U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

September 2007 Cover Pictures: Missisquoi River USFWS Fall Colors USFWS Osprey USFWS Ring-Necked Duck USFWS Winter at the Refuge USFWS

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. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2007

Submitted by: Mark Sweeny Date Refuge Manager Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge

Concurrence by: Janet M. Kennedy Date Refuge Supervisor North, Region 5 National Wildlife Refuge System

Anthony D. Legér Date Regional Chief, Region 5 National Wildlife Refuge System

Approval by: Marvin E. Moriarty Date Regional Director, Region 5 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

September 2007

Refuge Vision “The Missisquoi River delta is known as an important international resource for Statement the people of the United States and Canada. The Missisquoi Refuge is recognized for its role in maintaining the ecological integrity of the river delta, providing breeding, staging, and migration habitat for thousands of waterfowl and other fish and wildlife. Education, research, and wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities are available, insofar as they are compatible with Refuge health and protection. Refuge staff partner with local, state, and federal agencies, local organizations and communities, and individuals to sustain a healthy Lake Champlain ecosystem for current and future generations.”

“The future of the Missisquoi Refuge and the sustained integrity of the river delta ecosystem relies on continued understanding of the past and present biological processes and human influences that created and maintain this large wetland complex. The cultural resources at the Refuge provide valuable insight into the history and way of life of native peoples. The Refuge is a welcoming destination for our neighbors and other visitors seeking to enjoy and learn about the history and wildlife of the Missisquoi River delta and the National Wildlife Refuge System.”

i Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Summary ...... vii

Chapter 1 Introduction

Purpose and Need for the Plan ...... 1-1 Project Area ...... 1-2 Policies, Legal Mandates, and Other Plans Guiding the Planning Process ...... 1-4 National and Regional Plans and Conservation Initiatives ...... 1-7 Refuge Purposes and Land Acquisition History ...... 1-12 Missisquoi Refuge Vision Statement...... 1-15 Step-Down Management Plans...... 1-15 Refuge Goals ...... 1-16

Chapter 2 The Planning Process

The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process ...... 2-1 Planning Issues ...... 2-4 Issues Outside the Scope of this Project ...... 2-7

Chapter 3 Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions

Landscape Setting ...... 3-1 The Historical Picture ...... 3-5 Socioeconomic Environment ...... 3-8 Refuge Administration...... 3-9 Refuge Biological Resources ...... 3-23 Refuge Cultural and Historic Resources ...... 3-46 Refuge Public Use ...... 3-48

Chapter 4 Management Direction and Implementation

Introduction ...... 4-1 Relating Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ...... 4-1 General Refuge Management ...... 4-1 Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ...... 4-5 Implementation, Monitoring, and Revision ...... 4-54

Glossary ...... Glos-1

Bibliography ...... Bibl-1

Appendixes

Appendix A Special Designation Areas ...... A-1 Appendix B Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations...... B-1 Appendix C Species of Regional Conservation Concern ...... C-1 Appendix D Wildlife and Plant Common and Scientific Names ...... D-1 Appendix E Public Scoping Report in Refuge Newsletter ...... E-1

Table of Contents iii Table of Contents

Appendixes (cont’d)

Appendix F Shad and Metcalfe Islands and Maquam Bog Discussions ...... F-1 Appendix G Vermont Agency of Transportation Study of Route 78 ...... G-1 Appendix H Refuge Staffing Chart ...... H-1 Appendix I Refuge Operating Needs (RONS) and Service Asset Maintenance Management Systems (SAMMS) ...... I-1 Appendix J Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives ...... J-1 Appendix K Consultation and Coordination with Others and List of Preparers . . . . K-1 Appendix L Summary and Response of Public Comments...... L-1 Appendix M Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) ...... M-1

List of Figures Figure 2.1 The Comprehensive Conservation Planning process and its relationship to the National Environmental Policy Act...... 2-1 Figure 3.1 This National Weather Service graph depicts the range of variations in Lake Champlain water levels throughout the year ...... 3-3 Figure 3.2 Osprey nesting locations on the Missisquoi River Delta (2004) . . . . . 3-39 Figure 3.3 Shannon Diversity Index for bird species in seven habitat types on the Missisquoi Refuge (Clews 2002) ...... 3-40 Figure 3.4 Bird species composition in floodplain forests on the Missisquoi Refuge based on point count surveys (Clews 2002). . . 3-40 Figure 3.5 Bird species composition in the Missisquoi River Delta based on point counts surveys (Clews 2002)...... 3-41 Figure 3.6 Bird species composition in grassland-agricultural habitats on Missisquoi Refuge based on point count surveys (Clews 2002). . . . . 3-41 Figure 3.7 Bird species composition in red maple-green ash swamp on Missisquoi Refuge based on point count surveys (Clews 2002). . . . . 3-42

List of Tables

Table 1.1 History of Acquisition at Missisquoi Refuge...... 1-14 Table 1.2 Step-Down Management Plan Schedule for Missisquoi Refuge.. . . . 1-15 Table 2.1 CCP Core Planning Team...... 2-3 Table 2.2 Other Contributors to CPP Preparation...... 2-4 Table 3.1 Population changes from 2000 to 2004 in Vermont, Franklin County, and the Towns of Swanton and Highgate*...... 3-8 Table 3.2 Refuge budgets from 1998 to 2004...... 3-13 Table 3.3 Refuge Roads and Infrastructures ...... 3-14 Table 3.4 Annual refuge revenue sharing payments from 2000 to 2004...... 3-17 Table 3.5 Current habitat management on the refuge...... 3-20 Table 3.6 Soils mapped on the refuge [from the Franklin County Soil Survey (1994)]...... 3-25 Table 3.7 Natural communities and other cover types on the refuge...... 3-29 Table 3.8 Significant natural communities on or near the refuge...... 3-31

iv Table of Contents Table of Contents

List of Tables (cont’d)

Table 3.9 Rare species on the refuge ...... 3-36 Table 3.10 Estimated number of black tern breeding pairs on Lake Champlain and Lake Memphremagog, 1990–2005 ...... 3-37 Table 3.11 Annual field survey results for malformed frogs on the refuge . . . . . 3-45 Table 3.12 Finding of Appropriateness of Refuge Uses ...... 3-53 Table 3.13 List of activities that have been determined compatible on the refuge ...... 3-54 Table 3.14 List of activities that have been determined NOT appropriate on the refuge ...... 3-54 Table 4.1 Proposed management of current refuge grasslands...... 4-30

List of Maps

Map 1-1 Location of Missisquoi NWR ...... 1-3 Map 1-2 Bird Conservation Planning Regions ...... 1-8 Map 1-3 Missisquoi NWR and Other Conserved Lands ...... 1-13 Map 3-1 Biophysical Region and Kuchler’s Forest Regions...... 3-2 Map 3-2 Missisquoi NWR Westville Unit ...... 3-10 Map 3-3 Missisquoi NWR Rock River Conservation Easement ...... 3-11 Map 3-4 Missisquoi NWR Research Natural Areas ...... 3-24 Map 3-5 Missisquoi NWR Soil Types...... 3-26 Map 3-6 Missisquoi NWR Natural Communities ...... 3-28 Map 4-1 Missisquoi NWR Habitat Types ...... 4-7 Map 4-2 Missisquoi NWR Current Managed Areas ...... 4-13 Map 4-3 Missisquoi NWR Trails and Facilities ...... 4-33 Map 4-4 Missisquoi NWR Big Game/Upland Hunting Areas ...... 4-42 Map 4-5 Missisquoi NWR Waterfowl Hunting Areas...... 4-43 Map 4-6 Missisquoi NWR Areas Closed to Fishing ...... 4-47

Table of Contents v Summary Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2007

Summary

Type of Action: Administrative

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

Responsible Official: Marvin Moriarty, Regional Director, Region 5, Northeast

For Further Information: Carl Melberg, Land Acquisition Planner Northeast Regional Office 300 Westgate Center Drive Hadley, MA 01035 (413) 253-8521 [email protected]

This comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) for the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge is the culmination of a planning effort involving a variety of partners and communities. The CCP establishes 15-year management goals and objectives for wildlife and habitat, public use, and partnerships for the refuge.

The plan is designed to expand and improve opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation, as well as enhance programs of outreach, environmental education, and interpretation; increase inventory, monitoring, and management of the Missisquoi River delta wetland and upland habitats; increase inventory, protection, and interpretation of the rich cultural history of the delta; increase cooperative partnerships within the northern Lake Champlain Basin; and in partnership with others, protect fully functioning wetlands and associated riparian areas, and unfragmented blocks of upland habitat for area-sensitive wildlife species.

Summary vii Chapter 1 USFWS/ Steve Vittum Refuge trails meander along the creek

Introduction ■ Purpose and Need for the Plan ■ Project Area ■ Policies, Legal Mandates, and Other Plans Guiding the Planning Process ■ National and Regional Plans and Conservation Initiatives ■ Refuge Purposes and Land Acquisition History ■ Missisquoi Refuge Vision Statement ■ Step-Down Management Plans ■ Refuge Goals Purpose and Need for the Plan

Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge in the midst of a slow, languid stream that the Abenaki people call “Missisquoi” the “Land of the Flint”

Purpose and Need for This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Missisquoi National the Plan Wildlife Refuge was prepared pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.; Refuge Improvement Act). An Environmental Assessment (EA), required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4347), was prepared concurrently with the draft CCP.

This final CCP presents the combination of management goals, objectives, and strategies that we believe will best achieve our vision for the refuge; contribute to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System); achieve refuge purposes; fulfill legal mandates; address key issues; incorporate sound principles of fish and wildlife management, and serve the American public. The CCP will guide management decisions and actions on the refuge over the next 15 years. It will also be used as a tool to help the natural resource agencies of the State of Vermont, our conservation partners, local communities, and the public understand our priorities.

This document has 4 chapters and 12 appendixes. Chapter 1 introduces the plan and sets the stage for chapters 2 through 4. It

■ describes the purpose and need for a CCP;

■ identifies national, regional, and state plans that influenced this plan;

■ highlights the purposes for establishing the refuge and their land acquisition histories; and,

■ presents the vision and goals for the refuge.

Chapter 2, “The Planning Process,” describes the planning process we followed, including public and partner involvement, in the course of developing this final plan.

Chapter 3, “Refuge and Resource Descriptions,” describes the existing physical, biological, and human environment.

Chapter 4, “Management Direction and Implementation,” presents the general refuge management actions and the goals, objectives, and strategies that will guide decision-making and land management. It also outlines our staffing and funding needs to accomplish the management direction.

Twelve appendixes, a glossary, and a bibliography provide additional documentation and reference information used in compiling this document.

Developing a CCP is vital for the management of each refuge. This final CCP will provide strategic management direction over the next 15 years by:

■ providing a clear statement of desired future conditions for habitat, wildlife, visitor services, staffing, and facilities

■ providing State agencies, refuge neighbors, visitors, and partners with a clear explanation of the reasons for management actions

■ ensuring refuge management reflects the policies and goals of the Refuge System and legal mandates

Chapter 1. Introduction 1-1

Project Area

■ ensuring the compatibility of present and future public use

■ providing long-term continuity and direction for refuge management

■ providing direction for staffing, operations, maintenance, and annual budget requests

The present needs for this CCP are many. First, Missisquoi Refuge lacks a master plan to fulfill its obligations, especially as environmental, economic, and social conditions have changed dramatically since the refuge was first established. Development and land protection near the refuge have both increased in the last few decades; the refuge completed a new

Headquarters and Visitor USFWS Contact Station in 2005, Missisquoi River providing new opportunities for education and outreach; and the refuge staff is working with many new partners on water quality and land use issues in the Lake Champlain Basin. Given the changing face of the region, we feel our responsibility is to develop our priorities clearly. This CCP is also a valuable tool to help the State of Vermont natural resource agencies, Lake Champlain Basin and Missisquoi River watershed partners, other conservation organizations, local communities and the public understand and support refuge priorities.

Second, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act; Public Law 105–57; 111 Stat. 1282) requires that all national wildlife refuges have CCPs in place by 2012 to help fulfill the mission of the Refuge System.

Finally, the CCP is needed to address issues identified through the planning process, by the public, partners, other agencies and refuge staff, as adversely affecting the populations and habitats of fish, wildlife, and plants within the refuge. These issues are described in detail in Chapter 2, “Planning Process.”

Project Area Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge (Missiquoi Refuge, the refuge) lies on the eastern shore of Lake Champlain, near the Canadian border in Franklin County, Vermont (map 1-1). Established in 1943, the 6,592-acre refuge includes most of the Missisquoi River Delta, the largest wetland complex in the Lake Champlain Basin. As it flows through the refuge, the Missisquoi River passes through the largest and perhaps highest quality silver maple floodplain forest in the State. The river meanders through extensive natural and managed marshes of wild rice, buttonbush, and tussock sedge that host thousands of waterfowl during migration. The part of the river in the refuge harbors rare freshwater mussels, turtles, and fish. Its delta is a critical link for migratory birds along the Atlantic Flyway. Refuge lands protect the Shad Island great blue heron rookery, the largest in Vermont. Other important refuge habitats include pitch pine woodland bog, alder thickets and other shrub lands, patches of oak and northern hardwood forest, and grasslands.

The refuge sits at the mouth of the 767,000-acre Missisquoi River watershed (refer to map 1-1). The 88-mile river flows through forested and agricultural uplands and many towns in Vermont and Quebec. Broad-based watershed-wide

1-2 Chapter 1. Introduction Map 1-1 Project Area

Chapter 1. Introduction 1-3

Policies, Legal Mandates, and Other Plans Guiding the Planning Process

planning is underway to address water quality concerns, including excessive phosphorus, bacteria, mercury, pesticides, and other pollutants and the loss of fish and wildlife habitat. The refuge staff is engaged in that planning. The river flows through the refuge and into Lake Champlain at Missisquoi Bay. About the size of the State of Massachusetts, Lake Champlain drainage basin comprises five distinct segments. The Missisquoi Bay segment, which lies mostly in Canada, is quite shallow and relatively warm. A host of local, regional, and international groups focuses on the lake and its management issues.

The management issues in the Missisquoi River watershed and the Lake Champlain Basin also affect the fish, wildlife, and habitats of the Missisquoi Refuge; any refuge planning and management decisions must address them. Our planning process enables the refuge to identify its management priorities for lands under its jurisdiction and identify its role in helping to conserve the lands and waters in the larger landscape.

This section presents hierarchically, from the national to the local level, highlights of Service policy, legal mandates and regulations, and existing resource plans and conservation initiatives that directly influenced the development of this CCP. Policies, Legal Mandates, and Other Plans Guiding the Planning Process U.S. Fish and Wildlife The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, part of the Department of the Interior, Service administers the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System). The mission of the Service is:

“Working with others, to conserve, protect and enhance fish and wildlife and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.”

By law, Congress entrusts national resources to the Service for conservation and protection. Those trust resources include the lands included in national wildlife refuges, migratory birds, federal-listed endangered and threatened species, inter- jurisdictional fishes, wetlands, and certain marine mammals. The Service also manages national fish hatcheries, enforces federal wildlife laws and international treaties on importing and exporting wildlife, assists state fish and wildlife programs, and helps other countries develop wildlife conservation programs.

The Service manual contains the standing and continuing directives for implementing those authorities, responsibilities, and activities. The manual can be accessed at http://www.fws.gov.directives/direct.html.

Special Service directives that affect the rights of citizens or the authorities of other agencies are published separately in the Code of Federal Regulations, and are not duplicated in the Service manual. Most of the current regulations that pertain to the Service are issued in 50 CFR parts 1-99. The CFR can be accessed at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/index.html.

The National Wildlife The Refuge System is the world’s largest network of public lands and waters Refuge System set aside specifically for conserving wildlife and protecting ecosystems. From its inception in 1903, it has grown to more than 96 million acres of public lands, 545 national wildlife refuges in all 50 states, and waterfowl production areas in 10 states. More than 34 million visitors each year hunt, fish, observe and photograph wildlife, or participate in environmental education and interpretation on those refuges.

1-4 Chapter 1. Introduction Policies, Legal Mandates, and Other Plans Guiding the Planning Process

Refuge System Mission and Goals “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.” — National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997

The fundamental mission of the Refuge System is wildlife conservation. The goals of the Refuge System are to:

■ Conserve, restore where appropriate, and enhance all species of fish, wildlife, and plants that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered

■ Perpetuate migratory bird, inter-jurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations

■ Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants

■ Conserve and restore, where appropriate, representative ecosystems of the United States, including the ecological processes characteristic of those ecosystems

■ Foster understanding and instill appreciation of fish, wildlife, and plants, and their conservation, by providing the public with safe, high quality, and compatible wildlife-dependent public uses including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation

Fulfilling the Promise A yearlong process involving teams of Service employees who examined the Refuge System within the framework of Wildlife and Habitat, People and Leadership culminated with “Fulfilling the Promise: The National Wildlife Refuge System” (USFWS 1999), a vision for the National Wildlife Refuge System. The first-ever Refuge System Conference in Keystone, Colorado in October 1998, was attended by every refuge manager in the country, other Service employees, and scores of conservation organizations. Many “Promises Teams” formed to develop strategies for implementing the 42 recommendations of the conference report. Information from such teams as Wildlife and Habitat, Goals and Objectives, Strategic Growth of the Refuge System, Invasive Species, and Inventory and Monitoring helped guide the development of the goals, strategies and actions in this CCP.

Refuge Planning and The Improvement Act directs the Service to monitor the status and trends of Management Guidance fish, wildlife, and plants on each refuge and maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of each refuge and the System (601 FW 3).

The Service refuge planning policy (602 FW 3) also guides the development of a CCP. The planning process calls for development of a vision statement, goals, objectives, and strategies. Goals and objectives are the unifying elements of successful refuge management. They identify and focus management priorities, provide a context for resolving issues, guide specific projects, provide rationale for decisions, and provide the connection between management actions and the refuge purpose, System mission, and other policies.

The vision broadly reflects what the refuge should be or what the Service hopes to do, based primarily upon the System mission, refuge purposes, and other mandates. Because the vision may take several decades to achieve, it typically will remain in place 15 years or more. Goals narrow the vision into

Chapter 1. Introduction 1-5

Policies, Legal Mandates, and Other Plans Guiding the Planning Process

general, supporting management directions. Under each goal, objectives direct management into incremental and measurable steps toward achieving the goal. Strategies are the specific tools or actions to accomplish the objectives. Strategies tend to be flexible, and may change frequently. Objectives also may change, but only if it becomes clear over time, through monitoring and evaluation, that the objectives would not further the goals they support. Often, more specific strategies and schedules in step-down management plans will be necessary to implement some of them.

The Improvement Act also directs the Secretary of the Interior to facilitate six compatible, wildlife-dependent recreational activities as priority general uses of the Refuge System. Those are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. For a use to be compatible, it must not materially interfere with the purposes of a refuge or detract from the mission of the Refuge System. Each refuge manager determines which public uses are compatible, based on sound professional judgment. That is, a decision that is consistent with the principles of fish and wildlife management and administration, available science and resources, and adherence with law. Compatibility determinations must be in writing, must identify the anticipated effects of the proposed use on refuge resources, and include stipulations to mitigate those effects. See appendix B for compatibility determinations for the Missisquoi Refuge.

Maintaining Biological This policy provides guidance on maintaining or restoring the biological Integrity, Diversity, and integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System including Environmental Health the protection of a broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources Policy found in refuge ecosystems. It provides refuge managers with a process for evaluating the best management direction to prevent the additional degradation of environmental conditions and to res tore lost or severely degraded environmental components. It also provides guidelines for dealing with external threats to the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of a refuge and its ecosystem (601 FW 3). See appendix J for more details on the Integrity Policy, how we used it to determine priority resources of concern, and how that lead to the development of habitat goals and objectives at the Missiquoi refuge.

Appropriate Refuge Uses This policy provides a national framework and procedure for refuge managers Policy to follow when deciding if uses are appropriate on a refuge. It also clarifies and expands on the compatibility policy (603 FW 2.10D), which describes when refuge managers should deny a proposed use without determining compatibility. When we find a use is appropriate, we must then determine if the use is compatible before we allow it on a refuge. This policy applies to all proposed and existing uses in the Refuge System only when we have jurisdiction over the use and does not apply to refuge management activities or situations where reserved rights or legal mandates provide we must allow certain uses (603 FW 1). Appendix B further describes the Appropriate Refuge Uses Policy and describes its relationship to the CCP process.

Compatibility Policy Federal law and Service policy provide the direction and planning framework to protect the Refuge System from incompatible or harmful human activities and ensure that Americans can enjoy Refuge System lands and waters. The Refuge Improvement Act is the key legislation regarding management of public uses and compatibility. The compatibility requirements of the Refuge Improvement Act were adopted in the USFWS Final Compatibility Regulations and Final Compatibility Policy, published October 18, 2000 (Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 202, pp. 62458-62496). This Compatibility Rule changed or modified Service regulations contained in chapter 50, parts 25, 26, and 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations (USFWS 2000). The compatibility determinations for Missisquoi refuge can be found in appendix B along with additional information on the process. To view the policy and regulations online, visit http://policy.fws.gov/library/00fr62483.pdf.

1-6 Chapter 1. Introduction National and Regional Plans and Conservation Initiatives

Wildlife-Dependent The Improvement Act defines and establishes that compatible wildlife dependent Recreation Policy recreational uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation) are the priority general public uses of the Refuge System and will receive enhanced and priority consideration in refuge planning and management over other general public uses. The Wildlife Dependent Recreation Policy explains how we will provide visitors with opportunities for those priority public uses on units of the Refuge System and how we will facilitate these uses. We are incorporating this policy as Part 605, chapters 1–7, of the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.

Other Legal Mandates Although Service and Refuge System policy and each refuge purpose provide the foundation for management, the way we administer national wildlife refuges must also comply with a variety of other Federal laws, executive orders, treaties, interstate compacts, and regulations pertaining to the conservation and protection of natural and cultural resources. Our “Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the Service,” which lists them, can be accessed at http://laws.fws.gov/lawsdigest/indx.html.

Chapter 4 of the Draft CCP/EA, “Environmental Consequences,” specifically evaluated our compliance with the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Archeological Resources Protection Act, and the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

National and Regional To the extent possible, a refuge CCP assists in meeting the conservation goals Plans and Conservation established in existing national and regional plans, state fish and wildlife Initiatives conservation plans, and other landscape-scale plans covering the same watershed or ecosystem. We consulted the following plans in developing this CCP.

North American Bird The NABCI brings together the individual land bird (Partners in Flight), Conservation Initiative shorebird, waterbird, and waterfowl plans described below into a coordinated (NABCI) effort to protect and restore all native bird populations and their habitats in North America. All bird conservation partnerships reduce redundancy in the structure, planning and implementation of conservation projects. It uses Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) to guide landscape-scale, science-based approaches to conserving birds and their habitats. This CCP uses the priorities in the BCR 13 preliminary plan as well as guidance from the individual bird plans. Visit http://www.nabci-us.org/ for more information on the NABCI.

Missisquoi Refuge lies in BCR 13, Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain (map 1-2). BCR 13 encompasses the vast, low-lying lake plain region surrounding Lakes Erie and Ontario, the St. Lawrence River valley, low-lying regions between the Adirondack Mountains and the Laurentian Highlands, and upper regions of the Hudson River valley. In addition to important lakeshore habitats and associated wetlands, this region originally was covered with a mixture of oak-hickory, northern hardwood, and mixed-coniferous forests. Although once dominated by forests, the landscape now is dominated by agriculture interspersed with wetlands and remnant forest stands. Today, nearly 95 percent of the original habitat types have been lost to agriculture and urban development. BCR 13 plays a critical role in providing important staging and migrating habitat for birds in the spring and fall (Hartley et al. Draft 2006). The BCR 13 draft plan is now being reviewed and a final draft will be posted when complete on the ACJV publications page at the following link: http://www.acjv.org/resources.htm

North American The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP), signed by the Waterfowl Management United States and Canada in 1986 and by Mexico in 1994, provides a strategy to Plan: Atlantic Coast Joint protect North America’s remaining wetlands and conserve waterfowl populations Venture through habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement (USFWS and CWS 1986). The plan was updated in 1998 and again in 2004 to emphasize strengthening its biological foundation, using a landscape planning approach, and expanding

Chapter 1. Introduction 1-7

National and Regional Plans and Conservation Initiatives Map 1-2

1-8 Chapter 1. Introduction National and Regional Plans and Conservation Initiatives

partnerships (USFWS and CWS 2004). Its implementation is accomplished at the regional level, in 11 Joint Venture Habitat Areas in the United States and four in Canada: one stretches across the United States—Canada border. Partnerships involve federal, state and local governments, tribal nations, local businesses, conservation organizations, and individual citizens for protecting habitat. By 2004, NAWMP partners had invested more than $3.2 billion to protect, restore, or enhance more than 13.1 million acres of habitat. More information on the NAWMP is available at http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/nawmp/nawmphp.htm.

The Missisquoi Refuge lies in the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture (ACJV), one of the original joint ventures formed under the NAWMP and initially focused on protecting and restoring habitat for the American black duck and other waterfowl species in the Atlantic Coast region of the United States. Much of its support is generated through grants provided by the North American Wetlands Conservation Act. While maintaining that strong focus on waterfowl, the ACJV mission has evolved to include the conservation of habitats for all birds. The ACJV is working on integrated planning efforts in eight BCRs. Focus areas, which are specific, important geographic areas with joint venture regions, were identified and mapped for waterfowl and are being developed for other migratory birds within each BCR. Those focus areas are discrete, distinguishable habitats or habitat complexes that are regionally important for one or more priority waterfowl species during one or more life history stages. Missisquoi Refuge is a sub-focus area within the extensive Lake Champlain Focus Area of Vermont and New York, highlighting the refuge’s importance for waterfowl. Visit http://www.acjv.org for more information.

North American Waterbird The waterbird plan is an independent partnership among individuals and Conservation Plan institutions with interest and responsibility for conserving waterbirds and their habitats. The primary goal of the plan is to ensure that the distribution, diversity, and abundance of populations and habitats of breeding, migratory, and non- breeding waterbirds are sustained or restored throughout the lands and waters of North America, Central America, and the Caribbean. The plan provides a framework for conserving and managing colonially nesting water-dependent birds and promotes continent-wide planning and monitoring, national-state- provincial conservation action, regional coordination, and local habitat protection and management (Kushlan et al. 2002). Regional planning information is being prepared for the Mid-Atlantic New England Working Group (MANEM).

We used the plan in the development of objectives, actions and strategies for protecting and managing waterbirds that breed on the refuge including black tern, American bittern, and great blue heron. The waterbird plan is available at http://www.nawcp.org. For additional information, visit http://www.fws.gov/birds/ waterbirds/manem/

U.S. Shorebird The shorebird plan is a partnership across the United States to ensure Conservation Plan and that stable, self-sustaining populations of all shorebird species are restored Northern Atlantic Regional and protected. Collaborators include local, state, and federal agencies, non- Shorebird Plan governmental organizations, business-related sectors, researchers, educators, and policy makers. The plan was closely coordinated with NAWMP and Joint Venture staff, as well as the Partners In Flight and North American Waterbird Plan teams as they concurrently developed their revised national plans. Those experts helped set conservation goals for each region of the country, identified critical habitat and research needs, and proposed education and outreach programs to increase awareness of shorebirds and the threats they face.

The U.S. Shorebird Plan (Brown et al. 2001) identifies three primary objectives:

■ Develop a standardized, scientifically sound system for monitoring and studying shorebird populations that will provide practical information to researchers and land managers for shorebird habitat conservation

Chapter 1. Introduction 1-9

National and Regional Plans and Conservation Initiatives

■ Identify the principles and practices upon which local, regional and national management plans can effectively integrate shorebird habitat conservation with multiple species strategies

■ Design an integrated strategy for increasing public awareness and information concerning wetlands and shorebirds

Regional plans, including the North Atlantic Regional Shorebird Plan, are being developed as part of the overall strategy (Clark and Niles 2000). We used the national and regional shorebird plans in developing the regional resources of concern list (appendix C) and in considering the value of the refuge for migrating shorebirds, particularly during years of low water levels on Lake Champlain. The national plan can be accessed at http://shorebirdplan.fws.gov/ USShorebird.htm, and the regional plan at http://www.fws.gov/shorebirdplan/ regionalshorebird/regionalplans.htm.

Partners In Flight (PIF) In 1990, PIF was conceived as a voluntary, international coalition of Landbird Conservation government agencies, conservation organizations, academic institutions, Plans private industry, and other citizens dedicated to reversing the population declines of bird species and “keeping common birds common.” The foundation of PIF’s long-term strategy for bird conservation is a series of scientifically and geographically based bird conservation plans. The initial focus on Neotropical migrating birds has since expanded to include all land birds. You can view the PIF Landbird Conservation Plan at: http://www.partnersinflight.org/ cont_plan/default.htm

Initially, PIF developed draft conservation plans within “physiographic areas”; Missisquoi Refuge lies in PIF Area 18 – the St. Lawrence Plain (Rosenberg 2000). PIF developed a set of science-based rules to evaluate the conservation status of all bird species, using a species’ population size, distribution, population trend, threats, and regional abundance objectively to identify regional and continental conservation priorities. Those rules were adapted, and are now being used at the BCR level to identify bird conservation priorities and opportunities (refer to map 1-2). 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.

Lake Champlain Basin “Opportunities for Action: An Evolving Plan for the Lake Champlain Basin,” a pollution prevention, control, and restoration plan, was first endorsed in October 1996 by the governors of New York and Vermont, the Province of Quebec, and the regional administrators of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Updated in 2003 (Lake Champlain Steering Committee 2003), the plan is available online at http://www.lcbp.org/viewofa.htm.

The plan identifies several critical environmental problems and issues in the Lake Champlain Basin that require action:

■ High phosphorus levels and algal blooms in parts of the Lake, including Missisquoi Bay

■ Toxic substances, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB’s) and mercury, resulting in fish consumption advisories

■ Impacts to fish and wildlife from nuisance non-native aquatic species

■ Wetland loss

■ Habitat fragmentation

■ Public access issues

■ Recreational use conflicts

1-10 Chapter 1. Introduction National and Regional Plans and Conservation Initiatives

■ Loss of cultural and archeological resources

Implementing the recommendations in the plan requires partnerships and a watershed and ecosystem approach. Many of those environmental issues affect the Missisquoi Refuge, which is an important partner in helping to implement the plan.

Lake Champlain The USFWS Lake Champlain Ecosystem Team works to protect enhance Ecosystem Team and conserve fish and wildlife resources in the Lake Champlain watershed for public benefit by managing Service lands, supporting fish and wildlife restoration, providing technical expertise in fish and wildlife conservation and management, enhancing interagency cooperation and partnerships, and better informing the public about fish and wildlife resource issues. The team, a group of conservation and research professionals from various organizations working in the Lake Champlain Basin, attempts to approach conservation issues with an appreciation of the entire ecosystem and address conservation needs considering sustainability and landscape-level aspects of the ecosystem (see http://www.fws.gov/r5lcfwro/). The refuge, as a member of that team, exchanges its expertise with that of other members, and receives guidance on issues important in refuge management.

The Governor’s Clean and Vermont’s Governor Jim Douglas is promoting this plan, initiated in the Clear Action Plan fall of 2003, to improve the water quality of Lake Champlain. It focuses on reducing phosphorous loading, stopping non-point source pollution, developing comprehensive river management programs, managing storm water runoff, and controlling erosion at construction sites. It supports the Agricultural Best Management Practices Program, Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, Better Back Roads Program, Wetland Restoration Program, the advancement of Watershed Planning and the involvement of citizens in the Vermont Lay Mentoring Program. The Vermont legislature supports the plan, and provides funds annually to tackle those initiatives. For more information, visit http://www.anr.state.vt.us/cleanandclear/index.htm.

Missisquoi Bay Watershed Buttressed now by the development of the Governor’s Clean and Clear Action Planning Plan, local citizen groups, landowners, towns, and public agencies have worked for many years to reduce pollution in the Missisquoi River and its watershed. Actions include stabilizing stream banks, improving municipal wastewater treatment, and adopting better road maintenance and farming practices. The State of Vermont is building on those efforts by facilitating a collaborative planning process for the watershed. It brings together homeowners, farmers, local officials, business people, and other concerned citizens to determine how best to protect and restore water quality in the Missisquoi Bay and its watershed. The watershed planning process formally began with a series of public forums early in 2005. They invited citizens to voice their concerns about water quality and their ideas for addressing them. The top concerns were:

■ Impacts of excessive phosphorus and the resulting algal blooms in Missisquoi Bay and Lake Carmi

■ Soil erosion from stream banks, cropland, construction, and roads

■ Phosphorus in runoff from developed and agricultural land

■ Phosphorus and bacteria from wastewater sources, including failing shoreline septic systems

■ Lack of water quality monitoring to identify source areas and track progress in pollution control

■ Lack of funding, coordination, and prioritization for water quality improvement activities

Chapter 1. Introduction 1-11

Refuge Purposes and Land Acquisition History

■ General lack of public awareness of how everyone’s actions affect water quality

■ The presence and effects of pollutants other than phosphorus (e.g., mercury and pesticides)

■ Loss of the working landscape (farm and forest) and sensitive animal habitat to development

■ Impacts of the bridge causeway (and other causeways) on water quality in Missisquoi Bay

■ Declines in fishing and suitable fish habitat

A watershed council consisting of a diverse mix of stakeholders from within the watershed is meeting to address those and other issues. The council will develop a series of action strategies for protecting high-quality waters in the watershed and restoring those that are not meeting State standards. For more information and to read summaries of each forum, visit http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/ planning/htm/pl_missisquoi.htm.

Invasive Species The Missisquoi Refuge staff is collaborating with several Federal, State, municipal, Management Partnership and nongovernmental partners to develop a network of interested members who will provide informational and educational materials and conduct strategic projects designed to curtail the advance of exotic invasive plant species in the Lake Champlain watershed. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) proposed the partnership, modeled after other successful weed management units established in the country. The partners first met in December 2005 to develop a vision and mission statement describing what the partnership is trying to achieve. The mechanism of how the group will interact with the public, units of government, landowners and others, and fund projects and materials, is still being developed. The current partnership includes representatives primarily from the Vermont side of Lake Champlain. It includes the U.S. Forest Service, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), TNC, the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department (VT FWD), Department of Forests and Parks, Winooski Park District, Agency of Transportation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lewis Creek Association, and private plant nursery businesses. The makeup of the group likely will change and grow as the group focuses its efforts and develops objectives for the watershed.

Vermont State Wildlife In 2001, Congress established a new annual appropriation to State wildlife Action Plan agencies, first called the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program, and later, the State Wildlife Grants Program. Each state was eligible for those funds based on a commitment to develop a “comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy,” by October 1, 2005. The State Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) addresses the full array of wildlife, although the focus is on “species of greatest conservation need.” The WAP for Vermont is not solely a Fish and Wildlife Department plan, but also a “blueprint for wildlife conservation in Vermont,” promoting broad involvement in implementing conservation strategies. The Missisquoi Refuge is a partner with the State in helping to develop and implement the plan. Specifically for the CCP process, because Vermont just submitted its WAP to the Service for approval, we used the list of “species of greatest conservation need” in developing refuge habitat management goals and objectives and where possible are contributing to Vermont wildlife conservation priorities (see chapter 4 and appendix C).

Refuge Purposes The Refuge Headquarters and Visitor Contact Station is located in Swanton, and Land Acquisition Vermont. The Missisquoi Refuge was established in 1943 “...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or any other management purposes, for migratory birds” under the History Migratory Bird Conservation Act. It encompasses 6,592 acres in the Towns of Highgate and Swanton in Franklin County, Vermont (refer to map 1-3). We acquired a succession of lands after 1943 under the provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, Migratory Bird Hunting and Stamp Act, and other authorities.

1-12 Chapter 1. Introduction Map 1-3 Refuge Purposes and Land Acquisition History

Chapter 1. Introduction 1-13

Refuge Purposes and Land Acquisition History

The refuge also owns in fee a 262-acre parcel known as the Westville Unit in Westville, New York (map 3-2). In addition, the refuge holds several conservation easements, including the Rock River easement (map 3-3), which we obtained through the Farmers Home Administration debt-restructuring program for farmers.

Historically, our land acquisition funds come from two sources: the Land and Water Conservation Fund, appropriated annually by Congress, and the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, replenished primarily through the sale of Federal duck stamps to migratory waterfowl hunters and other conservationists. The Service purchases important mainland habitats and nationally significant wetlands within approved acquisition boundaries from willing sellers at fair market value as funds become available. Annual expenditures for refuge land acquisition recently have averaged $36,300/year.

Table 1.1. History of Acquisition at Missisquoi Refuge. Tract Acquired Acquired Number Tract Name Date Acres** Acquisition Authority 5 Clark, Julian B., et al. 02/04/1943 114.39 Migratory Bird Conservation Act 5a Clark, Julian B., et al. 02/04/1943 1,467.76 Migratory Bird Conservation Act 5b Clark, Julian B., et al. 04/27/1949 135.13 Migratory Bird Conservation Act 5c Clark, Julian B., et al. 12/27/1961 453.92 Migratory Bird Conservation Act 9 Duval, George E. 03/10/1948 105.51 Migratory Bird Conservation Act 13 Cheney, Ila F. 07/24/1948 118.19 Migratory Bird Conservation Act 10 Tabor, Cora M. 08/25/1955 692.40 Migratory Bird Conservation Act 10a Tabor, Cora M. 08/25/1955 184.70 Migratory Bird Conservation Act 10b Tabor, Cora M. 08/25/1955 104.30 Migratory Bird Conservation Act 10b-I Tabor, Cora M. 08/25/1955 0.07 Migratory Bird Conservation Act 4 Robert, Patrick, et al. 09/15/1955 141.10 Migratory Bird Conservation Act 15 Casey, Arthur T. 08/01/1956 79.50 Migratory Bird Conservation Act 15b Casey, Arthur T. 08/01/1956 248.75 Migratory Bird Conservation Act 23 Boomhower, Albridge 01/08/1958 11.30 Migratory Bird Conservation Act 21 Donaldson, Glenna, et al. 01/21/1960 121.65 Migratory Bird Conservation Act 16 Carman, John A. 06/26/1961 40.51 Other 16a Carman, John A. 06/26/1961 29.21 Other 16a-I Carman, John A. 06/26/1961 32.12 Other 25 Bushey, Royal C. 06/26/1961 77.85 Migratory Bird Conservation Act 22 Brown, Donald W. 05/07/1963 443.02 Migratory Bird Conservation Act 22a Brown, Donald W. 05/07/1963 78.60 Migratory Bird Hunting and Stamp Act 12 Prouty, Charles D. 09/28/1971 98.80 Migratory Bird Conservation Act 12-I Prouty, Charles D. 09/28/1971 15.20 Migratory Bird Conservation Act 14 The Nature Conservancy 05/28/1976 655.00 Migratory Bird Conservation Act 14a The Nature Conservancy 05/28/1976 202.00 Migratory Bird Conservation Act 19 Comolli, Edward J., et al. 05/17/1984 188.00 Migratory Bird Conservation Act 14b The Nature Conservancy 04/12/1994 235.00 Migratory Bird Conservation Act 14c The Nature Conservancy 04/13/1994 264.50 Other 26 Frazier Estate, Irene 11/20/1996 8.00 Migratory Bird Conservation Act 14d The Nature Conservancy 03/30/1998 82.00 Migratory Bird Conservation Act 14e The Nature Conservancy 04/12/2000 93.00 Migratory Bird Conservation Act 28a Trust For Public Land 03/01/2004 39.00 Migratory Bird Conservation Act 36 David Cross 04/04/2006 10.1 Migratory Bird Conservation Act TOTAL 6,570.58* * This number is our official acreage total from the Division of Realty. For Tract #21 (originally 153.42 acres), we disposed of 31.77 acres in exchange for tracts 16a and 16a-1. ** All acreages round to the nearest whole number, and represent U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) land acres above the mean high water mark.

1-14 Chapter 1. Introduction Missisquoi Refuge Vision Statement

Missisquoi Refuge “The Missisquoi River delta is known as an important international resource for Vision Statement the people of the United States and Canada. The Missisquoi Refuge is recognized for its role in maintaining the ecological integrity of the river delta, providing breeding, staging, and migration habitat for thousands of waterfowl and other fish and wildlife. Education, research, and wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities are available, insofar as they are compatible with Refuge health and protection. Refuge staff partner with local, state, and federal agencies, local organizations and communities, and individuals to sustain a healthy Lake Champlain ecosystem for current and future generations.”

“The future of the Missisquoi Refuge and the sustained integrity of the river delta ecosystem relies on continued understanding of the past and present biological processes and human influences that created and maintain this large wetland complex. The cultural resources at the Refuge provide valuable insight into the history and

way of life of native peoples. Ramsay/USFWS Tom The Refuge is a welcoming Mallard and Brood destination for our neighbors and other visitors seeking to enjoy and learn about the history and wildlife of the Missisquoi River delta and the National Wildlife Refuge System.”

Step-Down The Service Manual (602 FW 4, “Refuge Planning Policy”) lists more than 25 Management Plans step-down management plans that may be appropriate to ensure safe, effective and efficient operation on every refuge. These plans contain specific strategies and implementation schedules for achieving refuge goals and objectives. Some plans require annual revisions; others are on a 5-to-10 year revision schedule. Some require additional NEPA analysis, public involvement, and compatibility determinations before they can be implemented. National Wildlife Refuges in BCR 13 are working together on developing their HMPs.

Table 1.2. Step-Down Management Plan Schedule for Missisquoi Refuge. Date Completed/ Step-Down Management Plan Updated Anticipated Date Completion/Update Habitat Management Plan (HMP) 2008 Visitor Services Plan 1981 2011 Cultural Resources Management Plan 2011 Hunt Plan To be included in Visitor Services Plan Trapping Plan 1989 Wildlife Inventory and Monitoring Plan 1986 Fire Management Plan 1987 Law Enforcement Plan 1993 Safety Program and Operations Plan 1995 draft Fishery Management Plan 1997 draft Continuity of Operations Plan 1999 draft Water Management Plan 1986 To be integrated into HMP Grassland Management Plan 1986 To be integrated into HMP

Chapter 1. Introduction 1-15

Refuge Goals

Refuge Goals The purpose of the CCP is to provide the refuge with a 15-year management plan consistent with Service policies and legal mandates that will achieve the following six goals. We developed these goals after considering refuge purposes, Service and Refuge System missions, our vision, and the mandates, plans, and conservation initiatives described above. These goals are intentionally broad, descriptive statements of purpose. Goal 1 Maintain the ecological integrity of the Missisquoi River delta to ensure a healthy and diverse river and wetland ecosystem providing a full range of natural processes, community types, and native floral and faunal diversity. Goal 2 Provide diverse upland habitats for Federal trust species including migratory birds and other species of conservation concern in all seasons. Goal 3 Provide high quality education and interpretative programs 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 conserving the Missisquoi River delta. Goal 4 Increase appreciation and stewardship of the Missisquoi River Delta and the Lake Champlain Basin by providing compatible, positive, wildlife- dependent recreation including wildlife observation and photography, hunting, and fishing in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Goal 5 Preserve the cultural and historical resources on the Refuge for current and future generations and to sustain an appreciation of the past. Goal 6 Foster cooperative partnerships and actions to promote fish and wildlife conservation in the Lake Champlain Basin and Missisquoi River Watershed.

Chapter 1. Introduction 1-16

Chapter 2 USFWS

Refuge trails in the Winter

The Planning Process ■ The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process ■ Planning Issues ■ Issues Outside the Scope of this Project The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process

The Comprehensive Service policy establishes an eight-step planning process that also facilitates Conservation compliance with NEPA (602 FW 3), as illustrated in figure 2.1. Our planning policy and CCP training materials describe each step in detail. Although Planning Process the figure suggests those steps are discrete, two or three steps can happen concurrently. For more details on the planning process, please visit http://policy.fws.gov/602fw3.html.

Effective conservation usually begins with effective community involvement. To ensure that our future management of the Missisquoi refuge will reflect the issues, concerns, and opportunities expressed by the public, we used a variety of public involvement techniques.

Figure 2.1. The Comprehensive Conservation Planning process and its relationship to the National Environmental Policy Act

Initial Planning We began preparing the draft CCP/EA in 1998. Initially, we focused on collecting information on natural resources and public use. We also developed a vision statement, preliminary refuge goals, and the preliminary issues this plan would address. We compiled a mailing list of organizations and individuals to ensure that we were contacting an array of interested parties.

Public Scoping We announced the location, dates, and times of three public scoping meetings in Swanton, St. Albans, and Burlington in local newspapers and special mailings in 2000. More than 100 people attended those meetings, which we held to let people know what the Service was doing to manage the Missisquoi Refuge, and to elicit their input on topics of interest to them.

Chapter 2. The Planning Process 2-1 The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process

In fall 2000, we distributed copies of our “Issues Workbook” to more than 600 people, to help collect their ideas, concerns, and suggestions on important issues associated with managing the refuge. We distributed the workbook to everyone on our mailing list, those who attended public meetings, and anyone who subsequently requested one. The workbook asked what they valued most about the refuge, their vision for the future of the Missisquoi River and Missisquoi Bay, the Service role in that future, and any other refuge issues they wanted to raise. We received 60 completed copies of the workbook in return.

In spring 2001, we distributed a “Planning Update” that summarized those responses (see appendix E). The responses from the workbooks and public meetings helped us formulate the issues that relate to resource protection and public use, and helped us develop the draft alternatives. We briefed the regional chief and regional office and refuge staff on the results of the public scoping meetings, and presented similar briefings to the Lake Champlain Ecosystem Team, the Commissioner, Director of Wildlife, and Waterfowl Team Leader of the VT FWD, and the district staff of Senator Patrick Leahy.

CCP Development In 2002, the refuge staff revised goals, objectives, and strategies based on comments received from the public and our resource management partners. The preparation of chapter 1, “The Purpose of and Need for Action,” chapter 3, “Affected Environment,” of the draft CCP/EA and the inventory phase of the Wilderness Review began in 2002 and 2003. Staffing changes at the regional office and other refuge priorities necessitated a pause in the planning process.

We restarted the CCP/EA in December 2004. The core planning team consisted of the refuge staff, regional office planning staff, a regional biologist, and one member from the VT FWD. The extended planning team included additional resource professionals from the Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Resources Office in Essex Junction, Vermont and program specialists from the Vermont Department of Natural Resources.

The core planning team met every 1 to 2 months in 2005 and early 2006 to refine and develop objectives and strategies for each goal of the two draft alternatives. The issues identified during the public scoping and the analysis of the refuge’s physical, biological, and cultural environment provided the foundation for that development.

The habitat objectives and strategies are based on several informative analyses and discussions around key resource issues. To identify the highest priority habitats and associated wildlife species we evaluated BCR 13 species priorities, breeding bird survey trend data, site capability at the refuge, and regional landscape conditions. That led to a thorough discussion on the distribution and amount of early successional habitat to be maintained as grassland or shrub land or allowed to succeed naturally to floodplain forest. See Appendix J for a thorough outline of the information used to determine priority resources of concern for the Refuge.

On June 6, 2005, the CCP planning team met with David Capen and Zoe Richards of UVM to discuss the management of the great blue heron rookery, cormorants, and floodplain forest habitat on Shad and Metcalfe islands. On July 7, 2005, the planning team toured the Maquam Bog with Ian Worley of UVM and Eric Sorenson of the Vermont Natural Heritage Program to discuss the ecology and management of the bog. See summaries of these discussions in appendix G.

2-2 Chapter 2. The Planning Process The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process

In March 2007, we released a draft CCP/EA for a 30-day public review and comment. In addition, we held one public meeting on March 31st. We summarize that public meeting, the public comments we received, and our responses to those comments in appendix L. In some cases, our responses resulted in modifications of our preferred alternative (alternative B in the draft CCP/EA). Those included additions, corrections, or clarifications which we have incorporated into this final CCP.

Our Regional Director has signed a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), which certifies that this final CCP has met agency compliance requirements, will achieve refuge purposes, and help fulfill the refuge system mission (appendix M) It also documents his determination that implementing this CCP will not have a significant impact on the human environment and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) is not required.

We must formally revise this CCP every 15 years, or earlier, if conditions affecting the refuge have changed significantly. We will periodically monitor the plan to ensure that its strategies and decisions are being accomplished. We will use the data collected in routine inspections or programmatic evaluations to continually update and adjust management activities.

We will make these documents available to all interested parties. Implementation can begin immediately.

Table 2.1. CCP Core Planning Team. Name Job Title, Organization Joe Bertrand Maintenance Mechanic, USFWS, Missisquoi Refuge Jennifer Casey Assistant Regional Refuge Biologist, USFWS, Lake Umbagog NWR Bill Crenshaw Wildlife Biologist, VT FWD David Frisque Refuge Operations Specialist, USFWS, Missisquoi Refuge Lindsay Krey** Assistant Planner, USFWS, Northeast Regional Office Carl Melberg Land Acquisition Planner, USFWS, Northeast Regional Office Eileen Nunez Visitor Services Specialist, Missisquoi Refuge Pam Rooney* Supervisory Engineer, USFWS, Northeast Regional Office Rick Schauffler Regional GIS Specialist, USFWS, Great Bay NWR Ellen Snyder Wildlife Consultant, Ibis Wildlife Consulting Lisa Swainbank Administrative Support Assistant, Missisquoi Refuge Mark Sweeny Refuge Manager, USFWS, Missisquoi Refuge Alison Whitlock** Wildlife Biologist, USFWS, Northeast Regional Office Robert A. Zelley Wildlife Biologist, USFWS, Missisquoi Refuge

*Involved in planning from 1998-1999 **Involved in planning from 2000-2002

Chapter 2. The Planning Process 2-3 Planning Issues

Table 2.2. Other Contributors to CPP Preparation. Name Job Title, Organization David Capen Research Professor, University of Vermont (UVM) John Fellows Volunteer, USFWS, Northeast Regional Office Shelley Hight Archaeologist, USFWS, Northeast Regional Office Everett Marshall Biologist/Information Manager, Vermont Nongame & Natural Heritage Program Lelaina Marin Assistant Planner, USFWS, Northeast Regional Office Gloria McCahon Intern, USFWS, Northeast Regional Office Zoe Richards Research Associate, UVM Eric Sorenson Natural Community Ecologist, Vermont Nongame and Natural Heritage Program David Tilton Project Leader, USFWS Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Resources Office Ian Worley Professor in Botany, UVM

Section 7 Review Section 7 of the ESA requires all federal agencies to consult with the Service to ensure that any actions will not jeopardize the continued existence of any federal- listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitats. The refuge is requesting a section 7 review by our Ecological Services office in Concord, New Hampshire. The refuge has no known federal-listed plants, animals, or critical habitats, so we anticipate no effect on listed species or habitats. Planning Issues The core planning team, our state or other partners or the public generated the following issues addressed in this CCP.

Management of the The Missisquoi River Delta is the largest wetland complex in the Lake Missisquoi River Delta Champlain Basin. Over 50 percent of the waterfowl that use the lake during fall migration (late August through mid-November) are found in this wetland ecosystem. The diversity and uniqueness of its flora and fauna are critical components of the Northern Champlain region. We need to consider protecting such unique natural communities as the Maquam Bog, extensive wild rice beds, and dwindling riparian and floodplain forests. Sedimentation of wetland “potholes” and associated backwaters and sloughs is a concern, and marsh management and restoration should consider waterfowl as well as other wildlife.

The protection of various wildlife habitats from development and the placement of lands in public trust are important to, and appreciated by, our partners and the general public. Service policy outlines procedures for considering additional lands for protection as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. In preparing this CCP, we did not request approval from

the Director, through USFWS the preparation of a Agricultural field and recreational path along Conservation Proposal, to Rt. 236, adjacent to Missisquoi River up-river from study lands for inclusion Refuge.

2-4 Chapter 2. The Planning Process Planning Issues

into the boundary of the Refuge. This is a necessary step prior to initiating a public process for land acquisition. Interest remains strong in the local area for additional protection efforts. We have outlined strategies in the “General Management” section of chapter 4, that sets the stage for requesting Director Approval to study an expansion of the refuge.

Runoff from residential, agricultural, and industrial sources affects the delta. Because the refuge is located at the mouth of the river, it receives the full impact of any runoff. Pollutants, invasive species, and other concerns in Missisquoi Bay also affect the refuge. We must work to combat these threats to the refuge’s ecological integrity while managing its’ important wildlife habitats

Non-Native Invasive Nuisance, non-native aquatic invasive plants and animals are one of the biggest Species problems in the Lake Champlain Basin. Non-native organisms can displace native species, degrade wetlands and other natural communities, and reduce natural diversity and wildlife habitat values. Non-native plants out-compete native species for light, water, and nutrient resources. Invasive species can also limit recreational activities and substantially affect the economy by preventing or restricting access to infested areas by boaters, anglers, or swimmers.

The refuge staff is concerned that, once invasive plants have become established, they are expensive and labor-intensive to eliminate; they are able to establish easily, reproduce prolifically, and disperse readily, making their eradication difficult. Preventing new invasions is extremely important for maintaining biological diversity and native plant populations. Examples of aquatic nuisance species in Lake Champlain include alewife, sea lamprey, zebra mussel, white perch, Eurasian water milfoil, purple loosestrife, phragmites, and water chestnut. Water milfoil and other invasive aquatic plants are of particular concern, because they are displacing natural beds of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV). SAV beds are critical foraging habitat for the thousands of waterfowl that use the refuge and the bay during migration.

We have not surveyed the refuge for the presence of invasive species in upland habitats, although it appears that few if any are present now. Patches of Japanese knotweed do grow on the refuge. In the last few years, we have applied the herbicide Rodeo™ to control Japanese knotweed.

Water Quality The degradation of water quality in the Missisquoi Bay and river from sedimentation and nutrient loading is a major concern expressed by many people and organizations in the region. The Lake Champlain Basin Program and the Missisquoi Bay Watershed Plan, among other initiatives, are documenting myriad water quality problems, and are also identifying and implementing solutions. Phosphorus is a nutrient essential for plant growth, but too much phosphorus in water causes algal blooms and excessive aquatic plant growth. Those plants and the water quality problems they cause when they decompose can harm fish and other organisms. Phosphorus levels are elevated in many parts of Lake Champlain, including Missisquoi Bay. Nuisance algal conditions exist nearly half of the time in those areas, and blue-green algae has become extremely problematic in the summer in Missisquoi Bay and other northern parts of the lake.

Other water quality concerns include increased sedimentation caused by upstream land uses that erode stream banks or increase runoff. Much more needs to be done to maintain or restore water quality for fish and wildlife populations in the delta. Because those issues extend well beyond refuge boundaries, any improvements in water quality will require broad partnerships and coalitions.

Upland Habitat Most of the Missisquoi Refuge is wetlands or open water (92 percent). However, Management 535 acres support upland habitats important for many nesting and migratory

Chapter 2. The Planning Process 2-5 Planning Issues

songbirds and other wildlife. Thus far, upland management on the refuge has focused on maintaining fields for grassland nesting birds and creating habitat for woodcock. Several of the mowed fields are small and do not now support grassland nesting birds. We will identify the fields that provide quality grassland habitats, and continue to manage them accordingly.

Management of Fish and Our federal trust resources include migratory birds, federal-listed endangered Wildlife “Trust Resources” and threatened species, inter-jurisdictional fishes, wetlands, and certain marine mammals. Many wildlife species of concern depend on refuge wetlands and are currently a focus of habitat management. Waterfowl species such as black duck, wood duck and mallard, as well as other marsh-dependent species such as American bittern and black tern are a few of the species of conservation concern. Other species such as great blue heron, which occupy a large nesting colony (the largest in Vermont), and an increasing double-crested cormorant population, may require specific species management attention.

Inventory, Monitoring, and The Improvement Act requires us to monitor the status and trends of fish, Research Needs wildlife, and plants on each refuge. The refuge staff is challenged each year by the staffing, funding, and logistical requirements of an effective resource monitoring and inventory program. The staff must make difficult choices regarding priorities because of limited available resources, which can vary widely from one year to the next. Unfortunately, the refuge budget does not include a dedicated source of permanent funding for carrying out important habitat and population inventory and monitoring. We rely on competitive sources of funding, such as Challenge Grants, Cooperative Agreements, and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to supplement Service funding. The uncertain availability of funding from year to year has always hampered long-term planning at the refuge.

For example, partnerships with universities and colleges or other conservation organizations can support Service inventory and monitoring priorities, and we can explore more of those possibilities. UVM, VT FWD, Audubon Vermont, and Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Resources Office are important partners in research on the refuge. That research needs to expand to better guide wildlife and habitat management decisions and actions. Monitoring the efficacy of marsh management and wildlife responses was identified as a high priority. More baseline information on migratory birds, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrate is needed to determine trends for migratory birds and other wildlife.

Special Designation Areas As part of the CCP process we evaluated the potential for special designation areas on refuge lands. Appendix A is the result of our evaluation, including a review of existing and potential research natural areas (RNAs), wilderness, and wild and scenic river designations. Please refer to the “Special Designation Areas” section of chapter 4 for additional information.

Balancing Public Uses The Improvement Act identifies six priority public uses for refuges: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education, and interpretation. They are to receive enhanced consideration in refuge planning and opportunities for visitors to engage in these activities should be facilitated, to the extent they are compatible with the Refuge System mission and refuge purposes. Service policy (Refuge Manual Chapter 8, 8 RM, 9.1, 4/82) states that, with few exceptions, non-wildlife-dependent recreation will be de-emphasized and should be phased out where it currently exists. Specifically mentioned in the policy as non-wildlife-dependent are swimming, sunbathing, surfing, motorized boating, jogging, and bicycling. Activities are allowed to continue if the refuge manager determines they are compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established. All recreation activities must be compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established.

2-6 Chapter 2. The Planning Process Issues Outside the Scope of this Project

Many public comments we received during the scoping session mentioned public use as the most important issue facing the area. The responses split between people who were concerned about the overuse of the refuge and those who wanted to see more areas opened for public use, particularly hunting and fishing. Some conflicts have emerged between different user groups, in part because of the popularity of the refuge for outdoor recreation.

Quality Refuge Missisquoi Refuge is easily accessible from Route 78, a major travel corridor in Experiences the region, and via Lake Champlain and the Missisquoi River. The refuge is also close to the Canadian border. Those geographic conditions, combined with the popularity of the refuge for outdoor recreation, present some unique challenges for the refuge staff in maintaining safe, quality experiences for refuge visitors as well as staff.

Some of the public management issues facing the refuge include:

■ Illegal dumping

■ All-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles, which are not permitted on the refuge

■ Vandalism, including graffiti

■ Dogs off leash

■ Hunting and fishing violations

■ Immigration and border issues, such as drug trafficking and alien smuggling

Issues Outside the The public or the planning team brought up the following issues during the Scope of this Project scoping process. In some instances, the Service does not have regulatory or jurisdictional authority over the issue. Other issues may be covered under other Service programs, initiatives, or planning projects. Chapter 4 of the draft CCP/EA, “Environmental Consequences,” addressed some of the concerns implicit in these issues. However, all of these issues fall outside the stated purpose and need for action in this CCP and, therefore, fall outside its scope of analysis.

West Swanton Bridge The current construction of a new bridge between West Swanton and Alburg and proposals to remove the existing causeway has generated heated discussions about potential impacts on the Eastern spiny softshell turtle (Trionyx spiniferus). Although that species appears on the Vermont Endangered Species list as threatened, it is not federally listed. A significant portion of the spiny softshell population at this end of Lake Champlain over-winters at the site of the new bridge. They also bask on the riprap of the causeways leading to the present bridge. Not only is there a risk of the construction phase of the new bridge disturbing turtles and displacing them from their winter habitat, but also, the proposed removal of all or parts of the old causeway could affect basking activity.

The VT FWD, which has jurisdiction in this matter, has been working with the various agencies and contractors to protect the turtle. Some of the public support the removal of the causeway, assuming that could improve water flow in the Bay and lead to flushing excess phosphorus. Research indicates that removing the causeway would change phosphorus loads by 1 percent or less, while likely harming the spiny softshells.

The refuge is not directly involved in that project, as it is off-refuge and involves a state-listed but not federal-listed species. Some turtles bask and forage on the refuge during the warmer summer months, but we have not determined whether suitable habitat for either nesting or wintering exists on the refuge.

Chapter 2. The Planning Process 2-7 Issues Outside the Scope of this Project

Dredging the Periodically, the idea of dredging the Missisquoi River arises, especially in a year Missisquoi River of low water, when recreational boaters have trouble navigating its shoals. During the historically drier months of late July and August and sometimes into October, the water gets so shallow on some shoals that only boats that draft 6 inches or less can pass those areas, most notably on a quarter-mile stretch of river near the old refuge headquarters and at the mouths of the three main branches of the river. Shallow conditions also occur at the mouth of Dead Creek, but dredging it has not been suggested.

Those shoals also block ice flows during the spring thaw, and cause ice dams and occasional flooding upstream near the old refuge headquarters and nearby private residences and camps. Dredging the river would require coordinating a study of the feasibility, environmental impacts, and wetland permit requirements of any dredging proposal, including dredge disposal sites, among at least these agencies:

■ the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which has primary jurisdiction in such matters;

■ the U.S. Coast Guard, which has jurisdiction on this navigable portion of the river;

■ the Environmental Protection Agency;

■ the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and,

■ the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources.

The temporary and seasonal inconvenience to recreational boaters caused by the buildup of sedimentation will probably not justify measures that could have serious environmental impacts or be relatively short-lived, very expensive and of doubtful effectiveness. Dredging the Missisquoi River is neither the desire nor the responsibility of the Service but, if it were seriously proposed, the Service would play a key role in identifying and determining the perceived deleterious environmental impacts of such a proposal on refuge habitats and wildlife.

Swanton Dam The Swanton Dam, first constructed in 1782, spans the entire width of the Missisquoi River in the Town of Swanton. This dam is off-refuge and outside Service authority. Historically, the dam diverted water to sawmills and gristmills. Discussions have begun to determine the environmental and economic feasibility and level of community support for removing the Swanton Dam to restore the natural flow of the river.

Our recent study concludes that some of the best walleye and sturgeon spawning habitat in Lake Champlain occurs on the Missisquoi River above the Swanton Dam. Spawning substrate for walleye and lake sturgeon is not a limiting factor in this river. However, the quality of the spawning habitats above and below the dam varies considerably with stream flow, water depth, and velocities during the spring spawning period. Although spawning habitat is present below the dam, it is not of sufficient quality to support walleye or sturgeon reproduction. Spawning habitat above the dam provides better habitat capable of expanding the potential reproduction of both species as well as other fish species using the river. Although installing fish ladders and other fish passage devices at the dam is possible, they generally deliver water at velocities too strong for such weak swimmers as walleye and sturgeon. Reaches of the river above the dam now provide excellent habitat for a large variety of freshwater mussels and species such as the brook lamprey. Alterations to the dam may affect those species of special interest in the State of Vermont.

2-8 Chapter 2. The Planning Process Issues Outside the Scope of this Project

Accumulating sediments behind the dam are of particular interest to the refuge. Altering or removing the dam may release sediment carrying nutrients or accumulated harmful chemical elements such as heavy metals, pesticide residue, etc. into the lower reaches of the river, the refuge, and Missisquoi Bay. Should the sediment contain harmful elements, they could affect wildlife populations and USFWS habitats. We recommend Swanton Dam sampling the sediment behind the dam before any release.

Chapter 2. The Planning Process 2-9 Chapter 3 Lee Karney/USFWS Great Blue Heron

Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions ■ Landscape Setting ■ The Historical Picture ■ Socioeconomic Environment ■ Refuge Administration ■ Refuge Biological Resources ■ Refuge Cultural and Historic Resources ■ Refuge Public Use Landscape Setting

Landscape Setting

Champlain Valley The Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge (Missisquoi Refuge, the refuge) lies on Biophysical Region the eastern shore of Lake Champlain in the Champlain Valley biophysical region of northwestern Vermont (map 3-1). That biophysical region extends beyond Vermont north and east to the St. Lawrence River and west into New York to the Great Lakes (excluding the Adirondacks). It is relatively warm, dry, and low in elevation compared to the surrounding landscape; local Vermonters call it the “banana belt.” The mean summer temperature is 70°F; winter temperatures average 19°F. The annual precipitation in the Champlain Valley averages 28 inches close to the lake (Thompson and Sorenson 2000).

The refuge also lies within the Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 13, the Lower Great Lakes, St. Lawrence Plain and, more specifically, in the St. Lawrence Plain physiographic area (map 1-2) (Rosenberg 2000, Hartley et al. 2005). Because of agriculture, that is now the largest and most important area for grassland birds in the Northeast. The small riparian and deciduous forest habitat that remains in the St. Lawrence Plain supports several high priority birds, most notably a large, expanding population of cerulean warbler. Shrubland habitat is important for golden-winged warbler and American woodcock (Rosenberg 2000).

Missisquoi River The refuge sits at Watershed and Missisquoi the mouth (delta) Bay of the 767,000-acre Missisquoi River watershed that drains portions of Quebec and Vermont. Each spring, its waters submerge large portions of the refuge. The 88-mile river flows through the refuge and then into Lake Champlain at Missisquoi Bay. The geography and USFWS water flow of Lake Missisquoi Bay Champlain creates five easily identifiable segments with different physical characteristics and land uses in their respective sub-basins. Missisquoi Bay is in the northeastern corner with significant agriculture in the surrounding uplands. The bay is broad (5 to 10 miles across), shallow (maximum depth 15 feet), and warm. Some of the major management issues in the bay are seasonal blue-green algae blooms, high phosphorus levels, and a white perch invasion (Lake Champlain Steering Committee 2005).

Lake Champlain The Lake Champlain Special Designation Act (Public Law 101-596) designated the lake a resource of national significance in 1990. The Lake Champlain Basin Program (LCBP) was established to coordinate the activities the act envisioned: bringing together people with diverse interests in the lake to create a comprehensive pollution prevention, control, and restoration plan for protecting the future of the Lake Champlain Basin.

The seasonal pattern of flooding in the Lake Champlain Valley, together with annual variations in the overall level of Lake Champlain, stimulate and maintain the diversity and the dynamic vitality of the lakeshore and floodplain vegetation. Although water levels generally change according to a fairly predictable seasonal

Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions 3-1

Landscape Setting Map 3-1

3-2 Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions Landscape Setting

pattern, variation in the level of Lake Champlain from year to year results in “low water” years and “high water” years. The distribution and density of emergent plants and the timing of their growth depend on that variation. The following graph from the National Weather Service depicts the range of variations in lake levels during the year.

Figure 3.1. This National Weather Service graph depicts the range of variations in Lake Champlain water levels throughout the year. (http://www.erh.noaa.gov/er/btv/lake/1972-1998avglklevel.jpg)

A peak lake level between 99 and 101 feet mean sea level (msl) is common in the spring, and high levels may remain until mid summer if spring or summer precipitation is above normal. The lake level usually recedes during the summer, and reaches its seasonal low of 94 to 95 feet msl bet ween August and October.

The major management concerns for the lake are water quality, habitat degradation, and invasive exotic species. Lake Champlain is Vermont’s largest body of water, which it shares with New York and Quebec. The many tributaries that feed the lake flow through vast areas of developed and agricultural lands that contribute polluted run-off to the rivers and, eventually, the lake. Several invasive aquatic species, including zebra mussel, water chestnut, and an exotic snail, are wreaking havoc on native fish and wildlife populations. Missisquoi Bay has been spared some of those species, although water chestnut was found on the refuge for the first time in 2005.

Missisquoi River Delta Fillon (1970) described the uniqueness of the Missisquoi River Delta in the Lake Champlain Basin and its similarity to the Mississippi River Delta. The similarities are in the arrangement and small number (three) of the distributaries (creeks that branch off from the main stem before reaching the lake), and the presence of only a narrow strip of delta on either side of the river for a long distance upstream from the point of branching. These long, narrow deltas found at the mouth of the Missisquoi and the Mississippi Rivers are known as “bird’s foot deltas”

The geomorphology of the Missisquoi Delta is always changing. Precipitation (carrying and depositing sediments) in the Missisiquoi River watershed and in Lake Champlain, and wind (creating wave action) in the Lake Champlain Valley affect the deposition and erosion of sediments in the delta. The period of

Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions 3-3

Landscape Setting

greatest sediment discharge, and therefore, of greatest delta-building activity is in April and May. Fillon (1970) compared the morphology of the 1970 delta to a depiction generated in 1857 (see Clews 2002). In that 100+ years, Shad Island had advanced more than one quarter of a mile out into the lake, the northwest corner of Hog Island and Martindale Point retreated, and Maquam Creek shifted from a navigable waterway to a smaller channel narrowed by sedimentation and natural building of levees. At various times in the past, Fillon (1970) concluded, based on evidence of former deltas in Maquam Bay and an abandoned channel along Maquam and Black Creeks that the Missisquoi River emptied into Maquam Bay. Fillon (1970) used aerial photos to identify relict channels and natural levees or terraces in the Missisquoi River Delta.

For the last 500 years or more, the main stem of the Missisquoi River has flowed north into Missisquoi Bay. Despite dam construction upstream, including one in Swanton that changed the flow rate and sediment loads, the delta continues to expand northward. The main channel is more stable now than during its long history; a result of the riprap along the river stretch that runs parallel to Route 78 and the 3 miles of dikes on the refuge (Clews 2002).

The hydrology of Maquam Bog, south of Route 78 and between the mainland and Hog Island, is also complex. The bog sits about 1 foot above the average lake level and, as a result, it is seasonally flooded, mostly from Charcoal Creek to the north. A natural terrace formed on the southern USFWS edge of the bog by wave-thrown sand from Maquam Bay. Aerial view of Missiquoi River Delta In the early 1900s, a railroad was built atop that terrace, creating an additional barrier to floodwaters from the bay. More study is needed to understand how far floodwaters penetrate the bog or how much groundwater contributes to the bog’s hydrology (Clews 2002).

Geology Lake Champlain lies on a fault bounded between the Pre-Cambrian Adirondack Mountains of New York to the west and the Cambro-Ordovician Green Mountains of Vermont to the east. The bedrock on the eastern shore of Lake Champlain surrounding and under the Missisquoi River Delta consists of black shales of the Ordovician Iberville Formation. The bedrock of the eastern two-thirds of the Missisquoi River drainage is metamorphic consisting mainly of phyllites, schists, and graywackes. The western part of the drainage is sedimentary, mainly shales and dolomites (Fillon 1970). Due to the deep deposition of deltaic sediments, the bedrock of the lower Missisquoi River crops out in only a few areas, and thus, does not generally influence the distribution of plant and animal communities on the refuge (Clews 2002).

Water Quality Three major tributary rivers—Missisquoi, Rock, and Pike—feed into Missisquoi Bay. The refuge manages a conservation easement in the Town of Highgate, where the Rock River enters the United States from Canada. The river then passes through a mix of privately owned and state-owned wetlands before it enters the bay. The Pike River enters Missisquoi Bay in Canada. The bay receives the highest phosphorus load of any section of Lake Champlain. Discharge from wastewater treatment plants and runoff from nonpoint sources, including lawns, farms, and urban areas, carry phosphorus into the waterways. More than 90 percent of the phosphorus entering the bay is from nonpoint sources (Lake Champlain Steering Committee 2005).

Phosphorus is not harmful to humans; however, high phosphorus levels cause algal blooms that degrade water quality for aquatic life, affect recreational

3-4 Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions The Historical Picture

enjoyment and, if algal toxins are present, can irritate skin and cause internal damage to pets and humans. Nuisance algal blooms were first recognized as a problem in the mid-1990s when large blooms occurred in Missisquoi Bay. The toxin microcystin, produced during blue-green algae blooms, regularly exceeds recreational use guidelines in the bay from July to September (Lake Champlain Steering Committee 2005). The refuge is concerned about the impacts of the algal blooms on wildlife and wetlands habitats as well as recreational opportunities.

The LCBP has funded phosphorus and other water quality monitoring since 1992. From 1990 to 2004, Missisquoi Bay consistently failed to meet the standards set by the State of Vermont. In 2002, Vermont and New York developed a plan to reduce phosphorus loads carried to the lake by its tributary rivers. Also in 2002, Vermont and Quebec signed an agreement to allocate responsibility for phosphorus reduction in the Missisquoi sub-basin: 60 percent for Vermont; 40 percent for Quebec (VT DEC 2005c)

Additional water quality issues in Missisquoi Bay include the presence of mercury and pesticides and the spread of invasive species. Other water quality concerns on the refuge include increased sedimentation caused by upstream Missisquoi River watershed land uses that cause stream bank erosion or increased runoff. Extreme floods exacerbate that sedimentation. Throughout the year, but especially in the spring, the Missisquoi River carries loads of sediment into the refuge where the water spreads out through the floodplain, dropping the sediment into wetlands, fish spawning areas, and mussel beds.

Walleye come up from Lake Champlain into the lower Missisquoi as far as the Swanton dam. The State of Vermont Department of Health issued a fish consumption advisory for that 8-mile stretch due to mercury contamination from atmospheric deposition in the walleye. There are three permitted direct wastewater discharges, two indirect wastewater discharges, and at least seven permitted storm water discharges to the lower Missisquoi River and its tributaries. Along the length of the lower Missisquoi River, aquatic life and their habitats are stressed from high sediment loads, turbidity, nutrient enrichment, and temperature, and loss of riparian vegetation and stream bank erosion (VT DEC 2005b).

Air Quality The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports that Vermont meets National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) of the Clean Air Act without exception (EPA 2005). The concentration of carbon monoxide is far below the lawful limit, as is that of nitrogen dioxide. The air quality of the refuge is thought to be very good. Vermont has the lowest recorded levels of ozone concentration of the six New England states and none of its monitoring sites exceeded the standards set by the EPA. Other air quality parameters that the monitoring site in Burlington, Vermont, measures include sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, and fine particulates (EPA 2005). The Historical Picture

Glaciation All of New England and northeastern New York were affected by the last continental glaciation, the Wisconsin, which peaked about 18,000 years ago. As the ice sheet began receding, its melt waters were blocked from draining northward by the ice, allowing historical Lake Vermont to form in the Champlain Valley. By 11,000 years ago, the glacier had receded beyond the St. Lawrence lowlands, allowing water from the Atlantic Ocean to reach the Champlain Valley. That marine embayment was called the Champlain Sea. As the glacier continued to regress northward, the weight of the ice sheet lifted, allowing the Earth’s crust to rebound and lift the northern rim of the Champlain Valley above sea level, forming a barrier to the ocean. That initiated a gradual transition from a

Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions 3-5

The Historical Picture

saltwater, to a brackish, to a freshwater aquatic environment that was complete by about 8,000 years ago (Chapman 1937). As the sea receded, thick deposits of clay, and in some places sand, remained to form some of the best farmland in eastern Canada and northeastern United States. Flying over northern Vermont today, one sees the Green and Taconic Mountains flatten and separate into the vast Champlain Valley, site of ancient seas. Immediately to the north, in Canada, the land broadens still farther into the valley of the St. Lawrence.

As the great continental ice sheets melted, they left behind river deltas and sand-gravel margins, creating a medium for the growth of a distinctive mosaic of plants found in few other places in northern New England. Before European settlement, the region was dominated by silver maple floodplain forest, red- maple black-ash swamp, mesic oak hardwood forest, and sugar maple-beech-birch forest, depending on site-specific conditions. Pitch pine-scrub oak woodlands, emergent freshwater marshes, and large river systems were embedded in the region. Little of that natural vegetation remains in the St. Lawrence Plain, based partly on natural changes, but mostly because of large-scale, human-induced disturbance (Rosenberg 2000). The Missisquoi Refuge hosts some of the best remaining examples of those habitats.

Human History Early History The exploration and exploitation of the Champlain Lowlands may have begun as early as 7500 B.C. Upstream on the Missisquoi River, on sandy beach deposits of the former Champlain Sea in Highgate, the Reagan Site was occupied by late Paleo-Indian times, 10,000 to 9,000 years ago. The site overlooked the Champlain Basin from an elevation of 500 feet (Thomas and Robinson 1979.) However, there are no known Paleo-Indian Period sites on the refuge. Although the Missisquoi Delta was exposed at that time, it still may have been too wet to be attractive for living (Thomas and Robinson 1979).

The Early Archaic Period (9,000 to 7,500 years ago) at Missisquoi coincides with a shift in environment to more closed forest cover (Corey et al. 2002:13). Both Early Archaic and Middle Archaic people seem to have used a wide variety of environments (Thomas and Robinson 1979). On the Missisquoi River in Swanton, upstream from the refuge, an Early Archaic site on a high terrace of the Missisquoi yielded corner-notched projectile points and a suite of stone tools dating to 8,100 years ago (Thomas and Robinson 1979). Two other Early Archaic sites have been dated in Highgate (Thomas and Robinson 1979), but no sites with Early Archaic tool kits or dating to that period have been found on the refuge. Delta buildup after the Early Archaic Period is likely to have buried any evidence of that period on the refuge (Hight and Wilson 1997). Small group size and low regional population during the Early and Middle Archaic may mean that their archaeological sites generally are smaller and easier to miss (Thomas and Robinson 1979).

Recent archaeological work just off the refuge revealed a Middle Archaic Period archaeological site (Ellen R. Cowie, pers. Comm.., 2005). It is likely that Middle Archaic people also used the refuge land. Elsewhere in New England, Middle Archaic people gathered at resource-rich sites to fish, work wood, and knap stone tools from stone obtained in the same drainage (Dincauze 1976).

According to Thomas and Robinson (1979) the Late Archaic Period (6,000 to 3,000 years ago) is widely represented in Vermont, although not many sites of that age are known in the Missisquoi River drainage. Late Archaic artifacts form a large percentage of surface collections in western Vermont. A large number of Late Archaic projectile points have a wide distribution in the Champlain

3-6 Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions The Historical Picture

Basin, and islands in the wet basin or wet environments in general attracted Late Archaic people in other parts of Vermont. The use of steatite bowls and the introduction of ceramic pots at the end of the period are significant.

The Early Woodland Period (3,000 to 2,100 years ago) is represented by archaeological sites on the refuge as well as upstream. Some artifact continuity from the Late Archaic to the Early Woodland represents continuity of the basic subsistence and settlement patterns during those two periods. Hunting, fishing and gathering are not markedly different from the Archaic Period. Heightened burial ceremony and elaborate grave goods characterize that period in the Missisquoi Valley as well as other rivers in New England (Thomas and Robinson 1979). Early Woodland habitation sites have been identified on the refuge.

The Middle Woodland Period (2,100 to 1,000 years ago) (Corey et al. 2002) is marked by a continuation of hunting, fishing and gathering activity, and evidence of larger groups and perhaps more frequent visits to the same sites (Thomas and Robinson 1979). Nut and fish storage pits and perhaps corn horticulture existed by the end of this period. The presence of large, heavily used Middle Woodland sites have been discovered in the lower Winooski, Lamoille and Missisquoi intervales before those rivers enter Lake Champlain (Thomas and Robinson 1979) and in the Connecticut River Valley in Vermont.

The late Woodland Period (A.D. 1000–1650) (Corey et al. 2002) is characterized by a continuation of subsistence hunting, fishing, and gathering, but corn (grown in the Connecticut River Valley by A.D. 1100), bean and squash horticulture became increasingly important. Larger communities began to develop as storable foods and palisaded sites began to be constructed in river valleys by about A.D. 1350 (Thomas and Robinson 1979).

Historical Land Use Because large Late Woodland villages are known along the lower intervals of the Winooski, Lamoille and Missisquoi rivers, and there is no evidence of displacement, the ancestors of the Western Abenaki Nation of Missisquoi who inhabited the region in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries probably used the Champlain lowland well before the seventeenth century. By the end of the 1600s, the French had established a mission at Missisquoi. A clearer picture of the Indian community at Missisquoi emerges from eighteenth century records. The war chief Grey Lock is prominent in those events (Thomas and Robinson 1979). Grey Lock raided English settlements along the Connecticut River in Massachusetts from 1723 to1727 (Calloway 1990). He continued to live at Missisquoi at least until 1744 (Calloway 1990).

The Jesuits built a mission church on the Missisquoi River in about 1741. During the French and Indian War (1754–1763), much of the Missisquoi community withdrew to Quebec. With the end of the French and Indian war, returning Missisquoi families encountered English settlers moving into lands along the Missisquoi River and Lake Champlain (Thomas and Robinson 1979).

English settlement began to expand in the mid-to-late 1700s. James Robinson leased a large tract of land from the Indian community in 1765, and built a sawmill at the Swanton Falls, on the site of a previous French mill. Thomas Metcalfe built a trading post on Shad Island at about that time as well. European settlements continued to grow, and the Allen family facilitated settlement by settlers holding their titles from New Hampshire and Vermont (Thomas and Robinson 1979). One refuge tract title chain goes back to Heman Allan, one of Ethan and Ira Allan’s brothers.

Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions 3-7

Socioeconomic Environment

The Town of Swanton held its first town meeting in 1790. Approximately 800 white settlers resided in Swanton by 1800. It grew considerably during the nineteenth century, expanding from a population of 74 in 1791 to 3,079 in 1880. Sawmills, gristmills, tanneries, marble works, and potash production developed in the Swanton area from the mid-1800s until the early 1900s. Socioeconomic Environment Population Demographics The U.S. Census Bureau Vermont State Data Center is housed at the University of Vermont (UVM) Center for Rural Studies. The website (http://crs.uvm.edu/census/) has data on populations in Vermont communities. Table 3.1 displays a subset of that information.

Table 3.1. Population changes from 2000 to 2004 in Vermont, Franklin County, and the Towns of Swanton and Highgate* 2000 Population 2004 Population % Change State of Vermont 609,941 621,394 1.9 Franklin County 45,599 47,556 4.3

Town of Swanton 6,223 6,423 3.2

Town of Highgate 3,423 3,628 6.0

*Vermont State Data Center, 2005

Economics of Franklin The economy of Franklin County is based on a mix of agriculture, tourism County and recreation, and industry. Many businesses near Lake Champlain cater to recreational interests and tourists. Campgrounds, fishing and other sporting goods and services, motels, and bed and breakfasts abound in the area. In addition, both Swanton and St. Albans have industrial parks that are slowly but steadily growing.

Farming is one of the largest land uses in the county. In 1997, 47 percent of the county, or 190,215 acres, was in farms. Franklin County is the largest dairy producer in Vermont and in New England. Dairy farms generated more than 75 percent of the total agricultural sales for the County. The total economic impact of the agricultural industry in Franklin County is estimated at more than $210 million, providing more than 10 percent of all the jobs in the region (American Farmland Trust 2002).

In 1987, Vermont enacted the Farmland Conservation Program to permanently protect land for agriculture. Vermont consistently invests more money per capita on farmland conservation than any other state in the U.S. By 2002, this program had helped protect 25,000 acres in Franklin County. Between 1982 and 1997, 15 percent of the farmland in Franklin County was lost to development; lower than the 20 percent statewide average (American Farmland Trust 2002). Many people who live near the refuge commute to jobs in the Burlington area. The relatively high cost and low availability of housing in the neighboring counties, especially Chittenden County that encompasses Burlington, is causing an increase in residential development pressure in Franklin County.

Farmers have sold the development rights to their farmlands to land trusts to provide cash for farm improvements, to buy more land, for retirement, and to

3-8 Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions Refuge Administration

ensure that the land will be there for their children to farm in the future. Of the 41,408 total acres in the Town of Swanton, about 13,000 acres, or 31 percent, are conserved. Federal and state wildlife refuges encompass about 7,000 acres of that total and the rest lies in the form of conservation easements on private lands. Twenty-seven privately owned dairy farms, representing roughly half the dairy farms in Swanton, are conserved. Swanton has the highest percentage of conserved land of any community in Vermont. Map 1-3 depicts the distribution of conserved lands throughout Franklin County. Refuge Administration Establishment Missisquoi Refuge was officially established on February 4, 1943 “...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or any other management purposes, for migratory birds” under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. Today, the refuge encompasses 6,570 acres of the Missisquoi River delta. Only 8 few parcels, totaling 253 acres, remain within the approved acquisition boundary to acquire (map 1-3).

The refuge also owns a 262-acre parcel in Westville, New York about 10.5 miles north of the City of Malone, along the Canada-U.S. border (Map 3-2). This parcel was acquired under provisions of the 1985 Farm Bill. Most of the Westville Unit is reverting agricultural land. The Westville Unit is open to the public, however there are no developed facilities such as walking trails, observation areas, and access points. The refuge holds a conservation easement on a 71-acre Rock River parcel in Highgate (Map 3-3) as well as easements on several other properties. These easements were granted to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) through the Farmers Home Administration debt-restructuring program for farmers. The program allows for reduction of borrower debt in exchange for permanent conservation easements on valuable habitat, including wetlands.

Land Acquisition The land acquisition program at Missisquoi in the recent past has been both opportunistic and, at the same time, measured. There are several parcels within the approved Refuge boundary that the Service will try to acquire if the owners indicate an interest and willingness to sell. Likewise, there are many parcels outside, but adjacent to, the approved boundary that would be eagerly considered were the landowner to indicate an interest to sell. Since 2000, the Mudgett Island inholding became available for a short time, but ultimately ownership was retained within the family. No other in-holdings have been nor are currently available for consideration by the Service.

Also since 2000, several parcels were added to the perimeter of the refuge; one a 93-acre parcel on the southern boundary of the refuge known as the Hawley Tract and the other a 39-acre parcel on the southwest corner known as the Lussier tract.

Additionally several attempts were made to purchase lands in four parcels from two landowners near Tabor Road either adjacent to or nearly adjacent to the southwest refuge boundary. Those attempts were not successful largely due to a hot real estate market; the parcels have since been sold to other parties with two being developed for single-family housing. A third parcel was an active dairy farm and remains so under new ownership by a family member of the original owner. The last parcel was an active dairy farm and remains so under the original owner. In all cases the landowners wished to sell to the refuge and approached the refuge with the proposal, but we could not reach mutual agreement on property values.

Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions 3-9

Refuge Administration Map 3-2

3-10 Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions Map 3-3 Refuge Administration

Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions 3-11

Refuge Administration

The Service has worked to acquire three 10-acre parcels adjacent to the Monument Road in Highgate. These parcels, although not adjacent to the refuge boundary are within ¼ mile. The refuge manager has worked for several years with U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy’s office and a multi-partner working group to protect culturally sensitive lands in this vicinity. These three parcels not only are culturally sensitive, they harbor important wildlife and habitat values. Addition of these parcels to the refuge is imminent.

Through the Migratory Bird Commission, the Service acquired another 10-acre parcel adjacent to the refuge boundary at the Stephen J. Young Marsh in the southwest portion of the refuge along Tabor Road.

Other areas that are of interest to the Service for addition to the refuge include: the forested and emergent wetland between the existing Refuge boundary along Dead Creek and Burton’s Pothole, and the three 10-acre parcels being acquired along Monument Road; the emergent marsh adjacent to the refuge boundary near the mouth of Dead Creek in Missisquoi Bay; the tract of land bordering the refuge west of Charcoal Creek south of Route 78; additional wetlands and meadows along Tabor Road; and any of the five in-holdings (Coleman at Charcoal Creek, Hilliker’s Pothole, Comolli’s Marsh, Mudgett Island, and Bruyette’s Islands).

Also of interest to the Service would be discussions with the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department (VT FWD) to determine the feasibility and advantage of nearby or bordering State lands being transferred to the Service or managed by the Service as part of the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge or vice versa. Lands that could be part of that discussion would include: the abandoned railroad bed trail through the refuge from Tabor Road southeast to the shore of Lake Champlain at Maquam Bay; portions of the Maquam Bay Wildlife Management Area (WMA); the Carmen Marsh and old Fish Hatchery parcel near Sandy Point; the Service conservation easements near the Rock River in Highgate. Opportunities could be explored for land exchange or joint management agreements that would facilitate overall management of the area for both agencies.

Staffing and Budgets1 The current Refuge staff includes:

■ Refuge manager (GS-13)

■ Refuge operations specialist (GS-11)

■ Administrative support assistant (GS-6)

■ Park ranger (GS-11)

■ Maintenance mechanic (WG-9)

■ 1 GS is an acronym for “General Student Career Experience Program (SCEP) student (GS-4) Schedule.” This is a federal civil service pay scale. WG is an ■ Wildlife Biologist (GS-11) acronym for “Wage Grade” which is also a federal civil service pay Three additional positions are approved but unfilled — that of a park ranger scale for employees in certain (GS-9) and a maintenance worker (GS-5). The wildlife biologist (GS-11) retired in maintenance or trade jobs. In January 2006. See the organization chart in Appendix H. general, the higher the number, the higher the pay. Pay may vary Annual budget appropriations vary from year to year, depending on the Service’s from locality to locality in the U.S. as adjustments are made for costs overall budget and how the refuge’s needs and requests rank regionally and of living. Detailed title and job nationally with other Refuges. Table 3.2 summarizes budget levels from 1998 to information can be found at the 2004. Funding fluctuations reflect dollars earmarked for special projects. For following link: http://www.fws.gov/ example, 1998 maintenance funding included the replacement an aged Refuge hr/HR/employmentstaffi ng.htm vehicle. In 2000 the refuge received additional funding for the replacement

3-12 Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions Refuge Administration

of an aged dump truck, pickup truck and two Jon boats. In 2001, additional allocations in maintenance funding covered a major dike rehabilitation project estimated at $347,000 and a Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) crew. The refuge received additional funding in 2002 for ecosystem cooperative projects in station operations funds and funding for another YCC crew along with a new radio system in maintenance funds. The notable increase in operations and maintenance spending in 2004 is due to the expense of constructing a new Refuge Headquarters and Visitor Contact Station.

Table 3.2. Refuge budgets from 1998 to 2004.

Fiscal Year Operations Maintenance Total 1998 $255,200 $50,000 $305,200

1999 $315,100 $20,000 $335,100

2000 $374,900 $146,000 $520,900

2001 $381,200 $391,000 $772,200

2002 $425,200 $70,500 $495,700 2003 $419,616 $126,992 $546,608

2004 $652,157 $567,900 $1,220,057

Facilities and Maintenance Missisquoi Refuge facilities currently include the new Refuge Headquarters and Visitor Contact Station, a storage building, a service building, two cold storage buildings, an equipment shed, an oil shed, above ground fuel tanks with covers, three comfort stations, a loading dock, and two travel trailers located at Refuge Headquarters for use by researchers. In addition, a new maintenance compound is currently under construction. The maintenance staff is responsible for the upkeep of all these facilities.

The refuge also maintains two kiosks, four gravel parking lots, a mile-long gravel road, three boat ramps, and a handicap accessible fishing bulkhead and concrete parking area. Maintenance personnel are also responsible for boardwalks, sidewalks, nature trails, fencing, informational and interpretational signs, wood duck and bluebird boxes, boundary signs, a radio tower, a flag pole,

and the headquarters lawn and septic Centerbrook Architects system. Maintaining gravel parking lots James A. Coan, AIA of © and roads often requires much time and Refuge Headquarters and Visitor effort, especially after spring flooding. Contact Station Yearly boundary sign checks are done in the winter when access and maneuverability over the ice is much easier.

The refuge manages three water impoundments in the Missisquoi Delta: Cranberry Pool, Goose Bay Pool, and Big Marsh Slough. These impoundments are encompassed by three different dike systems, one with an operating water control structure. A second water control structure is in the 2-acre Stephen J. Young marsh, and is manipulated to control water levels. Also on the delta are two of the refuge’s storage buildings. Maintaining these dikes, impoundments, and buildings offers added challenges to maintenance staff; all equipment must be moved to the island by barge, which complicates even the smallest maintenance tasks. The barge and barge slip bulkhead in turn must be maintained.

Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions 3-13

Refuge Administration

Table 3.3. Refuge Roads and Infrastructures Size Year Built Action Under CCP Levees, Dikes, Water Control Structures, Bulkheads Barge Slip 150 lin ft 1978 Maintain Bulkhead Mac’s Bend 44 lin ft 1978 Maintain Big Marsh Slough dike 300 lin ft 1958 See Goose Bay dike Evaluate potential of extending dike Goose Bay Pool dike 1,500 lin ft 1959 approx ½ mile through Big Marsh Slough Cranberry Pool dike 15,840 lin ft 1968 Maintain

Cranberry Pool water control 2 1968 Maintain structures

Sheet piling at Cranberry Pool water 160 lin ft 1986 Maintain control structures

Handicapped accessible fishing 48 lin ft 1997 Maintain bulkhead at Louie’s Landing

Stephen J. Young Marsh dike and 200 lin ft 1995 Maintain water control structure

Boat Launch Areas

Launch #1 at Mac’s Bend 40 ft x 10 ft Reconstructed 1984 Maintain

Launch #2 at Mac’s Bend 40 ft x 10 ft Reconstructed 1984 Maintain

Launch at Louie’s Landing 60 ft x 20 ft 1966 Maintain Create along Missisquoi River as part Canoe/kayak boat launch This would be new of Rt 78 realignment

Roads and Parking Areas Mac’s Bend Road, gravel 1 mile 1953 Maintain Mac’s Bend parking lot 10,000 sq ft 1979 Maintain Louie’s Landing parking lot 21,900 sq ft 1979 Maintain Jeep Trail, 1 lane, earth base 3 miles 1983 Maintain Old Headquarters parking lot 15,000 sq ft 1959 Maintain New Headquarters/Visitor Contact 48,000 sq ft 2005 Maintain Station’s parking lot

Public use parking areas (2 on Tabor 5,000 sq ft each 1970 Maintain Road)

Handicapped accessible concrete 700 sq ft 1997 Maintain parking area, Louie’s Landing

3-14 Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions Refuge Administration

Size Year Built Action Under CCP Buildings New Headquarters/Visitor Contact Expand Visitor Contact Station hours, 7,250 sq ft 2005 Station including weekends New Maintenance Building 7,000 sq ft 2006 Maintain Storage shed, old gas shed 64 sq ft 1950 Demolish Storage building (Mac’s Bend) 1,500 sq ft 1958 Maintain Former milk house, 96 sq. ft. (1968) 96 sq ft 1968 Demolish

Old Headquarters building 2,530 sq ft 1958 Salvage

Oil shed 320 sq ft 1959 Demolish & Replace

Cranberry Pool dike open storage 625 sq ft 1968 Maintain building

YCC Service Building 1,600 sq ft 1978 Salvage Restroom Facility (nature trail) 36 sq ft 1996 Maintain Restroom at Mac’s Bend 64 sq ft 1997 Maintain Install locks with timers; consider Restroom at Louie’s Landing 128 sq ft 1997 moving if problems persist

Pre-Fab Metal Flammable Materials 123 sq ft 2005 Maintain Storage Building

Cold storage building at Cranberry Pool 900 sq ft 1999 Maintain dike

Trails and Boardwalks

Black and Maquam Creek Trail 1.75 mile 1963 Add elevated boardwalk Expand vehicle & bicycle access Mac’s Bend Trail 1 mile 1943 from April to Dec; install an electronic gate Enhance signage and gate to ensure Jeep Trail 2.5 miles 1943 pedestrian traffic only; Shorten trail to where river branches, install a bench Complete in 2006; add handicapped Discovery Trail 1 mile 2005 access

Stephen J. Young Marsh Trail 1.25 miles 2004 Complete in 2006 with YCC

Construct boardwalk to reach Maquam Bay and to a Maquam Bog Old Railroad Passage Trail 1.5 miles 2002 overlook; add interpretive signs and blind at each

Outdoor Classroom 40 Within 5 years

Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions 3-15

Refuge Administration

Size Year Built Action Under CCP Information Kiosks

Black and Maquam Creek Trailhead 1987 Maintain

Louie’s Landing 1990 Maintain New Headquarters/Visitor Contact 2005 Maintain Station Old Railroad Passage ------Install within 5 years

Other 80’ Tower, 10 kW Turbine Wind Turbine 2006 Maintain with 22’diameter rotor Refuge Boundary (clear vegetation Annually evaluate signs along 12 200 signs/23.5 miles 1943 and place signs) miles of boundary

Shift to natural cavities; don’t replace Wood duck boxes 130 boxes 1943 old boxes, evaluate others for removal

Waterfowl hunting blind sites 23 1985 Add 2 within 5 years

Osprey nesting sites 32 2005 Evaluate and maintain as needed

Wind Turbine The refuge completed the installation of a 10-kilowatt wind turbine in 2006 at its new headquarters complex to produce electricity for its facilities and to demonstrate and promote renewable energy production. The wind power generation complements other renewable energy features of the new headquarters/Visitor Contact Station that include 4.3 kilowatt generating capacity photovoltaic panels and a geothermal cooling system. Other conservation measures used in construction included environmentally friendly materials, recycled content materials, construction waste recycling, energy and water conservation, and site restoration.

The single wind turbine erected at Missisquoi Refuge is 80 feet tall with a rotor diameter of 22 feet. No guy wires are required. The wind turbine, combined with the photovoltaic array, provides power to the headquarters complex, reduces refuge operating costs, and in accordance with a Certificate of Public Good from the Vermont Public Service Board, is connected to the utility grid to allow net metering or sale of excess power to the local utility supplier. An interpretive display in the new visitor’s center will show the amount of electricity being produced by the turbine, the amount of electricity being used by the facility and highlight the technology and operation of the wind turbine, photovoltaic cells, and geothermal building features.

Contributions of the Refuge The contribution of the Missisquoi to the Local Economy Refuge to the local economy is multi- faceted. The refuge contributes directly to the local economy through shared revenue payments. The Federal government does not pay property tax on refuge lands;

instead it makes annual payments to USFWS respective municipalities based on a Wind Turbine

3-16 Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions Refuge Administration

maximum of 0.75 percent of the fair market value of refuge lands as determined by an appraisal every five years. The actual amount distributed each year varies based on Congressional appropriations, land acquisition, and the annual sale of refuge goods and products that contribute directly to the revenue sharing account. The latter includes proceeds from the sale of hay, timber products, etc.

Table 3.4. Annual refuge revenue sharing payments from 2000 to 2004. 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Totals

Highgate $2,689 $2,744 $2,820 $2,464 $2,464 $2,179 $2,278 $17,638

Swanton $5,271 $5,380 $3,702 $4,912 $4,912 $4,345 $4,673 $33,195

Yearly $7,960 $ 8,124 $6,522 $7,376 $7,376 $6,524 $6,951 $50,833 Totals

The refuge also contributes indirectly to the local economy, yet provides valuable recreational opportunities for local residents and brings tourists and travelers into the area for the same reason. Public ownerships require little in the way of services from municipalities, yet provide valuable recreational opportunities for local residents. A 2001 national survey of hunting, fishing, and wildlife watching showed that 569,000 Vermont residents and nonresidents 16 years old and older fished, hunted, or watched wildlife in Vermont, and spent $386 million on these activities. This included 171,000 anglers, 100,000 hunters, and 496,000 wildlife-watchers (USFWS & US Census Bureau 2003). Vermont ranked first in the nation in percentage of residents that actively observed wildlife (60 percent). At least 280,000 Vermont residents participated in wildlife-associated recreational activities; constituting nearly 50 percent of the state’s resident population – the highest percentage in the nation. These statistics represent a significant contribution to Vermont’s economy and highlight the strong connection Vermont residents and non-residents have to the land and wildlife (Kart et al. 2005).

Missisquoi Refuge is one of the premier spots in the State where these outdoor wildlife enthusiasts spend time and money. The refuge is popular for fishing, upland and big game hunting, and waterfowl hunting. The refuge is well known in Vermont as a premier waterfowl hunting venue. Each year, approximately 66 permits are sold to duck hunters at $10 each. Waterfowl hunters contribute to the local economy through the purchase of gas, food, hunting-related equipment and clothing, boating gear, equipment repair services, and lodging.

Approximately 100 permits to hunt big game and upland game are sold annually on the refuge. Most hunters pursue white tailed deer, but a few hunt for other species such as ruffed grouse, woodcock, or snipe. Although many hunters are local residents, approximately 20 percent reside outside Franklin County. These hunters contribute to local commerce through the purchase of gas, food, hunting- related equipment and clothing, and lodging.

Trapping is a small factor in the local economic picture. Trapping is conducted on the refuge on a very limited basis; in any given year only two or three parties trap. Trapping is focused on those animals that are causing infrastructure or management problems relative to waterfowl management activities. Raccoons are trapped in an effort to reduce their predatory impact on colonial nesting birds such as great blue herons and black terns, as well as their impact on nesting waterfowl. Trappers are usually local people who purchase food, gas and other supplies as they conduct their work. The pelts are usually sold to large fur houses and their profits directly benefit the trappers.

Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions 3-17

Refuge Administration

Other economic uses of the refuge include commercial minnow collecting and haying. About one half dozen bait dealers buy special use permits from the refuge each year to access the river via Refuge land and collect minnows for sale as fish bait to ice fishermen. The sale of the

minnows supports both the bait dealers and those USFWS/ Steve Vittum who engage in the popular pastime of ice fishing. Raccoon

In an effort to economically maintain about 200 acres of grassland as grassy herbaceous habitat for migratory birds and other animals, the refuge has cooperative farming agreements with about half a dozen local dairy farmers. The farmers pay the refuge a small amount to harvest hay from refuge land each year.

Increasing numbers of birdwatchers, photographers, naturalists, and boaters are drawn to the refuge. Recently the refuge was recognized as a premier stop on the Lake Champlain Birding Trail, likely leading to increased visitation, and, consequently, expenditure of funds in support of the local economy. In the next few years more canoeists are expected along the Northern Forest Canoe Trail, which courses from Maine to New York, passing through the refuge on the Missisquoi River. Similarly we may see paddler use increase since the Lake Champlain Committee has identified a paddler’s trail around the Missisquoi River Delta in their Lake Champlain Paddler’s Trail Guide 2006. Increased visitation to the refuge is considered by many to be the cornerstone of the Swanton revitalization effort, as refuge users contribute to the local economy through consumption of goods and services, rental of equipment locally, and payment of fees for the use of shuttles and guide services.

The refuge manager and other staff have also been involved in the Route 78 Improvement Project, aiding in the planning effort to improve the portion of Route 78 from the downtown Swanton bridge to the West Swanton bridge.

Finally, the Missisquoi Refuge budget provides approximately $400,000 per year to the local economy through staff salaries, expenditures for construction contracts on the refuge, and purchases from local businesses for operation and maintenance of the refuge.

Research Several research thesis projects, studies, and investigations have been conducted on the refuge. A selection of these projects are listed below.

Biological Studies ■ From floodplain forest to pitch pine woodland bog: a landscape inventory and analysis of the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge, Swanton, Vermont. 2002. Charlotte Clews. Field project for Master of Science, UVM.

■ A study of the response of eastern spiny softshell turtle to boat traffic in the Missisquoi River of Northern Vermont.2001. W. Max Meyer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

■ An assessment of breeding great blue herons (Ardea herodias) and the impact of double-crested cormorants (Phalacrocaorax auritus) in the Shad Island Rookery, Swanton, VT. 2001. Zoe Richards and David Capen, UVM. Paper prepared to the Lake Champlain Ecosystem Team.

■ The freshwater mussels of the Lower Missisquoi River: current status and the potential for a refugium from zebra mussel impacts. 1999. Paul Marangelo. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Technical Report.

3-18 Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions Refuge Administration

■ Grassland bird breeding use of managed grasslands on National Wildlife Refuges within Region 5 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Michael C. Runge, Laura R. Mitchell, and Chritopher J. Norment. Preliminary report to the National Wildlife Refuge System and Natural Resource Conservation Service.

■ Investigation of abnormalities in frogs on Region 5 National Wildlife Refuges: 2004 year-end report. Pinkney et al. 2005. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Wildlife Monitoring and Surveys The refuge conducts many biological surveys of wildlife each year, some in coordination with State partners. Annual productivity surveys are conducted on the following species or species groups: ● Great blue heron ● Osprey ● Waterfowl ● Black tern © Stina Plant Surveys to assess habitat use and Management of Swim-in-Traps status of populations on the refuge include: ● Breeding marsh and wading birds ● Breeding land birds ● Grassland nesting birds ● Breeding frogs and toads ● Migrating waterfowl ● Furbearers ● Purple loosestrife ● Impoundment vegetation

Waterfowl Banding Each fall the refuge staff, in collaboration with the State of Vermont, band an average of 200 to 300 ducks on the refuge. This effort supports the State’s contribution to the Atlantic Flyway Council’s banding program that helps guides waterfowl management decisions in the Flyway.

Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) Vermont Audubon established a MAPS station in the marsh, shrubland and forest surrounding the Steven J. Young marsh in 2001. MAPS is a cooperative effort among public agencies, private organizations, and bird banders in North America to provide long-term data on population and demographic parameters for more than 100 target landbird species at multiple spatial scales. The program uses standardized, constant-effort mist netting and banding during the breeding season. The MAPS methodology provides annual indices of adult population size and post-fledging productivity from data on the numbers and proportions of young and adult birds captured; and annual estimates of adult survivorship, adult population size, proportion of resident individuals in the adult population, recruitment into the adult population, and population growth rate from mark- recapture data on adult birds.

MAPS requires the standardized operation of a series of about 10 nets at permanent sites on one day during each of 6 to 10 consecutive 10-day periods between May and August. Standardization from year to year and continuation

Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions 3-19

Refuge Administration

of the study for at least five consecutive years at each station are necessary to provide reliable productivity indices and survivorship estimates. Continuation of the study for 10 to 20 consecutive years at most stations will likely be necessary to obtain reliable trend information. One of the outcomes from the analysis of MAPS data by the Institute of Bird Populations is to identify those habitat characteristics associated with low productivity and those associated with higher productivity and in turn guide management that can lead to higher productivity (DeSante et al. 2005). Missisquoi Refuge has data for 2001-2004.

Cultural and Archaeological Studies ■ Archaeological phase I survey and archaeological phase II testing of the shift/off alignment and the on-alignment portions of the Vermont Route 78 Swanton Project NH 036-1(9), Swanton, Franklin County, Vermont. 2002. Corey, R. P., E. C. Kitson, S. R. Scharoun, J. A. Reed, R. N. Bartone, and E. R. Cowie. Archaeological Research Center, Department of Social Sciences and Business, University of Maine, Farmington, Maine. Prepared for the Vermont Agency of Transportation.

■ Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge: a cultural resource survey. 1979. Peter A. Thomas and Brian Robinson. Report submitted to the Interagency Archeological Services, Atlanta, Georgia, by the Department of Anthropology, UVM, Burlington, Vermont.

Wildlife and Habitat The focus of habitat management on the Missisquoi Refuge is to maintain and Management enhance habitat for migratory birds. Table 3.5 lists the management tools we use annually on the refuge to achieve habitat objectives.

Table 3.5. Current habitat management on the refuge. Management Action Area Treated Objective of Action Measurements Maintain herbaceous cover on old fields and Observations Prescribed burning 20 to 100 acres improve nesting conditions for migratory birds Vegetation transects Haying 184 acres Maintain grassland bird nesting habitat Point count survey Create different age classes of early Observations Hydroaxing in early 20 acres successional hardwoods for woodcook and successional habitat MAPS data other species 2 acres (Stephen J. To maintain high-quality wetland habitat for Water levels at the Manipulating water Young Marsh) breeding, foraging, and migrating waterfowl, control structure; levels 550 acres (Cranberry water birds, and other marsh birds waterfowl, marsh and Pool) waterbird surveys Manage populations of muskrats, beaver, and Muskrat and beaver raccoon to reduce damage to dikes and other house counts Trapping 200 animals structures and prevent predation on waterfowl Weekly trapper harvest and water birds data

Cooperative Agreements Cooperative agreements are legal contracts between a refuge and an educational facility or agency that specializes in an area of research applicable to that refuge. They allow the parties to share resources, funding, and research results as specified in the agreement. The Missisquoi Refuge now has several cooperative agreements in place to support refuge research: two of them with UVM. The first of those regards continuing research on the Shad Island great blue heron rookery and the impact that the double crested cormorant may impose on the rookery. The second provides for the development of a digital database of land cover and land use for riparian areas in the Lake Champlain

3-20 Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions Refuge Administration

Basin. When completed, that database will be shared with members of the Lake Champlain Ecosystem Team and other interested agencies, with the goal of achieving the future conservation and restoration of riparian habitat within this basin. The refuge also has a cooperative agreement in place with Audubon Vermont for the study of marsh birds on the refuge. That agreement has been in place for several years as an ongoing study. Its results are not only crucial for refuge management purposes, but also for the National Audubon Society statistical purposes. Finally, the refuge has a coop agreement with the Vermont YCC for annual work periods on the refuge. These always take place in the summer, usually July and August for a two or three week period when a crew comes to the refuge to work on various public use or habitat management projects. The refuge pays the Vermont YCC who then handles all the administration, supervision, and oversight for the program, allowing the refuge staff to focus on organizing and coordinating the projects. This is highly beneficial to both parties.

Along with cooperative agreements, the refuge shares Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with other agencies such as local fire departments, the Border Patrol, the sheriff’s department, and state agencies. The purpose of those MOUs is to provide essential support to the refuge. MOUs with local fire departments insure support for controlled burns, while MOUs with the Border Patrol, the sheriff’s department, and state agencies give the refuge shared radio frequencies and law enforcement backup as needed.

Special Use Permits The refuge issues special use permits to individuals, organizations, and educational facilities for an array of requests, some which are out of the realm of regularly allowed refuge activities or use of its resources. Permits are time- specific: each carries a starting date, ending date, and the specific terms and conditions for each request. On average, the refuge issues 16 special use permits each year to a variety of users.

To improve migratory bird habitat on refuge land, haying partners are granted special use permits. Local farmers pay $6 an acre to cut and bale the hay produced on refuge grasslands yearly. Grasslands must be periodically mowed to control weeds and prevent the regrowth of trees and shrubs. That arrangement benefits the refuge by reducing our grassland mowing workload, and provides participating farmers with supplemental hay. Mowing is not allowed until July 15, after the nesting season for grassland-dependent migratory birds.

Special use permits also allow local anglers and bait dealers special access through the refuge to the Missisquoi River to retrieve minnows for bait used in the winter fishing season.

In addition, the refuge issues special use permits for trapping on the refuge, which is also a refuge management practice. Due to the low level of requests, the refuge currently does not charge a fee for trapping permits.

Many special use permits for research have been issued for such purposes as archaeology surveys, black tern surveys, and frog surveys. Those permits entail access into closed refuge areas paramount in the research.

The refuge also issues special use permits to environmental education organizations for access into closed areas for educational purposes and special viewing opportunities.

Wilderness Review We completed a wilderness review of the refuge in 1974, and sent a proposal based on refuge management needs and the public input we had received at that time to the U.S. Department of the Interior. We proposed the following two contiguous areas for wilderness which we now refer to collectively as the “Shad Island Proposed Wilderness Area”: (1) Shad Island, and (2) the refuge

Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions 3-21

Refuge Administration

land and shoreline from the East Branch of the Missisquoi River to Martindale Point. Congress has neither accepted nor rejected that proposal; a decision has been pending for more than 30 years. Meanwhile, the refuge and its environs have changed. Recently, as part of this comprehensive conservation planning process, we once again reviewed all portions of the refuge for possible wilderness designation. The results of this review are included in Appendix A.

Partnerships A crucial component in implementing this Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and enhancing refuge resources is to develop and expand our partnerships with other environmental agencies, local school districts, and community groups. See Appendix K for more on partnership opportunities. We will continue to improve biological and environmental research and monitoring through an enhanced partnership with UVM and the VT FWD. Environmental education opportunities will benefit from expanded partnerships with the Franklin County School Board, local schools, and the VT FWD. The lack of refuge staffing and funding is the limiting factor in those partnerships to nurture those programs.

Local organizations that have contributed to the operation of the refuge include the Swanton and St. Albans Chambers of Commerce, Swanton Historical Society, Audubon Vermont, Ducks Unlimited (DU), the Sportsman’s Club of Franklin County and the LCBP. In addition, private individuals who volunteer to assist with various projects have been and will continue to be an important partnership factor. We have established personal contacts and working relationships with other organizations, including the VT FWD, Franklin County School District, Swanton Selectboard, Highgate Selectboard, and Swanton Village Trustees.

In 2002, the Friends of Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge, Inc. was established. The purposes of the Friends are to:

1. Conserve, protect and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people;

2. Support the stewardship of the national wildlife refuge system;

3. Promote a better awareness, appreciation, conservation and responsible utilization of the Refuge;

4. Provide assistance to Refuge programs by, amongst other methods, entering into agreements with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service;

5. Produce and make available to Refuge visitors, by sales or free distribution, suitable:

a. Interpretive and educational materials to increase the visitors’ understanding of the Refuge, wildlife, and the environment of the Missisquoi and Lake Champlain Basins;

b. Special materials, memorabilia and events of the Refuge and the Friends of Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge that will enhance visitor enjoyment;

7. Acquire materials, supplies, equipment and/or labor which may be retained by the Corporation, or donated to the Service or Refuge to support operational, educational or maintenance projects as agreed with the Refuge representatives; and,

8. Notwithstanding any other provision of these by-laws, the purposes for which this Corporation is formed are exclusively charitable and educational within the meaning of Section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

3-22 Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions Refuge Biological Resources

Volunteer Programs In addition to dynamic partnerships with organizations, the refuge is fortunate to have a small but dedicated group of individuals who voluntarily assist the refuge in various projects. For example, 75 volunteers donated 1,894 hours in 2004 to assist in environmental education programs and outreach events, conduct wildlife and habitat surveys, provide visitor services, band birds, manage habitats and species, and carry out general maintenance tasks. In addition to helping the refuge achieve its objectives and strategies, that cadre of volunteers serves as an important link with the community at large, promoting refuge messages and garnering support for the Refuge System.

Refuge Biological Resources Research Natural Areas The Service cooperates with many other agencies and organizations to (RNA) establish and preserve a diverse, representative network of plant and animal communities of different ecological types, managing each in a natural state for research purposes. RNAs are intended to represent the full array of North American ecosystems: biological communities, habitats and phenomena, and geological and hydrological formation and conditions. They are areas where natural processes are allowed to predominate with little or no human intervention. However, the Refuge Manual states that RNAs “must be reasonably protected from any influence that could alter or disrupt the characteristic phenomena for which the area was established.” Therefore, if removing predators or disrupting relations in natural communities has created conditions under which certain species multiply beyond normal limits and pose a disruptive threat, controlling those populations through human intervention may be necessary.

The Missisquoi Refuge has two RNAs: the Maquam Bog RNA and the Shad Island RNA (map 3-4). The Maquam Bog RNA, located southwest of State Route 78, was established in 1992. The 890-acre RNA is a large sphagnum bog with a diverse mix of plants. It supports one of the largest populations of rhodora in Vermont. The bog contains a fringe of maples with highbush blueberries in the understory. Sedges and cranberry vines dominate the center of the bog, which is a little higher. Several small stands of pitch pines also are present in the center. The RNA also hosts a large population of Virginia chain fern, a state-listed threatened plant species.

The Shad Island RNA was established in 1968. It is located at the extreme northern end of the refuge, and is the northernmost terminus of the Missisquoi River Delta. Shad Island, measuring approximately 120 acres, contains a mix of silver maple, swamp white oak, green ash, and USFWS cottonwood trees on an area that has been little Heron Rookery altered by past land use practices. The RNA is home to the largest great blue heron rookery in Vermont, and provides extensive research opportunities for scientists concerned with herons, their habitat, and their interactions with double- crested cormorants.

Soils Most of the refuge is composed of hydric soils—poorly drained soils with high water near, at, or above the surface—although there is a small region of dryer upland soil at the western boundary of the refuge along Tabor Road on Hog Island. The northern half of the refuge is dominated by the Missisquoi delta, formed from

Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions 3-23

Refuge Biological Resources Map 3-4

3-24 Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions Refuge Biological Resources

the deposition of sediments by the river’s normal flow and floods. Table 3.6, below, and map 3-5 describe the soil characteristics on and around the refuge.

Table 3.6. Soils mapped on the refuge [from the Franklin County Soil Survey (1994)].

Soil Code Soil Name, Slope Origin Drainage

BeB Belgrade silt loam, 2–8% slope Old lake plains Moderately well-drained

Bg Binghamville silt loam Old lake plains Poorly drained

Br Birdsall silt loam Lacustrine deposits Very poorly drained

Ce Carlisle muck Depressions, bogs Very poorly drained Cv Covington clay Old lake plains Poorly drained

DeB Deerfield loamy fine sand, 0–8% Old lake plains Moderately well-drained

GeA Georgia stony loam, 0–3% Glacial till Moderately well-drained

GeB Georgia stony loam, 3–8% Glacial till Moderately well-drained

KbA Kingsbury clay, 0–3% Old lake plains Somewhat poorly drained

Le Limerick silt loam Recent alluvial deposits Poorly drained

LoB Lordstown loam, rocky, 3–8% Glacial till Well-drained

LoC Lordstown loam, rocky, 8–15% Glacial till Well-drained

LoD Lordstown loam, rocky, 15–25% Glacial till Well-drained

Ly Lyons stony loam Glacial till Poorly drained

Ma Marsh Very poorly drained

MeA Massena stony loam, 0–3% Glacial till Somewhat poorly drained

MnA Massena extremely stony loam, 0–6% Glacial till Somewhat poorly drained

Ru Rumney Variant silt loam Recent alluvium Poorly drained

SaB St. Albans slaty loam, 3–8% Glacial till Well-drained

ScA Scantic silt loam, 0–3% Old lake plains Poorly drained

Tm Terric Medisaprists Depressions, bogs Very poorly drained

Wa Wallkill silt loam Alluvial Very poorly drained

Wt Winooski silt loam Recent alluvial deposits Moderately well-drained

The dominant soils in the Missisquoi River floodplain and tributaries are the poorly drained Limerick (Le), very poorly drained Wallkill (Wa) silt loams, and organic Marsh (Ma). Rumney Variant (Ru) and Winooski (WT) are found along the river as it flows into the refuge. A gradation from coarser to finer alluvial deposits away from the river occurs because the river is less able to transport and deposit material along its margins.

In the southern half of the refuge, organic soils form the Maquam Bog and the Black and Maquam creeks area to the east. The central bog

Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions 3-25

Refuge Biological Resources Map 3-5

3-26 Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions Refuge Biological Resources

is composed of Carlisle (Ce) muck, a very productive soil type. These organic soils are at least 5 feet deep, and may be up to 8 feet deep. Bordering those soils are shallower organic Terric Medisaprist (Tm) soils. The organic layer is about 2 feet thick, and overlies loamy soils.

Lordstown rocky loam (LoC) and Georgia stony loam (GeB) underlie distinctive islands of oak forest at the western edge of Maquam Bog. These soils are well drained, in contrast to the very poorly drained organic soils of most of the bog. Drainage, as well as hydrology, directly affects the soil types, and, in turn, the type of vegetation present on the refuge.

A mosaic of soil types, as shown on map 3-5, underlies the Tabor Road–Hog Island section of the refuge. Those include some of the better drained soils on the refuge, reflected in the agricultural land uses on Hog Island.

Plant Communities Clews (2002) used the natural community classification presented by Thompson and Sorenson (2000) to map the plant communities at Missisquoi Refuge. Clews (2002) used existing refuge resource inventories and maps, black and white orthophotos, color aerial photography, field inventories, and the Geographic Information System (GIS) to create a natural community map of the refuge (map 3-6). That coarse filter approach to mapping existing vegetation types provides a baseline map for the refuge. The Missisquoi River Delta is a dynamic environment that requires periodic monitoring to document its changing conditions.

More than 90 percent of the Missisquoi Refuge is wetland or open water habitat. Table 3.7 describes the natural community types and other land uses mapped by Clews (2002) for the refuge. Thompson and Sorenson (2000) define a natural community as “an interacting assemblage of organisms, their physical environment, and the natural processes that affect them.” Natural communities, as defined here, are those that have experienced minimal human alteration or have had sufficient time to redevelop primarily through natural processes. By definition then, these descriptions focus on mid-to-late successional stages, and exclude human-altered landscapes and early successional habitats (Thompson and Sorenson 2000). However, although the excluded areas do not receive a natural community identifier and associated description, they are important for wildlife habitat, and are included in the Clews (2002) map as other land uses.

Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions 3-27

Refuge Biological Resources Map 3-6

3-28 Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions Refuge Biological Resources

Table 3.7. Natural communities and other cover types on the refuge.

Refuge Percent of total land Indicator Plant Species Natural Community General Location Area (acres) cover within refuge (dominant in boldface)

Silver maple Sensitive fern Gallery forests form along Silver maple-sensitive fern American elm edge of Missisquoi River 1,048 16 floodplain forest and saturated marshes. Cottonwood Green ash Swamp white oak Tussock sedge Between floodplain forest Giant bur reed Sedge meadow edge and buttonbush 702 11 Broad-leaved cattail colonies Blue flag Wild rice

Standing water 1-2 feet. Wild rice Wild rice marsh Mixed in with buttonbush 664 10 Buttonbush and sedge marshes. Giant bur-reed

Forms colonies in wild Buttonbush Buttonbush swamp rice marsh throughout 614 9 wetlands on refuge Wild rice Speckled Alder Eastern larch Alder swamp Surrounding Maquam Shadbush 548 8 (High shrub zone) Bog Rhodora Gray birch Cinnamon fern Leatherleaf Hair’s tail cottongrass Few seeded sedge Mixed shrub sedge bog Center of Maquam Bog 435 7 Chain fern Rhodora Sphagnum spp. Highbush blueberry Huckleberry Periphery of Maquam Sheep laurel Dwarf shrub bog 408 6 Bog Rhodora Few-seeded sedge Sphagnum spp. Red maple Green ash Red maple-green ash Backwater swamps and 228 4 Silver maple swamp cut off ox bows American elm Dogwood

Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions 3-29

Refuge Biological Resources

Refuge Percent of total land Indicator Plant Species Natural Community General Location Area (acres) cover within refuge (dominant in boldface)

Cultivated and planted Reed canary grass along road sides, Rice cut grass Mixed grassland replacing old agricultural 223 3 fields and cut down flood Bluejoint grass plain forest Japanese knotweed

Pitch pine Gray birch Periphery of Maquam Rhodora Pitch pine woodland bog 179 3 Bog Chain fern Highbush blueberry Hare’s tail cottongrass Cornus spp Paper birch Border of fields, river and White pine Dogwood – birch forest 54 <1 Maquam Bog White oak Shadbush Aster spp White Oak On gravel islands at Red Oak Dry oak forest western edge of Maquam 47 <1 Huckleberry Bog Low sweet blueberry Poverty grass Broad-leaved arrowhead Along rivershore in Yellow and Deep broadleaf marsh 46 <1 standing water White waterlily Common cattail

On outer margins of lake Soft-stem bulrush Bulrush marsh shore, water 1-5 feet 28 <0.5 Hard stem bulrush deep Water chestnut American beech Forested upland areas on White pine Northern hardwood forest old river berms and other 24 <0.5 well-drained soils. Yellow birch Cornus spp. Rice cutgrass Summer-fall, along most River mud shore 20 <0.5 Slender beakrush of rivershore Woolgrass Reed canary grass Bars and points along Rivershore grassland 19 <0.5 Bluejoint grass rivershore Joe-pye weed

3-30 Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions Refuge Biological Resources

Refuge Percent of total land Indicator Plant Species Natural Community General Location Area (acres) cover within refuge (dominant in boldface)

Open water and seasonal 947 15 water Agricultural 214 3 Road 11 1 Railroad 4 <0.1 Developed 0.21 <0.1 Total Refuge Area (acres) 6,466* * Clews’ 2002 analysis does not include some of the acreage on the western refuge boundary, so this number is less than the total refuge acreage. The Vermont Nongame and Natural Heritage Program identifies several “significant natural communities” on or adjacent to Missisquoi Refuge as shown in Table 3.8. Some of these communities extend outside the refuge boundaries and Natural Heritage reports may include only those portions on State-owned lands.

Table 3.8. Significant natural communities on or near the refuge.

Natural Communities State Rank Condition* Buttonbush Swamp S2 B

Deep Bulrush Marsh S4 A Dwarf Shrub Bog S3 A Lake Sand Beach S2 C Lakeside Floodplain Forest S3 A Pitch Pine Woodland Bog S1 Not ranked Red or Silver Maple-Green Ash Swamp S3 A Silver Maple-Sensitive Fern Riverine S3 A Floodplain Forest Sweet Gale Shoreline Swamp S3 A

* A = excellent; B = very good; C = good; D = fair Information provided by the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife, Nongame and Natural Heritage Program, February 24, 2006. See appendix C for definitions of state ranks.

The comprehensive conservation planning team used the natural community and land use map prepared by Clews (2002) as a base map for identifying priority habitat objectives. Some natural community types were combined to create a habitat objective that corresponded to the habitat conditions on the refuge and more effectively develop management strategies to benefit wildlife. For example, wild rice marsh, sedge meadow, buttonbush swamp, deep broadleaf marsh, and bulrush marsh were combined into a Lakeshore Wetland habitat objective, because those natural community types form a continuum of wetland conditions

Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions 3-31

Refuge Biological Resources

in the Missisquoi River Delta, and any management strategies would effect the overall lakeshore wetland habitat (see chapter 4 for more detail on habitat objectives).

Wetlands and Open Water Silver maple-sensitive fern floodplain forest (1,048 acres) Communities The refuge contains the largest contiguous acreage of floodplain forest in Vermont (Sorenson 1998), with more than 1,000 acres along the lower Missisquoi River. In addition to silver maple, the floodplain forest contains eastern cottonwood, swamp white oak, green ash, and American elm, with a lush understory of sensitive fern. The forest is flooded each spring and is easily navigable by canoe for much of May. As the waters recede, large quantities of woody debris, seeds, and fertile soil are left behind. As the soil dries out, millions of seedlings cover the forest floor.

The wealth of bird species found in the floodplain forest is greater than anywhere else on the refuge. Migratory songbirds use the floodplain forest for nesting, foraging, and as a stopover in spring and fall. The floodplain forest is important for breeding migratory songbirds of conservation concern including wood thrush, veery, black-billed cuckoo, Canada warbler, rose-breasted grosbeak, and Baltimore oriole. Missisquoi Refuge has the second highest abundance of breeding orioles among the refuges in the Northeast. Great blue herons and double-crested cormorants nest in the silver maples at the northern end of the delta on Shad and Metcalfe Islands. Wood duck, common goldeneye, and hooded merganser are three cavity nesters that breed in the refuge floodplain forest along with black duck and mallard.

Emergent wetlands: sedge meadow, buttonbush swamp, wild rice marsh (1,980 acres) These three communities are closely related and are found together throughout the refuge. They are distinguished by three different dominant species: tussock grass, buttonbush, and wild rice, respectively. These three species are nearly ubiquitous across the permanently saturated wetlands of the Missisquoi Delta and form a productive matrix of wetland habitat on the refuge. These wetland communities are seasonally inundated as the lake level rises each spring, and are covered by five to 12 inches of standing water by early summer. The soils are generally shallow and composed of organic muck.

Emergent wetlands: deep broadleaf marsh (46 acres) This community is found in shallow water and often forms dense mats of vegetation along the slower-moving portions of the river. The water level fluctuates with the seasons, but is on average six inches to three feet deep. Fish use these shallow waters to spawn and forage. Common plants include pickerelweed, broad-leaved arrowhead, and giant bur-reed. This natural community type is common in Vermont.

Emergent wetlands: deep bulrush marsh (28 acres) These marshes are found along the outer margins of the delta in coarse sandy soils. They grow in one to four feet of water at the lake’s edge where they are subject to lots of wave wind action. This plant community is dominated by soft and hard-stem bulrush, and does not support high plant diversity. Black terns perch on old tree trunks in the middle of the bulrush marsh and pied-billed grebes and common moorhens forage among the soft rushes. Bulrush marshes are common along the shore of Lake Champlain and smaller lakes and rivers across Vermont.

Red maple-green ash swamp (228 acres) This community type is found south of the old Refuge headquarters around Black Creek. In addition to the dominant red maple and green ash, slippery elm, alder sp., dogwood sp., and white birch are abundant. This swamp is stratified with a thick mid-story. Cinnamon and ostrich ferns carpet the forest floor in

3-32 Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions Refuge Biological Resources

some places. Probably because of the more complex structure of this swamp, the Black Creek area supports all of the usual floodplain forest bird species, as well as several others species, such as the blue-gray gnatcatcher, that are found no where else on the refuge. Red maple-green ash swamps in Vermont are mostly along Lake Champlain typically in former bays of the lake and now separated by naturally formed sand or shale berms (Thompson and Sorenson 2000).

Maquam Bog The 900-acre Maquam Bog, one of Vermont’s largest bogs, contains the state’s largest populations of rhodora, as well as pitch pine, and Virginia chain fern, a state-threatened species (map 4-1). The center of the bog is about 100 feet above sea level, with an overall hummock-hollow relief of less than 8 inches. A natural gravel berm separates the bog from Maquam Bay to the south, Charcoal Creek, an old distributary of the Missisquoi River, defines the northern border, and the uplands of Hog Island form the western border (Strimbeck 1988).

Strimbeck (1988) identified three distinct vegetation zones in the bog: shrub- sedge, low shrub, and high shrub. Clews (2002) classified these as follows:

Mixed shrub sedge bog (435 acres) This community forms the heart of Maquam Bog and is one of the largest examples of an ombrotrophic bog in New England. Peat mosses form a thick lumpy mat throughout this community, which is quite unstable in some places. Virginia chain fern and few- seeded sedge are found here and are both listed as rare plant species. This area of the bog also provides potential nesting for short-eared owls and northern harriers, birds uncommon in the State of Vermont. Preservation of this community may require removal of the small trees and shrubs that are encroaching from the perimeter of the bog as well as maintenance of the current hydrological processes.

Dwarf shrub bog (408 acres) This community type supports both plant and birds species commonly found further north USFWS or at higher elevations. Sheep laurel and Virginia Chain Fern leatherleaf are abundant, and the occasional song of a winter wren or white-throated sparrow can be heard here. Gray birch, tamarack and red maples form patches of taller forest, but the vegetation in this community is generally less than six feet tall. This community forms the matrix landscape around the patches of pitch pine woodland bog and is also a rare community in the state of Vermont.

Pitch pine woodland bog (179 acres) This is the only example of this natural community type known to occur in Vermont and occurs in small patches among the mixed and dwarf shrub bog communities.

Alder swamp (548 acres) This community type surrounds Maquam Bog and is an integral part of the bog ecosystem. In addition to speckled alder other species include huckleberry, highbush blueberry, shrubby willows, dogwoods, and mountain holly are abundant in this swamp. Huge hummocks are formed by the thick rhizome masses of several fern and sphagnum moss species. The uneven terrain and thick brush make this community hard to navigate, effectively blocking entrance to Maquam Bog.

Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions 3-33

Refuge Biological Resources

Rivershore grassland (20 acres) Because of the similarity between river and lakeshore grasslands, and the ambiguous gradation between lake and river on the Missisquoi Delta, both communities are classified as rivershore grassland. These communities follow the length of the Missisquoi River and the lakeshore to either side. The shoreline is seasonally scoured by river and lake ice, then flooded during the spring thaw, and finally left high and dry by mid-June. These communities often form the transition zone between river mud shore and floodplain forest communities.

River mud shore (20 acres) These transient communities exist on the slim margin of land that emerges as the Missisquoi River recedes in mid summer. They are often bordered by rivershore grassland and share many of the same species. Because of their proximity to the river (which is a source of both disturbance and seeds), these communities are prone to supporting invasive species. Fortunately, the most common of these species, purple loosestrife, is rare on the refuge. However, flowering rush and common barnyard grass are two abundant invasive species found in this community. Raccoon, muskrat, spotted sandpiper, and green frog are some of the native species that can be found here.

Uplands Dry oak forest (47 acres) These forests of northern red and white oak form small islands in the middle of the alder swamp at the western edge of Maquam Bog. The trees here are mature and form a nearly complete canopy. The transition to this community type is abrupt and closely follows the border between soil types.

Northern hardwood forest (24 acres) This forest, composed of American beech, yellow birch, red maple and sugar maple, is the matrix forest type of Vermont but is not common on the refuge. Northern hardwood forest requires well-drained soils and is found on the upland areas within and surrounding the refuge.

Dogwood-white birch forest (54 acres) This community type is found along slopes above wetland areas. Dogwood forms a thick shrub layer and birch trees form the canopy. This community forms the transition zone between the alder swamp on the west side of Maquam Bog and the field along Tabor Road.

Mixed grassland (437 acres) This community type is dominated by reed canary grass. In some areas these fields are mowed, hayed, and/or burned. Depending on the diversity of grass species, these fields support bird and mammal species to varying degrees. The least productive areas appear to be the northeast side of the Missisquoi River and some of the fields west of the old Refuge headquarters due to a monoculture of reed canary grass. In areas that were formerly floodplain forest, on either side of the Missisquoi River along Route 78, Limerick and Winooski silt loams occur and in the grasslands along Tabor Road on Hog Island, there is a more complex association of soil types, leading to higher wildlife diversity.

Impoundments Water management on the refuge occurs on approximately 1,250 acres in two water management units: Goose Bay-Big Marsh Slough (Unit 1) and Cranberry Pool (Unit 2). Three incomplete dike sections impound the two management units. An 800’ long dike closes off the drainage flow in Big Marsh Slough and contains a 4’ corrugated metal pipe outlet equipped with stop-logs, that is currently inoperable. A 2000’ long dike separates Goose Bay Pool from Goose Bay. Cranberry Pool is enclosed along its eastern, lower-elevation half by a 2.8-mile long earthen dike that contains one fully operable 4’ water control structure. The

3-34 Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions Refuge Biological Resources

Goose Bay Pool dike was completed in 1959, the Big Marsh Slough dike in the early 1960s, and the Cranberry Pool dike in 1970 (USFWS 1986). The purpose of these impoundments was to convert lower value wetlands into productive waterfowl habitat. The 1986 Refuge Water Management Plan also included a proposal to create three impoundments in Maquam Bog. This proposal has been dropped given the ecological significance of the bog as a peatland.

In 1995, DU assisted the refuge in installing a water control structure at the Stephen J. Young marsh, creating a 2-acre permanent wetland.

Grassland Management A 1986 refuge grassland management plan reported on the use of some grasslands by nesting waterfowl such as blue-winged teal and mallard, perhaps an occasional American bittern, and also used as spawning areas by northern pike. However, it wasn’t considered optimal waterfowl nesting habitat at the time. In 1980, 9 acres of the #7 field, along Rt. 78 USFWS west of the Missisquoi Haying refuge grasslands along Route 78 River, was planted to reed canarygrass/birdsfoot trefoil mix in a pilot effort to improved duck nesting cover. This area is seasonally flooded. Seven acres of field #11 was planted to bromegrass/alfalfa mix in 1983. See map 4-2 for field locations. The 46-acre field #11a was grazed through 1979. This field is stony, low-lying, and wet. In 1992 a dike was installed in the marshy area creating a 2-acre wetland. The management emphasis on Refuge grasslands has shifted away from periodic re-planting and intensive management of fields to maintaining those that benefit grassland nesting birds through delayed mowing and allowing others to revert to shrubland or forest.

Federal and State Missisquoi Refuge has no known Federally listed threatened and endangered Threatened, Endangered, or plants or animals. There are several state listed threatened and endangered Special Concern Species species or species of special concern on the refuge as listed in table 3.9.

Plants Virginia chain fern and few-seeded sedge are state threatened and occur in Maquam Bog.

Animals The refuge-portion of the Missisquoi River supports seven species of state threatened or endangered freshwater mussels (Marangelo 1999, Fichtel and Smith 1995). The Missisquoi Delta provides significant habitat for the eastern spiny softshell turtle, a state threatened species also listed as threatened by the Province of Quebec. The refuge provides important feeding and loafing habitat for this species, as well as some over-wintering habitat. Vermont’s largest population of black terns, also a state threatened species, breeds on the refuge. The state endangered lake sturgeon is also present in the area, though not common. Appendix C lists additional species identified by the VT FWD as “species of greatest conservation need.”

Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions 3-35

Refuge Biological Resources

Table 3.9. Rare species on the refuge* Scientific Name Common Name Global Rank State Rank State Status Plants Bidens discoidea Small Bidens G5 S2S3 Ceratophyllum echinatum Prickly Hornwort G4? S1 Lysimachia hybrida Lance-leaved Loosestrife G5 S1 Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum or Tupelo G5 S2 Potamogeton vaseyi Vasey’s Pondweed G4 S2 Ranunculus flabellaris Yellow Water-crowfoot G5 S3 Ranunculus pensylvanicus Bristly Crowfoot G5 S2 Sisyrinchium angustifolium Narrow Blue-eyed Grass G5 S2 Woodwardia virginica Virginia Chain-fern G5 S1 T

Fish Acipenser fulvescens Lake Sturgeon G3G4 S1 E Ammocrypta pellucida Eastern Sand Darter G3 S1 T Hybognathus regius Eastern Silvery Minnow G5 S2 Ichthyomyzon unicuspis Silver Lamprey G5 S2? Notropis heterolepis Blacknose Shiner G4 S1 Notropis rubellus Rosyface Shiner G5 S2S3

Reptiles and Amphibians Ambystoma laterale Blue-spotted Salamander G5 S3 SC Apalone spinifera Spiny Softshell (Turtle) G5 S1 T

Birds Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron G5 S2S3B Chlidonias niger Black Tern G4 S2B E Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier G5 S2B SC Gallinula chloropus Common Moorhen G5 S2B Ixobrychus exilis Least Bittern G5 S2B SC Melanerpes erythrocephalus Red-headed Woodpecker G5 S1S2B SC Pandion haliaetus Osprey G5 S2B Podilymbus podiceps Pied-billed Grebe G5 S2B SC Porzana carolina Sora G5 S2S3B SC

Mussels Anodontoides ferussacianus Cylindrical Papershell G5 S1S2 E Lampsilis ovata Pocketbook G5 S2 E Lasmigona costata Fluted-shell G5 S2 E Leptodea fragilis Fragile Papershell G5 S2 E Ligumia recta Black Sandshell G5 S1 E Potamilus alatus Pink Heelsplitter G5 S2 E Pyganodon grandis Giant Floater G5 S2S3 T

* Information provided by the VT FWD, Nongame and Natural Heritage Program, February 24, 2006. See appendix C for definitions of global and state ranks and state status.

3-36 Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions Refuge Biological Resources

Black Tern The refuge supports Vermont’s largest population of black terns, a state-endangered species. In 2005, 103 pairs of black terns nested in Vermont, all on the Missisquoi Refuge. The distribution on the refuge included Charcoal Creek north of Rt. 78 — 52 pairs; Charcoal Creek south of Rt. 78 — 4 pairs; Long Marsh—28 pairs; and Cranberry Pool—19 pairs. The number of terns using the refuge fluctuates from year to year, but is consistently high. Beginning in

1999, the State’s entire nesting USFWS population was on Missisquoi Black Tern Refuge. Table 3.10 summarizes black tern nesting in Vermont from 1990 to 2005 (Shambaugh 2002).

Table 3.10. Estimated number of black tern breeding pairs on Lake Champlain and Lake Memphremagog, 1990–2005

Missisquoi Dead South Bay Year Population Creek (Lake Memphremagog) Total 1990 37 18 4 59 1991 50 17 4 71 1992 75 16 4 95 1993 63 ** ** ** 1994 63 9 2 74 1995 56 5 3 64 1996 34 7 3 44 1997 53 1 5 59 1998 72 2 3 77 1999 97 0 3 100 2000 63 0 0 63 2001 53 0 0 53 2002 66 0 0 66 2003 67 0 0 67 2004 66 0 0 66 2005 103 0 0 103

** no data

Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions 3-37

Refuge Biological Resources

Spiny softshell turtle The Missisquoi River Delta provides significant habitat for the eastern spiny softshell turtle. The Province of Quebec and the State of Vermont list it as a threatened species. All of its known hibernation (wintering) sites are in Vermont. The Missisquoi delta population uses nesting, resting, and feeding habitat on both sides of the international border. The refuge provides important feeding and loafing habitat for the spiny softshell. This turtle is susceptible to disturbance by humans, predation by raccoons, skunks and foxes, and pollution.

The spiny softshell turtle is distinguishable by its long, snorkel-like snout and flat, leathery, pancake-like shell. From May through September, turtles are often seen basking on logs along the main branch of the Missisquoi River. They also bask in the upper portion of Dead Creek and along the Cranberry Pool east dike. Limited over wintering habitat exists on the refuge and on portions of the Missisquoi River; most is in deeper water near the existing causeway that spans Lake Champlain between West Swanton and Alburg. That site is a good basking site, and may provide an abundance of crayfish, an important food source. The spiny softshell hibernates from September to April. No nesting occurs on the refuge, although a significant nesting beach has been identified at the Sandy Point beach nearby on the Carmen’s Marsh WMA.

Other Fish and Wildlife Birds The refuge provides habitat for more than 200 species of birds, including thousands of migratory waterfowl during fall migrations, and is an important breeding area for waterfowl and other migratory birds. Fall populations of waterfowl often peak at 20,000. The largest great blue heron rookery on the Vermont side of Lake Champlain is located on Shad and Metcalfe Islands. In 2005, 266 great blue heron nests were counted in this rookery. The refuge also supports breeding populations of numerous other species, such as

rails, bitterns, common moorhens, USFWS pied-billed grebes, and numerous First Creek Osprey Platform grassland, wetland and forest passerine species. In addition, wild turkeys are observed on the refuge, because of efforts by the VT FWD to establish flocks in Franklin County.

Double-crested cormorants increasingly frequent Shad Island and adjacent Metcalfe Island. The total nesting population of cormorants has increased steadily since 1996, and reached 86 pairs in 2005. However, very limited nesting success has been recorded. Only one cormorant nest is known to have been successful in both 1999 and 2000, and none in 2005. Since 1999, UVM College of Natural Resources has assisted the refuge in monitoring those two populations, observing and recording interactions between the species, and recording the effects of the cormorants on the great blue herons and their nesting habitat.

3-38 Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions Refuge Biological Resources

Waterfowl nest boxes have been maintained on the refuge for more than 40 years. Wood ducks, common goldeneyes, and hooded mergansers use them. The refuge maintains 130 nest boxes for those species; 61 percent of the boxes were used in 2000. In addition, about 12 structures intended for use by black ducks or mallards are located on the refuge. However, those nesting structures have not been used.

From 1989 to the present, the population of nesting osprey has increased from one pair on a platform in Long Marsh to a total of 20 pairs nesting on the Missisquoi River Delta in the 2002 nesting season, and 27 in the 2004 nesting season. Figure 3.2 shows the relative locations of osprey nests near the Missisquoi River Delta in 2004.

Figure 3.2. Osprey nesting locations on the Missisquoi River Delta (2004)

We have used a point count survey since 1994 to monitor breeding land bird abundance in grassland and floodplain forest habitats on the refuge. That is not long enough to predict population trends, but it does provide baseline information. Data collected each June from 1994 to 2001 provides those values. Figures 3.3 through 3.7 from Clews (2002) show the diversity of bird species across a suite of habitats on the refuge based on the 50 annual songbird point counts there.

Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions 3-39

Refuge Biological Resources Natural Community Type 3.4

3.3

3.2

3.1

3.0

2.9

2.8 Shannon Diversity Index 2.7

2.6 Delta Forest-field edge Grassland Grassland- Floodplain Alder Red maple- river edge forest swamp green ash swamp

Figure 3.3. Shannon Diversity Index for bird species in seven habitat types on the Missisquoi Refuge (Clews 2002)

25

Floodplain Forest 20

15 Other Yellow warbler Yellow Red-winged blackbird

10 Song sparrow Warbling vireo Warbling Common grackle American robin Brown-headed cowbird

5 Baltimore Oriole Least flycatcher American redstart Veery Eastern wood-pewee Northern waterthrush Tree swallow Tree Great crested flycatcher

0

Figure 3.4. Bird species composition in fl oodplain forests on the Missisquoi Refuge based on point count surveys (Clews 2002).

3-40 Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions Refuge Biological Resources

25

20 Delta

15 Common grackle Red-winged blackbird Yellow warbler Yellow Other 10 Warbling vireo Warbling Song sparrow

5 American robin Cedar waxwing Baltimore Oriole Great crested flycatcher Eastern wood-pewee American redstart Downy Woodpecker American crow Brown-headed cowbird

0

Figure 3.5. Bird species composition in the Missisquoi River Delta based on point counts surveys (Clews 2002). 20

Grassland Agricultural Other

15 Bobolink European Starling

10 Red-winged blackbird American crow Savannah Sparrow Tree swallow Tree Song sparrow 5 Common yellowthroat Yellow warbler Yellow American robin Brown-headed cowbird Eastern Meadowlark American Goldfinch'

0 Figure 3.6. Bird species composition in grassland-agricultural habitats on Missisquoi Refuge based on point count surveys (Clews 2002).

Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions 3-41

Refuge Biological Resources

25

Red Mapled-Green Ash Swamp

20 Other

15 Northern waterthrush 10 Veery Yellow warbler Yellow Red-winged blackbird American redstart Song sparrow American robin 5 Eastern Wood-Pewee' Brown-headed cowbird Black-capped chickadee Cedar waxwing Common yellowthroat Blue Jay Great crested flycatcher Common snipe Rose-breasted Grosbeak

0 Figure 3.7. Bird species composition in red maple-green ash swamp on Missisquoi Refuge based on point count surveys (Clews 2002).

Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates The Missisquoi River and Missisquoi Bay provide habitat for numerous fish and aquatic invertebrates, both common species and threatened or endangered species. The low-lying marshes and shallow aquatic weed beds of the refuge, which flood during the spring snow melt and ice-out periods of April and May, serve as critical feeding, spawning, and nursery grounds for those species. Meadows and fields along the river, as well as the shallow, sloping, grassy dikes of Cranberry and Goose Bay Pools are also excellent habitats for numerous fish species, especially northern pike, pickerel, and yellow perch. Those populations are very important as food sources for waterfowl broods, and marsh birds, both adults and young.

Our Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Resources Office sampled fish in the Missisquoi River from its mouth to 10 miles upstream in July and August 1994, and documented the presence of 24 species. The Vermont Department of Health has issued fish consumption advisories because of high levels of mercury for several fish species in the Missisquoi River, including walleye. The lake sturgeon and eastern sand darter are state-

listed as endangered and USFWS threatened, respectively. Walleye

3-42 Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions Refuge Biological Resources

Like many other rivers in the Northeast, a history of human-induced modifications has limited access to historical spawning sites. Fish are now limited in their upstream passage by the Swanton Dam. The Service determined that the amount of spawning substrate for walleye and sturgeon was not a limiting factor in the river. However, the quality of spawning locations varies with stream flow, and is limited by water depth and velocities during the spring spawning periods. Much more spawning habitat is available above the dam. However, the fish cannot reach that area now.

The list of state record fish taken by rod anglers and bow anglers further illustrates the richness of refuge fish and aquatic resources. Many records come from the vicinity of the refuge, including the bow and arrow records for carp, redhorse sucker, and bowfin, and the hook-and-line records for bowfin, sucker, and muskellunge. A 38-pound state record muskie was caught in the Missisquoi River in 2005.

Freshwater Mussels The Missisquoi River supports an abundant, diverse freshwater mussel community: 12 species are known to live in the lower Missisquoi River, but not all within refuge waters. Eight freshwater mussels, including the pink heelsplitter, fragile papershell, giant floater, cylindrical papershell, pocketbook, eastern lampshell, eastern elliptio, and eastern floater pocketbook live in the refuge-stretch of the river (Fichtel and Smith 1995). The black sandshell and fluted-shell probably occurred in the Missisquoi River below Swanton dam at one time, but there is no evidence that they are still alive there, and there is no historical information that those two state-listed endangered species lived as far downstream as the refuge (Mark Ferguson, Vermont Fish and Wildlife, pers. comm.). The Vermont Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) (VT FWD 2005a) identifies all of those species as “species of greatest conservation need.

Mammals The refuge supports a diversity of native wildlife, including 35 species of mammals. Muskrat, beaver, and white-tailed deer sign or sightings are common. In recent years, the diversity of the indigenous wildlife has increased. Moose use various areas of the refuge, especially during 1999 and 2000. In 1999,

a black bear was killed USFWS crossing Route 78 where White-Tailed Deer it passes through the refuge. A number of small mammals use various habitats on the refuge year- round. Eastern pipistrelle and little brown bat are both common on the refuge. Biologists have searched for the federal-listed endangered Indiana bat, but have not detected any on the refuge.

The muskrat is a prominent species of the emergent wetlands of the Missisquoi River Delta. They are occasionally seem swimming across open water or sitting on vegetation eating cattails, but are most evident by their houses, built of bulrush, mud, and other aquatic plants, scattered across the marsh. Muskrats are natural managers of wetlands. They feed on cattails and other aquatic vegetation, affecting the proportion of open water to vegetation

Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions 3-43

Refuge Biological Resources

that is beneficial to other aquatic wildlife. However, if they become overly abundant, they can eat out the vegetation. Muskrats also cause some damage on the refuge when they burrow into the impoundment dikes and cause leaks. We survey the dikes annually for muskrat damage by walking along them, looking for “runs” or trails just below the water surface that lead to a burrow. Muskrats also leave droppings along the bank or on logs or structures that they can easily climb upon, providing another way to detect their presence. We fill in any burrows we discover in the dike to prevent further damage or washouts.

Reptiles and Amphibians In addition to the spiny softshell turtle described above, other turtles on the refuge include snapping turtle, map turtle, and the eastern painted turtle. The painted and map turtles frequently are observed basking on partly submerged tree limbs in the Missisquoi River. The eastern garter snake and the northern water snake are common on the refuge.

Frogs are abundant and diverse on the refuge. Species include the northern leopard, green, mink, pickerel, and wood frogs and bullfrog. Until recently, the refuge allowed “frog picking,” the collection of frogs for bait. That practice has been discontinued and is no longer an allowed use.

Since 1996, the Service

and the University USFWS of New Hampshire Conducting frog sampling (UNH) biologists have surveyed the Missisquoi Refuge and several other refuges in the Northeast for abnormal amphibians (Pinkney et al. 2005). An abnormality is either a malformation or a deformity. A malformation occurs when something goes wrong during development, causing a body part or an organ to form improperly. A deformity is the result of an existing body part that becomes disfigured (e.g., a missing foot due to a predatory attack). Since a deformity is typically the result of a natural relationship (e.g., a predator-prey interaction), scientists have focused their efforts on determining the cause of malformations.

Amphibians are sensitive to environmental changes, and are considered indicators of environmental quality. Refuges in the Northeast have a 0- to 10-percent rate of abnormal frogs (anything above 3 percent is considered unusual). Researchers are still uncertain about the cause of these malformations. In Vermont, four frog species (northern leopard, green, wood frogs, and bullfrog) and one toad (American toad) are documented with malformations, which have been observed in 53 towns and 13 counties. At Missisquoi Refuge, northern leopard and green frogs were sampled, and were found to have 0- to 10-percent rates of malformations. Table 3.11 summaries those findings.

3-44 Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions Refuge Biological Resources

Table 3.11. Annual field survey results for malformed frogs on the refuge. Year sampled % malformations # sites sampled Species sampled 1999 1-2.5 3 northern leopard frog 2000 2.8-10.6 3 n. leopard frog & green frog 2001 0.9-1.2 2 n. leopard frog 2002 0-6.0 2 n. leopard frog 2003 0-5.6 3 n. leopard frog 2004 1.6-8 3 n. leopard frog

Invasive Species

Plants The refuge has documented the following non-native invasive plant species on the refuge.

■ Common reedgrass (Phragmites australis)

■ Eurasian water milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum)

■ Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria)

■ Water chestnut (Trapa natans)

■ Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspadatum)

■ Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea)

The refuge has monitored the distribution of purple loosestrife from 1985 to the present. Active control of purple loosestrife with herbicide was undertaken from 1985–1992. Individual clumps or areas of plants were spot-treated with backpack- mounted sprayers until the spraying was discontinued due to lack of funds and the development of biological control agents. Phytophagus insects, Gallerucella sp. beetles, and a weevil, Hylobius transoversovitatus, were released in the mid-to-late 1990s, but no evidence indicates that those insects have become established. The flood regime where much of the purple loosestrife occurs is detrimental to the survival of the over-wintering eggs of the Gallerucella beetles. The Hylobius weevils were introduced once in stems of plants along the Maquam shoreline in 1996.

Common reedgrass occurs throughout the Champlain Valley wetlands. On the Missisquoi Refuge, a small population of the species—approximately 1 acre in size—first observed in 1986 growing in the Big Marsh Slough was sprayed with Rodeo™ glyphosate herbicide in 1988 by aerial application. The treatment was effective in killing that infestation. To date, common reedgrass has not reappeared at that site. We monitor it annually to detect any new growth that could originate from the seed bank where the plant was sprayed.

Eurasian water milfoil is common in the shallow waters of Missisquoi Bay. That exotic plant grows in association with native aquatic plants such as wild celery, coontail, and various species of pondweed (Potamogeton sp.).

Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions 3-45

Refuge Cultural and Historic Resources

Water chestnut is a serious pest plant in the southern end of Lake Champlain. A population of water chestnut located in Quebec is less than 10 miles from the refuge. If that invasive pest plant were to obtain a foothold in the northern end of Lake Champlain, it would cause a serious deterioration in wetland habitat quality as well as in the recreational utility of the lake. The first infestation of water chestnut on the refuge was documented in 2005 just north of the east branch of the Missisquoi River in a patch of hardstem bulrush.

A few patches of Japanese knotweed are found in the refuge. The refuge staff has attempted to control that species by applying an herbicide.

Animals Zebra mussels and sea lamprey are two exotic invasive species of potential concern in the Missisquoi Bay area. Zebra mussels compete with native mussels for resources and habitat, and they suffocate native mussels by attaching to their shells. The refuge recently learned from the VT FWD that zebra mussels have been found in all of Lake Champlain including Missisquoi Bay. Although we have not discovered them on the refuge yet, it is likely they are here.

Lamprey populations are monitored throughout the Lake Champlain Basin. The number of lampreys detected by fisheries biologists in the Missisquoi River has not been sufficient to necessitate chemical treatment yet. Refuge staff will remain alert to the potential for those species to establish themselves in the Missisquoi River Delta.

Refuge Cultural and Cultural resources are archaeological sites, sacred sites, historic structures, and Historic Resources museum property such as art, archaeological artifacts, and scientific collections. At Missisquoi Refuge, there are no historic structures or known sacred sites. However, artifact collecting and archaeological survey at the refuge has revealed 34 archaeological sites. The following information is based on our Archaeological Site Inventory files in the Northeast Regional Office.

As early as 1917, archaeologist Warren K. Moorehead, of the Peabody Museum and Phillips Academy at Andover, Massachusetts, and George Perkins, of UVM, used a motorboat to visit the “Missisquoi River Site” on the refuge. A local collector guided them to the prehistoric site, which they found stratified and at least 3 feet in depth (Moorehead 1922 in Chrisman 1981). Artifacts found during a revisit to the site in 1981 point to an occupation in the early Middle Woodland Period (A.D. 150–300), in the late Middle Woodland Period (A.D. 600–850) and perhaps again in the Late Woodland/Contact Period, when Native Americans began to take advantage of European tools (Chrisman 1981).

Later, during the mid-twentieth century, Vermont collector William Ross located many sites on refuge land, and reported their locations on site forms. Ross visited and reported at least seven of the refuge sites, relaying basic information about them, including summaries of artifacts found. Some of the sites he located on the refuge can be inferred to date to the broad Woodland Period, about 3,000 years ago to A.D. 1600, based on the triangular shape of the projectile points and the depth of the deposits.

In 1969, William Ritchie, New York State Archaeologist, conducted a survey on the refuge by boat. He visited several sites, and submitted a report containing their location information and a summary of the artifacts found.

Throughout the late twentieth century, construction projects such as the Cranberry Creek Dike exposed prehistoric archaeological sites on the refuge. In 1979, the Consulting Archaeology Program at UVM conducted the first modern, professional survey, in advance of a proposed expansion of the

3-46 Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions Refuge Cultural and Historic Resources

Cranberry Creek Dike. They located a major Middle Woodland Period site that contained multiple focuses of prehistoric artifacts and activity, and included the historic archaeological remains of a house appearing on the 1796 map of the area. Avoiding that large a site would have been difficult, and the expansion was never undertaken. Based on the remains of a cooked bullhead, the Middle Woodland Period occupation was defined as A.D. 500–600, during a warm season.

In 1980, Kevin Chrisman, an archaeology student at UVM, undertook a review of then known sites in the Lower Missisquoi River Valley. He summarized known information, especially about William Ross’ sites, and visited sites on the refuge, including Moorehead’s “Missisquoi River Site”, relocating them and reporting on their condition in a report in 1981.

Recently, a proposal to widen Vermont Route 78 as it crosses the refuge led to ongoing archaeological survey and excavation at two more large prehistoric sites and a historic archaeological site on the refuge. Currently 13 prehistoric sites are known for the refuge. They span the entire Woodland Period, and show the most intense use to have occurred during the Middle Woodland Period.

In addition to prehistoric archaeological sites, six historic archaeological sites have been located in the field. Three of those are not eligible for the National Register. One is eligible, and the rest have not been evaluated. The eligible site contains a record of the earliest European settlement by French, Dutch, and American farmers.

The site inventory for the refuge also contains 10 locations shown on historical maps (from 1916, 1871 and 1796) as containing houses or other structures. Those potential archaeological sites have not been confirmed in the field, but will be if they are threatened by any refuge activities.

Those mapped archaeological sites are not the only ones on the refuge. No systematic survey of the entire refuge has been done yet, and there are likely to be many more as yet undiscovered archaeological sites. The boundaries of the Missisquoi Refuge are thought to encompass a number of eighteenth century sites: for example, a fortified eighteenth century village of native people who used Missisquoi as a base for raiding the Connecticut River Valley in Massachusetts (Thomas and Robinson 1979). Gray Lock, likely a Woronoke Indian from Westfield, Massachusetts, led that group (Calloway 1990). In 1771, Simon Metcalfe received a grant of land at Missisquoi, and established a trading post at the mouth of the Missisquoi River (Calloway 1990), another location likely to be on the refuge.

To prevent destruction of yet undiscovered archaeological sites, the Regional Historic Preservation Officer reviews all ground-disturbing work on the refuge. Service archaeologists consult with the Vermont State Historic Preservation Office (the Division for Historic Preservation). Where needed, archaeologists will conduct or contract archaeological surveys. Projects are then designed to avoid sites, or some type of mitigation of the impacts can be adopted. Known sites are similarly avoided.

The refuge has 55,461 archaeological artifacts loaned for long-term curation to the University of Maine in Farmington, the Consulting Archaeology Program laboratory at UVM in Burlington, and in the Northeast Regional Office in Hadley, Massachusetts. The State of Vermont has no repository for archaeological items that meets Department of Interior standards for curating museum property. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has evaluated the condition of the Consulting Archaeology Program facility as “fair.” In addition,

Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions 3-47

Refuge Public Use

the refuge has art, botanical and zoological museum property at its headquarters in Swanton.

Refuge Public Use Public use of the refuge is high and climbing. We recorded nearly 60,100 visits in FY 2006. The six priority public uses for national wildlife refuges—hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation—are all popular on the Missisquoi Refuge.

Hunting Hunting, a traditional and popular outdoor activity, is permitted on portions of the refuge in accordance with state and federal seasons and regulations. Special arrangements to accommodate persons with disabilities can be made by contacting the refuge manager. The refuge provides waterfowl, big game, and upland game hunting opportunities. Their details are included in these refuge brochures: Migratory Game Bird Hunting Map and Regulations and Upland Game/Big Game Hunting Map, Regulations and Permit. We update them periodically as we evaluate the hunt programs each year. The conditions presented here are for 2006, and additional regulations usually apply as noted in the refuge brochures. See also maps 4-4 and 4-5 for the location of hunt areas. Guiding and other commercial hunting services require a special use permit from the refuge manager.

The refuge charges an annual $10 fee for an upland game/big hunting permit. Waterfowl hunters that draw a hunting blind site during a pre-season lottery pay a $10 permit fee.

Waterfowl Hunting Mallard, wood duck, ring-necked duck, American black duck, green-winged teal, and American wigeon are most of the waterfowl harvested on the refuge. Waterfowl hunting areas are generally accessed using watercraft, but some are accessible on foot.

In some areas, the refuge legal boundary extends beyond the shoreline. Hunters are required to place blinds outside of posted signs providing improved hunting opportunities while protecting important feeding, resting, and cover habitat for migratory birds. All persons hunting migratory birds on the refuge must hold a valid Federal Migratory Bird Conservation

Stamp, Vermont State Duck Department & Wildlife Fish Vermont Stamp, a Vermont State hunting Waterfowl Hunting license and be registered with the federal Harvest Information Program (HIP). Retrievers are required for hunting waterfowl in the following areas: Maquam Swamp Area, Long Marsh Channel/Metcalfe Island, and Saxes Pothole/Creek and Shad Island Pothole.

For the hunting of geese, brant, ducks, mergansers and coots, the refuge is divided into six discrete waterfowl hunting units: three public hunting areas (Delta Lakeshore, Maquam Swamp, Maquam Shore) and three controlled hunting areas (Saxe’s Pothole Creek and Shad Island Area, Junior Waterfowl Hunting Area (including Long Marsh Bay, Patrick Marsh and Charcoal Creek), and the Long Marsh Channel and Metcalfe Island Area (map 4-5).

3-48 Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions Refuge Public Use

No refuge permits or fees are required to hunt in public hunting areas. Blind staking, permanent blinds, and unattended decoys are prohibited in those areas.

Some conditions apply to specific public hunting areas as follows.

Delta Lakeshore Area—This hunting unit includes lakeshore areas from Shad Island to the south side of Martindale Point but does not include Saxes Pothole/ Creek and Shad Island Pothole. Jump shooting is not allowed within 200 yards of a party hunting from a boat or blind.

Maquam Swamp Area—This hunting area encompasses about 200 acres west of the Central Vermont Railroad and south of the private in-holding and is open to migratory bird hunting with the following special requirements: Jump shooting is allowed. Each party of hunters (up to two people) must have a retriever. No hunting is allowed within the area encompassing the old headquarters nature trail. This area is identified with “No Hunting Zone” signs.

Maquam Shore Area—This hunting unit encompasses a 30-acre area along the lakeshore of Maquam Bay and is bounded by private land on the west and a Vermont WMA on the east. Jump shooting is not allowed within 200 yards of a party hunting from a boat or blind.

All hunting in a controlled hunting area requires a refuge permit. Permits for the first two weeks of the season are obtained through a preseason lottery. Successful permittees are issued a non-transferable permit for a specific date and waterfowl hunting blind site for a $10 fee. Thereafter, permits are available daily on a first-come, first-served basis, at no charge. There is no charge for permits issued on the day of the hunt. Blind areas yield highly variable harvests due to annual changes in water levels in these units. During low water years, these areas are not very productive as hunting units, while higher water levels generally produce better hunting opportunities for a longer period.

All waterfowl hunters are required to sign in and out of their sites by completing the sign in, sign out sheet for their hunt area. Permanent blinds and unattended decoys are prohibited. Jump shooting is not allowed.

Some conditions apply to specific controlled hunting areas, as follows.

Saxe’s Pothole/Creek and Shad Island Pothole This hunting unit encompasses Saxe’s Pothole/Creek and Shad Island Pothole. Five sites, numbered 1–5, are staked and available to five hunting parties in Saxe’s Pothole, one site, numbered 6, is staked and available to one hunting party in Shad Island Pothole. A boat is required to access each of these blind sites and each hunting party is required to use a retriever. Shooting hours will be one-half hour before sunrise to sunset.

Junior Waterfowl Hunting Area This controlled hunting area encompasses Long Marsh Bay, Patrick Marsh and that portion of Charcoal Creek south of Vermont Route 78. Eleven blind sites are established for use by Junior Waterfowl Hunters: blind sites 4–8 in Long Marsh Bay, blind sites C–F in Charcoal Creek, and blind sites A–B in Patrick Marsh. A small flat bottom boat, car top boat, or canoe is necessary for access to Charcoal Creek and Patrick Marsh blind sites. Access is available at the Charcoal Creek crossing on Vermont Route 78 or from a pull off on Route 78 about three-quarters of a mile east of the Charcoal Creek access. Shooting hours are one-half hour before sunrise to 11:00 AM. Junior Waterfowl Hunters (ages 12–15, inclusive,

Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions 3-49

Refuge Public Use

at the time of the hunt), following successful completion of the annual Refuge training program (usually held the third or fourth Saturday in August), vie for blind site assignments during a lottery drawing at the conclusion of the training. The eleven blind sites are available exclusively to these Junior Waterfowl Hunters the first four Saturdays and Sundays of the duck season.

Only Junior Hunters may discharge a firearm in this area during the Junior Hunt periods. Each party must use at least six decoys. Hunting is permitted, and recommended, from portable blinds and boat blinds constructed and placed by the refuge for the Junior Waterfowl Hunting program at some of the blind sites. Stationary blinds may be constructed and left in place for the duration of the season by Junior Hunters with the refuge manager’s approval. Otherwise, permanent blinds are not permitted. Junior Waterfowl Hunting Area is available only to current-year, refuge-trained Junior Waterfowl Hunters during the Youth Waterfowl Hunting Weekend in late September.

Long Marsh Channel and Metcalfe Island This controlled hunting area encompasses the Metcalfe Island Pothole and Long Marsh Channel. Three blind sites, designated 1–3 are established in Long Marsh Channel. Three blind sites, designated 8–10, are established on Metcalfe Island. A boat is required to hunt at each of these blind sites. Shooting hours are one- half hour before sunrise to 11:00 a.m. Hunting is limited to Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays throughout the waterfowl hunting season for ducks. Permits for the first five days of the duck season are obtained through application to a pre- season lottery. Following the first five days, hunters may acquire permits on a first-come, first-served basis with self-service permitting and sign in at the Mac’s Bend Landing, no more than two hours before legal shooting time. A hunting party must use at least six decoys and is required to use a retriever.

Other Migratory Birds The refuge is open to hunting for woodcock and common snipe in two areas:

Delta Lakeshore Area, excluding the Saxe’s Creek/Pothole and Shad Island Pothole controlled hunting areas.

Maquam Swamp Area, however, each hunting party must have a retriever. No permit is required to hunt woodcock and snipe in those areas.

Upland Game/Big Game Hunting Upland game (gray squirrel, eastern cottontail, snowshoe hare, and ruffed grouse) and big game hunting is permitted on portions of the Missisquoi Refuge during certain seasons. White-tailed deer is the only big game species legally hunted, and may be harvested using bow and arrow, shotgun, muzzleloader, and rifle on designated sections of the refuge. All upland and big game hunters must register, fill out a permit, and remit $10.00 prior to hunting. Hunters may not enter closed areas of the refuge for any reason, except for the recovery of legally harvested animals with the consent of a refuge employee, and in that case may not carry a weapon. Only shotguns, muzzleloaders, or archery equipment may be used on open areas east and north of Vermont Route 78. Rifles may not be used in those areas at any time (map 2-4).

All hunters during the State regular firearms season, Youth Deer Hunting Weekend, and muzzleloader deer hunt must wear in a conspicuous manner on head, chest and back a minimum of 400 square inches of solid-colored hunter orange clothing or material. Permanent tree stands and ground blinds are prohibited. Temporary, portable tree stands and ground blinds in accordance with state regulations are acceptable. A written notation from the refuge

3-50 Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions Refuge Public Use

manager is required on the big game permit prior to leaving a temporary stand or blind unattended. Artificial light (“spotlighting”) to locate wildlife and baiting or hunting over bait, salt or any attractant are prohibited on the refuge. Dogs are allowed for hunting migratory game birds, cottontail rabbit, snowshoe hare, and ruffed grouse during designated seasons only.

Fishing Fishing, one of the most popular public use activities on the refuge, is enjoyed by all ages throughout the year. Fishing accounts for a large part of the visitor activity each year, especially in the summer and early fall: 30,000 refuge visitors took advantage of fishing opportunities in 2006. The refuge works to enhance fishing opportunities by permitting fishing according to state regulations and maintaining appropriate facilities (map 4-6).

Approximately 2 miles of trails are maintained to facilitate pedestrian access to fishing, and an additional 1-mile gravel road from Louie’s Landing to Mac’s Bend is open to public vehicle travel from September–November and pedestrian use year-round. Boats and canoes may be launched from Louie’s Landing all season, while a second boat ramp, at Mac’s Bend, is open from September to November. The Louie’s Landing area has designated fishing access available for disabled individuals, one wide boat ramp for small boats, two vault toilets, a public parking area, and an interpretive kiosk. The Mac’s Bend Boat Launch site provides two narrow boat ramps, a seasonal waterfowl hunt program kiosk, a public parking area, and access to the 2½-mile Long Marsh jeep trail, which follows along the river to Missisquoi Bay.

The fishing public enjoys the great variety of fish that abound in refuge waters. The most sought-after fish species include walleye, northern pike, largemouth bass, bullhead, yellow perch, and crappie. Other species that are caught include white perch, chain pickerel, muskellunge, sheepshead (drum), gar, pumpkinseed, smallmouth bass, rock bass, bowfin, catfish, carp and white and red suckers. Both live and artificial bait are used to catch these fish. Weather conditions, water conditions, and season all play a role in the process of selecting the right kind of bait to successfully catch fish in the warm, shallow waters in and around the refuge.

Everyone who fishes on the refuge must respect regulations put in place to protect its biological resources. All fishing requires a valid state fishing license, and is permitted according to state regulations. Sport fishing on the refuge follows the fishing regulations established by the VT FWD. Those regulations are published annually in the Annual Guide to Hunting, Fishing

and Trapping Laws, which is available USFWS at refuge headquarters. Fisherman at Louie’s Landing

To protect wildlife and visitors, camping, open fires, cutting firewood, littering, and leaving vehicles overnight are prohibited and subject to state and federal prosecution. Bank fishing is permitted only along Charcoal Creek where it passes under Route 78, and along the shoreline of the Missisquoi River from just west of the refuge headquarters to Mac’s Bend boat launch site, and is accessible only on foot from Louie’s Landing to the Mac’s Bend launch site. We ask the public to observe and respect “Closed Area” signs posted from April—November in order to provide undisturbed nesting and resting areas for endangered osprey, threatened black tern, and the great blue heron rookery in the delta and adjacent marsh units.

Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions 3-51

Refuge Public Use

Lost and discarded lead sinkers have been responsible for the death of more than half of the loons found dead in Vermont. In 2005, Vermont enacted a law making the sale of sinkers containing lead illegal in 2006, and the use of lead sinkers or possession of lead sinkers while fishing illegal in 2007. Discarded monofilament fishing line is also harmful to a variety of fish and aquatic wildlife. For that reason, we ask the fishing public to recycle or responsibly place unneeded fishing line in the trash.

We also ask anglers to help prevent the spread of nuisance aquatic species when moving between bodies of water. Boaters traveling between water bodies can inadvertently spread invasive species not native to Vermont. Once introduced, they often grow unchecked, quickly out-competing native species for available nutrients and space and, eventually, replacing native plants or animals completely. To avoid the disruption of aquatic communities, we ask those who fish on the refuge to remove all vegetation attached to boats or trailers; rinse their boats and equipment with hot water and dry them for five days in the sun; learn to recognize nuisance aquatic species; and not discard live bait into Lake Champlain. The refuge promotes fishing as a priority public use, and responsible fishing ethics and adherence to refuge regulations will ensure the fishing public of all ages continued enjoyment of this recreational opportunity.

Wildlife Observation Wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation and Photography, are all refuge priority public use activities. The refuge facilitates them. In 2004, Interpretation, refuge staff and volunteers conducted 40 refuge tours and walks, including and Environmental bird walks, owl prowls, winter ecology bog walks, boat tours, canoe tours, and Education woodcock walks, among others.

The Black Creek and Maquam Creek interpretive trails provide good opportunities for waterfowl and wading bird observation and photography, as the trails pass through 1½ miles of wooded lowland. River mud shorelines are also an excellent place to find animal tracks. A self-guiding trail guide is available in the refuge leaflet box located at the trailhead.

Visitors may also observe wildlife by walking alongside the Missisquoi River on the 1-mile Mac’s Bend Road from Louie’s Landing to Mac’s Bend. The Mac’s Bend Boat Launch site provides access to the 2½-mile Long Marsh jeep trail that follows along the river toward Missisquoi Bay. Two additional trails can be accessed on Tabor Road from the Old Railroad Passage parking area. The 1½-mile Old Railroad Passage Trail passes through the southern corner of Maquam Bog and ends at Maquam Bay. The abandoned railroad bed from Tabor Road to Maquam Bay is owned by the Vermont Fish and Wildlife, but is used for refuge wildlife and habitat surveys and by refuge visitors. Another ½-mile trail starts from the parking area and crosses Tabor Road, where it forks: one mowed path leads to an observation platform overlooking the Stephen J. Young Marsh; the other goes around the edge of the marsh and behind the marsh into an area of managed woodcock cuts. At the Tabor Road Overlook parking area, visitors can enjoy a view of the refuge grasslands and a small wetland area, and learn about food webs from an interpretive sign placed at the site. Visitors often gather here to view deer in the fields.

The refuge provides environmental education to area students. In 2006, 520 students visited the refuge. Most school groups are elementary and middle school visitors who use the refuge to augment classroom work related to the environment. An additional 700 students were taught offsite at school conservation days, in classroom programs, and at Earth Day Celebrations.

The majority of refuge visitors come during the summer and fall months to take advantage of favorable trail conditions and opportunities for viewing wildlife

3-52 Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions Refuge Public Use

and the brilliance of Vermont fall foliage. Refuge trails and roads are used some during the winter. when snow conditions are conducive to cross-country skiing or snowshoeing. The number of people canoeing and kayaking on the quiet, slow- flowing Missisquoi River has gradually increased over the past 10 to 15 years. Blueberry picking and hiking are also popular visitor activities.

Activities Not Allowed on Snowmobiling, all-terrain vehicle (ATV) use, and biking on trails are among Missisquoi Refuge the activities not allowed on refuge land. Walking dogs off a leash, picking fiddleheads and other plants, camping, and campfires are also prohibited. Trespassing in closed areas is illegal, whatever the purpose.

Finding of Appropriateness With the exception of 1) Six wildlife-dependent recreational uses (hunting, of a Refuge Use fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation) and 2) Take of fish and wildlife under State regulations, which have been administratively determined to be appropriate, refuge mangers must decide if all proposed and existing uses on the refuge are appropriate uses by writing a Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use. If an existing use is not appropriate, the refuge manager will eliminate or modify the use as expeditiously as practicable. If a new use is not appropriate, the refuge manager will deny the use without determining compatibility. The Appropriate Refuge Uses policy clarifies and expands on the compatibility policy, which describes when refuge managers should deny a proposed use without determining compatibility. When refuge managers find a use is appropriate, the use then must be determined to be compatible before it is allowed on the refuge. Table 3.12 lists the uses for which Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use was done. See appendix B for the full Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use documents.

Table 3.12. Finding of Appropriateness of Refuge Uses Refuge Use Appropriate Not Appropriate Snowmobiling X Access for Commercial Bait Collecting X Berry Picking X Bicycling X Dog Walking X Motorized boating to facilitate priority public uses X Non-motorized boating to facilitate priority public uses X Research conducted by non-refuge personnel X

Compatibility Refuge managers must determine if each public use is compatible with the Determinations purposes for which the refuge was established by writing a compatibility determination. Public uses on national wildlife refuges fall in two categories: priority uses and secondary uses. Priority uses, as defined by Congress, include hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. All other public uses on a refuge are considered secondary uses. Priority public uses are reviewed every 15 years, and all secondary public uses are reviewed every 10 years. Table 3.13 lists the activities determined to be compatible while table 3.14 lists the activities that are not compatible on the refuge. See appendix B for the full compatibility determination documents.

Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions 3-53

Refuge Public Use

Table 3.13. List of activities that have been determined compatible on the refuge. Compatibility Determination Priority Uses Secondary Uses Berry Picking X Research by non-refuge personnel X Access for Commercial Bait Collecting (Commercial X Fishing) Motorized Boating X Non-Motorized Boating X Oral vaccination by aerial baiting to control raccoon variant of X the rabies virus

Environmental Education X

Wildlife Observation X Photography X Walking/Hiking, Cross Country Skiing on the X Nature Trail Hunting Access to Adjacent Public Private or X State Land Upland Small Game Hunting X Other Migratory Bird Hunting X Waterfowl Hunting X Big Game Hunting (White-tailed Deer) X Recreational Fishing X Furbearer Management X Commercially Guided Tours X Commercially Guided Waterfowl Hunting X

Table 3.14. List of activities that have been determined NOT appropriate on the refuge. Compatibility Determination Determination Date Priority Uses Secondary Uses Bicycling 2005 X Snowmobiling 2005 X Dog Walking 2007 X

3-54 Chapter 3. Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions Chapter 4 Steve Vittum/USFWS Maquam/Black Creek nature trails

Management Direction and Implementation ■ Introduction ■ Relating Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ■ General Refuge Management ■ Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Introduction

Introduction This comprehensive conservation plan includes an array of management actions that, in our professional judgment, work toward achieving the purposes of the refuge, its vision and goals, and state and regional conservation plans. In our opinion, it will effectively address the key issues, and is both reasonable and practicable.

In all program areas, this CCP will enhance the quality and sustainability of current resource programs, develop long-range and strategic step-down plans, promote partnerships, and preserve, manage, and restore habitat.

Relating Goals, We presented our goals in chapter 1. Goals are intentionally broad descriptions Objectives, and of desired future conditions on the refuge. By design, they define management Strategies targets prescriptively rather than quantitatively. They articulate the principal elements of refuge purposes and our vision statement, and provide the foundation for developing specific management objectives. This chapter details the goals further into objectives and strategies. We considered a range of possible management objectives that would help us meet our goals. Essentially, objectives are incremental steps we take to achieve a goal; they further define the management targets of each goal in measurable terms. Objectives provide the basis for determining more detailed strategies, monitoring refuge accomplishments, and evaluating our successes. Service guidance in “Writing Refuge Management Goals and Objectives: A Handbook” (November 2003), recommends that objectives possess five properties in the mnemonic acronym “SMART”: they should be : (1) Specific, (2) Measurable, (3) Achievable, (4) Results-oriented, and (5) Time-fixed.”

The objectives we considered ranged from those that require only minimum levels of funding and staffing to those that require considerable increases in funding, staffing, and developing infrastructure and partnerships. Some of them relate directly to managing habitat, while others relate to meeting population targets tied to species recovery or other regional plans.

We include a rationale in every objective, so you can understand its context and why we consider it important. We will use the objectives in this CCP in writing refuge step-down plans, including the Habitat Management Plan (HMP). We will measure our success by how well we achieve those objectives.

Finally, we developed strategies for each objective. Strategies are specific actions, tools, techniques, considerations, or a combination of those, which we may use in achieving the objectives. Most likely, we will carry them over directly into subsequent, step-down plans; but, we may revise some of them in the process of developing those plans. The availability of staff, volunteers, funding, and other resources may affect the way we implement them.

General Refuge We primarily developed our management direction hierarchically from goals to Management objectives and strategies. However, we also found that many actions we wanted to highlight either relate to multiple goals or represent general administrative or compliance activities. We present them in this section.

Habitat Management Plan A habitat management plan (HMP) for the refuge is the first step in achieving the objectives under goals 1 and 2. For example, it establishes what specific strategies are necessary to enhance, restore, and manage important habitats and minimize impacts on significant species assemblages. It also describes the timing of those actions, and identifies how we will measure our success. We drafted a HMP at the same time as the CCP so their habitat objectives would be consistent.

Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementation 4-1 General Refuge Management

Funding Considerations We would implement the management activities and projects proposed as funds become available.

Federal Regulations We will comply with all applicable federal laws and regulations in implementing the CCP.

Protecting Historical and We will comply with all regulations and existing methods for protecting Cultural Resources historical and cultural resources across the refuge. We will comply with the National Historic Preservation Act by reviewing individual projects for their potential to affect cultural resources and planning for resource protection in consultation with the Vermont Division for Historic Preservation. Our regional cultural resources staff will evaluate projects that fall in certain categories of management actions. Those include new facilities such as hunt blind sites, boat access, boardwalks, and dike extensions.

Land Conservation We will conduct a biological analysis of the importance of undeveloped lands within 5 miles of the existing refuge boundary in order to identify those areas that will improve resource protection for federal trust species and aid in fulfilling the mission of the System and the purposes of the refuge. We will focus the review on intact, fully functioning wetlands and associated riparian areas as well as adjacent uplands that maintain or expand the protection of large unfragmented blocks of habitat for area sensitive species. If the review reveals that additional land protection that involves Service ownership is necessary, we will prepare a conservation proposal for consideration by the Director of the Service to expand the boundary of the refuge. If the Director grants approval to continue the effort, we will prepare a separate Environmental Assessment and Land Protection Plan to analyze all factors involved in a refuge expansion and propose an alternative for public consideration. We expect that any proposal which might emerge from this process will include significant public involvement in decision making, involve partners in the protection effort, and make considerable use of easement acquisitions as a protection method.

Special Designation Areas We describe the current status of special designation areas on the refuge in appendix A. We will implement the inventory conclusions and recommendations in appendix A which propose to withdraw support for the proposed Shad Island wilderness area, but continue to administer and manage the RNAs for Shad Island and Maquam Bog. In summary, the rationale for withdrawing support for the proposed Shad Island wilderness area is based on the fact we believe it no longer meets the “naturalness” criterion required under the Wilderness Act. The significant accumulation of debris that lodges throughout the island during the annual spring flooding is a principle challenge to maintaining naturalness. The types of debris include 55 gallon drums, propane tanks, tires, and plastics of all sizes. Its buildup is largely outside the control and jurisdiction of the Service because it is being deposited in state or Canadian waters. Other existing conditions and future management considerations that impact naturalness character are discussed in appendix A. We will submit a proposal to remove Shad Island from proposed wilderness designation within 5 years of CCP approval.

Our continued support and management for the Shad Island and Maquam Bog RNAs includes a commitment to develop management area plans within 5 years of CCP approval.

Refuge Revenue Sharing Annual refuge revenue payments to the towns in which refuge lands lie will Payments continue as law and policy allow. Future payments will be made in accordance with approved, appraised values, considering new acquisitions, and the level of congressional appropriations each year. Please refer to chapter 3 for additional information on refuge revenue sharing payments.

Outreach and Partnerships We will enhance our outreach and partnerships with the local communities, expand the role and numbers of our Friends Group, and strengthen our

4-2 Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementatione General Refuge Management

relationships with our neighbors and elected officials to build support for our management priorities. The majority of our management strategies support partnerships to the fullest extent possible. They are vital in successfully managing all aspects of the refuge, from habitat and species management to public use.

Friends Group Support We will continue to support the Friends of Missisquoi association. We expect that group to provide us with valuable assistance in implementing the management strategies in this final CCP.

Volunteer Opportunities This CCP will continue our successful volunteer program. Volunteers perform thousands of hours of work in administration, public use, and the biological program, and have enhanced our ability to complete many tasks associated with refuge management.

Existing Faciltiies The periodic maintenance and renovation of existing facilities is a critical need Maintenance to ensure safety and accessibility for refuge staff and visitors. Appendix I lists new construction projects from our Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) database and projects from our Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) that identify repairs, replacements, and other work needed for existing facilities and equipment.

Refuge Activity, Hunting, Refuge lands offer many recreational opportunities However, the costs to and Special Use Fees maintain those activities continue to increase, and revenues continue to decline. Maintaining the boat launch, gravel roads, and other facilities and structures requires increasing staff time and financial resources. To help offset the increasing administrative costs associated with managing and overseeing those recreational uses, we will implement an activity fee program and continue to charge a user fee for hunting as well as special permit fees.

These fees will be reinvested at the refuge to enhance visitor services and reduce the backlog of maintenance needs for recreation facilities and the cost of collection. Eighty percent of recreation fee receipts are retained at the refuge, while 20 percent of recreation fee receipts are used in the region for projects to improve and maintain visitor services, address health and safety within the Refuge System, and to offset Service administrative costs.

In addition to the fee program outlined below, we anticipate that the Friends of Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge, Inc. will continue to support the refuge using a portion of the funds collected from membership dues and fund raising activities each year.

We will implement the following new components for the fee program for Missisquoi Refuge ■ Visitors will be encouraged to make voluntary contributions at collection boxes at the trailheads and boat launch. Additional donation boxes, similar to the one now located at the Black Creek/Maquam Creek trailhead, will be installed at the Old Railroad Passage and Stephen J. Young Marsh trailhead, the Discovery trailhead, the Louie’s Landing boat launch site, and the Mac’s Bend boat launch/ Jeep Trail site. Voluntary contributions will continue to be welcome, and will be collected from refuge visitors and other individuals and groups

■ We will also evaluate the effectiveness of instituting a lottery permit system for deer hunting on the delta to alleviate hunter conflicts

Strategies that apply to all Continue to: goals ■ Recruit, train, and recognize students, interns, and volunteers to assist with all refuge goals, programs, and operations, and provide housing where possible

Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementation 4-3 General Refuge Management

■ Encourage a broad-based Friends of Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge group that supports refuge goals, programs, and operations

■ Provide visitor safety, protect resources, and ensure compliance with refuge regulations for more than 60,000 visitors each year, projected to increase to 150,000 visitors over the next 15 years, through law enforcement patrols and public use contacts

■ Annually evaluate a minimum of 12 miles of refuge boundary. Delineate refuge boundaries with signs as needed

■ Reach out to refuge communities to build awareness, understanding, and support for refuge biological and land protection programs and activities and demonstrate the role of the Missisquoi Refuge in the Refuge System

■ Acquire from willing sellers, the privately owned properties (inholdings: 8 parcels; 253 acres) remaining within the approved, acquisition boundary of the refuge, as they USFWS become available for purchase Great horned owl sitting on refuge sign Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Hire a law enforcement staff (GS 7/9): Improve on-refuge law enforcement by hiring dedicated law enforcement personnel and establishing cooperative agreements with partnering law enforcement agencies to address habitat and wildlife protection challenges, the growing threat of international terrorism and other international border-related illegalities, and enhance staff and visitor safety

■ Hire or use management capability to secure seasonal maintenance worker (WG 5/6) or contract assistance: Increase the ability of refuge staff to maintain and improve refuge facilities, equipment, and habitats by hiring additional maintenance staff and by engaging and training skilled volunteers

■ Hire or use management capability to secure seasonal park ranger (GS 7/9) or contract assistance: Facilitate utilization of new refuge headquarters and other wildlife-oriented developments by increasing refuge public use staff who will further improve and increase community outreach, environmental education, interpretation, and volunteer utilization efforts

■ Hire or use management capability to secure seasonal biological technician (GS 5–7–9) or contract assistance: Expand the refuge biological staff and the cadre of trained and skilled volunteers to complete essential field work and ensure the implementation of the best science and technology available in support of wildlife and habitat management programs and planning

Strategies that apply to Within 5 years of CCP approval: all the objectives under ■ Evaluate all the data from completed baseline surveys of birds, amphibians, goals 1 and 2 reptiles, mammals, plants, and other species to determine what additional baseline surveys are needed to determine presence/absence in respective habitat types and to determine what additional surveys are needed to address management questions

■ Evaluate the breeding bird data to determine if more surveys or survey points are needed to document the presence of species of conservation concern in floodplain forest and other habitats not surveyed well in the past

4-4 Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementatione Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

■ Explore opportunities to engage volunteers and students in monitoring migrating birds on the refuge and consider entering data into the Cornell Lab of Ornithology ebird database (www.ebird.org)

■ Work with partners to continue and enhance monitoring and control of non- native invasive species including water chestnut, Eurasian water milfoil, purple loosestrife, common reed, Japanese knotweed, and zebra mussel

Within 5 to 10 years of CCP approval: ■ Work with UVM, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), and others to compile a comprehensive Geographic Information System (GIS)- based database for the Missisquoi River watershed to identify topographic features, land uses, and habitat types for long-term planning and monitoring of resources

■ Conduct a refuge survey to locate and map upland and aquatic invasive species

■ Refine map of habitat types by ground-truthing the natural communities mapped by Clews (2002) to guide more precise habitat management planning

Refuge Goals, The following goals, objectives, and strategies include an array of management Objectives, and actions that, in our professional judgment, work best toward achieving the Strategies purposes of the refuge, the mission of the System, our vision and goals for the refuge and the goals of state and regional conservation plans. In our opinion, they will also most effectively address the major issues raised during the planning process. We judge them reasonable and practical. GOAL 1. Maintain the ecological integrity of the Missisquoi River Delta to ensure a healthy, diverse river ecosystem providing a full range of natural processes, community types, and native floral and faunal diversity.

Background The Missisquoi River Delta is the largest wetland complex in the Lake Champlain Basin. Over 50 percent of the waterfowl that use the lake during fall migration (late August through mid-November) are found in this wetland ecosystem. Floodwaters seasonally inundate Lake Champlain, its tributaries, and associated wetlands. A peak lake level of 99 to 101 feet mean sea level (msl) is common in spring. Typically, the lake level recedes during the summer, reaching its seasonal low of 94 to 95 feet msl between August and October. The seasonal pattern of flooding stimulates and maintains the dynamic nature of the delta and its

inhabitants. The shape and pattern of the Erickson © 2005 Paul present-day delta is a snapshot in time of an Roots of Silver Maple-Sensitive ever-changing system. Fern Floodplain Forest

Influenced by those seasonal and annual variations in water levels, the Missisquoi River Delta supports a rich diversity of plants and animals, including thousands of migrating waterfowl, nesting herons, ducks, black terns and other marsh birds, rare turtles, mussels and fish, extensive wild rice beds, a large peatland, high quality floodplain forest, and other unique natural features. That richness attracts many recreational users: hunters, anglers, boaters, walkers, and birders. The Missisquoi River Delta, and hence, the refuge is impacted by run off from residential, agricultural, and industrial sources. Pollutants, invasive species, and other concerns in Missisquoi Bay also affect the refuge. The refuge must favor the management of important wildlife habitats over competing interests among

Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementation 4-5 Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

recreational users, while combating threats to the ecological integrity of the lands and waters that fish and wildlife depend on.

Objective 1.1 Silver Maple-Sensitive Fern Floodplain Forest Maintain 1,089 acres of mature (more than 100 years old) silver maple-sensitive fern floodplain forest by allowing natural processes and controlling non-native invasive species to provide breeding habitat for great blue heron, wood duck and other cavity-nesting waterfowl, Baltimore oriole and other Neotropical migratory birds, and protect vernal pools.

Rationale The Missisquoi delta supports over a thousand acres of silver maple-sensitive fern floodplain forest, composing 16 percent of the refuge (map 4-1). The dominant tree species are silver maple, green ash, and eastern cottonwood with some swamp white oak, red oak, and American elm. The forest is flooded each spring, and is easily navigable by canoe for much of May. As the waters recede, they leave behind large quantities of woody debris, seeds, USFWS and fertile soil forming a luxuriant Silver Maple-Sensitive Fern Floodplain Forest understory of sensitive fern and other herbaceous plants. This is an uncommon (S3) community type in Vermont, and the Missisquoi floodplain forest is the largest and perhaps highest quality example remaining in the State (Sorenson et al.1998, Thompson and Sorenson 2000, Clews 2002), See appendix C for definitions of “S” rankings.

This habitat supports the largest great blue heron rookery in Vermont on Shad and Metcalfe Islands in the “bird’s foot delta.” The islands supported 275 and 266 heron nests in 2004 and 2005, respectively; the number of nests peaked at 600 in 1999/2000. Double-crested cormorants, considered a species of management concern in BCR 13 due to their potential negative impacts on vegetation (Hartley et al. 2006), began nesting on Shad Island in 1996. They are increasing in the heron rookery, with more than 100 active nests in 2004 and 86 nests in 2005. Surveys indicate that, with the exception of one successful nest in 2004, no cormorants have successfully reproduced here. The population growth of cormorants in the Lake Champlain Basin has resulted in significant negative impacts on vegetation in other nesting colonies, although no such impacts are noted yet for the Missisquoi Refuge colony. Two to three great egrets successfully nested among the heron colony in recent years. See appendix F for a more detailed discussion of the cormorant and heron issue.

Wood duck, common goldeneye, and hooded merganser are three cavity nesters that breed in the refuge floodplain forest along with black duck and mallard. The use of artificial nesting structures for wildlife began in earnest in the 1940s and 1950s to increase the availability of nest sites for specific cavity nesters, such as wood ducks. The loss of habitat

(including cutting floodplain forest) James Prince/USFWS and the over-harvest of wood ducks Wood Duck

4-6 Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementatione Map 4-1 Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementation 4-7 Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

in the early 1900s caused the population to crash. Since then, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, harvest regulations and management actions have enabled the population to grow dramatically. In the Northeast, rebounding beaver populations and the increasing availability of mature cavity trees, in addition to artificial nest boxes, have bolstered that population growth. Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data indicates that the wood duck population is steadily increasing (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001). About 7,800 juveniles are produced annually in nest boxes at all national wildlife refuges in the Northeast combined, or 0.24 percent of the fall population of juvenile birds. The refuge now maintains 130 nest boxes. We recorded a 61-percent usage by wood duck, hooded merganser, or common goldeneye in 2000. Missisquoi is proposing to evaluate artificial wood duck nest boxes to determine if natural structures meet management objectives.

The nesting osprey population on the refuge increased from one pair in Long Marsh in 1989 to 32 pairs on the Missisquoi River delta in 2005. Ospreys have increased throughout the Lake Champlain Basin. The refuge and the State of Vermont on the adjacent Maquam WMA have actively managed osprey by providing nesting platforms and installing predator guards. Given its recovery across the region, the osprey was recently removed from the State’s endangered species list. The refuge will evaluate the use of platforms and natural structures by osprey to determine whether active nest structure management and monitoring should continue.

More than half the songbirds that breed in North America are migratory. Many of these birds are considered Neotropical migrants—they fly to subtropical and tropical regions to winter. Small, migratory songbirds typically cannot store enough energy to fly nonstop, and require several stopover areas along their migration route. Researchers are using radar detection of migrants leaving stopover areas along the mid-Atlantic coast combined with land use and land cover data to identify which habitats are most important for migrating songbirds. Floodplain forests are an important stopover habitat for migratory birds in these studies (New Jersey Audubon, unpublished data, http://www.njaudubon.org/ Education/Oases/).

The floodplain forest on the Missisquoi Refuge is important for breeding migratory songbirds of conservation concern, including wood thrush, black- billed cuckoo, Canada warbler, rose-breasted grosbeak, and Baltimore oriole, all priority species in BCR 13 (Hartley et al. 2006). The refuge has the second highest abundance of breeding orioles among the refuges in the Northeast. The refuge likely serves as important refugia for those songbirds in a regional landscape dominated by agricultural lands. The refuge is just on the edge of the range of the declining cerulean warbler. Although none have been recorded here, the refuge supports ideal habitat for that bird of highest conservation priority in BCR 13 (Hartley et al. 2006).

Researchers at the USFWS Ecological Services Office in Concord, New Hampshire and the University of New Hampshire (UNH) continue to explore the distribution and potential causes of amphibian deformities in the Northeast (Pinkney et al. 2005). Missisquoi Refuge is one of the malformed frog study sites. Despite some evidence of deformities, the refuge supports an abundant, diverse frog community in the floodplain habitat, including northern leopard, green, pickerel and wood frog, and bullfrog. Vernal pools supporting spotted and blue- spotted salamanders are embedded in the floodplain forest community.

Clews (2002) identifies a distinct river shore grassland community that follows the length of the Missisquoi River. The shoreline is seasonally scoured by river ice, then flooded during the spring thaw, and finally, left high and dry by mid- June. Those communities, maintained through natural processes, often form the transition zone between river mud shore and floodplain forest communities.

4-8 Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementatione Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Those grassland communities, when seasonally flooded, provide habitat for northern pike, pickerel, yellow perch, and other aquatic organisms.

Strategies Continue: ■ Continue annual monitoring of the great blue heron colony

■ Post “no disturbance” or “area closed” signs near osprey nests, the great blue heron rookery, and black tern nesting areas as soon as possible in the spring or after the birds select their nesting sites to prevent boating disturbance; monitor for disturbance and, if necessary, close areas around nests during nesting season.

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Evaluate breeding bird survey points in floodplain forest with particular emphasis on priority bird species including wood thrush, black-billed cuckoo, Canada warbler, rose-breasted grosbeak, cerulean warbler and Baltimore oriole to determine if ongoing surveys are needed

■ Survey for the presence of endangered Indiana bat in floodplain forest every 3 to 5 years or as recommended by bat experts

■ Work to protect the sensitive floodplain forest and associated wetlands that border the refuge

■ Identify sensitive areas along floodplain banks and post signs to protect vegetation from trampling by the public where this might be a problem

■ Evaluate cormorant interactions with great blue herons and cormorant impacts to the floodplain forest habitat to set thresholds for active cormorant management, if necessary

■ Evaluate the osprey nesting data to determine the use of natural snags versus platforms, to determine the need for ongoing annual productivity surveys, and to determine the need to maintain or add additional artificial platforms considering the removal of the osprey from the State endangered species list

Within 5 to 10 years of CCP approval: ■ Partner with researchers on studies of the floodplain forest to evaluate the impacts, if any, of human uses on the habitat and associated plant and animal species and to understand the importance of the floodplain forest to Neotropical birds, fish, turtles, vernal pool obligates, and other species of concern

■ Evaluate the amount of staff and volunteer time spent on maintaining, monitoring, supervision, and reporting for the wood duck nest box program and identify the number of boxes targeted for each species, the population status of the species being managed, the annual cost of replacement boxes, and the extent of use of the boxes by target species. Wood Duck Box

Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementation 4-9 Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

■ Survey the abundance and condition of natural cavities in this habitat to determine need, if any, for artificial nest boxes

■ Identify for removal those nest boxes that are not generally productive, attract undesirable species, have a history of dump nesting, or are subject to high rates of predation. Do not replace old and dilapidated nest boxes in these areas

■ Evaluate the natural succession of fields 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 43 acres of field 5 to determine which if any of these fields should be allowed to continue to naturally succeed to floodplain forest. This involves surveying for shrub-dependent species of conservation concern and the feasibility of maintaining these areas as shrublands versus allowing the natural succession to floodplain forest

Objective 1.2 Lakeshore and River Shore Wetlands By 2010, determine the proportion of open water to emergent vegetation and determine the rate of sedimentation in the 1,340 acres of lakeshore and river shore wetland. Evaluate the need for and the feasibility of implementing management actions to maintain foraging and resting habitat for migrating waterfowl, nesting areas for black terns, American bittern and other marsh birds, and basking sties for spiny softshell turtles.

Rationale The lakeshore wetlands in and around Metcalfe and Shad Islands, Cabot-Clark Marsh, Long Marsh Channel, Saxes Creek, Goose Bay, and Gander Bay are composed of wild rice marsh, sedge meadow, buttonbush swamp, deep broadleaf marsh, and bulrush marsh (map 4-1). The river shore wetlands encompass the sedge meadow natural community along Charcoal and Dead Creeks (map 4-1). The sedge meadow, buttonbush swamp, and wild rice American black duck marsh natural community types are closely related. They are distinguished by three different dominant species: tussock sedge, buttonbush, and wild rice, respectively. Those three plant species are nearly ubiquitous across the permanently saturated wetlands of the Missisquoi delta, and form a matrix of wetland habitat on the refuge. These wetland communities are seasonally inundated as the lake level rises each spring, and are covered by 5 to 12 inches of standing water by early summer. The soils are generally shallow and composed of organic muck (Clews 2002). The proportion of open water to vegetation varies from year to year, and is affected by lake level variations and increased upstream erosion and sedimentation.

The deep bulrush marsh occurs along the outer margins of the delta, is permanently inundated with water, and is subject to strong wave action resulting in low plant species diversity. Soft- and hard-stem bulrushes are the dominant plants. This is a common community type around Lake Champlain. Here, pied- billed grebes and common moorhens forage among the bulrushes. Small patches of deep broadleaf marsh occur in the more sheltered portions of the delta. Plant species diversity is usually higher here, although a single species may dominate the others. Pickerelweed, broad-leaved arrowhead, and giant bur-reed are common. Both types of marshes provide important shelter and foraging areas for ducks and other marsh birds.

The lakeshore wetlands are an important staging area for thousands of migrating waterfowl. Their numbers are highest during fall migration (late August through

4-10 Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementatione Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

mid-November), and peak in October. Green- and blue-winged teals are the early migrants, arriving in late summer and early fall. About 60 percent of the migrant waterfowl are mallards. In October, up to 10,000 mallards and an average of 5,000 black ducks come through. In some years, 500 to 1,000 American wigeons congregate on the refuge. Migrant numbers depend on seasonal water levels. The State of Vermont conducts aerial waterfowl surveys before the hunting season and before numbers peak, and compiles the data in an annual Champlain Valley report. The migration period ends with the freezing of the delta, which remains frozen until spring.

The lakeshore wetlands are important breeding habitat for mallard, American bittern, and black tern. A handful of breeding least bittern, Caspian tern, and green-backed heron nest or forage in the refuge wetlands. The refuge is not currently a significant stopover for migrating shorebirds. Migrant shorebird densities depend on water levels. In drought years, when the water level drops below 94 feet msl, exposing mud flats, thousands of shorebirds appear in the delta. The Champlain Valley is an important shorebird migration corridor, so when conditions are good at the refuge, the birds stop over. American black duck, blue-winged teal, mallard, American and least bitterns, and black tern are all high-priority species in BCR 13 (Hartley et al. 2006).

The black tern has experienced range-wide population declines for unknown reasons for the past 30 years, and is listed as endangered in Vermont. Missisquoi Refuge supports a significant population of black terns: in the last decade the refuge has supported 50-100 pairs which annually comprise over 90% of the entire nesting population in Vermont. In 2005, the entire Vermont black tern nesting population of 103 pairs nested on the refuge; Charcoal Creek (north of 78) - 52 pairs, Charcoal Creek (south of 78) - 4 pairs, Long Marsh - 28 pairs, and Cranberry Pool - 19 pairs. Although the refuge provides optimal habitat for the black tern, the fact that the entire state population concentrates in one spot makes it highly vulnerable to local disturbance that could wipe out the colony. Year-to-year variations in water level also affect their nesting success. The Cranberry Pond colony on the refuge, which typically supports 10 nesting pairs, failed completely in 2000 due to predation (possibly due to low water levels that improved access for mammalian predators) (Shambaugh 2001).

Black terns nest semi-colonially in large, emergent wetlands, and feed their young both insects and fish. They build nests of sticks and reeds on floating mats of dead vegetation or small mud flats in emergent wetlands with small patches of open water. Flooding and predation on eggs and chicks, not habitat availability, seem to be the limiting factors. Predators of eggs and chicks include herons, bitterns, mink, raccoons, and predatory fish (McCollough et al. 2003). There appears to be an inverse relationship between tern numbers and lake level during the period of May 15–31. If water levels are too high, terns will not nest. An optimal mean level may be in the 96- to 99-foot range. Typically they start laying eggs on June 1; incubation lasts 3 weeks by early July, and all birds have fledged by about August 1 (Shambaugh 2001).

The refuge staff observes high numbers of raccoons on the refuge, although it does not conduct systematic surveys. Raccoons den in cavity trees in the floodplain forest and other wooded areas on the refuge. They forage in the lakeshore and river shore wetlands, managed wetlands, and in floodplains during low water as well as in grasslands, preying on the eggs and nestlings of ducks, terns, and other ground-nesting birds. The refuge has used trapping by refuge staff and private trappers to reduce raccoon predation on black terns and other species of concern.

Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementation 4-11 Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Strategies Continue: ■ Post advisory signs at the entrance to the middle branch of the Missisquoi River to alert canoeists and other boaters to avoid disturbing basking spiny softshell turtles

■ Continue to partner with Vermont Audubon to annually monitor the black tern population

■ Continue to annually post areas where black terns establish nests as closed to public entry and use.

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Collaborate with researchers to evaluate historical and current data (e.g., aerial photos, archaeological reports) on rates of sedimentation and changes in open water vegetation in lakeshore and river shore wetlands

■ Partner with others to determine a threshold for management actions within lakeshore and river shore wetlands based on historical, current, and projected habitat changes and rates of sedimentation

■ Research the efficacy of various vegetation removal methods to create pockets of open water among the vegetation to benefit wetland-dependent wildlife; implement management actions as necessary

■ Evaluate the refuge potential to provide habitat for nesting and hibernating spiny softshell turtles

■ Survey the raccoon population on the refuge and evaluate impact to nesting birds, and implement control measures as necessary

■ Increase annual management and LE patrols to ensure integrity of closed areas to protect black tern nesting areas.

Objective 1.3 Managed Wetlands Maintain the current mosaic of 865 acres of wild rice, sedge meadow, and buttonbush swamp in Big Marsh Slough, Goose Bay Pool, and Cranberry Pool to provide foraging and resting habitat for migrating waterfowl and nesting habitat for pied-billed grebes and other marsh birds, through natural flooding in spring and slow subsidence during the USFWS growing season. Maintain the Maintaining dike along Goose Bay Pool 2-acre Stephen J. Young marsh impoundment to benefit marsh birds and waterfowl and provide an easily accessible public viewing area.

Rationale Three impoundments on the refuge form 865 acres of managed wetlands (map 4-1 and 4-2). We completed these impoundments—Big Marsh Slough, Goose Bay Pool, and Cranberry Pool—by 1969 to provide nesting, foraging, and migrating habitat for waterfowl. Those pools are a mix of open water and emergent vegetation composed primarily of wild rice, buttonbush and tussock sedge. We manipulate the water levels in the impoundments, where possible, to encourage the growth of waterfowl food and cover plants such as wild rice

4-12 Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementatione Map 4-2 Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementation 4-13 Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

and buttonbush. Goose Bay Pool and Cranberry Pool have control structures; Big Marsh Slough has a dike, but no water control structure. In 1995, with the assistance of DU, a water control structure was installed at the Stephen J. Young Marsh to create a 2-acre wetland to benefit a marsh birds and waterfowl and provide an easily accessible public viewing area.

The dikes at the refuge allow the normal annual spring flood level of the river to inundate the managed marshes. That annual event provides an opportunity for the water exchange and nutrient replenishment that occurs throughout the floodplain delta each spring. In many ways, the natural hydrology of the delta is proceeding uninterrupted as water overtops low-level dikes in Goose Bay Pool and Big Marsh Slough or freely enters Cranberry Pool from the Missisquoi River. The dynamics of the managed marshes and their relationship to adjacent, unmanaged delta marshes creates a mosaic of water levels and vegetative habitats that serves the annual needs of many wildlife species. Future projects will strive to incorporate low-level dikes and water control structures that will continue to provide for the natural movement of water.

The dikes that define the managed marshes at the refuge are not complete. Due to either the confirmed or suspected presence of archaeologically significant remains along a portion of the Missisquoi River, the 3-mile dike that encompasses much of Cranberry Pool does not tie in along the river for a distance of about one and a quarter miles. That situation allows spring flood water levels to enter the pool at an elevation of about 98.80 ft. above msl, as the water spills over the riverbanks and begins inundating the floodplain. The rest of the dike is about 4 feet higher than that flood level elevation. The pool will hold spring flood-level water until Lake Champlain begins to recede. Water flows out of the pool until its elevation reaches 98.80 msl once again, usually around late May. After that, we manage the water levels inside Cranberry Pool with a water control structure that allows us to maintain and hold water into the summer to provide nesting, brood-rearing, and feeding habitat for numerous migratory birds, including Vermont-listed threatened and endangered species. No mechanized pumping system is in place to add water, so due to normal processes of evaporation and transpiration, water levels normally recede over the summer. During very dry years, the pool may nearly dry out by early fall when it is normally recharged by fall rains.

The dike at Goose Bay Pool was built in 1958. Like the one at Cranberry Pool, it was constructed at an elevation of 103.00 ft. above msl, separating Goose Bay Pool from Goose Bay, an important, productive inlet of the much larger Missisquoi Bay. The dike had begun to deteriorate, gradually eroding to the point that no vehicles of any kind could drive along the top. An imminent risk of floodwater breaching the dike was apparent in 2001. We issued a renovation contract that year to lower the dike to an elevation of 99.00 msl. The project included placing concrete revetment mats on the Lake Champlain side of the dike to reduce wind- driven wave action against its new slopes. The very gradual slopes on the inside were designed to maximize vegetative response (seed catch) and create a thick, protective growth of grasses and forbs. The renovated low-level dike creates a small, but productive, managed wetland that will hold water much longer, providing excellent habitat for many wildlife species.

The dike at Big Marsh Slough is an extension of the Goose Bay Pool dike construction. This short dike serves more as a “plug” than as a dike that would hold water for long periods. The dike was constructed across a small depression that historically would allow much of the water gained through spring inundation to be removed as water levels in Lake Champlain declined. The small dike that contained a 30-inch water control structure served to retain water through the summer and into the fall except during extremely dry years. The dike and water control structure have deteriorated over time, and retain only a portion of their original capability. However, during very dry years, the remnants of the dike

4-14 Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementatione Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

still help to retain water in Big Marsh Slough, providing excellent shallow water habitats for migrating waterfowl, wading birds and other wetland-dependent species.

Big Marsh Slough and Goose Bay Pool, along with Charcoal Creek, support 10,000 to 15,000 ring-necked ducks migrating in the fall. Historically, wild celery in the marshes and bays around the refuge have been a key food resource for those waterfowl. Migrating ring-necked ducks concentrate more than other waterfowl, and therefore, are easier to count. Pied-billed grebe and Virginia rail (BCR 13 priorities) and common moorhen and sora nest in these managed wetlands (Hartley et al. 2006). The refuge is one of the few places in Vermont that supports nesting pied-billed grebe. These managed wetlands are also important foraging areas for great blue herons.

Waterfowl banding started on the refuge about 40 years ago to document and track waterfowl population dynamics. The Atlantic Flyway Council assigns each state a banding quota that includes the total number, proportion of males and females, and the age groups of each species for banding. The refuge assists the State of Vermont in meeting its quotas. Although the refuge traditionally bands most species captured during banding, we focus on black ducks, wood ducks, and mallards. Those species make up the bulk of migratory waterfowl using the refuge. Banding information helps the Atlantic Flyway Council determine harvest rates, and sheds light on the use of migration corridors by various species of waterfowl.

The number of black ducks banded since the mid 1980s on the refuge as well as in other parts of the Northeast has declined noticeably, despite a consistent banding effort. The reasons for that reduced banding success are unknown. The number of birds banded on the refuge per banding season (from August through September) has dropped from between 500 and 800 before 2000 to between 200 and 300 since 2000. Since 2000, banding success using either cannon nets or swim-in traps has not been particularly productive on the refuge. The reason for the decline is unclear; however, black duck numbers have declined over that 20- year period in the fall migration surveys as well. In contrast, mallard and wood duck numbers have increased over the same period. The same banding decline has not occurred at other banding sites operated by the VT FWD or by Canadian banding operations just north of the refuge in Quebec.

Beavers and muskrats thrive in the shallow, managed waters of the refuge and associated borrow ditches, streams, creeks and the river. Although both species are important elements of a healthy, complete ecosystem, their presence is both beneficial and detrimental, and often cannot be left unchecked. Annual surveys are conducted to determine and document the numbers and locations of beavers and muskrats on the refuge. This information helps determine the necessity for a fall public trapping program aimed at maintaining these populations at levels compatible with habitat management objectives for Muskrat the area.

Beavers help control the encroachment of brushy vegetation into wetland impoundments. Other species of wildlife use their lodges for perching or occasionally nesting (e.g., Canada geese or osprey). However, they can also become a nuisance in managing the water levels in the impoundments by

Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementation 4-15 Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

plugging up the control structures. In addition, beavers burrow into the refuge dikes to establish their dens. That behavior can easily compromise the integrity of the dike and cause leaking which, if left unchecked can lead to the complete failure of the dike system. Beavers in areas other than impoundments typically do not create management conflicts, and usually are left alone. Beavers also kill some oaks that provide acorns as food for other wildlife.

Muskrats can be beneficial in wetlands by feeding on and controlling cattails and other vegetation that, left unchecked, will choke out the open water areas important for waterfowl. As with beavers, muskrats burrow into refuge dikes for shelter, creating a management conflict. Muskrats are prolific breeders, and every year muskrats are trapped along the refuge dikes in an effort to reduce the amount and extent of their burrowing. Muskrats are legally trapped or shot on the Missisquoi River and Dead Creek where they flow through the refuge. Muskrats are also predators of mussels, and can decimate local populations when their numbers are too high or when a mussel species is particularly vulnerable (VT DFW 2005a). Missisquoi Refuge hosts many such freshwater mussel species.

The non-native mute swan, a species of management concern in BCR 13 and a state-regulated species, is just appearing in the area; none are known to nest on the refuge. Mute swans, native to Eurasia, were introduced into the United States in the late 1800s. These swans are one of the most aggressive species of waterbirds, vigorously attacking other waterfowl while defending a very large breeding territory. They consume large quantities of SAV daily, decreasing the suitability of those areas for other nesting waterfowl (Ciaranca et al. 1997). The refuge follows the VT FWD policy on mute swan control (VT FWD 2005b). If they appear, the refuge “shall immediately remove all mute swans, including nests and eggs, from lands and waters of the Refuge.”

Strategies Continue: ■ Continue to annually monitor and trap beaver and muskrat to minimize impacts of those animals that damage the function of dikes, water control structures, and cause mortality to oak trees, freshwater mussel populations, and other habitats or wildlife populations

■ Continue to implement mute swan control as necessary, consistent with the VT FWD mute swan control policy

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Compile historic trapping data on the refuge to assess impacts of beaver, muskrat, and raccoon populations on dikes, water control structures, and migratory bird resources to guide development of a protocol for future management of these species

■ Conduct an ecological study (e.g., vegetative and invertebrate baseline data; water level regimes that affect food resources) in the impoundments to assess quantity and quality of food resources for nesting and foraging waterfowl and marsh birds and to guide future impoundment management (including enhancement of dikes) to sustain quality habitat

■ In partnership with the State, conduct appropriate level of waterfowl banding on the refuge to help meet Atlantic Flyway banding goals

■ Increase management effort to monitor black tern nesting attempts and evaluate success and failure. Apply appropriate management activity to increase nesting success based on limiting factors identified.

4-16 Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementatione Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Within 5 to 10 years of CCP approval: ■ Evaluate the potential benefits of extending the existing, 97- to 98-ft msl low- level dike approximately half a mile from Goose Bay through Big Marsh to improve water-holding capability, maintain the mosaic of wild rice, buttonbush and sedge meadow, and retard the intrusion of woody vegetation;

■ Implement that dike enhancement if deemed beneficial

Objective 1.4 Rivers and Creeks Maintain more than 12 miles of natural riparian vegetation on both banks of the Missisquoi River and tributary creeks within the refuge and, with partners, protect an additional 5 miles of riparian corridor to enhance water quality by preventing phosphorus loading and sediment and nutrient runoff. Good water quality is crucial for state-listed threatened or endangered freshwater mussels, basking and foraging spiny softshell turtles, lake sturgeon, the eastern sand darter, and other aquatic-dependent wildlife.

Rationale This habitat objective covers the main stem of the Missisquoi River, Dead Creek, Maquam Creek, First Creek, and Charcoal Creek, encompassing 12 miles of riparian vegetation on both sides of the waterways (map 4-1). Those tributaries to Lake Champlain host a unique assemblage of aquatic species often found nowhere else in Vermont. However, land uses in the upper parts of the watershed contribute high sediment loads and contaminated runoff that affects the quality of the aquatic habitat on the refuge.

The Missisquoi River contains one of the most diverse assemblages of freshwater mussels in the Lake Champlain Basin. Freshwater mussels are one of the most highly endangered taxonomic groups in North America. Twelve mussel species are recorded for the lower Missisquoi River, including seven that are regionally rare and listed as endangered or threatened in Vermont. Eight of the 12 species, including the pink heelsplitter, fragile papershell, giant floater, cylindrical papershell, pocketbook, eastern lampshell, eastern elliptio, and eastern floater pocketbook, are found in the stretch of the river on the refuge (Fichtel and Smith 1995). The refuge is an important habitat for rare mussels such as fragile papershell, pink heelsplitter, and giant floater, which are being impacted by the non-native invasive zebra mussels in Lake Champlain. Recreational boats may inadvertently introduce zebra mussels into the river, although its low calcium levels may limit the development of dense populations. The refuge needs to continue to monitor the rare mussel populations and the presence of zebra mussels in the river (Marangelo 1999). Mussels are important indicators of environmental quality, as they are sensitive to pollutants such as heavy metals, pesticides, agricultural nutrients, and heavy sediment loads.

The spiny softshell turtle is a threatened species in Vermont and Canada and proposed as a species of special concern in New York. The northern Lake Champlain region supports a disjunctive population of spiny softshells that has declined significantly over the last 200 years. Stresses on the population include habitat loss, human disturbance, habitat degradation, nest predation, accidental capture, and environmental contamination. These turtles require suitable habitat for hibernation, nesting, basking and feeding. A majority of the Spiny softshell turtle

Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementation 4-17 Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

softshell turtles hibernate for six months of the year at the Missisquoi Bay Bridge. Female softshells nest from late May to late June in shale substrates on beaches with minimal tree cover, a limited habitat type in northern Lake Champlain due to development and the use of large rip-rap to stabilize beachfront property.

The Missisquoi Refuge is an important basking and feeding area for softshell turtles; they use exposed logs, rocks, and banks along the Missisquoi River, Dead Creek, and the Cranberry Dike borrow ditch (Madeleine Lyttle, USFWS, unpublished data). Spiny softshells feed primarily on crayfish and mollusks. The Service evaluated turtle response to boating traffic on the Missisquoi River. See objective 4.4, “Boating” for the results of the study.

The lower Missisquoi River is one of the few remaining spawning grounds for the state-listed endangered lake sturgeon. That fish species is limited by habitat loss and degradation as a result of the construction of migration barriers (e.g., dams) eliminating access to historic spawning areas, sedimentation altering spawning habitat and egg survival, low population size, and life history characteristics (e.g., the age of maturity is 14 to 20 years). Typical spawning sites are rocky and boulder-filled areas at the outside bend of rivers. Lake sturgeon eggs require clean river bottoms for survival (VT DFW 2005a).

The state-listed threatened eastern sand darter is another fish species in the lower Missisquoi River. The eastern sand darter is associated with sandy areas of rivers and streams with slow to moderate currents, where it spends most of its time burrowed into the sand with only its eyes or head protruding. It is quite sensitive to sedimentation and poor water quality (VT DFW 2005a).

The lake sturgeon, eastern sand darter, and freshwater mussels are important indicators of water quality. The only confirmed native population of muskellunge (“muskie”) remaining in Vermont lives in a stretch of the Missisquoi River between the Swanton and Highgate dams. Although the origin of the only other population is unknown, it lives in the lower Missisquoi River below the Swanton Dam, including the stretch through the refuge,. The muskellunge is a species of high priority in the Vermont Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) (VT DFW 2005a).

The Lake Champlain Basin Program identified phosphorus reduction as one of the top management priorities for the lake in the basin plan “Opportunities for Action” (Lake Champlain Steering Committee 2003). In 1991, Missisquoi Bay had the highest phosphorus concentration in the entire Lake Champlain Basin. The Vermont Water Quality Standards include phosphorus targets for each segment of Lake Champlain: the Missisquoi Bay segment is 0.025 mg/l average phosphorus concentration. The refuge’s contribution in reducing phosphorus is to protect and maintain native vegetation along the Missisquoi River, preventing runoff and other sources of contamination. See objective 1.5, “Open Water and Bays,” for more discussion on phosphorus loading.

That the jurisdiction and control of the river is uncertain but very important to the management capability of the refuge became apparent during the development of this CCP. Determining the jurisdiction of the refuge, or the lack thereof, on the Missisquoi River, Dead Creek and the Lake Champlain shoreline will determine the extent to which the refuge manager and staff can protect and manage some habitats and species. Vermont law enforcement authorities are empowered to enforce the provisions of a Vermont statute that prohibits speed in excess of 5 mph within 200 feet of a shoreline, but that provision is not enforced in the vicinity of the refuge or in most other waters of the state. We

4-18 Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementatione Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

have not ascertained the legal ability of the Service to effect closures or special regulations on those waters. For instance, our being able to restrict speed or enforce closures on parts of the river will facilitate managing the refuge

■ during critical nesting periods near osprey nests or near the Shad Island heron rookery;

■ during periods when egg-bearing female spiny softshell turtles are basking to ensure proper egg development; or

■ during the waterfowl nesting season near sensitive areas.

Strategies Continue: ■ Continue to work with VT FWD to protect basking softshell turtle habitat on the refuge and identify opportunities, if necessary and feasible, to create additional basking habitat (e.g., adding basking logs or other structures) and potential new nesting and hibernating areas

■ Continue working with State, university, and Canadian biologists to further understand spiny softshell turtle habitat and conservation needs and implement those actions that are feasible for the refuge

■ Continue to assist the Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Resources office on surveys of lake sturgeon and eastern sand darter related to habitat conditions and water quality

■ Continue to control muskrat populations to protect water control structures and dikes as well as to control predation on state-listed threatened and endangered freshwater mussels

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Monitor the distribution of state-listed threatened or endangered freshwater mussel species (e.g., fragile papershell, pink heelsplitter, and giant floater) on the refuge portion of the Missisquoi River

Within 5 to 10 years of CCP approval: ■ Determine water quality threshold parameters for state-listed threatened or endangered freshwater mussels and continue working with others to achieve those parameters.

■ Evaluate the role of the refuge in monitoring for zebra mussels, and implement a monitoring protocol if needed

■ Research which entities have jurisdiction of the river, which affects the ability of the refuge to fulfill its management

■ Collaborate with VT FWD and the USFWS Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Resources office to investigate the abundance and distribution of muskellunge in the Missisquoi River and evaluate the feasibility of restoring connectivity between the populations that are now isolated by the dams

Objective 1.5 Open Water and Bays Restore at least 25 percent of native submerged aquatic plant community in the open water and bays around the refuge by replacing invasive milfoil with native vegetation to maintain foraging and staging areas for migrating waterfowl, such as lesser scaup, common merganser, and snow geese.

Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementation 4-19 Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Rationale In addition to the refuge lakeshore wetlands, the open water bays in and around the refuge are important for migrating waterfowl (map 4-1). Lesser scaups, common goldeneyes, and 5,000 to 10,000 common mergansers congregate in deep open water on the lake and in large open bays, not in the delta. Common loons and common terns forage in the open water in the breeding and migrating seasons. All of those species are a priority in the BCR 13 plan (Hartley et al. 2006).

During spring migration at the end of April, up to 900,000 snow geese stage in the St. Lawrence River Valley. During fall migration, 10,000 to 20,000 snow geese stage on northern Lake Champlain. They roost on the water and feed on aquatic plant rhizomes in the bulrush marshes. When fields are wet, the geese shift to neighboring agricultural fields, yanking out plants to feed on the roots and causing damage to hayfields and green pastures. Their huge numbers draw tourists to the area and to the many snow goose festivals in Quebec. For those reasons, greater snow geese in the region are viewed both as a priority for conservation and as a nuisance.

Phosphorus is the nutrient that poses the greatest threat to water quality in Lake Champlain. High phosphorus levels entering the lake produce large algal blooms, reducing water clarity and depleting oxygen supplies, thus affecting fish and wildlife habitat. Missisquoi Bay has one of the highest phosphorus levels in Lake Champlain and nuisance algal conditions nearly half of the time. Businesses have closed beaches and pets have become sick from high blue-green algae levels as conditions worsen each year. Point sources (wastewater treatment and industrial discharges) contribute 20 percent of the phosphorus loading, while nonpoint sources (lawn and garden fertilizers, agricultural and

pet waste, failing septic systems, Normandeau Associates, Inc. and disturbed soils) contribute Spiny softshell turtle in blue green algae 80 percent of the phosphorus bloom on Missisquoi Bay loading (Lake Champlain Steering Committee 2003).

Water quality experts use phosphorus budgets and models to determine the maximum loading capacity in metric tons per year of phosphorus that can enter the bay and still meet the 0.025 mg/l target. That is the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL): the maximum amount (load) of a single pollutant from all contributing point and nonpoint sources that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards. A TMDL is required for Lake Champlain because phosphorus concentrations in many segments of the lake are higher than the levels allowed in the Vermont Water Quality Standards (Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VT DEC) website http://www.vtwaterquality.org/ lakes/htm/lp_phosphorus.htm)

The TMDL assigns a phosphorus load limit to each point source (e.g., wastewater treatment plants in the basin). The TMDL subdivides the nonpoint source load according to the three major land use categories: forest, agriculture, and

4-20 Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementatione Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

developed land. The TMDL requires an overall load reduction of 80 metric tons per year (27 percent) from nonpoint sources in Vermont, relative to the levels measured in 1991.

Practices that reduce or stabilize phosphorus loading include adhering to “Accepted Management Practices (AMPs) for Maintaining Water Quality on Logging Jobs in Vermont” (Vermont Department of Forests, Parks, and Recreation 1987), reducing manure and fertilizer runoff and controlling erosion on farms, protecting streamside buffer areas, and controlling erosion at construction sites, minimizing the creation of new impervious areas. Stream bank and stream channel erosion in unstable rivers represent a potentially enormous source of phosphorus loading in Lake Champlain. The problem arises with all types of land use, including forest, agricultural, and developed land (Smeltzer 2002).

The Missisquoi Refuge can contribute to that overall reduction by continuing to protect or restore riparian vegetation, one of the most effective ways to reduce phosphorus loading. In addition, as described under goal 6, the refuge engages in several partnerships to enhance water quality through changes in land use in the Missisquoi River watershed and in the greater Lake Champlain Basin.

Nuisance, non-native aquatic invasive species are one of the biggest problems in the Lake Champlain Basin. Non-native plants and animals can displace native species, degrade wetlands and other natural communities, and reduce natural diversity and wildlife habitat values. They out-compete native species by dominating light, water, and nutrient resources. The refuge staff is concerned that, once USFWS established, invasive plants are Zebra Mussel on Native Mussels expensive and labor-intensive to eliminate. They are able to establish easily, reproduce prolifically, and disperse readily, making eradication difficult. Preventing new invasions is extremely important in maintaining biological diversity and native plant populations.

For example, water chestnut readily and quickly displaces other aquatic plant species, is of little food value to wildlife, and forms dense mats that change habitat and interfere with recreational activities. The most extensive infestations grow in the southern portion of the lake and on the South River, which is a tributary of the Richelieu River located just south of Montreal. Despite mechanical harvesting and hand pulling since 1982, a water chestnut infestation on the southern part of the lake severely restricts boat traffic and other recreational uses. The Vermont Department of Conservation, Water Resources and the Service recently increased surveys for this aggressive invasive plant near Missisquoi Bay and the refuge. Since 2004, refuge staff and the Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Resources office staff have surveyed those waters by airboat to prevent the plant from gaining a foothold there. They discovered no plants in 2004, but discovered the first occurrence of water chestnut on the refuge on July 28, 2005: 6 to 7 rosettes in a patch of hardstem bulrush just north of the east branch of the Missisquoi River. They removed that single, immature plant before its seeds matured, but that incident proved the importance of intensive surveys.

Other examples of aquatic nuisance species in Lake Champlain include alewife, sea lamprey, zebra mussel, white perch, Eurasian water milfoil, and purple loosestrife.

Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementation 4-21 Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Water milfoil and other invasive aquatic plants are of particular concern at the refuge because they typically displace natural beds of SAV. SAV beds provide crucial foraging habitat for the thousands of waterfowl that use the refuge and the bay during migration. Current research suggests that the sea lamprey was native to the basin. However, the lamprey is considered out of balance with the ecosystem, resulting from improvements in water quality in spawning areas and an increase in one of their host species, the salmon, through stocking.

Strategies Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Inventory and map the distribution and species composition of native SAV

■ Evaluate need for restoration and identify SAV restoration techniques, in addition to invasive species removal

■ Inventory and map the distribution of existing invasive aquatic plants (e.g., water milfoil) among the native SAV

■ Prevent establishment of water chestnut on the Missisquoi Bay and delta by annual monitoring of the shoreline of Missisquoi Bay in mid-summer using an airboat and engage volunteers to monitor other portions of the refuge not accessible by airboat and immediately remove any water chestnut plants that are found

■ Work with partners to develop effective techniques to control invasive Eurasian water milfoil and implement milfoil controls

Objective 1.6 Red Maple-Green Ash Swamp Maintain 243 acres of red maple-green ash swamp and 25 percent (60 acres) as early successional seral stage to provide singing ground, nesting, and foraging habitat for American woodcock, with the remainder in mid- to late-successional stages to sustain this uncommon community type and provide nesting and migration habitat for Neotropical migrant birds, such as rose-breasted grosbeak.

Rationale Two variations of this community type grow on or near the refuge. Red maple and green ash dominate the more mature variation, which grows mostly outside the refuge near the northeast boundary along Dead Creek, and is considered an excellent example of this community type (Vermont Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program 2004). The early successional variation of this community grows south of the old refuge headquarters around Black Creek. Here, slippery elm, alder, silky and red osier dogwoods and white birch abound among the red and silver maple, green ash, and swamp white oak. This swamp is stratified, and has a thick mid-story with an herbaceous layer of cinnamon and ostrich fern (Clews 2002). The refuge historically maintained the 30-acre “Field 8” as a wet meadow until about 1960. Subsequently, it allowed that field to succeed naturally into a young red maple-green ash swamp similar to the adjoining habitat (see maps 4-1 and 4-2).

All known examples of red maple-green ash swamp in Vermont are found in the Champlain Valley, the result of suitable growing conditions—flatter topography, warmer climate, fine-textured soils, and calcium-rich bedrock—compared to other parts of Vermont. Those swamps are characterized by a long period of inundation by spring floods, and by saturated soils the rest of the growing season. High-quality examples of the red maple-green ash swamp community type are uncommon (S3) but not rare in Vermont (Sorenson et al. 2004). Vermont Natural

4-22 Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementatione Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Heritage considers this an excellent example of the community type. This natural community is common on the New York side of the Champlain Valley.

The Missisquoi Refuge has embraced the management of early successional hardwood forests for the benefit of various wildlife species, particularly American woodcock. Other species that will likely benefit include brown thrasher, gray catbird, Canada warbler, black billed cuckoo, rufous- sided towhee, ruffed grouse, wild turkey and white-tailed deer. We propose to maintain a portion of the hardwood species in this plant community, such as birch, alder, green ash, red and silver maple, aspen, and American Woodcock cottonwood, in an early successional stage using equipment such as a Hydro-ax and Brontosaurus. That equipment is designed to cut and mulch small trees, saplings, and brush to create sunlit openings that allow those species to regenerate from root suckers or seed.

Approximately 30 acres of the red maple-green ash habitat on the refuge will be treated using 100 ft wide strips, on a 10-year rotational cycle. We will adjust that cycle, shorter or longer, depending on the response of the woody plants after cutting. Under that schedule, trees should not achieve an age older than 10- 15 years allowing some additional time in the event that growth response is slow on some parcels or operational factors delays treatment. This habitat component complements other forest habitats on the refuge, such as the floodplain forest and other portions of the red maple-green ash swamp that are allowed to mature naturally. The refuge breeding bird surveys indicate high abundance of northern waterthrush and veery in the red maple-green ash swamp habitat, compared to other areas in Vermont. Those species, among others, use the older age classes of the red maple-green ash swamp. We may adjust the proportion managed as early successional habitat based on additional information gathered with conservation partners, including Vermont Natural Heritage.

Strategies Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Establish annual spring singing woodcock counts in the red maple-green ash swamp, Stephen J. Young Marsh/northern hardwoods, and the grassland/ shrub transition along Tabor Road to monitor woodcock response to early successional habitat management

■ Work with Vermont Natural Heritage Program to identify and map areas of ecological significance within the red maple-green ash swamp that should not be actively managed as early successional stages

■ Evaluate and modify the location and extent, as needed, of the current early successional habitat management within this habitat type to benefit woodcock while protecting the ecologically sensitive areas

Objective 1.7 Maquam Bog Maintain the ecological integrity of the approximately 1,000-acre Maquam Bog, including its hydrological conditions, to protect the pitch pine, large population of rhodora, and the state-listed threatened Virginia chain fern.

Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementation 4-23 Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Rationale The 998-acre Maquam Bog, one of Vermont’s largest, contains the state’s largest populations of rhodora, as well as pitch pine and Virginia chain fern, a state-listed threatened species (map 4-1). The center of the bog is about 100 feet above sea level, with an overall hummock-hollow relief of less than 8 inches. A natural gravel berm separates the bog from Maquam Bay to the south;

Charcoal Creek, an old tributary USFWS of the Missisquoi River, defines Maquam Bog the northern border; and the uplands of Hog Island form the western border (Strimbeck 1988). The bog was designated a RNA in 1991. We recognize those plant communities as important components of the region’s native biological diversity, and seek to maintain their health in keeping with the Service “Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health” policy (601 FW 3).

No other peatland in New England grows pitch pine. It is the most abundant tree in the peatland; black spruce and tamarack grow only in two small areas. Pitch pine grows across the bog as scattered individuals and in groups of 10 to 20 trees. Strimbeck (1988) describes how fire and flooding likely combine to promote its establishment and reproduction. Most of the bog is shrub-covered, and has obvious vegetational zonation. Clews (2002) classifies the shrub-sedge zone in the heart of Maquam Bog as mixed shrub sedge bog, one of the largest examples of an ombrotrophic (rain-fed) bog in New England. Virginia chain fern, a rare plant in Vermont, grows here (Clews 2002).

Evidence indicates at least five fires here over the past 120 years, including major fires in 1910, 1949, and 1960. Periodic flooding by lake and river water stimulates the growth of flood-tolerant plants (Strimbeck 1988). Likely, the fire regime maintains the pitch pine-chain fern-rhodora plant community, while the periodic flooding and lack of fire tends to encourage tall, woody vegetation. Some form of prescribed burning may be needed to maintain the diversity of the flora and fauna in the Maquam Bog, although the cyclical disturbance caused by variations in flooding also maintains its habitat diversity. Anecdotal indications are that the bog is shrinking, although we do not know if that is a natural, cyclical process. The bog is now relatively free of invasive species, although purple loosestrife grows at its south end, near Maquam Bay

Short-eared owl and northern harrier, BCR 13 high-priority and moderate priority species, respectively, forage and winter on Maquam Bog, with some evidence of possible breeding. Shrubland-dependent species, including swamp sparrow, common yellowthroat, yellow warbler, and song sparrow, are common breeders in the bog.

The refuge hosted a site walk with two bog ecologists in July 2005. Appendix F provides a summary of that walk.

Strategies Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Develop a management plan for the Maquam Bog RNA. The management plan should include criteria for designation, use objectives and restrictions, management objectives, summary of known information about the bog, and protection objectives and strategies including prescribed fire

4-24 Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementatione Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

■ Monitor for presence of non-native invasive species in the bog and implement control measures as appropriate

Within 5 to 10 years of CCP approval: Identify research partnerships to study the surface topography, hydrology, and fire history of Maquam Bog to guide management of this unique ecosystem

Objective 1.8 Scrub-Shrub Maintain 591 acres of existing scrub-shrub habitat surrounding Maquam Bog, and allow 132 acres of shrubland that emerge as grasslands along the Missisquoi River corridor to succeed naturally to scrub-shrub, as foraging and resting habitat for American woodcock and nesting and migrating habitat for Neotropical birds including willow flycatcher and black-billed cuckoo.

Rationale Historically, the refuge concentrated on migratory waterfowl habitat acquisition and management. We also need to consider other migratory bird populations, and actively manage early successional cover types that provide important life cycle requirements for woodcock and other migratory birds of conservation concern, including black-billed cuckoo, willow flycatcher, eastern kingbird, brown thrasher, blue-winged and golden- winged warblers, eastern towhee, and Canada warbler.

Nearly a dozen species of conservation USFWS concern depend on early successional or Eastern Kingbird shrubland habitat. Golden-winged warbler and sedge wren are two species, among others, that Vermont’s recently completed WAP identifies as “species of greatest conservation need” (VT FWD 2005a). The BCR 13 plan also identifies the willow flycatcher as a priority species (Hartley et al. 2006). All three species inhabit wet shrubland. Golden-winged warblers expanded their range into New England in the late 1800s with the emergence of widespread early successional habitat after farm abandonment. Its populations seem to be retracting as natural forest succession continues, although other issues throughout its range may be contributing to its decline. The Missisquoi Refuge lies at the northern edge of its range, but supports appropriate habitat—dense, brushy areas bordering lowland areas (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001). The state- listed endangered sedge wren occurs in wet meadows, and might occur on the margins of the shrub-grassland interface near Tabor Road. Willow and alder flycatchers use similar wet shrubland habitat, and can be distinguished only by their songs: “fitz-bew” for the willow flycatcher and “fee-bee-o” for the alder flycatcher.

Alders, willows, dogwoods, and birches dominate the shrublands around the Maquam Bog and bordering the Tabor Road fields, and are relatively persistent. The refuge will need to monitor those areas to determine if trees are invading. If so, we will evaluate opportunities to set back succession to retain the shrubland component.

Several of the fields that the refuge now mows to benefit grassland-nesting birds are not supporting them, either because the fields are too small or too isolated. In addition, some of those fields are difficult to maintain as grassland because of the nature of their soils or other site conditions. We will allow them to revert to shrubland. The refuge will monitor that successional change, and further evaluate whether to maintain those new shrublands or allow them to continue to mature

Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementation 4-25 Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

into floodplain forest. Managing small patches as shrubland habitat can be more effective for many of the shrubland-breeding birds than managing such relatively small patches for other habitat types, such as grassland or forest, because of the relatively low patch size sensitivity many shrubland birds exhibit, compared to some of the grassland and forest birds.

The Service developed the “American Woodcock Management Plan” to help stem the decline in American woodcock (USFWS 1990). The number of displaying males was unchanged from 2002 to 2003 in the eastern United States, according to singing-ground surveys. Longer trends show declines of –1.3 percent per year from 1993 to 2003 and –2.3 percent per year from 1968 to 2003. Functional foraging habitat for woodcock occurs on moist, rich soil dominated by dense shrub cover (75 percent to 90 percent); alder is ideal, although young aspen and birch are also suitable as feeding areas and daytime (diurnal) cover. Woodcock require several different habitat conditions very near one another. Those include clearings for courtship (singing grounds), large openings for night roosting, young second growth hardwoods (15 to 30 years) for nesting, brood-rearing, and foraging areas (Sepik et al. 1981, Keppie and Whiting 1994).

Strategies Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Conduct annual spring singing woodcock counts in the managed scrub- shrub habitat to monitor woodcock response to early successional habitat management

■ Maintain existing shrublands using mechanical tree cutting, as needed, to maintain the scrub-shrub habitat structure

■ Allow 132 acres of grassland (fields 1–7) to succeed to shrubland; survey grassland-nesting birds in the southern part of field 4 and field 5 before allowing them to revert to shrubland (see objective 2.3).

Within 5 to 10 years of CCP approval: ■ Implement a breeding bird survey in all the refuge shrublands to monitor for BCR 13 priority bird species

Within 10 to 15 years of CCP approval: ■ Evaluate the new riverine shrubland areas (previously grassland) to determine if we should allow any to succeed naturally to floodplain forest for the benefit of high-priority bird species GOAL 2. Provide diverse upland habitats for Federal trust species including migratory birds and other species of conservation concern in all seasons.

Background The Missisquoi Refuge is a stopover on the migration routes of many bird species. For some, this is a northern breeding area; for others, it is a resting and refueling stop on the way to nesting areas farther north and wintering areas to the south. The refuge is naturally diverse in cover types and species. Although uplands compose only 5 percent of the refuge, those habitats contribute to the diversity of the refuge and support such species of conservation concern as bobolink, eastern meadowlark, and woodcock.

Strategies that apply to all Within 5 Years of CCP approval: the objectives under this ■ Gather existing information on the refuge-administered conservation easements goal and incorporate these easements in land management decisions under the respective habitat objectives

4-26 Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementatione Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

■ Continue to monitor bat and bird activity and response to the wind turbine erected at the new headquarters

Objective 2.1 Dry Oak Upland Forest Maintain the ecological integrity of the 48 acres of oak hardwood islands in the scrub-shrub habitat around the Maquam Bog.

Rationale This dry oak upland forest forms small islands, from 1 to 10 acres in size, in the middle of the alder swamp at the western edge of Maquam Bog (map 4-1). The oaks are mature and form a nearly complete canopy. The transition to this community type is abrupt and follows the border between soil types (Clews 2002). We have not completed a botanical survey in this habitat. However, casual surveys through the forest suggest a high plant diversity unique from the rest of the refuge. Oak regeneration is evident in the understory. These oak forests provide an important food source for the range of resident and migratory wildlife that forage on acorns in the fall.

Strategies ■ Every 5 years, monitor forest vegetation to ensure oak regeneration and evaluate the condition of the canopy forest

Objective 2.2 Northern Hardwood Forest Maintain 49 acres of northern hardwood forest by actively managing 20 acres in early successional seral stages as foraging habitat for American woodcock and the remainder in mid- to late-successional stages for nesting and migrating Neotropical birds such as black-billed cuckoo.

Rationale Northern hardwood forest is the matrix forest type of Vermont, but it is not common on the refuge (map 4-1). This forest requires well-drained soils, and appears in small pockets on upland areas on and around the refuge, primarily in the Steven J. Young marsh. Since 1992, the refuge has maintained a 20-acre portion of the northern hardwoods around the Stephen J. Young Marsh in early successional stands of aspen, birch, alder, and other hardwood species, using a mechanical mowing operation. We use a Hydro-ax (an 8-foot-wide mower attached to the frame of a large pay loader-type chassis) to cut approximately 100-foot-wide strips of varying lengths. The Hydro-ax cuts and chip small softwoods up to 8 inches in diameter and small hardwoods up to 5 to 6 inches in diameter. Cuts are applied on 8- to10-year intervals over a 25- to 30-year cycle so that trees remain in an “early successional” stage. That habitat condition benefits American woodcock, ruffed grouse, white- tailed deer, and many migrating songbirds of conservation concern.

The decision to establish a MAPS station was a mutual effort of Audubon Vermont and the Missisquoi Refuge initiated in 2000. (See chapter 3 for a description of the MAPS program.) Active management of habitats is ongoing in the area where the MAPS station is located. This situation is somewhat contrary to most MAPS stations, where active forest

management is not encouraged during USFWS the 10- to 20-year life of a study area. Hydroax

We believe the information we gather from the MAPS station, although not obtained from a traditional site, may still yield valuable information on

Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementation 4-27 Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

avian wildlife species that depend on very early successional (0–10 yrs), mid successional (10–20 yrs) and late successional (20–30 yrs) seral growth stages. Recording treatment years and comparing the avian response through MAPS data collection may reveal avian species requirements that were not apparent, especially avian response to newly created openings within the patchwork of other age classes.

In addition to potential wildlife information, the MAPS station provides a great opportunity to teach the visiting public about migratory bird anatomy, their habitats and habits. The expertise of many of the volunteer birders helps people better understand and appreciate wildlife, especially birds, and in this MAPS situation, how habitats that are carefully manipulated affect which species are captured, banded and released.

Strategies Continue: ■ Manage the northern hardwoods and habitats surrounding Steven Young Marsh as a mosaic of open field, marsh, shrubland, young forest, and mature forest

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Conduct annual spring singing woodcock counts in Stephen J. Young Marsh/northern hardwoods, the red maple-green ash swamp, and along the grassland/shrub transition along Tabor Road to monitor woodcock response to early successional habitat management

■ Evaluate and update the woodcock management prescriptions in the northern hardwood forest to create quality foraging and breeding habitat, following Sepik et al. (1988)

■ Evaluate the MAPS program and data to determine its value to guiding management decisions and to refuge interpretive programs; if not providing valid data then consider discontinuing.

Objective 2.3 Grassland Reduce the present 338 acres of grassland to 139 acres (“Fields 9, 10, 11,” and the field next to the Stephen J. Young marsh) along Tabor Road, maintaining these high quality grasslands to provide nesting habitat for bobolinks and eastern meadowlark, roosting habitat for American woodcock, and foraging opportunities for such raptors as northern harrier and American kestrel. Evaluate 67 acres (portions of “Fields 4” and “Field 5”) of grassland adjacent to the Missisquoi River for nesting birds before allowing them to revert to shrubland.

Rationale The refuge now manages a dozen fields that vary in their physical (size, shape, and landscape context) and ecological (soil type, drainage, and vegetative structure) characteristics to benefit grassland-dependent wildlife (map 4-2). The largest grasslands on the refuge lie along Tabor Road; several smaller grasslands lie along Route 78 and the Missisquoi River corridor (map 4-1). Grassland bird surveys began on the refuge in 1998 along Tabor Road and in the grasslands along the Missisquoi River. The Tabor Road survey documented a diverse grassland bird community including bobolink, savannah sparrow, eastern meadowlark, red-winged blackbird, red-tailed hawk, and tree swallow.

Grassland-nesting birds are highly area-sensitive, and typically avoid habitat patches below a threshold size, or of highly irregular shape, or within a

4-28 Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementatione Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

landscape lacking other grassland patches, regardless of the ecological condition of the field. Generally, fields less than 20 acres are unsuitable for most obligate grassland-breeding birds, and we should consider other management options. Grassland management is both labor- and resource-intensive. The pace of natural succession is rapid if we leave fields unmowed or unburned. Soil type, moisture regime, and the presence of invasive species influence the quality and rate of woody plant succession in a field. Norment (2002) finds that humans created most of the grasslands in the Northeast: pastures and hayfields dominated by introduced, cool-season grasses; and that those, rather than native, warm-season grasses, provided

the optimal habitat for grassland birds in this USFWS region. Bobolink

The refuge is modifying its grassland management program to maximize benefits for wildlife dependent on that habitat, while shifting some fields to shrubland and floodplain forest conditions that benefit other priority species, including American woodcock, willow flycatcher, and Neotropical migratory songbirds. We will continue to manage the larger grasslands, dominated by cool season grasses, by mowing them after July 15. Much of the private land next to Tabor Road and the refuge is also large hayfields, thus increasing the effective area of the refuge grasslands, although the owners of those private fields mow them earlier in the summer, during the nesting season (USFWS 2005), which is when the hay is a higher quality and suitable for cattle feed.

Strategies Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Allow 132 acres (Fields 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 43 acres of Field 4) of grasslands to naturally revert to shrubland habitat and evaluate site capability for natural succession to floodplain forest

■ By 2007, conduct a breeding marsh bird, waterfowl, and harrier survey of the southern 57 acres of field 4 and the 10 acres of field 5, before changing the management objective from grassland to shrubland

■ Maintain fields 9,10, and 11 and the field around the Stephen J. Young marsh in grassland habitat by mowing after July 15

■ Establish species monitoring transects in the fields (1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 43 acres of Field 4) that are allowed to revert to shrubland to determine wildlife use and evaluate whether to allow them to continue to succeed to floodplain forest

■ Pursue, with partners, opportunities to conserve additional grassland habitat bordering the high-value, refuge grasslands along Tabor Road to maintain landscape conditions conducive to area-sensitive species; a key parcel is already up for sale

Table 4.1 lists the fields we mowed, their size and location, and our proposed management strategies. Map 4-2 shows their location.

Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementation 4-29 Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Table 4.1. Proposed management of current refuge grasslands Field Name Acres Comments Proposed Management Purpose Fields 1 and 2 24 Long and narrow fields Given their proximity to floodplain and Shrubland and riparian along floodplain; seasonally their size and shape, allow them to revert forest-dependent flooded, not used by obligate to shrubland and, potentially, floodplain birds: woodcock, grassland-nesting birds; some forest; monitor vegetation changes over Canada warbler, black- evidence of snipe nesting and time billed cuckoo, wood seasonal use by waterfowl, thrush, rose-breasted although habitat available grosbeak, orchard elsewhere oriole Field 3 13 Long and narrow field south Given their proximity to floodplain and Same as above of the barge slip on the east their size and shape, allow them to revert side of the Missisquoi River; to shrubland and, potentially, floodplain not used by obligate grassland forest; monitor vegetation changes over birds time; continue to maintain the access road that runs through fields 3, 4, and 5 Field 4 100 Northern 43 acres is already Allow northern 43 acres to revert to Same as above reverting to woody growth; shrubland and, potentially, floodplain southern 57 acres still forest. Continue to evaluate southern maintained as grassland but 57 acres as grassland habitat—soil is a mix of reed canary grass types not conducive to maintaining and sedges and not used by in grassland, consider reverting to nesting birds shrubland Field 5 10 A small field south of Manage same as field 4. Same as above the Cranberry Pool dike access trail; only suitable as grassland habitat in combination with adjacent field 4. Field 6 28 Too narrow for grassland- Discontinue haying; allow to revert Same as above nesting birds to natural woody vegetation; ensure management does not increase road mortality of wildlife; adjust management as needed when Rt. 78 is relocated away from the river Field 7 24 Too narrow for grassland- Same as field 6 Same as above nesting birds “Field 8” 30 Until ~1960 kept open as a wet Evaluate this area in partnership with Woodcock, chestnut- meadow; natural succession the NH Natural Heritage and Fish and sided warbler; maintain followed with growth of silver Wildlife to delineate potential exemplary uncommon plant and red maple, green ash, red maple-green ash swamp and best community speckled alder, aspen, and areas for woodcock management. other species; since 1970s and continuing to today openings in the alder were created to benefit woodcock. No longer a field

4-30 Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementatione Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Field Name Acres Comments Proposed Management Purpose Field 9 25 Fields 9, 10, and 11 provide Maintain at least 100 acres of fields 9, 10, Bobolink and best grassland obligate and 11 as large, contiguous grassland woodcock; also, willow nesting cover and also an habitat by mowing annually after July flycatcher, golden- opportunity to manage 15th and document lime and fertilizer winged warbler, and as a mosaic of grassland, applications. Maintain the remaining other shrubland- and shrubland, and wet meadow portion of these fields bordering the grassland-dependent habitat woodland and shrubland that has wildlife already grown up into willows and dogwoods. Use soils map to delineate poorly and somewhat poorly drained soils for shrublands and well-drained and moderately well-drained soils for grasslands Field 10 49 Same as field 9 Same as field 9 Same as field 9 Field 11 54 Same as field 9 Same as field 9 Same as field 9 Field adjacent 11 The Stephen J. Young Maintain the open field near the road Woodcock roosting to Steven J. marsh are along Tabor Road for public viewing and environmental and singing grounds Young Marsh encompasses an 11-acre field, education; continue to manage the 11-acre marsh, and 49 acres of early successional and upland forest for northern hardwoods—20 of woodcock and other species; maintain which are managed as early the impounded marsh as a wildlife successional habitat viewing site CURRENT 368 TOTAL IN GRASSLANDS PLANNED 232 TOTAL IN GRASSLANDS

GOAL 3. Provide high quality education and interpretative programs 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 conserving the Missisquoi River Delta.

The following strategies Within 5 years of CCP approval: apply to all the objectives ■ Hire interns and students (e.g., SCEP students, Eco-Interns) to assist in under this goal. implementing outreach and environmental education and interpretation programs.

■ Open the Visitor Contact Station to public on expanded hours, including weekends

■ Develop interpretive materials to promote the cultural heritage resources of the Missisquoi region

Objective 3.1 Interpretive Programs Beginning in 2008, 90 percent of refuge visitors will be able to identify the refuge’s purpose, name at least one refuge habitat and associated wildlife species of management concern, or know the importance of the Missisquoi Refuge to

Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementation 4-31 Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

the health of the Missisquoi River delta through their experiences at the Visitor Contact Station, by walking refuge trails, or participating in another refuge program.

Rationale The new, 7,250-square-foot Missisquoi Refuge Headquarters/Visitor Contact Station was completed in 2005. It provides opportunities for expanded educational and interpretive displays, programs, and training areas for volunteers and interns. It houses an administrative section that includes offices, storage closets, and conference room, a public use section that includes a 1000-sq-ft. interpretive and educational exhibit area, a cooperating association retail sales area, offices for the Friends of Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge and refuge volunteers, a multipurpose room, public rest-rooms, and an orientation and reception area.

Approximately 38,000 people visit the refuge each year. They include

■ students from pre-K to college,

■ tourists who happen upon the sign on route to other destinations,

■ users of the Northern Forest Canoe Trail and the Lake Champlain Birding Trail, both of which pass through the refuge,

■ local families who frequent the area to fish, hunt, and walk along the nature trails,

■ local conservation groups,

■ wildlife photographers and observers,

■ day-trippers within Vermont,

■ short term vacationers who are in the area for just a day or several weeks who hunt, fish, or walk on the refuge trails,

■ long term vacationers who migrate to summer homes or camps in the area for the duration of the summer and who visit the refuge for fishing and trail use,

■ hunters and fishermen from outside the local area or out of state whose destination is or includes the refuge,

■ commercial tour guides and their customers, and others.

With the opening of the new Visitor Contact Station and exhibits, nearby trails and observation areas, we realistically expect our annual visitation to increase substantially: up to 85,000 visitors over the next 15 years.

The refuge keeps a series of walking trails open to the public year-round, including the Black Creek and Maquam Creek trails, the Mac’s Bend Road from Louie’s Landing to Mac’s Bend, the Stephen J. Young Marsh Trail, the Old Railroad Passage Trail, and the Jeep Trail. We will enhance those trails to provide greater interpretation of wildlife and their habitats and greater accessibility for a broader audience we expect to visit the USFWS refuge (map 4-3). Refuge visitors out on a trail

4-32 Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementatione Map 4-3 Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementation 4-33 Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Strategies Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Evaluate the MAPS program and data to determine its value for refuge interpretive programs and its potential impact on migrating birds

■ Erect a camera on the refuge to enhance wildlife observation for live local television and Internet coverage to compliment Visitor Contact Station exhibits. Choose USFWS site to maximize year-round Refuge visitors reading railhead sign wildlife viewing, minimize visibility of tower – possibly in one of the impoundments

■ Implement an educational campaign to assist users of the refuge public access areas in recognizing and preventing the spread of nuisance and invasive species, such as zebra mussel, Eurasian milfoil, and water chestnut

■ Incorporate information on invasive species and good fishing practices (e.g., alewives illegal as bait fish) into educational materials, including boat ramp kiosks

■ Complete a self-guided walking Discovery Trail at the Visitor Contact Station and build an outdoor classroom in conjunction with the trail, including a platform near the two ponds and benches in the wooded area for educational activities; use appropriated federal highway funds and seek additional funding as needed

■ Complete the self-guided walking trail at the Stephen J. Young Marsh using our YCC crew

■ Develop a demonstration area for “Backyard/Schoolyard Wildlife Habitat” around the Visitor Contact Station, following the National Wildlife Federation program

■ Place a kiosk at the existing parking lot for the Railroad Passage Trail and the Stephen J. Young Marsh Trail, and develop interpretive panels for the kiosk

Within 5 to 10 years of CCP approval: ■ Update existing materials and develop new interpretive materials, including brochures, interpretive panels, kiosks, and exhibits that highlight refuge resources

■ Install trailhead signs at Discovery and Stephen J. Young Marsh trails to match the current design used on Maquam and Black Creek nature trails, Old Railroad Passage trail, and the Jeep trail

■ Develop an American with Disabilities Act (ADA)-accessible new trail (Discovery Trail)

Objective 3.2 Outreach Provide at least 10 opportunities for the local community and visitors to learn about the Missisquoi River Delta ecosystem and the role of the Refuge System in protecting and managing those resources.

4-34 Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementatione Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Rationale The Service is America’s voice for wildlife, speaking for the wild creatures that cannot speak for themselves. To be effective, we must do so in a way that provokes public understanding and support (USFWS National Outreach Strategy). Outreach is two-way communication between the Service and the public to establish mutual understanding, promote involvement, and influence attitudes and actions, with the goal of improving joint stewardship of our natural resources. Communication is essential to the refuge resource mission. Good communication builds understanding, and helps the public make informed decisions about the future of fish and wildlife resources. Marketing research shows a clear correlation between positive awareness and a willingness to act on behalf of a particular product or service.

This objective focuses on achieving such positive awareness for the refuge through better communications. Although the refuge must manage many controversial issues, it also enjoys significant strengths including dedicated staff and volunteers, and strong public interest in fish and wildlife. To meet the refuge challenges and take advantage of its strengths, the strategies under this objective recommend a more unified and strategic communications program that will help the refuge carry out its resource conservation mission. Our approach is to make the most effective use of staff time and resources by focusing our messages into something people can easily understand, and making sure it delivers that message to concerned people in a timely way.

Local businesses that cater to users of the Missisquoi River Delta region are important potential constituents that can help promote responsible, nature-based tourism, provide guidance on the area’s sensitive natural resources, and encourage responsible behavior around sensitive wildlife habitats and populations.

Strategies Continue: ■ Send news releases to local papers and television and radio stations about refuge and wildlife happenings

■ Work with the Vermont Department of Transportation to post a Refuge Informational Sign on I-89

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Display refuge information and post upcoming events at rest stops and welcome centers in Franklin and Grand Isle Counties and secure a set time period each year for a larger refuge display

■ Develop a portable, traveling exhibit that emphasizes the importance of the Missisquoi Refuge. The exhibit will be used for off-refuge festivals and events and displayed at various public buildings

■ Establish a short-range AM radio station for visitors traveling through the refuge on Route 78

■ Enhance the refuge website with more information on refuge biological resources, recreational opportunities, regulations and policies, and the Service and refuge missions

■ Enhance efforts to invite television, newspaper, radio, and other media to major refuge events throughout the year (e.g., International Migratory Bird Day, Wildlife Festival, National Wildlife Refuge Week, Jr. Waterfowl Hunter Training Day, Kids Fishing Derby.)

Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementation 4-35 Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

■ Send refuge information to businesses, chambers of commerce, rest stops, and others that cater to public uses in the Missisquoi River Delta region

■ Develop public outreach with any nest box removal emphasizing the refuge focus on providing high-quality, natural cavities for all cavity-nesting species on both private and public lands

Within 5 to 10 years of CCP approval: Work with local businesses and landowners to promote responsible nature-based tourism by erecting signs and kiosks at off-site boat-launch sites where visitors can access refuge information prior to visiting the refuge from an off-site location

Objective 3.3 Environmental Education Develop three to five key environmental education messages and activities associated with each message about the refuge flora, fauna, habitats and ecosystems that can be used in environmental education programs with local elementary and secondary school teachers, college faculty, and youth group leaders.

Rationale Environmental education is a priority public use identified in the Improvement Act, and 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.

This objective focuses on creating curriculums or other structured programs on and off the refuge with local schools and teachers and other educational programs. Several Swanton and Highgate teachers already have wetland and wildlife habitat topics in their curriculum. The refuge can provide educational material to these teachers, augmenting their existing curriculum, on the importance of the Missisquoi River Delta for waterfowl and wading birds, marsh birds and songbirds, rare freshwater mussels and softshell turtles, and other wildlife and plant communities.

The refuge is a Vermont Envirothon partner, and provides staff to assist with student training and the overall competition. The Envirothon is a program for high school students to learn about their state’s environmental issues related to forestry, wildlife, soils and water resources. The program provides an opportunity for in-class activities and hands-on field experience that culminate each May in a daylong Vermont Envirothon event. Students learn the importance of science-based investigations in helping to resolve environmental issues. More than 400 students from 25 different schools have participated in the Vermont Envirothon since it began here in 1996. Students represent public schools, private schools, home schools, and vocational tech centers.

Ecology Culture History Opportunity (ECHO), at the Leahy Center for Lake Champlain, works with key community partners, including the refuge, to provide an excellent experience at the 2-acre campus on the Burlington waterfront. ECHO educates and infuses people with enthusiasm about the “Ecology, Culture, History, and Opportunities” for stewardship of the Lake

Champlain Basin. The goal is to allow USFWS individuals to develop informed, Refuge volunteers presenting educated decisions to create a better environmental education program at the future for the lake and the basin. ECHO site

4-36 Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementatione Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

The refuge’s Visitor Services Specialist serves as Vermont’s Junior Duck Stamp Coordinator. The Federal Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program is a dynamic, active, art, and science program designed to teach wetlands habitat and waterfowl conservation to students in kindergarten through high school. The program guides students, using scientific and wildlife observation principles, to communicate visually what they have learned through an entry into the Junior Duck Stamp art contest. This non-traditional pairing of subjects brings new interest to both the sciences and the arts. It crosses cultural, ethnic, social, and geographic boundaries to teach greater awareness of our nation’s natural resources.

Preparing for participation in the program often includes a visit to a national wildlife refuge: a prime location for observing our nation’s wildlife, but also for experimentation and hands on experiences. Students are encouraged to include a conservation message on their entry form with their art design that explains something the student has learned about wetlands habitat, conservation or waterfowl.

Strategies Continue: With the help of volunteers participate in educational events such as school conservation and earth day celebrations, ECHO Center programs, Dead Creek Wildlife Day

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Develop three to five key environmental education messages and associated activities about the refuge flora, fauna, habitats and ecosystems

■ Conduct up to 20 educational refuge tours and presentations for school groups, Vermont YCC), scouts, Vermont Audubon, VT FWD, Shelburne Farms, ECHO Center, and other educational groups interested in natural resources and conservation

■ Continue to organize, promote, and host the annual Federal Steve Vittum/USFWS Vermont YCC working at the refuge Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Contest in Vermont and enhance the program by involving many more kids.

■ Actively participate in Vermont Envirothon through refuge staff and volunteers participating on Envirothon committees and formulating test questions, and by volunteers and staff hosting one of the test stations on competition day.

■ Train volunteers to assist in hosting an annual Project Wild teacher’s workshop to enhance coordination and collaboration with area teachers.

Within 5 to 10 years of CCP approval: Train volunteers to work with teachers to adapt existing environmental education curriculums with a focus on refuge wetlands and associated wildlife consistent with Vermont Department of Education standards

Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementation 4-37 Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

GOAL 4. Increase appreciation and stewardship of the Missisquoi River Delta and the Lake Champlain Basin by providing compatible, positive, wildlife-dependent recreation including wildlife observation and photography, hunting, and fishing.

Background The Improvement Act identifies six priority public uses for refuges: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. Fishing and hunting have regionally been identified as the top two priority Areas of Emphasis at the refuge. These two activities will be highlighted above all other priority public uses, resulting in the wise use of staffing and funding resources and enabling the refuge to provide fewer, but higher quality, big six experiences Those are to receive enhanced consideration in refuge planning, and opportunities for visitors to engage in them should be provided to the extent that they are compatible with the Refuge System mission and the purposes of the Missisquoi Refuge. Goal 3 covered environmental education and interpretation. Goal 4 covers the issues and opportunities regarding public access and recreation on the refuge.

The Missisquoi Refuge is popular among hunters, anglers, boaters, and wildlife watchers. Visitors who seek recreational experiences include local residents, U.S. and Canadian tourists, and others. The waters in and around the refuge receive a variety of boating traffic, including kayaks, canoes, anglers, speedboats, airboats, and personal watercraft; some conflicts arise between motorized and non-motorized watercraft. Boating supports the six priority public uses at Missisquoi Refuge by getting people out on the waters which surround the Refuge. Hunting for waterfowl and big game is popular on the refuge. The refuge is becoming increasingly popular for all recreational uses, and is experiencing greater law enforcement challenges, such as illegal access into closed areas, conflicts among user groups, impacts on wildlife and habitats, littering, and other harmful activities. Current interpretative materials

contain messages that address these USFWS challenges. Young Birdwatcher

Refuge regulations state that dogs must be kept under control on a leash no longer than 10 feet. Refuge brochures and signs publish that regulation. Over the years, refuge staff and volunteers have observed visitors violating that regulation. Many of them are repeat offenders. Because of those violations, we are proposing a “no dogs” policy to protect sensitive habitats, wildlife, and visitors from dogs running loose. Problems with unleashed dogs encountered on the refuge include lost dogs, other hikers and their dogs intimidated by unleashed dogs, thus depriving them of a peaceful visit, and harassment and injury to wildlife.

Strategies that apply to all ■ Replace old, outdated, and faded signs (e.g., boundaries, hunt zones, closed the objectives under this areas) using current standard Service signs goal ■ Coordinate with Missisquoi River Basin Association, scout groups, and others to conduct regular clean-up days on the refuge

4-38 Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementatione Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

■ Seasonally post sensitive wildlife areas as closed to public access as needed

■ Whenever possible, utilize interpretive materials, including brochures, interpretive panels, kiosks, and exhibits to inform visitors of refuge rules and regulations

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Implement the new fee program described in the “General Management” section above.

■ Expand public access to a 1-mile stretch of Mac’s Bend Road between Louie’s Landing and Mac’s Bend Boat Launch to vehicles and bicycles from April to December (currently open Sep—Dec). Install an electronic gate that allows entrance from dawn to dusk

■ Enhance gate and signage at Mac’s Bend Launch to ensure pedestrian-only traffic on Jeep Trail

■ Expand visitor counts at boat launch sites, trail heads, and headquarters to determine number of visitors currently accessing the refuge and what activities they are participating in

■ By 2007, institute a no dogs policy on refuge, except where allowed by hunting regulations, for disabilities, or emergencies (currently require dogs on leash)

■ Install locks with timers on public restrooms at Louie’s Landing to keep them open from sunrise to sunset only; if problems persist at the restrooms, then permanently close or consider moving them to Mac’s Bend or other location

■ Compile a list of all commercial tour guides (e.g., canoe, hunting, fishing) using the refuge and require these guides to operate under a Special Use Permit and update the list annually

Within 5 to 10 years of CCP approval: ■ Create partnerships with community-based organizations to adopt specific refuge trails, boat launches, and other areas for cleanup, etc.

Objective 4.1 Wildlife Observation and Photography Within 2 years of CCP approval, at least 80 percent of refuge visitors engaged in wildlife viewing and nature photography will report a high-quality experience.

Rationale The 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation indicates that 496,000 residents and non-residents participated in wildlife watching (i.e., observing, feeding, or photographing) in Vermont in 2001. That group spent more than $203 million on wildlife-watching-related activities and equipment (USFWS 2002).

The refuge facilitates opportunities for wildlife observation and photography through self-guiding nature trails as well as staff- and volunteer-led tours and walks. In 2004, refuge staff and volunteers conducted 40 refuge tours and walks, including bird walks, owl prowls, winter ecology bog walks, boat tours, canoe tours, and woodcock walks, among others. We strive to provide safe, accessible wildlife observation opportunities while protecting wildlife and their habitats at sensitive times and in sensitive places on the refuge. Providing high-quality opportunities for the public to engage in those activities on the refuge promotes visitor appreciation and support for refuge programs.

Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementation 4-39 Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Strategies Continue: ■ Promote walking, cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing on existing refuge trails as a means to facilitate wildlife observation and photography

■ Annually provide 5 to 10 staff- or volunteer-led tours into closed areas to facilitate wildlife observation and photography.

■ Annually provide 30 to 40 staff- or volunteer-led canoe tours, USFWS wildflower walks, and birding Visitor engaging in wildlife photography trips.

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Provide literature on wildlife viewing opportunities at kiosks and other visitor contact facilities

■ By 2007, enhance the end of the Maquam Creek trail by adding an elevated boardwalk and signs

■ Implement the following trail closures (trails will be posted as “Closed”)

Jeep Trail ♦ April 1–August 1 (Nesting Season Closure) ♦ Youth Deer Hunt Weekend (Early November–2 days) ♦ Muzzleloader Season (Early December – 10 days)

Discovery Trail ♦ Regular Season – shotgun and rifle (Mid-November–16 days) ♦ Youth Deer Hunt Weekend ♦ Muzzleloader Season

Old Railroad Trail ♦ Regular Season – shotgun and rifle ♦ Youth Deer Hunt Weekend ♦ Muzzleloader Season

Stephen J. Young Marsh Trail ♦ Regular Season – shotgun and rifle ♦ Youth Deer Hunt Weekend ♦ Muzzleloader Season

■ Implement the following trail advisories (Trails will be posted to advise hikers and users that the area is open to hunting—visitors may proceed with caution)

Jeep Trail ♦ Waterfowl Hunt Season

Discovery Trail ♦ Archery Season (Early October – 23 days) ♦ Upland Game Seasons (includes gray squirrel, rabbit and hare, ruffed grouse)

4-40 Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementatione Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Old Railroad Trail ♦ Archery Season ♦ Upland Game Seasons (includes gray squirrel, rabbit and hare, ruffed grouse)

Stephen J. Young Marsh Trail ♦ Archery Season ♦ Upland Game Seasons (includes gray squirrel, rabbit and hare, ruffed grouse)

Within 5 to 10 years of CCP approval: ■ Shorten the Jeep Trail to end where the trail is close to the river (where the river branches). Place a bench here to identify the end of the trail.

■ On Old Railroad Passage trail construct access (such as a boardwalk) to reach Maquam Bay and to a Maquam Bog overlook in collaboration with the landowner, the VT FWD. At each site erect camouflaged blind, interpretive signs, and bench

Objective 4.2 Hunting Provide hunting opportunities for small game, big game, and waterfowl consistent with sound biological principles and in accordance with the approved Refuge Hunt Plan ensuring that at least 90 percent of hunters have a positive experience.

Rationale The 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation indicates that 100,000 residents and non-residents participated in hunting in Vermont in 2001. That group spent more than $52 million on activities and equipment related to hunting (USFWS 2002). We recognize hunting as a healthy, traditional, outdoor pastime deeply rooted in American heritage and one that, when managed appropriately, can instill a unique understanding and appreciation of wildlife, their behavior, and their habitat needs.

Hunting is a priority public use that when USFWS found compatible will be facilitated. Waterfowl hunter

Approximately 110 people applied for upland/big game hunting permits, and 250 people applied for the waterfowl lottery hunt on the refuge in 2004. We permit hunting on the refuge in compliance with a hunt program that we adjust annually to ensure safety and good wildlife management (maps 4-4 and 4-5). In addition, the refuge manager will expand the review process for the annual hunt plan to include the evaluation of lands that are now closed but may have the potential to accommodate safe hunting. We support hunting opportunities that can accommodate hunting biologically, ecologically, and safely within state and federal guidelines. The refuge is proposing to discontinue woodcock and snipe hunting in the delta lakeshore area due to the lack of birds utilizing that habitat type and opening up the Stephen J. Young Marsh area, west of Tabor Rd., to woodcock and snipe hunting since this area supports early successional species including woodcock and snipe at harvestable levels. The refuge provides details on its annual hunt programs in refuge brochures, 2005 Upland Game/ Big Game Hunting Map, Regulations and Permit; and Migratory Game Bird Hunting Map and Regulations.

Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementation 4-41 Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Map 4-4

4-42 Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementatione Map 4-5 Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementation 4-43 Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Providing a high-quality hunt on the refuge promotes visitor appreciation and support for refuge programs. According to our draft policy on hunting on national wildlife refuges, issued in the January 16, 2001 Federal Register, 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 USFWS designed to increase the advantage Vermont State Game Warden on patrol of the hunter over wildlife; on refuge waters 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.

A $10 big game permit fee was initiated in 1999 to help defer the administrative costs of the hunt program and to be consistent with hunt permit fees at other refuges in the northeast region. The permit fee has resulted in a slight increase in the number of returned bag reports due to the reporting requirement on the permit stating that failure to complete and return bag report by December 31 will result in denial of the permit for the following year.

The refuge is proposing a no-dog policy except for disabilities, emergencies, waterfowl hunting, and, as appropriate, for upland game hunting. We encourage the use of retrieving dogs for waterfowl hunting and require their use for hunting waterfowl in the following areas on the refuge: Maquam Swamp Area, Long Marsh channel/Metcalfe Island, and Saxes Pothole/Creek and Shad Island Pothole (see map 4-4). Retrievers are able to recover birds that otherwise might be lost. Their instinctive ability to scent crippled or dead birds in heavy cover and their ability to move through heavy cover and negotiate muddy conditions allows them to get to the bird faster, thus reducing crippling and allowing them to retrieve down and dead birds for the hunter.

Strategies Continue: ■ Work with Vermont Game Wardens to patrol the refuge, particularly during hunting season to ensure hunter safety, provide contact information, and enforce compliance with State and Federal regulations

■ Collect a fee for big game permits and require hunters to return harvest data by December 31. Any hunter who does not return a harvest report is subject to suspension of a big game permit the following year

4-44 Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementatione Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

■ Collect a permit fee for waterfowl blinds and require hunters to return bag reports.

■ Evaluate the success of blinds after each waterfowl season and change blind locations as necessary to maintain high quality hunting opportunities.

■ Provide Junior Waterfowl Hunting Areas to young hunters 12 to 15 years of age who have completed refuge-sponsored Junior Waterfowl Hunter program

■ Post information at off-site hunter information kiosks at public boat launch areas for those hunters accessing the refuge from these areas

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ By 2007, hire a Law Enforcement officer (GS 7/9) to increase law enforcement presence during hunting seasons, ensure hunter safety, and monitor compliance

■ Institute a lottery permit system for deer hunting on the delta (including both sides of the river) to alleviate hunter conflicts and to increase the quality of the hunt.”

■ Increase public knowledge of safety zones around trails during hunting seasons by erecting more signs and including information on kiosks

■ Annually post the refuge boundary earlier, by June 1, to prevent duck hunters from placing blind stakes within the refuge boundary

■ Explore opportunities to expand the number of blinds sites within existing hunt areas and in new areas such as Burton’s Pothole (i.e., 3-4 blinds for 2 days/week)

■ Develop opportunities for seniors to hunt waterfowl on the refuge, such as a Senior Hunt day, using the Junior Hunt blind sites

■ Maintain and update a database to record and track blind sites and their use, water conditions, payments, and harvest information. Post that information on the refuge website

■ Discontinue woodcock and snipe hunts in the delta lakeshore area

■ Open the Stephen J. Young Marsh area, west of Tabor Road, to woodcock and snipe hunting

■ Consider opening Burton’s Pothole for late bow/muzzleloader season

■ Expand current opportunities for juniors and disabled big game hunters (e.g., open closed areas or expand seasons such as Cranberry Pool for late (Dec) bow season)

■ By 2007, improve the quality and size of waterfowl maps and identify blind sites in maps, in brochures, and on display boards

■ Develop a big game hunter education program

Within 5 to 10 years of CCP approval: ■ Expand current adult waterfowl hunter orientation day to an adult waterfowl hunter training program (similar to the junior waterfowl hunter training program)

Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementation 4-45 Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Objective 4.3 Fishing Provide opportunities for fishing on the refuge in a manner that minimizes conflicts between fishing and biological resources, particularly nesting birds, and that ensures at least 75 percent of anglers have a positive experience.

Rationale The 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation indicates that 171,000 residents and non-residents participated in fishing in Vermont in 2001. That group spent more than $92 million on activities and equipment related to fishing in Vermont (USFWS 2002).

Refuge visitors may fish from the banks of the Missisquoi River. Fishing is also allowed from a boat on the Missisquoi River and Lake Champlain in areas that are not posted as closed to public access (map 4-6). Fishing access is available to disabled individuals at Louie’s Landing. We strive to provide fishing opportunities while protecting wildlife habitats at sensitive times USFWS and in sensitive places on Refuge Manager helping a young fisherman bait the refuge. Some studies his hook at the annual Kid’s Fishing Derby and anecdotal information indicate fishing and other boating-related activities may create some level of disturbance (see objective 4.4, “Boating,” on the potential impacts of boating on turtles).

We define a high quality fishing program as one that

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 public that visits, or potentially would visit, the refuge; 5) provides reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities to participate in refuge fishing activities; 6) reflects positively on the Refuge System; 7) provides uncrowded conditions; 8) creates minimal conflict with other priority, wildlife-dependent recreational uses or refuge operations; 9) provides reasonable challenges and harvest opportunities; and 10) increases visitor understanding and appreciation for the fishery resource.

Strategies Continue: Support National Fishing Week by hosting a Kids Fishing Derby each June.

Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ By 2006, hire law enforcement officer to increase patrol of fishing areas to more closely regulate illegal fishing along the marsh channel and other closed areas and to prevent disturbance to nesting birds (same position as Objective 4.2).

4-46 Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementatione Map 4-6 Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementation 4-47 Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

■ Explore additional ways to increase land based fishing opportunities by emphasizing access and facility development that is biologically and ecologically compatible with refuge objectives; opening Mac’s Bend Road in April and the Rt. 78 realignment will provide opportunities.

■ Explore opportunities to expand handicapped access fishing opportunities.

■ Annually post the entrance to Long Marsh Channel as soon as possible after ice-out with Refuge “Area Closed” sings to prevent disturbance to waterfowl and ospreys from anglers

■ Consider closing Long Marsh Bay to fishing year-round or seasonally to prevent disturbance to migratory birds

Objective 4.4 Boating Beginning in 2008, at least 50 percent of boaters on the Missisquoi River, its tributaries, and around the lakeshore will receive information on the refuge role in conserving migratory birds and their habitats and the importance of the Missisquoi Refuge for the health of the Missisquoi River Delta and their (the boaters’) role in respecting those resources.

Boating is allowed on the Missisquoi River and Lake Champlain and often facilitates the six wildlife-dependent recreational uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation) as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Since Missisquoi Refuge is comprised mainly of wetlands, a boat is one of the best ways to see its many habitats and wildlife. Many people visit the refuge by boat specifically for the purpose of wildlife observation and photography, while others visit by boat because of the outstanding fishing and waterfowl hunting opportunities offered.

A boat launch at Louie’s Landing is open year-round as open water permits. A second boat ramp, on Mac’s Bend Road, is open from September to November. Boating is allowed on the Missisquoi River and Lake Champlain. Parts of the refuge are closed to boaters to protect wildlife habitat. The waters in and around the refuge receive

a variety of boating traffic, USFWS including kayaks, canoes, fishing Canoeing on the Refuge boats, speedboats, airboats, and personal watercraft. The Coast Guard has the authority to control boating on the river. The refuge is concerned about the effects of these activities on stream bank erosion, basking turtles, freshwater mussels, the heron rookery and other wildlife, and potential conflicts among user groups.

In 2001, the Service conducted a study of eastern spiny softshell turtle response to boat traffic on the Missisquoi River. The researchers reported disturbances to basking turtles: 92 percent of the disturbances were from boat traffic, and approximately 40 percent of the time, those disturbances resulted in the turtles leaving their basking site. The researchers found no major differences between turtle responses to motorized and non-motorized boats; however, boats of moderate speed seem to have the least impact. Fast-moving motorized boats

4-48 Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementatione Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

washed turtles from their basking sites by creating high wakes or generating enough noise to disturb them. Slow-moving boats stay in the area longer, and often are associated with jerky motions such as paddling or fishing. The moderate-speed boats appear to move through more quickly, quietly, and with fewer jerky, physical movements, thus causing fewer disturbances of basking turtles (Meyer 2001).

Strategies Within 5 years of CCP approval: ■ Develop canoe/kayak route brochure and post route signs at mouth of Dead Creek and east branch of the Missisquoi River to guide boaters

■ Work with the Coast Guard/Homeland Security and the State of Vermont on enforcement issues on the refuge, including the Missisquoi River

■ Provide educational brochure to boaters and anglers on how to minimize the impact of boating on the environment at boat launches and kiosks, include this information in other refuge brochures, and provide to user groups such as tour operators and boat rental businesses

Within 5 to 10 years of CCP approval: ■ Develop a new canoe/kayak access point at the proposed Casey pull-off to be created when Rt. 78 is realigned, to provide better access to Dead Creek

■ Explore the possibility of allowing the Friends group or a concessionaire to provide canoe/kayak rentals

■ Partner with research institution to study the intensity and types of boating and impacts on the Missisquoi River and refuge wildlife and habitats GOAL 5. Preserve the cultural and historical resources on the refuge for current and future generations and to sustain an appreciation of the past.

Background The Missisquoi Refuge and the adjacent communities of Swanton and Highgate are areas of great historical and cultural significance. Three archaeological surveys on the refuge (Thomas and Robinson 1979, Corey et al 2002, Doherty et al. 2002) discovered 34 archeological sites. Thirteen of those are prehistoric sites; most of the rest are historic farmsteads or other historic buildings. The entire refuge has not been surveyed for additional historical resources. The Missisquoi River Delta is considered to contain some of the richest archaeological deposits in the northeast (Thomas and Robinson 1979).

More than 50,000 archaeological artifacts found on the refuge are on long- term loan and curation at UMaine in Farmington and at UVM. Some are stored at the Regional Office in Hadley, Massachusetts. No centralized location in Vermont currently meets federal standards for curation to house the entire collection of artifacts. Given the dispersed location of the repositories across New England, the artifacts are not readily accessible to researchers or for educational purposes.

Most recently, UMaine at Farmington, USFWS under a contract with the Vermont Archaeological survey on Route 78

Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementation 4-49 Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Agency of Transportation (VTrans), initiated archaeological work along Route 78, from just west of Swanton into the refuge approximately 1 mile in anticipation of safety and environmental improvements to this roadway. See appendix H for more on the VTrans study of Route 78. Their findings complement earlier work underscoring the importance and use of the refuge area by native peoples going back 8,000 years.

Objective 5.1 Cultural Resource Conservation Protect all the known cultural and historical sites on the refuge (currently 34) in compliance with the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, the Native American Graves Protection & Repatriation Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act.

Rationale More than 50,000 archaeological artifacts have been excavated from the refuge. The Service is interested in finding ways to make those artifacts more available for education and research. The Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979 reinforces the responsibility of federal land managers to safeguard cultural and historic resources on lands they administer. The refuge lacks a cultural resources overview and a comprehensive cultural resources management plan outlining strategies for protecting, interpreting, and investigating its cultural resources.

Given the shifting nature of the Missisquoi River and its tributaries and increased erosion, the likelihood of cultural resources being displaced and lost along the riverbanks is high. In addition, people may be collecting artifacts from eroding banks along the river, without documenting the sites or the artifacts. That issue extends beyond refuge boundaries, as residents are concerned about similar losses or disturbance of cultural resources in the Monument Road area across the river and upstream from the refuge.

In 2001, a landowner started building a new home on Monument Road. That portion of the road lies in the Town of Highgate, right next to the Missisquoi River, approximately a quarter-mile upstream of the refuge, in an area known to contain Native American cultural resources. The landowner had acquired the necessary permits from the local and state governments.

The excavation for the foundation unearthed what appeared to be Native American remains. A heated exchange quickly ensued between the landowner and representatives of the local Native American tribe, the Abenaki Nation of Missisquoi, who were present in anticipation of just such a happenstance. The landowner wished to continue construction after the removal of the remains, while the Abenaki Nation of Missisquoi desired a cease and desist action to retain the sanctity of a sacred site.

After receiving no assurance from the landowner or local authorities that construction would cease, the Abenaki Nation of Missisquoi chose to barricade Monument Road at its intersection with U.S. Route 7, approximately 1 mile distant from the excavation. Their action prevented access to the site by the contractor, and required anyone else attempting to pass onto Monument Road to prove the need to do so to the Abenaki Nation of Missisquoi. Local law enforcement officials are credited with carefully handling the sensitive incident: no arrests or citations followed.

After more discussions, the Abenaki Nation of Missisquoi removed their barricade after several days, and the landowner agreed to work with state and local officials to protect the site from further development. Similar sites

4-50 Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementatione Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

are known in the surrounding area, and the Abenaki Nation of Missisquoi sought protection for all of them, rather than having to react every time private landowners tried to develop their land.

One response to this conflict was to establish the Monument Road Working Group to seek a solution. The group initially included local representatives of the Swanton and Highgate governments, the Abenaki Nation of Missisquoi, the State Historic Preservation Office, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, affected landowners, and Senator Patrick Leahy’s office. After the initial meeting, Senator Leahy’s office asked the refuge manager to attend the meetings and work with the group to determine if it would be appropriate for the refuge to protect some of the sensitive areas and associated cultural resources, while at the same time accomplishing its objectives to protect wildlife and habitat.

Plans resulted to protect approximately 30 acres along Monument Road suspected of harboring cultural resources. The acquisition of that land by the refuge is underway. Additional lands with valuable habitat for migratory birds and Neotropical migratory birds that lie between the 30 acres and the existing refuge boundary are also slated for eventual acquisition and addition to the refuge.

Archaeological artifacts may yield information about the biological community on the refuge in the past. Given sufficient resources, existing archaeological samples could be evaluated for their potential to yield historical information on mussels, turtles, birds, and other wildlife. Therefore, these historical resources could eventually be linked to the refuge biological goals and objectives.

Strategies Continue: ■ Conduct patrols at all known cultural and historical sites on a regular basis to inspect for and prevent illegal activity

■ Continue and enhance communication and cooperation between the refuge manager and the local Abenaki Nation of Missisquoi tribe to share their knowledge of sites that have spiritual or historical importance to the Abenaki Nation of Missisquoi.

■ Continue to serve on Monument Road Working Group to protect additional cultural resource sites

Within 5 to 10 years of CCP approval: ■ Complete a cultural resources overview with subsurface survey and a comprehensive literature review of past archaeological, anthropological, and historical investigations within and near the refuge. Utilize the resources of the UVM library, the UVM Department of Archaeology, UMaine to compile the reference material

■ Develop and implement a cultural resources management plan to protect identified cultural and historical sites in consultation with Service Archaeologists, the State Historic Preservation Office, Native American tribes, and the professional archeological community

■ Train refuge field staff in the requirements of ARPA for implementing the Vermont Archaeological and Historical Resources Protection Protocol (Shattuck 1996).

■ Establish a monitoring program to assess bank erosion along the Missisquoi River and document (including mapping) impacts to cultural resources

Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementation 4-51 Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

■ Conduct law enforcement patrols at all known archeological sites and any new sites on the refuge

■ Engage the Abenaki Nation of Missisquoi in assisting with monitoring some of the sensitive sites on the refuge with assistance from the Regional Office cultural resource staff to train monitors

■ Evaluate the feasibility of examining existing unexpended archaeological samples for potential to yield information on past presence of various wildlife species on the refuge.

Objective 5.2 Cultural Resource Interpretation Increase recognition and appreciation of the area’s cultural heritage resources through education and interpretation at the Visitor Contact Station and with community partners, and by making cultural resources found on the refuge more available to researchers and educators.

Rationale Four groups of peoples lived in Vermont prior to European arrival—Paleo- Indians, the Archaic, the Woodland, and the Abenaki Nation of Missisquoi. For thousands of years those native people relied on their surrounding environment for their survival: growing crops, hunting, fishing, and gathering fruits and nuts. The Abenaki Nation of Missisquoi were the people living in Vermont when the Europeans arrived around the year 1600. At that time, the Abenaki population in the Champlain Valley is estimated at 4,000 people. The western Abenaki continue as an important and active part of the Swanton community, home to the Abenaki Tribal Headquarters and Museum and the Missisquoi Refuge.

The new Visitor Contact Station includes an exhibit to promote an appreciation of the value of the cultural heritage resources of the Missisquoi region as a vital aspect of the area’s economic and community life. The refuge and surrounding area have a rich human history dating back thousands of years. Pottery shards, arrowheads, and spear points unearthed by archaeologists on the refuge are evidence that indigenous people inhabited today’s Missisquoi Refuge lands at least 6,800 years ago. As more archaeological artifacts are discovered and documented and more of the history and pre-history of the area is uncovered, the refuge will continue to update and expand its cultural exhibits.

Strategies Within 5 to 10 years of CCP approval: ■ Enhance cultural resources interpretive display at the Visitor Contact Station as new information becomes available

■ Explore opportunities with the Abenaki Nation of Missisquoi in Swanton to lend artifacts found on the refuge to them for interpretation

GOAL 6. Foster cooperative partnerships and actions to promote fish and wildlife conservation in the Lake Champlain Basin and Missisquoi River Watershed.

Objective 6.1 Landscape-Scale Conservation Collaborate with conservation partners to advance landscape-scale or watershed- scale projects that benefit the Lake Champlain basin ecosystem and associated fish and wildlife species.

4-52 Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementatione Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Rationale A wealth of local, regional, national, and international organizations and agencies are active in the Lake Champlain Basin. This underscores the breadth and complexity of management issues facing this region and the great interest among people to come together to solve problems and promote benefits. The management issues in the Missisquoi River Watershed and in the Lake Champlain Basin affect the fish, wildlife, and habitats of the Missisquoi Refuge as well and must be addressed in any refuge planning and management decisions.

The refuge is engaged in many partnerships and proposes to expand its collaborations to advance the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats. The Service’s Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Resources Office in Essex Junction, Vermont is a key partner in conducting ecological surveys and monitoring on the refuge and in Missisquoi Bay. Refuge staff are participating in the Missisquoi River Watershed planning initiative, working to improve water quality of the river as it flows through the refuge.

DU is an international organization with projects in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Several refuge management issues require international cooperation such as hunting regulations, or management of species such as the spiny softshell turtle that lives in Missisquoi Bay on both side of the international boundary line. The refuge has benefited from DU’s assistance with funding and expertise in creating the Stephen Young Marsh impoundment, replacing the Cranberry Pool water control structure, and rehabilitating the Goose Bay Dike.

Strategies Continue: ■ Continue refuge participation in the USFWS Lake Champlain Ecosystem Team

Within 1 year of CCP implementation: ■ With partners, conduct an analysis of lands along the shore of Lake Champlain and adjacent to the refuge to determine the value for Service trust resources, the need for protection, and the proposed level of Service involvement in a future protection effort. Prepare a Conservation Proposal for consideration by the Director.

■ If the Conservation Proposal is approved, develop (with partners) a land protection plan and environmental assessment to propose the level of Service involvement to insure the long term protection of lands in the Lake Champlain Basin near the refuge, that provide outstanding habitats for federal trust resources.

■ If the land protection plan and EA propose Service acquisition and are approved, work collaboratively with partners to implement the land protection plan by supporting projects, building public support, providing funding from both the LWCF and the MBCF, and identifying alternative funding sources.

Within 5 years of CCP implementation: ■ Strengthen partnership (staffing, funding, expertise) between Missisquoi Refuge and the Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Resources Office to enhance outreach within the northern Vermont Lake Champlain region

■ Utilize the collective knowledge from the Lake Champlain Ecosystem Team, Lake Champlain Basin Program, BCR North American Waterfowl Management Program (NAWMP), and other partners to identify land protection needs in the Lake Champlain Basin

Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementation 4-53 Implementation, Monitoring, and Revision

■ Work with partners to identify high-priority areas in the watershed and utilize the USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife program and other initiatives to contact and work with landowners willing to restore habitats and prevent or minimize runoff and degradation on their lands to protect the Missisquoi River Delta and the Lake Champlain Basin

■ Enhance work with partners to foster international cooperation for resource protection

Within 10 years of CCP implementation: Work with partners (Missisquoi River Basin Association, Friends of Missisquoi River, and others) and the Missisquoi River Watershed Planning initiative to identify specific areas in the watershed that contribute heavy sediment and phosphorus loads and work to reduce sedimentation and phosphorus loading into Missisquoi Bay. Implementation, Monitoring, and Revision

Refuge Funding Needs Successful implementation of the CCP relies on our ability to secure funding, personnel, infrastructure, and other resources to accomplish the actions identified. CCP’s detail certain levels of program planning that are sometimes substantially above our 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. The recommended projects and their recurring costs, such as staff salaries, are listed and prioritized in the Refuge Operations Needs Systems (RONS) database (appendix I). We also identify new projects that we will include in the RONS database with the next annual update. Also, in that appendix, maintenance and equipment needs are prioritized in the Service Asset Maintenance Management System Database (SAMMS). The source of funding for those projects and salaries primarily comes from Refuge Operations dollars.

We will seek funds for refuge public use, parking lots, bridges, restrooms, and trails from the Refuge Roads Program (RRP), a Federal Lands Highway Program that Congress funded through the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (P.L. 109–59; 119 STAT. 1144). Those funds can also be used for interpretive enhancements associated with the projects, as long as the costs for the interpretive facilities do not exceed 5 percent of the project budget. RRP funds can be used as the non-federal match for FHA funds available through state departments of transportation. Refuges can use appropriated Service funds as the non-federal match for those funds, as well. That matching ability can be used to further city, county, and state transportation and transit funds for projects that benefit the refuge.

Staffing the Refuge We will always ensure that visitors have a safe visit, engage in approved, compatible activities, and understand and adhere to refuge regulations. To accomplish that includes maintaining refuge boundary signs and continuing to make visitor contacts and conduct outreach and law enforcement. If RONS funding is not available, we will continue to seek alternate means of accomplishing our projects: for example, through volunteers, challenge cost share grants or other partnership grants, and interns.

4-54 Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementatione Implementation, Monitoring, and Revision

Monitoring and Evaluation Monitoring and evaluating the implementation of this CCP will occur at two levels. The first level, which we refer to as implementation monitoring, responds to the question, “Did we do what we said we would do, when we said we would do it?”

The second level of monitoring, which we refer to as effectiveness monitoring, responds to the question, “Are actions we proposed effective in achieving the results we had hoped for?” Or, in other words, “Are the actions leading us toward our vision, goals, and objectives?” Effectiveness monitoring evaluates an individual action, a suite of actions, or an entire resource program. This approach is more analytical in evaluating management effects on species, populations, habitats, refuge visitors, ecosystem integrity, or the socioeconomic environment. More often, the criteria to monitor and evaluate these management effects will be established in step-down, individual project, or cooperator plans, or through the research program. The Inventory and Monitoring Plan will be based on the needs and priorities identified in the HMP.

Adaptive Management Adaptive management strategies keep the CCP relevant and current through scientific research and management. We acknowledge that our information on species and ecosystems is incomplete, provisional, and subject to change as our knowledge base improves. The need for adaptive management is all the more compelling today.

“The earth’s ecosystems are being modified in new ways and at faster rates than at any other time in their nearly 4 billion year history. These new and rapid changes present significant challenges to our ability to predict the inherently uncertain responses and behaviors of ecosystems.” (Christensen, et al. 1996)

Climate plays a significant role in the geographic distribution of ecosystems and wildlife, and most scientists agree that global climate change is already affecting some ecosystems. “Global temperatures increased by over 1°F in the past century and are projected to increase 2.5–10.4°F by 2100 as a result of human emissions of greenhouse gases” (Parmesan and Galbraith 2004). Some recent shifts in wildlife populations are attributed to changing climate conditions, and those impacts are projected to increase. Changes in temperature and precipitation will affect biological diversity, including national wildlife refuges, and challenge land managers.

Our objectives and strategies must be adaptable in responding to new information and spatial and temporal changes. We will continually evaluate our management actions, both formally and informally, through monitoring or research, to reconsider whether their original assumptions and predictions are still valid. In that way, management becomes an active process of learning what really works. Public understanding and appreciation of the adaptive nature of natural resource management is most important, especially in light of the potential large-scale impacts of global climate change. The refuge manager is responsible for changing management actions if they do not produce the desired conditions. Significant changes may warrant additional NEPA analysis. Minor changes will not, but we will document them in annual monitoring or project evaluation reports or in our Annual Narrative Report.

Plan Amendment and The CCP for Missisquoi Refuge is meant to provide guidance to refuge managers Revision and staff over the next 15 years. Periodic review of the CCP will be required

Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementation 4-55 Implementation, Monitoring, and Revision

to ensure that objectives are being met and management actions are being implemented. Ongoing monitoring and evaluation will be an important part of this process. The results of that monitoring or new information may indicate the need to change our strategies. Likewise, many of the strategies are dependent upon Service funding for staff and projects. Revisions will be necessary if significant new information becomes available, ecological conditions change, major Refuge expansions occur, or we identify the need to do so during a program review. At a minimum, the CCP will be fully revised every 15 years. We will modify the CCP documents and associated management activities as needed; following the procedures outlined in Service policy and NEPA requirements. Minor revisions that meet the criteria for categorical exclusions (550 FW 3.3 C) will require only an environmental action memoramdum.

4-56 Chapter 4. Management Direction and Implementatione Glossary USFWS Hardwood forest

Glossary and Acronyms Glossary

Glossary adaptive management a process in which projects are implemented within a framework of scientifically driven experiments to test predictions and assumptions outlined within the comprehensive conservation plan. The analysis of the outcome of project implementation helps managers determine whether current management should continue as is or whether it should be modified to achieve desired conditions. abiotic a physical feature of the environment such as climate, temperature, geology, soils aquatic growing in, living in, or dependent upon water. alternative a set of objectives and strategies needed to achieve refuge goals and the desired future condition. approved acquisition a project boundary that the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service boundary approves upon completion of the planning and environmental compliance process. An approved acquisition boundary only designates those lands that 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 basin the surrounding land that drains into a water body. best management practice land management practices that produce desired results (usually describing forestry or agricultural practices effective in reducing non-point source pollution. biological diversity the variety of life forms and its processes, including the variety of living organisms, 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 natural biological processes that shape genomes, organisms, and communities. bird conservation region ecologically distinct regions in North America with similar bird communities, habitats, and resource management issues. bog soggy, moist, spongy, or otherwise wet areas with peat soils—the partially or incompletely decomposed remains of dead plants and some animals. A type of peatland. categorical exclusion a category of Federal agency actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. compatible use a wildlife-dependent recreational use, or any other use on a refuge that will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the Service or the purposes of the refuge. compatibility determinations a required determination for wildlife-dependent recreational uses or any public uses of a refuge.

Comprehensive a document that describes the desired future conditions of the refuge, and Conservation Plan specifies management direction to achieve refuge goals and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. community a distinct assemblage of plants that develops on sites characterized by particular climates and soils, and the species and populations of wild animals that depend on the plants for food, cover and/or nesting. Glossary and Acronyms Glos-1

Glossary

conservation easement a legal agreement between a landowner and a land trust or governmental agency that permanently limits some uses of a property to protect its conservation values.

cool-season grass introduced grass for crop and pastureland that grows in spring and fall and is dormant during hot summer months.

cover-type the current vegetation of an area.

critical habitat according to U.S. Federal Law, the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend.

delta a low, flat are of land built up by layers of sediment deposited when the flow of a river is slowed as it enters a lake or ocean. A “bird’s foot delta is one that is formed in the shape of a bird’s foot.

distributary a river that branches off from a major river before it reaches the sea or a lake, particularly a river delta.

early successional habitat Succession is the gradual replacement of one plant community by another. In a forested ecosystem, tree cover can be temporarily displaced by natural or human disturbance (e.g., flooding by beaver, or logging). The open environments created by removal of tree cover are referred to as ‘early-successional’ habitats because as time passes, trees will return. The open conditions occur ‘early’ in the sequence of plant communities that follow disturbance.

ecological succession the orderly progression of an area through time in the absence of disturbance from one vegetative community to another.

ecosystem a dynamic and interrelated complex of plant and animal communities and their associated non-living environment.

ecosystem approach a strategy or plan to protect and restore the natural function, structure, and species composition of an ecosystem, recognizing that all components are interrelated.

ecosystem services a benefit or service provided free by an ecosystem or by the environment, such as clean water, flood mitigation, or groundwater recharge.

emergent wetland wetlands dominated by erect, rooted, herbaceous plants.

endangered species any species of plant or animal defined through the Endangered Species Act as being in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and published in the FederalRegister.

Environmental Assessment a systematic analysis to determine if proposed actions would result in a significant effect on the quality of the environment.

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.

exotic species a species that is not native to an area and has been introduced intentionally or unintentionally by humans.

extinction the termination of existence of a lineage of organisms (e.g., a subspecies or species.

extirpation the localized extinction of a species that is no longer found in a locality or country, but still exists elsewhere in the world.

Federal-listed species a species listed either as endangered, threatened, or species at risk (formerly a “candidate” species) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.

Glos-2 Glossary and Acronyms Glossary 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. fragmentation the process of reducing the size and connectivity of habitat patches. The disruption of extensive habitats into isolated and small patches. geographic information system a computer system capable of storing and manipulating spatial mapping data. goals descriptive statements of desired future conditions. historic conditions the composition, structure, and functioning of ecosystems resulting from natural processes that we believe, based on sound professional judgment, were present prior to substantial human-related changes to the landscape. impoundment a body of water, such as a pond, confined by a dam, dike, floodgate, or other barrier, that is used to collect and hold water. interjurisdictional fi sh populations of fish that are managed by two or more State or national or tribal governments because of the scope of their geographic distributions or migrations. invasive species a non-native species whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. issue any unsettled matter that requires a management decision. For example, a resource management problem, concern, a threat to natural resources, a conflict in uses, or in the presence of an undesirable resource condition. jump shooting walking with or without a dog to flush waterfowl from the marsh before shooting (as opposed to sitting and waiting in a blind and shooting waterfowl as they fly in to decoys set on the marsh). limiting factor an environmental limitation that prevents further population growth.

National Wildlife all lands, waters, and interests therein administered by the U.S. Fish and Refuge System Wildlife Service as wildlife refuges, wildlife ranges, wildlife management areas, waterfowl production areas, and other areas for the protection and conservation of fish, wildlife and plant resources

Neotropical migratory bird a bird species that breeds north of the United States/Mexico border migrate and winters primarily south of the U.S. border in Mexico, the West Indies, or Central or South America. nonpoint 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. nuisance species plants and animals (sometimes called nonnatives or exotics) that threaten the Lake Champlain Basin’s native fish, wildlife, and plants and impede recreational activities. objectives actions to be accomplished to achieve a desired outcome or goal. Objectives are more specific, and generally more measurable, than goals. peatland a type of wetland with organic or peat soils--the partially or incompletely decomposed remains of dead plants and some animals. physiographic area a bird conservation planning unit with relatively uniform vegetative communities, bird populations, and species assemblages, as well as land use and conservation issues, developed by Partners in Flight. point source pollution a source of pollution that involves discharge of waste from an identifiable point, such as a smokestack or sewage-treatment plant.

Glossary and Acronyms Glos-3

Glossary

preferred alternative the Service’s selected alternative identified in the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

prescribed fi re the application of fire to wildland fuels, either by natural or intentional ignition, to achieve identified land use objectives.

restoration management of a disturbed or degraded habitat that results in the recovery of its original state (e.g., restoration may involve planting native species, removing invasive shrubs, prescribed burning).

riparian area habitat along the banks of a stream, river, or wetland.

riverine within the active channel of a river or stream.

scoping a process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed by a comprehensive conservation plan and for identifying the significant issues. Involved in the scoping process are federal, state and local agencies; private organizations; and individuals.

species a distinctive kind of plant or animal having distinguishable characteristics, and that can interbreed and produce young. In taxonomy, a category of biological classification that refers to one or more populations of similar organisms that can reproduce with each other but is reproductively isolated from – that is, incapable of interbreeding with – all other kinds of organisms.

stopover habitat habitat where birds rest and feed during migration.

strategies a general approach or specific actions to achieve objectives.

terrestrial living on land (in the uplands)

threatened species those plant or animal species likely to become endangered species throughout all of or a significant portion of their range within the foreseeable future. A plant or animal identified and defined in accordance with the 1973 Endangered Species Act and published in the Federal Register.

trust resources national resources entrusted by Congress to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for conservation and protection. These “trust resources” include migratory birds, federal-listed endangered and threatened species, inter-jurisdictional fishes, wetlands, and certain marine mammals.

vernal pool depressions holding water for a temporary period in spring and other high water periods, and in which several species of amphibians lay eggs.

warm-season grass native prairie grass that grows the most during the summer, when cool-season grasses are dormant.

watershed The geographic area within which water drains into a particular river, stream, or other water body.

Wilderness Area An area designated by Congress as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System

wilderness study area Lands and waters identified by inventory as meeting the definition of wilderness and being evaluated for a recommendation that they be included in the Wilderness System.

wildlife-dependent recreation A use of a Refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, or interpretation. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 specifies that these are the six priority general public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Glos-4 Glossary and Acronyms Acronyms

Acronyms ACRONYM FULL NAME

ADA American with Disabilities Act

ACJV Atlantic Coast Joint Venture

AMP’s Accepted Management Practices

ARPA Archaeological Resource Protection Act

ATV All-terrain vehicle

BMP best management practice

BCR Bird Conservation Region

BBS Breeding Bird Survey

CWS Canadian Wildlife Service

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan

CWCS Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy

DU Ducks Unlimited

EA Environmental Assessment

ECHO Ecology Culture History Opportunity

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

Fee Demo Program Recreation Fee Demonstration Program

GIS Geographic Information System

HIP Harvest Information Program

HMP Habitat Management Plan

IBA Important Bird Area

Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997

LCBP Lake Champlain Basin Program

LCSC Lake Champlain Steering Committee

LE law enforcement

LPP Land Protection Plan

MANEM Mid-Atlantic/New England/Maritimes (Waterbird Conservation Plan)

MAPS Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship

MSL mean sea level

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MRBA Missisquoi River Basin Association

Glossary and Acronyms Glos-5

Acronyms

ACRONYM FULL NAME

MAPS Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NWR National Wildlife Refuge

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service

NABCI North American Bird Conservation Initiative

NAWMP North American Waterfowl Management Plan

PCB’s polychlorinated biphenyls

PIF Partners in Flight

Refuge System National Wildlife Refuge System

RNA Research Natural Area

RONS Refuge Operations Needs System

SAV submerged aquatic vegetation

Service US. Fish and Wildlife Service

SCEP Student Career Experience Program

TNC The Nancy Conservancy

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

US DOI U.S. Department of the Interior

US EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

UMaine University of Maine

UVM University of Vermont

VT ANR Vermont Agency of Natural Resources

VT DEC Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation

VT DFW Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department

VTrans Vermont Agency of Transportation

WAP Wildlife Action Plan

WIA wilderness inventory area

WSA wilderness study area

WMA Wildlife Management Area

YCC Youth Conservation Corps

Glos-6 Glossary and Acronyms Bibliography USFWS Stephen J. Young Marsh

Bibliography Bibliography

Bibliography Adams, E. S. 1975. Effects of lead and hydrocarbons from snowmobile exhaust on brook trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 104 (2): 363-73.

American Farmland Trust. 2002. The economic importance of agriculture: a profile of Addison and Franklin Counties, Vermont. American Farmland Trust, Sarasota Springs, New York.

Bluewater Network. “Top Five Snowmobile Myths.” (http://bluewaternetwork.org/reports/rep_pl_snow_myths.pdf)

Boggess, E.K., G.R. Batcheller, R.G. Linscombe, J.W. Greer, M. Novak, S.B. Linhart, D.W. Erickson, A.W. Todd, D.C. Juve, and D.A. Wade. 1990. Traps, trapping, and furbearer management. Wildlife Society Technical Review 90-1, The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Brown, S., C. Hickey, B. Harrington, and R. Gill, editors. 2001. United States shorebird conservation plan. Second edition. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, Massachusetts.

Bury, R.L. 1978. Impacts of snowmobiles on wildlife. Transactions of the North American Wildlife Natural Resources Conference 43: 149-156.

Calloway, Colin G. 1990 The Western Abenakis of Vermont, 1600-1800. The Civilization of the American Indian Series, University of Oklahoma Press. Norman and London.

Cessford, G. 1995. Off-road impacts of mountain bikes: A review and discussion. Department of Conservation Publication, Wellington, New Zealand.

Chapman, D.H. 1937. Late-glacial and postglacial history of the Champlain valley: American Journal of Science, Volume 34, Number 200, New Haven, Connecticut.

Chrisman, Kevin J.1981. The Lower Missisquoi River Region: an archaeological investigation. Department of Anthropology, University of Vermont, Burligton, Vermont. On file at Vermont Division for Historic Preservation, Montpelier, Vermont.

Ciaranca, M.A., C.C. Allin, and G.S. Jones. 1997. Mute Swan (Cygnus olor). In The Birds of North America, No. 273 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

Clark, K.E., and L.J. Niles. 2000. Northern Atlantic regional shorebird plan. Endangered and Nongame Species Program, New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife, Woodbine, New Jersey.

Clews, C. 2002. From floodplain forest to pitch pine woodland bog: a landscape inventory and analysis of the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge, Swanton, Vermont. University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont.

Corey, R.P., E.C. Kitson, S.R. Scharoun, J.A. Reed, R.N. Bartone, and E.R. Cowie. 2002. Archaeological phase I survey and archaeological phase II testing of the shift/off alignment and the on-alignment portions of the Vermont Route 78 Swanton Project NH 036-1(9), Swanton, Franklin County, Vermont. Archaeological Research Center, Department of Social Sciences and Business, University of Maine, Farmington, Maine. Prepared for the Vermont Agency of Transportation.

Bibliography Bibl-1 Bibliography

Cowie, Ellen R. 2005. Personal communication.

DeGraaf, R.M., and M. Yamasaki. 2001. New England wildlife: habitat, natural history, and distribution. University Press of New England, Hanover, New Hampshire.

DeSante, D.F., K.M. Burton, P. Velez, and D. Froehlich. 2005. MAPS manual: 2005 protocol. The Institute for Bird Populations, Point Reyes Station, California.

Dincauze, Dena Ferran 1976. The Neville site 8,000 years at Amoskeag. Peabody Museum Monographs Number 4, Harvard University. Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Doherty, P., G. Mandel, and J.B. Petersen. 2002. Phase I site identification survey for proposed electric line, Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge, Swanton, Franklin County, Vermont. Consulting Archaeology Program, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont. Report Number 252 submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, Massachusetts.

Einarson, M.D. 2002. Impacts to South Lake Tahoe water supply wells resulting from non-point sources of MTBE. California Groundwater Resources Association.

Ferguson, Mark. Personal Communication. Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Fernald, M.I. 1940. A Century of Additions to the Flora of Virginia. Rhodora 42 (502-504): 355-416, 419-498 and 503-521.

Fernald, M.I. 1941. Another Century of Additions to the Flora of Virginia. Rhodora 43 (514-516): 485-553, 559-630 and 635-657.

Fichtel, C. and D.G. Smith. 1995. The freshwater mussels of Vermont Nongame & Natural Heritage Program. Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department Technical Report 18, Leahy Press, Montpelier, Vermont

Fillon, R.H. 1970. Sedimentation and recent geologic history of the Missisquoi Delta. Master’s Thesis, Department of Geology, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont.

Hammitt, W. E. and Cole, D. N. 1998. Wildland Recreation. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 361pp.

Hartley, et al. Draft 2006. Bird Conservation Plan for the Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain, Bird Conservation Region 13. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, Massachusetts.

Harvill, A.M., T.R. Bradley, C.E. Stevens, T.F. Wiebolt, D.M.E. Ware, and D.W. Ogle. 1986. Atlas of the Virginia Flora. Virginia Botanical Associates. Second Edition. 135 pp.

Hight, S., and J.S. Wilson 1997. Archaeological survey for storage building construction, Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge, Town of Highgate, Franklin County, Vermont. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Hadley, Massachusetts.

Bibl-2 Bibliography Bibliography

International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 1998. Best Management Practices for trapping furbearers in the United States. International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Washington, D.C.

Jackson, E.L., and R.A.G. Wong. 1982. Perceived conflict between urban cross- country skiers and snowmobilers in Alberta. Journal of Leisure Research. 14(2):47 – 62.

Jarvinen, J.A., and W.D. Schmid. 1971. Snowmobile use and winter mortality of small mammals. In Chubb, M. (ed.) Proceedings of the Snowmobile and Off the Road Vehicle Research Symposium. College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Recreation Resources and Planning Unit, Tech. Rep. 8, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Kart, J., R. Regan, S.R. Darling, C. Alexander, K. Cox, M. Ferguson, S. Parren, K. Royar, B. Popp, editors. 2005. Vermont’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department. Waterbury, Vermont. www.vtfishandwildlife.com

Keppie, D.M., and R.M. Whiting, Jr. 1994. American woodcock (Scolopax minor). In: Poole, A.; Gill F. (editors). The birds of North America. No. 100. Philadelphia Academy of Sciences, Washington D.C.: American Ornithologists’ Union.

Knepper, D.A., J.B. Wright and L.J. Musselman. 1991. In Proceedings of the Back Bay Ecological Symposium. Dept. of Biological Sciences, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA. Pages 215-221)

Kushlan, J.A., M.J. Steinkamp, K.C. Parsons, J. Capp, M.A. Cruz, M. Coulter, I. Davidson, L. Dickson, N. Edelson, R. Elliot, R.M. Erwin, S. Hatch, S. Kress, R. Milko, S. Miller, K. Mills, R. Paul, R. Phillips, J.E. Saliva, B. Sydeman, J. Trapp, J. Wheeler, and K. Wohl. 2002. Waterbird conservation for the Americas: The North American waterbird conservation plan, version 1. Waterbird Conservation for the Americas. Washington, D.C.

Kuss, F. R. 1986. A review of major factors influencing plant responses to recreation impacts. Environmental Management. 10:638-650.

Lake Champlain Steering Committee. 2003. Opportunities for action: an evolving plan for the Lake Champlain Basin. Lake Champlain Basin Program, Grand Isle, Vermont.

Lyttle, Madeleine. Unpublished data provided to the Refuge. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Marangelo, P. 1999. The freshwater mussels of the Lower Missisquoi River: current status and the potential for a refugium from zebra mussel impacts. Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation Biomonitoring and Aquatic Studies Unit, Location

Mayr, E. 1963. Populations, Species and Evolution. Belknap Press. Cambridge. pp. 453.

McCollough, M., C. Todd, B. Swartz, P. deMaynadier, and H. Givens. 2003. Maine’s endangered and threatened wildlife. Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Augusta, Maine.

Bibliography Bibl-3 Bibliography

Meyer, W.M. 2001. A study of the response of eastern spiny softshell turtle to boat traffic in the Missisquoi River of northern Vermont. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Essex Junction, Vermont.

Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge. 2005. Environmental assessment: wind turbine, Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge, Swanton, Vermont.

Moorehead, W.K. 1922. A report on the archaeology of Maine. Andover Press, Andover, Massachusetts.

National Weather Service. Average lake levels. http://www.erh.noaa.gov/er/btv/lake/1972-1998avglklevel.jpg.

Neumann, P.W., and H.G. Merriam. 1972. Ecological effects of snowmobiles. The Canadian Field Naturalist. 86:207-212.

Northeast Furbearer Resources Technical Committee. 1996. Trapping and furbearer management: perspectives from the Northeast. 33pp.

Norment, C. 2002. On grassland bird conservation in the northeast. The Auk, 119:271–279.

Pinkney, A.E., S.K. Krest, L. Eaton-Poole, and D.R. Sutherland. 2005. Investigation of abnormalities in frogs on region 5 National Wildlife Refuges: 2004 year end report. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Annapolis, Maryland.

Priest and Dewing. A field inventory September 1977, and published in 1989 (City of Virginia Beach Marsh Inventory. Vol.3. Back Bay and Tributaries). The abstract of a related article presented at the Back Bay Ecological Symposium in November 1990, and published in June 1991

Rosenberg, K. V. 2000. Partners in flight bird conservation plan for The St. Lawrence plain (physiographic area 18). American Bird Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia.

Rupprecht, C.E., C.A. Hanlon, H. Koprowski, and A.N. Hamir. 1992a. Oral wildlife rabies vaccination: development of a recombinant virus vaccine. Trans. 57th N.A. Wildl. & Nat. Res. Conf. 439-452.

Sepik, G.F., R.B. Owen, and M.W. Coulter. 1981. A landowner’s guide to woodcock management in the northeast. Maine Acgricultural Experiment Station, University of Maine, Orono, Maine.

Settle, F.H. and Schwab, D.J., 1991, Waterfowl trends in Back Bay, Virginia, from 1954 to 1990, in Proceedings of the Back Bay Ecological Symposium edited by Marshall, H.G. and Norman, M.D.

Shambaugh, N. 2001. 2000 Marsh bird monitoring activities in Vermont. Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife, Waterbury, Vermont.

Shambaugh, N. 2002. 2002 Black Tern Population Survey and other marsh bird monitoring activities in Vermont. Unpupl. Report to the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife. Waterbury, VT. http://vt.audubon.org/blackTern.html

Shattuck, G.G. 1996. Vermont Archaeological and Historical Resources Protection Protocol. Office of U.S. Attorney, Rutland, Vermont.

Bibl-4 Bibliography Bibliography

Simmons, D.G. and Cessford, G.R. 1989. The St James Walkway Study. Occasional Paper No.1. Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand. in Cessford, G. 1995. Off- road impacts of mountain bikes: A review and discussion. Department of Conservation Publication, Wellington, New Zealand. Smeltzer, E. 2002. Fact sheet Lake Champlain Phosphorus TMDL. Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, Waterbury, Vermont.

Sorenson, E.R., M. Lapin, B. Engstrom, and R. Popp. 1998. Floodplain forests of Vermont: some sites of ecological significance. Vermont Nongame and Natural Heritage Program, Agency of Natural Resources, Waterbury, Vermont.

Sorenson, E., R. Popp, M. Lew-Smith, B. Engstrom, M. Lapin, and M. Ferguson. 2004. Hardwood swamps of Vermont: distribution, ecology, classification, and some sites of ecological significance. Nongame and Natural Heritage Program, Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department, Agency of Natural Resources Waterbury, Vermont.

Strimbeck, G.R. 1988. Fire, flood, and famine: pattern and process in a lakeside bog. University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont.

Thomas, P.A., and B. Robinson. 1979. Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge: a cultural resource survey. Department of Anthropology, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont.

Thompson, E.H., and E.R. Sorenson. 2000. Wetland, woodland, wildlife: a guide to the natural communities of Vermont. University Press of New England, Hanover, New Hampshire.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. “Environmental Impacts of Newly Regulated Nonroad Engines.” http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/2002/f02033.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Annual report on air quality in New England. Office of Environmental Measurement and Evaluation, North Chelmsford, Massachusetts. http://www.epa.gov/region1/oeme/Annual-Report-2004.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .1987. Fire Management Plan, Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. American woodcock management plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Fulfilling the promise: the national wildlife refuge system. U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2000. 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

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. 2001 national survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Bibliography Bibl-5 Bibliography

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. 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.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Biological review of the Refuges in the Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, Massachusetts.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian Wildlife Service. 1986. North American waterfowl management plan: a strategy for cooperation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. and Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian Wildlife Service. 2004. North American waterfowl management plan: strengthening the biological foundation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. and Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2003. 2001 national survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation. Washington, D.C.

Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. 2005a. Lake Champlain long-term monitoring. http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/cfm/champlain/lakedata_results.cfm.

Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. 2005b. Missisquoi Bay watershed planning. http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/planning/htm/pl_missisquoi.htm

Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. 2005c. Lake Champlain Phosphorus TMDL. http://www.vtwaterquality.org/lakes/htm/lp_phosphorus.htm

Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife Department. 2005a. Vermont’s Wildlife Action Plan. Agency of Natural Resources, Waterbury, Vermont.

Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife Department. 2005b. Position regarding the removal of mute swans from lands and waters of the State of Vermont. Position Statement, Agency of Natural Resources, Waterbury Vermont.

Vermont Department of Forests, Parks, and Recreation. 1987. Accepted management practices (AMPs) for maintaining water quality on logging jobs in Vermont. Waterbury, Vermont.

Vermont Land Trust. 2000. Unpublished data provided to the Refuge.

Vermont Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program. 2004. Significant hardwood swamps of Vermont. Agency of Natural Resources, Waterbury, Vermont.

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 1996. Deer Management Plan. Richmond, Virginia.

Bibl-6 Bibliography Appendix A USFWS Heron Rookery at Shad Island

Special Designation Areas ■ Introduction ■ Wilderness Inventory ■ Inventory Criteria ■ Inventory Conclusions for Mainland Areas ■ Evaluation of Roadless Requirement ■ Evaluation of Naturalness Requirement ■ Evaluation of Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation ■ Evaluation of Supplemental Values ■ Inventory Conclusions for Islands ■ Other Special Designations Special Designation Areas Introduction

As part of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) process for Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge (Missisquoi Refuge, the refuge), we completed a Wilderness Review, evaluating all Refuge land for its wilderness potential. During the process, much Refuge land was evaluated for the first time and land that had previously been evaluated for its wilderness potential was reevaluated.

A wilderness review of the refuge was completed in 1974. This review, based on refuge management needs and public input at the time, proposed that Shad Island and the portion of the Refuge from the East Branch of the Missisquoi River to Martindale Point (labeled Shad Island Area on map A-1) be designated wilderness under the Wilderness Act. The proposal has been neither accepted nor rejected, but, for over 30 years, has been pending decision by Congress.

Since 1974, the refuge and its surrounding area have changed. Therefore, in order to determine whether the area still meets the spirit and the intent of the Wilderness Act, we reevaluated the original proposed area for wilderness potential along with the rest of the refuge lands.

Wilderness Inventory

The wilderness review process involved three phases: inventory, study, and recommendation. The purposes of the wilderness inventory phase are:

• to identify areas of National Wildlife Refuge System (System) lands and waters with wilderness character and establish these areas as Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) • to identify areas of System lands and waters that do not qualify as WSAs • to document the inventory findings for the planning record

Inventory Criteria

WSAs are areas that meet the criteria for wilderness identified in the Wilderness Act. Section 2(c) of the Act provides the following definition.

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 defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, 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 unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make

Appendix A. Special Designation Areas A-1

Special Designation Areas

practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.

Permanent roads are prohibited in wilderness under Section 4(c) of the Act, so WSAs must also be roadless. For the purposes of the wilderness inventory, a “roadless area” is defined 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 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.”

In summary, the inventory to identify WSAs is based on an assessment of the following criteria: absence of roads (roadless); size; naturalness; and either outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation.

We initially divided Missisquoi Refuge into six separate blocks bordered by major roads or bodies of water that are not owned in fee title, which we tentatively called Wilderness Inventory Areas (WIAs) (map A-1). Because the four mainland blocks of Missisquoi Refuge average 1,334 acres with the largest, Maquam Bog, measuring about 2,435 acres, we first assessed wilderness potential of refuge land based on the size criterion. The size criterion is satisfied for areas under Service jurisdiction in the following situations:

• An area with over 5,000 contiguous acres (2,000 ha). State and private land inholdings are not included in calculating acreage

• A roadless island of any size. A roadless island is defined as a roadless area that is surrounded by permanent waters or that is markedly distinguished from surrounding lands by topographical or ecological features such as precipices, canyons, thickets, or swamps

• An area of less than 5,000 contiguous acres that is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition, and of a size suitable for wilderness management

• An area of less than 5,000 contiguous acres that is contiguous with a designated wilderness, recommended wilderness, or area of other Federal lands under wilderness review by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), or National Park Service (NPS)

. Inventory Conclusions for Mainland Areas

As shown in the following table, none of the mainland WIAs in the Missisquoi Refuge is large enough to meet the size criteria for a WSA. Metcalfe and Shad Islands will be considered separately (see attachments A-1 and A-2 for wilderness worksheets).

A-2 Appendix A. Special Designation Areas Map A-1 Special Designation Areas

Appendix A. Special Designation Areas A-3

Special Designation Areas

Table A- 1. Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness Inventory Area Acreages

Wilderness Inventory Area (WIA) Size (In Acres) Maquam Bog 2434.76 Acres Cranberry Pool 713.93 Acres Big Marsh Slough 1227.53 Acres Long Marsh 960.92 Acres Metcalfe Island 199.36 Acres Shad Island Area 598.78 Acres

* All Wilderness Inventory Areas are in fee title ownership.

As islands are not subject to the same size criterion as mainland WIAs, we assessed the wilderness potential for the Metcalfe Island and Shad Island WIAs according to the other criteria set forth in the Wilderness Act. To be considered for wilderness designation, an island must be roadless, appear natural, and provide outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation. Other supplemental values are evaluated, but not required. We describe our application of the wilderness criteria to the island WIAs in the following sections.

Evaluation of Roadless Requirement

Shad Island Area The total acreage of the Shad Island proposal in 1974 was 620 acres. Modern mapping tools determine that the area is 599 acres. The proposal includes the Shad Island Research Natural Area, refuge land east of the East Branch of the Missisquoi River from the northernmost tip of land south to, and including, Martindale Point and the shoreline of Lake Champlain along the Goose Bay Pool Dike to Dead Creek. This area is a relatively long, but narrow parcel. Peripheral areas are used heavily by motorboaters and paddlers and those users are not under the jurisdiction of the Service while on adjacent waters. Their use and presence will be apparent and obvious to visitors to the Shad Island area most of the time, thereby violating the desired wilderness character of the area.

The area is not roadless, but it has no improved roads. Several miles of unimproved dirt and gravel roads have been maintained by the Service since the early 1960’s to provide access to and maintenance of habitats and improvements such as the Goose Bay Pool Dike and the Cranberry Pool Dike, and for prescribed fire application, wildfire fighting, and search and rescue missions.

This wetland complex is part of the delta system where the Missisquoi River flows into Lake Champlain. It is accessible only by boat in the warmer months or by foot or snowmachine in the frozen months. There is high public use of the bay and river in all seasons by fishermen, boaters, hunters, and birdwatchers, in motorized and non-motorized watercraft. The waters where these activities occur, for the most part, are not under the jurisdiction of the Service except within the mean low water line (93.055’ msl), thus the control of these activities on those waters does not lie with the Service.

A-4 Appendix A. Special Designation Areas Special Designation Areas

No other wilderness areas are proximate to lands in this proposal, although some adjacent refuge lands are undeveloped. Other refuge lands contain improvements that have been necessary for refuge wildlife and wildlife habitat management programs, such as dikes, water control structures, barge slips, equipment storage facilities, artificial nesting structures and their associated predator guards, and unimproved roads.

Metcalfe Island Metcalfe Island contains no improved roads. Public hunting is allowed in the pothole. Motorboats are used for access to the island.

The total acreage of the Metcalfe Island proposal is 199 acres. Metcalfe Island is located near the end of the Missisquoi River delta, where the river flows into Lake Champlain. It is accessible only by boat during the warm season. It is bounded on the east by the main branch of the Missisquoi River, on the south by the west branch, and on the north by Lake Champlain.

This wetland is part of the delta system where the Missisquoi River flows into Lake Champlain. It is accessible by boat in the warmer months or by foot or snowmachine in the frozen months. There is high public use of Lake Champlain and the Missisquoi River in all seasons by fishermen, boaters, hunters, and birdwatchers, in motorized and non-motorized watercraft. These waters are not under the jurisdiction of the Service except within the mean low water line (93.055’ msl).

Evaluation of the Naturalness Requirement

Shad Island Area Shad Island and most of the area east and south of Shad Island included in the proposal, does appear to be affected primarily by the forces of nature. However, there is also significant noticeable evidence of man’s work in the form of the Goose Bay Pool dike and associated water control structures. While the structures themselves are clearly not natural, activities essential to their maintenance in the future would further violate the naturalness criterion. The use of heavy equipment and tools is required periodically to maintain dikes and water control structures. Fire control and application equipment are also necessary to maintain habitats by periodically conducting prescribed burns in the area. Mechanical control of invasive species will likely be required in the future on portions of this area to preserve native species. This habitat management and maintenance is needed to benefit the thousands of migratory birds and waterfowl that use the area each year. Managing the area as wilderness prohibits these activities and will contradict the purposes for which the refuge was established.

The ability of the Shad Island area to meet the naturalness requirement is further undermined by the presence of the village of Highgate Springs. Highgate Springs is built on the eastern shore of Missisquoi Bay, approximately 1.5 miles across the Bay from, and easily seen from, the entire lakeshore portion of the lands within this proposal. During the decades since the original wilderness proposal, the population of Highgate Springs has markedly increased, and today the Shad Island visitor in search of wilderness has instead a viewshed of development across the Bay. Likewise, there are few times when motorboats are not seen or heard in Missisquoi Bay which abuts the lands within this proposal. So while the proposed lands appear to be in a natural state, the adjacent waters and nearby lands do not, thereby violating the sense of naturalness.

Appendix A. Special Designation Areas A-5

Special Designation Areas

Other apparent signs of man include the annual accumulation of debris that lodges throughout the island during the annual spring flooding of the river. These materials are washed downriver either through carelessness or intentionally and lodge in the exposed vegetation on the otherwise flooded island. Debris includes cans and bottles of all shapes, sizes and colors, 55 gallon polypropylene barrels, 5 gallon buckets, small propane tanks, rubber or plastic toys, tires, lumber, etc., essentially any riverside debris that floats. Other than the largest items or potential hazardous items, no attempt is made to clean this up every year as it is a monumental job and is identical to conditions on all other islands of the delta. As the annual vegetation grows it does “hide” these materials somewhat, and many of these items deteriorate over time, but they are an unfortunate eyesore and vivid reminder of man’s presence and impact on the area.

Additionally, as indicated above, hunters, fishermen, and other motorboating recreationists are regularly and frequently present in the waters of Lake Champlain and the Missisquoi River around this island. The island is not of sufficient size or shape to isolate visitors from the sounds of these surrounding activities, which further diminishes the wilderness experience. Although an area may not be considered unnatural in appearance solely on the basis of the “sights and sounds” of human impacts and activities outside its boundary, the presence of the dike and water structures in the WIA, the accumulation of debris and with obvious nearby development and heavy use of the contiguous waters disallow the conclusion that human impacts on the Shad Island Area are “substantially unnoticeable in the unit as a whole,” as required by the Wilderness Act, Section 2 (c).

This island is not open to public use except to waterfowl and deer hunting in the fall. Otherwise, it is closed to entry to provide undisturbed habitat for migrating and nesting waterfowl, great blue herons, other marsh and wading birds, and neotropical migratory birds.

Metcalfe Island Metcalfe Island is located at the mouth of the Missisquoi River. There is little evidence of any past human activity. A closer look may reveal the remains of a camp that was destroyed by fire in 1976. Improvements on this parcel include minor features such as wood duck nesting boxes, an artificial nesting platform for ospreys and an occasional sign for directing hunters.

Other apparent signs of man include the annual accumulation of debris that lodges throughout the island during the annual spring flooding of the river. These materials are washed downriver either through carelessness or intentionally and lodge in the exposed vegetation on the otherwise flooded island. Debris includes cans and bottles of all shapes, sizes and colors, 55 gallon polypropylene barrels, 5 gallon buckets, small propane tanks, rubber or plastic toys, tires, lumber, etc., essentially any riverside debris that floats. Other than the largest items or potential hazardous items, no attempt is made to clean this up every year as it is a monumental job and is identical to conditions on all other islands of the delta. As the annual vegetation grows it does “hide” these materials somewhat, and many of these items deteriorate over time, but they are an unfortunate eyesore and vivid reminder of man’s presence and impact on the area.

A-6 Appendix A. Special Designation Areas Special Designation Areas

Additionally, as indicated above, hunters, fishermen, and other motorboating recreationists are regularly and frequently present in the waters of Lake Champlain and the Missisquoi River around this island. The island is not of sufficient size to isolate visitors from the sounds of these surrounding activities, which further diminishes the wilderness experience.

This island is not open to public use except to limited and controlled hunting during portions of the 60-day waterfowl hunting season in the fall, during the 2-day firearms youth hunt for deer, and the 7-day primitive weapons hunt for deer. It is closed to entry to provide undisturbed habitat for migrating and nesting waterfowl, great blue herons, other marsh and wading birds, and neotropical migratory birds.

Evaluation of Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation

Shad Island Area This area is closed to public entry except during the hunting seasons or for occasional special staff or trained-volunteer guided events. When open to public use, opportunities for solitude do exist on portions of this area, although those occurrences are always of limited duration due to disturbance by motorboats or snow machines, depending on the season of the year. These disruptive activities occur on Lake Champlain around the entire perimeter of the refuge and on the Missisquoi River within the refuge where the Service does not have the authority to control or regulate those uses.

Likewise, opportunities for primitive and unconfined priority public uses are limited for the same reasons.

The area does not provide outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined priority public uses, rather the opportunities are rare and infrequent.

Metcalfe Island Opportunities for solitude do exist on portions of this area, although those occurrences are always of limited duration due to disturbance by motorboats or snow machines depending on the season of the year. These activities occur on Lake Champlain around the entire perimeter of the refuge and on the Missisquoi River within the refuge, and are beyond the jurisdictional control of the Service.

Likewise, opportunities for primitive and unconfined priority public uses are limited for the same reasons. This area is closed to public use during the waterfowl nesting season and brood rearing season, from ice-out until the onset of hunting seasons in the fall.

Appendix A. Special Designation Areas A-7

Special Designation Areas Evaluation of Supplemental Values

Shad Island Area

Supplemental values are defined by the Wilderness Act as “...ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historic value.” These values, though not required for wilderness designation, are numerous and are documented in Chapter 3: Affected Environment of the CCP.

The entire Missisquoi River delta, of which the proposed lands are a portion, is a special geological feature. Known as a bird’s foot delta, it has a characteristic shape that is relatively rare on this scale in the United States.

Likewise, the delta has significant historic and cultural value due to its long use and occupation by Native Americans and early Europeans, and its prominence during the French and Indian War and Revolutionary War eras.

Shad Island has been the site of a significant great blue heron rookery for almost 60 years and at the turn of the century was touted as the largest great blue heron rookery in New England. While still a significant and impressive natural feature, the rookery now experiences years of boom and bust and is outdone by the nearby Valcour Island Rookery on the New York side of Lake Champlain south of Plattsburgh.

The delta has long been and still is the most significant migratory waterfowl stopover in the northern Lake Champlain portion of the Atlantic flyway. Thousands of migratory waterfowl stop to rest and feed in the rich marshes of the delta as they travel along the flyway. This attraction to waterfowl results in a similar attraction to the area by waterfowl hunters.

Shad Island is registered as a Research Natural Area (RNA) Type SAF-39, Black Ash-American Elm- Red Maple. Scientists and educators are encouraged to use research natural areas. Restrictions are applied to preserve the natural values of the area. The Shad Island RNA was established in 1968 and measures approximately 120 acres. It contains a mix of silver maple, swamp white oak, green ash, and cottonwood trees on an area that has been little altered by past land use practices. The RNA encompasses the heron rookery mentioned above and provides extensive research opportunities for scientists concerned with herons, their habitat, and their interactions with double-crested cormorants.

Metcalfe Island Much of what is previously mentioned for Shad Island also applies to Metcalfe Island. The great blue heron rookery is distributed on parts of both islands.

The entire Missisquoi River delta, of which this parcel is a portion, is a special geological feature. Known as a bird’s foot delta, it has a characteristic shape that is relatively rare on this scale in the United States.

Likewise, the delta has significant historic and cultural value due to its long use and occupation by Native Americans and early Europeans, and its prominence during the French and Indian War and Revolutionary War eras.

A-8 Appendix A. Special Designation Areas Special Designation Areas

The nearby Shad Island has been the site of a significant great blue heron rookery for almost 60 years and at the turn of the century was touted as the largest great blue heron rookery in New England. While still a significant natural feature, the rookery now experience years of boom and bust and is outdone by the nearby Valcour Island Rookery on the New York side of Lake Champlain south of Plattsburgh.

The delta has long been and still is the most significant migratory waterfowl stopover in the northern Lake Champlain portion of the Atlantic flyway. Thousands of migratory waterfowl stop to rest and feed in the rich marshes of the delta as they travel along the flyway. This attraction to waterfowl results in a similar attraction to the area by waterfowl hunters.

Inventory Conclusions for Islands

Shad Island Area Although the Shad Island Area possesses unique supplemental values as well as potential for outstanding primitive and unconfined recreational opportunities, it does not fulfill the naturalness criterion for wilderness. One significant imprint of man’s work that is substantially noticeable and a potential concern for environmental health includes the annual accumulation of debris that lodges throughout the island during the annual spring flooding of the river. These materials are washed downriver either through carelessness or intentionally and lodge in the exposed vegetation on the otherwise flooded island. Other than the largest items or potential hazardous items, no attempt is made to clean this up every year as it is a monumental job and is identical to conditions on all other islands of the delta. As the annual vegetation grows it does “hide” these materials somewhat, and many of these items deteriorate over time, but they are an unfortunate eyesore and vivid reminder of man’s presence and impact on the area.

Future activities essential to the maintenance of Goose Bay pool dike and associated water control structures would further violate the naturalness criterion. The use of heavy equipment and tools is required periodically to maintain dikes and water control structures. Fire control and application equipment are also necessary to maintain habitats by periodically conducting prescribed burns in the area. Mechanical control of invasive species will likely be required in the future on portions of this area to preserve native species. This habitat management and maintenance is needed to benefit the thousands of migratory birds and waterfowl that use the area each year. Managing the area as wilderness prohibits these activities and will contradict the purposes for which the refuge was established.

The Shad Island Area does not have wilderness potential because a WIA cannot be considered for further study if it fails to fulfill even one of the wilderness criteria. While the Wilderness Act was enacted “to establish a National Wilderness Preservation System for the permanent good of the whole people,” wilderness designation in this case would almost surely prove counterproductive by prohibiting Refuge staff from implementing maintenance activities necessary to preserve sensitive habitat and protect multiple species of special concern. Because the Shad Island WIA no longer fulfills either the purpose or the intent of the Wilderness Act, we withdraw support for the proposal submitted to Congress in 1974 advocating its wilderness designation.

Metcalfe Island Metcalfe Island was acquired by the Service in 1976 and hence was not in public ownership when the first wilderness review was done. Metcalfe Island does not fulfill the naturalness criterion for

Appendix A. Special Designation Areas A-9

Special Designation Areas

wilderness criteria and is therefore not being considered for wilderness designation. One apparent sign of man includes the annual accumulation of debris that lodges throughout the island during the annual spring flooding of the river. These materials are washed downriver either through carelessness or intentionally and lodge in the exposed vegetation on the otherwise flooded island. Other than the largest items or potential hazardous items, no attempt is made to clean this up every year as it is a monumental job and is identical to conditions on all other islands of the delta. As the annual vegetation grows it does “hide” these materials somewhat, and many of these items deteriorate over time, but they are an unfortunate eyesore and vivid reminder of man’s presence and impact on the area.

Additionally hunters, fishermen, and other motorboating recreationists are regularly and frequently present in the waters of Lake Champlain and the Missisquoi River around this island. The island is not of sufficient size to isolate visitors from the sounds of these surrounding activities, which further diminishes the wilderness experience.

External influences are very apparent and are not under the control or jurisdiction of the Service so will likely continue. The wilderness character would be compromised due to the accumulation of debris and the presence of motorized boats and other recreationists around the entire perimeter of the area.

Other Special Designations—Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge

Research Natural Areas Research Natural Areas (RNAs) exist to fulfill three objectives, delineated by the Refuge Manual as follows: first, to participate in the national effort to preserve adequate examples of all major ecosystem types or other outstanding physical or biological phenomena; second, to provide research and educational opportunities for scientists and others in the observation, study, and monitoring of the environment; and third, to contribute to the national effort to preserve a full range of genetic and behavioral diversity for native plants and animals, including endangered or threatened species. RNAs are areas where natural processes are allowed to predominate without human intervention. However, the Refuge Manual states that a RNA “must be reasonably protected from any influence that could alter or disrupt the characteristic phenomena for which the area was established.” Therefore, if predator removal or other disruption of community processes has created conditions under which certain species multiply beyond normal limits and pose a disruptive threat, control of such populations may be necessary by artificial means.

The Refuge has two RNAs: the Maquam Bog RNA and the Shad Island RNA. Both possess unique natural features and fulfill the three stated objectives required of RNAs.

Maquam Bog RNA The Maquam Bog RNA was established in 1992 and is located southwest of State Route 78. The 890- acre Maquam Bog RNA is an exceptional example of a large sphagnum bog with a diverse mix of plants. It supports one of the primary populations of rhodora (Rhododendron canadense) in Vermont.

A-10 Appendix A. Special Designation Areas Special Designation Areas

The bog contains a fringe of maples with highbush blueberries in the understory. The center is a little higher with a dominance of sedges and cranberry. Several small stands of pitch pines are present in the bog. The RNA also provides crucial habitat for the Virginia chain fern (Woodwardia virginica), a state-threatened plant species.

Shad Island RNA The Shad Island RNA was established in 1968. It is located at the extreme northern end of the Refuge and is the northernmost terminus of the Missisquoi River Delta. This island, measuring approximately 120 acres, contains a mix of silver maple, swamp white oak, green ash, and cottonwood trees on an area that has not been altered by past land use practices. The RNA is home to the largest great blue heron rookery in Vermont and provides research opportunities for scientists concerned with herons, their habitat, and their interactions with double-crested cormorants.

The Shad Island RNA proposal dated September 7, 1966 describes the justification: “Due to its inaccessibility, this is the only area locally which contains mature timber and no signs of logging activity. It should be preserved in its natural state for posterity. While it probably will not undergo any natural changes, having reached its climax, it will for this reason, become more unique with each passing year.”

The Refuge is not proposing any new Research Natural Areas in this CCP.

Wild and Scenic Rivers In 1982, a total of 31 miles of the Missisquoi River were listed in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NWI), a listing of more than 3,400 free-flowing 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 significance. A segment of the inventoried Missisquoi River flows through the refuge boundary. Neither current management actions, nor actions which we propose under Alternative B, would affect the eligibility of the river segment for Wild and Scenic River designation.

The river segment that flows within the boundary of the refuge is a small portion of the Missisquoi River that is identified in the NWI, and there is no real break in the river’s character at the Refuge boundary. We believe that the entire 31 mile portion of the Missisquoi River that is listed in the review should be studied in its entirety, and with the full participation and involvement of our Federal, State, local and nongovernmental partners. As such, in this CCP we did not conduct a study of the river segment on the refuge independently; rather, we are recommending it be part of a larger study of the entire river as identified in the NWI.

Wetlands of International Importance The Missisquoi NWR is not considered a wetland of international importance by the Ramsar Convention as adopted in 1971 in Ramsar, Iran.

National Natural Landmark The Secretary of the Interior has not designated the Missisquoi Refuge a National Natural Landmark.

Appendix A. Special Designation Areas A-11

Special Designation Areas Attachment A-1

Wilderness Review Worksheet Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Tract Name: Shad Island Size of Area: 599 acres Date: May, 2006

The following criteria are from the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the Draft Directors Order regarding Wilderness Review or Evaluation.

Desired Conditions

Size or Isolation ● Land is at least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres or ● Land is of sufficient size practicable for its preservation ● Roadless island ● Area contiguous with designated or recommended wilderness or other undeveloped federal land

The total acreage of the Shad Island proposal in 1975 was 620 acres. Modern mapping tools determine that the area is 599 acres. The proposal includes the Shad Island Research Natural Area, refuge land east of the East Branch of the Missisquoi River from the northernmost tip of land south to, and including, Martindale Point and the shoreline of Lake Champlain along the Goose Bay Pool Dike to Dead Creek. This area is a relatively long, but narrow parcel. Peripheral areas are used heavily by motorboaters and paddlers and those users are not under the jurisdiction of the Service while on adjacent waters. Their use and presence will be apparent and obvious to visitors to the Shad Island area most of the time, thereby violating the desired wilderness character of the area.

The area is not roadless, but has no improved roads. Several miles of unimproved dirt and gravel roads have been maintained by the Service since the early 1960’s to provide access to and maintenance of habitats and improvements such as the Goose Bay Pool Dike and the Cranberry Pool Dike, and for prescribed fire application, wildfire fighting, and search and rescue missions.

This wetland complex is part of the delta system where the Missisquoi River flows into Lake Champlain. It is accessible only by boat in the warmer months or by foot or snow machine in the frozen months. There is high public use of the bay and river in all seasons by fishermen, boaters, hunters, and birdwatchers, in motorized and non-motorized watercraft. The waters where these activities occur, for the most part, are not under the jurisdiction of the Service except within the mean low water line (93.055’ msl), thus the control of these activities on those waters does not lie with the Service.

A-12 Appendix A. Special Designation Areas Special Designation Areas

No other wilderness areas are proximate to lands in this proposal, although some adjacent refuge lands are undeveloped. Other refuge lands contain improvements that have been necessary for refuge wildlife and wildlife habitat management programs, such as dikes, water control structures, barge slips, equipment storage facilities, artificial nesting structures and their associated predator guards, and unimproved roads.

Integrity and Naturalness ● Affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable.

Shad Island and most of the area east and south of Shad Island included in the proposal, does appear to be affected primarily by the forces of nature. However, there is also significant noticeable evidence of man’s work in the form of the Goose Bay Pool dike, and in the very obvious presence of the village of Highgate Springs. Highgate Springs is built on the eastern shore of Missisquoi Bay, approximately 1.5 miles across the Bay from, and easily seen from, the entire lakeshore portion of the lands within this proposal. Likewise, there are few times when motorboats are not seen or heard in Missisquoi Bay which abuts the lands within this proposal. So while the proposed lands appear to be in a natural state, the adjacent waters and nearby lands do not, thereby violating the sense of naturalness.

Other apparent signs of man include the annual accumulation of debris that lodges throughout the island during the annual spring flooding of the river. These materials are washed downriver either through carelessness or intentionally and lodge in the exposed vegetation on the otherwise flooded island. Debris includes cans and bottles of all shapes, sizes and colors, 55 gallon polypropylene barrels, 5 gallon buckets, small propane tanks, rubber or plastic toys, tires, lumber, etc., essentially any riverside debris that floats. Other than the largest items or potential hazardous items, no attempt is made to clean this up every year as it is a monumental job and is identical to conditions on all other islands of the delta. As the annual vegetation grows it does “hide” these materials somewhat, and many of these items deteriorate over time, but they are an unfortunate eyesore and vivid reminder of man’s presence and impact on the area.

Additionally, as indicated above, hunters, fishermen, and other motorboating recreationists are regularly and frequently present in the waters of Lake Champlain and the Missisquoi River around this island. The island is not of sufficient size or shape to isolate visitors from the sounds of these surrounding activities, which further diminishes the wilderness experience.

This island is not open to public use except to waterfowl and deer hunting in the fall. Otherwise, it is closed to entry to provide undisturbed habitat for migrating and nesting waterfowl, great blue herons, other marsh and wading birds, and neotropical migratory birds.

Appendix A. Special Designation Areas A-13

Special Designation Areas

Special and Unique Features ● Contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic or historical value

The entire Missisquoi River delta, of which the proposed lands are a portion, is a special geological feature. Known as a bird’s foot delta, it has a characteristic shape that is relatively rare on this scale in the United States.

Likewise, the delta has significant historic and cultural value due to its long use and occupation by Native Americans and early Europeans, and its prominence during the French and Indian War and Revolutionary War eras.

Shad Island has been the site of a significant great blue heron rookery for almost 60 years and at the turn of the century was touted as the largest great blue heron rookery in New England. While still a significant and impressive natural feature, the rookery now experience years of boom and bust and is outdone by the nearby Valcour Island Rookery on the New York side of Lake Champlain south of Plattsburgh.

The delta has long been and still is the most significant migratory waterfowl stopovers in the northern Lake Champlain portion of the Atlantic flyway. Thousands of migratory waterfowl stop to rest and feed in the rich marshes of the delta as they travel along the flyway. This attraction to waterfowl results in a similar attraction to the area by waterfowl hunters.

Shad Island is registered as a Research Natural Area (RNA) Type SAF-39, Black Ash-American Elm- Red Maple. Scientists and educators are encouraged to use research natural areas. Restrictions are applied to preserve the natural values of the area. The Shad Island RNA was established in 1968 and measures approximately 120 acres. It contains a mix of silver maple, swamp white oak, green ash, and cottonwood trees on an area that has been little altered by past land use practices. The RNA encompasses the heron rookery mentioned above and provides extensive research opportunities for scientists concerned with herons, their habitat, and their interactions with double-crested cormorants.

Recreation ● Provides outstanding opportunities for solitude or ● Provides outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined priority public uses

This area is closed to public entry except during the hunting seasons or for occasional special staff or trained-volunteer guided events. When open to public use, opportunities for solitude do exist on portions of this area, although those occurrences are best described as “ fleeting” due to frequent disturbance by motorboats or snow machines, depending on the season of the year. These disruptive activities occur on Lake Champlain around the entire perimeter of the refuge and on the Missisquoi River within the refuge where the Service does not have the authority to control or regulate those uses. Activity by fishermen in motorboats is perhaps the most prominent activity since the entire Missisquoi Delta area is well-known as a fishing hotspot. An increasing number of professional and international fishing tournaments on Lake Champlain is bringing increasing attention and pressure to the areas around this island.

A-14 Appendix A. Special Designation Areas Special Designation Areas

Likewise, opportunities for primitive and unconfined priority public uses are limited for the same reasons. This area is closed to public use during the waterfowl nesting season and brood rearing season, which in general is from ice-out until the onset of hunting seasons in the fall.

Acceptable Conditions- Some areas currently do not meet the desired conditions for a wilderness area, but have the potential to do so. The following list identifies those conditions under which land would be restored to meet the desired conditions in the future, or current uses would be managed so a wilderness character could be maintained.

Level of Land Use Logging, farming, grazing, or other uses not involving extensive development or alteration of the landscape are acceptable if (at the time of review): ● the effects of these activities are substantially unnoticeable. or ● wilderness character could be restored through appropriate management. And Unimproved roads, structures, installations or utility lines are acceptable if: ● they can be removed upon the area’s designation as wilderness. or ● they are consistent with the wilderness. ● historic structures or ● facilities needed for protection of the wilderness. or ● Underground utility lines if the area otherwise qualifies as wilderness, and maintenance of the utility lines does not require the routine use of motorized or mechanized equipment.

There are currently no structures, installations or utility lines in the proposed area, however, there are several miles of unimproved roads. These roads could be abandoned and restored, but the sought after wilderness character would still be compromised due to the presence of motorized boats or snow machines around the entire perimeter of the area, and the visual presence of the Town of Highgate Springs.

Management activities Motorized tools, equipment, or structures are acceptable if: ● established or proposed management practices require them for the health and safety of visitors. or ● established or proposed management practices require them for the protection of the wilderness resource.

Established management activities in areas adjacent to the proposed area currently require the use of motorized tools and equipment. The roads in the proposed area provide access to the adjacent areas. Fire control and application equipment is required to periodically conduct prescribed burning programs in the area. Motorized boats are necessary to provide safe ingress and egress to portions of this area by big game hunters and waterfowl hunters, or for search and rescue operations. Mechanical control of invasive species has been conducted in the past and will likely be

Appendix A. Special Designation Areas A-15

Special Designation Areas

required in the future on the periphery of this area. In the last two years, an airboat has been the most efficient tool in the annual search for water chestnut plants on the delta. These plants are a very aggressive invasive species and would threaten the entire ecology of the delta and the northern portion of Lake Champlain were they to become established. Search and removal of this plant is a vital annual occurrence dependent on motorized equipment due to the expanse of the area.

Prior Uses Prior rights or privileges, such as grazing or limited commercial services, are acceptable if the operations: ● do not involve the routine use of motorized or mechanical equipment. And ● do not involve development to the extent that the human imprint is substantially noticeable. And Surface and subsurface mineral rights for exploration and development (including oil and gas) are acceptable if: ● they would likely be relinquished, acquired, exchanged, or eliminated in the foreseeable future.

None of these prior uses currently occur on this area or are known to have occurred in recent history.

Research Research is acceptable if: ● it does not require a permanent structure or any other facilities not needed for wilderness management.

Research has been conducted in this area on the wildlife and vegetative communities but no projects have required use of permanent structures.

Recommendation: Tract meets desired conditions: No. The area is too small to create the wilderness character, the solitude or the primitive conditions sought for wilderness areas. Its long narrow shape exposes visitors to modern machinery and landscapes in perimeter areas where these uses and features are beyond the jurisdiction and influence of the Service. The annual accumulation of flood debris detracts severely from the desired wilderness character.

Tract could be managed to maintain a wilderness character: No. While the tract itself might be managed to try to maintain a wilderness character, perimeter areas can not. This area is a victim of its very unwilderness-like locale. It would also be necessary to control invasive plant species on this parcel as part of an ecosystem approach to invasive species management. A failure to do so on this parcel would make efforts in adjacent areas futile and contribute to ecological calamity in the northern part of Lake Champlain.

Tract has no potential for wilderness character: This is correct. The obvious debris that accumulates on this area during seasonal flooding events is a sad but apparent reminder that man has and continues to have an impact on this area. Also, as stated above, this parcel is too small, narrow, and proximate to areas that can not be managed for wilderness features to make it qualify for wilderness designation.

A-16 Appendix A. Special Designation Areas Special Designation Areas Attachment A-2

Wilderness Review Worksheet Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Tract Name: Metcalfe Island Size of Area: 199 acres Date: May 2006

The following criteria are from the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the Draft Directors Order regarding Wilderness Review or Evaluation.

Desired Conditions

Size or Isolation ● Land is at least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres or ● Land is of sufficient size practicable for its preservation ● Roadless island ● Area contiguous with designated or recommended wilderness or other undeveloped federal land

The total acreage of the Metcalfe Island proposal is 199 acres. Metcalfe Island is located at the northernmost end of the Missisquoi River delta. It is accessible only by boat during the warm season. It is bounded on the east by the main branch of the Missisquoi River, on the north by Lake Champlain, and on the south by the west branch of the Missisquoi River.

The area is roadless.

This wetland is part of the delta system where the Missisquoi River flows into Lake Champlain. It is accessible by boat in the warmer months or by foot or snow machine in the frozen months. There is high public use of Lake Champlain and the Missisquoi River in all seasons by fishermen, boaters, hunters, and birdwatchers, in motorized and non-motorized watercraft. These adjacent waters are not under the jurisdiction of the Service except within the mean low water line (93.055’ msl).

No other wilderness areas are proximate to lands in this proposal, although some adjacent refuge lands are undeveloped. Other refuge lands contain improvements that have been necessary for refuge wildlife and wildlife habitat management programs, such as dikes, water control structures, barge slips, equipment storage facilities, artificial nesting structures and their associated predator guards, and unimproved roads.

Appendix A. Special Designation Areas A-17

Special Designation Areas

Integrity and Naturalness ● Affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable.

Improvements on this parcel include minor features such as wood duck nesting boxes, an artificial nesting platform for ospreys and an occasional sign for directing hunters.

Other apparent signs of man include the annual accumulation of debris that lodges throughout the island during the annual spring flooding of the river. These materials are washed downriver either through carelessness or intentionally and lodge in the exposed vegetation on the otherwise flooded island. Debris includes cans and bottles of all shapes, sizes and colors, 55 gallon polypropylene barrels, 5 gallon buckets, small propane tanks, rubber or plastic toys, tires, lumber, etc., essentially any riverside debris that floats. Other than the largest items or potential hazardous items, no attempt is made to clean this up every year as it is a monumental job and is identical to conditions on all other islands of the delta. As the annual vegetation grows it does “hide” these materials somewhat, and many of these items deteriorate over time, but they are an unfortunate eyesore and vivid reminder of man’s presence and impact on the area.

Additionally, as indicated above, hunters, fishermen, and other motorboating recreationists are regularly and frequently present in the waters of Lake Champlain and the Missisquoi River around this island. The island is not of sufficient size to isolate visitors from the sounds of these surrounding activities, which further diminishes the wilderness experience.

This island is not open to public use except to limited and controlled hunting during portions of the 60-day waterfowl hunting season in the fall, during the 2-day firearms youth hunt for deer, and the 7-day primitive weapons hunt for deer. It is closed to entry to provide undisturbed habitat for migrating and nesting waterfowl, great blue herons, other marsh and wading birds, and neotropical migratory birds.

Special and Unique Features ● Contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic or historical value

The entire Missisquoi River delta, of which this parcel is a portion, is a special geological feature. Known as a bird’s foot delta, it has a characteristic shape that is relatively rare on this scale in the United States.

Likewise, the delta has significant historic and cultural value due to its long use and occupation by Native Americans and early Europeans, and its prominence during the French and Indian War and Revolutionary War eras.

The nearby Shad Island has been the site of a significant great blue heron rookery for almost 60 years and at the turn of the century was touted as the largest great blue heron rookery in New England. While still a significant natural feature, the rookery now experience years of boom and bust and is outdone by the nearby Valcour Island Rookery on the New York side of Lake Champlain south of Plattsburgh.

A-18 Appendix A. Special Designation Areas Special Designation Areas

The delta has long been and still is the most significant migratory waterfowl stopover in the northern Lake Champlain portion of the Atlantic flyway. Thousands of migratory waterfowl stop to rest and feed in the rich marshes of the delta as they travel along the flyway. This attraction to waterfowl results in a similar attraction to the area by waterfowl hunters.

Recreation ● Provides outstanding opportunities for solitude or ● Provides outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined priority public uses

Opportunities for solitude do exist on portions of this area, although those occurrences could be described as “ fleeting” due to frequent disturbance by motorboats or snow machines depending on the season of the year. These activities occur on Lake Champlain around the entire perimeter of the refuge and on the Missisquoi River within the refuge, and are beyond the jurisdictional control of the Service. Activity by fishermen in motorboats is perhaps the most prominent activity since the entire Missisquoi Delta area is well-known as a fishing hotspot. An increasing number of professional and international fishing tournaments on Lake Champlain is bringing increasing attention and pressure to the areas around this island.

Likewise, opportunities for primitive and unconfined priority public uses are limited for the same reasons. This area is closed to public use during the waterfowl nesting season and brood rearing season, which in general is from ice-out until the onset of hunting seasons in the fall.

Acceptable Conditions- Some areas currently do not meet the desired conditions for a wilderness area, but have the potential to do so. The following list identifies those conditions under which land would be restored to meet the desired conditions in the future, or current uses would be managed so a wilderness character could be maintained.

Level of Land Use Logging, farming, grazing, or other uses not involving extensive development or alteration of the landscape are acceptable if (at the time of review): ● the effects of these activities are substantially unnoticeable. or ● wilderness character could be restored through appropriate management. And Unimproved roads, structures, installations or utility lines are acceptable if: ● they can be removed upon the area’s designation as wilderness. or ● they are consistent with the wilderness. ● Are historic structures or ● Are facilities needed for protection of the wilderness. or ● Underground utility lines if the area otherwise qualifies as wilderness, and maintenance of the utility lines does not require the routine use of motorized or mechanized equipment.

Appendix A. Special Designation Areas A-19

Special Designation Areas

The wilderness character of the area would be fairly easy to restore as it is nearly free of manmade structures now. However, external influences are very apparent and are not under the control or jurisdiction of the Service, so will likely continue.

The wilderness character would be compromised due to the presence of motorized boats or snow machines around the entire perimeter of the area.

Management activities Motorized tools, equipment, or structures are acceptable if: ● established or proposed management practices require them for the health and safety of visitors. or ● established or proposed management practices require them for the protection of the wilderness resource.

Currently, motorized boats are necessary to provide safe ingress and egress to this area by big game hunters and waterfowl hunters, or for search and rescue operations. Mechanical control of invasive species has been conducted in the past and will likely be required in the future on portions of this area.

Prior Uses Prior rights or privileges, such as grazing or limited commercial services, are acceptable if the operations: ● do not involve the routine use of motorized or mechanical equipment. And ● do not involve development to the extent that the human imprint is substantially noticeable. And Surface and subsurface mineral rights for exploration and development (including oil and gas) are acceptable if: ● they would likely be relinquished, acquired, exchanged, or eliminated in the foreseeable future.

None of these prior uses currently occur on this area or are known to have occurred in recent history.

Research Research is acceptable if: ● it does not require a permanent structure or any other facilities not needed for wilderness management.

Research has been conducted in this area on the wildlife and vegetative communities but none have required use of permanent structures.

A-20 Appendix A. Special Designation Areas Special Designation Areas

Recommendation:

Tract meets desired conditions: No. The area is too small to create the wilderness character, the solitude or the primitive conditions sought for wilderness areas. Its small compact size exposes visitors to modern machinery and landscapes in perimeter areas where these uses and features are beyond the jurisdiction and influence of the Service. The annual accumulation of flood debris detracts severely from the desired wilderness character.

Tract could be managed to maintain a wilderness character: No. While the tract itself might be managed to try to maintain a wilderness character, perimeter areas can not. This area is a victim of its very unwilderness-like locale. It would also be necessary to control invasive plant species on this parcel as part of an ecosystem approach to invasive species management. A failure to do so on this parcel would make efforts in adjacent areas futile and contribute to ecological calamity in the northern part of Lake Champlain.

Tract has no potential for wilderness character: This is correct. The obvious debris that accumulates on this area during seasonal flooding events is a sad but apparent reminder that man has and continues to have an impact on this area. Also, as stated above, this parcel is too small and proximate to areas that can not be managed for wilderness features to make it qualify for wilderness designation.

Appendix A. Special Designation Areas A-21

Appendix B USFWS Boat tour on the Refuge

Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Findings of Appropriateness

Snowmobiling ...... B-1 Access for commercial bait collecting ...... B-3 Berry picking ...... B-5 Bicycling ...... B-7 Dog walking ...... B-9 Motorized boating to facilitate priority public uses ...... B-11 Non-motorized boating to facilitate priority public uses ...... B-13 Research conducted by non-refuge personnel ...... B-15 Walking or hiking, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing ...... B-17 Hunting access to adjacent public, private or state land ...... B-19 Commercially Guided Tours ...... B-21 Commercially Guided Waterfowl Hunting ...... B-23

Compatibility Determinations

Wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation ...... B-25 Hunting ...... B-33 Sport fi shing ...... B-47 Furbearer management ...... B-51 Walking or hiking, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing ...... B-63 Hunting access to adjacent public, private or state land ...... B-69 Access for commercial bait collecting ...... B-73 Berry picking ...... B-77 Research conducted by non-refuge personnel ...... B-81 Motorized boating to facilitate priority public uses ...... B-93 Non-motorized boating to facilitate priority public uses ...... B-97 Oral vaccination by aerial baiting to control the raccoon variant of the rabies virus ...... B-101 Commercially guided tours ...... B-111 Commercially guided waterfowl hunting ...... B-117 Finding of Appropriateness – Snowmobiling

603 FW 1 Exhibit 1 Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Snowmobiling

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

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 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 first time the use has been proposed? X (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 or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? X (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, wildlife- dependent recreation into the future? X

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 fish and wildlife agencies. Yes X No

When the refuge manager finds 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 X Appropriate

Refuge Manager: Date: 07/14/06

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 B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-1

Finding of Appropriateness – Access for commercial bait collecting

603 FW 1 Exhibit 1 Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Access for commercial bait collecting

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 X (b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X (c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies?

(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 document? X (f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has been proposed? X (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 or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? X

(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, wildlife- dependent recreation into the future? X

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 fish and wildlife agencies. Yes X No

When the refuge manager finds 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: 07/14/06

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 B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-3 Finding of Appropriateness – Access for commercial bait collecting

Justification for a Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Access via Missisquoi Refuge lands and facilities for minnow collecting is an established use and it is anticipated that historical users will continue to seek access. In a normal year, the refuge receives requests for about five Special Use Permits for access for commercial bait collecting.

Facilities or materials needed to support access for commercial minnow collecting include two parking areas, two boat launch areas, restrooms, and a brochure explaining fishing regulations. Associated costs are minimal and include routine maintenance costs of these facilities, costs of administering the special use permit, and costs of monitoring. These same facilities are used by refuge visitors in support of other public use activities such as boating, fishing, hunting and wildlife observation, and by refuge staff for many operational uses.

There may be some general disturbance caused by the mere presence of man while crossing refuge lands to access commercial minnow collecting sites. Traditionally however, Permittees park within one hundred meters of minnow collecting sites thereby traversing on foot a short portion of refuge forested riverine habitat that is not sensitive for wildlife disturbance nor habitat damage during the late fall or early winter period of use.

Introduction of aquatic nuisance species due to incomplete cleaning of boats and collecting equipment prior to their use at the refuge is a consideration, however, it is anticipated to be minimal and essentially non-threatening due to the season of use.

Though undocumented, access for minnow collecting has not been shown to have any adverse impacts on the fisheries resource at the refuge, or on other species of plants and animals. Minor problems associated with littering have been addressed through Special Use Permit Conditions and an effective law enforcement program.

Conditions of the Special Use Permit ensure that the Permittee will operate in such a way as not to be detrimental to the refuge.

All or parts of the refuge may be closed to access for commercial bait collecting at any time if necessary for public safety, to provide wildlife sanctuary, or for administrative reasons.

With the current State regulations in place for commercial fishing and the above-mentioned considerations, access for minnow collecting on Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge is appropriate.

Overall, this use will not diminish the purposes for which the Refuge was established, will not pose significant adverse effects on trust species or other Refuge resources, will not interfere with public use of the Refuge, nor cause an undue administrative burden.

B-4 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Finding of Appropriateness – Berry picking

603 FW 1 Exhibit 1 Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Berry picking

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 X (c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies?

X (d) Is the use consistent with public safety?

(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 first time the use has been proposed? X (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 or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? X

(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, wildlife- dependent recreation into the future? X

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 fish and wildlife agencies. Yes X No

When the refuge manager finds 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: 07/14/06

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 B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-5 Finding of Appropriateness – Berry picking

Justification for a Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Berry picking is a historical use on the refuge by only a handful of people who are familiar with Maquam Bog and know where to go to get the berries. Berry growth is reportedly greatly diminished from the formerly enjoyed levels of bounty. The anticipated level of use, therefore, is very low and it is not anticipated that it will be necessary to set any limit on the number of pickers allowed. Refuge staff estimates that less than a dozen visits are made to the refuge each year for the purpose of picking berries. Pickers will be limited to collecting only enough for personal or family consumption. Commercial picking is not permitted.

Pickers will be required to obtain a Special Use Permit in order that regulations may be communicated to them regarding the non-commercial, family use nature of the refuge program and in order to communicate open and closed areas for picking, which may change annually.

Facilities needed to support berry picking include the Stephen J. Young Marsh parking area and the Old Railroad Bed Trail along Tabor Road. These facilities are also used by the public engaged in other priority public uses. The proportionate use of these facilities by berry pickers is so low as to suggest that the cost of maintaining these facilities for the sole purpose of berry picking would be negligible.

Staff time would be committed to administering the program and would require the preparation of Special Use Permits, open and closed collecting area information, and would require a commitment of time to interact with Permittees.

Refuge staff would also be required to make a field assessment of the berry crop annually in order to determine open and closed collecting sites.

All staff requirements described are minimal and within existing operational constraints.

Impacts such as trampling vegetation and temporarily disturbing wildlife would occur, but is not anticipated to be significant.

It is generally held that the harvest of berries by people in a wild, difficult to access environment such as the refuge is not sufficiently efficient nor so extensive so as to negatively impact the use and availability of the overall berry crop by wildlife.

Berry picking has been a historical use of the refuge for the six decades since the refuge was established and likely for many hundreds of years prior to that. No adverse impacts from the activity are known or documented at this refuge.

B-6 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Finding of Appropriateness – Bicycling

603 FW 1 Exhibit 1 Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Bicycling

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 (c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 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 document? X

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has been proposed? X (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 or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? X

(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, wildlife- dependent recreation into the future? X

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 fish and wildlife agencies. Yes X No

When the refuge manager finds 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 X Appropriate

Refuge Manager: Date: 07/14/06

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 B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-7

Finding of Appropriateness – Dog walking

603 FW 1 Exhibit 1 Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Dog walking

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 (c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 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 document? X

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has been proposed? X (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 or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? X

(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, wildlife- dependent recreation into the future? X

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 fish and wildlife agencies. Yes No X

When the refuge manager finds 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 X Appropriate

Refuge Manager: Date: 07/14/06

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 B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-9

Finding of Appropriateness – Motorized boating to facilitate priority public uses

603 FW 1 Exhibit 1 Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Motorized boating to facilitate priority public uses

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 (c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 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 document? X

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has been proposed? X

(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 or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? X

(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, wildlife- dependent recreation into the future? X

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 fish and wildlife agencies. Yes X No

When the refuge manager finds 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: 07/14/06

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 B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-11 Finding of Appropriateness – Motorized boating to facilitate priority public uses

Justification for a Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Hunting, fishing 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 boating is an appropriate means of facilitating these priority public uses on Missisquoi 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 fish and wildlife values.

B-12 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Finding of Appropriateness – Non-motorized boating to facilitate priority public uses

603 FW 1 Exhibit 1 Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Non-motorized boating to facilitate priority public uses

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

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 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 document? X (f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has been proposed? X (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 or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? X

(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, wildlife- dependent recreation into the future? X

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 fish and wildlife agencies. Yes X No

When the refuge manager finds 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: 07/14/06

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 B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-13 Finding of Appropriateness – Non-motorized boating to facilitate priority public uses

Justification for a Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Hunting, fishing 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. Non-motorized boating is an appropriate means of facilitating these priority public uses on Missisquoi 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 fish and wildlife values.

B-14 Appendix B. 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: Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Research conducted by non-refuge personnel

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 (c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 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 document? X (f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has been proposed? X (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 or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? X

(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, wildlife- dependent recreation into the future? X

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 fish and wildlife agencies. Yes X No

When the refuge manager finds 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: 07/14/06

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 B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-15 Finding of Appropriateness – Research conducted by non-refuge personnel

Justification for a Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

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.

B-16 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Finding of Appropriateness – Walking or hiking, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing

603 FW 1 Exhibit 1 Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Walking or hiking, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing

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

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 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 document? X (f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first 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 or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? X (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, wildlife- dependent recreation into the future? X

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 fish and wildlife agencies. Yes X No

When the refuge manager finds 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: 07/14/06

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 B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-17 Finding of Appropriateness – Walking or hiking, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing

Justification for a Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Within this system of trails, these uses for the purpose of facilitating Big 6 activities are allowed. When confi ned to designated trails and areas, pedestrian travel is an unobtrusive means to view wild- life in natural landscapes. The development of a system of trails supports wildlife dependent public uses, including wildlife observation and photography, environmental education, and interpretation.

There are temporal disturbances to wildlife species using habitat, on or directly adjacent to, the desig- nated pedestrian routes. These disturbances are likely to be short term and infrequent based on cur- rent levels of use. Designated routes were selected based on the best information available concern- ing wildlife species and sensitive habitats on the refuge. Impacts are not likely to signifi cantly affect wildlife populations along these routes based on the current use pattern.

B-18 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Finding of Appropriateness – Hunting access to adjacent public, private or state land

603 FW 1 Exhibit 1 Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Hunting access to adjacent public, private or state land

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 X (b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X (c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies?

(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 document? X (f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has been proposed? X (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 or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? X

(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, wildlife- dependent recreation into the future? X

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 fish and wildlife agencies. Yes X No

When the refuge manager finds 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: 07/14/06

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 B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-19 Finding of Appropriateness – Hunting access to adjacent public, private or state land

Justification for a Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

This use has been allowed for over thirty years to allow access to the State land through the refuge. This use will provide access across the refuge to private or state lands is the path of least resistance for the hunters. To access their lands or the state land by other routes would require a longer trip by vehicle followed by a much longer ride by motorboat or canoe. Further, at times, the boat portion of that effort would be endangered by high winds and waves along the shoreline of Maquam Bay which must be traversed to gain access to the creeks in or adjacent to the hunting areas.

B-20 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Finding of Appropriateness – Commercially Guided Tours

603 FW 1 Exhibit 1 Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Commercially Guided Tours

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 X (c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies?

X (d) Is the use consistent with public safety?

(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 first time the use has been proposed? X (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 or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? X

(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, wildlife- dependent recreation into the future? X

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 fish and wildlife agencies. Yes X No

When the refuge manager finds 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: 07/14/06

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 B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-21 Finding of Appropriateness – Commercially Guided Tours

Justification for a Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Commercial tour guides provide the public with high-quality, safe, educational, and unique recreational opportunities. These visitor services are a valuable benefit to a segment of the American public that is not comfortable with, or for other reasons chooses not to participate in unguided tours on the Refuge.

Commercially guided tours will help increase public understanding of wildlife’s needs and when people value something, they are motivated to action. When people understand the connections between land management and larger resource issues in their lives, they are in a better position to make wise resource decisions.

B-22 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Finding of Appropriateness – Commercially Guided Waterfowl Hunting

603 FW 1 Exhibit 1 Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Commercially Guided Waterfowl Hunting

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 (c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 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 document? X

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has been proposed? X (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 or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? X

(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, wildlife- dependent recreation into the future? X

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 fish and wildlife agencies. Yes X No

When the refuge manager finds 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: 07/14/06

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 B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-23 Finding of Appropriateness – Commercially Guided Waterfowl Hunting

Justification for a Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Commercial waterfowl hunting guides provide the public with high-quality, safe, waterfowl hunting opportunities. These visitor services are a valuable benefit to a segment of the American public that is not comfortable with, or for other reasons chooses not to participate in unguided waterfowl hunting on the Refuge.

The habitat that makes Missisquoi attractive to wildlife also makes it attractive to people, offering countless opportunities to witness some amazing wildlife spectacles. Waterfowl hunters come to the refuge, not only to hunt, but to share with family and friends the sights and sounds of wildlife and wetlands. Missisquoi is a special place where children and adults can link with the land and its resources through hunting. Commercially guided waterfowl hunting trips will help to instill a land ethic in our hunters and will strengthen the connection between wildlife and people. By enjoying this activity, the hunters further develop an appreciation for fish and wildlife.

B-24 Appendix B. 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: Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge

DATE ESTABLISHED: February 4, 1943

ESTABLISHING AUTHORITY: Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929

PURPOSE FOR WHICH ESTABLISHED

The Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge was established “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds” [Migratory Bird Conservation Act 16 U.S.C. 715–715d, and 715f–715r].

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 fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”

DESCRIPTION OF USE

(a) What is the use? Is it a priority public use? The uses are wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation. They 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).

(b) Where would the use be conducted? Wildlife observation occurs along the stretch of Route 78 that passes through the refuge, along Tabor Road, on designated trails, from vantage points such as the knoll on Tabor Road and the observation platform at Stephen J. Young Marsh, and on all navigable waters, including the Missisquoi River, Dead Creek, Missisquoi Bay and the shores of Lake Champlain.

The visiting public is allowed to take photographs in areas open for public entry. No facilities are reserved specifically for photography.

Interpretation and environmental education activities will occur only in areas designated for that activity, including the visitor contact station, proposed outdoor classroom, refuge trails, and observation areas. Any exceptions for uses in other areas of the refuge will require permission from the refuge manager. We would allow those exceptions only if no disturbance of species at a sensitive time in their life cycle would occur.

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-25 Compatibility Determination – Wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation

(c) When would the use be conducted? We allow public access for these priority uses daily from dawn to dusk year-round. The distinct character of each season provides a good diversity of wildlife, habitat conditions, and scenery to explore, observe, photograph, study, and interpret. The hours for our visitor contact station change seasonally, and are posted outside at the kiosk. Trail closures or advisories in affect during the hunting seasons follow. Trail closures (trails will be posted as “Closed”) ● Jeep Trail ♦ April 1–August 1 (Nesting Season Closure) ♦ Youth Deer Hunt Weekend (Early November–2 days) ♦ Muzzle-loader Season (Early December–10 days) ● Discovery Trail ♦ Regular Season – shotgun and rifle (Mid-November–16 days) ♦ Youth Deer Hunt Weekend ♦ Muzzle-loader Season ● Old Railroad Trail ♦ Regular Season – shotgun and rifle ♦ Youth Deer Hunt Weekend ♦ Muzzle-loader Season ● Stephen J. Young Marsh Trail ♦ Regular Season – shotgun and rifle ♦ Youth Deer Hunt Weekend ♦ Muzzle-loader Season Trail advisories (Trails will be posted to advise hikers and users that the area is open to hunting— visitors may proceed with caution) ● Discovery Trail ♦ Archery Season (Early October – 23) ♦ Upland Game Seasons (includes gray squirrel, rabbit and hare, ruffed grouse) ● Old Railroad Trail ♦ Archery Season ♦ Upland Game Seasons (includes gray squirrel, rabbit and hare, ruffed grouse) ● Stephen J. Young Marsh Trail ♦ Archery Season ♦ Upland Game Seasons (includes gray squirrel, rabbit and hare, ruffed grouse)

(d) How would the use be conducted? We will offer staff- or volunteer-led programs and self-guided programs on and off the refuge. We are planning an additional observation platform overlooking Maquam Bay for the end of the Old Railroad Passage Trail. Interpretive signs at trailheads and access areas, refuge brochures, and information on the refuge webpage provide interpretive messages for visitors. We plan to make the Discovery Trail and outdoor classroom at the headquarters ponds accessible for wildlife observation, environmental education, interpretation and photography. We will place an ADA-accessible dock at Mac’s Bend for use in boarding refuge boats for tours and environmental education outings.

B-26 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation

Interpretation and environmental education are activities that seek to increase public knowledge and understanding of wildlife, national wildlife refuges, ecology and land management, and contribute to the conservation of natural resources. We plan to offer structured, scheduled, teacher-led environmental education. We would conduct teacher workshops to familiarize teachers with wildlife and nature-based curricula and refuge facilities, and would expect teachers to direct their students in structured activities in several habitats available at the refuge.

Currently, the refuge manager must approve a special use permit with specific conditions to ensure compatibility and a $150 fee for commercial guiding that would facilitate wildlife observation, photography and any commercial wildlife photography (see separate compatibility determination for commercially guided tours).

(e) Why is this use being proposed? We are proposing this use to accommodate four of the priority public uses of the Refuge System. Our new visitor contact station and the wide variety of refuge habitats provide the local community with a tremendous opportunity for wildlife-oriented recreation, particularly for environmental education and nature study. We have the opportunity to provide compatible, priority public uses in a manner and in a location that will offer high quality, wildlife-dependent recreation and maintain the current level of fish and wildlife values.

AVA ILA BILITY OF R ESOU RCES The routine maintenance of existing facilities and equipment, including refuge exhibits, interpretive panels, brochures, parking areas, boat launches, boats, restrooms, trails, and observation areas is needed to support these uses. A summary analysis of annual costs follows.

Table 1. Annual costs of the four priority public uses

Mac’s Bend Road, parking areas and boat $2,000 launches This is the cost to grade and fill low spots to maintain the Mac’s Bend Road and gravel parking lots at Mac’s Bend, Louie’s Landing, Maquam Creek and Black Creek Nature Trails, Overlook, and Old Railroad Passage and Stephen J. Young Marsh trailheads to allow parking for school buses and vehicles for all priority public uses at these sites. It includes the maintenance and repair of boat launches.

Outdoor restrooms $5,000 This is the maintenance cost of fully accessible outdoor vault toilets located at Louie’s Landing, along Mac’s Bend Rd. and at the Black Creek/ Maquam Creek trailhead. The public engaged in all priority uses of the site uses these restrooms.

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-27 Compatibility Determination – Wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation

Supplies and materials $4,500 We will reprint the refuge general brochure, self- guiding Black Creek/Maquam Creek Nature trail brochure, and trail maps to provide visitors with refuge information and regulations. Environmental education supplies, including specimen containers, dip nets, binoculars, field guides, etc. are needed to support the education program. We also purchase uniforms for the volunteers who support those activities.

Routine maintenance and staff days $7,500 This cost includes staff time in support of these activities and materials for routine maintenance of the headquarters/visitor contact station and boats. We routinely clean the staff offices, the exhibit area, restrooms, and the multi-purpose room. We routinely maintain the pontoon boat and the sea ark boat, and use them primarily for environmental education excursions and interpretive tours. The staff also spends time on planning and conducting interpretation and education programs and training volunteers.

Outdoor classroom $10,000 This cost includes labor, materials, and staff time to construct an outdoor classroom adjacent to the headquarters ponds to support environmental education and habitat and wildlife observation.

Habitat diorama exhibit $25,000 These funds are needed for the fabrication of a habitat diorama exhibit that has been designed for the visitor contact station.

Total $35,000 to develop the outdoor classroom and diorama, and up to $19,000 annually

These facilities will accommodate the public engaging in all six, priority uses of the Refuge System. We calculated hunting and fishing program costs in separate compatibility determinations. If pro- rated according to expected use by activity, we estimate the cost for environmental education, wildlife observation, interpretation and photography to be $22,750, or 65 percent of the initial costs, and $12,350, or 65 percent of the annual maintenance costs. To help offset those costs, we accept donations at refuge headquarters and at an outdoor collection box at the Black Creek/Maquam Creek trailhead. We plan to charge entrance fees that could help offset annual maintenance costs even more.

B-28 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE USE Direct negative impacts of these uses include the disturbance of wildlife, degradation of habitat, and potential conflicts among user groups.

Visitor use associated with wildlife observation and photography and environmental education and interpretation can damage habitats and disturb wildlife. We will consider the particularly sensitive nature of the wetland communities when managing visitor access and use.

Undesirable impacts on wildlife can result from wildlife observation and photography, particularly in the case of breeding and nesting birds, resting and roosting waterfowl, and wintering deer. Our current monitoring and assessment of these uses indicate no significant disturbance is occurring. We will continue monitoring and, when needed, implement appropriate corrective measures to ensure compatibility.

The use of on-site, hands-on, action-oriented activities to accomplish environmental education and interpretation objectives may impose low-level impacts on the sites of those activities. Those impacts may include the trampling of vegetation and temporary disturbance of wildlife species in the immediate area. Such disturbances will be of short duration and not significant. Off-refuge education will not create any biological impacts on refuge resources.

PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT As part of our comprehensive conservation planning for Missisquoi refuge, this compatibility determination will undergo a comment period of 30 days concurrent with the release of the draft CCP/EA.

DETERMINATION (Check one):

THIS USE IS COMPATIBLE X

THIS USE IS NOT COMPATIBLE

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY 1) Minimize or avoid negative impacts to wildlife and habitat ■ Harassing, baiting, playing playback tapes or electronic calls are methods not allowed for attracting wildlife for observation or photography. That does not necessarily apply to management activities, e.g., approved research or surveys, which we evaluate on a case-by- case basis.

■ Currently, people must control their dogs on a leash no longer than 10 feet. Some people frequently blatantly violate that regulation. Short of the constant presence of law enforcement, the regulation is unenforceable. As a result, dogs have posed a threat and a disturbance for refuge wildlife, visitors and management activities. Following the approval of our comprehensive conservation plan, we will implement a policy of no dogs on the refuge. That policy will include accommodations for hunting dogs in approved refuge hunting seasons and programs, dogs trained to assist people with disabilities, and dogs used in emergency conditions.

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-29 Compatibility Determination – Wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation

■ Collecting plants is prohibited, except for the collection of blueberries for personal consumption. That does not necessarily apply to management activities, e.g., approved research or surveys, which we evaluate on a case-by-case basis.

2) Develop and implement monitoring and research programs designed to study and allow assessment of visitor uses and associated impacts of wildlife and their habitats.

3) Use information gained from monitoring and research to modify programs and uses appropriately to ensure their continued compatibility through an adaptive management system.

4) Provide for visitor safety ■ Install adequate boundary signs, closed area signs, and hunting area signs.

■ Make visitors aware of hunting season dates and seasonal trail closures and recommend that they wear blaze orange if entering the woods during hunting season.

5) Minimize or avoid conflicts among different types of uses ■ Make visitors aware of the priority status of wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, interpretation, hunting, and fishing on national wildlife refuges. ■ Use education and interpretation to explain the value of hunting, trapping, and habitat management for wildlife management.

6) We will allow public access for wildlife observation only in areas that are open to public entry.

7) We allow photography only in areas generally open to the public, such as nature trails or wildlife observation sites.

JUSTIFICATION Wildlife observation is an activity especially suited for a national wildlife refuge. This activity is restricted to prevent any serious disturbance of wildlife. Providing the opportunity for people to see some of the wildlife that benefit from the establishment of the refuge will maintain public support for these areas.

Photography will occur primarily while observing wildlife, walking or hiking. It will have no additive impact on refuge habitats.

Interpretation and environmental education are high-priority forms of public use on refuges, providing refuge visitors with information about endangered species, wildlife and habitat management, and the need to protect our natural resources. The increased knowledge about the habitats and about the refuge system in particular will be beneficial to the continued protection of refuge lands.

B-30 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation

Allowing wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation on the Missisquoi 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.

Signature: Refuge Manager: (Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief: (Signature and Date)

Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation Date: (Date)

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-31

Compatibility Determination – Hunting

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

USE: Hunting

REFUGE NAME: Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge

DATE ESTABLISHED: February 4, 1943

ESTABLISHING AUTHORITY: Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929

PURPOSE FOR WHICH ESTABLISHED

The Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge was established “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds” [Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 715–715d, and 715f–715r].

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 fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”

DESCRIPTION OF USE

(a) What is the use? Is it a priority public use? The use is hunting, which includes big game hunting, upland small game hunting, waterfowl hunting and other migratory bird hunting. Hunting is 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? Much of the refuge is open for upland game and deer hunting, including the Maquam Bog and much of the delta north of Mudgett Island (marked as “Private” downriver from Mac’s Bend on refuge maps), on the west side of the river and north of Goose Bay on the east side of the river. The Cranberry Pool, Goose Bay Pool, Big Marsh Slough, and Burton’s Pothole areas are closed, as are the Clark Marsh, lands near Mac’s Bend Road and the area between Route 78 and Charcoal Creek east of Charcoal Creek. In addition, lands near the Black Creek and Maquam Creek trails are closed.

In accordance with the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act, less than 40 percent of the refuge is open for hunting migratory birds. Areas open for hunting migratory waterfowl include the delta east of the main branch and north of Goose Bay, Shad Island Pothole, Metcalfe Island Pothole, Long Marsh Bay and Channel, Patrick Marsh and Charcoal Creek, Maquam Swamp north of the Black Creek and Maquam Creek Nature Trails, and the Maquam Shore Area in Maquam Bay. Areas open for hunting woodcock and common snipe include the Maquam Swamp area north of the Black Creek and Maquam Creek Nature Trails; and the Stephen J. Young Marsh area, west of Tabor Road. Those are the only two areas open for hunting those two species.

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-33 Compatibility Determination – Hunting

(c) When would the use be conducted? Big Game Season—Deer are the only big game animal people may hunt on the refuge. The refuge hunt coincides with the seasons and dates set by the state for deer hunting. Vermont has four types of deer seasons: Youth Deer Hunting Weekend, Archery Season, the November Rifle Deer Season, and the Muzzle-loader Deer Season. The youth deer-hunting weekend falls on the Saturday and Sunday before the opening of the regular November rifle season, which opens the second Saturday of November every year. Archery season runs the last three weeks of October and the first week of December. The firearm season always starts on the second Saturday of November, and runs for 16 consecutive days. The muzzle-loader season runs 9 days during the first full week of December.

Upland Game Season—Ruffed grouse, cottontail rabbit, snowshoe hare and gray squirrel are the only upland game species that may be hunted on the refuge. The hunting of these animals on the refuge coincides with the seasons and season dates set by the state for hunting these species. Normal state seasons for these species follow.

Ruffed grouse season runs from the last Saturday in September to the end of the year, annually.

Rabbit and hare season runs from the last Saturday in September to the second Sunday in March of the following year, annually.

Gray squirrel season runs from September 1 to the end of the year, annually.

No hunting of any species is permitted from the end of rabbit season through September 1.

Migratory Game Bird Season—The Missisquoi refuge lies entirely within the Lake Champlain waterfowl hunting regulatory zone established by the State of Vermont and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Refuge open seasons correspond to the season dates and lengths established by state and federal regulation annually. Recent history indicates that the season length is normally 60 days, and takes place between October 1 and December 31 annually. Likewise, the regulations promulgated annually by the State of Vermont and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service set the dates of the season for woodcock and snipe.

(d) How would the use be conducted?

Big Game and Upland Game—All persons hunting upland game or big game on the refuge must first hold a valid state hunting license, and must then obtain a refuge upland and big game hunting permit. We issue the refuge permit each year for January 1 through December 31, for a $10 annual fee.

During the Youth Deer Hunting Weekend, youth hunters (16 years and younger) may hunt at no charge, but must obtain a big game permit before hunting, and must return completed harvest information to refuge headquarters by December 31.

All hunters are required to submit an annual report of the results of their hunt on the refuge by December 31 by completing the report portion of their permit. Failure to do so will result in denial of a permit for the following year.

B-34 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Hunting

Individuals hunting on the refuge are subject to the inspection of permits, licenses, hunting equipment, game bagged, boats, vehicles, and their contents by federal or state officers.

Unarmed hunters may scout areas that will be open to hunting before a particular season opens, but in no case before September 1. A hunting permit is not required for scouting.

Hunters may use only approved non-toxic shot for the shotgun hunting of all species except deer.

Dogs are allowed for hunting migratory game birds, cottontail rabbits, snowshoe hares, and ruffed grouse during designated seasons only.

Arrangements to accommodate persons with disabilities can be made by contacting the refuge manager.

Any person engaged in guiding others for compensation on the refuge must apply for and obtain a special use permit specifically for that activity from the refuge manager (see separate compatibility determination for commercially guided waterfowl hunting).

Upland-game-specific—Only ruffed grouse, cottontail rabbit, snowshoe hare, and gray squirrel may be hunted.

Hunters may not enter closed areas of the refuge for any reason, except for the recovery of legally harvested animals, and in that case may not carry a weapon.

Only shotguns, muzzle-loaders, or archery equipment may be used on open areas east of the Missisquoi River and on Shad Island.

Hunting is not permitted from the end of snowshoe hare and rabbit season through September 1.

Big-game-specific—Only deer may be hunted; there is no open season on the refuge for any other species of big game.

Hunters may not enter closed areas of the refuge for any reason, except for the recovery of legally harvested animals with the consent of a refuge employee and, in that case, may not carry a weapon unless circumstances warrant and the refuge employee approves it.

Only shotguns, muzzle-loaders, or archery equipment may be used on open areas east and north of Vermont Route 78. Rifles may not be used in those areas at any time.

All hunters during the state regular firearms season, the youth deer-hunting weekend and muzzle- loader deer hunt must wear in a conspicuous manner on head, chest and back a minimum of 400 square inches of solid-colored hunter orange clothing or material.

Permanent tree stands and ground blinds are prohibited. Temporary, portable tree stands and ground blinds are acceptable in accordance with state regulations. Written notation from the refuge manager is required on the big game permit before leaving a temporary stand or blind unattended. However, this does not grant exclusive use of an area or site.

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-35 Compatibility Determination – Hunting

Prohibited Activities in Hunting Big Game and Upland Game

■ Littering

■ Spotlighting or using artificial light to locate wildlife.

■ Baiting or hunting over bait, salt or any attractant.

■ Shooting for target practice.

■ Using or possessing alcoholic beverages while hunting.

■ Taking wildlife or plants, including cutting trees or brush, other than as specified above.

■ Driving or screwing a nail, spike or other metal object into a tree or hunting from any tree into which such an object has been driven.

■ Searching for or removing any object of antiquity, including arrowheads, pottery, or other artifacts.

■ Using motorized vehicles in hunting areas, except for access by mobility-impaired hunters as permitted.

■ Performing commercial guiding services without a refuge special use permit.

Migratory Game Bird Hunting—We have developed opportunities for migratory game bird hunting at the refuge to provide a wide variety of high quality hunting opportunities for refuge visitors. Within season dates set by state and federal regulations, the refuge provides the following migratory game bird hunting opportunities.

1. Youth waterfowl hunters, who have completed the annual refuge junior waterfowl hunter training course, may hunt in controlled hunting areas and other open areas of the refuge on youth weekend;

2. Youth waterfowl hunters, who have not completed the annual refuge junior waterfowl hunter training course, may hunt in other open areas of the refuge except the Junior Waterfowl Hunting Area on youth weekend;

3. All hunters may hunt in the public hunting areas including the Delta Lakeshore Area, the Maquam Swamp Area, and the Maquam Shore Area without a permit, however, other restrictions may apply (see below).

4. All hunters may apply for permits to hunt in controlled hunting areas including the Junior Waterfowl Hunting Area, the Long Marsh Channel/Metcalfe Island Area, and the Saxes Pothole and Creek/Shad Island Area.

B-36 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Hunting

We detail the refuge-specific waterfowl hunting regulations outlined below in our brochure “Migratory Game Bird Hunting Map and Regulations” and in Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

General Regulations Relative to Migratory Birds—All persons hunting migratory birds on the refuge must hold a valid Federal Migratory Bird Conservation Stamp, Vermont State Duck Stamp and a Vermont State Hunting License. EXCEPTION: The Federal Migratory Bird Conservation Stamp and Vermont State Duck Stamp are not required to hunt woodcock.

During the youth waterfowl hunting weekend, youth hunters (15 years and younger) may hunt at no charge, but must obtain a waterfowl hunt permit before hunting in controlled hunting areas and, in all cases, must return a completed bag report to refuge headquarters or the drop box at Mac’s Bend.

Hunters may not enter closed areas of the refuge for any reason, except for the recovery of legally harvested animals and, in that case, may not carry a weapon.

Reporting—At the end of each daily hunt, all hunters are required to complete a bag report. Bag reports are included on the permits for controlled hunting areas and the Report of Birds Bagged forms available at refuge headquarters and the Mac’s Bend drop box for public hunting areas. Bag reports provide valuable information regarding species and numbers of waterfowl using the refuge.

Scouting—Unarmed hunters may scout open hunting areas before a particular season opens but in no case before September 1. A hunting permit is not required for scouting.

Ammunition—Hunters are required to use nontoxic shot for all game bird hunting on the refuge.

Dogs and Other Pets—Retrievers are required for hunting waterfowl in the following areas: Maquam Swamp Area, Long Marsh Channel/Metcalfe Island, and Saxes Pothole/Creek and Shad Island Pothole. Other dogs and pets must be confined or on a leash.

Guiding or Other Commercial Activities—No person, including but not limited to a guide, guide service, outfitter, club, or other organization shall provide assistance, services, or equipment to any other person for compensation on national wildlife refuge lands unless such person, guide, guide service, outfitter, club, or other organization has obtained a special use permit from the refuge manager. Likewise, the individual using the services of a guide, guide service, etc., is responsible for verifying that the guide, guide service, etc., has obtained the required permit. Failure to comply with this provision subjects each hunter in the party to a fine if convicted of this violation (see separate compatibility determination for commercially guided waterfowl hunting).

Public Hunting Area

Permits and Fees—No permits or fees are required to hunt in these areas: the Delta Lakeshore, Maquam Swamp, and Maquam Shore.

Youth Waterfowl Hunting Weekend—Those areas are available to youth waterfowl hunters during the annual, 2-day, special Youth Waterfowl Hunting Weekend in late September.

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-37 Compatibility Determination – Hunting

Reporting—At the end of each daily hunt, hunters are required to complete bag reports and return them to refuge headquarters or the drop box at Mac’s Bend.

General Regulations—Blind-staking, permanent blinds, and unattended decoys are prohibited.

Hunters using boat blinds or temporary blinds are encouraged to maintain a 200-yard distance from other hunters.

Shooting hours will begin one-half hour before sunrise and end at sunset.

Delta Lakeshore Area Regulations—This hunting unit includes lakeshore areas from Shad Island to the south side of Martindale Point, but does not include Saxes Pothole/Creek and Shad Island Pothole.

Jump shooting is not allowed within 200 yards of a party hunting from a boat or blind.

Maquam Swamp Area Regulations—This hunting area encompasses about 200 acres west of the Central Vermont Railroad and south of the private inholding, and is open to migratory bird hunting with the following special requirements.

Jump shooting is allowed. Each party of hunters (up to two people) must have a retriever. No hunting is allowed within the area encompassing the headquarters nature trail. The signs “No Hunting Zone” identify this area.

Maquam Shore Area Regulations—This hunting unit encompasses 30 acres along the lakeshore of Maquam Bay, and is bounded by private land on the west and a Vermont Wildlife Management Area on the east.

Jump shooting is not allowed within 200 yards of a party hunting from a boat or blind.

Controlled Hunting Areas

Permits and Fees—All hunters hunting in a controlled area must have a permit. The permit must be completed, section A deposited in the drop box at refuge headquarters or Mac’s Bend at the beginning of the hunt day, and sections B and C carried while hunting and deposited at the end of the hunt day.

Hunters obtain permits for the first two weeks of the season through a preseason lottery. We issue successful lottery winners a non-transferable permit for a specific date and blind site for a $10 fee. Thereafter, permits are available daily on a first-come, first-served basis at no charge. There is no charge for permits issued on the day of the hunt.

Preseason Lottery—We will require all hunters who draw a blind site during the preseason lottery to provide the $10 fee no later than 2 days before the first day of the season. Otherwise, the permit

B-38 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Hunting

will be forfeited and made available first to stand-by hunters identified at the time of the drawing, second to stand-by hunters who have called in, and third, to other hunters on a first-come, first- served basis.

Stand-by—Stand-by hunters are chosen from applications that were unsuccessful during the preseason lottery. Those individuals could be drawn if their preferred sites and dates become available.

Call List—Calls will be taken from any hunter wishing to be put on a stand-by call list starting on preseason lottery drawing day. We will use that list if no stand-by applicants are available.

First-come, First-served—Preseason lottery hunt days: After 7 a.m., hunters may sign in, self- register, and use any unoccupied blind site.

Other hunt days: At the conclusion of preseason lottery hunt days, permits and report cards will be available at refuge headquarters or the sign-in box at Mac’s Bend for self-service sign-in and permitting no more than 2 hours before legal shooting time.

Sign In and Sign Out—All hunters are required to sign in and out of their sites by completing the sign in, sign out sheet for their hunt area. Sheets for the Junior Waterfowl Hunting Area are located at refuge headquarters. Sheets for other areas are located at Mac’s Bend. When a party signs out, another party may sign in and use the vacated site. Hunters must sign out of one site before occupying a different site in any of the controlled hunting areas.

Youth Waterfowl Hunting Weekend—With the exception of the Junior Waterfowl Hunting Area, these areas are open on a first-come, first-served basis to youth waterfowl hunters during the 2-day special youth waterfowl hunting weekend in late September. No preseason drawing will be held, and no fee will be assessed; however, youth hunters must self-register and submit a report of their hunt.

Reporting—At the end of each daily hunt, hunters will have until 1 hour after sunset to sign out, and must complete sections B and C of their permits and return them to refuge headquarters or the Mac’s Bend drop box.

General Regulations—Permanent blinds and unattended decoys are prohibited. See exception under “Junior Waterfowl Hunting Area.”

A hunting party consists of the hunter named on the permit and one guest hunter per site per day. Non-hunters may accompany a hunting party.

Each hunting party must possess a permit for the specific site on the specific day they are hunting in these areas. Permits are not transferable.

Hunters must hunt within 100 feet of a numbered stake corresponding to their assigned site. Jump shooting is not allowed.

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-39 Compatibility Determination – Hunting

A hunter may not use or possess more than 25 shot shells per day.

Saxes Pothole/Creek and Shad Island Pothole Regulations—This controlled hunting area encompasses Saxes Creek, Saxes Pothole, and Shad Island Pothole. Five sites, numbered 1–5, are staked and available to five hunting parties in Saxe’s Pothole. One site, numbered 6, is staked and available to one hunting party in Shad Island Pothole.

A boat is required to access each of these blind sites.

Shooting hours will be one-half hour before sunrise to sunset.

Hunters obtain permits for the period from the opening day of duck hunting season through the first Sunday of the duck-hunting season, and for the second weekend of the duck-hunting season, by application to a preseason lottery. In years when the state elects a split season, permits for the second opening day through the following Sunday will also be obtained by application to the preseason lottery. On all other hunt days, hunters must acquire permits through self-registration at the Mac’s Bend Landing no earlier than 2 hours before legal shooting time on the day of the hunt.

On those days for which we draw permits by preseason lottery, hunters must sign in at the Mac’s Bend Landing by 7:00 a.m. before going to the assigned site. After 7:00 a.m., other hunters may sign in, self-register, and use unoccupied sites.

Each party is required to use a retriever.

Junior Waterfowl Hunting Area—This controlled hunting area encompasses Long Marsh Bay, Patrick Marsh and that portion of Charcoal Creek south of Vermont Route 78. Eleven blind sites are established for use by junior waterfowl hunters; blind sites 4–8 in Long Marsh Bay, blind sites C–F in Charcoal Creek, and blind sites A–B in Patrick Marsh.

A small, flat-bottom boat, car-top boat or canoe is necessary to access the blind sites at Charcoal Creek and Patrick Marsh. Access is available at the Charcoal Creek crossing on Route 78 or from a pull-off on Route 78 about three-quarters of a mile east of the Charcoal Creek access.

Shooting hours will be one-half hour before sunrise to 11:00 a.m.

Junior waterfowl hunters (ages 12–15 at the time of the hunt), vie for blind site assignments in a lottery drawing after successfully completing the annual refuge training program, usually held the third or fourth Saturday in August. The 11 blind sites are available exclusively for these junior waterfowl hunters the first four Saturdays and Sundays of the duck season.

Hunters, including junior hunters, must sign in at refuge headquarters no later than 7:00 a.m. on the date of their scheduled hunt. After 7:00 a.m., other junior hunters may sign in, self-register, and use unoccupied blind sites. Only junior hunters may hunt on the first four Saturdays and Sundays of the season.

B-40 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Hunting

Each junior hunter must possess a free permit for the assigned blind site and day. On Mentor Day, mentors must also possess this free permit for the assigned blind site. Each adult hunting party must possess a permit for the blind site and day they are hunting. Permits are not transferable.

A mentor must accompany the junior hunter who has completed the training program. The mentor is included on the permit assigned to the junior hunter. A mentor may simultaneously oversee up to two junior hunters at one blind site.

Only junior hunters may discharge a firearm in this area during the junior hunt periods.

Each party must use at least six decoys.

Junior Area Adult Regulations—Following the use of the blind sites in this area by junior hunters and mentors, all blinds sites are then available to all adult hunters by permit awarded in a preseason lottery for the second Wednesday following the second weekend of the duck season. Thereafter, the blinds are available Wednesdays and weekends following the junior hunt by first-come, first-served self-registration and permitting at refuge headquarters no more than 2 hours before legal shooting time.

Each adult hunter, except mentors on Mentor Day, must pay $10 for each permit issued because of the preseason lottery. Permits acquired by self-registration are free.

Exceptions—Hunting is permitted, and recommended, from portable blinds and boat blinds constructed and placed by the refuge for the junior waterfowl hunting program at some of the blind sites. With the refuge manager’s approval, junior hunters may construct stationary blinds and leave them in place for the duration of the season. Otherwise, permanent blinds are not permitted.

The Junior Waterfowl Hunting Area during the youth waterfowl hunting weekend in late September is available only to current-year, refuge-trained junior waterfowl hunters.

Long Marsh Channel and Metcalfe Island Regulations—This controlled hunting area encompasses the Metcalfe Island Pothole and Long Marsh Channel. Three blind sites designated 1–3 are established in Long Marsh Channel. Three blind sites designated 8–10 are established on Metcalfe Island.

A boat is required to hunt at each of these blind sites.

Shooting hours are one-half hour before sunrise to 11:00 a.m.

Hunting will be limited to Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays throughout the waterfowl-hunting season for ducks.

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-41 Compatibility Determination – Hunting

Hunters obtain permits for the first 5 days of the duck season by application to a preseason lottery. Following the first 5 days, hunters may acquire permits on a first-come, first-served basis with self-service permitting and sign in at the Mac’s Bend Landing, no more than 2 hours before legal shooting time.

On those days for which hunters have drawn permits by preseason lottery, they must sign in at the Mac’s Bend Landing by 7:00 a.m. before going to their assigned sites. After 7:00 a.m., other hunters may sign in, self-register, and use unoccupied sites. A party must use at least six decoys.

Each party is required to use a retriever.

Other Migratory Birds—These include woodcock and common snipe.

Areas open for hunting woodcock and common snipe include the Maquam Swamp area north of the Black Creek and Maquam Creek Nature Trails; and the Stephen J. Young Marsh area, west of Tabor Road. Those are the only two areas open for hunting those two species. No permit is required to hunt woodcock and snipe in those areas.

Prohibited Activities ■ Littering

■ Using or possessing alcoholic beverages

■ Taking of wildlife or plants, other than as specified in this brochure

■ Searching for or removing any object of antiquity including arrowheads, pottery or other artifacts

■ Camping overnight

■ Burning open fires

(e) Why is this use being proposed? We are proposing this use to acknowledge its importance for refuge visitors and accomplish the goal of providing them opportunities to engage in a compatible, high-priority public use. Hunting has continued on the lands of the refuge since Native Americans first came to the area more than 7,000 years ago. Since the establishment of the refuge in 1943, hunting has been a constant, popular, sustainable, high-priority public use of significant importance for local and regional residents. Their interest in hunting remains high.

AVA ILA BILITY OF R ESOU RCES We have outlined below the funding required to administer and manage the annual costs of the refuge hunting program. The annual operating budget of the refuge includes them.

B-42 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Hunting

Table 2. Annual costs of the refuge hunting program

Maintaining parking areas and boat ramps $1,000 Maintaining roads 750 Maintaining signs and information kiosks 500 Maintaining access trails to blind sites 500 Identifying/posting blind sites and parking areas 500 Maintaining placement of boat blinds in junior hunting area 700 Conducting junior hunter training 1,250 Conducting hunter orientation 300 Developing and dispensing annual hunting information 1,200 Administering the controlled hunt 500 Reprinting hunting brochures 500 Selling annual hunting permits and dispensing information 1,000 Enforcing hunting laws and refuge regulations $1,000 Total $9,700

The annual contributions of volunteers who assist with virtually every aspect of the program, except the reprinting of the brochures, significantly defray some of those costs. The sale of big game/upland game permits at $10/person/year and the sale of controlled waterfowl hunting site permits at $10/ permit/day generate additional funds.

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE USE Big game hunting is a very popular, longstanding public use on the refuge. In recent years, we have sold approximately 100 permits. Before we charged an annual fee for the permit, we issued more than 300 permits each year. Upland game hunting is of much less interest on the refuge, primarily due to the relatively small amount of habitat available for grouse and low interest in hunting gray squirrels or rabbits.

The annual deer harvest in recent years fell in the low to mid-20’s, including all deer harvested and reported during the youth weekend, the archery hunt, the regular firearms hunt, and the muzzle- loader hunt. Deer move on and off the refuge to neighboring sanctuary habitats and food sources, and most of those areas are open for hunting as well. However, we have closed large portions of the refuge to hunters to minimize the disturbance of migratory birds. Because the Maquam Bog hunting area is difficult for most hunters to access, hunting activity there is limited. Hunting on the refuge poses no danger of reducing the deer population to unhealthy levels.

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-43 Compatibility Determination – Hunting

In recent years, a conflict has arisen among hunters using the delta portion of the refuge. Those areas generally are long, narrow, or relatively small islands that cannot accommodate many hunters without affecting the natural movement of wildlife and, therefore, decreasing the quality of the hunting experience and creating some level of competition among hunters. That has manifested itself in two ways.

1) Competition among hunters for choice sites is keen, and has led to unethical behavior. Hunters consider the area near their stands to be their exclusive hunting area, in spite of refuge regulations specifically stating that is not the case. Hunters with permits signed by the refuge manager can erect portable tree stands on the east side of the Missisquoi River in the open hunting area.

2) During the youth weekend hunt and the muzzle-loader season, several parties of local hunters have established the practice of organizing drives on those long, narrow portions of the open area and on Metcalfe and Shad Island. Although that method has proved successful for that group of hunters, it jeopardizes the success of other hunters not associated with the group and, again, leads to unethical behavior.

To resolve the problems associated with those hunting areas, the refuge manager will evaluate the effectiveness of a lottery permit system for deer hunting on the delta, including both sides of the river, and will seek opportunities to develop hunting programs for juniors, seniors, and disabled big game hunters in those and other areas of the refuge.

Hunting near open trails or trail closures may affect other refuge visitors. Most conflicts between hunters and trail users will be avoided by notification and posting trails of hunting activity in the area or by outright trail closures to non-hunters on actual hunting days. The comprehensive conservation plan for the refuge proposes the following trail closures or trail advisories during the hunting program.

■ Implement the following trail closures (trails will be posted “Closed”) ● Jeep Trail ♦ Youth Deer Hunt Weekend (Early November–2 days) ♦ Muzzle-loader Season (Early December – 10 days) ♦ Nesting Season (April 1-August 1) ● Discovery Trail ♦ Regular Season – shotgun and rifle (Mid-November–16 days) ♦ Youth Deer Hunt Weekend ♦ Muzzle-loader Season ● Old Railroad Trail ♦ Regular Season—shotgun and rifle ♦ Youth Deer Hunt Weekend ♦ Muzzle-loader Season ● Stephen J. Young Marsh Trail ♦ Regular Season—shotgun and rifle ♦ Youth Deer Hunt Weekend ♦ Muzzle-loader Season

B-44 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Hunting

■ Implement the following trail advisories. We will post the trails to advise users that the area is open to hunting—visitors may proceed with caution.

● Jeep Trail ● Waterfowl Hunt Season ● Discovery Trail ♦ Archery Season (early October—23 days and early December—9 days) ♦ Upland Game Seasons (includes gray squirrel, rabbit and hare, ruffed grouse) ● Old Railroad Trail ♦ Archery Season ♦ Upland Game Seasons (includes gray squirrel, rabbit and hare, ruffed grouse) ● Stephen J. Young Marsh Trail ♦ Archery Season ♦ Upland Game Seasons (includes gray squirrel, rabbit and hare, ruffed grouse)

We manage migratory birds on a flyway basis, and establish refuge hunting regulations in each state based on flyway data. Atlantic Flyway and State of Vermont regulations apply to the migratory waterfowl-hunting program at the Missisquoi refuge. Its hunting regulations, which are more restrictive than state and other federal regulations, limit hunt days and hunting hours, and include shot shell restrictions, etc. Hunting would reduce the numbers of birds in the flyway, within allowable limits, as determined by state and federal agencies. Hunting and the associated hunter activity likely would cause the direct disturbance of non-target birds, but only for the short term.

Those temporary impacts are mitigated by the presence of adjacent refuge habitat where hunting does not occur, and where birds can feed and rest undisturbed. Refuge regulations ensure that areas of inviolate sanctuary remain free of disturbance throughout the season. The activity of waterfowl hunters has little impact on other refuge visitors, with the exception of those who wish to use the Jeep Trail for walking or observing or photographing wildlife. Those users are impacted by the presence and noise associated with waterfowl hunting on the delta and, especially, in the Long Marsh Channel and, to a lesser extent, Long Marsh Bay. The activity associated with waterfowl hunting can also affect paddlers, other boaters and anglers, although participation in those uses generally diminishes as their season ends. The length of the boating season depends largely on the weather.

PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT As part of the comprehensive conservation planning for the Missisquoi refuge, this compatibility determination will undergo a comment period of 30 days concurrent with the release of our draft CCP/EA.

DETERMINATION (Check one):

THIS USE IS COMPATIBLE X

THIS USE IS NOT COMPATIBLE

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-45 Compatibility Determination – Hunting

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY Adherence to the regulations highlighted above for each of the hunting programs will ensure compatibility with the purpose for which the refuge was established.

JUSTIFICATION The Missisquoi refuge is located in a rural area where deer hunting is an established, traditional activity. It does not conflict with any other types of compatible public uses that may occur on the refuge. Deer hunting is compatible with the primary purpose for which the refuge was established, and provides an opportunity for a popular form of wildlife-oriented recreation. The deer hunt primarily satisfies a recreational need, but deer hunting on national wildlife refuges is also an important, proactive management action that can prevent overpopulation and the deterioration of habitat. Because state laws limit the hunting of deer to prevent overharvest, and the state can adjust hunting pressure by issuing antlerless hunting permits, there is no biological need to close the refuge completely to deer hunting.

The hunting of small game on the designated areas does not interfere with the primary purpose for which the refuge was established. Our hunting program excludes the most significant resting areas for migratory birds.

The areas open to upland small game hunting can easily accommodate woodcock and snipe hunting.

Allowing hunting on the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge contributes to, and does not materially interfere with or detract from, the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the purposes for which the refuge was established.

Signature: Refuge Manager: (Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief: (Signature and Date)

Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation Date: (Date)

B-46 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Sport fishing

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

USE: Sport fishing

REFUGE NAME: Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge

DATE ESTABLISHED: February 4, 1943

ESTABLISHING AUTHORITY: Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929

PURPOSE FOR WHICH ESTABLISHED

The Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge was established “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds” [Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 715–715d, and 715f–715r].

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 fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”

DESCRIPTION OF USE

(a) What is the use? Is it a priority public use? The use is fishing. It is 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? Except as noted below, sport fishing is permitted year round on waters surrounding and coursing through the refuge, including the shoreline areas of Lake Champlain, the Missisquoi River, and Dead Creek. Long Marsh Bay is also open to fishing until Labor Day, when it is closed for waterfowl hunting. Long Marsh Bay may also be closed seasonally to protect nesting habitat for sensitive migratory bird species.

Other internal waters of the refuge are closed, including Cranberry Pool, Goose Bay Pool, Big Marsh Slough, Burton’s Pothole, Saxes Creek, Metcalfe Pothole, Eel Creek, Long Marsh Channel, Black Duck Creek, and the backwaters of Charcoal Creek, including the Clark Marsh, and Charcoal Creek south of Route 78. Black Creek and Maquam Creek are closed where they lie within the refuge. Stephen J. Young Marsh is closed.

Bank fishing is permitted along Charcoal Creek where is passes under Route 78, and along the shoreline of the Missisquoi River from the southeast refuge boundary on Route 78 to the Mac’s

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-47 Compatibility Determination – Sport fishing

Bend boat launch. Bank fishing is accessible only on foot from Louie’s Landing to Mac’s Bend. Additionally, from April to November, we may close and poste areas to provide undisturbed nesting and resting areas for ospreys, black terns, great blue herons, and other migratory birds. The perimeters of those sensitive areas may change annually, and we ask anglers to observe and honor them.

Shoreline fishing access for disabled individuals is available at Louie’s Landing.

(c) When would the use be conducted? Sport fishing on the refuge follows all Vermont fishing regulations, including open seasons, limits and methods of fishing. For information, consult the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department Annual Guide to Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Laws. The guide is available at refuge headquarters.

(d) How would the use be conducted? Most fishing on the refuge takes place in accordance with state regulations, with additional restrictions to protect sensitive wildlife areas, via motor boat or paddle boat, using a rod and reel, hook and line, or bow and arrow. Regulations must be consulted for details. Fishing also takes place from shore at open locations, mainly during spring and early summer. Anglers use the boat launch at Louie’s Landing to access the river and lake, or travel into the refuge by water from other access points along the lake.

A valid state fishing license would be required to fish on the refuge in accordance with state regulations.

Refuge regulations would not allow the use of firearms to take fish, even though permitted by state regulation for a limited time in the spring.

State law, the guide referenced above, and the refuge fishing brochure limit the consumption of certain fish caught in Vermont because of the potentially harmful contaminants they may contain.

The Vermont legislature prohibited the sale of lead sinkers used for fishing tackle in 2006. The use of lead sinkers will be illegal after January 1, 2007, in all Vermont waters, including the refuge.

(e) Why is this use being proposed? Sport fishing is a historic, traditional, popular, and sustainable wildlife-oriented activity identified as a priority public use on national wildlife refuges.

AVA ILA BILITY OF R ESOU RCES Facilities or materials needed to support sport fishing include; two parking areas, one boat launch area, restrooms, a refuge fishing brochure explaining fishing regulations, recurring maintenance costs, trash retrieval, public relations and enforcement of State and Federal fishing regulations.

The table below summarizes our analysis of the costs associated with sport fishing. These costs are not associated exclusively with sport fishing, but include other priority public uses as well. Approximately 50 percent, or $2,750, of the costs could be attributed to sport fishing.

B-48 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Sport fishing

Table 3. Annual costs of sport fishing

Routine maintenance $3,000 This is the expected cost to maintain two parking areas, one boat launch area, and two fully accessible restrooms by cleaning and by pumping twice a year. It includes the cost of picking up trash. The public uses these access areas to engage in all the priority uses of the refuge. Supplies and materials $1,500 This includes the cost of producing copies of the refuge fishing brochure and other written advisory materials, such as invasive species lookout cards. Public relations and law enforcement $1,000 This includes the cost to provide law enforcement coverage by a refuge officer from another station during periods when critical nesting activity and heavy fishing pressure coincide. Otherwise, Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department game wardens include the refuge in their regular patrol area. The refuge staff conducts public relations in the course of regular duties while on the refuge Total $5,500

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE USE Bank fishing is popular in the spring. The problems associated with that activity include littering, open fires along the riverbank areas, and bank erosion.

Anglers operating or fishing from a boat too close to nesting areas may affect wildlife populations. That may lead to nest abandonment.

In late summer or fall, fishing in weed beds that provide food for waterfowl can conflict with the use of those areas by waterfowl.

The act of fishing or the mere presence of people in boats, whether motorized or non-motorized, can disturb and displace waterfowl, other migratory birds, and wildlife in general.

The unintentional transportation and introduction of aquatic nuisance species by anglers moving from one body of water to another without properly cleaning and disinfecting their boats, motors, and trailers could have obvious negative consequences for the refuge.

Occasionally, an angler will catch a non-target species of fish, bird, mollusk, or turtle that may be injured or killed during attempts to release it.

Overall, the anticipated impacts of sport fishing at the refuge have not been significant. Area closures, public relations and field visits, and law enforcement patrols minimize or mitigate many impacts.

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-49 Compatibility Determination – Sport fishing

PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT As part of the comprehensive conservation planning for the Missisquoi refuge, this compatibility determination will undergo a comment period of 30 days concurrent with the release of our draft CCP/EA.

DETERMINATION (Check one):

THIS USE IS COMPATIBLE X

THIS USE IS NOT COMPATIBLE

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY Areas that provide important migratory bird nesting, feeding, and resting habitats will be closed to fishing. We will delineate those areas annually by posting them with refuge boundary signs and signs that read “Area Beyond This Sign Closed.” The refuge fishing leaflet and personal contacts will further advise Boaters to stay clear of those seasonally and annually shifting closed areas.

Brochures, leaflets, and signs are available to inform and educate anglers and boaters about the consequences of transporting invasive aquatic species by contaminated equipment.

Littering, burning open fires, and entering closed areas are prohibited on wildlife refuges during this or any other use. Law enforcement patrols and public relations will help control the negative impacts of those violations.

JUSTIFICATION Fishing is a wildlife-oriented form of recreation the Service encourages, when it does not interfere with the management purposes of the refuge. Restricting this activity to certain areas and enforcing regulations ensure that the activity is compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established. Allowing fishing on the Missisquoi 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.

Signature: Refuge Manager: (Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief: (Signature and Date)

Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation Date: (Date)

B-50 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Furbearer management

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

USE: Furbearer management

REFUGE NAME: Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge

DATE ESTABLISHED: February 4, 1943

ESTABLISHING AUTHORITY: Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929

PURPOSE FOR WHICH ESTABLISHED

The Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge was established “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds” [Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 715–715d, and 715f–715r].

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 fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”

DESCRIPTION OF USE

(a) What is the use? Is it a priority public use? The use is furbearer management. We consider furbearer management a refuge management economic activity. Furbearer management 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) or the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105–57). Furbearer management at the refuge occurs to support our mission to manage for migratory birds. The furbearers managed include species that prey upon migratory birds, their eggs or nestlings, or species that either impede water management for the benefit of migratory birds by damming waterways or by damaging dikes through burrowing and tunneling that leads to leaks or catastrophic failure.

(b) Where would the use be conducted? Furbearer management would be conducted primarily in locations on the refuge where the targeted species cause damage to refuge resources, such as the flooding of riparian forest habitat or other sensitive plant communities, the flooding of refuge roads and trails, damage to dikes and dams, or the persistent damming of water control structures. The use would also be conducted in locations where it will accomplish the goals and objectives of our Habitat Management Plan, such as the balance of predator-to-prey levels, marsh ecosystem dependence and beaver cycling.

We will work seasonally to inventory targeted species activity and determine trapping locations. State and refuge law enforcement personnel would ensure that trappers on the refuge comply with

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-51 Compatibility Determination – Furbearer management

state and refuge regulations and that the data submitted to the refuge is accurate. Designating management zones and limiting the number of trappers in each zone may help prevent conflicts among trappers. In addition, designating trapping zones would allow the refuge to either concentrate or reduce trapping in areas where management intervention is desirable. Designating locations where specific trappers are permitted on the refuge will facilitate the enforcement of refuge and state regulations. Zoning may also provide better quality trapping experiences by preventing overlap with other trappers. However, if necessary, trapping may be concentrated or zoning eliminated to meet our goals for protecting refuge resources.

(c) When would the use be conducted? Trapping would take place in the fall and early winter, during seasons established by the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife. Those seasons coincide with the period when the pelts of the target species are in good condition and when trapping activity will not affect nesting migratory birds. Trapping usually occurs late enough in the year that the peak of migratory activity has passed.

Typically, season dates resemble the 2005–2006 season dates.

■ The Vermont muskrat-trapping season opened on10/22/05 and closed on 4/19/06. The refuge muskrat trapping season, referred to as the “Fall Muskrat Trapping Program,” ran from 10/22/05 through 12/31/05.

■ The Vermont beaver-trapping season opened on 12/01/05 and closed 2/25/2006. The refuge beaver-trapping season ran concurrently.

■ The Vermont raccoon-trapping season opened on 10/22/05 and closed on 12/31/05. The refuge beaver-trapping season ran concurrently.

We will permit refuge trappers to scout their areas and set up bait stations, if desired, before the 2006–07 season opens. Annual furbearer management on the refuge will be at the discretion of the refuge manager, and will depend on the population size of the targeted species and management objectives.

(d) How would the use be conducted? We would conduct furbearer management following Vermont state regulations and specific refuge regulations issued through a refuge special use permit, and allow furbearer management during state seasons under state limits for the targeted species. The refuge manager reserves the authority to regulate the numbers of target species taken in any one location or zone.

We would manage the furbearer management program through the special permit process and, if needed, will work with officials of the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department to enact special furbearer management regulations. Administering the program under an annual permit will allow the refuge manager to have ready a list of contacts for specific management needs to accomplish refuge objectives.

B-52 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Furbearer management

We will require a weekly harvest report from each trapper during the trapping season. The report will include data about the trapping, the time span of trapping by species, the number of target and non-target species harvested, the refuge areas trapped, and remarks on observations of wildlife or other noteworthy ecological information. Those data can provide a basis for analyses of catch-per- unit and population trends. If the required information is lacking for a trapper from the previous year, we would not issue the permit for the next year.

The refuge biologist will assess furbearer populations annually and make a recommendation to the refuge manager for managing via the annual refuge trapping program the three key species: beaver, muskrat, and raccoon. In some years there may be no trapping if, for instance, beavers are not occupying an area where they are disrupting refuge management programs.

Each year, a public drawing at the refuge headquarters in the middle of October will select from among qualified candidates the permit holders for the “Fall Muskrat & Raccoon Trapping Program.” Applicants may apply for muskrat trapping permits, raccoon trapping permits, or both, as desired. Trapping units will be assigned by lottery selection based on first, second or third preferences listed by the applicants on their applications.

Similarly, beaver trappers will be selected by a drawing in mid-November annually.

We invite the public to attend the drawings, and notify by telephone or mail all selected applicants of the drawing results.

All trapping rules and regulations of the State of Vermont contained in the Vermont Digest of Hunting, Fishing & Trapping Laws, issued annually, apply to trapping on the refuge, including these.

■ Trapping license requirements,

■ Tagging and reporting of pelts and carcasses requirements,

■ Checking and marking trap requirements,

■ Maintaining a minimum distance of 10 ft. or more from the nearest point, above the water, of a beaver house or dam,

■ Restriction against disturbing a muskrat house or place a trap therein, thereon, or at the entrance thereof, or in the entrance of or inside a muskrat burrow,

■ Restriction against disturbing a trap lawfully set by another person, and

■ Restrictions regarding trap types and sizes.

We provide these additional, refuge-specific regulations to refuge trappers as part of their permit.

■ Only conibear type traps are allowed unless otherwise permitted by the refuge manager.

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-53 Compatibility Determination – Furbearer management

■ Only 110-size, conibear-type traps will be used to trap muskrats.

■ Either 160- or 220-size, conibear-type traps may be used to trap raccoons.

■ Trappers may use the appropriate size of the conibear-type trap, either 330 or 440, for trapping beavers.

Trapping permit holders are authorized to be on their trapping units from sunrise to sunset only. Permit holders are authorized to scout their units in advance of the refuge trapping season, with the permission of the refuge manager. Scouting can include the placing of bait (stations) designed to draw in the target species.

A report of animals taken will be provided to the refuge manager weekly.

The permit holders notify the refuge manager when they intend to begin and end their trapping effort on the refuge.

Raccoon trappers must not set any traps within 100 yards of any waterfowl hunting access trails. Those access trails are identified by posted numbers. Contact the refuge manager if there is any question about these locations.

Any non-target animals taken incidental to permitted trapping must be reported immediately via weekly report to the refuge manager, and must be presented to a state game warden in accordance with state trapping regulations.

All licenses, permits, equipment and animals are subject to inspection by the refuge manager or designee at any time during the season.

(e) Why is this use being proposed? We will conduct furbearer management first as a tool to maintain habitat and keep the predator- to-prey balance. A regulated furbearer management program on the refuge also affords a potential mechanism to collect survey and monitoring information or contribute to research on furbearer and other wildlife occurrence, activity, movement, population status, and ecology. By maintaining a trained, experienced group of trappers, the Service can use their skills and local knowledge to perform or assist in valuable management or research. Trappers who participate in the refuge program would provide assistance in implementing structured management objectives, such as the alleviation or reduction of wildlife damage conflicts, negative interactions among species, and habitat modifications. Refuge trappers typically have a stake in proper habitat and wildlife conservation and protection of the ecological integrity of the refuge so they can continue trapping. Accordingly, they are valuable assets for the refuge manager in providing on-site reports concerning the fundamental status of habitat, wildlife, and refuge conditions.

Furbearers are considered a renewable natural resource with cultural and economic values (Andelt et al 1999, Boggess et al. 1990 Northeast Furbearer Resources Technical Committee 1996, Payne 1980).

B-54 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Furbearer management

Several human dimensions studies have documented trapper profiles, cultural aspects of trapping, and the socioeconomic role of trapping in the United States (Andelt et al. 1999, Boggess et al. 1990, Daigle et al. 1998, Gentile 1987). A regulated trapping program on the refuge could also foster public appreciation of wildlife and nature, wildlife observation, environmental education, a greater understanding of ecological relationships, stewardship of natural resources, and inter-generational passage of the methodologies of renewable resource use. Trapping is an activity in which family members and friends often participate and share joint experiences that broaden their appreciation of natural resources and ecological awareness (Daigle et al. 1998).

We manage furbearers as part of the total environment of the refuge. The habits of muskrats and beavers are beneficial for waterfowl habitats by creating and maintaining nesting, brood-rearing, feeding and loafing areas. However, muskrats and beavers may also create negative impacts when their populations grow unchecked. Muskrat “eat-outs” of waterfowl food and cover plants, bank dens tunneled into refuge dikes, beaver girdling of valuable mast-producing trees, and new dams that back water onto adjacent private properties are not desirable. Population control is needed in such situations. These species also may threaten dams, dikes, and water control structures supporting refuge waterfowl habitat. Burrowing or tunneling into dams and dikes causes them to leak or fail, while plugging water control structures with woody debris and mud can render them inoperable.

Other furbearers, such as raccoons, may conflict with higher priority refuge objectives. Raccoons, in particular, prey on resident and migratory bird nests, disrupt waterfowl banding operations, and diminish trapper harvests by feeding on trapped furbearers, especially muskrats.

AVA ILA BILITY OF R ESOU RCES The financial resources necessary to provide and administer this use at its current level are now available, and we expect them to be available in the future. The refuge manager would provide overall administration of the program. A wildlife biologist would be required to evaluate furbearer activity and current and potential impacts on refuge resources. The biologist would also evaluate trapper data and compile trapping reports. An administrative assistant is required to help process permits and enter trapping data into a database. A refuge law enforcement officer would be required to check refuge trappers and ensure compliance with state and refuge regulations.

The table below estimates the annual costs associated with administering the furbearer management program on the refuge.

Table 5. Annual costs of furbearer management Refuge Biologist (GS 11): recommendations, surveys, data analysis—1 week/yr $1,500 Refuge Manager (GS 13): program administration—1 week/yr 2,000 Law Enforcement Officer (GS 12): trapper compliance—4 days/yr 1,400 Administrative Assistant (GS 6): office administration, permit issuance—2 days/yr $330 Total $5,230

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-55 Compatibility Determination – Furbearer management

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE USE The impacts of furbearer management on the purposes of the refuge and mission of the Refuge System can be either direct or indirect, and may have negative, neutral, or positive impacts on refuge resources.

Indirect impacts may include displacing migratory birds during the pair bonding/nesting season or the destruction of nests by trampling. Direct impacts may include the catch of target and non-target species that are predators on migratory birds or nests, or the removal of species that induce changes in habitat (e.g., beavers).

Because of the temporal separation of trapping activities with breeding wildlife using the refuge, indirect impacts on those resources by trappers would be negligible. Trappers using the refuge in early March may disturb individual early nesting waterfowl and cause their temporary displacement from specific, limited areas. Those impacts are occasional, temporary, and isolated to small geographic areas.

Indirect impacts on wildlife nesting and breeding success can result from the removal of animals under a furbearer management program. In many instances, those impacts are positive. Reductions in the populations of nest predators such as raccoon have positive impacts on nesting birds. The degree to which predator management benefits migratory bird production can vary widely depending on the timing of the removal of predators, the size of the habitat block, habitat isolation and adjacent land use.

The removal of plant-eating species such as beaver and muskrat can have both positive and negative impacts on refuge resources. Muskrats and beavers will dig bank dens into embankments and dikes. This causes considerable damage, and adds costs to the operations of the refuge. We must fill those dens and holes to prevent the compromise of the dike. Beavers will sometimes plug water control structures, causing damage, limiting access, and compromising the capabilities of the refuge to manage habitat. Managing beaver and muskrat populations at reasonable levels through a furbearer management program can reduce refuge costs in managing wildlife.

However, those same animals can enhance habitat management. Muskrats build houses and dens using aquatic vegetation, thus creating openings for fish, waterfowl and other migratory birds. Beaver dams create pond habitat, and their lodges are associated with openings in beds of aquatic vegetation. Beavers are keystone species for cycling small wetland systems from pond to meadow to scrub- shrub and forested successional stages back to pond. That cycling benefits other species, including woodcock and black duck. Those benefits minimize the need to commit refuge resources to achieve those habitat conditions.

In considering impacts on refuge purposes, the impacts of the furbearer management program obviously include those on the furbearer populations themselves. Trapping harvests and removes individuals of the species. Yet, state natural resources agencies indicate that, with exceptions, furbearer populations are stable or increasing. The anticipated direct impacts of trapping on wildife would be a reduction of furbearer populations in those areas with surplus furbearers. Their removal would maintain furbearer populations at levels compatible with the habitat and with refuge objectives, minimize furbearer damage to facilities and wildlife habitat, minimize competition

B-56 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Furbearer management with or interaction among wildlife populations and species that conflict with refuge objectives, and minimize threats of disease to wildlife and humans.

Non-target furbearer species could be taken in this trapping program. Traps will be set specifically around areas of targeted species activity to reduce the risk of taking species other than targeted species. The experience of the trappers and the selection of the appropriate trap size will reduce non-target furbearer captures (Northeast Furbearer Resources Technical Committee 1996, Boggess et. al 1990).

A national program operated under the guidance of the Fur Resources Technical Subcommittee of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA 1998) systematically improves the welfare of animals in trapping by testing traps and developing “Best Management Practices for Trapping Furbearers in the United States.” The refuge would cooperate with and contribute to the development and implementation of those practices by practicing an integrated, comprehensive approach to furbearer management, wherever and whenever possible.

PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT As part of the comprehensive conservation planning for the Missisquoi refuge, this compatibility determination will undergo a comment period of 30 days concurrent with the release of our draft CCP/EA.

DETERMINATION (Check one):

THIS USE IS COMPATIBLE X

THIS USE IS NOT COMPATIBLE

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY 1) Permit holders must comply with all conditions of the refuge furbearer management special use permit and all state trapping regulations.

2) Traps shall be set only where traps or trapped furbearers are not visible from public highways, overlooks, or other visitor facilities.

3) Trappers, when requested by federal or state enforcement officers, must display for inspection their state trapping license, refuge trapping permit, trapping equipment, and all animals in their possession.

4) One sub-permit holder is allowed. The sub-permit holder must be listed on the permit and have all applicable state licenses. The sub-permit holder may trap the unit without the permit holder only if the refuge manager grants prior approval to the permit holder.

5) Ingress to and egress from the refuge shall be only by routes that are currently open for travel. No motorized vehicles are allowed behind gates or off designated routes, unless specifically authorized by the refuge manager.

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-57 Compatibility Determination – Furbearer management

6) Permit holders shall provide the refuge manager with a report of animals taken and effort expended (trap nights), per unit, on a weekly basis. This requirement commences with the onset of trapping by the permit holder, with reports due within a week of the end of the week.

7) Permit holders may cut small trees or brush on the refuge for use only as trap stakes. Cutting is prohibited along public roads and trails or near visitor facilities.

8) Unless otherwise stated by the refuge manager, the refuge trapping season will run concurrently with the state season.

9) The Service assumes no responsibility for the theft of equipment or animals.

10) Failure by permit holders or sub-permit holders to comply with any of the provisions above or the violation of any refuge regulations or state laws or regulations applicable to trapping on the refuge, shall render him or her subject to prosecution under said laws and regulations and shall be cause for the revocation of this permit and for refusal of a trapping permit for the next 3 years.

11) This permit may be terminated at any time by agreement between the issuing officer and the permit holder; it may be revoked by the issuing officer for any violation of refuge or state laws or regulations applicable to trapping on the refuge or any conditions of the trapping permit; it may be revoked by the issuing officer for non-use.

JUSTIFICATION Furbearer management on the refuge is a useful tool in maintaining balance between furbearers and habitat, safeguarding refuge infrastructure, and preventing the spread of disease. High populations of predators can decrease the nesting success of ground-nesting migratory birds, thus compromising one purpose of the refuge. Furbearer populations in Vermont, with local exceptions, are stable or increasing. The furbearer management program on the refuge has no appreciable negative impacts on furbearer populations.

Furbearer management contributes to the purposes of the refuge and the mission of the Refuge System by maintaining the vigor and health of furbearer populations and safeguarding the refuge infrastructure critical to habitat for scores of fish and wildlife species.

Trapping certain furbearers will help facilitate habitat management for migratory birds and reduce predation on those birds and their nests. Furbearer management on the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge contributes to, and does not materially interfere with or detract from, the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the purposes for which the refuge was established.

B-58 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Furbearer management

Signature: Refuge Manager: (Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief: (Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10 Year Re-evaluation Date: (Date)

Literature Cited

Andelt, W.F. R.L. Phillips, R.H. Schmidt, and R.B. Gill. Trapping furbearers: an overview of the biological and social issues surrounding a public controversy. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27(1): 53-64.

Boggess, E.K., G.R. Batcheller, R.G. Linscombe, J.W. Greer, M. Novak, S.B. Linhart, D.W. Erickson, A.W. Todd, D.C. Juve, and D.A. Wade. 1990. Traps, trapping, and furbearer management. Wildlife Society Technical Review 90-1, The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Daigle, J.J., R.M. Muth, R.R. Zwick, and R.J. Glass. 1998. Sociocultural dimensions of trapping: a factor analytical study of trappers in six northeastern states. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:614-625.

International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 1998. Best Management Practices for trapping furbearers in the United States. International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Washington, D.C.

Northeast Furbearer Resources Technical Committee. 1996. Trapping and furbearer management: perspectives from the Northeast. 33pp.

Payne, N.F. 1980. Furbearer management and trapping. Wildlife Society Bulletin 8:345-348.

Attachments: Maps B–1, B–2, B–3

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-59 Compatibility Determination – Furbearer management Map B-1

Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge Muskrat Management Units

Unit 2

Unit 3A

Unit 3B

B-60 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Map B-2 Compatibility Determination – Furbearer management

Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge Beaver Management Units

Unit 2

Unit 3

Unit 1

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-61 Compatibility Determination – Furbearer management Map B-3

Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge Raccoon Management Units

Unit 6

Unit 5

Unit 2

Unit 3

Unit 4

Unit 1

B-62 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Walking or hiking, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

USE: Walking or hiking, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing

REFUGE NAME: Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge

DATE ESTABLISHED: February 4, 1943

ESTABLISHING AUTHORITY: Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929

PURPOSE FOR WHICH ESTABLISHED

The Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge was established “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds” [Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 715–715d, and 715f–715r].

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 fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”

DESCRIPTION OF USE

(a) What is the use? Is it a priority public use? The uses are walking or hiking, cross-country skiing and snowshoeing. Those activities have occurred on the refuge for many years. They are not 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) or the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105– 57). However, the refuge staff believes allowing these activities will expose the participants to the refuge and the Refuge System in a positive way. That may lead to better public understanding of the importance of the Refuge System to the American people.

(b) Where would the use be conducted? These activities would be conducted on refuge trails, including the Black Creek and Maquam Creek Nature trails, Jeep Trail, Old Railroad Passage Trail, Stephen J. Young Marsh Trail, Discovery Trail, and Mac’s Bend Road.

(c) When would the use be conducted? The trail system may be used daily from dawn to dusk, year-round, with the following exceptions.

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-63 Compatibility Determination – Walking or hiking, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing

Trail closures during hunting seasons (Trails will be posted closed) ● Jeep Trail ♦ April 1–August 1 (Nesting Season Closure) ♦ Youth Deer Hunt Weekend (Early November–2 days) ♦ Muzzle-loader Season (Early December – 10 days) ● Discovery Trail ♦ Regular Season – shotgun and rifle (Mid-November–16 days) ♦ Youth Deer Hunt Weekend ♦ Muzzle-loader Season ● Old Railroad Trail ♦ Regular Season – shotgun and rifle ♦ Youth Deer Hunt Weekend ♦ Muzzle-loader Season ● Stephen J. Young Marsh ♦ Regular Season – shotgun and rifle ♦ Youth Deer Hunt Weekend ♦ Muzzle-loader Season

Trail advisories during hunting seasons (Trails will be posted to advise users that the area is open for hunting—visitors may proceed with caution) ● Discovery Trail ♦ Archery Season (Early October – 23 days) ♦ Upland Game Seasons (includes gray squirrel, rabbit and hare, ruffed grouse) ● Old Railroad Trail ♦ Archery Season ♦ Upland Game Seasons (includes gray squirrel, rabbit and hare, ruffed grouse) ● Stephen J. Young Marsh Trail ♦ Archery Season

(d) How would the use be conducted? Refuge trails are open from dawn to dusk daily, unless closed for hunting seasons as indicated above or for maintenance or safety reasons. Occasionally, the trails are open before sunrise or after sunset for refuge-sanctioned activities such as owl prowls, woodcock walks, etc.

Bicycles are not allowed on any trails except the Mac’s Bend Road, but only when that road is also open for vehicles.

Visitors are required to remain on the improved portions of the trail to minimize environmental damage and prevent accidents.

Collecting of any kind is not allowed, nor is disturbing or feeding wildlife.

We monitor and maintain the refuge trails to provide a safe, relatively level surface free of limbs and branches that may be hazardous for visitors. The refuge staff removes fallen trees and limbs. The trail surfaces are maintained each year by applying gravel where needed, repairing the boardwalk and handrails, and so on.

B-64 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Walking or hiking, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing

Currently, dogs are allowed on the trails while on a leash of 10 ft. or shorter in length and under the control of their master. However, if approved in our comprehensive conservation plan, no dogs will be allowed on the refuge trails except those authorized for hunting, assisting the disabled, or emergencies.

We may close the Discovery Trail during certain light snow conditions when the sharp-tipped poles used with skis or snowshoes would mark or damage the surface of the boardwalks. In deep snow conditions, that would not be an issue. We will monitor snow conditions and enact closures when warranted.

(e) Why is this use being proposed? These are longstanding uses on the Missisquoi refuge and most national wildlife refuges. Although they are not priority public uses, the refuge staff believes that allowing them will expose the participants to the refuge and the Refuge System in a positive way. That exposure may lead to better public understanding of the importance of the Refuge System to the American people and their support for refuge land acquisition and management.

AVA ILA BILITY OF R ESOU RCES For many years, the refuge has been open for hunting, fishing, viewing and photographing wildlife, and environmental education and interpretation. The refuge has already built a trail system to support those priority public uses. The refuge infrastructure already exists to accommodate these activities. We expect the use of refuge facilities to increase incrementally the general operating cost for their maintenance (see below).

In a typical fiscal year, the refuge incurs the following costs.

The refuge requires 45 staff days and a 12-member YCC crew for 4 weeks to manage those activities, totaling approximately $13,750 in salaries and $20,000 for YCC work. Staff duties in support of the activities include planning, inquiries, news releases, enforcement, signs, trail maintenance and road maintenance. The total cost for the refuge on a typical fiscal year to administer those activities would be $16,750. We expect that cost to increase by 1 percent or 2 percent annually.

Table 6. Annual costs for walking, hiking, skiing and snowshoeing

Forty-five staff days $13,750 Fuel 500 Supplies 2,000 Administrative $500 overhead Total $16,750

Based on our review of the refuge operating budget, if the refuge continues to receive funding to support YCC, funding will be adequate to administer and manage these activities and ensure their compatibility.

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-65 Compatibility Determination – Walking or hiking, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE USE The presence of vehicles and people walking, hiking, skiing, and snowshoeing could result in some disturbance of wildlife in habitats located next to the trail system. However, that should be only short-term disturbance. The use of the trails could lead to soil compaction causing some tree roots to be exposed if they are close to the ground surface. The boardwalks and gravel surfacing maintain the trails and cover some exposed tree roots. Signs and refuge brochures advise trail users to stay on the trail to minimize effects on surrounding vegetation. Potential conflicts could arise with other public uses such as hunting, interpretation, etc. Using trailhead signs and other media to inform visitors about trail closures and advisories will minimize those conflicts. Other impacts could occur, such as littering or the illegal taking of wildlife in violation of refuge regulations. The refuge staff believes that with the proper management, walking, hiking, skiing, and snowshoeing will not result in any short- or long-term impacts that will adversely affect the purpose of the refuge or the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT As part of the comprehensive conservation planning for the Missisquoi refuge, this compatibility determination will undergo a comment period of 30 days concurrent with the release of our draft CCP/EA.

DETERMINATION (Check one):

THIS USE IS COMPATIBLE X

THIS USE IS NOT COMPATIBLE

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY

Law enforcement patrols of visitor use areas will minimize violations of refuge regulations. Trail conditions will be monitored for adverse effects on wildlife populations and their habitats.

To minimize or avoid negative impacts to wildlife and habitat: 1) Harassment, baiting, playback tapes, or electronic calls are not allowable methods to attract wildlife for observation or photography. That does not necessarily apply to management activities, e.g., approved research or surveys, which we evaluate on a case-by-case basis).

2) Currently, dog owners must keep their dogs controlled on a leash no longer than 10 feet. That policy will include accommodations for hunting dogs used or required for approved refuge hunting seasons and programs, dogs trained to assist people with disabilities, and dogs used in emergency conditions.

3) Plant collection is prohibited, except for collecting of blueberries for personal consumption. This does not necessarily apply to management activities, e.g., approved research or surveys, which we evaluate on a case-by-case basis.

B-66 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Walking or hiking, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing

JUSTIFICATION The Service and the National Wildlife Refuge System maintain the goal of providing opportunities to view wildlife. Allowing the use of the trail system by persons engaging in walking, hiking, skiing, and snowshoeing will provide visitors the chance to view wildlife. That promotes public appreciation of the continued conservation and protection of wildlife and habitat. Walking, hiking, skiing, and snowshoeing would not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes for which the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge was established.

Signature: Refuge Manager: (Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief: (Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: (Date)

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-67

Compatibility Determination – Hunting access to adjacent public, private or state land

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

USE: Hunting access to adjacent public, private or state land

REFUGE NAME: Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge

DATE ESTABLISHED: February 4, 1943

ESTABLISHING AUTHORITY: Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929

PURPOSE FOR WHICH ESTABLISHED

The Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge was established “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds” [Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 715–715d, and 715f–715r].

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 fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”

DESCRIPTION OF USE

(a) What is the use? Is it a priority public use? The use is hunting access to adjacent public, private or state land. Historically, we have issued permits to those who own property within the refuge, granting them access across the refuge to hunt on their land. We also issue a few permits to allow access to hunt on a State Wildlife Management Area next to the refuge. This use 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 (Public Law 105–57).

(b) Where would the use be conducted? In the past, we have granted access to privately owned land and state land for waterfowl hunting by way of the Black Creek and Maquam Creek nature trails.

(c) When would the use be conducted? We would issue permits for the duration of the waterfowl season, normally the 60 days between October 1 and December 31 each year. The period of use actually falls early in the season, because hunting success and effort normally decrease at these locations as the season progresses, and cease when these areas of shallow water freeze. They are among the first to freeze because of their protection from the wind, their shallow water and lack of current.

The permit holders generally access the refuge in the pre-dawn hours and conclude their hunts by mid-morning. They generally do not use the areas in the afternoon, except on a few days at the beginning of the hunting season.

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-69 Compatibility Determination – Hunting access to adjacent public, private or state land

(d) How would the use be conducted? Our policy for more than 20 years has been to limit the permits to previous permit holders and private landowners. That has kept the actual intensity of this use to a minimal level, and has gradually reduced it over time. No new permits will be issued and this use will be phased out. The present level of this use is easily manageable.

The permit holders use the beginning of the Black Creek Nature Trail, and park near the Black Creek to launch canoes for access to either private land or the State Management Area. Hunters may not hunt near the trail; they may only transport their hunting equipment by canoe or car-top boat down the creek to the off-refuge hunting site and back.

(e) Why is this use being proposed? This use is being proposed because crossing the refuge is the path of least resistance for the hunters to access private or state lands. Other routes would require a longer trip by vehicle followed by a much longer ride by motorboat or canoe. At times, high winds and waves could endanger the boat trip along the shoreline of Maquam Bay to the creeks in or near the state or private lands.

AVA ILA BILITY OF R ESOU RCES The costs of administering this program are contained wholly in the cost of preparing the special use permits and coordinating with the permit holders. Those costs are contained within the annual operating budget of the refuge.

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE USE A maximum of three vehicles, more often only one or two, may be parked near Black Creek on the Black Creek Nature Trail at any one time during the waterfowl-hunting season. Visitors using the nature trail for wildlife observation in the fall may observe the vehicles and be curious about why they are there. There should be no impacts on trail users when permit holders arrive in the pre-dawn hours of the morning. There may be some limited interaction among permit holders and trail users, as the permit holders leave during the day, but the trail is wide and visibility is good, so passing the slow-moving vehicle can be done safely and courteously.

PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT As part of the comprehensive conservation planning for the Missisquoi refuge, this compatibility determination will undergo a comment period of 30 days concurrent with the release of our draft CCP/EA.

DETERMINATION (Check one):

THIS USE IS COMPATIBLE X

THIS USE IS NOT COMPATIBLE

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY The permit holders must not hunt within the refuge, or within the safety zone established around the Black Creek/Maquam Creek Nature Trail. Hunters must continue to be courteous to trail users and allow safe, easy passage.

B-70 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Hunting access to adjacent public, private or state land

JUSTIFICATION For more than 30 years, we have extended the courtesy of allowing access through the refuge to hunt on privately owned or state-owned land. For the past 20 years, the refuge has limited the permits to previous permit holders and private landowners. No new permits will be issued and this use will be phased out. This has kept the actual intensity of this use to a minimal level, and has gradually reduced it over time. The present level of this use is easily manageable. Allowing access across the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge for hunters to hunt on private or state land 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.

Signature: Refuge Manager: (Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief: (Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10 year Re-evaluation Date: (Date)

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-71

Compatibility Determination – Access for commercial bait collecting

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

USE: Access for commercial bait collecting

REFUGE NAME: Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge

DATE ESTABLISHED: February 4, 1943

ESTABLISHING AUTHORITY: Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929

PURPOSE FOR WHICH ESTABLISHED

The Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge was established “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds” [Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 715–715d, and 715f–715r].

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 fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”

DESCRIPTION OF USE

(a) What is the use? Is it a priority public use? The use is access for non-refuge commercial bait collecting. 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 (Public Law 105–57). The proposed activity is to allow access via refuge lands and facilities to state-controlled, off-refuge waters for collecting minnows then selling them to anglers for bait.

(b) Where would the use be conducted? The proposed use would be conducted on the refuge in the towns of Swanton and Highgate, Franklin County, Vermont. Some minnow collectors use undeveloped roadside parking areas along Route 78 where it passes through the refuge next to the Missisquoi River. They cross refuge lands on foot to access minnow collecting sites in the river, where they collect in accordance with state regulations and permits. Other collectors use the Mac’s Bend boat launch area, accessible through a refuge gate that is normally locked during the minnow collecting season (late fall and early winter). From there, they launch watercraft into the river to access minnow collecting sites, where they collect in accordance with state regulations and permits.

(c) When would the use be conducted? Collectors normally collect between October 7 and December 31, depending on environmental conditions, such as the river freezing, and the presence of minnows, which school into the river near the onset of freezing weather.

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-73 Compatibility Determination – Access for commercial bait collecting

(d) How would the use be conducted? All bait collecting must adhere to state regulations for seasons, bag limits, species, methods of taking, and permits. The state authorizes commercial bait dealers to take and transport in excess of two quarts of minnows after acquiring a Commercial Bait Dealer’s Permit. A Special Use Permit from the refuge manager is required for access across refuge lands and via refuge roads and boat launches.

(e) Why is this use being proposed? Access via Missisquoi refuge lands or facilities for minnow collecting is an established use, and we expect past users will continue to seek access. In a normal year, the refuge receives requests for about five special use permits for access for commercial bait collecting.

AVA ILA BILITY OF R ESOU RCES The facilities or materials needed to support access for commercial minnow collecting include two parking areas, two boat launch areas, restrooms, and a brochure explaining refuge fishing regulations. Associated costs include routine maintenance of those facilities, administering the special use permit, and monitoring the activities of permit holders for compliance with the special use permits. The table below summarizes our analysis of the annual costs associated with providing access for commercial minnow collecting.

These costs are associated not only with access for commercial minnow collecting, but also with the public’s engaging in priority uses and refuge operational needs. If prorated according to expected use by activity, we estimate the cost for access for commercial minnow collecting to be $100, or 2 percent of the annual maintenance costs, and $250 of the monitoring costs, or 100 percent of the costs to monitor five permit holders each year.

Table 7. Annual costs of providing access for commercial minnow collecting Routine maintenance $5,000 This is the estimated cost to maintain two parking areas, two boat launch areas, a 1-mile stretch of gravel road, and three fully accessible restrooms. However, their use by commercial bait collectors is negligible. Refuge visitors use the same facilities in other public uses, such as hunting, fishing, boating, and observing wildlife. The refuge staff also uses them in refuge operations. Administering special use We estimate this cost at less than $100 each occurrence, permits and monitoring based on 1 hour of staff time for reviewing and preparing compliance the special use permit and an additional hour for checking compliance. Those usually are conducted during the normal course of duty. Total $5,500

B-74 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Access for commercial bait collecting

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE USE the mere presence of humans crossing refuge lands to access commercial minnow collecting sites may cause some general disturbance. Traditionally, however, permit holders park within 100 meters of minnow collecting sites, and traverse on foot a short part of the forested riverine habitat that is not sensitive to wildlife disturbance or habitat damage in the late fall or early winter, the period of use. The introduction of aquatic nuisance species due to the incomplete cleaning of boats and collecting equipment before using them at the refuge is a consideration. However, we expect it to be minimal and, essentially, non-threatening due to the season of use.

Although undocumented, access for minnow collecting has not been shown to have any adverse impacts on the fisheries resource or other species of plants or animals on the refuge. The conditions of the special use permits and an effective law enforcement program have addressed minor problems such as littering.

PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT As part of the CCP process for Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge, this compatibility determination will undergo a comment period of 30 days concurrent with the draft CCP/EA. Additionally, we posted this draft compatibility determination at refuge headquarters from August 11-25, 2004. We received no comments.

DETERMINATION (Check one):

THIS USE IS COMPATIBLE X

THIS USE IS NOT COMPATIBLE

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY 1) Permit holders must comply with state commercial/sport fishing regulations.

2) A special use permit from the refuge manager is required annually. The permit fee is $35, in accordance with regional standards.

3) The special use permit must be in the possession of the permit holder or an employee of the permit holder while on the refuge, and is not transferable to another individual or party.

4) The special use permit neither grants nor implies permission to obstruct any refuge road, parking area, boat launch or waterway at any time.

5) The permit holder must possess a Commercial Bait Dealer’s Permit from the Vermont Commissioner of Fish and Wildlife.

6) Excessive fish mortality and waste, as determined by the refuge manager, will result in revocation of the special use permit and denial of future permit applications.

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-75 Compatibility Determination – Access for commercial bait collecting

7) All equipment used shall be cleaned so as not to introduce aquatic nuisance species. Tanks and other equipment used shall not be cleaned or emptied while on refuge lands.

8) Failure to comply with conditions of the special use permit will result in its revocation.

9) All or parts of the refuge may be closed to access for commercial bait collecting at any time if necessary for public safety, to provide wildlife sanctuary, or for administrative reasons.

JUSTIFICATION With the current state regulations for commercial fishing in place and the above-mentioned considerations, access for minnow collecting on the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge is compatible with refuge purposes.

Allowing access for commercial bait collecting to occur within the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge contributes to, and does not materially interfere with or detract from, the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the purposes for which the refuge was established.

Signature: Refuge Manager: (Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief: (Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: (Date)

B-76 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Berry picking

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

USE: Berry picking

REFUGE NAME: Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge

DATE ESTABLISHED: February 4, 1943

ESTABLISHING AUTHORITY: Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929

PURPOSE FOR WHICH ESTABLISHED

The Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge was established “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds” [Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 715–715d, and 715f–715r].

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 fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”

DESCRIPTION OF USE

(a) What is the use? Is it a priority public use? Berry picking, primarily of blueberries with some opportunity also for picking cranberries, is the proposed use. 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 (Public Law 105–57).

(b) Where would the use be conducted? The proposed use would be conducted on the Missisquoi refuge in the Towns of Swanton and Highgate, Franklin County, Vermont. Traditionally, berry picking has taken place on the west and south sides of the Maquam Bog near Tabor Road.

(c) When would the use be conducted? Berries are usually ripe for picking from mid-July until the end of August.

(d) How would the use be conducted? Visitors participating in this use park at the Stephen J. Young Marsh parking lot, and walk on the Old Railroad Bed trail to pick berries in the Maquam Bog. This is a historical use on the refuge by only a handful of people who are familiar with the bog, and know where to go to get the berries. Berry growth reportedly has diminished greatly from the bounty that pickers formerly enjoyed. Therefore, the level of use we expect is very low, and do not expect that it will be necessary to set any limit on the number of pickers. Refuge staff estimates that the refuge receives fewer than a dozen visits each

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-77 Compatibility Determination – Berry picking

year for picking berries. Pickers will be limited to collecting only enough for personal or family consumption. Commercial picking is not permitted.

Pickers will be required to obtain a special use permit communicating to them the regulations regarding the non-commercial, family use nature of the refuge berry picking program and the areas open and closed for picking, which may change annually.

(e) Why is this use being proposed? Berry picking is a historic, traditional, sustainable activity at the refuge. A small number of refuge neighbors and local citizens persist in this activity.

AVA ILA BILITY OF R ESOU RCES The facilities needed to support berry picking include the Stephen J. Young Marsh parking area and the Old Railroad Bed Trail along Tabor Road. Those facilities are also used by the public engaged in priority public uses. The proportionate use of these facilities by berry pickers is so low as to suggest that the cost of maintaining these facilities for the sole purpose of berry picking would be negligible.

Staff time would be committed to administering the program, and would require the preparation of special use permits, information on the areas open and closed for collecting, and a commitment of time to interact with permit holders. Refuge staff would also be required to make a field assessment of the berry crop annually in order to determine open and closed collecting sites. All staff requirements described are minimal, and within existing operational constraints.

Longstanding refuge berry pickers report the berry resource is declining as the evolution of the Maquam Bog continues. Fire, an important factor in maintaining habitats suitable for berry production, has not occurred in the bog for decades, and is probably a major factor in the perceived but undocumented reduction in berry production.

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE USE Impacts such as trampling vegetation and temporarily disturbing wildlife would occur, but we do not expect them to be significant.

Significant numbers of visitors walking off established trails to collect blueberries can impact plants indirectly by compacting soils and diminishing soil porosity, aeration and nutrient availability, affecting plant growth and survival (Kuss 1986). The re-colonization of plants will be limited because root growth and penetration becomes more difficult in compacted soils (Hammitt and Cole 1998). Foot travel increases root exposure, the effects of trampling, and the crushing of plants. Plants adapted to wet or moist soils are most sensitive to disturbance from the effects of trampling (Kuss 1986).

In that way, this use will cause some vegetation loss. However, we expect that, under current levels of use, the incidence of these problems will be minor and insignificant. Many of the berry bushes are located right next to the trail, alleviating the need for a lot of traffic off the trail.

B-78 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Berry picking

Wildlife may avoid using otherwise suitable habitat when temporarily disturbed by visitors. Again, we expect that, under current levels of use, the incidence of this will be minor and insignificant. Generally, the harvest of berries by people in a wild, difficult to access environment such as the refuge is not sufficiently efficient or so extensive as to affect negatively the use and availability of the overall berry crop by wildlife.

PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT As part of the CCP process for Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge, this compatibility determination will undergo a comment period of 30 days concurrent with the draft CCP/EA. Additionally, we posted this draft compatibility determination at refuge headquarters from August 13-27, 2004. We received no comments.

DETERMINATION (Check one):

THIS USE IS COMPATIBLE X

THIS USE IS NOT COMPATIBLE

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY Berry picking will be permitted only in designated areas to minimize the damage to vegetation by trampling. These areas may be adjusted annually or more frequently as necessary. Parts of the berry picking area or, if appropriate, the entire area can be closed at any time for any length of time if the refuge manager determines that the activity is affecting wildlife or wildlife habitat.

JUSTIFICATION With the above-mentioned consideration, berry picking on the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge is compatible with refuge purposes. Berry picking has been a historical use of the refuge for the six decades since the refuge was established and likely for many hundreds of years before that. No adverse impacts from the activity are known or documented at this refuge.

Berry picking 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.

Signature: Refuge Manager: (Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief: (Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: (Date)

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-79 Compatibility Determination – Berry picking

Literature Cited

Hammitt, W.E. and D.N. Cole, 1998. Wildland Recreation. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 361 pp.

Kuss, F. R. 1986. A review of major factors influencing plant responses to recreation impacts. Environmental Management 10:638-650.

B-80 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Research conducted by non-refuge personnel

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

USE: Research conducted by non-refuge personnel

REFUGE NAME: Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge

DATE ESTABLISHED: February 4, 1943

ESTABLISHING AUTHORITY: Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929

PURPOSE FOR WHICH ESTABLISHED

The Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge was established “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds” [Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 715–715d, and 715f–715r]..

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 fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”

DESCRIPTION OF USE

(a) What is the use? Is it a priority public use? The use is research conducted by non-Service personnel. 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 (Public Law 105–57).

(b) Where would the use be conducted? The locations of the research will vary by project. The entire refuge is open and available for scientific research. Research projects usually are limited to a particular habitat type, plant or wildlife species. Occasionally, research projects will encompass an assemblage of habitat types, plants or wildlife. The locations will be limited to those areas of the refuge that are necessary for conducting the research.

(c) When would the use be conducted? The timing of the research will depend entirely on the project. We will allow scientific research on the refuge throughout the year. Some projects could be short-term in design, requiring one or two visits over the course of a few days. Others could be multiple year studies that require daily visits to the location. The timing of each will be limited to the minimum required for completion. If a research project occurs during the hunting season on the refuge, we will require and enforce special precautions to ensure public health and safety.

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-81 Compatibility Determination – Research conducted by non-refuge personnel

(d) How would the use be conducted? The mechanics of the research will depend entirely on the individual project. We will carefully scrutinize the objectives, methods, and approach of each research project before allowing it on the refuge. We will not allow any research project that lacks an approved study plan and protocol or compromises public health and safety.

(e) Why is this use being proposed? Research by non-Service personnel conducted by colleges, universities, federal, state, and local agencies, non-governmental organizations, and qualified members of the public furthers our understanding of the natural environment and improves the management of refuge natural resources. Much of the information research generates applies to management on and near the refuge. Past projects on the refuge have studied the endangered eastern spiny softshell turtle, parasitic wasps, vernal pools, canoe trail use by paddlers, refuge ecological cover types and mapping, the impacts of double-crested cormorants on great blue heron colony behavior and success, studies associated with Vermont’s Breeding Bird Atlas, the Vermont Butterfly Atlas, attracting upland sandpipers with recorded vocalizations to increase nesting territory establishment, and others.

The Service encourages and supports research and management studies that will improve and strengthen decisions on managing natural resources on refuge lands. 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, and addresses important management issues or demonstrates techniques for managing species or habitats.

We also consider research for other purposes that may not relate directly to refuge objectives, but contributes to the broader enhancement, protection, use, preservation or management of native populations of fish, wildlife and plants, and their natural diversity in the region or the Atlantic flyway. All proposals must comply with Service policy on compatibility.

Refuge support in research that relates directly to refuge objectives may take the form of funding, in-kind services such as housing, the use of other refuge facilities, vehicles, boats, or equipment, the direct assistance of refuge staff in collecting data, providing historical records, conducting management treatments, or providing other assistance as appropriate.

AVA ILA BILITY OF R ESOU RCES We incur the bulk of the cost for research in staff time to review research proposals, coordinate with researchers, and write special use permits. In some cases, a research project may require only one day of staff time to write a permit. In other cases, a research project may take many weeks, because the refuge staff must coordinate with students and advisors and accompany researchers on site visits. The table below shows the estimated annual costs associated with the administration of outside research on the refuge.

B-82 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Research conducted by non-refuge personnel

Table 8. Estimated annual costs of outside research on the refuge

Refuge biologist (GS11) $5,800 Four weeks/yr: review proposals, coordinate with researchers Refuge manager (GS13) $3,800 Two weeks/yr: review proposals, special use permits, housing and vehicle coordination, general coordination; budgeting Administrative assistant (GS6) $1,000 One week/yr: office administration Maintenance worker (WG9) $750 One week/yr: vehicle, boat, housing maintenance Total $11, 350

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE USE The Service encourages approved research to further the understanding of natural resources. Research by non-Service personnel adds greatly to the information base for refuge managers to make proper decisions. The disturbance of wildlife and vegetation by researchers could occur through observation, banding, collecting blood, or accessing the study area by foot, boat, or vehicle. Multiple, concurrent research projects could exacerbate those impacts. Direct mortality could result as a by-product of research activities. Overall, however, allowing non-Service personnel to conduct research should have little impact on Service interests. If researchers conduct their projects with professionalism and integrity, the knowledge gained far outweighs potential adverse impacts.

PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT As part of the comprehensive conservation planning process for the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge, this compatibility determination will undergo a comment period of 30 days concurrent with the release of our draft CCP/EA.

DETERMINATION (Check one):

THIS USE IS COMPATIBLE X

THIS USE IS NOT COMPATIBLE

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY We will require all researchers to submit a detailed research proposal that follows Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge study proposal guidelines (see attachment I) and Service Policy (FWS Refuge Manual Chapter 4, Section 6). Researchers must give us at least 45 days to review proposals before the research begins. If the research involves the collection of wildlife, the refuge must be given 60 days to review the proposal. Researchers must obtain all necessary scientific collecting or other permits before starting the research. We will prioritize and approve proposals based on the need, benefit, compatibility, and funding required for the research.

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-83 Compatibility Determination – Research conducted by non-refuge personnel

Proposals We will expect researchers to submit a final report to the refuge on completing their work. For long-term studies, we may also require interim progress reports. We also expect that research will be published in peer-reviewed publications. All reports, presentations, posters, articles or other publications will acknowledge the Refuge System and the Missisquoi refuge as partners in the research. All posters will adhere to Service graphics standards. We insert that 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.

We will issue special use permits for all research conducted by non-Service personnel. The permits will list all conditions necessary to ensure compatibility. The permits will also identify a schedule for annual progress reports and the submittal of a final report or scientific paper.

We may ask our regional refuge biologists, other Service divisions, state agencies, or academic experts to review and comment on research proposals. We will require all researchers to obtain appropriate state and federal permits.

JUSTIFICATION The Service encourages approved research to further our 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 contributes to, and does not materially interfere with or detract from, the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the purposes for which the refuge was established.

Signature: Refuge Manager: (Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief: (Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10 Reevaluation Date: (Date)

Literature Cited

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Refuge Manual. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

B-84 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Research conducted by non-refuge personnel

Attachment I. Missisquoi 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. The proposals must be specifi c enough to serve as blueprints for the investigation. They must spell out in advance systematic plans for the investigation at a level of detail commensurate with the cost and scope of the project and the needs of management. Please submit proposals electronically as a Microsoft® Word® document or hard copy 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 U.S. 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 sections “Statement of Issue,” “Objectives,” and “Methods and Procedures.”

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, justifi cation, relevance, timeliness, generality,

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-85 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 Missisquoi 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 specifi c 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 fl ow 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 specifi c 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 justifi cations of the fi eld 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, fi eldwork, 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 scientifi c scrutiny; and accompanied by detailed method documentation. Describe the procedures to be used to insure that data meet defi ned standards of quality and program requirements, errors are controlled in the fi eld, laboratory, and offi ce, and data are properly handled, documented, and archived. Describe the various steps (e.g. personnel training, calibration of equipment, data verifi cation and validation) that will be used to identify and eliminate errors introduced during data

B-86 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Research conducted by non-refuge personnel collection (including observer bias), handling, and computer entry. Identify the percentage of data that will be checked at each step.

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 retained permanently as voucher specimens, identify the parties responsible for cataloging, preservation, and storage and the proposed repository.

Deliverables The proposal must indicate the number and specifi c format of hard and/or electronic media copies to be submitted for each deliverable. The number and format will refl ect 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.

The following deliverables are required. Additional deliverables may be required of specifi c studies.

Reports and Publications Describe what reports will be prepared and the timing of reports. Types of reports required in fulfi llment of natural and social science study contracts or agreements include:

1). Progress report(s) (usually quarterly, semiannually, or annually): (may be required) 2). Draft fi nal and fi nal report(s): (always required).

A fi nal report must be submitted in addition to a thesis or dissertation (if applicable) and all other identifi ed deliverables. Final and draft fi nal reports should follow refuge guidelines (attachment I).

In addition, investigators are encouraged to publish the fi ndings of their investigations in refereed professional, scientifi c publications and present fi ndings at conferences and symposia. Investigator publications will adhere to Service design standards. The refuge manager appreciates opportunities to review manuscripts in advance of their publication.

Data Files Provide descriptions of any spatial (GIS) and non-spatial data fi les 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 fi les, 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. A condition of the permit will be that the Service has access to and may utilize in future mapping and management all GIS information generated.

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

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-87 Compatibility Determination – Research conducted by non-refuge personnel

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 fi nal deliverables. Spatial metadata must conform to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FGDC) metadata standards.

Oral Presentations Three types of oral briefi ngs should be included: pre-study, annual, and closeout. These briefi ngs will be presented to refuge staff and other appropriate individuals and cooperators. In addition, investigators should conduct periodic informal briefi ngs 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 fi eld 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, fi lms 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/GIS 8) Interpretive brochures and exhibits 9) Training sessions (where appropriate) 10) Survey forms 11) Value-added software, software developed, models

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 specifi cally identifi ed 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 signifi cantly affected areas.

B-88 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations 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 identifi cation 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 fl agging, tags, or other markers needed for site or individual resource (e.g. trees) identifi cation 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 the duration, location, and number of participants, and approximate dates of site visits.

Use of Mechanized and Other Equipment Describe any vehicles, boats, fi eld 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 fi eld.

Safety Describe any known potentially hazardous activities, such as electro-fi shing, 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 qualifi cations 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.

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-89 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 to 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 fi nal report.

Budget The budget must refl ect both funding and assistance that will be requested from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the cooperator’s contributions on an identifi ed 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 Benefi ts Itemize fringe benefi t rates and costs.

Travel Provide separate estimates for fi eldwork 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 if federal funds are to be used. Charges for lodging and meals are not to exceed the maximum daily rates set for the locality by the Federal Government (contact the Missisquoi refuge for appropriate rates).

Equipment Itemize all equipment to be purchased or rented and provide a brief justifi cation 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.

Specimen Collections Identify funding requirements for the cataloging, preservation, storage, and analyses of any collected specimens that will be permanently retained.

B-90 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Research conducted by non-refuge personnel

Printing and Copying Include costs for preparing and printing the required number of copies of progress reports, the draft fi nal report, and the fi nal report. In general, a minimum of two copies of progress reports (usually due quarterly, semiannually, or as specifi ed in agreement), the draft fi nal report, and the fi nal 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 Qualifi cations List the personnel who will work on the project and indicate their qualifi cations, 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.

Interim Final Report Guidelines

Draft fi nal and fi nal reports should follow Journal of Wildlife Management format, and should include the following sections.

■ Title Page ■ Abstract ■ Introduction/ Problem statement ■ Study Area ■ Methods (including statistical analyses) ■ Results ■ Discussion ■ Management Implications ■ Management Recommendations ■ Literature Cited

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-91

Compatibility Determination – Motorized boating to facilitate priority public uses

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

USE: Motorized boating to facilitate priority public uses

REFUGE NAME: Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge

DATE ESTABLISHED: February 4, 1943

ESTABLISHING AUTHORITY: Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929

PURPOSE FOR WHICH ESTABLISHED

The Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge was established “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds” [Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 715-715d, and 715f – 715r].

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 fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”

DESCRIPTION OF USE

(a) What is the use? Is it a priority public use? The proposed use is motorized boating, usually to facilitate priority public uses. 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 (Public Law 105–57).

(b) Where would the use be conducted? The proposed use would be conducted on the refuge in the Towns of Swanton and Highgate, Franklin County, Vermont. Motorized boating occurs along the Missisquoi River, Dead Creek, and in Lake Champlain, where they border or transect the refuge. Boating in those waterways falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Coast Guard, and has not been determined to fall under the management authority of the refuge manager. Motorized boating is not allowed inside refuge impoundment areas. Motorized boating is not allowed in Charcoal Creek south and west of State Route 78 or in Long Marsh Channel, except during the waterfowl-hunting season, and then only by hunters holding permits to hunt in those controlled hunting areas. Black Creek and Maquam Creek, accessible from refuge headquarters, are not open for motorized boating. Any open areas or portions of the refuge may be closed to motorized boating seasonally to protect sensitive wildlife areas: usually, osprey, black tern or waterfowl nesting areas. Annual seasonal closures usually occur in Goose Bay, Gander Bay, Metcalfe Pothole, and the Charcoal Creek marshes north of Route 78 (known locally as the Clark Marshes).

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-93 Compatibility Determination – Motorized boating to facilitate priority public uses

(c) When would the use be conducted? Motorized boating, where allowed, may take place all year long. However, the river and lake usually freeze in winter, which precludes boating. Most motorized boating activity takes place from May through November or until the Missisquoi River freezes.

(d) How would the use be conducted? Two public boat launching access areas are maintained on the refuge to provide boat access to the Missisquoi River and Missisquoi Bay. The Louie’s Landing boat ramp is open to the public all season, and the Mac’s Bend boat ramp is open from late September through November or until the Missisquoi River freezes, whichever occurs first.

Boundary signs are placed to keep the public from entering protected areas. Refuge staff and law enforcement personnel monitor the number of boaters seen during patrols, interact with visitors, and patrol the refuge to ensure that users are complying with closed area demarcations. Refuge brochures are available to inform users of boating regulations and to provide other general information.

(e) Why is this use being proposed? Motorized boating continues to be a popular, traditional activity at the refuge. Normally, visitors engage in this activity to facilitate their enjoyment of the priority public uses. Fishing is the activity most commonly associated with this use, followed closely by hunting. In addition, most the refuge can be seen only by boat or air travel.

AVA ILA BILITY OF R ESOU RCES Staff time to accommodate this use would relate to maintaining the two refuge public boat launches, posting of boundary and “area closed” signs, monitoring the possible impacts of motor boating on refuge resources and visitors, and providing information to the public about this use. Law enforcement personnel are also needed to patrol the refuge to ensure that users are complying with area closures and other refuge and state regulations. Brochures are needed to inform users of regulations and to provide other general refuge information.

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE USE The operation of motorized boats may affect water clarity in the river and lake. The propeller action and wake turbulence associated with motorized boats may increase the amount of sediment particles in the water column. Nutrients stored in the sediments, such as phosphorus, could become available for algal growth. Suspended solids affect the health of fish and the settling of suspended solids can smother the eggs of fish and aquatic insects (Mitchell and Stapp 1995). Boat motors can also add various pollutants to bodies of water including metals and hydrocarbons.

Boat wakes create waves that can initiate or exacerbate shoreline erosion. When operating near shore, propeller turbulence may destabilize the bottom and erode the shoreline as well. The shoreline erosion may affect water clarity and interfere with fish use of shallow water habitat.

Plant communities may be affected directly through contact with the propeller or the boat, or indirectly through water turbidity or wave damage. Boats can also serve as a physical transport

B-94 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Motorized boating to facilitate priority public uses mechanism to distribute aquatic invasive species such as the zebra mussel, Eurasian water milfoil or water chestnut from an infected body of water or part of the lake to uninfected areas. The introduction of these exotics can displace native species.

Operation of motorized boats within the refuge may disturb the wildlife using those areas. Of particular significance is the observed disruption of osprey nesting success in areas frequented by anglers on portions of the refuge. The closure of these areas to all public access by the posting of “area closed” signs has resulted in a significant, dramatic increase in osprey nesting success. Likewise, motorized boats have been observed to cause turtle species (eastern spiny softshell, map, and painted turtles) basking on logs near the mouth of the Missisquoi River to enter the water thereby disrupting their basking activity, which if done with sufficient frequency, could impact reproductive success. Observations have also determined that the turtles usually reclaim their basking position within a minute of boat passage.

The operation of airboats present additional disruptive considerations related to extreme noise and accessibility to areas that are shallow, narrow or otherwise normally inaccessible to other motorized boats. The highly disruptive nature of these boats to nesting, feeding or resting migratory birds make it especially important that the operators of such craft observe refuge boundaries and area closures. To date, airboat use is very infrequent, amounting to one or fewer visits per year.

We do not expect the use of motorized boats to have a significant impact, based on current levels of use and the observation that visitors are complying with postings and other regulations. Normally, at peak visitor use (generally June through August), aquatic vegetation has grown significantly and lake levels lowered sufficiently to make it difficult or impossible for most visitors to enter closed areas, thereby effectively reducing or eliminating human disturbance impacts on waterfowl or other migratory birds.

PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT As part of the CCP process for Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge, this compatibility determination will undergo a comment period of 30 days concurrent with the draft CCP/EA. Additionally, we posted this draft compatibility determination at refuge headquarters from August 11-25, 2004. We received no comments.

DETERMINATION (Check one):

THIS USE IS COMPATIBLE X

THIS USE IS NOT COMPATIBLE

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY This activity is limited to the areas within the navigable waters of the refuge, such as the river and shoreline of the Missisquoi Bay, or by special use permit, hunting permit, or guided tour to other areas where motorized boating activity is controlled and monitored. Otherwise, boaters are advised that interior marshes and areas posted as such are closed to public entry.

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-95 Compatibility Determination – Motorized boating to facilitate priority public uses

JUSTIFICATION Within the limits of management authority, this use has been determined to be compatible at this refuge. This use will not substantially interfere with priority public uses of the refuge or cause undue administrative burden. Rather, with the exception of airboat and personal watercraft use, this use generally supports and facilitates priority uses.

The use of motorized boats in the spring when waterfowl are starting to nest is relatively light, and does not occur near nest sites that are protected by “area closed” postings. By the summer season, when interest in boating increases, the aquatic vegetation has grown and the lake level has receded to the point that any trespass into closed areas is very difficult or impossible.

Motorized boating to facilitate priority public uses does not materially interfere with or detract from, the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the purposes for which the refuge was established.

Signature: Refuge Manager: (Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief: (Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: (Date)

B-96 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Non-motorized boating to facilitate priority public uses

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

USE: Non-motorized boating to facilitate priority public uses

REFUGE NAME: Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge

DATE ESTABLISHED: February 4, 1943

ESTABLISHING AUTHORITY: Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929

PURPOSE FOR WHICH ESTABLISHED

The Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge was established “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds” [Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 715–715d, and 715f–715r].

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 fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”

DESCRIPTION OF USE

(a) What is the use? Is it a priority public use? The use is non-motorized boating to facilitate priority public uses. 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 (Public Law 105–57).

(b) Where would the use be conducted? The proposed use would be conducted on the refuge in the Towns of Swanton and Highgate, Franklin County, Vermont. Non-motorized boating is allowed along the Missisquoi River, Dead Creek, and in Lake Champlain where they border or transect the refuge. Boating in those waterways falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Coast Guard, and has not been determined to fall within the management authority of the refuge manager.

Non-motorized boating is not allowed anywhere else on the refuge except when associated with a special event overseen by a refuge staff member or trained volunteer, or during the waterfowl hunting season, and then only by hunters holding permits to hunt in refuge-controlled hunting areas or by hunters holding special use permits to use these areas to access off-refuge waterfowl hunting areas. Any open areas or parts of the refuge may be closed to non-motorized boating seasonally to protect sensitive wildlife areas; usually osprey, black tern or waterfowl nesting areas. Annual, seasonal closures usually occur in Goose Bay, Gander Bay, Metcalfe Pothole, and the Charcoal Creek marshes north of Route 78 (known locally as the Clark marshes).

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-97 Compatibility Determination – Non-motorized boating to facilitate priority public uses

(c) When would the use be conducted? Non-motorized boating, where allowed, may take place all year long. However, the river and lake usually freeze in winter, which precludes boating. Most non-motorized boating takes place from May through September, with significantly lesser amounts taking place in April and October.

(d) How would the use be conducted? Two public boat launching access areas are maintained on the refuge to provide boat access to the Missisquoi River and Missisquoi Bay. The Louie’s Landing boat ramp is open to the public all season, and the Mac’s Bend boat ramp is open from late September through November.

Boundary signs are placed to advise the public against entering protected areas. Refuge staff and law enforcement personnel monitor the number of boaters seen during patrols, interact with visitors, and patrol the refuge to ensure that users are complying with closed area demarcations. Refuge brochures are available to inform users of boating regulations and provide other general information.

(e) Why is this use being proposed? Non-motorized boating, such as canoeing and kayaking, has been a popular, traditional activity at the Missisquoi refuge, and is growing in popularity. Normally, visitors engage in this activity to facilitate their enjoyment of the priority public uses. One of the best ways for a visitor to experience the natural beauty and special character of the refuge and observe wildlife is to visit by canoe.

AVA ILA BILITY OF R ESOU RCES Accommodating non-motorized boating requires the posting of boundary signs by refuge staff. Those boundary signs are also necessary for other purposes and, because non-motorized boating is not the primary reason for posting them, do not pose significant costs. Law enforcement personnel must patrol the off-limit areas to ensure user compliance with established boundaries. Brochures are also needed to inform users of open areas and provide other general refuge information.

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE USE The lake shoreline supports emergent vegetation, which provides some food and cover for waterfowl during the summer. If the intensity of this use along the shoreline was high, it could keep waterfowl from using the shore area during the day. That may affect individual birds, but is unlikely to affect populations. At the current and expected levels of use, this impact will be slight.

Shad Island, at the northern tip of the refuge, is home to the largest great blue heron rookery in Vermont. Canoeists and kayakers sometimes get too close to the rookery, and may disturb nesting birds. Nest abandonment may occur if too many visitors get too close to the rookery. In recent years, posting and patrolling have been sufficient to curtail this activity, which is much more common by motorized boaters. Likewise, non-motorized boats have been observed to cause turtle species (eastern spiny softshell, map, and painted turtles) basking on logs near the mouth of the Missisquoi River to enter the water, thereby disrupting their basking activity. If sufficiently frequent, that could affect reproductive success. Observations have shown that non-motorized boats have a greater disruptive impact than motorized boats do. Observations have also determined that the turtles usually reclaim their basking positions within a minute of boat passage. However, we do not expect this use to have

B-98 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Non-motorized boating to facilitate priority public uses a significant impact, based on current levels of use and the expectation that visitors will comply with postings and other regulations.

Normally, at peak visitor use (generally, June through August), aquatic vegetation has grown significantly and lake levels have lowered sufficiently to make it difficult or impossible for most visitors to enter closed areas, thereby effectively reducing or eliminating the impacts of human disturbance on waterfowl or other migratory birds.

PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT As part of the CCP process for Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge, this compatibility determination will undergo a comment period of 30 days concurrent with the draft CCP/EA. Additionally, we posted this draft compatibility determination at refuge headquarters from August 11-25, 2004. We received no comments.

DETERMINATION (Check one):

THIS USE IS COMPATIBLE X

THIS USE IS NOT COMPATIBLE

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY This activity is limited to the areas that are within navigable waters of the refuge, such as the river and shoreline of the Missisquoi Bay, or by special use permit, hunting permit, or guided tour to other areas where this activity is controlled and monitored. Otherwise, boaters or canoeists are advised that interior marshes and any areas posted as such are closed to public entry. Sensitive wildlife areas that may be impacted by the passage of watercraft are posted annually to advise boaters to steer clear.

JUSTIFICATION Within the limits of management authority, we have determined this use to be compatible at this refuge. We do not expect this use to materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System or diminish the purpose for which the refuge was established. This use will not substantially interfere with priority public uses of the refuge or cause undue administrative burden. Rather, this use generally facilitates priority uses.

Use by canoeists in the spring when waterfowl are beginning to nest is very light, and does not occur near nest sites. By the summer season, when interest in canoeing increases, the aquatic vegetation has grown and the lake level has receded to the point that any trespass into closed areas is very difficult or impossible.

Non-motorized boating to facilitate priority public uses does not materially interfere with or detract from, the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the purposes for which the refuge was established.

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-99 Compatibility Determination – Non-motorized boating to facilitate priority public uses

Signature: Refuge Manager: (Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief: (Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: (Date)

B-100 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Oral vaccination by aerial baiting to control the raccoon variant of the rabies virus

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

USE: Oral vaccination by aerial baiting to control the raccoon variant of the rabies virus

REFUGE NAME: Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge

DATE ESTABLISHED: February 4, 1943

ESTABLISHING AUTHORITY: Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929

PURPOSE FOR WHICH ESTABLISHED

The Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge was established “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, of migratory birds” [Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 715–715d, and 715f–715r].

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 fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”

DESCRIPTION OF USE

(a) What is the use? Is it a priority public use? The use is oral vaccination by aerial baiting to control the raccoon (Procyon lotor) variant of the rabies virus. 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 (Public Law 105–57).

In cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services (APHIS-WS) and various state agencies, (e.g., state health departments and state agriculture departments), we propose to implement an oral rabies vaccination (ORV) program in Vermont to stop the spread of the raccoon variant, or “strain,” of the rabies virus.

(b) Where would the use be conducted? The proposed use would be conducted on the refuge in the towns of Swanton and Highgate, Franklin County, Vermont. The program would support and cooperate with the Vermont Department of Health and Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets in their ongoing efforts to eliminate the raccoon rabies strain or stop its further spread in the Eastern United States. If we do not prevent the new strain of rabies from spreading to new areas, we expect the health threats and costs associated with rabies to increase substantially. Livestock and domestic animals in those areas would be at risk of exposure. More importantly, if the raccoon strain of rabies infects a much broader geographic area, we expect human health concerns to increase substantially as well.

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-101 Compatibility Determination – Oral vaccination by aerial baiting to control the raccoon variant of the rabies virus

The use would involve fixed-wing aircraft distributing ORV baits over the refuge as part of a broader program to create zones of vaccinated target species to serve as barriers against the further advance of the variant virus. Those vaccination zones would be determined in cooperation with the state rabies task force, the previously mentioned state agencies, or other agencies with jurisdiction over the application of vaccine in species of wildlife and domestic animals.

(c) When would the use be conducted? We would conduct the ORV distribution annually, most likely during July, August, or September. The annual baiting would recur until the program meets its goals, expected to be at least 5 to 10 years.

(d) How would the use be conducted? On an annual basis, a fixed-wing aircraft would distribute ORV baits. Those airdrops typically would be conducted at about 500 feet above ground level. The aircraft would fly only momentarily over any one point on the ground. It would not circle repeatedly to distribute ORV baits, but would fly in straight “transects,” or flight lines. We estimate eight east-west transects over a period of 2.5 hours to drop approximately 2,100 baits on the refuge at an average density of 75 baits/km2 (195 baits/mi2).

The ORV baits are small blocks of fishmeal, soy meal, and fish oil held together with a wax polymer binding agent. The baits are rectangular (approximately 32 × 32 × 19 mm, or 1.25 × 1.25 × 0.75 in) with hollow centers. The plastic sachet (approximately 51 mm × 29 mm, or 2 in × 1.125 in) containing the liquid vaccine is folded in half in the hollow center of the bait. The same plastic sachet with a simple coating of fishmeal attractant (known as coated sachets) have also been field-tested; their effectiveness appears comparable to that of the fishmeal polymer baits containing the sachet (Linhart et al. unpublished 2001). Each fishmeal polymer bait weighs 26 grams (0.91 oz) and costs $1.27, while each coated sachet bait weighs 6 grams (0.21 oz) and costs $1.00.

Using the coated sachet may equal the effectiveness of the fishmeal polymer bait at a lower cost per vaccinated target. All baits are marked with a warning label that includes a phone number to call for additional information. The baits may contain a non-toxic biomarker (e.g., tetracycline or iophenoxic acid) to aid in determining whether the animals collected for monitoring have eaten one or more ORV baits. The sachet containing the liquid vaccine is plastic (in both the square fishmeal polymer and the coated sachet baits), and is not biodegradable. The bait manufacturer, MERIAL Limited (Athens, Georgia, USA), is not aware of any studies done to assess the biodegradability of fishmeal in the environment.

As in past programs, the oral rabies vaccine this program would use is the recombinant vaccinia- rabies glycoprotein vaccine (RABORAL V-RG® MERIAL Limited) currently licensed by the USDA for use in raccoons and coyotes in the United States and for experimental use in gray foxes in Texas. It has been used extensively and has been distributed successfully in Europe to combat fox rabies. Each animal that finds and ingests a single bait receives a single dose of the vaccine.

(e) Why is this use being proposed? Rabies is an acute, fatal viral disease of mammals most often transmitted through the bite of a rabid animal. The disease can be prevented in humans and many species of domestic animals.

B-102 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Oral vaccination by aerial baiting to control the raccoon variant of the rabies virus

However, widely distributed reservoirs among wild mammals complicate rabies control. In most of the United States, those reservoirs occur in geographically discrete regions where the virus is transmitted primarily between members of the same species (Krebs et al. 2001). Those species include raccoons, coyotes (Canis latrans), skunks (primarily, Mephitis mephitis), gray foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), and red foxes (Vulpes vulpes). Species-specific variants of the virus may be transmitted to other animal species. However, those encounters rarely result in sustained virus transmission within that animal species. Once established, virus transmission within a specific animal species can persist at epidemic levels for decades, perhaps even for centuries (Krebs et al. 2001).

The majority of rabies cases reported to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) each year occur in raccoons, skunks, and bats (Order Chiroptera). Red foxes account for less than 10 percent of the reported rabies cases, with domestic cats, dogs and cattle among those most often reported (CDC 2001). Two canine rabies epizootics (epidemics in animals) emerged in Texas in 1988: one involving coyotes and dogs in South Texas and the other in gray foxes in West/Central Texas. The South Texas epizootic alone has resulted in two human deaths and caused more than 3,000 people to receive post exposure rabies treatment (TDH 2001).

Public Health Importance of Rabies Over the last 100 years, rabies in the United States has changed dramatically. About 90 percent or more of all animal cases reported annually to CDC now occur in wildlife (Krebs et al. 2000; CDC 2001). Before 1960, the majority of cases were reported in domestic animals. The principal hosts of rabies today are wild carnivores and bats. The number of rabies-related human deaths in the United States has declined from more than 100 annually at the turn of the century to an average of one or two people/year in the 1990s. Modern-day prophylaxis, which is the series of vaccine injections given to people who potentially or actually have been exposed, has proved nearly 100-percent successful in preventing mortality when administered promptly (CDC 2001). In the United States, human fatalities associated with rabies occur in people who fail to seek timely medical assistance, usually because they were unaware of having been exposed.

Although human deaths from rabies are rare, the estimated public health costs associated with detection, prevention, and control have risen, and are estimated to exceed $300 million to $450 million annually. Those costs include the vaccination of companion animals, the maintenance of rabies laboratories, medical costs, such as those incurred in investigating exposure cases, rabies post- exposure prophylaxis (PEP), and animal control programs (CDC 2001).

Raccoon Rabies in the Eastern United States Rabies in raccoons was virtually unknown before the 1950s. It was first described in Florida, and spread slowly during the next three decades into Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina. In 1977, rabid raccoons were first detected in West Virginia. It is believed that rabies was present in raccoons imported from Florida into West Virginia by hunters in the 1970’s. The disease then spread to other raccoons after they were released. Once raccoon rabies was established in West Virginia and Virginia, it spread at a rate of approximately 25 to 50 miles per year into Maryland, Washington, D.C., Delaware, and Pennsylvania. This rabies epizootic spread into New Jersey through Warren and Hunterdon counties in October 1989. The raccoon rabies epizootic now extends throughout New England and as far west as Ohio, and south into North Carolina. In the past 21 years, all of the Mid-Atlantic and New England states have experienced at least one outbreak. The raccoon rabies

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-103 Compatibility Determination – Oral vaccination by aerial baiting to control the raccoon variant of the rabies virus

epizootic front reached Maine in 1994, reflecting a movement rate of about 30–35 miles per year (48.3 km/yr). It was also first confirmed in northeastern Ohio in 1996 (Krebs et al. 1998). In 1999, the first three cases of raccoon rabies were confirmed in southern Ontario (Rosatte et al. 2001), and the strain has recently been reported in New Brunswick.

Raccoon rabies presents a human health threat directly through potential exposure to rabid raccoons, or indirectly through the exposure of a pet that encountered a rabid raccoon. To date, no known cases of rabies in humans have been attributable to raccoon rabies. However, the number of pets and livestock examined and vaccinated for rabies, the number of diagnostic tests requested, and the number of post exposure treatments are all greater when raccoon rabies is present in an area. The human and financial resources allocated to rabies-related human and animal health needs also increase, often at the expense of other important activities and services.

If new rabies strains, such as those transmitted by raccoons, gray foxes and coyotes, are not prevented from spreading to new areas of the United States, the health threats and health costs associated with rabies are expected to increase substantially. The current distribution area of raccoon rabies stretches from Alabama northeastward along the Appalachian Mountains through coastal Maine. In the area that stretches west from the leading edge of that current distribution to the Rocky Mountains and north from the distribution of gray fox and coyote rabies in Texas live more than 111 million livestock animals, including cattle, horses, mules, swine, goats, and sheep, which are valued at $42 billion (65 FR 76606-76607, December 7, 2000). If raccoon, gray fox, or coyote rabies were to spread into that area, many of those livestock would be at risk of contracting those specific rabies variants. More importantly, human health concerns would be expected to increase substantially as well, if raccoon, coyote and gray fox strains of rabies infect a much broader geographic area, which would add to the current high costs of living with those strains.

Goals of the ORV program The primary goals of the program in Vermont are (1) stop the forward advance of the raccoon strain of rabies from areas where it now occurs by immunizing portions of target species populations along the leading edges of the rabies fronts (U.S.—Canada border); and, (2) reduce the incidence of rabies cases involving wild and domestic animals and rabies exposures to humans in the areas where the ORV program is conducted (northern Vermont). If the ORV program is successful in stopping the forward advance of the raccoon strain, then the ultimate goal could include the elimination of this rabies variant.

AVA ILA BILITY OF R ESOU RCES The program would involve the use of APHIS-WS federal funds to purchase and distribute ORV baits. Bait distribution and ORV monitoring and surveillance are the responsibility of the APHIS- WS (the permit holder). Refuge staff time associated with the administration of this use includes the issuance of the Special Use Permit, answering questions of the permit holder or the public concerning the use and the conditions of the permit, monitoring compliance with those conditions, and monitoring the potential impacts of the use on refuge resources and visitors. The refuge manager will administer the program. The refuge outdoor recreation planner will monitor visitor impacts.

B-104 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Oral vaccination by aerial baiting to control the raccoon variant of the rabies virus

The refuge wildlife biologist will monitor resource impacts. Administering this use requires no special equipment, facilities, or resources. We conduct the maintenance and repair of refuge facilities and property as needed to facilitate priority public uses; therefore, those operations are not being performed for the purposes of this special use. The law enforcement resources of the refuge are not directed toward providing safety for the permit holder or security for their property, beyond that which is expected for the visiting public. We estimate the salaries, equipment, fuel and other costs associated with refuge involvement in this use at less than $1000 annually.

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE USE This use is part of a larger, national program to identify and reduce the spread of various strains of rabies across the United States and into Canada. The Service will be assisting the effectiveness of that national program by participating in it. Combating these rabies virus variants would likely have beneficial impacts on both humans and wildlife.

Oral Rabies Baits and Vaccine This vaccine was laboratory-tested extensively for safety in more than 50 animal species with no adverse effects, regardless of route or dose. Rupprecht et al. (1992) report there has been no mortality or morbidity (i.e., signs or symptoms of disease) and no lesions typical of pox virus infections caused by V-RG vaccine in more than 350 individual animals representing 20 taxonomic families of animals. They concluded that the extensive laboratory safety experiments showed V-RG to be safe in all species tested to date, including raccoons, coyotes, and gray foxes. In addition, a domestic animal’s annual rabies vaccination can be safely administered even if it recently ingested a dose of oral rabies vaccine. There is no possibility of vaccine-induced rabies with V-RG because the vaccine contains only the non-infective surface protein of the rabies virus. The vaccine contains none of the viral nuclear material (i.e., RNA), which would be required for the rabies virus to replicate.

Since 1990, more than 50 million doses have been distributed in the United States; to date, only one case of vaccinia virus infection, resulting in localized skin rashes, has been reported in humans. The ORV program would reduce the likelihood of wildlife being exposed to the rabies virus. If threatened or endangered species were to find and consume an ORV bait, we expect they would experience no effect other than possibly becoming immunized against rabies. Therefore, the Raboral V-RG® vaccine distributed in baits would have no adverse effects on any state- or federal-listed threatened or endangered species or their critical habitats.

The newest supplement of the APHIS-WS national programmatic Environmental Assessment (EA) and Decision/Finding of No Significant Impact, approved in June 2003, analyzes the potential environmental effects of a proposal to continue and expand the involvement of APHIS-WS in cooperative ORV programs in a number of Eastern States and Texas. That document is available for inspection at the refuge office. The following conclusions concern the issues that EA analyzes in detail.

■ We expect negligible adverse impacts on wildlife from ORV program flights, because of their short duration, infrequency, and negligible intensity over any given area and the tolerance of wildlife for such flights.

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-105 Compatibility Determination – Oral vaccination by aerial baiting to control the raccoon variant of the rabies virus

■ We expect negligible adverse impacts on the environment from the limited number of baits dropped in a specific area, the biodegradability of the baits and vaccine liquid, their high consumption rate by animal species, the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, and the standard operating procedures for dropping baits near a large source of water.

■ We expect negligible adverse impacts on humans exposed to baits or vaccine, and expect beneficial impacts from reducing the threat of human exposure to the rabies virus.

■ We expect no adverse impacts on target species, and expect beneficial impacts from immunizing target species against rabies.

■ We expect no adverse impacts on non-target, threatened, or endangered species, and expect minor, beneficial impacts from immunizing non-target wildlife species against rabies.

■ We expect no adverse impacts on domestic animals, and expect minor beneficial impacts from immunizing domestic animals against rabies.

■ We expect negligible impacts on visitor use or experience from distributing ORV baits, and expect beneficial impacts from reducing the threat of visitors encountering a rabid animal.

■ We expect negligible risk of the recombined V-RG virus reverting to virulence, resulting in a virus that could cause disease in humans or animals.

■ We expect negligible risk of the V-RG virus recombining with other viruses in the wild to form new viruses that could cause disease in humans or animals.

■ We expect negligible risk of aerially dropped baits striking or injuring people or domestic animals.

We do not expect this use to result in short- or long-term impacts that would materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the purposes for which the refuge was established or the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. In addition, this action will not affect historic resources, and we do not consider it scientifically controversial. The ORV will be localized in areas where humans are not likely to be exposed, and is limited in terms of quantity. It will not cause contaminants to enter water bodies, does not adversely affect any federally protected species or critical habitat, and does not cause bioaccumulation.

PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT As part of the CCP process for Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge, this compatibility determination will undergo a comment period of 30 days concurrent with the draft CCP/EA. Additionally, we posted this draft compatibility determination at refuge headquarters from June 7-17, 2004. We received no comments.

B-106 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Oral vaccination by aerial baiting to control the raccoon variant of the rabies virus

DETERMINATION (Check one):

THIS USE IS COMPATIBLE X

THIS USE IS NOT COMPATIBLE

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY Mitigation measures are any features of an action that serve to prevent, reduce, or compensate for impacts that otherwise might result. Thanks to extensive public and interagency involvement in the development of ORV programs and strategies, a number of key mitigating measures are now part of the standard operating procedures of state-operated ORV programs.

1) Public information, education, and media announcements to inform the public in each county about ORV bait distribution activities before they occur—APHIS-WS will coordinate with the appropriate state agency on preparing leaflets, posters, press releases or other media for posting in schools, hospitals, campgrounds, visitor centers, and state and county public agency offices. Notification of the ORV bait drop also may be sent to the State Police, State Emergency Management Associations, County hazardous materials coordinators, County cooperative extension agents, state and federal correctional facilities, wildlife rehabilitators, and medical and veterinary facilities in the ORV area informing them about the program and providing information on the ORV bait and vaccine and potential exposure issues.

2) Toll-free telephone numbers advertised in the media and on websites—for people to call for answers to questions. The toll-free numbers will allow the caller an opportunity to speak in English or Spanish.

3) An additional level of assurance that a human reaction would be treated successfully—in the unlikely event that an adverse vaccinia virus exposure occurs in humans. The CDC can make vaccinia immune globulin available to a state on a case-by-case basis.

4) Training distribution navigators to avoid dropping baits on people or structures—during aerial bait drops, navigators turn off the bait dispensing equipment temporarily over human dwellings, cities, towns, greenhouses, certain sensitive domestic animal pens, and when people are observed below.

5) Adherence of aircraft to air safety standards—the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) personnel, as well as all aircraft, are fully certified under Transport Canada Regulations (comparable to the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration [FAA]). The FAA has authorized the OMNR to fly at an altitude of 500 feet over all rural and residential habitats.

6) Aircraft will not fly below 500 feet.

7) Before distributing ORV baits along the U.S.-Canada border—the appropriate government authorities/officials would be notified.

8) Before distributing ORV baits on federal lands—the appropriate federal land management agency would be notified.

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-107 Compatibility Determination – Oral vaccination by aerial baiting to control the raccoon variant of the rabies virus

9) Training personnel in hand distribution of baits—to avoid properties with greater risk of human or pet encounters with baits.

10) Labels on each ORV bait—instructing persons not to disturb or handle them and containing a toll-free telephone number to call for further information and guidance in the event of accidental exposure to the vaccine.

11) Should surveillance trapping ever occur on the refuge—to monitor program effectiveness, it would be coordinated with the refuge staff. Methods of capturing raccoons would involve mainly the use of cage traps. However, other methods, such as shooting and foot-hold traps, may be used in some programs. Animals that are caught in cage traps and must be sacrificed (killed) for testing, local depopulation, or by cooperating landowner’s request would be killed in accordance with recommendations of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

12) Field personnel—involved in trapping, handling, monitoring or surveying animals would be immunized against rabies and tetanus.

13) All drug use—in capturing and handling raccoons and other animals would be under the direction and authority of state veterinary authorities, either directly or through procedures agreed upon between those authorities and APHIS-WS.

14) Ear tagging or other marking of an animal—drugged and released close to hunting/trapping season alerts hunters and trappers that they should contact state officials before consuming the animal. Most animals administered immobilizing drugs would be released well before state- controlled hunting/trapping seasons, which would give the drug time to metabolize completely out of the animals before humans might take or consume them.

15) The permit holder will provide a summary—of all ORV activities involving the refuge to the refuge manager on an annual basis.

16) The refuge manager reserves the right—to review the compatibility of this activity or rescind the permit at any time.

JUSTIFICATION This use has been determined to be compatible provided the Permit Special Conditions are implemented. The use will contribute to the purposes of the refuge and mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and will not materially interfere with or detract from the purposes of the refuge and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Compatibility will be reevaluated every 5 years.

B-108 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Oral vaccination by aerial baiting to control the raccoon variant of the rabies virus

Signature: Refuge Manager: (Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief: (Signature and Date)

Mandatory 5-year Re-evaluation Date: (Date)

Literature Cited

CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2001a. Rabies prevention and control. Information obtained at web site: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/rabies

Clark, K.A. and P.J. Wilson. 1995. Canine and gray fox rabies epizootics in Texas. Great Plains Wildl. Damage Workshop 12:83-87.

Clark, K.A., S.U. Neill, J.S. Smith, P.J. Wilson, V.W. Whadford, and G.W. McKirahan. 1994. Epizootic canine rabies transmitted by coyotes in south Texas. J. Amer. Vet. Med. Assoc. 204:536-540.

Krebs, J.W., C.E. Rupprecht, and J.E. Childs. 2000. Rabies surveillance in the United States during 1999. J. Amer. Vet. Med. Assoc. 217:1799-1811.

Krebs, J.W., J.S. Smith, C.E. Rupprecht, and J.E. Childs. 1999. Rabies surveillance in the United States during 1998. J. Amer. Vet. Med. Assoc. 215:1786-1798.

Krebs, J.W., J.S. Smith, C.E. Rupprecht, and J.E. Childs. 1998. Rabies surveillance in the United States during 1997. J. Amer. Vet. Med. Assoc. 213:1713-1672.

Linhart, S.B., J.C. Wodlowski, D.M. Kavenaugh, L. Motes-Kreimeyer, A.J. Montoney, R.B. Chipman, D. Slate, L.L. Bigler, and M.G. Fearneyhough. unpublished 2001. A new flavor-coated sachet bait for delivering oral rabies vaccine to raccoons and coyotes. Manuscript submitted to J. Wildl. Dis. 02/28/01. 35 pp.

Rosatte, R.C., D. Donovan. M. Allan, L-A. Howes, A. Silver, K. Bennett, C. MacInnes, C. Davies, A. Wandeler, and B. Radford. 2001. Emergency response to raccoon rabies introduction in Ontario. J. Wildl. Dis. 37:265-279.

Rupprecht, C.E., C.A. Hanlon, H. Koprowski, and A.N. Hamir. 1992a. Oral wildlife rabies vaccination: development of a recombinant virus vaccine. Trans. 57th N.A. Wildl. & Nat. Res. Conf. 439-452.

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-109 Compatibility Determination – Oral vaccination by aerial baiting to control the raccoon variant of the rabies virus

TDH (Texas Department of Health), Zoonosis Control Division. 2001. The Texas Oral Rabies Vaccine Program. Information from website: www.tdh.state.tx.us/zoonosis

USDA, APHIS-WS. 2003. Environmental assessment – Oral vaccination to control specifi c rabies virus variants in raccoons, gray foxes, and coyotes in the United States. USDA, APHIS-WS, 4700 River Road, Unit 87, Riverdale, MD 20737-1234.

B-110 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Commercially guided tours

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

USE: Commercially guided tours

Supporting Uses: Boating (motorized and non-motorized), interpretation (not conducted by refuge staff or authorized agents), hunting (upland/big game—guiding or outfitting), hunting (waterfowl— guiding or outfitting), wildlife photography, wildlife observation

REFUGE NAME: Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge

DATE ESTABLISHED: February 4, 1943

ESTABLISHING AUTHORITY: Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929

PURPOSE FOR WHICH ESTABLISHED

The Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge was established “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds” [Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 715–715d, and 715f–715r].

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 fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”

DESCRIPTION OF USE

(a) What is the use? Is it a priority public use? The use is commercially guided tours. 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 (Public Law 105–57). However, commercially guided tours contribute to the fulfillment of refuge purposes and to the National Wildlife Refuge System Mission by facilitating priority public uses.

We will consider only wildlife-dependent activities, but will consider additional activities on a case-by-case basis. Those must meet several tests before we approve them. Activities currently permitted are guided interpretive or educational canoe or kayak tours, commercial wildlife/wild land photography, and guided bird walks.

(b) Where would the use be conducted? Guided tours are allowed in areas open to public entry and waterways open to public boating. No facilities or areas are reserved specifically for tour groups. Any exceptions to tours in other areas of the refuge will require permission from the refuge manager. These exceptions would only be allowed if no disturbance to species at a sensitive time in their life cycle would occur.

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-111 Compatibility Determination – Commercially guided tours

(c) When would the use be conducted? Commercially guided tours can be conducted year-round, during daylight hours only.

(d) How would the use be conducted? A formal process allows tour guides are to operate on refuge lands. The refuge manages commercial guiding activities at a level that is compatible with refuge purposes and ensures high-quality guiding services are available for the public. We will review applications fo special use permits only when we have received the complete application package. If we approve the request, we mail the permits within two weeks. If we do not approve the request, we will mail back the entire application package, including the check. Application packages containing false statements or fraudulent or misleading information will be denied, and the application fee will be forfeited.

All permit activities are regulated by provisions listed in 50 CFR, subpart D—Permits, 15.41– 45. In conducting business, the permit holder will comply with all federal, state, and local laws and Department of the Interior, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service regulations.

Presently, we do not limit the number of permit holders for a particular activity. However, we may place restrictions on the amount, time, or location of activities, as we deem appropriate, to sustain the resource and the quality of experience for other refuge visitors. Whenever possible, the permit will explain those restrictions clearly. However, we reserve the right to enforce further restrictions or to change the restrictions by amending the permit at any time during the permit period when we deem it appropriate for the protection of the resource and the quality of experience for the public.

The permit holder must comply with refuge regulations and permit conditions listed below under “Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility,” unless the permit allows an exception. One guide now operating on the refuge must operate legally under the requirements of the State of Vermont, and is required to understand refuge regulations and policies.

(e) Why is this use being proposed? Refuge visitors enjoy watching wildlife and participating in recreation associated with wildlife, but few understand how best to provide the habitat essential to wildlife’s survival. Commercially guided tours will help increase public understanding of wildlife’s needs and when people value something, they are motivated to action. When people understand the connections between land management and larger resource issues in their lives, they are in a better position to make wise resource decisions. To protect refuge lands and waters better and to serve visitors better, we have established refuge regulations and policies regarding commercial tour guides.

AVA ILA BILITY OF R ESOU RCES Adequate refuge personnel and operating funds are available to manage guided tours at their existing and projected levels. Administrative staff time primarily involves issuing and renewing special use permits each year, ensuring that licenses and certifications are current, collecting client use-day fees; and reporting annual data. The fieldwork associated with administering the program primarily involves monitoring the permit holders’ compliance with the terms of the permits. We estimate the refuge staff time to administer and monitor these permits annually at 1 month.

B-112 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Commercially guided tours

Other operating costs for transportation and for monitoring are about $2,000 per year. A nonrefundable administrative fee of $150.00 is assessed when each permit is issued. In addition, the proposed $1.00 refuge activity fee will be assessed for each client.

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE USE The use may affect wildlife resources and other refuge resources such as water quality, soil and vegetation, or other users on the refuge. The refuge law enforcement officer will check commercial guides routinely for compliance with regulations and permit conditions. The permit conditions and stipulations noted below also contribute to minimizing potential impacts.

One potential impact, or threat, associated with the access of boats is the introduction of invasive species they may carry. The temporary displacement or disturbance of wildlife can occur when boats approach wildlife too closely. That disturbance has no known, long-term impacts on populations of refuge wildlife. Allowing visitors to walk on the refuge carries some impacts that will affect wildlife activity to some extent. The ground where foot traffic occurs will be compacted and the tree roots exposed. The use of boardwalks and gravel surfacing will be necessary on frequently used areas to fill holes or cover exposed tree roots.

We expect those impacts to be minor. Some of the same areas now used for tours are also used for wildlife observation and photography, fishing, and environmental education.

PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT As part of the comprehensive conservation planning for the Missisquoi refuge, this compatibility determination will undergo a comment period of 30 days concurrent with the release of our draft CCP/EA.

DETERMINATION (Check one):

THIS USE IS COMPATIBLE X

THIS USE IS NOT COMPATIBLE

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY The following stipulations apply to the special use permits we issue for commercially guided recreational tours. We will continue law enforcement and administrative monitoring of permit holders for compliance with the following conditions, which are incorporated into all permits to minimize impacts on refuge lands and resources.

1. The permit holders will not advertise on refuge property or distribute leaflets via the refuge visitor center, refuge headquarters, etc. They may distribute leaflets only during approved programs covered by the permit, and only to those participants registered for that program.

2. The permit holder agrees to hold the U.S. Government harmless from liability for any accident or injury to their clients or employees resulting from the activities the permit authorizes. The permit holder must provide adequate, appropriate liability insurance: a

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-113 Compatibility Determination – Commercially guided tours

Certificate of Insurance with adequate Comprehensive General Liability coverage, the minimum limit of liability being $300,000 per occurrence. The insurance certificate must name the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service as additional insured, specify that the service or activity the permit authorize is covered by the policy, and provide a telephone number for verification.

3. The permit holder must provide a copy of the appropriate documentation of current Red Cross First Aid and CPR certification for all guides.

4. All special use permits will expire on the last day of the refuge fiscal year, September 30, regardless of their date of issue. The refuge needs public use figures for end-of-year reports (both fiscal year and calendar year). Therefore, permit holders must turn in their permit use figures to the refuge by October 10, and must report the following information: the total number of trips, total number of participants, and total fees.

5. A copy of a valid special use permit must be available for inspection on request by any law enforcement officer or refuge staff member, whenever an activity authorized by the permit is occurring. Storing permits in the glove box of a vehicle is acceptable; however, all guides must be knowledgeable about the permit and its conditions.

6. Violation of any special conditions of the permit or of any federal, state, local, or refuge regulations may result in a Notice of Violation (NOV) being issued or the revocation or cancellation of the permit without written or verbal warning. In that case, the permit holder will receive immediate notification by phone with follow-up notification by mail. The permit holders are responsible for the actions of their employees, agents, others working under their special use permit, and their clients.

7. Regardless of the reason for the revocation or cancellation of a permit, no refund will be made to the permit holder.

8. Canoe or kayak tour permits for the Missisquoi refuge will be issued only for those waterways open to boating, including the Missisquoi River, Dead Creek, and Long Marsh Bay, putting in at Louie’s Landing. In addition, permit holders will be authorized to use only the mowed area adjacent to the boat launch for instructional purposes. The gravel area may be used only for parking and launching. The ramp may not be blocked for use by other refuge visitors at any time.

9. We do not presently limit the number of commercial guide and participant vehicles (plus trailers) allowed to park at Louie’s Landing. However, we may place restrictions on that number, as we deem appropriate, to allow space for other refuge visitors (e.g., anglers, hunters, wildlife observers). If necessary, we will instructed participants, (except those whose vehicles display a valid, handicapped placard, to park their personal vehicles at the site of the old refuge headquarters. The permit holder will shuttle participants to Louie’s Landing in vans or other vehicles.

B-114 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Commercially guided tours

10. For those businesses that had a special use permit in a previous year, we will not issue a permit for the current year until the refuge office has received an accounting of the tours and activities conducted under the old permit.

11. We issue permits on a year-to-year basis, and do not reissue them automatically on consecutive years.

12. All permit holders and their employees who guide on the Missisquoi refuge must attend a training course that describes the refuge and its mission, the habitats and history of the area, and the customer service standards we expect.

13. Permit holders will provide all participants with relevant refuge information, including the regulations and conditions of the permit. The Service will supply information to the permit holder, on request.

14. Vehicle(s) will be used only on designated roadways and in parking areas.

15. All boats must carry standard USCG-approved safety equipment.

16. Tours must begin and end during daylight hours only.

17. Groups will police their routes for litter, vandalism, etc., and report any problems to the refuge office.

JUSTIFICATION Commercial tour guides provide unique, high quality, safe, educational, recreational opportunities to the public. These visitor services are a valuable benefit for a segment of the American public that is not comfortable with or, for other reasons, chooses not to participate in unguided tours on the refuge.

The requirements the Service places on commercial tour guides through its application process and the terms of its special use permits, and the regulations of the State of Vermont ensure that those commercial tour guides provide safe, high-quality experiences for their clients. These operations can help the refuge achieve its purposes of protecting fish and wildlife resources of the refuge and meet its requirements to provide compatible opportunities for the public to use and enjoy those resources. Allowing commercially guided tours within the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge contributes to, and does not materially interfere with or detract from, the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the purposes for which the refuge was established.

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-115 Compatibility Determination – Commercially guided tours

Signature: Refuge Manager: (Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief: (Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: (Date)

B-116 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Commercially guided waterfowl hunting

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

USE: Commercially guided waterfowl hunting

Supporting Uses: Boating (motorized and non-motorized), waterfowl hunting, observing wildlife.

REFUGE NAME: Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge

DATE ESTABLISHED: February 4, 1943

ESTABLISHING AUTHORITY: Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929

PURPOSE FOR WHICH ESTABLISHED

The Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge was established “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds” [Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 715–715d, and 715f–715r].

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 fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”

DESCRIPTION OF USE

(a)What is the use? Is it a priority public use? The use is commercially guided waterfowl hunting. 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. By facilitating priority public uses, commercially guided waterfowl hunting contributes to the fulfillment of refuge purposes and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

No waterfowl hunting guides are now operating on the refuge. However, we expect this use in the future. Guides must be qualified, licensed by the State of Vermont, licensed by the U.S. Coast Guard, and must understand refuge regulations and policies.

No person, including but not limited to a guide, guide service, outfitter, club, or other organization shall provide assistance, services, or equipment to any other person for compensation on national wildlife refuge lands unless the refuge manager has issued a special use permit such person, guide, guide service, outfitter, club, or other organization. Likewise, each individual using the services of such a guide, guide service, etc. is responsible for verifying that the guide, guide service, etc. has obtained the required permit. Failure to comply with this provision subjects each hunter in the party to a fine if convicted of this violation.

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-117 Compatibility Determination – Commercially guided waterfowl hunting

(b) Where would the use be conducted? In accordance with the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act, less than 40 percent of the refuge is open for hunting migratory birds. The areas open for hunting migratory waterfowl include the delta east of the main branch and north of Goose Bay, Shad Island Pothole, Metcalfe Island Pothole, Long Marsh Bay and Channel, Patrick Marsh and Charcoal Creek, Maquam Swamp north of the Black Creek and Maquam Creek Nature Trails, and the Maquam Shore Area in Maquam Bay. No specific facilities or areas are reserved for guides and their clients.

(c) When would the use be conducted? Waterfowl hunting guides may operate on the refuge in accordance with seasons established by State of Vermont hunting regulations. Guiding occurs during the waterfowl hunting season. Guides are in the field before the season, scouting and preparing for the hunting season, but in no case before September 1. A guiding permit for waterfowl hunting is not required for scouting. Guides report their activities annually as required under the terms of their special use permits.

Migratory Game Bird Season—Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge lies entirely within the Lake Champlain waterfowl hunting regulatory zone established by the State of Vermont and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Refuge open seasons correspond with the season dates and lengths established by state and federal regulations annually. Recent history indicates that the season is normally 60 days long, and takes place between October 1 and December 31. Likewise, the regulations promulgated annually by the State of Vermont and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service set the season dates for woodcock and snipe.

(d) How would the use be conducted? A formal permitting process allows waterfowl hunting guides to operate on refuge lands. The refuge manages commercial guiding activities at a level that is compatible with refuge purposes and ensures high-quality guiding services are available for the public. We will review permit applications only after we have received the complete application package. If we approve the application, we mail the permit within two weeks. If we do not approve it, we return the entire application package, including the check, by mail. We will deny application packages containing false statements or fraudulent or misleading information, and the application fee will be forfeited.

The provisions in 50 CFR, subpart D, 15.41–45, “Permits,” regulate all permit activities. The permit holders will comply with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations of the Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in conducting their business.

We do not presently restrict the number of permit holders for this activity. However, we may place restrictions on the amount, time, and location of activities, as we deem appropriate, to sustain the resource and the quality of experience for refuge waterfowl hunters. Whenever possible, the permit will clearly explain those restrictions. However, we reserve the right to enforce further restrictions or to change the restrictions by amending the permit at any time during the permit period when we deem it appropriate to protect the resource or the quality of experience for the public.

B-118 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Commercially guided waterfowl hunting

We have developed opportunities for waterfowl hunting at the refuge to provide a wide variety of high quality hunting opportunities for refuge visitors. The permit holders and their clients must comply with the following waterfowl hunting regulations.

1. Youth waterfowl hunters who have completed the annual refuge Junior Waterfowl Hunter Training Course may hunt in controlled hunting areas and other open areas of the refuge on Youth Weekend.

2. Youth waterfowl hunters who have not completed the annual refuge Junior Waterfowl Hunter Training Course may hunt in other open areas of the refuge except the Junior Waterfowl Hunting Area on Youth Weekend.

3. All hunters may hunt without a permit in the public hunting areas, including the Delta Lakeshore Area, the Maquam Swamp Area, and the Maquam Shore Area; however, other restrictions may apply (see below).

4. All hunters may apply for permits to hunt in controlled hunting areas, including the Junior Waterfowl Hunting Areas, the Long Marsh Channel/Metcalfe Island Area, and the Saxes Pothole and Creek/Shad Island areas.

The refuge brochure “Migratory Game Bird Hunting Map and Regulations” and 50 CFR detail the refuge-specific waterfowl hunting regulations outlined below

General regulations relative to migratory birds—All persons hunting migratory birds on the refuge must hold a valid Federal Migratory Bird Conservation Stamp, Vermont State Duck Stamp and a Vermont state hunting license. EXCEPTION: The Federal Migratory Bird Conservation Stamp and Vermont State Duck Stamp are not required for hunting woodcock.

During the Youth Waterfowl Hunting Weekend, youth hunters 15 years and younger may hunt at no charge, but must obtain a waterfowl hunt permit before hunting in controlled hunting areas, and, in all cases, must return a completed bag report to refuge headquarters or to the drop box at Mac’s Bend.

Hunters may not enter closed areas of the refuge for any reason, except for the recovery of legally harvested animals and, in that case, may not carry a weapon.

Reporting—At the end of each daily hunt, all hunters are required to complete a bag report. Bag reports are included on permits for Controlled Hunting Areas and Report of Birds Bagged forms are available at refuge headquarters and the Mac’s Bend drop box for public hunting areas. Bag reports provide valuable information regarding species and numbers of waterfowl utilizing the refuge.

Scouting—Unarmed hunters may scout open hunting areas before a particular season opens, but in no case before September 1. A hunting permit is not required for scouting.

Ammunition—Hunters are required to use nontoxic shot for all game bird hunting on the refuge.

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-119 Compatibility Determination – Commercially guided waterfowl hunting

Dogs and Other Pets—Retrievers are required for hunting waterfowl in the following areas: the Maquam Swamp Area, Long Marsh Channel/Metcalfe Island, and Saxes Pothole/Creek and Shad Island Pothole. Other dogs and pets must be confined or on a leash.

Public Hunting Area

Permits and Fees— No permits or fees are required to hunt in these areas: the Delta Lakeshore, Maquam Swamp, Maquam Shore

Youth Waterfowl Hunting Weekend—Those areas are available to Youth Waterfowl Hunters during the annual 2-day special Youth Waterfowl Hunting Weekend in late September.

Reporting—At the end of each daily hunt, hunters are required to complete bag reports and return them to refuge headquarters or the drop box at Mac’s Bend.

General regulations—Blind staking, permanent blinds, and unattended decoys are prohibited.

Hunters using boat blinds or temporary blinds are encouraged to maintain a 200-yard distance from other hunters.

Shooting hours will begin one-half hour before sunrise and end at sunset.

Delta Lakeshore Area Regulations—This hunting unit includes lakeshore areas from Shad Island to the south side of Martindale Point, but does not include Saxes Pothole/Creek and Shad Island Pothole.

Jump shooting is not allowed within 200 yards of a party hunting from a boat or blind.

Maquam Swamp Area Regulations—This hunting area encompasses about 200 acres west of the Central Vermont Railroad and south of the private in-holding, and is open to migratory bird hunting with the following special requirements.

■ Jump shooting is allowed.

■ Each party of hunters (up to two people) must have a retriever.

■ No hunting is allowed within the area encompassing the headquarters nature trail. “No Hunting Zone” signs identify this area.

Maquam Shore Area Regulations—This hunting unit encompasses a 30-acre area along the lakeshore of Maquam Bay, and is bounded by private land on the west and a Vermont Wildlife Management Area on the east.

Jump shooting is not allowed within 200 yards of a party hunting from a boat or blind.

B-120 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Commercially guided waterfowl hunting

Controlled Hunting Areas

Permits and fees—All hunters hunting in a controlled area must have a permit. The permit must be completed, section A deposited in the drop box at refuge headquarters or at Mac’s Bend at the beginning of the hunt day, and sections B and C carried while hunting and deposited at the end of the hunt day.

Permits for the first two weeks of the season are obtained through a preseason lottery. Successful permit holders are issued a non-transferable permit for a specific date and blind site for a $10 fee. Thereafter, permits are available daily on a first-come, first-served basis at no charge. There is no charge for permits issued on the day of the hunt.

Preseason Lottery—The refuge will require all hunters who draw a blind site during the preseason lottery to provide the required $10 fee no later than two days before the first day of the season. Otherwise, the permit will be forfeited and made available first to stand-by hunters identified at the time of the drawing, second to stand-by hunters who have called in, and lastly to other hunters on a first-come, first-served basis.

Stand-by—Stand-by hunters are chosen from applications that were unsuccessful in the preseason lottery. Those individuals then could be drawn if their preferred sites and dates become available.

Call List—Calls will be taken from any hunter wishing to be put on a stand-by call list starting on preseason lottery drawing day. We will use that list if no stand-by applicants are available.

First Come-First Served—Preseason lottery hunt days: After 7 a.m., hunters may sign in, self- register, and use any unoccupied blind site.

Other hunt days: At the conclusion of the preseason lottery hunt days, permits and report cards will be available at refuge headquarters or the sign-in box at Mac’s Bend for self-service signing in and permitting no more than two hours before legal shooting time.

Sign In and Sign Out—All hunters are required to sign in and out of their sites by completing the sign in, sign out sheet for their hunt area. Sheets for the Junior Waterfowl Hunting Area are located at refuge headquarters. Sheets for other areas are located at Mac’s Bend. When a party signs out, another party may sign in and use the vacated site. Hunters must sign out of one site before occupying a different site in any of the controlled hunting areas.

Youth Waterfowl Hunting Weekend—With the exception of the Junior Waterfowl Hunting Area, these areas are open on a first-come, first-served basis to Youth Waterfowl Hunters during the two-day special Youth Waterfowl Hunting Weekend in late September. No preseason drawing will be held, and no fee will be assessed. However, youth hunters must self-register and submit a report of their hunt.

Reporting—At the end of each daily hunt, hunters will have until one hour after sunset to sign out, and must complete sections B and C of their permits and return them to refuge headquarters or the drop box at Mac’s Bend.

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-121 Compatibility Determination – Commercially guided waterfowl hunting

General regulations—Permanent blinds and unattended decoys are prohibited. (See exception under “Junior Waterfowl Hunting Area.”)

A hunting party consists of the hunter named on the permit and one guest hunter per site per day. Non-hunters may accompany a hunting party.

Each hunting party must possess a permit for the specific site on the specific day they are hunting in those areas. Permits are not transferable.

Hunters must hunt within 100 feet of a numbered stake corresponding to their assigned site.

Jump shooting is not allowed.

A hunter may not use or possess more than 25 shot shells per day.

Saxes Pothole/Creek and Shad Island Pothole Regulations—This hunting unit encompasses Saxes Creek, Saxes Pothole, and Shad Island Pothole. It is a controlled hunting area. Five sites, numbered 1–5, are staked and available to five hunting parties in Saxe’s Pothole; one site, numbered 6, is staked and available to one hunting party in Shad Island Pothole.

A boat is required to access each of those blind sites.

Shooting hours will be one-half hour before sunrise to sunset.

Permits for the period from the opening day of duck hunting season through the first Sunday of the duck-hunting season and, for the second weekend of the duck-hunting season, are obtained by application to a preseason lottery. During years when the State elects to have a split season, permits for the second opening day through the following Sunday will also be obtained by application to the preseason lottery. On all other hunt days, hunters must acquire permits through self-registration at the Mac’s Bend Landing no earlier than two hours before legal shooting time on the day of the hunt.

On those days for which permits are drawn by preseason lottery, hunters must sign in at the Mac’s Bend Landing by 7:00 a.m. before going to the assigned site. After 7:00 a.m., other hunters may sign in, self-register, and use unoccupied sites.

Each party is required to use a retriever.

Junior Waterfowl Hunting Area—This controlled hunting area encompasses Long Marsh Bay, Patrick Marsh, and that portion of Charcoal Creek south of Route 78. Eleven blind sites are established for use by Junior Waterfowl Hunters: blind sites 4–8 in Long Marsh Bay, blind sites C–F in Charcoal Creek, and blind sites A–B in Patrick Marsh.

A small, flat bottom boat, car top boat or canoe is necessary for access to Charcoal Creek and Patrick Marsh blind sites. Access is available at the Charcoal Creek crossing on Route 78 or from a pulloff on Route 78 about three-quarters of a mile east of the Charcoal Creek access.

B-122 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Commercially guided waterfowl hunting

Shooting hours will be one-half hour before sunrise to 11:00 a.m.

Following the successful completion of the annual refuge training program, usually held the third or fourth Saturday in August, Junior Waterfowl Hunters ages 12–15 at the time of the hunt vie for blind site assignments in a lottery drawing at the conclusion of the training. The 11 blind sites are available exclusively for those Junior Waterfowl Hunters the first four Saturdays and Sundays of the duck season.

As an incentive for the adult volunteers who serve as mentors to Junior Waterfowl Hunters, they will vie for blind site assignments during a lottery drawing at the conclusion of the annual junior waterfowl hunter training for the use of blind sites in the Junior Hunt area on the first Wednesday following the second weekend of the season. That day is known as Mentor Day. No fee will be collected from the mentors for this hunt day. Blinds not assigned because of this lottery will be made available to other adult hunters by preseason lottery.

Hunters, including Junior Hunters, must sign in at refuge headquarters no later than 7:00 a.m. on the date of their scheduled hunt. After 7:00 a.m., other Junior Hunters may sign in, self-register, and use unoccupied blind sites. Only Junior Hunters may hunt on the first four Saturdays and Sundays of the season.

Each Junior Hunter must possess a free permit for the assigned blind site and day. On Mentor Day, mentors must also possess this free permit for the assigned blind site. Each adult hunting party must possess a permit for the blind site and day they are hunting. Permits are not transferable.

A mentor who has completed the training program must accompany the Junior Hunter, and is included on the permit assigned to the Junior Hunter. A mentor may simultaneously oversee up to two junior hunters at one blind site.

Only Junior Hunters may discharge a firearm in this area during the Junior Hunt periods.

Each party must use at least six decoys.

Junior Area Adult Regulations—Following the use of the blind sites in this area by Junior Hunters and mentors, all blinds sites will then be available to all adult hunters by permit awarded by preseason lottery for the second Wednesday following the second weekend of the duck season. Thereafter, the blinds are available Wednesdays and weekends following the Junior Hunt by first- come, first-served self-registration and permitting at refuge headquarters no more than two hours before legal shooting time.

Each adult hunter, except mentors on Mentor Day, must pay $10 for each permit issued due to the preseason lottery. Permits acquired by self-registration are free.

Exceptions—Hunting is permitted, and recommended, from portable blinds and boat blinds constructed and placed by the refuge at some of the blind sites for the Junior Waterfowl Hunting Program. Stationary blinds may be constructed and left in place for the duration of the season by Junior Hunters with the refuge manager’s approval. Otherwise, permanent blinds are not permitted.

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-123 Compatibility Determination – Commercially guided waterfowl hunting

During the Youth Waterfowl Hunting Weekend in late September, the Junior Waterfowl Hunting Area is available only to Junior Waterfowl Hunters trained by the refuge that year.

Long Marsh Channel and Metcalfe Island Regulations—This controlled hunting area encompasses the Metcalfe Island Pothole and Long Marsh Channel. Three blind sites designated 1–3 are established in Long Marsh Channel. Three blind sites designated 8–10 are established on Metcalfe Island.

A boat is required to hunt at each of those blind sites.

Shooting hours are one-half hour before sunrise to 11:00 a.m.

Hunting will be limited to Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays throughout the waterfowl-hunting season for ducks.

Hunters obtain permits for the first 5 days of the duck season by application to a preseason lottery. Following the first 5 days, hunters may acquire permits on a first-come, first-served basis with self- service permitting and sign-in at the Mac’s Bend Landing no more than 2 hours before legal shooting time.

On those days for which permits are drawn by preseason lottery, hunters must sign in at the Mac’s Bend Landing by 7:00 a.m. before going to the assigned site. After 7:00 a.m., other hunters may sign in, self-register, and use unoccupied sites.

A party must use at least six decoys.

Each party is required to use a retriever.

Prohibited Activities ■ Littering ■ Using or possessing alcoholic beverages ■ Taking wildlife or plants other than as specified in this brochure ■ Searching for or removing any object of antiquity including arrowheads, pottery or other artifacts ■ Camping overnight ■ Burning open fires

The permit holder must comply with the refuge regulations and permit conditions listed under “Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility,” unless the permit allows an exception.

(e) Why is this use being proposed? Hunting on the lands of refuge has gone on since Native Americans first came to the area more than 7,000 years ago. Since the establishment of the refuge in 1943, hunting has been a constant, popular, sustainable high-priority public use of significant importance to local and regional residents. Their

B-124 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Commercially guided waterfowl hunting interest in hunting remains high. We are proposing this use to acknowledge its importance to refuge visitors and accomplish the goal of providing them with opportunities to engage in that compatible, high-priority public use.

The habitat that makes the Missisquoi refuge attractive to wildlife also makes it attractive to people, offering countless opportunities to witness some amazing wildlife spectacles. Waterfowl hunters come to the refuge not only to hunt, but also to share with family and friends the sights and sounds of wildlife and wetlands. The refuge is a special place, where hunting can link children and adults with the land and its resources. Commercially guided waterfowl hunting trips will help instill a land ethic in our hunters and strengthen the connection between wildlife and people. By enjoying this activity, the hunters further develop an appreciation for fish and wildlife.

AVA ILA BILITY OF R ESOU RCES Adequate refuge personnel and base operating funds are available to manage guided waterfowl hunting trips at their existing and projected levels. Administrative staff time primarily involves issuing and renewing special use permits each year, ensuring licenses and certifications are current, collecting client use-day fees; and reporting data annually. The fieldwork associated with administering the program primarily involves monitoring the permit holders’ compliance with the terms of the permit.

We estimate the refuge staff time to administer and monitor these permits annually at 1 month.

Transportation and other operational costs for monitoring is about $2,000 per year. We assess a nonrefundable administrative fee of $150.00 when each permit is issued, and charge clients $10/ permit/day for the controlled hunting site permits acquired through the preseason lottery. Following the preseason lottery, permits are available daily on a first-come, first-served basis at no charge. There is no charge for permits issued on the day of the hunt.

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE USE Migratory birds are managed on a flyway basis, and hunting regulations are established in each state based on flyway data. Atlantic Flyway and State of Vermont regulations apply to the migratory waterfowl-hunting program at the Missisquoi refuge. Missisquoi hunting regulations may be more restrictive than state and other federal regulations in limiting hunt days, hunt hours, shot shell restrictions, etc. Hunting would reduce the numbers of birds in the flyway within allowable limits determined by state and federal agencies. The direct disturbance of non-target birds would likely occur from hunting and associated hunter activity, but would be short-term. Those impacts are temporary, and are mitigated by the presence of adjacent refuge habitat where hunting does not occur, and where birds can feed and rest undisturbed. The refuge regulations implementing the program ensure periods free from the disturbance of hunting during the hunting season, and areas of inviolate sanctuary free of disturbance throughout the season. The activity of waterfowl hunters has little impact on other refuge visitors, with the exception of those who wish to use the Jeep Trail for walking, or observing or photographing other wildlife. Those users are impacted by the presence of hunters and the noise associated with waterfowl hunting on the delta, especially in the Long Marsh Channel and, to a lesser extent, the Long Marsh Bay. Paddlers, other boaters and anglers can also be

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-125 Compatibility Determination – Commercially guided waterfowl hunting

impacted by the activity associated with waterfowl hunting, although the participation in those uses generally diminishes as the season for them ends. The length of the boating season depends largely on the weather.

The refuge law enforcement officer will check commercial guides routinely for their compliance with regulations and permit conditions. The permit conditions and stipulations noted below also contribute to minimizing potential impacts.

PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT As part of the comprehensive conservation planning for the Missisquoi refuge, this compatibility determination will undergo a comment period of 30 days concurrent with the release of our draft CCP/EA.

DETERMINATION (Check one):

THIS USE IS COMPATIBLE X

THIS USE IS NOT COMPATIBLE

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY The following stipulations apply to the special use permits issued for commercially guided waterfowl hunting. We will carry out continuing law enforcement and administrative monitoring of permit holders to ensure their compliance with the following conditions, which all permits incorporate to minimize impacts on refuge lands or resources.

1. The permit holder will not advertise on refuge property; leaflets may not be distributed via the refuge visitor center, headquarters, etc. Leaflets may be distributed only during approved programs covered by the special use permit, and only to those participants registered for that program.

2. The permit holder agrees to hold the U.S. Government harmless from liability for any accident or injury to their clients or employees resulting from their activities this permit authorizes. The permit holder must provide adequate, appropriate liability insurance: a Certificate of Insurance with adequate Comprehensive General Liability coverage, the minimum limit of liability being $300,000 per occurrence, $500,000 aggregate for guides/outfitters. The insurance certificate must name the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as additional insured, specify that the policy covers the service or activity the permit authorizes, and provide a telephone number for verification.

3. The permit holder must provide a copy of the appropriate documentation of current Red Cross First Aid and CPR certification for all guides.

B-126 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination – Commercially guided waterfowl hunting

4. All special use permits will expire on the last day of the refuge fiscal year, September 30, regardless of their date of issue. The refuge needs public use figures for its end-of-year reports (both fiscal year and calendar year). Therefore, special permit holders must turn in their use figures to the refuge by October 10, and must include the following information: total number of trips, total number of participants, and total fees. 5. A copy of a valid permit must be available for inspection by any law enforcement officer or refuge staff member, on request, whenever an activity authorized by the permit is occurring. Storing the permit in the glove box of a vehicle is acceptable; however, all guides must be knowledgeable about the permit and its conditions.

6. The violation of any special conditions of the permit, or of any federal, state, local, or refuge regulation may result in a Notice of Violation (NOV) being issued or the revocation or cancellation of the permit without written or verbal warning. In that case, the permit holder will receive immediate notification by phone with follow-up notification by mail. Permit holders are responsible for the actions of their employees, agents, others working under their special use permit, and their clients.

7. No refund will be made to the permit holder, regardless of the reason for the revocation or cancellation of a permit.

8. Presently, we do not limit the number of commercial waterfowl hunting guides and participant vehicles (plus trailers) allowed to park at Louie’s Landing and Mac’s Bend; however, we may placed restrictions on the quantity as we deem appropriate to allow space for other refuge visitors and hunters.

9. For those commercial guides who had a special use permit in a previous year, we will not issue a permit for the current year until the refuge office has received an accounting of the tours and activities conducted under the old permit.

10. We issue permits on a year-to-year basis, and do not reissue them automatically on consecutive years.

11. All permit holders and their employees who guide on the Missisquoi refuge must attend a training course that describes the refuge and its mission, the habitats and history of the area, and the customer service standards we expect.

12. Permit holders will provide all participants with relevant refuge information, including the regulations and conditions of the permit. The Service will supply information to the permit holder, on request.

13. Vehicle(s) will be used only on designated roadways and in parking areas.

14. All boats must carry USCG-approved safety equipment.

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-127 Compatibility Determination – Commercially guided waterfowl hunting

15. The permit holders and their clients do not have the exclusive use of the blind site(s) or lands covered by the permit, and must apply for the use of sites through the same lottery as other hunters.

JUSTIFICATION Commercial waterfowl hunting guides provide the public with high-quality, safe, waterfowl hunting opportunities. These visitor services are a valuable benefit to a segment of the American public that is not comfortable with or, for other reasons, chooses not to participate in unguided waterfowl hunting on the refuge.

The requirements the Service places on commercial tour guides through the application process and the terms of their special use permits and regulations of the State of Vermont ensure that these commercial operators provide safe, high-quality experiences for their clients. Those operations can help the refuge achieve its purposes of protecting the fish and wildlife resources of the refuge and meeting legal requirements to provide compatible opportunities for the public to use and enjoy those resources.

Commerically guided waterfowl hunting on the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge will fulfill one or more purposes of the refuge, and will also fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. This activity does not materially interfere with or detract from, the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the purposes for which the refuge was established.

Signature: Refuge Manager: (Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief: (Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: (Date)

B-128 Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Appendix C USFWS Short-Eared Owl Species of Regional Conservation Concern Species of Regional Conservation Concern Wildlife Species of Regional Conservation Concern Presence Vermont Federal Vermont on Refuge1 BCR Wildlife T&E PIF4 T&E (Season/ 133 Action Species2 Species5 Abundance) Plan6 WATERBIRDS Bittern, American B H H Bittern, Least B M H Grebe, pied-billed B M H Gull, Bonaparte’s M M Gull, little H Heron, great-blue B M Loon, common M M H Loon, red-throated M Night-heron, black crowned M M M Rail, king H Rail, Virginia B M Rail, yellow M Sora B M Tern, black B M E H Tern, common M H E H WATERFOWL American black duck B, M HH H Blue-winged teal B, M M M Canvasback M H Goldeneye, Barrow’s H Goldeneye, common B, M HH Goose, Canada M HH Goose, greater snow M M Long-tailed duck HH Mallard B, M M Merganser, common M M Northern pintail M H

Appendix C. Species of Regional Conservation Concern C-1 Species of Regional Conservation Concern

Presence Vermont Federal Vermont on Refuge1 BCR Wildlife T&E PIF4 T&E (Season/ 133 Action Species2 Species5 Abundance) Plan6 WATERFOWL CONT. Redhead M M Scaup, greater M H Scaup, lesser M HH Scoter, white-winged M M Swan, tundra H Wood duck B, M H SHOREBIRDS Dowitcher, short-billed M H Dunlin M M Godwit, hudsonian M M Godwit, marbled M Killdeer B,M Phalarope, Wilson’s M Plover, American golden H Plover, black-bellied M M Plover, piping E HH Red knot M Sanderling M M Sandpiper, buff-breasted H Sandpiper, least M M Sandpiper, pectoral M M Sandpiper, semipalmated M M Sandpiper, solitary M H Sandpiper, upland M E H Snipe, Wilson’s M Whimbrel M Woodcock, American B,M H M

C-2 Appendix C. Species of Regional Conservation Concern Species of Regional Conservation Concern

Presence Vermont Federal Vermont on Refuge1 BCR Wildlife T&E PIF4 T&E (Season/ 133 Action Species2 Species5 Abundance) Plan6 SHOREBIRDS CONT. Yellowlegs, greater M M Yellowlegs, lesser M M LANDBIRDS American kestrel B,M RC/MA M Bald eagle M T E H RC, RS/ Baltimore oriole B M MA Belted kingfi sher B RC/MA RC, RS/ Black-billed cuckoo M H M MA Blackbird, rusty M M CC/PR M RC, RS/ Bobolink B,M M M MA Brown thrasher M H RC/MA M Chimney swift B,M M M Common nighthawk M H Eastern kingbird B RC/MA Eastern meadowlark B,M M RC/MA M Eastern towhee M RC/MA H Eastern wood-pewee B,M RC/MA Flycatcher, olive-sided B,M M Flycatcher, willow B,M M CC/PR Grouse, ruffed B,YR M Grouse, spruce E H Hawk, Cooper’s M M Hawk, red-shouldered B,M M Loggerhead shrike M E Lousiana waterthrush M

Appendix C. Species of Regional Conservation Concern C-3 Species of Regional Conservation Concern

Presence Vermont Federal Vermont on Refuge1 BCR Wildlife T&E PIF4 T&E (Season/ 133 Action Species2 Species5 Abundance) Plan6 LANDBIRDS CONT. Osprey B,M M Owl, barn M Owl, long-eared M Owl, short-eared M M CC/PR M Northern bobwhite M Northern fl icker B,M M RC/MA Northern goshawk M M Northern harrier B,M M RC/MA H Peregrine falcon M E H Purple martin B,M H Rose-breasted grosbeak B,M M RS/PR Scarlet tanager M M Sparrow, fi eld B,M RC/MA M Sparrow, grasshopper M M T H CC, Sparrow, Henslow’s HH EM RC/IM Sparrow, savannah B RC/MA Sparrow, song B,M M Sparrow, vesper H Swallow, barn B,M M Thrush, Bicknell’s H CC, RC/ Thrush, wood B,M HH M MA Veery B,M M Warbler, bay-breasted M M CC/PR M Warbler, blackpoll M M Warbler, black-throated-blue M M M Warbler, blue-winged H CC/PR M

C-4 Appendix C. Species of Regional Conservation Concern Species of Regional Conservation Concern

Presence Vermont Federal Vermont on Refuge1 BCR Wildlife T&E PIF4 T&E (Season/ 133 Action Species2 Species5 Abundance) Plan6 LANDBIRDS CONT. CC, RC/ Warbler, Canada M M H MA CC, RC/ Warbler, cerulean HH M MA Warbler, chestnut-sided M M CC, RC/ Warbler, golden-winged HH H MA Warbler, prairie M CC/PR M Warbler, prothonotary M Warbler, worm-eating M CC/PR Whip-poor-will M RC/MA H Woodpecker, black-backed M CC, Woodpecker, red-headed B,M M RC/IM Wren, sedge E H MAMMALS Bat, big brown X M Bat, red X H Bat, hoary X H Bat, Indiana T E H Bat, little brown X M Bat, northern long-eared X M Bat, silver-haired X H Bat, eastern small-footed X T H Black bear M Bobcat M Bog lemming, northern X H Bog lemming, southern X H

Appendix C. Species of Regional Conservation Concern C-5 Species of Regional Conservation Concern

Presence Vermont Federal Vermont on Refuge1 BCR Wildlife T&E PIF4 T&E (Season/ 133 Action Species2 Species5 Abundance) Plan6 MAMMALS CONT. Eastern pipistelle X H Flying squirrel, northern X M Flying squirrel, southern M Fox, gray X M Lynx E H Marten, American E H Mink X M Mole, hairy-tailed X M Mountain lion E M Muskrat X M New England cottontail X H River otter X M Shrew, long-tailed X H Shrew, masked X M Shrew, pygmy X H Shrew, smoky X M Shrew, water X H Vole, rock X H Vole, woodland X H Weasel, long-tailed X M Wolf, gray M AMPHIBIANS Common mudpuppy X H Fowler’s toad H Salamander, blue-spotted X M Salamander, four-toed M Salamander, Jefferson H

C-6 Appendix C. Species of Regional Conservation Concern Species of Regional Conservation Concern

Presence Vermont Federal Vermont on Refuge1 BCR Wildlife T&E PIF4 T&E (Season/ 133 Action Species2 Species5 Abundance) Plan6 AMPHIBIANS CONT. Salamander, spotted X M Western chorus frog E H REPTILES Brown snake X M Eastern racer T H Eastern ratsnake T H Eastern ribbon snake X H Five-lined skink E H Northern water snake X M Smooth green snake X M Timber rattlesnake E H Turtle, common musk M Turtle, spiny softshell X T H Turtle, spotted E H Turtle, wood H FISH American eel X H American brook lamprey T H American shad M Arctic char H Atlantic salmon-landlocked X M Blackchin shiner X H Blacknose shiner X H Brassy minnow H Bridle shiner H Channel darter E H Cisco M

Appendix C. Species of Regional Conservation Concern C-7 Species of Regional Conservation Concern

Presence Vermont Federal Vermont on Refuge1 BCR Wildlife T&E PIF4 T&E (Season/ 133 Action Species2 Species5 Abundance) Plan6 FISH CONT. Eastern sand darter X T H Lake sturgeon X E H Lake whitefi sh M Mooneye M Mottled sculpin M Muskellunge X H Northern brook lamprey E H Quillback H Redbreast sunfi sh X M Redfi n pickerel M Round whitefi sh M Sauger X H Greater redhorse X H Shorthead redhorse X M Silver redhorse H Silver lamprey X M Stonecat H MOLLUSCS Alewife fl oater X Black sandshell X E X Brook fl oater T X Creek heelsplitter X Cylindrical papershell X E X Dwarf wedgemussel E E X Eastern pearlshell T X Elktoe X Fluted-shell X E X

C-8 Appendix C. Species of Regional Conservation Concern Species of Regional Conservation Concern

Presence Vermont Federal Vermont on Refuge1 BCR Wildlife T&E PIF4 T&E (Season/ 133 Action Species2 Species5 Abundance) Plan6 MOLLUSCS CONT. Fragile papershell X E X Giant fl oater X T X Pink heelsplitter X E X Pocketbook X E X

KEY: 1 Presence/Absence: B=breeding, M=migration, W=wintering, YR=year-round, X=Present

2 Federal Threatened & Endangered: T=threatened, E=endangered

3 BCR 13 - Bird Conservation Region 13: HH=highest priority, H=high priority, M=medium priority

4 PIF - Partners in Flight Species of Concern: CC=continental concern, RC=regional concern, RS=regional stewardship, CR=critical recovery, IM=immediate management, MA=management attention, PR=planning and responsibility (From Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, www.rmbo.org)

5 Vermont Threatened & Endangered Species: T=threatened, E=endangered

6 Vermont Wildlife Action Plan: H=high priority, M=medium priority, X=priority

DEFINITION OF STATE RANKS: State Rank: these ranks indicate the relative rarity of natural community types and are assigned by the Vermont Nongame and Natural Heritage Program S1: very rare in the state, generally with fewer than fi ve high quality occurrences S2: rare in the state, occurring at a small number of sites or occupying a small total area in the state S3: high quality examples are uncommon in the state, but not rare; the community is restricted in dis- tribution for reasons of climate, geology, soils, or other physical factors, or many examples have been severely altered S4: widespread in the state, but the number of high quality examples is low or the total acreage oc- cupied by the community type is relatively small S5: common and widespread in the state, with high quality examples easily found

Appendix C. Species of Regional Conservation Concern C-9 Appendix D USFWS Leopard Frog

Wildlife and Plant Common and Scientifi c Names Wildlife and Plant Common and Scientific Names

Wildlife and Plant Common and Scientifi c Names Common Name Scientifi c Name WATERBIRDS Bittern, American Botaurus lentiginosus Bittern, least Ixobrychus exilis Cormorant, double-crested Phalacrocorax auritus Egret, great Ardea alba Grebe, pied-billed Podilymbus podiceps Gull, Bonaparte’s Larus philadelphia Gull, little Larus minutus Heron, great-blue Ardea herodias Loon, common Gavia immer Loon, red-throated Gavia stellata Night-heron, black-crowned Nycticorax nycticorax Rail, king Rallus elegans Rail, Virginia Rallus limicola Rail, yellow Coturnicops noveboracensis Sora Porzana carolina Tern, black Chlidonias niger Tern, common Sterna hirundo WATERFOWL American black duck Anas rubripes Blue-winged teal Anas discors Canvasback Aythya valisneria Goldeneye, Barrow’s Bucephala islandica Goldeneye, common Bucephala clangula Goose, Canada Branta canadensis Goose, greater snow Chen caerulescens Long-tailed duck Clangula hyemalis Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Merganser, common Mergus merganser Merganser, hooded Lophodytes cucullatus

Appendix D. Wildlife and Plant Common and Scientific Names D-1 Wildlife and Plant Common and Scientific Names

Common Name Scientifi c Name WATERFOWL CONT. Northern pintail Anas acuta Redhead Aythya americana Ring-necked duck Aythya collaris Scaup, greater Aythya marila Scaup, lesser Aythya affi nis Scoter, white-winged Melanitta fusca Swan, mute Cygnus olor Swan, tundra Cygnus columbianus Wood duck Aix sponsa SHOREBIRDS Dowitcher, short-billed Limnodromus griseus Dunlin Calidris alpina Godwit, hudsonian Limosa haemastica Godwit, marbled Limosa fedoa Killdeer Charadrius vociferus Phalarope, Wilson’s Phalaropus tricolor Plover, American golden Pluvialis dominica Plover, black-bellied Pluvialis squatarola Plover, piping Charadrius melodus Red knot Calidris canutus Sanderling Calidris alba Sandpiper, buff-breasted Tryngites subrufi collis Sandpiper, least Calidris minutilla Sandpiper, pectoral Calidris melanotos Sandpiper, semipalmated Calidris pusilla Sandpiper, solitary Tringa solitaria Sandpiper, upland Bartramia longicauda Snipe, Wilson’s Gallinago gallinago Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus Woodcock, American Scolopax minor

D-2 Appendix D. Wildlife and Plant Common and Scientific Names Wildlife and Plant Common and Scientific Names

Common Name Scientifi c Name SHOREBIRDS CONT. Yellowlegs, greater Tringa melanoleuca Yellowlegs, lesser Tringa fl avipes LANDBIRDS American kestrel Falco sparverius Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Baltimore oriole Icterus galbula Belted kingfi sher Ceryle alcyon Black-billed cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus Blackbird, rusty Euphagus carolinus Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus Brown thrasher Toxostoma rufum Chimney swift Chaetura pelagica Common nighthawk Chordeiles minor Eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern meadowlark Sternella magna Eastern towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus Eastern wood-pewee Contopus virens Flycatcher, olive-sided Contopus cooperi Flycatcher, willow Empidonax traillii Grouse, ruffed Bonasa umbellus Grouse, spruce Falcipennis canadensis Hawk, Cooper’s Accipiter cooperii Hawk, red-shouldered Buteo lineatus Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus Lousiana waterthrush Seiurus motacilla Osprey Pandion haliaetus Owl, barn Tyto alba Owl, long-eared Asio otus Owl, short-eared Asio fl ammeus Northern bobwhite Colinus virginianus

Appendix D. Wildlife and Plant Common and Scientific Names D-3 Wildlife and Plant Common and Scientific Names

Common Name Scientifi c Name LANDBIRDS CONT. Northern fl icker Colaptes auratus Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis Northern harrier Circus cyaneus Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus Purple martin Progne subis Rose-breasted grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus Scarlet tanager Piranga olivacea Sparrow, fi eld Spizella pusilla Sparrow, grasshopper Ammodramus savannarum Sparrow, Henslow’s Ammodramus henslowii Sparrow, savannah Passerculus sandwichensis Sparrow, song Melospiza melodia Sparrow, vesper Pooecetes gramineus Swallow, barn Hirundo rustica Thrush, wood Hylocichla mustelina Veery Catharus fuscescens Warbler, bay-breasted Dendroica castanea Warbler, blackpoll Dendroica striata Warbler, black-throated-blue Dendrioca caerulescens Warbler, blue-winged Vermivora pinus Warbler, Canada Wilsonia canadensis Warbler, cerulean Dendroica cerulea Warbler, chestnut-sided Dendroica pensylvanica Warbler, golden-winged Vermivora chrysoptera Warbler, prairie Dendrioca discolor Warbler, prothonotary Protonotaria citrea Warbler, worm-eating Helmitheros vermivora Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus Woodpecker, black-backed Picoides arcticus Woodpecker, red-headed Melanerpes erythrocephalus Wren, sedge Cistothorus platensis

D-4 Appendix D. Wildlife and Plant Common and Scientific Names Wildlife and Plant Common and Scientific Names

Common Name Scientifi c Name MAMMALS Bat, big brown Eptesicus fuscus Bat, eastern red Lasarius borealis Bat, hoary Lasarius cinerius Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis Bat, little brown Myotis lucifugus Bat, northern long-eared Myotis septentrionalis Bat, silver-haired Lasionycteris noctivagans Bat, eastern small-footed Myotis leibii Black bear Ursus americanus Bobcat Lynx rufus Bog lemming, northern Synaptomys borealis Bog lemming, southern Synaptomys cooperi Eastern pipistrelle Pipistrellus subfl avus Flying squirrel, northern Glaucomys sabrinus Flying squirrel, southern Glaucomys volans Fox, gray Urocyon cinereoargenteus Lynx Lynx canadensis Marten Martes americana Mink Mustela vison Mole, hairy-tailed Parascalops breweri Mountain lion Puma concolor Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus New England cottontail Sylvilagus transitionalis River otter Lontra canadensis Shrew, long-tailed Sorex dispar Shrew, masked Sorex cinereus Shrew, pygmy Sorex hoyi Shrew, smoky Sorex fumeus Shrew, water Sorex palustris Vole, rock Microtus chrotorrhinus

Appendix D. Wildlife and Plant Common and Scientific Names D-5 Wildlife and Plant Common and Scientific Names

Common Name Scientifi c Name MAMMALS CONT. Vole, woodland Microtus pinetorum Weasel, long-tailed Mustela frenata Wolf, gray Canis lupus AMPHIBIANS Common mudpuppy Necturus maculosus Fowler’s toad Bufo fowleri Salamander, blue-spotted Ambystoma laterale Salamander, four-toed Hemidactylium scutatum Salamander, Jefferson Ambystoma jeffersonianum Salamander, spotted Ambystoma maculatum Western chorus frog Pseudacris triseriata REPTILES Brown snake Storeria dekayi Eastern racer Coluber constrictor Eastern ratsnake Elaphe obseleta Eastern ribbon snake Thamnophis sauritus sauritis Five-lined skink Eumeces fasciatus Northern water snake Nerodia sipedon Smooth green snake Liochlorophis vernalis Timber rattlesnake Crotalus horridus Turtle, common musk Sternotherus odoratus Turtle, spiny softshell Apalone spinifera Turtle, spotted Clemmys guttata Turtle, wood Clemmys insculpta FISH American eel Anguilla rostrata American brook lamprey Lampetra appendix American shad Alosa sapidissima Arctic char Salvelinus alpinus

D-6 Appendix D. Wildlife and Plant Common and Scientific Names Wildlife and Plant Common and Scientific Names

Common Name Scientifi c Name FISH CONT. Atlantic salmon-landlocked Salmo salar Blackchin shiner Notropis heterodon Blacknose shiner Notropis heterolepis Brassy minnow Hybognathus hankinsoni Bridle shiner Notropis bifrenatus Channel darter Percina copelandi Cisco Coregonus artedii Eastern sand darter Ammocrypta pellucida Lake sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens Lake whitefi sh Coregonus clupeaformis Mooneye Hiodon tergisus Mottled sculpin Cottus bairdi Muskellunge Esox masquinongy Northern brook lamprey Ichthyomyzon fossor Quillback Carpoides cyprinus Redbreast sunfi sh Lepomis auritus Redfi n pickerel Esox americanus americanus Round whitefi sh Prosopium cylindraceum Sauger Sander canadense Greater redhorse Moxostoma valenciennesi Shorthead redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum Silver redhorse Moxostoma anisurum Silver lamprey Ichthyomyzon unicuspis Stonecat Noturus fl avus MOLLUSCS Alewife fl oater Anodonta implicata Black sandshell Ligumia recta Brook fl oater Alasmidonta varicosa Creek heelsplitter Lasmigona compressa Cylindrical papershell Anodontoides ferussacianus

Appendix D. Wildlife and Plant Common and Scientific Names D-7 Wildlife and Plant Common and Scientific Names

Common Name Scientifi c Name MOLLUSCS CONT. Dwarf wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon Eastern pearlshell Margaritifera margaritifera Elktoe Alasmidonta marginata Fluted-shell Lasmigona costata Fragile papershell Leptodea fragilis Giant fl oater Pyganodon grandis Pink heelsplitter Potamilus alatus Pocketbook Lampsilis ovata TREES AND SHRUBS Alder, speckled Alnus incana Ash, green Fraxinus pennsylvanica Ash, white Fraxinus americana Aspen, quaking Populus tremuloides Aspen, bigtooth Populus grandidentata Basswood, American Tilia americana Beech, American Fagus grandifolia Birch, black Betula lenta Birch, gray Betula populifolia Birch, paper Betula papyrifera Birch, yellow Betula alleghaniensis Blueberry, highbush Vaccinium corymbosum Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis Cherry, black Prunus serotina Cherry, pin Prunus pensylvanica Cottonwood, eastern Populus deltoides Dogwood, alternative-leaved Cornus alternifolia Dogwood, red-osier Cornus stolonifera Dogwood, silky Cornus amomum Elder sp. Sambus sp.

D-8 Appendix D. Wildlife and Plant Common and Scientific Names Wildlife and Plant Common and Scientific Names

Common Name Scientifi c Name TREES AND SHRUBS CONT. Elm, American Ulnus americana Elm, slippery Ulnus rubra Hemlock, eastern Tsuga canadensis Hickory sp. Carya sp. Huckleberry Gaylussacia sp. Ironwood Carpinus caroliniana Leatherleaf Chamadaphne calyculata Maple, red Acer rubrum Maple, silver Acer saccharinum Maple, sugar Acer saccharum Oak, northern red Quercus rubra Oak, swamp white Quercus bicolor Oak, white Quercus alba Pine, eastern white Pinus strobus Pine, pitch Pinus rigida Redcedar, eastern Juniperus virginiana Rhodora Rhododendron canadense Sheep Laurel Kalmia angustifolia Spirea sp. Spirea sp. Sumac, staghorn Rhus typhina Sumac, smooth Rhus glabra Tamarack Larix laricina Viburnum sp. Viburnum sp. Willow sp. Salix sp. FERNS Cinnamon fern Osmunda cinnamomea Ostrich fern Matteuccia struthiopteris Sensitive fern Onoclea sensibilis Virginia chain fern Woodwardia virginica

Appendix D. Wildlife and Plant Common and Scientific Names D-9 Wildlife and Plant Common and Scientific Names

Common Name Scientifi c Name AQUATIC PLANTS Bulrush, hard-stemmed Scirpus ocutus Bulrush, soft-stemmed Scirpus validus Coontail Ceratophyllum demersum Tussock grass Carex stricta Wild celery Valisneria americana Wild rice Zizania palustris

D-10 Appendix D. Wildlife and Plant Common and Scientific Names Appendix E Steve Vittum/USFWS Black Creek

Public Scoping Report in Refuge Newsletter ■ Refuge Newsletter - Spring 2000 ■ Refuge Newsletter 2 - Spring 2001

Appendix F USFWS Maquam Bog

Shad and Metcalfe Islands and Maquam Bog Discussions ■ Shad and Metcalfe Islands ■ Maquam Bog Shad and Metcalfe Islands and Maquam Bog Discussions Shad and Metcalfe Islands

On June 6, 2005, the Refuge staff met with David Capen and Zoe Richards of the University of Vermont to discuss the management of the great blue heron rookery, cormorants, and floodplain forest habitat on Shad and Metcalfe Islands. The Shad Island heron colony is thought to be at least 60 years old and is the second largest colony in the great lakes region with 500-600 nests at its peak. In 2001 the colony failed with no reproduction and has been rebounding since then with 300 nests in 2004. The Missisquoi NWR colony, along with the Valcour Island colony on the New York side of Lake Champlain near Plattsburgh, are ranked as important based on their size, longevity, quality of habitat, and because they are well-established and stable, compared to more mobile colonies. The Refuge colony is extremely important since it functions as a source for the regional heron population.

Of management concern on Shad and Metcalfe Islands is the increasing population of double-crested cormorants. Cormorants are known to cause habitat destruction around their nest sites, although most of these sites are rocky outcrops with little vegetation. Shad and Metcalfe are forested floodplain and hence are not the same conditions as other cormorant-occupied islands. Cormorants typically occupy predator-free islands. The predator population (particular raccoons) is high on Shad Island, where cormorants have not successfully nested. Perhaps in response to predation pressure, cormorants have shifted some to Metcalfe Island where it is harder for predators to reach and have successfully nested there. Herons appear to fiercely defend their nests from predators such as raccoons.

Great blue herons are used to nesting in mixed colonies so there appears to be no direct negative influence from cormorants. So far the cormorants are not degrading the forested floodplain habitat on Shad Island with sufficient habitat for both herons and cormorants. Herons nest earlier but cormorants are coming back sooner each year. Missisquoi Bay offers excellent fishing, making it an attractive area for cormorants. Given the increasing trend of cormorant numbers, managers are concerned about the impacts of a growing cormorant population on habitat conditions. Cormorants were first spotted on Lake Champlain in 1981 and the current cormorant population on the lake is 4,000, indicating a potential for the population to grow quickly. The State of Vermont is actively keeping nesting cormorants off islands by egg oiling and shooting.

Although no habitat effects on the floodplain forest from cormorants are evident at Missisquoi NWR, this could change if the population increases to several thousand nests. A lot of the places where cormorants are controlled have gulls or other more common species and the visibility is better. At Shad and Metcalfe Islands the cormorants are mixed in with the heron colony in a dense floodplain forest. The soils here are also different and may provide some buffering to the effects of cormorant excrement on vegetation. Even if some cormorants are eliminated other birds may replace them even in the same season.

The expanding cormorant population in Lake Champlain is a regional issue. The Refuge needs to participate in region-wide planning and activities, as cormorant management issues can’t be solved in isolation. Cormorants are pushed from one place to another. The Refuge needs to decide on the primary objectives for Shad and Metcalfe Islands (i.e., as a heron colony, floodplain forest). Capen and Richards suggest the Refuge establish a cormorant threshold as a no cormorant policy is too

Appendix F. Shad and Metcalfe Islands and Maquam Bog Discussions F-1 Shad and Metcalfe Islands and Maquam Bog Discussions

risky since it would likely cause too much disturbance to herons to maintain that condition. More research and monitoring is needed to understand cormorant population trends and where they are coming from and to track changes in productivity.

Maquam Bog

On July 7, 2005, Refuge staff toured the Maquam Bog with Ian Worley (University of Vermont) and Eric Sorenson (Vermont Natural Heritage Program) to discuss the ecology and management of the bog. The Maquam Bog was designated a Research Natural Area in 1991 because of its size (largest if its kind in Vermont), the large populations of Virginia chain fern (a Vermont endangered plant) and rhodora, and the juxtaposition of this acid-loving community so close to the nutrient-rich Missisquoi River delta. The bog is bordered on the north by Charcoal Creek, on the east by Maquam Creek, on the south by Maquam Bay, and on the west by fields and shrublands along Tabor Road. The Bog sits in an abandoned channel of the Missisquoi River (Fillon 1970). The shift of the River away (4000 or more years ago) from this area isolated the bog from the sediment supply and led to the accumulation of peat. As peat accumulated over time, the bog rose above the flood levels, favoring acid conditions and the growth of bog vegetation. Strimbeck (1987, 1988) described the bog as having concentric rings of high shrub, low shrub, and shrub sedge vegetation zones. Changes in hydrology and/or climate can cause shifts in the distribution of these zones. The outer rings of the bog still flood every spring when lake levels are high.

Maquam Bog is a diverse peatland complex of regional and national significance. Hummocks and hollows are common throughout the bog. The central part of the bog supports six known species of sphagnum moss and a species of hairy cap moss, along with several species of sedges and scattered pitch pine and red maple and gray birch saplings. More research is needed to understand the physical and ecological conditions that are driving the distribution of all three of these tree species, including the history of fire. Ecologists are concerned about the potential expansion of red maple that might lead to a change in other bog vegetation such as the chain fern. The habitats surrounding the central part of the bog are also unique and varied and include diverse oak uplands underlain by shale.

Before proceeding with any management action in the bog, the Refuge needs to determine the primary objectives for this area – for biodiversity, rare plants, large natural area, or other purposes. Several pieces of information are needed to inform any management decisions. These include data on surface topography and elevations across the bog and the long-term fire history that might come from core samples. The topography and elevations will help understand the seasonal and year-to- year fluctuations in hydrology that in turn affects vegetation. Use of active management, such as prescribed fire, within the bog is logistically difficult given the challenges with access and the lack of any potential firebreak. In the short-term, natural processes will continue to shape the ecology of Maquam Bog.

F-2 Appendix F. Shad and Metcalfe Islands and Maquam Bog Discussions Appendix G USFWS Archaeology Survey along Route 78

Vermont Agency of Transportation Study of Route 78 ■ Overview of Process ■ Evolution of the Core Planning Team ■ Design Specifications Agreed to by the Planning Group ■ Natural Resource Impacts of the Project ■ Rationale for Design Choices ■ Pending Design Specifications ■ Other Design Issues to Be Addressed Collaboratively ■ Other Recommendations of the Planning Group and Other Subcommittees ■ Permits that Will or May Be Required ■ Reference Documents ■ Endorsement letters Vermont Agency of Transportation Study of Route 78

The Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) initiated discussions and planning to upgrade State Route 78 between Swanton Village and the bridge from West Swanton to Alburg in 1997. A new Refuge Manager became actively involved in the planning effort in 1999 and worked with a multi-agency working group addressing wetland impacts, wildlife impacts, impacts to other habitats, impacts to cultural resources, potential for improved recreational opportunities, and so forth. The following is an excerpt from the Executive Summary of the Vermont Route 78 Collaborative Team Process:

Overview of the Process

A scoping report was prepared in 1997 at the direction of the VTrans by the engineering firm Vanasse Hangen, Brustlin, Inc. to address transportation and safety needs along a 10 km segment of VT 78 in Swanton, between the Missisquoi Bay Bridge and the Swanton Village limits. Discussions about the potential project took place among a wide range of stakeholders in and after 1997. Divergent public safety and natural resource interests, however, combined with constraints unique to the project location such as the presence of historic Native American materials and artifacts, made it difficult to commit to design decisions that were likely to evolve through the permitting of the project.

In January of 2001 a collaborative process was implemented to problem-solve issues and identify design choices that would best integrate environmental, public safety, economic, and cultural preservation interests. A series of meetings was held that initially involved a very broad group of stakeholders, and then evolved to a smaller working group. Concerns, ideas and technical information were shared and discussed, and a number of innovative design choices were developed that enabled the group to come to consensus on conceptual plans for the project.

Participants Participants in the working group included representatives of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, VT Agency of Transportation, VT Agency of Natural Resources, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service New England Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge, the VT Northwest Regional Planning Commission, the Town of Swanton, and Vanasse, Hangen, Brustlin, Inc.

Design Agreements Agreements in six areas are detailed in the May 30, 2002 Summary Record and include: 1. Roadway width 2. Roadway alignment 3. Roadway profile 4. Bridge Span for Ecological Connectivity, Wildlife Passage and Reduction of Wetland Impacts 5. Mitigation 6. Construction Considerations

Endorsements Letters endorsing the findings of the working group from agencies and groups represented in the collaborative process accompany this document.

Appendix G. Vermont Agency of Transportation Study of Route 78 G-1 Vermont Agency of Transportation Study of Route 78

Next Steps The Summary Record completes the collaborative process, and it marks the beginning of the next phase of the project’s development. There is still much work to be done. In the coming months the conceptual plans will be completed, and the VT Agency of Transportation will begin filing permit applications with the resource agencies.

This executive summary was prepared in May 2002. The anticipated next steps have been slow in coming and little additional work has been completed on the project. It is anticipated that as funding for the project is identified, the planning effort and permit application will resume.

Further elaboration of the six design agreements alluded to above in the May 30, 2002 Summary Record follows:

Summary Record January 2001 – March 2002 VT 78 Collaborative Process

Overview

Background for the Project The Missisquoi delta wetland complex is among the largest wetland systems in the state of Vermont, and it may be the most diverse. As such, it has tremendous ecological value. Some of the more significant biological functions of the area include that it provides outstanding nesting, breeding, and migratory staging habitat for a host of migratory waterfowl species; seasonal habitat for deer; and habitat for amphibians and reptiles. It is the site of the state’s largest great blue heron rookery. It also supports a number of rare, threatened, and endangered species of plants and animals. The area supports many other significant wetland-dependent ecological functions. It is also the site of one of Vermont’s two national wildlife refuges, as well as an archaeologically sensitive area, the site of historic Native American settlements.

VT Route 78 runs through the Missisquoi delta, and provides a vital link on the National Highway System between Canada, New York State and Northern New England, connecting two interstate highways, I-87 in New York and I-89 in Vermont. Locally it provides a connection between the villages of Swanton and Alburg. The roadway at present is characterized by a number of documented deficiencies including clear zone/roadside hazards, pavement width relative to the roadway’s functional classification and traffic (particularly truck) volume, poor pavement condition and lack of shoulders. There have been a number of severe accidents in recent years involving multiple fatalities within the project limits. Improvements to VT 78 have been designated the region’s number one transportation priority, among current unmet needs.

The effects of a major state highway running through one of the state’s most biologically rich wetlands systems have been profound. Most notably, these include the barrier effect that the road creates to the movement and migration of the animals, and the disruption of continuous ecological systems. They have also included the disturbance and displacement of some sensitive wetland- dependent species, such as wading birds.

G-2 Appendix G. Vermont Agency of Transportation Study of Route 78 Vermont Agency of Transportation Study of Route 78

At the request of resource agencies, a study was conducted in 1997 on the feasibility of improving alternative routes so that improvements to VT 78 would not be needed. Alternative routes that were studied included segments in the Province of Quebec that would involve an international border crossing, a domestic route, and a route that involved a ferry crossing. Lake Champlain presents a formidable north-south barrier, and the results of alternative route/traffic diversion studies were conclusive in determining that an effective and feasible diversion alternative does not exist that would substantially relieve traffic on VT 78.

In a broad meeting of stakeholders including state and federal resource and transportation agencies and local officials in February of 2001, and attended by the Secretaries of the Vermont Agency of Transportation and the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, the need for the project was unequivocally affirmed. Although divergent interests presented challenges requiring innovative and integrative solutions, it was agreed that the potential existed to improve on a bad situation. Design choices needed to improve public safety while simultaneously enhancing ecosystem functions and conditions for wildlife, and preserving cultural heritage by executing the project using careful archaeological research and techniques to avoid and minimize the disturbance of artifacts and materials.

Scoping and Early Design Process 1997-2001 The engineering firm Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. completed the Final Scoping Report for the VT 78 project in December 1997. Discussions had taken place throughout 1997 among stakeholders including regional and transportation planners, permitting agencies, town officials, and members of the public. Extensive wetland and threatened and endangered species studies, as well as preliminary mitigation site identification by the Johnson Company conducted over the summer of 1997 informed these discussions. The project had not been able to progress to a degree of consensus, however, that would allow Agency of Transportation and the engineers to proceed in designing the project with the confidence that necessary environmental permits would be issued.

In January of 2001 a more structured, collaborative process was envisioned, and an outside facilitator, Stephanie Lahar, was engaged in order to give the project the best chance of moving forward in a timely fashion. The VT Agencies of Transportation and Natural Resources expressed support and interest in having this project model collaboration between the two agencies, as well as with other stakeholders.

Purpose of the 2001 Collaborative Process The primary purpose of the process was to engage in a structured, collaborative dialogue with the intent of developing a durable consensus about conceptual plans for the project. This meant that design decisions would address integrated social, economic and environmental interests; and also that they would be informed by the most up-to-date permit requirements. A secondary purpose of the process was to build working relationships among stakeholders to improve future transportation planning.

Participants In several meetings of a broad group of stakeholders held February-April 2001, over 25 representatives of state and federal agencies, local and regional planning/governance entities, and public interest groups attended. Work then shifted largely to the core planning group, whose membership is described below. Results of this subgroup were to be brought back to the broad

Appendix G. Vermont Agency of Transportation Study of Route 78 G-3 Vermont Agency of Transportation Study of Route 78

stakeholder group in May 2002. (See reference documents for a comprehensive list of participants throughout the collaborative process)

Evolution of the Core Planning Group

Formation and Function of the Planning Group During the initial meetings of the whole group in February, March and April 2001, a core group of state and federal agency representatives with substantial history and expertise on this and similar projects expressed an interest in sorting, prioritizing, analyzing and providing recommendations to the larger group. Two other smaller subcommittees on specific interest areas – Public Access/Public Lands and Stormwater Treatment, were also formed. The planning group expanded between the time it was established in March 2001 and Spring 2002 to include additional stakeholders. As it expanded, it became the entity through which the specific design issues of the project were discussed and resolved, and a set of agreements about the conceptual design developed. Meetings of the planning group were open and sometimes included participants who brought additional expertise and/or interests.

Participants Agencies represented in the original planning group were the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Vermont Agency of Transportation, the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, and VHB, Inc., project designers and engineers. The original group created an inventory of design issues and a beginning sequence/pathway to consider them. As the group took on the task of problem-solving design issues and determining solutions that would meet integrated interests, core membership expanded to include the Federal Highway Administration, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge, the Vermont Northwest Regional Planning Commission, and the Town of Swanton, Vermont.

Design Specifications Agreed to by the Planning Group

The agreements that follow represent the consensus of the planning group on a number of design components that involved reconciling challenges of diverse environmental, public safety, and economic interests. The components outlined below are interdependent in meeting the planning group’s conclusions about the best possible integration of interests. These include improving road safety and working within constraints presented by archaeological sensitivity, railway clearances, etc.; while also restoring and improving environmental functions and quality overall. These components do not represent an exhaustive list of design choices, but cover most of the significant issues in the project identified by the planning group during its work and in project discussions prior to the collaborative process.

Roadway Width • The typical width will be 12’ lanes, 8’ shoulders of which 6’ will be paved, 2’ aggregate material. • In guardrail areas, there will be 8’ paved shoulders. This is a reduction to the AASHTO standard of a 10’ paved shoulder in guardrail areas, and will require application for a design exception.

G-4 Appendix G. Vermont Agency of Transportation Study of Route 78 Vermont Agency of Transportation Study of Route 78

• Within resource areas, the typical width as specified above will be set on a reduced impact area equal to a traditionally engineered 4’ shoulder (based on a 1:4 slope without guardrail). This will be accomplished by steepening slopes and using guardrail. [Exception: 1:4 slopes without guardrail may be used across the wet meadow east of Louis’ Landing] • Slopes will be steepened to a greater degree in areas of high sensitivity such as Carman’s Marsh and Charcoal Creek, and will include the use of retaining walls at Charcoal Creek. • The lane and shoulder widths will be reduced to 11’ and 6’, respectively, closer to the village since the speed limit is lower, as per the State Design Standards.

Roadway Alignment • The roadway is mostly on the existing alignment with the exception of a 1000’ stretch, along which it was desirable to improve the buffer from the river. • After study of nine different roadway alignment options for this stretch of road, the planning group determined that Alternative #8, presented by VHB and reviewed by the group on 12.06.01 is the best option. • The roadway alignment in some areas is influenced by the close proximity of the railroad. In order to meet the minimum clear zone requirements for both the railroad and the roadway the alignment will shift away from the railroad in some areas. This will result in greater wetland fills on the northerly side of the road opposite the railroad. • Construction phasing and traffic control will also influence the final roadway alignment in some areas. This is a result of building a portion of the new roadway off to one side while traffic uses a portion of the existing roadway.

Roadway Profile • The roadway profile will be raised in some areas to avoid excavating native soils in highly archaeological sensitive areas. Data from phase 1 and 2 archaeological surveys has provided a basic understanding of the locations of areas of greater sensitivity. The existing roadway occupies a sensitive area along the river and near the wildlife refuge headquarters, and is set on base layers that were determined to be quite substandard in borings that VHB obtained in 2001.

Bridge Span for Ecological Connectivity, Wildlife Passage and Reduction of Wetland Impacts • After consideration of a range of bridge span options, the group determined that a 500’ graduated bridge that ramps up from an end height of approximately 4’ to a true bridge structure of a clear height of 10’ in the center section will best minimize environmental impacts. • Bridge construction is conceptualized with 100’ pile supported spans and mechanically stabilized (MSE) retaining walls along the approaches. • The existing roadway will be removed once traffic is routed across the new bridge in order to restore the ecological connections that were lost when the road was first built. • Fencing will be required along the roadway to direct wildlife crossings to the intended locations. • Habitat beneath the bridge will be established to ensure maximum use by wildlife. • In the event that AOT pursues special congressional funding for this feature of the project, U.S. Fish and Wildlife and ANR will partner in supporting this request.

Appendix G. Vermont Agency of Transportation Study of Route 78 G-5 Vermont Agency of Transportation Study of Route 78

Mitigation • Most, if not all compensatory mitigation requirements can be met by the bridge and perforations of the roadway. • Mitigation measures will include reducing the width of the roadway in sections, reducing side slope impacts, and moving the roadway away from the river. • Identified archaeological impacts will be mitigated in accordance with state and federal regulations. • A broad roadway permeability plan will also address mitigation of environmental impacts by improving fish and wildlife passage, hydrology and ecological connectivity. • Monitoring environmental functions and impacts will be an important component of evaluating the innovative design choices of this project and ensuring that unforeseen problems are addressed. • AOT will be responsible for monitoring the road corridor for the effectiveness of ecological restoration measures and wildlife passages.

Construction Considerations • To minimize the footprint of temporary construction impacts, one lane alternating traffic will be used in critical areas. • The construction season will be restricted to minimize impacts on wildlife, particularly nesting black terns, which are a state threatened species.

Natural Resource Impacts of the Project

The project directly impacts 11 acres of wetlands, all of which can be assumed to serve water quality, wildlife habitat, recreation and other functions. Compensation for impacts, as well as potential enhancement of wetlands functions, are addressed throughout the design parameters as detailed above.

In terms of agricultural soils, it is the opinion of the VT Dept. of Agriculture that there will be no significant impact to the agriculture potential of this particular tract, nor will agriculture in the surrounding area be impacted significantly. Calculations for the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture’s formula for determining the effect on prime agricultural soils also place the project as well below the threshold of significant impact.

Rationale for Design Choices

Participants in the collaborative process recognized the unique value that the Missisquoi delta wetlands system has for the state of Vermont, in environmental resources, ecological functions, and cultural heritage. There was an effort throughout the process to apply both new scientific insights and systems thinking to arrive at design solutions that could yield an overall improvement in ecological functions as well as road safety. This was at times challenging, as traditional compensation formulas tend to weigh impacts and mitigation function by function, rather than as a whole, integrated picture.

G-6 Appendix G. Vermont Agency of Transportation Study of Route 78 Vermont Agency of Transportation Study of Route 78

Thus, the design solution of the large bridge span serves a purpose of ecological connectivity, and was not determined solely by needs to promote wildlife movement and reduce animal mortality. The engineering constraints of the bridge force the roadway off alignment to some extent at the expense of some wetlands, yet there is likely to be an overall gain in wetlands functions.

In some cases the planning group prioritized interests to arrive at the best conceivable design solutions. For example, at a broader stakeholder’s request, the planning group collected some information on parkway designs used in other locations with the intent of preserving rural character and calming traffic that included, for example, vegetated median strips. In weighing potential values of these types of designs against increased environmental impacts, the planning group chose to exclude from consideration designs that required a larger roadway footprint.

Pending Design Specifications

As of the date of this summary, ANR, in coordination with the Refuge and with AOT, is completing a written road permeability proposal. This proposal outlines specifications for road perforations, e.g. locations and sizes of culverts, etc. [The basic components of this proposal were reviewed (approved?) by the planning group in May 2002.]

Other Design Issues to Be Addressed Collaboratively

The work of this collaborative process was to identify and develop design recommendations on the most substantial controversial elements of this project, in order to proceed into the permitting phases of the project with reasonable confidence. There are still a number of elements of the project that need to be elaborated on a more technical, detailed level. Through the planning group’s work, at least two design components were noted that can be elaborated simultaneously with the permitting phase, but that require collaborative work to reconcile some diversity of interests. These include:

■ The size, location, and function of a proposed recreation path within the buffer between the off- alignment road segment and the river needs to be defined. Interests needing integration on this issue include public access, and the restoration of riparian ecology and wildlife habitat. Resource agencies including ANR, the EPA, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as public entities such as the Regional Planning Commission, will need to be involved in determining the specifications of a recreation path, as well as ongoing responsibility for managing the area.

■ A planting plan needs to be developed to create additional forested habitat for wildlife, particularly to compensate for the loss of amphibian habitat along the road segment that is being taken off alignment to accommodate a buffer between the road and the river. Habitat creation/ restoration need to be integrated with the archaeological sensitivity of the area. A low-impact planting plan that minimizes digging can likely accommodate these interests. The AOT’s Transportation Archaeologist and resource agency representatives will need to collaborate on the development of a planting plan.

Appendix G. Vermont Agency of Transportation Study of Route 78 G-7 Vermont Agency of Transportation Study of Route 78 Other Recommendations of the Planning Group and Other Subcommittees

■ Because of the uniqueness of the area and elements of the project design, monitoring this project post-construction would likely be an attractive academic research project.

■ Specific suggestions for designing and maintaining a footpath, and limiting vehicle access to sensitive areas are contained in meeting notes of the Public Access subcommittee.

Permits That Will or May Be Required

■ Ten federal permits or waivers, including the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

■ Seven state permits, including Act 250, compliance with the Vermont Wetlands Rules, and the Endangered Species Act of 1981.

These are specified in the list of federal and state permits required, and state policies and procedures that influence the project, one of the reference documents listed below.

Reference Documents

■ Meeting notes ■ Alignment Option Diagrams ■ Conceptual Project Costs Computations by VHB 1.14.02 ■ List of federal and state permits required and federal and state policies and procedures that influence the project ■ Final Scoping Report by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc., December 1997 ■ Johnson Company Reports ♦ “Wetland Delineation, Assessment and Mitigation Site Selection” December 1998 ♦ Inventory and Mitigation Recommendations for Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species and Significant Habitat” December 1998

Endorsement Letters

■ US COE ■ EPA ■ USFWS ■ FHWA ■ ANR (DEC and F& W) ■ AOT ■ Town of Swanton ■ Northwest Regional Planning Commission ■ Missisquoi Refuge

G-8 Appendix G. Vermont Agency of Transportation Study of Route 78 Appendix H USFWS Refuge Visitor Contact Station and Headquarters

Refuge Staffi ng Chart Refuge Staffing Chart

Refuge Manager GS-0485-13

Administrative Support Student Trainee (SCEP) Assistant GS-0499-4 GS-0303-6

Refuge Operations Specialist GS-0485-12

Park Ranger Wildlife Biologist Maintenance Mechanic Park Ranger (LE) GS-0025-11 GS-0485-11 WG-4749-9 GS-0025-9

Park Ranger Biological Technician Maintenance Worker GS-0025-5/7/9 GS-0404-3/4/5 WG-4749-5

Appendix H. Refuge Staffing Chart H-1

Appendix I USFWS Visitors looking at an exhibit in the new Visitor Center

Refuge Operating Needs (RONS) and Service Asset Maintenance Management Systems (SAMMS) Refuge Operating Needs (RONS) and Service Asset Maintenance Management Systems (SAMMS)

Table I.1. Projects Currently in Tier 1 Database Cost Cost Project Project Staffing Project Description Year 1 Recurring Duration No. FTE’s (x1000) (x1000) (years) 97001 Survey and Monitor Wildlife 0365 15 Populations 00001 Improve Protection of Resources 1.0 65 75 15 and Facilities ( Refuge L.E. Officer) 00002 Enhance Resource Management 0.5 36.5 27 15 Capabilities (Maintenance Worker)

Table I.2. Projects Currently in Tier 2 Database Cost Cost Project Staffing Project Project Description Year 1 Recurring Duration FTE’s No. (x1000) (x1000) (years) Construct new HQ/Public Use 87002 Facilities/Maint Bldg. Phase II .50 175 27 15 Enhance Science Based Mgmt. 99003 through CCP 1.0 65 53 10 Enhance Station Capability 99002 and Effectiveness via Vehicle 0590 15 Acquisition Investigate and document 00004 Sedimentation Rates in the 01191015 Missisquoi NWR Delta

Restore Deteriorated Marsh 00003 Conditions Due to Sedimentation. 03130 15

Improve Marsh Management 99001 Capability 0544 15 Create and Maintain Early 92066 Successional Habitat 0432 15 97002 Restore Grassland Habitats 0 121 5 15 Improve Habitat and Wildlife 93088 Management Through Census 0 400 10 and Survey Data Collection Improve Habitat Mgmt. Planning 97099 and Implementation via GIS 0430 10 Integration. Restore Shallow Wetlands and 94097 Create Vernal Pools 01030 15

Appendix I. Refuge Operating Needs (RONS) and Service Asset Maintenance Management Systems (SAMMS) I-1 Refuge Operating Needs (RONS) and Service Asset Maintenance Management Systems (SAMMS)

Cost Cost Project Staffing Project Project Description Year 1 Recurring Duration FTE’s No. (x1000) (x1000) (years) Identify and Protect Cultural 92018 Resources 0 111 0 15 Investigate Implementation of 00005 Landscape Approach to Habitat 0881515 Conservation Restore Emergent Wetlands, 02001 Hydrologic Functions and Values 0.5 53 32 15 Improve Interpretation and 02002 Environmental Education 01052 15 Opportunities Control Invasive Species Spread 02003 w/ Boat Washing Station 0550 15 03002 Westville Unit Habitat Restoration 0 50 0 15 Improve Volunteer Coordination, 03003 Recruitment, Training, & 0.50 106 44 15 Recognition Improve and Expand Refuge 03001 Visitor Services Program 1.00 113 58 15 Improve Access for E.E. by 03004 Providing Transportation for 0822 15 Students Expand Alternative Energy 03005 Development and Use @ 0551 15 Headquarters Facilities Improve Fishery Management 03006 Capability 0380 15 Provide Visitor Services @ 06001 Westville Unit 0500 15 Construct Riverside Diorama 06002 Exhibit 0925 15 Energy System Display (possible 06003 interactive Exhibit) 0453 15 Evaluate Existing Biological Data 06004 to Address Mgmt. Needs 0505 15

I-2 Appendix I. Refuge Operating Needs (RONS) and Service Asset Maintenance Management Systems (SAMMS) Refuge Operating Needs (RONS) and Service Asset Maintenance Management Systems (SAMMS)

Table I.3. Projects Currently backlogged in SAMMS Database for Missisquoi NWR Cost Estimate Project Number Project Description ($1000) 03120922 Preliminary Eng. Parking Lots (900-908) 52 03120922 Construction Parking Lots (900-908) 522 03132957 Const. Engineering, Parking Lots (900-908) 52 05138449 Construct 8 ft. High Chain Link Fence 12 92 Rehab Macs bend Storage Building 74 05138514 Construct Security System @ New HQ Building 35 02120888 Replace 1977 Ford Ranger Pick up Truck 22 99104778 Replace 1970 John Deere Dozer 157 04133923 Rehab Public Use Hiking Trail@ Old Hq site 99 01110669 Repair and Rehab Boat Launch Facilities @ Macs 48 03126236 Repair and Maintain Macs Bend Public Road 226 05138429 Replace Radio Communication Tower 14 87104781 Rehabilitate Big Marsh Slough Dike 190 00104792 Repair Refuge Transportation Barge 43 00104791 Replace Failing Wooden Barge Slip Sides 263 02120890 Replace 1998 Ford 4X4 Expedition SUV 42 02121150 Replace Obsolete Entrance Gates 49 02121160 Replace Louies Landing Boat Launch Ramp 56 02120915 Replace Chevrolet ¾ Ton Extended Cab 4x4 27 02120917 Replace 2001 Dodge Durango 4x4 SUV 27 02120916 Replace 2000 Ford F-450 4x4 Dump Truck 47 02120791 Replace John Deere 755 Tractor 52 02120827 Replace 1994 Arctic Cat Snowmobile 9 02121072 Replace two Gulf Stream Cavalier Travel Trailers 31 01113469 Replace 16 ft. Flat Bottom Jon Boat (40 Mariner) 8 02120881 Replace John Deere Riding Lawn Mower 9 02120874 Replace 1998 Arctic Cat Snowmobile 9 01113607 Replace Grass and Small Grain Seeder 16 01114064 Replace Obsolete Disc Harrow 16 Construct Boardwalks, improve signing on trails, boat 01 launch sites, and overlooks. 227

Appendix I. Refuge Operating Needs (RONS) and Service Asset Maintenance Management Systems (SAMMS) I-3 Refuge Operating Needs (RONS) and Service Asset Maintenance Management Systems (SAMMS)

Cost Estimate Project Number Project Description ($1000) 5138450 Construct Shelter to Protect Travel Trailers 17

95 Construct Security System, Improve A/V Equip. 65

93123767 SYM, Construct Kiosks, Develop Trail, P. Lot 117

01 Construct Accessible Facilities, Trail Access etc 183

04133940 Construct a Hiking Trail on Existing Jeep Road 455 05138542 Construct an Addition to Existing HQ 550

I-4 Appendix I. Refuge Operating Needs (RONS) and Service Asset Maintenance Management Systems (SAMMS) Appendix J USFWS Fall colors of the refuge

Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives ■ Introduction ■ Potential Resources of Concern for the Missisquoi Refuge ■ Priority Resources of Concern ■ Adaptive Management ■ References Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives Introduction

The Service is entrusted by Congress to conserve and protect migratory birds and fish, federally listed threatened and endangered species, inter-jurisdictional fishes, wetlands, and certain marine mammals. These are known as “trust resources.” In addition to this Service mandate, each Refuge has one or more purposes for which it was established that guide its management goals and objectives. Further, Refuges support other elements of biological diversity including invertebrates, rare plants, unique natural communities, and ecological processes that contribute to biological diversity, integrity and environmental health at the Refuge, ecosystem, and broader scales (USFWS 1999, 2003).

Given the multitude of purposes, mandates, policies, regional, and national plans that can apply to a Refuge, there is a need to identify the potential resources of concern and then prioritize those resources that the Refuge is best suited to focus on in its management strategies. The following is the process that Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge (Missisquoi Refuge, the refuge) used to identify priority resources of concern and develop habitat goals, objectives, and strategies to benefit these resources.

The Habitat Management Plan policy (620 FW) defines “resources of concern” as

“All plant and/or animal species, species groups, or communities specifically identified in Refuge purpose(s), System mission, or international, national, regional, State, or ecosystem conservation plans or acts. For example, waterfowl and shorebirds are a resource of concern on a Refuge whose purpose is to protect ‘migrating waterfowl and shorebirds.’ Federal or State threatened and endangered species on that same Refuge are also a resource of concern under terms of the respective endangered species acts.”

Resources of concern are synonymous with “conservation targets” and the terms can be used interchangeably.

Potential Resources of Concern for the Missisquoi Refuge

To determine the resources of concern that would guide the management priorities, we examined a multitude of guiding documents and other information sources to develop a matrix of potential resources of concern. These documents, plans, or policies typically identify focal species, species groups, or habitats. These sources fall into three categories:

❖ Legal Mandates ❖ USFWS Trust Resources ❖ Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy

Appendix J. Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives J-1 Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives

❖ Legal Mandates

Statutory Authority The National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 states that each Refuge shall be managed to fulfill the mission of the Refuge System: “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)

Enabling Legislation (Establishing Orders) The enabling legislation is the legal authority by which the Refuge was initially established and lands acquired within the Refuge.

The Missisquoi refuge was established in 1943 “ for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” (16 USC 715-71r; 45 Stat. 1222, Migratory Bird Conservation Act).

Refuge Purposes The National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 also states that each Refuge “…shall be managed to fulfill…the specific purposes for which the Refuge was established…” Purposes of a Refuge are those 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 sub-unit.

The relationship of the System Mission and the purpose(s) of each Refuge is defined in Section 3 of the FWS Director’s Order No. 132 that states: “we view the System mission, goals, and unit purpose(s) as symbiotic; however, we give priority to achieving a unit’s purpose(s) when conflicts with the System mission or a specific goal exist.” Section 13 of this order indicates “Where a Refuge has multiple purposes related to fish, wildlife, and plant conservation, the more specific purpose will take precedence in instances of conflict.” As stated in Section 14, “When we acquire an addition to a unit under an authority different from the authority used to establish the original unit, the addition also takes on the purpose(s) of the original unit, but the original unit does not take on the purpose(s) of the addition.”

Missisquoi Refuge was established for the following purposes:

“use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds” (Migratory Bird Conservation Act).

❖ USFWS Trust Resources Although the Refuge purposes are the first obligation, managing for trust resources (defined above) is also a priority for the Refuge. Trust resources are further defined as follows:

J-2 Appendix J. Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives

Migratory Birds: A list of all species of migratory birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703–711) and subject to the regulations on migratory birds are contained in subchapter B of title 50 CFR § 10.13. The Migratory Birds Program also maintains subsets of this list that provide priorities at the national, regional, and ecoregional (bird conservation region) scales.

The primary sources of information that the Refuge used to identify potential migratory birds species of concern included: • Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 13 Plan • Continental and Regional Plans for landbirds, waterfowl, shorebirds, and marshbirds • Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory Species Assessment Database • USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern • Federal Threatened and Endangered species • Status Information from Refuge bird surveys • Vermont Wildlife Action Plan

Wetlands: The Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986. This Act, Public Law 99-645 (100 Stat. 3582), approved November 10, 1986, authorized the purchase of wetlands from Land and Water Conservation Fund monies, removing a prior prohibition on such acquisitions. It required the Secretary to establish a National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan, required the States to include wetlands in their Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans, and transferred to the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund amounts equal to the import duties on arms and ammunition.

The Missisquoi Refuge was established and priority wetlands were protected before this Act and it has not been used to purchase additional wetlands, to date. The Atlantic Coast Joint Venture identified the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge and Lake Champlain as waterfowl focus areas in Vermont (ACJV 20002). The wetlands (hardwood swamps, bogs, and floodplain forests) around Lake Champlain, including the Refuge, are important to waterfowl, wading birds, and shorebirds (ACJV 2005).

Threatened and Endangered Species: The Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544, December 28, 1973, as amended 1976-1982, 1984 and 1988) states in Sec. 8A.(a) that “The Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter in this section referred to as the “Secretary”) is designated as the Management Authority and the Scientific Authority for purposes of the Convention and the respective functions of each such Authority shall be carried out through the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.” The Act also requires all Federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act.

To identify Federal threatened or endangered species of relevance to Missisquoi Refuge we reviewed: • Federal Threatened and Endangered Species List • Recovery Plans for Federal-listed species in our region

Biological surveys and records have been reviewed and no Federally threatened or endangered species are known to be on the refuge.

Appendix J. Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives J-3 Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives

❖ Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health

The 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act states that in administering the System the Service shall “… ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the System are maintained…” (601 FW 3; also known as the “Integrity Policy”). The USFWS (2003) defines these terms as:

Biological Diversity The variety of life and its processes, including the variety of living organisms, the genetic differences between 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. Environmental Health 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.

Where possible management on the Refuge restores or mimics natural ecosystem processes or functions and thereby maintains biological diversity, integrity, and environmental health. Given the continually changing environmental conditions and landscape patterns of the past and present (e.g., rapid development, climate change, sea level rise), relying on natural processes is not always feasible nor always the best management strategy for conserving wildlife resources. Uncertainty about the future requires that the Refuge manage within a natural range of variability rather than emulating an arbitrary point in time. This maintains mechanisms that allow species, genetic strains, and natural communities to evolve with changing conditions, rather than necessarily trying to maintain stability.

As stated by Meretsky et al. (2006), the Integrity Policy directs Refuges to assess their importance across landscape scales and to “forge solutions to problems arising outside Refuge boundaries.” Some of these regional land use problems include habitat fragmentation/lack of connectivity, high levels of contaminants, and incompatible development or recreational activities.

To assess the historical condition, site capability, current regional landscape conditions, and biological diversity and environmental health of Missisquoi Refuge we used the following resources:

• Maps and associated data on site capability ♦ Kuchler’s (1964) potential natural vegetation ♦ Soils, topography, and hydrology ♦ History of natural disturbance patterns: e.g., fire, storms, flood events • Map of existing vegetation on the Refuge • Vermont Nongame and Natural Heritage Program information on rare, declining, or unique natural communities and plant populations • Vermont Wildlife Action Plan • Missisquoi Bay Watershed Plan

J-4 Appendix J. Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives

• Lake Champlain Steering Committee • Status and Trend Information from Refuge surveys and studies of waterfowl, shorebirds, breeding Neotropical landbirds, marsh and wading birds, rare plants, and vernal pools.

❖ Summary Table

Table J.1 is a list of the potential wildlife species of concern for Missisquoi Refuge based on the information compiled and analyzed in this section as described under legal mandates, trust resources, and integrity policy. For rare plants and natural communities we were able to directly identify the priority rare plants and natural communities since these are more site-specific than wildlife (see table J.2).

Table J.1. Potential Resources of Concern for Missisquoi Refuge 1 4 3 5 7 6 2

Species Species Species Action Plan Federal T&E T&E Federal BCR 13 Tier BCR 13 BCR 13 RuleBCR 13 Vermont T&E T&E Vermont Vermont WildlifeVermont Seasons on Refuge (Level of Concern/ Concern/ of (Level Conservation Action) Action) Conservation Partners in Flight WATERBIRDS Bittern, American B H b H Bittern, Least B M h H Grebe, pied-billed B M h H Gull, Bonaparte’s M M k,l Gull, little H c Heron, great-blue B M Loon, common M M h H Loon, red-throated M x Night-heron, black crowned M M x M Rail, king H e Rail, Virginia B M k,l Rail, yellow M e Sora B M Tern, black B M b E H Tern, common M H b E H

WATERFOWL American black duck B, M HH a H Blue-winged teal B, M M g M

Appendix J. Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives J-5 Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives 1 4 3 5 7 6 2

Species Species Species Action Plan Federal T&E T&E Federal BCR 13 Tier BCR 13 BCR 13 RuleBCR 13 Vermont T&E T&E Vermont Vermont WildlifeVermont Seasons on Refuge (Level of Concern/ Concern/ of (Level Conservation Action) Action) Conservation Partners in Flight WATERFOWL CONT. Canvasback M H c Goldeneye, Barrow’s H b Goldeneye, common B, M HH a Goose, Canada (Atl/SJB) M HH b Goose, greater snow M M x Long-tailed duck HH a Mallard B, M M c Merganser, common M M i Northern pintail M H g Redhead M M h Scaup, greater M H b,d Scaup, lesser M HH a Scoter, white-winged M M h Swan, tundra H d Wood duck B, M H c

SHOREBIRDS Dowitcher, short-billed M H a Dunlin M M d Godwit, hudsonian M M e Godwit, marbled M e Phalarope, Wilson’s M e Plover, American golden H c Plover, black-bellied M M g Plover, piping E HH a Red knot M e Sanderling M M e

J-6 Appendix J. Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives 1 4 3 5 7 6 2

Species Species Species Action Plan Federal T&E T&E Federal BCR 13 Tier BCR 13 BCR 13 RuleBCR 13 Vermont T&E T&E Vermont Vermont WildlifeVermont Seasons on Refuge (Level of Concern/ Concern/ of (Level Conservation Action) Action) Conservation Partners in Flight SHOREBIRDS CONT. Sandpiper, buff-breasted H c Sandpiper, least M M d Sandpiper, pectoral M M f Sandpiper, semipalmated M M g Sandpiper, solitary M H c Sandpiper, upland M e E H Snipe, Wilson’s M g Whimbrel M e Woodcock, American B,M H c M Yellowlegs, greater M M d

LANDBIRDS American kestrel B,M RC/MA M Bald eagle M T E H Baltimore oriole B M i RC, RS/MA Belted kingfisher B RC/MA Black-billed cuckoo M H c RC, RS/MA M Blackbird, rusty M M g CC/PR M Bobolink B,M M i RC, RS/MA M Brown thrasher M H c RC/MA M Chimney swift B,M M h M Common nighthawk M H Eastern kingbird B RC/MA Eastern meadowlark B,M M f RC/MA M Eastern towhee M RC/MA H Eastern wood-pewee B,M RC/MA Flycatcher, olive-sided B,M M

Appendix J. Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives J-7 Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives 1 4 3 5 7 6 2

Species Species Species Action Plan Federal T&E T&E Federal BCR 13 Tier BCR 13 BCR 13 RuleBCR 13 Vermont T&E T&E Vermont Vermont WildlifeVermont Seasons on Refuge (Level of Concern/ Concern/ of (Level Conservation Action) Action) Conservation Partners in Flight LANDBIRDS CONT. Flycatcher, willow B,M M j CC/PR Grouse, ruffed B,YR M Grouse, spruce EH Hawk, Cooper’s M M Hawk, red-shouldered B,M M Loggerhead shrike M e E Louisiana waterthrush M Osprey B,M M Owl, barn M Owl, long-eared M Owl, short-eared M M e CC/PR M Northern bobwhite M e Northern flicker B,M M f RC/MA Northern goshawk M M Northern harrier B,M M f RC/MA H Peregrine falcon M E H Purple martin B,M H Rose-breasted grosbeak B,M M k RS/PR Scarlet tanager M M h Sparrow, field B,M H c RC/MA M Sparrow, grasshopper M M e T H Sparrow, Henslow’s HH a CC, RC/IM E M Sparrow, savannah B RC/MA Sparrow, song B,M M i Sparrow, vesper H Swallow, barn B,M M Swallow, bank M i

J-8 Appendix J. Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives 1 4 3 5 7 6 2

Species Species Species Action Plan Federal T&E T&E Federal BCR 13 Tier BCR 13 BCR 13 RuleBCR 13 Vermont T&E T&E Vermont Vermont WildlifeVermont Seasons on Refuge (Level of Concern/ Concern/ of (Level Conservation Action) Action) Conservation Partners in Flight LANDBIRDS CONT. Thrush, Bicknell’s H Thrush, wood B,M H c CC, RC/MA M Veery B,M M Warbler, bay-breasted M M g CC/PR M Warbler, blackpoll M M Warbler, black-throated-blue M M h M Warbler, blue-winged H c CC/PR M Warbler, Canada M M e CC, RC/MA H Warbler, cerulean HH a CC, RC/MA M Warbler, chestnut-sided M M Warbler, golden-winged HH a CC, RC/MA H Warbler, prairie M g CC/PR M Warbler, prothonotary M g Warbler, worm-eating M g CC/PR Whip-poor-will M RC/MA H Woodpecker, black-backed M Woodpecker, red-headed B,M M e CC, RC/IM Wren, sedge EH

MAMMALS Bat, big brown X M Bat, red X H Bat, hoary X H Bat, Indiana T E H Bat, little brown X M Bat, northern long-eared X M Bat, silver-haired X H

Appendix J. Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives J-9 Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives 1 4 3 5 7 6 2

Species Species Species Action Plan Federal T&E T&E Federal BCR 13 Tier BCR 13 BCR 13 RuleBCR 13 Vermont T&E T&E Vermont Vermont WildlifeVermont Seasons on Refuge (Level of Concern/ Concern/ of (Level Conservation Action) Action) Conservation Partners in Flight MAMMALS CONT. Bat, eastern small-footed X T H Black bear M Bobcat M Bog lemming, northern X H Bog lemming, southern X H Eastern pipistelle X H Flying squirrel, northern X M Flying squirrel, southern M Fox, gray X M Lynx EH Marten, American EH Mink X M Mole, hairy-tailed X M Mountain lion EM Muskrat X M New England cottontail X H River otter X M Shrew, long-tailed X H Shrew, masked X M Shrew, pygmy X H Shrew, smoky X M Shrew, water X H Vole, rock X H Vole, woodland X H Weasel, long-tailed X M Wolf, gray M

J-10 Appendix J. Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives 1 4 3 5 7 6 2

Species Species Species Action Plan Federal T&E T&E Federal BCR 13 Tier BCR 13 BCR 13 RuleBCR 13 Vermont T&E T&E Vermont Vermont WildlifeVermont Seasons on Refuge (Level of Concern/ Concern/ of (Level Conservation Action) Action) Conservation Partners in Flight AMPHIBIANS Common mudpuppy X H Fowler’s toad H Salamander, blue-spotted X M Salamander, four-toed M Salamander, Jefferson H Salamander, spotted X M Western chorus frog EH

REPTILES Brown snake X M Eastern racer TH Eastern ratsnake TH Eastern ribbon snake X H Five-lined skink EH Northern water snake X M Smooth green snake X M Timber rattlesnake EH Turtle, common musk M Turtle, spiny softshell X T H Turtle, spotted EH Turtle, wood H

FISH American eel X H American brook lamprey T H American shad M

Appendix J. Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives J-11 Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives 1 4 3 5 7 6 2

Species Species Species Action Plan Federal T&E T&E Federal BCR 13 Tier BCR 13 BCR 13 RuleBCR 13 Vermont T&E T&E Vermont Vermont WildlifeVermont Seasons on Refuge (Level of Concern/ Concern/ of (Level Conservation Action) Action) Conservation Partners in Flight FISH CONT. Arctic char H Atlantic salmon-landlocked X M Blackchin shiner X H Blacknose shiner X H Brassy minnow H Bridle shiner H Channel darter EH Cisco M Eastern sand darter X T H Lake sturgeon X E H Lake whitefish M Mooneye M Mottled sculpin M Muskellunge X H Northern brook lamprey E H Quillback H Redbreast sunfish X M Redfin pickerel M Round whitefish M Sauger X H Greater redhorse X H Shorthead redhorse X M Silver redhorse H Silver lamprey X M Stonecat H

J-12 Appendix J. Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives 1 4 3 5 7 6 2

Species Species Species Action Plan Federal T&E T&E Federal BCR 13 Tier BCR 13 BCR 13 RuleBCR 13 Vermont T&E T&E Vermont Vermont WildlifeVermont Seasons on Refuge (Level of Concern/ Concern/ of (Level Conservation Action) Action) Conservation Partners in Flight MOLLUSCS Alewife floater X Black sandshell X E X Brook floater TX Creek heelsplitter X Cylindrical papershell X E X Dwarf wedgemussel E E X Eastern pearlshell TX Elktoe X Fluted-shell X E X Fragile papershell X E X Giant floater X T X Pink heelsplitter X E X Pocketbook X E X

* Grayed species are priority species of concern identified in the habitat objectives

1 Seasons on the Refuge: B=Breeding, W=Wintering, M=Migration, YR=Year-Round, X=Present

2 Federal T&E = Federal Endangered Species List: T=Threatened, E=Endangered

3 BCR 13 – Bird Conservation Region 13 Tier: HH=Highest, H=High, M=Medium

4 BCR 13 – Bird Conservation Region 13 Rule:

Appendix J. Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives J-13 Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives

Continental BCR BCR New PriorityTier Concern Responsibility Concern Rule

Highest HIGH HIGH or MOD HIGH a

High MODERATE HIGH or MOD HIGH b HIGH HIGH or MOD MODERATE c MODERATE HIGH MODERATE d

Medium HIGH or MOD LOW * HIGH e LOW HIGH or MOD HIGH f HIGH LOW *MODERATE g MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE h LOW HIGH MODERATE i HIGH HIGH or MOD LOW j MODERATE HIGH LOW k (stewardship) LOW HIGH ** LOW l

5 Partners in Flight (Level of Concern/ Conservation Action): CC=continental concern, RC=regional concern, RS=regional stewardship CR=critical recovery, IM=immediate management, MA=management attention, PR=planning and responsibility (From Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, www.rmbo.org)

6 State T&E= Vermont Threatened and Endangered Species: T=Threatened, E=Endangered

7 Vermont Wildlife Action Plan: H=High Priority, M=Medium Priority, X=Priority

J-14 Appendix J. Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives

Table J.2. Rare Plants and Exemplary Natural Communities on Missisquoi Refuge

State Species Srank1 Grank2 Status4 Small Bidens Bidens discoidea S2S3 G5 Prickly Hornwort Ceratophyllum echinatum S1 G4 Lance-leaved Loosestrife Lysimachia hybrida S1 G5 Black Gum or Tupelo Nyssa sylvatica S2 G5 Yellow Water-crowfoot Ranunculus flabellaris S2 G4 Bristly Crowfoot Ranunculus pensylvanicus S3 G5 Narrow Blue-eyed Grass Sisyrinchium angustifolium S2 G5 Virginia Chain-fern Woodwardia verginica S1 G5 T Exemplary Natural Communities Condition3 Buttonbush Swamp S2 B Deep Bulrush Marsh S4 A Dwarf Shrub Bog S3 A Lake Sand Beach S2 C Lakeside Floodplain Forest S3 A Pitch Pine Woodland Bog S1 Not Ranked Red or Silver Maple-Green Ash Swamp S3 A Silver Maple-Sensitive Fern Riverine Floodplain Forest S3 A Sweet Gale Shoreline Swamp S3 A 1 Srank=State Rarity Ranks S1 Critically imperiled in Maine because of extreme rarity (five or fewer occurrences or very few remaining individuals or acres) or because some aspect of its biology makes it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the State of Maine. S2 Imperiled in Maine because of rarity (6-20 occurrences or few remaining individuals or acres) or because of other factors making it vulnerable to further decline. S3 Rare in Maine (on the order of 20-100 occurrences). S4 Apparently secure in Maine. S5 Demonstrably secure in Maine. SH Occurred historically in Maine, and could be rediscovered; not known to have been extirpated. SU Possibly in peril in Maine, but status uncertain; need more information. SX Apparently extirpated in Maine (historically occurring species for which habitat no longer exists in Maine). Note: State Ranks determined by the Maine Natural Areas Program. 2 Grank=Global Rarity Ranks G1 Critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity (five or fewer occurrences or very few remaining individuals or acres) or because some aspect of its biology makes it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the State of Maine. G2 Globally imperiled because of rarity (6-20 occurrences or few remaining individuals or acres) or because of other factors making it vulnerable to further decline. G3 Globally rare (on the order of 20-100 occurrences). G4 Apparently secure globally. G5 Demonstrably secure globally. 3 Condition A = excellent; B = very good; C = good; D = fair 4 State Status=State of Vermont Threatened and Endangered Species List: T=Threatened, E=Endangered, SC=Special Concern

Appendix J. Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives J-15 Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives Priority Resources of Concern

The potential resources of concern table (J.1) that was developed in Section II contains a large number of species with a broad array of habitat needs. The Refuge needs to prioritize these species and their associated habitats to determine what the Refuge is best suited to focus on in its management strategies. To guide us in prioritizing this list, we considered the following concepts:

• Achieving Refuge purposes, and managing for trust resources as well as biological diversity, integrity, and environmental health can be addressed through the habitat requirements of "focal species" or species that may represent guilds that are highly associated with important attributes or conditions within habitat types. The use of focal species is particularly valuable when addressing USFWS trust resources such as migratory birds.

• The Bird Conservation Region (BCR) plans are increasing their effectiveness at ranking and prioritizing those migratory birds most in need of management and conservation focus. Although all species that make it to a ranked BCR priority list are in need of conservation attention, we selected focal species that were ranked High or Moderate in Continental concern with a High to Moderate BCR Responsibility. (See www.abcbirds.org/nabci) for BCR rules used to rank birds).

• Focal species selected which were not birds (i.e. eastern spiny softshell turtle, freshwater mussels) were identified as resources of concern due to rangewide concern over their population status. • • Habitat conditions on or surrounding the Refuge may limit the Refuge’s capability to support or manage for a potential species of concern. The following site-specific factors were evaluated: ♦ Patch size requirements ♦ Habitat connectivity ♦ Incompatibility surrounding land uses ♦ Environmental conditions: soils, hydrology, disturbance patterns, contaminants, predation, invasive species ♦ Specific life history needs

• The ability to rely on natural processes to maintain habitat conditions within a natural range of variability suitable to the focal species.

• The ability to use adaptive management (flexibility and responsiveness of the Refuge and the habitats) in the face of changing environmental conditions (e.g., climate change).

High and Moderate Priority Habitat Types Refuge management is most often focused on restoring, managing, or maintaining habitats or certain habitat conditions to benefit a suite of focal species or a suite of plants and animals associated with a particular habitat. Missisquoi Refuge identified the high and moderate priority habitats on the Refuge based on information compiled in Section I (e.g., site capability, historic condition, current vegetation, conservation needs of wildlife associates). As part of this process we identified any limiting factors that affect the Refuge’s ability to maintain these habitats (see table J.3).

J-16 Appendix J. Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives

Table J.3. High and Moderate Priority Habitats on Missisquoi Refuge

Reason for Selecting as High Limiting Factors for Maintaining High Priority Habitat Types Priority this Habitat Purposes: Migratory Birds Invasive species, contaminants Silver Maple-Sensitive Fern Floodplain Trust Resources (multiple focal Forest species) BIDEH* (river delta ecosystem) Purposes: Migratory birds Invasive species, contaminants, (waterfowl, black tern); siltation, water quality and quality Lakeshore and Rivershore Wetlands Trust Resources (multiple focal species ) BIDEH (river delta ecosystem) Purposes: Migratory Birds Invasive species, contaminants, (waterfowl, marsh birds), siltation, water quantity and quality Managed Wetlands Trust Resources (multiple focal species) BIDEH (river delta ecosystem) BIDEH (river delta ecosystem) Invasive species, contamination, Rivers and Creeks siltation, water quantity and quality, recreational use Purposes: Migratory Birds Invasive species, water quality Open Waters and Bays (waterfowl) Trust Resources (waterfowl) Purposes: Migratory Birds Invasive species, succession (landbirds), Scrub-Shrub Trust Resources (breeding focal landbirds) Reason for Selecting as a Moderate Limiting Factors for Maintaining Moderate Priority Habitat Types Priority this Habitat

BIDEH (rare plant communities) Limited knowledge of maintaining this natural community type in Red Maple-Green Ash Swamp conjunction with early successional forest management BIDEH (rare plant communities) Invasive species, hydrologic Maquam Bog pattern, succession, few management options

Oak Upland Forest Minimal habitat available on Refuge Invasive species, regeneration

Minimal habitat available on Refuge Invasive species, forest Northern Hardwood Forest fragmentation Fewer priority species Invasive species, succession, management intensive, area Grasslands sensitive species affected by landscape conditions * Biological Integrity, Diversity and Environmental Health Policy (BIDEH)

Appendix J. Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives J-17 Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives

Based on the habitat types identified on the Refuge as described in table J-3, we then developed a table of the priority species of concern with their associated habitat types (table J-4). This table also describes the habitat structured required by each priority or “focal species” and identifies other species that would benefit from the same or similar habitat conditions.

Table J.4. Priority Resources of Concern, Habitat Structure, and Other Benefiting Species on Missisquoi Refuge

Priority Resources of Concern Other Benefiting Species or Species Habitat Structure/Condition Habitat Type Species Group Cavities in mature, living (sometimes dead) Wood duck trees, greater than 18 inches d.b.h. within 1.2 Common miles of water; broken limbs for perching. Goldeneye, hooded Silver Maple- merganser, black Sensitive Fern Tall, large deciduous trees, prefers silver maple duck, cerulean Baltimore Oriole Floodplain when elm is not available. warbler, rose- Forest breasted grosbeak, Trees that can support nests at the height of 30 spotted and blue- Great Blue Herons m or higher within 2.3 to 6.5 km from principal spotted salamander feeding sites.

A combination of open water and emergent Migrating Waterfowl vegetation with water depths < 16 in. and the presence of wild rice. Large cattail or other freshwater wetlands with Lakeshore and tall, dense emergent vegetation with water depth Marsh birds, American Bittern Rivershore < 4 in. Prefers impoundments and beaver-created fish, migrating Wetlands wetlands. Inhabits wetlands <2.5 to 62.5 acres, but shorebirds are more abundant in larger wetlands. Riparian marshlands of inland lakes with about Black Tern 50% cover of emergent vegetation, such as cattails, rushes, and burreed.

Migrating Waterfowl See above. Managed Fresh marshes greater than 12.5 acres. Nests Virginia rail, sora, Wetlands over shallow water anchored to stems of emergent common moorhen Pied-billed Grebe vegetation, less often located in shrubs such as sweet gale and buttonbush.

Medium to large rivers with a bottom of sand, mud or fine gravel with slow to moderate water flow. Freshwater Mussels Sensitive to contaminants and zebra mussels. Rivers and lake sturgeon, Creeks Rivers, lakes or impoundments with sand or mud eastern sand darter bottom. with little vegetation. Bask on downed Spiny Softshell Turtle logs or banks.

J-18 Appendix J. Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives

Priority Resources of Concern Other Benefiting Species or Species Habitat Structure/Condition Habitat Type Species Group Beds of native aquatic vegetation and associated Common vertebrates and invertebrates. merganser, lesser and grater scaup, Open Waters Migrating Waterfowl common goldeneye, and Bays snow goose, common loons, common tern Canopy dominated by red maple and green American ash; dense shrub layer of winterberry, red osier woodcock, brown Red Maple- dogwood, nannyberry, high bush blueberry; long thrasher, rose- Significant Natural Green Ash periods of spring flooding and saturated soils (a breasted grosbeak, Community Swamp portion maintained in early successional stage) black-billed cuckoo, spotted and blue- spotted salamander Shrub-sedge ombrotrophic (rain-fed) bog with scattered individual pitch pine trees and small Virginia chain fern groups of 10 to 20 trees. Surrounded by a shrub Significant Natural pitch pine, rhodora, Maquam Bog dominated zone of sheep laurel and leatherleaf. Community northern harrier, Surrounded by a second high shrub zone of short-eared owl huckleberry, highbush blueberry, rhodora and mountain holly. Breeding: Fairly open areas with scattered shrubs or forest edges; moist or wet shrubby areas; dense Willow flycatcher stands of shrubs > 2.1 m in height; nest is ~1.2 m off the ground. Territory size 2.6 to 4.5 acres Moist, rich soil dominated by dense shrub cover Sedge wren, field (75-90%); alder is ideal. In close proximity to one sparrow, golden- Scrub-Shrub another: clearings, large openings for roosting, American Woodcock winged warbler, young second growth hardwood (15-30 yrs) for migrating songbirds nesting and brood-rearing , and shrub foraging areas. Breeding: Shrublands, thickets, and other Black-billed cuckoo woodlands with dense, shrubby vegetation; Numbers fluctuate with caterpillar outbreaks Mature and regenerating oak with mass crop Scarlet tanager, production rose-breasted Oak Upland Oak Upland Forest grosbeak, white- Forest tailed deer, ruffed grouse Breeding: Shrublands, thickets, and other Black-billed cuckoo woodlands with dense, shrubby vegetation; Eastern wood- Northern Numbers fluctuate with caterpillar outbreaks pewee, veery, song Hardwood sparrow, wood Forest American Woodcock See above. thrush

Appendix J. Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives J-19 Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives

Priority Resources of Concern Other Benefiting Species or Species Habitat Structure/Condition Habitat Type Species Group Breeding: Prefers a mixture of grasses and broad- leaved forbs with high grass-forb ratio. Densities significantly higher in fields with relatively low Savannah Sparrow, Bobolink amounts of total vegetative cover, low alfalfa cover, Northern Harrier and low total legume cover. These vegetative characteristics occur in hay fields ≥ 8 yr old. Fields Grassland > 10 ha (~25 acres) preferred Sparse to dense grass-dominated cover (10-20 in.), preferably in low-lying areas with damp soils, Eastern Meadowlark thick layer of dead grass, scattered shrubs and tall forbs (1-15 in.) for song perches; prefer mixed grass fields to alfalfa.

Adaptive Management

The priority resources of concern and their respective habitat attributes were used to develop specific habitat objectives. Refuge habitat management objectives must be achievable. Many factors, such as lack of resources, existing habitat conditions, species response to habitat manipulations, climatic changes, contaminants or invasive species, may reduce or eliminate the ability of the Refuge to achieve objectives. Although these limiting factors were considered during the development of Refuge objectives, conditions may and are likely to change over the next 15 years and beyond.

The Refuge will use adaptive management to respond to changing conditions that impair our ability to measure and achieve the habitat objectives. This requires that we establish and maintain a monitoring program to ensure that we can detect and respond to changing conditions.

References

Meretsky, V. J., R. L. Fischman, J. R. Karr, D. M. Ashe, J. M. Scott, R. F. Noss, and R. L. Schroeder. 2006. New directions in conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. BioScience 56: 135- 143.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Fulfilling the promise: the National Wildlife Refuge System. U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Washington, D.C.

. 2003. Biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. USFWS Policy 601 FW3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

. 2003. Attachment I -Federal Trust Species and Trends - Atlantic Anadromous Species in the document called Strategic Growth - Land Acquisition Priority System, Fiscal Year 2005- Budget Cycle.

J-20 Appendix J. Process to Determine Priority Resources of Concern Leading to Development of Refuge Habitat Goals and Objectives Appendix K USFWS Planning team meeting

Consultation and Coordination with Others and List of Preparers

■ A Public Involvement Summary ■ Refuge Partnerships ■ Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge CCP Planning Team A Public Involvement Summary

A Public Involvement Effective conservation usually begins with effective community involvement. Summary To ensure that our future management of the refuge considers the issues, concerns, and opportunities expressed by the public, we used a variety of public involvement techniques in our planning process.

■ We compiled a mailing list of organizations and individuals to ensure that we were contacting an array of interested parties.

■ In 2000, we announced the location, dates, and times of three public scoping meetings in Swanton, St. Albans, and Burlington in local newspapers and special mailings. More than 100 people attended those meetings, which we held to let people know what the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) was doing to manage the Missisquoi Refuge, and to elicit their input on topics of interest to them.

■ In fall 2000, we distributed copies of our “Issues Workbook” to more than 600 people, to help collect their ideas, concerns, and suggestions on important issues associated with managing the refuge. We distributed the workbook to everyone on our mailing list, those who attended public meetings, and anyone who subsequently requested one. The workbook asked what they valued most about the refuge, their vision for the future of the Missisquoi River and Missisquoi Bay, the Service role in that future, and any other refuge issues they wanted to raise. We received 60 completed copies of the workbook in return.

■ In spring 2001, we distributed a “Planning Update” that summarized those responses (see appendix E). The responses from the workbooks and public meetings helped us formulate the issues that relate to resource protection and public use, and helped us develop the draft alternatives. We briefed the regional chief and regional office and refuge staff on the results of the public scoping meetings, and presented similar briefings to the Lake Champlain Ecosystem Team, the Commissioner, Director of Wildlife, and Waterfowl Team Leader of the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department (VT FWD), and the district staff of Senator Patrick Leahy. Refuge Partnerships

Federal or Provincial ■ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fish and Wildlife Resources, Agencies or Programs: Essex Junction, Vermont ■ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Office, Concord, NH ■ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecosystem Team ■ Lake Champlain Basin Program

■ Natural Resource Conservation Service

State Agencies or Other ■ Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Institutions ● Department of Fish and Wildlife ● Department of Environmental Conservation

■ Vermont Department of Agriculture ■ Vermont Division for Historic Preservation ■ Vermont Department of Transportation ■ University of Vermont, Spatial Analysis Lab ■ Abenaki Tribe

Appendix K. Consultation and Coordination with Others and List of Preparers K-1 Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge CCP Planning Team

■ Audubon Vermont ■ Vermont Land Trust ■ The Nature Conservancy ■ Ducks Unlimited

Regional or Local Groups ■ Towns of Swanton and Highgate and Organizations ■ Friends of Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge ■ ECHO at the Leahy Center for Lake Champlain ■ Missisquoi River Basin Association ■ Friends of Missisquoi Bay

Missisquoi National Joe Bertrand Maintenance Mechanic Wildlife Refuge CCP USFWS, Region 5 Planning Team Missisquoi NWR 29 Tabor Rd. Swanton, VT 05488 [email protected] (802) 868-4781

Jennifer Casey Assistant Regional Refuge Biologist USFWS, Region 5 Lake Umbagog NWR P.O. Box 240 Errol, NH 03579 [email protected] (603) 482-3415

Bill Crenshaw Wildlife Biologist Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 (802) 878-1564

David Frisque Refuge Operations Specialist USFWS, Region 5 Missisquoi NWR 29 Tabor Rd. Swanton, VT 05488 [email protected] (802) 868-4781

Lelaina Marin Assistant Refuge Planner USFWS, Region 5 Northeast Regional Offi ce 300 Westgate Center Drive Hadley, MA 01035 [email protected] (413) 253-8731

K-2 Appendix K. Consultation and Coordination with Others and List of Preparers Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge CCP Planning Team

Carl Melberg Land Acquisition Planner USFWS, Region 5 Northeast Regional Offi ce 300 Westgate Center Drive Hadley, MA 01035 [email protected] (413) 253-8521

Eileen Nunez Visitor Services Professional USFWS, Region 5 Missisquoi NWR 29 Tabor Rd. Swanton, VT 05488 [email protected] (802) 868-4781

Rick Schauffl er Regional GIS Specialist USFWS, Region 5 Great Bay NWR 100 Merrimac Drive Newington, NH 03801 - 2903 Rick_Schauffl [email protected] (603) 431-7511

Lisa Swainbank Administrative Support Assistant USFWS, Region 5 Missisquoi NWR 29 Tabor Rd. Swanton, VT 05488 [email protected] (802) 868-4781

Mark Sweeny Refuge Manager USFWS, Region 5 Missisquoi NWR 29 Tabor Rd. Swanton, VT 05488 [email protected] (802) 868-4781

Robert A. Zelley Wildlife Biologist (retired) USFWS, Region 5 Missisquoi NWR 29 Tabor Rd. Swanton, VT 05488 (802) 868-4781

Appendix K. Consultation and Coordination with Others and List of Preparers K-3 Appendix L USFWS Environmental education program

Summary and Response of Public Comments

■ Habitat Management ■ Wildlife Management ■ Public Use Management ■ Administrative/Planning/General Management Habitat Management

Habitat Management Comment: There was a range of comments received about the management of the Maquam Bog. Several commenters expressed the opinions that the bog needs to be burned to maintain its natural ecology, others advised that we establish a plan to protect the hardwood islands from fire, others opposed prescribed fire because it releases mercury and fine particulate matter which presents human health issues, and one person admonished that if we don’t burn it someone will burn it for us.

Response: Objective 1.7 on page 2-39 of the draft CCP/EA states that the refuge will maintain the ecological integrity of Maquam Bog in order to protect populations of pitch pine, rhodora, and the state-threatened Virginia chain fern. As outlined in the draft CCP/EA, within 5 years, the refuge will develop a management plan (including: designation, use restrictions, management objectives, a summary of known information, and protection objectives and strategies including prescribed fire) for Maquam Bog. Within the next 5 years, the refuge also intends to monitor for the presence of non-native invasive species and implement appropriate control measures. As explained in the draft CCP/EA, within the next 5 to 10 years, the refuge will identify research partnerships to study the surface topography, hydrology, and fire history of Maquam Bog to guide management decisions that are appropriate for this unique ecosystem.

Comment: Clean up the trees from the river and dredge the mouth — this used to be done on a regular basis. Trees are a safety hazard and improved flow may help with the algae problem and get rid of some of the phosphorous.

Response: Objective 1.4 on page 2-33 of the draft CCP/EA states that the refuge will, “maintain more than 12 miles of natural riparian vegetation on both banks of the Missisquoi River and tributary creeks within the refuge and, with partners, protect an additional 5 miles of riparian corridor to enhance water quality by preventing phosphorous loading and sediment and nutrient runoff.”

Tree removal from the mouth of the river has not been done by the refuge since before 1999, at least. The Missisquoi Refuge is an important basking and feeding area for state-threatened Eastern spiny softshell turtles. They and other species of turtles use exposed logs, rocks, and banks along the Missisquoi River, Dead Creek, and the Cranberry Dike borrow ditch as basking sites. These sites are important to turtles and provide them with places where they can easily get into the sun, yet quickly escape into the water for survival. This basking is critical to egg development in the females. Trees and logs also serve as perching and resting spots for many species of birds. Though trees and logs in the water may be a safety concern to boaters, tree removal will not be done by Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge unless it serves to benefit refuge wildlife. Trees and logs in the water of the Missisquoi River and Dead Creek are well-known phenomena. Most boaters expect there to be logs in the river and maintain a proper lookout and speed as required of any boat operator. Particularly dangerous logs that may not even protrude above the surface of the water may be marked with a line and floating buoy. Boaters frequently mark them in this manner if they feel they are dangerous.

As stated on page 1-23 of the draft CCP/EA, the Service does not have regulatory nor jurisdictional authority over dredging the mouth of the Missisquoi River. Dredging the river would require coordinating a study of the feasibility, environmental impacts, and wetland permit requirements by at least these agencies: the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (which has primary jurisdiction in such matters), the U.S. Coast Guard (which has jurisdiction on this navigable portion of the river), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, as well as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Appendix L. Summary and Response to Public Comments L-1

Habitat Management

The Missisquoi River and tributaries of Lake Champlain host a unique assemblage of aquatic species often found nowhere else in Vermont. Freshwater mussels, one of the most greatly endangered groups in North America, are recorded in the lower Missisquoi River, including seven species that are regionally rare and listed as endangered or threatened in Vermont. In addition, the lower Missisquoi River is home to the state-listed threatened eastern sand darter and is one of the few remaining spawning grounds for the state-listed endangered lake sturgeon. Any alterations to the Missisquoi River would need to take the needs of these species into consideration.

The temporary and seasonal inconvenience to recreational boaters caused by the buildup of sedimentation will probably not justify measures that could have serious environmental impacts or be relatively short-lived, very expensive, and of doubtful effectiveness. Dredging the Missisquoi River is neither the desire nor the responsibility of the Service, but, if it were seriously proposed, the Service would play a key role in identifying and determining the perceived deleterious environmental impacts of such a proposal on refuge habitats and wildlife.

As stated on pages 2-34 through 2-37 of the draft CCP/EA, phosphorus is the nutrient that poses the greatest threat to water quality in Lake Champlain. The Missisquoi Refuge will contribute to phosphorus reduction by continuing to protect and/or restore native riparian vegetation, one of the most effective ways to reduce phosphorus loading. In addition, the refuge engages in partnerships to enhance water quality through changes in land use in the Missisquoi River watershed and in the greater Champlain Basin.

Comment: We received a number of comments concerning water quality, siltation, riverbank erosion, and phosphorous loading of the river, Missisquoi Bay and Lake Champlain. Most want the refuge to play a role in improving water quality, help determine current conditions, identify sources, and help resolve the poor conditions.

Response: Objective 1.4 on page 2-33 and Objective 1.5 on page 2-35 of the draft CCP/EA address water quality in Missisquoi River and Bay and in Lake Champlain. In addition, Goal 6 on page 2-67 of the draft CCP/EA states that the refuge will foster cooperative partnerships and actions to promote fish and wildlife conservation in the Lake Champlain Basin and Missisquoi River watershed. Table 2.2 on page 2-79 of the draft CCP/EA states that the refuge will work with partners to identify high-priority areas in the watershed, utilize the collective knowledge of partners to identify land protection needs, and possibly develop a Conservation Proposal if analysis of lands along the shore of Lake Champlain and adjacent to the refuge determine the need for one.

Comment: One commenter suggested using the rip-rap to be removed from the causeway at the old bridge between West Swanton and Alburgh to line the Missisquoi riverbank between the old refuge HQ site and Mac’s Bend Boat Launch.

Response: The Refuge has no plans to use rip-rap, from the existing causeway in West Swanton and Alburgh, to reinforce the banks of the Missisquoi River. Objective 1.4 on page 2-33 of the draft CCP/EA states that the refuge will, “maintain more than 12 miles of natural riparian vegetation on both banks of the Missisquoi River and tributary creeks within the refuge and, with partners, protect an additional 5 miles of riparian corridor to enhance water quality by preventing phosphorous loading and sediment and nutrient runoff.” The Missisquoi Refuge is an important area for state-threatened spiny softshell turtles; they use exposed logs, rocks, and banks along the Missisquoi River, Dead Creek, and the Cranberry Dike borrow ditch, for basking and feeding.

L-2 Appendix L. Summary and Response to Public Comments Habitat Management

Comment: Several comments were made relative to invasive species, including; control unidentified invasive species on Black Creek, monitor and aggressively control invasives, evaluate the potential to promote invasives through refuge early successional habitat management practices, and reduce hosts and exterminate invasive species as a top priority.

Response: The identification and removal of invasive species is one of the highest priorities at Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge. Preventing new invasions is extremely important in maintaining biological diversity and native plant populations on the refuge. The Missisquoi Refuge staff is collaborating with several Federal, State, municipal, and nongovernmental partners to develop a network of interested members who will provide informational and educational materials and conduct strategic projects designed to curtail the advance of exotic invasive plant species on the refuge and in the rest of the Lake Champlain watershed.

Control of invasive species is mentioned throughout the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge draft CCP/EA. Strategies listed on pages 2-37 through 2-40 of the draft CCP/EA include: “…identify submerged aquatic vegetation restoration techniques, in addition to invasive species removal; inventory and map the distribution of existing invasive aquatic plants (e.g., water milfoil) among the native submerged aquatic vegetation; prevent establishment of water chestnut on the Missisquoi Bay and delta by annual monitoring of the shoreline of Missisquoi Bay in mid-summer using an airboat and engage volunteers to monitor other portions of the refuge not accessible by airboat and immediately remove any water chestnut plants that are found; work with partners to develop effective techniques to control invasive Eurasian water milfoil and implement milfoil controls; and monitor for presence of non-native invasive species in the bog and implement control measures as appropriate.” In addition, the draft CCP/EA states that the refuge will maintain natural riparian vegetation on both banks of the Missisquoi River and tributary creeks, and will evaluate its role in monitoring invasive zebra mussels.

Comment: Commenters offered support for the concept of managing for biodiversity, rare, threatened, and endangered species, migratory birds, ecological integrity, wildlife-dependent recreation, and a well-functioning floodplain forest ecosystem.

Response: The fundamental mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is wildlife conservation. The goals of the Refuge System are to:

■ Conserve, restore where appropriate, and enhance all species of fish, wildlife, and plants that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered

■ Perpetuate migratory bird, inter-jurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations

■ Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants

■ Conserve and restore, where appropriate, representative ecosystems of the United States, including the ecological processes characteristic of those ecosystems

■ Foster understanding and instill appreciation of fish, wildlife, and plants, and their conservation, by providing the public with safe, high-quality, and compatible wildlife-dependent public uses including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation.

Appendix L. Summary and Response to Public Comments L-3

Habitat Management

Comment: One commenter observed that, “The Refuge is dying. It has to take care of itself because we aren’t doing anything out there.” He further advised that all the wild rice is dying and we need to plant it where it will grow in a high water year. We need to keep records of water levels and determine what level is too high for wild rice, just right, etc. because nobody seems to know. We need to bring in wild rice roots from Rock River like they used to.

Response: We disagree strongly with your comment. The data show that the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge is a thriving natural environment that this year supports: the largest great blue heron rookery in the state of Vermont; nesting populations of wood duck, common goldeneye, hooded merganser, and mallards; more than 43 nests for the once state-endangered osprey; a floodplain forest containing breeding migratory songbirds of conservation concern; thousands of migrating waterfowl during the fall; the entire breeding population of the state-endangered black tern; a diverse assemblage of regionally rare mussel species; important basking and feeding areas for the state-threatened spiny softshell turtle; spawning grounds for numerous species of fish; habitat for American woodcock; the state’s largest populations of rhodora as well as pitch pine and the state-threatened Virginia chain fern; and priority grassland bird species such as bobolink, savannah sparrow, and eastern meadowlark.

Refuge staff work hard to maintain quality habitats on the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge. Some examples include: More than 1,000 acres of mature silver maple-sensitive fern floodplain forest is maintained by allowing natural processes to continue and by controlling non-native invasive species. Sixty acres of red maple-green ash swamp is maintained (through cuttings by a hydro- axe) as early-successional habitat to provide singing, nesting, and foraging habitat for American woodcock. The refuge hays and/or mows a dozen fields to provide grassland habitat for populations of grassland birds that are declining nationwide.

Three impoundments on the refuge form 865 acres of managed wetlands. Big Marsh Slough, Goose Bay Pool, and Cranberry Pool impoundments were completed by 1969 to provide nesting, foraging, and migrating habitat for waterfowl. They are a mix of open water and emergent vegetation composed primarily of wild rice, buttonbush, and tussock sedge. The refuge manipulates the water levels in the impoundments, where possible, to encourage the growth of waterfowl food and cover plants such as wild rice, buttonbush, smartweed, pondweed, and on and on. As has been proven this year with the reappearance of an excellent crop of wild rice, wild rice seed will lie dormant in the soil of our impoundments through several years of high water and will then germinate when the water level returns to a normal level once again. Planting wild rice on higher ground to provide a crop in high water years is unlikely to be a viable plan. Wild rice has specific site and growing requirements that would not be met in higher locations, which is why it is not there already. One important consideration is that the seed will not germinate unless conditions are correct, it will lie dormant as indicated above for a number of years but eventually, if growing conditions are not met, those seeds in that seed bank will die and will not germinate when conditions are right. It is better in high water years to let the rice do what it will and be happy with the knowledge that the waterfowl will utilize other wildlife food plants such as smartweed, pondweed, buttonbush, and sedges.

These refuge lakeshore wetlands are important staging areas for thousands of waterfowl during fall migration. As many as 10,000 mallards and 5,000 black ducks migrate through the refuge during the fall. During some years, 500 to 1,000 American widgeons congregate on the refuge. Migrant waterfowl numbers depend somewhat on seasonal water levels. During some years, water levels remain high in Lake Champlain, causing the water level in our refuge impoundments to be high as well. High water levels are not conducive to growth

L-4 Appendix L. Summary and Response to Public Comments Habitat Management

of some plant species such as wild rice; therefore, during these years, refuge habitats do not produce the quantity or quality of plant food most desired for migrating ducks. We can not lower water levels in managed areas beyond the Lake level, it is a physical impossibility. While it could be argued that we could pump water out of the impoundments to make them lower than the Lake level, it is also a fact that our dikes are not entirely impervious to water. Trying to pump water out of the impoundment to maintain a water level which is lower than the lake would be ineffective and a waste of effort and money.

In the draft CCP/EA, Objective 1.3 on page 2-29 states that the refuge wants to maintain the current mosaic of wild rice, sedge meadow, and buttonbush swamp in the managed wetland areas to provide foraging and resting habitat for migratory waterfowl. Strategies on page 2-32 of the draft CCP/EA include, “conducting an ecological study in the impoundments to assess the quantity and quality of food resources for nesting and foraging waterfowl and marsh birds to guide future impoundment management to sustain quality habitat” and, “evaluate the potential benefits of extending the existing 97- to 98-ft msl low-level dike approximately half a mile from Goose Bay through Big Marsh to improve water-holding capability, maintain the mosaic of wild rice, buttonbush, and sedge meadow, and retard the intrusion of woody vegetation.” Strategies outlined on pages 2-37 and 2-38 of the draft CCP/EA indicate that within 5 years, the refuge will inventory and map the distribution and species composition of native submerged aquatic vegetation and evaluate the need for restoration.

Comment: Look at old aerial photos to determine where work is needed to bring habitat back for waterfowl nesting, resting, and breeding.

Response: The lakeshore wetlands in and around Metcalfe and Shad Islands, Cabot-Clark Marsh, Long Marsh Channel, Saxes Creek, Goose Bay, and Gander Bay are composed of wild rice marsh, sedge meadow, buttonbush swamp, deep broadleaf marsh, and bulrush marsh. The rivershore wetlands encompass the sedge meadow natural community along Charcoal and Dead Creeks. The lakeshore wetlands are an important staging area for thousands of migrating waterfowl during the fall and are important breeding habitat for mallards. In order to maintain high quality habitat for refuge species including waterfowl, the refuge (as indicated on page 2-29 of the draft CCP/EA) will, “collaborate with researchers to evaluate historical and current data (e.g. aerial photos, archaeological reports) on rates of sedimentation and changes in open water vegetation in lakeshore and rivershore wetlands. The Missisquoi River delta is naturally a very dynamic ecosystem, and changes constantly. Something would be wrong if it didn’t change, it is supposed to change. To try to return it to what it might have been, even as recently as several decades, ago would be nonproductive. Rather, we anticipate that management prescriptions will be based on the habitat as it has developed and evolved over the decades since refuge establishment, and we will manage it as efficiently and effectively as possible for wildlife.

The Service-Preferred Alternative B in the draft CCP/EA indicates that the refuge will work with the University of Vermont, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and others to compile a comprehensive GIS-based database for the Missisquoi River watershed to identify topographic features, land uses, and habitat types to be used for long-term planning and the monitoring of refuge resources. In addition, it is stated that the refuge will evaluate all of its data from completed baseline of birds and other species to determine what additional surveys are needed to address management questions.

Comment: Maintain appropriate breeding habitat for grassland birds where suitable, and monitor before making the final decision to covert grasslands to shrublands.

Appendix L. Summary and Response to Public Comments L-5

Habitat Management

Response: As stated in the draft CCP/EA, the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge will maintain 338 acres of grasslands to benefit nesting birds. On page 2-73 of the draft CCP/EA, it is stated that the refuge will, “conduct a breeding marsh bird, waterfowl, and harrier survey of the southern 57 acres of field 4 and the 10 acres of field 5 before changing the management objective from grassland to shrubland.” On that same page, it is stated that the refuge will, “establish species monitoring transects in the fields (1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 43 acres of Field 4) that are allowed to revert to shrubland to determine wildlife use and evaluate whether to allow succession to floodplain forest to continue. In addition, the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge will pursue opportunities to conserve additional grassland habitat in order to maintain landscape conditions that are conducive to sensitive species.

Comment: In regard to sediment loading of Goose Bay, look into options for sediment retention strategies in both Dead Creek and the Missisquoi, as well as options to “re-direct” the primary outlet of the Missisquoi back to the main stem as was the case prior to the 1927 flood.

Response: The draft CCP/EA indicates that landscape-scale conservation efforts need to be done by the refuge and various partners in order to address water quality issues such as sedimentation. On page 2-79 of the draft CCP/ EA, the Service-Preferred Alternative indicates that the refuge will, “work with partners (Missisquoi River Basin Association, Friends of Missisquoi Bay, and others) and the Missisquoi River Watershed Planning Initiative to identify specific areas in the watershed that contribute heavy sediment and phosphorus loads and work to reduce sedimentation and phosphorus loading into Missisquoi Bay.” In addition, strategies on page 2-69 of the draft CCP/EA include, “evaluating historical and current data on the rates of sedimentation and changes in open water-vegetation in lakeshore and rivershore wetlands” and, “determining a threshold for management actions within lakeshore and rivershore wetlands based on historical, current, and projected habitat changes and rates of sedimentation.”

Redirecting the primary outlet of the Missisquoi River back to the main stem is beyond the scope of the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge draft CCP/EA. It would require coordinating a study of feasibility, environmental impacts, and wetland permit requirements by agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers (which has primary jurisdiction in such matters), the U.S. Coast Guard (which has jurisdiction on the navigable portion of the river), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Comment: Several comments were received advising us to replant wild rice and expand to new areas. One commenter felt it very important to expand and enhance the existing food supply to hold ducks and geese longer. That commenter thought that waterfowl does not seem to be as dependent on refuge feed and area corn fields as they used to be.

Response: Three impoundments on the refuge form 865 acres of managed wetlands. We completed these impoundments — Big Marsh Slough, Goose Bay Pool, and Cranberry Pool — by 1969 to provide nesting, foraging, and migrating habitat for waterfowl. Those pools are a mix of open water and emergent vegetation composed primarily of wild rice, buttonbush, and tussock sedge. We manipulate the water levels in the impoundments, where possible, to encourage the growth of waterfowl food and cover plants such as wild rice and buttonbush. During some years, water levels remain high in Lake Champlain, causing the water level in our refuge impoundments to be high as well. High water levels are not conducive to plant growth, therefore, during these years, refuge habitats do not produce the quantity or quality of plant food desirable for migrating ducks.

L-6 Appendix L. Summary and Response to Public Comments Habitat Management

In the draft CCP/EA, Objective 1.3 on page 2-29 states that the refuge wants to maintain the current mosaic of wild rice, sedge meadow, and buttonbush swamp in the managed wetland areas to provide foraging and resting habitat for migratory waterfowl. Strategies on page 2-32 of the draft CCP/EA include, “conducting an ecological study in the impoundments to assess the quantity and quality of food resources for nesting and foraging waterfowl and marsh birds to guide future impoundment management to sustain quality habitat” and, “evaluate the potential benefits of extending the existing 97- to 98-ft msl low-level dike approximately half a mile from Goose Bay through Big Marsh to improve water-holding capability, maintain the mosaic of wild rice, buttonbush, and sedge meadow, and retard the intrusion of woody vegetation.” Strategies outlined on pages 2-37 and 2-38 of the draft CCP/EA indicate that within 5 years, the refuge will inventory and map the distribution and species composition of native submerged aquatic vegetation and evaluate the need for restoration.

Comment: Get agribusiness out of the refuge, a refuge should not be used as a farm.

Response: The only agricultural practice that is done on Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge is haying. Haying is done through a Special Use Permit given to local farmers that pay a fee. Haying is an essential tool in the management of grassland habitats for grassland nesting birds. Currently, the refuge manages a dozen fields that vary in their physical and ecological characteristics to benefit grassland-dependent wildlife like the bobolink, eastern meadowlark, and Savannah sparrow; all priority resources of concern in the State of Vermont. Grassland nesting birds are highly sensitive species whose populations are decreasing nationwide. Haying fields is a successful management technique for providing quality grassland habitats for these species while preventing woody plant succession and preventing the presence of unwanted invasive species. All haying at the refuge is done for the purpose of managing the habitat, it is not done for the purpose of collecting revenues.

Comment: One commenter advised that we need to repair the dike at Goose Bay Pool. He further advised that the way we built it was foolish and a waste of money.

Response: Page 2-32 of the draft CCP/EA states that the refuge will, “evaluate the potential benefits of extending the existing 97- to 98-ft msl low-level dike approximately half a mile from Goose Bay through Big Marsh to improve water- holding capability, maintain the mosaic of wild rice, buttonbush, and sedge meadow, and retard the intrusion of woody vegetation.” It also states that dike enhancement will be done if it is deemed beneficial for refuge wildlife resources.

The dike at Goose Bay Pool was built in 1958. Like the one at Cranberry Pool, it was constructed at an elevation of 103.00 ft. above msl, separating Goose Bay Pool from Goose Bay, an important, productive inlet of the much larger Missisquoi Bay. The dike had begun to deteriorate, gradually eroding to the point that no vehicles of any kind could drive along the top. This limited our ability to maintain the dike with mowers and tractors. An imminent risk of floodwater breaching the dike was apparent in 2001. The refuge issued a renovation contract that year to lower the dike to an elevation of 99.00 msl. The project included placing concrete revetment mats on the Lake Champlain side of the dike to reduce wind-driven wave action against its new slopes. The very gradual slopes on the inside were designed to maximize vegetative response (seed catch) and create a thick protective growth of grasses and forbs. The renovated low-level dike creates a small, but productive, managed wetland that will hold water much longer, providing excellent habitat for many wildlife species. This design has been used successfully in many other areas. It was designed for Missisquoi through our partnership with Ducks Unlimited. We feel the design is sound, but difficult

Appendix L. Summary and Response to Public Comments L-7

Wildlife Management

environmental conditions during rehabilitation limited the establishment of the thick grassy vegetation needed to stabilize the dike slope. We have not had good field conditions to effectuate the repair since the damage was incurred. It is a high priority for us to accomplish this project when conditions permit and we can be more confident that cover vegetation will become well established.

The dikes at the refuge allow the normal annual spring flood level of the river to inundate the managed marshes. That annual event provides an opportunity for the water exchange and nutrient replenishment that occurs throughout the floodplain delta each spring. In many ways, the natural hydrology of the delta is proceeding uninterrupted as water overtops low-level dikes in Goose Bay Pool and Big Marsh Slough or freely enters Cranberry Pool from the Missisquoi River. The dynamics of the managed marshes and their relationship to adjacent, unmanaged delta marshes creates a mosaic of water levels and vegetative habitats that serves the needs of many wildlife species. Future projects will strive to incorporate low-level dikes and water control structures that will continue to provide for natural movement of water.

Comment: One commenter recommended that an effort to inventory, monitor, protect, and enhance habitat for refuge species be outlined in the CCP.

Response: Once the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge CCP is finalized, a step- down Habitat Management Plan will be written by the refuge biological staff. It will include specific information regarding monitoring, protecting, and enhancing habitats and wildlife on the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge.

Wildlife Management Comment: On the issue of water quality, fingers are usually pointed at the farmers as being the main contributor’s of phosphorus in the lake. What would be the phosphorus contribution from a flock of 2000 snow geese in the middle of the bay?

Response: Water quality and its impacts on wildlife and habitats are of paramount importance to the Missisquoi NWR. Thousands of migratory birds, especially waterfowl, migrate through the refuge each spring and fall. Migratory birds concentrate on area waters, fields, grasslands and haylands for varying periods of time (usually late March to early May and again in the fall from early October through late November). There is little doubt that wildlife, including concentrations of migratory birds, contribute to the nutrient loads including phosphorus, in areas where they congregate. It is likely that concentrations of waterfowl have been using the food rich Missisquoi Delta for thousands, and perhaps tens of thousands of years. We do not however, have any information to help us see what the conditions of Lake Champlain or the Missisquoi Delta were in the distant past. Were algae blooms, sediment-laden water, nutrient rich water columns and bottom sediment a part of the distant past, or are the problems present in the local rivers and Missisquoi Bay a more recent development as humans have changed the landscape? There is plenty of anecdotal information from area residents that point to rather recent developments, be they agriculture, residential and commercial developments, or others as significant accelerators of the nutrient loading and eutrophication process in Lake Champlain.

Working in concert with the academic community, Vermont Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, and others, a comprehensive and current analysis of the nutrient contribution by waterfowl may be possible.

Comment: The MAPS (Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survival) program on the refuge has been stuck. What are we going to do about this? This research is important and the Refuge is not doing it.

L-8 Appendix L. Summary and Response to Public Comments Wildlife Management

Response: The MAPS (Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survival) program began on the refuge in 2001 as a cooperative endeavor with Audubon Vermont to monitor species changes relative to habitat treatments that were prescribed at the Stephen J. Young Marsh hardwood stands. The refuge was engaged at that time, as it is today, with restoring and managing small parcels of hardwoods in early successional habitat, primarily for American woodcock, but also for migrant passerines that use early successional habitats. The MAPS program on the refuge used 10 mist nets to capture small songbirds. Information was recorded on all species captured; the birds were banded and released. The data recorded provides information on species using the habitat, number of adults and young, number of birds returning each year as well as other productivity and survivorship information.

The MAPS program was also a valuable environmental education tool, providing “up close” and in some cases hands on opportunities for visitors to experience songbirds.

The lead responsibility for the MAPS operation rested with Audubon Vermont. In 2005, significant funding, staffing, and focus changes were implemented at Audubon both at the national and local levels. These changes resulted in the loss of the 2-3 trained Audubon personnel required to operate the MAPS station at the refuge. The Refuge Manager determined that training and obligating 2-3 refuge staff to offset the loss of the Audubon personnel was not a priority and therefore discontinued the program. As stated in the CCP, we will evaluate the MAPS program and data to determine its value to guiding management decisions and to refuge interpretive programs. If it is not providing valuable data, data that is useful to refuge managers for making habitat management decisions, and is not a high priority deserving refuge staff commitment, we will discontinue it. We will not use the program solely for its recreational and educational value.

It is likely that continuation of the MAPS program can only occur if appropriate funding is restored and a renewed partnership with Audubon or another cooperator were developed.

Comment: Work on nesting boxes for any and all nesting birds using scout groups and other interested parties. Providing nesting habitat for migratory birds was the initial purpose for the establishment of this refuge.

Response: Our expectation is that habitat management that has been developed in the CCP, and subsequently in the step-down Habitat Management Plan will provide adequate habitat for most species of wildlife that use the refuge for nesting and brood rearing. This includes cavity nesting species who traditionally have used artificial nesting boxes on the Refuge.

Existing mature floodplain forests provide a variety of tree species such as silver and red maple, swamp white oak, and cottonwood that naturally develop cavities used by a variety of birds and other wildlife species. Likewise, grasslands, wetlands, and some of the hardwood forest habitat is managed to provide nesting and brood rearing habitats.

A research opportunity does exist to record and document wildlife use of naturally occurring tree cavities. Part of our plan to evaluate the wood duck nesting box program is to determine whether adequate natural cavities exist on the Missisquoi delta.

If our evaluation determines that there is a management need to continue with the program we will try to develop partnerships with scouts, volunteers, Friends, and other interested parties to do so.

Appendix L. Summary and Response to Public Comments L-9

Wildlife Management

It should also be noted that while management of the refuge to provide nesting habitat for migratory birds was indeed part of the purpose for the establishment of the refuge, the greater natural value and use of the refuge was as migratory feeding and resting habitat for waterfowl using the Lake Champlain branch of the Atlantic Flyway in the spring and fall; a migration stopover. The wood duck nesting box program was implemented to contribute to the flyway-wide effort to increase wood duck populations in the middle of the 20th Century, but may no longer be necessary if natural cavities have redeveloped with the aging of the forests. Additionally, wood ducks have rebounded to a healthy population level. In general, it is our policy to provide artificial nesting structures, be they for waterfowl, endangered species such as ospreys and bald eagles (in the past), or another priority wildlife species, when it has been determined by wildlife biologists that nesting habitat is a limiting factor to the sustainability or recovery of a population. Once the population has recovered or met management objectives, or if nesting habitat is no longer the limiting factor, the use of artificial nesting would be discontinued.

Comment: Go all out to see that nuisance species like the double crested cormorants and sea lamprey are not allowed on or are at least controlled on the refuge.

Response: The Refuge will continue to observe and record the activities of double crested cormorants throughout the Refuge. Of particular interest will be nesting attempts in and around the great blue heron rookery on Shad and Metcalfe Islands. Working in concert with researchers at UVM, the USDA – Wildlife Services, and the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department, the Refuge will develop management options to insure that diversity of species is maintained and habitat destruction is minimized relative to cormorant activities.

Sea lamprey activities are not specifically monitored by the Refuge. Monitoring, and if necessary, treatment of sea lamprey is often conducted by the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department in conjunction with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Management Office in Essex Junction, Vermont. Where opportunities exist, the Refuge will partner and assist with monitoring and control activities.

Comment: Construct nesting platforms for black ducks above the high water level including predator guards.

Response: Nesting platforms have a long but generally unsuccessful history at the refuge. Mallard and black duck nest baskets, set in the crotches of a variety of trees at a height of 3-4 feet above the ground, were attempted in the late 50’s and 60’s, with some initial success. However, as soon as raccoons discovered these readily available food sources, nesting success began to decline significantly. Nesting baskets constructed of rolled 2" x 4" wire with rolled indoor/outdoor carpeting inside and set on a 5-6 foot predator guarded steel pole were attempted in the 1980’s. Again, these artificial structures were only marginally successful, even though they were installed in a variety of habitats. To date, we have not determined a nesting structure design that was worth pursuing.

Comment: Numerous commenters were opposed to our plans for the wood duck nesting box program as stated by one commenter — I can’t believe you are eliminating the wood duck box program. You should continue this program which has shown good results, and which should not be discontinued arbitrarily. What was the basis for the elimination of this program? Was a biological study conducted?

Response: Numerous commenters appear to have jumped to the conclusion that we are eliminating the wood duck box program. What we state as our proposed

L-10 Appendix L. Summary and Response to Public Comments Wildlife Management

action in the draft CCP/EA is to evaluate the artificial wood duck nest box program to determine if natural structures meet management objectives. It is our policy that we do not furnish artificial structures unless natural structures are insufficient to support the population. Therefore, if natural structures are sufficient, we will discontinue or reduce the wood duck box program, but we first need to determine the availability and suitability of natural cavities.

Background information — In the 1940’s and 1950’s when the use of artificial nesting structures for wildlife began in earnest, it was done because the wood duck population had been over-harvested and its natural mature forest habitat had been cut. Now, some 50-60 years later, the population has recovered due to proper management and harvest regulations, and the natural cavities required by the species have developed once again, especially at Missisquoi with its mature silver maple floodplain forest. If we decide to continue the program because natural cavities are either insufficient in number or are susceptible to unacceptably high levels of predation, we will make an effort to ensure the nesting box program is managed as effectively and efficiently as possible. In the recent past, some of our boxes have proven to be detrimental to the efforts of cavity nesting ducks. Poorly maintained predator guards and boxes and poorly placed boxes can lead to significant predation on both eggs and nesting females, can encourage “dump nesting” where more than one female lays a clutch of eggs in a single box which usually results in failure of eggs on the bottom of the clutch to incubate and hatch properly, or can just be unused and a waste of time and effort. While some levels of predation, dump nesting, and disuse are normal and expected, without considerable effort, time, and diligence the level can quickly become excessive and reach a point where the birds are better off without artificial boxes and have a better chance of being successful using natural cavities. In the last decade or so, the fisher population on the refuge has grown and fishers have become a significant factor in nest box predation. Fishers appear to be a far more significant threat to birds using these boxes than raccoons or any other predator. It is vastly more difficult to protect a box via a predator guard that will confound a fisher as opposed to a raccoon, and fishers appear to be much more adept at chewing and enlarging the opening in the box to gain entrance to the female and/or the eggs.

Ideally and normally, we need a couple weeks when the ice conditions of the lake, river, and backwaters of the refuge are frozen solid and safe in order to complete the box maintenance. In recent years, we’ve come up short on those conditions.

Comment: On page 2-24 of the draft CCP/EA, relative to wood ducks, you state that “rebounding beaver populations and the increasing availability of mature cavity trees, in addition to artificial nest boxes, have bolstered that population growth.” Explain how rebounding beaver populations are related to cavities.

Response: The wood duck is especially associated with beaver ponds and often increases in numbers when beaver expand their populations and build more dams. For example, in Bear Mountain State Park, New York, the wood duck was virtually unknown as a breeder in 1920. Over the next twenty years, however, beavers invaded the park and the wood duck followed this “nature’s engineer.” By 1940, almost every beaver pond in the park had a pair of nesting wood ducks (Carr 1940). Other studies confirm these observations. In forested areas of southern Ontario, wood ducks preferred beaver ponds to all other wetland habitats (Merendino et al. 1995). However, new active beaver ponds are preferred to older ones (Brown and Parsons 1979). In the Appalachian Plateau region of South-central New York, for example, wood ducks were found at 52% of active beaver ponds, 21% of abandoned beaver ponds, and at 0% of wetlands with no recent record of beaver occupation but which “contained appropriate cover types and topographical features suitable for beaver” (Grover and

Appendix L. Summary and Response to Public Comments L-11

Wildlife Management

Baldassarre 1995). Nevers (1968) suggested that the recovery of the entire US wood duck population from very low numbers in the early Twentieth Century, was due to the recovery of the North American beaver population and the resulting increase in the number of beaver ponds. Also in the Appalachian Plateau region of New York, Hooded Mergansers (Lophodytes cucullatus) were found more often at active beaver ponds than at inactive beaver ponds or at the wetlands with no recent record of beaver occupation (Grover and Baldassarre 1995).

Beaver ponds and associated wetlands often flood living trees which die due to the raised water table. In a surprisingly short time these trees deteriorate to the extent that they can provide nesting cavities for wood ducks. Woodpeckers often facilitate this by excavating the dead and dying wood in search of insects attracted to the decaying timber.

Comment: We support the commitment to control Mute Swans per State policy.

Response: Thank you, we appreciate your support and are committed to controlling mute swans on the refuge. Fortunately, it has been about 5 years since we’ve seen any here.

Comment: We agree with Capen and Richards that it is inadvisable to control cormorants on Shad and Metcalfe Islands due to the likelihood of disturbance to nesting Great Blue Herons.

Response: We will continue to monitor the nesting activity of herons and cormorants on the refuge and will be watching for negative impacts of cormorants on the habitat. We will also, with the assistance of our partners on the Lake Champlain Fish & Wildlife Management Cooperative’s Wildlife Technical Committee and the Lake Champlain Cormorant Communications Committee, assess the need to control cormorants at the refuge if we determine that cormorants are starting to impact the habitat. It is likely that we will develop a threshold for action. Then, if a decision to take control action is made, we will seek to do so in a way that will allow us to achieve the objective with no or minimal negative impact on nesting herons. We may need to take such action in order to achieve our CCP Goal #1. to “maintain the ecological integrity of the Missisquoi River delta to ensure a healthy and diverse river ecosystem providing a full range of natural processes, community types, and native floral and faunal diversity.” We do not want to disrupt the heron rookery in our efforts to control cormorants, nor do we want to jeopardize the heron rookery because of the cormorants impact on the habitat. There is likely a fine line between the two. Ideally, control of cormorants will not be necessary but it is prudent that we prepare to manage them on the refuge if necessary.

Comment: The CCP should include a management plan that details strong protections for all listed and imperiled species on the refuge.

Response: Page 1-15 of the draft CCP/EA discusses and lists “Step-Down Management Plans.” These are the detailed plans that will result in strong protections for imperiled species on the refuge as we develop habitat management plans and prescriptions that factor in management to benefit these species.

Comment: Stop the cormorant killing.

Response: We are not currently controlling cormorants, by either lethal or non- lethal means, on the refuge. Refer to our response above in the comment about controlling cormorants in the great blue heron rookery for more information.

L-12 Appendix L. Summary and Response to Public Comments Public Use Management

Public Use Comment: The proposed $1 fee for special Refuge activities was the most Management frequently addressed topic of the entire plan. Most comments were not supportive of the proposal, although several suggested that a higher fee would be more acceptable, while others recommended asking for donations instead of requiring a fee. Many commenters appeared to be ill-informed about the details of the fee, anticipating that all refuge visitors would be charged the fee for all uses and activities while being unaware that there would be many exceptions.

Response: Recreational uses require the maintenance, replacement, or repair of trails, observation platforms, parking areas, boat launches, gravel roads, directional, and interpretive or other signs, and printing brochures, trail guides, and maps. Annual visitation is expected to grow beyond its present level of 38,000 and, concurrently, requests for recreational services will increase. Fee revenue supports public use activities. The specifics of the fee program are discussed in the draft CCP/EA, Chapter 2, Alternative B, Refuge Activity, Hunting, and Special Use Fees, page 2-19. Based on the large number of comments received on this topic, the fee program will be revised and the refuge will continue to collect fees on a voluntary basis. We will expand and encourage voluntary participation by installing voluntary, self-service donation boxes at all trailheads and at the Louie’s Landing Boat Launch and fishing area, and the Mac’s Bend Boat Launch and fishing area. We will suggest a $1.00 per person (per activity or per day) Refuge Activity Fee that will not be mandatory.

Comment: One commenter suggested trying to operate the classroom like a movie theater in a way. It was recommended that we secure really good popular and nature-oriented films for which viewers would pay a reasonable fee.

Response: We will explore this with the Friends of Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge, Inc. whose mission is part is to organize fundraisers, possibly such as this, to generate funds in support of refuge visitor services programs.

Comment: People would be willing to pay more than $1 for activities that build skills, such as photography, GPS use, woodcock management at home, etc.

Response: The refuge will consider hosting these suggested workshop topics and others as part of the refuge activity schedules; in fact, the last few schedules have included activities focusing on wildlife photography and GPS skills. According to the revised fee program, as noted in response to comment 25, visitors, who are willing to make financial contributions, will not be limited to $1.00.

Comment: A commenter recommended that the media be constantly reminded that the refuge is here and is doing good things for the State.

Response: A strategy, currently in the draft CCP/EA, addresses this comment under Objective 3.2 Outreach on page 2-50.

Comment: A commenter recommended that we work with schools to remove the anti-hunter sentiment of the teachers.

Response: The refuge recognizes that environmental education is an important way to raise our visibility, convey our mission, and identify the significant contribution the refuge makes to wildlife conservation. Staff and refuge volunteers include a description of the refuge public use program, including the six wildlife-dependent public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation) identified in the Refuge Improvement Act, whenever presenting environmental education programs. Teachers and students, quite often, question the refuge hunting

Appendix L. Summary and Response to Public Comments L-13

Public Use Management

program during these presentations, allowing the presenter to expand on the important role that hunting plays in wildlife conservation and management. “Missisquoi — A Haven for Wildlife,” a 20 minute DVD presentation shown at the Visitor Center, also emphasizes the refuge hunting program. The refuge will continue to make every effort to remove anti-hunter sentiment of all refuge visitors.

Comment: One commenter encouraged teacher use of the refuge for Environmental Education, perhaps hold a workshop for art and other teachers, principals, and school board members to educate them on the importance of the refuge and the programs of the refuge. Get them out here to assist with habitat work.

Response: The refuge conducted a “Teacher Orientation Tour” on August 15, 2007 for local educators to learn about environmental education programs and opportunities at the refuge. In addition, strategies in the draft CCP/EA, listed under objective 3.1, on pages 2-52 and 2-53 address this comment. Objective 3.1 and strategies under this objective will greatly improve our environmental education program and expand partnerships with schools, agencies, and organizations that are involved in environmental education in our area. However, these objectives and strategies can only be fully met with additional staffing to develop these programs and nurture their growth. The CCP calls for the hiring of a seasonal park ranger to further improve and increase community outreach, environmental education, interpretation, and volunteer utilization efforts.

Comment: One commenter suggested that we emphasize duck stamp purchases to all visitors and in all presentations, and that we should set up annual display at refuge headquarters. He feels that people should know that duck hunters bought this land with duck stamp money but that anybody can and everybody should buy a duck stamp for more land acquisition.

Response: In support of the National Duck Stamp Initiative, the refuge submitted a news release to the local media on June 19, 2007, encouraging the public to purchase Duck Stamps and support wetland conservation. The release noted that Federal Duck Stamp money purchased most of Missisquoi’s lands and an additional 156 acres will be purchased with Duck Stamp funds and added to the refuge in the near future. Missisquoi will continue to support this important initiative, will emphasize the duck stamp in all presentations, and will display duck stamp information at the Visitor Center.

Comment: On page 2-50 of the draft CCP/EA in the section on Rationale, you state “The Service is America’s voice for wildlife, speaking for the wild creatures that cannot speak for themselves.” I recommend you delete that sentence, ducks probably don’t want to be hunted.

Response: We understand your point, however, we were speaking metaphorically. Our point is simply that the Service has responsibility for stewardship of our nation’s wildlife and must act in the best interest of wildlife populations while trying to gain public understanding and support for doing so.

Comment:On page 2-51 of the draft CCP/EA you make the statement, “Develop public outreach with any nest box removal emphasizing the refuge focus on providing high-quality natural cavities for all cavity-nesting species on both private and public lands.” How are you going to provide high-quality natural cavities?

Response: Managers can enhance numbers of suitable cavities by allowing forests to mature, especially hardwoods near canopy openings. At Missisquoi,

L-14 Appendix L. Summary and Response to Public Comments Public Use Management

therefore, we can simply protect the floodplain forest habitat on the refuge letting it mature naturally into an older growth type of forest. Cavities form naturally by disease or insect activity, the natural loss of branches, or are excavated by any of a number of forest-dwelling birds such as woodpeckers, sapsuckers, and flickers who excavate holes in trees while searching for food or creating nesting or roosting cavities for themselves. It is also believed by some managers and supported by some research, although results are highly variable depending on habitat types, wood duck nesting densities, and predator population densities, that natural tree cavities are less susceptible to predation possibly because they are more widely dispersed and well hidden than nest boxes. At sites where that is not the case, it is still the Service’s policy to promote use of natural nesting sites versus artificial sites if the latter are not necessary to achieve population management goals.

Although wood duck populations have recovered, the largest threat to their future is the continued loss of habitat. By protecting and restoring floodplain forests, river oxbows and meanders, and other freshwater wetland and riparian habitats, the refuge and private landowners can assist in the continued success of populations of wood ducks and other migratory waterfowl species that rely on similar habitats.

Comment: On page 2-54 of the draft CCP/EA, under Rationale, you mention feeding of birds. I think it is important to note that feeding of birds is not condoned on the refuge.

Response: You are correct that we do not encourage artificial feeding of any wildlife on the refuge, and in most cases, off the refuge as well. Feeding birds at home bird feeders for family enjoyment and birdwatching purposes, however, is a widely accepted practice and is not discouraged unless it proves to be a significant factor affecting population ecology. In the context of our draft CCP, we are simply describing some of the ways in which people are participating in wildlife watching in Vermont.

Comment: One commenter feels that other recreational uses of the refuge are OK as long as they do not take away from waterfowl programs.

Response: In the Northeast Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, hunting and fishing have been identified as priority Areas of Emphasis at Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge. This designation allows us to focus our limited time and resources on the activities that will be best received, most successfully developed, and that will deliver the greatest results in terms of stewardship and support for the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. By focusing on these recreational uses, we can deliver activities that best support our most unique opportunities. These two recreational uses are emphasized and supported throughout the CCP in terms of the six wildlife- dependent, priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation) identified in the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997.

In the CCP, it is proposed that several new public use facilities will be constructed and other areas will be enhanced. A new 1 mile loop “Discovery Trail,” through several different habitats, is currently being constructed at the headquarters site. At the end of Maquam Creek trail, an elevated boardwalk will be constructed. Along the Old Railroad Passage trail, a boardwalk will be constructed to reach Maquam Bay and an overlook will be constructed to view Maquam Bog. At each of these sites, interpretive signs will be installed. Finally, kiosks, housing refuge information and interpretive materials will be located at trailheads and headquarters to improve the visitor’s experience. These

Appendix L. Summary and Response to Public Comments L-15

Public Use Management

recreational uses will occur on the refuge in a manner that minimizes conflicts between user groups. Trail closures and advisories will be implemented as noted in the draft CCP/EA, under Objective 4.1, Strategies, page 2-55.

Comment: On page 2-56 of the draft CCP/EA you propose to “Shorten the Jeep Trail to end where the trail is close to the river (where the river branches).” Why?

Response: There are a couple reasons for proposing this. This is a relatively long trail as it is, approximately two miles from the Mac’s Bend Boat Launch to the proposed end point. That is not only a lot of trail for refuge staff to monitor and maintain in addition to the other trail opportunities provided on the refuge, but the entire trail needs improvement work to make it a safer walking surface for visitors. The trail, formerly a dirt road for tractors or 4-wheel drive vehicles deteriorates beyond that point. Finally, the trail beyond that point brings trail users into the vicinity of waterfowl hunters using Long Marsh Bay hunting sites which could have negative impacts on that activity.

Comment: Two commenters support the closure of the refuge to use by snowmobiles and ATV’s.

Response: Thank you for your support. Public use of snowmobiles and ATV’s is not allowed on Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge.

Comment: Several commenters recommended restricting the use of motorized boats on the refuge, in terms of restoring wilderness values and reducing impacts to wildlife. One of those suggested, as an alternative to an outright ban, reducing speed limits to 5mph and implementing a no wake zone across the entire width and length of the river within the refuge. One commenter suggested that we are maintaining motor boat use on the Refuge against prevailing FWS policy.

Response: The ownership of Missisquoi River bottoms and our authority to regulate uses on the river is uncertain at this time and is identified as an issue for which we need to seek clear guidance. In the meantime, the regulations of the Service apply “to areas of land and water held by the United States in fee title and to property interest held in less than fee . . . to the extent that the property interest held by the United States may be affected.” (18 C.F.R.). Under Vermont law, a riparian landowner owns to the middle of the river, unless the deed of conveyance says otherwise. The Service, with the assistance of its Solicitors, intends to review the individual chains of title for the tracts making up the Refuge, the public right to navigation, and any other applicable rulings or authorities to clarify this issue.

Comment: One commenter recommends that we impose a prohibition on fishing derbies in the refuge and work with others to reduce the impact of fishing derbies on wildlife in the refuge.

Response: Fishing is a priority public use and area of emphasis on the refuge. Derby participants will be allowed to fish in areas open to fishing on the refuge. The refuge will continue to work with and partner with Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department to enforce fishing regulations and to reduce the impact fishermen have on the resource. Every effort will be made to make derby organizers aware of refuge rules and regulations.

L-16 Appendix L. Summary and Response to Public Comments Public Use Management

Comment: A commenter recommends that we help protect and restore wilderness values on the refuge north of Route 78 by closing the road beyond Louie’s Landing and allowing only non-motorized access beyond that point.

Response: We appreciate the commenter’s support of wilderness areas and wilderness values. As evidenced by the Wilderness Review conducted as part of the development of this draft CCP/EA, we have considered the entire refuge for opportunities to establish Federally designated Wilderness Areas, and conclude that no portion of the refuge would be appropriate for wilderness designation. The Service, however, recognizes the unique and special qualities of the area, and agrees that management should focus as much as possible on providing characteristics associated with wilderness while still managing the area for the purposes of migratory birds and wildlife-oriented priority public uses. We believe we can provide and encourage, through careful management of our programs allowing public access to the refuge in this area and elsewhere, a sense and appreciation in our visitors that they are in a special place and are privileged to be there.

As stated elsewhere in this comments section and in the draft CCP/EA, we have considerable work to do to ascertain our authority on the Missisquoi River through the refuge and our authority to regulate uses thereon. We currently do not have an understanding that the Service can regulate uses on the river. If it is eventually determined that we have that authority, we will need to give considerable thought and seek wide pubic and partner involvement to determine our management actions.

Closing the road beyond Louie’s Landing to motorized use would prevent our use of refuge facilities and management of refuge habitats already established along the 1-mile gravel road to Mac’s Bend boat launch area and the Jeep Trail trailhead. We have had a storage building that is also used as an event headquarters for various public uses at the halfway point on this road since the early 50’s. For management purposes, we need to continue to use motorized equipment on this roadway and beside the roadway as we manage the habitats in this area. This area was evaluated for further study for wilderness designation and did not meet criteria to do so. Our priorities for use of this area therefore continue to be for the purposes of providing, conserving, and managing habitat for migratory birds.

Comment: Three commenters asked for reconsideration of the dog-walking ban, recommending enforcement of the current regulation requiring that “dogs be leashed” and that violators be punished rather than instituting a “no dogs” policy. One of these commenters also stated that there is a difference between “taking the dog for a walk” and “taking a walk with the dog.” All suggested that proper signage and enforcement should be used to fix the existing regulation, rather than implementing a prohibition.

Response: The Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge was created “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or any other management purposes, for migratory birds” under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. The 1997 Refuge Improvement Act establishes the mission of the Refuge system as “to preserve a national network of lands and waters for the conservation and management of fish, wildlife, and plant resources of the United States for the benefit of present and future generations.” The Refuge Improvement Act further stipulates that all activities occurring on refuges must be compatible with wildlife conservation and the specific purposes for which a refuge was established. This is an important distinction from other public lands and recreation areas; refuges have a narrow management focus

Appendix L. Summary and Response to Public Comments L-17

Public Use Management

and are not multi-purpose lands. Six public uses were identified by the Refuge Improvement Act as the priorities for receiving enhanced consideration on refuges. Dog walking is not one of the six priority uses, nor are dogs (except hunting, seeing, or hearing dogs) necessary to support the safe, practical, and effective conduct of the priority public use programs on the refuge.

Dogs running off leash and dog waste left on trails are consistent problems, not isolated incidences. We receive complaints from visitors about unleashed dogs running up to them and their having to step around dog waste on trails. These visitors are intimidated by dogs and disgusted by the waste, and their experience is negatively impacted by these encounters. Many dog owners consistently remove their dogs from leashes when they are away from the parking lots and where they believe they are unlikely to be observed by a refuge staff member. We also have concerns with dogs, especially loose dogs, where visitors with impaired mobility would be encouraged to observe wildlife. Instinctively, dogs want to chase wildlife. Unleashed dogs chase nesting wildlife, which can result in destruction of ground nests and young. Dogs may step on nests or young chicks, as they “freeze” in response to danger. Wildlife can’t distinguish between dogs on leashes and unleashed dogs. In the presence of a dog, many species will abandon their nests or young, leaving them vulnerable to be killed by predators, or die from starvation or exposure. While we could lessen these impacts by constantly enforcing the use of leashes and requiring that dog waste be discarded off refuge lands, this would require us to dedicate considerable staff time to enforcing compliance of an activity that does not support one of our priority public uses. This additional expenditure of resources would negatively impact our ability to meet Refuge goals and objectives.

We realize that many dog owners are responsible owners and some have a strong emotional connection to the refuge and to walking their dog on the refuge. We realize that some people will not be happy with this decision. Nevertheless, we believe that the overall adverse impacts of dog walking on wildlife, the negative impacts on other visitors engaged in wildlife-dependent public use, and the cost in terms of refuge staff time that would be needed to police this use and bring it into compliance, justify this prohibition.

Our decision is also consistent with land managers throughout the State who manage lands specifically for wildlife. The Nature Conservancy of Vermont lands and State of Vermont Wildlife Management Area lands, including the Milton and Sandbar Wildlife Management Areas are not open to dog walking.

Comment: A commenter took exception to the statement on Page 2-59 that states, “The refuge is proposing a no-dog policy except for disabilities, emergencies, or as required by hunting regulations.” He suggested that we want to encourage the use of dogs on all waterfowl hunting areas.

Response: You are correct. We will change the statement to read, “The refuge is proposing a no-dog policy except for disabilities, emergencies, waterfowl hunting, and as appropriate for upland game hunting. We encourage the use of retrieving dogs for waterfowl hunting and require their use for hunting waterfowl in the following areas on the refuge: …”

Comment: One commenter supports closing specific lands at key times to fully protect sensitive species.

Response: Strategies, currently in the draft CCP, addressing this comment can be found under Objective 1.1 on page 2-25, Objective 1.2 on page 2-28, and Objective 4.1, trail closures, on page 2-55.

L-18 Appendix L. Summary and Response to Public Comments Public Use Management

Comment: All recreational activities should be managed with a cautioned, principled approach that prioritizes the ecological health of the Refuge; the CCP should state as much, in addition to outlining how priority pubic uses will factor into the management of the Refuge.

Response: A key strategy statement is included in the Highlights section of the draft CCP on page IV that addresses this, to wit: Other new critical positions, including a park ranger, maintenance worker, and biological technician, to maximize the use and effectiveness of the new visitor center and associated interpretive trails, ensure safe, quality refuge experiences through well- maintained facilities, ensure our use of the best available science in conserving and managing the fish and wildlife resources and their habitats, and ensure that public uses are compatible with the wildlife first mission of the Refuge System.

Comment: Goal 3 should include an emphasis on bi-lingual interpretive materials given the Refuge’s location near the Quebec border.

Response: The refuge has an interpretive display which features a management video at the Visitor Center available for visitors to view in both English and French. A longer refuge orientation video is also available for visitors to view in both English and French languages. Several bi-lingual interpretive signs have been designed and funded in partnership with the Lake Champlain Committee and will be placed outside at the Visitor Center and at the Louie’s Landing boat launch. In addition, the refuge will consider developing additional interpretive materials including brochures and trailhead signs in French as funding permits.

Comment: Re: Objective 4.4 work with the Lake Champlain Committee to establish day-use paddling sites at appropriate locations as part of the Lake Champlain Paddlers’ Trail. Link plans to develop a brochure and access to the Lake Champlain Paddlers’ Trail system.

Response: Since this trail passes through the refuge, we will consider establishing a day-use paddling site at an appropriate location. We are already working in partnership with the Lake Champlain Committee and the Northern Forest Canoe Trail to develop and place interpretive signs at the Louie’s Landing Boat Launch and will consider expanding use of this area for paddlers. Users of the trail would then have access to refuge information and the opportunity to become well informed of refuge rules and regulations.

Comment: Objective 4.4 — In regard to: provide educational brochures to boaters and anglers on how to minimize the impacts of boating on the environment. The Lake Champlain Committee has a bilingual manual for this purpose it will share.

Response: A request for a supply of the bilingual manual on how to minimize the impacts of boating on the environment has been made to the Lake Champlain Committee. If, after review of the manual, the refuge agrees with the educational message and feels that this will work for distribution to boaters and anglers on the refuge, we will partner with Lake Champlain Committee to make these available to those refuge visitors.

Comment: Objective 4.4 — In regard to: develop canoe/kayak route brochure. The Lake Champlain Committee describes this in their annual guidebook and is willing to share with appropriate credit to the Lake Champlain Paddlers’ Trail.

Response: The refuge will develop the canoe/kayak brochure, utilizing the information included in the Lake Champlain Paddlers’ Trail guidebook. A detailed map of refuge waters will also be included in the brochure. Credit will be given to Lake Champlain Paddlers’ Trail for their contribution.

Appendix L. Summary and Response to Public Comments L-19

Public Use Management

Comment: One commenter expressed reservations about the proposal to permit the Friends to operate a non-motorized boat rental operation. They are also opposed to motor boat use on the river due to invasive species, noise and bank degradation.

Response: On page 2-64, the draft CCP/EA states only to “Explore the possibility of allowing the Friends group or a concessionaire to provide canoe/ kayak rentals.” During the warmer months, many visitor inquiries (via phone, email, letters) about boat rentals and accessing the refuge by boat are received at the refuge headquarters office. There are very limited nearby canoe/kayak rental opportunities for refuge visitors. Allowing the Friends group or a concessionaire to provide this service, locally, would be a service to refuge visitors. Conditions under which the concession is operated would be stipulated via Special Use Permit and would be focused to protect wildlife and habitat and provide a high quality wildlife-oriented experience for the visitor.

A strategy, under objective 4.4, located on page 2-64 of the draft CCP/EA addresses the concern of motor boat use on the river and impacts on refuge wildlife and habitats.

Comment: One commenter recommended that we expand the boat launches, possibly with funding from the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Response: The refuge staff relies heavily on volunteer help for all aspects of refuge management. Additional staff is needed to effectively maintain any expansion or enhancement to any facility, program, or activity on the refuge. The draft CCP/EA calls for the hiring of a maintenance worker to further improve and maintain refuge facilities and access areas. Contingent on the hiring of an additional maintenance worker, we will consider expanding the boat launches, which will also need to include a determination that there is a demonstrated need for expansion and that it does not conflict with the refuge purpose or management goals. If a decision is made to expand a boat launch or launches, we will explore funding support through the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Comment: One commenter recommended that we open the Mac’s Bend launch ramp earlier in the summer or for the beginning of walleye season as well as the first weekend or two of bass season in June.

Response: A strategy, under Goal 4 in the draft CCP/EA, addresses this. Contingent on the installation of an electronic gate to allow entrance from dawn to dusk, the strategy calls to expand public access to Mac’s Bend from April to December (currently open September – December). Current management also opens the Mac’s Bend launch ramp for the beginning of walleye season and the Lake Champlain International Fishing derby; events that may exceed the capacity of the Louie’s Landing parking area.

Comment: On Page 2-60 of the draft CCP/EA you state that you wish to ensure “at least 75 percent of anglers have a positive experience.” Elsewhere you state a higher percentage of 90 for hunters. Why the difference, where do these percentages come from?

Response: We evaluated both hunting and fishing programs at the refuge using our professional judgment and any surveys or reports from users that could help us evaluate the existing programs and the degree to which we could make improvements. We determined that our hunting programs already score relatively high in providing positive experiences, but that we can do better to the

L-20 Appendix L. Summary and Response to Public Comments Public Use Management

point where we can give MOST of our hunters a good experience. We can provide plentiful hunting opportunities, impose necessary but reasonable regulations, take steps to prevent putting too much pressure on the resource, reduce conflicts and competition between hunters, and so forth. With fishing, we already score high but not as highly as with hunting. This is the case, at least in part, because we must close portions of the shoreline of the refuge and areas around or near sensitive nesting sites to fishing in order to protect nesting migratory birds, and in some cases, threatened or endangered species. Unfortunately, not all anglers support these closures and are consequently unhappy with this management action. Likewise, while we can continue to improve our fishing program, we will also continue to protect nesting areas and therefore will continue to make some anglers unhappy and will accordingly be unable to achieve the level of satisfaction we can with hunting where these conflicts do not exist. Thus fishing was assigned a lower goal of only 75%.

Comment: One commenter recommended that we create a launch for canoes and kayaks, possibly at the Mac’s Bend building, including mowing around the building and clearing the river bank more for easier access.

Response: Visitors are currently allowed to launch canoes from this area when the Mac’s Bend Road gate is open (September – December). Enhancements to this area are contingent upon the hiring of an additional maintenance worker to further improve and maintain refuge facilities and access areas, and a determination that this action would be compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established. A strategy, under objective 4.4, recommends that a new canoe/kayak access point be created at the Casey pull-off when Rt. 78 is realigned.

Comment: One commenter opposes any plan that would further restrict or control/limit hunting on any land now open to hunting.

Response: Strategies, under objective 4.2, on page 2-60 of the draft CCP/EA would further expand the hunt program, not restrict or control/limit hunting on the refuge.

The only proposal to restrict or limit existing hunting concerns deer hunting on the delta portions of the refuge during archery, regular or muzzleloader deer seasons. This area of the refuge is essentially a long and narrow strip of land surrounded by water. We have had numerous conflicts with and between hunters in these areas. Some hunters prefer to establish tree stands or ground blinds, which are currently authorized with permission of the refuge manager. Unfortunately, when this happens hunters become territorial and proprietary toward the area around their blind and this causes intense conflicts with other hunters. Hunters also have developed the practice, especially during youth season and during muzzleloader season, of organizing themselves into groups where some of the hunters sweep through an area in an attempt to drive deer to hunters waiting “on stand” ahead of them. This can quite effectively chase the deer out of these narrow areas and certainly disrupts the hunt of any other hunters not part of the group who are hunting by stillhunting or stand hunting. It is our policy to provide safe, enjoyable, and quality hunting and fishing experiences. When that is not occurring, as is the case as stated above, we will take action to remedy the situation. Thus we are proposing to develop a different type of hunt, a more controlled hunt that will result in a more positive experience for those who participate. That may very well mean we need to limit the number of hunters, restrict the hunting methods, and so forth. We have not determined the details of what we will do yet, as explained in the draft CCP/EA, but will seek assistance from the public in determining that.

Appendix L. Summary and Response to Public Comments L-21

Public Use Management

Comment: One commenter expressed strong opposition to hunting. This commenter is opposed to hunting; thinks it is too expensive a program for the refuge; states that it is dangerous to visitors and wildlife; opposes opening new areas for hunting; and finds it not compatible with any other use of the refuge.

Response: Hunting is a priority public use and area of emphasis on the refuge. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 lists hunting as one of six priority, wildlife-dependent public uses to receive enhanced and preferential consideration in refuge planning and management. In addition to hunting, other priority uses include fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation. Our mandate is to provide high- quality opportunities for these priority uses where they are compatible with respective refuge purposes, goals, and other management priorities.

Regardless of individual opinions about the appropriateness of hunting on the refuge, the Refuge Improvement Act requires that we give preferential consideration to the six priority, wildlife-dependent uses. It may be especially significant to you that in order to open the refuge to additional hunting opportunities, Federal regulations would need to be changed and an additional public comment period would occur in which you could express your comments. In addition, changes would be made to the Hunt Management Plan. Approval of the CCP allows us to go to that next step.

There are areas on the refuge where no hunting is allowed, such as the impoundments. In other areas, we have restricted hunting because of established safety zones. State law provides that a property owner may establish a 500 foot zone around any occupied dwelling. Hunting, whether by gun or bow, is not allowed in this area. Safety zones have been established around the Visitor Center and the Maquam Creek/Black Creek nature trails. In addition, refuge visitors are advised of areas open to hunting and trailheads are posted with advisories and closures as noted in the draft CCP/EA on page 2-55.

We strive to achieve balance between consumptive and non-consumptive uses on the refuge. Our experience shows that many areas can safely support both hunting and non-consumptive uses, such as wildlife observation, at the same time.

Comment: One commenter expressed strong opposition to trapping. This commenter is opposed to any trapping; states that children can be trapped and killed; feels that beaver and muskrat should never be killed since they are part of the ecological scheme of life; takes exception with modern trapping practices; and discounts the guidance on trapping offered by the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

Response: We consider trapping or furbearer management a refuge management economic activity. Furbearer management is not a priority public use. Furbearer management at the refuge will continue to occur to support our mission to manage for migratory birds. The furbearers managed include species that prey upon migratory birds, their eggs or nestlings, or species that either impede water management for the benefit of migratory birds by damming waterways or by damaging dikes through burrowing and tunneling that leads to leaks or catastrophic failure.

We manage furbearers as part of the total environment of the refuge. The habits of muskrats and beavers are beneficial for waterfowl habitats by creating and maintaining nesting, brood rearing, feeding and loafing areas. However, muskrats and beavers may also create negative impacts when their populations grow unchecked. Muskrat “eat-outs” of waterfowl food and cover plants, bank

L-22 Appendix L. Summary and Response to Public Comments Public Use Management

dens tunneled into refuge dikes, beaver girdling of valuable mast-producing trees, and new dams that back water onto adjacent private properties are not desirable. Population control is needed in such situations. These species also may threaten dams, dikes, and water control structures supporting refuge waterfowl habitat. Burrowing or tunneling into dams and dikes causes them to leak or fail, while plugging water control structures with woody debris and mud can render them inoperable.

Furbearer management on the refuge is a useful tool in maintaining balance between furbearers and habitat, safeguarding refuge infrastructure, and preventing the spread of disease. High populations of predators can decrease the nesting success of ground-nesting migratory birds, thus compromising one purpose of the refuge. The furbearer management program on the refuge has no appreciable negative impacts on furbearer populations.

Furbearer management contributes to the purposes of the refuge and the mission of the Refuge system by maintaining the vigor and health of furbearer populations and safeguarding the refuge infrastructure critical to habitat for scores of fish and wildlife species.

Trapping certain furbearers will help facilitate habitat management for migratory birds, and reduce predation on those birds and their nests. Furbearer management on the refuge contributes to, and does not materially interfere with or detract from, the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the purpose for which the refuge was established.

Visitors are not likely to come in contact with any traps on the refuge. Trapping occurs off refuge trails and within areas that are not otherwise open to the public.

Comment: One commenter disagrees with our assertion that “deer are known to be tolerant of the noise produced by snowmobiles and are not seriously effected by the physical impacts (snow compaction) of snowmobiles,” stating that refuge deer must be statues or drugged to have no reaction.

Response: Snowmobiling has been determined to be an inappropriate use and will not be allowed on the refuge; therefore, the compatibility determination will be removed from the final plan. It was erroneously included in the draft. Your points are therefore moot and will not be addressed here.

Comment: One commenter recommends that we discontinue commercial minnow trapping.

Response: The refuge does not regulate commercial minnow trapping. A compatibility determination in Appendix B, page B-73 finds “access via refuge lands or facilities for minnow collecting” to be compatible with refuge purposes. Allowing access for commercial bait collecting to occur in the vicinity of the refuge contributes to, and does not materially interfere with or detract from, the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the purposes for which the refuge was established. Note that the actual minnow collecting occurs outside the refuge boundary or within the Missisquoi River, it’s branches or tributaries, which are not currently under the jurisdiction of the Service.

Comment: One commenter states that hunters spread rabies by moving raccoons from state to state for hunting. Our account of how rabies is spread has left out the hunter involvement and our account should be updated and made truthful.

Appendix L. Summary and Response to Public Comments L-23

Public Use Management

Response: It is possible that hunters spread rabies by moving raccoons from Florida to West Virginia as this source, located on the internet at http://www.state.nj.us/health/cd/rabies.htm, describes:

In 1977, rabid raccoons were first detected in West Virginia. It is believed that rabies was present in raccoons imported from Florida into West Virginia by hunters in the 1970’s. The disease then spread to other raccoons after they were released. Once raccoon rabies was established in West Virginia and Virginia, it spread at a rate of approximately 25 to 50 miles per year into Maryland, Washington, D.C., Delaware, and Pennsylvania. This rabies epizootic spread into New Jersey through Warren and Hunterdon counties in October 1989. The raccoon rabies epizootic now extends throughout New England and as far west as Ohio, and south into North Carolina. (Note: an epizootic is a term used to denote an epidemic of disease in an animal population).

The Compatibility Determination in Appendix B on page B-107 will be updated to include this language.

Comment: If migratory bird hunting boundaries are being expanded, would the expansion be for fishermen too?

Response: Not necessarily. Waterfowl hunting only occurs in the fall, after nesting season. Some fishing occurs during nesting season. These sensitive habitats need to be protected and closed to entry in the spring. In the fall, after the nesting season, we are able to open these same habitats to hunters.

Comment: One hunter recommended that we build stake blinds at Long Marsh 1, 2, 3 and Metcalfe 8,9,10, and build walkways to those blinds for older hunters. He also observed that dogs need a place to get out of the muck. This commenter stated that volunteers would help do this.

Response: Contingent on staffing, funding, and an evaluation that this action is both appropriate and compatible, the refuge would work with volunteers to build these stake blinds and walkways for senior hunters. We have however, considered this recommendation in the past, and have not determined a way to do this that is: reasonable in expense, that will not negatively impact valuable nesting habitat for migratory birds, including endangered species and species of special interest. These structures would also need to survive the annual freezing, thawing, ice scouring, and flooding of these marsh areas. This may just simply be too much expense, effort, and annual maintenance for the relatively little use we would be able to establish there.

Comment: One commenter recommended that we open the area “in back of the old headquarters” to deer hunting; allowing that this would be a perfect spot for senior or handicapped hunters.

Response: We are not sure which area you are referring to, nevertheless we will take this comment into consideration when we address the proposal to expand the deer hunting program and provide additional deer hunting opportunities for Junior and Senior hunters.

Comment: One commenter recommended that we change the sign-in time for reserved waterfowl hunting blinds from 7am to one hour before shooting time to reduce the number of blinds that go unused.

Response: We understand your objective in making this comment to be greater utilization of blind sites. You are correct that a number of blinds go unused

L-24 Appendix L. Summary and Response to Public Comments Public Use Management

every year because the hunters simply do not show for their assigned site. Most of these blind sites are awarded via lottery drawing, and the successful hunter must then pay a $10 fee for the privileged use of the blind prior to the day of use. Interestingly, we received a comment from another hunter who appreciates this system in part because he does not have to worry about having a spot to hunt when he arrives at the refuge, and he does not have to arrive by a “deadline” to have a spot to hunt. We have heard similar comments from other hunters over the years through our routine contacts with them.

We have a system already in place to increase utilization of blind sites. If a hunter is drawn for a site, pays for it, and then determines that he cannot complete the hunt, he is encouraged to notify refuge headquarters where we maintain a “stand-by” list and will try to fill that blind with the next person in line. This system works some of the time, but not all of the time. We do not feel that the number of unused blinds is unacceptable at this point, nor do we see a greater increase of use through implementation of your proposal versus the current system. We do not feel it would be fair to a hunter who applies to the lottery, is successfully drawn, sends us the blind fee (usually on a very short notice), then loses his site because he is running a few minutes late.

Comment: A commenter recommended that the former Clark Marsh be opened to controlled hunting, youth hunting, or both at some time.

Response: When this property was purchased, there was a legal restriction attached to the deed that allowed exclusive hunting use of the property by the former owner and his guests for a period of years ending in November 2003 and further dictated that we could not open this property to public hunting until November 26, 2028. It is likely the refuge will consider opening the area to hunting at that time.

Comment: One commenter asked if migratory bird hunting boundaries are being expanded or changed?

Response: Strategies, under objective 4.2 on page 2-60 of the draft CCP/EA address this question.

Comment: One commenter stated that he hunted waterfowl 12 times last season; including 3 times at Missisquoi. He considers those 3 hunts to be the best of all. He liked hunting in the controlled area because he didn’t have to worry about someone else being in his spot, he didn’t have to compete with others to get there early, the blinds are spaced and no one is going to encroach on him after he sets up, he always see birds, and it’s usually a good hunt. He allowed that the refuge program is the best controlled hunting program in the State.

Response: A lot of staff time and effort goes into this program and we appreciate the support. The refuge strives to provide a high-quality hunt on the refuge and will continue to make improvements to the program as needed.

Comment: One commenter asked that we not restrict bow hunting to one day per season by the new permit program.

Response: The strategy listed under Objective 4.2 that calls for a lottery permit system for deer hunting may not necessarily restrict bow hunting to one day per season. Details for the lottery system have not been worked out and the refuge will take this comment into consideration as these details are developed. The delta areas open to hunting, are generally long, narrow, or relatively small islands that cannot accommodate many hunters without affecting the natural movement

Appendix L. Summary and Response to Public Comments L-25

Administrative/Planning/General Management

of wildlife and , therefore, decreasing the quality of the hunting experience and creating some level of competition among hunters. To resolve the problems associated with these hunting areas and to increase the quality of the hunt, the refuge will evaluate the effectiveness of a controlled hunt.

Comment: One commenter wants no lottery permit system implemented for deer hunting. He stated that he doesn’t pay for something he can’t get. He prefers operating on a first-come, first-served basis.

Response: If we establish a lottery permit system for deer hunting, the refuge very likely would not charge an application fee. By comparison, we do not charge an application fee for waterfowl hunting applications. A hunter would only pay a fee if selected during the lottery. The current first-come, first-served approach has resulted in conflicts between hunters; therefore, the refuge intends to develop a different system for hunting on the delta to alleviate hunter conflicts and to increase the quality of the hunt.

Comment: Relative to deer hunting, one commenter observed that to open closed areas such as Cranberry Pool or Burtons Pothole in December doesn’t make sense with access only by the river. If the river is frozen you can’t get there by boat. November would be better.

Response: Good point. However, the reason for not opening these areas in November is because migratory birds are still using these habitats as sanctuary areas and we wish to keep them disturbance free. As climatic conditions allow, the refuge will consider opening Burton’s Pothole for late bow/muzzleloader season and will consider opening Cranberry Pool for juniors and disabled big game hunters for late (December) bow season.

Comment: Many comments were received in support of keeping the refuge open to hunting.

Response: In the Northeast Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, hunting has been identified as a priority Area of Emphasis at Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge. Hunting is emphasized and supported throughout the CCP in terms of the six wildlife-dependent public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation) identified in the Refuge Improvement Act. Much of the refuge is open to upland game and deer hunting and in accordance with the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act, less than 40 percent of the refuge is open for hunting migratory birds. The draft CCP/EA calls for keeping the refuge open for hunting. Strategies, under Objective 4.2, on page 2-60 include expanding opportunities for hunters, enhancing and improving the refuge hunt program.

Administrative/ Comment: Will there be any construction or changing of the road that runs Planning/ through the refuge (State Route 78)? This is such a beautiful stretch of road as it General Management is — I question the value of the improvements — a wider road, moved away from the river upon which people can speed more, and upon which we need to spend big money for wildlife crossings.

Response: Please refer to Appendix G. Vermont Agency of Transportation Study of Route 78 for details concerning the work of a group of stakeholders, including the Refuge Manager, relative to this project. The stakeholders made recommendations to the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) relative to a roadway configuration that best integrated environmental, public safety, economic, and cultural preservation interests. Refuge involvement in the project has focused especially on avoiding or minimizing impacts to natural resources and refuge operations. At this time, neither a timetable nor funding is available

L-26 Appendix L. Summary and Response to Public Comments Administrative/Planning/General Management

to accomplish the project. As indicated in the study, “the anticipated next steps have been slow in coming and little additional work has been completed on the project. It is anticipated that as funding for the project is identified, the planning effort and permit application will resume.”

Key to the continuation of the process to rebuild this section of roadway between Swanton and the Swanton-Alburgh Bridge is public involvement. You will have opportunities to express your opinions to VTrans when they ask for comment.

We will also prepare a right-of-way as VTrans either expands the width of the roadway in certain sections or moves the centerline of the roadway in other sections away from sensitive natural resources. This also moves the right-of- way now associated with the roadway to correspond with the new roadway. Part of the process of preparing a new right-of-way in exchange for the old right-of-way is preparing a compatibility determination and seeking public comment.

Comment: There were numerous comments about the funding needed to implement the CCP, many of them from one commenter. These comments advise that we need to develop detailed costs and a detailed budget for the plan in order to battle for dollars, apply for grants or contributions from partners, and determine priorities.

Response: It is beyond the scope of this CCP to outline and detail the complexities of the Federal funding process. However, generally stated, funding for Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge is allocated annually by Regional Managers and the Regional Director charged with overseeing operations on all national wildlife refuges and other program areas in the Northeast Region of the Fish & Wildlife Service (Service). Regional funding allocations for refuges are determined by the Service’s Director under the advice of the Chief of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Assistant Director) in Washington, DC. The Director oversees the allocation of funds to the Regions; including refuges and all other program areas of the Service in that Region, in accordance with the annual Department of the Interior budget appropriation authorized by the U.S. Congress. Refuge Managers and other Service managers and administrators are prohibited by law from lobbying for funds. Likewise, we do not seek nor encourage Congress to earmark funds for specific refuges or for specific purposes. We would prefer, if we had a choice, to see efforts by the public and Congress focus on efforts to improve funding for the entire National Wildlife Refuge System.

Completion of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for a refuge is viewed as a very positive step and accomplishment, one that will provide strong justification for funding requests. However, it is simply not realistic to anticipate that, upon completion of the CCP, all proposals presented in the CCP will be fully funded. The approved CCP stands as a strong justification for funding requests subsequently developed by the Refuge Manager to present to Regional Managers. These requests will be based on factors such as the anticipated availability of funding, funding initiatives, the operational needs of the refuge, which may in part be influenced by environmental conditions or factors, existing and near term staffing levels, and so forth.

Comment: Since the federal budget is unlikely to go up much in the future, you may want to think about going to the State of Vermont for help since the Refuge is valuable for the State.

Response: There is no doubt the State recognizes the value of the Refuge within its borders. We have a longstanding, strong, and beneficial partnership with

Appendix L. Summary and Response to Public Comments L-27

Administrative/Planning/General Management

many state agencies, most notably the Department of Fish & Wildlife. We benefit from those partnerships through the sharing, to varying extents, of personnel and equipment. There are many examples of how the State helps in our refuge management efforts, such as: assignment of the State Waterfowl Team Leader to the refuge CCP core planning team; funding and assistance provided to support the annual waterfowl banding effort; providing many hours and days of law enforcement patrol of the refuge, and on and on. They definitely contribute to the job of refuge management. Yet, while these sorts of mutually beneficial projects are the norm, it is very unlikely that the State would be willing or able to provide funding directly to the Refuge. The State Department of Fish & Wildlife (Department) has it’s own funding challenges which do not put it in a position to provide funds to the Refuge. It is also significant that a portion of the funding for the Department is derived from federal funds, such as funds collected as excise tax on the sale of hunting and fishing supplies and equipment. Those federal funds allocated to the state can not be reallocated to the Refuge, a federal entity. Similarly, the Refuge can not compete for grants that are based on federal sources of funding.

It is also noteworthy that it is illegal for the Fish & Wildlife Service to augment its appropriations with funds from non-federal sources without specific Congressional authorization to do so, and, while the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act allow the Secretary of the Interior to accept donations for Refuges, the Service nonetheless doesn’t generally go about fund-raising.

Comment: The Refuge needs to be a check-off on the Federal Income Tax form — we need an easy way for the public to make tax-deductible contributions.

Response: We appreciate the support behind the idea.

Comment: The new Refuge headquarters is so new that people are just learning of it and are just slowly starting to come out. The more people that come out, the more public support the Refuge will get. Need to get the word out. You may just need a little more time.

Response: We agree. We regularly provide news releases about refuge activities and management programs to the local papers who are extremely supportive of the refuge and print them for us. We are proposing no less than nine strategies under Goal 3 and its Outreach objective to further increase awareness about the refuge, its resources, and its wildlife-oriented public uses. These strategies include: posting events at rest stops and welcome centers, maintaining and enhancing our website, developing a portable, traveling exhibit, installing a short range AM radio station for motorists near the refuge, and working more with local businesses and landowners.

Comment: On page 3-10 of the draft CCP/EA, you need to explain “GS” and titles.

Response: GS is an acronym for “General Schedule.” This is a federal civil service pay scale. WG is an acronym for “Wage Grade” which is also a federal civil service pay scale for employees in certain maintenance or trade jobs. In general, the higher the WG number, the higher the pay. Pay may vary from locality to locality in the U.S. as adjustments are made for costs of living. Detailed title and job information can be found at the following link: http://www.fws.gov/hr/HR/ employmentstaffing.htm

Comment: On page 3-22 i of the draft CCP/EA n the section on Partnerships you talk about the Friends of Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge, Inc. and

L-28 Appendix L. Summary and Response to Public Comments Administrative/Planning/General Management

it purpose. I recommend that you replace much of that text with Article II, Purposes of the Friends By-Laws, which is more descriptive.

Response: Text changed.

Comment: I like the idea of a new biological technician for field work.

Response: We agree. A second biological professional on the refuge staff would greatly facilitate and advance our refuge management capabilities and potential.

Comment: I don’t like the idea of a Park Ranger for law enforcement and regulation but I do like the idea of a Park Ranger for recreational activities.

Response: The Service uses the position title of Refuge Law Enforcement Officer for public safety and law enforcement positions. It uses the title Park Ranger for visitor services professionals who focus on interpretation, outreach, environmental education, and wildlife-oriented recreation. The positions are closely related in that the Park Ranger can play a very significant preventive law enforcement role while the Refuge Law Enforcement Officer can reinforce that but also address those who fail to voluntarily comply with refuge regulations. Both positions are important to the refuge.

Hiring a second Park Ranger would give a tremendous boost to our visitor services program and allow us to more fully utilize our new facilities for orientation, interpretation, and environmental education, and increase our ability for outreach, especially to local schools.

A greater law enforcement presence is also needed, however. After several years with no law enforcement personnel, we gained some assistance when a Zone Refuge Law Enforcement Officer was stationed here in September 2006. That officer has been a great help, but the amount of time he can dedicate to law enforcement work specifically at Missisquoi is limited to between 8 and 20% of his time. We have a need for someone to be here much more than that, especially in the non-frozen months of the year when our public use is at its highest level. With the need for increased vigilance at the international border, the heightened threat to our Nation’s security, and increases in drug trafficking and alien smuggling we can easily justify more law enforcement patrol and coordination.

Comment: Hiring staff should be top priority to allow gradual implementation of the other alternative B strategies. Expanding staffing capability can only serve to enhance important traditional roles in support of Lake Champlain preservation and protection efforts.

Response: We agree conceptually, however, hiring additional staff is not likely to be imminent at this refuge. Due to significant funding shortfalls experienced in fiscal year 2007 and similar shortages anticipated for fiscal year 2008, a strategic downsizing plan has been developed and implemented on refuges in the Northeast Region to reduce the number of staff region wide. The goal of Phase 1 of the plan is to reduce the number of refuge staff on field stations by 24. The goal of Phase 2, which was implemented in January 2007, is to reduce the number of refuge staff in Regional positions by 20 more. To date, those goals have not be fully met, but progress has been made and the effort continues. At the same time, Regional Managers are trying to increase the management capability and flexibility of refuges by increasing the percentage of available funding that is discretionary and available for projects and other on-the-ground work while reducing the amount consumed by salaries.

Appendix L. Summary and Response to Public Comments L-29

Administrative/Planning/General Management

Several staffing changes have been identified at Missisquoi as part of this strategic downsizing. We are identified to lose the Assistant Refuge Manager position but that has not occurred yet. The duties of our Administrative Officer have been expanded to include administrative duties for the Lake Umbagog NWR with the possibility of additional duties being added for the Nulhegan Basin NWR. The Wildlife Biologist position made vacant by the retirement of the incumbent was filled in September 2006.

Should better than anticipated funding be made available for the National Wildlife Refuge System in fiscal year 2008, the Northeast Region has proposed that refuges continue to move forward with the implementation of the strategic downsizing plan and that any additional funding be applied to increase management capability. Remaining staff will focus on priority projects and utilize increased flexible funding to help do that. The flexible funding may be used to complete projects by purchasing supplies and materials, renting equipment, establishing service or construction contracts, or through employment of seasonal workers or interns.

Comment: Get maintenance staff away from janitorial work; pay somebody else to do it.

Response: We agree. Fiscal year 2007 funding was not sufficient to do so, however. If sufficient funds are available in the future we will continue to give this consideration, as we do every year.

Comment: Don’t allow Abenaki’s to be involved in refuge management decisions, treat them the same as the public.

Response: The Western Abenaki Indians, some of whom reside in Swanton, are not a federally recognized tribe, but qualify under Section 106 of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act as a routinely “interested party” in cultural resource matters on Federal lands. Therefore, we will continue to recognize the interests, opinions, and comments of the Tribe. We also will consider their involvement in refuge activities and actions as we do any citizen of the United States without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, sexual orientation, or disability. We believe it is reasonable to expect the Tribe will have an interest in refuge management activities that may impact cultural resources that we are obligated to protect. We welcome their interest and assistance in doing so and believe they can play a key role in helping us accomplish Goal 5 to preserve the cultural and historical resources on the Refuge for current and future generations and to sustain an appreciation of the past.

Comment: Plan should emphasize vision for the future and what can practically be done in the short term.

Response: One of the very first steps the planning team took as it started to develop this CCP was to develop a “Vision Statement.” That statement was presented during public scoping meetings and in newsletters informing the public of the planning effort and status, and was revised based on early comments. That vision statement is included in Chapter 1 of the draft CCP/EA and served as the basis for development of the plan.

As for emphasizing what can practically be done in the short term, you will note that in Chapter 2 of the draft CCP/EA we identify strategies for each goal as strategies that we either “Continue,” accomplish “Within 5 years of CCP approval,” or accomplish “Within 5 to 10 years of CCP approval.” That was our attempt to identify general or relative timeframes for accomplishing strategies

L-30 Appendix L. Summary and Response to Public Comments Administrative/Planning/General Management

developed in the plan. The practicality of accomplishing those strategies is very dependent on funding, staffing, and environmental considerations and is therefore, of necessity, determined annually by the refuge manager.

Comment: Determine jurisdictional authority on the river, the side channels, and the Lake Champlain shoreline of the refuge and include that in the CCP. In conjunction with that, develop a NEPA alternative that incorporates:

■ Motor-free boating zones — Dead Creek, West Branch and main stem of the Missisquoi River, and Long Marsh Bay and Channel.

■ Prohibit fishing derbies on and adjacent to the refuge, establish a ¼ mile buffer.

■ Ban jet skis and public use of airboats.

■ Otherwise 5mph speed limit enforced by US Coast Guard, Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Refuge; and develop outreach.

■ Phase out internal combustion/phase in electric motor only.

■ Work with US Coast Guard to impose no wake buffer adjacent to the refuge on Lake Champlain.

■ Wilderness area recommendations and a plan to manage much of refuge for wilderness values.

■ Recommend Wild, Scenic, and Recreational status for river at refuge.

Response: The issue regarding the jurisdictional authority of the Service on the Missisquoi River, side channels, and the Lake Champlain shoreline of the refuge is a complex issue without a simple and quick answer. We chose to identify this as an important issue that needs to be clarified but also decided to not delay completion of the CCP until that is accomplished. There are many more, and equally important, aspects of refuge management in need of planning guidance that are not contingent on this issue. Based on that approach, it was neither reasonable nor logical to develop a NEPA alternative for this Environmental Assessment that considered management actions contingent upon having total authority to determine public uses of the river. Our Regional Solicitor evaluated our draft CCP/EA for NEPA compliance and endorsed this approach.

Therefore, some refuge management considerations, including some recommendations you are making, can not effectively be made until the limits of jurisdiction and authority on the river and associated waters are fully known. If it is eventually determined that the Service has whole or partial authority to control recreational uses of the river, we will revisit the issues and recommendations you have made and seek wide pubic and partner involvement to determine our management actions.

We appreciate the commenter’s support of wilderness areas and wilderness values. As evidenced by the Wilderness Review conducted as part of the development of this draft CCP/EA, we have considered the entire refuge for opportunities to establish Federally designated Wilderness Areas, and conclude that no portion of the refuge would be appropriate for wilderness designation. The Service, however, recognizes the unique and special qualities of the area, and agrees that management should focus as much as possible on providing characteristics associated with wilderness while still managing the area for the

Appendix L. Summary and Response to Public Comments L-31

Administrative/Planning/General Management

purposes of migratory birds and wildlife-oriented priority public uses. We believe we can provide and encourage, through careful management of our programs allowing public access to the refuge in this area and elsewhere, a sense and appreciation in our visitors that they are in a special place and are privileged to be there.

The following discussion regarding Wild and Scenic River study is included in Appendix A of the draft CCP/EA: In 1982, a total of 31 miles of the Missisquoi River were listed in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NWI), a listing of more than 3,400 free-flowing 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 significance. A segment of the inventoried Missisquoi River flows through the refuge boundary. Neither current management actions, nor actions which we propose under Alternative B, would affect the eligibility of the river segment for Wild and Scenic River designation. The river segment that flows within the boundary of the refuge is a small portion of the Missisquoi River that is identified in the NWI, and there is no real break in the river’s character at the Refuge boundary. We believe that the entire 31 mile portion of the Missisquoi River that is listed in the review should be studied in its entirety, and with the full participation and involvement of our Federal, State, local and nongovernmental partners. As such, in this CCP we did not conduct a study of the river segment on the refuge independently; rather, we are recommending it be part of a larger study of the entire river as identified in the NWI. That is the course we intend to follow with regard to a study of the river for special designation.

Comment: Work with neighboring farms to provide info and financial resources to delay mowing suitable open fields.

Response: We certainly have information available to convey the values of late harvest to nesting migratory birds, however, we do not have the financial resources. Nor, to date, we have identified any non-financial motivation that would cause neighboring farmers to delay mowing voluntarily. As an alternative, occasionally we are able to purchase adjacent lands from farmers that we can then manage to benefit nesting migratory birds. Also, occasionally, we are able to work with a neighbor who has suitable land, does not manage their lands as farmlands, and is amenable to managing for wildlife.

We will, however, continue to seek motivations and incentives for farmers. We will also continue to work with our partners to this end, including the Natural Resource Conservation Service and the Partners for Fish and Wildlife coordinator.

Comment: Fully develop the option on page 2-2 of the draft CCP/EA, “Primary focus on biological programs with a de-emphasis on public use” and include in final CCP.

Response: As we stated at the beginning of Chapter 2, we fully developed only two alternatives for this draft CCP/EA for this reason:

The difference between what we are doing now (alternative A) and what we are proposing to do (alternative B) addresses all of the refuge management issues and public concerns that surfaced in our public scoping process. We based both alternatives on statutory and policy requirements, including the refuge purpose and management concerns or issues raised by conservation partners, refuge staff, and the public. Each alternative approaches those issues differently. Each

L-32 Appendix L. Summary and Response to Public Comments Administrative/Planning/General Management

presents, in almost the same order, refuge goals, objectives for achieving those goals, and strategies for accomplishing those objectives.

Further, we state, relative to the alternative — Primary focus on biological programs with a de-emphasis on public use: This alternative would have focused refuge staff and funding primarily on biological programs and management for wildlife, but would have reduced public use greatly from its present level. It would have increased research, monitoring, and the protection of wildlife populations from disturbance by public use. However, the well-designed public use program in alternative B already raises public awareness of and support for the refuge biological program. Therefore, we did not fully develop this alternative in detail.

We had started drafting this alternative as a third alternative as we developed the CCP, however, it became rapidly apparent to the planning team that this alternative was not developing to be significantly different than the preferred alternative. It is Service policy to involve the public in our refuge management decisions and further to provide wildlife-oriented recreational opportunities, focusing on the six priority public uses, as long as those uses are compatible with the purpose or purposes for which the refuge was established. It was strongly felt by the planning team that the Service has a long history at Missisquoi of providing wildlife-oriented public uses while successfully ensuring that those uses do not conflict with the refuge purpose of providing habitat and managing for migratory birds. The Service had taken major steps in recent years to improve its facilities to welcome and orient the public to the refuge, which we saw as a positive factor in continuing to provide high quality public use opportunities and helping to ensure that public uses continue to be compatible with refuge wildlife first purposes. It is also significant that we were able to address in the preferred alternative all of the issues brought to our attention during the public scoping sessions and via written feedback solicited at that time. The complexity and controversies associated with the issues identified in this Environmental Assessment are not so great as to necessitate development of an Environmental Impact Statement, nor do they warrant unnecessary development of alternatives that are not significantly different than the two developed in this case.

Comment: I am concerned about a very limited range of alternatives for in-depth agency assessment and public review.

Response: Please review our response to the preceding comment.

Comment: We request that the Service assess the implications of climate change in all alternatives, alternatives should account for climate change in management strategies and objectives.

Response: We agree that Global Climate Change is an issue with strong management implications on our national wildlife refuges. It will, in fact, have strong implications on the way in which we all live. It is also an issue about which we are only now just learning. Accordingly, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its many governmental and nongovernmental partners are initiating measures to discuss and understand these changes, not the least of which is to first identify and recognize climate-related changes.

While this issue has been under discussion for years by scientists, it has not captured the attention of the public until very recently. Interestingly, it was not identified as a planning issue during the scoping process for this CCP.

We do not wish to delay completion of this important planning document while awaiting an assessment of the impact of global climate change on Missisquoi

Appendix L. Summary and Response to Public Comments L-33

Administrative/Planning/General Management

refuge’s resources. This plan will be used by the refuge manager who will review it regularly for inaccuracies or significantly changing variables, including environmental changes. This will occur no less frequently than annually. The plan is more formally reviewed every 15 years.. As any new information become available, including climate change related information, it will be evaluated and its potential impacts to the refuge considered and acted upon if appropriate.

Comment: Provide more assistance to landowners for woodcock habitat management and wood duck box nesting programs.

Response: We shall continue to provide this “technical assistance” to landowners, with emphasis on those who wish to manage their privately-owned lands for woodcock, a species whose population in the northeast has been on a long, slow, and steady decline. We will also provide information to those who ask for assistance in providing nesting structures for wood ducks but will inform them of the importance of proper box maintenance and the Service’s preference that they be left to utilize natural cavities when available.

Comment: Extend time to comment by another 30 days. Public needs more time since they all work.

Response: We believe the time allowed for the public comment period on this plan not only meets legal and policy requirements and guidelines but was adequate time for most to provide comment.

Comment: Page 3-18 of the draft CCP/EA should list the Lake Champlain Paddlers’ Trail in addition to the Northern Forest Canoe Trail.

Response: Reference added.

Comment: Objective 3.1 [page 2-12 of the draft CCP/EA] should be amended to include users of the Lake Champlain Paddlers’ Trail on the list of visitors.

Response: We will modify the text to refer to the Lake Champlain Paddlers’ Trail on the list of visitors contained on page 2-47 of the draft, which is in the discussion of Goal 3 under Alternative B, the Preferred Alternative.

The text to be replaced is: “users of the Northern Forest Canoe Trail and the Lake Champlain Birding Trail, both of which pass through the refuge,”

The replacement text is: “users of the Northern Forest Canoe Trail, the Lake Champlain Paddlers’ Trail, and the Lake Champlain Birding Trail, all of which pass through the refuge,” (see page 4-32 of this CCP)

Comment: Animal protection groups need to be drawn into planning for wildlife protection, rather than only calling in hunters.

Response: We were indiscriminate in our notice of the availability of this draft plan for review and comment.

Comment: What are you doing for fish? It is the “fish” and wildlife service, so doesn’t that mean we are supposed to be doing something for fish?

Response: The purpose for which the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1943, as stated on page I of the Highlights section of the draft CCP, is “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or any other management purposes, for migratory birds.” The goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System as stated on pages 1-4 and 1-5 of the draft CCP/EA are to:

L-34 Appendix L. Summary and Response to Public Comments Administrative/Planning/General Management

■ Conserve, restore where appropriate, and enhance all species of fish, wildlife, and plants that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered

■ Perpetuate migratory bird, inter-jurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations

■ Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants

■ Conserve and restore, where appropriate, representative ecosystems of the United States, including the ecological processes characteristic of those ecosystems

■ Foster understanding and instill appreciation of fish, wildlife, and plants, and their conservation, by providing the public with safe, high quality, and compatible wildlife-dependent public uses including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation.

Missisquoi provides excellent spawning habitat for many of the fish species of Lake Champlain by its mere existence and protection. In the spring of the year when the delta is flooded, fish spawning activity on the delta is very apparent. In addition to the flooded habitat of the floodplain forest on the delta, protected waters of the refuge such as Cranberry Pool, Big Marsh Slough, Goose Bay Pool, Metcalfe Island Pothole, Charcoal Creek, Black Creek, and Maquam Creek also provide important spawning and nursery areas for fish. So, while it is not something we measure, it is certain that the refuge provides several thousand acres of habitat that produces a significant biomass of fish every year. Protection and management of the majority of the delta as a bottomland floodplain forest ensures that this will continue. The popularity of the refuge lakeshore areas with recreational anglers, and with amateur and professional tournament anglers is evidence of the value of this habitat to fish and recreational fishing. They fish here because of the fish produced and sustained on the refuge.

Wildlife that is dependent on fish, including fish-eating birds such as the osprey, the bald eagle, and the Great Blue Heron, thrive on the refuge. This is, in large part, due to the plentiful food supply. The fish on the refuge are a very important part of the ecosystem and, again, are present as a result, in part, of the protection and management of the floodplain forest and the waterfowl impoundments on the refuge.

Fishing is one of the six priority public uses of national wildlife refuges and is promoted at Missisquoi in those locations where it does not conflict with the purpose of the refuge. In 2007, we conducted the 28th Annual Fishing Derby for Kids in early June to help introduce our nation’s youth to the sport, promote use of a renewable resource, and encourage family-oriented recreation in the outdoors. Again, these activities contribute to the management of fish and the sustenance of fish as a natural resource through public education and enlightenment about fisheries-related issues.

The Fish and Wildlife Service has many stations established across the country whose primary purposes are to address fisheries issues. One such office is the Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Resources Office in nearby Essex Junction, Vermont. Refuge staff works closely with that office and with State Fisheries partners on fisheries-related research or management projects in and around the refuge, or on specific fisheries matters for which they hold expertise. In recent years, these projects have included sampling the Missisquoi River for both Sturgeon adults and evidence of reproduction, sampling the Missisquoi River for

Appendix L. Summary and Response to Public Comments L-35

Administrative/Planning/General Management

evidence of walleye reproduction, sampling the river for evidence of lamprey, and sampling in the vicinity of the refuge for alewives.

Comment: Rather than spend all of our time writing plans like this, you should have been out doing something. Why do all this planning if you have no money?

Response: Developing a CCP is required by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Chapter 1, Introduction of the CCP explains in detail why this plan has been prepared. The refuge continues to receive operational funding and will be able to accomplish many of the objectives of the plan regardless of whether additional funds are allocated. We are optimistic that funding will improve over the 15 year life of this plan so we may more fully implement the CCP.

Comment: All the talk about improving water quality is a joke. State agencies are not working together and there is no enforcement of violations by farmers.

Response: The issues associated with water quality are extremely important, and in fact are crucial to the health of people, wildlife, and the ecosystems of which all are a part. It is going to take a concerted, collaborative effort by many individuals, organizations, and agencies to effectively resolve those issues, and it is going to take time, money, and probably some big changes in the way we live. We believe that collaboration is the only way to proceed and that it will succeed.

Comment: I was not happy with the public meeting. You covered the same things I got in the mail so time at the meeting was wasted and could have been spent better.

Response:The format and agenda for the meeting were developed to lead participants through the process we followed to develop the plan, highlighted the goals of the plan, and provided time for questions, answers, and comments. We did not assume that participants read the plan prior to the meeting and felt it crucial to provide this basic understanding to them. We also recognized that we did not have enough time to list the many objectives and strategies proposed in the plan, much less discuss them, but we did provide them in tabular form. It was our purpose at the meeting to instill a level of understanding about the purpose for the plan and how we arrived at our proposals in order to generate discussion and send participants away with enough interest to review the details of the plan and provide thoughtful, constructive comments in writing.

Comment: You should be out there blasting potholes, planting wild rice, and raising wood ducks and mallards. Likewise, finish all dikes in Big Marsh Slough and Goose Bay Pool. You shouldn’t hold back on duck work for fear of injuring plants, frogs, insects, clams, or whatever. An Environmental Assessment and related requirements are a joke.

Response: You stimulate memories of “the old days” when Refuge Managers managed as simply as you describe. We did those things to benefit habitats for waterfowl, often without regard for, and to the detriment of, other wildlife and plants. Perhaps because of that, those days are gone and we now must manage more responsibly, smarter, and in accordance with the many laws that have been passed to protect the wildlife and lands we manage. The science of wildlife and habitat management has also evolved and guides our management decisions to ensure that while doing good for one species or suite of species we are not harming others that may be equally important. Environmental Assessments, and in some cases Environmental Impact Statements, help us evaluate those cause

L-36 Appendix L. Summary and Response to Public Comments Administrative/Planning/General Management

and effect relationships and are required pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act for any federal action that may have an impact on the human environment. NEPA is the vehicle that enables you to participate in the process. In light of that, we believe the plan adequately and appropriately addresses and discusses habitat management actions and opportunities.

So, we have not blasted any potholes here for a long time for a number of reasons including the potential environmental impacts on other wildlife, the danger and need for either explosives training or the use of trained and certified explosives experts, and concerns about staff and public safety and the public’s tolerance for blasting.

We see no need to plant more wild rice. Wild rice was planted here a long time ago and, except for high water years when it does not grow as well, we have an outstanding crop that grows in just about every suitable habitat on the refuge. In high water years, other wildlife food plants provide sustenance for migrating waterfowl.

We continue to have reasonable and healthy crops of both wood ducks and mallards, as well as many other species. While we may streamline our wood duck nesting box program to only those boxes that are productive and can be protected from predators, we do not intend to completely discontinue the program. It is our policy to provide and manage natural habitat for nesting, unless the availability of that is a limiting factor for a population that is not at objective level. Neither wood duck nor mallard populations in the Atlantic Flyway in recent years are showing any signs of poor reproduction or sustainability. We anticipate that wood ducks at Missisquoi will find suitable nesting cavities within the mature floodplain forest of the Missisquoi delta and will evaluate that. If the wood duck or mallard populations in the future become imperiled we will renew our efforts to facilitate their nesting at Missisquoi.

We have stated in our CCP that we are going to see if it is feasible and environmentally acceptable to finish the dikes, and we will do that, but you can be assured that we will take no action that does not adhere to Service policy or law. We fully support the National Environmental Policy Act and acknowledge our responsibility to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of our management actions.

Comment: Re: Pages B-51, B-65, B-79 of the draft CCP/EA; this is a very old citation, info from 1983 does not help plan for 2025.

Response: It is a standard and accepted practice to cite works that contribute to the general or specific body of knowledge, until or unless they are disproved. These are valid and germane references.

Comment: A number of commenters indicated support for land protection, land acquisition, and refuge expansion. They asked how to protect land without the expense of buying it and encouraged us to promote conservation of wildlife and habitat throughout the Missisquoi River watershed and the Lake Champlain Basin. One commenter indicated a preference for action versus study as recommended in the CCP.

Response: The main focus of Goal 6. Foster cooperative partnerships and actions to promote fish and wildlife conservation in the Lake Champlain Basin and Missisquoi River Watershed. is to collaborate on landscape-scale or watershed- scale projects that benefit the Lake Champlain Basin ecosystem and associated fish and wildlife. We will pursue acquisition of the remaining 8 parcels of land

Appendix L. Summary and Response to Public Comments L-37

Administrative/Planning/General Management

(253 acres) within the existing approved acquisition boundary, as landowner interest and funding allow. We will also work with partners to conserve additional lands that improve resource protection and aid in fulfilling the mission and purpose of the refuge, particularly intact, fully functioning wetlands and associated riparian areas and lands that maintain and expand protection of large unfragmented blocks of upland habitat.

To acquire or protect additional lands outside the approved acquisition boundary of the refuge, we must first, by policy, complete a Conservation Proposal for consideration by the Director. If that is approved, we must then develop a Land Protection Plan. The Land Protection Plan will follow NEPA guidelines and involve landowners and conservation partners in its development. Once approved, that plan should give clear guidance on the land protection priorities and focus for the refuge. It will clear the way to pursue funding for acquisition from willing sellers or to pursue another level of protection from conservation-minded individuals or entities.

While the land protection focus of the Refuge is on lands in the vicinity of its current land holdings, the Refuge is part of a team of agencies, organizations, and individuals working collaboratively to protect important wildlife habitats in the Missisquoi River Watershed and the Lake Champlain Basin. This team is knowledgeable of the various options available for protection of a parcel of land and jointly considers which option or options may be most appropriate and effective for protection in any given case. These options include:

■ Federal, State, conservation organization, or land trust fee title acquisition;

■ the purchase or granting of conservation easements which are then held by either the Federal government, the State government, conservation organizations, land trusts, or a combination of those;

■ or programs of the Federal or State government which, via contract or written agreement, provide incentives to private landowners to conserve or manage lands to benefit wildlife or habitats.

Comment: Page 3-9 of the draft CCP/EA describes parcels the Service is trying to acquire — can you show these parcels on a map so I can help further acquisition efforts?

Response: We appreciate your offer of assistance and will coordinate directly with you.

Comment: Map 1-3 shows “privately conserved lands.” Most are conserved through Vermont Land Trust, typically farming easements that simply prevent subdivision. Does it make sense to show them as conserved lands? Or clarify the type of conserved land? Refuges’ interest in conserved lands would be more conserving those lands that have intact habitat.

Response: One reason for including this map was to show the refuge and conserved lands relative to the greater landscape. Also, on page 3-9 of the draft CCP/EA we discuss the amount of conserved land in Swanton, relative to the amount of conserved land in other communities Statewide. The relatively high percentage of conserved lands in Swanton demonstrates a couple things: 1) it shows the commitment of the residents of Swanton and Franklin County to protect lands from development, in this case agricultural lands for continued agricultural use (as you point out), and 2) suggests a reason for the growing reluctance of the governing bodies of Swanton to conserve lands that may instead

L-38 Appendix L. Summary and Response to Public Comments Administrative/Planning/General Management

be used for development. The latter is important to the Refuge in the sense that it may be increasingly difficult in the future to secure the support of the municipal governments to add land to the refuge if that land is developable.

You are correct that conserved farm lands are generally not as productive for wildlife as lands managed specifically for wildlife, but they are much more productive for wildlife than those same lands would be if they were developed. Arguably, farm lands make significant contributions to wildlife, as evidenced by the numbers of migratory birds that feed in farm fields in Swanton, the increase in the number of turkeys seen in the area, the number of deer that thrive on farmlands, etc.

Comment: A number of commenters support and agree with the proposal to remove Shad Island from consideration for Wilderness designation but encourage continued protection as a Research Natural Area.

Response It is our intention to continue to manage Shad Island as a Research Natural Area.

Comment: Two organizations recommended protection and restoration of wilderness values on the refuge, especially areas north of Route 78, and further recommend that the refuge be managed for wilderness values as much as possible.

Response: We appreciate the commenter’s support of wilderness areas and wilderness values. As evidenced by the Wilderness Review conducted as part of the development of this draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, we have considered the entire refuge for opportunities to establish Federally designated Wilderness Areas, and conclude that no portion of the refuge would be appropriate for wilderness designation. The Service, however, recognizes the unique and special qualities of the area, and agrees that management should focus as much as possible on providing characteristics associated with wilderness while still managing the area for the purposes of migratory birds and wildlife-oriented priority public uses. We believe we can provide and encourage, through careful management of our programs allowing public access to the refuge in this area and elsewhere, a sense and appreciation in our visitors that they are in a special place and are privileged to be there.

Comment: Is any part of the Refuge designated as Wilderness right now?

Response: No portion of the refuge has been designated as a Federal Wilderness Area.

Comment: Thoroughly evaluate Maquam Bog for restoring and protecting wilderness values.

Response: In order to complete a Wilderness Review of the refuge, as is required by policy when developing a CCP, we divided the Refuge into six separate blocks bordered by major roads or bodies of water that are not owned in fee title. We labeled these as Wilderness Inventory Areas. The 2,435 acre Maquam Bog was one of those blocks, or Wilderness Inventory Areas (WIA’s). It was our conclusion that the Maquam Bog WIA did not meet the criteria for wilderness identified in the Wilderness Act based first on the size criterion, nor did it meet the exceptions for areas less than 5,000 contiguous acres. We do not believe, therefore, that

Appendix L. Summary and Response to Public Comments L-39

Administrative/Planning/General Management

the Maquam Bog qualifies as a Wilderness Study Area or should be considered further for wilderness designation.

Comment: Two organizations recommend that we initiate a Wild, Scenic or Recreational River Study and include that in the CCP; providing a wider range of alternatives in accord with the National Environmental Policy Act.

Response: The following discussion is included in Appendix A of the draft CCP/EA: In 1982, a total of 31 miles of the Missisquoi River were listed in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NWI), a listing of more than 3,400 free-flowing 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 significance. A segment of the inventoried Missisquoi River flows through the refuge boundary. Neither current management actions, nor actions which we propose under Alternative B, would affect the eligibility of the river segment for Wild and Scenic River designation. The river segment that flows within the boundary of the refuge is a small portion of the Missisquoi River that is identified in the NWI, and there is no real break in the river’s character at the Refuge boundary. We believe that the entire 31 mile portion of the Missisquoi River that is listed in the review should be studied in its entirety, and with the full participation and involvement of our Federal, State, local and nongovernmental partners. As such, in this CCP we did not conduct a study of the river segment on the refuge independently; rather, we are recommending it be part of a larger study of the entire river as identified in the NWI. That is the course we intend to follow with regard to a study of the river for special designation.

In our judgement, the two alternatives we have developed in this CCP comply with the NEPA guidelines for an Environmental Assessment. We don’t believe it would be appropriate to develop a third alternative focusing on the management of the refuge as a wild, scenic or recreational river.

L-40 Appendix L. Summary and Response to Public Comments Appendix M Michael Kidder/USFWS View of refuge marsh in winter

Finding of No Signifi cant Impact (FONSI) Finding of No Signifcant Impact (FONSI) Finding of No Significant Impact Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

In March 2007, we published the draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (CCP/EA) for the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). Missisquoi NWR spans over 6,592 acres, lies on the eastern shore of Lake Champlain near the Canadian border in Franklin County, Vermont and includes most of the Missisquoi River Delta, the largest wetland complex in the Lake Champlain Basin. That draft evaluates two alternatives for managing the refuge over the next 15 years, and carefully considers their impacts on the environment and their potential contribution to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) and refuge purposes and goals. Its appendixes provide additional information supporting the assessment. A brief overview of each alternative follows.

Alternative A: This alternative describes refuge management projects now planned, funded, or underway. The priorities of the biological program will continue focusing on managing habitat for migrating waterfowl, breeding great blue herons, black terns, ospreys and cavity-nesting waterfowl, grassland-nesting birds, woodcock and other early successional species; protecting State- or Federal-listed threatened or endangered species; monitoring and controlling invasive species; trapping raccoons to protect nesting birds; and trapping beavers and muskrats to protect dikes. Other priority public use programs will continue. Concerning visitor services, we would keep the new Visitor Contact Station open during the week, but would likely keep it closed on weekends. We would continue to offer opportunities for hunting and fishing on the refuge, and maintain its trails for walking and observing nature. The user fees we describe below would remain the same. Although we would respond to requests for environmental education and school programs, we would be unable to meet many requests due to our limited staff and resources. We would also continue our partnership with the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department (VT FWD) in banding waterfowl and assisting in waterfowl and other surveys as staff time permits. We would continue to protect cultural and historical resources as they are discovered. However, we would be unable to create more opportunities for interpretation relative to the cultural resources on the refuge. Any new opportunities to conserve land would be limited. We would continue to acquire the 8 parcels comprising of 253 acres that remain within the original approved acquisition boundary of the refuge, and the occasional parcel that becomes available next to the refuge. Our current management program offers few law enforcement capabilities, despite a significant need due to the level of public use at the refuge and its proximity to the International Border. This alternative provides no new refuge staff. Selecting this alternative would maintain the status quo in refuge management over the next 15 years. It also serves as the baseline for comparing alternative B.

Alternative B: The draft CCP/EA identifies this alternative as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)- proposed action. Selecting this alternative will increase the inventory, monitoring, and management of the Missisquoi River Delta wetlands (floodplain forest, lakeshore and river shore wetlands, impoundments, rivers and creeks, bays, bogs, swamps, vernal pools, and scrub-shrub habitat) to maintain their ecological integrity for the rich diversity of plants and animals on the refuge; better management of high-quality grasslands, shrublands, and other early successional habitats for a range of wildlife species of conservation concern; enhanced, expanded programs of outreach, and environmental education and interpretation to raise public awareness and involvement in the protection and stewardship of refuge wildlife and habitats; enhanced, expanded wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities (wildlife observation and photography, hunting, and fishing) that provide quality experiences for refuge visitors and protect wildlife and their habitats; greater inventory, protection, and interpretation of the rich cultural history of the Missisquoi River delta and enhanced partnerships with the local Abenaki tribe and other interested communities; cooperative partnerships within the northern Lake Champlain Basin, including the Missisquoi River watershed, working toward better water quality, improved land stewardship, and greater protection of fish and wildlife resources; Geographical Information System (GIS) that contains current data on refuge biological resources that will more effectively and efficiently guide habitat and species management; an inventory of aquatic and upland invasive species that tracks annual distribution and control methods, and management results of these nuisance species on the refuge and in Missisquoi

Appendix M. Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) M-1 Finding of No Signifcant Impact (FONSI)

Bay; in partnership with others, the protection of additional lands and waters, particularly intact, fully functioning wetlands and associated riparian areas and lands that maintain and expand the protection of large, unfragmented blocks of upland habitat for area-sensitive wildlife species; visitors will be encouraged to make voluntary contributions at collection boxes at the trailheads and boat launches, a new, $1.00 Refuge Activity Fee that will raise additional funds for trail maintenance, informational kiosks, educational programs, and other actions to benefit all visitors to the refuge; a critical new law enforcement position, to enhance staff and visitor safety, ensure compliance with regulations, and maintain communications with Homeland Security, given the refuge’s proximity to the International border and active recreational community in the Missisquoi Bay and river; other new critical positions, including a park ranger, maintenance worker, and biological technician, to maximize the use and effectiveness of the new visitor center and associated interpretive trails, ensure safe, quality refuge experiences through well-maintained facilities, ensure our use of the best available science in conserving and managing the fish and wildlife resources and their habitats, and ensure that public uses are compatible with the wildlife first mission of the NWRS, and to allow the refuge to benefit from its proximity to Burlington and urban communities.

We distributed the draft CCP/EA for a 38-day period of public review and comment from March 22 through April 30, 2007. We received 65 written responses, plus 40 additional oral comments at public meetings. Appendix L in the final CCP includes a summary of those comments and our responses to them.

After reviewing the proposed management actions, considering all public comments and our responses to them, I have determined that the analysis in the EA is sufficient to support my findings, described below.

I am selecting draft CCP/EA Alternative B (the Service-proposed action) as the final CCP for implementation, with these clarifications.

1. Many commenters suggested that the refuge should not charge fees to access the refuge. Therefore, in lieu of a fee, visitors will be encouraged to make voluntary contributions at collection boxes at the trailheads and boat launches. We will also work with the Friends of Missisquoi NWR to develop a voluntary annual refuge pass.

2. This alternative will provide the public an opportunity to get out onto the refuge for wildlife observation/photography. Additional public uses are also provided for hunting and fishing. Extending and adding trails at Missisquoi NWR will also be carefully considered. We must first detail, inventory and map the archaeological and cultural features, sensitive habitats and species currently present before we can determine the appropriateness and compatibility of new trails on the refuges. Safety will be another important consideration. The Service understands the public’s desire to be able to view plants and wildlife in representative natural landscapes, and we will explore ways to be able to facilitate future compatible access.

3. The Service will strive to increase public awareness of the refuge. We will work with our partners to explore ideas to enhance the refuge’s presence and visibility, and promote a positive effect on protecting the resources.

4. Region 5 has recently identified “areas of emphasis” with regards to the six priority wildlife- dependent recreational uses for every refuge. The Missisquoi NWR has been identified for hunting and fishing. Thus, we will further consider this recognition as we implement the strategies of the CCP over the next 15 years.

5. We have removed the Compatibility Determination’s (CD) on Snowmobiling and Bicyling. These were found to be an Inappropriate Use at Missisquoi NWR, therefore a CD is not required.

I have selected Alternative B as modified for several reasons. It helps fulfill the mission of the NWRS; best achieves the refuge purpose, vision, and goals; maintains and, where appropriate, restores the ecological integrity of the refuge; addresses the major issues identified during the planning process; and is consistent with the principles of sound fish and wildlife management.

M-2 Appendix M. Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) Finding of No Signifcant Impact (FONSI)

I find that implementing Alternative B adheres to all legal mandates and Service policies, and will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment, in accordance with Section 102(2)(c) of the NEPA. Therefore, I have concluded that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required, and this Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate and warranted.

______Marvin E. Moriarty Date Regional Director, Region 5 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Hadley, Massachusetts

Appendix M. Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) M-3 Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge 29 Tabor Rd. Swanton, VT 05488 Phone: 802/ 868-4781 E-mail: [email protected] http://www.fws.gov/northeast/missisquoi/ 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

September 2007