[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
00 @e COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A MAINE NATURAL AREAS DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Ln Preparedby Joseph M. Chaisson. Q5 for the Data.Management Subcommittee Maine Land and Water Resources Council January 1987 Financial assistance for preparation of this document was provided by the State Planning Office from Maine-s Coastal Program through funding provided by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Ocean & *Coastal Resource Management, under the Coastal Zone Management Act of .1972, as amended. QH 76.5 M2 C5 1987 TABLE OF CONTENTS page Executive Summary I Introduction .3 Natural Area Programs 5 Critical Areas Program 5 Endangered and Nongame Wildlife Program The Nature Conservancy Heritage Program 11 Maine Coast Heritage Trust 14 Problems and Opportunities 14 Findings Proposed Maine Natural Areas Data Management System I(? Appendices: A" Pe rsons interviewed B. Rep@orts reviewed C. File descriptions - Critical Areas Program D. File descriptions - The Nature Conservancy Heritage Program E. File descriptions - Endangered and Nongame Wildlife Program EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Three current programs focus on conservation of significant Maine natural areas: Maine Critical Areas Program (CAP) Maine Endangered and Nongame Wildlife Program (ENWP) The Nature Conservancy Heritage Program The Maine Coast Heritage Trust is also concerned with natural areas conservatic-, but does not produce nRtUral areas data and is primarily concerned with scenic resource conservation. A review o + natural areas data management systems and needs of these programs found the following: * Few resources are allocated to data management in any program; most.resources are allocated to production of new data or to conservation activities; data production and management is well coordinated among the three major- programs, * Basic natural areas data file StrLkCtUre in all'programs is quite similar and all organizations operate in an IBM- compatible PC computer environment, * The TNC Heritage.Program is the only fully developed and operational natural areas data management system within Maine natural areas conservation programs; * The TNC Heritage Program natural areas data management system is well' developed and documented, is jointly operated by TNC and state government in 46 states, and interfaces with national and international natural areas conservation programs; * About 4Q*Z. of CAP natural areas data is already entered into TNC's Herit 'age Prograin data base which is easily capable of current and contemplated OAF' data retrieval and analysis requirements, * D-Base III (used by TNC) and R-Base System V which has been chosen as the Department of IF&W "standard" data base management software are quite similar and compatible. data base management systems that run on IBM-compatible MS-DOS personal Computers; R-Base System V can read and write D- Base III files; r- * The ENWP has much larger files than either TNC or the CAP, and also has substantially more sophisticated data analysis reqUirements; * The major problem with current natural areas data management systems is that it is difficult to easily or efficiently determine the presence of all significant areas that have been 'identified. by all three conservation programs within any given geographic area 11or example within or nearby a proposed development project or within a town); * Compatible automation of natural areas data within all three natural areas conservation programs is an effective pre- requisite to economical p rodUCtion of a text index, and map series for natural areas data; * Because it is Well suited to CAP needs and Much CAP d'ata has already been entered into the TNIC Heritage Program data base, the best and most economical Way to automate CAP data is to enter remaining CAP' data into the TNC data base and obtain a full set of CAP files from TNC; * Automation of both CAP and ENWP data necessary to prepare indextes and maps for significant natural areas will reqUi're supplemental 'funding if such indexes and maps are to be produced in a timely fashion. Based upon these findings, t'he -following actions are recommended.,- 1. compatible automation of CAP, TNC. ENWP, and MCHT natural areas site data; and 2. preparation, distribution, and periodic updating of an index and map series to facilitate access to appropriate natural areas site information of use to land managers/owners and individuals and organizations involved in the land use planning and development process. Estimated total costs (beyond current program resources) of these recommendations are: * One-time, "start-LIP" Costs $754,095 * Annual costs $950 2 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this project is to analyze and develop recommendations for ;a natural A-reas data management system for the Maine Land and Water Resources Council. To do so, the following natural Areas conservation programs were e.valuated: * Maine Critical Areas Program (CAP) * Maine Endangered and Nongame Wildlife Program (ENWP) * The Nature Conservancy Heritage Program (TNC) * The Maine Coast Heritage Trust (MCHT) The following issues were addressed in L-ValUatinq 4C. h e a b ov e programs: 1. What data do the above agencies collect and how are they Currently managing it? 2. Who are the major users of natural +eatUres information? (emphasis on State and local agencies) 3. What are the types of management issues for which users need data and in what format is it most use+ ul ? 4. What requirements should the software and hardware of a system meet? 5. @o w well does the Nature Conservancy-s system meet these needs? Should it or another system be adapted or developed for state use and where shOUld it be housed in order to make data readily accessible to users? 6. What is the cost to the State to maintain a COMPUteriZed natural Areas data base? This project was conducted for the Data Management Subcommittee of the Maine Land & Water Resources Council. Specified natural areas conservation programs and their data management needs were reviewed in detail. Natural areas data users outside the specified programs were interviewed to determine their Current and potential needs for natural areas information (see list o+ persons interviewed in Appendix A). Previous studies addressina natural resources data management in Maine were revie0ed (see list in Appendi@, B). The first part of this report describes objectives and data management needs of specified natural areas programs. The second part discusses natural areas data management problems and opportunities; and the third part presents recommen@ations -for a L&WRC natural areas. data management system. Back-.ground information of various types is included in Appendices to this report. For purposes of this report "natural areas" are defined as sites important to the conservation of plant or animal species or 3 geo1bgic conditions of national, state, or local significance. This report, concludes -that while Substantially improved ---A cc ess ibility to natural areas data f Or users Outside State government is desirable, current natural areas program data management plans are already moving towards an effective, compatible data system. The report recommends a number of specific actions (building upon current data management plans) that should create a Substantially improved State natural areas data management system. 4 MAINE NATURAL AREAS PROGRAMS Maine Critical Areas Proaram: The Maine Critical Areas Program (CAP)'is authorized by 5 MRSA Sections - 3315 and housed within the Maine State Planninq Office. The CAP legislation charges the SPO with -zk number a+ specific tasks: Compiling the Register of Critical Areas, statewide -a --- ;-o inventory and n auth ritative listing of the natural, scenic and scientific areas of overriding state interest",. to "establish and maintain the official list of native endangered and threatened plants of the state, the Official List of Endanaered Plants; and to "develop and maintain the official list of Heritage Coastal Areas", which are are-as contain3.ng an assemblage of geological, botanical, zoological, historical or scenic features of exceptional state or nationwide existence". The CAP Statute further states that "the best ways to accomplish the [Critical Areas Program] objectives are through continued implementation of the state's land use laws which guide and control development in all areas of the state, including those listed in the [Register of Critical Areas]", "authorizes the 'State Planning Office to work with interested landowners on voluntary conservation of these areas" '. and states that "features identified within Heritage Coastal Areas shall be protected on a Voluntary basis", directing that "Government agencies at all levels shall consider the importance of protecting the character of Heritage Coastal areas in land use control and other actions which they take". The CAP has established detailed internal procedures for 40- preparing the Register o+ Critical Areas. These procedures have involved establishing five separate but related files a+ natural sites: * The Register of Critical Areas", * Qualified But Not Registered Critical Areas", * Nominated Critical Areas", * Field-chect.-:ed-potential critical areas, and * The Natural Areas Inventory. Another "file" of sorts containing [email protected].*ed "leads" to potential critical areas'exists. A considerable number of text reports containing much information about potential critical area topics and sites have been prepared and distributed as part of the process of compiling the Register 5 of Critical Areas. The CAP is Currently developing procedures for preparing the "Official State List of Endangered Plants" and identifying and listing "Heritage Coastal Areas". It is anticipated that The "Official State List of Endangered Plants" will have f our Subcategories and will include all species currently identified on the CAP compiled List of Rare Vascular Plants. The CAP periodically undertakes such related activities ---As maintaining files from thf7 Maine Rivers Study ind Undertaking the .'Organized Community" lakes StUdy, Ek counterpart to the recent LURC Lakes Study for --Areas Outside LURC jurisdiction. V':ey existing and prospective CAP data files are described in Table A; sample records from @.-:ey -Files are presented in Appendix C. Sites on the Register of Critical, Are-As, and liStS Of Qualified BUt Not Nominated Critical Areas and Nominated Critical Areas are located in A map +ile of best available USGS topographic maps (7.5' or 15"). Field-checked potential critical areas are not located on these maps. The CAP has established informal procedures +Or use of CAP data by DEP, LURC, DOT, TNC, IF&W and the MCHT. Most CAP data files are manual, with the exception of the obsolete Natural Areas Inventory, a text file of entries in the Register of Critical Areas, and a Knowledgeman file of a portion of the Register o+ Critical Areas. Currently, CAP data is not widely used in Community planning and development review Outside of state government, primarily because it is not easily obtained. CAP staff estimate they spend 4(--)% of their time responding to information requests. Information requests a r c@? about evenly divided between requests related in some way to conservation of specific natural areas end requests of a general "natural history" nature. Between iO and 20 requests for information are received each year from regional planning commissions and less than five per year from towns. Automation Of CAP natural area files (Registered, UUali-fied bUt Not Registered, Nominated, and Field-chec@::ed Areas) could improve CAP staf+ productivity in responding -to information requests,' and if Such files were compatible with -files held by the other natural areas conservation programs, retrieval and analysis of information across these programs would become feasible. This could greatly facilitate such CAP responsibilities as identifying Heritage Coastal Areas and facilitating CAP natural area data use in the public "land use control" process. The annual CAP budget is about $114,CD00. Federal funding typically supports about 70% of the CAP budget. It is estimated that well Under,.10% of the CAP budget is allocated to data management. 6 Table A Critical Areas Program Data Files ----------------------------------------------------------------- # records # records __n;-kmL= format Current planned comments --------------------------------------------------------------- Register o+ Critical Areas di5c(l) 580 +27'O/yr. QUali+ied But Not Registered Critical Areas manual 5 2' +5/vr.' Critical Areas locates areas Locations map (2) in above +iles Nominated Critical Areas manual 1-75 Fi el [email protected] Potential Critical Areas manual 1250 Leads to various +orms: Potential several letters, tel. Critical Areas manual. hundred conv. notes Natural Areas about last updated Inventory mag. tape 1500 in 10180 List o+ Rare about annual update Vascular Plants m;-:k n ua, 1 3100 by rNC/(-'AP Nat'ional Natural Landmarks manual 1 FS State not compiled; Endangered will have 4 P1 ants about 300 categories Heritage Coastal not yet Areas compiled (3) Lakes not compiled; similar to LURC inventory (3) Rivers manual back'.-Up +ileS +rom Maine Rivers Study -------------------------------------------------------- Notes: 7 (1) The critical ---Areas register was placed in Wang word- processing files when originally established. When the SPO converted from Wang wordprocessing equipment to IBM- compatible work stations, the Wang text file of CAP register entries was converted to an IBM readable text file. A portion of this text file MER S Subsequently placed i n a K'nowledgeman data. base system file. Conversion of data from the ISM-comp,-Atible text file to the @;:*nowledgeman file requires considerable new work on each entry. CAP program staff have not experimented with the portion o- -f the Critical. Areas Registg@- that has been placed in i @::@nowledgeman file. (2:1) Areas are located an 7.5 quadrangles where available., otherwise on 15' quadrangles. (3) These files were or will be prepared in cooperation with other L&WRC agencies. Endanggngd and Ngngame Wildlife Program: The Maine Endangered and Nongame Wildlife Program (ENWP) was established in 1984 by the Department of Inland Fisheries:- and Wildlife (IF&W).. the agency responsible for managing _And protecting all wildli-fe species in Maine. Goals of the ENWP are to maintain or enhance Maine's nongame wildlife populations, to ensure a continuation of Current levels of wildlife diversity and abundance, and to increase Public enjoyment of nongame species. Nongame wildlife includes all. unconfined terrestrial, freshwater, and saltwater species which are not ordinarily collected, captured, or killed for sport or profit. In addition, the ENWP is specifically charged by Statute to "Maintain a list of i-A.11 species .... designated to be endangered or threatened .... specifying over what portion of its range each species so designated is endangered or threatened". The ENWP is Supported by Voluntary contributions to the Endangered and Nongame checkoff on Maine's income tax return as well as other state, federal, and private funds and volunteer resources. Upon being established, the ENWP assumed responsibility for a number of previous IF'iW programs concerned with management of specific species and habitats, including the Bald Eagle, Piping PloVer, Peregrine Falcon, and sea-bird nesting islands. One difference between the ENWP and both CAP and TNC is that it is charged with conserving both rare and common non-game. species, while these other natural area programs are oriented towards conservation of rare features. The ENWP inherited data files from previously existing wildlife programs it took over. These files are described in Table 8 (sample records of key files are presented in Appendix F). The ENWP will design a new data base and file StrUCtLtre to Support long-term program needs and is waiting for the results of this study to do so. Both existing files and new data will be incorporated into the new ENWP data base. Both Current and prospective ENWP data -files are based upon three basic record types: species OCCUrrance records (species type, date of observation,, location, abundance, etc.), information on sites of certain species Occurrence observations (for example, geographic location, bounds, elevation, cover-type, ownership, etc. for a seabird nesting island'), and areas Of concentration of species Occurrence observations (for example as mapped in the current Penobscot Bay Coastal Habitat Inventory). ENWP activities will involve the preparation (over time) and updating of management plans for most threatened and endangered wildlife species. Preparation of -these? plans requires long-term collection and considerable analysis of species- Occurrence records. Specific ENWP data analysis requirements include statistical tests, modeling of wildli-fe. Populations and habitats, investigating different aspects of population dynamics, and in-depth investigation of radio- telemetry and biological data. The ENWP also plans to identify and prepare management recommendations for critical Maine ecosystems essential to conservation of threateneds endangered, and common nongame wildlife species. Together these program needs require a much larger data base and considerably more sophisticated data analysis -than Occurs within the Critical Areas Program and TNC Heritage Program. The Department of IF&W recently conducted a comprehensive Study Of its data processing needs (the Compumed Study), t 4 resul @ng in Departmental policies to decentralize Much data processing, adopt IBM-compatible Pc:,s @"R:S standard [email protected], and select R-Base System V as standard data management software. R-Base System V was selected over D- Base IIIbecause it is somewhat more "user friendly" while having essentially the same capabilities. The ENWP has requested permission to obtain an IBM F"'C AT with 30MB hard disk drive, math coprocesser, and streaming tape.drive, along with R-Base System V, and SAS (statistical analysis) software. Current plans are to establish a new data base system for ENWP on the PC AT using R-Base System V. R-Base System V will be used because it is the Department standard and to ensure easy access to ENWP data by others within IF&W and compatibility with other IF&W data files. Currently automated ENWP data files are in SAS data sets that are readily transferable to R-Base. Primary IF&W users outside the ENWP will be regional biologists. These biologists have broad wildlife-related natural areas conservation responsibilities ranging from DEP and LURC development permit reviews, to assisting Municipalities in land use planning and development review and working With land owners/managers to ensure conservation of wildlife resources. Design and implementation of this new data base are "on hold" pending review of the results of this report to ensure compatibility of the new ENWP data system with a state natural areas data management system. At current funding levels, it will likely be at least three years before the ENWP data base is established and fully populated with existing data. At the present time, "outside use" of ENWP data Occurs primarily through through development reviews conducted by IF&W regional biologists and production and distribution of reports like the Penobscot Bay Coastal Habitat Inventory. The annual ENWP budget is about $200,000. About one-half of these funds are from the Maine Income Tax "check off", with the remainder from various federal and private grants and contracts. It is estimated that Well under 10% of the annual ENWP budget is allocated to data management. Table B Endangered and Nonqame Wildlife Program Data Files ----------------------------------------------------------------- # records # records name format current planned comments ----------------------------------------------------------------- Coastal manual & Islands SAS sets 10,000 25,000 Eagle 5000 - Nests manual 10,000 Endangered Species/ Various disjointed Critical about files Habitats manual 5000 Coastal 50% SAS Coastal habitats Habitats 50% other 40,000 1000,000 is only one of a automated number of anticipated files ecosystem files; site data Plus area data in mapped form 10 The Nature Conservancy UgLitagg EEggE!EM: The Nature Conservancy was established to "conserve biodiversity by establishing natural area preserves". The Heritage Program was established within TNC to gather and organize the scientific information necessary to prioritize TNC activities. The Heritage Program is a natural areas data base system designed to meet both nationa'l (and international.) and state program biological r7onservation needs. The system was designed, is Supported, and is reviewed and updated quarterly by national TNC staff. Cooperative TNC/state government Heritage programs are underway in about 46 states. TNC wholly operates Heritage Programs in most other states. The Heritage Program data management system consists of 'four- a r components: j1o. Element f iles - the classification system., element (species or community) abstracts, and element manual files which together describe the "target" elements -For Heritage inventory; 2. Element occurrence (EO) file - which stores species occurrence data in map, manual, and computer,+ormats, 3. Manaaed area (MA) -File - which organizes information on 7-- ---- ---- ---- publicly and privately-owned areas within Maine that offer some degree of natural feature protection; and 4. Source file - which documents inventory information S 7-- Source ( or e.-ample CAP reports that document a site's features or significance.). Maine Heritage Program automated files run on *an IBM PC AT with 310MB hard disl.-. using D-Base III data management software. This system is located in the TNC Maine Chapter office in Topsham and can be linked when necessary by modem to national program systems. The Heritage Program data management system has well developed and documented procedures for manual file creation, automated data entry and verification, data plotting on map files, and data documentation. Status of current Maine Heritage Program files is shown in Table C. Heritage Program element occurrence (EO) and managed area (MA) records closely parallel basic ENWP species occurrence and occurrence site records. Critical areas (as contained in any of the four CAP "critical area" files) require a managed, area (MA) and at least one species element occurrence (EO) record when placed in Heritage Program files. Element occurrence (EC) and managed area (MA), files are interactive, allowing easy retrieval of all records that. list features of a CAP "critical area". To date, TNC has incorporated MUch-CAP critical- areas data (about 40%) into its data base. The TNC data base does not currently include any information on abiotic natural areas (for example, significant geologic sites) but its -file structure is easily adaptable to doing so. Most TNC natural areas data addresses sites with point locations. Sample Heritage Program file records are presented in Appendi-x 1). TNC receives regular requests (ab*0Ut tWO per weet-0 f or natural.area and rare species information. Outside requests come from DEP, DOT, private consulting -firms, and towns. Outside requests are about equivalent in number to internal TNC program requests for Heritage Program information. TNC has discussed mak-ing Heritage Program information available to DEP, LURC, and DOT. DOT now maintains a map file of, Heritage Program natural area sites. No agreements have been established with LURC or DEP as yet for USL- of Heritarie Program information. The Heritage Program has provided substantial data and staff time to Support listing of endangere d vertebrate species by the Endangered and Nongame Wildlife Program; the LURC lal.::es study, the SPO Cumulative Impact Study, and to prepare annual listings of updated rare plant information for the Critical Areas Program. Heritage Program professional staff time and budget are predominantly allocated to adding new data and updating exi-sting data within the Heritage Program data base. This work is coordinated with similar WOrl--. Underta[:.en by the CAP and ENWP to avoid duplication of effort. The TNC Heritage Program annual budget is about $90,000. The Maine Heritage Program is at present wholly funded by TNC and not jointly funded with state government as is, the case in most other states. It is estimated that about 25% of the annual Heritage Program budget- is allocated to data management. 12 Table C The Nature Conservancy Heritage Program Data Files ------------------------------- ----------------------------------- records # records name format Current planned comments ----------------------------------------------------------------- Element Tracking d i s Element disk & about OCCUrrance map 1149 2000 basic "site" -file Managed Are a d i s k. &25 about this file will map 1000 include all properties that by virtue of ownership or management offer- potential to conserve natural areas, for example: Registered Critical Areas, TNC iiind MAS preserves, state and federal public lands, etc. Element Global Ranking d i s Element State d i s I... Ranking Vertebrate No Maine data has Character- yet been entered ization 300 Abstract c) 400 Source Abstract manual 250 ? bibliographic Sources for data in other files The Maine Coast Heritagg ICg5t: The mission of the Maine Coast Heritage Trust is to conserve lands that essential to protecting the vital natural resources and special character of Maine, most particularly its coastline and islands. The MCHT wort.,:s directly with landowners and also provides staff Support for the formation and initial operation of Community land trusts with similar- goals to those of MCHT. MCHT -has a map file showing selected information about public and private conservation ownership along the coast. This information is plotted on copies of USGS 7.5n topographic maps. This is a "one-time" file with no current plans or resources for updating. Ready access to CAP, ENWP, and TNC natural areas data would benefit MCHT by helping set priorities for potential easement sites and helping document "public ValUeS" Of potential easements for tax purposes. MCHT, like the CAP is concerned with scenic resources. PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES Natural Areas Data Use: ----- ---- --- Natural areas data use falls into three general areas: use within natural areas conservation programs; use by land owners/managers (PUblic-and private); and use by parties to the development process (developers., consultants to developers, Municipal and state land use planning planning and development review activities., and regional planning commissions). While data use within and among natural areas c onservation programs can be improved, this is where most data held by these programs is used and Such Lt5L- OCCUrs without Major problems - largely because natural areas conservation program staff are generally well aware of each other's data holdings, coordinate their data collection and updating efforts, and frequently work together on joint projects. The relatively recent establishment and evolution of TNC@'s Maine Heritage Program has also helped sharpen the focus of natural area conservation programs on systematic organization, automation, and application of their data. Compatible automation of species occurence and "site" data within- the natural area conservation programs would provide a number of benefits: productivity of existing program resources would be somewhat 14 improved (productivity gains in this area depend upon program tas@,.-s and Would be difficult to A_CCUrately estimate); Inter-program data access would become.SLibstantially easier; a n d Potential for retrieval and analysis of data across programs Would gEe2tly improve. For example, tasks like preparing a township-based index of natural area sites identified by any of these programs which would today be quite difficult alld* expensive, Would become easy and inexpensive. Existing and potential natural areas data users outside natural. area programs are land owners/managers, and those involved in the development process: developers (Public and private), Community planning and development review activities, regional planning commissions, and state development review agencies (DEP and LURC), Parties to this process have substantially diff ere nt data needs than do natural areas program managers, f0CUSing on: * location of natural area sites that should be considered.tiv land managers and developers; and * Information concerning the management needs of such sites. Thus, while such users gener-ally do not need access to the detailed species o !ccurance and site data forming basic files of natural areas conservation programs, they do need to easily find out where such sites are and more importantly they need specific managgMgnt information - which generally must be provide by appropriate natural areas program staff. Because comprehensive natural areas information is not easily i 4- accessible to users Outside natural areas programs, @ is not widely used beyond state development review activities. ENWP data is available to regional IF&W biologists who review LURC and DEP development applications. LURC screens applications for potential impact on Registered Critical Areas,. using a township index, and associated site maps. DEP development project managers are responsible for selecting projects to be reviewed by the CAP. This screening is less than systematic. DOT has prepared a map file of Registered Critical Areas and Heritage Program natural area sites and uses this file in highway project planning. To obtain natural areas information from any Maine natural areas programs, land owners, developers, or town planning and.- development review activities must know about these programs and mat.--e specific, direct information requests. This does not routinely Occur today. Interviews with a number of these "outside" users identified a priority need for township-based index and mapseries for all known natural area sites (all sites would be listed in the inde, and non-sensitive site location Would be shown on the maps). Such indexes and maps are essential to providing Outside users adequate access to the natural areas 15- information they should be considering in the course of their activities. To adequately serve the outside user community, indexes and map sets should be distributed to at least DEP, LURC, DOT, SPO, IF&W, and the regional planning commissions. The regional planning commissions Could make this information available to Municipalities and developers as needed. It is important to note that better access to natural areas information will Substantially increase requests for 4 nforma4-ion on why such areas should be conserved and how their management needs. Data File Comg!atibility Standard state codes have been Used, where appropriate, in all existing natural area data files. TNC Heritage program file structure for element OCCUrance (EO) and managed area (MA) data files, analysis, --And reporting capabilities will easily accommodate data in all CAP natural area files that should be automatedas well as CAP data analysis and reporting requirements. Some minor changes to TNC file structure may be necessary to ensure CAP data could be readily retrieved as desired -from TNC files if CAP files were to be entered into TNC -files. For example, a -field for coding of the status of non-registered sitess might need to be added. R-B.ase System V can read and write D-Base III files, so combined use o-P or transfers of information between TNC Heritage Program, CAP Heritage Progr8m-based, and ENWP natural area files should be easy. D-Base III and R-Base Sys-tem V data management software are widely used programs on MS-DOS/IBM compatible personal COMPLIterS, which have become a de-facto industry standard. Thus, data files established on this software will likely be widely compatible with related current and future PC-based @ata files. Current ENWP data in SAS data sets is readily convertible into R-Base System V files, State GeogCagtic Information Sv2tem Develooment MEGIS, an automated state geographic information system being developed jointly by the Department of Conservation and the University of maine is described in some detail inthe Phase One Study on a State Groundwater Data Management System (currently being prepared for the Data Management Subcommittee of the Land and Water Resources Council). At the present time system capabilities are limited to simple automated cartography tasks. Overlay analysis of different geographic data sets is not possible; such sets can however be merged and jointly plotted. Basic requirements for data file compatibility with MEGIS are that records have a unique identifier and be geographically coded.. TNC data files meet this requirement as do planned ENWP automated data files. AS MEGIS develops more sophisticated analysis capabilities and as its costs decline, considerable patential exists for using MEGIS to analyze and map natural areas 16 information. The natural areas mapping project proposed as part of the natural areas data management system recommended in this report was costed Out both as an int-ern.project and LtS4 no MEG T S .F@eSU I tS of this analysis were as follow: method initial maps annual update ------ ------------ ------------- intern (1: 150, 000) $ 2,595 $ 950 MEGIS (1.50,000) J'7,995 12,145 MEGIS (7.5' &@ 15') 37, 002 66, (:)e(--) note: (1) This f igUre is for 472 maps and includes $16,"-.162 f Lo rthe purchase of new base map materials. Because the proposed maps are very simple to produce and map originals Could be easily updated by adding new points, they are less expensive to produce and update manually. No new digitized natural areas information would be created by producing the maps through MEGIS beyond location information that Would already exist in existing TNC and proposed CAP and ENWP automated files. To ensure future compatibility with MEGIS, design of the new ENWP data base and modification of TNC data file structure to accommodate CAP n-eeds should be coordinated with MEGIS managers. Po-l-ic-y- 2ng Ecqgram Issues Encountered A number of policy and program issues were encountered in the Course of this study. While it is beyond study objectives to address these issues, they are worthy of mention and should be addressed in some other appropriate fOrLIM. Implementing the proposed natural areas data management system will provide Much better and broader access to information about the presence of significant natural areas, which will in turn lik-ely lead to a dramatic increase in demand an all three natural areas conservation programs for information on managing specific sites. Meeting this increased demand may well require changes in program structure or increases in program support. While Current state growth management program studies are contemplating requiring more formal consideration. of significant natural areas in the land use planning and development review process, state financial Support for natural areas programs is less than solid. The TNC Heritage Program is completely funded by private sources and the CAP 17 and ENWP prgrams are heavil y *dependent upon non-sttate funding. Strong inter-relationships exist. between Ma ine's three natural areas conservation prgrams. As More focused state policy regarding conservation oi significant areas in the context of state growth management policy, review of the structure of and relationship between these programs may be necessary to ensure optimal state natural areas conservation. FIND TNGS Few resources are allocated to data management in any program; most resources are allocated to production of new data or to conservation activities.z data Production and management is well coordinated among the three maJor programs; Basic natural areas data +ile StrLICIL Ur a in all progrz-Ims is quite Similar and all organizations operate in --An I FM-.- compatible PC Computer environment; The TNC Heritage Program is the only +ully developed and operational natural areas data management system wi.thin the three Maine natural-areas conservation programs; The TNC Heritage Program natural areas data management system is well developed and documented; is jointly operated by TNC and state government in 46 states, and interfaces with national and international natural areas conservation programs; About 40% of CAP natural. areas data is already entered into TNC's Heritage Program data base which is easily capable o+ current and contemplated CAP.data retrievall and analysis requirements,. D-Base III (used by TNC) and R-Base System V which has been chosen as the Department o+ IF&.W "standard" data base management software are quite similar and compatible data base management systems that run on IBM-compatible MS-DOS personal Computers; R-Base System V can read and write D- Base III files; The ENWP has Much larger files than either TNC or the CAP, and also has substantially more sophisticated data analysis requirements; The major problem with Current natural areas dat a management systems is that it is difficult to easily or efficiently determine the presence of all significant areas that have been identified. by'all three conservation programs within any given geograph ic area (for example within or nearby -a ie proposed development project or within a.-Lown); * This problem Could be alleviated by production, distribution, and regular updating of a text index and map series for. significant natural areas; * Compatible automation of natural areas data within all three natural areas conservation programs is an effective pre- requisite to economical production of a. text index .--And map series for natural areas data.4 * Because it is well suited to CAP* needs and thUch CAF' data has already been entered into the TNC Heritage F'rogram data base, the best and most economical way to automate CAP! data is to enter remaining CAF' data into the TNC data base and obtain a full set of CAF' files from TNC; * Automation of both CAF' and ENWP data necessary to prepare indextes and maps -for significant natLtr.-::kl areas will require supplemental funding if Such indexes and maps are to be produced in a timely fashion. F'ROPOSED MAINE NATURAL AREAS DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM A much improved Maine natural areas data management system could be established by taking two steps'. 1. compatible automation of CAP', TNC, ENWF,, and MCHT natural areas site data&, and 2. preparation, distribution, and periodic updating of an index. and map series to facilitate access to appropriate natural areas site information of Use to land manaqers/owners and individuals and organizations involved in. the land use planning and development process. Benefits This improved data management System Would produce a series of benefits: Natural areas conservation program staff productivity would improve in tasks involving data handling and analysis Iresponding to information repUests, etc.l. This improvement would not likely be large, but should result in some increase in Success accomplishing program goals. Also, substantially less staff time Would be allocated to answering requests concerning location of natural areas. Significant natural areas would receive considerably more attention in state development review activities. This Would occur because all projects Could quickly be screened for potential impact on areas identified by all three natural 19 areas conservation programs. Thus all projects Could be screened (not Current practice) and all categories of areas considered (also not Current practice). Municipal. planning and development control activities could consider impact on significant natural areas within their' Community. Such consideration would be far from uniform, but it Would at least become practical for Communities that wish to do so, Community land trusts would also benefit from a@cess to comprehensive natural areas locational information within their- area of interest. In aggregate, these benefits should Substantially improve conservation of significant Maine natural areas. Recommendations To establish Such a system, the following specific actions are recommended: 1. Maine Critical Areas Program natural area data files should be automated using The Nature Conservancy Heritage Program data base management system (using D-Pase III data management software). This should Occur within twelve months, to facilitate timely creation of comprehensive natural areas indexes and maps. 2. En'dangered and Nongame Wildli +e Program automated data file Structure should be designed for optimal compatibility with the Heritage Program data management system. These files should use R-Base System V data management- software (as planned) to ensure compatibility with other IF&W data and users. The ENWP data base should be established and Populated with existing data within twelve months, to facilitate timely creation of comprehensive natural areas indexes and maps. The SPO shOUld'create and regularly update a signi-ficant natural area index file and accompanying map series for distribution to state regulatory agencies, regional planning commissions, public land managers, and other similar users. CAP, TNC, and ENWP managers should review how "sensitive" information should be presented in-such --R "user's" inaex- 4. File structure design for the Endangered and Nongame Wildlife Program and revisions to TNC file structure 'to accommodate CAP files Should be coordinated with Department of Conservation geographic information. system (MEGIS) managers to ensure that these files could use Current and potential MEGIS capabilities. 5. The CAP/L84WRC [email protected] Study should use the LURC lakes data base (which runs on R-Base data management software) to ensure compatibility with existing LURC lakes data + iles and ability to use analytic procedures developed in the LURC 20 study. 6. State government should allocate necessary funding to improve natural 1_Rreas program data management i f Such programs are expected to provide sufficient natural areas information to those needing it to conserve Such areas. Implementation costs Estimated costs (beyond ex-isting program commitments) to implement the recommended natural areas data management I.system" Are" 1. Automating Critical Area-As Program natural area files: * Hardware - IBM/AT&T "PC" workstation with 20MB hard-dis@--- $2000 * Software - D-Base III+ 4C-)C) total $2400 Auto mating Critical Areas Program natural area -files, to include modification of TNC file structure as- necessary, preparation of data for entry, data entry, data editing,, plotting of sites on master quadrangle file, delivery to -the CAP of all Maine element OCCUrence (EO) and managed area (MA) files pertaining to CAP identified natural areas, and training CAP staff to manipulate and retrieve records from these.+iles:. estimated cost $ 10, C) C) C) Designing a data base system for the Endangered and Nongame wildlife Program and +Ully Populating this system with excisting data, .0 include data base design, report programming, transfer of existing automated files into the system, and data entry of existing manual files. This system would bemodeled on the TNC Heritage Program and Would run on R-Base System V. estimated cost $19,1oo 4. Initial preparation and distribution of a significant natural areas index, and reproducible map file (using state 1-50,000 base map series) locating natural areas on combined user's index and printing and distributing indexes and map sets to: * DEP * LURC 21 0 * SPO * IF&W * RPCs (full set for their planning areas) * DOT *Intern contract (cartographic labor) $1500 *Cartographic base materials & copying 1095 Total $2595 5. Annual updating of user's index, and map series: * Intern contract (cartographic labor) $700 * Map & index copying & distribution 250 Total $950 Estimated total system "incremental" cost: * One-time, start-Up Costs $34.095 * Annual cost $950 22 APMMICM APPENDIX A Persons Interviewed: Name Organization ----------------- ---------------------------------------- Hanl.-- Tyler State Planning Office, Critical Areas Program Bob Mayer State Planning Of,ficL=- Paul DUtram State Planning Office John Albright The Nature Conservancy, Heritage Program Amy Forrester The Nature Conservancy Heritage Program David Dominie DEP, Land Bureau David Studor DEP, Land Bureau Tom Radsky LURC, Division of Development Review Fred Todd LURC, Division of Planning Bill Reed Maine Dept. of Transportation' Dywane Scott MDOT Val Oood Bureau of Data Processing Janet MacMahan Maine Audubon Society Nancy Anderson Maine Audubon Society Alan Hutchinson Dept. of IF&W, Non-game Oildlife Program Art Ritter Dept. of IF&W Gary Donovan Dept. of IF&W Jay Espe Maine Coast Heritage Trust Marc Loiselle DOC, Maine Geological Survey Steve Dickson DOC, Maine Geological Survey Bob Tucker -DOC, Maine Geological Survey Don Meagher Eastern Maine Development Corp. Pat Jennings Eastern Mid-coast RPC M adge Ba@,:er Southern Maine RPC Gwen Hilton MACC Ron f-Creisman NRCM Riche Rothe Maine Tomorrow 2 APPENDIX B Reviewed: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MAINE LAND & WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL, RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS IN COMPUTERIZED MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES INFORMATION, AUGUSTA, ME, JANUARY, 1980. 2. GARY HIGGINBOTTAM, ARTHUR LERMAN ASSOCIATES, REPORT ON ESTIMATED COSTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH ADOPTION OF THE NATURE CONSERVANCY HERITAGE INVENTORY SYSTEM BY THE STATE OF MAINE, AUGUSTA, ME, JUNE, 1982. 3. MAINE LAND & WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL, PHASE I STUDY, STATE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, SYNOPSIS OF FINDINGS (DAFT), AUGUSTA, ME, 1986. 4. MAINE LAND & WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL, INVESTIGATION INTO THE FEASIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A NATURAL RESOURCES GEORGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM FOR MAINE, AUGUSTA, ME, MARCH, 1978 PEND .I XC July 21., 1978 @ample Critical Areas Program File Recordst lu Register of Critical Areas. The State Planning Office is charged with administering the Critical Areas Act. For fUrther information, please contact the State Planning Office, Critical Areas Program, 189 State Street, Augusta, Maine, 04333, Tele- phone (207) 289-3155. 1 Name Nesowadnehunk Falls 2. Cr4tical Area Number 1Q 3. Location A. Piscataquts County B. Township of T2 R10 C. Minor Civil Division Code Number - 21838 D. U.S.G.S. Quadrangle Harrington Lake 1511 E. Latitude 450 501 4011 Longitude 6902f Off 4. Owner's Name and Address Mr. J. R. Goody, Manager Timberlands and Forestry Great Northern Paper Comparry Mtlltnocket, ME 04462 5. -Boundaries and Size of the Area Nesowadnehunk Falls is on the West Branch of the Penobscot River in T2 R10 Township and is located about 0..8 kilometers (0. 5 miles) west of where Nes- owadenehunk Stream meets the West Branch of the Penobscot. The. boundary of the critical area is defined by a circle of 150 meter (492 feet) radius circumscribed around the center of the largest (2 meter-6.6 feet) drop (see map). The total area of the critical area is about 7 hectares (17.5 acres). 6. A Description of the Area Including a Listing of its Unus ual, Qualities and the Reason(s) fbr its Inclusion on the Register Nesowadnehunk Falls is a broad, horseshoe shaped falls with a drop of about 2 meters (6 6 feet). The flow of the River through the critical area is several 6 thousand ft. /sec. and is dependent on the regulation at Ripogenus Dam The water bolor at the site is brown and odorless. Date: The Maine Register of Critical Areas Name Green Mountain Rare Plant Station 2. 3. Location A. Somerset County B. (Town) Comstock T-4. R-18) C. Minor Civil Division Code Number D. Latitude: 450 581 0011 Longitude: 700 04' 3011 E. USGS Quadrangle: Penobscot Lake 15' (1956) 4. Owner's Name and Address Great Northern Paper Company Woodsland Department Millinocket, Maine 04462 5. Boundaries.and Size of Area The critical area is located on the southeast slope of Green Mountain in Comstock (T-4 R-18). The boundaries of the critical area include about 600 acres and the boundaries are shown on the attached map. 6. A General Description of the Area Including a Listing of its Unusual -@=ties and the ReasonTs) for its Inclusion on the Register As one travels west along the Golden Road to a point where Green Mountain is closest to the North Branch of the Penobscot River and the road, a large cliff face becomes visible. The exposed bedrock was described by St. John and Nichols who visited the area in 1916 as, "clay slate ledge". The cliffs nearest the road were explored gain in the summer of 1983 by Vickery (CAP), Campbell, Crosely and Eastman. They dise'overed Slender Cliff-Brake (Cryptogramma stelleri) a small rare fern never reported by the previous botanical expedition (i916). CEzptogrammn stelleri is currently known only from Green Mountain and West Paris in Oxford To-un--Ey- Slender Cliff-Brake is a very rare fern in Maine that is found in limestone areas. At Green Mountain, this fern grows on the limestone ledges on the south side of the mountain. There were an estimated 100+ individuals of the Slender Cliff-Brake innumerous clumps on the ledge. For further information on the Slender Cliff-Brake, see the planning report by L. M. Eastman. Field Data Form Site SITE SURVEY SUMMARY Site Name: Site Visit Chronology Quad Name: Date: Time: Source Code: Quad Code: 10/10 locator- Surveyor(s): State: County: Date: Time: to Source Code: Town:. Surveyor(s): or Township/Range/Section: Date: Time: to Source Code: Field Quad Margin: Surveyor(s): Source of lead: Date: Time: to Source Code: Surveyor(s): Date: Time: to Source Code: Surveyor(s): Other Individuals knowledgeable about site and/or EO's: Amy F. Current use of site: Tract ownership or managed area name (names, addresses, phone #). Continue on last Page for others. INDEX List all listed species/communities sought, found, or reported from site. Revisit Date: needed' Code on Found? Transcr/ Found? Transcr/ Found? Transcr/ Found? Transer/ Found" Transer Element name Updt? Updt? Updt? Updt? Updt? When? Base Map occ.# 011 Yes PAGE 340 NATURAL AREAS INVENTORY DATE: 5/19/78 NATURAL AREA IN ST GEORGE IN KNOX COUNTY NATURAL AREA # 428 NAME ALLEN ISLAND LATITUDE 43-52-00 LONGITUDE 69-19-00 COASTAL ISLAND # 63840 ESTIMATED ACREAGE 420.0 OWNERSHIP: PRIVATE BRIEF DESCRIPTION A LARGE UNDEVELOPED OFFSHORE ISLAND IN MUSCONGUS BAY THAT IS A REPORTED SITE OF CROWBERRY, PRIMARILY COVERED WITH SPRUCE. VERIFICATION: BY CORRESPONDENCE/TELEPHONESPO ESTIMATE OF SIGNAFIGANCE: REGIONAL DATA SOURCES: NATURAL AREA INVESTORY 1971 SPO:ED MYERS OF ABONDONED FARMS IN SO BRISTOL CRITICAL AREA: NO EXTENT OF INFORMATION AND LOCATION: MAPPED 1971 COMPLETED: 76-78 UPDATE SPO NAT AREAS FIELD CHECKING: NO CONTACT: NAME: ED MYERS ADDRESS: ABONDONED FARMS TOWN: SOUTH BRISTOL STATE: ME ZIP CODE: 84568 PHONE: 563-3935 MAJOR TYPE: BOTANY GENERAL TYPE: RARE PLANT COMMUNITIES DATE OF ENTRY: 6/21/77 Leak.J@ Hank Tyler State Planning Office Critical Areas Program 189 State St. Augustat Maine 04333 Dear Hank, You may be intere sted in tbl. following find: Gentiana crinita Froel. York, York County. old pasture, Route 1.,Just north of Berry Hill Farm on right going north. This land is owned by Central Maine Power of York. Fred Mathewst Manager, says the C.M.P. plans to build on this land on higher ground. There are thousands of gentians on the lower land. On the higher and drier ground I found and collected Aster laevis'. also* I plan to put the specimens in the herbarium at Us of New Hampshire. Date: Sept. 26, 1986. Also found a dead deer on the land. Best wishes, 0. Paul Wight 23 Fort Hill Ave. Old Orchard Beach, Maine 04064 T-el. 934 2015- or 934 2844 MM= APPENDIX D ECCODE: @he Nature conservancy Heritage Program YAME: C File Descriptions and Selected Sample Records COMNAME: .URGNUZA.: 1 MI. EO=UK. SCRANKC-Mo! :.,@TCBS: SPANK: COUN-----NAME-. _7 QUADCODE: QUADNAM---.- T. 7 W: LONG: S'. N: TCIW-NC--JI)E: apC COASTAL-IM: a MS ?'.R C V DMEC.-.' NS GENDESC; r V,-ACODE2: r I CONTIMMM2: UCO I DE11: .MACCDE3: r ADI)L_,4AS: joR-Tj.,LND: L] MREF.RCT: 14CREMCuNr- =CODE: SITEM AK-E. L OWNER: OWNERC"I'My.: ?HCTC^-,vY.: MG14-TCOM14: 'L MONITOR: 3 ES T. S 0 U R CZ ?HC=z: :WNT-RZ:1FC: Element Occurance (EO) Record Page 1 01/09/87 EOCODE: PDLAU07010.002 Name: Lindera Benzoin Comname: Spicebush Margnum: 3 TenTen: 10,8 Ident: Y EORank: C SurveyDate: 1986-03-26 Lastobs: 1986-03-26 Firstobs: 1934 GRank: G5 SRank: S2 State: ME Countycode: ME031 Countyname: York Quadcode: 4307027 Quadname: Dover East 7.5' Precision: SC LAT: 430832 LONG: 704522 S: 0 N: 0 E: 0 W: 0 TownCode: 31090 TownName: Eliot Coastalreg: 111 CapNo: 61 Watershed: 01060003 Directions: FRM York Village, S on rte 1 @5 MI to rte 101. Turn rt, N @ 2.5 MI, Turn lft onto Beech rd. Pass fields & sm woods on lft & park @1/4 mi at Swamp on lft. GenDesc: Low swamp bordering a forest of mixed woods next to a paved rd. A few plants growing among some alders on far side of swamp ELEV: 20 Size: 1 EOData: 1976: Plants in excellent condition (Eastman); 1986: 12-20 Mature shrubs over @/12 Acre; Comments: Oldest known stand. Probably in same condition as when discovered. MACODE1: MESPCAELI01 CONTAINED1: MACORDE2: CONTAINED2: MACODE3: CONTAINED3: ADDLMAS: MORELAND: MOREPROT: MOREMGMT: SITECODE: ELIOT SPICE BUSCH OWNER: MR AND MRS DAVID LEAVITT OWNERCOMM: 85 GOODWIN RD, ELIOT ME 03903 PROTCOMM: ZONED AS COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT BY TOWN OF ELIOT MGMTCOMM: MONITOR: BESTSOURCE: OSTERBROCK, A.J. 1986. FIELD SURVEY OF MARCH 26. ME NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM. TNC, TOPSHAM. SOURCECODE: F860ST01ME B81CRI01ME U77CRI25ME B76EAS11ME DATASENS: N BOUNDARIES: Y PHOTOS: N OWNERINFO: Y TRANSCRIBR: 84-10-02 THM CDREV: Y MAPPER: 84-10-05 CRO QC: Y UPDATE: 87-01-09 AJF MANAGED AREA (MA) RECORD 91/09/98 PAGE 1 MACODE: MESSPCAELI01 OWNERCODE: PRI MANAME: ELIOT SPICEBUSH ESTABDATE: 1977-06-24 COUNTYNAME: MEYORK TOWNCODE: 31090 TOWNNAME: ELIOT QUADCODE: 4307027 LAT: 430830 LONG: 704545 S: 0 N: 0 E: 0 W: 0 CONTIG: Y DESCRIPTN: LINDERA BENZOIN GROWING ON EDGE OF SM SWAMP. ALSO DIRCA PALUSTRIS IS PART OF UNDERSTORY SIZE: 3 PROTSTAT: 3 MANAGER: MR & MRS DAVID LEAVITT ADDRESS: 85 GOODWIN RD, ELIOT ME 03903 BOUNDARIES: N MGMTCOMM: MAJORMA: COMMENTS: CAP#61 UPDATE: 87-01-09 AJF BRUNSWICK QUADRANGLE MAINE 0 7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) 0 NW4 BATH L5' QUADRANGLE 'Ile GUS TA :0 Aff. '27 570 000 FEET 69*,52'3(r ,.Uj M. TO MAWE 55, 23 SOWOOINNAAf 0.6.9t 44*00' Mertym@64 cr\ :Z, c, 7 D 0 1 N"@@ 1. @@VI-ocau OYA pw I R 0 X5 5ylocaut n, pil VA i ive -:S "ce d 61 y:;: cy(0. -Y4 4F e714CYV7 @ityevv toll "5 N Cem, fl@ V jjo(trS v0A L@;Ivlowo,(L 9 'j i 17. g > LL@@k a. V, Flo .. ..... . ............. CD leas e-p- -bl) 3, CL7r I c a- -,e .1 -s 0- 7-V am 57'30' J %v, 'Y T c r Fy&,. OAIL, 49 #oM code PC&. W&P-14 -lion N-It #-I# Code APPENDIX E t 0.7. 04- Sample Endangeeed and Nongame-Wildlife Program Records Isom vote It 1,4-t6s species ------ OCCUrrence Records --rt'7- Cc ef v r V.16tr wed ws'4 rate VOL _rn. Dav Vr.- OBSERVER Two Initials, DATE TIME last name, L 1 '_7 L VISIT this, colony for current nesting season 7 NAI.:E VIA (Fill in if known) LAND OWNER'S NAME: Latitude Longitude Elevation @ / ) V.,; P @@ 0 / - IA I 'ar 0 / (meters) LAND OWNER'S ADDRESS: _T] Fo_[(_-@ T MAP ID I J _j Colony size Island Size (ha) Subcolony (ha) (if aDvlicable) number Le 40 1 49 10 Ix I Nearest Towns countyl 1AA1111111VV1 1AA1111111VV 'i LA ;tate/Province/Territoryt Z L 0 lountry: -Z Z7P17 u + 4es es to No. Banded' SPECIES Numbs of Total Total Total i +t Lo W L-r,.-Jon or Scientific Name Breeding Birds Population Active Nests Youhg Out of Nest Sta6e* Substrate Thi..3 Visat i (UD Uc J_ L 7PIZZ -2 W L 4J -4 u co 0 aj U tun C ID L U L ID u +NESTING STAGE CODESi 1. Prenesting. 2. Pairing territory establishment. Egg laying. (@,,Incubatlon. (5-Hatching 0 (D I OD e 6. Downy young. 7. Feathered young. 8. Young flying or Iready for flight. '9. Renestl@g.' ' 10'. Loafing In 0 1,++NEST SITE SUBSTRATE CODESe 1. Trees - coniferous. 2. Trees - deciduous. 3. Trees - mixed. 4. Shrub - medium hoight (2-7m). 5. Shrub - low 9 U C@@ (2m or less), 6. Herbaceous (non- rass@. 7. Grass - beach grass. @.,,p@ass UP ,_@-+ lan Marsh - salt. 10. Marsh - brackish. 11. Marsh - fresh. 12. Sani. Sa CL up d 8 - 13. nd-cobble- she 11. (31@4 bble. ('13) Rocks -c rev less/hole s. 16. Rock-cliff face. 17. Burrows. 18. Dirt bank Col --(specify) 19. Man-made etructura@ 20. Other if space for more species to needed, use additional sheets and fill In the following Informations Sheet L? of,.3 @+@NESTII MASS. COOP. WILD- RES. UNIT UNIV. OF MASS96 @MHERST MASS. 01002 ONLY COMPLETE BOXES WITHOUT DIAGONAL LINES B-441 Areas of Concentration of Species Occurrence (from map in Penobscot Bay'Coastal Habitat Inventory) it WS 1L. EAU HAUT .2 ro hy- .............. -7 HABITAT OF COLONY (Circle one of A and one of B) A. 1. Suburban 2. Urban 3. Rural 4. Undeveloped 5. Other B. 1. Mainland sandy beach 2. Marsh - salt 3. Marsh - brackish 4. Marsh - fresh 5. Inland island 6. Spoil bank 7. Marsh island 8. Barrier island 9. Non-barrier island, coastal 10. Bog 11. Swamp 12. Lake or pond 13. Woodland 14. Tundra 15. Field 16. Other: CENSUS TECHNIQUE (Circle one) 1. Visual estimate - air (fixed wing). 2. Visual estimate - air (rotary). 3. Visual estimate - boat, car, foot (circle which) 4. Aerial photgraphic count. 5. Total ground count - Individuals. 6. Total ground count - nests. 7. Qaudrat census. (Sketch below) 8. Line strip census. (Sketch below) 9. Other: _______________________________________ Note: Chick if more than one census technique has been used for this colony on the cirrent visit. File seperate reports for each technique. COLONY HISTORY (Circle one or more) 1. Force filed for previous years (see notes*). 2. Colony present previously, but no exact data available. 3. Colony considered to have moved from another site; Previous locality:___________________________ 4. Colony absent previous year. 5. Area not visited previously. 6. Other:_______________________________________ HUMAN ACTIVITY (Check appropriate level of immediate activity of each type. If the potential for activity exists, check where appropriate.) TYPE IMMEDIATE POTENTIAL None Lt. Med. Hvy. Human Technology X Human Habitation X Human Recreation X Vehicular Use X Scientific Invest X (Indicate exact type of activity in "remarks" area.) Precip Type Photog Filed Tide Sea Conditions REMARKS: Include comments on outcome of colony. See Instructions (1) Individual count from boat - 1f6 4 = 744 gulb. *Please complete forms for earlier years if exact data available. If form have been completed for earlier years, list years under Remarks. General Colony Sketch in relation to some prominent topographic feature. Include approx. compass coordinates, directions to colony, and scale of distance. Sketch details of sample plots within colony boundary. SEE SHEET #2 of 3 I I I 3 6668 14102 9340 _ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i