identification and management of significant fish and wildlife resources in southern coastal Maine

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

T,/)

41306
The Identification and Management of
Significant Fish and Wildlife Resources
in Southern Coastal Maine

COASTAL ZONE

INFORMATION CENTER

17
j

4100.

SH
157.8
J6
1988
c2

Maine, Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife February 1988

THE IDENTIFICATION AND MANAGEMENT OF SIGNIFICANT

FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES IN SOUTHERN COASTAL MAINE

Submitted by:

Jody J.-Jones

John P. Lortie

Urban D. Pierce, Jr.

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

Augusta, Maine

23 June 1988

This document contains significant fish and wildlife
resources for the-following towns in southern coastal Maine.

Bath old Orchard Beach
Biddeford Phippsburg
Brunswick Portland
Cape Elizabeth Saco
Cumberland Scarborough
Falmouth South Portland
Freeport West Bath
Harpswell Yarmouth
Kittery

The information found in this report represents the
latest knowledge and professional judgement regarding the
location and protection of a variety of fish and wildlife
habitats within these municipalities. This represents an
initial step toward the formulation of sound policies
designed to provide for the protection of sensitive
habitats.

"Financial assistance for this study and the
preparation of this document was provided by the State*
Planning Office from Maine's Coastal Management Program
through funding provided by the U.S. Department of Commerce,
office of ocean & Coastal Resources Management, under the
Coastal 2one Management Act of 1972, as amended."

"These studies and the preparation of this publication
were financed in part by funds provided through the
Pittman-Robertson (Wildlife Restoration) and Dingell-Johnson
(Fisheries Restoration) Federal Aid Acts."

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ......................................... i

List of Figures ........................................ ii

Acknowledgments ....................................... iii

Executive Summary ..................................... iv

Project Description ................................... 1

Part I: Special Habitats ............................. 4

A. Aquatic Habitats ..................... ...........7

1. Sensitivity ........................... 7
2. Methods ............................... 7

a. Fisheries ....................... 8
b. Inland and Coastal Wetlands ..... 8
c. Marine Wildlife Habitats ........ 10

3. Recommendations ....................... 10

a. Fisheries and Wetlands .......... 10
b. Marine Wildlife Habitats ........ 15

B. Deer Wintering Areas .......................... 18

1. Sensitivity .................. 18
2. Methods .......................... .19
3. Recommendations ....................... 20
C. Colonial Nesting Seabird Islands ............... 23

1. Sensitivity ........................... 23
2. Methods .............................. .24
3. Recommendations ....................... 24

D. Wading Bird Rookeries ......................... 25

1. Sensitivity ...................... **"* 25
2. Methods .......................... * .... 26
3. Recommendations ....................... 26

E. Bald Eagle Nest Sites ......................... 29

1. Sensitivity ........................... 29
2. Methods ............................... 30
3. Recommendations ....................... 30

F. Osprey Nest Sites ............................. 34

1. Sensitivity ........................... 34
2. Methods ............................... 34
3. Recommendations ........................ 35

G. Shorebird Feeding and Roosting Areas .......... 38

1. Sensitivity ........................... 38
2. Methods ............................... 38
3. Recommendations ....................... 38

H. Seal Haul-Outs ................................ 41

1. Sensitivity ........................... 41
2. Methods ............................... 41
3. Recommendations ....................... 41

I. Least Tern and Piping Plover Nest Sites ....... 43

1. Sensitivity ........................... 43
2. Methods ................................ 43
3. Recommendations ....................... 43

J. Other Special Wildlife Habitats ............... 44

1. Sensitivity ........................... 44
2. Methods ............................... 44
3. Recommendations ....................... 44

Part II: Open Space for Wildlife .......... ........... 45

1. Sensitivity ........................... 45
2. Methods ................................ 45
3. Recommendations ....................... 45

Conclusions ........................................... 46

References and Literature Cited ........................ 47

Appendices .............................................

Appendix 1 - Common and Scientific Names .......... 55

Appendix 2 - Township Summaries ................... 58

Appendix 3 - Importance of Riparian Zones for
Fish, Birds, and Mammals ............. 102

Appendix 4 - Detailed explanation of Fisheries
Methodology .......................... 108

Appendix 5 - List and Definition of
Wetland Types ........................ 111

Appendix 6 - Evaluation Criteria for Rating
Deer Wintering Areas .................. 125

Appendix 7 - Maine Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife Species ...................... 127

Appendix 8 - Open Space for Wildlife - Methods ..... 128

Appendix 9 - MDIF&W Habitat Evaluation Form ........ 135

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Summary of the descriptions of special
habitats and associated recommendations ........ 5

Table 2. Rating and Description of Fisheries Habitats ... 9

Table 3. Rating of Wetlands for Waterfowl Habitat
Value ......................................... 11

Table 4. Classification of Coastal Wildlife
Concentration Areas ........................... 12

Table 5. Rating and Description of Deer
Wintering Areas ............................... 21

(h)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. MDIFW Bureau of Resource Management
Administrative-Regions ....................... 03

Figure 2. Standard Method for Measuring Riparian
Zone ......................................... 14

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We wish to express sincere gratitude to the following
individuals for providing input on development of an
objective model for evaluating open space for wildlife: Bill
Krohn, Gary Donovan, Alan Clark, Ken Anderson, Phil
Bozenhard, Sandy Eldridge, Ray Owen, and Patrick Brown.
Norm Forbes, Peter Cross, Pat Corr, Al Hutchinson, and Susan
Woodward, all of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries
and Wildlife (MDIFW) contributed their time and shared
information included in this report. We also wish to thank
John Boland, Dick Arsenault, Francis Brautigan, Derek
Davidson, and Amanda Williams for collecting water quality
and fisheries data. John Albright, Jane Arbuckle? and Peter
Vickery provided information on nongame species, assisted
with evaluating nongame habitats, and reviewed habitat
-suitability index figures. Technical assistance was
provided by Amy Forrester, Lauren Stockwell, and Eva
Thompson. The following individuals reviewed drafts of
this report: John Albright, Malcolm Hunter, Bill Krohn and
the following MDIFW biologists; Gary Donovan, Al Clark, Owen
Fenderson, Gene-Dumont, Sandra Lovett, Jim Hall, Peter
Cross, Thomas Schaeffer, Bill Noble, Kevin Stevens, Barry
Burgason, Mark Stadler, Arlen Lovewell, Alan Hutchinson,
Beth Swartz, Peter Bourque, Kendall Warner, Dennis McNeish,
Ron Brokaw, Ray DeSandre, Paul Johnson, Mike Smith, and Dave
Basley. We would also like to thank Andrea Erskine and
Betty Jackson for their labors at the word processor in
reworking several drafts of this report as well as preparing
the final copy.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report identifies and rates the value of wildlife
and fisheries habitats for 17 towns in south coastal Maine
from Kittery north to Phippsburg. Inland and coastal
wetlands, deer wintering areas, seabird nesting islands,
wading bird rookeries, eagle nest sites, osprey nest sites,
least tern and piping plover nest sites, shorebird areas,
coastal wildlife concentration areas, seal haul-outs? and
other special wildlife habitats were identified and mapped.
The sensitivity of each special habitat is discussed and
recommendations are presented to prevent or minimize the
impacts of human activities on these areas. Maps are
available from local towns, the State Planning Office, and
the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
regional office.

A method for objectively determining the value of open
space for wildlife is also included. The procedure is based
on the diversity and abundance of species within 16 habitat
types and incorporates the special habitats listed above,
total acreage, and scarcity of the habitat type. An
example field evaluation form is included.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

In a previous study, special habitats important to fish
and wildlife, such as deer wintering areas, wetlands and
shorebird areas, were identified and rated for nine towns in
southern Maine (Jones 1986). This type of information
is needed as coastal towns face critical decisions regarding
resource development and protection. Most local governments
do not have the information needed to delineate important
areas for maintaining fish and wildlife populations within
their town. Often the required information is located
within several different state agencies and private
conservation organizations making it difficult for towns to
incorporate current data into their comprehensive plans.
Therefore, this study was undertaken to identify, rate and
map fish and wildlife habitats of special interest in
seventeen towns: Kittery, Biddeford, Saco, old orchard
Beach, Scarboro, Cape Elizabeth, South Portland, Portland,
Falmouth, Cumberland, Yarmouth, Freeport, Brunswick,
Harpswell, West Bath, Bath, and Phippsburg. Recommendations
are included for each type of special habitat.

The information in this report is separated into
two sections. The first section, "SPECIAL HABITATS"
identifies, rates and maps special habitats of fish and
wildlife such as deer wintering areas, wetlands, and heron
rookeries (Appendix 2). It also reports on the sensitivity
of these special habitats to alterations or disturbance, and
presents recommendations regarding the protection of these
areas. Detailed analysis of data and site visits were
commonly conducted to obtain the information in this
section. *Maps are not included in this document but rather
are available in towns, the State Planning Office, and the
Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW)
regional office.

The second section, "OPEN SPACE FOR WILDLIFE", uses a
wildlife habitat relationship (WHR) model (Thomas et.al.
1979, Marcot 1979, Verner and Boss 1980) to provide a
standardized method for evaluating the relative importance
of different types of open space for wildlife. The model is
based on the relative diversity and abundance of wildlife
within certain habitats, and the relative abundance of
habitats within the study area. Preserving undeveloped,
open space is essential for maintaining the survival of the
full range of wildlife species -- deer, game birds such as
grouse and woodcock, furbearers, small mammals, and nongame
species such as hawks, warblers, amphibians, and reptiles --
currently inhabiting southern Maine. These open spaces also
provide areas where wildlife can be used and enjoyed by the
public. (Scientific names for all species are included in
Appendix 1).

Detailed information on methods and results for both
sections is contained in the appendices.

It is intended that the information contained in this
report be used during planning and decision making by state
and local officials to prevent or minimize the impacts of
development on fish and wildlife resources. In addition, it
may be useful to private land trusts interested in acquiring
valuable habitat for wildlife. This comprehensive approach
may be used in conjunction with the report, The Cumulative
Impacts of Development in Southern Maine: Important Wildlife
Habitats (Jones 1986).

For additional information, contact the appropriate
regional fish or wildlife biologist for your area listed on
Figure 1.

Figure 1

Re on A
@11 1, 328 Shaker Rd.
Gray 04039
/,@ ... .. Sonn Pierce (F)
-'s Phil Izenhard (W)
289-3849 or
1-800-322-1333
1-," 11 MI T1 11 1-- Reilon B
Federal Street
Augusta 04330
Dennis McNeish (F)
Eugene Dumont (W)
289-2536 or
-800-322-3606
1IS' @1 I'S -11 E @1' I S I'll I'S 1
RlicWnc
T.101 "I I'll Tlill,@, 1-1. @nl 111@ ater Street
o IS lo o K Machias 04654
T.2
T.-E? TIZIS' 71'@' UEZI'@' '@'@TIL' T" @T,,S Tom Schaeffer
Ronald Brokaw
E (Q
I Z11's, T, 111115 T"A" T11113 T I - 2111 @, 1111- T' 'W 111. :- 255-3266
ELS WELS WEIS -S IELS -LS IELS -LS ILS IELS Re Ion D
11011 T-11 11 11.- 1-1 @11-1 11-1 11- T.I. T'.IS = RFD 3, Box 3370
-LS -LS -S ELS IELS -15 I's -S E I'll Farmongton 04938
T- T11 T- F1.1 Ray DeSandre (F)
W-, L, WXL'S I, Oz. 79% IS
-I S X"S -IS WZS OZ7 WELS .,IS T@ .1 Peter Cross (W)
@78-3322
Re ion E
9ox 551
Greenville 04441
Z@Ll XL18 @CMS ZILIS -IS L".
Mel PaulJohnson (F
3T
S,IS
AM
_-IS Ronald Joseph
L, 695-3756 or
-SE'
0.. 1-800-M-9844
7" Re Ion IF
EIS f I
El 'EIS .,IS -1 IL Ell
In e d Hatchery
fi,@ T.. Box 66
."S -LS EL Enfield 04433
ATA
T, I 2N W-6 Wt2,RL$, 01, Michael Smith (F)
Kevin Stevens (W)
732-4131
,T-
IL14 @"E
-IS Reoion 0
0. Box 416
Station Street
Ashland 04732
T.I
David Basley (F)
Richard Hoppe (W)
435-3231 or
I-M-322-4011
T,
T'

T1. P.,

T-
1. P"

.7-

0
MAINE FISH AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT
t BUREAU OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
ADMINISTRATIVE REGIONS

Main Office
V Research Facility
Regional Offices (w
indicates Warden Service
personnel present)

Part I: SPECIAL HABITATS

This section discusses the special types of wildlife
and fisheries habitats that were identified and mapped for
the 17 towns in this study. Each habitat was identified and
rated, if appropriate, using the most current information
available. Habitats were mapped on mylar overlays using
mylar base maps at a scale of 1:10000. The maps are
available in the 17 town offices, MDIFW offices, and the
State Planning Office. The Special Habitats identified and
mapped are:

Aquatic habitats
Deer wintering areas
Coastal wildlife concentration areas
Colonial nesting seabird islands
Wading bird rookeries
Eagle nest sites
Osprey nest sites
Shorebird feeding and roosting areas
Seal haul-outs
Least tern and piping plover nesting sites
other special wildlife habitats

The objectives of this section were to: 1) document
known fish and wildlife habitats of special importance to
local inland fish and wildlife; 2) discuss the sensitivity
of these areas, and 3) present recommendations designed to
prevent or minimize the impacts of future growth and
development on these natural resources.

Table 1. Summary of the descriptions of special habitats and associated recommendations. (More than one type of special
habitat may occur in a site of concern, and may require the application of multiple recommendations).

Special Habitats Symbol/Rating Description Recommendations

F Fisheries/W Wetlands

Aquatic Habitats F3 High value ponds, lakes, rivers, and streams for Protect riparian habitat within 259 or more of all F2, F3, W2, and W3 areas,
fisheries. Within the first 100 feet of the riparian buffer, no development or vegetative
manipulation should occur other than accepted fish and wildlife management
F2 Moderate value ponds, takes, rivers, and streams for practices or other activities which will not permanently change the site or
fisheries. adversely impact fish and wildlife. Within the remaining 150 feet, Limber
harvesting should not remove more than 20% of the volume of trees 6 inches
W3 Ali coastal salt marshes, and all wetlands with high or more in diameter, measured at 4 V2 feet above ground level in any 10@
value for wildlife. year period. Single openings in the forest canopy should not exceed 14,000
square feet. In such areas, single canopy openings of over 10,000 square feet
W2 Moderate value wetlands for wildlife. should be no closer than 100 feet apart. Development should not occur
within the outside 150 feet without prior consultation with MI)IFW.

FI Low value ponds, lakes, rivers and streams for fisheries. Protect riparian habitat within IOU or more of all F1 and WI areas. Within
this riparian buffer, no development or vegetation manipulation, other than
W1 Wetlands with only slight wildlife value. MDIFW approved fish and wildlife management, should occur.

W5, F5 Indeterminate status. Consult with MDIFW to determine importance of the habitat and appropriate
land uses.

Marine Wildlife Habitats MWH/A Areas of national or statewide significance Protect riparian buffer within 251Y or more of the mainland and all islands
for coastal wildlife, supporting an exceptionally high bordering Class A Areas with no development or habitat modification
abundance and diversity of wildlife. allowed. Modification of the intertidal or submerged lands from activities
such as dredging, filling, or placement of permanent or semi-permanent
structures or moorings should be restricted. Land uses such as marinas and
recreational or industrial developments that would increase water-oriented
a
@ ities should be avoided. A detailed land-use wildlife conservation plan
ctiv
should be completed.

MWH/B Areas of significance within a region of Protect riparian buffer within IO(Y or more of the mainland and all islands
the Maine coast that supports a high bordering Class B Areas with no development or habitat modification
abundance and diversity of wildlife. allowed within it. No more than 15% of the intertidal and submerged lands
areas should be altered or modified by activities such as dredging or
placement of structures. Land-uses such as marinas and recreational
developments could be allowed. Industrial development should - be
avoided.

MWH/C Areas of local significance that support Protect riparian buffer within IW or more of the mainland and all islands
moderate abundance and diversity of wildlife. bordering Class C Areas with no development or habitat modification
allowed within it. No more than 25% of the intertidal and submerged lands
area should be altered or modified by activities such as dredging or
placement of structures. Land uses such as marinas and recreational
developments are allowed. Light industrial development could also be
allowed.

Deer Wintering Areas D3 High value Deer Wintering Area. Protect deer wintering areas of moderate and high value (D2 & D3) from
development. Development within DI & D5 wintering areas should be closely
D2 Medium value Deer Wintering Area. Tegulated to prevent fragmentation or loss of significant habitat. Consult with
MDIFW to determine the impact of non-conforming land uses.
DI Low value Deer Wintering Area. Timber harvesting in any deer wintering area can remove as much as 20%
of the total volume in any 15-year period. Single dpenings in the forest canopy
should not exceed 14,000 square feeL In such areas, single canopy openings of
over 10,000 square feet should not be closer than 150 feet apart. Timber
harvesting which exceeds these guidelines should be approved by the town in
consultation with MDlFW's regional wildlife biologist.

D5 Indeterminate status. Consult with MDIFW.

Colonial-Nesting Seabird Islands Coastal islands used by seabirds for nesting. Protect existing habitat. Control development and discourage human distur-
bance during the nesting season (April I - August 15).

Wading Bird Rookeries Location where great blue herons or other Protect existing habitat within the colony, control land use activities out to
wading birds nest. 132ff from the colony perimeter based on recommended levels of protection
for 3 concentric buffer zones, and discourage human activity during the
nesting season (April I - August 15).

Bald Eagle Nest Sites An active or recently active nest site (since Protect the area surrounding nest sites from development. Control land use
1962). 1329 from the nest tree based on recommended levels of protection for 3
concentric buffer zones, maintain the integrity of existing shoreland habitat,
and protect a supply of nearby alternative nest trees. Discourage human
disturbance during the nesting season (February I - August 31 in coastal
Maine and March I - September 30 inland).

Osprey Nest Sites An active or recently active nest site (since Control land use activities within 66Y of active nests from April I - August 15
1980). in coastal Maine, April 15 - August 15 inland), maintain the integrity of
existing shoreland habitat, afid minimize human disturbance during the
nesting period. Colonial-nesting pairs should be buffered collectively.

Shorebird Feeding and Roosting Areas Traditional areas of use by large numbers of Protect a 25(Y or more buffer of existing shoreland habitat, discourage
feeding and roosting shorebirds. activities that would diminish intertidal invertebrate populations, and
minimize human disturbance during peak migration (July 10 - September 10).

Seal Haul-Outs Coastal ledges used by seals. Discourage disturbance of hauled-out seals, and minimize the risk of oil spill
contamination by directing sitings of major marinas and oil tanker shipping
lanes away from haul-out ledges. -

Least Tern and Piping Plover Nest Sites Sand beaches used by least tems and piping Specific recommendations have not been developed at this time but will be
plovers for nesting. directed toward protecting habitat and preventing human disturbance during
the nesting season. An MDIFW regional biologist should be consulted.

Other Special Wildlife Habitats Areas of special management concern for Recommendations will vary with the type of habitat. An MDlFW regional
wildlife, not included in the preceding biologist should be contacted for specific recommendations.
descriptions.

mom M@ftweamm-,

A. AQUATIC HABITATS

1. Sensitivity. Aquatic habitats, which include
brooks, creeks, rivers, and streams, great ponds
and lakes, inland and coastal wetlands; marine
wildlife habitats; and the extremely
important riparian zones that adjoin them,
are habitat types of exceptional value to a
wide array of fish and wildlife species.
-They are also some of the most sensitive and
vulnerable habitat types.

The importance and sensitivity of all wetlands,
regardless of size, is well documented. Wetlands
and tidal flats provide-critical habitat for
nesting and migrating shorebirds, wading birds,
waterfowl, gulls, terns and raptors. Salt marshes
and tidal flats also provide essential habitat for
commercially sought fish species, worth millions
of dollars annually to Maine fisherman (Townsend
and Briggs 1982).

The "riparian zone" is the upland area immediately
adjacent to a lake, stream or wetland. It
functions to protect the water quality and the
wildlife values of the adjacent aquatic habitat.
It also provides a special habitat utilized by
many animals as part of their home range or as a
travel corridor for movement between undeveloped
forested areas. Specifically, riparian zones:

--provide essential habitat for a diversity
of vertebrate species;

serve as natural filtration systems trapping and
assimilating excessive nutrients, sediments and
other pollutants from upland areas, thereby
maintaining aquatic habitat water quality;

--maintain suitable water temperatures for aquatic
life; and

--provide vegetation and invertebrates as food for
a variety of fish and aquatic wildlife
(summarized from Brinson et al. 1981, Thomas
et al. 1979, Curtis and Ripley 1975).

A more complete discussion of the importance of
riparian zones for fish, birds, and mammals is
contained in Appendix 3.

2. Methods. This report separates aquatic habitats
into three types: fisheries, inland and coastal
wetlands and marine wildlife habitats.

a. Fisheries Habitats (F): Fisheries habitats
associated with streams and lakes were identified,
evaluated, and mapped in this project (refer to
Appendix 4 for detailed information).

Streams (including brooks, creeks, and rivers)
were identified using the stream inventory
file developed by MDIFW. Data collection included
a determination of fish species present, basic
water quality and habitat descriptions. In
addition, data on drainage areas, lengths, widths
and areas of streams, general surficial geology,
and the presence or absence of known aquifer areas
were collected from field surveys, maps and other
available sources.

Lakes (including ponds) were identified using the
computerized lake inventory file (Maine
Information Display Analysis System, MIDAS)
developed by MDIFW. Only "great ponds" (defined
as any natural water body 10 acres or larger or
any impoundment greater than 30 acres if bordered
by more than one property owner) were included in
this study. Data on physical shape, water
quality, and fisheries were collected from each
lake.

A systematic method was developed to rate lake
and stream habitats based on their fisheries
value. These habitats were placed in one of
three rated categories (Fl, F2, or F3) or an
indeterminate category (F5) based on their
characteristics (Table 2).

b. Wetland Habitats (W): Both inland and
coastal wetlands were identified, evaluated, and
mapped using data from MDIFW1s wetland inventory
and from the Maine Geological Survey's (MGS)
wetland inventory. MDIFW1s wetland inventory is
designed to be a continuous study to identify and
rate wetlands for their value to waterfowl. The
inventory was initiated in 1965 and is based on
aerial photographs and/or ground surveys conducted
by department personnel. The inventory includes
all wetlands 10 acres or more in size as well as
some smaller ones. Numerous wetlands less than 10
acres are rich in wildlife, contribute to
groundwater recharge, and act as natural
filtration mechanisms. Although these wetland
areas were not included in this report,
they are still valuable and perform many of the
same functions.

Table 1. Rating and description of fisheries habitats Istreams and lakes I

Cat.gor Value Habitat Type Description

F3 High streams a) Highly suitable habitat to support game fish,

b) Contains fish species which are highly sensitive to
changes in physical features, water quality, or
temperature,

c) contains fish species which are rare within study area,

d) has a quality fishery in high demand,

e) habitat area of greater than 10 acres occurring
within main stem of the stream, and

f) high economic importance.

Lakes a) High water quality,

b) heavy fishing pressure,

c) high species abundance,

d) high species diversity,

e) contains fish species which is rare within the study
area, and

f) fish species have high incidence of natural
reproduction
-------------

F2 Medium Streams a) Moderately suitable habitat to support game fish,

b) contains fish species which are moderately sensitive to
changes in physical features, water quality, or
temperature,

c) contains fish species which are moderately common
ithin study area,
d) whas a quality fishery in moderate demand,

e) habitat area of from 5 to 10 acres occurring
within main stem of the stream, and

f) moderate economic importance.

F2 Medium Lakes a) Moderate water quality,

b) moderate fishing pressure,

c) moderate species abundance,

d) moderate species diversity and rarity, and

e) moderate incidence of natural reproduction
-- -------- --------- -- ------- -------------

Fl Low Streams a) Low suitable habitat to support game fish,

b) contains fish species which are tolerant to changes in
.physical features, water quality, or temperature,

c) contains fish species which are common within study
area,

d) fishery in low demand,

e) habitat area of less than 5 acres occurring within main
stem of the stream, and

f) low economic importance.

Lakes a) Low water quality,

b) fishery in low demand,

c) low species abundance,

d) poor species diversity,

e) species very common, and

@f) minimal or no incidence of natural reproduction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F5 Indeter- Streams a) mapped or not mapped
minate Laken
b) not evaluated or rated as Fl, F2, or F3

Wetlands were rated based on their waterfowl
habitat value. Wetlands were placed in one of
three categories (W1, W2, or W3) if from MDIFW
inventory, or an indeterminate category (W5) if
from MGS inventory (Table 3). A list.of the
wetland types and their descriptions used in
MDIFW1s wetland inventory is found in Appendix 5.

c. Marine Wildlife Habitats (MWH): Marine Wildlife
Habitats are locations along the Maine coast
which support large numbers of marine birds-and
seals. These concentration areas are generally
associated with islands, ledges and inter-tidal
"flats". A combination of aerial surveys and
ground surveys and censuses were used to identify
these areas. These surveys were conducted during
the winter, spring migration, nesting,
post-nesting and fall migration periods. The
seasonally mapped observations of marine birds and
seals were then analyzed to identify and rank
Marine Wildlife Habitats.

MWH's were delineated by drawing a line around
clumped observations seaward to the thirty-foot
depth contour when possible, or a distance of
approximately 300 feet from the central geologic
feature with which the animals were associated.
For those areas adjacent to the mainland or
islands, the shoreward limit of the wildlife area
is 250 feet above mean high water. Each area was
rated based on the diversity, abundance and rarity
of the wildlife it supported. A full description
of the survey and rating methods can be found in
the Penobscot Bay Conservation Plan (Woodward et
al. 1987). The data for identifying and rating
marine wildlife habitats are from two recent
projects conducted by MDIFW (Hutchinson and
Ferrero 1980, Hutchinson and Lovett 1983).
Data for 5 towns (Kittery, Biddeford, Saco, Old
Orchard Beach, and Scarborough) were not
collected in these previous projects; therefore,
marine wildlife habitats in these towns were not
identified. Information in these towns is

from the Regional Wildlife Biologist.
currently being collected and will be available

Marine wildlife habitats were classified into one
of three categories based on their significance
to coastal wildlife (Table 4).

3. Recommendations::

a. Fisheries (F) & Wetland (W) Habitats:

Distances used in the recommendations are

Table 3. Rating of wetlands based on waterfowl habitat
value.

Rating Value Description

W3 High a) Excellent waterfowl habitat,

b) heavy use by ducks and/or
geese, and

c) all coastal salt marshes.

------------------------------------------------------------

W2 Moderate a) Lacking in one or more
aspects of prime habitat,

b) significant use by ducks
and/or geese, and

C) would respond favorably to
management.

------------------------------------------------------------

W1 Low a) Deficient in habitat
requirements,

b) limited use by ducks and/or
geese, and

c) generally would not respond
favorably to habitat manage-
ment.

------------------------------------------------------------

W5 Indeterminate a) Very poorly drained soils,
and

b) not evaluated.

Table 4. Classification of marine wildlife habitats.

Class Value Description

MWH A (Class A) Exceptio'nal a) Areas of national and/or
state significance for
coastal wildlife,

b) Very high species
abundance and diversity,
and/or

c) Includes rare and
endangered species.

------------------------------------------------------------

MWH B (Class B) High a) Areas utilized by more
common species with
regularity, and

b) High species abundance
and diversity.

------------------------------------------------------------

MWH C (Class C) Moderate c) Areas of documented but
moderate wildlife use.

measured in the following manner:

Fl, F2, F3 and F5 areas - distance is measured
horizontally from the seasonal high water mark
(Figure 2).

W1, W2, W3, and W5 - for coastal wetlands, the
distanc-e is measured horizontally from an
identifiable debris line left by tidal action,
edge of tidal action or normal storm flowage, or
from the edge of vegetation present that is
tolerant of salt water and

for inland wetlands, the
distance is measured from the normal high water
mark which is identifiable by apparent visible
markings, changes in soil character due to the
prolonged action of water, or from changes in
vegetation from predominantly aquatic to
predominantly terrestrial.

W3, W2, F3,and F2--Existin@g riparian habitat
should be maintained within 2501 or more of all
W3, W2, F3 and F2 areas. For F2 and F3
areas, the 250'riparian area includes
protection for wildlife habitat as well as water
quality and fisheries habitat.

The first 100 feet of riparian habitat should be
protected from human disturbance.

Within the remaining 150 feet, timber harvesting
should not remove, in any ten year period, more
than 20 percent of the volume on each acre
involved of trees six inches in diameter and
larger measured at 4 1/2 feet above ground level.
Single openings in the forest canopy should not
exceed 14,000 square feet. In such areas single
canopy openings of over 10,000 square feet shall
be no closer than 100 feet apart. Development
should not occur within this area without
consultation with the MDIFW Regional Wildlife
Biologist.

Direct filling of wetlands, which eliminates or
alters their unique characteristics, should
generally be considered unacceptable. Appropriate
state and.federal laws and permitting requirements
must be fulfilled.

FIGURE 2
STANDARD METHOD FOR MEASURING RIPARIAN ZONE

SEASONAL HIGH
WATER MARK

STREAM BED

RESTRICTIVE TREE UNDISTURBED ZONE UNDISTURBED ZONE RESTRICTIVE TREE
HARVEST ZONE HARVESTZONE

W1, Fl--Existing riparian habitat should be
maintained within 1001 or more of all Fl and W1
areas. New development or vegetation
manipulation, other than MDIFW-approved fish and
wildlife management practices, should not occur
within this zone.

Direct filling of wetlands, which eliminates or
alters their unique characteristics, should
generally be considered unacceptable. Appropriate
state and federal laws and permitting requirements
must be fulfilled.

W5, F5--Prior to any activity within 250 feet of
a W5 or F5 area, MDIFW should be consulted to
determine the significance of the fisheries or
wetland habitat and the appropriate management
recommendations.

b. Marine Wildlife Habitats (MWH):

The land use recommendations for MWH's are
designed to protect the wildlife values within
each of the three habitat categories. In many
instances, MWH's include "Special Wildlife
Features" within their boundaries such as eagle
nest sites, colonial nesting seabird islands,
shorebird roosting and feeding areas, or seal
haul-outs. When such Special Features occur, the
specific recommendations for each feature
(presented in later sections of this report)
should be followed as well.

MWH A (Class A Area)--An area of national and/or
state significance for coastal wildlife.

Class A Areas, including the intertidal lands,
submerged lands, and surrounding riparian zone
should be protected and maintained. Existing
habitat should not be degraded through alteration
or development.

Existing habitat should be maintained within a
2501 or more riparian buffer on the mainland and
all islands included within Class A areas. New
development or other modification to the existing
habitat should not occur within this area,
except for MDIFW approved wildlife management
practices. Also, no additional modification of
the intertidal or submerged lands should be
allowed by activities such as dredging, filling,
or placement of permanent or semi-permanent
structures or moorings.

Increased water oriented activities within or
adjacent to these areas, such as marinas and
recreational or industrial developments are not
compatible land uses.

A detailed land use plan should be prepared for
each Class A Area. This plan should be prepared
by municipal land use planners in consultation
with the MDIFW.

Key parcels in Class A areas, s'uch as eagle nest
sites, colonial nesting seabird islands, other
Special Wildlife Features, or strategically
located, undeveloped habitats in the riparian
zone should be targeted for special protection
through acquisition, conservation easements, or
landowner management agreements.

MWH B (Class B Area): An area within a region of
the Maine coast of significance for coastal wild-
life.

Existing habitat should be maintained within a
1001or more riparian buffer on the mainland and
all islands included within Class B areas. New
development or other modifications to the existing
habitat should not occur within this area
except for MDIFW approved wildlife management
practices. Also, no more than 15% of the
intertidal and submerged lands area should be
altered or modified from activities such as
dredging or placement of structures.

Land-uses that would increase water oriented
activities such as marinas and recreational
developments could be allowed. However,
industrial development should not occur within
these areas.

If any Special Wildlife Features occur, their
specific management guidelines should be applied.

NWH C (Class C Areas): An area of local
significance for coastal wildlife.

Existing habitat should be maintained within a
1001or more riparian buffer on the mainland and
all islands included within the class C areas.
New development or other modifications to the
existing habitat should not occur within this area
except MDIFW wildlife management practices. Also,
no more than 25% of the intertidal and submerged
land area should be altered or modified from
activities such as dredging or placement of
structures.

Land-uses that would increase water oriented
activities such as marinas and recreational
developments are allowed. Light industrial
development could also occur without affecting
the value of the area.

If any Special Wildlife Features occur, their
specific management guidelines should be
applied.

B. DEER WINTERING AREAS

1. Sensitivity. Winter has long been considered a
bottleneck for the survival of white-tailed deer
in the Northeast (Severinghaus 1947). During
winter, deer in northern climates subsist on often
limited quantitie@ of low quality foods, while
simultaneously coping with the stresses of low
temperatures, chilling winds, and higher energy
requirements (Lavigne 1986). When confronted with
thermal stress, deer must increase their metabolic
heat production and conserve energy to survive.
In Maine, studies indicate that mortality of deer
can exceed 35% of the wintering deer herd during a
severe winter (Hugie 1973). Frequent severe
winters or marginal winter habitat may reduce the
deer population to a small fraction of the
carrying capacity of its summer range (Potvin
and Huot 1983).

The primary behavioral mechanism for deer to
conserve energy during winter is to move to
traditional wintering areas or "deer yards".
During winter, deer concentrate into ranges
that are only 20-30% the size of their summer
range (Bozenhard pers. comm.). These Deer
Wintering Areas (DWA's) provide deer with shelter
from radiant heat loss as well as improved
mobility in snow (Mattfeld 1974). The dense
canopy of softwood cover in a DWA moderates the
effects of winter by maintaining warmer than
average temperatures and by greatly reducing wind
velocity (Lavigne 1986). The dense cover also
intercepts much of the snow fall and ground
accumulations are packed firmly (Ozoga 1968).
This makes travelling much easier for deer and
decreases their energy demands.

Deer subjected to milder winters (ie. southern
Maine) require shelter of lower quality than deer
inhabiting more severe winter environments (Gill
1957, Banasiak 1964). However deer surviving on
diets of woody browse readily seek and use winter
shelter even in the absence of restrictive snow
depths (Ozoga and Gysel 1972).

New development and other modifications to the
habitat within traditional deer wintering areas
reduce the overall ability of an area to support
deer during periods of severe winter weather. The
more development which occurs within these areas,
the greater the impact on local deer populations.
The availability of high quality winter range
allows a higher winter population of deer, and
enables them to more fully occupy their summer
habitat.

2. Methods. Wintering areas for deer were identified
using aerial and ground surveys. A Cessna 172 was
flown at an altitude of 500 feet or lower and at a
speed of approximately 100 miles per hour. Seven
flights were conducted between 16 January and 27
February, 1987, and ranged from 2 to 4 hours long.
Flight transects were followed from lines drawn on
7.5 minute.topographical maps, and each transect
was 0.5 mi apart. Two observers searched for
evidence of tracks from opposite windows of the
plane., When tracks or deerwere seen, the area
was marked on the map.

once areas were identified from the air, color
infrared photos were used (when available) to
position transects for the ground survey. These
transects were walked and the following features
were noted: 1) dominant overstory type
(softwood, hardwood, or mixed), 2) approximate
height, 3) crown closure, 4) available browse
species, 5) evidence of deer tracks, trails,
pellets, beds, or browse.

The information collected during the winter ground
surveys was used to evaluate each DWA according to
the following seven major criteria:

Access - Considered the distance from the
DWA to the nearest all weather roads. Areas
with easy access were considered to be of
greater value.

Shelter Quality - Considered tree species
composition, stand size and aspect. Areas
with mature softwoods, a high canopy closure
and a southern exposure were considered to be
optimum shelter.

Browse Availability - Considered browse that
is currently available and the potential for
existing stands to produce browse under more
intensive management. Areas with available
browse or the potential to produce browse
with management, were considered to be of
greater value.

Relationship to other DWAs - Considered
relative proximity to other DWAs. Areas at
least three to five miles apart were
considered to be of more value.

Size - Considered shape and acreage. Large
areas with a high degree of linearity were
evaluated to be of greater value.

Deer Population--Considered the amount and
frequency of deer use (tracks, trails, beds,
pellet groups) observed during the field
survey. Areas with heavy, continuous deer
sign were co2sidered to be over-wintering
> 50 deer/mi . These areas were considered
'Eo be.of greater value.

Operability of the Forest Stands (Rxclude
Access)--The general intent of DWA management
is to maintain a proper balance of winter
cover and food for the deer utilizing the
area. This balance is created and maintained
through periodic timber harvesting in the
wintering area. Deer Wintering Areas in
which timber management and harvesting can be
easily implemented and executed have high
operability. Deer Wintering Areas with high
operability were considered to be of greater
value.

Each DWA was rated by evaluating each of the
components which make up the seven criteria
above (Appendix 6) and assigning a value of
1 through 5 to each criteria. A value of
one represented the least desirable condition,
while 5 represented the most desirable.

Following the evaluating procedure, each DWA
was rated and placed in one of three value
categories or an indeterminate category for
areas which have not yet been rated (Table
5).

Based on the aerial surveys and ground
checks, boundaries for each DWA were
developed, which included the winter cover
area and adjacent foraging areas, using
color infrared (1:15,000) or black and white
(1:60,000) aerial photos.

3. Recommendations. New development is
generally not compatible with *the maintenance of
suitable conditions within deer wintering areas
and should be very closely regulated, and in most
cases not permitted in areas of moderate (D2) or
high (M) value. Prior to any development within
areas of low (Dl) or indeterminate (D5) value, it
is recommended that IF&W be consulted in the
formulation of specific land use restrictions to
prevent fragmentation or loss of significant
habitat.

Timber harvesting is an essential component of

Table 5. Rating and Description of Deer Wintering Areas
Rating Value (DWAs) Description

D3 High Received a value between
22-35 in the evaluation
procedure. These DWA's
constitute excellent deer
winter range. They are
critical to achieve goals and
objectives in MDIFW's White-
tail Deer Species Plan.

------------------------------------------------------------

D2 Moderate Received a value between 18-21
in the evaluation procedure.
These areas are lacking in
several of the components of
prime habitat, although
through management these
deficiencies may be corrected.
These areas are important to
achieve goals and objectives
in MDIFW's Whitetail Deer
Species Plan.

------------------------------------------------------------

D1 Low Received a value between 7-17
in the evaluation process.
These areas may periodically
provide shelter for small
numbers of deer, however, they
do not possess the character-
istics associated with better
winter cover. These areas may
not be essential to MDIFW's
whitetail deer goals and
objectives.

------------------------------------------------ ! -------------

D5 Indeterminate These areas have not been
rated.

06A

deer wintering area management and should be a
permitted activity. The general goal in managing
DWA's is to maintain approximately 50% of the area
in mature conifer forest types. The individual
conifers in mature softwood stands are generally
older than 45 years of age, are taller than 35'
high and are 7-81' or larger in diameter at breast
height (4 1/2 feet above ground level). To
maintain approximately 50% of the wintering area
in mature conifer cover, each landowner can
harvest as much as 20% of the total timber volume
on his ownership in any 15 year period. In
addition, single openings in the forest canopy
created during timber harvesting should not exceed
14,000 square feet. In such areas, single canopy
openings larger than 10,000 square feet shall be
no closer than 150 feet apart.

Non-permanent, minimal disturbance (light or no
bulldozing_and no graveling of the travel surface)
roads are recommended when a land management road
must be located in a DWA to allow access for
timber harvesting. The di 0sturbed right-of-way for
these roads shall not exceed 30 feet. The road
should be limed, fertilized and seeded following
timber harvesting activities.

Land ma nagement activities which are not in
conformance with these general recommendations, or
which are not specifically addressed by them,
should be addressed in a management plan,
developed by the landowner, a licensed forester,
or a wildlife biologist, 'and submitted to the town
for approval. Consultation with the
appropriate MDIFW regional wildlife biologist
prior to the formulation of any deer wintering
area management plan is strongly recommended.

The town should have the MDIFW regional
wildlife biologist review the deer wintering area
management plans prior to granting approval.

C. COLONIAL NESTING SEA13IRD ISLANDS

1. Sensitivity. Between three and four thousand
islands and exposed ledges occur along the Maine
coast. Three hundred and fifty of these are
of special significance because they are used as
traditional sites by twenty species of
colonial-nesting seabirds.

Many of these birds are at the northern or
southern limit of their range. For several
species (common eider, black guillemot, Atlantic
puffin, razorbill auk, great cormorant, Leach's
storm petrel), Maine is the only state within the
contiguous 48 states with breeding populations.

Populations of colonial nesting seabirds
throughout Maine were decimated by the late 1800's
by overharvesting for meat, eggs, and feathers.
The growing list of vanishing species sparked
national interest, and was the issue of concern
which prompted formation of the National Audubon
Society and led to the drafting and promulgation
of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918.

Those birds which survived the excessive
exploitation of the 19th*century responded well to
the protective legislation, which coincided with
the collapse of many island-based economies.
Numerous island communities were abandoned,
allowing historic seabird islands to be
recolonized by colonial nesting seabirds. It is
of the utmost importance to understand that both
the protective legislation and the off-island
emigration of people were requisite to the rapid
recovery of many species which we have observed
during the past six decades. Had 19th century
levels of human disturbance and occupation of
breeding habitat been maintained, existing
legislation alone would not have produced this
recovery.

Colonial nesting marine birds are extremely
vulnerable to the effects of development and
associated human disturbance during the nesting
season. Disruption of nesting birds at this-
critical time can result in excessive mortality
of chicks and eggs from predation and exposure.

The recent explosion of development along the
coast is threatening to reverse this recovery
through the escalating demands on islands
for recreation and homesites.

2. Methods. Ground surveys and censuses were
conducted between 1981 and 1986 to identify and
inventory colonies of nesting seabirds.
Islands were identified for ground surveys
by historic records, the sightings of birds, or
the presence of suitable habitat. Islands found
with nesting marine birds were censused using
direct nest counts and/or visual estimates of
adult birds.

3. Recomnendations. The recommendations presented in
this section are broad. They are an attempt to
address the full range of possible situations that
may arise when human activity influences colonial
nesting seabird islands. Where there is doubt
about the interpretation or application of these
recommendations, it is strongly recommended that
the appropriate MDIFW` regional wildlife biologist
be contacted for assistance.

From Aprif 1 to August 15, human use of these
islands should be discouraged. Activities around
the islands should be conducted far enough off
shore to prevent flushing birds from nests
(approximately 1/4 mile).

Development or building should not occur on
seabird nesting islands, except in very rare cases
where the nesting colony is located in a
relatively small area of a large island, and
adequate visual buffers (equal to or greater than
250 feet) can be maintained to prevent
disturbance. Limited construction should only
occur after review and approval by an MDIFW
wildlife biologist.

Recommendations for human use of any seabird
nesting island can be developed by the appropriate
MDIFW regional biologist and implemented through
cooperative agreements with private landowners and
state agencies having ownership of, or
jurisdiction over, seabird islands. In general,
low intensity recreational use, such as picnicking
and hiking, can be permitted outside the nesting
season. The building of fires should be
prohibited at all times.

D. WADING BIRD ROOKERIES

These recommendations were developed for great blue
herons but in general can apply to other wading birds
such as snowy egrets, glossy ibis, black-crowned night
herons, tri-colored herons, and little blue herons.

1. Sensitivity. The stately great blue heron is
the largest and most well-known of Maine's wading
birds. Returning to the state in March or April
from their more southerly wintering grounds, adult
herons reclaim nests from the previous year in
colonies ranging in size from two to over two
hundred nesting pairs. During the nesting season
(approximately 1 April through 15 August) nests
are repaired or built anew, and clutches of
3-4 eggs are laid and incubated. The young hatch
in late May or early June. Young are fed on the
nest until they fledge in July or August, at which
time the birds abandon the nesting colony and
disperse to coastal and inland feeding areas.
Fall migration extends into November, with an
occasional bird or two remaining in coastal areas
during mild winters.

Great blue herons feed on a variety of fresh and
salt water organisms. Small fish and marine
invertebrates are captured in tidal pools and
creeks. Frogs, small fish, and the larger
freshwater invertebrates are taken in shallow
fresh-water habitats. The great blue heron is
extremely vulnerable to the cumulative effects of
pollutants entering the water from residential,
industrial and agricultural sources because
many of the aquatic organisms on which it feeds
accumulate chemicals from the water column and
bottom sediments and concentrate them within
their tissues. In many states, pollution of
feeding areas has reduced populations to the point
of extinction.

Coastal nesting colonies are typically located on
islands or peninsulas which are remote from human
disturbance, and are often several miles from
feeding areas. Nests are built of sticks near the
tops of either softwood or hardwood trees, and are
typically re-used from year to year until the nest
tree dies and blows down, or the colony abandons
the site.

The two most important factors governing the
continued presence of both inland and coastal
nesting great blue herons in Maine are the
availability and abundance of undisturbed nesting
habitat and undisturbed, uncontaminated feeding

areas. Human disturbance of a nesting colony can
cause: 1) abandonment of the entire colony; 2)
mortality of eggs and young from predation (gullsf
ravens, eagles) and exposure; and 3) starvation
and predation of young that leave the nest before
they are able to fly (adults will not feed young
on the ground).

2. Methods. Heron rookeries were located from
information obtained from a variety of sources.
Historical records and observations during aerial
and ground surveys provided the majority of the
locations. Historical nesting sites which
continued to have suitable habitat were mapped
even if not active every year. The
nesting colony is delineated by the outer-most
nest trees of the colony.

3. Recommendations. The recommendations
presented in this section are broad. They are an
attempt to address the full range of possible
situations that may arise when human activity
influences wading bird rookeries. Where there is
doubt about the interpretation or the application
of these recommendations, it is strongly
recommended that the appropriate'MDIFW regional
wildlife biologist be contacted for assistance.

Alteration of existing natural habitat within a
rookery and land use changes within 1/4 of a mile
of the perimeter of a rookery can have a
significant impact on future welfare of a wading
bird-colony. In managing wading bird colonies,
recommendations have been developed for the
nesting colony and for three concentric buffer
zones around it.

The natural habitat within 330' of the colony
should not be modified unless such actions are
deemed essential to improve or maintain nesting
opportunity by an MDIFW wildlife biologist.
Human use of the area should be discouraged during
the cri-tical nesting period (April 1 - August 15).

Incompatible year-round activities:

- Timber cutting without consultation
with an MDIFW wildlife biologist,

- Land clearing without consultation
with an MDIFW wildlife biologist, and

- Road, trail, or building construction.

A.#

Incompatible activities during the nesting
period:

Repeated human visitation.

Compatible Activities during the non-nesting
period:

hiking, fishing (recreational and
commercial) and agricultural
activities.

The area 330-660 feet from the colony perimeter
should be limited to light land-use activities
conducted only during the non-critical nesting
period. Timber harvesting should not remove more
than 20% of the available stand volume in any
10-year period'in this zone. Stand openings
created by cutting should be distributed evenly
and each should not exceed an area of 7,500 square
feet.

Incompatible year-round activities:

- Clear cutting,

- Land clearing (openings greater than
7,500 square feet), and

- Building permanent structures, roads,
or trails.

Compatible activities during the critical
nesting period:

- Minimal human activity, and

- Farming or commercial fishing if MDIFW
wildlife biologists have found that
nesting birds are tolerant of these
activities.

Compatible activities during the non-nesting
period:

- Hunting, fishing, hiking, farming,

- Selective thinning or maintenance of
timber stands using the guidelines
stated above, and

- Maintenance of existing roads or
trails.

-27

The area 660-1,320 feet from the colony perimeter
should also be protected from human disturbance.
The construction of buildings and roads in
this zone can impact the rookery. If the
construction of'a road or building appears
warranted, a MDIFW wildlife biologist should be
consulted prior to its beginning. Specific sites
valuable to wading birds (perching areas or
potential nest trees) should be preserved, but
there are no other land use restrictions for
activities conducted during the noncritical
p6riod.

Because the effects of human disturbance to a
colony depend on several factors (including the
stage of-the nesting cycle, habituation to human
activity, size of colony and type of habitat
surrounding the colony), any subdivisions or
indistrial or commercial developments proposed
within one mile of a heronry should be
reviewed in consultation with MDIFW to assess
potential effects to the colony.

E. BALD EAGLE NEST SITES

1. Sensitivity. The bald eagle is the largest bird
in Maine, having a wingspan of 7 to 8 feet and
weighing from 8 to 15 pounds. They attain
their adult plumage (a white head and tail) at 5
years of age, at which time they choose a mate for
life. Bald eagles build large stick nests usually
in prominent white pines or spruces located within
one mile of marine habitats, shallow lakes and
ponds, or along larger rivers. A pair of eagles
returns to the same nest site yearly and will
sometimes maintain up to 7 nests within their
nesting territory. Bald eagles eat primarily
bottom-dwelling fish during the summer months, but
shift their diet to birds (primarily waterfowl and
gulls) and carrion during the winter. Adult
eagles remain near their nest year-round, however,
young eagles may wander as far south as Chesapeake
Bay before returning to Maine to nest. Eagles
from Maine and the region from the Maritime
Provinces and Ontario to Saskatchewan are known to
winter in Maine. In addition to nesting areas,
bald eagles require perch sites and winter roost
sites located near feeding areas.

The bald eagle was declared an Endangered Species
on the Federal Register in Maine and 43 other
states in 1918, and is listed as endangered on the
State of Maine Endangered Species List. Maine has
the only nesting population of bald eagles in New
England. In 1986, 85 pairs of eagles were found
nesting in Maine and they produced 75 young.
Reproductive rates in Maine remain lower than
other populations in North America. However,
because of the increased survival of young eagles,
due in part to a winter feeding program, the
population is still increasing. Protection of
traditionally used nesting territories is a key
factor in the long-term recovery of Maine's bald
eagle population.

Human influences such as disturbance around nest
sites, shooting, environmental pollution, and
habitat alteration have affected bald eagle
populations. Bald eagle numbers in Maine began a
slow but steady decline in colonial times,
primarily as the result of habitat loss and human
persecution. This decline was greatly accelerated
in Maine after 1945, when DDT and other
organochlorine pesticides were used extensively
for spruce budworm and agricultural pest control.
These pesticides caused reproductive failure in
many birds of prey, and were banned from use in

North America in 1972. Bald eagles and other
birds of prey'have since responded with
improvements in their reproductive success.
Because of slow decomposition rates in Maine's
forest soils, DDT still adversely influences
the production of some pairs.

Nevertheless, Maine's bald eagle population
continues to produce more young each year. New
breeding pairs of bald eagles in Maine have been
found in recent years, and most often resume use
of historic nest sites that were abandoned in the
1950's and 19601s.

Today, a tremendous increase in land development
and recreation is occurring in mid and eastern
coastal regions, and has already modified western
coastal areas formerly occupied by nesting eagles.
Habitat protection and management, particularly at
and adjacent to the nest site, are essential to
the recovery of bald eagles in Maine.

2. Methods. Annual aerial surveys are conducted in
April to check historical and/or known active
territories for use and to verify reports obtained
during the previous year. Historic nest sites
which continue to have suitable habitat were
mapped even if not active in recent years.

3.. Recommendations. New development and associated
human activity within 1/2 mile of an active eagle,
nest can impact nesting success, and the
maintenance of local bald eagle populations. The-
recommendations presented in this section are
broad. They are an attempt to address the full
range of possible situations that may arise when
human activity influences bald.eagle-nest sites.
Where there is doubt about the interpretation or
the application of these recommendations, it is
strongly recommended that the appropriate MDIFW
regional wildlife biologist be contacted for
assistance.

Eagles have a prolonged nesting season during
which they are extremely sensitive to disturbance.
Any activities near the nesting territory may be
harmful from the time adults arrive at a nest to
the period when young eaglets disperse in late
summer.

General dates for this critical period are:

Coastal Maine February 1 - August 31
Interior Maine March I - September 30

The first 2 months of'the nesting season
(courtship, nest repair, egg-laying, incubation,
and hatching) are especially critical, and
disturbances may cause nesting failure or even
abandonment. Adult eagles may occupy nesting
territories throughout the year, particularly
in-coastal regions.

Protection recommendations consist of three
concentric buffer zones which become less
restrictive as the distance from the nest
increases. This conforms with the protection
suggested in national recovery plans for bald
eagles. Suggested shoreland zoning districts are
those defined by the Maine Shoreland Zoning Act.

The area 330 feet from the nest should be
maintained as an undisturbed nesting sanctuary.
The natural habitat should be protected
unless such actions are deemed essential to site
preservation by an MDIFW wildlife biologist. .
Recreational activities (hunting, fishing, hiking,
boating) should be discouraged during the critical
nesting period.

Incompatible year-round activities:

- Timber cutting without consultation
with an MDIFW wildlife biologist,

- Land clearing without consultation
with an MDIFW wildlife biologist,

- Road, trail, or building construction,
and

- Repeat ed human visitation.

Compatible activities during the non-nesting
period:

hiking, fishing (recreational and
commercial), and agricultural
activities.

The area 330-660 feet from the nest should be
limited to light land-use activities conducted
only during the non-critical period. Any timber
harvests should not remove more than 20% of the
available stand volume in any 10-year period in
this zone. Stand openings created by cutting
should be distributed evenly and each should not
exceed an area of 7,500 square feet.

Incompatible year-round activities:

- Clear cutting,

- Land clearing (openings greater than
7,500 square feet), and

- Building permanent structures, roads,
or trails.

Compatible activities during the critical
nesting period:

- Human activity, if minimized, and

- Farming or commercial fishing is
possible if MDIFW wildlife biologists
have found that nesting eagles are
tolerant of these activities.

Compatible activities during the non-nesting
period:

- Hunting, fishing, hiking, &
agriculture,

- Selective thinning or maintenance of
timber stands using the guidelines
stated above, and

- Maintenance of existing roads or
trails.

The area 660-1,320 feet from the nest should
also be protected from human disturbance, and
specific sites valuable to eagles (perching areas
or potential nest trees) preserved. Construction
of buildings and roads in this zone will likely
affect the suitability of the nest site.

If construction of roads or buildings appears
warranted, a wildlife biologist should be
consulted prior to their beginning. Buildings and
roads should be out of the line of sight from the
nest and conform to at least a 100-foot setback
from the shoreline. The integrity of the
shoreline vegetation should be maintained by
restricting cutting along the shoreline and large
snags should be retained for perch trees.

Eagle nests may be affected by activities more
than 1320 feet from the nest and activities beyond
13201 from the nest may impact nesting success.
individual basis.

Other recommendations:

1) A supply of mature trees should be maintained
in the area since eagles prefer old-growth
trees to perch and build their nests. Tall
white pines are the favored nest and perch
trees for eagles in Maine.

2) Nearby shorelines offering perch trees are an
important component of the nesting habitat
and should be preserved in a natural state.
These restrictions generally cronform with-
local Shoreland Zoning ordinances.

3) Site enhancement measures (e.g. posting,
making snags available as perch trees,
structural bracing of a nest in poor
condition,-and even building an artificial
nest) are feasible and can be evaluated on a
site by site basis.

4) Maine's coastal bald eagle population is
presently expanding westward, recolonizing
historic territories. Areas with documented
use by nesting bald eagles since the first
systematic eagle surveys began in 1962,
should therefore be protected from major
habitat alterations and large scale human
development.

F. OSPREY NEST SITES

1. Sensitivity. The osprey or "fish hawk" is a
common bird of prey in Maine, and has a wingspan
of 41 to 6 feet. In flight, ospreys are
distinguished from bald eagles by their white
underparts, a dark patch at the sharp bend or
"wrist" of the wings, and their habit of hovering
before diving into the water to capture fish.
They attain maturity at 3 years of age, at which
time they choose a mate for life and begin
building a large stick nest that they will return
to annually. osprey nests are typically near
water, atop snags or live trees having dead,
broken tops, but they occasionally-nest on exposed
rock ledges. Some ospreys are tolerant of human
activity and build their nests on channel markers ,
utility poles and towers, and artificial
platforms. A pair of ospreys may maintain 2 or 3
nests within their-territory, selecting one to
nest in each spring. At some sites in Maine,
ospreys nest in colonie's of 2 to 11 pairs.
In the fall, both adults and young migrate to
Central and South America, going as far south as
Argentina and Chile. The young birds remain there
until maturity; then they return to nest near
their place of birth.

The osprey population in Maine, as in many other
regions of North America, is recovering from a
dramatic decline. Like bald eagles, ospreys are
extremely sensitive to environmental contaminants.
ospreys are still classified as endangered in 8
states and threatened in 20 others. However,
because of their greater reproductive rates and
higher tolerance of human activity, the osprey
population in Maine has increased dramatically
during the last decade. Survival of these birds
depends increasingly on the species' ability to
associate with humans. Nesting habitat
adjacent to foraging areas continues to be lost,
and many birds are forced to adapt to man-altered
habitats. As a result, public awareness of
ospreys has increased in recent years, and entire
communities are now participating in osprey
management projects, including artificial nest
programs and protection of natural nest sites.

2. Methods. Nests were located during a 1981
aerial survey specifically for osprey (only part
of study area), the 1981 or 1982 coastal
aerial surveys, and the ground surveys of
seabird nesting islands. osprey nest locations
are most likely incomplete because there is a
regular turnover of nest sites by ospreys.

3. Recomendations. The recommendations presented in
this section are broad. They are an attempt to
address the full range of possible situations that
may arise when human activity influences osprey
nest sites. Where there is doubt about the
interpretation or the application of these
recommendations, it is strongly recommended that
the appropriate MDIFW regional wildlife biologist
be contacted for assistance.

The strong recovery of osprey populations in most
parts of Maine; the birds'versatility of nest site
selection, and the large turnover rates of nest
sites, indicate that intensive site specific
management is not required. As a general rule,
during the critical nesting period disturbance to
osprey nests should be discouraged. G eneral dates
for the critical nesting period are:

Coastal Maine: April 1 to August 15
Interior Maine: April 15 to August 15

The first 2 months of the nesting season
(courtship, nest repair, egg laying, incubation,
and hatching) are the most critical. Disturbances
that cause an incubating or brooding bird to flush
from the nest can cause nesting failure. Ospreys
use a loud chirping call or will even attack when
visitors venture too close to the nest. These
behaviors should be sufficient warning to leave
the nesting area. Signs warning the public to
maintain respectable distances from nesting birds
should be erected.

During the critical nesting period, human activity
should be minimized and should exclude
construction of major roads and buildings within
6601 of an active nest. Ospreys are variable in
the amount of human disturbance they will
tolerate. Generally, pairs that build nests in
close proximity to buildings, roads, or on bridge
piers, chimneys, channel markers, or utility poles
have accepted human activity, and recommendations
may be modified in consultation with an MDIFW
wildlife biologist. Most activities are
acceptable in this zone outside of the critical.
nesting season except construction of major roads
and buildings. If construction of a road or
building appears warranted, an MDIFW wildlife
biologist should be consulted prior to its
beginning. Buildings and roads within the zone
and adjacent areas should be out of sight from the
nest and conform to a 100 foot or greater setback

from the shoreline. The integrity of the
shoreline vegetation should be maintained by
restricting cutting and retaining large snags
along the shoreline.protection zone.

Selective cutting within 660 feet of a nest
is acceptable outside of the critical nesting
period, but harvest should not remove more than
20% of the stand volume in any 10-year period. A
special effort should be made to preserve snags
and clumps of tall trees for alternate nest sites.

Incompatible year-round activities:

- Clear cutting, and

- Building permanent structures and
major roads (see comments above).

Compatible activities during the critical
nesting period:

- human activity, if minimized, and

- Farming or fishing (commercial or
recreational) is possible if
nesting ospreys are tolerant of
these activities.

Compatible activities during the non-nesting
period:

- Hunting, fishing, hiking, farming,

- Selective harvesting of forest stands,
and

- Maintenance of existing roads or
trails.

Colonial groupings of osprey nests (occupied nests
separated by less than 1/2 mile) should be
buffered collectively. The guidelines outlined
above should be applied to each individual nest,
and the colony boundaries should be delineated by
a MDIFW wildlife biologist. Colonial nesting
ospreys are rare in Maine and indicate the
pr'oximity of a unique, highly productive feeding
area or a severe shortage of suitable nesting
habitat.

Additional recommendations include:

A supply of mature tree.s and snags should be

maintained along the shoreline for potential nest
sites. Tall white pines and broken-topped spruces
are favored nest and perch trees for ospreys in
Maine.

2) Maintaining the integrity of wooded shorelines
greatly enhances osprey nesting and perching
habitat. Minimum setbacks of 100 feet or greater
for building or road construction along a wooded
shoreline not only complies with �horeland zoning
ordinances but lessens the influence of new
construction on ospreys, eagles and other
wildlife. Suggested shoreland zoning districts
are those defined by the Maine Shoreland Zoning
Act. Shoreline buffers greater than those provided
for under Shoreline Zoning may be recommended
based on other adjacent resource areas, such as
wetlands (W3, W2) or Class A-Marine Wildlife
Habitats.

3) Community artificial nest platform programs have
been successful for ospreys. Artificial platforms
can be used to provide nest sites in areas that
lack sufficient natural sites, replace insecure
natural nests, relocate nests away from excessive
disturbance, and substitute nests located on
hazardous or conflicting man-made structures.
The design and placement of nest platforms'should
be under the direction of a MDIFW wildlife
biologist.

G. SHOREBIRD FEEDING AND ROOSTING AREAS

1. Sensitivity. Shorebirds are a closely related
group of species that are represented in Maine by
the sandpipers, plovers, turnstones, curlews,
dowitchers, and phalaropes. The Maine coast is
an important feeding and resting area for
over 25 species of migratory shorebirds. Six
speciest including the endangered piping plover,
breed along the coast, and one species, the purple
sandpiper, is a winter resident.

A large numbers of these birds depend on coastal
habitats in Maine for feeding and resting during
their long migration from the Arctic breeding
grounds to South American wintering areas. During
their brief stay in Maine, most shorebirds feed
intensively on intertidal invertebrates and nearly
double their weight in fat reserves. This fat is
used as fuel for the nonstop 2,600 mile
transoceanic flight. Although migratory
shorebirds are observed briefly in Maine (from
July to September), the coastal habitats they use
are critical to the continued success of their
annual migrations.

Shorebird populations are still recovering from
tremendous population declines incurred in the
late 1800's and early 1900's resulting from market
hunting. Several species, including the Eskimo
curlew, golden plover, and whimbrel, are still
rare today. However, the continued recovery of
all shorebird species depends particularly on the
preservation of fall migration areas (Maine and
the Bay of Fundy region), wintering quarters
(coastal South America) and spring migration
stopovers (central U. S. and Canada).

2. Methods. Historic records and ground surveys
were used to locate shorebird feeding and roosting
areas. Presence of an average of 50 or more
shorebirds during any season was needed to locate
one of these areas.

3. Recommendations. The recommendations presented in
this section are broad. They are an attempt to
address the full range of possible situations that
may arise when human activity influences shorebird
.feeding and roosting areas. Where there is doubt
about the interpretation or application of
these recommendations, the appropriate MDIFW
regional wildlife biologist should be contacted
for assistance.

The continued importance of the Maine coast to
migrating shorebirds depends on the preservation
of their feeding and roosting habitats. Commonly
used feeding areas include mudflats, salt marshes,
sand and gravel beaches, mussel bars, blueberry
fields, and bogs. Major roosting habitats are
gravel and sand beaches and bars, salt marshes,
rocky ledges, fields, and pastures. Each species
@as preferred feeding and roosting habitats. The
importance of a region to a particular species
depends on the abundance of its preferred .
habitats in that region. In general, preservation
of intertidal mud and sand flats, sand beaches and
gravel bars would provide feeding and resting
areas for a diversity of shorebird species.

Feeding Areas. Protection recommendations consist
of applying the existing shoreland zoning
districts (Maine Shoreland Zoning Act) to protect
the most important shorebird feeding areas.
Shoreline buffers greater than those provided for
under shoreline zoning may be beneficial based on
other adjacent resource areas, such as wetlands
(W3, W2) or Class A Marine Wildlife Habitats
[MWH(A)I. In addition, activities should be
@estricted that would substantially alter the
integrity of the existing shoreline or influence
the abundance or species composition of the
intertidal invertebrate populations that the
shorebirds utilize for food (e.g., dredging,
filling, construction of piers, jetties, seawalls,
discharge of human and industrial waste).
Shorebirds may shift to other feeding areas if
excessive alterations or destruction of intertidal
habitats occur. Human activity should be
discouraged during peak migration (July 10 to
September 10). Activities that would diminish the
intertidal invertebrate diversity or abundance
should be prohibited year-round.

Compatible activities during the peak
migration period:

Light to moderate intensity clam or
worm digging, commercial fishing
(except dragging), and recreational
activities.

Incompatible year-round activities:

overboard discharge of sewage or other
environmental contaminants on or near
mud or sand flats used by shorebirds,
and

Activities such as dredging or filling
on feeding areas, or dragging within
1/2-mile of mean low tide of feeding
areas that would cause deposition of
sediment especially in Class A and B
wildlife areas.

Most other activities are compatible with
shorebird feeding areas outside of the migratory
period, except dredging, filling, or dragging.
Building and road construction, forestry and
agricultural activities should be out of the line
of sight from the feeding area and conform to at
least a 75 foot or greater setback from the
shoreline.

Roosting Areas. Roosting habitats are extremely
limited and highly traditional. The physical
characteristics of a roost site offer shorebirds
protection from adverse weather and predators, in
addition to a place to rest at high tide. Good
roost sites are limited and shorebirds will travel
for miles to a well-protected roost at high tide.
Many roosting areas have been used by shorebirds
since colonial times.

The natural habitat within shorebird roosting
area and adjacent shoreland within 2501 of each
roosting area should not be modified unless such
actions are deemed essential to site preservation
after consulting with a MDIFW wildlife biologist.

Incompatible year-round activities within
250-foot protection zone:

- Land clearing without consultation
with a MDIFW wildlife biologist, and

- Road, trail, or new building
construction.

Incompatible activities within 250-foot
protection zone during the migratory period:

Human activities (Posting of the area
may be warranted).

Compatible activities during the
non-migratory period:

- Hunting, fishing, hiking, commercial
fishing, and farming, and

- Selective thinning or maintenance of
timber stands within the 250 foot
zone - 40

H. SEAL HAUL-OUTS

A. Sensitivity. Maine has the largest population of
harbor seals of any Atlantic state, and supports
the only significant breeding population in the
eastern United States. Gray seals, which are much
larger than the harbor seal, are uncommon but
regular visitors to Maine's coast, and usually
found around remote offshore ledges and islands.
The gray seal does not breed in Maine. Although
pups are occasionally seen, they have probably
dispersed from their birthplaces around Sable
Island or the Gulf of St. Lawrence in eastern
Canada.

Populations of both species were severely depleted
by overharvesting through the middle part of this
century, but have increased dramatically during
the Past twenty years in response to protective
legislation. Maine's population of harbor seals
has more than doubled since 1973, to an estimated
13,000 plus animals in 1986 (Gilbert and Stein,
1981; Wynne, personal communication).

All seals use half-tide ledges and island beaches
for resting and whelping, and these sites are
necessary-for the survival of both adults and
young. Whelping or "pupping" sites are used from
year to year by the same breeding females, many of
which were probably born on these ledges
(Cowperthwaite, unpubl. data). These specific
sites are important because of their proximity to
high quality feeding areas, combined with a lack
of human disturbance.

The attributes of food availability and lack of
disturbance also determine selection of haul-out
ledges by nonbreeding and post-breeding seals
(Ronald, Selley and Heally, 1982). Adult seals
undergo a complete pelage molt in mid to late
summer. This is a physiological stressful period
demanding additional rest to sustain the increased
metabolic activity associated with skin and fur
replacement.

2. Methods. Seal haul-outs were located in
conjunction with coastal aerial surveys in 1981 or
1982 and ground censuses of seabird nesting
islands. Seal haul-outs observed with at least 5
or more adults or pups were mapped.

3. Recommendations. The recommendations
presented in this section are broad. They are an
attempt to addres s the full range of possible

situations that may arise when human activity
influences seal haul-outs. Where there is doubt
about the interpretation or the application of
these recommendations, the appropriate MDIFW
regional wildlife biologist be contacted for
assistance.

Human disturbance and contamination from oil
spills are the primary threats to seals at
haul-outs. - Curious boaters approaching too close
to hauled-out seals, or actually landing on the
islands and ledges, will force seals to flee into
the water. Young pups can easily become
permanently separated from their mothers,
resulting in death by starvation. Pups are
born without a thick layer of blubber, and must
rely on solar energy for thermoregulation during
the first few weeks of life. Until pups have
acquired a layer of blubber, long periods of
immersion in Maine's cold coastal waters can cause
death from hypothermia. Curious pups are also
slow to avoid boats, and are therefore vulnerable
to injuries from boat propellers.

The hazards to marine mammals from oil spills are
well-documented. Ingestion of petroleum products,
and oiling of fur can cause death. Spills in
proximity to major pupping areas could be
especially disastrous, affecting hundreds of
seals.

Recommendations for the protection of seal
haul-outs focus on minimizing both exposure to
human disturbance and the potential for
involvement with major oil spills.

Human activity should be discouraged during the
critical period of April I - August 15.
Informational signs should be posted at major boat
launching areas and marinas explaining the
problems of human disturbance to seals, and
requesting that boaters avoid harassment by
remaining at least 200 feet from all seals,
whether hauled-out or in the water. Siting of
major marinas and oil tanker shipping lanes should
avoid important haul-out areas.

LEAST TERN AND PIPING PLOVER NEST SITES

1. Sensitivity. The least tern and piping plover
both nest along the Atlantic coast on sandy,
coastal beaches. Both are rare and their
populations have been declining in recent years.
The piping plover is federally listed as
Threatened throughout its Atlantic coast range.
In Maine the piping plover and least tern are
listed as Endangered.

There currently are fewer than 100 pairs of least
terns nesting in Maine and fewer than 15 pairs of
piping plovers. There are only about 12 beaches
in Maine where suitable nest sites for these birds
exist. At all of the nesting sites, birds are
confronted with habitat loss, disturbance from
people and their pets, and predation from wild
animals and pets. To prevent the loss of these
two species from Maine, undisturbed nest sites
must be available.

2. Methods. Historic potential and known active
nesting sites are annually surveyed by Maine
Audubon Society and by MDIFW. These
records form the basis of all mapped sites.

3. Recommendations. Specific recommendations
for these species are being developed by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service but are not available at
this time. However, nesting beaches should not be
developed and human disturbance and pets should
not be allowed in the nesting areas. MDIFW
wildlife biologists should be contacted for
specific recommendations on a site-by-site basis.

J. OTHER SPECIAL WILDLIFE HABITATS

1. Sensitivity. A number of other special wildlife
habitats exist for which there are currently no
broad recommendations due to their uniqueness. An
example is the grasshopper sparrow nest site in
Brunswick. These unique habitats are grouped
within this "OTHER" category for the purposes of
this report. They should be viewed as extremely
sensitive environments.

2. Methods. Confirmed occurrences of endangered or
threatened wildlife species utilizing a specific
location to fulfill all or a portion of their
seasonal or annual needs for food, cover and
reproduction were mapped in this category. A
complete list of endangered and threatened
wildlife species is found in Appendix 7.

3. Recommendations. MDIFW wildlife biologists
should be contacted to assist in developing
specific management plans.

Part II. OPEN SPACE FOR WILDLIFE

Sensitivity. A model for evaluating open space for
wildlife has immediate value in southern Maine.
Currently biologists are faced with determining how
particular development projects will affect the full
range of wildlife species without having a way to
determine the land's relative value. A standardized
evaluation method is essential so that development may
be directed towards appropriate areas and away from
critical wildlife habitats. It provides a link between
scientific information currently available and the needs
of planners. The model contained in this report should
not be used to predict animal occurrence or abundance
within habitats.

2. Methods. A four-step procedure was developed for
evaluating open space for wildlife (Appendix 8). The
method is similar to one applied by Woodward et al.
(1986) for evaluating wildlife habitat in coastal
Maine and is based on models used by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (1980a, 1980b). Steps I and II
incorporate the first four guidelines recommended by the
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1980a) for developing
indices of suitable habitat prior to site visits. These
guidelines are: 1) define the study area boundaries, (2)
develop species guilds (here called habitat types), 3)
calculate total availability of habitat, and 4) acquire
habitat suitability models. The model selected uses
existing information and expert opinion on species
diversity and abundance to assess the biological value
of habitats and is described in step I. Step II alters
the biological value of each habitat by increasing the
value of rare habitats relative to more abundant
habitats within the study area. This is accomplished by
combining information on habitat availability with the
data on species diversity and abundance and calculating
an index for habitats within the study area.

Step III provides an on-site procedure for determining
the overall value of a specific site based on steps I
and II, and assesses the value of special components
present at the site as observed during a field visit.

Step IV provides a procedure to evaluate additional
values if an area is being considered for development.

3. Recommendaitons. Although no areas were evaluated
in these towns as part of this project, the procedure
has been used by MDIFW to evaluate areas throughout the
state for acquisition. The habitat evaluation form is
found as Appendix 9.

VI. CONCLUSION

wildlife and fisheries values for each of the 17 study towns
were based on the best available information. In some
cases, significant resources may not have been included
because of insufficient available documentation. An area's
absence from this report by no means precludes it from being
identified as important at a later date. Areas that may
have significant fish and wildlife resources that do not
appear in this report should be evaluated by a professional
wildlife biologist before they are significantly altered.

The dramatic increase in growth in many Maine communities
has caused wildlife habitat to be lost to development. Most
of the burden of guiding or controlling growth has fallen on
local officials who are usually serving only part time or as
volunteers. Although local officials are often most
informed about what developments are occurring in their
towns, they frequently lack the expertise or resources to
evaluate the affect on wildlife.

This report was designed to provide information regarding
the protection of special fish and wildlife habitats.
South-coastal Maine was selected for in-depth analysis due
to the intense development pressures currently occurring.

Many questions remain concerning the best way to implement
the management recommendations for preserving important
wildlife and fisheries habitats. This report has
accomplished the initial steps in the process by identifying
the resources requiring special consideration, as well as
providing initial recommendations regarding the protection
of these natural resources.

REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED

Arbuckle, J. and K. Kellogg. 1986. Maine Audubon 1986 Least
tern protection project report. Maine Audubon Society,
Falmouth, ME.

Banasiak, C.F. 1964. Deer in Maine, Game Division
Bulletin No. 6. Department of Inland Fisheries and
Game, Augusta, ME.

Barclay, J.S. 1980. Impact of stream alterations on
riparian communities in south central Oklahoma. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife service, Kearneysville, West
Virginia. FWS/OBS-80/17.

Bowan, I., and J. Siderus. 1984. Draft management
guidelines for heronries. Unpublished report. Ontario
Ministry of Natural Resources', Ontario, Canada.

Breschta, R.L. 1978. Long-term patterns of sediment
production following road construction and logging in
the Oregon Coast Range. Water Resour. Res. 141'.
1011-1016.

Brinson, M.M., B.L. Swift, R.C. Plantico and J.S. Barclay.
1981. Riparian Ecosystems; Their ecology and status.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kearneysville, West
Virginia. FWS/OBS-81/17.

Brown, G.W. and J. T. Krygler. 1967. Changing water
temperatures in small mountain streams. J. Soil and
Water Conserv. 22(6):242-244.

Brown, G. W., G W. Swank and J. Rothacher. 1971. Water
temperature in the steamboat drainage. USDA For. Serv.
Res. Pap. PNW-119. Pac. Northwest For. and Range Exp.
Stn., Portland, OR.

Bull, E.L. 1978. Specialized habitat requirements of birds;
snag management, old growth, and riparian habitat.
Pages 79-82 In: R.M. DeGraaf, ed., Proceedings of a
workshop on nongame bird habitat management in the
coniferous forests of the western U.S. U.S. For. Serv.
Tech. Rep. PNW-64.

Clark, K. L., D. L. Euler, and E. Armstrong. 1984.
Predicting avian community response to lakeshore
cottage development. J. Wildlife Manage. 48(4):
1239-1247.

Corbett, E. S., J. A. Lynch and W. E. Supper. 1978. Timber
harvesting practices and water quality in the eastern
United States. J. Forestry, August.

Cross, S. P. 1985. Responses of small mammals to forest
riparian perturbations, pages 269-275. In: Proceedings
of the North American Riparian Conference, Tuscon, AZ.

Curtis, R.L. and T.H. Ripley. 1975. Water management
practices and their effect on nongame bird habitat
values in a deciduous forest community. Pages 123-141.
In: D. R. Smith (Tech. Coord.). Proceedings of the
�@mposium on management of Forest and Range Habitats
for Nongame Birds. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep.
WO-1, Washington, D.C.

Davies, P.H. 1986. Toxicology and chemistry of metals in
urban runoff. Pages 60-78. In Proceedings of an
Engineering Foundation Conference, Urban Water Res.
ASCE/Henniker, NH. June 23-27, 1986.

Davies, S. and J. Sowles. 1984. The value of headwater
streams and the effects of forest cutting practices on
stream ecology. State of Maine, Department of
Environmental Protection, unpublished report. Augusta,
ME.

DeGraaf, R.M. and D. P. Rudis. 1986. New England Wildlife:
Habitat, Natural History and Distribution. U.S. Forest
Service Gen. Tech, Rep. NE-108, Amherst, MA.

Dennis J. 1986. Nutrient Loading Impacts, phosphorus export
from'a low density residential watershed and an
adjacent-forested watershed. Pages 401-407 In: Lake
and Reservoir Management: Volume II. North American
Lake Management Society, city, state.

DEP. 1983. Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau
of Land Quality Control Policy #13, pursuant to D.E.P.
Regulation Chapter 375, D.E.P., Augusta, ME.

DiBello, F. J., 1982. Furbearer use of waterways in Maine.
Unpublished report, Maine Coop. Research Unit, Orono,
ME.

Dickson, J. G. and J. C. Hartley. 1985. Streamside
management zones and wildlife in the southern coastal
plain. Pages 263-264. In: Proceedings of the North
American Riparian Conference, Tuscon, AZ.

Edelson, N. 1987. Great Blue Heron nesting colonies in
inland Maine, 1983-1986. Maine State Planning Officef
Planning Report No-84., Augusta, ME.

Edwards, E.A., G. Gebhart, and 0. E. Maughan. 1983. Habitat
suitability index models: Black crappie. U.S.D.I.
Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.6.

Elliott, C.A. 1982. Integrating forest and wildlife
management on International Paper Company's northern
experiment forest. M.S. thesis. University of Maine,
Orono, ME.

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1.
Department of the Army, Vicksburg, MS.

Erman, D.C. and D. Mahoney. 1983. Recovery after logging in
streams with and without bufferstrips in Northern
California. University of California Water Resources
Center. Contribution No. 186.

Erwin, R.M. and C. E. Korschgen, 1979. Coastal water bird
colonies: Maine to Virginia, 1977. An atlas showing
colony locations and species composition. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program,
FWS/OBS-79-08.

Fernerda, J. A., R. V. Rourke and K. G-. Stratton. 1915.
Soil Suitability guide for land use planning in Maine.
Univ. of Maine Coop. Ext. Serv. Miscellaneous
publication 667 (Rev.). Orono, ME.

Gaines, D. A. 1*974. A new look at the nesting riparian
avifauna of the Sacramento Valley, California. West.
Birds 5:61-80.

Galli, A. E., C. F. Leck and R. T@ Forman. 1976. Avian
distribution patterns in forest islands of different
sizes in central New Jersey. Auk 93:356-364.

Garman, G. C. 1984. Initial effects of deforestation on
aquatic community structure and function of the East
Branch of the Piscataquis River, Maine, University of
Maine at Orono. Ph.D. Thesis, Orono, ME.

Gerber, R. G. 1987. Control of land use based on its
impacts on groundwater and human health. Page 21. In:
Proceedings of Maine Biological and Medical Sciences
Symposium, Bowdoin College, Brunswick, ME.

Gill, J. D. 1957. Review of deer yard management. Game
Division Bulletin # 5. Maine Dept. of Inland Fish. &
Game, Augusta, ME.

Godin, A. J. 1977. Wild Mammals of New England. John
Hopkins University Press.
Hall, J. D. and i. L. Lantz. 1969. Effects of logging on
the habitat of salmon and cutthroat trout in coastal
streams. Pages 355-375. In: T. G. Northcote (ed.),
Symposium on salmon and trout in streams. J. R.

MacMillan Lectures in Fisheries, University of British
Columbia.

Hayman, P., J. Marchant and T. Prater. 1986. Shorebirds,
an identification guide to the waders of the world.
Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, MA.

Hugie, R. D. 1973. A winter mobility study of deer in
west-central Maine. M.S. Thesis. University of Maine,
Orono, ME.

Hunter, M. L. 1984. A preliminary guide to finding and
identifying the amphibians and reptiles of Maine. The
Nature Conservancy, Brunswick, Maine.

Hutchinson, A. and R. C. Ferrero. 1981. Casco Bay coastal
resources inventory 1981. An assessment of the impacts
of oil pollution on the marine wildlife of Casco Bay.
Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife,
Augusta, ME.

Johnson, W. N. 1986. Avian use at a lakeshore bufferstrip
in Eastern Maine. University of Maine at Orono. M.S.
Thesis. Orono, ME.

Jones, J. 19.86. The cumulative impacts of development in
southern Maine. Important wildlife habitats. Maine
State Planning Office, Augusta, ME.

Kelley, J. T. 1987. Human impact on sediment availability
to the intertidal regions of Casco Bay. Page 20 In:
Proceedings of the Maine Biological and Medical
Sciences Symposium. Bowdoin College, Brunswick, ME.

Lavigne, G. 1986. Species assessment plan for white-tailed
deer (Odocoileus virginianus borealis) in Maine. Maine
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Augusta, ME.

Lortie, J. P. and S. R. Pelletier. 1987. Distribution and
abundance of breeding birds and small mammals in the
high salt marsh and adjacent upland critical edge in
southern Maine, 1986. Page 20 In: Proceedings of the
Maine Biological and Medical Science Symposium.
Bowdoin College, Brunswick, ME.

LURC. 1986. Land use districts and standards, Chapter 10 of
the Commission's Rules and Regulations. Maine
Department of Conservation. Augusta, ME

LURC. 1986. Maine wildlands lake assessment work plan. Land
Use Regulation Commission, Maine Department of
Conservation, Augusta, ME.

Ma,cClintock, L., R. F. Whitcomb, and B. L. Whitcomb. 1977.

Evidence of the value of corridors and minimization of
isolation in preservation of biotic diversity. Am.
Birds. 31:6-16.

Mann, T. 1980. Loss of wildlife habitat from site location
of development. Report to Maine Board of Environmental
Protection, Augusta, Maine.

Insert Marcott, 1979

Mattfeld, G. F. 1974. The energetics of winter foraging by
white-tailed deer: a perspective on winter
concentration. Ph.D. Thesis. State University of New
York, Syracuse, NY.

Mead, C. 1983. Bird Migration. Facts on File Publications.
New York, New York.

Meehan, W. R. 1970. Some effects of shade cover.on stream
temperature in southeast Alaska. USDA For. Serv. Res.
Note PNW-113. Pac. Northwest For. and Range Exp. Stn.,-
Portland, OR.

Meyers, J. P., R. I. G. Morrison, P. Z. Antas, B. A.
Harrington, T. E. Lovejoy, M. Sallaberry, S. E. Senner,
and A. Turak. 1987. Conservatiod Strategy for
Migratory Species. American Scientist 75:(l): 19-27.

Moring, J. R., G. C. Garman, and D. M. Mullen. 1985. The
value of riparian zones for protecting aquatic systems:
general concerns and recent studies in Maine. U.S.
Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-20.315-319.

Moring, J. R., 1982. Decrease in stream gravel permeability
after clearcut logging. An indication of intragravel
conditions for developing salmonid eggs and olevins.
Hydrobiologia. 88:295-298.

Moring, J. R. 1975. The Alsea Watershed Study: Effects of
logging on the aquatic resources of three headwater
streams of the Alsea River, Oregon, Part II. Changes
in environmental conditions. Oregon Dept. of Fish and
Wildlife, Report 9 (part 2).

Moring, J. R. and R. L. Lantz. 1973. The Alsea Watershed
Study: Effects of logging on the aquatic resource of
three headwater streams of the Alsea River, Oregon.
Part I - Biological Studies. Oregon Dept. of Fish and
Wildlife, Res. Rep. 9.

Newbold, J. P D. C. Erman, and K. B. Roby.. 1980. Effects
of logging on macro-invertebrates in streams with and
without buffer strips. Can. J. Fish and Aquat. Sci.
37: 1076-1085.

Nixon, S. W. 1982. The ecology of New England high salt
marshes: A community profile. U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, FWS/OBS-81/55. Washington, D.C.

Odum, E. P. 1979. Ecological importance of the riparian
zone. Pages 2-4 In: Proceedings of the National
Symposium on Stra-tegies for Protection and Management
of Floodplain Wetlands and other riparian ecosystems.
U. S. Forest Service. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-12.

Insert Ohman.1983.

Olsen, L. A. and K. Adams. 1984. Effects of contaminated
sediment on fish and wildlife: review and annotated
bibliography. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
FWS/OBS-82/66. Washington, D.C.

Ozaga, J. J.' 1969. variations in microclimate in a
conifer-swamp deer yard in northern Michigan. J.
Wildli. Manage. 32(3):574-585.

Ozaga, J. J. and L. W. Gysel. 1972. Response of
while-tailed deer to winter weather. J. Wildl. Manage,
36(3):892-896.

Pierce, R. S., J. W. Hornbeck, G. E. Libens, and F. H.
Bormann. 1970. Effect of elimination of vegetation on
stream water quantity and quality. Pages 285-295. In:
Proceedings of a symposium; Watersheds in transition.
Am. Water Resour. Proc. Series 14.

Platts, W. W. 1983. Vegetation requirements for fisheries
habitats. U.S. Forest service General Techncial
Report. INT-157:184-188.

Potvin, F. and J. Huot. 1983. Estimating carrying capacity
of a whitetailed deer wintering area in Quebec. J.
Wildl. Manage. 47(2):463-475.

Raleigh, R. F., T. Hickman, R. C. Solomon? and P. C. Nelson.
1984. Habitat suitability information: Rainbow trout.
U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-82/10.60.

Raleigh, R. F. 1982.. Habitat suitability index models:
Brook trout. U. S. Dept. Int., Fish Wildl. Serv.
-FWS/OBS-82/10.24.

Rosenfeld, M. 1986. A basic guide to the Kennebunk River
and its tributaries for Arundel, Kennebunk, and
Kennebunkport. Friends of the Kennebunk River,
Kennebunk, ME. SCS..1985. Filter strips. Page 7 In:
USDA-SCS Code .408, Section IV. Soil Conservation
Service, Orono, ME.

Senner, S. E. and M. A. Howe. 1984. Conservation of
nearatic shorebirds. Behav. Marine Organ. 5.379-421.

Servinghaus, C. W., 1947. Relationship of weather to winter
mortality and population levels among deer in the
Adirondack region of New York. Trans. N. Am. Wildl.
Conf. 12:212-223.

Small, M. F. and W. N. Johnson, Jr. 1986. Wildlife
management in riparian habitats. Pages 69-79. In: Is
good forestry good wildlife management? Maine Ag. Exp.
Stat., Misc. Publ. No. 689. Orono, ME.

Stadler, M. 1984. The importance of, and management
objectives for, P-SL1, P-SL2, P-GP, and P-WL districts
as avian-habitat. Unpublished manuscript. State of
Maine, Dept. of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Augusta,
ME.

State of Maine. 1984. Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Laws,
12 MRSA Part 10. Chapters 701-721 as enacted by public
law, Chapter 420, Section 1 and at amended. Augusta,
ME.

Stauffer, D. F. and L. B. Best. 1980. Habitat selection by
birds of riparian communities: evaluating effects of
habitat alterations. J. Wildl. Manage. 44(l):1015.

Steinblums, I. J., A. A. Froehlich, and J. K. Lyons. 1984.
Designing stable bufferstrips for stream protection.
J. of Forestry 82(l): 49-57.

Stuber, R. J., G. Gebhart, and 0 E. Maughan. 1982.
Habitat suitability index m@dels: Largemouth bass. U.
S. Dept. Int. Fish Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-82/10.16.

Thomas, J. W., C. Maser and J. E. Rodiek. 1979. wildlife
habitats in managed forests: The Blue Mountains of
Oregon and Washington. U. S. Forest service
Agricultural Handbook. 533.

Tierson, W. C., G. F. Mattfeld, R. W. Sage, Jr., and D. E.
Behrend. 1985. Seasonal movements and home range of
whitetailed deer in the Adirondacks. J. Wildl. Manage.
49(3):760-769.

Townsend, R. and H. Briggs, 111. 1982. Maine's Marine
Fisheries, annual data 1947-1981. Sea Grant Marine
Advisory Program, University of Maine, Orono, ME

Tyler, H. R. 1977. Wading birds in Maine and their
relevance to the Critical Areas Program. Unpublished
manuscript. Maine State Planning Office, Augusta, ME.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Habitat Evaluation
Procedures (HEP). U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Division'of Ecological Services. ESM 102. Washington,
D.C.

U.S.D.A. 1974. Soil Survey of Cumberland County, Maine.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
Washington, D.C.

U.S.D.A. 1982. Soil Survey of York County, Maine. -U.S.
Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
Washington, D.C.

Insert U.S. Forest Service. 1980.

Wesche, T. A., C. M. Goertler, and C. B. Frye. 1987.
Contribution of riparian vegetation to trout cover in
small streams. N. Amer. J. Fish. Mgmt. 7:151-153.

Woodward, S., A. Hutchinson and M. McCollough. 1986. The
Penobscot Bay Conservation Plan. Endangered and
Nongame Wildlife Project, Maine Department of Inland
Fisheries'and Wildlife. Bangor, ME.

Appendix 1. Common and Scientific Names of Fish and
Wildlife Species in this Report

Common Name Scientific
Name
Birds: Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias
Snowy Egert Leucophoyx thula
Glossy This Plegadis falcinellus
Black-Crowned Night
Heron Nycticorax
nycticorax
Tri-Colored Heron
Little Blue Heron Florida coerula
Canada Goose Brauta canadensis
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos
American Black Duck Anas rubripes
Common Eider Somateria mollissima
Bla'ck Scoter Melanitta nigra
White-winged Scoter Melanitta fusca
Surf Scoter Melanitta
perspicillata
Harlequin Duck Histrionicus
histrionicus
Oldsquaw Clangula hyemalis
Common Goldeneyes Bucephala clangula
Bufflehead Bucephala albeola
Common Merganser Mergus merganser
Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator-
Black Guillemot Cepphus grylle
Atlantic Puffin Fratercula arctica
Razorbill Auk Alca torda
Great Cormorant Phalacroxorax carbo
Leach's Storm Petrel Oceanodroma
leucorhoa
Purple Sandpiper Erolia maritima
Eskimo Curlew Numenius borealis
Golden Plover Pluvialis dominica
Whimbuel Numenius phoropus-
Piping Plover Charadrius melodus
Least Tern Sterna antillarum
American Woodcock Scolopax minor
Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus
Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii
Bald Eagle Halioeetus
leucocephalus
Osprey Pandion haliaetus
Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus
Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus
Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia

Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas
Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramaus
savannarum
Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia

Mammals:

Coyote Canis latrans
Red Fox Vulpes vulpes
Marten Martes americana
Fisher Martes pennanti
Bobcat LynR,-rufus
Whitetailed Deer Odocoileus
virginianus
Harbor Seal Phoca vitulina
Gray Sea 1 Halichoerus grypus

Fish:

American Eel Anguilla rostrata
Banded killifish Fundulus diaphanus
Black crappie Pomoxis
nigromaculatqs
Blacknose dace Rhinichthys
atratulus
Blacknose shiner Notropis heterolepis
Bridle shiner NotroPis bifrenatus
Brook stickleback Culaea inconstans
Brook trout Salvelinus
fontinalis
Brown bullhead Ictalurus nebulosus
Brown trout Salmo trutta
Burbot Lota lota
Chain pickerel Esox niger
common shiner NotroPis cornutus
Creek chub Semotilus
atromaculatus
Creek chubsucker Erimvzon oblongus
Fallfish Semotilus corporalis
Finescale dace Phoxinus neogaeus
Golden shiner Notemigonus
crysoleucas
Lake chub Couesius Plumbeus
Lake trout Salvelinus namaycush
Lake whitefish Coregonus
clupeaformis
Landlocked salmon Salmo salar
Largemouth bass Micropterus
salmoides
Longnose sucker Catostomus
catostomus
Ninespine stickleback Pungitius Pungitius
Northern redbelly dace Phoxinus eos

Pumpkinseed sunfish Lepomis gibbosus
Rainbow trout Salmo gairdneri
Slimy sculpin Cottus cognatus
Smallmouth bass Micropterus
dolomieui
Threespine stickleback Gasterosteus
aculeatus
White perch Morone americana
White sucker Catostomus
commersoni
Yellow perch Perca flavescens

Appendix 2. Township Summaries

Index

Town Page

Bath ............................................ 59

Biddeford ....................................... 61

Brunswick ....................................... 63

Cape Elizabeth .................................. 66

Cumberland ...................................... 68

Falmouth ........................................ 71

Freeport ........................................ 74

Harpswell .............* ......................... 76

Kittery ......................................... 80

Old Orchard Beach ............................... 82

Phippsburg ....................................... 84

Portland ......................................... 88

Saco ............................................ 90

Scarborough ..................................... 93

South Portland .................................. 96

West Bath ....................................... 98

Yarmouth ....................................... 100

Town: Bath

Fisheries Habitat (inventory Rating

1) Brooks and Streams: High Moderate Low Indeterminate

Unnamed Brook (0840000000)
Whiskeag Creek
Unnamed Brook (0820000000)

2) Lakes and Ponds:

Lilly Pond
Winnegance Lake

Wildlife Habitat

1) Deer Wintering Areas:

None Observed

2) Wetlands:

West of Fairview Cemetary
North of Fairview Cemetary
East of Washington Street
1 Mile West of Washington St.
Maple Grove Cemetary
Whiskeag Creek
Whiskeag Creek
1 Mile West of Oak Grove
Cemetary
East of North Bath Road
Crawford Island
Lines Island
East of Varney Mill Rd.
South of Butter Cove

3) Marine Wildlife Habitats: Classification

A B C

Androscoggin River
Winnegance Creek
Lines Island
Merrymeeting Bay
Androscoggin Flats
Butler Cove.
Trufant Ledge
Whiskeag Creek

Bath (cont.)

Special Wildlife Features (No ratings or classification performed)

1) Colonial Nesting Seabird Islands:

None Observed

2) Wading Bird Rookeries:

None Observed

3) Bald Eagle Nest Sites (historic):

1 pair using:

Crawford Island (2 nest s)
Merrymeeting Bay

I pair using

Butle r Cove
West Chops Point

4) Osprey Nest Sites:

West Branch

5) Shorebird Feeding and Roosting Areas:

Winnegance Creek

6) Seal Haul-Outs:

None Observed

7) Least Tern and Piping Plover Nest Sites:

None Observed

8) Other Special Wildlife Habitats:

None Observed

Town: Biddeford

Fisheries Habitat (Inventory Rating

1) Brooks,and Streams: High Moderate Low Indeterminate

Unnamed Brook (0320070100)
Swan Pond Brook
Richardson Brook
Thatcher Brook
West Brook
Dungeon Brook
Moors Brook
Little River
Bush Brook
Goff Mill Brook
Brimstone Pond Outlet
Unnamed Brook (0320070300)
Unnamed Brook (0320070301)

2) Lakes and Ponds:

None Observed

Wildlife Habitat

1) Deer Wintering Areas:

Bush Brook
Little River
Dungeon Brook
Swan Pond & Thatchers Brook

2) Wetlands:

N of 1-95 on Thatcher Brook
1/2 mile E of 1-95
Thatchers Brook adj. to
Saco River
1/4 mi. SW of St. Mary's
Cemetary
E of Wilcox Pond
Wilcox Pond
S of Proctor Road
N of Proctor Road
Saco River - W
Saco River - E
W of Newtown Road
Behind Cutris Cove
E of Bush Brook
Etherington Pond
S of Biddeford Pool
E of Biddeford Pool
NW of Biddeford Pool
Biddeford Pool

Biddeford (cont.)

3) Marine Wildlife Habitats

Not Surveyed

Special Wildlife Features (No ratings or classification performed)

1) Colonial Nesting Seabird Islands:

Negro Island
Wood Island
Stage Island
Beach Island
Gooseberry Island

2) Wading Bird Rookeries:

Wood Island

3) Bald Eagle Nest Sites:

None Observed

4) Osprey Nest Sites:

None Observed

5) Shorebird Feeding and Roosting Areas:

Little River
Fortunes Rock Cove
The Pool
Saco River (mouth)
Saco River (Chandler Point)
New Barn Cove
Fortunes Rock Beach
Hills Beach
Saco River (Edgecomb Point)
Marsh south of Hills Beach

6) Seal Haul-Outs (Incomplete Survey):

Beach Island
Gooseberry Island

7) Least Tern and Piping Plover Nest Sites:

None Observed

8) Other Special Wildlife Habitats:

.None Observed

Town: Brunswick

Fisheries Habitat (inventory Rating

1) Brooks and Streams: High Moderate Low Indeterminate

Unnamed Brook (0860070000)
Unnamed Brook (0860050000)
Unnamed Brook (0860020000)
Unnamed Brook (0860010000)
Mare Brook
Miller Brook
Unnamed Brook (0580000000)
Unnamed Brook (0600000000)
Simpson Brook
Unnamed Brook (0560000000)
Bunganuc Brook
Collins Brook
Kelsey Brook
Mills Stream

2) Lakes and Ponds:

None Observed

Wildlife Habitat

1) Deer Wintering Areas:

Brunswick NAS/Coombs Road
New Meadows River
Bunganuc Stream
N of Durham Road
S of Durham Road
Bald Rock/Florida Lake

2) Wetlands:

Maquoit Bay
North-end Maquiot Bay
Rossmore Road
New Bay Cove
Northend New Bay Cove
NW Buttermilk Cove
Mare Brook
NW Woodward Cove
New Meadows Center
1/4 me. S Cooks Corner
New Meadows River N-end
New Meadows-River -Head
of Thomas Bay

Brunswick (cont.)
Rating

2) Wetlands (cont.): High Moderate Low Indeterminate

Androscoggin River
1 mi. N Brunswick NAS
1 mi. N Durham Road
NW of Hacker Road
SE of Hacker Road

3) Marine Wildlife Habitats: Classification

A B C

Maquoit Bay
White Island Flats
Middle Bay Cove
Androscoggin River
Androscoggin Flats
Long Reach
Coombs Island area
Middle Ground/Thomas Bay
Birch Island
Harpswell Cove
Upper New Meadows

Special Wildlife Features (No ratings or classification performed)

1) Colonial Nesting Seabird Islands:

None Observed

2) Wading Bird Rookeries:

None Observed

3) Bald Eagle Nest Sites:

None Observed

4) Osprey Nest Sites:

East of Prince Point
Lower Coombs Island
Iron Island
Upper Coombs Island
Woodward Cove

5) Shorebird Feeding and Roosting Areas:

Thomas Bay
Middle Bay Cove
Harpswell Cove
Maquoit Bay

Brunswick (cont.)

6) Seal Haul-Outs:

None Observed

7) Least Tern and Piping Plover Nest Sites:

None Observed
8) -Other Special Wildlife Habitats:

Grasshopper Sparrow (Endangered Species) nest site.
pitch pine - scrub oak habitat with associated uncommon moth
species (Xylena thoracica)

Town: Cape Elizabeth

Fisheries Habitat (Inventory Rating

1) Brooks and Streams: High Moderate Low Indeterminate

Pollack Creek
Unnamed Brook (0350030000)
Willow Brook
Little Pond Outlet
Unnamed Brook (0370000000)
Alqwive Brook
Unnamed Brook (0390000000)
Unnamed Brook (0400000000)
Trout Brook
Spurwink River

2) Lakes and Ponds:

Great Pond

Wildlife Habitat

1) Deer Wintering Areas

Ram Island Farm
Great Pond

2) Wetlands:

Richmond Island
Behind Breakwater Beach
1/2 mi SE Spurwink Hill
Little Pond
1/2 mi N of Richmond
Island
Richards Pond
Adj. to Richards Pond
Great Pond
Adj. to Great Pond
Spurwink River Marsh
N of Fowler Road
S of Wells Road
N of Wells Road
Willow Brook
Ficket Street
Across from Eastman Rd.
1/2 mi. N of Pond Cove (town)
N of Pond Cove (tidal area)
W of Delano Park
W of Fort Williams
E of Trout Brook

Cape Elizabeth (cont.)

3) Marine Wildlife Habitats Classification

A B C

Ram Island/Chimney Rock
Higgins Beach
Richmond Island/Seal Rock
Spurwink River
Portland Head
Trundy Ledge
Cape Elizabeth Head

Special Wildlife Features (No ratings or classification performed)

1) Colonial Nesting Seabird Islands:

Ram Island

2) Wading Bird Rookeries:

None Observed

3) Bald Eagle Nest Sites:

None Observed

4) Osprey Nest Sites:

None Observed

5) Shorebird Feeding and Roosting Areas:

Spurwink River
Richmond Island Harbor

6) Seal Haul-Outs:

Seal Rocks
Watts Ledge

7) Least Tern and Piping Plover Nest Sites:

Breakwater Beach (least terns)

8) Other Special Wildlife Habitats:

None Observed

Town: Cumberland

Fisheries Habitat (Inventory Rating

1) Brooks and Streams: High Moderate Low Indeterminate

Unnamed Brook (0450000000)
Unnamed Brook (0430030500)
Mill Brook
East Br. Piscataqua River -
Unnamed Pd Outlet (0430030400)
Hobbs Brook
Piscataqua River
Norton Brook
Chenery Brook

2) Lakes and Ponds:

Forest Lake

Wildlife Habitat

1) Deer Wintering Areas:

E of Harris Road
E of Harris Road by
powerline
S of Range Road
S of Cumberland Center
NW of Blanchard Pond
SW of Pleasant-Greeley
Road extension
1 mi. S of W Cumberland
3/4 mi. E of W Cumberland

2) Wetlands:

1/2 mi. E of Harris Road
N of Tuttle Road
S of Tuttle Road
Greely Road
1/4 mi. SE of Cumberland
Center
1/4 mi S of Blanchard Road
1/4 mi. N of Ridge Road
1/4 mi. NE of W Cumberland
Piscataqua River 1/2 mi. N
of W Cumberland
Piscataqua River 1/2 mi. E
of W Cumberland
3/4 mi. SW of W Cumberland
3/4 mi. SW of W Cumberland
1 mi. NW of Bruce Hill
3/4 mi. NW of Bruce Hill

Cumberland (cont.)

5) Shorebird Feeding and Roosting Areas:

None Observed

6) Seal Haul-Outs:

Lower Basket Ledge
Upper Basket Ledge
Seal Ledge
Upper Green Islands
Goose Nest Ledge
Stockman Island
Stave Island Ledge
Ministerial Island
Bates Island
Broken Cove

7) Least Tern and Piping Plover Nest Sites:

None Observed

8) Other Special Wildlife Habitats:

None Observed

'Town: Falmouth

Fisheries Habitat (Inventory 0 Rating

1) Brooks and Streams: High Moderate Low Indeterminate

Chenery Brook
Norton Brook
Unnamed Brook (0440010000)
Mill Creek
Minnow Brook
Meader Brook
Unnamed Brook (0430030200)
Piscataqua River
Scitterygusset Creek
Unnamed Brook (0430010000)
Piscataqua River (east)
Hobbs Brook
Unnamed Pond Outlet
Presumpscot River

2) Lakes and Ponds:

Highland Lake

Wildlife Habitat

1) Deer Wintering Areas:

Maine Turnpike/Falmouth Road
Maine Turnpike/Woodsville Road
E of Long Woods Road
1/4 mi. E of Gray Road
Off Hadlock Road
E of NFalmouth

2) Wetlands:

Portland Country Club
N-end Presumpscot River
Squidere Gusset
3/4 mi. NE of
Pleasant Hill
1 mi. NE of Pleasant Hill
1 mi. NE of Pleasant Hill
1 mi. NE of Falmouth High
1 mi. NE of Falmouth High
3/4 mi. E of Falmouth High
1 mi. E of Falmouth High
1/4 mi. S of Long Woods Road
:Between 1-95 and Presumpscot
River
1/2 mi. S of Long Woods Road
N of Dunham Road

Falmouth (cont.)
Rating

2) Wetlands (cont.): High Moderate Low Indeterminate

S of Dunham Road
Dunham/Cumberland Ctr. Roads
Intersection
W of Cumberland Ctr. Road
1 mi. N of Huston School
3/4 mi. S of Hadlock Road
and Pine Tree Trail
Intersection
Brady Road
N of Poplar Ridge
Highland Lake
S of Highland Lake
E of Highland Lake

3) Marine Wildlife Habitats: Classification

A B C

Presumpscot River
Clapboard Island
Mackworth Island Flats
The Brothers
Falmouth Foreside (north)
Sturdivant Island Ledges
Mussel Cove
Mackworth Island

Special Wildlife Features (No ratings or classification performed)

1) Colonial Nesting Seabird Islands:

Clapboard Island Ledges

2) Wading Bird Rookeries:

None Observed

3) Bald Eagle Nest Sites:

None Observed

4) Osprey Nest Sites:

None Observed

5) Shorebird Feeding and Roosting Areas:

Presumpscot River

Falmouth (cont.)

6) Seal Haul-Outs:

Sturdivant Island Ledges
Clapboard Island Ledges

7) Least Tern and Piping Plover Nest Sites:

None Observed

8) Other Special Wildlife Habitats:

None Observed

Town: Freeport

Fisheries Habitat (Inventory Rating

1) Brooks and Streams: High Moderate Low Indeterminate

Harvey Brook
Merril Brook
Unnamed Brook (0480000000)
Unnamed Brook (0490000000)
Unnamed Brook (0500000000)
Unnamed Brook (0510000000)
Frost Gully Brook
Mill Stream
Allen Range Brook
Kelsey Brook
Little River
Unnamed Brook (0460060102)
Collins,Brook
Cousins River

2) Lakes and Ponds:

None Observed

Wildlife Habitat

1) Deer Wintering Areas:

Harvey Brook

2) Wetlands:

Cousins River
Staples Cove
N-end Haraseeket River
Little River
SE of Litchfield Road
1/2 mi. NW of N Freeport
1 mi. NE of N Freeport

3) Marine Wildlife Habitats Classification

A B C

Williams Island area
Maquiot Bay
Lanes Island
Cousins River/Royal River
Harraseeket River
Little Flying Point (South)
Flying Point Cove
Moshier Island
French Island

Freeport (cont.)

Special Wildlife Features (No ratings or classi fication performed)

1) Colonial Nesting Seabird Islands:

French Island Ledge (North)
Little French Island
Sister Island Ledge

2) Wading Bird Rookeries:

None Observed

3) Bald Eagle Nest Sites:

None Observed

4) Osprey Nest Sites:

Googins Island
Sister Island
Williams Island
Pettingill Island
French Island
Sow and Pigs Island

5) Shorebird Feeding and Roosting Areas:

Cousins River
Harraseeket River

6) Seal Haul-Outs:

Googins Ledge
French Island Ledges
Pettingill Island
Bustins Ledge
Crab Ledge
Sister Island Ledge

7) Least Tern and Piping Plover Nest Sites:

None Observed

8) Other Special Wildlife Habitats:

None Observed

Town: Harpowell

Fisheries Habitat (Inventory 0 Rating

1) Brooks and Streams: High Moderate Low Indeterminate

None Observed

2) Lakes and Ponds:

Impoundment Pond

Wildlife Habitat

1) Deer Wintering Areas:

None Observed

2) Wetlands:

Union Church
1/2 mi. N of Long Point Island
Bethel Point
1/2 mi. N of Cundy's Harbor
Sebasco
Dyer Cove
Adj. to Cundy's Harbor Rd.
1/2 mi. E of Cundy's Harbor
Road
S of Oak Ledge
Adj. to Miser Hill
SE of Miser Hill
N of W Harpswell
S of Harpswell Center
Birch Island
1/2 mi. N of N Harpswell

3) Marine Wildlife Habitats Classification

A B

Halfway Rock (not mapped-offshore)
Eagle Island
Goose Islands
White Island Flats
Middle Bay Cove
Wilson Cove
Ragged Island
Mark Island
White Bull Island
Sisters
Haddock Rock
Mark Islands
Potts Harbor

Harpowell (cont.)

3) Marine Wildlife Habitats (cont.) Classification

A B C

Harpswell (West)
Dogs Head Bay
Widgeon Cove
Gun Point Cove
Harpswell Harbor
Bailey Island (East)
Pond Island and Ledges
Saddleback Ledges
Jenny Island
Duck Rock
Cundy Harbor/Cedar Ledges
Quahog Bay
Long Reach
Coombs Island area
Cedar Ledges
Drunkers Ledge
Whale Rock
Jaquish Island
Pinkham Island
Little Birch Island
Birch Island Ledge
Barnes Island
Whaleboat Island
Little Whaleboat Island
Birch Island
Harpswell Cove
Long Point Island
Bailey Island (West)
Ram Island
Black Snake Ledge
Round Rock
East Brown Cow
Flag Island
Long Ledge
Yellow Rock/Two Bush/Elm Island
Rogue Island
Ridley Cove
Quahog Sound
Hen Cove
Sheep Island
Long Island
Three Island area
Reed Cove

Harpswell (cont.)

Special Wildlife Features (No ratings or classification performed)

1) Colonial Nesting Seabird Islands:

-Eagle Island Little Mark Island
Haddock Rock Jaquish Island
Turnip Island Ram Island
Elm Ledge Elm Island (West)
The Sisters (East) Flag Island
Long Ledge (South) Pinkham Island
Thrumcap Island Horse Island
Upper Flag Island Little Birch Island
Cedar Ledge (North) Two Bush Island
Ragged Island East Brown Cow
Long Ledge (North) Cedar Ledges (South)
Little Whaleboat Island Grassy Ledge
Pond Island Duck Rock
Elm (East) White Bull Island
Mark Island- Jenny Island

2) Wading Bird Rookeries:

Upper Goose Island
Eagle Island
Mark Island

3) Bald Eagle Nest Sites (Historic):

Eagle Island

4) Osprey Nest Sites:

Center Island Williams Island (southeast
of Snow Island)
Snow Island Ben Island
Little Birch Island Islands (2) east of Snow Island
White Bull The Goslings (East and West)
Little Whaleboat Island Upper Goose Island
Birch Island Skolfield Cove
Doughty Point Island south of Prince Point
Mark Island Long Reach
Orrs Cove Brickyard Cove
east of Orrs Cove east of Tondreau's Point
Quahog Bay (East) Dingley Island
west of Dingley Island Long Island
Flag Island northwest of Dingley Island

5) Shorebird Feeding and Roosting Areas:

Middle Bay Cove

Harpswell (cont.)

6) Seal Haul-Outs:

Little Whaleboat Island ledges Lower Goose Island area
Birch Island area Little Birch Island
Wilson Ledges Wilson Cove
Dogs Head Gun Point Cove
Pond Island Ledges Ballastone Ledges
Hen Cove Cedar Ledges
Ben Island area

7) Least Tern and Piping Plover Nest Sites:

None Observed

8) Other Special Wildlife Habitats:

None Observed

Town: Kittery

Fisheries Habitat (Inventory Rating

1) Brooks and Streams: High Moderate Low Indeterminate

Spinney Creek
Wilson Creek
Unnamed Brook (008040500)
Fuller Brook
Hill Creek
Hutchins Brook
Crocketts Brook
Spruce Creek
Libby Brook
Piscataqua River
Johnson Brook
Cutts Ridge Brook

2) Lakes and Ponds:

Legion Pond

Wildlife Habitat

1) Deer Wintei@'Ing Areas:

Gerrish Island
Brave Boat Harbor Trib.
Lewis Road
Johnson Brook

2) Wetlands:

Behind Seapoint Beach
Fort Foster Pond
Fort Foster Marsh
Pocahontas Road Marsh
Brave Boat Harbor Marsh
Deerings Pond
N Kittery Pt. Marsh
Cutts Pond
Crocketts Brook-Marsh
1/2 mi. W of Bedell Crossing
N of Forty-Acre Hill
E of Johnson Brook
Hill Creek Marsh
W-end of Spruce Creek
Highland Cem. Marsh
Legion Pond
Spinney Creek
1/2 mi. SE Bartlett Hill
3/4 mi. N of Cutts Ridge

Kittery (cont.)

3) Marine Wildlife Habitats

Not Surveyed

Special Wildlife Features (No ratings or classification performed)

1) Colonial Nesting Seabird Islands:

.Clark's Island
Duck'Island
Smuttynose Island
Appledore Island
Cedar Island

2) Wading Bird Rookeries:

Appledore Island

3) Bald Eagle Nest Sites:

None Observed

4) Osprey Nest Sites:

None Observed

5) Shorebird Feeding and Roosting Areas:

Brave Boat Harbor
Crescent Beach
Seapoint Beach

6) Seal Haul-Outs (Incomplete Survey):

Ledges at mouth of Brave Boat Harbor
Ledges west or Horn Island
Duck Island and ledges

7) Least Tern and Piping Plover Nest Sites:

None Observed

8) Other Special Wildlife Habitats:

None Observed

Town: Old Orchard Beach

Fisheries Habitat (Inventory 0 Rating

1) Brooks and Streams: High Moderate Low Indeterminate

Unnamed Brook (0330010000)
Unnamed Brook (0330040000)
Unnamed Brook (0330060000)
Jones Creek
Goosefare Brook
Mill Brook (0340020100)
Unnamed Brook (034002010A)
Cascade Brook

2) Lakes and Ponds:

None Observed

Wildlife Habitat

1) Deer Wintering Areas:

Mill Brook

2) Wetlands:

W of W Grand Avenue
Mill Brook/Jones Brook Marsh
Mill Brook

3) Marine Wildlife Habitats: Classification

A B C

Bluff/Stratton Islands
(Incomplete Survey)

Special Wildlife Features (No ratings or classification performed)

1) Colonial Nesting Seabird Islands:

Bluff Island
Stratton Island

2) Wading Bird Rookeries:

Stratton Island

3) Bald Eagle Nest Sites:

None Observed

Old Orchard Beach (cont.)

4) Osprey Nest Sites:

None Observed

5) Shorebird Feeding and Roosting Areas:

Old Orchard Beach
Goosefare Brook

6) Seal Haul-Outs (incomplete survey):

Bluff Island
Stratton Island

7) Least Tern and Piping Plover Nest Sites:

None Observed

8) Other Special Wildlife Habitats:

None Observed

Town: Phippoburg

Fisheries Habitat (Inventory Rating

1) Brooks and Streams: High Moderate Low Indeterminate

Unnamed Brook (0800000000)
Unnamed Brook (0790000000)
Unnamed Brook (0780000000)
Unnamed Brook (0760010000)
Cutting Creek
Unnamed Brook (0740000000)
Parkerhead Creek
Meeting House Pond Outlet
Morse Road
Sprague Road
Unnamed Brook (0690000000)
North Creek
Pasture Brook
Unnamed Brook (0730010000)
Unnamed Brook (0770000000)
Unnamed Brook (0720000000)
Winnegance Creek

2) Lakes and Ponds:

Big Pond
Center Pond
Silver Lake
Spirit Pond
Wat-tah Lake
Winnegance Pond

Wildlife Habitat

1) Deer Wintering Areas:

Morse Mountain
Meetinghouse Pond
Ashdale
NW of Parker Head
Cape Small

2) Wetlands:

Big Pond
1/2 mi. W of Sprague River
Sprague River
Morse River
Small Point Marsh-S
Small Point Marsh-N
Tottman Cove Marsh
Silver Lake
Spirit Pond
Meetinghouse Pond
N of Atkins Bay
84

Phippoburg (cont.)

Rating

2) Wetlands (cont.) High Moderate Low Indeterminate

Wyman Bay Area
S of Parker Head Swamp
Parker Head Swamp
Duley Pond
W of Duley Pond
E of Pasture Ridge
Mill Pond
W of Mill Pond
N of Mill Pond
3/4 mi. E of Burnt Ledge
1/2 mi. N of Burnt Ledge
1/2 mi. N of Badge Hill
S of Phippsburg (town)
Pasture Brook Marsh
Off of Stony Brook Road
Cutting Creek
W of.Cutting Creek
1/2 mi. N of Meadowbrook
3/4 mi. NE of Meadowbrook
Winnegance Creek
E-Outlet Winnegance Creek

3) Ma rine Wildlife Habitats: Classification

A B C

Winnegance Bay
Morse River
Sprague-River
Seawall Beach
Heron Island
Fox Island
Hunnewell Beach
North Sugarloaf Island
Atkins Bay
Mill Pond
Lee Island
Winnegance Creek
Seal Island
Fuller Rock
Bold Dick Rock
Pond Island
South Sugarloaf Island
Goat Island
Jamison Ledge
Bear Island
The Basin
Sebasco Harbor

Phippsburg (cont.).

Marine Wildlife Habitats (cont.): Classification

A B C

Small Point Harbor
Wood Island
Wallace Head/Head Beach
Cape Small
Wood Island
Wyman Bay
Pettis Rocks/Ram Island
Fiddler Reach

Special Wildlife Features (No ratings or.classification performed)

1) Colonial Nesting Seabird Islands:

Fuller Rock North Sugarloaf Island
Seal Island South Sugarloaf Island
Heron Islands Hen Island
Wood Island Gooseberry Island
Pond Island Small Point Beach
Morse Hill Point

2) Wading Bird Rookeries:

None Observed

3) Bald Eagle Nest Sites:

None Observed

4) Osprey Nest Sites:

Wood Island
Bear Island

5) Shorebird Feedingand Roosting Areas:

Winnegance Creek Drummore Bay
Mill Pond Wyman Bay
Atkins Bay Hunnewell Beach
Popham Beach Cape Small Harbor
Morse River Sprague River
Seawall Beach Head Cove
Bald Head Cove Small Point Beach
Winnegance Bay

6) Seal Haul-Outs:

Bushy Island Goat Island ledges
Seal Island Pettis Rocks
Heron Islands

Phippsburg (cont.)

7) Least Tern and Piping Plover Nest Sites:

Sprague River/Seawall Beach (least terns, piping plovers)
Popham Beach (least terns, piping plovers)
Hunnewell Beach (least terns)

8) Other Special Wildlife Habitats:

None Observed

Town: Portland

Fisheries Habitat (Inventory Rating

1) Brooks and Streams: High Moderate Low Indeterminate

Unnamed Brook (0430040000)
Fall Brook
Capisic Pond Inlet
Clark Brook
Presumpscot River
Stroudwater River
Long Creek

2) Lakes and Ponds:

None Observed

Wildlife Habitat

1) Deer Wintering Areas:

Stroudwater

2) Wetlands:

Capisic Pond
Fore River (West end)
Deering wetland
Riverton Bridge Wetland

3) Marine Wildlife Habitats: Classification

A B C

Back Cove
Presumpscot River
Ram Island
Little Chebeague Island/
Chandler Cove
Jewell Island (East)
Green Island Reef
Outer Green Island
Stroudwater River
Diamond Island Ledge
Peaks Island (East)
Cliff Island (North)
Inner Green Island
Mackworth Island
East Deering
Great Diamond Island
Pomroy Rock
Diamond Pass
House Island

Portland (cont.)

Marine Wildlife Habitats (cont.): Classification

A B C

Cushing Island (West)
Cushing Island (East)
College Island/Overset Island
Vail Island/Obeds Rock
Stepping Stones
Cliff Island (South)
Jewell Island (West)

Special Wildlife Features (No ratings or classification performed)

1) Colonial Nesting Seabird Islands:

House Island Crow Island
Crow Island Ram Island
Pumpkin Nob Vaill Island
Stepping Stones (North) Inner Green Island
Outer Green Island Junk of Pork

2) Wading Bird Rookeries:

Ram Island

3) Bald Eagle Nest Sites:

None Observed

4) Osprey Nest Sites:

None Observed

5) Shorebird Feeding and Roosting Areas:

Presumpscot River
Back Cove
Fore River

6) Seal Haul-Outs:

Halfway Rock
Little Chebeague Island area
Inner Green Island

7) Least Tern and Piping Plover Nest Sites:

None Observed

8) Other Special Wildlife Habitats:

None'Observed

Town: Saco

Fisheries Habitat (Inventory Rating

1) Brooks and Streams: High Moderate Low Indeterminate

Unnamed Brook (033005000A)
Branch Brook
Goosefare Brook
Stackpole Creek
Cole Brook
Sandy Brook
Deep Brook
Foxwell Brook
Stuart Brook
Cascade Falls Brook
Grant Brook
Boynton Brook
Nonesuch Brook
Skilly Brook
Ricker Brook
Innis Brook
Unnamed Brook (0330070000)
Unnamed Brook (0320080000)
Mill Brook (0340020100)
Nonesuch River
Merrill Brook
Unnamed Brook (032007000A)
Harmon Brook
Dennet Brook
Saco River

2) Lakes and Ponds:

None Observed

Wildlife Habitat

1) Deer Wintering Areas:

Bayview
Cascade Brook
The Heath
Boynton Brook
Grant Road
Route 112
Saco/Baxton Line
Simpson Road

2) Wetlands:

Short Pond
Long Pond.
N of Long Pond

Saco (cont.)

Rating

2) Wetlands (cont.): High Moderate Low Indeterminate

S of Short Pond
E of Chase Point
Goosefare Brook Marsh
N of Goosefare Brook
Saco River at Grays Pt.
S of Grays Point
Innis Brook/Goosefare
Brook
E of Goosefare Brook
Saco River by RR tracks
Cole Brook
N of Cole Brook
N of Route 5
W of Dennett Brook
S of Slater Hill
3/4 mi. N of Cascade Brook
The Heath
Ricker Brook headwaters
N of Boothbay Park
Adj. to Ash Swamp Road
N of Heath Road and Watson
Mill Road Junction
Skilly Brook
N of Heath Church
W of Berry Hill
SW of Berry Hill
SW of Route 112/117 Jct.

3) Marine Wildlife Habitats:

Not Surveyed

Special Wildlife Features (No ratings or classification performed)

1) Colonial Nesting Seabird Islands:

Eagle Island
Ram Island

2) Wading Bird Rookeries:

None Observed

3) Bald Eagle Nest Sites:

None Observed

Saco (cont.)

4) Osprey Nest Sites:

None Observed

5) Shorebird Feeding and Roosting Areas:

Camp Ellis Saco River (east of Chast Point)
Ferry Beach Saco River (Edgecomb Point)
Goosefare Brook

6) Seal Haul-Outs:

Ram Island
Eagle Island

7) Least Tern and Piping Plover Nest Sites:

None Observed

8) Other Special Wildlife Habitats:

None Observed

Town: Scarborough

Fisheries Habitat (Inventory 0 Rating

1) Brooks and Streams: High Moderate Low Indeterminate

Libby River
Nonesuch River
Fogg Brook
Silver Brook
Red Brook
Beaver Brook
Finnard Brook
Phillips Brook
Dunston River
Mill Brook
Bond Brook
Unnamed Brook (0340030100)
Merrill Brook
Carter brook
Unnamed Brook (0340030400)
Unnamed,Brook (0340030300)
Beech Ridge Brook
Stroudwater River (S Branch)
Stuart Brook
Jones Creek
Unnamed Brook (0340040100)
Cascade Falls Brook
Spurwink River

2) Lakes and Ponds:

Massacre Pond

Wildlife Habitat

1) Deer Wintering Areas:

Old Blue Point Road
NW of Scottow Bog
Finnerd Brook
N of Ash Swamp Road
Nonesuch River
N of W Beech Ridge Road
S of W Beech Ridge Road
Fogg Brook

2) Wetlands:

1/2 mi. N of Fogg Hill
Silver Brook/South Bro*okry
Nonesuch River - N and S
of W Beech Ridge Road

Scarborough (cont.)

Rating

2) Wetlands (cont.): High Moderate Low Indeterminate

Mitchell Hill Marsh
Mitchell Hill Pond
1/2 mi. N of Holmes Road,
by Saco boundary line
S of Ash Swamp Road
Dresser Road Pond
N of Beech Ridge Speedway
SE of Beech Ridge Speedway
Red Brook Marsh
Nonesuch River E of 95-1
Nonesuch River E of 95-2
W of Scarborough Downs
W of Payne Road
Finnerd Brook
Dunstan River
Brook S of Old Blue Point
Road/Saco
S of Old Blue Point Road
Scottow Bog
NW of Oak Hill
Nonesuch River NW of Rt. 1
Nonesuch River SE of Rt. 1
Scarborough Marsh
NW of Ross Road
SE of Ross Road
Little River Marsh/
Junes Creek
S of Black Point Road
SE of Fogg Road
NE of Pleasant Hill Road
3/4 mi. NE of Pleasant
Hill Road
1/2 mi. N of Spurwink Road
Spurwink River Marsh
Massacre Pond

3) Marine Wildlife Habitats: Classification

A B C

Scarborough Marsh
Prout's Neck
Higgins Beach
Shooting Rock
Spurwink River

Scarborough (cont.)

Special Wildlife Features (No ratings or classification performed)

1) Colonial Nesting Seabird Islands:

None Observed

2) Wading Bird Rookeries:

None Observed

3) Bald Eagle Nest Sites:

None Observed

4) Osprey Nest Sites:

None Observed

5) Shorebird Feeding and Roosting Areas:

Scarborough Marsh Scarborough River
Dunstan River Grand Beach
Pine Point Beach Libby River
Western Beach Checkly Point
Higgins Beach Spurwink River
Ferry Beach

6) Seal Haul-Outs:

Shooting Rock

7) Least Tern and Piping Plover Nest Sites:

Pine Point (least terns, piping plovers)
Ferry Beach (least terns)
Western Beach (least terns, piping plovers)
Scarborough Beach (piping plovers)

8) Other Special Wildlife Habitats:

None Observed

Town: South- Portland

Fisheries Habitat (Inventory Rating

1) Brooks and Streams: High Moderate Low Indeterminate

Trout Brook
Kimball Brook
Barberry Creek
Long Creek
Unnamed Brook (0340030100)
Unnamed Brook (0350030000)
Red Brook
Anthoine Brook

2) Lakes and Ponds:

Clarks Pond

Wildlife Habitat

1) Deer Wintering Areas:

None Observed

2) Wetlands:

West of Rigby RR yards
E of Rigby RR yards
1/4 mi. S of S. Portland
Gardens
W of Running Hill
Barberry Creek
Kimball Brook N
Kimball Brook S

3) Marine Wildlife Habitats: Classification

A B C

Fore River Cove
Long Cove
South Portland Cove

Special Wildlife Features (No ratings or classification performed)

1) Colonial Nesting Seabird Islands:

None Observed

2) Wading Bird Rookeries:

None Observed

South Portland (cont.)

3) Bald Eagle Nest Sites:

None Observed

4) Osprey Nest Sites:

None Observed

5) Shorebird Feeding and Roosting Areas:

Fore River

6) Seal Haul-Outs:

None Observed

7) Least Tern and Piping Plover Nest Sites:

None Observed

8) Other Special Wildlife Habitats:

None Observed

Town: West Bath

Fisheries Habitat (Inventory Rating

1) Brooks and Streams: High Moderate Low Indeterminate

Unnamed Brook (0620000000)
Unnamed Brook (0630000000)
Dam Cove Creek
Birchwood Pond Outlet
Unnamed Brook (0830010000)
Houghton Pond Outlet
Whiskeag Creek

2) Lakes and Ponds:

Houghton Pond
Lilly Pond

Wildlife Habitat

1) Deer Wintering Areas:

Birch Point
N of West Bath Church
NE of West Bath Church

2) Wetlands:

1 mi. NE of West Bath Church
1 1/4 mi. NE of West Bath
Church
I mi. NE of Great Hill
1 mi. E of Lowell School

3)- Marine Wildlife Habitats: Classification

A B C

Winnegance Bay
Middle Ground/Thomas Bay
Mill Cove
Back Cove
Upper New Meadows

Special Wildlife Features (No ratings or classification performed)

1) Colonial Nesting Seabird Islands:

None Observed

2) Wading Bird Rookeries:

None Observed

West Bath (cont.)

3) Bald Eagle Nest Sites:

None Observed

4) Osprey Nest Sites:

Williams Island
Back Cove
Rich Hill
Bragdon Rock

5) Shorebird Feeding and Roosting Areas:

Winnegance Creek
Winnegance Bay

6) Seal Haul-Outs:

None Observed

7) Least Tern and Piping Plover Nest Sites:

None Observed

8) Other Special Wildlife Habitats:

None Observed

Town: Yarmouth

Fisheries Habitat (Inventory 0 Rating

1) Brooks and Streams: High Moderate Low Indeterminate

Pratts Brook
Cousins River
Royal River
Unnamed Brook (0460010000)
Unnamed Brook (0460020000)
Unnamed Brook (0460030600)
Unnamed Brook (0460040000)
Piscataqua River (east)
Unnamed Brook (0450000000)

2) Lakes and Ponds:

None Observed

Wildlife Habitat

1) Deer Wintering Areas:

None Observed

2) Wetlands:

N Royal River
Pratts Brook

3) Marine Wildlife Habitats: Classification

A B c

Broad Cove
Division Point
Sandy Point Ledges
Cousins Island (North)
Lanes Island
Cousins River/Royal River
Cousins Island (South)
Littlejohn Island
Cousins Island (Mainland)
Moshier Island

Special Wildlife Features (No ratings or classification performed)

1) Colonial Nesting Seabird Islands:

The Nubbin

1GO

Yarmouth ('cont.)

2) Wading Bird Rookeries:

None Observed

3) Bald Eagle Nest Sites:

None Observed

.4) Osprey Nest Sites:

None Observed

5) Shorebird Feeding and Roosting Areas:

Royal River
Cousins River

6) Seal Haul-Outs:

Sandy Point Ledges
Crab Ledge

7) Least Tern and Piping Plover Nest Sites:

None Observed

8) Other Special Wildlife Habitats:

None Observed

101

Appendix 3. Importance of Riparian Habitats to
Fish, Birds, and Mammals

FISH: Deforestation of the riparian zone changes the biotic
and abiotic characteristics of a river community. The
abiotic effects include increases in temperature, flow rate,
and sedimentation (Moring 1975, Corbett et al. 1978, Garmon
.1984). The mechanisms for these changes are well
understood. Canopy removal in the riparian zone increases
the incident radiation to the ground, causing temperatures
to rise significantly in streams (Garmon 1984). Higher flow
rates are caused by sudden increases in runoff during
rainstorms, and by reduced evapotranspiration of groundwater
reserves (Moring 1982, Garman 1984). After deforestation,
water that was previously absorbed by the riparian
vegetation is now free to flow directly into the river,
thereby increasing flow rates. Sedimentation also occurs
from runoff during and after logging operation where
riparian bufferstrips are not maintained (Breschta 1978,
Moring 1982, Garman 1984).

These abiotic alterations are responsible for dramatic
changes in stream biota. Lower invertebrate diversity is
regularly associated with logging that occurs without
maintaining bufferstrips (Hall and Lantz 1969, Moring and
Lantz 1975, Garman 1984)-. Furthermore Erman and Mahoney
(1983) showed that the invertebrate community did not
recover completely five years after the riparian area was
logged. In Maine, brook trout were extirpated from a stream
where logging occurred without bufferstrips (Garman 1984).
Studies have indicated that riparian vegetation is the
single most important factor influencing the carrying
capacity of salmonids in small streams (Wesche et al. 1987).
Platts (1983) and Moring et al. (1985) reviewed the
functions of riparian vegetation along streams from the
perspective of fisheries habitat. The five functions
identified include 1) regulation of stream temperature, 2)
stabilization of stream banks, 3) input and regulation of
nutrients into the system, 4) direct input of invertebrates
as fish food, and 5) fish cover. Deforestation within the
riparian buffer interrupts these functions and significantly
degrades the water quality. This, in turn, negatively
impacts invertebrates, fish, and wildlife within the aquatic
habitat.

These studies indicate that riparian areas need to be
protected if we are to maintain fisheries and water quality.
Whether the riparian zone isdeforested by logging or
development, the deleterious effects are the same. What
needs to be decided is how much protection is enough. The
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) recognized the
need to protect streams. Subsequently, Policy #13 was
adopted by the Board of Environmental Protection (BEP) in
1983, which requires review of stream alterations under the
Site Location of Development Law (38 MRSA, Chapter 375).

102

Important BEP policy statements from Policy #13 are
summarized in the next two paragraphs.

"Stream alteration inherently'degrades to some degree
the naturl values of streams and their associated shoreland
areas. When an alteration to a stream and its shoreline is
proposed, the natural resource values of that stream
environs are in balance. When development encroaches upon a
stream, it does so directly at the expense of that stream's
natural values. The BEP recognizes the natural values of
stream environs in Maine including 1) their water quality
(chemical and physical characteristics); 2) their importance
as critical habitat for fish and aquatic life; 3) their
value as wildlife habitat; 4) their scenic character and
their role as aesthetic features of the Maine landscape; 5)
their flood water storage capacity; and'6) their use for
outdoor recreation."

"The BEP operates under the rebuttable pre'sumption that
the diversion, channelization, and/or piping of perennial
streams will have an adverse effect on the natural
environment. More specifically, it is the presumption of
the BEP that such alterations will result in 1) adverse
effects on surface water quality from non-point pollution
sources; 2) the long-term loss of aquatic and fishery
habitat; 3) the loss of wildlife habitat; 4) the loss of
recreation opportunities; 5) the permanent loss of an
aesthetic landscape feature; 61 the encouragement and
worsening of downstream flooding; and 7) the increasingly
important and adverse cumulative environmental effects."

Riparian buffers around lakes and ponds provide th e
same functions for protecting fish and invertebrates as
riparian buffers around streams. Smaller and shallower
lakes and ponds with low flushing rates are more susceptible
to pollution and eutrophication than larger deep-water lakes
(Rosenfeld 1986). Degradation of water quality can occur
rapidly in these systems if they are overloaded with
nutrients or pollutants, particularly phosphorus (Dennis
1986). Downstream lakes are susceptible to nutrient
overloads, resulting in eutrophication, when excess
dissolved solids and particulate matter are washed
downstream from cleared land (Pierce et al. 1970, Davies and
Sowles 1984). Riparian buffers can be significant natural
filtration mechanisms. Degradation of water quality in
large lakes, due to the loss of riparian vegetation, is
usually less dramatic and occurs over longer periods of
time. The capacity of any given pond or lake to sustain
shoreline development without deleterious effects varies
greatly depending on such factors as the size, depth, and
turnover rate, as well as previously mentioned riparian zone
characteristics.

The size of a riparian buffer needed to adequately
protect water quality is determined by:

JL03

soil characte ristics including drainage, depth to
bedrock, rooting depth, permeability, surface
stoniness and rockiness, and soil chemical and
mineral composition (Ferwerda et al. 1975, Davies
1986, Olsen and Adams 1984, USDA 1974 and 1982).

pollutant characteristic including reactivity with
soil and water, breakdown rates and by-products,
toxicity to plants and animals, and the amount,
concentration and durationof pollutant release
(Olsen and Adams 1984, Davies 1986).

desired water quality standards.

type of water body.

All of these factors interact in a complex manner that
necessitates a thorough understanding of each component and
their interactions with one another before sound
recommendations can be made. Riparian buffer and habitat
site characteristics often change considerably within the
same water body. Ideally-management recommendations should
be targeted at adequately maintaining water quality
througout entire streams, lakes, ponds, or watersheds.

A number of authors have suggested varying riparian
buffet widths necessary to maintain water quality (SCS 1985,
LURC-1986, Erman and Mahoney 1982, Steinblums et al. 1984,
Davies and Sowles 1984, Brinson et al. 1981). one theme
that is repeatedly,stated throughout all of these references
is that site characteristics vary considerably throughout
individual water courses, let alone streams or regions.
Therefore it is difficult to give minimal riparian buffer
widths that will protect all conditions. Table 1 contains
management recommendations that reflect the need to protect
the majority of sites.

Table 1. Suggested riparian buffer widths necessary to
maintain water quality.

Riparian Buffer Width Source
-------- ------ ----- ------

30+m Erman and Mahoney 1983

43+m Steinblums et al. 1984

38+m LURC 1986

30+m Newbold et al. 1980

38+m USDA, SCS 1985

30+m DEP 1983

104

BIRDS: Riparian habitat supports a greater diversity of
birds in greater densities than adjacent areas (Odum 1979,
Bull 1978). In the United Staes over 250 species of birds
depend on riparian habitat for cover or feeding during some
part of the year (Brinson et al. 1981). Brinson et al.
(1981), summarizing many authors, reported that individual
riparian woodlands usually have from 10 to 50 breeding bird
species. Lortie and Pelletier (1987) found 38 breeding bird
species in coastal riparian habitat in southern Maine.
Birds also use riparian habitat as wintering and migrational
staging areas.
The size and vegetational characteristics-of riparian
zones determine the type and amount of feeding, nesting, and
roosting habitat available to birds. Larger areas that
contain a diversity of plant types and size classes usually
contain a wider array of avian species. Narrow riparian
bufferstrips will provide habitat for edge species, which
tend to be common and widely distributed. In southern
Maine, song sparrows, common yellowthroats, yellow warblers,
and eastern kingbirds were found nesting in riparian
bufferstrips less than 10 m wide (Lortie and Pelletier
1987). However, all of these species are common or abundant
nesters in the area. -Cooper's hawks and sharp-shinned hawks
nesting in the same general areas were found only in
riparian habitat 100 m or more wide (Lortie, pers. observ.).

Stauffer and Best (1980) state that a 200 m wide-
vegetative strip is apparently able to accommodate breeding
territories of most songbirds. Maintaining riparian habitat
alone will not provide adequate habitat for species with
large territories. Adjacent undeveloped forests are
essential and add significantly to the value of riparian
habitat areas.

Studies by Johnson (1986) and Clark et al. (1984)
indicate many species of birds breeding within riparian
habitats are not tolerant of deforestation. In Maine,
Johnson (1986) concluded that a bufferstrip of 75 m is
needed to maintain habitats of most breeding birds in
riparian habitat around ponds. Within that 75 m, he
suggested leaving the first 25 m completely undisturbed with
no cutting or development allowed. Within the remaining 50
m, cutting of 30-50% of the canopy cover could be allowed,
but no development should occur. Such management
recommendations were aimed at maintaining habitat for
songbirds. These recommendations are unsuitable for large
raptors that require extensive tracts of riparian habitat
for breeding. Stadler (1984) stated that a bufferstrip of
100 m was important for maintaining habitat for breeding
birds in Maine.

In addition to providing nesting and feeding habitat
for birds, riparian bufferstrips also protect water quality,
ensuring viable habitat for invertebrates and fish that

support shorebirds, wading birds, and other piscivorous
animals. Migratory shorebirds are an excellent example of
the importance of maintaining water quality. Thirty-one
species that breed in North America, anually migrate more
than 12,000 miles to nest in the Arctic and winter in South
America (Meyers dt al. 1987). During migration these birds
only stop at a few key staging areas where they rest and
rebuild fat reserves essential for continuing their
migration (Mead 1983, Hayman et al. 1986, Meyers et al.
1987). Food and habitat availability studies indicate that
these birds have no other alternative sites (Senner and Howe
1984). Therefore these areas are irreplaceable natural
resoruces and destruction of the food resource, resulting
from water quality degradation, would cause dramatic
population declines (Meyers et al. 1987).

The sensitivity of aquatic organisms to the toxicity of
metals and other pollutants is highly varied and depends on
the species, life stage, substrate and pollutant
characteristics (Davies 1986, Gerber 1987, Olsen and Adams
1984).

Management recommendations should be targeted at
maintaining high water quality using worst case scenarios
rather than best case scenarios. This will ensure that the
intricate relationships between invertebrates, fishes,
birds, and other animals dependent on this system will
persist. Table 2 contains-some recommended riparian habitat
widths needed to maintain habitats of some breeding bird
species.

Table 2. Suggested riparian habitat widths necessary
to maintain some breeding bird populations.

Riparian Habitat Width.- Source
------------------------------------------------------------

100-200 m Stadler 1984

75 m Small and Johnson 1986

200 m Stauffer.and Best 1980

100+ M Gaines 1974

MAMMALS: Riparian habitat is also valuable to deer and
other mammals. In Maine a survey of 350 deer wintering
areas found that 85 percent of these areas occurred in
riparian conifer stands (Banasiak 1964). The lowland
topography and dense vegetation of these areas shelter deer
from low temperatures and high winds. In addition, snow on.
the adjacent waterway is usually shallow or densely packed

106

offering better travel opportunities for deer or other
mammals (Thomas et al. 1979). Deer show high fidelity to
specific winter and summer ranges (Tierson et al. 1985), and
are poor colonizers of,new or recently vacated habitat
(Lavigne 1986). Such behavior has important implications
for managing and protecting travel corridors for deer. Even
if essential winter or summer ranges are available, deer may
abandon these areas if travel opportunities are cut off.

Telemetry studies in Maine indicate furbearers select
riparian habitats over adjacent habitats (DiBello 1982).
Eighty-five percent of the furbearers located were found
within 100 m of water. DiBello (1982) included locations of
coyote, bobcat, red fox, fisher, and marten. These species
use the riparian zone as a route for travelling within their
extensive home ranges. They also feed in riparian habitat,
which usually contains higher densities of food items than
less diverse adjacent habitats. Brinson et-al. (1981)
reported many vertebrates, especially riparian mammals,
reptiles, and amphibians, concentrate their activities well
within 60 m of water.

Water oriented mammals, particularly furbearers and
certain small mammals, are almost entirely restricted to
riparian habitats of streams, rivers, and lakes (Brinson et
al. 1981). Many upland mammal species can also be found in
riparian habitat, reflecting the high productivity of these
areas. In southern Maine seven species of small mammals and
seven species of large mammals frequent riparian habitat
surrounding salt marshes (Lortie and Pelletier 1987).
Because riparian ecosystems contain suitble habitat for
upland, wetland, and riparian species, the majority of
species in any given region can be found there. Alteration
of riparian ecosystems can have significant negative impacts
on small and large mammal species richness and abundance
(Barclay 1980).

Table 3. Suggested riparian habitat widths necessary
to maintain some mammal species populations.

Riparian.Habitat Width Source
------------------------------ -------------------------------

100 m (large mammals) DiBello 1982

67 m (small mammals Cross 1985

73-93 m (small mammals) Dickson and Huntley 1985

107

Appendix 4. Detailed Explanation of Fisheries Methodology

A. Stream Habitats: Streams within the 17 town
study area were identified using the stream
inventory file developed by MDIFW. This file was
assembled in 1965 from a compilation of streams
delineated on USGS 15 minute quadrangle maps.
Very little inventory data relative to either
habitat or fishery types were available for the
streams in the study area. Thus it was necessary
to under take a comprehensive sampling effort
during the summer months of 1986 and 1987 to
collect the necessary inventory data and to assess
and rate these stream habitats. Data collection
included a determination of species presence?
basic water quality and habitat descriptions. In
addition, data on drainage areas, stream lengths,
widths and area, general surficial geology, and
the presence or absence of known aquifer areas
were collected from field surveys, maps and other
available sources.

Species presence was determined utilizing
back-pack electro-shockers. Each stream was
sampled in at least one location near the drainage
mid-point if practically possible. Excessive
stream area, water depth, or inaccessibility,
precluded such sampling on several streams. The
amount of stream area sampled also varied and was
dependent on sampling conditions. Data on stream
widths, water depth and substrate type were
collected at each sample site either during the
fish survey or water quality survey.

Water quality data were collected on each stream
at or near the fish sampling location. Data were
collected on dissolved oxygen, pH,, temperature,
alkalinity, conductivity and water color. Meters
were used to measure all parameters except
alkalinity, which was measured using the standard
titration method. Water color was subjectively
determined and turbidity noted if apparent. All
water quality measurements were collected
independently of the fish sampling and not
collected during or immediately following storm
events. All water quality data were collected
during periods when water temperature from thermal
input would normally be the warmest (ie. June 20
to August 15) and base flows were at or near the
lowest for the year. A slightly more ideal
sampling period to detect warmest stream
temperatures and lowest base flows would have been
from mid-July through mid-August. However, time
constraints on the project precluded such

108

sampling. The objective of the water quality
sampling was to measure conditions during a period
that would have been most limiting on the
fisheries. The sampling scheme used for the study
did not fulfill that objective in every case,
however it is felt that sampling was adequate to
allow an' evaluation and rating of the streams in
the study area.

B. Great Ponds and Lakes: Lakes and ponds
within the 17 town study area were selected using
the MIDAS lake inventory file developed by the
MDIFW. Only "great ponds" were included in this
study. The State defines a great pond as any
natural water body 10 acres or larger or any
impoundment greater than 30 acres if bordered by
more than one property owner. Most of the larger
lakes and ponds have been previously inventoried
by MDIFW, however, several smaller water bodies
had not been previously studied. MDIFW staff
obtained the necessary data from these lakes so
that all of the "great ponds" within the study
area could be evaluated and includedin this
report.

Data on physical morphometry, water quality, and
fisheries were collected from each lake. Species;
presence was determined using gillnets, seines and
minnow traps.

Water quality data was collected on similar
parameters and with similar procedures used for
stream habitats. Data were collected throughout
the water column on each lake in order to
construct profiles for each of the parameters
tested. Morphometry data were collected using the
transect method and depths recorded using
electronic echo sounding equipment.

All data collected were used to evaluate the
various lakes and streams in the study area and to
determine the relative value of each respective
habitat.

C. Ranking: A systematic method was developed
to generate raw scores to rank lake and stream-
habitats as being of high, moderate, or low
resource value. Stream habitats are divided into
two basic groups based on types of fisheries
present. The first group was those streams
containing principal fisheries and the second
group those streams containing non-principal
fisheries. Principal fisheries are defined as
those species or fisheries sought after for

109

recreational purposes and/or those regulated by
MDIFW. Principal fisheries were further divided
into salmonid and non-salmonid groupings.
Salmonid type fisheries included brook trout,
brown trout, salmon, etc., and non-salmonids
included largemouth and smallmouth bass, chain
pickerel, white perch, black crappie, etc. All
other species such as minnows, suckers, eels, etc.
were considered non-principal fisheries.
Scientific names of all species found in the study
area are included in Appendix I.

All principal fisheries habitats were evaluated
according to habitat suitability, species
sensitivity, species value, and habitat area.
Habitat suitability was determined utilizing field
data collected on physical features, water
quality, and temperature. Habitat suitability
index curves were selected from the U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service habitat suitability index models (Edwards
et al. 1982, Edwards et al. 1983, Raleigh 1982,
Raleigh et al. 1984, Stuber et al. 1982) to
represent salmonid and non-salmonid fisheries.
The variables selected included depth, substrate
type, oxygen levels, pH, and temperature. Each
variable was evaluated to determine whether or not
the habitat was highly suitable, moderately
suitable, or unsuitable for the species being
evaluated. The suitability index for highly
suitable habitat had to be greater than 0.7 and
such habitat received a value score of 3. The
suitability index for moderately suitable habitat
had to be greater than 0.3 but less than 0.7.
Moderate habitat-received a score of 2. A
suitability index of less than 0.3 was interpreted
as being marginal or unsuitable habitat and
received a value score of 1.

Species sensitivity was also evaluated utilizing
the suitability index curves. Those species with
narrow ecological tolerances were considered more
sensitive than those species with broader
ecological tolerances to habitat features. Each
habitat area was subjectively evaluated on the
sensitivity of the species present to changes in
physical features, water quality or temperature.
Highly sensitive fisheries were assigned a value
score of 3. Moderately sensitive fisheries were
assigned a value score of 2 and fisheries not
being affected by changes in physical features
were assigned a value score of 1. Species value
was also evaluated assessing relative abundance
within the study area , rarity of the species

110

within the study area and the degree of natural
reproduction. Value was also assessed evaluating
fishing quality, relative utilization and
aesthetics associated with the resource. A value
score of 3,. 2, or 1 was assigned to high, moderate
and low values, respectively.

Habitat area is also an important criteria and
contributed to the total score. The units used
for measuring habitat area were the standard 900
square foot areas used in fisheries work by MDIFW.
Each 900 square foot area represents one unit of
habitat. The number of units was determined from
the total area of stream habitat present in the
main stem of each stream sampled. The units were
assigned a value score of 1, 2, or 3 based on the
categories of 0.1 to 250 units (0.01 to 5 acres),
251 to 500 units (5 to 10 acres), and greater than
500 units (10 acres), respectively.

Non-principal fisheries were evaluated according
to species abundance, species rarity, and species
economic importance. Similar value scores of 3,
2 and 1 were assigned to high, moderate, and low
ratings, respectively for each criteria. The
formula to generate a total score was also
weighted for habitat area, utilizing the same
value scores and unit categories as noted for the
principal fisheries.

Total scores for each stream were calculated by
combining principal and non-principal fisheries
habitats. Scores were arranged in numeric
sequence to determine each streams rank. Natural
data gaps or groupings were identified from the
list and high value, moderate value, and low value
streams were determined from these data groups.
It was decided from the data that total scores
less than 25 would be assigned low value (Fl), 26
to 74'moderate value (F2), and scores 75 or
greater high value resources (F3). The process
also allowed for an over-riding factor if the
MDIFW staff was aware of additional data that
would influence the value rating. over-riding was
applied to four streams in the study area.
Intermittent streams and all stream habitat not
sampled because of inaccessibility, etc., were
given an indeterminate (F5) rating. Streams found
to be strictly tidal (tidal creeks) were not
included because the Department of Marine
Resources has jurisdiction over these fisheries.
Rivers with an average width of 50 feet or more
were also excluded from the survey and ranking
process. These areas were excluded because

criteria used to evaluate large rivers is
substantially different from the methods used in
this project. The methodology employed in this
study was designed to collect and evaluate minor
drainage habitats (i.e., drainages less than 25
@quare miles). Larger systems would require more
intensive surveys, such as "representative reach"
surveys or other intensive methodologies such
as those employed when surveying major drainage
systems. Larger streams and rivers excluded were
the Piscataqua and Salmon Falls River in Kittery,
and the Saco, Presumpscot and Androscoggin.Rivers.
These rivers are extremely valuable resources and
exclusion from this project by no means precludes
their importance. The management recommendations
for high value fisheries should be-implemented on
these rivers as a minimum protectionary measure.

All lakes in the 17 town study area were evaluated
utilizing the fisheries criteria developed by the
Land Use Regulation Commission for the "Maine
Wildland Lakes Assessment" (LURC 1986). Each lake
was rated on value assessments for species
habitat, public use, and economic importance.
Species were evaluated relative to abundance,
diversity, rarity, and reproduction. Habitat was
evaluated relative to water quality and physical
features. Public use was evaluated relative to
fishing quality, fishing pressure, and aesthetic
experiences. Values scares of 3, 2, or 1 were,
assigned to high, moderate, or low, respectively,
for each category evaluated by MDIFW personnel.
The cumulative score was determined by summing
value scores assigned within each category for
each lake. Each category was given equal weight.
Total scores were arranged in numeric sequence
from high to low and natural data groupings
determined. Resource values of high, medium, or
low were delineated using natural data gaps
between scores. Total scores greater than 20 were
rated high. Total scores between 15 'and 20 were
assigned a moderate rating, and scores of less
than 15 were rated low.

D. Results and Discussion, Stream Habitat: A
total of 175 stream habitats were evaluated within
the 17 town study area. Eight were rated as high
value resource areas, 47 were rated moderate, and
94 were of low value to fisheries. Eight waters
were tidal and therefore unrated. Twenty-six
@treams were determined to be intermittent or
inaccessible for sampling and thus not rated.
Appendix 2 summarizes the ratings for streams
sampled within each town.

112

Figures 1 through 13 summarize the various data
collected from the streams sampled. The typical
stream in the study area was six to seven feet
wide with a main stem length of approximately 2.5
miles. Most of the streams sampled were either
first or second order streams.

All the streams in the study area are located in
the Seaboard Lowland physiographic region. This
region was primarily influenced by the late
glacial marine submergence as seen from the
predominance of fine glacial marine deposits found
in most of the streams. The presence of sand and
gravel aquifers was very limited on most of the
streams sampled. Nine percent of the streams
sampled had,temperatures less than 60 degrees F
(15 degrees C), with 33 percent considered too
warm to support any-salmonid species. According
to criteria set by the EPA, thirty five percent of
the streams in the study area were considered to
have oxygen levels low enough to impair growth and
survival of salmonid fisheries. Fifteen percent.
of the streams also had oxygen levels low enough
to impair growth and survival of non-salmonid
species.

The mean pH value for all waters sampled was 6.7.
The range in pH observed in the study area was 4.8
to 8.0. The mean alkalinity for all waters in the
study was 27 ppm (parts per million) calcium
carbonate with a range form 2 to 107. In generalf
most waters in the area are considered soft water
streams.

Fifteen percent of all streams sampled were found
to have no fish. Eight percent contained only
salmonid species, 54 percent had only
non-salmonids including non-principal species, and
24 percent contained a combination of both
salmonid and non-salmonid species. only 7 percent
of all the streams in the study area are stocked
with hatchery reared fish by the Maine Department
of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. All remaining
waters are considered to have self-sustaining and
self-reproducing populations.

E. Results and Discussions, Lakes: There were
17 lakes evaluated in the study area. They ranged
in size from 11 to 634 acres. only lakes 10 acres
or more were considered. Highland Lake is the
only water body of those surveyed containing any
salmonid species. This lake is actively managed
by the MDIFW., Forest Lake was the only other lake
showing thermal stratification and had sufficient

113

FIG. 1. Size of Drainage Area in Square Miles of
Streams surveyed in Southern Coastal Maine.
S
> 25 *(3.5%)

M 10-25 **(4.5%)
I
L 5-10 ****(8%)

S < 5

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
PERCENT

FIG. 2. Stream Order of Streams surveyed in
Southern Coastal Maine.

0 6th (0.0%)
R 5th *(0.8%)
D 4th *(1.0%)
E 3rd ****(8.6%)
R 2nd *****************(35%)
1st
10 20 30 40 56 66 76 86 90 100
PERCENT

FIG. 3. Main stem Length in Miles of Streams
surveyed in Southern Coastal Maine.

> 15 *(1%)
M 10-15 *(2.0%)
1 8-10 *(1.5%)
L 6-8 *(2.5%)
E 4-6 *(3%)
S 1-4

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
PERCENT

FIG. 4. Average Width in Feet of Streams
surveyed in Southern Coastal Maine.

> 50 (0%)
F 30-50 *(1%)
E 20-30 *(1%)
E 10-20 ******(13%)*
T 5-10 **********"******(36%)
< 5

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
PERCENT

114

FIG. 5. Percentage of Main stem located in Sand
and Gravel Aquifers for Streams surveyed
in Southern Coastal Maine.

E
R 100% ***(5%)
C > 50% *********(19%)
E < 50%
N 0% **(4%0)
T I I I I I I
10 26 36 40 50 60 76 86 96 106
PERCENT

FIG. 6. Surficial Geology of Streams surveyed in
G Southern Coastal Maine.
E
0 TD *(0.5%)
L MS **(4%)
0 T RM *(2%)
G Y SS *(3%)
Y P TT ***********(21%)
E MM
10 26 36 40 50 60 70 80 96 106
PERCENT

MM = Fine-grained glaciomarine deposits
TT = Glacial till deposits
SS = Swamp, marsh, bog deposits
RM = Ribbed morine deposits
MS = Coarse-grained glaciomarine deposits
TD = Thin'drift deposits

FIG. 7. Observed Summer Temperatures of Streams
surveyed in Southern Coastal Maine.
T
E
M > 75 *(3%)
P 68-75 ***************(30%)
0 60-68
F < 60 ****(9%)
10 20 30 40 50 60 .70 80 90 106
PERCENT

FIG. 8. Observed Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
of Streams surveyed in Southern Coastal
0 Maine.
X
Y > 8 ************(25%)
G 6-8 *******************(40%)
E p < 6 *****************(35%)
N p < 5 *******(15%)
m
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
PERCENT

FIG. 9. Observed pH of Streams surveyed in
Southern Coastal Maine.

> 8 *(0.5%)
P 7-8 *******(15%)
H 6-7
5-6 ***(5%)
< 5 *(0.5%)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
PERCENT

FIG. 10. Observed Alkalinity of Streams surveyed
A in Southern Coastal Maine.
L p
K p
A m > 50 *******(14%)
L C 40-50 **(5%)
I a 30-40 ****(8%)
N C 20-30 *****.******(23%)
1 0 10-20
T 3 < 10 *****(11%)
Y I I I I I- --r -- i- I -I
10 26 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
PERCENT

FIG. 11. Number of Species Present in each Stream
N surveyed in Southern Coastal Maine.
U S
M P >5 *********(18%)
B E 4 *****(10%)
E C 3 *******(14%)
R 1 2 ***********(22%)
E 1 *********(18%)
0 S 0 *******(15%)
F I I I I I I I I
10 20 30 40 50 66 70 80 96 106
PERCENT

FIG. 12. Fisheries Type Observed in each Stream
surveyed in Southern Coastal Maine.

T COMB ************(24%)
Y PWW
P PCW ****(8%)
E NP *******(15%)
10 26 36 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
PERCENT
NP = Non-principal fisheries present
PCW = Principal coldwater fisheries present
PWW = Principal warmwater fisheries present
COMB = Combination warmwater, coldwater fisheries

FIG. 13. Percentage of the Streams surveyed in
Southern Coastal Maine that are Stocked
with Hatchery Fish.

NOT
STOCKED

STOCKED ***(7%0)

--T
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
PERCENT

117

volumes of cold water to support salmonid species,
however, this lake is not actively managed by
MDIFW due to an absence of public access.
Highland Lake was the only water body in this
study area having an official public right-of-way
designated for public use. All other lakes are
typically small and shallow, supporting an array
of non-salmonid species.

Highland Lake had the highest score of all the
lakes in the study area. Of the 17 lakes
evaluated, two were rated as being a high value
resource. An additional eleven were rated
significant and the remainder were rated low for
fisheries resource value. Spirit Pond in
Phippsburg was a tidal pond and thus was not rated
as a freshwater fisheries. All waters except
Highland Lake and Forest Lake were relatively
undeveloped. Most of the waters had no shoreline
development present. Both Highland and Forest
lake are heavily developed around the shoreline.
The results of the ranking are summarized in
Appendix 2 and a list of all fish species found in
the study area is presented in Appendix I.

MAINE STREAM STUDY:
METHODS FOR FISHERIES

STREAM HABITATS:.

Name of Stream: Stream No.

County: Township:

Drainage Name; No.;

Habitat Units: Total Score:

Complete this section for the entire category under
consideration. Principal fisheries include all species
either regulated of actively managed by MDIFW. Such . I.
species would include all those in PLANNING FOR MAINE'S
INLAND FISH AND WILDLIFE, Volume II, Fisheries,1986-1991.
Non-principal fisheries would include non-sport and minnow
species as indicated in the above mentioned document.
Check the appropriate box for fishery type. For non-
principal fisheries, complete Section B and for principal
fisheries Section C. Determine the fishery types which
exist in each stream using the best available information
which may include electrofishing survey data and/or
personal knowledge of the stream. Calculate the points
for each sub-section using the appropriate Habitat
Suitability Index Models (Blue Books) developed-by the
U. S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Total
the points and record in the "Total Score" space at the
top of this page.

A. FisheKy Type:

Non-principal fisheries present

Principal fisheries present:

Non-salmonid species as principal fisheries

Salmonid species as principal fisheries

Both non-salmonid and salmonid species
present as principal fisheries.

118a

B. Non-Principal Fisheries Evaluation:

Streams with non-principal, fisheries will be evaluated
using three major criteria: abundance, species rarity,
and economic importance. Each criteria will be rated as
high, medium or low and receive a score of 3, 2 or 1,
respectively.

1. Abundance ........................................

High = high abundance levels relative to other
fisheries in the region.
Medium = medium abundance levels relative to other
fisheries in the region.
Low = low abundance levels relative to other fisheries
in the region.

2. Species Rarity ...................................

High = I or more species rare or uncommon in the
State.
Medium = 1 or more species rare or uncommon in the
Region.
Low = No rare or uncommon species.

3. Economic Importance ..............................

High = among the region's most important in terms of
bait or food fish, etc...
Medium = some economic value to the region.
Low = limited economic significance.

4. Habitat Unit Value ...............................

High- stream area greater than 500 units.(10 acres)
Medium = stream area 250 to 500 units (5 to 10 acres)
Low = stream area 1 to 250 units (1 to 5 acres)

SUMMARY
1. Abundance subtotal:

2. Species Rarity subtota-1:

3. Economic Importance subtotal:

Total Points:

(Total Points:_) X (Habitat Unit-Value:-)=
(Total Score)

C. Principal Fisheries Evaluation:

Streams with principal fisheries present will be evaluated
using the following three major criteria: -habitat
suitability, species sensitivity and the following value
factors: species abundance, species rarity, reproduction,
.fishing quality, aesthetic experiences and fishing
pressure.

Habitat suitability will be determined using the HSI
Mddels. If more than one species is present, average the
HSI's for those species present. A high rating will be
assigned to HSI's greater than 0.7; medium to HSI's from
0.3 to 0.7 and low for HSI's lets than 0.3. A rating of
high, medium and low will receive a score of 3, 2 and 1,
respectively. The components of the suitability ind -ex
will include the average of the physical feature variables
of depth and substrate type added to the average of the
chemical variables of dissolved oxygen and pH added to the
variable of temperature. The scores of these components
after being added together will be multiplied times two to
determine the total points for the suitability criteria.

Species sensitivity will be determined by evaluating the
sensitivity of the species or group of species to
ecological changes in their habitat. Those species with
the most broad tolerance to changes in the habitat
suitability variables will be rated as low and those
species with a narrow tolerance to changes in the habitat
will be rated as high. Those species with moderate
tolerance will be rated medium. A rating of high, medium
and low will receive a score of 3, 2 and 1, respectively.
The components of the sensitivity index will be the same
variables used to determine habitat suitability. The
scores will be average for each component, added together
then multiplied times two to determine the total score for
the sensitivity criteria.

Value Factors will include the following criteria: species
abundance, species rarity, reproduction, fishing quality,
aesthetic experiences, and fishing pressure. Each - I
criteria will be rated as high, medium or low and receive
a score.of 3, 2 or 1, respectively.

1. Habitat Suitability:

))x(2)=
physical features chemical var temp subtotal
mean score mean score score score
2. Species Sensitivity:

)+( )+(_))x(2)=
physical features chemical var temp subtotal
mean score mean score score score

3. Value Factors:

a. Abundance .....................................

High = high abundance levels relative to other
fisheries in the region
Medium = medium abundance levels relative to other
fisheries in the region
Low = low abundance levels relative to other
fisheries in.the region

b. Species Rarity ................................

High = 1 or more species rare or uncommon in the
State
Medium = 1 or more species rare in the region
Low = no rare or uncommon species
c. Reproduction ...................................
High = Fishery(s) entirely supported by natural
reproduction
Medium = Fishery(s) supported in part by stocking
Low = Fishery(s) supported totally by stocking

d. Fishing Quality ...............................

High = good overall size and/or catch experienced
Medium = fair size and/or catch rates experienced
Low = poor size and/or catch rates experienced

e. Aesthetic Experiences .........................

High = above average experience
Medium = typical experience
Low = belowaverage experience

f. Fishing Pressure .......i ......................

High = among the most heavily used for the region
Medium = moderate use for the region
Low = low use for the region

Value Factors Subtotal Score:

4. Habitat Unit Value ................................

High = stream area greater than 500 units (10 acres)
Medium = stream area of 250 to 500 units (5-10 acres)
Low stream area less than 250 units (5 acres)

118d

SUMMARY

Habitat Suitability Subtotal:

Habitat Sensitivity Subtotal:

Value Factors Subtotal:

.'Total Points:
(Total Points: X (Habitat Unit Value: Total Score

D. Special Unique Features Present: Yes ;No

Describe any special or outstanding features of the area
including special uses, unique physical features,
traditional public use area, etc..., which makes this area
unique or unusual.

MAINE LAZE STUDY:
METHODS FOR FISHERIES

Participants

Owen Fenderson, Fisheries Planner - general coordination
Kendall Warner, Management Supervisor - assessment approval
Regional Fisheries Biologists - lake assessors

Category Description

For the purpose of this assessment, a "fishery" is defined as any
lake containing one or more cold water or warm water sport fish
species in sufficient abundance to be regularly pursued by
anglers, any lake that has the potential for supporting such a
fishery, or any lake that contains non-sport fish species of
significant economic, ecologic, or scientific value.

information Sources

Published lake surveys
Computerized lake inventory file
Regional office files

Minimum Standards

To be included in the fisheries assessment, a lake must meet
prescribed minimum standards. The first, common to all resource
categories, is that a lake must be at least 10 acres in size and
not be within Land Use Regulation Commission boundaries. Beyond
this general standard, specific standards for fish resources have
been identified. In combination, these standards identify lakes
that are deemed to be the most important to DIFW's overall
fishery management program. To be eligible for assessment a lake
should meet the following minimum standards:

1. The lake must have a f ishery or the potential for - a- f ishery
as defined above.

2. All natural lakes in excess of 10 acres or man-made lakes in
excess of 30 acres (Great Ponds) that meet the definition of
a fishery are to be included.

3. Any lake of a size less than a Great Pond that is judged to
be an exceptionally high quality fishery is to be included.
These waters should be chosen judiciously. and would rate
high among the criteria given below under, "Evaluation
Criteria."

4. All lakes that contain blueback charr, sunapee trout, swamp
darters, brook sticklebacks, or grass pickerel will be
automatically included.

- - --------

Evaluation Criteria

Lakes meeting the minimum standards detailed above will be
evaluated using three major criteria: species value, habitat
value, and public use. Species and habitat values will be the
major determinants of a lake's overall rating.

Each criterion has been subdivided into a number of specific
factors. These factors and the measures by which lakes will be
rated for each are as follows:

.1. Species

a. Abundance

High = High abundance levels (number and/or
weight, collectively for all species)
relative to other fisheries in the region.

Medium = Medium abundance levels relative to
other fisheries in the region.

Low'= Low abundance levels relative to other
fisheries in the region.

b. Diversity

High = 3 or more principal species in the
fishery.

Medium 2 principal species in the fishery.

Low - I principal species in the fishery.

C. Rarity

High = I or more species, rare or uncommon in
the State.

Medium or more species, rare in the
region.

Low = No rare or uncommon species.

d. Reproduction

High = Fishery(s) entirely.supported by
natural reproduction.

Medium = Fishery(s) supported in part by
stocking.

LOW - Fishery(s) supported totally by
stocking.

2. Habitat

Note: Habitat quality factors will be evaluated from
the perspective of all important species in the fishery
rather than any one particular species.

a. Water Quality

High = Optimum DO, pH, etc. Production not
limited by water quality.

Medium = Production somewhat limited by water
quality.

Low = Production severely limited by water
quality.

b. Physical Factors

High = optimum food, substrate, spawning
areas, etc.

Medium = Production somewhat limited by food,
substrate, spawning areas, etc.

Low = Production severely limited by food,
substrate, spawning areas, etc.

3. Public Use

a. Fishing Quality

High = Good overall size and/or catch rates
experienced by anglers.

Medium = Fair size and/or catch rates
experienced by anglers.

Low = Poor size and/or catch rates
experienced by anglers.

b. Aesthetic Experience

High = Among the best fishing experiences in
the region in terms of scenery, solitude,
and/or other amenities.

Medium = Typical in the region in terms of
fishing experience.

Iow Sub-par fishing experience.

'IJS h

C. Fishing Pressure

High - Among the most heavily used fisheries
in the region.

-Medium. = Moderate use for the region.

Low = Low use for the region.

d. Economic Importance

High - Among the region's most important in
terms of tourism supporting local services
and guides, commercial bait fish, etc.

Medium = Some economic value to the region.

Low - Limited economic significance.

4. Potential

Enter a "P" in the comment column if the
water has potential for a higher rating if
certain management procedures could be
implemented. For example, the pond might
have the potential for being reclaimed.
5. Management Indicate the species group for which the
water is currently being managed using the
following letter codes:

C - coldwater species
W - warmwater species
B = both coldwater and
warmwater

Leave blank if the water is not being managed
for sport fisheries. Note: Codes for
surveyed waters have been entered by
computer. If incorrect indicate the correct
code.

Evaluation Process

1. Field Evaluation

A response form consisting of the master list of lakes
and a series of data entry columns will be supplied to
state fisheries managers in each DIFW region. Regional
biologists will be asked to

(1) identify lakes that.meet the study's minimum
standards,
(2) rate the habitat and species value of each
lake meeting minimum standards, and
(3) rate the public use value of each lake meeting
the minimum standards.

As the initial step, biologists will compare the
prepared lake list with the minimum standards
identified earlier, checking off those that meet these
standards. No set number of lakes must meet minimum
standards. The actual number will likely vary
according to the number of lakes in each region.

For those lakes meeting minimum standards, habitat,
species, and public use factors will be rated using the
high (H), medium (M), or low (L) designations detailed
above. Specific sources of information may include
creel censuses, data logs from field inventories, and
professional judgement. A medium rating will signify a
typical, good quality fishery such as associated with
many of the State's lakes. A high rating will be
reserved for especially noteworthy occurrences.

The response form will include space for comments.
This may be used to highlight noteworthy
characteristics (names of critical species, unique
habitats, etc.) or to provide other necessary
information. While ratings are to be made from the
perspective of existing conditions and existing data
sources, potential for improvement can be noted in the
comment column. Biologists are not expected to provide
comments on every lake.

2. Encoding and Analysis

After forms are returned, information will be entered
into the DIFW computer. DIFW state level staff will
analyze data and give tentative-ratings to lakes based
on data supplied by field personnel. Lakes will be
rated as "outstanding" or "significant." The following
will serve as guidelines for this process:

a. Species and habitat values will, in
combination, be the major rating factors. A
lake need not receive a-high (H) rating in
all species and habitat measures to receive a
high overall rating.

Species, habitat, and public use values will
be totalled for each lake. High values will
be assigned a value of three, medium values
will be assigned a valued of two, and low
values will be assigned a value of one.

118j

Preliminarily, lakes with tot@l values of 24
or more points will be rated outstanding and
lakes with 14-23 points will be rated
significant.

b. Lakes with critical species
will automatically be given an
outstanding rating.

C. outstanding" designations will
be limited to the most
significant from either a DIFW
region or statewide
perspective.

MINE OREAK77ED 1OWNS LAVE ASSESSIIEKI FORK: FISHERIES

NAME (S) REGION
DAIE:
-------- SPECIES -------- -MbIlAl- ------ t-PUBLIC USE --------
LAKE ACRES ASUND DIVER RAKIY REPRO woun rms rQUAL AM" rPRESS ECONIMP Poll

MAINE MANIZED TOUNS LAKE ASSESSRENI COMMENI FOR 11: FISHERIES

DAIE: REGION

IOWN LAKE

Appendix 5. List and Definition of Wetland Types

TYPE 1 - Seasonally Flooded Basins or Flats.

These flats occur in upland depressions, which may fill
with water during periods of heavy rain or melting snow, and
along river courses, where flooding ordinarily occurs in
late fall, winter, or spring. The soil is covered with
water or is waterlogged during variable seasonal periods,
but is generally well-drained during the growing season.
Where the water recedes early, smartweeds, fall panicum,
chufa, wild millet, and cockleburs are likely to occur.*
Areas that are only temporarily submerged rarely develop any
wetland vegetation. Ducks often use flooded upland
depressions when feeding - eating seeds that were present
before flooding and invertebrates that developed wither
before or after submergence.

TYPE 2 - Inland Fresh Meadow.

These meadows often fill shallow lake basins or
potholes; they may also be found bordering the landward side
of shallow marshes. The soil is waterlogged to within a few
inches of the surface during the growing season. Vegetation
characteristic of northern meadows includes cares, rushes,
redtop, reed grasses, mannagrasses, prairie cordgrass, and
mints. When associated,with permanent water areas, fresh
meadows are commonly used by nesting waterfowl. Deer and
moose frequent them while resting and feeding.

TYPE 3 - Inland Shallow Fresh Marsh.

Shallow marshes may nearly fill shallow lake basis or
potholes, or they may border the landward side of deep fresh
marshes occupying such depressions. The soil, normally
waterlogged during the growing season, may be flooded with
as much as 6 inches of water. Common plant species found in
northern regions are plume grass, rice cutgrass, carex, and
giant burreed. Various other marsh plants (cattails,
arrowheads, pickerel weed, smartweeds) may also be found.
These marshes are used heavily by nesting and feeding
waterfowl, and they are visited frequently by other birds,
moose, deer, and various furbearers.

TYPE 4 - Inland Deep Fresh Marsh.

These marshes often occupy shallow lake basins and
potholes, or they may border open water occurring in such
areas. The soil is covered with 6 inches to 3 feet of water
during the growing season. Shallow-water vegetation
consists mainly of cattails, plume grass, spikerushes, and

The scientific names of all plants mentioned here and on
the following pages are listed at the end of this
Appendix.

119

wild rice; pondweeds, duckweeds, coontaill spatterdock
sometimes occur in the more open areas. These areas are
important not only to nesting and feeding waterfowl, but
also to numerous other wildlife species, such as herons and
rails, muskrats, otters, and beavers, turtles, frogs, and
fish.

TYPE 5 - Inland Open Fresh Water.

open fresh water of variable depth occurs in artificial
lakes, ponds, and reservoirs. It may also be found in
shallow lake basins, potholes, or streambeds, and is
commonly fringed with marsh vegetation. In shallow areas
(less than six feet) vegetation may include pondweeds, wild
celery, coontail, water milfoil, water lilies, and
spatterdocks. These open water areas are useful to diving
ducks, coots, and occasionally to geese. The bordering
vegetation provides cover and the open surface areas are
particularly good for brooding and resting.

TYPE 6 - Shrub Swamp.

Shrubby swamps occur primarily along sluggish streams.
The soil is generally waterlogged but may be covered with a
foot or more of water. Alder and dogwood predominate on the
drier areas; willow, buttonbush, and sweet gale characterize
the wetter sites. These swamps are used to varying degrees
by ducks, moose, deer, woodcock, and raccoons.

TYPE 7 - Wooded Swamp.

These swamps occur along sluggish streams, on flat
uplands, and in shallow lake basins or potholes. The soil
is normally waterlogged but may be seasonally covered with
as much as one foot or more of water. (When such areas are
flooded for a period of one or more years, the trees die and
the site reverts to a meadow for a period of one or more
years, the trees die and the site reverts to a meadow
association). Northern swamps are composed of tamarack,
arborvitae, black spruce, balsam fir, red maple, and black
ash. The coniferous swamps usually have a thick carpeting
of mosses; deciduous swamps often support duckweeds,
smartweeds, and other herbaceous vegetation. Wooded swamps
are frequently used by hole-nesting ducks, feeding
waterfowl, deer, moose, Deaver, and numerous small birds and
mammals.

TYPE 8 - Bog.

Bogs occur most often in shallow lake basins, and
potholes, along sluggish streams, and on flat uplands. The
soil is generally saturated and supports a spongy
ground-cover of mosses or other plant material. Vegetation
may be woody, herbaceous, or both. Northern representatives

120

include Labrador-tea, leather-leaf, cranberries, carex,
cottongrass, sweet gale and sphagnum. moss. Stunted black
spruce and tamarack may also occur. In Maine, these bogs,
especially those with an interspersion of open water, are of
importance to some nesting waterfowl. Moose, deer, beaver,
and hares also frequent these areas.

TYPE 12 - Coastal Shallow Fresh Marsh.

These marshes occur along tidal rivers and adjacent the
landward side of deeper marshes. The soil is waterlogged
and may be flooded with as much as 6 inches of water at high
tide. Vegetation consists of various grasses and sedges,
cattails, arrowheads, smartweeds, and arrow-arum. These
marshes are highly important to feeding wildfowl and herons; V
they are of lesser importance to mink, raccoons, and snipe.

TYPE 13 - Coastal Deep Fresh Marsh.

These deep marshes occur primarily along tidal rivers.
During the growing season the soil is covered with 6 inches
to 3 feet of water at average high tide. Common plants
found are cattails, wildricef pickerel weed, and
spa-tterdocks; pondweeds, widgteon grass, and other submerged
species often occur in marsh openings. Where suitable
vegetation dominates, these marshes are heavily used by
feeding waterfowl, sora rails, and herons. Raccoons, mink,
muskrats, and fish also utilize these areas.

TYPE 14 - Coastal Open Fresh Water.

These waters are of variable depth and occur in tidal
rivers and sounds. Vegetation is generally found at depths
less than six feet and consists of pondweeds, naiads, wild
celery, coontail, water milfoils, and waterweeds. Such
areas are heavily used by diving ducks and other water
birds, and by fish.

TYPE 16 - Coastal Salt Meadow.

Salt meadows border the landward side of salt marshes,
or open water. The soil is always saturated during the
growing season but is rarely inundated by tidal water.
Indigenous plant species are salt meadow cordgrass (Apartina
patens) and black rush; common three-square occurs in
fresher areas. Salt meadows are of great importance to
resident and wintering waterfowl, particularly when well
interspersed with potholes and ditches. Such areas support
large populations of amphipods, clams, and snails, and
afford wildfowl an ample source of food.

TYPE 18 - Regularly Flooded Salt Marshes.

Salt marshes occur most often along coastal bays. At

121

average high tide during the growing season, the soil is
covered with six inches or more of water. The predominant
plant species is saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina
alterniflora). Open water areas often support widgeon
grass, eelgrass, and Sago pondweed. Feeding wildfowl use
these wetlands heavily, as do herons, rails, other shore
birds, fish, and shellfish.

TYPE 19 - Sounds and Bays.

This type consists primarily of mud flats laid bare at
low tide and occurring along salt-water rivers, sounds, and
bays. Vegetation, if present, may consist of eel-grass,
widgeon grass, Sago pondweed, and muskgrasses. These tidal
flats support large shellfish populations and are extremely
important to wintering waterfowl populations.

It should be emphasized that each of these wetland
types is generally found in conjunction with one ore more of
the other types; very seldom will an area be found that is
entirely fresh meadow or entirely deep fresh marsh. When
classifying a wetland, select the type which most closely
identifies the greater portion (50-75%) of the area as it is
,delineated on the map.

Glossary of,Plant Names

These are the common and scientific names of plants
referred to in this appendix (from Fernald, 1950 and
Fassett, 1957).

Common Names Scientific Names

Alders Alnus spp.B.Ehrh.
Arborvitae Thuja occidentalis L.
Arrow-arum Peltandra virgnica (L.)
Kunth.
Arrowheads Sagittaria spp. L.
Balsam Fir Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.
Black Ash Fraxinus nigra Marsh.
Blackrush Juncus gerardi Loisel.
Black spruce Picea mariana (Mill.) BSP
Bulrushes Scirpus spp. L'.
Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis L.
Carex Carex spp. L.
Cattails Typha spp. L.
Chufa Cyperus esculentus L.
Cockleburs Xanthium spp. L.
Common three-square Scirpus americanus Pers.
Coontail Ceratophyllum. demersum L.
Cottongrass Eriophorum spp. L.
Cranberries Vaccinium spp. L.
Dogwoods Cornus spp. L.
Duckweeds Lemnaceae
Eelgrass Zostera marina L.
Fall panicum Panicum dichotomiflorum Michx.
Giant burreed Sparganium eurycarpum Engelm.
Grasses Gramineae
Labrador-tea Ledum groenlandicum Oeder.
Leatherleaf Chamaedaphne calyculata (L.)
Moench.
Mannagrasses Glyceria spp. R. Br.
Mints Labiatae
Muskgrasses Chara spp. L.
Naiads Najas spp. L.
Pickerel weed Pontederia cordata L.
Plumegrass Phragmites communis Trin.
Pondweeds Potamogeton spp. L.
Prairie cordgrass Spartina pectinata Link.
Red Maple Acer rubrum L.
Redtop Agrostis stolonifera L.
Reed grasses Calamagrostis spp. Adams.
Rice cutgrass Leersia oryzoides (L.) Swartz.
Rushes Juncus spp. L.
Sago pondweed Potamogeton pectinatus L.
Saltmarsh cordgrass Spartina alterniflora Loisel.
Saltmeadow cordgrass Spartina patens (Ait.) Muhl.
Sedges Cyperaceae

123

Smartweeds Polygonum spp. L.
Spatterdocks Nuphas spp. Sm.
Sphagnum moss Sphagnum spp.
Spikerushes Eleocharis spp. R. Br.
Sweet gale Myrica gale L.
Tamarack Larix laricina (DuRoi) K.
Koch
Water lilies Nymphaea spp. L.
Water milfoils Myriophyllus spp. L.
Waterweeds Elodea spp. Mich.
Widgeon grass Ruppia marinima L.
Wild celery Vallisneria americana
Michx.
Wild millet Echinochloa spp. Beauv.
Wild rice Zizania aquatica L.
Willow Salix spp. L.

124

Appendix 6. Evaluation Criteria Used For
Rating Deer Wintering Areas.

Least Desirable Most Desirable
Criteria Condition Condition

1) Access Far from any all- Close to all-
weather road weather road

2) Shelter Quality.

Forest Composition: Hardwood dominated Softwood
mixed wood stands stands

Stand Size: Softwood stands w/ Large,
numerous large contiguous
inclusions of hard- softwood
wood stands

Aspect: North South

3) Browse
Availability

Browse currently
available: No available browse Abundant amt.
of any species of preferred
browse
species

Potential to
produce browse: No hardwood present Good inter-
in canopy or under- spersion of
story hardwood in
softwood
canopy and
understory

4) Relationship to
Other DWAs: Within 1/2 mile 3-5 miles or
or less of another more to the
DWA closest DWA

5) Size

Shape: Round High
linearity

Size: < 20 acres > 500 acres

6) Deer Populc@tion: Light, sporadic Heavy,
deer use continuous
deer use

125

Least Desirable Most Desirable
Criteria Condition Condition

7) Operability
of Stands

Drainage: Wet site well-drained
site

Slope: Very steep Flat

Surface
Obstructions: Numerous ledge No surface
out-croppingst obstructions
very rocky

Appendix 7. Maine Endangered and Threatened Species

I., Endangered Species

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)
Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)
Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)-
Least Tern (Sterna antillarum)
Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii)
Sedge Wren (Cistothorus platensis)
Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum)
Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis) *
Humpback Whal7e (Megaptera novaeangliae)
Finback Whale (Balaenoptera physalus)
Sperm Whale (Physeter catodon) *
Sei Whale (Balaenoptera borealis)
Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea)
Atlantic Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys kempi)
Box Turtle (Terrapene carolina)
Black Racer (Coluber constrictor)

II. Threatened Species

Tundra Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus
tundrius)
Northern Bog Lemming (Synaptomys borealis)
Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta) **
Blanding's Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii)
Spotted Turtle (Clemmys guttata)

Federally Listed Endangered Species
Federally Listed Threatened Species

127

Appendix 8: open Space for Wildlife Methods.

STEP I: Preliminary Assessment

Study Area. All 17 towns within the study area are also
within Wildlife Management Unit (WMU) 8 and this WMU
comprises the study area (Fig. 1). Wildlife Management@
Units were established by the Maine Department of Inland
Fisheries and Wildlife to group areas with similar climate,
land use, topography, human population and habitats. It is
intended that the procedure.for evaluating open space be
flexible enough to be used throughout Maine once the
relative abundance of habitats and wildlife species are
calculated for each WMU. This report only concerns itself
with the area within WMU 8.

Habitat Types. Habitat types were defined using information
from DeGraaf and Rudis (1986) and the U.S. Forest Service
Survey as compiled by the Maine Department of Inland
Fisheries and Wildlife (1984). Special habitat types were
grouped into sixteen general habitats (Table 1).

Modifications of habitat types from definitions in DeGraaf
and Rudis (1986) were made to simplify the evaluation
process. A cultivated field included active agriculture,
grass, or orchards, and a fallow field included shrub/old
field, forbs, pasture or savanna. The high elevation cover
types were not included in this study.

Trees ranging in size from regeneration to poletimber were
classified as young growth, and small and large sawtimber
were considered mature growth. Spruce/fir forests were
defined as any stand where balsam fir or red spruce
predominated. Pine/hemlock forests were defined as any
stand of predominately white pine, red pine, pitch pine, or
eastern hemlock. Northern hardwoods included aspen,
birches, maples, oaks, beeches, or ash. The transitional
pine/oak/red maple forest classification was excluded
because it was not a significant cover type according to the
U.S Forest Service survey in Maine (less than 2% of the
total forest-cover type in Maine).

Five types of wetlands were classified. The.first type
included deep marsh habitat. Shallow marsh and sedge meadow
were classified together, Wooded swamps and shrub swamps
were also classified together and coastal estuaries and bays
were a fourth type. Bogs were classified separately. Ponds
and lakes were considered if 10 acres or more, and streams
if they drained at least 5 square miles.

Riparian areas were not treated separately, but rather their
value was added to that of the associated aquatic habitat.

Wildlife-Habitat-Relationship Model. A wildlife habitat

Figure 1. Wildlife Managmmt Units KEY TO STARRED
AREAS

WE'll'
11 1%2 T. Ml -1
%.T "r

MAINE DEPT. OF
T" 11
X"" 'wE%' "I E'1'@' ac s I--
INLAND FISHERIES
"l . ..... E' !E'L2 11L1- "' 2E`S* T.'F@@l T-TL@S8 -I I- Ell W-
"EI WE L.11
. __2 o o
A w___ --I-- . .... .. T- 1-
AND W I LDLIFE T 1121 1@ I'd
WEI ll EELE -EI l Ed I
T: - 112.11 "l- 2' `@':713rR%
Ell 1- -1 'El

7@,E.1,1 T- 11- 11, .T11. T".
L WEI Ell WEI
-N' WE%' 'WE I WEI WEI 2a. I- 1-- 1-1 G- T-

Ed-
..d 'd I E%l '@.%l T..E..,l T'.R1 @T, 01. 1 t,1E11$0 '- TIOW WI @ ll @1 T...
@OR 'LELL T@E- -1d., Tl- ELS
T1011 I WEIIT. EI S L Ell WEI EL I E
31 E- dQE. T.d
Z-L. W-L" -,L, 11 WRI* X19% NR 0- 79R5 T- T-
EI EI
E. @tLl WEI Ell WELS E. 1. d,

.d, TE- -TE. -1 TBA5 E14Z TBR'
WEL, Ell WEI
WELS WEL WE2
WEI WELS WEI WEI -Ell

ZTS, ZL2, -11 -R, -12 -d -T- -7 TIRd
WEI WEI WEI EL, WEI WEI Z@ EI 3 L.11
WEI WEI WEI WEI

TIRI T-1 -11 11d, -0 TE. TdM .._d
WEI WEI Ell WE EL .-d
WEI WELS - LS WE% @d.
X
IWEI -I WEI
T-
W I W
L W WE El E
TIEl,'T I..
I'RI I TI-
x"s r"- WEIW WEI
WEI @1 I R @1@
1-
TI.
Ell -EI WE"' l, W'EI
a- 3c
T- 71RI 3 12.
,T! s'-
W5 1
@12!.S
Ell

@2 XNI 11 1
Tl- -

T--
W"
T 2
T

T-
T- -L
T: T -p
T3.
t@ NA

-3 . .....d

LI-11
19 E D
N-

I I I E D

c@ oc

ftl-
7-9

I L I
0p"
0
-10
WILDL-IFE
='d t
a
o K MANAGEMENT
EI
T-

lEL

R
IJW@-E
d

"d
@3

U N ITS

129
El.

Table 1. Sixteen general habitat types defined for the
open space evaluation.

Category Habitat Type

Fields 1) Cultivated field/orchard/
gravel pit

2) Fallow field/pasture/log
landing

Softwoods 3) Young spruce/fir

4) Mature spruce/fir

5) Young pine/hemlock

6) Mature pine/hemlock

Hardwoods 7) Young Northern Hardwoods/
mixed wood

8) Mature Northern Hardwood/
mixed wood

Wetlands 9) Deep marsh

10) Shallow marsh/sedge meadow

11) Wooded/shrub swamp

12) Estuary/salt marsh

13) Bog/fen

Lakes 14) Pond/lake

Rivers 15) Brock/Stream/River.

Riparian 16) Riparian

130

relationship (WHR) model systematically organizes existing
information on the relationships between wildlife and
certain habitats and serves as a useful tool for land use
planners (Ohmann 1983). It should be emphasized that this
model is not meant to be predictive and that its primary use
is for determining the relative value of a particular site
as wildlife habitat. Biases inherent in the model are
assumed to be spread equally across habitat types. Site
evaluations (step II in this report) are an essential
component of this method.

Once general habitats were defined, the full range.of
species potentially occupying each habitat were listed. The
relative abundance of each animal within a habitat type was
rated on a scale of zero to five (0 = not present, 1 = rare,
2 = uncommon, 3 = locally common, 4 = common, 5 = abundant).
for each of four seasons: breeding, breeding and feeding,
wintering, and winter feeding. Breeding was defined as the
time in which any particular animal mates and rears its
young, and wintering was defined as the time where breeding
activity is absent. Feeding during breeding or wintering
often occurs at sites separate from the, primary habitat and
was therefore included as separate categories. All
vertebrates were included in this evaluation (i.e. birds,
mammals, reptiles, amphibians).

DeGraaf and Rudis (1986) was the primary source of
information used in this evaluation. However, sources more
specific to Maine were also used in determining species
abundance and distribution whenever available. other
sources included Arbuckle and Kellogg (1986), Hunter (1984),
Elliott (1982), Godin (1977), Lortie and Pelletier (1987),
and P. Vickery (pers. comm.). In addition, each estimate
of species abundance within a habitat and season was
reviewed by at least 3 experts for consistency and accuracy.
Seasonal biological value indices 1) were calculated for
each habitat type by summing the numbers for species
abundance for each season within each habitat and dividing
by the highest number attained for any habitat in any
season. This resulted in each habitat having four seasonal
indices. A composite biological value index was calculated
in similar fashion by summing seasonal abundance values for
each habitat and dividing that number by the highest value

indices are unitless numbers bounded by zero and one,
where zero indicates the lowest or least suitable habitat
and one indicates the optimum habitat (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1980a). Since all habitats are valuable to
at least some types of wildlife, the value of zero is merely
hypothetical. Actual indices will fall somewhere between
zero and one.

131

attained for any single habitat. The habitat with the
highest combined seasonal biological value index was
considered most valuable and became the standard by which
all other habitats.were compared. By definition, the
highest scoring habitat received a composite biological
value index of 1.0. This procedure was based on the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service's models of habitat suitability
and is similar to the procedure used to evaluate marine
wildlife in coastal Maine by Woodward et.al. (1986).
Finally, each index of biological value was multiplied by
10. -Such weighting allowed fo.r easier comparisons by moving
the decimal point.

STEP II: Habitat Availability

The proportion of land in each cover type per WMU was
determined from the 1980 U.S. Forest Service Survey of
Maine. These figures were subtracted from 1.0 to give a
measure of relative scarcity within the WMU. Finally these
figures were multiplied by a weight of 5 to yield an
availability score.

The availability of aquatic resources was calculated
separately using MDIF&W inventories. The percent cover of
ponds (10 acres or more) were calculated for each WMU. The
percent cover of brooks, streams, and rivers was determined
using available stream inventory data and assuming each
waterway had an average width of 10 feet. The proportion of
wetland in each category per WMU was then determined and
these figures were subtracted from 1.0 to give a measure of
relative scarcity within the WMU. Finally, these figures
were multiplied by a weight of 5 to yield an availability
score. A weight of 5 was used for availability to makes
its' importance half of the level of the biological value.

Step III: Site Assessment

Once the preliminary assessment has been computed for each
WMU, site visits may be conducted to determine the actual
value of particular sites. Information collected from site
visits is recorded and quantified using seven general
categories: 1) Biological Values and Habitat Availability,
2) Special Components, and 3) Surrounding Features (Appendix
3).

Biological Values and Habitat Availability: Cover types of
a site may be determined from aerial photos prior to the
site visit or from traversing the site on foot. Either
method allows one to determine the presence of specific
habitat types, previously described, within the boundaries
of the site. once identified as being present, the amount
in acres of each habitat type on the site is estimated. For
each habitat type present, points are calculated by
combining habitat availability and biological scores.

132

Special Components: Special components include but are not
limited to critical nongame habitats, deer wintering areas,
important fishery resources, wetlands, and seabird nesting
islands. Maps included with this report identify special
components as evaluated by the Maine Department of Inland
Fisheries and Wildlife, but local knowledge of features
important to fish and wildlife should also be considered.
Furthermore, information on important fish and wildlife
areas continues to be collected by MDIFW` and such areas
should be considered as they are identified. For each
special feature that is either wholly or partially within
the site, add 500 points for high or moderate value
features, and add 100 points for low value features.

Surrounding Features: Larger sections of undeveloped land-
offer greater opportunities for supporting wildlife.
Animals with larger home ranges (eg. deer, moose, or bobcat)
are more likely to occur and animals with smaller home
ranges are more abundant. Adjacent undeveloped land can
significantly increase the value of the land being
evaluated. one hundred points are added to each score for
the presence of adjacent tracts of undeveloped land greater
than 50 acres, adjacent tracts of land already protected
that are greater than 50 acres in size, and adjacent tracts
of land with high or moderate value special components.

Step IV: Acquisition

Vulnerability, Other Values, and Potential for Habitat
Improvement are three categories that are included only for
land being evaluated for acquisition. Conservation
organizations, state or town governments, or interested
citizens may want to indorporate some of the following
resource values into land use policies:

Vulnerabilit Land that is vulnerable to major habitat
changes (ie. development) in the near future is threatened
with destruction. Realizing this, land with a high
vulnerability is awarded 100 points, land with a medium
vulnerability is given 60 points, land with a low
vulnerability is given 20 points, and land with no
vulnerability is not given any points.

Other Values: Points are awarded for values that an area may
have, which although not directly related to fish and
wildlife management, would increase the value of the area
for public ownership. Fifty points are added for the
presence of each of the following: multiple recreational
opportunity, outstanding scenic value, outstanding natural
features, outstanding historical or cultural features,
outstanding educational opportunities, or existing public
access.

Potential for Habitat Improvement: Active management (dam

133

repair or construction, forest operations, etc.) can enhance
the fisheries and wildlife values of a piece of land.
Points are awarded based on the potential for habitat
improvement; high potential areas are given 50 points,
moderate potential areas are given 30 points, and low
potential areas are given 10 points. No points are awarded
if an area has no potential for habitat improvement.

Comments: A comments section is included so that any
special or outstanding features of an area that were not
included in the above-categories can be mentioned.

134

Habitat EvaluatIon Form

Narre of Area:

Location (town):
Area (acres): Size Factor (s. f Area
Date Qxrpleted: Site Visit (date): 1000

Source of Inforimtion:

I; Biological Value, Habitat Availabilitv, and Diversi@y

Complete this section for the entire area under consideration. Determine the
habitat categories which occur on the area using the best available information.
Habitat categories must be at least 1 acre in size to be considered a distinct
habitat. Check the boxes of the categories which occur on the area. Record
the availability scores for these habitat types frorn the table for the
appx:opriate WW. Estimate the area in acres or length in tenths of miles for
brooks, streams, and rivers, for each habitat category.. Calculate the points
for each habitat category and total separately for Upland and Aquatic Habitat.
Calculate the diversity subtotal by recording the number of habitat types
which occur on the area, subtract 1, and multiply by the point value.
Multiply the diversity subtotal by the size factor (s.f.)'and record on the
sumrar-y at the end ofthe form.
A. Upland Habitat Biological Area
Occurs Value Availability (Acres) Points

1. Cultivated field/ 5.5 + ) x
orchard/gravel pits

2. Fallow field/pastures/ 8.6 + ) x
log landings

3. spruce fir - young 6.0 + ) X

4. Spruce fir - mature 6.7 + ) x

5. Pine /hemlock - young 6.7 + ) x

6. Pine/hemlock - mature 7.8 +. ) x

7. Northern hardwoods/ 9.3 + ) x
mixed - young

8. Northern hardwoods/ 10.0 + ) X
mixed mature

Upland Habitat T=L

135

8/11/87

B. A4mtic Eabitat
Biological Area
Occurs Value Availabilitv (Acres) Points

i. Deep marsh ( 9.8 + x

2. Shallow marsh/sedge ( 9.4 + x
meadow

3. Wooded/shrub swamp ( 10.0 + x

4. Estuary/salt marsh ( 9.2 + x

5. Bog/fen ( 9.0 + x

6. open freshwater ( 8.6 + x

7. Brock/stream/river 8.6 + x

AQLIkTIC HABITAT TOTAL

C. Diversity. Points will be awarded for the variety of habitat types which
occur on the area corrected by its size.

Habitat Types

1) x 100 Subtotal

Size Factor x

Diversity Total

II. Special Components. Points will be awarded based on the special
components which occur on the area corrected
-by its size.

Part A. Add 500 points foreach of the following special habitats
if wholly or partially within area and rated HIGH or MODERATE:

Occurs Habitat

Deer wintering area

Critical non-game habitat (list):

Fisheries stream or pond

SUBTICTAL

Size Factor X

Special Components A Total
1) Biolo
gical value scores.for.aquatic habitats have been adjusted upward to reflect
the'imoortance of the ricarian habitat which occurs in coniunction with thpm.
Length - Tenths of Miles 1,36
8/11/87

Part B. Add 100 points for each*of'the following special habitats*
if wholly or partially within area and rated LCW:

Occurs Habieat Points

Deer Wintering Area

Critical non-gane habitat (list):

Fisheries stream or pond

SUBMTAL

Size Factor X

Special Components B Total

III. Surrouhding Features. Points will be awarded based on surrounding
features which improve the area, by its
corrected size.

Add 101 points for the presence of each of the following:

Occurs

= Adjacent to other tracts of undeveloped land (at least 50 acres):

Adjacent to other tracts of protected land (at least 50 acres):

Adjacent to other tracts of land with a special ccatponent
(see section II) of high or moderate value:

SUBTOTAL

Size Factor x
Surrounding Features Total

CCMPLEM THE REtVJNDC SDMON ONLY IF THIS IS AN EVALUATION FOR ACQUISITION.

137
8/11/87

IV. Vulnerability. Points will be awarded based on the vulnerability of the area,
corrected by its size.
Estimate the likelihood that major land-use changes (development, land-
clearing, etc.) will occur on this area in the next 10 years (check one):

High (Add 100 points)

Yiedi= (Add 60 points)

Low (Add 20 points)

None (no points)

SUBTOTAL
Size Factor X_
Vulnerability Total

V. Other Values. Points will be awarded for other values of the area which,
although not directly related to fish and wildlife management,
would increase the value of this area for public
ownershap. An adjust2Tent is made to the points for the area's
size.
Add 50 points for presence of each of the following: Points
= Multiple Recreational Opportunity
Outstanding Scenic Value
Outstanding Natural Features
Outstanding Historical or Cultural Feat@res
Outstanding Educational Opportunity
Existing Public Access

SUBTOTAL

Size Factor X

Other Value Total

VI. Potential for Habitat Imorovement. Points will be awarded based on the
potential of the area for habitat improvement under active management
(dam construction or repair, forest operation, clearing, etc.)
adjusted for t1he areals size. List activity(ies) and check one
category:

F-j High (Add 50 points)
Moderate (Add 30 points)
Low (Add 10*points)
None (,No points)
SUBTOTAL

Size Factor X
Habitat Improvement Total
138 8/11/8i

VII. ccr@@nts: Describe any special or outstanding features of the
area (including use by endangered species, traditional
public use, outstanding site quality, etc.) which makes
this area unique or unusual. If additional space is
needed, attach separate sheet.

IA. Upland Habitat Total III. Surrounding Features Total
IB. Aquatic Habitat Total IV. Vulnerability Total
IC. Diversity Total V. Other Values Total
IIA. Special Components A Total VI. Habitat Improvement Total
IIB. Special Components B Total

Total Points:

Acres.-,
Average/Acre:
139
8/11/87

ilabitat Availability Scores

Wildlife. Management Unit O-M)

Habitat
Categories 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Upland . I
-Rabitats

Cultivated
Field 4.1 5.0 5.0 4.7 4.9 4.7 4.5 4.5

Fa.l.low Field 4.8 5.0 4.9 .4.9 5.0 5.0 4.8 4.8

Spruce Fir-
Young 3.2 3.0 3.0 4.2 3.0 3.4 4.1 4.8

Spruce Fir-
Old 4.5 3.8 4.5 4.7 4.5 4.8 4.8 5.0

Pine/hemlock-
Young 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.3 4.5 4.8 4.3 4.0

Pine/hemlock-
Old -:* 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.5 4.6 4.9 4.3 3.8

N. Hardwoods-
Young 3.7 4.3 3.5 3.2 3.8 2.8 3.4 3.5

N. Hardwoods-
Old 4.5 3.0 4.2 4.5 4.6 4.4 4.5 4.5

Aquatic
.Habitats

Deep Marsh 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.7 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.8

Shallow Marsh 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.7 4.9 4.7 4.7 4.8

Wooded s-6zmp 4.4 4.8 4.8 4.4 4.9 4.8 4.4 4.8

Estuary/salt
Marsh 4.6 4.8 3.7

Bog/Fen 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.9 4.9 4.9

Open fresh-
uater 0.9 0.4 0.3 1.3 0.4 1.0 1.2 1.7

Stream/river 4.4 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.6
(area of total
aquatic assuming
101 average width) 140

liq 11
I

14101 8582