ML070190409

VYNPS - SEIS Web Reference - New Hampshire Wildlife Plan Document

ML070190409
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee
Issue date:	10/01/2005
From:	Perry L State of NH, Dept of Fish & Game
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
jmm7
References
Download: ML070190409 (186)

Text

On the Cover Moose: © Alan Briere photo Peregrine Falcon: © Alan Briere photo Brook Trout: © Eric Engbretson photo Blandings Turtle: © NHFG / Marquis Walsh photo Karner Blue Butterfly: © NHFG / Victor Young photo

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan Submitted October 1, 2005 New Hampshire Fish and Game Department Lee E. Perry, Executive Director 11 Hazen Drive Concord, NH 03301 (603) 271-3211 www.wildlife.state.nh.us

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLES AND FIGURES........................................................................................................iv COMMONLY USED ACRONYMS...........................................................................................vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS......................................................................................................viii Executive Summary..................................................................................................ix Introduction................................................................................................................xi CHAPTER ONE Public Participation Overview.......................................................................................................1-1 Northeast regional survey..........................................................................1-1 Wildlife Summit............................................................................................1-3 Web survey...................................................................................................1-3 Stakeholder meetings.................................................................................1-4 Wildlife Conservation Strategy Forum.......................................................1-4 CHAPTER TWO New Hampshires Wildlife and Habitats at Risk Overview.......................................................................................................2-1 Selecting species in greatest need of conservation.................................2-1 Identifying key wildlife habitat...................................................................2-3 Conservation database...............................................................................2-5 Species and habitat assessments...............................................................2-5 distribution maps.......................................................................................2-5 Literature cited...........................................................................................2-6 CHAPTER THREE New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions Overview.......................................................................................................3-1 Step 1: Mapping wildlife habitats................................................................3-1 Step 2: Measuring condition within predicted habitats.............................3-2 Step 3: Comparing conditions across the landscape.................................3-5 Matrix forest habitats................................................................................3-9 Terrestrial habitats...................................................................................3-14 Wetland habitats.......................................................................................3-22 Watershed Groupings................................................................................3-27 References.................................................................................................3-34 CHAPTER FOUR Wildlife Risk Assessment Overview......................................................................................................4-1 Risk Assessment Results.............................................................................4-1 Risk Factor Ranking Process......................................................................4-2 Acid Deposition...........................................................................................4-7 Agriculture...............................................................................................4-10 Altered Hydrology.....................................................................................4-12 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan I

Altered Natural Disturbance Regime.........................................................4-15 Climate Change..........................................................................................4-19 Development..............................................................................................4-23 Diseases and Pathogens...........................................................................4-28 Energy and Communication Infrastructure.............................................4-30 Introduced Species....................................................................................4-33 Mercury.....................................................................................................4-37 Non-point Source Pollution.....................................................................4-41 Oil Spills...................................................................................................4-45 Predation and Herbivory...........................................................................4-47 Recreation.................................................................................................4-49 Scarcity.....................................................................................................4-53 Transportation Infrastructure................................................................4-57 Unregulated Take.......................................................................................4-61 Unsustainable Forest Harvesting............................................................4-64 CHAPTER FIVE Conservation Strategies Overview.......................................................................................................5-1 Broad Focus Areas......................................................................................5-3 Strategy 100: Intra-agency Coordination and Policy..................................5-5 Strategy 200: Conservation Planning.........................................................5-7 Strategy 300: Education, Information, and Technical Guidance................5-9 Strategy 400: Environmental review..........................................................5-12 Strategy 500: Habitat Management............................................................5-15 Strategy 600: Interagency Regulation and Policy.....................................5-18 Strategy 700: Land Protection...................................................................5-20 Strategy 800: Landowner Incentives.........................................................5-22 Strategy 900: Monitoring..........................................................................5-24 Strategy 1000: Population Management....................................................5-25 Strategy 1100: Regional Coordination......................................................5-27 Strategy 1200: Research.............................................................................5-28 Strategy 1300: Local Regulation and Policy..............................................5-29 CHAPTER SIX Monitoring Overview......................................................................................................6-1 Monitoring..................................................................................................6-1 Overview of Existing Monitoring Programs..............................................6-2 Performance Evaluation............................................................................6-4 Adaptive Management..................................................................................6-5 Monitoring Strategy...................................................................................6-6 CHAPTER SEVEN Implementation Years 1-2.......................................................................................................7-1 Years 1-3.......................................................................................................7-2 Years 2-10.....................................................................................................7-2 Year 10..........................................................................................................7-2 II New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

APPENDICES Species and Habitats Appendix A: Species Profiles Part 1: Invertebrates Part 2: Fish Part 3: Reptiles and Amphibians Part 4: Mammals Part 5: Birds Appendix B: Habitat Profiles Appendix C: Habitat and Natural Community Crosswalk Appendix D: Species and Habitat Associations Appendix E: Big Game Management Plan WAP Coordination and Outreach Appendix F: WAP Planning Process Appendix H: Wildlife Summit: Public Input Appendix I: Web Survey Appendix J: Public Participation Record Appendix K: Wildlife Conservation Strategy Forum Templates and Instructions Appendix L: Species/Habitat Profile Template Appendix M: Risk Factor Ranking Instructions Appendix N: Risk Factor Ranking Template Appendix O: Strategy Template Appendix P: Feasibility Form New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan III

TABLES AND FIGURES TABLES TABLE 4-4. Number of habitats and species at highest risk due to acid deposition. See Table 4-5 and Appendix A and B for details.

CHAPTER 1 TABLE 4-5. Habitats and species at highest risk from effects TABLE 1-1. Agencies, organizations, businesses, and inter- of acid deposition, in descending order by Rank. Eastern ests represented at the Wildlife Summit, March 25, 2004. brook trout is the only fish shown because of the volume Representatives of other groups and interests were invited of information available. Assessments for other species are but were unable to attend. currently being reviewed. See Appendix A and B for addi-tional information on specific risk factors and rankings.

CHAPTER 2 TABLE 4-6. Number of habitats and species at highest risk due to agriculture. See Table 4-7 and Appendix A and B for TABLE 2-1. Species of greatest conservation concern. E = details.

NH endangered (List revised 2001), T = NH threatened (List revised 2001), SC = NH species of special concern (List re- TABLE 4-7. Habitats and species at highest risk from effects vised 2000), RC = Regional conservation concern (Therres of agriculture, in descending order by Rank. See Appendix 1999), FE = Federally endangered (current 8/05), FT = Feder- A and B for additional information on specific risk factors ally threatened (current 8/05), BGP = Only included in the and rankings.

NH Big Game Plan.

TABLE 4-8. Number of habitats and species at highest risk TABLE 2-2. Habitat list. due to altered hydrology. See Table 4-9 and Appendix A and B for details.

CHAPTER 3 TABLE 4-9. Habitats and species at highest risk from effects of altered hydrology, in descending order by Rank. Atlantic TABLE 3-1. Summary of preliminary terrestrial and wet- salmon is the only fish shown because of the volume of land habitat condition analysis results. Not all results are information available and recent initiatives to restore the reported here. species. Assessments for other species are currently being reviewed. See Appendix A and B for additional information TABLE 3-2. Summary of potential biodiversity indicators. on specific risk factors and rankings.

Indicators should be interpreted cautiously. Recorded ob-servations of rare plants, animals, and natural communities TABLE 4-10. Number of habitats and species at highest risk do not consistently represent structured surveys. Absence due to altered natural disturbance regimes. See Table 4-11 of survey information and null observations are both po- and Appendix A and B for details.

tential causes for low indicator levels, but no information is available to discern which is true. TABLE 4-11. Habitats and species at highest risk from ef-fects of altered natural disturbance regimes, in descending CHAPTER 4 order by Rank. See Appendix A and B for additional informa-tion on specific risk factors and rankings.

TABLE 4-1. Preliminary habitat risk groups. Habitats were placed into risk groups based on information provided on TABLE 4-12. Number of habitats and species at highest risk risk assessment forms. due to climate change. See Table 4-13 and Appendix A and B for details.

TABLE 4-2. Preliminary species risk groups. Data and taxonomic expertise were limiting factors for many fish and TABLE 4-13. Habitats and species at highest risk from ef-wildlife species. Obtaining peer review to validate the risk fects of climate change, in descending order by Rank. See groups and completing assessments for poorly studied fish Appendix A and B for additional information on specific risk and wildlife are high priority tasks for WAP implementation. factors and rankings.

TABLE 4-3. Top 10 risk factors for New Hampshires wildlife TABLE 4-14. Number of habitats and species at highest risk and habitats. Average scores should be interpreted only as due to development. See Table 4-15 and Appendix A and B a relative measure within each group below. Scores from for details.

fish risk assessments were not available for this analysis.

Risk assessment scores for fish are being reviewed as data TABLE 4-15. Habitats and species at highest risk from ef-and expertise become available. fects of development, in descending order by Rank. See IV New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Appendix A and B for additional information on specific risk TABLE 4-29. Habitats and species at highest risk from the factors and rankings. effects of predation and herbivory, in descending order by Rank. See Appendix A and B for additional information on TABLE 4-16. Number of habitats and species at highest risk specific risk factors and rankings.

due to diseases and pathogens. See Table 4-17 and Appen-dix A and B for details. TABLE 4-30. Number of habitats and species at highest risk from the effects of recreation. See Table 4-31 and Appendix TABLE 4-17. Habitats and species at highest risk from ef- A and B for details.

fects of diseases and pathogens, in descending order by Rank. See Appendix A and B for additional information on TABLE 4-31. Habitats and species at highest risk from the specific risk factors and rankings. effects of recreation, in descending order by Rank. See Ap-pendix A and B for additional information on specific risk TABLE 4-18. Number of habitats and species at highest risk factors and rankings.

due to energy and communication infrastructure. See Table 4-19 and Appendix A and B for details. TABLE 4-32. Number of habitats and species at highest risk from the effects of scarcity. See Table 4-33 and Appendix A TABLE 4-19. Habitats and species at highest risk from and B for details.

effects of energy and communication infrastructure, in descending order by Rank. See Appendix A and B for addi- TABLE 4-33. Habitats and species at highest risk from the tional information on specific risk factors and rankings. effects of scarcity, in descending order by Rank. See Ap-pendix A and B for additional information on specific risk TABLE 4-20. Number of habitats and species at highest risk factors and rankings.

from introduced species. See Table 4-21 and Appendix A and B for details. TABLE 4-34. Number of habitats and species at highest risk from the effects of transportation infrastructure. See Table TABLE 4-21. Habitats and species at highest risk from intro- 4-35 and Appendix A and B for details.

duced species, in descending order by Rank. See Appendix A and B for additional information on specific risk factors TABLE 4-35. Habitats and species at highest risk from the and rankings. effects of transportation infrastructure, in descending order by Rank. See Appendix A and B for additional information TABLE 4-22. Number of habitats and species at highest risk on specific risk factors and rankings.

from the effects of mercury. See Table 4-23 and Appendix A and B for details. TABLE 4-36. Number of habitats and species at highest risk from the effects of unregulated take. See Table 4-37 and Ap-TABLE 4-23. Habitats and species at highest risk from the pendix A and B for details.

effects of mercury, in descending order by Rank. See Ap-pendix A and B for additional information on specific risk TABLE 4-37. Habitats and species at highest risk from the factors and rankings. effects of unregulated take, in descending order by Rank.

See Appendix A and B for additional information on specific TABLE 4-24. Number of habitats and species at highest risk risk factors and rankings.

from the effects of non-point source pollution. See Table 4-25 and Appendix A and B for details. TABLE 4-38. Number of habitats and species at highest risk from the effects of unsustainable forest harvesting. See TABLE 4-25. Habitats and species at highest risk from the Table 4-39 and Appendix A and B for details.

effects of non-point source pollution, in descending order by Rank. See Appendix A and B for additional information TABLE 4-39. Habitats and species at highest risk from the on specific risk factors and rankings. effects of unsustainable forest harvesting, in descending order by Rank. See Appendix A and B for additional informa-TABLE 4-26. Number of habitats and species at highest risk tion on specific risk factors and rankings.

from the effects of oil spills. See Table 4-27 and Appendix A CHAPTER 5 and Bfor details.

TABLE 5-1. A crosswalk of conservation strategies found in TABLE 4-27. Habitats and species at highest risk from the this chapter and corresponding Big Game Plan goals and effects of oil spills, in descending order by Rank. See Ap- objectives (See Appendix E).

pendix A and B for additional information on specific risk factors and rankings. CHAPTER 6 TABLE 4-28. Number of habitats and species at highest risk TABLE 6-1. Preliminary criteria for selecting indicators.

from the effects of predation and herbivory. See Table 4-29 and Appendix A and B for details.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan V

FIGURES CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 3 FIGURE 5-1. Risk assessments, condition assessments, and actions identified in species and habitat profiles were FIGURE 3-1 (see insert). New Hampshire Habitat Landcover. used to identify general strategies important to many wild-Predictive habitat maps were developed for all WAP habitat life species and habitats.

types, and compiled to create a complete landcover. The New Hampshire Habitat Landcover will be used to conduct CHAPTER 6 conservation planning analyses.

FIGURE 6-1. Adaptive management flow chart.

FIGURE 3-2. Mapping and Data Diagram. Data describing the condition of each habitat polygon were entered into a database for use in comparative analyses.

FIGURE 3-3. Habitat Diversity by Town. Total number (rich-ness) of WAP habitat types within town boundary. Habitat diversity may be used as an indicator of wildlife diversity.

FIGURE 3-4 (see insert). Preliminary Integrated Fragmenta-tion Effects Surface. Preliminary results showing predicted edge effects for human landcover types. Fragmentation ef-fects may be used as an indicator of ecological integrity.

FIGURE 3-5 (see insert). Conservation Lands by Town.

FIGURE 3-6 (see insert). Town Scale Habitat Summary Map.

New Hampshire Habitat landcover shown at the town scale.

Condition analyses are underway for small, medium, and large-scale habitat types.

FIGURE 3-7. Predicted Matrix Forests. Matrix Forest maps were created collaboratively by NHFG, TNC, NHB, and NRCS.

Map validation is a high priority WAP objective.

FIGURE 3-8. Predicted Terrestrial Habitats. Terrestrial Habi-tat maps were created by NHFG and NHB. Map validation is a priority WAP objective.

FIGURE 3-9. Predicted Wetland Habitats. Wetland Habitat maps were created collaboratively by NHFG and NHB. Map validation is a priority WAP objective.

FIGURE 3-10. Watershed Groupings. Watershed Groupings were created by TNC. Validation of watershed classifications is a priority WAP objective.

FIGURE 3-11. Lake Types. Lake types were created by TNC (Olivero and Bechtel 2005). Validation of Lake Types is a priority WAP objective.

FIGURE 3-12. Lake Condition Summary. The condition of New Hampshire lakes was analyzed by TNC (Olivero and Bechtel 2005).

CHAPTER 4 FIGURE 4-1. Risk factor ranking process. Wildlife experts identified risks to wildlife, and scored each risk based on their experience, published literature, and peer review.

VI New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

COMMONLY USED ACRONYMS Many acronyms are used throughout the chapters and appendices. This list only in-cludes the most commonly used acronyms. Those not listed here are spelled out the first time they are used in each chapter or appendix.

ACOE United States Army Corps of Engineers ATV All Terrain Vehicle DRED Department of Resources and Economic Development ESA Endangered Species Act FERC Federal Energy Regulator y Commission FLEP Forestland Enhancement Program G IS Geographic Information System GRANIT Geographically Referenced Analysis and Information Transfer System MOA Memorandum of Agreement MOU Memorandum of Understanding NAAT National Advisor y Acceptance Team NHA New Hampshire Audubon NHBR New Hampshire Bird Records NHCP New Hampshire Coastal Program NHDES New Hampshire Department of Environmental Ser vices NHDFL New Hampshire Division of Forests and Lands NHDOT New Hampshire Department of Transportation NHFG New Hampshire Fish and Game NHNHB New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau NHOSP New Hampshire Office of State Planning NRCS Natural Resource Conser vation Ser vice OHRV Off Highway Recreational Vehicle RAARP Reptile and Amphibian Reporting Program SPNHF Society for the Protection of New Hampshire's Forests TNC The Nature Conser vancy UNH University of New Hampshire USDA United States Department of Agriculture USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFS United States Forest Ser vice USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Ser vice USGS United States Geologic Sur vey WAP Wildlife Action Plan WMNF White Mountain National Forest New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan VII

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS PUBLIC LAW 107-63NOV. 5, 2001 STATE WILDLIFE GRANTS

... No State, territory, or other jurisdiction shall receive a grant unless it has developed, or committed to develop by October 1, 2005, a comprehensive wildlife conservation plan, consistent with criteria established by the Secretary of the Interior, that considers the broad range of the State, territory, or other jurisdictions wildlife and associated habitats, with appropriate priority placed on those species with the greatest conservation need and taking into consideration the relative level of funding available for the conservation of those species.

Wildlife Action Plan Core Team Contributing Authors New Hampshire Fish and Game Biodiversity Research Institute John Kanter, Coordinator David Evers Steve Fuller, Conservation Science Director Franklin Pierce College Jim Oehler, Habitat Specialist Jacques P Veilleux Michael Marchand, Wildlife Specialist Katie Callahan, GIS specialist Ibis Wildlife Consulting Ellen Snyder UNH Cooperative Extension Loon Preservation Committee Darrel Covell, Co-Coordinator Kate Taylor, Harry Vogel New Hampshire Audubon Biodrawversity Diane De Luca, Laura S. Deming, Carol R. Foss, Ethan Nedeau (principal), Carson Mitchell, Chloe Pamela D. Hunt, Christian J. Martin, Rebecca W.

Stuart, and Peter Taylor: Editing and Layout Suomala Special thanks to the following individuals for their New Hampshire Fish and Game writing, editing and thinking: Allison M. Briggaman, Matthew A. Carpenter, Charlie Bridges, Allison Briggaman, Matt Steven G. Fuller, Celine T. Goulet, John J. Kanter, Carpenter, Pam Hunt, Carol Foss, John Magee, Ben Jillian R. Kelly, Michael N. Marchand, John Magee, Nugent, Liza Poinier, Judith K. Silverberg, Steve Benjamin J. Nugent, James D. Oehler, Alina J.

Weber Pyzikiewicz, Julie Robinson, Judith K. Silverberg, Kim A. Tuttle Public Participation Team Members and New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau Affiliations Peter J. Bowman, Heather L. Herrmann, Bill Nichols, Dan Sperduto Darrel Covell, Chair, UNH Cooperative Extension Northeast Ecological Services Judy Stokes, NHFG Scott Reynolds Judy Silverberg, NHFG Saint Anselm College, Department of Biology Liza Poinier, NHFG Barry J. Wicklow Isobel Parke, Jackson, Jackson and Wagner Doris Burke, Public Service of New Hamphshire The Nature Conservancy Miranda Levin, NH Audubon Doug Bechtel, Lora Gerard, Mark Zankel Julie Klett, NH Audubon University of New Hampshire Ellen Snyder, Ibis Wildlife Consulting Kimberly J. Babbitt, Darrel Covell, Stephen Hale, Barbara Tetreault, Berlin Daily Sun John A. Litvaitis, Megan J. McElroy, Jeffery P. Tash, Jim Graham, SPNHF Jessica S. Veysey, James Taylor John Kanter, NHFG Eric Aldrich, TNC USDA Forest Service Special thanks to Public Service of New Hampshire Christine A. Costello, Angela Karedes, Mariko for hosting the WIldlife Summit. Yamasaki VIII New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Executive Summary New Hampshires Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) com- integrated into the WAPs Chapter 5, Conservation pletion comes at a crucial time in the states history. Strategies.

New Hampshires Changing Landscape 2005, a recent report from the Society for the Protection of New At New Hampshires Wildlife Summit in March of Hampshire Forests (SPNHF), chronicles the increas- 2004, 110 individuals representing conservation, rec-ing human footprint on the states natural habitats, reation, business, and community interests identified and documents the immediate need for improved priority conservation issues. Via a web survey, 1,256 habitat conservation. In 1983, the reforestation that individuals provided additional input. Preventing followed farming and logging of the 19th and 20th habitat loss from development, educating citizens centuries reached its peak, with 87 percent of the about wildlife management, and improving land-states lands forested. By 1997, the U.S. Forest Service use planning were survey respondents top priorities.

(USFS) estimated that the states forest cover dropped During May of 2005, a sub-group of Wildlife Sum-three percent, to 84 percent. Unlike the 18th and mit participants identified tools that could effectively 19th century conversion of forests to fields, todays be used to implement WAP strategies in the political land conversion to roads, housing, and businesses and social climate of New Hampshire.

permanently alters natural habitats and degrades their value to native wildlife. The WAP points to where the Using all available data, a core team of biologists most vulnerable species and habitats are in relation to identified 123 species and 27 habitats in greatest need these rapid changes to the natural landscape. of conservation. More than a half-million dollars of State Wildlife Grant federal funds were provided to New Hampshires WAP is the result of a mammoth ef- contract with experts at partnering organizations, fort by hundreds of people and organizations commit- agencies, and academic institutions to complete as-ted to ensuring the future welfare of wildlife in New sessments of these species and habitats. Each partner Hampshire and providing opportunities for people to brought significant resources to match federal funds.

enjoy use of these resources. The WAP is the most comprehensive wildlife assessment ever completed To ensure consistency and comparability of infor-in New Hampshire. Thirty-four wildlife experts mation, a wildlife species and habitat template was from 10 conservation agencies, organizations, and provided to all contracted experts. Four major ele-academic institutions served as contributing authors. mentsdistribution and habitat, species and habitat condition, species and habitat risk assessment, and In a parallel effort, a 33-person citizen advisory conservation actionswere addressed. In total, 131 group shaped the management framework for New species and habitat profiles were completed for all Hampshires big game species. Working with the habitats and nearly all priority wildlife, including sev-New Hampshire Fish and Game Department eral invertebrate and fish species (nineteen at risk (NHFG) wildlife biologists and program administra- species were not profiled, either because there was a tors, management policies and population objectives lack of information for those species, or because the were synthesized into a Big Game Management Plan conservation concerns facing those species were best (Appendix E). Big game management objectives were addressed at the habitat level).

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan IX

Following the development of species and habitat

• Consider proactive strategies such as landowner profiles, technical analyses were conducted to assess incentives and voluntary land protection the condition of habitats and risks to wildlife. The results of these technical assessments were incorpo- Regional air and water quality issues scored among rated into each profile and are summarized in this the most threatening problems for wildlife, both in document. terms of broad cumulative degradation and intense localized impacts. In response, we will:

During the condition assessment phase, we compiled data that tripled the number of records in our wildlife

• Promote the inclusion of wildlife in structured risk occurrence database, and we used sophisticated sci- assessments by agencies engaged in energy, trans-ence to develop the first maps ever to predict the loca- portation, and industrial development projects tion and compare the current condition of all matrix

• Promote regional and national policies and fund-forests, terrestrial, wetland, and aquatic habitats over ing that improve air and water quality for New the entire state. Mapping was also completed for a Hampshires wildlife and people subset of well-studied species.

Some habitats have been degraded to the point that In the risk assessment, we called on wildlife experts wildlife species associated with them will be lost with-to conduct a structured assessment for 62 priority out human intervention. To maintain our biodiver-wildlife species and 27 habitats. Preliminary results sity and landscape integrity, we will:

identified 16 wildlife species that are highly at risk of extirpation from New Hampshire. Included in this

• Guide management and restoration of rare and list are Karner blue butterflies, piping plovers, and ro- declining plants, animals, habitats, and natural seate terns. Eleven of the 27 priority habitats assessed communities ranked in the highest conservation risk category. Ex-

• Address human and ecological issues that threaten amples include Appalachian Oak Pine Forests, Pine New Hampshires biodiversity with strategies such Barrens, Salt Marshes, Lowland Spruce-Fir Forests, as population management, habitat management and Vernal Pools. Further review and analysis of spe- and, when necessary, regulatory protection cies and habitats that appear to be in most jeopardy will be a first step in implementation. There is a critical need to obtain, store, and manage data on the status and condition of New Hampshires After completing analysis of individual species and wildlife. Current information is essential to providing habitats, we identified risks that were common the best conservation science and monitoring. We among species and habitats and developed strategies will:

to address these risks. Rapid urban development in many parts of the state was identified as the most

• Compile, manage, and analyze information about potent risk to our wildlife, devastating the health of New Hampshires wildlife; assess risks; and priori-many terrestrial, wetland, and aquatic populations tize conservation actions and irreversibly fragmenting their habitats. Urban

• Develop a system to monitor ecological health and development is outpacing land protection. We need management performance to respond by helping communities integrate wildlife

• Adapt to changing conditions habitat conservation into decisions about develop-ment. To meet this goal, we will:

• Provide public and private entities at all levels in the urban development and planning communities with information and assistance, including conser-vation science, maps, and mitigation guidelines to encourage sustainable development in sensitive wildlife areas X New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Introduction From Mount Washington to our Atlantic coastline, the passage of the Pittman-Robertson Act in 1937.

New Hampshire supports a wealth of wildlife species In 1950, the Dingell-Johnson Act was established to and habitats. Through the 1700s and 1800s, a major- support the states restoration of sport fish. With this ity of the states forests were cleared for fields, pas- infusion of funds and support and the efforts of the tures, and timber. Rivers and streams, dammed and Department, dozens of fish and wildlife species like degraded, became largely impassable for migratory moose, black bears, beaver, white-tailed deer, and fish. During this period, many fish and wildlifeal- wood ducks were able to rebuild their populations ready beleaguered by deforestation and diminished health and numbers.

water qualitywere nearly extirpated by market hunting and fishing. Beyond Sport Fish and Game Restoration New Hampshire, like other states, reacted to this era of exploitation with efforts to conserve fish, In 1979, during an era of public outcry over polluted wildlife, and land. In 1865, the New Hampshire air and water, New Hampshire formally recognized Fisheries Commission was established to restore sea- the need to contribute to conserving endangered run fish to the Merrimack and Connecticut rivers, wildlife and passed the state Endangered Species and to introduce other species into lakes, ponds, and Conservation Act. In partnership with the U.S. Fish streams for their food and recreational value. Later, & Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Forest Service New Hampshire conservationists helped pass the (USFS), and New Hampshire Audubon (NHA),

1911 Weeks Act, which in 1912 led to the purchase NHFG staff initiated activities that would ultimately of 72,000 acres of land by the federal government and lead to the recovery of some of the high-profile spe-the creation of the White Mountain National Forest. cies that were hit hardest by environmental contami-Since then, people have flocked to New Hampshire nantsbald eagles, peregrine falcons, ospreys, and each year to enjoy our forests, water, and wildlife. loons. The success of these efforts proved that man-In the early decades of the 20th century, con- agement could benefit a broad range of wildlife.

cerned hunters and anglers demanded an end to Formally acknowledging the breadth of wild-the over-exploitation of the nations fish and wildlife life that are affected by environmental issues, and resources. In response, the reorganized and renamed also recognizing the diversity of ecological roles and New Hampshire Fish and Game Department habitat values that are necessary to support wildlife, (NHFG) took steps to conserve them by setting and the Nongame Species Management Act was passed enforcing bag limits; creating wildlife refuges and by the New Hampshire Legislature in 1988. The sanctuaries; paying for game damage; operating a act expanded the mission of NHFG to include the game farm; and issuing hunting and fishing licenses. full array of wildlifenot just game and endangered The revenue generated from fishing and hunting species. This was the genesis of the mechanism that license sales enabled the agency to expand its restora- allows the State to spend $50,000 out of the General tion, education, and law enforcement programs. Fund to match private contributions to New Hamp-Additional funding for wildlife restoration started shires Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program.

coming to NHFG from the Federal government after Over the years, the Nongame Program has leveraged New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan XI

Introduction these funds to gain additional grants; thousands of State Wildlife Grants and the people have contributed to the program. Wildlife Action Plan The conservation of aquatic species in New Hampshire has focused on anadromous fish restora- In 2002, the United States Congress passed a law tion, through the Atlantic salmon, American shad, appropriating $80 million in State Wildlife Grants, and river herring restoration programs; and sport fish which would go to state wildlife agencies to address management, through population assessments and the species in greatest need of conservation, includ-state and federal regulations. Lesser-known species of ing those species not hunted or fished. To be eligible fish and aquatic invertebrates have received little di- for these funds, New Hampshire was required to de-rect attention. Some species, such as the bridle shiner, velop a comprehensive wildlife conservation plan have been identified as species of concern in nearby the New Hampshire Wildlife Action Planto be states, while the status of other whole groups of spe- submitted to Congress by October 1, 2005. Congress cies, such as crayfish and snails, is virtually unknown. mandated that the Plan address eight elements:

The WAP provides the opportunity to assess the sta-tus and develop conservation priorities for all aquatic 1. Information on the distribution and abundance species and habitats. of species of wildlife, including low and declining In the 1980s, the waterfowl stamp, a new state populations as the State fish and wildlife agency lands management collaborative, and the Land Con- deems appropriate, that are indicative of the di-servation Investment Program fueled NHFGs ability versity and health of the States wildlife.

to manage land for all wildlife. Today, NHFG owns 2. Descriptions of locations and relative condition dozens of parcels and easements on parcels, enabling of key habitats and community types essential to staff to manage for wildlife and habitat values. In co- conservation of species identified in Element 1.

operation with the N.H. Department of Resources 3. Descriptions of problems which may adversely and Economic Developments Division of Forest and affect species identified in Element 1 or their Lands, many state forests and parks are managed for habitats, and priority research and survey efforts habitats that support diverse wildlife. needed to identify factors which may assist in A partnership of concerned citizens and conser- restoration and improved conservation of these vation organizations has spearheaded land, water, and species and habitats.

wildlife conservation efforts in the 1990s and 2000s. 4. Descriptions of conservation actions necessary to The Society for the Protection of New Hampshire conserve the identified species and habitats and Forests (SPNHF), NHA, The Nature Conservancy priorities for implementing such actions.

(TNC), individual towns and many others have 5. Proposed plans for monitoring species identified worked on their own and in partnership with NHFG in Element 1 and their habitats, for monitor-and local land trusts to protect hundreds of thousands ing the effectiveness of the conservation actions of acres in the last decade. proposed in Element 4, and for adapting these Despite this long history of successful projects conservation actions to respond appropriately to and partnerships, NHFG has never had the resources new information or changing conditions.

necessary to comprehensively address the challenges 6. Description of procedures to review the Plan at facing all the states wildlife and habitats. Certainly, intervals not to exceed ten years.

decades of efforts to improve conditions for sport fish 7. Plans for coordinating, to the extent feasible, the and game animals benefited more than just the focal development, implementation, review, and revi-species; nonetheless, not until now have we been able sion of the Plan Strategy with Federal, State, and to take stock of a comprehensive range of species and local agencies and Indian tribes that manage sig-habitat conditions, synthesize and analyze the infor- nificant land and water areas within the State or mation to identify risks to wildlife, and specifically administer programs that significantly affect the target strategies to alleviate them. conservation of identified species and habitats.

8. Plans for involving the Public in the development and implementation of Plan Strategies.

XII New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Introduction With the infusion of funds from the State Wild- keep technical/scientific and communications activi-life Grants and with the Congressional mandate, ties in sync.

NHFGs Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Pro-gram has expanded over the last three years to cover Standards for the Wildlife Action Plan more species and habitats in a broader context than ever before. Even with additional funding and staff, In developing strategies to address challenging issues we continue to work closely with partners, recogniz- facing New Hampshire wildlife, we:

ing that responsibility of protecting all wildlife and habitats is bigger than what we can accomplish on 1. Identified Wildlife At Risk our own. 2. Assessed Wildlife Habitat Conditions To assist in developing a comprehensive conser- 3. Evaluated Risk Factors vation plan, we called on broad expertise in the state 4. Developed Strategies to work as collaborators. Together, we developed an 5. Integrated Monitoring, Performance and Adap-organizational structure (see Appendix F) and identi- tive Management fied desirable outcomes to guide the development and 6. Planned for Implementation future implementation of the Plan:

Throughout the process, we concentrated on devel-

1. Citizens that are aware of New Hampshires wild- oping a more systematic and transparent approach life diversity and its contribution to the environ- to wildlife planning. We invited public participation mental, economic, and social fabric of the State during plan development; efforts included the North-and that actively support wildlife conservation. eastern Regional Survey, a Wildlife Summit, a Web

2. An informed network of partners actively pre- Survey, Stakeholder Meetings, and a Strategy Forum.

pared to engage in implementing key conserva-tion strategies and actions that protect the States Identifying Wildlife At Risk wildlife diversity.

3. A dynamic and adaptable GIS-based blueprint In Chapter 2, we identify New Hampshires low and of New Hampshires significant wildlife habitats declining wildlife populations and wildlife that are that support species in greatest need for conserva- indicative of the diversity and health of the States tion and the full array of wildlife diversity. wildlife. This chapter corresponds primarily with the

4. A suite of conservation strategies that consid- first of the Eight Required Elements, and builds on ers biological, social, and economic factors and the many conservation initiatives that preceded the opportunities to conserve the wildlife species in WAP in New Hampshire. Chapter 2 lays a founda-greatest need of conservation and all wildlife. tion for Element 2 by describing the use of natural

5. A dynamic and adaptable GIS-based wildlife communities as surrogates for the diversity of poorly data management system that contains all known understood wildlife, the relationship between natural wildlife occurrences and habitat polygons and communities and wildlife habitats, and serves to orga-that can be augmented continually with new nize both species and natural communities within the data and queried by ecoregion, conservation over-arching habitat types that occur in New Hamp-land, habitat type, and species to monitor our shire. These habitat types are the basis for our analyses progress in conserving wildlife. and planning work described in later chapters.

The Planning Team developed the initial approach to Information Gathering (Data Templates) completing the WAP. The Core Biologist Team served as a liaison between the biologists/researchers/writers One of the early and integral steps in the creation of and the Communications and Outreach Team, which this WAP was the development of an accurate, up-worked on generating public input and releasing to-date, geographically referenced database system public information about the WAP. The three teams containing information on wildlife species. In coop-communicated frequently and most partner organi- eration with the New Hampshire Natural Heritage zations were represented on more than one team, to Bureau, we solicited data from experts on the highest New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan XIII

Introduction priority wildlife and improved the quality of existing habitats across the landscape. Information about local records, tripling the initial amount of information. conditions will be compared and filtered to create This database provides us with an efficient, web-based maps showing areas of high potential and high risk mechanism for reporting known fish and wildlife oc- for wildlife. A preliminary assessment of the condi-currences, and has been instrumental in determining tion of New Hampshires wildlife habitats is reported distribution and abundance of species and habitats as in Chapter 3.

required in the first and second of the Eight Required In New Hampshire, considerable public effort Elements. and money is being invested in the preservation Chapters 3-6 form the core of the WAP, with spe- of properties that may not be the most critical to cific information about wildlife in New Hampshire, wildlife. The goal of our investment in sophisticated the problems they face, the solutions we propose, and mapping technology and conservation science is to how we will monitor them. To ensure that our work provide tools for local and regional planners to ensure was comprehensive and based on the best available that time and money are spent in the most critical information, we developed standardized templates to locations. Developing a complete map of wildlife gather technical information and data from contract- habitats in New Hampshire and compiling informa-ed experts. All of the information collected on these tion about them for the WAP was a major scientific forms is organized and linked in a database format, undertaking. The coordinated work of all our part-and has been applied throughout the document. ners will make conservation technology much more The first template, a Species and Habitat Pro- accessible to the entire planning community.

file Template (Appendix L), was completed for all wildlife and habitats. The fields in this template were Evaluating Risk Factors designed to meet the first 5 of the Eight Required Ele-ments, and their completion or lack thereof provide a Although we were able to use quantitative data (Chap-clear indication of our knowledge gaps. Correspond- ter 3) to gain insight about some of the challenging ing to each Profile Template, we completed a Risk issues that threaten wildlife, for many issues, data are Factor Ranking Form (Appendix M). Next, experts nonexistent. Chapter 4 addresses problems that may on each challenging issue evaluated ranks for the as- adversely affect wildlife and their habitats based on sociated risk factors and summarized them in a Risk the expert opinions of wildlife professionals and the Assessment Template (Appendix N). This worked published literature. We used a structured process to formed the body of Chapter 4. organize and focus the attention of our science team To address all of the risks identified, we enlisted on the most challenging issues.

experts to complete a Strategy Template (Appendix From a scientific perspective, we recognize that O), with detailed information about implementation all of the challenging issues, or threats, that wildlife and feasibility for each objective. For each Strategy face can be viewed as having two aspects in common.

Template, a corresponding Feasibility Ranking Form First, each has certain risk factors that potentially (Appendix P) was completed. These data forms will have negative impacts on wildlife; and second, each help guide implementation. has a series of events or an exposure pathway that brings a risk factor to fruition. A simplified descrip-Assessing Wildlife Habitat Condition tion of the risk assessment process followsthis pro-cess was completed for all priority habitats and most The location and relative condition of key wildlife priority wildlife species.

habitats, the second of the Eight Required Elements, In the initial phase of the process, a panel of ex-is the topic of Chapter 3. Describing the locations and perts on a given species or habitat was supplied with a condition of wildlife habitats is a complex process. In list of potentially challenging issues. The panel iden-the predictive phase, we used computer analyses and tified all of the risk factors associated with each issue GIS to predict where each kind of wildlife habitat is and described the exposure pathway for their target located. In the analytical phase, we compiled many species or habitat. During the ranking phase of the different kinds of data about each location and used process, the panel completed a Risk Factor Ranking these data to analyze the local status of predicted Form (Appendix M) to provide numeric ranks about XIV New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Introduction key aspects of each risk factor. To the extent that Strategy Template that far exceeds the scope of this expertise and information were available, the values document.

given for each risk factor were peer-reviewed and To simplify the WAP, we organized our strategies cross-referenced to scientific literature. A summary under four focus areas. The goal of the Regional Air score was calculated for each risk factor, and the high- and Water Quality Action Plan is to reduce harmful est scoring ones were described in detail in the Species air and water pollutants by promoting sustainable or Habitat Profile. energy, transportation, and industrial development In the comparative phase of the process, all of practices. The Local Land and Water Conservation the scores from all of the Risk Factor Ranking Forms Action Plan contains approaches for promoting sus-were compiled in a database. The scores were grouped tainable development and resource use to support based on the list of general challenging issues that was wildlife health and diversity through a combination originally provided to the species/habitat expert pan- of coordinated working groups, technical assistance, els. Next, an expert on each issue screened the scores and the production of targeted information and for all of the wildlife affected by it. The scores from education materials. The actions under the Statewide the forms and descriptions from the Species/Habitat Biodiversity Stewardship Program will help maintain Profiles were written up in a Risk Assessment Tem- New Hampshires biodiversity and habitats by co-plate. Finally, scores were analyzed to compare the ordinating management, restoration, and land and levels of risk among species/habitats and also among regulatory protection. The Conservation Science and the broader issues. This approach enabled us to sum- Information Management Action Plan will ensure marize challenging issues in a consistent, standardized that the best available science is used to adapt man-format that will be used to help prioritize actions for agement and monitor those species and habitats of implementation. greatest conservation concern.

Developing an Action Plan Integrating Monitoring, Performance, and Adaptive Management In response to the fourth of the Eight Required Elements, Chapter 5 describes actions necessary to To meet the fifth of the Eight Required Elements, conserve wildlife and provides information about Chapter 6 describes New Hampshires plan for moni-prioritizing and implementing such actions. As part toring species identified in Element 1 and their habi-of the preceding chapters, we completed in-depth tats, for monitoring the effectiveness of the conserva-analyses to obtain a diagnosis of the issues that tion actions proposed in Element 4, and for adapting threaten New Hampshires wildlife most. During the these conservation actions to respond appropriately earlier steps in our planning process, we completed to new information or changing conditions. The some preliminary workthe public participation three categories of variables we need to monitor are process and the Species and Habitat Profilesto pre- levels of risk factors, management effects, and eco-scribe actions to resolve the biggest issues. Based on logical responses. Finding the right combination of this work, we generated an exhaustive list of potential measurements and variables within a reasonable bud-actions. To ensure that the list properly assigned the getand still having the ability to respond to changes right solutions to the right problems, we surveyed our on the groundis a critical challenge.

expert team to help cross-reference wildlife, habitats, Our approach is to find the most efficient vari-risks, and solutions in a linked database. ables. By efficient, we mean variables that fit into We utilized this cross-referenced information to more than one of the categories described above and analyze the breadth and depth of the actions neces- also represent many fish and wildlife species. Efficient sary to conserve the full array of New Hampshires also means that we can measure a variable and detect wildlife. Within strategic program areas, wildlife changes with minimal effort. When a variable meets management experts completed a ranking process to these criteria, we consider it a useful indicator assess the operational feasibility of each action. For because it indicates changes that are happening for each strategy, experts gathered information about many variables. Our goal is to select useful indicators implementation potential and completed a detailed for each priority habitat and high priority species, and New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan XV

Introduction to monitor them rigorously. part because it is a place of great natural beauty. The downside is this: New Hampshires structures and Guiding Implementation services have boomed. When people move to New Hampshire from out of state, the amount of space In accordance with elements 6-8 of the Eight Re- developed per person has risen to more than two quired Elements, Chapter 7 describes our plans for acres. Some 18,000 acres of land in New Hampshire coordinating, reviewing, and revising the WAP dur- are lost each year to development. This conversion of ing the implementation phase in concert with our forest and other wildlife habitat into roads, houses, partners, stakeholders, and public. Several of the and businesses degrades the lands value to New objectives described in Chapter 5 require immediate Hampshires wildlife. New Hampshire can support implementation and will serve as a transition between new people, and it can offer them places to live and plan development and implementation. For example, drive and work and recreate; the WAP helps accom-information that we gathered about risks to wildlife plish this by pointing to where the most vulnerable and the feasibility of our objectives will be used to species and habitats are in relationship to the rapidly prioritize implementation of the WAP. We recognize transforming landscape.

that our priorities may differ from those of our part- It starts with smart planning, which is at the ners, stakeholders, and the public, and therefore will heart of this Plans strategies. When people are able provide guidance to match action items with the best to clearly see the connections between good wildlife organization for implementation. management, clean air and water, sustainable eco-nomic growth, and our quality of life, wildlife habitat Planning for the Future conservation actions will naturally be brought to the forefront of planning decisions.

Now, with the completion of the WAP, the process Through existing and new partnerships, NHFG of funding and proceeding with its implementation is moving forward with implementing the WAP.

begins. The benefits of investing in the WAPs strate- Prompt action is crucialnot only for the health giesor any wildlife conservation activitiesgo well and diversity of wildlife and habitats in the state, but beyond saving rare species. The economic benefits also to ensure that future generations will have the are clear. In a situation common to all states, wildlife opportunity to experience and enjoy the Wild New associated recreation is a significant economic engine Hampshire we love and appreciate today.

for New Hampshire. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-vices 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation determined expendi-tures for these activities to be nearly $579 million in New Hampshire. Fishing brought in an estimated

$165 million in 2001; hunting, $71 million; and wildlife watching, $343 million. Southwick Associ-ates calculated that hunting and fishing alone provide more than 4,500 jobs in the state. Any downturn in participation in these activities would have a negative impact on the states economy; whereas efforts to im-prove wildlife and habitat in New Hampshire would likely have the benefit of bringing more money into the system from hunters, anglers, and wildlife watch-ers.

The economic issue goes well beyond wildlife-associated recreation. New Hampshires ecological framework is itself a hidden economy, untranslatable into dollars and cents. People live in and visit New Hampshire, and spend money in the state, in large XVI New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Introduction Roadmap to Eight Required Elements We used the eight required elements as the building blocks for New Hampshires Wildlife Action Plan.

Each element is an important piece of the wildlife puzzle. You will find these elements interwoven throughout the text, figures, and forms. We provide this guide to help you find the eight elements.

Element 1 Chapter and Appendix Templates and Forms Tables Information on the distribution Chapter 2 Species Profiles and abundance of species of Appendix A: Species

• 1.2 Justification wildlife, including low and Profiles

• 1.4 Population and Habitat Distribution declining populations as the

• 1.7 Sources of Information State fish and wildlife agency

• 2.2 Relative Health of Populations deems appropriate, that are indicative of the diversity and health of the States wildlife.

Element 2 Chapter and Appendix Templates and Forms Tables Descriptions of locations Chapter 3 Habitat Profiles Table 3-1 and relative condition of key Appendix B: Habitat

• 1.6 Habitat Map Table 3-2 habitats and community types Profiles

• 2.1 Scale

• 2.2 Relative Health of Populations essential to conservation of

• 2.4 Relative Quality of Habitat species identified in (1). Patches Element 3 Chapter and Appendix Templates and Forms Tables Descriptions of problems Chapter 4 Species and Habitat Profiles Table 4-1 that may adversely affect

• 1.8 Extent and Quality of Data Table 4-2 species identified in (1) or their

• 3.1 (A) Exposure Pathway Table 4-3

• 3.1 (B) Evidence habitats, and priority research

• 3.2 Sources of Information and survey efforts needed

• 3.3 Extent and Quality of Data to identify factors which

• 3.4 Threat Assessment Research may assist in restoration and Risk Exposure (Form 1) improved conservation of these Risk Factor Assessment (Form 2) species and habitats.

Element 4 Chapter and Appendix Templates and Forms Tables Descriptions of conservation Chapter 5 Species and Habitat Profiles actions proposed to conserve Existing Protection the identified species and

• 1.3 Protection and Regulatory Status

• 2.3 Population Management Status habitats and priorities for Proposed Actions implementing such actions.

• 4.1 (A) Affected Threat

• 4.1 (B) Justification

• 4.1 (C) Conservation Performance Objective

• 4.1 (D) Performance Monitoring

• 4.1 (E) Ecological Response Objective

• 4.1 (F) Response Monitoring

• 4.1 (G) Implementation

• 4.1 (H) Feasibility

• Feasibility Ranking Form

• 4.2 Conservation Action research Conservation Strategy Template New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan XVII

Introduction Element 5 Chapter and Appendix Templates and Forms Tables Proposed plans for monitoring Chapter 6 Species Profiles Table 6.1 species identified in (1) and

• 1.9 Distribution Research their habitats, for monitoring

• 4.1 (C) Conservation the effectiveness of the Performance Objective conservation actions proposed

• 4.1 (F) Response Monitoring in (4), and for adapting these conservation actions to respond appropriately to new information or changing conditions.

Element 6 Chapter and Appendix Templates and Forms Tables Descriptions of procedures to Chapter 7 review the strategy at intervals not to exceed ten years.

Element 7 Chapter and Appendix Templates and Forms Tables Plans for coordinating the Chapter 7 Conservation Strategy Template development, implementation, (E): Organization review, and revision of the plan with Federal, State, and local agencies and Indian tribes that manage significant land and water areas within the State or administer programs that significantly affect the conservation of identified species and habitats.

Element 8 Chapter and Appendix Templates and Forms Tables Broad public participation Chapter 1 is an essential element of Appendix H: Wildlife developing and implementing Summit results these plans, the projects that Appendix I: Web Survey are carried out while these Appendix K: Wildlife plans are developed, and the Strategy Forum results Species in Greatest Need of Appendix J: Public Conservation that Congress participation record has indicated such programs and projects are intended to emphasize.

XVIII New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

CHAPTER ONE Public Participation Overview of Massachusetts-Amherst, USFS, USFWS, TNC, Loon Preservation Committee, Franklin Pierce Col-This chapter addresses required Element 8 of the lege, North East Ecological Services, NHNHB, Bio-NAAT Guidelines, which calls for broad public drawversity, Ibis Wildlife Consulting, and BioDiver-participation . . . [when] developing and implement- sity Research Institute. Many conservation partners ing these plans. We formed the Communications reviewed materials as they were being developed, and Outreach Team (COT) to develop the public including those mentioned above, the New Boston participation component of the WAP. The COT met Air Force Base, and others.

regularly from 2003-2005. They were responsible for developing and implementing a plan for gathering Northeast Regional Survey public input. Components included the following:

Responsive Management (a natural resources public

• A randomly distributed telephone survey of New opinion consulting company) collected information Hampshire residents as part of a larger northeast via a random telephone survey of 400 residents in regional survey (Fall 2003) each of 13 northeastern states. The Northeast Con-

• A Wildlife Summit workshop of people who play servation Information and Education Association in (or could play) an active role in conserving New conjunction with Responsive Management developed Hampshire wildlife (March 2004) the survey questions, which were used to identify

• A web survey based largely on priority issues where communication, education, and marketing that came out of the Wildlife Summit (August- can improve reputation, credibility, and public sup-November 2004) port. This project was funded through a Multistate

• Stakeholder meetings to understand participants Conservation Grant from the USFWS using Federal perceptions of threats to our wildlife and habitats, Aid in Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Funds.

and conservation strategies (various dates) The results of the survey identified major issues

• A Wildlife Conservation Strategy Forum to to address, and were used especially as a basis for gather input on some of the major strategies developing education and outreach strategies. Sur-developed (May 2005) vey information about most commonly used media will help us determine which methods of delivery Many conservation partners were included in the de- are most appropriate when implementing strategies.

velopment, research, and writing of the WAP. Species The New Hampshire survey results may be viewed and habitat profiles, threats assessments, and strate- on-line at http://www.responsivemanagement.com/

gies were written in part or in whole by individuals download/reports/NCIEANH.pdf from NHA, St. Anselms College, UNH, University New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 1-1

Public Participation TABLE 1-1. Agencies, organizations, businesses, and interests represented at the Wildlife Summit, March 25, 2004. Repre-sentatives of other groups and interests were invited but were unable to attend.

AGENCY/ORGANIZATION/ENTITY Appalachian Mountain Club New Hampshire House of Representatives Audubon Society of New Hampshire New Hampshire Lakes Association Center for Land Conser vation Assistance New Hampshire landowners Community conser vation commissions New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau Connecticut River Joint Commission New Hampshire naturalists Ducks Unlimited New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning Great Bay Protection Partnership New Hampshire Snowmobile Association Harris Center for Conser vation North Countr y Press International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Pemi Valley Fish and Game Club Jackson, Jackson and Wagner Private conser vation funders Local Audubon Society of New Hampshire bird clubs Private natural resource consultants Loon Preser vation Committee Public Ser vice of New Hampshire Manchester Union Leader Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge Moose Mountains Regional Greenways Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests New England Reptile Speaking for Animals in New Hampshire New Hampshire Association of Conser vation Commissions Squam Lakes Science Center New Hampshire Conser vation Districts Stephenson Strategic Communications New Hampshire Coverts Project The Balsams Grand Resort Hotel New Hampshire Department of Agriculture The Nature Conser vancy New Hampshire Department of Environmental Ser vices The Ruffed Grouse Society New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Development, Division of Travel and Tourism New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Ser vices Development, Parks and Recreation Division U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conser vation New Hampshire Department of Transportation Ser vice New Hampshire Executive Council U.S. Environmental Protection Agency New Hampshire Farm Bureau U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser vice New Hampshire Fish and Game Commission U.S. Senate (New Hampshire representative)

New Hampshire Fish and Game Department University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension New Hampshire Governor's Office University of New Hampshire Department of Natural Resources New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association University of New Hampshire Department of Zoology New Hampshire Trappers Association Vermont Fish and Wildlife Agency New Hampshire Wildlife Federation White Mountain National Forest Normandeau Associates Wildlife Management Institute North Countr y Council Wildlife Summit Representation 1-2 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Public Participation Wildlife Summit to the survey via multiple methods. Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH) sent an announcement The purposes of the Wildlife Summit were to: of the survey to all their public utility customers (approximately 440,000), enclosed with their

• Develop public awareness of the comprehensive monthly bill. PSNH also placed a sponsor spot on wildlife planning process New Hampshire Public Radio promoting completion

• Engage stakeholders in the planning process to en- of the survey. SPNHF and NHA did a one-minute courage acceptance and increase plan implementa- segment on New Hampshire Public Radio, called tion effectiveness Something Wild, which discussed the WAP and

• Develop and enhance better communication encouraged listeners to complete the web survey.

among a diverse group of constituents Additional promotion through email, meetings, and other partners web sites was done to improve the The Wildlife Summit public participation process number of survey respondents.

was based on one previously used to develop the One thousand two hundred fifty-six (1256)

New Hampshire Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor surveys were completed. The table of survey results Recreation Plan (SCORP). The lead facilitator may be found on the NHFG web site. The results and consultant for the Wildlife Summit and the were used to inform the development of strategies for Wildlife Conservation Strategy ForumCharlie the WAP. The survey results will also be used to guide French, UNH Cooperative Extension Community implementation of the strategies. Here are the top Development Specialistalso acted in that role for results for three of the questions:

the SCORP planning process.

One hundred twelve (112) people participated Q1: What do you feel are the most important issues in the Wildlife Summit. Individuals represented a affecting wildlife conservation in New Hampshire?

variety of agencies, organizations, businesses, and (Multiple responses possible) interests (Table 1-1). NHFG and UNH Cooperative Extension staff developed a framework of broad ISSUE RESPONDENTS topic areas within which to discuss and prioritize Development/sprawl 39%

issues at the Wildlife Summit. The results of the Habitat loss (general) 38%

Wildlife Summit were used in the prioritization and development of our strategies and actions (see results Pollution (general) 8%

under Appendix H, Wildlife Summit: Public Input Lack of funding 7%

on the Wildlife Action Plan). Fragmentation 6%

Government (general) 6%

Web Survey A web survey, based largely on priority issues that Q15: What actions do you think we should take to were identified during the Wildlife Summit, was conserve wildlife? (Multiple responses possible) conducted in August-November 2004. The web survey consisted of twenty-seven questions, eighteen ISSUE RESPONDENTS of which were related to the WAP and nine of which Protect/provide habitat 22%

were demographic in nature (See Appendix I for a Improve/manage habitat 9%

survey). The survey was developed and conducted Smart growth/planned development 7%

by UNH Cooperative Extension with input from More funding (general) 6%

NHFG staff and members of the Communications and Outreach Team. Regulations (development) 6%

The survey was non-random, as individuals chose whether or not to complete the survey. A direct link to the survey was provided from the home page of the NHFG web site. People were directed New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 1-3

Public Participation Q18: Of the following actions, which do you feel should be the top three priorities for wildlife conservation in New Hampshire? (Multiple responses possible)

ISSUE RESPONDENTS Prevent habitat loss 86%

Educate citizens about wildlife 52%

management Improve land use planning 40%

Encourage stewardship 36%

Stakeholder Meetings NHFG and UNH Cooperative Extension held or attended meetings, workshops, and sessions around the state to inform and involve the public, understand participants perceptions of threats to our wildlife and habitats, and seek their input on the development of conservation strategies. These stakeholder meetings are documented in a public participation record (see Appendix J). Meetings ranged from small meetings with 3 or 4 faculty at universities and colleges to larger groups of 30 to 50 people at statewide conferences.

The public participation record documents the nature of each meeting.

Wildlife Conservation Strategy Forum We invited attendees of the Wildlife Summit to participate in the Wildlife Conservation Strategy Forum. Twenty-four people participated. This was considered a continuation of their public participation work. As a part of the WAP, we developed some broad strategies and actions to address threats to our wildlife species and their habitats (see Appendix K, Wildlife Conservation Strategy Forum). The issues we focused on were habitat fragmentation, air and water quality, growth and development, and transportation.

We sought input on the strategies, actions, and tools that would help us address these four issues. Results of the Wildlife Conservation Strategy Forum were used to inform the development of our strategies relative to these four major issues.

1-4 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

CHAPTER TWO New Hampshire Wildlife and Habitats At Risk Overview included. New Hampshire currently has 24 species listed as state endangered and 12 listed as threatened.

This chapter and the associated species profiles ad-dress Element 1 of the NAAT Guidelines, informa- C. Natural Heritage Rank: Animal Tracking List tion on the distribution and abundance of species Species tracked by the NHNHB rare species data-of wildlife. In this chapter we describe the process base and listed in the Animal Tracking List (June of selecting species in greatest need of conservation 2003) were considered for inclusion in the SGNC.

(SGNC) and selecting the WAPs focal habitats. We The rare species database was used to determine the also present details on the development and plans for number of known occurrences of each species in New continued use of the conservation database, as well as Hampshire. Species with a state rank of S1 (critically wildlife projects conducted in support of the WAP. imperiled because extreme rarity or some factor of its biology that makes it particularly vulnerable to Selecting species in Greatest Need of extinction) or S2 (imperiled because rarity or other Conservation factors that demonstrably make it very vulnerable to extinction) were included in the SGNC. Inverte-The following information sources were used when brates that were ranked as S1-S2 were incorporated selecting and prioritizing New Hampshires species in in the list of SGNC if adequate knowledge of those greatest need of conservation. species distribution and abundance was available.

A. All New Hampshire Species D. Species of Regional Concern Non-game species, game species, and fish were evalu- Species identified by the Northeast Wildlife Diversity ated regardless of taxonomic group. Long-term data- Technical Committee as a regional concern (Therres sets exist for some species, but little is known about 1999) were also considered for the SGNC. This list many other species, especially invertebrates, fish, and did not include an assessment of invertebrates other some reptiles and amphibians. To update the SGNC than freshwater mussels and did not include those list, these groups will require direct attention in the species already listed as endangered or threatened in future. the federal Endangered Species Act.

B. Endangered and Threatened Species Lists E. Living Legacy Project (Taylor et al. 1996) and New All species listed as endangered or threatened in New Hampshire Ecological Reserve System Project (1998)

Hampshire under FIS 1000 (6/21/01) and those fed- expert panels were formed to assess population condi-erally listed under the Endangered Species Act (1973) tions and vulnerability of species in New Hampshire.

that are known to occur in New Hampshire were A list of critical wildlife habitats was developed based New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 2-1

New Hampshire Wildlife and Habitats At Risk TABLE 2-1. Species of greatest conservation concern. E = NH endangered (List revised 2001), T = NH threatened (List revised 2001), SC = NH species of special concern (List revised 2000), RC = Regional conservation concern (Therres 1999), FE = Fed-erally endangered (current 8/05), FT = Federally threatened (current 8/05), BGP = Only included in the New Hampshire Big Game Management Plan (Appendix E)

TAXA Invertebrates Fish (continued) Birds (continued)

Freshwater molluscs Swamp darter Nelson's sharp-tailed sparrow, SC Brook floater, E, RC Tessellated darter Northern goshawk Dwarf wedgemussel, E, FE Amphibians Northern harrier, E, RC Eastern pondmussel, RC Blue-spotted salamander, RC Osprey, T Insects Fowler's toad, SC Palm warbler Barrens itame Jefferson salamander, SC, RC Peregrine falcon, E Barrens xylotype Marbled salamander, E Pied-billed grebe, E, RC Broad-lined catopyrrha Mink frog Piping plover, E, FT Cobblestone tiger beetle, T Northern leopard frog, SC, RC Purple finch Cora moth Reptiles Purple martin, E Frosted elfin butterfly, E Black racer Purple sandpiper Karner blue butterfly, E, FE Blanding's turtle, SC, RC Red shouldered hawk, SC Persius duskywing, E Eastern box turtle, RC Roseate tern, E, FE Phyllira tiger moth Eastern hognose snake, T, RC Ruffed grouse Pine barrens zanclognatha moth, T Ribbon snake, RC Rusty blackbird, SC Pine pinion moth, T Spotted turtle, SC, RC Salt marsh sharp-tailed sparrow, SC, RC Puritan tiger beetle, FT Smooth green snake, SC Seaside sparrow, SC Ringed boghaunter, E Timber rattlesnake, E, RC Sedge wren, E, RC Sleepy duskywing Wood turtle, SC, RC Semipalmated sandpiper White Mountain arctic Birds Spruce grouse White Mountain fritillar y American bittern, RC Three-toed woodpecker, T Vertebrates American black duck Turkey, BGP Fish American pipit, SC Upland sandpiper, E, RC Alewife American woodcock Veer y2 American brook lamprey, RC Arctic tern, T Vesper Sparrow American eel Bald eagle, E, FT Whip-poor-will, SC, RC American shad Bay-breasted warbler Willet, SC Atlantic salmon Bicknells thrush, SC, RC Wood thrush2 Atlantic sturgeon, RC Black guillemot, SC Mammals Banded sunfish, RC Canada warbler2, RC American marten, T Blueback herrring Cerulean warbler, RC Black bear, BGP Bridle shiner, RC Common loon, T Bobcat, SC Burbot Common nighthawk, T Canada lynx, E, RC, FT Eastern brook trout Common tern, E, RC Eastern pipistrelle, SC Finescale dace Cooper's hawk, T Eastern red bat, SC, RC Lake trout Common moorhen Eastern small-footed bat, E, RC Lake whitefish Eastern meadowlark Hoar y bat, SC, RC Northern redbelly dace Eastern towhee Indiana bat, FE Rainbow smelt Golden eagle, E, RC Moose, BGP Redfin pickerel Golden-winged warbler, SC, RC New England cottontail, SC, RC Round whitefish, RC Grasshopper sparrow, T Northern bog lemming, SC, RC Sea lamprey Great blue heron Northern myotis Shortnose sturgeon, E, FE Horned lark Silver-haired bat, SC, RC Slimy sculpin Least bittern, SC White-tailed deer, BGP Sunapee trout, E Least tern, E, RC Wolf, FT 1In addition to the above species of greatest conservation concern, a non-breeding birds profile was completed to assess concentrated wintering and migratory areas of New Hampshire.

2Canada warbler, veery, and wood thrush assessments were incorporated into matrix forest habitat profiles (See Appendix B).

2-2 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

New Hampshire Wildlife and Habitats At Risk on the habitat requirements of associated wildlife spe- tems are groups of natural communities that repeat cies of concern in the state. in the landscape and are linked by a common setting or driving force (e.g., flooding or fire; Sperduto and F. Taxonomic Experts Nichols 2004). Large-scale habitats were added, in-Species were considered based on comments made cluding matrix forests and aquatic watershed group-by taxonomic experts. For example, ornithologists ings. Other habitat-gaps (i.e., natural communities considered priority species listed in a variety of bird that did not correspond well with a habitat type) were plans (e.g., Partners in Flight, United States Shore- addressed by considering the natural communities as bird Conservation Plan, North American Waterfowl embedded features within matrix forest systems Management Plan, etc.). A team of invertebrate Large-scale ecosystem attributes allow conserva-specialists was convened for the WAP, and this group tionists to predict the distribution of taxa without ex-determined that current knowledge of invertebrate haustive ground surveys. Thus, efficient conservation distribution and abundance was inadequate to re- should start with a coarse filter approach, seeking to fine the list of invertebrates generated by items A-D characterize broad natural community types that are above. Criteria used to determine a species status in correlated with particular species.

the state included the following: Rare, endemic, or wide-ranging species may be overlooked in a coarse-filter approach. Thus, con-

• Distribution and abundance in New Hampshire servation of natural communities should be coupled and the Northeast with species-based conservation; this is referred to as

• The status and risk to the species or species habi- the coarse filter - fine filter strategy.

tat in New Hampshire

• Species vulnerability due to life-history traits Integrating Habitats with Natural

• Statewide, regional, or global population trends Communities and Systems Identifying Key Wildlife Habitat The wildlife habitats initially selected for inclusion in the WAP reflected habitats for priority wildlife spe-The New Hampshire Ecological Reserve System cies. We created a hierarchical data structure in which Project (renamed to the Living Legacy Project) used habitats form the largest scale or highest level, with expert panels to assess population conditions and natural community systems and natural communities vulnerability of species in New Hampshire. A list of forming subordinate smaller scale levels. Priority spe-critical wildlife habitats was developed based on the cies may require multiple habitat types, and a habitat habitat requirements of associated wildlife species of may provide a necessary component for more than concern in the state. The list of associated wildlife spe- one priority wildlife species (see Appendix D for Spe-cies was developed by the Projects Scientific Advisory cies and Habitat Associations).

Group and modified by the Projects Wildlife Work- In some cases, natural communities or ecological ing Group. The habitat list was modified by biologists systems did not correspond with important wildlife working on the WAP based on internal and external habitats (e.g., grasslands and shrublands). In New expert review. The wildlife habitat list was then cross- Hampshire, shrublands and grasslands are main-referenced with the NHNHB classification of 192 tained by management activities. Naturally occuring natural communities and 46 natural community shrublands such as shrub wetlands or early seral stages systems to identify areas of correspondence and gaps of forests are included under other habitat types.

(Appendix C). Conversely, other habitats correspond closely to a particular natural community system, such as the Natural Communities as Surrogates pine barrens habitat and the pitch pine sand plain for Biodiversity system. Habitats with great ecological breadth (e.g.,

peatlands) or spatial extent (e.g., matrix forests and Natural communities are recurring assemblages of watershed groupings) were included to help address plants and animals found in particular physical envi- the full array of habitat diversity when planning for ronments (Sperduto 2005); natural community sys- wildlife in New Hampshire.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 2-3

New Hampshire Wildlife and Habitats At Risk TABLE 2-2. New Hampshire WAP habitat list. As habitat models are refined and field verified they might be redefined to better reflect related natu-HABITAT NAME ral communities and systems. Because these commu-nities and systems may be more precisely correlated Large Scale Habitats with particular species and ecological functions, they Matrix Forest Types will be used to prioritize conservation efforts within Appalachian Oak - Pine Forest habitats. For instance, unique systems within the High-Elevation Spruce - Fir Forest peatlands habitat may prove more important, al-Lowland Spruce - Fir Forest lowing greater precision in conservation.

Northern Hardwood - Conifer Forest Hemlock - Hardwood - Pine Forest Aquatic Classification Watershed Groupings Connecticut River Mainstem Watersheds Unlike wetland and terrestrial habitats, an aquatic Southern Upland Watersheds classification system for New Hampshire did not exist Northern Upland Watersheds at the start of this planning effort. NHFG contracted Montane Watersheds TNC to initiate the development of an aquatic clas-Coastal Transitional Watersheds sification system based on a watershed and lake ana-Non-Tidal Coastal Watersheds lytical stratification (Olivero and Bechtel 2005). This Tidal Coastal Watersheds publication can be downloaded from the NHFG web Open Ocean1 site: visit www.nhfg.net, click on wildlife.

Medium and Small-Scale Habitats Watershed classification: The purpose of the water-Alpine shed classification system was to help guide broad-Shrublands scale conservation of aquatic ecosystems in New Grassland Hampshire. Conservation efforts that preserve the Cliffs integrity of many types of watersheds provide greater Caves and Mines opportunity to preserve unique, functional commu-Rocky Ridges2 nities of organisms without having to identify each Talus Slopes2 individual species and define its role in the communi-Pine Barrens ty. Although this watershed classification system will Marsh and Wet Meadows3 need to be refined, it is a good step toward a compre-Shrub Wetlands3 hensive approach to aquatic ecosystem protection.

Peatlands Floodplain Forests Lake classification: A lake classification system was Vernal Pools developed for New Hampshire lakes to provide con-Salt Marshes text for evaluating patterns in biological, water qual-Coastal Islands ity, and socioeconomic variables. The lake type clas-Dunes sification used a physical environmental classification framework where local lake morphology characteris-1 A habitat assessment was not completed for this habitat, nor was this considered in the watershed grouping analysis conducted by TNC. Relevant tics define lake types within a larger environmental information, including a list of existing marine plans, was incorporated into setting of elevation, geology, and landform patterns.

the Tidal Coastal Watershed assessment.

2 Rocky Ridges and Talus Slopes were combined for the threat ranking The lakes classification is currently under review by process and habitat Profile. NHFG biologists and will be incorporated into fu-3 Marsh and Wet Meadows and Shrub Wetlands were combined for the threat ranking process and habitat profiles as Marsh and Shrub Wetlands.

ture conservation planning of aquatic systems.

These habitats were mapped together as one GIS data layer but can be queried separately.

Conservation Database One of the early goals in the WAP process was to develop and maintain an accurate, up-to-date, geo-2-4 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

New Hampshire Wildlife and Habitats At Risk referenced database containing information on New monitoring, and research for a particular species Hampshires fauna. This process will continue, but or habitat. Species and habitat assessments were several key steps have been completed including the completed by NHFG staff or were contracted development of a wildlife database website reporting to other taxonomic experts. To the extent that mechanism, rare species database software upgrade to information is available, completed profile templates Biotics4, and incorporation of a tremendous amount meet the required elements of the WAP. For most of field-collected biological data into the database. priority species (e.g., state-listed species) and habitats, an entire or nearly entire template was completed.

Development of a Framework for the Collection Through State Wildlife Grants, NHFG funded and Maintenance of Wildlife Data a number of projects to initiate research and compile data where information was lacking or insufficient A data collection tool, New Hampshire Wildlife to develop conservation strategies. The following Sightings (NHWS), was developed in cooperation list includes wildlife research completed or initiated with a number of government and nongovernment during the WAP planning process:

entities. NHWS employs a web site for collection of species occurrence data by qualified observers (http:

• Pine Marten Restoration Project (University of

//nhwildlifesightings.sr.unh.edu) in a format that can Massachusetts, NHFG) easily be applied in distribution and habitat analyses.

• Blandings Turtle Nesting Study (NHFG)

Currently, the pool of qualified observers is small as

• Vernal Pool Research: Amphibians as Indicators of testing of the process continues. Land and Water Habitat Quality (UNH)

Web hosting for NHWS is provided by the

• Salt marsh Bird Recovery (UNH and NHOEP)

UNH Complex Systems Research Center. Raw observation data are downloaded from this web site Three Masters theses and associated peer-reviewed by staff within the Wildlife Division at NHFG and publications will result from these studies.

imported into an in-house Access database to allow For some species, information was lacking and staff to perform quality control. After quality control only a portion of the profile (e.g., element 1) was is complete, data are forwarded to NHNHB within completed. For those species that had a close link to a NHDRED to be incorporated into the rare wildlife, habitat, detailed condition, threat, and conservation plant, and natural community database. action assessments often were discussed in habitats profiles and referenced in appropriate species profiles.

Software upgrade: BCD to Biotics4 The information in species and habitat assessments provided the basis for the development In consultation with NatureServe, the NHFG, and of New Hampshires condition analysis (chapter 3),

NHNHB upgraded their Biological Conservation wildlife risk assessments (chapter 4) and statewide Database software to Biotics4 software. All conservation strategies (chapter 5).

previously entered wildlife, plant, and exemplary natural community data have been converted and Distribution Maps stored in Biotics4. New exemplary wetland natural community records and a backlog of previously Distribution maps for species and habitats were unprocessed wildlife records were incorporated into compiled from various sources. Habitat distribution Biotics4. NHFG solicited new wildlife location data maps consisted largely of mapped known or predicted from experts around the state, which dramatically polygons completed as part of the WAP. Data for increased the number of rare species records. species distribution maps came from the Element Occurrence database maintained by NHNHB, Species and Habitat Assessments Reptile and Amphibian Database, Wildlife Sightings Database, NHA Bird Records, museum records, The species and habitat profile template was designed and literature and expert reviews. Not all maps are to gather known information on the distribution, complete or verified. Maps are constantly being abundance, condition, threats, conservation actions, updated based on new reports.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 2-5

New Hampshire Wildlife and Habitats At Risk Literature Cited New Hampshire Ecological Reserve System Project.

1998. An Assessment of the Biodiversity of New Hampshire with Recommendations for Conservation Action.

Olivero, A., and D. Bechtel. 2005. Classification and Condition Assessment for New Hampshire Lakes. The Nature Conservancy, New Hampshire Chapter, Concord, New Hampshire, USA.

Sperduto, D.D. 2005. Natural Community Systems of New Hampshire. New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau, Concord, New Hampshire, USA.

Sperduto, D.D., and W.F. Nichols. 2004. Natural communities of New Hampshire. New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau, Concord, New Hampshire, USA.

Taylor, J., T. Lee, and L.F. McCarthy. 1996. New Hampshires Living Legacy. The Biodiversity of the Granite State. New Hampshire Fish and Game Department Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program.

Therres, G.D. 1999. Wildlife species of regional conservation concern in the northeastern United States. Northeast Wildlife 54:93-100.

2-6 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

CHAPTER THREE New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions Overview tions. We did not have complete data on the quantity and distribution of habitats, thus we used predictive Element 2 of the NAAT Guidelines requires that each models. Many different kinds of geographic data were state provide, descriptions of locations and relative organized and analyzed in GIS to generate predictive conditions of key habitats and community types es- maps. Analytical methods and the resulting predictive sential to conservation of species identified in element maps were tailored to the ecological requirements and 1, which is the purpose of this chapter and the as- data available for each species and habitat. Generally, sociated habitat profiles (Appendix B). Development habitat maps were generated in one of four ways:

of the wildlife conservation database to catalog the locations of wildlife observations (Chapter 2) was a 1. Correlate NHFG habitats with NHNHB systems preliminary step toward assessing the condition of or natural community classification and develop wildlife habitats. In this chapter, a brief description of a model based on landscape features outlined in the methodology used to develop predictive habitat NHNHB descriptions maps is provided. Complete descriptions are available 2. Identify common landscape features among under each species and habitat profile (Appendix A known habitat locations and use those features to and B). Comprehensive data on local habitat condi- develop a model for the remainder of the state tions were organized in the GIS associated with each 3. Identify habitat components required by a spe-habitat map. Next, data were summarized within cific species and generate a model based on those each habitat. The summary results of the condition of requirements each habitat are presented under the headings Matrix 4. Grouping mapped lakes and watersheds based on Forests, Terrestrial Habitats, Wetland Habitats, and similar habitat characteristics Watershed Groupings. Summary results for lakes are reported in Classification and Condition Assessment A detailed description of the methods used is avail-for New Hampshires Lakes (Olivero and Bechtel able under each species and habitat profile. Because of 2005). Completion of predictive habitat maps and limited information and very limited predictability, organizing pertinent data was a major undertaking maps were not created for Vernal Pools and Shrub-that will benefit conservation, planning, and resource lands. The New Hampshire Habitat Landcover map management organizations. (Figure 3-1) was compiled from the predicted matrix forests, terrestrial habitats, and wetland habitats (see Step 1: Mapping wildlife habitats Habitat Condition summaries). Maps were developed for a subset of priority wildlife species based on the The first step in assessing the condition of New availability of information and expertise and whether Hampshires wildlife habitats was to map their loca- or not their specific habitat requirements were well New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-1

New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions ponds, Neutral ponds, Acidic shallow lake, Neutral shallow lake, Acidic deep lake, and Neutral deep lake) emerged as the dominant lake types.

A critical part of all predictive habitat-mapping efforts was to validate predictions about the type of habitat in a given location by checking whether or not a habitat type actually occurs in a subset of predicted locations. There are a number of different approaches to validating habitat maps, including:

• Check if predicted locations for a habitat corre-FIGURE 3-2. Mapping and Data Diagram. Data describing spond with locations that were mapped and con-the condition of each habitat polygon were entered into a firmed by an unrelated process database for use in comparative analyses.

• Select a subset of predicted locations for each habi-tat type and conduct a survey to confirm the actual represented by the mapped habitat types. Species habitat type on site with completed predictive habitat maps include:

Model validation is not yet complete, but more detail

• Bald eagle about completing this task is provided in Chapter

• Pied-billed grebe 5. Even though some habitat locations are already

• Grasshopper sparrow known, it is best to assume uncertainty for all loca-

• New England cottontail tions until model validation has been completed.

• Bobcat

• Timber rattlesnake Step 2: Measuring Condition Within

• Canada lynx Predicted Habitats

• American marten

• Smooth green snake Every predicted location for each habitat is depicted

• Black racer snake in the GIS by a polygon delineating the spatial

• Eastern hognose snake boundaries of the predicted area. Each predicted hab-

• Peregrine falcon itat polygon corresponds to dataset that describes the

• Non-breeding birds area within the polygon (Figure 3-2). Detailed infor-

• Migratory birds mation is not available for all of the habitat polygons, but we used the GIS to organize available information Aquatic habitats were analyzed at the watershed from many different sources. We gathered available scale. A watershed classification system was devel- information about the known risk factors, or threats, oped to provide a tool to help guide broad conser- that influence wildlife health the most. This informa-vation of aquatic ecosystems in New Hampshire. tion provides quantitative data to augment the quali-Conservation efforts that preserve the integrity of tative information developed during risk assessments many types of watersheds provide greater oppor- (Chapter 4). Some information that was summarized tunity to preserve unique, functional communities for each habitat polygon is described in Table 3-1.

of organisms without having to identify each indi-vidual species and define its role in the community. Landscape Context Major Watershed Groupings were chosen to rep-resent large-scale aquatic habitats for further analysis Information about Landscape Context was calculated in the WAP. Within these areas, multiple fine-scale habitat types, natural communities, and species can FIGURE 3-1 (see insert). New Hampshire Habitat Landcover.

exist. Lakes were analyzed as a subcomponent of Predictive habitat maps were developed for all WAP habitat watersheds (Olivero and Bechtel 2005). Seven major types, and compiled to create a complete landcover. The New Hampshire Habitat Landcover will be used to conduct Biological System Types (Very acidic ponds, Acidic conservation planning analyses.

3-2 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions TABLE 3-1. Summary of preliminary terrestrial and wetland habitat condition analysis results. Not all results are reported here.

Predicted Predicted  %

Habitat Area (ac) Area (ha)  % NH Area Unfragmented1 % Protected2 % Buildable1 Alpine 7717 3123 <1% 100% 100% <1 %

Grassland 232384 94043 4% 48% 8% 83%

Appalachian Oak-Pine Forest 424943 171969 7% 64% 13% 65 %

Caves and Mines n/ a n/a <1% n/ a 11.1% 3

<1%

Cliffs 5808 2350 <1% 98% 91% <1%

Coastal Islands 820 332 <1% 47% 14% <1 %

Dunes 192 78 <1% 20% 67% <1%

Floodplain Forest 112945 42950 2% 73% 27% 56%

Hemlock-Hardwood-Pine Forest 2688744 1088101 45% 72% 15% n/ a High-Elevation Spruce-Fir Forest 243263 98446 4% 99% 87% 12%

Lowland Spruce-Fir Forest 770048 311629 13% 89% 32% 56%

Marsh & Shrub Wetlands 142073 57495 2% 45% 15% 68 %

Northern Hardwood-Conifer Forest 1086765 439800 18% 93% 43% 55%

Peatlands 57698 23350 1% 75% 17% 68 %

Pine Barrens 24682 9988 <1% 56% 19% 76 %

Rocky Ridges & Talus Slopes 28049 11351 <1% 96% 61% 26%

Salt Marshes 5620 2274 <1% 82% 22% <1 %

1 Based on NHFG Coarse Filter Wildlife Habitat Mapping Project, 2004.

2 Complex Systems Research Center, 2005. Conser vation/Public Lands Data.

3 2 of 18 sites directly from the spatial geometry of individual habi- Wildlife Diversity tat polygons and their relationships to one another.

Variables that describe landscape context help de- Information about the diversity of plants and animals scribe predicted interactions among habitat polygons, in a given location is very limited. Some monitoring such as the dispersal of wildlife and gross abundance programs provide data about certain groups of wild-of habitat in terms of area and neighboring resources. life, and many rare wildlife are tracked by NHFG and NHFG has contracted researchers at UNH to devel- NHNHB. NHNHB conducted analyses to assess in-op models to assess landscape connectivity for large formation about tracked plants, animals, and natural carnivores. Some other landscape context variables communities (Table 3-2). One caveat pertaining to that NHFG has analyzed include: data summarizing tracked plant, animal, and exem-plary natural community records is that it is difficult

• Total area, land area 1, wetland area, total perimeter or impossible to know whether the absence of records length in a given location is an indication that surveys yield-

• Distance to and identity of nearest neighbor and ed no observations or whether no surveys were con-other landscape features ducted. In some cases, landscape features may serve

• Shape index (measure of overall shape complexity) as indicators of biodiversity. Some of the information

• Elevation, aspect that were used to assess wildlife diversity included:

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-3

New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions TABLE 3-2. Summary of potential biodiversity indicators. Indicators should be interpreted cautiously. Recorded observa-tions of rare plants, animals, and natural communities do not consistently represent structured surveys. Absence of survey information and null observations are both potential causes for low indicator levels, but no information is available to dis-cern which is true.

Average Proportion Average Information Average Information Average Richness Rare or Exemplar y Diversity for Rare Diversity for Rare of Natural Natural Community Habitat Animals1 Plants2 Communities3 in Habitat4 Alpine 1.1 1.5 5.5 47.6 Grassland 1.7 0.1 1.0 0. 2 Appalachian Oak-Pine Forest n/a n/ a n/ a n/ a Caves and Mines n /a n/ a n/ a n/ a Cliffs 1.4 0.2 2.0 17 . 1 Coastal Islands 1.9 0.2 0.6 2. 3 Dunes 1.8 1.0 8.0 30.0 Floodplain Forests 1.7 0.3 1.7 5. 9 Hemlock-Hardwood-Pine Forest n/a n/ a n/ a n/ a High-Elevation Spruce-Fir Forest 1.4 0.0 1.5 2.6 Lowland Spruce-Fir Forest 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 Marsh & Shrub Wetlands 1.7 0.0 0.0 1.1 Northern Hardwood-Conifer Forest n/a n/ a n/ a n/ a Peatlands 1.7 0.0 0.5 3.7 Pine Barrens 2.4 0.3 5.9 7.7 Rocky Ridges and Talus Slopes 1.6 0.1 2.0 24.5 Salt Marshes n/a n/ a n/ a n/ a 1

Shannon diversity index calculated within their dispersal distances from each habitat polygon.

2 Shannon diversity index calculated based on number of rare plant source features within 1 kilometer of each habitat polygon.

3 Richness calculated based on number of natural communities within 1 kilometer of each habitat polygon.

4 Area mapped as rare or exemplar y natural communities/total area of a habitat polygon, averaged across all polygons.

• Presence, absence, or status of tracked wildlife

• Richness of Ecological Land Units (TNC) 19

• Total number of observations, richness, and di-

• Diversity of Habitat (Figure 3-3) versity of tracked rare animals, plants, and exem-plary natural communities observed within their Recreational Factors (NHNHB standard) dispersal or buffered distance and within predicted habitat polygons21 Recreational influences on wildlife are difficult to

• Average qualitative rank and distribution of record- assess. It is especially difficult to measure animal ed observations of tracked animals and rare plants responses via GIS. Although trails are often well within 1 km of a predicted habitat polygon21 marked on the land and new technology makes it

• Average condition rank of recorded observations of tracked rare and exemplary natural communities FIGURE 3-3 (see insert). Habitat Diversity by Town. Total within 1 km of a mapped habitat polygon21 number (richness) of WAP habitat types within town bound-

• Shellfish resources (clam/oyster beds) 3 ary. Habitat diversity may be used as an indicator of wildlife

• Migratory and wintering bird sites 6 diversity.

3-4 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions easy to map them, most trails remain undocumented. Air and Water Quality Factors For many popular recreational activities, it is possible to measure indicators of the level of the activity or Broad patterns of air and water quality influence the proximity to wildlife resources. Such indicators may quality of wildlife habitats, even if they are protected help focus attention on areas of conflict: from local influences such as development. Many aspects of broad environmental quality issues are

• Geocache sites visited by GPS users beyond the scope of the WAP. For some issues, air

• Mine shaft type, an indicator of spelunking and water quality indicators may have relevance for

• Golf courses wildlife. For example, DES monitors stream inverte-

• Rock-climbing routes (based on guide books) brate populations to measure contaminant levels and

• Boat access sites, marinas, and sport fishing areas3 the Biodiversity Research Institute measures levels

• Hiking trails of mercury in many wildlife species. Data sources

• Snowmobile and other OHRV trails include:

Development and Land Use Factors

• Oil spill response staging area3

• Shoreline sensitivity (environmental sensitivity in-Human development and infrastructures may affect dex) 3 wildlife, including reduced landscape connectivity,

• Contamination sources, outfalls, PORTFS 8, 9, 22 introduction of invasive species, contaminants, and

• Impoundments, drawdowns, and water withdraw-modified local climate. To evaluate edge effects associ- als 10, 11, 22 ated with fragmenting features on the landscape, such

• Forested headwaters, surface waters, free flowing as the spread of contaminants from roads, noise, inva- water 22 sive plants, and changes in microclimate, NHFG and

• Exotic aquatic plant infestation sites 22 TNC developed a computer model. Figure 3-4 shows

• Mercury levels from wildlife specimens 23 a preliminary product generated from this model.

• Predicted acid rain sensitivity and mercury deposi-When complete, this model will help to identify pris- tion rates 23 tine and unfragmented blocks of habitat. Important development and land use factors include: Step 3: Comparing Conditions Across the Landscape

• Area in Conservation/fee ownership (Figure 3-5)4

• Influence of fragmenting features20 Patterns of biodiversity form on the landscape at

• Designated prime wetland 5 many different scales. For example, forest trees form

• Wetland and forestry permits 7 patterns of diversity across great ranges in altitude,

• Buildable area (hectares, from generalized statewide while aquatic insects form patterns of diversity across buildout analysis, NHFG) 12 stream riffles that span several meters. Therefore, in

• Population growth 22 order to address the full range of biodiversity, the con-

• Agriculture and other landuses 22 dition of the natural landscape needs to be assessed at

• Wind power areas and communication towers 13, 14 more than one scale.

• Dams and transmission lines 17, 22 The most relevant indicators listed above will be

• Airports, roads, railroads used to generate a relative condition index for each habitat type by habitat polygon and unit. Such an index will allow a comparison among polygons and units within a habitat type to identify those in the best relative condition to target for protection and FIGURE 3-4 (see insert). Preliminary Integrated Fragmenta- those that are most threatened and in need of restora-tion Effects Surface. Preliminary results showing predicted tion or other remediation activities. See Jones et al.

edge effects for human landcover types. Fragmentation ef-(1997) for one example of calculating a relative con-fects may be used as an indicator of ecological integrity.

dition index based on condition indicators.

FIGURE 3-5 (see insert). Conservation Lands by Town. The result of habitat condition analyses will be New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-5

New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions FIGURE 3-7. Predicted Matrix Forests. Matrix Forest maps FIGURE 3-8. Predicted Terrestrial Habitats. Terrestrial Habi-were created collaboratively by NHFG, TNC, NHB, and NRCS. tat maps were created by NHFG and NHB. Map validation is Map validation is a priority WAP objective. a priority WAP objective.

that implemented strategies will address the entire Finally, optimal habitats for at-risk plants, animals, breadth of biodiversity contained within the state, and natural communities will be identified in the from large-ranging forest mammals to the smallest- context of supporting neighboring habitats and large ranging stream invertebrates. At each of three levels of unfragmented forest areas.

ecological scale, analyses will be conducted to filter out pieces of the landscape that have the greatest bio- Unfragmented Forest Blocks diversity and highest value for wildlife (Figure 3-6).

At the largest ecological scale, we will identify very Unfragmented forest blocks are the largest scale at large unfragmented forest blocks that harbor diverse which condition will be assessed. At this scale, the mosaics of habitat and support many natural com- diversity of different habitat types in close proximity munities, wildlife, and plant populations. In the land- to one another is one of the key considerations. Once scape that surrounds the largest unfragmented forest preliminary fragmentation modeling is complete, un-blocks, analyses conducted on medium- to large-scale fragmented forest blocks will be broken up into 3 or 4 habitats will distinguish a diverse array of high quality different size classes. Each block within a size class will habitats from areas that have lower value for wildlife. be analyzed to determine the abundance and diversity of smaller scale elements of biodiversity (natural com-munity, plant and wildlife element occurrences or FIGURE 3-6 (see insert). Town Scale Habitat Summary Map. predicted wildlife habitats), medium scale (alpine, New Hampshire Habitat landcover shown at the town scale. cliffs, floodplain forest, etc.), and large-scale habitats Condition analyses are underway for small, medium, and large-scale habitat types.

(matrix forest types) contained within it. Each block 3-6 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions FIGURE 3-9. Predicted Wetland Habitats. Wetland Habitat FIGURE 3-10. Watershed Groupings. Watershed Groupings maps were created collaboratively by NHFG and NHB. Map were created by TNC. Validation of watershed classifications validation is a priority WAP objective. is a priority WAP objective.

will also be evaluated to assess the relative level of risk be assessed to determine the abundance and diversity factors based on the data described above (e.g., from of natural communities, plants, and wildlife popula-transportation, development, recreation, etc.) associ- tions. Each block will then be evaluated to assess the ated with it. relative level of risk factors based on the data described The results of this assessment will help identify above (e.g., from transportation, development, recre-the largest and intact portions of New Hampshires ation, etc.) associated with it. Preliminary analyses are natural landscape. Diverse assemblages of wildlife complete at this level, and are summarized below.

habitats, natural communities, wildlife, and plant populations will be contained within these areas. Natural Communities, Lakes, and Wildlife Information about the known risks to wildlife will be Populations summarized for each unfragmented focal area.

Habitat maps developed for bald eagle, timber rattle-Large and Medium-Scale Habitats snake and others are comparable in spatial scale to some of the habitats described above. However, each Matrix forest types (Figure 3-7) and Watershed represents a very limited component of New Hamp-Groupings (Figure 3-10) comprise the large-scale shires biodiversity, and has very specific requirements.

habitats addressed in the WAP. Terrestrial habitats Natural communities represent more biodiversity (Figure 3.8) and wetland habitats (Figure 3.9) are the than wildlife populations, but less than medium and medium-scale unit addressed in the WAP. Like the large-scale habitats or unfragmented blocks. TNC unfragmented blocks, matrix forests and habitats will analyzed the relative condition of lakes (Figure 3-11, New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-7

New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions FIGURE 3-11. Lake Types. Lake Types were created by TNC. FIGURE 3-12. Lake Condition Summary. The condition of NH Validation of Lake Types is a high priority WAP objective. lakes was analyzed by TNC (Appendix).

Figure 3.12). Small-scale natural communities, wild- etc. In some cases, qualitative indicators of condition life, and plant populations are represented by element are available within the EO database. Threats such as occurrences (EO) tracked by NHNHB. The condi- distance to nearest road, presence of invasive plants, tion of EOs can be assessed by evaluating the number and others can also be assessed to ascertain relative of individuals recorded in a population, proximity to EO quality.

other EOs of the same species or natural community, 3-8 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions MATRIX FOREST HABITAT:

Appalachian Oak-Pine Forests Important Wildlife: American woodcock, bald eagle, black bear, black racer, Blandings turtle, blue- Predicted Habitat:

spotted salamander, bobcat, Canada warbler, cerulean Appalachian Oak-Pine warbler, common nighthawk, Coopers hawk, Eastern Forests box turtle, Eastern hognose snake, Eastern pipistrelle, Eastern red bat, Eastern towhee, Fowlers toad, Jeffer-son salamander, marbled salamander, moose*, New England cottontail, Northern goshawk, Northern myotis, ribbon snake, ruffed grouse, silver-haired bat, smooth green snake, spotted turtle, timber rattle-snake, wild turkey*, veery, whip-poor-will, white-tailed deer*, wood thrush, migrating/wintering birds, wood turtle

• Big game species addressed in Big Game Plan Manage-ment Plan Natural Communities: Appalachian oak - mountain laurel forest, Chestnut oak forest/woodland, Dry Ap-palachian oak - hickory forest, Dry river bluff, Mesic Appalachian oak - hickory forest, Pitch pine - Appala-chian oak - heath forest, Semi-rich Appalachian oak -

sugar maple forest, Red maple - sensitive fern swamp, Red maple - black ash - swamp saxifrage swamp, Red maple - lake sedge swamp, Circumneutral seepage dicted Appalachian oak-pine forest area has some swamp, Highbush blueberry - winterberry shrub level of protection.

thicket, Hemlock - cinnamon fern forest, Red maple

• New Hampshires most extensive Appalachian

- red oak - cinnamon fern forest, Red maple - Sphag- oak-pine forest blocks are located in Rockingham num basin swamp, Red maple - elm - lady fern silt county.

forest, Seasonally flooded red maple swamp, Subacid

• Appalachian oak-pine forests are one of New forest seep, Acidic Sphagnum forest seep, Circum- Hampshires most at-risk habitats. The most chal-neutral hardwood forest, Rich mesic forest, Semi-rich lenging issues facing Appalachian oak-pine forests mesic sugar maple forest, Rich sugar maple - oak are human development and transportation infra-

- hickory terrace forest, Semi-rich Appalachian oak structure and altered natural disturbance.

- sugar maple forest

• Approximately 109,737 ha or 64% of the land area in Appalachian oak-pine forests is more than 400

• Predicted Appalachian oak-pine forests in New feet from roads and other forms of urban develop-Hampshire cover a total of 171,969 ha, approxi- ment.

mately 7.2% of New Hampshires area.

• Approximately 90% of New Hampshires predicted Appalachian oak-pine forest is located in Cheshire, Hillsborough, Rockingham, and Strafford coun-ties.

• Approximately 12.6% of New Hampshires pre-New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-9

New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions MATRIX FOREST HABITAT:

Hemlock-Hardwood-Pine Forests Important Wildlife: American woodcock, bald ea-gle, black bear*, black racer, Blue-spotted salamander, Predicted Habitat:

bobcat, Canada warbler, cerulean warbler, Coopers hawk, Eastern box turtle, Eastern hognose snake, Hemlock-Hardwood-Pine Eastern pipistrelle, Eastern red bat, Eastern small- Forests footed bat, Eastern towhee, Fowlers toad, Jefferson salamander, marbled salamander, moose*, New Eng-land cottontail, Northern goshawk, Northern myotis, purple finch, red shouldered hawk, ribbon snake, ruffed grouse, silver-haired bat, smooth green snake, spotted turtle, timber rattlesnake, wild turkey*, veery, whip-poor-will, white-tailed deer*, wood thrush, wood turtle, Blandings turtle, migrating/wintering birds

• Big game species addressed in Big Game Plan Manage-ment Plan Natural Communities: Red maple - sensitive fern swamp, Red maple - black ash - swamp saxifrage swamp, Red maple - lake sedge swamp, Circumneu-tral seepage swamp, Highbush blueberry - winter-berry shrub thicket, Hemlock - cinnamon fern forest, Red maple - red oak - cinnamon fern forest, Red maple - Sphagnum basin swamp, Red maple - elm

• Approximately 15% of New Hampshires predicted

- lady fern silt forest, Seasonally flooded red maple hemlock-hardwood-pine forest has some level of swamp, Subacid forest seep, Acidic Sphagnum for-protection.

est seep, Circumneutral hardwood forest, Northern

• New Hampshires most extensive hemlock-hard-hardwood seepage forest, Rich mesic forest, Semi-wood-pine forest blocks are located in Belknap and rich mesic sugar maple forest, Rich sugar maple - oak Merrimack counties.

- hickory terrace forest, Semi-rich Appalachian oak

• Hemlock-hardwood-pine forests are one of New

- sugar maple forest, Beech forest, Dry red oak - white Hampshires most at-risk habitats. The most chal-pine forest, Hemlock - beech - northern hardwood lenging issues facing hemlock-hardwood-pine for-forest, Hemlock - beech - oak - pine forest, Hemlock ests are human development, introduced species

- white pine forest, Hemlock forest, Semi-rich mesic and altered natural disturbance.

sugar maple forest

• Approximately 786,542 ha or 72% of the land area in hemlock-hardwood-pine forests is more than

• Predicted hemlock-hardwood-pine forest in New 400 feet from roads and other forms of urban de-Hampshire covers a total of 1,088,101 ha, approxi-velopment.

mately 45.3 % of New Hampshires area.

• Approximately 73% of New Hampshires predicted hemlock-hardwood-pine forest is located in Car-roll, Cheshire, Grafton, Hillsborough, and Mer-rimack counties.

3-10 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions MATRIX FOREST HABITAT:

High Elevation Spruce-Fir Forests Important Wildlife: American marten, American pipit, bay-breasted warbler, Bicknells thrush, Canada lynx, moose*, spruce grouse, three-toed woodpecker, Predicted Habitat:

migrating/wintering birds High Elevation Spruce-Fir Forests

• Big game species addressed in Big Game Plan Manage-ment Plan Natural Communities: High-elevation balsam fir forest, High-elevation spruce - fir forest, Montane landslide, Northern hardwood - spruce - fir forest, Subacid forest seep, Acidic Sphagnum forest seep

• Predicted high elevation spruce-fir forest covers a total of 98,365 ha, approximately 4.3% of New Hampshires area.

• Nearly 80% of New Hampshires predicted high elevation spruce-fir forest is located in Coos and Grafton counties.

• Approximately 87% of New Hampshires predicted high elevation spruce-fir forest is protected by con-servation ownership or easement.

• New Hampshires most extensive high elevation spruce-fir forests are located in the White Moun-tain National Forest.

• The most challenging issue that faces high elevation spruce-fir forests is acid deposition.

• Approximately 98,199 ha or 99% of the land area in high elevation spruce-fir forests are more than 400 feet from roads and other forms of urban de-velopment.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-11

New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions MATRIX FOREST HABITAT:

Lowland Spruce-Fir Forests Important Wildlife: American marten, bald eagle, bay-breasted warbler, black bear, Canada lynx, Coopers hawk, hoary bat, mink frog, Northern bog Predicted Habitat:

lemming, Northern goshawk, palm warbler, purple Lowland Spruce-Fir Forests finch, rusty blackbird, spruce grouse, three-toed woodpecker, white-tailed deer*, wolf, wood turtle, migrating/wintering birds, moose*

• Big game species addressed in Big Game Plan Manage-ment Plan Natural Communities: Red spruce swamp, Lowland spruce - fir forest, Montane black spruce - red spruce forest, Northern hardwood - black ash - conifer swamp, Seasonally flooded boreal swamp, Speckled alder wooded fen, Subacid forest seep, Acidic Sphag-num forest seep, Circumneutral hardwood forest, Northern hardwood seepage forest

• Predicted lowland spruce-fir forest covers a total of 311,390 ha, approximately 13.5% of New Hamp-shires area.

• Nearly 80% of New Hampshires predicted lowland spruce-fir forest is located in Coos and Grafton counties.

• Approximately 33% of New Hampshires predicted lowland spruce-fir forest is protected by conserva-tion ownership or easement.

• New Hampshires most extensive predicted lowland spruce-fir forest is located in the Success flats, Coos county.

• The most challenging issues that face lowland spruce-fir forests are development, timber harvest, non-point source pollutants and altered natural disturbance regimes.

• Approximately 276,462 ha or 89% of the land area in lowland spruce-fir forests are more than 400 feet from roads and other forms of urban develop-ment.

3-12 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions MATRIX FOREST HABITAT:

Northern Hardwood-Conifer Forests Important Wildlife: American woodcock, bald eagle, black bear*, blue-spotted salamander, bobcat, Predicted Habitat:

Canada lynx, Canada warbler, Coopers hawk, East- Northern Hardwood-ern pipistrelle, Eastern red bat, Eastern small-footed Conifer Forests bat, hoary bat, Indiana bat, Jefferson salamander, marbled salamander, mink frog, Northern goshawk, Northern myotis, purple finch, ribbon snake, ruffed grouse, silver-haired bat, smooth green snake, spot-ted turtle, timber rattlesnake, wild turkey*, veery, white-tailed deer*, wolf, wood thrush, wood turtle, migrating/wintering birds, moose*

• Big game species addressed in Big Game Plan Manage-ment Plan Natural Communities: Beech forest, Hemlock -

beech - northern hardwood forest, Hemlock - spruce

- northern hardwood forest, Hemlock forest, North-ern hardwood - spruce - fir forest, Semi-rich mesic sugar maple forest, Sugar maple - beech - yellow birch forest Northern hardwood - black ash - conifer swamp, Seasonally flooded boreal swamp, Speckled alder wooded fen, Subacid forest seep, Acidic Sphag-num forest seep, Circumneutral hardwood forest, in northern hardwood-conifer forests is more than Northern hardwood seepage forest, Rich mesic forest, 400 feet from roads and other forms of urban de-Semi-rich mesic sugar maple forest, Rich sugar maple velopment.

- oak - hickory terrace forest, Semi-rich Appalachian oak - sugar maple forest

• Predicted northern hardwood-conifer forest in New Hampshire covers a total of 439,573 ha, ap-proximately 19 % of New Hampshires area.

• Approximately 78% of New Hampshires predicted northern hardwood-conifer forest is located in Coos and Grafton counties.

• Approximately 44 % of New Hampshires predict-ed northern hardwood-conifer forest has some level of protection.

• New Hampshires most extensive northern hard-wood-conifer forests are located in Coos county.

• The most challenging issues facing northern hard-wood-conifer forests are development and acid deposition.

• Approximately 407,537 ha or 93% of the land area New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-13

New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions TERRESTRIAL HABITAT:

Alpine Important Wildlife: American pipit, White Moun-tain arctic, White Mountain fritillary Predicted Habitat:

Natural Communities: Alpine cliff, Alpine heath Alpine snowbank, Alpine herbaceous snowbank/rill, Alpine ravine shrub thicket, Bigelows sedge meadow, Black spruce/balsam fir krummholz, Diapensia shrubland, Dwarf shrub - bilberry - rush barren, Felsenmeer, Labrador tea heath - krummholz, Moist alpine herb

- heath meadow, Montane heath woodland, Montane landslide, Red spruce - heath - cinquefoil rocky ridge, Sedge - rush - heath meadow, Sheep laurel - Labrador tea heath - krummholz, Subalpine cold-air talus bar-ren, Subalpine rocky bald, Subalpine sliding fen

• Predicted alpine habitat in New Hampshire covers a total of 3,125 ha, <1% of New Hampshires area, and occurs exclusively in Carroll, Coos, and Graf-ton counties.

• Alpine habitat within the WMNF is protected by the USFS National Wilderness Preservation System and Standards and also Guidelines for Manage-ment Area 8.1 - Alpine Zone.

• New Hampshires most extensive and ecologically diverse area of alpine habitat (2,807 ha) occurs in the Presidential Range. Other sizeable areas exist on Franconia Ridge (153 ha) and Baldface (100 ha).

• The most challenging issues facing alpine habitat are climate change and acid deposition.

• Approximately 3,123 ha or 100% of the land area in alpine habitat is more than 400 feet from roads and other forms of urban development.

3-14 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions TERRESTRIAL HABITAT:

Grasslands Important Wildlife: American bittern, American woodcock, Blandings turtle, Eastern hognose snake, Eastern meadowlark, grasshopper sparrow, horned Predicted Habitat:

lark, migrating/wintering birds, Northern harrier, Grasslands Northern leopard frog, purple martin, smooth green snake, upland sandpiper, vesper sparrow, whip-poor-will, white-tailed deer*, wood turtle, black racer

• Big game species addressed in Big Game Plan Manage-ment Plan Natural Communities: Grasslands are created, man-aged, and maintained by human actions. They are not described in the NHNHB natural communities classification.

• Predicted grassland habitat in New Hampshire in-cludes 94,043 ha (3.9% of New Hampshire area) of grassland complexes at least 10 hectares in size.

Grasslands exceeding 10 ha are located in all New Hampshire counties.

• The largest proportions of grasslands occur in Graf-ton (20%), Merrimack (13%), and Coos (12%)

counties.

• Only 8% percent of New Hampshire grasslands ex-ceeding > 10 hectares are under conservation ease-

• Approximately 44,720 ha or 48% of the land area ment or ownership. The percentage of conserved in grasslands is more than 400 feet from roads and grasslands by county ranges from 4 - 11% with other forms of urban development.

the most area conserved in Merrimack and Straf-ford counties (11% each) and the least in Belknap county (4%).

• New Hampshires airports provide some of the most extensive and highest quality grassland habitat

• The most challenging issues facing grasslands and species that use this habitat for breeding are devel-opment and certain agricultural practices, such as mowing during breeding seasons.

• UNH Complex Systems Research Center docu-mented a 50% decline in active agricultural land from 1962 to 1998 in Rockingham and Strafford County; farm abandonment leads to loss of grass-land either due to development or natural succes-sion New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-15

New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions TERRESTRIAL HABITAT:

Shrublands Important Wildlife: American bittern, American woodcock, black bear*, bobcat, Canada lynx, Eastern box turtle, Eastern hognose snake, Eastern towhee, golden-winged warbler, moose*, New England cot-tontail, migrating/wintering birds, Northern harrier, purple finch, ruffed grouse, smooth green snake, tim-ber rattlesnake, whip-poor-will, white-tailed deer*,

wood turtle, black racer

• Big game species addressed in Big Game Plan Manage-ment Plan Natural Communities: Most shrublands are created, managed, and maintained by human actions. They are not described in the NHNHB natural communi-ties classification..

• Since 1960, the distribution and abundance of shrubland-dependant New England cottontails has declined to such an extent that they are being considered for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act.

• According to USFS surveys, the amount of area in seedling/sapling forest (used here as a surrogate) declined 63% from 1973-2002. Seven counties experienced a 70 - 100% decline. Coos County experienced only a 12% decline.

• New Hampshire has lost more than 6,885 ha of open space to development each year in the past five years. Shrublands are often on good soils or near roads and hence highly desirable for develop-ment.

• The most challenging issues facing shrublands are vegetative succession and urban development.

3-16 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions TERRESTRIAL HABITAT:

Caves and Mines Important Wildlife: Eastern pipistrelle, Indiana bat, Northern myotis, Eastern small-footed bat Predicted Habitat:

Caves and Mines Natural Communities: Not Applicable.

• New Hampshire has 7 mines known to serve as bat hibernacula in Coos, Grafton, and Merrimack counties.

• Two New Hampshire mines supporting hibernac-ula are on lands managed by the New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Develop-ment. The remaining 5 hibernacula are on private lands and lack protective status.

• The most challenging issues facing the habitat that

• Mines providing the best bat hibernaculum habitat, caves and mines provide are recreational activities as evidenced by bat numbers, include one each in such as spelunking and geocaching.

Coos, Grafton, and Merrimack counties.

TERRESTRIAL HABITAT:

Cliffs Important Wildlife: golden eagle, peregrine falcon, Predicted Habitat:

Eastern small-footed bat Cliffs Natural Communities: Alpine cliff, Appalachian oak

- pine rocky ridge, Circumneutral rocky ridge, Cliff seep, Lowland acidic cliff, Lowland circumneutral cliff, Montane acidic cliff, Montane circumneutral cliff, Red spruce - heath - cinquefoil rocky ridge

• Predicted cliff habitat in New Hampshire includes 316 sites and covers 2,350 ha (<1%) of New Hampshires area, primarily in Carroll, Coos, and years, includes 5 sites in Carroll County, 4 sites in Grafton counties. Coos County, and 7 sites in Grafton County.

• The majority of New Hampshires cliffs are protect-

• The most challenging issues facing cliff habitat ed from some human activities by public ownership for nesting birds and plant communities are recre-(66% U.S. Forest Service, 23% New Hampshire ational activities such as hiking and rock climbing.

Division of Parks and Recreation).

• Approximately 2,301 ha or 98% of the land area in

• The best habitat for cliff-nesting raptors, as evi- Cliff habitat is more than 400 feet from roads and denced by Peregrine Falcon use during the past 25 other forms of urban development.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-17

New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions TERRESTRIAL HABITAT:

Coastal Islands Important Wildlife: Arctic tern, black guillemot, common tern, least tern, purple sandpiper, roseate Predicted Habitat:

tern, migrating/wintering birds Coastal Islands Natural Communities: Coastal rocky headland, Coastal shoreline strand/swale, Highbush blueberry

- winterberry shrub thicket, Maritime intertidal rocky shore, Maritime rocky barren, Maritime shrub thick-et, Short graminoid - forb emergent marsh/mud flat

• New Hampshires coastal islands include 4 of the 9 offshore Isles of Shoals and several small islands in Portsmouth Harbor, the Piscatqua River, and Great and Little bays, totaling 332 ha (<1%) of New Hampshires land area.

• Two of the New Hampshire Isles of Shoals (White and Seavey) are owned by the New Hampshire Division of Parks. Seavey Island is managed by NHFG, in partnership with DRED and NHA, as an endangered species nesting area and is pro-tected under both state and federal endangered species laws. In Great Bay, Hen Island is owned by the Town of Newington, Goat Island is owned by NHFG and Fox Island is within the Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge.

• Some of New Hampshires most pristine coastal island habitat exists on the Isles of Shoals, particu-larly on Seavey Island, which is being managed as endangered species nesting habitat.

• The most challenging issues facing coastal island habitat and seabird communities are over-popu-lated and introduced predators.

• Approximately 156 ha or 47% of the coastal island land area is more than 400 feet from roads and other forms of urban development.

3-18 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions TERRESTRIAL HABITAT:

Dunes Important Wildlife: horned lark, least tern, piping plover, semipalmated sandpiper, migrating/wintering Predicted Habitat:

birds Dunes Natural Communities: Bayberry - beach plum mari-time shrubland, Beach grass grassland, Coastal inter-dunal marsh/swale, Coastal shoreline strand/swale, Maritime wooded dune

• Coastal dunes now cover slightly more than 69 ha in New Hampshire, <1% of New Hampshires area.

Coastal dunes are located entirely in Rockingham County, in Hampton, Rye, and Seabrook.

• New Hampshires remaining coastal dunes are pro-tected from some human activities by various fed-eral and state regulations and by public ownership (state and municipal).

• The best remaining coastal dunes are located at the Seabrook Town Beach (48 ha) and Hampton Beach State Park (13 ha).

• The most challenging issues facing dune habitat are recreational activities, oil spills, and rising sea level resulting from climate change. Dunes are one of the most at-risk habitats in New Hampshire.

• Approximately 16 ha or 20% of the Dune land area is more than 400 feet from roads and other forms of urban development.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-19

New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions TERRESTRIAL HABITAT:

Pine Barrens Important Wildlife: barrens xylotype, black racer, broad-lined catopyrrha, common nighthawk, cora moth, Eastern box turtle, Eastern hognose snake, Predicted Habitat:

Eastern towhee, Fowlers toad, frosted elfin butter- Pine Barrens fly, Karner blue butterfly, New England cottontail, persius duskywing, phyllira tiger moth, pine barrens zanclognatha moth, pine pinion moth, sleepy dusky-wing, smooth green snake, whip-poor-will, white-tailed deer*, barrens itame

• Big game species addressed in Big Game Plan Manage-ment Plan Natural Communities: Dry Appalachian oak - hick-ory forest, Dry red oak - white pine forest, Dry river bluff, Mixed pine - red oak woodland, Pitch pine -

Appalachian oak - heath forest, Pitch pine - scrub oak woodland, Red pine - white pine - balsam fir forest

• Predicted pine barrens habitat in New Hampshire covers 9,988 (<1%) of New Hampshires area, located primarily in Carroll and Merrimack coun-ties.

• Approximately 227 ha (560 ac) of the remnant Concord pine barrens is protected through the Concord Municipal Airport Development and Conservation Management Agreement (2000).

Approximately 30% of the remaining Ossipee pine barrens are in conservation ownership.

• Concord pine barrens have the highest known den-sity of rare plants and animals, Ossipee pine barrens are least fragmented and most extensive.

• Approximately 5,583 ha or 56% of pine barrens habitat are more than 400 feet from roads and other forms of urban development.

3-20 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions TERRESTRIAL HABITAT:

Rocky Ridges and Talus Slopes Important Wildlife: black bear*, black racer, bobcat, common nighthawk, timber rattlesnake Predicted Habitat:

• Big game species addressed in Big Game Plan Manage- Rocky Ridges and Talus ment Plan Slopes Natural Communities: Appalachian oak - pine rocky ridge, Chestnut oak forest/woodland, Dry Appalachian oak - hickory forest, Jack pine rocky ridge woodland, Montane acidic cliff, Montane heath woodland, Red oak - ironwood - Pennsylvania sedge woodland, Red pine rocky ridge, Red spruce - heath

- cinquefoil rocky ridge, Alpine/subalpine pond, Chestnut oak forest/woodland, Montane landslide, Montane lichen talus barren, Red oak - black birch wooded talus, Red oak - hickory wooded talus, Red oak - hickory wooded talus, Red oak - ironwood -

Pennsylvania sedge woodland, Rich Appalachian oak rocky woods, Rich mesic forest, Rich red oak rocky woods, Semi-rich Appalachian oak - sugar maple for-est, Semi-rich mesic sugar maple forest, Spruce - birch

- mountain maple wooded talus, Subalpine cold-air talus barren, Temperate lichen talus barren

• Predicted rocky ridge and talus slope habitat in New Hampshire includes 11,351 ha (0.5%) of New Hampshires area primarily in Carroll, Coos, and Grafton counties.

• Much (57%) of New Hampshires mapped rocky ridge and talus slope habitat occurs on conservation lands, including the White Mountain National Forest and private lands under conservation ease-ments.

• Extensive talus slopes occur on Cannon Mountain and in Zealand Notch in Grafton County and on Magalloway Mountain in Coos County. Exempla-ry rocky ridges occur in Conway in Carroll County and in Benton, Grantham, and Rumney in Grafton County.

• The most challenging issues facing rocky ridges and talus slopes are hiking and climbing.

• Approximately 10,871 ha or 96% of the rocky ridge and talus slope habitat are more than 400 feet from roads and other forms of urban development.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-21

New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions WETLAND HABITAT:

Floodplain Forest Important Wildlife: American woodcock, Bland-ings turtle, cerulean warbler, Coopers hawk, Eastern red bat, Jefferson salamander, mink frog, migrating/ Predicted Habitat:

wintering birds, Northern leopard frog, red shoul- Floodplain Forest dered hawk, ribbon snake, silver-haired bat, spotted turtle, veery, white-tailed deer*, wood thrush, wood turtle, Canada warbler

• Big game species addressed in Big Game Plan Manage-ment Plan Natural Communities: Alder - dogwood - arrow-wood alluvial thicket, Alder alluvial shrubland, Al-luvial mixed shrub thicket, Aquatic bed, Balsam fir floodplain/silt plain, Basswood - white ash - black maple floodplain forest, Blue-joint - goldenrod

- virgins bower riverbank/floodplain, Herbaceous riverbank/floodplain, Herbaceous/wooded riverbank/

floodplain, Meadowsweet alluvial thicket, Oxbow buttonbush swamp, Oxbow marsh, Red maple flood-plain forest, Riverbank/floodplain fern glade, Silver maple - false nettle - sensitive fern floodplain forest, Silver maple - wood nettle - ostrich fern floodplain forest, Sugar maple - ironwood - short husk flood-

• The most challenging issue facing floodplain forests plain forest, Sugar maple - silver maple - white ash are human development and transportation infra-floodplain forest, Swamp white oak floodplain forest, structure.

Sycamore floodplain forest

• Approximately 33,191 ha or 73% of floodplain forests are more than 400 feet from roads and other

• New Hampshires predicted floodplain forests cover forms of urban development.

approximately 42,950 ha (1.9%) of New Hamp-shires land area, and are distributed widely across the state in association with larger rivers.

• Approximately 11.6% of New Hampshires flood-plain area is under some form of protection.

• The most extensive montane/near-boreal floodplain occurs in Coos County in the Upper Ammonoosuc River drainage; the most extensive major river silver maple floodplain occurs in Coos County in the Middle Androscoggin River watershed; and the most extensive temperate minor river floodplain occurs in Strafford County in the Lamprey River watershed.

3-22 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions WETLAND HABITAT:

Marsh and Shrub Wetlands Important Wildlife: American bittern, American black duck, American woodcock, banded sunfish, blue-spotted salamander, common moorhen, Eastern Predicted Habitat:

red bat, Fowlers toad, golden-winged warbler, great Marsh and shrub blue heron, Jefferson salamander, least bittern, mink wetlands frog, moose*, New England cottontail, migrating/

wintering birds, Northern harrier, Northern leopard frog, osprey, pied-billed grebe, red shouldered hawk, ribbon snake, ringed boghaunter, rusty blackbird, sedge wren, silver-haired bat, smooth green snake, spotted turtle, Blandings turtle

• Big game species addressed in Big Game Plan Manage-ment Plan Natural Communities: Alder - dogwood - arrow-wood alluvial thicket, Alder alluvial shrubland, Alluvial mixed shrub thicket, Aquatic bed, Bulblet umbrella-sedge open sandy pond shore, Buttonbush basin swamp, Cattail marsh, Deep emergent marsh

- aquatic bed, Herbaceous seepage marsh, Highbush blueberry - winterberry shrub thicket, Hudsonia inland beach strand, Meadow beauty sand plain marsh, Meadowsweet - robust graminoid sand plain marsh, Meadowsweet alluvial thicket, Medium-depth

• Of land within 250 m of mapped marsh and shrub emergent marsh, Mixed tall graminoid - scrub-shrub wetlands, 10% is in conservation ownership and marsh, Montane sandy basin marsh, Northern me- 3% is under conservation easement.

dium sedge meadow marsh, Peaty marsh, Pitch pine

• Some of New Hampshires most extensive marsh

- heath swamp, Red maple - Sphagnum basin swamp, and shrub wetland complexes are located in south-Seasonally flooded boreal swamp, Seasonally flooded ern New Hampshire, including Belknap and Rock-red maple swamp, Sharp-flowered manna-grass shal- ingham counties.

low peat marsh, Short graminoid - forb emergent

• The most challenging issues facing many wildlife marsh/mud flat, Spike-rush - floating-leaved aquatic species that depend on marsh and shrub wetlands mud flat, Swamp white oak basin swamp, Sweet gale are fragmentation, transportation infrastructure,

- speckled alder shrub thicket, Tall graminoid emer- development of surrounding uplands and invasive gent marsh, Three-way sedge - manna-grass mud flat species.

marsh, Twig-rush sandy turf pond shore, Water lobe-

• Approximately 375,779 ha or 45% of buffered lia aquatic sandy pond shore (250 m) marsh and shrub wetlands are more than 400 feet from by roads and other forms of urban

• Predicted marsh and shrub wetlands in New Hamp- development.

shire cover 57,495 ha (2.4%) of New Hampshires area (unbuffered), and are broadly distributed.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-23

New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions WETLAND HABITAT:

Peatlands Important Wildlife: Blandings turtle, Eastern towhee, mink frog, Northern bog lemming, palm warbler, ribbon snake, ringed boghaunter, rusty Predicted Habitat:

blackbird, spotted turtle, spruce grouse Peatlands Natural Communities: Acidic northern white cedar swamp, Atlantic white cedar - giant rhododendron swamp, Atlantic white cedar - yellow birch - pep-perbush swamp, Atlantic white cedar swamp, Black gum - red maple basin swamp, Black spruce - larch swamp, Calcareous sedge - moss fen, Hemlock - cin-namon fern forest, Highbush blueberry - mountain holly wooded fen, Highbush blueberry - winter-berry shrub thicket, Inland Atlantic white cedar swamp, Northern hardwood - black ash - conifer swamp, Northern white cedar - balsam fir swamp, Northern white cedar - hemlock swamp, Northern white cedar swamp, Pitch pine - heath swamp, Red maple - red oak - cinnamon fern forest, Red maple

- sensitive fern swamp, Red maple - Sphagnum basin swamp, Red maple - Sphagnum basin swamp, Red spruce swamp, Seasonally flooded Atlantic white cedar swamp, Seasonally flooded red maple swamp, Speckled alder wooded fen, Swamp white oak basin

• Predicted peatlands cover 23,350 ha (1%) of New swamp, Sweet pepperbush wooded fen, Winterberry Hampshires total land area (unbuffered), and clus-

- cinnamon fern wooded fen, Bog rosemary - sweet ters are widely distributed across the state.

gale - sedge fen, Calcareous sedge - moss fen, Cir-

• Of land within 250 m of predicted peatlands, 16%

cumneutral - calcareous flark, Floating marshy peat is under some form of protection.

mat, Hairy-fruited sedge - sweet gale fen, Highbush

• New Hampshires largest peatland complexes occur blueberry - sweet gale - meadowsweet shrub thicket, in Carroll county.

Large cranberry - short sedge moss lawn, Leather-leaf

• The most challenging issues facing peatlands habi-

- black spruce bog, Leather-leaf - sheep laurel dwarf tat are development, altered hydrology, non-point shrub bog, Liverwort/horned bladderwort mud-bot- source pollutants, and unsustainable forest harvest-tom, Marshy moat, Montane alder - heath shrub ing.

thicket, Montane heath woodland, Montane slop-

• Approximately 206,556 ha or 75% of buffered ing fen, Northern white cedar circumneutral string, (250 m) peatlands are more than 400 feet from Speckled alder - lake sedge intermediate fen, Speckled roads and other forms of urban development.

alder wooded fen, Sphagnum rubellum - small cran-berry moss carpet, Subalpine sliding fen, Sweet gale

- meadowsweet - tussock sedge fen, Sweet pepperbush wooded fen, Water willow - Sphagnum lagg, Water willow - Sphagnum lagg, Wet alpine/subalpine bog, Winterberry - cinnamon fern wooded fen, Wooded subalpine bog/heath snowbank 3-24 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions WETLAND HABITAT:

Salt Marshes Important Wildlife: American black duck, common tern, great blue heron, Nelsons sharp-tailed sparrow, Predicted Habitat:

Northern harrier, salt marsh sharp-tailed sparrow, sea- Salt Marshes side sparrow, semipalmated sandpiper, white-tailed deer*, willet, migrating/wintering birds

• Big game species addressed in Big Game Plan Manage-ment Plan Natural Communities: Brackish marsh, Coastal salt pond marsh, Coastal shoreline strand/swale, High brackish tidal riverbank marsh, High salt marsh, Intertidal rocky shore, Low brackish tidal riverbank marsh, Low salt marsh, Saline/brackish intertidal flat, Salt pannes and pools

• New Hampshires remaining salt marsh habitat includes approximately 2,274 ha, approximately

(<0.1%) of New Hampshires area, and 50-70% of the states original salt marsh. All New Hampshires salt marshes are located in Rockingham County.

• All New Hampshire salt marshes are protected from many human activities by Department of Environ-mental Services regulations. Some marshes, as well as some areas of the Hampton Marsh complex, are further protected through conservation easements.

• The best and most extensive salt marsh habitat in the state occurs in the Hampton Marsh complex, located in Hampton, Seabrook, and North Hamp-ton.

• The most challenging issues facing salt marshes are human development and altered hydrology.

• Approximately 1858 ha or 82% of the land area in salt marsh habitat are more than 400 feet from roads and other forms of urban development.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-25

New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions WETLAND HABITAT:

Vernal Pools Important Wildlife: Blandings turtle, blue-spotted salamander, Jefferson salamander, marbled salaman-der, ribbon snake, spotted turtle Natural Communities: Vernal floodplain pool, Vernal woodland pool , Meadow beauty sand plain marsh, Meadowsweet - robust graminoid sand plain marsh, Montane sandy basin marsh, Sharp-flow-ered manna-grass shallow peat marsh, Spike-rush

- floating-leaved aquatic mud flat, Three-way sedge

- manna-grass mud flat marsh, Highbush blueberry

- winterberry shrub thicket

• Vernal pools occur at scattered locations through-out New Hampshire.

• The proportion of New Hampshires vernal pools in conservation ownership is unknown.

• Many of the rare species that depend on vernal pools are restricted to southern New Hampshire.

• The most important wildlife values of vernal pools are provision of critical foraging and breeding habitat for a number of reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates.

• The most challenging issues facing vernal pool habitats are human development and transporta-tion infrastructure, wetland filling, altered hydrol-ogy, and loss or degradation of surrounding upland habitats.

3-26 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions WATERSHED GROUPING:

Coastal Transitional Watersheds Important Wildlife: American eel, Atlantic salmon, bald eagle, banded sunfish, Blandings turtle, bridle shiner, brook floater, burbot, common loon, East- Watershed Grouping:

ern brook trout, lake trout, lake whitefish, North- Coastal Transitional ern leopard frog, rainbow smelt, round whitefish, sea lamprey, slimy sculpin, spotted turtle, Sunapee trout, swamp darter, tessellated darter, wood turtle, migrating/wintering birds, osprey Natural Communities: Acidic riverbank outcrop, Acidic riverside seep, Alder - dogwood - arrowwood alluvial thicket, Alder alluvial shrubland, Alluvial mixed shrub thicket, Aquatic bed, Blue-joint - gold-enrod - virgins bower riverbank/floodplain, Boulder

- cobble river channel, Calcareous riverside seep, Cat-tail marsh, Circumneutral riverbank outcrop, Cobble

- sand river channel, Deep emergent marsh - aquatic bed, Dwarf cherry river channel, Herbaceous low riverbank, Herbaceous riverbank/floodplain, Her-baceous sandy river channel, Herbaceous/wooded riverbank/floodplain, Hudsonia - silverling river channel, Meadowsweet alluvial thicket, Medium-depth emergent marsh, Riverbank/floodplain fern glade, Short graminoid - forb emergent marsh/mud flat, Twisted sedge low riverbank, Willow low river-bank, Eelgrass bed, Oyster bed, Saline/brackish sub-tidal channel/bay bottom, Tidal creek bottom

• Coastal Transitional Watersheds comprise approxi-mately 470,617 ha or 19.6% of New Hampshires total area and 38,675 ha or 42.8% of New Hamp-shires surface waters primarily in Hillsboro, Mer-rimack, Belknap, Carroll counties.

• Approximately 59,359 ha or 13.7% the land area in Coastal Transitional Watersheds is under some form of protection.

• The most challenging issue facing Coastal Transi-tional Watersheds is introduced species.

• Approximately 300,358 ha or 69.5% of the land area in Coastal Transitional Watersheds are more than 400 feet from roads and other forms of devel-opment.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-27

New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions WATERSHED GROUPING:

Connecticut River Mainstem Watersheds Important Wildlife: American eel, American shad, Atlantic salmon, bald eagle, blueback herrring, bur-bot, common loon, dwarf wedgemussel, Eastern Watershed Grouping:

brook trout, Eastern pond mussel, Northern leopard Connecticut River Main-frog, osprey, sea lamprey, slimy sculpin, tessellated stem Watersheds darter, wood turtle, migrating/wintering birds, cob-blestone tiger beetle Natural Communities: Acidic riverbank outcrop, Acidic riverside seep, Alder - dogwood - arrowwood alluvial thicket, Alder alluvial shrubland, Alluvial mixed shrub thicket, Aquatic bed, Blue-joint - gold-enrod - virgins bower riverbank/floodplain, Boulder

- cobble river channel, Calcareous riverside seep, Cat-tail marsh, Circumneutral riverbank outcrop, Cobble

- sand river channel, Deep emergent marsh - aquatic bed, Dwarf cherry river channel, Herbaceous low riverbank, Herbaceous riverbank/floodplain, Her-baceous sandy river channel, Herbaceous/wooded riverbank/floodplain, Hudsonia - silverling river channel, Meadowsweet alluvial thicket, Medium-depth emergent marsh, Riverbank/floodplain fern glade, Short graminoid - forb emergent marsh/mud flat, Twisted sedge low riverbank, Willow low river-bank, Eelgrass bed, Oyster bed, Saline/brackish sub-tidal channel/bay bottom, Tidal creek bottom

• Connecticut River mainstem watersheds com-prise approximately 217,618 ha or 9.0% of New Hampshires total area and 7,573 ha or 8.4% of New Hampshires surface waters primarily in Coos, Grafton, Sullivan, Cheshire counties.

• Approximately 32,698 ha or 15.6% the land area in Connecticut River mainstem watersheds is under some form of protection.

• The most challenging issues facing the Connecticut River mainstem watersheds are non-point source pollution and agriculture.

• Approximately 166,556 ha or 79.3% of the land area in Connecticut River mainstem watersheds are more than 400 feet from roads and other forms of urban development.

3-28 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions WATERSHED GROUPING:

Montane Watersheds Important Wildlife: Atlantic salmon, burbot, East-ern brook trout, mink frog, migrating/wintering birds, Northern leopard frog, slimy sculpin, wood Watershed Grouping:

turtle, rainbow smelt Montane Watersheds Natural Communities: Acidic riverbank outcrop, Acidic riverside seep, Alder - dogwood - arrowwood alluvial thicket, Alder alluvial shrubland, Alluvial mixed shrub thicket, Aquatic bed, Blue-joint - gold-enrod - virgins bower riverbank/floodplain, Boulder

- cobble river channel, Calcareous riverside seep, Cat-tail marsh, Circumneutral riverbank outcrop, Cobble

- sand river channel, Deep emergent marsh - aquatic bed, Dwarf cherry river channel, Herbaceous low riverbank, Herbaceous riverbank/floodplain, Her-baceous sandy river channel, Herbaceous/wooded riverbank/floodplain, Hudsonia - silverling river channel, Meadowsweet alluvial thicket, Medium-depth emergent marsh, Riverbank/floodplain fern glade, Short graminoid - forb emergent marsh/mud flat, Twisted sedge low riverbank, Willow low river-bank, Eelgrass bed, Oyster bed, Saline/brackish sub-tidal channel/bay bottom, Tidal creek bottom

• Montane Watersheds comprise approximately 423,615 ha or 17.6% of New Hampshires total area and 3,415 ha or 3.8% of New Hampshires surface waters primarily in Coos, Grafton, Carroll counties.

• Approximately 273,325 ha or 65.0% the land area in Montane Watersheds is under some form of pro-tection.

• No critical threats to Montane Watersheds have been identified. However, acid deposition and non-point source pollution are serious and likely to become more problematic over time.

• Approximately 372,010 ha or 88.5% of the land area in Montane Watersheds are more than 400 feet from roads and other forms of urban develop-ment.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-29

New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions WATERSHED GROUPING:

Northern Upland Watersheds Important Wildlife: American eel, Atlantic salmon, bald eagle, burbot, common loon, dwarf wedge-mussel, Eastern brook trout, finescale dace, lake Watershed Grouping:

trout, lake whitefish, mink frog, Northern leopard Northern Upland frog, Northern redbelly dace, osprey, round white- Watersheds fish, slimy sculpin, tessellated darter, wood turtle, migrating/wintering birds, rainbow smelt Natural Communities: Acidic riverbank outcrop, Acidic riverside seep, Alder - dogwood - arrowwood alluvial thicket, Alder alluvial shrubland, Alluvial mixed shrub thicket, Aquatic bed, Blue-joint - gold-enrod - virgins bower riverbank/floodplain, Boulder

- cobble river channel, Calcareous riverside seep, Cat-tail marsh, Circumneutral riverbank outcrop, Cobble

- sand river channel, Deep emergent marsh - aquatic bed, Dwarf cherry river channel, Herbaceous low riverbank, Herbaceous riverbank/floodplain, Her-baceous sandy river channel, Herbaceous/wooded riverbank/floodplain, Hudsonia - silverling river channel, Meadowsweet alluvial thicket, Medium-depth emergent marsh, Riverbank/floodplain fern glade, Short graminoid - forb emergent marsh/mud flat, Twisted sedge low riverbank, Willow low river-bank, Eelgrass bed, Oyster bed, Saline/brackish sub-tidal channel/bay bottom, Tidal creek bottom

• Northern Upland Watersheds comprise approxi-mately 332,247 ha or 13.8% of New Hampshires total area and 8,159 ha or 9.0% of New Hamp-shires surface waters primarily in Coos County.

• Approximately 73,373 ha or 22.6% the land area in Northern Upland Watersheds is under some form of protection.

• No critical threats to Northern Upland Watersheds have been identified. However, development and altered hydrology are likely to become more prob-lematic over time.

• Approximately 304,191 ha or 93.9% of the land area in Northern Upland Watersheds are more than 400 feet from roads and other forms of urban de-velopment.

3-30 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions WATERSHED GROUPING:

Non-tidal Coastal Watersheds Important Wildlife: alewife, American brook lam-prey, American eel, American shad, Atlantic salmon, Watershed Grouping:

Atlantic sturgeon, bald eagle, banded sunfish, Blan- Non-tidal Coastal dings turtle, blueback herrring, bridle shiner, brook Watersheds floater, burbot, common loon, Eastern brook trout, Eastern pond mussel, rainbow smelt, redfin pickerel, sea lamprey, shortnose sturgeon, slimy sculpin, spot-ted turtle, swamp darter, tessellated darter, wood turtle, migrating/wintering birds, osprey Natural Communities: Acidic riverbank outcrop, Acidic riverside seep, Alder - dogwood - arrowwood alluvial thicket, Alder alluvial shrubland, Alluvial mixed shrub thicket, Aquatic bed, Blue-joint - gold-enrod - virgins bower riverbank/floodplain, Boulder

- cobble river channel, Calcareous riverside seep, Cat-tail marsh, Circumneutral riverbank outcrop, Cobble

- sand river channel, Deep emergent marsh - aquatic bed, Dwarf cherry river channel, Herbaceous low riverbank, Herbaceous riverbank/floodplain, Her-baceous sandy river channel, Herbaceous/wooded riverbank/floodplain, Hudsonia - silverling river channel, Meadowsweet alluvial thicket, Medium-depth emergent marsh, Riverbank/floodplain fern glade, Riverbank/floodplain fern glade, Short grami-noid - forb emergent marsh/mud flat, Twisted sedge low riverbank, Willow low riverbank, Eelgrass bed, Oyster bed, Saline/brackish subtidal channel/bay bot-tom, Tidal creek bottom

• Non-Tidal Coastal Watersheds comprise approxi-mately 176,078 ha or 7.3% of New Hampshires total area and 5,940 ha or 6.6% of New Hamp-shires surface waters primarily in Hillsboro, Mer-rimack, Rockingham counties.

• Approximately 18,769 ha or 11.0% the land area in Non-Tidal Coastal Watersheds is under some form of protection.

• The most challenging issues facing non-tidal coastal watersheds are development and non-point source pollution.

• Approximately 91,575 ha or 53.8% of the land area in Non-Tidal Coastal Watersheds are more than 400 feet from roads and urban development.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-31

New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions WATERSHED GROUPING:

Southern Upland Watersheds Important Wildlife: Atlantic salmon, bald eagle, banded sunfish, brook floater, burbot, common loon, dwarf wedgemussel, Eastern brook trout, Watershed Grouping:

Eastern pond mussel, lake trout, Northern redbelly Southern Upland dace, osprey, round whitefish, slimy sculpin, spotted Watersheds turtle, Sunapee trout, tessellated darter, wood turtle, migrating/wintering birds, rainbow smelt Natural Communities: Acidic riverbank outcrop, Acidic riverside seep, Alder - dogwood - arrowwood alluvial thicket, Alder alluvial shrubland, Alluvial mixed shrub thicket, Aquatic bed, Blue-joint - gold-enrod - virgins bower riverbank/floodplain, Boulder

- cobble river channel, Calcareous riverside seep, Cat-tail marsh, Circumneutral riverbank outcrop, Cobble

- sand river channel, Deep emergent marsh - aquatic bed, Dwarf cherry river channel, Herbaceous low riverbank, Herbaceous riverbank/floodplain, Her-baceous sandy river channel, Herbaceous/wooded riverbank/floodplain, Hudsonia - silverling river channel, Meadowsweet alluvial thicket, Medium-depth emergent marsh, Riverbank/floodplain fern glade, Short graminoid - forb emergent marsh/mud flat, Twisted sedge low riverbank, Willow low river-bank, Eelgrass bed, Oyster bed, Saline/brackish sub-tidal channel/bay bottom, Tidal creek bottom

• Southern Upland Watersheds comprise approxi-mately 552,062 ha or 23.0% of New Hampshires total area and 16,295 ha or 18.0% of New Hamp-shires surface waters primarily in Cheshire, Hills-boro, Sullivan, Merrimack, Grafton counties.

• Approximately 98,583 ha or 18.4% the land area in Southern Upland Watersheds is under some form of protection.

• No critical threats to Southern Upland Watersheds have been identified. However, acid deposition and non-point source pollution are likely to become more problematic over time.

• Approximately 417,284 ha or 77.9% of the land area in Southern Upland Watersheds are more than 400 feet from roads and other forms of develop-ment.

3-32 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions WATERSHED GROUPING:

Tidal Coastal Watersheds Important Wildlife: alewife, American brook lam-prey, American eel, American shad, Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, bald eagle, banded sunfish, Watershed Grouping:

Blandings turtle, blueback herrring, bridle shiner, Tidal Coastal Watersheds brook floater, burbot, common loon, Eastern brook trout, Eastern pond mussel, Northern leopard frog, rainbow smelt, redfin pickerel, sea lamprey, shortnose sturgeon, spotted turtle, swamp darter, wood turtle, migrating/wintering birds, osprey Natural Communities: Acidic riverbank outcrop, Acidic riverside seep, Alder - dogwood - arrowwood alluvial thicket, Alder alluvial shrubland, Alluvial mixed shrub thicket, Aquatic bed, Blue-joint - gold-enrod - virgins bower riverbank/floodplain, Boulder

- cobble river channel, Boulder - cobble river channel, Calcareous riverside seep, Cattail marsh, Circumneu-tral riverbank outcrop, Cobble - sand river channel, Deep emergent marsh - aquatic bed, Dwarf cherry river channel, Herbaceous low riverbank, Herba-ceous riverbank/floodplain, Herbaceous sandy river channel, Herbaceous/wooded riverbank/floodplain, Hudsonia - silverling river channel, Meadowsweet alluvial thicket, Medium-depth emergent marsh, Riverbank/floodplain fern glade, Short graminoid

- forb emergent marsh/mud flat, Twisted sedge low riverbank, Willow low riverbank, Eelgrass bed, Oys-ter bed, Saline/brackish subtidal channel/bay bottom, Tidal creek bottom

• Tidal coastal watersheds comprise approximately 233,496 ha or 9.7% of New Hampshires total area and 10,360 ha or 11.5% of New Hampshires surface waters primarily in Rockingham, Strafford, Carroll counties.

• Approximately 21,916 ha or 9.8% the land area in tidal coastal watersheds is protected.

• The most challenging issue facing tidal coastal wa-tersheds is development (urbanization, habitat loss and conversion, non-point source pollution, etc.)

• Approximately 143,939 ha or 64.5% of the land area in tidal coastal watersheds are more than 400 feet from roads and other forms of urban develop-ment.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-33

New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions References Energy Fund, Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, and Northeast Utilities System.

1 Complex Systems Research Center, University of New Hampshire, Nov. 2004 1:24,000 water bodies, from U.S. 14 NH Office of Energy and Planning: NH Personal Wire-Geological Survey digital line graph data less Service Facilities, 2004 2

NH Department of Transportation: SmartMap road 15 Appalachian Mountain Club: trails, 2005; and NHOEP inventory database, Dec. 2004 recreation inventory, 2003.

3 NOAA: Environmental Sensitivity Index maps prepared 16 NH Dept. of Resources and Economic Development:

in cooperation with NH Dept. of Environmental Services atv trails, primary snowmobile corridors, March 2005 for oil spill response planning, Dec. 2004 Applicable only to coastal islands and dune habitat. 17 CSRC: developed from 1:24,000-scale USGS digital line graph data, Oct. 2003 4

CSRC: Conservation/Public Lands, Feb. 2005 18 NH Dept. of Transportation: railroads, Jan. 2005 5

NH Dept. of Environmental Services: designated prime wetlands, Feb. 2005 19 Eastern Resource Office of The Nature Conservancy:

Applicable only to marsh, peatland, floodplain forest ecological land units, July 2003 6

NH Audubon: non-breeding bird areas, Feb. 2005 20 NH Chapter of The Nature Conservancy: Integrated Applicable only to marsh, peatland, floodplain forest Fragmentation Surface for the State of New Hampshire, DRAFT July 2005 7

NHDES: wetlands alteration permit sites 2000-2004, Feb. 2005 21 NH Chapter of The Nature Conservancy/NH Natural Applicable only to marsh, peatland, floodplain forest Heritage Bureau, July 2005 8

NHDES: groundwater hazard inventory (project type is 22 NHDES Watershed approach, March 2005 known threat), Nov. 2004 Applicable only to coastal islands, dunes, marsh, peatland, 23 Biodiversity Research Institute, March 2005 floodplain forest Olivero, A., and D. Bechtel. 2005. Classification 9

NHDES: groundwater hazard inventory (project type is and Condition Assessment for New Hampshire potential threat), above ground storage tanks, underground Lakes. The Nature Conservancy, New Hampshire storage tanks, RCRA hazardous waste generators, auto sal- Chapter, Concord, New Hampshire, USA.

vage yards, local source water hazard inventory, nonpoint potential pollution, NPDES outfalls, Nov. 2004 Applicable only to coastal islands, dunes, marsh, peatland, Disclaimer floodplain forest Most data represent stock data sets obtained from NH 10 NHDES: lake drawdown schedule, Fall 2004 GRANIT, at Complex Systems Research Center, UNH.

Applicable to marsh, peatland, floodplain forest CSRC, under contract to the NH Office of Energy and Planning (OEP), and in consultation with cooperating 11 NHDES: registered water users and community water agencies, maintains a continuing program to identify and supplies, Nov. 2004 correct errors in these data. NHOEP, CSRC, NHFG and Applicable to marsh, peatland, floodplain forest the cooperating agencies make no claim as to the validity or reliability or to any implied uses of these data.

12 NH Fish & Game Dept: statewide generalized buildout analysis, March 2005 13 Massachusetts Technology Collaborative: wind power raster data finalized June 2003. Developed by TrueWind Solutions, LLC under contract to AWS Scientific, Inc as part of a project jointly funded by the Connecticut Clean 3-34 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

CHAPTER FOUR Wildlife Risk Assessment Overview This chapter addresses Element 3 of the NAAT Guidelines, which requires, descriptions of problems that may adversely affect species identified in Element 1 or their habitats, and priority research and survey efforts needed to identify factors which may assist in restoration and improved conservation of these RISK species and habitats. New Hampshires habitats and wildlife are affected by many challenging issues, rang-ing from broad-scale threats such as climate change to local-scale threats such as cessation of grassland mow-ing. Conservation and management programs depend on an objective assessment of the degree of risks posed to species and habitats of greatest concern.

Generally, quantitative data on factors that influ-ence New Hampshire wildlife are lacking. The factors FIGURE 4-1. Risk factor ranking process. Wildlife experts for which data are available are evaluated in chapter identified risks to wildlife, and scored each risk based on their experience, published literature, and peer review.

3. This chapter is based on the results of a structured qualitative assessment of factors that influence wildlife and their habitats. Using expert opinion of regional rent classification of aquatic habitats is incomplete.

scientists and managers, and scientific literature, New Peer-review was somewhat limited for many wildlife Hampshire sought to meet the following objectives: species assessments due to the limited availability of taxonomic expertise. Rather than assess threats to

• Describe risk factors in a consistent format individual fish species with poorly known distribu-

• Objectively prioritize conservation actions within tions, the assumption was made that these and other and among species and habitats aquatic species are similarly influenced by threats to

• Compile an overview of challenging issues aquatic habitats, which were assessed by watershed group. This approach was intended to shift from For all habitat assessments, wildlife were assumed a species-specific approach to a more inclusive as-to be an integral part of the habitat. Therefore, in sessment of aquatic ecosystems in New Hampshire.

this chapter, risks to broad groups of wildlife are However, because of the volume of information considered risks to the habitat at large. Thorough available and recent initiatives to restore the Atlantic peer-reviewed qualitative assessments were completed salmon and assess native eastern brook trout popula-for wetland and terrestrial habitats, but assessments tions, we included an analysis of threats to these two are preliminary for aquatic habitats, since the cur- fish species.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-1

Wildlife Risk Assessment Risk Assessment Results Addressing underlying causes or factors that pose a risk to wildlife, rather than waiting to manipulate Wildlife habitats and populations are exposed to dwindling populations or habitats after the fact, is enormous pressure from human population growth a powerful and pre-emptive long-term solution. In and recreational activities. Urban development is the chapter 2, we identified some of the wildlife and most challenging issue for most of New Hampshires habitats that showed symptoms of declining health.

wildlife and habitats. Many habitats are rapidly dis- We developed a structured approach to understand appearing or are fragmented by roads and dams, and the most prevalent risk factors for these declines and many ecosystems are disrupted by human activities. to work toward their recovery.

Even if all the land necessary to support New Patterns of cause and effect were organized sys-Hampshires critical populations and habitats could tematically to diagnose the main exposure pathways be protected from development, without improving for factors that threaten wildlife. Next, species and air and water quality, the long-term viability of New habitat experts completed scoring forms that ranked Hampshires wildlife will not be sustained. Runoff five variables (scope, severity, timing, likelihood, and polluted with agrochemicals and urban waste is toxic information) for each known threat. The scores given for many species, and atmospheric pollution causes were based on strict criteria, and were subject to a broad degradation to all habitats. peer-review process. Evidence to support or refute Acid deposition leaches nutrients from forest scores was carefully evaluated by NHFG biologists.

soils, and forests across the Northeast are showing Finally, scores were cross tabulated and summarized signs of distress, such as compositional shifts and re- to clarify which sources pose the greatest risk to spe-duced forage quality. Unfortunately, nutrients that are cies and habitats, and which species and habitats are being lost, like calcium, come primarily from bedrock at greatest risk. The process allowed biologists to criti-and cannot be replaced. Acid deposition can also ag- cally analyze the range of expert opinions and focus gravate other environmental problems, contributing on critical problems.

to widespread ecological damage; mercury accumu- For the purposes of the WAP, NHFG created a lates more rapidly in wildlife under acidic conditions, list of 18 challenging issues that are most relevant to even in remote and relatively unpolluted waterbodies. its habitats and species of conservation concern, and Mercury can migrate over the land and through for- conducted a risk assessment for each one. NHFG de-ests via insects and their predators. If mercury sources veloped a two-step process to determine the applica-can be cutrailed promptly, wildlife may recover before bility and severity of different risk factors within each populations are permanently damaged. challenging issue, using a numeric scoring system to Likewise, if climate change is not addressed, New determine rank and class for comparative purposes.

Hampshires wildlife and natural resources will be al- Government, NGO, and academic scientists were tered, particularly those in geographic extremes, such contracted to complete the ranking process and write as mountaintops, northern lakes, and coastal islands. summaries for their species or habitat of expertise, To prevent ultraviolet radiation, warmer tempera- drawing on professional experience and a review of tures, and the many attendant effects of ozone deple- published and unpublished sources.

tion, emissions must be addressed. The summary rank is a planning and decision-making tool, not a true quantitative measure. The Risk Factor Ranking Process purpose of the ranking process was to provide a consistent basis for comparing risk factors across all All of the challenges that wildlife face can be viewed species and habitats, and for placing those factors as having two aspects in common. First, each has into categories of appropriate conservation action.

certain risk factors that potentially have negative The ranking process formed the basis for the risk impacts on wildlife, and second, each has a series of assessment summaries presented in this chapter. Al-events or an exposure pathway that brings a risk though the ranking process can be somewhat subjec-factor to fruition for wildlife. It is more difficult and tive, each step of the process was clearly described and expensive to repair the damage once it is done than it fully transparent, allowing NHFG to assess and revise is to address risk and avoid exposure in the first place. ranks as new information emerges.

4-2 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Wildlife Risk Assessment RISK FACTOR RANKING PROCESS Step One: Risk Exposure Form Working from a list of challenging issues provided by NHFG, experts and expert panels compiled a list of all the associated risk factors relevant to each species and habitat. The experts carefully evaluated the series of events, or exposure pathway, that may cause each factor to become a problem for wildlife.

Step Two: Rank Risk factors from form 1 were scored and ranked, using categorical criteria to assign numeric scores (1, 2, 3, or 4) (form 2). Each risk factor received five scores for magnitude (scope and severity) and urgency (timing, likelihood, and information). These are described briefly here and more fully in Appendix M.

• Scope: Percent (%) of the statewide distribution of the species/habitat that may be exposed to the risk factor

• Severity: Degree of loss of function in the exposed population/habitat (e.g., due to stressed survival, reproduction, foraging, etc.)

• Timing: Time until exposed population begins to lose function

• Likelihood: Probability that the scope, severity, and timing of the risk factor will be realized

• Information: Quality or reliability of the evidence, experience, or factual knowledge supporting the scores provided An overall rank was computed for each risk factor, using a formula that gave equal weight to magnitude and urgency and scaled the result to 4. Scores could range from 0.25 (if all factors were ranked as 1.0) to 4.0 (if all factors ranked as 4.0). Scores were then categorized from 14, with 4 indicating highest possible risk.

Step 3: Summarizing Risk to Species and Habitats Qualitative scores and ranks were compiled in a database, collated by broad categories (challenging issues), submitted to wildlife biologists for final review, and edited for internal consistency. The frequency of ranked exposure pathway scores that fell into the four risk categories were tabulated by categories, following the maximum effects rule as described below. Next, the average maximum effect was cal-culated within categories. Only maximum values for affected species and habitats were included in this average, so it provides a reasonable index of the Intensity of a given risk factor. Finally, the cumulative effect of all the exposure pathways scored was summed within each category, and divided by the total number of all the species/habitats that were assessed to provide an index of the Cumulative effect of the category. Results are shown in table 4-1 and table 4-2. To avoid misinterpretation, ranks are not shown.

Summaries of the major exposure pathways were written up in detail and grouped under broad categories for analysis.

Step 4: Summarizing Challenging Issues Ranks and score were summarized to provide an index of relative risk to species and habitats. First, the frequency of ranked exposure pathway scores that fell into the four risk categories were tabulated by spe-cies and habitat. For any issue, only the maximum effects to species and habitats were tallied. Next, the average value of the top scoring exposure pathways was recorded for each species (top 3 exposure pathways) and habitat (top 6). Only the top values were used because the number of exposure path-ways varied across species and habitats. Finally, the cumulative effect of all the exposure pathways was summed for each species and habitat. Results are shown in table 4-3.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-3

Wildlife Risk Assessment TABLE 4-1. Preliminary habitat risk groups. Habitats were placed into risk groups based on information provided on risk assessment forms.

4 3 2 Grasslands Alpine Montane Watersheds Appalachian Oak Pine Forest Shrublands Northern Upland Watersheds Coastal Islands Caves and Mines Peatlands Dunes Cliffs Southern Upland Watersheds Hemlock-Hardwood-Pine Forest Coastal Transitional Watersheds Lowland Spruce-Fir Forest Connecticut River Mainstem Watersheds Non-Tidal Coastal Watersheds Floodplain Forests Pine Barrens High Elevation Spruce-Fir Forest Salt Marshes Marsh and Shrub Wetlands Tidal Coastal Watersheds Non-breeding Bird Habitat Vernal Pools Northern Hardwood-Conifer Forest Talus Slopes and Rocky Ridges

• Appalachian oak-pine forest (424,943 ac), hemlock-hardwood-pine forest (2,688,744 ac), and lowland spruce-fir forest (770,048 ac),

comprise 72% of New Hampshires land area. Risk intensity varies within this extensive area; some lands are protected and others are developed. It is most accurate to state that among New Hampshires large-scale habitats these 3 are in the highest risk category, rather than the total area of these habitats is in the highest risk category.

TABLE 4-2. Preliminary species risk groups. Data and taxonomic expertise were limiting factors for many fish and wildlife species. Obtaining peer review to validate the risk groups and completing assessments for poorly studied fish and wildlife are high priority tasks for WAP implementation.

LEVEL 4 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 1 American Brook Lamprey American Eel Alewife Bats Atlantic Salmon American Marten American Bittern Burbot Atlantic Sturgeon American Shad Banded Sunfish Cooper's Hawk Cobblestone Tiger Beetle American Woodcock Bicknell's Thrush Eastern Racer Common Loon Bald Eagle Blueback Herring Eastern Red Bat Common Tern Blandings Turtle Bobcat Finescale Dace Dwarf Wedgemussel Brook Floater Bridle Shiner Hoar y Bat Eastern Pondmussel Eastern Brook Trout Common Nighthawk Lake Trout Jefferson Salamander Eastern Pipistrelle Grasshopper Sparrow Northern Bog Lemming Karner Blue Butterfly Fowlers Toad Lake Whitefish Northern Harrier Nelson's Sharp-tailed Sparrow Hognose Snake Marbled Salamander Redbelly Dace New England Cottontail Indiana Bat Northern Goshawk Silver Haired Bat Northern Leopard Frog Lynx Pied-billed Grebe Slimy Sculpin Piping Plover Northern Myotis Rainbow Smelt Smooth Green Snake Roseate Tern Osprey Redfin Pickerel Tesselated Darter Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrow Peregrine Falcon Red-shouldered Hawk Seaside Sparrow Purple Martin Ringed Boghaunter Shortnose Sturgeon Racer Round Whitefish Timber Rattlesnake Ruffed Grouse Rusty Blackbird Willet Small Footed Bat Sea Lamprey Spotted Turtle Sedge Wren Spruce Grouse Swamp Darter Whip-poor Will Three-toed Woodpecker White Mountain Arctic Upland Sandpiper White Mountain Fritillar y Wood Turtle 4-4 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Wildlife Risk Assessment TABLE 4-3. Top 10 risk factors for New Hampshires wildlife and habitats. Average scores should be interpreted only as a relative measure within each group below. Scores from fish risk assessments were not available for this analysis. Risk as-sessment scores for fish are being reviewed as data and expertise become available.

(A) Cumulative risk to habitats (B) Cumulative risk to wildlife ISSUE AVERAGE SCORE* ISSUE AVERAGE SCORE*

1 Development 2. 6 1 Development 2. 1 2 Recreation 1.8 2 Recreation 1. 1 3 Transportation Infrastructure 1.4 3 Scarcity 0. 8 4 Introduced Species 1.4 4 Transportation Infrastructure 0. 8 5 Acid Deposition 1.3 5 Introduced Species 0. 7 6 Unsustainable Har vest 1. 1 6 Non-point Source Pollution 0.6 7 Non-point Source Pollution 1. 1 7 Predation and Herbivor y 0.6 8 Altered Hydrology 1.0 8 Mercur y 0.6 9 Climate Change 0.9 9 Unsustainable Har vest 0. 5 10 Mercur y 0.9 10 Altered Hydrology 0. 5

• Average across all ranked habitats, N = 26

• Average across all species, N = 62 (C) High-intensity risks to habitats (D) High-intensity risks to wildlife ISSUE AVERAGE SCORE* ISSUE AVERAGE SCORE*

1 Development 2.7 (25) 1 Scarcity 2.6 (19) 2 Altered Natural Disturbance 2.3 (9) 2 Development 2.5 (51) 3 Predation and Herbivor y 2.3 (6) 3 Altered Hydrology 2.1 (14) 4 Climate Change 2.0 (12) 4 Predation and Herbivor y 2.0 (19) 5 Transportation Infrastructure 2.0 (18) 5 Transportation Infrastructure 2.0 (24) 6 Non-point Source Pollution 1.9 (15) 6 Mercur y 1.9 (18) 7 Mercur y 1.9 (12) 7 Oil Spills 1.9 (9) 8 Altered Hydrology 1.8 (15) 8 Climate Change 1.9 (14) 9 Recreation 1.8 (26) 9 Introduced Species 1.8 (22) 10 Acid Deposition 1.8 (19) 10 Recreation 1.8 (38)

• Average across affected habitats, affected habitats (n) in parentheses

• Average across affected species, affected species (n) in parentheses New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-5

Wildlife Risk Assessment 4-6 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Wildlife Risk Assessment Acid Deposition

1. DEFINITION TABLE 4-4. Number of habitats and species at highest risk due to acid deposition. See Table 4-5 and Appendix A and B for details. Risk Category 4 = Greatest risk.

Combustion in vehicle engines, power plants, and other industrial processes generates nitrogen oxides Risk Category Habitats Species and sulfur oxides, which enter the atmosphere and 4 0 0 are transformed into acids. These chemicals can travel 3 3 1 for hundreds of miles in the upper atmosphere before falling as acid precipitation or dry deposition. In New 2 5 9 Hampshire, vehicles generate 51% of nitrogen oxide 1 11 4 emissions, while power plants generate 90% of sul-fur oxide emissions and 39% of nitrogen emissions.

However, much of the acid deposition comes from 3. KNOWN WILDLIFE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS industrial areas in the midwestern and southwestern United States (NH Comparative Risk Project 1997). (A) Aquatic ecosystems The estimated acidity (pH) of rainfall in 1997 for the Low pH affects nearly all levels of the aquatic food Northeast ranged from 4.3-4.7 (Driscoll et al. 2001); webincluding bacteria, fungi, algae, zooplank-normal pH for rainfall is approximately 5.5. Although ton, invertebrates, fish, and birds. At the individual surface waters in New Hampshire are naturally acidic level, chronic acidity affects embryonic development, due to low acid-neutralizing capacity of its bedrock, growth, metabolism, respiration, reproduction, and anthropogenic acidification has stressed most natural survival. Community-level effects include shifts communities. Acidic precipitation can alter terrestrial in species composition, community structure, and and aquatic ecosystems in the Northeast (Driscoll et predator-prey interactions. Ecosystem processes such al. 2001), and may have additive or synergistic effects as decomposition of organic matter, primary produc-with other ecosystem stressors. tivity, and secondary production are strongly affected by pH (Haines 1981, Schindler et al. 1985).

2. EXPERT OPINION Many species of aquatic organisms are sensi-tive to changes in pH. Aquatic insect diversity and Acid deposition may have critical effects on species abundance often declines in acidified lakes and and habitats of conservation concern in New Hamp- streams (Haines 1981, Okland and Okland 1986).

shire (Table 4-4). Impacts are expected to be critical Crustaceans and molluscs are sensitive to acid deposi-for alpine habitats, high elevation spruce-fir forests, tion because it interferes with calcium uptake, and and northern hardwood-conifer forests. Effects are the state-endangered dwarf wedgemussel and brook expected to be serious for montane watersheds, vernal floater may be affected by chronic acidity. Amphibi-pools, talus slopes and rocky ridges, lowland spruce- ans experience high mortality or reduced productivity fir forests, and hemlock-hardwood-pine forests. For in acidic environments via reduced abundance of egg most habitats, these effects are possible in the near masses, decreased hatching success, increased larval term, although such effects could be immediate in mortality, and inhibited development (Pough 1976, the case of vernal pools. With the exception of vernal Rowe et al. 1992, Horne and Dunson 1994, Kie-pools, the impacts of acid deposition on these habi- secker 1996). Impacts to fish include reduced growth, tats are well documented. reproductive failure, skeletal deformities, and mortal-New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-7

Wildlife Risk Assessment TABLE 4-5. Habitats and species at highest risk from effects of acid deposition, in descending order by Rank. Eastern brook trout is the only fish shown because of the volume of information available. Assessments for other species are currently being reviewed. See Appendix A and B for additional information on specific risk factors and rankings.

RANKING SCORES*

SPECIES HABITAT 1 2 3 4 5 RANK CLASS SPECIES Jefferson Salamander Vernal Pools 4 3 4 2 4 2.92 3 Eastern Brook Trout Aquatic 4 3 2 3 4 2.63 2 White Mountain Arctic Alpine 4 3 2 2 4 2.33 2 White Mountain Fritillar y Alpine 4 3 2 2 4 2.33 2 Rusty Blackbird Lowland Spruce-Fir Forest 3 3 4 2.5 2 2.13 2 American Marten High Elevation Spruce-Fir Forest 4 3 1 3 3 2.04 2 Spruce Grouse Lowland Spruce-Fir Forest 4 3 1 3 3 2.04 2 Bicknell's Thrush High Elevation Spruce-Fir Forest 4 2 2 3 3 2.00 2 Common Loon Aquatic 2 4 2 2 4 2.00 2 Three-toed Woodpecker Lowland Spruce-Fir Forest 4 2 2 3 3 2.00 2 HABITATS Alpine 4 3 2 3 4 2.63 3 High Elevation Spruce-Fir Forest 4 3 2 3 4 2.63 3 Northern Hardwood-Conifer Forest 4 3 2 3 4 2.63 3 Montane Watersheds 4 3 1 3 4 2.33 2 Talus Slopes and Rocky Ridges 4 3 2 2 4 2.33 2 Vernal Pools 4 3 4 2 2 2.33 2 Hemlock-Hardwood-Pine Forest 4 2 2 3 4 2.25 2 Lowland Spruce Fir Forest 4 2 2 3 4 2.25 2

• 1=Scope, 2=Severity, 3=Timing, 4=Likelihood, 5=Information ity (Haines 1981, Schindler 1988, Baker et al. 1996). severely affected by acid deposition. Vegetation in Through reduction in aquatic community di- high-elevation spruce-fir forests, alpine habitats, talus versity and biomass as discussed above, organisms slope/rocky ridge habitats, and cliffs may suffer direct at higher trophic levels may not be able to forage or foliar damage from contact with acid fog and mist, reproduce effectively in acidified water bodies. Diet which often has a much higher acidity than rain. Aci-and foraging efficiency of some fish species may be dophilic plants will replace calciphilic plants due to affected by acid-induced changes in zooplankton chronic acidification, and some of New Hampshires community structure. Waterfowl and other birds that rarest alpine and cliff communities may be at risk forage on aquatic invertebrates or fish might also be (Rusek 1993). Acidity leaches nutrients from foliage affected, including American bittern, common loon, and mobilizes aluminum, which damages roots and American black duck, and rusty blackbird (Longcore contributes to soil infertility. Acid deposition works et al. 1987, Rattner et al. 1987). in concert with cold temperatures to cause winter injury, a proximate cause of widespread red spruce (B) Terrestrial ecosystems decline in the Northeast. Nitrogen saturation is one Terrestrial plant productivity and health can be impact of acid deposition that may have cascading ef-4-8 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Wildlife Risk Assessment fects within New Hampshires terrestrial ecosystems embryonic development. Archives of Environmen-on plant communities and wildlife habitat. tal Contamination and Toxicology 27:323-300.

Kiesecker, J.M. 1996. pH induced growth reduction (C) Mobilization of heavy metals and its effects on predator-prey interactions be-An indirect effect of acidification may be increased tween Ambystoma tigrinum and Pseudacris triseriata.

bioavailability of toxic metals including mercury, alu- Ecological Applications 6:1325-1331.

minum, cadmium, and lead (Haines 1981, Schindler Longcore, J.R., R.K. Ross, and K.L. Fisher. 1987.

1988, Spry and Weiner 1991). Mercury methylation Wildlife resources at risk through acidification of is enhanced under acidic conditions, and methylmer- wetlands. Transactions of the 52nd North American cury is one of the more pervasive and acute threats in Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, pages New Hampshire. Acidity mobilizes aluminum that 608-618.

damages roots and contributes to soil infertility. Alumi- New Hampshire Comparative Risk Project. 1997.

num is acutely toxic to aquatic invertebrates and fish. Acid Deposition. Pp. 64-65 in Report of Ranked Environmental Risks in New Hampshire. New

4. RESEARCH NEEDS Hampshire Comparative Risk Project, Concord, NH.

Given that the effects of acid deposition on species Okland, J. and K.A. Okland. 1986. The effects of and habitats are generally well documented, relatively acid deposition ion benthic animals in lakes and few research needs have been identified. On the broad streams. Experientia 42:471.

scale, examples of potential topics include shifts in al- Pough, F.H. 1976. Acid precipitation and embry-pine community composition, while more focused onic mortality of spotted salamanders, Ambystoma studies could include investigation of prey availabil- maculatum. Science. 192: 68-70.

ity for rusty blackbirds. Additional research may be Rattner, B.A., G.M. Haramis, D.S. Chu, C.M.

relevant to determine the efficacy of any proposed Bunck, and C.G. Scanes. 1987. Growth and physi-mitigation measures. ological condition of black ducks reared on acidi-fied wetlands. Canadian Journal of Zoology 65:

5. LITERATURE CITED 2953-2958.

Rowe, C.L., W.J. Sadinski, and W.A. Dunson. 1992.

Baker, J.P., J.Van Sickle, C.J. Gagen, D.R. DeWalle, Effects of acute and chronic acidification on three W.E. Sharpe, R.F. Carline, B.P. Baldigo, P.S. Mur- larval amphibians that breed in temporary ponds.

doch, D.W. Bath, W.A. Kretser, H.A. Simonin, Archives of Environmental Contamination and and P.J. Wigington. 1996. Episodic acidification Toxicology 23:339-350.

of small streams in the northeastern United States: Rusek, J. 1993. Air-pollution-mediated changes in effects on fish populations. Ecological Applications alpine ecosystems and ecotones. Ecological Appli-6:422-437. cations 3:409-416.

Driscoll, C.T., G.B. Lawrence, A.J. Bulger, T.J. Butler, Schindler, D.W., K.H. Mills, D.F. Malley, S. Find-C.S. Cronan, C. Eagar, K.F. Lambert, G.E. Likens, lay, J.A. Shearer, I.J. Davies, M.A. Turner, G.A.

J.L. Stoddard, and K.C. Weathers. 2001. Acidic de- Lindsey, and D.R. Cruikshank. 1985. Long-term position in the northeastern United States: Sources ecosystem stress: Effects of years of experimental and inputs, ecosystem effects, and management acidification. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and strategies. Bioscience 51:180-198. Aquatic Sciences 37:342-354.

Haines, T.A. 1981. Acidic precipitation and its Schindler, D.W. 1988. Effects of acid rain on fresh-consequences for aquatic ecosystems: a review. water ecosystems. Science 239:149-157.

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 110: Spry, D.J., and J.G. Wiener. 1991. Metal bioavail-669-707. ability and toxicity to fish in low-alkalinity lakes:

Horne, M.T., and W.A. Dunson. 1994. Exclusion A critical review. Environmental Pollution 71:

of the Jefferson salamander, Ambystoma jeffersonia- 243-304.

num, from some potential breeding ponds in Penn-sylvania: effects of pH, temperature, and metals on New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-9

Wildlife Risk Assessment Agriculture

1. DEFINITION threat to these grassland species. Mowing practices, such as haying before July 15 (which we acknowledge Wildlife that depend on grassland habitats existed is necessary to maximize forage quality), are in use in pre-settlement New England in low numbers and throughout the state and present a threat to grassland increased as early settlers cleared the land for farm- nesting species such as the upland sandpiper and ing. Natural processessuch as fire, beaver activity, northern harrier. Collisions with mowing equipment and floodingmaintained grassy areas prior to hu- can cause mortality for black racer, smooth green man settlement. As some natural disturbances have snake, wood turtle, Blandings turtle, and spotted declined in the last 150 years, grassland species have turtle, though impacts to populations are poorly become more reliant on remaining agricultural lands documented. In a very localized area, mowing of salt making them increasingly vulnerable to commonly marshes is a serious, short-term threat to Nelsons used agricultural practices and loss of active farms. sharp-tailed sparrow, salt marsh sharp-tailed sparrow, Currently there are 101,175 ha of farmland in seaside sparrow, and willet. Reductions of populations New Hampshire (United States Department of Ag- of grassland-dependent species is possible in the next riculture 2004), mainly in Grafton, Merrimack, and 1 to 5 years. Run-off of herbicides, pesticides and Coos Counties. Wildlife species that use agricultural fertilizers from agricultural lands in the Connecticut fields are vulnerable to mowing for hay, and convert- River watershed may pose a threat to aquatic habitat ing fields to developments. Mowing can result in sig- (Francis and Mulligan 1997).

nificant mortality to grassland birds (eggs and chicks),

snakes, and turtles. 3. KNOWN WILDLIFE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

2. EXPERT OPINION (A) Hay Cropping Hay cropping can kill grassland birds, turtles, and Most of the grasslands in New Hampshire are the snakes. Reproduction in grassland birds is reduced direct result of the positive influence that agriculture through direct mortality of eggs and nestlings or subse-has had on grassland-dependent species by clearing quent egg and chick loss caused by nest abandonment forested areas and maintaining them in an open state. or predation on exposed nests (Bollinger et al. 1990).

At the same time, because of the limited distribution Farmers mow their hayfields 2 to 3 times during the of these habitats, some agricultural practices pose a summer to provide high quality forage for livestock.

The peak nesting period for grassland nesting birds is mid-May through mid-July, coinciding with the first TABLE 4-6. Number of habitats and species at highest risk due to agriculture. See Table 4-7 and Appendix A and B for and second hay crops. Direct mortality of wood tur-details. Risk Category 4 = Greatest risk. tles caused by collision with farm machinery has been documented in agricultural fields where turtles seek Risk Category Habitats Species exposed soils for nesting (Saumure and Bider 1998).

4 1 0 3 1 0 (B) Habitat Conversion 2 0 2 The conversion of agricultural fields to development has been significant. For instance, active agricultural 1 8 11 land acreage dropped by 50% in Rockingham and 4-10 New Hampshire Wildlife Actin Plan

Wildlife Risk Assessment TABLE 4-7. Habitats and species at highest risk from effects of agriculture, in descending order by Rank. See Appendix A and B for additional information on specific threats and rankings.

RANKING SCORES*

SPECIES HABITAT 1 2 3 4 5 RANK CLASS SPECIES Upland Sandpiper Shrublands 3 3 3 3 4 2.50 2 Grasshopper Sparrow Grasslands 3 3 3 3 4 2.50 2 HABITATS Grasslands 4 4 4 4 4 4.00 4 Connecticut River Mainstem Watersheds 3 3 4 3 4 2.75 3

• 1=Scope, 2=Severity, 3=Timing, 4=Likelihood, 5=Information Strafford Counties between 1962 and 1998 (see De-

• Identify and assess threats (e.g., land use practices velopment). Historical conversion of floodplains for in agricultural areas) to specific wood turtle agriculture also has been significant. However, it is populations.

unlikely that floodplain habitat will be lost to agricul-

• Determine value of Farm Bill programs in ture in the future, and there are many opportunities conservation of grassland wildlife to restore floodplains. The loss of agriculture to other non-grassland habitat uses reduces the amount of potential quality habitat available to grassland-depen- 5. LITERATURE CITED dent species.

Bollinger, E.K., P.B. Bollinger, and T.A. Gavin. 1990.

(C) Pesticides and Runoff Effects of hay-cropping on eastern populations of See Non-point Source Pollution. the bobolink. Wildlife Society Bulletin 18:142-150.

4. RESEARCH NEEDS Francis F., and A. Mulligan. 1997. Connecticut River Corridor Management Plan. Connecticut River

• Demographic studies to determine causes of Joint Commission. Charlestown, New Hampshire, grassland wildlife population declines USA.

• Assess which extensive grasslands are important to Saumure, R.A., and J.R. Bider. 1998. Impact of ag-grassland nesting birds and other priority wildlife ricultural development on a population of wood species, and which of these species is harmed turtles (Clemmys insculpta) in southern Quebec, by early mowing. This likely requires more field Canada. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3:

surveys of nesting birds and other wildlife in large 37-45.

grasslands United States Department of Agriculture. 2004.

• Collect data on species distribution (e.g., upland 2002 census of agriculture. National Agricultural sandpipers, northern harriers, grasshopper Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, sparrows) and land use, including frequency Washington, D.C. http://www.nass.usda.gov/

and timing of mowing, rates of habitat loss to census/.

development, and overall changes to landscape composition (including field size distributions).

Such data could be useful in determining the potential for re-colonization of historic breeding sites where appropriate management could be implemented New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-11

Wildlife Risk Assessment Altered Hydrology

1. DEFINITION watersheds. While the overall effects of altered hy-drology on aquatic ecosystems are well documented, The frequency and intensity of floods or droughts species-specific impacts are poorly understood.

strongly influences the physical and biological char-acteristics of aquatic ecosystems (Poff et al. 1997). 3. KNOWN WILDLIFE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS Plants and wildlife in riparian areas have adapted to natural variation in flows and water levels. Periodic (A) Man-made Dams flooding provides fish and amphibians with access to Dams cause changes in water temperature, transpar-spawning areas, causes an influx of organic matter to ency, substrate composition, and flow, all of which streams, and prevents the encroachment of upland influence biological communities. Increased flows plant species into wetland habitats (Poff et al. 1997). below impoundments may result in high sediment Impoundments and water level fluctuation above and loads, suffocating fish and invertebrates and alter-below dams, restricted tidal flows, water withdrawal ing spawning substrates (Baxter and Glaude 1980).

for irrigation and other uses, increased impervi- The leaching of plant nutrients and toxic substances ous surface area, and seasonal lake drawdowns alter (e.g. mercury) from flooded soils upstream of dams natural hydrology (Richter et al. 1996). Hydrologic can lead to algal blooms and accumulated toxins in alteration can profoundly affect stream connectivity fish tissue (Baxter and Glaude 1980). Increased bio-and the ability of fish and wildlife to migrate freely logical oxygen demand from the decomposition of along a stream corridor. flooded soil and vegetation may cause lower dissolved oxygen levels, typically in the deep water near the

2. EXPERT OPINION dam (Baxter and Glaude 1980). Fluctuating water levels upstream and downstream from dams on the Altered hydrology affects species and habitats Connecticut River pose a threat to cobblestone tiger throughout New Hampshire. Impacts can be serious beetles by inundating their habitat more frequently and immediate, especially for relatively small popula- than natural flooding events (Nothnagle 1993). Wa-tions or habitats (e.g. tiger cobblestone beetles and ter level management for hydropower or flood con-salt marshes). In general, more densely populated, trol on high order rivers may decrease the frequency lower elevation watersheds are more affected by al- and intensity of flooding events needed to maintain tered hydrology than are high elevation and northern floodplain forest communities (Bornette and Amoros 1996; see Altered Natural Disturbance Regime).

Dams restrict the movements of aquatic species, es-TABLE 4-8. Number of habitats and species at highest risk due to altered hydrology. See Table 4-9 and Appendix A pecially anadromous fish, which migrate upstream to and B for details. Risk Category 4 = Greatest risk. spawn, and freshwater mussels, which depend on fish for dispersal and development.

Risk Category Habitats Species 4 0 1 (B) Development 3 1 5 Flow regimes are altered by channelization, stream 2 7 4 bank stabilization, construction fill, and road or rail-road crossings. The effects are most obvious in coastal 1 9 11 salt marshes where development and drainage ditches 4-12 New Hampshire Wildlife Actin Plan

Wildlife Risk Assessment TABLE 4-9. Habitats and species at highest risk from effects of altered hydrology, in descending order by Rank. Atlantic salmon is the only fish shown because of the volume of information available and recent initiatives to restore the species.

Assessments for other species are currently being reviewed. See Appendix A and B for additional information on specific risk factors and rankings.

RANKING SCORES*

SPECIES HABITAT 1 2 3 4 5 RANK CLASS SPECIES Atlantic Salmon Aquatic 4 4 4 4 4 4.00 4 Dwarf Wedgemussel Aquatic 3 3 4 4 4 3.00 3 Nelson's Sharp-tailed Sparrow Salt Marshes 3 3 4 4 4 3.00 3 Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrow Salt Marshes 3 3 4 4 4 3.00 3 Seaside Sparrow Salt Marshes 3 3 4 4 4 3.00 3 Willet Salt Marshes 3 3 4 4 4 3.00 3 Brook Floater Aquatic 2 3 4 4 4 2.50 2 Blandings Turtle Marsh and Shrub Wetlands 2 3 4 3 3 2.08 2 Cobblestone Tiger Beetle Aquatic 4 4 2 2 2 2.00 2 Pied-billed Grebe Marsh and Shrub Wetlands 2 3 4 2 3 1.88 2 HABITATS Salt Marshes 3 3 4 4 4 3.00 3 Tidal Coastal Watersheds 3 3 4 3 3 2.50 2 Non-Tidal Coastal Watersheds 3 3 4 3 3 2.50 2 Connecticut River Mainstem Watersheds 3 3 2 4 4 2.50 2 Coastal Transitional Watersheds 3 3 4 3 3 2.50 2 Floodplain Forests 4 3 2 3 3 2.33 2 Southern Upland Watersheds 2 3 4 3 3 2.08 2 Peatlands 2 3 3 3 3 1.88 2

• 1=Scope, 2=Severity, 3=Timing, 4=Likelihood, 5=Information have restricted tidal flooding. Without tidal influ- 2004 (New Hampshire Department of Environmen-ence, typical salt marsh vegetation is replaced with in- tal Services 2003). Artificially low water levels subject vasive reeds and grasses (Sinicrope et al. 1990). River shoreline communities to freezing temperatures and bank stabilization restricts the dynamic nature of a interfere with the spring spawning activity of fish and river and often causes erosion problems downstream. amphibians. Reduced water levels decrease the habi-Culverts at road crossings also alter natural hydrologi- tat available to reef spawning fish, and lowering water cal patterns by constricting and channeling flow. Cul- levels after spawning may expose eggs to desiccation verts reduce stream connectivity, acting as dispersal (Anras et al.1999). Significant changes in water barriers to fish, amphibians, and some invertebrates level during the breeding season of shoreline nest-(Watters 1996, Warren and Pardew 1999). ing birds may flood nests or increase predation risk.

(C) Seasonal draw-down (D) Impervious surfaces Water levels in some New Hampshire lakes and ponds A landscape with a significant area of impervious sur-are reduced in the fall to prevent ice damage and re- faces can cause shorter, more intense flood periods, duce spring flooding. Drawdowns ranging from 1 to which alter stream morphology and potentially kill or 10 feet occurred in 53 lakes and ponds in the fall of inhibit the movement of some species (United States New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-13

Wildlife Risk Assessment Environmental Protection Agency 2003). Impervious Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 205.

surfaces prevent rainwater from replenishing ground- Bornette, G., and C. Amoros. 1996. Disturbance water, which is the primary source of water for small regimes and vegetation dynamics: role of floods in streams and wetlands during the summer. riverine wetlands. Journal of Vegetation Science 7:

615-622.

(E) Water withdrawal Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmen-Water withdrawal for irrigation, municipal water tal Affairs. 2004. Merrimack River Basin. Low supplies, or industry can decrease water levels and Flow Inventory. Cambridge, MA. Available:

flows in aquatic habitats. An estimated 320 million http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/river/rivlow_flow_

gallons of water is withdrawn daily from the Mer- inventory/merrimack.html (Accessed March rimack River during the summer (Merrimack River 1995).

Watershed Council 2001). In addition to impeding Merrimack River Watershed Council [MRCW].

the movements of aquatic species, low flows can cre- 2001. Water demand analysis on the Merrimack ate higher water temperatures and stagnant condi- River watershed: Data and literature on the water tions that encourage algal blooms. Water withdrawn use of the Merrimack River watershed. Prepared for for irrigation may reenter aquatic systems, containing the Merrimack Watershed Team increased nutrient levels (Baxter and Glaude 1980). New Hampshire Department of Environmental Low summer flows modify invertebrate and fish com- Services. 2003. The New Hampshire Initiative to munities to favor generalist species. Unusually low Restore Rivers Through Selective Dam Removal.

summer flows in the Ipswich River in Massachusetts Available http://www.des.state.nh.us/factsheets/

have resulted in a high proportion of generalist fish dam/db-18.htm. (Accessed May 2005).

species (Massachusetts Executive Office of Environ- Nothnagle, P. 1993. Status survey of New Hampshire/

mental Affairs 2004). Vermont populations of the cobblestone tiger bee-tle (Cicindela marginipennis). Report submitted to

4. RESEARCH NEEDS the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Concord, New Hampshire, USA.

• Research the impacts of water level fluctuation on Poff, N.L., J.D. Allan, M.B. Bain, J.R. Karr, K.L. Pre-natural communities stegaard, B. Richter, R. Sparks, and J. Stromberg.

• Expand the impervious surfaces assessment done in 1997. The natural flow regime: a new paradigm for the coastal watershed to other watersheds in New riverine conservation and restoration. BioScience Hampshire 47:769-784.

• Continue to monitor the results of salt marsh resto- Richter, B.D., D.P. Braun, M.A. Mendelson, and ration projects on the coast L.L. Master. 1997. Threats to imperiled freshwater

• Investigate the quantitative effects of seasonal draw- fauna. Conservation Biology 11:1081-1093.

downs on species diversity in aquatic habitats Sinicrope, T.L., P.G. Hine, R.S. Warren, and W.A.

• Investigate the potential correlation between draw- Niering. 1990. Restoration of an impounded salt down and methyl mercury production marsh in New England. Estuaries 13:25-30.

United States Environmental Protection Agency

5. LITERATURE CITED [USEPA]. 2003. Polluted Runoff (nonpoint source pollution): Existing development. Available: http:/

Anras, M., P. Cooley, R. Bodaly, L. Anras, and R. /www.epa.gov/owow/NPS/MMGI/Chapter4/ch4-Fudge. 1999. Movement and Habitat Use by 4.html. (Accessed June 2005).

Lake Whitefish during Spawning in a Boreal Lake: Warren, M.L., and M.G. Pardew. 1999. Road cross-Acoustic Telemetry and Geographic Information ings as barriers to small-stream fish movement.

Systems. Transactions of the American Fisheries Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127:

Society 128:939-952. 637-644.

Baxter R., and P. Glaude. 1980. Environmental Ef- Watters, G. 1996. Small Dams as Barriers to Fresh-fects of Dams and Impoundments in Canada: water Mussels (Bivalvia and Unionoida) and Their Experience and Prospects. Canadian Bulletin of Hosts. Biological Conservation 75:79-85.

4-14 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Wildlife Risk Assessment Altered Natural Disturbance Regime

1. DEFINITION bland habitats and related species (e.g., Karner blue butterfly) and seriously affect species dependant on Before European settlement, forested habitats were young forest habitats including American woodcock continuously altered by disturbances such as wildfire, and ruffed grouse. To a lesser degree they also affect beaver impoundments, Native American burning, grasslands habitat and associated species (e.g., north-agriculture, flooding, erosion and deposition, insect ern harrier, upland sandpiper, and grasshopper spar-outbreaks, hurricanes, and openings created by mas- row), as well as Blandings and spotted turtles that use sive passenger pigeon breeding colonies. Now, the both grassland and shrubland habitats for nesting.

effects of some of these natural agents of forest distur-bance are substantially lessened (DeGraaf et al. 2005). 3. KNOWN WILDLIFE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS Centuries of land use and reduction of many nat-ural disturbances have created a landscape of relatively (A) Mechanical ecological processes homogenous, middle-aged to mature forest of similar Fire, beaver, and passenger pigeon roosting are among size and structure amidst cities, suburbs, and highways the mechanical ecological processes that once had a and relatively little grassland, shrubland, or young significant impact on New Hampshires landscape.

forest habitat (DeGraaf et al. 2005). Pitch pine bar- The decline, and in some cases the cessation of rens, a critical habitat that supports a large number of these natural disturbances, combined with habitat rare and declining species, and Appalachian oak-pine loss due to development, is reducing some critical forests are particularly vulnerable to altered natural habitats to levels at or below historical levels (e.g.,

disturbance regimes. To maintain the native diversity grasslands, shrublands, young forests, pine barrens, of wildlife on the New Hampshire landscape, includ- and Appalachian oak-pine forests) (Brooks 2003, ing at-risk and rare species, habitat management Litvaitis 2003).

and restoration are needed (DeGraaf et al. 2005). For instance, fire suppression may alter the community structure of fire-adapted habitats by

2. EXPERT OPINION reducing the establishment of seeds that prefer bare mineral soil, and by increasing competition Altered natural disturbance regimes critically impact with fire tolerant species. Fire suppression has led pine barrens, Appalachian oak pine forests, and shru- to the succession of most of New Hampshires remaining pine barrens to dense canopied forest that are becoming dominated by white pine and/or TABLE 4-10. Number of habitats and species at highest hardwoods (e.g., oak, red maple, and aspen). These risk due to altered natural disturbance regimes. See Table 4-11 and Appendix A and B for details. Risk Category 4 =

conditions are ill suited for a large suite of rare and Greatest risk. declining species (e.g., Karner blue butterfly, Persius duskywing skippers, and Fowlers toad) (Grundel Risk Category Habitats Species 1998, VanLuven 1994). Fire suppression also can 4 1 0 allow a dangerous accumulation of fuel load (duff, 3 4 1 litter, dead wood), and subsequent fires can be 2 2 4 intense enough to kill large number of animals and significantly threaten human safety.

1 2 14 The passenger pigeon, considered to have been New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-15

Wildlife Risk Assessment TABLE 4-11. Habitats and species at highest risk from effects of altered natural disturbance regimes, in descending order by Rank. See Appendix A and B for details additional information on specific threats and rankings.

RANKING SCORES*

SPECIES HABITAT 1 2 3 4 5 RANK CLASS SPECIES Karner Blue Butterfly Pine Barrens 4 3 3 3 4 2.92 3 American Woodcock Shrublands 3 3 3 3 4 2.50 2 Ruffed Grouse Shrublands 3 3 3 3 4 2.50 2 Racer Pine Barrens 4 4 2 3 1 2.00 2 Whip-poor Will Pine Barrens 3 2 3 3 3 1.88 2 HABITATS Pine Barrens 4 4 4 3 4 3.67 4 Appalachian Oak Pine Forest 4 3 4 3 3 2.92 3 Hemlock-Hardwood-Pine Forest 3 3 4 3 4 2.75 3 Lowland Spruce Fir Forest 4 3 3 3 3.4 2.74 3 Shrublands 3 4 3 3 3 2.63 3 Northern Hardwood-Conifer Forest 2 3 4 3 3 2.08 2 Talus Slopes and Rocky Ridges 4 3 1 3 3 2.04 2

• 1=Scope, 2=Severity, 3=Timing, 4=Likelihood, 5=Information North Americas most abundant land bird in his- fire ability to re-sprout and drop seeds, aids in the torical times (e.g. flocks of 1 to 2 billion birds), also maintenance of pine barrens communities (Brown occurred in high numbers in New Hampshire (Foss and Smith 2000).

1994). High densities of roosting pigeons toppled Flooding provides a regular source of nutrients small trees and broke off branches, increasing the for floodplain areas (Osgood 1996, Wistendahl amount of sunlight reaching the forest floor and 1958). Floodplain soils tend to be rich in nutrients perhaps exacerbating wildfires (Ellsworth and Mc- and have been targeted throughout history as excel-Comb 2003). Both conditions would have favored lent lands for agriculture (Nichols et al. 2000). With the maintenance of Appalachian oak-pine forest, nearly 5,000 man-made dams in New Hampshire, pine barrens, grasslands, and shrublands, all of which many floodplains now do not benefit from these were more abundant historically than they are today added nutrients.

(Brooks 2003, Ellsworth and McComb 2003). Based on recent research, 2-6% of the state may have been (C) Hydrological processes affected annually (Ellsworth and McComb 2003). Seasonal flooding and flooding by beavers are hy-drological processes that also had a more significant (B) Chemical ecological processes impact historically than today. Seasonal flooding Fire and flooding events result in chemical processes of high order or high gradient rivers was a regular that alter species composition in a variety of ways. natural disturbance. This disturbance maintained the Fire generates readily available nutrients, creates a conditions suited to many types of floodplain forests blackened ground surface that increases soil tem- (Bornette and Amoros 1996). Today, there are nearly peratures and enhances nutrient cycling, and reduces 5,000 man-made dams in New Hampshire. Many competition with other plants (Brown and Smith of these dams inhibit the frequency and intensity of 2000). These factors, coupled with pitch pines post- floods on high-order or high-gradient rivers (Nislow 4-16 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Wildlife Risk Assessment and Magilligan 2000), resulting in reduced species Complex Systems Research Center (CSRC).

and structural diversity of floodplain vegetation and 2002. Landcover Assessment - 2001. Uni-reduced diversity of wildlife using floodplain areas versity of New Hampshire, Durham. http:

(Nilsson et al. 1997). //www.granit.sr.unh.edu/data/datacat/pages/

Unlike man-made dams, beaver dams are gener- nhlc01.pdf. Accessed 8 February 2002.

ally constructed on low order or low gradient streams. DeGraaf, R.M., M. Yamasaki, W.B. Leak, and A.M.

This form of natural disturbance creates marshes, Lester. 2005. Landowners guide to wildlife habitat:

meadows, and shrublands beneficial to many species forest management for the New England region.

of wildlife. After a beaver dam degrades and becomes University Press of New England, Lebanon, New breeched after abandonment, the previously ponded Hampshire, USA 111pp.

area succeeds to a meadow and without further dis- Ellsworth, J.W. and B.C. McComb. 2003. Potential ef-turbance will succeed into shrubland, and eventually fects of passenger pigeon flocks on the structure and back to forest (Naiman et al. 1988). However, areas composition of presettlement forests of eastern North available for damming by beavers has declined sig- America. Conservation Biology 17:1548-1558.

nificantly. An analysis of wet flats in New Hampshire Foss, C.F. 1994. Atlas of breeding birds of New (the floodplain that would be affected by beavers) Hampshire. Audubon Society of New Hampshire, shows that nearly 30% (267 out of 961) are affected Concord, New Hampshire, USA.

by agriculture. Another 17% (165 out of 961) are af- Grundel, R., N.B. Pavlovic, and C.L. Sulzman. 1998.

fected by development (CSRC 2002, TNC 2003). Habitat use by the endangered Karner blue butter-fly in oak woodlands: the influence of canopy cover.

4. RESEARCH NEEDS Biological Conservation 85: 47-53.

Litvaitis, J.A. 2003. Are pre-Columbian conditions

• Compare vegetation composition and structure, relevant baselines in managed forests of the north-nutrient loading, and soil chemistry along im- eastern United States? Forest Ecology and Manage-pounded and free flowing rivers in New Hampshire ment 185:113-126.

• Assess interactive impacts of fire suppression, Magilligan, F.J. and Nislow, K., 2001. Hydrologic land use history, ecological history, microclimate alteration in a changing landscape: effects of im-alterations, and habitat patch isolation on vegeta- poundment in the Upper Connecticut River Basin, tion structure and composition of pine barrens and USA. Journal American Water Resources Associa-relative abundance and distribution of pine bar- tion 36:1551-67.

rens, grasslands, and shrublands Naiman, R.J., J.M. Melillo, and J.E. Hobbie. 1988.

• Investigate impacts of beaver population level chang- Ecosystem alteration of boreal forest streams by es on natural communities and habitat distribution beaver (Castor canadensis). Ecology 67:1254-1269.

Nichols, W.F., D.D. Sperduto, D.A. Bechtel, and K.F.

5. LITERATURE CITED Crowley. 2000. Floodplain forest natural commu-nities along minor rivers and large streams in New Bornette, G., and C. Amoros. 1996. Disturbance Hampshire. New Hampshire Natural Heritage In-regimes and vegetation dynamics: role of floods in ventory, Department of Resources and Economic riverine wetlands. Journal of Vegetation Science 7: Development, Concord, New Hampshire, USA..

615-622. Nilsson, C., R. Jamsson, and U. Zinko. 1997. Long-Brooks, R.T. 2003. Abundance, distribution, trends, term responses of river-margin vegetation to water-and ownership patterns of early successional forests level regulation. Science 276:798-800.

in the northeastern United States. Forest Ecology Osgood, J. 1996. Contoocook River floodplain forest and Management 185:65-74. vegetation composition. Masters Project, Antioch Brown, J.K. and J.K. Smith, eds. 2000. Wildland fire New England Graduate School. Keene, New in ecosystems: effects of fire on flora. General Tech- Hampshire, USA.

nical Report RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. U.S. Depart- The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2003. Ecological ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Moun- landunit data layer. Conservation Science Support tain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 257 pp. Program, Eastern Resource Office of The Nature New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-17

Wildlife Risk Assessment Conservancy, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

VanLuven, D.E. 1994. Site conservation plan for the Concord Pine Barrens, Concord New Hampshire.

The Nature Conservancy, Concord, New Hamp-shire, USA.

Wistendahl, W.A. 1958. The flood plain of the Rari-tan River, New Jersey. Ecological Monographs 28:

129-153.

4-18 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Wildlife Risk Assessment Climate Change

1. DEFINITION habitat requirements. Not every species is obviously threatened by climate change. But no ecosystem can Natural variations in global climate occur over very sustain the breadth of changes likely to result from long periods. Human activities influence the global climate change without harm to many taxa.

climate by increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, CFCs, and nitrous oxide 2. EXPERT OPINION that trap heat at the earths surface (Firor 1990, Gates 1993). Human induced climate change is likely to Climate change will broadly affect every species and profoundly affect the climatology, ecosystems, and habitat of conservation concern in New Hampshire.

native biodiversity of New Hampshire and the region Impacts will likely be most severe for habitats (IPCC 2001, New England Regional Assessment with narrow temperature and water level regimes, (NERA) 2001, Nedeau 2004). such as alpine, high and low elevation spruce-fir The greatest effects of climate change will be on forests, coastal islands, vernal pools, and aquatic regional air and water temperatures, precipitation habitats. For some animals, changing snow depths patterns, storm intensity, and sea levels. These types of (e.g., American marten and lynx) and high altitude changes have been well documented already (NERA seasonal timing (e.g., alpine butterflies) may begin to 2001, Wake and Markham 2005), and global climate have impacts during the next decade. Thermal habitat models are in general agreement that trends will of New Hampshires native fishes will likely decline continue and even accelerate in the next century (IPCC substantially. Invasive species, diseases, and pathogens 2001). The ten hottest years of the last millennium will likely become more problematic, as warmer have all occurred since 1983 (NERA 2001), and regional temperatures facilitate their introduction regional climate change models predict a 6.0-10.0 and proliferation. High altitude and coastal impacts F temperature increase in the next century in New are fairly well documented.

England, which would make our climate comparable to portions of the southeastern United States. 3. KNOWN WILDLIFE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS Because of their complex nature, broad patterns of change are still difficult to predict. Climatic (A) Snow depth and winter ice changes have been linked to local ecological changes, In New Hampshire, average wintertime air including range shifts and asynchrony with seasonal temperatures increased by 3.5 F during the period from 1895-1999 (well above the regional average)

(NERA 2001). Freeze-free periods have increased, TABLE 4-12. Number of habitats and species at highest risk due to climate change. See Table 4-13 and Appendix A and snow cover has decreased, and lake ice duration (as B for details. Risk Category 4 = Greatest risk. measured by ice-out dates) has decreased (NERA 2001, Hodgkins et al. 2002, Huntington and Risk Category Habitats Species Hodgkins 2004, Wake and Markham 2005). Snow 4 0 0 depth and frequency are important factors affecting 3 1 2 distribution of American marten (Krohn et al. 1995, 2 7 7 Raine 1983) and lynx (Hoving et al. 2005). Changes to lake ice duration and surface water temperatures 1 3 6 will strongly affect primary productivity, dissolved New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-19

Wildlife Risk Assessment TABLE 4-13. Habitats and species at highest risk from effects of climate change, in descending order by Rank. See Appendix A and B for details additional information on specific threats and rankings.

RANKING SCORES*

SPECIES HABITAT 1 2 3 4 5 RANK CLASS SPECIES White Mountain Arctic Alpine 4 3 2 3 4 2.63 3 White Mountain Fritillar y Alpine 4 3 2 3 4 2.63 3 Lynx Upland Forests 4 4 2 2 3 2.33 2 American Marten High Elevation Spruce-Fir Forest 4 3 2 3 3 2.33 2 Common Tern Coastal Islands 4 3 2 3 2 2.04 2 Piping Plover Dunes 4 3 2 3 2 2.04 2 Roseate Tern Coastal Islands 4 3 2 3 2 2.04 2 Spruce Grouse Lowland Spruce-Fir Forest 4 3 1 3 3 2.04 2 Common Loon Aquatic 4 4 1 3 2 2.00 2 HABITATS Alpine 4 4 2 3 4 3.00 3 High Elevation Spruce-Fir Forest 4 4 1 3 3 2.33 2 Hemlock-Hardwood-Pine Forest 4 3 1 3 4 2.33 2 Northern Hardwood-Conifer Forest 4 3 1 3 4 2.33 2 Talus Slopes and Rocky Ridges 4 3 2 2 4 2.33 2 Coastal Islands 4 3 1 3 3 2.04 2 Dunes 4 3 1 3 3 2.04 2 Lowland Spruce Fir Forest 4 3 1 3 3 2.04 2

• 1=Scope, 2=Severity, 3=Timing, 4=Likelihood, 5=Information oxygen, thermal habitat, and invertebrate and fish (C) Shifts in forest communities and wildlife communities. The southern range of cold-adapted forest trees such as spruce, fir, aspen, and sugar maplewill (B) Seasonality likely retreat northward, dramatically altering the In the last 50 years, dates of the last hard frost composition of New Hampshires northern and and lilac blooming have both become significantly high-elevation forests and dependant wildlife species.

earlier in New England (Cooter and Leduc 1995, Forest damageresulting from increased storm Schwartz and Reiter 2000). Scientists in Wisconsin intensity, warmer periods, droughts, and damaging studied 55 springtime eventsfrom the appearance ozonewill stress many forest communities.

of pussywillows to robins to trillium bloomsand Terrestrial wildlife whose southern range extends found that for all combined, these events occurred an into New Hampshire will likely shift their range average of 0.12 days earlier per year over 61 years (7.3 northward as climate warms. These include species days) (Bradley et al. 1999). Many species of migratory such as the northern bog lemming, moose, and birds have shifted their arrival dates as much as 3 snowshoe hare. Alpine herbaceous communities are weeks earlier over the last several decades (Price and strongly affected by climate change (Walker et al.

Root 2002). Such shifts in migration phenology have 1995, Kimball and Weihrauch 2000, Lessica and the potential to decouple bird migration peaks from McCune 2004, Sperduto and Nichols 2004). Walther peaks in food supply (e.g., McCarty 2001). (2002) has documented climate-related elevation 4-20 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Wildlife Risk Assessment shift of alpine plants, rising tree line, and northward availability and the timing of nesting and migration range shifts of 39 butterfly species. For Boloria titania for seabirds (Kushlan et al. 2002, Galbraith et al.

montinus and Oeneis melissa semidea, the combination 2002). Sea level rise will destroy dunes, salt marshes, of climate change and isolation will likely result in and their associated species, negating any current local extirpation without a northward range shift protection efforts (Simas et al. 2001).

(e.g., extinction).

(G) Invasive Species (D) Loss of thermal habitat Climate change will facilitate the introduction and Many fish species, such as brook trout and salmon, spread of invasive species (including new diseases have narrow temperature tolerances. Others, such and pathogens) in New Hampshire. For instance, as yellow perch and smallmouth bass, are more the hemlock woody adelgid, whose range is limited tolerant. As climate change causes water to warm, by temperature, has been steadily pushing north many of New Hampshires cold-water fish will be and has reached Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Loss replaced by warm-water species (Eaton and Scheller of hemlock would have dramatic effects on forest 1996). Some of the fish hosts of New Hampshires composition, wildlife habitat, and ecosystem processes two endangered freshwater mussel species (dwarf in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. The wasting wedgemussel and brook floater) are coldwater fish disease pathogen (Labyrinthula zosterae), which has whose thermal habitat will likely diminish as climate decimated eelgrass beds in the past, might become warms, ultimately affecting the reproductive success more of a problem because it prefers higher salinity of the mussels. Marine productivityand thus waters (which are expected in some estuaries because marine fisheriesmay be affected by changes in of sea-level rise) and warmer water. Many non-native thermohaline circulation of coastal waters, a changing warmwater fish will become more predominant in thermal regime, and reduced oxygen availability. many watersheds, especially where they are currently limited by temperature. West Nile Virus will likely (E) Climate volatility and storms become more of a threat if climate conditions (milder Climate models predict an increase in the frequency winters, wetter summers) facilitate mosquito survival and intensity of coastal storms. Besides fundamentally and breeding.

changing the climate of important habitats, storm cycles can introduce new threats to animals. 4. RESEARCH NEEDS Inclement weather can disrupt bird migrations and make breeding and nesting sites inhospitable, forcing

• Monitor indicators of range shifts of alpine birds into marginal habitats. Similarly, storms batter lepidoptera and habitat plants coastal ecosystems, disrupting dunes, salt marshes,

• Monitor impacts of decreased snow depth on and estuaries, and bringing additional stress to species marten and lynx living there (Michener et al. 1997). Nesting plovers,

• Study impacts of early ice release on aquatic saltmarsh birds, and colonial seabirds are highly communities susceptible to storms.

• Monitor effect of storms and rising sea levels on coastal habitats, such as dunes, salt marshes, and (F) Rising sea level lower tidal watersheds, as well as on their associated Sea level in the United States is rising 2.5 to 3.0 mm/ species yr. Global warming could raise the sea level 15 cm by 2050 and 34 cm by 2100 (Titus and Narayanan 5. LITERATURE CITED 1995, Titus 1990). Under this scenario, low elevation coastal habitats will likely be flooded or overwashed Bradley, N.L., A.C. Leopold, J. Ross, and W. Huffaker.

more frequently by storm surges (Gulf of Maine 1999. Phenological changes reflect climate change in Council Habitat Restoration Subcommittee 2004). Wisconsin. Proceedings of the Natural Academy of These habitats are important for nesting and loafing Sciences 96:9701-9704.

seabirds, including Roseate terns, common terns, and Cooter, E.J., and S.K. Leduc. 1995. Recent frost date trends in the north-eastern USA. International Journal marine mammals. Sea level rise may affect habitat of Climatology 15:65-75.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-21

Wildlife Risk Assessment Eaton, J.G., and R.M. Scheller. 1996. Effects of climate climate change. Conservation Biology 15:320-331.

on fish thermal habitat in streams of the United States. Michener, W.K., E.R. Blood, K.L. Bildstein, M.M.

Limnology and Oceanography 41:1109-1115. Brinson, and L.R. Gardner. 1997. Climate change, Firor, J. 1990. The changing atmosphere: a global hurricanes and tropical storms, and rising sea level in challenge. Yale University Press, New Haven, coastal wetlands. Ecological Applications 7: 770-801.

Connecticut. Nedeau, E.J. 2004. Effects of climate change on the Gulf Galbraith, H., R. Jones, R. Park. J. Clough, S. Herrod- of Maine region. Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Julius, B. Harrington, and G. Page. Global climate Environment, www.gulfofmaine.org change and sea level rise: potential losses of intertidal NERA (New England Regional Assessment). 2001.

habitat for shorebirds. Waterbirds 25:173-183. Preparing for a Changing Climate. The New Gates, D.M. 1993. Climate change and its biological England Regional Assessment Overview. U.S. Global consequences. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, Change Research Program, University of New Massachusetts. Hampshire, Durham, NH. Available online at http:

Gulf of Maine Council Habitat Restoration Subcommittee. //www.necci.sr.unh.edu/2001-NERA-report.html.

2004. The Gulf of Maine habitat restoration strategy. Price, J.T., and T.L. Root. 2002. No orioles in Baltimore?

Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment. Climate change and Neotropical migrants. Bird Hodgkins, G.A., I.C. James, and T.G. Huntington. 2002. Conservation 16:12.

Historical changes in lake ice-out dates as indicators Raine, R.M. 1983. Winter habitat use and responses of climate change in New England, 1850-2000. to snow cover of fisher (Martes pennanti) and marten International Journal of Climatology 22:1819-1827. (Martes americana) in southeaster Manitoba. Canadian Hoving, C.L., D.J. Harrison, W.B. Krohn, R.A. Joseph, Journal of Zoology 61:25-34.

and M. OBrien. 2005. Broad-scale predictors of Canada Schwartz, M.D., and B.E. Reiter. 2000. Changes in North lynx occurrence in eastern North America. Journal of American spring. International Journal of Climatology Wildlife Management: In press. 20: 929-932.

Huntington, T.G., and G.A. Hodgkins. 2004. Changes Simas, T., J.P. Nunes, and J.G. Ferreira. 2001. Effects of in the proportion of precipitation occurring as snow in global climate change on coastal salt marshes. Ecological New England. Journal of Climate 17:2626-2636. Modeling 139:1-15.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Sperduto, D.D., and W.F. Nichols. 2004. Natural 2001. Climate Change 2001. The Scientific Basis. J.T. communities of New Hampshire. New Hampshire Houghton, Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Natural Heritage Bureau. Concord, New Hampshire, Linden, D. Xiaosu, K. Maskell, and C.A. Johnson (eds.). USA.

Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. Titus, J.G. 1990. Greenhouse effect, sea level rise, and Kimball, K.D., and D.M. Weihrauch. 2000. Alpine barrier islands: case study of long beach island, New vegetation communities and the alpine-treeline ecotone Jersey. Coastal Management 18:65-90.

boundary in New England as biomonitors for climate Titus, J.G., and V.K. Narayanan. 1995. The probability change. USDA Forest Service Proceedings 3:93-101. of sea level rise. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Krohn, W.B., K.D. Elowe, and R.B. Boone. 1995. Relations Washington, D.C., USA.

among fisher, snow, and martens: Development and Wake, C., and A. Markham. 2005. Indicators of Climate evaluation of two hypotheses. The Forestry Chronicle Change in the Northeast. Joint publication of Clean 71:97-105. Air-Cool Planet and the Climate Change Research Kushlan, J.A., M.J. Steinkamp, K.C. Parsons, J. Capp, Center, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New M. Acosta Cruz, M. Coulter, I. Davidson, L. Dickson, Hampshire.

N. Edelson, R. Elliot, R.M. Erwin, S. Hatch, S. Kress, Walker, M.D., R.C. Ingersoll, and P.J. Webber. 1995.

R. Milko, S. Miller, K. Mills, R. Paul, R. Phillips, J.E. Effects of interannual climate variation on phenology Saliva, B. Sydeman, J. Trapp, J. Wheeler, and K. Wohl. and growth of two alpine forbs. Ecology 76:1067-1083.

2002. Waterbird conservation for the Americas: the Walther, G.R., E. Post, P. Convey, A. Menzel, C. Parmesan, North American waterbird conservation plan, Version 1. T.J. Beebee, J.M. Fromentin, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, and Waterbird Conservation for the Americas, Washington, F. Bairlein. 2002. Ecological responses to recent climate DC, USA. change. Nature 416:389-395.

Lesica, P., and B. McCune. 2004. Decline of arctic-alpine plants at the southern margin of their range following a decade of climatic warming. Journal of Vegetation Science 15:679-690.

McCarty, J.P. 2001. Ecological consequences of recent 4-22 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Wildlife Risk Assessment Development

1. DEFINITION risk. Effects can be extensive and critical for some species (e.g., timber rattlesnake, New England cot-Development includes residential, commercial, and tontail, Karner blue butterfly, Blandings and spotted industrial construction, mining extraction opera- turtles, common loon, Jefferson salamander, and salt tions, and recreational areas (e.g., ski areas, athletic marsh birds). Development of uplands surrounding fields). Human population growth, property values, salt marshes, freshwater marshes, shrub wetlands, and local land planning vary between towns and and vernal pools is likely to be extensive and critical.

regions. Activities associated with development Impacts will be chronic or serious for forest habitats, often result in the loss or fragmentation of wild- watersheds, and area-sensitive species. Impacts are life habitats and direct wildlife mortality during generally well documented.

or after construction. Some effects are subtle; light pollution can distract or disorient moths, or expose 3. KNOWN WILDLIFE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS terrestrial animals to predation. Indirect effects of development, including altered hydrology, intro- (A) Rapid population growth duced species, pollutants, non-point source pol- New Hampshires population grew by 17% between lution, transportation infrastructure, recreational 1990 and 2004, twice the rate of other New England use, and predation are discussed independently. states (Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests 2005). Previously undeveloped land is being

2. EXPERT OPINION subdivided and developed to meet growing demands for housing and services at a rate of nearly 6,900 ha All habitats and species are affected by devel- per year.

opment to varying degrees. New Hampshires Rising land values contribute to development, human population is rapidly expanding, espe- since high property values limit the amount of land cially in the south, and those species restricted to that can be protected with existing funds. Currently, southern New Hampshire are at immediate risk. 28% of New Hampshires land area is protected, and Development is a widespread threat to wetland and only 25% of protected land area is in the southern terrestrial habitats and species. Species or habitats half of the state, where development is most intense with a limited distribution, restricted habitat require- and land values are highest (Society for the Protection ments, and/or low population sizes are at greatest of New Hampshire Forests 2005). Southern New Hampshire also harbors the greatest diversity of the states wildlife, including many rare or endangered TABLE 4-14. Number of habitats and species at highest risk due to development. See Table 4-15 and Appendix A and B species. At the current rate of protection and devel-for details. Risk Category 4 = Greatest risk. opment, many more species will likely become rare, and several species may become extirpated. Some Risk Category Habitats Species species are at greater risk due to limited distribution, 4 9 10 low population densities (e.g., Karner blue butterfly, 3 3 17 timber rattlesnake), life history characteristics (e.g.,

2 9 7 high adult survivorship, late age of maturity, large home ranges), or ease of development (e.g., pitch-1 10 22 pine barrens).

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-23

Wildlife Risk Assessment TABLE 4-15. Habitats and species at highest risk from effects of development, in descending order by Rank. See Appendix A and B for details additional information on specific threats and rankings.

RANKING SCORES*

SPECIES HABITAT 1 2 3 4 5 RANK CLASS SPECIES Common Loon Aquatic 4 4 4 4 4 4.00 4 Karner Blue Butterfly Pine Barrens 4 4 4 4 4 4.00 4 Nelson's Sharp-tailed Sparrow Salt Marshes 4 4 4 4 4 4.00 4 Northern Leopard Frog Grasslands 4 4 4 4 4 4.00 4 Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrow Salt Marshes 4 4 4 4 4 4.00 4 Seaside Sparrow Salt Marshes 4 4 4 4 4 4.00 4 Willet Salt Marshes 4 4 4 4 4 4.00 4 New England Cottontail Shrublands 4 4 3 4 4 3.67 4 Jefferson Salamander Vernal Pools 4 3 4 4 4 3.50 4 Timber Rattlesnake Appalachian Oak Pine Forest 4 4 3 3 4 3.33 4 Fowlers Toad Pine Barrens 4 3 3 4 4 3.21 3 Blandings Turtle Marsh and Shrub Wetlands 4 4 3 3 3 3.00 3 Brook Floater Aquatic 3 3 4 4 4 3.00 3 Common Tern Coastal Islands 4 4 4 1 4 3.00 3 Dwarf Wedgemussel Aquatic 3 3 4 4 4 3.00 3 Roseate Tern Coastal Islands 4 4 4 1 4 3.00 3 Spotted Turtle Marsh and Shrub Wetlands 4 4 2 3 4 3.00 3 Spruce Grouse Lowland Spruce-Fir Forest 2 4 4 4 4 3.00 3 Wood Turtle Floodplain Forests 4 4 2 3 4 3.00 3 American Marten High Elevation Spruce-Fir Forest 3 4 3 4 3 2.92 3 Eastern Pondmussel Aquatic 4 3 4 4 2 2.92 3 Whip-poor Will Pine Barrens 4 3 4 3 3 2.92 3 Bald Eagle Aquatic 3 3 4 3 4 2.75 3 Racer Pine Barrens 4 4 2 3 3 2.67 3 American Woodcock Shrublands 3 4 3 3 3 2.63 3 Hognose Snake Pine Barrens 4 3 3 3 3 2.63 3 Non-breeding Birds 4 3 3 3 3 2.63 3 Ruffed Grouse Shrublands 3 4 3 3 3 2.63 3 American Bittern Marsh and Shrub Wetlands 1 4 4 4 4 2.50 2 Osprey Marsh and Shrub Wetlands 3 3 4 3 3 2.50 2 Ringed Boghaunter Peatlands 1 4 4 4 4 2.50 2 Sedge Wren Marsh and Shrub Wetlands 1 4 4 4 4 2.50 2 Common Nighthawk Pine Barrens 4 3 3 2 3 2.33 2 Northern Goshawk Upland Forests 4 3 2 3 3 2.33 2 Piping Plover Dunes 4 3 1 4 3 2.33 2 Red-shouldered Hawk Floodplain Forests 3 2 4 3 4 2.29 2

• 1=Scope, 2=Severity, 3=Timing, 4=Likelihood, 5=Information 4-24 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Wildlife Risk Assessment TABLE 4-15. (continued)

RANKING SCORES*

SPECIES HABITAT 1 2 3 4 5 RANK CLASS HABITATS Pine Barrens 4 4 4 4 4 4.00 4 Salt Marshes 4 4 4 4 4 4.00 4 Dunes 4 3 4 4 4 3.50 4 Hemlock-Hardwood-Pine Forest 4 3 4 4 4 3.50 4 Lowland Spruce Fir Forest 4 3 4 4 4 3.50 4 Non-Tidal Coastal Watersheds 4 3 4 4 4 3.50 4 Tidal Coastal Watersheds 4 3 4 4 4 3.50 4 Vernal Pools 4 3 4 4 4 3.50 4 Appalachian Oak Pine Forest 4 4 3 3 4 3.33 4 Floodplain Forests 3 4 4 3 4 3.21 3 Northern Hardwood-Conifer Forest 4 3 3 4 4 3.21 3 Coastal Transitional Watersheds 3 3 4 3 3 2.50 2 Connecticut River Mainstem Watersheds 3 3 2 4 4 2.50 2 Marsh and Shrub Wetlands 1 4 4 4 4 2.50 2 Peatlands 1 4 4 4 4 2.50 2 Grasslands 4 4 2 2 3 2.33 2 High Elevation Spruce-Fir Forest 1 4 4 3 4 2.29 2 SShrublands 3 3 3 3 3 2.25 2 Coastal Islands 3 3 3 2 4 2.25 2 Southern Upland Watersheds 2 3 2 4 4 2.08 2

• 1=Scope, 2=Severity, 3=Timing, 4=Likelihood, 5=Information (B) Wetland draining and filling The greatest threat to wetland habitats in New Filling of freshwater or estuarine wetlands can cause Hampshire is the development of surrounding immediate severe harm to local flora and fauna. uplands. Many wetland species require an intact New Hampshire still has the majority of its historic upland buffer for nesting (e.g., American black freshwater wetlands (Dahl 1990, 2000), whereas duck, turtles), foraging (e.g., Jefferson salamander, impacts to salt marshes in the region have been more Fowlers toad, odonates), dispersal (e.g., Blandings extensive (Shriver et al. 2004). Currently, freshwater and spotted turtles), and hibernation (e.g., Jefferson wetlands (see Marsh and Shrub Wetlands and salamander) (Semlitsch and Bodie 2003). Current Peatlands profiles), salt marshes, rivers, and streams state regulations do not require development setbacks are regulated by the New Hampshire Department of from wetlands, unless designated as a Prime wetland Environmental Services (NHDES) (RSA 482-A and by the town. Town zoning and wetland regulations Wetlands Bureau Administrative Rules). Vernal pools, vary considerably.

although regulated by RSA 482-A, are vulnerable Shoreline development reduces habitat quality for to filling because of their small size, ephemeral wildlife through vegetative modification or removal, hydroperiod, and overlooked wildlife value. pollution, creation of structures in close proximity to Landowners may remove beaver dams to protect nesting or wintering sites, increased predator densities private property with little regulatory oversight. and human activity, and, potentially, declines in New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-25

Wildlife Risk Assessment reproductive success and local population numbers ecological processes may be disrupted and edge effects (Alvo 1981, Dahmer 1986, McIntyre 1988, Buehler may increase. Most pitch pine-scrub oak woodland 2000). The Comprehensive Shoreland Protection communities have been fragmented into relatively Act (RSA 483-B) regulates shoreline cutting and small habitat patches (Howard et al. 2005), reducing development of major rivers and large surface bodies the potential for large natural disturbances (especially (larger than 10 ac); however, most of the smaller fire) of sufficient frequency, intensity, and extent to perennial tributaries receive no upland protection. maintain natural ecological processes (Wagner et al.

Sites favored by nesting common loons and 2003). Population level impacts from fragmentation wintering and nesting bald eagles often are of prime are serious or critical for species requiring large areas of development value and/or receive intense recreational habitat (e.g., American marten, bobcat, lynx, timber use (K. Taylor, Loon Preservation Committee; C. rattlesnake, Blandings turtle). Wetlands, including Martin, NHA, personal communications). Removal vernal pools, are becoming increasingly fragmented of riparian vegetation reduces the habitat quality for by development, especially in southern New wood turtles (Tuttle and Carroll 1997) and makes Hampshire, making wetland dependent organisms them more vulnerable to collection and predation. vulnerable. Where these species must disperse through inhospitable habitat, local populations are vulnerable (C) Unregulated upland development to reduced gene flow or extirpation (Semlitsch and Development of terrestrial habitats is largely Bodie 1998, Marsh and Trenham 2001).

unregulated by the state. Site-specific permits are required by the NHDES for impacts exceeding (E) Light Pollution 0.93 ha, but this review is focused on storm water Outdoor lighting by streetlights, parking lot lights, discharge, with little or no review of wildlife or rare and illumination associated with buildings has natural community impacts. Approximately 7,000 sharply increased over the last half century (Frank ha of forestland have been lost annually in New 1988, Cinzano et al. 2000). Light pollution has ad-Hampshire since the mid-1980s, largely because verse effects on many species of insects, particularly of development (Society for the Protection of New nocturnal taxa such as moths. Lepidopterists have Hampshire Forests 2005). Among matrix forests, long attributed moth population declines, especially Appalachian oak pine forests and hemlock-hardwood those of northeastern saturniids, to increasing arti-forests appear to be at greatest risk. Ninety-five ficial light pollution (Frank 1988). Artificial light-percent of predicted Appalachian oak pine forests ing disturbs flight, navigation, vision, migration, occurred in Cheshire, Hillsborough, Rockingham, dispersal, oviposition, mating, feeding, and crypsis and Strafford Counties (New Hampshire Fish and in some moths (Frank 1988). It also increases their Game GIS; C. Foss, NHA, personal communication), susceptibility to predation by birds, bats, and spiders all areas experiencing heavy human population (Frank 1988). Heavily lit urban areas can attract growth (SPNHF 2005). Pine barrens are at particular nocturnally migrating birds (e.g., many songbirds, risk because of their limited distribution and because cuckoos, owls, rails), which become disoriented and the soils they occur on are favorable for development. may suffer mortality from collisions with buildings Early successional shrublands in southern New or other structures (Klem 1989). Disoriented birds, Hampshire are ephemeral but are rapidly being in turn, may be more susceptible to predation, or developed, leaving the New England cottontail at may find themselves in inhospitable environments serious risk. with limited foraging opportunities. Some research-ers estimate that upwards of 100 million birds are (D) Fragmentation killed annually in this manner in North America.

Habitat is fragmented when it is subdivided into increasingly smaller patches that are segregated from (F) Commercial extraction one another. Fragmentation of habitat has numerous Commercial extraction removes vegetation and and widespread impacts on wildlife populations and abiotic resources used by wildlife. In addition, large habitats, both aquatic and terrestrial (Saunders et al. machinery may be a source of direct mortality.

1991). As forests in New Hampshire are subdivided, Commercial extraction of sand and gravel is a threat 4-26 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Wildlife Risk Assessment to timber rattlesnakes, eastern hognose snakes, and McIntyre, J.W. 1988. The Common Loon: Spirit of wood turtles. Abandoned gravel pits may be valuable Northern Lakes. University of Minnesota Press, habitat for some wildlife (e.g., early successional Minnesota, USA.

obligates such as New England cottontail and nesting Saunders, D.A., R.J. Hobbs, and C.R. Margules.

turtles). However, following extraction of abiotic 1991. Biological consequences of ecosystem resources, properties often are sold for development, fragmentation: a review. Conservation Biology. 5:

permanently altering the site for wildlife. 18-32.

Semlitsch, R.D., and J.R. Bodie. 1998. Are small,

4. RESEARCH NEEDS isolated wetlands expendable? Conservation Biology. 12:1129-1133.

• Identify priority areas for protection, restoration, Semlitsch, R.D., and J.R. Bodie. 2003. Biological and management among all critical habitat types criteria for buffer zones around wetlands and

• Identify landscape connections for protection and riparian habitats for amphibians and reptiles.

restoration Conservation Biology 17:1219-1228.

• Identify critical habitat needs of species at greatest Shriver, W.G., T.P. Hodgman, J.P. Gibbs, and P.D.

risk through monitoring Vickery. 2004. Landscape context influences salt

• Identify land planning that is least likely to affect marsh bird diversity and area requirements in New significant natural resources England. Biological Conservation 119:545-553.

Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests.

5. LITERATURE CITED 2005. New Hampshires Changing Landscape.

Population growth and land use changes: what Alvo, R. 1981. Marsh nesting of Common Loons they mean for the Granite State. Concord, New (Gavia immer). Canadian Field-Naturalist 95:357. Hampshire, USA.

Buehler, D.A. 2000. Bald eagle (Haliaeetus Tuttle, S.E., and D.M. Carroll. 1997. Ecology leucocephalus). In The Birds of North America, No. and natural history of the wood turtle (Clemmys 683 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North insculpta) in southern New Hampshire. Chelonian America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. Conservation and Biology 2:447-449.

Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetlands losses in the United States Wagner, D.L., M.W. Nelson, and D.F. Schweitzer.

1780s to 1980s. U.S. Department of the Interior, 2003. Shrubland Lepidoptera of southern New Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., England and southeastern New York: ecology, USA. conservation, and management. Forest Ecology Dahl, T.E. 2000. Status and trends of wetlands in and Management 185: 95-112.

the conterminous United States 1986 to 1997 U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., USA.

Dahmer, P.A. 1986. Use of aerial photographs to predict lake selection and reproductive success of Common Loons in Michigan. M.S. Thesis, Univ.

of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.

Howard, L.F., J.A. Litvaitis, T.D. Lee, and M.J.

Ducey. 2005. Reconciling the Effects of Historic Land Use and Disturbance on Conservation of Biodiversity in Managed Forests in the Northeastern United States: part 1pine barrens.

National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry. Washington, DC, USA.

Marsh, D.M., and P.C. Trenham. 2001.

Metapopulation dynamics and amphibian conservation. Conservation Biology. 15:40-49.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-27

Wildlife Risk Assessment Diseases and Pathogens

1. DEFINITION TABLE 4-16. Number of habitats and species at highest risk due to diseases and pathogens. See Table 4-17 and Appen-dix A and B for details. Risk Category 4 = Greatest risk.

Wildlife diseases are most commonly bacterial but can also be viral or fungal. Diseases are transmitted Risk Category Habitats Species or enhanced by the poultry industry, unsanitary 4 0 0 birdhouses, mosquitoes, and chemical applications 3 0 0 and often are persistent. Great improvements in the speed and efficiency of international commerce have 2 1 0 facilitated the spread of diseases that were once isolat- 1 2 3 ed to certain regions. The threat of disease to wildlife populations in New Hampshire is likely to increase with the expansion of global trade. Diseases can have encephalopathy or TSE that attacks the brains of dramatic affects on fish and wildlife populations due infected animals. As a result, the animal becomes to widespread mortality in infected areas. In addition, emaciated, exhibits abnormal behavior, and wildlife diseases also can pose risks to human health. eventually dies (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services 2005).

2. EXPERT OPINION Avian cholera is an increasing threat to seabirds (USFWS 1998) and may be linked to contamination Diseases may locally affect fish, wildlife, and plants by the poultry industry. Avian cholera is a highly that comprise habitats of conservation concern in infectious disease caused by the bacterium Pasteurella New Hampshire. Impacts will likely be serious for multocida that is quickly lethal and can kill entire several species over the short and long-term. Impacts colonies if not contained.

on vernal pool species, fish, purple martins, a variety Avian botulism is also carried through a of raptors and corvids, and coastal bird species such as bacterium that is transmitted through the discharge the common and roseate tern, can be at extreme risk of sewage or buildup of organic matter. The botulism due to large magnitudes of mortality associated with bacterium accumulates in dead birds and scavengers diseases. Impacts are well documented for coastal is- are vulnerable to transmission. The source and land birds, fish, purple martins, and raptors and are transmission of salmonella in birds is not well poorly documented for vernal pool habitats. understood.

In 1988, 37 common terns were found dead on

3. KNOWN WILDLIFE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS Eastern Egg Rock in Maine from avian cholera. This resulted in complete abandonment of the colony Chronic wasting disease (CWD) appears to be with only 37% recolonizing later in the season (Kress transmitted via abnormal proteins called prions. 1997). In 1991, large numbers of terns and laughing Transmission is through physical contact or through gulls died from avian botulism on Eastern Egg Rock infected feed. Infected prions are most concentrated after a massive menhaden die-off in Muscongus Bay.

in the nervous system tissue such as the brain or Avian cholera has been identified as the bacterium lymphatic tissue. CWD is a contagious neurological that killed terns, gulls, and eiders on seabird islands in disease that is fatal to ungulates (primarily deer and Maine. In 2004, close to 2000 common tern chicks elk). It is considered a transmissible spongiform were found dead on the nests at Monomoy Island, 4-28 New Hampshire Wildlife Actin Plan

Wildlife Risk Assessment TABLE 4-17. Habitats and species at highest risk from effects of diseases and pathogens, in descending order by Rank. See Appendix A and B for details additional information on specific threats and rankings.

RANKING SCORES*

SPECIES HABITAT 1 2 3 4 5 RANK CLASS HABITATS Appalachian Oak Pine Forest 4 3 1 3 3 2.04 2

• 1=Scope, 2=Severity, 3=Timing, 4=Likelihood, 5=Information Massachusetts with no evidence of external trauma. that could potentially spread to wild populations Salmonella was determined to be the cause of death. (Mazzoni et al. 2003).

Diseases spread by various pathogens (e.g., viruses, bacteria, parasites) can harm fish populations in New 4. RESEARCH NEEDS Hampshire. While diseases in wild fish populations are natural, more widespread incidents of disease are

• Establish rapid diagnostic techniques for ungulates present under adverse environmental conditions. potentially infected with CWD Fish pathogens are more likely to occur in areas with

• Assess threats from diseases to species of concern in crowded conditions (aquaculture facilities) and poor New Hampshire water quality. Studies on the transmission of diseases

• Assist health officials with understanding from hatchery fish stocks to wild fish populations are interactions of wildlife diseases and human health inconclusive. Whirling disease, infectious pancreatic necrosis, bacterial kidney disease, and gas bubble 5. LITERATURE CITED disease are examples of salmonid diseases known to have occurred in NHFG fish culture facilities. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services. United West Nile Virus (WNV) is carried in birds and States Department of Agriculture. Chronic Wasting spread through the bite of infected mosquitoes, often Disease. Available: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/

causing encephalitis or meningitis. It was first detected nahps/cwd/. Accessed July 2005.

in the United States in 1999 and is now found in all Gancz, A.Y., I.K. Barker, R. Lindsay, A. Dibernardo, of the lower 48 states. Corvids and raptors appear to K. McKeever, and B. Hunter. West Nile virus be particularly susceptible to the disease (Gancz et al. outbreak in North American owls, Ontario, 2002). The New Hampshire Department of Health 2002. Emerging Infectious Diseases [serial on the and Human Services has limited their collection of Internet]. 2004 Dec [12 April 2005]. Available dead birds for WNV testing to crows and blue jays, from: <http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/

so it is difficult to determine whether other species in vol10no12/04-0167.htm>.

New Hampshire have been exposed to WNV. Kress, S.W. 1997. Using Animal Behavior for By September 2005, 51 birds, representing 22 Conservation: Case Studies in Seabird Restoration species, tested positive for eastern equine encephalitis. from the Maine Coast, USA. Journal of the It is not known if there are population level effects Yamashina Institute of Ornithology 29:1-26.

from this disease. Mazzoni, R., A.A. Cunningham, P. Daszak, A.

International trade in wildlife, especially Apolo, P. Perdomo, and G. Speranza. 2003.

amphibians, is a major pathway for the potential Emerging Pathogen of Wild Amphibians in Frogs introduction of foreign diseases to native wildlife (Rana catesbeiana) Farmed for International Trade.

populations in the United States (Daszag et al. 1999, Emerging Infectious Diseases 9:995-998 Mazzoni et al. 2003). Over one million bullfrogs United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

are imported into the United States each year. 1998. Roseate Tern Recovery Plan - Northeastern Many of these frogs are raised on farms in South Population, First Update. Hadley, Massachusetts, America where they may become carriers for diseases USA.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-29

Wildlife Risk Assessment Energy and Communication Infrastructure

1. DEFINITION variety of species and habitats but could be potentially serious for some species (e.g., American marten, bats, Wind energy and communication tower infrastruc- spruce grouse, and migratory birds including osprey) ture (e.g., television, radio, cell towers) are known to and habitats (e.g., alpine, high elevation spruce fir, degrade wildlife habitats and cause direct mortality talus slope/rocky ridges). Impacts to habitats are of individuals (Kerlinger 2000, Kerns and Kerlinger somewhat well documented, but weakly documented 2003, Schwartz 2004). This may lead to reduced for most wildlife species.

population size, alterations of population structure, and perhaps cause local extirpations. Communication 3. KNOWN WILDLIFE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS towers are common in New Hampshire. Commercial wind energy development is considered the fastest (A) Habitat loss and degradation growing sector of the energy market in the United Habitat alteration stemming from the construction States (deVries 2004, Winegrad in Resolve 2004). Al- of wind and telecommunication structures and access though New England has historically lagged behind roads can be substantial (Bodin 2004), and can per-the nation in wind resource development, high sus- haps be exacerbated by the unique and fragile habitats tained winds at high elevation sites and production where these structures are often placed (i.e., alpine, tax credits appear to be creating a competitive siting cliff and high elevation spruce-fir habitats). Ameri-environment (McLeish 2002). can marten, spruce grouse, and Bicknells thrush are sensitive to the threats posed by towers and turbines.

2. EXPERT OPINION Offshore wind turbines may affect nearby waters and the ocean floor, particularly during the construction Wind energy and communication tower infrastructure phase when the seafloor is disturbed (Kerlinger and (e.g., television, radio, cell towers) could degrade Curry 2002).

critical habitat and cause direct mortality and thereby reduce population size, alter population structure, (B) Collision and mortality and perhaps cause local extirpation. There is extensive evidence that migratory birds and Energy and communication infrastructures are bats, including species of conservation concern in considered a chronic to serious local threat for a New Hampshire, may experience substantial mor-tality at some telecommunication towers and wind turbines (Kerlinger 2000, Shire et al. 2000, Kerns TABLE 4-18. Number of habitats and species at highest risk and Kerlinger 2003, Resolve 2004, Schwartz 2004).

due to energy and communication infrastructure. See Table 4-19 and Appendix A and B for details. Risk Category 4 =

Nocturnally migrating birds may be attracted to Greatest risk. lights on towers, become disoriented, and crash into towers or associated guy wires. There is less informa-Risk Category Habitats Species tion available for impacts associated with nearshore or 4 0 0 offshore wind facilities, especially in the United States 3 0 0 (Kerlinger 2000, Kerlinger and Curry 2002). Impacts 2 3 4 would expectedly be greatest when wind facilities are sited near migration pathways or concentrations 1 6 9 of wintering or foraging waterfowl and waterbirds 4-30 New Hampshire Wildlife Actin Plan

Wildlife Risk Assessment TABLE 4-19. Habitats and species at highest risk from effects of energy and communication infrastructure, in descending order by Rank. See Appendix A and B for details additional information on specific threats and rankings.

RANKING SCORES*

SPECIES HABITAT 1 2 3 4 5 RANK CLASS SPECIES American Marten High Elevation Spruce-Fir Forest 1 4 3 3 4 2.08 2 Osprey Marsh and Shrub Wetlands 1 4 4 2 4 2.08 2 Spruce Grouse Lowland Spruce-Fir Forest 1 4 3 3 4 2.08 2 Peregrine Falcon Cliffs 2 3 3 3 3 1.88 2 HABITATS High Elevation Spruce-Fir Forest 2 4 3 3 4 2.50 2 Alpine 3 4 2 2 3 2.04 2 Talus Slopes and Rocky Ridges 4 3 2 3 2 2.04 2

• 1=Scope, 2=Severity, 3=Timing, 4=Likelihood, 5=Information (Kerlinger 2000). Mortality may be considered insig-

• Conduct a cost-benefit analysis for each proposed nificant at some locations, but it is not known what wind energy project and determine its effects on cumulative impacts might occur at a regional level the environment. Benefits should clearly outweigh (Winegrad in Schwartz 2004). environmental costs before a project proceeds.

Towers over 200 feet tall may pose the greatest threat, and as of 1999, there were approximately 5. LITERATURE CITED 60 such towers in New Hampshire (Braile 1999).

Although large mortalities from tower collisions Bodin, M. 2004. The Questions are blowing in the have not been recorded in New Hampshire, the issue wind. Northern Woodlands.

has received little study, and its overall magnitude Braile, R. 1999. Proliferation of cell towers poses remains unknown. Although there are no active threat to birds. The Boston Globe. May 23, 1999 wind turbine facilities in New Hampshire, there New Hampshire Weekly, p. 1.

are several proposals being evaluated by state and deVries, E. 2004. 150,000 MW by 2012! Renewable local regulators. In an attempt to minimize wildlife Energy World. June 2004: 60-70.

impacts, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Kerlinger, P. 2000. Avian mortality at communication (USFWS) produced guidelines for the siting and towers: a review of recent literature, research, and operation of both communication towers and wind methodology. Curry & Kerlinger, L.L.C. Cape turbines. May Point, New Jersey, USA. Prepared for United States Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Migratory

4. RESEARCH NEEDS Bird Management.

Kerlinger, P. 2001. Avian issues and potential impacts

• More information is needed on the direct associated with wind power development in the threats (habitat loss, mortality, wildlife behavior nearshore islands of Long Island, New York.

modifications) of wind farms and communication Prepared for Bruce Bailey, AWS Scientific towers proposed in the Northeast, including New Kerlinger, P., and R. Curry. 2002. Desktop avian risk Hampshire. USFWS recommends a minimum assessment for the Long Island power authority of 3 years pre-construction surveys to document offshore wind energy project. Prepared for AWS impacts to wildlife. Post-construction surveys Scientific, Inc. and Long Island Power Authority.

should assess impacts and lead to modified design Kerns, J., and P. Kerlinger. 2003. A study of bird and and siting criteria. bat collision fatalities at the Mountaineer Wind New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-31

Wildlife Risk Assessment Energy Center, Tucker County, West Virginia:

Annual Report for 2003. Prepared for FPL Energy and Mountaineer Wind Energy Center Technical Review Committee.

McLeish, T. 2002. Wind power. Natural New England 11: 60-65.

Schwartz, S.S. (ed.). 2004. Proceedings of the Wind Energy and Birds/Bats Workshop: Understanding and Resolving Bird and Bat Impacts (Washington, DC. May 18-19, 2004). RESOLVE Inc.,

Washington, D.C.

Shire, G.G., K. Brown, and G. Winegard. 2000.

Communication towers: A deadly hazard to birds.

American Bird Conservancy. www.abcbirds.org/

Towerkills.htm.

4-32 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Wildlife Risk Assessment Introduced Species

1. DEFINITION TABLE 4-20. Number of habitats and species at highest risk from introduced species. See Table 4-21 and Appendix A and B for details. Risk Category 4 = Greatest risk.

Introduced species may compete directly with native species for food or space, may compete indirectly Risk Category Habitats Species by changing the food web or physical environment, 4 0 3 or may prey on or hybridize with native species 3 2 1 (Stein and Flack 1996). Rare species with limited ranges and restricted habitat requirements are 2 8 6 particularly vulnerable to introduced species. 1 12 13 Invasive species (i.e., species that spread rapidly or colonize vigorously) are now regarded as the second-leading threat to at-risk species nationwide, New Hampshire officially recognizes 16 invasive behind only habitat destruction (Stein and Flack exotic invertebrates that are prohibited for collection, 1996). Approximately 42% of federal threatened importation, sale, distribution, propagation, or or endangered species are at risk from invasive release (Chapter Agr 3800 Invasive Species).

species (Stein and Flack 1996). Impacts to many Introductions of invasive invertebrates have threatened or endangered species is not well known. significant consequences on critical habitats and associated wildlife species. For instance, hemlock

2. EXPERT OPINION wooly adelgid, first observed in New Hampshire in 2000, is a significant threat to the states hemlock Introduced animals (e.g., mammalian predators, forests. The insects suck sap from young twigs, zebra mussels) may have extreme impacts on island retarding or preventing tree growth and causing nesting birds (Roseate tern), dwarf wedgemussels, and needles to turn grayish-green and drop prematurely, eastern pondmussels in the near future. Hemlock- usually resulting in significant die-offs (McClure hardwood-pine forests, Karner blue butterflies, and et al. 2001). There is some evidence that the coastal transitional wetlands are seriously threatened adelgids northward spread is controlled by winter as well. Salt marshes and associated at-risk birds and temperatures, but it is unknown if control is sufficient watersheds in the Lakes and Monadnock regions to minimize impacts on New Hampshires hemlock will likely undergo serious impacts from introduced forests (Sheilds and Cheah 2003).

plants in the near future. Invasive species seriously Ladybird beetles (Coccinella septempunctata) impact several other habitats including pine barrens, introduced to control aphids on agricultural crops are floodplain forests, and many watersheds. known to prey on Karner blue larvae and immature Monarch butterflies (Schellhorn et al. 2005). Being

3. KNOWN WILDLIFE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS a generalist predator, ladybird beetles may also harm other species of butterflies.

(A) Invasive invertebrates Wasps and flies marketed and released as A number of invasive exotic invertebrates have been biological controls for agricultural pests are often introduced to the United States via mechanisms generalist parasites with potentially widespread but ranging from importation of commercial goods to undocumented effects on native Lepidoptera.

intentional release for control of other invasive species. Zebra mussels have a high potential to signifi-New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-33

Wildlife Risk Assessment TABLE 4-21. Habitats and species at highest risk from introduced species, in descending order by Rank. See Appendix A and B for details additional information on specific threats and rankings.

RANKING SCORES*

SPECIES HABITAT 1 2 3 4 5 RANK CLASS SPECIES Dwarf Wedgemussel Aquatic 4 4 3 3 4 3.33 4 Eastern Pondmussel Aquatic 4 4 3 3 4 3.33 4 Roseate Tern Coastal Islands 4 4 4 2 4 3.33 4 Karner Blue Butterfly Pine Barrens 3 4 4 2 4 2.92 3 Nelson's Sharp-tailed Sparrow Salt Marshes 3 2 4 4 4 2.50 2 Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrow Salt Marshes 3 2 4 4 4 2.50 2 Seaside Sparrow Salt Marshes 3 2 4 4 4 2.50 2 Willet Salt Marshes 3 2 4 4 4 2.50 2 New England Cottontail Shrublands 4 2 3 3 3 2.25 2 Brook Floater Aquatic 2 3 3 2 4 1.88 2 HABITATS Hemlock-Hardwood-Pine Forest 4 4 2 3 4 3.00 3 Coastal Transitional Watersheds 3 3 3 4 4 2.75 3 Salt Marshes 3 2 4 4 4 2.50 2 Floodplain Forests 3 3 2 3 4 2.25 2 Marsh and Shrub Wetlands 3 3 2 3 4 2.25 2 Connecticut River Mainstem Watersheds 2 3 2 3 4 1.88 2 Non-Tidal Coastal Watersheds 2 3 2 4 3 1.88 2 Pine Barrens 2 3 2 3 4 1.88 2 Southern Upland Watersheds 2 3 2 4 3 1.88 2 Tidal Coastal Watersheds 2 3 2 4 3 1.88 2

• 1=Scope, 2=Severity, 3=Timing, 4=Likelihood, 5=Information cantly affect the states freshwater mussels, especially (B) Range expansions and local introductions the state endangered dwarf wedgemussel. After their A number of species have expanded their range or in-discovery in Lake Saint Clare in 1988, zebra mus- creased in abundance in the last 100 years either natu-sels quickly spread throughout many regions of the rally or with the assistance of humans. For instance, United States and parts of Canada. Adult zebra mus- coyotes have been expanding eastward since the mid-sels are transported to waterbodies while attached to 1900s. The first verified account of a coyote in New boats, and larvae may be transported in bilge and bait Hampshire was in Grafton County in 1944. Between bucket water. Zebra mussels compete with native 1972 and 1980 coyotes spread across the state and are freshwater mussels for food and may reduce food con- now common in every county (OBrien, undated).

centration to levels that cannot support native species People have likely contributed to the range (Strayer 1999). The Connecticut River is at high to expansion and increased abundance of mammalian serious risk of zebra mussel colonization (Michelle predators (e.g., coyotes, foxes, raccoons, etc.).

Babione, Silvio O. Conte National Wildlife Refuge, Readily available food sources (e.g., agricultural personal communication). crops, trash, pet food, etc.) are thought to facilitate 4-34 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Wildlife Risk Assessment population increases in landscapes fragmented by heterophyllum) and fanwort (Cabomba caroliniana),

agriculture and development (Oehler and Litvaitis both aquatic plants, being the most common (Varney 1996). Boat visitation has been the vehicle for rat and Christie 2003). Twenty-three non-indigenous introductions on both Star and Appledore Islands, fish species have been introduced into New and raccoons were introduced to the island through Hampshire waters. Of these, 17 are species native to an unknown source in 2004. Predation by medium- the United States and 6 are species introduced from sized mammals is the most common proximate other countries (exotic). Fifty percent of the exotic mortality factor of New England cottontail and species introductions resulted in establishing self-has caused high mortalities of common and roseate sustaining populations (Estuarine and Freshwater terns on the Isles of Shoals (Barbour and Litvaitis Working Group 2005).

1993, Brown and Litvaitis 1995, DeLuca 2005).

(E) Disturbances that lead to invasions (C) Horticultural introductions Disturbance of a salt marsh, such as the construction Horticulture (arboretums, botanic gardens, nurseries, of a road that restricts tidal flow, can exacerbate the etc.) has been responsible for the introduction and proliferation of invasive plants (e.g., common reed spread of a number of exotic plants. In fact, the (Phragmites australis) and purple loosestrife (Lythrum majority of woody invasive plants in the U.S. (85%) salicaria) (Niering and Warren 1980, Benoit and were introduced for horticultural purposes including Askins 1999). The invasion of salt marsh habitats landscaping, gardening, mitigation of soil erosion, by exotic plants reduces habitat quality for a number and improving wildlife habitat (Reichard 1997 as of wildlife species. For instance, salt marsh sparrows, cited in Reichard and White 2001). Some of these a species normally found in Spartina grasses, are are officially listed as invasive in New Hampshire, unlikely to use a marsh dominated by tall, thick including autumn olive, Japanese barberry, glossy stands of common reed. Further, the density of these buckthorn, and others (Eckardt 1997, Reinartz stands of reed may make prey inaccessible or may 1997, Silander and Klepeis 2001, New Hampshire reduce foraging success (Benoit and Askins 1999).

Department of Agriculture 2005). These and other Timber harvest in upland habitats can also invasive exotic plants may decrease plant species exacerbate invasions. If invasive exotic plants are diversity, produce allelopathic chemicals that retard already present in or near a forest stand, opening the other species, modify disturbance regimes, and forest floor to additional sunlight and scarifying the significantly modify the species composition and soil with harvesting equipment can create conditions structure of vegetation (Silander and Klepeis 2001). conducive to the spread of invasive exotic plants.

These mechanisms may inhibit forest regeneration and degrade wildlife habitat. 4. RESEARCH NEEDS (D) Aquatic pathways

• Identify and monitor existing and potential Invasive exotic aquatic plants and animals enter lakes, transport mechanisms for invasive species streams, and rivers of New Hampshire watersheds

• Research and evaluate forms of invasive plant and via commercial transport, ballast water discharges, animal control aquaculture, boating, landscaping, water transport,

• Collect data on invasive species abundance and private aquarium releases, and bait handling distribution to identify current threat areas (Courtenay and Robins 1973, Glassner-Shwayder

• Identify species and sites for invasive species 1996). Negative effects include alterations in nutrient management, which can be combined with existing cycling pathways, decreased habitat value of infested efforts (e.g., Invasive Plant Atlas of New England waters, decreased water quality, altered community and New Hampshires Estuarine and Freshwater structure, and threats to endangered species (e.g., Working Group) dwarf wedgemussel) (Estuarine and Freshwater

• Research effects of introduced species on at-risk Working Group 2005). Eight of the 14 invasive wildlife and associated habitats plants prohibited in New Hampshire already occur

• Assess habitat characteristics that facilitate invasions in the state, with variable milfoil (Myriophyllum by exotic plants New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-35

Wildlife Risk Assessment

5. LITERATURE CITED OBrien, K. undated. Eastern Coyote (Canis latrans var.), University of New Hampshire Cooperative Barbour, M.S., and J.A. Litvaitis. 1993. Niche Extension. www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Wildlife/

dimensions of New England cottontails in relation Wildlife_profiles/profile_eastern_coyote.htm to habitat patch size. Oecologia 95:321-327. Oehler, J.D., and J.A. Litvaitis. 1996. The role Benoit, L.K., and R.A. Askins. 1999. Impact of the of spatial scale in understanding responses by spread of Phragmites on the distribution of birds in medium-sized carnivores to forest fragmentation.

Connecticut tidal marshes. Wetlands 19:194-208. Canadian Journal of Zoology 74: 2070-2079.

Brown, A.L., and J.A. Litvaitis. 1995. Habitat Reichard, S.H., and P. White. 2001. Horticulture as features associated with predation of New England a pathway of invasive plant introductions in the cottontails: what scale is appropriate? Canadian United States. BioScience 51:103-113.

Journal of Zoology 73:1005-1011. Reinartz, J.A. 1997. Controlling glossy buckthorn Courtenay, W., and R. Robins. 1973. Exotic Aquatic with winter herbicide treatments of cut stump.

Organisms in Florida with Emphasis on Fishes: A Natural Areas Journal 17:38-41.

Review and Recommendations. Transactions of the Schellhorn, N.A., C.P. Lane, and D.M. Olson.

American Fisheries Society 102(1): 2005. The co-occurrence of an introduced DeLuca, D.L. 2005. Roseate tern species profile. biological control agent (Coleoptera: Coccinella New Hampshires Comprehensive Wildlife septempunctata) and an endangered butterfly Conservation Strategy. New Hampshire Fish & (Lepidoptera: Lycaeides melissa samuelis). Journal Game Department. of Insect Conservation 9:41-47.

Eckardt, N. 1997. Element stewardship abstract: Sheilds, K.S., and C.A. Cheah. 2003. 2002-2003 Elaeagnus umbellata. The Nature Conservancy. 6pp. winter mortality of hemlock wooly adelgid in the Estuarine and Freshwater Working Group. 2005. northeastern U.S. United State Forest Service 4pp.

State of New Hampshire Comprehensive http://na.fs.fed.us/fhp/hwa/pdfs/Cold_Hardiness_

Management Plan for the Prevention and Control ESA03.pdf of Aquatic Nuisance Species, Unpublished draft. Silander, J.A., Jr., and D.M. Klepeis. 2001. The Concord, New Hampshire, USA. invasion ecology of Japanese barberry (Berberis Glassner-Shwayder K. 1996. A Model State thunbergii) in the New England landscape.

Comprehensive Management Plan for the Biological Invasions 1:189-201.

Prevention and Control of Nonindigenous Aquatic Stein, B.A., and S.R. Flack. 1996. Americas least Nuisance Species. Environmental Quality and wanted: alien species invasions of U.S. ecosystems.

Resource Management Program, Great Lakes The Nature Conservancy 36pp.

Commission Ann Arbor, Michigan. Strayer, D.L. 1999. Effects of alien species on McClure, M.S., S.M. Salom, and K.S. Shields. 2001. freshwater mollusks in North America. Journal Hemlock wooly adelgid. United States Forest of the North American Benthological Society 18:

Service, Forest Health Technology Enterprise 74-98.

Team, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA. Varney R., and N. Christie. 2003. Fighting the New Hampshire Coastal Program (NHCP). New Spread of Invasive Species in New Hampshire.

Hampshire Department of Environmental www.epa.gov/region01/ra/column/archive/

Services, Concord, New Hampshire. NHCP home invasivespecies_nh_20030909.html.

page: www.des.state.nh.us/Coastal/ Accessed 2004 November.

New Hampshire Department of Agriculture (NHDA). Invasive species program. Home page: http://agriculture.nh.gov/topics/plants_

insects.htm Accessed 2005 June.

Niering, W.A., and R.S. Warren. 1980. Vegetation patterns and processes in New England salt marshes. BioScience 30:301-306.

4-36 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Wildlife Risk Assessment Mercury

1. DEFINITION TABLE 4-22. Number of habitats and species at highest risk from the effects of mercury. See Table 4-23 and Appendix A and B for details. Risk Category 4 = Greatest risk.

Though naturally occurring, mercury is an air and water quality issue that affects human and ecological Risk Category Habitats Species health. The redistribution of inorganic mercury (Hg) 4 0 0 that is available for methylation is a serious ecological issue in New Hampshire. Fossil fuel burning 3 0 3 (particularly coal) and incineration of municipal and 2 6 7 hospital waste has significantly enhanced availability 1 6 9 of mercury. Some areas of New Hampshire are affected by within-state emission or point sources, while regional and global emissions have statewide The loon is a long-lived fish eating bird and has impacts (Evers 2005). Mercury distribution is been well studied across North America and in New well characterized for northeastern North America Hampshire (Evers et al. 1998, 2003). Southeastern (Evers and Clair 2005a). Many habitats are New Hampshire was identified as a biological hotspot vulnerable to methylmercury (MeHg) production for methylmercury availability (Evers 2005), and loon and availability, and species at risk are typically blood and egg mercury levels indicate approximately predators or are long-lived (Evers et al. 2005). 14% of New Hampshires breeding population is at risk to behavioral, physiological, and reproductive

2. EXPERT OPINION impacts. DeSorbo and Evers (2005) recently documented that lower bald eagle productivity for Methylmercury availability greatly affects species and the past 10 years in Maine is significantly correlated habitats of conservation concern in New Hampshire, to chick blood mercury levels. In rivers and streams, though habitat and species sensitivity varies. Impacts ospreys, common mergansers, and belted kingfishers will likely be serious in salt marshes, marsh and are high trophic level species and have been shown shrub wetlands, and floodplain forests. Mercury to have elevated mercury levels (Evers et al. 2005).

will likely have a serious effect on aquatic and high- Mercury levels in kingfishers living on lakes are elevation habitats in the short-term. Methylmercury 4 times higher than those on the ocean. Marine is well documented in aquatic habitats, somewhat foraging terns are less affected by methylmercury documented in salt marsh, marsh and shrub than are those foraging in estuaries and freshwater wetlands, and high-elevation habitats, and weakly or systems (BRI unpublished data). Aquatic mammals undocumented in alpine and peatlands. dependent on crayfish (Pennuto et al. 2005) and fish are also at high risk, particularly the mink and river

3. KNOWN WILDLIFE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS otter (Yates et al. 2005).

(A) Piscivorous food webs (B) Insectivorous food webs Fish are a primary food web pathway for Recent work strongly indicates that insectivores methylmercury, making aquatic habitats and a broad can have elevated body burdens of mercury. A suite of aquatic species at risk (Evers and Clairs Massachusetts study in riverine scrub-shrub wetlands 2005a). showed that methylmercury can biomagnify through New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-37

Wildlife Risk Assessment TABLE 4-23. Habitats and species at highest risk from the effects of mercury, in descending order by Rank. See Appendix A and B for details additional information on specific threats and rankings.

RANKING SCORES*

SPECIES HABITAT 1 2 3 4 5 RANK CLASS SPECIES Bald Eagle Aquatic 3 4 4 2 4 2.92 3 Osprey Marsh and Shrub Wetlands 4 3 2 3 4 2.63 3 Peregrine Falcon Cliffs 4 3 2 3 4 2.63 3 Common Loon Aquatic 3 2 4 4 4 2.50 2 Common Tern Coastal Islands 4 2 3 3 4 2.50 2 Roseate Tern Coastal Islands 4 2 3 3 4 2.50 2 Nelson's Sharp-tailed Sparrow Salt Marshes 3 3 2 3 3 2.00 2 Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrow Salt Marshes 3 3 2 3 3 2.00 2 Seaside Sparrow Salt Marshes 3 3 2 3 3 2.00 2 Willet Salt Marshes 3 3 2 3 3 2.00 2 HABITATS Coastal Islands 4 2 3 3 4 2.50 2 Appalachian Oak Pine Forest 4 2 2 3 4 2.25 2 Hemlock-Hardwood-Pine Forest 4 2 2 3 4 2.25 2 Northern Hardwood-Conifer Forest 4 2 2 3 4 2.25 2 Salt Marshes 4 2 2 3 3 2.00 2 High Elevation Spruce-Fir Forest 4 1.5 3 2 3 1.83 2

• 1=Scope, 2=Severity, 3=Timing, 4=Likelihood, 5=Information the avian insect food web. Some individual northern breeding species such as the red-shouldered hawk and waterthrushes and red-winged blackbirds had blood Louisiana waterthrush could be at risk.

mercury levels that exceeded levels in all bald eagles sampled across New England (Evers et al. 2005). (B) Acidic habitats Other species at risk in marsh and shrub wetlands Ecosystems sensitive to acidic conditions are of include the American bittern and Virginia rail. high interest for investigating potential impacts of Estuaries, particularly those surrounded by developed methylmercury. The synergy of acidity and mercury landscapes, and floodplain forest, are prone to deposition may harm breeding songbird populations.

methylmercury pollution. Studies of the salt marsh Long-term acid deposition has lowered calcium and Nelsons sharp-tailed sparrow and seaside sparrow availability in the Northeast (Hames et al. 2002) in four New England National Wildlife Refuges and and likely elsewhere in eastern North America other estuaries show that blood mercury levels exceed (Driscoll et al. 2001), has changed invertebrate faunal safe standards set for insectivorous songbirds (0.82 assemblages (Schindler et al. 1985), and has increased ppm, wet weight). These levels were consistently methylmercury availability (Spry and Wiener 1991).

higher than those in associated insectivores, indicating Although not well studied, methylmercury in upper trophic level foraging (Lane and Evers 2005). insectivorous birds and small terrestrial mammals In floodplains, high blood mercury levels in the such as shrews and bats may be more of a risk northern waterthrush indicate New Hampshire than previously considered. Two consistently acidic 4-38 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Wildlife Risk Assessment habitats are peatlands and high elevation areas.

• Conduct a risk assessment for species at greatest Recent evidence from a riverine scrub-shrub wetland risk, including the common loon and bald eagle study of a 15-species insectivorous guild found red-

• Conduct a risk assessment for habitats and their winged blackbirds to carry the highest Hg body species assemblages burdens (Evers et al. 2005). The rusty blackbird,

• Collect new tissue samples from species and habitats which commonly inhabits peat lands, is a species with little empirical information on mercury of high conservation concern that may be harmed exposure, particularly those with compelling by elevated mercury levels. Since 1970, this species evidence of mercury injury. The priority species has declined precipitously, though the reasons for are the red-shouldered hawk, Bicknells thrush, its troubles remain largely unexplained (Greenough and rusty blackbird. Priority habitats are peatlands, 2005). However, blackbirds depending on insect high elevation areas, and floodplain forest.

food webs with an origin in acidified habitats may Secondary priority should be on the pied-billed be harmed by the synergistic relationship of elevated grebe, American bittern, and Virginia rail in methylmercury and low calcium levels during times selected wetland habitats (depending on geography of increased energy needs for proper eggs and chick and types).

production. Pied-billed grebes in peatland habitats could also be at high risk. 5. LITERATURE CITED Higher mercury levels and lowered calcium levels in acidified environments at high elevation is DeSorbo, C.R., and D.C. Evers. 2005. Evaluating of great concern. Rimmer et al. (2005) quantified exposure of Maines Bald Eagle population to the distribution of mercury across the Northeast and Mercury: assessing impacts on productivity and showed elevated blood mercury levels in the Bicknells spatial exposure patterns. Report BRI 2005-08.

thrush. This species only breeds on mountaintops, BioDiversity Research Institute, Gorham, Maine.

generally in areas removed from standing water, Driscoll, C.T., G.B. Lawrence, A.J. Bulger, T.J.

indicating that mercury is much more pervasive than Butler, C.S. Cronan, C. Eagar, K.F. Lambert, G.E.

once thought and that it could be problematic for Likens, J.L. Stoddard, and K.C. Weathers. 2001.

some terrestrial systems. Acidic deposition in the northeastern United States: Sources and inputs, ecosystem effects, and

4. RESEARCH NEEDS management strategies. Bioscience 51:180-198.

Evers, D.C. 2005. Mercury Connections: The extent

• Initiate a steering committee of state agencies and effects of mercury pollution in northeastern (NHFG and NHDES) to work with federal agen- North America. BioDiversity Research Institute, cies (US EPA, USFWS, USDA, and USGS), in- Gorham, Maine.

dustry, universities, and non-profit organizations Evers, D.C., and T.A. Clair. 2005a. Biogeographical that will facilitate operations of the National Mer- patterns of environmental mercury in northeastern cury Monitoring Network. Process should follow North America. Ecotoxicology 14. 296pp.

the successful mercury network by BRI with the Evers, D.C., and T.A. Clair. 2005b. Mercury in Northeastern Ecosystem Research Cooperative. northeastern North America: A synthesis of existing

• Compile a document that identifies the best databases. Ecotoxicology 14:7-14.

indicator species and represents all relevant taxa Evers, D.C., J.D. Kaplan, M.W. Meyer, P.S. Reaman, for sensitive habitats and geographic areas in New A. Major, N. Burgess, and W.E. Braselton. 1998.

Hampshire Bioavailability of environmental mercury measured

• Conduct a spatial and temporal analysis of common in Common Loon feathers and blood across loon exposure and risk statewide (in process with North American. Environmental Toxicology and NHDES) Chemistry 17:173-183.

• Establish a long-term monitoring effort using Evers, D.C., K.M. Taylor, A. Major, R.J. Taylor, R.H.

common loon tissue levels and link with existing Poppenga, and A.M. Scheuhammer. 2003. Common and new demographic data collected by the Loon Loon eggs as indicators of methylmercury availability Preservation Committee in North America. Ecotoxicology 12:69-81.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-39

Wildlife Risk Assessment Evers, D.C., N. Burgess, L. Champoux, B. Hoskins, A. Major, W. Goodale, R. Taylor, R. Poppenga, and T. Daigle. 2005. Patterns and interpretation of mercury exposure in freshwater avian communities in northeastern North America. Ecotoxicology 14:

193-222.

Greenough, R. 2005. Understanding declines in the Rusty Blackbird (Euphagus carolinus): An indicator of wooded wetland health. Unpubl. report.

Smithsonian Inst., Washington DC.

Hames, R.S., K.V. Rosenberg, J.D. Lowe, S.E. Barker, and A.A. Dhondt. 2002. Adverse effects of acid rain on the distribution of the Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina in North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99:11235-11240.

Lane, O.P., and D.C. Evers. 2005. Developing a geographic exposure profile of methylmercury availability in salt marshes of New England. Report BRI 2005-04. BioDiversity Research Institute, Gorham, Maine.

Pennuto, C., D.C. Evers, and O. Lane. 2005.

Patterns in the mercury content of benthic macroinvertebrates in temperate aquatic ecosystems. Ecotoxicology 14:149-162.

Rimmer, C., K. McFarland, D.C. Evers, E.K. Miller, Y. Aubry, D. Busby, and R. Taylor. 2005. Mercury levels in Bicknells Thrush and other insectivorous passerine birds in montane forests of northeastern United States and Canada. Ecotoxicology 14:223-240.

Schindler, D.W., K.H. Mills, D.F. Malley, S. Findlay, J.A. Shearer, I.J. Davies, M.A. Turner, G.A.

Lindsey, and D.R. Cruikshank. 1985. Long-term ecosystem stress: Effects of years of experimental acidification. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37:342-354.

Spry, D.J., and J.G. Wiener. 1991. Metal bioavailability and toxicity to fish in low-alkalinity lakes: A critical review. Environmental Pollution 71:243-304.

Yates, D., D. Mayack, K. Munney, D.C. Evers, R.J.

Taylor, T. Kaur, and A. Major. 2005. Mercury levels in mink and river otter in northeastern North America. Ecotoxicology 14:263-274.

4-40 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Wildlife Risk Assessment Non-point Source Pollution

1. DEFINITION TABLE 4-24. Number of habitats and species at highest risk from the effects of non-point source pollution. See Table 4-25 and Appendix A and B for details. Risk Category 4 =

Non-point source pollution results from land use that Greatest risk.

allows harmful substances, such as sediments, road salt, fertilizers, pesticides, and petrochemicals, to be Risk Category Habitats Species flushed into water bodies by rain or snowmelt (New 4 0 0 Hampshire Department of Environmental Services 3 3 3 (NHDES) 1999). Non-point source pollution is 2 7 4 more pervasive and difficult to address than point 1 14 20 sources, which are regulated by the Clean Water Act (amended in 1977). Improving water quality will require a broad effort to identify and address the many pathways by which pollutants enter aquatic contributing excessive nutrients (e.g., phosphorus habitats. and nitrogen) and other pollutants (e.g., heavy metals, organic compounds, and sediment) (Richter et al.

2. EXPERT OPINION 1997, NHDES 1999, Francis and Mulligan 1997).

Introduced nutrients from fertilizers entering aquatic Non-point source pollutants affect many species and systems can change plant composition in wetland habitats of concern in New Hampshire. Impacts will communities and cause algal blooms, reducing likely be serious for lowland spruce-fir forests and dissolved oxygen concentrations enough to kill or some watershed groups and associated fish, as well as displace fish and invertebrates (Carpenter et al. 1998).

all three freshwater mussel species on the SGNC list in Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs), which allow New Hampshire. The impacts from non-point source waste water treatment plants to release untreated pollutionprimarily from pesticides/fertilizers, wastewater into water bodies during heavy rain, stormwater runoff, and sedimentationto these increase nutrient and turbidity levels and prolong habitats and associated species are well documented. the presence of persistent toxins in riverine habitats.

Severe impacts to other natural communities also New Hampshire currently has 47 identified CSOs in likely occur but are not well documented. 6 communities (NHDES 2003).

Stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces

3. KNOWN WILDLIFE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS (e.g., roofs, roads, and parking lots) often flows di-rectly into aquatic systems. These surfaces accumu-(A) Stormwater runoff late a variety of contaminants including petroleum In 1998, non-point source pollution was the products, lead, PCBs, road salt, sand, pesticides, and suspected cause for 92% of sampled water bodies fertilizers (United States Environmental Protection that did not achieve state water quality standards Agency 2005). The decline in aquatic species diver-in New Hampshire (NHDES 1999). Runoff from sity as watersheds become more urbanized is well agricultural lands, forestry operations, faulty septic documented (Weaver and Garman 1994, Richter et systems, industry, landscaping activities, roads, al. 1997). In a Massachusetts fen community, species golf courses, landfills, junkyards, and wastewater richness, evenness, and the abundance of individual treatment facilities can affect aquatic systems by species were adversely impacted by high sodium and New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-41

Wildlife Risk Assessment TABLE 4-25. Habitats and species at highest risk from the effects of non-point source pollution, in descending order by Rank. See Appendix A and B for details additional information on specific threats and rankings.

RANKING SCORES*

SPECIES HABITAT 1 2 3 4 5 RANK CLASS SPECIES Dwarf Wedgemussel Aquatic 4 3 4 4 3 3.21 3 Brook Floater Aquatic 3 3 4 4 3 2.75 3 Eastern Pondmussel Aquatic 3 3 4 4 3 2.75 3 Northern Leopard Frog Grasslands 4 3 2 3 3 2.33 2 Bald Eagle Aquatic 3 2 2 3 4 1.88 2 Osprey Marsh and Shrub Wetlands 3 2 2 3 4 1.88 2 Peregrine Falcon Cliffs 3 2 2 3 4 1.88 2 HABITATS Lowland Spruce Fir Forest 3 4 3 3 4 2.92 3 Connecticut River Mainstem Watersheds 3 3 4 3 4 2.75 3 Non-Tidal Coastal Watersheds 3 3 4 4 3 2.75 3 Coastal Transitional Watersheds 3 3 3 3 3 2.25 2 Tidal Coastal Watersheds 3 3 3 3 3 2.25 2 Montane Watersheds 2 3 4 3 3 2.08 2 Hemlock-Hardwood-Pine Forest 3 3 2 2 4 2.00 2 Northern Upland Watersheds 3 3 3 3 2 2.00 2 Peatlands 2 3 3 3 3 1.88 2 Southern Upland Watersheds 2 3 3 3 3 1.88 2

• 1=Scope, 2=Severity, 3=Timing, 4=Likelihood, 5=Information chloride concentrations along a turnpike (Richburg stabilization projects may reduce erosion at a specific et al. 2001). Roadside vernal pools in New Hamp- location, but negatively affect downstream locations shire had higher levels of both sodium and chloride (CRJC 2002). Sedimentation can alter natural and lower embryonic survival of spotted salamander community composition and reduce population sizes larvae when compared to woodland vernal pools of fish, amphibians, and benthic invertebrates by (Turtle 2000). increasing turbidity and burying cobble, gravel, and boulder substrates (Hedrick et al. 2005). Soil particles (B) Sedimentation entering wetlands can affect hydrology and vegetation Bank erosion and sediment deposition are natural (Mahaney et al. 2004). A survey of 1,300 landowners processes that can be accelerated by human activity. along the Connecticut River indicated bank Increased impervious surfaces, road upgrades, erosion as their primary concern (NHDES 1999).

poor forestry practices, residential development, wetland filling, dredging and filling, mining, water (C) Chemical applications level fluctuations, recreational vehicles, riparian Broad-spectrum chemical herbicides and insecticides zone alterations, channelization, and boat wakes applied to forests to control hardwood regeneration increase bank erosion (Alexander and Hansen 1983, and outbreaks of eastern spruce budworm caterpillars Connecticut River Joint Commission (CRJC) 2002, (Choristoneura feranafumi) can enter stream systems Francis and Mulligan 1997, Zankel 2004). Shoreline soon after application, affecting wildlife, aquatic 4-42 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Wildlife Risk Assessment habitats, and human health (Miller 1982, Rashin and River Corridor Management Plan. Connecticut Graber 1993). Developed resistance from insecticides River Joint Commission. Charlestown, New by spruce budworms makes chemical applications less Hampshire, USA.

effective (Natural Resources Canada 1997). Hedrick L., S. Welsh, and J. Hedrick. 2005. A New Toxic effects of pesticides involve the Sampler Design for Measuring Sedimentation bioaccumulation of toxins within fat tissue. At in Streams. North American Journal of Fisheries high doses, exposure can result in acute toxicity Management. American Fisheries Society 25:238-and death. At lower doses, toxins may be released 244.

during periods of negative energy balance such as Kunz, T.H., E.L.P. Anthony, and W.T. Rumage.

hibernation or lactation in species such as bats (Kunz 1977. Mortality of little brown bats following et al. 1977). Deposited heavy metals and organic multiple pesticide applications. Journal of Wildlife compounds accumulate and persist in the sediment Management 41:476-483.

and bioaccumulate in the tissue of fish and benthic Mahane,y W., D. Wardrop, and J. Bishop. 2004.

communities (NHDES 1999). Impacts of Sedimentation and Nitrogen Enrichment The use of chlorinated hydrocarbons (e.g., on Wetland Plant Community Development. Plant DDT) causes eggshell thinning in raptors. Although Ecology 175(2):227-243.

DDT has been banned in the U.S., it is still used on Miller, J. 1982. Hardwood Control Using Pelleted the wintering grounds of many raptor prey species Herbicides and Burning. Proceedings, 35th Annual (NatureServe 2005). Continued exposure by raptors Meeting Southern Weed Science Society; 1982 to DDT is hypothesized to result from foraging on January 19-21; Atlanta, GA. Southern Weed contaminated migratory birds returning from the Science Society. 210-215.

tropics. Natural Resources Canada. 1997. Genetically Engineered Baculoviruses for Forest Insect

4. RESEARCH NEEDS Management Applications. A Canadian Forest Service Discussion Paper. Science Branch. Ottawa,

• Expand water quality monitoring to include a Ontario.

greater variety of aquatic habitats NatureServe. 2005. NatureServe Explorer. An

• Compare areas known to be receiving polluted online encyclopedia of life. Version 4.4.

runoff with areas that are relatively pristine NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available at:

• Monitor the long-term effects of pesticides on the <http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/

reproductive fitness of avian predators NatureServe>. Accessed on January 12, 2005.

New Hampshire Department of Environmental

5. LITERATURE CITED Services. 1999. New Hampshire Non-point Source Management Plan. Concord, New Hampshire, Alexander, G., and E. Hansen. 1983. Sand Sediment USA.

in a Michigan Trout Stream Part II. Effects of New Hampshire Department of Environmental Reducing Sand Bedload on a Trout Population. Services. 2003. Combined Sewage Overflows North American Journal of Fisheries Management. (CSOs). Available http://www.des.state.nh.us/

American Fisheries Society. 3:365-372. factsheets/wwt/web-9.htm. (Accessed May 2005).

Carpenter, S.R., N.F. Caraco, D.L. Correll, R.W. Rashin, E., and C. Graber. 1993. Effectiveness of Howarth, A.N. Sharpley and V.H. Smith. 1998. Best Management Practices for Aerial Application Non-point pollution of surface waters with of Forest Pesticides. Washington State Department phosphorous and nitrogen. Ecological Applications of Ecology. Ecology Publication No. 93-81.

8:559-568. Richburg, J.A., W. Patterson, and F. Lowenstein.

Connecticut River Joint Commission (CRJC). 2002. 2001. Effect of road salt and Phragmites River Dynamics and Erosion. River Banks and australis invasion on the vegetation of a western Buffers No. 1. Available http://www.crjc.org/ Massachusetts calcareous lakebasin fen. Wetlands pdffiles/rivdynero.pdf. (Accessed May 2005). 21:247-255.

Francis, F., and A. Mulligan. 1997. Connecticut Richter B., D. Braun, M. Mendelson, and L. Master.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-43

Wildlife Risk Assessment 1997. Threats to Imperiled Freshwater Fauna.

Conservation Biology 2:1081-1093.

Turtle, S.L. 2000. Embryonic survivorship of the spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum) in roadside and woodland vernal pools in southeastern New Hampshire. Journal of Herpetology 34:60-67.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2004. Managing Non-point Pollution from Agriculture. Available http://www.epa.gov/

owow/nps/facts/point6.htm. (Accessed May 2005).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2004. Managing Non-point Pollution from Forestry. Available http://www.epa.gov/

owow/nps/facts/point8.htm. (Accessed May 2005).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Draft 2005. National Management Measures to Control Non-point Source Pollution from Urban Areas. Management Measure 7 - Bridges and Highways. Available: http:

//www.epa.gov/owow/nps/urbanmm/index.html.

(Accessed May 2005)

Weaver, L.A., and G.C. Garman. 1994. Urbanization of a watershed and historical changes in a stream fish assemblage. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 123:162-172.

Zankel, M. 2004. A Land Conservation Plan for the Ashuelot River Watershed. The Nature Conservancy. Concord, New Hampshire, USA.

4-44 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Wildlife Risk Assessment Oil Spills

1. DEFINITION TABLE 4-26. Number of habitats and species at highest risk from the effects of oil spills. See Table 4-27 and Appendix A and B for details. Risk Category 4 = Greatest risk.

Oil can be introduced into marine and coastal environments by spills, leaks, or discharges from Risk Category Habitats Species onshore tanks, vehicles, offshore facilities, and 4 0 2 boats. Offshore oil spills from tanker accidents or 3 1 1 leakage can significantly harm coastal species and habitats. Oil runoff from impervious surfaces may 2 1 2 have smaller and more localized impacts. Due to 1 2 5 the high concentration of some species during the breeding or wintering seasons, oil spills can decimate local wildlife. Oil spills are likely to cause immediate and inability to fly, stay afloat, and forage. Ingestion of adverse effects on wildlife and long-term effects oil can have equally life threatening toxic effects on the because oil is persistent in some areas (Johnston 1984). gastrointestinal tract, pancreas, and liver (Pierce 1991).

In 1996, 1,000 gallons of fuel oil were spilled into

2. EXPERT OPINION the Piscataqua River, rapidly entering Great and Little Bays. Nests in the Hen Island tern colony in Little The effect of oil spills may be very localized or very Bay were oiled during incubation. The island was extensive depending on the source and timing of the used to anchor containment booms and serve as point contamination and the affected species or habitat. for cleanup activity. Data from the New Hampshire Impacts could be serious for sand dunes and coastal Gulfwatch monitoring program documented high islands and associated species (i.e., roseate and levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) common terns, piping plovers) either immediately or in mussels following the spill, followed by a gradual in the long term. The effects of oil spills on dunes and recovery to baseline levels within 2 years (Gulf of coastal islands are well documented. Maine Council on the Marine Environment 2003).

An oil spill off the Rhode Island coast resulted

3. KNOWN WILDLIFE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS in the loss many loons (Evers et al. 2002), and the potential for oil spill impacts to New Hampshires Oil can enter fresh and marine waters from platform wintering loon population exists as well. The construction, drilling, shipping, and spillage, and concentration of common terns and roseate terns low-level seepage from surface runoff or subsurface on Seavey Island and piping plovers on Seabrook/

sources (Boesch et al. 2001). Animals coated in oil may Hampton beaches makes an oil spill in the nearby experience direct mortality or reduced reproductive waters potentially catastrophic. Other species success, food can become contaminated, toxins can potentially harmed include nesting and wintering build up in upper trophic levels, and oil can coat the birds, marine mammals, fish, turtles, and marine shores and degrade habitat (Kushlan et al. 2002). The and estuarine invertebrates (Research Planning, Inc.

harmful effect of oil on birds is well documented 2004). Locations and critical time periods for species (Chardine 1990). Externally, even a small amount and habitats were identified and mapped in case an of oil can destroy the weatherproofing and insulating oil spill occurs again (Research Planning, Inc. 2004).

properties of avian plumage resulting in hypothermia New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-45

Wildlife Risk Assessment TABLE 4-27. Habitats and species at highest risk from the effects of oil spills, in descending order by Rank. See Appendix A and B for details additional information on specific threats and rankings.

RANKING SCORES*

SPECIES HABITAT 1 2 3 4 5 RANK CLASS SPECIES Common Tern Coastal Islands 4 4 4 2 4 3.33 4 Roseate Tern Coastal Islands 4 4 4 2 4 3.33 4 Piping Plover Dunes 4 4 4 1 3 2.67 3 Common Loon Aquatic 3 4 2 1 4 2.04 2 Bald Eagle Aquatic 1 4 3 2 4 1.88 2 HABITATS Dunes 4 4 2 2 4 2.67 3 Coastal Islands 3 4 1 2 4 2.04 2

• 1=Scope, 2=Severity, 3=Timing, 4=Likelihood, 5=Information

4. RESEARCH NEEDS Johnston, R. 1984. Oil pollution and its management.

Pages 1433-1582 in O. Kinne, editor. Marine

• Assess potential impacts of an oil spill near ecology: a comprehensive, integrated treatise on threatened and endangered species breeding life in oceans and coastal waters. Volume 5, Part 3.

grounds (i.e., Seavey Island, Hampton Beach State John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, New York, USA.

Park and Seabrook Town Beach) Kushlan, J.A., M.J. Steinkamp, K.C. Parsons, J.

• Conduct long-term assessments and biodiversity Capp, M. Acosta Cruz, M. Coulter, I. Davidson, surveys of coastal islands, dunes, and salt marshes L. Dickson, N. Edelson, R. Elliot, R.M. Erwin, before and after oil spills to determine effects S. Hatch, S. Kress, R. Milko, S. Miller, K. Mills,

• Identify appropriate mitigation for loss of wildlife R. Paul, R. Phillips, J.E. Saliva, B. Sydeman, J.

due to oil spills Trapp, J. Wheeler, and K. Wohl. 2002. Waterbird conservation for the Americas: the North American

5. LITERATURE CITED waterbird conservation plan, Version 1. Waterbird Conservation for the Americas, Washington, DC.

Boesch, D.F., R.H. Burroughs, J.E. Baker, R.P. Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment.

Mason, C.L. Rowe, and R.L. Siefert. 2001. 2003. Gulfwatch: Monitoring chemical Marine pollution in the United States: significant contaminants in Gulf of Maine coastal waters. Gulf accomplishments, future challenges. Pew Oceans of Maine Council on the Marine Environment, Commission, Arlington, Virginia, USA. Environmental Monitoring Subcommittee.

Chardine, J.W. 1990. Newfoundland: Crossroads for Available at: <www.gulfofmaine.org/council/

Marine Birds and Shipping in the North Atlantic. publications/gulfwatchfactsheet.pdf>

Proceedings: The Effects of Oil on Wildlife. Pierce, V. 1991. Pathology of Wildlife following a Newfoundland. #2 Fuel Oil Spill. The Effects of Oil on Wildlife:

Evers, D.C., L. Attix, C. Howard, G. Christian, L. Research, Rehabilitation, and General Concerns.

Savoy, and W. Goodale. 2002. Mitigation the loss of IBRRC, TSBR, IWR.

Common Loons from a marine spill: Identification Research Planning, Inc. 2004. Sensitivity of Coastal of breeding habitat in Maine. Report BRI 2002-01 Environments and Wildlife to Spilled Oil. New submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service- Hampshire Atlas. Supported by New Hampshire Gulf of Maine Office. BioDiversity Research Estuaries Project and New Hampshire Department Institute, Falmouth, Maine. of Environmental Services.

4-46 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Wildlife Risk Assessment Predation and Herbivory

1. DEFINITION TABLE 4-28. Number of habitats and species at highest risk from the effects of predation and herbivory. See Table 4-29 and Appendix A and B for details. Risk Category 4 =

Wildlife abundance and distribution can increase Greatest risk.

dramatically in response to human modifications to habitats and from the provision of supplemental Risk Category Habitats Species food sources. For example, landfills and coastal 4 1 3 developments provide gulls with nearly limitless 3 1 3 food, and gulls subsequently eliminate other seabirds 2 1 2 through competition and predation. Species with 1 2 12 broad diets, such as raccoons, skunks, and crows, can thrive on food provided by trash, gardens, and bird feeders. Cats and dogs are capable predators with population peaked at 5,000 pairs in the late 1970s.

no natural population constraints. In the absence Great black-backed gulls began nesting on the of predators or hunting, white-tailed deer can reach Islands in the 1950s and have steadily been replacing densities high enough to reduce or eliminate insect herring gulls (numbers compiled from Drury 1973, host food plants. Beaver can affect certain wetland Borror and Holmes 1990, United States Fish and natural community types (e.g., black gum swamps)

Wildlife Service (USFWS) Colonial Waterbird that beavers historically rarely used. Rare species are Survey 1995). These larger, more aggressive birds often vulnerable to predation and competition from compete with terns for nesting sites and can prey species that are better adapted to human activity.

directly on tern eggs and chicks (Goodale 2000, Donehower 2003). Data suggest that lobster bait is

2. EXPERT OPINION the primary food of herring gull chicks in Penobscot Bay. The frequency of lobster bait in the herring Coastal birds of conservation concern are highly sus-gull chick diet on 5 study islands was 56% in 1999 ceptible to mortality from subsidized predators, espe-(n=251) and 41% in 2000 (n=605) (Goodale 2000).

cially gulls. The threat is well documented and some-what localized, yet severe, in dunes and coastal islands.

(B) Other Predators More widespread but less severe harm likely occurs to Increased development and human use of coastal species in cities and towns where predator densities areas have allowed for an abundance of potential are high and where domestic animals prey on wildlife.

tern and plover predators (USFWS 1998, Kress and Hall 2004). Mammalian predators such as

3. KNOWN WILDLIFE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS feral cats, rats, raccoons, mink, skunk, and fox that gain access to breeding habitats can devastate some (A) Gulls local bird populations. Additionally, avian predators The protection of all seabirds, changes in human such as Great horned owls and black-crowned night land use along coastal islands, a rise in the fishing herons feed on tern chicks and adults. Predation industry, and the use of open landfills allowed for is a proximate mortality factor for New England exponential increases in the numbers of gulls along cottontails, particularly those that occupy small the entire northeastern coast. Herring gulls began habitat patches (Barbour and Litvaitis 1993, Brown nesting on the Isles of Shoals in the 1920s, and the and Litvaitis 1995, Villafuerte et al. 1997).

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-47

Wildlife Risk Assessment TABLE 4-29. Habitats and species at highest risk from the effects of predation and herbivory, in descending order by Rank.

See Appendix A and B for details additional information on specific threats and rankings.

RANKING SCORES*

SPECIES HABITAT 1 2 3 4 5 RANK CLASS SPECIES Piping Plover Dunes 4 4 4 3 4 3.67 4 Common Tern Coastal Islands 4 3 4 4 4 3.50 4 Roseate Tern Coastal Islands 4 3 4 4 4 3.50 4 New England Cottontail Shrublands 4 3 3 4 4 3.21 3 Karner Blue Butterfly Pine Barrens 3 3 3 4 4 2.75 3 Purple Martin Grasslands 4 3 2 3 4 2.63 3 Rusty Blackbird Lowland Spruce-Fir Forest 2 4 4 3 3 2.50 2 Non-breeding Birds 3 2 3 3 3 1.88 2 HABITATS Coastal Islands 4 3 4 4 4 3.50 4 Dunes 4 3 4 3 4 3.21 3 Shrublands 2 3 3 3 4 2.08 2

• 1=Scope, 2=Severity, 3=Timing, 4=Likelihood, 5=Information (C) Herbivory to habitat patch size. Oecologia 95:321-327.

Heavy browsing of blue lupine plants by white-tailed Brown, A.L., and J.A. Litvaitis. 1995. Habitat deer and woodchuck can severely reduce blue lupine features associated with predation of New England populations and result in Karner blue butterfly cottontails: what scale is appropriate? Canadian mortality by accidental ingestion of eggs and larvae. Journal of Zoology 73:1005-1011.

Borror, A.C., and D.W. Holmes. 1990. Breeding

4. RESEARCH NEEDS Birds of the Isles of Shoals. Shoals Marine Laboratory, New York. 76pp.

• Evaluate predator control techniques to protect Donehower, C. 2003. Predation rate and predatory common, roseate, and arctic terns and piping plovers behavior of large gulls on Eastern Egg Rock.

• Determine ecology of gull populations at Isle Unpublished Report. National Audubon Society.

of Shoals, including sources and importance of Drury, W.H. 1973. Population changes in New human-subsidized food England seabirds. Bird-Banding 44:267-313.

• Evaluate modifications to fishing and aquaculture Kress, S.W., and C.S. Hall. 2004. Tern Management practices to minimize subsidization of gulls and Handbook - Coastal Northeastern United States and other predators Atlantic Canada. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish

• Evaluate effect of landfills on predator abundance, and Wildlife Service, Hadley Massachusetts, USA.

impacts to at-risk species, and modifications to United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

reduce impacts 1998. Roseate Tern Recovery Plan - Northeastern

• Evaluate locations and extent of human food Population, First Update. Hadley, MA, USA.

supplements for predators in rare species habitats Villafuerte R., J.A. Litvaitis, and D.F. Smith. 1997.

Physiological responses by lagomorphs to resource

5. LITERATURE CITED limitations imposed by habitat fragmentation:

implications to condition-sensitive predation.

Barbour, M.S., and J.A. Litvaitis. 1993. Niche Canadian Journal of Zoology 75:148-151.

dimensions of New England cottontails in relation 4-48 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Wildlife Risk Assessment Recreation

1. DEFINITION TABLE 4-30. Number of habitats and species at highest risk from the effects of recreation. See Table 4-31 and Appendix A and B for details. Risk Category 4 = Greatest risk.

Most Americans participate in some kind of outdoor recreation. Recreation demand and trends in New Risk Category Habitats Species Hampshire show a marked increase in the past 10 4 1 2 years (New Hampshire Office of State Planning 3 3 7 2003). For example, the White Mountain National Forest saw a 23 percent increase in trail use between 2 9 6 1974 and 1995 (New Hampshire Office of State 1 19 27 Planning, 1997). Between 1996 and 2003, wheeled off-highway recreational vehicle (a.k.a., ATV) registrations in New Hampshire more than doubled habitats may be seriously impacted, depending on for resident and more than tripled for non-resident specific local recreational activities.

owners. Similarly, boating registrations doubled between 1980 and 1990 and continued to increase by 3. KNOWN WILDLIFE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS 19 percent from 1990 to 2000.

Recreational activities often degrade land, (A) Human disturbance water, and wildlife resources by simplifying plant Activities such as wildlife viewing, fishing, climbing, communities, increasing animal mortality, displacing caving (or spelunking), boating, snowmobiling, ATV-and disturbing wildlife, and distributing refuse (Boyle ing, and hiking can cause unintentional disturbance.

and Samson 1985). Some activities may have little or Disturbance from these activities may alter behavior no effect. A number of factors influence the nature and and in some cases cause nest abandonment. For severity of recreational impacts on wildlife, including example, disturbance by anglers and boaters can dis-the characteristics of the activity (type, location, turb nesting and foraging activity of common loons time, predictability, frequency, magnitude) and the (Titus 1978, Titus and VanDruff 1981, Christenson characteristic of the habitat or wildlife (species, group 1981, Kelly 1992). Depending on the time of year, size, age, and sex) (Knight and Cole 1995). water-based recreation can disturb roosting, feeding, or breeding by a variety of wildlife (Knight and Cole

2. EXPERT OPINION 1995). Offshore boating activities (whale watching, fishing, tour boats) can flush species from coastal is-Recreational activity is currently affecting species and lands, causing them to expend energy reserves (Unit-habitats of conservation concern in New Hampshire. ed States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 1994).

These effects are projected to continue into the Piping plovers lose valuable foraging time when beach foreseeable future. Impacts are likely serious to goers and their pets are present (Burger 1991, Staine critical and well-documented for species inhabiting and Burger 1994). Snowmobiles can disturb deer that the rarest habitats, such as dunes, caves, coastal are concentrated in deer yards.

islands, cliffs, rocky ridges, and some aquatic habitats A study by Thomas (1995) of non-tactile dis-(such as sand-cobble shores and banks). Recreation turbance from visits to hibernacula indicated a dra-is a serious localized threat to a subset of alpine matic arousal of bats (little brown bats and northern natural communities. Grasslands, forests, and aquatic myotis) and an increase in flight activity, and repeated New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-49

Wildlife Risk Assessment TABLE 4-31. Habitats and species at highest risk from the effects of recreation, in descending order by Rank. See Appendix A and B for details additional information on specific threats and rankings.

RANKING SCORES*

SPECIES HABITAT 1 2 3 4 5 RANK CLASS SPECIES Piping Plover Dunes 4 4 4 4 4 4.00 4 Common Loon Aquatic 4 3 4 4 4 3.50 4 Peregrine Falcon Cliffs 4 3 4 3 4 3.21 3 Cobblestone Tiger Beetle Aquatic 4 3 3 3 4 2.92 3 Eastern Pipistrelle Caves and Mines 4 3 3 3 4 2.92 3 Bald Eagle Aquatic 4 2 3 4 4 2.75 3 Indiana Bat Caves and Mines 4 3 3 3 3 2.63 3 Northern Myotis Caves and Mines 4 3 3 3 3 2.63 3 Small Footed Bat Caves and Mines 4 3 3 3 3 2.63 3 Osprey Marsh and Shrub Wetlands 4 2 3 4 3 2.50 2 Brook Floater Aquatic 1 4 4 4 3 2.29 2 Common Tern Coastal Islands 3 3 3 2 4 2.25 2 Roseate Tern Coastal Islands 3 3 3 2 4 2.25 2 Karner Blue Butterfly Pine Barrens 2 3 4 3 3 2.08 2 Spruce Grouse Lowland Spruce-Fir Forest 3 1 4 4 3 1.83 2 HABITATS Dunes 4 4 4 4 4 4.00 4 Caves and Mines 3 3 4 4 4 3.00 3 Cliffs 3 3 4 3 4 2.75 3 Talus Slopes and Rocky Ridges 3 3 4 3 4 2.75 3 Hemlock-Hardwood-Pine Forest 4 2 4 3 3 2.50 2 High Elevation Spruce-Fir Forest 2 3 4 4 4 2.50 2 Northern Hardwood-Conifer Forest 4 2 4 3 3 2.50 2 Appalachian Oak Pine Forest 4 2 3 3 3 2.25 2 Coastal Islands 3 3 3 2 4 2.25 2 Coastal Transitional Watersheds 3 3 3 3 3 2.25 2 Pine Barrens 2 3 4 3 3 2.08 2 Shrublands 3 3 3 3 2 2.00 2 Lowland Spruce-Fir Forest 1 3 4 4 4 2.00 2

• 1=Scope, 2=Severity, 3=Timing, 4=Likelihood, 5=Information disturbance may lead to energy depletion to the point from off-highway recreational vehicles and boats may of mortality. The presence of low flying aircraft can cause detectable behavioral changes (Bowles 1995).

frighten cliff nesting avian species from their nests, Off-road all terrain vehicles (ATVs) and snowmobiles causing them to inadvertently kick out eggs or chicks can be a significant disturbance to wildlife.

from the nest (White et al. 2002). Noise disturbance 4-50 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Wildlife Risk Assessment (B) Habitat degradation occurs when one species is mistaken for another, as All forms of recreation can modify vegetation, soil, when upland bird hunters mistake spruce grouse water, and microclimate, affecting those species for ruffed grouse and when American marten are that depend on specific habitat conditions (Cole caught in fisher traps (Jillian Kelly, NHFG, personal and Landres 1995). ATVs and snowmobiles can communication). Studies on recreational effects on significantly degrade terrestrial and wetland habitats, tiger beetle populations have indicated populations causing erosion, sedimentation, altered hydrology, were low to nonexistent where heavy recreational and acting as a vector for invasive species. activities were observed and that abundance increased Though robust in their ability to withstand in areas where recreational use was limited and severe environmental conditions, alpine communities vehicles were prohibited (USFWS 1990). A long-term and their soils have low tolerances for trampling, study in Connecticut documented the extirpation of particularly dwarf heath shrubs and erect forbs two wood turtle populations following an increase (Sperduto and Cogbill 1999, Cole and Monz 2002). in human recreation (Garber and Burger 1995).

Hikers can trample vegetation, causing soil erosion and reductions in vegetative cover and height. The 4. RESEARCH NEEDS removal of vegetation to create new climbing routes can cause wind and rain to wash away any remaining

• Studies of site-specific potential for mortality and soil in the cracks, preventing new plants from being other threats to New Hampshires priority wildlife established (Camp and Knight 1991). Rock climbing

• Measure energetic costs of behavioral responses to can introduce non-native species when propagules disturbance travel on climbing equipment, shoes, and clothing

• Measure habitat responses to recreation and that are transferred from one location to another population responses to recreationally induced (McMillian and Larson 2002). habitat change Snow-based recreation can also affect soils and vegetation. The most pronounced impacts are 5. LITERATURE CITED those associated with ski-resort development that involves tree cutting and ground surface leveling Bowles, A.E. 1995. Responses of wildlife to noise.

and facility construction. Snowmobiles damage In R. L. Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller, editors.

shrubs and saplings (Neumann and Merriam 1972), Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through reduce vegetation abundance, and change species management and research. Island Press, Washington composition (Keddy et al. 1979). Water is affected D.C., USA.

both by water-based recreation, such as fishing and Boyle, S.A. and F.B. Samson. 1985. Effects of boating, and by land-based activities such as hiking nonconsumptive recreation on wildlife: a review.

and off-road vehicles. Trampling affects shorelines by Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:110-116.

eroding soils, eliminating protective cover, and causing Burger, J. 1991. Foraging behavior and the effect sedimentation and turbidity (Cole and Landres 1995). of human disturbance on the piping plover (Charadrius melodus). Journal of Coastal Research (C) Mortality 7:39-52 Recreation may directly or indirectly result in wildlife Camp, R.J. and R.L. Knight. 1998. Effects of rock mortality. Off-road vehicles can be a source of climbing on cliff plant communities at Joshua Tree mortality for ampibians, reptiles, and other wildlife. National Park, California. Conservation Biology Walkers can inadvertently trample eggs and chicks 12: 1302-1306.

if walking across coastal islands or dunes. Fourteen Christenson, B.L. 1981. Reproductive ecology of percent of loon mortality in New England from 1989 and response to disturbance by Common Loons to 1996 was due to boat trauma (Miconi et al. 2000), in Maine. Thesis, University of Maine, Orono, and lead poisoning by ingesting lead fishing sinkers and Maine, USA.

jigs is the largest cause of known adult loon mortality Cole, D.N. 1995. Res. Note INT-RN-425.

in New Hampshire (Tufts University Wildlife Clinic, Intermountain Research Station, US Forest Service, unpublished data). Additionally, incidental take Ogden, Utah, USA.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-51

Wildlife Risk Assessment Cole, D.N., and C.A. Monz. 2002. Trampling New Hampshire Office of State Planning. 2003. New disturbance of high-elevation, Wind River Hampshire Outdoors: Statewide Comprehensive Mountains, Wyoming, USA. Arctic, Antarctic, and Outdoor Recreation Plan. Concord, New Alpine Research 34:365-376 Hampshire, USA.

Cole, D.N., and P.B. Landres 1995. In R.L. New Hampshire Office of State Planning. 1997. New Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, editors. Wildlife and Hampshire Comprehensive Statewide Trails Study.

recreationists: coexistence through management Concord, New Hampshire, USA.

and research. Island Press, Washington D.C., Nuemann, P.W., and H.G. Merriam. 1972. Ecological USA. effects of snowmobiles. Canadian Field Journal 86:

Flather, C.H., and H.K. Cordell.1995. In R. L. Knight 207-212.

and K. J. Gutzwiller. Outdoor recreation: historical Sperduto, D.D., and C.V. Cogbill. 1999. Alpine and and anticipated trends. Wildlife and recreationists: subalpine vegetation of the White Mountains, New coexistence through management and research. Hampshire. New Hampshire Natural Heritage Island Press, Washington D.C., USA. Inventory, Concord, New Hampshire, USA.

Garber, S.D., and J. Burger. 1995. A twenty year Staine, K.J., and J. Burger. 1994. The nocturnal study documenting the relationship between foraging behavior of breeding piping plover turtle decline and human recreation. Ecological Charadrius melodus in New Jersey. Auk 111:579-Applications 5:1151-1162. 587.

Keddy, P.A, A.J. Spavold and C.J. Keddy. 1979. Thomas, D.W. 1995. Hibernating bats are sensitive Snowmobile impact on old field and marsh to nontactile human disturbance. Journal of vegetation in Nova Scotia, Canada: an experimental Mammalogy 76:940-946.

study. Environmental Management 3:409-415. Titus, J.R. 1978. Response of the common loon Kelly, L.M. 1992. The effects of human disturbance (Gavia immer) to recreational pressure in the on Common Loon productivity in northwestern Boundary Waters Canoe Area, northeastern Montana. Thesis, Montana State University, Minnesota. Dissertation, State University of New Bozeman, Montana, USA. York, Syracuse, New York, USA.

Knight, R.L., and D.N. Cole 1995. Wildlife Titus, J.R., and L.W. VanDruff. 1981. Response responses to recreationsits. In R.L. Knight and of the common loon to recreational pressure in K.J. Gutzwiller, editors. Wildlife and recreationists: the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, northeastern coexistence through management and research. Minnesota. Wildlife Society. Bethesda, Maryland, Island Press, Washington D.C., USA. USA.

Knight, R.L., and D.N. Cole. 1995. Factors that United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990.

influence wildlife responses to recreationists. In R.L. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller, editors. Wildlife and determination of threatened status for the Puritan Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management tiger beetle and the northeastern beach tiger beetle.

and Research. Island Press, Washington D.C., Federal Register 55: 32088-32094.

USA. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Island McMillan, M.A., and D.W. Larson. 2002. Effects ethics: recognizing and protecting colonial nesting of rock climbing on the vegetation of the Niagara seabird and waterbird islands in the Gulf of Maine.

Escarpment in southern Ontario, Canada. Brochure.

Conservation Biology 16:389-398. White, C.M., N.J. Clum, T.J. Cade, and W.G.

Miconi, R., M. Pokras, and K. Taylor. 2000. Hunt. 2002. Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus).

Mortality in breeding Common Loons: How In A. Poole and F. Gill, editor. The birds of North significant is trauma? Pages 19-24 in J. McIntyre America, No 660. The Birds of North America, and D. C. Evers, editors. Loons: old history and Inc, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

new findings. Proceedings of a Symposium from the 1997 meeting, American Ornithologists Union. North American Loon Fund, Holderness, New Hampshire, USA.

4-52 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Wildlife Risk Assessment Scarcity

1. DEFINITION TABLE 4-32. Number of habitats and species at highest risk from the effects of scarcity. See Table 4-33 and Appendix A and B for details. Risk Category 4 = Greatest risk.

All wildlife species have a minimum effective (self-sustaining) population size (Allee et al. 1949). Risk Category Habitats Species In populations that are depressed or isolated, the 4 0 5 reproductive contribution of successfully breeding 3 0 9 individuals may be disproportionately high, limiting natural buffering of random demographic and 2 0 3 genetic variation and decreasing population stability 1 1 6 (Allee et al. 1949, Richter-Dyn and Goel 1972, Ferson and Burgman 1990, Dennis et al. 1991).

Susceptibility to failure of demographic processes is extremely isolated from other populations, and may be compounded by normal (extrinsic) ecological potential den sites are rare. The host plant of the events, such as weather, competition, or predation, or Karner blue butterfly is rare. After declining sharply natural disturbance, resulting in extinction (Caughley between 1980 and 2001, with a corresponding 1994). Some wildlife have naturally low minimum decline in fecundity (United States Fish and Wildlife effective population sizes because of their life Service, unpublished data), Karner blues were not history traits or dependency on uniquely occurring observed in the wild until translocated butterflies ecological conditions (Allee et al. 1949, Adler and were released in 2002 (NHFG, unpublished data).

Nuernberger 1994). In either case, the balance Low population densities and skewed age and sex between reproductive success and ecological process is ratios have raised concerns over the effect of road precarious, and the risk of localized extinction is high. mortality on the viability of some turtle populations in the region (Marchand and Litvaitis 2004, Gibbs

2. EXPERT OPINION and Steen 2005).

Small population size is an extensive to somewhat (B) Ecological conditions localized threat for a small number of New Until population health is restored, some severely Hampshires wildlife, and particularly severe for depressed or recovering populations of wildlife are species with highly specialized habitat or life history immediately at risk of extirpation due to widespread traits. Threats are well documented for timber ecological conditions (Caughley 1994), like weather rattlesnakes, piping plovers, roseate terns, cobblestone (Pollard 1991) and predation. Failure to exclude tiger beetles, and Karner blue butterflies. predators has resulted in the failure of common and roseate terns colonies in the Gulf of Maine

3. KNOWN WILDLIFE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS (Donehower 2003). Annually in New Hampshire, a significant proportion of the states few piping plover (A) Demographic stochasticity nests fail because of predation and storms (NHFG, Some severely depressed or declining populations of unpublished data). Overwintering survival of Karner wildlife are immediately at risk of extirpation (Dennis blues may be limited by the number of days with snow et al. 1991, Goodman 1987). New Hampshires cover (Dirig 1994), and in general, mating success, timber rattlesnake population is very small and oviposition, and lepidopteran survival are limited by New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-53

Wildlife Risk Assessment TABLE 4-33. Habitats and species at highest risk from the effects of scarcity, in descending order by Rank. See Appendix A and B for details additional information on specific threats and rankings.

RANKING SCORES*

SPECIES HABITAT 1 2 3 4 5 RANK CLASS SPECIES Timber Rattlesnake Appalachian Oak Pine Forest 4 4 4 4 4 4.00 4 Cobblestone Tiger Beetle Aquatic 4 4 4 3 4 3.67 4 Karner Blue Butterfly Pine Barrens 4 4 4 3 4 3.67 4 Roseate Tern Coastal Islands 4 4 4 3 4 3.67 4 Piping Plover Dunes 4 3 4 4 4 3.50 4 Blandings Turtle Marsh and Shrub Wetlands 4 4 1 4 4 3.00 3 Lynx Upland Forests 4 4 2 3 4 3.00 3 Spotted Turtle Marsh and Shrub Wetlands 4 4 1 4 4 3.00 3 American Marten High Elevation Spruce-Fir Forest 3 4 4 4 2 2.92 3 White Mountain Arctic Alpine 4 4 3 3 2 2.67 3 White Mountain Fritillar y Alpine 4 4 3 3 2 2.67 3 Spruce Grouse Lowland Spruce-Fir Forest 4 3 4 3 2 2.63 3 Marbled Salamander Marsh and Shrub Wetlands 4 4 3 3 1 2.33 2 Hognose Snake Pine Barrens 4 3 3 2 3 2.33 2 Ringed Boghaunter Peatlands 2 4 3 2 3 2.00 2

• 1=Scope, 2=Severity, 3=Timing, 4=Likelihood, 5=Information weather (Pollard 1991, USFWS 2002). Cobblestone depend on lynx dispersing from larger populations tiger beetle larvae inhabit burrows for 2 years at one (Litvaitis et al. 1991). Increasing southern Canadian location in the Connecticut River, and population and northern Maine human populations may hamper estimates seldom exceed 100 individuals. Flooding or lynx dispersal (Carroll 2005). Spruce grouse are iso-hydrologic alteration could decimate the population lated in the WMNF (Todd 2003), and their habitats (Nothnagle 1993). During winters with unusually are fragmented by conversion of low elevation spruce shallow snow depth, New Hampshires small marten and fir habitat to deciduous land cover (NHFG GIS).

population may be limited by competition with Historic Karner blue butterfly and extant frosted overlapping fisher populations. Kelly (2005) found elfin populations are separated by distances greater that areas with low catch per unit effort for fisher were than documented dispersal capabilities (King 1998).

more likely to have higher values for marten. Krohn Ringed boghaunter populations are sparsely distrib-et al. (1995) observed differing age and recruitment uted, little is known about their dispersal, and habitat ratios for marten across areas of overlap with fisher. utilization may be hampered by development.

(C) Population isolation (C) Natural rarity and sensitive life history Isolated or sparsely distributed populations may be Because of their life history traits or unique ecological subject to adverse demographic and genetic effects niches, some species have naturally small breeding because of limited immigration (Nei 1972, Brown populations (Allee et al. 1949). Small changes in and Kodric-Brown 1977, Fahrig and Merriam 1985, survival rates, landscape connectivity, or habitat Pulliam 1988, Taylor et al. 1993). Viability of the availability may result in extirpation. Blandings, low density New Hampshire lynx population may box, wood, and spotted turtles may require 5 to 15 4-54 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Wildlife Risk Assessment years to reach sexual maturity in New Hampshire Report 2: marten and lynx viability analysis.

(Carroll 1991, Degraaf and Yamasaki 2001) and Wildlands Project, Richmond, Vermont, USA.

therefore require high adult survival. Bog lemming Caughley, G. 1994. Directions in conservation observations are rare in New Hampshire. Although biology. Journal of Animal Ecology 63:215-244.

little is known about the life history traits driving Clough, G.C. and J.J. Albright. 1987. Occurrence their rarity in New Hampshire, elsewhere the species of the northern bog lemming, Synaptomys appears to occur in isolated metapopulations with borealis, in the northeastern United States.

few individuals in each location and limited dispersal Canadian Field-Naturalist. 101(4): 611-613.

(Clough and Albright 1987, Reichel and Corn 1997). DeGraaf, R.M., and M. Yamasaki. 2001. New Disruption of individual colonies in a metapopulation England wildlife: habitat, natural history, and may jeopardize the entire metapopulation (Hanski distribution. University Press of New England, and Simberloff 1997). Marbled salamanders are Hanover, New Hampshire, USA.

extremely rare in New Hampshire but little is known Dennis, B., P.L. Munholland, J.M. Scott. 1991.

about their population dynamics. White Mountain Estimation of growth and extinction parameters fritillary and arctic butterflies are endemic to New for endangered species. Ecological Monographs Hampshire, occur only on Mt. Washington, and 61(2):115-143.

may be susceptible to climate change (Pollard 1991, Dirig, Robert. 1994. Historical Notes on Wild McFarland 2003). Lupine and the Karner Blue Butterfly at the Albany Pine Bush, New York. In Karner Blue Butterfly:

4. RESEARCH NEEDS a symbol of a vanishing landscape / edited by David A. Andow, R.J. Baker, and C.P. LaneSt.

• Evaluate population genetic structure for the New Paul: Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station:

Hampshire timber rattlesnake population 1994.(Miscellaneous Publication Series).

• Evaluate opportunities to develop captive breeding Donehower, C. 2003. Predation rate and predatory in zoos for high priority species, especially behavior of large gulls on Eastern Egg Rock.

invertebrates Unpublished Report. National Audubon Society.

• Investigate link between species population Fahrig, L., and G. Merriam. 1985. Habitat patch dynamics and habitat / natural community connectivity and population survival. Ecology distribution and conditions 66(6):1762-1768.

Ferson, S., and M.A. Burgman. 1990. The dangers

5. LITERATURE CITED of being few: Demographic risk analysis for rare species extinction. New York State Museum Adler, F.R., and B. Nuernberger. 1994. Persistence in Bulletin 471:129-132.

patchy irregular landscapes. Theoretical Population Gibbs, J.P., and D.A. Steen. 2005. Trends in sex ratios Biology 45:41-75. of turtles in the United States: Implications of road Allee, W.C., A.E. Emerson, O. Park, T. Park, and mortality. Conservation Biology 19:552-556.

K.P. Schmidt. 1949. Principles of Animal Ecology. Goodman, D. 1987. Consideration of stochastic Saunders, Philadelphia. demography in the design and management of Brown, J.H., and A. Kodric-Brown. 1977. Turnover biological reserves. Natural Resource Modeling 1:

rates in insular biogeography: effect of immigration 205-234.

and emigration. Ecology 58:445-449. Hanski, I., and D. Simberloff. 1997. The Burkey, T.V. 1989. Extinction in nature reserves: metapopulation approach, its history, conceptual the effect of fragmentation and the importance of domain, and application to conservation. In:

migration between reserve fragments. Oikos 55: Hanski, I., and M.E. Gilpin (eds.), Metapopulation 75-81. Biology: Ecology, Genetics, and Evolution.

Carroll, D.M. 1991. The year of the turtle: A natural Academic Press, San Diego, California.

history. Charlotte, VT. Camden House. Kelly, J. R. 2005. Recent distribution and Carroll, C. 2005. Carnivore restoration in the population characteristics of American marten in northeastern U.S. and southeastern Canada. New Hampshire and potential factors affecting New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-55

Wildlife Risk Assessment their occurrence. M.S. Thesis, University of Population Biology 3:406-433.

Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts. Taylor, P.D., L. Fahrig, K. Henein, and G. Merriam.

King, R.S. 1998. Dispersal of Karner blue butterflies 1993. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape (Lycaeides melissa samuelis Nabokov) at Necedah structure. Oikos 68:571-573.

National Wildlife Refuge. Transactions 86:101- Todd, A. E. 2003. Population Distribution and 110. Vegetative Structure of Brood Rearing Habitat of Krohn W. B., K. D. Elowe, and R. B. Boone. 1995. Spruce Grouse in the White Mountain National Relations among fisher, snow, and martens: Forest of New Hampshire. M. S. Thesis, University Development and evaluation of two hypotheses. of New Hampshire, Durham 57 pp.

The Forestry Chronicle, 71(1)97-105. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003.

Litvaitis, J.A., D. Kingman Jr., J. Lanier, and E. Final recovery plan for the Karner blue butterfly Orff. 1991. Status of lynx in New Hampshire. (Lycaeides melissa samuelis). US Fish and Wildlife Transactions of the Northeast Section of the Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota, USA.

Wildlife Society. 48:70- 75.

Marchand, M.N., and J.A. Litvaitis. 2004. Effects of habitat features and landscape composition on the population structure of a common aquatic turtle in a region undergoing rapid development.

Conservation Biology 18:758-767.

McFarland, K. 2003. Conservation assessment of two endemic butterflies (White Mountain arctic, Oeneis melissa semidea, and White Mountain fritillary, Boloria titania montinus) in the Presidential Range alpine zone, White Mountains, New Hampshire.

Vermont Institute of Natural Science, Woodstock, VT.

Nothnagle, P. 1993. Status survey of New Hampshire/

Vermont populations of the cobblestone tiger beetle (Cicindela marginipennis). Report submitted to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Concord, New Hampshire, USA.

Nei, M. 1972. Genetic distance between populations.

American Naturalist 106: 283-92.

New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. 2005.

Reptile and Amphibian Reporting Program.

Concord, New Hampshire, USA.

Pollard, E. 1991. Synchrony of population fluctuations: the dominant influence of widespread factors on local butterfly populations. Oikos 60:

7-10.

Pulliam, H.R. 1988. Sources, sinks, and population regulation. American Naturalist 137: 50-66.

Reichel, J.D. and J.G. Corn. 1997. Northern bog lemmings: survey, population parameters, and population analysis. Unpublished report to the Kootenai National Forest. Montana Natural Heritage Program. Helena, MT.

Richter-Dyn, N., and N.S. Goel. 1972. On the extinction of a colonizing species. Theoretical 4-56 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Wildlife Risk Assessment Transportation Infrastructure

1. DEFINITION TABLE 4-34. Number of habitats and species at highest risk from the effects of transportation infrastructure. See Table 4-35 and Appendix A and B for details. Risk Category 4 =

As human populations grow and expand, the demand Greatest risk.

for improved and more extensive transportation networks rises. Major transportation infrastructures in Risk Category Habitats Species New Hampshire include roads, railroads, and airports. 4 1 0 Direct threats from construction, improvements, 3 3 8 maintenance, and regular use of transportation 2 8 4 networks include habitat loss and fragmentation, 1 6 12 inhibition of wildlife dispersal, and direct mortality.

Several indirect threats are known and summarized under Altered Hydrology, Development, Introduced Increasing human population density leads to Species, Mercury, Non-point Source Pollution, and increasing road densities, road widening, and traffic Predation and Herbivory (see Forman et al. 2003 for volume (see Development threat).

a detailed review of known impacts).

(B) Uncoordinated planning

2. EXPERT OPINION Local land use planning efforts often are isolated from large-scale conservation planning efforts.

Roads have a somewhat to very extensive effect on Lack of planning and coordination among towns, species and habitats of conservation concern in New transportation and natural resources agencies, and Hampshire. Well-documented impacts are likely to be the conservation community may result in the most critical for Appalachian oak pine forests, and serious ecologically significant resources being affected.

for pine barren species, vernal pools, marsh and shrub wetlands, and floodplain forests in the near term. (C) Habitat loss and fragmentation In the next decade, threats may become critical or The construction of roads, railroads, and airports serious to rare species, including timber rattlesnake, results in a considerable loss of habitat (Trombulak hognose snake, black racer, Blandings, spotted, and and Frissell 2000). Wildlife is affected well beyond wood turtles, Jefferson salamander, Fowlers toad, the scope of the actual physical disturbance (Forman American marten, and Karner blue butterfly. In the 2000, Forman and Deblinger 2000, Jones et al.

longer term, threats will be serious or greater for 2000). For example, effects of roadway noise may many forest habitats, watersheds, and wide-ranging extend hundreds of meters from a heavily traveled species, and area-sensitive species. road, reducing species occupation (e.g., forest interior birds) and altering behavior (Forman and Deblinger

3. KNOWN WILDLIFE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS 2000, Forman et al. 2003). Areas bisected by roads result in smaller blocks of contiguous habitat, (A) Rapid growth fragmenting the landscape, reducing habitat quality, New Hampshires human population density and and isolating populations (Saunders et al. 1991) associated development are rapidly increasing, especially in the southern counties (Society for (D) Vegetation management Protection of New Hampshire Forests 2005). Areas surrounding airport runways and roadsides New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-57

Wildlife Risk Assessment TABLE 4-35. Habitats and species at highest risk from the effects of transportation infrastructure, in descending order by Rank.See Appendix A and B for details additional information on specific threats and rankings.

RANKING SCORES*

SPECIES HABITAT 1 2 3 4 5 RANK CLASS SPECIES Jefferson Salamander Vernal Pools 4 3 3 4 4 3.21 3 Blandings Turtle Marsh and Shrub Wetlands 4 4 2 3 4 3.00 3 Spotted Turtle Marsh and Shrub Wetlands 4 4 2 3 4 3.00 3 Fowlers Toad Pine Barrens 4 3 2 4 4 2.92 3 Northern Leopard Frog Grasslands 4 3 2 4 4 2.92 3 Karner Blue Butterfly Pine Barrens 2 4 4 4 3 2.75 3 Racer Pine Barrens 4 4 2 3 3 2.67 3 Hognose Snake Pine Barrens 4 3 3 3 3 2.63 3 Wood Turtle Floodplain Forests 4 3 1 3 4 2.33 2 American Marten High Elevation Spruce-Fir Forest 3 2 4 4 3 2.29 2 Bobcat Upland Forests 4 3 2 3 2 2.04 2 Spruce Grouse High Elevation Spruce-Fir Forest 2 2 4 4 4 2.00 2 HABITATS Appalachian Oak Pine Forest 4 4 3 3 4 3.33 4 Vernal Pools 4 3 3 4 4 3.21 3 Floodplain Forests 4 3 2 3 4 2.63 3 Marsh and Shrub Wetlands 4 3 2 3 4 2.63 3 Coastal Transitional Watersheds 3 3 4 3 3 2.50 2 Lowland Spruce-Fir Forest 2 3 4 4 4 2.50 2 Salt Marshes 2 3 4 4 3 2.29 2 Non-Tidal Coastal Watersheds 3 3 3 3 3 2.25 2 Tidal Coastal Watersheds 3 3 3 3 3 2.25 2 Hemlock-Hardwood-Pine Forest 3 2 3 3 3 1.88 2 Northern Hardwood-Conifer Forest 3 2 3 3 3 1.88 2 Southern Upland Watersheds 2 3 3 3 3 1.88 2

• 1=Scope, 2=Severity, 3=Timing, 4=Likelihood, 5=Information often are cleared of native vegetation and are abundant non-native nectar plants along road edges maintained as homogenous mowed habitat, largely (S. Fuller, NHFG, unpublished data).

due to safety concerns (Forman et al. 2003). Because roads are extensive in the landscape, roadside habitat (E) Dispersal loss can be substantial. Mowing during critical times The effects of roads as barriers to wildlife movement can have serious effects on local populations of plants are widespread (Forman et al. 2003, Trombulak and or wildlife (e.g., Karner blue butterfly, frosted elfin Frissell 2000). Roads that bisect seasonal or annual butterfly, Persius duskywing skipper, and grasshopper wildlife migration routes are of particular concern, sparrow). Karner blue butterflies are attracted to especially for rare amphibians and reptiles that migrate 4-58 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Wildlife Risk Assessment between wetlands and uplands or between wetland 4. RESEARCH NEEDS complexes (Fahrig et al. 1995, Trombulak and Frissell 2003). New England cottontails may be reluctant Note: A group of biologists from NHFG and other to cross a wide road because of the break in dense environmental agencies and staff from the Department cover that they prefer (J. Litvaitis, University of New of Transportation will meet in the future to determine Hampshire, personal communication). Lepidoptera research priorities related to roads as determined by a may be impeded from crossing roads by vehicular Roads Working Group forum held on December 1, 2004 wind (S. Fuller, NHFG, personal communication). hosted by the NHFG, Concord.

Road design can block wildlife; Jersey barriers and steep-sloping granite curbs can trap small organisms

• Identify specific areas of the landscape where on roadways and increase mortality risk (Klemens connectivity is limited by a road and identify 2000; M. Marchand, NHFG, personal observation). options for increasing safe passage of wildlife Underpasses (e.g., culverts) at stream crossings

• Identify significant travel corridors for species of may be ineffective for passage of aquatic organisms concern to provide guidance to transportation (Jackson 2003). planners

• Monitor (e.g., with radio-telemetry, remote (D) Mortality and collision cameras, or mark-recapture) wildlife populations in Mortality can affect the dispersal and viability of areas where underpass systems have been installed isolated populations, and eventually cause local or are proposed, to evaluate success extirpation (Trombulak and Frissell 2000, Forman

• Expand collection of road-killed data. Currently, et al. 2003). At greatest risk are slow-moving species the only species monitored are deer, bear, moose, (e.g., reptiles and amphibians), species that depend and turkey. Data collection could make use of on high adult survivorship (turtles), species that are volunteers (e.g., Reptile and Amphibian Reporting long range dispersers (bobcat, American marten, Program) and those likely to encounter road kill wolves), or species with scarce populations (timber (New Hampshire Department Of Transportation rattlesnake). Low population densities and skewed road agents).

age and sex ratios have raised concerns about the

• Evaluate road design, roadside habitat management, effect of road mortality on the viability of some and road placement so that it is least detrimental to turtle populations in the region (e.g., Marchand and significant natural resources Litvaitis 2004, Gibbs and Steen 2005). Turtles are attracted to the bare soil and open canopy of road 5. LITERATURE CITED shoulders, but adults and hatchlings are at risk from vehicles. Snakes may be attracted to roads to bask on Fahrig, L., J.H. Pedlar, S.E. Pope, P.D. Taylor, and J.F.

warm pavement surfaces (Trombulak and Frissell Wenger. 1995. Effect of road traffic on amphibian 2000). Wide-ranging mammals, such as bobcat, lynx, density. Biological Conservation 73:177-182.

American marten, and wolves, are likely to encounter Forman, R.T. 2000. Estimate of the area affected and cross roads. As traffic volume increases, vehicle ecologically by the road system in the United collisions become increasingly probable, reducing States. Conservation Biology. 14:31-35.

local population abundances and decreasing the Forman, R.T., and R.D. Deblinger. 2000. The likelihood and frequency of dispersal to unoccupied ecological road-effect zone of a Massachusetts or low-density habitats (Litvaitis, University of (U.S.A.) suburban highway. Conservation Biology New Hampshire, personal communication). Large 14:36-46.

mammals crossing roadways (e.g., black bear, moose, Forman, R.T.T., D. Sperling, J.A. Bissonette, A.P.

and deer), although not likely to be a population Clevenger, C.D. Cutshall, V.H. Dale, L. Fahrig, R.

viability concern, may cause safety concerns for France, R. France, C.R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J.A.

motorists. Jones, F.J. Swanson, T. Turrentine, and T.C. Winter.

2003. Road Ecology Science and Solutions. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Gibbs, J.P., and D.A. Steen. 2005. Trends in sex ratios New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-59

Wildlife Risk Assessment of turtles in the United States: Implications of road mortality. Conservation Biology 19:552-556.

Jackson, S.D. 2003. Ecological considerations in the design of river and stream crossings. In 2003 Proceedings of the International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, edited by C. L.

Irwin, P. Garrett, and K. P. McDermott. Raleigh, North Carolina: Center for transportation and the environment, North Carolina State University, North Carolina, USA.

Jones, J.A., F.J. Swanson, B.C. Wemple, and K.U.

Snyder. 2000. Effects of roads on hydrology, geomorphology, and disturbance patches in stream networks. Conservation Biology 14:76-85.

Klemens, M.W. 2000. Turtle Conservation.

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.,

USA.

Marchand, M.N. and J.A. Litvaitis. 2004. Effects of habitat features and landscape composition on the population structure of a common aquatic turtle in a region undergoing rapid development.

Conservation Biology 18:758-767.

Saunders, D.A., R.J. Hobbs, and C.R. Margules.

1991. Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conservation Biology 5:

18-32.

Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests.

2005. New Hampshires Changing Landscape.

Population growth and land use changes: what they mean for the Granite State. Executive Summary.

Concord, New Hampshire, USA.

Trombulak, S.C., and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14:18-30.

4-60 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Wildlife Risk Assessment Unregulated Take

1. DEFINITION TABLE 4-36. Number of habitats and species at highest risk from the effects of unregulated take. See Table 4-37 and Appendix A and B for details. Risk Category 4 = Greatest Loss of individuals may result in locally reduced risk.

population size, altered population structure, or extirpation, especially for small or isolated Risk Category Habitats Species populations and species that depend on high adult 4 0 0 survivorship. In New Hampshire, many species are 3 0 1 currently unregulated (exceptions include threatened 2 0 2 or endangered species, game species, and those 1 6 13 protected under New Hampshire Fish and Game possession rules). Regulated species may be vulnerable to incidental take from legal activities (e.g. hunting, amphibians are vulnerable to commercial collection trapping, and commercial fishing). Enforcement of and sale. Those species characterized by late ages of incidental take may be difficult, and penalties may maturity and high adult survival rates are generally not be sufficient to deter illegal take. most vulnerable (e.g., turtles and some snakes). Also, some species are extremely vulnerable due to the

2. EXPERT OPINION congregation of individuals (e.g., timber rattlesnakes and wood turtles). It is illegal to possess, sell, or Unregulated take is considered a chronic to serious import timber rattlesnakes (state endangered), eastern threat for wildlife species found in pine barren, hognose snakes (state threatened), Blandings turtles, cliff, alpine, floodplain, and peatland habitats. spotted turtles, wood turtles, eastern box turtles, and Unregulated take was considered very localized but marbled salamanders (state endangered) (RSA 212-A, may have more extensive and more severe effects on New Hampshire Fish and Game (NHFG) Rules Fis wildlife populations with limited distributions (e.g., 800). It is not known to what extent illegal collection timber rattlesnakes and hognose snakes) or high of protected species occurs in New Hampshire, but exposure to human populations (e.g., Blandings and some rare species have been sold in the past (Levell spotted turtles) or human activities (i.e., trapping of 2000). No other reptiles and amphibians are regulated American marten). Some local populations are likely at this time. Painted turtles were one of the top reptile to be affected in the short-term. However, effects on species exported from the United States (Franke and populations of long-lived species may go undetected Telecky 2001). Harvesting snapping turtles for food for years. Effects are weakly to somewhat documented is currently unregulated in New Hampshire, and at for most species or habitats and well documented for least one commercial collector has been reported timber rattlesnakes. (Taylor in Tyning 1997, M. Marchand, personal observation); strict regulations in surrounding states

3. KNOWN WILDLIFE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS (e.g., Maine) may increase collection pressure for New Hampshires populations.

(A) Commercial collection Many reptiles and amphibians are popular pets, (B) Human values and the international pet trade market is large Humans have a negative perception (fear) of (Franke and Telecky 2001). Most native reptiles and some species and regard others as pests. Negative New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-61

Wildlife Risk Assessment TABLE 4-37. Habitats and species at highest risk from the effects of unregulated take, in descending order by Rank. See Ap-pendix A and B for details additional information on specific threats and rankings.

RANKING SCORES*

SPECIES HABITAT 1 2 3 4 5 RANK CLASS SPECIES Timber Rattlesnake Appalachian Oak Pine Forest 4 3 3 3 4 2.92 3 American Marten High Elevation Spruce-Fir Forest 3 2 4 4 3 2.29 2 Spruce Grouse High Elevation Spruce-Fir Forest 1 4 4 4 3 2.29 2 Hognose Snake Pine Barrens 3 3 2 3 3 2.00 2

• 1=Scope, 2=Severity, 3=Timing, 4=Likelihood, 5=Information perceptions may lead people to destroy wildlife communication). Turtles may be taken in conibears regardless of actual danger. Only 1 of the 11 native set under water for beaver and otter but the impact New Hampshire snakes are venomous, and this species on at-risk turtle populations is unknown (K. Tuttle (timber rattlesnake) is extremely rare and unlikely to and E. Orff, NHFG, personal communication). On strike unless provoked. Slaughter of individuals or a larger scale, incidental take of non-target species is a purposeful destruction of critical habitat (e.g., den persistent problem in the commercial fishing industry sites) may result in the local or state extirpation of (National Marine Fisheries Service 1998).

some species (e.g., timber rattlesnakes, Brown 1992).

Bats found in homes may be killed. Bug zappers often (D) Scientific collection kill non-target species such as beetles and moths that are attracted to light. Some insect control programs Scientific research has been conducted on a variety of are implemented to ease public concern (e.g., taxonomic groups in New Hampshire, often resulting mosquito spraying to control West Nile virus), but in take of individuals. Although this activity is often may harm non-target species. regulated, some species, especially invertebrates that Conversely, many humans are fascinated with are not state or federally threatened or endangered, are wildlife. Humans with positive intentions may not regulated. Also, those species that are protected move animals from what seems unfavorable habitat may be difficult to identify. For example, collection to another location, with adverse consequences. For of some pine-barrens Lepidoptera (butterflies and example, relocating turtles may be the functional moths) could have an impact on highly fragmented equivalent of removing the turtle from the wild or small populations.

because the relocated turtle can no longer interact with wild individuals. 4. RESEARCH NEEDS (C) Incidental take

• Monitor focal populations to assess survivorship Some species, including those that are rare or and loss of individuals from local populations, endangered in New Hampshire, are incidentally especially where human activity is intense (e.g.,

taken because of legal harvesting activities (hunting, timber rattlesnakes, hognose snakes, wood turtles, trapping, and recreational or commercial fishing). Blandings turtles, spotted turtles)

For example, lynx and bobcat may be incidentally

• Create list of pet stores, pet trade expos, and web captured in leghold traps designed for canids or sites that sell reptiles and amphibians in New killing (e.g., conibear) traps designed for mustelids. Hampshire; survey which species of reptiles and American marten may be taken in fisher traps. amphibians are for sale (both native and non-native)

Spruce grouse may be confused with ruffed grouse

• Assess Cliff, Floodplain Forest, and other vulnerable and taken by hunters (J. Kelly, NHFG, personal habitats for risk of over collection of vegetation 4-62 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Wildlife Risk Assessment

• Compile information on incidental captures (e.g.,

survey trappers and hunters) and assess ways to eliminate or reduce mortality of non-target species

5. LITERATURE CITED Brown, W.S. 1992. Biology and conservation of the timber rattlesnake. In Tyning, T.F., Editor.

Conservation of the timber rattlesnake in the northeast. Massachusetts Audubon Society.

Lincoln, Massachusetts, USA.

Franke, J., and T.M. Telecky. 2001. Reptiles as pets.

An examination of the trade in live reptiles in the United States. The Humane Society of the United States. Washington, D.C., USA.

Levell, J.P. 2000. Commercial exploitation of Blandings turtle, Emydoidea blandingii, and the wood turtle, Clemmys insculpta, for the live animal trade. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3:665-674.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998.

Managing the Nations Bycatch: Programs, activities, and recommendations for the National Marine Fisheries Service. National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.

Taylor, J. The status of turtles in New Hampshire. In Tyning, T. F. Editor. 1997. Status and conservation of turtles of the northeastern United States. A symposium. Serpents Tale, Lanesboro, Minnesota, USA.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-63

Wildlife Risk Assessment Unsustainable Forest Harvesting

1. DEFINITION TABLE 4-38. Number of habitats and species at highest risk from the effects of unsustainable forest harvesting. See Table 4-39 and Appendix A and B for details. Risk Category Timber harvests greatly affect (positively or negatively) 4 = Greatest risk.

the current and future condition of New Hampshires forests and associated wildlife habitats (NHDFL Risk Category Habitats Species and SPNHF 1997). When done in an ecologically 4 1 0 sustainable manner, timber harvesting can enhance 3 0 4 New Hampshires economy while enhancing certain 2 7 1 wildlife habitat. However, if neglected or overlooked, 1 9 15 non-timber values such as soil quality, wetland and water quality, forest age structure, plant and wildlife habitat, and others may suffer (Hansen et al. 1991, DeGraaf et al. 1992, Cullen 1996). For instance, 3. KNOWN WILDLIFE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS high-intensity harvesting that exceeds forest growth over large areas increases habitat fragmentation and (A) Liquidation harvesting dramatically decreases age-class diversity (McCarthy The state of Maine defines liquidation harvesting as 1995, Hunter 1999). This, in turn, results in less the purchase of timberland followed by a harvest available wildlife habitat, especially for species that that removes most or all commercial value in require mature forest or abundant coarse woody standing timber, without regard for long-term forest debris (e.g., American marten) (Hargis et al. 1999). management principles, and the subsequent sale or Additionally, ecologically unsustainable harvesting attempted resale of the harvested land within 5 years can result in forest type conversion (e.g., from spruce- (Sec. A-1. 12 MRSA c. 805). Liquidation harvesting fir to tolerant hardwoods) (Hunter 1990, Hunter commonly leads to subdivision and development 1999), thereby reducing habitat for certain species. that causes a decrease in available wildlife habitat and fragmentation of what remains (Maine Forest Service

2. EXPERT OPINION (MFS) 2002). MFS has concluded that 3% to 12% of all harvests in Maine are liquidations (6,300 to 25,200 Ecologically unsustainable forest harvesting, ha/yr) (MFS 2002). No such assessment has yet been including liquidation harvesting and harvesting that completed for New Hampshire. However, based on leads to forest type conversions, is a serious to critical observations of wildlife and forestry professionals, threat to New Hampshires lowland spruce fir forests similar percentages are expected in this state, mostly in and associated wildlife species, especially American the north. This has serious implications for American marten, spruce grouse, and three-toed woodpecker. marten, three-toed woodpecker, spruce grouse, and Harvesting without regard to soil productivity and other species. The Society for the Protection of New erosion, water quality, plant and wildlife habitat, and Hampshire Forests and the Timberland Owners other non-timber values is a serious threat in most Association is in the process of assessing timber forest types. Harvesting in general is ecologically harvest patterns in New Hampshire.

unsustainable in high-elevation spruce-fir forests and floodplain forests and is a serious threat in both forest (B) Forest type conversion types. Forest type conversion is most pronounced in low 4-64 New Hampshire Wildlife Actin Plan

Wildlife Risk Assessment TABLE 4-39. Habitats and species at highest risk from the effects of unsustainable forest harvesting, in descending order by Rank. See Appendix A and B for details additional information on specific threats and rankings.

RANKING SCORES*

SPECIES HABITAT 1 2 3 4 5 RANK CLASS SPECIES American Marten High Elevation Spruce-Fir Forest 3 4 4 4 3 3.21 3 Spruce Grouse High Elevation Spruce-Fir Forest 3 4 4 4 3 3.21 3 Common Tern Coastal Islands 4 3 3 3 4 2.92 3 Roseate Tern Coastal Islands 4 3 3 3 4 2.92 3 Three-toed Woodpecker Lowland Spruce-Fir Forest 2 3 3 3 4 2.08 2 HABITATS Lowland Spruce Fir Forest 4 3 4 4 4 3.50 4 Hemlock-Hardwood-Pine Forest 3 3 4 3 3 2.50 2 High Elevation Spruce-Fir Forest 2 3 4 4 4 2.50 2 Northern Hardwood-Conifer Forest 3 3 4 3 3 2.50 2 Appalachian Oak Pine Forest 2 3 4 4 3 2.29 2 Northern Upland Watersheds 3 3 3 3 2 2.00 2 Floodplain Forests 2 3 3 3 3 1.88 2 Peatlands 2 3 3 3 3 1.88 2

• 1=Scope, 2=Severity, 3=Timing, 4=Likelihood, 5=Information elevation spruce-fir forests when stands are clear- SPNHF 1997).

cut prior to the establishment of adequate levels of Harvesting near vernal pools may reduce canopy advanced regeneration (Frank and Bjorkbom 1973, cover, increase water temperatures not suitable to Demming et al. 1995). In these situations, spruce- breeding amphibians, and cause premature drying of fir is generally replaced by light tolerant hardwoods the pool (Calhoun and deMaynadier 2004).

(e.g., pin cherry, birch, aspen, red maple) (Demming Short rotation harvesting limits the availability et al. 1995). Eventually, spruce-fir forest may become of bark beetles in dead and dying spruce trees, which reestablished, but it will take many more decades than is the major food item for three-toed woodpeckers if harvests were carefully planned to ensure advanced (Leonard 2001). It also limits the size and amount of regeneration. According to mapping conducted for coarse woody debris, which is required by American the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy marten for denning and foraging (Hargis et al. 1999).

(see low elevation spruce-fir forest profile), New Timber harvesting can also limit the number of Hampshire only has 34% of the low elevation spruce- large trees with strong upper branches to support fir forest that is ecologically possible (106,411 ha of the nests of bald eagle, osprey, red-shouldered hawk, 311,629 ha possible). and Coopers hawk, unless such trees are deliberately identified and protected during harvesting operations (C) Lack of on-timber values (Titus and Mosher 1981, Speiser and Bosakowski Timber harvesting can have a significant impact 1991, Bosakowski et al. 1992, Buehler 2000).

on soil quality, wetland and water quality, plant and animal habitats, and other non-timber values. 4. RESEARCH NEEDS For instance, timber harvesting can compact soil, particularly organic soils such as peat, leading to

• Assess current timber harvest levels and patterns in increased runoff and nutrient loading (NHDFL and New Hampshire to better understand the extent of New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-65

Wildlife Risk Assessment unsustainable harvesting in the state Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Broomall,

• Determine the forest structure and management Pennsylvania, USA.

actions needed to sustain three-toed woodpeckers Hansen, A.J., T.A. Spies, F.J. Swanson, and J.L.

• Define long- and short-term impacts of clear- Ohmann. 1991. Conserving biodiversity in cutting on vernal pool wildlife survival and managed forests. BioScience 41:382-392.

reproductive success Hargis C.D., J.A. Bissonette, and D.L. Turner.

1999. The influence of forest fragmentation and

5. LITERATURE CITED landscape pattern on American martens. Journal of Applied Ecology 36:157-172.

Bosakowski, T., D.G. Smith, and R. Speiser. 1992. Hunter, M.L. Jr. 1990. Wildlife, forests, and forestry:

Nest sites and habitat selected by Coopers hawks, principles of managing forests for biological Accipiter cooperii, in northern New Jersey and diversity. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New southeastern New York. Canadian Field-Naturalist Jersey, USA.

106: 474-479. Hunter, M.L. Jr. 1999. Maintaining biodiversity in Buehler, D.A. 2000. Bald Eagle (Halieaeetus forest ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, leucocephalus). In The Birds of North America, No. Cambridge, UK.

564 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North Leonard, D.L. Jr., 2001. Three-toed woodpecker America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. (Picoides tridactylus). In The Birds of North Calhoun, A.J.K., and P. deMaynadier. 2004. America, No. 588 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.).

Forestry habitat management guidelines for The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, vernal pool wildlife. MCA Technical Paper No. Pennsylvania, USA.

6, Metropolitan Conservation Alliance, Wildlife Maine Forest Service (MFS). 2002. The 2001 biennial Conservation Society, Bronx, New York, USA. report on the state of the forest and progress report Cullen, J.B. 1996. Best management practices for on forest sustainability standards. Department of erosion control on timber harvesting operations Conservation, Maine Forest Service, Forest Policy in New Hampshire. University of New Hampshire and Management Division, Augusta, Maine, USA.

Cooperative Extension, Durham, New Hampshire, McCarthy, P. 1995. Hypothese 2. Pages III-39-58 in USA. New Hampshire Division of Forests and Lands.

Damman, A.W.H., and T.W. French. 1987. The New Hampshire forest resources plan assessment ecology of peat bogs of the glaciated northeastern report. New Hampshire Department of Resources United States: a community profile. United and Economic Development, Concord, New States Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report Hampshire, USA.

85(7.16), Washington, DC., USA. New Hampshire Department of Forests and Lands DeGraaf, R.M., M. Yamasaki, W.B. Leak, and J.W. (NHDFL) and The Society for the Protection of Lanier. 1992. New England wildlife: management New Hampshire Forests (SPNHF). 1997. Good of forested habitats. United States Departement forestry in the Granite State: recommended of Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical voluntary forest management practices for New Report NE-144. Hampshire. The Society for the Protection of New Demming, L., L. Falk, C. Foss, J. Lanier, D. Hampshire Forests, Concord, New Hampshire, Publicover, E. Snyder, K. Staley, and T. VanRyn. USA.

1995. Hypothesis 13. Pages III-89-101 in New Speiser, R., and T. Bosakowski. 1991. Nesting Hampshire Division of Forests and Lands. New phenology, site fidelity, and defense behavior of Hampshire forest resources plan assessment northern goshawks in New York and New Jersey.

report. New Hampshire Department of Resources Journal of Raptor Research 25(4):132-135.

and Economic Development, Concord, New Titus, K., and J.A. Mosher. 1981. Nest site habitat Hampshire, USA. selected by woodland hawks in the central Frank, R.M., and J.S. Bjorkbom. 1973. A silvicultural Appalachians. Auk 98:270-281.

guide for spruce-fir in the Northeast. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report NE-6.

4-66 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

CHAPTER FIVE Conservation Strategies Overview Element 4 of the NAAT Guidelines requires descrip-tions of conservation actions proposed to conserve the identified species and habitats and priorities for implementing such actions. This chapter sum-marizes conservation actions to address challenging issues identified in chapter 4. It also incorporates rec-ommendations from species and habitat profiles. The strategies and actions identified in species and habitat profiles were used to generate a preliminary list of FIGURE 5-1. Risk assessments, condition assessments, and actions identified in species and habitat profiles were objectives. The objectives that make up the WAP used to identify general strategies important to many wild-were developed to be inclusive of all wildlife, with a life species and habitats.

focus on priority wildlife and wildlife habitats named in chapter 2. Objectives were cross-referenced to in-formation about threats, affected species and habitats, ternally to guide implementation. See chapter 6, and feasibility. These linked data will form the basis page 6-6, for an example of a complete strategy.

for objective prioritization of the WAP (chapter 7).

• Conservation Actions section of the species and Throughout this chapter, specific objectives are refer- habitat profiles (Appendix A and B), containing enced by their number (e.g., 101, 703, 1201). detailed conservation actions and information about potential monitoring protocols for each Actions were developed at the following levels of species and habitat detail:

Monitoring, performance evaluation, and adaptive

• Four broad focus areas: regional air and water management systems are integrated with all objec-quality, local land and water conservation, state- tives and are the topic of Chapter 6. Since these wide biodiversity stewardship, conservation sci- subjects are an integral part of the WAP, they are ence and information management introduced below.

• The short summaries of objectives presented in this chapter, which are based on the strategy tem- Monitoring: Effective monitoring requires an efficient plate (provided in Appendix O) and organized by set of indicators that are surrogates for species or habi-strategic program areas tat health. The Monitoring Strategy prescribes a start-

• The complete strategy templates (not provided) ing point for identifying an efficient set of indicators containing detailed information relevant to fea- for each habitat.

sibility and priorities, which NHFG is using in-New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-1

Conservation Strategies TABLE 5-1 A comparison of conservation strategies found in this chapter and corresponding Big Game Plan goals and objectives (Appendix E).

CONSERVATION STRATEGY CORRESPONDING BIG GAME PLAN GOALS/OBJECTIVES 100 Intra-Agency Coordination and Policy Not applicable 200 Conser vation Planning Black bear goal 4, objective 4-2 Moose goal 4, objective 4-2 White-tailed deer goal 4, objective 4-2 300 Education and Technical Assistance Black bear goal 3, objective 3-1; goal 4, objectives 4-2 and 4-3 Moose goal 2, objectives 2-1 and 2-2; goal 3, objective 3-1; goal 4, objectives 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3 White-tailed deer goal 4, objectives 4-1, 4-2 and 4-3 Wild turkey goal 2, objectives 2-1 and 2-2 400 Environmental Review Black bear goal 4 Moose goal 4 White-tailed deer goal 4 500 Habitat Management Black bear goal 4, objectives 4-2 and 4-3 Moose goal 4, objectives 4-1, 4-2 and 4-3 White-tailed deer goal 4, objectives 4-1, 4-2 and 4-3 Wild turkey goal 2, objectives 2-1 and 2-2 600 Interagency Regulation and Policy Black bear goal 4, objective 4-1 700 Land Protection Black bear goal 4, objective 4-3 Moose goal 4, objectives 4-1 and 4-3 White-tailed deer goal 4, objective 4-1 and 4-3 800 Landowner Incentives Black bear goal 4, objectives 4-2 and 4-3 Moose goal 4, objectives 4-1, 4-2 and 4-3 White-tailed deer goal 4, objectives 4-1, 4-2 and 4-3 Wild turkey goal 2, objectives 2-1 and 2-2 900 Monitoring Black bear goal 1; goal 4, objectives 4-1 and 4-3 Moose goal 1; goal 4, objective 4-1 White-tailed deer goal 1; goal 3; goal 4, objective 4-1 Wild turkey goal 2, objective 2-1 1000 Population Management Black bear goals 1 and 3 Moose goal 1 White-tailed deer goals 1 and 3 Wild turkey goal 1 1100 Regional Coordination Not applicable 1200 Research Not applicable 1300 Local Regulation and Policy Black bear goal 4, objectives 4-2 and 4-3 Moose goal 4, objectives 4-2 and 4-3 White-tailed deer goal 4, objectives 4-2 and 4-3 5-2 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Conservation Strategies Performance Evaluation: Performance evaluation is Merrimack River (revised 1997), and The Saco River built into each objective by explicitly identifying af- Fish Passage Assessment Plan 2004-2007 (approved fected threats, expected benefits, and critical inputs. 2003).

Two monitoring objectives were developed to mea-sure the first two aspects of performance, the direct Broad Focus Areas effects of management (affected threats), and ecologi-cal response (expected benefits). Regional Air and Water Quality Action Plan Adaptive Management: Annual summary reports will Even the best-protected wildlife populations and hab-include baseline information, measured indicators, itats are increasingly threatened by climate change.

trends in threatened and endangered populations, Meanwhile, atmospheric pollutants in the form of changes in the level of managed threats, and a sum- acid deposition, mercury, and other heavy metals mary of inputs. This information will be used to continue to degrade water quality and diminish for-adapt management to current conditions. est health. The overarching goal is to reduce harmful air and water pollutants by promoting sustainable Integration With the Big Game Plan energy, transportation, and industrial development practices.

As we prepared to develop the WAP, another major planning effort was scheduled to take place: the New

• Promote the adoption of structured risk assess-Hampshire Big Game Plan (focused on black bear, ments by state and federal agencies engaged in moose, white-tailed deer and turkey, see Appendix energy, transportation, and industrial development E). To ensure the long-term protection of all wildlife projects. Assessments include a goal, identification species and habitats in the state, we integrated the of risks, risk monitoring, and mitigation for un-planning efforts of the Big Game Plan into the over- avoidable impacts (601, 602, 603, 604, 607) arching WAP. While the Big Game Plan and its goals

• Promote the use of regional and national air and and objectives may be viewed separately from the water quality policies and funding in New Hamp-WAP, the integration of these two planning processes shire (1103, 1104) ensured that conservation strategies were consistent

• Advise the coordinators of regional conservation with each other. In Table 5-1, we identify those goals initiatives on air and water quality issues in New and objectives in the Big Game Plan that are parallel Hampshire that need to be addressed at the re-to the conservation strategies described in this chap- gional or national level (1103, 1104) ter. In this way, we hope to more fully integrate wild-life conservation actions in the state, whether directed Local Land and Water Conservation Action Plan toward game or non-game species.

Wildlife habitats are diminished or destroyed by rap-Fisheries Operational Plan id urban development in many parts of New Hamp-shire. Many areas are degraded by indirect effects of The goals of the WAP overlap with the objective of development, such as non-point source pollution and the NHFG Anadromous and Inland Fisheries Opera- light pollution. We must promote sustainable devel-tional Management Investigations to monitor and opment and resource use to support wildlife health assess the status of New Hampshires freshwater and and diversity through a combination of coordinated anadromous fisheries resources through a planned working groups, technical guidance, and the produc-scientific approach and to develop, implement, and tion of targeted educational materials.

evaluate management strategies that are consistent with resource capabilities. Restoration efforts for

• Develop and disseminate up-to-date information, anadromous species are guided by the Strategic Plan including maps, about wildlife and sensitive habitat for the Restoration of Atlantic Salmon to the Con- areas that is pertinent to developers, permit appli-necticut River (revised 1998), the Status Review of cants, land managers, municipalities, conservation the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program for the commissions, and regional planning commissions New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-3

Conservation Strategies (206, 401, 1301) sess ecological responses of habitats and organisms.

• Develop and promote guidelines and best manage- Protocols for monitoring and management will help ment practices to mitigate common development ensure consistency, efficacy, and a measured response.

and land use impacts in sensitive habitat areas (304, Therefore, the overall goal of this focal area is to use 305, 403, 406) best available science and protocols to monitor those

• Provide technical guidance on the application of species and habitats of greatest conservation concern.

conservation science, planning tools, maps, and other information to land planning (609, 1302,

• Gather and refine information about the locations 1303) of New Hampshires wildlife and habitats and

• Provide technical guidance on monitoring proto- maintain a database to map populations and habi-cols so the success of restoration and mitigation can tats (201, 202, 901) be clearly demonstrated (408, 904, 905)

• Gather and refine information about the condi-

• Promote inter-agency working groups to address tion of New Hampshires landscape and maintain broad threats with strategies outlined in the WAP a database to assess the status of populations and (104, 105, 106, 605, 606, 608) habitats to help direct management actions (204,

• Develop and implement a program to provide 205, 902, 903) landowner incentives for land conservation (703,

• Research and comparatively analyze threats to the 802, 803) condition of wildlife populations and habitats to

• Educate the public about smart growth, safe re- identify critical problems (203, 204, 1001) source use, sensitive habitat areas, and sustainable

• Prioritize proposed conservation actions before im-development (302, 307) plementation to ensure that resources are targeted effectively (207, 1201, 1202)

Statewide Biodiversity Stewardship Program

• Track and evaluate performance to determine the success of management actions. This entails To maintain New Hampshires biodiversity and habi- measuring changes in the level of a risk factor, tats, the state needs coordinated voluntary and regu- demonstrating a beneficial ecological response, and latory management, restoration, and land protection. establishing a correlation between management and changes in threat levels (207, 904, 905)

• Protect and restore rare and declining plants and

• Continually refine and adapt management activi-animals (101, 102, 103, 208, 804, 1004, 1005) ties to reflect new conservation science (207, 904,

• Protect and restore threatened habitats and natural 905, 1002) communities (405, 407, 409, 502, 503, 505, 507,

• Manage information and develop media for dis-508, 701, 702, 801) semination to all levels in conservation (201, 202,

• Coordinate agencies to protect populations and 206, 401) habitats (107, 402, 404, 410)

• Develop a system to monitor ecological health that

• Coordinate agencies to plan and implement resto- includes under-surveyed taxa, indicators of condi-ration (610, 1101, 1102) tion, threatened and endangered species, effects of

• Manage human impacts on plant and animal diver- management, and ecological responses to manage-sity (501, 504, 506, 1003, 1006) ment. Produce succinct, standardized annual re-ports on wildlife health by habitat (901, 902, 903, Conservation Science and Information Manage- 904, 905, 906, 907) ment Program There is a critical need to obtain, store, and manage data on the status and condition of New Hampshires species and habitats of greatest conservation concern.

Protection, restoration, and management activities all require knowledge of on-the-ground priority locations. Successful management activities must as-5-4 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

STRATEGY 100 Intra-Agency Coordination and Policy Native New Hampshire wildlife should be adequately toring, or similar recovery efforts. Revising the threat-protected by state laws and regulations for the en- ened and endangered wildlife list also would ensure joyment of New Hampshires residents and visitors. that regulatory protection goes to those species in These laws should be clearly understood by all indi- greatest need. Detailed assessments have been com-viduals, agencies, and organizations affected by them. pleted for those species of greatest conservation con-Conservation officers should be trained, equipped, cern as part of the WAP, and NHFG rules (Chapter and funded to enforce wildlife laws, including those FIS 1000) identify threatened and endangered species.

pertaining to non-game, threatened, and endangered Conservation partners and taxonomic experts species. NHFG oversees the protection, restoration, from universities should assist in identifying those and conservation of wildlife in New Hampshire, and species in need of greater protection or those no regulates its take, sale, and possession. RSA 212-A longer in need of protection under RSA 212-A. This and associated rules protect endangered and threat- objective is best accomplished through the forma-ened wildlife. Under this law, other state agencies that tion of taxon-specific technical committees. For taxa authorize, fund, or carry out activities must consider where expertise is readily available, the organizational potential impacts to state-listed wildlife. framework for revision is already in place and simply requires that the appropriate parties convene and 101 Objective: Revise protocols to review threat- develop a plan for reviewing existing lists. For more ened and endangered wildlife habitat obscure taxa, experts must first be identified.

Long-term recovery of endangered and threatened 103 Objective: Develop protocols for limiting ac-species is best achieved by focusing on protecting tivity in sensitive habitats high quality habitat rather than only preventing the take of individuals. New Hampshires Endangered Fragile and sensitive ecosystems can be damaged by Species Conservation Act (RSA 212-A) should be human presence, even when no harm is intended. To revised to provide more comprehensive habitat pro- prevent disturbance, sensitive threatened and endan-tection for endangered and threatened wildlife and gered species areas should be buffered from human protect buffers around critical habitats. Representa- disturbance. Adopting rules that specify where these tives from state agencies, business, timber, energy, ag- areas are and how they can be properly protected riculture, and government should be engaged in the would improve enforcement. Sensitivity to private development of revisions to the RSA 212-A, and an property rights is necessary when considering the advisory committee with a legislative liaison should approach to this objective. We recognize the value be established to assure successful implementation. of working cooperatively with landowners to balance use of their property with the need to protect threat-102 Objective: Revise endangered wildlife list ened and endangered species of wildlife (also see Safe Harbor Agreements objective 804).

Resources for wildlife conservation are limited, and a revision of the NHFG threatened and endangered 104 Objective: Revise/Enforce Chapter FIS 800:

wildlife list (Administrative Rule FIS 1000) would The Importation, Possession, and Use of Wildlife ensure that these resources are directed toward those species most in need of management, intensive moni- Revising administrative rules on the importation, New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-5

Conservation Strategies possession, and use of wildlife (Administrative Rule on potential impacts to natural resources, will help FIS 800) will help prevent unnecessary take, diseases, protect wildlife and habitats. Boat access projects and invasive species from harming wild populations. should consider ecological significance and potential A number of species are unregulated, and reptiles and effects before selecting priority sites for public water amphibians are particularly vulnerable. New rules access. Access sites that will harm significant natural might prohibit the sale of any native New Hamp- resources should not be funded.

shire wildlife, add new rules for reptiles, amphibians, The Public Water Access Advisory Board advises, and some invertebrates, add protected wildlife from monitors, and coordinates state public access efforts.

neighboring states to New Hampshires rules, elimi- When projects are proposed, wetland permits must nate non-native species, and change wording from be requested from the NHDES Wetlands Bureau.

no possession of venomous reptiles to venomous species. 107 Objective: Enforce wildlife regulations 105 Objective: Minimize OHRV wildlife impacts The NHFG has a law enforcement division with approximately 40 conservation officers spread across Eliminating OHRV use in sensitive endangered and six districts. These conservation officers are primarily threatened species habitats, such as coastal dunes and responsible for enforcing NHFG rules and regula-pine barrens, removes a potential mortality factor es- tions. Biologists at NHFG have extensive knowledge pecially for piping plovers and rare pine barrens spe- regarding the identification and biology of regulated cies such as the Karner blue butterfly. Where OHRV species. Greater coordination among conservation of-use is deemed appropriate, well designed and main- ficers and biologists at NHFG will help ensure that tained trail systems will reduce impacts to wildlife wildlife rules and regulations are enforceable and that and will provide OHRV riders with safe and reliable conservation officers are trained to enforce regula-recreational opportunities. tions pertaining to species of conservation concern, NHFG conservation officers, land managers, and other fish and wildlife.

and biologists in cooperation with DRED staff, have training and capabilities to implement this objective.

The Cooperative State Lands Management Program is an interagency agreement among NHFG, DRED, NHDES, and NHDOT that coordinates state land management, including OHRV use. Local OHRV clubs develop and maintain trails under the guidance of the DRED.

The Cooperative State Lands Management Program needs to review and implement policies that reduce impacts to wildlife and provide OHRV riders with safe and reliable recreational opportuni-ties. DRED and NHFG staff need to develop and implement trail management practices that minimize environmental degradation and avoid impacts to sig-nificant habitats.

106 Objective: Reduce public water access im-pacts Use of lakes and rivers by motorized and non-mo-torized boats can harm wildlife populations and habitats. Coordinated planning prior to the initiation of specific projects, and prioritizing projects based 5-6 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

STRATEGY 200 Conservation Planning Conservation planning entails organizing and analyz- ited. NHFG will likely partner with DRED for this ing data derived from direct observation of wildlife objective because NHNHB ecologists are trained to and habitats. Scientists with advanced training in identify habitats and natural communities and can conservation biology and wildlife ecology are needed train others to do so. Model validation and refine-to lead efforts to use computer models to synthesize ment is highly feasible because staff and resources statewide patterns of wildlife health and to develop already exist, and efforts can begin immediately.

strategies for conserving biodiversity. Critical analysis of perceived threats to wildlife is an important part 202 Objective: Maintain Wildlife Database of strategy development. One of the outputs of con-servation planning are maps that depict the ability of New Hampshire should maintain its ability to ac-lands to support wildlife health and help guide land quire, verify, and maintain records of wildlife obser-use planning decisions. The goals of conservation vations. Improved knowledge of species distributions, planning are as follows: particularly species of conservation concern, will greatly benefit conservation and regulatory actions.

• Describe the potential of the land to sustain wild- NHFG and NHNHB currently have staff life dedicated to acquiring, verifying, and maintaining

• Develop conservation objectives that balance hu- wildlife records derived from NHFG, partner orga-man interests with wildlife health and avoid costly nizations (e.g., NHA, RAARP, contractors), and the interventions for endangered species New Hampshire Wildlife Sightings web page. Staff

• Organize and prioritize diverse projects to maintain may be inadequate to address incoming records in a ecological integrity across the landscape timely manner.

• Deliver information supporting conservation ob-jectives in media that can be integrated into state 203 Objective: Assess Threats to Wildlife Health and local planning processes Assess threats to wildlife and habitats based on 201 Objective: Model Validation and Refinement methodologies developed during the WAP. Focus ef-forts on taxa with significant knowledge gaps, such Continually validate and refine maps of predicted as invertebrates, amphibians, and fish, as well as on distributions of wildlife populations and habitats, be- emerging threats. Identifying patterns of risk to wild-ginning with the most scarce and imperiled and pro- life may allow management to adapt incrementally, gressing to the most abundant and stable. Confirming before species decline to threatened or endangered or refuting predicted locations of wildlife populations status and before habitats are seriously degraded. This and habitats will improve efficacy of and support for may preempt drastic and costly interventions and the implementation of local and statewide conserva- increase resources for other potentially threatened or tion strategies and actions. endangered species.

Computer models predicting the distributions of species and habitats were developed to produce maps 204 Objective: Map Landscape Potential for for the WAP. NHFG has adequate expertise, facilities, Wildlife Habitat and equipment for oversight of model development and validation, but staff for ground-truthing is lim- Create maps that portray the potential of the land-New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-7

Conservation Strategies scape to support a sustainable and diverse array of managers in decision-making.

wildlife and wildlife habitats. Maps should incorpo- NHFG developed preliminary wildlife conserva-rate wildlife distributions, ecological processes, and tion maps and distributed them to planning organiza-influence of human activities on the landscape. Maps tions during 2004-2005. Coordinated data manage-will identify critical areas to support priority wildlife ment and publication mechanisms will be required habitats and biodiversity, resulting in more efficient to publish and distribute updated maps to all towns and effective protection. and regions. GRANIT and Complex Systems are Much of the data gathering and mapping has equipped to manage, publish, and distribute mapped already been completed for the WAP. NHFG has ad- data via the Internet and other media.

equate expertise, facilities, and equipment to conduct analyses to assess the potential condition of the land- 207 Objective: Prioritize and Refine Strategies to scape; however, expert consultation will be required Conserve Wildlife to develop and refine methodology. Key partners include TNC and NHNHB. The efficacy of wildlife conservation efforts will be im-proved by focusing on the most effective and feasible 205 Objective: Map Potential Wildlife Corridors strategies for sustaining wildlife populations, habitats, and Buffers and landscapes, and to abate the most pressing causes of degraded wildlife health. Information gathered for Map landscape connectivity using models to repre- the WAP should guide this effort in coming years.

sent spatial processes, such as dispersal, migration, Input on strategies from partners, stakeholders, colonization, and foraging. Mapping connectivity and the public has been obtained via collaboration, and buffering critical wildlife areas can target lands review, forum, and web-based survey. For each objec-that help retain ecological connectivity and sustain tive, feasibility will be reviewed thoroughly by NHFG wildlife diversity. with input from relevant experts upon completion of Mapping landscape connectivity will be achieved the WAP and prior to implementation.

through coordinated inter-agency and inter-orga-nizational efforts, and NHFG is not likely to lead 208 Objective: Use Natural Communities and the effort. TNC and NHFG have completed a frag- Systems as Surrogates for Poorly Represented mentation model that will contribute to mapping of Taxa connectivity, and NHFG has contracted UNH to de-velop methodology for modeling movements of large There is a wide variety of taxa, predominantly inver-carnivores. Initiatives are in place to secure funding tebrates, for which very little information exists. By to model landscape connectivity from transportation identifying and protecting the full range of natural planning resources. communities and systems that occur in the state, it should be possible to provide habitat for all native 206 Objective: Produce and Deliver Planning species, including those not represented in the WAP.

Maps Natural Communities of New Hampshire (Sper-duto and Nichols 2004) provides the most up-to-Produce and distribute summary maps of wildlife date descriptions of natural communities in the state.

habitat at town and ecoregional scales. Summary Likewise, systems are described in Natural Commu-maps will provide town and regional planners with nity Systems of New Hampshire (Sperduto 2005). The easily interpreted information that supports wildlife NHNHB database contains records of all known conservation objectives. Technical guidance will help occurrences of exemplary natural communities and planners use available tools for implementing a range systems throughout the state, and NHNHB staff of objectives, from land protection to mitigating is continuously updating it as new information is impacts of development. In the long-term, conserva- gathered.

tion planning practices will be integrated with land use planning. Maps will guide the public, develop-ers, land-use planners, regulatory agencies, and land 5-8 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

STRATEGY 300 Education, Information, and Technical Guidance Education includes formal (school-based) and information and technical guidance goal. NHFG has non-formal (camp, agency, adult, non-government, a Public Affairs Division, with personnel, training, fa-volunteer, conservation commission, and profes- cilities, and equipment for conducting education ac-sional) instruction and involvement across a variety tivities. UNH Cooperative Extension has personnel, of media. Technical guidance is primarily non-formal training, and facilities for conducting education and instruction and direction through workshops, field technical guidance. Funding and personnel are needed tours, one-on-one consultation, publications and to develop curricula and other educational materials.

presentations.

Education and technical assistance create an 302 Objective: Landowner education series aware and ecologically knowledgeable citizenry who has the appropriate skills to identify and help resolve Work with partners to inventory and evaluate exist-environmental challenges and participate in activities ing homeowner/landowner wildlife educational ma-that lead to positive action on behalf of the wildlife terials. Assess need for additional materials in light of resources. Through an educated citizenry many of the new information. Work with partners to develop and issues facing wildlife can be ameliorated. The ultimate distribute a homeowner/landowner education series goal is a change in human behavior leading to a sus- including brochures, web based information, and tainable and environmentally friendly quality of life. program presentations. These projects would address This strategy identifies both immediate, discrete issues such as living with wildlife, landscaping native actions and long-term processes that can be taken to plants and preventing the spread of invasive species.

address conservation issues through education, infor- Programs can be developed either on the regional mation and technical guidance. While we recognize or national level and could benefit the state regard-the importance of prioritizing education, information ing homeowner education series and guide. NHFG and technical guidance needs and supporting actions and UNH Cooperative Extension currently have the (objective 301), the WAP process has allowed us to capacity to implement and distribute such materials.

better understand many of the critical conservation In addition there are many willing partners includ-needs. We have provided direction to address some of ing state agencies and non-government organizations the most critical needs in objectives 302-307. who could be involved, including USDA -Wildlife Services, Association of Federated Garden Clubs, 301 Objective: Identify actions to address DRED, and NHDES.

through education, information, and technical guidance 303 Objective: Foster supply of native plants Identify and implement conservation actions that New Hampshire should encourage landowners and can productively be addressed through various means landscapers to use native plants. Increasing the avail-of education, information and technical guidance. ability of native plants from nurseries is important to Public support will lead to additional conservation, encourage the use of more native plants with wildlife management, and legislation that will protect wildlife benefits in lieu of introduced and invasive species. By and habitat. fostering the supply of native plants we also reduce There is great potential for partnerships to devel- the risk that non-native pests and diseases will be in-op in the process of reaching this general education, troduced into New Hampshire.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-9

Conservation Strategies Ornamental horticulture in New Hampshire is management practices. There are many potential a $380 million industry, representing 56% of total collaborators, including UNH Cooperative Exten-agricultural productivity in the state. This industry sion, New Hampshire Department of Agriculture, has more than adequate resources and potential to New Hampshire Farm Bureau, USDA-NRCS, and develop a healthy supply of native plants if there is a County Conservation Districts.

financial incentive to do so. The New England Wild Flower Society has nurseries in Massachusetts that 305 Objective: Promote sustainable forestry supply native plants to New Hampshire and other practices states, but are limited in capacity. NHDFL maintains a state nursery that provides more than 50 species of Continue to work with partners in the forestry and trees, shrubs, and vines for forestry, conservation and conservation communities to strategically promote education purposes, including many native species. sustainable forestry. This will benefit many species The Jordan Institute, UNH Cooperative Extension, and habitats throughout New Hampshire. Encourag-NHFG, and UNH Thompson School are collaborat- ing sustainable forestry can encourage landowners to ing on a grant-funded project to complete a manual derive economic benefit from their forestlands and on integrated landscaping practices. This new manual maintain them in an undeveloped state. A key element describes natural landscaping techniques and encour- of a successful program is the proactive, purposeful ages people to buy native plants from local growers. targeting of owners of larger lands with significant NHFG and UNH Cooperative Extension can wildlife resources. This program should consider play a key role in organizing and motivating partners actions mentioned in the sustainable forest manage-to foster an increased supply of native plants. The first ment recommendation of the Northern Forest Lands step would be to organize a meeting of the potential Council Tenth Anniversary Forum Final Report.

partners to develop a feasible approach to fostering an NHFG, NHDFL, and UNH Cooperative Ex-increased supply of native plants. NHFG can work tension should continue to work with the land trust with the NHDFL State Nursery to assess the poten- community (e.g., through the Center for Land Con-tial to increase their supply of native plants, including servation Assistance) to promote the acquisition of expansion into the perennial and aquatic plants areas. easements (targeting lands with high wildlife value)

With funding, UNH Cooperative Extension can de- that help maintain land in private ownership. Such velop demonstration sites based on the new integrated groups should encourage easements to be accom-landscaping practices manual and provide education, panied by resources needed to support sustainable information and technical guidance to growers, ho- management.

meowners, landscapers, and other relevant audiences. Other potential collaborators include the New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association, New 304 Objective: Revise and promote agricultural Hampshire Timber Harvesting Council, Granite best management practices State Division of the Society of American Foresters, Tree Farm Program, SPNHF, USDA-NRCS, USDA Work with partners in the agricultural community Forest Service, local and regional conservation or-to revise voluntary best management practices that ganizations, and private consulting foresters. Forest would improve conditions for key wildlife species and Legacy and other easement programs represent fund-habitats, particularly in grasslands, floodplain forests, ing sources for the purchase of development value of and aquatic habitats. Potential revisions to best man- land and ensure that forestry is sustainable.

agement practices would include mowing techniques and timing, pesticide and fertilizer applications, 306 Objective: Advise town conservation com-stream buffer widths, vegetation composition buffers, missions and planning boards and floodplain farming recommendations.

NHFG and UNH Cooperative Extension could Develop a program to provide technical assistance to take the lead in revising agricultural best manage- town conservation commissions and planning boards ment practices. They could work with partners to regarding key wildlife species and habitats in and publicize and encourage adoption of the revised best around their communities. Key species and habitats 5-10 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Conservation Strategies will benefit from local actions to protect additional lands, manage habitats in an ecologically sustainable manner, and encourage appropriate stewardship on private lands. As this increased awareness leads to ac-tion, conservation commissions and planning boards may seek changes in regulations and policies that would benefit targeted wildlife and habitats. Access to data and maps depicting key wildlife species and habitat focal areas should be provided to both part-ners and the target audiences. The availability of edu-cational materials, information and technical guid-ance on this new information should be marketed by partners via multiple communications media.

Potential collaborators include NHFG, UNH Cooperative Extension, Regional Planning Commis-sions, NHDES, New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning, New Hampshire Municipal Associa-tion, New Hampshire Association of Conservation Commissions, and Center for Land Conservation Assistance, and other non-government organiza-tions. NHFG will work with potential partners to develop such a program, although NHFG will require funding for personnel, training, equipment, and communications media. A grant proposal is cur-rently pending from one potential funding source, the Landowner Incentives Program, which would aid greatly in achieving this objective.

307 Objective: Educate recreational users regard-ing threats to wildlife and natural communities Reduce the impact of recreation through informa-tional materials and programs developed for recre-ational users, including climbers, hikers, boaters, wildlife watchers, and others. This will benefit many species and habitats, including cliffs, dunes, marsh and shrub wetlands, alpine, and aquatic habitats.

There is great potential to develop educational materials and programs on the regional or national level, particularly working with national or regionally based recreational users. There is a need for a coor-dinated effort to target recreation users on specific issues in New Hampshire.

There are many willing partners including state agencies, non-government organizations and recre-ationally based user groups who could support the work described in this objective. There is a role for NHFG to provide information regarding impacts and to foster collaboration on education programs and materials.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-11

STRATEGY 400 Environmental Review Various state, federal, and local agencies or boards 402 Objective: Improve inter-agency coordina-currently have the authority to review potential tion for environmental reviews environmental impacts of a proposed activity on protected resources (e.g., wetlands, threatened and Revise protocols to improve coordination and ef-endangered species). Project evaluation ranges from ficiency among state and local regulators and advi-database searches to extensive interactions with devel- sory boards. State and local regulators and advisory opers, engineers, and environmental consultants. Site boards should coordinate with NHDES, NHFG, and inspections by a biologist are often essential to pro- NHNHB to establish the order in which projects are vide recommendations needed to minimize and miti- reviewed and responded to. This will reduce redun-gate impacts. Several potential enhancements could dancy, provide critical information for formulating be pursued to improve the established environmental recommendations, and ensure that recommendations review process in New Hampshire, and subsequently made by different groups are not contradictory.

species conservation. In particular, greater coordina-tion among agencies and dissemination of informa- 403 Objective: Develop guidelines to minimize tion to stakeholders will improve the environmental impacts to endangered, threatened, and special review process. The identification and implementa- concern species tion of changes will be done in collaboration with other state agencies, non-government organizations, NHFG should develop guidelines for reviewing and the public. projects affecting threatened, endangered, and special concern species. Guidelines will allow the NHFG to 401 Objective: Release Wildlife Maps provide a more consistent and effective response to to the Public proposed development projects. Through these guide-lines, the expectations of NHFG reviewers will be The state should make wildlife-related information better understood by developers and engineers so that accessible to developers and public, while also pro- conflicts can be avoided prior to the permit process.

tecting sensitive information and landowner rights. NHFG has developed informal guidelines for re-If developers and consultants have access to informa- viewing projects threatening some species (e.g., fresh-tion prior to planning their projects, they will know water mussels). However, guidelines have not been de-which agencies to contact for a full review or for help veloped for all species. NHFG staff should work with in developing project designs before investing large species experts and other state and federal wildlife amounts of time and money in a project. This will agencies to develop guidelines for reviewing projects.

also help to streamline the review process and reduce redundancy in review requests. 404 Objective: Expand environmental review to Data layers are currently available or are being de- other projects potentially threatening wildlife veloped which could be made available to the public on a limited basis. The Complex Systems Research Many projects receiving minimal environmental re-Center at UNH (GRANIT) or a state agency website view could be improved by having access to informa-would be a proper venue for public access to this data. tion and resources from NHFG and NHNHB, which NHDES currently provides public access to environ- may help reduce impacts to rare wildlife, plants, and mental information through its OneStop database. natural communities. Expanding the review process 5-12 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Conservation Strategies to include both agencies will facilitate habitat and structure of streams or rivers. Upgrading or replacing species conservation in these projects. For example, ineffective structures (e.g., culverts and bridges) with review of site-specific permits will allow NHFG and well-designed ones will enhance connectivity of wild-NHNHB to evaluate threats to uplands where wet- life populations and will increase population viability.

land impacts do not occur. Project designers and engineers are more likely to Expanding the scope of environmental reviews incorporate environmentally friendly designs if infor-may be as simple as applying existing procedures to mation is readily available. Various BMP guidelines other projects. New or revised rules may be needed have been developed in New Hampshire or elsewhere for programs that currently lack a review process. (e.g., erosion and sedimentation control), and further Cooperation between NHDES, NHFG, NHNHB, guidance and training will bolster this objective.

NHDFL, and Division of Parks and Recreation will Recommendations for stream crossing design have be necessary to determine which projects warrant been developed in Massachusetts and a New Hamp-additional review procedures. The NHDES Site Spe- shire Stream Team has been formed to focus on this cific Program is currently working on rule revisions; topic. Two meetings have been hosted recently by NHFG and NHNHB should provide input on these the NHDES, in cooperation with the NHFG, in an rule changes. effort to initiate this objective. Sources of funding should be identified to upgrade ineffective culverts 405 Objective: Expand existing protection to in- during scheduled maintenance or replacement.

clude significant wildlife habitats that currently lack protection. 407 Objective: Support wetland compensatory mitigation program at NHDES Wetlands are currently regulated by the NHDES Wetlands Bureau. Protection should be expanded for NHFG and NHNHB should be active participants other significant wildlife habitats that currently lack and supporters of the NHDES wetland mitigation adequate regulatory protections in New Hampshire. in-lieu-fee program by participating in drafting rules Providing additional protection for these habitats and becoming active on the site selection committee.

will be critical to maintaining the biodiversity of A bill to establish an in-lieu wetland compensation New Hampshire, especially in the rapidly developing program is currently under consideration. The pro-southern part of the state. Examples of unprotected gram will allow permit applicants that propose to or inadequately protected significant wildlife resourc- harm wetlands to pay a fee rather than selecting land es might include vernal pools, floodplains, and beaver for protection or restoration. Payment into the fund impoundments (See Appendix B, Habitat Profiles). would be allowed only after applicants demonstrated This objective will require meetings among many that wetland harm was minimized. Once established, parties (i.e., regulatory agencies, conservation groups, this program could generate up to several million private wetland consultants) to identify specific tasks dollars annually for the protection and restoration of and timelines. In some cases, existing rules and regu- wetland habitats in New Hampshire.

lations may be adjusted relatively easily. Vernal pools NHDES Wetlands Bureau has held multiple have existing protection as wetlands but need to be meetings with many stakeholders including represen-explicitly protected as significant wildlife habitat. In tatives from state (e.g., NHFG) and federal regulators other cases, new regulations may be needed to expand (e.g, EPA, USFWS) and other agencies, conservation protection, and this process will require interdisci- organizations, private consultants, the New Hamp-plinary coordination and support. shire Association of Conservation Commissions, the New Hampshire Association of Natural Resources 406 Objective: Develop stream crossing guide- Scientists, and the Conservation Law Foundation.

lines and restoration protocols When the program is implemented, a committee will need to make recommendations for disbursal of Roads, driveways, and trails frequently bisect streams, mitigation funds.

rivers, and wetlands. Structures may impede passage of aquatic organisms and change the natural flow and New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-13

Conservation Strategies 408 Objective: Require monitoring to demon- 410 Objective: Increase biologist interaction on strate success of mitigation project reviews Monitoring the effects of a project on habitats and Staff at NHFG, NHNHB, and NHDES should in-wildlife will enable biologists to determine if mitiga- crease interaction with project designers, engineers, tion procedures were effective. Landowners involved developers, and environmental consultants. This in projects that have the potential to endanger rare interaction would increase communication among species or natural communities, or who have engaged natural resources agencies and developers, leading to in habitat restoration as part of a mitigation require- a shared understanding of expectations and options ment, should be required to provide scientifically for reducing impacts to wildlife habitat. Site visits sound habitat or species monitoring. Environmental are currently uncommon because of limited time and consultants, University faculty, and graduate students personnel. Funding is needed to conduct reviews, co-may be contracted to conduct monitoring research. ordinate with NHDES, NHFG, and NHNHB, and Existing NHDES permit requirements involving develop an efficient review process.

restoration or creation of wetlands as mitigation cur-rently require a minimum of 3 years of monitoring to determine project success. Longer periods may be needed to accurately determine the impacts to a given species or community and could be expanded to in-clude more specific monitoring. Monitoring results should be shared broadly and be used to adapt future recommendations and management.

409 Objective: Integrate environmental review to include all natural resources on a site The quality of wildlife habitat in a defined location will depend on the relationship among various inter-connected habitats. Reviewing proposed wetland im-pacts separate from proposed upland impacts might not protect the most significant wildlife resources in the long-term. For instance, the functions and values of a wetland often are directly tied to the adjacent uplands, and most wildlife that use wetlands also use surrounding uplands. Therefore, an integrated review process will allow for the protection of the most sig-nificant natural resources.

NHDES currently regulates wetlands and re-quires mitigation for wetland impacts, but there is not an equivalent process for terrestrial habitats, some of which are considered globally rare (e.g., pitch-pine barrens). The structure for reviewing and requiring mitigation for wetland impacts would be a useful template for review of upland habitats. However, this objective will require input and coordination among a large number of individuals and organizations to be successful.

5-14 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

STRATEGY 500 Habitat Management Management and restoration can protect species and 502 Objective: Generate early successional and habitats that have languished due to historic and young forest habitats current development or natural processes such as succession. Intiatives could include everything from Some wildlife species that prefer early successional backyard landscaping to improve habitat for song- habitatssuch as New England cottontail, Ameri-birds, to replacing culverts to restore stream flow and can woodcock, and several species of migratory wildlife passage, to creating and maintaining early songbirdsare declining in New Hampshire due to succesional stages, to allowing late-successional con- habitat limitation. Early-successional aspen and birch ditions to develop on selected tracts of forest. Habitat stands and sapling-dominated forests are increasingly management will involve federal, state, non-govern- uncommon in New Hampshire because of silvicul-ment organizations, local, and private landowners. tural practices. However, current early successional The goal of this strategy is to provide and maintain habitat availability in northern New Hampshire is critical habitats for wildlife and natural communities higher than prior to the 1600s. Even-aged manage-via active restoration and management. ment would help to create new stands and expand existing stands, thereby improving habitat for critical 501 Objective: Reclaim or maintain grassland species and increasing foraging opportunities for game and shrubland habitats animals (such as moose, deer, bear, and turkey).

New Hampshire has many forest managers for This objective will involve identifying priority areas both public and private lands that can help address for grassland and shrubland management and work- this objective. UNH Cooperative Extension can ing with landowners to assess landowner objectives provide workshops on forest management to benefit and current management. Reclamation and main- wildlife. An inter-agency forestry and wildlife team tenance of grasslands and shrublands will benefit a could assess how much aspen, birch, and young for-number of at-risk wildlife species such as northern est is desired to maximize wildlife health and develop leopard frog, American bitterns, New England cot- management goals by ecoregion subsection (see Strat-tontails, migratory songbirds, and wood turtles. egy 600, Interagency Regulation and Policy). This Of greatest concern are the effects of high intensity effort can coincide with the development of the state agriculture (e.g., mowing during the breeding and lands management plan and Forest Resources Plan nesting season), development, altered natural distur- coordinated by DRED. It would take one year to bance, and altered hydrology. develop management goals and less than five years for NHFG is currently identifying priority grasslands education and technical assistance.

and is evaluating methods for mapping shrublands.

For priority areas on state lands, NHFG staff should 503 Objective: Restore and maintain late-succes-work with the appropriate agencies to conduct field sional forests assessments and recommend management objectives.

Implementation will likely require the addition of at Late successional forests are not exclusively relied on least one NHFG state lands staff member dedicated to by any vertebrates, yet are nevertheless important for maintaining grasslands and shrublands on state lands. other species such as mosses, lichens, and some inver-Early efforts to implement this strategy could focus tebrates. Most of New Hampshires rare forest plants on critical species such as New England cottontails. inhabit mid- to late-successional forests. Reserves of New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-15

Conservation Strategies late-successional forest will eventually enhance overall forts should include developing resource guides that habitat diversity through the addition of complex address rooftop and backyard habitat, geared toward patterns of dead and downed wood, increased varia- landowners, building managers, developers, land-tion in forest canopies, and greater habitat complexity scapers, and municipal officials. NHFG should col-in forest streams. Many species would benefit from laborate to develop and implement the urban wildlife these conditions. American marten would benefit habitat plan. This objective could commence in less from the plethora of coarse-woody debris. Three- than two years, and educational efforts would be a toed woodpeckers would benefit from abundant long-term endeavor.

snags commonly found in late-successional high-elevation spruce-fir stands. Deer, moose, and bear 505 Objective: Restore rare habitats and natural would benefit from the protection and maintenance communities of spruce-fir and hemlock stands that provide winter shelter and old growth hardwood stands that provide Some critical habitats and natural communities have hard mast. become so rare and degraded that restoration is nec-Most late-successional forests in New Hampshire essary to maintain associated wildlife. Restoration were lost during the extensive timber harvesting of should focus first on pine barrens, lowland spruce-fir the nineteenth century. Areas that are currently al- forests, salt marshes, and coastal dunes. Restoration lowed to grow unimpeded are those that are largely of pine barrens would benefit a suite of rare Lepidop-inaccessible because of steep slopes or some other bar- tera, common nighthawks, whip-poor-wills, and oth-rier to timber harvesting. The greatest amount of late- er species. Restoration of lowland spruce-fir will ben-successional forestland is within the White Mountain efit marten, three-toed woodpecker, spruce grouse, National Forest, with smaller tracts owned by and others. Successful restoration of salt marshes will NHFG, SPNHF and TNC. An inter-agency forestry improve habitat conditions for Nelsons sharp-tailed and wildlife team could assess how much late-succes- sparrow, saltmarsh sharp-tailed sparrow, seaside spar-sional forest is desired and develop goals by ecoregion rows, willets, black ducks, and others. Restoration of subsection. Additional protection and management sand dunes will benefit piping plovers.

objectives can be based on the state lands manage- TNC and NHFG are involved in pine barrens ment plan nd Forest Resources Plan currently being restoration in the Ossipee-Madison area and Con-coordinated by DRED. cord airport. Prescribed burning is the primary tool needed to restore pine barrens habitat, and prescribed 504 Objective: Develop and implement an urban burning is primarily administered by NHDFL, wildlife management plan USFS, TNC, and NHFG. A number of agencies and organizations will need to coordinate a statewide The development and implementation of an urban prescribed burn program to address limiting factors wildlife plan would help provide long-term nesting associated with that management tool (e.g., liability habitat for common nighthawks that have adapted and training).

to nesting atop flat roofed buildings. It would also A number of organizations are involved with enhance habitat for migrating songbirds, wintering salt marsh monitoring and restoration, including the bald eagles, and pine barrens Lepidoptera. Migrating NHCP. Thus far, over 700 acres of salt marsh have songbirds require suitable stopover areas for resting been restored and more restorations are planned.

and foraging. In winter, bald eagles roost and forage NHCP is the lead agency on salt marsh and coastal along major rivers even in urban areas. Pine barrens sand dune restorations. NHFG should work with Lepidoptera require certain plants for larval foraging NHCP and its partners (NHEP, NRCS, county and adult nectaring that would be suitable to incor- Conservation Districts, Ducks Unlimited, the Great porate in backyard landscaping. Bay Estuarine Research Reserve, and local towns) to An urban wildlife management plan should support salt marsh restoration and to prioritize and include detailed strategies for education, habitat implement coastal sand dune restoration.

management, and monitoring. It should also outline funding needs for implementation. Educational ef-5-16 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Conservation Strategies 506 Objective: Develop and implement a terres- NHDES Dams Bureau.

trial invasive species control program In the short term, this gap must be bridged by better interagency communication and training ses-The NHDES Exotic Plant Program is currently sions related to managing flow regimes. In the fu-developing a comprehensive management plan for ture, it would be extremely helpful to have a central the prevention and control of aquatic nuisance spe- program office in a single agency to coordinate all cies. Under this objective, a strategic plan would be activities related to flow regimes in the state. There developed to create and implement a comprehensive is an immediate need for personnel to provide input terrestrial invasive species control plan, primarily fo- on flow-related issues and guidance documents, but cusing on plants and invertebrates. In a separate but restoring natural flow regimes will likely take a long-related effort, NHFG, NHA, and USDA-Wildlife term effort of more than 10 years.

Services should collaborate to develop a predator control plan for coastal islands and dune habitats. If 508 Objective: Restore and maintain watershed successful, an invasive species control program would continuity reduce the effects of invasive species in a variety of habitats and improve conditions for native species. Stream crossings (e.g., bridges, culverts, railroads) and A staff person dedicated to the development of a dams fragment aquatic ecosystems. Constricted flow terrestrial invasive species control plan (e.g., plants, and perched culverts can prevent passage of fish, invertebrates) should be housed within the New amphibians, and other aquatic organisms, denying Hampshire Department of Agriculture. them access to certain habitats and isolating popu-lations. Reducing fragmentation in a watershed will 507 Objective: Restore or maintain natural flow be especially beneficial for species such as migratory regimes fish that require different habitats throughout their lives. Stream crossings may also alter the natural geo-Since European settlement, many aquatic habitats in morphology of a river or stream, changing sediment New Hampshire have undergone alterations because deposition patterns above and below the crossing.

of impoundments, hydroelectric production, seasonal In 2004 the River and Stream Continuity Steer-lake drawdowns, water withdrawals, and impervious ing Committee, composed of representatives from surfaces. Restoring natural flow regimes will benefit state, federal, and non-government organizations, migratory and local fish populations, as well as many established technical guidelines for river and stream species of amphibians, reptiles, and invertebrates that crossings in Massachusetts. The River Continuity depend on seasonal changes in water levels to fulfill Assessment of the Ashuelot River Watershed project, critical life history functions. initiated by the Nature Conservancy, will incorporate The River Restoration Task Force regulates dam volunteer-gathered data on dams, stream crossings, removals in New Hampshire. NHFG employs bi- and culverts that impede fish passage or alter hydrol-ologists capable of providing technical input on the ogy. This survey could be easily expanded to other impacts of altered flow regimes on habitats used by watersheds and can be used to prioritize and evaluate aquatic species. NHDES, along with other agencies, potential restoration projects.

is conducting an instream flow pilot study to establish The NHDES Wetlands Bureau currently has minimum flow regulations necessary for fish, wildlife, the authority to regulate and mitigate the impacts and other interests. TNC and the USACE are col- of stream crossings. NHFG should work with the laborating in the Sustainable Rivers Project to modify NHDES Wetlands Bureau, NHDOT, and non-gov-the way dams are managed to improve the ecological ernment agencies to establish new guidelines for river health of rivers. The NHDES Dams Bureau is cur- and stream crossings in New Hampshire. A stream rently working on a guidance document that will crossing assessment and guidelines could be com-better protect water levels. Currently there is a gap pleted within one year, but it would be a long-term between researchers working on ways to better man- endeavor to restore river continuity throughout New age flow, such as the Sustainable Rivers Project, and Hampshire.

those responsible for dam management, such as the New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-17

STRATEGY 600 Interagency Regulation and Policy Improved coordination among agencies removes ob- working among various state and federal (EPA, stacles and creates opportunites to maintain and re- USFWS, USGS, and NOAA) agencies and a strong store wildlife health. To improve air and water quality, commitment between NHDES and NHFG. Re-efforts should focus on reducing air and water pollut- gional regulation and policy representation for New ants through science-based decisions. An interdisci- Hampshire are best met through the New England plinary, interagency risk assessment team can identify Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers.

selected indicator species and habitats to monitor changes in water and air quality that may negatively 602 Objective: Incorporate reduced wildlife impact sustainability of wildlife populations. Topics mercury levels as a priority endpoint for air and for additional working groups include development, water quality assessments transportation, recreation, and forest management.

By reducing methlymercury availability in New 601 Objective: Integrated inter-agency risk as- Hampshires aquatic and terrestrial systems, mercury sessment teams for air and water quality body burdens in fish and wildlife will also lower. Any decreases will be timely; a comprehensive analysis Interagency risk assessment teams can work together of air, water, fish, bird, and mammal data shows for the common goal of high air and water quality that mercury levels are high and pervasive in New in New Hampshire. Teams can further identify and Hampshire. Intelligent mercury management will use prioritize pollutants, habitats, and species at greatest indicator species (e.g., long-lived species, or high-tro-risk, measurable outcomes and endpoints, and mile- phic level predators) to detect system-wide changes in stones. mercury content.

The National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) operates air-monitoring stations in New 603 Objective: Promote a Transportation Work-Hampshire. Currently only one NADP site is in ing Group operation in New Hampshire (at Hubbard Brook Re-search Station) and includes collection of wet deposi- A New Hampshire transportation-wildlife working tion of mercury as part of the Mercury Deposition group can proactively identify opportunities to main-Network. The USGS and NHDES operates many tain or improve the ecological integrity of landscapes water quality and flow monitoring stations across impaired by existing or proposed roads. Improved New Hampshire. The New Hampshire Lakes Asso- planning and coordination among state (NHDES, ciation monitors lake quality statewide. NHFG) and federal regulatory (EPA, ACOE) and The BioDiversity Research Institute tracks transportation agencies (NHDOT, FHWA), conser-methlymercury availability in aquatic (i.e., Global vation groups, researchers, and local planners would Loon Mercury Monitoring and Research Program have a statewide benefit to wildlife, as well as broad (GLMMR) and terrestrial (i.e., Appalachian Moun- project support, increased permitting predictability, tain Mercury Network) ecosystems. NHDES is and improved highway safety. A multidisciplinary providing resources for developing a statewide risk working group should include biologists, land-use assessment for mercury in loons and some funding planners, engineers, transportation project manag-for aquatic system monitoring of mercury. ers, and technical assistance specialists. Goals of a Formulating state regulations will require net- transportation working group may include prioritiz-5-18 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Conservation Strategies ing research needs, identifying funding opportuni- 606 Objective: Promote reactivation of the Forest ties, improving data sharing and coordination, and Sustainability Work Team increasing education and technical assistance. Also, the products from the WAP should be integrated into The Forest Advisory Board assists the State Forester in NHDOTs long-range project planning effort that is carrying out the provisions of the forest resources ed-currently underway. ucation, promotion, and planning chapter. The New Hampshire Forest Sustainability Standards Work 604 Objective: Promote a sustainable develop- Team was created in 1997. It developed Good For-ment working group estry in the Granite State: Recommended Voluntary Forest Management Practices for New Hampshire, Promote a New Hampshire non-regulatory working which outlined voluntary actions that forestland group that proactively identifies opportunities to im- owners could take to ensure forest and ecological sus-prove decisions on how and where development occurs. tainability. The Work Team is now defunct but could This would help maintain and improve the ecological be reactivated with staff from NHDFL, NHFG, integrity of landscapes and would promote a commit- SPNHF, UNH Cooperative Extension, and others.

ment to environmentally sustainable development. The team should review issues and prescribe Many organizations and agencies in New Hampshire actions to address threats to forests, natural com-can help plan sustainable development and reduce munities, and wildlife health. Prescribed actions may impacts to wildlife. The working group may be best include outlining further research, recommending coordinated by a non-regulatory non-governmental and assisting with policy or regulations at the agency agency, and would require a consistent long-term or state level (502, 503, 803) and recommending ad-funding source. Any effort to develop a sustainable ditional best management practices.

development working group should build off of the work of the Minimum Impact Development Partner- 607 Objective: Explore a wildlife biologist licens-ship coordinated by the Jordan Institute and NHA. ing program 605 Objective: Recreation Working Group To provide increased opportunities for communities, developers, agencies, and others to access qualified The state needs a better understanding of the ef- wildlife biologists, we propose to explore the devel-fects of different forms of recreation on species and opment of a wildlife biologist licensing program. We habitats of concern. New Hampshires wildlife and expect that this will increase access to qualified wild-habitats could greatly benefit from better planning life technical assistance. Relevant laws and regulations and coordination among state and federal regulatory would need to be modified accordingly. UNH Coop-agencies, conservation groups and recreation groups. erative Extension, ASNH, UNH, NHFG, NHDES, The state should coordinate a New Hampshire rec- USFWS, private consultants, and non-government reation-wildlife working group that identifies issues, organizations have the expertise to educate wildlife trends, and solutions to potential impacts caused by biologists.

recreational activities. NHOEP currently coordinates the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan that allows for input and prioritization about recreational issues and use, that is primarily imple-mented by DRED. Many other state, federal, and non-government organizations are involved in differ-ent ways and could contribute to a statewide working group.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-19

STRATEGY 700 Land Protection New Hampshire requires a network of permanently environmental review of proposed development conserved lands that effectively represents the states projects within the shoreland protection zone. This wildlife and habitat diversity. Land protection objective will retain and restore sufficient habitat to through conservation easements and acquisition sustain populations of wildlife species that require or ensures the long-term protection of our wildlife benefit from riparian and shoreline ecosystems, and resources. Approximately 25% of New Hampshires from the landscape connectivity often provided by land is currently in conservation ownership through these features. Wildlife such as turtles, amphibians, fee ownership by natural resource agencies, conserva- common loon, bald eagle, terns, bear, bobcat, New tion organizations, and municipalities, or by perma- England cottontail, and mussels will benefit.

nent conservation easement. The current system of Riparian and shoreline areas are among the most conservation lands is not equitably distributed across expensive lands in the state, and effective protection the states geography, ecological regions, and critical at meaningful scales will require multi-million dol-wildlife habitats. More than two thirds of the states lar investments. With limited funds, it is important conservation land is located in or north of the White to prioritize areas for protection. The conservation Mountains, and the elevation distribution of con- community needs to continue advancing our under-served areas is heavily skewed towards areas higher standing of how to conserve aquatic habitat through than 1,700 feet. Coastal areas, southern forests, sand targeted riparian protection, and which riparian and plains, large river valleys, and floodplainsmany of shoreland areas to focus on for habitat and connectiv-which are vital for wildlife conservationare poorly ity goals.

conserved. Highly threatened and essential habitat resources should be priorities, such as riparian/ 702 Objective: Protect unfragmented blocks and shoreland habitat, larger unfragmented blocks, and other key wildlife habitats wildlife corridors that connect significant habitat.

Specific targets for land protection will be identified NHFG should use maps of prioritized unfragmented via analysis of habitat maps to identify critical areas blocks and other key habitat information to review that will support priority wildlife habitats and biodi- and identify land protection projects. These maps versity (see Conservation Planning strategy). should also be distributed to the conservation community. There are a number of large unfrag-701 Objective: Protect riparian/shoreland habi- mented blocks in northern New Hampshire and in tat and other wildlife corridors the Monadnock Highlands of southwestern New Hampshire, with far fewer unfragmented blocks of NHFG and others involved in land protection should similar size in southeastern New Hampshire. There-promote the protection or restoration of wildlife cor- fore, prioritization of unfragmented blocks in New ridors, including riparian and shoreland habitats. Hampshire should consider in which part of the state Maps of prioritized wildlife habitat should be used they occur and the relative size of other blocks in the as guides when selecting areas to protect or restore. region. Virtually all wildlife and habitats will directly Habitat management that is implemented in these or indirectly benefit from habitat protection, and the areas should be held to the highest standards, espe- land protection strategy should be viewed as one of cially when promoted or supported by state agencies. the most important ways to ensure long-term wildlife Additional protection could also be provided through protection.

5-20 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Conservation Strategies SPNHF and TNC have led the identification and protection of unfragmented resources. Through the creation and dissemination of information about nat-ural resource inventories, coarse filter wildlife habitat maps, and significant wildlife habitat, many partners have been engaged in implementing this objective.

Land trusts, local conservation commissions, regional planning commissions, regional, state and national conservation organizations, and state agencies have all considered the importance of unfragmented blocks and key wildlife habitats when planning land conser-vation projects. Forest Legacy has been an important funding source for land conservation of unfragment-ed blocks. LCHIP is a good model for identifying and funding important land protection projects.

703 Objective: Develop a comprehensive land protection support program NHFG needs to take on a statewide leadership role in the land protection strategy. Using maps gener-ated during the WAP development process as a framework, NHFG should work with partners to incorporate other important natural resources such as aquifers and productive soils to create a plan for a statewide green infrastructure network that includes large blocks of unfragmented forest, protection for significant wildlife habitat areas, and landscape per-meability for wildlife movement.

NHFG should more fully develop a land protec-tion staff and budget. Much of the GIS infrastructure and knowledge to generate conservation planning maps exists in NHFG. UNH Cooperative Extension should be viewed as a strong education and technical assistance partner. Wildlife biologists, both at NHFG headquarters and in regional offices should have the responsibility and time to work with local landown-ers, land trusts, conservation commissions, regional land trusts, and other members of the conservation community to identify and contribute in a substantial way to land protection projects.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-21

STRATEGY 800 Landowner Incentives With over 80% of the land in New Hampshire under 802 Objective: Financial Incentives to Maintain private ownership, the land use decisions of private Private Land in Open Space landowners have an enormous effect on habitat qual-ity and sustainability. Thus, it is imperative to work Development pressure and rising carrying costs (e.g.,

with landowners to protect, manage, and restore taxes, liability insurance, and workers compensation habitat on their property. Landowner incentives may benefits for industrial forests) have created numerous include tax benefits, financial and technical assistance disincentives for long-term forest ownership. Under to private landowners to restore and/or manage at- this strategy, critical wildlife habitats and natural risk species and critical habitats, or the purchase of communities on private lands would be conserved conservation easements. through tax incentives that make owning land more affordable or through the purchase of conservation 801 Objective: Financial and Technical Assistance easements. Maintaining private land in open space for Habitat Management and Restoration will benefit many types of habitats and wildlife, and with careful planning, may help mitigate the effects of Develop new programs and better coordinate exist- fragmentation and population isolation maintaining ing programs to manage and restore critical habitats habitat linkages.

and natural communities on private lands. Financial Existing incentives to maintain private land in incentives would be provided in the form of cost shar- open space include the Current Use Taxation pro-ing for implementation, management, and restora- gram (RSA 79-A), which helps conservation-minded tion plans with potential of payments for maintaining landowners maintain their land in open space by re-practices. Existing financial and technical assistance ducing their property taxes. However, in areas of the programs include the Wildlife Habitat Incentives state where land values are high, the economic incen-Program and Environmental Quality Incentives Pro- tive is high to sell land for development. There are a gram administered by the NRCS, the Conservation number of local and state conservation organizations, Reserve Program administered by the Farm Services municipalities, and state and federal agencies that will Agency, the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program purchase conservation easements on private lands, administered by USFWS, the Forestland Enhance- but all are limited in funding.

ment Program (FLEP) administered by NHDFL, and Options to consider include amendments to the the Habitat Small Grants Program administered by Current Use Tax program, decreased capital gains NHFG. NHFG should work with partners to focus taxes on timber harvested on land, the use of current resources on the most critical habitats. use tax rates for valuating estate and inheritance taxes, These programs are typically limited in funding and tax credits given to people or companies who in-and scope and therefore are unable to adequately vest in forestland.

address many relevant threats. Consistent long-term funding is critical for the success of financial and 803 Objective: Financial Incentives to Promote technical assistance programs. Regional and national Sustainable Forestry Practices efforts will be needed to help secure long-term fund-ing for programs. Sustainable forestry will benefit many types of up-land and aquatic habitats and associated wildlife.

This strategy aims to provide financial incentives to 5-22 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Conservation Strategies forestland owners who practice sustainable forestry. It able to enter into such agreements with private land-would provide funding to landowners for inventories owners if a statewide agreement is enacted between of critical resources (e.g., wildlife, natural communi- USFWS and NHFG. The USFWS would provide a ties, plants, etc.) so the information can be incorpo- permit to the state, which can then offer individual rated into forest management plans. landowners authorizations through a certificate of Financial and technical assistance programs in- inclusion. NHFG would then assist landowners clude the Current Use program (see objective 802), with habitat enhancements as outlined in objective FLEP, and EQIP. FLEP, administered by NHDFL 801.

and USFS, encourages long-term sustainability of non-industrial private forestlands. Financial and technical assistance is provided to develop and imple-ment management plans. Through an agreement with UNH Cooperative Extension and NRCS and EQIP funding, private lands are enhanced via the development of a forest management plan, wetland restoration and enhancement, tree and shrub estab-lishment, and establishment of riparian forest buffers, among other projects. NHFG should coordinate with NRCS, UNH Cooperative Extension, and NHDFL to focus EQIP and FLEP efforts in areas with the most need and that will result in the most benefit to wildlife.

Options to consider include amendments to the Current Use program, decreased capital gains taxes on harvested timber, or deduction of forest management costs for lands that are managed sustainably.

804 Objective: Safe Harbor Agreements to Protect Habitat of Threatened and Endangered Species Because many endangered and threatened species occur on private property, it is critical to involve the private sector in their conservation and recov-ery. Many property owners, however, are concerned about land use restrictions that may occur if listed species colonize their property or increase in numbers because of land management. Thus they often avoid or limit land and water management practices that could enhance and maintain habitat. A Safe Harbor agreement provides that private landowners will not face any further restrictions under the Endangered Species Act if they take actions to improve habitat of candidate, threatened, or endangered species that oc-cur on their property.

This incentive requires landowners to enter into a legal agreement with USFWS. Safe Harbor agree-ments have yet to be enacted in New Hampshire, but have been applied in other states. NHFG would be New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-23

STRATEGY 900 Monitoring The monitoring strategy is discussed in Chapter 6:

Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Managment (page 6-6). The detailed strategy tem-plate was completed and included for this strategy as an example of the type of information collected that will be used in the next phases of prioritization and implementation.

5-24 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

STRATEGY 1000 Population Management Protecting, enhancing, or augmenting scarce popula- long-term viability and can help to maintain overall tions of wildlife may prevent their extinction, may ecosystem diversity. Rare and declining populations perpetuate naturally scarce populations, or may in- should only be augmented when abatement of limit-crease populations to desired levels. Controlling dis- ing factors is feasible. Direct forms of augmentation ease, introduced wildlife, and over-population of cer- include translocation and release of captive-bred ani-tain wildlife is a way of protecting resources that are mals. Indirect forms of augmentation include manage-valued by human society. Responsible game harvest- ment of factors that limit population growth, such as ing promotes retention of wildlife populations while predation, forage scarcity, and lack of nest or den sites.

maintaining plant and animal biodiversity. Population Implement protection and captive breeding in management should be responsive and adapt to new zoos for rare and declining populations when augmen-information generated from monitoring and perfor- tation in the wild or abatement limiting factors are not mance evaluations and changing biological conditions. feasible within the timeframe of potential extinction.

This will counter factors, such as scarcity, genetic drift, 1001 Objective: Evaluate the viability of wildlife and environmental caprice that threaten to extirpate populations some species. It will delay population extinction or catastrophic population losses so that other factors For rare and declining species, assess long-term viabil- such as habitat loss and predation can be addressed.

ity and potential management scenarios based on cur- Existing programs under the Association of Zoos rent knowledge of wildlife demographics. This will and Aquariums are dedicated to supporting field identify opportunities to enhance the health of wild- conservation initiatives. Roger Williams Park Zoo life populations, especially those listed as threatened (RWPZ) currently provides support for the Karner or endangered (e.g., timber rattlesnake, piping plover, blue butterfly captive rearing program and is commit-Karner blue butterfly, American marten) or those ted to developing support for other field conservation that likely will be considered for state listing status in efforts. RWPZ has had success in captive breed-the near future (e.g., Blandings turtle, New England ing for other rare invertebrates and reptiles as well.

cottontail). Analyzing viability will inform decisions about the scarcity of wildlife populations and indi- 1003 Objective: Prevent and control wildlife dis-rectly affect underlying causes for scarcity, such as eases and overpopulation unregulated take and loss of habitat to development.

NHFG will lead viability assessments, with con- New Hampshire should attempt to curtail the spread tracted support from experts on individual species. of wildlife diseases and damaging effects of overpopu-Existing contracts with UNH may be negotiated to ac- lated wildlife. Diseases of greatest concern include complish the objective for select species. Endangered chronic wasting disease (CWD), avian cholera, and species recovery teams may provide technical support. West Nile virus. A number of diseases impacting wildlife (e.g., amphibians) are under study elsewhere.

1002 Objective: Augment rare and declining Introduced wildlife, such as zebra mussels and feral populations cats, and some native subsidized wildlife such as gulls, corvids, and raccoons, often become overpopulated Augmentation can help to restore rare and declining and threaten native wildlife populations and human populations to the size and genetic diversity needed for health. Wildlife benefits from disease and popula-New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-25

Conservation Strategies tion control will be diverse and will include both at-risk (e.g., common terns, roseate terns, piping plovers) and harvested wildlife (e.g., deer). Control of herbivores (such as deer) will maintain plant and animal biodiversity in some forest ecosystems.

The existing partnership with USDA to control nuisance wildlife could be expanded. Authority to regulate introduced wildlife under existing legislative rules needs be evaluated (see Agency Regulation and Policy). A statewide plan should be developed to con-trol introduced and overpopulated wildlife, as should a comprehensive management plan for predators that threaten rare and endangered species. Development of a statewide plan should be coordinated by NHFG, USDA and USFWS.

1004 Objective: Maintain an adaptive popula-tion management program for harvested species Population management is most efficient and ef-fective when it adapts to changing conditions and considers interactions among different species and habitats. Data on the response of populations to management will allow managers to improve and integrate management approaches. NHFG should continue and expand programs to assess the responses of wildlife populations to ongoing management (e.g.,

harvesting, augmentation and fish-stocking, control of diseases and over-population), identify negative in-teraction of management with non-target species, and adapt management to current conditions across mul-tiple species and habitats. Adaptive population man-agement allows NHFG to maintain wildlife diversity under changing ecological and social conditions.

5-26 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

STRATEGY 1100 Regional Coordination Regional coordination builds consensus on the most Dedicated regional staff could ensure that commit-critical conservation issues. The majority of wildlife ted conservationists from different areas collaborate.

species at risk in New Hampshire are not restricted In this way, many disparate conservation efforts and to the state, and thus it is imperative that conser- funding sources can be concentrated more effec-vation efforts take into consideration their status tively.

in neighboring states. In addition, many regional planning documents identify threats that are com- 1103 Objective: Step down federal air and water mon throughout the region. Given that many of quality policy the threats identified in this WAP occur over a large area (e.g., mercury, acid deposition, invasive species), Mercury emission sources in New Hampshire are mi-these are best approached in a regional or multi-state nor compared to sources within and outside of New manner. Species and habitats of regional concern have England. New Hampshires air and water quality will been identified by both the Northeast Endangered largely depend on regional and national standards.

Species and Wildlife Diversity Technical Committee Regional and national mercury databases and policies (ESWD) and North American Bird Conservation should be adapted to New Hampshire. Establishing a Initiative (NABCI). formal link with scientists and policy makers within New England will increase leverage for improving 1101 Objective: Develop and implement existing water quality, particularly on the Connecticut River regional conservation plans and along the coast.

The benefits of working together at a regional Conservation plans have been or are being developed level are crucial to improving ecological condition for several species of conservation concern in the in New Hampshire. Reductions in major pollutants, Northeast. These include plans created for species including nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, carbon identified by the ESWD as being potential candi- dioxide, and mercury need to be made outside of dates for federal listing, including three species that New Hampshire. Key participants outside of New occur in New Hampshire: Blandings turtle, timber Hampshire agencies are NESCAUM, NEIWPCC, rattlesnake, and New England cottontail. NABCI NEWMOA, federal agencies such as the USEPA, US-has developed, or is developing, broad conservation FWS, USGS, and NOAA, and university and other strategies for birds across the two Bird Conservation nonprofit research (such as BioDiversity Research Regions that include parts of New Hampshire. Such Institute) and policy groups.

plans have the potential to conserve species at risk when implemented over a large region.

1102 Objective: Regional conservation planning for species and habitats at risk While structures such as the ESWD and NABCI provide valuable fora for regional discussion, there are limited staff at the regional level to facilitate actual conservation activity within the states in the region.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-27

STRATEGY 1200 Research The goal of the research strategy is to develop an directly or through regional working groups (e.g.,

ongoing research program in New Hampshire that Northeast Endangered Species and Diversity Techni-identifies and facilitates funding of priority surveys, cal Committee, NEPARC) would be an effective way research, and monitoring. Species and habitat profiles of sharing research objectives and addressing regional (Appendix A and B) contain research recommenda- environmental issues.

tions for:

1202 Objective: Facilitate funding of priority con-

• Providing information on the distribution of poorly servation research understood species and habitats

• Assessing the current condition of species and habi- To facilitate priority survey, monitoring, and research tats efforts, priorities (as determined in objective 1201)

• Identifying threats to these species and habitats will be communicated to other entities that fund con-

• Clarifying whether a conservation action will lead servation research in New Hampshire. NHFG can to a change in the threat and whether a change in facilitate the development of a process to disseminate the threat will lead to a change in the current condi- conservation research money and encourage other tion of the species or habitat conservation researchers and funding entities to fo-cus their efforts on priority research. Substantial, yet If a convincing, research-based case is made for con- limited, conservation research money at the federal servation, social and political support will be more level has come to New Hampshire from many sources likely. Sound research will also make grant writing (e.g., from the USFS, USFWS, USEPA, and con-and donation requests more compelling and will gressional appropriations). Research funded by the make conservation more effective. NHFG should support the goals of the WAP. NHFG administrators and biologists must discuss the most 1201 Objective: Prioritize Research Needs efficient method to disseminate conservation research funds, while receiving a desired designated product NHFG biologists should lead a group of conservation (e.g., request for proposals).

research partners to prioritize wildlife and habitat re-search needs identified in the WAP. The process of prioritizing research will be similar to and incorporat-ed into the process of prioritizing conservation strate-gies and actions identified in the WAP. As part of this process, NHFG must develop an internal operational plan to identify where available resources (staff and money) can be most effectively allocated.

Funding is limited for the many research needs iden-tified for species and habitats in the WAP. Therefore, it will be critical to identify which research is needed immediately and which partners can help implement the research. Also, collaboration with other states 5-28 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

STRATEGY 1300 Local Regulation and Policy Municipalities have broad power to regulate land use, UNH Cooperative Extension and New Hampshire but broad policies and visionary statements are not Office of Energy and Planning, key outreach partners always translated into meaningful planning or conser- to facilitate training for NHFG biologists on the inte-vation. Communities should have a sound, scientific gration of wildlife habitat information into local land basis for developing and implementing innovative use planning and regulation. Likewise, Cooperative land use incentives, legislation, and other measures Extension can facilitate training for town planners, that conserve habitat and landscape connections, planning boards, regional planners, and others in-maintain ecological function, and protect water qual- volved in writing master plans and local ordinances, ity and quantity. on how to integrate wildlife considerations into local planning. NHA and The Jordan Institute are other 1301 Objective: Incorporate Habitat Conservation important partnering entities, through their Three into Local Land Use Planning Infrastructures Analysis with local communities.

Master plans, zoning ordinances, subdivision regula- 1302 Objective: Advise Conservation Commis-tions, and other innovative land use tools that use sci- sions and Open Space Committees entific basis for addressing wildlife habitat will lead to greater protection of these habitats, will conserve wa- Many Conservation Commissions are permanently ter quality, and will maintain landscape connections. protecting lands using current use change tax revenues NHFG should provide technical guidance to New that accumulate in their conservation fund. In recent Hampshire municipalities on master plan goals and years many communities have passed multi-million land use policies and regulations aimed at protecting dollar open space bonds through town warrant ar-significant or sensitive wildlife habitats. An integrated ticles. Despite many successful individual land con-approach to land use decisions can maintain unfrag- servation efforts, most local efforts are not informed mented blocks of upland forests and protect species by conservation science. Moreover, other local land of concern such as the Karner blue butterfly and use decisions continue to fragment, degrade, and common nighthawk. It will also protect functional eliminate critical lands and waters. NHFG should connections that support wide-ranging species such guide municipal Conservation Commissions and as moose, bear, and deer. This approach will better Open Space Committees in identifying critical wild-protect the integrity of aquatic and wetland systems life habitats in their communities for protection using such as marsh and shrub wetlands, floodplain forests, conservation funds, open space bonds, and through and rivers, which are habitat for American bittern, engagement in land use planning decisions within common moorhen, spotted, Blandings and wood their community. The Center for Land Conservation turtles, cobblestone tiger beetles, and other species. Assistance (CLCA) and regional land trusts are criti-The critical gap that NHFG can address is the cal partners for NHFG and local communities.

scientific basis for implementing land use policies and regulations that protect the ecological function 1303 Objective: Promote Role of the Regional and health of wildlife populations and their habitats. Planning Commissions in Landscape-Scale This technical assistance needs to be combined with Conservation an integrated approach to land use decisions among local decision-makers. NHFG should work with Regional Planning Commissions (RPCs), established New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-29

Conservation Strategies by RSA 36, are required to prepare a coordinated plan for the development of a region and may assist their member or nonmember towns with implement-ing the plan and with other local planning issues.

From a land use planning perspective, RPCs are in the best position to look beyond municipal political boundaries to advance landscape-scale conservation goals such as maintaining large blocks of forest, large wetland complexes, connectivity along river corri-dors, natural communities, and natural community systems.

Few professional planners in New Hampshire have any background in natural resource protection, ecological sciences, or wildlife biology. NHFG should collaborate with Regional Planning Commissions on opportunities to incorporate landscape-scale conser-vation goals and strategies into the comprehensive master plan and other planning efforts in their region.

NHFG can also work with watershed coalitions and their partners at NHDES to ensure that watershed planning addresses aquatic habitats and associated species.

5-30 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

CHAPTER SIX Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management Overview

• Detect changes in the condition of wildlife and habitats (Objective 902)

Element 5 of the NAAT Guidelines requires that the

• Monitor population trends for threatened and en-WAP propose plans for a) monitoring species of great- dangered species (Objective 903) est conservation need and their habitats, b) monitor-

• Measure direct effects of management (Objective ing the effectiveness of the conservation actions 904) proposed, and c) adapting conservation actions to

• Monitor ecological responses to management (Ob-respond appropriately to new information or chang- jective 905) ing conditions. Chapter 6 describes New Hampshires

• Select an efficient set of indicators by habitat (Ob-plan for addressing this required element. jective 906)

Conservation Strategy 900, presented on page

• Report the condition of wildlife health by habitat 6-6, is the full-length version of New Hampshires (Objective 907) monitoring strategy and also serves as an example of one of the complete strategy templates that are Other strategies in chapter 5 that pertain to monitor-being used internally by NHFG. Table 6-1 (page 6- ing include:

13) shows some of the criteria for selecting efficient indicators and cross-references technical monitoring

• Provide technical guidance on monitoring proto-objectives with species, habitats, and risk factors. cols so the success of restoration and mitigation can Many objectives in chapter 5 are directly related be clearly demonstrated (408) to monitoring, performance evaluation, and adaptive

• Gather information about the locations of New management. Species and habitat profiles (Appendix Hampshires wildlife and habitats and maintain A and B) also contain strategic information about a database to map populations and habitats (201, monitoring and detailed information about potential 202) monitoring protocols, performance evaluation, and

• Gather information about the condition of New adaptive management. Hampshires landscape and maintain a database to assess the status of populations and habitats to help Monitoring direct management actions (204, 205)

The full version of Conservation Strategy 900 Within species and habitat profiles, monitoring needs (Monitoring, page 6-6) outlines seven categories of were identified in several locations: distribution re-monitoring that apply to New Hampshires wildlife:. search (element 1.9), condition assessment research (element 2.9), threat assessment research (element

• Conduct surveys to describe distribution (Objec- 3.4), and conservation action research (element 4.2),

tive 901) conservation action performance monitoring (ele-New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 6-1

Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management ment 4.1.X-D), and response monitoring (element butterfly at the one extant population. Long-term 4.1.X-F). population monitoring has been initiated for dwarf wedgemussels in the Ashuelot River.

Several important issues to consider when design-ing monitoring efforts include: existing monitoring Birds programs and the scale and frequency of monitoring Birds have traditionally been the most intensely necessary to achieve objectives. monitored group of wildlife (other than perhaps game mammals). Major monitoring efforts have been Overview of Existing Monitoring Programs initiated in New Hampshire by NHFG, USFWS, NHA, UNH, Dartmouth College, Vermont Institute National and State Monitoring Programs of Natural Science, Biodiversity Research Institute, An early step to developing new monitoring proto- the Loon Preservation Committee, and others. New cols is to identify what currently exists. In some cases, Hampshire participates in both nationally (Breeding existing monitoring may be sufficient for particular Bird Surveys and Christmas Bird Counts) and state species, habitats, risk assessment, or management coordinated programs, as well as intense local surveys.

response. Some monitoring programs could be eas- NHBR is a state-reporting program for trained bird ily adapted or expanded to focus on priorities. For observations and is primarily used to collect distribu-example, the North American Amphibian Monitor- tion information. Long-term intense monitoring of ing Program (NAAMP) actively monitors amphibian occupied locations and population conditions has populations at select sites (routes) in New Hamp- been conducted for several threatened and endan-shire annually. These routes do not adequately sample gered species including common loon, piping plovers, for several amphibians of conservation concern (e.g., bald eagle, osprey, and peregrine falcon. Habitat-leopard frog, mink frog, Fowlers toad) but this pro- based bird surveys have been conducted to varying gram could be expanded to include several priority extent for grassland, salt marsh, freshwater wetland, species or habitats. In other cases, an entirely new high elevation spruce fir, and floodplain forest habi-monitoring scheme may be necessary. tats. Several game birds of conservation concern have The following list of monitoring efforts should been monitored annually as well (e.g., American provide readers with a sampling of ongoing monitor- black duck, ruffed grouse, American woodcock).

ing and the relative level and scale of existing pro-grams among taxonomic groups. It should be obvious Fish that some taxonomic groups and species have been Anadromous fish species are monitored annually by monitored far more intensely than others have. NHFG and USFWS biologists at fishways during spring spawning runs. Atlantic Salmon populations Plant & Natural Communities are also monitored in cooperation with the USFWS NHNHB conducts ongoing inventories for natural and the USFS at designated salmon index sites. The communities and plants. Marine Division of NHFG has a number of ongoing monitoring programs as part of the multi-state man-Invertebrates agement of marine fisheries administered by the At-The Marine Division of NHFG conducts ongo- lantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Programs ing monitoring programs for lobsters and breeding include a juvenile American eel survey and a juvenile horseshoe crab around Great Bay and coastal New finfish seine survey. The Marine Division also cooper-Hampshire. The NHFG Nongame & Endangered ates with the Maine Department of Marine Resources Species Program, NHNHB, TNC, USFWS, and in the Inshore Trawl Survey, which has been moni-UNH have conducted occurrence surveys for several toring marine fish populations in the Gulf of Maine threatened or endangered invertebrates including but since 2000. Surveys are conducted semi-annually by not limited to dwarf wedgemussels, brook floaters, the NHFG Division of Inland Fisheries to moni-ringed boghaunter, cobblestone tiger beetle, and pine tor the populations of recreationally fished species barrens Lepidoptera. Intense population and habitat such as brook trout. NHFGs Inland Fisheries also management monitoring occurs for Karner blue conducts surveys under the Fish Habitat Program to 6-2 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management assess the condition of fish habitats throughout the statewide distributions are known, monitoring will state. The Fish Habitat Program has recently initiated be adapted to the condition of targeted local popu-surveys to investigate the status of certain fish species lations or habitat polygons. For habitats, we have of concern, including the bridle shiner, banded sun- assessed the statewide distribution by mapping pre-fish, redfin pickerel, swamp darter, and the American dicted habitats. Following validation of habitat maps, brook lamprey. target polygons will be identified to monitor habitat condition. Similarly, the distribution for many prior-Reptiles and Amphibians ity species is known, and monitoring will focus on New Hampshire participates in the nationally co- identifying the condition of local target populations ordinated NAAMP, designed to examine long-term either directly or through indicators. As a population trends of breeding frog populations. The Amphib- recovers, sampling intensity can decrease. Similarly, ian Research and Monitoring Initiative (ARMI) has many monitoring efforts targeting challenging issues conducted some inventory work in New Hampshire (e.g., climate change) may start at the regional level including the Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Ref- but intensify at the state or local level as specific issues uge. The Reptile and Amphibian Reporting Program are identified.

(RAARP) and the Vernal Pool Identification and Some existing monitoring programs designed to Documentation program are coordinated by NHFG detect long-term trends in species populations are co-and are designed to gather statewide distribution in- ordinated nationally (e.g., NAAMP, BBS). However, formation based on volunteer observations. Surveys many existing monitoring programs are specific to of malformed frogs have been conducted by the states (e.g., NHBR, RAARP), and wildlife obviously NHDES and UNH. Local occurrence and condition does not recognize these jurisdictional restrictions.

surveys have been conducted for some rare, threat- Therefore, communication among states within a ened, and endangered species, but have been limited. region will be critical for species and habitat conser-vation, and monitoring protocols should be designed Mammals or adapted to integrate with others. Monitoring of NHFG intensely monitors population trends of big many priority species, especially those that are rare game (e.g., white-tailed deer, black bear, Moose, tur- or locally distributed, often occurs at the local scale.

key) and furbearer populations. Traditionally, small Species that are difficult to detect will also require mammals (e.g., bog lemmings, shrews) have had targeted local surveys.

minimal monitoring; the USFS has conducted some small mammal inventories on the WMNF. Known Local bat hibernacula are inventoried periodically to get a

• Monitoring of single populations (terns, Karner general species and numbers count. Recently, an in- blue butterfly) tense inventory was conducted for American marten

• Monitoring of specific sites (IBAs, WMAs) by the NHFG, in cooperation with the University of

• Response to management (pine barrens, grass-Massachusetts-Amherst. lands)

Scale State Monitoring can occur at several scales. Three of

• Statewide sampling of priority species these efforts reflect a hierarchical set of spatial scales

• Indicators of biodiversity (National/Regional, State, Local). The fourth is a

• Changes in habitat availability or distribution (land one-time survey for inventory purposes that may not use change) necessarily occur with any regularity, and which can

• Status of statewide threats (mercury) occur at any of the three spatial scales (Surveys). The appropriate scale will differ depending on the objec- Regional/National tive.

• Large-scale population trends (BBS, NAAMP)

The first step for monitoring is to determine

• Monitoring of cross-border threats (acid regional/national and statewide distributions for deposition, mercury) species and habitats of conservation concern. Once New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 6-3

Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management Surveys (small to large scale applications) efficient set of indicators for each habitat. Our ap-

• Assessment of conditions before and after a proach is to seek efficient variables. By efficient, perturbation (mortality at towers) we mean variables that fit into more than one of

• Site inventories (IBAs) the categories described above and represent many

• Validation of habitat models wildlife. Efficient also means that we can measure

• Snapshots of species distributions (RAARP, a variable and detect changes with minimal effort.

Atlases) When a variable meets these criteria, we consider it a useful indicator because it indicates changes that are Frequency happening for many variables. Our goal is to select Frequent monitoring may be needed, especially when efficient indicators for habitats and species listed in species are at immediate risk of extirpation from New the WAP and to monitor them rigorously.

Hampshire (e.g., Karner blue butterfly, timber rattle-snake). However, intense monitoring often is costly Indicators to monitor habitat and may not be needed to ascertain a particular eco- To identify species to serve as appropriate indicators logical response. Therefore, frequency of monitoring of habitat conditions and risks factors, we created must be critically evaluated for any monitoring pro- Table 6-1 with several monitoring metrics (scale and gram initiated. Some programs will require consistent frequency of monitoring needed). This table will long-term annual monitoring to compare datasets help facilitate discussions of appropriate and efficient and trends (e.g., BBS, NAAMP). However, as species indicators. During the first steps of implementation begin to recover, monitoring often can be adapted to (chapter 7), a working group will be convened to less intense methodologies or frequency. To initiate refine species-specific monitoring needs based on a discussion regarding the frequency of monitoring details provided in species and habitat profiles (Ap-indicators, we identified three levels of monitoring pendix A and B). This information will be used to frequency: annual, 2-5 years, and >5 year intervals select a set of habitat indicators.

(Table 6-1). Selection and monitoring of indicators will be reviewed before implementation. Performance Evaluation Monitoring by Citizens Performance evaluation was built into the WAP In some cases, monitoring by highly qualified sci- planning process at several stages including statewide entists may not be necessary. Trained citizens can strategies (Chapter 5) and species and habitat profiles provide important information on the distribution of (Appendix A and B).

species and assist with monitoring of the condition of habitats. In addition to the cost-effective means Statewide Strategies of collecting valuable data, citizen science is a valu- Performance evaluation is built into each strategys able tool in educating the public. Several groups have objective (chapter 5) by explicitly identifying affected been actively studying the feasibility of using citizens threats, expected benefits, and critical inputs. Two to assist with scientific studies or monitoring (e.g., monitoring objectives were developed to measure Ashuelot Valley Environmental Observatory, UNH). the first two aspects of performance: the direct effects Trained citizens are already used heavily to collect of management (affected threats, objective 904) and distribution information for some groups of species ecological response (expected benefits, objective 905).

(e.g., RAARP, NHBR). Periodic summary reports will include baseline infor-mation, measured indicators, trends in threatened Indicator Monitoring and endangered populations, changes in the level It is not possible to intensely monitor every species of managed threats, and a summary of inputs. This and habitat listed in the WAP as well as those not information will be used to adapt management to listed. Therefore, in some cases effective monitoring current conditions. The following are strategies that requires an efficient set of indicators that are surro- pertain to performance evaluation:

gates for species or habitat condition. The monitoring strategy prescribes a starting point for identifying an

• Track and evaluate performance to determine 6-4 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management Regional Air and Feedback about Wildlife and Habitat Water Quality Risks Management and Restoration Wildlife Monitoring/

Prescriptions Monitoring Expertise Local Land Use Planning Maps Science and Information Decisions Feedback/Requests Management Figure 6-1 Adaptive management flow chart the success of management actions. This entails making. Identifying performance objectives for measuring changes in the level of a risk factor, each strategy and action will be critical for evaluat-demonstrating a beneficial ecological response, and ing performance and adapting when objectives do establishing a correlation between management not meet expectations. Strategies listed in chapter and changes in threat levels (207, 904, 905) 5 that pertain to adaptive management include:

• Monitor ecological health of under-surveyed taxa, indicators of condition, threatened and endan-

• Research and comparatively analyze threats to the gered species, effects of management, and ecologi- condition of wildlife populations and habitats cal responses to management. Produce succinct, (203, 204, 1001) standardized periodic reports on wildlife health by

• Prioritize all proposed conservation actions before habitat (901, 902, 903, 904, 905, 906, 907) implementation to ensure that resources are tar-geted effectively (207, 1201, 1202)

Conservation Actions for Species and Habitats

• Refine and adapt all management activities to re-For each species and habitat, a profile template was flect new science (207, 904, 905, 1002) completed to the extent that information was avail-

• Manage information and develop media to dis-able (Appendix L). In element 4 of these profiles, pri- seminate to all levels in conservation (201, 202, ority Conservation Actions were identified. For each 206, 401) conservation action, we completed the conservation performance objective, performance monitoring, eco-logical response objective, and response monitoring.

These objectives and monitoring will allow biologists to ascertain whether management is effective.

Adaptive Management Adaptive management incorporates conservation planning, implementation, monitoring, perfor-mance evaluation, and most importantly the ability to learn and adapt between each phase. Formalizing adaptive management will help ensure that strate-gies and actions are ecologically effective, efficient, and cost-effective. We built adaptive management into the planning process and it will be an integral part of implementation (chapter 7). The adaptive management flow chart (Figure 6-1) shows the framework we developed to guide our decision-New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 6-5

Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management Monitoring Strategy (900) 900 Description tection monitoring programs are necessary to inform managers about changes that may require more active Monitoring entails the measurement of changes in management in the future. In other cases, it is neces-ecological, spatial, or social variables over time. Tradi- sary to monitor less tangible variables such as public tionally, monitoring has included direct enumeration attitudes, efficacy of regulatory enforcement, and of species populations, but also can include species economic values of natural resources.

distributions, population productivity, genetic integ-rity, community analysis, habitat variables, and risks 901 Objective: Conduct Surveys to Describe to wildlife health. Monitoring provides essential in- Distribution put and feedback for all kinds of wildlife conservation efforts, and is almost unilaterally prescribed when Assess the distribution of wildlife species and habitats concern arises over a particular species or habitat. by conducting presence/absence surveys that range It is not feasible to intensively monitor all species from targeted confirmation of historic wildlife re-and habitats of concern. Certain species and other bi- cords to participation in coordinated statewide and ological components that reflect pertinent ecological regional surveys. Generally, distribution surveys oc-changes may serve as broad indicators of the health cur at relatively coarse spatial and temporal scales, of natural systems. By tracking a subset of species or and have little or no statistical power to detect trends conditions, monitoring can elucidate the nature of in abundance.

threats and the effectiveness of restoration and man-agement efforts prescribed to address those threats. 901(A) Expected Benefits Monitoring programs must carefully evaluate Determination of presence/absence is the simplest statistical considerations to ensure that monitoring form of monitoring. For some rare or poorly known efforts provide useful information. The objectives species, surveys provide the only data available to presented in this monitoring strategy represent differ- guide conservation efforts. Distribution information ent levels of statistical rigor and monitoring intensity. is critical for implementing a management strategy.

Although there is some overlap between objectives, it Periodic assessment of distribution is also valuable is important to evaluate each to ensure that a monitor- for more common or widespread species, potentially ing program is comprehensive and adequately reflects showing range expansions and contractions that re-the condition of species or habitats. Specific details flect the nature or distribution of broad scale threats.

about monitoring needs can be found in species and Poorly surveyed taxa (i.e., amphibians, fish, and habitat profiles (Appendix A and B). Table 6-1 sum- invertebrates), and rare wildlife benefit most from marizes much of the information gathered during the distribution surveys.

planning process for priority species and habitats and indicates which monitoring objectives (901-905) are 901(B) Affected Threats most appropriate for each species, habitat, and threat Threats are not directly affected by the implementa-addressed in the WAP. Table 6-1 is an important first tion of any monitoring strategy, although distribution step in identifying an efficient suite of indicators (906). surveys form the baseline for all conservation efforts.

900 Goal 901(C) Existing Resources Resources available for distribution surveys depend The goal of monitoring is to provide wildlife man- on taxa and scale, and are generally inadequate to agers with meaningful data on the status of wildlife obtain complete information about distribution.

populations and habitats. Monitoring will provide Models for distribution surveys exist in other states data and feedback for performance evaluation and and in regionally coordinated efforts. Currently, the adaptive management. In some cases, broad early-de- only distribution information that is consistently collected in New Hampshire is from volunteers par-6-6 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management ticipating in the Reptile and Amphibian Reporting 901(F) Feasibility: 2.19 Program (RAARP) or New Hampshire Bird Records 901 (G) Initiation: 1 year (NHBR), and via the Wildlife Sightings website. 901 (H) Duration: <10 years The information provided by these programs is not conducted in any standardized manner and thus 902 Objective: Detect changes in the condi-only provide rough approximations of distributions tion of wildlife and wildlife habitats in New Hampshire. NHNHB conducts relatively comprehensive localized surveys of natural commu- Conduct monitoring to detect changes in the condi-nities and plants and maintains records of exemplary tion of wildlife populations and habitats. The pur-natural communities, rare plants, and animals. All pose of this objective is to detect emerging risk factors wildlife records are tracked via the Wildlife Sightings (threats) and population declines before they become website, and records for tracked species of conserva- critical ecological problems. Variables that may be tion concern are maintained by NHB. Taxonomic monitored include indicators of the extent or com-expertise is a limiting factor for many taxa, especially position of habitats and natural communities, indi-invertebrates. cators of long-term trends in populations, and levels of risk factors that pose a potential threat to wildlife.

901(D) Critical Inputs Generally, indicators of condition will be monitored

• Develop contracts to utilize existing taxonomic ex- regularly across a network of fixed locations, with pertise to identify existing unidentified collections minimal statistical power to detect short-term local

• The Wildlife Sightings and NHB databases require trends, and increasing power at broader spatial and enhancement and maintenance temporal scales.

• Evaluate the feasibility of statewide atlas efforts for broad groups of under-surveyed taxa (e.g. reptiles, 902 (A) Expected Benefits amphibians, fish, and invertebrates); models exist Information on the current condition of indicator for Lepidoptera and Odonata atlases in other states species or habitats can reflect broad patterns of dis-Integrate inter-agency survey results tribution and abundance for all species and habitats.

• Repeat Breeding Bird Atlas at regular intervals At a broad scale, monitoring programs such as the

• Evaluate the need and feasibility of a mammal at- BBS generate trend information for many common las species, and thus serve as an early warning system.

• Identify rare species requiring targeted searches. Early detection of broad changes in condition will allow management to adapt incrementally, before 901(E) Organization species decline to threatened or endangered status, NHFG needs to coordinate with independent con- and before habitats are seriously degraded by emer-sultants, university researchers, and other qualified gent threats. Ultimately, this will preempt drastic and individuals to ensure all wildlife sightings obtained costly interventions.

during independent surveys are incorporated into the Wildlife Sightings database. All survey results con- 902 (B) Affected Threats ducted under this strategy also need to be incorpo- Threats are not directly affected by the implementa-rated into the database. NHFG can coordinate with tion of any monitoring strategy, although monitoring RAARP volunteers and ASNH can coordinate with broad changes in condition will indirectly allow man-NHBR contributors to prioritize surveys. ASNH agers to address any potential threat that arises.

should repeat the Breeding Bird Atlas, which is now greater than 10 years old. Other distribution research 902 (C) Existing Resources should be assessed via discussions among interested Several existing programs assess broad patterns of partners including ASNH, TNC, universities, and species and habitat condition. Many broad-based others. Assessing compatibility of monitoring objec- threats (atmospheric pollution, water quality, popula-tives within habitat types is described under 906, and tion growth, etc.) are extensively monitored. SPNHF reporting requirements are described under 907. regularly reports on the status of landscape-level threats that are relevant wildlife habitat condition.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 6-7

Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management Additionally, existing remotely sensed data can pro- 903 Objective: Monitor Population Trends vide an efficient means of evaluating habitat health at for Threatened and Endangered Species broad scales (e.g., looking at trends in habitat abun-dance and distribution over time) using GIS. Even Monitor indicators of trends in population health with these resources to evaluate habitat health, many for threatened and endangered species. Indicators of programs are inadequate (e.g., we currently cannot trends may include abundance, productivity, genetic accurately assess the abundance or distribution of diversity, or demographic structure. Trends will be shrubland habitats using existing remotely sensed used to assess the effectiveness of recovery efforts.

data) and assessments of habitat health are often not Generally, monitoring for population health should tied to wildlife population health. be able to detect local and relatively short-term trends NHDES monitors stream macroinvertebrates with relatively high statistical power. For many spe-to detect changes in stream quality. Several regional cies, it is feasible to achieve statistical power >0.8 with monitoring initiatives exist for birds, including the intensively surveyed fixed sampling units, but often, North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NAB- it is not feasible to achieve power >0.5. Decreasing in-CI). Similarly, the BBS, and to a lesser extent the tensity of monitoring (and power) is acceptable with North American Amphibian Monitoring Program increasingly stable populations.

(NAAMP) is an important monitoring program in New Hampshire. Keeping Track is an international 903 (A) Expected Benefits organization based in Vermont that teaches mammal Intensive monitoring for threatened and endangered tracking and survey skills to individuals so the infor- species helps ensure that inputs invested in recovery mation can be applied to local and regional conserva- are effective, and definitive confirmation of recovery tion planning. Such information can also provide an can lead to changes in listing status and potentially indicator of ecological health at the landscape level. free resources for other threatened or endangered spe-For other taxa, however, there is rarely the funding, cies. The species most likely to benefit may include organizational structure, or expertise to conduct re- timber rattlesnake, piping plover, roseate terns, cob-gional monitoring. blestone tiger beetle, Karner blue butterfly, Blandings turtle, spotted turtle, lynx, American marten, White 902 (D) Critical Inputs mountain arctic, White mountain fritillary, spruce

• Identify appropriate indicators of habitat and wild- grouse, New England cottontail, brook floater, dwarf life health (Objective 906) wedgemussel, eastern pondmussel.

• Integrate existing air and water quality and other landscape level assessments of broad threats into 903 (B) Affected Threats assessments of wildlife and habitat health Threats are not directly affected by the implementa-

• Coordinate with and participate in regional moni- tion of any monitoring strategy, although the break-toring efforts, including BBS, NAAMP, and Keep- down of population processes in small populations is, ing Track in itself a threat (see Scarcity). Accurate measurement of population parameters, as means of directing inter-902 (E) Organization vention, may help determine recovery.

Species monitored under existing programs (e.g.

Partners in Flight, NABCI, RAARP, Christmas Bird 903 (C) Existing Resources Count, BBS, stream surveys, etc.) need to be cata- Resources vary extensively depending on the species logued to determine how they interact with identified being monitored. Many species listed at the federal monitoring needs. Assessing compatibility of moni- level (e.g., Karner blue butterfly, roseate tern, bald ea-toring objectives is described under 906, and report- gle, and peregrine falcon) receive regular funding and ing requirements are described under 907. are the subject of extensive work throughout their ranges. Other federally listed species and the major-902 (F) Feasibility: 1.88 ity of state-listed ones are not adequately monitored, 902 (G) Initiation: 1 year generally because of limited expertise and funding.

902 (H) Duration: Indefinite Expertise frequently exists within the academic sci-6-8 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management entific community, and there is high potential for relatively short-term changes with moderate power collaboration among academic researchers, regional, (0.5-0.8). Typically, change need only be measured and state recovery efforts. Resources and technical over several intervals (i.e., before and after implemen-expertise exist within USFWS and USGS to evaluate tation), depending on the duration and frequency of monitoring protocols. management and the degree to which effects attenu-ate over time. Sample sizes and units will vary widely, 903 (D) Critical Inputs and often statistical or quantitative methods are not

• Develop monitoring protocols for listed species applicable. For example, some types of management

• Collaborate with other states, federal agencies, and may be recorded photographically.

IAFWA to evaluate existing protocols to determine effectiveness 904 (A) Expected Benefits

• Implement revised and existing protocols Measuring whether management inputs have their

• Evaluate opportunities for collaboration intended direct effect is a critical component of performance evaluation and adaptive management.

903 (E) Organization Together, information on the direct effect and the Threatened and endangered species monitoring is ecological response (see 905) allow managers to evalu-currently conducted via partnerships and contracts ate linkages between problems and solutions. Species involving NHFG, NHA, USFWS, academic re- and habitats under restoration or management will searchers, and private consultants. Existing contracts benefit most.

may be amended to implement new protocols. Con-tracts for rare amphibians, invertebrates, and fish 904 (B) Affected Threats need to be developed, most likely with academic Threats are not directly affected by the implementa-researchers or consultants. Existing regional programs tion of any monitoring strategy, although measuring should be taken into consideration. Monitoring and direct effects of management help determine whether reporting requirements need to be integrated with management affects threats.

all recovery plans and incorporated into the scope of service for new contracts. Assessing compatibility 904 (C) Existing Resources of monitoring objectives within habitat types is de- Resources available for threat monitoring vary in scribed under 906, and reporting requirements are conjunction with the nature of a given threat. Many described under 907. broad-based threats (atmospheric pollution, popula-tion growth, etc.) are already extensively monitored, 903 (F) Feasibility: 1.56 while local threats (effects of a particular dam on 903 (G) Initiation: 1 year stream conditions, human use of beaches, etc.) are 903 (H) Duration: >10 years poorly monitored or not monitored at all. Effects of department-level habitat management are monitored by NHFG, but need integration across programs.

904 Objective: Measure direct effects of Habitat management projects completed under ex-management isting cost-share programs (e.g., WHIP, FLEP - see strategy 800) and other projects on private lands are Measure the magnitude of changes in threats as a rarely monitored.

direct result of management. Indicators that may be measured to quantify the direct effects of management 904 (D) Critical Inputs are highly variable. Some examples include the level

• Funding to adequately monitor effects on public of duff or canopy reduction by fire or forestry, rate and private lands is needed of survival of propagated plants, rate of recreational

• Existing cost-share programs should set aside a seg-visits by a group targeted for education, or changes ment of funding to support monitoring of habitat in the distribution of lead sinkers after restrictions management effects are implemented. Generally, measuring the direct

• Appropriate indicators need to be identified by a effects of management entails detecting local and group of stakeholders to make monitoring effective New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 6-9

Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management and cost efficient (objective 906) and whether the problem being managed is actually

• Trained staff or contractors are needed to apply the cause of diminished wildlife health).

monitoring protocols, analyze data, and make habitat management recommendations based on 905 (B) Affected Threats principles of adaptive management Threats are not directly affected by the implementa-tion of any monitoring strategy, although monitoring 904 (E) Organization ecological responses may allow for better understand-Monitoring and reporting requirements need to be ing of how threats affect species and habitats or the integrated with all NHFG management plans and in- extent to which management reduces any given corporated into the scope of service for new contracts. threat.

NHFG and UNH Cooperative Extension should work with other conservation partners and land 905 (C) Existing Resources managers in monitoring the effects of their work. Resources needed and available for monitoring under Regional coordination is needed to ensure appropri- adaptive management vary extensively depending on ate levels of funding are provided for monitoring of the species or habitat being managed and the scale at existing cost-share programs that are funded by the which management is occurring. Ideally, indicators federal government (e.g., WHIP, FLEP). Assessing measured under 902, 903, and 904 will adequately compatibility of monitoring objectives within habitat reflect ecological responses (905) to evaluate manage-types is described under 906, and reporting require- ment.

ments are described under 907.

905 (D) Critical Inputs 904 (F) Feasibility: 1.56 See objectives 902, 903, 904, 906, 907 for additional 904 (G) Initiation: <1 year inputs. Develop or evaluate protocols prior to imple-904 (H) Duration: >10 years mentation of management.

905 (E) Organization 905 Objective: Monitor Ecological Respons- See objective 904. Assessing compatibility of moni-es to Management toring objectives within habitat types is described under 906, and reporting requirements are described Conduct monitoring to determine whether the under 907.

changes caused by management are having the de-sired beneficial effect on wildlife. Indicators that may 905 (F) Feasibility: 1.56 be measured to quantify ecological responses to man- 905 (G) Initiation: 1 year agement are highly variable. For example, if captive 905 (H) Duration: >10 years breeding is proposed as a management tool, it is nec-essary to measure whether captive-reared individuals are successfully surviving and reproducing in the 906 Objective: Select an efficient set of wild. See 904 for typical monitoring requirements. indicators by habitat 905 (A) Expected Benefits Select an efficient set of indicators of wildlife health Follow-up monitoring of ecological responses to and management performance by habitat type. It is management is a critical component of performance not feasible to monitor all species, risk factors, and evaluation and adaptive management, allowing man- management within a given habitat. Key components agers to test the underlying assumption that manage- for monitoring within each habitat type includes un-ment benefits targeted species or habitats. Together, der-surveyed taxa, indicators of condition, threatened information on direct effects (see 904) and ecological and endangered species, effects of management, and responses allow managers to evaluate linkages between ecological responses to management. Objectives 901, problems and solutions (i.e., whether management is 902, 903, 904, 905 represent criteria for determin-actually improving the health of wildlife and habitats, ing the collective adequacy of monitoring to provide 6-10 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management essential information on wildlife health and manage- 906 (E) Organization ment performance. Existing monitoring programs, NHFG will host a workshop or series of workshops known threats, and proposed management will be to assess ongoing monitoring and indicators proposed systematically evaluated by habitat to identify com- in the WAP. TNC may serve as a partner in workshop patible objectives and a set of efficient indicators. organization.

906 (A) Expected Benefits 906 (F) Feasibility: 3.28 Choosing an appropriate set of indicators streamlines 906 (G) Initiation: 1 year monitoring by reducing the number of species that 906 (H) Duration: 1 year need to be surveyed on a regular basis, allowing a fine-ly-tuned system of detecting responses to changes in threats or management activity. For example, if avail- 907 Objective: Report the condition of wild-able evidence indicates that a rare mussel is most sen- life health by habitat sitive to the availability of a fish host species, it may actually be more effective to monitor populations of Produce succinct, standardized annual reports on the the fish than the mussel. This would be even more condition of wildlife health by habitat.

appropriate if the fish was known to be a good indi-cator of several other environmental variables, such 907 (A) Expected Benefits as stream temperature, sedimentation, or hydrologic Standardized reporting on a set of indicators selected alteration. Choosing indicators should not replace by an informed process will provide critical informa-direct monitoring for the most threatened taxa, nor tion to summarize the status of ongoing monitoring should it be assumed that threatened and endangered and management, and serve as input to adapt man-species are the best indicators. agement to current conditions. Funding invested in ineffective management may become available 906 (B) Affected Threats for more effective approaches. Reports may lead to Threats are not directly affected by the implementa- changes in listing status and potentially free resources tion of any monitoring strategy, although monitoring for other threatened or endangered species.

may allow for better understanding of how threats impact populations or the extent to which a given 907 (B) Affected Threats threat has been reduced through management. See above 906 (C) Existing Resources 907 (C) Existing Resources Information on monitoring needs was gathered in Biometric expertise and data management resources species and habitat profiles completed for the WAP. to analyze and summarize monitoring data for most Needs were tabulated and refined to reflect known rare and declining wildlife are limiting. For instance, threats and strategies (see Chapter 5). Within habitat NHFG currently only has one biologist who works types, the feasibility and efficacy of proposed indi- part time analyzing wildlife data for the entire depart-cators need to be evaluated. Criteria for assessing ment. Even when NHFG staff or partners collect indicators are developed under the previous objec- rigorous data, data are often not summarized annu-tives, and during the Assessing Biodiversity Indicators ally or for multiple years. Data collected on similar Workshop (TNC 2005). projects in different states are typically not integrated across state and regional programs to inform planning 906 (D) Critical Inputs and management.

NHFG should conduct a workshop or series of work-shops to assess all indicators proposed in the WAP and 907 (D) Critical Inputs identify other appropriate indicators by habitat. This Additional biometricians are needed for data analysis, will allow the termination of redundant monitoring interpretation, and reporting. Standardized reporting for species and habitats, and reduce the intensity for protocols are needed to guide NHFG staff and con-over-surveyed or over-monitored taxa. tractors. Technical assistance is needed for contractors New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 6-11

Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management to collect and report data according to the developed standards.

907 (E) Organization USFWS should coordinate sharing of data among states in the region for all threatened and endangered species. NHFG should coordinate data analysis and reporting of wildlife health within the state.

907 (F) Feasibility: 2.06 907 (G) Initiation: 1 year.

907 (H) Duration: >10 years 6-12 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan

Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management TABLE 6.1 Preliminary Criteria for Selecting Indicators. (in 9 sections, beginning on page 6-14).

For each species and habitat, potential monitoring needs were categorized accord-ing to the technical objectives (901-905) described in the Monitoring Strategy and species/habitat profiles. In the first column, each species and risk factor represents a factor or variable that needs to be monitored. Under objectives 901-905, letters signify the type of change that may need to be measured for each factor. The type of change measured varies among objectives, with intensity generally increasing from left to right. Often, objectives overlap. For a given species, all five objectives may be met with a single rigorous protocol. Many wildlife species, risk factors, and/or overall habitat condition may be highly correlated with a single species. Such species are considered efficient indicators for a given habitat type. The next step in developing a WAP monitoring program is to evaluate potential indicators based on how well they represent all of the Xs, whether programs exist already, and whether the necessary frequency and scale are cost effective. The goal is to identify one or a few indicators for each habitat that will reflect all of the Xs in the table.

Footnotes Used in the Table:

1 Many species are associated with more than one habitat. For a complete list of species associated with each habitat, see Appendix D [species and habitat cross-walk].

2 Many possible indicators exist for the listed risk factors. Ideally, species with Xs under one of the objective columns will serve to detect changes in the levels of risk factors.

3 Not all associated species are listed under each habitat. For a complete list of species associated with each habitat, see Appendix D [species and habitat cross-walk].

4 Objective 901 includes targeted and broad distribution surveys. Targeted surveys are likely to be prescribed for poorly studied rare species, and broad distribution surveys will be accomplished via atlas development or existing programs.

5 Objective 902 is intended for early detection of broad changes in the condition of habitats or the levels of risk factors.

6 Objective 903 is intended to address rigorous detection of population trends for the most imperiled species.

7 Objective 904 was developed to measure the direct effects of management in order to evaluate the performance of specific projects.

8 Objective 905 is intended to measure the ecological responses of wildlife to man-agement activities. Ideally, objective 904 and 905 will serve to establish a correla-tion between management and response.

9 Existing programs will augment or serve instead of new monitoring programs.

10 1= annual, 2=2-5 years, 3=>5 years. Indicators that require frequent monitoring are undesirable.

11 A = Local, B = State, C = Regional/National, D = Surveys.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 6-13

6-14 TABLE 6.1 Distribution Detect Population Management Ecological Existing Species1 and Risk2 Factors by Habitat3 (901)4 Change (902)5 Trend (903)6 Effect (904)7 Response (905)8 Programs9 Frequency10 Scale11 ALPINE X 2, 3 A, B , D American Pipit X 3 A, D White Mountain Fritillar y X X WMNF 2 A White Mountain Arctic X X WMNF 2 A Acid Deposition X Climate Change X New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan Scarcity X X GRASSLAND X X X X 2, 3 B Upland Sandpiper X X X X X T&E, BBS 2 A, C Northern Harrier X X X X X NHBR, BBS, T&E 2 A, B, C, D Grasshopper Sparrow X X X X X T&E, BBS 2 A, B, C, D Purple Martin X X X T&E, BBS 2 A, B , D Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management Eastern Meadowlark X X BB S 1 B, C, D Vesper Sparrow X X NHBR, BBS 2 B, C, D Horned Lark X NHBR, BBS 2 B, C, D Northern Leopard Frog X X RAARP 2 B, D Black Racer X RAARP 3 B, D Smooth Green Snake X RAARP 2 B, D Agriculture X X Transportation Infrastructure X X X Predation and Herbivor y X X SHRUBLAND X X X X 2, 3 B Ruffed Grouse X X X X NHFG, BBS 1 B, C Golden-winged Warbler X NHBR, BBS 1 A, B, C, D New England Cottontail X X X X UNH 2 A, B, C, D

TABLE 6.1 Distribution Detect Population Management Ecological Existing Species1 and Risk2 Factors by Habitat3 (901)4 Change (902)5 Trend (903)6 Effect (904)7 Response (905)8 Programs9 Frequency10 Scale11 American Woodcock X X X X NHFG 1 B, C Natural Succession X X Development X Predation and Herbivor y X X APPALACHIAN OAK PINE FOREST X X X Timber Rattlesnake X X 1, 2 A Development X Transportation Infrastructure X X X Scarcity X X Altered Natural Disturbance X X AQUATIC ( 7 watershed groups) X X X Common Loon X X X X X LPC 1 A, B, C Bald Eagle X X X X X T&E 1 A, B, C Osprey X X T&E, BBS 2 B Brook Trout X 2? B, D Burbot X 3?  ?

Lake Trout  ?  ?

Lake Whitefish X X  ? A, D Round Whitefish X X 2, 3 A, D Slimy Sculpin X X 2 A, D Sunapee Trout X C Atlantic Sturgeon X 3 A Swamp Darter X 3 A, D Banded Sunfish X 3 A, D Bridled Shiner X 3 A, D New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management 6-15

6-16 TABLE 6.1 Distribution Detect Population Management Ecological Existing Species1 and Risk2 Factors by Habitat3 (901)4 Change (902)5 Trend (903)6 Effect (904)7 Response (905)8 Programs9 Frequency10 Scale11 American Brook Lamprey X 3 A, D Finescale Dace X 3 A, D Northern Redbelly Dace X 3 A, D Redfin Pickerel X 3 A, D Tessellated Darter X 3 A, D Shortnose Sturgeon X 3 A New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan Rainbow Smelt X X 2, 3 ? A, B?

Atlantic Salmon X X X Alewife X X 2? B?

Blueback Herring X X 2? B?

American Eel X X 2? B?

Sea Lamprey X 2? B?

Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management American Shad X X 2? B?

Dwarf Wedgemussel X X X 2 A, B Brook Floater X X X 2 A, B Eastern Pond Mussel X 2 Recreation X X X Introduced Species X X X Development X Non-point Source Pollution X X X Altered Hydrology X X Mercur y X X Agriculture X X X CAVES and MINES X X X 1, 2 A, B Eastern Pipistrelle X 2 A, B , D

TABLE 6.1 Distribution Detect Population Management Ecological Existing Species1 and Risk2 Factors by Habitat3 (901)4 Change (902)5 Trend (903)6 Effect (904)7 Response (905)8 Programs9 Frequency10 Scale11 Eastern Small-footed Bat X 2 A, B , D Indiana Bat X 2 D Northern Myotis X 2 A, B , D Recreation X X CLIFFS X X X 2, 3 A, B Peregrine Falcon X X X X X T&E 2 A, C Golden Eagle X NHBR 3 C, D Recreation X X Mercur y X COASTAL ISLANDS X X X Common Tern X X X X X T&E 1 A, B, C Roseate Tern X X X X X T&E 1 A, B, C Arctic Tern X X T&E 1 A, B, C Black Guillemot X CBC 2 A, C NHBR, CBC, Purple Sandpiper X X 2 C PRISM Scarcity X X Development X Predation and Herbivor y X X Oil Spills X X X Introduced Species X X X Unsustainable Har vest X X X DUNES X X X 1 A, B Piping Plover X X X X T&E 1 A, B, C Least Tern X NHBR, T&E 2 C New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan Semipalmated Sandpiper X X NHBR, PRISM 1 A, C Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management 6-17

6-18 TABLE 6.1 Distribution Detect Population Management Ecological Existing Species1 and Risk2 Factors by Habitat3 (901)4 Change (902)5 Trend (903)6 Effect (904)7 Response (905)8 Programs9 Frequency10 Scale11 Recreation X X Predation and Herbivor y X X Development X Scarcity X X Oil Spills X X X FLOODPLAIN FOREST X X X X New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan Red-shouldered Hawk X X NHBR, BBS 2 C, D Cerulean Warbler X NHBR, BBS 2 A, D Wood Turtle X X RAARP 2 B, D Development X Transportation Infrastructure X X X HEMLOCK-HARDWOOD-PINE FOREST X X X Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management Development X Introduced Species X X X Altered Natural Disturbance X X HIGH ELEVATION SPRUCE-FIR FOREST X X X 2, 3 B, C Bicknell's Thrush X X Mt. Birdwatch 1 B, C, D Spruce Grouse X X NHBR 2 B, C, D American Marten X X NHFG 2 B, C, D Unsustainable Har vest X X X Development X Scarcity X Acid Deposition X LOWLAND SPRUCE-FIR FOREST X X X Rusty Blackbird X X NHBR, BBS 1 B, C, D

TABLE 6.1 Distribution Detect Population Management Ecological Existing Species1 and Risk2 Factors by Habitat3 (901)4 Change (902)5 Trend (903)6 Effect (904)7 Response (905)8 Programs9 Frequency10 Scale11 Three-toed Woodpecker X NHBR, BBS 2 B, C, D Purple Finch X X NHBR, BBS 1 B, C, D Bay-breasted Warbler X X NHBR, BBS 1 B, C, D Spruce Grouse X X NHBR, NHFG 2 B, C, D Hoar y Bat X 2 B, C Unsustainable Har vest X X Development X Scarcity X X Non-point Source Pollution X X Altered Natural Disturbance X X MARSH AND SHRUB WETLANDS X X X 2 B Pied-billed Grebe X X X X X NHBR 2 B, C, D American Bittern X X NHBR, BBS 2 B, C Sedge Wren X X NHBR 2 C Least Bittern X X NHBR 2 C Common Moorhen X X NHBR 2 C Great Blue Heron X X NHFG, BBS 2 A, B American Black Duck X X NHFG, MWWS 1 B, C Ribbon Snake X RAARP 3 D Blanding's Turtle X X X RAARP 2 A, B, C, D Spotted Turtle X X RAARP 2, 3 B, D Development X Transportation Infrastructure X X X Mercur y X X X X Scarcity X X New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management 6-19

6-20 TABLE 6.1 Distribution Detect Population Management Ecological Existing Species1 and Risk2 Factors by Habitat3 (901)4 Change (902)5 Trend (903)6 Effect (904)7 Response (905)8 Programs9 Frequency10 Scale11 NORTHERN HARDWOOD-CONIFER X

FOREST Development X Acid Deposition X PEATLANDS X X NHB 2, 3 B Palm Warbler X NHBR, NWR, BBS 2 C, D Ringed Boghaunter X T&E 2 A, D New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan Northern Bog Lemming X 3 D Mink Frog X X RAARP, NAAMP 3 B, D Development X PINE BARRENS X X X X NHB, TNC, NHFG Whip-poor-will X X NHBR, PIF, ASNH 1 B, C, D Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management Common Nighthawk X X X X NHBR 2 A, B, C, D Eastern Towhee X X BB S 1 B, C, D Eastern Hognose Snake X RAARP 2 A, D Fowler's Toad X X RAARP, NAAMP 2 A, D Box Turtle X RAARP 3 A, D Pine Barrens Zanclognatha X X NHFG, NHARNG, TNC 1 A, D Karner Blue Butterfly X X X X NHFG, NHARNG, TNC 1 A, D Frosted Elfin X X NHFG, NHARNG, TNC 1 A, D Sleepy Duskywing X NHFG, NHARNG, TNC 1 A, D Wild Indigo Duskywing X NHFG, NHARNG, TNC 1 A, D Barrens Itame X X NHFG, NHARNG, TNC 1 A, D Barrens Xylotype X X NHFG, NHARNG, TNC 1 A, D Persius Duskywing X X NHFG, NHARNG, TNC 1 A, D Pine Pinion Moth X X NHFG, NHARNG, TNC 1 A, D

TABLE 6.1 Distribution Detect Population Management Ecological Existing Species1 and Risk2 Factors by Habitat3 (901)4 Change (902)5 Trend (903)6 Effect (904)7 Response (905)8 Programs9 Frequency10 Scale11 Broad-lined Catopyrrha X X NHFG, NHARNG, TNC 1 A, D Phyllira Tiger Moth X X NHFG, NHARNG, TNC 1 A, D The Cora Moth X X NHFG, NHARNG, TNC 1 A, D Development X Altered Natural Disturbance X X X Scarcity X X Transportation Infrastructure X X X Predation and Herbivor y X X X Introduced Species X X X SALT MARSH X X X NHCP, DU 1 A, B Nelson's Sharp-tailed Sparrow X X UN H 2 A, C Saltmarsh sharp-tailed Sparrow X X UN H 1 A, B, C Seaside Sparrow X X UN H 2 C Willet X X UNH, NHBR, PRISM 2 C Development X Altered Hydrology X X X SAND/COBBLE SHORES/BANKS Cobblestone Tiger Beetle X X 2 A, D Puritan Tiger Beetle X 3 A, D Scarcity X X Altered Hydrology X X X TALUS SLOPES AND ROCKY RIDGES X X X X Recreation X X UPLAND FORESTS X Lynx X NHFG 3 C New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management 6-21

6-22 TABLE 6.1 Distribution Detect Population Management Ecological Existing Species1 and Risk2 Factors by Habitat3 (901)4 Change (902)5 Trend (903)6 Effect (904)7 Response (905)8 Programs9 Frequency10 Scale11 Bobcat X NHFG 2 B Eastern Red Bat X 2 B, C Silver-haired Bat X 2 B, C Cooper's Hawk X X NHBR, BBS, CBC 1 B, C, D Northern Goshawk X X USFS, BBS 1 B, C, D Development X New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan Scarcity X X VERNAL POOLS X X X X Marbled Salamander X RAARP 3 D Jefferson Salamander X X RAARP 2 B, D Blue-spotted Salamander X X RAARP 2 B, D Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management Development X Transportation Infrastructure X X X Acid Deposition X X X NON-BREEDING BIRDS X X X 1, 2, 3 A, B, C, D Development X

CHAPTER SEVEN Implementation This chapter addresses Elements 6 and 7 of the and program areas will be engaged in these efforts NAAT Guidelines. Element 6 requires, descriptions to ensure a coordinated agency approach to strategy of procedures to review the strategy at intervals not to implementation.

exceed ten years. Element 7 asks for, Plans for co- The NHFG public affairs division will dis-ordinating the development, implementation, review, seminate information about the WAP. A major public and revision of the plan with Federal, State, and local release of the plan will be developed for the early agencies and Indian tribes that manage significant part of 2006, in coordination with national WAP land and water areas within the State or administer promotion strategies. The intent is for target groups programs that significantly affect the conservation of to understand how they can assist in strategy imple-identified species and habitats. Described here is our mentation to achieve conservation of species at risk.

expected approach to implementing the New Hamp- A component of this is likely to be a Wildlife Summit shire WAP. Implementation will involve department II, where partners from the conservation community, staff, other agencies, and the many partners that as- landowners, businesses, and agencies will be brought sisted in the plans development. Partners who have together to discuss the WAP and provide their input helped write, review, and edit the plan have a good on implementation.

understanding of its components and have a vested Internal discussions with NHFG staff will also interest in its successful implementation. be occurring. Many NHFG divisions, including We recognize that having the resources to imple- wildlife, fisheries, marine, and law enforcement have ment the plan will be critical. We will need major important roles to play in the implementation of the support from future federal funding, such as the State WAP. Administrators and staff need to understand Wildlife Grants that provided money to generate this these roles, identify available resources, and commit Plan. While we will ask partners to support the WAPs to the successful implementation of plan strategies.

goals in many ways, it will be difficult for NHFG to Partners who participated in developing the WAP play the leadership role that is expected absent signifi- should also be engagedtheir continued involve-cant funding. ment and assistance is as important now as it was at the beginning of the planning process.

Years 1-2 A principal need is the prioritization of WAP strategies and objectives. This task will be aided by the To foster awareness and support for implementing risk assessment scores and feasibility ranking forms the plan, initial actions will focus on internal and developed as part of the WAP. Priority strategies and external outreach regarding plan strategies, and the objectives will be reviewed by partners and revised as prioritization of strategies and objectives into opera- appropriate. Further, agencies and organizations need tional work plans. NHFG staff from many divisions to be identified that have the interest and ability to New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 7-1

Implementation take on leadership roles in the four broad conserva- Years 2-10 tion focus areas: local land and water conservation, regional air and water quality, statewide biodiversity Progress toward WAP goals will be measured, and stewardship and conservation science, and informa- allowances will be made for adaptive management.

tion management. NHFG will be a leader on many Details on measuring and monitoring progress are strategies, but others may lend their leadership as ap- described in detail in the Monitoring chapter.

propriate. Specific coordinators should be established for the implementation and monitoring of conserva- Year 10 tion strategies.

Contact with state and federal agencies will be We will conduct a major plan review in 2015. The made to integrate the priorities and strategies of the public will be involved in the review process through WAP into their plans and operations. Agencies and a Wildlife Summit type meeting, and other forums their existing plans include but are not limited to: similar to those outlined in our public participation process described in this document. We will provide State Agencies/Organizations information on progress toward our goals to date,

• NHDFL including the NH Forest Resources Plan and facilitate a reassessment of WAP priorities and due to be revised in 2006 strategies.

• NH Estuaries Project Management Plan due to be revised in 2010

• Office of Energy and Planning including the State-wide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) to be updated in 2008

• NHDOT, including the Long Range Statewide Transportation Plan due to be completed Spring 2006 Federal Agencies

• USFS including the WMNF Land and Resource Management Plan due to be updated September 2005

• USFWS including all recovery plans for federally threatened and endangered species that occur in New Hampshire

• USFWS including conservation and management plans for all National Wildlife Refuges that occur in New Hampshire Years 1-3 NHFG will work with lead implementation organi-zations and personnel to develop specific, measurable targets to monitor achievement of WAP goals. While some performance indicators were developed as a part of the WAP, additional detail is needed. Working groups may be organized at the level of the four focus areas or at the strategy level, to develop specific work plans and performance monitoring strategies. Work plans for top priorities will be developed in Year 1, while lower priority work plans may not be developed until Years 2-3.

7-2 New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan