Administration Employees of Lake Umbagog Refuge reside and spend their salaries on daily living expenses in communities near the refuge thereby generating impacts within the local economy. Household consumption expenditures consist of payments by individuals/households to industries for goods and services used for personal consumption. The IMPLAN modeling system contains household consumption spending profiles that account for average household spending patterns by income level. The current approved refuge staff consists of ten permanent and nine seasonal employees for alternative A. Five of the permanent positions are currently vacant but are anticipated to be filled under alternative A.

For alternative A, salary spending by refuge personnel would directly account for $541,300 in local output (sales or revenue), 3.8 jobs, and $89,000 in personal income in the local economy. The secondary or multiplier effects would generate an additional $91,800 in local output, 1.2 jobs, and $30,300 in personal income.

4-4 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Effects on Socioeconomic Resources

Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, salary spending by refuge personnel for alternative A would generate total economic impacts of $633,100 in local output, 5 jobs and $119,300 in personal income.

A wide variety of supplies and services are purchased for refuge operations and maintenance activities. Refuge purchases made in Coos and Oxford counties, contribute to the local economic impacts associated with the refuge. For alternative A, work related expenditures would directly account for $92,900 in local output, 1.1 jobs, and $32,300 in personal income in the local economy. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, work related purchases for alternative A would generate total economic impacts of $126,500 in local output, 1.5 jobs and $43,500 in personal income.

Impacts from Habitat Management No timber harvesting or other commercial or economic management activities would occur under alternative A.

Summary of Economic Impacts for Alternative A Table 4.3 summarizes the direct and total economic impacts of all refuge management activities for alternative A in Coos and Oxford counties. Under alternative A, refuge management activities directly related to all refuge operations generate an estimated $1.45 million in local output, 17.7 jobs and $425,300 in personal income in the local economy. Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, all refuge activities would generate total economic impacts of $1.86 million in local output, 23.1 jobs and $558,900 in personal income. In 2000, total personal income was estimated at $2.16 billion and total employment was estimated at 36,874 jobs for Coos and Oxford counties (U.S. Department of Commerce 2002). Total economic impacts associated with refuge operations under alternative A represent well less than one percent of total income (0.03%) and total employment (0.1%) in the overall Coos County and Oxford County economy. Total economic effects of refuge operations play a much larger role in the smaller communities near the refuge such as Errol, NH and Upton ME where most of the refuge related economic activity occurs as compared to the overall, combined economies of the two counties.

Table 4.3. Economic impacts of all refuge management activities for alternative A (2005, $,000) Local Output Personal Income Employment (# jobs) Refuge Revenue Sharing Direct Effects $37.6 $26.1 0.8 Total Effects $51.7 $30.8 1.0 Refuge Administration (staff salary spending and work related purchases) Direct Effects $634.2 $121.3 4.9 Total Effects $759.7 $162.8 6.5 Public Use Activities Direct Effects $776.9 $277.9 12.0 Total Effects $1,049.4 $ 365.4 15.6 Habitat Management (timber harvesting) Direct Effects No timber harvesting occurs under Alternative A Total Effects Aggregate Impacts Direct Effects $1,448.7 $425.3 17.7 Total Effects $1,860.8 $558.9 23.1

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-5 Effects on Socioeconomic Resources

Socio-Economic Effects Property Tax Impacts and Refuge Revenue Sharing of Alternative B (Focal The proposed Service acquisition of 32,159 acres in fee simple will have an effect Species Management) on the amount of local property taxes collected as land is transferred from private taxable ownership to public nontaxable ownership. As we described under alternative A, although lands acquired by means of fee simple acquisition by the Service are removed from the tax rolls, the local taxing entities will receive an annual payment, under provisions of the RRS Act.

Accounting for the current RRS payments of $37,646 (alternative A) and the $42,846 increase for new land acquisition, RRS payments would total $80,492 under alternative B. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, RRS payments for alternative B would generate total annual economic impacts of $110,200 in local output, $65,800 in personal income, and 22 jobs in Coos and Oxford counties. A portion ($44,781) of the increase in RRS payments under alternative B offsets the loss in private property tax collections which does not represent a real increase economic activity to the area. Accounting for the loss in property tax collections, RRS payments under alternative B would generate new total economic impacts of $49,100 in local output, 1.0 job, and $29,200 in personal income.

Refuge Visitor Expenditures in Local Economy Changes in refuge management activities can affect recreational opportunities offered and visitation levels. Table 4.4 shows the estimated visitation levels associated with each visitor activity for alternative B. Under alternative B, visitation is anticipated to increase for all activities compared to alternative A. The increases in visitation levels are due to refuge land acquisition, additional public use infrastructure, and regional visitation trends. Specific details for each activity are explained below.

Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, spending by non-local refuge visitors for alternative B would generate total economic impacts of $2.31 million in local output, $794,600 in personal income, and 34.1 jobs. Most of the increase in visitation is based on the number of people that currently recreate on lands that will be acquired by the refuge. Therefore, it is not a real increase in visitation or economic activity to the area. However, the refuge land acquisition maintains recreation access that is not guaranteed under alternative A. Of the increase in visitation under alternative B, 2,985 out of the 3,569 wildlife viewing related visitor days would be an actual increase in visitation and economic activity to the area that would generate total economic impacts of $150,900 in local output, 2.4 jobs and $53,000 in personal income.

Table 4.4. Estimated annual refuge visitation by visitor activity for alternative B.

Percentage (%) Number of Number of Total # of of non-local Total # of non- hours spent at non-local Visitor Activity visits² visits local visits refuge visitor days¹ Consumptive Use

Fishing 14,000 70% 9,800 8 9,800

Big Game hunting 6,250 67% 4,188 8 4,188

Upland game hunting 7,500 67% 5,025 8 5,025

Waterfowl and migratory bird hunting 200 60% 120 8 120

4-6 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Effects on Socioeconomic Resources

Percentage (%) Number of Number of Total # of of non-local Total # of non- hours spent at non-local Visitor Activity visits² visits local visits refuge visitor days¹

Non-Consumptive Use

Wildlife viewing: boating/water use 18,000 60% 10,800 8 10,800

Wildlife viewing: nature trails and other 10,000 85% 8,500 2 2,125 wildlife observation

Other recreation (snowmobiling) 35,000 60% 21,000 4 10,500

Total 90,950 59,433 42,558

¹ One visitor day = 8 hours. ² Most of the increase in visitation is based on the number of people that currently recreate on lands that will be acquired by the refuge. While it is not a real increase in visitation or economic activity to the area, the refuge land acquisition maintains recreation access that is not guaranteed under Alternative A.

Impacts from Refuge Administration Proposed staff for alternative B includes all approved staff positions under alternative A, plus an additional three permanent and four seasonal positions. For alternative B, salary spending by refuge personnel would directly account for $777,800 in local output, 5.4 jobs, and $127,900 in personal income in the local economy. The secondary or multiplier effects would generate an additional $131,900 in local output, 1.8 jobs, and $43,500 in personal income. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, salary spending by refuge personnel for alternative B would generate total economic impacts of over $909,700 in local output, 7.2 jobs and $171,400 in personal income. Due to the increased staffing levels for alternative B, the associated economic effects of staff salary spending would generate $276,500 more in local output, 2.2 more jobs, and $52,100 more in personal income than alternative A.

Work related expenditures under alternative B would directly account for $141,700 in local output, 1.6 jobs, and $49,300 in personal income in the local economy. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, work related purchases for alternative B would generate a total economic impact of $193,000 in local output, 2.3 jobs and $66,300 in personal income. Due to the increased non- salary expenditures for alternative B, the associated economic effects of work related purchases would generate $66,500 more in local output, 0.8 more of a job, and $22,900 more in personal income than alternative A.

Impacts from Forest Habitat Management Timber harvesting in support of focal species habitat management is an economic activity proposed under alternative B on refuge lands. Refuge timber harvest quantities under alternative B are based on a 15% management unit harvest in 15 year intervals, which is described in more detail in the draft CCP/EIS appendix K. Average annual sawtimber, pulp, and fuelwood harvest quantities were determined by refuge personnel and based on two major assumptions: 1) harvest numbers were based on current refuge lands at current stocking volumes; and, 2) as land is acquired (over the next 15 year period) those lands would have been harvested by the private owner prior to sale. Stocking volumes on lands proposed for acquisition

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-7 Effects on Socioeconomic Resources

are anticipated to be low and would not allow for additional commercial harvest within the 15 year planning horizon of this draft CCP/EIS. All economic gains would be realized by the private owner prior to Service ownership.

Estimated revenues were based on stumpage value estimates for northern New Hampshire (New Hampshire Department of Revenue 2005). The revenue estimates account for the stumpage values of the different species types (by percent of composition) within the refuge harvest. Over the 15 year refuge harvest cycle, an annual average of 135 MBF of softwood sawtimber, 27 MBF of hardwood sawtimber, 125.3 cords of softwood pulp, 371.3 cords of hardwood pulp, and 88.4 cords of fuelwood would be harvested with stumpage valued at $27,700. Total sawtimber, pulp and fuelwood product resulting from timber activities in Coos and Oxford counties was estimated to be 657,000 CCF in 2002 (US Forest Service Timber Products Output Data 2002). The total annual harvest quantity under alternative B represents 0.1% of this total.

Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, timber production related to refuge harvests for alternative B would generate a total economic impact of $24,500 in local output, one-tenth of job and $4,000 in personal income. Forest- based industries in Coos and Oxford counties generated over $1.16 billion in local output and 4,148 jobs in 2002. Therefore, timber production related to refuge harvests for alternative B would have a very insignificant role in the Coos and Oxford counties forest related industries, accounting for less than 0.003% of local output and employment.

Summary of Economic Impacts from Alternative B Table 4.5 summarizes the change in economic impacts of all refuge management activities for alternative B compared to alternative A in Coos and Oxford counties. Increases in economic impacts under alternative B, when compared to alternative A, are as follows: refuge management activities directly related to all refuge operations generate an estimated additional $1.28 million in local output, 17.3 jobs and $412,400 in personal income in the local economy. Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, all refuge activities would generate total economic impacts above those of alternative A of $1.68 million in local output, 22.8 jobs and $543,100 in personal income. Total economic impacts associated with refuge operations under alternative B represent less than one percent of total income (0.05%) and total employment (0.11%) in the combined economies of the two counties. Total economic effects of refuge operations play a much larger role in the smaller communities near the refuge such as Errol, NH and Upton ME where most of the refuge related economic activity occurs as compared to the overall, combined economies of the two counties.

Table 4.5. Change in economic impacts under Alternative B compared to Alternative A (2005, $,000). Employment Local Output Personal Income (# jobs) Refuge Revenue Sharing Direct Effects +$42.5 +$29.8 +1.0 Total Effects +$58.5 +$35.0 +1.2 Refuge Administration (staff salary spending and work related purchases) Direct Effects +$285.3 +$55.9 +2.1 Total Effects +$343.0 +$75.0 +3.0 Public Use Activities Direct Effects +$930.0 +$323.4 +14.1 Total Effects +$1,258.3 +$429.2 +18.5

4-8 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Effects on Socioeconomic Resources

Employment Local Output Personal Income (# jobs) Habitat Management (timber harvesting) Direct Effects +$18.6 +$2.4 +0.1 Total Effects +$24.5 +$4.0 +0.1 Aggregate Impacts Direct Effects +$1,276.3 +$412.4 +17.3 Total Effects +$1,684.3 +$543.1 +22.8

Socio-Economic Effects Property Tax Impacts and Refuge Revenue Sharing of Alternative C (Natural As explained for alternative B, the loss in local property tax revenue was Processes Management) estimated by using the 2005 current value assessments for each land type to be acquired by fee simple acquisition and the 2005 tax rates for each potentially affected community. All 76,304 acres to be acquired under alternative C would be full fee simple acquisition and would result in an annual loss of $47,204 in property tax collections in Coos and Oxford counties. RRS payments at the current authorized funding level of 41% would result in an annual payment of $114,435 which would offset the loss in property tax collections and result in an annual net increase of $20,206. No town would experience an actual net loss in collections. Cambridge, NH does not assess property taxes and would benefit the most from the RRS payments under alternative C.

Accounting for the current RRS payments of $37,646 (alternative A) and the $114,435 increase for new land acquisition, RRS payments would total $152,081 under alternative C. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, RRS payments for alternative C would generate total annual economic impacts of $209,000 in local output, 4.1 jobs, and $124,300 in personal income in Coos and Oxford counties. A portion ($94,228) of the increase in RRS payments under Preparing to snowmobile alternative C offsets the loss in private property tax collections which does not in the Errol area represent a real increase economic activity to the area. Accounting for the loss in property tax collections, RRS payments under alternative C would generate new total economic impacts of $79,500 in local output, 1.6 jobs, and $47,300 in personal income.

Refuge Visitor Expenditures in the Local Economy Table 4.6 shows the estimated visitation levels associated with each visitor activity for alternative C. Under alternative C, visitation is anticipated to increase for all activities as compared to alternative A. The increase in visitation is due to refuge land acquisition, additional public use infrastructure, and regional

Marvin Moriarty/USFWS visitation trends. Specific details for each activity are explained below.

Table 4.6. Estimated annual refuge visitation by visitor activity for alternative C. Percentage (%) Number of Number of Total # of non-local Total # of non- hours spent at non-local Visitor Activity of visits² visits local visits refuge visitor days¹ Consumptive Use

Fishing 14,000 70% 9,800 8 9,800

Big Game hunting 7,500 67% 5,025 8 5,025

Upland game hunting 9,000 67% 6,030 8 6,030

Waterfowl and migratory bird hunting 200 60% 120 8 120

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-9 Effects on Socioeconomic Resources

Percentage (%) Number of Number of Total # of non-local Total # of non- hours spent at non-local Visitor Activity of visits² visits local visits refuge visitor days¹

Non-Consumptive Use

Wildlife viewing: boating/water use 18,000 60% 10,800 8 10,800

Wildlife viewing: nature trails and other 10,000 85% 8,500 2 2,125 wildlife observation

Other recreation (snowmobiling) 35,000 60% 21,000 4 10,500

Total 93,700 61,275 44,400

¹One visitor day = 8 hours. ² Note: Most of the increase in visitation is based on the number of people that currently recreate on lands that will be acquired by the refuge. While it is not a real increase in visitation or economic activity to the area, the refuge land acquisition maintains recreation access that is not guaranteed under Alternative A.

Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, spending by non-local refuge visitors under alternative C would generate total economic impacts of $2.39 million in local output, $821,500 in personal income, and 35.3 jobs. Most of the increase in visitation is based on the number of people that currently recreate on lands that would be acquired by the refuge which is not a real increase in visitation or economic activity to the area. However, the refuge land acquisition maintains recreation access that is not guaranteed under alternative A. Of the increase in visitation under alternatives B and C, 2,985 out of the 3,569 wildlife viewing related visitor days would be an actual increase in visitation and economic activity to the area that would generate total economic impacts of $150,900 in local output, 2.4 jobs and $53,000 in personal income.

Impacts from Refuge Administration Same as alternative B.

Impacts from Forest Habitat Management As noted under alternative B, timber harvest in support of habitat management is an economic activity that would occur on refuge lands. Refuge timber harvest quantities for alternative C are based on a 4% management unit harvest in 15 year intervals. The management unit that would be harvested under alternative C is equivalent to the management unit that would be harvested under alternative B. Therefore the only change in refuge timber harvesting between alternatives B and C is the quantity harvested (the same composition of tree species would be harvested). Under alternative B, 15% of the management unit would be harvested in 15 year intervals as compared to only 4% under alternative C. Over the 15 year harvest cycle, the refuge harvest would produce approximately 25% of the quantity harvested for alternative B resulting in an annual harvest average of 33.8 MBF of softwood sawtimber, 6.8 MBF of hardwood sawtimber, 31.3 cords of softwood pulp, 92.8 cords of hardwood pulp, and 22.1 cords of fuelwood with stumpage valued $6,900.

Timber production in Coos and Oxford counties related to refuge harvests would directly account for $4,700 in local output and $600 in personal income in the local economy. The level of refuge timber production for alternative C is not large enough to generate any employment impacts. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, timber production related to refuge harvests for alternative

4-10 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Effects on Air Quality

C would generate a total economic impact of $6,100 in local output and $1,000 in personal income.

Summary of Economic Impacts for Alternative C Table 4.7 summarizes the change in economic impacts of all refuge management activities for alternative C compared to alternative A in Coos and Oxford counties. Increases in economic impacts under alternative C, when compared to alternative A, are as follows: refuge management activities directly related to all refuge operations generate an estimated additional $1.39 million in local output, 19.6 jobs and $480,500 in personal income in the local economy. Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, all refuge activities would generate total economic impacts above those of alternative A of $1.84 million in local output, 25.8 jobs and $625,600 in personal income. Total economic impacts associated with refuge operations under alternative B represent less than one percent of total income (0.05%) and total employment (0.11%) in the combined economies of the two counties. Total economic effects of refuge operations play a much larger role in the smaller communities near the refuge such as Errol, NH and Upton ME where most of the refuge related economic activity occurs as compared to the overall, combined economies of the two counties.

Table 4.7. Change in economic impact under alternative C compared to alternative A (2005, $,000). Employment Local Output Personal Income (# jobs) Refuge Revenue Sharing Direct Effects +$114.5 +$79.5 +2.5 Total Effects +$157.3 +$ 93.5 +3.1 Refuge Administration (staff salary spending and work related purchases) Direct Effects +$285.3 +$55.9 +2.1 Total Effects +$343.0 +$75.0 +3.0 Public Use Activities Direct Effects +$987.3 +$344.6 15.0 Total Effects +$1,336.8 +$456.1 +19.7 Habitat Management (timber harvesting) Direct Effects $4.7 $0.6 0 Total Effects $6.1 $1.0 0 Aggregate Impacts Direct Effects +$1,391.7 +$485.5 +19.6 Total Effects +$1,843.2 +$625.6 +25.8

Effects on Air Quality Chapter 3 - Affected Environment presents the status of air quality in the surrounding refuge landscape. Air quality is good, with no current criteria pollutant exceedances, but of recent concern are ground level ozone and particulate matter that in 2004 exceeded safe health levels.

We evaluated the management actions proposed in each alternative for their potential to help improve air quality, locally, in the region, and globally. The benefits we considered included:

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-11 Effects on Air Quality

■ Potential to adopt energy efficient practices to reduce the refuge’s contribution to emissions

■ Potential of refuge land conservation to limit the growth of development thereby limiting emission sources and reducing losses of forest vegetation

■ Potential of refuge forest management activities to contribute to carbon sequestration and reduce greenhouse gases

The potential adverse effects of the management alternatives that were evaluated included increases in:

■ particulates from using burning as a management tool

■ vehicle and equipment emissions

■ air emissions from new or upgraded building facilities.

Air Quality Impacts Overall air quality in the refuge landscape is currently good, with the exception That Would Not Vary by of moderate levels of ozone and particulates that have exceeded safe health levels Alternative in the recent past and that contribute to transient visibility problems. Air quality monitoring records for Coos County, NH and Oxford County, ME (EPA 2005) indicate that ozone and PM2.5 have recently exceeded levels considered safe for sensitive subgroups. Air quality index measures show that in 2004, O3 exceeded safe levels on 3 days and PM2.5 exceeded safe levels on 2 days in Coos County. Oxford County had a single day in 2004 with unhealthy PM2.5 levels. Monitoring in 2005 through September indicates O3 and PM2.5 levels in the moderate range just below unhealthy levels. In his review studies on the ecology of fi re, Regional air quality should not be D’Avanzo (2004) describes the fi ndings of a adversely affected by refuge number of scientists concerning fi re’s role in the management activities regardless of northern parts of the Northeast: which management alternative is • According to Niering (1992) mature stands in selected. None of the alternatives would many areas originated after extensive fi res violate EPA standards; all three would that were fueled by logging debris in the be in compliance with the Clean Air Act. late 19th century. This led to fi re-protection policies and the decline of many fi re- There are no major stationary or mobile dependent ecosystems, for example jack pine sources of air pollutants at the refuge or (Pinus banksiana). in the local vicinity and none would be • Bormann and Likens (1979) show that human- created under any of the refuge induced fi res are much more common management alternatives. On the than fi res caused by lightning in northern contrary, the Service limits human uses forests. In addition, fi res in Vermont and New Hampshire (Green and White Mountains) of the refuge to compatible wildlife- are quite rare compared to those in national oriented consumptive and non- forests in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, consumptive uses and thus curtails Minnesota, and Michigan. Northern New anthropogenic sources of emissions by England forests have been called “asbestos maintaining wetlands and all but a few forests” because fi res are so relatively acres of floodplain and uplands in natural uncommon. vegetative cover. So the analysis of air • Foster et al. (1997) argue that hurricanes and quality impacts considered only how the other wind events are much more important Service’s actions at the refuge might vectors of disturbance here. Factors limiting affect criteria air pollutants, visibility, fi re in northern New England include: and global warming to a minimal degree, precipitation throughout the year, resistance of dominant trees to fi re, limited litter focusing on the potential for localized air accumulation, and many sites (e.g. valleys) quality impacts or improvement. protected from high winds. Visibility concerns due to emission- caused haze, at the nearest Class I airshed, the Great Gulf Wilderness Area, would not be affected by any of the proposed management alternatives.

4-12 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Effects on Air Quality

There would be some minor improvements by way of reduced local emission sources and thus benefits to air quality from actions common to all the alternatives. Removing dwellings, such as cabins or other developed sites or structures, on property acquired from willing sellers and restoring developed areas that are no longer needed for refuge administration or programs to natural conditions would eliminate these locations as potential air emission sources.

Reducing road use would reduce on-refuge vehicular emissions. Although we would keep main access roads open to provide motorized and non-motorized access for approved activities, we would retire and restore unnecessary forest interior and secondary roads to promote watershed and resource conservation. All ATV trails and all unauthorized snowmobile trails would be restored to natural vegetation to eliminate their use.

None of the alternatives include an expansion of the existing snowmobile trail system. The increases in snowmobiling attributed to the refuge are due to each alternative’s respective refuge expansion proposals, including land with established regional snowmobile trails. In other words, the current capacity on those lands would not change from current levels. Studies in Yellowstone National Park by Bishop et al (2001) found that snowmobiling accounted for 27% of the park’s annual emissions of carbon monoxide, and up to 77% of annual hydrocarbons. No studies have been conducted in the Umbagog area, so the percent contribution by snowmobiling to those local emissions levels is not known. However, current levels do not cause the area to exceed federal or state air quality standards. See the compatibility determination for snowmobiling in Appendix C, “Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations,” for additional information.

Similar to snowmobiling, we are not increasing the current capacity for motorized boating on refuge lands. The predicted increases in motorized boating on the refuge are due to each alternative’s respective expansion proposal. Motor boats contribute carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons to the air, but the extent of their contribution is not known for the Umbagog area. As with snowmobiling, current levels to do not cause the area to exceed federal or state air quality standards. An outreach program is planned under all alternatives to promote the use of 4-stroke engines to mitigate air quality impacts.

Table 4.8 describes the number of visitors anticipated annually under each alternative.

Table 4.8. Annual refuge visits by alternative Alternative¹ Activity A B C Consumptive Use Fishing 11,000 14,000 14,000 Hunting: Big Game 2,500 6,250 7,500 Hunting: Migratory Birds 150 200 200 Hunting: Upland Game 3,000 7,500 9,000 Non-Consumptive Uses Boating/Water Use 14,000 18,000 18,000 Nature trails/other wildlife observation/office visits 4,500 10,000 10,000 Other recreation (snowmobile) 20,000 35,000 35,000 Total annual refuge visits 55,150 90,950 93,700 ¹ Note: Most of the increase in visitation under Alternatives B and C is based on the number of people that currently recreate on lands that will be acquired by the refuge. While it is not a real increase in visitation or economic activity to the area, the refuge land acquisition maintains recreation access that is not guaranteed under Alternative A.

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-13 Effects on Air Quality

To limit smoke and other particulate sources under all Refuge Fire Management Plan: alternatives, we would conduct no Although the Refuge is not within a Federal Class I Air burning on the refuge, except for shed under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, visibility and clean air are valued natural resources burning of demolished cabins. and their protection would be given full consideration in fi re management planning and operations. The Wildfire is not a substantive Refuge will comply with all applicable federal, state, concern on the refuge because of and local air pollution control requirements, as the fire characteristics of the specifi ed within Section 118 of the Clean Air Act, as Northern Forest. Termed the amended (42 USO 7418). Further guidance is found “asbestos forest” by some within the Service’s Fire Management Handbook. scientists (text box next page) the At issue with wildland fi re is public and fi re fi ghter Northern Forest has a history of safety and health. The Refuge is to take aggressive very few fires and those of only action to manage smoke to prevent reduced visibility limited extent. Most fires that do hazards, public safety, fi re fi ghter exposure, and occur are human-caused both overall air quality (reduce particulate emissions). By historically and at present. minimizing the acreage burned, notifying the public, Nevertheless, we would seek to and restricting access these issues can be mitigated. minimize the possibility of serious fires and their associated health and safety concerns. We would conduct a wildland urban interface hazard assessment along common boundaries of adjacent private landowners to insure forest management practices are not creating excessive fuel loading that would lead to severe fires.

Construction and operation of a new visitor contact station and headquarters building at the Potter Farm location would be done under alternatives B and C and cause some local air quality impacts. The size of the facility would vary by alternative as discussed below.

We would introduce energy efficiency measures in our operations that would also reduce emissions. All motorized equipment would be upgraded to 4-stroke equipment whenever a current piece of equipment is retired. We would improve insulation in buildings, use radiant heat where feasible, and fluorescent lights where ever possible.

Air Quality Effects of Air Quality Benefits Alternative A (Current Proposed refuge management activities would neither substantively benefit nor Management) adversely affect currently good local and regional air quality, with no violations of Federal or State Clean Air Act standards, no impacts to nearby Class I areas, and no cumulative effects on regional ozone or particulate matter pollutant levels.

There would be minor air quality benefits from the air pollutant filtering effects of 15,450 current and up to 5,985 newly acquired acres of upland, floodplain, lake shore, riparian and wetlands vegetation and from adopting energy efficient practices. There would be a negligible reduction in atmospheric carbon due to the sequestering effects of 10,845 current and up to 4,838 newly acquired forested acres. Benefits would be limited to land purchases within the current refuge acquisition boundary in contrast to alternatives B and C that substantially expand the conserved lands base.

Forest management under alternative A would be limited to passive management of existing forest cover. No other forest management activities would be conducted. This would further limit the potential for the beneficial effects of carbon sequestration compared to alternatives B and C.

Adverse Air Quality Impacts Alternative A would include few ground disturbing activities and introduce few additional emission sources.

4-14 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Effects on Air Quality

An increase of about 5,000 annual refuge Restoration or New Construction Activities Under Alternatives visits by motor vehicle, B&C and little to no predicted increase in current BUILDINGS/STRUCTURES – Changes proposed under Alts B/C snowmobile and motor • 2 buildings would remain intact to serve their current function boat use on refuge lands, • Carmen House (quarters) would cause a minor • Stranger House (quarters) increase in air emissions in the long term and • 2 buildings would be converted or expanded contribute minimally • Offi ce – converted to a research facility to potential cumulative • Shop – add a 30 x 100 storage building effects. • 1 building would be constructed – Potter Farm – would be converted to offi ces under all three alternatives Air Quality Effects of Air Quality Benefits • Alt B small offi ce standard design Alternative B (Focal The effects of alternative Species Management) B would be similar to • Alt C medium offi ce standard design alternative A. There • 1 building would be demolished would be no substantive • Cabin at Offi ce – demolish change in air quality; no violation of air quality CABINS standards, no impacts to • 13 cabins would be demolished and disposed Class I areas, and no cumulative effects on RECREATION/INFORMATION FACILITIES with Kiosks ozone and particulate matter. Locally there • Magalloway River Canoe trail/launch (w/kiosk) would be more minor • Magalloway River Trail extension – 1/4 mile through woods, benefits than alternative stone dust trail A but also more potential • Trail at Potter Farm – 1.8 miles long, 3 feet wide, dirt/wood chip adverse effects. trail (see Oak Point report) • Trail in expansion – approximately 1 mile long on old logging road Air quality benefits • 2 pullouts - 1/2 acre gravel with wooden guard rails would increase from maintaining up to 76,939 • Overlook at 26 NH/ME line – 1 acre parking lot 24X24 deck acres (existing and expanded refuge lands) of natural vegetation to filter air and from more energy efficient refuge operations. Acquiring up to 43,928 forested acres on expansion lands would stem nearby development growth and reduce potential air emissions from homes, businesses, camps, vehicles, off-road vehicles and equipment.

We would institute longer rotations in forest management on these lands than have been used by commercial timber managers so that carbon sequestration benefits would increase. Longer forest rotations would improve the health, diversity, and resilience of the forest to disturbance, disease and insect outbreaks, thus maintaining an important carbon “sink.” Similar, though more limited benefits would also accrue from acquisition of forested lands within the current acquisition boundary.

Adverse Air Quality The new Potter Farm visitor facility would be a standard design small office Impacts building. Construction of the visitor facility and construction, renovation, or demolition activities associated with other refuge improvements (text box) would cause short-term, localized effects from construction vehicle and equipment exhausts. Operation of the facility would slightly increase stationary source emissions at the site.

Projected annual refuge use levels of 90,950 visits would increase vehicle emissions on and near the refuge in the longer term. The contribution to cumulative local and regional air quality effects would likely be compensated for to a large degree by precluding development in the expansion area.

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-15 Effects on Soils

Air emissions from snowmobiles and motor boats would not significantly increase even though the projected estimate of those activities increases. The predicted increase in visitors engaged in those activities is due to Service acquisition of lands in private ownership currently used by snowmobilers and boaters, rather than any true increase in numbers or capacity for those activities in the Umbagog area.

Air Quality Effects of Air Quality Benefits Alternative C (Natural Under alternative C we would expand the refuge land base outside the current Processes Management) acquisition boundary. The expansion area would include 69,702 acres of upland forested lands that would be managed in 25,000-acre or larger contiguous, unfragmented blocks, to create a mosaic of conifer and hardwood stands. Management actions would be designed to simulate a mix of stand age and structure that would occur under natural environmental influences. Similar to alternative B, this expanded land acquisition would stem nearby increases in development of second homes and seasonal use homes, thereby substantially reducing the long term potential for air emissions from homes, businesses, camps, vehicles and equipment.

We would utilize accepted forest management practices on these lands with longer rotation ages than commercial timber operations use, which would result in increased carbon sequestration. The predominance of more mature stands would improve the health, diversity, and resilience of the forest to disturbance, disease and insect outbreaks, thus maintaining an important carbon “sink.” Similar, though more limited benefits would also accrue from acquisition of forested lands within the current acquisition boundary.

Adverse Air Quality Impacts The new Potter Farm visitor facility would be a standard design medium office building. Construction of the visitor facility and construction, renovation, or demolition activities associated with other refuge improvements (see text box above) would cause short-term, localized effects from construction vehicle and equipment exhausts. Operation of the facility would slightly increase stationary source emissions at the site.

We would upgrade our refuge maintenance operations to include energy efficient vehicles and equipment.

Projected annual refuge use levels of 93,700 visits would increase vehicle emissions on and near the refuge in the longer term. The contribution to cumulative local and regional air quality effects would likely be compensated for to a large degree by precluding development in the expansion area. Similar to alternative B, although the refuge land base supporting snowmobiling and motor boating would increase, snowmobiling and boater numbers would simply be transferred to our counts and air emissions would not significantly increase over current levels.

Effects on Soils Soils are the structural matrix and nutrient source for plant productivity at the refuge and must be protected to sustain the variety of wetland, riparian, and upland habitats that would meet our habitat and species management goals. Overall, the soils of the refuge are productive and in good condition, with no substantive erosion, compaction, or contamination problems. In certain areas such as cliffs, soils are absent or patchy, thin, and susceptible to disturbance so we would manage these areas to limit any human disturbance.

We evaluated and compared the management actions proposed for each of the refuge CCP alternatives on the basis of their potential to benefit or adversely affect upland soils and soils of the refuge’s floodplains, lake shore, and riparian

4-16 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Effects on Soils

areas. Impacts of the alternatives to wetland soils are discussed in the wetlands section.

We compared the benefits of the alternatives from actions that would protect soils from erosion, compaction, or contamination or that would restore eroded, compacted, or contaminated soils, including the:

■ Extent to which refuge land acquisition and conservation under the alternative would limit the growth of nearby development or recreational use thereby reducing loss of forest vegetation and human disturbance and their potential soil impacts

■ Extent to which the alternative would replace private forest management on acquired expansion lands with Service management that would improve soil protection

■ Potential for camp site acquisition and closure and restoration of access roads and trails to provide opportunities to restore soils

■ The potential adverse soil effects of the refuge management alternatives that were evaluated included impacts from:

■ construction of buildings, parking facilities, access roads, and interpretive trails

■ forest management activities, including tree-cutting, and use of roads and skid trails

■ site clearing for focal species management

■ hiking, camping, or other refuge visitor activities

■ wildland fire suppression policies and methods

Soil Impacts That Would Regardless of which alternative is selected, we would continue to use best Not Vary by Alternative management practices in all management activities that might affect refuge soils to ensure that we maintain refuge soil productivity. Forest management activities would be strictly constrained by resource sensitivity which limits management on 4,478 acres of industry inoperable lands and 2,663 acres of high resource sensitivity areas to individual tree treatments for the benefit of wildlife.

We would restore developed sites with buildings or other infrastructure that have been acquired or that are no longer needed for refuge purposes to natural topography and hydrologic conditions and return to native vegetation as quickly as feasible. In general, existing main access roads would remain open to provide motorized and non-motorized access for approved activities. Other designated motorized access may be developed in the expansion area once a minimum manageable unit is acquired.

Because wildfires can lead to substantive erosion and sedimentation when followed by precipitation, we would take steps to insure that our forest management practices are not creating major fuel loads that would lead to soil-damaging fires. These high temperature and sometimes extensive fires are unlikely to occur at the refuge because of the fire-resistant nature of the Northern Forest (see Air Quality section). Nevertheless, any areas that are burned would be stabilized with erosion control measures and re-vegetated to minimize the potential for damaging erosion.

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-17 Effects on Soils

Under all alternatives, 12 existing remote lake campsites on refuge lands would be maintained. No increased capacity is planned. These sites have been established for years. Regularly used campsites result in soil compaction and reduction in soil moisture. Camping may reduce or remove the organic litter and soil layer, and run-off, and soil erosion may increase. Those changes affect soil invertebrates and microbial processes, and inhibit plant growth. Campsites accessed from the water may also undergo shoreline erosion from the effects of repeated boat landings compacting and removing vegetation. Camp fires create additional impacts. Camp fires destroy organic matter in the soil chemistry to a point that could effectively “sterilize” the soil, making re-vegetation difficult.

Studies indicate that camping impacts may be locally quite severe, but are usually restricted to a relatively small area, i.e. the campsite itself. Significant impacts on vegetation and soil generally occur quickly, even with light use. Much of the impact occurs when the campsite is first opened and during the first year of use. See the compatibility determination for camping in appendix C, “Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations,” for additional details on those studies. Under all alternatives we plan an outreach program to promote “Leave No Trace” principles.

Off-road vehicles, such as motorbikes and ATVs, are not allowed on the refuge, but violations do occur occasionally. These vehicles can cause serious soil disturbance, compaction, and erosion, especially when they are not on hardened roads. Deteriorating forest roads can also be a locus for such soil impacts. To minimize these impacts, we would inventory and assess all access roads within the refuge within 5 years of CCP completion, and on any newly acquired lands, and implement procedures to retire and restore unnecessary forest interior and secondary roads to promote watershed and resource conservation. We would also restore any off-road vehicle or unauthorized snowmobile trails to eliminate their use. Increased law enforcement would also help reduce those violations contributing to soil impacts.

All designated snowmobile trails on the refuge would be through trails only; we would not provide parking, warming huts, or other infrastructure on refuge lands. No new snowmobile trails are planned under any alternative. Published studies have resulted in differing conclusions as to whether snowmobiling necessarily causes soil compaction. The only common determination is that snowmobile trails on steep, south facing slopes (e.g. > 30 degrees) have a higher likelihood of impact. Damage primarily resulted from decreased snow depths, due to greater solar radiation on south slopes, together with increased pressure of snowmobile treads on steeper slopes. This situation occurs rarely, if at all, on refuge trails. However, we plan to evaluate all trails each 5 years to ensure no site-specific impacts are occurring. Some of these trails may be re-routed or closed, if it is determined that they have a significant negative impact on soils, wildlife or habitat.

Regardless of alternative, site conditions including soil condition, elevation, slope, aspect, and hydrology would be the ultimate determinant of the habitat management potential for any particular site on the refuge. No site would be managed in a manner inconsistent with its recognized potential.

Soil Impacts of Alternative Soil Benefits A (Current Management) Alternative A is the least desirable alternative in terms of potential benefits from acquisition and conservation of additional lands and the potential for site restoration. We would be limited to purchase of 5,830 acres of forested and recently harvested upland, lakeshore, and floodplain lands within the current

4-18 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Effects on Soils

refuge acquisition boundary in contrast to alternatives B and C Forested and Recently Harvested Uplands, that would allow us to Lakeshore, and Floodplain Lands Protected by substantially expand the CCP Alternatives conserved land base (see text Alternative A – 19,105 acres within current refuge box). There would be no acquisition boundary opportunity to protect or restore roads, trails, or sites outside the Alternative B – 63,169 acres in fee lands and easements including expansion area current refuge boundary so soil impacts from management or Alternative C – 88,947 acres in fee lands including development of those lands would expansion area continue and likely would increase over the long term.

Our forest management under alternative A would be limited to a custodial role in conserving existing forest cover. Other than fire protection, we would not actively manage the refuge forested uplands.

Adverse Soil Impacts Alternative A would include few ground disturbing activities that might adversely affect refuge soils. We would not conduct forest management activities, virtually eliminating any minimal potential for localized soil damage from tree-cutting, skid roads, or trails. . This should eliminate any potential for significant cumulative effects. Visitation under alternative A would not appreciably change over current levels and is expected to be lower than under either of the other alternatives. As such, visitor activities that might impact soils, such as hiking off designated trails, camping, snowmobiling, and boat launching would pose the lowest concern.

Soil Impacts of Alternative Soil Benefits B (Focal Species Alternative B would provide increased benefits over alternative A and also Management) increased localized adverse effects to refuge soils. Expanding the refuge land base under alternative B by nearly 48,000 acres would eliminate the potential for large-scale development on these lands and reduce the long term potential for the resulting soil impacts.

It is unlikely that any significant forest management operations would occur on expansion lands within the first 15 years or longer after the CCP is implemented, except for pre-commercial thinning or similar non-commercial operations. However, restoration of roads and trails and fire suppression practices on the expansion lands would help reduce soil erosion from such disturbed sites. When the expansion area forests have reached manageable age classes, we would use improved forest management practices in terms of measures to protect the soil. Longer forest rotations would improve the health, diversity, and resilience of the forest to disturbance, disease and insect outbreaks and thereby help maintain protective vegetative cover. New roads or trails needed for forest management would be limited to those necessary to access the stands, would be used less often because of the longer rotations, and would be restored to vegetation after use.

Wetlands soils impacts.—Under alternative B we may conduct a hydro-geologic study of groundwater and nutrient flow that are maintaining peatlands and we would address issues or threats as necessary.

Adverse Soil Impacts Impacts from construction of buildings, kiosks, boat launch, parking facilities, roads and trails.—Under the expanded construction program noted in the

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-19 Effects on Soils

section on Air Quality, there would be localized soil compaction and loss of soil productivity where soils are removed or surfaced for new structures, kiosks, boat launch, parking facilities, roads, and trails and in immediately adjacent areas where vehicles and heavy equipment are used for site access and preparation work. These impacts would constitute an unavoidable adverse impact of these refuge infrastructure improvements but would comprise, in total, no more than 50 acres of the nearly 48,000 acres of alternative B refuge expansion lands. Offsetting these soil impacts would be reclamation of natural soil productivity on restored cabin sites, campsites, trails, and roads.

Boardwalks would be constructed over saturated areas to protect sensitive wetland vegetation. No construction other than placement of boardwalk pilings would be done in wetlands so there should be negligible localized effects to wetland soils.

Impacts from increased visitation. — As we discuss under “Soil impacts that would not vary by alternative” above, the projected increases in annual refuge use levels for those activities likely to impact soils is a primarily a result of increased land acquisition. The capacity for snowmobiling and remote lake camping on refuge lands, for example, would not increase as we do not plan to expand the existing snowmobile trail system or number of campsites. Any contribution to cumulative local and regional soil quality and productivity effects would likely be compensated for to a large degree by precluding development in the expansion area.

Compaction and erosion from forest management activities.—There would be short-term, localized soils impacts from forest management practices including stand cutting, and clearing for access roads and skid trails. We would minimize these impacts by adhering strictly to best management practices for our forest management operations.

Table 4.9. Manageable forest habitat on the Lake Umbagog Refuge in next 15 years under the CCP Forest Type Acres Hardwood 804 Softwood 1,032 Mixed Woods 2,205 TOTAL 4,041

In the next 15 years, we would limit forest management to approximately 4,000 acres (see table 4.9) of current refuge fee-owned lands in a mature age class and stand condition, which occur in the Low or Moderate Resource Sensitivity Zones. We would manage forest lands in the Low Resource Sensitivity Zone within the current refuge acquisition boundary as well as those in the expansion area according to best management practices recommended for New Hampshire and Maine and to meet or exceed New Hampshire and Maine forest certification standards.

We would manage forests in the Moderate Sensitivity Zone only to the extent necessary to achieve specific wildlife or plant community objectives. We would severely limit forest management within High Resource Sensitivity Zone to single tree techniques such as single tree felling or girdling or small group

4-20 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Effects on Soils

selection to benefit wildlife.Damage from fire.—Soil damage from fires or Focal Bird Species of Refuge Wetlands from erosion on fire-damaged sites is and Open Water and Submerged Aquatic unlikely to occur on the refuge. Vegetation Habitats Nevertheless, all wildland fires would — Common Loon — American black duck be suppressed with fire fighter and — Ring-necked duck public safety as the highest priority. — Wood duck Although wildland fires rarely occur in — Common goldeneye the Lake Umbagog lake area, we would — Black-backed woodpecker protect against wildland fire whenever — Rusty blackbird it threatens human life, property, and natural or cultural resources. Fires would be suppressed in a prompt, safe, aggressive, and cost-effective manner to minimize adverse impacts to resources and acreage.

Soil Impacts of Alternative Soil Benefits C (Natural Processes From a watershed perspective, alternative C would be the most beneficial in Management) terms of the total land area conserved and resulting reduced potential for soils impacts. We would expand the refuge land base under alternative C by more than 74,000 acres, eliminating to a greater extent than alternative B the potential for development of second homes and seasonal use homes or off-road vehicle use on these lands. This should substantially reduce the long term potential for soil impacts from construction and from off-road vehicles.

Once these expansion land forests have recovered from their last cut and reached manageable status, we would manage forests on expansion lands in contiguous 25,000 acre blocks to create a mix of age and structure to simulate what would occur under natural environmental conditions without human intervention. Longer forest rotations, which would improve the health, diversity, and resilience of the forest to disturbance, disease and insect outbreaks, would help maintain protective vegetative cover. Existing unnecessary roads and trails would be restored. New roads or trails needed for forest management would be limited to those necessary to access the stands, would be used less often because of the longer rotations, and would be restored to vegetation after use.

Adverse Soil Impacts Impacts from construction of buildings, parking facilities roads and trails.— Impacts here would be the same as those discussed under alternative B.

Impacts from increased visitation.— Impacts here would be the same as those discussed under alternative B.

Impacts from forest management activities.—There would be short-term, localized soils impacts from forest management practices including stand cutting, and clearing for access roads and skid trails. As in alternative B, we would minimize these impacts by adhering strictly to best management practices for forest management operations on approximately 4,000 acres of current refuge upland forest in the Low and Moderate Resource Sensitivity Zones. We would severely limit forest management within the High Resource Sensitivity Zone to single tree techniques such as single tree felling or girdling or small group selection to benefit wildlife.

Impacts from fire.—Soil damage from fires or erosion on fire-damaged sites is unlikely to occur on the refuge. Although wildland fires rarely occur in the Lake Umbagog refuge area, under alternative C we would allow naturally ignited fires to burn until a human resource is threatened. We would protect against wildland fire only when it threatens human life or property. We would conduct no salvage

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-21 Effects on Hydrology and Water Quality

harvest after fire or windthrow event and would not allow collection or removal of dead and down wood except in WUI areas.

Effects on Hydrology Management actions proposed for the refuge’s CCP alternatives were evaluated and Water Quality and compared based on their potential to help maintain and improve the hydrology and water quality of Umbagog Lake, and the wetlands, rivers, ponds, and vernal pools in the Upper Androscoggin River watershed. We evaluated the benefits of actions that would protect or restore the hydrology or maintain or improve water quality:

■ Land acquisition and conservation that would provide watershed benefits by limiting land clearing and changes in local hydrology

■ Camp site restoration that would reduce erosion and restore site hydrology

■ Improvements in local hydrology through road reconstruction or removal and culvert removal

■ Work in partnership with FERC licensee to manage lake water levels at all seasons to benefit wetlands and focal species

■ Improved water quality monitoring for early problem identification

■ Improved cooperation of other landowners in watershed to influence water quality

We evaluated and compared the impacts of refuge management actions with the potential to cause adverse effects to hydrology and water quality including:

■ Creation of wetland openings (e.g. in cattails) to benefit waterfowl

■ Changes in recreational boating activities that might lead to lake and river contamination with petroleum products

Hydrology and Water Hydrology and Water Quality Benefits Quality Impacts That Decision making based on comprehensive scientific data.—Regardless of Would Not Vary by which alternative we select, we would take a number of steps to insure that we Alternative have sufficient scientific data to support management decisions regarding refuge hydrology and water quality. We would conduct a systems analysis to determine the lake bathymetry and annual hydrology. We may also conduct a sediment analysis, identify wetland functions and measures of integrity, and evaluate water quality and the effect on Federal trust species. We would use this information to evaluate wetland habitat availability and quality from different water level regimes on Federal trust resources. Finally, we would work with State agencies and other conservation partners to identify sources of point and non-point sediment and nutrient loading (e.g. septic systems, erosion, etc) impacting refuge wetlands, and associated lakes and rivers, and address these sources where possible.

Benefit to the FINNL wetland.—The Floating Island National Natural

USFWS Landmark would benefit by more ecologically based management. We would Conducting water studies propose to the Park Service an expanded boundary that is more ecologically on the refuge based, using recent vegetation surveys (see map 2-1).

Adverse Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts In managing the refuge, we would closely monitor and mitigate all of our routine activities that have some potential to result in chemical contamination of water

4-22 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Effects on Hydrology and Water Quality

directly through leakage or spills or indirectly through soil runoff. These include use of motorized watercraft, control of weeds and insects around structures, use of chemicals for de-icing roads and walkways, and use of soaps and detergents for cleaning vehicles and equipment. Personnel would take the following precautions to minimize the potential for the chemicals and petroleum products becoming a water quality problem:

■ Pouring or mixing of chemicals or petroleum products would be conducted no closer than 25 feet from surface water and over a non-porous surface material

■ All staff would be trained in spill prevention and spill response

Invasive plant control with herbicides.—Regardless of the alternative selected, the herbicide active ingredient glyphosate, formulated as Rodeo®, would be used as one method to prevent establishment and spread of invasive wetland plants, in particular, purple loosestrife, Japanese knotweed, and Phragmites. The Regional Contaminants Specialist, who is responsible for upholding Federal standards for water quality and soil protection, has reviewed our proposals and approves our chemical herbicide use.

There would be a potential for herbicide concentrations in lakes and ponds to build up to chronic levels over time. The potential depends on the balance of pesticide input and removal from the lake or pond system. Herbicide inputs may occur either through direct application, water inflow, or through resuspension and diffusion from the sediment layer. Herbicide removal from the system may occur through outflow, degradation, volatilization, and settling or diffusion into the underlying sediment (Neitsch et al. 2001).

The rate of herbicide degradation is an important consideration for assessing the effects of a given herbicide on ponds and lakes. Glyphosate degrades in water with a reported half-life in water that ranges from 3.5 to 70 days depending on the rate of transfer to the sediment layer and testing source (SERA 1996). Based on the relatively short half-life, the large water volume of the lakes, rivers, and wetlands, and the limited acreage likely to require treatment (currently less than 1 acre) it is not expected that any discernable effects would occur to these water resources as a result of herbicide treatments.

Impacts from increased visitation.—All alternatives predict some increase in annual visitor numbers; however, the increase varies due to each alternative’s respective refuge expansion proposal. Alternative A predicts the lowest annual increase, since no expansion is proposed, while alternative C predicts the highest increase due to its larger refuge expansion proposal. Camping, boating, and snowmobiling are three visitor activities that have some potential to impact water quality, even at current use levels. We do not plan to increase capacity for these activities on existing refuge lands, or on lands to be acquired, regardless of alternative; rather, we plan to maintain existing use levels.

Camping can compromise water quality through improperly disposed human waste at campsites by introducing pathogens. Human and pet waste, food disposal and dishwashing may increase aquatic nutrient loads. That may result in limited, localized increases in algal growth, facilitating oxygen depletion and altering the composition of aquatic vegetation and invertebrate communities. Runoff from eroded campsites can increase turbidity and sedimentation, which may affect fish and invertebrates. Pit toilets located near water in shallow, permeable soils can sometimes introduce coliform bacteria into the water. However, camping rarely affects water quality to the point it is a public health

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-23 Effects on Hydrology and Water Quality

concern (Cole, 1981), and we do not predict the camping we propose would pose a risk to water quality and public health under any alternative.

Boating can impact water quality from improperly cleaned motor boats, which may introduce invasive aquatic species from other water bodies. Soap from improper dishwashing, trash and fish-cleaning waste may each pollute water.

Snowmobiling is documented to contribute petroleum hydrocarbons after ice-out in small shallow water bodies exposed to snowmobile exhaust. The concentration of hydrocarbons in snow is likely to be particularly high on trails where regular grooming constantly packs exposed snow. Spring snowmelt may release those hydrocarbons into streams or other bodies of water. To what extent the water bodies on the refuge are at risk of hydrocarbon pollution is unclear given current levels of snowmobile use, recent improvements in snowmobile technologies, and the large volumes of water in these local systems. The compatibility determination for snowmobiling in appendix C, “Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations,” provides additional references on snowmobiling impacts.

Hydrology and Water Benefits Quality Impacts of We would expect some increase in hydrology and water quality benefits from Alternative A acquisition and conservation of more than 7,400 additional acres of upland forest, lakeshore, wetlands and other lands within the acquisition boundary under alternative A because we would prohibit potentially damaging development and otherwise incompatible uses.

We would not make improvements in local hydrology through road reconstruction or removal or culvert removal. However, we would realize water quality benefits from improved monitoring and cooperation of watershed landowners. Loons would continue as indicator of effectiveness of water level management on nesting wildlife.

On a site basis, camp restoration would reduce erosion and restore site hydrology. Stringent precautions in conducting refuge management activities would prevent chemical contamination of water directly through leaks or spills or indirectly through soil runoff.

Adverse Impacts Under alternative A, we would not create wetland openings to manage waterfowl, eliminating their potential short-term impacts.

Fishing and hunting activities in the Upper Androscoggin River watershed are not expected to increase under alternative A, but non-consumptive uses associated with wildlife viewing, such as hiking, wildlife photography, canoeing and kayaking would likely increase based on trends in non-consumptive use in the Region. So there may be an increase in the potential for changes in recreational boating activities that might lead to lake and river contamination with petroleum products. Public outreach on that and other issues such as invasive aquatic weeds, invasive fish, and lead contamination would help mitigate that risk.

Hydrology and Water Benefits Quality Impacts of By expanding the refuge by up to 47,807 acres in land acquisition and easements Alternative B under alternative B we would provide substantial additional watershed benefits by limiting land clearing and changes in local hydrology that might otherwise affect those areas from development.

We would increase camp site restoration that would reduce erosion and restore site hydrology and we would improve local hydrology through road reconstruction

4-24 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Effects on Hydrology and Water Quality

or removal. Under alternative B we would also restore the hydrology of areas such as the Day Flats area by plugging ditches and re-contouring the disturbed areas.

Water quality benefits would improve from a strengthened partnership with FPLE, the FERC licensee in determining lake water levels at all seasons, upgraded monitoring, and greater efforts in seeking cooperation of watershed landowners. We would work with the States of New Hampshire and Maine to establish an Umbagog Lake Working Group to develop regulations and best management practices for activities on the lake and rivers, that would help maintain good water quality, such as a boater ethics program that would include proper waste disposal protocol, elimination of lead fishing tackle, and use of wake zones and appropriate locations for access.

Adverse Impacts Fishing and hunting activities in the Upper Androscoggin River watershed are not expected to increase under alternative B, but non-consumptive uses associated with wildlife viewing, such as hiking, wildlife photography, canoeing and kayaking would likely increase based on trends in non-consumptive use in the Region and the improved visitor facilities proposed under this alternative. Impacts predicted for camping, boating, and snowmobiling are noted above under “Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts that would not vary by Alternative.”

Hydrology and Water Benefits Quality Impacts of Similar to alternative B, by expanding the refuge by up to 74,414 acres in Alternative C land acquisition under alternative C we would provide substantial additional watershed benefits by limiting land clearing and changes in local hydrology that might otherwise affect those areas from development.

We would increase camp site restoration, reduce erosion and restore site hydrology and we would improve local hydrology through road reconstruction or removal and culvert removal. We would also restore the hydrology of the Day Flats area by plugging ditches and re-contouring the disturbed areas.

We would promote a more natural hydrologic regime, would monitor to determine if this causes adverse water quality effects, and would alter management accordingly.

We would work with the States of New Hampshire and Maine to establish an Umbagog Working Group to develop voluntary best management practices for activities on the lake and rivers, that would help maintain good water quality, such as boater ethics program that would include proper waste disposal protocol, elimination of lead fishing tackle, and use of wake zones and appropriate locations for access.

Adverse Impacts Under alternative C, we would increase staffing and engage in a higher level of routine refuge management activities that may result in a somewhat higher potential for incidence of chemical contamination of water directly through leakage or spills or indirectly through soil runoff than alternative A. We would follow the same measures outline under alternative A to minimize these effects.

We would not create wetland openings to manage for waterfowl thereby avoiding any adverse impact to water quality during the installation phase.

Under alternative C non-consumptive visitor uses associated with wildlife viewing, such as hiking, wildlife photography, canoeing and kayaking would likely increase based on trends in non-consumptive use in the Region in general, and

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-25 Effects on Open Water and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation and Wetland Habitats and Species

the improved visitor facilities proposed under this alternative. Impacts predicted for camping, boating, and snowmobiling are noted above under “Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts that would not vary by Alternative.”

Effects on Open Wetlands management and conservation is our highest priority for the refuge, Water and Submerged consistent with the original refuge establishment purpose, and our first and Aquatic Vegetation foremost CCP goal. We evaluated the management actions proposed for each of the refuge CCP alternatives for their potential to benefit or adversely affect open and Wetland Habitats water and submerged aquatic vegetation, and wetland habitats—including fen and Species and flooded meadow, boreal fen and bog, northern white cedar forest, and scrub- shrub wetland—and associated focal species.

Benefits We evaluated the benefits of our actions that would conserve or restore the open water and submerged aquatic vegetation and wetlands habitats or conserve and enhance breeding or migrating focal species, including:

■ Acquisition and conservation of additional wetlands

■ Conversion of certain areas to more productive or unique wetlands

■ Management to prevent the growth of invasive species

■ Manipulation of Umbagog Lake water levels to maintain or expand wetlands and to seasonally benefit focal species

■ Control of predators that affect nesting or migratory species

Adverse Impacts We evaluated the potential for the actions proposed under the Lake Umbagog refuge management alternatives to cause adverse effects to open water and submerged aquatic vegetation and wetlands habitats, including:

■ actions causing soil, hydrology, and water quality impacts that might adversely affect open water biota and wetlands maintenance and productivity

■ actions such as vegetation management and promotion or creation of ponds, that might adversely affect open water biota and wetlands maintenance and productivity

■ activities of refuge visitors and lake users that might directly impact wetlands habitats or disturb nesting or migratory species

Open Water and Wetlands Conservation.—Regardless of which CCP alternative we select, we Submerged Aquatic would continue to conserve the refuge wetlands as the highest priority for refuge Vegetation and Wetland management. Because the extent of the unique wetlands complex at the refuge is Habitat and Species largely a function of the impounding of Umbagog Lake, we expect that Umbagog Impacts That Would Not Lake water levels would continue to fluctuate, but only within the current bounds Vary by Alternative of 1,247 ft above mean sea level (MSL) high and 1,238 ft MSL low, regardless of any future changes in management arrangements concerning management of Errol Dam. We also expect that the dam system upriver from the refuge would continue to function within the current system bounds.

We expect that the forested Upper Androscoggin River watershed would remain largely forested and that only excessively prolonged periods of heavy rainfall or prolonged extensive drought, neither of which has been known to occur in this region, would alter the hydrologic regime.

4-26 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Effects on Open Water and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation and Wetland Habitats and Species

Other than very gradual losses of acreage in particular wetland types resulting from natural succession, we anticipate that any adverse impacts to the refuge wetlands complex would likely be a result of changes in local hydrology or water quality originating within the Upper Androscoggin River watershed or from direct human disturbance or the influx of invasive species. Regardless of which CCP alternative we select, we would develop a HMP and IMP for wetland habitats, and would mitigate any potential for major unplanned changes in vegetation by continuously monitoring our vegetation types and updating our GIS database at least every 5 years.

Water Level Effects on Loon and Other Species.—Under all alternatives we will continue to cooperate with the FERC licensee and other regulatory agencies under the existing license for Errol Dam, to develop a yearly water level management plan “to benefit nesting wildlife.” We will continue to promote stable water levels during the nesting season to the extent possible under the current agreement. We will also collect detailed information on the impacts of fluctuating water levels, which may lead us to request a modification of the license agreement. We will also continue to recommend that water levels be managed at other critical times of the year (e.g. during fall migration) to benefit wildlife.

Rare Communities.—Regardless of alternative, we would take all measures necessary to Rare & Uncommon Plants in conserve the rare wetland communities on the Refuge Fens refuge. We would survey the FINNL and other • Narrow-leaved cotton grass unique or rare plant communities as a priority • Heart-leaved twayblade and in cooperation with the NPS, would expand • Creeping sedge • Meager sedge the boundary of the FINNL to one that is more • Livid sedge ecologically based using the 2002-2003 vegetation • Thin-ﬂ owered sedge surveys (see map 2-1). Within 2 years of CCP • Moor rush completion, we would conduct all administrative • Dragon’s mouth procedures to expand the boundary. Also, within • Pursh’s goldenrod 3 years of CCP completion, we would convene a • Cotton bulrush workshop with wetlands ecologists to determine • Orchid’s rose pogonia • Grass pink what information should be collected and what monitoring should occur to document any potential loss or degradation of the area. We would also establish a baseline from which to compare subsequent information. Purple loosestrife Invasive Plants.—Invasive plants can cause major damage to native plant assemblages and the wildlife they support if invasive populations are allowed to become established and spread. We would take steps to insure that invasive species do not become established to degrade the wetlands by conducting a systematic survey for invasive species and removing them where they occur. Key among these invasive plants are purple loosestrife, Japanese knotweed, and Phragmites. We would take proper care of all refuge equipment to avoid introduction or transport of invasive plants, implement outreach and education programs, and actively support State initiatives and continue to work with States to prevent introduction of invasive species to all water bodies on the refuge.

Umbagog Lake “Working Group.”—As described in chapter 2, we propose creating an Umbagog Lake Working Group under all alternatives that would coordinate voluntary efforts to reduce resource threats and resolve user conflicts on the lake. Priority projects for the working group would include working with

USFWS the States and others to help:

■ reduce wildlife exposure to lead

■ reduce boating conflicts and user and landowner impacts at access sites and on the lake

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-27 Effects on Open Water and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation and Wetland Habitats and Species

■ establish refuge and lake user “carrying capacities” and “thresholds of acceptable change” to minimize user conflicts and impacts on wildlife and habitats;

■ reduce boat wake impacts on the Magalloway and Androscoggin rivers

■ determine if changes to current area closure protection measures are warranted

■ identify and address point and non-point sediment and nutrient loading sources where possible

Impacts from furbearer management.—Under alternatives B and C, furbearer management program may include trapping as an administrative management tool. The furbearer management program would not be designed to eliminate targeted furbearer populations, but rather, remove individuals in those areas where they are negatively impacting biological resources, facilities, or creating a human health and safety concern. Trapping these species would occur only after full consideration of mitigating impacts with less than lethal techniques is determined to be cost prohibitive or impractical.

After final approval of the CCP, a furbearer management plan will be prepared as a step-down plan from this CCP. The furbearer management plan will be a separate plan and will be subject to its own NEPA review process. The purpose of the furbearer management plan would be to consider opening the refuge to public trapping under state regulation to maintain furbearer populations at levels compatible with the habitat and with refuge objectives, minimize furbearer damage to facilities and wildlife habitat, minimize competition with, or interaction among, wildlife populations and species that conflict with refuge objectives, and minimize threats of disease to wildlife and humans. This plan is scheduled to be prepared within 3 years of final approval of this CCP. In the interim, the refuge will undertake winter track surveys aimed at documenting mid-sized carnivore densities on refuge lands.

It is currently anticipated that furbearer management could result in both direct and indirect effects on open water and submerged aquatic vegetation and wetlands habitats and species. Indirect impacts could result from the activity of placing traps as it could displace migratory birds during pair bonding/nesting season, or could destroy nests by trampling. Direct impacts would include the harvest of targeted species, and the potential to harvest non-targeted species. Some of those species could be predators on migratory birds or nests, or could be species that induce beneficial habitat changes (e.g. beavers). A full consideration of potential impacts will be included in the separate NEPA analysis for furbearer management.

Because of the temporal separation of trapping activities and breeding wildlife using the refuge, indirect impacts on those resources by trappers would be negligible. Trapping in early March - June may disturb individual early nesting waterfowl on occasion, and cause their temporary displacement from specific, limited areas. Those impacts are occasional, temporary, and isolated to small geographic areas. Bald eagles initiate nesting activities on the refuge in February, but no evidence suggest trapping has affected bald eagle nesting success.

Trapping nest predators such as raccoons, fox, skunk, and mink could have positive impacts on nesting birds, although this benefit could be only temporary and depends on timing, and extent of animals removed. Trapping of beaver and muskrat can be both positive and negative habitat influences. Muskrats dig bank dens into embankments, causing considerable damage and adding costs to the operations of the refuge. Beaver will sometimes plug water control structures,

4-28 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Effects on Open Water and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation and Wetland Habitats and Species

causing damage, limiting access, and compromising the capability of refuge staff to manage habitat. On the other hand, muskrat and beaver can both enhance aquatic and wetlands habitats by creating openings and ponding water. Many species in this forested region favor beaver ponds and wetlands. Beaver are a keystone species for cycling small wetlands systems from pond to meadow to scrub-shrub to forest, and back to pond. Administrative trapping would only after full consideration of less than lethal options have proven unsuccessful or are impractical for the specific circumstances.

Impacts from increased visitation.—All alternatives predict some increase in annual visitor numbers; however, the increase varies due to each alternative’s respective refuge expansion proposal. Alternative A predicts the lowest annual increase, since no expansion is proposed, while alternative C predicts the highest increase due to its larger refuge expansion proposal. We do not plan to increase capacity for these activities on existing refuge lands, or on lands to be acquired, regardless of alternative; rather, we plan to maintain existing use levels.

Direct impacts on wildlife can be expected wherever humans have access to an area. In general, human presence disturbs most wildlife, which typically results in a temporary displacement without long-term effects on individuals or populations. Some species will avoid areas frequented by people, such as developed trails and buildings, while other species seem unaffected or even drawn to a human presence. When visitors approach too closely to nests, they may cause the adult bird to flush exposing the eggs to weather events or predators. Overall, direct effects should be insignificant from non-consumptive visitor activities because use of refuge lands is fairly dispersed, and large areas are not accessible.

Hunting and fishing are two priority, wildlife-dependent consumptive activities with additional direct effects on open water wildlife and habitats. Hunting of waterfowl has been ongoing on refuge lands for decades, including prior to refuge establishment. The refuge’s hunt program follows federal and state regulations for annual harvest levels and seasons by species. These regulations are set within each state based on what harvest levels can be sustained for a species without adversely affecting its overall Atlantic Coast flyway population. As such, hunting results in individual losses, but the projected cumulative harvest would not jeopardize the viability of any harvested species’ population. Some disturbance to non-target wildlife species may occur; however, those impacts should be minimal because hunting pressure is moderate and occurs outside the breeding season. Since the refuge has been open to hunting since 2000 and hunting occurred in the Umbagog area for many years prior to the creation of the refuge, no additional impacts are anticipated. Some wildlife disturbance of non-target species and impacts to vegetation may occur. However, these impacts should be minimal since hunting pressure is moderate, occurs outside the breeding season, and Refuge-specific regulations prohibit the use of ATVs and permanent tree stands, which are most likely to significantly damage vegetation. Our April 2007 amended EA for the refuge’s current hunt program (alternative 2 in that EA), which we incorporate by reference herein, provides additional impacts analysis (USFWS, 2007).

The refuge’s fishing program follows both states of New Hampshire and Maine regulations, including harvest limits for certain species. These limits are set to ensure that harvest levels do not cumulatively impact native fish resources to the point they are no longer self-sustainable. Other potential impacts of fishing on open water and submerged aquatic vegetation and wetlands wildlife and habitats are detailed in the compatibility determination for public fishing found in appendix C, “Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations.” A summary follows:

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-29 Effects on Open Water and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation and Wetland Habitats and Species

■ Accidental or deliberate introductions of non-native fish by anglers. We plan to continue to work with both states in implementing a public education and outreach program; increased law enforcement is also planned under all alternatives.

■ Accidental introduction of invasive plants, pathogens, or exotic invertebrates attached to fishing boats. Similar to non-native fish, we will continue to work with both states in implementing a public education and outreach program under all alternatives.

■ Negative effects on loons, eagles, osprey, waterfowl, and other wildlife from lost fishing gear; namely, the concern with these species ingesting lead sinkers, hooks, lures, and litter, or becoming entangled in fishing line or hooks. Similar to non-native fish, we will continue to work with both states in implementing a public education and outreach program under all alternatives.

■ Disturbance to wildlife; namely to breeding and brood-rearing loons, waterfowl, bald eagles, osprey, and wading birds. Similar to other visitors, anglers can approach too closely to nests, and may cause the adult birds to flush exposing the eggs to weather events or predators. Under all alternatives, in cooperation with both states, we will continue to close areas seasonally around active nesting sites to minimize human disturbance.

■ Reduction or alteration of prey base important to fish-eating wildlife. The extent to which this has occurred over the years, and the impact its had on those wildlife, is unknown.

■ Negative impacts on water quality. These were described in the section titled “Effects on Hydrology and Water Quality” above.

■ Negative impacts on sensitive wetlands from boat access sites and associated foot traffic. Direct impacts on vegetation can result as boats physically traverse through wetlands vegetation. Other ground disturbing impacts can occur in wetlands from anglers getting their boats in water, or from shoreline fishing. Portions of, or whole plants, can be torn, sometimes by the roots. Refuge boat access sites and trails will be located away from sensitive wetlands, peat lands, and rare plants under all alternatives. Habitat features important for trout, such as overhanging banks, will also be protected from disturbance

In summary, our observations and knowledge of the area provide no evidence that cumulatively, the visitor activities we propose to continue to allow will have an unacceptable effect on wildlife resources or their habitats. Prior landowners have allowed the public to engage in these activities for many years without discernable negative effects. We do not expect a substantial increase in the cumulative effects of visitor use over the 15 year timeframe of this plan. Refuge staff will monitor and evaluate the effects of visitor use, in collaboration with state agencies and partners, to discern and respond to unacceptable impacts on wildlife or habitats

Open Water and We would continue to conserve the refuge’s current 3,233 acres of wetlands and Submerged Aquatic 5,033 acres of open water and submerged aquatic vegetation habitat (see table Vegetation, and Wetland 4.10) under alternative A. Acquisition and conservation of additional wetlands Habitat and Species under alternative A would be limited to 706 acres that would be acquired from Impacts of Alternative A willing sellers within the current refuge boundary. This increase would be minor compared with adding as much as 4,380 wetland acres and 801 open water and submerged aquatic vegetation acres under alternative B or 5,178 wetland acres and 901open water and submerged aquatic vegetation acres under alternative C. The additional acreage to be acquired in the respective expansion areas would more than double the refuge’s wetlands base.

4-30 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Effects on Open Water and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation and Wetland Habitats and Species

Table 4.10. Wetland acquisition by alternative (acres) ABC current total in refuge still to be acquisition Fee Easement Fee + Alt B Fee Alt C Wetland Type acres acquired boundary Acres Acres Easement Totals Only Totals Fen and Flooded Meadow 487 79 566 103 20 123 687 209 775 Boreal Fen and Bog 1,235 167 1,402 2,277 407 2,684 4,086 3,222 4,624 Northern White Cedar 829 202 1,031 0+ 0+ 0+ 1,031 0+ 1,031 Scrub-Shrub Wetlands 682 258 940 790 77 867 1,807 1,041 1,981

Total All Wetland Types 3,233 706 3,939 3,170 504 3,674 7,613 4,472 8,411 Open Water & Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 5,033 801 5,834 46 23 69 5,906 100 5,934

Of the three refuge management alternatives, we would be most constrained under alternative A in terms of how we would improve conservation of wetlands and open water and submerged aquatic vegetation habitats and enhance management of focal species. Our management efforts would be limited to habitat inventory, mapping, and monitoring; bird surveys and surveys of other vertebrates, invertebrates, and plants; support of research on water level effects and loon populations, protection of nesting loons, and limited acquisition of additional wetlands and open water and submerged aquatic vegetation habitat. We would implement no active habitat management such as waterfowl food plantings to improve wetlands and manage habitat productivity for breeding or migratory waterfowl.

Water level fluctuations, water quality problems and human disturbance of wildlife would continue to pose some risk of adversely affecting wetland habitat; breeding, brood rearing, and migrating waterfowl; marsh birds, shorebirds, and wading birds; and other wildlife species of concern at the refuge under alternative A.

We would monitor habitat conditions and continue to work closely with FPLE, the FERC licensee, to ensure that water levels do not affect any wetland habitat type.

Water quality may become an increasingly important issue at the refuge as lands adjacent to the refuge are developed and the user population increases over the years, although the refuge should experience the lowest increase in users under alternative A.

Over the long term, the risk of erosion and water quality problems that might affect these habitats would be highest under this alternative because watershed land conservation would be limited to acquisition within the current refuge boundary.

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-31 Effects on Open Water and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation and Wetland Habitats and Species

Fen and Flooded Meadow Acquisition of up to 79 additional acres and conservation of a resulting total 566 acres of fen and flooded meadow habitat under alternative A would provide minimally increased benefits to breeding and migrating waterfowl and other species using this habitat type. We would monitor wetland conditions but we would not actively manage the habitat for waterfowl or other species.

We would plan to identify impacts to fen and flooded meadow habitat from changes or fluctuations in water levels as the water levels and their effects are monitored and evaluated.

Visitors fishing or boating in or near fen and flooded meadow habitat may disturb nesting or foraging birds, except where we implement areas closures around bald eagle and loon nests. Because of staffing and management constraints, alternative A would offer little opportunity to further limit visitor impacts.

Boreal Fen and Bog We would continue to conserve the refuge’s 1,235 acres of boreal fen and bog habitat under alternative A and would seek to acquire 167 additional acres of the habitat. Purchase of these additional acres would minimally increase conservation of the refuge peatland complex.

None of our passive management actions under alternative A would adversely affect boreal fen and bog habitats. The refuge peatland habitats generally are not used by visitors so disturbance of wildlife or damage to rare plants would be unlikely to occur. Of course care would be taken in our own projects and in monitoring by researchers to avoid any effects to these habitats.

Northern White Cedar We may acquire as much as 202 acres of northern white cedar habitat under alternative A. Purchase of these additional acres, which includes the largest Northern white cedar swamp in New Hampshire, would substantially benefit conservation of this type in the region as well as benefiting focal species such as the black-backed woodpecker. However, no active management techniques would be employed.

None of our passive management actions under alternative A would adversely affect northern white cedar habitat. Northern white cedar habitats generally are not used by visitors so disturbance of wildlife or direct damage to the habitat would be extremely unlikely to occur. Care would be taken in our own projects and in monitoring of researchers to avoid any effects to these habitats.

Scrub-Shrub Wetland We may acquire as much as 258 acres of scrub-shrub wetland habitat under alternative A. Purchase of these additional acres would increase conservation of this habitat as well benefits to woodcock because they would constitute an increase of 37 percent in Service ownership.

No active management techniques would be employed and none of our passive management actions under alternative A would adversely affect scrub-shrub habitat.

Open Water and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation We would acquire 801 acres of open water and submerged aquatic vegetation habitat thereby conserving 5,834 acres of open water and submerged aquatic vegetation habitat under alternative A. No active management techniques would be employed.

4-32 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Effects on Open Water and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation and Wetland Habitats and Species

As noted, water quality effects on aquatic species may become an increasingly important issue at the refuge as lands adjacent to the refuge are developed. Over the long term, the risk of erosion and water quality problems that might affect these habitats would be highest under this alternative because watershed land conservation would be limited to land acquisition within the current refuge boundary.

Refuge visitors who boat and fish may cause localized, transient impacts by disturbing the bottom substrate in shallow areas or causing minor spills or leaks of petroleum products. Brochures and signage would notify these users of proper precautions. We would work with the State of New Hampshire to evaluate the no-wake exemption on Magalloway and Androscoggin rivers which allows high speed boat operation within 150 feet of shoreline. These impacts would be more limited when compared to alternatives B and C, because the estimated refuge user population increases over the years would be lowest under alternative A.

Common Loon We would continue to protect loons as we have in the past under alternative A. We would continue to support research on the apparent decline in Umbagog Lake loons, to advise the FERC licensee on water levels to benefit loons, and to protect active loon nests in spring and summer from predators and human disturbance using outreach and visitor contact, floating rafts, buoy lines, restricted access, and other tools as warranted.

No additional active management techniques would be employed to increase loon productivity and none of our passive management actions under alternative A would adversely affect loons.

Open Water and We propose to substantially expand conservation of the refuge wetlands and Submerged Aquatic markedly upgrade how we manage for waterfowl and other focal species under Vegetation and Wetland alternative B. We would continue to conserve the refuge’s current 3,150 acres of Habitat and Species wetlands and 5,033 acres of open water and submerged aquatic vegetation habitat Impacts of Alternative B (see table 4.10) under alternative B. In addition to acquiring the remaining 706 wetland acres and 801 open water and submerged aquatic vegetation acres within the current refuge boundary, we would seek to acquire 3,674 wetland acres and 69 acres of open water and submerged aquatic vegetation habitat in the alternative B expansion area (see map 2-6). The additional acreage to be acquired would more than double the refuge’s conserved wetland and open water and submerged aquatic vegetation habitat acreage. Observation platform on the Magalloway River Among the alternatives, we would be best able to achieve our wetlands conservation and focal species management goals under alternative B. Our management efforts would be expanded well beyond our current passive management to include specific habitat manipulation and species conservation measures including providing waterfowl food plantings, and management of habitat productivity for breeding and migratory waterfowl.

We would take additional steps to ensure that water level fluctuations and water quality problems are addressed, and to further limit human disturbance and thereby reduce the risk of adverse effects to wetland habitats and focal species. We would monitor habitat condition and continue to work closely with the FERC licensee to ensure that water levels do not affect any wetland habitat type. Further, under alternative B we propose several future studies, and inventory and monitoring projects that would assist in evaluating the impacts from water

Paul Casey/USFWS Paul level fluctuations.

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-33 Effects on Open Water and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation and Wetland Habitats and Species

Through acquisition of lands adjacent to the refuge we would expand conservation of the watershed and reduce the adverse effects of development and population increases over the years.

There would be no impacts from construction and operation of the Potter Farm visitor facility because the proposed location is not immediately adjacent to wetlands habitat. However, construction of the interpretive loop trail near the new headquarters, under this alternative poses some risk of affecting wetlands. A conceptual design and tentative location for a trail (see map 2-8) are identified in the Roadway/Trail Evaluations and Headquarters Assessments (Oak Point Associates 2004). The trail would be approximately 2 miles long, designed to allow travel by people with disabilities, and route visitors to wetland and meadow habitat adjacent to the Lake and then north through forested areas before looping back to the headquarters. The eastern portion of the trail would parallel a large wetland. No construction would be done that would directly affect the wetland other than setting of pilings for boardwalks, which would be constructed over saturated areas to protect sensitive vegetation.

Fen and Flooded Meadow Under alternative B, we would improve our management of fen and flooded meadow habitat by acquiring and conserving as much as 123 additional acres of the habitat and actively managing it for breeding and migrating waterfowl, marshbirds, shorebirds, and wading birds. Fee purchase and easements on these additional acres would increase this habitat by 41 percent.

We would take specific steps to upgrade fen and flooded meadow habitat management for breeding, brood rearing, and migrating waterfowl; marsh birds, shorebirds, and wading birds; and other wildlife species of concern at the refuge under alternative B. An improved partnership with the FERC licensee to address water level control, expanded bird and aquatic invertebrate surveys, and promotion of wild rice and other food plants would substantially upgrade our ability to support breeding and migratory birds.

We plan to identify impacts to fen and flooded meadow habitat from changes or fluctuations in water levels as the water levels and their effects are monitored and evaluated so that we can assure that any effects of fluctuating levels would be minor and short-term

Refuge visitors fishing or boating in or near fen and flooded meadow habitat may disturb nesting or foraging birds. These effects would likely increase with the increased visitation expected under this alternative. We plan to increase staffing and enhance management under alternative B to ensure this type of disturbance would occur infrequently, impacts would continue to be minor and not adversely affect waterfowl productivity.

Boreal Fen and Bog Conservation and management of boreal fen and bog habitats would greatly improve under alternative B. We would acquire as much as 2,684 additional acres under this alternative more than tripling the refuge’s conserved boreal fen and bog acreage. Purchase of these additional acres would greatly increase conservation of the refuge peatland complex. The Floating Island National Natural Landmark (FINNL) would expand from 860 to 2,181 acres. Monitoring and research efforts would identify threats to this habitat.

Northern White Cedar We may acquire an additional 202 acres of northern white cedar habitat within the acquisition boundary and in the expansion area under alternative B. Purchase of the 202 additional acres in the current acquisition boundary, which includes

4-34 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Effects on Open Water and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation and Wetland Habitats and Species

the largest northern white cedar swamp in New Hampshire, would substantially benefit conservation of this type in the region as well as benefiting focal species such as the black-backed woodpecker. The acreage in the expansion area cannot be estimated at this time from available mapped data however, we expect it to be no more than 50 acres. Purchase of these small scattered stands would provide some minimal additional benefit to black-backed woodpecker because they would constitute an increase of less than 5 percent in Service ownership.

There would be no adverse effects from limited habitat management actions under this alternative. Although not likely to be a priority in 15 year life of CCP, there is a potential for restoring about 150 acres of northern white cedar over that time.

Scrub-Shrub Wetland Acquiring as much as 867 acres to conserve a total 1,807 acres of scrub-shrub habitat would double the refuge’s conserved acreage and substantially increase benefits to scrub-shrub wetland habitat, Canada warbler and woodcock, and scrub-shrub wetland dependant species under alternative B.

Manual or portable power tools would be used in vegetation management to manipulate or maintain habitat such as alder. Cutting would be done to minimize disturbance to nesting or foraging wildlife.

Open Water and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Benefits would be greater under alternative B with addition of up to 870 open water and submerged aquatic vegetation acres and an expanded program of management activities to conserve and enhance the biota of open water and submerged aquatic vegetation habitats.

With added watershed land conservation of more than 47,000 acres under this alternative, risks to aquatic species from water quality problems would diminish in Umbagog Lake and in the river tributaries. Some of this benefit may be offset by increased visitation.

Refuge visitors who boat and fish may disturb the bottom substrate in shallow areas or cause minor spills or leaks of petroleum products. Outreach including brochures and signage will notify these users of proper precautions.

Common Loon While we would continue to protect loons as we have in the past under alternative B in cooperation with the LPC and FERC licensee, we would take a number of additional steps including monitoring angler use and fishing pressure in relation to loon territories, validating loon nesting and territorial carrying capacities, and further determine whether 14 nesting pairs on Umbagog Lake and 4 nesting pairs in the expansion area remain appropriate targets for these areas, evaluating interactions of loons with waterfowl during the breeding season; and specifically evaluate how these wildlife interact at high loon densities. The major proposed expansion in watershed land base would increase indirect benefits to loons by protecting water quality and their aquatic prey base.

We would evaluate the need for predator control around loon sites and where necessary would use lethal and non-lethal predator control measures targeted at individual animals. Continuous monitoring of methods would ensure control would not adversely affect any sensitive predator species populations.

The near doubling of refuge visitation under alternative B would likely increase pressure to view loons and increase the potential for nesting loon disturbance. We would upgrade signage and informative materials to educate visitors to this

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-35 Effects on Open Water and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation and Wetland Habitats and Species

problem, expend greater staff effort in monitoring visitor presence near loon nest sites, and continue to exclude visitors from these areas as necessary.

Open Water and We would substantially expand conservation of the refuge’s wetlands under Submerged Aquatic alternative C but we would not manage the refuge wetlands for production of Vegetation and Wetland waterfowl or other focal species but rather would manage them to promote a Habitat and Species diverse and sustainable wetlands complex with a natural regime of disturbance Impacts of Alternative C and recovery and a natural sustainable complement of native wildlife species.

We would continue to conserve the refuge’s current 3,233 acres of wetlands and 5,033 acres of open water and submerged aquatic vegetation habitat (see table 4.10) under alternative C. We would seek to acquire the remaining 706 wetland acres and 801 open water and submerged aquatic vegetation acres within the current refuge boundary as well as 4,472 wetland acres and 100 acres of open water and submerged aquatic vegetation habitat in the alternative C expansion area (see map 2-11). Similar to alternative B, the additional acreage to be acquired would more than double the refuge’s conserved wetland and open water and submerged aquatic vegetation habitat acreage.

Compared to the other alternatives, we would achieve a greater degree of wetlands conservation under alternative C in terms of acreage under Service management but we would not likely achieve the highest level of productivity or sustainability in terms of the range of focal wildlife species that we would manage for under alternative B. Our management efforts would be expanded beyond our current custodial management to include specific habitat manipulation measures to simulate as closely as possible the biotic community conditions that would otherwise exist under natural disturbance patterns in the Northern Forest in the absence of 200 years of human resource use and industrial, commercial, agricultural, residential, and recreational development.

We would address water quality problems to eliminate to the degree possible the effects of human pollution. Through acquisition of lands adjacent to the refuge we would expand conservation of the watershed and reduce the adverse effects of development. We would work towards a water level agreement that simulates as near as possible, the natural hydrologic regime of the Upper Androscoggin River watershed. We would limit human access to simulate a back country wilderness- type experience with no facilities development and no motorized access.

We would not take any specific steps to enhance habitat for breeding, brood rearing, and migrating waterfowl; marsh birds, shorebirds, and wading birds; and other wildlife species of concern at the refuge under alternative C. However, we would continue to protect common loons in cooperation with the FERC licensee and the Loon Preservation Committee. We would monitor habitat condition and continue to work closely with the FERC licensee to ensure that water levels do not affect any wetland habitat type. Limiting human access to simulate a back country wilderness-type experience with no facilities development and no motorized access would benefit wildlife by reducing disturbance and localized habitat losses.

We would continue to promote stable water levels during the nesting season to the extent possible under the current agreement, using loons as the indicator species to evaluate the effectiveness of water level management on nesting wildlife. We would continue to recommend that water levels be managed at other critical times of the year (e.g. during fall migration) to benefit wildlife.

Construction of the loop trail near the new Potter Farm facility would have the same impacts and mitigation as described for alternative B.

4-36 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Effects on Open Water and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation and Wetland Habitats and Species

Fen and Flooded Meadow The benefits to fen and flooded meadow habitat would be minimally higher with 209 acres of habitat acquired and conserved under alternative C. There would be no refuge focal species management so benefits to refuge focal species would be indirect from the increase in habitat conservation.

Water level fluctuations, water quality problems and human disturbance would continue to pose some risk of adversely affecting fen and flooded meadow habitat, waterfowl, and other wildlife at the refuge under alternative C.

We would monitor habitat condition and continue to work closely with the FERC licensee to ensure that water levels do not affect this habitat. Water quality may become an increasingly important issue at the refuge as lands adjacent to the refuge are developed and the user population increases over the years.

There would be no impacts from construction and operation of the Potter Farm facility because the location is not adjacent to this habitat. Impacts should be minimal from Lake users fishing or boating who may disturb nesting birds, but this would occur infrequently and not likely adversely affect waterfowl productivity.

Boreal Fen and Bog The benefits of conservation and management of boreal fen and bog habitats would be similar to alternative B with up to 3,222 fee acquired acres. This alternative too would greatly increase conserve the refuge’s peatland complex and substantially benefit peatland dependent species.

Peat coring of the FINNL and other peatlands on Lake Umbagog Refuge under this alternative would not adversely affect these wetlands.

Northern White Cedar We may acquire as much as 202 acres of northern white cedar habitat under alternative C. As in alternative B, purchase of these additional acres would minimally benefit black-backed woodpecker.

Scrub-Shrub Wetland We may acquire as much as 1,299 acres of scrub-shrub wetland habitat under alternative C. Purchase of these additional acres would benefit woodcock, Canada warbler and other species.

Open Water and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation We would acquire 801 within the boundary and 100 additional open water and submerged aquatic vegetation acres under alternative C. We expect that acquisition and conservation of an additional major portion of the Upper Androscoggin River watershed under alternative C would benefit aquatic biota, including SAV and fish, by reducing the potential for development and off-refuge recreational use that may adversely affect refuge water quality.

Common Loon We would continue to protect loons as we have in the past under alternative C. We would continue to support research on the decline in Umbagog Lake loons, to advise the FERC licensee on water levels to benefit loons, and to protect active loon nests in spring and summer from predators and human disturbance using outreach and visitor contact, buoy lines, restricted access, and other tools as warranted.

No additional active management techniques would be employed to increase loon productivity under alternative C. We do not expect that any of our management

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-37 Effects on Floodplain, Lake Shore, and Riparian Habitats and Species

actions, including forest management actions, would adversely affect loons. We expect that acquisition and conservation of an additional major portion of the Upper Androscoggin River watershed under alternative C would indirectly benefit loons by reducing the potential for development that may adversely affect refuge water quality.

Effects on Floodplain, Floodplain, lake shore, and riparian habitats serve as protective buffers and Lake Shore, and wildlife travel corridors between the refuge wetlands and the watershed upland Riparian Habitats and areas, as important forest components of the refuge, and as valued productive breeding habitat for focal vertebrate species, including cavity nesting waterfowl, Species bald eagle, osprey, and regional priority bird species including the northern parula and rusty blackbird. A major priority of the refuge is to sustain high quality woodcock habitat in the areas identified as woodcock focus areas.

Management actions proposed for each of the refuge CCP alternatives were evaluated for their potential to help conserve and expand floodplain, lakeshore, and riparian habitats and to maintain and improve the productivity of focal wildlife species. The evaluated benefits include:

■ Potential for acquisition of floodplain, lake shore, and riparian areas that would expand conservation of these habitats

■ Potential for habitats to benefit locally with restoration of camp sites

■ Potential for protection of vernal pools through improved inventory and management measures that would enhance these uniquely important productive habitats

■ Potential to implement specific management measures to protect and enhance eagle and osprey nest sites would benefit these focal raptors

■ Potential for improved woodcock management

The adverse effects of the Lake Umbagog refuge management alternatives that were evaluated include:

■ The potential for increased refuge visitation to adversely affect these habitats

■ The potential for human disturbance of bald eagle and osprey nest sites

The potential for alterations in hydrology or other land management actions to adversely affect vernal pools

Floodplain, Lake Shore, Resource Conservation. — Regardless of which CCP alternative we select, we and Riparian Habitat would develop a HMP and IMP for floodplain, lakeshore, and riparian habitats, Impacts That Would Not we would mitigate any potential for major unplanned changes in floodplain, Vary by Alternative lakeshore, and riparian habitat vegetation by continuously monitoring our vegetation types and updating our GIS database at least every 5 years.

We would conserve and maintain natural vernal pools, and other small-scale unique or rare communities on existing refuge lands and within the expansion areas. We would implement a comprehensive program (text box) to conserve vernal pools that would include inventory, monitoring, research, ranking, and management protocols to minimize any impacts to these uniquely important habitats.

4-38 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Effects on Floodplain, Lake Shore, and Riparian Habitats and Species

We would continue to Vernal Pool Conservation protect bald eagles and ospreys from human • complete inventory of vernal pools in 5 years disturbance during the • develop and implement management standards and guidelines to nesting season, conserve vernal pool habitat in 7 years evaluating closure areas • rank vernal pools as to their conservation concern and need on a case-by-case basis. for management based on size, location, threats, productivity, Legal hunting is not seasonality, species diversity, and other parameters considered a threat to • promote vernal pool conservation in Refuge outreach programs these species because • survey to identify all potentially affected vernal pools before any no hunting is occurring active forest management occurs during spring and • follow best management practices to protect all vernal pools summer when these birds are nesting. Also, no mortality of these birds has been attributed to accidental shooting in the Umbagog Lake Area. We have also submitted this document for an intra-agency Section 7 consultation on ESA compliance.

Facilities Upgrade and Protection.— The majority of our current refuge facilities are located in the riparian zone of the Magalloway River. A number of new facilities and visitor amenities are proposed for the lakeshore areas at the refuge.

All snowmobile trails on the refuge would be through trails only; we would not provide parking, warming huts, or other infrastructure on refuge lands. No expansion of the existing trail system would occur without specific site evaluation.

Site, Road, and Trail Restoration We would restore developed areas that are no longer needed for refuge

USFWS administration or programs to natural conditions. As we acquire lands, we would Youth program on the remove cabins or other developed sites or structures if they are surplus to refuge refuge needs, re-grade to natural topography and hydrology and re-vegetate to establish desirable conditions.

We would inventory and assess all access roads within the refuge, and on any newly acquired lands, and implement procedures to retire and restore unnecessary forest interior and secondary roads to promote watershed and resource conservation. All ATV trails on Service fee lands and all unauthorized snowmobile trails would be restored to eliminate their use. Existing main access roads would remain open to provide motorized and non-motorized access for approved activities.

Facility Maintenance Under Alternative A, the existing headquarters building on the Magalloway River would be maintained. In alternatives B and C it would be converted to a research or auxiliary field office. In addition, all alternatives would remove the adjacent small cabin.

All of the alternatives include the periodic maintenance and renovation of existing facilities to ensure the safety and accessibility for staff and visitors. Our current facilities are described in chapter 3. They include administrative facilities such as refuge quarters at two former residences and the maintenance shop off Mountain Pond road. Visitor facilities to be maintained under all alternatives include: the Magalloway River trail and new extension, sign, and viewing platform; and, 2 roofed, wooden information kiosks. A Magalloway River Canoe Trail and launch site would be implemented in 2006 and would also require periodic maintenance.

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-39 Effects on Floodplain, Lake Shore, and Riparian Habitats and Species

Fire Protection We would conduct a wildland-urban interface hazard assessment along common boundaries of adjacent private landowners within 2 years of CCP approval and every 10 years thereafter, to ensure forest management practices are not creating excessive fuel loading. Details will be incorporated in the refuge FMP.

Impacts from increased visitation.—The impacts are the same as those described for wetlands habitats in the discussion under “Open Water and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation and Wetland Habitat and Species Impacts that would not vary by Alternative.” In addition to those, these habitat types could be impacted by hunting for additional species and from the camping program. Hunting in these habitat types on refuge lands extends to migratory game birds and upland game hunting. White-tailed deer, moose, snowshoe hare, ruffed grouse and woodcock are the principal species hunted. As described in the discussion on waterfowl hunting, this use has been established in the area on refuge lands for decades. All hunting seasons and limits adhere to respective federal and state regulations. Those regulations are set within each state based on what harvest levels can be sustained for a species without jeopardizing state populations, or in the case of woodcock, the Atlantic flyway population. As such, hunting results in individual losses, but the projected cumulative harvest would not jeopardize the viability of any harvested species’ population. Some disturbance to non-target wildlife species may occur; however, those impacts should be minimal because hunting pressure is moderate and occurs outside the breeding season. Our 2007 amended EA for the refuge’s current hunt program (alternative 2 in that EA), which we incorporate by reference herein, provides additional impacts analysis (USFWS, 2007).

Anticipated impacts of hunting as listed in the public hunting compatibility determination follow:

Since the refuge has been open to hunting since 2000 and hunting occurred in the Umbagog area for many years prior to the creation of the refuge, no additional impacts are anticipated. Some wildlife disturbance of non-target species and impacts to vegetation may occur. However, these impacts should be minimal since hunting pressure is moderate, occurs outside the breeding season, and Refuge- specific regulations prohibit the use of ATVs and permanent tree stands, which are most likely to significantly damage vegetation. Hunting also helps to keep populations of browsing species such as deer and moose within the carrying capacity of the habitat, thus reducing excessive damage to vegetation caused by over-browsing, and maintaining understory habitat for other species.

Currently, all areas of the Refuge are open to hunters and other members of the public during hunting season. Although conflicts between user groups can occur, this does not appear to be a significant issue at present use levels. In the future, the Refuge may need to manage public use to minimize conflicts and insure public safety, should significant conflicts become evident. This may include public outreach and using zoning to separate user groups.

Similar to other visitor activities, human disturbance on wildlife can result from camping. Larger groups, and those campers with pets, are more likely to disturb wildlife. Generally, these disturbances result in a temporary displacement without long-term effects on individuals or populations. Some species may avoid areas frequented by people, such as campsites, while other species seem unaffected or even drawn to the human presence. Humans may intentionally supply foods to wildlife, or unintentionally supply foods through littering, accidental spillage, or improper food storage. Human foods are generally unhealthy for wildlife, and may also promote scavenging behavior, which could increase wildlife vulnerability to predators. Rodent populations often increase

4-40 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Effects on Floodplain, Lake Shore, and Riparian Habitats and Species

at campsites in response to the increased availability of human food, and may negatively affect nesting songbirds since they also predate on eggs. Bears and other scavengers may also be attracted to improperly stored food, and may damage property or threaten visitor safety. We have recorded one instance of a bear looking for food damaging a kayak at an Umbagog Lake campsite.

Campers can directly and indirectly effect vegetation in these habitat types as well. Impacts can be locally severe, even with low to moderate use. There is typically a loss of ground vegetation cover, reduced vegetation height and vigor, loss of rare or fragile species, and changes in plant community and composition. Vegetation may be removed or trampled, especially shrubs and trees that could be used for firewood. Axes and fire scars can damage trees, and branches may be broken, bark removed or damaged, or nails placed in trees. Tree regeneration is typically lost and the disturbed site will often convert to trampling-resistent grasses and forbs. Some rocky and gravelly lakeshore areas are more resistant to disturbance, including many along Umbagog Lake.

When people come from out of the area, they can be vectors for seeds and propagules of invasive plants. Once established, invasive plants can outcompete native vegetation, thereby altering habitats and indirectly affecting wildlife. The threat of invasive plants is an issue we are vigilant about; annual monitoring, immediate treatment, and a public outreach and education program would occur under all alternatives.

No expansion of camping sites is planned under any alternative, and all camping allowed is permitted only at designated sites. We intend to continue to evaluate campsites annually. Regarding human disturbance, we would continue to minimize this impact by seasonally closing campsites that are located close to active loon territories or nesting bald eagles. Visitors are now required to bring their own firewood to reduce impacts to vegetation. Overall, under current and planned management, and based on our observations at campsites, we predict the effects from camping would not be significant under any alternative.

Impacts to Floodplain, We would continue to conserve the refuge’s current 1,372 acres of floodplain, Lake Shore, and Riparian lakeshore, and riparian habitat (see table 4.11) under alternative A. An additional Habitats and Species from 153 acres of wooded floodplain and 288 acres of lakeshore pine-hemlock habitat Alternative A under alternative A—a 32 percent increase—would be acquired from willing sellers within the current refuge boundary. This minor increase would be lower but of the same order of magnitude as the acquisition increases proposed under the refuge expansion alternatives B and C.

Table 4.11. Floodplain, lakeshore, and riparian habitat acquisition proposed by alternative ABC

current total in refuge still to be acquisition Fee Easement Fee + Alt B Fee Alt C Habitat Type acres acquired boundary Acres Acres Easement Totals Only Totals

Wooded Floodplain 1140 153 1,293 123 13 136 1429 140 1433

Lakeshore Pine-Hemlock 232 288 520 0+ 0+ 0+ 520+ 0+ 520 + Total Both Types 1372 441 1813 123+ 13+ 136+ 1949+ 140+ 1953+

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-41 Effects on Floodplain, Lake Shore, and Riparian Habitats and Species

Adding up to 441 acres of these habitats would increase conservation of floodplain, lakeshore, and riparian acres to over 1,800 acres but we would be more constrained under alternative A than under the other alternatives in terms of how much we could improve conservation of floodplain, lakeshore, and riparian habitats and enhance management of focal species. Our management efforts would be limited to habitat inventory, mapping, and monitoring; bird surveys and surveys of other vertebrates, invertebrates, and plants; support of related research, protection of nesting eagles and ospreys, and limited acquisition of additional habitat. We would implement no active habitat management such as early successional management.

The Magalloway River trail project would cause short term construction impacts and long-term loss of a minor amount of habitat. Construction of the Potter Farm headquarters and visitor contact facility would cause minor localized impacts along the lakeshore. There would be no other construction projects that would affect these habitats.

Of the twelve campsites that the refuge intends to keep open, 5 are located in lakeshore pine-hemlock habitat, 5 are in mixed conifer-hardwoods, and 2 are in balsam fir-floodplain forest, all accessible only by boat. Remote camping would continue to have localized, long term impacts to lakeshore and floodplain habitats as described above. Illegal camping at non-designated sites also occurs regularly along the Magalloway River, Harper’s Meadow, in the Leonard Pond area, and elsewhere. Monitoring and outreach would help mitigate these latter impacts.

Wooded Floodplain We would acquire up to 153 additional acres of wooded floodplain habitat under alternative A within the current refuge boundary. This increase from the current 1,140 acres in Service ownership would minimally increase benefits to cavity nesting waterfowl, northern parula, and rusty blackbird because of the habitat conservation afforded although no active management techniques would be employed.

Lakeshore Pine-Hemlock We would acquire as much as 288 additional acres of lakeshore pine-hemlock habitat under alternative A. This added habitat would more than double refuge acreage from the current 232 acres and, thereby, would increase protection benefits to jack pine, bald eagle, osprey, and other raptors at the refuge. There would be no adverse impacts from this land acquisition although there may be localized, short term impacts to soils from camp or other site restoration activities on any of these newly acquired lands.

Bald Eagle and Osprey Bald eagle and osprey would benefit from conservation of the lakeshore pine- hemlock habitat described above under alternative A. Our biological program would continue its present priorities such as: cooperating with partners in the monitoring of loon, bald eagle, and osprey populations on the lake; protecting loon, bald eagle, and osprey active nest sites from human disturbance on refuge lands.

Potential adverse impacts to eagles and ospreys under alternative A would include a somewhat greater risk of human disturbance of nesting eagles and ospreys and a higher probability of loss or lack of recruitment of nesting trees than are likely to occur under alternatives B and C because we would not be able to invest as much time and the level of resources required for protection and we would not implement super-canopy tree recruitment measures. The eagle and

4-42 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Effects on Floodplain, Lake Shore, and Riparian Habitats and Species

osprey aquatic food base would more likely be adversely Bald Eagle & Osprey Protection Under Alternative A affected under alternative A • Protect and maintain super-canopy nesting trees on than B or C because current and future refuge lands. watershed conservation would • Inventory active and historic nesting sites each year be limited to current lands and lands within the acquisition • Continue bald eagle and osprey surveys in conjunction boundary. with the States of Maine and New Hampshire, and conservation partners Impacts to Floodplain, We propose a modest • Maintain and/or install as warranted, predator guards on Lake Shore, and Riparian increase in acquisition and all active nesting trees. Habitats and Species from conservation of floodplain, • Continue to implement area closures around bald eagle Alternative B lakeshore, and riparian habitat nest trees; place visible ﬂ oating buoys and signs to alert under alternative B as well all boaters to closure area. as a substantial upgrade in • Continue to work cooperatively with State agencies and our management actions to NGO’s on bald eagle and osprey management. conserve and improve this habitat for focal species. We would continue to conserve the refuge’s current 1,372 acres of floodplain, lakeshore, and riparian habitat (see table 4.11) under alternative B while seeking to acquire 289 acres of wooded floodplain and 288 acres of lakeshore pine- hemlock habitat—a combined 577 acre increase—from willing sellers within the current refuge boundary and in the expansion area. This increase would be of the same order of magnitude as those proposed under alternatives A and C.

We plan a greater amount of restoration for the alternative B expansion area to benefit primarily riparian habitat. The localized short term impacts and long term benefits of restoration projects would be similar to alternative A. The impacts of construction projects also would be similar to alternative A.

A greater increase in refuge visitation would cause minimally higher risk than alternative A of localized habitat impacts from recreational activities.

Management of remote camping would be upgraded under alternative B to minimize the impacts to floodplain and lakeshore habitats described above. Mitigation would include:

■ Establishing a program of increased outreach on-site, and increased enforcement of rules and regulations to minimize illegal camping

■ Possibly designating some sites as “one night only” for paddlers moving through the area

■ Providing campers with an orientation and overview of rules and regulations and Leave No Trace program

■ Restoring sites or seasonally closing sites as needed to conserve resources

■ Removing camping at North 1 and North 2 sites along Route 16

■ Improving campsites to address safety and long term sustainability without habitat degradation

There would be increased benefits to vernal pools on more than 47,000 acres of expansion lands where vernal pools would be inventoried and protected under alternative B.

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-43 Effects on Floodplain, Lake Shore, and Riparian Habitats and Species

Wooded Floodplain We would acquire or manage under easement as much as 289 additional acres of wooded floodplain habitat under alternative B both within the current refuge boundary and in the expansion area. This increase in acreage from the current 1,140 acres in Service ownership would increase benefits to cavity nesting waterfowl, northern parula, and rusty blackbird because of the increased land conservation and the active management techniques that would be employed.

Mapping and monitoring of the Magalloway River floodplain would be conducted. We would restore the hydrology of the Day Flats area by plugging ditches and re-contouring the disturbed areas. This action may cause immediate short-term erosion and sedimentation while the project is underway to restore this partially developed site to a wooded wetland. We would employ best management practices to mitigate these effects.

Lakeshore Pine-Hemlock The additional acreage of lakeshore pine-hemlock we would acquire Expanded Bald Eagle & Osprey under alternative B would be the Protection under Alternative B same 288 as noted above for alternative A. This increase in All alternative A measures plus: acreage, from the current 232 • Protect and maintain super-canopy trees within acres, would provide some minimal 1 mile of high quality foraging habitat to support benefit to jack pine, bald eagle, nesting and perching by bald eagles and osprey. osprey, and other raptors because • Protect individual nest trees with at least a 300- there would be less than 1 square- foot no-touch buffer area. mile of this type under Service • Ensure recruitment of new nest trees; identify protection. stands with potential. • Manipulate pines in high quality raptor habitat Bald Eagle and Osprey areas to promote new nesting sites There would be increased bald • Control human access with potential to disturb eagle and osprey benefits from nest sites. conservation of the lakeshore pine-hemlock habitat and active • Protect historic nest sites, nest trees, and trees with partially constructed nests management to eliminate human disturbance and protect and recruit • Work with States to support efforts to eliminate nesting trees. practices that contribute lead and other contaminants to the lake. We would upgrade our management • Ensure recruitment of new nest trees; identify activities under alternative B to stands with this potential. protect bald eagles and osprey (text box) by implementing more stringent measures to protect nesting trees and instituting measures to ensure nesting trees are available within 1 mile of foraging habitat.

The risk of human disturbance would increase slightly from increased visitation which would be mitigated by our upgrade in management.

Water quality would be improved or maintained through monitoring. The eagle and osprey aquatic food base would be better protected by expanded watershed and open water and submerged aquatic vegetation habitat conservation.

New Headquarters and Visitor Contact Facility We propose to construct a new refuge headquarters and visitor contact facility at the Potter Farm tract on the south shore of Umbagog Lake. The Potter Farm site is common to Alternatives B and C, but the size of the facility differs depending

4-44 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Effects on Floodplain, Lake Shore, and Riparian Habitats and Species

on the alternative. Alternative B proposes a small office, as defined by the new Service facility standards, while alternative C proposes a medium office facility.

The Potter Farm site is an abandoned farm site with a house and barn immediately surrounded by fields and adjacent to wooded areas and the Lake. The site does not currently support important lakeshore vegetation such as mature white pine stands, so construction of the new headquarters and visitor contact facility would not directly adversely impact vegetation although construction would preclude restoration of the Potter Farm site to lakeshore forest in the future.

Visitor access to the new facility would be provided by new surfacing of the section of Mountain Pond Road from U.S. Highway 26 to Potter Farm Road and new surfacing of Potter Farm Road. Surfacing would be upgraded from the current single lane gravel surfacing to a 24-foot 2-lane paved surface which would require construction of a full depth gravel section for the entire width of the roadway and reconstruction of all roadside swales and culverts. Surfacing impacts would be localized with effects to the road shoulder areas and the environment immediately downgradient of the swales and culverts. Best management practices for road construction would be employed in upgrading the road, including review of culvert designs and use of silt fences and debris catchments to minimize the potential for erosion and sedimentation impacts to the Thurston Cove and Big Island portions of the Lake. Best Management Practices (BMPs) and ancillary precautions would be defined in an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan to be approved by the Service before the reconstruction contract is approved.

Visitor Infrastructure In conjunction with the proposal to develop a new administrative and visitor contact facility, alternatives B and C propose to construct an interpretive trail at the Potter Farm site. A conceptual design and tentative location for a trail were identified by Oak Point Associates in their report. The trail was approximately 2 miles long, and would be designed to allow travel by people with disabilities.

Alternatives B and C also propose additional visitor facilities along major travel routes, including 2 roadside pullouts, and an overlook platform on Route 26. Each of these sites would have an information kiosk, and provide parking for several vehicles. Both alternatives propose a ¼ mile loop extension to the Magalloway River accessible to people with disabilities (ADA compliant).

Impacts to Floodplain, Similar to alternative B, we propose a minor increase in acquisition and Lake Shore, and Riparian conservation of floodplain, lakeshore, and riparian habitat under alternative C Habitats and Species from although we would not implement specific management actions for focal species. Alternative C Rather we would manage this habitat to reflect what would occur under natural environmental influences. We would continue to conserve the refuge’s current 1,372 acres of floodplain, lakeshore, and riparian habitat (see table 4.11) under alternative C and seek to acquire 293 acres of wooded floodplain and 288 acres of lakeshore pine-hemlock habitat—a 581 acre increase—from willing sellers within the current refuge boundary and in the expansion area. This increase would be of the same order of magnitude as those proposed under alternatives B and C.

The localized short term impacts and long term benefits of restoration projects would be similar to alternative B.

The greater increase in visitation under this alternative as compared to alternative B would cause a minimally higher risk of localized habitat impacts from recreational activities.

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-45 Effects on Floodplain, Lake Shore, and Riparian Habitats and Species

Remote camping would continue to have localized, long term impacts to lakeshore and floodplain habitats. Like alternative B, remote camping on the existing designated sites would continue to be allowed, but we would increase monitoring of individual sites, and rehabilitate, or close permanently or seasonally those in need of restoration. Increased efforts would be made to address these problems under this alternative. Our emphasis on a wilderness-type camping experience would further reduce impacts compared to alternatives A and B.

There would be increased benefits to vernal pools on more than 74,414 acres of expansion lands because those vernal pools would be inventoried and protected under alternative C.

Wooded Floodplain We would acquire in fee as much as 293 additional acres of wooded floodplain habitat under alternative C within the current refuge boundary and in the expansion area. Similar to alternative B, this increase in acreage from the current 1,140 acres in Service ownership would increase benefits to cavity nesting waterfowl, northern parula, and rusty blackbird because of the increased land conservation and any active management techniques that would be employed in the near term to promote establishment of a sustainable floodplain community.

We would restore the hydrology of the Day Flats area by plugging ditches and re-contouring the disturbed areas. This action may cause immediate short-term erosion and sedimentation while the project is underway to restore this partially developed site to a wooded wetland. We would employ best management practices to mitigate these effects.

Lakeshore Pine-Hemlock Alternative C would have the same habitat conservation and site restoration benefits, and short-term impacts, as alternative B. Additional acreage to be identified in the expansion area would minimally increase benefits to jack pine, bald eagle, osprey, other raptors by providing additional nesting and roosting habitat. We would acquire the same 288 acres of lakeshore pine-hemlock under alternative C as noted earlier under alternatives A and B. This increase in acreage from the current 232 acres would provide minimal benefit to jack pine, bald eagle, osprey, and other raptors because there would be less than 1 square- mile of this type under Service conservation.

Bald Eagle and Osprey Under alternative C we would institute the same measures proposed under alternative B to enhance bald eagle and osprey protection and recruitment so the same benefits and impacts would result.

There would be an increased risk of human disturbance from increased refuge visitation under alternative C that would be mitigated by our proposed upgrade in management.

Water quality would be improved or maintained through increased monitoring efforts and the eagle and osprey aquatic food base thereby better protected by expanded watershed and open water and submerged aquatic vegetation conservation.

New Headquarters and Visitor Contact Facility Same impacts as described above for Alternative B under this subject heading.

Visitor Infrastructure Same impacts as described above for Alternative B under this subject heading.

4-46 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Effects on Upland Forest Matrix Habitats and Species

Effects on Upland The upland forest matrix in and near the refuge is vital to conserving the refuge Forest Matrix watershed while providing habitat and movement corridors for wildlife of the Habitats and Species Northern Forest and ensuring long-term recreational opportunities for refuge visitors. Conserving the Lake Umbagog refuge forest matrix to sustain and enhance these values would continue to be a major refuge goal.

Management actions proposed for each of the refuge CCP alternatives were evaluated and compared on the basis of their potential to benefit or adversely affect upland forest habitats and focal species.

We compared the benefits of the alternatives from actions that would conserve or restore upland forests and improve conditions for focal species, including the extent to which we would:

acquire and conserve upland forest lands

restore camp sites to promote forest growth

engage in forest management practices on former privately managed lands that would increase rotations and lead to more mature forest

improve forest conservation and management to alter forest composition so that it best supports focal bird species

improve forest conservation and management to create habitat and travel corridors to benefit mammalian focal species

The potential adverse effects of the refuge management alternatives that were evaluated included impacts from:

Forest management activities that include tree cutting and construction and use of skid trails and haul roads

Increased recreational use of current and newly acquired upland forests that could lead to habitat impacts or disturbance of wildlife

Impacts to Upland Forest Forest Management.—Regardless of the alternative selected, we would use at Matrix Habitats and Focal a minimum all BMPs recommended by the States of New Hampshire and Maine Species That Would Not (see appendix K) to conduct forest management activities in the refuge uplands. Vary by Alternative These BMPs would protect sensitive habitat components such as vernal pools and focal species nesting sites.

Impacts from increased visitation.—Potential impacts to upland forests and focal species from our priority, wildlife-dependent public use programs and camping, is the same as described under “Floodplain, Lakeshore, and Riparian Habitat Impacts that would not vary by Alternative.”

In addition, there are potential impacts from snowmobiling which would continue at current use levels under all alternatives. Appendix C includes a compatibility determination for snowmobiling which summarizes a literature review of potential impacts. None of those studies were conducted locally, however, and direct extrapolations to the refuge are difficult. In general, the greatest potential impact is with resident winter mammals and raptors, such as the bald eagle. Some of the wildlife and habitat impacts described in the compatibility determination are:

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-47 Effects on Upland Forest Matrix Habitats and Species

■ increased energy expenditure by wildlife in response to the disturbance; increased heart rate, activity, or actual flight could each result in an energetic cost, which is exacerbated in severe winters or in individual animals in poor health or condition

■ displacement to suboptimal habitat or areas where forage and cover are a lower quality

■ alteration of behavior where disturbed animals may change their foraging times to periods when energy losses or exposure to predators is higher

■ changes in community composition and inter-species interactions

■ improved predator access to prey wintering areas (a benefit for predators, but a negative impact on prey)

■ direct mortality from snowmobile-wildlife collisions.

■ Two potential positive impacts noted are:

■ reduced energy expenditure by wildlife where snow compaction and trail creation reduces energy expenditure in otherwise deep snow

■ improved access to resources whereby compacted trails expand access to foraging areas Winter on the refuge Snowmobile trails on the refuge are located almost entirely on existing hardened roads built to support commercial logging operations. Impacts from snowmobiling on these surfaces relating to soil and vegetation have been effectively mitigated by the use of these roads as the location for the trails. Water courses are crossed with bridges and culverts designed to support trucks and other heavy equipment, therefore additional impacts from snowmobiling is unlikely. Snowmobile trails throughout the area have been established for many years and pre-date refuge ownership. Wildlife impacts are considered minimal since potentially affected wildlife are generally accustomed to this use. Increases in emission regulations by the EPA along with the increase in the number of 4-stroke and new cleaner 2-stroke engines in modern snowmobiles has and will continue to reduce potential impacts to the environment. An increased law enforcement presence from a Refuge Law Enforcement Officer and the Zone Officer will ensure compliance with snowmobile restrictions. Monitoring will identify any actions needed to respond to new information and correct problems that may arise in the future.

Based on available information and at current and anticipated levels and patterns of use, and given our monitoring, outreach and enforcement programs, we predict the effects of snowmobiling on designated refuge trails, considered separately or

Paul Casey/USFWS Paul cumulatively, would not constitute significant short-term or long-term impacts on upland habitats. However, we plan to evaluate all trails on a 5 year basis to ensure no site-specific impacts develop. Some of these trails may be re-routed, if it is determined that they have a significant negative impact on wildlife or habitat.

With regards to hunting, our April 2007 amended EA for the refuge’s current hunt program (alternative 2 in that EA), which we incorporate by reference herein, provides an impact analysis on upland forest wildlife species affected by our program. Our proposal under alternative B and C to consider adding a new turkey hunt on refuge lands in both states, and a new bobcat hunt on refuge lands in Maine, consistent with respective states’ regulations, would be fully analyzed in a separate environmental analysis. We would plan to initiate that analysis

4-48 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Effects on Upland Forest Matrix Habitats and Species

within two years of CCP approval and would include opportunities for public involvement.

Impacts to Upland Forest Under alternative A, we would continue to conserve the refuge’s current 10,845 Matrix Habitats and Focal acres of upland spruce-fir, mixed, and northern hardwood forest (see table Species from Alternative A 4.12). We would also seek to acquire and conserve an additional 4,838 acres of upland forest—a 37 percent increase in acreage—from willing sellers within the current refuge boundary. This increase would be of much more limited benefit to upland habitats and focal species when compared with adding as much as 43,928 upland forest acres under alternative B or 69,702 acres under alternative C. The additional acreage to be acquired in their respective expansion areas would more than double the refuge’s conserved upland forest habitat.

Table 4.12. Upland mixed forest matrix habitat acquisition proposed by alternative ABC

current still Habitat refuge to be Refuge Easement Fee + Refuge Refuge Type acres acquired Total Fee Acres Acres Easement Total Fee Only Total

Spruce-fir 2,346 956 3,302 14,476 11,085 25,561 28,863 11,468 14,770

Mixed Forest 3,859 2,454 6,313 5,521 5,731 10,952 17,265 27,918 34,231

Northern hardwoods 4,640 1,428 6,068 3,804 3,611 7,415 13,483 30,316 36,384

Forest Matrix 10,845 4,838 15,683 23,501 20,427 43,928 59,611 69,702 85,385

We would not engage in forest management practices on former privately managed lands that would increase rotations and lead to more mature forest under alternative A. We would not actively manage the forest to improve forest structure or alter forest composition so that it best supports focal bird species. Our management role would be passive so we would not engage in harvesting. However, we expect that natural succession and disturbance would eventually lead to mature forests with a larger softwood component. Forest succession alone would be the only means by which habitat to benefit mammalian focal species would be created.

Because we would not actively manage the forests under alternative A, there would be no impacts from tree cutting or construction and use of skid trails and haul roads.

Acquisition of 4,838 upland forest matrix acres and increased visitation under alternative A would minimally increase off-trail disturbance of upland forests with habitat impacts or disturbance of wildlife.

Because natural succession would be the only mechanism through which the upland areas would recover from ice storms, wind throw or other natural disturbances, and there would be a far more limited acreage in refuge uplands (approximately 15,000 acres) under alternative A, any significant disturbance event could have serious implications so far as the potential for the natural disturbance to diminish the habitat value of those portions of the refuge for long periods

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-49 Effects on Upland Forest Matrix Habitats and Species

Snowmobiling would continue to be allowed with Forest management on the refuge will generally follow use confined to the two recommendations in the following publications: state-designated trails. • Forestry habitat management guidelines for vernal pool Appendix C includes a wildlife in Maine (Calhoun and deMaynadier 2003). compatibility determination • Buffers for wetlands and surface waters: a guidebook for for snowmobiling which New Hampshire municipalities (Chase et al. 1997). describes potential impacts from this activity. However, • Best management practices for erosion control on timber allowing snowmobiling only harvesting operations in New Hampshire (Cullen 2000). on established trails means • Biodiversity in the forests of Maine: guidelines for land any important habitat and management (Flatebo et al. 1999). wildlife impacts have • Good forestry in the granite state: recommended voluntary already occurred. Some forest management practices for New Hampshire level of winter wildlife (NHFSSWT 1997). disturbance effects would • Management guide for deer wintering areas in Vermont continue. (Reay et al. 1990). Spruce-fir Habitat Type • Guide to New Hampshire timber harvesting laws (Smith and Under alternative A, Whitney 2001). acquiring up to 956 acres to total 3,302 refuge acres of spruce-fir conserved would benefit refuge focal species. However, we would not implement any measures to directly enhance mature spruce-fir habitats to benefit blackburnian or black-throated green warblers. We would continue to work with partners to conserve deer winter yards which would maintain some localized mature spruce fir stands preferred by these species. Through natural succession spruce-fir is expected to become a larger component of the upland forests, so this would also tend to benefit the warblers. Deer would benefit from winter yard conservation on current and newly acquired lands.

Under alternative A, there would be no active forest management so there would be no management-related adverse impacts.

Mixed Woods Habitat Type Under alternative A, acquiring up to 2,454 acres to achieve a total of 6,313 refuge acres of mixed woods conserved would benefit refuge focal species. As noted for spruce-fir we would not implement any measures to directly enhance mixed forest to promote the spruce or fir habitat components to benefit Canada, black- throated green, and blackburnian warblers. American woodcock Through natural succession spruce and fir are expected to become a larger component of the upland forests, so this would tend to benefit the warblers. There would be no benefits to woodcock because no active woodcock management would occur. In general, maturing forest with few large disturbed sites would not support woodcock. However, because there would be no active forest management there would be no management related adverse impacts.

Northern Hardwoods Habitat Type USFWS Acquiring up to 1,428 acres to total 6,068 refuge acres of Northern hardwoods conserved would benefit refuge focal species. But we would not actively manage northern hardwood stands to promote dense understory to benefit black-throated blue warblers, or intolerant hardwoods to benefit woodcock production, Canada warbler or other early successional species. We would be limited to relying on whatever natural disturbances occur to promote early successional growth. No active management, however, means there would be no management related adverse impacts.

4-50 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Effects on Upland Forest Matrix Habitats and Species

Impacts to Upland Forest We propose to greatly expand conservation of upland habitats at the refuge and Matrix Habitats and Focal to institute a wide range of significant upgrades in our management of upland Species from Alternative B focal species under alternative B. We would continue to conserve the refuge’s current 10,845 acres of upland forest (see table 4.12) under alternative B and propose acquiring the remaining 4,838 acres within the current refuge boundary and 43,928 additional forested acres in the alternative B expansion area (see map 2-7). In all we plan to conserve 59,611 acres of upland forest matrix.

We would not implement forest habitat management on expansion lands within 15 years of CCP approval except for pre-commercial thinnings or other pre-commercial operations, until the forest has recovered from recent harvesting. Silvicultural practices on about 4,000 acres within the refuge acquisition boundary may cause some of the adverse effect described below, but implementation of best forest management practices would minimize effects. We would avoid impacts to all sensitive environments on the refuge by adhering to strict operability standards that prohibit or severely restrict forest management on protected resources and in buffer areas.

There would be the same type of wildlife disturbance impacts from snowmobiling as discussed above, but there would be more trails monitored because of refuge expansion. Precluding installation of additional infrastructure to support snowmobiling would limit such impacts by limiting time spent on the refuge. We would relocate trail portions where needed to meet habitat goals and would close and restore unauthorized trails.

Spruce-fir Habitat Type Acquiring up to 25,561 acres to total 28,863 refuge acres of spruce-fir conserved would increase benefits to refuge focal species. We would implement specific measures to enhance spruce-fir habitats on current and expansion area lands under alternative B to benefit blackburnian and black-throated green warblers, and to promote growth of travel corridors for lynx and other larger mammals. Forest management measures are detailed in the habitat management plan that includes using silvicultural methods on spruce-fir management units such as thinnings, small patch cuttings, and overstory removal to enhance regeneration of spruce. Rotations used to favor spruce would be 100 to 120 years; for fir 80 years.

All of these silvicultural techniques pose some risk of causing adverse impacts on, adjacent to, and downgradient of the site as well as on access roads and skid trails. Forest practices could damage the litter layer, coarse woody debris, snags, or cavity trees important for wildlife. They may alter the moisture regimes in soil and on the forest floor in ways that affect plants and animals such as forest floor amphibians and small mammals. Other potential effects include soil disturbance, compaction, and erosion on site and on access roads and skid trails, elimination or displacement of individual animals inhabiting the treated site, loss of nesting, roosting, or raptor perching trees, and increased risk of colonization by invasive plants. Residual stand damage may result in the introduction of insects or disease into an otherwise healthy stand. Harvesting may also leave the remaining trees more susceptible to wind throw. Best forest management practices (see text box) would be followed to ensure that any effects on managed land would be minimized.

We would avoid direct impacts to all sensitive environments on the refuge by adhering to BMPs and restricting management in high sensitivity zones and industry inoperable areas.

We would continue to work with partners to conserve deer wintering areas which would maintain some localized mature spruce fir stands preferred by these species.

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-51 Effects on Upland Forest Matrix Habitats and Species

Mixed Woods Habitat Type Acquiring up to 10,952 acres to total 17,265 refuge acres of mixed woods conserved would substantially increase benefits to refuge focal species. Similar to our proposal for spruce-fir habitat, we would implement measures under alternative B to enhance mixed woods habitat, focusing principally on the spruce and fir components of these habitats and on patches of early successional habitat. Management would be conducted on current refuge lands and fee acquired expansion lands to benefit blackburnian and Canada warblers and woodcock in woodcock focus areas. We would use the same techniques and rotations described above for spruce and fir. We would create and maintain openings and promote early successional hardwoods for woodcock in woodcock focus areas. These measures are detailed in the habitat management plan.

The potential for adverse impacts would be similar to what we Impacts of Forest Roads on Birds described for spruce-fir above, with a slightly greater degree of risk of “We studied the effect of maintained and soil erosion from openings unmaintained forest roads on (1) forest bird nest maintained for woodcock. Potential survival, (2) reproductive parameters of ovenbirds impacts of human disturbance (Seiurus aurocapillus) potentially associated with caused by refuge visitors would be food abundance, and (3) habitat and microclimate at six sites on the White Mountain National limited by the relative remoteness of Forest, New Hampshire, during two breeding the woodcock management sites. seasons. We conclude that small, unsurfaced forest roads at low road density do not result in Northern Hardwoods Habitat decreases in forest passerine bird productivity in Type extensively forested areas in New England.” (King Acquiring up to 7,415 acres to total and DeGraaf 2002) 13,483 refuge acres of Northern hardwood forest conserved would benefit refuge focal species. Their benefits would increase through active management to promote dense understory to benefit black-throated blue warblers, and intolerant hardwoods to benefit woodcock production, Canada warbler or other early successional species.

There would be adverse impacts from silvicultural operations, including those noted above under spruce-fir. These impacts would generally be short-term, localized at managed sites, and mitigated by best forest management practices.

Impacts to Upland Forest Similar to alternative B, we propose a major expansion in the total acreage Matrix Habitats and Focal of upland forest matrix we would conserve at the refuge under alternative C. Species from Alternative C However, our management objectives under alternative C are designed to attain certain forest characteristics rather than to directly optimize focal species conservation and productivity.

Under alternative C we would not employ specific forest management measures targeted at focal species but rather manage the forest in large, contiguous blocks greater than 25,000 acres to provide a mosaic of composition and maturity that would be characteristic of these forests under natural patterns of disturbance and succession. We expect that, in general, focal species would ultimately benefit as these natural characteristics are attained, but we would not alter our management approach even if it is determined that certain focal species do not benefit.

To manage the forest at such a landscape scale requires us to acquire a greater expansion area than proposed under alternative B. While we would continue to conserve the refuge’s current 10,845 acres of upland forest and acquire 4,838 acres within the current refuge boundary, we would seek an additional 69,702 forested acres in the alternative C expansion area (see map 2-11). In all we would conserve 85,385 acres of upland forest.

4-52 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Effects on Upland Forest Matrix Habitats and Species

The silvicultural practices employed under alternative C and their potential impacts, best management practices, and operability restrictions to conserve sensitive environments would be the same as alternative B. The cumulative direct forest management effects would be similar to but more limited than alternative B because of smaller cuts (4%) to management units.

Snowmobiling impacts would be limited to current trails where any substantive habitat and wildlife impacts have generally already occurred. Winter wildlife disturbance effects would continue

Spruce-fir Habitat Type The spruce-fir habitat benefits would similar to alternative B, with major expansion of 11,468 acres to total 14,770 of spruce-fir forest conserved under alternative C. However, there would be no refuge focal species management measures. Forest management effects would be similar to but more limited than alternative B because of the smaller cuts (4%) to each management unit. There would be lower cumulative effects over the type within the Umbagog Lake watershed. Deer would benefit from conserving mature and maturing stands on expansion lands.

The techniques we would use to manage spruce-fir under alternative C to achieve a pattern characteristic of the diversity of the spruce-fir type under natural disturbance patterns would include small group selection and individual tree removal with longer entry intervals to promote older aged stands of 150 years or greater. These forest management methods would likely have effects similar to those described previously for alternative B with more limited direct effects to management sites and lower cumulative effects over the type within the Upper Bob Harris/USFWS Androscoggin River watershed. Moose are common in the spruce-fir forest The exception to this would occur where an insect outbreak affects a major portion of the forest, up to 2,500 acres, or we determine that cutting a large area is necessary to simulate the effects of an insect outbreak or major blowdown event. Should such a requirement be identified in the future, we would conduct a full NEPA analysis of the forest management project.

Mixed Woods Habitat Type There would be benefits similar to alternative B, with a major expansion of 27,918 acres to total 34,231 of mixed woods conserved under alternative C. However, we would implement no refuge focal species management measures. We would use small group selection, on up to 1/2-acre sites, to increase the softwood component of the mixed woods stands. This forest landscape mosaic would benefit Canada warblers where there is sufficient dense understory and blackburnian warblers where there are sufficient mature conifers. Impacts on these sites would be more limited than those described for alternative B on similar sites because the cuts would be smaller and entry to stands would be less frequent. In the long term, we would not likely be able to achieve as high a population density of either bird species on refuge lands because we would not be cutting back mature stands as frequently or over as large a portion of this type and therefore not creating as much optimal habitat as we would under alternative B.

We would not specify woodcock management focus areas under alternative C and would not promote woodcock as a major focal species. We would manage for natural clearings and early successional components in mixed stands that would be part of the mosaic of stand composition sought under this alternative. These clearings would benefit woodcock only if singing grounds and large openings for night roosting are sufficient in number and proximity to the woodcock’s other necessary habitat components to adequately support the species.

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-53 Effects on Public Use and Access

Northern Hardwoods Habitat Type There would be benefits similar to alternative B with major expansion of 30,316 acres to total 36,384 of Northern hardwood forest conserved under alternative C but no refuge focal species management measures. We would use small group and single tree selection cuts of ¼ acre or less to create all-aged stands in this type with a median canopy tree age of 150 years. These openings would be employed to simulate tree fall gaps. Impacts on these sites would be more limited than those described for alternative B on similar sites because the cuts would be smaller and entry to stands would be less frequent. In the long term, we would not likely be able to achieve as high a population density of either bird species on refuge lands because we would not be cutting back mature stands as frequently or over as large a portion of this type and therefore not creating as much optimal habitat as we would under alternative B.

As noted above, these clearings would benefit woodcock only if singing grounds and large openings for night roosting are sufficient in number and proximity to the woodcock’s other necessary habitat components to adequately support the species.

Effects on Public Use Since refuge lands are held in the public trust by the Service, access is generally and Access allowed for compatible, priority wildlife-dependent public uses unless Federal trust resource would be impacted, or the activity would detract from achieving refuge purposes or the Refuge System mission, or because administrative resources are not available to ensure a safe, quality experience. Lake Umbagog Refuge is currently open to the following priority wildlife-dependent public uses: hunting, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation. Under all alternatives we would officially open the refuge to fishing, which according to Service policy, is another priority, wildlife- dependent public use. Other popular activities allowed on the refuge include, but are not limited to: remote lake camping in designated sites, snowmobiling in designated areas dogsledding, and motorized and non-motorized boating. We will also officially open the refuge to the following activities by incorporating the following compatibility determinations in this Environmental Impact Statement: “Recreational Gathering of Blueberries, Blackberries, Strawberries, Rapsberires, Mushrooms, Fiddleheads and Antlersheds,” “Horseback Riding,” and “Bicycling.”

Some regionally popular activities are not allowed on the refuge as described in chapter 2-alternatives. These include: ATV or other motorized ORV use; personal watercraft; personal motorized equipment such as segways; competitions or organized group events (e.g. fishing derbies, dog trials, or mountain bike or cross-

Ian Drew/USFWS country ski or boat races); geocaching, and camping outside of designated sites. Fishing on Magalloway River Table 4.8 provides a summary of projected annual visitation by the major activities allowed for each alternative. We evaluated the benefits of the following management actions with the potential to affect the level of opportunity or visitor experience for those major activities listed:

■ Service fee simple land acquisition provides permanent access for approved activities

■ Improvements and/or new construction of visitor infrastructure, and the increased distribution of refuge information, will improve visitor experiences

■ Increased partnerships with local, regional, and state recreational interests will encourage a diversity of sustainable opportunities

■ Increased outreach and Service visibility to promote resource stewardship and outdoor ethics

4-54 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Effects on Public Use and Access

We evaluated and compared the following impacts that refuge management actions could have on the level of opportunity and visitor experiences:

■ Refuge acquisition may result in the elimination of non-wildlife dependent, non-priority activities that are presently allowed by the current owner

■ Refuge activities may attract an unanticipated increase in visitation, resulting in increased conflicts or negative encounters among users

Confusion could result over ownership boundaries and which laws, rules, and regulations apply

Public Use and Access The Magalloway River Trail, its new extension, and the new Potter Farm area Impacts That Would Not trails would be maintained and/or developed in Alternatives B and C. This Vary by Alternative infrastructure would be built to comply with the American with Disabilities Act standards, affording the only opportunity we are aware of in the area for an accessible outdoor experience off of a major road. All alternatives would also continue to allow snowmobile use on designated routes and allow remote lake camping in designated sites. These are some of the most popular activities occurring on the refuge. The opportunity provided for these two activities on the refuge is important because eliminating them would have regional implications. For example, the refuge snowmobile trails are important links in a regional interstate network of trails and disrupting that use would diminish a very important social and economic activity for the area. Remote lake camping in the area is very limited and offers a very unique opportunity for a visitor to immerse themselves in nature. It should be noted, however, that none of the alternatives propose to expand these activities on current refuge lands. Nevertheless, we predict we would be able to meet demand for these activities, within the current capacity of the refuge to maintain them and still meet refuge goals and objectives, over the next 15 years.

Our April 2007 amended EA for the refuge’s current hunt program (alternative 2 in that EA), which we incorporate by reference herein, provides additional impacts analysis (USFWS, 2007).

As lands acre acquired for the refuge, we would plan to continue to allow the six priority, wildlife-dependent activities, except under extenuating circumstances unforeseen at this time. However, there may be activities allowed by the current owner that we would not allow to continue once acquired for the refuge. The list of popular activities not allowed on refuge lands was noted above. We are not sure how much these activities are occurring on lands proposed for acquisition, but suspect activities such as ATV use, dirt biking, and off-road mountain biking occur. Some people engaged in these activities would shift their use to other ownerships, including the White Mountain National Forest and town lands. Other people, including some that may be local residents in Errol, NH or Upton, ME, may use these lands exclusively, and be forced to quit the activity.

Public Use and Access Alternative A would result in Service acquisition of 7,482 acres from willing Impacts of Alternative A sellers to add to the approved boundary, increasing opportunities for priority public uses commensurately. A 10% increase over current visitation, resulting in an expected 55,150 annual visitors over the next 15 years, is predicted based on regional tourism trends, increased Service land acquisition, and planned visitor services activities. We do not anticipate that this increase would adversely affect resources or the use or enjoyment by visitors because the increases projected for the refuge would be well-distributed. The only potential for increased adverse effects, or increased conflict, between or among users may occur with visitors engaged in boating. While we rarely hear complaints from visitors, those that we do hear are typically about incidents between non-motorized and motorized boaters. Or, we have heard from adjacent private landowners who complain about trash and human waste being left on their lands from lake and river boater

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-55 Effects on Public Use and Access

trespass. Alternative A does not propose to regulate these activities, but we would continue to respond to complaints on a case-by-case basis.

There is an increasing local demand for interpretive and educational programs as evidenced by the numerous requests we receive. Our current staffing level and management priorities limit our ability to respond to all requests. Two interpretive programs a year, and participation in two local community events, is our current limit. Under alternative A, we would continue not to be able to meet demand for these activities.

Our current hunting program and infrastructure would be maintained, including the six waterfowl hunting blinds. According to state wildlife biologists responsible for the Umbagog area, hunting pressure is considered light for northern New Hampshire and western Maine. We believe we are accommodating all hunters who want to use the area. Hunting appears to be well-distributed and we rarely hear complaints about its administration. Neither our observations of hunters, nor feedback from them, or comments from other refuge visitors, has demonstrated to us that we need to place any additional restrictions on hunting.

We predict that fishing opportunities would not appreciably increase, despite our formally opening up the refuge to fishing, since fishing currently occurs. Similar to hunting, our observations indicate that fishing is well-distributed, and self- regulated, and we rarely hear complaints.

Public Use and Access Alternative B would result in Service acquisition of 26,840 acres in fee simple Impacts of Alternative B from willing sellers to add to the approved boundary, increasing permanent opportunities for priority public uses commensurately. In particular, those engaged in hunting, wildlife observation and nature photography would benefit from the expansion. An increase over current visitation, resulting in an expected 90,950 annual visitors over the next 15 years, is predicted based on regional tourism trends, increased Service land acquisition, and planned visitor services activities Most of the increase in visitation under Alternatives B and C is based on the number of people that currently recreate on lands that will be acquired by the refuge. While it is not a real increase in visitation or economic activity to the area, the refuge land acquisition maintains recreation access that is not The Magalloway River guaranteed under Alternative A. Trail With the proposed expanded land base, and proposed new trail and wildlife viewing infrastructure, most of the upland activities would continue to be well-distributed and the variety of interpretive and wildlife observation opportunities, in particular, would increase. We would not appreciably expand our environmental education program, and similar to alternative A, would not likely meet demand until we develop partnerships as planned to facilitate the design and implementation of educational programs on refuge lands. Under alternative B, we would also continue to develop a Friends Group, provide volunteer opportunities, and maintain the Youth Conservation Corps; all of which are programs that will increase Service presence and community outreach.

What we predict to increase is conflicts among boaters, as described under alternative A. To combat this concern, alternative B proposes to work within the structure of the Umbagog Working Group to develop strategies to address these conflicts, including the development of thresholds of acceptable change, capacity limits, or controlled access, which would be implemented among the resource agencies with jurisdiction on the lake. Alternative B would also implement: improved outreach programs, increased Service to visitor contacts, improved informational and educational materials, and develop a promotional campaign to

Ian Drew/USFWS improve boater ethics, as strategies to minimize these conflicts.

4-56 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Effects on Cultural Resources

Under alternative B, the two refuge river campsites would be eliminated and restored to native vegetation. While these sites have been popular, and are occupied most weekends during July and August, their condition is deteriorating, and creating soil and water impacts. These sites will be closed and not be replaced, which we expect will be a concern to some visitors. The hunt program under alternative B would evaluate the potential of additional hunting opportunities by considering two new seasons, one for turkey hunting on refuge lands in both states, and a bobcat season on refuge lands in Maine, both consistent with respective states’ regulations. We plan to analyze the impacts of those additional seasons on hunters and other refuge visitors in a separate environmental analysis. We would initiate that analysis within two years of CCP approval and would include opportunities for public involvement. Fishing impacts are similar to alternative A.

Public Use and Access Alternative C would result in Service acquisition of 74,414 acres in fee simple Impacts of Alternative C from willing sellers to add to the approved boundary, increasing permanent opportunities for priority public uses commensurately. As with alternative B, those engaged in hunting, wildlife observation and nature photography would particularly benefit from the expansion. An increase over current visitation, resulting in an expected 93,700 annual visitors over the next 15 years, is predicted based on regional tourism trends, increased Service land acquisition, and planned visitor services activities. With the proposed expanded land base, most of the upland activities would continue to be well-distributed.

Most of the increase in visitation under Alternatives B and C is based on the number of people that currently recreate on lands that will be acquired by the refuge. While it is not a real increase in visitation or economic activity to the area, the refuge land acquisition maintains recreation access that is not guaranteed under Alternative A.

Less planned infrastructure for interpretation would be developed under alternative C, otherwise most of the impacts described for alternative B actions apply to alternative C. The only other difference is that in an effort to create a more dispersed, back-country, low density hunting and fishing experience on refuge lands, we may implement a permit program to better disperse users and manage densities. A permit system will not be favored by some people who are opposed to any controls on, or manipulations of, their activity on public lands.

Effects on Cultural As we described in Chapter 3 – Affected Environment there are several sites on Resources the National Historic Register documented on or near refuge lands. We protect them, and would continue to do so, under state and federal historic preservation act requirements. Our actions with the potential to impact cultural resources are routinely reviewed and assessed under provisions of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. To date, projects requiring such reviews include an evaluation of whether certain cabins and the Potter Farm complex of buildings qualified as historic structures.

It is possible that unrecorded historic sites occur on lands proposed for acquisition under any alternative. Thus, the potential for permanent protection of presently unknown sites increases with the amount of refuge lands proposed for acquisition.

We expect none of the alternatives to have significant adverse impacts on cultural resources in New Hampshire or Maine. Beneficial impacts would occur at various levels, depending on the alternative, because of proposed environmental education and interpretation programs, and increased field surveys to identify and protect any discovered sites. In alternatives B and C we would identify high probability sites to survey more intensely. Furthermore, we would evaluate the potential to impact archeological and historical resources prior to any

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-57 Cumulative Impacts

ground disturbing actions, and would consult with respective SHPOs. We would especially be thorough in areas along streams and lakes where there is a higher probability of locating a site. This document has been submitted to both states of Maine and New Hampshire SHPOs for their review and concurrence. The Tribal Historic Preservation Officers from the federally-recognized tribes in Maine have also received this document for review.

Cumulative Impacts According to the Council on Environmental Quality NEPA implementing regulations at 40 CFR 1508.7, “Cumulative impact” is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.

This cumulative impacts assessment includes other agencies’ or organizations’ actions if they are inter-related and influence the same environment. Thus, this analysis considers the interaction of activities at the refuge with other actions occurring over a larger spatial and temporal frame of reference.

Air Quality None of the alternatives are expected to have significant cumulative adverse impacts on air quality locally or regionally in New Hampshire or Maine. Some short-term, local deterioration in air quality would be expected from air emissions of motor vehicles, motorboats, and snowmobiles used by refuge visitors and staff. Visitors would access the refuge primarily by automobile and snowmobile, with approximately 65 percent of the more than 90,000 annual visits expected to originate outside the Coos County – Oxford County area. However, the refuge is not expected to be a New England recreation destination. Most visitors would already be in the area or would be passing through the area on vacation and would seek out the refuge for a day trip. All snowmobile trails on the refuge would be through trails only; we would not provide parking, warming huts, or other infrastructure on refuge lands. Therefore, the presence of the refuge alone would only account for a small percentage of vehicle emissions generated in this area.

We predict no cumulative impacts to Class 1 air sheds from our actions; the closest Class 1 area being the Great Gulf Wilderness Area, approximately 45 miles to the southwest near Gorham, New Hampshire. The air quality and visibility problems that occur there are caused by ozone and particulate emissions from major sources to the west and south. Actions at the refuge would not contribute to that problem.

With our partners, we would continue to contribute to improving air quality through cooperative land conservation and management of natural vegetation and wetlands. Protecting land from development, which is happening at an increasing rate in New Hampshire and Maine, and maintaining it in natural upland vegetation or wetlands, assures these areas would continue to filter out many air pollutants harmful to humans and the environment.

Soils The greatest past, present, and foreseeable future adverse impacts on the Umbagog Lake and Upper Androscoggin River watershed soils are from timber management and development. We would improve watershed soil conditions and minimize site-level soil impacts through acquisition of commercially managed timber lands and other upland sites; vegetative restoration of developed sites, roads, and trails; employment of best management practices on building, road, and trail construction sites, cooperative land conservation of important habitat; and technical information exchange with landowners throughout these watersheds.

4-58 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Cumulative Impacts

We would accomplish this to some degree under alternative A. Under alternatives B and C we propose a major increase in Service land acquisition and a wide range of restoration and mitigation practices to improve soil conditions on all refuge lands in the watershed.

Hydrology and Water There would be cumulative benefits to hydrology and water quality from Quality restoration of camp sites, other disturbed sites, and unused roads and trails on acquired lands. There would also be cumulative benefits from more intensive measures to restore natural hydrology through such measures as culvert removal under alternative C.

There would be no significant adverse cumulative impacts to hydrology or water quality under any of the alternatives. BMPs and erosion and sediment control measures would be used on building, road, trail, and other recreation infrastructure construction sites to ensure impacts are minimized. These projects are few in number and located widely dispersed throughout the refuge so their local effects would not be additive.

Biological Resources- All alternatives would maintain or improve biological resources on the refuge, in Conserved Habitats and the Upper Androscoggin watershed, and within the Northern Forest ecosystem. Focal Species The combination of our management actions with other organizations’ actions could result in significant, beneficial cumulative effects by: (1) increasing conservation and management for Federal and State-listed threatened and endangered species; (2) improving uplands and wetlands habitats that are regionally declining; and (3) preventing spread or reducing invasive plants and animals.

There would be no significant cumulative adverse effects to biological resources under any of the alternatives because the changes in habitat components that we would manage for directly or expect to realize through natural succession would on balance be beneficial. Biological resources that we would manage to prevent their introduction, limit, or eliminate, such as invasive plants or bass, are not natural components of the Lake Umbagog refuge ecosystem. Losses of those biotic components where they occur would not be considered adverse.

Cultural Resources We expect none of the alternatives to have significant adverse cumulative impact on cultural resources in New Hampshire or Maine. Beneficial impacts would occur at various levels, depending on the alternative, because of proposed environmental education and interpretation programs, increased land protection, and increased field surveys to identify and protect any discovered sites. In alternatives B and C we would identify high probability sites to survey more intensely.

This section evaluates the relationship between local, short-term uses of the human environment and maintaining long-term productivity of the environment. By long-term we mean that the impact would extend beyond the 15-year planning horizon of this draft CCP/EIS.

Cumulative Impacts of Department of the Interior Secretarial Order 3226 states that “there is a Global Climate Change consensus in the international community that global climate change is occurring and that it should be addressed in governmental decision making…This Order ensures that climate change impacts are taken into account in connection with Departmental planning and decision making”. Additionally, it calls for the incorporation of climate change considerations into long-term planning documents such as the CCP.

The Wildlife Society (TWS) published an informative technical review report in 2004 titled “Global Climate Change and Wildlife in North America” (Inkley

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-59 Cumulative Impacts

et al 2004). It interprets results and details from such publications as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports (1996-2002) and describes the potential impacts and implications on wildlife and habitats. It mentions that projecting the impacts of climate change is hugely complex because not only is it important to predict changing precipitation and temperature patterns, but more importantly, to predict their rate of change, as well as the exacerbated effects of other stressors on the ecosystems. Those stressors include loss of wildlife habitat to urban sprawl and other developed land uses, pollution, ozone depletion, exotic species, disease, and other factors. Projections over the next 100 years indicate such major impacts as extensive warming in most areas, changing patterns of precipitation, and significant acceleration of sea level rise. According to the TWS report, “…other likely components of on-going climate change include changes in season lengths, decreasing range of nighttime versus daytime temperatures, declining snowpack, and increasing frequency and intensity of severe weather events” (Inkley et al. 2004). The TWS report details known, and possible influences on, habitat and wildlife including changes in primary productivity, changes in plant chemical and nutrient composition, changes in seasonality, sea level rise, snow, permafrost, and sea ice decline, increased invasive species, pests and pathogens, and impacts on major vertebrate groups.

A second publication we consulted was The Union of Concerned Scientists report titled “Confronting Climate Change in the U.S. Northeast: Science, Impacts, and Solutions (July 2007)” which can be accessed online at www. northeastclimateimpacts.org . This report, and its state summaries for Maine and New Hampshire, reiterates much of the TWS report although within a regional context. Climate-related changes predicted include more frequent days with temperature above 90° F, a longer growing season, less winter precipitation as snow, and more as rain, reduced snowpack and density, earlier breakup of winter ice on lakes and rivers, earlier spring snowmelt resulting in earlier peak river flows, and rising sea temperatures and sea levels (NECIA 2007).

The effects of climate change on populations and range distributions of wildlife are expected to be species specific and highly variable, with some effects considered negative and others considered positive. Generally, the prediction in North America is that the ranges of habitats and wildlife will generally move upwards in elevation and northward as temperature rises. Species with small and/or isolated populations and low genetic variability will be least likely to withstand impacts of climate change. Species with broader habitat ranges, wider niches, and greater genetic diversity should fare better or may even benefit. This will vary depending on specific local conditions, changing precipitation patterns, and the particular response of individual species to the different components of climate change (Inkley et al 2004).

The NH WAP discusses species-specific examples such as impacts to American marten and lynx because of changing snow depths, impacts on alpine butterflies and herbaceous communities due to changes in seasonal timing, and impacts to native fish from projected increased temperatures in rivers and streams (NH WAP 2005). It also discusses the potential for cold-adapted forest trees, such as spruce, fir, aspen, and sugar maple, to retreat northward, dramatically altering the composition of the Northern Forest, and its wildlife-dependent species (NH WAP 2005). The TWS report, however, emphasizes that developing precise predictions for local areas is not possible due to the scale and accuracy of current climate models, which is further confounded by the lack of information concerning species-level responses and to ecosystem changes, their interactions with other species, and the impacts from other stressors in the environment. In other words, only imprecise generalizations can be made about the implications of our refuge management on regional climate change.

4-60 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Cumulative Impacts

Our evaluation of proposed actions in this Final CCP/EIS concludes that only two activities may contribute negligibly, but incrementally, to stressors affecting regional climate change: our prescribed burning program and our use of vehicles, boats, and equipment to administer the refuge. We discuss the direct and indirect impacts of those activities elsewhere in chapter 4. We also discuss measures to minimize the impacts of both. For example, with regards to prescribed burning, we would follow detailed burn plans operating only under conditions that minimize air quality concerns. In addition, many climate change experts advocate prescribed burning to manage the risk of catastrophic fires (Inkley et al. 2004). With regards to our equipment and facilities, we are trying to reduce our carbon footprint wherever possible by using alternative energy sources and energy saving appliances, driving hybrid vehicles, and using recycled or recyclable materials, along with reduced travel and other conservation measures.

In our professional judgment, the vast majority of management actions we propose would not exacerbate climate change in the region or project area, and in fact, some might incrementally prevent or slow down local impacts. We discuss our actions relative to the 18 recommendations the TWS report gives to assist land and resource managers in meeting the challenges of climate change when working to conserve wildlife resources (Inkley et al. 2004). Their position is that if land and resource managers collectively implement these recommendations, then cumulatively there would be a positive impact of addressing climate change.

Recommendation #1: Recognize global climate change as a factor in wildlife conservation. This recommendation relates to land managers and planners becoming better informed about the consequences of climate change and the variability in the resources they work with.

The Service is taking a major role among federal agencies in distributing and interpreting information on climate change. There is a dedicated webpage to this issue at http://www.fws.gov/home/climatechange/. The Service’s Northeast Region co-hosted a workshop in June 2008 titled “Climate Change in the Northeast: Preparing for the Future.” The goal of the workshop was “to develop a common understanding of natural and cultural resource issues and to explore management approaches related to climate change in the Northeast.” Its primary target audience was land managers. Experts in climate change gave presentations and facilitated discussion. The stated outcomes were to have participants more fully understand the present and anticipated impacts from climate change on forested, ocean and coastal ecosystems, and be able to identify effective management approaches that include collaboration with other local, state and federal agencies. All of the Northeast Region’s Refuge Supervisors and planners attended, as did over 20 refuge field staff. Our staff continues to stay informed about climate change through reading peer-reviewed publications and agency reports, and attending workshops and training.

Recommendation #2: Manage for diverse conditions. This recommendation relates to developing sound wildlife management strategies under current conditions, anticipating unusual and variable weather conditions, such as warming, droughts and flooding.

Our proposed habitat management actions described in chapter 2 are intended to promote healthy, functioning native forests, riparian areas, and wetlands as a priority. We have identified monitoring elements, which will be fully developed in the IMP step-down plan, to evaluate whether we are meeting our objectives and/ or to assess changing conditions. We will implement an adaptive management approach as new information becomes available.

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-61 Cumulative Impacts

Recommendation #3: Do not rely solely on historical weather and species data for future projections without taking into account climate change. This recommendation relates to the point that historical climate, habitat and wildlife conditions are less reliable predictors as climate changes. For example, there may be a need to adjust breeding bird survey dates if migratory birds are returning earlier to breed than occurred historically. A 3-week difference in timing has already been documented by some bird researchers.

We are aware of these implications and plan to build these considerations into our IMP so that we can make adjustments accordingly. Our results and reports, and those of other researchers on the refuge, will be shared within the conservation community.

Recommendation #4: Expect surprises, including extreme events. This recommendation relates to remaining flexible in management capability and administrative processes to deal with ecological “surprises” such as floods or pest outbreaks.

Refuge managers have flexibility within their operations funds to deal with emergencies. Other Regional operations funds would also be re-directed as needed to deal with an emergency.

Recommendation #5: Reduce nonclimate stressors on the ecosystem. This recommendation relates to reducing human factors that adversely affect resiliency of habitats and species.

Similar to our response to #2 above, the objectives of our habitat management program are to protect the biological integrity, diversity and health of refuge lands. Objectives to enhance riparian habitat for watershed protection, and establish healthy, diverse native forests in large tracts will help reduce nonclimate stressors and offset the local impacts of climate change. Also, see our response to #15 below.

Recommendation #6: Maintain healthy, connected, genetically diverse populations. This recommendation relates to the fact that small isolated populations are more prone to extirpations than larger, healthy, more widespread populations. Large tracts of protected land facilitate more robust species populations and can offer better habitat quality in core areas.

Our goal to acquire in fee or easement up to 47,000 acres for the refuge from willing sellers will help establish protected core areas or conservation corridors between other protected lands. We strive to acquire large contiguous tracts because their conservation value is greater. We will also continue to work with our many conservation partners at the state and regional level to support and complement restoration and protection efforts. Also, see our response to #14 below.

Recommendation #7: Translocate individuals. This recommendation suggests that it may sometimes be necessary to physically move wildlife from one area to another to maintain species viability. However, it is cautioned that this tool has potential consequences and should only be used in severely limited circumstances as a conservation strategy.

We have no plans to translocate animals within the 15 year time frame of this CCP; however, should this be a recommendation by other state or federal agency experts as critical to conserving a native species, we will evaluate it.

Recommendation #8: Protect coastal wetlands and accommodate sea level rise. This recommendation relates to actions that could ameliorate wetland loss and

4-62 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Cumulative Impacts

sea level rise, such as purchasing wetlands easements, establishing riparian and coastal buffers, restoring natural hydrology, and refraining from developments or impacts in sensitive wetlands and coastal areas.

While the refuge is not near the coast, wetlands protection is one of our highest priorities. Our responses to recommendation #2 and #6 above identifies our objectives to establish fully functioning riparian areas, protect wetlands, maintain healthy native habitats, and acquire additional land in fee or easement that has high wildlife and habitat values. The heart of this refuge is Umbagog Lake, and many of our conservation actions ultimately contribute to its protection.

Recommendation #9: Reduce the risk of catastrophic fire. This recommendation acknowledges that fire can be a natural part of the ecosystem, but that climate change could lead to more frequent fires and/or a greater likelihood of a catastrophic fire.

Our plans to conduct prescribed burns to maintain healthy forests and reduce fuel loading, if needed in the urban-wildland interface, would reduce the overall risk of a catastrophic fire.

Recommendation #10: Reduce likelihood of catastrophic events affecting populations. This recommendation states that increased intensity of severe weather can put wildlife at risk. While the severe weather cannot be controlled, it may be possible to minimize the effects by supporting multiple, widely spaced populations to offset losses.

Our responses to recommendation #2, #6, and #15 describes the actions we are taking to minimize this risk.

Recommendation #11: Prevent and control invasive species. This recommendation emphasizes the increased opportunities for invasive species to spread because of their adaptability to disturbance. Invasive species control will be essential, including extensive monitoring and control to preclude larger impacts.

Invasive species control is a major initiative within the Service. The Northeast Region, in particular, has taken a very active stand. In chapter 2, we describe our plans on the refuge to control invasive plants. We also describe monitoring and inventorying strategies to protect against infestations. Introducing aquatic invasive plants are a big concern on Umbagog lake. We will support efforts by NHFG and MDIFW to monitor for these species. Working with these partners, enhances the long-term effectiveness of our refuge program.

Recommendation #12: Adjust yield and harvest models. This recommendation suggests that managers may have to adapt yield and harvest regulations in response to climate variability and change to reduce the impact on species and habitats.

Any forest harvest we conduct would follow silvicultural prescriptions intended to promote structural and species diversity and improve the health and integrity of the forests within site capability. We would adhere to both states’ best management practices. Our monitoring program will include assessing stand condition and response to management, and detecting focal species response to alert us to any significant changes.

Regarding animal harvest through hunting programs, the refuge does not set harvest regulations. For resident wildlife, regulations are established at the state

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-63 Cumulative Impacts

level. For migratory game birds, the harvest framework is established at the Flyway level, and further refined at the state level.

Recommendation #13: Account for known climatic conditions. This recommendation states we should monitor key resources through predictable short-term periodic weather phenomenon, such as El Nino, to aid us in future management efforts.

We plan to develop a monitoring program that will help us evaluate our assumptions and success in achieving objectives, as well as help us make future management decisions. Any restoration activities or management actions will be carefully planned and its effectiveness monitored and documented so we can use this information in future management decisions.

Recommendation #14: Conduct medium- and long-range planning. This recommendation states that plans longer than 10 years should take into account potential climate change and variability as part of the planning process.

This 15-year CCP addresses climate change because it emphasizes restoring and maintaining healthy, contiguous, native habitat areas, reducing anthropogenic stressors on refuge lands, working with private landowners to improve the health and integrity of their lands, and pursuing larger conservation connections and corridors with partners to enhance protected core areas. Our monitoring program and adaptive management strategies will also facilitate our ability to respond to climate change.

Recommendation #15: Select and manage conservation areas appropriately. This recommendation states that establishing refuges, parks and reserves is a critical conservation strategy to try to minimize the decline of wildlife and habitats in North America. Decisions on locating future conservation areas should take into account potential climate change and variability. For example, it is suggested that decisions on new acquisition consider the anticipated northward migrations of many species, or the northern portion of species ranges. Managers of existing conservation lands should consider climate change in future planning.

Protecting up to 47,000 additional contiguous acres for the refuge will help provide important corridor connections, maintain natural ecosystem processes and functions, provide for more stable, resilient habitats, provide refugia for isolated or specialized species, protect hydrologic function and habitats for fish and other aquatic species, and reduce anthropogenic stressors on the landscape. In addition, our habitat management objectives on refuge lands are intended to maintain and restore healthy, productive and diverse forests, protect floodplain and riparian areas, and protect wetlands and open water habitats. Our efforts, coupled with those of many other land protection partners, will enhance these benefits in the region.

Recommendation #16: Ensure ecosystem processes. This recommendation suggests that managers may need to enhance or replace diminished or lost ecosystem processes. Manually dispersing seed, reintroducing pollinators, treating invasive plants and pests, are examples used.

While we plan to take an aggressive approach to treating invasive plants, we do not believe at this time there is any need to enhance or replace ecosystem processes. Further, none of our proposed management actions will diminish natural ecosystems processes underway. Should our monitoring results reveal that we should take a more active role in enhancing or replacing those processes, we will reevaluate and/or refine our management objectives and strategies.

Recommendation #17: Look for new opportunities. This recommendation states that managers must be continually alert to anticipate and take advantage of new

4-64 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Relationship between Short-term Uses of the Human Environment and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity

opportunities that arise. Creating wildlife conservation areas out of abandoned or unusable agricultural land, and taking advantage of industry interest in investing in carbon sequestration or restoration programs, are two examples cited.

Refuge staff have many conservation partners in the area which, in turn, are networked throughout the larger region. We hear about many opportunities for land protection or habitat restoration through that broad-based network. Our Northeast Region has field offices and a regional office that integrates the other Service program areas, including those that work with private entities. We have developed outreach materials, and make ourselves available to interested organizations and groups, to provide more detailed information on the Service and Refuge System missions, refuge goals and objectives, and partnership opportunities.

Recommendation #18: Employ monitoring and adaptive management. This recommendation states that we should monitor climate and its effects on wildlife and their habitats and use this information to adjust management techniques and strategies. Given the uncertainty with climate change and its impacts on the environment, relying on traditional methods of management may become less effective.

We agree that an effective and well-planned monitoring program, coupled with an adaptive management approach, is essential to dealing with the future uncertainty of climate change. We have built both actions into our CCP. We will develop a detailed step-down IMP designed to test our assumptions and management effectiveness in light of on-going changes. With that information in hand, we will either adapt our management techniques, or re-evaluate or refine our objectives as needed.

Relationship All of the alternatives strive to maintain or enhance the long-term productivity between Short-term and sustainability of natural resources on the refuge. The alternatives strive to Uses of the Human conserve our Federal trust species and the habitats they depend on, as evidenced by the seasonal public use restrictions during focal bird species nesting seasons. Environment and Outreach and environmental education are a priority in each alternative to Enhancement of Long- encourage visitors to be better stewards of our environment. term Productivity The dedication of certain areas for the new refuge headquarters and for roads, trails, visitor facilities on the refuge represents a loss of long-term productivity on localized areas, but is not considered significant given the comparative refuge land base.

In summary, we predict that all alternatives would contribute positively to maintaining or enhancing the long-term productivity of the environment.

Unavoidable Adverse Unavoidable adverse effects are the effects of those actions that could cause Effects significant harm to the human environment and that cannot be avoided, even with mitigation measures. There would be some minor, localized unavoidable adverse effects under all the alternatives. For example, there would be localized adverse effects of building the new refuge headquarters and upgrading the access road. There would be property tax losses to towns and increased visitation that could have unavoidable effects. However, none of these effects rises to the level of significance. All would be mitigated, so there would in fact be no significant unavoidable adverse impacts under any of the alternatives.

Potential Irreversible Irreversible commitments of resources are those which cannot be reversed, and Irretrievable except perhaps in the extreme long term or under unpredictable circumstances. Commitments of An example of an irreversible commitment is an action which contributes to a Resources species’ extinction. Once extinct, it can never be replaced.

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-65 Potential Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

In comparison, irretrievable commitments of resources are those which can be reversed, given sufficient time and resources, but represent a loss in production or use for a period of time. An example of an irretrievable commitment is the maintenance of clearings and early successional forest for woodcock management. If for some reason woodcock management were no longer an objective, these would gradually revert to mature forest, or the process could be expedited with plantings.

Only a few actions proposed in the alternatives would result in an irreversible commitment of resources. One is construction of the proposed new Potter Farm visitor facility and access road. Alternatives B and C propose that we continue to pursue this action.

Another irreversible commitment of resources impacting local communities is Service land acquisition. Alternative A limits acquisition to the current refuge acquisition boundary. Alternatives B and C propose refuge expansion at increasing levels, respectively. Once these lands become part of the refuge, it is unlikely they would ever revert back to private ownership. The commitment of resources to maintain the wetlands is small compared to the benefits derived from the increased biodiversity. These wetlands provide nesting, foraging, and migrating habitat for many migratory bird species of conservation concern. They also benefit refuge visitors by providing wildlife observation.

Environmental Executive Order 12898 “ Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Justice Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (February 11, 1994), requires that Federal Agencies consider as part of their action, any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects to minority and low income populations. Agencies are required to ensure that these potential effects are identified and addressed.

Existing Socio-Economic The EPA defines environmental justice as; “the fair treatment and meaningful Conditions involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” In this context, fair treatment means that no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of negative environmental consequences resulting from the action.

Consideration of the potential consequences of the proposed action for environmental justice requires three main components:

■ A demographic assessment of the affected communities to determine whether minority or low income populations are present;

■ An integrated assessment of all potential impacts identified to determine if any results in a disproportionately high and adverse impact to these groups; and

■ Involvement of the affected communities in the decision-making process and in the development and implementation of any mitigation strategies.

Minority populations are not likely to be affected at the refuge. The minority populations of Oxford County, Maine and Coos County, New Hampshire constitute a substantially smaller proportion of the total population, 1.7% and 1.9% respectively, than that for the states of Maine and New Hampshire, 3.1% and 4.0% respectively, and for the Nation as a whole, 24.6%. Minority populations represent a slightly smaller proportion of the communities surrounding the refuge, 0.6% in New Hampshire and 1.2% in Maine.

Socio-economically disadvantaged populations are present and may be affected by actions taken at the refuge. The percent or individuals who are

4-66 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Environmental Justice

socioeconomically disadvantage (living in poverty) in Maine is 10.9% and in New Hampshire, 6.5%. Socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals—living at or below the poverty line—constitute 11.8% of the Oxford County, Maine population, and 10.0% of the Coos County, New Hampshire population. The communities comprised of residents surrounding the refuge (see figure 4.1) differ slightly from their respective Counties. The Maine census block group has a slightly smaller proportion of people living below the poverty line than that for Oxford Counties, at 10.3% while the census tract (2 block groups) in Coos County New Hampshire have a slightly higher percentage living below the poverty line at 7.5%. See table 4.13 below for poverty comparisons with state and national figures.

An aerial view of Harper’s Meadow and the diversity of habitats in the area Ian Drew/USFWS

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-67 Environmental Justice

Figure 4.1. U.S. Census blocks surrounding the refuge

4-68 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Environmental Justice

Table 4.13. Socially disadvantaged community indicators for areas surrounding the refuge Community as Percent Indicators Community County of County State

Oxford, Oxford, ME¹ NH² ME Coos, NH ME Coos, NH ME NH

Per Capita Income $20,113 $19,720 $16,945 $17,218 119% 115% $19,533 $23,844

Median Value of Housing Units $85,400 $81,600 $82,800 $70,500 103% 116% $98,700 $133,300

Unemployed 2.6% 3.5% 3.3% 3.3% 79% 106% 3.1% 2.7%

Individuals Below the poverty Level 10.3% 7.0% 11.8% 10.0% 87.3% 70% 10.9% 6.5%

¹Census Block Group 230179951001 ²Census Tract of Block Groups 330079503001 and 330079503003 Source: USCB 2000

Summary of Consequences The communities surrounding the refuge are relatively homogenous; minority to Environmental Justice groups do not represent a substantial portion of the affected community. No differential impacts based on minority status would therefore be anticipated under any of the alternatives.

Oxford County, Maine and Coos County, New Hampshire are socially disadvantaged communities with greater percentages of persons living below the respective State poverty levels than in the state overall. The relevant Maine census block that includes the refuge is slightly more affluent than the State of Maine overall and the New Hampshire census tract that include the refuge is less affluent than the State of New Hampshire overall. Therefore, environmental justice considerations do apply to actions taken by the Service at the refuge with respect to the potential to adversely affect socioeconomically disadvantaged communities.

Economically, these communities would benefit under all management alternatives in terms of realizing increased revenues to offset property taxes on acquired lands and in terms of additional jobs and increased personal income. It is not likely that any of these communities would be adversely affected by loss of access to game or fish for those who use them to supplement their annual diet, because both hunting and fishing will remain a part of the compatible activities on the refuge. Although certain areas may be restricted for particular recreational activities, such as snowmobiling, that are an important source of income for nearby communities, it is expected that sufficient access to snowmobiling will be maintained on designated trails and off-refuge to continue to support this revenue base.

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-69 4-70 Summary of the effects of management alternatives on Lake Umbagog Refuge resources Refuge Lake on alternatives Umbagog management of effects the of Summary Table 4.14. Summarizes the effects predicted for each alternative and allows for a side-by-side comparison. Additional details on effects may be provided in the narrative descriptions in chapter 4 under respective subject headings.

Table 4.14- Summary of the effects of management alternatives on lake umbagog refuge resources Lake Umbagog Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C NWR Continue Current Management Refuge Focal Species Management Natural Processes Management Resources Service-preferred alternative Socio-economic Proposed actions were evaluated for their Using the same analysis as alternative A, alternative B Using the same analysis as alternative A, Resources effect on the economic categories: local would result in the following: alternative C would result in the following: output, personal income, and employment. Refuge management or associated activities Refuge management activities directly related to all Refuge management activities directly including refuge revenue sharing (RRS) refuge operations generate an estimated $2.73 million in related to all refuge operations generate an payments and local property taxes, refuge local output, 35 jobs and $837,800 in personal income in estimated $2.84 million in local output, 37 visitor expenditures, refuge administration, the local economy. jobs and $905,800 in personal income in the and contributions from management local economy. activities that involve economic uses, are all Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, all refuge considered. activities would generate total economic impacts Including direct, indirect, and induced above those of alternative A of $1.68 million in local effects, all refuge activities would generate Refuge management activities directly output, 22.8 jobs and $543,100 in personal income. Total total economic impacts above those of related to all refuge operations generate an economic impacts associated with refuge operations alternative A of $1.84 million in local output, estimated $1.45 million in local output, 17.7 under alternative B represent less than one percent of 25.8 jobs and $625,600 in personal income. jobs, and $425,000 in personal income into total income (0.05%) and total employment (0.11%) in Total economic impacts associated with the local economy. the combined economies of the two counties. refuge operations under alternative B represent less than one percent of total Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, Total economic effects of refuge operations play a much income (0.05%) and total employment all refuge activities would generate a total larger role in the smaller communities near the refuge (0.11%) in the combined economies of the economic impact of $1.86 million in local such as Errol, NH and Upton, ME where most of the two counties. output, 23.1 jobs and $558,900 in personal refuge related economic activity occurs as compared to income. Total economic impacts represent the overall, combined economies of the two counties.. Total economic effects of refuge operations Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Environmental 4. Chapter less than 1% (0.03%) of total income and play a much larger role in the smaller total employment (0.1%) in the overall Coos communities near the refuge such as Errol, County, New Hampshire and Oxford County, NH and Upton, ME where most of the Maine combined economy. refuge related economic activity occurs as compared to the overall, combined economies of the two counties. Air Quality Proposed Refuge management activities Effects similar to alternative A. No substantive change No violation of Federal or State Clean Air would neither substantively benefit nor in air quality; no violation of standards, no impacts to Act standards; no impacts to nearby Class I adversely affect currently good local and Class I areas, and no cumulative effects. Locally more areas. Adverse effects same as B but more regional air quality, with no violations of minor long-term benefits than alternative A but also benefits than alternative A or B because C Federal or State Clean Air Act standards, more potential short-term adverse effects. has largest refuge expansion. no impacts to nearby Class I areas, and no cumulative effects on regional ozone or particulate matter pollutant levels. Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Environmental 4. Chapter Lake Umbagog Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C NWR Continue Current Management Refuge Focal Species Management Natural Processes Management Resources Service-preferred alternative Air Quality Minor air quality benefits from air pollutant Benefits would increase from maintaining up to 69,457 Greatest potential increase in benefits—up (cont’d) filtering effects of 15,450 current and up acres of natural vegetation (existing and expanded to 96,064 acres (existing and expanded to 5,985 newly acquired acres of natural Refuge lands) to filter air and from more energy efficient Refuge lands) of natural vegetation and vegetation and from adopting energy Refuge operations. Acquiring up to 43,928 forested wetlands to filter air and energy efficient efficient practices. Negligible reduction in acres would stem nearby development growth and Refuge operations. Adding up to 69,702 atmospheric carbon by sequestering effects reduce potential air emissions. Longer forest rotations forested acres would best stem nearby of 10,845 current and up to 4,838 newly minimally increase carbon sequestration. development growth and reduce potential acquired forested acres. emissions. Longer forest rotations would Few ground disturbing activities and few additional increase carbon sequestration and

There would be short-term (one-day) minor emission sources. Construction of Potter Farm maintain forest health and resilience. resources Refuge Lake on alternatives Umbagog management of effects the of Summary localized increases in particulate matter from headquarters and visitor contact facility would cause fires used to dispose of demolished cabins, short-term, localized effects from construction vehicle Impacts of constructing and operating which might be done on average about one and equipment exhausts. Facility operations would Potter Farm headquarters and visitor a year. slightly increase stationary source emissions. contact facility same as alternative B. Other construction, renovation, and An increase of about 5,000 annual Refuge Other construction, renovation, and demolition projects demolition projects would also cause visits by motor vehicle would cause a minor would also cause short-term, minor local effects from short-term, minor local effects from vehicle increase in air emissions in the long term and vehicle and equipment emissions and dust during and equipment emissions and dust during contribute minimally to potential cumulative construction. construction. effects. Same cabin disposal fire impacts as alternative A. Same cabin disposal fire impacts as alternative A. An increase of more than 40,000 annual Refuge visits by motor vehicle would contribute more to local air An increase of more than 43,000 annual pollutant emission levels than alternative A over the Refuge visits by motor vehicle would longer term and increase the potential for cumulative contribute more to local air pollutant effects. Precluding development in the expansion emission levels than alternative A over area would help offset potential cumulative air quality the longer term and increase the potential effects. for cumulative effects. Precluding development in the expansion area would help offset potential cumulative air quality effects. 4-71 4-72 Summary of the effects of management alternatives on Lake Umbagog Refuge resources Refuge Lake on alternatives Umbagog management of effects the of Summary Lake Umbagog Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C NWR Continue Current Management Refuge Focal Species Management Natural Processes Management Resources Service-preferred alternative Soils Alternative A would provide benefits and Alternative B would increase long term benefits over Expanding the Refuge land base under cause localized adverse effects to refuge alternative A in terms of protecting soils and restoring alternative C by up to 74,414 acres would soils. Acquiring up to 5,830 acres of upland, disturbed sites but also increases some short-term better eliminate the potential for soil lakeside and streamside land would increase localized adverse effects to refuge soils. Expanding the impacts associated with development than soil benefits from site restoration within Refuge by fee purchase and easement of up to 47,807 alternative B. current refuge acquisition boundary. acres, would eliminate the soil impacts of development on these lands. Improved forest management practices Forest management would be less intensive A 10% increase in visitor activities—hiking on current and expansion lands would enhance where 4 % of each management unit is cut off designated trails, camping, boat vegetation protecting soils. on a 15-20 year cycle versus 15% cut under launching—would minimally increase soil alternative B with correspondingly lower impacts. Short-term, localized soils impacts from forest stand impacts to soils. There may be a similar cutting, and clearing for access roads and skid trails, number of skid trails but they would haul would be minimized using BMPs. Forest management a 75% lower volume than alternative B, so in Special Management and Restricted Management any soil damage should be less severe. zones would be strictly limited to preclude soil impacts Adverse effects from construction of the There would be few ground disturbing activities and Potter Farm facility and trail, boat launch, no active forest management to cause adverse soil parking area, and kiosk projects would be effects. BMPs employed in building new Potter Farm the same as alternative B. BMP’s would headquarters and visitor contact facility would minimize be used to minimize adverse effects. short-term, localized soil impacts and eliminate Boardwalks would be used in wetlands. potential cumulative effects. Soil productivity would be restored on reclaimed sites. Trail, boat launch, parking area, and kiosk construction would cause short-term localized soil erosion, compaction, and loss of productivity on no more than Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Environmental 4. Chapter 50 acres of Refuge lands. BMPs would minimize soil impacts in all construction projects.

No construction except boardwalk pilings for trail access would be done in wetlands; boardwalks over saturated areas would protect wetland soils and sensitive vegetation. Groundwater and nutrient flows maintaining peatlands will be studied and any issues or threats addressed.

Restoration of natural soil productivity on reclaimed cabin sites, campsites, skid trails, and unnecessary roads would help offset localized construction effects. Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Environmental 4. Chapter Lake Umbagog Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C NWR Continue Current Management Refuge Focal Species Management Natural Processes Management Resources Service-preferred alternative Hydrology and Alternative A would provide minor watershed Alternative B would substantially increase watershed Alternative C would substantially increase Water Quality benefits and cause minimal adverse effects benefits and cause minimal increased adverse effects watershed benefits over A and B and to Refuge hydrology and water quality. to Refuge hydrology and water quality as compared would limit adverse hydrology and water Acquiring 6,536 additional acres of upland to alternative A. Expanding the refuge by up to 47,807 quality effects compared to B. Expanding forest, lakeshore, and wetlands within acres would substantially increase watershed benefits the refuge by 74,414 acres would further the acquisition boundary would prohibit by limiting land clearing and changes in local hydrology increase watershed benefits by limiting potentially damaging development. from development. Increased site restoration would land clearing and changes in local reduce erosion and restore site hydrology. Local hydrology from development. Camp restoration would reduce local erosion hydrology would improve through road reconstruction

and restore site hydrology. and unnecessary road removal, culvert removal, and Camp site restoration, local hydrology resources Refuge Lake on alternatives Umbagog management of effects the of Summary hydrology restoration of areas such as the Day Flats restoration, and lake water quality benefits Loons would continue as indicator of area. would be similar to alternative B. effectiveness of water level management on nesting wildlife. Water quality benefits would improve from a We would not create wetland openings or strengthened partnership with the FERC licensee in simulated beaver impoundments alternative Water quality benefits from improved determining beneficial lake water levels at all seasons, C. monitoring and cooperation of watershed upgraded monitoring, and greater efforts in seeking landowners. cooperation of watershed landowners. Alternative C would have boating and related impacts from increased visitation Stringent precautions in conducting Refuge Creating wetland openings and simulated beaver and outreach efforts similar to B. management activities would prevent impoundments might cause turbidity and sedimentation chemical contamination of water directly impacts. BMPs for these techniques would limit impacts through leaks or spills or indirectly through to short-term and localized. soil runoff. A minor increase in recreational boating activities A minor increase in recreational boating on the refuge might contribute to lake and river activities might cause lake and river contamination with petroleum products. The Service contamination with petroleum products. does not regulate Umbagog Lake boating, but Public outreach on that and other issues such increased public outreach on that and other issues as invasive aquatic weeds, invasive fish, and such as invasive aquatic weeds, invasive fish, and lead lead contamination would help mitigate that contamination would help mitigate that risk. Umbagog risk. Lake Working Group BMPs for lake and river activities, addressing proper waste disposal, elimination of lead fishing tackle, and use of wake zones and appropriate access, would help maintain good water quality. 4-73 4-74 Summary of the effects of management alternatives on Lake Umbagog Refuge resources Refuge Lake on alternatives Umbagog management of effects the of Summary Lake Umbagog Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C NWR Continue Current Management Refuge Focal Species Management Natural Processes Management Resources Service-preferred alternative Wetland Wetlands and open water habitats would Alternative B substantially expands protection of Alternative C also substantially expands & Open Water benefit from continuing protection of the wetlands and upgrades waterfowl and other Refuge protection of wetlands but would not Habitats current 3,233 wetland acres and 5,033 open focal species management compared to A. It would include management to directly benefit water acres. Acquisition under alternative increase refuge protected wetlands by 3,674 acres and Refuge focal species as in alternative B. A would be limited to 706 wetland acres and open water habitat by 5,906 acres and broaden our Alternative C would acquire and protect up 801 open water acres. techniques for beaver management, waterfowl food to 4,472 acres of wetlands and promote a plantings, and management of habitat productivity for natural regime of disturbance and recovery Water level fluctuations, water quality breeding and migratory waterfowl. with a natural complement of native wildlife problems and human disturbance of wildlife species that would not necessarily benefit would continue to pose risks to wetland We will monitor habitat condition and propose to work particular refuge focal species in the long habitat; breeding, brood rearing, and cooperatively with the FERC licensee, FPLE, to promote term. migrating waterfowl; marsh birds, shorebirds, water levels throughout the year to benefit wildlife and and wading birds; and other wildlife species sustain rare wetland habitat types. Acquisition of expansion lands would of concern. Management limited to habitat increase watershed protection and inventory, mapping, and monitoring, wildlife Future adjacent development and increasing refuge reduce adverse effects of development. surveys, water level effects and loon visitation may affect Refuge water quality. Alternative B Controlling water level fluctuations to population research, and protection of reduces adjacent development but has increased future mimic a natural hydrologic regime may nesting loons with no Refuge focal species visitation. benefit some species but not others. management. Limiting human access to simulate a back No wetland impacts from construction of Potter Farm country wilderness-type experience with Future adjacent development and increasing visitor center because site not adjacent to wetlands and no facilities development and no motorized refuge visitation may affect Refuge water does not drain to any wetlands. Part of the new loop access would benefit wildlife by reducing quality indirectly through the watershed. trail adjacent to the Potter Farm is through wetlands. No disturbance and localized habitat losses. Impacts may be direct through increased construction would be done that would directly affect use of the Lake and other water bodies. the wetland except for boardwalk pilings. Boardwalks Visitor canter and Potter Farm loop trail Alternative A has the greatest potential for would be constructed over saturated areas to protect impacts would be the same as described Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Environmental 4. Chapter adjacent development with its impacts but sensitive vegetation. for alternative B. also has lowest future visitation that would somewhat offset those effects. Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Environmental 4. Chapter Lake Umbagog Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C NWR Continue Current Management Refuge Focal Species Management Natural Processes Management Resources Service-preferred alternative Fen & Flooded Adding 79 acres to protect a total 566 acres Alternative B improves management of fen and flooded Benefits to fen and flooded meadow habitat Meadow of fen and flooded meadow habitat would meadow habitat with up to 123 added acres and minimally higher with 209 acres of habitat continue and minimally increase benefits to actively managed for breeding and migrating waterfowl, acquired and protected under alternative C. breeding and migrating waterfowl and other marshbirds, shorebirds, and wading birds. species using this habitat. We would monitor No Refuge focal species management so wetland conditions but not actively manage An improved partnership with the FERC licensee to benefits to Refuge focal species would be habitat for waterfowl or other species. address water level management, expanded bird and indirect from increase in habitat protection. aquatic invertebrate surveys, and promotion of wild Visitors fishing or boating in or near fen and rice and other food plants would substantially upgrade Adverse impacts would be the same as

flooded meadow habitat may disturb nesting our ability to support breeding and migratory birds. Any described under alternative B. resources Refuge Lake on alternatives Umbagog management of effects the of Summary or foraging birds but impacts would be minor effects of fluctuating levels would be minor and short- because disturbance would be infrequent and term would not likely adversely affect waterfowl productivity. Outreach efforts would help Visitors fishing or boating in or near fen and flooded address this potential. meadow habitat may disturb nesting or foraging birds but impacts would be minor because disturbance would be infrequent and would not likely adversely affect waterfowl productivity. Increased outreach efforts would better mitigate this potential. Boreal Fen & Purchase of 167 additional acres would Protection and management of boreal fen and bog Benefits of protection and management Bog minimally increase protection of the peatland habitats would greatly improve compared to alternative of boreal fen and bog habitats would be complex and benefits to peatland dependent A with up to 2,684 acres acquired in fee or easement. similar to alternative B with up to 3,222 fee species because the increase is less than 8 The Floating Islands National Natural Landmark (FINNL) acquired acres. This alternative too would percent in FWS ownership. No active Refuge would expand from 860 to 2181 acres. Monitoring and greatly increase protection of the refuge focal species management so no further research efforts would identify threats to this habitat. peatland complex and substantially benefit wildlife benefits. peatland dependent species.

No impacts from passive management Peat coring of the FINNL and other actions. Disturbance of wildlife or damage peatlands on Lake Umbagog NWR under to rare plants unlikely because peatland this alternative would not adversely affect habitats generally not visited. these wetlands. 4-75 4-76 Summary of the effects of management alternatives on Lake Umbagog Refuge resources Refuge Lake on alternatives Umbagog management of effects the of Summary Lake Umbagog Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C NWR Continue Current Management Refuge Focal Species Management Natural Processes Management Resources Service-preferred alternative Northern Purchase of 202 additional acres, including Benefits slightly higher than alternative A by adding up Benefits and impacts similar to alternative B. White Cedar the largest Northern white cedar swamp in to 50 acres in expansion area. Some minimal additional NH, would substantially benefit protection benefit to black-backed woodpecker. of this habitat in the region as well as benefit Refuge focal species such as the black- No adverse effects from limited management actions. backed woodpecker. Not likely to be a priority in 15 year life of CCP but potential for restoring about 150 acres over that time. No active management techniques would be employed so there is no potential for direct effects. Passive management actions would not adversely affect Northern white cedar habitat which generally is not used by visitors. Scrub-Shrub Purchase of 258 acres would increase Adding 867 acres to protect a total 1,807 acres of scrub- Adding 1,041 acres to protect a total protection of this habitat as well benefits shrub habitat would double protected acreage and 1,981 acres of scrub-shrub habitat would to woodcock. No active management substantially increase benefits to scrub-shrub wetland substantially increase benefits to scrub- techniques would be employed and none habitat, Canada warbler and woodcock, and scrub- shrub wetland habitat and dependent of our passive management actions under shrub wetland dependant species under alternative B. species under alternative C. alternative A would adversely affect scrub- shrub habitat. Manual or portable power tools would be used in Impacts similar to B except no construction vegetation management to manipulate or maintain of simulated beaver impoundments. habitat such as alder. Cutting would be done to minimize disturbance to nesting or foraging wildlife.

Creating 1 to 10-acre simulated beaver ponds in

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Environmental 4. Chapter seasonal drainages would cause short-term erosion, turbidity and sedimentation from excavation equipment and long-term changes to the habitat that would benefit focal species. Open Water Acquiring up to 801 acres to protect a Benefits would be greater under alternative B with Alternative C would have benefits and total 5,834 acres of open water habitat addition of up to 69 open water acres and an expanded minimal adverse impacts similar to under alternative A would benefit fish, program of management activities to conserve and alternative B. invertebrates, and aquatic plants but no enhance the biota of open water habitats. active management would be done. Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Environmental 4. Chapter Lake Umbagog Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C NWR Continue Current Management Refuge Focal Species Management Natural Processes Management Resources Service-preferred alternative Open Water Watershed land protection would be limited With added watershed land protection of more than (cont’d) to acquisition within the current refuge 47,000 acres, risks to aquatic species from water boundary thus limiting the indirect benefits to quality problems would diminish in Umbagog Lake and water quality and aquatic species. river tributaries. Some of this benefit may be offset by increased visitation. Refuge visitors who boat and fish may cause localized turbidity or minor spills or leaks Refuge visitors who boat and fish may disturb the of petroleum products. Outreach including bottom substrate in shallow areas or cause minor spills brochures and signage will notify these users or leaks of petroleum products. Outreach including

of proper precautions. brochures and signage will notify these users of proper resources Refuge Lake on alternatives Umbagog management of effects the of Summary precautions. Common Loon Continuing to protect nesting loons through Increased management efforts including more intensive Similar to alternative A, continuing to water level management and restricting predator control would benefit loons with a proposed protect loons and support research on human activity in their proximity, and efforts target of 14 nesting pairs on Umbagog Lake and 4 loons and water level effects under to support research on loons and water level nesting pairs in the expansion area. alternative C would continue to benefit effects under alternative A would continue to loons. Protecting more open water habitat benefit nesting loons. Protecting more open Major expansion in watershed land base would should also benefit loons. water habitat should also benefit loons. increase indirect benefits to loons by protecting water quality and aquatic prey. No additional active management No additional active management techniques would be employed specifically techniques would be employed to increase Some predator control methods would eliminate to increase loon productivity although loon productivity and none of our passive individual predatory animals but would not adversely none of our management actions under management actions under alternative A affect any sensitive predator species populations. alternative C would adversely affect loons. would adversely affect loons. The near doubling of refuge visitation will likely increase Major expansion of watershed land base pressure to view loons and disturb nest sites. Upgrading would have benefits similar to alternative signage and educational materials, increasing B. Major increase in visitation would have monitoring of visitors and excluding nesting areas potential for adverse effects to be mitigated would mitigate these effects. similar to B. 4-77 4-78 Summary of the effects of management alternatives on Lake Umbagog Refuge resources Refuge Lake on alternatives Umbagog management of effects the of Summary Lake Umbagog Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C NWR Continue Current Management Refuge Focal Species Management Natural Processes Management Resources Service-preferred alternative Floodplain, Adding up to 441 acres of these habitats Up to 577 acre increase provides protection benefits Up to 581 acre increase provides protection Lakeshore, would increase protected floodplain, similar to alternative A. More active management would benefits similar to alternative A. No active and Riparian lakeshore, and riparian acres to over 1,800 substantially increase benefits to Refuge focal species. management planned so benefits to Refuge Habitats acres but management to benefit these focal species would be indirect. habitats would be limited to inventory, Greater amount of restoration planned for expansion mapping, and monitoring; biotic surveys; area to benefit primarily riparian habitat. Localized short Localized short term impacts and long term support of related research, protection of term impacts and long term benefits of restoration benefits of restoration projects would be nesting eagles and ospreys. projects would be similar to alternative A. Potter Farm similar to alternative A. facility construction would cause minor localized Magalloway trail project would cause short impacts along lakeshore. Impacts of other construction Greater increase in visitation would cause term construction impacts and long-term projects similar to alternative A. minimally higher risk of localized habitat loss of a minor amount of habitat. No other impacts from recreational activities. construction projects would affect these Greater increase in visitation would cause minimally habitats. higher risk than alternative A of localized habitat Remote camping would continue to have impacts from recreational activities. localized, long term impacts to lakeshore Remote camping would continue to have and floodplain habitats. Like alternative B, localized, long term impacts to lakeshore and Remote camping would continue to have localized, remote camping on the existing designated floodplain habitats. long term impacts to lakeshore and floodplain habitats. sites would continue to be allowed, Increased outreach efforts would be made to address but we would increase monitoring of Increased visitation may cause minimal these problems under this alternative. individual sites, and rehabilitate, or close increased risk of localized habitat impacts permanently or seasonally those in need off managed trails from hiking, boating, and Increased benefits to vernal pools on more than 47,000 of restoration. Increased efforts would be wildlife viewing activities that concentrate acres of expansion lands inventoried and protected made to address these problems under in these areas. Education, signage, and under alternative B. this alternative. Emphasis on wilderness monitoring would mitigate these effects. experience camping would further reduce impacts compared to A and B. Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Environmental 4. Chapter Vernal pools on existing and acquired Refuge lands inventoried and protected under all Increased benefits to vernal pools on alternatives. more than 74,414 acres of expansion lands inventoried and protected under alternative C. Wooded Minimal increased benefits to cavity nesting Increased benefits to Refuge focal bird species from Increased benefits to habitat and indirect Floodplain waterfowl, northern parula, and rusty combined increased 289 acres of land protection benefits to Refuge focal bird species from blackbird from adding 153 acres of habitat and implementing active focal species management adding 293 acres to protected habitat base but no active focal species management techniques. and from near term active management techniques would be employed. techniques to promote establishment of Mapping and monitoring of the Magalloway River sustainable floodplain community. floodplain would be conducted. Restoring hydrology of Day Flats area may cause minimal short-term erosion Restoring Day Flats area hydrology would and sedimentation. Best management practices would have same impacts and BMPs to mitigate mitigate these effects. as alternative B. Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Environmental 4. Chapter Lake Umbagog Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C NWR Continue Current Management Refuge Focal Species Management Natural Processes Management Resources Service-preferred alternative Lakeshore Pine- Acquiring 288 additional acres of lakeshore Same protection and site restoration benefits, and Same protection and site restoration Hemlock pine-hemlock habitat would more than double short-term impacts, as alternative A plus additional benefits, and short-term impacts, as refuge acreage from the current 232 acres acreage to be identified in the expansion area would alternative B plus additional acreage to and increase protection benefits to jack pine, minimally increase benefits to jack pine, bald eagle, be identified in the expansion area would bald eagle, osprey, and other raptors at the osprey, other raptors by providing additional nesting minimally increase benefits to jack pine, refuge. and roosting habitat. bald eagle, osprey, other raptors.

Localized, minimal, short term impacts to soils from camp or other site restoration activities

on any of these newly acquired lands but long resources Refuge Lake on alternatives Umbagog management of effects the of Summary term benefits from restoration. Bald Eagle & Bald eagle and osprey would benefit from Increased bald eagle and osprey benefits from Benefits and impacts similar to alternative B Osprey protection of the lakeshore pine-hemlock protection of the lakeshore pine-hemlock habitat and habitat. active management to eliminate human disturbance and protect and recruit nesting trees. Risk of human disturbance of nesting eagles and ospreys and impacts to nesting trees Increased risk of human disturbance from increased because of limited management resources visitation mitigated by upgrade in management. and no active super-canopy tree recruitment measures. Effects minimally offset by lowest Water quality improved or maintained through increase in visitation. monitoring. Eagle and osprey food base better protected by expanded watershed and open water Eagle and osprey food base may be adversely protection. affected because watershed and open water protection limited to within acquisition boundary. 4-79 4-80 Summary of the effects of management alternatives on Lake Umbagog Refuge resources Refuge Lake on alternatives Umbagog management of effects the of Summary Lake Umbagog Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C NWR Continue Current Management Refuge Focal Species Management Natural Processes Management Resources Service-preferred alternative Upland Forest Up to 4,838 acre increase in protected upland Greatly expanded protection to total 59,611 acres of Benefits similar to alternative B, with major Matrix forest matrix in the current refuge boundary upland forest matrix and many significant upgrades expansion in the total acreage of upland would increase benefits to upland habitats in management activities would markedly increase forest protected under alternative C but and Refuge focal species benefits to Refuge focal species under alternative B. no Refuge focal species management measures. Refuge focal species will No active management to benefit Refuge We would not implement management on expansion ultimately benefit as natural forest focal bird species or promote mammalian lands within 15 years of CCP until the forest has characteristics are attained, but no travel corridors but natural succession and recovered from recent harvesting. Silvicultural adjustment to otherwise benefit Refuge disturbance would eventually lead to mature practices on about 4,000 acres within acquisition focal species. Benefits primarily to mature forests with a larger softwood component boundary would cause some adverse impacts but best forest dependent species because the which would benefit mature-forest dependant forest management practices would minimize effects. acreage of early successional vegetation species but not early succession dependent would be limited to natural or simulated species such as the woodcock. We would avoid impacts to all sensitive environments disturbance areas. on the refuge by adhering to strict operability standards No impacts from tree cutting or construction that prohibit or severely restrict forest management on Silvicultural practices and potential and use of skid trails and haul roads. protected resources and in buffer areas. impacts, best management practices, and Magalloway River Trail would be only walking operability restrictions to protect sensitive trail maintained on refuge. Same snowmobiling impacts as alternative A, but more environments same as alternative B. trails monitored because of expansion. No additional Acquisition of 5,389 upland forest matrix infrastructure installed to support snowmobiling. Snowmobiling impacts would be limited to acres and increased visitation under Relocation of trail portions where needed to meet current trails where any substantive habitat alternative A would minimally increase habitat goals. Unauthorized trails closed and restored. and wildlife impacts have generally already off-trail disturbance of upland forests with occurred. Winter wildlife disturbance habitat impacts or disturbance of wildlife. effects would continue.

Significant natural forest disturbance events, Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Environmental 4. Chapter such as windstorms, could diminish the habitat value of portions of refuge for long periods because recovery only by natural regeneration.

Snowmobiling would continue to be allowed with use confined to the two state- designated trails. Refuge compatibility determination describes substantial impacts for snowmobiling; however, allowing snowmobiling only on established trails means any important habitat and wildlife impacts have already occurred. Some level of winter wildlife disturbance effects would continue Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Environmental 4. Chapter Lake Umbagog Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C NWR Continue Current Management Refuge Focal Species Management Natural Processes Management Resources Service-preferred alternative Spruce-ﬁ r Acquiring up to 956 acres to total 3,302 Acquiring up to 25,561 acres to total 28,863 Refuge Benefits similar to alternative B, with Habitat Type refuge acres of spruce-fir protected would acres of spruce-fir protected would increase benefits major expansion of 11,468 acres to total benefit Refuge focal species. Benefits limited to refuge focal species. Specific measures to enhance 14,770 of spruce-fir forest protected because only through natural succession spruce-fir habitats on current and expansion area lands under alternative C but no refuge focal would spruce-fir become a larger component under alternative B would benefit blackburnian and species management measures. Direct of the forest to benefit blackburnian and black-throated green warblers, and promote growth of forest management effects similar to but black-throated green warblers. Deer would travel corridors for lynx and other larger mammals. Deer more limited than alternative B because benefit from winter yard protection on would benefit from increased winter yard maintenance of smaller cuts (4%) to management units. current and newly acquired lands. efforts on expansion lands. Lower cumulative effects over the type

within the Umbagog Lake watershed. Deer resources Refuge Lake on alternatives Umbagog management of effects the of Summary No active forest management so no related Forest management impacts, site and skid trail habitat would benefit from protection of mature adverse impacts. disturbance and loss, soil compaction, soil erosion and maturing stands on expansion lands. would be seen on up to 15% of each managed unit on 15-20 year rotation. BMPs would mitigate those effects. If cutting a large area is necessary to More sensitive sites would be protected by restrictions simulate the effects of an insect outbreak to single tree or group cuts. or major windthrow event in the future, we would conduct a full NEPA analysis of the forest management project.

Mixed Woods Acquiring up to 2,454 acres to total 6,313 Acquiring up to 10,952 acres to total 17,265 refuge acres Benefits similar to alternative B, with major Habitat Type refuge acres of mixed woods protected of mixed woods protected would substantially increase expansion of 27,918 acres to total 34,231of would benefit Refuge focal species. Benefits benefits to refuge focal species. We would implement mixed woods protected under alternative limited because only through natural specific measures to enhance spruce and fir habitats on C but no refuge focal species management succession would spruce and fir become a current and expansion area lands under alternative B to measures. Forest landscape mosaic would larger component of the mixed woods type benefit Canada, black-throated green and blackburnian benefit Canada warblers and blackburnian to benefit Canada, black-throated green, and warblers and woodcock. Better management of age warblers locally where habitat components blackburnian warblers. classes and structural classes would also benefit are favorable. Impacts on these sites would Canada warblers and woodcock. be more limited than those described for No benefits to woodcock because no active alternative B on similar sites because the woodcock management. In general, maturing Substantial increase in woodcock benefits from cuts would be smaller and entry to stands forest with few large disturbed sites would program of forest management techniques focused to would be less frequent. Long term benefits not support woodcock. We would also not support woodcock. to early successional dependent species create openings to manage for woodcock in not as high from landscape management as mixed forests. Human disturbance impacts would be limited by relative under alternative B because disturbance remoteness of management sites. regime would tend toward more mature stands. 4-81 4-82 Summary of the effects of management alternatives on Lake Umbagog Refuge resources Refuge Lake on alternatives Umbagog management of effects the of Summary Lake Umbagog Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C NWR Continue Current Management Refuge Focal Species Management Natural Processes Management Resources Service-preferred alternative Mixed-Woods No active forest management so no related Potential adverse impacts similar to spruce-fir impacts Natural clearings and early successional Habitat Type adverse impacts. above, with a slightly greater degree of risk of soil components in mixed stands would benefit (cont’d) erosion from openings maintained for woodcock. woodcock only if singing grounds and large openings for night roosting are sufficient in number and proximity to the woodcock’s other necessary habitat components to adequately support the species.

Northern Acquiring up to 1,428 acres to total 6,068 Acquiring up to 7,415 acres to total 13,488 refuge Benefits similar to alternative B, with major Hardwood refuge acres of Northern hardwoods acres of Northern hardwood forest protected would expansion of 30,316 acres to total 36,384 Habitat Type protected would benefit refuge focal benefit refuge focal species. Refuge focal species of Northern hardwood forest protected species. Benefits limited because only benefits would increase through active management under alternative C but no refuge focal natural disturbances would promote dense to promote dense understory to benefit black-throated species management measures. Impacts understory to benefit black-throated blue blue warblers, and intolerant hardwoods to benefit on silviculture sites would be more limited warblers, or intolerant hardwoods to benefit woodcock production, Canada warbler or other early than for alternative B on similar sites woodcock production, Canada warbler or successional species. because cuts would be smaller and entry other early successional species. to stands would be less frequent. In the Adverse silvicultural impacts would be short-term, long term, benefits to refuge focal species No active forest management so no related localized at managed sites and mitigated by best forest lower than alternative B because we would adverse impacts. management practices. create as much optimal habitat. Public Use & Five of the six priority public uses (hunting, We would formally open the refuge to fishing and Similar to alternative B except, less Access wildlife observation and photography, and increase our infrastructure to support all six priority interpretive infrastructure would be environmental education and interpretation) public uses. Visitor experiences would be enhanced provided and fewer trails constructed. are allowed on the refuge, and would be as we provide new trails, wildlife viewing areas, and The objective under alternative C would provided on lands to be acquired in the future. fishing and boating access. Educational programs be to provide a low density, back country

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Environmental 4. Chapter Fishing is the only priority public use not would be facilitated on the refuge, but we would look to experience. The Potter Farm area would formally allowed at present. Popular, non- partners to develop and implement them. We may not be developed with trails and interpretive priority public uses that would be allowed to meet demand for this activity. infrastructure, but no other new trails continue include snowmobiling and camping. would be developed. Thus, visitors that We would maintain the current capacity for Potential impacts for expanding our hunt program to prefer developments to enjoy their visit these activities. Other popular activities we include turkey hunting (both states) and bobcat hunting would be less satisfied under alternative C would formally open to include dog-sledding, (Maine only) would be analyzed in a separate EA to than under alternative B. berry picking, bicycling and horseback riding. initiate within 2 years of CCP approval. Snowmobiling, camping, and boating Education and interpretive programs We would continue to provide the existing level of opportunities and impacts are similar to are limited and we have very little visitor opportunity for snowmobiling and lake camping, but alternative B. infrastructure in place to facilitate self-guided no opportunity for expansion, or new infrastructure, opportunities. We do not meet demand is planned for these activities. Two popular river for these programs; however, we do meet camp sites would be eliminated because of resource demands for hunting, and wildlife observation degradation. Typically these sites are full every and photography. weekend during the summer months. Visitors expecting to use the sites would be impacted. Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Environmental 4. Chapter Lake Umbagog Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C NWR Continue Current Management Refuge Focal Species Management Natural Processes Management Resources Service-preferred alternative Public Use & Conflicts among motorized and non- Conflicts among motorized and non-motorized boaters Similar to alternative B, as we acquire lands Access (cont’d) motorized boaters would continue to be the are likely to increase; however, strategies would be in fee simple (up to 74,414 acres); we would biggest challenge. implemented to try and minimize these concerns. eliminate certain activities that are not We would work within the structure of the proposed allowed on current refuge lands. As with Some popular activities in the area would Umbagog Working Group to address these conflicts alternative B, we do not know how many continue not to be allowed, but this is not among the agencies with jurisdiction on the lake. people would be impacted. On the other a change of expectation on existing refuge hand, Service acquisition benefits priority lands as they have never been allowed. Similar to alternative A, as we acquire lands in fee public uses, and those other activities However, where they occur on lands to be simple (up to 28,840 acres); we would eliminate certain allowed, because it affords permanent

acquired in fee simple (up to 7,500 acres), activities that are not allowed on current refuge lands. public access. resources Refuge Lake on alternatives Umbagog management of effects the of Summary some of those user groups would be As with alternative A, we do not know how many impacted. Unfortunately, we do not have an people would be impacted. On the other hand, Service estimate of numbers. acquisition benefits priority public uses, and those other activities allowed, because it affords permanent public access. Cultural We have not conducted a detailed In addition to impacts under alternative A: Same as alternative B. Resources archeological or history survey of all refuge lands; however some specific project surveys We would identify high probability sites to survey more have been done to determine the eligibility intensely prior to refuge activities. Areas along rivers of certain sites. We know of one historic and and lakes have particularly high potential and we will be four prehistoric sites on the refuge. especially vigilant in those areas.

We would continue to protect these sites We would also increase outreach and education to under state and federal historic preservation inform visitors about the refuge’s cultural resources. act requirements. Any future actions with the potential to impact cultural resources will be reviewed and assessed under provisions of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

This document has been submitted to both state SHPOs for their review and concurrence. 4-83 Chapter 5 Bill Zinni/USFWS Hosting a public meeting

Consultation and Coordination with Others Public Scoping Meetings – Meeting Our Refuge Neighbors at Open Houses

Background We presented in chapter 1, figure 1-1, the steps in the comprehensive conservation planning process and how it integrates NEPA requirements including public involvement. What follows is the chronology of public outreach activities we conducted prior to releasing the final CCP/EIS.

Planning Updates, August 2001 Distributed newsletter announcing that we were beginning Issues Workbook, and the planning process and to ask if people wanted to be on our other Newsletters mailing list and Publications June 2002 Distributed the issues workbook and planning newsletter to approximately 1,000 names on our mailing list

Fall/Winter 2004 Distributed 219 stakeholder surveys in cooperation with U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

August 2005 Distributed our “Planning Update” to everyone on our mailing list

November 2005 Distributed the Executive Summary of USGS stakeholder survey

June 2007 Distributed newsletter announcing release of draft CCP/EIS to approximately 1,000 names on our mailing list

July 2007 Distributed Draft CCP/EIS for 77 days of public review and comment. A Federal Register Notice was published and hard copies and cd-roms were distributed at this time. Also, a copy was posted on the National Conservation Training Center website, and news releases and a newsletter were distributed.

Public Scoping July 30, 2002 Meetings — Meeting Number of non-FWS attendants: 44 Our Refuge Neighbors Location: Errol, NH at Open Houses August 1, 2002 Number of non-FWS attendants: 21 Location: Berlin, NH

August 2, 2002 Number of non-FWS attendants: 13 Location: Bethel, ME

August 3, 2002 Number of non-FWS attendants: 6 Location: Umbagog Wildlife Festival in Errol, NH

August 28, 2002 Number of non-FWS attendants: 10 Location: Augusta, ME

August 29, 2002 Number of non-FWS attendants: 21 Location: Concord, NH

Updating Various August 21, 2001 Constituents on Our Number of non-FWS attendants: 1 Progress Location: Phillips Brook Backcountry Recreation Area Audience: Bill Altenberg, Timberland Trails, Inc.

Chapter 5. Consultation and Coordination with Others 5-1 Meetings with State Partners and Other Conservation Experts

January 15, 2002 Number of non-FWS attendants: 5 Location: Concord, NH Audience: Society for the Protection of NH Forests

February 5, 2002 Number of non-FWS attendants: 6 Location: Concord, NH Audience: The Nature Conservancy in NH

February 6, 2002 Number of non-FWS attendants: 10 Location: Concord, NH Audience: NH Audubon Society

September 23, 2002 Number of non-FWS attendants: 2 Location: USFWS Regional Office, Hadley, MA, Audience: The Wilderness Society

Meeting with State August 22, 2001 Partners and Other Outreach activity: NH Fish and Game - Director’s Meeting Conservation Experts Purpose: Discuss refuge programs and how they will be addressed in the CCP. Number of non-FWS attendants: 4 Audience: Wayne Vetter, Director NHFG; Steve Weber, Division Chief, NHFG; Charlie Bridges, Habitat and Diversity Programs Admin, NHFG; Will Staats, Regional Wildlife Biologist, NHFG; Dan Ashe, Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System; Tony Leger, Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System; Dick Dyer, Refuge Supervisor; Sue McMahon, Chief-Division of Refuges; USFWS Planning Team Members: Paul Casey, Laurie Wunder, Nancy McGarigal

September 11, 2001 Outreach activity: Planning Meeting Purpose: Discuss land conservation proposal as part of the CCP. Number of non-FWS attendants: 1 Audience: Phil Bryce, Director of NH Division of Forests and Lands; USFWS Planning Team Members: Paul Casey, Ian Drew, Bill Zinni

September 19, 2001 Outreach activity: Planning Meeting Purpose: Discuss core team representatives Number of non-FWS attendants: 4 Audience: NH Fish and Game; USFWS Planning Team Member: Paul Casey

October 30, 2001 Outreach activity: Planning Meeting Purpose: Identify NH Fish and Game as core team member Number of non-FWS attendants: 4 Audience: Susan Arnold, Policy Director, Office of the Governor, Wayne Vetter, Steve Weber, Charlie Bridges, USFWS Planning Team Member: Paul Casey.

January 22, 2002 Outreach activity: Planning Meeting Purpose: To discuss the feasibility of doing the cover type mapping following National Vegetation Classification standards. Number of non-FWS attendants: 2 Audience: NH Heritage Program; USFWS Planning Team Member: Laurie Wunder, Jennifer Casey

5-2 Chapter 5. Consultation and Coordination with Others Meetings with State Partners and Other Conservation Experts

February 11, 2002 Outreach activity: Planning Meeting Purpose: Forest and woodcock management strategies. Number of non-FWS attendants: 2 Audience: Will Staats, NHFG, Chuck Hulsey, MDIFW; USFWS Planning Team Member: Ian Drew

August 28, 2002 Outreach activity: Planning Meeting Purpose: To explain the CCP process to all ME state agencies with jurisdiction or management interest in the refuge, and to discuss any issues, concerns or opportunities with refuge management and refuge resources. Number of non-FWS attendants: 11 Audience: Meeting with ME state agencies; USFWS Planning Team Members: Paul Casey, Ian Drew, Laurie Wunder, Nancy McGarigal

August 29, 2002 Outreach activity: Planning Meeting Purpose: To explain the CCP process to all NH state agencies with jurisdiction or management interest in the refuge, and to discuss any issues, concerns or opportunities with refuge management and refuge resources. Number of non-FWS attendants: 10 Audience: Meeting with NH state agencies; USFWS Planning Team Members: Paul Casey, Ian Drew, Laurie Wunder, Nancy McGarigal

November 20, 2002 Outreach activity: Planning Meeting Purpose: To discuss available information and information needs for addressing visitor services issues; to discuss a vision related to visitor services on the refuge; and to develop draft goals for visitor services Number of non-FWS attendants: 6 Audience: David Thurlow, Director of the Northern Forest Heritage Park; Johanna Lyons, NH DRED; Charlie Bridges, NH F&G; Judy Silverberg, NHFG; Chuck Hulsey, MDIFW; Forrest Bonney, MDIFW; USFWS Planning team members: Paul Casey, Ian Drew, Laurie Wunder, Jennifer Tietjen, Nancy McGarigal, Bill Zinni, Sarah Bevilacqua, Susan J. Russo

November 22, 2002 Outreach activity: Planning meeting Purpose: Discuss use of ELU’s in development of the CCP. Number of non-FWS attendants: 1 Audience: Mark Anderson, TNC, USFWS Planning Team Members: Paul Casey, Laurie Wunder, Jennifer Casey

December 3-5, 2002 Outreach activity: Partners Workshop Purpose: The purposes were to exchange information and identify species priorities so they could begin an integrated approach to planning in this region. Number of non-FWS attendants: approximately 30 Audience: North Atlantic Forest (Lake Umbagog Region; BCR 14) NABCI partners; USFWS Planning Team Members: Jennifer Casey, Laurie Wunder

Chapter 5. Consultation and Coordination with Others 5-3 Meetings with State Partners and Other Conservation Experts

April 2, 2003 Outreach Activity: Planning Meeting Purpose: To discuss how the Penobscot, Passamaquoddy (Pleasant Point and Indian Township reservations), Micmac, and Maliseet Tribal Governments can best participate in the CCP Process. Number of non-FWS Attendants: 6 Audience: Steve Crawford, Passamaquoddy Tribe; Fred Corey, Aroostock Band of the Micmacs; Dave Macek, Aroostook Band of the Micmacs; Sharri Venno, Houlton Band of the Maliseet; John Banks, Penobscot Nation; Trevor White, Passamaquoddy Tribe. USFWS Planning Team Members: John Wilson, Nancy McGarigal, D.J. Monette, Stan Skutek, Tom Comish.

April 9, 2003 Outreach activity: Technical Workshop Purpose: To determine goals and management options for emergent marsh, peatlands, and any adjacent communities that directly influence, or are influenced by, these community types. Number of non-FWS attendants: 7 Audience: Charlie Bridges, NHFG; Will Staats, NHFG; Chuck Hulsey, MDIFW; Andy Weik, MDIFW; Ron Davis, University of Maine; Curtis Bohlen, Bates College; Jerry Longcore, USGS-BRD; Andrew Milliken, Migratory Bird Program, USFWS; USFWS Planning team members: Paul Casey, Ian Drew, Laurie Wunder, Jennifer Casey, Nancy McGarigal, Bill Zinni, Jennifer Tietjen

April 15, 2003 Outreach activity: Field trip Purpose: Compare ELU’s with actual site and vegetation conditions. Numder of non-FWS attendants: 2 Audience: Mark Anderson, TNC, Greg Kehm, TNC; USFWS Planning Team Members: Paul Casey, Laurie Wunder, Ian Drew, Jennifer Casey.

May 14, 2003 Outreach activity: Technical Workshop Purpose: To discuss the importance of upland forests and identify goals and management options for this community type. Number of non-FWS attendants: 11 Audience: Tom Hodgman, MDIFW; Chuck Hulsey, MDIFW; Charlie Bridges, NHFG; Will Staats, NHFG; John Lanier, NHFG; John Kanter, NHFG; Carol Foss, NH Audubon; Kevin Evans, Dartmouth College; Peter Ellis, Univ. of Vermont; Bill Keaton, Univ. of Vermont; Dave Capen, Univ. of Vermont; Randy Dettmers, Migratory Bird Program, USFWS; USFWS Planning team members: Paul Casey, Ian Drew, Laurie Wunder, Jennifer Casey, Nancy McGarigal, Bill Zinni

August 4, 2003 Outreach activity: Planning meeting Purpose: Develop a more detailed soil survey map. Number of non-FWS attendants: 2 Audience: Joe Homer and Steve Huntley, NRCS; USFWS Planning Team Member: Laurie Wunder

5-4 Chapter 5. Consultation and Coordination with Others Meetings with State Partners and Other Conservation Experts

August 27, 2003 Outreach Activity: Planning meeting with Tribal Natural Resources Coordinators Purpose: to further develop opportunities/action items identified at April 2, 2003 meeting related to tribal involvement in refuge comprehensive conservation planning and other activities on refuges in Maine. Number on non-FWS attendants: 6 Audience: Fred Corey, Aroostook Band of Micmacs; John Banks, Penobscot Nation; Steve Crawford, Passamaquoddy Tribe; Trevor White, Passamaquoddy Tribe; Sharri Venno, Houlton Band of Maliseet; Donald Soctomah, Passamaquoddy Joint Council. USFWS Planning Team Members: DJ Monette, Tom Comish, Brian Benedict, John Wilson, Nancy McGarigal.

January 13, 2004 Outreach activity: Planning Meeting Purpose: To discuss disturbance regimes and forest conditions of pre-settlement New England forests (based on data from mid 1700’s to early 1800’s); and to use the information obtained to help develop our alternative C. Number of non-FWS attendants: 2 Audience: Dr. Cogbill, New England Historical Ecologist; Will Staats, NHFG; USFWS Planning Team Member: Laurie Wunder

June 2, 2004 Outreach activity: Field trip Purpose: Assess lake for Bald Eagle habitat Number of non-FWS attendants: 3 Audience: Charlie Todd, MDIFW, Chuck Hulsey, MDIFW, Will Staats, NHFG; USFWS Planning Team Members: Paul Casey, Ian Drew

June 7, 2004 Outreach activity: Field Trip Purpose: To visit field locations where trajectory of forest succession was questionable; e.g. given the soils type, the group was to evaluate what the vegetation might look like under unmanaged conditions. Number of non-FWS attendants: 4 Audience: Steve Fay, Soil Scientist, USFS; Bill Leek , Soil Scientist, USFS; Dave Farick, Forester, NH Division of Forests and Lands; Joe Homer, Soil Survey Leader, NRCS; USFWS Planning team members: Paul Casey, Ian Drew, Laurie Wunder, Jennifer Casey

June 14, 2004 Outreach activity: Field trip Purpose: Assess Refuge habitat for waterfowl Number of non-FWS attendants: 1 Audience: Jerry Longcore, USGS; USFWS Planning Team Members: Laurie Wunder, Ian Drew, Paul Casey.

October 26, 2004 Outreach activity: Land acquisition planning meeting with NH Fish and Game Personnel Purpose: To discuss land acquisition Number of non-FWS attendants: 4 Audience: Ed Robinson, NH; Jill Kelly, NH; Will Staats, NH; Diane Emerson, NH; USFWS Planning Team Members: Paul Casey, Ian Drew.

Chapter 5. Consultation and Coordination with Others 5-5 Briefing Elected Officials and Others

March 25, 2005 Outreach activity: CCP Update and Land Acquisition Discussion Purpose: To discuss topics such as Refuge Improvement Act, CCP, Land Acquisition, Public Use, Habitat Management, and Administration of the Refuge. Number of non-FWS attendants: 6 Audience: Phil Bryce, State Forester, NH DRED; Lee Perry, Director, NHFG, Charlie Bridges, NHFG; Steve Weber, NHFG; Johanna Lyons, NH DRED; Allison McLean, Director of Parks, NH DRED; USFWS Planning Team Members: Paul Casey, Ian Drew

Briefing Elected October 30, 2001 New Hampshire Governor’s Office Officials and Others March 14, 2002 NH Senators in Washington, DC

June 11, 2002 Aides to Senator Gregg in NH

June 19, 2002 Aides to Representative Bass in NH

February 15, 2005 Matt Hogan, Acting Director of USFWS

July 10, 2005 Aide to Senator Sununu in NH

July 26, 2005 Senator Gregg in NH

August 16, 2006 Aides to Senator Gregg in NH

October 28, 2006 Dale Hall, Director USFWS

June 6, 2007 Aides to Senator Gregg in NH

June 14, 2007 Aides to Senator Sununu in NH

July 24, 2007 Aides to Senators Snow and Collins, and Representative Michaud in ME

July 24, 2008 NH Executive Councilor Raymond Burton, NH State Senator John Gallus, and Berlin Cit Councilor Timothy Donovan

July 16, 2008 NH Fish and Game Director

Public Release of July 10, 2007 Draft CCP/EIS Information Session Location: Errol, NH

July 30, 2007 Public Hearing Errol, NH

July 31, 2007 Public Hearing Newry, ME

August 1, 2007 Public Hearing Berlin, NH

5-6 Chapter 5. Consultation and Coordination with Others Updating Various Constituents on Draft CCP/EIS

August 6, 2007 Public Hearing Concord, NH

August 7, 2007 Public Hearing Augusta, ME

August 9, 2007 WMOU radio Q&A program Berlin, NH

August 16, 2007 Information Session Errol, NH

Updating Various June 10, 2008 Constituents on Draft Audience: Thirteen Mile Woods Association CCP/EIS July 21, 2008 Audience: Dartmouth College Grant Management Committee

2008 Audience: Various; approximately 8 general presentations on the refuge were given during the year, and CCP updates were provided and questions related to the plan were addressed when appropriate. In addition, at least three meetings were held with individuals interested in discussing particulars about the draft CCP/EIS. Details on the presentations or meetings with individuals can be provided upon request.

Chapter 5. Consultation and Coordination with Others 5-7 Chapter 6 USFWS Planning Team meeting

List of Preparers Members of the Core Planning Team

Members of the Core Charles A. Bridges, Habitat and Diversity Program Administrator, NH Fish Planning Team and Game Department Education: M.S. Wildlife Management; B.S. Zoology Experience: UNH Cooperative Extension, Wildlife Specialist; NH Fish and Game 20 years, in addition to current position has served as state lands habitat biologist and inland fisheries and wildlife division chief Contribution: Participated in all aspects of plan preparation Phone: 603-271-2461 Email: [email protected]

Paul Casey, Refuge Manager, Lake Umbagog NWR Education: B.S. Wildlife Management Experience: 22 years USFWS Contribution: Participated in all aspects of plan preparation Phone: 603-482-3415 Email: [email protected]

Jennifer Casey, Assistant Regional Refuge Biologist Education: B.S. Wildlife Management; B.S. Biology Experience: 15 years USFWS; 5 years with state wildlife departments and non-profit organizations Contribution: Participated in all aspects of developing biological goals and objectives Phone: 603-482-3415 Email: [email protected]

Ian Drew, Deputy Refuge Manager, Lake Umbagog NWR Education: B.S. Environmental Studies and Biology Experience: 10 years USFWS; 3 years County Soil and Water Conservation District; 3 Years Environmental Consulting Contribution: Participated in all aspects of plan preparation Phone 603-482-3415 Email [email protected]

Chuck Hulsey, Regional Wildlife Biologist, ME Dept. of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Education: B.S. Wildlife Management; B.S. Forest Management Experience: 8 years District Forester, Maine Forest Service; 10 years Assistant Regional Wildlife Biologist, MDIFW; 10 years Regional Wildlife Biologist, MDIFW. Contribution: Participated in all aspects of plan preparation Phone: 207-778-3324 ext. 25 Email: [email protected]

Johanna Lyons, State Park Planning and Development Specialist, NH Dept. of Resources and Economic Development, Division of Parks and Recreation Education: University of New Hampshire, BA in Zoology with minor in Spanish (1988) Experience: 22 years NH Division of Parks and Recreation in various positions Contribution: Provided technical advice on public use, participated in developing public use goals and objectives, and represented a key partner in the project Phone: 603-271-3556 Email: [email protected]

Chapter 6. List of Preparers 6-1 Members of the Core Planning Team

Nancy McGarigal, Regional Natural Resource Planner Education: B.S. Forestry and Wildlife, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Experience: 17 years Forest Service; 10 years USFWS biologist Contribution: Planning Team Leader; participated in all aspects of plan preparation Phone: 413–253–8562 Email: [email protected]

Carolina Ferro Vasconcelos, Former Assistant Planner (transferred to private sector) Education: B.S. Biology; B.S. Wildlife and Fisheries Conservation, UMass Amherst Experience: 2 years with USFWS under ECOIntern program Contribution: Helped write and edit portions of the Lake Umbagog CCP. Assisted with the format, layout and other tasks necessary to compile and distribute the plan.

Laurie Wunder, Wildlife Biologist, Lake Umbagog NWR Education: B.A. in Anthropology at SUNY at Binghamton; M.S. in Environmental Science at University of Montana, Missoula; PhD Colorado State University Experience: 9 years with USFWS, prior to that Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife and U.S. Forest Service, Olympia, WA Contribution: Participated in all aspects of plan preparation Phone: 603-482-3415 Email: [email protected]

Judith Silverberg PhD, Wildlife Education Supervisor, NH Fish and Game Department Education: PhD. Univ. of New Hampshire - conducted research on wildlife viewing behaviors and attitudes; MS. University of Wisconsin- Madison; B.S. University of Wisconsin-Madison Experience: 32 years experience working with natural resource agencies in education; past 22 years at NH Fish and Game. Currently serves as the wildlife viewing coordinator for New Hampshire and oversees wildlife education and interpretive programs. Contribution: Provided technical advice on public use, participated in developing public use goals and objectives, and represented a key partner in the project Phone: 603-271-3211 Email: [email protected]

Will Staats, Regional Wildlife Biologist, NH Fish and Game Department Education: B.S. Wildlife Biology Experience: Last 15 years with NH Fish and Game; 2.5 years Champion International; 8 years Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department Contribution: Participated in all aspects of plan preparation Phone: 603-788-3164 Email: [email protected]

Bill Zinni, Regional Wildlife Biologist Education: B.S. Natural Resources/Wildlife, University of Rhode Island Experience: Last 25 years with USFWS; 4 years with UMass Dept of Forestry and Wildlife Contribution: Participated in all aspects of Land Protection Plan and biological goals and objectives Phone: 413-253-8522 Email: [email protected]

6-2 Chapter 6. List of Preparers Assistance from Other Service Personnel

Assistance from Sarah Bevilacqua, Former Regional Visitor Services Specialist (transferred Other Service to Silvio O. Conte Fish and Wildlife Refuge) Personnel Education: B.S. Resource Recreation Management, Oregon State University Experience: 12 years with U.S. Forest Service; 15 years with the USFWS as a public use specialist. Contribution: Edited visitor services descriptions and proposed action, participated in developing public use goals and objectives. Phone: 413–548-8002 Email: [email protected]

Randy Dettmers, Migratory Bird Biologist Education: Ph.D. Zoology, Ohio State University Experience: 9 years with USFWS Contribution: Provided recommendations on which priority landbird species were most applicable to Lake Umbagog refuge and suggested management objectives for those species Phone: 413–253–8567 Email: [email protected]

Susan Fuller, Senior Biologist/GIS Specialist Education: M.S. Wildlife and Fisheries Conservation/GIS, University of Massachusetts Experience: 9 years with USFWS as GIS Specialist; 3 years, combined, Wildlife Biologist field work with U.S. Forest Service, and the University of Massachusetts Contribution: GIS mapping and spatial analysis for LPP and CCP Phone: 413-253-8533 Email: [email protected]

Shelley Hight, Archaeologist Education: B.A. Anthropology, 1980, University of Massachusetts M.A. Anthropology, 1982, University of South Carolina, Public Archaeology Experience: 7 years Vermont Division for Historic Preservation, 4 years U.S. Forest Service archeologist; 12 years USFWS Field Archaeologist Contribution: Edited cultural resources descriptions and proposed action. Phone: 413–253–8554 Email: [email protected]

Thomas LaPointe, Forester Education: Assoc in Forestry, 1996 University of New Hampshire; B.S. Forestry, 1998, University of New Hampshire Experience: 5 years private forester, licensed in NH since 2000; 5 years USFWS Contribution: Contributed to forest management objectives Phone: 802-962-5240 Email: [email protected]

Lelaina Marin, Former Assistant Planner (transferred to National Park Service) Education: B.S in Natural Resources, Cornell University Experience: 4 years with USFWS (2 years as SCEP student, 2 years as Assistant Planner) Contribution: Helped edit portions of the CCP. Assisted with the format, layout and other tasks necessary to compile and distribute the plan. Phone: 970-225-3552 Email: [email protected]

Chapter 6. List of Preparers 6-3 Assistance from Others

Andrew Milliken, Atlantic Coast Joint Venture Coordinator Education: B.A. Northern Studies/Biology, Middlebury College; M.S. Biological Oceanography, University of Rhode Island Experience: New York State, University of Rhode Island, U.S. EPA, USFWS Coastal Ecosystems Program and Atlantic Coast Joint Venture Contribution: Helped evaluate significance of habitat for migratory birds. Phone: 413–253–8269 Email: [email protected]

Rick Schauffler, Cartographic and Spatial Data Specialist Education: B.A. Human Ecology, M.S. Wildlife Biology Experience: 7 years with USFWS, 4 years as University Research Assistant Contribution: GIS mapping and spatial analysis for LPP and CCP Phone: 603-431-3898 Email: [email protected]

Assistance from Ellen Snyder, Wildlife Biologist, Ibis Wildlife Consulting Others Education: B.S. Wildlife Management, M.S. Animal Ecology Experience: 22 years in wildlife and natural resources Contribution: Consultant - contributed to Chapter 2 Phone: 603-659-6250 Email: [email protected]

Lynne Koontz, U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center Education: PhD. Colorado State Univ. (CSU)in Natural Resources Economics; M.S. CSU Natural Resources Economics; B.S. CSU Agricultural and Natural Resources Economics Experience: USGS 11 years Contribution: Provided technical information on socio-economic environment and impacts Phone: 970-226-9384 Email: [email protected]

Phil Sczerzenie, Mangi Environmental Group, Inc. Education: B.S. Forestry & Wildlife Management, Rutgers University; M.S. and Ph.D. in Wildlife Management, UMASS, Amherst Experience: 26 years NEPA environmental analysis and management, risk assessment, and statistics consulting Contribution: Consultant – contributed to writing goals and objectives, Chapter 3- Affected Environment and Chapter 4- Environmental Consequences Phone: 703-760-4801 Email: [email protected]

6-4 Chapter 6. List of Preparers Bibliography ©Derrick Z. Jackson/Boston Globe Common loon on nest

Bibliography Bibliography

Bibliography Anderson, M. 1999. Viability and spatial assessment of ecological communities in the Northern Appalachian ecoregion. PhD dissertation, University of New Hampshire Durham, NH.

Annis, G., B. Barnett, E. Eames, M. Hamlin, M. Hart, C. Lane, R. Perkins, L. Preece, G.O. Thurston, N. Thurston, R. Pinette, L. Cote. 1999. Errol on the Androscoggin 1774-1999. The Umbagog Region Chamber of Commerce, Errol, NH.

Askins, R. A. 2000. Restoring North America’s birds: lessons from landscape ecology. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT

Askins, R. A. and M. J. Philbrick. 1987. Effect of changes in regional forest abundance on the decline and recovery of a forest bird community. Wilson Bull., 99(1):7-21.

Audubon Society of New Hampshire (ASNH). 2005. Unpublished data provided to Refuge.

Avery, M. L. 1995. Rusty blackbird. The Birds of North America, The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA.

Bellrose, F. C. 1976. Ducks, geese, and swans of North America. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA.

Biodiversity Research Institute (BRI). 1997. A Comparison of Mercury Exposure and Risk Between Artificial Impoundments and Natural Lakes Measured in Common Loons and their Prey: 1996-97. Submitted to: Central Maine Power Company; Augusta, ME.

Bonney. 2002. Personal communication with Forrest Bonney from the Maine Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), November 5, 2002.

Bormann, F. H. and G. E. Likens. 1979. Pattern and Process in a Forested Ecosystem. Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 253 pp as cited in D’Avanzo, C. and the Ecological Society of America. 2004. Ecology of Fire in Teaching Issues and Experiments in Ecology (TIEE) Volume 1 - Ecological Society of America. Accessed at: http://www.tiee.ecoed.net.

Boucher, D. P. 2005. Rapid River and Pond if the River fishery investigation. Fishery Progress Report Series No. 05-1, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), Augusta, ME

Boulanger, Y., and D. Arseneault. 2004. Spruce budworm outbreaks in eastern Quebec over the last 450 years. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research 34: 1035–1043.

Brewster, W. 1924. The birds of the Umbagog Lake region of Maine. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Vol. 66 (Parts 1-3), Harvard College, Cambridge, MA.

Calhoun & deMaynadier. 2003.Forestry Habitat Management Guidelines for Vernal Pool Wildlife in Maine. U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Boston, MA.

Casey, J. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), unpublished data.

Bibliography Bibl-1 Bibliography

Chase, V., L. Deming and F. Latawiec. 1997. Buffers for wetlands and surface waters: a guidebook for New Hampshire municipalities. Audubon Soc. of New Hampshire.

Chase et al. 1995. Buffers for Wetlands and Surface Waters: A Guidebook for New Hampshire Municipalities.

Clark, K. E., and L. J. Niles. 2000. North Atlantic regional shorebird plan. New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife, Woodbine, New Jersey.

Cogbill, C. 2004. Personal Communication with Charlie Cogbill.

Collins, S.L. 1983. Geographic variation in habitat structure for the wood warblers in Maine and Minnesota. Oecologia, 59:246-252.

Conway, C. J. 1999. Canada Warbler (Wilsonia canadensis). In The Birds of North America, No. 421 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA

Cronin, W. 1983. Changes in the land: Indians, colonists, and the ecology of New England. Hill and Wang, a division of Farrar, Straus & Giroux; New York, NY

Cullen. 2000. Best Management Practices for Erosion Control on Timber Harvesting Operations in New Hampshire. NH Dept. of Resources and Economic Development, Div. of Forests and Lands, Forest Info. and Planning Bureau and Univ. of New Hampshire Coop. Extension.

D’Avanzo, C. and the Ecological Society of America. 2004. Ecology of Fire in Teaching Issues and Experiments in Ecology (TIEE), Volume 1 - Ecological Society of America. Accessed at: http://www.tiee.ecoed.net.

Danowski, M. 2003. Personal communication with Mark Danowski, Prudential Coulombe Real Estate, 10 July 2003.

Darveau, M., J.L. DesGranges, and G. Gauthier. 1992. Habitat use by three breeding insectivorous birds in declining maple forests. Condor, 94:72-82.

Dayal, P. 2000. Carbon Trading and Sequestration Projects Offer Global Warming Solutions. EM Feature:.pp. 15 -24

Davis, M. B. 1981. Quaternary history and the stability of forest communities. Pages 133-153 in D.C. West, H.H. Shugart, and D.B. Botkin, editors. Forest succession. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.

Davis, M.B. 1983. Holocene vegetational history of the United States. Pages 166- 181 in H.E. Wright, Jr, editor. Late-Quaternary environments of the United States, Volume 2: The Holocene. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.

DeGraaf, R. M., and M. Yamasaki. 2001. New England wildlife: habitat, natural history, and distribution. University Press of New England, Hanover, NH.

Dettmers, R. 2005. Blueprint for the design and delivery of bird conservation in the Atlantic Northern Forest. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Hadley, MA.

Dettmers, R. 2006. Personal communication with Randy Dettmers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Bibl-2 Bibliography Bibliography

D. H. Hurd and Company. 1982. The Old Maps of Coos County, New Hampshire In 1982. D.H. Hurd and Company, Saco Valley Printing.

Dobbs, D., and R. Ober. 1995. The Northern Forest. Chelsea Green Publishing Company, White River Junction, VT.

Dunlop, P. 1998. Telephone communication with Paul Dunlop of Union Water Power.

ECSMarin. 2003. Impacts Associated with Extensive Lake Level Drawdown at Aziscohos Lake. Prepared for: Aziscohos Lake Preservation Committee. Wilsons Mills, ME.

Environment Canada. 2001. The fall and rise of osprey populations in the Great Lakes basin. Environment Canada. Accessed at: www.on.ec.gc.ca/glimr/data/osprey-glbasin/

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). No date. Surface Waters Lake Database: 1991-1994 Northeast Lakes. Accessed at: http://www.epa.gov/emap/html/dataI/surfwatr/data/nelakes/

Evers, D. C. 2005. Mercury connections: the extent and effects of mercury pollution in northeastern North America. BioDiversity Research Institute, Gorham, ME.

Evers, D. C., O. P. Lane, L. Savoy and W. Goodale. 2004. Assessing the impacts of Methyl mercury on piscivorous wildlife using a wildlife criterion value based on the Common Loon, 1998-2003. Report BRI 2004–05 submitted to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. BioDiversity Research Institute (BRI), Gorham, ME.

Fair, J. 1998. Umbagog Lake Water Level Discussion, A Review and Commentary by Jeff Fair, Consulting Biologist, Fairlands Wildlife Services. Anchorage, NY.

Favour, P. G., Jr. 1971. Evaluation of Floating Island, Errol, New Hampshire for eligibility for Registered natural Landmark. National Park Service (NPS).

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 1983. Public Service of New Hampshire and Union Water Power Company, FERC License Project No. 3133-001, amendment to article 27 water level/management plan.

Federal Register. 2005. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: proposed designation of critical habitat for the contiguous United States distinct population segment of the Canada lynx: proposed rule. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Washington, D.C

Flatebo et al. 1999. Biodiversity in the Forests of Maine: Guidelines for Land Management. C.A. Elliott, ed. Univ. of Maine Coop. Extension. UMCE Bulletin # 7147.

Florida Power and Light Energy Hydro Maine, LLC (FPLE). Undated. Balancing ct: the lakes of the Upper Androscoggin. Florida Power and Light Energy Hydro Maine, LLC, Lewiston, ME.

Foss, C. R. 1992. Wildlife in a changing landscape. Pages 14-22 in R. Ober, editor. At what cost? Shaping the land we call New Hampshire. New Hampshire Historical Society and the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, Concord, NH.

Bibliography Bibl-3 Bibliography

Foss, C. R. 1994. Atlas of breeding birds in New Hampshire. Audubon Soc. of New Hampshire, Chalford Publ. Corp, Dover, NH. 414 pp.

Foss, CR. 2003. Report on Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge Affected Environment. Unpublished.

Foster, D. R., and G. Motzkin. 2003. Interpreting and conserving the openland habitats of coastal New England: insights from landscape history. Forest Ecology and Management 185:127-150.

Foster, D.R., G. Motzkin, D. Bernardos, and J. Cardoza. 2002. Wildlife dynamics in the changing New England landscape. Journal of Biogeography 29:1337- 1357.

Foster, D. R., J. D. Aber, J. M. Melillo, R.D. Bowden, and Fakhri A. Bazzaz. 1997. Forest response to disturbance and anthropogenic stress. BioScience 47 pp. 437-445. as cited in D’Avanzo, C. and the Ecological Society of America. 2004. Ecology of Fire in Teaching Issues and Experiments in Ecology (TIEE), Volume 1 - Ecological Society of America. Accessed at: http://www.tiee.ecoed.net.

Gallus, P. 2003. Personal communication with Peggy Gallus from Androscoggin Appraisal Associates, 10 July 2003.

Goss, Laurence E. 2003. New Hampshire Fiscal Year 2002 Satellite Account. Plymouth, NH: Plymouth State College of the University System of New Hampshire, The Institute of New Hampshire Studies. Accessed at: http://oz.plymouth.edu/inhs/linkstodata.htm

Graham, R. W. 1992. Late Pleistocene faunal changes as a guide to understanding the effects of greenhouse warming on the mammalian fauna of North America. Pages 76-87 in R. L. Pters and T. E. Lovejoy, editors. Global Warming and Biological Diversity. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

Gramly, R.M. 1982. The Vail Site: A Paleo-Indian Encampment in Maine. Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences, Vol. 30.

Gramly, R.M. 1984. Kill sites, killing ground and fluted points at the Vail Site. pp. 110-121. In: R.M. Gramly, (ed.) New Experiments Upon the Record of Eastern Paleo-Indian Cultures, Archaeology of Eastern North America 12.

Gray. 2005. Personal communication with Gray from the New Hampshire Bureau of Trails.

Hagan, J.M. and S. L. Grove. 1999. Bird abundance and distribution in managed and old-growth forest in Maine. Report No. MM-9901, Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Brunswick, ME.

Hagan, J.M. and A. A. Whitman. 2004. Late-successional forest: a disappearing age class and implications for biodiversity. Manomet Center for Conservation Science. Brunswick, ME

Hagan, J. M., W. M. Vander Haegen, P. S. McKinley. 1996. The early development of forest fragmentation effects. Conservation Biology 10:188-202.

Haney, J. 2005. Personal communication with Jim Haney, University of New Hampshire.

Bibl-4 Bibliography Bibliography

Hanson, R.P. 1996. America’s First People Including New Hampshire’s First People. New Hampshire Antiquarian Society. Hopkinton, NH. 117 pp.

Henry, C.J. and W. Van Velsen.1972. Migration patterns and wintering localities of American ospreys. Journal of Wildlife Management 36:1133-1141.

Hermes, O.D. and S.G. Pollock. 2001. Compositional characterization of the Mt. Jasper lithic source, New Hampshire: its significance to paleoindian archaeological sites. The Geological Society of America. Accessed at: http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2001NE/finalprogram/abstract_2682.htm

High, Colin, Kevin Hathaway, John Hinckley, and Benjamin Risk. 2004. A Socio- Economic Assessment to Provide the Context for the White Mountain National Forest Plan Revision. Resource Systems Group, Inc., White River Junction, VT.

Howard, R. J., and J. S. Larson. 1985. A stream habitat classification for beaver. Journal of Wildlife Management. 49: 19-25.

Hulsey, C. 2006. Personal communication with Chuck Hulsey from Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW).

Inkley, D. B., M. G. Anderson, A. R. Blaustein, V. R. Burkett, B. Felzer, B. Griffith, J. Price, and T. L. Root. 2004. Global climate change and wildlife in North America. Wildlife Society Technical Review 04-2. The Wildlife Society (TWS), Bethesda, MD.

Innovative Natural Resource Solutions. 2005. Maine Future Forest Economy Project: Current Conditions and Factors Influencing the Future of Maine’s Forest Products Industry. Prepared for Maine Forest Service Department of Conservation and the Maine Technology Institute.

Johnson, C. W. 1985. Bogs of the Northeast. University Press of New England, Hanover, NH

Johnson, D. 2003. Personal communication from Crown Vantage, Inc. forester.

Keller, J.K. 1990. Using aerial photography to model species-habitat relationships: the importance of habitat size and shape. New York State Museum Bulletin 471: 34-46.

Kelley, J. R., Jr. 2003. American woodcock population status, 2003. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Laurel, MD

Kennedy, J.A; Dilworth-Christie, P. and A.J. Erskine. 1999. The Canadian Breeding Bird Mapping Census Database. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada. Ottawa, Ontario.

Keppie, D. M. and R. M. Whiting, Jr. 1994. American Woodcock (Scolopax minor). In The Birds of North America, No. 100 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

King D.I. and R.M DeGraaf. 2002. The Effect of Forest Roads on the Reproductive Success of Forest-Dwelling Passerine Birds Forest Science, Vol. 48, No. 2, 1 May 2002, pp. 391-396(6)

Bibliography Bibl-5 Bibliography

Koontz, L., Donovan, R., Hoag, D., 2006. Regional Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Biological Resources Discipline, Open-file Report 2006-xxxx. Xx p.

Krischik, V. A., R. M. Newman, and J. F. Kyhl. 2005. Managing aquatic plants in Minnesota lakes. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.

Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States. American Geographical Society, Special Publication No. 36, New York, NY.

Kushlan, J.A; Steinkamp, M.J.; Parsons, K.C; Capp, J.; Cruz, M.A.; Coulter, M.; Davidson, I.; Dickson, L.; Edelson, N.; Elliot, R.; Erwin, R.M; Hatch, S.; Kress, S.; Milko, R.; Miller, S.; Mills, K.; Paul, R.; Phillips, R; Saliva, J.E.; Sydeman, B.; Trapp, J.; Wheeler, J.; and K. Wohl. 2002. Waterbird Conservation for the Americas: The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, Version 1. Waterbird Conservation for the Americas. Washington, DC.

Lang, A. and W. Lynch. 1996. Loons Firefly Books, Buffalo, NY

Lessard and Associates Appraisal Services. 2003. Personal communication with Brian Lessard, 10 July 2003.

Little, J. 1974. An analysis of the factors affecting the region. Unpublished report prepared for the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests

Littlehale, M., F. Adams, and I. Bryant. 1975. History of Wilsons Mills, Maine and the Magalloway Settlements.: The Town of Wilsons Mills, ME. 284 pp.

Litvaitis, J. A. 2003. Are pre-Columbian conditions relevant baselines for managed forests in the northeastern United States? Forest Ecology and Management 185:113-126.

Longcore, J.R. 2004. Personal communication with Jerry Longcore from U. S. Geological Survey (USGS).

Longcore, J. R., D. G. McAuley, G. R. Hepp, and J. M. Rhymer. 2000. American Black Duck (Anas rubripes). In: The Birds of North America, No. 481 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Longwoods International. 2004. Travel and Tourism in Maine: the 2003 Visitor Study Management Report. Prepared for the: Maine Office of Tourism. Accessed at: http://www.econdevmaine.com/resources/tourism/visitor_study_ 2003_mgmt_report_091704.pdf

Lorimer, C.G. 1977. The presettlement forest and natural disturbance cycle of northeastern Maine. Ecology 58:139-148.

Lorimer, C.G. 2001. Historical and ecological roles of disturbance in eastern North American forests: 9,000 years of change. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:425-439.

Lorimer, C.G. and A. S. White. 2003. Scale and frequency of natural disturbances in the northeastern US: implications for early successional forest habitats and regional age distributions. Forest Ecology and Management 185:41-64.

Lucas, L. 2008. Personal Communication. Maine Revenue Services — Property Tax Division.

Bibl-6 Bibliography Bibliography

Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Land and Water Quality Division. 2004.

2004 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. Accessed at: www.maine.gov/dep/blwq/docmonitoring/impairedwaters/index.htm (Accessed 11-10-05)

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). 2005. State of Maine Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Augusta, ME http:// www.state.me.us/ifw/wildlife/compwildlifestrategy/tableofcontents.htm

Maine Department of Conservation (MDOC). 2004. 2003 Wood Processing Report. Accessed at: www.maineforestservice.org

Maine Natural Areas Program (MNAP). 2001. Maine Invasive Plants: Purple Loosestrife. University of Maine, Cooperative Extension Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture & Maine Department of Conservation, Bulletin #2508, 2pp.

Maine Natural Areas Program (MNAP). 2004. Maine Invasive Plants: Common Reed (Phragmites). University of Maine, Cooperative Extension Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture & Maine Department of Conservation, Bulletin #2532, 2pp.

Maine State Planning Office. 2005. The Maine Economy: Year-End Review and Outlook 2004. Accessed at: www.maine.gov/spo

Major, A. 2003. Personal communication. from Andrew Major, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), contaminant biologist, July 2003.

Marchand, P. J. 1987. North woods: an inside look at the nature of forests in the Northeast. Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC), Boston, MA.

Martel, M.S., Henry, C.J., Nye, P.E. and M.J. Solensky. 2001. Fall migration routes, timing and wintering sites of North American ospreys as determined by satellite telemetry. Condor 103:715-724

Martin, C. 2001. Breakthrough year for bald eagles. New Hampshire Audubon, Concord, New Hampshire.

Martin, C.J., Normandin J, and D. Kramar. 2006. Unpublished report. Distribution and Productivity of Ospreys and Bald Eagles in the Umbagog Lake Ecosystem in 2005. Prepared for Lake Umbagog Nation Wildlife Refuge by the Audubon Society of New Hampshire, Concord, New Hamphire (ASNH, 1st 2 Authors) and the Biodiversity Research Institute, Gorham, Maine (BRI, 3rd Author)

McIntyre, J. W., and J. F. Barr. 1997. Common loon (Gavia immer). In: The Birds of North America, No. 313 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and the American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

Mendall, H.L., and C.M. Aldous. 1943. The ecology and management of the American woodcook. Maine Coop. Wildl. Res. Unit., Univ. Maine, Orono. 201pp.

Morris, D.E. 1995. Exporting Hardwood Pulp Chips: Economic Impacts to New Hampshire. University of New Hampshire, Department of Resources and Economic Development (NHDRED), Durham, NH.

Bibliography Bibl-7 Bibliography

Morse, D.H. 1967. The contexts of songs in black-ghroated green and blackburnian warblers. Wilson Bull., 79(1):64-74.

Morse, D.H. 1993. Black-throated green warbler (Dendroica virens). In the birds of North America, No. 55 (a. Poole and F.Gill, Eds.) Philadelphia: the Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, DC.: the American Ornithologists’ Union. 19pp

Muller, M. J., and R. W. Storer. 1999. Pied-billed Grebe (Podilymbus podiceps). In The Birds of North America, No. 410 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Natural Resources Council of Maine (NRCM). 2005. The Watershed Project: Protecting and Restoring Maine’s Rivers, Streams, and Lakes. Accessed at: www.maineenvironment.org/watersheds/watershed_home.htm (Accessed 11-10-05)

Nazaire. M. 2005. A Study of vegetation and floristic diversity of two peatland complexes of post-settlement origin in Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge, Coos County, New Hampshire. Master’s Thesis, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire.

Neitsch, S.L., J.G. Arnold, J.R. Kiniry, J.R. Williams. 2001. Soil and Water Assessment Tool

Theoretical Documentation. Blackland Research Center, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. Temple, TX. 93-115

New England Regional Assessment Team (NERA). 2002. New England Regional Assessment Report. U.S. Global Change Research Project. pp. 108. Accessed at: http://www.usgrcp.gov

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Study. 1979.

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, (NHDES) Watershed Management Bureau. 2004. Final 2004 305(b) and 303(d) Surface Water Quality Report. Accessed at: http://www.des.state.nh.us/wmb/swqa/2004/default.asp?go=summary

New Hampshire Department of Safety. Natural Hazards. Bureau of Emergency Management. Accessed at: http://www.nhoem.state.nh.us/NaturalHazards/Earthquakes.shtm

New Hampshire Division of Forests and Lands. 1995. New Hampshire forest resources plan: assessment report. New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development, Concord, NH.

New Hampshire Division of Parks and Recreation, 2004

New Hampshire Economic and Labor Market Information Bureau. 2003. Coos County Employment Projections 2000-2010.

New Hampshire Fish and Game Department (NHFG). 2006. Fresh Tracks Indicate Rare Canada Lynx “Just Passing Through” Jefferson, New Hampshire. Accessed at: http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Newsroom/ News_2006/News_2006_Q1/Lynx_tracks_found_020106.htm

Bibl-8 Bibliography Bibliography

New Hampshire Fish and Game Department (NHFG). 2004. 2004 New Hampshire Wildlife Harvest Summary. Concord, NH. Accessed at: http://www. wildlife.state.nh.us/Hunting/Hunting_PDFs/Wildlife_Harvest_2004.pdf

New Hampshire Fish and Game Department (NHFG). 2005. New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan (WAP). Concord, NH. Accessed at: http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Wildlife/wildlife_plan.htm

New Hampshire Forest Sustainability Standards Work Team (NHFSSWT). 1997. Good Forestry in the Granite State: Recommended Voluntary Forest Management Practices for New Hampshire. N.H. Division of Forests & Lands, DRED and Soc. for the Protection of NH Forests.

New Hampshire Office of State Planning. 2003. New Hampshire Outdoors, 2003- 2007: Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning, Concord, NH. Accessed at: http://nh.gov/oep/programs/SCORP/scorp.htm

Niering, W. A. 1992. The New England forests: prospects for restoration in one of the areas of earliest contact. Restoration and Management Notes 10(1):24–28 as cited in D’Avanzo, C. and the Ecological Society of America. 2004. Ecology of Fire in Teaching Issues and Experiments in Ecology (TIEE) Volume 1 - Ecological Society of America. Accessed at: http://www.tiee.ecoed.net

Nilsson, C., and P. A. Keddy. 1988. Predictability of change in shoreline vegetation in a hydroelectric reservoir, northern Sweden. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45:1896-1904.

Norris, R.T., J.D. Beule, and A.T. Studholme. 1940 Banding Woodcocks on Pennsylvania singing grounds. Journal of Wildlife Management. Volume 4: 8-14

North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP), Plan Committee. 2004. North American Waterfowl Management Plan 2004. Implementation Framework: Strengthening the Biological Foundation. Canadian Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, 106 pp.

North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP). Unpublished data. Atlantic Coast Joint Venture. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

North East State Foresters Association (NEFA). 2001a. The Economic Importance of Maine’s Forests. North East State Foresters Association, Concord, NH. Accessed at: http://www.nefainfo.org/publications/nefame.pdf

North East State Foresters Association (NEFA). 2001b. The Economic Importance of New Hampshire’s Forests. North East State Foresters Association, Concord, NH. Accessed at: http://www.nefainfo.org/publications/ nefanh.pdf

North East State Foresters Association. 2004a. The Economic Importance of Maine’s Forests. North East State Foresters Association, Concord, NH. Accessed at: http://www.nefainfo.org/publications/2004_nefa_ei_me.pdf

North East State Foresters Association (NEFA). 2004b. The Economic Importance of New Hampshire’s Forests. North East State Foresters Association, Concord, NH. Accessed at: http://www.nefainfo.org/ publications/2004_nefa_ei_nh.pdf

Bibliography Bibl-9 Bibliography

North East State Foresters Association (NEFA). 2005. Northern Forest Lands Council 10 th Anniversary Forum, Final Report, April 25, 2005. Recommendations for the Conservation of Northern Forests. North East State Foresters Association, Concord, NH. 21pp.

Northern Forest Land Council (NFLC). 1994. Finding Common Ground: Conserving the Northern Forest. Northern Forest Lands Council, Augusta, ME. 178pp.

Northern White Mountain Chamber of Commerce. Accessed at: http://www. northernwhitemtnchamber.org/heritage.html

Norton, M.R. 1999. Status of the black-throated green warbler (Dendroica virens) in Alberta. Alberta Environment, Fisheries and Wildlife Management Division, and Alberta Conserv. Assoc. Wildlife Status Report No. 23, Edmonton, AB. 24pp.

Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (PARC). 2004. National State Agency Herpetological Conservation Report.

Patterson, W. A., III, and K. E. Sassaman. 1988. Indian fires in the prehistory of New England. Pages 107-135 in G.P. Nicholas, editor. Holocene human ecology in northeastern North America. Plenum Press, New York, NY.

Pielou, E. C. 1991. After the ice age: the return of life to glaciated North America. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Pokras, M. Tufts University, unpublished data

Provost, M.W. 1940a. The Androscoggin River: Errol Dam to Umbagog. Unpublished report to the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department (NHFG).

Provost, M.W. 1940b. The Magalloway River in New Hampshire. Unpublished report to the New Hampshire Fish and Game (NHFG).

Publicover, D., and Weihrauch, D. 2003.Ecological Atlas of the Upper Addroscoggin River Watershed. Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC), Gorham, NH pp. 74-75.

Publicover, D., M. Tetreault, R. Ring, and P. Bryce. 1997. Ecological survey and management plan for Crown Vantage lands within the Umbagog Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC), Gorham, NH, 56 pp. plus 3 appendices.

Quinn, B. 2004. Private consultant, unpublished refuge surveys.

Quinn, B. 2005. Private consultant, unpublished refuge surveys.

Rapp, J. 2003. Ecological communities of the Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge: classification and mapping with the national vegetation classification system. University of Vermont, Burlington, VT.

Ray, J. C. 2000. Mesocarnivores of northeastern North America: status and conservation issues. Wildlife Conservation Society Working Paper Number 15, Bronx, NY.

Reay, R. S., D. W. Blodgett, B. S. Burns, S. J. Weber, and T. Frey. 1990. Management guide for deer wintering areas in Vermont. Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife, Waterbury, VT.

Bibl-10 Bibliography Bibliography

Rich, T. D., C. J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P. J. Blancher, M. S. W. Bradstreet, G. S. Butler, D. W. Demarest, E. H., Dunn, W. C. Hunter, E. E. Inigo-Elias, J. A. Kennedy, A. M. Martell, A. O. Panjabi, D. N. Pashley, K. V. Rosenberg, C. M. Rustay, J. S. Wendt, and T. C. Will. 2004. Partners in Flight (PIF) North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY. 84 pp.

Richards, T. 1994. Rusty blackbird. Pages 344-345 in C. R. Foss, editor, Atlas of the breeding birds in New Hampshire, Audubon Society of New Hampshire (ASNH), Concord, NH.

Robinson. 1999. The Endangered Species Conservation Act turns twenty. New Hampshire Audubon newsletter 35(5): 5-9. Audubon Society of New Hampshire (ASNH), Concord, NH.

Roe, J. H., and A. Ruesink. 2004. Natural dynamics silviculture: a discussion of natural community-based forestry practices. The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Montpelier, VT

Rosenberg, K. V., and T. P. Hodgman. 2000. Partners in flight land conservation plan: physiographic area 28: eastern spruce-hardwood forest. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.

Sepik, G. F., R. B. Owen, Jr., and M. W. Coulter. 1981. A landowner’s guide to woodcock management in the Northeast. University of Maine Life Sciences and Agriculture Experiment Station. Miscellaneous Report 253, Orono, ME.

Sexton, N.R., Stewart, S.C., Koontz, L, and Wundrock, K.D. 2005. Stakeholder survey results for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge. Completion report: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Biological Resources Discipline. Open- File Report 2005-1378, 111 p.

Seymour, R.S. 1992. The red spruce-balsam fir forest of Maine: evolution of silvicultural practice in response to stand development pattern and disturbances. Pages 217-244 in M.J. Kelty, editor, the Ecology and silviculture of mixed-species forests, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands.

Seymour, R.S., A. S. White, and P. G. deMaynadier. 2002. Natural disturbance regimes in northeastern North America - evaluating silvicultural systems using natural scales and frequencies. Forest Ecology and Management 155:357-367.

Smith, D.C. 1972. A history of lumbering in Maine 1861-1960. University of Maine Studies No. 93, University of Maine Press, Orono, ME.

Smith, R. and M. Dallman. 1996. gorest gap use by breeding black-throated green warblers. Wilson Bull., 108(3):588-591.

Smith, S. and S. Whitney. 2001. Guide to New Hampshire timber harvesting laws. Univ. of New Hampshire Coop. Extension.

Sperduto, D. 1999. Letter to Paul Casey, Refuge Manager, Lake Umbagog NWR summarizing results of a summer 1998 inventory of natural communities on the refuge. New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau (NHNHB), Concord, New Hampshire.

Sperduto, D. D., and B. Engstrom. 1998. Northern white cedar swamps of New Hampshire. New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau (NHNHB), Concord, New Hampshire and The Nature Conservancy, Boston, MA.

Bibliography Bibl-11 Bibliography

Sperduto, D. D., W. F. Nichols, and N. Cleavitt. 2000. Bogs and Fens of New Hampshire.

New Hampshire Natural Heritage Program (NHNHB), Concord, NH.

Sperduto, D.D. and W.F. Nichols. 2004. Natural communities of New Hampshire. The New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau (NHNHB) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Concord, NH.

Staats, W. 2003. Personal communication with Will Staats from New Hampshire Fish and Game (NHFG).

Stevensen, J.C., C. B. Piper, and N. Confer. 1979. Decline of submerged plants in Chesapeake Bay. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Washington, D.C.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. (SERA). 1996. Selected Commercial Formulations of Glyphosate - Accord, Rodeo, and Roundup. Risk Assessment. Final Report to the United States Department of Agriculturer USDA) Forest Service.

Taylor, K. and G. Rubin. 2002. 2002 Lake Umbagog loon population and management report: Errol Dam project – FERC No. 3133. Loon Preservation Committee (LPC), Moultonboro, NH

Taylor, J., T. D. Thomas, and L. F. McCarthy. 1996. New Hampshire’s living legacy: the biodiversity of the granite state. New Hampshire Fish and Game Department (NHFG), Concord, NH

Taylor, K., P. Mathewson, and H. Vogel. 2004. Lake Umbagog loon population and management report Errol Dam project – FERC No. 3133. Loon Preservation Committee, Moultonboro, New Hampshire. Report submitted to FPL Energy Maine Hydro.

Taylor, K., C. Fecteau, and H. Vogel. 2005. Lake Umbagog loon population and management report Errol Dam project – FERC No. 3133. Loon Preservation Committee, Moultonboro, New Hampshire. Report submitted to FPL Energy Maine Hydro.

The Wildlife Society. 2001. Trapping and Furbearer Management in North American Wildlife Conservation. Prepared by: the Northeast Furbearer Resources Technical Committee (NEFRTC), Dr. John F. Organ of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and Susan Langlois and Peter G. Mirick of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife.

Thompson, D.Q., R.L. Stuckey, E.B. Thompson. 1987. Spread, Impact, and Control of Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) in North American Wetlands. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online, Jamestown, ND. pp.55. Access at: http://www.npwrc. usgs.gov/resource/plants/loosstrf/loosstrf.htm (Version 04JUN99).

Thompson, E. H., and E. R. Sorenson. 2000. Wetland, woodland, wildland: a guide to the natural communities of Vermont. University Press of New England, Hanover, NH

Thompson, R. R., III, and D. E. Capen. 1988. Avian assemblages in seral stages of a Vermont forest. Journal of Wildlife Management, 52:771-777.

Bibl-12 Bibliography Part One. The Upper Androscoggin River Watershed |Part Two. The Refuge and its Resources

Thurston, Stephen H. 2004. New Hampshire Visitor Surveys 2003/2004. Prepared for: the New Hampshire Division of Travel and Tourism Development. The Institute for New Hampshire Studies, Plymouth State University. Plymouth, NH.

Todd, C. 2005. Personal communication with Charlie Todd of Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW).

Tubbs, C. H., R. M. DeGraaf, M. Yamasaki, and W. M. Healy. 1986. Guide to wildlife tree management in New England northern hardwoods. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, General Technical Report NE-118, Broomall, PA.

Umbagog Chamber of Commerce. 2005. Accessed at: http://www. umbagogchambercommerce.com/

Union Water Power Company. No date. Balancing Act: The Rangeley Lakes Operation of the Androscoggin River Storage System and the Effects of Summer Lake Levels, Union Water Power, Company, Lewiston, ME.

United States Congress – Public Law. 1986. Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 16 U.S.C. §§ 3901-3932, November 10, 1986, as amended 1988 and 1992

United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. 2000. 2000 Census Summary file. American Factfinder. Accessed at: http://factfinder.census.gov.

United States Department of Agriculture. 2004. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Report to Refuge.

United States Department of Interior (USDOI), National Park Service (NPS). 1999.Federal Register Document Vol. 64, No. 91, May 12, 1999. 36 CFR Part 62 – National Natural Landmarks Program; Final Rule. Accessed at: http:// aspe.os.dhhs.gov/cfda/p15910.htm)

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2003. Air Data website, June 2003. Accessed at: http://www.epa.gov/air/data/nonat.html?st~NH~New %20Hampshire

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).1993. The Plain English Guide to the Clean Air Act, 1993. Washington, DC: EPA 400-K-93-001.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2005. 2004 annual report on air quality in New England. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, Office of Environmental Measurement and Evaluation, North Chelmsford, Massachusetts. http://www.epa.gov/NE/oeme/Annual-Report-2004.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Air Quality Index Report, Coos County, NH.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1983. The Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. Prepared by: The Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Team.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. American woodcock management plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, MA.

Bibliography Bibl-13 Bibliography

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1991. Final Environmental Assessment, Proposal to Protect Wildlife Habitat, Umbagog Lake, Coos County, New Hampshire, Oxford County, Maine, US Fish and Wildlife Service Region 5, pg. 30-33.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1995. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Survey, unpublished data, 1995.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Fulfilling the Promise: the National Wildlife Refuge System. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Washington, D.C

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2000a. Final Compatibility Policy Pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 202. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Washington, D.C

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2000b. Hunting Management Plan, Umbagog Lake National Wildlife Refuge. US Fish and Wildlife Service.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Birds of conservation concern 2002. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 99 pp. Accessed at: http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/reports/bcc2002.pdf

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2004a. Writing Refuge Management Goals and Objectives: A Handbook. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Northeast Regional Office, Division of Conservation Planning and Policy, Hadley, MA.

United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2004b. National Wildlife Refuge System Invasive Species Management Strategy. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)/Canadian Wildlife Service. 1993. Final Draft-Strategic Plan - Black Duck Joint Venture. Hadley, MA/ Nepean, Ontario.

United States Forest Service (USFS). 1990. The northern forest lands study of New England and New York: a report to the Congress of the United States on the recent changes in landownership and land use in the northern forests of Maine, New York, and Vermont. 207 p.

United States Forest Service (USFS). 1991. Screening procedure to evaluate effects of air pollution on Eastern Region wildernesses cited as Class I air quality areas. Northeast Forest Experiment Station, General Technical Report NE-151, pp. 35.

United States Forest Service (USFS). 2002. Timber Products Output Data. Accessed at: http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/fia/

United States Forest Service (USFS). 2005. White Mountain National Forest Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Accessed at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/ forests/white_mountain/projects/forest_plan_revision/Downloads.php

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2005. The Invasive Species Survey: A Report on the Invasion of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The National Institute of Invasive Species Science, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Fort Collins Science Center, Fort Collins, CO and the Natural Resource Ecology Lab, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.

Bibl-14 Bibliography Bibliography

Van de Poll, R. 2004. Macro-invertebrate assessment report: Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge. Ecosystem Management Consultants, Sandwich, NH.

Vashon, Jennifer. 2006. Personal communication with Vashon from Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW).

Weik, Andrew 2006. Personal communication with Andrew Weik, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Whitney, G.G. 1994. From Coastal Wilderness to Fruited Plain: A History of Environmental Change in Temperate North America from 1500 to the Present. Cambridge University Press, New York. 451 pp.

Wigley, T. W. 2004. The science of climate change: global and U.S. perspectives. National Center for Atmospheric Research, Washington, D.C.

Wilderness Society, The. 2004. The Economic Benefits of Wilderness: Focus on Property Value Enhancement. The Wilderness Society: No 2, Washington, DC. Accessed at: http://www.wilderness.org/Library/Documents/upload/

Wood, R.G. 1961. A History of Lumbering in Maine 1820-1861. Maine Studies 33: University of Maine Press, Orono, ME. 276 pp.

Wootton, J.T. 1996. Purple Finch (Carpodacus purpureus). In the Birds of North America No. 208 (A. Poole and G.Gill, eds.) The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA and the American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington D.C.

Yates, D. and D. Evers. 2005. An overall assessment of the loon population at Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge: investigations into individual- specific demographics and assessment of individual and population health. BioDiversity Research Institute, Gorham, Maine.

Bibliography Bibl-15 Glossary Paul Casey/USFWS Paul Umbagog Lake in winter

Glossary (including list of acronyms) Glossary

Glossary accessibility the state or quality of being easily approached or entered, particularly as it relates to complying with the Americans With Disabilities Act accessible facilities structures accessible for most people with disabilities without assistance; facilities that meet UFAS standards; ADA-accessible

[E.g., parking lots, trails, pathways, ramps, picnic and camping areas, restrooms, boating facilities (docks, piers, gangways), fishing facilities, playgrounds, amphitheaters, exhibits, audiovisual programs, and wayside sites.] adaptation adjustment to environmental conditions adaptive management the process of treating the work of managing natural resources as an experiment, making observations and recording them, so the manger can learn from the experience. advanced regeneration tree seedlings or small saplings that develop in the understory prior to the removal of the overstory. aggregate many parts considered together as a whole alternative a reasonable way to fix an identified problem or satisfy a stated need [40 CFR 1500.2 (cf. “management alternative”)] appropriate use a proposed or existing use on a refuge that meets at least one of the following three conditions:

1. the use is a wildlife-dependent one; 2. the use contributes to fulfilling the refuge purpose(s), the System mission, or goals or objectives described in a refuge management plan approved after October 9, 1997, the date the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act was signed into law; or 3. the use has been determined appropriate as specified in section 1.11 of that act. approved acquisition boundary a project boundary that the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approves upon completion of the planning and environmental compliance process. An approved acquisition boundary only design-nates those lands which the Service has authority to acquire or manage through various agreements. The approval of an acquisition boundary does not grant the Service jurisdiction or control over lands within the boundary, and it does not make lands within the refuge boundary part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Lands do not become part of the System until the Service buys them or they are placed under an agreement that provides for their management as part of the System. anadromous ﬁ sh from the Greek, literally “up-running”; fish that spend a large portion of their life cycle in the ocean and return to freshwater to breed aquatic growing in, living in, or dependent upon water

Glossary Glos-1 Glossary

aquatic barrier any obstruction to fish passage

avian of or having to do with birds

avifauna all birds of a given region

barrier cf. “aquatic barrier”

basin the land surrounding and draining into a water body (cf. “watershed”)

benthic living at, in, or associated with structures on the bottom of a body of water

best management practices land management practices that produce desired results [N.b. Usually describing forestry or agricultural practices effective in reducing non-point source pollution, like reseeding skidder trails or not storing manure in a flood plain. In their broader sense, practices that benefit target species.]

biological diversity or the variety of life and its processes and includes the variety of living organisms, biodiversity the genetic differences among them, and the communities and ecosystems in which they occur

biological integrity biotic composition, structure, and functioning at genetic, organism, and community levels comparable with historic conditions, including the natural biological processes that shape genomes, organisms and communities

biodiversity conservation the goal of conservation biology, which is to retain indefinitely as much of the earth’s biodiversity as possible, with emphasis on biotic elements most vulnerable to human impacts

biomass the total mass or amount of living organisms in a particular area or volume

biota the plant and animal life of a region

bog a poorly drained area rich in plant residues, usually surrounded by an area of open water, and having characteristic flora

breeding habitat habitat used by migratory birds or other animals during the breeding season

buffer species alternate prey species exploited by predators when a more preferred prey is in relatively short supply; i.e., if rabbits are scarce, foxes will exploit more abundant rodent populations

buffer zones land bordering and protecting critical habitats or water bodies by reducing runoff and nonpoint source pollution loading; areas created or sustained to lessen the negative effects of land development on animals, plants, and their habitats

candidate species species for which we have sufficient information on file about their biological vulnerability and threats to propose listing them

Glos-2 Glossary Glossary canopy the layer of foliage formed by the crowns of trees in a stand. For stands with trees of different heights, foresters often distinguish among the upper, middle and lower canopy layers. These represent foliage on tall, medium, and short trees. The uppermost layers are called the overstory. community the locality in which a group of people resides and shares the same government community type a particular assemblage of plants and animals, named for its dominant characteristic compatible use “The term ‘compatible use’ means a wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of a refuge that, in the sound professional judgment of the Director, will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the System or the purposes of the refuge.”—National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 [Public Law 105-57; 111 Stat. 1253] compatibility determination a required determination for wildlife-dependent recreational uses or any other public uses of a refuge

Comprehensive Conservation mandated by the 1997 Refuge Improvement Act, a document that provides a Plan description of the desired future conditions and long-range guidance for the project leader to accomplish purposes of the refuge system and the refuge. CCPs establish management direction to achieve refuge purposes. [P.L. 105-57; FWS Manual 602 FW 1.4] concern cf. “issue” conifer a tree or shrub in the phylum Gymnospermae whose seeds are borne in woody cones. There are 500–600 species of living conifers (Norse 1990) connectivity community occurrences and reserves have permeable boundaries and thus are subject to inflows and outflows from the surrounding landscape. Connectivity in the selection and design of nature reserves relates to the ability of species to move across the landscape to meet basic habitat requirements. Natural connecting features within the ecoregion may include river channels, riparian corridors, ridgelines, or migratory pathways. conservation managing natural resources to prevent loss or waste [N.b. Management actions may include preservation, restoration, and enhancement.] conservation agreements written agreements among two or more parties for the purpose of ensuring the survival and welfare of unlisted species of fish and wildlife or their habitats or to achieve other specified conservation goals. Participants voluntarily commit to specific actions that will remove or reduce threats to those species. conservation easement a non-possessory interest in real property owned by another imposing limitations or affirmative obligations with the purpose of returning or protecting the property’s conservation values. conservation status assessment of the status of ecological processes and of the viability of species or populations in an ecoregion.

Glossary Glos-3 Glossary

consultation a type of stakeholder involvement in which decision makers ask stakeholders to comment on proposed decisions or actions.

cooperative agreement a usually long-term habitat protection action, which can be modified by either party, in which no property rights are acquired. Lands under a cooperative agreement do no necessarily become part of the National Wildlife Refuge System

cord an 8-foot-long pile of wood stacked 4 feet high and composed of 4-foot-long pieces.

critical habitat according to U.S. Federal law, the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend

cultural resource inventory a professional study to locate and evaluate evidence of cultural resources within a defined geographic area [N.b. Various levels of inventories may include background literature searches, comprehensive field examinations to identify all exposed physical manifestations of cultural resources, or sample inventories for projecting site distribution and density over a larger area. Evaluating identified cultural resources to determine their eligibility for the National Register follows the criteria in 36 CFR 60.4 (cf. FWS Manual 614 FW 1.7).]

cultural resource overview a comprehensive document prepared for a field office that discusses, among other things, project prehistory and cultural history, the nature and extent of known cultural resources, previous research, manage-ment objectives, resource management conflicts or issues, and a general statement of how program objectives should be met and conflicts resolved [An overview should reference or incorporate information from a field offices background or literature search described in section VIII of the Cultural Resource Management Handbook (FWS Manual 614 FW 1.7).]

database a collection of data arranged for ease and speed of analysis and retrieval, usually computerized

dbh (diameter at breast height) — the diameter of the stem of tree measure at breast height (usually 4.5 feet above the ground). The term is commonly used by foresters to describe tree size.

dedicated open space land to be held as open space forever

degradation the loss of native species and processes due to human activities such that only certain components of the original biodiversity persist, often including significantly altered natural communities

designated wilderness area an area designated by Congress as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System [FWS Manual 610 FW 1.5 (draft)]

desired future condition the qualities of an ecosystem or its components that an organization seeks to develop through its decisions and actions.

digitizing the process of converting maps into geographically referenced electronic files for a geographic information system (GIS)

Glos-4 Glossary Glossary distribution pattern the overall pattern of occurrence for a particular conservation target. In ecoregional planning projects, often referred to as the relative proportion of the target’s natural range occurring within a give ecoregion (e.g. endemic, limited, widespread, disjunct, peripheral). disturbance any relatively discrete event in time that disrupts ecosystem, community, or population structure and changes resources, substrate availability, or the physical environment donation a citizen or group may wish to give land or interests in land to the Service for the benefit of wildlife. Aside from the cost factor, these acquisitions are no different than any other means of land acquisition. Gifts and donations have the same planning requirements as purchases. easement a non-possessory interest in real property owned by another imposing limitations or affirmative obligations with the purpose of returning or protecting the property’s conservation values. An agreement by which landowners give up or sell one of the rights on their property [E.g., landowners may donate rights-of-way across their properties to allow community members access to a river (cf. “conservation easement”).] ecological integrity native species populations in their historic variety and numbers naturally interacting in naturally structured biotic communities. For communities, integrity is governed by demographics of component species, intactness of landscape-level ecological processes (e.g., natural fire regime), and intactness of internal community processes (e.g., pollination). ecological land unit (ELU) mapping units used in large-scale conservation planning projects that are typically defined by two or more environmental variables such as elevation, geological type, and landform (e.g., cliff, stream, summit). ecological processes a complex mix of interactions among animals, plants, and their environment that ensures maintenance of an ecosystem’s full range of biodiversity. Examples include population and predator-prey dynamics, pollination and seed dispersal, nutrient cycling, migration, and dispersal ecological process approach an approach to managing for species communities that manages for ecological process (e.g., flooding, fire, herbivory, predator-prey dynamics) within the natural range of historic variability. This approach assumes that if ecological processes are occurring within their historic range of spatial and temporal variability, then the naturally occurring biological diversity will benefit. ecological system Dynamic assemblages of communities that occur together on the landscape at some spatial scale of resolution, are tied together by similar ecological processes, and form a cohesive, distinguishable unit on the ground. Examples are spruce-fir forest, Great Lakes dune and swale complex, Mojave desert riparian shrublands. ecoregion a territory defined by a combination of biological, social, and geographic criteria, rather than geopolitical considerations; generally, a system of related, interconnected ecosystems. ecosystem a natural community of organisms interacting with its physical environment, regarded as a unit

Glossary Glos-5 Glossary

ecosystem service a benefit or service provided free by an ecosystem or by the environment, such as clean water, flood mitigation, or groundwater recharge

ecotourism visits to an area that maintains and preserves natural resources as a basis for promoting its economic growth and development

ecosystem approach a way of looking at socio-economic and environmental information based on the boundaries of ecosystems like watersheds, rather than on geopolitical boundaries

ecosystem-based management an approach to making decisions based on the characteristics of the ecosystem in which a person or thing belongs [N.b. This concept considers interactions among the plants, animals, and physical characteristics of the environment in making decisions about land use or living resource issues.]

edge effect the phenomenon whereby edge-sensitive species are negatively affected near edges by factors that include edge-generalist species, human influences, and abiotic factors associated with habitat edges. Edge effects are site-specific and factor-specific and have variable depth effects into habitat fragments.

emergent wetland wetlands dominated by erect, rooted, herbaceous plants

endangered species a Federal- or State-listed protected species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range

endemic a species or race native to a particular place and found only there

environment the sum total of all biological, chemical and physical factors to which organisms are exposed

environmental education curriculum-based education aimed at producing a citizenry that is knowledgeable about the biophysical environment and its associated problems, aware of how to help solve those problems, and motivated to work toward solving them

environmental health the composition, structure, and functioning of soil, water, air, and other abiotic features comparable with historic conditions, including the natural abiotic processes that shape the environment

Environmental Assessment (EA) a public document that discusses the purpose and need for an action, its alternatives, and provides sufficient evidence and analysis of its impacts to determine whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact (q.v.) [cf. 40 CFR 1508.9]

Environmental Impact (EIS) a detailed, written analysis of the environmental impacts of a proposed Statement action, adverse effects of the project that cannot be avoided, alternative courses of action, short-term uses of the environment versus the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources [cf. 40 CFR 1508.11]

euphotic relating to the upper, well-illuminated zone of a lake where photosynthesis occurs

Glos-6 Glossary Glossary eutrophic lake a lake possessing low or a complete absence of oxygen in the deeper portion in midsummer, rich in nutrients and plankton eutrophication enrichment of a body of water by the addition of nutrients which stimulate the growth of aquatic plants and may cause a decrease in the organoleptic properties of the water source. evaluation examination of how an organization’s plans and actions have turned out — and adjusting them for the future. even-aged a stand having one age class of trees exemplary community type an outstanding example of a particular community type extinction the termination of any lineage of organisms, from subspecies to species and higher taxonomic categories from genera to phyla. Extinction can be local, in which one or more populations of a species or other unit vanish but others survive elsewhere, or total (global), in which all the populations vanish (Wilson 1992) extirpated status of a species or population that has completely vanished from a given area but that continues to exist in some other location exotic species a species that is not native to an area and has been introduced intentionally or unintentionally by humans; not all exotics become successfully established extant in biology, a species which is not extinct; still existing fauna all animal life associated with a given habitat, country, area or period federal land public land owned by the Federal Government, including national forests, national parks, and national wildlife refuges federal-listed species a species listed either as endangered, threatened, or a species at risk (formerly, a “candidate species”) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended fee-title acquisition the acquisition of most or all of the rights to a tract of land; a total transfer of property rights with the formal conveyance of a title. While a fee-title acquisition involves most rights to a property, certain rights may be reserved or not purchased, including water rights, mineral rights, or use reservation (e.g., the ability to continue using the land for a specified time period, such as the remainder of the owner’s life). fen A type of wetland that accumulates peat deposits. Fens are less acidic than bogs, deriving most of their water from groundwater rich in calcium and magnesium

Finding of No Signiﬁ cant (FONSI) supported by an environmental assessment, a document that briefly Impact presents why a Federal action will have no significant effect on the human environment, and for which an environmental impact statement, therefore, will not be prepared [40 CFR 1508.13]

Glossary Glos-7 Glossary

ﬁ re regime the characteristic frequency, intensity, and spatial distribution of natural fires within a given ecoregion or habitat

ﬁ sh passage project providing a safe passage for fish around a barrier in the upstream or downstream direction

ﬂ ora all the plants found in a particular place

ﬂ oodplain flat or nearly flat land that may be submerged by floodwaters; a plain built up or in the process of being built up by stream deposition

ﬂ yway any one of several established migration routes of birds

focal species a species that is indicative of particular conditions in a system (ranging from natural to degraded) and used as a surrogate measure for other species of particular conditions. An element of biodiversity selected as a focus for conservation planning or action. The two principal types of targets in Conservancy planning projects are species and ecological communities.

focus areas cf. “special focus areas”

forest association the community described by a group of dominant plant (tree) species occurring together, such as spruce-fir or northern hardwoods

forested land land dominated by trees

[For impacts analysis in CCP’s, we assume all forested land has the potential for occasional harvesting; we assume forested land owned by timber companies is harvested on a more intensive, regular schedule.]

forested wetlands wetlands dominated by trees

fragmentation the disruption of extensive habitats into isolated and small patches. Fragmentation has two negative components for biota: the loss of total habitat area; and, the creation of smaller, more isolated patches of habitat remaining.

geographic information system (GIS) a computerized system to compile, store, analyze and display geographically referenced information [E.g., GIS can overlay multiple sets of information on the distribution of a variety of biological and physical features.]

graminoid grasses and grasslike plants, such as sedges.

grant agreement the legal instrument used when the principal purpose of the transact-ion is the transfer of money, property, services, or anything of value to a recipient in order to accomplish a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by Federal statute and substantial involvement between the Service and the recipient is not anticipated (cf. “cooperative agreement”)

Glos-8 Glossary Glossary grassroots conservation any group of concerned citizens who act together to address a conservation need organization groundwater water in the ground that is in the zone of saturation, from which wells and springs and groundwater runoff are supplied guild a group of organisms, not necessarily taxonomically related, that are ecologically similar in characteristics such as diet, behavior, or microhabitat preference, or with respect to their ecological role in general habitat block a landscape-level variable that assesses the number and extent of blocks of contiguous habitat, taking into account size requirements for populations and ecosystems to function naturally. It is measured here by a habitat-dependent and ecoregion size-dependent system habitat fragmentation the breaking up of a specific habitat into smaller, unconnected areas [N.b. A habitat area that is too small may not provide enough space to maintain a breeding population of the species in question.] habitat conservation protecting an animal or plant habitat to ensure that the use of that habitat by the animal or plant is not altered or reduced habitat The place or type of site where species and species assemblages are typically found and/or successfully reproduce. [N.b. An organism’s habitat must provide all of the basic requirements for life, and should be free of harmful contaminants.] historic conditions the composition, structure and functioning of ecosystems resulting from natural processes that we believe, based on sound professional judgement, were present prior to substantial human-related changes to the landscape hydrologic or ﬂ ow regime characteristic fluctuations in river flows hydrology the science of waters of the earth: their occurrences, distributions, and circulations; their physical and chemical properties; and their reactions with the environment, including living beings important ﬁ sh areas the aquatic areas identified by private organizations, local, state, and federal agencies that meet the purposes of the Conte Act impoundment a body of water, such as a pond, confined by a dam, dike, floodgate, or other barrier, which is used to collect and store water for future use indicator species a species used as a gauge for the condition of a particular habitat, community, or ecosystem. A characteristic or surrogate species for a community or ecosystem indigenous native to an area indigenous species a species that, other than a result as an introduction, historically occurred or currently occurs in a particular ecosystem

Glossary Glos-9 Glossary

interjurisdictional ﬁ sh populations of fish that are managed by two or more States or national or tribal governments because of the scope of their geographic distributions or migrations

interpretive facilities structures that provide information about an event, place, or thing by a variety of means, including printed, audiovisual, or multimedia materials [E.g., kiosks that offer printed materials and audiovisuals, signs, and trail heads.]

interpretive materials any tool used to provide or clarify information, explain events or things, or increase awareness and understanding of the events or things [E.g., printed materials like brochures, maps or curriculum materials; audio/visual materials like video and audio tapes, films, or slides; and, interactive multimedia materials, CD-ROM or other computer technology.]

interpretive materials projects any cooperative venture that combines financial and staff resources to design, develop, and use tools for increasing the awareness and understanding of events or things related to a refuge

introduced invasive species non-native species that have been introduced into an area and, because of their aggressive growth and lack of natural predators, displace native species

invasive species an alien species whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health

inventory a list of all the assets and liabilities of an organization, including physical, financial, personnel, and procedural aspects.

invertebrate any animal lacking a backbone or bony segment that encloses the central nerve cord

issue any unsettled matter that requires a management decision [E.g., a Service initiative, an opportunity, a management problem, a threat to the resources of the unit, a conflict in uses, a public concern, or the presence of an undesirable resource condition.]

[N.b. A CCP should document, describe, and analyze issues even if they cannot be resolved during the planning process (FWS Manual 602 FW 1.4).]

lake an inland body of fresh or salt water of considerable size occupying a basin or hollow on the earth’s surface, and which may or may not have a current or single direction of flow

Land Protection Plan a document that identifies and prioritizes lands for potential Service acquisition (LPP) from a willing seller, and also describes other methods of providing protection. Landowners within project boundaries will find this document, which is released with environmental assessments, most useful.

Land trusts organizations dedicated to conserving land by purchase, donation, or conservation easement from landowners

Glos-10 Glossary Glossary landform the physical shape of the land reflecting geologic structure and processes of geomorphology that have sculpted the structure landscape A heterogeneous land area composed of a cluster of interacting ecosystems that are repeated in similar form throughout. landscape approach an approach to managing for species communities that focuses on landscape patterns rather than processes and manages landscape elements to collectively influence groups of species in a desired direction. This approach assumes that by managing a landscape for its components, the naturally occurring species will persist. large patch Communities that form large areas of interrupted cover. Individual occurrences of this community type typically range in size from 50 to 2,000 hectares. Large patch communities are associated with environmental conditions that are more specific than those of matrix communities, and that are less common or less extensive in the landscape. Like matrix communities, large-patch communities are also influenced by large-scale processes, but these tend to be modified by specific site features that influence the community. late-successional species, assemblages, structures, and processes associated with mature natural communities that have not experienced significant disturbance for a long time limiting factor an environmental limitation that prevents further population growth limits of acceptable change a planning and management framework for establishing and maintaining acceptable and appropriate environmental and social conditions in recreation settings local land public land owned by local governments, including community or county parks or municipal watersheds local agencies generally, municipal governments, regional planning commissions, or conservation groups long-term protection mechanisms like fee title acquisition, conservation easements, or binding agreements with landowners that ensure land use and land management practices will remain compatible with maintaining species populations over the long term macroinvertebrates invertebrates large enough to be seen with the naked eye (e.g., most aquatic insects, snails, and amphipods) management alternative a set of objectives and the strategies needed to accomplish each objective [FWS Manual 602 FW 1.4] management concern cf. “issue” and “migratory nongame birds of management concern” management opportunity cf. “issue”

Glossary Glos-11 Glossary

management plan a plan that guides future land management practices on a tract [N.b. In the context of an environmental impact statement, management plans may be designed to produce additional wildlife habitat along with primary products like timber or agricultural crops (cf. “cooperative agreement”).]

management strategy a general approach to meeting unit objectives [N.b. A strategy may be broad, or it may be detailed enough to guide implementation through specific actions, tasks, and projects (FWS Manual 602 FW 1.4).]

marshlands areas interspersed with open water, emergent vegetation (hydrophytes), and terrestrial vegetation (phreatophytes).

matrix forming (or matrix communities that form extensive and contiguous cover may be categorized as community) matrix (or matrix-forming) community types. Matrix communities occur on the most extensive landforms and typically have wide ecological tolerances. They may be characterized by a complex mosaic of successional stages resulting from characteristic disturbance processes (e.g. New England northern hardwood- conifer forests). Individual occurrences of the matrix type typically range in size from 2000 to 500,000 hectares. In a typical ecoregion, the aggregate of all matrix communities covers, or historically covered, as much as 75-80% of the natural vegetation of the ecoregion. Matrix community types are often influenced by large-scale processes (e.g., climate patterns, fire), and are important habitat for wide-ranging or large area-dependent fauna, such as large herbivores or birds.

mesic soil sandy-to-clay loams containing moisture-retentive organic matter, well drained (no standing matter)

migratory nongame birds of species of nongame birds that (a) are believed to have undergone significant management concern population declines; (b) have small or restricted populations; or (c) are dependent upon restricted or vulnerable habitats

mission statement a succinct statement of the purpose for which the unit was established; its reason for being

mitigation actions to compensate for the negative effects of a particular project

[E.g., wetland mitigation usually restores or enhances a previously damaged wetland or creates a new wetland.]

mosaic an interconnected patchwork of distinct vegetation types.

National Environmental Policy (NEPA) requires all Federal agencies to examine the environmental impacts of Act of 1969 their actions, incorporate environmental information, and use public participation in planning and implementing environmental actions [Federal agencies must integrate NEPA with other planning requirements, and prepare appropriate NEPA documents to facilitate better environmental decision-making (cf. 40 CFR 1500).]

National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge System) all lands and waters and interests therein administered by System the Service as wildlife refuges, wildlife ranges, wildlife management areas, waterfowl production areas, and other areas for the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife, including those that are threatened with extinction

Glos-12 Glossary Glossary native a species that, other than as a result of an introduction, historically occurred or currently occurs in a particular ecosystem native plant a plant that has grown in the region since the last glaciation, and occurred before European settlement natural disturbance event any natural event that significantly alters the structure, composition, or dynamics of a natural community: e.g., floods, fires, and storms natural range of variation a characteristic range of levels, intensities, and periodicities associated with disturbances, population levels, or frequency in undisturbed habitats or communities niche the specific part or smallest unit of a habitat occupied by an organism

Neotropical migrant birds, bats, or invertebrates that seasonally migrate between the Nearctic and Neotropics non-consumptive, wild life- wildlife observation and photography and environmental education and oriented recreation interpretation (cf. “wildlife-oriented recreation”) non-native species See “exotic species.” non-point source pollution a diffuse form of water quality degradation in which wastes are not released at one specific, identifiable point but from a number of points that are spread out and difficult to identify and control (Eckhardt 1998) nonforested wetlands wetlands dominated by shrubs or emergent vegetation nonpoint source a diffuse form of water quality degradation produced by erosion of land that causes sedimentation of streams, eutrophication from nutrients and pesticides used in agricultural and silvicultural practices, and acid rain resulting from burning fuels that contain sulfur (Lotspeich and Platts 1982)

Notice of Intent (NOI) an announcement we publish in the Federal Register that we will prepare and review an environmental impact statement [40 CFR 1508.22] objective cf. “unit objective” obligate species a species that must have access to a particular habitat type to persist occurrence site a discrete area where a population of a rare species lives or a rare plant community type grows outdoor education project any cooperative venture that combines financial and staff resources to develop outdoor education activities like labs, field trips, surveys, monitoring, or sampling outdoor education educational activities that take place in an outdoor setting

Glossary Glos-13 Glossary

palustrine wetlands “The Palustrine system includes all nontidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses or lichens, and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas where salinity due to ocean-derived salts is below 0%.”—Cowardin et al. 1979

Partners for Wildlife Program a voluntary, cooperative habitat restoration program among the Service, other government agencies, public and private organizations, and private landowners to improve and protect fish and wildlife habitat on private land while leaving it in private ownership

partnership a contract or agreement among two or more individuals, groups of individuals, organizations, or agencies, in which each agrees to furnish a part of the capital or some service in kind (e.g., labor) for a mutually beneficial enterprise

passive management protecting, monitoring key resources and conducting baseline inventories to improve our knowledge of the ecosystem

payment in lieu of taxes cf. Revenue Sharing Act of 1935, Chapter One, Legal Context

point source a source of pollution that involves discharge of waste from an identifiable point, such as a smokestack or sewage-treatment plant (Eckhardt 1998)

population an interbreeding group of plants or animals. The entire group of organisms of one species.

population monitoring assessing the characteristics of populations to ascertain their status and establish trends on their abundance, condition, distribution, or other characteristics

prescribed ﬁ re the application of fire to wildland fuels, either by natural or intentional ignition, to achieve identified land use objectives [FWS Manual 621 FW 1.7]

priority general public use a compatible wildlife-dependent recreational use of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation

private land land owned by a private individual or group or non-government organization

private landowner cf. “private land”

private organization any non-government organization

proposed wilderness an area of the Refuge System that the Secretary of the Interior has recommended to the President for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System

protection mechanisms like fee title acquisition, conservation easements, or binding agreements with landowners that ensure land use and land management practices will remain compatible with maintaining species populations at a site (cf. “long-term ~”)

Glos-14 Glossary Glossary public individuals, organizations, and non-government groups; officials of Federal, State, and local government agencies; Native American tribes, and foreign nations—includes anyone outside the core planning team, those who may or may not have indicated an interest in the issues, and those who do or do not realize that our decisions may affect them public involvement offering an opportunity to interested individuals and organizations whom our actions or policies may affect to become informed; soliciting their opinions. We thoroughly study public input, and give it thoughtful consideration in shaping decisions about managing refuges. public involvement plan long-term guidance for involving the public in the comprehensive planning process public land land owned by the local, State, or Federal Government rare species species identified for special management emphasis because of their uncommon occurrence within a watershed rare community types plant community types classified as rare by any State program; includes exemplary community types recharge refers to water entering an underground aquifer through faults, fractures, or direct absorption recommended wilderness areas studied and found suitable for wilderness designation by both the Director (FWS) and Secretary (DOI), and recommended by the President to Congress for inclusion in the National Wilderness System [FWS Manual 610 FW 1.5 (draft)]

Record of Decision (ROD) a concise public record of a decision by a Federal agency pursuant to NEPA [N.b. A ROD includes: * the decision; * all the alternatives considered; * the environmentally preferable alternative; * a summary of monitoring and enforcement, where applicable, for any mitigation; and, * whether all practical means have been adopted to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the alternative selected (or if not, why not).] refuge goals “descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statements of desired future conditions that convey a purpose but do not define measurable units.” (Writing Refuge Management Goals and Objectives: A Handbook, FWS January 2004) refuge purposes “the terms ‘purposes of the refuge’ and ‘purposes of each refuge’ mean the purposes specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, executive order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997) refuge lands lands in which the Service holds full interest in fee title or partial interest like an easement

Glossary Glos-15 Glossary

regenerating establishing a new age class. Silviculture does this in a way that controls the species composition, seedling density, and other characteristics consistent with the landowner’s objectives.

relatively intact the conservation status category indicating the least possible disruption of ecosystem processes. Natural communities are largely intact, with species and ecosystem processes occurring within their natural ranges of variation.

relatively stable the conservation status category between vulnerable and relatively intact in which extensive areas of intact habitat remain, but local species declines and disruptions of ecological processes have occurred

restoration management of a disturbed or degraded habitat that results in the recovery of its original state [E.g., restoration may involve planting native grasses and forbs, removing shrubs, prescribed burning, or reestablishing habitat for native plants and animals on degraded grassland.]

restoration ecology the process of using ecological principles and experience to return a degraded ecological system to its former or original state

riparian referring to the interface between freshwater habitats and the terrestrial landscape

riparian forested land forested land along a stream or river

riparian habitat habitat along the banks of a stream or river [cf. note above]

riverine within the active channel of a river or stream

riverine wetlands generally, all the wetlands and deepwater habitats occurring within a freshwater river channel not dominated by trees, shrubs, or persistent emergents

rotation the period of time from establishment of an even-aged stand until its maturity

runoff water from rain, melted snow, or agricultural or landscape irrigation that flows over a land surface into a water body (cf. “urban runoff”)

scale the magnitude of a region or process. Refers to both spatial size—for example, a (relatively small-scale) patch or a (relatively large-scale) landscape; and a temporal rate—for example, (relatively rapid) ecological succession or (relatively slow) evolutionary speciation

Selection cutting/selection The silvicultural system used to regenerate and maintain uneven-aged stands. system Selection cuttings are used to remove individual or small groups of mature trees to regenerate a new cohort, as well as to thin the immature age classes to promote their growth and improve their quality.

Service presence Service programs and facilities that it directs or shares with other organizations; public awareness of the Service as a sole or cooperative provider of programs and facilities

Glos-16 Glossary Glossary shifting mosaic an interconnected patchwork of distinct vegetation types that may shift across the land surface as a result of dynamic ecosystem processes, such as periodic wildfire or flooding. shrublands habitats dominated by various species of shrubs, often with many grasses and forbs silviculture tending and regenerating forest stands to realize sought after benefits and sustain them over time site improvement any activity that changes the condition of an existing site to better interpret events, places, or things related to a refuge [E.g., improving safety and access, replacing non-native with native plants, refurbishing footbridges and trailways, and renovating or expanding exhibits.] small patch communities that form small, discrete areas of vegetation cover. Individual occurrences of this community type typically range in size from 1 to 50 hectares. Small patch communities occur in very specific ecological settings, such as on specialized landform types or in unusual

microhabitats. The specialized conditions of small patch communities, however, are often dependent on the maintenance of ecological processes in the surrounding matrix and large patch communities. In many ecoregions, small patch communities contain a is proportionately

large percentage of the total flora, and also support a specific and restricted set of associated fauna (e.g., invertebrates or herpetofauna) dependent on specialized conditions. source population a population in a high-quality habitat where the birth rate greatly exceeds the death rate, and the excess individuals emigrate spatial pattern within an ecoregion, natural terrestrial communities may be categorized into three functional groups on the basis of their current or historical patterns of occurrence, as correlated with the distribution and extent of landscape features and ecological processes. These groups are identified as matrix communities, large patch communities, and small patch communities. special focus area an area of high biological value [N.b. We normally direct most of our resources to SFA’s that were delineated because of: 1. the presence of Federal-listed endangered and threatened species, species at risk (formerly, “candidate species”), rare species, concentrations of migrating or wintering waterfowl, or shorebird stopover habitat; 2. their importance as migrant landbird stopover or breeding habitat; 3. the presence of unique or rare communities; or 4. the presence of important fish habitat.]

Glossary Glos-17 Glossary

special habitats wetlands, vernal pools, riparian habitat, and unfragmented rivers, forests and grasslands [N.b. Many rare species depend on specialized habitats that, in many cases, are being lost within a watershed.]

special riparian project restoring, protecting, or enhancing an aquatic environment in a discrete riparian corridor within a special focus area

species the basic category of biological classification intended to designate a single kind of animal or plant. Any variation among the individuals may be regarded as not affecting the essential sameness which distinguishes them from all other organisms.

species assemblage the combination of particular species that occur together in a specific location and have a reasonable opportunity to interact with one another

species at risk a species being considered for Federal listing as threatened or endangered (formerly, a “candidate species”)

species of concern species not Federal-listed as threatened or endangered, but about which we or our partners are concerned

species diversity usually synonymous with “species richness,” but may also include the proportional distribution of species

species richness a simple measure of species diversity calculated as the total number of species in a habitat or community (Fiedler and Jain 1992)

stand an area of trees with a common set of conditions (e.g., based on age, density, species composition, or other features) that allow a single management treatment throughout

state agencies natural resource agencies of State governments

state land State-owned public land

state-listed species cf. “Federal-listed species”

step-down management plan a plan for dealing with specific refuge management subjects, strategies, and schedules, e.g., cropland, wilderness, and fire [FWS Manual 602 FW 1.4]

stopover habitat habitat where birds rest and feed during migration

strategy a specific action, tool, technique, or combination of actions, tools, and techniques for meeting unit objectives

strategic management the continual process of inventorying, choosing, implementing, and evaluating what an organization should be doing.

stratiﬁ cation thermal layering of water both in latkes and streams

Glos-18 Glossary Glossary structure the horizontal and vertical arrangement of trees and other vegetation having different sizes, resulting in different degrees of canopy layering, tree heights, and diameters within a stand. succession the natural, sequential change of species composition of a community in a given area surface water all waters whose surface is naturally exposed to the atmosphere, or wells or other collectors directly influenced by surface water sustainable development the attempts to meet economic objectives in ways that do not degrade the underlying environmental support system. Note that there is considerable debate over the meaning of this term…we define it as “human activities conducted in a manner that respects the intrinsic value of the natural world, the role of the natural world in human well-being, and the need for humans to live on the income from nature’s capital rather than the capital itself.” terrestrial living on land territory an area over which an animal or group of animals establishes jurisdiction thinning reducing the density of trees in a stand primarily to improve the growth and condition of residual trees and prevent mortality. The term describes treatments in immature even-aged stands that do not attempt to establish regeneration. threatened species a Federal-listed, protected species that is likely to become an endangered species in all or a significant portion of its range tiering incorporating by reference the general discussions of broad topics in environmental impact statements into narrower statements of envi-ronmental analysis by focusing on specific issues [40 CFR 1508.28] tributary a stream or river that flows into a larger stream, river, or lake, feeding it water trust resource a resource that the Government holds in trust for the people through law or administrative act [N.b. A Federal trust resource is one for which responsibility is given wholly or in part to the Federal Government by law or administrative act. Generally, Federal trust resources are nationally or internationally important no matter where they occur, like endangered species or migratory birds and fish that regularly move across state lines. They also include cultural resources protected by Federal historic preservation laws, and nationally important or threatened habitats, notably wetlands, navigable waters, and public lands like state parks and national wildlife refuges.] trust responsibility In the federal government, a special duty required of agencies to hold and manage lands, resources, and funds on behalf of Native American tribes. turbidity refers to the extent to which light penetrates a body of water. Turbid waters are those that do not generally support net growth of photosynthetic organisms understory the lower layer of vegetation in a stand, which may include short trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants

Glossary Glos-19 Glossary

uneven-aged a stand having three or more age classes of trees with distinctly different ages

unfragmented habitat large, unbroken blocks of a particular type of habitat

unit objective desired conditions that must be accomplished to achieve a desired outcome [N.b. Objectives are the basis for determining management strategies, monitoring refuge accomplishments, and measuring their success. Objectives should be attainable, time-specific, and stated quantitatively or qualitatively (FWS Manual 602 FW 1.4).]

upland dry ground (i.e., other than wetlands)

urban runoff water from rain, melted snow, or landscape irrigation flowing from city streets and domestic or commercial properties that may carry pollutants into a sewer system or water body

vernal pool depressions holding water for a temporary period in the spring, and in which various amphibians lay eggs

vision statement a concise statement of what the unit could achieve in the next 10 to 15 years

watchable wildlife all wildlife is watchable [N.b. A watchable wildlife program is one that helps maintain viable populations of all native fish and wildlife species by building an active, well informed constituency for conservation. Watchable wildlife programs are tools for meeting wildlife conservation goals while at the same time fulfilling public demand for wildlife-dependent recreational activities (other than sport hunting, sport fishing, or trapping).]

watershed the geographic area within which water drains into a particular river, stream, or body of water. A watershed includes both the land and the body of water into which the land drains.

watershed-wide education systems for sharing educational information, like curriculum development networks projects, student activities, and ongoing data gathering; a combination of telecommunications and real-life exchanges of information

well-protected in CCP analysis, a rare species or community type is considered well protected if 75 percent or more of its occurrence sites are on dedicated open space

wetlands lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. These areas are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated soil conditions. “Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water.”—Cowardin et al 1979

Glos-20 Glossary Glossary wilderness study areas lands and waters identified by inventory as meeting the definition of wilderness and being evaluated for a recommendation they be included in the Wilderness System (cf. “recommended wilderness”) [N.b. A wilderness study area must meet these criteria: 1. generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; 2. has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; 3. has at least 5,000 contiguous, roadless acres, or sufficient size to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition. (FWS Manual 610 FW 1.5 (draft)).] wilderness cf. “designated wilderness” wildﬁ re a free-burning fire requiring a suppression response; all fire other than prescribed fire that occurs on wildlands [FWS Manual 621 FW 1.7] wildland ﬁ re every wildland fire is either a wildfire or a prescribed fire [FWS Manual 621 FW 1.3] wildlife-dependent a use of a national wildlife refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation recreational use and photography, or environmental education and interpretation (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966). wildlife management manipulating wildlife populations, either directly by regulating the numbers, ages, and sex ratios harvested, or indirectly by providing favorable habitat conditions and alleviating limiting factors wildlife-oriented recreation recreational activities in which wildlife is the focus of the experience [“The terms ‘wildlife-dependent recreation’ and ‘wildlife-dependent recreational use’ mean a use of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation.”—National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997] working landscape the rural landscape created and used by traditional laborers

[N.b. Agriculture, forestry, and fishing all contribute to the working landscape of a watershed (e.g., keeping fields open by mowing or by grazing livestock).]

Glossary Glos-21 Acronyms

Acronyms

Acronym Full Name

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

AMC Appalachian Mountain Club

ASNH Audubon Society of New Hampshire

ATV all-terrain vehicles

BAER Burned Area Emergency Rehab

BCR Bird Conservation Region

BI Burn Index

BMP Best Management Practices

BRI Biodiversity Research Institute

CCF C unit, 100 cubic feet of solid wood

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan

CEQ Council of Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cfs cubic feet per second

CWCS Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy

dbh diameter breast height

DDT Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

ELU Ecological Land Unit

EMAP Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ERC Energy Release Component

ESA Endangered Species Act

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FINNL Floating Island National Natural Landmark

FMO Fire Management Officer

FMP Fire Management Plan

FMU Fire Management Unit

Friends group Friends of Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Glos-22 Glossary Acronyms

FPA Fire Program Analysis

FPLE Florida Power & Light Energy Hydro Maine, LLC

FPU Fire Planning Unit

FY fiscal year

GIS Geographical Information Systems

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act

HMP Habitat Management Plan

HPO Historical Preservation Office

IAFWA International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

ICS Incident Command System

IMP Habitat and Species Implementation and Monitoring Plan

IMPLAN Impact Analysis for Planning

IQCS Incident Qualifications and Certification System

KBDI Keetch-Byram Drought Index LMRD Land Management Research and Development LOAEL Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level

LPC Loon Preservation Committee

LPP Land Protection Plan

LUNWR Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

MDEP Maine Department of Environmental Protection

MDIFW Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

MDOC Maine Department of Conservation

MFS Maine Forest Service

MGM2 Money Generation Model Version 2

MIST Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics

MMS Maintenance Management System

MNAP Maine Natural Areas Program

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

msl Mean sea level

NABCI North American Bird Conservation Initiative

NAWCP North American Waterbird Conservation Plan

Glossary Glos-23 Acronyms

NAWMP North American Waterfowl Management Plan and Joint Ventures

NECC Northeast Dispatch Coordination Center

NEFA North East State Foresters Association

NEFRTC Northeast Furbearer Resources Technical Committee

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NERA New England Regional Assessment

NFDRS National Fire Danger Rating System

NFFL Northern Forest Fire Laboratory

NFPORS National Fire Plan Operating and Reporting System

NHFSSWT New Hampshire Forest Sustainability Standards Work Team NGO Non-Governmental Organization NHCR National State Agency Herpetological Conservation Report

NHDES New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services

NHDRED New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development

NHFG New Hampshire Fish and Game Department

NHNHB New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NNL National Natural Landmark

NPS National Park Service

NRCC Natural Resource Conservation Service

NRCM Natural Resources Council of Maine

NSHFWR National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation

NSRE National Survey on Recreation and the Environment

NVCS National Vegetation Classification System

NWCG National Wildfire Coordinating Group

NWR National Wildlife Refuge

NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System

PARC Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation

PIF Partners In Flight

PNV present net value

PPE personal protective equipment

RFA Rural Fire Assistance Program

Glos-24 Glossary Acronyms

RFMC Regional Fire Management Coordinator

RM Refuge Manager

ROD Record of Decision

RONS Refuge Operation Needs System RRS Refuge Revenue Sharing SAMMS Service Asset Maintenance Management System

SAV submerged aquatic vegetation

SC Spread Component

SCORP Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan

SERA Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc.

Service United States Fish and Wildlife Service

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SPACE Statewide Program of Action to Conserve Our Environment

SUP Special Use Permit

SWG State Wildlife Grant Program

TIEE Teaching Issues and Experiments in Ecology

TNC The Nature Conservancy

TWS The Wildlife Society

US SCP U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USDOI United States Department of Interior

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS United States Geological Survey

UWP Union Water Power Company

VDFPR Vermont Department of Forest, Parks, and Recreation

VSP Visitor Services Professional

WAP Wildlife Action Plan

WFSA Wildland Fire Situation Analysis

WMU Wildlife Management Unit

WUI Wildlife-urban interface

YCC Youth Conservation Corps

Glossary Glos-25 The Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement

Appendixes

November 2008

This goose, designed by J.N. “Ding” Darling, has become the symbol of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service manages the 95-million acre National Wildlife Refuge System comprised of more than 545 national wildlife refuges and thousands of waterfowl production areas. It also operates 65 national fish hatcheries and 78 ecological services field stations. The agency enforces Federal wildlife laws, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, administers the Endangered Species Act, and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Assistance Program which distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state wildlife agencies.

Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long term guidance for management decisions and set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes and identify the Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.

2 The Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

Table of Contents Appendix A: Land Protection Plan...... A-1

Appendix B: Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Suspected on the Refuge ...... B-1

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations...... C-1

Appendix D: Wilderness Review ...... D-1

Appendix E: Wild and Scenic River Review ...... E-1

Appendix F: Refuge Operations Needs (RONS) and Service Asset Maintenance Management Systems (SAMMS) ...... F-1

Appendix G: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge ...... G-1

Appendix H: Staffing Charts ...... H-1

Appendix I: Fire Management Program Guidance...... I-1

Appendix J: Stakeholder Survey, Executive Summary...... J-1

Appendix K: Forest Management Guidelines ...... K-1

Appendix L: Ecological Land Units and Their Relationship to Refuge Habitat Types ...... L-1

Appendix M: Vegetation Classification Systems and Their Relationship to Refuge Habitat Type...... M-1

Appendix N: Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B ...... N-1

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for the Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge ...... O-1

Appendix P: Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation Form ...... P-1

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 3

Appendix A Bill Zinni/USFWS View of upland forest on the refuge

Land Protection Plan Land Protection Plan

Land Protection Plan

I. Introduction We propose to expand the land acquisition boundary of the Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge by 47,807 acres. We also recognize the importance of communicating our interest in acquiring and conserving that land to our partners in conservation, the local community, and the public.

This land protection plan (LPP) explains our interests and intentions to owners of land near the refuge, to state agencies in New Hampshire and Maine, our conservation partners, local communities and the public. It also presents methods the Service and landowners interested in selling their land can use in accomplishing the wildlife habitat objectives of alternative B, our preferred alternative in the final comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and environmental impact statement (EIS) for the refuge.

We developed this LPP at the same time and in conformance with that final CCP and EIS. We believe our acquisition of additional land in fee title and conservation easements will contribute significantly to the conservation of federal trust resources in the Upper Androscoggin River watershed.

The purposes of this LPP are

■ to inform landowners of our long-standing policy of acquiring land only from willing sellers. If an owner is not interested in selling, we will not purchase that land or an easement on it.

■ to inform the public clearly and concisely about resource protection needs, our priorities and policies for protecting land, the extent of our proposal, and potential conservation methods;

■ to describe the impacts of our proposal; and

■ to describe our intentions for managing the land we acquire.

Attachment A.1 of this LPP contains maps and a table of ownership information to help owners of lands in the area understand our interest in conserving those lands. The maps (attachment A.1, map tiles 1–6) show the present refuge boundary, our proposed fee title acquisition and conservation easement areas, and the parcels of land in those areas. Table A.8 identifies each parcel, its tax map number, acreage, ownership, and our priority and recommended option for protecting its wildlife habitat.

II. Project Description The Present Refuge The Lake Umbagog refuge now comprises 21,650 acres in Coos County, New Hampshire, and Oxford County, Maine (see map A–1). Its purposes are to provide long-term protection for unique wetlands, threatened or endangered species and migratory birds of conservation concern, and sustain regionally significant concentrations of wildlife. About half of the refuge consists of forested and non- forested wetland habitat and water, and half of forested upland habitat typical of the Northern Forest ecosystem.

Umbagog Lake, located in the northern part of the Androscoggin River watershed, is the most downstream of the lakes in the Rangeley chain. We established the refuge after years of partnership planning with the States of New Hampshire and Maine, other conservation organizations, timber companies and private landowners. That planning led to our current ownership of 21,650 acres of wetland and forested upland habitat adjacent to the lake, within the present 26,905-acre approved refuge boundary.

Appendix A: Land Protection Plan A-1 Land Protection Plan

Our environmental assessment of 1991 states that the refuge was created

“to ensure the long-term protection of unique wetland habitats adjacent to Lake Umbagog, on the northern New Hampshire/Maine border. These extensive wetlands serve as important breeding and migration habitat for many wetland- dependent migratory wildlife species of current concern to the Service. The refuge includes wetlands and portions of associated surrounding uplands, and would protect habitat for the endangered bald eagle and peregrine falcon, waterfowl species of priority such as the declining black duck, and many species of federal and state management concern including the common loon, northern harrier, American woodcock, and others. The refuge will serve to protect unique habitats that support a variety of migratory bird and resident mammal, fish, reptile, amphibian, invertebrate and rare plant species, and will thereby contribute to the conservation of biological diversity in the northeastern United States.”

The refuge was established for the following purposes, under the following authorities.

“the conservation of wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions” [16 U.S.C. §3901(b); Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986];

“for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds” [16 U.S.C. § 715d; Migratory Bird Conservation Act];

“for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources” [16 U.S.C. §742f(a)(4); Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956]; and

“for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude” [16 U.S.C. §742f(b)(1); Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956].

The refuge and the area around it support more than 166 wildlife species of elevated conservation concern identified in national, regional, and state plans (see CCP appendix B for a list of species and habitats of conservation concern). They include 141 species of birds, 10 mammals, 11 fish and 4 amphibians. All of the birds and three of the fish are federal trust resources. Many of the birds that depend on the area for breeding purposes are Neotropical or short-distance migrants. In addition, we identified 38 plants and 12 natural communities of importance.

The refuge is regionally significant for waterfowl, the bald eagle, osprey, and common loon, and contains other resources of importance, such as designated deer wintering sites. It contains a regionally significant wetland complex, identified in the Regional Wetlands Concept Plan, prepared in 1990 under the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986. Refuge lands have the potential to support additional rare species, including the federal-listed Canada lynx, known to use habitats in the area. The Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture Plan identifies native brook trout as a high priority species of concern for the refuge area, and a native brook trout population relies on Umbagog Lake and its tributary, the Magalloway River, as wintering habitat.

A-2 Appendix A: Land Protection Plan Land Protection Plan

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan Atlantic Coast Joint Venture (ACJV) identifies the lake and its associated wetlands as a high priority waterfowl focus area in New Hampshire. They support significant concentrations of waterfowl, including black duck, wood duck, ring-necked duck, common and hooded merganser, goldeneye and other species. The refuge also supports the highest concentrations of nesting black ducks in New Hampshire, a species of concern because of historic population decline. The regional importance of the Lake Umbagog area for waterfowl was one of the reasons for establishing the refuge. The black duck is a species of highest priority for conservation in Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 14, the Atlantic Northern Forest. The Umbagog area also has the highest nesting concentration of ring-necked ducks in New Hampshire, and is extremely important for the American woodcock, a species of highest concern for BCR 14.

Additional reasons for establishing the refuge were to provide permanent protection for loon, bald eagle and osprey breeding activity, and support other forest and wetland-dependent species. Only three refuges support significant numbers of breeding common loons in the lower 48 states. Common loons are a species of management concern for the Northeast and one of high priority for conservation in BCR 14. The bald eagle was formerly federal-listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, and is state-listed by New Hampshire as endangered and by Maine as threatened.

We have acquired land for the refuge primarily by purchasing full fee title at market value from willing sellers. Our funding has come primarily from two sources: the Land and Water Conservation Fund, appropriated annually by Congress, and the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, derived from the sale of Federal Duck Stamps. Table A.1 describes the history of refuge land acquisition. The Service owns all of that acreage in full fee simple, except a conservation easement on 6 acres.

Table A.1. History of refuge land acquisition (*as of January 1, 2008) Calendar Year Acres* Funding Source# 1992 128 LWCF 1993 41 LWCF 1995 5,986 LWCF, MBCF 1996 203 LWCF 1998 214 MBCF 1999 2,488 LWCF, MBCF 2000 1,309 LWCF, MBCF 2001 8,847 LWCF, MBCF 2002 191 LWCF 2003 1LWCF 2004 8LWCF 2005 1,097 LWCF, MBCF 2006 406 MBCF 2007 727 MBCF Total 21,650

Appendix A: Land Protection Plan A-3 Land Protection Plan

Our Proposed Expansion In support of the priorities, habitat goals, and objectives identified in alternative B of the CCP, we propose to expand the existing, approved refuge boundary by 47,807 acres. We would combine acquisitions in fee simple (56 percent) with conservation easements (44 percent) from willing sellers. All of the lands we plan to acquire are undeveloped. They are either high quality wildlife habitat, or potentially could be. They occur in amounts and distributions that provide us management flexibility in achieving our habitat goals and objectives. Collectively, they would form a land base that affords vital linkage among other conserved lands in the Upper Androscoggin River watershed and Northern Forest region. As we acquire lands in fee, we would manage them according to the goals, objectives, and strategies in CCP alternative B.

Our land conservation objectives would complement the management of adjacent conserved lands, both public and private, thus enhancing our contribution to wildlife management on the regional landscape. Working in partnership with surrounding landowners would be crucial in successfully implementing this LPP. We developed it cooperatively with our New Hampshire and Maine fish and wildlife agency partners. Our land conservation partners working in the Northern Forest also support it.

We designed alternative B to emphasize the conservation of specific habitat types to which the refuge can make the most important ecological contribution in the Upper Androscoggin River watershed, the larger region of the Northern Forest, and the Refuge System. Those habitat types support a wide variety of federal trust species: in particular, birds of conservation concern identified in BCR 14 (CCP appendix B). For each objective for each type of habitat, we identified focal species whose life requirements would guide our management of that type. We selected those focal species because we believe their habitat needs broadly represent the habitat requirements for most of the other wildlife that depend on that habitat type, including other federal trust resources and species of conservation concern.

Our highest priority continues to be protecting the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of Umbagog Lake and significant wetlands in that area. The CCP proposes that we promote and sustain a spruce-fir/northern hardwoods forest with a high conifer component, viewed from the landscape scale of the entire Upper Androscoggin River watershed basin. Our analysis indicates that site capability and natural potential of the refuge places it in a unique position to make an important contribution to that mixed forest type in the watershed, the larger Northern Forest region, and the Refuge System. The CCP also proposes to implement actions that would improve habitat for the American woodcock.

III. Continuing Before the mid-1980s, conservation in Coos and western Oxford counties focused Partnerships primarily on the White Mountain National Forest, with limited effort toward conserving waterfront in the Rangeley and Connecticut lakes. Large timber companies owned most of the land in the North Country, and worked it to supply their mills. In the 1980s, the long-standing tradition of timber companies owning the mills and the land shifted. The companies started to sell lands once thought to be held in perpetuity. Development pressure on the shoreline increased. Access to those lands, once considered a given in the North Country, became questionable.

That did not happen overnight, but has slowly progressed to a point that, today, very little forestland in Coos and western Oxford County is attached to local mills. That shift in ownership, the subdivision of large, contiguous timberlands,

A-4 Appendix A: Land Protection Plan Land Protection Plan

and the increasing demand for development spawned attempts to conserve large, contiguous blocks of forest and key ecologically sensitive areas in the Northern Forest. Notably, the Nash Stream State Forest (see map A–2) was established when, in 1988, Diamond International offered 90,000 acres for sale in northern New Hampshire and Vermont, part of 1.5 million acres of forestland across northern New England and New York split off from the mills by an investor and resold in smaller parcels for development.

In response to rising concerns over the loss of forestlands, in 1990, Congress established the Northern Forest Lands Council, which grew out of a multi-state Governor’s Task Force study commission and a related Northern Forest Lands Study. Its mission included promoting economic stability for the communities of the area by maintaining large areas of forest, encouraging the production of a sustainable yield of forest products, and protecting recreational, wildlife, scenic, and wild land resources. The council presented its recommendations in Finding Common Ground: Conserving the Northern Forest. That report focuses on four priority topics: (1) foster the stewardship of private lands, (2) protect exceptional resources, (3) strengthen the economies of rural communities, and (4) promote decisions that are more informed.

The council developed a plan for the landscape-scale conservation of the Northern Forest that recognizes two very important realities:

1) the Northern Forest “is a complex, dynamic interrelationship of people, communities, land, water, plants and animals” that needs to “be considered as an entire package”; and,

2) “no single person or organization can achieve the broad goals in this report”; it needs to be done in partnership.

As the Nash Stream State Forest was being created, partnership planning began for the conservation of Lake Umbagog based on its unique wildlife values and ACJV status. That partnership among New Hampshire and Maine, conservation organizations, timber companies, local private landowners, and the Service targeted the conservation of the large wetland complexes along the lake and its shoreline, in response to increasing pressure for their development. That resulted in the creation of the refuge in 1991 and the expansion of Umbagog Lake State Park.

Conservation in the region has evolved into a dynamic, landscape-level, multi- partner effort. Through the council’s recommendations, state agencies, private conservation organizations, local communities, private businesses, the Service, and other federal agencies have collaborated to accomplish conservation goals in the area. Federal programs, such as Forest Legacy, have provided support.

Accomplishments (see map A–2) ■ Nash Stream State Forest (1988)

■ Umbagog Lake State Park (1990)

■ Lake Umbagog NWR (1992)

■ Rapid River Corridor State Easement (1997)

■ Pingree Forest Partnership Conservation Easement (2001)

■ Pond of Safety (2001)

■ Randolph Community Forest (2001)

Appendix A: Land Protection Plan A-5 Land Protection Plan

■ The Nature Conservancy Bunnel Tract (2001)

■ Connecticut Lakes Headwaters (2003)

■ Rapid River Shoreline - Rangeley Lakes Heritage Trust (2004)

■ Boundary Headwaters Project (2005)

■ Errol Town Forest (2005)

■ Grafton Notch-Mahoosucs Forest Legacy project (#1 Forest Legacy project, FY 2007)

The Service Role The council’s picture of the Northern Forest is one “of a landscape of interlocking parts and pieces, inseparable, reinforcing each other: local communities, industrial forest land, family and individual ownerships, small woodlots, recreation land, and public and private conservation land.” The ongoing, multi-partner conservation partnership has applied that vision to the Upper Androscoggin River watershed. The refuge provides a federal component focusing on the conservation of migratory birds and core wetlands and forestlands in the area of Lake Umbagog.

The partnership continues to plan at the landscape level, focusing on improving connectivity between existing conservation tracts and preserving working forest and public access. That is particularly important in light of increasing trends in subdividing timberland. Both states and other partners expect the refuge, centrally located between tracts of conservation land, to play a key role in further improving linkage among them. Our proposed expansion will improve connections between tracts of the Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands (MBPL), the Pingree easements, the Grafton Notch Forest Legacy project, state park land of New Hampshire, the Errol Town Forest, and the Second College Grant (Dartmouth College). In conjunction with expanding the refuge, additional activity by our partners will focus on linkages in the surrounding area.

IV. Status of Resources to Wildlife and Habitat Resources Be Protected The comprehensive conservation planning team identified species of conservation concern and associated habitats as a focus for refuge management. Factors considered include the geographic location of the refuge; local site capabilities; relative abundance and distribution of species; respective species’ status in national and regional conservation plans; and a determination of the most important and effective ecological contribution of the refuge to the Northern Forest ecosystem and the Refuge System. We compiled the species and habitats of concern in CCP appendix B from the following sources.

■ North American Waterfowl Management Plan—Atlantic Coast Joint Venture

■ Partners in Flight Plan—Physiographic Area 28

■ North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI)—Bird Conservation Region 14—Atlantic Northern Forest

■ Federal Threatened and Endangered Species list

■ Maine Natural Areas Program—State Threatened and Endangered Species list

■ New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau—State Threatened and Endangered Species list

A-6 Appendix A: Land Protection Plan Land Protection Plan

■ Northeast States Nongame Technical Committee

■ Maine and New Hampshire State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plans

■ New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory

■ USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern—Region 5

■ FERC Errol Dam license

■ Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture Plan

We also identified high- and moderate-priority habitats for the refuge, and developed a list of “refuge focal species” associated with them. We selected species whose habitat needs broadly represent the habitat requirements for other native wildlife dependent on these same habitat types, including other federal trust species. Table A.2 lists those priority habitats and focal species. The conservation of wetlands and waters continues to be our highest priority for managing this refuge. Maine and New Hampshire assisted in selecting habitats and species and developing refuge goals and objectives. The wetlands and related wildlife resources identified as refuge priorities overlap state wetland management goals.

Table A.2. Priority habitats and focal species High Management Priority Habitats Refuge Focal Species American Black Duck Fen and Flooded Meadow Ring-necked Duck Common Loon American Black Duck Cavity Nesting Waterfowl Wooded Floodplain Northern Parula Rusty Blackbird American Woodcock Shrub-Scrub Wetland American Black Duck Canada Warbler Native Brook Trout Open Water and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Eagle and Osprey Common Loon Blackburnian Warbler Mixed Forest – “Mixed Woods” Habitat Type Canada Warbler Black-throated Green Warbler Blackburnian Warbler Mixed Forest – Spruce/fir Habitat Type Black-throated Green Warbler Moderate Management Priority Habitats Refuge Focal Species Floating Island National Natural Landmark Boreal Fen and Bog Rare Plant Communities

N. White Cedar Swamp Rare Plant Community Lakeshore Pine Hemlock Eagle and Osprey Nest Sites Canada Warbler Mixed Forest – Northern Hardwood Habitat Type American Woodcock

Appendix A: Land Protection Plan A-7 Land Protection Plan

Although the regional importance of the Umbagog area for wildlife has much to do with its unique wetland complex and waters, we cannot view those habitats as separate from the surrounding forestlands. Their interrelationship is such that the future management of those lands potentially could affect water quality and the ecological integrity of the entire system. Those lands provide both important forested habitat and essential habitat many wetland-related species need for nesting, feeding, moving, or other purposes. One of our main goals for the refuge is to manage upland forest habitats consistent with their site capabilities to benefit federal trust species and other species of conservation concern.

Historically, the forest in the basin of the Upper Androscoggin River watershed was a spruce-fir/northern hardwood mix. That forest included more conifers than today, particularly in the lowlands. Present conditions reflect 150 years of logging and the selection of softwoods, resulting in the higher presence of hardwood species and even-aged stands. Most of the acreage the refuge acquired was cut heavily before sale. Our review of historic aerial photographs for the surrounding landscape shows heavy cutting of conifer forest since the mid-1980s. An important opportunity exists to restore and maintain the mixed spruce-fir/ northern hardwood forest both on the refuge and on the landscape around it.

Because of our species/landscape analysis and the decision to sustain mixed spruce-fir/northern hardwood forest, we chose the blackburnian and black- throated green warblers as focal species representative of that upland forest habitat. In managing the refuge, we will promote the conifer component in the mixed forest landscape to benefit those species. That will also benefit other species dependent upon that forest type: many of conservation concern. For example, the bay-breasted and Cape May warblers, both species of highest concern for BCR 14, appear on the refuge in low abundance because of their preference for extensive, contiguous, mature conifer forests. Our management, designed to increase the conifer component in the refuge landscape and promote larger blocks of mature spruce-fir, would benefit those species increasingly over time.

We designed the proposed expansion to provide the refuge with opportunities to accomplish several important objectives:

1) these lands are crucial for ensuring the future water quality for refuge core wetlands and waters, at a time of increasing uncertainty over the future ownership and management of surrounding timberlands;

2) these adjacent lands contain signiﬁ cant wetland and forest resources that will support refuge wildlife and habitat objectives; and

3) these acquisition areas were conﬁ gured to allow the Service to expand its partnership role by improving connectivity among conservation lands nearby.

Refuge lands located along the lake and the Magalloway, Androscoggin, Rapid and Dead Cambridge rivers contribute to the Northern Forest Lands Council priority for protecting water quality in that region’s rivers, streams and lakes. Proposed fee and easement areas would expand that protection to include remaining lands flowing directly into the core waters and wetlands of the refuge, including lands along the Rapid River, and B Pond and B Brook to the east, the Swift Cambridge River to the south, and the Magalloway River and Sturtevant Pond to the north. The lands we propose along the Mollidgewock and Bog brooks to the southwest will contribute to the protection of water quality in the Androscoggin River.

We designed our proposal to acquire lands in fee to provide a high level of protection and management capability for significant wetlands along the

A-8 Appendix A: Land Protection Plan Land Protection Plan

Magalloway and Swift Cambridge rivers, the Mollidgewock, Bog Brook, and B Pond and B Brook, and several related ponds. The location of those lands relative to the refuge, their topography, soil types, and their interspersed wetlands and uplands provide the best opportunity for their restoration, maintenance, and long-term management.

Regarding forest types, we analyzed site capabilities as part of the comprehensive conservation planning both for refuge lands and proposed expansion lands. We assessed current vegetation using national land cover data, and predicted potential vegetation based on computer-modeled “ecological land units” (ELUs) provided by The Nature Conservancy. Past and present harvesting has influenced forest composition on those lands. We propose to manage them based on site capability, and promote and sustain mixed spruce-fir/hardwood forest. Other areas of BCR 14 and the northeastern United States provide opportunities to manage and sustain other forest types, such as conifer forest and hardwood forest, and we expect surrounding landowners to continue to conduct management as in the past, driven by the timber market, resulting in a higher hardwood component and a higher presence of hardwood-dependent land bird species.

Service management would contribute to federal, state and BCR partnership goals for land bird species tied to the mixed spruce-fir/hardwood forest, and provide habitat for other species of concern. The rivers, brooks, and ponds in the proposal area, and their associated forested, shrub, and emergent wetlands, provide important habitat for waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds; wetland- dependent mammals such as the beaver, otter, mink, muskrat, and moose; and a host of reptile, amphibian, and other wildlife species. Worthy of special note, the many small streams, beaver ponds, and shrub wetlands in the expansion area support most of the black duck breeding activity, and early-successional re-growth in extensive cutover areas near wetlands provide important nesting habitat for that species of concern. The same areas provide important breeding and feeding habitat for the American woodcock, and provide opportunities for woodcock management (map A-3). At the same time, they support other high- priority BCR target species, such as the Canada warbler, another focal species.

The mixed forest will provide connectivity of habitats for mammals with large home ranges and protect many critical white-tailed deer wintering areas both states identified in the expansion area (map A-4). Proposed expansion lands include wildlife habitat identified as significant through special zoning designations, including the Mollidgewock and Bog Brook drainages, designated PD-3. That zoning ordinance, adopted by Coos County for unincorporated townships, identifies areas recommended by the New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game (NHFG) and designated by the County Board as critical wetland wildlife habitat areas. They are recognized as critical wetland habitat and streamside coniferous travel corridors for boreal wildlife that use spruce/ fir habitat, thereby maintaining viable populations for species such as deer, moose, lynx, marten, osprey, eagle, spruce grouse, black backed and three-toed woodpecker, black bear, fisher and 122 additional vertebrate species of wildlife.

The present refuge and its expansion lands are also known to have high fisheries values, particularly for the brook trout, the only trout native to much of the eastern United States. In 2004, in recognition of the need to address regional and range-wide threats, the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture (EBTJV) formed to halt the decline of brook trout and restore fishable populations. The EBTJV comprises fish and wildlife agencies from 17 states, federal agencies, national conservation organizations, and academic institutions, and considers the protection of forested watersheds a high priority. In New Hampshire, 7 percent of sub-watersheds are known to support intact, self-reproducing populations of brook trout. Those sub-watersheds, including the upper Connecticut River

Appendix A: Land Protection Plan A-9 Land Protection Plan

system and Umbagog’s Magalloway, Dead Diamond and Swift Diamond rivers represent most of the brook trout habitat remaining intact outside Maine. Maine is considered the last true stronghold for brook trout in the eastern United States, with as many intact watersheds as all the other states in the eastern range combined.

The easement lands we propose for the expansion offer an opportunity to ensure the continuation of compatible, long-term forest management, water quality protection, and public access and recreation. Those lands can be considered as providing a “supporting natural landscape” function for fee tracts containing or bordering significant wetlands and waters.

Threats to Resources The Northern Forest is changing. In the last decade, significant changes in land use have threatened the natural landscape, culture, and communities of the region. Its large forest landholdings, many owned by multinational corporations, are being sold at an increasing rate. Many large tracts are being divided and sold to developers or institutional investment corporations, including insurance companies and bank trusts. Those sales have raised concerns about the rising trend of unsustainable timber cutting, forest subdivision, and other permanent development, particularly around lakefronts and secluded forest tracts. In addition to fragmenting the forests, those trends can affect wildlife habitat, restrict public access, degrade water quality, spoil the remote, scenic beauty of the forest, and undermine the hope of a sustainable forest-based economy to support Northern Forest communities.

The most pervasive human influence on the natural landscape has been commercial timber harvesting and production. Their cumulative effects in the region have been a change in the age structure of the forest and a gradual shift toward greater dominance by northern hardwoods. Although a century of timber harvesting in this region has not resulted in the significant loss of species or populations of forest birds, changes in wildlife mainly have involved changes in local composition and relative abundance, as the mix of successional stages and conifer vs. hardwood forests shifted across the landscape.

Conservation planning in this region must reconcile the needs of long-term, sustainable timber production, the habitat needs of high-priority wildlife species, and the need to preserve public access. The loss of the economic sustainability of commercial forestry could result in the conversion of forest habitats to urban development or other, less wildlife-friendly landscapes. The recent trend in the region for unsustainable timber cutting and subdivision of large tracts of forestland has caused concern among wildlife agencies and the conservation community. That trend also offers a crucial opportunity for partners to work together to permanently conserve the ecological integrity of the Northern Forest, preserve public recreational opportunities, and promote the economic sustainability of the forest-based economy. Many successful partnerships have formed around those goals; several have included a Service role.

V. Proposed Action and Proposed Acquisition Area Objectives This LPP expands the land acquisition area for the refuge by the 47,807 acres we propose to acquire in CCP alternative B: 26,840 acres by purchasing fee title and 20,967 acres by purchasing conservation easements (see attachment A.1, map tiles 1–6 and table A.8). That expansion is vitally important for meeting the refuge habitat goals and objectives for priority wetland and forestland wildlife species we set forth in the CCP. It also serves to strengthen our ongoing partnership with the States of New Hampshire and Maine and several conservation organizations to ensure the continued existence of the unique wetland, wildlife, forest and recreational resources of the area around Lake Umbagog.

A-10 Appendix A: Land Protection Plan Land Protection Plan

We based our proposals to acquire land in fee title or conservation easements on several factors. We propose fee acquisition for lands in both New Hampshire and Maine along the Magalloway River, Sturtevant Pond, the Dead Cambridge and Swift Cambridge rivers, and the Mollidgewock and Bog Brook drainages. We proposed fee acquisition for lands that

1) contain a signiﬁ cant amount of wetland and associated water bodies of high wildlife resource value;

2) lie in the immediate drainage area of present core refuge lands, so that they play a role in ensuring the protection of water quality for important wetland and wildlife resources;

3) ensure habitat connectivity between the refuge and the surrounding network of conservation lands; and

4) fall under a high degree of threat of permanent habitat loss, such as the potential for subdivision and development of shore land next to wetlands and bodies of water with high resource value.

We propose conservation easement protection for the B Pond/Rapid River area, lands south of Sturtevant Pond, the Mt. Dustan area, the Mollidgewock headwaters area, and along the Androscoggin River. Some land originally proposed for fee protection in the draft CCP has been shifted to easement protection, in the area between Sturtevant Pond and Umbagog, and to the south of Upton. The tables below show the acreage by each method of acquisition in towns in New Hampshire (table A.3) and Maine (table A.4).

Table A.3. Acres by acquisition method in New Hampshire Town Fee Easement Town Total Cambridge 7,153 6,706 13,859 Errol 4,514 472 4,986 Wentworth Location 1,041 2,170 3,211 Subtotals 12,708 9,348 Total 22,056

Table A.4. Acres by acquisition method in Maine Town Fee Easement Town Total Grafton 2,489 0 2,489 Upton 7,866 7,446 15,312 Magalloway Plantation 3,774 4,195 7,969 Subtotals 14,129 11,641 Total 25,770 *Note: Acreages for Tables A.3 and A.4 are based on GIS measurement and are approximate

The boundaries of our proposed expansion correspond to property boundaries or identifiable features such as existing roads. We are interested in protecting and restoring wildlife habitat. Therefore, we have excluded specific lands from the refuge acquisition area: the town centers of Errol and Upton, and the more developable lands along routes 16 and 26, to allow for necessary future town development and economic growth.

Appendix A: Land Protection Plan A-11 Land Protection Plan

We plan to manage forested habitat to benefit the focal species we have identified, using accepted forest silviculture practices and following best management practices, on lands with low to moderate resource sensitivity. That approach will support all wildlife species associated with the mixed spruce-fir/northern hardwood forest type. Appendix K of the CCP details our management plans.

One of our main objectives is to create corridor connections and linkages to the larger conservation land network in the upper Androscoggin River watershed. This proposal connects the refuge to lands under conservation easement protection to the east in Maine, including the large Pingree tracts along Upper and Lower Richardson Lake and in C Surplus. To the south, in Maine, is the Grafton Notch State Park, and to the west, along the Androscoggin River, protected lands include the 13-Mile Woods Forest Legacy conservation easement and the Errol Town Forest.

Current refuge lands are open to the public for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation, camping in designated areas, and provide designated corridor connections for the interstate snowmobile trail network. The land we acquire in the proposed expansion area would support these same activities, and would be open for long- term public access for compatible, priority public use (see maps A-5 and A-6). We will structure Service easements like Forest Legacy easements, to support continued timber management and public access.

Land Cover and Land Use We mapped the broad habitat types the CCP team developed for the area (see table A.5). Most of the land we included in the proposed acquisition area is undeveloped forest and wetland (map A-7). We do not assume in alternative B that we would actively manage land the Service does not own in fee, unless we establish a cooperative management agreement with the landowner.

Table A.5. Acquisition method by habitat type Expansion Proposal (Results under management; >100 years) Habitat Type Fee Acres Easement Acres Fen and Flooded Meadow 103 20 Boreal Fen and Bog 2,277 407 Northern White Cedar 00 Scrub-Shrub Wetlands 790 77 Open Water & Submerged 46 23 Aquatic Vegetation Wooded Floodplain 123 13 Lakeshore Pine-Hemlock 00 Spruce-fir 14,476 11,085 Mixed Wood 5,221 5,731 Northern Hardwoods 3,804 3,611 Recently Harvested not predicted not predicted Fields/Residences 00 Cliff 021 Total 26,840 20,988

A-12 Appendix A: Land Protection Plan Land Protection Plan

Maps and Ownership Table Attachment A.1 at the end of this LPP lists all land parcels in map tiles 1–6 and table A.8. We produced the maps and table using available tax parcel boundaries and tax database information for Errol, Wentworth Location, Cambridge, Upton, Magalloway Plantation and Grafton.

On the maps, a parcel number keyed to the table identifies each parcel. The table provides the following information:

■ LPP Number

■ Tax parcel identification number

■ State

■ Town

■ Acquisition method

■ Acquisition priority

■ Acres estimated by our Geographic Information System

Land Protection Priorities All of the lands we included in this expansion proposal have significant resource values and high potential for ensuring habitat connectivity between the refuge and surrounding conservation lands. In general, the actual order of land acquisition and the level of conservation (fee, easement) will be influenced by the interest and availability from willing sellers, and the availability of funding at that time. However, as landowners offer parcels of land in the proposed acquisition area to the Service, and as funds become available, we will base priority for acquisition on several factors. We have assigned one of the following three priority categories to those lands.

Priority 1—the remaining 5,255 acres of land we have not acquired in the original land acquisition boundary, approved in 1991. The Service role in the original partnership for the area (Lake Umbagog Study Team) focused on protecting the unique wetland complex and associated wetland-dependant wildlife from increased human activity, disturbance, and degradation of water quality. That included the intention to ensure that sections of lakeshore were not left vulnerable to major subdivision and high-density development.

Priority 2—the 26,840 acres of lands identified for fee acquisition. These lands center on wetlands and water bodies of high value, and in many cases they drain into the existing refuge and affect water quality. We intend fee ownership to provide maximum long-term protection and management capability.

Priority 3—the 20,967 acres of land identified for conservation easement protection.

When willing sellers offer more than one parcel at the same time and funding is limited, we will determine our level of interest on the following criteria developed for ranking and prioritizing land parcels:

1) the presence of signiﬁ cant amounts of wetland habitat

2) the amount of wetlands of high wildlife resource value

3) the degree of threat of permanent habitat loss, such as potential for subdivision and development of shore land adjacent to high resource value wetlands and bodies of water

Appendix A: Land Protection Plan A-13 Land Protection Plan

4) the location within the immediate drainage area to existing core refuge lands, and subsequent role in ensuring protection of water quality for important wetland/wildlife resources

5) the presence of high upland resource values

We configured our proposed boundaries for fee and easement areas with the criteria above in mind. For example, the fee boundary in the Cambridge/south Errol portion of the project area is intended to offer a high level of protection and management capability for the significant Mollidgewock Brook drainage and its associated wetland complex. Because a number of factors also influence acquisition priority, including the availability of willing sellers and the availability of funding, we reserve the right to be flexible with that priority list. In addition, we must be flexible with our methods of acquisition (fee versus easement) and priorities to meet the needs of individual landowners.

VI. Protection Options We considered these four protection options in developing our proposed action:

Option 1.—no Service action Option 2.—management or acquisition by others Option 3.—less-than-fee acquisition by the Service Option 4.—fee acquisition by the Service

Our proposal includes a combination of the protection options outlined below, including providing assistance and support to conservation partners and landowners, acquisition and management by others, and the purchase of lands or conservation easements by the Service. Service land protection policy is to acquire only the minimum interest necessary to meet refuge goals and objectives, and acquire it only from willing sellers.

We believe this combination approach is a cost-effective way of providing the minimal level of protection needed to accomplish refuge objectives while also attempting to meet the needs of landowners. However, as parcels become available in the future, changes in the protection option for a specific parcel may be warranted to ensure we are using the option that best fits the situation at that time. Option 1.—No Action

In option 1, we would not expand the refuge acquisition boundary or otherwise attempt to protect and manage additional habitat in the vicinity of the refuge. The final CCP evaluates this option as part of Alternative A, No Action (Current Management). We did not select this approach as part of our proposed action because

■ it does not provide permanent long-term protection to important wetland and upland habitat and Federal trust resources in the project area;

■ our State and non-profit conservation partners have recommended and supported Service action as part of continuing cooperative conservation in northern New Hampshire and western Maine; and,

■ we feel an opportunity exists to help provide connectivity between existing conservation lands of high resource value, and that opportunity will be lost as timberlands in the area are further subdivided, fragmented and resold.

Regulatory land use controls do exist to various extents, and offer varying degrees of protection in different portions of the project area. Examples include county/local zoning such as the Coos County PD3 zoning district, and land use

A-14 Appendix A: Land Protection Plan Land Protection Plan

restrictions afforded under the Maine Land Use Regulatory Commission. The county’s Master Plan reflects local support of the area’s natural resources and forestlands seen as vital to the community’s economic well-being. However, this area of New Hampshire and Maine is experiencing accelerating subdivision, development, and recreational pressures. Option 2.—Management or Acquisition by Others

In option 2, we would continue to support the activities of our partner organizations and agencies in the project area:

■ the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department;

■ the New Hampshire Division of Parks and Recreation, the New Hampshire Division of Forests and Lands and its Bureau of Natural Heritage, within the New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development;

■ the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife;

■ the Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands, the Maine Forest Service and the Maine Natural Areas Program, within the Maine Department of Conservation;

■ the New Hampshire Audubon Society;

■ The Nature Conservancy;

■ the Trust for Public Land;

■ the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests; and,

■ other conservation partners and interested local landowners.

Although our partners provide some level of protection for land, they often do not have the financial or administrative resources to buy all those lands or conservation easements, nor can they always manage the parcels actively to protect our priority species. The proposed action (attachment A.1, map tiles 1-6) assumes these groups will continue to buy lands or easements in the project area, subject to their own funding limitations. Partnership proposals will continue to be submitted to compete for funding consideration through programs such as Forest Legacy. However, without a continuing role for Service protection of land near the refuge, many lands identified as important for wildlife would continue to be sold, further subdivided, and converted to other uses over time. The collective partnership has identified a Service acquisition and management role as crucial in the long-term protection of those significant natural resources. Option 3.—Less than fee Acquisition

In option 3, we would accomplish our habitat objectives by purchasing only a partial interest, in the form of a conservation easement. The parcel would remain in private ownership, while allowing us some ability to manage land use. The easement would be structured to assure the permanent protection of existing forest lands, allow habitat management/improvement, manage access if endangered or threatened species are present, and provide public use opportunities if the landowner is willing.

In order to accomplish these objectives, we would purchase easements, which, at a minimum, would meet the conditions in Forest Legacy easements now being used in New Hampshire and Maine. Easements are property rights, and

Appendix A: Land Protection Plan A-15 Land Protection Plan

are usually perpetual. If a landowner sells his or her property after selling an easement to us, that easement continues as part of the title. Properties subject to easements generally remain on the tax rolls, although the reduction in their market value may reduce their assessments. The Service does not pay revenue sharing for easement rights (see section IX for more on revenue sharing payments).

In general, an easement maintains the land in its current configuration with no further subdivision. Easements are appropriate for use when

■ only minimal management of the resource is needed, but there is a desire to ensure the continuation of current undeveloped uses and to prevent fragmentation over the long term;

■ a landowner is interested in maintaining ownership of the land, does not want it to be further developed, and would like to realize the financial benefits of selling development rights.

The determination of value for the purchase of a conservation easement involves an appraisal of the rights we are buying, based on recent market conditions in the area. “Acquisition Methods,” below, further describes our proposed easement conditions and structure. Option 4.—Fee Acquisition

In option 4, we would acquire parcels in fee title from willing sellers, thereby purchasing all rights of ownership. Fee ownership provides the greatest degree of permanent protection for existing forested and wetland habitats, and allows us to

■ conduct such activities as habitat management, improvement, and restoration;

■ provide public use opportunities and manage access; and

■ manage for endangered or threatened species.

Fee purchase at market value is the most expensive method of acquisition, but allows us maximum flexibility in managing the land. It allows us to conduct habitat improvement and restoration projects, and allows the refuge the greatest ability to provide additional opportunities for public use. We identified fee purchase as the preferred method for core lands in the project area. It may become necessary in the future to convert a conservation easement to fee acquisition: for example, when an owner is interested in selling the remainder of his or her interest in land on which we have acquired an easement. We will evaluate that need for each case.

VII. Acquisition Methods If landowners are interested, we can use three methods of acquiring either a full or a partial interest in parcels within the proposed acquisition boundary: (1) purchase (e.g., fee title, or a partial interest like a conservation easement), (2) donation, and (3) exchange. Attachment A.1 (map tiles 1–6) lists our proposed method for each tract in the project boundary.

Purchase For most of the tracts in the boundary, the proposed method is listed as Fee or Easement; however, the method we use ultimately depends partly on the wishes of the landowner.

Fee purchase involves buying the parcel of land outright from a willing seller in fee title (all rights, complete ownership), as the availability of funding allows.

A-16 Appendix A: Land Protection Plan Land Protection Plan

Easement purchase refers to the purchase of limited rights (less than fee) from an interested landowner. The landowner would retain ownership of the land, but would sell certain rights identified and agreed upon by both parties. Our proposed conservation easement objectives and conditions, at a minimum, would meet conditions in Forest Legacy easements now in use in New Hampshire and Maine. These lands generally have been under continuous forest management for many years; are recognized as an important resource for outdoor recreational activities; include important surface water and surrounding wetland resources; and provide valuable wildlife habitat including habitat for migratory birds, other priority species, and deer wintering areas.

We will maintain areas of conservation easement as undeveloped lands in support of forest and wildlife management activities, natural-resource-based education, and outdoor recreation. We will conduct those in accordance with generally accepted best management practices for the sites, soils and terrain of the property. We may designate certain areas as “Deer Wintering Areas” or “Riparian Areas” identified for special management. The easement will prevent further subdivision of a tract, and will support continued public pedestrian access for low-impact, natural outdoor recreation and education activities such as hiking, nature study, bird watching, hunting, fishing, cross country skiing, snowshoeing, and snowmobile use on designated trails.

As with Forest Legacy easements, Service easements will strive to

■ conserve open spaces and scenic values, including the conservation of productive forest land, for their wildlife resource benefits;

■ conserve waterfront, streams, riparian areas, wetlands, and the quality of groundwater and surface water resources, fish and wildlife habitats, rare and exemplary plants and natural communities, and the ecological processes that sustain these natural heritage features and cultural resources;

■ provide public pedestrian access, which will allow the public to participate in hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation; and

■ retain the property in perpetuity as an economically viable and sustainable tract of land for the production of timber, wildlife resources, and aesthetic values.

Donation We encourage donations in fee title or conservation easement within the approved areas, assuming that management concerns such as contaminants are not major issues. Owners sometimes choose to donate all or a portion of their land because of tax advantages or as a lasting memorial. We are not aware of any opportunities to accept donations of parcels within our proposed boundary; but we would evaluate each case as it arises.

Exchange We have the authority to exchange land in Service ownership for other land that has greater habitat or wildlife value. Inherent in that concept is the requirement to get dollar-for-dollar value, occasionally with an equalization payment. Exchanges are attractive because they usually do not increase federal land holdings or require purchase funds; however, they also may be very labor- intensive, and take a long time to complete.

Service Land Acquisition Policies Once a refuge acquisition boundary has been approved, we contact landowners to determine if any are interested in selling. If a landowner expresses interest

Appendix A: Land Protection Plan A-17 Land Protection Plan

and gives us permission, a real estate appraiser will appraise the property to determine its market value. Once an appraisal has been approved, we can present an offer for the landowner’s consideration.

Our long-established policy is to work with willing sellers as funds become available. We will continue to operate under that policy. Appraisals conducted by Service or contract appraisers must meet federal as well as professional appraisal standards. Federal law requires us to purchase properties at market value based on comparable sales of similar types of properties.

We based the acquisition boundary on the biological importance of key habitats. It gives the Service the approval to negotiate with landowners that may be interested, or may become interested in selling their land in the future. With those internal approvals in place, the Service can react more quickly as those important lands become available. Lands within that boundary do not become part of the refuge unless their owners sell or donate them to the Service.

A landowner may choose to sell land to the Service in fee simple and retain the right to occupy an existing residence. That is a life use reservation. It applies during the seller’s lifetime, but can also apply for a specific number of years. At the time we acquire the parcel, we would discount from the appraised value of the buildings and land the term of the reservation. The occupant would be responsible for the upkeep on the reserved premises. We would own the land, and pay revenue sharing to the appropriate taxing authority.

In rare circumstances, at the request of a seller, we can use friendly condemnation. Although the Service has a long-standing policy of acquiring land only from willing sellers, it does have the power of eminent domain, like other federal agencies. We use friendly condemnation when the Service and a seller cannot agree on property value, and both agree to allow a court to determine fair market value. We also may consider friendly condemnation when the Service and the seller decide that a court order is necessary to clear up a cloud on a title. We do not expect to use friendly condemnation very often, if at all. We would not use condemnation otherwise, as it counters good working relations with the public.

Funding for Fee or Easement Purchase Much of our funding to buy land comes from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which derives from certain user fees, the proceeds from the disposal of surplus federal property, the federal tax on motor boat fuels, and oil and gas lease revenues. About 90 percent of that fund now derives from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leases. The federal government receives 40 percent of that fund to acquire and develop nationally significant conservation lands. Another source of funding to purchase land is the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund (MBCF), which derives from Federal Duck Stamp revenue.

We plan to use both funds to buy either full or partial interests in lands in the project area. We will use LWCF funds to acquire land and easements that consist mainly of upland forest, which represents most of the proposed expansion area. We may use MBCF funds for properties that include large tracts of forested, shrub or emergent wetlands and waters important for waterfowl. Another potential source for funding in that category is the North American Wetland Conservation Act.

VIII. Coordination The original establishment of the refuge arose from the collaboration among the Service, New Hampshire and Maine, conservation organizations, and three principal landowners: James River Company, Boise Cascades Paper Group, and Seven Islands Land Company. The final proposal resulted from a federal-state partnership to cooperate in protecting and managing nationally significant habitats in the area. The Service role was to establish the refuge on core lands identified in the partnership, while the states of New Hampshire and Maine

A-18 Appendix A: Land Protection Plan Land Protection Plan

were to pursue the acquisition of conservation easements in portions of the project area.

Service participation in the loosely organized Lake Umbagog Study Team planning group began in the late 1980s. That local partnership promoted and facilitated the protection of the area’s important natural resources, while encouraging sustainable timber management, economic development and ecotourism. The partnership included these participants:

■ New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game

■ New Hampshire Land Conservation Investment Program

■ Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

■ Land for Maine’s Future Program

■ Audubon Society of New Hampshire

■ Audubon Loon Preservation Committee

■ James River Corporation

■ Boise Cascade

■ Seven Islands Land Management Company

■ Local landowner representatives

■ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Since that time, conservation in the region has evolved into a dynamic, landscape-level, multi-partner effort. State agencies, many private conservation organizations, local communities, private businesses and the Service continue to work on additional conservation goals in the area. Additional active partners include

■ Appalachian Mountain Club

■ Town of Errol

■ Forest Society of Maine

■ New England Forestry Foundation

■ New Hampshire’s Land and Community Heritage Investment Program

■ Northern Forest Alliance

■ Rangeley Lakes Heritage Trust

■ Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests

■ The Nature Conservancy

■ Trust for New Hampshire Lands

■ Trust for Public Land

Appendix A: Land Protection Plan A-19 Land Protection Plan

We continue to work closely with the New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game and the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Both agencies participated as full core team members in developing the Lake Umbagog refuge CCP and LPP. Agency representatives attended essentially all team meetings, and contributed guidance and perspective in the development of our refuge goals, objectives and strategies. Representatives of additional state agencies, such as the New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development Division of Parks and Recreation, provided input on specific topics at various times during the process. Other federal agencies that provided input include the U.S. Forest Service and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. The New England Field Office of our Division of Ecological Services also provided support. Several meetings solicited input from experts on freshwater wetlands, forest management and bird conservation, and forest ecologists from academic institutions and state and federal agencies.

We distributed this LPP to all affected landowners, our conservation partners, county and town offices, and the public for public review and comment. We hosted public meetings in Errol, Berlin, and Concord, New Hampshire, and in Newry and Augusta, Maine.

IX. Socioeconomic and The following discussion of impacts assumes the implementation of CCP Cultural Impacts alternative B, including our expansion proposal. By maintaining land in an undeveloped, natural condition, the refuge contributes to the economy of Errol and Upton, and Coos and Oxford counties. Studies of the cost of community services show that open space costs towns less than residential or commercial development, which requires town services such as schools, utilities, and emergency services. Although such development increases a town’s tax base, the expenses for increased services outweigh the taxes generated from new residential and commercial uses. Appendix G of the CCP provides a detailed economic analysis of this proposal. We have taken the highlights below from that report.

The refuge contributes directly to the local economy through annual refuge revenue sharing (RRS) payments. Payments are made to the following localities based on the acreage and appraised value of refuge lands: Errol, Cambridge and Wentworth Location in New Hampshire; and Upton and Magalloway Plantation in Maine. The federal government does not pay property tax, but the Service makes annual payments based on a maximum of three-quarters of 1 percent of the market value of refuge lands, determined by an appraisal every 5 years. The actual amount distributed each year varies, based on Congressional appropriations for that year. The amount distributed also changes as we acquire new lands. Table A.6, below, depicts the amounts we distributed to the local municipalities between 2001 and 2007.

Table A.6. Refuge revenue sharing payments to towns, 2001-2007 Township 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Magalloway, ME $5,543 $5,657 $5,285 $5,709 $5,049 $5,702 $5,278 Upton, ME $5,911 $6,828 $7,079 $6,804 $6,018 $10,376 $10,936 Cambridge, NH $744 $759 $709 $681 $603 $681 $630 Errol, NH $11,517 $11,755 $22, 948 $22,056 $19,509 $25,973 $24,039 Wentworth Location, NH $3,112 $4,959 $6,057 $6,119 $6,467 $7,304 $7,041

We compared lost property taxes and RRS payments for all lands proposed for fee acquisition. Although we calculated these amounts for all fee lands in

A-20 Appendix A: Land Protection Plan Land Protection Plan

the expansion area, acquisition generally occurs slowly over time, as lands and funding become available. We estimated the loss in local property tax revenue using the 2005 current value assessments for each land type and the 2005 tax rates for each potentially affected community. The Service does not pay RRS for easements. We calculated the RRS payments at the full, appropriated level and at the level of funding authorized in FY05. We estimated the market value for lands in the acquisition area at $500/acre based on recent sales of forestland to the refuge.

Table A.7 shows the estimated change in property taxes collected and the RRS Payments, if we were to acquire all fee lands identified in the expansion area under Alternative B. Land acquisition will result in an annual loss of $18,862 in property tax collections in Coos and Oxford Counties and an annual loss of $14,947 in Maine tree growth reimbursement payments for Magalloway Plantation and Upton. RRS payments at the current authorized funding level of 41% would result in an annual payment of $42,846 which would offset the loss in property tax collections and Maine tree growth reimbursement payment resulting in an annual net gain of $9,037. Due to the differences between RRS and reimbursement for lands under tree growth, Magalloway Plantation and Upton would experience an actual annual net loss of $3,005 and $5,073 respectfully. Cambridge does not assess property taxes and would benefit the most from the RRS payments under Alternative B. Accounting for the base FY05 RRS payments of $37,646 used in the CCP analysis (Alternative A) and the $42,847 predicted increase for new land acquisition, RRS payments would total $80,493 if we were to acquire all proposal lands under Alternative B.

Table A.7. Property tax and RRS impacts of land acquisition Overall Change in Full Refuge Taxes & ME State Change in ME Revenue Revenue Sharing Tax Change State Revenue Sharing Payment Collected assessed in taxes Sharing (RRS) 41% of RRS Net of 41% RRS Township values collected Payment payment payment Payments Grafton $311,125 -$2,800 $0 $9,334 $3,827 $1,027 Magalloway Plantation $471,750 -$3,949* -$4,859 $14,153 $5,803 -$3,005 Upton $983,250 -$7,079* -$10,088 $29,498 $12,094 -$5,073 Cambridge $443,583 $0 $26,824 $10,998 $10,998 Errol $339,682 -$4,243 $19,268 $7,900 $3,657 Wentworth Location $101,031 -$791 $5,426 $2,225 $1,434

Totals $2,650,421 -$18,862 -$14,947 $104,501 $42,846 $9,037

* Note: lands taxed at a level below full valuation

We estimated the additional economic impacts of alternative B using IMPLAN, a computerized database and modeling system that provides a regional analysis of economic activity developed by the USDA Forest Service. Using that model, we predicted that RRS payments would generate total annual economic impacts of $110,200 in local output, $65,800 in personal income, and 2.2 jobs in Coos and Oxford Counties. A portion ($44,781) of the increase in RRS payments under Alternative B offsets the loss in private property tax collections and Maine tree

Appendix A: Land Protection Plan A-21 Land Protection Plan

growth reimbursement payments, which does not represent a real increase economic activity to the area. Accounting for the loss in property tax collections, RRS payments under Alternative B would generate new total economic impacts of $49,100 in local output, 1 job, and $29,200 in personal income (USFWS Lake Umbagog CCP).

We also analyzed recreational opportunities and levels of visitation. We predict those levels would increase, due to refuge land acquisition, additional public use infrastructure, and regional visitation trends. Estimates were made for visitation levels associated with each major visitor activity: fishing, hunting, use of trails and water, other wildlife viewing and observation, and snowmobiling on trails, and total annual economic impacts associated with non-local visitation were estimated. Much of the predicted increase in visitation is based on the number of people that currently recreate on lands proposed for acquisition by the refuge, so that portion does not represent a real increase in visitation or economic activity to the area. Of the increase, 2,985 out of the 3,569 wildlife viewing related visitor days were determined to be an actual increase in visitation and economic activity to the area that would generate total economic impacts of $150,900 in local output, 2.4 jobs and $53,000 in personal income. It is worth noting that refuge land acquisition maintains access for the public recreational activities listed above that otherwise cannot be guaranteed.

Now that the refuge owns a substantial amount of acreage, we have identified timber harvest quantities for refuge lands (saw timber, pulp, and fuel wood) based on a 15 percent management unit harvest in 15-year intervals. We based annual harvest quantities on two major assumptions: (1) we base harvest numbers on current refuge lands at current stocking volumes; and, (2) as we acquire land, the private owner would have harvested it before the sale. We expect the stocking volumes on those lands to be low enough to prevent additional harvesting within the 15-year planning horizon of the CCP. The private owner would realize all economic gains before Service ownership. Therefore, we expect no economic impacts associated with timber production for forestlands we acquire in the expansion area until they have grown harvestable again.

As for cultural resources, refuge ownership would increase their protection on any additional lands we acquire. Although we have not done a records or field inventory on those privately owned lands, we know of no recorded sites. The National Historic Preservation Act and Archaeological Resources Protection Act mandate that federal agencies protect cultural resources. Service ownership would protect known cultural sites against vandalism, and would protect yet unidentified or undeveloped cultural sites from disturbance or destruction. Our environmental education and interpretation programs will continue to promote public understanding and appreciation of the area’s rich cultural resources.

A-22 Appendix A: Land Protection Plan Map A-1 Land Protection Plan

Appendix A: Land Protection Plan A-23 Land Protection Plan Map A-2

A-24 Appendix A: Land Protection Plan Map A-3 Land Protection Plan

Appendix A: Land Protection Plan A-25 Land Protection Plan Map A-4

A-26 Appendix A: Land Protection Plan Map A-5 Land Protection Plan

Appendix A: Land Protection Plan A-27 Land Protection Plan Map A-6

A-28 Appendix A: Land Protection Plan Map A-7 Land Protection Plan

Appendix A: Land Protection Plan A-29 Bibliography and References

Bibliography and Dettmers, Randy. 2006. Blueprint for the Design and Delivery of Bird References Conservation in the Atlantic Northern Forest. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, MA. 352 p.

Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture. 2006. Eastern Brook Trout: Status and Threats. Trout Unlimited, Arlington, Virginia. 36 pp.

Flatebo, G., C.R. Foss and S. K. Pelletier. 1999. Biodiversity in the forests of Maine: guidelines for land management. C.A. Elliott, ed. Univ. of Maine Coop. Extension. UMCE Bulletin # 7147.

New Hampshire Forest Sustainability Standards Work Team. 1997. Good forestry in the granite state: recommended voluntary forest management practices for New Hampshire. N.H. Div. of Forests & Lands, DRED and Soc. for the Protection of NH Forests.

Northern Forest Alliance, [email protected].

Northern Forest Lands Council. 1994. Finding Common Ground: Conserving the Northern Forest. Maine State Library, Station 64, Augusta, Maine.

Panjabi, Arvind. 2001. The Partners In Flight Handbook on Species Assessment & Prioritization. Version 1.1 December 2001. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory

Rosenberg, Kenneth V. and T.P. Hodgman. 2000. Partners In Flight Landbird Conservation Plan: Physiographic Area 28: Eastern Spruce-Hardwood Forest. Draft 1.0. American Bird Conservancy. p48.

Rosenberg, Kenneth V. and J.V. Wells. 2000. Global perspectives on neotropical migratory bird conservation in the Northeast: Long-term responsibility versus immediate concern. In: Bonney, Rick; D. N. Pashley; R.J. Cooper; L. Niles, eds. 2000. Strategies for bird conservation: The Partners In Flight planning process; Proceedings of the 3rd Partners in Flight Workshop; 1995 October 1-5; Cape May, NJ. Proceedings RMRS-P16. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Rosenberg, Kenneth V. and J.V. Wells. 1995. Importance of geographic areas to Neotropical migrant birds in the Northeast. Final report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 5, Hadley, MA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Final Environmental Assessment Proposal to Protect Wildlife Habitat, Lake Umbagog, Coos County, New Hampshire, Oxford County, Maine. June 1991. Hadley MA. 49 p.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge: Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. Hadley, MA.

A-30 Appendix A: Land Protection Plan Attachment A.1 Parcel Maps and Table

Attachment A.1 Parcel The following set of six maps (map tiles 1–6) show the present refuge and all Maps and Table parcels of land in our proposed acquisition area. The corresponding table (table A.8) lists each parcel, its tax parcel identification number, state and town, acreage, our recommended method and priority for its acquisition, and its size, estimated by our Geographic Information System. We based that information on town and county tax data.

We will acquire either full or partial interest in land parcels by purchase, when willing sellers make them available and funding is available. These are the definitions of each column head in that table.

LPP Number Land Protection Plan map identification number

Parcel Existing town or county tax parcel identification number

State Maine or New Hampshire

Town Town name

Acquisition Method Purchase in fee title or conservation easement (see discussion in Acquisition Method, above)

Acquisition Priority Priority 1—Lands remaining unacquired within the original refuge acquisition boundary Priority 2—Fee lands within the proposed expansion boundary Priority 3—Conservation easement lands within the proposed expansion boundary

Acres (GIS) Acreage measured by our Geographic Information System (GIS); represents approximate acreage of portion of parcel within Fee or Easement boundary

Appendix A: Land Protection Plan A-31 Attachment A.1 Parcel Maps and Table Table A.8

Table A.8. Lake Umbagog NWR Land Protection Parcel List FWS NUMBER PARCEL STATE TOWN ACQUISITION METHOD PRIORITY ACRES (GIS) 11-31MEMagallowayfee2145 21-30MEMagallowayfee230 31-27MEMagallowayfee222 41-24MEMagallowayfee2113 51-16MEMagallowayfee2137 62-42MEMagallowayfee247 72-49MEMagallowayfee221 86-1MEMagallowayfee210 92-52MEMagallowayfee2 2 10 2-51 ME Magalloway fee 2 1 11 2-50 ME Magalloway fee 2 96 12 2-53 ME Magalloway fee 2 0 13 2-53 ME Magalloway fee 2 0 14 6-1 ME Magalloway fee 2 427 15 6-1 ME Magalloway easement 3 3877 16 2-17 ME Magalloway fee 2 19 17 2-14 ME Magalloway fee 2 26 18 2-13 ME Magalloway fee 2 26 19 2-12 ME Magalloway fee 2 18 20 2-10 ME Magalloway fee 2 24 21 2-5 ME Magalloway fee 2 6 22 2-1 ME Magalloway fee 2 16 23 218-1 NH Wentworth Location fee 2 34 24 218-2 NH Wentworth Location fee 2 44 25 3-1 ME Magalloway fee 2 367 26 6-1 ME Magalloway fee 2 1954 27 4-9 ME Magalloway fee 2 7 28 4-14 ME Magalloway fee 2 132 29 000-7 ME Upton fee 2 3702 30 6-6 ME Upton fee 2 201 31 6-6 ME Upton easement 3 1249 32 000-8 ME Upton fee 2 1171 33 7-1 ME Upton fee 2 2 34 000-4 ME Upton easement 3 2529 35 2-81 ME Upton fee 2 21 36 2-84 ME Upton fee 2 55 37 2-98 ME Upton fee 2 41

A-32 Appendix A: Land Protection Plan Table A.8 Attachment A.1 Parcel Maps and Table

FWS NUMBER PARCEL STATE TOWN ACQUISITION METHOD PRIORITY ACRES (GIS) 38 2-97 ME Upton fee 2 85 39 2-85 ME Upton fee 2 9 40 2-85B ME Upton fee 2 5 41 2-92 ME Upton fee 2 15 42 2-131 ME Upton fee 2 190 43 2-123 ME Upton fee 2 143 44 2-124 ME Upton fee 2 50 45 2-133 ME Upton fee 2 7 46 2-134 ME Upton fee 2 5 47 2-160 ME Upton fee 2 310 48 9-2 ME Upton fee 2 92 49 000-6 ME Upton fee 2 749 50 9-3 ME Upton easement 3 96 51 000-5 ME Upton easement 3 1177 52 9-4 ME Upton easement 3 181 53 10-20 ME Upton fee 2 179 54 10-19 ME Upton fee 2 220 55 10-18 ME Upton fee 2 515 56 10-1 ME Upton easement 3 15 57 10-2 ME Upton easement 3 289 58 10-3 ME Upton easement 3 8 59 10-17 ME Upton easement 3 1 60 10-16 ME Upton easement 3 10 61 10-14 ME Upton easement 3 0 62 10-13 ME Upton easement 3 0 63 10-10 ME Upton easement 3 18 64 10-9 ME Upton easement 3 1 65 10-8 ME Upton easement 3 1 66 10-5 ME Upton easement 3 3 67 10-4 ME Upton easement 3 2 68 10-6 ME Upton easement 3 3 69 10-7 ME Upton easement 3 232 70 10-11 ME Upton easement 3 102 71 10-15 ME Upton easement 3 114 72 10-22 ME Upton fee 2 49 73 10-24 ME Upton fee 2 56 74 10-25 ME Upton fee 2 70 75 10-26 ME Upton fee 2 2

Appendix A: Land Protection Plan A-33 Attachment A.1 Parcel Maps and Table Table A.8

FWS NUMBER PARCEL STATE TOWN ACQUISITION METHOD PRIORITY ACRES (GIS) 76 10-12 ME Upton easement 3 37 77 OX002 1 7 ME Grafton Twp fee 2 1798 78 OX002 1 1 ME Grafton Twp fee 2 707 79 1-34 ME Upton easement 3 115 80 1-64 ME Upton easement 3 1276 81 1619-1.2 NH Cambridge easement 3 4643 82 206-34 NH Cambridge easement 3 39 83 1619-2 NH Cambridge easement 3 1 84 1619-1.2 NH Cambridge fee 2 4533 85 1619-3 NH Cambridge fee 2 2 86 1619-5 NH Cambridge fee 2 1 87 1619-4 NH Cambridge fee 2 1 88 1619-1.2 NH Cambridge fee 2 2628 89 1619-1.2 NH Cambridge easement 3 2048 90 r2-22 NH Errol easement 3 307 91 r3-5 NH Errol easement 3 174 92 r3-3 NH Errol fee 2 188 93 r2-22 NH Errol fee 2 2102 94 r3-2 NH Errol fee 2 0 95 r3-1 NH Errol fee 2 1 96 r3-6 NH Errol fee 2 1 97 r3-7 NH Errol fee 2 1 98 r15-2 NH Errol fee 2 132 99 r15-2 NH Errol fee 2 4 100 r15-2 NH Errol fee 2 16 101 r15-4 NH Errol fee 2 2131 102 1624-3 NH Wentworth Location fee 2 802 103 216-1 NH Wentworth Location fee 2 0 104 1624-3 NH Wentworth Location easement 3 2189 106 220-1 NH Wentworth Location fee 2 162 107 3-1 ME Magalloway easement 3 435 108 218-62 NH Wentworth Location fee 2 1 Lands Remaining Unacquired in Original Acquisition Boundary fee 1 5255

A-34 Appendix A: Land Protection Plan Attachment A.1 Parcel Maps and Table Map Tile 1

Appendix A: Land Protection Plan A-35 Map Tile 2 Attachment A.1 Parcel Maps and Table

A-36 Appendix A: Land Protection Plan Attachment A.1 Parcel Maps and Table Map Tile 3

Appendix A: Land Protection Plan A-37 Map Tile 4 Attachment A.1 Parcel Maps and Table

A-38 Appendix A: Land Protection Plan Attachment A.1 Parcel Maps and Table Map Tile 5

Appendix A: Land Protection Plan A-39 Map Tile 6 Attachment A.1 Parcel Maps and Table

A-40 Appendix A: Land Protection Plan Appendix B Ian Drew/USFWS Sweat Meadow

Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Suspected on the Refuge Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Suspected on the Refuge 10 B B B B B B B B B B B B Status Breeding Breeding 9 3 4 B U.S. SCP 8 ACJV NAWMP, NAWMP, (B); Highest High Priority priority (NB) 7 CP NAW- 6 IA III IA IA IV IV IV IV High High High Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Forests PIF Highest Highest Highest Highest Atlantic BCR 14: Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Northern 5 x BCC 2002 4 ME S3N S3N Rank Rarity S2S3N S3S4N 4 NH Rank Rarity

3 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 Maine CWCS

2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 S3B NH Plan Action Wildlife Wildlife 1 ME Legal Status SC(PT) 1 Sx2S1S3 TSCx SC E(PEB) x NH Legal E(PT) T x 2 S1 S4B Status 1 Legal Status Federal Species Barrow’s Goldeneye Barrow’s Bay-breasted Warbler Black and White Warbler Black-bellied Plover Barred Owl Black Scoter Barn Swallow Bank Swallow Baltimore Oriole American Three-toed Woodpecker American Wigeon American Woodcock Bald Eagle American Redstart American Pipit American Black Duck American Kestrel American Bittern Alder Flycatcher Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Suspected on the Refuge – Bird List Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Appendix B: Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Suspected on the Refuge B-1 Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Suspected on the Refuge 10 B B B B B B B B B B B B Status Breeding Breeding 9 U.S. SCP 8 ACJV NAWMP, NAWMP, High (NB) Moderately Moderately High Priority 7 CP cern cern con- con- erate erate Mod- Mod- NAW- 6 IA IV IV IV IV IIA IIB High High High Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Forests PIF Highest Atlantic BCR 14: Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Northern 5 x x BCC 2002 4 ME Rank Rarity S3S4N 4 NH Rank Rarity

3 2 S3 3 3 2 3 S3B 1 2 2 2 3 S3S4 Maine CWCS

2 x 2 NH Plan Action Wildlife Wildlife 1 E ME Legal Status 1 NH Legal Status 1 Legal Status Federal Species ehead Buf ﬂ Brown Thrasher Canada Warbler Brown Creeper Bohemian Waxwing Gull Bonaparte’s Broad-winged Hawk Boreal Chickadee Bobolink 2 Blackpoll Warbler Black Tern Blackburnian Warbler Black-throated Blue Warbler Black-throated Green Warbler Blue-winged Teal Black-billed Cuckoo Black-backed Woodpecker B-2 Appendix B: Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Suspected on the Refuge Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Suspected on the Refuge 10 B B B B B B B B B B B B B B Status Breeding Breeding 9 3 U.S. SCP 8 ACJV NAWMP, NAWMP, 7 CP NAW- 6 IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IIA IIB IIA High High High High High High Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Forests PIF Atlantic BCR 14: Moderate Moderate Moderate Northern 5 x x x BCC 2002 4 ME S2N S3N Rank Rarity 4 NH Rank Rarity

3 3 3 2 S3 S3S4B 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 S3B Maine CWCS

2 x 2 x 2 x 2 S3B NH Plan Action Wildlife Wildlife 1 SC x 2 ME Legal Status SC(PT) x 2 S2 1 T E E x 2 SHB S1N NH Legal E(PT) SC x 2 S1 T(PE) T(PN) SC x 3 S2B S3S4B Status 1 Legal Status Federal Species Great Black-backed Gull Great Blue Heron Evening Grosbeak Field Sparrow Fox Sparrow Golden Eagle Gray Jay Dunlin Eastern Kingbird Eastern Meadowlark Eastern Wood-Pewee Common Tern Hawk Cooper’s Common Moorhen Common Nighthawk Cape May Warbler Warbler Cape May Chestnut-sided Warbler Chimney Swift Common Goldeneye Common Loon Common Yellowthroat Common Raven Appendix B: Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Suspected on the Refuge B-3 Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Suspected on the Refuge 10 B B B B B B B B Status Breeding Breeding 9 3 3 3B 3 U.S. SCP 8 High (NB) ACJV Priority Moderate NAWMP, NAWMP, High (NB) High (NB) Priority (B), High Priority 7 CP cern con- erate Mod- NAW- 6 IV High priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Forests PIF Highest Atlantic BCR 14: Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Northern 5 BCC 2002 4 ME S3N Rank Rarity S3S4N S3S4N S2S3N S1S3N 4 NH Rank Rarity

3 2 3 3 2 S3 2 2 3 3 S3B 3 3 3 3 Maine CWCS

2 x NH Plan Action Wildlife Wildlife 1 ME Legal Status SC(PTB) 1 NH Legal Status 1 Legal Status Federal Species Merlin 3 S3B S3B Hooded Merganser Lesser Yellowlegs Long-tailed Duck Marsh Wren Greater Scaup Greater Yellowlegs Green Heron Green-winged Teal Horned Grebe Horned Lark Killdeer 3 Great-crested Flycatcher Herring Gull Lapland Longspur Least Flycatcher Least Sandpiper Lesser Scaup Mallard Great Cormorant B-4 Appendix B: Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Suspected on the Refuge Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Suspected on the Refuge 10 B B B B B B B B B B B B B B Status Breeding Breeding 9 3 U.S. SCP 8 (NB) ACJV Priority Moderate NAWMP, NAWMP, 7 CP NAW- 6 III III IV IV IV IV IV 1B IIA IIB IIB High High High Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Forests PIF Highest Atlantic BCR 14: Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Northern 5 x BCC 2002 4 ME Rank S3S4B Rarity S3S4N S2S3N S3S4N S2S3N S3S4N 4 NH S2B Rank Rarity

3 2 2 2 3 2 2 Maine CWCS

2 x 3x S3B 2 S1B x 2 x x 3 S2B NH Plan Action Wildlife Wildlife 1 SC SC SC x 3 S3 S3?B ME Legal Status 1 E NH Legal E(PT) E(PEB)E(PT) x 1 S1 S2B x Status 1 Legal Status Federal Species Red-necked Grebe Pectoral Sandpiper Peregrine Falcon Pied-billed Grebe Pine Grosbeak Red Crossbill Red-necked Phalarope Purple Finch Palm Warbler Palm Warbler Ovenbird 3 Northern Shrike Olive-sided Flycatcher Northern Pintail Osprey T Northern Saw-whet Owl Northern Parula Northern Harrier Northern Goshawk Northern Flicker Mourning Warbler Appendix B: Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Suspected on the Refuge B-5 Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Suspected on the Refuge 10 B B B B B B B B B B B B Status Breeding Breeding 9 3 4 4 4 U.S. SCP 8 ACJV NAWMP, NAWMP, High (NB) Moderately 7 CP NAW- 6 III III IV IV 1A IIA IIA IIA High High High Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Forests PIF Highest Atlantic BCR 14: Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Northern 5 BCC 2002 4 ME S3N Rank S3S4B Rarity S3S4N S3S4N S2S3N S2S3N 4 NH Rank Rarity

3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 S3B 2 Maine CWCS

2 x x 2 x 3 S3 x 3 S3 S3N x 3 NH Plan Action Wildlife Wildlife 1 ME Legal Status 1 SC SC x 2 S2 S3S4B SC NH Legal Status 1 Legal Status Federal Species Tree Swallow Tree Turkey xVeery 2 Surf Scoter Warbler Tennessee Semipalmated Plover Short-billed Dowitcher Semipalmated Sandpiper Sharp-shinned Hawk Spruce Grouse Scarlet Tanager Snow Goose Solitary Sandpiper Sora 3 S3B Sanderling Savannah Sparrow Rusty Blackbird Red-shouldered Hawk Rough-legged Hawk Grouse Ruffed Red-throated Loon Ring-necked Duck Rose-breasted Grosbeak B-6 Appendix B: Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Suspected on the Refuge Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Suspected on the Refuge 10 B B B B B B B B B Status Breeding Breeding 9 3B U.S. SCP 8 ACJV (B, NB) NAWMP, NAWMP, High (NB) Moderately High Priority 7 CP NAW- 6 IB IV IV High Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Forests PIF Highest Atlantic BCR 14: Moderate Moderate Moderate Northern 5 x BCC 2002 4 ME Rank Rarity S3S4B 4 NH S3B S3S4B Rank Rarity

3 3 2 3 3 3 3 Maine CWCS

2 x 2 x 2 NH Plan Action Wildlife Wildlife 1 ME Legal Status 1 NH Legal Status 1 Legal Status Federal Species PT = Proposed Threatened = Proposed PT PE= Proposed Endangered ing only) PN= Proposed None PTB= Proposed threatened (breeding only) (breed- PEB= Proposed Endangered treme habitat specialization. Yellow Warbler Yellow Yellow-bellied Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Wood Thrush Wood Yellow-bellied Flycatcher Virginia Rail Virginia SC Whip-poor-will White-winged Crossbill Duck Wood White-throated Sparrow White-winged Scoter Snipe Wilson’s Warbler Wilson’s Federal and State Legal Status Codes (under Federal & State Endangered Species Acts) Federal and State Legal Status Codes (under & Endangered Species Action Plan: Wildlife N. H. Species of greatest conservation concern Conservation Plan Wildlife Comprehensive Maine’s New Hampshire and Maine Natural Heritage Inventory Rarity Ranks E = Federal or State Endangered Threatened T= Federal or State legal standing) SC= State species of Special Concern (Administrative category without High) = High potential for state extirpation without management intervention and/or protection. Priority 1 (Very Priority 2 (High) = Moderate to high potential for state extirpation without management intervention and/or protection. distribution, status, and/or ex- there are some remaining concerns regarding restricted YET, Priority 3 (Moderate) = Low to moderate potential for state extirpation, 1 2 3 4 Appendix B: Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Suspected on the Refuge B-7 Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Suspected on the Refuge cant population declines and either low populations or some other high risk factor. ﬁ as well. distributions. b) stable with known or potential threats and moderate to restricted distributions; c) relatively small Breeding Status Birds of Conservation Concern 2002 (Bird Region 14 List) Area 28 , 2003 Update Codes in Flight Bird Conservation Plan for Eastern Spruce-Hardwood Forest: Physiographic Partner’s Conservation Plan Categories of Concern Waterbird American North Venture Atlantic Coast Joint Management Plan, Waterfowl American North U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan Codes High Concern: Species that are not Highly Imperiled. Populations of these species are known or thought to be declining, and have some other known or potential threat High Concern: Species that are not Highly Imperiled. Populations of these species known or thought to be declining, and have moderate threats or distributions; Moderate Concern: Species that are not Highly Imperiled or High Concern. Populations of these species either a) declining with Species included in table only if >moderate IA = High continental concern & high regional responsibility IA IB = High continental concern & low regional responsibility = High regional concern IIA IIB = High regional responsibility Additional Federal listed III = Additional State listed = IV Highly Imperiled: includes all species with signi B = breeding species prioritization NB = non-breeding species prioritization Low Priorities = Highest, High, Moderately Moderate, Low, Tier Conservation Species included in table only if priority moderate or higher 5 = Highly imperiled 4 = Species of high concern 3 = Species of moderate concern 2 = Species of low concern 1 = Species not at risk Species included in table only if >3 S1 = Critically imperiled. S2 = Imperiled S3 = Either very rare or uncommon, vulnerable abundant, apparently secure Widespread, S4 = S5= Secure SH = Historical. B = Breeding N = Non-breeding Species included in table only if Srank either state < S3 5 6 7 8 9 10 (B = Breeds on Refuge) B-8 Appendix B: Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Suspected on the Refuge Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Suspected on the Refuge 4 Rank ME Rarity 4 S2 S5 Rank NH Rarity 3 3 3 3 3 Maine CWCS 2 x x x x x x x NH Wildlife NH Wildlife Action Plan 1 SCSC 3 SC Status Species of greatest conservation concern (bear, moose, white-tailed deer in NH Big Game Plan) Species of greatest conservation concern (bear, ME Legal 1 T SC SC SC NH Legal Status Common Name habitat specialization. American Beaver Big Brown Bat Bobcat Little Brown Bat Marten Black Bear Hoary Bat Moose White-tailed deer Northern Long-eared bat New Hampshire and Maine State Legal Status (under State Endangered Species Act) New Hampshire and Maine State Legal Status (under Endangered Species Action Plan: Wildlife New Hampshire Conservation Strategy Wildlife Comprehensive Maine’s New Hampshire and Maine Natural Heritage Inventory Rarity Ranks E = Endangered Threatened = T SC = Species of Special Concern (Administrative category without legal standing) High) = High potential for state extirpation without management intervention and/or protection. Priority 1 (Very Priority 2 (High) = Moderate to high potential for state extirpation without management intervention and/or protection. distribution, status, and/or extreme Priority 3 (Moderate) = Low to moderate potential for state extirpation, there are some remaining concerns regarding restricted S1 = Critically imperiled. S2 = Imperiled S3 = Either very rare or uncommon, vulnerable abundant, apparently secure Widespread, S4 = S5 = Secure SH = Historical. Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Suspected on the Refuge – Mammals List Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or 1 2 3 4 Appendix B: Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Suspected on the Refuge B-9 Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Suspected on the Refuge 3 3 S4 S ME Rarity Rank 3 3 S2 S3 NH Rarity Rank 2 1 2 2 3 1 2 3 Maine CWCS

1 rmed in recent years fi x x x x2 xS x x x x x NH Wildlife NH Wildlife Action Plan sh fi Common Name Alewife American Eel Landlocked Atlantic Salmon Longnose sucker Northern Redbelly Dace (?) Eastern Brook Trout Eastern Brook Finescale Dace(?) Lake Chub Lake Trout Lake White Rainbow Smelt Slimy sculpin New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan: Species of greatest conservation concern Wildlife New Hampshire Conservation Strategy Wildlife Comprehensive Maine’s New Hampshire and Maine Natural Heritage Inventory Rarity Ranks Priority 1 (Very High) = High potential for state extirpation without management intervention and/or protection. Priority 1 (Very Priority 2 (High) = Moderate to high potential for state extirpation without management intervention and/or protection. distribution, status, and/or extreme Priority 3 (Moderate) = Low to moderate potential for state extirpation, there are some remaining concerns regarding restricted habitat specialization. S1 = Critically imperiled. S2 = Imperiled S3 = Either very rare or uncommon, vulnerable abundant, apparently secure Widespread, S4 = S5= Secure SH = Historical. Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Suspected on the Refuge – Fish List Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or 1 2 3 ? = occurrence at Lake Umbagog not con B-10 Appendix B: Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Suspected on the Refuge Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Suspected on the Refuge 3 3 3 2 Maine CWCS 2 x x2 x x NH Wildlife NH Wildlife Action Plan SC SC SC 1 ME Legal Status SC 1 NH Legal Status Spring Salamander Common Name Amphibians Blue-spotted Salaman- der Mink frog Northern Leopard Frog SC Reptiles Turtle Wood State Legal Status (under State Endangered Species Acts) State Legal Status (under Endangered Species Action Plan: Species of greatest conservation concern Wildlife New Hampshire Conservation Strategy Wildlife Comprehensive Maine’s New Hampshire and Maine Natural Heritage Inventory Rarity Ranks E = Endangered Threatened = T SC = Species of Special Concern (Administrative category without legal standing) High) = High potential for state extirpation without management intervention and/or protection. Priority 1 (Very Priority 2 (High) = Moderate to high potential for state extirpation without management intervention and/or protection. distribution, status, and/or extreme Priority 3 (Moderate) = Low to moderate potential for state extirpation, there are some remaining concerns regarding restricted habitat specialization. S1 = Critically imperiled. S2 = Imperiled S3 = Either very rare or uncommon, vulnerable abundant, apparently secure Widespread, S4 = S5 = Secure SH = Historical. Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Suspected on the Refuge - Amphibians & Reptiles List Amphibians & Reptiles List Suspected on the Refuge - Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or 1 2 3 4 Appendix B: Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Suspected on the Refuge B-11 Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Suspected on the Refuge 2 S2 S2 S2 S2 ME Rarity Rank 2 1 S1 S3 S1 S3 S3 S2 S3 S3 S1 S1 S2 S3 S2 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S3 S1 S2 S1 SH SH Ind Ind NH Rarity Rank 1 SC SC SC SC T T T E E E E E E E E E E E ES E E E owered water owered fl ower sedge Podgrass threesquare Torrey’s Arrow-head (wapato) Bog willow Satin willow Knotty pondweed Budding pondweed Pink wintergreen Water lobelia Water Alternate- milfoil Comb water milfoil Slender waternymph Dwarf ragwort Jack pine Hollow Joe pye weed Moor rush Broad-leaved twaybladeHeart-leaved twayblade T Sparse- fl American willow-herb Narrow-leaved cotton grass Marsh horsetail Hayden’s sedge Hayden’s Livid sedge Meagre sedge Golden sedge Creeping sedge Common Name mouth Dragon’s NH Legal Status ME Legal Status Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Suspected on the Refuge – Plants List Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or B-12 Appendix B: Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Suspected on the Refuge Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Suspected on the Refuge S1 2 S3 S3 SH Ind Ind E rmed fi TS E y hairy goldenrod Contorted sphagnum peat moss Peat moss Floating bladdersort Canada violet Stif fl goldenrod Pursh’s Branched bur-reed State Legal Status (Under State Endangered Species Acts) State Legal Status (Under Endangered Species New Hampshire & Maine Natural Heritage Inventory State Rarity Ranks T = Threatened Threatened = E = Endangered T SC = Special Concern (Administrative category without legal standing) S1 = critically imperiled S2 = imperiled S3= rare or uncommon; state watch species S4 = widespread & apparently secure S5 = widespread & secure SH = historical Ind = indeterminate (thought to be rare but in need of more information determine status) ? = occurrence at Lake Umbagog not con 1 2 Appendix B: Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Suspected on the Refuge B-13 Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Suspected on the Refuge Maine Community Type Maine Community r broom-moss forest S4 Northern white cedar woodland fen S4 Northern white cedar swamp S4 North white cedar swamp S4 Spruce- fi S2 Shrubby cinquefoil-sedge circumneutral fen Rarity Rank Program State Program ME Natural Areas Areas ME Natural S3 S1 S1 S3 S2 S2 S3 S3 S3 S1 S3S4 State NH Natural Rarity Rank Heritage Inventory Heritage Inventory oodplain forest oodplain S2 fl r swamp fi ark fl r forest r New Hampshire Community Type Community New Hampshire Highbush blueberry-mountain holly wooded fen Site Borderline Fen (patterned fen system) Meadow (medium level fen system) Harper’s Leonard Marsh (medium level fen system) Sweat Meadows (medium level fen system) Whaleback Ponds (poor level fen/bog system) Silver maple-false nettle-sensitive fern cranberry-short sedge moss lawn (sphagnum Large pulchrum-quagmire sedge variant) Sphagnum rubellum- small cranberry moss carpet cranberry- short sedge moss lawn (Sphagnum Large torreyanum variant) Northern white cedar circumneutral string Northern hardwood-black ash-conifer swamp balsam Northern white cedar- Acidic northern white cedar swamp - black spruce bog Leather-leaf Circumneutral-calcareous Lowland spruce- fi New Hampshire Heritage Inventory Exemplary Natural Communities: Open Peatland Complexes New Hampshire Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Suspected on the Refuge - Plant Communities List Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or B-14 Appendix B: Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Suspected on the Refuge Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Suspected on the Refuge Inventory. DRED, Div. of Forests & Lands, Concord, NH DRED, Div. Inventory. Manomet, MA Trap K. Mills, R. Paul, Phillips, J. E. Saliva, B. Sydeman, S. Kress, R. Milko, Miller, NH Forests & Lands, Concord, NH. 2003 Update Conservancy, Forests & Lands, Concord, NH Lands, Concord, NH & Lands, Concord, NH References Natural Heritage Bechtel, D.A. and D.D. Sperduto. 1998. Floodplain forest natural communities along major rivers in New Hampshire. Hampshire Conservation Sciences, The U.S. shorebird conservation plan. 2nd Ed. Manomet Center for B. Harrington and R. Gills, eds. 2001. Brown, S., C. Hickey, Service . Wildlife 14] U.S. Fish and Atlantic northern forest. [BCR Dettmers, R. 2005. Draft: Blueprint for the design and delivery of bird conservation in I. Davidson, L. Dickson, N. Edelson, R. Elliot, M. Erwin, S. Hatch, Acosta Cruz, M. Coulter, Kushlan J.A., M. J. Steinkamp, K. C. Parsons, Capp, implementation plan revision. June 2005 draft. Waterfowl Venture. Atlantic Coast Joint Management Plan. Waterfowl American North Augusta, Maine MDFIW, comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy. 2005. Maine’s Wildlife. Maine Dept. of Inland Fisheries and Areas Program. 2005. Rare, threatened and endangered plant taxa. Maine Natural New Hampshire Fish and Game Dept. 2005. wildlife action plan. Concord, NH Concord, NH. of Forests & Lands, August 2005. DRED, Div. New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau. 2005a. Rare animal list for Hampshire, Concord, NH of Forests & Lands, August 2005. DRED, Div. New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau. 2005b. Rare plant list for Hampshire, & Lands, Concord, of Forests New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau. 2005c. State watch and indeterminate plant species in Hampshire. DRED, Div. of DRED, Div. The Nature Conservancy). New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau. 2005d. Biological and conservation data (BCD) system (developed by American Bird Forest. Area 28: Eastern Spruce-Hardwood Hodgman. Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan: Physiographic P. T. and V. K. Rosenberg, of DRED, Div. Sperduto, D.D. and B. Engstrom. 1998. Northern white cedar swamps of New Hampshire. Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory. of Forests & DRED, Div. Nichols. 2000. Exemplary bogs and fens of New Hampshire. Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory. F. W. Sperduto, D.D. and of Forests DRED, Div. Nichols, and N. Cleavitt. 2000. Bogs fens of New Hampshire. Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory. F. W. Sperduto, D.D., VA. Arlington, of Migratory Bird Management, Service. 2002. Birds of conservation concern Div. Wildlife U.S. Fish and Appendix B: Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Suspected on the Refuge B-15 Appendix C Tom Meredith/USFWS Tom Canoes on Magalloway River

Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Table of Contents

Table of Contents Compatibility Determination — Wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation ...... C-1 Compatibility Determination — Public hunting ...... C-7 Compatibility Determination — Public ﬁ shing ...... C-17

Finding of Appropriateness — Commercial forest management ...... C-31 Compatibility Determination — Commercial forest management ...... C-33

Finding of Appropriateness — Recreational gathering of blueberries, blackberries, strawberries, raspberries, mushrooms, ﬁ ddleheads and antlersheds ...... C-43 Compatibility Determination — Recreational gathering of blueberries, blackberries, strawberries, raspberries, ﬁ ddleheads, mushrooms and antler sheds for personal use ...... C-45

Finding of Appropriateness — Snowmobiling and recreational dogsledding on snowmobile trails ...... C-49 Compatibility Determination — Snowmobiling and recreational dogsledding on snowmobile trails ...... C-51

Finding of Appropriateness — Bicycling ...... C-71 Compatibility Determination — Bicycling ...... C-73

Finding of Appropriateness — Horseback riding ...... C-77 Compatibility Determination — Horseback riding ...... C-79

Finding of Appropriateness — Camping ...... C-89 Compatibility Determination — Camping ...... C-91

Finding of Appropriateness — Research conducted by non-refuge personnel . . . . C-105 Compatibility Determination — Research conducted by non-refuge personnel . . . . C-107

Finding of Appropriateness — Privately owned recreational cabins (camps) . . . . . C-121 Compatibility Determination — Privately owned recreational cabins (camps) . . . . . C-123

Finding of Appropriateness — Motorized and non-motorized boating ...... C-129 Compatibility Determination — Motorized and non-motorized boating ...... C-131

Finding of Appropriateness — ATV, ORV, or Motorbike Use ...... C-137 Finding of Appropriateness — Geocaching ...... C-139 Finding of Appropriateness — Field trials for dogs ...... C-141

List of Maps Map C-1 Proposed Designated Routes of Travel and Public Use ...... C-143 Map C-2 Woodcock Focus Area ...... C-144 Map C-3 Management Zones within Habitat Management Units...... C-145 Map C-4 Alternative B - Proposed Designated Snowmobile Trails ...... C-146 ii Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

USE: Wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation

REFUGE NAME: Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

DATE ESTABLISHED: November 12, 1992

ESTABLISHING AUTHORITY:

1. Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S. C.3901 (b) 2. Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715d) 3. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. ¤ 742f(a)(4)) 4. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. ¤ 742f(b)(1))

PURPOSE(S) FOR WHICH ESTABLISHED:

1. …the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public beneﬁ ts they provide and to help fulﬁ ll international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions…16 U.S.C. ¤ 3901(b) (Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986)

2. …for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds… 16 U.S.C. ¤ 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

3. …for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of ﬁ sh and wildlife resources… 16 U.S.C. ¤ 742f(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

4. …for the beneﬁ t of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or afﬁ rmative covenant, or condition of servitude… 16 U.S.C. ¤ 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

MISSION OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM: To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the ﬁ sh, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the beneﬁ t of present and future generations of Americans.

DESCRIPTION OF USE:

(a) What is the use? Is the use a priority public use? The uses are wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation. Wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation are priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57).

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-1 Compatibility Determination – Wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation

(b) Where would the use be conducted? Wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation will be allowed to occur on designated roads, trails, pull-outs, overlooks, and visitor contact facilities throughout the refuge. Excellent opportunities for wildlife observation and photography will also occur on the water. The refuge will provide a self guided river trail on the Magalloway River, and photography opportunities in waterfowl blinds. Remote camp sites will also provide and facilitate unique opportunities for wildlife observation. The exact location of where a particular activity, event, or workshop would be allowed to occur will be at the discretion of the Refuge Manager.

(c) When would the use be conducted? Wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation will be allowed on the refuge daily, year-round, from half-hour before sunrise to half-hour after sunset, unless a conﬂ ict with a management activity or an extenuating circumstance necessitates deviating from these procedures. Closures for snow and ice storms or other events affecting human safety, or for nesting season and other sensitive times of the year are examples that would require these uses to be temporarily suspended.

(d) How would the use be conducted? Wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation will be allowed to occur on the refuge. As an integral part of this program we will incorporate the strategies found in Goal 4, Alternative B (Proposed Action) of the Draft CCP/EA for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge.

Refuge staff will be responsible for on-site evaluations to resolve public use issues; monitor and evaluate impacts; maintain boundaries and signs; meet with adjacent landowners and interested public; recruit volunteers; prepare and present interpretive programs; expand existing trails and overlooks; revise leaﬂ ets and develop new ones; install kiosks and continually update kiosk information; develop needed signage; organize and conduct Refuge events; conduct regularly scheduled programs for the public; display off-site exhibits at local events; develop relationships with media; provide law enforcement and respond immediately to public inquiries.

(e) Why is this use being proposed? Wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation are Priority Public Uses as deﬁ ned by The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57), and if compatible, are to receive enhanced consideration over other general public uses.

These uses will be conducted to provide compatible educational and recreational opportunities for visitors to enjoy the resource and to gain understanding and appreciation for ﬁ sh and wildlife, wildlands ecology and the relationships of plant and animal populations within the ecosystem, and wildlife management. They will enhance the public’s understanding of natural resource management programs and ecological concepts to enable the public to better understand the problems facing our wildlife/wildlands resources, to realize what effect the public has on wildlife resources, to learn about the Service’s role in conservation, to better understand the biological facts upon which Service

C-2 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation

management programs are based, and to foster an appreciation as to why wildlife and wildlands are important to them. The authorization of these uses will produce a more informed public, and advocates for Service programs. Likewise, these uses will provide opportunities for visitors to observe and learn about wildlife and wildlands at their own pace in an unstructured environment and to observe wildlife habitats ﬁ rsthand.

Professional and amateur photographers will also be provided opportunities to photograph wildlife in their natural habitats. Photographic opportunities obviously will result in increased publicity and advocacy for Service programs. These uses will also provide wholesome, safe, outdoor recreation in a scenic setting, with the realization that those who come strictly for recreational enjoyment will be enticed to participate in the more educational facets of the public use program, and can then become advocates for the refuge and the Service.

Availability of Resources: Sufﬁ cient Refuge resources in terms of personnel and budget are available to administer wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretations.

Cost Breakdown The following is the list of costs to the refuge required to administer and manage the refuge programs for wildlife observation and photography and environmental education and interpretation.

Routine maintenance: $4,000 annually. This is the expected cost to maintain the Refuge public use facilities including the maintenance of parking areas, removal of garbage, and restroom maintenance.

Install kiosks: $3,000 one time expense.

Trail expansion: $10,000 one time expense.

Supplies and materials: $5,000 this includes signs, kiosks information, nesting site closure signs, interpretative and Refuge brochures.

Monitoring: $2,000 annually. To be carried out in cooperation with the States.

Law Enforcement: $3,000 annually for a Refuge Ofﬁ cer.

Total: $27,000 ($9,000 annually)

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Wildlife Observation and Photography, Environmental Education, and Interpretation can produce positive or negative impacts to the wildlife resource. A positive effect of public involvement in these priority public uses will be a better appreciation and more complete understanding of the wildlife and habitats associated with northern New England ecosystems. This can translate into more widespread and stronger support for the Refuge, the National Wildlife Refuge System and the Service.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-3 Compatibility Determination – Wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation

Direct Effects Direct impacts are those where the activity has an immediate affect on wildlife. Anticipated direct impacts include disturbance to wildlife by human presence which typically results in a temporary displacement without long-term effects to individuals or populations. Some species will avoid areas frequented by people, such as developed trails and the buildings, while others seem unaffected or even drawn to human presence. Overall, effects should not be signiﬁ cant because the majority of the Refuge will experience minimal public use.

Indirect Effects People can be vectors for invasive plants when seeds or other propagules are moved from one area to another. Once established, invasives can out compete native plants, thereby altering habitats and indirectly impacting wildlife. The threat of invasive plant establishment will always be an issue requiring annual monitoring, and when necessary, treatment. Staff will work to eradicate the invasives and educate the visiting public.

Cumulative Effects Effects that are minor when considered alone, but collectively may be important are known as cumulative effects. The principal concerns are repeated disruptions of nesting, foraging, and/or resting birds.

Based on observations and knowledge of the areas involved, there is no evidence that cumulatively, the proposed wildlife-dependent uses will have an unacceptable effect on the wildlife resource. The landowners have allowed the public to engage in these wildlife-dependent uses for many years without discernable negative effects. Although a substantial increase in the cumulative impacts from public use is not expected in the near term, it will be important for Refuge staff to monitor use and respond, if necessary, to conserve the existing high quality wildlife resources.

The Refuge will close areas including campsites with active loon, bald eagle, and osprey nests to mitigate impact. Opening land to public use can often result in litter, vandalism, and other illegal activities on Refuge lands. Refuge staff will monitor and evaluate the effects of public use in collaboration with volunteers in an effort to discern and respond to unacceptable impacts to wildlife and habitats.

No additional effects from Wildlife Observation, Wildlife Photography, Environmental Education or Interpretation are anticipated. Therefore, allowing these uses on Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge poses only a minimal threat to Goals 1, 2, and 3 (“Manage open water and wetlands,” “Manage fl oodplain and lakeshore habitats,” and “Manage upland forested habitats”) as written in the CCP. These uses fully benefi t Goal 4 “Provide high quality wildlife dependent activities” and Goal 5 “Develop high quality interpretative opportunities, and facilitate environmental education, to promote an understanding and appreciation for the conservation of fi sh and wildlife and their habitats, as well as the role of the refuge in the Northern Forest” as described in the CCP. No other refuge goals and objectives, as written in the CCP, will be affected by this use.

C-4 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation

Public Review and Comment: As part of the CCP process for Lake Umbagog NWR this compatibility determination underwent extensive public review, including a comment period of 77 days following the release of the Draft CCP/EA. It will also undergo and additional 30 days of public review during the public review period of the FEIS.

Determination (check one below):

___ Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible with the following stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Public use areas will be monitored at various times of the year to assess wildlife disturbance. We would include information about proper etiquette and the effects of human impacts on habitat and wildlife resources in Refuge publications and ﬂ yers. Periodic law enforcement will ensure compliance with regulations and area closures, and would discourage vandalism.

To limit wildlife disturbance caused by human intrusion, we may limit access on some trails, coves and backwaters during the fall migration period to protect feeding and resting habitat for migratory birds. During nesting, we may offer only guided tours or we may close areas for certain periods of time. All other times of the year, the refuge would be open to visitors during normal Refuge hours.

We will ensure resource protection and visitor safety by providing full-time or seasonal law enforcement personnel to patrol areas and educate people about appropriate activities on Refuge lands.

Justiﬁ cation: Wildlife Observation, Photography, Environmental Education and Interpretation are priority wildlife- dependent uses for the National Wildlife Refuge System through which the public can develop an appreciation for ﬁ sh and wildlife (Executive Order 12996, March 25, 1996 and The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57)).

The Service’s policy is to provide expanded opportunities for these uses when compatible and consistent with sound ﬁ sh and wildlife management and ensure that they receive enhanced attention during planning and management. Allowing wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation on Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes for which the refuge was established as evidenced by the impact analysis that shows this use will not compromise our ability to achieve the goals and objectives set forth under the Lake Umbagog NWR CCP. In fact, allowing these uses supports those goals and objectives and the Service’s Mission.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-5 Compatibility Determination – Wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation

Signature: Refuge Manager: ______(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief: ______(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: ______

C-6 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Public hunting

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

USE: Public hunting

REFUGE NAME: Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

DATE ESTABLISHED: November 12, 1992

ESTABLISHING AUTHORITY:

1. Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S. C. 3901 (b))

2. Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715d)

3. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. ¤ 742f(a)(4))

4. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. ¤ 742f(b)(1))

PURPOSE(S) FOR WHICH ESTABLISHED:

1. …the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public beneﬁ ts they provide and to help fulﬁ ll international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions… 16 U.S.C. ¤ 3901(b) (Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986)

2. …for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds… 16 U.S.C. ¤ 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

3. …for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of ﬁ sh and wildlife resources… 16 U.S.C. ¤ 742f(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

MISSION OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM:

To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the ﬁ sh, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the beneﬁ t of present and future generations of Americans”.

DESCRIPTION OF USE: a. What is the use? Is the use a priority public use? Primary Use: The use is public hunting. Hunting is a priority public use of the National Wildlife Refuge System under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-7 Compatibility Determination – Public hunting

U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57).

Supporting Uses: Boating (motorized or non-motorized), camping

b. Where would the use be conducted? Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge has been open to public hunting of big game, upland game and migratory game birds, for all Service-owned lands within the Refuge boundary, since 2000 (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge Hunting Management Plan, 2000). This plan was amended through a separate NEPA process in 2007 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007a and U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007b). Hunting occurs on all Refuge-owned land. Lands open to hunting include upland deciduous, coniferous, and mixed forests, as well as refuge wetlands and peatlands. These habitats support big game such as moose, deer, and black bear, as well as snowshoe hare, ruffed grouse, woodcock, and waterfowl, among others.

c. When would the use be conducted? Hunting will be conducted during State (New Hampshire and Maine) big game, upland game, and waterfowl hunting seasons, and will be in accordance with Federal and State regulations. In cooperation with the States, hunt season dates and bag limits may be adjusted in the future as needed to achieve balanced wildlife population levels within carrying capacities.

d. How would the use be conducted? The use will continue to be conducted according to State and Federal regulations. Federal regulations contained in 50 CFR pertaining to the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as well as existing Refuge-speciﬁ c regulations will apply. No change from the existing hunt program is proposed. However, the Refuge Manager may, upon annual review of the hunting program, impose further restrictions on hunting activity, recommend that the Refuge be closed to hunting, or further liberalize hunting regulations within the limits of State law. Restrictions would occur if hunting becomes inconsistent with other higher priority Refuge programs or endangers Refuge resources or public safety.

Six permanent blinds are available to waterfowl hunters by reservation. Blinds are located in Leonard Pond, Sweat Meadows, and along nearby areas or backwaters of the Magalloway and Androscoggin Rivers. Waterfowl hunters will receive highest priority for blind reservations, during hunting season. Boat access for waterfowl and other types of hunting is available at a number of locations in the vicinity of Umbagog, both on and off refuge ownership. Waterfowl hunters will also be given preference for campsite reservations near blinds during hunting season, where possible. Hunting pressure appears to be moderate at the present time and visitor confl icts have not been signifi cant. All areas of the refuge will therefore remain open to the public during hunting season. Should visitor confl icts increase signifi cantly, then the refuge may have to consider zoning for different uses, or area closures.

Why is the use being proposed? Hunting is one of the priority uses outlined by Congress in the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. The Service supports and encourages priority uses on National Wildlife Refuge lands where appropriate and compatible. Hunting is used in some instances to manage wildlife populations. Hunting is also a

C-8 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Public hunting traditional form of wildlife-oriented recreation that can be accommodated on many National Wildlife Refuge System lands.

Availability of Resources: Additional ﬁ scal resources to conduct this activity would be minimal as the Refuge has been open to hunting since 2000 and since hunting will occur under State regulations and not as a Refuge regulated hunting program. Costs associated with administration of this use include:

Preparation of Annual Hunt Plan: $500 GS-12 Deputy Refuge Manager/ GS-12 Wildlife Biologist Preparation and Updating of Refuge Hunting Brochure: $200 GS-12 Deputy Refuge Manager

Managing Waterfowl Blind Reservation System/ Dispensing Information during year: $500 GS-6 Administrative Assistant

Law Enforcement/Outreach: $3,000 GS-9 Refuge Ofﬁ cer

Maintenance of Waterfowl Blinds: $500 WG7 Maintenance Worker

Total: $4,700

Anticipated Impacts of this use: The following indented section is exerpted from the 2007 Amended Environmental Assessment on Public Hunting at Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007a). For more speciﬁ c impacts including a cumulative impacts analysis please refer to that document.

Hunting pressure on the refuge is presently considered moderate for northern New Hampshire and western Maine. Allowing hunting would not displace most hunters who have traditionally hunted in this area. Refuge-specifi c regulations might impact some bear, coyote, hare, fi sher, bobcat and raccoon hunters, inducing them to hunt outside the refuge. However, hunting pressure on these refuge species is generally low, so it is anticipated that approximately the same number of hunters who have traditionally used the area would use the refuge under this alternative. It is possible that a slight increase in hunter numbers could occur, due to the publicity and expectations associated with the designation and posting of the area as a national wildlife refuge open to hunting. It is not anticipated that this increase will be signifi cant enough to warrant restrictions on the numbers of hunters permitted to use the area, or substantially increase traffi c congestion in the area.

Biological impacts would be minimal, since there would be no signiﬁ cant change from previous, long-standing hunting activities and use of the land.

The physical effects of hunting on refuge vegetation should be limited, due to refuge-speciﬁ c regulations restricting use of ATV’s, off-road travel, permanent stands and blinds, camping, and ﬁ res. Indirect effects of hunting on vegetation might be neutral or positive, if habitat quality was maintained at its present or an improved level.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-9 Compatibility Determination – Public hunting

Given Federal regulations restricting hunting over bait, harvest of bear on the refuge would possibly decrease. Coyote and raccoon harvest would probably decrease, as a result of refuge- speciﬁ c regulations which prohibit hunting at night.

Bobcat hunting will decrease on the Maine portion of the refuge, due to refuge-speciﬁ c regulations which prohibit bobcat hunting. Bobcat are currently protected under New Hampshire hunting regulations, but can still be legally hunted and trapped in Maine. Lynx have been proposed for Federal listing as a threatened species. Bobcat hunting will be prohibited on refuge lands in the interest of increasing protection afforded to lynx.

With respect to big game (moose and white-tailed deer) and other upland game species, hunters would not be displaced from the area and would be allowed to continue hunting as they have in the past, in accordance with State and Federal regulations.

There is no anticipated impact on endangered or threatened species on the refuge. Hunting of all legally hunted species has occurred on and around the refuge for many years with no known adverse impact on any listed species. The hunting program at Lake Umbagog NWR is not expected to have an adverse impact on lynx or gray wolves. Since neither lynx nor gray wolves have been documented on the refuge in recent times, it is highly unlikely that the hunting program will affect these species. In addition, any lynx that do occur on the refuge will be protected by refuge-speciﬁ c regulations prohibiting bobcat hunting and night hunting.

Waterfowl species known to breed on the Refuge include: American black duck, ring-necked duck, wood duck, common goldeneye, hooded merganser, common merganser, mallard, blue-winged teal, and Canada goose. The Umbagog area supports high concentrations of American black ducks. Many additional species such as scoter, scaup, American wigeon, northern pintail, buffl ehead, green-winged teal, and snow goose frequent the Refuge during migration. The primary waterfowl species taken by hunters are mallard, American black duck, green-winged teal, wood duck, and hooded merganser. In addition to waterfowl, major game species sought on the Refuge include: white-tailed deer, moose, snowshoe hare, and upland game birds, including ruffed grouse and woodcock. Since the refuge has been open to hunting since 2000 and hunting occurred in the Umbagog area for many years prior to the creation of the refuge, no additional impacts are anticipated. Some wildlife disturbance of non- target species and impacts to vegetation may occur. However, these impacts should be minimal since hunting pressure is moderate, occurs outside the breeding season, and Refuge-specifi c regulations prohibit the use of ATVs and permanent tree stands, which are most likely to signifi cantly damage vegetation. Hunting also helps to keep populations of browsing species such as deer and moose within the carrying capacity of the habitat, thus reducing excessive damage to vegetation caused by over-browsing, and maintaining understory habitat for other species.

Currently, all areas of the Refuge are open to hunters and other members of the public during hunting season. Although confl icts between user groups can occur, this does not appear to be a signifi cant issue at present use levels. In the future, the Refuge may need to manage public use to minimize confl icts and insure public safety, should signifi cant confl icts become evident. This may include public outreach and using zoning to separate user groups.

C-10 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Public hunting

Additional discussion of hunting impacts may be found in the Refuge’s Final Environmental Assessment: Public Hunting (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000a and 2007a). In summary, hunting on Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge poses only a minimal threat to Goals 1, 2, and 3 (“Manage open water and wetlands,” “Manage ﬂ oodplain and lakeshore habitats,” and “Manage upland forested habitats”) as written in the CCP. Hunting fully supports and beneﬁ ts Goal 4 “Provide high quality wildlife dependent activities” of the CCP by providing opportunities for this wildlife-dependent use. No other refuge goals and objectives, as written in the CCP, will be affected by this use.

Determination (check one below):

_____ Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible With the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Insure Compatibility: The hunt program will be managed in accordance with Federal and State regulations. The program will be reviewed annually to ensure that wildlife and habitat management goals are achieved and that the program is providing a safe, high quality hunting experience for participants. Stipulations are based on the refuge’s Final Amended Environmental Assessment: Public Hunting (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007a), and Hunting Management Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007b), and 2006-2007 Refuge-speciﬁ c regulations submitted for publication in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations (50CFR32.48 & 50CFR32.38) in 2006 and listed below:

New Hampshire

A. Hunting of Migratory Game Birds. We allow hunting of ducks, geese, snipe, coot, American crow, and woodcock in accordance with State of New Hampshire regulations, seasons, and bag limits subject to the following conditions:

1. Hunters must wear two articles of hunter-orange clothing or material. One article must be a solid- colored hunter orange hat; the other must cover a major portion of the torso, such as a jacket, vest, coat or poncho and must be a minimum of 50% hunter orange in color (ie. orange camouﬂ age) except when hunting waterfowl.

2. We will provide permanent refuge blinds at various locations on the refuge that are available for public use by reservation. Hunters may make reservations for particular blinds up to 1 year in advance, for a maximum of 1 week, running Monday through Sunday during the hunting season. Hunters may make reservations for additional weeks up to 1 week in advance, on a space- available basis. We allow no other permanent blinds. Hunters must remove temporary blinds, boats, and decoys from the refuge following each day’s hunt.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-11 Compatibility Determination – Public hunting

3. You may use trained dogs to assist in hunting and retrieval of harvested birds. Hunting with pointing, ﬂ ushing and retrieving dogs on the refuge will be subject to the following regulations:

i. We prohibit training during or outside of dog season. ii. We allow a maximum of two dogs per hunter. iii. Hunters must pick up all dogs the same day they release them.

4. We open the refuge to hunting during the hours stipulated under each State’s hunting regulations but no longer than from ½ hour before legal sunrise to ½ hour after legal sunset. We close the refuge to night hunting. Hunters will unload all ﬁ rearms outside of legal hunting hours.

5. We prohibit the use of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs or OHRVs) on refuge land.

B. Upland Game Hunting. We allow hunting of coyote, fox, raccoon, woodchuck, red and eastern gray squirrel, porcupine, skunk, snowshoe hare, ring-necked pheasant, northern bobwhite and ruffed grouse in accordance with State of New Hampshire regulations, seasons, and bag limits subject to the following conditions:

1. We prohibit night hunting.

2. You may possess only approved nontoxic shot when hunting with a shotgun.

3. We open the refuge to hunting during the hours stipulated under each State’s hunting regulations, but no longer than from ½ hour before legal sunrise to ½ hour after legal sunset. We close the refuge to night hunting. Hunters must unload all ﬁ rearms, and nock no arrows outside of legal hunting hours.

4. We prohibit the use of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs or OHRVs) on refuge land.

5. Each hunter must wear two articles of hunter-orange clothing or material. One article must be a solid-colored hunter orange hat; the other must cover a major portion of the torso, such as a jacket, vest, coat or poncho and must be a minimum of 50% hunter orange in color (ie. orange camouﬂ age).

6. We allow hunting of snowshoe hare, ring-necked pheasant, ruffed grouse, and northern bobwhite with trained dogs during State hunting seasons. Hunting with pointing, ﬂ ushing or trailing dogs on the refuge will be subject to the following regulations:

i. We prohibit training during or outside of dog season. ii. We allow a maximum of two dogs per hunter. iii. Hunters must pick up all dogs the same day they release them.

C. Big Game Hunting. We allow hunting of bear, coyote, white-tailed deer, and moose in accordance with State of New Hampshire regulations, seasons, and bag limits. The following conditions also apply:

C-12 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Public hunting

1. We open the refuge to hunting during the hours stipulated under each State’s hunting regulations but no longer than from ½ hour before legal sunrise to ½ hour after legal sunset. We close the refuge to night hunting. Hunters will unload all ﬁ rearms and nock no arrows outside of legal hunting hours.

2. We allow bear and coyote hunting with dogs during State hunting seasons. Hunting with trailing dogs for on the refuge will be subject to the following regulations:

i. Hunters must equip all dogs used to hunt bear and coyote with working radio-telemetry collars and hunters must be in possession of a working radio-telemetry receiver that can detect and track the frequencies of all collars used. ii. We prohibit training during or outside of dog season for bear and coyote. iii. We allow a maximum of four dogs per hunter. iv. Hunters must pick up all dogs the same day they release them.

3. We allow pre-hunt scouting of the refuge; however, we prohibit dogs and ﬁ rearms during pre-hunt scouting.

4. Each hunter must wear two articles of hunter-orange clothing or material. One article must be a solid-colored hunter orange hat; the other must cover a major portion of the torso, such as a jacket, vest, coat or poncho and must be a minimum of 50% hunter orange in color (ie. orange camouﬂ age).

5. We prohibit the use of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs or OHRVs) on refuge land.

6. We allow temporary tree stands and blinds, but hunters must remove them by the end of the season. We prohibit nails, screws, or screw-in climbing pegs to build or access a stand or blind.

Maine

A. Hunting of Migratory Game Birds. We allow hunting of ducks, geese, snipe, coot, rails, American crow, and woodcock in accordance with State of Maine regulations, seasons, and bag limits subject to the following conditions:

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-13 Compatibility Determination – Public hunting

3. You may use trained dogs to assist in hunting and retrieval of harvested birds. Hunting with pointing, ﬂ ushing and retrieving dogs on the refuge will be subject to the following regulations:

i. We prohibit training during or outside of dog season. ii. We allow a maximum of two dogs per hunter. iii. Hunters must pick up all dogs the same day they release them.

5. We prohibit the use of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs or OHRVs) on refuge land.

B. Upland Game Hunting. We allow hunting of fox, raccoon, woodchuck, red and eastern gray squirrel, porcupine, skunk, snowshoe hare, ring-necked pheasant, ruffed grouse and northern bobwhite in accordance with State of Maine regulations, seasons, and bag limits subject to the following conditions:

1. We prohibit night hunting.

2. You may possess only approved nontoxic shot when hunting with a shotgun.

4. We prohibit the use of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs or OHRVs) on refuge land.

5. Each hunter must wear two articles of hunter-orange clothing or material in accordance with Maine law. One article must be a solid-colored hunter orange hat; the other must cover a major portion of the torso, such as a jacket, vest, coat or poncho and must be a minimum of 50% hunter orange in color (ie. orange camouﬂ age).

i. We prohibit training during or outside of dog season. ii. We allow a maximum of two dogs per hunter. iii. Hunters must pick up all dogs the same day they release them.

C-14 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Public hunting

C. Big Game Hunting. We allow hunting of bear, white-tailed deer, coyote and moose in accordance with State of Maine regulations, seasons, and bag limits. The following conditions also apply:

2. We allow bear and coyote hunting with dogs during State hunting seasons. Hunting with trailing dogs on the refuge will be subject to the following regulations:

i. Hunters must equip all dogs used to hunt bear or coyote with working radio-telemetry collars and hunters must be in possession of a working radio-telemetry receiver that can detect and track the frequencies of all collars used. ii. We prohibit training during or outside of dog season for bear or coyote. iii. We allow a maximum of four dogs per hunter. iv. Hunters must pick up all dogs the same day they release them.

3. We allow prehunt scouting of the refuge; however, we prohibit dogs and ﬁ rearms during prehunt scouting.

5. We prohibit the use of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs or OHRVs) on refuge land.

6. We allow temporary tree stands and blinds, but hunters must remove them by the end of the season. We prohibit nails, screws, or screw-in climbing pegs to build or access a stand or blind.

Justiﬁ cation: Hunting is a wildlife-dependent priority public use with minimal impact on refuge resources. It is consistent with the purposes for which the Refuge was established, the Service policy on hunting, the National Wildlife Refuge system Improvement Act of 1997, and the broad management objectives of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Hunting on Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes for which the refuge was established as evidenced by the impact analysis that shows this use will not compromise our ability to achieve the goals and objectives set forth under the Lake Umbagog NWR CCP.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-15 Compatibility Determination – Public hunting

Signature: Refuge Manager: ______(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief: ______(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation Date: ______

References

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act 1997. Public Law 105-57-Oct. 9, 1997.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000a. Final environmental assessment: public hunting at Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge, Coos Co., NH, Oxford Co., ME. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge, Errol, NH.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000b. Hunting management plan: Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge, Errol, NH.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007a. Final Amended Environmental Assessment: Public Hunting. Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge, Errol, NH.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007b. Hunting Management Plan. Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge, Errol, NH.

C-16 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Public fishing

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

USE: Public ﬁ shing

REFUGE NAME: Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

DATE ESTABLISHED: November 12, 1992

ESTABLISHING AUTHORITIES:

1. Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 [16 U.S. C. 3901 (b)] 2. Migratory Bird Conservation Act [16 U.S.C. 715d] 3. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 [16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)] 4. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 [16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1)]

PURPOSE(S) FOR WHICH ESTABLISHED:

2. “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

3. “for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of ﬁ sh and wildlife resources…” 16 U.S.C. ¤ 742f(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

4. “for the beneﬁ t of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or afﬁ rmative covenant, or condition of servitude…” 16 U.S.C. ¤ 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

DESCRIPTION OF USE:

(a) What is the use? Is the use a priority public use? The use is public ﬁ shing, a priority public use of the National Wildlife Refuge System under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57).

(b) Where would the use be conducted? The use would be conducted at all Refuge bodies of water that are open to ﬁ shing including lakes, ponds, streams, and rivers.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-17 Compatibility Determination – Public fishing

(c) When would the use be conducted? The use would be conducted during the hours and in the seasons speciﬁ ed in the ﬁ shing regulations of the States of New Hampshire and Maine.

(d) How would the use be conducted? The use would be conducted under New Hampshire and Maine state fi shing regulations for open water and ice-fi shing, with some additional restrictions to protect fi sh, wildlife, and habitat, and to reduce potential public use confl icts. This compatibility determination applies primarily to shoreline fi shing and fi shing access from refuge lands. The open waters of great ponds (ponds > 10 ac.), Umbagog Lake, and associated major rivers, fall under state regulation, and for the most part, are accessible from State boat launches.

Boat access for ﬁ shing and other activities is available at a number of locations both on and off refuge ownership near Umbagog Lake (see Map C-1 ). Two State of New Hampshire public boat launches provide boat-trailer access to the upper Androscoggin River, Magalloway River, mouth of the Rapid River, and Umbagog Lake. One launch is located upstream of the Errol Dam, and the other is at the southern end of Umbagog Lake. We provide additional boat-trailer access is also provided on Refuge-owned land at the Steamer Diamond landing on the Androscoggin River and at Refuge headquarters on the Magalloway River. A car-top boat launch is located at Parson’s landing on the Magalloway River, just south of the refuge headquarters.

The public occasionally ﬁ shes and launches canoes at other sites along Route 16, where it crosses or approaches the Magalloway and Androscoggin rivers. At some of those sites, inadequate parking or poor visibility for oncoming trafﬁ c present safety hazards. The Refuge is constructing an additional car-top boat launch in Wentworth Location on the Magalloway River, north of Refuge headquarters. The new site will provide parking, a dock, and restroom. After completing that new site, we will close all other boat access points along Route 16, excluding the access at the refuge headquarters and the Steamer Diamond Landing (see Map C-1).

We are also planning to improve and maintain the trail to Mountain Pond from the Mt. Pond Road, widening it enough to be ADA-compliant, if possible, and surfacing it with native materials and wood chips. Pedestrians will be able to use that 0.1 mile-long spur trail to access fi shing at Mountain Pond, most readily by the Mt. Pond Trail, from a parking area 0.49 miles to the north. Neither the Mt. Pond Rd. Trail nor the Mt. Pond spur trail will be open to motorized vehicles outside of the snowmobile season. We will provide an 8 ft x 16 ft fl oating ADA-accessible fi shing dock on the west shore of the pond. Fishing will not be permitted from any other locations along the Mt. Pond shoreline.

Fishing will be permitted according to state regulations at Mountain Pond and from the shore of Whaleback Ponds, Brown Owl Pond, the Swift and Dead Cambridge Rivers, and refuge streams. None of those has developed boat launches, and we are not proposing to add boat launches to any of them. Access will be by foot only. However, ﬁ shing from boats will be permitted at these locations, where practical.

Fishing from shore near residential areas will not be permitted, to minimize conﬂ icts with adjacent private landowners and lessees. In addition, ﬁ shing from shore on islands will not be permitted, with the exception of state-run campsites. Due to the sensitive nature of island shoreline habitat and the

C-18 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Public fishing fact that a boat is necessary to access islands, the need to get out of a boat and ﬁ sh from the shoreline of an island would not outweigh the habitat impact concerns. Fishing derbies and tournaments from refuge lands would be considered on a case-by-case basis under a special use permit.

Motorized boats may be launched from the Steamer Diamond Landing on the Androscoggin River and the refuge headquarters on the Magalloway River. All boats launching or landing on refuge lands must follow state boating regulations and be registered, if applicable, with the appropriate state.

The public must inspect motor boats and trailers and clean them of aquatic invasive species before launching at refuge sites. That cleaning should take place on dry ground well away from the water. Exotic, nuisance plants or animals on boats, trailers, diving equipment, or in bait buckets can disrupt aquatic ecosystems and negatively impact native ﬁ sh and plant species. Umbagog Lake and its associated rivers appear to be relatively free of aquatic invasive plants, and cleaning of boats, trailers, and other equipment will help keep them that way. Signs, education, and periodic enforcement will remind the public of these regulations.

Unauthorized introductions of both non-native and native fi sh can also signifi cantly disrupt aquatic ecosystems and destroy natural fi sheries. No fi sh of any species may be introduced onto the refuge without appropriate state and refuge permits. This includes unused bait fi sh and eggs.

Loons, waterfowl, and other water birds may die of lead poisoning from swallowing lead fi shing tackle. Many ducks and other water birds fi nd food at the bottom of lakes. Most of these birds also swallow small stones and grit to aid in grinding their food. Some of the grit may contain lead from angling equipment. They may also ingest lead and other fi shing tackle by consuming bait fi sh or escaped fi sh that still have fi shing tackle attached. An investigation into causes of mortality in loons in New England found 52 percent of loon carcasses submitted to Tufts University Wildlife Clinic had died of lead poisoning from ingestion of lead sinkers (Pokras and Chafel. 1992). Although other studies have reported lower percentages, lead toxicity clearly poses a signifi cant threat to wildlife. During the past few years, three loon carcasses have been recovered from Umbagog Lake that showed signs of poisoning from lead sinkers. Because of that threat, no lead fi shing sinkers or jigs will be permitted on the refuge. Discarded tackle and line also pose a threat to fi sh-eating birds, including eagles, osprey, and loons.

At the discretion of the refuge manager, some areas may be seasonally, temporarily, or permanently closed to fi shing, if wildlife or habitat impacts or user confl icts become an issue. In cooperation with state fi sheries biologists, we may manipulate the fi sheries and/ or habitat to promote or improve the fi shery resource, if warranted. That may include changing fi shing regulations (season dates, creel limits, methods of take), adjusting water levels (in cooperation with FPLE), introducing or removing fi sh barriers, manipulating instream or streambank habitat, designating riparian buffers, limiting timber harvest in the vicinity of streams, lakes, or ponds, etc.

(e) Why is the use being proposed? The use is being proposed by the Refuge to accommodate one of the priority public uses of the Refuge System. We have the opportunity to provide public ﬁ shing opportunities in a manner and location that will offer high quality, wildlife-dependent recreation and maintain the level of current ﬁ sh and wildlife values.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-19 Compatibility Determination – Public fishing

Availability of Resources: Facilities or materials needed to support fi shing include a new car-top boat launch off Route 16, north of the Refuge offi ce. This launch has been paid for out of FY 2005 funds and no additional construction expenses. Existing launch sites that have been scheduled for closure may require the installation of closure signs, as well as some site restoration work. Additional resources and staff time will be required to maintain the new boat launch, put down gravel and maintain the Steamer Diamond launch, close off wildlife nesting sites to the public, provide interpretative materials and brochures on fi shing, and monitor the fi shery, public use, and impacts of fi shing. A refuge offi cer and the States of New Hampshire and Maine will provide law enforcement.

We do not anticipate charging fees for ﬁ shing. We estimate these costs associated with this use.

Routine maintenance: $7,000 annually.This is the expected cost to maintain the three public boat launches (Magalloway River, refuge ofﬁ ce, and Steamer Diamond landing) and includes putting down gravel; maintenance of parking areas, removal of garbage, and restroom maintenance at the Magalloway River launch.

Supplies and materials: $6,000. This includes signage for closed launch sites, buoys and nesting site closure signs, interpretative brochures, ﬁ shing regulations brochures (produced in house)

Monitoring: $3,000 annually, to be carried out in cooperation with the States.

Law Enforcement: $3,000 annually for a Refuge Ofﬁ cer.

Total: $19,000 Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Although New Hampshire Fish and Game, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, and the Service have carried out several limited surveys of Umbagog Lake, the Magalloway River, Rapid and Dead Cambridge rivers and C Pond, no comprehensive, refuge area-wide fi shery or angler surveys have been carried out to date. The limited documentation available confi rms more than 20 species of fi sh present in water bodies near the refuge. The species in table 1, below, have been reported from Umbagog Lake and associated rivers (Magalloway, Androscoggin, Rapid, Dead and Swift Cambridge Rivers):

Table 1. Fish species reported Umbagog Lake and Androscoggin River Native species Introduced species Brook trout Landlocked salmon Brown bullhead (hornpout) (possibly Brown trout (conﬁ rmed in upper lakes, but not introduced?) Umbagog) Creek chub Lake trout Lake chub Splake

C-20 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Public fishing

Umbagog Lake and Androscoggin River cont. Native species Introduced species Fallfi sh Rainbow trout (below Errol Dam only) Pearl dace Rainbow smelt Finescale dace Landlocked alewife Northern redbelly dace Yellow perch Common shiner Smallmouth bass Golden shiner Largemouth bass Fathead minnow Chain pickerel Longnose sucker Northern pike (probably extirpated) White sucker Lake whitefi sh (introduced early 1900’s by Maine Fish Comm. in Mooselookmeguntic Lake and collected in Umbagog, but now extirpated) Pumpkinseed sunfi sh Slimy sculpin American eel (confi rmed in C Pond, but not Umbagog)

C Pond Native species Introduced species Brook trout Rainbow smelt Brown bullhead (hornpout) (possibly Smallmouth bass introduced?) Blacknose shiner Creek chub Lake chub Fallﬁ sh Common shiner Golden shiner Fathead minnow White sucker Pumpkinseed sunﬁ sh Slimy sculpin American eel

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-21 Compatibility Determination – Public fishing

Pond in the River Native species Introduced species Brook trout Landlocked salmon Brown bullhead (hornpout) (possibly Brown trout (confi rmed in upper lakes, but not PIR) introduced?) Creek chub Lake trout Lake chub Rainbow smelt Fallfi sh Landlocked alewife Blacknose dace Yellow perch Pearl dace Smallmouth bass Finescale dace Chain pickerel Northern redbelly dace Common shiner Golden shiner Fathead minnow White sucker Longnose sucker Pumpkinseed sunfi sh Slimy sculpin American eel (confi rmed in C Pond, but not PIR)

Magalloway River (below Aziscohos Dam) Native species Introduced species Brook trout Landlocked salmon Brown bullhead (hornpout) (possibly Brown trout (conﬁ rmed in upper lakes, but not introduced?) Magalloway R) Lake chub Splake Golden shiner Rainbow smelt White sucker Yellow perch Slimy sculpin Smallmouth bass American eel (conﬁ rmed in C Pond, but Chain pickerel not Magalloway R)

C-22 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Public fishing

Rapid River Native species Introduced species Brook trout Landlocked salmon Creek chub Brown trout (confi rmed in upper lakes, but not Rapid R) Lake chub Rainbow smelt Fallfi sh Yellow perch Blacknose dace Smallmouth bass Northern redbelly dace Longnose dace Common shiner Golden shiner (possibly introduced?) White sucker Slimy sculpin American eel (confi rmed in C Pond, but not Rapid River)

Dead Cambridge River Native species Introduced species Brook trout Smallmouth bass Brown bullhead (hornpout) (possibly Yellow perch also likely present in lower reaches introduced?) Creek chub Fallﬁ sh Blacknose dace Longnose dace Common shiner White sucker American eel (conﬁ rmed in C Pond, but not Dead Cambridge)

The changes in both the abundance and species composition of the Umbagog Lake fi shery during the past 150 years have created a fi shery today that bears very little resemblance to that which was present prior to the establishment of the fi rst Errol Dam in 1853. During the 1800s, the lake supported a thriving brook trout population.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-23 Compatibility Determination – Public fishing

Prior to 1900, introductions of Atlantic salmon, chain pickerel, rainbow smelt, yellow perch, and several other species occurred in the Androscoggin River and/or in the Rangeley Lakes. Changes that are more recent include the introduction in the mid-1980s and subsequent population expansion of smallmouth bass in the lake. Northern pike have also been observed in the lake in recent years, but their present population status remains unclear (Bonney, 2002).

Umbagog Lake is primarily a warm-water fi shery, with an average depth of 12 ft. A ‘deep hole’ located in the northeast section of the lake, near Sunday Cove, and extending to a depth of approximately 50 ft., supports a limited cold water salmonid fi shery (landlocked salmon, brook trout). As an interstate body of water, the lake is governed by special state fi shing regulations. A licensed New Hampshire or Maine angler may fi sh any part of the lake, which includes the waters of the Androscoggin River upstream of the Errol Dam, the waters of the Magalloway River within the State of New Hampshire and the waters of the Rapid River upstream to the marker at Cedar Stump in the State of Maine.

C Pond, the Rapid River, and parts of the Dead Cambridge River support wild brook trout ﬁ sheries. Wild brook trout also occur upstream of the refuge on the Magalloway and Diamond Rivers. The smallmouth bass originally introduced into Umbagog Lake have been expanding into all those water bodies, including C Pond and Pond in the River.

Bass may compete with and negatively impact brook trout and landlocked salmon fi sheries. The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife has created a fi sh barrier on the Dead Cambridge River to prevent smallmouth bass expansion from impacting the C Pond brook trout fi shery. Maine is also concerned about continued expansion of smallmouth bass from Umbagog into the Rapid River and Rangeley Lakes systems. Both Maine and New Hampshire are currently cooperating on brook trout and bass radio-telemetry studies on the Magalloway, Diamond, and Rapid Rivers, in order to gain a better understanding of movements, behavior, and interactions between these species. The Rapid River is of particular concern because of its high quality brook trout and salmon fi shery and increasing popularity with anglers. Boucher (1995) reported over 31,000 angler-hours (8,000 fi shing trips) of use on the Rapid River in 1995. Smallmouth bass fi shing in Umbagog Lake has increased tremendously over the past few years, with the explosion of the bass population

Umbagog Lake and associated rivers are subject to atmospheric mercury deposition, which can cause mercury contamination of ﬁ sh, and toxicity to wildlife that feed on them, such as loons and bald eagles. New Hampshire and Maine have both issued statewide health advisories about human consumption of freshwater ﬁ sh with mercury contamination. Of particular concern is the consumption of warm water species, since they tend to have higher levels of mercury in their tissue.

Because Umbagog Lake and its rivers are accessible to ﬁ shing from the two New Hampshire state boat launches, we do not expect opening the rest of the refuge for ﬁ shing to result in a dramatic change from existing conditions.

C-24 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Public fishing

Potential impacts of ﬁ shing follow:

■ Accidental or deliberate introductions of non-native fi sh that may negatively impact native fi sh, wildlife, or vegetation: Illegal fi sh introductions have a long history in the Umbagog area. The refuge will continue to work with both states in providing educational outreach and signs on that subject and trying to contain introductions once they occur. Adding a refuge law enforcement offi cer will supplement state enforcement.

■ Accidental introduction of invasive plants, pathogens, or exotic invertebrates, attached to ﬁ shing boats: With the exception of a few isolated occurrences of purple loosestrife, refuge waters appear to be relatively free of invasive aquatic plants and mollusks. However, we have not carried out extensive surveys of aquatic invasive plants. We can mitigate their impacts by continuing education, outreach, and initiating an intensive water monitoring program.

■ Negative effects on loons, eagles, osprey, waterfowl, and other wildlife from lost fi shing gear (i.e. from ingesting lead sinkers, hooks, lures, litter, or becoming entangled in fi shing line or hooks): Lost fi shing tackle may harm loons, waterfowl, eagles, and other birds externally by catching and tearing skin. Fishing line may also become wrapped around body parts and hinder movement (legs, wings), impair feeding (bill), or cause a constriction with subsequent reduction of blood fl ow and tissue damage. An object above or below the water surface may snag entangled animals, from which they are unable to escape. Nineteen percent of loon mortalities in Minnesota were attributed to entanglement in fi shing line (Ensor et al. 1992). Entanglement in fi shing line has also caused mortality in bald eagles.

Birds may also ingest sinkers, hooks, fl oats, lures, and fi shing line. Ingested tackle may cause damage or penetration of the mouth or other parts of the digestive tract, resulting in impaired function or death. Lead tackle is particularly toxic to wildlife. An investigation into causes of mortality in loons in New England found 52 percent of loon carcasses submitted to Tufts University Wildlife Clinic had died of lead poisoning from ingestion of lead sinkers (Pokras and Chafel. 1992). Three Umbagog loon carcasses recovered and analyzed in the past few years showed signs of lead poisoning from lead sinkers or had ingested fi shing hardware. Fishing hardware and line have also been found in and around osprey and bald eagle nests both on and off Refuge.

Maine prohibits the sale of lead sinkers, and in 2006, New Hampshire prohibited both the sale and use of lead sinkers of a certain size. The refuge will continue to provide education and outreach on the hazards of lead sinkers and discarded ﬁ shing tackle. The refuge ofﬁ cer will help in that public outreach.

■ Disturbance of wildlife (particularly breeding and brood-rearing loons, waterfowl, eagles, osprey, wading birds): Fishing seasons in Maine and New Hampshire coincide in part with spring-early summer nesting and brood-rearing periods for many species of aquatic-dependent birds. Anglers and other boaters may disturb nesting birds by approaching too closely to nests, causing nesting birds to ﬂ ush. Flushing may expose eggs to predation or cooling, resulting

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-25 Compatibility Determination – Public fishing

in egg mortality. Both adult and fl ightless young birds may be injured or killed when run over by speeding boats. We will continue to close refuge areas seasonally to fi shing, boating, and camping around sensitive nest sites, in conjunction with the states of Maine and New Hampshire. We will also continue our public outreach and the placement of warning signs. We monitor public use to help improve our management of public use, fi sheries, and wildlife.

■ Reduction or alteration of prey base important to fi sh-eating wildlife: Introductions of fi sh species over the years have undoubtedly altered the community composition of Umbagog Lake and associated rivers. Whether this has positively or negatively impacted fi sh-eating wildlife is unknown at this time.

■ Negative impacts on water quality from motorboat and other pollutants, human waste, and litter: Extensive water quality testing on the Umbagog system has not been carried out. The levels of pollutants from boat fuel and impacts on local aquatic systems are unknown. Hydrocarbon contamination can be harmful to ﬁ sh. We will initiate public outreach and education on littering, pollutants, proper waste disposal, and the advantages of 4-stroke engines, will be initiated to help mitigate water quality impacts. Water quality testing will be carried out as funding levels permit.

■ Bank and trail erosion from human activity (boat landings, boat wakes, foot traffi c, camping), which may increase aquatic sediment loads of streams and rivers, or alter riparian or lakeshore habitat/ vegetation in ways harmful to fi sh or other wildlife: Boat access will be restricted to designated areas only. Those areas will be ‘hardened’ to contain impacts to a small area. We will monitor the campsites and launch sites, and may modify, restore or close them if conditions warrant. Wetlands guard much of the refuge shoreline, making it extremely diffi culty to access for shore-based fi shing. We do not intend to construct any new trails or boardwalks to provide shore-based fi shing access, with the exception of the Mt. Pond area. All new trail and access construction will follow best management practices. Therefore, at current levels of use, we do not expect trail erosion to increase because of foot traffi c related to fi shing.

■ Negative impacts from ﬁ shing boats and foot trafﬁ c to sensitive wetlands or peatlands and rare wetland plants. Boat access sites and trails will be located away from sensitive wetlands, peatlands, and rare plants. Habitat features, important to trout such as over-hanging banks, will be protected from disturbance.

■ Illegal ﬁ shing resulting in over-harvest. By adding a refuge ofﬁ cer, the refuge will be able to supplement state enforcement to help reduce this type of activity.

■ Vegetation disturbance associated with installation of new boat launch and fi shing access sites: Although the new boat launch will be located within the fl oodplain of the Magalloway River, ground disturbance will be minimal. Because fi shing will occur from non-motorized watercraft or a dock, no erosion is expected from bank fi shing or trampling of vegetation. A trail already runs to Mt. Pond from Mt. Pond Rd., and improvements to that trail and its access site should not result in additional impacts on vegetation.

C-26 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Public fishing

■ Confl icts between anglers and other user groups: We know that some confl icts among motorized and non-motorized users have arisen on the refuge in the past. In addition, local cabin owners have expressed concerns about trespass and inappropriate human waste disposal by boaters, primarily canoeists and kayakers. The comfort station under construction at the Magalloway River launch site should help to reduce some of these confl icts. We intend to carry out public use surveys in 2006 that will help identify additional confl icts between user groups. Should any signifi cant confl icts become evident, we may need to manage public use on the refuge to minimize confl icts. That may include providing additional education and outreach, providing additional sanitary facilities, or creating zones to separate groups of users.

Public fi shing on Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge poses only a minimal threat to Goals 1 and 2 (“Manage open water and wetlands,” and “Manage fl oodplain and lakeshore habitats”) as written in the CCP. Monitoring will identify any actions needed to respond to new information and correct problems that may arise in the future. Public fi shing benefi ts Goal 4 “Provide high quality wildlife dependent activities” of the CCP by providing for one of the listed uses. No other refuge goals and objectives, as written in the CCP, will be affected by this use.

Public Review and Comment As part of the comprehensive planning process for the Lake Umbagog refuge, this compatibility determination underwent extensive public review, including a comment period of 77 days following the release of the Draft CCP/EIS. It will also undergo and additional 30 days of public review during the public review period of the FEIS.

Determination (check one below):

Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible With the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

■ We will review the fi shing program annually to ensure that it contributes to refuge objectives in managing a quality fi shery and protecting habitats. This may include surveys of angler, fi sh, and habitat.

■ We will prohibit lead sinkers and other lead tackle to prevent ingestion by wildlife and possible lead poisoning.

■ We will permit boat launching only in designated areas to prevent erosion and degradation of wetlands or water quality and ensure public safety.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-27 Compatibility Determination – Public fishing

■ We will not permit fi shing from near residential areas, to minimize confl icts with adjacent private landowners and lessees. In addition, we will not permit fi shing from shore on the islands, with the exception of state-run campsites. On much of the Refuge, demand for shore- based fi shing is relatively low, and we do not believed it signifi cantly affects refuge resources. We will be monitor its impacts and, if warranted, will take action to mitigate them, including seasonal or permanent closures.

■ We will close wildlife nesting and brood-rearing areas seasonally to all public use, to prevent the disturbance of wildlife. This may include temporarily closing or relocating remote campsites or temporarily closing access sites.

■ Access trails and launches will be constructed and situated in a way to provide for public safety and minimize disturbance of wildlife and habitat or the effects of siltation. We will use vegetation and other means of stabilizing soils around any culverts at road crossings. Protecting canopy trees from damage by humans or beavers will keep stream habitat shaded. We will monitor impacts and close, modify, restore, or even move an access if there problems arise.

■ We will cooperate with the ﬁ shery resource agencies of the states in implementing angling regulations and management actions.

■ We will increase public outreach and education to minimize conﬂ icts between user groups, help control aquatic invasive plants and lead in the environment, reduce the introduction of non-native ﬁ sh, and minimize the disturbance of wildlife and habitat.

■ A refuge ofﬁ cer will help to promote compliance with refuge regulations, monitor public use patterns and public safety, and document visitor interactions.

Justiﬁ cation: Fishing is one of the six priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System and has been determined to be a compatible activity on many refuges nationwide. The Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 instructs refuge managers to seek ways to accommodate these six uses. Public ﬁ shing on Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes for which the refuge was established as evidenced by the impact analysis that shows this use will not compromise our ability to achieve the goals and objectives set forth under the Lake Umbagog NWR CCP.

C-28 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Public fishing

Signature: Refuge Manager: ______(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief: ______(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation Date: ______

Literature Cited:

Bonney, F. 2002. Personal communication. Maine Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

Boucher, D. P.. 1995. Rapid River salmonid management. Fishery Interim Summary Report Ser. No. 95-6. Maine Dept. of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife, Augusta, ME.

Ensor, K.L., D.D. Helwig, and L.C. Wemmer. 1992. The common loon in Minnesota: potential contaminant implications in L. Morse, S. Stockwell and M. Pokras, eds. Proc. from the 1992 conference on the loon and its ecosystem: status, management, and environmental concerns, Bar Harbor, ME.

Pokras , M.A. and R. Chafel. 1992. Lead toxicosis from ingested ﬁ shing sinkers in adult common loons (Gavia immer) in New England. J. of Zoo and Wildl. Med. 23(1):92-97.

Attachments: Map C-1, showing existing and planned boat access points.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-29 Finding of Appropriateness – Commercial forest management

603 FW 1 Exhibit 1 Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Commercial forest management

This exhibit is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. Decision criteria: YES NO (a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other X document? (f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the ﬁ rst time the use has been X proposed? (g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural X or cultural resources, or is the use beneﬁ cial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? (j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational X uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future?

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use.

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State ﬁ sh and wildlife agencies. Yes X No ___

When the refuge manager ﬁ nds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence.

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is:

Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate X

Refuge Manager:______Date:______

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence:

Refuge Supervisor:______Date:______

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-31 Finding of Appropriateness – Commercial forest management

603 FW 1 Exhibit 1 page 2 of 2

Justiﬁ cation for a Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Commercial forest management

Narrative

The primary objective of forest management will be to enhance and maintain habitat for our focal management species and associated communities over the long-term. Upland forest habitat on the refuge now lacks the optimal structure, composition, and patch size those species require. Forest management can improve and accelerate the development of appropriate structures and forest composition. Without active management, the development of appropriate habitat may take longer or fail to happen at all, depending on site characteristics, prior management history, and the frequency of natural disturbances. Forest management can also create and maintain the appropriate forest structure and age or size class distribution on the landscape into the future, so that adequate habitat is always available for species of concern. Because the refuge lacks the funding, personnel, or equipment to carry out forest management safely, commercial timber harvest and silvicultural treatments are the only reasonable alternative for accomplishing the work. Commercial timber harvest is an economic activity on the refuge and is regulated under 603 FW 2.6 (N) requiring both an Appropriateness Determination and a Compatibility Determination.

C-32 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Commercial forest management

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

USE: Commercial forest management

REFUGE NAME: Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

DATE ESTABLISHED: November 12, 1992

ESTABLISHING AUTHORITIES

1. Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 [16 U.S.C. 3901(b)] 2. Migratory Bird Conservation Act [16 U.S.C. 715d] 3. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 [16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)] 4. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 [16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1)]

PURPOSES FOR WHICH ESTABLISHED

1. “for the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public beneﬁ ts they provide and to help fulﬁ ll international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions…”[16 U.S.C. 3901(b); Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986]

2. “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds….” [16 U.S.C. 715d; Migratory Bird Conservation Act]

3. “for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of ﬁ sh and wildlife resources…” [16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4); Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956]

4 “for the beneﬁ t of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or afﬁ rmative covenant, or condition of servitude…” [16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1); Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956]

MISSION OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM “The mission of the System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the ﬁ sh, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the beneﬁ t of present and future generations of Americans.” — National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105–57; 111 Stat. 1282)

DESCRIPTION OF USE

(a) What is the use? Is it a priority public use? The use is forest management, including commercial timber harvesting. It is not a priority public use of the National Wildlife Refuge System, under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-33 Compatibility Determination – Commercial forest management

The purpose of the use would be to improve and maintain habitat for forest-dependent species over the long term. Before we acquired the lands for the refuge, companies in the forest industry had owned them, and had harvested most of the upland areas for more than a century and a half. Most refuge land now supports only regenerating or young forest. The timber harvesting practices of the past had also altered species composition, forest age class, and structure. Selective harvesting favored the conversion of many spruce-ﬁ r stands to mixed stands and mixed stands to hardwoods. Much of the forested land on the refuge lacks the structure, composition, or age distribution that species of conservation concern prefer.

The refuge lacks the equipment and personnel to carry out timber harvesting. Therefore, commercial timber harvesting is the most economical, safe method of achieving many of our proposed forest management objectives.

(b) Where would the use be conducted? We have classiﬁ ed refuge lands into four types of management zones, depending on their degree of resource sensitivity. In all of the zones, as the level of resource sensitivity increases, the restrictions on forest management practices will increase, following the best forest and wildlife management practices recommended by the State of New Hampshire (New Hampshire Forest Sustainability Standards Work Team, 1997; Flatebo et al. 1999; Cullen, 2000; Calhoun and DeMaynadier, 2003).

We list the timber management zones below in order of their increasing level of restrictions on timber harvesting practices (see also map C-3).

Low Resource Sensitivity Zone: Stands in this zone allow the greatest fl exibility in management over the long term to diversify forest age class and structure to benefi t our focal species. A variety of commercial and non-commercial timber harvesting may occur as described below under each habitat type. All harvesting will follow best forestry and wildlife management practices (BMPs) recommended by New Hampshire and Maine. Where this zone surrounds or abuts moderate-to-high sensitivity or industry-inoperable zones, the stand prescriptions for this zone will refl ect the need to protect or enhance the resource values on those more sensitive zones.

Moderate Resource Sensitivity Zone: Stands in this zone are subject to silvicultural prescriptions or timing of harvest more restricted than in the Low Resource Sensitivity Zone. Those restrictions may include seasonal closures of operations, the maintenance of closed canopy conditions, the retention of coarse woody debris or snags, etc.

High Resource Sensitivity Zone: Stands in this zone are subject to very few manipulations. We may fell, girdle, or otherwise treat individual trees or small groups of trees to beneﬁ t wildlife or for safety reasons; otherwise, tree harvest will be quite limited. Highly restrictive areas may include excessively steep slopes, hydric soils, or close proximity to such resources of concern as streams and wetlands. The forest products industry also considers most of these areas inoperable (see below). However, the high resource sensitivity zone on the refuge extends beyond what the industry would consider inoperable.

Forest Industry Inoperable Zone: This zone represents local forest industry standards for inoperability. The timber company that formerly owned the land mapped this zone. It includes stands that are non-forested wetlands or are too steep or wet to be harvested economically (Johnson, 2003).

C-34 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Commercial forest management

We may fell, girdle, or otherwise treat individual trees or small groups of trees to beneﬁ t wildlife or for safety reasons. The tree harvest in this zone will be quite limited.

The refuge includes approximately 10,000 acres of upland forested habitat. About 20 percent of that acreage is softwood habitat (primarily red spruce and balsam ﬁ r), 45 percent hardwood habitat (sugar maple, yellow birch, beech, red maple), and 35 percent mixed woods habitat. Only about 4,000 of those acres lie outside the boundaries of the High Resource Sensitivity Zone, and are now in a mature size class. Over the next 15 years, most of the harvesting will take place on those 4,000 acres, located primarily in Management Units 1, 4, 5, and 6 (see map C-3). However, some forest management, such as pre-commercial thinning, may take place in other areas of the refuge to meet speciﬁ c wildlife or habitat objectives.

(c) When would the use be conducted? Forest management may occur at different times of the year at different locations, depending on individual site characteristics, stand conditions, and other resource concerns. All forest management will occur at times designed to minimize unwanted impacts on resources, e.g., erosion, soil compaction, or the disturbance of wildlife, while maximizing the desired silvicultural results, such as seed germination and natural tree regeneration. To achieve speciﬁ c silvicultural goals, most of the harvesting will occur in summer or winter, as appropriate. A comprehensive forest inventory will evaluate forest habitat and wildlife species of concern and determine the best timing and method before harvesting. We will not harvest timber during the primary breeding season for bald eagles, if nests are within or directly adjacent to the harvest area.

(d) How would the use be conducted? Although we began an inventory of timber stands on the refuge in 2005, we will need additional detail before harvesting. Another inventory will help design appropriate silvicultural prescriptions to meet the objectives of our Habitat Management Plan. We will send that data and all job speciﬁ cations to local and regional timber harvesting companies for bidding, and issue a special use permit to the contractor we select. Commercial timber harvest on the refuge may yield products ranging from pulpwood or ﬁ rewood to saw timber or veneer.

Table 1, below, lists the forest migratory bird species we have identiﬁ ed as management priorities: species of regional conservation concern whose habitat needs represent, in large part, the habitat requirements of a larger suite of species of concern. Their ties to the mixed spruce-ﬁ r/northern hardwood forest matrix are close.

Table 1. Priority forest birds (refuge focal species) Species Some Major Forest Structural Requirements Blackburnian warbler high conifer component, large conifers (>60 ft high), closed canopy Black-throated green high conifer component, large forest patch size, large conifers, forest warbler gaps well-developed understory, especially along streams, bogs, wet areas; Canada warbler canopy gaps; structurally diverse forest ﬂ oor. American woodcock ﬁ elds or forest openings, young aspen-birch, dense brushy areas, alder

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-35 Compatibility Determination – Commercial forest management

Management for focal species such as blackburnian and black-throated green warblers will also help improve habitat for other species of conservation concern, such as bay-breasted and Cape May warblers, and wintering white-tailed deer. Both bay-breasted and Cape May warblers require closed canopy conifer habitat with large trees. Quality winter cover for deer includes large trees (softwood cover over 35 feet tall) and high (70-percent) crown closure (Reay et al., 1990).

Our approaches to silviculture will differ among different habitat types in the mixed spruce-ﬁ r/ northern hardwood forest matrix, but will stay within the inherent capability of those sites to grow certain species (e.g., soil properties, moisture regimes, elevation, aspect, etc). We anticipate that our management will help make our forests generally more resilient to multiple stressors, including climate change. We plan to monitor our forest systems and the impacts of our forest management strategies, and modify our management practices appropriately, as necessary. We recognize that climate change may inﬂ uence the trajectory of our forest systems in unpredictable ways and anticipate that we may have to adjust our objectives and management strategies accordingly. The use of accepted silvicultural practices will perpetuate habitat types. When feasible, our management strategies will favor or increase the conifer component of stands on appropriate sites. We describe some of those strategies below.

Strategies for Spruce-Fir Habitat Type

■ Improve habitat structure through pre-commercial and commercial thinning and/or stand improvement operations for focal species. We will favor spruce during stand improvements, although it is not our intent to eliminate all other softwood species. ■ Regenerate this habitat type through accepted silvicultural practices. Methods will include using ● single tree or group selection, overstory removal, clearcut, or shelterwood techniques; ● treatments timed to optimize the ability of the site to regenerate softwood; ● rotation age for ﬁ r will range from 60 to 100 years ● rotation age for spruce will range from 80 to 130 years, and, ● the size of each management unit, its silvicultural prescription and rotation age will determine the size of each treatment and the cutting interval.

■ Maintain a minimum of 50 percent of each critical deer wintering area as quality shelter at any point in time. Quality shelter includes softwood cover over 35 feet tall and 70-percent or higher crown closure (Reay et al., 1990).

Strategies for the Conifer-Hardwood Mixed Woods Habitat Type

■ Regenerate this habitat type by using accepted silvicultural practices. Favor softwoods on appropriate sites. Methods will include

C-36 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Commercial forest management

On softwood-dominated sites ● single tree or group selection, overstory removal, clearcut, or shelterwood techniques; ● rotation age for ﬁ r will range from 60 to 100 years; ● rotation age for spruce will range from 80 to 130 years; ● the size of each management unit, its silvicultural prescription and rotation age will determine size of each treatment action and the cutting interval; and, ● emphasis on overstory removal techniques that protect softwood regeneration in areas of advanced softwood regeneration

On hardwood-dominated sites ● small group selection with group sizes up to ½ acre acre; ● age class goals of 100 to 200 years; and, ● cutting cycles of 10 to 20 years to maintain understory development.

Strategies for the Northern Hardwood Habitat Type

■ Improve habitat structure through pre-commercial and commercial thinning and/or stand improvement operations for focal species.

■ Regenerate those habitat types through accepted silvicultural practices. Methods will include ● small group and single tree selection with up to 0.5-acre group sizes; ● age class goals of 100 to 200 years; and, ● cutting cycles of 10 to 20 years to maintain understory development.

Strategies for Woodcock Focus Area Management

■ In woodcock focus areas (see map C-2), use accepted silvicultural practices to create openings, understory development and early successional habitat for woodcock and Canada warbler. We will use group selection, clearcuts or patch cuts of up to 5 acres in size. We may also maintain some larger, roosting ﬁ elds. Cutting cycles will be approximately 8 to 10 years on a 40-year rotation. We may permanently maintain some 3- to 5-acre openings, primarily by mowing and brush clearing using mechanized equipment. We will perpetuate aspen-birch communities in woodcock management areas, when possible.

See additional details on forest management in appendix K of our comprehensive conservation plan.

(e) Why is the use being proposed? The primary objective of forest management will be to enhance and maintain habitat for our focal management species and associated communities. Upland forest habitat on the refuge now lacks the optimal structure, composition, and patch size those species require. Forest management can improve and accelerate the development of appropriate structures and forest composition. Without active management, the development of appropriate habitat may take longer or fail to happen at all, depending on site characteristics, prior management history, and the frequency of natural

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-37 Compatibility Determination – Commercial forest management

disturbances. Forest management can also create and maintain the appropriate forest structure and age or size class distribution on the landscape into the future, so that adequate habitat is always available for species of concern. Because the refuge lacks the funding, personnel, or equipment to carry out forest management safely, commercial timber harvest and silvicultural treatments are the only reasonable alternative for accomplishing the work.

Availability of Resources The design and oversight of a timber management program on the refuge will require the addition of a forester position. That position has been approved, but has not yet been funded. In the absence of a refuge forester, the refuge may contract the services of a private consulting forester or use other Service personnel or our partners. The sales of timber will fund the fees for consultation.

A portion of the funds generated by the sale of timber on the refuge will go into the revenue sharing fund. We will use another portion to continue the forest management program and such activities as additional stand inventories, timber marking, pre-commercial thinning, and related roadwork. When appropriate and applicable, we may include tasks such as road rehabilitation in the contract as products and include them as part of the bid. That would alleviate any additional management costs associated with this speciﬁ c activity. However, it would not eliminate most of the preliminary site preparation.

We expect all harvesting to be performed near, or from, existing roads. Because we would not construct any new facilities or improvements on refuge property for this use, we expect no signiﬁ cant construction costs associated with it. However, funding will be necessary for the maintenance of roads and water control structures. The refuge forester will assume the management of contract development and administration, monitoring, and resource database.

We expect the required costs in the following list for the refuge to administer the proposed commercial forest management practices each year. Assuming the funding of the refuge forester position, the timber sales revenue that returns to the refuge should cover any additional costs.

Forest Inventories: $6,000 (Refuge Forester)

Wildlife Inventory & Monitoring: $6,000 (Refuge Biologist)

Marking Timber & skid road layout: $20,000 (Refuge Forester)

Contact Development and Administration: $6,000 (Refuge Manager/Refuge Forester)

Stand Inventory Data Entry and Analysis: $1,000 (Refuge Forester)

Wildlife Inventory Data Entry and Analysis: $1,000 (Refuge Biologist)

Road Maintenance: $5,000 (Maintenance Worker)

Total: $45,000

Anticipated Impacts of the Use In case of the unregulated harvest of timber, the following impacts could occur.

C-38 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Commercial forest management

Soils The construction and maintenance of roads and landings and the operation of heavy equipment could compact soil, cause rutting, and result in increased erosion. To mitigate those potential impacts and minimize erosion, timber harvesting and road construction on the refuge will follow the best management practices recommended by the State of New Hampshire (Cullen, 2000). Timber harvesting will occur primarily outside the refuge High Resource Sensitivity Zone, at seasons appropriate for minimizing the effects of compaction and erosion. That zone includes areas of hydric, steep, shallow, erodible soils (see map C-3).

Aquatic Resources Unregulated timber harvest and use of heavy equipment near streams, rivers, or ponds can result in increased run-off, sedimentation, and reduced shading of streams, with concomitant increases in aquatic temperatures. Downed wood in streams may initially increase and then decrease to levels below that of streams in unharvested areas. Those factors may have detrimental effects on stream organisms, including ﬁ sh, invertebrates, and amphibians. Poorly planned timber harvests and road construction can alter surface and groundwater hydrology and water storage capability. The effects of multiple harvests in a watershed can accumulate over time.

Maintaining forested buffers around streams and other aquatic resources of concern will minimize impacts on water resources and water quality. Road construction, skid trail planning, harvest operation and stream crossings will follow best management practices advocated by the states of New Hampshire and Maine to minimize the alteration of hydrology and the impacts of siltation on water quality. Harvesting will use existing forest roads whenever possible. We will keep the construction of new roads to a minimum.

Wildlife and Vegetation The construction of roads, creation of landings, and operation of heavy equipment can result in localized impacts and the damage or destruction of understory vegetation, including rare plants. Those practices may also damage the litter layer, coarse woody debris, snags, or cavity trees important for wildlife. They may alter the moisture regimes in soil and on the forest ﬂ oor in ways that affect plants and animals such as forest ﬂ oor amphibians and small mammals. Whole tree harvesting can result in a reduction of downed wood in the forest system. Skidding operations may cause residual damage to trees in the stand. Residual stand damage may result in the introduction of insects or disease into an otherwise healthy stand. Harvesting may also leave the remaining trees more susceptible to wind throw, alter plant and animal communities, facilitate the spread of invasive plants, disturb wildlife temporarily, or displace it over the long term.

We will mitigate most of those impacts by placing seasonal restrictions on harvesting to avoid disturbing wildlife or damaging trees or understory vegetation, the careful layout of skid trails, the use of mechanical harvesters and pre-harvest surveys of resources of concern. We will encourage timber contractors to leave tops, branches and other downed wood on site whenever possible.

Under refuge management, the average forest age/size class and canopy closure would increase over the long term, although different age classes would be present on the landscape. The softwood component of refuge matrix forest would also increase. Habitat connectivity would increase; the fragmentation of forest habitat would decrease.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-39 Compatibility Determination – Commercial forest management

Visitor Impacts Logging may disturb refuge visitors, cause safety issues, or detract from visitors’ esthetic experience. We will temporarily close areas of the refuge undergoing active logging. Because former owners harvested much of the refuge uplands just before we acquired them, and only a small proportion of the refuge will be closed at any one time, additional impacts on the public should be minimal.

Summary Forest management on Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge poses only a minimal threat to Goals 1, and 2 (“Manage open water and wetlands” and “Manage ﬂ oodplain and lakeshore habitats”) and as written in the CCP. Monitoring will identify any actions needed to respond to new information and correct problems that may arise in the future.

Goal 3 as written in the CCP (“Manage upland forested habitats”) will benefi t greatly from, and in fact depends on, forest management. This will potentially benefi t Goal 4 “Provide high quality wildlife dependent activities” of the CCP from forest management activities and woodcock management activities providing varying habitat types suitable for wildlife observation and photography and for hunting. Opportunities also exist to interpret the management activities, benefi tting Goal 5 of the CCP “Develop high quality interpretative opportunities…” Goal 7 of the CCP “Develop Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge as an outstanding center for research and development of applied management practices to sustain and enhance the natural resources in the Northern Forest in concert with the LMRD program” will benefi t from this activity by providing a means to research and develop management techniques through forest management. No other refuge goals and objectives, as written in the CCP, will be affected by this use.

Public Review and Comment As part of the comprehensive conservation planning process for the Lake Umbagog refuge, this compatibility determination underwent extensive public review, including a comment period of 77 days following the release of the Draft CCP/EIS. It will also undergo and additional 30 days of public review during the public review period of the FEIS.

Determination (check one below):

Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible, with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility Our management philosophy is to create a forest management program that improves refuge wildlife habitat while simultaneously contributing to the forest industry and local economy of Coos and Oxford counties.

To protect refuge resources of concern, we will follow the best management practices for timber harvest and wildlife habitat recommended by the States of New Hampshire and Maine (New Hampshire Forest Sustainability Standards Work Team, 1997; Flatebo et al. 1999; Cullen, 2000; Calhoun and DeMaynadier, 2003; Smith and Whitney, 2001; Chase et al. 1997, Reay et al. 1990).

C-40 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Commercial forest management

When the states recommend a range of best management strategies and buffer distances, we will implement the most conservative of those recommendations. The refuge may exceed state recommendations in some cases, for speciﬁ c resource protection objectives. We will plan roads, skid trails, water crossings, and landings in a way that minimizes damage to resources and stabilize roads and skid trails after harvesting.

Snags, live cavity trees, and large coarse woody debris will be retained, as appropriate, to meet refuge objectives. At the discretion of the refuge manager, the creation of snags, live cavity trees, or coarse woody debris, or the removal of individual trees or groups of trees may occur in any area of the refuge, including High Resource Sensitivity Zones, for speciﬁ c wildlife management or safety purposes

We will review the forest management program annually in our Habitat Management Plan to ensure that the program contributes to refuge objectives for wildlife and habitat.

Before harvests, resource surveys will ensure that resources of concern have been identiﬁ ed and impacts minimized or eliminated.

Timber harvesting will occur at times that are seasonally appropriate for the site and silvicultural objectives and likely to minimize impacts on wildlife: e.g., outside raptor or heron nesting seasons.

We will discourage whole tree harvesting and encourage contractors to leave tops, branches, and other wood debris on site.

No commercial harvesting will occur on hydric soils or on slopes over 30 percent delineated on map C-3.

Except at the refuge manager’s discretion to meet speciﬁ c management objectives for wildlife or habitat, no harvesting will occur on forested wetlands, which include ﬂ oodplain forest and northern white cedar, black spruce, and hardwood swamps.

We will use adaptive management in assessing and modifying silvicultural prescriptions to achieve wildlife habitat objectives.

Management actions will ensure the future growth of the forest and sustainable productivity consistent with ecological conditions.

Features in the implementation of the habitat management plan will ensure the application of new scientiﬁ c, social, and economic information to improve silvicultural and management practices and enhance environmental and ﬁ nancial performance.

Justiﬁ cation We have determined this use to be compatible, provided the stipulations necessary to ensure its compatibility are implemented. Forest management will contribute to the purposes for which the Lake Umbagog refuge was established and the mission of the Refuge System, and facilitate the ability of the refuge to meet its wildlife management objectives. The use will not pose signiﬁ cant adverse effects on refuge resources, interfere with the public use of the refuge, or cause an undue

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-41 Compatibility Determination – Commercial forest management

administrative burden. We may adjust the habitat management program on the refuge annually to insure its continued compatibility. Forest management on Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes for which the refuge was established as evidenced by the impact analysis that shows this use will not compromise our ability to achieve the goals and objectives set forth under the Lake Umbagog NWR CCP.

Signature: Refuge Manager: ______(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief: ______(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10 year Reevaluation Date: ______

Literature Cited

Calhoun, A.J.K. and P. deMaynadier. 2003. Forestry habitat management guidelines for vernal pool wildlife in Maine. U.S. Environ. Protect. Agency, Boston, MA.

Chase, V., L. Deming and F. Latawiec. 1997. Buffers for wetlands and surface waters: a guidebook for New Hampshire municipalities. Audubon Soc. of New Hampshire

Cullen, J.B. 2000. Best management practices for erosion control on timber harvesting operations in New Hampshire. NH Dept. of Resources and Economic Development, Div. of Forests and Lands, Forest Info. and Planning Bureau and Univ. of New Hampshire Coop. Extension.

Flatebo, G., C.R. Foss and S. K. Pelletier. 1999. Biodiversity in the forests of Maine: guidelines for land management. C.A. Elliott, ed. Univ. of Maine Coop. Extension. UMCE Bulletin # 7147.

Reay, R.S., D.W. Blodgett, B.S. Burns, S.J. Weber, and T. Frey. 1990. Management guide for deer wintering areas in Vermont. Vermont Dept. of forests, Parks 7 Rec. and Dept. of Fish & Wildlife.

Smith, S. and S. Whitney. 2001. Guide to New Hampshire timber harvesting laws. Univ. of New Hampshire Coop. Extension.

C-42 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Finding of Appropriateness – Recreational gathering of blueberries, blackberries, strawberries, raspberries, mushrooms, …

603 FW 1 Exhibit 1 Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Recreational gathering of blueberries, blackberries, strawberries, raspberries, mushrooms, ﬁ ddleheads and antlersheds

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other X document? Establishing EA (f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the ﬁ rst time the use has been X proposed? (g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State ﬁ sh and wildlife agencies. Yes X No ___

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is:

Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate X

Refuge Manager:______Date:______

Refuge Supervisor:______Date:______

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-43 Finding of Appropriateness – Recreational gathering of blueberries, blackberries, strawberries, raspberries, mushrooms, …

603 FW 1 Exhibit 1 page 2 of 2

Justiﬁ cation for a Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Recreational gathering of blueberries, blackberries, strawberries, raspberries, mushrooms, ﬁ ddleheads and antlersheds

Narrative

The gathering of these materials is a long-standing and continuous use of the area and fosters a connection to, and appreciation for, the area’s natural resources. We recognize that picking and gathering blueberries, raspberries, blackberries, mushrooms, ﬁ ddleheads and antler sheds has occurred on the refuge for many years. Current levels of this use are low and this use often occurs concurrently with other public uses including priority public

C-44 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Recreational gathering of blueberries, blackberries, strawberries, raspberries, mushrooms, …

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

USE: Recreational gathering of blueberries, blackberries, strawberries, raspberries, mushrooms, ﬁ ddleheads, and antler sheds for personal use.

REFUGE NAME: Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

DATE ESTABLISHED: November 12, 1992

ESTABLISHING AUTHORITY:

1. Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S. C. 3901 (b) 2. Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715d) 3. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. ¤ 742f(a)(4)) 4. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. ¤ 742f(b)(1))

PURPOSE(S) FOR WHICH ESTABLISHED:

1. the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public beneﬁ ts they provide and to help fulﬁ ll international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions. 16 U.S.C. ¤ 3901(b) (Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986)

2. for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds 16 U.S.C. ¤ 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

3. for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of ﬁ sh and wildlife resources 16 U.S.C. ¤ 742f(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

4. for the beneﬁ t of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or afﬁ rmative covenant, or condition of servitude 16 U.S.C. ¤ 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

DESCRIPTION OF USE:

1. What is the use? Is the use a priority public use? Primary Use: The primary use is recreational gathering of blueberries, blackberries, strawberries, raspberries, mushrooms, ﬁ ddleheads and antler sheds. This is not a priority use of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

2. Where would the use be conducted? The use would be conducted throughout the refuge.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-45 Compatibility Determination – Recreational gathering of blueberries, blackberries, strawberries, raspberries, mushrooms, …

3. When would the use be conducted? These uses are seasonal in nature, as they naturally occur. Antlersheds are typically found during the late winter to early spring. Fiddleheads are typically gathered in early spring. Blueberries, blackberries, strawberries, and raspberries are typically gathered from July to September and mushroom may be available at varying times during the growing season.

4. How would the use be conducted? We are proposing to open the Refuge to recreational gathering of natural materials for personal use. The gathering of these materials is a use of the area and fosters a connection to, and appreciation for, the area’s natural resources. We recognize that picking and gathering blueberries, raspberries, blackberries, mushrooms, ﬁ ddleheads and antler sheds has occurred on the refuge for many years. Current levels of this use are low and this use often occurs concurrently with other public uses including priority public uses.

Natural materials gathered on the refuge are for private use only. Any sale of these materials would be considered a commercial use of these materials and is prohibited by federal law. This use specifi cally does not include recreational gathering of cranberries because they occur in our highest priority habitat, wetlands. Cranberries occur in bog systems that are especially sensitive to trampling. Since the refuge was established under the Emergency Wetland Resources Act and wetlands are our highest priority habitat, we do not feel that the risk of damage to these systems is warranted for recreational gathering of cranberries. Fields along Pond Brook Road in the Town of Magalloway Plantation are not open to the general public for berry picking. These fi elds include those formerly owned by Mr. Claude Linnell. Mr. Linnell retained life use of the rights to pick berries on those fi elds. These fi elds will be clearly marked with signs facing Pond Brook Road stating “Area Closed to Berry Picking, Rights Reserved by Previous Landowner.”

At the discretion of the Refuge Manager, some areas may be seasonally, temporarily, or permanently closed to gathering of natural materials if wildlife or habitat impacts, or if user conﬂ icts become an issue. Furthermore, the Refuge Manager may modify daily and yearly limits of natural materials to be collected. No plants may be introduced or transplanted on refuge lands to promote recreational gathering of berries and no plants (other than mushrooms) are to be removed from the refuge.

5. Why is the use being proposed? Gathering of these natural materials has occurred in the area for many years and this use was speciﬁ cally requested during the public review phase of the draft EIS/CCP for Lake Umbagog NWR. Current use levels for this activity are very low and the use primarily occurs along roads and in disturbed areas like log landing and roadsides. This use is typically a family activity and provides an opportunity for family to connect with the natural environment. While people engage in this activity they often observe and gain an appreciation for wildlife.

6. Availability of Resources: The resources necessary to provide and administer this use are available within current and anticipated refuge budgets. Staff time associated with the administration of this use is primarily related to answering general questions from the public and monitoring impacts of the use on refuge resources. This activity is administered by the refuge staff who assess interactions among user groups and any

C-46 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Recreational gathering of blueberries, blackberries, strawberries, raspberries, mushrooms, … related user impacts. Resource impacts will be monitored by refuge staff, under the supervision of the Refuge Manager. The use of refuge staff to monitor the impacts of public uses on refuge resources, and visitors is required for administering all refuge public uses. Therefore, these responsibilities and related equipment are accounted for in budget and stafﬁ ng plans.

Costs associated with gathering natural materials are estimated below:

Routine maintenance: $100 annually. This is the expected cost to maintain the signs along Pond Brook Road.

Supplies and materials: $200 This includes signage for brochures (produced in house)

Monitoring: $1,000 annually.

Law Enforcement: $2,000 annually for a Refuge Ofﬁ cer.

Total: $3,300

We do not anticipate charging fees.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Gathering of natural materials has the potential to cause trampling of vegetation and disturb wildlife. However, we do not expect these disturbances to be signiﬁ cant, i.e. cause wildlife or habitats to be negatively impacted, since current and anticipated levels of use are low. Providing the opportunity for recreational gathering of natural materials on the refuge provides the public with an opportunity to observe wildlife and to view Service wildlife habitat management projects. There have been no indications that the current levels of limited harvesting of these natural materials causes problems for wildlife other than minimal and temporary disturbance caused by the mere presence of humans.

Therefore, the gathering of these natural materials on Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge as described poses only a minimal threat to Goals 1, 2, and 3 (“Manage open water and wetlands,” “Manage ﬂ oodplain and lakeshore habitats,” and “Manage upland forested habitats”) as written in the CCP. No other refuge goals and objectives, as written in the CCP, will be affected by this use.

Public Review and Comment: As part of the comprehensive planning process for Lake Umbagog refuge, this compatibility determination underwent extensive public review, including a comment period of 77 days following the release of the draft CCP/EIS. It will also undergo and additional 30 days of public review during the public review period of the FEIS.

Determination (check one below):

Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible With the Following Stipulations

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-47 Compatibility Determination – Recreational gathering of blueberries, blackberries, strawberries, raspberries, mushrooms, …

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

■ A Refuge Ofﬁ cer will help to promote compliance with refuge regulations, monitor public use patterns and public safety, and document visitor interactions.

■ Recreational gathering of cranberries will not be allowed due to potential impacts to wetland vegetation.

Justiﬁ cation: Recreational gathering of these materials on Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes for which the refuge was established as evidenced by the impact analysis that shows this use will not compromise our ability to achieve the goals and objectives set forth under the Lake Umbagog NWR CCP.

Signature: Refuge Manager: ______Signature and Date

Concurrence: Regional Chief: ______Signature and Date

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: ______

C-48 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Finding of Appropriateness – Snowmobiling and recreational dogsledding on snowmobile trails

603 FW 1 Exhibit 1 Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Snowmobiling and recreational dogsledding on snowmobile trails

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X (e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other X document? Establishing EA (f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the ﬁ rst time the use has been X proposed? (g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X (i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural X or cultural resources, or is the use beneﬁ cial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? (j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), compatible, X wildlife-dependent recreation into the future?

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State ﬁ sh and wildlife agencies. Yes X No ___

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is:

Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate X

Refuge Manager:______Date:______

Refuge Supervisor:______Date:______

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-49 Finding of Appropriateness – Snowmobiling and recreational dogsledding on snowmobile trails

603 FW 1 Exhibit 1 page 2 of 2

Justiﬁ cation for a Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Snowmobiling and recreational dogsledding on snowmobile trails

Narrative

Snowmobiles and dogsleds provide a means of accessing the refuge in the winter months, and can provide an opportunity for visitors to engage in wildlife-dependent recreation. Snowmobile users and dogsled users have been observed engaging in wildlife-dependent recreation.

Before the establishment of the refuge, an extensive snowmobile trail system in northern New Hampshire and western Maine connected to trails in neighboring states and Canada. Estimates of snowmobile trails in Coos County alone exceed 1,000 miles. In 2001, the refuge acquired 4,375 acres of land west of Mountain Pond Road in Errol, N.H., from John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co. Those parcels came with a pre-existing agreement (1992) between the landowners at the time (James River Timber Corporation and Irving Pulp and Paper, Ltd.) and the State of New Hampshire. It states that New Hampshire can maintain a snowmobile trail near Mountain Pond and Eames roads, subject to a number of conditions. The Service is following through on earlier commitments and ensuring that it continues to work effectively with the affected States.

Snowmobile recreation is a critical part of the local economy during winter months and that of northern New Hampshire. Our “Final Environmental Assessment; Proposal to Protect Wildlife Habitat, Lake Umbagog, Coos Co., N.H., Oxford Co., Maine” (USFWS, 1991) states “The Mountain Pond [snowmobile] trail…would not be affected by this proposal.” Dogsledding is allowed in both states on snowmobile trails.

C-50 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Snowmobiling and recreational dogsledding on snowmobile trails

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

USE: Snowmobiling and recreational dogsledding on snowmobile trails

REFUGE NAME: Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

DATE ESTABLISHED: November 12, 1992

ESTABLISHING AUTHORITY:

1. Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 [16 U.S. C. 3901 (b)] 2. Migratory Bird Conservation Act [16 U.S.C. 715d] 3. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. ¤ 742f(a)(4)) 4. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. ¤ 742f(b)(1))

PURPOSE(S) FOR WHICH ESTABLISHED:

2. “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds…” [16 U.S.C. ¤ 715d; Migratory Bird Conservation Act]

3. “for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of ﬁ sh and wildlife resources…” [16 U.S.C. ¤ 742f(a)(4); Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956]

4. “for the beneﬁ t of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or afﬁ rmative covenant, or condition of servitude…” [16 U.S.C. ¤ 742f(b)(1); Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956]

MISSION OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM: “The mission of the System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the ﬁ sh, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the beneﬁ t of present and future generations of Americans”.

DESCRIPTION OF USE:

(a) What is the use? Is the use a priority public use? The use is snowmobiling. It is not a priority public use of the National Wildlife Refuge System, under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57). Dogsledding is a supported use since it is allowable on the snowmobile trail systems in both New Hampshire and Maine.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-51 Compatibility Determination – Snowmobiling and recreational dogsledding on snowmobile trails

(b) Where would the use be conducted? We propose to permit snowmobile use on established snowmobile trails that pass through the refuge, (15.4 miles on current refuge lands), in their approximate, present locations (map C-4). We may occasionally close or reroute trails, depending on their biological impacts or refuge management activities. We will not allow the use of snowmobiles on spur trails or on any other trails not designated on map C-4.

Before the establishment of the refuge, an extensive snowmobile trail system in northern New Hampshire and western Maine connected to trails in neighboring states and Canada. Estimates of snowmobile trails in Coos County alone exceed 1000 miles. In 2001, the refuge acquired approximately 4375 acres of land located west of Mountain Pond Road, in Errol, NH, from John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co. These parcels came with a pre-existing snowmobile agreement (dated 1992) between the landowners of the time (James River Timber Corporation and Irving Pulp and Paper, Ltd) and the State of New Hampshire. It states that New Hampshire can maintain a snowmobile trail near Mountain Pond and Eames Roads, subject to a number of conditions.

New Hampshire Trail 18 is the only state-corridor snowmobile trail on refuge property (see trail 18, map C-4). A 5.4-mile-long segment of that trail crosses the refuge on Mountain Pond Road, a gravel road that runs north to south on the east side of Errol Hill. We re-routed a short segment of that trail, used only when there is enough snow cover, around our newly constructed maintenance shop. A 1.2-mile-long spur trail off trail 18 heads east along Potter Farm Road from the intersection of Mountain Pond Road and the Potter Farm road exiting refuge property onto state land and eventually Umbagog Lake. The Umbagog Snowmobile Association in Errol, NH maintains the combined 6.6 mile portion of trail through refuge property.

A short, 0.2-miles connector trail between the Bull Moose in Cambridge, NH and the Upton trail system in Maine crosses a corner of a 55-acre parcel of refuge land. The trail follows old Route 26 roadbed, and crosses a stream on the concrete bridge that served trafﬁ c on Route 26.

No Maine Interconnected Trail System (ITS) corridor trails cross refuge property. However, a number of long-standing trail segments cross refuge land in Maine. In Upton, a 0.25-miles segment crosses the refuge near Mill Street. That trail connects the southeast arm of Umbagog Lake to the Upton trail system by following and old skid trail.

On Tidswell Point, a 2.6-mile segment of snowmobile trail crosses refuge land on a gravel road. It originates at the south arm of Umbagog Lake, crosses state land, and connects to another gravel road just off refuge property that leads from Inlet Ridge to the Dead Cambridge River and, eventually, to East B Hill Road. That trail passes approximately 150 feet from a bald eagle nest and, therefore, may be subject to seasonal closure around February 15 to the end of the season to protect the nesting eagles.

An approximately 500-foot trail from a gravel road to Pebble Beach in Tyler Cove also crosses refuge land, and serves as a connector to Umbagog Lake. A similar, approximately 600 foot trail segment

C-52 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Snowmobiling and recreational dogsledding on snowmobile trails connects the gravel road from B Brook Cove to the gravel road in a similar fashion. Those trails exist on existing skid roads. A third lake-access trail in Sturtevant Cove is 0.3 miles long. Approximately 500 feet of this trail is on a skid road; the remainder is on gravel road.

Near Pine Point, an approximately 0.4 mile trail segment crosses refuge property on the gravel road that provides access to private camps there.

In the area of Sunday Cove, approximately 3.6 miles of snowmobile trails cross refuge land. Those trails follow dirt and gravel roads and connect to Middle Dam on Lower Richardson Lake. One spur trail off of those trails leads to the Maine Warden’s camp in Sunday Cove. The trails in the area of Sunday Cove will be the ﬁ rst we will assess, because overlay maps show that they may cross wetlands and cross through white-tailed deer winter yards. If we deem any changes necessary, we will work with Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, neighboring landowners and the Town of Magalloway Plantation in seeking alternate routes of travel.

In Magalloway Plantation, approximately1.2 miles of trail crosses refuge lands south of Sturtevant Pond. This trail follows the Transfer Station road to a dirt road and out into open fields where it exits across from the Magalloway Church.

(c) When would the use be conducted? We will open the trails identiﬁ ed above (map C-4) for snowmobiling when snow conditions are suitable, but no earlier than December 15 and no later than April 10.

(d) How would the use be conducted? The operation of snowmobile on the refuge shall comply with all applicable state rules and regulations. We will not permit competitive snowmobiling events. The speed limit on the refuge will be 35 mph, unless otherwise posted. No parking areas will be provided on the refuge. No ATVs are permitted on refuge trails.

Refuge lease holders may request a special use permit to access their camps by snowmobile in winter, if no other access is practical. At the discretion of the refuge manager, that authorized use shall extend only to accessing the camp by the most direct route, which the special use permit will deﬁ ne, while minimizing impacts to refuge resources of concern. No new trails may be constructed.

The refuge will issue special use permits to the States of New Hampshire and Maine or other responsible parties (e.g. snowmobile clubs, volunteers) to maintain trails. Those permitted parties are responsible for accomplishing all trail maintenance, grooming, and infrastructure repair, including bridge and culvert repair and maintenance. Bridge and culvert construction must follow best management practices to avoid erosion or increasing siltation of sensitive streams. Culverts should be designed to handle the largest predicted stream ﬂ ows. Any trail not on a road, shall not exceed 16 ft. in width at any point. All trail improvements must receive prior approval from the refuge.

The States of New Hampshire and Maine and other parties are also responsible for placing trail junction, trail number, safety, closure, and speed limit signs along the trail prior to December 1, maintaining them through the period of snowmobile use, and collecting signs and picking up any litter

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-53 Compatibility Determination – Snowmobiling and recreational dogsledding on snowmobile trails

at the end of the season. Trail maintenance may include cutting brush and removing fallen logs, but removal of brush or other vegetation should be kept to a minimum.

We do not currently monitor snowmobile use, but it is possible to estimate the current levels of use. Grey (2005) estimated that as many as 22,000+ snowmobiles may visit the Errol area annually. Since a major corridor trail is located on the refuge, it is likely that a high percentage of these snowmobiles also pass through the refuge.

Dogsled use of snowmobile trails is currently very light, but it appears from the number of inquiries and vehicles that interest in the refuge for dogsledding is increasing. Recreational dogsledding is only allowable on the above listed snowmobile trails. A lessee has the authority to use some other trails on the refuge, but these will not be available for public use in general.

We intend to monitor snowmobile trail use via winter surveys and/or trafﬁ c counters. We will also monitor the condition of trails, culverts, bridges, and streams in spring and summer, and identify and close undesignated trails on the refuge.

(d) Why is this use being proposed? Snowmobile recreation is a critical part of the local economy during winter months for generations… and that of northern New Hampshire. Our “Final Environmental Assessment; Proposal to Protect Wildlife Habitat, Lake Umbagog, Coos Co., NH, Oxford Co., ME” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1991) states “ The Mountain Pond [snowmobile] trail…would not be affected by this proposal. Snowmobiling would not be allowed on the central Refuge area, but no trails are currently identified in that area”.

Snowmobiles provide one means of accessing the refuge during the winter months, and can provide an opportunity for visitors to engage in wildlife-dependent recreation. Snowmobile users have been observed engaging in wildlife-dependent recreation on other national wildlife refuges (cf. Nulhegan Basin Division of the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge, Compatibility Determination, Snowmobile Access, 1999) and national parks (Davenport and Borrie 2005).

Availability Of Resources: With the hiring of a refuge ofﬁ cer, and a zone ofﬁ cer for Vermont and New Hampshire, the resources necessary to provide and administer this use, at its present levels, are available within current and anticipated refuge budgets. Staff time associated with administration of this use relates to overseeing trail maintenance, issuing special use permits and monitoring compliance with their conditions, enforcing laws, monitoring public use, and monitoring impacts on natural resources.

The refuge manager will administer the program. A wildlife biologist will monitor its effects on refuge resources. The refuge ofﬁ cer will monitor visitor use and conduct law enforcement for visitor safety and resource protection.

We estimate below the annual costs associated with the administration of snowmobiling on the refuge.

C-54 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Snowmobiling and recreational dogsledding on snowmobile trails

Overall Oversight of Program; Coordinate with States of NH and Maine: $2,000 GS-13 Refuge Manager

Issue-administer SUPs/Coordinate with Snowmobile Clubs/Oversight of trail maintenance: $2,000 GS-12 Deputy Refuge Manager

Law enforcement–patrol/visitor-resource protection/ public use monitoring/enforcement/outreach: $3,000 GS-7 Refuge Ofﬁ cer

Resource impacts/monitoring: $3,000 GS-12 Wildlife Biologist

Snowmobile gas/maintenance: $1,000

Total: $11,000

All maintenance of snowmobile trails will be the responsibility of the States of New Hampshire and Maine and other responsibility parties (snowmobile clubs, volunteers, etc.). The refuge owns and operates snowmobiles for carrying out law enforcement, refuge operations, and monitoring public use. Ofﬁ cers from the New Hampshire Fish and Game and Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife occasionally supplement law enforcement coverage on the refuge, at no cost to us.

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE USE: Only New Hampshire Trail 18 has been evaluated in any detail, using refuge biological survey data and the refuge GIS (geographic information system). Where it passes through the refuge, Trail 18 is located both on a grassy track and on gravel roads. In several places, it crosses snowmobile bridges over small steams. The trail passes primarily though northern hardwood and mixed hardwood- conifer forest, as well as a small area of mixed pine-hemlock forest. The Potter Farm Rd. spur trail passes within less than 0.1 miles of a mature northern white cedar swamp located on State of New Hampshire property and inventoried by the New Hampshire Heritage Program. Some of the cedars in that swamp exceed 200 years in age.

We have recorded more than 50 species of birds in areas of the refuge Trail 18 traverses. Common species include red-eyed vireo, ovenbird, black-throated blue warbler, chestnut-sided warbler, hermit thrush, magnolia warbler, black-throated green warbler, American redstart, yellow-bellied sapsucker, black-capped chickadee, and ruffed grouse. Many of those species are migratory and, thus, are not present during the snowmobile season. Streams the trail crosses are known to support populations of northern two-lined and dusky salamanders. Vernal pools with populations of wood frogs and spotted salamanders occur in some areas. Although road, bridge and culvert conditions can affect their water quality, vernal pools generally dry up by fall and stream salamanders are usually inactive in the winter months. White-tailed deer, moose, and ﬁ sher are known to frequent the trail area. The trail does not cross through any known deer wintering areas and we know of no raptor (osprey, eagle) nests immediately adjacent to the trail. The nearest osprey nests are about 0.5 mi to the east of the trail. The trail approaches within <0.1 mi of Mountain Pond and its associated wetlands. A literature review of potential impacts of snowmobiling on wildlife and wildlife habitat follows:

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-55 Compatibility Determination – Snowmobiling and recreational dogsledding on snowmobile trails

Wildlife Impacts: Winter is a particularly stressful time for many species of resident wildlife, because of the reduced availability and quality of food and the higher energetic costs of snow travel and thermoregulation. Late winter is a particularly vulnerable time for many species (especially ungulates), because snow depths are often greatest, the animals are in their poorest condition, and food resources have been exhausted.

Snowmobiles are capable of covering large areas and thus have the potential for disturbing wildlife and compacting snow over a large area, if they are not conﬁ ned to designated trails (Hammitt and Cole 1998).

Some potential negative impacts of snowmobiling (and other forms of human disturbance) on wildlife include:

1. Increased energy expenditure. Disturbance may result in increased heart rate, activity, or actual ﬂ ight, all of which have an energetic cost. During severe winters or for animals in poor or marginal condition, the additional stress of disturbance may result in exhaustion of an individual’s food reserves, and lowered resistance to disease or predation. That may affect survival or reproduction. Animals may be in poorer condition going into the spring breeding season.

2. Displacement to suboptimal habitat. Animals may be forced into habitats where foraging or cover are of lower quality. This may increase energetic costs, increase vulnerability to predation, or increase crowding and disease transmission. It may alter the distribution of animals on the landscape.

3. Alteration of behavior. Disturbed animals may change their foraging times to periods when energy losses or exposure to predators is higher.

4. Changes in community composition and inter-species interactions.

5. Improved predator access to prey wintering areas (a beneﬁ t to predators, but a negative impact to prey).

6. Direct mortality from snowmobile-wildlife collisions.

Some potential, positive impacts of snowmobiling and other forms of human disturbance on wildlife follow.

1. Reduced energy expenditure. Snow compaction and trail creation by snowmobiles may reduce energy expenditure in deep snow, for animals that follow snowmobile trails.

2. Improved access to resources. Snow compaction and trail creation by snowmobiles may expand access to foraging areas, for animals using trails.

Although a moderately extensive body of literature treats the impacts of snowmobile activity on wildlife, particularly ungulates, the site-speciﬁ c nature of much of the research and the complex

C-56 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Snowmobiling and recreational dogsledding on snowmobile trails

interactions among the factors affecting wildlife make interpreting results and extrapolating them for Lake Umbagog difﬁ cult. The differences in methodology among studies make it difﬁ cult to compare them, and have compounded the problem. As a result, different studies have found apparently contradictory results that seem to be applicable only locally. A few of the variables that may affect the type and degree of wildlife response to snowmobiles include the

■ severity of winter snow conditions, ■ type of vegetation or habitat, ■ topography, ■ time of day and month of year, ■ level of habituation to disturbance, ■ animal age and condition, ■ species type, ■ animal density and group size, ■ animal activity type (standing vs. bedded down), ■ intensity of hunting, ■ intensity of snowmobile activity, ■ duration of disturbance, and ■ behavior of snowmobile users.

Mammals may show less of an overt response to human disturbance when winter conditions are particularly severe and energy conservation is at its most critical (Knight and Cole, 1995). Impacts may be at the individual or population scale and may be either short- or long-term.

Despite the apparent contradictions in the literature, many studies seem to indicate that snowmobiling may affect wildlife under certain conditions. Although population level impacts may exist, only impacts at the individual and local level have been demonstrated. Appropriate management can mitigate many of the negative effects.

Ungulates (White-tailed deer; Moose):

White-tailed deer expend more energy in winter than at other times of the year. To compensate, deer usually conserve energy by restricting their movements, particularly in late winter, when they lack fat reserves and snow is deeper, rather than increasing their food intake by foraging more widely (Moen, 1976). Energy conservation measures include walking slowly, on level ground. Thus, they are particularly vulnerable to disturbances that counter that energy conservation strategy.

Most ungulates react more strongly (are more likely to ﬂ ee, travel a greater distance) to a person on foot than a person on a snowmobile. Stopping or getting off a vehicle creates more disturbance than a person on a continuously moving snowmobile (Oliff et al. 1999). Response to snowmobiles is greater in areas open to hunting than in areas closed to hunting.

In Yellowstone National Park, heavy human activity was found to temporarily displace most wildlife from an area within about 190 feet of the trail (Oliff et al. 1999). However, at greater distances, responses of elk and bison to snowmobiles were generally infrequent and brief (White et al. 2004).

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-57 Compatibility Determination – Snowmobiling and recreational dogsledding on snowmobile trails

No active ﬂ ight responses were seen at distances greater than 650 ft. Response intensity increased with increasing size of a snowmobile group. White et al. (2004) concluded that energetic costs to elk from snowmobile disturbance were low, and that there were no population-level impacts on elk. The disturbance of wildlife tends to be less when human activities are fairly predictable both in location and behavior. Animals may habituate to predictable disturbance, and show less of a behavioral or physiological response. Snowmobile activities on ﬁ xed designated trails create fewer disturbances than activity that occurs randomly across the landscape. (Oliff et al. 1999).

Wildlife seem to demonstrate a less intense response to disturbance when there is some sort of visual barrier between them and the source of disturbance created by vegetation and/or topography (Oliff et al. 1999).

Deer and moose are more likely to forage in the early morning or evening, therefore, these are the times they are most likely to encounter, and possibly, be disturbed by snowmobiles (Oliff et al. 1999).

Severinghaus and Tullar (1975) suggested that snowmobile disturbance might be energetically costly to deer. Although deer sometimes use snowmobile trails, those trails may not lead to the best foraging areas, or may help to concentrate foraging in a restricted area and contribute to over-browsing. They recommended keeping snowmobile trails at least 0.5 miles from deer wintering areas.

In a controlled experiment, Freddy et al. (1986) found that snowmobiles invoked ﬂ ight responses in mule deer at distances < 440 ft. Distances traveled by ﬂ eeing deer averaged 330 ft. Deer demonstrated low levels of response (alerting) up to distances of about 1540 ft. Freddy et al. suggest that keeping snowmobile trails > 1500 ft from deer would minimize any disturbance. The study found no evidence of increased mortality or impairment of reproduction, but deer may not have been disturbed often enough to show an effect.

Eckstein et al. (1979) experimentally exposed white-tailed deer to snowmobile activity, and found no differences in home range size, habitat use, or activity by white-tailed deer in areas with snowmobile activity vs. areas without it. However, deer were displaced from an area within 200 ft. of snowmobile trails. The study found that deer were less disturbed by snowmobile activity at night than during the day. Deer were found to use snowmobile trails occasionally, but did not seem to use snowmobile trails in preference to their own trails, or follow snowmobile trails beyond their normal wintering area. They concluded that, although there might be some energy savings for the deer from using snowmobile trails, the effects of snowmobiles forcing deer off trails would counter balance those savings. They also recommended that snowmobile trails avoid deer wintering areas by rerouting through upland deciduous forest wherever possible.

Richens and Lavigne (1978) also found that white-tailed deer in Maine sometimes used snowmobile trails for short distances (< 660 ft), especially when they were near bedding areas. Deer were more likely to use snowmobile trails under more severe winter conditions, when snow depths were greater. Deer were less likely to use snowmobile trails on wide logging roads that were less sheltered. Unlike the Eckstein et al. (1979) study, Richens and Lavigne found that deer could be persuaded to follow snowmobile trails over a mile beyond their own trail system when improved forage was provided at the new location. The study suggests that snowmobile trails could be laid out in deer wintering areas in a way that could beneﬁ t deer, by improving their mobility, reducing energy costs, and providing

C-58 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Snowmobiling and recreational dogsledding on snowmobile trails access to better foraging areas. Deer continued to use bedding areas close to snowmobile trails and did not appear to alter their activity patterns in response to snowmobiles, but snowmobile traffi c in their study area was relatively light. The fl ight responses of deer to snowmobiles varied, depending on severity of winter, snow depth, type of cover, and time of day. Deer were more likely to fl ee from snowmobiles in early winter than in late winter. The poor condition of deer towards the end of winter may have contributed to this reduction in fl ight tendency. Richens and Lavigne also found deer were more likely to fl ee from snowmobiles traveling at high speeds than at low speeds (< 10 mph).

In contrast to some other studies, Dorrance et al. (1975) found increases in white-tailed deer home range size, movement, and distance to snowmobile trails with increased snowmobile activity for an area previously closed to snowmobile use (but open to hunting). Deer failed to show these changes in movement patterns with increased snowmobile activity at a second study site that was open to snowmobile trafﬁ c but closed to hunting. At the second site, deer were displaced from the immediate vicinity of active snowmobile trails, but usually returned shortly after snowmobile activity stopped. That effect was seen even at very low levels of snowmobile activity. The habituation of deer to snowmobile activity may have been facilitated at this second site, where hunting was not permitted. However, in this study, displacement of deer from snowmobile trails probably did not result in a signiﬁ cant impact on deer except during particularly severe winters and/or on poor winter ranges.

Huff and Savage (1972) found that white-tailed deer in Minnesota utilized conifer (jack pine) areas with dense canopy cover during the middle of the week when snowmobile trafﬁ c was light, but shifted to a more open canopy aspen-birch stand during weekend heavy-use periods. They reported that radiant heat loss was higher in the aspen-birch stand than in the jack pine.

Even animals that do not show an overt change in behavior, such as ﬂ ight, in response to disturbance, may still undergo physiological changes indicative of stress. Creel et al. (2001) measured glucocorticoid of elk exposed to snowmobile activity in Yellowstone National Park. Elevated glucocorticoid secretion is indicative of stress, and if prolonged, can impair immune system and reproduction function. Elk were found to have higher glucocorticoid levels during snowmobile season than immediately post-season. In addition, glucocorticoid levels were found to increase with increasing daily snowmobile activity. Despite increased stress on elk during snowmobile season, Creel found no evidence that survival or reproduction of elk was being affected. Similarly, Moen (1982) found that heart rates of captive white-tailed deer increased when they were approached by snowmobiles, even when no change in their behavior was discernible. Deer also failed to habituate to snowmobiles (as measured by elevated heart-rates) over the course of the experiment. Moen (1982) suggested that there might be an energy cost to elevated heart-rate.

Although moose are considerably better adapted to deep snow and winter conditions than deer, severe winters can still stress them if food supplies are exhausted or if they are in poor condition. Like deer, moose tend to reduce their activity levels in winter as an energy conservation measure, and disturbances that cause them to increase their activity come at an energetic cost.

Collescott and Gillingham (1998) found that moose that bedded down within approximately 1000 ft. of an active snowmobile trail, or fed within 500 ft. of snowmobile traffi c were likely to change their behavior in response to snowmobile disturbance. Moose within 1000 ft of snowmobile traffi c were sometimes temporarily displaced into less favorable foraging habitat. However, they did not fi nd

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-59 Compatibility Determination – Snowmobiling and recreational dogsledding on snowmobile trails

a signifi cant impact on moose activity patterns within their study area associated with snowmobile traffi c. Moose, in general, appear to habituate fairly readily to vehicle activity and will fl ee at shorter distances if they have become habituated.

Black Bears Black bears will abandon den sites if humans on foot disturb them sufﬁ ciently, and may abandon cubs (Goodrich and Berger 1994). Bears that abandon or change dens may remain active longer and experience more weight loss than undisturbed animals. Bears are particularly vulnerable to disturbance just before denning (generally November- December), and just after they emerge from dens in the spring (March-April) (Oliff et al. 1999).

Other Carnivores (Fisher, marten, weasels, red fox, coyote) Little research has been done on disturbance affects on any of these species. However, fi shers do not appear to alter their activity signifi cantly in response to moderate levels of human disturbance. When disturbed, females fi shers may move their den sites (Oliff et al. 1999). Weasels and pine marten frequently tunnel under the snow when foraging. Snow compaction caused by snowmobile trails may affect their foraging ability locally, as well as negatively impact prey populations (small mammals).

Neumann and Merriam (1972) found that red foxes exhibited greater levels of activity near snowmobile trails and were using trails as travel corridors. Creel et al. (2001) also found that wolves used snowmobile trails in conditions of deep snow. Coyotes increase their use of snowmobile trails during severe winters as well (Crete and Lariviere, 2003).

Other Mammals (snowshoe hare, small mammals) Neumann and Merriam (1972) found that hare activity was reduced within 250 ft. of snowmobile trails. They also found that a single passage of a snowmobile could signiﬁ cantly alter the insulating properties and temperature gradient of snow to a depth of two feet. Those changes in temperature regime were potentially great enough to increase energy costs to small mammals burrowing under the snow.

Jarvinen and Schmid (1971) found a signiﬁ cant increase in mortality of small mammals in an area where snow had been compacted experimentally by snowmobiles. Small mammals did not appear to migrate off-site in response to snowmobile activity. They suggested that causes of mortality might have been related to the reduced insulating capacity and increased thermal conductivity of the compacted snow which may have increased thermal stress on animals. Snow compaction may also have limited movement of animals and reduced the permeability of the snow to a point that inhibited gas exchange and increased levels of carbon dioxide above normal. If extensive, off-trail snowmobile activity compacts large areas of snow, the impacts on small mammal populations may be signiﬁ cant (Olliff et al. 1999).

Birds Bald eagles appear to remain near Umbagog Lake throughout the winter. Eagles are particularly sensitive to disturbance early in the breeding season, including the period from nest site selection through incubation. Disturbed birds may abandon a nest site. As with other species, predictable trafﬁ c along designated routes appears to produce the least amount of disturbance. Random

C-60 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Snowmobiling and recreational dogsledding on snowmobile trails movement by snowmobiles, together with high operator visibility, may make snowmobiles particularly disturbing to eagles (Oliff et al. 1999). Eagles foraging on the ground or on carcasses on ice are especially sensitive to disturbance (Oliff et al. 1999).

Migratory birds that breed in the refuge depart for their wintering habitats long before snowmobile use starts, and typically do not return before it ceases. Bald eagle nesting activity generally begins in the Umbagog area in late winter-early spring (February-March). The potential therefore exists that snowmobile activity could impact eagles. Winter eagle management guidelines for Yellowstone National Park (Oliff et al. 1999) recommend a buffer of up to1300 feet around frequently used foraging and perching locations (depending on visual screening from topography and/or vegetation), and a quarter-mile to half-mile buffer around nest sites.

Anticipated impacts of snowmobile activity on refuge wildlife include displacement of wildlife immediately adjacent to trails and some potential for contamination of streams with sediment or exhaust. The current route of New Hampshire Trail 18 traverses mixed and hardwood forest, and does not pass through any known deer wintering areas, nor does it closely approach any known eagle or other raptor nest sites. Trails on the Maine side of the refuge may pass through deer wintering areas, near raptor nests, and/or through sensitive wetlands. We will assess these trails and may re-route or close some of them if signiﬁ cant resource impacts seem likely. Installation of well-constructed and maintained culverts or bridges over stream crossings should help to minimize the contamination of streams and impacts to stream amphibians. Much of the disturbances to wildlife are from snowmobiles that are not on a designated trail and are traveling all over the landscape in unpredictable ways. Restricting snowmobile trafﬁ c to designated trails helps to increase predictability. Most existing trails have been in place for decades and predate the establishment of the refuge.

Habitat Impacts

Vegetation Several studies have found snowmobile damage vegetation. That may involve direct, mechanical damage as well as the alteration of soil and substrate conditions important for plant growth. The extent of impacts depends on the plant species, their sensitivity to cold and mechanical damage, snow depth, winter severity, and soil type and slope, among others.

Neumann and Merriam (1972) found that after a single passage by a snowmobile, over 25 percent of all tree saplings at or above the snow surface were damaged severely enough to cause mortality. Seventy-eight percent of saplings showed some signs of damage. Species with rigid woody stems were the most vulnerable. All vegetation above the snow surface was eliminated mechanically in heavily traveled areas.

Wanek (1974; 1971) found that soil temperatures were signiﬁ cantly colder and more variable under snowmobile trails than under un-compacted snow. That change occurred after the ﬁ rst snow compaction event. Soil froze sooner, deeper, and remained frozen for a longer time than under un- compacted snow. Soils under snowmobile tracks thawed out as much as 3 weeks later than under control areas. Temperature regimes varied, depending on the soil type. Sandy soils remained colder in the winter than did organic soils. Soil temperatures under hardwood forests remained colder

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-61 Compatibility Determination – Snowmobiling and recreational dogsledding on snowmobile trails

than under softwoods. The growth of microbial populations in litter under snowmobile trails was signifi cant, but recovered. Some species of spring plants under snowmobile trails experienced up to 20 percent winter mortality, or no growth, delayed growth, or delayed or reduced fl owering. Underground root structures were frozen and damaged in some instances. Species with large underground storage structures experienced the greatest damage due to freezing. Wanek (1974) also found that in an alfalfa fi eld subjected to snow compaction by snowmobiles, productivity decreased by 24 - 33 percent. Weedy species also showed an accompanying increase. The decline in productivity was steeper during a more severe winter than during a milder winter. Wanek (1974; 1971) also found conifer sapling damage and mortality from snowmobile trails, particularly under low snow conditions. The damage to white spruce was highest. Some species, including trembling aspen and raspberry, increased in areas of snowmobile activity.

Bogs appear to be particularly sensitive to snowmobile activity. Wanek (1974) found a decline in some bog plants, with increasing snowmobile activity. Although sphagnum appeared to be unaffected, declines were observed in bog laurel, leather leaf, small cranberry, and pitcher plant. Impacts appeared to be due to mechanical damage, cold penetration, and desiccation.

Pesant et al. (1985) tested the effects of snowmobiling on agricultural ﬁ elds. They found that in certain forage types, snowmobile trails resulted in reduced or delayed spring growth, changes in species composition, and reduced forage yield. Impacts were attributed to reduced soil temperatures under compacted snow, and deeper frost penetration into the soil, with accompanying damage to plants. Foresman et al. (1976) also found an early spring reduction in the growth of bluegrass under snowmobile trails, but found that vegetation had recovered by early summer. Matted vegetation under snowmobile tracks may have kept soil temperatures lower in the spring, and made it physically more difﬁ cult for new growth to penetrate the matted layer.

Keddy et al. (1979) found that snow compaction was greatest when snowmobiles traversed an area on several different days (increased frequency) than if they traversed the same area multiple times on the same day (increased intensity). Increased frequency of snowmobile use resulted in a decrease in standing crop on an old fi eld, but no signifi cant decrease occurred with greater intensity. Some shift in plant community structure also was noted. No signifi cant impacts on vegetation were observed on an ice-covered marsh. Negative impacts of snowmobiling on vegetation may result from lower temperatures affecting buds and food storage structures, and longer snow retention in the spring may affect early germination and growth. Matting of vegetation may affect seed dispersal from previous year’s seedpods.

Boucher and Tattar (1975) found that damage to vegetation and soils was greatest where snowmobile trails were located on steep (> 30 degrees) south-facing slopes. Damage primarily resulted from decreased snow depths (due to greater solar radiation), together with increased pressure of snowmobile treads on steeper slopes. On steep slopes, the surface organic layer, and in some instances the upper soil layer, were lost. Damage to plants included not only above-surface parts, but also damage to shallow root systems. Although vegetation recovered on ﬂ atter areas receiving moderate use, highly disturbed steep slopes did not.

C-62 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Snowmobiling and recreational dogsledding on snowmobile trails

Soil and Litter The compaction of snow under snowmobile trails results in changes in thermal conduction and snow structure that cause snowmobile trails to melt more slowly in the spring and can create partially anaerobic conditions. The rates of litter decomposition may slow as a result. Neumann and Merriam (1972) found that the water holding capacity of snowmobile trails was signiﬁ cantly reduced. That could reduce the ability of the snow to hold water during spring run-off.

In contrast to this, Aasheim (1980) suggested that the delayed melting of compacted snowmobile trails might actually contribute to a reduction in peak run-off amounts.

Boucher and Tattar (1975) found that snowmobile activity on steep, south-facing slopes could disrupt or remove the surface layer of soil and increase erosion during spring rains. Some reports (Aasheim, 1980), indicate that soil erosion may be reduced on ﬂ atter areas under some circumstances because the compacted snow on snowmobile trails may protect against erosion from spring run-off.

There appears to be general agreement that snowmobile activity on steeper slopes can increase erosion, particularly with shallow snow depths and vegetation disturbance.

The impacts of snowmobiles on soils and vegetation under shallow snow conditions may be as signiﬁ cant as when snowmobiles travel on bare ground (Hammitt and Cole, 1998).

Foresman et al. (1976) found no evidence of soil compaction under snowmobile trails.

The anticipated impacts from snowmobiling include damage to vegetation from snowmobile activity during the winter and from brush clearing during the fall, and some potential for soil erosion. There are no known rare plants or plant communities along the present route of trail 18. Because much of trail 18 is on a pre-existing road, where soils have already been compacted and vegetation has been removed, additional damage to vegetation and erosion should be minimal. Although the majority of trails on the Maine side of the refuge are also on roads, we will need to evaluate all Maine trails and may re-route or close them to minimize impacts. The maintenance of the Mountain Pond Rd. for snowmobile use encourages trafﬁ c by wheeled vehicles during the summer; they frequently drive on the road when the road is wet, thus increasing the potential for erosion. Installing gates at both ends of the road to prevent entry of vehicles outside of the snowmobile season will avoid that impact.

Dogsledding Impacts to habitats and animals from dogsledding are similar to snowmobiling for all subject headings up to this point, except for the following. Wildlife exhibit a strong physiological response to dogs and dogs accompanied by humans (Miller et. al. 2001, Sime 1999). Deposition of canine feces provides a potential disease vector for wildlife (Sime 1999). While these potential disturbances would be contrary to the establishing purposes of the refuge, they are mitigated in large part by the low volume of dogsledding on the refuge and the location of trails along existing trails outside of deer wintering areas. Dogs used for dogsledding are not free roaming and will therefore keep to the trails.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-63 Compatibility Determination – Snowmobiling and recreational dogsledding on snowmobile trails

Pollution

Water Quality Adams (1975) found high levels of hydrocarbons after ice-out in the water of a small (2.5 ac), shallow pond that had been experimentally exposed to snowmobile exhaust. Brook trout exposed to the pond water were shown to have incorporated exhaust components (hydrocarbons). Hydrocarbons increased from undetectable levels in the water, pre-treatment to 10 ppm, post-treatment. Exposed ﬁ sh exhibited hydrocarbon levels of up to 1 ppm. Petroleum hydrocarbons can have pathological effects on ﬁ sh at very low levels (<10 ppb) and may negatively impact reproduction and foraging (Adams, 1975). Hydrocarbon concentrations were highest near the water surface after ice-out. Fish may be particularly vulnerable to hydrocarbon contamination in the early spring because they may be in poorer condition, and are more likely to be active near the water surface. The concentration of hydrocarbons in snow is likely to be particularly high on trails where regular grooming constantly packs exposed snow (Oliff et al. 1999). Spring snowmelt may release those hydrocarbons into streams and other bodies of water (Oliff et al. 1999). To what extent the bodies of water on the refuge are at risk of hydrocarbon pollution is unclear, given current levels of snowmobile use, recent improvements in snowmobile technologies, and large water volumes.

Air Quality Bishop et al. (2001) found that snowmobiles accounted for 27 percent of the annual emissions of carbon monoxide in Yellowstone National Park, as well as 77 percent of the annual hydrocarbon emissions. Carbon monoxide production was reduced by 13 percent for vehicles using oxygenated fuels, but hydrocarbon emissions were unaffected. Fan-cooled snowmobiles had lower hydrocarbon emissions than liquid cooled machines.

Although automobiles substantially out-number snowmobiles 16:1 in Yellowstone during the winter, snowmobiles are responsible for up to 90 percent of hydrocarbon and up to 69 percent of carbon monoxide emissions in the park (US GAO, 2000). Additionally, 25 percent to30 percent of snowmobile fuel is released unburned into the atmosphere (US GAO, 2000).

The anticipated impacts from snowmobiles include some exhaust emissions to the air and possibly refuge streams. The refuge currently has no data on stream or air quality. Only a few small streams are crossed by New Hampshire Trail 18 and with appropriately constructed bridges it is expected that water pollution impacts will not be signiﬁ cant. The refuge has surveyed for stream salamanders on some of the streams crossed by Trail 18, but has not detected any differences in salamander populations that could be reliably attributed to snowmobile-caused pollution. Trails on the Maine side of the Refuge will need to be assessed and evaluated for potential negative impacts. Some of these trails may be re-routed or closed, should conditions warrant. Noise

Snowmobile noise is readily detectable by wildlife at distances up to several kilometers. The effects of disturbance on wildlife are quite variable, and many species seem to be capable of habituating to it (Bowles, 1995). There is no clear evidence for noise having an impact at the population level (Bowles, 1995). Noise may have an impact on the experience of other human users on the refuge.

C-64 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Snowmobiling and recreational dogsledding on snowmobile trails

We have not measured noise levels on the refuge, but they are probably signiﬁ cant near trails and on Umbagog Lake during busy winter weekends. Because of the ability of snowmobile noise to travel over great distances, much of the noise on the refuge probably comes from off-refuge snowmobile activity, over which the refuge has no control, as well as from on-refuge activity. We can minimize user conﬂ icts among users by restricting snowmobile use to designated trails, thus leaving much of the remainder of the refuge open to other users.

Summary of Anticipated Impacts Although the information available about the effects of snowmobiling on designated trails is incomplete, at its current and anticipated levels and patterns of use, we do not expect it to constitute signifi cant short-term or long-term impacts separately or cumulatively. We will evaluate all trails every 5-years to ensure there are not site-specifi c impacts. We may re-route or close some trails if we determine that they have a signifi cant, negative impact on wildlife or habitat.

Snowmobile trails are located almost entirely on existing gravel roads built to support commercial logging operations. The use of those roads as the location for the trails has effectively mitigated impacts of snowmobiling relating to soil and vegetation on those surfaces. The bridges and culverts crossing the water courses are designed to support trucks and other heavy equipment. Therefore, additional impacts from snowmobiling are unlikely. Snowmobile trails throughout the area have been established for many years and pre-date refuge ownership. Because the wildlife potentially affected are accustomed to that use, we consider impacts on wildlife minimal. Increases in emission regulations by the EPA, along with the increase in the number of 4-stroke and new cleaner 2-stroke engines in modern snowmobiles has and will continue to reduce the potential impacts on the environment described in the literature review. The increased presence of a law enforcement offi cer and zone offi cer will ensure stipulations that support the compatibility of this use. Therefore, snowmobiling and dogsledding on Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge poses only a minimal threat to Goals 1, 2, and 3 (“Manage open water and wetlands,” “Manage fl oodplain and lakeshore habitats,” and “Manage upland forested habitats”) as written in the CCP. Our continued monitoring of the effects of snowmobiling is necessary to understand better their impacts on refuge habitats, plant and wildlife communities, and human visitors. Monitoring will identify any actions needed to respond to new information and correct problems that may arise in the future.

Snowmobile trails on the refuge provide an important link in the state trail system, enhance opportunities for the public to experience the winter landscape, and facilitate priority public uses. This will potentially beneﬁ t Goal 4 “Provide high quality wildlife dependent activities” of the CCP by providing opportunities during winter months for wildlife observation and photography and access for hunting. Opportunities also exist to interpret the refuge along the snowmobile trail system. Goal 6 of the CCP “Enhance the conservation…through partnerships…” will also beneﬁ t from this activity by establishing the refuge as a partner with State and community economic and conservation groups. No other refuge goals and objectives, as written in the CCP, will be affected by this use.

Public Review and Comment: As part of the CCP process for LUNWR this compatibility determination underwent extensive public review, including a comment period of 77 days following the release of the Draft CCP/EA. It will also undergo and additional 30 days of public review during the public review period of the FEIS.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-65 Compatibility Determination – Snowmobiling and recreational dogsledding on snowmobile trails

DETERMINATION: THIS USE IS COMPATIBLE X THIS USE IS NOT COMPATIBLE (check one)

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY

1. Snowmobiles and dogsleds will only be permitted on designated trails (map C-4).

2. Snowmobile trails will only be open for use when all areas of the trail have generally contiguous snow cover.

3. All trails will be located on existing roadbeds, wherever possible, to minimize vegetation damage. Trails will also be kept away from streams to avoid erosion. Where stream crossings are unavoidable, siting and construction of bridges or culverts will follow best management practices, and crossing structures will be maintained in good repair.

4. Trails will be located away from areas of unique or sensitive vegetation, such as bogs or wetlands.

5. Snowmobile trails will be located so that they are away from deer wintering areas and do not run between deer bedding and feeding areas. Trails will also be located in upland deciduous forest, and will be kept out of drainage bottoms and coniferous riparian areas important for wildlife such as ﬁ sher, marten, and moose, wherever possible.

6. All trails will be surveyed for signs of wildlife activity, sensitive vegetation, or erosion potential, and trail locations will be entered into a geographic information system. We will use that information to guide routing, re-routing, or closure of trails. Biological inventories will continue to provide baseline information for measuring change. Should the monitoring and evaluation of the use indicate that the compatibility criteria have or will be exceeded, appropriate action will be taken to ensure continued compatibility, including modifying or discontinuing the use.

7. The refuge will institute a public outreach program (brochures, signs) to help educate the public about refuge regulations, safety, and how to minimize disturbance of wildlife.

8. Routine law enforcement patrols will be conducted throughout the year to promote compliance with refuge regulations and provide educational outreach, help monitor public use patterns, public safety, and document visitor interactions. Refuge ofﬁ cers may record visitor numbers, vehicle numbers, visitor activities, and locations of the activities to document current and future levels of refuge use. Conditions that are a risk to public safety will be identiﬁ ed, and appropriate action will be promptly taken to correct such conditions.

JUSTIFICATION: This use has been determined to be compatible provided the stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility are implemented, and the use does not exceed thresholds necessary for visitor safety and resource protection. Snowmobiling on Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes for which the refuge was established as evidenced by the impact analysis that shows this use will not compromise our ability to achieve the goals and objectives set forth under the Lake Umbagog NWR CCP.

C-66 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Snowmobiling and recreational dogsledding on snowmobile trails

Signature: Refuge Manager: ______(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief: ______(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10-year re-evaluation date: ______

Literature Cited

Aasheim, R. 1980. Snowmobile impacts on the natural environment, in: Andrews, R. N.L. and P.F. Nowak, eds., Off-road vehicle use: a management challenge. USDA Ofﬁ ce of Environmental Quality, Wash. D.D. 348 p.

Adams, E. S. 1975. Effects of lead and hydrocarbons from snowmobile exhaust on brook trout (Salvelinus frontinalis). Trans. Amer. ﬁ sh. Soc. No. 2: 363-373

Bishop, G.A., J.A. Morris, and D.H. Stedman. 2001. Snowmobile contributions to mobile source emissions in Yellowstone National Park. Environ. Sci. & Tech. 35(14): 2874-2881.

Boucher, J. and T.A. Tattar. 1975. Snowmobile impact on vegetation. Forest Notes 121:27-28

Bowles, A. E. 1995. Responses of wildlife to noise, In: Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds. Island Press, Wash. D.C. 372 p. Colescott, J.H. and M. P. Gillingham. 1998. Reaction of moose (Alces alces) to snowmobile trafﬁ c in the Greys river valley, Wyoming. Alces 34(2):329-338.

Creel, S., J.E. Fox, A. Hardy, J. sands, B. Garrott, and R. O. Peterson. 2002 snowmobile activity and glucocorticoid stress responses in wolves and elk. conser. Biol. 16(3): 809-814.

Crete, M. and S. Lariviere. 2003. Estimating the costs of locomotion in snow for coyotes. Can. J. Zool. 81:1808-1814.

Davenport, M. A. and W. T. Borrie. 2005. The appropriateness of snowmobiling in national parks: an investigation of the meanings of snowmobiling experiences in Yellowstone National Park. Environ. Management 35(2):151-160.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-67 Compatibility Determination – Snowmobiling and recreational dogsledding on snowmobile trails

Dorrance, M.J., P.J. Savage, and D.E. Huff. 1975. Effects of snowmobiles on white-tailed deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 39(3): 563-569.

Eckstein, R.G., T. F. O’Brien, O. J. Rongstad, and J. G. Bollinger. 1979. Snowmobile effects on movements of white-tailed deer: a case-study. Environ. Conserv. 6(1): 45-51.

Foresman, C.L., D.K. Ryerson, R.N. Walejko, W.H. Paulson, and J.W. Pendleton. 1976. Effect of snowmobile trafﬁ c on bluegrass (Poa pratensis). J. Environ. Qual. 5(2):129-133.

Freddy, D. J., W. M. Bronaugh and M. C. Fowler. 1986. Responses of mule deer to disturbance by persons afoot and snowmobiles. Wild. Soc. Bull. 14: 63-68.

Goodrich, J.M. and J. Berger. 1994. Winter recreation and hibernating black bears Ursus americanus. Biological Conserv. 67:105-110

Grey, P. 2005. Personal communication. New Hampshire Bureau of Trails.

Hammitt, W. E. and D.N. Cole. 1998. Wildland recreation: ecology and management. 2nd Ed. John Wiley & Sons, N.Y. 361 p.

Huff, D. E. and P.J. Savage. 1972. A correlation of deeer movements with snowmobile activity in Minnesota during winter. Proc. of the Midwest Fish & Wildlife Conf. 34:42.

Jarvinen, J.A. and W.D. Schmid. 1971. Snowmobile use and winter mortality of small mammals in: Proc. of the 1971 snowmobile and off the road vehicle research symposium. Tech. Rep. 8. Recreation Research and Planning Unit, Dept. of Park & Recreation Resources, Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing, MI. 196 p.

Keddy, P.A., A. J. Spavold, C.J. Keddy. 1979. Snowmobile impact on old ﬁ eld and marsh vegetation in Nova Scotia, Canada: an experimental study. Environ. Management. 3(5):409-415.

Knight, R. L. and D. N. Cole. 1995. Factors that inﬂ uence wildlife responses to recreationists, In: Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds. Island Press, Wash. D.C. 372 p.

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight and C.K. Miller. 2001. Wildlife responses to pedestrians and dogs. Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 29 No. 1. pp. 124-132.

Moen, A. N. 1976. Energy conservation by white-tailed deer in the winter. Ecol. 57:192-198.

Moen, A..N., S. Whittemore, and B. Buxton. 1982. effects of disturbance by snowmobiles on heart rate of captive white-tailed deer. NY Fish & Game J. 29(2): 176-183. Neumann, P. W. and H.G. Merriam. 1972. Ecological effects of snowmobiles. Canad. ﬁ eld-Natur. 86: 207-212.

C-68 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Snowmobiling and recreational dogsledding on snowmobile trails

Ollif, T., K. Legg, and B. Kaeding, eds. 1999. Effects of winter recreation on wildlife of the Greater Yellowstone Area: a literature review and assessment. Rept. to the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee. Yellowstone National Park, WY. 315 p.

Pesant, A.R., C. Fernet, L. Belzile, and J.L. Dionne. 1985. Effects of snowmobile trafﬁ c on yield and botanical composition of forage stands in Quebec. Can. J. Plant Sci. 65:543-552.

Richens, V. B. and G. R. Lavigne. 1978. Response of white-tailed deer to snowmobiles and snowmobile trails in Maine. Canad. Field-Natur. 92(4):334-344.

Severinghaus, C.W., and B.F. Tullar. 1978. Wintering deer versus snowmobiles. NY Dept. Environ. Conserv.

Sime, C.A. 1999. Domestic dogs in wildlife habitats. Pgs. 8.1-8.17 in G. Joslin and H. Youmans, coordinators. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: A review for Montana. Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society. 307pp.

U. S. GAO. 2000. Report to congressional requesters: Federal lands: Agencies need to assess the impact of personal watercraft and snowmobile use. GAO/RCED-00-243. U.S. General Accounting Ofﬁ ce, Wash. D.C. 85 p.

Wanek, W.J. 1971. Snowmobiling impact on vegetation, temperatures, and soil microbes, in : Proc. of the 1971 snowmobile and off the road vehicle research symposium. Tech. Rep.8. Recreation Research and Planning Unit, Dept. of Park & Recreation Resources, Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing, MI. 196 p.

Wanek, W.J. 1974. The ecological impact of snowmobiling in northern Minnesota, in: Proc. of the 1973 snowmobile and off the road vehicle research symposium. Tech. Rep.9. Recreation Research and Planning Unit, Dept. of Park & Recreation Resources, Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing, MI. 202 p.

White, P.J., T. Davis, and J. Borkowski. 2004. Wildlife responses to winter recreation in Yellowstone National Park, 2004 annual report. National Park Service.48 p.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-69 Finding of Appropriateness – Bicycling

603 FW 1 Exhibit 1 Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Bicycling

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other X document? (f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the ﬁ rst time the use has been X proposed? First time use has been proposed. (g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural X or cultural resources, or is the use beneﬁ cial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? Public understanding and appreciation only. (j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational X uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future?

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State ﬁ sh and wildlife agencies. Yes X No

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is:

Not Appropriate____ Appropriate X

Refuge Manager:______Date:______

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use.

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence:

Refuge Supervisor:______Date:______

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-71 Finding of Appropriateness – Bicycling

603 FW 1 Exhibit 1 page 2 of 2

Justiﬁ cation for a Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Bicycling

Narrative We are proposing to open the Refuge to bicycling to facilitate priority public uses. Current levels of this use are low and this use often occurs concurrently and without conﬂ ict with other public uses including priority public uses. This use would provide the public with an increased opportunity to participate in priority public uses. It is an alternate method of travel to view the refuge’s resources and participate in allowable public uses.

C-72 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Bicycling

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

USE: Bicycling

REFUGE NAME: Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

DATE ESTABLISHED: November 12, 1992

ESTABLISHING AUTHORITY:

PURPOSE(S) FOR WHICH ESTABLISHED:

2. “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds…” [6 U.S.C. 715d; Migratory Bird Conservation Act]

3. “for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of ﬁ sh and wildlife resources…” [16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4); Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956]

4. “for the beneﬁ t of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or afﬁ rmative covenant, or condition of servitude…” [16 U.S.C. ¤ 742f(b)(1); Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956]

DESCRIPTION OF USE:

(a) What is the use? Is the use a priority public use? The use is bicycling. Bicycling when considered by itself is not a priority use of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

(b) Where would the use be conducted? The use would be conducted on designated routes of travel open to public access throughout the refuge. Bicycles are considered vehicles and are therefore limited to the designated routes of travel

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-73 Compatibility Determination – Bicycling

for motor vehicles and trails designated for bicycle use (currently, this includes the middle section of Mountain Pond Road). No other trail or off-road bicycling will be allowed. Please refer to Map C-1 for locations of designated routes of travel.

(c) When would the use be conducted? This use will be conducted from the Wednesday before Memorial Day weekend through Fall.

(d) How would the use be conducted? We are proposing to open the Refuge to bicycling to facilitate priority public uses. Current levels of this use are low and this use often occurs concurrently and without conﬂ ict with other public uses including priority public uses.

This use would provide the public with an increased opportunity to participate in priority public uses. It is an alternate method of travel to view the refuge’s resources and participate in allowable public uses.

At the discretion of the Refuge Manager, some areas may be seasonally, temporarily, or permanently closed to bicycling if wildlife or habitat impacts, or if user conﬂ icts become an issue.

(e) Why is the use being proposed? The use is being proposed by the refuge to facilitate access to the refuge for the public to participate in priority public uses.

(f) Availability of Resources: The resources necessary to provide and administer this use are available within current and anticipated refuge budgets. Staff time associated with the administration of this use is primarily related to answering general questions from the public and monitoring impacts of the use on refuge resources. This activity is administered by the refuge staff, who assess the interactions among user groups and any related user impacts. Resource impacts will be monitored by refuge staff, under the supervision of the refuge manager. The use of refuge staff to monitor the impacts of public uses on refuge resources, and visitors is required for administering all refuge public uses. Therefore, these responsibilities and related equipment are accounted for in budget and stafﬁ ng plans.

Costs associated with bicycling are estimated below:

Routine maintenance: $1,000 annually. This is the expected cost to maintain roads and signs due to impacts from bicycling.

Supplies and materials: $200 This includes signage for brochures (produced inhouse).

Monitoring: $500 annually.

Law Enforcement: $1,000 annually for a Refuge Ofﬁ cer.

Total: $2,700

We do not anticipate charging fees.

C-74 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Bicycling

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Access and use of the refuge for non-commercial bicycling on designated roads and trails poses a minimal threat of impact to the refuge achieving Goal 3 “Manage Upland Forest Habitats” as written in the CCP

Bicycle use can cause soil compaction and erosion, particularly when soils are wet, which can degrade plant communities. Soil compaction can diminish soil porosity, aeration, and nutrient availability. Bicycle tires could alter drainage features of roads and trails by increasing water channeling and erosion. These impacts will be minimized since bicycling will be allowed on designated routes of travel for motorized vehicles and multiple use trails. These designated routes of travel are along existing gravel roads which have been designed for heavier vehicle use. These roads will be monitored and maintained by refuge staff. Regular and corrective maintenance should address any impacts caused by bicycling.

Disturbance to wildlife from bicycle use is expected to be minimal and temporary from the mere presence of humans. Current levels of use are low and impacts of this disturbance are considered negligible. Refuge staff will monitor the levels of use over time.

No other refuge goals and objectives, as written in the CCP, will be affected by this use. No negative or cumulative long-term impacts are anticipated from allowing this use, however programs may be modiﬁ ed in the future to mitigate unforeseen impacts.

Public Review and Comment As part of the CCP process for Lake Umbagog NWR this compatibility determination will undergo extensive public review, including a comment period of 30 days following the release of the Final Environmental Impact Statement.

Determination (check one below):

Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible With the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

■ A refuge ofﬁ cer will help to promote compliance with refuge regulations, monitor public use patterns and public safety, and document visitor interactions.

■ Access to the refuge by bicycle is limited to the designated routes of travel. No other trails, logging roads, skid trails or ﬁ rebreaks are permissible.

■ Providing outﬁ tting or guided bicycle trips on the refuge requires a special use permit, issued by the refuge manager and considered case by case for impacts to wildlife, habitat and other uses or management activities.

■ Outreach and signage will be used to orient potential bicyclists to appropriate areas.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-75 Compatibility Determination – Bicycling

Justiﬁ cation: Bicycling has been determined to be compatible provided the above stipulations are implemented. The use of bicycles to facilitate priority public uses is a reasonable mode of access on designated routes of travel. Monitoring would be conducted to ensure that this use remains compatible. If signiﬁ cant impacts are found, corrective actions would be taken to protect refuge resources. Recreational bicycling on Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes for which the refuge was established as evidenced by the impact analysis that shows this use will not compromise our ability to achieve the goals and objectives set forth under the Lake Umbagog NWR CCP.

Signature: Refuge Manager: ______Signature and Date

Concurrence: Regional Chief: ______Signature and Date

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: ______

C-76 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Horseback riding

603 FW 1 Exhibit 1 Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Horseback riding

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other X document? (f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the ﬁ rst time the use has been X proposed? First time use has been proposed. (g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural X or cultural resources, or is the use beneﬁ cial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? Public understanding and appreciation only. (j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational X uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future?

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State ﬁ sh and wildlife agencies. Yes X No ___

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is:

Not Appropriate____ Appropriate X

Refuge Manager:______Date:______

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use.

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence:

Refuge Supervisor:______Date:______

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-77 Finding of Appropriateness – Horseback riding

603 FW 1 Exhibit 1 page 2 of 2

Justiﬁ cation for a Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Horseback riding

Narrative

Horseback riding on designated trails on the refuge provides increased opportunity for public participation in priority public uses. It is an alternative method of travel to view the refuge’s diverse natural resources. It is anticipated that horseback riding would facilitate wildlife observation, wildlife photography and interpretation.

C-78 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Horseback riding

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

USE: Horseback riding.

REFUGE NAME: Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

DATE ESTABLISHED: November 12, 1992

ESTABLISHING AUTHORITY:

1. Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 [16 U.S. C.3901 (b)] 2. Migratory Bird Conservation Act [16 U.S.C. 715d] 3. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 [16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)] 4. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 [16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1)]

PURPOSE(S) FOR WHICH ESTABLISHED:

2. “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds…” [16 U.S.C. 715d; Migratory Bird Conservation Act]

3. “for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of ﬁ sh and wildlife resources…” [16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4); Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956]

4. “for the beneﬁ t of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or afﬁ rmative covenant, or condition of servitude…” [16 U.S.C. ¤ 742f(b)(1); Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956]

DESCRIPTION OF USE: (a) What is the use? Is the use a priority public use? The use is horseback riding to facilitate priority public uses on the Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge. Hunting, ﬁ shing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation are priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57). Horseback riding on designated trails on the refuge provides increased opportunity for public participation in priority

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-79 Compatibility Determination – Horseback riding

public uses. It is an alternative method of travel to view the refuge’s diverse natural resources. It is anticipated that horseback riding would facilitate wildlife observation, wildlife photography and interpretation.

(b) Where would the use be conducted? The refuge will allow travel on Mountain Pond Rd. and the snowmobile trail that connects the south end of Mountain Pond Rd. to Rt. 26 (see map C-1).

(c) When would the use be conducted? The horseback riding trail would be open to horseback travel from May 15 through November 30.

(d) How would the use be conducted? Horseback riding to facilitate priority public uses commonly involves observing natural features and animals from horseback. Riders stop frequently to observe associated plant communities and animals during their ride. Horseback riding for such purposes is done at a walking gait. Riding typically occurs either individually or in a small group of two to four riders. Horseback riding will be limited to the designated trail which has a packed gravel surface and the road can accommodate the safe passage of other users. The designated trail also has sufﬁ cient viewing distance for horseback riders to detect, in a timely fashion, other users and maneuver appropriately per rules of right-of-way.

Two gates will be installed: one on Mountain Pond Road south of Eames Road and the other on Mountain Pond Road north of the Potter Farm Road. The purpose of these gates is to only allow non- motorized use of the middle section of Mountain Pond Road except during the winter months when the gates will be opened for snowmobile trail use. These gates will be passable by horseback riders but not ATVs or other motor vehicles. No parking areas will be provided for horse trailers on the refuge.

Safety and information signs will be installed at refuge entry points and at appropriate sites were the designated trail intersects other roads and trails. Brochures depicting the trail will be available from the refuge ofﬁ ce.

The trail designated for horseback riding will be, like all designated routes of travel, monitored at least annually to determine if they remain compatible with the allowable uses. Designated routes will be maintained in such a manner as is practical to minimize environmental impacts such as erosion and sedimentation and provide safe conditions for allowable travel.

A refuge law enforcement ofﬁ cer will routinely patrol the area and monitor the types and levels of use seen during patrols and make recommendations to avoid negative user interactions or correct potential safety concerns.

(e) Why is this use being proposed? Horseback riding on the refuge provides an increased opportunity for the public to connect with nature and participate in priority public uses. It has also been a traditional use for local users to use horseback riding to view the refuge’s wildlife and habitats. Wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental interpretation are Priority Public Uses as deﬁ ned by The National

C-80 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Horseback riding

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57), and if compatible, are to receive enhanced consideration over other general public uses.

Availability of Resources: With the hiring of a refuge law enforcement ofﬁ cer, and a zone ofﬁ cer, the resources necessary to provide and administer this use, at current use levels, is available within current and anticipated refuge budgets. Staff time associated with administration of this use is related to general oversight of trail maintenance activities, issuing special use permits and monitoring compliance with permit conditions, law enforcement, monitoring public use, and monitoring resource impacts.

The refuge manager will administer the program. A wildlife biologist will monitor effects on refuge resources. Visitor use will be monitored by the refuge law enforcement ofﬁ cer. A refuge law enforcement ofﬁ cer will conduct law enforcement activities to provide for visitor safety and resource protection.

Annual costs associated with the administration of horseback riding on the refuge are estimated below: Overall Oversight of Program; Coordinate with States of NH and Maine: $500 GS-13 Refuge Manager

Law enforcement–patrol/visitor-resource protection/ public use monitoring/enforcement/outreach: $1,000 GS-7 Refuge Ofﬁ cer

Resource impacts/monitoring: $1,000 GS-12 Wildlife Biologist, Deputy Refuge Manager

Trail Maintenance: $1,000

Signs: $1,000 ﬁ rst year only

Total: $4,500 in the ﬁ rst year $3,500 thereafter

Maintenance of the trails will be a combined effort between the refuge and snowmobile trail clubs (since the trails occur on snowmobile trails). Annual funding for maintenance listed above is for refuge maintenance only. See the snowmobiling compatibility determination for Umbagog NWR for snowmobile club responsibility. Law enforcement coverage on the refuge is occasionally supplemented by ofﬁ cers from New Hampshire Fish and Game and Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, at no cost to the refuge.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Potential impacts of horseback travel include: soil compaction and erosion, downstream sedimentation, trampling and mortality of fragile plant communities, habitat loss/deterioration, wildlife disturbance, hydrologic changes, human health effects and a shift in plant communities along

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-81 Compatibility Determination – Horseback riding

trails. These potential impacts as reported in the literature and through in-ﬁ eld investigation and observation are listed below:

Impacts to plants: Horse travel can impact plants on trails by directly crushing them. Indirectly, horses can impact plants by compacting soils, which diminish soil porosity, aeration and nutrient availability (Kuss 1986). Hammitt and Cole (1998) noted that compaction limits the ability of plants to re-vegetate affected areas. Plants growing in wet or moist soils are the most sensitive to disturbance from trampling effects (Kuss 1986). Moist and wet soil conditions are common during spring and early summer and can occur on upland trails that have been incised and are channeling water.

Horse use may cause local impacts to plants and soils when conﬁ ned (i.e. tied or tethered to a tree) since the horse could eat the bark, which could result in girdling of a tree or allow for insect invasion and subsequent damage. Localized soil compaction and subsequent soil erosion can also damage trees especially where roots are exposed.

It is anticipated that allowing this use will cause some vegetation loss on designated routes. Plant communities that occur on these routes are not rare or highly sensitive to disturbance based on available information. Erosion from horse hooves may increase root exposure, however it is anticipated that under current levels of use the incidence of this problem will be minor. Trails that have been found compatible for horse use are pre-existing routes that have been modiﬁ ed by vehicles or are still being used for vehicle access to the refuge.

Soil Impacts: Horses cause soil compaction, particularly when soils are wet which can directly affect plant growth and survival (Kuss 1986). Horseback riding has been found to cause braided trails in excessively muddy trail sections (Summer 1986). Weaver and Dale (1978) found horse use caused a greater loss of vegetation cover, wider and deeper trails, and greater soil compaction when compared to hiker use on meadow and forest trail conditions. Horses may cause trail erosion by loosening the soil and increasing soil particle detachment under both wet and dry trail conditions (Deluca et al 1998).

Kuss (1986) found that increasing moisture content of soils reduces the ability of the soil to support trafﬁ c. Summer (1986) recommended that horse trails be established on dry, well-drained sites.

It is anticipated that some soil erosion will occur as a result of horse hooves on soil surfaces. Soil compaction is likely to occur, however this is anticipated to be insignifi cant relative to the current soil conditions. Routes that have been found compatible for horse use include pre-existing roads open for vehicle use on the refuge and routes modifi ed through grading and proper drainage located predominately on upland soils. Current levels of horse use of the designated routes are not expected to cause signifi cant impacts to soils through compaction or erosion.

Invasive Species: Exposed soil and an abundance of sunlight along roads and trails provide ideal conditions for the establishment of invasive plant species. Invasive plant species may be transported into the refuge through the presence of exotic plant seeds in feed hay or horse manure.

C-82 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Horseback riding

The current known incidence of invasive plant species is relatively low on the refuge, however refuge staff are constantly monitoring for invasive plants. Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) and common reed (Phragmites australis) have been observed by refuge staff.

Based on current levels of use it is anticipated that no signiﬁ cant increases in invasive plant species will occur as a result of this use. The route proposed for horseback use is old logging roads that were planted with exotic grasses by logging companies. Therefore, increases resulting from horse use are anticipated to be relatively low.

Hydrologic Impacts: Roads and trails used for horseback travel can affect the hydrology of an area, primarily through alteration of drainage patterns. Bartgis and Berdine (1991) noted that roads and trails can divert water from their original drainage patterns in the Canaan Valley of West Virginia. This results in some drainages becoming dry while others accelerate erosion by being forced to carrying more water. Zeedyk (2002) documented many instances in the Canaan Valley of West Virginia where existing trails were channeling water away from historic wetlands and in some cases causing erosion and sedimentation of bog and other wetland communities.

It is anticipated that horse use could alter drainage features of trails through erosion and compaction. These changes are likely to be insigniﬁ cant based on current levels of use and condition of proposed routes. The routes proposed for horse use are pre-existing gravel roads and snowmobile trails. No new routes will be created to accommodate this use. Routes found compatible for horseback riding do not appear to be signiﬁ cantly affecting the hydrology of refuge habitats.

Wildlife Impacts: Horseback travel can cause disturbances to wildlife using the refuge. Disturbances vary with the wildlife species involved and the type, level, frequency, duration and the time of year such activities occur. Whittaker and Knight (1998) noted that wildlife response can include attraction, habituation and avoidance.

Trails can disturb wildlife outside the immediate trail corridor (Trails and Wildlife Task Force 1998, Miller et al. 2001). Miller et al. (1998) found bird abundance and nesting activities (including nest success) increased as distance from a recreational trail increased in both grassland and forested habitats. Bird communities in this study were apparently affected by the presence of recreational trails, where “generalists” (American robins) were found near trails and “specialist” species (i.e. grasshopper sparrows) were found farther from trails. Nest predation was also found to be greater near trails (Miller et. al 1998).

Disturbance can cause shifts in habitat use, abandonment of habitat and increase energy demands on affected wildlife (Knight and Cole 1991). Flight in response to disturbance can lower nesting productivity and cause disease and death. Knight and Cole (1991) suggest recreational activities occurring simultaneously may have a combined negative impact on wildlife. Hammitt and Cole (1998) conclude that the frequent presence of humans in “wildland areas” can dramatically change the normal behavior of wildlife mostly through “unintentional harassment.”

Seasonal sensitivities can compound the effect of disturbance on wildlife. Examples include regularly ﬂ ushing birds during nesting or causing mammals to ﬂ ee during winter months, thereby consuming large amounts of stored fat reserves. Some uses, such as bird observation, are directly focused on

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-83 Compatibility Determination – Horseback riding

viewing certain wildlife species and can cause more signiﬁ cant impacts during breeding season and winter months.

The designated trail where horseback riding will be allowed has been consistently used for public access for a long period of time, possibly as long as 100 years. A biological assessment of the trail location revealed one osprey nest in close proximity to the proposed trail. Any affects of horseback riding on the trail will be evaluated over a 3-year period for potential negative impacts. A section of this trail may be re-routed if it is determined that they have a signiﬁ cant negative impact on wildlife and/ or habitat.

Impacts to wildlife may be indirectly caused through erosion and subsequent sedimentation of streams and vernal pools. Increased sediment loads can reduce aquatic vegetation and dissolved oxygen concentrations (Sadoway 1986). Sedimentation can directly kill aquatic invertebrates in which impacts the success of amphibian larvae and adults (Sadoway 1986). Observations by refuge staff in 2002 document numerous occurrences of amphibian egg masses that failed after becoming coated in sediment from eroding trails and roads nearby.

Anticipated impacts of horseback riding on wildlife include temporal disturbances to species using habitat on the trail or directly adjacent to the trail. These disturbances are likely to be short term and infrequent based on current levels of use. Use of some trails may cause direct impacts such as mortality (crushing amphibians foraging on grassy trails) to nest abandonment of bird species nesting on trails. Long-term impacts may include certain wildlife species avoiding trail corridors as a result of this use over time. Routes found compatible for horse use are located primarily in continuous tracts northern hardwood forest on the refuge. Smaller more sensitive wildlife habitat such as riparian, wetland and grassland areas were avoided. Based on existing levels of use horseback riding is not anticipated to signiﬁ cantly increase wildlife habitat fragmentation or cause signiﬁ cant impacts through disturbance.

User Confl icts Confl icts between trail users are commonly reported in the literature (Knight and Gutzwiller 1995, Ramthun 1995, Watson et. al 1994, Chavez et al. 1993). Confl icts range from concerns over personal safety to certain user groups feeling that they should be given priority over other groups based on a past history or other reasons. Based on interviews with individuals and user groups, confl icts between groups are not signifi cant in this area. This is likely due to the relatively low number of users in the area, as compared with heavy use and confl ict sites reported in the literature. Providing safe routes for wildlife-oriented activities is an important consideration for wildlife observation trails on the refuge. Safety considerations include ability of multiple modes of access to use a trail without creating dangerous conditions, ability to maintain a trail to allow safe use, and timing of various uses such as wildlife observation and hunting activities. Horseback travel on the subject routes are considered safe under current conditions and levels of use.

Summary: Any effects of horseback travel on the roads designated, are not, based on our current levels of knowledge, and at current and anticipated levels and patterns of use, considered separately or cumulatively, to constitute significant short-term or long-term impacts. The use is viewed as an effective and justifiable method of access that better enables the public to discover, experience, and

C-84 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Horseback riding enjoy priority public uses on the refuge. Continued monitoring of the effects of horseback travel and associated human activities is necessary to better understand the influence of the use on refuge habitats, plant and wildlife communities, and visitors. Monitoring will identify any actions needed to respond to new information (adaptive management) and correct problems that may arise in the future. Therefore, horseback riding on Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge poses only a minimal threat to Goals 1, 2, and 3 (“Manage open water and wetlands,” “Manage floodplain and lakeshore habitats,” and “Manage upland forested habitats”) as written in the CCP. Horseback riding to facilitate wildlife observation and photography and environmental interpretation can produce positive impacts to the wildlife resource. A positive effect of public involvement in these priority public uses will be a better appreciation and more complete understanding of the wildlife and habitats associated with northern New England ecosystems. This can translate into more widespread and stronger support for the refuge, the National Wildlife Refuge System and the Service. This will beneﬁ t Goal 4 “Provide high quality wildlife dependent activities” of the CCP by providing opportunities for wildlife observation and photography and access for hunting. Opportunities also exist to interpret the refuge (Goal 5 of the CCP) along the trail. No other refuge goals and objectives, as written in the CCP, will be affected by this use.

Public Review and Comment: As part of the CCP process for Lake Umbagog NWR this compatibility determination will undergo extensive public review, including a comment period of 30 days following the release of the Final Environmental Impact Statement.

Determination (check one below):

__ _ Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible with the following stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

■ Horseback travel to facilitate priority public use is only compatible on the designated trail and described in this compatibility determination and shown in Figures 1.

■ Signs necessary for visitor information, safety, and trafﬁ c control will be installed.

■ The refuge will conduct an outreach program to promote public awareness and compliance with refuge public use regulations.

■ Horseback travel is allowed between sunrise and sunset.

■ Camping and overnight parking are prohibited.

■ Horses will not be tied to trees or conﬁ ned on the refuge and must be accompanied by riders at all times.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-85 Compatibility Determination – Horseback riding

■ All routes designated for public access will be inspected at least annually for maintenance needs. Road and trail conditions that require immediate maintenance will be identiﬁ ed and appropriate action will be taken to correct such conditions. Prompt action will be taken to correct any conditions that risk public safety.

■ Routine law enforcement patrols will be conducted throughout the year. The patrols will promote compliance with refuge regulations, monitor public use patterns and public safety, and document visitor interactions. Conditions that have the potential to risk public safety will be identiﬁ ed and appropriate action will be promptly taken to correct such conditions.

Public use areas would be monitored at various times of the year to assess wildlife disturbance. We would include information about proper etiquette and the effects of human impacts on habitat and wildlife resources in refuge publications and ﬂ yers. Periodic law enforcement would ensure compliance with regulations and area closures, and would discourage vandalism.

Horseback riding on Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes for which the refuge was established as evidenced by the impact analysis that shows this use will not compromise our ability to achieve the goals and objectives set forth under the Lake Umbagog NWR CCP.

Signature: Refuge Manager: ______(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief: ______(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: ______

C-86 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Horseback riding

ATTACHMENTS:

Map C-1: Map showing the designated horseback riding trail.

CITATIONS

Bartgis, Rodney and A. Berdine. 1991. A preliminary assessment of biological resources in the Canaan Valley of West Virginia. Report to the Nature Conservancy. 20 pp.

Chavez, D.J, P.L. Winter, J.M. Baas. 1993. Recreational mountain biking: a management perspective. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 11(3): 29-36.

Deluca, T.H., Patterson, W.A., Freimund, W.A. and Cole, D.N. 1998. Inﬂ uence of llamas, horses and hikers on soil erosion from established recreation trails in western Montana, USA. Environmental Management. V22, No.2:255-262.

Hammitt, William E. and Cole, David N. 1998. Wildland Recreation. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 361pp.

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1991. Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands. Transactions of the 56th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference pp.238 247.

Knight, R.L. and K. J. Gutzwiller. 1995. Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 371 pp.

Kuss, Fred, R. 1986. A review of major factors inﬂ uencing plant responses to recreation impacts. Environmental Management, 10:638-650.

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 2001. Wildlife responses to pedestrians and dogs. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 29(1): 124-132.

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998. Inﬂ uence of recreational trails on breeding bird communities. Ecological Applications 8:162-169

Sadoway, K.L. 1986. Effects of intensive forest management on amphibians and reptiles of Vancouver Island: problem analysis. Research, B.C. Ministries of Environment and Forests. IWIFR-23. Victoria, B.C.

Summer, Rebecca. 1986. Geomorphic impacts of horse trafﬁ c on montane landforms. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 41:126-128.

Trails and Wildlife Task Force. 1998. Planning trails with wildlife in mind: A handbook for trail planners. Colorado State Parks, Denver Co. 51pp.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-87 Compatibility Determination – Horseback riding

Watson, A.E., M.J. Niccolucci and D.R. Williams. 1994. The nature of conﬂ ict between hikers and recreational stock users in the John Muir Wilderness. Journal of Leisure Research, 26(4): 372-385.

Weaver, T. and Dale, D. 1978. Trampling effects of hikers, motorcycles and horses in meadows and forests. Journal of Applied Ecology, 15:451-457.

Whittaker, D. and Knight, R. 1998. Understanding wildlife responses to humans. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 26(3): 312-317.

Zeedyk, Bill. 2002. Summary Report of Road Related Wetlands Impacts of the Canaan Valley NWR. 5 pp.

C-88 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Finding of Appropriateness – Camping

603 FW 1 Exhibit 1 Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Camping

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State ﬁ sh and wildlife agencies. Yes X No ___

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is:

Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate X

Refuge Manager:______Date:______

Refuge Supervisor:______Date:______

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-89 Finding of Appropriateness – Camping

603 FW 1 Exhibit 1 page 2 of 2

Justiﬁ cation for a Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Camping

Narrative Before the creation of the Refuge in 1992, more than 20 campsites were located around Umbagog Lake. Most of these were leased year-to-year from private timber companies by Jim and Carolyn Willard, who managed them as part of a campground business (the Umbagog Lake Campground). Over the years, the industrial timberland around the lake changed hands. The new timber owners, including James River Co., Crown Vantage, Mead Paper Co. and Boise Cascade, generally renewed the lease agreements. The campground business included remote sites on the lakeshore and islands accessible only by boat, as well as a larger, multi-site base campground, accessible by car, on the south end of Umbagog Lake.

Starting in 1995, we began to acquire parcels on which some of those remote campsites were located. First, we acquired two islands with campsites in Leonard Pond, and a third in Thurston Cove from James River Co. We agreed to allow camping to continue at those sites, under the conditions speciﬁ ed in a special use permit issued to the Willards. In 1999, the State of New Hampshire bought the campground at the south end of Umbagog Lake and incorporated it into Umbagog State Park. The state continues to manage the facility as a state campground. In the spirit of the original Umbagog conservation partnership between the Service and both states, we agreed to maintain the existing level of camping on Umbagog Lake, by allowing camping to continue at remote sites on refuge lands.

Camping on the Refuge is a long-standing, popular use that pre-dates the creation of the refuge. Camping increases opportunities for the public to participate in priority public uses in a remote setting. Because many species of wildlife are most active at dawn and dusk, camping particularly facilitates wildlife observation, photography, hunting, and ﬁ shing. Visitors camping at remote sites enjoy the unique experience of hearing loon calls throughout the night during the breeding season.

C-90 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Camping

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

USE: Camping

REFUGE NAME: Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

DATE ESTABLISHED: November 12, 1992

ESTABLISHING AUTHORITY:

1. 1. Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S. C 3901 (b) 2. 2. Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715d) 3. 3. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. ¤ 742f(a)(4)) 4.4. 4.4. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. ¤ 742f(b)(1))

PURPOSE(S) FOR WHICH ESTABLISHED:

1. …the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public beneﬁ ts they provide and to help fulﬁ ll international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions... 16 U.S.C. ¤ 3901(b) (Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986)

2. …for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds... 16 U.S.C. ¤ 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

3. …for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of ﬁ sh and wildlife resources… 16 U.S.C. ¤ 742f(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

DESCRIPTION OF USE: (a) What is the use? Is the use a priority public use? The use is overnight camping on refuge lands. Camping is not a priority public use of the National Wildlife Refuge System under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57).

Camping is a secondary use that facilitates and supports wildlife-dependent priority public uses including ﬁ shing, hunting, wildlife observation, and photography. Thirteen designated public campsites lie entirely on refuge-owned property. One additional campsite is located on the New

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-91 Compatibility Determination – Camping

Hampshire-Maine border and is partially on refuge-owned land and partially on State of New Hampshire-owned land. The total is 14 campsites.

History of Camping on Umbagog Lake Before the creation of the Refuge in 1992, more than 20 campsites were located around Umbagog Lake. Most of these were leased year-to-yearfrom private timber companies by Jim and Carolyn Willard, who managed them as part of a campground business (the Umbagog Lake Campground). Over the years, the industrial timberland around the lake changed hands. The new timber owners, including James River Co., Crown Vantage, Mead Paper Co. and Boise Cascade, generally renewed the lease agreements. The campground business included remote sites on the lakeshore and islands accessible only by boat, as well as a larger, multi-site base campground, accessible by car, on the south end of Umbagog Lake.

The Willards eventually purchased the 9.6 acre multi-site base facility on the south end of the lake from Crown Vantage, but continued to lease the remote campsites. The Willards also held an agreement with the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests to maintain several remote campsites on Big Island, which the Society owned. The majority of the campsites were located on the New Hampshire side of Umbagog Lake, but a number were located on the Maine side, as well. The Umbagog Lake Campground is generally opened for the season on the ﬁ rst Friday of the Memorial Day weekend, and closes on or around September 15.

In addition to those campsites that are part of Umbagog State Park, Mollidgewock State Park manages several additional campsites along the Magalloway and Androscoggin Rivers. In 2001, the Service acquired lands that included two of those campsites. Both are drive-in campsites, easily accessible from Route 16. One, (North 2) is located next to the Magalloway River; the other, (North 1), is on the Androscoggin River. The base facility of Mollidgewock State Park Campground is located on the Androscoggin River, 3 miles south of Errol, New Hampshire. Both campsites on Refuge land are now designated as group campsites. An additional Mollidgewock campsite, (North 3), is located off-refuge on private land, near North 2. To summarize, Umbagog State Park manages 12 of the 14 campsites on refuge lands, and Mollidgewock State Park manages two campsites (see map C-1).

Umbagog State Park currently manages 34 remote campsites around the lake, in addition to providing electrical and water hook-ups at 35 sites and 3 cabins at the base facility at the southern end of the lake (see Appendix 1). In addition to the 12 remote sites wholly or partly on refuge land, six sites are located on Big Island, owned by Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, and 16 sites are located on land owned by the State of New Hampshire (see map C-1). The park at the south

C-92 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Camping

end of the lake provides motorized and non-motorized boat rentals, boat fuel, a boat launch, and transportation to the remote campsites.

(b) Where would the use be conducted? We will continue to conduct the use at the 12 remote campsites managed by Umbagog State Park: R3, R13, R14, R15, R16, R18, R21, R22, R23, R28, R29, and R35. We may close or relocate those sites seasonally or permanently, at the discretion of the refuge manager, to protect refuge resources. We will close all campsites accessible by car, including campsites North 1 and North 2, now managed by Mollidgewock State Park (see map C-1).

(c) When would the use be conducted? The refuge will be open to camping during the period set annually by the State of New Hampshire, but no earlier than May 20, and no later than October 15th. At other times of the year, the refuge will be closed for camping. The periods when we close coincide with state closure periods. In some years, we may close certain campsites seasonally to protect such nesting birds as loons, osprey, bald eagles, and waterfowl, as well as for the purpose of research or for other reasons to protect resources. Closures to protect nesting birds generally occur between late May and early July, but may occur outside that period for birds attempting to re-establish nests.

(d) How would the use be conducted? The State of New Hampshire and the refuge will cooperatively manage campsites. The State of New Hampshire Division of Parks and Recreation will be responsible for campsite reservations and routine site maintenance, and will assist with providing camping information and law enforcement, where appropriate. The refuge will cooperate with the state in improving campsites, where appropriate.

A number of boat launches both on and off Refuge lands provide boat access to the lake and remote campsites. Our compatibility determination for ﬁ shing describes boat access points. Map C-1 shows their locations. Camping will be permitted only at State designated sites. Although we may close or move campsites to protect refuge resources, we will maintain a level of camping on the lake consistent with current levels.

The state provides each remote campsite with a ﬁ replace, picnic table, and pit toilet. When a pit toilets is full, the state ﬁ lls in the pit and moves the toilet to a new pit. Drinking water is not provided. No trash pick-up is provided and campers must carry out all trash. Existing State campsite regulations follow:

■ The maximum number of tents allowed per site is two, with the exception of group campsites.

■ The maximum number of tents at group campsites is eight.

■ The maximum length of stay of 14 nights.

■ The maximum number of people per campsite is 6, except at designated group sites.

■ The maximum number of people at group campsites is 16.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-93 Compatibility Determination – Camping

■ Sites R2, R6, R15, R18, R23, R27, and R31 are designated as group campsites.

■ Quiet hours are from 10:00 pm to 7:00 am.

■ Pets are permitted, but must be supervised.

■ Fires are permitted but must be kept within the ﬁ re ring provided. Wood should be under 16 inches in length and less than 5 inches in diameter. Unattended ﬁ res are not permitted.

■ Firewood must be brought in to island campsites. Elsewhere, ﬁ rewood gathering is currently permitted.

■ R15, R18, and R31 are the group campsites on refuge land.

In cooperation with the State of New Hampshire, we intend to modify some of the regulations as follows:

■ Pets are allowed at the main camp base only, no pets are allowed on remote campsites.

■ No ﬁ rewood gathering will be permitted on refuge lands. Campers must bring in all ﬁ rewood.

We list additional refuge-speciﬁ c regulations below under the section “Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility”.

(e) Why is this use being proposed? Camping on the Refuge is a long-standing, popular use that pre-dates the creation of the refuge. Camping increases opportunities for the public to participate in priority public uses in a remote setting. Because many species of wildlife are most active at dawn and dusk, camping particularly facilitates wildlife observation, photography, hunting, and ﬁ shing. Visitors camping at remote sites enjoy the unique experience of hearing loon calls throughout the night during the breeding season.

Availability Of Resources: Although camping is an ongoing use, we anticipate no expansion. Additional costs to administer the program should be minimal, because the State of New Hampshire now manages all campsite reservations and most campground maintenance. The resources for hiring a refuge ofﬁ cer to administer this use are available within current budget levels. FY2005 funds paid for a new car-top boat launch now under construction on the Magalloway River to help provide access to campsites. Staff time associated with administration of this use primarily relates to coordinating management of the program with the State of New Hampshire, assisting with some campsite restoration activities (usually accomplished through our annual Youth Conservation Corps program), providing law enforcement and outreach, and posting area closures near campsites to protect nesting wildlife

C-94 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Camping

Costs associated with administering the program include:

Administration and coordination with State of New Hampshire: $1,000

Maintenance and campsite restoration (includes closure (includes $4000 one time expenditure of illegal campsites, posting signs, vegetation restoration, for signs; ongoing maintenance closure of nesting areas, boat operation): $5,000 costs for signs: $500–$1000/yr)

Law Enforcement and Outreach: $3,000

Campsite Monitoring: $1,000

Total Cost of Program: $10,000 year one $6,000 subsequent years

Anticipated Impacts Of The Use: Of the 12 campsites that we intend to keep open, fi ve are located in lakeshore pine-hemlock habitat, fi ve are in mixed conifer-hardwoods, and two are in balsam fi r-fl oodplain forest. Four sites are on islands; the rest are on the mainland. All sites are accessible only by boat.

Illegal camping at non-designated sites also occurs regularly along the Magalloway River, Harper’s Meadow, in the Leonard Pond area, and elsewhere.

Sites 28 and 29 are both located on islands in Leonard Pond. Site 29 is approximately 400 meters from a traditional bald eagle nest tree and site 28 is approximately 500 meters from the nest tree. Two loon territories are also near these campsites, and nests are sometimes within 400 meters of one or both of the sites. Refuge sites 3, 14, and 15 are also within loon territories, and nest sites have been found within 250 meters of campsites. The State designates R15 as a group site.

The Refuge currently cordons off an area around the Leonard Pond eagle’s nest with ropes and signs to prevent visitors from approaching within 200 meters from May to September. Although the pair of eagles that nested at the site for many years was habituated to human disturbance, a new pair that replaced it appears to be more sensitive. We will continue to monitor the impacts of human activity on the new eagle pair will continue to be monitored. If necessary, we may adjust the size of the eagle closure area and/or seasonally close or move campsites 29 and 28.

In cooperation with the State of New Hampshire, we also close areas seasonally around vulnerable loon nests on the lake to the public, as the refuge manager deems appropriate. Those closures help ensure that visitors remain far enough away from nests to avoid disturbance. Occasionally, visitors do ignore closure signs, either inadvertently or deliberately, resulting in disturbance to nesting birds. Adding a refuge ofﬁ cer will provide greater opportunity for enforcement and public outreach on this issue.

The refuge also coordinates with the State of New Hampshire in closing campsites seasonally near loon nests with a history of disturbance, both on and off refuge-owned lands. Refuge campsites we have closed in the past include: 14 and 15 (Sunday Cove). State campsites include: 4 (Big Island), 8 (Tidswell Pt.), 30 (Black Island Cove), and 38 (Sargent Cove Point). Seasonal closures generally last

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-95 Compatibility Determination – Camping

until the eggs hatch or the nest fails, generally from mid-May- early July. We describe below the potential impacts of camping, as reported in the literature. Impacts may be locally quite severe, but are usually restricted to a relatively small area: i.e. the campsite itself (Marion and Cole, 1996). Signifi cant impacts on vegetation and soil generally occur quickly, even with light use (Cole, 1981). Much of the impact occurs when the campsite is fi rst opened and during the fi rst year of use. Recovery of closed campsites is generally a much slower process. Even on fertile soils, full recovery may take over 6 years in some areas (Cole and Marion, 1988; Marion and Cole, 1996). For that reason, Cole (1981) recommends against dispersed camping and rotational closure of campgrounds.

Soil: Camping results in soil compaction and reduction in soil moisture content. It may reduce or remove the organic litter and soil layer, and run-off and soil erosion may increase. Those changes affect soil invertebrates and microbial processes, as well as inhibit plant growth. Fine-textured soils are particularly susceptible to compaction. Campsites with vegetated shorelines that are accessed by boat may also undergo shoreline erosion from the effects of repeated boat landings compacting soil and removing vegetation. Visitor use of the shoreline for swimming, dish washing, and collecting water may also trample vegetation, compact soil, and accelerate erosion. That erosion may expose tree roots, resulting in increased tree mortality due to wind throw. Existing picnic tables and ﬁ re rings tend to concentrate the use of campsites and limit campsite expansion. The refuge will work with the State to evaluate the condition of the campsites. If necessary, we will harden campsites and the shoreline, provide signage, and educate visitors about low-impact camping techniques.

Vegetation: The impacts of camping on vegetation are usually locally severe even, with low to moderate use; they include loss of ground vegetation cover, reduced vegetation height and vigor, loss of rare or fragile species, and changes in plant community composition (Leung and Marion, 2000). Vegetation may be removed or trampled. Shrubs and trees are commonly lost from the site or damaged. Axes or ﬁ re may scar tree trunk, branches may be broken, bark removed or damaged, or nails placed in trees. Tree regeneration (seedlings and saplings) is generally lost, thus facilitating conversion to a non-forested site. Marion and Cole (1996) found on campsites they studied in Delaware that an average of 19 percent of trees had been felled and 77% of the standing trees had been damaged (primarily branches cut for ﬁ rewood or trunks scarred by axes and nails). Trampling resistant vegetation (often grasses or exotics) tend to replace existing understory vegetation (forbs) (Marion and Cole, 1996).

The indirect effects of vegetation disturbance include microclimate changes and increased erosion. The extent of camping impacts on vegetation is generally related to the frequency sites are used, their durability, and group size (Cole, 1995). Larger groups are usually responsible for enlarging campsites more than small groups (Cole, 1992; Marion, 2003). Campsite enlargement is particularly a problem when campsites are located on ﬂ at, open sites. Campers may also enlarge the affected area by developing multiple, uncontrolled “social trails” between tents, to water sources, to view points or favored ﬁ shing locations. Some visitors have a much greater impact on vegetation than others, because they are more likely to cut down vegetation, dig trenches around tents, and otherwise modify the sites.

Cole (1981) suggests that lakeshore areas are not necessarily more fragile than areas at some distance from the shore. Although vegetation on moist and steep lakeshore soils may be more vulnerable to

C-96 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Camping

damage, some lakeshore areas may actually be rocky or gravelly and ﬂ at, and thus fairly resistant to disturbance. Many of the campsites on Umbagog Lake have rocky shorelines and fall into this category. Over-used, poorly maintained campsites can have an esthetic impact that may impair visitor experience.

Camping is permitted only at designated campsites, so the disturbance of vegetation is limited to a relatively small area of the refuge. We are also planning to close permanently two car-camping sites along the Magalloway and Androscoggin Rivers, thus reducing the total number of campsites available. Drive-in sites are probably particularly vulnerable to campsite expansion. The State of New Hampshire regularly maintains remote campsites, and provides them with a picnic table and ﬁ re ring that tends to concentrate use and inhibit expansion. In cooperation with the state, we will evaluate all campsites and, if necessary, take additional measures to reduce social trails, identify designated tent sites, and provide outreach on low impact camping. Because wood gathering often damages vegetation, visitors will be required to provide their own wood at all refuge campsites. Digging or trenching will not be permitted at refuge campsites.

Campfi res: The impacts of camping generally are much greater where campfi res are permitted. Campfi res can have severe effects on soils in a localized area. Campfi res destroy organic matter in soil, and can change soil chemistry to a point that effectively “sterilizes” the site. Those effects can persist over a long period and make regrowth of vegetation diffi cult. In some cases, recovery may take over 10 years (Hammitt and Cole, 1998). Fire may directly damage trees and shrubs. Although forest fi res in this area are unlikely, they are also a possibility. In addition, wood-gathering may result in tree damage from broken or cut limbs, axe scars, or felling. The collection of downed wood may increase the trampling of surrounding vegetation and reduce the amount of downed wood. This may affect communities of small mammal and terrestrial amphibian. Campers may develop multiple fi re sites, which tend to contribute to campsite expansion. Fire pits often become receptacles for trash. Build-up of trash and charcoal may negatively affect the experience of subsequent campers. Illegal campsites and fi res exacerbate those impacts.

All campsites are provided with a fi re ring that helps to limit campfi re impacts to a small area. Firewood has been depleted at all refuge campsites. The collection of fi rewood at refuge island sites is already banned. Because of the depletion of fi rewood, visitors will be required to bring their own wood supply, to further reduce damage to existing vegetation. That requirement applies to all refuge campsites. In cooperation with the State of New Hampshire, the refuge will provide increased outreach on low-impact camping and how to minimize campfi re impacts and litter.

Water Quality: Improperly disposed human waste and pet waste at campsites may compromise water quality by introducing pathogens, and affect campsite esthetics. Human waste, food disposal, and dishwashing may increase aquatic nutrient loads. That may result in limited, localized increases in algal growth, facilitating oxygen depletion, and altering the composition of aquatic vegetation and invertebrate communities. Run-off from eroded campsites can increase turbidity and sedimentation, which may affect ﬁ sh and invertebrates (Marion, 2003; Leung and Marion, 2000). Improperly cleaned motor boats may introduce invasive aquatic plant species from other water bodies. Soap from improper dishwashing, trash, and ﬁ sh-cleaning waste, may all pollute water and have an esthetic impact. Pit toilets located near water on shallow, permeable soils can sometimes introduce coliform bacteria into the water (Hammitt and Cole, 1998). However, camping generally does not affect water quality to the

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-97 Compatibility Determination – Camping

extent of creating a public health concern, even in areas that receive heavy use (Cole, 1981). The New Hampshire Division of Parks and Recreation will be responsible for maintaining campsites and campsite toilets. The refuge will cooperate with the state in providing educational outreach on invasive plants and proper waste disposal.

Wildlife: Camping can alter or destroy wildlife habitat, or displace wildlife from preferred habitat or resources (food, water, nest sites). Camping may also modify or disrupt wildlife behavior. Larger groups are generally more likely to disturb wildlife (Marion, 2003). Nesting birds such as eagles or loons may leave the nest in response to disturbance, exposing eggs to cooling or predators.

Human visitors or their pets may “harass” wildlife. Even leashed pets may disturb wildlife. Pets may also transmit diseases to wildlife (Hammitt and Cole, 1998). The disturbance of camping may also affect wildlife health, ﬁ tness, reproduction, and mortality rates (Leung and Marion, 2000).

Indirect effects may include a change in vertebrate species composition near the campsite. Changes in vertebrate communities at campgrounds (as compared to control sites) have been reported for birds (Blakesley and Reese, 1988; Garton et al. 1977; Foin et al. 1977; Knight and Gutzwiller, 1995) and small mammals (Clevenger and Workman , 1977). In the case of songbirds, changes in species composition were due primarily to a reduction in ground cover vegetation (for nesting, feeding) at campsites and different levels of sensitivity to human disturbance. Rarer species are generally absent from campgrounds.

The presence of humans attracts some species, while others avoid it. The availability of food generally differs between campgrounds and undisturbed areas. Natural foods may decrease in availability while foods supplied by humans may increase. Human may intentionally supply foods to wildlife, or unintentionally, because of littering, accidental spillage, or improper food storage (Garton et al. 1977). Human foods may be unhealthy for wildlife or promote scavenging behavior, which may increase vulnerability of animals to predation. Rodent populations often increase at campsites, in response to increased availability of human food, and may negatively affect nesting songbirds. Populations may crash when campsites are closed for the season (Marion, 2003). Bears and other scavengers may be attracted to improperly stored food and may damage property or threaten visitor safety. In at least one instance, a bear looking for food damaged a kayak at an Umbagog campsite.

We intend to continue to evaluate campsites annually and, in cooperation with the State of New Hampshire, seasonally close some campsites and nesting areas, if warranted. At the discretion of the refuge manager, we may close or relocate campsites permanently, should wildlife disturbance become a major concern.. We expect seasonal closures to minimize any camping disturbance of nesting birds. No pets will be permitted at Refuge campsites. The refuge will work with the State of New Hampshire on managing campsites and providing outreach to the public on how to avoid disturbing wildlife and the importance of not feeding wildlife and storing food properly.

Visitor Confl icts: Confl icts may arise between visitors as a result of noise and over-crowding. Confl icts may also develop between small and large groups and different user groups (fi shermen, hunters, wildlife photographers, etc.). Litter, noise, large group sizes, and crowding may impair the

C-98 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Camping refuge experience for some visitors. Campsites are currently well spaced and group size is limited, so that confl icts do not appear to be signifi cant at this time. Public outreach may help reduce potential confl icts by reducing littering and promoting considerate camping. The refuge will work with the State of New Hampshire to adjust camping policies, should this issue become signifi cant.

Summary of Impacts: Camping on Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge poses only a minimal threat to Goals 1, 2, and 3 (“Manage open water and wetlands,” “Manage ﬂ oodplain and lakeshore habitats,” and “Manage upland forested habitats”) as written in the CCP since the overall area impacted by the campsites is conﬁ ned to a fairly small area, seasonal closures limit disturbance to nesting wildlife, and the sites have been used for many years.

Camping benefi ts Goal 4 “Provide high quality wildlife dependent activities” of the CCP by providing enhanced opportunities for hunting, fi shing, wildlife observation and photography. Opportunities also exist to interpret the refuge at camp sites and through the reservation system benefi tting Goal 5 of the CCP. Goal 6 of the CCP “Enhance the conservation…through partnerships…” will also benefi t from this activity by continuing our partnership with the State of New Hampshire Department of Parks. No other refuge goals and objectives, as written in the CCP, will be affected by this use.

Public Review and Comment: As part of the comprehensive conservation planning process for the Lake Umbagog refuge, this compatibility determination underwent extensive public review, including a comment period of 77 days following the release of the Draft CCP/EIS. It will also undergo and additional 30 days of public review during the public review period of the FEIS.

Determination (check one below):

__ _ Use is Not Compatible

_X_ Use is Compatible with the following stipulations

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY:

■ Camping will be at state-designated campsites only.

■ The refuge will be open to camping during the period set annually by the State of New Hampshire, but no earlier than May 20th or later than October 15th

■ Pets are not permitted on refuge campsites.

■ Hunting dogs will be allowed on refuge campsites during the refuge hunting seasons only. All hunting dogs will be under the immediate and direct control of the hunter at all times while camping.

■ No wood gathering or vegetation removal is permitted on the refuge.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-99 Compatibility Determination – Camping

■ Campfi res must be confi ned to the designated fi re pit.

■ No digging or trenching will be permitted.

■ Feeding of wildlife is not permitted.

■ All trash must be carried out.

■ In cooperation with the state, we will implement best management practices for preventing campsite expansion.

■ We will place signs at all Refuge campsites explaining refuge regulations and minimal impact camping techniques. The refuge will work with the state to provide additional outreach on “leave no trace” camping.

■ We will monitor the impacts of camping, the condition of the shoreline and campsites, and the potential for wildlife disturbance yearly, and work with the state to minimize impacts or restore sites. We will prioritize for initial monitoring the sites with the highest potential for wildlife disturbance. Based on the outcome of those surveys, we may adjust our management of those sites.

■ We will develop a cooperative camping management plan in conjunction with the state.

Justiﬁ cation: Camping on the refuge is a popular use that pre-dates the creation of the refuge. Camping provides an increased opportunity for the public to participate in priority public uses in a remote setting. Because many species of wildlife are most active at dawn and dusk, and concentrate in areas accessible only by boat, camping facilitates wildlife observation, hunting, photography and ﬁ shing, in a safe manner. Providing the public with an opportunity to experience the refuge wildlife and natural resources through camping, along with a public educational outreach program, will help motivate visitors to understand and develop a commitment to protecting healthy ecosystems. Experiencing the refuge through camping and education are tools that can help build a land ethic, develop political support, and lessen vandalism, littering and poaching. We expect the impacts of camping on vegetation and wildlife to be minor and localized. With the stipulations noted above, camping will be compatible with refuge purposes.

Based on the limited detrimental impacts of this use, the stipulations above, and a long history of use, and current levels of use, camping on Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes for which the refuge was established as evidenced by the impact analysis that shows this use will not compromise our ability to achieve the goals and objectives set forth under the Lake Umbagog NWR CCP.

C-100 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Camping

Signature: Refuge Manager: ______(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief: ______(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- year Re-evaluation Date: ______

Literature Cited

Blakesley, J.A. and K.P. Reese. 1988. Avian use of campground and noncampground sites in riparian zones. J. Wildl. Manage. 52(3):399-402

Clevenger, GA. and G. W. Workman. 1977. The effects of campgrounds on small mammals in Canyonlands and Arches National Parks, Utah. Trans. 42nd North Amer. Wildl. Conf.: 473-484.

Cole, D.N. 1981. Managing ecological impacts at wilderness campsites: an evaluation of techniques. J. of Forestry. 79(2):86-89.

Cole, D. N. 1992. Modeling wilderness campsites: factors that inﬂ uence amount of impact. Environ. Manag. 16(2):255-264.

Cole, D. N. 1995. Disturbance of natural vegetation by camping: experimental applications of low- level stress. Environ. Manag. 19(3):405-416

Cole, D. N. and J.L. Marion. 1988. Recreation impacts in some riparian forests of the eastern United States. Environ. Manag. 12(1): 99-107.

Foin, T.C., E. O. Garton, C.W. Bowen, J.M. Everingham, R.O. Schultz and B. Holton. 1977. Quantitative studies of visitor impacts on environments of Yosemite National park, California, and their implications for park management policy. J. of Environ. Manage. 5:1-22. Garton, E. O., B. Hall and T.C. Foin. 1977. The impact of a campground on the bird community of a lodgepole pine forest In: T.C. Foin, Ed. Visitor impacts on national parks: the Yosemite ecological impact study. Inst. Ecol. Publ. 10. Univ. of Calif., Davis

Hammitt, W. E. and D N. Cole. 1998. Wildland recreation: ecology and management. 2nd Ed. John Wiley & Sons, NY.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-101 Compatibility Determination – Camping

Knight, R.L. and K. J. Gutzwiller, Eds. 1995. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Wash., D.C. Leung, Y. and J.L. Marion. 2000. Recreation impacts and management in wilderness: a state-of- knowledge review In: Cole, D., McCool, S.F., Borrie, W.T., O’Loughlin, J. Comps. Wilderness science in a time of change conference. Vol. 5: Wilderness ecosystems, threats, and management: 1999 May 23-27, Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-15-Vol. 5: 23-48

Marion, J.L. 2003. Camping impact management on the Appalachian National Scenic Trail. Appalachian Trail Conference, Harpers Ferry, WV.

Marion, J.L. and D.N. Cole. 1996. Spatial and temporal variation in soil and vegetation impacts on campsites. Ecol. Applic. 6(2): 520-530

C-102 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Camping

APPENDIX 1.

Remote Campsites in the Umbagog Lake Area Managed by the State of New Hampshire.

Site Number Ownership Management Comments R1 SPNHF Umbagog State Park R 2 SPNHF Umbagog State Park R 3 USFWS Umbagog State Park R 4 SPNHF Umbagog State Park R 5 SPNHF Umbagog State Park R 6 NH Umbagog State Park R 7 NH Umbagog State Park R 8 NH Umbagog State Park R 9 SPNHF Umbagog State Park R 10 SPNHF Umbagog State Park R 11 NH Umbagog State Park R 12 NH Umbagog State Park R 13 USFWS Umbagog State Park R 14 USFWS Umbagog State Park R 15 USFWS Umbagog State Park R 16 USFWS Umbagog State Park R 18 USFWS Umbagog State Park R 21 USFWS Umbagog State Park R 22 USFWS Umbagog State Park R 23 USFWS Umbagog State Park R 24 NH Umbagog State Park R 25 NH Umbagog State Park R 26 NH Umbagog State Park R 27 NH Umbagog State Park R 28 USFWS Umbagog State Park R 29 USFWS Umbagog State Park R 30 NH Umbagog State Park R 31 NH Umbagog State Park

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-103 Compatibility Determination – Camping

Site Number Ownership Management Comments R 33 NH Umbagog State Park R 34 NH Umbagog State Park R 35 NH, USFWS Umbagog State Park R 36 NH Umbagog State Park R 37 NH Umbagog State Park R 38 NH Umbagog State Park North 1 USFWS Mollidgewock State Park Closure planned North 2 USFWS Mollidgewock State Park Closure planned North 3 Private Mollidgewock State Park

C-104 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Finding of Appropriateness – Research conducted by non-refuge personnel

603 FW 1 Exhibit 1 Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Research conducted by non-refuge personnel

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State ﬁ sh and wildlife agencies. Yes X No ___

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is:

Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate X

Refuge Manager: ______Date:______

Refuge Supervisor:______Date:______

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-105 Compatibility Determination – Research conducted by non-refuge personnel

603 FW 1 Exhibit 1 page 2 of 2

Justiﬁ cation for a Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Research by conducted by non-refuge personnel

Narrative

The Service encourages and supports research and management studies on refuge lands that will improve and strengthen decisions on managing natural resources. The refuge manager encourages and seeks research that clearly relates to approved refuge objectives, improves habitat management, and promotes adaptive management. Priority research addresses information on better managing the Nation’s biological resources that generally are important to agencies of the Department of Interior, the National Wildlife Refuge System, and State Fish and Game Agencies, that address important management issues, or demonstrate techniques for managing species or habitats.

Researchers will submit a ﬁ nal report to the refuge on completing their work. For long-term studies, we may also require interim progress reports. We expect researchers to publish in peer-reviewed publications. All reports, presentations, posters, articles or other publications will acknowledge the Refuge System and the Lake Umbagog refuge as partners in the research. All posters will adhere to Service graphics standards. We will insert this requirement to ensure that the research community, partners, and the public understand that the research could not have been conducted without the refuge having been established, its operational support, and that of the Refuge System.

C-106 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Research conducted by non-refuge personnel

USE: Research conducted by non-refuge personnel

REFUGE NAME: Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

DATE ESTABLISHED: November 12, 1992

ESTABLISHING AUTHORITY:

1. Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S. C. 3901 (b) 2. Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715d) 3. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. ¤ 742f(a)(4)) 4. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. ¤ 742f(b)(1))

PURPOSE(S) FOR WHICH ESTABLISHED:

2. for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds. 16 U.S.C. ¤ 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

3. for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of ﬁ sh and wildlife resources 16 U.S.C. ¤ 742f(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

DESCRIPTION OF USE:

(a) What is the use? Is the use a priority public use? The use is research conducted by non-Service personnel. Research conducted by non-Service personnel is not a priority public use of the National Wildlife Refuge System under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57).

(b) Where would the use be conducted? The location of the research will vary depending on the individual research project that is being conducted. The entire refuge is open and available for scientiﬁ c research. An individual research project is usually limited to a particular habitat type, plant or wildlife species. On occasion research

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-107 Compatibility Determination – Research conducted by non-refuge personnel

projects will encompass an assemblage of habitat types, plants or wildlife. The research location will be limited to those areas of the refuge that are absolutely necessary to conduct of the research project.

(c) When would the use be conducted? The timing of the research will depend entirely on the individual research project that is being conducted. Scientiﬁ c research will be allowed to occur on the refuge throughout the year. An individual research project could be short term in design, requiring one or two visits over the course of a few days. Other research projects could be multiple year studies that require daily visits to the study site. The timing of each individual research project will be limited to the minimum required to complete the project. If a research project occurs during the refuge hunting season, special precautions will be required and enforced to ensure public health and safety.

(d) How would the use be conducted? The mechanics of the research will depend entirely on the individual research project that is conducted. The objectives, methods, and approach of each research project will be carefully scrutinized before it will be allowed to occur on the refuge. No research project will be allowed to occur if it does not have an approved study plan and protocol or if it compromises public health and safety.

(e) Why is this use being proposed? Research by non-Service personnel is conducted by colleges, universities, Federal, State, and local agencies, non-governmental organizations, and qualiﬁ ed members of the general public to further the understanding of the natural environment and to improve the management of the refuge’s natural resources. Much of the information generated by the research is applicable to management on and near the refuge. Past projects on the refuge have studied loons, contaminants, peatland systems, birds, forest structure, and ﬁ sh. A multi-year study was begun on the refuge in 2005, in cooperation with the Audubon Society of New Hampshire, to look at 1) levels of public use on Umbagog Lake and it’s affects on wildlife 2) a systems analysis of the lake system and its associated wetlands and 3) a contaminants study.

The Service encourages and supports research and management studies on refuge lands that will improve and strengthen natural resource management decisions. The refuge manager encourages and seeks research relative to approved refuge objectives that clearly improves habitat management and promotes adaptive management. Priority research addresses information that will better manage the Nation’s biological resources and are generally considered important to: Agencies of the Department of Interior; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the National Wildlife Refuge System; and State Fish and Game Agencies, and that address important management issues or demonstrate techniques for management of species and/or habitats.

The refuge also considers research for other purposes which may not be directly related to refuge- specifi c objectives, but contribute to the broader enhancement, protection, use, preservation and management of native populations of fi sh, wildlife and plants, and their natural diversity within the region or fl yway. These proposals must comply with the Service’s compatibility policy.

C-108 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Research conducted by non-refuge personnel

Refuge support of research directly related to refuge objectives may take the form of funding, in- kind services such as housing or use of other facilities, vehicles, boats, or equipment, direct staff assistance with the project in the form of data collection, provision of historical records, conducting of management treatments, or other assistance as appropriate.

Availability of Resources: The bulk of the cost for research is incurred in staff time to review research proposals, coordinate with researchers and write Special Use Permits. In some cases, a research project may only require one day of staff time to write a Special Use Permit. In other cases, a research project may take many weeks, as the refuge staff must coordinate with students and advisors and accompany researchers on site visits.

Annual costs associated with the administration of outside research on the refuge are estimated below:

Refuge biologist (GS12) (review proposals, coordinate with researchers): $6,800 4 weeks/yr

Deputy Refuge Manager (GS12) (review proposals, special use permits, housing and vehicle coordination: $3,500 2 weeks/yr

Refuge Manager (GS13) (coordination; budgeting): $2,100 1 weeks/yr

Administrative Assistant (GS6) (ofﬁ ce administration): $2,700 3 weeks/yr

Maintenance Worker (WG5) (vehicle, boat, housing maintenance): $950 1 weeks/yr

Total: $16,050

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: The Service encourages approved research to further the understanding of the natural resources. Research by other than Service personnel adds greatly to the information base for Refuge Managers to make proper decisions. Disturbance to wildlife and vegetation by researchers could occur through observation, banding, collecting blood, and accessing the study area by foot, boat, or vehicle. These impacts could be exacerbated by multiple concurrent research projects. It is possible that direct mortality could result as a by-product of research activities. Overall, however, allowing research to be conducted by non-Service personnel should have little impact on Service interests. If the research project is conducted with professionalism and integrity, the knowledge gained far outweighs potential adverse impacts.

Research conducted by non- Service personnel on Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge poses only a minimal threat to Goals 1, 2, and 3 (“Manage open water and wetlands,” “Manage ﬂ oodplain and lakeshore habitats,” and “Manage upland forested habitats”) as written in the CCP. These threats are mitigated by the stipulations required under this compatibility determination.

This will potentially beneﬁ t Goal 5 of the CCP “Develop high quality interpretative opportunities…” when research presents the opportunity and information to interpret the refuge. Goal 7 of the CCP

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-109 Compatibility Determination – Research conducted by non-refuge personnel

“Develop Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge as an outstanding center for research…” will beneﬁ t greatly from this activity as it is an essential activity for this goal. No other refuge goals and objectives, as written in the CCP, will be affected by this use.

Public Review and Comment: As part of the CCP process for Lake Umbagog NWR this compatibility determination underwent extensive public review, including a comment period of 77 days following the release of the Draft CCP/EIS. It will also undergo and additional 30 days of public review during the public review period of the FEIS.

Determination (check one below):

Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: All researchers will be required to submit a detailed research proposal following Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge’s study proposal guidelines (Appendix 1) and Service Policy (FWS Refuge Manual Chapter 4 Section 6). The refuge must be given at least 45 days to review proposals before initiation of research. If collection of wildlife is involved, the refuge must be given 60 days to review the proposal. All necessary scientiﬁ c collecting or other permits must be obtained prior to the commencement of the research. Proposals will be prioritized and approved based on need, beneﬁ t, compatibility, and funding required.

Researchers will be expected to submit a ﬁ nal report to the Refuge, on completion of their work. For long-term studies, interim progress reports may also be required. The Refuge also expects that research will be published in peer-reviewed publications. The contribution of the Refuge and the Service should be acknowledged in any publications.

Special Use Permits (SUP) will be required for all research conducted by non-Service personnel. The SUP will list all conditions that are necessary to ensure compatibility. The Special Use Permits will also identify a schedule for annual progress reports and the submittal of a ﬁ nal report or scientiﬁ c paper.

The Regional refuge biologists, other Service Divisions, State agencies, academic experts, may be asked to review and comment on proposals.

All researchers will be required to obtain appropriate State and Federal permits.

Researchers will be required to take steps to insure that invasive species and pathogens (particularly aquatic invasives and pathogens) are not inadvertently introduced or transferred to the Umbagog system.

C-110 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Research conducted by non-refuge personnel

Justiﬁ cation: The Service encourages approved research to further understanding of refuge natural resources and management. Research by non- Service personnel adds greatly to the information base for Refuge Managers to make proper decisions. Research conducted by non- Service personnel on Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes for which the refuge was established as evidenced by the impact analysis that shows this use will not compromise our ability to achieve the goals and objectives set forth under the Lake Umbagog NWR CCP.

Signature: Refuge Manager: ______(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief: ______(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: ______

Literature Cited:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Refuge Manual. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Ofﬁ ce.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-111 Compatibility Determination – Research conducted by non-refuge personnel

APPENDIX 1. Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge Study Proposal Guidelines

A study proposal is a justiﬁ cation and description of the work to be done, and includes cost and time requirements. Proposals must be speciﬁ c enough to serve as “blueprints” for the investigative efforts. Step-by-step plans for the actual investigations must be spelled out in advance, with the level of detail being commensurate with the cost and scope of the project and the needs of management. Please submit proposals electronically as an MS Word document or hardcopy to the refuge manager.

The following list provides a general outline of ﬁ rst order headings/sections for study proposals.

■ Cover Page ■ Table of Contents (for longer proposals) ■ Abstract ■ Statement of Issue ■ Literature Summary ■ Objectives/Hypotheses ■ Study Area ■ Methods and Procedures ■ Quality Assurance/Quality Control ■ Specimen Collections ■ Deliverables ■ Special Requirements, Concerns, Necessary Permits ■ Literature Cited ■ Peer Review ■ Budget ■ Personnel and Qualiﬁ cations

Cover Page The cover page must contain the following information:

■ Title of Proposal ■ Current Date ■ Investigator’s(s’)—name, title, organizational afﬁ liation, address, telephone and fax numbers and e-mail address of all investigators or cooperators. ■ Proposed Starting Date ■ Estimated Completion Date ■ Total Funding Support Requested from the US Fish and Wildlife Service ■ Signatures of Principal Investigator(s) and other appropriate institutional ofﬁ cials

Abstract The abstract should contain a short summary description of the proposed study, including reference to major points in the Statement of Issue, Objectives, and Methods and Procedures sections.

Statement of Issue Provide a clear precise summary of the problem to be addressed and the need for its solution. This section should include statements of the importance, justification, relevance, timeliness, generality,

C-112 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Research conducted by non-refuge personnel and contribution of the study. Describe how any products will be used, including any anticipated commercial use. What is the estimated probability of success of accomplishing the objective(s) within the proposed timeframe?

Literature Summary This section should include a thorough but concise literature review of current and past research that pertains to the proposed research, especially any pertinent research conducted at the Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge. A discussion of relevant legislation, policies, and refuge planning and management history, goals, and objectives should also be included.

Objectives/Hypotheses A very specific indication of the proposed outcomes of the project should be stated as objectives or hypotheses to be tested. Project objectives should be measurable. Provide a brief summary of what information will be provided at the end of the study and how it will be used in relation to the problem. These statements should flow logically from the statement of issue and directly address the management problem.

Establish data quality objectives in terms of precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness, and comparability as a means of describing how good the data need to be to meet the project’s objectives.

Study Area Provide a detailed description of the geographic area(s) to be studied and include a clear map delineating the proposed study area(s) and showing specific locations where work will occur.

Methods and Procedures This section should describe as precisely as possible how the objectives will be met or how the hypotheses will be tested. Include detailed descriptions and justifications of the field and laboratory methodology, protocols, and instrumentation. Explain how each variable to be measured directly addresses the research objective/ hypothesis. Describe the experimental design, population, sample size, and sampling approach (including procedures for sub-sampling). Summarize the statistical and other data analysis procedures to be used. List the response variables and tentative independent variables or covariates. Describe the experimental unit(s) for statistical analysis. Also include a detailed project time schedule that includes start, fieldwork, analysis, reporting, and completion dates.

Quality Assurance/Quality Control Adequate quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures help insure that data and results are: credible and not an artifact of sampling or recording errors; of known quality; able to stand up to external scientific scrutiny; and accompanied by detailed method documentation. Describe the procedures to be used to insure that data meet defined standards of quality and program requirements, errors are controlled in the field, laboratory, and office, and data are properly handled, documented, and archived. Describe the various steps (e.g. personnel training, calibration of equipment, data verification and validation) that will be used to identify and eliminate errors introduced during data collection (including observer bias), handling, and computer entry. Identify the percentage of data that will be checked at each step.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-113 Compatibility Determination – Research conducted by non-refuge personnel

Specimen Collections Clearly describe the kind (species), numbers, sizes, and locations of animals, plants, rocks, minerals, or other natural objects to be sampled, captured, or collected. Identify the reasons for collecting, the intended use of all the specimens to be collected, and the proposed disposition of collected specimens. For those specimens to be permanently retained as voucher specimens, identify the parties responsible for cataloging, preservation, and storage and the proposed repository.

Deliverables The proposal must indicate the number and specific format of hard and/or electronic media copies to be submitted for each deliverable. The number and format will reflect the needs of the refuge and the Refuge manager. Indicate how many months after the project is initiated (or the actual anticipated date) that each deliverable will be submitted. Deliverables are to be submitted or presented to the refuge manager.

Deliverables that are required are as follows:

Reports and Publications Describe what reports will be prepared and the timing of reports. Types of reports required in fulfillment of natural and social science study contracts or agreements include:

(1) Progress report(s) (usually quarterly, semiannually, or annually): (may be required) (2) Draft final and final report(s): (always required).

A final report must be submitted in addition to a thesis or dissertation (if applicable) and all other identified deliverables. Final and draft final reports should follow refuge guidelines (Appendix I).

In addition, investigators are encouraged to publish the findings of their investigations in refereed professional, scientific publications and present findings at conferences and symposia. The Refuge manager appreciates opportunities to review manuscripts in advance of publication.

Data Files Provide descriptions of any spatial (GIS) and non-spatial data files that will be generated and submitted as part of the research. Non-spatial data must be entered onto Windows CD ROMs in Access or Excel. Spatial data, which includes GPS generated files, must be in a format compatible with the refuge’s GIS system (ArcGIS 8 or 9, Arcview 3.3, or e00 format) . All GIS data must be in UTM 19, NAD 83.

Metadata For all non-spatial and spatial data sets or information products, documentation of information (metadata) describing the extent of data coverage and scale, the history of where, when, and why the data were collected, who collected the data, the methods used to collect, process, or modify/ transform the data, and a complete data dictionary must also be provided as final deliverables. Spatial metadata must conform to US Fish & Wildlife Service (FGDC) metadata standards.

C-114 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Research conducted by non-refuge personnel

Oral Presentations Three types of oral briefings should be included: pre-study, annual, and closeout. These briefings will be presented to refuge staff and other appropriate individuals and cooperators. In addition, investigators should conduct periodic informal briefings with refuge staff throughout the study whenever an opportunity arises. During each refuge visit, researchers should provide verbal updates on project progress. Frequent dialogue between researchers and refuge staff is an essential element of a successful research project.

Specimens and Associated Project Documentation A report on collection activities, specimen disposition, and the data derived from collections, must be submitted to the refuge following refuge guidelines.

Other: Researchers must provide the Refuge manager with all of the following:

1. Copies of field notes/ notebooks/ datasheets 2. Copies of raw data (in digital format), including GIS data, as well as analyzed data 3. Copies of all photos, slides (digital photos preferred), videos, films 4. Copies of any reports, theses, dissertations, publications or other material (such as news articles) resulting from studies conducted on refuge. 5. Detailed protocols used in study 6. Aerial photographs 7. Maps 8. Interpretive brochures and exhibits 9. Training sessions (where appropriate) 10. Survey forms 11. Value-added software, software developed, models

Additional deliverables may be required of specific studies.

Special Requirements, Permits, and Concerns Provide information on the following topics where applicable. Attach copies of any supporting documentation that will facilitate processing of your application.

Refuge Assistance Describe any refuge assistance needed to complete the proposed study, such as use of equipment or facilities or assistance from refuge staff. It is important that all equipment, facilities, services, and logistical assistance expected to be provided by the Fish and Wildlife Service be specifically identified in this section so all parties are in clear agreement before the study begins.

Ground Disturbance Describe the type, location, area, depth, number, and distribution of expected ground- disturbing activities, such as soil pits, cores, or stakes. Describe plans for site restoration of significantly affected areas.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-115 Compatibility Determination – Research conducted by non-refuge personnel

Proposals that entail ground disturbance may require an archeological survey and special clearance prior to approval of the study. You can help reduce the extra time that may be required to process such a proposal by including identification of each ground disturbance area on a USGS 7.5-minute topographic map.

Site Marking and/or Animal Marking Identify the type, amount, color, size, and placement of any flagging, tags, or other markers needed for site or individual resource (e.g. trees) identification and location. Identify the length of time it is needed and who will be responsible for removing it. Identify the type, color, placement of any tags placed on animals (see special use permit for stipulations on marking and handling of animals)

Access to Study Sites Describe the proposed method and frequency of travel to and within the study site(s). Explain any need to enter restricted areas. Describe duration, location, and number of participants, and approximate dates of site visits.

Use of Mechanized and Other Equipment Describe any vehicles, boats, field equipment, markers, or supply caches by type, number, and location. You should explain the need to use these materials and if or how long they are to be left in the field.

Safety Describe any known potentially hazardous activities, such as electro-fishing, scuba diving, whitewater boating, aircraft use, wilderness travel, wildlife capture or handling, wildlife or immobilization.

Chemical Use Identify chemicals and hazardous materials that you propose using within the refuge. Indicate the purpose, method of application, and amount to be used. Describe plans for storage, transfer, and disposal of these materials and describe steps to remediate accidental releases into the environment. Attach copies of Material Safety Data Sheets.

Animal Welfare If the study involves vertebrate animals, describe your protocol for any capture, holding, marking, tagging, tissue sampling, or other handling of these animals (including the training and qualifications of personnel relevant to animal handling and care). If your institutional animal welfare committee has reviewed your proposal, please include a photocopy of their recommendations. Describe alternatives considered, and outline procedures to be used to alleviate pain or distress. Include contingency plans to be implemented in the event of accidental injury to or death of the animal. Include state and federal permits. Where appropriate, coordinate with and inform state natural resource agencies.

Literature Cited List all reports and publications cited in the proposal.

C-116 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Research conducted by non-refuge personnel

Peer Review Provide the names, titles, addresses, and telephone numbers of individuals with subject-area expertise who have reviewed the research proposal. If the reviewers are associated with the investigator’s research institution or if the proposal was not reviewed, please provide the names, titles, addresses, and telephone numbers of 3-5 potential subject-area reviewers who are not associated with the investigator’s institution. These individuals will be asked to provide reviews of the proposal, progress reports, and the draft final report.

Budget If Service funding or assistance (i.e. in-kind contributions) is involved in the research project, a budget must accompany the proposal detailing both funding and assistance that will be requested from the Fish and Wildlife Service and the cooperator’s contributions on an identified periodic (usually annual) basis.

Personnel Costs Identify salary charges for principal investigator(s), research assistant(s), technician(s), clerical support, and others. Indicate period of involvement (hours or months) and pay rate charged for services. Be sure to include adequate time for data analysis and report writing and editing.

Fringe Benefits Itemize fringe benefit rates and costs.

Travel Provide separate estimates for fieldwork and meetings. Indicate number of trips, destinations, estimated miles of travel, mileage rate, air fares, days on travel, and daily lodging and meals charges. Vehicle mileage rate cannot exceed standard government mileage rates. Charges for lodging and meals are not to exceed the maximum daily rates set for the locality by the Federal Government (contact Lake Umbagog NWR for appropriate rates).

Equipment Itemize all equipment to be purchased or rented and provide a brief justification for each item costing more than $1,000. Be sure to include any computer-related costs. For proposals funded under US Fish and Wildlife Service agreement or contract, the refuge reserves the right to transfer the title of purchased equipment with unit cost of $1,000 or more to the Federal Government following completion of the study. These items should be included as deliverables.

Supplies and Materials Purchases and rentals under $1,000 should be itemized as much as is reasonable.

Subcontract or Consultant Charges All such work must be supported by a subcontractor’s proposal also in accordance with these guidelines.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-117 Compatibility Determination – Research conducted by non-refuge personnel

Specimen Collections Identify funding requirements for the cataloging, preservation, storage, and analyses of any collected specimens that will be permanently retained.

Printing and Copying Include costs for preparing and printing the required number of copies of progress reports, the draft final report, and the final report. In general, a minimum of two (2) copies of progress reports (usually due quarterly, semiannually, or as specified in agreement), the draft final report, and the final report are required.

Indirect Charges Identify the indirect cost (overhead) rate and charges and the budget items to which the rate is applicable.

Cooperator’s Contributions Show any contributing share of direct or indirect costs, facilities, and equipment by the cooperating research institution.

Outside Funding List any outside funding sources and amounts.

Personnel and Qualifications List the personnel who will work on the project and indicate their qualifications, experience, and pertinent publications. Identify the responsibilities of each individual and the amount of time each will devote. A full vita or resume for each principal investigator and any consultants should be included here.

C-118 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Research conducted by non-refuge personnel

APPENDIX 1. INTERIM FINAL REPORT GUIDELINES

Draft final and final reports should follow Journal of Wildlife Management format or other refuge pre-approved format and typically includes the following sections:

■ Title Page ■ Abstract ■ Introduction/ Problem statement ■ Study Area ■ Methods (including statistical analyses) ■ Results ■ Discussion ■ Management Implications ■ Management Recommendations ■ Literature Cited

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-119 Finding of Appropriateness – Privately owned recreational cabins (camps)

603 FW 1 Exhibit 1 Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Privately owned recreational cabins (camps)

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State ﬁ sh and wildlife agencies. Yes X No ___

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is:

Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate X

Refuge Manager:______Date:______

Refuge Supervisor: ______Date:______

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-121 Finding of Appropriateness – Privately owned recreational cabins (camps)

603 FW 1 Exhibit 1 page 2 of 2

Justiﬁ cation for a Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Privately owned recreational cabins (camps)

Narrative

The environmental assessment (EA) establishing the refuge states that when the Service acquires land in fee with a pre-existing cabin lease, camp owners may either sell the building, or “continue to lease the land from the Service instead of the timber company on a yearly basis” (USFWS, 1991). Although we established the refuge in 1992, we acquired no tracts with cabin leases until 1995. By 1996, the refuge owned tracts containing 24 pre-existing cabin lease agreements.

This use existed before refuge ownership. Timber companies who transferred lands to the Service insisted that leases be carried forward as part of the purchase agreement. At the time the Service established the refuge, we felt that trade-off was worthwhile, because it would result ultimately in enhanced protection for the shoreline by precluding additional development. The original conservation proposal for Umbagog Lake involved a partnership between the Service and the State of New Hampshire, among others. Both the Service and the state acquired cabin leases as part of that proposal. Both agencies have developed a coordinated, consistent approach to the use and eventual phase-out of cabin leases. By managing this cabin lease program, the Service is following through on earlier commitments and ensuring that our approach is consistent with that of the State of New Hampshire.

C-122 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Occupancy and use of privately owned recreational cabins (camps)

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

USE: Occupancy and use of privately owned recreational cabins (camps)

REFUGE NAME: Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

DATE ESTABLISHED: November 12, 1992

ESTABLISHING AUTHORITIES

1. Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 [16 U.S.C. 3901(b)] 2. Migratory Bird Conservation Act [16 U.S.C. 715d] 3. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 [16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)] 4. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 [16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1)]

PURPOSES FOR WHICH ESTABLISHED

2 “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” [16 U.S.C. 715d; Migratory Bird Conservation Act]

3. “for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of ﬁ sh and wildlife resources….” [16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4); Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956]

4. “for the beneﬁ t of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or afﬁ rmative covenant, or condition of servitude….” [16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1); Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956]

DESCRIPTION OF USE

(a) What is the use? Is it a priority public use? The use is the occupancy and use of privately owned recreational cabins (camps). It is not a priority public use of the National Wildlife Refuge System, under the National Wildlife Refuge System

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-123 Compatibility Determination – Occupancy and use of privately owned recreational cabins (camps)

Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.

Some recreational cabins, or camps, existed on the shores of the Magalloway River and Umbagog Lake as early as the late 1800s. William Brewster, a well-known regional ornithologist, built a summer cabin on Pine Point in 1893 (Heywood, 1973). Private timber companies originally owned most of the land around the lake and rivers, and built early cabins to provide lodging for company employees. By the 1960s, an increasing number of private individuals owned and maintained seasonal cabins for ﬁ shing and other recreation. Most timber companies developed recreational leases that, for an annual fee, allowed private individuals to build and use cabins on company land. The leases required annual renewal or, in some cases, every 2 to 5 years. Families often passed down the ownership and use of those cabins from generation to generation. As industrial timberlands changed hands among companies, so did the lease agreements; the new company often took over the management of any pre-existing leases.

The environmental assessment (EA) establishing the refuge states “In general, camps will remain; however, no new camps will be constructed. The Service will remain an interested buyer of camps within the proposal area” (USFWS, 1991). In addition, the EA state that when the Service acquires land in fee with a pre-existing cabin lease, camp owners may either sell the building, or “continue to lease the land from the Service instead of the timber company on a yearly basis” (USFWS, 1991). Although we established the refuge in 1992, we acquired no tracts with cabin leases until 1995. By 1996, the refuge owned tracts containing 24 pre-existing cabin lease agreements.

The majority of the cabin leases were on lands we purchased from James River Corp (currently, 17). We acquired additional lands with lease agreements in place from Boise Cascade Co. (currently, 6), Mead-Oxford Paper Co. (currently, 5), and Yankee Forest LLC (currently, 1). The timber companies that initially transferred lands with pre-existing leases to the Service insisted that their leaseholders be treated fairly, and that leases not be quickly terminated. When the State of New Hampshire purchased land along the western shore of Umbagog Lake and on Tidswell Point, it also acquired a number of pre-existing cabin leases. The state established conditions that included a maximum lease period of 50 years for leased land.

Most current lessees reside in surrounding communities (e.g., Errol, Berlin, Milan, and Gorham) or elsewhere in New Hampshire, but about a third maintain permanent residences outside New Hampshire. At least 10 camps on refuge property have changed ownership one or more times since 1995. The majority of the camps are of one-story, wood or log construction, and typically are small (<600 square feet).

(b) Where would the use be conducted? The majority of the camps is located along the Magalloway River, north of the refuge ofﬁ ce, and around Umbagog Lake, with most concentrated around Thurston Cove and along the northeast shoreline of the lake. Most cabins are accessible by road, but some are accessible only by boat during the summer. Lot sizes are small (generally, half an acre). The construction of new cabins will not be permitted.

C-124 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Occupancy and use of privately owned recreational cabins (camps)

Cabins are located in the wooded ﬂ oodplain along the Magalloway River and lakeshore pine- hemlock, northern hardwood, and mixed conifer/hardwood habitats along Umbagog Lake. Some cabins are located near loon territories.

(c) When would the use be conducted? Most cabins are occupied during the summer months; heaviest use is on weekends and holidays. However, camps are also used for hunting in the fall and snowmobiling in the winter. The duration of use is commonly short-term. Only seasonal use is permitted. The camps cannot be used as permanent, year-round residences.

(d) How would the use be conducted? When the refuge ﬁ rst acquired refuge lands with pre-existing recreational leases, the Service agreed to permit their occupancy and use up to a 50-year maximum from the date of acquisition, as long as the use was determined to be compatible. The ownership of leases can be transferred outside the immediate family only during a pre-determined period.

Under Service land ownership, the use and occupancy of these camps will be administered through a system of special use permits (SUPs), the conditions of which are analogous to the former lease. We review the leases at least once every 5 years, and renew permits annually. We assess annual fees based on the appraised value of the property, and may adjust the fees periodically to reﬂ ect market rates.

The conditions of the SUPs require that cabins must be maintained in a manner compatible with the purposes of the refuge and produce the least amount of environmental disturbance. Cabins may only be used for non-commercial recreational purposes, and cannot be used as a principal place of residence. Modiﬁ cations of existing structures require prior approval by the refuge manager. All structures must be >250 ft. from water, and no permanent docks may be constructed. Cutting live vegetation is restricted. We do not post the camp lots, but expect the public to reasonably respect the privacy of camp owners. A complete description of permit conditions for each cabin may be viewed on ﬁ le at the refuge headquarters.

(e) Why is this use being proposed? This use existed before refuge ownership. Timber companies who transferred lands to the Service insisted that leases be carried forward as part of the purchase agreement. At the time the Service established the refuge, we felt that trade-off was worthwhile, because it would result ultimately in enhanced protection for the shoreline by precluding additional development. The original conservation proposal for Umbagog Lake involved a partnership between the Service and the State of New Hampshire, among others. Both the Service and the state acquired cabin leases as part of that proposal. Both agencies have developed a coordinated, consistent approach to the use and eventual phase-out of cabin leases. By managing this cabin lease program, the Service is following through on earlier commitments and ensuring that our approach is consistent with that of the State of New Hampshire.

Availability of Resources The refuge staff time associated with administering this use primarily relates to processing annual permit fees, answering the questions of lessees concerning conditions of the permits, monitoring

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-125 Compatibility Determination – Occupancy and use of privately owned recreational cabins (camps)

compliance with those conditions, and monitoring potential impacts of the use on refuge resources and visitors. The refuge manager and deputy refuge manager will administer the lease program. The refuge wildlife biologist will monitor the impacts of the use on refuge resources. No special equipment, facilities, or resources are needed to administer this use. We do not direct refuge resources for law enforcement toward providing safety for permit holders or security for their property, beyond that which is expected for the general visiting public. The maintenance of the camps and associated lots are the responsibility of the permit holders. We submit permit fees to the refuge revenue sharing account.

We estimate below the annual costs associated with the administration of the cabin lease program on the refuge.

Program Oversight: $3,000 (Refuge Manager/ Deputy Manager)

Processing Annual Permit Fees: $1,000 (Administrative Assistant)

Resource Impact Monitoring: $1,000 (Wildlife Biologist)

Total Annual Cost of Program: $5,000

Anticipated Impacts of the Use The possible impacts of this use include the direct loss of habitat, possible wildlife disturbances caused by camp occupancy or camp users traveling along roads, slight additional hunting pressure on upland species, and impacts on sensitive wetland areas because of the location of some camps. This is a short-term use and, as permits expire or owners sell camps to the Service, most if not all of the camps will be moved or destroyed. Therefore, the program will cause no long-term loss of habitat.

We do not consider the disturbance of wildlife by permit holders traveling to or occupying the camps signiﬁ cant, for the following reasons. The number of camps is low; they generally are not located close to any known, major concentrations of waterfowl, shorebirds, or other wildlife; and, travel or other activities by camp owners do not differ substantially in type or intensity from those of the general public in allowed, daily uses.

We allow hunting, whether by camp occupants or the public, according to state regulations, and set harvest levels so as not to affect populations. We performed an Environmental Site Assessment Level 1 Survey on refuge lands prior to purchase, and identiﬁ ed no contaminant problems around the camps. We also performed Level 1 surveys on all the camps we purchased. Again, we observed no problems. The results of subsequent, more detailed environmental surveys and plant and wildlife inventories could affect future compatibility determinations for individual camps. If so, we could then consider remedial measures, including relocation.

The original Final Environmental Assessment (USFWS, 1991) determined that the locations and numbers of the cabins on Umbagog Lake were compatible with wildlife and water quality up to that time. However, the expansion of lakeshore cabins or home development was determined to be incompatible.

C-126 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Occupancy and use of privately owned recreational cabins (camps)

The occupancy and use of privately owned camps on the refuge will not extend beyond 50 years. Meanwhile, we designed the conditions for the permits to help maintain the compatibility of this use, reduce negative impacts on refuge resources, and minimize conﬂ icts among refuge management activities and other uses of the refuge.

Therefore, the occupancy and use of privately owned recreational camps on Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge poses only a minimal threat to Goals 1, 2, and 3 (“Manage open water and wetlands,” “Manage ﬂ oodplain and lakeshore habitats,” and “Manage upland forested habitats”) as written in the CCP. This is a short-term use and, as permits expire or owners sell camps to the Service, most if not all of the camps will be moved or destroyed. Therefore, the program will cause no long-term loss of habitat.

No other refuge goals and objectives, as written in the CCP, will be affected by this use.

Determination (check one)

This Use Is Not Compatible

X This Use Is Compatible, with the following stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility Cabin leases will be reviewed at least once every 5 years to ensure their continued compatibility. The stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility are on ﬁ le at refuge headquarters.

Justiﬁ cation This use has been determined to be compatible, provided the conditions of the Special Use Permits are implemented. The use will not pose signiﬁ cant adverse effects on trust species or other refuge resources, will not interfere with public use of the refuge, or cause an undue administrative burden. The refuge manager will re-evaluate the compatibility of this use every 10 years.

The occupancy and use of privately owned recreational camps on Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes for which the refuge was established as evidenced by the impact analysis that shows this use will not compromise our ability to achieve the goals and objectives set forth under the Lake Umbagog NWR CCP.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-127 Compatibility Determination – Occupancy and use of privately owned recreational cabins (camps)

Signature: Refuge Manager: ______(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief: ______(Signature and Date)

Re-evaluation date: ______

Literature Cited

Heywood, C. E. 1973. History of Upton, Maine. Oxford Hills Press, Norway, ME, 104 p.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Final environmental assessment: proposal to protect wildlife habitat, Lake Umbagog, Coos Co., NH, Oxford Co., ME. USFWS, Region 5.

C-128 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Finding of Appropriateness – Motorized and non-motorized boating

603 FW 1 Exhibit 1 Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Motorized and non-motorized boating

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State ﬁ sh and wildlife agencies. Yes X No

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is:

Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate X

Refuge Manager: ______Date:______

Refuge Supervisor: ______Date:______

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-129 Finding of Appropriateness – Motorized and non-motorized boating

603 FW 1 Exhibit 1 page 2 of 2

Justiﬁ cation for a Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Motorized and Non-motorized Boating

Narrative

Hunting, ﬁ shing wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation are the six priority public uses of the Refuge System, and have been determined to be compatible activities on many refuges nationwide. The Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 instructs refuge managers to seek ways to accommodate those six uses. Motorized and non-motorized boating is an appropriate means of facilitating these priority public uses on Lake Umbagog Refuge. By allowing this use, we are providing opportunities and facilitating refuge programs in a manner and location that offer high quality, wildlife-dependent recreation and maintain the level of current ﬁ sh and wildlife values.

C-130 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Motorized and mon-motorized boating

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

USE: Motorized and non-motorized boating

REFUGE NAME: Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

DATE ESTABLISHED: November 12, 1992

ESTABLISHING AUTHORITIES

1. Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 [16 U.S. C. 3901(b)] 2. Migratory Bird Conservation Act [16 U.S.C. 715d] 3. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 [16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)] 4. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 [16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1)]

PURPOSES FOR WHICH ESTABLISHED

2. “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” [16 U.S.C. 715d; Migratory Bird Conservation Act]

3. “for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of ﬁ sh and wildlife resources….” [16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4); Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956]

4. “for the beneﬁ t of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or afﬁ rmative covenant, or condition of servitude…. [16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1); Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956]

DESCRIPTION OF USE

(a) What is the use? Is it a priority public use? The use is motorized and non-motorized boating. Motorized and non-motorized boating is not a priority public use of the National Wildlife Refuge System under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-131 Compatibility Determination – Motorized and non-motorized boating

(b) Where would the use be conducted? Motorized and non-motorized boating would be conducted on all open waters within the refuge open to compatible public use programs.

(c) When would the use be conducted? Motorized and non-motorized boating will be allowed during the hours and in the seasons identiﬁ ed for refuge public use programs, including hours speciﬁ ed in the respective state regulations.

(d) How would the use be conducted? Motorized and non-motorized boating would be allowed as a means to facilitate refuge public use programs, namely the priority public use programs of hunting, fi shing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. The use would be conducted consistent with refuge and New Hampshire and Maine regulations, with some additional restrictions to protect fi sh, wildlife and habitat, and reduce potential confl icts among public uses.

Boat access is available at a number of locations both on and off refuge ownership near Umbagog Lake. Two State of New Hampshire public boat launches provide boat trailer access to the upper Androscoggin River, Magalloway River, the mouth of the Rapid River, and Umbagog Lake. One launch is located upstream of the Errol Dam, the other at the southern end of Umbagog Lake. We provide additional boat-trailer access on refuge-owned land at the Steamer Diamond landing on the Androscoggin River and at refuge headquarters on the Magalloway River. A car-top boat launch is located at Parson’s landing on the Magalloway River, just south of refuge headquarters.

The public occasionally launches canoes at other sites along Route 16, where it crosses or approaches the Magalloway and Androscoggin rivers. At some of those sites, inadequate parking or poor visibility of oncoming trafﬁ c present safety hazards. The refuge is constructing an additional car-top boat launch on the Magalloway River, north of refuge headquarters. The new site will provide parking, a dock, and a restroom. After completing that new site, we will close all refuge-owned boat access points along Route 16, except the present access at refuge headquarters and the Steamer Diamond Landing. All boats launching or landings on refuge lands must follow state boating regulations and, if applicable, show registration with the appropriate state.

The public must inspect all boats and boat trailers and clean them of aquatic invasive species before launching at refuge sites. That cleaning should take place on dry ground well away from the water. Exotic, nuisance plants or animals on boats, trailers, diving equipment, or in bait buckets can disrupt aquatic ecosystems and negatively affect native ﬁ sh and plant species. Umbagog Lake and its associated rivers appear to be relatively free of aquatic invasive plants, and cleaning boats, trailers, and other equipment will help to keep them that way. Signs, education, and periodic enforcement will remind the public of these regulations.

(e) Why is the use being proposed? Hunting, ﬁ shing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation are the six priority public uses of the Refuge System. Where these uses are determined to be compatible, they are to receive enhanced consideration over other uses. Motorized and non-motorized boating is allowed as a means to facilitate these priority public uses. By allowing this use, we are providing opportunities and facilitating refuge programs in a manner and

C-132 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Motorized and mon-motorized boating

location that offer high quality, wildlife-dependent recreation and maintain the level of current ﬁ sh and wildlife values.

Availability of Resources Facilities or materials needed to support motorized and non-motorized boating include a new car- top boat launch off Route 16, north of the refuge offi ce. FY 2005 funds paid for that launch, and we expect no additional construction expenses. Existing launch sites that we have scheduled for closure may require the installation of closure signs, as well as some site restoration work. Additional resources and staff time will be required to maintain the new boat launch, put down gravel and maintain the Steamer Diamond launch and the Mt. Pond fi shing access and spur trail, close off wildlife nesting sites to the public, and provide interpretive materials and brochures. A Refuge Offi cer and the States of New Hampshire and Maine will provide law enforcement.

We do not anticipate charging fees for motorized and non-motorized boating. We estimate these costs associated with this use.

Routine maintenance: $7,000 annually. This is the expected cost to maintain the two public boat launches (Magalloway River (north) and Steamer Diamond landing), and includes putting down gravel or wood chips; maintaining parking areas, removing garbage, and maintaining the restroom at the Magalloway River launch.

Supplies and materials: $6,000. This includes signs for closed launch sites, buoys and nesting site closure signs, interpretative brochures, regulation brochures (produced in-house)

Monitoring: $3,000 annually, to be carried out in cooperation with the states.

Law Enforcement: $3,000 annually for a refuge ofﬁ cer.

Total: $19,000

Anticipated Impacts of the Use Because Umbagog Lake and its rivers are accessible to motorized and non-motorized boats from the two New Hampshire state boat launches, we do not expect a dramatic change from existing conditions.

Potential impacts of motorized and non-motorized boating follow.

■ Accidental introduction of invasive plants, pathogens, or exotic invertebrates, attached to boats: With the exception of a few isolated occurrences of purple loosestrife, refuge waters appear to be relatively free of invasive aquatic plants and mollusks. However, we have not carried out extensive surveys of aquatic invasive plants. We can limit their impacts by continuing education, outreach, and initiating an intensive monitoring program.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-133 Compatibility Determination – Motorized and non-motorized boating

■ Disturbance of wildlife (particularly breeding and brood-rearing loons, waterfowl, eagles, ospreys, and wading birds): Popular public use boating seasons in Maine and New Hampshire, coincide in part, with spring-early summer nesting and brood-rearing periods for many species of aquatic-dependent birds. Boaters may disturb nesting birds by approaching too closely to nests, causing nesting birds to fl ush. Flushing may expose eggs to predation or cooling, resulting in egg mortality. Boat wakes from watercraft may also fl ood or wash nest sites. Both adult and fl ightless young birds may be injured or killed if run over by speeding boats. We will continue to close refuge areas seasonally to boating around sensitive nest sites, in conjunction with the States of Maine and New Hampshire. We will also continue our public outreach and the placement of warning signs. We will start monitoring public use in 2006, to help improve our management of public use, fi sheries, and wildlife.

■ Negative impacts on water quality from motorboat and other pollutants, human waste, and litter: Extensive water quality testing on the Umbagog system has not been carried out. The levels of pollutants from boat fuel and impacts on local aquatic systems are unknown. Hydrocarbon contamination can be harmful to ﬁ sh. We will initiate public outreach and education on littering, pollutants, proper waste disposal, and the advantages of 4-stroke and other low emissions engines to help mitigate water quality impacts. Water quality testing will be carried out as funding levels permit

■ Bank and trail erosion from human activity (boat landings, boat wakes, foot trafﬁ c), which may increase aquatic sediment loads of streams and rivers or alter riparian or lakeshore habitat or vegetation in ways harmful to ﬁ sh or other wildlife: Boat access will be restricted to designated areas only. Those areas will be ‘hardened’ to contain impacts in a small area. We will monitor launch sites, and may modify, restore, or close them if conditions warrant. All new boat access construction will follow best management practices. Therefore, at current levels of use, we do not expect increased erosion because of boating activities.

■ Negative impacts from boats on sensitive wetlands or peatlands and rare wetland plants: Boat access sites will be located away from sensitive wetlands, peatlands, and rare plants. Habitat features important for trout, such as overhanging banks, will be protected from disturbance.

■ Vegetation disturbance associated with installation of new boat launch and fi shing access sites: Although the new boat launch on Route 16 will be located in the fl oodplain of the Magalloway River, ground disturbance will be minimal. Because fi shing will occur from non-motorized watercraft or a dock, we expect no erosion from bank fi shing or trampling of vegetation.

■ Confl icts between boaters and other user groups: We know that some confl icts among motorized and non-motorized boat users have arisen on the refuge in the past. In addition, local cabin owners have expressed concerns about trespass and inappropriate disposal of human waste by boaters, primarily canoeists and kayakers. The comfort station under construction at the Magalloway River launch site should help reduce some of those confl icts. We intend to carry out public use surveys in 2006 that will help identify any additional

C-134 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Motorized and mon-motorized boating

confl icts between user groups. Should any signifi cant confl icts become evident, we may need to manage public use on the refuge to minimize confl icts. That may include providing additional education and outreach, providing additional sanitary facilities, or creating zones to separate groups of users.

To summarize, boating on Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge poses only a minimal threat to Goals 1, 2, and 3 (“Manage open water and wetlands,” “Manage ﬂ oodplain and lakeshore habitats,” and “Manage upland forested habitats”) as written in the CCP. Our continued monitoring of invasive species and outreach at launching sites is necessary to prevent impacts on refuge habitats, plant and wildlife communities. Monitoring will identify any actions needed to respond to new information and correct problems that may arise in the future.

Boating will beneﬁ t Goal 4 “Provide high quality wildlife dependent activities” of the CCP by providing opportunities for wildlife observation and photography and access for hunting and ﬁ shing. Opportunities also exist to interpret the refuge at boat launches and on a canoe trail. No other refuge goals and objectives, as written in the CCP, will be affected by this use.

Determination (check one below):

Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible, with the following stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

On refuge lands:

■ We will permit boat launching only in designated areas to prevent the erosion and degradation of wetlands or water quality and ensure public safety.

■ We will close wildlife nesting and brood-rearing areas seasonally to all boating activities, to prevent the disturbance of wildlife. That may include temporarily closing or relocating boating activities and/or access sites.

■ Boat launches will be constructed and situated in such a way as to provide for public safety and minimize the disturbance of wildlife and habitat or the effects of siltation. We will use vegetation and other means of stabilizing soils around any culverts at road crossings. Protecting canopy trees from damage by humans will keep stream habitat shaded. We will monitor impacts and close, modify, restore, or move an access area if problems arise.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-135 Compatibility Determination – Motorized and non-motorized boating

■ We will increase public outreach and education to minimize conﬂ icts among user groups, help control aquatic invasive plants and lead in the environment, reduce the introduction of non- native ﬁ sh species, and minimize the disturbance of wildlife and habitat.

■ A refuge ofﬁ cer will help to promote compliance with refuge regulations, monitor public use patterns and public safety, and document visitor interactions.

Justiﬁ cation: Hunting, ﬁ shing wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation are the six priority public uses of the Refuge System, and have been determined to be compatible activities on many refuges nationwide. The Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 instructs refuge managers to seek ways to accommodate those six uses. Motorized and non-motorized boating is allowed as a means to facilitate these priority public uses on Lake Umbagog Refuge. Boating on Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes for which the refuge was established as evidenced by the impact analysis that shows this use will not compromise our ability to achieve the goals and objectives set forth under the Lake Umbagog NWR CCP.

Signature: Refuge Manager: ______(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief: ______(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: ______

Literature Cited

Bonney, F. 2002. Personal communication. Maine Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

Boucher, D. P.. 1995. Rapid River salmonid management. Fishery Interim Summary Report Ser. No. 95–6. Maine Dept. of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Augusta, ME.

Pokras, M.A. and R. Chafel. 1992. Lead toxicosis from ingested ﬁ shing sinkers in adult common loons (Gavia immer) in New England. J. of Zoo and Wildl. Med. 23(1):92-97.

Attachment: Map C-1, showing existing and planned boat access points.

C-136 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Finding of Appropriateness – ATV, ORV, or motorbike use

603 FW 1 Exhibit 1 Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Use: ATV, ORV, or Motorbike Use

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural X or cultural resources, or is the use beneﬁ cial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? Public understanding and appreciation only. (j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational X uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future?

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State ﬁ sh and wildlife agencies. Yes X No

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is:

Not Appropriate X Appropriate ____

Refuge Manager:______Date:______If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence:

Refuge Supervisor:______Date:______

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-137 Finding of Appropriateness – ATV, ORV, or motorbike use

603 FW 1 Exhibit 1 page 2 of 2

Justiﬁ cation for a Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Use: ATV, ORV and motorbike use

Narrative: This use has the potential to cause erosion and habitat (vegetation) damage. The use also may detract from the quality of other wildlife-dependent uses. The noise and speed of these machines has potential to disturb wildlife especially during the breeding season. Use of all-terrain vehicles is not consistent with two executive orders, E.O. 11644 and E.O. 11989 which require that refuges promote safety, minimize conﬂ icts among users, monitor effects of ATV use if allowed, and to close areas to ATV use if they will cause adverse effects on soil, vegetation, wildlife, habitat or cultural or historic resources. This use is not consistent with any approved refuge management plan and would divert existing and future resources from accomplishing priority tasks.

C-138 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Finding of Appropriateness – Geocaching

603 FW 1 Exhibit 1 Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Geocaching

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X Abandonment of Property 50CFR Ch. 1 27.93 (c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? X

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State ﬁ sh and wildlife agencies. Yes X No

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is:

Not Appropriate X Appropriate

Refuge Manager:______Date:______

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use.

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence:

Refuge Supervisor:______Date:______

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-139 Finding of Appropriateness – Geocaching

603 FW 1 Exhibit 1 page 2 of 2

Justiﬁ cation for a Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Geocaching

Narrative Geocaching is not appropriate since it encourages the unauthorized abandonment of property on the refuge. It also encourages participants to go “off trail” and may impact wildlife during the breeding season.

C-140 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Finding of Appropriateness – Field trials for dogs

603 FW 1 Exhibit 1 Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Field trials for dogs

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X Field Trials prohibited by 50 CFR 27.91 (c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? X

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State ﬁ sh and wildlife agencies. Yes X No

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is:

Not Appropriate X Appropriate

Refuge Manager:______Date:______

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use.

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence:

Refuge Supervisor:______Date:______

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-141 Finding of Appropriateness – Field trials for dogs

603 FW 1 Exhibit 1 page 2 of 2

Justiﬁ cation for a Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Field Trials for Dogs

Narrative: Field trials typically involve concentrated numbers of participants and spectators which has the potential to disturb wildlife and their habitats. Dog ﬁ eld trials are non-wildlife dependent uses prohibited, as noted, by 50 CFR 27.91.

C-142 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Map C-1 Compatibility Determinations

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-143 Compatibility Determinations Map C-2

C-144 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Map C-3 Compatibility Determinations

Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations C-145 Compatibility Determinations Map C-4

C-146 Appendix C: Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Appendix D Bill Zinni/USFWS Magalloway River

Wilderness Review Wilderness Review

Wilderness Review

Introduction A wilderness review is the process we follow to identify and recommend for congressional designation Refuge System lands and waters that merit inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). Wilderness reviews are a required element of comprehensive conservation plans (CCPs), and we conduct them in accordance with the refuge planning policy outlined in 602 FW 1 and 3, including interagency and tribal coordination, public involvement and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance.

The wilderness review process is conducted in three phases: inventory, study, and recommendation. We identify refuge lands and waters owned by the Service in fee simple that meet the minimum criteria for wilderness in the inventory phase of the review. These areas are called Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). In the study phase, we evaluate WSA’s to determine if they are suitable for wilderness designation. The fi ndings of the study phase determine whether we will recommend the area for designation as wilderness in the fi nal CCP. In the recommendation phase, we forward our wilderness recommendations from the Director to the Secretary of Interior (Secretary). The Secretary next forwards the fi nal proposal to the President for consideration. The President is then responsible for formally transmitting to both houses of Congress recommendations for wilderness designation.

We will conduct a wilderness review on a given refuge every 15 years through the CCP process, or sooner if signiﬁ cant new information becomes available affecting wilderness potential, or if a major refuge expansion occurs that warrants a reevaluation.

Wilderness Inventory The wilderness inventory is a broad look at each planning area (Wilderness Inventory Area [WIA]) to identify WSAs. A WSA is required to be a roadless area or a roadless island of any size, meet the size criteria, appear natural, and provide for solitude or primitive recreation. Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act provides the following deﬁ nition.

A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defi ned to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and infl uence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions, and which: (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfi ned type of recreation; (3) has at least fi ve thousand acres of land or is of suffi cient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological or other features of scientifi c, educational, scenic, or historical value.

We began the Wilderness inventory process by establishing a Refuge Wilderness Review Team comprised of agency personnel. After evaluating the refuge land base and transportation corridors, the review team partitioned the refuge up into contiguous blocks that were separated by major roads and other motorized corridors, including the rivers. The team’s ﬁ rst objective was to identify contiguous areas as large as possible that met the roadless criteria. Only lands currently owned by the Service in fee title were evaluated. The review team identiﬁ ed thirteen WIAs (map D.1).

Evaluation of the Roadless Criteria Permanent roads are prohibited in wilderness under Section 4(c) of the Act. For the purposes of the wilderness inventory, a “roadless area” is deﬁ ned as: “A reasonably compact area of undeveloped Federal land that possesses the general characteristics of a wilderness and within which there is no improved road that is suitable for public

Appendix D: Wilderness Review D-1 Wilderness Review

travel by means of four-wheeled, motorized vehicles intended primarily for highway use. A route maintained solely by the passage of vehicles does not constitute a road.”

As such, a WSA is required to be a roadless area or a roadless island of any size. The presence of any improved road suitable and maintained for public travel by means of motorized vehicles primarily intended for highway use would preclude WSA consideration. In addition, the review team also excluded from consideration other motorized corridors, such as the rivers and lake. The rivers and lake in the project area are state jurisdiction waters where motorized boating and use of personal motorized watercraft is allowed. Motorized vehicles and motorized equipment are prohibited refuge uses in wilderness areas.

The following factors were the primary considerations in evaluating the roadless criteria.

A. The area does not contain improved roads suitable and maintained for public travel by means of motorized vehicles primarily intended for highway use.

B. The area is an island, or contains an island that does not have improved roads suitable and maintained for public travel by means of motorized vehicles primarily intended for highway use.

C. The area is in Federal fee title ownership.

Evaluation of the Size Criteria The size criteria can be satisﬁ ed if an area has at least 5,000 acres of contiguous roadless public land, or is sufﬁ ciently large that its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition is practicable.

The following factors were the primary considerations in evaluating the size criteria.

A. An area of more than 5,000 contiguous acres. State and private lands are not included in making this acreage determination.

B. A roadless island of any size. A roadless island is deﬁ ned as an area surrounded by permanent waters or that is markedly distinguished from the surrounding lands by topographical or ecological features.

C. An area of less than 5,000 contiguous Federal acres that is of sufﬁ cient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition, and of a size suitable for wilderness management.

D. An area of less than 5,000 contiguous acres that is contiguous with a designated wilderness, recommended wilderness, or area under wilderness review by another Federal wilderness managing agency such as the Forest Service, National Park Service, or Bureau of Land Management.

The review team calculated the acreage of each of the WIAs which were evaluated during the roadless evaluation, to see if they met the size criterion for wilderness character. The team found that all of the WIAs were less than 5,000 acres (Table D.1) and none of the WIAs were of sufﬁ cient size or could be made of sufﬁ cient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition, and of a size suitable for wilderness management.

Wilderness Inventory Conclusions The Refuge Wilderness Review Team inventoried the lands and waters in fee title ownership within the Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge, and found that no lands met the minimum criteria to be WSAs.

The review team identifi ed a total of thirteen WIAs within the refuge, and found that each WIA was less than 5,000 contiguous Federal acres. The team considered various confi gurations of the land base to see if a larger roadless WIA could be created, but determined none could be made larger. The team considered refi ning the WIAs by eliminating areas with no obvious Wilderness character; however, they determined that further refi nement of the WIAs would result in much smaller areas with unmanageable boundaries. Boundary posting

D-2 Appendix D: Wilderness Review Wilderness Review would be a challenge. From a refuge administration and management standpoint, effective law enforcement, visitor services, and public safety programs within the reﬁ ned areas would not be practicable. As a result, the team concluded that reﬁ ning the size of the WIAs would not make practicable their preservation and use in an unimpaired condition, and they would not be of a size suitable for wilderness management.

The team determined that the thirteen WIAs, as identiﬁ ed on map D.1, and listed in Table D.1, do not meet the size criteria for a WSA as deﬁ ned by the Wilderness Act. The thirteen WIAs will not be considered further as part of this Wilderness review. In conclusion, we do not recommend any WIAs be evaluated further as WSAs.

Table D. 1. Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness Inventory Areas

Wilderness Inventory Area Size* (WIA)

WIA 1 1,352 Acres

WIA 2 2,106 Acres

WIA 3 2,336 Acres

WIA 4 720 Acres

WIA 5 1,395 Acres

WIA 6 1,384 Acres

WIA 7 677 Acres

WIA 8 738 Acres

WIA 9 239 Acres

WIA 10 3,103 Acres

WIA 11 886 Acres

WIA 12 1,249 Acres

WIA 13 721 Acres

* All Wilderness Inventory Areas include only Service fee title ownership.

Appendix D: Wilderness Review D-3 Wilderness Review Map D-1

D-4 Appendix D: Wilderness Review Appendix E Ian Drew/SFWS The Magalloway River

Wild and Scenic River Review Wild and Scenic River Review

Wild and Scenic River Review Introduction The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, (Pub.L. 90-543 as amended: 16 U.S.C. 1271-1287) (Act) established a method for providing Federal protection for certain free-ﬂ owing rivers, preserving them and their immediate environments for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. The function of this wild and scenic river review is to inventory and study the rivers, river segments and their immediate environments within the Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) acquisition boundary to determine if they merit inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System (NWSRS).

Section 5(d) (1) of the Act states in part: In all planning for the use and development of water and related land resources, consideration shall be given by all federal agencies involved to potential national wild, scenic and recreational river areas, and all river basin and project plan reports submitted to the Congress shall consider and discuss any such potential. The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall make speciﬁ c studies and investigations to determine which additional wild, scenic and recreational river areas within the United States shall be evaluated in planning reports by all federal agencies as potential alternative uses of the water and related land resources involved. Wild and scenic river considerations are a required element of comprehensive conservation plans and conducted in accordance with the refuge planning process outlined in 602 FW 1 and 3, including public involvement and National Environmental Policy Act compliance.

As part of the Section 5(d) (1) review process, we are required to include all river segments that are within the planning area and listed in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI). The NRI is maintained by the National Park Service (NPS) and lists more than 3,400 free-ﬂ owing river segments in the United States that are believed to possess one or more “outstandingly remarkable” natural or cultural values judged to be of more than local or regional signiﬁ cance. A three mile reach of the Androscoggin River from above Errol, New Hampshire to Lake Umbagog is listed on the NRI. A portion of the three mile reach is within the planning area and is included as part of this Wild and Scenic River Review.

When a river or river segment is determined to be potentially eligible through the Wild and Scenic River Inventory process, its eligibility status is forwarded to the National Park Service for inclusion into the NRI. The results of this inventory will be forwarded to NPS for inclusion on the NRI.

There are three phases to the wild and scenic river review process: inventory, study and recommendation. In the inventory stage, we determine if any of the river or river segments within the planning area are eligible for NWSRS designation. We then determine the potential classifi cation of the eligible river or river segments as wild, scenic, or recreational (table E.1). To be eligible for wild and scenic river designation, a river or river segment is required to be free fl owing and possess at least one outstanding remarkable value (ORV). The Act identifi es an ORV as recreational, geologic, fi sh, wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values. The river eligibility and classifi cations assigned during this inventory stage are tentative, and would be subject to further consideration during the study phase. Final determinations would be incorporated into the Comprehensive River Management Plan for any river/river segment receiving eventual designation as a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System.

In the study phase, we conduct a suitability study to determine if the river or river segments that were found eligible are suitable for designation to the NWSRS. The Act identiﬁ es the factors that will be considered and documented in determining the suitability of a river or river segment for inclusion in the NWSRS. Section 4(a) of the Act states that the study will include: … maps and illustrations, …; the characteristics which do or do not make the area a worthy addition to the system; the current status of landownership and use in the area; the reasonably foreseeable potential uses of the land and water which would be enhanced, foreclosed, or curtailed if the area were included in the national wild and scenic rivers system; the federal agency … by which it is proposed the area, should it be added to the system, be administered; the extent to which it is proposed that such administration, including the costs thereof, be shared by state and local agencies; and the estimated cost to the United States of acquiring necessary lands and interests in land and of administering the area, should it be added to the system…. The study area covers each river or river segment and their immediate environment. The

Appendix E: Wild and Scenic River Review E-1 Wild and Scenic River Review

immediate environment is an area extending the length of the river or river segment being studied and extending in width one-quarter mile from each bank of the river.

The recommendation phase consists of forwarding the wild and scenic river study report from the Director through the Secretary and the President to Congress. The report is prepared after the record of decision for the ﬁ nal CCP has been signed. The river or river segments recommended for NWSRS designation are managed to maintain their character in accordance with management goals, objectives, and strategies outlined in the ﬁ nal CCP until Congress makes a favorable legislative determination or the CCP is amended to modify or remove the wild and scenic river proposal.

This Wild and Scenic River Review is limited to the Inventory phase only. Due to previous personnel commitments, the affected States and partners were not prepared to provide the appropriate involvement that would be needed to move the results of the Inventory phase of this review to the study and recommendation phases. The Interdisciplinary Study Team (IDT) decided that it would be appropriate to inventory only those rivers and river segments that ﬂ ow within the boundaries of the Lake Umbagog NWR because the Federal portions of these rivers are in most cases only small segments of a much longer river and there is not necessarily a real break in their character at the Refuge boundary. We believe that the rivers that were inventoried in this review should all be studied in total and with the full participation and involvement of our Federal, State, local and nongovernmental partners.

The Interdisciplinary Study Team The Interdisciplinary Study Team, comprising U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 5 Regional Ofﬁ ce, Lake Umbagog NWR, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, and New Hampshire Fish and Game personnel met at the Refuge on April 6, 2005 to determine if any of the river or river segments within the planning area were eligible for NWRS designation, and to tentatively classify each eligible river or river segment as wild, scenic, or recreational. This process required combining site knowledge with existing land status maps, photographs, and available land use information to determine if any of the Refuge riverine systems were eligible for NWRS designation. Additional information on the planning area’s river resource values, and guidance on alternative river conservation and management approaches, was provided through public/stakeholder involvement. The river eligibility and classiﬁ cations that were assigned during the inventory phase are tentative.

The IDT members are listed below.

Paul Casey, Refuge Manager, Lake Umbagog NWR, Errol, New Hampshire Ian Drew, Assistant Refuge Manager, Lake Umbagog NWR, Errol, New Hampshire Laurie Wunder, Wildlife Biologist, Lake Umbagog NWR, Errol, New Hampshire Nancy McGarigal, Planning Team Leader, Northeast Regional Offi ce, Hadley, MA Carolina Ferro Vasconcelos, Assistant Planner/Intern, Northeast Regional Offi ce, Hadley, MA. Bill Zinni, Wildlife Biologist, Northeast Regional Offi ce, Hadley, MA Barry Brady, Refuge Operations Specialist, Northeast Regional Offi ce, Hadley, MA Will Staats, New Hampshire Fish and Game Chuck Hulsey, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

Phase I – Wild and Scenic River Inventory

Introduction The function of the wild and scenic river inventory is to identify rivers or segments of rivers and their immediate environment within the planning area that meet the minimum criteria for wild and scenic river eligibility under the Act. The wild and scenic river inventory area considers all river or river segments within the planning area and their immediate environments. The immediate environment is the area extending the length of the river or river segment being studied and extending in width of one-quarter mile from each bank of the river. The

E-2 Appendix E: Wild and Scenic River Review Wild and Scenic River Review immediate environment is not to exceed 320 acres per river mile. Those rivers or river segments that meet the minimum eligibility criteria are tentatively classiﬁ ed as wild, scenic, or recreational.

Minimum Wild and Scenic River Criteria To be eligible for designation as a wild and scenic river, a river or river segment and their immediate environment is required to possess at least one ORV and be free ﬂ owing.

Outstanding Remarkable Values Section 1(b) of the Act identifi es the ORVs in the following manner: It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States that certain selected rivers of the Nation which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fi sh and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values, shall be preserved in free-fl owing condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefi t and enjoyment of present and future generations.

The following ORV deﬁ nitions were taken from the December1999 joint U.S. Forest Service and National Park Service technical report entitled The Wild and Scenic River Study Process. The technical report was prepared for the interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council. As stated in the report: The following eligibility criteria are offered to foster greater consistency within the federal river-administering agencies. They are intended to set minimum thresholds to establish ORVs and are illustrative but not all- inclusive. If utilized in an agency’s planning process, these criteria may be modiﬁ ed to make them more meaningful in the area of comparison, and additional criteria may be included.

Scenery: The landscape elements of landform, vegetation, water, color and related factors result in notable or exemplary visual features and/or attractions. Scenery and visual attractions may be highly diverse over the majority of the river or river segment.

Recreation: Recreational opportunities are, or have the potential to be, popular enough to attract visitors from throughout or beyond the region of comparison or are unique or rare within the region.

■ Interpretive opportunities may be exceptional and attract, or have the potential to attract, visitors from outside the region of comparison.

■ The river may provide, or have the potential to provide, settings for national or regional usage or competitive events.

Geology: The river or the area within the river corridor contains one or more example of a geologic feature, process or phenomenon that is unique or rare within the region of comparison.

Fish: Fish values may be judged on the relative merits of ﬁ sh populations, habitat, or a combination of these river-related conditions.

■ Populations: The river is nationally or regionally an important producer of resident and/or anadromous ﬁ sh species. Of particular signiﬁ cance is the presence of wild stocks and/or federal or state listed (or candidate) threatened, endangered or sensitive species. Diversity of species is an important consideration and could, in itself, lead to a determination of “outstandingly remarkable.”

■ Habitat: The river provides exceptionally high quality habitat for ﬁ sh species indigenous to the region of comparison. Of particular signiﬁ cance is habitat for wild stocks and/or federal or state listed (or candidate) threatened, endangered or sensitive species. Diversity of habitats is an important consideration and could, in itself, lead to a determination of “outstandingly remarkable.”

Wildlife: Wildlife values may be judged on the relative merits of either terrestrial or aquatic wildlife populations or habitat or a combination of these conditions.

Appendix E: Wild and Scenic River Review E-3 Wild and Scenic River Review

■ Populations: The river, or area within the river corridor, contains nationally or regionally important populations of indigenous wildlife species. Of particular signiﬁ cance are species considered to be unique, and/or populations of federal or state listed (or candidate) threatened endangered or sensitive species.

Diversity of species is an important consideration and could, in itself, lead to a determination of “outstandingly remarkable.”

■ Habitat: The river, or area within the river corridor, provides exceptionally high quality habitat for wildlife of national or regional signiﬁ cance, and/or may provide unique habitat or a critical link in habitat conditions for federal or state listed (or candidate) threatened, endangered or sensitive species. Contiguous habitat conditions are such that the biological needs of the species are met.

Diversity of habitats is an important consideration and could, in itself, lead to a determination of “outstandingly remarkable.”

Prehistory: The river, or area within the river corridor, contains a site(s) where there is evidence of occupation or use by Native Americans. Sites must have unique or rare characteristics or exceptional human interest value(s). Sites may have national or regional importance for interpreting prehistory; may be rare and represent an area where a culture or cultural period was ﬁ rst identiﬁ ed and described; may have been used concurrently by two or more cultural groups; and/or may have been used by cultural groups for rare sacred purposes. Many such sites are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which is administered by the NPS.

History: The river or area within the river corridor contains a site(s) or feature(s) associated with a signiﬁ cant event, an important person, or a cultural activity of the past that was rare or one-of-a-kind in the region. Many such sites are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. A historic site(s) and/or features(s) is 50 years old or older in most cases.

Other Values: While no speciﬁ c national evaluation guidelines have been developed for the “other similar values” category, assessments of additional river-related values consistent with the foregoing guidance may be developed -- including, but not limited to, hydrology, paleontology and botany resources.

Wild and Scenic River Classifi cation Section 2(b) of the Act defi nes the classifi cations of Wild and Scenic Rivers in the following manner:

Every wild, scenic or recreational river in its free-ﬂ owing condition, or upon restoration to this condition, shall be considered eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and, if included, shall be classiﬁ ed, designated, and administered as one of the following:

1) Wild river areas -- Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive America.

2) Scenic river areas -- Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads.

3) Recreational river areas -- Those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past.

Summary of the Wild and Scenic River Inventory Findings All or portions of ﬁ ve rivers occur within the planning area and were considered for wild and scenic river eligibility during the inventory. For inventory purposes, the IDT evaluated those portions of each river, deﬁ ned

E-4 Appendix E: Wild and Scenic River Review Wild and Scenic River Review as a “river segment”, which lie within the Refuge’s currently approved acquisition boundary (map E-1). The IDT members determined that all fi ve segments met the criteria for wild and scenic river eligibility. These fi ve river segments and their immediate environments were determined to be free- fl owing and possess at least one ORV. A description of each eligible river segment, its immediate environment, and the IDT inventory fi ndings are summarized below. The IDT inventory fi ndings are summarized in table E.2.

River Segment: Magalloway River (Route 16 Bridge to Umbagog Lake) Length: 8.87 miles Outstandingly Remarkable Values: Scenic, Recreation Tentative Classiﬁ cation: Scenic

This section of the Magalloway is free-fl owing, although it is infl uenced by the Errol Dam, downstream. It is a meandering fl at water river with many backwaters. Roads (New Hampshire Route 16 and Pond Brook Rd.), and houses are visible from the river at a number of points in its upper 5.6 miles. The remaining 2.6 miles to the mouth are relatively undeveloped, with only a single cabin and no roads bordering the river. This section of the river has good access and is extremely popular for canoeing and kayaking. A number of outfi tters and camp groups run trips down it regularly during the summer months. Motorboat traffi c is moderately heavy on the lower 5 miles, primarily involving cabin owners trying to access Umbagog Lake.

The lower Magalloway is a warm-water fi shery, with introduced smallmouth bass and brown bullhead among the species taken. Fishing pressure is relatively light, in comparison to Umbagog Lake. Backwaters of the river are popular for waterfowl hunting. Vegetation along the river is a mosaic of red maple and balsam fi r fl oodplain forest. Red maple fl oodplain forest approaches its northern limit on the Magalloway, and is a rare type in New Hampshire. Wildlife viewing opportunities are excellent for loons, osprey, waterfowl, and the occasional bald eagle or moose.

River Segment: Androscoggin River (Headwaters to Refuge boundary) Length: 2.68 miles Outstandingly Remarkable Values: Recreation, Fish, Other Values Tentative Classiﬁ cation: Recreational

The short segment of the river that lies within the refuge boundary includes the headwaters of the Androscoggin, where it fl ows out of Umbagog Lake. The river is free fl owing but signifi cantly infl uenced by the Errol Dam, located 3.3 miles downstream of the lake outlet. This fl at water section of the Androscoggin is one of the major access points to Umbagog Lake, and has one of two improved public boat launches in the area. As a result, it receives heavy motorboat traffi c, as well as canoe and kayak use. A road (New Hampshire Route 16) borders the north bank of the river for the lower .6 mile upstream of the refuge boundary.

Fishing, primarily for introduced smallmouth bass, occurs along the river and its backwaters. Two major, scenic, backwaters (Harper’s Meadow and Sweat Meadow) provide excellent waterfowl hunting and wildlife viewing. Wildlife includes black and ring-necked ducks, osprey, common loons, northern harriers, bald eagles, and moose. Large peatland complexes border both of the major backwaters. The Harper’s Meadow complex has been designated as part of the Floating Island National Natural Landmark and has been categorized

Appendix E: Wild and Scenic River Review E-5 Wild and Scenic River Review Map E-1

E-6 Appendix E: Wild and Scenic River Review Wild and Scenic River Review

as an exemplary bog/fen by the New Hampshire Natural Heritage Program. Primary vegetation communities along the shores of the river itself are balsam ﬁ r ﬂ oodplain forest and fen.

River Segment: Rapid River (Refuge acquisition boundary to Umbagog Lake) Length: 6.75 miles Outstandingly Remarkable Values: Scenic, Recreation, Other Values Tentative Classiﬁ cation: Scenic

The Rapid River is a remote and relatively pristine river that originates in Maine at Lower Richardson Lake, and empties into the northeast corner of Umbagog Lake. Access to the river is diffi cult along much of its length. The upper segment of the river begins shortly downstream of Middle Dam and fl ows for .5 miles, where it widens into Pond in the River. Below the broken-down “Lower Dam” at the outlet of Pond in the River, the river narrows and fl ows for an additional three miles, until it is inundated by the backed-up waters of Umbagog Lake. The now ‘drowned’ portion of the river mouth extends for approximately two miles, until it joins the main basin of Umbagog Lake. The upper portion of the river, from Middle Dam to Pond in the River, is free-fl owing and rocky-bottomed, with many rapids. Signifi cant rapids continue downstream from Pond in the River for approximately 2.5 rocky miles to Cedar Stump campground. The river fl ows placidly downstream of Cedar Stump campground for an additional .5 miles, before it is overwhelmed by the impounded waters of Umbagog Lake.

The river sustains an exceptional native brook trout fi shery as well as a fi shery for landlocked Atlantic salmon. Introduced smallmouth bass have recently invaded the river, from a source in Umbagog Lake. The world class native brook trout fi shery on the Rapid River attracts large numbers of anglers, despite the river’s remote location. Water levels in the river are controlled by Middle Dam, and several popular recreational releases occur during the summer months for expert whitewater rafters and kayakers. A few cabins are found along the river below Pond in the River and at the river mouth, but most of the river is undeveloped. Much of the river is bordered by conifers, with a scattering of huge mature white pines. The clear water, rapids, and undeveloped shoreline, make this an exceptionally scenic river.

The Rapid River has a rich logging history, and for many years was used to drive logs down to the mills in Berlin, New Hampshire. Remnants of an old log driving dam can be found at the outlet of Pond in the River, as well as the old steam tug “Alligator”, which was used to ferry logs across the pond. The house of well-known local author Louise Dickenson Rich is immediately downstream of the pond.

River Segment: Dead Cambridge River (Western terminus of C Pond to Umbagog Lake) Length: 10.57 miles Outstandingly Remarkable Values: Scenery Tentative Classiﬁ cation: Scenic

This river segment begins at the western terminus of C Pond and ends at Umbagog Lake. Like the Rapid River, the Dead Cambridge is remote and inaccessible. This extremely narrow, generally shallow, slow-moving river is guarded by thick alders, wet meadows, and swamps over much of its length,

Appendix E: Wild and Scenic River Review E-7 Wild and Scenic River Review

from all but the most intrepid recreationists. A small set of rapids is located at the mouth of the river, just before it enters Umbagog Lake. Impenetrable alder thickets, muddy banks, and numerous beaver dams and downed trees make it unsuitable for recreational boating of any type and diffi cult for anglers, hunters, or others to access. Potential access points include: C Pond several logging roads that approach near the river downstream of C Pond at the Dead Cambridge bridge, and at the rivers mouth. The river is free-fl owing throughout, although an old, broken-down dam is located approximately 2.8 miles downstream of C Pond. This rock and log-crib structure was once used for log drives, but no longer impedes the fl ow of the river to a signifi cant degree.

Introduced smallmouth bass from Lake Umbagog are considered a potential threat to the native brook trout ﬁ shery in C Pond. The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife currently considers the smallmouth bass within C Pond to be a nonviable population without continual input from Umbagog Lake. The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is considering re-creating an obstruction at the location of the old dam, to prevent passage of smallmouth bass from Umbagog Lake into C Pond. This activity is identiﬁ ed as an action to be taken in Alternative B, the Service-preferred alternative, of this CCP.

Impenetrable alder thickets, muddy banks, and numerous beaver dams and downed trees make it unsuitable for recreational boating of any type and difﬁ cult for anglers, hunters, or others to access. Potential access points include: C Pond several logging roads that approach near the river downstream of C Pond at the Dead Cambridge bridge, and at the rivers mouth.

The river is undeveloped for much of its length, although uplands along the river have been extensively logged. For the most part, signs of recent logging activity are not obvious from the river itself. There are several cabins near the river downstream of C Pond. No other structures are found along its length, until the ﬁ nal .1 mile before entering Umbagog Lake, where there are several houses. Where present, structures are not readily visible from the river itself. Open wetlands along its banks and a broad, and the open valley provide scenic vistas at several locations.

Moose are frequent visitors to its shores. Yellow rails a Maine species of special concern, and a moderate priority species for BCR 14, have not been detected on the refuge, to date. This rail seems to require dense sedge or grass meadows. In Maine, they are found in sedge- dominated fl oodplains adjacent to free fl owing streams that are exposed to spring fl ooding and summer drying. Some areas along the Dead Cambridge River probably provide the best potential habitat for this species, on the refuge.

Fishing pressure on the Dead Cambridge is light. A good native brook trout fi shery is found in C Pond. The C Pond fi shery has been recently surveyed (2004) by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, who have also carried out some limited surveys of the Dead Cambridge River. They found the following species in C Pond: brook trout, rainbow smelt, and several species of minnows, bullhead, pumpkinseed sunfi sh, smallmouth bass, slimy sculpin and American eel. Fallfi sh, longnose dace, common shiners, creek chubs, white suckers, brown bullhead, and blacknose dace were found in segments of the Dead Cambridge River, between the Dead Cambridge Bridge and C Pond. Most of the other species found in C Pond, with the exception of smelt, probably

E-8 Appendix E: Wild and Scenic River Review Wild and Scenic River Review

also occur elsewhere in the river. The Brook trout are known to spawn at the outlet of C Pond where the Dead Cambridge River ﬂ ows out and probably also occur downstream. There are no known point sources of pollution along the Dead Cambridge River.

River Segment: Swift Cambridge River (Refuge boundary to conﬂ uence with Dead Cambridge River) Length: 2.21 miles Outstandingly Remarkable Values: Scenery Tentative Classiﬁ cation: Scenic

This small, shallow, tributary of the Dead Cambridge is a narrow, low- gradient river for most of its extent within the refuge. The river is free of impoundments. There are no buildings or other structures anywhere along its length, from the refuge boundary to it’s confl uence with the Dead Cambridge. There are no maintained roads that provide access to the segment. With the exception of an area near the southern boundary of the refuge, where some skid trails approach the river, the river is essentially inaccessible to fi shing, hunting, boating or other forms of recreation due to the absence of roads, trails, or launch sites, and the impenetrable shrub wetlands and swamps that surround it. Boulders, rapids, and shallow water make it diffi cult to access this segment by boat from upstream of the refuge boundary.

Speckled alder and a black ash-mixed hardwoods swamp border the river throughout its length. Signifi cant recent logging activity has occurred in some areas near the river, but is generally not visible from the river itself. Fish surveys have not been carried out on this segment, but the river probably supports a similar fi shery to the Dead Cambridge, including brook trout. Fishing and other recreational use of this river is light and occurs primarily upstream of the refuge boundary. Moose, beaver, and deer are common along the river. Wetlands on and adjacent to the river, particular near it’s confl uence with the Dead Cambridge, probably provide habitat for waterfowl and marshbirds, although no bird surveys have been carried out on the Swift Cambridge. There are no known water quality issues associated with this segment. Water is color is clear to tannic.

Protective Management When a river segment is determined to be eligible and given a preliminary classiﬁ cation, the outstandingly remarkable values shall be afforded adequate protection, subject to valid existing rights, and until the eligibility determination is superseded. Management activities and authorized uses shall not be allowed to adversely affect either the eligibility, or the tentative classiﬁ cation from a wild area to a scenic area or a scenic area to a recreational river area.

Public notiﬁ cation of the protective management will occur no later than publication and release of this Comprehensive Conservation Plan. However, protective management shall be initiated by the Refuge Manager as soon as the eligibility is determined.

Speciﬁ c management prescriptions for eligible river segments should provide protection in the following ways:

1. Free-fl owing values: The free-fl owing characteristics of the eligible river segments cannot be modifi ed to allow stream impoundments, diversions, channelization and/or rip-rapping to the extent the Service is authorized under law.

2. River Related Values: Each segment shall be managed to protect identiﬁ ed outstandingly remarkable values and, to the extent practicable such values shall be enhanced.

Appendix E: Wild and Scenic River Review E-9 Wild and Scenic River Review

3. Classifi cation Impacts: Management and development of the eligible river and its corridor cannot be modifi ed, subject to valid existing rights, to the degree that its eligibility or tentative classifi cation would be affected.

Table E.1. Classification Criteria for Wild, Scenic and Recreation River Area1

ATTRIBUTE Wild Scenic Recreational Water Free of impoundment. Free of impoundment. Some existing impoundment Resources or diversion. Development The existence of low dams, diversions, or other modifications of the waterway is acceptable, provided the waterway remains generally natural and riverine in appearance. Shoreline Essentially primitive. Little Largely primitive and Some development. Development or no evidence of human undeveloped. No substantial Substantial evidence of activity. evidence of human activity. human activity.

The presence of a few The presence of small The presence of extensive inconspicuous structures, communities or dispersed residential development and particularly those of dwellings or farm structures a few commercial structures historic or cultural value, is is acceptable. is acceptable. acceptable. The presence of grazing, hay Lands may have been A limited amount of production, or row crops is developed for the full range domestic livestock grazing acceptable. of agricultural and forestry or hay production is uses. May show evidence acceptable. Little or no Evidence of past or ongoing of past and ongoing timber evidence of past timber timber harvest is acceptable, harvest. harvest. No ongoing timber provided the forest appears harvest. natural from the riverbank Accessibility Generally inaccessible Accessible in places by road. Readily accessible by road except by trail. or railroad. Roads may occasionally No roads, railroads or other reach or bridge the river. The existence of parallel provision for vehicular travel The existence of short roads or railroads on one or within the river area. A few stretches of conspicuous both banks as well as bridge existing roads leading to the or longer stretches of crossings and other river boundary of the river area is inconspicuous roads or rail- access points is acceptable. acceptable. roads is acceptable. Water Quality Meets or exceeds federal No criteria prescribed by the Act. The Federal Water criteria or federally Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 have made approved state standards for it a national goal that all waters of the United States be aesthetics, for propagation made fishable and swimmable. Therefore, rivers will not of fish and wildlife be precluded from scenic or recreational classification normally adapted to the because of poor water quality at the time of their study, habitat of the river, and for provided a water quality improvement plan exists or is primary contact recreation being developed in compliance with applicable federal and (swimming), except where state laws. exceeded by natural conditions.

1 Table E.1 taken from: Diedrich, J., Thomas C. 1999. The Wild & Scenic River Study Process. U.S. Forest Service and National Park Service.

E-10 Appendix E: Wild and Scenic River Review Wild and Scenic River Review

Table E.2. Eligible Rivers within the Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Outstandingly Tentative Remarkable Values Classiﬁ cation

FWS River Segment River Segment Length River Name Description Scenery Recreation Geology Fish Wildlife Cultural Other Values Wild Scenic Recreational (Miles)*

Magalloway Route 16 bridge to XX X 8.87 River Umbagog Lake

Androscoggin Headwaters to River Refuge boundary X X X 2.68

Rapid River Refuge acquisition boundary to XX XX 6.75 Umbagog Lake

Dead Western terminus Cambridge of C pond to Lake X X X 10.57 River Umbagog

Swift Refuge boundary Cambridge to conﬂ uence with X X X 2.21 River Dead Cambridge River

* Segment lengths are approximate.

Appendix E: Wild and Scenic River Review E-11 Appendix F USFWS Pitcher plant

Refuge Operations Needs (RONS) and Service Asset Maintenance Management Systems (SAMMS) Refuge Operations Needs (RONS) and Service Asset Maintenance Management Systems (SAMMS) FTE ** (personnel) ed for Alternativeed for Costs ($1,000) Year 1Year Recurring Rank Refuge* 00007 1 $100 $56 1 TIER 1 PROJECTS Sub-Total for Tier 1 for Tier Sub-Total $747*** $492*** 7 Project Title* Project No. Refuge Operations Needs (RONS) and Service Asset Maintenance Management Systems (SAMMS) Table F.1. Proposed Refuge, Lake Refuge Umbagog Operationsfor Needs Tier 1 rankings Projects (RONS) F.1. Table (2/1/06) B in this CCP. Project title and ranking not exactly may match current database. RONS They were modified based goals on and objectives develop Increase Refuge Law Enforcement and Visitor Protection Services (Refuge Law Increase Refuge Law Enforcement and Visitor cer) Enforcement Offi Create a Cooperative Forest Management Plan (Resource Specialist - Forester)Improve Maintenance of Roads and Buildings* (Maintenance Worker) 98003 Services at Refuge (Outdoor Recreation Planner)Provide Visitor 2Improve the Resource Management Program (Biologist) 00008 ciency (Business/ Facilities Manager)*Improve administrative/ reporting effi Assistance to Private Landowners (Forester)Provide Technical $102 3 98001 98014 along the Magalloway RiverDevelop Canoe Interpretive Trail 4 6 $81 $75 98002 00105 $102 5 $88 00101 $55 1 7 21 $81 $88 $68 1 $88 $104 $68 1 1 $68 $15 1 1 0 ** FTE:** full-time equivalent; grade pay/ FY05 on Based *** * Appendix F: Refuge Operations Needs (RONS) and Service Asset Maintenance Management Systems (SAMMS) F-1 Refuge Operations Needs (RONS) and Service Asset Maintenance Management Systems (SAMMS) FTE ** (personnel) Costs ($1,000) Year 1Year Recurring Rank Refuge* ed based on goals and objectives developed for 99001 17 $56 $36 0.5 TIER 2 PROJECTS Sub-Total for Tier 2 for Tier Sub-Total $2,985*** $395*** 3.5 Total for Tier 1 & Tier 2 1 & Tier for Tier Total $3,732 $887 10.5 Project Title* Project No. . Table F.2. Proposed Refuge, Lake F.2. Umbagog Refuge for Tier 2 rankingsTable Operations Needs Projects (RONS) Alternative B in this CCP Expand Refuge Radio SystemBiologist for the Northern Forest Map for RefugeDevelop Vegetation/Habitat Initiate Forest Management ProgramImprove Forest Management for Non-game Land BirdsSurvey and Post Refuge BoundaryBank Stabilization and Restoration in Little BerlinRestore Riparian and Adjacent Upland HabitatsDevelop visitor services at Potter Farm on Refuge 98004 00102 3002 12 3001 10 00006 03003 98009 00003 8 9 98015 11 $151 14 $110 15 16 13 $1,520 $25 $50 $81 $170 $30 $213 $163 $131 $102 $0 $35 $0 0.5 0 $9 $36 $10 1 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 Expand Lead Sinker Impact Outreach Effort Endangered species survey and mappingExpand Refuge Outreach ProgramFriends Group InitiativeConduct Cultural Resources Survey 00009 18 98011 00005 19 $62 98007 22 $164 20 $36 $60 $36 $79 0.5 $5 $10 0.5 0 0 ** FTE: full-time equivalent; *** Based on FY05 pay/ grade * Project title and ranking may not exactly match current RONS database. They were modifi * F-2 Appendix F: Refuge Operations Needs (RONS) and Service Asset Maintenance Management Systems (SAMMS) Refuge Operations Needs (RONS) and Service Asset Maintenance Management Systems (SAMMS) $75 4 $29 9 $19$15 15 18 $169$261 2 3 EXISTING FACILITIES Table F.3.Service RefugeTable Lake Umbagog Asset Maintenance for projects Systems Management (SAMMS) 104894 Replace inoperable Skidoo Snowmobile $10 21 104897 Replace inoperable road grader104893 Replace aging 2-wheel drive dump truck $181 7 $102 14 104899 Remove Davis house on tract 408 and Carmen $64 16 6156974 Remove Buildings on 6 tracts 3124216 CN 3 mi long gravel road from NH RT 26 to Potter Farm31264672119449 Rehabilitate Bank in Little Berlin Replace Skandic 377R Snowmobile1113080 Replace 1979 FWD snowplow truck21192912119266 Replace 1997 16 ft green Lund with 50HP Honda Replace Deteriorating 1975 International2119293 $2,100 Replace 1999 White Chevy Suburban 1 $744 $10 $16 $116 $183 5 6 10 8 $38 11 13 31255322119282 n House by replacing Rehabilitate Carmen and Cofi Replace HP800PS Printer Plotter $26 17 Project No. Project Title* Costs ($1,000) Refuge* Rank 93104885 Replace Garage/Storage area 9710488197104883 Rehabilitate Potterfarmhouse foundation Rehabilitate Potter Farmhouse interior $167 $311 19 20 98104886 Rehabilitate Eroding Riverbank 98104888 Remove gravel road off Rt. 16 98104890 ce Rehabilitate Parking Lot across offi 98104873 Replace old unsafe 14’ boat $58 12

Appendix F: Refuge Operations Needs (RONS) and Service Asset Maintenance Management Systems (SAMMS) F-3 Refuge Operations Needs (RONS) and Service Asset Maintenance Management Systems (SAMMS) 35 $7 31 $10 25 $26$54$26 37 $20 38 39 99 $5,353 Total 104895 snowmobile Replace unreliable Yamaha $10 22 104902 Remove Buildings on Davis, Fitzpatrick, Mezerve & $105 99 21192992119304 Replace HQ Pow’r guard AE12 generator 2119307 Replace white 2000 Chevy Suburban2119314 Replace tri-toon 2424 Custom pontoon boat with motor Replace stranger house Pow’r guard generator $31 $16 $16 $42 34 32 33 11130702119286 Replace aging 1980 SMI snowblower2119285 Replace 2001 Ski-doo tundra snowmobile and trailer Replace 2001 Kawasaki ATV 21193251113049 Replace BF50A 50hp Honda motor $11 Remove Linell and Underwood $90 24 23 $7 36 21192832119287 SN JKAVFEA1X28514853 Replace 2001 Kawasaki ATV 2119289 Replace 2001 Ski-doo tundra snowmobile2119300 Replace 1998 John Deere 955 Tractor3126446 Replace WC1420 Adventure Lund, trailer and motor2119297 Replace 18 foot pontoon boat with 50HP honda Replace radial arm saw 3126169 $103126465 Replace 90HP 4wd tractor 6156971 Replace agricultural implements Baby Cat Motor and Trailer Replace 2005 Transport 3125519 $10 $7 Rehab Stranger House Roof 26 $31 $16 29 27 28 30 $15 40 99104874 Replace worn-out JD410 backhoe $99 99 Project No. Project Title* Costs ($1,000) Refuge* Rank

F-4 Appendix F: Refuge Operations Needs (RONS) and Service Asset Maintenance Management Systems (SAMMS) Refuge Operations Needs (RONS) and Service Asset Maintenance Management Systems (SAMMS) 3 FTE (personnel) $25 $100 11 $6,245 Costs ($1000) Cost Recurring Total NEW PROJECTS Total for Tier 1, Tier 2, Existing Facilities & New Projects 1, Tier for Tier Total $9,977 $887 10.5 Construct Up To 10 Roadside Small Gravel Parking Areas for Hunting/Fishing/Wildlife Viewing 10 Roadside Small Gravel Parking Areas for Hunting/Fishing/Wildlife Viewing Construct Up To Access in Expansion Lands Road + Construct Boating/Fishing Access at Sturtevant Pond $210 12 + Install 5 Gates to control access along Potter Farm Road, Mountain Pond Road and Eames Camp + and Parking Lots Construct and Improve Middle Mountain Pond Road Trail ++ Location Trail Construct Wentworth Construct Mountain Pond Accessible Fishing Platform and Trail ++ Construct Sweatt Meadow Observation Platform and Platform Construct Errol Hill Overlook Trail $150 4 $200 7 $200 $30 $80 6 9 10 + 0001503002 Contact Facilityce Headquarters and Visitor Construct New Refuge Ofﬁ Construct Potter Farm Nature Trail $4,385 1 $201 2 00002 & Interpretative Site (Routes 16 26) Construct Refuge Roadside Vista 98012 Construct Fishing Pier and Observation Platforms $433 5 $231 8 Project No. Project Title* Costs ($1,000) Refuge* Rank + No project+ No number or ranking assigned yet Appendix F: Refuge Operations Needs (RONS) and Service Asset Maintenance Management Systems (SAMMS) F-5 Appendix G Bill Zinni/USFWS Umbagog Lake

Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

By Lynne Koontz, Ryan Donovan, Natalie Sexton, and Dana Hoag

Introduction The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 requires all units of the National Wildlife Refuge System to be managed under a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). The CCP must describe the desired future conditions of a refuge and provide long range guidance and management direction to achieve refuge purposes. Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge, located in Coos County, New Hampshire and Oxford County, Maine, is in the process of developing a range of management goals, objectives, and strategies for the CCP. The CCP for the refuge must contain an analysis of expected effects associated with current and proposed refuge management strategies.

The purpose of this study was to estimate the regional economic impacts associated with the CCP management strategies. An analysis of the draft CCP management alternatives was provided in Appendix G of the draft CCP. After the release of the draft CCP, adjustments to land acquisition acreage were made that alter the economic impacts reported in the draft CCP. This report updates the economic impacts associated with the final CCP management alternatives including land acquisition revisions for Alternatives B and C.

Special interest groups and local residents often criticize a change in refuge management, especially if there is a perceived negative impact to the local economy. Having objective data on income and employment impacts may show that these economic fears are overstated. Quite often, the extent of economic benefits a refuge provides to a local community is not fully recognized, yet at the same time the impact of negative changes is overstated. Spending associated with refuge recreational activities such as wildlife viewing and hunting can generate considerable tourism activity for surrounding communities. Additionally, refuge personnel typically spend considerable amounts of money purchasing supplies in local stores, repairing equipment and purchasing fuel at the local service stations, as well as reside and spend their salaries in the local community.

For refuge CCP planning, a regional economic impact analysis provides a means of estimating how current management (No Action Alternative) and proposed management activities (alternatives) affect the local economy. This type of analysis provides two critical pieces of information: 1) it illustrates a refuge’s contribution to the local community; and 2) it can help in determining whether local economic effects are or are not a real concern in choosing among management alternatives.

It is important to note that the economic value of a refuge encompasses more than just the impacts of the regional economy. Refuges also provide substantial nonmarket values (values for items not exchanged in established markets) such as maintaining endangered species, preserving wetlands,

Appendix G: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge G-1 Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

educating future generations, and adding stability to the ecosystem (Caudill and Henderson, 2003). However, quantifying these types of nonmarket values is beyond the scope of this study.

This report first presents a description of the local community and economy near the refuge. Next, the methods used to conduct a regional economic impact analysis are described. An analysis of the final CCP management strategies that could affect the local economy is then presented. The refuge management activities of economic concern in this analysis are:

■ Refuge purchases of goods and services within the local community. ■ Refuge personnel salary spending. ■ Spending in the local community by refuge visitors. ■ Revenues generated from timber harvesting on the refuge. ■ Refuge land purchases and changes in local tax revenue.

Regional Economic Setting For the purposes of an economic impact analysis, a region (and its economy) is typically defined as all counties within a 30–60 mile radius of the impact area. Only spending that takes place within this local area is included as stimulating the changes in economic activity. The size of the region influences both the amount of spending captured and the multiplier effects. Based on the relative self- containment in terms of retail trade, Coos County, New Hampshire and Oxford County, Maine were assumed to comprise the economic region for this analysis.

Local and Regional Demographics Lake Umbagog NWR is located in Coos County, New Hampshire and Oxford County, Maine. Located within the area known as the ‘Northern Forest’, residents of Coos and Oxford Counties depend on the forest to provide clean water, habitat for plants and wildlife, wood and paper products, recreation opportunities, and cultural identity (North East State Foresters Association (NEFA), 2004). The area also provides numerous recreational opportunities for millions of visitors annually. According to High and others (2004), over 46 million Americans and 12 million Canadians live within 400 miles of Coos and Oxford Counties, including the major metropolitan areas of New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Montreal.

Coos County, derived from the Indian word for pines, “cohos,” encompasses the entire northern section of New Hampshire, covering 1,804 square miles, accounting for 20% of New Hampshire’s total land area. Oxford County, located in northwestern Maine, covers 2,078 square miles, accounting for almost 7% of the land area in Maine. The eastern boundary of Coos County adjoins the western boundary of Oxford County. The northern boundary of both counties borders Quebec, Canada.

Population Table 1 shows the population estimates and trends for the regional area and communities near the refuge. While Coos is the largest New Hampshire County in total land area, it is the smallest in

G-2 Appendix G: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

population, accounting for less than 3% of New Hampshire’s total population in 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005). From 1990 to 2000, New Hampshire’s overall population increased by 11.4% while Coos was the only county to lose population, decreasing by 4.9% over the same period. According to High and others (2004), Coos County has not been able to benefit from population growth that accompanies economic development or interstate access to the same extent as counties in south and central New Hampshire.

In 2000, Oxford County accounted for approximately 4% of Maine’s total population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005). From 1990 to 2000, the population growth rate for Oxford County was approximately 4%, which was similar to Maine’s overall population increase (Table 1).

Table 1. Local and regional population estimates and characteristics. Projected Population population Population in 2000 change (%) change (%) Persons per Median Residents square mile age 1990 to 2000 2000 to 2010

New Hampshire 1,235,786 137.8 37.1 +11.4 +12.7 Coos County, NH 33,111 18.4 41.5 -4.9 -6.0 NH communities near refuge Berlin 10,331 167.4 42.5 -13.0 -7.0 Colebrook 2,321 56.6 41.2 -5.3 -6.4 Errol 298 4.9 47.2 +2.1 -7.1 Gorham 2,895 90.7 42.0 -9.5 -6.7

Maine 1,274,923 41.3 38.6 +3.8 +4.6 Oxford County, ME 54,755 26.3 40.2 +4.1 +3.5 ME communities near refuge Bethel 2,411 37.2 40.8 +3.2 +2.6 Upton 62 1.6 56.0 -13.9 +16.1

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2005), Maine State Planning Ofﬁ ce (2002, projections compiled December 2001 based on past trends), and New Hampshire Ofﬁ ce of Energy and Planning (2004, projections compiled Sept. 2004 based on past trends).

The towns of Upton and Bethel in Oxford County and the towns of Errol, Berlin, Gorham, and Colebrook in Coos County are the primary communities near the refuge. Errol and Upton are closest in proximity to the refuge and, as shown in Table 1, are also the smallest communities in the area near the refuge. The town of Errol is close to the western side of the refuge and is the town nearest the refuge headquarters. In 2000, the population of Errol was 298 residents, averaging 4.9 persons per square mile (Table 1). Upton is a very small community near the southern end of the refuge with a population of 62 residents, averaging 1.6 persons per square mile. Berlin is the northern most city in

Appendix G: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge G-3 Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

New Hampshire and is located approximately 30 miles south of the refuge near the White Mountain National Forest. The town of Gorham is located just south of Berlin. Colebrook is approximately 25 miles north of the refuge in northern Coos County at the junction of the Connecticut and Mohawk Rivers. Bethel is located 35 miles southeast of the refuge on the Androscoggin River.

In 2000, approximately 98% of the Coos and Oxford County population consisted of white persons not of Hispanic or Latino origin, 0.5% of persons of Hispanic or Latino descent, 0.4% of Asian persons, 0.3% of American Indian or Alaska Native persons, and less than 0.2% of Black or African Americans (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005). Population origin estimates were similar for New Hampshire and Maine. In Coos County, approximately 77% of residents over the age of twenty four were high school graduates and 12 % have earned a bachelor’s or advanced degree (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005). Similarly, 82% of residents over the age of twenty four in Oxford County were high school graduates and 16 % have earned a bachelor’s or advanced degree (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005).

The average median ages in Table 1 reflect the post-war baby boom generation that is nearing retirement age (New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning, 2004). The highest median ages are in Upton and Errol, 56 years and 47 years respectively, which are well above the state and county level averages. The percent of population 65 years and older is 16% for Oxford County and 18% for Coos County while the state averages were 14% for Maine and 12% for New Hampshire (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005). Consequences associated with the aging workforce include increased demand for healthcare and social services coupled with decreasing income tax collections (due to retirees leaving the workforce) needed to pay for these services (Maine State Planning Office, 2005).

As shown in Table 1, population projections for the year 2010 anticipate New Hampshire’s overall population will continue to increase while Coos County will continue to decrease similar to past trends (New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning, 2004). Populations in communities near the refuge in Coos County are anticipated to decline by six to seven percent over the same time period. These projected changes for the local communities and the overall Coos County population could have important implications for region’s forest based economy and forest visitors coming to the area (High and others, 2004).

Population forecasts for the year 2010 anticipate the population in Maine and Oxford County to follow a similar growth trend with the overall state of Maine’s population growing slightly more than Oxford County (Table 1; Maine State Planning Office, 2005).

Employment and Income Coos and Oxford County 2002 employment estimates are shown in Table 2. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, most jobs in Coos and Oxford Counties were in the industries of manufacturing, health care & social assistance services, retail trade, and government agencies. Compared to counties in southern New Hampshire and Maine, Coos and Oxford Counties have slower economic growth and a greater dependence on traditional natural resource based manufacturing activities (High and others, 2004). According to NH Economic and Labor Market Information Bureau (2005), Coos County employment projections for 2000 to 2010 suggest most new jobs will be in service related industries, especially in the fields of health services, amusement and recreation services, and business services (that is, computer–related services, advertising, and temporary help services).

G-4 Appendix G: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Table 2. 2002 full-time and part-time employment for Coos and Oxford counties.

Coos county, NH Oxford county, ME Total non-farm employment (jobs) 18,876 24,703 Percent of employment by industry (%) (%) (%) Ag., forestry, fish, and hunting 2.6 2.6 Mining and utilities 0.7 0.1 Construction 5.4 8.3 Manufacturing 10.4 15.2 Wholesale trade 1.7 0.7 Transportation and warehousing 3.6 2.0 Retail trade 14.4 13.3 Finance, insurance, real estate, and information 6.2 6.2 Services Professional, management, admin., and waste 3.9 6.3 Health care, social assistance, and educational 14.3 14.3 Arts, entertainment, and recreation 4.8 5.2 Accommodation and food 11.1 5.8 Other services 5.3 5.8 Government (federal, state, and local) 15.5 14.2 Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System 2002, and IMPLAN 2002 data. Self-employment is not included.

U.S Census Bureau (2005) data for median household income, unemployment and percentage of persons below poverty in 1999 are shown in Table 3 (U.S. Census, 2005). As shown in Table 3, median household income and percent unemployed are similar for Coos and Oxford Counties. The percent of population below the federal poverty line is an indicator of the economic distress within a community. The percent below poverty in Coos and Oxford Counties, 10% and 11.8% respectively, are below the national average of 12.4% but are above their state average (Table 3). The average incomes for both counties are below the state and national averages. New Hampshire’s median household income is more than $7,400 above the national average, while Maine’s is more than $4,700 below the national average.

Table 3. Income, unemployment, and poverty estimates. Percent Percent of persons Median household unemployed below poverty income (1999) (2000) (%) (1999) (%) United States Average $41,994 4.1 12.4 New Hampshire $49,467 2.7 6.5 Coos County, NH $33,593 3.3 10.0 Maine $37,240 3.1 10.9 Oxford County, ME $33,435 3.3 11.8 Source: U.S Census Bureau (2005)

Appendix G: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge G-5 Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Natural Resource Based Industries: Timber and Tourism Maine and New Hampshire are the first and second, respectively, most forested states in the nation (NEFA, 2004). Timber and tourism, the prominent natural resource based industries with ties to the refuge, are described in more detail below.

Timber Harvesting and Production Industries Forests cover 95% (17.7 million acres) of Maine and 84% (4.7 million acres) of New Hampshire (NEFA, 2004). Maine is the major timber producer of the larger NEFA region (ME, NH, VT, and NY), accounting for roughly half of wood produced annually (NEFA, 2004). In 2003, Maine harvested 5.9 million cords and processed almost as much (5.6 million cords) in-state (Maine Department of Conservation, 2004). According to NEFA (2001a), imports to Maine in 2001 were dominated by pulpwood and nearly 67% of its exports were high value softwood sawlogs. In 2003, Oxford County accounted for 8% of the total amount of timber (sawlogs and pulpwood) harvested in Maine, ranking sixth in the state (Maine Department of Conservation, 2004).

In contrast to the timber industry in Maine, New Hampshire is cutting much more timber than it is processing (High and others, 2004). In 2001, the amount of timber processed in New Hampshire accounted for approximately 83% of the amount harvested within the state (NEFA 2001b). In 2002, Coos County accounted 16.5 % of the total timber harvested in New Hampshire, ranking second in the state to Cheshire County (U.S. Forest Service Timber Products Output Data, 2002).

In 2001, forest-based industries employed over 21,600 people in Maine and 9,800 in New Hampshire and generated over $1.0 billion in income in Maine and $333 million in income in New Hampshire (NEFA, 2004). According to NEFA, each 1,000 acres of forestland in New Hampshire supports 2.0 forest-based jobs, while 1.2 forest based jobs are supported by 1,000 acres of forestland in Maine. Table 4 shows output and employment associated with forest-based industries in Coos and Oxford Counties in 2002. Pulp and paper industries account for the largest portion of regional forest related output (67%) and employment (44%) followed by timber harvesting and logging industries which account for approximately 15% of output and 24% of employment (Table 4). The 4,148 total jobs directly linked to forest related industries account for 9.5% of the overall employment (43,570 jobs) in Coos and Oxford Counties reported in Table 2. This amount is higher than the percent of employment for the “Ag, Forestry, Fish, & Hunting” industry shown in Table 2 because most forest-related jobs are classified under the Trade, Manufacturing, and Transportation industries.

Table 4. Output and employment for forest related industries in Coos and Oxford counties.

Forest related industries Output (in millions) Employment

Timber harvesting/logging $178.5 975 Sawmills $131.9 760 Wood products manufacturing (veneer and plywood manufacturing, $72.1 587 floors, wood windows, doors, etc.) Pulp and paper $780.9 1,826 Total $1,163.4 4,148 Source: 2002 IMPLAN model data that does not account for the 2006 closure of the Berlin pulp mill (250 jobs) and Groveton paper mill (303 jobs).

G-6 Appendix G: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

In recent years, the lumber and paper industries have experienced significant declines in employment (Maine State Planning Office, 2005; New Hampshire Economic and Labor Market Information Bureau, 2003). In 2006, the Wausau paper mill in Groveton and the Fraser Papers Berlin pulp mill shut down putting a total of 553 employees out of work (Union Leader, 2008). This accounts for a 30% loss in the pulp and paper jobs and a 13% reduction of the total forest related jobs reported in Table 4. Currently the Fraser Papers Gorham paper mill is the last remaining mill operating in Coos County. In February 2008, Fraser Paper announced plans to shut down two of the four remaining paper making machines at this mill due to the rising cost of oil (Union Leader, 2008). New Hampshire state officials are working on securing funding to help Fraser install a bio-mass power plant to lower costs but no definite plans have been made (Union Leader, 2008). Coos County employment projections for 2000 to 2010 suggest the lumber and paper industries will continue to decline, possibly by a substantial amount with workforce decreases by nearly 24 percent in paper industries and 39 percent in lumber industries (New Hampshire Economic and Labor Market Information Bureau, 2003). According to High and others (2004), increasing pressure from the global paper industry, increased recycling of wastepaper, efficiency in the pulping process, and loss of market share to other regions has contributed to the slower than expected growth in the regional pulpwood market. Trade agreements such as the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement of 1994 have also affected trends in the regional timber market by creating opportunities for international trade resulting in increases in exports from Maine and New Hampshire to Canada while at the same time allowing new competitors into local markets (Innovative Natural Resource Solutions, 2005; High and others, 2004).

Recreation and Tourism Related Industries The travel and tourism industry continues to be a significant and growing contributor to the economies of Maine and New Hampshire. A survey of Maine visitors in 2003 estimated resident and nonresident visitors spent $6.1 billon in Maine, which direct and indirectly (i.e., the multiplier effect as initial spending is recycled through the economy) generated: $13.4 billion in sales of goods and services; 173,181 jobs; $3.8 billion in income; and $549 million in state and local tax revenue (Longwoods International, 2004). Results suggest overnight visitors come to tour the state (36%), enjoy Maine’s superb outdoors (24%), take a beach vacation (12%), and to attend a special event (10%). In 2003, Maine’s lakes and mountains region was the primary regional destination for 15%, and was visited by 19% of those traveling in Maine (Longwoods International, 2004).

In New Hampshire, resident and nonresident visitors spent $3.7 billon in 2002 (an increase of 2.9% from 2000), accounting for the multiplier effect this spending generated: $9.8 billion in sales of goods and services; 88,427 jobs; and $419 million in state and local tax revenue (Goss, 2003). A survey of New Hampshire visitors in 2003/2004 conducted by the Institute for New Hampshire Studies reported that popular visitor activities include sightseeing, skiing/snowmobiling, shopping, and scenic drives (Thurston, 2004). The White Mountain region was reportedly the most visited region in all seasons followed by the Lakes region (except in winter). While White Mountain region includes the southern section of Coos County (and also extends into Oxford County), the area surrounding the refuge is known as the great north woods region. Survey results reported New Hampshire’s great north woods region was visited by 15% of visitors to New Hampshire during the summer and fall, 10% of winter visitors, and 7% of visitors during the spring season (Thurston, 2004).

Located within the Northern Forest, Coos and Oxford Counties provide abundant year round recreational opportunities. For example, in Coos County there are 271 recreation areas covering nearly

Appendix G: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge G-7 Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

30% of the county’s total acreage (New Hampshire Office of State Planning, 2003). Coos County employment projections indicate the amusement and recreation services industry will contribute 260 new jobs between 2000 and 2010 (New Hampshire Economic and Labor Market Information Bureau, 2003).

Popular activities on or near the refuge include hiking, camping, wildlife viewing, picnicking, snowmobiling, fishing, hunting, boating, canoeing, and cross-country skiing. The area is also a nationally recognized destination for fall foliage enthusiasts. Details about the economic contributions associated with wildlife viewing, fishing, hunting, boating, and other recreational activities in Maine and New Hampshire are provided below.

Wildlife Viewing Abundant opportunities are available throughout Maine and New Hampshire for formal wildlife education or recreational viewing. Since the 1970’s, wildlife viewing has grown to become one of the most popular outdoor recreation activities in New Hampshire (Silverberg, 1997). Wildlife viewing can include the activities of observing, identifying, photographing or feeding wildlife. In 2001, the number of people that reported participating in wildlife viewing as a primary form of recreation totaled 766,000 in New Hampshire and 778,000 in Maine (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2003a and 2003b). Spending associated with wildlife viewing in Maine totaled $346 million in 2001; of which 43% ($148 million) were trip related expenditures, 41% ($140 million) were spent on equipment related expenses, and 17% ($59 million) were other expenses such as magazines, membership dues, and land leasing (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2003a). In New Hampshire, wildlife viewing related spending totaled $343 million in 2001; of which 52% ($177 million) were trip related expenditures, 43% ($148 million) were spent on equipment related expenses, and 5% ($17 million) were other expenses (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2003b).

According to a USFWS report on the national and state economic impacts of wildlife watching (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2003c) accounting for the multiplier effect, spending by resident and nonresident wildlife watchers in Maine in 2001 generated; $856 million in output, $255 million in wages, 13,638 jobs, and $16 million in state sales tax revenue. This accounted for 2.2% of total employment and 1.4% of employment income in Maine. In 2001, spending in New Hampshire by wildlife viewers generated $567 million in output, $173 million in wages, and 8,239 jobs which accounted for 1.3% of total employment and 0.8% of employment income in New Hampshire (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2003c).

Hunting In 2001, there were a total of 164,000 resident and non resident hunters in Maine; 95% participated in hunting big game, 39% participated in hunting small game, and the number for migratory birds was negligible (totals exceed 100% because most hunters participated in both big and small game hunting). Residents of Maine accounted for 75% of total hunters and 86% of the total days of hunting in Maine (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2003a). In New Hampshire, there were a total of 78,000 hunters in 2001; 91% participated in big game hunting, 38% participated in small game hunting, and the

G-8 Appendix G: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge number for migratory birds was negligible (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2003b). Residents of New Hampshire accounted for 67% of total hunters and 78% of the total days of hunting in New Hampshire.

According to USFWS (2003a), hunting related expenditures by state residents and nonresidents in Maine totaled $162 million in 2001; of which 33% ($54 million) were trip related expenditures, 44% ($72 million) were spent on equipment related expenses, and 23% ($37 million) were other hunting- related expenses (i.e., membership dues, licenses, permits and land leasing). In New Hampshire, hunting related expenditures by state residents and nonresidents totaled $71 million in 2001; of which 5% ($15 million) were trip related expenditures, 66% ($47 million) were spent on equipment related expenses, and 13% ($9 million) were other hunting-related expenses (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2003b).

According to a report by the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA, 2002) accounting for the multiplier effect, spending by resident and nonresident hunters in Maine in 2001 generated; $326 million in output, $74 million in income, 3,643 jobs, and $9.3 million in state and local sales taxes. Resident and nonresident hunter spending in New Hampshire in 2001 generated $155 million in output, $36 million in salary and wages, 1,429 jobs, and $827,000 in state and local taxes (IAFWA, 2002).

Fishing and Boating Activities In 2001, more than 272,000 people in Maine and 221,000 people in New Hampshire participated in freshwater fishing. Maine residents accounted for 65% of total freshwater anglers and 83% of total days of freshwater fishing in Maine (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2003a). In New Hampshire, a total of 221,000 anglers participated in freshwater fishing in 2001. Of these anglers, New Hampshire residents accounted for 57% of the total freshwater fishermen and 83% of total days of freshwater fishing in the state (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2003b). Direct spending in Maine by state resident and nonresident freshwater anglers totaled $108 million in 2001. Trip costs (food, lodging, transportation and other trip costs) were $71 million (66%) and equipment costs represented $37 million (34%) of total spending (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2003a). In New Hampshire, state resident and nonresident freshwater anglers spent a total of $70 million in 2001; of which $43 million (61%) were trip related expenditures and $27 million (39%) were equipment expenses (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2003b).

Including the multiplier effect, total output generated from expenditures by freshwater anglers in New Hampshire ranged between $245-$352 million in 1996, which supported between 2,100 to 4,300 full and part-time jobs, generating household income in the range of $84-$103 million (Shapiro and Kroll, 2003).

The region’s plentiful supply of surface water makes boating a popular activity. According to the New Hampshire Office of State Planning (2003), 45% of New Hampshire households participated in canoeing, kayaking and rowing activities and 43% participated in motor boating in 1997. A recent study reported pure boating (boating not associated with fishing or hunting) annually generates $328- $450 million in final output and 3,400-5,700 jobs in the state (Shapiro and Kroll, 2003).

Appendix G: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge G-9 Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Other Activities The bountiful snowfall in northern New Hampshire and Maine make snowmobiling and skiing popular activities. In recent surveys of visitors to New Hampshire conducted by the Institute for New Hampshire Studies (Thurston, 2004), skiing/snowmobiling ranked as the top winter activity by 72% of overnight visitors and 49% of day trip visitors. The percentage of New Hampshire residents (19%) who enjoyed snowmobiling on the state’s estimated 6,000 miles of trails is nearly four times the national participation rate of 5.6% (New Hampshire Office of State Planning, 2003). A 2003 study conducted by Plymouth State University showed that New Hampshire resident snowmobile participants spent approximately $66 per visitor day, while out-of-state snowmobile participants visiting New Hampshire spent nearly $88 per visitor day (Okrant and Goss, 2003). In addition to trip-related expenditures, New Hampshire snowmobile owners spent, on average, $1,200 annually on equipment, clothing, insurance, club memberships and state license fees. Combined total snowmobile-related expenditures are estimated to have a total economic impact of $1.2 Billion annually in New Hampshire, while supporting approximately 6,500 jobs (Okrant and Goss, 2003).

Maine resident snowmobile registrations increased nearly four percent from the 1995-96 seasons to the 1997-98 season. In addition, nonresident registrations increased 71% over the same time (Reiling, 1998). A large proportion of snowmobile spending in Maine is for the purchase and maintenance of equipment, specialty equipment and trip related expenditures. In 1998, the University of Maine and the Maine Snowmobile Association conducted a study showing the economic impact of all snowmobiling related activity on Maine to be $261 million, providing the equivalent of 3,100 full-time jobs (Reiling,1998).

Visitation trends suggest that more people are participating in non-consumptive recreation in the Northeast region of the country (New Hampshire Office of State Planning, 2003). Driving for pleasure, sightseeing, hiking and mountain biking are extremely popular activities in the Northeast. In 1996, 73% of New Hampshire households went day hiking, with 25% of all households hiking seven or more times. In the same survey, 27% percent of New Hampshire households reported they went mountain biking, and 12% reported doing so seven or more times a year. Hiking trails total an estimated 2,800 miles in New Hampshire (New Hampshire Office of State Planning, 2003). Swimming is another favorite activity in the region, as 71% percent of New Hampshire households had swum in a lake or stream in 1997 (Shapiro and Kroll, 2003).

Land Development, Ownership, and Protection Since the 1980’s, areas of large intact sections of forestland in the Northern Forest have declined as development has divided large forests into several smaller disconnected forests. Development of forest lands can result in habitat loss, forest fragmentation, loss in public access, as well as change in the traditional character of the region (Appalachian Mountain Club, 2005). According to a recent report by the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests (SPNHF), sustainable forest management and ecological significance requires forest blocks that are at least 5,000 acres, most remaining areas of this size in New Hampshire are in the White Mountains and Coos County (SPNHF, 2005).

G-10 Appendix G: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

The increasing turnover in land ownership from traditional industrial landowners (i.e., paper companies) to private investors and other nontraditional owners has raised concerns over habitat protection and continued access to traditional recreational lands. According to a report produced for the State of Maine’s 120th Legislature by the Committee to Study Access to Private and Public Lands in Maine (2004),

“residents and visitors of Maine have enjoyed a tradition of access to millions of acres of privately owned land. The extraordinary changes in land ownership in the State during the last 10 years have caused growing uncertainty among the recreational users of these vast private land ownerships. Continuing access to private lands cannot be taken for granted.”

Potential loss in recreational lands is also an issue for heavily tourism-dependent businesses near the refuge and throughout the Northern Forest region. According to a report prepared at the request of Maine’s Governor to identify the economic and cultural importance of tourism in Maine (Vail, 2003),

“new owners and growing fragmentation of ownerships add layers of complexity (and frustration) to negotiations between user groups and owners. More land is gated; day use and lease fees are raised; large kingdom lots are carved out of the wildlands; and sub-divisions have cumulative and irreversible impacts on public access to lakes and ponds.”

While most forestland in northern New Hampshire and Northeastern Maine have not yet experienced development pressures and changing forest ownership to the same degree as other areas in New Hampshire and Maine, in December 2004, a new development proposal was announced for nearly 1,000 camp lots and two resorts in the nearby community of Greenville, Maine (85 miles from the refuge) (ABC News, 2004). This land is owned and being developed by Plum Creek Timber Company, which also owns large amounts of land surrounding the refuge.

Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Activities

Methods for a Regional Economic Impact Analysis Economic input-output models are commonly used to determine how economic sectors will and will not be affected by demographic, economic, and policy changes. The economic impacts of the management alternatives for LUNWR were estimated using IMPLAN (Impact Analysis for Planning), a regional input-output modeling system developed by the USDA Forest Service. IMPLAN is a computerized database and modeling system that provides a regional input-output analysis of economic activity in terms of 10 industrial groups involving more than five hundred economic sectors (Olson and Lindall, 1999). The IMPLAN model draws upon data collected by the Minnesota IMPLAN Group from multiple federal and state sources including the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the U.S. Census Bureau (Olson and Lindall, 1999). The year 2002 Coos and Oxford County IMPLAN data profiles were used in this study. The IMPLAN county level employment data estimates were found to be comparable to the US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System data for the year 2002.

Appendix G: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge G-11 Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Because of the way industries interact in an economy, a change in the activity of one industry affects activity levels in several other industries. For example, if more visitors come to an area, local businesses will purchase extra labor and supplies to meet the increase in demand for additional services. The income and employment resulting from visitor purchases from local businesses represent the direct effects of visitor spending within the economy. Direct effects measure the net amount of spending that stays in the local economy after the first round of spending, the amount that doesn’t stay in the local economy is termed a leakage (Caudill and Henderson, 2003). In order to increase supplies to local businesses, input suppliers must also increase their purchases of inputs from other industries. The income and employment resulting from these secondary purchases by input suppliers are the indirect effects of visitor spending within the county. The input supplier’s new employees use their incomes to purchase goods and services. The resulting increased economic activity from new employee income is the induced effect of visitor spending. The indirect and induced effects are known as the secondary effects of visitor spending. Multipliers capture the size of the secondary effects, usually as a ratio of total effects to direct effects (Stynes, 1998). The sums of the direct and secondary effects describe the total economic impact of visitor spending in the local economy.

For each alternative, regional economic effects from the IMPLAN model are reported for the following categories:

■ Local Output represents the change in local sales or revenue. ■ Personal Income represents the change in employee income in the region that is generated from a change in regional output. ■ Employment represents the change in number of jobs generated in the region from a change in regional output. IMPLAN estimates for employment include both full time and part time workers, which are measured in total jobs.

There are three alternatives evaluated in the final CCP. Alternative A would continue the type and scale of current management activities and programs. Alternative B would manage for specific refuge habitats to support representative species, such as blackburnian warbler, Cape May warbler, black- throated blue warbler, woodcock, and American black duck, whose habitat needs benefit other species of conservation concern in the Northern Forest. And Alternative C would manage to maintain and/ or restore the natural processes that help provide the native diversity of habitats and species of the northern forest. Under Alternatives B and C, the refuge will engage in active management of wetland and upland habitats, including forest management and purchase of additional lands. Under all three alternatives, the refuge will continue to provide wildlife-related recreational opportunities, such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and photography.

The CCP provides long range guidance and management direction to achieve refuge purposes over a 15 year timeframe. The economic impacts reported in this report are on an annual basis in 2005 dollars. Large management changes such as land acquisition often take several years to achieve. The estimates reported for Alternatives B and C represent the final economic effects after all changes in management have been implemented.

G-12 Appendix G: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge Economic Impacts of Alternative A

Impacts from Proposed Land Acquisition and Protection Measures

Refuge Revenue Sharing Under provisions of the Refuge Revenue Sharing (RRS) Act, local towns receive an annual payment for lands that have been purchased by full fee simple acquisition by the Service. Payments are based on the greater of 75 cents per acre or 0.75% of the fair market value of lands acquired by the Service. The exact amount of the annual payment depends on Congressional appropriations, which in recent years have tended to be less than the amount to fully fund the authorized level of payments. In fiscal year 2005 (FY05), actual RRS payments were 41% of authorized levels. This was the lowest RRS payment year, since FY05 payment levels have continually increased. However, in order to provide a conservative estimate, the FY05 authorized 41% payment level was used in analyzing the final CCP alternatives. In 2005, payments to local townships were $5,049 to Magalloway ME, $6,018 to Upton ME, $603 to Cambridge NH, $19,509 to Errol NH, and $6,467 to Wentworth Location NH for a total payment of $37,646. Table 5 shows the resulting economic impacts of RRS payments under Alternative A. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, RRS payments for Alternative A generate total annual economic impacts of $ 51,700 in local output, $30,700 in personal income, and 1 job in Coos and Oxford Counties.

Table 5. Annual impacts from refuge revenue sharing payments for Alternative A (2005, $,000).

Local output Personal income Employment (# jobs)

Direct effects $37.6 $26.1 0.8 Secondary effects $14.1 $4.6 0.2

Total economic impact $51.7 $30.7 1.0

Impacts from Public Use and Access Management

Refuge Visitor Expenditures in Local Economy Spending associated with recreational visits to national wildlife refuges generates significant economic activity. A visitor usually buys a wide range of goods and services while visiting an area. Major expenditure categories include lodging, restaurants, supplies, groceries, and recreational equipment rental. The FWS report Banking on Nature: The Economic Benefits of National Wildlife Refuges Visitation to Local Communities estimated the impact of national wildlife refuges on their local economies (Caudill and Henderson, 2003). According to the report, more than 35.5 million visits were made to national wildlife refuges in FY 2002 which generated $809 million of sales in regional economies. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, spending by national wildlife visitors generated nearly 19,000 jobs, and over $315 million in employment income (Caudill and Henderson, 2003). In FY2002, hunting and fishing related visitors typically spent longer amounts of

Appendix G: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge G-13 Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

time on national wildlife refuges than non-consumptive users, but non-consumptive users generated approximately 30% more economic activity because the numbers of non-consumptive users of wildlife at many refuges far exceeded the number of hunters and anglers (Caudill and Henderson, 2003).

The refuge offers a wide variety of year round accessible recreational opportunities including wildlife viewing (on land and water), fishing, hunting, and other activities such as snowmobiling. Information on state and regional trends and associated economic impacts of these recreational activities were presented in the previous section. This section focuses on the local economic impacts associated with refuge visitation. Annual refuge visitation estimates are based on several refuge statistic sources including: visitors entering the Visitor Center/Office, boat activity surveys conducted from 2000 to 2004, the number of information sheets given out to the public, reservations for the waterfowl hunting blind, and general observation by refuge personnel. Hunting license sales statistics from the New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development and the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife were also used for estimating the annual number of upland and big game hunters on the refuge. Annual refuge visitation estimates are on a per visit basis. Table 6 summarizes estimated refuge visitation by type of visitor activity for Alternative A. The visitation estimates for Alternative A assume a ten percent increase over the previous five year average annual refuge visitation estimate of 49,500 to reflect the increasing trend in regional visitation.

Table 6. Estimated annual refuge visitation by visitor activity for Alternative A.

Total Percentage Total number Number of Number of non- number of non-local of non-local hours spent local visitor Visitor activity of visits visits (%) visits at refuge daysa

Consumptive use Fishing 11,000 70 7,700 8 7,700 Big game hunting 2,500 67 1,675 8 1,675 Upland game hunting 3,000 67 2,010 8 2,010 Waterfowl and migratory bird hunting 150 60 90 8 90 Non-consumptive use

Wildlife viewing: boating/water use 14,000 60 8,400 8 8,400 Wildlife viewing: nature trails and other wildlife observation 4,500 85 3,825 2 956 Other recreation (snowmobiling) 20,000 60 12,000 1 1,500 Total 55,150 35,700 22,331

a One visitor day = 8 hours.

To determine the local economic impacts of visitor spending, only spending by persons living outside the local area of Coos County and Oxford County are included in the analysis. The rational

G-14 Appendix G: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge for excluding local visitor spending is twofold. First, money flowing into Coos and Oxford Counties from visitors living outside the local area (hereafter referred to as non-local visitors) is considered new money injected into the local economy. Second, if residents of Coos and Oxford Counties visit Lake Umbagog NWR more or less due to the management changes, they will correspondingly change their spending of their money elsewhere in Coos and Oxford Counties, resulting in no net change to the local economy. These are standard assumptions made in most regional economic analyses at the local level. Refuge visitation statistics, the FWS National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation (NSHFWR) statistics (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2003a and 2003b), the New Hampshire Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) Statistics (New Hampshire Office of State Planning, 2003) and a recent report on the economic values of New Hampshire’s lakes, river, and streams by Shapiro and Kroll (2003) were used to determine the percentage of non-local refuge visitors. Table 6 shows the estimated percent of non-local refuge visits for Alternative A.

In this analysis we use the average daily visitor spending profiles from the Banking on Nature report (Caudill and Henderson, 2003) that were derived from the 2001 NSHFWR. The NSHFWR reports trip related spending of state residents and non residents for several different wildlife-associated recreational activities. For each recreation activity, spending is reported in the categories of lodging, food and drink, transportation, and other expenses. Caudill and Henderson (2003) calculated the average per-person per-day expenditures by recreation activity for each FWS region. Residents were defined as living within 30 miles of the refuge and nonresidents as living outside the 30 mile radius (Caudill and Henderson, 2003). For our analysis, non-local visitors match the nonresident spending profile definition. Therefore, we used the spending profiles for nonresidents for FWS Region 5 (the region LUNWR is located in). Nonresident spending profiles for big game hunting, small game hunting, migratory bird hunting, and fresh water fishing were used to estimate non-local visitor spending for the LUNWR hunting and fishing related activities. The nonresident spending profiles for non-consumptive wildlife recreation (observing, feeding, or photographing fish and wildlife) were used for wildlife viewing activities.

The visitor spending profiles are estimated on an average per day (8 hours) basis. Because some visitors only spend short amounts of time on the refuge, counting each refuge visit as a full visitor day would overestimate the economic impact of refuge visitation. In order to properly account for the amount of spending, the annual number of non-local refuge visits were converted to visitor days. Refuge personnel estimate that non-local visitors participating in hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing activities related to boating/water use spend a full visitor day (8 hours) on the refuge. Non- local visitors that view wildlife on the nature trail or participate in other wildlife observation activities typically spend 2 hours (1/4 of a visitor day) on the refuge. Most snowmobile visitors quickly pass through refuge lands (within an hour) while riding on the regional trail system. Table 6 shows the number of non-local visitor days by recreation activity for Alternative A.

Fishing Fishing is a popular pastime on Umbagog Lake and surrounding rivers, including the Rapid, Magalloway, and Androscoggin Rivers. Total spending by refuge anglers was determined by multiplying the average non-local daily spending by the number of non-local fishing related visitor days. Based on the regional freshwater fishing visitor spending profile from the Banking on Nature

Appendix G: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge G-15 Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

report (Caudill and Henderson, 2003), the average non-local refuge angler spends $35.67 per-day. As shown in Table 6, the annual number of visitors fishing on the refuge includes 11,000 visits. Approximately 70% are non-local visitors that spend 8 hours (full visitor day) at the refuge thus accounting for 7,700 annual non-local visitor days. For Alternative A, annual non-local refuge anglers spend almost $274,700 in Coos and Oxford Counties. This spending directly accounts for $212,000 in local output, 3.2 jobs, and $76,600 in personal income in the local economy. The secondary or multiplier effects generate an additional $73,600 in local output, 1 job, and $23,800 in personal income. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, spending by non-local anglers for Alternative A generates total economic impacts of $285,700 in local output, 4.2 jobs and $100,400 in personal income.

Hunting Migratory game bird and waterfowl, upland game, and big game hunting are offered on refuge lands. Total spending by refuge hunters was determined by multiplying the average non-local daily spending by the number of non-local hunting related visitor days. Using the regional hunting visitor spending profiles from the Banking on Nature report (Caudill and Henderson, 2003), the average non-local big game hunter spends $46.19 per-day, a non-local upland game hunter spends $37.46 per-day, and a non-local migratory waterfowl hunter spends $67.96 per-day. As shown in Table 6, the annual number of hunters on refuge lands includes 2,500 visits for big game hunting, 3,000 visits for upland game hunting, and 150 visits for migratory waterfowl hunting. Approximately 67% of the big game and upland game hunters and 60% of the migratory waterfowl hunters are non-local visitors. All hunter types spend 8 hours (full visitor day) at the refuge. Annually, non-local big game hunters account for 1,675 visitor days, non-local upland game hunters for 2,010 visitor days, and non-local migratory waterfowl hunters for 90 visitor days. For Alternative A, annual non-local refuge big game hunters spend $77,400, upland game hunters spend $75,300, and migratory bird hunters spend $4,200 in Coos and Oxford Counties. This spending directly accounts for $119,300 in local output, 1.9 jobs, and $41,900 in personal income in the local economy. The secondary or multiplier effects generate an additional $43,900 in local output, half a job, and $14,000 in personal income. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, spending by non-local hunters for Alternative A generates total economic impacts of $161,300 in local output, 2.4 jobs and $55,900 in personal income.

Wildlife Viewing The refuge provides wildlife viewing opportunities on the land and water. The Magalloway River Trail features a handicapped accessible trail through a forested river’s edge to an observation platform overlooking the Magalloway River’s backwaters. The majority of the refuge is only water accessible providing ample opportunity for exploration by canoe, kayak, or boat. Whether visitors are interested in wildlife photography, fall foliage, moose-watching, listening to the songs of neotropical migrants, viewing the bald eagles and osprey, or enjoying the antics of waterfowl broods, an expedition on the waterways is an ideal way to experience wildlife on the refuge.

Total spending by refuge wildlife viewers was determined by multiplying the average non-local daily spending by the number of non-local wildlife viewing related visitor days. Based on the

G-16 Appendix G: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge regional non-consumptive visitor spending profile from the Banking on Nature report (Caudill and Henderson, 2003), the average non-local visitor participating in wildlife viewing activities spends $45.77 per-day. As shown in Table 6, the annual number of visitors participating in wildlife viewing activities includes 14,000 visits for boating and water use (not fishing related) and 4,500 visits for the nature trail and other wildlife observation activities. Approximately 60% of the water related wildlife viewers are non-local visitors that spend 8 hours (full visitor day) at the refuge thus accounting for 8,400 annual visitor days. Nature trail and other wildlife observation visitors spend about 2 hours (1/4 of a visitor day) and approximately 85% are non-local visitors, accounting for 956 annual visitor days. For Alternative A, the 9,356 annual non-local visitor days associated with wildlife viewing generate $428,200 in visitor spending in Coos and Oxford Counties. This spending directly accounts for $351,400 in local output, 5.5 jobs, and $127,000 in personal income in the local economy. The secondary or multiplier effects generate an additional $122,000 in local output, 1.6 jobs, and $39,200 in personal income. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, spending by non-local wildlife viewing visitors for Alternative A generates total economic impacts of $473,400 in local output, 7.1 jobs and $166,200 in personal income.

Other Activities (Snowmobiling) With hundreds of miles of groomed trails, the Umbagog area is know as the “Snowmobile Capital” of the Northeast (Umbagog Chamber of Commerce, 2005). As shown in Table 6, the annual number of visitors snowmobiling on the refuge includes 20,000 visits. Approximately 60% are non-local visitors that quickly pass through refuge lands (within an hour) while riding on the regional trail system thus accounting for 1,500 annual non-local visitor days. The NSHFWR is focused on wildlife-associated recreational activities and does not report trip related spending for snowmobile visitors. Snowmobiling is not considered to be a compatible use on most National Wildlife Refuges and spending by refuge snowmobile visitors was not included in the Banking on Nature economic impact estimates of refuge visitation. To estimate the economic impacts of refuge snowmobile visitors, we used the spending estimates from the report “The Impact of Spending by snowmobiliers on New Hampshire’s Economy during the 2002-03 Season” conducted by the Institute for New Hampshire Studies at Plymouth State University (Okrant and Goss, 2003). Results showed that New Hampshire resident snowmobile participants spent approximately $66 per visitor day, while out-of-state snowmobile participants visiting New Hampshire spent nearly $88 per visitor day during the 2002–2003 season (Okrant and Goss, 2003). For our analysis, non-local resident visitors (from Maine and New Hampshire) matched the New Hampshire resident profile definition and nonresidents matched the nonresident spending profile definition. Refuge personnel estimate that 55% of the 1,500 annual non-local snowmobile visitor days are non-local New Hampshire and Maine residents and 45% are nonresident visitors. For Alternative A, the 1,500 annual non-local visitor days associated with snowmobiling generate $114,100 in visitor spending in Coos and Oxford Counties. This spending directly accounts for $94,100 in local output, 1.4 jobs, and $32,400 in personal income in the local economy. The secondary or multiplier effects generate an additional $33,000 in local output, half of a job, and $10,500 in personal income. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, spending by non-local snowmobiling visitors for Alternative A generates total economic impacts of $127,100 in local output, 1.9 jobs and $42,900 in personal income.

Appendix G: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge G-17 Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Cumulative Impacts from Refuge Visitation for Alternative A Table 7 summarizes the total economic impacts associated with current non-local visitation for Alternative A. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, spending by non-local refuge visitors for Alternative A generates total annual economic impacts of $1.05 million in local output, $365,400 in personal income, and 15.6 jobs.

Table 7. Annual impacts of non-local visitor spending for Alternative A (2005 $,000).

Local output Personal income Employment (# jobs)

Direct effects Fishing $212.0 $76.6 3.2 Hunting $119.3 $41.9 1.9 Wildlife viewing $351.4 $127.0 5.5 Other (snowmobiling) $94.1 $32.4 1.4 Secondary effects Fishing $73.6 $23.8 1.0 Hunting $43.9 $14.0 0.5 Wildlife viewing $122.0 $39.2 1.6 Other (snowmobiling) $33.0 $10.5 0.5 Total effects Fishing $285.7 $100.4 4.2 Hunting $163.3 $55.9 2.4 Wildlife viewing $473.4 $166.2 7.1 Other (snowmobiling) $127.1 $42.9 1.9 Total economic impact $1,049.4 $365.4 15.6

Impacts from Refuge Administration

Staff – Personal Purchases Employees of Lake Umbagog NWR reside and spend their salaries on daily living expenses in communities near the refuge thereby generating impacts within the local economy. Household consumption expenditures consist of payments by individuals/households to industries for goods and services used for personal consumption. The IMPLAN modeling system contains household consumption spending profiles that account for average household spending patterns by income level.

G-18 Appendix G: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

These profiles also capture average annual savings and allow for leakage of household spending to outside the region. The current approved refuge staff consists of ten permanent and nine seasonal employees for Alternative A (Table 8). Five of the permanent positions are currently vacant but are anticipated to be filled under Alternative A. Table 8. Current approved staff (Alternative A).

Refuge Manager

Deputy Refuge Manager

Administrative Support Assistant

Biologist

Maintenance Worker

Outdoor Recreation Planner (vacant)

Park Ranger (vacant)

Maintenance Worker (vacant)

Forester (vacant)

Biologist (vacant)

Biological Technician (seasonal)

3 Summer Interns (seasonal)

YCC Crew leader (seasonal)

4 YCC interns (seasonal)

Based on FY 2005 salary charts, it was estimated that annual salaries for Alternative A would total over $721,000. Table 9 shows the economic impacts associated with spending of salaries in Coos and Oxford Counties by refuge employees under Alternative A. For Alternative A, salary spending by refuge personnel would directly account for $541,300 in local output (sales or revenue), 3.8 jobs, and $89,000 in personal income in the local economy. The secondary or multiplier effects would generate an additional $91,800 in local output, 1.2 jobs, and $30,300 in personal income. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, salary spending by refuge personnel for Alternative A would generate total economic impacts of $633,100 in local output, 5 jobs and $119,300 in personal income.

Table 9. Annual local economic impacts of salary spending by refuge personnel (2005, $000).

Local output Personal income Employment (# jobs)

Direct effects $541.3 $89.0 3.8

Secondary effects $91.8 $30.3 1.2

Total economic impact $633.1 $119.3 5.0

Appendix G: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge G-19 Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Work-related Purchases A wide variety of supplies and services are purchased for refuge operations and maintenance activities. Refuge purchases made in Coos and Oxford Counties, contribute to the local economic impacts associated with the refuge. According to refuge records, approximately 78% of the annual non-salary budget expenditures are spent on goods and services purchased in Coos and Oxford Counties. Major local expenditures include: supplies and services related to building maintenance and construction; auto repairs, parts, and fuel; and utilities. In 2003, the refuge non-salary budget was about $72,500. Non-salary expenditures for Alternative A are anticipated to increase by roughly 19% (in proportion with the increase in salaries) to $139,400 annually. Table 10 shows the economic impacts associated with work related expenditures in Coos and Oxford Counties. For Alternative A, work related expenditures would directly account for $92,900 in local output, 1.1 jobs, and $32,300 in personal income in the local economy. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, work related purchases for Alternative A would generate total economic impacts of $126,500 in local output, 1.5 jobs and $43,500 in personal income.

Table 10. Local economic impacts of refuge related purchases for Alternative A (2005, $,000).

Local output Personal income Employment (# jobs)

Direct effects $92.9 $32.3 1.1 Secondary effects $33.6 $11.2 0.4

Total economic impact $126.5 $43.5 1.5

Impacts from Habitat Management

Refuge Timber Harvest Contributions in Local Economy No timber harvesting occurs under Alternative A.

Summary of Economic Impacts for Alternative A Table 11 summarizes the direct and total economic impacts of all refuge management activities for Alternative A in Coos and Oxford Counties. Under Alternative A, refuge management activities directly related to all refuge operations generate an estimated $1.45 million in local output, 17.7 jobs and $425,300 in personal income in the local economy. Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, all refuge activities would generate total economic impacts of $1.86 million in local output, 23.1 jobs and $558,900 in personal income. In 2000, total personal income was estimated at $2.16 billion and total employment was estimated at 36,874 jobs for Coos and Oxford Counties (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2002). Total economic impacts associated with refuge operations under Alternative A represent well less than one percent of total income (0.03%) and total employment (0.1%) in the overall Coos County and Oxford County economy. Total economic effects of refuge operations play a much larger role in the smaller communities near the refuge such as Errol, NH and Upton, ME where most of the refuge related economic activity occurs as compared to the overall two county economy.

G-20 Appendix G: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Table 11. Economic impacts of all refuge management activities for Alternative A (2005, $,000).

Local output Personal income Employment (# jobs) Refuge revenue sharing

Direct effects $37.6 $26.1 0.8 Total effects $51.7 $30.8 1.0 Refuge administration (staff salary spending and work related purchases)

Direct effects $634.2 $121.3 4.9 Total effects $759.7 $162.8 6.5 Public use activities

Direct effects $776.9 $277.9 12.0 Total effects $1,049.4 $365.4 15.6 Habitat management (timber harvesting)

Direct effects No timber harvesting occurs under Alternative A Total effects Aggregate impacts

Direct effects $1,448.7 $425.3 17.7 Total effects $1,860.8 $558.9 23.1

Economic Impacts of Alternative B

Impacts from Proposed Land Acquisition and Protection Measures

Property Tax Impacts and Refuge Revenue Sharing The proposed acquisition of lands to be acquired by fee simple acquisition will have an effect on the amount of local property taxes collected as land is transferred from private taxable ownership to public nontaxable ownership. Although lands acquired by means of fee simple acquisition by the Service are removed from the tax rolls, the local taxing entities will receive an annual payment, under provisions of the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act. Payments to local towns are based on the greater of 75 cents per acre or 0.75% of the fair market value of lands acquired by the Service. The exact amount of the annual RRS payment depends on Congressional appropriations, which in recent years have tended to be less than the amount to fully fund the authorized level of payments. As discussed under Alternative A, the conservative FY05 authorized 41% payment level was used for analyzing the final CCP alternatives. Lands acquired by conservation easements would remain in private ownership subject to appropriate property taxes, and RRS payments would not apply.

The loss in local property tax revenue was estimated by using the 2005 current value assessments for each land type to be acquired by fee simple acquisition and the 2005 tax rates for each potentially affected community. As an incentive to discourage development, Maine’s Tree Growth Tax Law and

Appendix G: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge G-21 Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

New Hampshire’s Current Use Program assess forest land values on the basis of its current use (rather than the highest and best use). For Oxford County, Maine the 2005 assessment rates per acre were $162.80 for softwood, $121.10 for mixed wood, and $98.60 for hardwood. Because the quantity of each type of wood is uncertain, all Maine wood was assessed at an average of $125 per acre. Lincoln Plantation, Magalloway Plantation, and Upton also receive an annual tree growth reimbursement payment from the State of Maine. Projected changes to these payments due to refuge land acquisition were calculated using the State of Maine tax formula for lands in tree growth (Lucas pers comm 2008). The Current Use Program for New Hampshire provides a range of values per acre for the habitat classification types of white pine, hardwood, all other woods, and unproductive lands. To be consistent with how the State of New Hampshire calculates payments of State lands to towns, we used the average 2005 value of $71.50/acre for the ‘all other wood’ classification as the overall value of a forestland acre in New Hampshire. The unproductive lands valuation of $15/acre was used to estimate the value of wetland acres in New Hampshire.

RRS payments were calculated at the full appropriated and FY05 authorized funding levels. Fair market value for lands in the acquisition area was estimated at $500/acre based on recent forest land sales to the refuge. Table 12 shows the estimated change in property taxes collected and the RRS Payments for lands to be acquired as a fee simple acquisition under Alternative B. Land acquisition under Alternative B will result in an annual loss of $18,862 in property tax collections in Coos and Oxford Counties and an annual loss of $25,919 in Maine tree growth reimbursement papyments for Magalloway Plantation and Upton. RRS payments at the current authorized funding level of 41% would result in an annual payment of $42,846 which would not completely offset the loss in property tax collections and Maine tree growth reimbursement payment resulting in an annual net loss of $1,936. Magalloway Plantation and Upton are the towns that would experience an actual annual net loss of $10,798 and $8,253 respectfully. Cambridge does not assess property taxes and would benefit the most from the RRS payments under Alternative B.

Table 12. Impacts for lands to be acquired as a fee simple acquisition for Alternative B.

Overall Change in Taxes & ME Change in Full Refuge State Revenue ME State Revenue Sharing Payment Change Revenue Sharing Collected Net Tax assessed in taxes Sharing (RRS) 41% of RRS of 41% RRS Township values collected Payment payment payment Payments Grafton, ME $311,125 -$2,800 $0 $9,334 $3,827 $1,027 Lincoln Plantation, ME $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Magalloway Plantation, Me $471,750 -$3,949 -$4,859 $14,153 $5,803 -$3,005 Upton, ME $983,250 -$7,079 -$10,088 $29,498 $12,094 -$5,073 Cambridge, NH $443,583 $0 $26,824 $10,998 $10,998 Errol, NH $339,682 -$4,243 $19,268 $7,900 $3,657 Wentworth Location, NH $101,031 -$791 $5,426 $2,225 $1,434 Totals $2,650,421 -$18,862 -$14,947 $104,501 $42,846 $9,037

G-22 Appendix G: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Accounting for the base FY05 RRS payments of $37,646 (Alternative A) and the $42,846 increase for new land acquisition, RRS payments would total $80,492 under Alternative B. Table 13 shows the resulting economic impacts of RRS payments under Alternative B. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, RRS payments for Alternative B would generate total annual economic impacts of $110,200 in local output, $65,800 in personal income, and 2.2 jobs in Coos and Oxford Counties. A portion ($33,809) of the increase in RRS payments under Alternative B offsets the loss in private property tax collections and Maine tree growth reimbursement payments which does not represent a real increase economic activity to the area. Accounting for the loss in property tax collections, RRS payments under Alternative B would generate new total economic impacts of $64,200 in local output, 1.3 jobs, and $38,100 in personal income. Table 13. Annual impacts from refuge revenue sharing payments for Alternative B (2005, $,000).

Local output Personal income Employment (# jobs)

Direct effects $80.1 $55.9 1.8

Secondary effects $30.1 $9.9 0.4

Total economic impact $110.2 $65.8 2.2 Note: A portion of the increase in RRS payments under Alternative B offsets the loss in private property tax collections and Maine tree growth reimbursement payments which does not represent a real increase economic activity to the area.

Impacts from Public Use and Access Management Refuge Visitor Expenditures in Local Economy Changes in refuge management activities can affect recreational opportunities offered and visitation levels. Table 14 shows the estimated visitation levels associated with each visitor activity for Alternative B. Under Alternative B, visitation is anticipated to increase for all activities compared to Alternative A (Table 6). The increases in visitation levels are due to refuge land acquisition, additional public use infrastructure, and regional visitation trends. Specific details for each activity are explained below. Table 14. Estimated annual refuge visitation by visitor activity for Alternative B.

Total Percentage Total number Number of Number of non- number of of non-local of non-local hours spent local visitor Visitor activity visits visits (%) visits at refuge daysa Consumptive-use Fishing 14,000 70 9,800 8 9,800 Big game hunting 6,250 67 4,188 8 4,188 Upland game hunting 7,500 67 5,025 8 5,025

Waterfowl and migratory bird hunting 200 60 120 8 120 Nonconsumptive-use Wildlife viewing: boating/water use 18,000 60 10,800 8 10,800 Wildlife viewing: nature trails and other wildlife observation 10,000 85 8,500 2 2,125 Other recreation (snowmobiling) 35,000 60 21,000 4 10,500 Total 90,950 59,433 42,558 a One visitor day = 8 hours.

Appendix G: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge G-23 Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Fishing The increase in fishing visitors under Alternative B is based on refuge land acquisition that would provide more fishing opportunities on the refuge, increasing fishing related visitation by 3,000 visits as compared to Alternative A. The increased level of fishing visitors are all transfers of visitors from other lands to refuge lands. As shown in Table 14, the annual number of visitors fishing on the refuge under Alternative B would account for 9,800 annual non-local visitor days. For Alternative B, annual non-local refuge anglers would spend almost $349,600 in Coos and Oxford Counties. This spending would directly account for $269,900 in local output, 4.1 jobs, and $97,500 in personal income in the local economy. The secondary or multiplier effects would generate an additional $93,700 in local output, 1.2 jobs, and $30,300 in personal income. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, spending by non-local anglers for Alternative B would generate total economic impacts of $363,600 in local output, 5.3 jobs and $127,800 in personal income. The increase in visitation was based on the number of people that currently fish on lands that will be acquired by the refuge which is not a real increase in visitation or economic activity to the area. However, the refuge land acquisition maintains fishing access that is not guaranteed under Alternative A.

Hunting The increase hunting visitors under Alternative B is based on refuge land acquisition that would provide more hunting opportunities on the refuge. It is anticipated that hunting related visits under Alternative B would increase by 3,700 for big game, 50 for migratory birds, and 4,500 for upland game as compared to Alternative A. As shown in Table 14, the annual number of hunting visitors on the refuge under Alternative B would account for 4,188 non-local big game hunter visitor days, 5,025 non-local upland game hunter visitor days, and 120 non-local migratory bird hunter visitor days. For Alternative B, annual non-local refuge hunters would spend almost $389,800 in Coos and Oxford Counties. This spending would directly account for $292,700 in local output, 4.5 jobs, and $102,800 in personal income in the local economy. The secondary or multiplier effects would generate an additional $107,800 in local output, 1.4 jobs, and $34,400 in personal income. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, spending by non-local hunters for Alternative B would generate total economic impacts of $400,400 in local output, 5.9 jobs and $137,100 in personal income. The increase in visitation was based on the number of people that currently hunt on lands that will be acquired by the refuge which is not a real increase in visitation or economic activity to the area. However, the refuge land acquisition maintains hunting access that is not guaranteed under Alternative A.

Wildlife Viewing Regional visitation trends indicate more people are participating in non-consumptive recreation (New Hampshire Office of State Planning, 2003; Shapiro and Kroll, 2003). It is anticipated that wildlife viewing related visits under Alternative B would increase by 4,000 for boating and water use activities, and 5,500 for nature trails and other wildlife observation. As shown in Table 14, the annual number of wildlife viewing visitors on the refuge under Alternative B would account for 10,800 non-local boating and water use visitor days and 2,125 non-local nature trails and other wildlife observation visits visitor days for an increase of 3,569 wildlife viewing related visitor days as compared to Alternative A. For Alternative B, annual non-local refuge wildlife viewers would spend almost $591,600 in Coos

G-24 Appendix G: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Counties. This spending would directly account for $485,400 in local output, 7.6 jobs, and $175,500 in personal income in the local economy. The secondary or multiplier effects would generate an additional $168,500 in local output, 2.3 jobs, and $54,100 in personal income. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, spending by non-local wildlife viewers for Alternative B would generate total economic impacts of $653,900 in local output, 9.9 jobs and $229,600 in personal income.

The increase in boating and water use visits was based on the increasing trend in water related recreation. This is an actual increase in visitation and economic activity to the area, rather than a transfer from non-refuge lands due to refuge land acquisition. Half of the increase for nature trails and wildlife observation visits was based on the additional public use infrastructure the refuge will be adding under Alternative B as well as the growing regional trend in nature trail use, while the other half of the increase was based on refuge land acquisition leading to more places on the refuge to hike and observe wildlife. Therefore, all of the increased boating and water use visits and half of the nature trails and other wildlife observation visits are new visits, accounting for 2,985 more visitor days compared to Alternative A that generate new economic activity to the area. The other half of nature trails and other wildlife observation visits are transfers of visitors from other lands to refuge lands, accounting for 584 more visitor days compared to Alternative A that are not a real increase in visitation or economic activity to the area.

Other Activities The increase snowmobiling visits under Alternative B is based on refuge land acquisition that would provide more snowmobiling opportunities on refuge lands, increasing snowmobile related visits by 15,000 and increasing the time spent on refuge lands from one hour to four hours as compared to Alternative A. This increase was based on the number of people that currently snowmobile on lands that will be acquired by the refuge. As shown in Table 14, the annual number of visitors snowmobiling on the refuge under Alternative B would account for 10,500 annual non-local visitor days. For Alternative B, annual non-local refuge snowmobiliers would spend $798,700 in Coos and Oxford Counties. This spending would directly account for $658,900 in local output, 9.9 jobs, and $226,600 in personal income in the local economy. The secondary or multiplier effects would generate an additional $230,900 in local output, 3.1 jobs, and $73,500 in personal income. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, spending by non-local snowmobiliers for Alternative B would generate total economic impacts of $889,800 in local output, 13 jobs and $300,000 in personal income. The increased levels of snowmobile visits are all transfers of visitors from other lands to refuge lands, not an increase in visitation or economic activity to the area. However, the refuge land acquisition maintains snowmobile access that is not guaranteed under alternative A.

Cumulative Impacts from Refuge Visitation for Alternative B Table 15 summarizes the total economic impacts associated with current non-local visitation for Alternative B. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, spending by non-local refuge visitors for Alternative B would generate total economic impacts of $2.31 million in local output, $794,600 in personal income, and 34.1 jobs. Most of the increase in visitation is based on the number of people that currently recreate on lands that will be acquired by the refuge. Therefore, it is not a real

Appendix G: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge G-25 Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

increase in visitation or economic activity to the area. However, the refuge land acquisition maintains recreation access that is not guaranteed under Alternative A. Of the increase in visitation under Alternative B, 2,985 out of the 3,569 wildlife viewing related visitor days would be an actual increase in visitation and economic activity to the area that would generate total economic impacts of $150,900 in local output, 2.4 jobs and $53,000 in personal income.

Table 15. Annual impacts of non-local visitor spending for Alternative B (2005 $,000).

Local output Personal income Employment (# jobs) Direct effects Fishing $269.9 $97.5 4.1 Hunting $292.7 $102.8 4.5 Wildlife viewing $485.4 $175.5 7.6 Other (snowmobiling) $658.9 $226.6 9.9 Secondary effects Fishing $93.7 $30.3 1.2 Hunting $107.8 $34.4 1.4 Wildlife viewing $168.5 $54.1 2.3 Other (snowmobiling) $230.9 $73.5 3.1 Total effects Fishing $363.6 $127.8 5.3 Hunting $400.4 $137.1 5.9 Wildlife viewing $653.9 $229.6 9.9 Other (snowmobiling) $889.8 $300.0 13.0 Total economic impact $2,307.7 $794.6 34.1 Note: Most of the increase in visitation is based on the number of people that currently recreate on lands that will be acquired by the refuge. While it is not a real increase in visitation or economic activity to the area, the refuge land acquisition maintains recreation access that is not guaranteed under Alternative A.

Impacts from Refuge Administration

Staff – Personal Purchases Proposed staff for Alternative B includes all approved staff positions (Alternative A, Table 8) plus an additional three permanent and four seasonal positions. The new permanent positions are: Business/ Facilities Manager, Forester, and LMRD Coordinator. The new seasonal positions are for a Biological Technician, Maintenance Worker, an Assistant Outdoor Recreational Planner, and a Summer Intern. Table 16 shows the economic impacts associated with spending of salaries in Coos and Oxford Counties by refuge employees under Alternative B. For Alternative B, salary spending by refuge personnel would directly account for $777,800 in local output, 5.4 jobs, and $127,900 in personal income in the local economy. The secondary or multiplier effects would generate an additional

G-26 Appendix G: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

$131,900 in local output, 1.8 jobs, and $43,500 in personal income. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, salary spending by refuge personnel for Alternative B would generate total economic impacts of over $909,700 in local output, 7.2 jobs and $171,400 in personal income. Due to the increased staffing levels for Alternative B, the associated economic effects of staff salary spending would generate $276,500 more in local output, 2.2 more jobs, and $52,100 more in personal income than Alternative A.

Table 16. Local economic impacts of salary spending by refuge personnel for Alt. B (2005, $,000).

Local output Personal income Employment (# jobs)

Direct effects $777.8 $127.9 5.4

Secondary effects $131.9 $43.5 1.8

Total economic impact $909.7 $171.4 7.2

Work-related Purchases Non-salary expenditures for Alternative B are anticipated to increase in proportion with the salary increase for the new staff positions for a total annual non-salary budget $212,600 (in 2005 dollars). Table 17 shows the economic impacts associated with work related expenditures in Coos and Oxford Counties for Alternative B. These estimates assume 78% of the non-salary budget will be spent on goods and services purchased in Coos and Oxford Counties (same as current and Alternative A). Work related expenditures under Alternative B would directly account for $141,700 in local output, 1.6 jobs, and $49,300 in personal income in the local economy. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, work related purchases for Alternative B would generate a total economic impact of $193,000 in local output, 2.3 jobs and $66,300 in personal income. Due to the increased non-salary expenditures for Alternative B, the associated economic effects of work related purchases would generate $66,500 more in local output, 0.8 more of a job, and $22,900 more in personal income than Alternative A.

Table 17. Local economic impacts of refuge related purchases for Alternative B (2005, $,000).

Local output Personal income Employment (# jobs)

Direct effects $141.7 $49.3 1.6

Secondary effects $51.3 $17.0 0.7

Total economic impact $193.0 $66.3 2.3

Impacts from Habitat Management

Refuge Timber Harvest Contributions in Local Economy Refuge timber harvest quantities for Alternative B are based on a 15% management unit harvest in 15 year intervals. Table 18 shows the average annual harvest quantities for the 15 year harvest cycle and the associated annual stumpage revenue. Average annual sawtimber, pulp, and fuelwood harvest

Appendix G: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge G-27 Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

quantities were determined by refuge personnel. Annual harvest quantities were based on two major assumptions: 1) harvest numbers were based on current refuge lands at current stocking volumes; and, 2) as land is acquired (over the next 15 year period) those lands would have been harvested by the private owner prior to sale. Stocking volumes on these lands are anticipated to be low and not allow additional harvest within the 15 year planning horizon of this CCP. All economic gains would be realized by the private owner prior to Service ownership. Estimated revenues were based stumpage value estimates for northern New Hampshire (New Hampshire Department of Revenue, 2005). The revenue estimates account for the stumpage values of the different species types (by percent of composition) within the refuge harvest. Over the 15 year refuge harvest cycle, an annual average of 135 MBF of softwood sawtimber, 27 MBF of hardwood sawtimber, 125.3 cords of softwood pulp, 371.3 cords of hardwood pulp, and 88.4 cords of fuelwood would be harvested with stumpage valued at $27,700. Total sawtimber, pulp and fuelwood product resulting from timber activities in Coos and Oxford County was estimated to be 657,000 CCF in 2002 (U.S. Forest Service Timber Products Output Data, 2002). The total annual harvest quantity under Alternative B represents 0.1% of this total. Table 18. Average annual refuge timber quantities and revenue for Alternative B (2005, $,000).

Units Quantity harvested Revenue Softwood sawtimber MBF 135.0 $16.8 Softwood pulp Cords 125.3 $1.1 Hardwood sawtimber MBF 27.0 $5.1 Hardwood pulp Cords 371.3 $3.7 Fuelwood Cords 88.4 $0.9

Total $27.7

In order to estimate the economic impact of the refuge timber harvest on the local economy, the value added to refuge stumpage during harvest and primary processing must be estimated. New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development and the Maine Forest Service assisted with the identification of the forest products sectors in Coos and Oxford Counties that use would use refuge stumpage in the production process and the proportion of volume that would be processed locally. The U.S.D.A. Forest Service Inventory and Monitoring Institute helped us adjust the IMPLAN model data to better reflect the timber production flows in the local economy (personal communication: Winter, 2005).

The economic impacts associated with timber production in Coos and Oxford Counties from refuge stumpage for Alternative B are shown in Table 19. Timber production in Coos and Oxford related to refuge harvests would directly account for $21,200 in local output, one-tenth of job (0.1), and $2,800 in personal income in the local economy. The value of local output is lower than the stumpage revenue reported in Table 18 because a portion of the refuge stumpage will be exported outside the local economy for processing. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, timber production related to refuge harvests for Alternative B would generate a total economic impact of $24,500 in local output, one-tenth of job and $4,000 in personal income. As previously shown in Table 4, forest-based industries in Coos and Oxford Counties generated over $1.16 billion in local output and 4,148 jobs in 2002. Therefore, timber production related to refuge harvests for Alternative B would have a very insignificant role in the Coos and Oxford Counties forest related industries, accounting for less than 0.003% of local output and employment.

G-28 Appendix G: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Table 19. Average annual economic impacts of the refuge timber harvest for Alt. B (2005, $,000).

Local output Personal income Employment (# jobs) Direct effects $18.6 $2.4 0.1 Secondary effects $5.8 $1.6 0 Total economic impact $24.5 $4.0 0.1

Summary of Economic Impacts for Alternative B Table 20 summarizes the direct and total economic impacts of all refuge management activities for Alternative B in Coos and Oxford Counties. Under Alternative B, refuge management activities directly related to all refuge operations generate an estimated $2.73 million in local output, 35 jobs and $837,800 in personal income in the local economy. Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, all refuge activities would generate total economic impacts of $3.55 million in local output, 46 jobs and $1.1 million in personal income. Total economic impacts associated with refuge operations under Alternative B represent less than one percent of total income (0.05%) and total employment (0.11%) in the overall Coos County and Oxford County economy. Total economic effects of refuge operations play a much larger role in the smaller communities near the refuge such as Errol, NH and Upton, ME where most of the refuge related economic activity occurs as compared to the overall two county economy.

Table 20. Summary of all refuge management activities for Alternative B (2005, $,000).

Local output Personal income Employment (# jobs) Refuge Revenue Sharing Direct effects $80.1 $55.9 1.8 Total effects $110.2 $65.8 2.2 Refuge administration (staff salary spending and work related purchases) Direct effects $919.5 $177.2 7.0 Total effects $1,102.7 $237.7 9.5 Public use activities Direct effects $1,706.8 $602.3 26.1 Total effects $2,307.7 $794.6 34.1 Habitat management (timber harvesting) Direct effects $18.6 $2.4 0.1 Total effects $24.5 $4.0 0.1 Aggregate impacts Direct effects $2,725.1 $837.8 35.0 Total effects $3,545.1 $1,102.1 45.9 Note: A portion of the increase in RRS payments offsets the loss in private property tax collections and Maine tree growth reimbursement payments which does not represent a real increase economic activity to the area. Most of the increase in public use is based on the number of people that currently recreate on lands that will be acquired by the refuge. While it is not a real increase in visitation or economic activity to the area, the refuge land acquisition maintains recreation access that is not guaranteed under Alternative A.

Appendix G: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge G-29 Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Table 21 summarizes the change in economic effects associated with refuge operations under Alternative B as compared to Alternative A. As described in the RRS section above, a portion of the increase in RRS payments under Alternative B offsets the loss in private property tax collections which does not represent a real increase economic activity to the area. The economic impacts associated with refuge administration and timer harvesting represent new economic activity. As described in the cumulative impacts of refuge visitation section above, most of the increase in public use activities is based on the number of people that currently recreate on lands that will be acquired by the refuge and do not represent a real increase in visitation or economic activity to the area. However, the refuge land acquisition under Alternative B maintains recreation access that is not guaranteed under Alternative A.

Table 21. Change in economic impacts under Alternative B compared to Alternative A (2005, $000).

Local output Personal income Employment (# jobs)

Refuge Revenue Sharing

Direct effects +$42.5 +$29.8 +1.0

Total effects +$58.5 +$35.0 +1.2

Refuge Administration (staff salary spending and work related purchases)

Direct effects +$285.3 +$55.9 +2.1

Total effects +$343.0 +$75.0 +3.0

Public use activities

Direct effects +$930.0 +$324.4 +14.1

Total effects +$1,258.3 +$429.2 +18.5

Habitat management (timber harvesting)

Direct effects +$18.6 +$2.4 +0.1

Total effects +$24.5 +$4.0 +0.1

Aggregate impacts

Direct effects +$1,276.3 +$412.4 +17.3

Total effects +$1,684.3 +$543.1 +22.8

Note: A portion of the increase in RRS payments offsets the loss in private property tax collections and Maine tree growth reimbursement payments which does not represent a real increase economic activity to the area. Most of the increase in public use is based on the number of people that currently recreate on lands that will be acquired by the refuge. While it is not a real increase in visitation or economic activity to the area, the refuge land acquisition maintains recreation access that is not guaranteed under Alternative A.

G-30 Appendix G: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge Economic Impacts of Alternative C

Impacts from Proposed Land Acquisition and Protection Measures

As explained for Alternative B, the loss in local property tax revenue was estimated by using the 2005 current value assessments for each land type to be acquired by fee simple acquisition and the 2005 tax rates for each potentially affected community. Projected changes to annual tree growth reimbursement payments from the State of Maine were calculated using the State of Maine tax formula for lands in tree growth. RRS payments were calculated at the full appropriated and FY05 authorized funding levels. Table 22 shows the estimated change in property taxes collected and the RRS Payments for lands to be acquired as a fee simple acquisition under Alternative C. Land acquisition under Alternative C will result in an annual loss of $47,204 in property tax collections in Coos and Oxford Counties and an annual loss of $47,024 in Maine tree growth reimbursement payments for Lincoln Plantation, Magalloway Plantation and Upton. RRS payments at the FY05 authorized funding level of 41% would result in an annual payment of $114,435 which would offset the loss in property tax collections and Maine tree growth reimbursements and result in an annual net increase of $20,206. Lincoln Plantation, Magalloway Plantation and Upton would experience an actual net loss in collections of $127, $25,139, and $4,921 respectfully. Cambridge, NH does not assess property taxes and would benefit the most from the RRS payments under Alternative C.

Appendix G: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge G-31 Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Table 22. Property tax impacts from acquisition of privately owned lands for Alternative C.

Overall Change in Taxes & ME Change in Full Refuge State Revenue ME State Revenue Sharing Payment Tax Change Revenue Sharing Collected Net assessed in taxes Sharing (RRS) 41% of RRS of 41% RRS Township values collected Payment payment payment Payments

Grafton, ME $1,238,875 -$11,150 $0 $37,166 $15,238 +$4,088

Lincoln Plantation, ME $151,000 -$1,359 -$400 $4,530 $1,857 +$98

Magalloway Plantation, ME $1,476,125 -$12,355 -$15,259 $44,284 $18,156 -$9,458

Upton, ME $2,066,000 -$14,875 -$14,488 $61,980 $25,412 -$3,951

Cambridge, NH $1,677,018 $0 $93,645 $38,394 +$38,394

Errol, NH $454,575 -$5,678 $25,320 $10,381 +$4,704

Wentworth Location, NH $228,292 -$1,788 $12,184 $4,995 +$3,208

Totals $7,291,885 -$47,204 -$30,147 $279,109 $114,435 +$37,083

Accounting for the base RRS payments of $37,646 (Alternative A) and the $114,435 increase for new land acquisition, RRS payments would total $152,081 under Alternative C. Table 23 shows the resulting economic impacts of RRS payments under Alternative C. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, RRS payments for Alternative C would generate total annual economic impacts of $209,000 in local output, 4.1 jobs, and $124,300 in personal income in Coos and Oxford Counties. A portion ($77,351) of the increase in RRS payments under Alternative C offsets the loss in private property tax collections and Maine tree growth reimbursement payments which does not represent a real increase economic activity to the area. Accounting for the loss in property tax collections, RRS payments under Alternative C would generate new total economic impacts of $102,700 in local output, 2 jobs, and $61,100 in personal income.

Table 23. Annual refuge revenue sharing payments impacts for Alternative C (2005, $,000).

Local output Personal income Employment (# jobs) Direct effects $152.1 $105.6 3.3 Secondary effects $56.9 $18.7 0.7 Total economic impact $209.0 $124.3 4.1

Note: A portion of the increase in RRS payments under Alternative C offsets the loss in private property tax collections and Maine tree growth reimbursement payments which does not represent a real increase economic activity to the area.

G-32 Appendix G: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Impacts from Public Use and Access Management

Refuge Visitor Expenditures in Local Economy Table 24 shows the estimated visitation levels associated with each visitor activity for Alternative C. Under Alternative C, visitation is anticipated to increase for all activities as compared to Alternative A (Table 6). The increase in visitation is due to refuge land acquisition, additional public use infrastructure, and regional visitation trends. Specific details for each activity are explained below. Table 24. Estimated annual refuge visitation by visitor activity for Alternative C.

Total Percentage Total number Number of Number of non- number of non-local of non-local hours spent local visitor Visitor activity of visits visits (%) visits at refuge daysa

Consumptive-use

Fishing 14,000 70 9,800 8 9,800

Big game hunting 7,500 67 5,025 8 5,025

Upland game hunting 9,000 67 6,030 8 6,030

Waterfowl and migratory bird hunting 200 60 120 8 120

Nonconsumptive-use

Wildlife viewing: boating/water use 18,000 60 10,800 8 10,800

Wildlife viewing: nature trails and other wildlife observation 10,000 85 8,500 2 2,125

Other recreation (snowmobiling) 35,000 60 21,000 4 10,500

Total 93,700 61,275 44,400 a One visitor day = 8 hours.

Fishing Same as Alternative B.

Hunting More land would be acquired under Alternative C as compared to Alternative B which would increase the number of big game and upland game hunting opportunities on refuge owned lands. The number of migratory bird hunters allowed under Alternative C would stay the same as Alternative B. It is anticipated that hunting related visits under Alternative B would increase by 5,000 for big game, 50 for migratory birds, and 6,000 for upland game as compared to Alternative A. This would be an increase of 1,250 big game and 1,500 upland game hunters compared to Alternative B. As shown in Table 24, the annual number of hunting visitors on the refuge under Alternative C would account for 5,025 non-local big game hunter visitor days, 6,030 non-local upland game hunter visitor days, and 120 non-local migratory bird hunter visitor days. For Alternative C, annual non-local refuge

Appendix G: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge G-33 Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

hunters would spend $466,100 in Coos and Oxford Counties. This spending would directly account for $350,000 in local output, 5.4 jobs, and $122,900 in personal income in the local economy. The secondary or multiplier effects would generate an additional $128,900 in local output, 1.7 jobs, and $41,100 in personal income. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, spending by non- local hunters for Alternative B would generate total economic impacts of $478,900 in local output, 7.1 jobs, and $164,000 in personal income. The increase in visitation was based on the number of people that currently hunt on lands that will be acquired by the refuge. Therefore, it is not a real increase in visitation or economic activity to the area. However, the refuge land acquisition maintains hunting access that is not guaranteed under Alternative A.

Wildlife Viewing Same as Alternative B.

Other Activities Same as Alternative B.

Cumulative Impacts from Refuge Visitation for Alternative C Table 25 summarizes the total economic impacts associated with current non-local visitation for Alternative C. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, spending by non-local refuge visitors for Alternative C would generate total economic impacts of $2.39 million in local output, $821,500 in personal income, and 35.3 jobs. Most of the increase in visitation is based on the number of people that currently recreate on lands that will be acquired by the refuge which is not a real increase in visitation or economic activity to the area. However, the refuge land acquisition maintains recreation access that is not guaranteed under Alternative A. Of the increase in visitation under Alternatives B and C, 2,985 out of the 3,569 wildlife viewing related visitor days would be an actual increase in visitation and economic activity to the area that would generate total economic impacts of $150,900 in local output, 2.4 jobs and $53,000 in personal income.

G-34 Appendix G: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Table 25. Annual impacts of non-local visitor spending for Alternative C (2005 $,000). Local output Personal income Employment (# jobs) Direct effects Fishing $269.9 $97.5 4.1 Hunting $350.0 $122.9 5.4 Wildlife viewing $485.4 $175.5 7.6 Other (snowmobiling) $658.9 $226.6 9.9 Secondary effects Fishing $93.7 $30.3 1.2 Hunting $128.9 $41.1 1.7 Wildlife viewing $168.5 $54.1 2.3 Other (snowmobiling) $230.9 $73.5 3.1 Total effects Fishing $363.6 $127.8 5.3 Hunting $478.9 $164.0 7.1 Wildlife viewing $653.9 $229.6 9.9 Other (snowmobiling) $889.8 $300.0 13.0 Total economic impact $2,386.1 $821.5 35.3 Note: Most of the increase in visitation is based on the number of people that currently recreate on lands that will be acquired by the refuge. While it is not a real increase in visitation or economic activity to the area, the refuge land acquisition maintains recreation access that is not guaranteed under Alternative A.

Impacts from Refuge Administration

Work-related Purchases Same as Alternative B.

Staff – Personal Purchases Same as Alternative B.

Impacts from Habitat Management

Refuge Timber Harvest Contributions in Local Economy Refuge timber harvest quantities for Alternative C are based on a 4% management unit harvest in 15 year intervals. The management unit that would be harvested under Alternative C is equivalent to the management unit that would be harvested under Alternative B. Therefore the only change in refuge

Appendix G: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge G-35 Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

timber harvesting between Alternative B and C is the quantity harvested (the same composition of tree species would be harvested). Under Alternative B, 15% of the management unit would be harvested in 15 year intervals as compared to only 4% under Alternative C. Over the 15 year harvest cycle, the refuge harvest would produce approximately 25% of the quantity harvested for Alternative B (Table 18) resulting in an annual harvest average of 33.8 MBF of softwood sawtimber, 6.8 MBF of hardwood sawtimber, 31.3 cords of softwood pulp, 92.8 cords of hardwood pulp, and 22.1 cords of fuelwood with stumpage valued $6,900. Table 26. Average annual economic impacts of the refuge timber harvest for Alt. C (2005, $,000).

Local output Personal income Employment (# jobs) Direct effects $4.7 $0.6 0 Secondary effects $1.5 $0.4 0 Total economic impact $6.1 $1.0 0

The economic impacts associated with timber production in Coos and Oxford Counties from refuge stumpage for Alternative C are shown in Table 26. Timber production in Coos and Oxford related to refuge harvests would directly account for $4,700 in local output and $600 in personal income in the local economy. The level of refuge timber production for Alternative C is not large enough to generate any employment impacts. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, timber production related to refuge harvests for Alternative C would generate a total economic impact of $6,100 in local output and $1,000 in personal income.

Summary of Economic Impacts for Alternative C Table 27 summarizes the direct and total economic impacts of all refuge management activities for Alternative C in Coos and Oxford Counties. Under Alternative C, refuge management activities directly related to all refuge operations generate an estimated $2.84 million in local output, 37 jobs and $905,800 in personal income in the local economy. Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, all refuge activities would generate total economic impacts of $3.7 million in local output, 49 jobs and $1.19 million in personal income. Total economic impacts associated with refuge operations under Alternative C represent less than one percent of total income (0.05%) and total employment (0.11%) in the overall Coos County and Oxford County economy. Total economic effects of refuge operations play a much larger role in the smaller communities near the refuge such as Errol, NH and Upton, ME where most of the refuge related economic activity occurs as compared to the overall two county economy.

G-36 Appendix G: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Table 27. Summary of all refuge management activities for Alternative C (2005, $,000).

Local output Personal income Employment (# jobs) Refuge Revenue Sharing

Direct effects $152.1 $105.6 3.3 Total effects $209.0 $124.3 4.1 Refuge administration (staff salary spending and work related purchases)

Direct effects $919.5 $177.2 7.0 Total effects $1,102.7 $237.7 9.5 Public use activities

Direct effects $1,764.2 $622.4 27.0 Total effects $2,386.1 $821.5 35.3 Habitat management (timber harvesting)

Direct effects $4.7 $0.6 0 Total effects $6.1 $1.0 0 Aggregate impacts

Direct effects $2,840.5 $905.8 37.3 Total effects $3,704.0 $1,184.5 48.9

Table 28 summarizes the change in economic effects associated with refuge operations under Alternative C as compared to Alternative A. As illustrated in the RRS section above, a portion of the increase in RRS payments under Alternative C offsets the loss in private property tax collections which does not represent a real increase economic activity to the area. The economic impacts associated with refuge administration and timer harvesting represent new economic activity. As illustrated in the cumulative impacts of refuge visitation section above, most of the increase in public use activities is based on the number of people that currently recreate on lands that will be acquired by the refuge and do not represent a real increase in visitation or economic activity to the area. However, the refuge land acquisition under Alternative C maintains recreation access that is not guaranteed under Alternative A.

Appendix G: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge G-37 Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Table 28. Change in economic impacts under Alternative C compared to Alternative A (2005, $000).

Local output Personal income Employment (# jobs) Refuge Revenue Sharing

Direct effects +$114.5 +$79.5 +2.5 Total effects +$157.3 +$93.5 +3.1 Refuge Administration (staff salary spending and work related purchases)

Direct effects +$285.3 +$55.9 +2.1 Total effects +$343.0 +$75.0 +3.0 Public use activities

Direct effects +$987.3 +$344.6 +15.0 Total effects +$1,336.8 +$456.1 +19.7 Habitat management (timber harvesting)

Direct effects +$4.7 +$0.6 0.0 Total effects +$6.1 +$1.0 0.0 Aggregate impacts

Direct effects +$1,391.7 +$480.5 +19.6 Total effects +$1,843.2 +$625.6 +25.8

Summary and Conclusions Under Alternative A, refuge management activities directly related to all refuge operations generate an estimated $1.45 million in local output, 17.7 jobs and $425,300 in personal income in the local economy. Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, all refuge activities would generate total economic impacts of $1.86 million in local output, 23.1 jobs and $558,900 in personal income. The associated economic effects of Alternatives B and C generate more output, jobs and income than Alternative A. The economic impacts associated with refuge administration and timer harvesting under Alternatives B and C represent new economic activity. A portion of the increase in RRS payments under Alternatives B and C offsets the loss in private property tax collections which does not represent a real increase economic activity to the area. Most of the increase in public use activities under Alternatives B and C are based on the number of people that currently recreate on lands that will be acquired by the refuge and do not represent a real increase in visitation or economic activity to the area. Total economic impacts associated with refuge operations under all management alternatives represent less than one percent of total income and total employment in the overall Coos County and Oxford County economy. Total economic effects of refuge operations play a much larger role in the smaller communities near the refuge such as Errol, NH and Upton, ME where most of the refuge related economic activity occurs as compared to the overall two county economy.

G-38 Appendix G: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge References Cited ABC News, 2004, Company proposes massive development for Maine’s north woods–Thoreau’s old stomping grounds: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wirestory?id=645716 Appalachian Mountain Club, 2005, Large land sales threaten northern forest: http://www.outdoors.org/ conservation/wherewework/northern/northern-threats.cfm Caudill J., and Henderson, E., 2003, Banking on nature 2002–The economic benefits to local communities of National Wildlife Refuge visitation: Washington D.C., U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Economics. Goss, Laurence E., 2003, New Hampshire Fiscal Year 2002 Satellite Account: Plymouth, N.H.: Plymouth State College of the University System of New Hampshire, The Institute of New Hampshire Studies. High, C., Hathaway, K., Hinckley, J., and Risk, B., 2004, A Socio-economic assessment to provide the context for the White Mountain National Forest Plan Revision: White River Junction, Vt.: Resource Systems Group, Inc. Innovative Natural Resource Solutions, 2005, Maine future forest economy project–Current conditions and factors influencing the future of Maine’s forest products industry–Prepared for Maine Forest Service Department of Conservation and the Maine Technology Institute. International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 2002, Economic importance of hunting in America. Longwoods International, 2004, Travel and tourism in Maine–The 2003 Visitor study management report–Prepared for the Maine Office of Tourism, accessed September 17, 2004, http://www. econdevmaine.com/resources/tourism/visitor_study_2003_mgmt_report_091704.pdf Maine Department of Conservation, Maine Forest Service, 2004, 2003 Wood processing report, www. maineforestservice.org Maine State Planning Office, 2002, Maine county economic forecast. Maine State Planning Office, 2005, The Maine economy–Year-end review and outlook 2004, www. maine.gov/spo Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc., 2002, Year 2002 IMPLAN data files, www.implan.com New Hampshire Department of Revenue, 2005, Average stumpage value list–Suggested for the northern region of New Hampshire, http://www.nh.gov/revenue New Hampshire Economic and Labor Market Information Bureau, 2005, Coos County employment projections 2000–2010. New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning, 2004, New Hampshire population projections for state and counties 2005 to 2025, http://www.nh.gov/oep/index.htm New Hampshire Office of State Planning, 2003, New Hampshire outdoors–Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP): Concord, N.H., New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning. Nordic Group International, Land Futures and Yellow Wood Associates, 1997, Conservation based development in the Upper Androscoggin Valley–Prepared for the Appalachian Mountain Club: Gorham, N.H. North East State Foresters Association (NEFA), 2004, Draft–The northern forest of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and New York–A look at the land, economies, and communities 1994–2004, Concord, N.H. North East State Foresters Association (NEFA), 2001a, The economic importance of Maine’s forests: Concord N.H. North East State Foresters Association (NEFA), 2001b, The economic importance of New Hampshire’s forests: Concord, N.H.

Appendix G: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge G-39 Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Okrant, M.J., and Goss, L.E., 2003, The impact by snowmobilers on New Hampshire’s economy during the 2002–03 season–Prepared for the New Hampshire Snowmobile Association by the Institute for New Hampshire Studies: Plymouth State University. Olson, D., and Lindall, S., 1999, IMPLAN professional software, analysis and data guide: Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. Reiling, S., 1998, An economic evaluation of snowmobiling in Maine, Prepared for the Maine Snowmobile Association: Orono, Maine, University of Maine Department of Resource Economics and Policy. Shapiro, L., and Kroll, H., 2003, Estimates of select economic values of New Hampshire lakes, rivers, streams, and ponds–Prepared for the New Hampshire Lakes Association by the Gallagher, Callahan and Gartrell Law Firm. Silverberg, J.K., 1997, Wildlife viewing guide: Montana, Falcon Press. Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, 2005, New Hampshire’s changing landscape, http://www.spnhf.org/research/research-projects.asp State of Maine, 2004, Final report of the committee to study access to private and public lands in Maine for the 120th Legislature, http://www.state.me.us/legis/opla/accessfinal.PDF Stynes, D., 1998, Guidelines for measuring visitor spending: Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Resources, Michigan State University. Thurston, S.H., 2004, New Hampshire visitor surveys 2003/2004–Prepared for the New Hampshire Division of Travel and Tourism Development: Plymouth, N.H., The Institute for New Hampshire Studies, Plymouth State University. Umbagog Chamber of Commerce. 2005. http://www.umbagogchambercommerce.com/ Union Leader, 2008, Gov. Lynch tries to reassure worried paper mill workers: http://www.unionleader. com/article.aspx?headline=Gov.+Lynch+tries+to+reassure+worried+paper+mill+workers&articleI d=e3f5c399-84b5-4df8-9ddf-87bc6a23cac0 U.S. Census Bureau, 2005, Census 2000 Summary file, American FactFinder, www.census.gov U.S. Department of Commerce, 2002, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System, www.bea.gov U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, 2003a, 2001 National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associate recreation: Maine. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, 2003b, 2001 National survey of fishing, hunting and wildlife-associate recreation: New Hampshire. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003c, 2001 National and state economic impacts of wildlife watching–Addendum to the 2001 National survey of fishing, hunting and wildlife-associated recreation: Report 2001-2. U.S. Forest Service, 2002, Timber products output sata, http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/fia/ U.S. Forest Service, 2005, White Mountain National Forest draft environmental impact statement, http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/white_mountain/projects/forest_plan_revision/Downloads.php Vail, D., 2003, Sustaining nature-based tourism in “vacationland”: Brunswick, Maine, Bowdoin College. Winter, S., 2005, Personal communication Susan Winter, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colo. with Lynne Koontz and Ryan Donovan, June 30, 2005.

G-40 Appendix G: Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge Appendix H Ian Drew/USFWS Moose

Staffing Charts Staffing Charts

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge Current Approved Staff (Alternative A)

* Refuge Manager GS-0485-13

* Deputy Refuge Manager GS-0485-12

* Admin. Support Asst. * Outdoor Rec. Planner GS-0303-6 GS-0023-11 (vacant)

* Park Ranger GS-0025-9 (vacant)

* Maintenance Worker * Biologist * Resource Specialist WG-4749-7 GS-0486-12 (Forester) GS-0460-12 (vacant)

Maintenance Worker Biologist WG-4749-6 GS-0486-11 (vacant) (vacant)

Seasonal Staff includes: 1 Biotech (GS-0404-7) 3 Interns 1 YCC Crew Leader * Essential Staff 4 YCC Crew

Appendix H: Staffing Charts H-1 Staffing Charts

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge Proposed Staff (Alternatives B and C)

* Refuge Manager GS-0485-14

* Deputy Refuge Manager GS-0485-13

** Business/Facilities * Outdoor Rec. Planner Manager GS-0023-12 GS-unclassified-11 (vacant) (vacant)

* Maintenance Worker * Admin. Support Asst. WG-4749-7 GS-0303-6

** Maintenance Worker WG-4749-6 (vacant) * Park Ranger ** LMRD Coordinator GS-0025-9 GS-0486-12 (vacant) (vacant)

* Resource Specialist * Biologist (Forester) GS-0486-12 GS-0460-12 (vacant)

** Biologist ** Resource Specialist GS-0486-11 (Forester) (vacant) GS-0460-11 (vacant)

Seasonal Staff includes: 2 Biotech (GS-0404-7) 4 Interns 1 YCC Crew Leader * Essential Staff 4 YCC Crew ** New Expanded Staff 1 Maintenance Worker (WG-4749-5) GS levels indicate full performance level 1 ORP GS-0023-09

H-2 Appendix H: Staffing Charts Appendix I Bill Zinni/USFWS Boreal fen and bog habitat on the refuge

Fire Management Program Guidance Fire Management Program Guidance

Appendix I

Fire Management Program Guidance

In the draft CCP/EIS for Lake Umbagog Refuge, we published a draft Fire Management Plan (FMP). Since publication of the draft CCP/EIS, new requirements have been developed for FMPs that include interagency cooperation, consistency in terms of common language and format, and the need to address ﬁ re at a landscape scale across ownerships. The FMP published in the draft CCP/EIS as appendix I does not meet the new standard for an FMP nor adhere to acceptable agency/Departmental policy requirements. In the interim, while we prepare a new FMP, we provide this document to share our policy and strategic guidance on ﬁ re management on this Refuge.

A detailed Fire Management Plan will be developed for the Refuge, consistent with Interagency Plan standards, in support of a fi nal approved CCP, and other management documents, such as Habitat Management Plans. Once approved, the FMP will comply fully with DOI and Service direction, including a requirement that the Plan be reviewed and/or revised at a minimum of a fi ve-year interval, or when signifi cant changes in program direction (e.g. incorporating prescribed fi re use, or signifi cant land-use changes) are made.

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is “to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the ﬁ sh, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the beneﬁ t of present and future generations of Americans.”

The Historic Role of Fire in the Ecosystem The Northern Forest ecosystem differs from the rest of New England, and indeed most other forest types in the United States, in the sense that natural fi re is not considered a major ecological driver. Fires burned the northern hardwood forests, but only rarely. Bonnicksen (2000) estimates that light surface fi res crept through the forest about once in 600 years, and severe fi res only burned it once in 3,000 years. Even light surface fi res can kill beech and maple trees. In the spruce-fi r forests, the average area in northern New England burned on a 200-400 year cycle, and some areas escaped a major fi re for as long as 800 years (Bonnicksen 2000). Cogbill (2001) estimates that the pre- settlement fi re return intervals for forests in this region were on the order of “several millennia” based on witness tree reports from colonial land surveys.

In an earlier paper, Cogbill (2000), examined reports of witness trees from pre-settlement land surveys involving 179 towns in northern New England and New York and determined that overall roughly 0.5% of the region was affected by major disturbances at the time of settlement. Despite the apparent rarity of catastrophic disturbances in the region, medium- and small-scale perturbations caused widespread, but patchy mortality. This pattern of site-level mortality is due to the relatively short growing season, nutrient poor soils, heavy snow and ice loads, frequent stem breakage, and wind throw due to moderate winds associated with thunderstorms or frontal passages. Disturbance at this level resulted in a varied landscape dominated by a diverse, small-scale mosaic (Cogbill 2001). Interestingly, Cogbill found no mention of insect (spruce budworm) damage in the colonial land surveys and determined that the past effects of this insect were much more limited than at present.

Appendix I: Fire Management Program Guidance I-1 Fire Management Program Guidance

Cogbill also admits that there is some uncertainty about the pre-settlement role of fi re in shaping the lowland conifer forests; the “black spruce swamps” have environmental and fl oristic similarities to northern systems in Maine and Canada which burn regularly. Perhaps the lack of fi re in the pre- settlement record represents inauspicious timing or is in error.

There is indication that Native Americans used the area for permanent village sites, but the region was mainly used as hunting and fi shing grounds. During the period of European Contact (1600- 1750) Native American groups frequently traveled through the area, between the St. Lawrence and St. Francis Rivers in Canada and the Androscoggin drainage in Maine, for trading purposes or to conduct warfare. It seems likely that some fi res were started to aid hunting or escaped from abandoned cooking fi res.

The period from about 1780 to 1850 saw Euro-American settlement and the initiation of agriculture in the area. Logging and dairy farms were the principal agricultural endeavors. By 1870 the railroad system in New Hampshire and Maine was essentially complete (Wallace 1989). Accidental and intentional ignitions undoubtedly followed as people settled the area.

The Future Role of Fire in the Landscape The historical role of fi re as described above does not necessarily refl ect predictions for the future. With the onset of global climate change, the predicted changes in temperature, precipitation, and vegetation patterns there is a greater likelihood that major fi re events, perhaps even catastrophic events, will occur. As such, the role of fi re is likely to be modifi ed. It may be used more proactively to reduce threats on the landscape and improve habitat conditions.

When ﬁ re is used properly it can –

■ reduce hazardous fuels build-up in both wildland-urban interface (WUI) and in non-WUI areas; ■ improve wildlife habitats by reducing the density of vegetation, and/or changing plant species composition; ■ sustain and increase biodiversity; ■ improve woodlands and shrublands by reducing plant density; ■ reduce the susceptibility of plants to insect and disease outbreaks; ■ assist in the control of invasive and pest plant species.

Wildland Fire Management Policy and Guidance In 2001, the secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture approved an update of the 1995 “Federal Fire Policy”. The 2001 “Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy” directs federal agencies to achieve a balance between fi re suppression to protect life, property and resources, and fi re use to regulate fuels and maintain healthy ecosystems. It also directs agencies to use the appropriate management response for all wildland fi re regardless of the ignition source.

This policy provides nine guiding principles that are fundamental to the success of the ﬁ re management program.

■ Firefi ghter and public safety is the fi rst priority in every fi re management activity.

I-2 Appendix I: Fire Management Program Guidance Fire Management Program Guidance

■ The role of wildland ﬁ res as an ecological process and natural change agent will be incorporated into the planning process. ■ FMP programs and activities will support land and resource management plans and their implementation. ■ Sound risk management is the foundation for all ﬁ re management activities. ■ Fire management programs and activities are economically viable, on the basis of values to be protected, costs, and land and resource management objectives. ■ FMPs and activities are based on the best available science. ■ FMPs and activities will incorporate public health and environmental quality considerations. ■ Federal, state, tribal, local, interagency and international coordination and cooperation are essential. ■ Standardization of policies and procedures among federal agencies is an ongoing objective

The fi re management considerations, guidance, and direction should be addressed in the land use resource management plans (for example, the CCP). The FMP is a step-down plan derived from the land use plans and habitat plans, with more detail on the fi re suppression, fi re use and fi re management activities.

Management Direction Lake Umbagog NWR will protect life, property, and other resources from wildland fi re by suppressing all wildfi res. Prescribed fi re in conjunction with chemical and mechanical fuel treatments may be used in an ecosystem context to protect federal and private property. Fuel reduction activities will be applied in collaboration with federal, state and nongovernmental partners. There are presently no plans to use fi re for habitat management purposes.

Should prescribed ﬁ re be recognized as a viable treatment method or management tool for the refuge, it will be used to promote and accomplish the goals set forward in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan:

Goal 1. Manage open water and submerged aquatic vegetation and wetlands to benefit Federal trust species and other species of conservation concern.

Goal 2. Manage floodplain and lakeshore forests to benefit Federal trust species and other species of conservation concern.

Goal 3. Manage upland forest habitats, consistent with site capabilities, to benefit Federal trust species and other species of conservation concern.

Goal 4. Provide high quality wildlife-dependent activities such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, as well as camping and boating in support of those activities.

Appendix I: Fire Management Program Guidance I-3 Fire Management Program Guidance

All aspects of the fi re management program will be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable laws, policies, and regulations. Lake Umbagog NWR will develop and maintain a FMP to accomplish the fi re management goals that follow (see Fire Management Goals). Prescribed fi re, chemical, manual and mechanical fuel treatments, if utilized, will be applied in a scientifi c way, under selected weather and environmental conditions.

Fire Management Goals The goals and strategies of the National Wildlife Refuge System Wildland Fire Management Program Strategic Plan are consistent with Department of Interior (DOI) and the USDA Forest Service policies, National Fire Plan direction, the President’s Healthy Forest Initiative, National Wildﬁ re Coordinating Group (NWCG) Guidelines, initiatives of the Wildland Fire Leadership Council, and Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation operations.

The ﬁ re management goals for the Refuge are to use an appropriate management response (AMR) to:

1. Protect life, property, and natural resources from wildﬁ re (an unplanned, unwanted event); and 2. Reduce threats to life, and property by alleviating hazard fuel conditions that exceed normal amounts for the landscape, and values at risk.

Fire Management Objectives The purpose of the ﬁ re management program is to apply Appropriate Management Responses (AMRs) to:

1. Protect human life, property, and resources within and adjacent to refuge boundaries. 2. Manage all wildland fi res using AMRs that will minimize the adverse effects of fi re and fi re suppression activities on the environment and maximize cost effectiveness. 3. Integrate fi re as a natural process into Refuge biotic communities in a manner that allows for natural fi re intensities, frequencies, and distribution across the landscape. 4. Restore and protect the natural biological diversity and natural disturbance regime of Refuge ecosystems. 5. Reduce the frequency of human-caused ignitions by implementing an effective fi re prevention program including public education, cooperation with neighboring agencies, hazard fuel management, and prevention patrols. 6. Establish close working relationships regarding mutual cooperation with surrounding fi re management entities. 7. Promote public understanding of Refuge fi re management programs and objectives. 8. Integrate knowledge generated through fi re and natural resource research into fi re management decisions and actions. 9. Comply with National Ambient Air Quality Standards and State Air Quality Implementation Plans to protect public health and the environment.

I-4 Appendix I: Fire Management Program Guidance Fire Management Program Guidance

Fire Management Strategies The following strategies will be employed as a means to meet the ﬁ re management goals and objectives of the Refuge:

■ Conduct all fi re management programs in a manner consistent with applicable laws, policies, and regulations. ■ Identify, inventory, and map wildland fuels. ■ Identify, inventory and map any developments near the Refuge and potentially at risk from fi re. ■ Promote training opportunities for Refuge staff to ensure that their fi re skills are commensurate with an effective initial attack suppression response. ■ Maintain Memorandums of Understanding and/Agreements with local Volunteer Fire Departments as a means to promote cooperative wildland fi re prevention, and suppression. ■ Utilize minimum impact suppression strategies and tactics (MIST) as a means to minimize adverse natural resource impacts. ■ Use retardants and/or foam only when threats exist to life or property. ■ Prepare and implement an effective fi re prevention plan to minimize to minimize unwanted wildland fi res. ■ Utilize non-fi re methods as management tools to achieve hazardous fuel and support resource management objectives. ■ Evaluate prescribed fi re as an implementation tool to meet hazard fuels and resource objectives. ■ Initiate cost-effective fi re monitoring to ensure fi re management objectives are met. ■ Conduct monitoring on wildland fi res, non-fi re treatments. ■ Integrate fi re ecology information, effective wildland fi re management techniques, and prevention themes into existing interpretive and education programs. ■ Utilize heavy mechanized equipment only in those areas where their use does not create damage that would be more serious than the effects of a wildland fi re. In situations where human life, valuable natural or cultural resources, or private property may be threatened, the choice to use mechanized equipment should be made available to suppression resources, but only with permission from the Refuge Manager. The Refuge Manager or a Resource Adviser1 (RA) from the Refuge will be made available to provide input regarding these types of suppression decisions.

Fire Management Organization, Contacts, and Cooperation Fire management technical oversight for the Refuge is provided by FWS Regional fi re programmatic staff. The Refuge is within the New England Fire Management Zone; with authorized staffi ng of a Zone FMO, a Prescribed Fire Specialist, and two career seasonal fi re technicians. The primary fi re management staffi ng and support equipment are located at Moosehorn NWR, and are shared among all refuges within the New England zone. Depending upon budgets and the qualifi cations of personnel assigned to Lake Umbagog NWR, fi re qualifi ed individuals may be available to the Refuge as needed. All fi re management activities are conducted in a coordinated and collaborative manner with the

1 A resource adviser is a member of the refuge staff that has a working knowledge of refuge resources and can contribute expertise towards developing and implementing sound strategies that protect resources (e.g. Wildlife Biologist).

Appendix I: Fire Management Program Guidance I-5 Fire Management Program Guidance

Refuge and other federal and nonfederal partners. These include New Hampshire and Maine State fi re protection agencies, the National Park Service, the USDA Forest Service (White Mountain National Forest) and The Nature Conservancy. Initial attack of any wildfi re is carried out by the local volunteer fi re departments under cooperative agreements in place or under development among the agencies.

References

Bonnicksen, T.M., 2000. America’s Ancient Forests. Texas A&M University, John Wiley & Sons. 594 pp.

Cogbill, Charles V., 2001. Natural Ecological Processes Affecting the Nulhegan Basin. Report prepared for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

Cogbill, Charles V., 2000. Vegetation of the Presettlement Forests of New England and New York. Rhodora, Vol. 102, No. 911, pp. 250-276.

Department of the Interior Departmental Manual, 1998. Part 620 Wildland Fire Management, Chapter 1 General Policy and Procedures.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. 621 FW 1, Policy and Responsibilities for Fire Management.

January 2008. Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations, Chapter 1, “Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Guidance Overview,” Chapter 4, “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Program Organization and Responsibilities.”

I-6 Appendix I: Fire Management Program Guidance Appendix J USFWS Bald eagle

Stakeholder Survey, Executive Summary Stakeholder Survey, Executive Summary

Executive Summary Stakeholder Survey Results for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge August 20051

Introduction The National Wildlife Refuge System, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), is the largest system of public lands in the world dedicated to wildlife conservation. There are over 545 national wildlife refuges nationwide, encompassing 95 million acres. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57, USC668dd) is the guiding legislation for managing these lands. It requires the FWS to develop a 15-year comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) for every refuge by the year 2012. Each CCP will describe a vision and desired future condition for the refuge, and outlines goals, objectives, and management strategies for each refuge’s habitat and visitor service’s programs. The CCP process for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), including public involvement, was initiated in 2002.

In addition to the Improvement Act, developing a CCP involves many other important federal laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; Public Law 91-190, as amended). NEPA, and its implementing regulations, require that major federal actions, such as the development of a CCP, be fully evaluated and disclosed in an environmental document. The document must describe the refuge’s environmental, social and economic conditions (i.e. the “affected environment”), and present an analysis of the social and environmental impacts from the proposed action and alternative management scenarios under consideration. In addition, an opportunity for public review and comment on the proposed action and its alternatives is required. Purpose of Survey This survey was designed by the U.S. Geological Survey to provide information to the FWS planning team for use in their environmental analysis. Its results inform the team of public satisfaction, preferences, and expectations regarding current and proposed refuge management. Speciﬁ cally, it measures public satisfaction with existing visitor conditions, and rates the quality of past and current experiences on the refuge. It also identiﬁ es preferences for proposed management changes, and gauges public understanding and knowledge about the refuge so that future communications regarding management decisions can be most effective. The targeted recipients of the survey were “stakeholders.” These are individuals with a previous history of substantive involvement with refuge planning.

1 Full citation for report: Sexton, N.R., Stewart, S.C., Koontz, L., and Wundrock, K.D., 2005, Stakeholder survey results for Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge: Completion report: U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Scientiﬁ c Investigations Report 2005-5207, 11 p.

Appendix J: Stakeholder Survey, Executive Summary J-1 Stakeholder Survey, Executive Summary

Stakeholder Proﬁ le In 2002, as part of initial public involvement for the Lake Umbagog NWR CCP, the FWS broadly distributed an “issues workbook” to individuals in the local community and surrounding area. In addition, a series of public scoping meetings were held. These activities served to begin a dialogue with interested and affected individuals and groups, and to assist the planning team in identifying public issues and concerns. As the planning team progressed to developing the proposed action and other alternatives, this survey was developed to identify public expectations for refuge management, measure past refuge experiences, evaluate preferences for certain actions, and assess public understanding and knowledge of refuge activities and priorities. The sample of “stakeholders” for this survey is 214 individuals who had either completed the workbook or attended one of the scoping meetings. About half of respondents are local residents, with most of them living in the area full time. Local residents surveyed have lived in the area (Coos County, NH or Oxford County, ME) on average for about 29 years, with many of their families living there for at least three generations. There appears to be a relationship between stakeholder residency (and length of residency) and their agreement with management options and knowledge of refuge facts. Most stakeholders have a long history of visiting the refuge, with around 10 visits/year for the past 20 years. Understanding the proﬁ le of stakeholders involved in a public participatory process can be informative in communications with those stakeholders.

Stakeholder Experience at the Refuge Not surprisingly, many of the activities that the refuge is well-known for are important to a large majority of stakeholders. Activities such as viewing water and forest birds, paddling, viewing moose, and being in a serene environment that is undeveloped are important. More specialized activities, such as hunting, snowmobiling, and ice fi shing are important to a much smaller group of stakeholders (see fi gure J.1). Local residents fi nd many of those specialized activities (boat fi shing, motor boating, snowmobiling, and deer hunting) more important than do non-local respondents. Stakeholders are participating in the activities they fi nd most important on Umbagog Lake and along the Magalloway and Androscoggin Rivers. Very few people are participating in important activities in the other locations. Overall, stakeholders agree that the refuge is a meaningful place. They identify with the refuge for what it symbolizes to them and they agree that it is an important place for future generations. They do not appear solely dependent on the refuge for the activities in which they participate. However, they do appear to recognize the importance of the experiences they have at the refuge and those experiences bring them back time and again.

Figure J.1. Importance of activities to respondents who visit Lake Umbagog NWR.

J-2 Appendix J: Stakeholder Survey, Executive Summary Stakeholder Survey, Executive Summary Stakeholder / Refuge Relations Based on qualitative responses, stakeholders appear to see the value (both economically and from a quality-of-life perspective) the refuge provides to the local community. They feel the refuge is providing an important function in protecting valued resources. They also see some negative impacts to the local community. These include issues related to promoting rapid growth and tourism in the area that exceeds capacity or community desires. However, these comments appear to stretch beyond refuge responsibility, though stakeholders do seem to feel the refuge has an important role to play in addressing this issue. Stakeholders sampled appear to have some level of trust of the refuge or the FWS; however, it is not overwhelming. Though greater than 50% of all stakeholders indicate they trust both the refuge staff and the FWS, more than25% of non-local stakeholders are unsure. This information is important as the refuge continues to interact with stakeholders and improve relationships throughout the CCP process.

Stakeholder Communication and Participation Stakeholders have been quite participatory in natural resource or environmental decision making activities within the last 5 years. Though, by nature of the sample (i.e., those who attended a public meeting or completed the scoping workbook), this is not surprising. About 85% of respondents are interested in results from this study and information about future refuge planning activities, indicating a desire to communicate and be involved. Interestingly, while their trust in the refuge is not overwhelming, refuge staff is the source used by almost half of respondents for information about the refuge, followed by friends, neighbors, and colleagues. It appears stakeholders are relying heavily on the information provided by the refuge. Beyond refuge staff and friends and neighbors, local and non-local stakeholders use different sources of information to learn about the refuge (see ﬁ gure J.2). Non-local residents rely more heavily on information from recreation or environmental groups and the Internet, while local residents rely more on newspapers (particularly the Berlin, NH papers), local newsletters, and local town ofﬁ cials. These differences are likely due to the proximity that these groups live to the refuge and the means used to communicate locally about local issues.

cials Other ﬁ Radio Family *Internet Television Newspaper Refuge staff Maine IF&W

*Local newsletter Community groups N.H. Fish and Game *Local town of Local business people

Friends/Neighbors/Colleagues Government brochures/materials *Recreation/environmental group Figure J.2: Sources from which stakeholders get news and information about Lake Umbagog NWR (services with asterisks indicate statistical differences between local and non-local resident ratings of importance). Appendix J: Stakeholder Survey, Executive Summary J-3 Stakeholder Survey, Executive Summary Stakeholder Preferences for Refuge Management

Visitor Services and Features Potential services rated as important by the majority of stakeholders sampled (≥ 65%) include environmental education; opportunities for wildlife observation; provision of nonmotorized trails; information on hiking, birdwatching, or wildlife photography; and opportunities for volunteering. Services related to hunting and ﬁ shing were rated as desirable by fewer respondents (see ﬁ gure J.3). Nonlocal stakeholders are more supportive of user fees and the provision of Refuge information (on hiking, birdwatching, and photography) than are local stakeholders. Both groups of stakeholders would prefer most of the desired services near Umbagog Lake and along the Magalloway and Androscoggin Rivers.

Figure J.3: Desirability of services at Lake Umbagog

J-4 Appendix J: Stakeholder Survey, Executive Summary Stakeholder Survey, Executive Summary

Regarding how services should be managed (increase, leave as is, or decrease), stakeholders appear to be in agreement that the following services be left as is: camp sites, boat ramps, ﬁ shing access, and visitor numbers. However, more nonlocal respondents than locals feel that boat ramps and ﬁ shing access should be decreased (~25% vs. <10%). Stakeholders are split (almost 50/50) on whether to increase or leave the following services as is:

■ wildlife observation/photography facilities, ■ hiking trails,

■ interpretive exhibits, ■ environmental education programs and activities,

■ brochures/publications, ■ naturalness (restore more natural conditions),

■ restrooms, However, non-local respondents appear more supportive of restoring more natural conditions than local respondents. Stakeholders are even more split on the management of signs, hunting areas, and visitor impacts on wildlife with valid proportions in all three categories (increase, leave as is, and decrease).

Management Tradeoffs Overall, stakeholders are supportive of management tradeoffs related to refuge expansion/acquisition, habitat management (in particular forest management practices on the refuge), public use, and balancing public use and wildlife disturbance (see fi gure J.4, J.5, J.6, J.7). There also appears to be low potential for confl ict with most of these management options. Some factors appear to be infl uencing support for these options. Importance of activity type (e.g., consumptive activities such as fi shing and hunting; nonconsumptive activities such as biking or hiking), participation in natural resource decision making, residency (local vs. non-local resident), and length of time a respondent has lived in the local area are related (in different combinations for each category of management option) to the agreement with these options. Though there is not one set of factors that are overwhelmingly driving the small differences in agreement that exist for these management options, there are some relationships in the data that may be useful in targeting groups of stakeholders who are less supportive of these management options. As options are proposed in the CCP, it will be helpful to know where opposition may occur as the public participation process continues. Likewise, as alternatives are implemented, it will be important to recognize potential resistance. Because, even though the development of a CCP is a public process, it is unlikely that all stakeholders will be in agreement with all management actions.

Figure J.4: Stakeholder agreement with management tradeoff statements regarding refuge expansion/acquisition.

Appendix J: Stakeholder Survey, Executive Summary J-5 Stakeholder Survey, Executive Summary

Figure J.5: Stakeholder agreement with management tradeoff statements regarding habitat management.

Figure J.6: Stakeholder agreement with management tradeoff statements regarding public use.

J-6 Appendix J: Stakeholder Survey, Executive Summary Stakeholder Survey, Executive Summary Stakeholder Knowledge of Refuge Issues Stakeholders’ knowledge of questions they were asked regarding refuge issues is fairly low. However, when asked, most said they knew some or a fair amount about the refuge and its management. The average percent of correct answers was around 65% for each of the knowledge categories: the refuge and surrounding land ownership patterns; the purpose of the refuge and why it was established; water-level management; and, the FWS’s land acquisition procedures.

Figure J.7: Stakeholder agreement with management tradeoff statements regarding balancing public use and wildlife disturbance.

Stakeholders’ knowledge level on these questions seems to be inﬂ uenced by the importance of wildlife observation activities, participation in natural resource decision making, and length of residency in the local area. As with the management tradeoff results, there is not one set of factors that is overwhelmingly driving the differences in scores on these knowledge questions. There are some relationships in the data that may be useful in targeting groups of stakeholders who are less familiar with factual knowledge concerning refuge issues. Although simply providing information or facts about an issue does not necessarily change attitudes, providing the public with accurate and understandable information when working through a planning process is important for effective communication and discussion of CCP alternatives.

Availability of Complete Report The complete report will be available later this fall from refuge headquarters in hard copy or on CD-Rom at the address below, or can be viewed and/or downloaded online at http://www.fort.usgs.gov/products/publications/21507/21507.asp .

Lake Umbagog NWR Route 16 North P.O. Box 240 Errol, NH 03579 Phone: 603-482-3415 Fax: 603-482-3308 Email: [email protected]

Appendix J: Stakeholder Survey, Executive Summary J-7 Appendix K Bill Zinni/USFWS Managed forest lands on the refuge

Forest Management Guidelines Forest Management Guidelines Forest Management Guidelines

Introduction

The purpose of this appendix is to provide further detail on our proposed forest management under the Lake Umbagog Refuge Final CCP/EIS alternative B. It includes information on the desired future condition of our upland forested habitats, focusing on those areas within the current refuge boundary where we expect to operate in the next 15 years. We describe anticipated growth rates, harvest rates, and management techniques that will be used to achieve our habitat management goals and objectives.

Desired Future Forest Condition

We describe a landscape analysis we conducted in the Final CCP/EIS appendix N. It resulted in our determination that sustaining a mature, unfragmented, mixed spruce-ﬁ r/northern hardwood forest matrix, with a high conifer component, to beneﬁ t those species dependent on this type of forest landscape, was the most important ecological contribution the refuge could make through management to the Upper Androscoggin River watershed, the Northern Forest, and the Refuge System.

The 15 year scope of our CCP falls far short of the decades we expect it will take to create a sustainable mature mixed forest. Our expectation is that it will take at least 100 years to fully implement our forest management goals and objectives. This timeframe is based on our prediction of how long it will take to achieve the forest and stand composition and structural characteristics targeted for our refuge focal species identifi ed in the alternative B. Generally, our management will increase the percentage of spruce and fi r in our forests, and move our stands toward a mature forest structure, including super canopy trees, and with a high degree of canopy closure. This management will benefi t certain refuge focal species, including blackburnian and black-throated green warblers. In woodcock focus areas, management to benefi t two other focal species, Canada warbler and American woodcock, will be emphasized. Also, we will improve deer wintering areas, where consistent with our management for focal species. We will plan our management to insure that large blocks of unfragmented habitat are consistently available over time, for those species that require it. We will also assess the effects of our management at a refuge scale, in order to insure connectivity between habitat patches. We believe our management will help to build the resilience of our forests to multiple stressors , in the face of climate change, but may have to adjust our management approach as conditions require.

Sustaining a mature mixed forest over the long term requires active management of all forest age and structural classes, which we have grouped in our discussions throughout the Final CCP/EIS into: regeneration, mid- and mature age classes. Silvicultural approaches will differ in different habitat types within the mixed forest, but management will stay within the inherent capability of the site to grow certain tree species (i.e. based on soil properties, moisture regimes, elevation, aspect, etc). Attachment 1 defi nes techniques we might employ. Where feasible, and assuming favorable site capabilities, our management strategies will favor or increase the spruce- fi r component of stands. We will also predominately use forest management techniques to promote uneven-aged stands which we believe will best achieve our habitat goals and objectives. There are some sites, however, where techniques to promote even-aged stands would better meet our objectives. This may occur, for example, in stands where we want to encourage advanced regeneration of spruce/fi r, enhance deer wintering areas, and/or to manage for American woodcock and Canada warbler.

Our Final CCP/EIS alternative B (Service-preferred alternative), Objective 3.1 Mixed Spruce-Fir/Northern Hardwood Forest reads:

Conserve the mixed spruce-ﬁ r/northern hardwood forest on Service-owned lands within the current and expanded refuge boundaries, to sustain well-distributed, high quality breeding and foraging habitat for species of conservation concern, including blackburnian, black-throated green, and Canada warblers, and American woodcock. Also, where consistent with management for those focal species, protect critical deer wintering areas and provide connectivity of habitat types for wide-ranging mammals.

Appendix K: Forest Management Guidelines K-1 Forest Management Guidelines

It is important to understand that our management efforts will focus on providing sustainable high quality habitat conditions for our focal species. As noted above, in order to accomplish this, we would need to manage the various age classes and structures to ensure habitat conditions can be provided over the long-term. It is also important to understand that not every acre on the refuge is forested, nor is every forested acre suitable for active management. Furthermore, not every forested acre on refuge land is adequately stocked. In fact, many parcels of land purchased for the refuge over the last few years have been heavily harvested prior to sale. In these areas, very little, or no, management may be warranted to meet our habitat and focal species objectives during the 15- year lifetime of this plan.

Identifying Management Zones

In conjunction with our habitat type mapping we determined management zones, or zones of operability, to help identify where active management is possible (map K-1). These zones were mapped using stand level vegetation, wetlands, and soils information, and our knowledge of wildlife use. We deﬁ ne below the following four zones: 1) Low Resource Sensitivity (least restrictive; fewest special management prescriptions needed); 2) Moderate Resource Sensitivity; 3) High Resource Sensitivity; and, 4) Forest Industry Inoperable. Best states’ recommended forest practices, in terms of both forestry and wildlife management, will be followed in all areas and zones (see below: New Hampshire Forest Sustainability Standards Work Team 1997; Flatebo et al. 1999; Cullen 2000; Calhoun and DeMaynadier 2003; Smith and Whitney 2001; Chase et al. 1997; Reay et al. 1990).

Low Resource Sensitivity Zone: Stands within this zone allow for the greatest fl exibility in managing over the long term to diversify forest age class and structure to benefi t our focal species. A variety of commercial and non- commercial timber harvesting may occur as described below under each habitat type. All harvesting will follow best forestry and wildlife management practices (BMPs), as recommended by the states of New Hampshire and Maine. Where this zone surrounds or abuts moderate and high sensitivity and industry inoperable zones, stand prescriptions will refl ect the need to protect or enhance the resource values on those adjacent, more sensitive areas.

Moderate Resource Sensitivity Zone: Stands within this zone are subject to more restricted silvicultural prescriptions or timing of harvest than in the Low Resource Sensitivity Zone. Restrictions may include (but are not limited to) seasonal operational closures, maintenance of closed canopy conditions, retention of coarse woody debris or snags, etc.

High Resource Sensitivity Zone: Stands within this zone are subject to very few manipulations. We may fell, girdle, or otherwise treat individual trees, or small groups of trees, to beneﬁ t wildlife or for safety reasons. Highly restrictive areas may include excessively steep slopes, hydric soils, and/or close proximity to resources of concern, such as streams and wetlands. Most of these areas are also considered “inoperable” by the forest products industry (see below); however, the refuge’s high resource sensitivity zone is more extensive than what industry would consider “inoperable”.

Forest Industry Inoperable Zone: This zone represents local forest industry standards for inoperability. These areas were mapped by the former timber company landowner. This zone includes stands that are non-forested wetlands, or are too steep or wet to be economically harvested (Johnson 2003). We may fell, girdle, or otherwise treat individual trees, or small groups of trees, to beneﬁ t wildlife or for safety reasons; otherwise, tree harvest will be quite limited.

List of Guidelines /Best Management Practices

At a minimum, our forest management will adhere to recommended best management practices for forest and wildlife management listed in the documents below:

Calhoun, A.J.K. and P. deMaynadier. 2003. Forestry habitat management guidelines for vernal pool wildlife in Maine. U.S. Environ. Protect. Agency, Boston, MA.

K-2 Appendix K: Forest Management Guidelines Map K-1 Forest Management Guidelines

Appendix K: Forest Management Guidelines K-3 Forest Management Guidelines

Chase, V., L. Deming and F. Latawiec. 1997. Buffers for wetlands and surface waters: a guidebook for New Hampshire municipalities. Audubon Soc. of New Hampshire

Flatebo, G., C.R. Foss and S. K. Pelletier. 1999. Biodiversity in the forests of Maine: guidelines for land management. C.A. Elliott, ed. Univ. of Maine Coop. Extension. UMCE Bulletin # 7147.

Reay, R.S., D.W. Blodgett, B.S. Burns, S.J. Weber, and T. Frey. 1990. Management guide for deer wintering areas in Vermont. Vermont Dept. of forests, Parks 7 Rec. and Dept. of Fish & Wildlife.

Smith, S. and S. Whitney. 2001. Guide to New Hampshire timber harvesting laws. Univ. of New Hampshire Coop. Extension.

Identifying Habitat Management Units

To facilitate the development of a detailed habitat management plan (HMP), we divided all refuge lands currently under fee ownership into 14 geographic areas or “habitat management units (HMUs)” (map K-1). The HMP, which is a step-down plan to be completed immediately upon CCP approval, will detail stand-level treatments and prescriptions (e.g. timing, distribution, method or technique, etc) for each HMU. Our HMU boundaries are deﬁ ned based on ecological systems and landscape features such as roads, waterways, Umbagog Lake, as well as logistical considerations.

Deﬁ ning Manageable Forest Areas

Of the 21,644 acres owned by the refuge in fee (an additional 6 acres are owned in easement) and delineated in HMUs, 10,845 acres of that is considered upland forest. Of those upland forest acres, more than half falls within high resource sensitivity or forest industry inoperable zones, or includes stands recently harvested and existing in regeneration through sapling/pole age classes. Our management would be limited in these areas. Instead, the focus of our forest management to beneﬁ t focal species will fall within existing mature stands within the low and moderate resource sensitivity zones.

We determined where we currently have mature stands through two sources. The fi rst was aerial photo interpretation work conducted for us under contract by James W. Sewall Company. We used their data to identify mature stands which we defi ned as having a canopy height greater than 30 feet in spruce-fi r and mixed woods, and 50 feet in hardwoods. We also utilized information from a timber inventory conducted in 2000 and supplied to us by the previous owner. We used this information to further identify mature habitat conditions, and to evaluate stocking levels and forest products potential associated with each of the habitat types described below.

Table K.1 presents a summary of the acreage on which we will focus forest management over the next 15 years to beneﬁ t focal species. It represents the upland forest habitat types, currently owned in fee by the refuge, that are in a mature age class and stand condition, and occur in low or moderate resource sensitivity zones. We refer to these acres as “manageable” in the table below.

K-4 Appendix K: Forest Management Guidelines Forest Management Guidelines

Table K.1. By forest habitat type, the acres in upland that are owned in fee, and the resulting predicted “manageable” forest habitat acres on the Lake Umbagog Refuge under the Final CCP/EIS, Alternative B: Service-preferred alternative

Upland Forest Acreage Predicted Manageable Acres Forest Habitat Type Owned in Fee Over Next 15 Years Northern Hardwood 4,640 804 Spruce-ﬁ r 2,346 1,032 Mixed Woods 3,859 2,205 TOTAL 10,845 acres 4,041 acres

Limited forest management may also need to occur during the 15 year life-span of this plan in the remaining 5,872 acres of upland forest not meeting the aforementioned criteria. Of those acres, some habitat improvement projects, such as pre-commercial thinning, may be implemented to support our objectives in those stands that exist in the regeneration and sapling/pole size age classes, and in the low and moderate resources sensitivity zones. This will be determined after we conduct a detailed stand inventory. Timber sale areas will be managed and in some cases combined, in order to insure their commercial viability. The remaining acres, which occur in the high resource sensitivity or in the forest industrial inoperable zones, will largely be unmanaged, but will contribute towards the mature age class in our desired future condition.

Proposed Management by Forest Habitat Type

The following proposed management may be employed by the refuge under full-implementation of the Final CCP/EIS alternative B to achieve the desired future condition over the long-term. It includes commercial and non-commercial forest management on low to moderate resource sensitivity zones designed to meet our focal species habitat management objectives. These descriptions represent anticipated management and resulting harvest ﬁ gures. More detailed prescriptions by treatment unit will be developed in the HMP and will be based on individual site conditions. Also, Attachment 1 describes the silvicultural techniques in more detail.

Spruce-ﬁ r

Desired future condition for focal species: Mature, closed canopy conifer with a high spruce component.

Uneven-aged Management In the refuge’s spruce-fi r forested stands, we will utilize uneven-aged management techniques to convert the predominately even-aged forest to a multi-aged, multi-structured condition. We plan to conduct harvest utilizing a combination of group selection, with some single tree selection between groups. Groups should be roughly 1/10 acre in size and will be distributed throughout the entire management unit with 10-15% of the area being removed on 15-20 year cycles. Age class goals, not including reserve snag and cavity trees, will be 100-130 years. Basal area (BA) goals in spruce-fi r should strive for a minimum of 80 ft²/acre, with roughly 50% in 6-10” diameter class, 30% in 11-14” diameter class, and 25% in a 15”+ diameter class. Our spruce-fi r structural goals are to maintain a q=1.7, which has about a 45% of its diameter distribution in an 11”+ diameter class. Use of the “q” is defi ned by Leak et al.:

Diameter distributions are approximated by the reverse J-shaped curve, with a slope deﬁ ned by “q” – the quotient between numbers of tree in successively smaller d.b.h. classes.”

We predict a stand at this stocking level will grow at a rate of 2 ft²/ acre/year resulting in 30-40 ft²/acre of volume available to harvest during each cutting cycle. Of this growth, we estimate retention of approximately 7 ft²/ acre (approximately 6 trees/acre), to account for our snag and cavity tree requirements resulting in the potential removal of 23-33 ft²/acre during each harvest entry.

Appendix K: Forest Management Guidelines K-5 Forest Management Guidelines

It is expected a minimum net annual growth in this habitat will be .3 cords/acre/year which, over a 15-20 year period, equates to 4.5-6 cords/acre net increase. During each harvest entry, a portion of the trees need to be retained to fulﬁ ll our snag and cavity tree requirements. Individual trees (11”-20” diameter) are estimated to consist of .25 - 1 cord. It is predicted a retention volume of 2-3 cords/acre (1000-1500 BF/acre), distributed among 6 trees/acre, will be adequate to attain the desired snag/cavity tree goals. This results in roughly 2.5-4 cords/acre (1250-2000 BF/acre) available to harvest during each harvest cycle entry. Because our diameter distribution is skewed more towards the larger 11-14” class, it is predicted our gross volume will be 20-25 cords/acre at the beginning of each harvest cycle. With the predicted even distribution of volume per acre, this equates to 15 % area removal at each entry, accounting for 3-3.5 cords/acre, and any remaining volume/acre needed to meet the habitat goal, being removed through single tree selection.

Even-aged Management In certain areas, such as where there is healthy, advanced spruce-ﬁ r regeneration or in critical deer wintering areas, we may employ even-aged management techniques in this habitat type. This is consistent with our objective to perpetuate a multi-aged and multi-structured forest landscape. We would conduct harvests utilizing shelterwood or clearcuts in a shifting mosaic pattern that will result in a progressive patch, block, or strip system, where-in typically 15% of the area is harvested in 15 – 20 year intervals.

Target rotation age is 80-130 years. On 15 year harvest cycles, and an approximate 100 year rotation, this equates to roughly 6 age classes with 33.3% of the area in a 0-30 year age class (regeneration/sapling structural stage), 33.3% in a 30-60 year age class (pole/small sawtimber structural stage), and 33.3% in a 60-100 year age class (small sawtimber/large sawtimber structural stage). If no signiﬁ cant natural disturbance occurs during the rotation of a treatment area, basal area (BA) at the time of harvest will likely be above 140 ft²/acre, and may be in excess of 200 ft²/acre. Scheduling of a harvest is not basal area dependent, and is considered to be the size of the treatment area in its entirety, which is approximately 15% of the HMU.

Snag and cavity trees will need to be retained through a reserve approach during each harvest. We estimate retention of approximately 7 ft²/acre (e.g. approximately 6 trees/acre) to account for our snag and cavity tree requirements. Manipulative efforts through habitat improvement may need to be employed on adjacent areas to account for potential loss of this component from sudden exposure to sun, wind, storm, insect or other natural agents.

Harvest volume will vary greatly by site but 25 to 50 cords per acre is expected from 100 year old, unmanaged, fully stocked even-aged stands. Approximately 2 cords per acre will need to be retained for snag and cavity tree requirements.

Clearcuts on the refuge will be limited in size and typically less than 10 acres; or, in deer winter yards, clearcuts will be one of several regeneration methods used, but would not be applied on more than 20% of a deer wintering area within a 15-year interval.

Mixed Woods

Desired future condition for focal species: Mature, closed-canopy habitat with a high conifer (spruce-ﬁ r) component

Silvicultural approaches will differ within the mixed spruce-ﬁ r/northern hardwood forest matrix based on the inherent capability of an individual site to grow a predominance of either spruce/ﬁ r or northern hardwoods (i.e. based on soil properties, moisture regimes, elevation, aspect, etc). Habitat types will be perpetuated through time, using accepted silvicultural practices. Where feasible, and assuming favorable site capability, management strategies will favor or increase the conifer component of stands.

Uneven-aged Management In the refuge’s mixed woods stands, we will primarily utilize uneven-aged management techniques to convert the predominately even-aged forest to a multi-aged, multi-structured, condition. We will conduct harvests utilizing a

K-6 Appendix K: Forest Management Guidelines Forest Management Guidelines combination of group selection with some single tree selection between groups. Groups should range from 1/5 to 1/2 acre in size and be distributed throughout the entire management unit with 10-15% of the area being removed on 15-20 year cycles. Age class goals, not including snag and cavity trees, should be 100-200 years. BA goals in mixed woods should strive for a minimum of 100 ft²/acre with roughly 42% in a 6-10” diameter class, 28% in 11-14” diameter class, and 30% in a 15”+ diameter class. Mixed woods structural goals are to maintain a q = 1.5, which has about 55% of its diameter distribution in an 11”+ diameter class.

We predict a stand at this stocking level will grow at a rate of 2 ft²/ acre/year resulting in 30-40 ft²/ acre available to harvest during each cutting cycle. Of this growth, we estimate retention of approximately 7 ft²/acre (e.g. approximately 6 trees) to account for our snag and cavity tree requirements resulting in a removal of 23-33 ft²/ acre during each harvest entry.

We expect a minimum net annual growth in this habitat will be .33 cords/acre/year, which over a 15-20 year cutting cycle, equates to a 5-6.5 cords/acre net increase. During each harvest entry, a portion of the trees need to be retained to fulﬁ ll our snag and cavity tree requirements. Individual trees (11”-20” diameter) are estimated to consist of .25 - 1 cord. It is predicted a retention volume of 3 - 4.5 cords/acre (1500-2250 BF/acre) distributed among 6 trees/acre will be adequate to retain the desired snag/cavity tree goals. This results in approximately 2-3 cords (1000-2000 BF/acre) available to harvest during each harvest cycle.

Because our diameter distribution is skewed more towards the larger 11-14” class, it is predicted our gross volume will be 18-22 cords/acre at the beginning of each harvest cycle. With the predicted even distribution of volume per acre this equates to 10 - 15 % area removal at each entry, accounting for 2 - 3.5 cords/acre, and the remaining volume/acre needed to meet the habitat goal, being removed through single tree selection.

Even-aged management Where site conditions and management goals deem appropriate (deer wintering areas and areas where advanced spruce/ﬁ r regeneration exists), we will employ the even-aged management techniques as described for spruce/ ﬁ r management. These techniques will be used to perpetuate a multi-aged and multi-structured forest landscape through even-aged area regulation. We plan to conduct harvests utilizing shelterwood or clearcuts in a shifting mosaic pattern that will result in a progressive patch, block, or strip system, where-in 15% of the area is harvested in 15 – 20 year intervals.

Northern Hardwoods

Desired future condition for focal species: Mature, mid-high canopy closure, with a multi-layered proﬁ le, and canopy gaps with understory development

Uneven-aged Management In the refuge’s northern hardwood stands, we will utilize uneven-aged management techniques to convert the predominately even-aged forest to a multi-aged, multi- structured condition. We will conduct harvests utilizing a combination of group selection with some single tree selection between groups. Groups would be approximately 1/2 acre in size and be distributed throughout the entire management unit with 10-15% of the area being removed on 15-20 year cycles. Age class goals, not including snag and cavity trees, should be 100- 200 years. BA goals in northern hardwoods should strive for a minimum of 70 ft²/acre with roughly 42% in a 6-10” diameter class, 28% in 11-14” diameter class, and 30% in a 15”+ diameter class. Northern hardwoods structural goals are to maintain a q = 1.5, which has about 55 % of its diameter distribution in an 11”+ diameter class.

We predict a stand at this stocking will grow at a rate of 2 ft²/ acre/year resulting in 30-40 ft²/ acre available to harvest during each cutting cycle. Of this growth, we estimate retention of approximately 7 ft²/acre (e.g. approximately 6 trees), to account for our snag and cavity tree requirements, resulting in a removal of 23-33 ft²/acre during each harvest entry.

Appendix K: Forest Management Guidelines K-7 Forest Management Guidelines

We expect a minimum net annual growth in this habitat will be .4 cords/acre/year, which over a 15-20 year period, equates to a 6-8 cords/acre net increase. During each harvest entry a portion of the trees need to be retained to fulﬁ ll our snag and cavity tree requirements. Individual trees (11”-20” diameter) are estimated to consist of .25 - 1 cord. We predict a retention volume of 2-3 cords/acre (1000-1500 BF/acre) distributed among 6 trees/acre will be adequate to attain the desired snag/cavity objectives. This results in approximately 4-6 cords (2000-3000 BF/acre) available to harvest during each harvest cycle entry.

Because our diameter distribution is skewed more towards the larger 11-14” class, it is predicted our gross volume will be 18-22 cords/acre at the beginning of each harvest cycle. With the predicted even distribution of volume per acre, this equates to 10-15 % area removal at each entry, accounting for 2 - 3.5 cords/acre, and the remaining volume/acre needed to meet the habitat goal, being removed through single tree selection.

Woodcock Focus Areas

Even-aged Management In woodcock focus areas, we will use accepted silvicultural practices to create openings, promote understory development, and sustain early successional habitat for woodcock and Canada warbler. We will use group selection, clearcuts, or patch cuts of up to 5 acres in size. Some larger roosting ﬁ elds may also be maintained. Cutting cycles will be approximately 8-10 years on a 40 year rotation. Some 3-5 acre openings may be permanently maintained, primarily by mowing and brush clearing using mechanized equipment. We will perpetuate the aspen-birch community where it currently exists, and maintain it in well-distributed regenerating, young, mid- and mature age classes.

Anticipated Average Annual Harvest Summary

Table K.2 presents the average annual volume and forest product that would result from the stand management described above for the Final CCP/EIS alternative B.

Table K.2. Predicted forest products and average annual harvest volumes under implementation of the Lake Umbagog Refuge Final CCP/EIS alternative B

Average Annual Quantity under Forest Product CCP Alternative B Softwood Sawtimber 135 MBF Hardwood Sawtimber 27 MBF Softwood Pulp 125 Cords Hardwood Pulp 371 Cords

Fuelwood 88 Cords

Anticipated Management on Lands to be Acquired in the Proposed Expansion Area

Over the next 15 years, as land is acquired from willing sellers in functional management units of at least 200 contiguous acres, we will delineate a new HMU and undertake the same evaluation we conducted for current refuge lands. Within two years of acquisition, we will conduct a stand inventory and apply the resource sensitivity zones. We will then develop management prescriptions to support the same goals and objectives for our focal species, using the same methodology we described above for current refuge lands.

K-8 Appendix K: Forest Management Guidelines Forest Management Guidelines

Attachment 1

Deﬁ nitions of Forest Silvicultural Techniques and Methods to Use in our Forest Management for Focal Species

Group Selection This technique involves the removal of small groups of trees throughout a stand, to initiate and/or maintain an uneven-aged forest. A group selection opening is considered to be less than, or equal to, twice the height of the adjacent mature trees. This method will encourage regeneration of intermediately tolerant and tolerant species, but some intolerant species can appear towards the center of the harvest areas when the groups are at the maximum size. The likelihood of the harvest areas regenerating combined with the ability to schedule continual harvest entries, results in this technique being a method of choice to convert even-aged stands to uneven-aged stands when desired.

Group selection results in moderately- closed to closed-canopy conditions. Regeneration and shrubby vegetation can be expected to develop with reasonable assurance. This technique can be used in combination with single- tree selection to ensure canopy closure requirements meet desired conditions. Priority species such as the blackburnian and black-throated green warbler will benefi t from the application of this technique in a conifer- dominated habitat area. The predominantly closed canopy condition resulting from this technique will also benefi t deer winter cover areas. The technique can be applied in all habitat types. Its application in the refuge’s spruce- fi r forest most closely resembles the natural disturbance that would be expected to take place if the area were allowed to develop without manipulation.

Single Tree Selection This technique involves the removal of individual trees throughout a stand. Use of this technique, on a continual harvesting cycle, is considered uneven-aged management. It can also be used during even-aged management, and when done so, is commonly referred to as an intermediate thinning. In uneven-aged management, it is used to introduce small openings in the canopy by focusing the harvest on dominant, older aged trees. In even- aged management, it is used to promote the quality and growth of the remaining trees by focusing the harvest on poor quality, low vigor trees. The technique will likely result in varying quantities of regeneration of mostly shade tolerant species.

Single tree selection results in a relatively closed canopy condition. Understory development is usually minimal. The opportunity for regeneration is created but when trees are selected singularly, the opening produced in the canopy will typically be utilized quickly by the crowns of adjacent older trees. This technique is often used in combination with group selection to ensure regeneration is established and separate age classes are created to perpetuate the overall desired condition. In using single tree selection, with even-aged objectives in the form of a thinning, it will likely result in less opportunity for regeneration and understory development. Often times the suppressed and co-dominant trees are selected for removal resulting in very little change in canopy closure after a treatment. This technique can be applied in all habitat types.

Pre-commercial Stand Treatments to Improve Habitat Conditions These treatments include entering an even- or uneven-aged stand at any stage of development with the intent of tending to habitat needs through thinning, weeding, cleaning, liberation, sanitation, or other improvement methods. This technique can be used to control species composition and reduce an overabundance of stems per acre to a more desired stocking level. This can be applied through thinning young stands (pre-commercially) to control species composition, conducting intermediate thinnings in middle aged stands to maintain accelerated growth and remove unwanted vegetation, and prescribed ﬁ re. This technique may also be used to control stocking levels of habitat features such as snag trees, cavity trees, den trees, downed wood and other features through girdling, felling, boring, hindging, or other techniques.

This habitat improvement technique is varied in its application, but overall should be applied to alter or enhance young stands and introduce or reduce habitat features when goals and objectives are not being met. This can be

Appendix K: Forest Management Guidelines K-9 Forest Management Guidelines

applied in all habitat types and may be extended to areas that are not capable of supporting equipment for larger scale manipulation efforts.

Shelterwood System This technique involves a series of harvests carried out with the intent of regenerating a stand utilizing mature trees that are removed at the end of the scheduled rotation. Essentially, the overstory is removed and the well- developed underlying regeneration then becomes the stand. This technique is typically used to regenerate intermediately tolerant (mid successional) and tolerant (late successional) species, but in certain instances can be used for intolerant (early successional) species. Use of this technique is considered even-aged management, although variations more often found in the irregular shelterwood system can result in a multi-aged stand. In order for a shelterwood system to be considered, a stand should be reasonably well stocked with a moderate to high component of the species desired for regeneration.

A number of shelterwood system applications exist. The more commonly used is the open shelterwood system. Although less commonly used, the dense shelterwood, deferred shelterwood, irregular shelterwood, natural shelterwood, and nurse tree shelterwood systems are also useful in accomplishing speciﬁ c regenerative needs as well as other resource management objectives.

The shelterwood variations allow a variety of habitat conditions to be created while fulfi lling the regenerative objectives of the technique. It can be used to create a denser crown closure when connectivity of an older age forest needs to be maintained. The amount of time needed to establish regeneration and conduct the overstory removal can provide enough time for other areas to develop into an older age condition, and ensure refuge goals are being met continually. Overstory removal can be delayed through a deferred shelterwood if further development of other areas is necessary. It can also be used to create a more open crown closure when development of a shrub component in the understory is desired or residual tree are needed to meet specifi c habitat requirements. Once regenerative needs have been reached and the “shelter” (seed) trees have been removed, the new stand can then be managed for structural objectives as it develops. Overstory removal can result in a regenerative condition which does offer some early successional benefi ts as described in the clearcut technique.

This technique can be used in all habitat types. Its application on habitats comprised of predominately shallow root species (e.g. red spruce/balsam ﬁ r) or wet soil conditions, does introduce a greater susceptibility of the residual trees to windthrow from wind events.

Clearcutting This technique involves the removal of an entire stand of trees in one cutting to obtain natural reproduction. Two common methods of clearcutting are patch or block clearcuts, and strip clearcuts. This regeneration technique is considered to be even-aged management, although somewhat coarse multi-aged stands can be developed through progressive patch or progressive strip clearcut systems. Clearcut size does have an effect on regeneration. As clearcuts increase in size, they tend to favor shade intolerant regeneration. As they become smaller they gravitate towards encouraging intermediately tolerant and tolerant species.

Clearcuts are often used to create an early successional habitat condition. Early successional habitat is when an area is in a young, shrubby, regenerating condition that covers an area large enough to be recognized and perhaps utilized by wildlife or plants associated with such an open or no-canopy condition.

This technique should be utilized when an early successional habitat condition is desired and found to be lacking or not available within the landscape. As mentioned previously in this description, clearcut size does have an impact on tree species composition, and therefore should also be utilized when current species composition is not desired or diverse enough to reach goals and objectives. This technique can be used in all habitat types, and although somewhat limiting in terms of emulating natural processes or conditions, can be used in a continual, progressive system that sustains multiple age classes through a coarse uneven-aged landscape perspective.

K-10 Appendix K: Forest Management Guidelines Appendix L Ian Drew/USFWS Floodplain forest habitat along the Magalloway River

Ecological Land Units and Their Relationship to Potential Refuge Habitat Type Ecological Land Units and Their Relationship to Potential Refuge Habitat Types Ecological Land Units and Their Relationship to Refuge Habitat Types

Introduction

During conservation planning processes, habitat, and therefore vegetation, becomes a key element in evaluating a planning unit’s contribution to conservation targets. Not only is it necessary to know the current habitat within the planning unit, it may also be necessary to know the potential habitat that could occur in the future. Past and current logging practices have inﬂ uenced the species composition and do not necessarily represent the vegetation that would naturally occur at a given site. During the Comprehensive Conservation Planning process at Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge, it became necessary to determine potential forest habitats based on site capabilities due to past and current harvesting and the lack of data on lands outside the current refuge boundary.

Detailed soil inventories, often used to determine site capabilities, were not available for the entire planning unit, which is located in northern New Hampshire (Coos County) and western Maine (Oxford County). Kuckler’s Potential Natural Vegetation, Refuge speciﬁ c Order II level soil survey data, photo interpretation, and consultation with forest ecologists were combined with ecological land units (ELUs) to predict sites with favorable conditions for naturally growing hardwood, softwood and mixed wood.

Data Layers

A spatial analysis was conducted using the geographic information system (GIS) ArcMap9 to predict naturally occurring forest habitats based on available abiotic and vegetation data. A base layer of ecological land units (ELUs), which are a composite of broad abiotic data displayed in 30 meter pixels developed by The Nature Conservancy (Mark Anderson, TNC Eastern Resource Ofﬁ ce, Boston, MA), was overlaid with more site speciﬁ c data to assign conifer, mixed and hardwood habitat types to ELU types. Each data layer is described below followed by the method that was used to make the assignments.

Kuchler’s Potential Natural Vegetation.

In 1964, A. W. Kuchler of the University of Kansas mapped the conterminous United States depicting the vegetation that would exist if man were to allow plant succession to proceed without interference. The map incorporates abiotic geographical elements similar to Bailey’s ecoregions (Bailey 1997) and results in vegetation types. The map is generalized and broad with its mapping units, however, it is of ﬁ ner delineation than Bailey’s ecoregions (Kuchler 1964).

The Lake Umbagog NWR planning unit lies within the Northern Hardwoods-Spruce Forest. A tall, dense forest of broadleaf deciduous and needleleaf evergreen trees. This is a mixture of; sugar maple (Acer saccharum), yellow birch (Betula allegheniensis), beech (Fagus grandifolia), and conifer; red spruce (Picea rubens) and hemlock (Tsuga Canadensis), with components of balsam ﬁ r (Abies balsamea), red maple (Acer rubrum), paper birch (Betula papyrifera), red and white pine (Pinus resinosa, P. strobes).

Appendix L: Ecological Land Units and Their Relationship to Potential Refuge Habitat Type L-1 Ecological Land Units and Their Relationship to Potential Refuge Habitat Types

Photo-Interpretation

To obtain a sense of the forest conditions prior to the most recent logging activity, photo interpretation of the Mollidgewock drainage was conducted by biologist, Bill Zinni (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, MA), using 1986 color infrared aerial photographs. According to New Hampshire wildlife biologist, Will Staats, this would have been about the time the timber industry began to intensively select softwoods to meet the demand for pulpwood. Through photo interpretation, areas were classiﬁ ed as spruce/ﬁ r, northern hardwoods, mixed wood and recently harvested. Ground truthing was conducted to verify photo signatures.

The photo interpretation resulted in the mapping of contiguous linear segments of spruce/fi r in the lowland areas and blocks of hardwoods and mixed wood in the uplands along with small blocks of conifers at the higher elevations. Areas of active harvesting in the uplands were apparent in the photographs. Many of the areas classifi ed as hardwoods had skid trails throughout the parcel, indicating recent logging activity. In some areas, skid trails were coming from patches of conifers which appeared to be in a stage of harvesting, indicating the selective logging of conifers within mixed wood stands. Based on the apparent alteration logging had on the upland habitat, the most confi dent interpretation occurred in the mapping of lowland spruce/fi r areas where logging had not taken place at the time of the photographs.

Refuge-speciﬁ c Order II Soil Survey Data.

In 2004, the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (Homer 2004) conducted an Order II soil survey for portions of the refuge that are capable of forest management based on the refuge forest operability map. The descriptions for the soil map units were used to assist with determining the suitability and potential of a soil unit for specifi c uses, such as timber growth. The forestry component, of the soil unit description, identifi es the type of tree growth and successional trends to be expected for each soil unit. Soil units that overlapped with low lying ELUs (where photo interpretation was most confi dent) were grouped into softwood, hardwood or mixed soil types based on the tree growth potential and successional trend (table L.1.)

L-2 Appendix L: Ecological Land Units and Their Relationship to Potential Refuge Habitat Type Ecological Land Units and Their Relationship to Potential Refuge Habitat Types

Table L.1. The name of soil units that overlapped with low lying ELUs, and the assigned soil type based on forestry properties and most productive tree species. Tree species # Soil Unit Name Forestry Properties to manage Soil Type

567 Howland silt loam Softwood or hardwood, depends Eastern arborvitae, E Softwood on surrounding seed source. white pine, white spruce

670 Tunbridge-Berkshire-Lyman Too diverse to generalize Balsam ﬁ r, E. white Softwood Complex successional trends. pine, larch, red spruce, white spruce

247 Lyme ﬁ ne sandy loam Fair to good softwood growth, Eastern white pine, Softwood successional trends towards white spruce balsam ﬁ r and red spruce.

73 Berkshire very fi ne sandy Hardwoods in combinations with Balsam fi r, E. white Softwood loam red spruce and balsam fi r. pine, red pine, white spruce

61 Tunbridge-Lyman-Rock Too diverse to generalize Balsam ﬁ r, E. white Softwood Outcrop Complex successional trends pine, red spruce, Scotch pine, tamarack, white spruce.

27 Groveton ﬁ ne sandy loam Hardwoods in combinations E. white pine, paper Mixed with red spruce, balsam ﬁ r and birch occasionally white pine and hemlock.

579 Dixmont very ﬁ ne sandy Hardwoods in combination with Eastern arborvitae, E. Softwood loam red spruce and balsam ﬁ r. white pine, European larch, white spruce

523 Stetson ﬁ ne sandy loam Successional trends toward red Eastern with pine, red Softwood spruce and balsam ﬁ r. pine

590 Cabot gravelly silt loam Poor for hardwood growth and Eastern white pine, Softwood good for softwoods, especially white spruce red spruce and balsam ﬁ r.

79 Peru ﬁ ne sandy loam Hardwoods in combinations Eastern white pine, Softwood with red spruce, balsam ﬁ r and white spruce occasionally white pine and hemlock.

995 Wonsqueak mucky peat Tamarack, cedar , black spruce - - - Softwood and alders with balsam ﬁ r.

Forest Ecologists Site Visit.

U.S. Forest ecologists Bill Leak and Steve Fay, and USDA-Natural Resource Conservation Service soil scientist Joe Homer, accompanied the core team to sites with various forest conditions on the refuge. At each site, current conditions, soil type and projected successional paths were discussed

Appendix L: Ecological Land Units and Their Relationship to Potential Refuge Habitat Type L-3 Ecological Land Units and Their Relationship to Potential Refuge Habitat Types

in relationship to forest management techniques. It was noted that at many of the sites a higher component of hardwood species was present than the soils and site conditions represented.

Based on the soils, topography and species present at a site, the forest ecologists determined if the site conditions would naturally support conifer, hardwood or mixed woods. The sites that were classiﬁ ed as mixed wood, had a lesser degree of conifers than the ecologists thought would be present given the site capabilities. This corresponds to the interpretation of the 1986 aerial photographs.

Ecological Land Units (ELUs).

Ecological land units were developed by classifying and categorizing three abiotic data layers: elevation, bedrock geology and topographic features (Groves 2000). Lake Umbagog lies within the Northern Appalachian/Boreal Forest Ecoregion, as deﬁ ned by The Nature Conservancy. Using GIS, Mark Anderson of the TNC New England Resource Ofﬁ ce, Boston, MA, created ELUs for this Ecoregion by combining the 26 abiotic features listed in table L.2.

Table L.2. Abiotic data layers that were used to develop Ecological Land Units in the Northern Appalachian/Boreal Forest Ecoregion.

Elevation Zone Bedrock Geology Topographic Feature

0 – 800 ‘ Acidic Sediment / Meta-sediment Steep Slope 800 – 1700’ Acidic Granitic Cliff 1700 – 2500’ Coarse Sediment Flat Summit / Ridgetop 2500 – 4000’ Fine Sediment Slope Crest Calcareous Sediment / Meta-sediment Low Hilltop (ﬂ at)

Moderate Calcareous Sed. / Meta-sed. Low Hill (gentle slope)

Maﬁ c / Intermediate Grantic Sideslope NW-facing

Ultramaﬁ c Sideslope SE-facing

Dry Flats

Wet Flats

Valley / Toe Slope

Bottom of Steep Slope

Cove / Draw NW-facing

Cove / Draw SE-facing

Some of the combined elements did not occur within the Northern Appalachian/Boreal Forest Ecoregion and were dropped. Others were found to have no signiﬁ cant difference and were combined, resulting in the following ecological land units in table L.3.

L-4 Appendix L: Ecological Land Units and Their Relationship to Potential Refuge Habitat Type Ecological Land Units and Their Relationship to Potential Refuge Habitat Types

Table L.3. Ecological Land Units of the Northern Appalachian/Boreal Forest Ecoregion.

Ecological Land Unit

GSF_low hill/valley, acidic granitic GSF_low hill/valley, acidic sed/metased GSF_low hill/valley, mafi c/int granitic GSF_low hill/valley, mod calc sed/metased Bottom of steep slope Cliff Coarse seds on dry fl ats, GSF Cove NW facing Cove SE facing Dry fl ats, acidic granitic Dry fl ats, acidic sed/metased Dry fl ats, mafi c/intermed granitic Flat summit / ridgetop Sideslope NW facing Sideslope SE facing Slope crest Steep slope Wet fl ats Wet fl ats on coarse seds Dry fl ats, mod calc sed/metased

Methods

Using ELUs as a base in GIS, the photo interpretation layer was overlaid as a see-through texture to identify areas of positive correlation for spruce/fi r, mixed and hardwood areas. There was a strong visual correlation between the low lying and mountain top ELUs and the areas mapped as spruce/fi r. The location of each stopping point of the forest ecologists site visit were identifi ed on the ELU layer as well. At each point the projected habitat type was correlated to the underlying ELU.

As depicted in ﬁ gure L.1, the low lying ELUs correlated to areas that were interpreted as spruce/ﬁ r stand types (black areas with white specking) and the uplands to hardwood (gray areas with black diagonal strips) and mixed stands (gray with black horizontal strips).

Appendix L: Ecological Land Units and Their Relationship to Potential Refuge Habitat Type L-5 Ecological Land Units and Their Relationship to Potential Refuge Habitat Types

Figure L.1. Ecological land units are shown in black and shades of gray. The black represents the softwood ELUs. The white speckling represents spruce/ﬁ r areas interpreted from 1986 aerial photography. Black hatching represents mixed and hardwood areas.

L-6 Appendix L: Ecological Land Units and Their Relationship to Potential Refuge Habitat Type Ecological Land Units and Their Relationship to Potential Refuge Habitat Types

Figure L.2. shows an example where Figure L.2. Ecological land units shown in black and shades speciﬁ c ELUs correlate with areas that were of gray, with an overlay of forest habitat shown as white interpreted as hardwood and mixed wood speckling (softwood), black diagonal (hardwood) and black horizontal (mixed). based on the 1986 photos. ELUs are the base layer shown in black and shades of gray. The white speckling and black hatching lines are overlaid and represent forest types interpreted from 1986 aerial photography. The light gray ELUs correspond with areas that were interpreted as hardwood stands, the mid-shade of gray ELUs correspond to areas that were interpreted as mixed wood stands.

The Order II soils data was overlaid as a see-through texture just like the photo interpretation layer. The minimum mapping unit for the soil units of 3 to 5 acres resulted in polygons that overlapped more than one ELU, which are aggregates of much smaller units (30 meter square pixels). Soil polygons that contained more than 50% of a single ELU were chosen for the correlation to that soil unit. The correlation of softwood soil units to low lying ELUs was strong. A few of the combination soil units were too diverse to enable a prediction of the successional trend or were dependant upon the available seed source from adjacent areas. In these instances the adjacent soil type was generally a softwood type, leading to the conclusion of that soil unit to be a softwood type.

Discussion and Results

During the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, northern New Hampshire and western Maine were heavily logged. The current forest is the result of second or third re-growth. Some areas have recently been logged and are at a very early stage of re-growth. Past and current harvesting have inﬂ uenced the species composition and do not necessarily represent the vegetation that would naturally occur at a given site. Knowing the tree species that would best grow on a site is necessary to direct the growth of regenerating sites as well as to manage for the species that ﬂ ourish with site capabilities in more established sites, maximizing management efforts and supporting healthy forest conditions.

In April, 2001, FWS established a Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health policy 601FW3 (Integrity Policy) to guide refuge management. The Integrity Policy states, that refuge managers will use sound professional judgment during the comprehensive conservation planning process to determine the conditions which constitute biological integrity, diversity and environmental health. Sound professional judgment incorporates ﬁ eld experience, knowledge of refuge resources and the best available science including consultation with others both inside and outside the Service.

Appendix L: Ecological Land Units and Their Relationship to Potential Refuge Habitat Type L-7 Ecological Land Units and Their Relationship to Potential Refuge Habitat Types

The Integrity Policy describes environmental health to be a composition, structure and functioning of soil, water, air and other abiotic features comparable with historic conditions. During the Lake Umbagog CCP planning process we used available abiotic data in the form of ELUs to assist with determining site capabilities (softwood, hardwood, and mixed) which in turn reﬂ ect environmental health and management efﬁ ciency. In some areas the current vegetation correlated with ELUs that represented their current forest condition i.e. a hardwood ELU corresponded to site currently dominated by hardwood tree species.

Based on the methods described above, each ELU was assigned to represent either softwood, hardwood or mixed stand site capabilities. The ELUs were used to estimate the amount of softwood, hardwood and mixed wood habitat that would result for Lake Umbagog NWR’s CCP alternatives A, B and C. A projection of site capabilities was needed to assist with determining the most appropriate upland resources of concern (appendix N), developing projected forest conditions for current refuge lands, as well as for proposed additional lands outside the refuge boundary (appendix A – Land Protection Plan) in which the refuge lacks speciﬁ c data on current conditions. Table L.4 lists the ELUs with the corresponding type of habitat that is projected to be represented for alternative A, B and C.

The ELUs for alternative A and C are the same because a continuation of current management (alternative A) and the decision to let nature take its course (alternative C) would result in the forest reﬂ ecting the site capabilities of each stand. In alternative A, it would take longer for the climax conditions to be fully represented given areas that may not reﬂ ect site capabilities because of selective logging. In alternative C, the refuge would be actively managing to attain natural climax conditions, and therefore reach those conditions sooner. The projected site capabilities for ELUs were used to determine acreages and can be used to guide future forest management strategies.

For alternative B, in which management is focused on priority resources of concern, the site capabilities of an ELU may be pushed toward forest conditions that are most beneﬁ cial to the selected species of concern, not necessarily to climax conditions. In alternative B, bird species dependent upon the mixed forest with a high conifer component were determined to be the priority upland resources of concern (appendix N). In this case, management to increase the conifer component of the mixed forest would be obtained by encouraging the establishment and growth of spruce and ﬁ r in ELUs that support softwood as well as any ELU that leans toward the growth of softwood.

L-8 Appendix L: Ecological Land Units and Their Relationship to Potential Refuge Habitat Type Ecological Land Units and Their Relationship to Potential Refuge Habitat Types

Table L.4. ELUs and associated habitats for each of the alternatives for the Lake Umbagog CCP. Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Ecological Land Unit

Mixed Softwood Mixed GSF_low hill/valley, acidic granitic

Mixed Softwood Mixed GSF_low hill/valley, acidic sed/metased

Mixed Softwood Mixed GSF_low hill/valley, maﬁ c/int granitic

Mixed Softwood Mixed GSF_low hill/valley, mod calc sed/metased

Mixed Softwood Mixed Bottom of steep slope

- - - Cliff

Softwood Softwood Softwood Coarse seds on dry ﬂ ats, GSF

Mixed Softwood Mixed Cove NW facing

Mixed Mixed Mixed Cove SE facing

Mixed Mixed Mixed Dry ﬂ ats, acidic granitic

Softwood Softwood Softwood Dry ﬂ ats, acidic sed/metased

Mixed Mixed Mixed Dry ﬂ ats, maﬁ c/intermed granitic

Softwood Softwood Softwood Flat summit / ridgetop

Hardwood Mixed Hardwood Sideslope NW facing

Hardwood Hardwood Hardwood Sideslope SE facing

Softwood Softwood Softwood Slope crest

Softwood Softwood Softwood Steep slope

Softwood Softwood Softwood Wet ﬂ ats

Softwood Softwood Softwood Wet ﬂ ats on coarse seds

Mixed Mixed Mixed Dry ﬂ ats, mod calc sed/metased

Appendix L: Ecological Land Units and Their Relationship to Potential Refuge Habitat Type L-9 Ecological Land Units and Their Relationship to Potential Refuge Habitat Types

Literature Citation

Bailey, Robert. 1997. Ecoregions of North America. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC. Map.

Groves, Craig; L. Valutis; D. Vosick; B. Neely; K. Wheaton; J. Touval and B. Runnels. 2000. Designing a Geography of Hope: A Practitioner’s Handbook for Ecoregional Conservation Planning, Volume II. The Nature Conservancy. Pgs. A6-1 to A6-4.

Homer, Joseph W.; M.E. Cannon and T. Burke. 2004. Order II Soil Survey of the Umbagog Wildlife Refuge Area, Coos County, New Hampshire, Oxford County, Maine. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Lancaster, NH. 139 pp and map.

Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Manual to Accompany the Map, Potential Natural Vegetation of the Conterminous United States. American Geographical Society Special Publication No. 36. American Geographical Society, New York, NY.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2001. Policy on Maintaining the Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health of the National Wildlife Refuge System. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, 601 FW3. 66 Fed. Reg. 3817.

L-10 Appendix L: Ecological Land Units and Their Relationship to Potential Refuge Habitat Type Appendix M USFWS Fen and flooded meadow habitat on the refuge

Vegetation Classification Systems and Their Relationship to Refuge Habitat Type Vegetation Classification Systems and Their Relationship to Refuge Habitat Type r fi SAF TYPE9 33 Red spruce- balsam spruce- sphagnum; 13 Black spruce- tamarack; 38 Tamarack spruce-sphagnum; 13 Black spruce-tamarack rarity rank8 S1; S1 S1S3 S3 S3 S3; SU S3 12 Black S3 12 Black ark; fl ooded NHNHB7 NH Circumneutral- calcareous Northern white cedar circumneutral string sheep laurel dwarf shrub bog spruce bog spruce bog swamp; Sea- sonally fl boreal swamp (??) larch swamp larch swamp rarity rank6 S2; S4 S4 Leather-leaf- S4 Leather-leaf-black S4 Leather-leaf-black S4 Red spruce S4 Black spruce- S4 Black spruce- r-cinna- Shrubby cinquefoil- sedge circumneutral fen; Northern white cedar woodland fen fen Sheep laurel dwarf shrub bog Sheep laurel dwarf shrub bog Spruce- fi mon fern forest Spruce-larch wooded bog Spruce-larch wooded bog PSS3, PSS4 CEGL006525 PSS1, CEGL006513 PFO4 Leatherleaf boggy CEGL- 006514var CEGL006514 CEGL006312 CEGL005271 CEGL002485 NVC Association2NVC NVC #3 NWI4 ME NAP5 ME Dasiphora fruticosa spp. Floribunda / Carex lasiocarpa / Campylium stel- latum shrub herbaceous vegetation Chamaedaphne calyculata / Erio- / phorum virginicum Sphagnum rubellum Dwarf-shrubland Rhododendron canadense - Chamaedaphne calyculata - Myrica gale Dwarf-shrubland (variant) Rhododendron canadense - Chamaedaphne calyculata - Myrica gale Dwarf-shrubland Picea rubens- Abies Picea rubens- balsamea / Gault- heria hispidula / Sphagnum spp. Forest Picea mariana - (Larix laricina) / Ledum groenlandi- cum / Sphagnum spp. Forest Picea mariana / Ledum groen- landicaum/ Carex trisperma / Sphag- num spp. Forest Common Name¹ Circumneutral patterned fen Leatherleaf poor fen Medium shrub fen Sub-boreal Dwarf-shrub Fen Spruce - Fir Swamp Black Spruce - larch swamp Black spruce wooded Bog CCP TYPE CCP UVM - NVC Boreal Fen & Bog Vegetation ClassificationVegetation Systems and Relationship to Refuge Habitat Type Appendix M: Vegetation Classification Systems and Their Relationship to Refuge Habitat Type M-1 Vegetation Classification Systems and Their Relationship to Refuge Habitat Type SAF TYPE9 rarity rank8 S3 S4 S3 S3 S4S5; S3 S4 at fl NHNHB7 NH short sedge moss lawn emergent marsh emergent sedge-sweetgale fen sedge-sweetgale fen graminoid-scrub- shrub marsh; Oxbow marsh Short graminoid- forb emergent marsh/mud rarity rank6 S3 cranberry- Large S4 l graminoid Tal S4 Hairy-fruited S4 Hairy-fruited S5 Mixed tall bean fen lawn Cattail marsh S5 Cattail marsh S4 Tussock sedge Tussock meadow Mixed tall sedge fen Mixed tall sedge fen Mixed graminoid- shrub marsh N/A PSS3 CEGL006522 PEM1 Low sedge-buck- CEGL006153 PSS1, CEGL006412 CEGL006302 CEGL- 006302var CEGL006519 NVC Association2NVC NVC #3 NWI4 ME NAP5 ME Carex limosa - Rhynchospora alba/Cladopodiella saturated herbaceous vegetation latifolia) - (Scirpus spp.) Eastern Herba- ceous Vegetation Carex stricta - vesicaria Seasonally Flooded Herbaceous Vegetation Chamaedaphne calyculata / (Carex lasiocarpa, Carex utriculata) - Utricu- laria spp. Shrub Her- baceous Vegetation Myrica gale - Chamaedaphne calyculata / (Carex lasiocarpa, Carex utriculata) - Utricu- laria spp. Shrub Her- baceous Vegetation Calamagrostis canadensis - Scirpus cyperinus - Dulichi- um arundinaceum Herbaceous Vegeta- tion Eleocharis palustris shallow emergent marsh ooded mixed ooded Common Name¹ Few seeded sedge-leatherleaf fen Cattail marsh (angustifolia, Typha Eastern Tussock Eastern Tussock Sedge Meadow Medium fen Myrica gale - Medium fen - wet phase Seasonally fl graminoid meadow Spikerush shallow emergent marsh CCP TYPE CCP UVM - NVC Fen & Flooded Meadow M-2 Appendix M: Vegetation Classification Systems and Their Relationship to Refuge Habitat Type Vegetation Classification Systems and Their Relationship to Refuge Habitat Type r fi r-black r-black SAF TYPE9 white pine; 22 White pine- hemlock yellow birch hemlock sam fi spruce; 1 Jack pine-sheep laurel 30 Red spruce- yellow birch; 31 Red spruce- sugar maple- beech 35 Paper birch- red spruce- balsam rarity rank8 S5 21 Eastern S4 24 Hemlock- S1 1 Jack pine-bal- S3 15 Red pine S4; S3S4 r r fi NHNHB7 NH oak-pine forest northern hardwood forest Jack pine rocky ridge woodland pine-balsam forest N/A wood-spruce- fi forest; Hemlock- spruce-northern hardwoods forest rarity rank6 S4 Hemlock-beech- S4; S3 S4 Red pine-white S4 Northern hard- S4 N/A r-broom- White pine-mixed conifer forest Hemlock forest S4 Hemlock-beech- Hemlock forest S4 Hemlock forest S4 23 Eastern Jack pine forest; Jack pine woodland Red pine-white pine forest ? Spruce-northern hardwoods forest Spruce- fi moss forest CEGL006324 CEGL006129 CEGL- 006129var CEGL002441 CEGL006253 CEGL- 006505var CEGL006267 CEGL006505 NVC Association2NVC NVC #3 NWI4 ME NAP5 ME Pinus strobus - canadensis - Tsuga Picea rubens Forest Tsuga canadensis Tsuga - Betula alleghaniensis - Picea rubens/ Cornus canadensis Forest Tsuga canadensis Tsuga - Betula alleghaniensis - Picea rubens/ Cornus canadensis Forest (variant) Pinus banksania / spp. / Vaccinium Pleurozium schreberi Forest Pinus strobus - resinosa / Cornus canadensis Forest Picea rubens - Acer Betula spp. - rubrum Forest (vzri- ant) Picea rubens- Betula alleghaniensis/Dry- opteris camplyoptera forest Picea rubens - Acer Betula spp. - rubrum Forest r wood- r Common Name¹ Hemlock - White Hemlock - Pine - Red Spruce Forest Hemlock - hardwoods Forest Hemlock Mesic Forest Jack Pine / Blue- berry / Feather- moss Forest Red Pine - White Red Pine - Pine Forest Aspen- fi land Red Spruce - Hardwoods Forest Successional Spruce - Fir Forest r-hard- CCP TYPE CCP UVM - NVC Lakeshore Pine- Hemlock woods) Mixed Woods Mixed Woods (Spruce- fi Appendix M: Vegetation Classification Systems and Their Relationship to Refuge Habitat Type M-3 Vegetation Classification Systems and Their Relationship to Refuge Habitat Type SAF TYPE9 16 Aspen; 18 Paper birch 16 Aspen; 18 16 Paper birch; 17 Pin cherry maple; 60 Beech-sugar maple maple-beech- yellow birch white cedar white cedar white cedar rarity rank8 S3S4 18 Paper birch S3S4 27 Sugar S5 25 Sugar S2 37 Northern S2 37 Northern S1 37 Northern r fi NHNHB7 NH birch wooded talus sugar maple forest beech-yellow birch forest cedar-balsam cedar-balsam swamp wood-black ash- conifer swamp? Northern white cedar forest/ woodland rarity rank6 S5 N/A S5 N/A S3 Red oak-black S4 Semi-rich mesic S4 Sugar maple- S4 Northern white S4 Northern hard- Aspen-birch woodland/forest complex Aspen-birch woodland/forest complex Birch-oak talus woodland Beech-birch-maple forest Beech-birch-maple forest cedar swamp dar woodland fen? N/A PFO4 Northern white CEGL006303 CEGL- 006303var CEGL006320 CEGL006211 CEGL006252 CEGL- 006007var CEGL006199 PFO4/1 Northern white ce- CEGL002449 i) Forest i) NVC Association2NVC NVC #3 NWI4 ME NAP5 ME Populus (tremu- loides, grandidenta- ta) - Betula (popu- lifolia, papyrifera) Woodland Populus( tremu- loides, grandidenta- ta) - Betula (popu- lifolia, papyrifera) (variant) Woodland Quercus rubra - Bet- ula alleghaniensis / Polypodium virgin- ianum Woodland Acer saccharum - (Fraxinus ameri- Arisaema cana) / triphyllum forest Acer saccharum- Betula alleghaniensis-Fagus grandifolia/Viburnum alnifolium Forest Thuja occidentalis / Sphagnum (girensohnii, warnstor fi (variant) Thuja occidentalis- Acer rujbrum/Cor- nus sericea Forest Thuja occidentalis Abies balsamea - / Acer spicatum forest r fi Common Name¹ Early successional aspen-birch forest/woodland Red maple-yellow birch early successional woodland Paper birch talus woodland Semi-rich northern hardwood forest Northern hardwood forest Northern White- cedar - balsam peatland swamp Northern White- cedar - Black Ash swamp Northern white- cedar - boreal conifer mesic forest CCP TYPE CCP UVM - NVC Northern Hard- wood Northern White Cedar M-4 Appendix M: Vegetation Classification Systems and Their Relationship to Refuge Habitat Type Vegetation Classification Systems and Their Relationship to Refuge Habitat Type SAF TYPE9 white cedar white cedar white cedar rarity rank8 S1 37 Northern S2 37 Northern S2 37 Northern S4; S4 S3 S3S4; S3S4 S4; S4 r fi NHNHB7 NH ern white cedar swamp cedar seepage forest N/A cedar-balsam cedar-balsam swamp N/A shrubland; Alder- dogwood-arrow- wood allluvial thicket shrubland berry-mountain holly wooded fen; Speckled alder wooded fen berry- sweetgale- meadowsweet shrub thicket; Sweet gale-meadowsweet-tussock sedge fen rarity rank6 S4 Acidic north- S4 Northern white S4 Northern white S2 Alder alluvial S4 Highbush blue- S4 Highbush blue- Northern white cedar swamp Cedar-spruce seep- Cedar-spruce age forest N/A Northern white cedar woodland fen N/A Dogwood-willow shoreline thicket Alder shrub thicket S5 Alder alluvial Mountain holly- alder woodland fen Sweetgale mixed shrub fen PSS3 CEGL006007 CEGL006175 CEGL006507 CEGL006062 PSS1, CEGL002381 CEGL006158 CEGL006512 i) Forest i) NVC Association2NVC NVC #3 NWI4 ME NAP5 ME Thuja occidentalis / Sphagnum (girensohnii, warnstor fi Thuja occidentalis cordifolia / Tiarella Forest Thuja occidentalis Abies balsamea / - Alnus incana / Carex trisperma Woodland Recently disturbed Alnus incana - Cornus sericea / Clematis virginiana Shrubland Alnus incana Swamp Shrubland Alnus incana - Ne- mopanthus mucrona- tus / Sphagnum spp. Shrubland Myrica gale - Spirea alba - Chamae- daphne saturated shrubland Common Name¹ Northern white- cedar peatland swamp Northern White- cedar Seepage Forest Northern White- cedar Wooded Fen Recently disturbed (Speckled, Green) Alder Shrubland Residential residential Speckeled Alder Swamp Speckeled alder peatland lagg Sweetgale mixed shrub thicket CCP TYPE CCP UVM - NVC Northern White Cedar cont. Recently Har- vested Shrub-Scrub Wetland Residential & Fields Shrub-Scrub cont. Wetland Appendix M: Vegetation Classification Systems and Their Relationship to Refuge Habitat Type M-5 Vegetation Classification Systems and Their Relationship to Refuge Habitat Type r r fi fi r SAF TYPE9 spruce-dwarf shrub; 12 Black spruce-feather moss; 33 Red spruce-balsam fi 33 Red spruce- balsam 33 Red spruce- balsam rarity rank8 S1 12 Black S3 32 Red spruce; S2 108 Red maple S2 S3 32 Red spruce; S4S5 108 Red maple ood- fl r r forest r r forest r ooded red maple NHNHB7 NH Montane black spruce-red spruce forest??? fi fi plain/ silt plain Northern hardwood-black ash- conifer swamp? fl swamp rarity rank6 S3; S4 S4 Lowland spruce- S4 Lowland spruce- S4 Balsam fi S4 Seasonally r- broom- r- r- broom- r- r-cinnamon fern r-cinnamon Black spruce woodland; Spruce- fi forest Spruce- fi moss forest Spruce- fi moss forest Red maple-sensitive fern swamp ? Red maple-sensitive fern swamp Aquatic bed PFO4 CEGL006361 CEGL006273 CEGL- 006273var CEGL006501 PFO1, CEGL002105 CEGL006119 ood- NVC Association2NVC NVC #3 NWI4 ME NAP5 ME Picea mariana - Pi- cea rubens / Pleuroz- ium schreberi Forest Picea rubens - Abies Picea rubens - balsamea - Betula papyrifera Forest Acer rubrum- (Abies balsamea)- Vibur- num nudum var. cassinoides fl plain forest Picea rubens - Abies Picea rubens - balsamea - Betula papyrifera Forest Fraxinus nigra - mixed hardwoods - conifers / Cornus sericea / Carex spp. Forest Acer rubrum / Carex stricta - Onoclea sensibilis Woodland r Flood- r r Forest r oodplain wood- oodplain Common Name¹ - Red Spruce Forest Lowland spruce- fi Red maple-balsam fi plain Forest Red spruce rocky summit Black ash - mixed hardwoods swamp Red Maple - Sedge Tussock fl land water ¹º (see footnote)¹¹ CCP TYPE CCP UVM - NVC Spruce-Fir Black Spruce Spruce-Fir Black Wooded Flood- Wooded plain Open Water Open Water and Submerged Aquatic Vegeta- tion M-6 Appendix M: Vegetation Classification Systems and Their Relationship to Refuge Habitat Type Vegetation Classification Systems and Their Relationship to Refuge Habitat Type SAF TYPE9 108 Red maple/ 62 Silver maple- Ameri- can Elm rarity rank8 S2S3/ S2 S2 108 Red maple S2 ood- ood- fl fl r oodplain fl NHNHB7 NH Red maple plain forest/ Silver maple forest ? plain/ silt plain rarity rank6 S4/ S3 S4 Balsam fi cation of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the Wetlands cation of fi oodplain fl Red maple-sensitive fern swamp/ Silver maple forest ? Red maple-sensitive fern swamp ooded Herbaceous Alliance Herbaceous ooded fl CEGL006503/ CEGL006176 CEGL002071 CEGL- 006501var oodplain cation (see Cowardin, et. al. 1979, reprinted 1992 “Classi fi NVC Association2NVC NVC #3 NWI4 ME NAP5 ME Acer rubrum - Pru- nus serotina / Cornus amomum Floodplain Forest Acer rubrum - Fraxi- nus spp. - Betula papyrifera/Cornus canadensis Forest Acer rubrum- (Abies balsamea)- Virurnum casssi- nudum var. noides fl forest (variant) Vermont cation System categories/associations as mapped by University of Association System cation Association Number cation System fi fi fi r berm r fi Common Name¹ Red Maple Floodplain Forest/ Silver Maple- False Nettle Sensitive Fern Floodplain Forest Red Maple-black ash swamp White spruce- balsam woodland National Vegetation Classi National Vegetation Classi National Vegetation Classi National Vegetation Inventory classi Wetland USFWS National United States”) Areas Program Maine Natural Maine Natural Heritage Inventory Rarity Rank New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory Rarity Rank Types American Foresters Forest Society of not mapped Vegetation Aquatic Floating-Leaved and Submerged Alliance Herbaceous Temperate Pond-lily species, Permanently Flooded Water-lily-Yellow White Alliances: Likely includes associations in the following NVCS species, Permanently Waterweed and Pondweed species-Coontail species- 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. CCP TYPE CCP UVM - NVC Wooded Flood- Wooded plain cont. 11. 11. 10. EXPLANATION: Appendix M: Vegetation Classification Systems and Their Relationship to Refuge Habitat Type M-7 Appendix N USFWS American woodcock

Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B

Introduction and Background

Biological goals and objectives for managing species and habitats serve as the foundation for developing respective refuge comprehensive conservation plans (CCPs) and habitat management plans (HMPs). What follows is the description of a process the Lake Umbagog NWR CCP planning team used to determine which species and associated habitats should be a management priority on this refuge.

The Service is entrusted by Congress to conserve and protect migratory birds and fi sh, Federal-listed threatened and endangered species, inter-jurisdictional fi sh, wetlands, and certain marine mammals. These are collectively and individually referred to as Federal trust resources. In addition to this mission to protect and conserve Federal trust resources, each refuge has one or more purposes for which it was established that further guide its management goals and objectives. Finally, there are also a multitude of laws, mandates, policies, and conservation plans at various geographic scales, which infl uence refuge management priorities.

During the Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) CCP process, the planning team identiﬁ ed which species of conservation concern and associated habitats should be a focus for refuge management. In making this determination, the team considered the factors noted above, as well as the refuge’s geographic location, local site capabilities, species’ relative abundance and distribution, respective species status in national and regional conservation plans, and a determination of what the most important and effective ecological contribution the refuge could make to the Northern Forest ecosystem and the National Wildlife Refuge System. Lastly, species were selected because their habitat needs broadly represent the habitat requirements for many other native wildlife dependent on these same habitat types, including other Federal trust resources. The selected species are referred to herein, and in the CCP, as “refuge focal species.”

The following details the process the planning team used to identify priority resources of concern, and ultimately, the refuge focal species and the habitat management priorities to beneﬁ t these resources. For each step, a brief synopsis is given, followed by a discussion of the details of each step.

1.0) Collect Information and Data 1.1) Legal Mandates, Policies and Establishing Purposes of the Refuge 1.2) Matrix of Potential Resources of Concern Based on National, Regional, State and Local Plans 1.3) Gather Expert Opinion 1.4) Develop Maps 1.5) Conduct Baseline Wildlife Surveys 2.0) Identify Potential Resources of Concern 3.0) Associate Priority Resources of Concern with Refuge Habitat Types 3.1) Wetland Habitats 3.1 a) Mandates and Plans 3.1 b) Wetland Habitats and Priority Resources of Concern 3.2) Upland Habitats 3.2 a) Scale of Assessment for Refuges 3.2 b) Application of Species Ranks in Bird Plans 3.2 c) Application of Breeding Bird Survey Data to Determine Areas of Concentration 3.2 d) Assess Current and Potential Vegetation 3.2 e) Desired Future Habitat Conditions and Priority Resources of Concern 4.0) Select Lake Umbagog Refuge Focal Species 4.1) Habitat Relationships 5.0) Common Goals with Partners

Appendix N: Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B N-1 Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B

1.0) Collect Information and Data

1.1) Legal Mandates, Policies and Establishing Purpose of the Refuge

Legal mandates for the National Wildlife Refuge System along with a refuge’s establishing legislation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) policies guide the process for selecting resources of concern. Lake Umbagog NWR was established under the Emergency Wetlands Resource Act, Migratory Bird Conservation Act and the Fish and Wildlife Act. The Environmental Assessment, used to establish the refuge, states that the purpose of the refuge is to ensure the long-term protection of unique wetland habitat and to protect habitat for bald eagle, black duck, and common loon.

Supporting Discussion:

Legal Mandates:

The establishing authorities allowing purchase of lands for Lake Umbagog NWR are: 1. The Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S. C. 3901 (b)):

“…for the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public beneﬁ ts they provide and to help fulﬁ ll international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions.”

2. The Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715d):

“…for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.”

3. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742 f(a)(4)): “…for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of ﬁ sh and wildlife resources….” 4. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742 f(b)(1)):

“…for the beneﬁ t of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or afﬁ rmative covenant, or condition of servitude…”

The 1991 Environmental Assessment (EA) for establishing Lake Umbagog NWR states,

“The purpose of the Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge is to ensure the long-term protection of unique wetland habitats adjacent to Lake Umbagog, on the northern New Hampshire/Maine border. These extensive wetlands serve as important breeding and migration habitat for many wetland- dependant migratory wildlife species of current concern to the Service. The refuge includes wetlands and portions of associated surrounding uplands, and would protect habitat for the endangered bald eagle and peregrine falcon, waterfowl species of priority such as the declining black duck, and many species of federal and state management concern including the common loon, northern harrier, American woodcock, and others. The Refuge will serve to protect unique habitats that support a variety of migratory bird and resident mammal, ﬁ sh, reptile, amphibian, invertebrate, and rare plant species and will thereby contribute to the conservation of biological diversity in the northeastern United States.” (USFWS 1991)

FWS Policies:

Section 4(a)(3) of the Refuge System Improvement Act (Improvement Act) states, “(A) each refuge shall be managed to fulﬁ ll the Mission of the System, as well as the speciﬁ c purposes for which that refuge was established…..”

N-2 Appendix N: Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B

The Improvement Act further states, “In administering the System, the Secretary shall….ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the System are maintained for the beneﬁ t of present and future generations of Americans…..” To meet this mandate the Service, developed a Biological Integrity, Diversity and Environmental Health Policy (Integrity Policy) to provide implementation guidance (601 FW 3). The Integrity Policy uses historical conditions and the evaluation of a refuge at various landscape scales, including refuge, ecosystem, national and international scales, to determine the integrity and environmental health of a refuge’s lands and its contribution to biological diversity.

1. 2) Matrix of Potential Resources of Concern Based on National, Regional, State and Local Conservation Plans

An overall list of “Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Suspected on the Refuge,” which includes species and plant communities, was generated by the CCP planning team using national, regional, state and local conservation plans. This list can be found in Appendix B of the CCP. In addition to the species speciﬁ c conservation plans, and respective state Wildlife Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plans and Natural Heritage Program lists used to develop Appendix B, information from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license for the Errol Dam was also used.

Supporting Discussion:

Sources used to compile the list of resources of concern included:

■ Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 14 – Atlantic Northern Forest ■ Partners in Flight (PIF) Physiographic Area 28 ■ North American Waterfowl Management Plan ■ Federal Threatened and Endangered Species ■ U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan ■ North American Waterbird Conservation Plan ■ Maine Natural Areas Program - State Threatened and Endangered Species ■ New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau – State Threatened and Endangered Species ■ Northeast States Non-game Technical Committee ■ Maine and New Hampshire State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plans ■ New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory ■ USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern – Region 5 ■ FERC Errol Dam License ■ Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture Plan

1.3) Gather Expert Opinion

Wetland Meeting

The core planning team met with freshwater wetland experts, Ron Davis (Univ. of Maine), Curtis Bohlen (Bates College) and Jerry Longcore (USGS) during development of the CCP. The signifi cance of the refuge’s wetlands within the broader landscape was emphasized. The unique fl at topography of the area, large shallow lake, large rivers with many meanders and oxbows, creates an area with a high diversity of nesting waterfowl, wading and marshbirds. These wetlands encompass a number of rare wetland communities, including an unusual circumneutral patterned fen, silver maple fl oodplain forest and large exemplary peatlands. It was noted that the Dead Cambridge River system was unique in that it is complete and one of the only undammed systems in this region of New Hampshire and Maine.

Appendix N: Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B N-3 Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B

The hydrological and ﬂ ooding regimes were discussed in relationship to management, restoration, and research. It was felt that the mimicking of a natural ﬂ ood regime would tend to convert the fens to open emergent plant communities. It was recommended to conduct studies of the Umbagog system hydrology and current conditions to determine the best water level management.

Forest Ecology Meeting

The core planning team met with forest management and bird conservation subject matter experts from academic institutions and state and federal agencies during development of the CCP to determine potential management options for refuge species and habitats of conservation concern. The group discussed management of forest habitat types based on site capability, managing for structural components necessary for wildlife habitat, managing to provide habitat components that are underrepresented in the industrial forest landscape and managing for the long term. Speciﬁ c resources of concern that were discussed were early successional forests, including the aspen-birch community type, older aged softwoods, riparian forests, and both young and mature/over mature ages classes in all forest types. It was the opinion of the group that PIF and BCR species of concern should reﬂ ect the both the natural capability of the land to produce a given habitat type and under-represented habitat components at the watershed, statewide and Northern Forest levels.

Site Visit with Forest Ecologists

U.S. Forest Service ecologists Bill Leak and Steve Fay, and USDA- Natural Resource Conservation Service soil scientist Joe Homer (USDA), accompanied the core planning team to sites with various forest conditions on the refuge. At each site, current conditions and projected successional paths were discussing in relationship to forest management techniques. It was noted that at many of the sites a higher component of hardwood species were present than the soils and site conditions represented.

1.4) Develop Maps Maps were developed to assist with determining priority habitats and focal species. The following is a list of maps used through out the CCP process.

Current Vegetation Map – National Vegetation Classiﬁ cation System Forest Stand Map – Society of American Foresters classiﬁ cation Soi ls Map – USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Types National Wetlands Inventory Map Ecological Land Units Map Landbird Species Distribution and Breeding Bird Survey Relative Abundance Maps

1.5) Conduct Baseline Wildlife Surveys Baseline wildlife surveys were conducted to assist with determining species presence and abundance on the refuge. The following is a list of surveys which contributed to the selection of priority habitats and focal species.

Anuran Call Counts This survey was part of a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 5 Regional amphibian monitoring effort. Four point count routes with 5-10 survey points per route (total of 28 points) were surveyed 3 times/ yr. in the spring.

Marshbirds This survey is part of a national marshbird monitoring effort, using a point count-call playback methodology. Points are surveyed 3 times/ year in the spring. Three point count routes with 4-12 survey points per route (total of 24 points), were surveyed.

N-4 Appendix N: Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B

Waterfowl A migratory waterfowl survey was carried out during the fall, 2000 season. The objective of this survey was to gather additional information about waterfowl use of the refuge just prior to and during hunting season. Surveys of the entire lake, Magalloway River, and upper Androscoggin River (including Harper’s Meadow and Sweat Meadow) were carried out by boat between September- November Shorebirds A shorebird survey was carried out in Spring, 2000, following the standard Manomet Bird Observatory shorebird protocol. Three boat surveys were carried out during May and early June.

Wetland Vegetation An intensive vegetation survey of the Refuge’s largest peatlands was carried out in 2002-2004. Permanent vegetation monitoring plots were established in each peatland. Peat depths, water levels and pH were also measured. Vegetation data are also collected around each marshbird survey point, annually.

Aquatic Macroinvertebrates Aquatic macroinvertebrates were sampled at 20 sites on Umbagog Lake and the Magalloway River in 2003.

Terrestrial Amphibians and Small Mammals Pitfall traps, coverboards, and funnel traps were used to survey terrestrial amphibians and small mammals in different habitat types over a 4 year period.

Bats Bat surveys were carried out using mist-nets at various Refuge locations in 2000, 2001.

Vernal Pool Amphibians and Stream Salamanders Vernal pools amphibians and stream salamanders were surveyed from 2001-2004, using national protocols.

Landbirds Landbirds have been surveyed annually using point count methodology from 1999-2005, following a Regional protocol. Sixteen transect routes are surveyed in a wide variety of habitat types. Detail vegetation structure data have been collected at each survey point.

Mid-sized Carnivores Baited remote camera stations are set-up during the winter months at various locations on the Refuge to help survey for carnivores. Snow tracking surveys are carried out concurrently.

Forest Inventory Approximately 400 points distributed in 200m x 200m grid were surveyed for forest stand characteristics in 2005.

Eagles, Osprey and Loon Monitoring Ongoing monitoring to determine breeding success of these species is conducted in cooperation with New Hampshire Audubon and the Loon Preservation Committee.

2.0) Identify Potential Resources of Concern

Potential resources of concern including birds, mammals, ﬁ sh, invertebrates, plants and plant communities were compiled from the plans listed in section 1.2 above and the refuge’s establishing EA. CCP planning team representatives from Maine and New Hampshire identiﬁ ed state resources of concern that occur in the refuge area. See CCP Appendix B for the compilation of species and plant communities of conservation concern known or suspected on the refuge.

Appendix N: Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B N-5 Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B

3.0) Select Priority Resources of Concern by Refuge Habitat Types

3.1) Wetland Habitat

3.1 a) Mandates and Plans

In 1990, the Service’s Northeast Region developed a Regional Wetlands Concept Plan. This plan complements the National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan required under the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (public law 99-645). The regional plan provides more specifi c information about the wetland resources of the northeastern and mid-Atlantic U.S. Lake Umbagog is specifi cally mentioned in this plan as a wetland of importance, citing its function and values to wildlife, fi sheries, outdoor recreation, and other areas of concern.

Other plans consulted include the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Atlantic Coast Joint Venture, the North Atlantic Regional Shorebird Plan, the Bird Conservation Region 14 Blueprint, and Service recovery plans, as well as the refuge’s establishing EA.

3.1 b) Wetland Habitats and Priority Resources of Concern

Based on the refuge’s establishing purpose, conservation plans, and expert opinion, the CCP planning team determined that the conservation of wetlands was the highest priority for this refuge. They chose the following priority resources of concern for the freshwater wetlands from the compiled matrix of potential species and habitats of conservation concern (table N.1):

Table N.1. Priority Resources of Concern for Wetland Habitat*

Wetland Habitat Priority Resources of Concern

Fen and Flooded Meadow American Black Duck Ring-necked Duck Common Loon Waterfowl and Shorebirds during migration Boreal Fen and Bog Floating Island National Natural Landmark Circumneutral Pattern Fen Rare Peatland Plants Northern White Cedar Swamp Rare Plant Community

Shrub-Scrub Wetland American Black Duck Canada warbler American woodcock Wooded Floodplain American Black Duck Cavity Nesting Waterfowl Northern Parula American woodcock Open Water and Submerged Native Brook Trout Aquatic Vegetation Common Loon Eagle and Osprey Waterfowl during migration

*The order in which wetland habitats are listed does not imply any prioritization or hierarchy. All wetland habitats are considered a high conservation priority

N-6 Appendix N: Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B

Supporting Discussion:

Umbagog Lake is identiﬁ ed as one of three waterfowl focus areas in New Hampshire under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Atlantic Coast Joint Venture (NAWMP; ACJV, unpublished data). The refuge supports the highest concentrations of nesting black duck in New Hampshire (USFWS 1991). The black duck is a species of concern in the NAWMP because of the historic decline in their population, with habitat loss an important contributing factor. The regional importance of Umbagog Lake to the black duck was one of the primary reasons the refuge was established. Although black duck populations are stable or increasing, they are listed as a species of highest priority for conservation in BCR 14 (Dettmers 2006).

The waters of Umbagog Lake are impounded by a hydropower dam and water levels are manipulated by a private power company. Common loons have been used in the past as indicators for monitoring water level impacts to the wetlands and other wildlife as required by agreements in the FERC license. The planning team intends to expand the indicator species monitoring program for the lake to include other waterbirds that nest earlier than common loons, nest close to the water, and are affected by water level changes. For example, ring-necked ducks were identiﬁ ed. Umbagog Lake has the highest nesting concentration of ring-necked ducks in New Hampshire (USFWS 1991). Ring-necked ducks build ﬂ oating nests over shallow water in the emergent vegetation. For these reasons, ring-necked duck is a priority species of concern.

Within the Refuge System, Lake Umbagog NWR is one of only three national wildlife refuges in the lower 48 states that support a signiﬁ cant number of breeding common loon. The common loon is listed as a species of management concern for the northeast (Schneider 1992). It is also listed as a high priority for conservation in BCR 14 (Dettmers 2006). One of the key reasons for establishing the refuge was to permanently protect this common loon breeding area, therefore making it a focal species for the CCP.

The bald eagle was listed as a threatened species under the Federal Endangered Species Act until 2007, and is state-listed as endangered in New Hampshire and threatened in Maine. The refuge was established, in part, to protect bald eagle and osprey, thus justifying these species as priority species of concern. These species are both dependant on aquatic and upland habitats and serve as good indicators of environmental health.

The Integrity Policy requires the inclusion of plant communities that contribute to biological diversity. The Lake Umbagog NWR has several rare and unique plant communities which contribute to the native biological diversity of this area. These communities include: a 750-acre “Floating Island” designated as a National Natural Landmark; 870-acre peatland complex (Nazaire 2003); a rare circumneutral-patterned fen of high regional signifi cance (Dan Sperduto, NHNHP, unpublished data); 1,031-acre northern white cedar swamp, a ‘signature community’ of the northern woods (Sperduto and Engstrom 1998) and several peatlands such as black spruce bog, spruce-fi r swamp, and shrub fens. Those reasons support the identifi cation of these wetland plant communities as priority resources of concern.

It was previously mentioned that, consistent with meeting refuge purposes, protecting and conserving Federal trust resources is part of the Service mission. Eastern brook trout are a Federal trust species. The Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture Plan identiﬁ es native brook trout as a high priority species for this area. For Lake Umbagog NWR, this species is identiﬁ ed as a priority species of concern since a native brook trout population relies on Umbagog Lake and its main tributary the Magalloway River as wintering habitat (Diane Emerson, NHFG, pers. comm.).

Appendix N: Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B N-7 Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B

3.2) Upland Habitats and Priority Resources of Concern

To guide the determination of which landbird species and associated upland habitats should be a management priority, the planning team consulted the previously mentioned bird conservation plans, the refuge’s purposes, and the Integrity Policy. In addition, the team used breeding bird survey data for the area, and analyzed current and potential natural vegetation and desired future conditions, and evaluated the habitat needs of each of the priority species.

Many conservation projects are applying landbird plans to planning areas using computer modeling to determine areas of high importance for species or groups of species. This approach identifi es geographic locations that benefi t the most species or benefi t a high priority single species, allowing for proactive, focused conservation efforts in those areas. However, if a refuge falls outside of these designated high priority areas, the process does not contribute to establishing priorities for that refuge (Ralph and Rich 2002; Ford and Roedel 2004; Mueller 2000; Probst and Thompson 1996; Rosenberg and Wells 2000b). In those situations, a different process is needed, centered on a given location such as a refuge, to determine how it can best contribute to the priorities for the planning area. This process identifi es the habitats that are most benefi cial to priority landbirds based on species distributions, refuge site capabilities, and the refuge’s location within the planning area.

3.2 a) Scale of Landbird Assessment for Refuges

The Integrity Policy clearly requires managers to look at the refuge at multiple scales, from local to regional to national, when evaluating any refuge’s contribution to integrity, diversity and health (Scott 2004). When determining the role of a particular refuge in an ecosystem, Schroeder et al. (2004) poses the question, “What is the appropriate landscape scale to assess the importance of this refuge’s resources?” The scale of analysis becomes dependant upon the priority resources being assessed. When determining a speciﬁ c refuge’s contribution to certain landbirds which occur within multiple bird conservation regions, the continental scale is a more appropriate scale of assessment (Freemark 1992)

Supporting Discussion:

Determining which scale and hierarchical context for analyzing a refuge’s potential to contribute to priority resources is needed to ensure the goals at various spatial scales are compatible, signiﬁ cant, and relative to the resource. It is also necessary to understand the scale in which other conservation partners are operating within the larger regional planning area, local planning area, state or bird conservation region (Sportza 1999; Freemark 1993). Refuges are often unique within cooperative regional conservation planning efforts. They are one of the few conservation entities that need to consider their role at the continental scale as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. While it may seem counter-intuitive, incorporating large-scale perspectives can assist in narrowing the focus in deciding management priorities within certain management units (Knopf 1994). In fact, a refuge’s highest priority may be decided based on its contribution to priority resources at the continental scale.

3.2 b) Application of Species Ranks in Bird Conservation Plans

The PIF Area 28 and BCR 14 species assessment identify species ranks as a means to measure conservation need and identify geographic areas of greatest importance to the long-term conservation of that species (table N.2). The planning team used these plan’s rankings to select a sub-set of species which are a national concern, as well as have a high proportion of their population within BCR 14. By ﬁ rst developing this sub-set of species and identifying their associated habitats, the team could then evaluate, given the geographic location of the refuge within the continent and BCR 14, which species’ could be impacted the most through refuge management. A sub-set of 32 species were selected from the PIF Area 28 and BCR 14 plans to assess Lake Umbagog NWR’s potential contribution to their conservation. The 32 species, and their PIF and BCR rank, are listed at the end of this Appendix in table N.7.

N-8 Appendix N: Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B

Table N.2. The combination of Continental Concern, BCR Responsibility, and BCR Concern define the species Tier ranks of “Highest”, “High” or “Medium”. There is also the corresponding PIF Tier of similar definition. Species with ranks that are shaded formed the sub-set of species for refuge analysis

BCR Tier Continental BCR Responsibility BCR BCR Corresponding Concern Concern Rank PIF Tier

Highest High High or Moderate High A 1a

High Moderate High or Moderate High B 2a

High High or Moderate Moderate C 1a

Moderate High Moderate D 2a

Medium High or Moderate Low High E 1b or 2c

Low High or Moderate High F 2a

High Low Moderate G 1b

Moderate Moderate Moderate H -

Low High Moderate I -

High High or Moderate Low J -

Moderate High Low K -

Low High Low L -

Supporting Discussion:

Partners In Flight (PIF) assessments for Physiographic Areas, and Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) have incorporated the regional as well as the continental scale into their species ranks (Rosenberg 1995; 2000a; 2000b; Panjabi 2001), providing a starting point for selecting priority species for a refuge. Rosenberg and Wells used PIF scores, along with Breeding Bird Survey and Breeding Bird Atlas data to identify species that are ‘high-priority’ for the Northeast Region for two different reasons. Land managers are ‘responsible’ for selected species based on their ability to affect a portion of the species population and contribute to long term population stability, and because of their geographic location (regional or BCR responsibility). Land managers need to also be ‘concerned’ about a suite of species who are experiencing long-term declines, threats to their habitat, or threats from other factors that could limit the species’ long-term viability within their region (regional or BCR concern).

Prioritization of species in need of immediate management action or long-term responsibility based on the level of contribution due to geographic location, has been conducted at the continental scale (Rich et al. 2004), the USFWS regional scale (Rosenberg and Wells 2000b), the PIF Physiographic scale, and is now being incorporated into BCR plans (draft BCR landbird analysis rules, R. Dettmers, pers comm)

The PIF/BCR tiering allows for prioritizing landbird conservation efforts at different scales. The role of refuges is to address the habitats of species of high continental concern and species that have a high proportion of their population in a BCR. This will allow an individual refuge to have the greatest effect nationally and regionally, while contributing to BCR goals. By ﬁ rst looking at the habitats of selected species, we maximize the efforts of the Refuge System by managing for the habitats with the highest ranking species, which typically represent the habitats unique to that portion of the continent.

Appendix N: Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B N-9 Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B

There have been a number of conservation planning projects in Canada and the U.S., in which PIF scoring and the identiﬁ cation of centers of abundance for species and species assemblages within the planning unit have been used to determine priority areas (Ford 2004; Dunn 1999; Probst 1996)

The level of concern identiﬁ ed for a species in one BCR plan may not be consistent with the level of concern in another BCR plan. With refuges located in every state, a species may be of a lower continental concern on one refuge in a certain BCR and a high continental concern on another refuge in another BCR. Refuge management for a particular species should concentrate only where it can make an important contribution within the species range.

In summary, different areas of the country (and, hence the Refuge System) have varying potentials to make a signiﬁ cant contribution to the conservation of a species. This can be demonstrated below by the PIF Tiers for the olive-sided ﬂ ycatcher. The PIF areas that contain the majority of this species’ population concentration (western U.S. and Canada) are ranked high continental concern (Tier 1a), while the eastern PIF areas have a lower population concentration, and hence a lower level of conservation responsibility (Tier 1b). Depending on where a refuge is located, this information has implications to refuge planning and the development of habitat goals and objectives.

Figure N.1. Olive-sided flycatcher distribution, and relative abundance based on Breeding Bird Survey data. The darkest area has the highest concentration; the lightest areas are the lowest concentration for this species. The gray lines delineate PIF physiographic areas.

3.2 c) Application of Breeding Bird Survey Data to Determine Areas of Concentration

Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data was used to display the relative abundance for selected bird species, species were grouped by their primary breeding habitat. Thirty-two species were selected based on their PIF/BCR Tier, and relative abundance was compared in relationship to the refuge’s location, the remaining BCR 14 and FWS Region 5. Table N.2 has the results of this analysis.

N-10 Appendix N: Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B

Table N.3 list which species showed a high relative abundance in the vicinity of Lake Umbagog NWR:

Table N.3. Species with a High Relative Abundance for Lake Umbagog NWR

BBS Relative Abundance Selected Species Code * Primary Habitat

Blackburnian Warbler 5 Mixed and Conifer Forest

Black-throated Green Warbler 4 Mixed and Conifer Forest

Mixed Forest and Canada Warbler 4 Shrub-Scrub Wetland

Black-throated Blue Warbler 4 Hardwood Forest

Northern Parula 4 Wooded Floodplain

American Woodcock 4 Shrub-scrub Wetland

* Relative abundance is displayed in a range of 1 to 5, one indicating the areas of lowest concentration; 5 indicating the area of highest concentration.

Supporting Discussion:

An ArcView Geographic Information System (GIS) project was developed to display relative abundance from the Breeding Bird Survey data for 32 species. Each species’ relative abundance at the refuge’s location was assessed with the relative abundance within the rest of BCR 14. Relative abundance is displayed in a range of 1 to 5, one indicating the areas of lowest concentration, 5 indicating the area of highest concentration. Sauer (2004) cautions against using BBS data to assess

Figure N.2. Blackburnian warbler relative abundance based on Breeding Bird Survey data. Lake Umbagog NWR is in an area of the highest concentration for BCR 14.

Appendix N: Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B N-11 Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B

management actions at the local scale based on trends, and acknowledges its usefulness at providing a large-scale view of bird populations, setting a regional context for evaluation (Sauer 2004). We used the Breeding Bird Survey data at the regional, BCR scale.

Many of the selected species, although they are of high conservation concern for BCR 14, did not occur in the vicinity of the refuge or were at the edge of the species range. In order for management efforts to be most effective, it is best to target areas of high existing or predicted concentrations. Table N.7, at the end of this Appendix, lists the relative abundance for the selected species.

Species preferring the spruce fi r/northern hardwood mixed forest, including Canada warbler, blackburnian warbler, black-throated green warbler, and northern parula, occurred at the highest relative abundances (4 and 5) in the vicinity of the refuge. This is also refl ected in refuge survey data, blackburnian warblers and northern parula are among the most frequently detected species. In the PIF Eastern Spruce-Hardwood Physiographic Area 28 Plan, the mixed forest is identifi ed as a high priority habitat that is critical for ‘long-term planning to conserve regionally important bird populations’ (Rosenberg and Hodgeman 2000).

Species preferring hardwood forests, including wood thrush, black-throated blue warbler, American redstart and veery, showed relative abundances of 2 to 4. A notable exception was the high relative abundance for American woodcock (4), which is dependant upon early successional and aspen/ birch habitat in conjunction with moist soil areas (the riparian areas at Lake Umbagog). Relative abundance for American woodcock was obtained through summarized Woodcock Survey data (Sauer, USGS, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, MD, unpublished data). The American woodcock is a species of highest concern for BCR 14 and showed a relative abundance of 4 in the vicinity of the refuge.

While species dependant on coniferous forest, boreal chickadee, bay-breasted and Cape May warblers are of high and highest concern in BCR 14, they showed the lowest relative abundances

Figure N.3. Bay-breasted warbler relative abundance based on Breeding Bird Survey data. Lake Umbagog NWR is not in an area of the highest concentration for BCR 14.

N-12 Appendix N: Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B

of 1 and 2. Refuge survey data reﬂ ect this low abundance as well, where only one Cape May and four bay-breasted warblers were detected in 2005. Higher concentrations of these species occur in northern Maine and New Brunswick where extensive areas of conifer forest are more prevalent.

3.2 d) Assessing Current and Potential Vegetation

Current and potential vegetation was assessed using national landcover data and predicted vegetation based on computer modeled ecological land units (ELUs). The results of the analysis showed a smaller existing softwood component in the current landscape, than predicted by ELUs. Cogbill (pers. comm., 2004) also found the historic forest to include more conifer, particularly in the lowlands, than exists today. Current conditions most likely reﬂ ect past logging practices that selected softwoods, resulting in a higher presence of hardwood species.

Supporting Discussion:

During the conservation planning process, habitat and therefore vegetation, becomes a key element in evaluating a planning units contribution to conservation targets. Not only is it necessary to know the current vegetation within the planning unit, it may also be necessary to know the potential vegetation that could occur in the future. Past and current harvesting have inﬂ uenced the species composition and do not necessarily represent the vegetation that would naturally occur at a given site. It is most efﬁ cient to manage for the species that naturally occur at a site.

The Integrity Policy describes environmental health to be a composition, structure and functioning of soil, water, air and other abiotic features comparable with historic conditions. A spatial analysis was conducted using the geographic information system (GIS) ArcMap9 to determine sites with favorable conditions for naturally growing hardwood, softwood and mixed wood, and therefore environmental health. A base layer of ecological land units (ELUs), a composite of broad abiotic data displayed in 30 meter pixels developed by the Nature Conservancy (Mark Anderson, TNC Eastern Resource Ofﬁ ce, Boston, MA), was overlaid with more site speciﬁ c data to assign conifer, mixed and hardwood habitat types to ELUs. This analysis is outlined in Appendix L.

3.2 e) Desired Future Habitat Conditions and Priority Resources of Concern

After conducting the above species and landscape analysis, the refuge planning team determined that sustaining the mixed spruce-fi r/northern hardwood forest, was the most important and effi cient ecological contribution the refuge could make through management to the Upper Androscoggin River watershed, BCR 14, and the National Wildlife Refuge System. The priority species chosen as refuge focal species for this habitat are the blackburnian, black-throated green, and Canada warblers (table N.4). Refuge management will strive to promote the conifer component in the mixed forest landscape to benefi t the focal species,which were selected in part, because they have a higher relative abundances in this landscape and they generally represent habitats with the highest site capability. Secondary benefactors of an increased conifer component will be the bay-breasted and Cape May warblers, which are both species of highest concern for BCR 14. We recognize that climate change may infl uence the trajectory of our forest systems in unpredictable ways and anticipate that we may have to adjust our objectives and management strategies accordingly. This is in keeping with our intent to implement adaptive management.

American woodcock was chosen as a refuge focal species for recently harvested habitat and ﬁ elds, in close proximity to aspen/birch and riparian habitat. The northern parula was also chosen as a refuge focal species for riparian habitat (table N.1).

Appendix N: Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B N-13 Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B

Table N.4. Refuge Focal Species for Upland Habitat Types

Upland Habitat Refuge Focal Species

Mixed Spruce-Fir/Northern Canada Warbler Hardwood Forest Blackburnian Warbler Black-throated Green Warbler American Woodcock

Lakeshore Pine Hemlock Bald Eagle Osprey Landbirds during migration

Recently Harvested & Fields American Woodcock

Supporting Discussion:

The species that showed the highest relative abundances within the Upper Androscoggin River watershed basin are those of the mixed spruce-ﬁ r/northern hardwood forest. As mentioned earlier, this mixed forest is the past, current, and potential future, dominant landscape forest, despite decades of manipulation. It is the anticipated climax forest condition that would naturally occur, under a climate regime uninﬂ uenced by global climate change.

The blackburnian, black-throated green, and Canada warblers were selected as refuge focal species because of the refuge’s location within the areas of high concentration for these species, and because of the refuge’s site capabilities and its extensive, existing and sustainable mixed spruce-ﬁ r/northern hardwood forest landscape. Managing in areas of high concentration within priority species’ ranges, which also represent the habitat that would naturally occur in that location, maximizes refuge efforts and is most efﬁ cient. The planning team has determined that maintaining the mixed forest, with emphasis on managing for these focal species, is the highest and best contribution Lake Umbagog NWR can make within the northern New Hampshire and western Maine conservation estate as well as the National Wildlife Refuge System.

While we will emphasize the mixed forest with a high conifer component, and associated focal species for the reasons noted above, this should not be construed as indicating that we will ignore other important species of conservation concern. The BCR 14 conservation plan identifi es Cape May and bay-breasted warblers among the highest priority landbirds. They occur on the refuge in low abundances because of their preference for extensive, contiguous, mature conifer forests. Although they are not a refuge management priority, they would increasingly benefi t over time from proposed management designed to increase the conifer component within the refuge landscape and promote larger blocks of mature spruce-fi r. We will continue to monitor their presence and response to management along with our focal species.

Species that prefer hardwood forest showed moderate relative abundances in the refuge landscape; however, refuge management for this habitat type would not be a high priority. The site capabilities of current and proposed future refuge lands do not favor large blocks of hardwoods at this time. Also, other areas of BCR 14 and the Northeast U.S. (USFWS Region 5) provide better opportunities to manage and sustain extensive areas of this habitat type. In addition, the planning team anticipates the refuge’s surrounding landowners would continue conducting management as in the past, driven by the timber market, resulting in a higher hardwood component and a higher presence of hardwood- dependant landbird species.

N-14 Appendix N: Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B

4.0) Refuge Focal Species for Lake Umbagog NWR

From steps 1 through 3 above, the following table (table N.5) identiﬁ es high and moderate refuge habitats that will be a priority for active management in the next 15 years, and the refuge focal species associated with those habitats types.

Table N.5. Refuge Management Priority Habitats and Associated Focal Species*

High Management Priority Habitats Refuge Focal Species

Fen and Flooded Meadow American Black Duck Ring-necked Duck Common Loon

Wooded Floodplain American Black Duck Cavity Nesting Waterfowl Northern Parula

Shrub-Scrub Wetland American Woodcock American Black Duck Canada Warbler

Open Water and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Native Brook Trout Eagle and Osprey Common Loon

Mixed Forest – “Mixed Woods” Habitat Type Blackburnian Warbler Canada Warbler Black-throated Green Warbler

Mixed Forest – Spruce/ﬁ r Habitat Type Blackburnian Warbler Black-throated Green Warbler

Moderate Management Priority Habitats Refuge Focal Species

Boreal Fen and Bog Floating Island National Natural Landmark Rare Plant Communities

N. White Cedar Swamp Rare Plant Community

Lakeshore Pine Hemlock Eagle and Osprey Nest Sites

Mixed Forest – Northern Hardwood Habitat Type Canada Warbler American Woodcock

*Priorities listed above indicate which habitat types will be our highest priority for active management over the next 15 years. They do not reﬂ ect the refuge’s conservation priorities. For example, although boreal fen and bog (a wetland type) is a higher priority for conservation than mixed forest (an upland type), we anticipate needing to undertake signiﬁ cantly more active management in areas of mixed forest than in boreal fen and bog habitat types over the course of the next 15 years. Management of boreal fens and bogs is more likely to focus on acquiring and protecting this habitat type.

4.1) Refuge Habitat-Focal Species Relationships Table N.6 below identifi es the key habitat structure elements for refuge focal species associated with respective refuge habitat types. Other species that will benefi t from the management of the refuge focal species are listed in the far right column. Other benefi ting species of conservation concern within the BCR, the State, or regional plan (Appendix B).

Appendix N: Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B N-15 Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B

Table N.6. Key Habitat Structural Elements for Refuge Focal Species

Other Beneﬁ ting Habitat Refuge Focal Species Habitat Structure Species

Fen and Flooded American Black Duck Nests within 145 meters of water. Food Pied-billed Grebe Meadow requirements include bulrush, arrowhead and American Bittern wild rice. Key vegetation include sweetgale and Sora conifers. Migrating shorebirds, waterfowl and Ring-necked Duck Prefer shallow freshwater wetland with wading birds stable water levels and abundant emergent Leopard Frog and submerged or ﬂ oating plants. Nests are Mink Frog typically on a ﬂ oating mat of vegetation, but Beaver often in clumps of herbaceous or shrubby growth or on islands. Peak nesting is in mid- May.

Common Loon Nesting habitat associated with lakes in spruce- fi r or spruce-fi r northern hardwood transition zones. Bodies of water with stable water levels and little or no human disturbance. Nests on the ground at water’s edge, usually on sand, rocks or other fi rm substrate. Prefers small islands to shore.

Boreal Fen and Floating Island National Appropriate hydrology and nutrient input to Palm Warbler Bog Natural Landmark maintain diverse plant community. Rusty Blackbird Yellow-bellied Circumneutral Pattern Flycatcher Fen

Rare Peatland Plants

Northern White Cedar Swamp Grows on sites with shallow organic layers, Boreal Chickadee relief to have ﬂ owing groundwater, well Gray Jay decomposed organic layers and neutral or Black-backed slightly basic pH. Woodpecker American three-toed woodpecker Spruce Grouse

Shrub-Scrub American Black Duck Listed above. Alder Flycatcher Wetland Common Yellowthroat Canada Warbler Forest with dense understory, especially Eastern Kingbird along streams, bogs, swamps or moist areas. Beaver Northern hardwoods with softwood understory. High percent shrub cover (70%), moderate canopy cover (64%) and few conifers in the canopy. First appear in clear-cuts 5 yrs. after harvest, become common after 15 yrs and remain abundant until next cutting cycle.

American Woodcock Moist, rich soil dominated by dense shrub cover (75-90%); alder is ideal, young aspen and birch are suitable as feeding areas and daytime cover. In close proximity to one another: clearings, large openings for roosting, young second growth hardwood (15-30 yrs) for nesting and brood-rearing , and shrub foraging areas.

N-16 Appendix N: Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B

Table N.6 (cont’d)

Other Beneﬁ ting Habitat Refuge Focal Species Habitat Structure Species

Wooded American Black Duck Listed above. Wood Duck Floodplain Common Goldeneye Cavity Nesting Large trees with cavities for nesting, near Common Merganser Waterfowl clear, clean water with abundant aquatic Hooded Merganser invertebrates for feeding (Goldeneye); sandy, Rusty Blackbird gravelly, or cobbled bottom with abundant American Redstart small ﬁ sh, less than 24 in. deep (hooded Big Brown Bat merganser); calm to rapid ﬂ owing water 1.5 Hoary Bat to 6 ft. deep (common merganser);water with Little Brown Bat brushy overstory, stumps and fallen logs, Northern Long-eared cavities within 1.2 miles of water (wood duck). Bat Vernal Pool Obligate Northern Parula Mature, moist spruce woods along forest or species forest/shore edge where mosslike lichens (Blue-spotted (Usnea) are found. Close-canopy forests, salamander, variable conifer cover, and trees in the smaller wood frog) size classes. Tolerates moderate levels of Mink Frog timber harvest, but absent from clear-cut and strip-cut areas. Sensitive to fragmentation, requires approximately 250 acres to sustain breeding populations.

Open Water Native Brook Trout Cool, well-oxygenated water, temperature Migrating Waterfowl and Submerged not to exceed 68oF for extended periods and Land-locked Salmon Aquatic oxygen levels remain at 5 ppm or greater. American Eel Vegetation Vulnerable to the effects of predation and Lake Chub competition from other fi shes, particularly in the fi rst year or two of life. Spawn in fl owing broods or streams, shore spawning successful in some ponds with spring-water infl ows in gravelly shallows.

Common Loon Listed above.

Eagle and Osprey Preferred feeding habitat: large bodies of water containing abundant fi sh resources (eagle); shallow-water areas of rivers, shoals of lakes where fi sh are close to the surface, abundant fi sh resources, preferably with little human disturbance (osprey).

Appendix N: Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B N-17 Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B

Table N.6 (cont’d)

Other Beneﬁ ting Habitat Refuge Focal Species Habitat Structure Species

Mixed Canada Warbler Listed above. Black and White Woods Warbler Habitat Blackburnian Warbler Mature conifer forest of hemlock, pines, fi r, Purple Finch Type spruce and mixed forests or moist forest where Wood Thrush spruces are thickly draped with bearded lichen Northern Goshawk (Usnea). Strong affi nity for saw-timber-size Northern Long-eared spruce and fi re. Inhabits forests with high Bat canopy cover (84%), variable coniferous cover Ruffed Grouse and many trees in the smaller class sized >3 to <9.1 inches dbh. Nests high up in tree (usually spruce or hemlock), situated well away from the truck or in a small fork near the top of the tree.

Black-throated Green Mid-to-mature mixed woodlands (especially Warbler hardwood-hemlock stands in northern hardwood-spruce), coniferous forest with large trees and larch bogs. Sensitive to logging activity, decline in heavily thinned forests. Large spruce for singing perches. Require large patches (>250 acres). Nest height 3 to 80 ft., typically 15 to 20 ft. usually on a horizontal or drooping branch in conifers and occasionally in hardwoods.

Spruce-ﬁ r Blackburnian Warbler Listed above. Bay-breasted Warbler Habitat Cape May Warbler Type Black-throated Green Listed above. Boreal Chickadee Warbler Gray Jay Red Crossbill Spruce Grouse

Mixed Spruce-Fir/Northern Hardwood Forest American Three-toed Woodpecker Deer wintering areas Marten

Northern Blackburnian Warbler Foraging substrate of small limbs and bases of Black-throated Blue Hardwood leaves. Warbler Habitat Veery Type Black-throated Green Foraging substrate of paper birch. Occasional Wood Thrush Warbler nesting. Ovenbird

Canada Warbler Listed above.

American Woodcock Listed above.

Lakeshore Pine Bald Eagle and Osprey Large trees adjacent to water for nesting, Migrating Landbirds Hemlock perching, and roosting, preferring areas with Olive-sided minimal human disturbance (eagle): elevated Flycatcher nest sites to 60 ft. preferring nest sites in or Merlin near water that provide good visibility, security and little human disturbance (osprey).

N-18 Appendix N: Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B

5.0) Common Goals with Partners

From the onset of the CCP process, wildlife partners from the States of Maine and New Hampshire have been involved with the selection of priority habitats, focal species and the development of refuge goals and objectives. Throughout the process, differing agency goals and scales of responsibility to conservation targets, was apparent. However, participative planning with professional wildlife stakeholders is useful to address issues that may otherwise result in controversy. The additional time and effort that is needed to identify priority habitats that offer commonality with partners’ goals, is worthwhile and results in more broadly accepted decisions (Sportza 1999).

The planning team determined the most appropriate biological goals and objectives for the refuge based on National Wildlife Refuge System policy, and then found commonalities with the State partners in meeting State wildlife habitat goals. The freshwater wetlands and resources of concern that were identiﬁ ed as priorities for the refuge, are a direct overlap with State wetland goals. The mixed spruce-ﬁ r/northern hardwood forest contributes to State goals for the priority landbird species that were chosen, as well as provide habitat for other State species of concern. The mixed forest will provide connectivity of habitats for mammals with large home ranges and protection of white-tailed deer wintering areas.

Table N.7. Landbird species from the Bird Conservation Region 14 Plan. Species rankings for the BCR and for PIF Area 28 along with their Breeding Bird Survey relative abundance near the Refuge. Species selected for analysis based on their rank have a relative abundance. Species that were chosen as focal species for priority habitats are shaded.

Partners In BBS Bird Conservation Region 14 Flight

Species Common Name Relative Abundance near Refuge BCR Tier Continental Concern BCR Responsibility BCR Concern Blueprint Document Rule PIF 28 Tier Am. Woodcock 4 Highest * * * 1 1a Canada Warbler 4 H H H 1 1a Wood Thrush 2 H M H 1 1b Olive-sided Flycatcher 1 H M H 2 1b Ipswich Savannah Sparrow 0 * * * 1 - Black-throated Blue Warbler 4 High M H M 4 2b Chestnut-sided Warbler 3 M M M 3 2a Eastern Wood-Pewee 2 L M M 3 - Rusty Blackbird 1 H M M 2 1a Bay-breasted Warbler 1 H H M 1 1a Cape May Warbler 1 M M M 3 2b Black-billed Cuckoo 1 M M H 6 2a Common Nighthawk 0 L L M 4 4 Bicknell’s Thrush 0 H H M 1 1a Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Sparrow 0 H M M 1 1a Chimney Swift - M L H 4 - Long-eared Owl - M M M 4 4

Appendix N: Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B N-19 Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B

Table N.7. cont.

Partners in BBS Bird Conservation Region 1 Flight

PIF 28

Species Common Name Relative Abundance near Refuge BCR Tier Continental Concern BCR Responsibility BCR Concern Blueprint Document Rule Tier Short-eared Owl - Medium H L H 9 1b Blackburnian Warbler 5 L H M 7 Black-throated Green Warbler 4 L H M 7 Northern Parula 4 L H M 7 2b Purple Finch 3 L H M 4 2a Brown Creeper 3 * * * 9 4 Ovenbird 3 L M L 7 2b Veery 3 L H M 3 2a American Redstart 2 L H M 4 Boreal Chickadee 2 L M H 4 Black-backed Woodpecker 2 * * * 9 4 Rose-breasted Grosbeak 2 M M M 5 2a Bobolink 2 L M M 3 2a N. Flicker 2 * * * 9 Palm Warbler 1 * * * 9 Gray Jay 1 * * * 9 4 Yellow-bellied Flycatcher 1 * * * 8 Blackpoll Warbler 1 M L H 6 4 Ruffed Grouse 1 L M H 5 Pine Grosbeak 0 * * * 9 Peregrine Falcon - * * * 9 3 Boreal Owl - * * * 9 N. Goshawk - * * * 8 3 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker - L H M 4 Whip-poor-will - * * * 9 4 Blue-winged Warbler - H L M 2 Vesper Sparrow - * * * 9 Upland Sandpiper - * * * 9 1b Barn Swallow - * * * 9

N-20 Appendix N: Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B

Table N.7. cont.

Partners in BBS Bird Conservation Region 1 Flight

PIF 28

Species Common Name Relative Abundance near Refuge BCR Tier Continental Concern BCR Responsibility BCR Concern Blueprint Document Rule Tier Bank Swallow - * * * 9 Horned Lark - * * * 9 N. Harrier - * * * 9 4 Willow Flycatcher - L L L 1b

BBS Relative Abundance near Refuge: * Relative abundance is displayed in a range of 1 to 5, one indicating the areas of lowest concentration, 5 indicating the area of highest concentration, - = species that were not analyzed because they are not present near the refuge or were not represented by BBS data. BCR 14: * indicates that the species was not in the BCR landbird database so Continental Concern, BCR Responsibility and BCR Concern could not be calculated based on the new BCR landbird rules. Blueprint Document Rules are from Dettmers, 2006. PIF 28 Tier: from Rosenberg, Kenneth V. and T.P. Hodgman, 2000.

Literature Citations

Dettmers, Randy. 2006. Draft: Blueprint for the Design and Delivery of Bird Conservation in the Atlantic Northern Forest. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, MA. 352 p.

Dunn, Erica H.; D.J.T. Hussell, and D.A. Welsh. 1998. Priority-Setting Tool Applied to Canada’s Landbirds Based on Concern and Responsibility for Species. Conservation Biology. Vol. 13 No. 6 pgs 1404-1415.

Ford, Robert P., and M.C. Roedel. 2004. Bird conservation planning in the interior low plateaus. In: Bonney, Rick; D. N. Pashley; R.J. Cooper; L. Niles, eds. 2000. Strategies for bird conservation: The Partners In Flight planning process; Proceedings of the 3rd Partners in Flight Workshop; 1995 October 1-5; Cape May, NJ. Proceedings RMRS-P16. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Freemark, Kathryn E.; J.R. Probst; J.B. Dunning and S.J. Hejl. 1993. Adding a Landscape Ecology Perspective to Conservation and Management Planning. In, Finch, Deborah M. and P.W. Stangel, eds. Status and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds; 1992 September 21-25; Estes Park, Co. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-229. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 422 p.

Knopf, Fritz L. and F.B. Samson. 1994. Scale Perspectives on Avian Diversity in Western Riparian Ecosystems. Conservation Biology, Vol. 8, No. 3. pages 669-676.

Appendix N: Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B N-21 Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B

McWilliams, William H.; B. Butler; L Caldwell; D. Grifﬁ th; M. Hoppus; K. Laustsen; A. Lister; T. Lister; J. Metzler; R. Morin; S. Sader; L. Stewart; J. Steinman; J. Westfall; D. Williams; A. Whitman; and C. Woodall. 2004. The Forests of Maine: 2003. Resource Bulletin NE-164 September 2005. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA. 195p.

Mueller, Allen J.: D.J. Twedt and C.R. Loesch. 2000. Development of Management Objectives forBreeding Birds in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. In: Bonney, Rick; D. N. Pashley; R.J. Cooper; L. Niles, eds. 2000. Strategies for bird conservation: The Partners In Flight planning process; Proceedings of the 3rd Partners in Flight Workshop; 1995 October 1-5; Cape May, NJ. Proceedings RMRS-P16. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Nazaire, Mare. 2005. A Study of the Vegetation and Floristic Diversity of Two Peatland Complexes of Post- Settlement Origin in Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge, Coos County, New Hampshire. Master of Science Thesis, University of New Hampshire. 192 p.

Panjabi, Arvind. 2001. The Partners In Flight Handbook on Species Assessment & Prioritization. Version 1.1 December 2001. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory.

Probst, John R. and F.R. Thompson, III. 1996. A multiscale assessment of the geographic and ecological distributins of Midwestern Neotropical migratory birds. Pages 22-40 in Thompson, F.R., III (ed.), Managing Midwestern landscapes for the conservation of neotropical migratory birds. Gen. Tech, Rep. NC-187. USDA Forest Service.

Ralph, C. John and T.D. Rich, eds. Bird Conservation Implementation and Integration in the Americas: Proceedings of the Third International Partners in Flight Conference. 2002 March 20-24; Asilomar, CA, Volume 1. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191. Albany, CA: Paciﬁ c Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 651 p.

Rich, T.D.; C.J. Beardmore; H. Berlanga; P.J. Blancher; M.S. Bradstreet; G. S. Butcher; D.W. Demarest; E.H. Dunn; W.C. Hunter; E.E. Inigo-Elias; J.A. Kennedy; A.M. Martell; A.O. Panjabi; D.N. Pashley; K.V. Rosenberg; C.M. Rustay; J.S. Wendt; and T.C. Will. 2004. Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY. Rosenberg, Kenneth V. and T.P. Hodgman. 2000. Partners In Flight Landbird Conservation Plan: Physiographic Area 28: Eastern Spruce-Hardwood Forest. Draft 1.0. American Bird Conservancy. p48.

Rosenberg, Kenneth V. and J.V. Wells. 1995. Importance of geographic areas to Neotropical migrant birds in the Northeast. Final report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region-5, Hadley, MA.

Sauer, John R. 2004. Combining information from monitoring programs: complications associated with indices and geographic scale. In: Bonney, Rick; D. N. Pashley; R.J. Cooper; L. Niles, eds. 2000. Strategies for bird conservation: The Partners In Flight planning process; Proceedings of the 3rd Partners in Flight Workshop; 1995 October 1-5; Cape May, NJ. Proceedings RMRS-P16. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

N-22 Appendix N: Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management Under Alternative B

Sauer, John R.; J.K. Casey; H. Laskowski; J.D. Taylor and J. Fallon. 2005. Use of Survey Data to Deﬁ ne Regional and Local Priorities for Management on National Wildlife Refuges. In: Ralph, John C. and T.D. Rich, eds. Bird Conservation Implementation and Integration in the Americas: Proceedings of the Third International Partners in Flight Conference. 2002 March 20-24; Asilomar, CA, Volume 2. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191. Albany, CA: Paciﬁ c Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; Pgs 1224-1231.

Schroeder, Richard L.; J. Holler and J. P. Taylor. 2004. Managing National Wildlife Refuges for Historic or Non- Historic Conditions: Determining the Role of the Refuge in the Ecosystem. In: Managing Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health in the National Wildlife Refuges. Natural Resources Journal. Fall 2004. Vol. 44, No. 4. Pgs.1041-1066.

Scott, J. Michael; T. Loveland; K. Gergely; J. Strittholt and N. Staus. National Wildlife Refuge System: Ecological Context and Integrity. In: Managing Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health in the National Wildlife Refuges. Natural Resources Journal. Fall 2004. Vol. 44, No. 4. Pgs.1041- 1066.

Schneider, K.J., and D.M. Pence, eds. 1992. Migratory nongame birds of management concern in the Northeast. U.S. Dep. Inter., Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, MA. 400pp.

Sportza, Lucy M. 1999. Regional approaches to planning for protected areas and conservation. Environments, 29(3): 1-14.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Final Environmental Assessment Proposal to Protect Wildlife Habitat, Lake Umbagog, Coos County, New Hampshire, Oxford County, Maine. June 1991. Hadley MA. 49 p.

Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for the Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge Table of Contents

Table of Contents for Service Responses to Comments by Subject 1.0 Planning Process and Policy ...... O-3 1.1 Timeframes/Length of Comment Period ...... O-4 1.2 Public Involvement ...... O-4 1.3 Relationship to Other Planning Processes ...... O-6 1.4 Statutory Authority ...... O-7 1.5 Jurisdiction ...... O-9 1.5.a Dam Operations ...... O-10 1.6 Implementation ...... O-11 1.7 Agency (General comments, including trust and integrity) ...... O-11 1.8 Coordination and Consultation ...... O-13 1.9 Document (Clarity, Technical and Editorial) ...... O-15 2.0 Purpose and Need ...... O-17 2.1 Scope ...... O-18 2.2 Proposed Action ...... O-18 2.3 Refuge Vision and Goals ...... O-18 2.4 Issues Identified During Public Scoping Process ...... O-19 2.5 Issues and Concerns Outside the Scope ...... O-19 2.6 Monitoring and Evaluation ...... O-19 2.7 Cumulative Effects ...... O-20 3.0 Alternatives ...... O-21 3.1 Alternative A: Current Management ...... O-21 3.2 Alternative B: Service-preferred Alternative...... O-22 3.3 Alternative C ...... O-23 3.4 Actions Common to All Alternatives ...... O-24 3.5 Actions Common to Alternatives B & C Only...... O-24 3.6 Alternatives or Actions Considered but Eliminated ...... O-24 3.7 Range/Comparison of Alternatives ...... O-25 4.0 Refuge Physical, Biological and Socioeconomic Resources ...... O-26 5.0 Refuge Administration ...... O-29 5.1 Land Acquisition ...... O-32 5.2 Buildings and Facilities ...... O-37 5.3 Staffing and Funding...... O-41 5.4 Road System ...... O-42 5.5 Enforcement ...... O-42 5.6 Volunteer and “Friends” Group ...... O-43 5.7 Visitor Services ...... O-43 6.0 Social and Economic Values ...... O-43 6.1 General Management Direction ...... O-43 6.2 Local Economy ...... O-44 6.2a Tourism ...... O-45 6.2.b Property Tax ...... O-45 6.3 Social Values ...... O-50 7.0 Air Quality ...... O-50 8.0 Hydrology and Water Quality ...... O-51 9.0 Soils ...... O-51 10.0 Open Water and Wetland Habitat & Species ...... O-51 10.1 General Management Direction ...... O-51

II Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Table of Contents

10.2 Open Water ...... O-51 10.2a Invasive Species ...... O-51 10.3 Wetland Habitats (Fen &Flooded Meadow, Boreal Fen & Bog, Northern White Cedar Swamp; Scrub-Shrub Wetland) ...... O-52 10.4 Fish and Wildlife Species ...... O-52 10.4.a Common Loon ...... O-52 10.4b Fish (e.g., brook trout) ...... O-54 10.5 Furbearer Management...... O-54 11.0 Floodplain, Lakeshore, and Riparian Habitats and Species ...... O-55 11.1 General Management Direction ...... O-55 11.2 Habitats (Wooded Floodplain; Lakeshore Pine-Hemlock; Vernal Pools) ...... O-55 11.3 Wildlife Species ...... O-55 11.3a Bald Eagles and Osprey ...... O-55 11.3b Woodcock ...... O-55 12.0 Upland Forest Matrix Habitats and Species ...... O-55 12.1 General Management Direction ...... O-55 12.2 Habitats (Spruce-Fir; Mixed Woods; Northern Hardwoods) ...... O-55 12.2 Habitats ...... O-57 12.3 Wildlife Species—Mammals ...... O-57 12.3a Lynx ...... O-57 12.4 Wildlife Species—Avian ...... O-57 13.0 Cultural and Historic Resources...... O-58 13.1 General Management Direction ...... O-58 14.0 Priority Public Uses ...... O-58 14.1 General Management Direction ...... O-58 14.2 Visitor Safety ...... O-59 14.3 Access ...... O-59 14.4 Hunting ...... O-61 14.4.a Waterfowl ...... O-63 14.4.b Game or Other ...... O-63 14.5 Fishing ...... O-63 14.6 Viewing and Photographing Wildlife ...... O-64 14.7 Interpretative and Environmental Education ...... O-65 15.0 Other Public Uses ...... O-65 15.1 Remote Camping ...... O-66 15.2 Boating ...... O-67 15.3 Snowmobiling ...... O-67 15.4 Off Road Vehicle Use [ATVs, UTVs, dirt bikes and other off-road vehicles not legal for highway use] ...... O-68 15.5 Hiking ...... O-69 15.6 Uses Determined Inappropriate ...... O-69 15.6a Bicycling ...... O-70 15.6b Horseback Riding ...... O-70 15.6c Berry Harvesting ...... O-71 15.6d Dog Sledding or Mushing ...... O-71 15.7 Other Non-motorized Recreation...... O-72 16.0 Appendixes...... O-72 17.0 Comments Considered Out of Scope ...... O-73

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR III Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for the Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

August 29, 2008

Introduction

In June 2007, we completed the “Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for the Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge.” That draft outlines three alternatives for managing the refuge over the next 15 years, and identiﬁ es alternative B as the “Service-preferred Alternative.” We released the draft for 45 days of public review from July 6 to August 20, 2007. In response to public request, we extended that period another 32 days, to September 21, 2007.

We evaluated all the letters or e-mail we received and the oral testimony we recorded in our public hearings during that period. This document summarizes the public comments that raised issues and concerns within the scope of this fi nal CCP/EIS and our responses to them. Based on our analysis in the draft CCP/EIS and our evaluation of those comments, we have modifi ed alternative B, which remains our preferred alternative in the fi nal CCP/EIS. Our modifi cations include additions, corrections, or clarifi cations of our preferred management actions. We have also determined that none of those modifi cations warrants our publishing a revised or amended draft before publishing the fi nal CCP/EIS.

These are some important changes in the ﬁ nal.

1. In response to concerns about impacts on the local economy, our expansion proposal replaces some acquisitions in fee title with acquisitions of easements in Maine, and reduces their total number of acres. We now propose to acquire from willing sellers 47,807 acres (formerly, 49,718 acres), and have changed the acquisition ratio to 56 percent in fee title and 44 percent in easement (formerly, 65 percent fee and 35 percent easement). Appendix A, “Land Protection Plan,” describes that revised proposal.

2. Two new maps clarify our proposal on the roads and trails we would open for public use on both current refuge lands and refuge expansion lands. Chapter 2, “Alternatives Considered, Including the Service- preferred Alternative,” clariﬁ es them in maps 2–8 and 2–9. Item 6, below, describes them.

3. We propose to postpone our decision on whether to manage furbearer species, and whether that management could include trapping. We will conduct further analysis and prepare a more detailed Furbearer Management Plan. That change, which we propose in both alternatives B and C, appears in chapter 2, in the section “Actions Common to Alternatives B and C Only.” Before trapping would be permitted under the Furbearer Management Plan, we will analyze the appropriateness of this use and issue a compatibility determination, if warranted, analyzing whether this use would be compatible with the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and refuge purposes, and under what conditions.

4. In the same section of chapter 2, we propose to postpone our decision on whether to expand our current hunt program by incorporating bobcat hunting in Maine and turkey hunting in Maine and New Hampshire. Although that would have made our hunt program consistent with the states’ hunt programs, we have determined the need to conduct further analysis in conjunction with an environmental assessment and additional public comment before revising our hunt plan. We propose that change in alternatives B and C. If the hunt program is expanded, we will issue a new compatibility determination with any changes to the program necessitated by the expansion.

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-1 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

5. The same section of chapter 2 also clarifi es our hunting and fi shing programs. The public comments we received reveal the misperception that our implementing alternatives B or C would result in new restrictions in those programs. That is not the case. We now explain the hunting and fi shing programs better, and point out that we intend to implement them on any newly acquired lands.

6. We revise alternative B to allow, in designated areas, certain public uses that we originally planned not to allow: dog sledding, horseback riding, bicycling, and collecting certain berries, ﬁ ddleheads, mushrooms, and antler sheds for personal use.

7. We have replaced the Fire Management Plan in appendix I, with a new document titled “Fire Management Program Guidance.” Since the draft CCP/EIS was published, new requirements have been developed for fi re management plans (FMP) that include interagency cooperation, consistency in terms of common language and format, and the need to address fi re at a landscape scale across ownerships. The FMP published in the draft CCP/EIS does not meet the new standards. In the interim, while we prepare a new FMP, we provide the program guidance document to share our policy and strategic guidance on fi re management on this refuge.

Our regional director will issue a ﬁ nal record of decision (ROD), after

■ our director reviews and approves the land protection plan,

■ we provide the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS to interested or affected parties for a 30-day period of review, and

■ our regional director reaffi rms that the fi nal CCP achieves the purposes for which the refuge was established, helps fulfi ll the mission of the Refuge System, and complies with all legal and policy mandates.

Once he has signed and dated the ROD, we will publish a notice of the availability of the ﬁ nal documents in the Federal Register. That notice will complete the planning phase of the CCP process, and we can begin its implementation phase.

Summary of Comments Received Because of the volume of comments we received and our interest in an objective analysis of them, we enlisted the U.S. Forest Service Recreation Solutions Enterprise Team in compiling a database and preparing a summary report. That team has particular expertise in providing unbiased summations of public comments on major proposals by federal land management agencies, a process called content analysis. The team evaluated and coded all of our public letters, e-mails, and transcripts. We posted the summary report, which sorts the comments into subject headings by issue, on the website http://www.fws.gov/northeast/planning/Lake%20Umbagog/ccphome. html. Our responses below follow the organization of their report, and we encourage a reading of it before reading our responses.

During the comment period, we received 14,269 responses, both oral and written. Organized response campaigns (forms) represent 97 percent (13,848) of that total.

We gathered oral comments in two informal information sessions and ﬁ ve formal public hearings.

July 10, 2007: Errol Town Hall, Errol, New Hampshire (information session) July 30, 2007: Errol Town Hall, Errol, New Hampshire (public hearing) July 31, 2007: Bear River Grange, Newry, Maine (public hearing) August 1, 2007: Berlin Technical Community College, Berlin, New Hampshire (public hearing) August 6, 2007: New Hampshire Fish and Game Ofﬁ ce, Concord, New Hampshire (public hearing) August 7, 2007: Holiday Inn, Augusta, Maine (public hearing) August 16, 2007: Errol Town Hall, Errol, New Hampshire (information session)

Three hundred seventy-eight people attended the public hearings; 55 presented oral testimony, which we recorded and later transcribed. Some who attended the hearings submitted their comments in writing instead of

O-2 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR as oral testimony, while others did both. We received written responses in 164 letters (9 of which we also received as email), 1 fax, and 14,049 e-mails.

We received comments from these government agencies and elected ofﬁ cials.

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Maine Land Use Regulation Commission New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development, Division of Forests and Lands Executive Councilor, District 1, State of New Hampshire State Senator, District 1, State of New Hampshire City of Berlin, New Hampshire Capitol Region Council of Governments, State of New Hampshire

We also received comments from these individuals or organizations.

14 conservation and preservation organizations 6 recreational organizations 5 animal rights groups 4 timber or wood products industry or associations 3 hunting and ﬁ shing sports clubs 2 energy industry companies 1 civic organization 1 outﬁ tter/guide

In the discussions below, we address every comment the FS report identiﬁ es. Occasionally, the FS placed the same comment under two or more subject headings. In our responses, we often refer the reader to other places in this document where we address the same comment. Under a few subject headings, we introduce more detail on an issue than the FS report provides. That was simply a matter of our knowing the issue in greater detail, or our having conversed with the person who submitted the comment, so that we knew its gist better.

Directly beneath each subject heading, you will see a list of unique letter ID numbers that correspond to the reviewer letters. The cross-referenced list appears as attachment 1 to this appendix.

In several instances, we refer to the full text version of the draft CCP/EIS, and indicate how the fi nal CCP/EIS refl ects our proposed changes. You have several options for obtaining the full text version of either the draft or the fi nal CCP/EIS. They are available online at http://library.fws.gov/ccps.htm. For a CD-R or a print copy, contact the refuge headquarters.

Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge P.O. Box 240, Route 16 North Errol, NH 03579 Phone: (603) 482-3415 Fax: (603) 482-3308 Email: [email protected]

Service Responses to Comments by Subject

1.0 Planning Process and Policy (Letter ID#: 3, 90, 128, 134, 138, 149, 439)

Comment: Several commenters complimented our draft CCP/EIS, stating that we had done a “thorough job of scoping” and research, provided an “excellent summation,” and offered “a set of well constructed alternatives.” One reviewer, however, suggested that we revise and reissue the document as a “draft” for public review with the

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-3 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

“errors, omissions, and false materials corrected” so that the public could assess more accurately their beneﬁ cial or adverse effects.

Response: We appreciate the favorable reviews, and acknowledge the criticisms. These documents contain more than 700 pages of material we compiled from hundreds of sources. Given that volume, we believe it is reasonable to expect some errors. That is one reason we initially publish a draft. We were impressed that so many people reviewed the draft in detail, and took the time to point out its typos and factual errors, suggest changes in its wording and mapping, or share their opinions or analyses. That level of scrutiny ensures that the ﬁ nal documents are complete and understandable.

We regret that we published errors, and that they might have confused our readers. We try to correct them in the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS. None of the corrections, however, modify the proposals or analyses in our original alternatives to the extent that they are either baseless, invalid, or require publishing a revised draft. The discussions of speciﬁ c topics below identify many of those corrections.

Without specifi c examples, we cannot respond directly to the comment that omissions or false materials make thoroughly assessing the alternatives diffi cult. We did not intentionally omit any information, nor did we include false materials to infl uence any outcome.

1.1 Timeframes/Length of Comment Period (Letter ID#: 90, 121, 128, 135)

Comment: Several people commented that they appreciated the 32-day extension of the comment period for the draft CCP/EIS. One mentioned that the extension, coupled with our information sessions, allowed them to more thoroughly “digest all the materials” before commenting. However, another criticized the planning schedule, mentioning that the timeline we published on our planning webpage called for a “Spring 2007” release of the draft documents and public meetings when, in fact, they occurred mostly in July and August. The same commenter pointed out that the ﬁ rst printing of maps was “illegible,” and this, coupled with perceived inadequacies in public involvement, substantiated the need for more time to fully evaluate the alternatives.

Response: We publish a tentative schedule for all Northeast Region CCPs on our planning website, http://www. fws.gov/northeast/planning/. Typically, those schedules span years in displaying the timeline of the process for each CCP from start to ﬁ nal publication. That process is unpredictable, and makes providing exact dates difﬁ cult. Some of that uncertainty also arises because of our numerous internal agency and departmental reviews, which we at the planning level do not control. We do provide contact information on our regional planning website, the refuge website, and in planning newsletters and other outreach materials, so that anyone with questions on the process or its timeline has a way to reach us.

Our purpose in holding the two information sessions in Errol and hosting the open houses before the fi ve public hearings was to provide additional opportunities to answer questions and clarify our proposals so that people had the level of information they wanted before they responded. We scheduled those public events midway through the public comment period, so people would have time to refl ect on what they heard and ask additional questions before that period ended. We regret the problem with the maps in the fi rst print run of the documents. Our contract printer generously printed the second run free of charge. We recognize that the maps in the fi rst run might have frustrated some reviewers or delayed their comments. However, we made the revised maps available to anyone who contacted us, as well as at our public information sessions and hearings and on our website.

In summary, we feel the 77-day public comment period, which exceeds the 45-day minimum NEPA regulations require, combined with the number of our public information sessions, open houses, and hearings, offered ample opportunity for meaningful public comment on the draft CCP/EIS.

1.2 Public Involvement (Letter ID#: 3, 4, 5, 10, 24, 35, 50, 63, 69, 85, 91, 93, 107, 111, 112, 135, 136, 138, 151, 152, 198, 199, 200, 257, 307, 326, 351, 352, 420, 594, 600, 706, 899)

O-4 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Comment: We heard from several people and organizations who expressed their appreciation of the public information sessions or the opportunity to provide public input. Several offered their assistance and future collaboration as we implement the plan and develop more detailed step-down plans. The Maine Land Use Regulation Commission, New Hampshire Wildlife Federation, The Wilderness Society, and a river outfi tter were among those who offered their assistance. Others expressed their appreciation for the opportunity to provide public comment, but mentioned some specifi c concerns about the way we stated the alternatives. Examples include comments from the State Line Snowmobile Club that thanked us for recognizing and receiving public input, but expressed some concerns about the management of snowmobile trails; a dog sled outfi tter and guide who appreciated the opportunity to comment at a public meeting, but was concerned about restrictions on sledding; and, New Hampshire Audubon, who thanked us for taking their written comments, but included detailed concerns about migratory bird management. In response, we met with the snowmobile club, the dog sled outfi tter, and a representative of New Hampshire Audubon to clarify their concerns and interests. We respond to those concerns and others that relate to specifi c management programs, activities, or actions under their topic headings below.

Several people criticized the level of public involvement as inadequate, particularly for local residents, and cited various reasons. Some stated that local residents should have had the opportunity to be more involved throughout the entire planning process. One suggested we might have gained more support if we had spent the summer of 2007 presenting a draft outline and talking with local residents and other stakeholders, such as out-of-state property owners, instead of releasing a fully developed draft CCP/EIS. Several mentioned that the comments of local residents should matter more than those from outside the local area. One wrote, “Those letters received from local people that have to live (with) the consequences of your decisions should carry more weight.” Others mentioned that a proposed action directly affects residents in its immediate vicinity, and they should have more infl uence on the fi nal decision. For example, one person said, “Only the people who reside on or near Sturtevant pond should have the fi nal say on this issue [proposed boat launch].”

We heard from others who were particularly concerned that the public information sessions were not well publicized, precluding the attendance of many who might have wanted to get involved, had they known of them. One person stated that the poor quality of the map we distributed and posted online hampered the opportunity for involvement, and the sizes of the document ﬁ les we posted on our website made accessing them difﬁ cult.

Response: We appreciate those offers of assistance in implementing the ﬁ nal plan or working on more detailed step-down plans. In several topical sections below, we discuss our interest in working locally and regionally with others to accomplish refuge goals and objectives. In chapter 2 of both the draft and the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS, under the section “Actions Common to All Alternatives,” we highlight our desire to maintain our existing partnerships and establish new ones, maintain an active volunteer program, establish a Friends Group, and work harder to become an active, valued member of communities near the refuge.

During the development of the plan we have been active in the community, and have used many of those connections to alert people that the planning process was underway and encourage them to contact the refuge manager if they had any questions. For example, our outreach materials about the planning process were available at refuge events and at our headquarters offi ce. We alerted people through our active involvement in the Coos County Economic Development Plan, NH Leadership Program, and Umbagog Area Chamber of Commerce. We briefed elected offi cials throughout the planning process. In both the draft and the fi nal CCP/ EIS, chapter 5, “Consultation and Coordination with Others,” describes our outreach prior to the release of the draft. We believe the opportunities we describe in chapter 5, in conjunction with the public events and outreach attending the release of the draft, meet the intent of NEPA, its CEQ regulations, and Service policy on public involvement.

We must respectfully disagree with those who think we should value the opinions and concerns of local residents more than those of other citizens. Our proposals strive to ﬁ nd the most appropriate balance between serving the entire American public by meeting our responsibilities as a federal agency entrusted with protecting federal trust resources in a way that fulﬁ lls our agency mission and achieves refuge purposes, and being a valued, trusted,

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-5 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

integral member of local communities near the refuge. We recognize that fi nding that perfect balance can be diffi cult. Rarely is everyone interested in the refuge satisfi ed with the direction of all aspects of its management. In fact, a thorough review of the public comments reveals that, even among local residents, there is no consensus on the direction of many aspects of refuge management. That makes fi nding an appropriate balance all the more challenging. However, in response to local public comments on several issues of public use, access, and recreation, we have modifi ed the fi nal CCP/EIS, alternative B. Please refer to those discussions below.

We would be irresponsible in implementing the consensus or majority opinion when it contradicts federal laws or Service policy. As one example, more than 2,000 people submitted the same comment on our draft CCP/EIS: We should ban the current hunting program on the refuge. Among the comments we received, that was the majority opinion about hunting. However, the Improvement Act and Service policy identify hunting as a priority public use to receive our enhanced consideration during CCP planning and to be accommodated on refuges to the extent it can meet the compatibility threshold. Simply put, we cannot disregard the intent of federal law and policy by eliminating a priority use that is now well established and occurred historically before we established the refuge. We discuss our hunting program more under that topic heading below.

We mailed a notice of our public information sessions and hearings to the more than 1,200 names and organizations on our project mailing list, advertised dates in local papers, posted them on our planning website, distributed a news release with dates to our regional media contacts, made public radio announcements, made announcements at community events, and alerted congressional ofﬁ ces. Announcements were made at least 2 weeks prior to each gathering. We believe this represents a concerted effort to notify people ahead of time.

We acknowledge the poor print quality of the maps in the fi rst run of the draft CCP/EIS. As soon as we could, we rectifi ed that problem in a new printing, and made the maps available at refuge headquarters, at all our public meetings, and to anyone who contacted us about them. The size of the fi les on our website was likely a problem for anyone on a dial-up modem. We tried to alleviate that problem by posting another set of fi les at smaller sizes on our website.

1.3 Relationship to Other Planning Processes (Letter ID#: 98, 112, 135, 172, 352)

Comment: One commenter raised the concern that the Service never completed its “Draft EIS for Refuges 2003” (January 1993), and opined that was unfortunate, because it substantiates the commenter’s concerns about the impacts of hunting and other refuge uses. The commenter asked why the Service never completed that EIS, and felt we should not prepare this or any other CCP until we have completed that programmatic EIS for the Refuge System.

Response: “Refuges 2003” was a draft management plan and EIS the Service prepared “to help guide management of the National Wildlife Refuge System over the next decade.” Its stated purpose was “to meet the many challenges facing ﬁ sh and wildlife resources and the public’s use and enjoyment of those resources into the 21st century” (Executive Summary, “Introduction,” p 1). The draft fully evaluates seven management alternatives and their expected impacts. At the end of its public review period, the Service began the huge task of analyzing and evaluating the public comments it had received. At the same time, the Service began to develop organic legislation for the Refuge System. That surpassed completing “Final EIS for Refuges 2003,” and resulted in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.

Among other things, the Improvement Act establishes wildlife conservation as the principal mission of the System; reinforces the importance of comprehensive planning on all units of the System; identifi es six priority public uses: hunting, fi shing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation; and gives refuge managers uniform direction and procedures for making decisions about wildlife conservation and the uses of the System. Our fi nal CCP/EIS fully complies with the intent of the Act and Service policies.

O-6 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Comment: One commenter expressed disappointment that in chapter 1, under “Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project,” we did not refer to the Northern Forest Lands Study of 1990 and “Finding Common Ground,” the Report of the Northern Forest Lands Council (September 1994), or the Tenth Anniversary Forum Report, Northern Forest Lands Council (2005). Another comment suggested that our interpretation of priorities and goals in the Northern Forest Land Study of 1990 differs from those of local stakeholders, and that our proposed land protection plan implies that federal government controls on land use are superior and preferable to the controls of local or state government. That commenter opined, “local and state governments and agencies would probably have a better handle on what is suitable for the area….”

Response: We used those three reports in developing the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS, appendix A, “Land Protection Plan,” and list them in its section “Literature Cited.” We also cite them in chapter 1, under the section “Other Regional Information Sources.”

As to the comment that our original write-up implied federal ownership was superior to local control, we regret the misunderstanding, because that was not our intent. State, private, local, and non-government partners have been integral in conservation both on the refuge and in the Northern Forest since before the refuge was established. We acknowledge that the refuge, with its federal ownership, is only one element in a huge, successful effort to protect and conserve land. We also recognize that we have a critical role to play. The patterns of land ownership and the local economy have changed markedly over the last two decades. Each of our partners has an important role to play, depending on the land and the availability of funding and other resources to protect it. Fortunately, we enjoy a strong relationship with our partners today and, whether it is the Town of Errol, a non- government organization, the states of Maine or New Hampshire, or a private land owner or timber company, each has assumed an active role in communicating its priorities and available resources. The partnership has worked very well in recent years, and we will continue to ensure that those relationships succeed for the betterment of natural resources in the Northern Forest.

Comment: One letter states that the draft plan would allow maximum hunting, ﬁ shing, trapping, and increasing visitation by all users groups, resulting in extensive resource impacts on and unregulated takes, thus undermining the goals and strategies for wildlife and habitats in the State of New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan (NH WAP) of 2005. The author of this comment attached a letter to Governor Lynch that asked him to intervene in the CCP planning process and initiate a review of the draft CCP/EIS by state biologists most knowledgeable about, and vested in, the NH WAP, instead of relying on involvement from the state biologists who participated on the CCP core planning team.

Response: We disagree with the comment that our proposals undermine the NH WAP. We fully used those of both states in developing our proposals, and believe our proposals are fully consistent with those plans (in chapter 1, see “Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project”). We enjoyed the full participation of the NHFG and MDIFW biologists who were appointed to our core planning team by their respective directors, in developing our draft and the fi nal CCP/EIS. Other staff biologists in both agencies reviewed the draft before we distributed it to the public. During its development, we held briefi ngs at both agency headquarters. During the public comment period, we received a letter from the Director of the NHFG stating, “The approach and expected outcomes outlined in the CCP are consistent with the state’s wildlife action plan.” We discuss that consistency with state regulations on hunting and fi shing in chapter 2 of the fi nal CCP/EIS, under “Actions Common to All Alternatives.” We also respond to other comments on our hunting, fi shing, and trapping programs under their topic headings below. Other comments about state biologists, particularly whether they support the state WAPs, are irrelevant to the scope of the fi nal CCP/EIS.

1.4 Statutory Authority (Letter ID#: 37, 91, 98, 112, 118, 352, 604)

Comment: Several reviewers commented that alternative B in the draft CCP/EIS violates the Improvement Act and Service policy (602 FW 1.4A) by allowing certain uses, or by recommending that those uses be allowed. The comments specify hunting, ﬁ shing, trapping, motor boating, jet skiing, and snowmobiling as detrimental

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-7 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

to wildlife and undermining “wildlife and wildlife conservation must come ﬁ rst.” They acknowledge hunting as a designated priority use of the Refuge System, but believe that “rigorous scientiﬁ c research into the status of refuge wildlife populations” must occur before we allow it.

Response: The Improvement Act establishes hunting and fi shing as priority public uses on national wildlife refuges. We discuss their implementation under their section headings below. As for trapping, the fi nal CCP/EIS discusses why we are postponing our decision on whether and how to manage furbearer species, and whether that management could include trapping, until we can conduct a further analysis and prepare a more detailed Furbearer Management Plan. Boating is currently allowed to facilitate priority wildlife-dependent public uses, and is regulated in sensitive areas of the refuge. In both the draft and the fi nal CCP/EIS, appendix B, “Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations,” includes our determination on snowmobiling, which includes stipulations to ensure its compliance with the Improvement Act and Service policy. We remind the Animal Protection Institute and other interested parties that each compatibility determination includes a discussion of potential or known impacts, and lists stipulations that we will implement to ensure that all the activities we allow on the refuge are compatible with the mission of the Refuge System and the purposes for which the refuge was established.

Comment: Several reviewers supported our determination that pursuing National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) designation for refuge lands is unwarranted. However, others argued that our analysis in that determination was inadequate, and the “decision to use size as a reason not to further analyze the wilderness potential is...misguided.”

Response: Both the draft and the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS include appendix D, “Wilderness Review.” That appendix includes our recommendation not to pursue NWPS status for refuge lands we own in fee title. We recognize that some wilderness units in the NWPS are smaller than 5,000 acres, and that size alone is not a reason to disqualify land from consideration. However, we also considered other criteria, including the ability to manage as wilderness and still meet refuge purposes. We stand by our conclusion in the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS appendix D, “Wilderness Review.”

Comment: The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) commented that the draft CCP/EIS violates NEPA, because the Service has not completed an EIS on its national wildlife refuge hunting program.

Response: We do not believe there is a need to do a national EIS for hunting. The House Report (HR 1420) that accompanied the Improvement Act states that, by providing a statutory compatibility standard and requiring the Service to develop and implement a process for compatibility determinations, the Act ensures our management of the Refuge System and individual refuges to fulﬁ ll their missions for the long-term beneﬁ t of the American people. Service policy (603 FW 2) delegates authority to the refuge manager to determine the compatibility of priority public uses, such as hunting.

Comment: The HSUS also states that the draft CCP/EIS violates section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which requires each federal agency to ensure that its actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species. The comments mention the intra-agency consultation process required to fulﬁ ll section 7 of the ESA.

Response: We are well aware of our responsibilities to comply with the ESA and complete its section 7 consultation process. As part of that process, we submitted the fi nal CCP/EIS and an intra-Service section 7 consultation form to our Ecological Services Field Offi ce in Old Town, Maine. The results of that consultation are incorporated in the fi nal CCP/EIS as appendix P.

Comment: Florida Power and Light—Energy (FPL Energy) questioned whether the Service had misused monies from the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund to acquire refuge lands. In particular, they are concerned that we acquired land without the approval of the governor or appropriate agencies of the state affected. We are required to seek approval from state agencies when we wish to acquire land where a power site is located, such as the Errol Hydro Project licensed by FERC.

O-8 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Response: We are not aware of any violation of the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund Act in refuge land acquisition. Further, we submit that this comment is outside the scope and purpose of the CCP and fi nal EIS, which provide management direction over the next 15 years for existing and proposed refuge lands. Those fi nal documents are not intended to provide a detailed history of every tract acquisition. We ask that FPL Energy direct its questions about specifi c tracts to the Northeast Region Chief, Division of Realty, at 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, MA 01035.

Comment: The Maine Land Use Regulation Commission states, “Each of the goals and implementation measures provided in the draft CCP, as part of all three alternatives, appear to be consistent with the Maine Land Use Regulation Commission Comprehensive Land Use Plan. In fact, many of them are exemplary of the Commission’s goals, policies, Vision, and overall purpose.”

Response: We are very pleased to hear that our proposed alternatives are in line with the state’s comprehensive land use plan. Complementing the conservation goals of the state is very important to us.

1.5 Jurisdiction (Letter ID#: 3, 101, 107, 108, 111, 112, 118, 136, 139, 152, 196, 198, 200, 310, 324)

Comment: The comments we received about jurisdiction focused on two main issues: questions about the ownership of lands above the original Great Ponds and the approved FERC boundary (open water); and, water- level management within the FERC boundary.

The comments on issues of land ownership and jurisdiction involved who controls the “open water,” who manages the open water of the lake, and who is responsible for managing access and public use throughout the lake.

Response: Regarding the control of open water, as we state in our original EA (1991), the states of Maine and New Hampshire have the responsibility for navigable waters, and state regulations apply. In certain circumstances, the Service can control temporarily the use of those navigable waters within the refuge when that use affects the refuge purpose. One example is our closing temporarily the waters adjacent to a loon or eagle nest to prevent the disturbance of nesting birds. In all such cases, the Service acts jointly with the respective state, and enforces jointly with that state.

The United States, in establishing the refuge and acquiring shorefront properties, acquired a fee interest in the land between the original Great Ponds and the current shoreline, subject to the outstanding property rights of other parties, primarily, ﬂ owage rights owned by the FERC licensee. That brought to the forefront several questions about jurisdiction as it relates to the license. Over the last few years the Service and FPL Energy, the current licensee of the Errol project, have been working to clarify their respective rights on the lands in which both have some rights. Currently, we do not agree on the extent of the rights FPL Energy owns. We will continue to clarify those rights with respect to the areas between the original Great Ponds and the current shoreline. We based the management goals and objectives in our ﬁ nal CCP/EIS on our understanding of the rights of the United States. We might vary the level at which we implement those goals and objectives if that understanding changes.

When we discuss public use and access in this ﬁ nal CCP/EIS, we are referring to public use on refuge lands. We consider their management to lie within the authority of the Service and the refuge. It is our understanding that we acquired the necessary rights to support the exercise of that authority with the fee interest in the shorefront property.

Comment: Comments regarding water level management highlighted concerns that the proposals in the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS represented an over-assertion of refuge and Service authority within the FERC license area that would have a signiﬁ cant impact on users downstream.

Response: We consider that concern a misinterpretation of what we propose in the draft and the fi nal CCP/EIS. We acknowledge that FPL Energy owns fl owage rights permitting it to fl ow the lands around the original Great

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-9 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Ponds at least up to elevation 1,247 feet USGS Datum. We also recognize that the water level management of Umbagog Lake is FPL Energy’s responsibility under its FERC license, and that there is a process in place to provide input on that water level management under the current FERC license. We clearly state in chapter 2 of the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS, under “Coordinating Umbagog Lake Water Level Management” that, under all the alternatives, we will continue to work cooperatively with the licensee under article 27 of the current license to inﬂ uence water level management. In each alternative, we will work to accomplish its water level management objective through the FERC process. We also state that, in proposing something that lies beyond the terms of the current FERC license, we would be recommending it, but the licensee would be implementing it voluntarily. We are not asserting our authority over water levels beyond that which already exists. See also our response in this document under the sections “Dam Operations” and “Coordination and Consultation.”

Comment: Several comments supported the management, research, and land conservation proposals in the draft CCP/EIS. Some cited consistency with existing plans within the local jurisdiction, and others supported the refuge ability to monitor and study the effects of management actions within one FERC project, and how it can be used to address issues in other FERC projects.

Response: We thank the reviewers for their support, and agree with the beneﬁ ts this proposal provides.

1.5.a Dam Operations

Comment: Several reviewers commented on the role of Umbagog Lake in ﬂ ood control and the maintenance of downstream ﬂ ows. They were concerned about language in the draft CCP/EIS discussing our desire to modify lake levels based on the philosophy of each alternative: for example, in chapter 2 under “Actions Common to All Alternatives,” “Coordinating Umbagog Lake Water Level Management”; in alternative B, goal 1, objective 1.1 and its strategies; in chapter 3 under “Refuge Natural Resources,” Hydrology”; and, in chapter 4, under “Effects on Hydrology and Water Quality.”

Response: We recognize the potential impacts on users downstream and people living downstream of the Errol Dam. We recognize that provisions in the FERC license allow for annual meetings of state wildlife management agencies, the Service, Audubon Society of New Hampshire (represented by the Loon Preservation Committee), and the licensee to determine a scheme of water level management during the wildlife nesting season. The wildlife nesting season is now the only time that outside groups have any infl uence over lake levels. That meeting and the ensuing scheme of lake level management take into consideration any effects on fl ood control and minimum fl ows.

The fi nal CCP/EIS includes the same sections of the draft document we note above. In them, when we discuss the possibility of modifying lake level management outside the wildlife nesting season, we clearly state that our ability to achieve it would depend on our ability to work with the holder of the FERC license for the Errol Project (currently FPL Energy). The limits of the FERC license would constrain any modifi cation of water level management. Therefore, we anticipate no modifi cation of minimum fl ows that would affect pollutant discharge levels for downstream users.

Comment: Other commenters felt that the dam should be managed for a uniform lake level.

Response: The life cycles and survival strategies of many wetland and riparian plants, submerged aquatic vegetation, shrubs, and trees are linked to the seasonal ﬂ uctuation of water levels. Holding water levels steady can impair the ability of those plants to germinate, survive, reproduce, and ultimately, provide food sources for wildlife. For example, wild rice and beggar ticks grow in areas of shallow water and in areas where receding water levels leave “moist soil.” Those species provide a source of seeds necessary for migrating waterfowl. Maintaining a steady water level could result in a decrease in the diversity of wetland plants and the invertebrates that also occupy those shoreline zones. Different bird species also require different water depths for foraging. Seasonal declines in water level provide opportunities for many of those species to ﬁ nd depths appropriate for foraging, particularly during migration.

O-10 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

1.6 Implementation (Letter ID#: 134, 497, 513, 517)

Comment: A few comments stated that we should use funding to do a better job of implementing alternative A. Some speciﬁ cally wanted increased funding for education and recreation programming before, or in place of, expanding the refuge. Some also stated that we were not cleaning up properties fast enough or thoroughly enough.

Response: We developed a CCP that clearly states the desired future condition of the refuge and serves as a master strategic plan for all aspects of refuge operations. The following statement can be found on the inside front cover of the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS: “Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for management decisions and set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes and identify the Service’s best estimate of future needs.”

One sentiment underlying the comments is that we should do better with what we have before proposing or moving forward with expanding the refuge. However, although we propose expanding the refuge and enhancing education programming together as part of alternative B, the funding sources for those programs are not the same, and we cannot use them interchangeably. Our land protection plan does not take funding away from our other planned improvements, many of which the comments mentioned. We propose in alternative B what we believe best meets the mission of the refuge under its present and future conditions. Expanding the refuge land base is one important aspect of that plan to meet wildlife needs, based on changing patterns of land ownership and habitat. Please refer also to our responses in this document under “Land Acquisition” and “Buildings and Facilities.”

The CCP clearly states our desire to “enhance our existing priority public use opportunities.” Please refer also to chapter 2 in the fi nal CCP/EIS, alternative B, goal 4, for the specifi c strategies we recommend to improve our education and recreation programs. See also in chapter 2, under “Actions Common to All Alternatives,” the section “Removing Unnecessary Structures and Site Restoration.” We believe that the goals, objectives, and strategies in alternative B of the fi nal CCP/EIS better match the reviewers’ desire to improve education and recreation programs than do those in alternative A (the “current management” alternative). In other words, in alternative B we are proposing to work toward the reviewers’ desired goals of improving the education and recreation programs and clearing or cleaning up properties we recently purchased.

Once our regional director selects an alternative and approves it in a record of decision, we can start implementing the strategies in that alternative. However, there is one exception. Our land acquisition program is subject to separate funding appropriations and the availability of willing sellers. We believe that the future condition the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS describes, with the exception of the proposed refuge expansion, is similar to the commenters’ expressed wishes. The ﬁ nal approval of a CCP will allow us to work toward our common goals.

1.7 Agency (General comments, including trust and integrity) (Letter ID#: 2, 6, 20, 21, 223, 24, 50, 51, 56, 62, 68, 69, 70, 73, 75, 81, 85, 88, 93, 98, 107, 108, 111, 125, 135, 136, 138, 148, 199, 259, 315, 317, 352, 385, 386, 432, 437, 476, 479, 513, 592, 925)

Comment: Some comments objected to hunting on any refuge. Others commented that the Service is compromising the biological and ecological integrity of refuges by allowing hunting. Those comments refer to the deﬁ nition of the word “refuge” and its apparent conﬂ ict with the word “hunting.”

Response: Please refer to the section “Hunting” in this document, and to the compatibility determination on public hunting in the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS, appendix C, “Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations,” for an explanation of the laws, directives, and policies that direct our management of hunting on national wildlife refuges.

Comment: We received comments about trust of the government, the Service, the refuge, and refuge staff. Some were positive, some negative.

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-11 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Response: We appreciate the support of those support the refuge, the refuge staff, and refuge planning. However, we recognize a certain amount of distrust of the government, the Service, or even individual refuge staff. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1964 (NEPA) was established, in part, to provide for public engagement in and comment on federal actions. NEPA and the Improvement Act have laid a framework that emphasizes a planning process with public involvement during several stages of developing a CCP.

We know that building trust in the local community requires work. We hope that, by describing our vision, goals, objectives, and strategies in the ﬁ nal plan, and involving the public during the planning process, we will improve that level of trust. As we implement that plan over the next 15 years, the public will see that we are accomplishing our goals and objectives, thereby realizing our vision for the refuge. That includes increasing outreach to the community, which we expect to foster improved relations and public trust in our ability to accomplish those goals without adversely affecting the community.

Comment: Several commenters suggested forming a citizens’ advisory group.

Response: We recognize that deﬁ nitions differ on what a citizens’ advisory group should be. Some commenters are looking for better communication between the refuge and the local community. We recognize the value of interacting with members of the public whose lives and livelihoods our refuge management decisions affect. We agree that we can do a better job in that area, and will work to improve communications between the refuge and the public. In addition to improving our involvement in community and civic activities, we plan to host quarterly informal open houses in local community facilities to facilitate communication, as long as the public remains interested.

Others would like to see an advisory group that helps us make decisions about managing the refuge. As a public agency, we must listen to and respond to public comments. At times, that process is formal, as in public involvement in the CCP process; at other times it is informal, as in a conversation with a refuge staff member at any time. We value public input and, in making decisions about refuge management, take into consideration all public input.

Congress has delegated the management of the National Wildlife Refuge System to the Service, and the Service may not legally abdicate that responsibility in favor of any other entity. Accordingly, the Service welcomes public comment and viewpoints of others, but cannot delegate its decision-making responsibilities.

Forming a group like a “Friends Group” to help refuge staff conduct outreach, or advocate for and support the refuge in accomplishing refuge priorities, and/or hosting quarterly meetings open to the public to share individual concerns, opinions, information and viewpoints, is valued and we wholly support these ideas.

Comment: We received several comments about the ﬁ nal environmental assessment (1991 EA) establishing the refuge and its promises to continue traditional use and access.

Response: We consulted that EA, and understand the frustration those commenters voiced. Its language on that subject is often inconsistent or ambiguous. Its lack of clarity led people to form their own deﬁ nitions of what, exactly, the traditional uses are.

The references to traditional uses and access can be found on the second and third pages of its summary and on pages 1, 14, 15, and 29 of its body. The early references are ambiguous, merely mentioning the terms “traditional uses” and “access.” Those terms gain some clarity later in the document, when it specifi cally mentions some uses: timber management, wildlife-oriented public uses [observing and photographing wildlife, hunting, and fi shing], shoreline access, hiking, and cross-country skiing. It further qualifi es those and other uses, as in “when and where they are considered compatible with the primary purposes for which the lands were acquired, in this case to protect eagles, waterfowl, and other wildlife from increased disturbance and habitat degradation” (p. 14), or “where compatible with wildlife management goals” (p. 15).

In our ﬁ nal CCP/EIS, chapter 4, “Environmental Consequences,” this sentence is perhaps the clearest: “Traditional access to the shoreline and wildlife-oriented public uses, such as wildlife observation and

O-12 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR photography, ﬁ shing, hunting, hiking, and cross-country skiing, at existing levels, would be preserved where compatible with wildlife management goals, as at most national wildlife refuges.”

The language we used to clarify the uses “compatible” is specifi c to refuge policies at the time that have since become law in the Improvement Act. They result in the fi ndings of appropriateness and compatibility determinations in the CCP that specify which public uses we will allow on the refuge. Two of the purposes for a CCP (see fi nal CCP/EIS, chapter 1, “Purpose and Need”), are to “explain clearly to state agencies, refuge neighbors, visitors, and partners the reasons for management actions”; and “ensuring that present and future public uses are compatible with the purposes of the refuge.”

We believe that our development of this ﬁ nal CCP/EIS conforms to the intent of NEPA and its regulations. We also believe we have provided sufﬁ cient review and analysis of the existing public uses and ample opportunity for the public to bring up additional ones. We also feel we have addressed all the uses the 1991 EA refers to as “traditional.” The public uses we found appropriate and compatible in the CCP represent the entire list of allowable uses for the foreseeable life of this plan. At their current levels, they do not materially detract from or interfere with the mission of the Refuge System or the establishing purposes of the refuge. Each compatibility determination for a particular use or activity lists the stipulations necessary to ensure its compatibility.

Comment: We received several comments opposing increased regulations imposed by the refuge.

Response: Some of those comments relate to refuge-speciﬁ c regulations on hunting. Please refer to our response in this document under “Hunting.”

Comment: Others opposed increased regulations on public use with no clear explanation of them.

Response: One of the purposes of a CCP (see ﬁ nal CCP/EIS, chapter 1, “Purpose and Need”) is to “explain clearly to state agencies, refuge neighbors, visitors, and partners the reasons for management actions.” We believe we have accomplished that in the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS. Clear explanations of the regulations for all public uses allowed can be found both in the main document and in the relevant compatibility determinations.

Comment: One commenter advocated rebuilding currently strained conservation partnerships, and planning based on sound science.

Response: We agree that good science, combined with a spirit of collaborative partnership, will enhance local, regional and national conservation and improve the management of the refuge. In fact, sound science is a Service policy.

We participate in many conservation partnerships that are strong and are working well. We also remain hopeful that we can rebuild any partnerships that have lapsed or weakened in the past. We look forward to improving those relationships in the future.

Comment: People also were frustrated that the government will do what it wants and not listen to the public.

Response: We have listened actively throughout this planning process, and will continue to do so even after we publish the fi nal plan. We have considered many requests and, although we cannot satisfy every one of them, we have done our best to accommodate them when we could. We have now added compatibility determinations for dog-sledding, certain types of recreational berry-picking, horseback riding, and bicycling. We want the public to feel that their voices have been heard in the modifi cations we have made between the draft and the fi nal CCP/ EIS. We recognize that better outreach throughout the planning process might have alleviated some of the frustration voiced in the public comment period, and are committed to providing additional outreach in planning refuge activities in the future.

1.8 Coordination and Consultation (Letter ID#: 4, 7, 11, 61, 99, 100, 107, 111, 112, 118, 133, 135, 136, 149, 151, 199, 200, 257, 292, 351, 451)

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-13 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Comment: Several reviewers recommended that we include elected local, county, and state offi cials in both Maine and New Hampshire on any offi cial or advisory groups or committees. One reviewer cited a particular need to work with each state governor’s offi ce, departments of fi sh and game, state tourism and parks and recreation.

Response: We believe we have done a good job of including the MDIFW, the NHFG, and NH State Parks throughout the planning process. On the other hand, we recognize that we have not done the same thorough job in informing the governor’s offi ces and local and county offi cials during that process. The fi nal CCP/EIS, chapter 5, “Consultation and Coordination with Others,” mentions our numerous outreach efforts related specifi cally to plan development. Local town and county elected offi cials, our congressional representatives, and the respective governor’s offi ces are on our project mailing list, and received every public notifi cation we sent.

Comment: Several organizations, in addition to their other shared comments, offered their particular expertise in assisting refuge staff in implementing the fi nal CCP: for example, the New Hampshire Community College, the Forest Society, Northern Forest Canoe Trail (NFCT), Rangeley Lakes Heritage Trust (RLHT), and NH Lakes Association. The New Hampshire Community College “would be pleased to work with the refuge management as an educational partner…in educating the next generation about our natural resources.” The Forest Society “looks forward to working with the Service and refuge staff in advancing the conservation goals identifi ed in Alternative B.” The NFCT offered to lend assistance in evaluating camping sites or otherwise supporting activities that facilitate the use of canoes and kayaks along the trail. The RLHT would like to continue their strong partnership with the refuge in identifying conservation lands of high resource value in need of protection by the Service and others. NH Lakes encourages us to use their organization and other non-profi ts dedicated to lake protection as consultants on the Umbagog Lake Working Group. Many others suggested that local and county government representatives, local residents, adjacent landowners, or members of user groups, in particular, should be a part of the working group. One commenter wondered how the working group could resolve user confl icts on the lake without having members from among those groups. The NH Wildlife Federation wants the working group to include hunters and hunter advocacy groups. Another commenter felt that including local and county offi cials would meet two important goals: (1) create a consistent set of law enforcement objectives and protocols, and (2) develop a comprehensive watershed plan to coordinate resource planning and management.

Response: We appreciate the offers of assistance and collaboration, and look forward to continuing to work with our existing partners and develop new ones in implementing the CCP. Please contact refuge headquarters to discuss projects that you believe are of mutual beneﬁ t and interest.

Regarding participation on the Umbagog Lake Working Group, we propose in chapter 2 of the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS, under “Actions Common to All Alternatives,” that the working group membership consist of federal and state agencies with management authority on the lake. As a participant in that working group, we would encourage others to share their information, ideas, or suggestions. We would encourage a regular forum in which the group would solicit others’ input. In response to the reviewer who believes the group should establish consistent law enforcement objectives and protocols and develop a comprehensive watershed plan, we agree that those are desirable goals, but it is also important to recognize the group would not be a statutory or regulatory body, although it would be able to send its recommendations to those federal and state authorities who do set regulations. In that capacity, the goals suggested seem reasonable for the working group to consider.

Comment: FPL Energy highlights in their comments that the draft CCP/EIS in several places fails to identify them as an entity with which we would coordinate lake management activities, particularly those that relate to protecting and monitoring bald eagle, osprey, and loon nests. They refer to draft CCP/EIS chapter 2, pages 2–6, 2–27, and 2–28 as examples.

Response: We correct that omission in the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS, chapter 2, objectives 1.1 and 1.6 under alternatives A, B, and C. We discuss other aspects of the coordination, authority, and jurisdiction under the FERC license agreement under the section “Dam Operations.”

Comment: One reviewer wrote a concern about the failures in collaboration on loon population research among the refuge, the LPC, and other former partners, many of whom were working to conserve loons before we

O-14 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR established the refuge. Their early work was instrumental in identifying the signifi cance of Umbagog Lake for loons. In that commenter’s view, the pursuit of good science has been sacrifi ced, the partnership has fallen apart, and we have lost valuable time in assessing the reasons for the decline of adult loons on the lake, all to the detriment of the loon population. The commenter also states that “LPC would welcome the opportunity, as a stakeholder in this group, to have input into specifi c territory by territory management being considered by the refuge, the FERC licensee, and other government agencies.”

Response: We regret we must acknowledge that our relationship with LPC has become strained. We sincerely appreciate the strong attachments that several people associated with LPC have to the loon project on Umbagog Lake. We also recognize the huge investment in time and effort LPC has made in the conservation of common loons and the long-term loon population data set they have established. We are interested in mending that relationship and broadening our partnerships with other loon scientists and biologists of state and federal agencies.

We respectfully disagree with the comment that good science has been sacrifi ced in recent years. The designs of all our recent research projects underwent peer review, and that review will continue as they progress. The review and scrutiny of the research and monitoring being conducted is to everyone’s benefi t, especially considering the resources being studied. Peer-reviewed scientifi c study that results in land managers, such as refuge staff, making more informed management decisions should be everyone’s goal.

1.9 Document (Clarity, Technical and Editorial) (Letter ID#: 48, 100, 138, 352)

Comment: New Hampshire Audubon thoroughly reviewed the draft CCP/EIS, and noted several technical errors or made recommendations related to our descriptions of habitat or wildlife. Some of those recommendations follow.

■ Chapter 1, in the section “Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding Project,” should include objectives for Bird Conservation Region 14.

■ Chapter 1, in the section “Refuge Goals,” goal 6, should acknowledge and anticipate the likelihood that increasing demands for renewable energy will have impacts on the Northern Forest.

■ Chapter 1, in the section “Refuge Goals,” goal 7, should acknowledge the proximity of the Bartlett and Hubbard Brook U.S. Forest Service Experimental Forests and the importance of coordination.

■ Chapter 2, alternative B, goal 1, objective 1.6, should include the American three-toed woodpecker.

■ Chapter 2, alternative B, goal 1, objectives 1.5 and 1.6, should clarify the management authority of open water and adopt a mussel species as an additional focal species.

■ Chapter 2, alternative B, goal 3, objective 3.1, should add “standing dead wood” in various places where it mentions live cavity trees and coarse woody debris, and include a strategy to establish reserves in each forest type that will not be subject to active forest management.

■ Chapter 2, alternative B, goal 3, objective 3.1, should clarify that outbreaks of spruce-budworm and bark beetle regenerate spruce and ﬁ r forests, but do not convert them to other forest types.

Response: We met with a representative of New Hampshire Audubon to go over the numerous technical comments they provided. We discussed the speciﬁ c changes they recommended, virtually all of which we incorporated into the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS. None of those changes warranted additional analyses in a new draft.

Comment: We received many comments, in writing and at our public hearing, of concerns or confusion about restrictions on berry picking. One reviewer speciﬁ cally commented on that compatibility determination and its stipulations, and referred to it as “bureaucratic overkill.”

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-15 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Response: We revised our compatibility determination for berry picking (see in appendix C “Recreational gathering of blueberries, blackberries, strawberries, raspberries, ﬁ ddleheads, mushrooms, and antler sheds”). Although we recognize that some people will ﬁ nd any restrictions on berry picking unacceptable, we believe our revised compatibility determination is clearer and more reasonable (see also our response in this document under 15.6c, “Berry Harvesting”).

Comment: One reviewer was concerned that the draft CCP/EIS lacks a map or discussion of plans for maintaining roads and trails on the refuge or those on expansion lands, and that the language in the plan was inconsistent about removing roads and culverts and putting roads to bed, while the Fire Protection Plan calls for restoring roads and increasing the carrying capacity of bridges to support ﬁ re trucks and safety vehicles.

Response: In the discussion of alternative B in chapter 2 of the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS, we provide two new maps. Maps 2–8 and 2–9 depict the roads and trails we would keep open for activities on refuge lands and proposed expansion lands. We will put all of the roads and trails we propose for public use on the refuge into the Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) database as assets for scheduled maintenance.

Comment: One commenter feels that the tragic fl aw in the draft CCP/EIS is its economic analysis and faulty discussion of the benefi ts and adverse impacts of the proposed alternatives. In that commenter’s opinion, once we have corrected that information, it will show that alternative A has a higher economic benefi t than has alternative B. The commenter believes the problem with the analysis is so great that either we were incompetent or we deliberately distorted information, which could be construed as fraud.

Response: That commenter acknowledges that, to clarify his concerns, we facilitated his discussing those topics with us and the U.S. Geological Service economist we asked to do our analysis. That economist, well versed in conducting economic assessments for federal land management agencies, used the IMPLAN model, which the FS uses in all their forest plan analyses, as well as Service-funded research publications on the economic impacts of hunting, ﬁ shing, and other wildlife-dependent activities.

In that discussion, the commenter voiced two major areas of concern. The fi rst was that our current estimates of visitation were inaccurate, and underestimated current visitor use by not including wildlife viewing by motorists, dog sledding, ATV use, horseback riding, mountain biking, and other uses. We explained that we had included wildlife viewing motorists, and accounted for a majority of the visits in both the draft and the fi nal CCP/EIS, appendix G, “Economic Analysis,” table G–6, under “wildlife viewing: nature trails and other wildlife observation.” We had not offi cially opened, through refuge appropriateness or compatibility determinations, the other activities the commenter had noted and, therefore, would not have included them in the visitor estimates.

We listened to public comments on access and recreation, and modifi ed our proposal to take into account many of those uses. As a result of public input, we have proposed opening the refuge to the following additional uses with stipulations to ensure their compatibility: horseback riding, bicycle riding, dog sledding, and the recreational gathering of blueberries, blackberries, strawberries, raspberries, fi ddleheads, mushrooms and antler sheds (please refer to chapter 2, alternative B, goal 4, and appendix C, “Compatibility Determinations”). However, we do not have enough information on those uses to estimate the current or expected visits for them. If we modifi ed the analysis in alternative A to account for them, they would also be included in alternatives B and C, and would not create a higher economic benefi t for alternative A.

The second concern was that alternatives B and C misrepresented the increased visitation. For each activity, the economic analysis in appendix G of the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS clearly states the level of visitation that is a transfer of visitors to refuge land from other land, which does not represent a new increase in visitation or economic activity. However, the proposed acquisition of land in alternative B will keep access on those lands open to the public. That visitor access is not guaranteed under alternative A. The commenter acknowledged that the economic report (appendix G) made that clear, but suggested making sure we clarify it in the Executive Summary and ﬁ nal CCP/ EIS chapter 4, “Environmental Consequences.” We have done so in appendix G and chapter 4 by adding footnotes to the corresponding tables.

O-16 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Comment: We heard from many people who criticized the draft CCP/EIS for its size, and how very difﬁ cult it was to give a concise comment or opinion on the hundreds of pages of detailed information.

Response: We appreciate that criticism. The size of the draft when we had ﬁ nally assembled it also surprised us. The complexity of our proposed action, fully analyzing three alternatives, and sharing much of our supporting documentation and analyses in appendixes, increased its bulk. However, our experience in developing other ﬁ nal CCPs has shown that they become a valuable resource continually used by refuge staff and shared with others. We offered many times during the public comment period to explain its contents so that reviewers could direct their attention to particular areas of interest. We also provided an overview of the contents of each chapter in our presentation at the two information sessions in Errol. We realize that not everyone could attend, but we did our best in encouraging people to contact us if they had questions and including contact information in all of our outreach.

2.0 Purpose and Need (Letter ID#: 112)

Comment: One commenter was concerned that the draft CCP/EIS, in chapter 1, under “Refuge Establishment History” and in chapter 3, under “Refuge Administration…Establishment,” portrays only the federal perspective, and does not “reﬂ ect the very important basis for the creation of the refuge…,” which was about partnerships and a mosaic of ownerships that met varying conservation objectives. In that commenter’s recollection, those partners also wanted the refuge established for public recreation and sustainable forestry. The commenter wants the fact acknowledged that many partners with varying conservation objectives, including recreation and sustainable forestry, supported establishing refuge. In addition, the commenter also noted that map 1–2 in chapter 1 of the draft does not recognize the State of New Hampshire conservation easement within the refuge boundary.

Response: The same reviewer provided the comment under “Relationship to Other Planning Processes,” that our land protection implies that federal government controls on land use are superior and preferable to local and state government controls. We are interpreting those comments similarly. Basically, we believe this reviewer is concerned that we have not duly acknowledged or appreciated the many diverse partners working to successfully conserve land in the refuge area. Our response is similar to our response to the other comment: that is, we never intended to imply that federal ownership is always the best or highest priority ownership. We recognize that the refuge, with its ownership of federal land, is only one partner in a huge, successful land protection and conservation partnership in the Northern Forest involving state, private, local, and non-government partners. Fortunately, the relationship among them today is strong; each has assumed an active role in communicating priorities and available resources. We will continue to work toward ensuring that those relationships succeed for the betterment of natural resources in the Northern Forest.

We describe the partnership that was instrumental in establishing the refuge in chapter 3. Please see our revision in chapter 3 of the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS, under “The Refuge and its Resources…Refuge Administration… Establishment.” We also highlight the partnership in chapter 1, issue #2, and in chapter 2, under “Actions Common to All Alternatives…Land Conservation.” In chapter 1, map 1–2 codes the State of New Hampshire easement lands along the shoreline of Umbagog Lake as “conservation lands.”

Comment: One reviewer suggested that the goals and purposes in the draft CCP/EIS differ from those authorized in establishing the refuge. According to this reviewer, the most signiﬁ cant difference was to move away from “protecting the habitat adjacent to the waters of Umbagog Lake and the Magalloway and Androscoggin rivers, to asserting control of the waters themselves that were speciﬁ cally excluded in its formation.” The reviewer continues, “This change is inconsistent with law, and at a minimum, requires a full and thorough discussion and analysis in the EIS.”

Response: The refuge was established for several purposes, including the conservation of wetlands, migratory birds and other ﬁ sh and wildlife resources. It is true that the 1991 EA emphasizes the protection of Umbagog Lake and its watershed. The lake was clearly the focal point of conservation at that time. However, since 1991, we

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-17 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

have learned a great deal about landscape-level conservation in the Northern Forest and the need for large, core areas of forest connected by forested corridors to sustain the movement of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. The assertion that the Service is trying to expand the refuge purpose to assert control of the waters itself is simply untrue. For additional clariﬁ cation, please read our response in this document under “Jurisdiction.”

2.1 Scope No speciﬁ c comments received

2.2. Proposed Action No speciﬁ c comments received

2.3 Refuge Vision and Goals (Letter ID#: 20, 100, 108, 112, 117, 118, 135, 136, 139, 240, 352, 432, 683, 692, 106, 713, 809, 818, 819, 827, 915, 927)

Comment: Many people commented on the proposed name change to “Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge.” Some supported the name change for the reasons we set forth in chapter 2 of the draft CCP/EIS in “Actions Common to All Alternatives.” Others felt the name change was unwarranted, would result in unnecessary, costly changes in refuge signs and brochures, or would detract from the focus on Umbagog Lake.

Response: We stand by our reasoning for the name change under “Actions Common to All Alternatives” in alternatives B and C in both the draft and the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS. Also, we do not agree that the change would incur huge costs. We would need to replace three refuge entrance signs, make use of the brochures and literature we have, and incur the cost of the name-change when we use up those reserves and reprint them.

Comment: One reviewer commented that we made unrealistic assumptions about the timelines for completing future projects. That comment lists more than 20 studies, assessments, or projects to be completed within 1 year of CCP approval.

Response: We agree that the list of studies, assessments, and projects in the draft and the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS is ambitious. However, it is important to recognize that this is a 15-year plan, and the descriptions of some of our strategies include the caveat “as funding and stafﬁ ng allow.” We also list the time frames for starting projects to give a sense of their priority. Some of them are ongoing, established activities, or require only one or two days of input. Some require only a short time: for example, the annual meeting with the FERC licensee.

We adjusted some timeframes as we reconsidered the projects in the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS. We ask our readers to note that partners lead some of the listed projects, such as the inventory of active bald eagle nests. After reviewing our recommendations for the schedule of projects, we believe no change is warranted.

We also would like to reiterate the offi cial Service disclaimer on the inside front cover of the fi nal CCP/EIS: “[This CCP provides] the Service’s best estimate of future needs” and “details program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. These plans do not constitute a commitment for staffi ng increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.”

Comment: We heard from people who suggested modifying the vision and goals to advocate for a refuge that was a true sanctuary for the preservation of wildlife, to protect lands in a “pristine” condition, and minimize human impacts. One person said the refuge should be “preserved as a natural ecological treasure” so that “grandchildren can enjoy [treasures] in the same way we do.”

Response: Writing a vision statement can be very challenging. Service planning policy (602 FW 1.6) deﬁ nes a vision statement as “A concise statement of what the planning unit should be, or what we hope to do, based primarily upon the Refuge System mission and speciﬁ c refuge purposes, and other mandates. We will tie the vision statement for the refuge to the mission of the Refuge System; the purposes of the refuge; the maintenance or restoration of the ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; and other mandates.”

O-18 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

We believe our vision statement captures the intent of the Refuge System mission, refuge purposes, and desired future condition. It emphasizes wildlife and habitat conservation, but also recognizes the importance of humans in the landscape, whether recreating, conducting research, living, or working.

Regarding our goal statements, we also believe they support the Refuge System mission, Service mandates, policies and conservation plans. We mention under “Goals” in chapter 1 of both the draft and the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS that “The biological goals take precedence; but otherwise, we do not present them in any particular order.” We have three biological goals, two public use goals, and one conservation partnership goal. In our opinion, that is a reasonable balance of emphasis on natural resources and human activities.

2.4 Issues Identiﬁ ed During Public Scoping Process No speciﬁ c comments received

2.5 Issues and Concerns Outside the Scope (Letter ID#: 92, 139, 310)

Comment: Several commenters, after lengthy descriptions of how the Upper Androscoggin River storage functions as a system, with Umbagog Lake serving a key role, and all the beneﬁ ts that provides downstream, express concern that our proposals to change the water levels in the lake could have signiﬁ cant impacts on the downstream uses and biology of the refuge, and that the draft CCP/EIS does not adequately address them.

Response: Our response under “Dam Operations” in this document emphasizes that we recognize the provisions in the FERC license, and that the limits of that license would constrain any modifi cations of water-level management. In other words, any changes in water-level management would be in collaboration with the FERC licensee of the Errol project, an entity that, presumably, would be cautious of water-level management that would signifi cantly impact benefi cial uses downstream.

2.6 Monitoring and Evaluation (Letter ID#: 91, 100, 112)

Comment: Some commenters expressed concern about time lines they perceive as unrealistic for the completion of refuge projects, including monitoring and research.

Response: We agree that the time lines for some of our proposed monitoring strategies might be ambitious. In many cases, we are proposing to begin our activities within those time lines, not necessarily to complete them. We also envision using a number of different approaches to accomplish our goals, including cooperative agreements with state agencies and other organizations and contracting some work to academic institutions or others (see also our response under “Refuge Vision and Goals” in this document).

Comment: The commenter supported the proposed cooperation between the refuge and the New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory program, but suggested that we conduct rare plant inventories before we conduct any timber harvest or other management activities that might affect communities of unique or rare plants. The commenter also suggested that we conduct plant inventories prior to the 7-year period proposed in the draft CCP/EIS.

Response: We agree with the commenter’s emphasis on the importance of inventorying and monitoring. One prominent strategy we list under most of the habitat types we describe in our discussion of alternative B in chapter 2 of the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS is to implement a monitoring plan to assess the baseline community composition of both animals and plants. We have already inventoried the vegetation of two of our major wetland complexes (Leonard Marsh and Harper’s Meadow), and have established permanent plots that we will continue to monitor.

In terms of timber management, chapter 2, alternative B, goal 3, “Manage upland forest habitats…General Strategies,” proposes that we “conduct resource surveys prior to forest management to ensure that resources of concern are identiﬁ ed and impacts minimized or eliminated.” We have already conducted or are conducting

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-19 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

baseline avian and amphibian surveys in many of our forested habitats. As we indicate above, we intend to carry out comprehensive pre-management surveys prior to all our proposed timber management, to identify any rare plant communities or other resources of concern in the area of, or likely to be affected by, our proposed activity (refer to ﬁ nal CCP/EIS appendix C, “Compatibility Determination for Forest Management”). We will modify those management actions to minimize their impacts. We will prioritize surveys and inventories so that the habitats targeted for early management activity will be inventoried ﬁ rst. Although we will strive to inventory all our habitats as soon as is feasible, we feel that a 7-year time frame is a reasonable one for accomplishing this task.

Comment: One commenter suggested monitoring suites of bird species rather than focal species.

Response: We view our focal species as representing the suite of species with similar habitat requirements (refer to chapter 2, alternative B, “Introduction,” in the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS). However, our ongoing annual breeding bird surveys monitor all bird species detected from point count stations along survey routes, not just our focal species. Breeding bird surveys have been carried out continuously since 1999, and should make it possible for us to carry out the types of species richness analyses the commenter suggests.

Comment: One commenter advocated that we “put wildlife ﬁ rst,” on the refuge, and incorporate an inventory and habitat management plan for all species, including lynx, into the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS. That commenter emphasized the importance of monitoring the impacts of public use on wildlife, particularly the impacts of snowmobile activity.

Response: We recognize the importance of inventorying and monitoring species and habitats to successfully accomplish our mission (see response above). We also recognize the importance of monitoring the impacts of public use and our management activities on wildlife and habitat. For those reasons, we list surveying and monitoring as strategies under most of the habitat types in the discussion of alternative B in chapter 2 of the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS.

We have already carried out surveys on a wide variety of natural resources and habitat types, including vernal pools, various groups of avian and mammal species (including lynx), aquatic invertebrates, and a number of wetland and upland forest vegetation communities. We also started surveys or research on summer visitor use and the impacts of disturbance on wildlife. For a description of our approach to inventorying and monitoring on the refuge, refer to “Implementing and Prioritizing a Biological Monitoring and Inventory Program” in chapter 2 of the fi nal CCP/EIS. We will incorporate detailed habitat management and inventorying and monitoring plans into two step-down plans: a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) and an Inventory and Monitoring Plan (IMP). Developing them will be a high priority after we complete the fi nal CCP (see fi nal CCP/EIS chapter 2, under “Actions Common to All of the Alternatives…Developing Refuge Step-down Plans”). Those plans will address the specifi cs of managing and monitoring all refuge natural resources, including rare, threatened, or species of concern, such as Canada lynx.

Although we have not inventoried resources with the potential to be impacted by snowmobile trails, the compatibility determination for snowmobiling (see appendix C) calls for such an inventory, in the section “Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility.” Other stipulations include evaluating and potentially rerouting trails likely to negatively affect refuge resources (see also our response in this document under “Snowmobiling”).

2.7 Cumulative Effects (Letter ID#: 37, 98)

Comment: We received one comment that the CCP did not fully analyze the cumulative impact of all proposed activities affecting the environment and wildlife inhabiting the refuge.

Response: We note the comment, but contend that the analysis of cumulative impacts was sufﬁ cient for this ﬁ nal CCP/EIS.

O-20 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Comment: One commenter stated that the CCP must look at “the cumulative impacts of hunting on wildlife, migratory birds, and non-hunting refuge visitors at refuges throughout the Refuge System before permitting hunting to continue via CCP.”

Response: We note the comment, but contend that the analyses of cumulative impacts we completed, not only for this ﬁ nal CCP/EIS but also for the 2007 EA of public hunting, were sufﬁ cient.

3.0 Alternatives (Letter ID#: 16, 319, 597, 600)

Comment: A few commenters suggested that we take certain actions from one alternative in the draft CCP/ EIS and combine them with those of another. For example, one reviewer stated, “Although I favor the habitat management policy of alternative B, I prefer the larger boundary conﬁ guration of Alternative C.” Some people stated that many of the objectives we identify under alternatives B and C could be achieved on existing refuge lands without the extensive building of infrastructure.

Response: We have shared the suggested combinations with our regional director, who also has reviewed this document. He will decide whether to adopt one of the alternatives in the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS in its entirety or select speciﬁ c actions from among the alternatives for the ROD.

3.1 Alternative A: Current Management (Letter ID#: 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25, 30, 35, 50, 51, 56, 64, 65, 71, 72, 73, 76, 77, 82, 84, 86, 93, 97, 102, 105, 107, 110, 111, 125, 133, 135, 137, 153, 199, 307, 312, 315, 360, 363, 364, 370, 375, 386, 394, 470, 473, 476, 479, 483, 492, 497, 507, 513, 517)

Comment: We received comments both for and against alternative A, for a broad range of reasons. Some generally supported it, while others cited speciﬁ c reasons against it: for example, it adds too many regulations, denies public access, or we should manage our current land base more effectively before we expand it.

Response: We will start implementing the strategies in the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS after it is approved. That will happen independently of the expansion of the refuge, which depends on the availability of funding and willing sellers. In other words, we believe that the future condition we describe in alternative B, our preferred alternative (with the exception of the refuge expansion), is similar to the future condition the commenters desire. The approval of a ﬁ nal CCP allows us to work toward those goals. For comments relating to funding sources, the better management of the current refuge prior to expansion, and further discussion of those issues, please refer to our response in the “Implementation” section, below.

We acknowledge that the public had access to much of the land now under refuge ownership long before the refuge was established. We appreciate the tradition of outdoor recreation in the area, and the close ties people feel to the land. We also recognize that many have used the land responsibly, and their impacts have been minimal. As public land managers, we are responsible for ensuring that the levels and types of public use do not compromise the establishing purposes of the refuge. For that reason, we need to consider whether increasing the levels of public use might affect refuge resources, or the uses might conﬂ ict with one another. We also recognize the importance of outdoor recreation for the local economy.

We intend to maintain the designated roads in a way similar to the way previous landowners maintained them: periodic major maintenance of designated roads, especially before, during, and after logging operations. The rest of the time, refuge staff and private contractors will perform only minor maintenance until we need the roads again for management purposes. We will allow the public access at their own risk over the designated roads in their current conditions. For comments and further discussion of access, please refer to “Road System” and “Access.” We reserve the authority to close designated roads at any time due to adverse or unsafe conditions, which was also the practice of past landowners.

One of the purposes for the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS in chapter 1, “Introduction,” is to “explain clearly to state agencies, refuge neighbors, visitors, and partners the reasons for management actions.” We believe that we have

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-21 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

accomplished that in the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS. Clear explanations of the regulations for all allowed public uses can be found both in the main document and in the relevant compatibility determinations.

Comment: Many who generally favored alternative A did so because they oppose expanding the refuge.

Response: Please refer to our response in this document under the sections “Implementation” and “Land Acquisition.”

Comment: We received a few comments that the refuge was unnecessary, and that wildlife species could take care of themselves. One mentioned that enough money has been spent already on wildlife, and that the area population of some species is increasing, such as eagles, black ducks, and ring-necked ducks, showing that what we are doing is working.

Response: We note the comment, and would like to refer the commenter to the ofﬁ cial need for the refuge stated in the 1991 EA, “Proposal to Protect Wildlife Habitat Adjacent to Lake Umbagog”: “The Service recognizes previous land use patterns and private land stewardship as having maintained the unique wildlife values of the study area in the past. However, increasing demand for lakeshore lands and rising pressures for subdivision and second-home development are extending north to the Umbagog area. There is growing concern over increasing potential for timberland sales to large land development corporations.” Please see also our response in the section “Social Values” for a synopsis of the change in ownership patterns since 1991.

Comment: Commenters expressed the sentiment, especially at local public meetings, that the ﬁ nal alternative could be decided by a vote or show of hands, and that the response at those meetings was indicative of all public sentiment regarding the refuge and the planning process. Some stated that the feelings of the local residents should not be outvoted by the larger population outside the local area.

Response: The Service has been directed by Congress to make the fi nal decision on a fi nal alternative to be selected on behalf of the United States, and the Service may not legally delegate this decision to any subset of the Nation’s citizens. We held public meetings and solicited public comment in compliance with NEPA, and have taken all comments into consideration in formulating the fi nal CCP/EIS. As a federal agency, we recognize that our decisions more directly affect local communities, and do our best to balance local needs with national interests and responsibilities. We have made several changes between the draft and fi nal documents that refl ect local interests, such as adding compatibility determinations for berry-picking, horseback riding, dog-sledding, and bicycling, with stipulations, and changing some of our proposals for boat launches.

All ﬁ nal decisions also must take into account the establishing purposes of the refuge, along with the laws, directives and policies that govern refuge management. For additional discussions of them, please refer to our responses in this document under “Access,” “Hunting,” and “Uses Determined Inappropriate”.

We received 14,269 separate comments on the draft CCP/EIS, 13,848 of which were organized, form letter responses. We received the remainder (421) at public hearings or in individual letters. The refuge staff read all of the comments, and considered them in preparing the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS.

3.2 Alternative B: Service-preferred Alternative (Letter ID#: 4, 18, 19, 40, 61, 68, 69, 79, 81, 87, 89, 93, ,95, 99, 100, 101, 104, 109, 111, 117, 122, 126, 128, 133, 134, 136, 137, 143, 149, 151, 152, 155, 196, 233, 306, 308, 340, 359, 363, 398, 402, 899)

Comment: Some comments we received in favor of alternative B, the Service-preferred alternative, mentioned its wildlife management, habitat management, protection of biological diversity and biological integrity, watershed protection, enhanced opportunities for public use, and protection from development as reasons to support it. Other comments favored its active habitat management and targeted management strategies with measurable indicators.

O-22 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Response: Thank you for your comments. We appreciate them.

Comments: We also received comments suggesting that we combine the management of alternative B with the land expansion of alternative C.

Response: We thank the commenters for their support, and refer them to the introductions to alternatives B and C in chapter 2 of the fi nal CCP/EIS for our reasoning on the size of their proposed expansions. The planning team continues to support the modifi ed refuge expansion proposal in alternative B in the fi nal CCP/EIS.

Comments: A few comments speciﬁ cally opposed alternative B. They stated that it would be detrimental to local citizens from an “economic and civil liberties standpoint.” Others expressed concerns about restrictions on recreation.

Response: Please refer to our response in this document under “Local Economy” and “Property Taxes,” the revised analysis of economic impacts in chapter 4of the fi nal CCP/EIS, under “Impacts on the Socioeconomic Environment,” and appendix G, “Economic Analysis.” Most of the comments related to perceived restrictions on access or recreational uses. In response, we have reconsidered our proposals for several public uses. In addition to the uses allowed in the draft CCP/EIS, alternatives B and C in the fi nal CCP/EIS propose to allow dog sledding, the recreational gathering of blueberries, blackberries, strawberries, raspberries, fi ddleheads, mushrooms and antler sheds, horseback riding and bicycling. Please refer to our responses in this document under “Priority Public Uses,” “Access,” “Other Public Uses,” “Remote Camping,” “Boating,” “Snowmobiling,” “Hiking,” “Uses Determined Inappropriate,” “Horseback Riding,” “Berry Harvesting,” “Dog Sledding,” and “Other non-motorized Recreation” for discussions of our modifi cations for those activities in the fi nal CCP/EIS.

3.3 Alternative C (Letter ID#: 4, 48, 62, 91, 103, 109, 111, 132, 133, 141, 151, 1518, 199, 233, 239, 240, 266, 273, 291, 315, 342, 344, 347, 349, 363, 3998, 451, 454, 575, 597, 631, 642, 696, 702, 708, 709, 713, 720, 721, 722, 726, 753, 767, 771, 790, 799, 823, 853, 855, 857, 864, 875)

Comment: A large volume of comments supported alternative C. Most of them speciﬁ cally mentioned the refuge expansion, restoration of ecological processes, connectivity with other conserved lands, and the long- term protection of the area. They also cited alternative C as a long-term solution to habitat fragmentation and degradation of ecosystem function.

Response: Those comments generally recognize the refuge role in the larger landscape for the future. We agree that a larger refuge expansion would further protect the watershed of Umbagog Lake and increase the connectivity of habitats and conserved lands. We also appreciate the sentiment that the size of the proposed expansion under alternative C does the most in protecting land for future generations.

However, we feel that most of those values and processes will occur under our preferred alternative B. Furthermore, the conservation of wildlife and habitat in the Umbagog Lake area has been, and will continue to be, a partnership among the federal and state governments working alongside conservation organizations and private interests. We believe that partnership approach best serves wildlife conservation, and that our partners might protect some of the area proposed in alternative C.

Comment: Others mentioned a preference for alternative C because of its potential to provide a more primitive experience, by eliminating motorized recreation (typically snowmobiles) or segregating the refuge into areas of motorized or non-motorized use.

Response: We agree that the management philosophies in alternative C of the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS provide increased opportunities to enjoy a primitive experience and solitude. Although those recreational values are important to many commenters, we must balance our mission with local, regional and national interests to achieve our goals. We believe we can optimize wildlife habitat management by implementing alternative B while effectively providing priority uses and other public uses.

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-23 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Although designating wilderness areas would restrict motorized use, our wilderness review of the current refuge (see appendix D, “Wilderness Review,” in the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS) found that it lacks large, contiguous blocks of land suitable for wilderness designation. However, non-motorized recreation is the only available means of travel in the areas without roads on the refuge. Visitors who want to experience the refuge under their own power might ﬁ nd satisfaction in those areas. If our regional director were to choose alternative C for implementation, then future wilderness reviews could result in proposals to designate wilderness areas.

Comment: Opposition to alternative C came from commenters who believe that it proposes purchasing too much land, which would result in an adverse impact on the local economy and the local way of life, especially if it imposed restrictions.

Response: We note the comments, and appreciate that concern. Please refer to appendix G, “Economic Analysis,” in the fi nal CCP/EIS for an update on economic impacts. Also, please refer to our responses in this document that relate specifi cally to recreational uses of the land to see what changes we made between the draft CCP/EIS and the fi nal CCP/EIS. After public comment and considerable reconsideration, we have allowed more public uses in the fi nal.

3.4 Actions Common to All Alternatives (Letter ID#: 100, 112)

Comment: We received a few comments about “Actions Common to All Alternatives” in chapter 2 of the draft CCP/EIS. They either supported generally, or were speciﬁ cally in favor of, protecting rare habitats and systems and expanding the Floating Island National Natural Landmark.

Response: We appreciate those favorable comments.

3.5 Actions Common to Alternatives B & C Only (Letter ID#: 21, 112, 137, 163, 168, 248, 408)

Comments: The comments compiled under this heading included support for either alternative B or C, or both, or a hybrid of the two. Other comments compiled under this heading critiqued the forest management plan in appendix K.

Response: Our responses in the sections “Alternative B,” “Alternative C,” and “Upland Forest Matrix Habitats and Species” address those comments.

3.6 Alternatives or Actions Considered but Eliminated (Letter ID#: 31, 112)

Comment: One commenter wanted us to reassess managing refuge forested lands as a commercial private timber company would. The comment states that public lands are important as demonstration areas for good management practices, while ensuring the conservation of wildlife habitat along with timber production. It further states that the timber produced from public lands is important in supporting the forest products economy, and that the revenue provided by timber sales could support the management of public lands.

Response: We agree with the comment that public lands are important demonstration areas, which is one reason we propose a Land Management Research Demonstration Program (LMRD) for the refuge in goal 7 of alternatives B and C in chapter 2 of the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS. That is especially true for objective 7.2, “Outreach for Research and Applied Management Program,” an objective in both alternatives.

As we state in chapter 2 of the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS, under “Alternatives or Actions Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study,” operating in a way similar to that of a commercial private timber company would not meet the goals and objectives we have established for the refuge. Although our ultimate goal is wildlife management, we

O-24 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR also intend to use commercial harvest techniques for habitat management, and believe that they will be effective and proﬁ table. We intend to use the revenue from timber sales to support habitat management. Please refer to our economic analysis in chapter 4 of the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS and in appendix G, “Economic Analysis,” for our discussion of the anticipated impact on the forest product economy, as well as our responses in this document under “Upland Forest Habitat” and “Land Acquisition.”

Comment: The same commenter urged us to work with the Natural Heritage Bureau for assistance with speciﬁ c strategies for protecting and managing sensitive wetland systems.

Response: We appreciate the comment, and plan to work with the bureau on future projects.

3.7 Range/Comparison of Alternatives (Letter ID#: 96, 98, 107, 152, 292)

Comment: One commenter stated that the process we used in developing the range of alternatives was exemplary. However, others were critical. Some commented that many of the actions we propose in alternatives B and C could be done on existing refuge lands. Another felt that none of the alternatives represented “what the people in the area want.”

Response: We thank those who complimented our range of alternatives and the detailed analysis that accompanied it. We must respectfully disagree with those who felt we did not develop and evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives. We believe we developed a reasonable range, given the purpose and need of the document and the purposes for which the refuge was established (see fi nal CCP/EIS chapter 1). Those who felt that many of the actions we propose in alternatives B and C could be done on existing refuge lands appear primarily to oppose the refuge expansion proposal. We will alert our regional director, who will make the fi nal decision on which actions to implement, about public concerns over refuge expansion. He will also have the chance to review all the public comments. In making his fi nal decision, he has the authority to choose an alternative as we present it in the fi nal CCP/EIS, or select from among the alternatives a combination of the actions we evaluate. The commenter who felt that none of the alternatives refl ected what locals want did not provide any specifi cs, so we cannot respond directly to that comment.

Comment: One commenter suggested we scale back our inventorying, monitoring, and biological research, because all that activity around wildlife might be disturbing them.

Response: Alternative B in chapter 2 of our ﬁ nal CCP/EIS proposes a level of inventorying, monitoring, and biological research that we think is reasonable and commensurate with the funding and resources we seek over the next 15 years. In our opinion, doing less would not meet our Service or Refuge System missions or the purposes for which the refuge was established.

Comment: One commenter felt that evaluating a reasonable range of alternatives should include an alternative without sport hunting. That person felt that our incorporating the 2007 EA we prepared for the refuge hunt plan, which did include a “no hunt” alternative, constrains the range of alternatives.

Response: The Improvement Act establishes hunting as a priority public use on national wildlife refuges. We have an established, quality hunting program on the refuge. We evaluated it, including public comment, in 2007. It is not unusual, and fully within NEPA regulations, to incorporate by reference the decision in a relatively recent NEPA document, which is what we have done in referring to the hunt plan EA decision in the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS.

3.8 New Alternatives Proposed by Commenter (Letter ID#: 110, 138, 152, 292)

Comment: One commenter proposed we relocate refuge personnel to other refuges, and let nature take care of the refuge. Then we should compare who did the better job.

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-25 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Response: We do not feel that would be prudent or responsible. We believe that we have analyzed a sufﬁ ciently wide range of alternatives, as we discuss in the previous section. Eliminating staff from this refuge would not meet the purpose and need of the proposed action, nor would it meet the purposes of the refuge or the mission of the Refuge System. We would not be able to offer services and programs on the refuge, which many people enjoy. Furthermore, closing major areas on the refuge to protect resources and ensure visitor safety might become necessary. The diminishment of those beneﬁ ts would be a big loss to the community.

Issues with individuals or the collective refuge staff fall outside the scope of this document. Those should be raised with the Refuge Supervisor —North, stationed at our Northeast Regional Ofﬁ ce in Hadley, Massachusetts.

Comment: Another commenter stated that a fourth alternative might be to expand the present refuge boundaries (approximately 6,000 acres) to the original conservation partnership proposal deﬁ ned in the 1991 EA establishing the refuge.

Response: We appreciate that comment, but feel that, in light of the current changes in patterns of land ownership and use, the need for watershed protection, and the species needs identifi ed in conservation plans for the region (see in chapter 1 of the fi nal CCP/EIS “Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project”), a broader land conservation effort is needed. We believe that we have analyzed a suffi cient range of alternatives (see previous section).

Comment: Another commenter suggested that we manage the refuge for mature forests.

Response: We appreciate the comment, but do not feel that it warrants an entirely new alternative. Please refer to our response in this document under “Upland Forest Matrix Habitats and Species.”

4.0 Refuge Physical, Biological and Socioeconomic Resources (Letter ID#: 6, 16, 35, 50, 86, 87, 90, 91, 101, 109, 111, 112, 114, 118, 120, 121, 128, 131, 134, 137, 152, 158, 160, 229, 230, 248, 256, 269, 308, 315, ,320, 326, 341, 345, 346, 364, 388, 393, 415, 428, 431, 434, 445, 592, 594, 596, 600, 604, 624, 625, 626, 627, 631, 678, 685, 710, 717, 804, 809, 835)

Comment: We received several comments on the value of conserving lands and ecosystems in the Northeast, where human population densities are high. Some individuals expressed the desire to see land protected both for wildlife and recreation as well as for research. Some felt that expanding the refuge might contribute economically, through increased tourism, or might help mitigate global warming. One pointed out the economic value of the “natural services” intact ecosystems provide, including the storage of ﬂ oodwater, protection of water quality, prevention of erosion, etc.

Response: We thank those commenters for their support of our proposed land protection. We agree that our land protection plan is likely to protect wildlife habitat and offer recreational opportunities. Keeping land from being developed, and maintaining it in a generally forested condition, is also likely to promote carbon sequestration. We also expect economic beneﬁ ts to accrue to the local community from the expansion, programs, and management of the refuge.

Comment: Some commenters expressed a preference for the quiet that comes with the absence of motorized vehicles.

Response: Final CCP/EIS appendix D, “Wilderness Review,” presents our rationale for not proposing any part of the refuge for wilderness designation (a designation that would prohibit motorized activity). Certain areas of the refuge will remain inaccessible to motorized vehicles, and might provide the desired solitude. Please refer to our responses in this document under “Other Non-motorized Recreation,” “Access,” “Priority Public Uses,” “Boating,” “Off Road Vehicle Use” and “Snowmobiling, Alternative C”

Comment: A number of commenters opposed the refuge expansion. Their reasons included concerns about negative economic impacts on the local community, including the loss of forest-related jobs, and concerns about losing access or opportunities for recreation. Some commenters also felt that the refuge should do a “better job

O-26 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR with what they have” before we consider any expansion. Others thought we were not considering the needs of people enough.

Our analysis in the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS chapter 4, “Environmental Consequences,” under “Socioeconomic effects of Alternative B,” and in appendix G, “Economic Analysis,” projects an overall increase in visitation and economic beneﬁ t that would be greater under alternative B than it would under alternative A. Because alternative A lacks a timber harvest, but alternative B offers one, we can expect alternative B to contribute more to the local forest products economy (refer to chapter 4; also chapter 2, alternative B, goal 3; and appendix K, “Forest Management Guidelines”). We expect that the owners will have removed the harvestable timber from most of the land we purchase. The jobs generated by timber harvesting would continue before the sale, and would also continue on private lands around the refuge. We would like to remind our readers that we would acquire land over many years, and that change would be gradual. Should we acquire well-stocked, harvestable forests, we would apply the forest management techniques we describe in the CCP to improve wildlife habitat, during which time, and periodically throughout the management of those habitats, the employment driven by forest products would continue. Please refer also to our responses in this document under “Social and Economic Values,” “Local Economy,” and “Tourism.”

We listened to the public comments on access and recreation, and have modifi ed our preferred alternative B in the fi nal CCP/EIS to take into account many of those concerns. As a result of public input, we propose in chapter 2, alternatives B and C, to open the refuge for the following additional uses, with stipulations to ensure their compatibility: horseback riding, bicycle riding, dog sledding, and the recreational gathering of blueberries, blackberries, strawberries, raspberries, fi ddleheads, mushrooms and antler sheds. Appendix C, “Compatibility Determinations,” presents our rationale for each of them. We believe that alternative B offers the best opportunity to improve our habitat and species management as well as our visitor services, and would allow us to do a “better job with what we have” than we could do under alternative A. Also refer to our responses in this document under “Land Acquisition,” “Implementation,” “Priority Public Uses,” “Other Public Uses,” and “Other Non-Motorized Recreation.”

Comment: Several commenters expressed the support for alternative B and our proposed focal species habitat management, conservation of the mixed matrix forest, and enhancement of priority public uses.

Response: We thank them for their support of our proposed refuge management priorities.

Comment: Some commenters expressed concerns about the implementation of the preferred focal species management approach under alternative B. They warned that the proposed refuge forest management strategies for certain species, such as woodcock, might result in the fragmentation of habitat for other focal species that depend on large blocks of unfragmented, closed canopy forest.

Response: Although we considered that concern in our planning team discussions, we have now made it more explicit in the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS. We intend to develop a forest habitat management plan that takes into account the refuge- and landscape-level impacts of our management activities. As one commenter noted, many of our upland focal species require large blocks of unfragmented habitat, or require a generally forested landscape. To be effective over time, our management will need to provide the appropriate structure, patch size, and connectivity those focal species require.

The objectives and strategies the fi nal CCP/EIS lists under goal 3 of alternative B mention that we would use a range of silvicultural approaches in forest management, consistent with site capability, to benefi t federal trust species and other species of conservation concern. We do not intend to use all of those harvesting methods on every acre of upland habitat. Instead, we will tailor our approach to specifi c site conditions and the requirements of our focal species (including their patch size requirements), using each method only where it is appropriate. Although some of our forest management activities might, in the near term, reduce habitat suitability for some species in some areas, our objective is to create and sustain functioning blocks of habitat on the landscape over the long term. Most of our focal upland bird species share similar requirements for relatively large blocks of closed-canopy forest, so our managing for those species should not create confl icts among our management approaches (see fi nal CCP/EIS appendix N, “Process for Establishing Alternative B Focal Species”).

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-27 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Our management for species that require larger openings, such as the American woodcock, would concentrate in designated woodcock focus areas (see fi nal CCP/EIS, chapter 2, map 2–2, “Woodcock Focus Areas”), thus leaving large blocks of forest that we will manage primarily for our other focal species. For the 15-year span of the fi nal CCP, we are also proposing to concentrate active forest management primarily in our low resource sensitivity zone (see fi nal CCP/EIS appendix K, map K-1 and table K–1). Much of the refuge consists of forested wetlands and some forested uplands that are included in our “high resource sensitivity zone” and will not, for the most part, be subject to signifi cant active timber management. Those will provide substantial areas of unmanaged forest for species that require interior forest (map K–1; also refer to our responses in this document under “Upland Forest Matrix Habitats and Species”). We also do not anticipate acquiring large blocks of well-stocked upland forest in the proposed expansion area over the 15-year course of the plan. That makes signifi cant commercial timber harvesting on new acquisitions unlikely during that time.

Comment: Several commenters expressed their confusion over how we prioritized refuge habitats for management, particularly in appendix N, table N–5. They were concerned that we assigned several types of wetland habitat a lower priority than some types of upland forest habitat, and that our management might favor those upland types at the expense of the wetland types. They also questioned our designating the American black duck as a focal species, when it is hunted.

Response: The fi nal CCP/EIS, appendix N, “Process for Establishing Alternative B Focal Species,” states that the conservation of wetland habitats is our highest priority (see section 3.1 and table N–1). The conservation of federal trust resources is also part of the Refuge System mission and a high priority for the refuge. We recognize that table N–5 might have been confusing, and changed it to help clarify it. It shows the habitat types we intend to manage actively over the next 15 years, and their associated focal trust resources. We do not intend it to establish a hierarchy of conservation priorities. The table includes boreal fens and bogs and cedar habitats as a moderate management priority, and some mixed forest types as a high management priority, because we feel that our upland spruce-fi r and mixed woods habitat types would require active management over the next 15 years, while we anticipate little active management of our bogs and cedar swamps during that period. We would direct our resources at the fen and cedar habitat types, but our strategies would focus on acquiring and protecting the wetland types, rather than more active management. We have no intention of managing refuge upland habitat types at the expense of wetland types. We will only implement forest management using the methods, and in areas, that will not impact wetlands (see fi nal CCP/EIS appendix K, “Forest Management Guidelines,” map K–1).

We identifi ed the American black duck as a focal species for management primarily because of its status as a trust resource, its dependence on wetlands, the emphasis it received in the 1991EA establishing the refuge, and its importance in a number of avian conservation plans (see fi nal CCP/EIS chapter 2, alternative B, goal 1). We consider federal trust resources all migratory birds, including waterfowl, that we are mandated to conserve. That mandate applies to migratory bird species, regardless of whether they are hunted. The hunting of black ducks and other waterfowl is managed on a fl yway basis, to ensure against over-harvesting (see also in this document our response under “Hunting”). Although populations of the black duck historically have declined, they are now stable or increasing. Our management for black duck habitat will help keep populations stable, and will aid in improving habitat quality for other wetland-dependent species with similar requirements.

Comment: One commenter supported our making the control of invasive species a high priority. That commenter supported the use of herbicides, where appropriate.

Response: Controlling and preventing invasive species is a high priority for the refuge (see ﬁ nal CCP/EIS chapter 2, under “Actions Common to All of the Alternatives…Control of Invasive Plant Species…Strategies”), and we will continue to work with state agencies and other organizations on this issue. Please refer to our response in this document under “Open Water and Wetland Habitats and Species: Invasive Species.”

Comment: One comment advocated a mix of natural processes and focal species management. The commenter felt that natural processes could be relied on to adequately sustain a healthy ecosystem without human intervention. However, that person also recognized that, if some species were at risk, they might require additional help.

O-28 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Response: Although we agree that, over the long term, natural disturbance regimes help sustain native ecosystems, the refuge is starting from a baseline landscape that has been substantially modifi ed by human activities (primarily timber harvesting) over the past several hundred years and is now facing the additional stress of future climate change. We believe that the management strategies we propose in the fi nal CCP/EIS, alternative B, would help facilitate the more rapid development and maintenance of high-quality habitat than we would expect to see under an exclusively natural disturbance regime, given the human-modifi ed baseline and stressors we face now. A focal species management approach also enables us to prioritize our trust resources for management. However, because much of the refuge consists of non-forested and forested wetlands that we include in our high resource sensitivity zone, and will not, for the most part, be subject to signifi cant timber management, we expect substantial areas of essentially unmanaged habitat, where natural processes will predominate. (See map K-1 in fi nal CCP/EIS appendix K, “Forest Management Guidelines”; refer also to our responses in this document under “Upland Forest Matrix Habitats and Species” and “Alternative C.”)

Comment: One state agency offered to cooperate in ﬁ re management on the refuge.

Response: We welcome that offer, and appreciate its support.

5.0 Refuge Administration (Letter ID#: 18, 20, 64, 97, 107, 108, 110, 111, 112, 128, 135, 307, 375, 392)

Comments: We received a few comments about our current and proposed administration of the refuge. Some opined that we have done a commendable job. Others questioned our capacity to manage the refuge.

Response: We would like to thank those who commented in support of our administration. We strive to accomplish as much as we can with the resources we are provided. We appreciate your support.

We understand the comments that question our ability to manage the refuge at its present size. Although the fi rst purchase of land in 1992 established the refuge, we have purchased most of the present refuge since 2000 (see fi nal CCP/EIS appendix A, “Land Protection Plan”). Since that time, we have conducted baseline surveys of wildlife, while performing basic operations (administration, maintenance, etc.) and planning. We also have been working through our internal systems to identify projects and acquire funding. Completing the fi nal CCP will help facilitate funding for, and the completion of, projects throughout the refuge.

Comment: One comment mentioned the lack of funding from Congress, and how that restricts our capacity to manage the refuge.

Response: Although we agree that the Service budget has suffered cuts over the past few years, the funding for the current fi scal year markedly improved. Workforce planning in the region, as well as nationwide, combined with increased attention from Congress, put the Service in a favorable position to increase its fi eld station management capability. Please refer to our response in this document under “Staffi ng and Funding” for more on this comment.

Comment: We received one comment questioning what the refuge has done to facilitate public use.

Response: To date, we have constructed our current headquarters, with a visitor contact station, picnic tables and restrooms. We have also constructed the Magalloway River Trail, with its parking area and overlook. We have maintained open access to boat launches and many logging roads. We have constructed and placed waterfowl blinds, and have also maintained remote campsites on refuge property. Where we have purchased property, we have facilitated public use by eliminating the potential for a private landowner to close the property to public access or use.

Please refer to chapter 3 in the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS, under “The Refuge and its Resources,” for a description of what we provide to facilitate public use. Chapter 3 describes the management condition of the current refuge and

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-29 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

the speciﬁ c programs and services we offer. That current management is also represented by alternative A in chapter 2, “Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative.” A map depicting the current and proposed public use can be found in the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS, chapter 2, map 2–5 (alternative A, “Current Management”), and maps 2–8 and 2–9 (alternative B, “Service-preferred Alternative”). Those represent the present and future improvements of public use in each alternative.

Comment: We received another comment seeking clarifi cation between the fi rst and last paragraphs of the draft CCP/EIS, chapter 3, in the section “The Refuge and Its Resources…Establishment.” Specifi cally, the comment seeks clarifi cation on what takes precedence, the 1991 EA that proposed the refuge or Congress’ establishing purposes for it. The commenter also asks if preserving existing land uses can be incorporated as a supportable objective and, if not, does that doom the long-term use of conservation easements within the refuge boundary.

Response: When we evaluate land use within the refuge, we consider both the 1991 EA that established it and its offi cial establishing purposes. However, the establishing purposes take precedence, according to the Improvement Act and related policies. As a federal agency, we must comply with federal laws and policies. When Congress passes a new law, it might supersede previous refuge management decisions or documents. For example, the Service compatibility policy changed between 1991, when we wrote the EA, and 1997, when the Improvement Act became law. We cannot predict future laws, but we have done our best to describe in the fi nal CCP/EIS the desired future condition of the refuge, based on the EA and current infl uences, including federal laws and policies.

We seriously considered public comment in evaluating public use of the refuge. We also consulted the 1991 EA in making decisions and preparing planning documents like the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS. Compatibility policy, as deﬁ ned by the Improvement Act, requires the refuge manager to determine whether a use is compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established. For more on this topic, please see our response in this document under “Priority Public Uses.”

We cannot incorporate all of the existing land uses (such as commercial timber harvesting) as stand-alone objectives in this plan. Not all uses would be considered part of our mission, even though we might use some as management tools, e.g., commercial timber harvesting. Some historic land uses, such as commercial timber harvesting, are management activities, and we believe that the fi nal CCP/EIS clarifi es our intent to use that management activity to achieve our habitat management goals. Because timber harvesting is inherent in our habitat management strategy, we do not feel it necessary to raise it to the level of an objective in the fi nal CCP/EIS. Please refer to fi nal CCP/EIS appendix C, “Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations”; appendix K, “Forest Management Guidelines”; and fi nal CCP/EIS chapter 2, alternative B, goal 3, for additional discussions on our preferred alternative and forest management.

We see no reason why the operation and administration of the refuge described in the fi nal CCP/EIS would preclude the long-term use of conservation easements within the refuge boundary. In fact, we have included the use of conservation easements in our preferred alternative and in our land protection plan (see fi nal CCP/EIS appendix A, “Land Protection Plan” and the discussion in the objectives in goals 1–3 of alternative B in chapter 2 of the fi nal CCP/EIS. Map 2–6 in that chapter graphically presents our plan for easements under our preferred alternative.

Comment: Others commented on the proposed name change. We received some positive comments that the name better reﬂ ected refuge management, while others felt it would be too costly to change the name.

Response: We stand by our recommendation to change the name of the refuge to the Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge. We detail our rationale in chapter 2 of the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS, under “Actions Common to All of the Alternatives.” In summary, the present name has caused a fair amount of confusion about the refuge and its responsibilities, and we believe the new name better represents the broader geographic context and management emphasis of the refuge in all of the alternatives.

Comment: Another commenter was concerned about leased lands and the impact that buying and letting those leases expire would have on the local economy, since the lease payments return to the local towns in the form of payments in lieu of taxes.

O-30 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Response: We stand ﬁ rm on our decision to honor current leases, purchase camps on leased lands from willing sellers, and allow the leases to expire at the end of their 50-year terms. It is true that those lease payments contribute to a general fund that, in turn, is used to fund refuge revenue sharing payments to local towns. Each year, Congress appropriates additional funds for those payments, which are calculated by formulas also determined by Congress. See our discussion in chapter 2 of the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS, under “Actions Common to All Alternatives…Distributing Refuge Revenue Sharing Payments.”

Comment: One commenter was concerned about our accumulating rolling stock (SUVs, pick-up trucks, snowmobiles, boats and trailers, backhoes, loaders, a grader, tractors, or dump trucks) that would require the construction of a new maintenance facility and thus, more real property requiring maintenance.

Response: We believe two issues arise in that comment. The ﬁ rst is a criticism of the number of vehicles and heavy equipment the refuge acquired, in comparison to the number of its permanent staff. The second is the construction of the maintenance facility and its long-term maintenance.

We have acquired a fl eet of six vehicles and six boats for the refuge. We agree that number exceeds the number of current, full-time, permanent staff (four and one-half refuge staff and one regional biologist). However, that comparison does not take into account seasonal or volunteer staff and research personnel. For example, during the 2008 fi eld season, refuge staff numbers will swell to 20, with 15 interns, researchers, Youth Conservation Corps members and volunteers assisting the permanent staff. The comparison also does not take into account the fact that the workforce planning resulting from diminished budgets reduced the number of full-time staff at the refuge in 2006. It is now more cost-effective for the refuge to keep the number of vehicles and boats that it has, than to pay more to lease the boats and vehicles annually to meet our demands. The staffi ng charts in appendix H of the fi nal CCP/EIS show that we plan to increase our permanent staff to implement our preferred alternative. As before, when staff numbers increase, it is more cost effective to maintain the current fl eet than to lease or purchase new vehicles and boats.

As for the number of heavy equipment items and specialty use vehicles like snowmobiles, we carefully consider present and future workloads and maintenance needs when we acquired them. We acquired some of them from other refuges or as excess property from the Department of Defense at little or no cost. We consider the costs of renting equipment and contracting when we consider purchasing a piece of equipment, to ensure that the cost- beneﬁ t ratio outweighs the other options. We feel we have acquired the equipment appropriate for performing our duties, whether a winter animal track survey, road maintenance and other duties in support of our annual work plan or to meet the future needs of the refuge.

Like all government agencies and large private companies, the Service maintains a regional and national equipment replacement program. That program uses the mileage, age, level of use, and condition of equipment to determine its replacement priority. As for the maintenance shop, it was not built to accommodate the number of vehicles, boats, snowmobiles and heavy equipment the refuge uses. We built it to provide the refuge with a centrally located facility to improve the efﬁ ciency of our operations and refuge maintenance functions. Those include building and roads maintenance, habitat management, and equipment maintenance, just to highlight a few. The building is a standard-design pole barn with metal siding walls and roof.

Comment: A few comments voiced the concern that the refuge manager has too much control over the public uses on the refuge. Some recommended that decisions should be made by a committee that includes local residents and businessmen, while others suggested that the refuge manager should not be able to stop a public use at his discretion.

Response: We understand the comments. However, some of the language the commenters are responding to comes from the Improvement Act and subsequent Service policy on appropriateness and compatibility. That law and subsequent policies are national in scope, beyond the scope of this ﬁ nal CCP/EIS. We considered several public uses, and determined that their current level did not materially interfere with or detract from the purposes for which the refuge was established. Should those uses rise to a level that interferes with or detracts from those purposes, it would compel the refuge manager, as the primary steward of the refuge, to document the issues

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-31 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

and modify or close the uses. Every compatibility determination includes stipulations necessary to ensure the compatibility of the use. Ensuring that those stipulations are satisﬁ ed is essential in keeping a use compatible.

Congress has delegated the management of the National Wildlife Refuge System to the Service; the Service may not legally abdicate that responsibility to any other entity. Accordingly, the Service welcomes public comment, and the viewpoints of others, but cannot delegate its decision making responsibility.

5.1 Land Acquisition (Letter ID#: 6, 12, 15, 19, 26, 30, 32, 33, 35, 40, 42, 48, 50, 60, 67, 71, 80, 81, 83, 85, 86, 87, 91, 96, 97, 99, 101, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 118, ,119, 124, 128, 129, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 141, 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153, 158, 162, 164, 166, 167, 169, 172, 173, 175, 176, 179, 183, 186, 187, 192, 199, 202, 207, 214, 222, 224, 227, 228, 230, 232, 233, 236, 237, 239, 240, 245, 246, 253, 260, 263, 265, 267, 273, 274, 275, 282, 288, 290, 296, 307, 308, 309, 313, 315, 318, 319, 320, 321, 325, 326, 336, 337, 340, 342, 344, 346, 347, 348, 350, 360, 364, 375, 378, 379, 383, 386, 388, 393, 396, 398, 400, 403, 421, 423, 425, 426, 427, 428, 432, 436, 437, 441, 442, 447, 4448, 451, 454, 610, 693, 713, 196, 876)

Comment: We received many comments for and against additional land acquisition. Most of them supported our expanding the refuge land acquisition program.

Response: We thank those commenters for their support of our proposed land acquisition program. We believe it will signifi cantly advance our ability to meet refuge habitat goals and objectives for the wildlife species the fi nal CCP/EIS identifi es.

Comment: The majority of the comments opposing land acquisition expressed a concern that it would reduce access, restrict permissible activities, and produce additional, burdensome regulations. Those comments generally also supported alternative A, because of its more limited land expansion. The commenters were concerned particularly that we would eliminate or restrict hunting, ﬁ shing, snowmobiling, using ATVs, and development on any new lands we acquired. One comment expressed a desire for things to “remain the way they are.”

Response: The Improvement Act identiﬁ es hunting, ﬁ shing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation as the six priority wildlife-dependent public uses that are to receive enhanced consideration in refuge planning. Our mandate is to provide high-quality opportunities for those priority uses when they are compatible with refuge purposes, goals, and other management priorities.

We intend to facilitate or remain open to those wildlife-dependent uses, when they are compatible, on the existing refuge and on any new lands that we acquire. (See also our responses under the sections on hunting, ﬁ shing, interpretation and environmental education). Although the refuge might regulate certain uses to ensure their compatibility, we believe that we have now accommodated most of the uses brought up in the public scoping process (see ﬁ nal CCP/EIS appendix C, “Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations,” and our responses in this document under “Priority Public Uses,” “Other Public Uses,” “Access,” “Snowmobiling,” “Horseback Riding,” “Hiking,” “Other Non-Motorized Recreation,” “Berry Harvesting,” “Dog Sledding,” “Alternative A,” and “Alternative B”).

We intend to extend to any new lands we acquire the approach we have taken on the access and public use of current refuge lands. The refuge is closed to ORV use (see responses in “ORV Use” and “Uses Deemed Inappropriate”), and we continue to stand by that decision. Development also is precluded on the refuge, and would not be permitted in the proposed acquisition area on either easement or fee ownership. Given the changing patterns of land use and ownership in the Umbagog area, we believe that our acquisition of additional land provides a greater certainty of long-term public access.

Comment: Several local camp owners and lessees expressed a concern that plans in alternative B of the draft CCP/EIS, particularly its proposed new structures, trails, parking areas, and viewing platforms, would have a negative impact on their quality of life.

O-32 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Response: Although we expect some increased disturbance of local residents and wildlife as a result of expanding our public use program, we feel our proposal represents a balance between accomplishing our public use goals and objectives and protecting wildlife and the environment of the refuge and its neighbors. Also, please see our response about the Potter Farm under “Buildings.”

Comment: Some commenters opposed land acquisition because of concerns about inadequate funding and the ability of the refuge to maintain newly acquired buildings, roads, or land. Some expressed the sentiment that the refuge wastes money, is not doing a good job of maintaining buildings or taking care of property now and, therefore, could not be entrusted with properly maintaining new acquisitions, or, that the refuge “ﬁ nish its current plan” before undertaking a new one. Some disapproved of how the refuge manages land: e.g., “projects are a waste of money and not of particular value to wildlife or to enhance the natural experience for people.”

Response: We discuss our desired future condition for the refuge in our vision statement and throughout our preferred alternative B in the fi nal CCP/EIS. As we state on the inside front cover of the fi nal CCP/EIS, these plans provide long-term guidance for management, strategic planning, and program use. They do not constitute a commitment for increased operational funding. We believe that recent cuts in funding due, in part, to increases in federal spending on disaster recovery and wars, infl uenced some of those comments. Under our present budget and its potential increases in the future, we believe that we will have suffi cient funding to act on the recommendations in the preferred alternative.

“Actions Common to Alternatives B and C Only” in chapter 2 of the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS clariﬁ es our intent to keep open certain roads as designated routes of travel. Also in chapter 2, maps 2–8 and 2–9 in alternative B display the roads we would keep open. We intend to maintain them in a way similar to that of the previous landowners: that is, perform major maintenance as part of habitat management operations, (e.g., logging), and minor maintenance between management cycles. Please refer to our response in this document under “Access” for a more detailed response on road maintenance.

We also have clariﬁ ed our desire to provide various public use facilities and buildings, as funding allows. We will consider the funding for their maintenance before we build them, to ensure that our budget can provide a high-quality experience for refuge visitors. Furthermore, constructing new facilities, such as the maintenance building, is crucial in accomplishing our mission. Before we build them, we will consider the cost of operating and maintaining them.

We remove the camps we acquire as funding becomes available (see “Alternative B” in this document). We have removed 15 camps, and plan to remove another four this year. We will review the sites of the camps we removed previously, clean up any debris remaining, and plant trees as needed. We do not plan to continue to maintain any camps, and will work toward restoring them to their appropriate habitat conditions.

The only houses or properties we will maintain, other than administrative facilities, are our “quarters” buildings: the Stranger house, the Carman house, the Coffi n house, and the Costello house. We use them primarily as housing for temporary and permanent staff. The full-time permanent staff pay rent, which we use to maintain the quarters. This year, we housed researchers in the Costello house, which is now scheduled for demolition. Thereafter, we will maintain the other three buildings as refuge quarters. After reviewing the refuge quarters program, we consider that number suffi cient for meeting the need. We disagree with the comment that projects undertaken by the refuge are a waste of money. The projects at the refuge benefi t its purposes, goals and objectives. We design them to handle a commercial level of use and minimize maintenance costs. Their design draws upon our experience in managing public use in our agency and other agencies nationwide. We put out every project for a competitive public bid, and award it to the lowest bidder, as all government agencies do.

We recognize the sentiment underlying the comments that we should do better with what we have before proposing or moving forward with the refuge expansion. We have proposed an alternative that we believe best meets the mission of the refuge under its present and desired future conditions. An expanded refuge land base is one important aspect of that plan, designed to meet the needs of wildlife, based on changing patterns of land

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-33 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

ownership and habitat. Alternative B in the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS proposes we work toward the desired goals of the commenters by improving education and recreation programs and clearing or cleaning up recently purchased properties. Please see also our response in this document under “Implementation.”

Comment: A number of commenters were concerned about a loss of tax revenues by local communities or an increase in property taxes if we acquired more refuge land. Others felt it would restrict public use, reduce the number of visitors, and have a negative impact on the local economy. One individual felt that the public “should not have to compete with government on buying a home, property, or seasonal camp.”

Response: We listened to those concerns, and re-evaluated our acquisition strategies. As a result, we increased our acquisition of easements in the towns that a potential loss of tax revenue would affect most. The annual payments from the refuge revenue sharing program further mitigate impacts on property tax. As part of our review of the analyses in the draft CCP/EIS, we realized we had not accounted for a special tax rate on forest lands in the State of Maine. That new information, coupled with our recommendation to change some of the proposed fee acquisition in Maine to easement acquisition, resulted in a revision we believe is both credible and accurate (see appendix G, “Economic Analysis,” in the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS and “Property Taxes” in this document).

Our economic analysis of expanding the refuge shows a moderate increase in the number of visitors and a positive impact on the local economy (see our responses in this document under “Local Economy” and in fi nal CCP/EIS appendix G). Expanding the refuge would benefi t the local economy both directly, by increasing the expenditures of the refuge for goods and services in the local community, and indirectly, by increasing the number of visitors to the area and a concomitant increase in their expenditures. We feel that expanding the refuge would maintain public access on those lands by protecting them from private development. Even under the descriptions of alternative A (no expansion) in appendix G, the refuge provides a substantial economic benefi t for the local community, and plays a role in attracting increasing numbers of visitors to the area. Our economic analysis shows that, under alternative A, the refuge management activities in all refuge operations generate an estimated $1.45 million in local output. Under alternative B (refuge expansion), we estimate that value at $2.72 million, an increase of $1.27 million. Under alternative C, we estimate that value will increase to $2.84 million.

Under its willing-seller-only policy, the Service purchases property only from willing sellers at fair market value (i.e., the reviewed, approved, appraised value). Under that policy, private landowners might choose to whom they sell, and are not compelled to sell to the government, nor do we pressure them to do so.

Comment: Many commenters urged us to acquire land only from willing sellers, and refrain from pressuring private landowners to sell.

Response: We agree with that comment (please see our previous response about our willing-sellers-only policy), and remind our readers that we have no desire to pressure private landowners to sell.

Comment: Generally, the commenters who supported the refuge expansion also supported the land acquisition components of alternative C or, to a lesser extent, alternative B. The primary reasons they cited were conserving as much land as possible, protecting wildlife, natural resources, and ecosystems at the landscape scale, and preventing development. Other reasons they mentioned included keeping the area wild, restoring natural ecosystem processes, linking with other land conservation efforts in the region to provide more contiguous habitat for wide-ranging wildlife, protecting air, water and habitat quality, providing more ﬂ exibility in protecting land, and protecting land for future generations. Some commenters highlighted the importance of providing habitat for woodcock and other birds of conservation concern. Several expressed a sense of urgency about acquiring land. One stressed that we could defer or change our decisions about land management later, but the land needed to be protected now, while the window of opportunity is still open.

Response: We concur with the comments of those who emphasized the urgency and importance of acquiring land in conserving habitat and wildlife around Umbagog Lake and providing connectivity with other conserved lands. However, we feel that the land we propose to acquire in alternative B is of sufﬁ cient size to provide the ﬂ exibility we need to achieve our habitat management goals and objectives. For the rationale underlying the size of our

O-34 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR proposed preferred expansion, please refer to the introductory sections of alternatives B and C in the ﬁ nal CCP/ EIS, as well as our responses in this document under “Alternative B” and “Alternative C.”

In the fi nal CCP/EIS, alternative B, goal 3, objective 3.1 proposes to establish woodcock focus areas on approximately 2,600 acres of the refuge and proposed expansion area, where we would manage forests primarily for the American woodcock, Canada warbler, and other species with similar habitat requirements. For the location of the woodcock focus areas, see map 2–2 in chapter 2 of the fi nal CCP/EIS. In those areas, we would promote understory development and early succession habitat, using 8- to 10-year cutting cycles on a 40-year rotation. For additional discussion, refer also to chapter 2 in the fi nal EIS/CCP, alternative B, goal 3, objective 3.1, sub- objective 3.1d, “Woodcock Focus Areas.”

Comment: A number of commenters supported refuge land acquisition because they felt that Service ownership was more likely to preserve continued public access. They expressed concern that increasing private ownership and changes in the timber industry from “industrial forest landowner to the short-term investor owner” might result in curtailing public access. One commenter argued that the public would have more input on decisions about public access and land use under federal government ownership than it would under private land ownership, particularly if distant corporations were involved.

Response: We agree that the changing patterns in land use and ownership have the potential to threaten public access on much of the land in our proposed expansion area. That was one of the factors we considered in designing the proposal. It is also true that the CCP process provides an avenue for the public to be heard in ways generally impossible when the landowner is a private entity. Because the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS sets our management direction for the next 15 years, public input has a substantial impact. We welcome and appreciate the comments of those who took the time to participate in the planning process, and hope you will stay involved as the plan moves forward.

Comment: Some commenters favored acquiring easements more than acquiring fee title, while others were comfortable with the use of either method as appropriate. The proponents of acquiring only easements argued that they would be less costly, more cost-effective, easier to fund, and could accomplish conservation goals in a way more acceptable to the public. Some commenters felt that, over the long term, easement acquisition was more likely to continue traditional uses such as forestry and recreation than fee acquisition was. One felt that our purchasing easements might help reduce the amount of “liquidation” logging before we purchased them. The same commenter suggested that, if we owned easements, we could leave our timber management in support of habitat needs in the hands of private owners of timberland, relieving us of the need to hire a forester and allowing refuge staff to concentrate on wildlife. One commenter who supported both easement and fee acquisition suggested that the proportion of fee title to easement should remain ﬂ exible to accommodate different landowners, and should not be tied to a speciﬁ c ratio. Another suggested that easements require “vegetation management for habitat improvement.”

Response: The Service can acquire only the rights the landowners are willing to sell. If they are interested in selling only easements, then those are what we will purchase. Conversely, some landowners might be interested in selling fee title. In some cases, buying fee title might be more cost-effective than buying an easement, if buying the fee title costs only slightly more than buying the easement does. We agree that we must remain ﬂ exible in our negotiations, as one commenter suggested.

We recognize the value of easements in some situations mentioned by several commenters, and have increased the proposed percentage of land under easement from 35 percent to 44 percent in the expansion area. In addition, our ﬁ nal CCP/EIS, appendix A, “Land Protection Plan,” primarily targets wetlands and adjacent areas for fee acquisition. The fee ownership of wetlands, sensitive areas, and adjacent uplands is more likely to give us the most ﬂ exibility in managing them. We feel that their sensitive nature makes having a higher level of management control desirable. Our proposed easement areas are concentrated at higher elevations, in areas of upland forest (see appendix A and map A–1 for our proposed areas of fee and easement acquisition and the rationale behind them).

We expect the acreage of the upland forest we own in fee title to be sufﬁ cient to warrant hiring a forester, either as a contractor or, when funding permits, as a permanent staff member. That will help us develop a comprehensive

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-35 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

forest habitat management plan that meets our speciﬁ c goals and objectives for wildlife management, and helps ensure the continuity of our forest management. Because our goals are likely to differ from those of adjacent landowners, we feel that hiring a refuge forester will help ensure that wildlife habitat management remains our primary focus. From our perspective on the refuge, forest management is “concentrating on wildlife,” and we will expect the refuge forester to work closely with staff biologists in accomplishing speciﬁ c objectives for wildlife.

Generally, we would structure refuge easements to protect forest land and allow habitat management. Again, the landowners will determine what easement rights they are willing to sell. For details on structuring easements, see appendix A, “Land Protection Plan,” in the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS.

Comment: One commenter suggested that, instead of trying to acquire land, we place more emphasis on supporting and collaborating in state and local protection.

Response: We fully support the partnership approach to land conservation, as in the one for establishing the refuge. In the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS, chapter 1, maps 1–1 and 1–2, and in appendix A, “Land Protection Plan,” we include other conservation in the Upper Androscoggin River watershed and the approximately 170-thousand- acre study area adjacent to the refuge. To develop a landscape-level conservation perspective in developing our proposal, we reviewed conservation efforts adjacent to that study area adjacent to the refuge. We applied a partnership philosophy on preserving access, managing timber, conserving land, and managing wildlife in the Upper Androscoggin River valley and the Connecticut River headwaters. By reviewing past successes, such as the Connecticut Lakes headwaters project, the Pingree conservation easement, the Errol town forest, and the conservation-minded management of the Second College Grant by Dartmouth College, as well as ongoing initiatives by the two states through the forest legacy program, we designed our proposal to accomplish our stated goals and objectives efﬁ ciently and complement those of others.

On that landscape, expanding the refuge expands the federal role in wildlife management. Other partners are playing other roles. Various ownerships are conserving various traditional uses and access. We are facilitating hunting, ﬁ shing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation on the refuge. Additional uses are being facilitated on other lands. Those efforts are conserving all aspects of access in the northern forest on a mosaic of land ownership in the Upper Androscoggin watershed. We continue to adhere to that spirit of cooperation, and will facilitate state and local conservation when and wherever possible. We reiterate our commitment to cooperative land protection in appendix A, “Land Protection Plan,” in its section on “Protection Options.”

Comment: One commenter proposed that we restrict refuge land acquisition exclusively to the wetlands associated with the current refuge. Others suggested that we acquire fee ownership of wetlands and rare vegetation communities, and acquire easements in upland forest so that timber harvesting could continue.

Response: As we fi ll in the present refuge acquisition boundary, our highest priority for fee acquisition will become the wetlands and “water bodies of high value” we identify in appendix A, “Land Protection Plan.” The present refuge is not an island; the continued health of its fi sh and wildlife populations and vegetation communities depends on the health of the surrounding ecosystem. The lands we target for fee acquisition in the proposed expansion area are primarily wetlands in the Umbagog Lake watershed that could have direct effects on the health and water quality of its aquatic systems. We also targeted for fee acquisition the upland areas adjacent to those wetlands, because land use practices on those uplands can dramatically affect the water quality and integrity of that wetland ecosystem. We also identifi ed for fee acquisition the uplands that are important for trust species of special concern, and areas that provide connectivity with adjacent conserved land or are at high risk of habitat loss. Our owning those uplands in fee title is likely to give us the most control over management practices. We concentrated our proposed easements in areas of upland forest, as the commenter suggested (see appendix A and map A–1 for the areas and rationale behind our proposed fee or easement acquisition).

Comment: Another commenter urged us to seek the ownership or management of U.S. Navy training lands located in Reddington, Maine.

O-36 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Response: The Navy SERE training facility at Reddington, Maine, is not on the BRAC list (Base Closure and Realignment Act), and our considering it falls outside the scope of the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS.

Comment: Several commenters felt it was inappropriate to use “wildlife dollars to purchase land for motorized use,” and supported land acquisition for non-motorized activities only. They urged us to facilitate non-motorized recreation and provide more opportunities for back-country camping. Others advocated limiting back-country camping. One urged us to decommission as many roads on the refuge as possible.

Response: Although designated wilderness areas generally restrict motorized activities, the refuge lacks wilderness status (see fi nal CCP/EIS appendix D, “Wilderness Review”). The mission of the Service focuses on the conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitat, although we facilitate priority public uses, when they are compatible. Therefore, we do not seek to acquire land purely for recreational uses, either motorized or non-motorized (including camping). Instead, we seek to acquire land that fulfi lls our management purposes. We have mapped certain roads as designated routes of travel that will be open for motorized vehicles (fi nal CCP/EIS, chapter 2, map 2–8), and have designated additional trails for snowmobile use (fi nal CCP/EIS, chapter 2, map 2–9). We will allow the use of motorized vehicles only on those designated routes, and will close smaller roads and skid trails to vehicular traffi c (please refer to our responses in this document under “Roads,” “Access,” and “Snowmobiling”).

The refuge is closed to ATVs and other off-road vehicles (see our response under “Off-Road Vehicle Use”). We feel that those who prefer non-motorized travel will fi nd satisfactory the areas of the refuge that are inaccessible to motorized vehicles. In the fi nal CCP/EIS, alternative B, goal 4, we describe additional interpretive or nature trails and other routes that we have designated for non-motorized use. We designated some of them for non-motorized use from spring through fall, but allow snowmobiles on them in the winter. Map 2–9 in chapter 2 of the fi nal CCP/ EIS shows their proposed locations. Back-country camping is available on the refuge at a number of designated sites administered by the New Hampshire Division of Parks and Recreation. Those campsites all pre-date the establishment of the refuge. We feel that the opportunities now available for back-country camping on the refuge are adequate, particularly when combined with the opportunities available elsewhere, such as the White Mountain National Forest. We are not proposing any additional designated campsites in the proposed expansion area.

Comment: One individual questioned the market value of land indicated in the draft CCP/EIS, appendix A, “Land Protection Plan.”

Response: We based our estimate of land market values in the CCP on the values of wetland and previously harvested upland forest. That was only an estimate. If we are fortunate enough to purchase land from willing sellers, we will determine its actual market value in a detailed appraisal to professional and federal standards.

5.2 Buildings and Facilities (Letter ID#: 3, 7, 9, ,35, 50, 56, 59, 60, 63, 64, 70, 72, 73, 75, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 97, 101, 102, 107, 110, 111, 112, 130, 135, 142, 147, 149, 151, 153, 164, 165, 168, 169, 172, 174, 257, 283, 292, 315, 318, 323, 330, 340, 341, 343, 360, 364, 379, 385, 441, 451, 454, 455, 470, 483)

Comment: One commenter pointed out that some of our proposed refuge construction and management activities (such as the construction of a new boat launch and forest management) might require state permits, and the ﬁ nal CCP should acknowledge that.

Response: We thank the commenter, and agree that we should obtain all permits pertaining to the refuge that are required by law. That is also Service policy. We have applied for required local and state permits in the past, and will continue to apply for them in the future.

Comment: One commenter urged us to target energy-efﬁ cient technologies in purchasing vehicles and constructing or maintaining buildings.

Response: We agree with that suggestion. All new federal buildings are designed to comply with federal energy laws and regulations (cf. 10 CFR 435). Service policy requires that new construction implement the most cost- effective, energy-conserving design that is consistent with resource objectives. Director’s Order No. 144 (2002)

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-37 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

directs us to “reduce our reliance on traditional fuel-based vehicles.” The priorities and schedules governing vehicle replacement are determined at the regional and national level. However, the vehicle we acquired most recently was a hybrid.

Comment: Several commenters felt that we were not properly maintaining or removing old buildings, or cleaning up and properly restoring old building sites on the refuge to their natural state, and felt that was also creating an eyesore. One claimed to have observed equipment, nails, plastic, and other debris at such a site. Some questioned why buildings were being “taken off the tax rolls” and used to house “dignitaries,” staff, and other refuge visitors. The commenters felt that we should not purchase new “camps” before tearing down and cleaning up old ones.

Response: As funding becomes available, we remove the camps we acquire. We have removed 15 camps, and plan to remove another four this year. We will review the sites of camps that we tore down, clean up any debris that remains, and plant trees as needed.

The standard practice throughout the Refuge System is to maintain quarters for Service employees, seasonal employees, interns and volunteers. That provides us with the ability to recruit staff for short periods (temporary, seasonal, project speciﬁ c, volunteer, or quick-response staff, such as law enforcement). Providing government housing is a very cost-effective tool for managing refuge stafﬁ ng needs. All full-time Service staff now living in government housing are required to pay rent. The rents are used to maintain the refuge quarters.

After reviewing the Lake Umbagog refuge quarters program, we consider the current level of housing to be suffi cient for the need. We maintain four “quarters” buildings: the Stranger house, the Carman house, the Coffi n house, and the Costello house. We have already scheduled the Costello house for demolition, but are quartering researchers there for this fi eld season. Thereafter, we will maintain three buildings as quarters.

Comment: Another commenter criticized us for not cleaning up the old dump site at the Day Flat area in Wentworth Location.

Response: In reviewing that site for contaminants before purchasing it, we found it had been closed according to state standards and was not an environmental hazard. Nevertheless, over the past several years, groups from the Youth Conservation Corps have worked at cleaning up small, surface debris at that site. We intend to continue that in the future.

Comment: One commenter felt that the signs marking the refuge boundary along Lakeview and River roads were unsightly.

Response: The signs mark the external boundary of the refuge land we own in fee title. Marking that boundary helps the public understand when they are on the refuge. We designed and placed the signs in accordance with Service policy on the approved design and placement of signs.

Comment: We received comments either supporting or opposing our proposal to relocate the refuge headquarters to the Potter Farm site. The supporters felt that site would provide the necessary space, was more centrally located, would help promote “nature-based tourism,” and was the “best site [for public education] on the lake.” One commenter stated that preserving the Potter Farm would help visitors understand the history of the area. Those who opposed the selection of the Potter Farm site cited a number of reasons, including the excessive cost, the poor condition of the building and foundation, the condition of the Potter Farm road, the need to bring utilities over a long distance, the difﬁ culty of maintaining the long road, and the fact that our present headquarters building is relatively new. Some felt that acquiring additional land would be a better use of refuge dollars than establishing a visitor center at the Potter Farm. Others felt that restoring the Potter Farm site to natural conditions was more in keeping with the refuge mission. Several commenters felt that the decision to relocate the refuge headquarters to the Potter Farm was made to beneﬁ t the staff, rather than the public or wildlife.

Response: We thank the commenters who supported the move. A site selection committee, which included representatives from Maine and New Hampshire, the Town of Errol, the refuge, and our regional ofﬁ ce, evaluated several potential sites. Oak Point Associates, a consulting ﬁ rm, also reviewed them, and concluded that the Potter

O-38 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Farm site was the most suitable for our criteria. (For those criteria, refer to “New Refuge Headquarters and Visitor Contact Facility” in chapter 2 of the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS, under “Actions Common to All of the Alternatives.”)

To accomplish the public use goals and objectives in the fi nal CCP/EIS, we concluded that the Potter Farm site was the best location to develop those facilities. In the selection process, we considered the costs associated with the construction and maintenance of the roads and facilities. The remote character of the Potter Farm, its access from both water and land, and the variety of habitats in the area were key factors in our decision. We will conduct a cost-benefi t analysis before deciding whether to restore or replace the structure. We included the site of our present headquarters with the other sites we evaluated in the selection process, but rejected it due to its limitations. Please be aware that the funding for land acquisition comes from separate, dedicated sources; we cannot use it for construction or maintenance. The benefi ts of the move for refuge staff were not one of the criteria in the site evaluation process.

Comment: One commenter asked that we consider the economic impact on the local community of siting a new refuge headquarters, and consider alternatives like siting it on State of New Hampshire land or at the marina at the south end of the lake. Others proposed siting it in the Town of Errol, as part of our cooperation with the town. One commenter felt that locating the visitor center in areas already receiving public use would result in fewer disturbances.

Response: Our primary purpose in moving the headquarters and visitor center to the Potter Farm site was to accomplish our public use goals and objectives (see previous responses). Tying people to nature is best accomplished through hands-on experience requiring on-site trails and facilities. We determined that the Potter Farm, a previously developed site, possessed the access and quality of environment necessary to accomplish those goals and objectives. We have reviewed the suggestions to consider state-owned land or the privately owned marina at the south end of the lake, but uphold our decision for the Potter Farm.

Comment: One commenter felt that unresolved issues of land ownership and access might impede our plans to site a visitor facility at the Potter Farm.

Response: We are unaware of any access issue affecting the Potter Farm, but will consider and address all such concerns before we develop those facilities.

Comment: One commenter felt that the new boat launch on the Magalloway River had been paved unnecessarily, and had been overbuilt if it was only going to be used as a car-top boat launch.

Response: The boat launch was built to the established standards for the type and level of use we predict. Because we identiﬁ ed that project as a refuge operating need before starting the CCP process, it falls outside the scope of the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS.

Comment: Several commenters felt that the Magalloway River trail was too costly, ill-conceived, does not receive much use, and presents few opportunities to view wildlife.

Response: The Improvement Act requires that we facilitate wildlife-dependent public uses, such as wildlife observation and interpretation, when they are compatible with refuge purposes. The siting of an interpretative trail is always a balancing act between facilitating access to wildlife and sensitive plant communities and minimizing the disturbance the trail or its use might cause. Much of the Magalloway River trail uses a pre- existing roadbed, thus minimizing its cost and the new disturbance of ground-breaking. The trail traverses several different plant communities, including a black spruce-red spruce forest and a red maple ﬂ oodplain forest. The black spruce forest harbors boreal bird species that are uncommon elsewhere in New Hampshire, such as the gray jay and the occasional spruce grouse. The trail also provides opportunities to view moose, waterfowl, and vernal pool amphibians. We intend to install interpretive signs along the trail to provide information about the wildlife and plant communities of the area. Although we have observed the light-to-moderate use of the trail, we expect that use to increase once we have installed those signs.

Comment: Some local residents who live near the Potter Farm were concerned that constructing a new visitor center would result in increases in noise and boat and vehicular trafﬁ c, and disturb residents and wildlife alike.

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-39 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

One commenter felt that this went against the spirit in which its owners originally transferred the Potter Farm to the Service.

Response: Although we expect some increase in boat and vehicular trafﬁ c as well as the disturbance of wildlife and local residents, we believe we will be able to control and manage it better when the headquarters is co-located with our proposed interpretive trails and facilities. In the past, we have discouraged the use of the Potter Farm by gating its access road except for special events. We have received many complaints about gating parts of the refuge while saying that the refuge is open to public use unless speciﬁ cally closed. We have always intended to open it to public use, and believe that our doing so conforms to the spirit in which the Potter Farm originally was transferred to the Service.

Comment: Several commenters expressed their opposition to a proposed boat ramp on Sturtevant Pond. The opponents were concerned about the disturbance of wildlife (loons, herons, waterfowl, etc.), water pollution, the introduction of aquatic invasive plants, and the disturbance of the peace and quiet of lake residents by increased motorboat trafﬁ c. One commenter expressed concerns about the water levels of the pond.

Response: After reviewing those concerns, we have reconsidered our proposal to provide a developed boat launch at Sturtevant Pond, and have removed that proposal from the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS. We would need to address water level management as part of our collaborative process with the Errol Dam FERC licensee.

Comment: Other commenters opposed the development of new boat launches at the B and C ponds. Their concerns centered on protecting the lake, preventing the introduction of bass, and spoiling the beauty and remoteness of the lakes. One commenter suggested installing a dam at the outlet of B Pond to prevent bass getting into it from Umbagog Lake.

Response: We do not own the B Pond. Because of the concerns expressed, we have reconsidered our original proposal and, should we acquire the pond, plan to leave its access as “primitive” access only. For reasons of safety and resource protection, we still propose developing a small parking area away from the pond, but have removed our proposal to improve its car-top boat launch from alternatives B and C in the fi nal CCP/EIS. We cooperate with both the states of Maine and New Hampshire on fi sheries issues, and will continue to do so if we acquire land around the pond. That will include maintaining and improving the fi sh barrier dam on B Brook. We do not propose any changes in public access to C Pond in the fi nal CCP/EIS.

Comment: Several commenters opposed closing the boat launch at refuge headquarters. One proposed improving it. Their reasons included its convenience, its use by visitors, and the lack of alternative sites nearby.

Response: We have reconsidered our decision, and plan to keep that boat launch open to the public. We have removed the proposal to close it from both alternatives B and C in the fi nal CCP/EIS. However, to address concerns about safety, we will modify the offi ce site by adding signs to warn oncoming traffi c and increasing the fi eld of vision for trailering boats.

Comment: Some individuals advocated developing more launch sites, including one in Upton, for canoes and kayaks. Others opposed facilitating kayaking, and expressed concerns that the lack of rest room facilities along the river for kayakers and canoeists would result in human waste along the banks.

Response: To address some of those concerns, we have put in a new car-top boat launch with a public restroom north of the refuge headquarters on the Magalloway River. That facility is available for use, and should provide convenient intermediate access and a stopping point for canoeists and kayakers using the river. The restroom available at that site and the one at refuge headquarters should help reduce the human waste along the river. Our future plans also include putting a restroom facility at Steamer Diamond. We feel that, elsewhere on the refuge, the canoe/kayak access and the rest areas are adequate for the current demand.

Comment: One commenter suggested we build a wildlife observation platform where Eames Road crosses the outlet of Sweat Meadows. Another wanted us to build more parking areas for hunters as we acquire new land.

O-40 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Response: The ﬁ nal CCP/EIS includes the proposed siting of an observation platform close to the intersection of Eames road and Sweat Meadows, as well as plans for additional parking to facilitate hunting. We thank the commenters for their support of those proposals.

Comment: Several commenters questioned our motives for moving the Stranger House farther away from the road, and wanted more information on the cost and siting of kiosks and pull-outs.

Response: We decided to move the Stranger House before the CCP process started. Therefore, it lies outside the scope of this document. Please contact the refuge manager directly for additional information.

Comment: One commenter posited that using local contractors would be more cost-effective than acquiring heavy equipment.

Response: We contract with local businesses to complete projects on the refuge, but also have found it cost- effective to do some projects with refuge equipment. We will continue to evaluate the costs and beneﬁ ts of contracting out the various construction and maintenance projects at the refuge.

Comment: One commenter objected to the gated roads on the refuge that allow camp owners access, but deny it to the public.

Response: We address that issue previously in this section in responding to public comments about developing public use facilities at the Potter Farm. We plan to maintain a gate on Eames Road, because we propose it for pedestrian use only (see ﬁ nal CCP/EIS chapter 2, alternative B, goal 4). The camp owners at the end of the road have a right-of-way that allows vehicular access. The gate on Pond Brook Road is a private gate, and is not on refuge property.

5.3 Stafﬁ ng and Funding (Letter ID#: 37, 50, 107, 135, 153, 164, 610)

Comment: Many comments expressed concerns about current budget cuts and their effect on stafﬁ ng and managing the refuge.

Response: We agree that reduced funding over the past few years has placed the Service in a position where it had to reduce staffi ng nationwide. That reduction in funding was tied to unforeseen spending on disaster recovery and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We reduced annual funding at the refuge, and reduced its staffi ng by one position. The levels of funding for fi scal year 2008 markedly improved, allowing us to fund refuges in the Northeast at 75-percent staffi ng and 25-percent operating levels. Finalizing the CCP will set forth plans to improve staffi ng, operating effi ciency, and services and facilities.

A paragraph on the inside front cover of the draft and the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS explains what a CCP does. It states, “These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for stafﬁ ng increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.”

Comment: One commenter suggested that we revisit the Refuge Operating Needs proposals (draft CCP/ EIS, appendix F, “Refuge Operating Needs (RONS) and Service Asset Maintenance Management Systems (SAMMS),” to reduce our acquisition and maintenance budget.

Response: We appreciate the comment, and assure the commenter that we constantly analyze our budgets and spending to ensure ﬁ scal responsibility and reduce spending whenever possible. The many federal regulations and Service policies on procurement are in place to safeguard the public trust in managing federal budgets. We consider outsourcing and other means of accomplishing tasks in determining the most appropriate way to accomplish them.

Comment: Another commenter attributed the lack of signs to inadequate funding.

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-41 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Response: We agree that we need to place additional signs around the refuge to welcome and orient visitors. We will be able to place them most effectively after we have completed our visitor services plan, which is a step-down plan we have scheduled for completion within 3 years of ﬁ nal CCP approval.

5.4 Road System (Letter ID#: 33, 85, 100, 125, 138, 148)

Comment: Comments about the road system relate to access, maintenance, and concerns that budget cuts could affect access in the future.

Response: The ﬁ nal CCP/EIS sets forth our intention to maintain public access on designated routes of travel, primarily to facilitate priority public uses and maintain an infrastructure of roads that will help facilitate habitat management (see maps 2–8 and 2–9 in alternative B in chapter 2 of the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS). The designated routes of travel are mostly primary gravel roads and some secondary gravel roads. Motor vehicles will not be permitted to drive on smaller roads or skid trails.

We intend to maintain the designated roads in a way similar to the way their previous owners maintained them. The refuge staff and private contractors will perform major maintenance periodically, especially before and during logging operations. The rest of the time, only minor maintenance will occur, until the roads are needed again for management purposes. During those periods of maintenance, we will allow the public access at its own risk over the designated roads in their existing conditions.

Comment: One commenter was concerned about trespassing and increasing foot trafﬁ c on the Eames Camp Road.

Response: We will place a second gate on the Eames Camp Road, just beyond the proposed overlook of Sweat Meadow, and place signs there to mark the end of the walking trail and discourage people from walking farther along the road. Routine law enforcement patrols will also help orient and educate the public. Please refer to the public use maps 2–8 and 2–9 in alternative B in chapter 2 of the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS.

Comment: Some commenters also expressed their concern that trails in the Mountain Pond area should be limited to existing forestry roads, due to the possible disturbance of sensitive habitat.

Response: In the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS, chapter 2, alternative B, goal 4, (see maps 2–8 and 2–9), we propose trails in the Mountain Pond area along Mountain Pond Road, along the Eames Camp Road as noted above, and along an anglers’ trail that leads to Mountain Pond. The trail to Mountain Pond would end where it meets the pond. We are not proposing any other new trails in that area.

5.5 Enforcement (Letter ID#: 33, 72, 96, 97, 107, 149, 470)

Comment: The comments about law enforcement split regarding increased or decreased levels of enforcement. Some commenters also were concerned about increased public use and its potential to increase littering, illegal camping, and campﬁ res burning out of control.

Response: We appreciate the candor of those comments, but stand behind the levels of law enforcement we describe in fi nal CCP/EIS appendix H, “Staffi ng Charts.” Refuge law enforcement offi cers handle a wide variety of duties in ensuring public safety, conducting outreach and education, enforcing refuge regulations, and deterring criminal activities. In 2007, we documented 12,212 incidents or offenses on the national wildlife refuges in the Northeast. Those included hunting and fi shing violations, drug-related crimes, crimes against persons (including assault, burglary, larceny, arson, and sex offenses), vandalism, wildfi re, and timber theft. We also documented 73 searches and rescues, 89 emergency medical responses, and 75 fi res in the Northeast Region alone. Service law enforcement offi cers also serve as essential links between the refuge and the public by providing outreach and information on refuge regulations while orienting visitors to the refuge. We acknowledge the law enforcement program as essential in accomplishing our goals for the biological and public use programs.

O-42 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

5.6 Volunteer and “Friends” Group (Letter ID#: 90, 108, 362)

Comment: Several commenters mentioned developing a friends group and using volunteers to improve and maintain trails.

Response: We welcome volunteers who want to assist us in any aspect of daily operations on the refuge. We will do our best to match your skills and interests to the needs of the refuge. Nationwide, more than 38,000 volunteers have helped the Service fulﬁ ll its mission, by contributing more than 1.4 million hours of labor or service. We are truly grateful to them. The many opportunities to volunteer include jobs ranging from biological surveys to trail work, ofﬁ ce work, or building maintenance. Anyone interested in volunteering should contact the deputy refuge manager.

The group “Friends of Umbagog” was established in the mid-1990s but, since then, has lost momentum. We agree that a friends group could develop and enhance activities on the refuge and foster communication between it and the public. Please contact the refuge manager if you are interested in becoming a member of our friends group.

Please do not confuse our friends group with the Umbagog Working Group. The idea behind the Umbagog Working Group is to bring together regulatory agencies and other entities with jurisdiction on Umbagog Lake for the common goal of streamlining and aligning regulations for the lake, an interstate water body.

5.7 Visitor Services (Letter ID#: 33, 72, 97, 102, 103, 112, 222, 230, 257, 326, 432, 436, 453, 470)

Comment: The comments about visitor services share one sentiment: people want a user-friendly refuge, where the public is made to feel welcome, which includes more visitor services. Those include increased outreach, orientation, education, comfort stations, campsites, hiking trails, wildlife-viewing areas, toilets, and picnic areas.

Response: Our vision for the refuge, which we printed on the inside cover and in chapter 1of the fi nal CCP/EIS, clearly agrees with those comments. It states, “Visitors of all ages will feel welcome to enjoy the full compliment of priority wildlife-dependent public uses. We will foster their knowledge of and support for conserving northern forest habitats through exceptional outreach and visitor programs. We want all our visitors to return home fi lled with enthusiasm for promoting and practicing resource stewardship in their own communities.” That expresses our interest in outreach and education and our intent to seek opportunities to facilitate them. In chapter 2 of the fi nal CCP/EIS, goals 4 and 5 in alternative B also discuss our desire to improve visitor services and outreach. Outreach is essential, and hiring a visitor services specialist would assist the refuge in those areas. Our developing refuge visitor services as those goals outline them would also alleviate those concerns.

Comment: One commenter wanted toilets at the designated campsites, especially composting toilets. Others mentioned the need for toilets for boaters at boat launches and elsewhere. Pit toilets are already in place at all designated campsites.

Response: We are cooperating with NH State Parks in the design, installation, and maintenance of composting toilets at those campsites. The new car-top boat launch on the Magalloway River in Wentworth Location has a concrete vault toilet, and the Brown Owl launch at refuge headquarters opens its facilities to the public during regular business hours. We will consider placing toilets at other launches as necessary. No additional plans are in place to provide toilets for boaters.

6.0 Social and Economic Values 6.1 General Management Direction (Letter ID#: 98, 111, 112, 135, 151, 320, 337)

Comment: Commenters expressed both favorable and unfavorable opinions about the social and economic values we present in the draft CCP/EIS. The favorable comments related to the beneﬁ ts land conservation provides for tourism and public access. One person wrote that the refuge “puts a green spot on the map and tourists

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-43 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

come,” while others valued saving wild places, which is embedded in the social fabric of the area. The unfavorable comments included concerns over the economic impacts of reduced timber harvesting if the refuge acquires additional land, and the potential restrictions on access.

Response: We agree those values are important, and incorporated them in the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS. We recognize especially the importance of protecting public access, given the current high rate of change in land ownership. Although the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS does not provide every use the public requested, we believe it will secure compatible public access permanently for the future.

In the fi nal CCP/EIS, chapter 2, goal 3, objective 3.1, we clearly state that we will use timber harvesting in managing our upland forest for the benefi t of our focal species. Although our objectives might differ from those of the original owners, and the level of harvest on public land might differ, the fi nal CCP/EIS, appendix G, “Economic Analysis,” addresses those issues. The concern surfaced that we did not include timber harvesting on lands we might acquire in this analysis. For the purposes of this CCP/EIS, we assume that the lands we might acquire will lack suffi cient stocking volumes to be harvested within its 15-year time frame. For additional information, please see our responses under the sections “Upland Forest Matrix Habitats and Species,” “Appendix A,” and “Appendix C.”

We recognize the social and economic value of public access in the North Country. Signiﬁ cant parts of this document address those concerns. Please refer to our response in the section “Access.” The sections on “Priority Public Uses” and “Other Public Uses” also address them.

Comment: One comment was unfavorable concerning our support of consumptive uses on the refuge: speciﬁ cally, hunting.

Response: We recognize the economic value of visitors who engage in non-consumptive uses and propose signifi cant improvements in the public use infrastructure. We believe the fi nal CCP/EIS offers suffi cient opportunities for both non-consumptive and consumptive use. Please see our public use maps in the fi nal CCP/ EIS, chapter 2: alternative A, map 2–5; alternative B, maps 2–8 and 2–9; and, alternative C, map 2–13.

6.2 Local Economy (Letter ID#: 33, 86, 96, 107, 135, 307, 359, 360)

Comment: Most of these comments focused on the projected levels of increased visitation, continued forest management, and diversifi cation of the economy. They expressed a general concern about the reliability of our economic analysis. One commenter summed it up as, “I am concerned that you have not done adequate research on how the local economy would be impacted by your decision.” Response: We established an agreement with a USGS professional economist who has a lot of experience in this type of analysis. The model we use, “IMPLAN,” is an industry standard. An expert forest economist from the U.S. Forest Service modifi ed that model, using local timber industry data to better refl ect the local economy. We believe that the economic analysis in the fi nal CCP/EIS, appendix G, “Economic Analysis,” accurately represents the local economy.

Comment: Others were concerned that local businesses and the refuge would be unable to handle the projected increase in visitors.

Response: Appendix G projects a modest increase in visitors. We based part of that increase on our acquiring lands that are now privately owned, where recreation is already taking place. If we acquire them, then that recreation would accrue to the refuge. In addition, we believe that the number of private commercial businesses in the local communities outside the proposed refuge expansion area is sufﬁ cient to accommodate that projected increase.

Comment: Others felt the refuge would help support a diverse, healthy local economy.

Response: We agree with that view and, in developing the proposed refuge expansion boundary, we considered the need to provide areas sufﬁ cient for the local communities to grow and develop strong economies.

O-44 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Comment: Another concern arose that our economic analysis did not provide a multiplier for timber harvesting and production, thereby undervaluing the forest industry compared to recreation.

Response: The IMPLAN model used in appendix G includes a multiplier for all economic sectors, including forest harvest and production for the lands we proposed to harvest over the next 15 years. We did not estimate harvesting or apply a multiplier to lands within the proposed expansion area, because we do not know when or if we will acquire them. Furthermore, we assumed their owners would harvest them prior to our acquisition, thus providing us with few or no harvesting opportunities within the 15-year time frame of the plan. We proposed guidelines for forest harvest management in chapter 2 of the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS alternative B, goal 3, and in its appendix K, “Forest Management Guidelines.” If we are fortunate enough to acquire sufﬁ ciently stocked land from willing sellers, we will apply those guidelines on that land.

Comment: Another concern related to the protection of individual parcels of working forest.

Response: We feel this plan protects individual parcels of working forest. As in our response in this document under “Social and Economic Values,” our habitat management goal would be to maintain large parcels of working forest. The only difference is that our goals are oriented toward wildlife, not timber production.

Comment: One commenter cited the importance of non-consumptive uses and their value to the economy.

Response: We recognize the economic value of non-consumptive uses, and propose signifi cant improvements to their infrastructure in this plan. We believe it provides suffi cient opportunities for both non-consumptive and consumptive uses. Please see the discussion in chapter 2 of the fi nal CCP/EIS, alternative B, and maps 2–8 and 2–9.

6.2a Tourism (Letter ID#: 10, 32, 47, 50)

Comment: Most comments reﬂ ect the importance of tourism in the area. Some would prefer little change in the present level of tourism, while others feel that the new facilities we propose in the draft CCP/EIS, alternative B, would enhance it.

Response: We recognize the importance of tourism in the local economy, and appreciate those comments.

Comment: Others apparently were confused by the predictions about recreation we based on land acquisition in alternatives B and C of the draft CCP/EIS.

Response: Although we feel that tourism is increasing in the area, and will increase after we establish the visitor’s center and trails we propose in the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS, chapter 2, “Actions Common to Alternatives B and C Only,” we based most of those ﬁ gures on acreage. For example, if the refuge has 20,000 acres now, and we buy an additional 20,000 acres from willing sellers, the number of visits for hunting white-tailed deer might double. That does not mean that the deer hunters visiting the area have increased by 100 percent; it means that the hunters who typically hunted that property before are now hunting on refuge land. Those numbers will increase, but the overall density of the use will not; therefore, additional facilities to handle the increase are unnecessary.

6.2.b Property Tax (Letter ID#: 35, 48, 85, 90, 107, 110, 112, 130, 135, 149, 164, 283, 307, 315, 343, 364)

Comment: Several commenters were concerned about the impacts on the tax base when the government buys property. When we purchase property from willing sellers, it is removed from the tax rolls, creating the potential for an increased tax burden on the remaining residents. Some individuals also were concerned that the market value of the remaining properties would increase, causing increases in property taxes. Some were concerned about the level of funding, the maximum level of refuge revenue sharing payments, and its stability or predictability. They also wanted to know how property tax revenues compare to refuge revenue sharing payments.

Response: We acknowledge that our purchasing property removes it from the tax rolls of each town. In the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS, appendix G, “Economic Analysis,” analyzes the effects on each town and compares its loss in

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-45 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

tax revenue with its revenue sharing payments. The last column in table 12 in appendix G of the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS shows the net change in taxes collected compared to the FY 2005 revenue sharing payments, which were funded at 41 percent for each town that year. We used that 41-percent ﬁ gure not only because the towns received it in 2005, but also because it is the lowest percent Congress has funded since 1977 (table O-1). The 31-year average of revenue sharing payments is 68.08 percent, and the average payment for the last 10 years is 51.88 percent.

Table O–1. Revenue sharing by fiscal year

Fiscal Year Revenue Sharing Paid (%) 1977 73.7 1978 73.9 1979 52.3 1980 75.9 1981 100.0 1982 87.6 1983 90.6 1984 77.1 1985 74.1 1986 64.4 1987 60.0 1988 59.0 1989 71.1 1990 77.9 1991 93.6 1992 89.6 1993 81.7 1994 77.9 1995 77.1 1996 65.7 1997 72.5 1998 66.2 1999 62.2 2000 57.9 2001 50.9 2002 51.9 2003 48.4 2004 46.6 2005 41.0 2006 46.6 2007 43.1

O-46 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

The Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of June 15, 1935, originally paid local municipalities 25 percent of the receipts the neighboring refuge collected from the sale of various products or privileges. However, if that refuge generated no revenue, the local municipalities received no payment. Congress amended the Act in 1964 to provide a payment of 25 percent of the net receipts, or three-quarters of 1 percent of the adjusted purchase price of refuge land, whichever was greater. By 1976, refuge receipts were insufﬁ cient to make the payments, and Congress reduced them accordingly. It amended the Act again in 1978 to include the following.

1. Congress can appropriate funds to make up any shortfall in the revenue funding. 2. All lands the Service administers qualify for revenue sharing. 3. Local municipalities can use the payments for any purpose (not just for schools and roads).

We reappraise refuge lands at least once every 5 years to ensure that those payments are based on market value. More information on refuge revenue sharing can be found online at www.fws.gov/realty/RRS.html.

Even at the 41-percent level of refuge revenue payments, towns in New Hampshire will receive more than they would have received in tax revenues under the state’s Current Use program. Even at the lowest-ever level of revenue sharing, Errol would gain a net $3,657, Cambridge would gain a net $10,988, and Wentworth Location would gain a net $1,434 under our preferred alternative. They will also continue to receive taxes on any forest harvest from lands under refuge habitat management.

However, those net gains in revenue did not hold true for Upton and Magalloway Plantation in Maine. We attempted to ease the tax burden on those communities by modifying our land protection plan between the draft and the fi nal CCP/EIS, increasing the percentage of our proposed conservation easements and reducing the percentage of fee title acquisition in those towns. We feel that, in their generally higher elevation forests, we can accomplish with easements most of the goals and objectives in chapter 2, alternative B of the fi nal CCP/EIS. Please refer to appendix A, “Land Protection Plan,” in the fi nal CCP/EIS for its description of our expansion proposal and its graphic presenting fee or easement areas. That changes the percentage for the entire expansion proposal from 65-percent fee simple acquisition and 35-percent conservation easement to 56-percent fee simple acquisition and 44-percent conservation easement. Please refer also to the fi nal CCP/EIS appendix G and its table G–12 for our edits, which more accurately refl ect the change in fee percentages versus easement percentages, tax revenues, and other revenues such as reimbursement to the towns under the state Tree Growth Program.

We acknowledge that our original analysis of economic impacts did not address the loss of state reimbursement from the Tree Growth Program to towns in Maine. Accounting for that reimbursement, fi gured for 2007, and the new fi gures at the revenue sharing level of 41 percent for fee and easement acquisition, Upton would gain $2,310 and Magalloway Plantation would lose $144. Please keep in mind, the state changed its reimbursement formulas between our publications of the draft and the fi nal CCP/EIS (Lucas pers. comm. April 2008). Table O-2 below shows the change in the amount the state reimburses to the towns under the new formula, compared with the reimbursement last year.

Table O–2. State of Maine reimbursement to towns

Reimbursement Magalloway Plantation Upton

2007 $23,900 $25,000

2008 $19,159 $14,488

Net Change -$4,741 -$10,572

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-47 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Comparing those new reimbursement fi gures with the 2007 refuge revenue sharing payment, both towns will lose revenue if we were to acquire land. The following tables (table O-3, O-4, and O-5) present that change in reimbursement from the state and in the taxes Upton and Magalloway Plantation collect, based on an assessed value of $9.00 per $1,000. Table O–3. Net change in revenue collected by towns vs. refuge revenue sharing payments at 41 percent Upton draft Upton fi nal Magalloway draft Magalloway fi nal Draft and fi nal by town CCP/EIS CCP/EIS CCP/EIS CCP/EIS Acres in fee; acres in 11,021 ac; 7,866 ac; 4,911 ac; 3,058 ac 3,774 ac; 4,195 ac easement 5,153 ac 7,446 ac Loss of tax revenue -$9,919 -$7,079 -$5,135 -$3,949 Loss of state -$14,488 -$10,088 -$6,135 -$4,859 reimbursement Refuge revenue +$16,945 +$12,094 +$7,551 +$5,803 sharing 41% Net change -$7,462 -$5,073 -$3,719 -$3,005

Table O– 4. Net change in revenue collected by towns vs. refuge revenue sharing at 51.88 percent (10-year avg.) Upton draft Upton fi nal Magalloway draft Magalloway fi nal Draft and fi nal by town CCP/EIS CCP/EIS CCP/EIS CCP/EIS Acres in fee; acres in 11,021 ac; 5,153 7,866 ac; 7,446 4,911 ac; 3,058 ac 3,774 ac; 4,195 ac easement ac ac Loss of tax revenue -$9,919 -$7,079 -$5,135 -$3,949 Loss of state -$14,088 -$10,088 -$6,135 -$4,859 reimbursement Refuge revenue sharing 51.88% +$21,441 +$15,303 +$9,554 +$7,342 (last 10-yrs’ average) Net change -$2,966 -$1,864 -$1,716 -$1,466

Table O–5. Net change in revenues collected by towns vs. refuge revenue sharing at 100 percent Draft and fi nal by Upton draft Upton fi nal Magalloway draft Magalloway fi nal town CCP/EIS CCP/EIS CCP/EIS CCP/EIS Acres in fee; acres in 11,021 ac; 5,153 7,866 ac; 7,446 4,911 ac; 3,058 ac 3,774 ac; 4,195 ac easement ac ac Loss of tax revenue -$9,919 -$7,079 -$5,135 -$3,949 Loss of state -$14,488 -$10,088 -$6,135 -$4,859 reimbursement Refuge revenue +$41,329 +$29,497 +$18,416 +14,152 sharing 100% Net change +$16,922 +$12,330 +$7,146 +$5,344

O-48 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

In response to that concern, we have included only a comparison of tax revenues with refuge revenue sharing payments. The actual economic impact of refuge land acquisition is more complex. For example, when we retain land as habitat, it reduces the need for the services each town provides and increases the revenue to local businesses from visitor, staff and refuge purchases. Those effects further mitigate the economic impacts on each town. We also believe that the towns around the refuge will continue to develop, further increasing their tax base. For a more detailed description, please refer to the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS appendix G, “Economic Analysis.”

We will neither re-evaluate the basis for establishing the refuge in this ﬁ nal CCP/EIS, nor analyze the economic impacts of acquiring land within the current, approved refuge boundary. We recognize that our acquiring that land also affects the values of the privately owned properties that remain. Nevertheless, our buying it supports the goals and objectives for which the refuge was established, and we intend to continue purchasing properties from willing sellers as opportunities arise and funding allows. In the expansion area of our preferred alternative, we purposely target undeveloped lands. We considered the need for community development, and avoided areas where that development would most likely occur. Please refer to the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS appendix A, “Land Protection Plan,” for parcel maps showing those areas.

Comment: We received one comment expressing the hope that we would spread out refuge land acquisition over time to avoid rapid changes in local property taxes.

Response: We understand that comment, and believe that land acquisition will occur over many years. Although the proposed expansion of the refuge shows its desired future condition, we would like to remind our readers that we work only with willing sellers, and only as funding becomes available.

Comment: We received a few comments asking that the refuge share services and resources to balance the removal of taxable properties as the refuge boundary expands.

Response: Although we understand the needs of our neighboring communities, and will work with them more closely, we would be able to offer only minimal assistance. When we purchase properties to restore or maintain them as habitat, it reduces the need for many services the towns provide. However, we also offer cooperative programs that beneﬁ t communities, such as the small grants program and the Wildland-Urban Interface programs of our regional ﬁ re program.

Comment: Some comments favored conservation easements over the purchase of land in full fee title, because the land under easement would remain on the tax rolls. They further state, “[we] believe that the opportunity to permanently protect these lands as economic assets presents an opportunity we cannot afford to lose.”

Response: We agree that an easement can be a powerful tool in achieving many of the goals and objectives in the CCP while leaving the land in private ownership. We have increased the percentage of easements in our preferred alternative from 35 percent in the draft CCP/EIS to 44 percent in the ﬁ nal plan. Please refer to our discussion in the response to the ﬁ rst comment in this section.

Comment: One comment pointed out an error in our economic impact analysis: it neglected to account for lost revenues from reduced acreage in “Tree Growth” in Maine towns.

Response: We acknowledge that our original analysis of economic impacts did not address the loss of state reimbursement from the Tree Growth program to towns in Maine. Please refer to the new tables and our edits in the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS, appendix G, “Economic Analysis.” Those tables present the change in reimbursement from the state and the valuation of taxes each town collects, based on a tax rate of $9.00 per $1,000 assessed value.

Comment: Another concern was the Service policy on reassessing property we used in arriving at property values and subsequent refuge revenue sharing payments to the towns. Commenters asked whether the Service was required to reassess the properties at fair market value, and what safeguards are in place to prevent a reduction in those values.

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-49 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Response: The assessments on Service-administered areas will change as the real estate market changes, just as the assessments on private lands change. The Refuge Revenue Sharing Act requires us to determine the market value of those areas at least once every 5 years. Our appraisals must satisfy the requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice and the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisition. In addition, a government-approved review appraiser must review our appraisals to ensure that they meet those standards. That system allows several stages of review to ensure that the appraisal of each property accurately represents its market value.

When we add land to the refuge, we add the value of its acquisition cost to the property value of all refuge lands in the town. We use that value to determine the refuge revenue sharing payment until the next 5-year round of appraisals.

6.3 Social Values (Letter ID#: 10, 582, 791)

Comment: Some people commented on the signifi cant bond between the local communities and the land, and how the long history of that bond affects the social fabric of those communities. The former presence of author Louise Dickinson Rich in the area is also of historical signifi cance. One individual wrote, “The solution to better stewardship lies in education and administration and enforcement of our current laws…. What ultimately occurs is that you take recreational land away from the average person…and make it a playground for the more affl uent.” Another said, “We have an opportunity to arrest the rapid encroachment of humans on every piece of available land.”

Response: We are sympathetic to those comments, and recognize the long-standing connection of the local communities to the land. Although our staff has not lived there as long as many residents have, we appreciate that connection and, indeed, feel it too.

In this context, this quotation of Anthony J. D’Angelo seems appropriate: “Become a student of change. It is the only thing that will remain constant.” The Umbagog Lake region is subject to change. Paper companies have divested their lands to smaller timber owners, who subdivided the land again and sold the parcels to other groups. Timber markets are in constant ﬂ ux, responding to the ever-changing demands for products from saw timber to pulp to biomass. Waterfront properties and others with high residential values are being subdivided for house lots. The potential is real for private ownership to exclude the public use of those properties. We believe that public ownership of the land can maintain best the tie between it and the people. By participating in refuge planning, the people are guaranteed a say in how we manage it.

We have a strong interest in preserving the historical legacy of Louise Dickinson Rich and the rich local culture of the area, including other ﬁ gures like Chief Mettalak and Molly Molasses. The refuge visitor center will include exhibits on local history, and will interpret them.

We also agree that education plays a major role in promoting stewardship of the land and environment. We stand by our decision to acquire more land to provide habitat for focal wildlife species.

7.0 Air Quality (Letter ID#: 112)

Comment: Several commenters expressed their support for our land protection plan because they felt that it might aid the ﬁ ght against global warming. One emphasized the importance of forests as “carbon sinks” and the value of forest products in terms of energy from biomass.

Response: We appreciate that support. Although we have not analyzed the likely carbon impact, we agree that retaining more of the landscape in a generally forested condition, in combination with our proposed forest

O-50 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR management, will likely enhance carbon sequestration. In the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS, we discuss climate change in chapter 1 under “Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities”; in chapter 2, under “Actions Common to all Alternatives”; and in chapter 4, under “Cumulative Effects.”

Comment: Some commenters opposed motorboat, snowmobile, or ORV use due to their greenhouse gas emissions.

Response: ORVs are not permitted on the refuge. We recognize that the emissions from motor vehicles, motorboats and snowmobiles contribute to greenhouse gases (see the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS, chapter 1, in “Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities”). Also, for discussions of the refuge and climate change, please refer to “Adaptive Management” under “Actions Common to All of the Alternatives” in chapter 2, and “Cumulative Effects” in chapter 4.

8.0 Hydrology and Water Quality No speciﬁ c comments received

9.0 Soils No speciﬁ c comments received

10.0 Open Water and Wetland Habitat & Species

10.1 General Management Direction (Letter ID: 108, 656, 698)

Comment: One commenter stated that wetlands are being lost at a high rate on the East Coast.

Response: We recognize that, and it is one of the reasons we have focused our proposed land acquisition and management priorities on signiﬁ cant wetlands and the areas around them. Keeping our wetland systems as healthy as possible will help keep them resilient in the face of climate change and other stressors. See also our response in this document under “Fish.”

10.2 Open Water No speciﬁ c comments received

10.2a Invasive Species (Letter ID#: 61, 72, 108, 128, 343)

Comment: Several commenters expressed their concern over the introduction of aquatic invasive species (both plants and animals) into the Umbagog watershed by boats, researchers, or other means. They suggested increasing the refuge educational outreach and boat inspections.

Response: The control and prevention of colonization by invasive species is a high priority for the refuge (see in this document “Actions Common to All of the Alternatives”: “Control of Invasive Plant Species”; “Strategies”). We will continue to work with state agencies, the New Hampshire Lakes Association, and the Maine Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program on this issue. The strategies we list in the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS under “Control of Invasive Plant Species” include increasing public outreach and education, increasing boat inspections, and ensuring that refuge equipment is not a source of introduction. We agree with the commenters that increased signage at key locations would help in public outreach on this issue, and have added it more explicitly to our strategies in the plan. To reduce the spread of invasive species and pathogens, the refuge staff responsible for carrying out amphibian surveys cleans and sanitizes boots and sampling equipment between sample sites. Nevertheless, the commenter raises a valid concern about the accidental transportation of invasive species by outside researchers, and we have edited a strategy in that section to address that concern, as well as addressing it in the section “Actions Common to all of the Alternatives”: “Research.”

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-51 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the proposed boat launch at B Pond might facilitate the accidental introduction of non-native smallmouth bass and jeopardize the pond’s native brook trout.

Response: We proposed only a car-top boat launch for B Pond. Should we eventually acquire that area, however, we have removed all reference to a proposed improved boat launch at B Pond. Instead, we will enhance safety by providing a small off-road parking area. We will continue to cooperate in state efforts to maintain and protect the brook trout fi shery in the Umbagog area, including B Pond (see our strategies in the fi nal CCP/EIS, chapter 2, alternative B, goal 1, objective 1.5 “Open Water and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation,” and the strategies in goal 4, objective 4.2, “Fishing”). Those also include helping to maintain and improve the fi sh control structure on B Brook.

10.3 Wetland Habitats (Fen &Flooded Meadow, Boreal Fen & Bog, Northern White Cedar Swamp; Scrub- Shrub Wetland) (Letter ID# 100)

Comment: One commenter said that a songbird species, such as the swamp sparrow, common yellowthroat, or others, would be a more appropriate focal species than the Canada warbler in shrub-scrub habitats, because Canada warblers do not use that habitat as frequently in the East as they do in the West.

Response: We acknowledge that Canada warblers use shrub-scrub habitat less in this area, that our population estimates based on shrub-scrub acreage might be over-estimates, and acknowledge that habitat difference in our plan. However, we based our population estimates on upland mixed and hardwood forest acreages, not shrub- scrub acreages. Our shrub-scrub habitat type is primarily an alder type. We intend to carry out Canada warbler management in our woodcock management zones (both upland and shrub-scrub areas), because we feel that managing for those two high-priority species in Bird Conservation Region 14 is compatible. We disagree on using swamp sparrows, common yellowthroat, etc., as our focal species. We deﬁ ne focal species as federal trust species for whose habitat requirements we intend to manage. We used BCR and other conservation plans to guide our choice of focal species. Those represent suites of species with similar habitat requirements. Focal species might or might not be the best species to monitor in different habitats. We agree that monitoring swamp sparrows and others is probably a good idea, and intend to do so, but the BCR and other plans have not identiﬁ ed them as priority species for management.

Comment: One commenter suggested that we should make emergent marsh and aquatic bed habitats a high priority on the refuge, with the pied-billed grebe, marsh wren, and a ﬁ sh species as focal species for those types of habitat.

Response: The “fen and fl ooded meadow” habitat type on the refuge (fi nal CCP/EIS chapter 2, alternative B, goal 1, objective 1.1), encompasses emergent marsh, and objective 1.5, “Open Water,” includes aquatic bed habitat. We will clarify that by changing the name of that type to “Open Water and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation.” Also, in chapter 2, alternative B, “Introduction,” we state, “in keeping with the original purposes for which the refuge was established, the wetlands objectives under goal 1 [which includes fen and fl ooded meadow and open water habitats] are our highest priority biological objectives to implement.” Although our focal management species for the fen and fl ooded meadow habitat include waterfowl and common loons, our ongoing surveys of marsh birds will continue to monitor other species closely tied to emergent marsh, such as the pied-billed grebe. We also have identifi ed brook trout as a focal species under our open water habitat type.

10.4 Fish and Wildlife Species 10.4.a Common Loon (Letter ID#: 16, 73, 100, 118, 200, 584, 655, 735, 815, 830, 832, 848, 869)

Comment: Commenters were concerned about the population levels of common loons at Umbagog Lake. The comments ranged from the perception that the loons take care of themselves to concern over the decline in their numbers at Umbagog Lake and the need to address that decline. Others noted the increasing eagle population, and wondered about potential negative interactions between those species.

O-52 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Response: We are also concerned about the decline in the loon population, and are undertaking several studies to investigate the factors that might inﬂ uence loon breeding in the area. Some of those include documenting the interactions between bald eagles and loons. Common loons are being used as the indicator species to monitor the effects of the current water level management scheme during the wildlife breeding season.

Comment: One commenter suggested that the refuge goal of 18 pairs of nesting loons might be too high, especially considering the three active eagle nests. Another commenter pointed out that the goal of 18 pairs is four pairs higher than the historical average, and further suggested that territorial pairs would be a better indicator, or better used as an additional indicator, because that would be a “more accurate and representative metric to monitor the health and sustainability of loon populations.”

Response: We have reconsidered our position, and have modifi ed the fi nal CCP/EIS, chapter 2, alternative B, goal 1, objective 1.6 to target 14 pairs. Data is now collected, and will continue to be collected, on the number of territorial pairs. We also note the comment about using territorial pairs, but respectfully disagree, due to the diffi culty of determining territorial pairs that fail early in the nesting season. Monitoring nesting success provides the refuge with a comparison of long-term baseline data directly related to production.

Comment: We also received comments claiming an insufﬁ cient assessment of stressors, especially contaminants, relating to that decline. The comments outline speciﬁ c study goals, and investigations submitted to the refuge for funding in response to the refuge and the Audubon Society of New Hampshire having received funding to study the decline of loons and osprey in the area.

Response: The statements that the speciﬁ c proposed study goals were funded and not adequately addressed is out of context and inaccurate. We sincerely appreciate the concern of the conservation groups that led to the funding of a large study into the loon decline: the Audubon Society of New Hampshire, Loon Preservation Committee, and the Biodiversity Research Institute.

When Congress considers funding a proposal of this nature they request, through the Department of Interior, that the refuge submit a “Capability Statement” to ensure that the proposal meets refuge needs and is possible under current staffi ng and funding. The refuge is then asked if the project has been previously identifi ed for funding. In this case, it had been, and the refuge detailed four previously identifi ed projects where the funding would be used. That process ensures that private interests, funded through lobbying efforts, do not contradict refuge management objectives.

Our staff and Audubon Society of New Hampshire formed a working group with state fi sh and game agency personnel, academicians, and the conservation groups previously mentioned, to solicit proposals for scientifi c studies to investigate aspects of the four funded projects. Many aspects of the study detailed in the comment were proposed, but not funded, based on decisions related to cost-benefi t analysis, fi scal responsibility, and whether the proposals aligned with refuge goals.

Comment: Another comment stated that the FERC licensee, FPL Energy, has voluntarily conducted numerous studies in addition to loon monitoring and water level operations. It further mentions that those studies have provided valuable information to state and federal wildlife agencies to assist them in loon management. It also states that all of that work has been funded and conducted by licensee biologists and their consultants.

Response: We appreciate the efforts and interest of the licensee, but disagree that it has funded all loon work on Umbagog Lake. The refuge has provided funding at various times to assist some of those projects. Scientiﬁ c studies on the lake have the potential to cause unforeseen conﬂ icts with other studies or increase impacts on wildlife. We would like to state the importance of coordinating these studies to minimize those risks.

Comment: Several comments mentioned a concern about increased public disturbance and boat wakes negatively affecting loons.

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-53 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Response: We appreciate that concern, and encourage all who use the water resources of the Umbagog Lake area to keep a safe distance from all species of wildlife to minimize disturbance. We intend to increase educational outreach to the public on this issue (see ﬁ nal CCP/EIS alternative B, goal 1, objective 1.6, “Common Loon,” for more information).

10.4b Fish (e.g., brook trout) (Letter ID#: 16, 155)

Comment: One individual testifi ed about the importance of protecting headwater streams for fi sh and aquatic organisms, and the signifi cance of the native brook trout fi shery in the tributary rivers that enter Umbagog Lake. Other comments mentioned the threats to the native population of brook trout. Those threats fall into two categories: threats from small-mouth bass in the Rapid River, and the condition of brook trout in the region as a whole.

Response: We acknowledge the importance of the native brook trout fi shery in this region, and are working closely in partnership with state and non-profi t conservation agencies. The refuge has participated in telemetry studies into the movement of brook trout and small-mouth bass, and studies into fl ow rates aimed at reducing the potential for small-mouth bass to breed in the Rapid River. We plan to continue that partnership, and refer to the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture as providing guidance (see fi nal CCP/EIS chapter 1, under “Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project”). We also include in chapter 2, alternative B, goal 1, objective 1.5, and goal 4, objective 4.2, our plans to work with others to maintain or restore a quality brook trout fi shery in local rivers, such as the Rapid, Dead Cambridge and Dead Diamond rivers.

We also recognize the importance of protecting headwater streams in maintaining the health of aquatic ecosystems. That protection will become increasingly important as climate change and related stressors begin to affect coldwater-dependent aquatic species. Our proposed forest habitat management guidelines (ﬁ nal CCP/EIS appendix K, “Forest Management Guidelines,”) will help ensure the protection of the water quality of headwater streams on the refuge.

Please note that we changed our references in the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS to “Open water and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation” to more accurately reﬂ ect the diversity of habitats wildlife are responding to.

10.5 Furbearer Management (Letter ID#: 1, 8, 13, 14, 17, 27, 28, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 43, 44, 4,5, 46, 49, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 66, 67, 74, 84, 87, 91, 98, 99, 101, 106, 109, 110, 113, 116, 122, 123, 141, 145, 148, 152, 154, 157, 161, 162, 257, 263, 311, 314, 316, 317, 318, 322, 328, 329, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 342, 346, 348, 349, 350, 352, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 361, 362, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 371, 372, 373, 377, 382, 387, 389, 390, 391, 449, 450, 452, 575, 592, 597, 600, 611, 624, 626, 642, 645, 650, 652, 670, 696, 698, 708, 710, 713, 718, 720, 721, 722, 725, 816, 853, 864, 875, 879, 882, 891, 894, 896, 897, 901, 908, 918)

Comment: We received many comments either supporting or opposing public trapping in furbearer management. The comments that supported trapping were general, while the comments that opposed trapping were both general and speciﬁ c in criticizing it, its potential impacts, and the level of supporting information we included in the draft CCP/EIS.

Response: Although we stand behind each state’s management of furbearers, the public comments clariﬁ ed that we need to develop fully a furbearer management plan before presenting it for public review. We took all the public comments we received on this subject into consideration as we developed the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS.

We have determined the need for further analysis, and will conduct separate NEPA analysis and develop a furbearer management plan, if appropriate, as a step-down plan within 3 years of fi nal CCP approval. We have removed the references in the draft to a public trapping program from the fi nal CCP/EIS, and have removed that compatibility determination from appendix C. Public trapping at the refuge will be closed until we have prepared, reviewed, and fi nalized a Furbearer Management Plan. The refuge will work closely with the NHFG and MDIFW in preparing that plan.

O-54 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

11.0 Floodplain, Lakeshore, and Riparian Habitats and Species (Letter ID#: 698)

Comment: One commenter recommends expanding the refuge to support the “astonishing amount of wildlife” that depends on these habitat types.

Response: We agree those are areas of very diverse, rich habitat. Our expansion proposal in the ﬁ nal EIS/CCP, appendix A, “Land Protection Plan,” discusses their importance.

11.1 General Management Direction No speciﬁ c comments received

11.2 Habitats (Wooded Floodplain; Lakeshore Pine-Hemlock; Vernal Pools) No speciﬁ c comments received

11.3 Wildlife Species 11.3a Bald Eagles and Osprey 11.3b Woodcock (Letter ID#: 100, 101, 135, 257, 698, 769)

Comment: A number of commenters recognized the important habitat the area around Umbagog Lake provides for a wide variety of species, including bald eagles, and supported refuge expansion to protect habitat for them.

Response: The refuge was established, in part, to conserve migratory birds, important wetlands, and wetland- dependent species, and that purpose has guided our fi nal CCP/EIS, appendix A, “Land Protection Plan.” It identifi es additional signifi cant wetlands and their associated uplands in the Umbagog watershed, along the Magalloway River, Swift Cambridge River, Mollidgewock drainage, and Bog Brook, among others. Those areas will help provide the critical habitat for migratory birds and other species of concern the commenters mentioned.

Comment: One commenter suggested we change our strategies under goal 2 to include the identiﬁ cation of suitable habitat for rusty blackbirds and northern parulas, and document their use.

Response: We agree with that suggestion, and have edited those changes into ﬁ nal CCP/EIS chapter 2, alternative B, goal 2, objective 2.1.

Comment: One commenter suggested that our discussion of osprey trends in alternative B, goal 2, objective 2.3 is misleading, because different methodologies were used at different times.

Response: We agree that re-analyzing the data to ensure comparisons between similar methodologies would be more appropriate, and will work with the Audubon Society of New Hampshire to accomplish that and ensure the continued use of standardized methodologies. To reduce confusion, we have edited changes into ﬁ nal CCP/EIS chapter 2, alternative B, goal 2, objective 2.3.

12.0 Upland Forest Matrix Habitats and Species 12.1 General Management Direction 12.2 Habitats (Spruce-Fir; Mixed Woods; Northern Hardwoods) (Letter ID#: 48, 91, 96, 99, 101, 103, 112, 134, 135, 137, 149, 308)

Comment: Forest habitat management inspired a number of comments, both for and against. Supporters cited the economic and cultural importance of logging in the area, while opponents often cited aesthetics and the changes on surrounding industrial timberlands, or opposed commercial logging in general.

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-55 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Response: The refuge was established, in part, for migratory bird conservation. Therefore, we have a responsibility to manage it in ways that enhance migratory bird habitat. During the planning process, in concert with our state natural resource agency partners, we identifi ed species and habitats of greatest management concern, based on existing state, regional, and national wildlife management plans. (See fi nal CCP/EIS chapter 1, under “Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project,” and appendix B, “Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Suspected on the Refuge,” and “Process for Establishing Alternative B Focal Species,” for a complete description of the process we followed in identifying management priorities.) Although we assigned wetland resources our highest management priority, we also assigned upland habitats that support migratory birds of regional conservation concern a high priority for management. Appropriate forest management can benefi t many of those upland species tied to forested habitats with particular characteristics of structure and composition.

The appropriate management of adjacent uplands also serves to protect our wetlands. The land use objectives of previous owners of timberland in the refuge area focused primarily on commercial timber production, rather than on the creation of wildlife habitat. For that reason, the existing stands of forest do not necessarily have the species composition, diversity, complexity, structure, or age class distribution our focal wildlife species prefer. The objective of our forest management is to sustain, create, enhance, or restore forest conditions important for our focal forest-dependent species. Appropriate, sustainable forest management, using accepted best practices, can play an important role in improving habitat for those species while providing some economic beneﬁ t, helping the local community, and offsetting the costs of management (see ﬁ nal CCP/EIS appendix K, “Forest Management Guidelines”).

Comment: Some commenters not completely opposed to forest management urged that we minimize logging on refuge land and keep undisturbed some areas for wildlife.

Response: Map K–1 in ﬁ nal CCP/EIS appendix K, “Forest Management Guidelines,” shows how we divided the refuge ownership into several types of forest management zones. In the zones we designated “high resource sensitivity,” we will allow only extremely limited management activities. Those zones, which include forested and non-forested wetlands and some forested upland habitats, will provide substantial areas of unmanaged forest.

Comment: One commenter suggested that we collaborate as partners with other landowners, agencies, and the states in implementing forest management, rather than hire new refuge staff.

Response: We welcome partnerships and opportunities to work with other landowners and agencies to accomplish our forest management objectives. Hiring a refuge forester will help us develop a comprehensive forest habitat management plan that meets our wildlife management goals, and will also help ensure continuity in our forest management. Hiring new staff does not preclude those other options, particularly until our budgets permit hiring a forester.

Comment: Some commenters pointed out that the State of New Hampshire owns land and conservation easements within the refuge acquisition boundary, and that the state can manage that land for various purposes, including timber.

Response: We recognize the state’s right to manage state-owned lands, and we hope to continue to cooperate with the state on management issues of common interest. That refl ects a continuation of the philosophy of partnership that formed the foundation of the original EA (1991) and fi rst established the refuge. The Service now owns in fee some former timber company lands on which the state owns easements. The wildlife-oriented mission of the Service differs substantially from the forest-product-oriented missions of the original landowners. However, as we state in the fi rst paragraph under this sub-heading, we intend to use forest management, where appropriate, as a management tool in accomplishing our wildlife habitat goals and objectives. The strategies we list in fi nal CCP/ EIS chapter 2, alternative B, goal 3, objective 3.1, clearly state that we will use timber harvesting in managing our upland forest habitat for the benefi t of our focal species. Given that intention and our wildlife-oriented mission, we do not feel that elevating timber harvesting to the level of an objective in the plan is appropriate. However, we do agree that our original EA (1991) emphasizes forest habitat management. We edited the fi nal CCP/EIS to acknowledge that emphasis.

O-56 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Comment: Several commenters expressed their support for the refuge acquisition and management of upland habitat, particularly spruce-ﬁ r habitat, for wintering deer and other species.

Response: We agree that our forest management, together with our proposed land acquisition, can beneﬁ t wildlife in those habitats, and thank those commenters for their support.

12.2 Habitats (Letter ID#: 101, 134)

Comment: One commenter supported alternative B for providing connectivity of forest habitat for wide-ranging species.

Response: We appreciate that support, and thank the commenter.

12.3 Wildlife Species—Mammals 12.3a Lynx (Letter ID#: 91, 98, 101)

Comment: Several commenters were concerned about the potential impact of our proposed furbearer management program on Canada lynx.

Response: We are engaged in surveys to assess the status of lynx on the refuge. In response to extensive public comment on our proposed furbearer management, we now propose to postpone our decision on whether and how to manage furbearer species, and whether that management could include trapping, until we can conduct further analysis and prepare a more detailed Furbearer Management Plan. Therefore, we have removed the compatibility determination on furbearer management from appendix C, and have removed references to implementing a public trapping program from the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS. We propose to complete a furbearer management plan, with separate NEPA analysis and public involvement, as a step-down plan within 3 years of ﬁ nal CCP approval (see our responses in this document under the section “Furbearer Management”). We will work closely with the states in preparing that plan. Until then, we will close the refuge to public trapping.

12.4 Wildlife Species—Avian (Letter ID#:100)

Comment: One commenter stated that the blackburnian and black-throated green warblers were inappropriate focal species for the spruce-ﬁ r habitat type. This commenter also advocated making spruce-ﬁ r habitat a high management priority.

Response: As we state in fi nal CCP/EIS chapter 2, alternative B, goal 3, we view the refuge as located in the mixed spruce-fi r/northern hardwood forest “potential vegetation zone” (not the spruce-fi r potential vegetation zone). Our objective is to maintain a healthy, fully functioning, mixed-forest ecosystem. We view spruce-fi r stands as one habitat component of the mixed spruce-fi r/northern hardwood forest. Our analysis suggests that the spruce-fi r component appears to be less widely distributed than it was formerly in the mixed forest. Based on our analysis of regional bird conservation plans and other conservation plans, the blackburnian and black-throated green warblers, which are closely tied to mixed forest systems, are appropriate representatives of the mixed forest zone for management purposes.

Because those species depend on the presence of a substantial percentage of conifers on the landscape, one of our strategies will be to make our acquisition and management of spruce-fi r habitat a high priority, and focus on maintaining and increasing the extent and resiliency of spruce-fi r stands within site capability limits. That management strategy should also benefi t those bird species that are most closely tied to spruce-fi r, such as the bay-breasted warbler, boreal chickadee, and gray jay. Many of the bird species the commenter refers to are at the

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-57 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

southern edge of their range at the refuge, and are likely to undergo further range contraction as climate change advances. However, we agree that, since they are more closely tied to spruce-ﬁ r, it is important that we continue to monitor them, in addition to the blackburnian and black-throated green warblers, as part of our annual off-road breeding bird surveys. To help clarify that, we have added language to objective 3.1.

13.0 Cultural and Historic Resources 13.1 General Management Direction No speciﬁ c comments received.

14.0 Priority Public Uses 14.1 General Management Direction (Letter ID#: 29, 50, 56, 64, 84, 90, 92, 102, 230, 912, 918)

Comment: The comments we received about public use of the refuge generally were critical of our proposals. At one end of the spectrum, the commenters promoted no restrictions, taking the viewpoint that public land is for use by the public. They favored following generalized state regulations without specifi c refuge regulations. At the other end of the spectrum, commenters valued the refuge for its ecological signifi cance, and prioritized biological integrity, ecological health and a safe haven for wildlife over human use of the refuge, (especially consumptive uses such as hunting, fi shing and trapping).

Response: The following laws, policies, goals and information inﬂ uence public use of the refuge.

• National Wildlife Administration Act of 1996 • Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 • Executive Order No. 12996, March 25, 1996 • USFWS Policy on Appropriateness of Refuge Uses • USFWS Policy on Compatibility • Executive Order No. 13443 (August 16, 2007), “Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation”

Throughout our development of this ﬁ nal CCP/EIS, we remained sensitive to the desire of the local populace to maintain the public uses in the establishing EA (1991). We also wanted to minimize additional refuge regulations, and align them as closely as possible with state regulations to avoid potential confusion. Adopting state regulations wholesale is not possible, because federal laws sometimes require different regulations than the state laws do.

The Improvement Act requires the Service to manage refuges as a system of lands, not as individual fi eld stations. In determining whether a public use is compatible, the refuge manager must determine that it will not materially interfere with or detract from fulfi lling the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System or the establishing purposes of the refuge. The refuge manager also must be careful that the use does not detract from or confl ict with other allowable uses. It must be evaluated in terms of its anticipated impacts on refuge natural resources, and whether the staffi ng and funding for managing it are adequate.

Some comments under this heading were not specifi c about the priority public uses defi ned by Executive Order No. 12996, but related to public use in general. The draft CCP addresses the uses known to occur on the refuge and those brought to our attention during our public scoping process. We also considered the additional public uses that arose in the public comment period for the draft CCP/EIS and, in response, have added these compatibility determinations to the fi nal CCP/EIS in appendix C: horseback riding and bicycling. We also modifi ed two other compatibility determinations to incorporate public comment. We modifi ed and renamed “Gathering of blueberries, black berries, and raspberries” to “Recreational gathering of blueberries,

O-58 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR blackberries, strawberries, raspberries, fi ddleheads, mushrooms, and antler sheds.” We also modifi ed the compatibility determination on snowmobiling to add the use of dogsleds on snowmobile trails, as state law allows. We removed the compatibility determination on furbearer management from the fi nal, and will reconsider it as part of our furbearer management plan, a step-down plan scheduled within 3 years of fi nal approval of this CCP, and subject to separate NEPA documentation and public review.

14.2 Visitor Safety (Letter ID#: 321, 352, 909)

Comment: Commenters raised concerns about visitor safety in three areas: trapping (furbearer management), hunting, and access to help in emergency situations (especially in remote camping).

Response: We removed our proposal to implement a public trapping program as part of our furbearer management from the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS, and will reconsider it as a step-down plan separately from this CCP, with its own NEPA public review. At that time, we will consider the potential impacts of trapping on visitor safety. Public trapping on the refuge is now closed, and refuge law enforcement personnel will cooperate with state conservation ofﬁ cers and game wardens in enforcing laws on the refuge.

Comment: One commenter raised concerns about safety related to hunting.

Response: We note the comment, but feel that opportunities are ample for both the hunting and non-hunting public to enjoy the refuge. New Hampshire Fish and Game statistics (2007) indicate that between 2000 and 2007 an average of only 3.3 hunting-related incidents per year occurred in New Hampshire. Only two hunting-related fatalities have occurred in New Hampshire in the last 14 years. Moreover, more than 95 percent of hunting incidents in the state have occurred between hunters. Over the past 45 years, only 11 hunting-related incidents involving non-hunters have been reported in New Hampshire.

Comment: Access to help in emergencies was another concern.

Response: We understand the unease many visitors experience, especially with the lack of cell-phone service in the area. That is especially true of campers at remote campsites who experience an emergency. All outdoor recreation involves risks. Everyone must consider those risks and prepare for emergency situations. We cooperate with state agencies in reporting emergencies and in allowing emergency personnel to use refuge radio frequencies during an emergency. We will forward any emergency information reported to refuge personnel to the appropriate authorities for the most efﬁ cient response. We hope that all refuge users will assist others in emergencies by reporting those emergencies to the marine patrol, police, state park personnel, state personnel, or refuge personnel.

14.3 Access (Letter ID#: 6, 7, 18, 60, 81, 90, 112, 124, 130, 135, 152, 158, 232, 233, 319, 320, 326, 336, 479, 492, 506, 508, 642, 919)

Comment: Several commenters felt strongly that, because the refuge is public land and is paid for by tax dollars, it should be open to everyone to enjoy. Along with that sentiment, those commenters frequently discussed their ethics in asking for permission from landowners, taking care of the land, and acting respectfully and responsibly while using it.

Response: We appreciate those comments, and compliment the people and companies whose stewardship of the land and forests contributes to the conservation of wildlife habitat around Umbagog Lake.

When the federal government purchases property, it does so for a specifi c reason. The Service purchased land for the refuge for the following purposes, and under the following authorities (see also fi nal CCP/EIS chapter 1, “Refuge Establishment,” and each compatibility determination in fi nal CCP/EIS appendix C).

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-59 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

1. “the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public beneﬁ ts they provide and to help fulﬁ ll international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions…” (Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, 16 U.S.C. 3901(b)) 2. “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” (Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 715d)

3. “for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of ﬁ sh and wildlife resources…” (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. 742(a)(4))

4. “for the beneﬁ t of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance might be subject to the terms of any restrictive or afﬁ rmative covenant, or condition of servitude…” (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956; 16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1))

Those acts, in combination with other laws, presidential directives and Service policies, determine the type of public access and use that we consider compatible. The Improvement Act clarifi es that refuges are places where “wildlife comes fi rst,” and public access or use is secondary to the wildlife mission of each refuge. Access and use for hunting, fi shing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation are to be facilitated whenever possible, provided they do not detract from those establishing purposes. Finally, we can consider all other public uses if they do not materially detract from or interfere with the purposes for which each refuge was established.

Much of the Umbagog area was open to the public long before the refuge was established. We recognize the importance of outdoor recreation for the local economy, the close ties that people have to the land, and that people generally have used the land responsibly, at a level where the impacts of public use have been minimal. As public land managers, we are responsible for ensuring that the level and type of public use on the refuge do not compromise its establishing purposes. For that reason, we need to consider how the levels of public use might affect refuge resources or conﬂ ict with each other.

Comment: Many commenters were concerned about access to waterways. Most were concerned that the refuge would curtail access to the lake and logging roads.

Response: We listened to public concerns about closing the boat launch at refuge headquarters, also known as the “Brown Owl” launch, and reconsidered our position on closing it. By keeping it open, we feel that the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS does not restrict access to the lake or rivers (see also our response in this document under the heading “Buildings and Facilities”).

We have also included maps 2–8 and 2–9 in chapter 2, alternative B of the fi nal CCP/EIS to delineate which logging roads we will keep open to allow access for all compatible uses (see our response in this document under “Roads”). In the fi nal CCP/EIS, chapter 2, alternative B, “Introduction,” we state, “we would maintain open designated major road corridors in the expansion lands to facilitate access….” Maps 2–8 and 2-9 designate all major routes of travel to facilitate public use and our habitat management or other administrative purposes. We will close the smaller, less frequently used gravel roads, because the cost-benefi t ratio of keeping them open between cutting cycles is prohibitive. As did previous landowners, we will perform major maintenance on roads periodically, especially before or during logging operations. The rest of the time, we will perform only minor maintenance, until the roads are needed again for management purposes.

Comment: Some commenters opposed constructing improved access at Sturtevant Pond and B Pond.

Response: In response to that concern, we have reconsidered our position on improving the boat launches in those areas, have removed the proposal for a boat launch at Sturtevant Pond, and have scaled back our proposal at B Pond in the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS. If we are fortunate enough to purchase the land surrounding B Pond from a willing seller, we might improve parking for a small number of vehicles to provide a safe pull-off area away from the shoreline to access B Pond and carry boats down the anglers’ trail.

O-60 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Comment: Some commenters favored limiting the use of some areas to non-motorized recreation only.

Response: Designating wilderness areas generally prohibits the use of motorized or mechanized equipment. We completed a wilderness review for the refuge, (ﬁ nal CCP/EIS appendix D, “Wilderness Review”), but found that the refuge lacks large, contiguous blocks of land suitable for wilderness designation. However, smaller areas on the refuge offer non-motorized recreation as the only means of travel. Visitors who want to experience the refuge under their own power might ﬁ nd satisfaction in those areas. Any new lands we acquire in fee in the future will be subject to a new wilderness review during the next CCP update in 15 years.

Comment: Others were concerned that the refuge would cut off access to their private property, especially during seasonal closures for the nesting season.

Response: We do not intend to cut off any reasonable access to private property. In fact, several landowners have obtained special use permits to cross refuge land to access their properties when that access otherwise would not be allowed.

Concern: Some expressed concern that the refuge did not recognize the State of New Hampshire easement for a snowmobile trail over refuge lands.

Response: We do recognize that easement, and have been cooperating on it with the state.

Comment: Another commenter was concerned that non-hunters would have limited or curtailed access to the refuge during the hunting season.

Response: We have not set any restrictions that would preclude non-hunters using the refuge during the hunting season. We believe the opportunities are ample for both hunters and non-hunters to enjoy the refuge during the hunting season.

14.4 Hunting (Letter ID#: 2, 27, 37, 47, 50, 72, 73, 98, ,101, 102, 111, 145, 148, 462, 257, 263, 291, 327, 352, 356, 368, 377, 385, 389, 432, 600, 642, 652, 894, 908, 919, 928)

Comment: Some comments opposed any form of hunting on national wildlife refuges, and expressed concern that hunting is inconsistent with the meaning of the phrase “refuge for wildlife.” Others favored more restrictive hunting regulations.

Response: The Improvement Act identiﬁ es hunting as one of six priority, wildlife-dependent public uses that are to receive enhanced consideration in refuge planning. The others are ﬁ shing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. Our mandate is to provide high-quality opportunities for those priority uses when they are compatible with refuge purposes, goals, and other management priorities. The Act does not establish a hierarchy among the six priority uses, but requires us to facilitate them when they are compatible and appropriate. Executive Order No. 13443 (August 16, 2007), “Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation,” reinforces the importance of hunting for recreational and management purposes on national wildlife refuges. That order recognizes the declining trends in hunting, and directs the Department of the Interior and other federal land management agencies to “facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat.” It also states that federal agencies are to “manage wildlife and wildlife habitats on public lands in a manner that expands and enhances hunting opportunities, including through the use of hunting in wildlife management planning.”

Our Regional Visitor Services Program Team also has identiﬁ ed hunting as an “area of emphasis” for this refuge. In addition, the 1991 EA that established the refuge stated our commitment to continuing traditional, wildlife- oriented public uses, including hunting. At the time, that commitment received considerable support from the

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-61 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

states of Maine and New Hampshire and the public. We are committed to honoring our pledge to offer quality hunting programs.

To meet those mandates, we implemented a hunting program for waterfowl, migratory game birds, upland game and big game on the entire refuge in 2000. In the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS, chapter 2, alternative B, goal 4 supports enhancing priority public use opportunities, including hunting, called for by Executive Order No. 13443 and the Improvement Act. Final CCP/EIS appendix C, “Compatibility Determinations,” includes our determination on hunting.

The current refuge hunt plan includes a number of refuge-specifi c regulations that are more restrictive than are the state regulations (refer in fi nal CCP/EIS appendix C to “Compatibility Determination on Public Hunting”). We believe those regulations suffi ce to protect refuge resources at this time and no further restrictions are necessary.

Comment: Some commenters felt that we had not addressed adequately the impacts of hunting on other visitors or wildlife, its compatibility with refuge purposes, alternatives to hunting, and its cumulative effects. They also questioned our justiﬁ cation of hunting as a management tool.

Response: We released our Final Amended Environmental Assessment for Public Hunting on April 23, 2007. It presents a full range of alternatives, including a “no hunting” alternative, and analyzes their impacts. After public review, we published the amended refuge regulations in 50 CFR. The 2007 Hunt Plan EA also includes an analysis of cumulative impacts of the preferred alternative. Final CCP/EIS appendix C, “Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations,” includes a compatibility determination for public hunting. We consider those analyses to be sufﬁ cient. Although hunting can be used as a management tool on refuges, we also have been directed to facilitate recreational hunting by Executive Order No. 13443 (August 16, 2007), “Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation,” and the Improvement Act.

Comment: We received a number of letters in support of hunting.

Response: We thank those commenters for their support.

Comment: Several of the commenters who supported hunting nevertheless objected to the refuge- speciﬁ c hunting regulations. They felt that the state hunting regulations were adequate, and that having different federal and state regulations could lead to confusion. They were also concerned that we might close the refuge entirely for hunting.

Response: Most of the refuge hunting regulations are identical to those of the states of Maine and New Hampshire, in terms of their bag limits, seasons, and huntable species, with the exception of turkeys and bobcats. We will evaluate modifying our current hunt plan, including the possible future addition of turkeys and bobcats, the next time we update the hunt plan (see fi nal CCP/EIS alternative B, goal 4, objective 4.1). We will release any proposed changes for public review, and publish them in 50 CFR before we implement them. Other refuge-specifi c regulations are designed to minimize impacts on refuge resources and maintain public safety. Refer to 50 CFR 32.2 for regulations that apply to hunting on all national wildlife refuges. For example, those regulations prohibit hunting over bait. The public concern about confusion over regulations is a valid one, and we intend to increase hunter education and outreach to minimize the potential for confusion about federal or refuge-specifi c hunting regulations. In addition, we will be posting the refuge boundary, which should help clarify where those regulations apply.

The strategies in fi nal CCP/EIS alternative B, goal 4, objective 4.1, “Hunting,” propose to improve the hunting program and the facilities open to hunters, not to restrict or eliminate hunting. Hunting is a priority public use, one of emphasis on the refuge. The refuge has been open offi cially to hunting since 2000, and no part of this fi nal CCP/EIS implies any intent on our part to close it to hunting in the future. As resource needs warrant, we might adjust the refuge hunting regulations, including the areas of the refuge open to hunting from time to time, in coordination with the states.

O-62 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Comment: One commenter felt that the refuge hunting regulations were anti-dog.

Response: We permit the use of dogs in hunting migratory game birds, some upland game species, including hare and ruffed grouse, and some big-game species, including bear and coyote, during state seasons. We designed the restrictions on uncontrolled dogs at other times to protect breeding birds and other species from harassment. Current Maine state hunting regulations prohibit allowing dogs to “run at large” at any time, except when being used for hunting.

Comment: One commenter voiced support for an interstate working group to improve regulatory consistency.

Response: We appreciate the commenter’s support. Final CCP/EIS chapter 2, alternative B, goal 4, objective 4.1, includes our proposal to establish a working group with Maine and New Hampshire wildlife agencies to help coordinate hunting seasons on the refuge. We believe that will help promote regulatory consistency.

Comment: One commenter suggested we should maintain some hunting areas, particularly in the proposed expansion area, as “walk-in only,” to “make the experience more rewarding.” The commenter also suggested we should designate an area for hunting with traditional ﬁ rearms only.

Response: Final CCP/EIS chapter 2, alternative B, goal 4, objective 4.1 states our commitment to providing a high-quality hunting experience, including uncrowded, challenging conditions. We believe our road and trail plans will provide a reasonable mix of areas both readily accessible and less readily accessible for hunting. We have not seen a high demand for an area solely for muzzle-loaders or long bows. However, should that demand rise, we will consider the suggestion in developing future hunting management plans.

14.4.a Waterfowl (Letter ID# 102)

Comment: One commenter expressed the desire that we “leave duck hunting alone.” Others expressed their dissatisfaction with the refuge hunting blinds.

Response: Although we are not sure exactly which aspects of the refuge-speciﬁ c waterfowl regulations the commenter objects to, we are not proposing to change any of them. Our current regulations are identical to the states in their seasons, species and bag limits. We agree that many of the duck blinds need repair, and might need relocation. We are interested in meeting with duck club members to discuss how best to improve the blinds and duck hunting on the refuge.

14.4.b Game or Other No speciﬁ c comments

14.5 Fishing (Letter ID#: 107, 108, 111, 145, 257, 386, 894, 908, 910)

Comment: Some comments opposed any ﬁ shing on national wildlife refuges, and expressed concern that ﬁ shing, a consumptive use, is inconsistent with the meaning of the word “refuge.”

Response: The Improvement Act identifi es fi shing as one of the six priority, wildlife-dependent public uses that are to receive our enhanced consideration in refuge planning. The others are hunting, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. Our mandate is to provide high-quality opportunities for those priority uses when they are compatible with refuge purposes, goals, and other management priorities. Our Regional Visitor Services Program Team has identifi ed fi shing, along with the other fi ve priority public uses, as “areas of emphasis” for the refuge. In addition, the original 1991 EA establishing the refuge states our commitment to continue offering traditional wildlife-oriented public uses, including fi shing.

Comment: One commenter expressed concern about the impacts of ﬁ shing tackle, line, and other debris on the environment and wildlife.

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-63 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Response: We appreciate that concern, and have addressed it in our public ﬁ shing compatibility determination, where we stipulate that lead tackle will be prohibited on the refuge. We will also increase our public education and outreach on that subject.

Comment: Several commenters enjoyed fi shing in the area, supported fi shing and more fi shing access, and felt that the expansion of the refuge might enhance opportunities for fi shing.

Response: We thank those commenters for their support, and are committed to continue providing high-quality opportunities for ﬁ shing on the refuge in the future.

Comment: Several commenters expressed their concern that the refuge might restrict or close ﬁ shing.

Response: The original 1991 EA that established the refuge clearly states, “Uses of the lake and rivers such as fi shing and boating will continue, subject to existing state regulations.” Fishing is also one of the six priority public uses to receive our enhanced consideration on national wildlife refuges. Final CCP/EIS chapter 2, alternative B, goal 4, objective 4.2 reaffi rms that we will “continue to allow access for fi shing, in accordance with states of Maine and New Hampshire regulations, except in sensitive areas during nesting season.” We have never intended to close the refuge for fi shing and, far from trying to “shut fi shing down,” we have proposed increasing and improving fi shing access under alternative B, objective 4.2.

Although we have allowed fi shing access on the refuge since its inception, offi cially opening the refuge for fi shing requires that we assess its compatibility with refuge purposes and publish our intention and any refuge-specifi c regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR). Our compatibility determination on fi shing in the fi nal CCP/EIS, appendix C, “Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations,” and the strategies in chapter 2, alternative B, goal 4, objective 4.2, will complete that offi cial opening of the refuge for fi shing.

We realize that requirement to notify the public might be confusing, but it does not signify that we intend to close the refuge to fi shing. To fulfi ll our wildlife mission, we occasionally might have to close certain areas seasonally to fi shing, to protect nesting birds (waterfowl, loons, eagles, etc.) from disturbance or protect the fi shery resource. We will coordinate those actions with the state wildlife agencies. We recognize that those temporary closures might be unpopular with some anglers. However, we are also proposing to improve access for fi shing in other areas.

Comment: Several commenters want the refuge to be open to ﬁ shing derbies, in particular, ice-ﬁ shing derbies.

Response: We are committed to supporting recreational fi shing as an enjoyable, wildlife-dependent family- oriented activity that promotes an appreciation of fi sh and wildlife. We have concerns regarding intensity of use and potential impacts with regard to fi shing derbies, therefore, any competitive event will be considered on a case-by-case basis through a Special Use Permit. We also recommend that people interested in fi shing derbies follow appropriate state requirements.

Comment: One commenter suggested that we provide enhanced opportunities for ﬁ shing education.

Response: We agree that providing opportunities for fi shing education is an important component of promoting public appreciation of fi shing. Final CCP/EIS chapter 2, alternative B, goal 4, objective 4.2, includes strategies to continue our annual “Take Me Fishing” event. Recently, we combined that event, which traditionally has included instruction in tying fl ies and fl y-fi shing techniques, with the annual Umbagog Wildlife Festival.

14.6 Viewing and Photographing Wildlife (Letter ID#: 713, 721)

Comment: Several commenters appreciated the opportunity to view various species of wildlife at the refuge.

Response: We thank them for their comments.

O-64 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

14.7 Interpretative and Environmental Education (Letter ID#: 4, 16, 199)

Comment: Several commenters wrote to say that we should expand our outreach and education for the public with environmental programs and interpretation of natural history. Others suggest that we should mount outreach to non-proﬁ ts to encourage them to establish environmental education programs.

Response: We thank the commenters for supporting outreach and education. We agree that increasing outreach, interpretation, and education would benefi t visitors and the local community. We are also excited about the opportunity to work with non-profi ts in providing opportunities in environmental education for students and teachers. We discuss that type of program primarily in goal 5 of alternative B in chapter 2 of the fi nal CCP/EIS.

Improving refuge facilities will also enhance refuge interpretation and environmental education programs. Planning and developing a new visitor center will include exhibits; nature trails will include interpretative signs; and kiosks will be located at various points on the refuge to welcome and orient visitors and provide natural history interpretation.

15.0 Other Public Uses (Letter ID#: 56, 60, 84, 90, 107, 108, 111, 112, 138, 318, 353, 645, 665, 685)

Comment: Some commenters were concerned about the type of recreational activities we allow on the refuge. Some speciﬁ cally mentioned the “big six” priorities in the Improvement Act, and felt that those were the only uses we would allow. Several commenters wanted us to develop those and other recreational uses, rather than just allow them. Others stated that we should do a better job with what we have.

Response: Goals 4 and 5 in each section of alternative B in chapter 2 of the fi nal CCP/EIS clearly spell out the types of recreational use we will allow on the refuge. Our list of activities encompasses much more than the “big six” priority public uses in the Improvement Act. We include hunting, fi shing, wildlife observation, nature photography, camping, boating, environmental interpretation, environmental education, bicycling, horseback riding, snowmobiling, dog sledding on snowmobile trails, hiking, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, and the recreational gathering of blueberries, blackberries, strawberries, raspberries, fi ddleheads, mushrooms and antler sheds. Please refer to the compatibility determinations in appendix C of the fi nal CCP/EIS for their specifi c stipulations for compatibility.

As for developing uses and doing a better job with what we have, we agree. In fact, in ﬁ nal CCP/EIS chapter 2, alternative B (our preferred alternative), goal 4, we propose improving the priority uses we allow by improving access and providing new infrastructure.

Comment: Several commenters mentioned allowing traditional uses of the land to continue. Others wanted us to continue to allow the traditional uses and all 30 popular forest- and water-based recreational activities in the NH SCORP.

Response: We purchased the land for the refuge for specifi c reasons, under certain authorities (see the section “Access” in this document). The Improvement Act not only defi nes priority public uses, but also establishes a process for determining whether they are appropriate and compatible with the purposes for which a refuge was established (see fi nal CCP/EIS chapter 1 and appendix C, “Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations). All uses are considered closed until we open them through that process. We considered all public input during the entire planning process, and frequently referred to the public sentiment expressed during the scoping for the 1991 EA that established the refuge. We have considered every use identifi ed during both of those planning processes. The fi nal CCP/EIS allows most of them to continue, with some stipulations. Please refer also to our response in this document under the section “Uses Determined Inappropriate.”

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-65 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Comment: Several commenters wanted a process for approving new campsites and trails.

Response: Minor changes in campsites and trail locations could occur over the life of this plan, at the discretion of the refuge manager. Signiﬁ cant changes to this plan would be subject to further NEPA analysis (see in ﬁ nal CCP/ EIS chapter 2, “Actions Common to All Alternatives,” “Additional NEPA Analysis”).

Comment: Others requested a public comment process before discontinuing any recreational use.

Response: We understand that comment, but the Improvement Act makes it clear that recreational uses are considered closed until we open them through fi ndings of appropriateness, corresponding compatibility statements, suffi cient NEPA analysis, and ensuing public review. We solicited public comment during the scoping and public review of the draft CCP/EIS. We have considered many recreational uses, and have completed compatibility determinations to open the refuge offi cially to the uses the public has requested, whenever they do not materially interfere with or detract from the establishing purposes of the refuge. In response to public comments, we have added the following recreational uses to the list of allowed uses in the fi nal CCP/EIS: the recreational gathering of blueberries, blackberries, strawberries, raspberries, fi ddleheads, mushrooms and antler sheds, dog sledding on snowmobile trails, bicycling, and horseback riding.

15.1 Remote Camping (Letter ID#: 10, 11, 93, 119, 135, 196, 199, 321)

Comment: Commenters were concerned about the limited number of sites available to paddlers, especially as we acquire more land for the refuge. Some asked that we consider adding more sites, especially along the Magalloway River, to facilitate traversing the Northern Forest Canoe Trail. They desired campsites at 7-mile intervals for through-paddlers, and were concerned that recent and planned closures are affecting that use.

Response: We acknowledge those comments and understand them, but stand behind the strategies in the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS, chapter 2, alternative B, goal 4, objective 4.4. We feel that the private land adjacent to the refuge provides ample opportunity for increased camping that could satisfy that need.

Comment: One commenter was concerned that the refuge was going to limit the size of campsites, which would preclude group camping, especially for paddlers.

Response: That confusion might have arisen from draft CCP/EIS chapter 2, alternatives A and B, goal 4, objective 4.4, which simply states a strategy to limit campsite size. All remote sites on the refuge will remain at their present sizes. For larger groups, designated group sites are available: R-2, R-15, R-18, R-27 and R-31. Visitors on paddling trips should beneﬁ t from the camp site at Leonard Pond (R–28), which has been re- designated as a “short-term” site where reservations will be limited to a two-night maximum.

Comment: Along a similar line, we also received comments regarding the limited number of sites for paddlers and stating a desire to add more campsites. Also related were the complaints about previous closures of campsites at Pulpit Rock and Harper’s Meadow and the proposed closure of the campsites North 1 and North 2.

Response: We acknowledge the diffi culty paddlers encounter in setting up their itinerary and reserving sites. We believe that the new designation of R–28 as a short-term site will help ease that diffi culty. The previous and proposed closures are of campsites along river systems close to Route 16 North that do not meet the criteria in our preferred alternative, when remote camping facilitates wildlife observation “while allowing the visitor to be totally immersed in a quiet, private, primitive and natural setting” (refer to fi nal CCP/EIS chapter 2, alternative B, goal 4, objective 4.4).

Comment: Others voiced concerns about the localized impacts of camping and gathering ﬁ rewood.

Response: We agree with the comment that we should address the localized impacts of camping, rather than limit remote camping, and we appreciate the willingness of the AMC to offer its expertise in managing backcountry sites. We also agree with the commenter that gathering downed wood lowers the biodiversity of areas close to

O-66 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR campsites. We will work with the Umbagog Lake State Park to provide ﬁ rewood at remote sites on the refuge, so campers will be able to buy a permit to burn that wood instead of gathering wood from refuge lands.

15.2 Boating (Letter ID#: 16, 20, 48, 50, 61, 73, 87, 88, 89, 107, 109, 196, 199, 321, 326, 341, 400, 408, 432, 678)

Comment: The comments directed at boating split between restricting access and allowing access. They also split between limiting horsepower and not limiting horsepower for boats using the lake. The advocates of motorized boats are concerned that their access and use are gradually being restricted and might be eliminated in the future.

Response: We proposed closing the boat ramp at the refuge headquarters due to the limited sight distance along Route 16 North. After hearing the strong sentiment expressed at public hearings and in written comments, we have reconsidered that closure, and will keep that launch site open, with some modiﬁ cations to improve its sight lines. We will also work with the state highway department on installing warning signs to improve the safety of the site.

Comment: Some commenters either feared the elimination of motorboat use, or proposed non-motorized boat use only.

Response: We have no intention of eliminating motor boat use on Umbagog Lake or its tributaries. As for restrictions on speed or horsepower, we will defer to the states of New Hampshire and Maine to set regulations. Confl icts among users have occurred in the past, and we urge all users to operate watercraft in a way that is courteous and respectful of others. Some of the Umbagog Lake Working Group tasks include boating education and ethics to reduce confl icts (fi nal CCP/EIS chapter 2, in “Actions Common to All Alternatives”).

Comment: We received several comments on the proposed boat launches at Sturtevant Pond and B Pond. Most of them opposed constructing or expanding those launches.

Response: Both of these proposals depend on our being fortunate enough to negotiate with a willing seller and purchase those properties. We have reconsidered our position, and have eliminated the proposed launch at Sturtevant Pond. We have also reconsidered the improvements of the launch at B Pond (see also our response in this document under “Access”).

Comment: Many commenters were concerned about all types of watercraft disturbing wildlife.

Response: We appreciate that concern, and encourage all who use the water resources around Umbagog Lake to minimize that disturbance by keeping a safe distance from all species of wildlife. We will continue to cooperate with both states in minimizing those impacts by seasonally closing nesting areas to protect wildlife. We also have developed brochures to provide information to the boating public on these subjects: “Boating Courtesy” and “Guide to Wildlife Etiquette.” One of the criteria for siting the proposed refuge headquarters at the Potter Farm was to provide access for boaters to the ofﬁ ce and educational outreach.

15.3 Snowmobiling (Letter ID#: 5, 30, 67, 87, 91, 107, 108, 135, 141, 263, 274, 336, 342, 346, 347, 349, 350, 432, 473, 575, 592, 597, 600, 610, 611, 624, 626, 631, 645, 650, 652, 670, 690, 692, 696, 698, 699, 702, 708, 709, 710, 712, 713, 718, 720, 721, 722, 725, 726, 778, 788, 816, 820, 827, 833, 834, 835, 853, 856, 860, 864, 875, 882, 898)

Comment: Commenters in favor of snowmobiling were concerned about the continued access to and operation of snowmobile trails on refuge lands.

Response: All three alternatives propose to continue snowmobiling on designated trails. We propose to keep open the mapped, maintained trails that pass through the refuge for use both on existing refuge lands and in the expansion area. We will not allow the use of snowmobiles off-trail, on spur trails, or other trails not shown

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-67 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

on map 2–9. We will work with the states and the snowmobile clubs to reroute trails out of wetlands and deer wintering areas, and we might occasionally need to reroute trails around management activities such as logging.

Comment: Commenters were concerned about the expansion of trails in the expansion area.

Response: If we are fortunate enough to purchase lands from willing sellers, we will evaluate the mapped snowmobile trails and discuss the trail system with the states and local snowmobile clubs. We will allow the continued use of the mapped, maintained trails that pass through the refuge and do not detract from its purpose, but will not allow the use of spur trails or off-trail riding. We will consider relocating trails when it will reduce the impacts on the refuge, for example, by moving them out of wetlands and deer wintering areas.

Comment: The proponents of snowmobiling also mentioned its beneﬁ ts for the local economy.

Response: We recognize those economic beneﬁ ts (see ﬁ nal CCP/EIS chapter 4, in “Effects on Socioeconomic Resources”), and we intend to continue this public use.

Comment: Some property owners commented that they were concerned about access to their properties.

Response: We have no intention of closing off access to private property. Maps 2–8 and 2–9 in alternative B in chapter 2 of the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS show clearly which roads we will keep open to the public and which snowmobile trails we now recognize. Leaseholders and owners of private land who do not otherwise have a right-of-way can request a special use permit to access their property if necessary.

Comment: Commenters who opposed snowmobiling on the refuge stated that it was incompatible due to its impacts on wildlife and the environment.

Response: We understand and appreciate those comments, and offer the following: Snowmobile trails on the refuge are located primarily on logging roads. We will work with the states and local clubs to relocate trails out of more sensitive areas, such as wetlands and deer wintering areas. We will allow snowmobiling only on designated trails (see ﬁ nal CCP/EIS chapter 2, alternative B, map 2–9). Those trails will be open only when their snow cover is sufﬁ cient for the use. We will monitor that use, and enforce regulations to ensure that it is conducted appropriately.

15.4 Off Road Vehicle Use [ATVs, UTVs, dirt bikes and other off-road vehicles not legal for highway use] (Letter ID#: 87, 152, 196, 592, 600, 631, 670, 690, 706, 712)

Comment: We received a few comments about the use of ORVs at the refuge. Most of them opposed it.

Response: We appreciate that support, and stand by our decision not to allow ORV use on the refuge. We discuss that decision in the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS, chapter 2, in “Actions Common to All Alternatives,” and in appendix C, in “Finding of Appropriateness for ORV Use.”

Comment: There was some limited concern that we would close four-wheel-drive roads.

Response: Please see our response in this document under “Access.”

Comment: We received some comments objecting to our having determined ORV use inappropriate.

Response: We did not see that those comments were speciﬁ cally in support of ORV use, and have responded to them in a different section. Please refer to our response in this document under “Uses Determined Inappropriate.”

15.5 Hiking

O-68 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

(Letter ID#: 158, 726)

Comment: A few commenters supported hiking generally, stating that any recreation plan should include it, and that it would cause limited disturbance, because hikers would more likely be drawn to areas with more opportunities for hiking, such as the White Mountains.

Response: Hiking is not one of the six priority public uses of the refuge system. However, we will facilitate pedestrian travel on nature trails when it supports priority uses such as interpretation, wildlife observation, or photography. Please refer to the public use maps and the discussion under each alternative in the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS, chapter 2, goal 4. Maps 2–8 and 2–9 indicate the trails for alternative B, our preferred alternative.

15.6 Uses Determined Inappropriate (Letter ID#: 20, 48, 50, 85, 90, 93, 107, 135, 138, 287, 318, 470, 476, 497, 513, 517)

Comment: Several commenters objected to our determining uses inappropriate. Some objected to being told that they could enjoy a speciﬁ c use on public land, while others commented on the lack of reasons in our ﬁ ndings of appropriateness for why we found it inappropriate.

Response: The public use of the refuge is governed by state and federal laws, policies, and directives, including these.

• National Wildlife Administration Act of 1996 • Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 • Executive Order No. 12996 of March 25, 1996 • USFWS Policy on Appropriateness of Refuge Uses • USFWS Policy on Compatibility • Executive Order No. 13443 (August 16, 2007), “Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation”

Throughout the development of this ﬁ nal CCP/EIS, the core team was sensitive to the desire of the local populace to maintain certain public uses outlined in the 1991 EA establishing the refuge. The core team also desired to minimize additional regulations and align refuge-speciﬁ c regulations as closely as possible with state regulations to avoid potential confusion whenever possible. Adopting state regulations wholesale was not possible, because federal laws sometimes require more stringent regulations than state laws do.

The Improvement Act requires the Service to manage refuges as a system of lands, not as individual fi eld stations. In determining whether a public use is appropriate, the refuge manager must determine that it will not materially interfere with or detract from fulfi lling the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System or the establishing purposes of the refuge. The refuge manager also must consider whether it detract from or confl ict with other allowable uses, whether current refuge staffi ng and funding are suffi cient to support it, and its expected impacts on the refuge.

The draft CCP/EIS addresses the uses known to occur on the refuge and the uses brought to our attention during the public scoping process. The fi nal CCP/EIS also considers the comments regarding additional public uses brought up during the public comment period for the draft CCP/EIS. We made several changes, which are refl ected in appendix C, “Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations.” We added two additional compatibility determinations: horseback riding and bicycling. We modifi ed two additional compatibility determinations to incorporate public comment. We modifi ed and renamed “Gathering of blueberries, black berries, and raspberries” as “Recreational gathering of blueberries, blackberries, strawberries, raspberries, fi ddleheads, mushrooms and antler sheds.” We also modifi ed the compatibility determination on snowmobiling to add the use of dogsleds on snowmobile trails, as allowed by state law. The Service policy on appropriateness states, “the Refuge Manager will decide if a new or existing use is an

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-69 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

appropriate refuge use. If an existing use is not appropriate, the Refuge Manager will eliminate or modify the use as expeditiously as practicable.” We may include narrative discussions in a fi nding of appropriateness to record why we made the fi nding, but they are not required. We have reconsidered and found appropriate several of the uses people commented on for the fi nal CCP/EIS.

Comment: One commenter claimed, “There are over 30 popular forest- and water-based recreation activities that are listed in the NH SCORP that are prohibited in the refuge, and if the refuge expands will dramatically reduce tourism and recreation participation in the local area and the North Country.”

Response: That comment overstates. Of the 35 outdoor activities listed in the NH SCORP, 12 would be allowable in the fi nal CCP/EIS. That leaves 23 activities that we would not allow. Of those 23 activities, 4 do not apply at all to the area (ocean swimming, downhill skiing, camping in a national forest, and sea kayaking), leaving 19 activities that would not be allowed on the refuge. Those are available outside the refuge, and would not be affected by the expansion the fi nal CCP/EIS proposes. Furthermore, we reconsidered our position on an additional fi ve activities, leaving 14 activities available in the local area but prohibited on the refuge. Many of those 14 activities occur on the waters of Umbagog Lake, and are subject primarily to state regulation, (e.g., sailing, waterskiing, and lake swimming). Others require facilities that are inconsistent with the establishing purposes of the refuge, such as golf courses, tennis courts, or soccer fi elds.

We purchased the lands encompassed by the refuge for specifi c purposes in the National Wildlife Refuge System. The mission of the refuge system differs from other those of other government agencies, such as the National Park Service or Forest Service. We conducted a thorough public scoping, and considered all requests for specifi c public uses to be allowed in preparing the draft and the fi nal CCP/EIS, and incorporated additional uses into the fi nal CCP/EIS in response to public comment.

Comment: Others commented speciﬁ cally about certain activities: dog sledding, berry harvesting, mushroom harvesting, ﬁ ddlehead harvesting, ORV use, horseback riding, mountain bike riding, and geo-caching.

Response: Please refer to our response to comments relating to ORV use in that section. We have reconsidered mountain biking, and have prepared a compatibility determination for bicycling. We will allow bicycling along designated routes of travel through the refuge. For their exact locations, please refer to ﬁ nal CCP/EIS chapter 2, alternative B, maps 2–8 and 2–9.

We also have reconsidered dog sledding, horseback riding, berry picking, mushroom picking, and ﬁ ddlehead picking, and have prepared compatibility determinations to allow them in certain areas, under certain stipulations. Our responses to comments on those activities follow in the next few sections. We also reconsidered geo-caching, but we stand behind our decision that it is not appropriate, since it involves the abandonment of property, and because the people who set up the caches might unknowingly enter sensitive habitats or disturb wildlife.

15.6a Bicycling No speciﬁ c comments received

15.6b Horseback Riding (Letter ID#: 34, 110, 111)

Comment: Some comments asked us to allow recreational horseback riding.

Response: We asked the people who use the refuge and the proposed expansion area for horseback riding to describe where they ride in the area, at what time of year, and how often they rode. We reconsidered our position on horseback riding after evaluating the use and listening to those public comments. We used that additional information to prepare a compatibility determination allowing the use only on certain designated trails, with stipulations (see ﬁ nal CCP/EIS appendix C, under “Compatibility Determination for Horseback Riding”). We will allow a trail that permits people to ride from Upton, Maine, to Errol, New Hampshire. The current level of that use at this time does not materially interfere with or detract from the fulﬁ llment of the

O-70 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR mission of the refuge system or the establishing purposes of the refuge. We will monitor its level over time, and re-evaluate it if it increases signiﬁ cantly.

15.6c Berry Harvesting (Letter ID#: 108, 147, 164, 468, 174)

Comment: People who commented on berry harvesting opposed restrictions on the amounts and types of wild foods they could pick on the refuge. A few requested that we open the refuge speciﬁ cally for picking cranberries.

Response: After considering public comment on this subject, we completed a compatibility determination for the “Recreational Gathering of Blueberries, Blackberries, Strawberries, Raspberries, Mushrooms, Fiddleheads, and Antler Sheds.” That compatibility determination proposes to open the refuge for gathering them for personal use and consumption, with stipulations to ensure compatibility. We recognize that people have gathered those native materials for many years, and acknowledge that it fosters a connection to and appreciation of the area’s natural resources. The ﬁ elds along Pond Brook Road fall under special regulations. Please refer to ﬁ nal CCP/ EIS appendix C, under “Compatibility Determination for Recreational Harvesting of Blueberries, Blackberries, Strawberries, Raspberries, Fiddleheads, Mushrooms, and Antler Sheds.”

This use frequently occurs with other uses. Its levels are relatively low. Furthermore, the compatibility determination does not limit the harvest to a speciﬁ c amount, but stipulates that the materials will be gathered for personal, not commercial, use.

The current level of this use at this time does not materially interfere with or detract from the fulﬁ llment of the mission of the refuge system or the establishing purposes of the refuge. We will monitor the level of the use over time, and re-evaluate it if it increases signiﬁ cantly.

Harvesting cranberries is prohibited to avoid impacts on wetlands (see fi nal CCP/EIS appendix C, under “Compatibility Determination for Recreational Harvesting of Blueberries, Blackberries, Strawberries, Raspberries, Fiddleheads, Mushrooms, and Antler Sheds”). One of the purposes for establishing the refuge was “the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefi ts they provide and to help fulfi ll international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions….” (Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, 16 U.S.C. 3901(b)) That purpose places a high emphasis on conserving the wetland habitats of the area. Cranberries grow in some of the most sensitive of the refuge wetland systems, and allowing this use raises the potential for damage to those habitats. Therefore, this use could materially detract from or interfere with the establishing purpose of the refuge. It will remain closed to cranberry picking.

15.6d Dog Sledding or Mushing (Letter ID#: 107, 199, 381)

Comment: Comments regarding dog sledding were grouped largely with other non-motorized uses and arguments against the regulation of public use. Speciﬁ c comments concerned the refuge’s geographical position in relation to key access points and routes.

Response: After carefully considering the public comments and the potential impact on wildlife during the winter months, we reconsidered our position on dog sledding, and have amended the snowmobile compatibility determination to allow dog sledding on snowmobile trails as state law allows. We will allow dog sledding on designated, mapped snowmobile trails, as long as those trails are located away from deer wintering areas, wetlands, or other resources of concern (refer to ﬁ nal CCP/EIS appendix C, under “Compatibility Determination for Snowmobiling”). We will not allow new trails or off-trail use. The use will be during daylight hours only, and no camping will be allowed.

Comment: Other comments focused on guided dog sledding and the impact shutting down dog sledding would have on a local business and the local economy.

Response: We have met with, and will continue to meet with, the owners of the Mahoosuc Guide Service, who

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-71 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

established a business in the area with separate trails and winter campsites on the refuge and in the surrounding area before we purchased the property for the refuge. Dog sledding in sensitive habitat areas, especially when combined with winter camping, has the potential to affect wildlife. Many wildlife species are especially sensitive during the winter. We recognize that abruptly cutting off access would be detrimental to that business. Considering this was an existing use, and to be consistent with refuge campsites and camp lot leases, we will accommodate this use through our current lease program with a term not to exceed 15 years. This lease will provide the leaseholder with exclusive use of certain trails and campsites on the refuge during the dogsledding season.

15.7 Other Non-motorized Recreation (Letter ID#: 91, 163, 167, 172, 173, 199, 230, 233, 240, 274, 321, 336, 347, 348, 359, 428)

Comment: Comments generally advocated setting aside areas of the refuge for quiet, non-motorized recreation.

Response: This document discusses several forms of non-motorized recreation, under the sections “Access,” “Other Public Uses,” “Remote Camping,” “Boating,” “Hiking,” “Uses Determined Inappropriate,” “Horseback Riding,” “Berry Harvesting” and “Dog Sledding.” Please refer to those sections for relevant comments and responses. Excerpts follow.

Although designated wilderness areas would have restrictions on motorized use, a wilderness review of the refuge found that the refuge lacks large contiguous blocks of land suitable for wilderness designation (see ﬁ nal CCP/ EIS, appendix D, “Wilderness Review”). However, non-motorized recreation is the only available means of travel on smaller areas without roads on the refuge. Visitors who want to see the refuge under their own power might ﬁ nd satisfaction in those areas.

We considered the public comments on the draft CCP and, in response, prepared three additional compatibility determinations in the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS to address non-motorized recreation: horseback riding, bicycling, and pedestrian use (hiking, cross-country skiing and snowshoeing). Please refer to appendix C, “Compatibility Determinations.”

16.0 Appendixes (Letter ID#: 352)

Comment: One commenter found that some of the bird and mammal species the draft CCP/EIS lists in appendix B, “Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern Known or Suspected on the Refuge,” were characterized incorrectly as to their status, and information on reptiles was missing.

Response: We thank that commenter for the detailed review of that table. Most of the species are listed as state species of concern under the columns “New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan” or “Maine Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy,” ﬁ nal CCP/EIS appendix B. However, we have tried to clarify appendix B by adding an “SC” (species of concern) designation, where appropriate, under the State Legal Status columns. Please note that the state species of concern designation is an administrative category only. We also made the editorial changes suggested regarding white-tailed deer and reptiles.

Comment: One commenter took issue with statements related to “best management practices” for trapping in the draft CCP/EIS, appendix C, under “Compatibility Determination for Furbearer Management.

Response: Please refer to our response in this document under “Furbearer Management.” In summary, we propose to postpone our decision to allow furbearer management, including the possibility of trapping, until we can conduct further analysis and prepare a more detailed furbearer management plan. We would do that in a separate environmental assessment, with a separate public comment period. We propose that change for both alternatives B and C, and included it in chapter 2 of the ﬁ nal CCP/EIS, under “Actions Common to Alternatives B and C Only.”

O-72 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

17.0 Comments Considered Out of Scope (Letter ID#: 352, 417, 453, 706)

Comment: One commenter asked questions related to state ﬁ sh and wildlife planning. Another sent us an opinion on eco-feminism. A third wondered if we were considering the scenic landscape when we evaluated and proposed our land protection plan. They expressed concerned about the development around Umbagog Lake, and encouraged us to protect its imposing scenic prospects.

Response: Neither of the fi rst two comments relates to CCP planning and, therefore, both are outside the scope of this document. In response to the comment about protecting the scenic vista, we recognize that as a secondary benefi t of our land protection. Although our mission and our fi rst priorities are to protect and conserve lands with high wildlife resource or habitat values, we are pleased to hear that people realize our land protection plan produces other benefi ts, such as protecting imposing prospects and maintaining public access or the rural quality of life.

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-73 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Attachment 1

Letter Letter Name Name Number Number 1 Judith Tilli 35 Dianne Littlehale 2 Lyman Pope Jr. 36 J. Capozzelli 3 Tim Beaucage 37 Monica Engebretson 4 Tim & Margaret Ellis 38 Nancy Nelson 5 Jennie M. Bemier 39 Charlene O’brien 7 Raymond S. Burton 40 Virginia Williamson 8 Lynn Spiegal 41 Linda Rusin & Wayne Jacques 9 Louise C. St. Onge 42 John Gallus 10 Ned Mcsherry 43 Kenneth F. Lanzillo 11 Kate Williams 44 Joyce Littleﬁ eld 12 Rosemary A. Gossfeld 45 H. Lenz 13 Linda Rauter 46 Joel Freedmain 14 Mike Fehlberg 47 Charles Chalk 15 Kate Stern 48 Ray Hopkins 16 Carleton Schaller Jr. 49 Barbara Bonsignore 17 Laura Slitt 50 Lori Bailey 18 Joan Riemitts 51 Timothy Bailey 19 Raynold & Shirley Savage 53 J. Totty 20 Gerard Chabot 54 Audrey E. Robinson 21 Douglas J. Deangelis 55 Alexandra Muffat 22 Marc Giroux 56 John J. Maloney 23 John W. Coormier 57 Jeannine Brunelle 24 Donna Glover 58 Helane Shields 25 Theodore V. Baillargeon 59 Jim And Cindy Calyer 26 Dianne Fallen 60 Bill Bonney 27 Kate Demers 61 Jared Teutsch 28 Patricia Stolte 62 Wesley F. Hamilton 29 Alma Blackwelder 63 John And Jean Holt 30 Bob Meyers 64 Maurice A. Cyr 31 Norman W. Demers 65 Ann D. Cyr 32 Mr. & Mrs. Lawrence Davis 66 Denise Pearl And Vincent Zito 33 Julie Ruel 68 Larry J. Nelson 34 Nancy Thew 69 Susanne Nelson

O-74 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Letter Letter Name Name Number Number 70 Wayne Valliere 106 Mary Crescini 71 Steve Wingate 107 Norman Mercier 72 Peter Bilodesh 107 Normand Bergeron 73 Linda Valliere 107 William Altenburg 74 Jenn Curtis 107 Charlie Kurtz 75 Gertrude Greenwood 107 Paul Grenier 76 Raymond A Cyr 107 Irene Foster 77 Kevin Edward Maloney 107 Dan Roberge 79 Joan J. And David B. Miller 107 Bryan Lamirande 80 Emery Cameron 107 Adam Mclain 81 David L. Willcox 107 Eddie Deblois 82 Bill Maloney 107 Robert T. Folsom 83 Roland And Linda Picard 107 Karen Brown 84 Marion Maloney 107 Jim Silverberg 85 Susan Dupuis 107 Jennie Bernier 86 James Mitchell, Executive Director 107 Dona Larsen 87 David Houghton 107 Dave Miller 88 Richard G. Sytek 107 Barry Kelley 89 Edna Williams 107 Mike Dubose 90 James Rector 107 Bill Bryant 91 Leanne Klyza Linck 107 Jim Grant 92 John Cronin 108 Sean Mccormick 93 Polly Mahoney & Kevin Slater 108 Lori Brown 95 Mike Macdonald 108 Jennie Bernier 96 Bill Bryant 108 Alita Rioux 97 Pat Bryant 108 Brian Wentzell 98 Andrew Page And Pierre Grzybowski 108 Joe Bernier 99 Donald S. Clarke 108 Robert T. Folsom Sr. 100 Richard A. Minard, Jr. 109 Ann Blake 101 Mark Stadler 109 Leslie Jose 102 Michael D. Cyr 109 Gene Martin 103 Lewis Parker 109 Bonnie Eames 104 Raynold & Shirley Savage 109 Linda Dionne 105 Phyllis J. Baillargeon 109 Fred Shepard

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-75 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Letter Letter Name Name Number Number 109 Stan Wentzell 124 Hope Haff 109 Susan Fournier 125 Bonnie & Chester Eames 109 Laura Slitt 126 Kenneth And Sarah Kimball 109 Carolyn Scarinza 127 Ted Bergeron 110 Norman Demers 128 Henrietta List 110 Lionel Roy 129 Philip Bryce 110 Leo Boisselle 130 Katharine Eneguess 110 Ray Hopkins 131 Belinda Pillow 110 Karen Brown 132 John Snyder 110 Dan Roberge 133 Nancy Perlson 110 Robert T. Folsom 134 Reggie Hall 110 Lisa Dell’amico 135 Karen Brown 110 Glen Eastman 136 Jeff Fair 111 Joanna Reese 137 Ken Hotopp 111 Joe Bernier 138 Bill Altenburg 111 Robert T. Folsom Sr. 139 Kevin Bernier 111 Joy Heywood Yarnell 140 Seth Mcelhinney 111 Michael Parshall 141 Tracy Gregoire 111 Nancy Thew 142 Eric J. Kronk 111 Kevin Slater 143 Peter L. Oliver 111 Dave Bonney 144 Charles F. Dorn 111 Gary Bilodeau 145 Patrice Cole 112 Philip Bryce 146 Deborah Bloomer 113 Janet Keleher 147 David Picard 114 Barbara Evans 148 Cherie 115 Dennis Fernandes 149 Jane Diﬂ ey 116 Dennis & Peg Kelly 150 Ed Germain 117 Ovide M. Lamontagne, Esquire 151 Marcel Polak 118 F. Allen Wiley 152 Doug Bechtel 119 H. Franklin (Terry) Irwin 153 Gail Kilkelly 120 Beth Brazil 155 Sean Mccormick 121 Kate Hartnett 156 Timothy S. Dow 122 Linda Dionne 157 Kate Power

O-76 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Letter Letter Name Name Number Number 158 Thomas Van Vechten 191 Stephen Karpovich 159 Jeffrey T. Aceto 192 Roger Stillwater 160 Heather Cameron 193 Whit Hamnett Ii 161 Cindy Glenn 194 Adele Franks 162 Rebecca Wish Gelfand 195 Elaine Fearnley 163 Carol Felice 196 Rick R. Covill 164 Bruce Bean 197 Roger Mann 165 B. Macdonald 198 John L. Cronin 166 Beth Mccarthy & James Alt 199 Susan Arnold 167 Mike & Carolyn Wurm 200 Harry Vogel 168 Mary Dawson 201 Per Hjerppe 169 Katherine Reichert 202 Jane Winn 170 Mark Goodreau 203 Linda O. Smith 171 Lisey Good 204 Ay 172 Alan Savenor 205 Leslie Fraser 173 Melanie Mccrea 206 Scott Taylor 174 Michael Macdonald 207 Martha Bauman 175 Timothy Gershon 208 Roger & Ann Sweet 176 Peter Demers 209 Mary Graham 177 Valarie Peck 210 Mark Dewar 178 Kevin Reid 211 Paul Anders 179 Mark Allen 212 John Nelson 180 P. T. Withington 213 Richard Frenkel 181 Tova Cohen 214 Stephanie Parkinson 182 Kim Demers 215 Dr. W. L. Chapkis 183 Dominique Coulombe 216 Mary Langevin 184 Edward Walworth 217 Andrew W. Mcclaine 185 Timothy Sharpe 218 Tim Zimmerer 186 Clarissa Bronson 219 Bruce Scoﬁ eld 187 Larry Young 220 Kelly Rossiter 188 Geoff Young 221 Susan Franconi-Salmon 189 Bob Goldman 222 Scott Olsen 190 Paul Cunha 223 John Ciampi

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-77 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Letter Letter Name Name Number Number 224 Jeff Fullerton 257 Alan E. Lutz 225 Fred Snelll 258 Robert Loranger 226 Nancy Martin 259 Tom Haslett 227 Otto Judicke 260 Bob Mazairz 228 Jim Allmendinger 261 Herman Deyette 229 Carol Warren 262 Edward B. Wetherill 230 Betsy Hall 263 Patricia Butler 231 Lynn Costello 264 Jeanne Mcdermott 232 Roger And Susan Shamel 265 Stuart Russell 233 Scott Camlin And Beth Uptegrove 266 Michael Herlihy 234 Robert French 267 John Slonina 235 Alfrieda & Robert Englund 268 Jay Pendexter 236 Matt Clarke 270 Claire Lupton 237 Don Borenstein 271 Patricia Thatcher 238 Nora Shine 272 Allen Katzoff 239 Peter Doherty 273 Doug Chamberlin 240 Daniel Heyduk 274 Rebecca Jackson 241 Sgt Jason Longval 275 Randy Deary 242 Doug Chamberlin 276 Mike Blackwell 243 Tom Flannagan 277 Ray Theberge 244 Gregory & Catherine Moser 278 Robin Holske 245 Michael C. Donovan 279 Charles Powers 246 Betsy Higgins 280 Brian J. Premore 247 Alice Roberge 281 Diana Laurenitis 248 Benjamin Pignatelli 282 Paul J. Glatkowski 249 John H. Stevens 283 Steven Given 250 Barbara A. Robbins 286 Roger Stillwater 251 Cynthia Smith 287 Tim Akers 252 Paul C. Johnson 288 Thomas R. Palladino 253 Yvonne Federowicz 289 Staci Whitcomb 254 David A. Allen 290 Cathy Anderson 255 John P. Sherwood Jr. 291 Cara Sanford 256 Thomas S. Mcandrews 292 Katherine Eneguess

O-78 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Letter Letter Name Name Number Number 293 Susan Fredette 326 Betsy Whitmore 294 Robert C. Pantel 327 Ms. Ella Oblas 295 Kevin C. Smith 328 Diana Marmorstein 296 Bill Mckenney 329 Jessica Troisi 297 Bruce Hamilton 330 Mike Parshall 298 Kent J. Schreiner 331 Laura Beth 299 Samantha Houlihan 332 Lindsey Fong 300 Steven Angel 333 Rina Deych 301 Edwin Mccarthy 334 S. Johnson Family And Friends 302 Caitlin O’neil 335 Evelyn Kimber 303 William Moss 336 E. H. Roy 304 Robert Pickard 337 Charles Adkins 305 Chris Martin 338 Elizabeth Meid 306 Maryann Lacey 339 Scott Eﬂ and 307 Michael Dubose 340 Scott Stoner And Denise Hackert-Stoner 308 David Govatski 341 Robert & Carol Fournier 309 Mary & John Berry 342 Mary S. Reed 310 David Bishop 343 Nancy A. Macgowan 311 Janet N. Krueger 345 Ms. Ernest Kight 312 Patrick Macqueen 347 Tony Owens 313 Jim Mckeehan 348 David Potter 314 Jean Slepian 349 Danielle Myers 315 Sharon Miller 350 Darrylin Gladstone 316 Caroline Bogart 351 Martha Vanderwolk 317 Louisa Dell’amico 352 Suzanne Fournier 318 Carolyn Mills 353 Ann Bearce 319 Kathryn Taylor 354 Kevin Boto 320 Ray Cyr 355 Pat Tate 321 J. Barrie Billingsley 356 Karen Bill 322 Linda Dionne 357 C.B. Idhavetakillya 323 Mark Whitehill 358 Brad Bergeron 324 Doug And Candy Armstrong 359 Susan Bernard 325 Beverly R. Reed 360 Peter Glover

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-79 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Letter Letter Name Name Number Number 361 Linda Serfass 396 Lars Jansson 362 Kevin Jerram 397 Addie Ann Lambarth 363 Richard A. Graham III 398 Kathy Ratcliffe 364 Diana Littlehale 399 Doug Chamberlin 365 Dee Phlox 400 J D Wilkinson 366 Ginny Smith 401 Paul D. Manganiello 367 Richard B. Stewart 402 Michael Mccann 368 Steve Frye 403 Bethann Mccarthy 369 Patricia Spinazzola 404 Karen Dearborn 370 Nancy And Jim Silverberg 405 Robert Silvernale 371 Jacqueline Gambarini 406 Cathy Chaffee 372 The Lawrence Family 407 Scot Drysdale 373 Alexandra Moffat 408 Paul Grist 375 Paul Bohan 409 Dana Rickerich 377 Ksl 410 Brenda Lind 378 Anne Schulze 411 Peter Fischer 379 Jackie Perra 412 Charles A. Powers 380 Susan Burnside 414 Jay Boynton 381 Bryan Courtois 415 Ted Johnson 382 Lindsey Fong 416 Barbara Badgley 383 Rick & Tami Trowell 417 David Elvin 384 Ruth Ward 419 Daniel J. Rutledge 385 Gerry Theriault 420 Chester D. Eames 386 Wayne R. Urso 421 Tom Bergeron 387 Will Tuttle 422 Laurie Colbath-Libby 388 Kristin Krause 423 Eric & Tracy Lipsitt 389 Brennan Browne 424 Kevin Flynn 390 Alexandra Moffat 425 Pete Richardson 391 Laura Slitt 426 Verne Kaminski 392 Peter Garrett 427 Ralph C. Pisapia 393 Deborah Bloomer 428 Ruth Reeve 394 Steve Schley 429 Eric Stirling 395 Richard Taylor 430 Barbara & Don Carey

O-80 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Letter Letter Name Name Number Number 431 Pat Wilczynski 479 Clarence H. Lapworth 433 Karen Barker 480 Domenic J. Pustizzi 434 Stephanie Sheridan 481 Bobby Hodge 435 Peter T. Hansen 482 Karen S Fiedler 436 Rich Collins 483 Joseph E. O’Neill 437 Gary Lowe 484 Ellen C. O’Neill 438 Ben Gayman 485 Dawn O’connel 439 Stewart Strachan 486 A. B. Colter 440 Barbara Bernsten 487 Mark Marcussian 441 Clif And Jean Andreasen 488 Robert Bowles 442 Leslie Peabody 489 Robert Shalline 443 Loni Brown 490 Karen S. Fiedler 444 Uwe Zimmermann 491 Louis Kish 445 Michael Glines 492 Joan L. Kish 446 Emma Crane 493 Renee Pustizzi 447 Jay Collier 494 Susan Marcussian 448 David S. Brown, Esquire 495 Edward L. Kelly III 449 Darlene Pike 496 Ellen M. Bowles 450 Sheila Butler 497 Gail S. Purdy 451 Kirk G. Siegel, Esq. 498 Remington J. Purdy 452 Susan Thopson 499 Richard Boisvert 453 Doug Armstrong 500 Anthony Hamboyan 454 Jason Little 501 Robert Cleary 455 B. Sachau 502 Patricia Riemitis 470 John R. Larrivee 503 Edward J. Riemitis 471 Jonathan Morneau 504 Ronald Pouliot 472 Richard A. Morneau 505 Marie Pouliot 473 Maralle Marcussian 506 Flyod B. Lever 474 Edward J. Mallet 507 Kristen Sweet 475 David W. Gauthier 508 Cliff Wentworth 476 Joan Koster 509 James St. Martin 477 Karen Coffey 510 Jack Daigle 478 Kathrinz Cullinanz 511 Romeo O. Binette

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-81 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Letter Letter Name Name Number Number 512 Gary St. Martin 589 Anne Kinney 513 James White 590 Gabrielle Burton And Family 514 Gary Koster 591 Daphne T Stevens 515 Nancy Dwyer 592 Jake Hodie 516 John Koster 593 Christopher Lish 517 R. Lawrence 594 Christopher Lish 518 Richard Eckberg 595 George W. And Lory Frame 519 Donald F. Kaplan 596 Mark Hodie 520 Julie Deminico 597 David Addison 521 Eric Deminico 598 Alan Bennett 522 Don Nett 599 Ariane Staples 523 Pamela King 600 Leigh Webb 524 Michael King 601 Ivan Linares 525 Richard Conroy 602 Simon Validzic 527 Ken Ross 603 Genna Tudda 528 Alan Savenor 604 Mel Dickerson 529 Bruce C. Scoﬁ eld 605 Christine Coggins 545 Ed Germain 606 Elizabeth Cziffra 550 Jim Lambert 607 Eddie Konczal 575 Bart Hague 608 Thomas Sherry 576 Daryl Hahn 609 Derek Williams Mr. & Mrs.David Daniels & Jodee 610 Richard Van Aken 577 Davidson & Jane Davidson 611 Dawn White 578 Peg Lang 612 Jami Trager 579 Bryan Wells 613 Bennett Winsor 580 Sylvia Niznik 615 Ragen Tilzey Cpa 581 Ken Crowell 616 Val Marjoricastle 582 Heidi Ellrich 617 Gary Krumwiede 583 D. Gordon Mott 618 Cathy Geist 585 Becky Kendall 619 Jason Goldsmith 586 Thomas Fallon 620 Toni Siegrist 587 Sonia Godbout 621 L.M. Burns 588 Evelyn Defrees 622 Robert M. Mcdowell

O-82 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Letter Letter Name Name Number Number 624 Katherine Bowman 658 Karen Kimbrough 625 Ann Carter 659 Judy Cole 626 Terry Burns 660 Doug Bruce 627 Lauren Chiong 661 Elizabeth Burke 628 Wanda Ballentine 662 Elsa Voelcker 630 K.D. Richardson 664 Stephen And Adrienne Osborn 631 Leonard Greenhalgh 665 Frank Baucom 632 Richard Jackson 666 Phillip Hult 633 Lori Melena 667 Carleton Kinney 634 Letitia Langord 668 Kris Smith-Lavoie 635 Steve Brunelle 669 Sama Blackwell 636 Henry Ickes 670 Peter Tafuri 637 Kathleen Petty 671 Lyn Henri 638 Peggy Gilges 672 Chris Mcdonald 639 Rick Panozzo 673 William Anderson 640 Carlene Petty 674 Mary Martin 641 Emily Obrien 675 Heather Cabal 642 Richard Pine 676 G. Guyton 643 Lesley Smith 677 Richard Peake 644 Molly Erickson 678 Marvin John Shefﬁ eld D.V.M. 645 Doug Deaton 679 Cathy Brunick 646 Ted Von Hippel 680 Margaret Sawyer 647 Natalie Reid 681 Judith Castiano 648 Laurel Macinnes 682 Richard Joste 649 Michael Powell 683 Sandra Couch 650 Katherine Hagaman 684 John Hinnant 651 Suzanne Lefebvre 685 Carolyn Lawler 652 Paul Nelson 686 James Sorrells 653 Keith Miller 687 Jonathan Mcintire 654 F Hammer 688 David Mc Intosh 655 Eamon Holmes 689 Rose Bellamy 656 William Davis 690 Staci-Lee Sherwood 657 Allen Alexander 691 Kate Fielder

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-83 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Letter Letter Name Name Number Number 692 Susan Chandler 725 Jean Wright 693 Dave Robinson 726 Tony Owens 694 Susan St Peter 727 Tim Atwater 695 Ruth A. Carter 728 Janet Decker 696 Richard Dimatteo 729 Lois Tutino 697 Chris Jacobs 730 Charles Rogers 698 Holly Eaton 731 Donna Bruns 699 Deborah Uhlman 732 James Lukas 700 Charles Crotty 733 Charles Rinehart 701 Laurie Bonham 734 Doulgas Fowley 702 Linda Seifried 735 Elizabeth Moreno 703 Jeanne Wheeler 736 Mark Durussel 704 Yuko Nakajima 737 Binell Martino 705 Ryan Pulis 738 Sharon Morris 706 John Savlove 739 Ellen Honey 707 Ms.Ernest Kight 740 Irene Radke 708 Eric Eilerman 741 Michael Chapdelaine 709 Mia Zebouni 742 Eugene Craig 710 Pat Collier 743 J Bogan 711 Heidi Rood 745 Karen Porter 712 Charles Daly 746 Priscilla Stanley 713 Ms. Carlene Meeker September 1 747 Patricia Morgan 714 K. Turner 748 John Schultz 715 Sissy Rifﬁ n 749 Elisabeth Sackton 716 Kelly Vresilovic 750 Margaret Hubbert 717 Norm Wendell 751 Olive Wilson 718 Richard Curtis 752 Annie Grieshop 719 Jo Knox 753 Jim Steitz 720 Bill Tower 754 Shirley Napps 721 Dick Artley 755 Isabelle Jolly 722 Todd Cheek 756 Charles Rapport 723 J 757 Valerie Zachary 724 Brian Glover 758 Larry Mabry

O-84 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Letter Letter Name Name Number Number 759 Rhianna Brandt 794 Paul Grove 760 Jamaka Petzak 795 Fritz Milas 761 Jack Stansﬁ eld 796 Richard Yang 762 David Walker 797 Lawrence Smith 763 James Smith 798 Jo-Shing Yang 764 Charles Yankel 799 Daniel Noel 765 Amy Stoller 800 Jean Grace 766 Susan L D Shamblin 801 Andrew Lenz 767 Kate Deangelis 802 Jean And James GENASCI 768 Scott Drummond 803 Nancie Pike 769 C A Gaidos 804 Patricia Smith 770 Phil Crabill 805 Judy Stettner 771 Jill Singer 806 Harold Jesse 772 Richard Jackson 807 Tony Cheng Yang 774 Theresa Siskind 808 Marilyn Britton 775 Bernadine Wessel 809 Gerrit Crouse 776 Bob Brister 810 Billy Klock 777 Carol Jules 811 Wendy Ebersberger 778 Bethany Barry 812 Susan Allen 779 Skye Patterson 813 Ronald Harden 780 Thomas Aldridge 814 Isabel Gray 781 David Gignac 815 Susan Wrightsman 782 H Thomas Blum 816 Mary Gillett 783 Steve Robey 817 Deborah Smith 784 Thomas Appich 818 Angel Robinson 785 Herbert Wilson 819 Frances Schwartzwald 787 Durango Mendoza 820 Marie Plante 788 Ian Campbell Cree 821 Ben And Karen Mcclinton 789 Ananda Floyd 822 Harald Conradi 790 Danielle Myers 823 Sara Bhakti 791 Rodney E Cook Sr 824 Sylvie Henning 792 Wanda Helms 825 Tom Hoctor 793 Amelia Trader 826 Suchitra Patton

Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR O-85 Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Letter Letter Name Name Number Number 827 Ruth Bleyler 862 Kathryn Rose 828 Charles Fina 863 Eileen Arena 829 Adriana Faraldo 864 Kristjan Gunnarsson 830 Lilia Hughes 865 Phyl Morello 831 Rob Jankowski 866 Gail Krueger 832 Maggie Hauck 867 James Flanagan 833 Mary Markus 868 Marylynne And Teddye 834 Sam Asseff 869 Saran Kirschbaum 835 Janet Curtis 870 Sharon Cozzette 836 Brandi Gartland 871 William Drake 837 Elizabeth Cannon 872 Scott Sobel 838 Deborah Filipelli 873 Catherine Cushing 839 Frank Millin 874 Maury J. Heiman III 840 Pace Pace 875 Claudia Damon 841 Gerald Rilling 876 Cheryl Thacker 842 Geoffrey Gibbons 877 Terry Mcclellan 843 Walter Lee Iv 878 Eric Staples 844 Vince And Sandi Vanacore 879 William Belknap 845 Aloysius Wald 880 Gene Ankli 846 Frederik Copithorn Dr. John M. Stewart Emeritus Professor 881 And Director 847 Nick Sabetto 882 Betty Ferrero 848 Jeanne Turgeon 883 Elizabeth D. Kirk 849 C.Diane Macaulay 884 Annette Kaohelaulii 850 Patty Livingston 885 Maureen Shearer 851 Robert Sylvester 886 Dr. Jeffrey Paul Lagasse M.D. 852 Colleen Theriot 887 Phyllis Donovan 853 Sierra Lund 888 Linda Hayes 854 Kurt G Gubrud 889 Ellen Perez 855 Lydia Crumpacker 890 Mara Chaiken 856 Jan Garton 891 Elinor Osborn 858 David Beaulieu 892 David Harrison 859 Caroline Damon 894 Serena Carbone 860 Susan Dwyer 896 Jill Fischman 861 Sherry Arnold

O-86 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft CCP/EIS for the Lake Umbagog NWR

Letter Name Number 897 Carol Gray Kennedy 898 Ann G. Bearce 899 Sue And Wil Bernard 900 Sara Ross 901 Laura Johnson 902 Helen Rayshick 903 Steven Rayshick 904 Lisa Clayton 905 Cynthia Huspeka 906 Joseph Cox 907 Tom Mcgann 908 Monica Ball 909 Kari Olsen 911 C Clark 912 Virginia Johnson 913 Robin Rae Swanson 914 A.E. White 915 Mary Gargiulo 916 Victoria Lovell 917 Sheela Ram-Prasad 918 Nancy Shinn 919 Laurie Sardinia 920 Marilyn Glasgow 921 Gloria Feldscher 922 Deb Kovacs 923 Jeanette Holmgren 924 Marian Hussenbux. 925 Dick Artley 926 Kathy Himmer 927 Mary Hadcock 928 Susan And Hubert Van Asch Van Wyck 929 Simon Validzic

Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation Form

Appendix H: Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation Form P-1 Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation Form

P-2 Appendix H: Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation Form Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation Form

Appendix H: Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation Form P-3 Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation Form

P-4 Appendix H: Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation Form Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation Form

Appendix H: Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation Form P-5 Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation Form

P-6 Appendix H: Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation Form Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation Form

Appendix H: Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation Form P-7 Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge P.O. Box 240 Route 16 North Errol, NH 03579-0240 E-Mail: [email protected] Phone: 603/482-3415 http://lakeumbagog.fws.gov Federal Relay Service for the deaf or hard of hearing 1800/877 8339 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Website http://www.fws.gov For National Wildlife Refuge System Information: 1800/344 WILD November 2008