ML070190409

VYNPS - SEIS Web Reference - New Hampshire Wildlife Plan Document

ML070190409
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
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 Butterfl y: © 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

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan I

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 TABLE OF CONTENTS

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan II 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

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan III APPENDICES Species and Habitats Appendix A: Species Profi les Part 1: Invertebrates Part 2: Fish Part 3: Reptiles and Amphibians Part 4: Mammals Part 5: Birds Appendix B: Habitat Profi les 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 Profi le 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 IV TABLES CHAPTER 1 TABLE 1-1. Agencies, organizations, businesses, and inter-ests represented at the Wildlife Summit, March 25, 2004.

Representatives of other groups and interests were invited but were unable to attend.

CHAPTER 2 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 re-vised 2000), RC = Regional conservation concern (Therres 1999), FE = Federally endangered (current 8/05), FT = Feder-ally threatened (current 8/05), BGP = Only included in the NH Big Game Plan.

TABLE 2-2. Habitat list.

CHAPTER 3 TABLE 3-1. Summary of preliminary terrestrial and wet-land habitat condition analysis results. Not all results are reported here.

TABLE 3-2. Summary of potential biodiversity indicators.

Indicators should be interpreted cautiously. Recorded ob-servations of rare plants, animals, and natural communities do not consistently represent structured surveys. Absence of survey information and null observations are both po-tential causes for low indicator levels, but no information is available to discern which is true.

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

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

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 fi sh risk assessments were not available for this analysis.

Risk assessment scores for fi sh are being reviewed as data and expertise become available.

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.

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 fi sh shown because of the volume of information available. Assessments for other species are currently being reviewed. See Appendix A and B for addi-tional information on specifi c risk factors and rankings.

TABLE 4-6. Number of habitats and species at highest risk due to agriculture. See Table 4-7 and Appendix A and B for details.

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 specifi c risk factors and rankings.

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

TABLE 4-9. Habitats and species at highest risk from effects of altered hydrology, in descending order by Rank. Atlantic salmon is the only fi sh 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 specifi c risk factors and rankings.

TABLE 4-10. Number of habitats and species at highest risk due to altered natural disturbance regimes. See Table 4-11 and Appendix A and B for details.

TABLE 4-11. Habitats and species at highest risk from ef-fects of altered natural disturbance regimes, in descending order by Rank. See Appendix A and B for additional informa-tion on specifi c risk factors and rankings.

TABLE 4-12. Number of habitats and species at highest risk due to climate change. See Table 4-13 and Appendix A and B for details.

TABLE 4-13. Habitats and species at highest risk from ef-fects of climate change, in descending order by Rank. See Appendix A and B for additional information on specifi c risk factors and rankings.

TABLE 4-14. Number of habitats and species at highest risk due to development. See Table 4-15 and Appendix A and B for details.

TABLE 4-15. Habitats and species at highest risk from ef-fects of development, in descending order by Rank. See TABLES AND FIGURES

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan V

Appendix A and B for additional information on specifi c risk factors and rankings.

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.

TABLE 4-17. Habitats and species at highest risk from ef-fects of diseases and pathogens, in descending order by Rank. See Appendix A and B for additional information on specifi c risk factors and rankings.

TABLE 4-18. Number of habitats and species at highest risk due to energy and communication infrastructure. See Table 4-19 and Appendix A and B for details.

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 addi-tional information on specifi c risk factors and rankings.

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.

TABLE 4-21. Habitats and species at highest risk from intro-duced species, in descending order by Rank. See Appendix A and B for additional information on specifi c risk factors and rankings.

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.

TABLE 4-23. Habitats and species at highest risk from the effects of mercury, in descending order by Rank. See Ap-pendix A and B for additional information on specifi c risk factors and rankings.

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.

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 additional information on specifi c risk factors and rankings.

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 Bfor details.

TABLE 4-27. Habitats and species at highest risk from the effects of oil spills, in descending order by Rank. See Ap-pendix A and B for additional information on specifi c risk factors and rankings.

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.

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 additional information on specifi c risk factors and rankings.

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.

TABLE 4-31. Habitats and species at highest risk from the effects of recreation, in descending order by Rank. See Ap-pendix A and B for additional information on specifi c risk factors and rankings.

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.

TABLE 4-33. Habitats and species at highest risk from the effects of scarcity, in descending order by Rank. See Ap-pendix A and B for additional information on specifi c risk factors and rankings.

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.

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 additional information on specifi c risk factors and rankings.

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

TABLE 4-37. Habitats and species at highest risk from the effects of unregulated take, in descending order by Rank.

See Appendix A and B for additional information on specifi c risk factors and rankings.

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.

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 additional informa-tion on specifi c risk factors and rankings.

CHAPTER 5 TABLE 5-1. A crosswalk of conservation strategies found in this chapter and corresponding Big Game Plan goals and objectives (See Appendix E).

CHAPTER 6 TABLE 6-1. Preliminary criteria for selecting indicators.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan VI FIGURES CHAPTER 3 FIGURE 3-1 (see insert). New Hampshire Habitat Landcover.

Predictive habitat maps were developed for all WAP habitat types, and compiled to create a complete landcover. The New Hampshire Habitat Landcover will be used to conduct conservation planning analyses.

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 classifi cations 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 identifi ed risks to wildlife, and scored each risk based on their experience, published literature, and peer review.

CHAPTER 5 FIGURE 5-1. Risk assessments, condition assessments, and actions identifi ed in species and habitat profi les were used to identify general strategies important to many wild-life species and habitats.

CHAPTER 6 FIGURE 6-1. Adaptive management fl ow chart.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan VII 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 fi rst time they are used in each chapter or appendix.

E O

C A

sre e

ni g

n E

fo s

p r

o C

y m

r A

s etatS d

etin U

V T

A elcih e

V nia rre T

ll A

D E

R D

tn e

m p

ole v

e D

ci m

o n

o c

E d

n a

s e

cru o

s e

R fo tn e

m tr a

p e

D A

S E

tc A

s eic e

p S

d ere g

n a

d n

E C

R E

F n

oissi m

m o

C yr otalu g

e R

y g

re n

E la re d

e F

P E

LF m

a r

g o

rP tn e

m e

c n

a h

n E

d n

alts er o

F SI G

m ets y

S n

oita m

r ofnI cih p

a r

g o

e G

TI N

A R

G m

ets y

S refs n

a rT n

oita m

r ofnI d

n a

sis yla n

A d

e c

n erefe R

ylla cih p

a r

g o

e G

A O

M tn e

m e

er g

A fo m

u d

n a

r o

m e

M U

O M

g nid n

atsre d

n U

fo m

u d

n a

r o

m e

M T

A A

N m

a e

T e

c n

atp e

c c

A yr o

siv d

A la n

oita N

A H

N n

o b

u d

u A

erih s

p m

a H

w e

N R

B H

N s

d r

o c

e R

d riB erih s

p m

a H

w e

N P

C H

N m

a r

g o

rP lats a

o C

erih s

p m

a H

w e

N S

E D

H N

s e

civre S

latn e

m n

o riv n

E fo tn e

m tr a

p e

D erih s

p m

a H

w e

N LF D

H N

s d

n a

L d

n a

sts er o

F fo n

oisivi D

erih s

p m

a H

w e

N T

O D

H N

n oitatr o

p s

n a

rT fo tn e

m tr a

p e

D erih s

p m

a H

w e

N G

F H

N e

m a

G d

n a

h siF erih s

p m

a H

w e

N B

H N

H N

u a

eru B

e g

atire H

la ruta N

erih s

p m

a H

w e

N P

S O

H N

g nin n

alP etatS fo e

ciff O

erih s

p m

a H

w e

N S

C R

N e

civre S

n oita vre s

n o

C e

cru o

s e

R la ruta N

V R

H O

elcih e

V la n

oita erc e

R y

a w

h g

i H

ff O

P R

A A

R m

a r

g o

rP g

nitr o

p e

R n

aibih p

m A

d n

a elitp e

R F

H N

P S

sts er o

F s'erih s

p m

a H

w e

N fo n

oitc eto rP e

htr of yteic o

S C

N T

y c

n a

vre s

n o

C eruta N

e h

T H

N U

erih s

p m

a H

w e

N fo ytisre vin U

A D

S U

erutlu cir g

A fo tn e

m tr a

p e

D s

etatS d

etin U

A P

E S

U y

c n

e g

A n

oitc eto rP latn e

m n

o riv n

E s

etatS d

etin U

S F

S U

e civre S

ts er o

F s

etatS d

etin U

S W

F S

U e

civre S

efildli W

d n

a h

siF s

etatS d

etin U

S G

S U

y e

vru S

ci g

olo e

G s

etatS d

etin U

P A

W n

alP n

oitc A

efildli W

F N

M W

ts er o

F la n

oita N

niatn u

o M

etih W

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan VIII ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Wildlife Action Plan Core Team New Hampshire Fish and Game John Kanter, Coordinator Steve Fuller, Conservation Science Director Jim Oehler, Habitat Specialist Michael Marchand, Wildlife Specialist Katie Callahan, GIS specialist UNH Cooperative Extension Darrel Covell, Co-Coordinator Biodrawversity Ethan Nedeau (principal), Carson Mitchell, Chloe Stuart, and Peter Taylor: Editing and Layout Special thanks to the following individuals for their writing, editing and thinking:

Charlie Bridges, Allison Briggaman, Matt Carpenter, Pam Hunt, Carol Foss, John Magee, Ben Nugent, Liza Poinier, Judith K. Silverberg, Steve Weber Public Participation Team Members and Affi liations Darrel Covell, Chair, UNH Cooperative Extension Judy Stokes, NHFG Judy Silverberg, NHFG Liza Poinier, NHFG Isobel Parke, Jackson, Jackson and Wagner Doris Burke, Public Service of New Hamphshire Miranda Levin, NH Audubon Julie Klett, NH Audubon Ellen Snyder, Ibis Wildlife Consulting Barbara Tetreault, Berlin Daily Sun Jim Graham, SPNHF John Kanter, NHFG Eric Aldrich, TNC Special thanks to Public Service of New Hampshire for hosting the WIldlife Summit.

Contributing Authors Biodiversity Research Institute David Evers Franklin Pierce College Jacques P Veilleux Ibis Wildlife Consulting Ellen Snyder Loon Preservation Committee Kate Taylor, Harry Vogel New Hampshire Audubon Diane De Luca, Laura S. Deming, Carol R. Foss, Pamela D. Hunt, Christian J. Martin, Rebecca W.

Suomala New Hampshire Fish and Game Allison M. Briggaman, Matthew A. Carpenter, Steven G. Fuller, Celine T. Goulet, John J. Kanter, Jillian R. Kelly, Michael N. Marchand, John Magee, Benjamin J. Nugent, James D. Oehler, Alina J.

Pyzikiewicz, Julie Robinson, Judith K. Silverberg, Kim A. Tuttle New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau Peter J. Bowman, Heather L. Herrmann, Bill Nichols, Dan Sperduto Northeast Ecological Services Scott Reynolds Saint Anselm College, Department of Biology Barry J. Wicklow The Nature Conservancy Doug Bechtel, Lora Gerard, Mark Zankel University of New Hampshire Kimberly J. Babbitt, Darrel Covell, Stephen Hale, John A. Litvaitis, Megan J. McElroy, Jeffery P. Tash, Jessica S. Veysey, James Taylor USDA Forest Service Christine A. Costello, Angela Karedes, Mariko Yamasaki 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.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan IX Executive Summary New Hampshires Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) com-pletion comes at a crucial time in the states history.

New Hampshires Changing Landscape 2005, a recent report from the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests (SPNHF), chronicles the increas-ing human footprint on the states natural habitats, and documents the immediate need for improved habitat conservation. In 1983, the reforestation that followed farming and logging of the 19th and 20th centuries reached its peak, with 87 percent of the states lands forested. By 1997, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) estimated that the states forest cover dropped three percent, to 84 percent. Unlike the 18th and 19th century conversion of forests to fi elds, todays land conversion to roads, housing, and businesses permanently alters natural habitats and degrades their value to native wildlife. The WAP points to where the most vulnerable species and habitats are in relation to these rapid changes to the natural landscape.

New Hampshires WAP is the result of a mammoth ef-fort by hundreds of people and organizations commit-ted to ensuring the future welfare of wildlife in New Hampshire and providing opportunities for people to enjoy use of these resources. The WAP is the most comprehensive wildlife assessment ever completed in New Hampshire. Thirty-four wildlife experts from 10 conservation agencies, organizations, and academic institutions served as contributing authors.

In a parallel effort, a 33-person citizen advisory group shaped the management framework for New Hampshires big game species. Working with the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department (NHFG) wildlife biologists and program administra-tors, management policies and population objectives were synthesized into a Big Game Management Plan (Appendix E). Big game management objectives were integrated into the WAPs Chapter 5, Conservation Strategies.

At New Hampshires Wildlife Summit in March of 2004, 110 individuals representing conservation, rec-reation, business, and community interests identifi ed priority conservation issues. Via a web survey, 1,256 individuals provided additional input. Preventing habitat loss from development, educating citizens about wildlife management, and improving land-use planning were survey respondents top priorities.

During May of 2005, a sub-group of Wildlife Sum-mit participants identifi ed tools that could effectively be used to implement WAP strategies in the political and social climate of New Hampshire.

Using all available data, a core team of biologists identifi ed 123 species and 27 habitats in greatest need of conservation. More than a half-million dollars of State Wildlife Grant federal funds were provided to contract with experts at partnering organizations, agencies, and academic institutions to complete as-sessments of these species and habitats. Each partner brought signifi cant resources to match federal funds.

To ensure consistency and comparability of infor-mation, a wildlife species and habitat template was provided to all contracted experts. Four major ele-mentsdistribution and habitat, species and habitat condition, species and habitat risk assessment, and conservation actionswere addressed. In total, 131 species and habitat profi les were completed for all habitats and nearly all priority wildlife, including sev-eral invertebrate and fi sh species (nineteen at risk species were not profi led, either because there was a lack of information for those species, or because the conservation concerns facing those species were best addressed at the habitat level).

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan X

Following the development of species and habitat profi les, technical analyses were conducted to assess the condition of habitats and risks to wildlife. The results of these technical assessments were incorpo-rated into each profi le and are summarized in this document.

During the condition assessment phase, we compiled data that tripled the number of records in our wildlife occurrence database, and we used sophisticated sci-ence to develop the fi rst maps ever to predict the loca-tion and compare the current condition of all matrix forests, terrestrial, wetland, and aquatic habitats over the entire state. Mapping was also completed for a subset of well-studied species.

In the risk assessment, we called on wildlife experts to conduct a structured assessment for 62 priority wildlife species and 27 habitats. Preliminary results identifi ed 16 wildlife species that are highly at risk of extirpation from New Hampshire. Included in this list are Karner blue butterfl ies, piping plovers, and ro-seate terns. Eleven of the 27 priority habitats assessed ranked in the highest conservation risk category. Ex-amples include Appalachian Oak Pine Forests, Pine Barrens, Salt Marshes, Lowland Spruce-Fir Forests, and Vernal Pools. Further review and analysis of spe-cies and habitats that appear to be in most jeopardy will be a fi rst step in implementation.

After completing analysis of individual species and habitats, we identifi ed risks that were common among species and habitats and developed strategies to address these risks. Rapid urban development in many parts of the state was identifi ed as the most potent risk to our wildlife, devastating the health of many terrestrial, wetland, and aquatic populations and irreversibly fragmenting their habitats. Urban development is outpacing land protection. We need to respond by helping communities integrate wildlife 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

• Consider proactive strategies such as landowner incentives and voluntary land protection Regional air and water quality issues scored among the most threatening problems for wildlife, both in terms of broad cumulative degradation and intense localized impacts. In response, we will:

• Promote the inclusion of wildlife in structured risk assessments by agencies engaged in energy, trans-portation, and industrial development projects

• Promote regional and national policies and fund-ing that improve air and water quality for New Hampshires wildlife and people Some habitats have been degraded to the point that wildlife species associated with them will be lost with-out human intervention. To maintain our biodiver-sity and landscape integrity, we will:

• Guide management and restoration of rare and declining plants, animals, habitats, and natural communities

• Address human and ecological issues that threaten New Hampshires biodiversity with strategies such as population management, habitat management and, when necessary, regulatory protection There is a critical need to obtain, store, and manage data on the status and condition of New Hampshires wildlife. Current information is essential to providing the best conservation science and monitoring. We will:

• Compile, manage, and analyze information about New Hampshires wildlife; assess risks; and priori-tize conservation actions

• Develop a system to monitor ecological health and management performance

• Adapt to changing conditions

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan XI Introduction From Mount Washington to our Atlantic coastline, New Hampshire supports a wealth of wildlife species and habitats. Through the 1700s and 1800s, a major-ity of the states forests were cleared for fi elds, pas-tures, and timber. Rivers and streams, dammed and degraded, became largely impassable for migratory fi sh. During this period, many fi sh and wildlifeal-ready beleaguered by deforestation and diminished water qualitywere nearly extirpated by market hunting and fi shing.

New Hampshire, like other states, reacted to this era of exploitation with efforts to conserve fi sh, wildlife, and land. In 1865, the New Hampshire Fisheries Commission was established to restore sea-run fi sh to the Merrimack and Connecticut rivers, and to introduce other species into lakes, ponds, and streams for their food and recreational value. Later, New Hampshire conservationists helped pass the 1911 Weeks Act, which in 1912 led to the purchase of 72,000 acres of land by the federal government and the creation of the White Mountain National Forest.

Since then, people have fl ocked to New Hampshire each year to enjoy our forests, water, and wildlife.

In the early decades of the 20th century, con-cerned hunters and anglers demanded an end to the over-exploitation of the nations fi sh and wildlife resources. In response, the reorganized and renamed New Hampshire Fish and Game Department (NHFG) took steps to conserve them by setting and enforcing bag limits; creating wildlife refuges and sanctuaries; paying for game damage; operating a game farm; and issuing hunting and fi shing licenses.

The revenue generated from fi shing and hunting license sales enabled the agency to expand its restora-tion, education, and law enforcement programs.

Additional funding for wildlife restoration started coming to NHFG from the Federal government after the passage of the Pittman-Robertson Act in 1937.

In 1950, the Dingell-Johnson Act was established to support the states restoration of sport fi sh. With this infusion of funds and support and the efforts of the Department, dozens of fi sh and wildlife species like moose, black bears, beaver, white-tailed deer, and wood ducks were able to rebuild their populations health and numbers.

Beyond Sport Fish and Game Restoration In 1979, during an era of public outcry over polluted air and water, New Hampshire formally recognized the need to contribute to conserving endangered wildlife and passed the state Endangered Species Conservation Act. In partnership with the U.S. Fish

& Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and New Hampshire Audubon (NHA),

NHFG staff initiated activities that would ultimately lead to the recovery of some of the high-profi le spe-cies that were hit hardest by environmental contami-nantsbald eagles, peregrine falcons, ospreys, and loons. The success of these efforts proved that man-agement could benefi t a broad range of wildlife.

Formally acknowledging the breadth of wild-life that are affected by environmental issues, and also recognizing the diversity of ecological roles and habitat values that are necessary to support wildlife, the Nongame Species Management Act was passed by the New Hampshire Legislature in 1988. The act expanded the mission of NHFG to include the full array of wildlifenot just game and endangered species. This was the genesis of the mechanism that allows the State to spend $50,000 out of the General Fund to match private contributions to New Hamp-shires Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program.

Over the years, the Nongame Program has leveraged

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan XII Introduction these funds to gain additional grants; thousands of people have contributed to the program.

The conservation of aquatic species in New Hampshire has focused on anadromous fi sh restora-tion, through the Atlantic salmon, American shad, and river herring restoration programs; and sport fi sh management, through population assessments and state and federal regulations. Lesser-known species of fi sh and aquatic invertebrates have received little di-rect attention. Some species, such as the bridle shiner, have been identifi ed as species of concern in nearby states, while the status of other whole groups of spe-cies, such as crayfi sh and snails, is virtually unknown.

The WAP provides the opportunity to assess the sta-tus and develop conservation priorities for all aquatic species and habitats.

In the 1980s, the waterfowl stamp, a new state lands management collaborative, and the Land Con-servation Investment Program fueled NHFGs ability to manage land for all wildlife. Today, NHFG owns dozens of parcels and easements on parcels, enabling staff to manage for wildlife and habitat values. In co-operation with the N.H. Department of Resources and Economic Developments Division of Forest and Lands, many state forests and parks are managed for habitats that support diverse wildlife.

A partnership of concerned citizens and conser-vation organizations has spearheaded land, water, and wildlife conservation efforts in the 1990s and 2000s.

The Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests (SPNHF), NHA, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), individual towns and many others have worked on their own and in partnership with NHFG and local land trusts to protect hundreds of thousands of acres in the last decade.

Despite this long history of successful projects and partnerships, NHFG has never had the resources necessary to comprehensively address the challenges facing all the states wildlife and habitats. Certainly, decades of efforts to improve conditions for sport fi sh and game animals benefi ted more than just the focal species; nonetheless, not until now have we been able to take stock of a comprehensive range of species and habitat conditions, synthesize and analyze the infor-mation to identify risks to wildlife, and specifi cally target strategies to alleviate them.

State Wildlife Grants and the Wildlife Action Plan In 2002, the United States Congress passed a law appropriating $80 million in State Wildlife Grants, which would go to state wildlife agencies to address the species in greatest need of conservation, includ-ing those species not hunted or fi shed. To be eligible for these funds, New Hampshire was required to de-velop a comprehensive wildlife conservation plan the New Hampshire Wildlife Action Planto be submitted to Congress by October 1, 2005. Congress mandated that the Plan address eight elements:

1.

Information on the distribution and abundance of species of wildlife, including low and declining populations as the State fi sh and wildlife agency deems appropriate, that are indicative of the di-versity and health of the States wildlife.

2.

Descriptions of locations and relative condition of key habitats and community types essential to conservation of species identifi ed in Element 1.

3.

Descriptions of problems which may adversely affect species identifi ed 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 species and habitats.

4.

Descriptions of conservation actions necessary to conserve the identifi ed species and habitats and priorities for implementing such actions.

5.

Proposed plans for monitoring species identifi ed in Element 1 and their habitats, for monitor-ing the effectiveness of the conservation actions proposed in Element 4, and for adapting these conservation actions to respond appropriately to new information or changing conditions.

6.

Description of procedures to review the Plan at intervals not to exceed ten years.

7.

Plans for coordinating, to the extent feasible, the development, implementation, review, and revi-sion of the Plan Strategy with Federal, State, and local agencies and Indian tribes that manage sig-nifi cant land and water areas within the State or administer programs that signifi cantly affect the conservation of identifi ed species and habitats.

8.

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

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan XIII Introduction With the infusion of funds from the State Wild-life Grants and with the Congressional mandate, NHFGs Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Pro-gram has expanded over the last three years to cover more species and habitats in a broader context than ever before. Even with additional funding and staff, we continue to work closely with partners, recogniz-ing that responsibility of protecting all wildlife and habitats is bigger than what we can accomplish on our own.

To assist in developing a comprehensive conser-vation plan, we called on broad expertise in the state to work as collaborators. Together, we developed an organizational structure (see Appendix F) and identi-fi ed desirable outcomes to guide the development and future implementation of the Plan:

1.

Citizens that are aware of New Hampshires wild-life diversity and its contribution to the environ-mental, economic, and social fabric of the State and that actively support wildlife conservation.

2.

An informed network of partners actively pre-pared to engage in implementing key conserva-tion strategies and actions that protect the States wildlife diversity.

3.

A dynamic and adaptable GIS-based blueprint of New Hampshires signifi cant wildlife habitats that support species in greatest need for conserva-tion and the full array of wildlife diversity.

4.

A suite of conservation strategies that consid-ers biological, social, and economic factors and opportunities to conserve the wildlife species in greatest need of conservation and all wildlife.

5.

A dynamic and adaptable GIS-based wildlife data management system that contains all known wildlife occurrences and habitat polygons and that can be augmented continually with new data and queried by ecoregion, conservation land, habitat type, and species to monitor our progress in conserving wildlife.

The Planning Team developed the initial approach to completing the WAP. The Core Biologist Team served as a liaison between the biologists/researchers/writers and the Communications and Outreach Team, which worked on generating public input and releasing public information about the WAP. The three teams communicated frequently and most partner organi-zations were represented on more than one team, to keep technical/scientifi c and communications activi-ties in sync.

Standards for the Wildlife Action Plan In developing strategies to address challenging issues facing New Hampshire wildlife, we:

1.

Identifi ed Wildlife At Risk 2.

Assessed Wildlife Habitat Conditions 3.

Evaluated Risk Factors 4.

Developed Strategies 5.

Integrated Monitoring, Performance and Adap-tive Management 6.

Planned for Implementation Throughout the process, we concentrated on devel-oping a more systematic and transparent approach to wildlife planning. We invited public participation during plan development; efforts included the North-eastern Regional Survey, a Wildlife Summit, a Web Survey, Stakeholder Meetings, and a Strategy Forum.

Identifying Wildlife At Risk In Chapter 2, we identify New Hampshires low and declining wildlife populations and wildlife that are indicative of the diversity and health of the States wildlife. This chapter corresponds primarily with the fi rst of the Eight Required Elements, and builds on the many conservation initiatives that preceded the WAP in New Hampshire. Chapter 2 lays a founda-tion for Element 2 by describing the use of natural communities as surrogates for the diversity of poorly understood wildlife, the relationship between natural communities and wildlife habitats, and serves to orga-nize both species and natural communities within the over-arching habitat types that occur in New Hamp-shire. These habitat types are the basis for our analyses and planning work described in later chapters.

Information Gathering (Data Templates)

One of the early and integral steps in the creation of this WAP was the development of an accurate, up-to-date, geographically referenced database system containing information on wildlife species. In coop-eration with the New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau, we solicited data from experts on the highest

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan XIV Introduction priority wildlife and improved the quality of existing records, tripling the initial amount of information.

This database provides us with an effi cient, web-based mechanism for reporting known fi sh and wildlife oc-currences, and has been instrumental in determining distribution and abundance of species and habitats as required in the fi rst and second of the Eight Required Elements.

Chapters 3-6 form the core of the WAP, with spe-cifi c information about wildlife in New Hampshire, the problems they face, the solutions we propose, and how we will monitor them. To ensure that our work was comprehensive and based on the best available information, we developed standardized templates to gather technical information and data from contract-ed experts. All of the information collected on these forms is organized and linked in a database format, and has been applied throughout the document.

The fi rst template, a Species and Habitat Pro-fi le Template (Appendix L), was completed for all wildlife and habitats. The fi elds in this template were designed to meet the fi rst 5 of the Eight Required Ele-ments, and their completion or lack thereof provide a clear indication of our knowledge gaps. Correspond-ing to each Profi le Template, we completed a Risk Factor Ranking Form (Appendix M). Next, experts on each challenging issue evaluated ranks for the as-sociated risk factors and summarized them in a Risk Assessment Template (Appendix N). This worked formed the body of Chapter 4.

To address all of the risks identifi ed, we enlisted experts to complete a Strategy Template (Appendix O), with detailed information about implementation and feasibility for each objective. For each Strategy Template, a corresponding Feasibility Ranking Form (Appendix P) was completed. These data forms will help guide implementation.

Assessing Wildlife Habitat Condition The location and relative condition of key wildlife habitats, the second of the Eight Required Elements, is the topic of Chapter 3. Describing the locations and condition of wildlife habitats is a complex process. In the predictive phase, we used computer analyses and GIS to predict where each kind of wildlife habitat is located. In the analytical phase, we compiled many different kinds of data about each location and used these data to analyze the local status of predicted habitats across the landscape. Information about local conditions will be compared and fi ltered to create maps showing areas of high potential and high risk for wildlife. A preliminary assessment of the condi-tion of New Hampshires wildlife habitats is reported in Chapter 3.

In New Hampshire, considerable public effort and money is being invested in the preservation of properties that may not be the most critical to wildlife. The goal of our investment in sophisticated mapping technology and conservation science is to provide tools for local and regional planners to ensure that time and money are spent in the most critical locations. Developing a complete map of wildlife habitats in New Hampshire and compiling informa-tion about them for the WAP was a major scientifi c undertaking. The coordinated work of all our part-ners will make conservation technology much more accessible to the entire planning community.

Evaluating Risk Factors Although we were able to use quantitative data (Chap-ter 3) to gain insight about some of the challenging issues that threaten wildlife, for many issues, data are nonexistent. Chapter 4 addresses problems that may adversely affect wildlife and their habitats based on the expert opinions of wildlife professionals and the published literature. We used a structured process to organize and focus the attention of our science team on the most challenging issues.

From a scientifi c perspective, we recognize that all of the challenging issues, or threats, that wildlife face can be viewed as having two aspects in common.

First, each has certain risk factors that potentially have negative impacts on wildlife; and second, each has a series of events or an exposure pathway that brings a risk factor to fruition. A simplifi ed descrip-tion of the risk assessment process followsthis pro-cess was completed for all priority habitats and most priority wildlife species.

In the initial phase of the process, a panel of ex-perts on a given species or habitat was supplied with a list of potentially challenging issues. The panel iden-tifi ed all of the risk factors associated with each issue and described the exposure pathway for their target species or habitat. During the ranking phase of the process, the panel completed a Risk Factor Ranking Form (Appendix M) to provide numeric ranks about

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan XV Introduction key aspects of each risk factor. To the extent that expertise and information were available, the values given for each risk factor were peer-reviewed and cross-referenced to scientifi c literature. A summary score was calculated for each risk factor, and the high-est scoring ones were described in detail in the Species or Habitat Profi le.

In the comparative phase of the process, all of the scores from all of the Risk Factor Ranking Forms were compiled in a database. The scores were grouped based on the list of general challenging issues that was originally provided to the species/habitat expert pan-els. Next, an expert on each issue screened the scores for all of the wildlife affected by it. The scores from the forms and descriptions from the Species/Habitat Profi les were written up in a Risk Assessment Tem-plate. Finally, scores were analyzed to compare the levels of risk among species/habitats and also among the broader issues. This approach enabled us to sum-marize challenging issues in a consistent, standardized format that will be used to help prioritize actions for implementation.

Developing an Action Plan In response to the fourth of the Eight Required Elements, Chapter 5 describes actions necessary to conserve wildlife and provides information about prioritizing and implementing such actions. As part of the preceding chapters, we completed in-depth analyses to obtain a diagnosis of the issues that threaten New Hampshires wildlife most. During the earlier steps in our planning process, we completed some preliminary workthe public participation process and the Species and Habitat Profi lesto pre-scribe actions to resolve the biggest issues. Based on this work, we generated an exhaustive list of potential actions. To ensure that the list properly assigned the right solutions to the right problems, we surveyed our expert team to help cross-reference wildlife, habitats, risks, and solutions in a linked database.

We utilized this cross-referenced information to analyze the breadth and depth of the actions neces-sary to conserve the full array of New Hampshires wildlife. Within strategic program areas, wildlife management experts completed a ranking process to assess the operational feasibility of each action. For each strategy, experts gathered information about implementation potential and completed a detailed Strategy Template that far exceeds the scope of this document.

To simplify the WAP, we organized our strategies under four focus areas. The goal of the Regional Air and Water Quality Action Plan is to reduce harmful air and water pollutants by promoting sustainable energy, transportation, and industrial development practices. The Local Land and Water Conservation Action Plan contains approaches for promoting sus-tainable development and resource use to support wildlife health and diversity through a combination of coordinated working groups, technical assistance, and the production of targeted information and education materials. The actions under the Statewide Biodiversity Stewardship Program will help maintain New Hampshires biodiversity and habitats by co-ordinating management, restoration, and land and regulatory protection. The Conservation Science and Information Management Action Plan will ensure that the best available science is used to adapt man-agement and monitor those species and habitats of greatest conservation concern.

Integrating Monitoring, Performance, and Adaptive Management To meet the fi fth of the Eight Required Elements, Chapter 6 describes New Hampshires plan for moni-toring species identifi ed in Element 1 and their habi-tats, for monitoring the effectiveness of the conserva-tion actions proposed in Element 4, and for adapting these conservation actions to respond appropriately to new information or changing conditions. The three categories of variables we need to monitor are levels of risk factors, management effects, and eco-logical responses. Finding the right combination of measurements and variables within a reasonable bud-getand still having the ability to respond to changes on the groundis a critical challenge.

Our approach is to fi nd the most effi cient vari-ables. By effi cient, we mean variables that fi t into more than one of the categories described above and also represent many fi sh and wildlife species. Effi cient also means that we can measure a variable and detect changes with minimal effort. When a variable meets these criteria, we consider it a useful indicator because it indicates changes that are happening for many variables. Our goal is to select useful indicators for each priority habitat and high priority species, and

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan XVI Introduction to monitor them rigorously.

Guiding Implementation In accordance with elements 6-8 of the Eight Re-quired Elements, Chapter 7 describes our plans for coordinating, reviewing, and revising the WAP dur-ing the implementation phase in concert with our partners, stakeholders, and public. Several of the objectives described in Chapter 5 require immediate implementation and will serve as a transition between plan development and implementation. For example, information that we gathered about risks to wildlife and the feasibility of our objectives will be used to prioritize implementation of the WAP. We recognize that our priorities may differ from those of our part-ners, stakeholders, and the public, and therefore will provide guidance to match action items with the best organization for implementation.

Planning for the Future Now, with the completion of the WAP, the process of funding and proceeding with its implementation begins. The benefi ts of investing in the WAPs strate-giesor any wildlife conservation activitiesgo well beyond saving rare species. The economic benefi ts are clear. In a situation common to all states, wildlife associated recreation is a signifi cant economic engine 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 fi shing 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 benefi t 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 part because it is a place of great natural beauty. The downside is this: New Hampshires structures and services have boomed. When people move to New Hampshire from out of state, the amount of space developed per person has risen to more than two acres. Some 18,000 acres of land in New Hampshire are lost each year to development. This conversion of forest and other wildlife habitat into roads, houses, and businesses degrades the lands value to New Hampshires wildlife. New Hampshire can support new people, and it can offer them places to live and drive and work and recreate; the WAP helps accom-plish this by pointing to where the most vulnerable species and habitats are in relationship to the rapidly transforming landscape.

It starts with smart planning, which is at the heart of this Plans strategies. When people are able to clearly see the connections between good wildlife management, clean air and water, sustainable eco-nomic growth, and our quality of life, wildlife habitat conservation actions will naturally be brought to the forefront of planning decisions.

Through existing and new partnerships, NHFG is moving forward with implementing the WAP.

Prompt action is crucialnot only for the health and diversity of wildlife and habitats in the state, but also to ensure that future generations will have the opportunity to experience and enjoy the Wild New Hampshire we love and appreciate today.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan XVII Introduction Element 1 Chapter and Appendix Templates and Forms Tables Information on the distribution and abundance of species of wildlife, including low and declining populations as the State fi sh and wildlife agency deems appropriate, that are indicative of the diversity and health of the States wildlife.

Chapter 2 Appendix A: Species Profi les Species Profi les

• 1.2 Justifi cation

• 1.4 Population and Habitat Distribution

• 1.7 Sources of Information

• 2.2 Relative Health of Populations Element 2 Chapter and Appendix Templates and Forms Tables Descriptions of locations and relative condition of key habitats and community types essential to conservation of species identifi ed in (1).

Chapter 3 Appendix B: Habitat Profi les Habitat Profi les

• 1.6 Habitat Map

• 2.1 Scale

• 2.2 Relative Health of Populations

• 2.4 Relative Quality of Habitat Patches Table 3-1 Table 3-2 Element 3 Chapter and Appendix Templates and Forms Tables Descriptions of problems that may adversely affect species identifi ed in (1) or their habitats, and priority research and survey efforts needed to identify factors which may assist in restoration and improved conservation of these species and habitats.

Chapter 4 Species and Habitat Profi les

• 1.8 Extent and Quality of Data

• 3.1 (A) Exposure Pathway

• 3.1 (B) Evidence

• 3.2 Sources of Information

• 3.3 Extent and Quality of Data

• 3.4 Threat Assessment Research Risk Exposure (Form 1)

Risk Factor Assessment (Form 2)

Table 4-1 Table 4-2 Table 4-3 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 fi nd these elements interwoven throughout the text, fi gures, and forms. We provide this guide to help you fi nd the eight elements.

Element 4 Chapter and Appendix Templates and Forms Tables Descriptions of conservation actions proposed to conserve the identifi ed species and habitats and priorities for implementing such actions.

Chapter 5 Species and Habitat Profi les Existing Protection

• 1.3 Protection and Regulatory Status

• 2.3 Population Management Status Proposed Actions

• 4.1 (A) Affected Threat

• 4.1 (B) Justifi cation

• 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 XVIII Introduction Element 5 Chapter and Appendix Templates and Forms Tables Proposed plans for monitoring species identifi ed in (1) and their habitats, for monitoring the effectiveness of the conservation actions proposed in (4), and for adapting these conservation actions to respond appropriately to new information or changing conditions.

Chapter 6 Species Profi les

• 1.9 Distribution Research

• 4.1 (C) Conservation Performance Objective

• 4.1 (F) Response Monitoring Table 6.1 Element 6 Chapter and Appendix Templates and Forms Tables Descriptions of procedures to review the strategy at intervals review the strategy at intervals review the strategy not to exceed ten years.

Chapter 7 Element 7 Chapter and Appendix Templates and Forms Tables Plans for coordinating the development, implementation, review, and revision of the plan with Federal, State, and local agencies and Indian tribes that manage signifi cant land and water areas within the State or administer programs that signifi cantly affect the conservation of identifi ed species and habitats.

Chapter 7 Conservation Strategy Template (E): Organization Element 8 Chapter and Appendix Templates and Forms Tables Broad public participation is an essential element of developing and implementing these plans, the projects that are carried out while these plans are developed, and the Species in Greatest Need of Conservation that Congress has indicated such programs and projects are intended to emphasize.

Chapter 1 Appendix H: Wildlife Summit results Appendix I: Web Survey Appendix K: Wildlife Strategy Forum results Appendix J: Public participation record

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 1-1 CHAPTER ONE Public Participation Overview This chapter addresses required Element 8 of the NAAT Guidelines, which calls for broad public participation... [when] developing and implement-ing these plans. We formed the Communications and Outreach Team (COT) to develop the public participation component of the WAP. The COT met regularly from 2003-2005. They were responsible for developing and implementing a plan for gathering public input. Components included the following:

• A randomly distributed telephone survey of New Hampshire residents as part of a larger northeast regional survey (Fall 2003)

• A Wildlife Summit workshop of people who play (or could play) an active role in conserving New Hampshire wildlife (March 2004)

• A web survey based largely on priority issues that came out of the Wildlife Summit (August-November 2004)

• Stakeholder meetings to understand participants perceptions of threats to our wildlife and habitats, and conservation strategies (various dates)

• A Wildlife Conservation Strategy Forum to gather input on some of the major strategies developed (May 2005)

Many conservation partners were included in the de-velopment, research, and writing of the WAP. Species and habitat profiles, threats assessments, and strate-gies were written in part or in whole by individuals from NHA, St. Anselms College, UNH, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, USFS, USFWS, TNC, Loon Preservation Committee, Franklin Pierce Col-lege, North East Ecological Services, NHNHB, Bio-drawversity, Ibis Wildlife Consulting, and BioDiver-sity Research Institute. Many conservation partners reviewed materials as they were being developed, including those mentioned above, the New Boston Air Force Base, and others.

Northeast Regional Survey Responsive Management (a natural resources public opinion consulting company) collected information via a random telephone survey of 400 residents in each of 13 northeastern states. The Northeast Con-servation Information and Education Association in conjunction with Responsive Management developed the survey questions, which were used to identify where communication, education, and marketing can improve reputation, credibility, and public sup-port. This project was funded through a Multistate Conservation Grant from the USFWS using Federal Aid in Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Funds.

The results of the survey identified major issues to address, and were used especially as a basis for developing education and outreach strategies. Sur-vey information about most commonly used media will help us determine which methods of delivery are most appropriate when implementing strategies.

The New Hampshire survey results may be viewed on-line at http://www.responsivemanagement.com/

download/reports/NCIEANH.pdf

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 1-2 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 O

/

RGANIZATION E

/ NTITY b

ul C

niatn u

o M

n aih c

ala p

p A

s e

vitatn e

s er p

e R

fo e

s u

o H

erih s

p m

a H

w e

N erih s

p m

a H

w e

N fo yteic o

S n

o b

u d

u A

n oitaic o

ss A

s e

k a

L erih s

p m

a H

w e

N e

c n

atsiss A

n oita vre s

n o

C d

n a

L r

of retn e

C sre n

w o

d n

al erih s

p m

a H

w e

N s

n oissi m

m o

c n

oita vre s

n o

c ytin u

m m

o C

u a

eru B

e g

atire H

la ruta N

erih s

p m

a H

w e

N n

oissi m

m o

C tnioJre viR tu citc e

n n

o C

stsila ruta n

erih s

p m

a H

w e

N d

eti m

iln U

s k

c u

D g

nin n

alP d

n a

y g

re n

E fo e

ciff O

erih s

p m

a H

w e

N pih sre ntr a

P n

oitc eto rP y

a B

ta er G

n oitaic o

ss A

elib o

m w

o n

S erih s

p m

a H

w e

N n

oita vre s

n o

C r

of retn e

C sirr a

H ss erP yrtn u

o C

htr o

N s

eic n

e g

A efildli W

d n

a h

siF fo n

oitaic o

ss A

la n

oita nretnI b

ul C

e m

a G

d n

a h

siF y

ella V

i m

e P

re n

g a

W d

n a

n o

s k

c aJ

,n o

s k

c aJ sre d

n uf n

oita vre s

n o

c eta virP s

b ulc d

rib erih s

p m

a H

w e

N fo yteic o

S n

o b

u d

u A

la c

o L

stn atlu s

n o

c e

cru o

s erla ruta n

eta virP e

etti m

m o

C n

oita vre s

erP n

o o

L erih s

p m

a H

w e

N fo e

civre S

cilb u

P re d

a e

L n

oin U

rets e

h c

n a

M e

g ufe R

efildli W

d n

a h

siF la n

oita N

etn o

C O

oivliS s

y a

w n

e er G

la n

oi g

e R

s niatn u

o M

e s

o o

M sts er o

F erih s

p m

a H

w e

N fo n

oitc eto rP e

htr of yteic o

S elitp e

R d

n alg n

E w

e N

erih s

p m

a H

w e

N ni sla m

in A

r of g

nik a

e p

S s

n oissi m

m o

C n

oita vre s

n o

C fo n

oitaic o

ss A

erih s

p m

a H

w e

N retn e

C e

c n

eic S

s e

k a

L m

a u

q S

stcirtsi D

n oita vre s

n o

C erih s

p m

a H

w e

N s

n oita cin u

m m

o C

ci g

eta rtS n

o s

n e

h p

etS tc ejo rP stre v

o C

erih s

p m

a H

w e

N leto H

tr o

s e

R d

n a

r G

s m

a sla B

e h

T erutlu cir g

A fo tn e

m tr a

p e

D erih s

p m

a H

w e

N y

c n

a vre s

n o

C eruta N

e h

T s

e civre S

latn e

m n

o riv n

E fo tn e

m tr a

p e

D erih s

p m

a H

w e

N yteic o

S e

s u

o r

G d

effu R

e h

T ci m

o n

o c

E d

n a

s e

cru o

s e

R fo tn e

m tr a

p e

D erih s

p m

a H

w e

N m

siru o

T d

n a

le v

a rT fo n

oisivi D

,tn e

m p

ole v

e D

sre e

ni g

n E

fo s

p r

o C

y m

r A

S U

ci m

o n

o c

E d

n a

s e

cru o

s e

R fo tn e

m tr a

p e

D erih s

p m

a H

w e

N n

oisivi D

n oita erc e

R d

n a

s kr a

P

,tn e

m p

ole v

e D

s e

civre S

efildli W

erutlu cir g

A fo tn e

m tr a

p e

D S

U n

oitatr o

p s

n a

rT fo tn e

m tr a

p e

D erih s

p m

a H

w e

N n

oita vre s

n o

C s

e cru o

s e

R la ruta N

erutlu cir g

A fo tn e

m tr a

p e

D S

U e

civre S

lic n

u o

C e

vitu c

e x

E erih s

p m

a H

w e

N y

c n

e g

A n

oitc eto rP latn e

m n

o riv n

E S

U u

a eru B

m r

a F

erih s

p m

a H

w e

N e

civre S

efildli W

d n

a h

siF S

U n

oissi m

m o

C e

m a

G d

n a

h siF erih s

p m

a H

w e

N

)e vitatn e

s er p

er erih s

p m

a H

w e

N

(

eta n

e S

S U

tn e

m tr a

p e

D e

m a

G d

n a

h siF erih s

p m

a H

w e

N n

ois n

etx E

e vita re p

o o

C erih s

p m

a H

w e

N fo ytisre vin U

e ciff O

s'r o

nre v

o G

erih s

p m

a H

w e

N s

e cru o

s e

R la ruta N

fo tn e

m tr a

p e

D erih s

p m

a H

w e

N fo ytisre vin U

n oitaic o

ss A

sre n

w O

d n

alre b

m iT erih s

p m

a H

w e

N y

g olo o

Z fo tn e

m tr a

p e

D erih s

p m

a H

w e

N fo ytisre vin U

n oitaic o

ss A

sre p

p a

rT erih s

p m

a H

w e

N y

c n

e g

A efildli W

d n

a h

siF tn o

m re V

n oita re d

e F

efildli W

erih s

p m

a H

w e

N ts er o

F la n

oita N

niatn u

o M

etih W

s etaic o

ss A

u a

e d

n a

m r

o N

etutits nItn e

m e

g a

n a

M efildli W

lic n

u o

C yrtn u

o C

htr o

N n

oitatn e

s er p

e R

ti m

m u

S efildli W

Public Participation

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 1-3 Wildlife Summit The purposes of the Wildlife Summit were to:

• Develop public awareness of the comprehensive wildlife planning process

• Engage stakeholders in the planning process to en-courage acceptance and increase plan implementa-tion effectiveness

• Develop and enhance better communication among a diverse group of constituents The Wildlife Summit public participation process was based on one previously used to develop the New Hampshire Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). The lead facilitator and consultant for the Wildlife Summit and the Wildlife Conservation Strategy ForumCharlie French, UNH Cooperative Extension Community Development Specialistalso acted in that role for the SCORP planning process.

One hundred twelve (112) people participated in the Wildlife Summit. Individuals represented a variety of agencies, organizations, businesses, and interests (Table 1-1). NHFG and UNH Cooperative Extension staff developed a framework of broad topic areas within which to discuss and prioritize issues at the Wildlife Summit. The results of the Wildlife Summit were used in the prioritization and development of our strategies and actions (see results under Appendix H, Wildlife Summit: Public Input on the Wildlife Action Plan).

Web Survey A web survey, based largely on priority issues that were identified during the Wildlife Summit, was conducted in August-November 2004. The web survey consisted of twenty-seven questions, eighteen of which were related to the WAP and nine of which were demographic in nature (See Appendix I for a survey). The survey was developed and conducted by UNH Cooperative Extension with input from NHFG staff and members of the Communications and Outreach Team.

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 ISSUE RESPONDENTS Development/sprawl 39%

Habitat loss (general) 38%

Pollution (general) 8%

Lack of funding 7%

Fragmentation 6%

Government (general) 6%

ISSUE RESPONDENTS Protect/provide habitat 22%

Improve/manage habitat 9%

Smart growth/planned development 7%

More funding (general) 6%

Regulations (development) 6%

Public Participation to the survey via multiple methods. Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH) sent an announcement of the survey to all their public utility customers (approximately 440,000), enclosed with their monthly bill. PSNH also placed a sponsor spot on New Hampshire Public Radio promoting completion of the survey. SPNHF and NHA did a one-minute segment on New Hampshire Public Radio, called Something Wild, which discussed the WAP and encouraged listeners to complete the web survey.

Additional promotion through email, meetings, and other partners web sites was done to improve the number of survey respondents.

One thousand two hundred fifty-six (1256) surveys were completed. The table of survey results may be found on the NHFG web site. The results were used to inform the development of strategies for the WAP. The survey results will also be used to guide implementation of the strategies. Here are the top results for three of the questions:

Q1: What do you feel are the most important issues affecting wildlife conservation in New Hampshire?

(Multiple responses possible)

Q15: What actions do you think we should take to conserve wildlife? (Multiple responses possible)

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 1-4 Public Participation ISSUE RESPONDENTS Prevent habitat loss 86%

Educate citizens about wildlife management 52%

Improve land use planning 40%

Encourage stewardship 36%

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

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.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 2-1 Overview This chapter and the associated species profiles ad-dress Element 1 of the NAAT Guidelines, informa-tion on the distribution and abundance of species of wildlife. In this chapter we describe the process of selecting species in greatest need of conservation (SGNC) and selecting the WAPs focal habitats. We also present details on the development and plans for continued use of the conservation database, as well as wildlife projects conducted in support of the WAP.

Selecting species in Greatest Need of Conservation The following information sources were used when selecting and prioritizing New Hampshires species in greatest need of conservation.

A. All New Hampshire Species Non-game species, game species, and fish were evalu-ated regardless of taxonomic group. Long-term data-sets exist for some species, but little is known about many other species, especially invertebrates, fish, and some reptiles and amphibians. To update the SGNC list, these groups will require direct attention in the future.

B. Endangered and Threatened Species Lists All species listed as endangered or threatened in New Hampshire under FIS 1000 (6/21/01) and those fed-erally listed under the Endangered Species Act (1973) that are known to occur in New Hampshire were included. New Hampshire currently has 24 species listed as state endangered and 12 listed as threatened.

C. Natural Heritage Rank: Animal Tracking List Species tracked by the NHNHB rare species data-base and listed in the Animal Tracking List (June 2003) were considered for inclusion in the SGNC.

The rare species database was used to determine the number of known occurrences of each species in New Hampshire. Species with a state rank of S1 (critically imperiled because extreme rarity or some factor of its biology that makes it particularly vulnerable to extinction) or S2 (imperiled because rarity or other factors that demonstrably make it very vulnerable to extinction) were included in the SGNC. Inverte-brates that were ranked as S1-S2 were incorporated in the list of SGNC if adequate knowledge of those species distribution and abundance was available.

D. Species of Regional Concern Species identified by the Northeast Wildlife Diversity Technical Committee as a regional concern (Therres 1999) were also considered for the SGNC. This list did not include an assessment of invertebrates other than freshwater mussels and did not include those species already listed as endangered or threatened in the federal Endangered Species Act.

E. Living Legacy Project (Taylor et al. 1996) and New Hampshire Ecological Reserve System Project (1998) expert panels were formed to assess population condi-tions and vulnerability of species in New Hampshire.

A list of critical wildlife habitats was developed based CHAPTER TWO New Hampshire Wildlife and Habitats At Risk

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 2-2 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)

New Hampshire Wildlife and Habitats At Risk TAXA s

eta r

b etre v

nI

)

d e

u nitn o

c(

h siF

)d e

u nitn o

c(

s d

riB s

c s

ullo m

reta w

h s

erF retr a

d p

m a

w S

C S

w o

rr a

p s

d eliat-p r

a h

s s'n o

sle N

C R

E

,reta olf k

o o

r B

retr a

d d

etalle ss e

T k

w a

h s

o g

nre htr o

N E

F E

,le ss u

m e

g d

e w

fr a

w D

s n

aibih p

m A

C R

E

,reirr a

h nre htr o

N C

R

,le ss u

m d

n o

p nrets a

E C

R

,re d

n a

m ala s

d etto p

s-e ulB T

,y er p

s O

stc e

s nI C

S d

a ot s'rel w

o F

relb r

a w

m la P

e m

ati s

n err a

B C

R C

S

,re d

n a

m ala s

n o

sreffeJ E

,n o

claf e

nir g

ere P

e p

ytoly x

s n

err a

B E

,re d

n a

m ala s

d elb r

a M

C R

E e

b er g

d ellib-d eiP a

hrry p

ota c

d e

nil-d a

o r

B g

o rf k

ni M

T F

E

,re v

olp g

nipiP T

elte e

b re g

it e

n ots elb b

o C

C R

C S

g o

rf d

r a

p o

el nre htr o

N h

c nif elp ru P

hto m

a r

o C

s elitp e

R E

,nitr a

m elp ru P

E

,ylfrettu b

nifle d

ets o

rF re c

a r

k c

alB re pip d

n a

s elp ru P

E F

E

,ylfrettu b

e ulb re nr a

K C

R C

S eltrut s'g nid n

alB C

S

,k w

a h

d ere dlu o

h s

d e

R E

g ni w

y k

s u

d s

uisre P

C R

eltrut x

o b

nrets a

E E

F E

,nret eta e

s o

R hto m

re g

it a

rilly h

P C

R

,T e

k a

n s

e s

o n

g o

h nrets a

E e

s u

o r

g d

effu R

T

,hto m

a hta n

g olc n

a z

s n

err a

b e

niP C

R e

k a

n s

n o

b biR C

S d

rib k

c alb yts u

R T

,hto m

n oinip e

niP C

R C

S eltrut d

etto p

S C

R C

S w

o rr a

p s

d eliat-p r

a h

s h

sr a

m tla S

T F

elte e

b re g

it n

atiru P

C S

e k

a n

s n

e er g

hto o

m S

C S

w o

rr a

p s

e dis a

e S

E

,retn u

a h

g o

b d

e g

niR C

R E

e k

a n

s eltta r

re b

m iT C

R E

,n er w

e g

d e

S g

ni w

y k

s u

d y

p e

elS C

R C

S eltrut d

o o

W re pip d

n a

s d

eta m

la pi m

e S

citcr a

niatn u

o M

etih W

s d

riB e

s u

o r

g e

c ur p

S yr allitirf niatn u

o M

etih W

C R

,nrettib n

a cire m

A T

,re k

c e

p d

o o

w d

e ot-e erh T

s eta r

b etre V

k c

u d

k c

alb n

a cire m

A P

G B

,y e

kru T

h siF C

S

,tipip n

a cire m

A C

R E

,re pip d

n a

s d

n alp U

efi w

el A

k c

o c

d o

o w

n a

cire m

A yre e

V 2

C R

,y er p

m al k

o o

r b

n a

cire m

A T

,nret citcr A

w o

rr a

p S

re p

s e

V le e

n a

cire m

A T

F E

elg a

e dla B

C R

C S

,lli w

-r o

o p-pih W

d a

h s

n a

cire m

A relb r

a w

d ets a

er b-y a

B C

S

,telli W

n o

m la s

citn alt A

C R

C S

,h s

urht slle n

k ciB h

s urht d

o o

W 2

C R

,n o

e g

ruts citn alt A

C S

,to m

elliu g

k c

alB sla m

m a

M C

R

,h sifn u

s d

e d

n a

B relb r

a w

a d

a n

a C

2 C

R T

,n etr a

m n

a cire m

A g

nirrre h

k c

a b

e ulB C

R

,relb r

a w

n a

elure C

P G

B

,r a

e b

k c

alB C

R

,re nih s

eldir B

T

,n o

ol n

o m

m o

C C

S

,ta c

b o

B to b

ru B

T

,k w

a hth g

in n

o m

m o

C T

F C

R E

,x n

yl a

d a

n a

C tu o

rt k

o o

r b

nrets a

E C

R E

,nret n

o m

m o

C C

S ellertsipip nrets a

E e

c a

d ela c

s e

niF T

,k w

a h

s're p

o o

C C

R C

S

,ta b

d er nrets a

E tu o

rt e

k a

L n

e hr o

o m

n o

m m

o C

C R

E

,ta b

d eto of-lla m

s nrets a

E h

sifetih w

e k

a L

kr al w

o d

a e

m nrets a

E C

R C

S

,ta b

yr a

o H

e c

a d

ylle b

d er nre htr o

N e

e h

w ot nrets a

E E

F

,ta b

a n

aid nI tle m

s w

o b

nia R

C R

E elg a

e n

e dlo G

P G

B e

s o

o M

lere k

cip nifd e

R C

R C

S

,relb r

a w

d e

g ni w

-n e

dlo G

C R

C S

,liatn otto c

d n

alg n

E w

e N

C R

,h sifetih w

d n

u o

R T

w o

rr a

p s

re p

p o

h ss a

r G

C R

C S

g ni m

m el g

o b

nre htr o

N y

er p

m al a

e S

n o

re h

e ulb ta er G

sito y

m nre htr o

N E

F E

,n o

e g

ruts e

s o

ntr o

h S

kr al d

e nr o

H C

R C

S

,ta b

d eria h-re vliS niplu c

s y

m ilS C

S

,nrettib ts a

e L

P G

B

,re e

d d

eliat-etih W

E

,tu o

rt e

e p

a n

u S

C R

E

,nretts a

e L

T F

,flo W

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).

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 2-3 on the habitat requirements of associated wildlife spe-cies of concern in the state.

F. Taxonomic Experts Species were considered based on comments made by taxonomic experts. For example, ornithologists considered priority species listed in a variety of bird plans (e.g., Partners in Flight, United States Shore-bird Conservation Plan, North American Waterfowl Management Plan, etc.). A team of invertebrate specialists was convened for the WAP, and this group determined that current knowledge of invertebrate distribution and abundance was inadequate to re-fine the list of invertebrates generated by items A-D above. Criteria used to determine a species status in the state included the following:

• Distribution and abundance in New Hampshire and the Northeast

• The status and risk to the species or species habi-tat in New Hampshire

• Species vulnerability due to life-history traits

• Statewide, regional, or global population trends Identifying Key Wildlife Habitat The New Hampshire Ecological Reserve System Project (renamed to the Living Legacy Project) used expert panels to assess population conditions and vulnerability of species in New Hampshire. A list of critical wildlife habitats was developed based on the habitat requirements of associated wildlife species of concern in the state. The list of associated wildlife spe-cies was developed by the Projects Scientific Advisory Group and modified by the Projects Wildlife Work-ing Group. The habitat list was modified by biologists working on the WAP based on internal and external expert review. The wildlife habitat list was then cross-referenced with the NHNHB classification of 192 natural communities and 46 natural community systems to identify areas of correspondence and gaps (Appendix C).

Natural Communities as Surrogates for Biodiversity Natural communities are recurring assemblages of plants and animals found in particular physical envi-ronments (Sperduto 2005); natural community sys-tems are groups of natural communities that repeat in the landscape and are linked by a common setting or driving force (e.g., flooding or fire; Sperduto and Nichols 2004). Large-scale habitats were added, in-cluding matrix forests and aquatic watershed group-ings. Other habitat-gaps (i.e., natural communities that did not correspond well with a habitat type) were addressed by considering the natural communities as embedded features within matrix forest systems Large-scale ecosystem attributes allow conserva-tionists to predict the distribution of taxa without ex-haustive ground surveys. Thus, efficient conservation should start with a coarse filter approach, seeking to characterize broad natural community types that are correlated with particular species.

Rare, endemic, or wide-ranging species may be overlooked in a coarse-filter approach. Thus, con-servation of natural communities should be coupled with species-based conservation; this is referred to as the coarse filter - fine filter strategy.

Integrating Habitats with Natural Communities and Systems The wildlife habitats initially selected for inclusion in the WAP reflected habitats for priority wildlife spe-cies. We created a hierarchical data structure in which habitats form the largest scale or highest level, with natural community systems and natural communities forming subordinate smaller scale levels. Priority spe-cies may require multiple habitat types, and a habitat may provide a necessary component for more than one priority wildlife species (see Appendix D for Spe-cies and Habitat Associations).

In some cases, natural communities or ecological systems did not correspond with important wildlife habitats (e.g., grasslands and shrublands). In New Hampshire, shrublands and grasslands are main-tained by management activities. Naturally occuring shrublands such as shrub wetlands or early seral stages of forests are included under other habitat types.

Conversely, other habitats correspond closely to a particular natural community system, such as the pine barrens habitat and the pitch pine sand plain system. Habitats with great ecological breadth (e.g.,

peatlands) or spatial extent (e.g., matrix forests and watershed groupings) were included to help address the full array of habitat diversity when planning for wildlife in New Hampshire.

New Hampshire Wildlife and Habitats At Risk

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 2-4 As habitat models are refined and field verified they might be redefined to better reflect related natu-ral communities and systems. Because these commu-nities and systems may be more precisely correlated with particular species and ecological functions, they will be used to prioritize conservation efforts within habitats. For instance, unique systems within the peatlands habitat may prove more important, al-lowing greater precision in conservation.

Aquatic Classification Unlike wetland and terrestrial habitats, an aquatic classification system for New Hampshire did not exist at the start of this planning effort. NHFG contracted TNC to initiate the development of an aquatic clas-sification system based on a watershed and lake ana-lytical stratification (Olivero and Bechtel 2005). This publication can be downloaded from the NHFG web site: visit www.nhfg.net, click on wildlife.

Watershed classification: The purpose of the water-shed classification system was to help guide broad-scale conservation of aquatic ecosystems in New Hampshire. Conservation efforts that preserve the integrity of many types of watersheds provide greater opportunity to preserve unique, functional commu-nities of organisms without having to identify each individual species and define its role in the communi-ty. Although this watershed classification system will need to be refined, it is a good step toward a compre-hensive approach to aquatic ecosystem protection.

Lake classification: A lake classification system was developed for New Hampshire lakes to provide con-text for evaluating patterns in biological, water qual-ity, and socioeconomic variables. The lake type clas-sification used a physical environmental classification framework where local lake morphology characteris-tics define lake types within a larger environmental setting of elevation, geology, and landform patterns.

The lakes classification is currently under review by NHFG biologists and will be incorporated into fu-ture conservation planning of aquatic systems.

Conservation Database One of the early goals in the WAP process was to develop and maintain an accurate, up-to-date, geo-New Hampshire Wildlife and Habitats At Risk HABITAT NAME stati b

a H

ela c

S e

g r

a L

s e

p y

T ts er o

F xirta M

ts er o

F e

niP k

a O

n aih c

ala p

p A

ts er o

F riF e

c ur p

S n

oita v

elE-h g

i H

ts er o

F riF e

c ur p

S d

n al w

o L

ts er o

F refin o

C d

o o

w d

r a

H nre htr o

N ts er o

F e

niP d

o o

w d

r a

H k

c ol m

e H

s g

ni p

u o

r G

d e

h sr eta W

s d

e h

sreta W

m ets nia M

re viR tu citc e

n n

o C

s d

e h

sreta W

d n

alp U

nre htu o

S s

d e

h sreta W

d n

alp U

nre htr o

N s

d e

h sreta W

e n

atn o

M s

d e

h sreta W

la n

oitis n

a rT lats a

o C

s d

e h

sreta W

lats a

o C

la diT-n o

N s

d e

h sreta W

lats a

o C

la diT n

a e

c O

n e

p O

1 stati b

a H

ela c

S

-lla m

S d

n a

m ui d

e M

e nipl A

s d

n alb urh S

d n

alss a

r G

sffil C

s e

ni M

d n

a s

e v

a C

s e

g diR y

k c

o R

2 s

e p

olS s

ula T

2 s

n err a

B e

niP s

w o

d a

e M

te W

d n

a h

sr a

M 3

s d

n alte W

b urh S

3 s

d n

alta e

P sts er o

F nialp d

o olF slo o

P la nre V

s e

h sr a

M tla S

s d

n alsIlats a

o C

s e

n u

D 1

siht s

a w

r o

n

,tatib a

h sihtr of d

etelp m

o c

to n

s a

w tn e

m ss e

ss a

tatib a

h A

tn a

v ele R

C N

T y

b d

etc u

d n

o c

sis yla n

a g

nip u

o r

g d

e h

sreta w

e ht ni d

ere dis n

o c

otni d

eta r

o p

r o

c ni s

a w

,s n

alp e

nir a

m g

nitsix e

fo tsil a

g nid ulc ni n

oita m

r ofni

.tn e

m ss e

ss a

d e

h sreta W

lats a

o C

la diT e

ht 2

g nik n

a rta erht e

htr of d

e nib m

o c

ere w

s e

p olS s

ula T

d n

a s

e g

diR y

k c

o R

elifo rP tatib a

h d

n a

ss e

c o

r p

3 e

htr of d

e nib m

o c

ere w

s d

n alte W

b urh S

d n

a s

w o

d a

e M

te W

d n

a h

sr a

M

.s d

n alte W

b urh S

d n

a h

sr a

M s

a s

elifo r

p tatib a

h d

n a

ss e

c o

r p

g nik n

a rta erht e

b n

a c

tu b

re y

al ata d

SI G

e n

o s

a re hte g

ot d

e p

p a

m ere w

statib a

h e

s e

h T

.yleta r

a p

e s

d eire u

q TABLE 2-2. New Hampshire WAP habitat list.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 2-5 referenced database containing information on New Hampshires fauna. This process will continue, but several key steps have been completed including the development of a wildlife database website reporting mechanism, rare species database software upgrade to Biotics4, and incorporation of a tremendous amount of field-collected biological data into the database.

Development of a Framework for the Collection and Maintenance of Wildlife Data A data collection tool, New Hampshire Wildlife Sightings (NHWS), was developed in cooperation with a number of government and nongovernment entities. NHWS employs a web site for collection of species occurrence data by qualified observers (http:

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

Currently, the pool of qualified observers is small as testing of the process continues.

Web hosting for NHWS is provided by the UNH Complex Systems Research Center. Raw observation data are downloaded from this web site by staff within the Wildlife Division at NHFG and imported into an in-house Access database to allow staff to perform quality control. After quality control is complete, data are forwarded to NHNHB within NHDRED to be incorporated into the rare wildlife, plant, and natural community database.

Software upgrade: BCD to Biotics4 In consultation with NatureServe, the NHFG, and NHNHB upgraded their Biological Conservation Database software to Biotics4 software.

All previously entered wildlife, plant, and exemplary natural community data have been converted and stored in Biotics4. New exemplary wetland natural community records and a backlog of previously unprocessed wildlife records were incorporated into Biotics4. NHFG solicited new wildlife location data from experts around the state, which dramatically increased the number of rare species records.

Species and Habitat Assessments The species and habitat profile template was designed to gather known information on the distribution, abundance, condition, threats, conservation actions, monitoring, and research for a particular species or habitat. Species and habitat assessments were completed by NHFG staff or were contracted to other taxonomic experts. To the extent that information is available, completed profile templates meet the required elements of the WAP. For most priority species (e.g., state-listed species) and habitats, an entire or nearly entire template was completed.

Through State Wildlife Grants, NHFG funded a number of projects to initiate research and compile data where information was lacking or insufficient to develop conservation strategies. The following list includes wildlife research completed or initiated during the WAP planning process:

• Pine Marten Restoration Project (University of Massachusetts, NHFG)

• Blandings Turtle Nesting Study (NHFG)

• Vernal Pool Research: Amphibians as Indicators of Land and Water Habitat Quality (UNH)

• Salt marsh Bird Recovery (UNH and NHOEP)

Three Masters theses and associated peer-reviewed publications will result from these studies.

For some species, information was lacking and only a portion of the profile (e.g., element 1) was completed. For those species that had a close link to a habitat, detailed condition, threat, and conservation action assessments often were discussed in habitats profiles and referenced in appropriate species profiles.

The information in species and habitat assessments provided the basis for the development of New Hampshires condition analysis (chapter 3),

wildlife risk assessments (chapter 4) and statewide conservation strategies (chapter 5).

Distribution Maps Distribution maps for species and habitats were compiled from various sources. Habitat distribution maps consisted largely of mapped known or predicted polygons completed as part of the WAP. Data for species distribution maps came from the Element Occurrence database maintained by NHNHB, Reptile and Amphibian Database, Wildlife Sightings Database, NHA Bird Records, museum records, and literature and expert reviews. Not all maps are complete or verified. Maps are constantly being updated based on new reports.

New Hampshire Wildlife and Habitats At Risk

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 2-6 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.

New Hampshire Wildlife and Habitats At Risk

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-1 CHAPTER THREE New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions Overview Element 2 of the NAAT Guidelines requires that each state provide, descriptions of locations and relative conditions of key habitats and community types es-sential to conservation of species identifi ed in element 1, which is the purpose of this chapter and the as-sociated habitat profi les (Appendix B). Development of the wildlife conservation database to catalog the locations of wildlife observations (Chap ter 2) was a preliminary step toward assessing the con dition of wildlife habitats. In this chapter, a brief de scription of the methodology used to develop predic tive habitat maps is provided. Complete descriptions are available under each species and habitat profi le (Appendix A and B). Comprehensive data on local habitat condi-tions were organized in the GIS associated with each habitat map. Next, data were summarized within each habitat. The summary results of the condition of each habitat are presented under the headings Matrix Forests, Terrestrial Habitats, Wetland Habitats, and Watershed Groupings. Summary results for lakes are reported in Classifi cation and Condition Assessment for New Hampshires Lakes (Olivero and Bechtel 2005). Completion of predic tive habitat maps and organizing pertinent data was a major undertaking that will benefi t conservation, planning, and resource management organizations.

Step 1: Mapping wildlife habitats The fi rst step in assessing the condition of New Hampshires wildlife habitats was to map their loca-tions. We did not have complete data on the quantity and distribution of habitats, thus we used predictive models. Many different kinds of geographic data were organized and analyzed in GIS to generate predictive maps. Analytical methods and the resulting predictive maps were tailored to the ecological requirements and data available for each species and habitat. Generally, habitat maps were generated in one of four ways:

1.

Correlate NHFG habitats with NHNHB systems or natural community classifi cation and develop a model based on landscape features outlined in NHNHB descriptions 2.

Identify common landscape features among known habitat locations and use those features to develop a model for the remainder of the state 3.

Identify habitat components required by a spe-cifi c species and generate a model based on those requirements 4.

Grouping mapped lakes and watersheds based on similar habitat characteristics A detailed description of the methods used is avail-able under each species and habitat profi le. Because of limited information and very limited predictability, maps were not created for Vernal Pools and Shrub-lands. The New Hampshire Habitat Landcover map (Figure 3-1) was compiled from the predicted matrix forests, terrestrial habitats, and wetland habitats (see Habitat Condition summaries). Maps were developed for a subset of priority wildlife species based on the availability of information and expertise and whether or not their specifi c habitat requirements were well

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-2 New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions represented by the mapped habitat types. Species with completed predictive habitat maps include:

• Bald eagle

• Pied-billed grebe

• Grasshopper sparrow

• New England cottontail

• Bobcat

• Timber rattlesnake

• Canada lynx

• American marten

• Smooth green snake

• Black racer snake

• Eastern hognose snake

• Peregrine falcon

• Non-breeding birds

• Migratory birds Aquatic habitats were analyzed at the watershed scale. A watershed classifi cation system was devel-oped to provide a tool to help guide broad conser-vation of aquatic ecosystems in New Hampshire.

Conservation efforts that preserve the integrity of many types of watersheds provide greater oppor-tunity to preserve unique, functional communities of organisms without having to identify each indi-vidual species and defi ne its role in the community.

Major Watershed Groupings were chosen to rep-resent large-scale aquatic habitats for further analysis in the WAP. Within these areas, multiple fi ne-scale habitat types, natural communities, and species can exist. Lakes were analyzed as a subcomponent of watersheds (Olivero and Bechtel 2005). Seven major Biological System Types (Very acidic ponds, Acidic 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-spond with locations that were mapped and con-fi rmed by an unrelated process

• Select a subset of predicted locations for each habi-tat type and conduct a survey to confi rm the actual habitat type on site Model validation is not yet complete, but more detail about completing this task is provided in Chapter

5. Even though some habitat locations are already known, it is best to assume uncertainty for all loca-tions until model validation has been completed.

Step 2: Measuring Condition Within Predicted Habitats Every predicted location for each habitat is depicted in the GIS by a polygon delineating the spatial boundaries of the predicted area. Each predicted hab-itat polygon corresponds to dataset that describes the area within the polygon (Figure 3-2). Detailed infor-mation is not available for all of the habitat polygons, but we used the GIS to organize available information from many different sources. We gathered available information about the known risk factors, or threats, that infl uence wildlife health the most. This informa-tion provides quantitative data to augment the quali-tative information developed during risk assessments (Chapter 4). Some information that was summarized for each habitat polygon is described in Table 3-1.

Landscape Context Information about Landscape Context was calculated 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 3-1 (see insert). New Hampshire Habitat Landcover.

Predictive habitat maps were developed for all WAP habitat types, and compiled to create a complete landcover. The New Hampshire Habitat Landcover will be used to conduct conservation planning analyses.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-3 New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions directly from the spatial geometry of individual habi-tat polygons and their relationships to one another.

Variables that describe landscape context help de-scribe predicted interactions among habitat polygons, such as the dispersal of wildlife and gross abundance of habitat in terms of area and neighboring resources.

NHFG has contracted researchers at UNH to devel-op models to assess landscape connectivity for large carnivores. Some other landscape context variables that NHFG has analyzed include:

• Total area, land area 1, wetland area, total perimeter length

• Distance to and identity of nearest neighbor and other landscape features

• Shape index (measure of overall shape complexity)

• Elevation, aspect Wildlife Diversity Information about the diversity of plants and animals in a given location is very limited. Some monitoring programs provide data about certain groups of wild-life, and many rare wildlife are tracked by NHFG and NHNHB. NHNHB conducted analyses to assess in-formation about tracked plants, animals, and natural communities (Table 3-2). One caveat pertaining to data summarizing tracked plant, animal, and exem-plary natural community records is that it is diffi cult or impossible to know whether the absence of records in a given location is an indication that surveys yield-ed no observations or whether no surveys were con-ducted. In some cases, landscape features may serve as indicators of biodiversity. Some of the information that were used to assess wildlife diversity included:

tati b

a H

d etci d

e r

P a

e r

A

)c a

(

d etci d

e r

P a

e r

A

)

a h(

a e

r A

H N

d etn e

m g

a rfn U

1 d

etc eto r

P 2

elb a

dliu B

1 e

nipl A

7 1

7 7

3 2

1 3

1 0

0 1

0 0

1 1

d n

alss a

r G

4 8

3 2

3 2

3 4

0 4

9 4

8 4

8 3

8 ts er o

F e

niP-k a

O n

aih c

ala p

p A

3 4

9 4

2 4

9 6

9 1

7 1

7 4

6 3

1 5

6 s

e ni M

d n

a s

e v

a C

a

/

n a

/

n 1

a

/

n 1

1 1

3 1

sffil C

8 0

8 5

0 5

3 2

1 8

9 1

9 1

s d

n alsIlats a

o C

0 2

8 2

3 3

1 7

4 4

1 1

s e

n u

D 2

9 1

8 7

1 0

2 7

6 1

ts er o

F nialp d

o olF 5

4 9

2 1

1 0

5 9

2 4

2 3

7 7

2 6

5 ts er o

F e

niP-d o

o w

d r

a H

-k c

ol m

e H

4 4

7 8

8 6

2 1

0 1

8 8

0 1

5 4

2 7

5 1

a

/

n ts er o

F riF-e c

ur p

S n

oita v

elE-h g

i H

3 6

2 3

4 2

6 4

4 8

9 4

9 9

7 8

2 1

ts er o

F riF-e c

ur p

S d

n al w

o L

8 4

0 0

7 7

9 2

6 1

1 3

3 1

9 8

2 3

6 5

s d

n alte W

b urh S

h sr a

M 3

7 0

2 4

1 5

9 4

7 5

2 5

4 5

1 8

6 ts er o

F refin o

C

-d o

o w

d r

a H

nre htr o

N 5

6 7

6 8

0 1

0 0

8 9

3 4

8 1

3 9

3 4

5 5

s d

n alta e

P 8

9 6

7 5

0 5

3 3

2 1

5 7

7 1

8 6

s n

err a

B e

niP 2

8 6

4 2

8 8

9 9

1 6

5 9

1 6

7 s

e p

olS s

ula T

s e

g diR y

k c

o R

9 4

0 8

2 1

5 3

1 1

1 6

9 1

6 6

2 s

e h

sr a

M tla S

0 2

6 5

4 7

2 2

1 2

8 2

2 1

1 4

0 0

2

,tc ejo rP g

nip p

a M

tatib a

H efildli W

retliF e

sr a

o C

G F

H N

n o

d e

s a

B 2

ata D

s d

n a

L cilb u

P

/

n oita vre s

n o

C 5

0 0

2

,retn e

C h

cr a

e s

e R

s m

ets y

S x

elp m

o C

3 s

etis 8

1 fo 2

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

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-4 New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions

• Presence, absence, or status of tracked wildlife

• Total number of observations, richness, and di-versity of tracked rare animals, plants, and exem-plary natural communities observed within their (NHNHB standard) dispersal or buffered distance and within predicted habitat polygons21

• Average qualitative rank and distribution of record-ed observations of tracked animals and rare plants within 1 km of a predicted habitat polygon21

• Average condition rank of recorded observations of tracked rare and exemplary natural communities within 1 km of a mapped habitat polygon21

• Shellfi sh resources (clam/oyster beds) 3

• Migratory and wintering bird sites 6

• Richness of Ecological Land Units (TNC) 19

• Diversity of Habitat (Figure 3-3)

Recreational Factors Recreational infl uences on wildlife are diffi cult to assess. It is especially diffi cult to measure animal responses via GIS. Although trails are often well marked on the land and new technology makes it tati b

a H

n oita m

r o

fnI e

g a

r e

v A

e r

a R

r o

f ytisr e

vi D

sla m

in A

1 n

oita m

r o

fnI e

g a

r e

v A

e r

a R

r o

f ytisr e

vi D

stn alP 2

ss e

n h

ciR e

g a

r e

v A

la r

uta N

f o

s eitin u

m m

o C

3 n

oitr o

p o

r P

e g

a r

e v

A y

r alp m

e x

E r

o e

r a

R ytin u

m m

o C

la r

uta N

tati b

a H

ni 4

e nipl A

1 1

5 1

5 5

6 7

4 d

n alss a

r G

7 1

1 0

0 1

2 0

ts er o

F e

niP-k a

O n

aih c

ala p

p A

a

/

n a

/

n a

/

n a

/

n s

e ni M

d n

a s

e v

a C

a

/

n a

/

n a

/

n a

/

n sffil C

4 1

2 0

0 2

1 7

1 s

d n

alsIlats a

o C

9 1

2 0

6 0

3 2

s e

n u

D 8

1 0

1 0

8 0

0 3

sts er o

F nialp d

o olF 7

1 3

0 7

1 9

5 ts er o

F e

niP-d o

o w

d r

a H

-k c

ol m

e H

a

/

n a

/

n a

/

n a

/

n ts er o

F riF-e c

ur p

S n

oita v

elE-h g

i H

4 1

0 0

5 1

6 2

ts er o

F riF-e c

ur p

S d

n al w

o L

4 1

0 0

0 0

5 0

s d

n alte W

b urh S

h sr a

M 7

1 0

0 0

0 1

1 ts er o

F refin o

C

-d o

o w

d r

a H

nre htr o

N a

/

n a

/

n a

/

n a

/

n s

d n

alta e

P 7

1 0

0 5

0 7

3 s

n err a

B e

niP 4

2 3

0 9

5 7

7 s

e p

olS s

ula T

d n

a s

e g

diR y

k c

o R

6 1

1 0

0 2

5 4

2 s

e h

sr a

M tla S

a

/

n a

/

n a

/

n a

/

n 1

.n o

g ylo p

tatib a

h h

c a

e m

o rf s

e c

n atsid la sre p

sid rie ht nihti w

d etalu cla c

x e

d ni ytisre vid n

o n

n a

h S

2

.n o

g ylo p

tatib a

h h

c a

e fo rete m

olik 1

nihti w

s eruta ef e

cru o

s tn alp er a

r fo re b

m u

n n

o d

e s

a b

d etalu cla c

x e

d ni ytisre vid n

o n

n a

h S

3

.n o

g ylo p

tatib a

h h

c a

e fo rete m

olik 1

nihti w

s eitin u

m m

o c

la ruta n

fo re b

m u

n n

o d

e s

a b

d etalu cla c

ss e

n h

ciR 4

.s n

o g

ylo p

lla ss o

rc a

d e

g a

re v

a

,n o

g ylo p

tatib a

h a

fo a

er a

latot

/

s eitin u

m m

o c

la ruta n

yr alp m

e x

e r

o er a

r s

a d

e p

p a

m a

er A

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.

FIGURE 3-3 (see insert). Habitat Diversity by Town. Total number (richness) of WAP habitat types within town bound-ary. Habitat diversity may be used as an indicator of wildlife diversity.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-5 New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions easy to map them, most trails remain undocumented.

For many popular recreational activities, it is possible to measure indicators of the level of the activity or proximity to wildlife resources. Such indicators may help focus attention on areas of confl ict:

• Geocache sites visited by GPS users

• Mine shaft type, an indicator of spelunking

• Golf courses

• Rock-climbing routes (based on guide books)

• Boat access sites, marinas, and sport fi shing areas3

• Hiking trails

• Snowmobile and other OHRV trails Development and Land Use Factors Human development and infrastructures may affect wildlife, including reduced landscape connectivity, introduction of invasive species, contaminants, and modifi ed local climate. To evaluate edge effects associ-ated with fragmenting features on the landscape, such as the spread of contaminants from roads, noise, inva-sive plants, and changes in microclimate, NHFG and TNC developed a computer model. Figure 3-4 shows a preliminary product generated from this model.

When complete, this model will help to identify pris-tine and unfragmented blocks of habitat. Important development and land use factors include:

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

• Infl uence of fragmenting features20

• Designated prime wetland 5

• Wetland and forestry permits 7

• Buildable area (hectares, from generalized statewide buildout analysis, NHFG) 12

• Population growth 22

• Agriculture and other landuses 22

• Wind power areas and communication towers 13, 14

• Dams and transmission lines 17, 22

• Airports, roads, railroads Air and Water Quality Factors Broad patterns of air and water quality infl uence the quality of wildlife habitats, even if they are protected from local infl uences such as development. Many aspects of broad environmental quality issues are beyond the scope of the WAP. For some issues, air and water quality indicators may have relevance for wildlife. For example, DES monitors stream inverte-brate populations to measure contaminant levels and the Biodiversity Research Institute measures levels of mercury in many wildlife species. Data sources include:

• Oil spill response staging area3

• Shoreline sensitivity (environmental sensitivity in-dex) 3

• Contamination sources, outfalls, PORTFS 8, 9, 22

• Impoundments, drawdowns, and water withdraw-als 10, 11, 22

• Forested headwaters, surface waters, free fl owing water 22

• Exotic aquatic plant infestation sites 22

• Mercury levels from wildlife specimens 23

• Predicted acid rain sensitivity and mercury deposi-tion rates 23 Step 3: Comparing Conditions Across the Landscape Patterns of biodiversity form on the landscape at many different scales. For example, forest trees form patterns of diversity across great ranges in altitude, while aquatic insects form patterns of diversity across stream riffl es that span several meters. Therefore, in order to address the full range of biodiversity, the con-dition of the natural landscape needs to be assessed at more than one scale.

The most relevant indicators listed above will be 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 those that are most threatened and in need of restora-tion or other remediation activities. See Jones et al.

(1997) for one example of calculating a relative con-dition index based on condition indicators.

The result of habitat condition analyses will be 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.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-6 New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions that implemented strategies will address the entire breadth of biodiversity contained within the state, from large-ranging forest mammals to the smallest-ranging stream invertebrates. At each of three levels of ecological scale, analyses will be conducted to fi lter out pieces of the landscape that have the greatest bio-diversity and highest value for wildlife (Figure 3-6).

At the largest ecological scale, we will identify very large unfragmented forest blocks that harbor diverse mosaics of habitat and support many natural com-munities, wildlife, and plant populations. In the land-scape that surrounds the largest unfragmented forest blocks, analyses conducted on medium-to large-scale habitats will distinguish a diverse array of high quality habitats from areas that have lower value for wildlife.

Finally, optimal habitats for at-risk plants, animals, and natural communities will be identifi ed in the context of supporting neighboring habitats and large unfragmented forest areas.

Unfragmented Forest Blocks Unfragmented forest blocks are the largest scale at which condition will be assessed. At this scale, the diversity of different habitat types in close proximity to one another is one of the key considerations. Once preliminary fragmentation modeling is complete, un-fragmented forest blocks will be broken up into 3 or 4 different size classes. Each block within a size class will be analyzed to determine the abundance and diversity of smaller scale elements of biodiversity (natural com-munity, plant and wildlife element occurrences or predicted wildlife habitats), medium scale (alpine, cliffs, fl oodplain forest, etc.), and large-scale habitats (matrix forest types) contained within it. Each block 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 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.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-7 New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions will also be evaluated to assess the relative level of risk factors based on the data described above (e.g., from transportation, development, recreation, etc.) associ-ated with it.

The results of this assessment will help identify the largest and intact portions of New Hampshires natural landscape. Diverse assemblages of wildlife habitats, natural communities, wildlife, and plant populations will be contained within these areas.

Information about the known risks to wildlife will be summarized for each unfragmented focal area.

Large and Medium-Scale Habitats Matrix forest types (Figure 3-7) and Watershed Groupings (Figure 3-10) comprise the large-scale habitats addressed in the WAP. Terrestrial habitats (Figure 3.8) and wetland habitats (Figure 3.9) are the medium-scale unit addressed in the WAP. Like the unfragmented blocks, matrix forests and habitats will be assessed to determine the abundance and diversity of natural communities, plants, and wildlife popula-tions. Each block will then be evaluated to assess the relative level of risk factors based on the data described above (e.g., from transportation, development, recre-ation, etc.) associated with it. Preliminary analyses are complete at this level, and are summarized below.

Natural Communities, Lakes, and Wildlife Populations Habitat maps developed for bald eagle, timber rattle-snake and others are comparable in spatial scale to some of the habitats described above. However, each represents a very limited component of New Hamp-shires biodiversity, and has very specifi c requirements.

Natural communities represent more biodiversity than wildlife populations, but less than medium and large-scale habitats or unfragmented blocks. TNC analyzed the relative condition of lakes (Figure 3-11, 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 classifi cations is a priority WAP objective.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-8 New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions Figure 3.12). Small-scale natural communities, wild-life, and plant populations are represented by element occurrences (EO) tracked by NHNHB. The condi-tion of EOs can be assessed by evaluating the number of individuals recorded in a population, proximity to other EOs of the same species or natural community, FIGURE 3-11. Lake Types. Lake Types were created by TNC.

Validation of Lake Types is a high priority WAP objective.

FIGURE 3-12. Lake Condition Summary. The condition of NH lakes was analyzed by TNC (Appendix).

etc. In some cases, qualitative indicators of condition are available within the EO database. Threats such as distance to nearest road, presence of invasive plants, and others can also be assessed to ascertain relative EO quality.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-9 New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions Important Wildlife: American woodcock, bald eagle, black bear, black racer, Blandings turtle, blue-spotted salamander, bobcat, Canada warbler, cerulean warbler, common nighthawk, Coopers hawk, Eastern 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 swamp, Highbush blueberry - winterberry shrub thicket, Hemlock - cinnamon fern forest, Red maple

- red oak - cinnamon fern forest, Red maple - Sphag-num basin swamp, Red maple - elm - lady fern silt forest, Seasonally fl ooded red maple swamp, Subacid forest seep, Acidic Sphagnum forest seep, Circum-neutral hardwood forest, Rich mesic forest, Semi-rich mesic sugar maple forest, Rich sugar maple - oak

- hickory terrace forest, Semi-rich Appalachian oak

- sugar maple forest

• Predicted Appalachian oak-pine forests in New Hampshire cover a total of 171,969 ha, approxi-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-dicted Appalachian oak-pine forest area has some level of protection.

• New Hampshires most extensive Appalachian oak-pine forest blocks are located in Rockingham county.

• Appalachian oak-pine forests are one of New Hampshires most at-risk habitats. The most chal-lenging issues facing Appalachian oak-pine forests are human development and transportation infra-structure and altered natural disturbance.

• Approximately 109,737 ha or 64% of the land area in Appalachian oak-pine forests is more than 400 feet from roads and other forms of urban develop-ment.

MATRIX FOREST HABITAT:

Appalachian Oak-Pine Forests Predicted Habitat:

Appalachian Oak-Pine Forests

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-10 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, bobcat, Canada warbler, cerulean warbler, Coopers hawk, Eastern box turtle, Eastern hognose snake, Eastern pipistrelle, Eastern red bat, Eastern small-footed bat, Eastern towhee, Fowlers toad, Jefferson salamander, marbled salamander, moose*, New Eng-land cottontail, Northern goshawk, Northern myotis, purple fi nch, 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

- lady fern silt forest, Seasonally fl ooded red maple swamp, Subacid forest seep, Acidic Sphagnum for-est seep, Circumneutral hardwood forest, Northern hardwood seepage forest, Rich mesic forest, Semi-rich mesic sugar maple forest, Rich sugar maple - oak

- hickory terrace forest, Semi-rich Appalachian oak

- sugar maple forest, Beech forest, Dry red oak - white pine forest, Hemlock - beech - northern hardwood forest, Hemlock - beech - oak - pine forest, Hemlock

- white pine forest, Hemlock forest, Semi-rich mesic sugar maple forest

• Predicted hemlock-hardwood-pine forest in New Hampshire covers a total of 1,088,101 ha, approxi-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.

• Approximately 15% of New Hampshires predicted hemlock-hardwood-pine forest has some level of protection.

• New Hampshires most extensive hemlock-hard-wood-pine forest blocks are located in Belknap and Merrimack counties.

• Hemlock-hardwood-pine forests are one of New Hampshires most at-risk habitats. The most chal-lenging issues facing hemlock-hardwood-pine for-ests are human development, introduced species and altered natural disturbance.

• Approximately 786,542 ha or 72% of the land area in hemlock-hardwood-pine forests is more than 400 feet from roads and other forms of urban de-velopment.

Predicted Habitat:

Hemlock-Hardwood-Pine Forests

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-11 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, migrating/wintering birds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Predicted Habitat:

High Elevation Spruce-Fir Forests

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-12 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 lemming, Northern goshawk, palm warbler, purple fi nch, 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 - fi r forest, Montane black spruce - red spruce forest, Northern hardwood - black ash - conifer swamp, Seasonally fl ooded boreal swamp, Speckled alder wooded fen, Subacid forest seep, Acidic Sphag-num forest seep, Circumneutral hardwood forest, Northern hardwood seepage forest

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

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

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

• New Hampshires most extensive predicted lowland spruce-fi r forest is located in the Success fl ats, Coos county.

• The most challenging issues that face lowland spruce-fi r 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-fi r forests are more than 400 feet from roads and other forms of urban develop-ment.

Predicted Habitat:

Lowland Spruce-Fir Forests Lowland Spruce-Fir Forests Lowland Spruce-Fir Forests

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-13 New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions MATRIX FOREST HABITAT:

Northern Hardwood-Conifer Forests Important Wildlife: American woodcock, bald eagle, black bear*, blue-spotted salamander, bobcat, Canada lynx, Canada warbler, Coopers hawk, East-ern pipistrelle, Eastern red bat, Eastern small-footed bat, hoary bat, Indiana bat, Jefferson salamander, marbled salamander, mink frog, Northern goshawk, Northern myotis, purple fi nch, 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 - fi r forest, Semi-rich mesic sugar maple forest, Sugar maple - beech - yellow birch forest Northern hardwood - black ash - conifer swamp, Seasonally fl ooded boreal swamp, Speckled alder wooded fen, Subacid forest seep, Acidic Sphag-num forest seep, Circumneutral hardwood forest, Northern hardwood seepage forest, Rich mesic forest, Semi-rich mesic sugar maple forest, Rich sugar maple

- 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 in northern hardwood-conifer forests is more than 400 feet from roads and other forms of urban de-velopment.

Predicted Habitat:

Northern Hardwood-Conifer Forests

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-14 New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions TERRESTRIAL HABITAT:

Alpine Important Wildlife: American pipit, White Moun-tain arctic, White Mountain fritillary Natural Communities: Alpine cliff, Alpine heath snowbank, Alpine herbaceous snowbank/rill, Alpine ravine shrub thicket, Bigelows sedge meadow, Black spruce/balsam fi r 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.

Predicted Habitat:

Alpine

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-15 New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions TERRESTRIAL HABITAT:

Grasslands Important Wildlife: American bittern, American woodcock, Blandings turtle, Eastern hognose snake, Eastern meadowlark, grasshopper sparrow, horned lark, migrating/wintering birds, Northern harrier, 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 classifi cation.

• 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-ment or ownership. The percentage of conserved grasslands by county ranges from 4 - 11% with 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

• Approximately 44,720 ha or 48% of the land area in grasslands is more than 400 feet from roads and other forms of urban development.

Predicted Habitat:

Grasslands

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-16 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 fi nch, 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 classifi cation..

• 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 fi ve 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.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-17 New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions TERRESTRIAL HABITAT:

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

• Mines providing the best bat hibernaculum habitat, as evidenced by bat numbers, include one each in Coos, Grafton, and Merrimack counties.

TERRESTRIAL HABITAT:

Cliffs Important Wildlife: golden eagle, peregrine falcon, Eastern small-footed bat 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 Grafton counties.

• The majority of New Hampshires cliffs are protect-ed from some human activities by public ownership (66% U.S. Forest Service, 23% New Hampshire Division of Parks and Recreation).

• The best habitat for cliff-nesting raptors, as evi-denced by Peregrine Falcon use during the past 25

• The most challenging issues facing the habitat that caves and mines provide are recreational activities such as spelunking and geocaching.

years, includes 5 sites in Carroll County, 4 sites in Coos County, and 7 sites in Grafton County.

• The most challenging issues facing cliff habitat for nesting birds and plant communities are recre-ational activities such as hiking and rock climbing.

• Approximately 2,301 ha or 98% of the land area in Cliff habitat is more than 400 feet from roads and other forms of urban development.

Predicted Habitat:

Predicted Habitat:

Caves and Mines Caves and Mines Caves and Mines Predicted Habitat:

Predicted Habitat:

Cliffs Cliffs Cliffs

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-18 New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions TERRESTRIAL HABITAT:

Coastal Islands Important Wildlife: Arctic tern, black guillemot, common tern, least tern, purple sandpiper, roseate tern, migrating/wintering birds 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 fl at

• 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.

Predicted Habitat:

Coastal Islands

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-19 New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions TERRESTRIAL HABITAT:

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

Predicted Habitat:

Dunes

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-20 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, Eastern towhee, Fowlers toad, frosted elfi n butter-fl y, Karner blue butterfl y, 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 fi r 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.

Predicted Habitat:

Pine Barrens

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-21 New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions TERRESTRIAL HABITAT:

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

• Big game species addressed in Big Game Plan Manage-ment Plan 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.

Predicted Habitat:

Rocky Ridges and Talus Slopes Slopes

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-22 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/

wintering birds, Northern leopard frog, red shoul-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 fi r fl oodplain/silt plain, Basswood - white ash - black maple fl oodplain forest, Blue-joint - goldenrod

- virgins bower riverbank/fl oodplain, Herbaceous riverbank/fl oodplain, Herbaceous/wooded riverbank/

fl oodplain, Meadowsweet alluvial thicket, Oxbow buttonbush swamp, Oxbow marsh, Red maple fl ood-plain forest, Riverbank/fl oodplain fern glade, Silver maple - false nettle - sensitive fern fl oodplain forest, Silver maple - wood nettle - ostrich fern fl oodplain forest, Sugar maple - ironwood - short husk fl ood-plain forest, Sugar maple - silver maple - white ash fl oodplain forest, Swamp white oak fl oodplain forest, Sycamore fl oodplain forest

• New Hampshires predicted fl oodplain forests cover 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 fl ood-plain area is under some form of protection.

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

• The most challenging issue facing fl oodplain forests are human development and transportation infra-structure.

• Approximately 33,191 ha or 73% of fl oodplain forests are more than 400 feet from roads and other forms of urban development.

Predicted Habitat:

Floodplain Forest

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-23 New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions WETLAND HABITAT:

Marsh and Shrub Wetlands Important Wildlife: American bittern, American black duck, American woodcock, banded sunfi sh, blue-spotted salamander, common moorhen, Eastern red bat, Fowlers toad, golden-winged warbler, great blue heron, Jefferson salamander, least bittern, mink 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 emergent marsh, Mixed tall graminoid - scrub-shrub marsh, Montane sandy basin marsh, Northern me-dium sedge meadow marsh, Peaty marsh, Pitch pine

- heath swamp, Red maple - Sphagnum basin swamp, Seasonally fl ooded boreal swamp, Seasonally fl ooded red maple swamp, Sharp-fl owered manna-grass shal-low peat marsh, Short graminoid - forb emergent marsh/mud fl at, Spike-rush - fl oating-leaved aquatic mud fl at, Swamp white oak basin swamp, Sweet gale

- speckled alder shrub thicket, Tall graminoid emer-gent marsh, Three-way sedge - manna-grass mud fl at marsh, Twig-rush sandy turf pond shore, Water lobe-lia aquatic sandy pond shore

• Predicted marsh and shrub wetlands in New Hamp-shire cover 57,495 ha (2.4%) of New Hampshires area (unbuffered), and are broadly distributed.

• Of land within 250 m of mapped marsh and shrub wetlands, 10% is in conservation ownership and 3% is under conservation easement.

• Some of New Hampshires most extensive marsh and shrub wetland complexes are located in south-ern New Hampshire, including Belknap and Rock-ingham counties.

• The most challenging issues facing many wildlife species that depend on marsh and shrub wetlands are fragmentation, transportation infrastructure, development of surrounding uplands and invasive species.

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

Predicted Habitat:

Marsh and shrub wetlands

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-24 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 blackbird, spotted turtle, spruce grouse 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 fi r 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 fl ooded Atlantic white cedar swamp, Seasonally fl ooded red maple swamp, Speckled alder wooded fen, Swamp white oak basin swamp, Sweet pepperbush wooded fen, Winterberry

- cinnamon fern wooded fen, Bog rosemary - sweet gale - sedge fen, Calcareous sedge - moss fen, Cir-cumneutral - calcareous fl ark, Floating marshy peat mat, Hairy-fruited sedge - sweet gale fen, Highbush blueberry - sweet gale - meadowsweet shrub thicket, Large cranberry - short sedge moss lawn, Leather-leaf

- black spruce bog, Leather-leaf - sheep laurel dwarf shrub bog, Liverwort/horned bladderwort mud-bot-tom, Marshy moat, Montane alder - heath shrub thicket, Montane heath woodland, Montane slop-ing fen, Northern white cedar circumneutral string, Speckled alder - lake sedge intermediate fen, Speckled 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

• Predicted peatlands cover 23,350 ha (1%) of New Hampshires total land area (unbuffered), and clus-ters are widely distributed across the state.

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

is under some form of protection.

• New Hampshires largest peatland complexes occur in Carroll county.

• The most challenging issues facing peatlands habi-tat are development, altered hydrology, non-point source pollutants, and unsustainable forest harvest-ing.

• Approximately 206,556 ha or 75% of buffered (250 m) peatlands are more than 400 feet from roads and other forms of urban development.

Predicted Habitat:

Peatlands

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-25 New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions WETLAND HABITAT:

Salt Marshes Important Wildlife: American black duck, common tern, great blue heron, Nelsons sharp-tailed sparrow, Northern harrier, salt marsh sharp-tailed sparrow, sea-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 fl at, 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.

Predicted Habitat:

Salt Marshes

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-26 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 fl oodplain pool, Vernal woodland pool, Meadow beauty sand plain marsh, Meadowsweet - robust graminoid sand plain marsh, Montane sandy basin marsh, Sharp-fl ow-ered manna-grass shallow peat marsh, Spike-rush

- fl oating-leaved aquatic mud fl at, Three-way sedge

- manna-grass mud fl at 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 fi lling, altered hydrol-ogy, and loss or degradation of surrounding upland habitats.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-27 New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions WATERSHED GROUPING:

Coastal Transitional Watersheds Important Wildlife: American eel, Atlantic salmon, bald eagle, banded sunfi sh, Blandings turtle, bridle shiner, brook fl oater, burbot, common loon, East-ern brook trout, lake trout, lake whitefi sh, North-ern leopard frog, rainbow smelt, round whitefi sh, 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/fl oodplain, 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/fl oodplain, Her-baceous sandy river channel, Herbaceous/wooded riverbank/fl oodplain, Hudsonia - silverling river channel, Meadowsweet alluvial thicket, Medium-depth emergent marsh, Riverbank/fl oodplain fern glade, Short graminoid - forb emergent marsh/mud fl at, 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.

Watershed Grouping:

Coastal Transitional

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-28 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 brook trout, Eastern pond mussel, Northern leopard frog, osprey, sea lamprey, slimy sculpin, tessellated 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/fl oodplain, 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/fl oodplain, Her-baceous sandy river channel, Herbaceous/wooded riverbank/fl oodplain, Hudsonia - silverling river channel, Meadowsweet alluvial thicket, Medium-depth emergent marsh, Riverbank/fl oodplain fern glade, Short graminoid - forb emergent marsh/mud fl at, 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.

Watershed Grouping:

Connecticut River Main-stem Watersheds

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-29 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 turtle, 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/fl oodplain, 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/fl oodplain, Her-baceous sandy river channel, Herbaceous/wooded riverbank/fl oodplain, Hudsonia - silverling river channel, Meadowsweet alluvial thicket, Medium-depth emergent marsh, Riverbank/fl oodplain fern glade, Short graminoid - forb emergent marsh/mud fl at, 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 identifi ed. 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.

Watershed Grouping:

Montane Watersheds

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-30 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, fi nescale dace, lake trout, lake whitefi sh, mink frog, Northern leopard frog, Northern redbelly dace, osprey, round white-fi sh, 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/fl oodplain, 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/fl oodplain, Her-baceous sandy river channel, Herbaceous/wooded riverbank/fl oodplain, Hudsonia - silverling river channel, Meadowsweet alluvial thicket, Medium-depth emergent marsh, Riverbank/fl oodplain fern glade, Short graminoid - forb emergent marsh/mud fl at, 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 identifi ed. 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.

Watershed Grouping:

Northern Upland Watersheds

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-31 New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions WATERSHED GROUPING:

Non-tidal Coastal Watersheds Important Wildlife: alewife, American brook lam-prey, American eel, American shad, Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, bald eagle, banded sunfi sh, Blan-dings turtle, blueback herrring, bridle shiner, brook fl oater, burbot, common loon, Eastern brook trout, Eastern pond mussel, rainbow smelt, redfi n 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/fl oodplain, 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/fl oodplain, Her-baceous sandy river channel, Herbaceous/wooded riverbank/fl oodplain, Hudsonia - silverling river channel, Meadowsweet alluvial thicket, Medium-depth emergent marsh, Riverbank/fl oodplain fern glade, Riverbank/fl oodplain fern glade, Short grami-noid - forb emergent marsh/mud fl at, 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.

Watershed Grouping:

Non-tidal Coastal Watersheds

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-32 New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions WATERSHED GROUPING:

Southern Upland Watersheds Important Wildlife: Atlantic salmon, bald eagle, banded sunfi sh, brook fl oater, burbot, common loon, dwarf wedgemussel, Eastern brook trout, Eastern pond mussel, lake trout, Northern redbelly dace, osprey, round whitefi sh, slimy sculpin, spotted 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/fl oodplain, 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/fl oodplain, Her-baceous sandy river channel, Herbaceous/wooded riverbank/fl oodplain, Hudsonia - silverling river channel, Meadowsweet alluvial thicket, Medium-depth emergent marsh, Riverbank/fl oodplain fern glade, Short graminoid - forb emergent marsh/mud fl at, 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 identifi ed. 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.

Watershed Grouping:

Southern Upland Watersheds

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-33 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 sunfi sh, Blandings turtle, blueback herrring, bridle shiner, brook fl oater, burbot, common loon, Eastern brook trout, Eastern pond mussel, Northern leopard frog, rainbow smelt, redfi n 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/fl oodplain, 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/fl oodplain, Herbaceous sandy river channel, Herbaceous/wooded riverbank/fl oodplain, Hudsonia - silverling river channel, Meadowsweet alluvial thicket, Medium-depth emergent marsh, Riverbank/fl oodplain fern glade, Short graminoid

- forb emergent marsh/mud fl at, 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.

Watershed Grouping:

Tidal Coastal Watersheds Tidal Coastal Watersheds Tidal Coastal Watersheds

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 3-34 New Hampshires Wildlife Habitat Conditions References 1 Complex Systems Research Center, University of New Hampshire, Nov. 2004 1:24,000 water bodies, from U.S.

Geological Survey digital line graph data 2 NH Department of Transportation: SmartMap road inventory database, Dec. 2004 3 NOAA: Environmental Sensitivity Index maps prepared in cooperation with NH Dept. of Environmental Services for oil spill response planning, Dec. 2004 Applicable only to coastal islands and dune habitat.

4 CSRC: Conservation/Public Lands, Feb. 2005 5 NH Dept. of Environmental Services: designated prime wetlands, Feb. 2005 Applicable only to marsh, peatland, fl oodplain forest 6 NH Audubon: non-breeding bird areas, Feb. 2005 Applicable only to marsh, peatland, fl oodplain forest 7 NHDES: wetlands alteration permit sites 2000-2004, Feb. 2005 Applicable only to marsh, peatland, fl oodplain forest 8 NHDES: groundwater hazard inventory (project type is known threat), Nov. 2004 Applicable only to coastal islands, dunes, marsh, peatland, fl oodplain forest 9 NHDES: groundwater hazard inventory (project type is potential threat), above ground storage tanks, underground storage tanks, RCRA hazardous waste generators, auto sal-vage yards, local source water hazard inventory, nonpoint potential pollution, NPDES outfalls, Nov. 2004 Applicable only to coastal islands, dunes, marsh, peatland, fl oodplain forest 10 NHDES: lake drawdown schedule, Fall 2004 Applicable to marsh, peatland, fl oodplain forest 11 NHDES: registered water users and community water supplies, Nov. 2004 Applicable to marsh, peatland, fl oodplain forest 12 NH Fish & Game Dept: statewide generalized buildout analysis, March 2005 13 Massachusetts Technology Collaborative: wind power raster data fi nalized June 2003. Developed by TrueWind Solutions, LLC under contract to AWS Scientifi c, Inc as part of a project jointly funded by the Connecticut Clean Energy Fund, Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, and Northeast Utilities System.

14 NH Offi ce of Energy and Planning: NH Personal Wire-less Service Facilities, 2004 15 Appalachian Mountain Club: trails, 2005; and NHOEP recreation inventory, 2003.

16 NH Dept. of Resources and Economic Development:

atv trails, primary snowmobile corridors, March 2005 17 CSRC: developed from 1:24,000-scale USGS digital line graph data, Oct. 2003 18 NH Dept. of Transportation: railroads, Jan. 2005 19 Eastern Resource Offi ce of The Nature Conservancy:

ecological land units, July 2003 20 NH Chapter of The Nature Conservancy: Integrated Fragmentation Surface for the State of New Hampshire, DRAFT July 2005 21 NH Chapter of The Nature Conservancy/NH Natural Heritage Bureau, July 2005 22 NHDES Watershed approach, March 2005 23 Biodiversity Research Institute, March 2005 Olivero, A., and D. Bechtel. 2005. Classifi cation and Condition Assessment for New Hampshire Lakes. The Nature Conservancy, New Hampshire Chapter, Concord, New Hampshire, USA.

Disclaimer Most data represent stock data sets obtained from NH GRANIT, at Complex Systems Research Center, UNH.

CSRC, under contract to the NH Offi ce of Energy and Planning (OEP), and in consultation with cooperating agencies, maintains a continuing program to identify and correct errors in these data. NHOEP, CSRC, NHFG and the cooperating agencies make no claim as to the validity or reliability or to any implied uses of these data.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-1 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 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 for which data are available are evaluated in chapter

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 scientists and managers, and scientific literature, New Hampshire sought to meet the following objectives:

• Describe risk factors in a consistent format

• Objectively prioritize conservation actions within and among species and habitats

• Compile an overview of challenging issues For all habitat assessments, wildlife were assumed to be an integral part of the habitat. Therefore, in this chapter, risks to broad groups of wildlife are considered risks to the habitat at large. Thorough peer-reviewed qualitative assessments were completed for wetland and terrestrial habitats, but assessments are preliminary for aquatic habitats, since the cur-rent classification of aquatic habitats is incomplete.

Peer-review was somewhat limited for many wildlife species assessments due to the limited availability of taxonomic expertise. Rather than assess threats to individual fish species with poorly known distribu-tions, the assumption was made that these and other aquatic species are similarly influenced by threats to aquatic habitats, which were assessed by watershed group. This approach was intended to shift from a species-specific approach to a more inclusive as-sessment of aquatic ecosystems in New Hampshire.

However, because of the volume of information available and recent initiatives to restore the Atlantic salmon and assess native eastern brook trout popula-tions, we included an analysis of threats to these two fish species.

CHAPTER FOUR Wildlife Risk Assessment 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.

RISK

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-2 Wildlife Risk Assessment Risk Assessment Results Wildlife habitats and populations are exposed to enormous pressure from human population growth and recreational activities. Urban development is the most challenging issue for most of New Hampshires wildlife and habitats. Many habitats are rapidly dis-appearing or are fragmented by roads and dams, and many ecosystems are disrupted by human activities.

Even if all the land necessary to support New Hampshires critical populations and habitats could be protected from development, without improving air and water quality, the long-term viability of New Hampshires wildlife will not be sustained. Runoff polluted with agrochemicals and urban waste is toxic for many species, and atmospheric pollution causes broad degradation to all habitats.

Acid deposition leaches nutrients from forest soils, and forests across the Northeast are showing signs of distress, such as compositional shifts and re-duced forage quality. Unfortunately, nutrients that are being lost, like calcium, come primarily from bedrock and cannot be replaced. Acid deposition can also ag-gravate other environmental problems, contributing to widespread ecological damage; mercury accumu-lates more rapidly in wildlife under acidic conditions, even in remote and relatively unpolluted waterbodies.

Mercury can migrate over the land and through for-ests via insects and their predators. If mercury sources can be cutrailed promptly, wildlife may recover before populations are permanently damaged.

Likewise, if climate change is not addressed, New Hampshires wildlife and natural resources will be al-tered, particularly those in geographic extremes, such as mountaintops, northern lakes, and coastal islands.

To prevent ultraviolet radiation, warmer tempera-tures, and the many attendant effects of ozone deple-tion, emissions must be addressed.

Risk Factor Ranking Process All of the challenges that wildlife face can be viewed as having two aspects in common. First, each has certain risk factors that potentially have negative impacts on wildlife, and second, each has a series of events or an exposure pathway that brings a risk factor to fruition for wildlife. It is more difficult and expensive to repair the damage once it is done than it is to address risk and avoid exposure in the first place.

Addressing underlying causes or factors that pose a risk to wildlife, rather than waiting to manipulate dwindling populations or habitats after the fact, is a powerful and pre-emptive long-term solution. In chapter 2, we identified some of the wildlife and habitats that showed symptoms of declining health.

We developed a structured approach to understand the most prevalent risk factors for these declines and to work toward their recovery.

Patterns of cause and effect were organized sys-tematically to diagnose the main exposure pathways for factors that threaten wildlife. Next, species and habitat experts completed scoring forms that ranked five variables (scope, severity, timing, likelihood, and information) for each known threat. The scores given were based on strict criteria, and were subject to a peer-review process. Evidence to support or refute scores was carefully evaluated by NHFG biologists.

Finally, scores were cross tabulated and summarized to clarify which sources pose the greatest risk to spe-cies and habitats, and which species and habitats are at greatest risk. The process allowed biologists to criti-cally analyze the range of expert opinions and focus on critical problems.

For the purposes of the WAP, NHFG created a list of 18 challenging issues that are most relevant to its habitats and species of conservation concern, and conducted a risk assessment for each one. NHFG de-veloped a two-step process to determine the applica-bility and severity of different risk factors within each challenging issue, using a numeric scoring system to determine rank and class for comparative purposes.

Government, NGO, and academic scientists were contracted to complete the ranking process and write summaries for their species or habitat of expertise, drawing on professional experience and a review of published and unpublished sources.

The summary rank is a planning and decision-making tool, not a true quantitative measure. The purpose of the ranking process was to provide a consistent basis for comparing risk factors across all species and habitats, and for placing those factors into categories of appropriate conservation action.

The ranking process formed the basis for the risk assessment summaries presented in this chapter. Al-though the ranking process can be somewhat subjec-tive, each step of the process was clearly described and fully transparent, allowing NHFG to assess and revise ranks as new information emerges.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-3 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 4-4 Wildlife Risk Assessment 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.

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

• 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.

L E

V E

L 4

L E

V E

L 3

L E

V E

L 2

L E

V E

L 1

y er p

m a

L k

o o

r B

n a

cire m

A le E

n a

cire m

A efi w

el A

sta B

n o

m la S

citn alt A

n etr a

M n

a cire m

A nrettiB n

a cire m

A to b

ru B

n o

e g

rutS citn alt A

d a

h S

n a

cire m

A h

sifn u

S d

e d

n a

B k

w a

H s're p

o o

C elte e

B re g

iT e

n ots elb b

o C

k c

o c

d o

o W

n a

cire m

A h

s urh T

s'lle n

k ciB re c

a R

nrets a

E n

o o

L n

o m

m o

C elg a

E dla B

g nirre H

k c

a b

e ulB ta B

d e

R nrets a

E nre T

n o

m m

o C

eltru T

s g

nid n

alB ta c

b o

B e

c a

D ela c

s e

niF le ss u

m e

g d

e W

fr a

w D

reta olF k

o o

r B

re nih S

eldir B

ta B

yr a

o H

le ss u

m d

n o

P nrets a

E tu o

rT k

o o

r B

nrets a

E k

w a

hth g

i N

n o

m m

o C

tu o

rT e

k a

L re d

n a

m ala S

n o

sreffeJ ellertsipiP nrets a

E w

o rr a

p S

re p

p o

h ss a

r G

g ni m

m e

L g

o B

nre htr o

N ylfrettu B

e ulB re nr a

K d

a o

T srel w

o F

h sifetih W

e k

a L

reirr a

H nre htr o

N w

o rr a

p S

d eliat-p r

a h

S s'n o

sle N

e k

a n

S e

s o

n g

o H

re d

n a

m ala S

d elb r

a M

e c

a D

ylle b

d e

R liatn otto C

d n

alg n

E w

e N

ta B

a n

aid nI k

w a

h s

o G

nre htr o

N ta B

d eria H

re vliS g

o rF d

r a

p o

e L

nre htr o

N x

n yL e

b er G

d ellib-d eiP niplu c

S y

m ilS re v

olP g

nipiP sito y

M nre htr o

N tle m

S w

o b

nia R

e k

a n

S n

e er G

hto o

m S

nre T

eta e

s o

R y

er p

s O

lere k

ciP nifd e

R retr a

D d

etale ss e

T w

o rr a

p S

d eliat-p r

a h

S h

sr a

m tla S

n o

cla F

e nir g

ere P

k w

a H

d ere dlu o

h s-d e

R w

o rr a

p S

e dis a

e S

nitr a

M elp ru P

retn u

a h

g o

B d

e g

niR n

o e

g rutS e

s o

ntr o

h S

re c

a R

h sifetih W

d n

u o

R e

k a

n s

eltta R

re b

m iT e

s u

o r

G d

effu R

d rib k

c alB yts u

R telli W

ta B

d eto o

F lla m

S y

er p

m a

L a

e S

eltru T

d etto p

S n

er W

e g

d e

S e

s u

o r

G e

c ur p

S retr a

D p

m a

w S

lli W

r o

o p-pih W

re k

c e

p d

o o

W d

e ot-e erh T

citcr A

niatn u

o M

etih W

re pip d

n a

S d

n alp U

yr allitirF niatn u

o M

etih W

eltru T

d o

o W

4 3

2 s

d n

alss a

r G

e nipl A

s d

e h

sreta W

e n

atn o

M ts er o

F e

niP k

a O

n aih c

ala p

p A

s d

n alb urh S

s d

e h

sreta W

d n

alp U

nre htr o

N s

d n

alsIlats a

o C

s e

ni M

d n

a s

e v

a C

s d

n alta e

P s

e n

u D

sffil C

s d

e h

sreta W

d n

alp U

nre htu o

S ts er o

F e

niP-d o

o w

d r

a H

-k c

ol m

e H

s d

e h

sreta W

la n

oitis n

a rT lats a

o C

ts er o

F riF-e c

ur p

S d

n al w

o L

s d

e h

sreta W

m ets nia M

re viR tu citc e

n n

o C

s d

e h

sreta W

lats a

o C

la diT-n o

N sts er o

F nialp d

o olF s

n err a

B e

niP ts er o

F riF-e c

ur p

S n

oita v

elE h

g i

H s

e h

sr a

M tla S

s d

n alte W

b urh S

d n

a h

sr a

M s

d e

h sreta W

lats a

o C

la diT tatib a

H d

riB g

nid e

er b-n o

N slo o

P la nre V

ts er o

F refin o

C

-d o

o w

d r

a H

nre htr o

N s

e g

diR y

k c

o R

d n

a s

e p

olS s

ula T

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-5 Wildlife Risk Assessment ISSUE AVERAGE SCORE*

1 tn e

m p

ole v

e D

6 2

2 n

oita erc e

R 8

1 3

erutc urts a

rfnI n

oitatr o

p s

n a

rT 4

1 4

s eic e

p S

d e

c u

d o

rtnI 4

1 5

n oitis o

p e

D dic A

3 1

6 ts e

vr a

H elb a

niats u

s n

U 1

1 7

n oitullo P

e cru o

S tnio p-n o

N 1

1 8

y g

olo r

d y

H d

eretl A

0 1

9 e

g n

a h

C eta m

il C

9 0

0 1

yru cre M

9 0

6 2

=

N

,statib a

h d

e k

n a

rlla ss o

rc a

e g

a re v

A ISSUE AVERAGE SCORE*

1 tn e

m p

ole v

e D

1 2

2 n

oita erc e

R 1

1 3

yticr a

c S

8 0

4 erutc urts a

rfnI n

oitatr o

p s

n a

rT 8

0 5

s eic e

p S

d e

c u

d o

rtnI 7

0 6

n oitullo P

e cru o

S tnio p-n o

N 6

0 7

yr o

vib re H

d n

a n

oita d

erP 6

0 8

yru cre M

6 0

9 ts e

vr a

H elb a

niats u

s n

U 5

0 0

1 y

g olo r

d y

H d

eretl A

5 0

2 6

=

N

,s eic e

p s

lla ss o

rc a

e g

a re v

A ISSUE AVERAGE SCORE*

1 tn e

m p

ole v

e D

)

5 2

(

7 2

2 e

c n

a b

rutsi D

la ruta N

d eretl A

)

9

(

3 2

3 yr o

vib re H

d n

a n

oita d

erP

)

6

(

3 2

4 e

g n

a h

C eta m

il C

)

2 1

(

0 2

5 erutc urts a

rfnI n

oitatr o

p s

n a

rT

)

8 1

(

0 2

6 n

oitullo P

e cru o

S tnio p-n o

N

)

5 1

(

9 1

7 yru cre M

)

2 1

(

9 1

8 y

g olo r

d y

H d

eretl A

)

5 1

(

8 1

9 n

oita erc e

R

)

6 2

(

8 1

0 1

n oitis o

p e

D dic A

)

9 1

(

8 1

s e

s e

htn er a

p ni)n(

statib a

h d

etc eff a

,statib a

h d

etc eff a

ss o

rc a

e g

a re v

A ISSUE AVERAGE SCORE*

1 yticr a

c S

)

9 1

(

6 2

2 tn e

m p

ole v

e D

)

1 5

(

5 2

3 y

g olo r

d y

H d

eretl A

)

4 1

(

1 2

4 yr o

vib re H

d n

a n

oita d

erP

)

9 1

(

0 2

5 erutc urts a

rfnI n

oitatr o

p s

n a

rT

)

4 2

(

0 2

6 yru cre M

)

8 1

(

9 1

7 sllip S

li O

)

9

(

9 1

8 e

g n

a h

C eta m

il C

)

4 1

(

9 1

9 s

eic e

p S

d e

c u

d o

rtnI

)

2 2

(

8 1

0 1

n oita erc e

R

)

8 3

(

8 1

s e

s e

htn er a

p ni)n(

s eic e

p s

d etc eff a

,s eic e

p s

d etc eff a

ss o

rc a

e g

a re v

A 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 (C) High-intensity risks to habitats (D) High-intensity risks to wildlife

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-6 Wildlife Risk Assessment

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-7 Wildlife Risk Assessment Acid Deposition

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

However, much of the acid deposition comes from industrial areas in the midwestern and southwestern United States (NH Comparative Risk Project 1997).

The estimated acidity (pH) of rainfall in 1997 for the Northeast ranged from 4.3-4.7 (Driscoll et al. 2001);

normal pH for rainfall is approximately 5.5. Although surface waters in New Hampshire are naturally acidic due to low acid-neutralizing capacity of its bedrock, anthropogenic acidification has stressed most natural communities. Acidic precipitation can alter terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems in the Northeast (Driscoll et al. 2001), and may have additive or synergistic effects with other ecosystem stressors.

2. EXPERT OPINION Acid deposition may have critical effects on species and habitats of conservation concern in New Hamp-shire (Table 4-4). Impacts are expected to be critical for alpine habitats, high elevation spruce-fir forests, and northern hardwood-conifer forests. Effects are expected to be serious for montane watersheds, vernal pools, talus slopes and rocky ridges, lowland spruce-fir forests, and hemlock-hardwood-pine forests. For most habitats, these effects are possible in the near term, although such effects could be immediate in the case of vernal pools. With the exception of vernal pools, the impacts of acid deposition on these habi-tats are well documented.

3. KNOWN WILDLIFE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS (A) Aquatic ecosystems Low pH affects nearly all levels of the aquatic food webincluding bacteria, fungi, algae, zooplank-ton, invertebrates, fish, and birds. At the individual level, chronic acidity affects embryonic development, growth, metabolism, respiration, reproduction, and survival. Community-level effects include shifts in species composition, community structure, and predator-prey interactions. Ecosystem processes such as decomposition of organic matter, primary produc-tivity, and secondary production are strongly affected by pH (Haines 1981, Schindler et al. 1985).

Many species of aquatic organisms are sensi-tive to changes in pH. Aquatic insect diversity and abundance often declines in acidified lakes and streams (Haines 1981, Okland and Okland 1986).

Crustaceans and molluscs are sensitive to acid deposi-tion because it interferes with calcium uptake, and the state-endangered dwarf wedgemussel and brook floater may be affected by chronic acidity. Amphibi-ans experience high mortality or reduced productivity in acidic environments via reduced abundance of egg masses, decreased hatching success, increased larval mortality, and inhibited development (Pough 1976, Rowe et al. 1992, Horne and Dunson 1994, Kie-secker 1996). Impacts to fish include reduced growth, reproductive failure, skeletal deformities, and mortal-Risk Category Habitats Species 4

0 0

3 3

1 2

5 9

1 11 4

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.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-8 Wildlife Risk Assessment ity (Haines 1981, Schindler 1988, Baker et al. 1996).

Through reduction in aquatic community di-versity and biomass as discussed above, organisms at higher trophic levels may not be able to forage or reproduce effectively in acidified water bodies. Diet and foraging efficiency of some fish species may be affected by acid-induced changes in zooplankton community structure. Waterfowl and other birds that forage on aquatic invertebrates or fish might also be affected, including American bittern, common loon, American black duck, and rusty blackbird (Longcore et al. 1987, Rattner et al. 1987).

(B) Terrestrial ecosystems Terrestrial plant productivity and health can be severely affected by acid deposition. Vegetation in high-elevation spruce-fir forests, alpine habitats, talus slope/rocky ridge habitats, and cliffs may suffer direct foliar damage from contact with acid fog and mist, which often has a much higher acidity than rain. Aci-dophilic plants will replace calciphilic plants due to chronic acidification, and some of New Hampshires rarest alpine and cliff communities may be at risk (Rusek 1993). Acidity leaches nutrients from foliage and mobilizes aluminum, which damages roots and contributes to soil infertility. Acid deposition works in concert with cold temperatures to cause winter injury, a proximate cause of widespread red spruce decline in the Northeast. Nitrogen saturation is one impact of acid deposition that may have cascading ef-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 S

EI C

E P

S re d

n a

m ala S

n o

sreffeJ slo o

P la nre V

4 3

4 2

4 2

9 2

3 tu o

rT k

o o

r B

nrets a

E cita u

q A

4 3

2 3

4 3

6 2

2 citcr A

niatn u

o M

etih W

e nipl A

4 3

2 2

4 3

3 2

2 yr allitirF niatn u

o M

etih W

e nipl A

4 3

2 2

4 3

3 2

2 d

rib k

c alB yts u

R ts er o

F riF-e c

ur p

S d

n al w

o L

3 3

4 5

2 2

3 1

2 2

n etr a

M n

a cire m

A ts er o

F riF-e c

ur p

S n

oita v

elE h

g i

H 4

3 1

3 3

4 0

2 2

e s

u o

r G

e c

ur p

S ts er o

F riF-e c

ur p

S d

n al w

o L

4 3

1 3

3 4

0 2

2 h

s urh T

s'lle n

k ciB ts er o

F riF-e c

ur p

S n

oita v

elE h

g i

H 4

2 2

3 3

0 0

2 2

n o

o L

n o

m m

o C

cita u

q A

2 4

2 2

4 0

0 2

2 re k

c e

p d

o o

W d

e ot-e erh T

ts er o

F riF-e c

ur p

S d

n al w

o L

4 2

2 3

3 0

0 2

2 S

T A

TIB A

H e

nipl A

4 3

2 3

4 3

6 2

3 ts er o

F riF-e c

ur p

S n

oita v

elE h

g i

H 4

3 2

3 4

3 6

2 3

ts er o

F refin o

C

-d o

o w

d r

a H

nre htr o

N 4

3 2

3 4

3 6

2 3

s d

e h

sreta W

e n

atn o

M 4

3 1

3 4

3 3

2 2

s e

g diR y

k c

o R

d n

a s

e p

olS s

ula T

4 3

2 2

4 3

3 2

2 slo o

P la nre V

4 3

4 2

2 3

3 2

2 ts er o

F e

niP-d o

o w

d r

a H

-k c

ol m

e H

4 2

2 3

4 5

2 2

2 ts er o

F riF e

c ur p

S d

n al w

o L

4 2

2 3

4 5

2 2

2 n

oita m

r ofnI

=

5 d

o o

hile kiL

=

4 g

ni m

iT

=

3

,ytire v

e S

=

2 e

p o

c S

=

1

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-9 Wildlife Risk Assessment fects within New Hampshires terrestrial ecosystems on plant communities and wildlife habitat.

(C) Mobilization of heavy metals An indirect effect of acidification may be increased bioavailability of toxic metals including mercury, alu-minum, cadmium, and lead (Haines 1981, Schindler 1988, Spry and Weiner 1991). Mercury methylation is enhanced under acidic conditions, and methylmer-cury is one of the more pervasive and acute threats in New Hampshire. Acidity mobilizes aluminum that damages roots and contributes to soil infertility. Alumi-num is acutely toxic to aquatic invertebrates and fish.

4. RESEARCH NEEDS Given that the effects of acid deposition on species and habitats are generally well documented, relatively few research needs have been identified. On the broad scale, examples of potential topics include shifts in al-pine community composition, while more focused studies could include investigation of prey availabil-ity for rusty blackbirds. Additional research may be relevant to determine the efficacy of any proposed mitigation measures.

5. LITERATURE CITED Baker, J.P., J.Van Sickle, C.J. Gagen, D.R. DeWalle, W.E. Sharpe, R.F. Carline, B.P. Baldigo, P.S. Mur-doch, D.W. Bath, W.A. Kretser, H.A. Simonin, and P.J. Wigington. 1996. Episodic acidification of small streams in the northeastern United States:

effects on fish populations. Ecological Applications 6:422-437.

Driscoll, C.T., G.B. Lawrence, A.J. Bulger, T.J. Butler, C.S. Cronan, C. Eagar, K.F. Lambert, G.E. Likens, J.L. Stoddard, and K.C. Weathers. 2001. Acidic de-position in the northeastern United States: Sources and inputs, ecosystem effects, and management strategies. Bioscience 51:180-198.

Haines, T.A. 1981. Acidic precipitation and its consequences for aquatic ecosystems: a review.

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 110:

669-707.

Horne, M.T., and W.A. Dunson. 1994. Exclusion of the Jefferson salamander, Ambystoma jeffersonia-num, from some potential breeding ponds in Penn-sylvania: effects of pH, temperature, and metals on embryonic development. Archives of Environmen-tal Contamination and Toxicology 27:323-300.

Kiesecker, J.M. 1996. pH induced growth reduction and its effects on predator-prey interactions be-tween Ambystoma tigrinum and Pseudacris triseriata.

Ecological Applications 6:1325-1331.

Longcore, J.R., R.K. Ross, and K.L. Fisher. 1987.

Wildlife resources at risk through acidification of wetlands. Transactions of the 52nd North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, pages 608-618.

New Hampshire Comparative Risk Project. 1997.

Acid Deposition. Pp. 64-65 in Report of Ranked Environmental Risks in New Hampshire. New Hampshire Comparative Risk Project, Concord, NH.

Okland, J. and K.A. Okland. 1986. The effects of acid deposition ion benthic animals in lakes and streams. Experientia 42:471.

Pough, F.H. 1976. Acid precipitation and embry-onic mortality of spotted salamanders, Ambystoma maculatum. Science. 192: 68-70.

Rattner, B.A., G.M. Haramis, D.S. Chu, C.M.

Bunck, and C.G. Scanes. 1987. Growth and physi-ological condition of black ducks reared on acidi-fied wetlands. Canadian Journal of Zoology 65:

2953-2958.

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

Effects of acute and chronic acidification on three larval amphibians that breed in temporary ponds.

Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 23:339-350.

Rusek, J. 1993. Air-pollution-mediated changes in alpine ecosystems and ecotones. Ecological Appli-cations 3:409-416.

Schindler, D.W., K.H. Mills, D.F. Malley, S. Find-lay, 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.

Schindler, D.W. 1988. Effects of acid rain on fresh-water ecosystems. Science 239:149-157.

Spry, D.J., and J.G. Wiener. 1991. Metal bioavail-ability and toxicity to fish in low-alkalinity lakes:

A critical review. Environmental Pollution 71:

243-304.

New Hampshire Wildlife Actin Plan 4-10 Wildlife Risk Assessment Agriculture

1. DEFINITION Wildlife that depend on grassland habitats existed in pre-settlement New England in low numbers and increased as early settlers cleared the land for farm-ing. Natural processessuch as fire, beaver activity, and floodingmaintained grassy areas prior to hu-man settlement. As some natural disturbances have declined in the last 150 years, grassland species have become more reliant on remaining agricultural lands making them increasingly vulnerable to commonly used agricultural practices and loss of active farms.

Currently there are 101,175 ha of farmland in New Hampshire (United States Department of Ag-riculture 2004), mainly in Grafton, Merrimack, and Coos Counties. Wildlife species that use agricultural fields are vulnerable to mowing for hay, and convert-ing fields to developments. Mowing can result in sig-nificant mortality to grassland birds (eggs and chicks),

snakes, and turtles.

2. EXPERT OPINION Most of the grasslands in New Hampshire are the direct result of the positive influence that agriculture has had on grassland-dependent species by clearing forested areas and maintaining them in an open state.

At the same time, because of the limited distribution of these habitats, some agricultural practices pose a threat to these grassland species. Mowing practices, such as haying before July 15 (which we acknowledge is necessary to maximize forage quality), are in use throughout the state and present a threat to grassland nesting species such as the upland sandpiper and northern harrier. Collisions with mowing equipment can cause mortality for black racer, smooth green snake, wood turtle, Blandings turtle, and spotted turtle, though impacts to populations are poorly documented. In a very localized area, mowing of salt marshes is a serious, short-term threat to Nelsons sharp-tailed sparrow, salt marsh sharp-tailed sparrow, seaside sparrow, and willet. Reductions of populations of grassland-dependent species is possible in the next 1 to 5 years. Run-off of herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers from agricultural lands in the Connecticut River watershed may pose a threat to aquatic habitat (Francis and Mulligan 1997).

3. KNOWN WILDLIFE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS (A) Hay Cropping Hay cropping can kill grassland birds, turtles, and snakes. Reproduction in grassland birds is reduced through direct mortality of eggs and nestlings or subse-quent egg and chick loss caused by nest abandonment or predation on exposed nests (Bollinger et al. 1990).

Farmers mow their hayfields 2 to 3 times during the 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 and second hay crops. Direct mortality of wood tur-tles caused by collision with farm machinery has been documented in agricultural fields where turtles seek exposed soils for nesting (Saumure and Bider 1998).

(B) Habitat Conversion The conversion of agricultural fields to development has been significant. For instance, active agricultural land acreage dropped by 50% in Rockingham and TABLE 4-6. Number of habitats and species at highest risk due to agriculture. See Table 4-7 and Appendix A and B for details. Risk Category 4 = Greatest risk.

Risk Category Habitats Species 4

1 0

3 1

0 2

0 2

1 8

11

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-11 Wildlife Risk Assessment Strafford Counties between 1962 and 1998 (see De-velopment). Historical conversion of floodplains for agriculture also has been significant. However, it is unlikely that floodplain habitat will be lost to agricul-ture in the future, and there are many opportunities to restore floodplains. The loss of agriculture to other non-grassland habitat uses reduces the amount of potential quality habitat available to grassland-depen-dent species.

(C) Pesticides and Runoff See Non-point Source Pollution.

4. RESEARCH NEEDS

• Demographic studies to determine causes of grassland wildlife population declines

• Assess which extensive grasslands are important to grassland nesting birds and other priority wildlife species, and which of these species is harmed by early mowing. This likely requires more field surveys of nesting birds and other wildlife in large grasslands

• Collect data on species distribution (e.g., upland sandpipers, northern

harriers, grasshopper sparrows) and land use, including frequency and timing of mowing, rates of habitat loss to 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

• Identify and assess threats (e.g., land use practices in agricultural areas) to specific wood turtle populations.

• Determine value of Farm Bill programs in conservation of grassland wildlife

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

Effects of hay-cropping on eastern populations of the bobolink. Wildlife Society Bulletin 18:142-150.

Francis F., and A. Mulligan. 1997. Connecticut River Corridor Management Plan. Connecticut River Joint Commission. Charlestown, New Hampshire, USA.

Saumure, R.A., and J.R. Bider. 1998. Impact of ag-ricultural development on a population of wood turtles (Clemmys insculpta) in southern Quebec, Canada. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3:

37-45.

United States Department of Agriculture. 2004.

2002 census of agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

http://www.nass.usda.gov/

census/.

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 S

EI C

E P

S re pip d

n a

S d

n alp U

s d

n alb urh S

3 3

3 3

4 0

5 2

2 w

o rr a

p S

re p

p o

h ss a

r G

s d

n alss a

r G

3 3

3 3

4 0

5 2

2 S

T A

TIB A

H s

d n

alss a

r G

4 4

4 4

4 0

0 4

4 s

d e

h sreta W

m ets nia M

re viR tu citc e

n n

o C

3 3

4 3

4 5

7 2

3 n

oita m

r ofnI

=

5 d

o o

hile kiL

=

4 g

ni m

iT

=

3

,ytire v

e S

=

2 e

p o

c S

=

1

New Hampshire Wildlife Actin Plan 4-12 Wildlife Risk Assessment Altered Hydrology

1. DEFINITION The frequency and intensity of floods or droughts strongly influences the physical and biological char-acteristics of aquatic ecosystems (Poff et al. 1997).

Plants and wildlife in riparian areas have adapted to natural variation in flows and water levels. Periodic flooding provides fish and amphibians with access to spawning areas, causes an influx of organic matter to streams, and prevents the encroachment of upland plant species into wetland habitats (Poff et al. 1997).

Impoundments and water level fluctuation above and below dams, restricted tidal flows, water withdrawal for irrigation and other uses, increased impervi-ous surface area, and seasonal lake drawdowns alter natural hydrology (Richter et al. 1996). Hydrologic alteration can profoundly affect stream connectivity and the ability of fish and wildlife to migrate freely along a stream corridor.

2. EXPERT OPINION Altered hydrology affects species and habitats throughout New Hampshire. Impacts can be serious and immediate, especially for relatively small popula-tions or habitats (e.g. tiger cobblestone beetles and salt marshes). In general, more densely populated, lower elevation watersheds are more affected by al-tered hydrology than are high elevation and northern watersheds. While the overall effects of altered hy-drology on aquatic ecosystems are well documented, species-specific impacts are poorly understood.

3. KNOWN WILDLIFE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS (A) Man-made Dams Dams cause changes in water temperature, transpar-ency, substrate composition, and flow, all of which influence biological communities. Increased flows below impoundments may result in high sediment loads, suffocating fish and invertebrates and alter-ing spawning substrates (Baxter and Glaude 1980).

The leaching of plant nutrients and toxic substances (e.g. mercury) from flooded soils upstream of dams can lead to algal blooms and accumulated toxins in fish tissue (Baxter and Glaude 1980). Increased bio-logical oxygen demand from the decomposition of flooded soil and vegetation may cause lower dissolved oxygen levels, typically in the deep water near the dam (Baxter and Glaude 1980). Fluctuating water levels upstream and downstream from dams on the Connecticut River pose a threat to cobblestone tiger beetles by inundating their habitat more frequently than natural flooding events (Nothnagle 1993). Wa-ter level management for hydropower or flood con-trol on high order rivers may decrease the frequency and intensity of flooding events needed to maintain floodplain forest communities (Bornette and Amoros 1996; see Altered Natural Disturbance Regime).

Dams restrict the movements of aquatic species, es-pecially anadromous fish, which migrate upstream to spawn, and freshwater mussels, which depend on fish for dispersal and development.

(B) Development Flow regimes are altered by channelization, stream bank stabilization, construction fill, and road or rail-road crossings. The effects are most obvious in coastal salt marshes where development and drainage ditches TABLE 4-8. Number of habitats and species at highest risk due to altered hydrology. See Table 4-9 and Appendix A and B for details. Risk Category 4 = Greatest risk.

Risk Category Habitats Species 4

0 1

3 1

5 2

7 4

1 9

11

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-13 Wildlife Risk Assessment have restricted tidal flooding. Without tidal influ-ence, typical salt marsh vegetation is replaced with in-vasive reeds and grasses (Sinicrope et al. 1990). River bank stabilization restricts the dynamic nature of a river and often causes erosion problems downstream.

Culverts at road crossings also alter natural hydrologi-cal patterns by constricting and channeling flow. Cul-verts reduce stream connectivity, acting as dispersal barriers to fish, amphibians, and some invertebrates (Watters 1996, Warren and Pardew 1999).

(C) Seasonal draw-down Water levels in some New Hampshire lakes and ponds are reduced in the fall to prevent ice damage and re-duce spring flooding. Drawdowns ranging from 1 to 10 feet occurred in 53 lakes and ponds in the fall of 2004 (New Hampshire Department of Environmen-tal Services 2003). Artificially low water levels subject shoreline communities to freezing temperatures and interfere with the spring spawning activity of fish and amphibians. Reduced water levels decrease the habi-tat available to reef spawning fish, and lowering water levels after spawning may expose eggs to desiccation (Anras et al.1999). Significant changes in water level during the breeding season of shoreline nest-ing birds may flood nests or increase predation risk.

(D) Impervious surfaces A landscape with a significant area of impervious sur-faces can cause shorter, more intense flood periods, which alter stream morphology and potentially kill or inhibit the movement of some species (United States 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 S

EI C

E P

S n

o m

la S

citn alt A

cita u

q A

4 4

4 4

4 0

0 4

4 le ss u

m e

g d

e W

fr a

w D

cita u

q A

3 3

4 4

4 0

0 3

3 w

o rr a

p S

d eliat-p r

a h

S s'n o

sle N

s e

h sr a

M tla S

3 3

4 4

4 0

0 3

3 w

o rr a

p S

d eliat-p r

a h

S h

sr a

m tla S

s e

h sr a

M tla S

3 3

4 4

4 0

0 3

3 w

o rr a

p S

e dis a

e S

s e

h sr a

M tla S

3 3

4 4

4 0

0 3

3 telli W

s e

h sr a

M tla S

3 3

4 4

4 0

0 3

3 reta olF k

o o

r B

cita u

q A

2 3

4 4

4 0

5 2

2 eltru T

s g

nid n

alB s

d n

alte W

b urh S

d n

a h

sr a

M 2

3 4

3 3

8 0

2 2

elte e

B re g

iT e

n ots elb b

o C

cita u

q A

4 4

2 2

2 0

0 2

2 e

b er G

d ellib-d eiP s

d n

alte W

b urh S

d n

a h

sr a

M 2

3 4

2 3

8 8

1 2

S T

A TIB A

H s

e h

sr a

M tla S

3 3

4 4

4 0

0 3

3 s

d e

h sreta W

lats a

o C

la diT 3

3 4

3 3

0 5

2 2

s d

e h

sreta W

lats a

o C

la diT-n o

N 3

3 4

3 3

0 5

2 2

s d

e h

sreta W

m ets nia M

re viR tu citc e

n n

o C

3 3

2 4

4 0

5 2

2 s

d e

h sreta W

la n

oitis n

a rT lats a

o C

3 3

4 3

3 0

5 2

2 sts er o

F nialp d

o olF 4

3 2

3 3

3 3

2 2

s d

e h

sreta W

d n

alp U

nre htu o

S 2

3 4

3 3

8 0

2 2

s d

n alta e

P 2

3 3

3 3

8 8

1 2

n oita m

r ofnI

=

5 d

o o

hile kiL

=

4 g

ni m

iT

=

3

,ytire v

e S

=

2 e

p o

c S

=

1

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-14 Wildlife Risk Assessment Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 205.

Bornette, G., and C. Amoros. 1996. Disturbance regimes and vegetation dynamics: role of floods in riverine wetlands. Journal of Vegetation Science 7:

615-622.

Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmen-tal Affairs. 2004. Merrimack River Basin. Low Flow Inventory. Cambridge, MA. Available:

http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/river/rivlow_flow_

inventory/merrimack.html (Accessed March 1995).

Merrimack River Watershed Council [MRCW].

2001. Water demand analysis on the Merrimack River watershed: Data and literature on the water use of the Merrimack River watershed. Prepared for the Merrimack Watershed Team New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. 2003. The New Hampshire Initiative to Restore Rivers Through Selective Dam Removal.

Available http://www.des.state.nh.us/factsheets/

dam/db-18.htm. (Accessed May 2005).

Nothnagle, P. 1993. Status survey of New Hampshire/

Vermont populations of the cobblestone tiger bee-tle (Cicindela marginipennis). Report submitted to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Concord, New Hampshire, USA.

Poff, N.L., J.D. Allan, M.B. Bain, J.R. Karr, K.L. Pre-stegaard, B. Richter, R. Sparks, and J. Stromberg.

1997. The natural flow regime: a new paradigm for riverine conservation and restoration. BioScience 47:769-784.

Richter, B.D., D.P. Braun, M.A. Mendelson, and L.L. Master. 1997. Threats to imperiled freshwater fauna. Conservation Biology 11:1081-1093.

Sinicrope, T.L., P.G. Hine, R.S. Warren, and W.A.

Niering. 1990. Restoration of an impounded salt marsh in New England. Estuaries 13:25-30.

United States Environmental Protection Agency

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

/www.epa.gov/owow/NPS/MMGI/Chapter4/ch4-4.html. (Accessed June 2005).

Warren, M.L., and M.G. Pardew. 1999. Road cross-ings as barriers to small-stream fish movement.

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127:

637-644.

Watters, G. 1996. Small Dams as Barriers to Fresh-water Mussels (Bivalvia and Unionoida) and Their Hosts. Biological Conservation 75:79-85.

Environmental Protection Agency 2003). Impervious surfaces prevent rainwater from replenishing ground-water, which is the primary source of water for small streams and wetlands during the summer.

(E) Water withdrawal Water withdrawal for irrigation, municipal water supplies, or industry can decrease water levels and flows in aquatic habitats. An estimated 320 million gallons of water is withdrawn daily from the Mer-rimack River during the summer (Merrimack River Watershed Council 2001). In addition to impeding the movements of aquatic species, low flows can cre-ate higher water temperatures and stagnant condi-tions that encourage algal blooms. Water withdrawn for irrigation may reenter aquatic systems, containing increased nutrient levels (Baxter and Glaude 1980).

Low summer flows modify invertebrate and fish com-munities to favor generalist species. Unusually low summer flows in the Ipswich River in Massachusetts have resulted in a high proportion of generalist fish species (Massachusetts Executive Office of Environ-mental Affairs 2004).

4. RESEARCH NEEDS

• Research the impacts of water level fluctuation on natural communities

• Expand the impervious surfaces assessment done in the coastal watershed to other watersheds in New Hampshire

• Continue to monitor the results of salt marsh resto-ration projects on the coast

• Investigate the quantitative effects of seasonal draw-downs on species diversity in aquatic habitats

• Investigate the potential correlation between draw-down and methyl mercury production

5. LITERATURE CITED Anras, M., P. Cooley, R. Bodaly, L. Anras, and R.

Fudge. 1999. Movement and Habitat Use by Lake Whitefish during Spawning in a Boreal Lake:

Acoustic Telemetry and Geographic Information Systems. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 128:939-952.

Baxter R., and P. Glaude. 1980. Environmental Ef-fects of Dams and Impoundments in Canada:

Experience and Prospects. Canadian Bulletin of

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-15 Wildlife Risk Assessment Altered Natural Disturbance Regime

1. DEFINITION Before European settlement, forested habitats were continuously altered by disturbances such as wildfire, beaver impoundments, Native American burning, agriculture, flooding, erosion and deposition, insect outbreaks, hurricanes, and openings created by mas-sive passenger pigeon breeding colonies. Now, the effects of some of these natural agents of forest distur-bance are substantially lessened (DeGraaf et al. 2005).

Centuries of land use and reduction of many nat-ural disturbances have created a landscape of relatively homogenous, middle-aged to mature forest of similar size and structure amidst cities, suburbs, and highways and relatively little grassland, shrubland, or young forest habitat (DeGraaf et al. 2005). Pitch pine bar-rens, a critical habitat that supports a large number of rare and declining species, and Appalachian oak-pine forests are particularly vulnerable to altered natural disturbance regimes. To maintain the native diversity of wildlife on the New Hampshire landscape, includ-ing at-risk and rare species, habitat management and restoration are needed (DeGraaf et al. 2005).

2. EXPERT OPINION Altered natural disturbance regimes critically impact pine barrens, Appalachian oak pine forests, and shru-bland habitats and related species (e.g., Karner blue butterfly) and seriously affect species dependant on young forest habitats including American woodcock and ruffed grouse. To a lesser degree they also affect grasslands habitat and associated species (e.g., north-ern harrier, upland sandpiper, and grasshopper spar-row), as well as Blandings and spotted turtles that use both grassland and shrubland habitats for nesting.

3. KNOWN WILDLIFE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS (A) Mechanical ecological processes Fire, beaver, and passenger pigeon roosting are among the mechanical ecological processes that once had a significant impact on New Hampshires landscape.

The decline, and in some cases the cessation of these natural disturbances, combined with habitat loss due to development, is reducing some critical habitats to levels at or below historical levels (e.g.,

grasslands, shrublands, young forests, pine barrens, and Appalachian oak-pine forests) (Brooks 2003, Litvaitis 2003).

For instance, fire suppression may alter the community structure of fire-adapted habitats by reducing the establishment of seeds that prefer bare mineral soil, and by increasing competition with fire tolerant species. Fire suppression has led to the succession of most of New Hampshires remaining pine barrens to dense canopied forest that are becoming dominated by white pine and/or hardwoods (e.g., oak, red maple, and aspen). These conditions are ill suited for a large suite of rare and declining species (e.g., Karner blue butterfly, Persius duskywing skippers, and Fowlers toad) (Grundel 1998, VanLuven 1994). Fire suppression also can allow a dangerous accumulation of fuel load (duff, litter, dead wood), and subsequent fires can be intense enough to kill large number of animals and significantly threaten human safety.

The passenger pigeon, considered to have been TABLE 4-10. Number of habitats and species at highest risk due to altered natural disturbance regimes. See Table 4-11 and Appendix A and B for details. Risk Category 4 =

Greatest risk.

Risk Category Habitats Species 4

1 0

3 4

1 2

2 4

1 2

14

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-16 Wildlife Risk Assessment North Americas most abundant land bird in his-torical times (e.g. flocks of 1 to 2 billion birds), also occurred in high numbers in New Hampshire (Foss 1994). High densities of roosting pigeons toppled small trees and broke off branches, increasing the amount of sunlight reaching the forest floor and perhaps exacerbating wildfires (Ellsworth and Mc-Comb 2003). Both conditions would have favored the maintenance of Appalachian oak-pine forest, pine barrens, grasslands, and shrublands, all of which were more abundant historically than they are today (Brooks 2003, Ellsworth and McComb 2003). Based on recent research, 2-6% of the state may have been affected annually (Ellsworth and McComb 2003).

(B) Chemical ecological processes Fire and flooding events result in chemical processes that alter species composition in a variety of ways.

Fire generates readily available nutrients, creates a blackened ground surface that increases soil tem-peratures and enhances nutrient cycling, and reduces competition with other plants (Brown and Smith 2000). These factors, coupled with pitch pines post-fire ability to re-sprout and drop seeds, aids in the maintenance of pine barrens communities (Brown and Smith 2000).

Flooding provides a regular source of nutrients for floodplain areas (Osgood 1996, Wistendahl 1958). Floodplain soils tend to be rich in nutrients and have been targeted throughout history as excel-lent lands for agriculture (Nichols et al. 2000). With nearly 5,000 man-made dams in New Hampshire, many floodplains now do not benefit from these added nutrients.

(C) Hydrological processes Seasonal flooding and flooding by beavers are hy-drological processes that also had a more significant impact historically than today. Seasonal flooding of high order or high gradient rivers was a regular natural disturbance. This disturbance maintained the conditions suited to many types of floodplain forests (Bornette and Amoros 1996). Today, there are nearly 5,000 man-made dams in New Hampshire. Many of these dams inhibit the frequency and intensity of floods on high-order or high-gradient rivers (Nislow 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 S

EI C

E P

S ylfrettu B

e ulB re nr a

K s

n err a

B e

niP 4

3 3

3 4

2 9

2 3

k c

o c

d o

o W

n a

cire m

A s

d n

alb urh S

3 3

3 3

4 0

5 2

2 e

s u

o r

G d

effu R

s d

n alb urh S

3 3

3 3

4 0

5 2

2 re c

a R

s n

err a

B e

niP 4

4 2

3 1

0 0

2 2

lli W

r o

o p-pih W

s n

err a

B e

niP 3

2 3

3 3

8 8

1 2

S T

A TIB A

H s

n err a

B e

niP 4

4 4

3 4

7 6

3 4

ts er o

F e

niP k

a O

n aih c

ala p

p A

4 3

4 3

3 2

9 2

3 ts er o

F e

niP-d o

o w

d r

a H

-k c

ol m

e H

3 3

4 3

4 5

7 2

3 ts er o

F riF e

c ur p

S d

n al w

o L

4 3

3 3

4 3

4 7

2 3

s d

n alb urh S

3 4

3 3

3 3

6 2

3 ts er o

F refin o

C

-d o

o w

d r

a H

nre htr o

N 2

3 4

3 3

8 0

2 2

s e

g diR y

k c

o R

d n

a s

e p

olS s

ula T

4 3

1 3

3 4

0 2

2 n

oita m

r ofnI

=

5 d

o o

hile kiL

=

4 g

ni m

iT

=

3

,ytire v

e S

=

2 e

p o

c S

=

1

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-17 Wildlife Risk Assessment and Magilligan 2000), resulting in reduced species and structural diversity of floodplain vegetation and reduced diversity of wildlife using floodplain areas (Nilsson et al. 1997).

Unlike man-made dams, beaver dams are gener-ally constructed on low order or low gradient streams.

This form of natural disturbance creates marshes, meadows, and shrublands beneficial to many species of wildlife. After a beaver dam degrades and becomes breeched after abandonment, the previously ponded area succeeds to a meadow and without further dis-turbance will succeed into shrubland, and eventually back to forest (Naiman et al. 1988). However, areas available for damming by beavers has declined sig-nificantly. An analysis of wet flats in New Hampshire (the floodplain that would be affected by beavers) shows that nearly 30% (267 out of 961) are affected by agriculture. Another 17% (165 out of 961) are af-fected by development (CSRC 2002, TNC 2003).

4. RESEARCH NEEDS

• Compare vegetation composition and structure, nutrient loading, and soil chemistry along im-pounded and free flowing rivers in New Hampshire

• Assess interactive impacts of fire suppression, land use history, ecological history, microclimate alterations, and habitat patch isolation on vegeta-tion structure and composition of pine barrens and relative abundance and distribution of pine bar-rens, grasslands, and shrublands

• Investigate impacts of beaver population level chang-es on natural communities and habitat distribution

5. LITERATURE CITED Bornette, G., and C. Amoros. 1996. Disturbance regimes and vegetation dynamics: role of floods in riverine wetlands. Journal of Vegetation Science 7:

615-622.

Brooks, R.T. 2003. Abundance, distribution, trends, and ownership patterns of early successional forests in the northeastern United States. Forest Ecology and Management 185:65-74.

Brown, J.K. and J.K. Smith, eds. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on flora. General Tech-nical Report RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Moun-tain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 257 pp.

Complex Systems Research Center (CSRC).

2002. Landcover Assessment - 2001. Uni-versity of New Hampshire, Durham. http:

//www.granit.sr.unh.edu/data/datacat/pages/

nhlc01.pdf.

Accessed 8

February 2002.

DeGraaf, R.M., M. Yamasaki, W.B. Leak, and A.M.

Lester. 2005. Landowners guide to wildlife habitat:

forest management for the New England region.

University Press of New England, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA 111pp.

Ellsworth, J.W. and B.C. McComb. 2003. Potential ef-fects of passenger pigeon flocks on the structure and composition of presettlement forests of eastern North America. Conservation Biology 17:1548-1558.

Foss, C.F. 1994. Atlas of breeding birds of New Hampshire. Audubon Society of New Hampshire, Concord, New Hampshire, USA.

Grundel, R., N.B. Pavlovic, and C.L. Sulzman. 1998.

Habitat use by the endangered Karner blue butter-fly in oak woodlands: the influence of canopy cover.

Biological Conservation 85: 47-53.

Litvaitis, J.A. 2003. Are pre-Columbian conditions relevant baselines in managed forests of the north-eastern United States? Forest Ecology and Manage-ment 185:113-126.

Magilligan, F.J. and Nislow, K., 2001. Hydrologic alteration in a changing landscape: effects of im-poundment in the Upper Connecticut River Basin, USA. Journal American Water Resources Associa-tion 36:1551-67.

Naiman, R.J., J.M. Melillo, and J.E. Hobbie. 1988.

Ecosystem alteration of boreal forest streams by beaver (Castor canadensis). Ecology 67:1254-1269.

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

Crowley. 2000. Floodplain forest natural commu-nities along minor rivers and large streams in New Hampshire. New Hampshire Natural Heritage In-ventory, Department of Resources and Economic Development, Concord, New Hampshire, USA..

Nilsson, C., R. Jamsson, and U. Zinko. 1997. Long-term responses of river-margin vegetation to water-level regulation. Science 276:798-800.

Osgood, J. 1996. Contoocook River floodplain forest vegetation composition. Masters Project, Antioch New England Graduate School. Keene, New Hampshire, USA.

The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2003. Ecological landunit data layer. Conservation Science Support Program, Eastern Resource Office of The Nature

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-18 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.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-19 Wildlife Risk Assessment

1. DEFINITION Natural variations in global climate occur over very long periods. Human activities influence the global climate by increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, CFCs, and nitrous oxide that trap heat at the earths surface (Firor 1990, Gates 1993). Human induced climate change is likely to profoundly affect the climatology, ecosystems, and native biodiversity of New Hampshire and the region (IPCC 2001, New England Regional Assessment (NERA) 2001, Nedeau 2004).

The greatest effects of climate change will be on regional air and water temperatures, precipitation patterns, storm intensity, and sea levels. These types of changes have been well documented already (NERA 2001, Wake and Markham 2005), and global climate models are in general agreement that trends will continue and even accelerate in the next century (IPCC 2001). The ten hottest years of the last millennium have all occurred since 1983 (NERA 2001), and regional climate change models predict a 6.0-10.0 F temperature increase in the next century in New England, which would make our climate comparable to portions of the southeastern United States.

Because of their complex nature, broad patterns of change are still difficult to predict. Climatic changes have been linked to local ecological changes, including range shifts and asynchrony with seasonal Climate Change habitat requirements. Not every species is obviously threatened by climate change. But no ecosystem can sustain the breadth of changes likely to result from climate change without harm to many taxa.

2. EXPERT OPINION Climate change will broadly affect every species and habitat of conservation concern in New Hampshire.

Impacts will likely be most severe for habitats with narrow temperature and water level regimes, such as alpine, high and low elevation spruce-fir forests, coastal islands, vernal pools, and aquatic habitats. For some animals, changing snow depths (e.g., American marten and lynx) and high altitude seasonal timing (e.g., alpine butterflies) may begin to have impacts during the next decade. Thermal habitat of New Hampshires native fishes will likely decline substantially. Invasive species, diseases, and pathogens will likely become more problematic, as warmer regional temperatures facilitate their introduction and proliferation. High altitude and coastal impacts are fairly well documented.

3. KNOWN WILDLIFE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS (A) Snow depth and winter ice In New Hampshire, average wintertime air temperatures increased by 3.5 F during the period from 1895-1999 (well above the regional average)

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

Risk Category Habitats Species 4

0 0

3 1

2 2

7 7

1 3

6

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-20 Wildlife Risk Assessment oxygen, thermal habitat, and invertebrate and fish communities.

(B) Seasonality In the last 50 years, dates of the last hard frost and lilac blooming have both become significantly earlier in New England (Cooter and Leduc 1995, Schwartz and Reiter 2000). Scientists in Wisconsin studied 55 springtime eventsfrom the appearance of pussywillows to robins to trillium bloomsand found that for all combined, these events occurred an average of 0.12 days earlier per year over 61 years (7.3 days) (Bradley et al. 1999). Many species of migratory birds have shifted their arrival dates as much as 3 weeks earlier over the last several decades (Price and Root 2002). Such shifts in migration phenology have the potential to decouple bird migration peaks from peaks in food supply (e.g., McCarty 2001).

(C) Shifts in forest communities and wildlife The southern range of cold-adapted forest trees such as spruce, fir, aspen, and sugar maplewill likely retreat northward, dramatically altering the composition of New Hampshires northern and high-elevation forests and dependant wildlife species.

Forest damageresulting from increased storm intensity, warmer periods, droughts, and damaging ozonewill stress many forest communities.

Terrestrial wildlife whose southern range extends into New Hampshire will likely shift their range northward as climate warms. These include species such as the northern bog lemming, moose, and snowshoe hare. Alpine herbaceous communities are strongly affected by climate change (Walker et al.

1995, Kimball and Weihrauch 2000, Lessica and McCune 2004, Sperduto and Nichols 2004). Walther (2002) has documented climate-related elevation 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 S

EI C

E P

S citcr A

niatn u

o M

etih W

e nipl A

4 3

2 3

4 3

6 2

3 yr allitirF niatn u

o M

etih W

e nipl A

4 3

2 3

4 3

6 2

3 x

n yL sts er o

F d

n alp U

4 4

2 2

3 3

3 2

2 n

etr a

M n

a cire m

A ts er o

F riF-e c

ur p

S n

oita v

elE h

g i

H 4

3 2

3 3

3 3

2 2

nre T

n o

m m

o C

s d

n alsIlats a

o C

4 3

2 3

2 4

0 2

2 re v

olP g

nipiP s

e n

u D

4 3

2 3

2 4

0 2

2 nre T

eta e

s o

R s

d n

alsIlats a

o C

4 3

2 3

2 4

0 2

2 e

s u

o r

G e

c ur p

S ts er o

F riF-e c

ur p

S d

n al w

o L

4 3

1 3

3 4

0 2

2 n

o o

L n

o m

m o

C cita u

q A

4 4

1 3

2 0

0 2

2 S

T A

TIB A

H e

nipl A

4 4

2 3

4 0

0 3

3 ts er o

F riF-e c

ur p

S n

oita v

elE h

g i

H 4

4 1

3 3

3 3

2 2

ts er o

F e

niP-d o

o w

d r

a H

-k c

ol m

e H

4 3

1 3

4 3

3 2

2 ts er o

F refin o

C

-d o

o w

d r

a H

nre htr o

N 4

3 1

3 4

3 3

2 2

s e

g diR y

k c

o R

d n

a s

e p

olS s

ula T

4 3

2 2

4 3

3 2

2 s

d n

alsIlats a

o C

4 3

1 3

3 4

0 2

2 s

e n

u D

4 3

1 3

3 4

0 2

2 ts er o

F riF e

c ur p

S d

n al w

o L

4 3

1 3

3 4

0 2

2 n

oita m

r ofnI

=

5 d

o o

hile kiL

=

4 g

ni m

iT

=

3

,ytire v

e S

=

2 e

p o

c S

=

1

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-21 Wildlife Risk Assessment shift of alpine plants, rising tree line, and northward range shifts of 39 butterfly species. For Boloria titania montinus and Oeneis melissa semidea, the combination of climate change and isolation will likely result in local extirpation without a northward range shift (e.g., extinction).

(D) Loss of thermal habitat Many fish species, such as brook trout and salmon, have narrow temperature tolerances. Others, such as yellow perch and smallmouth bass, are more tolerant. As climate change causes water to warm, many of New Hampshires cold-water fish will be replaced by warm-water species (Eaton and Scheller 1996). Some of the fish hosts of New Hampshires two endangered freshwater mussel species (dwarf wedgemussel and brook floater) are coldwater fish whose thermal habitat will likely diminish as climate warms, ultimately affecting the reproductive success of the mussels. Marine productivityand thus marine fisheriesmay be affected by changes in thermohaline circulation of coastal waters, a changing thermal regime, and reduced oxygen availability.

(E) Climate volatility and storms Climate models predict an increase in the frequency and intensity of coastal storms. Besides fundamentally changing the climate of important habitats, storm cycles can introduce new threats to animals.

Inclement weather can disrupt bird migrations and make breeding and nesting sites inhospitable, forcing birds into marginal habitats. Similarly, storms batter coastal ecosystems, disrupting dunes, salt marshes, and estuaries, and bringing additional stress to species living there (Michener et al. 1997). Nesting plovers, saltmarsh birds, and colonial seabirds are highly susceptible to storms.

(F) Rising sea level Sea level in the United States is rising 2.5 to 3.0 mm/

yr. Global warming could raise the sea level 15 cm by 2050 and 34 cm by 2100 (Titus and Narayanan 1995, Titus 1990). Under this scenario, low elevation coastal habitats will likely be flooded or overwashed more frequently by storm surges (Gulf of Maine Council Habitat Restoration Subcommittee 2004).

These habitats are important for nesting and loafing seabirds, including Roseate terns, common terns, and marine mammals. Sea level rise may affect habitat availability and the timing of nesting and migration for seabirds (Kushlan et al. 2002, Galbraith et al.

2002). Sea level rise will destroy dunes, salt marshes, and their associated species, negating any current protection efforts (Simas et al. 2001).

(G) Invasive Species Climate change will facilitate the introduction and spread of invasive species (including new diseases and pathogens) in New Hampshire. For instance, the hemlock woody adelgid, whose range is limited by temperature, has been steadily pushing north and has reached Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Loss of hemlock would have dramatic effects on forest composition, wildlife habitat, and ecosystem processes in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. The wasting disease pathogen (Labyrinthula zosterae), which has decimated eelgrass beds in the past, might become more of a problem because it prefers higher salinity waters (which are expected in some estuaries because of sea-level rise) and warmer water. Many non-native warmwater fish will become more predominant in many watersheds, especially where they are currently limited by temperature. West Nile Virus will likely become more of a threat if climate conditions (milder winters, wetter summers) facilitate mosquito survival and breeding.

4. RESEARCH NEEDS

• Monitor indicators of range shifts of alpine lepidoptera and habitat plants

• Monitor impacts of decreased snow depth on marten and lynx

• Study impacts of early ice release on aquatic communities

• Monitor effect of storms and rising sea levels on coastal habitats, such as dunes, salt marshes, and lower tidal watersheds, as well as on their associated species

5. LITERATURE CITED Bradley, N.L., A.C. Leopold, J. Ross, and W. Huffaker.

1999. Phenological changes reflect climate change in Wisconsin. Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences 96:9701-9704.

Cooter, E.J., and S.K. Leduc. 1995. Recent frost date trends in the north-eastern USA. International Journal of Climatology 15:65-75.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-22 Wildlife Risk Assessment Eaton, J.G., and R.M. Scheller. 1996. Effects of climate on fish thermal habitat in streams of the United States.

Limnology and Oceanography 41:1109-1115.

Firor, J. 1990. The changing atmosphere: a global challenge. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.

Galbraith, H., R. Jones, R. Park. J. Clough, S. Herrod-Julius, B. Harrington, and G. Page. Global climate change and sea level rise: potential losses of intertidal habitat for shorebirds. Waterbirds 25:173-183.

Gates, D.M. 1993. Climate change and its biological consequences. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts.

Gulf of Maine Council Habitat Restoration Subcommittee.

2004. The Gulf of Maine habitat restoration strategy.

Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment.

Hodgkins, G.A., I.C. James, and T.G. Huntington. 2002.

Historical changes in lake ice-out dates as indicators of climate change in New England, 1850-2000.

International Journal of Climatology 22:1819-1827.

Hoving, C.L., D.J. Harrison, W.B. Krohn, R.A. Joseph, and M. OBrien. 2005. Broad-scale predictors of Canada lynx occurrence in eastern North America. Journal of Wildlife Management: In press.

Huntington, T.G., and G.A. Hodgkins. 2004. Changes in the proportion of precipitation occurring as snow in New England. Journal of Climate 17:2626-2636.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

2001. Climate Change 2001. The Scientific Basis. J.T.

Houghton, Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, D. Xiaosu, K. Maskell, and C.A. Johnson (eds.).

Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.

Kimball, K.D., and D.M. Weihrauch. 2000. Alpine vegetation communities and the alpine-treeline ecotone boundary in New England as biomonitors for climate change. USDA Forest Service Proceedings 3:93-101.

Krohn, W.B., K.D. Elowe, and R.B. Boone. 1995. Relations among fisher, snow, and martens: Development and evaluation of two hypotheses. The Forestry Chronicle 71:97-105.

Kushlan, J.A., M.J. Steinkamp, K.C. Parsons, J. Capp, M. Acosta Cruz, M. Coulter, I. Davidson, L. Dickson, N. Edelson, R. Elliot, R.M. Erwin, S. Hatch, S. Kress, R. Milko, S. Miller, K. Mills, R. Paul, R. Phillips, J.E.

Saliva, B. Sydeman, J. Trapp, J. Wheeler, and K. Wohl.

2002. Waterbird conservation for the Americas: the North American waterbird conservation plan, Version 1.

Waterbird Conservation for the Americas, Washington, DC, USA.

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 climate change. Conservation Biology 15:320-331.

Michener, W.K., E.R. Blood, K.L. Bildstein, M.M.

Brinson, and L.R. Gardner. 1997. Climate change, hurricanes and tropical storms, and rising sea level in coastal wetlands. Ecological Applications 7: 770-801.

Nedeau, E.J. 2004. Effects of climate change on the Gulf of Maine region. Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment, www.gulfofmaine.org NERA (New England Regional Assessment). 2001.

Preparing for a Changing Climate. The New England Regional Assessment Overview. U.S. Global Change Research Program, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH. Available online at http:

//www.necci.sr.unh.edu/2001-NERA-report.html.

Price, J.T., and T.L. Root. 2002. No orioles in Baltimore?

Climate change and Neotropical migrants. Bird Conservation 16:12.

Raine, R.M. 1983. Winter habitat use and responses to snow cover of fisher (Martes pennanti) and marten (Martes americana) in southeaster Manitoba. Canadian Journal of Zoology 61:25-34.

Schwartz, M.D., and B.E. Reiter. 2000. Changes in North American spring. International Journal of Climatology 20: 929-932.

Simas, T., J.P. Nunes, and J.G. Ferreira. 2001. Effects of global climate change on coastal salt marshes. Ecological Modeling 139:1-15.

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

Titus, J.G. 1990. Greenhouse effect, sea level rise, and barrier islands: case study of long beach island, New Jersey. Coastal Management 18:65-90.

Titus, J.G., and V.K. Narayanan. 1995. The probability of sea level rise. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., USA.

Wake, C., and A. Markham. 2005. Indicators of Climate Change in the Northeast. Joint publication of Clean Air-Cool Planet and the Climate Change Research Center, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire.

Walker, M.D., R.C. Ingersoll, and P.J. Webber. 1995.

Effects of interannual climate variation on phenology and growth of two alpine forbs. Ecology 76:1067-1083.

Walther, G.R., E. Post, P. Convey, A. Menzel, C. Parmesan, T.J. Beebee, J.M. Fromentin, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, and F. Bairlein. 2002. Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature 416:389-395.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-23 Wildlife Risk Assessment

1. DEFINITION Development includes residential, commercial, and industrial construction, mining extraction opera-tions, and recreational areas (e.g., ski areas, athletic fields). Human population growth, property values, and local land planning vary between towns and regions. Activities associated with development often result in the loss or fragmentation of wild-life habitats and direct wildlife mortality during or after construction. Some effects are subtle; light pollution can distract or disorient moths, or expose terrestrial animals to predation. Indirect effects of development, including altered hydrology, intro-duced species, pollutants, non-point source pol-lution, transportation infrastructure, recreational use, and predation are discussed independently.

2. EXPERT OPINION All habitats and species are affected by devel-opment to varying degrees. New Hampshires human population is rapidly expanding, espe-cially in the south, and those species restricted to southern New Hampshire are at immediate risk.

Development is a widespread threat to wetland and terrestrial habitats and species. Species or habitats with a limited distribution, restricted habitat require-ments, and/or low population sizes are at greatest Development risk. Effects can be extensive and critical for some species (e.g., timber rattlesnake, New England cot-tontail, Karner blue butterfly, Blandings and spotted turtles, common loon, Jefferson salamander, and salt marsh birds). Development of uplands surrounding salt marshes, freshwater marshes, shrub wetlands, and vernal pools is likely to be extensive and critical.

Impacts will be chronic or serious for forest habitats, watersheds, and area-sensitive species. Impacts are generally well documented.

3. KNOWN WILDLIFE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS (A) Rapid population growth New Hampshires population grew by 17% between 1990 and 2004, twice the rate of other New England states (Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests 2005). Previously undeveloped land is being subdivided and developed to meet growing demands for housing and services at a rate of nearly 6,900 ha per year.

Rising land values contribute to development, since high property values limit the amount of land that can be protected with existing funds. Currently, 28% of New Hampshires land area is protected, and only 25% of protected land area is in the southern half of the state, where development is most intense and land values are highest (Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests 2005). Southern New Hampshire also harbors the greatest diversity of the states wildlife, including many rare or endangered species. At the current rate of protection and devel-opment, many more species will likely become rare, and several species may become extirpated. Some species are at greater risk due to limited distribution, low population densities (e.g., Karner blue butterfly, timber rattlesnake), life history characteristics (e.g.,

high adult survivorship, late age of maturity, large home ranges), or ease of development (e.g., pitch-pine barrens).

TABLE 4-14. Number of habitats and species at highest risk due to development. See Table 4-15 and Appendix A and B for details. Risk Category 4 = Greatest risk.

Risk Category Habitats Species 4

9 10 3

3 17 2

9 7

1 10 22

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-24 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 S

EI C

E P

S n

o o

L n

o m

m o

C cita u

q A

4 4

4 4

4 0

0 4

4 ylfrettu B

e ulB re nr a

K s

n err a

B e

niP 4

4 4

4 4

0 0

4 4

w o

rr a

p S

d eliat-p r

a h

S s'n o

sle N

s e

h sr a

M tla S

4 4

4 4

4 0

0 4

4 g

o rF d

r a

p o

e L

nre htr o

N s

d n

alss a

r G

4 4

4 4

4 0

0 4

4 w

o rr a

p S

d eliat-p r

a h

S h

sr a

m tla S

s e

h sr a

M tla S

4 4

4 4

4 0

0 4

4 w

o rr a

p S

e dis a

e S

s e

h sr a

M tla S

4 4

4 4

4 0

0 4

4 telli W

s e

h sr a

M tla S

4 4

4 4

4 0

0 4

4 liatn otto C

d n

alg n

E w

e N

s d

n alb urh S

4 4

3 4

4 7

6 3

4 re d

n a

m ala S

n o

sreffeJ slo o

P la nre V

4 3

4 4

4 0

5 3

4 e

k a

n s

eltta R

re b

m iT ts er o

F e

niP k

a O

n aih c

ala p

p A

4 4

3 3

4 3

3 3

4 d

a o

T srel w

o F

s n

err a

B e

niP 4

3 3

4 4

1 2

3 3

eltru T

s g

nid n

alB s

d n

alte W

b urh S

d n

a h

sr a

M 4

4 3

3 3

0 0

3 3

reta olF k

o o

r B

cita u

q A

3 3

4 4

4 0

0 3

3 nre T

n o

m m

o C

s d

n alsIlats a

o C

4 4

4 1

4 0

0 3

3 le ss u

m e

g d

e W

fr a

w D

cita u

q A

3 3

4 4

4 0

0 3

3 nre T

eta e

s o

R s

d n

alsIlats a

o C

4 4

4 1

4 0

0 3

3 eltru T

d etto p

S s

d n

alte W

b urh S

d n

a h

sr a

M 4

4 2

3 4

0 0

3 3

e s

u o

r G

e c

ur p

S ts er o

F riF-e c

ur p

S d

n al w

o L

2 4

4 4

4 0

0 3

3 eltru T

d o

o W

sts er o

F nialp d

o olF 4

4 2

3 4

0 0

3 3

n etr a

M n

a cire m

A ts er o

F riF-e c

ur p

S n

oita v

elE h

g i

H 3

4 3

4 3

2 9

2 3

le ss u

m d

n o

P nrets a

E cita u

q A

4 3

4 4

2 2

9 2

3 lli W

r o

o p-pih W

s n

err a

B e

niP 4

3 4

3 3

2 9

2 3

elg a

E dla B

cita u

q A

3 3

4 3

4 5

7 2

3 re c

a R

s n

err a

B e

niP 4

4 2

3 3

7 6

2 3

k c

o c

d o

o W

n a

cire m

A s

d n

alb urh S

3 4

3 3

3 3

6 2

3 e

k a

n S

e s

o n

g o

H s

n err a

B e

niP 4

3 3

3 3

3 6

2 3

s d

riB g

nid e

er b-n o

N 4

3 3

3 3

3 6

2 3

e s

u o

r G

d effu R

s d

n alb urh S

3 4

3 3

3 3

6 2

3 nrettiB n

a cire m

A s

d n

alte W

b urh S

d n

a h

sr a

M 1

4 4

4 4

0 5

2 2

y er p

s O

s d

n alte W

b urh S

d n

a h

sr a

M 3

3 4

3 3

0 5

2 2

retn u

a h

g o

B d

e g

niR s

d n

alta e

P 1

4 4

4 4

0 5

2 2

n er W

e g

d e

S s

d n

alte W

b urh S

d n

a h

sr a

M 1

4 4

4 4

0 5

2 2

k w

a hth g

i N

n o

m m

o C

s n

err a

B e

niP 4

3 3

2 3

3 3

2 2

k w

a h

s o

G nre htr o

N sts er o

F d

n alp U

4 3

2 3

3 3

3 2

2 re v

olP g

nipiP s

e n

u D

4 3

1 4

3 3

3 2

2 k

w a

H d

ere dlu o

h s-d e

R sts er o

F nialp d

o olF 3

2 4

3 4

9 2

2 2

n oita m

r ofnI

=

5 d

o o

hile kiL

=

4 g

ni m

iT

=

3

,ytire v

e S

=

2 e

p o

c S

=

1

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-25 Wildlife Risk Assessment (B) Wetland draining and filling Filling of freshwater or estuarine wetlands can cause immediate severe harm to local flora and fauna.

New Hampshire still has the majority of its historic freshwater wetlands (Dahl 1990, 2000), whereas impacts to salt marshes in the region have been more extensive (Shriver et al. 2004). Currently, freshwater wetlands (see Marsh and Shrub Wetlands and Peatlands profiles), salt marshes, rivers, and streams are regulated by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) (RSA 482-A and Wetlands Bureau Administrative Rules). Vernal pools, although regulated by RSA 482-A, are vulnerable to filling because of their small size, ephemeral hydroperiod, and overlooked wildlife value.

Landowners may remove beaver dams to protect private property with little regulatory oversight.

The greatest threat to wetland habitats in New Hampshire is the development of surrounding uplands. Many wetland species require an intact upland buffer for nesting (e.g., American black duck, turtles), foraging (e.g., Jefferson salamander, Fowlers toad, odonates), dispersal (e.g., Blandings and spotted turtles), and hibernation (e.g., Jefferson salamander) (Semlitsch and Bodie 2003). Current state regulations do not require development setbacks from wetlands, unless designated as a Prime wetland by the town. Town zoning and wetland regulations vary considerably.

Shoreline development reduces habitat quality for wildlife through vegetative modification or removal, pollution, creation of structures in close proximity to nesting or wintering sites, increased predator densities and human activity, and, potentially, declines in TABLE 4-15. (continued)

RANKING SCORES*

SPECIES HABITAT 1

2 3

4 5

RANK CLASS S

T A

TIB A

H s

n err a

B e

niP 4

4 4

4 4

0 0

4 4

s e

h sr a

M tla S

4 4

4 4

4 0

0 4

4 s

e n

u D

4 3

4 4

4 0

5 3

4 ts er o

F e

niP-d o

o w

d r

a H

-k c

ol m

e H

4 3

4 4

4 0

5 3

4 ts er o

F riF e

c ur p

S d

n al w

o L

4 3

4 4

4 0

5 3

4 s

d e

h sreta W

lats a

o C

la diT-n o

N 4

3 4

4 4

0 5

3 4

s d

e h

sreta W

lats a

o C

la diT 4

3 4

4 4

0 5

3 4

slo o

P la nre V

4 3

4 4

4 0

5 3

4 ts er o

F e

niP k

a O

n aih c

ala p

p A

4 4

3 3

4 3

3 3

4 sts er o

F nialp d

o olF 3

4 4

3 4

1 2

3 3

ts er o

F refin o

C

-d o

o w

d r

a H

nre htr o

N 4

3 3

4 4

1 2

3 3

s d

e h

sreta W

la n

oitis n

a rT lats a

o C

3 3

4 3

3 0

5 2

2 s

d e

h sreta W

m ets nia M

re viR tu citc e

n n

o C

3 3

2 4

4 0

5 2

2 s

d n

alte W

b urh S

d n

a h

sr a

M 1

4 4

4 4

0 5

2 2

s d

n alta e

P 1

4 4

4 4

0 5

2 2

s d

n alss a

r G

4 4

2 2

3 3

3 2

2 ts er o

F riF-e c

ur p

S n

oita v

elE h

g i

H 1

4 4

3 4

9 2

2 2

s d

n alb urh S

S 3

3 3

3 3

5 2

2 2

s d

n alsIlats a

o C

3 3

3 2

4 5

2 2

2 s

d e

h sreta W

d n

alp U

nre htu o

S 2

3 2

4 4

8 0

2 2

n oita m

r ofnI

=

5 d

o o

hile kiL

=

4 g

ni m

iT

=

3

,ytire v

e S

=

2 e

p o

c S

=

1

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-26 Wildlife Risk Assessment reproductive success and local population numbers (Alvo 1981, Dahmer 1986, McIntyre 1988, Buehler 2000). The Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act (RSA 483-B) regulates shoreline cutting and development of major rivers and large surface bodies (larger than 10 ac); however, most of the smaller perennial tributaries receive no upland protection.

Sites favored by nesting common loons and wintering and nesting bald eagles often are of prime development value and/or receive intense recreational use (K. Taylor, Loon Preservation Committee; C.

Martin, NHA, personal communications). Removal of riparian vegetation reduces the habitat quality for wood turtles (Tuttle and Carroll 1997) and makes them more vulnerable to collection and predation.

(C) Unregulated upland development Development of terrestrial habitats is largely unregulated by the state. Site-specific permits are required by the NHDES for impacts exceeding 0.93 ha, but this review is focused on storm water discharge, with little or no review of wildlife or rare natural community impacts. Approximately 7,000 ha of forestland have been lost annually in New Hampshire since the mid-1980s, largely because of development (Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests 2005). Among matrix forests, Appalachian oak pine forests and hemlock-hardwood forests appear to be at greatest risk. Ninety-five percent of predicted Appalachian oak pine forests occurred in Cheshire, Hillsborough, Rockingham, and Strafford Counties (New Hampshire Fish and Game GIS; C. Foss, NHA, personal communication),

all areas experiencing heavy human population growth (SPNHF 2005). Pine barrens are at particular risk because of their limited distribution and because the soils they occur on are favorable for development.

Early successional shrublands in southern New Hampshire are ephemeral but are rapidly being developed, leaving the New England cottontail at serious risk.

(D) Fragmentation Habitat is fragmented when it is subdivided into increasingly smaller patches that are segregated from one another. Fragmentation of habitat has numerous and widespread impacts on wildlife populations and habitats, both aquatic and terrestrial (Saunders et al.

1991). As forests in New Hampshire are subdivided, ecological processes may be disrupted and edge effects may increase. Most pitch pine-scrub oak woodland communities have been fragmented into relatively small habitat patches (Howard et al. 2005), reducing the potential for large natural disturbances (especially fire) of sufficient frequency, intensity, and extent to maintain natural ecological processes (Wagner et al.

2003). Population level impacts from fragmentation are serious or critical for species requiring large areas of habitat (e.g., American marten, bobcat, lynx, timber rattlesnake, Blandings turtle). Wetlands, including vernal pools, are becoming increasingly fragmented by development, especially in southern New Hampshire, making wetland dependent organisms vulnerable. Where these species must disperse through inhospitable habitat, local populations are vulnerable to reduced gene flow or extirpation (Semlitsch and Bodie 1998, Marsh and Trenham 2001).

(E) Light Pollution Outdoor lighting by streetlights, parking lot lights, and illumination associated with buildings has sharply increased over the last half century (Frank 1988, Cinzano et al. 2000). Light pollution has ad-verse effects on many species of insects, particularly nocturnal taxa such as moths. Lepidopterists have long attributed moth population declines, especially those of northeastern saturniids, to increasing arti-ficial light pollution (Frank 1988). Artificial light-ing disturbs flight, navigation, vision, migration, dispersal, oviposition, mating, feeding, and crypsis in some moths (Frank 1988). It also increases their susceptibility to predation by birds, bats, and spiders (Frank 1988). Heavily lit urban areas can attract nocturnally migrating birds (e.g., many songbirds, cuckoos, owls, rails), which become disoriented and may suffer mortality from collisions with buildings or other structures (Klem 1989). Disoriented birds, in turn, may be more susceptible to predation, or may find themselves in inhospitable environments with limited foraging opportunities. Some research-ers estimate that upwards of 100 million birds are killed annually in this manner in North America.

(F) Commercial extraction Commercial extraction removes vegetation and abiotic resources used by wildlife. In addition, large machinery may be a source of direct mortality.

Commercial extraction of sand and gravel is a threat

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-27 Wildlife Risk Assessment to timber rattlesnakes, eastern hognose snakes, and wood turtles. Abandoned gravel pits may be valuable habitat for some wildlife (e.g., early successional obligates such as New England cottontail and nesting turtles). However, following extraction of abiotic resources, properties often are sold for development, permanently altering the site for wildlife.

4. RESEARCH NEEDS

• Identify priority areas for protection, restoration, and management among all critical habitat types

• Identify landscape connections for protection and restoration

• Identify critical habitat needs of species at greatest risk through monitoring

• Identify land planning that is least likely to affect significant natural resources

5. LITERATURE CITED Alvo, R. 1981. Marsh nesting of Common Loons (Gavia immer). Canadian Field-Naturalist 95:357.

Buehler, D.A.

2000.

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). In The Birds of North America, No.

683 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetlands losses in the United States 1780s to 1980s. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.,

USA.

Dahl, T.E. 2000. Status and trends of wetlands in 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.

McIntyre, J.W. 1988. The Common Loon: Spirit of Northern Lakes. University of Minnesota Press, Minnesota, USA.

Saunders, D.A., R.J. Hobbs, and C.R. Margules.

1991. Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conservation Biology. 5:

18-32.

Semlitsch, R.D., and J.R. Bodie. 1998. Are small, isolated wetlands expendable?

Conservation Biology. 12:1129-1133.

Semlitsch, R.D., and J.R. Bodie. 2003. Biological criteria for buffer zones around wetlands and riparian habitats for amphibians and reptiles.

Conservation Biology 17:1219-1228.

Shriver, W.G., T.P. Hodgman, J.P. Gibbs, and P.D.

Vickery. 2004. Landscape context influences salt marsh bird diversity and area requirements in New England. Biological Conservation 119:545-553.

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. Concord, New Hampshire, USA.

Tuttle, S.E., and D.M. Carroll. 1997. Ecology and natural history of the wood turtle (Clemmys insculpta) in southern New Hampshire. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2:447-449.

Wagner, D.L., M.W. Nelson, and D.F. Schweitzer.

2003. Shrubland Lepidoptera of southern New England and southeastern New York: ecology, conservation, and management. Forest Ecology and Management 185: 95-112.

New Hampshire Wildlife Actin Plan 4-28 Wildlife Risk Assessment Diseases and Pathogens 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.

1. DEFINITION Wildlife diseases are most commonly bacterial but can also be viral or fungal. Diseases are transmitted or enhanced by the poultry industry, unsanitary birdhouses, mosquitoes, and chemical applications and often are persistent. Great improvements in the speed and efficiency of international commerce have facilitated the spread of diseases that were once isolat-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 dramatic affects on fish and wildlife populations due to widespread mortality in infected areas. In addition, wildlife diseases also can pose risks to human health.

2. EXPERT OPINION Diseases may locally affect fish, wildlife, and plants that comprise habitats of conservation concern in New Hampshire. Impacts will likely be serious for several species over the short and long-term. Impacts on vernal pool species, fish, purple martins, a variety of raptors and corvids, and coastal bird species such as the common and roseate tern, can be at extreme risk due to large magnitudes of mortality associated with diseases. Impacts are well documented for coastal is-land birds, fish, purple martins, and raptors and are poorly documented for vernal pool habitats.

3. KNOWN WILDLIFE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS Chronic wasting disease (CWD) appears to be transmitted via abnormal proteins called prions.

Transmission is through physical contact or through infected feed. Infected prions are most concentrated in the nervous system tissue such as the brain or lymphatic tissue. CWD is a contagious neurological disease that is fatal to ungulates (primarily deer and elk). It is considered a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy or TSE that attacks the brains of infected animals. As a result, the animal becomes emaciated, exhibits abnormal

behavior, and eventually dies (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services 2005).

Avian cholera is an increasing threat to seabirds (USFWS 1998) and may be linked to contamination by the poultry industry. Avian cholera is a highly infectious disease caused by the bacterium Pasteurella multocida that is quickly lethal and can kill entire colonies if not contained.

Avian botulism is also carried through a bacterium that is transmitted through the discharge of sewage or buildup of organic matter. The botulism bacterium accumulates in dead birds and scavengers are vulnerable to transmission. The source and transmission of salmonella in birds is not well understood.

In 1988, 37 common terns were found dead on Eastern Egg Rock in Maine from avian cholera. This resulted in complete abandonment of the colony with only 37% recolonizing later in the season (Kress 1997). In 1991, large numbers of terns and laughing gulls died from avian botulism on Eastern Egg Rock after a massive menhaden die-off in Muscongus Bay.

Avian cholera has been identified as the bacterium that killed terns, gulls, and eiders on seabird islands in Maine. In 2004, close to 2000 common tern chicks were found dead on the nests at Monomoy Island, Risk Category Habitats Species 4

0 0

3 0

0 2

1 0

1 2

3

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-29 Wildlife Risk Assessment Massachusetts with no evidence of external trauma.

Salmonella was determined to be the cause of death.

Diseases spread by various pathogens (e.g., viruses, bacteria, parasites) can harm fish populations in New Hampshire. While diseases in wild fish populations are natural, more widespread incidents of disease are present under adverse environmental conditions.

Fish pathogens are more likely to occur in areas with crowded conditions (aquaculture facilities) and poor water quality. Studies on the transmission of diseases from hatchery fish stocks to wild fish populations are inconclusive. Whirling disease, infectious pancreatic necrosis, bacterial kidney disease, and gas bubble disease are examples of salmonid diseases known to have occurred in NHFG fish culture facilities.

West Nile Virus (WNV) is carried in birds and spread through the bite of infected mosquitoes, often causing encephalitis or meningitis. It was first detected in the United States in 1999 and is now found in all of the lower 48 states. Corvids and raptors appear to be particularly susceptible to the disease (Gancz et al.

2002). The New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services has limited their collection of dead birds for WNV testing to crows and blue jays, so it is difficult to determine whether other species in New Hampshire have been exposed to WNV.

By September 2005, 51 birds, representing 22 species, tested positive for eastern equine encephalitis.

It is not known if there are population level effects from this disease.

International trade in

wildlife, especially amphibians, is a major pathway for the potential introduction of foreign diseases to native wildlife populations in the United States (Daszag et al. 1999, Mazzoni et al. 2003). Over one million bullfrogs are imported into the United States each year.

Many of these frogs are raised on farms in South America where they may become carriers for diseases that could potentially spread to wild populations (Mazzoni et al. 2003).

4. RESEARCH NEEDS

• Establish rapid diagnostic techniques for ungulates potentially infected with CWD

• Assess threats from diseases to species of concern in New Hampshire

• Assist health officials with understanding interactions of wildlife diseases and human health

5. LITERATURE CITED Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services. United States Department of Agriculture. Chronic Wasting Disease. Available: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/

nahps/cwd/. Accessed July 2005.

Gancz, A.Y., I.K. Barker, R. Lindsay, A. Dibernardo, K. McKeever, and B. Hunter. West Nile virus outbreak in North American owls, Ontario, 2002. Emerging Infectious Diseases [serial on the Internet]. 2004 Dec [12 April 2005]. Available from:

<http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/

vol10no12/04-0167.htm>.

Kress, S.W. 1997. Using Animal Behavior for Conservation: Case Studies in Seabird Restoration from the Maine Coast, USA. Journal of the Yamashina Institute of Ornithology 29:1-26.

Mazzoni, R., A.A. Cunningham, P. Daszak, A.

Apolo, P. Perdomo, and G. Speranza. 2003.

Emerging Pathogen of Wild Amphibians in Frogs (Rana catesbeiana) Farmed for International Trade.

Emerging Infectious Diseases 9:995-998 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

1998. Roseate Tern Recovery Plan - Northeastern Population, First Update. Hadley, Massachusetts, USA.

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 S

T A

TIB A

H ts er o

F e

niP k

a O

n aih c

ala p

p A

4 3

1 3

3 4

0 2

2 n

oita m

r ofnI

=

5 d

o o

hile kiL

=

4 g

ni m

iT

=

3

,ytire v

e S

=

2 e

p o

c S

=

1

New Hampshire Wildlife Actin Plan 4-30 Wildlife Risk Assessment

1. DEFINITION Wind energy and communication tower infrastruc-ture (e.g., television, radio, cell towers) are known to degrade wildlife habitats and cause direct mortality of individuals (Kerlinger 2000, Kerns and Kerlinger 2003, Schwartz 2004). This may lead to reduced population size, alterations of population structure, and perhaps cause local extirpations. Communication towers are common in New Hampshire. Commercial wind energy development is considered the fastest growing sector of the energy market in the United States (deVries 2004, Winegrad in Resolve 2004). Al-though New England has historically lagged behind the nation in wind resource development, high sus-tained winds at high elevation sites and production tax credits appear to be creating a competitive siting environment (McLeish 2002).

2. EXPERT OPINION Wind energy and communication tower infrastructure (e.g., television, radio, cell towers) could degrade critical habitat and cause direct mortality and thereby reduce population size, alter population structure, and perhaps cause local extirpation.

Energy and communication infrastructures are considered a chronic to serious local threat for a Energy and Communication Infrastructure variety of species and habitats but could be potentially serious for some species (e.g., American marten, bats, spruce grouse, and migratory birds including osprey) and habitats (e.g., alpine, high elevation spruce fir, talus slope/rocky ridges). Impacts to habitats are somewhat well documented, but weakly documented for most wildlife species.

3. KNOWN WILDLIFE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS (A) Habitat loss and degradation Habitat alteration stemming from the construction of wind and telecommunication structures and access roads can be substantial (Bodin 2004), and can per-haps be exacerbated by the unique and fragile habitats where these structures are often placed (i.e., alpine, cliff and high elevation spruce-fir habitats). Ameri-can marten, spruce grouse, and Bicknells thrush are sensitive to the threats posed by towers and turbines.

Offshore wind turbines may affect nearby waters and the ocean floor, particularly during the construction phase when the seafloor is disturbed (Kerlinger and Curry 2002).

(B) Collision and mortality There is extensive evidence that migratory birds and bats, including species of conservation concern in New Hampshire, may experience substantial mor-tality at some telecommunication towers and wind turbines (Kerlinger 2000, Shire et al. 2000, Kerns and Kerlinger 2003, Resolve 2004, Schwartz 2004).

Nocturnally migrating birds may be attracted to lights on towers, become disoriented, and crash into towers or associated guy wires. There is less informa-tion available for impacts associated with nearshore or offshore wind facilities, especially in the United States (Kerlinger 2000, Kerlinger and Curry 2002). Impacts would expectedly be greatest when wind facilities are sited near migration pathways or concentrations of wintering or foraging waterfowl and waterbirds TABLE 4-18. Number of habitats and species at highest risk due to energy and communication infrastructure. See Table 4-19 and Appendix A and B for details. Risk Category 4 =

Greatest risk.

Risk Category Habitats Species 4

0 0

3 0

0 2

3 4

1 6

9

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-31 Wildlife Risk Assessment (Kerlinger 2000). Mortality may be considered insig-nificant at some locations, but it is not known what cumulative impacts might occur at a regional level (Winegrad in Schwartz 2004).

Towers over 200 feet tall may pose the greatest threat, and as of 1999, there were approximately 60 such towers in New Hampshire (Braile 1999).

Although large mortalities from tower collisions have not been recorded in New Hampshire, the issue has received little study, and its overall magnitude remains unknown. Although there are no active wind turbine facilities in New Hampshire, there are several proposals being evaluated by state and local regulators. In an attempt to minimize wildlife impacts, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) produced guidelines for the siting and operation of both communication towers and wind turbines.

4. RESEARCH NEEDS

• More information is needed on the direct threats (habitat loss, mortality, wildlife behavior modifications) of wind farms and communication towers proposed in the Northeast, including New Hampshire. USFWS recommends a minimum of 3 years pre-construction surveys to document impacts to wildlife. Post-construction surveys should assess impacts and lead to modified design and siting criteria.

• Conduct a cost-benefit analysis for each proposed wind energy project and determine its effects on the environment. Benefits should clearly outweigh environmental costs before a project proceeds.

5. LITERATURE CITED Bodin, M. 2004. The Questions are blowing in the wind. Northern Woodlands.

Braile, R. 1999. Proliferation of cell towers poses threat to birds. The Boston Globe. May 23, 1999 New Hampshire Weekly, p. 1.

deVries, E. 2004. 150,000 MW by 2012! Renewable Energy World. June 2004: 60-70.

Kerlinger, P. 2000. Avian mortality at communication towers: a review of recent literature, research, and methodology. Curry & Kerlinger, L.L.C. Cape May Point, New Jersey, USA. Prepared for United States Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Migratory Bird Management.

Kerlinger, P. 2001. Avian issues and potential impacts associated with wind power development in the nearshore islands of Long Island, New York.

Prepared for Bruce Bailey, AWS Scientific Kerlinger, P., and R. Curry. 2002. Desktop avian risk assessment for the Long Island power authority offshore wind energy project. Prepared for AWS Scientific, Inc. and Long Island Power Authority.

Kerns, J., and P. Kerlinger. 2003. A study of bird and bat collision fatalities at the Mountaineer Wind 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 S

EI C

E P

S n

etr a

M n

a cire m

A ts er o

F riF-e c

ur p

S n

oita v

elE h

g i

H 1

4 3

3 4

8 0

2 2

y er p

s O

s d

n alte W

b urh S

d n

a h

sr a

M 1

4 4

2 4

8 0

2 2

e s

u o

r G

e c

ur p

S ts er o

F riF-e c

ur p

S d

n al w

o L

1 4

3 3

4 8

0 2

2 n

o cla F

e nir g

ere P

sffil C

2 3

3 3

3 8

8 1

2 S

T A

TIB A

H ts er o

F riF-e c

ur p

S n

oita v

elE h

g i

H 2

4 3

3 4

0 5

2 2

e nipl A

3 4

2 2

3 4

0 2

2 s

e g

diR y

k c

o R

d n

a s

e p

olS s

ula T

4 3

2 3

2 4

0 2

2 n

oita m

r ofnI

=

5 d

o o

hile kiL

=

4 g

ni m

iT

=

3

,ytire v

e S

=

2 e

p o

c S

=

1

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-32 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.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-33 Wildlife Risk Assessment

1. DEFINITION Introduced species may compete directly with native species for food or space, may compete indirectly by changing the food web or physical environment, or may prey on or hybridize with native species (Stein and Flack 1996). Rare species with limited ranges and restricted habitat requirements are particularly vulnerable to introduced species.

Invasive species (i.e., species that spread rapidly or colonize vigorously) are now regarded as the second-leading threat to at-risk species nationwide, behind only habitat destruction (Stein and Flack 1996). Approximately 42% of federal threatened or endangered species are at risk from invasive species (Stein and Flack 1996). Impacts to many threatened or endangered species is not well known.

2. EXPERT OPINION Introduced animals (e.g., mammalian predators, zebra mussels) may have extreme impacts on island nesting birds (Roseate tern), dwarf wedgemussels, and eastern pondmussels in the near future. Hemlock-hardwood-pine forests, Karner blue butterflies, and coastal transitional wetlands are seriously threatened as well. Salt marshes and associated at-risk birds and watersheds in the Lakes and Monadnock regions will likely undergo serious impacts from introduced plants in the near future. Invasive species seriously impact several other habitats including pine barrens, floodplain forests, and many watersheds.

3. KNOWN WILDLIFE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS (A) Invasive invertebrates A number of invasive exotic invertebrates have been introduced to the United States via mechanisms ranging from importation of commercial goods to intentional release for control of other invasive species.

Introduced Species New Hampshire officially recognizes 16 invasive exotic invertebrates that are prohibited for collection, importation, sale, distribution, propagation, or release (Chapter Agr 3800 Invasive Species).

Introductions of invasive invertebrates have significant consequences on critical habitats and associated wildlife species. For instance, hemlock wooly adelgid, first observed in New Hampshire in 2000, is a significant threat to the states hemlock forests. The insects suck sap from young twigs, retarding or preventing tree growth and causing needles to turn grayish-green and drop prematurely, usually resulting in significant die-offs (McClure et al. 2001). There is some evidence that the adelgids northward spread is controlled by winter temperatures, but it is unknown if control is sufficient to minimize impacts on New Hampshires hemlock forests (Sheilds and Cheah 2003).

Ladybird beetles (Coccinella septempunctata) introduced to control aphids on agricultural crops are known to prey on Karner blue larvae and immature Monarch butterflies (Schellhorn et al. 2005). Being a generalist predator, ladybird beetles may also harm other species of butterflies.

Wasps and flies marketed and released as biological controls for agricultural pests are often generalist parasites with potentially widespread but undocumented effects on native Lepidoptera.

Zebra mussels have a high potential to signifi-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.

Risk Category Habitats Species 4

0 3

3 2

1 2

8 6

1 12 13

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-34 Wildlife Risk Assessment cantly affect the states freshwater mussels, especially the state endangered dwarf wedgemussel. After their discovery in Lake Saint Clare in 1988, zebra mus-sels quickly spread throughout many regions of the United States and parts of Canada. Adult zebra mus-sels are transported to waterbodies while attached to boats, and larvae may be transported in bilge and bait bucket water. Zebra mussels compete with native freshwater mussels for food and may reduce food con-centration to levels that cannot support native species (Strayer 1999). The Connecticut River is at high to serious risk of zebra mussel colonization (Michelle Babione, Silvio O. Conte National Wildlife Refuge, personal communication).

(B) Range expansions and local introductions A number of species have expanded their range or in-creased in abundance in the last 100 years either natu-rally or with the assistance of humans. For instance, coyotes have been expanding eastward since the mid-1900s. The first verified account of a coyote in New Hampshire was in Grafton County in 1944. Between 1972 and 1980 coyotes spread across the state and are now common in every county (OBrien, undated).

People have likely contributed to the range expansion and increased abundance of mammalian predators (e.g., coyotes, foxes, raccoons, etc.).

Readily available food sources (e.g., agricultural crops, trash, pet food, etc.) are thought to facilitate 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 S

EI C

E P

S le ss u

m e

g d

e W

fr a

w D

cita u

q A

4 4

3 3

4 3

3 3

4 le ss u

m d

n o

P nrets a

E cita u

q A

4 4

3 3

4 3

3 3

4 nre T

eta e

s o

R s

d n

alsIlats a

o C

4 4

4 2

4 3

3 3

4 ylfrettu B

e ulB re nr a

K s

n err a

B e

niP 3

4 4

2 4

2 9

2 3

w o

rr a

p S

d eliat-p r

a h

S s'n o

sle N

s e

h sr a

M tla S

3 2

4 4

4 0

5 2

2 w

o rr a

p S

d eliat-p r

a h

S h

sr a

m tla S

s e

h sr a

M tla S

3 2

4 4

4 0

5 2

2 w

o rr a

p S

e dis a

e S

s e

h sr a

M tla S

3 2

4 4

4 0

5 2

2 telli W

s e

h sr a

M tla S

3 2

4 4

4 0

5 2

2 liatn otto C

d n

alg n

E w

e N

s d

n alb urh S

4 2

3 3

3 5

2 2

2 reta olF k

o o

r B

cita u

q A

2 3

3 2

4 8

8 1

2 S

T A

TIB A

H ts er o

F e

niP-d o

o w

d r

a H

-k c

ol m

e H

4 4

2 3

4 0

0 3

3 s

d e

h sreta W

la n

oitis n

a rT lats a

o C

3 3

3 4

4 5

7 2

3 s

e h

sr a

M tla S

3 2

4 4

4 0

5 2

2 sts er o

F nialp d

o olF 3

3 2

3 4

5 2

2 2

s d

n alte W

b urh S

d n

a h

sr a

M 3

3 2

3 4

5 2

2 2

s d

e h

sreta W

m ets nia M

re viR tu citc e

n n

o C

2 3

2 3

4 8

8 1

2 s

d e

h sreta W

lats a

o C

la diT-n o

N 2

3 2

4 3

8 8

1 2

s n

err a

B e

niP 2

3 2

3 4

8 8

1 2

s d

e h

sreta W

d n

alp U

nre htu o

S 2

3 2

4 3

8 8

1 2

s d

e h

sreta W

lats a

o C

la diT 2

3 2

4 3

8 8

1 2

n oita m

r ofnI

=

5 d

o o

hile kiL

=

4 g

ni m

iT

=

3

,ytire v

e S

=

2 e

p o

c S

=

1

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-35 Wildlife Risk Assessment population increases in landscapes fragmented by agriculture and development (Oehler and Litvaitis 1996). Boat visitation has been the vehicle for rat introductions on both Star and Appledore Islands, and raccoons were introduced to the island through an unknown source in 2004. Predation by medium-sized mammals is the most common proximate mortality factor of New England cottontail and has caused high mortalities of common and roseate terns on the Isles of Shoals (Barbour and Litvaitis 1993, Brown and Litvaitis 1995, DeLuca 2005).

(C) Horticultural introductions Horticulture (arboretums, botanic gardens, nurseries, etc.) has been responsible for the introduction and spread of a number of exotic plants. In fact, the majority of woody invasive plants in the U.S. (85%)

were introduced for horticultural purposes including landscaping, gardening, mitigation of soil erosion, and improving wildlife habitat (Reichard 1997 as cited in Reichard and White 2001). Some of these are officially listed as invasive in New Hampshire, including autumn olive, Japanese barberry, glossy buckthorn, and others (Eckardt 1997, Reinartz 1997, Silander and Klepeis 2001, New Hampshire Department of Agriculture 2005). These and other invasive exotic plants may decrease plant species diversity, produce allelopathic chemicals that retard other species, modify disturbance regimes, and significantly modify the species composition and structure of vegetation (Silander and Klepeis 2001).

These mechanisms may inhibit forest regeneration and degrade wildlife habitat.

(D) Aquatic pathways Invasive exotic aquatic plants and animals enter lakes, streams, and rivers of New Hampshire watersheds via commercial transport, ballast water discharges, aquaculture, boating, landscaping, water transport, private aquarium releases, and bait handling (Courtenay and Robins 1973, Glassner-Shwayder 1996). Negative effects include alterations in nutrient cycling pathways, decreased habitat value of infested waters, decreased water quality, altered community structure, and threats to endangered species (e.g.,

dwarf wedgemussel) (Estuarine and Freshwater Working Group 2005). Eight of the 14 invasive plants prohibited in New Hampshire already occur in the state, with variable milfoil (Myriophyllum heterophyllum) and fanwort (Cabomba caroliniana),

both aquatic plants, being the most common (Varney and Christie 2003). Twenty-three non-indigenous fish species have been introduced into New Hampshire waters. Of these, 17 are species native to the United States and 6 are species introduced from other countries (exotic). Fifty percent of the exotic species introductions resulted in establishing self-sustaining populations (Estuarine and Freshwater Working Group 2005).

(E) Disturbances that lead to invasions Disturbance of a salt marsh, such as the construction of a road that restricts tidal flow, can exacerbate the proliferation of invasive plants (e.g., common reed (Phragmites australis) and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) (Niering and Warren 1980, Benoit and Askins 1999). The invasion of salt marsh habitats by exotic plants reduces habitat quality for a number of wildlife species. For instance, salt marsh sparrows, a species normally found in Spartina grasses, are unlikely to use a marsh dominated by tall, thick stands of common reed. Further, the density of these stands of reed may make prey inaccessible or may reduce foraging success (Benoit and Askins 1999).

Timber harvest in upland habitats can also exacerbate invasions. If invasive exotic plants are already present in or near a forest stand, opening the forest floor to additional sunlight and scarifying the soil with harvesting equipment can create conditions conducive to the spread of invasive exotic plants.

4. RESEARCH NEEDS

• Identify and monitor existing and potential transport mechanisms for invasive species

• Research and evaluate forms of invasive plant and animal control

• Collect data on invasive species abundance and distribution to identify current threat areas

• Identify species and sites for invasive species management, which can be combined with existing efforts (e.g., Invasive Plant Atlas of New England and New Hampshires Estuarine and Freshwater Working Group)

• Research effects of introduced species on at-risk wildlife and associated habitats

• Assess habitat characteristics that facilitate invasions by exotic plants

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-36 Wildlife Risk Assessment

5. LITERATURE CITED Barbour, M.S., and J.A. Litvaitis. 1993. Niche dimensions of New England cottontails in relation to habitat patch size. Oecologia 95:321-327.

Benoit, L.K., and R.A. Askins. 1999. Impact of the spread of Phragmites on the distribution of birds in Connecticut tidal marshes. Wetlands 19:194-208.

Brown, A.L., and J.A. Litvaitis. 1995. Habitat features associated with predation of New England cottontails: what scale is appropriate? Canadian Journal of Zoology 73:1005-1011.

Courtenay, W., and R. Robins. 1973. Exotic Aquatic Organisms in Florida with Emphasis on Fishes: A Review and Recommendations. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 102(1):

DeLuca, D.L. 2005. Roseate tern species profile.

New Hampshires Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. New Hampshire Fish &

Game Department.

Eckardt, N. 1997. Element stewardship abstract:

Elaeagnus umbellata. The Nature Conservancy. 6pp.

Estuarine and Freshwater Working Group. 2005.

State of New Hampshire Comprehensive Management Plan for the Prevention and Control of Aquatic Nuisance Species, Unpublished draft.

Concord, New Hampshire, USA.

Glassner-Shwayder K. 1996. A Model State Comprehensive Management Plan for the Prevention and Control of Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species. Environmental Quality and Resource Management Program, Great Lakes Commission Ann Arbor, Michigan.

McClure, M.S., S.M. Salom, and K.S. Shields. 2001.

Hemlock wooly adelgid. United States Forest Service, Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA.

New Hampshire Coastal Program (NHCP). New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Concord, New Hampshire. NHCP home 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.

OBrien, K. undated. Eastern Coyote (Canis latrans var.), University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension.

www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Wildlife/

Wildlife_profiles/profile_eastern_coyote.htm Oehler, J.D., and J.A. Litvaitis. 1996. The role of spatial scale in understanding responses by medium-sized carnivores to forest fragmentation.

Canadian Journal of Zoology 74: 2070-2079.

Reichard, S.H., and P. White. 2001. Horticulture as a pathway of invasive plant introductions in the United States. BioScience 51:103-113.

Reinartz, J.A. 1997. Controlling glossy buckthorn with winter herbicide treatments of cut stump.

Natural Areas Journal 17:38-41.

Schellhorn, N.A., C.P. Lane, and D.M. Olson.

2005. The co-occurrence of an introduced biological control agent (Coleoptera: Coccinella septempunctata) and an endangered butterfly (Lepidoptera: Lycaeides melissa samuelis). Journal of Insect Conservation 9:41-47.

Sheilds, K.S., and C.A. Cheah. 2003. 2002-2003 winter mortality of hemlock wooly adelgid in the northeastern U.S. United State Forest Service 4pp.

http://na.fs.fed.us/fhp/hwa/pdfs/Cold_Hardiness_

ESA03.pdf Silander, J.A., Jr., and D.M. Klepeis. 2001. The invasion ecology of Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii) in the New England landscape.

Biological Invasions 1:189-201.

Stein, B.A., and S.R. Flack. 1996. Americas least wanted: alien species invasions of U.S. ecosystems.

The Nature Conservancy 36pp.

Strayer, D.L. 1999. Effects of alien species on freshwater mollusks in North America. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 18:

74-98.

Varney R., and N. Christie. 2003. Fighting the Spread of Invasive Species in New Hampshire.

www.epa.gov/region01/ra/column/archive/

invasivespecies_nh_20030909.html.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-37 Wildlife Risk Assessment Mercury 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.

1. DEFINITION Though naturally occurring, mercury is an air and water quality issue that affects human and ecological health. The redistribution of inorganic mercury (Hg) that is available for methylation is a serious ecological issue in New Hampshire. Fossil fuel burning (particularly coal) and incineration of municipal and hospital waste has significantly enhanced availability of mercury. Some areas of New Hampshire are affected by within-state emission or point sources, while regional and global emissions have statewide impacts (Evers 2005). Mercury distribution is well characterized for northeastern North America (Evers and Clair 2005a). Many habitats are vulnerable to methylmercury (MeHg) production and availability, and species at risk are typically predators or are long-lived (Evers et al. 2005).

2. EXPERT OPINION Methylmercury availability greatly affects species and habitats of conservation concern in New Hampshire, though habitat and species sensitivity varies. Impacts will likely be serious in salt marshes, marsh and shrub wetlands, and floodplain forests. Mercury will likely have a serious effect on aquatic and high-elevation habitats in the short-term. Methylmercury is well documented in aquatic habitats, somewhat documented in salt marsh, marsh and shrub wetlands, and high-elevation habitats, and weakly or undocumented in alpine and peatlands.

3. KNOWN WILDLIFE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS (A) Piscivorous food webs Fish are a primary food web pathway for methylmercury, making aquatic habitats and a broad suite of aquatic species at risk (Evers and Clairs 2005a).

The loon is a long-lived fish eating bird and has been well studied across North America and in New Hampshire (Evers et al. 1998, 2003). Southeastern New Hampshire was identified as a biological hotspot for methylmercury availability (Evers 2005), and loon blood and egg mercury levels indicate approximately 14% of New Hampshires breeding population is at risk to behavioral, physiological, and reproductive impacts. DeSorbo and Evers (2005) recently documented that lower bald eagle productivity for the past 10 years in Maine is significantly correlated to chick blood mercury levels. In rivers and streams, ospreys, common mergansers, and belted kingfishers are high trophic level species and have been shown to have elevated mercury levels (Evers et al. 2005).

Mercury levels in kingfishers living on lakes are 4 times higher than those on the ocean. Marine foraging terns are less affected by methylmercury than are those foraging in estuaries and freshwater systems (BRI unpublished data). Aquatic mammals dependent on crayfish (Pennuto et al. 2005) and fish are also at high risk, particularly the mink and river otter (Yates et al. 2005).

(B) Insectivorous food webs Recent work strongly indicates that insectivores can have elevated body burdens of mercury. A Massachusetts study in riverine scrub-shrub wetlands showed that methylmercury can biomagnify through Risk Category Habitats Species 4

0 0

3 0

3 2

6 7

1 6

9

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-38 Wildlife Risk Assessment the avian insect food web. Some individual northern waterthrushes and red-winged blackbirds had blood mercury levels that exceeded levels in all bald eagles sampled across New England (Evers et al. 2005).

Other species at risk in marsh and shrub wetlands include the American bittern and Virginia rail.

Estuaries, particularly those surrounded by developed landscapes, and floodplain forest, are prone to methylmercury pollution. Studies of the salt marsh and Nelsons sharp-tailed sparrow and seaside sparrow in four New England National Wildlife Refuges and other estuaries show that blood mercury levels exceed safe standards set for insectivorous songbirds (0.82 ppm, wet weight). These levels were consistently higher than those in associated insectivores, indicating upper trophic level foraging (Lane and Evers 2005).

In floodplains, high blood mercury levels in the northern waterthrush indicate New Hampshire breeding species such as the red-shouldered hawk and Louisiana waterthrush could be at risk.

(B) Acidic habitats Ecosystems sensitive to acidic conditions are of high interest for investigating potential impacts of methylmercury. The synergy of acidity and mercury deposition may harm breeding songbird populations.

Long-term acid deposition has lowered calcium availability in the Northeast (Hames et al. 2002) and likely elsewhere in eastern North America (Driscoll et al. 2001), has changed invertebrate faunal assemblages (Schindler et al. 1985), and has increased methylmercury availability (Spry and Wiener 1991).

Although not well studied, methylmercury in insectivorous birds and small terrestrial mammals such as shrews and bats may be more of a risk than previously considered. Two consistently acidic 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 S

EI C

E P

S elg a

E dla B

cita u

q A

3 4

4 2

4 2

9 2

3 y

er p

s O

s d

n alte W

b urh S

d n

a h

sr a

M 4

3 2

3 4

3 6

2 3

n o

cla F

e nir g

ere P

sffil C

4 3

2 3

4 3

6 2

3 n

o o

L n

o m

m o

C cita u

q A

3 2

4 4

4 0

5 2

2 nre T

n o

m m

o C

s d

n alsIlats a

o C

4 2

3 3

4 0

5 2

2 nre T

eta e

s o

R s

d n

alsIlats a

o C

4 2

3 3

4 0

5 2

2 w

o rr a

p S

d eliat-p r

a h

S s'n o

sle N

s e

h sr a

M tla S

3 3

2 3

3 0

0 2

2 w

o rr a

p S

d eliat-p r

a h

S h

sr a

m tla S

s e

h sr a

M tla S

3 3

2 3

3 0

0 2

2 w

o rr a

p S

e dis a

e S

s e

h sr a

M tla S

3 3

2 3

3 0

0 2

2 telli W

s e

h sr a

M tla S

3 3

2 3

3 0

0 2

2 S

T A

TIB A

H s

d n

alsIlats a

o C

4 2

3 3

4 0

5 2

2 ts er o

F e

niP k

a O

n aih c

ala p

p A

4 2

2 3

4 5

2 2

2 ts er o

F e

niP-d o

o w

d r

a H

-k c

ol m

e H

4 2

2 3

4 5

2 2

2 ts er o

F refin o

C

-d o

o w

d r

a H

nre htr o

N 4

2 2

3 4

5 2

2 2

s e

h sr a

M tla S

4 2

2 3

3 0

0 2

2 ts er o

F riF-e c

ur p

S n

oita v

elE h

g i

H 4

5 1

3 2

3 3

8 1

2 n

oita m

r ofnI

=

5 d

o o

hile kiL

=

4 g

ni m

iT

=

3

,ytire v

e S

=

2 e

p o

c S

=

1

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-39 Wildlife Risk Assessment habitats are peatlands and high elevation areas.

Recent evidence from a riverine scrub-shrub wetland study of a 15-species insectivorous guild found red-winged blackbirds to carry the highest Hg body burdens (Evers et al. 2005). The rusty blackbird, which commonly inhabits peat lands, is a species of high conservation concern that may be harmed by elevated mercury levels. Since 1970, this species has declined precipitously, though the reasons for its troubles remain largely unexplained (Greenough 2005). However, blackbirds depending on insect food webs with an origin in acidified habitats may be harmed by the synergistic relationship of elevated methylmercury and low calcium levels during times of increased energy needs for proper eggs and chick production. Pied-billed grebes in peatland habitats could also be at high risk.

Higher mercury levels and lowered calcium levels in acidified environments at high elevation is of great concern. Rimmer et al. (2005) quantified the distribution of mercury across the Northeast and showed elevated blood mercury levels in the Bicknells thrush. This species only breeds on mountaintops, generally in areas removed from standing water, indicating that mercury is much more pervasive than once thought and that it could be problematic for some terrestrial systems.

4. RESEARCH NEEDS

• Initiate a steering committee of state agencies (NHFG and NHDES) to work with federal agen-cies (US EPA, USFWS, USDA, and USGS), in-dustry, universities, and non-profit organizations that will facilitate operations of the National Mer-cury Monitoring Network. Process should follow the successful mercury network by BRI with the Northeastern Ecosystem Research Cooperative.

• Compile a document that identifies the best indicator species and represents all relevant taxa for sensitive habitats and geographic areas in New Hampshire

• Conduct a spatial and temporal analysis of common loon exposure and risk statewide (in process with NHDES)

• Establish a long-term monitoring effort using common loon tissue levels and link with existing and new demographic data collected by the Loon Preservation Committee

• Conduct a risk assessment for species at greatest risk, including the common loon and bald eagle

• Conduct a risk assessment for habitats and their species assemblages

• Collect new tissue samples from species and habitats with little empirical information on mercury exposure, particularly those with compelling evidence of mercury injury. The priority species are the red-shouldered hawk, Bicknells thrush, and rusty blackbird. Priority habitats are peatlands, high elevation areas, and floodplain forest.

Secondary priority should be on the pied-billed grebe, American bittern, and Virginia rail in selected wetland habitats (depending on geography and types).

5. LITERATURE CITED DeSorbo, C.R., and D.C. Evers. 2005. Evaluating exposure of Maines Bald Eagle population to Mercury: assessing impacts on productivity and spatial exposure patterns. Report BRI 2005-08.

BioDiversity Research Institute, Gorham, Maine.

Driscoll, C.T., G.B. Lawrence, A.J. Bulger, T.J.

Butler, C.S. Cronan, C. Eagar, K.F. Lambert, G.E.

Likens, J.L. Stoddard, and K.C. Weathers. 2001.

Acidic deposition in the northeastern United States: Sources and inputs, ecosystem effects, and management strategies. Bioscience 51:180-198.

Evers, D.C. 2005. Mercury Connections: The extent and effects of mercury pollution in northeastern North America. BioDiversity Research Institute, Gorham, Maine.

Evers, D.C., and T.A. Clair. 2005a. Biogeographical patterns of environmental mercury in northeastern North America. Ecotoxicology 14. 296pp.

Evers, D.C., and T.A. Clair. 2005b. Mercury in northeastern North America: A synthesis of existing databases. Ecotoxicology 14:7-14.

Evers, D.C., J.D. Kaplan, M.W. Meyer, P.S. Reaman, A. Major, N. Burgess, and W.E. Braselton. 1998.

Bioavailability of environmental mercury measured in Common Loon feathers and blood across North American. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 17:173-183.

Evers, D.C., K.M. Taylor, A. Major, R.J. Taylor, R.H.

Poppenga, and A.M. Scheuhammer. 2003. Common Loon eggs as indicators of methylmercury availability in North America. Ecotoxicology 12:69-81.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-40 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.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-41 Wildlife Risk Assessment

1. DEFINITION Non-point source pollution results from land use that allows harmful substances, such as sediments, road salt, fertilizers, pesticides, and petrochemicals, to be flushed into water bodies by rain or snowmelt (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) 1999). Non-point source pollution is more pervasive and difficult to address than point 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 habitats.

2. EXPERT OPINION Non-point source pollutants affect many species and habitats of concern in New Hampshire. Impacts will likely be serious for lowland spruce-fir forests and some watershed groups and associated fish, as well as all three freshwater mussel species on the SGNC list in New Hampshire. The impacts from non-point source pollutionprimarily from pesticides/fertilizers, stormwater runoff, and sedimentationto these habitats and associated species are well documented.

Severe impacts to other natural communities also likely occur but are not well documented.

3. KNOWN WILDLIFE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS (A) Stormwater runoff In 1998, non-point source pollution was the suspected cause for 92% of sampled water bodies that did not achieve state water quality standards in New Hampshire (NHDES 1999). Runoff from agricultural lands, forestry operations, faulty septic systems, industry, landscaping activities, roads, golf courses, landfills, junkyards, and wastewater treatment facilities can affect aquatic systems by Non-point Source Pollution 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 =

Greatest risk.

contributing excessive nutrients (e.g., phosphorus and nitrogen) and other pollutants (e.g., heavy metals, organic compounds, and sediment) (Richter et al.

1997, NHDES 1999, Francis and Mulligan 1997).

Introduced nutrients from fertilizers entering aquatic systems can change plant composition in wetland communities and cause algal blooms, reducing dissolved oxygen concentrations enough to kill or displace fish and invertebrates (Carpenter et al. 1998).

Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs), which allow waste water treatment plants to release untreated wastewater into water bodies during heavy rain, increase nutrient and turbidity levels and prolong the presence of persistent toxins in riverine habitats.

New Hampshire currently has 47 identified CSOs in 6 communities (NHDES 2003).

Stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces (e.g., roofs, roads, and parking lots) often flows di-rectly into aquatic systems. These surfaces accumu-late a variety of contaminants including petroleum products, lead, PCBs, road salt, sand, pesticides, and fertilizers (United States Environmental Protection Agency 2005). The decline in aquatic species diver-sity as watersheds become more urbanized is well documented (Weaver and Garman 1994, Richter et al. 1997). In a Massachusetts fen community, species richness, evenness, and the abundance of individual species were adversely impacted by high sodium and Risk Category Habitats Species 4

0 0

3 3

3 2

7 4

1 14 20

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-42 Wildlife Risk Assessment chloride concentrations along a turnpike (Richburg et al. 2001). Roadside vernal pools in New Hamp-shire had higher levels of both sodium and chloride and lower embryonic survival of spotted salamander larvae when compared to woodland vernal pools (Turtle 2000).

(B) Sedimentation Bank erosion and sediment deposition are natural processes that can be accelerated by human activity.

Increased impervious surfaces, road upgrades, poor forestry practices, residential development, wetland filling, dredging and filling, mining, water level fluctuations, recreational vehicles, riparian zone alterations, channelization, and boat wakes increase bank erosion (Alexander and Hansen 1983, Connecticut River Joint Commission (CRJC) 2002, Francis and Mulligan 1997, Zankel 2004). Shoreline stabilization projects may reduce erosion at a specific location, but negatively affect downstream locations (CRJC 2002). Sedimentation can alter natural community composition and reduce population sizes of fish, amphibians, and benthic invertebrates by increasing turbidity and burying cobble, gravel, and boulder substrates (Hedrick et al. 2005). Soil particles entering wetlands can affect hydrology and vegetation (Mahaney et al. 2004). A survey of 1,300 landowners along the Connecticut River indicated bank erosion as their primary concern (NHDES 1999).

(C) Chemical applications Broad-spectrum chemical herbicides and insecticides applied to forests to control hardwood regeneration and outbreaks of eastern spruce budworm caterpillars (Choristoneura feranafumi) can enter stream systems soon after application, affecting wildlife, aquatic 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 S

EI C

E P

S le ss u

m e

g d

e W

fr a

w D

cita u

q A

4 3

4 4

3 1

2 3

3 reta olF k

o o

r B

cita u

q A

3 3

4 4

3 5

7 2

3 le ss u

m d

n o

P nrets a

E cita u

q A

3 3

4 4

3 5

7 2

3 g

o rF d

r a

p o

e L

nre htr o

N s

d n

alss a

r G

4 3

2 3

3 3

3 2

2 elg a

E dla B

cita u

q A

3 2

2 3

4 8

8 1

2 y

er p

s O

s d

n alte W

b urh S

d n

a h

sr a

M 3

2 2

3 4

8 8

1 2

n o

cla F

e nir g

ere P

sffil C

3 2

2 3

4 8

8 1

2 S

T A

TIB A

H ts er o

F riF e

c ur p

S d

n al w

o L

3 4

3 3

4 2

9 2

3 s

d e

h sreta W

m ets nia M

re viR tu citc e

n n

o C

3 3

4 3

4 5

7 2

3 s

d e

h sreta W

lats a

o C

la diT-n o

N 3

3 4

4 3

5 7

2 3

s d

e h

sreta W

la n

oitis n

a rT lats a

o C

3 3

3 3

3 5

2 2

2 s

d e

h sreta W

lats a

o C

la diT 3

3 3

3 3

5 2

2 2

s d

e h

sreta W

e n

atn o

M 2

3 4

3 3

8 0

2 2

ts er o

F e

niP-d o

o w

d r

a H

-k c

ol m

e H

3 3

2 2

4 0

0 2

2 s

d e

h sreta W

d n

alp U

nre htr o

N 3

3 3

3 2

0 0

2 2

s d

n alta e

P 2

3 3

3 3

8 8

1 2

s d

e h

sreta W

d n

alp U

nre htu o

S 2

3 3

3 3

8 8

1 2

n oita m

r ofnI

=

5 d

o o

hile kiL

=

4 g

ni m

iT

=

3

,ytire v

e S

=

2 e

p o

c S

=

1

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-43 Wildlife Risk Assessment habitats, and human health (Miller 1982, Rashin and Graber 1993). Developed resistance from insecticides by spruce budworms makes chemical applications less effective (Natural Resources Canada 1997).

Toxic effects of pesticides involve the bioaccumulation of toxins within fat tissue. At high doses, exposure can result in acute toxicity and death. At lower doses, toxins may be released during periods of negative energy balance such as hibernation or lactation in species such as bats (Kunz et al. 1977). Deposited heavy metals and organic compounds accumulate and persist in the sediment and bioaccumulate in the tissue of fish and benthic communities (NHDES 1999).

The use of chlorinated hydrocarbons (e.g.,

DDT) causes eggshell thinning in raptors. Although DDT has been banned in the U.S., it is still used on the wintering grounds of many raptor prey species (NatureServe 2005). Continued exposure by raptors to DDT is hypothesized to result from foraging on contaminated migratory birds returning from the tropics.

4. RESEARCH NEEDS

• Expand water quality monitoring to include a greater variety of aquatic habitats

• Compare areas known to be receiving polluted runoff with areas that are relatively pristine

• Monitor the long-term effects of pesticides on the reproductive fitness of avian predators

5. LITERATURE CITED Alexander, G., and E. Hansen. 1983. Sand Sediment in a Michigan Trout Stream Part II. Effects of Reducing Sand Bedload on a Trout Population.

North American Journal of Fisheries Management.

American Fisheries Society. 3:365-372.

Carpenter, S.R., N.F. Caraco, D.L. Correll, R.W.

Howarth, A.N. Sharpley and V.H. Smith. 1998.

Non-point pollution of surface waters with phosphorous and nitrogen. Ecological Applications 8:559-568.

Connecticut River Joint Commission (CRJC). 2002.

River Dynamics and Erosion. River Banks and Buffers No. 1. Available http://www.crjc.org/

pdffiles/rivdynero.pdf. (Accessed May 2005).

Francis, F., and A. Mulligan. 1997. Connecticut River Corridor Management Plan. Connecticut River Joint Commission. Charlestown, New Hampshire, USA.

Hedrick L., S. Welsh, and J. Hedrick. 2005. A New Sampler Design for Measuring Sedimentation in Streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. American Fisheries Society 25:238-244.

Kunz, T.H., E.L.P. Anthony, and W.T. Rumage.

1977. Mortality of little brown bats following multiple pesticide applications. Journal of Wildlife Management 41:476-483.

Mahane,y W., D. Wardrop, and J. Bishop. 2004.

Impacts of Sedimentation and Nitrogen Enrichment on Wetland Plant Community Development. Plant Ecology 175(2):227-243.

Miller, J. 1982. Hardwood Control Using Pelleted Herbicides and Burning. Proceedings, 35th Annual Meeting Southern Weed Science Society; 1982 January 19-21; Atlanta, GA. Southern Weed Science Society. 210-215.

Natural Resources Canada. 1997. Genetically Engineered Baculoviruses for Forest Insect Management Applications. A Canadian Forest Service Discussion Paper. Science Branch. Ottawa, Ontario.

NatureServe. 2005. NatureServe Explorer. An online encyclopedia of life. Version 4.4.

NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available at:

<http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/

NatureServe>. Accessed on January 12, 2005.

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. 1999. New Hampshire Non-point Source Management Plan. Concord, New Hampshire, USA.

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. 2003. Combined Sewage Overflows (CSOs). Available http://www.des.state.nh.us/

factsheets/wwt/web-9.htm. (Accessed May 2005).

Rashin, E., and C. Graber. 1993. Effectiveness of Best Management Practices for Aerial Application of Forest Pesticides. Washington State Department of Ecology. Ecology Publication No. 93-81.

Richburg, J.A., W. Patterson, and F. Lowenstein.

2001. Effect of road salt and Phragmites australis invasion on the vegetation of a western Massachusetts calcareous lakebasin fen. Wetlands 21:247-255.

Richter B., D. Braun, M. Mendelson, and L. Master.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-44 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.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-45 Wildlife Risk Assessment Oil Spills 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.

1. DEFINITION Oil can be introduced into marine and coastal environments by spills, leaks, or discharges from onshore tanks, vehicles, offshore facilities, and boats. Offshore oil spills from tanker accidents or leakage can significantly harm coastal species and habitats. Oil runoff from impervious surfaces may have smaller and more localized impacts. Due to 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 adverse effects on wildlife and long-term effects because oil is persistent in some areas (Johnston 1984).

2. EXPERT OPINION The effect of oil spills may be very localized or very extensive depending on the source and timing of the contamination and the affected species or habitat.

Impacts could be serious for sand dunes and coastal islands and associated species (i.e., roseate and common terns, piping plovers) either immediately or in the long term. The effects of oil spills on dunes and coastal islands are well documented.

3. KNOWN WILDLIFE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS Oil can enter fresh and marine waters from platform construction, drilling, shipping, and spillage, and low-level seepage from surface runoff or subsurface sources (Boesch et al. 2001). Animals coated in oil may experience direct mortality or reduced reproductive success, food can become contaminated, toxins can build up in upper trophic levels, and oil can coat the shores and degrade habitat (Kushlan et al. 2002). The harmful effect of oil on birds is well documented (Chardine 1990). Externally, even a small amount of oil can destroy the weatherproofing and insulating properties of avian plumage resulting in hypothermia and inability to fly, stay afloat, and forage. Ingestion of oil can have equally life threatening toxic effects on the gastrointestinal tract, pancreas, and liver (Pierce 1991).

In 1996, 1,000 gallons of fuel oil were spilled into the Piscataqua River, rapidly entering Great and Little Bays. Nests in the Hen Island tern colony in Little Bay were oiled during incubation. The island was used to anchor containment booms and serve as point for cleanup activity. Data from the New Hampshire Gulfwatch monitoring program documented high levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) in mussels following the spill, followed by a gradual recovery to baseline levels within 2 years (Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment 2003).

An oil spill off the Rhode Island coast resulted in the loss many loons (Evers et al. 2002), and the potential for oil spill impacts to New Hampshires wintering loon population exists as well. The concentration of common terns and roseate terns on Seavey Island and piping plovers on Seabrook/

Hampton beaches makes an oil spill in the nearby waters potentially catastrophic. Other species potentially harmed include nesting and wintering birds, marine mammals, fish, turtles, and marine and estuarine invertebrates (Research Planning, Inc.

2004). Locations and critical time periods for species and habitats were identified and mapped in case an oil spill occurs again (Research Planning, Inc. 2004).

Risk Category Habitats Species 4

0 2

3 1

1 2

1 2

1 2

5

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-46 Wildlife Risk Assessment

4. RESEARCH NEEDS

• Assess potential impacts of an oil spill near threatened and endangered species breeding grounds (i.e., Seavey Island, Hampton Beach State Park and Seabrook Town Beach)

• Conduct long-term assessments and biodiversity surveys of coastal islands, dunes, and salt marshes before and after oil spills to determine effects

• Identify appropriate mitigation for loss of wildlife due to oil spills

5. LITERATURE CITED Boesch, D.F., R.H. Burroughs, J.E. Baker, R.P.

Mason, C.L. Rowe, and R.L. Siefert. 2001.

Marine pollution in the United States: significant accomplishments, future challenges. Pew Oceans Commission, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Chardine, J.W. 1990. Newfoundland: Crossroads for Marine Birds and Shipping in the North Atlantic.

Proceedings: The Effects of Oil on Wildlife.

Newfoundland.

Evers, D.C., L. Attix, C. Howard, G. Christian, L.

Savoy, and W. Goodale. 2002. Mitigation the loss of Common Loons from a marine spill: Identification of breeding habitat in Maine. Report BRI 2002-01 submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Gulf of Maine Office. BioDiversity Research Institute, Falmouth, Maine.

Johnston, R. 1984. Oil pollution and its management.

Pages 1433-1582 in O. Kinne, editor. Marine ecology: a comprehensive, integrated treatise on life in oceans and coastal waters. Volume 5, Part 3.

John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, New York, USA.

Kushlan, J.A., M.J. Steinkamp, K.C. Parsons, J.

Capp, M. Acosta Cruz, M. Coulter, I. Davidson, L. Dickson, N. Edelson, R. Elliot, R.M. Erwin, S. Hatch, S. Kress, R. Milko, S. Miller, K. Mills, R. Paul, R. Phillips, J.E. Saliva, B. Sydeman, J.

Trapp, J. Wheeler, and K. Wohl. 2002. Waterbird conservation for the Americas: the North American waterbird conservation plan, Version 1. Waterbird Conservation for the Americas, Washington, DC.

Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment.

2003.

Gulfwatch:

Monitoring chemical contaminants in Gulf of Maine coastal waters. Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment, Environmental Monitoring Subcommittee.

Available at:

<www.gulfofmaine.org/council/

publications/gulfwatchfactsheet.pdf>

Pierce, V. 1991. Pathology of Wildlife following a

1. 2 Fuel Oil Spill. The Effects of Oil on Wildlife:

Research, Rehabilitation, and General Concerns.

IBRRC, TSBR, IWR.

Research Planning, Inc. 2004. Sensitivity of Coastal Environments and Wildlife to Spilled Oil. New Hampshire Atlas. Supported by New Hampshire Estuaries Project and New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services.

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 S

EI C

E P

S nre T

n o

m m

o C

s d

n alsIlats a

o C

4 4

4 2

4 3

3 3

4 nre T

eta e

s o

R s

d n

alsIlats a

o C

4 4

4 2

4 3

3 3

4 re v

olP g

nipiP s

e n

u D

4 4

4 1

3 7

6 2

3 n

o o

L n

o m

m o

C cita u

q A

3 4

2 1

4 4

0 2

2 elg a

E dla B

cita u

q A

1 4

3 2

4 8

8 1

2 S

T A

TIB A

H s

e n

u D

4 4

2 2

4 7

6 2

3 s

d n

alsIlats a

o C

3 4

1 2

4 4

0 2

2 n

oita m

r ofnI

=

5 d

o o

hile kiL

=

4 g

ni m

iT

=

3

,ytire v

e S

=

2 e

p o

c S

=

1

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-47 Wildlife Risk Assessment Predation and Herbivory 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 =

Greatest risk.

1. DEFINITION Wildlife abundance and distribution can increase dramatically in response to human modifications to habitats and from the provision of supplemental food sources. For example, landfills and coastal developments provide gulls with nearly limitless food, and gulls subsequently eliminate other seabirds through competition and predation. Species with 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 no natural population constraints. In the absence of predators or hunting, white-tailed deer can reach densities high enough to reduce or eliminate insect host food plants. Beaver can affect certain wetland natural community types (e.g., black gum swamps) that beavers historically rarely used. Rare species are often vulnerable to predation and competition from species that are better adapted to human activity.

2. EXPERT OPINION Coastal birds of conservation concern are highly sus-ceptible to mortality from subsidized predators, espe-cially gulls. The threat is well documented and some-what localized, yet severe, in dunes and coastal islands.

More widespread but less severe harm likely occurs to species in cities and towns where predator densities are high and where domestic animals prey on wildlife.

3. KNOWN WILDLIFE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS (A) Gulls The protection of all seabirds, changes in human land use along coastal islands, a rise in the fishing industry, and the use of open landfills allowed for exponential increases in the numbers of gulls along the entire northeastern coast. Herring gulls began nesting on the Isles of Shoals in the 1920s, and the population peaked at 5,000 pairs in the late 1970s.

Great black-backed gulls began nesting on the Islands in the 1950s and have steadily been replacing herring gulls (numbers compiled from Drury 1973, Borror and Holmes 1990, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Colonial Waterbird Survey 1995). These larger, more aggressive birds compete with terns for nesting sites and can prey directly on tern eggs and chicks (Goodale 2000, Donehower 2003). Data suggest that lobster bait is the primary food of herring gull chicks in Penobscot Bay. The frequency of lobster bait in the herring gull chick diet on 5 study islands was 56% in 1999 (n=251) and 41% in 2000 (n=605) (Goodale 2000).

(B) Other Predators Increased development and human use of coastal areas have allowed for an abundance of potential tern and plover predators (USFWS 1998, Kress and Hall 2004). Mammalian predators such as feral cats, rats, raccoons, mink, skunk, and fox that gain access to breeding habitats can devastate some local bird populations. Additionally, avian predators such as Great horned owls and black-crowned night herons feed on tern chicks and adults. Predation is a proximate mortality factor for New England cottontails, particularly those that occupy small habitat patches (Barbour and Litvaitis 1993, Brown and Litvaitis 1995, Villafuerte et al. 1997).

Risk Category Habitats Species 4

1 3

3 1

3 2

1 2

1 2

12

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-48 Wildlife Risk Assessment (C) Herbivory Heavy browsing of blue lupine plants by white-tailed deer and woodchuck can severely reduce blue lupine populations and result in Karner blue butterfly mortality by accidental ingestion of eggs and larvae.

4. RESEARCH NEEDS

• Evaluate predator control techniques to protect common, roseate, and arctic terns and piping plovers

• Determine ecology of gull populations at Isle of Shoals, including sources and importance of human-subsidized food

• Evaluate modifications to fishing and aquaculture practices to minimize subsidization of gulls and other predators

• Evaluate effect of landfills on predator abundance, impacts to at-risk species, and modifications to reduce impacts

• Evaluate locations and extent of human food supplements for predators in rare species habitats

5. LITERATURE CITED Barbour, M.S., and J.A. Litvaitis. 1993. Niche dimensions of New England cottontails in relation to habitat patch size. Oecologia 95:321-327.

Brown, A.L., and J.A. Litvaitis. 1995. Habitat features associated with predation of New England cottontails: what scale is appropriate? Canadian Journal of Zoology 73:1005-1011.

Borror, A.C., and D.W. Holmes. 1990. Breeding Birds of the Isles of Shoals. Shoals Marine Laboratory, New York. 76pp.

Donehower, C. 2003. Predation rate and predatory behavior of large gulls on Eastern Egg Rock.

Unpublished Report. National Audubon Society.

Drury, W.H. 1973. Population changes in New England seabirds. Bird-Banding 44:267-313.

Kress, S.W., and C.S. Hall. 2004. Tern Management Handbook - Coastal Northeastern United States and Atlantic Canada. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley Massachusetts, USA.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

1998. Roseate Tern Recovery Plan - Northeastern Population, First Update. Hadley, MA, USA.

Villafuerte R., J.A. Litvaitis, and D.F. Smith. 1997.

Physiological responses by lagomorphs to resource limitations imposed by habitat fragmentation:

implications to condition-sensitive predation.

Canadian Journal of Zoology 75:148-151.

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 S

EI C

E P

S re v

olP g

nipiP s

e n

u D

4 4

4 3

4 7

6 3

4 nre T

n o

m m

o C

s d

n alsIlats a

o C

4 3

4 4

4 0

5 3

4 nre T

eta e

s o

R s

d n

alsIlats a

o C

4 3

4 4

4 0

5 3

4 liatn otto C

d n

alg n

E w

e N

s d

n alb urh S

4 3

3 4

4 1

2 3

3 ylfrettu B

e ulB re nr a

K s

n err a

B e

niP 3

3 3

4 4

5 7

2 3

nitr a

M elp ru P

s d

n alss a

r G

4 3

2 3

4 3

6 2

3 d

rib k

c alB yts u

R ts er o

F riF-e c

ur p

S d

n al w

o L

2 4

4 3

3 0

5 2

2 s

d riB g

nid e

er b-n o

N 3

2 3

3 3

8 8

1 2

S T

A TIB A

H s

d n

alsIlats a

o C

4 3

4 4

4 0

5 3

4 s

e n

u D

4 3

4 3

4 1

2 3

3 s

d n

alb urh S

2 3

3 3

4 8

0 2

2 n

oita m

r ofnI

=

5 d

o o

hile kiL

=

4 g

ni m

iT

=

3

,ytire v

e S

=

2 e

p o

c S

=

1

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-49 Wildlife Risk Assessment Recreation 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.

1. DEFINITION Most Americans participate in some kind of outdoor recreation. Recreation demand and trends in New Hampshire show a marked increase in the past 10 years (New Hampshire Office of State Planning 2003). For example, the White Mountain National Forest saw a 23 percent increase in trail use between 1974 and 1995 (New Hampshire Office of State Planning, 1997). Between 1996 and 2003, wheeled off-highway recreational vehicle (a.k.a., ATV) registrations in New Hampshire more than doubled for resident and more than tripled for non-resident owners. Similarly, boating registrations doubled between 1980 and 1990 and continued to increase by 19 percent from 1990 to 2000.

Recreational activities often degrade land, water, and wildlife resources by simplifying plant communities, increasing animal mortality, displacing and disturbing wildlife, and distributing refuse (Boyle and Samson 1985). Some activities may have little or no effect. A number of factors influence the nature and severity of recreational impacts on wildlife, including the characteristics of the activity (type, location, time, predictability, frequency, magnitude) and the characteristic of the habitat or wildlife (species, group size, age, and sex) (Knight and Cole 1995).

2. EXPERT OPINION Recreational activity is currently affecting species and habitats of conservation concern in New Hampshire.

These effects are projected to continue into the foreseeable future. Impacts are likely serious to critical and well-documented for species inhabiting the rarest habitats, such as dunes, caves, coastal islands, cliffs, rocky ridges, and some aquatic habitats (such as sand-cobble shores and banks). Recreation is a serious localized threat to a subset of alpine natural communities. Grasslands, forests, and aquatic habitats may be seriously impacted, depending on specific local recreational activities.

3. KNOWN WILDLIFE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS (A) Human disturbance Activities such as wildlife viewing, fishing, climbing, caving (or spelunking), boating, snowmobiling, ATV-ing, and hiking can cause unintentional disturbance.

Disturbance from these activities may alter behavior and in some cases cause nest abandonment. For example, disturbance by anglers and boaters can dis-turb nesting and foraging activity of common loons (Titus 1978, Titus and VanDruff 1981, Christenson 1981, Kelly 1992). Depending on the time of year, water-based recreation can disturb roosting, feeding, or breeding by a variety of wildlife (Knight and Cole 1995). Offshore boating activities (whale watching, fishing, tour boats) can flush species from coastal is-lands, causing them to expend energy reserves (Unit-ed States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 1994).

Piping plovers lose valuable foraging time when beach goers and their pets are present (Burger 1991, Staine and Burger 1994). Snowmobiles can disturb deer that are concentrated in deer yards.

A study by Thomas (1995) of non-tactile dis-turbance from visits to hibernacula indicated a dra-matic arousal of bats (little brown bats and northern myotis) and an increase in flight activity, and repeated Risk Category Habitats Species 4

1 2

3 3

7 2

9 6

1 19 27

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-50 Wildlife Risk Assessment disturbance may lead to energy depletion to the point of mortality. The presence of low flying aircraft can frighten cliff nesting avian species from their nests, causing them to inadvertently kick out eggs or chicks from the nest (White et al. 2002). Noise disturbance from off-highway recreational vehicles and boats may cause detectable behavioral changes (Bowles 1995).

Off-road all terrain vehicles (ATVs) and snowmobiles can be a significant disturbance to wildlife.

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 S

EI C

E P

S re v

olP g

nipiP s

e n

u D

4 4

4 4

4 0

0 4

4 n

o o

L n

o m

m o

C cita u

q A

4 3

4 4

4 0

5 3

4 n

o cla F

e nir g

ere P

sffil C

4 3

4 3

4 1

2 3

3 elte e

B re g

iT e

n ots elb b

o C

cita u

q A

4 3

3 3

4 2

9 2

3 ellertsipiP nrets a

E s

e ni M

d n

a s

e v

a C

4 3

3 3

4 2

9 2

3 elg a

E dla B

cita u

q A

4 2

3 4

4 5

7 2

3 ta B

a n

aid nI s

e ni M

d n

a s

e v

a C

4 3

3 3

3 3

6 2

3 sito y

M nre htr o

N s

e ni M

d n

a s

e v

a C

4 3

3 3

3 3

6 2

3 ta B

d eto o

F lla m

S s

e ni M

d n

a s

e v

a C

4 3

3 3

3 3

6 2

3 y

er p

s O

s d

n alte W

b urh S

d n

a h

sr a

M 4

2 3

4 3

0 5

2 2

reta olF k

o o

r B

cita u

q A

1 4

4 4

3 9

2 2

2 nre T

n o

m m

o C

s d

n alsIlats a

o C

3 3

3 2

4 5

2 2

2 nre T

eta e

s o

R s

d n

alsIlats a

o C

3 3

3 2

4 5

2 2

2 ylfrettu B

e ulB re nr a

K s

n err a

B e

niP 2

3 4

3 3

8 0

2 2

e s

u o

r G

e c

ur p

S ts er o

F riF-e c

ur p

S d

n al w

o L

3 1

4 4

3 3

8 1

2 S

T A

TIB A

H s

e n

u D

4 4

4 4

4 0

0 4

4 s

e ni M

d n

a s

e v

a C

3 3

4 4

4 0

0 3

3 sffil C

3 3

4 3

4 5

7 2

3 s

e g

diR y

k c

o R

d n

a s

e p

olS s

ula T

3 3

4 3

4 5

7 2

3 ts er o

F e

niP-d o

o w

d r

a H

-k c

ol m

e H

4 2

4 3

3 0

5 2

2 ts er o

F riF-e c

ur p

S n

oita v

elE h

g i

H 2

3 4

4 4

0 5

2 2

ts er o

F refin o

C

-d o

o w

d r

a H

nre htr o

N 4

2 4

3 3

0 5

2 2

ts er o

F e

niP k

a O

n aih c

ala p

p A

4 2

3 3

3 5

2 2

2 s

d n

alsIlats a

o C

3 3

3 2

4 5

2 2

2 s

d e

h sreta W

la n

oitis n

a rT lats a

o C

3 3

3 3

3 5

2 2

2 s

n err a

B e

niP 2

3 4

3 3

8 0

2 2

s d

n alb urh S

3 3

3 3

2 0

0 2

2 ts er o

F riF-e c

ur p

S d

n al w

o L

1 3

4 4

4 0

0 2

2 n

oita m

r ofnI

=

5 d

o o

hile kiL

=

4 g

ni m

iT

=

3

,ytire v

e S

=

2 e

p o

c S

=

1

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-51 Wildlife Risk Assessment (B) Habitat degradation All forms of recreation can modify vegetation, soil, water, and microclimate, affecting those species that depend on specific habitat conditions (Cole and Landres 1995). ATVs and snowmobiles can significantly degrade terrestrial and wetland habitats, causing erosion, sedimentation, altered hydrology, and acting as a vector for invasive species.

Though robust in their ability to withstand severe environmental conditions, alpine communities and their soils have low tolerances for trampling, particularly dwarf heath shrubs and erect forbs (Sperduto and Cogbill 1999, Cole and Monz 2002).

Hikers can trample vegetation, causing soil erosion and reductions in vegetative cover and height. The removal of vegetation to create new climbing routes can cause wind and rain to wash away any remaining soil in the cracks, preventing new plants from being established (Camp and Knight 1991). Rock climbing can introduce non-native species when propagules travel on climbing equipment, shoes, and clothing that are transferred from one location to another (McMillian and Larson 2002).

Snow-based recreation can also affect soils and vegetation. The most pronounced impacts are those associated with ski-resort development that involves tree cutting and ground surface leveling and facility construction. Snowmobiles damage shrubs and saplings (Neumann and Merriam 1972),

reduce vegetation abundance, and change species composition (Keddy et al. 1979). Water is affected both by water-based recreation, such as fishing and boating, and by land-based activities such as hiking and off-road vehicles. Trampling affects shorelines by eroding soils, eliminating protective cover, and causing sedimentation and turbidity (Cole and Landres 1995).

(C) Mortality Recreation may directly or indirectly result in wildlife mortality. Off-road vehicles can be a source of mortality for ampibians, reptiles, and other wildlife.

Walkers can inadvertently trample eggs and chicks if walking across coastal islands or dunes. Fourteen percent of loon mortality in New England from 1989 to 1996 was due to boat trauma (Miconi et al. 2000),

and lead poisoning by ingesting lead fishing sinkers and jigs is the largest cause of known adult loon mortality in New Hampshire (Tufts University Wildlife Clinic, unpublished data). Additionally, incidental take occurs when one species is mistaken for another, as when upland bird hunters mistake spruce grouse for ruffed grouse and when American marten are caught in fisher traps (Jillian Kelly, NHFG, personal communication). Studies on recreational effects on tiger beetle populations have indicated populations were low to nonexistent where heavy recreational activities were observed and that abundance increased in areas where recreational use was limited and vehicles were prohibited (USFWS 1990). A long-term study in Connecticut documented the extirpation of two wood turtle populations following an increase in human recreation (Garber and Burger 1995).

4. RESEARCH NEEDS

• Studies of site-specific potential for mortality and other threats to New Hampshires priority wildlife

• Measure energetic costs of behavioral responses to disturbance

• Measure habitat responses to recreation and population responses to recreationally induced habitat change

5. LITERATURE CITED Bowles, A.E. 1995. Responses of wildlife to noise.

In R. L. Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller, editors.

Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Washington D.C., USA.

Boyle, S.A. and F.B. Samson. 1985. Effects of nonconsumptive recreation on wildlife: a review.

Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:110-116.

Burger, J. 1991. Foraging behavior and the effect of human disturbance on the piping plover (Charadrius melodus). Journal of Coastal Research 7:39-52 Camp, R.J. and R.L. Knight. 1998. Effects of rock climbing on cliff plant communities at Joshua Tree National Park, California. Conservation Biology 12: 1302-1306.

Christenson, B.L. 1981. Reproductive ecology of and response to disturbance by Common Loons in Maine. Thesis, University of Maine, Orono, Maine, USA.

Cole, D.N. 1995. Res. Note INT-RN-425.

Intermountain Research Station, US Forest Service, Ogden, Utah, USA.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-52 Wildlife Risk Assessment Cole, D.N., and C.A. Monz. 2002. Trampling disturbance of high-elevation, Wind River Mountains, Wyoming, USA. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 34:365-376 Cole, D.N., and P.B. Landres 1995. In R.L.

Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, editors. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Washington D.C.,

USA.

Flather, C.H., and H.K. Cordell.1995. In R. L. Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller. Outdoor recreation: historical and anticipated trends. Wildlife and recreationists:

coexistence through management and research.

Island Press, Washington D.C., USA.

Garber, S.D., and J. Burger. 1995. A twenty year study documenting the relationship between turtle decline and human recreation. Ecological Applications 5:1151-1162.

Keddy, P.A, A.J. Spavold and C.J. Keddy. 1979.

Snowmobile impact on old field and marsh vegetation in Nova Scotia, Canada: an experimental study. Environmental Management 3:409-415.

Kelly, L.M. 1992. The effects of human disturbance on Common Loon productivity in northwestern Montana. Thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, USA.

Knight, R.L., and D.N. Cole 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationsits. In R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, editors. Wildlife and recreationists:

coexistence through management and research.

Island Press, Washington D.C., USA.

Knight, R.L., and D.N. Cole. 1995. Factors that influence wildlife responses to recreationists. In R.L.

Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller, editors. Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research. Island Press, Washington D.C.,

USA.

McMillan, M.A., and D.W. Larson. 2002. Effects of rock climbing on the vegetation of the Niagara Escarpment in southern

Ontario, Canada.

Conservation Biology 16:389-398.

Miconi, R., M. Pokras, and K. Taylor. 2000.

Mortality in breeding Common Loons: How significant is trauma? Pages 19-24 in J. McIntyre and D. C. Evers, editors. Loons: old history and new findings. Proceedings of a Symposium from the 1997 meeting, American Ornithologists Union. North American Loon Fund, Holderness, New Hampshire, USA.

New Hampshire Office of State Planning. 2003. New Hampshire Outdoors: Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan.

Concord, New Hampshire, USA.

New Hampshire Office of State Planning. 1997. New Hampshire Comprehensive Statewide Trails Study.

Concord, New Hampshire, USA.

Nuemann, P.W., and H.G. Merriam. 1972. Ecological effects of snowmobiles. Canadian Field Journal 86:

207-212.

Sperduto, D.D., and C.V. Cogbill. 1999. Alpine and subalpine vegetation of the White Mountains, New Hampshire. New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory, Concord, New Hampshire, USA.

Staine, K.J., and J. Burger. 1994. The nocturnal foraging behavior of breeding piping plover Charadrius melodus in New Jersey. Auk 111:579-587.

Thomas, D.W. 1995. Hibernating bats are sensitive to nontactile human disturbance. Journal of Mammalogy 76:940-946.

Titus, J.R. 1978. Response of the common loon (Gavia immer) to recreational pressure in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, northeastern Minnesota. Dissertation, State University of New York, Syracuse, New York, USA.

Titus, J.R., and L.W. VanDruff. 1981. Response of the common loon to recreational pressure in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, northeastern Minnesota. Wildlife Society. Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990.

Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened status for the Puritan tiger beetle and the northeastern beach tiger beetle.

Federal Register 55: 32088-32094.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Island ethics: recognizing and protecting colonial nesting seabird and waterbird islands in the Gulf of Maine.

Brochure.

White, C.M., N.J. Clum, T.J. Cade, and W.G.

Hunt. 2002. Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus).

In A. Poole and F. Gill, editor. The birds of North America, No 660. The Birds of North America, Inc, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-53 Wildlife Risk Assessment

1. DEFINITION All wildlife species have a minimum effective (self-sustaining) population size (Allee et al. 1949).

In populations that are depressed or isolated, the reproductive contribution of successfully breeding individuals may be disproportionately high, limiting natural buffering of random demographic and genetic variation and decreasing population stability (Allee et al. 1949, Richter-Dyn and Goel 1972, Ferson and Burgman 1990, Dennis et al. 1991).

Susceptibility to failure of demographic processes may be compounded by normal (extrinsic) ecological events, such as weather, competition, or predation, or natural disturbance, resulting in extinction (Caughley 1994). Some wildlife have naturally low minimum effective population sizes because of their life history traits or dependency on uniquely occurring ecological conditions (Allee et al. 1949, Adler and Nuernberger 1994). In either case, the balance between reproductive success and ecological process is precarious, and the risk of localized extinction is high.

2. EXPERT OPINION Small population size is an extensive to somewhat localized threat for a small number of New Hampshires wildlife, and particularly severe for species with highly specialized habitat or life history traits. Threats are well documented for timber rattlesnakes, piping plovers, roseate terns, cobblestone tiger beetles, and Karner blue butterflies.

3. KNOWN WILDLIFE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS (A) Demographic stochasticity Some severely depressed or declining populations of wildlife are immediately at risk of extirpation (Dennis et al. 1991, Goodman 1987). New Hampshires timber rattlesnake population is very small and Scarcity 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.

is extremely isolated from other populations, and potential den sites are rare. The host plant of the Karner blue butterfly is rare. After declining sharply between 1980 and 2001, with a corresponding decline in fecundity (United States Fish and Wildlife Service, unpublished data), Karner blues were not observed in the wild until translocated butterflies were released in 2002 (NHFG, unpublished data).

Low population densities and skewed age and sex ratios have raised concerns over the effect of road mortality on the viability of some turtle populations in the region (Marchand and Litvaitis 2004, Gibbs and Steen 2005).

(B) Ecological conditions Until population health is restored, some severely depressed or recovering populations of wildlife are immediately at risk of extirpation due to widespread ecological conditions (Caughley 1994), like weather (Pollard 1991) and predation. Failure to exclude predators has resulted in the failure of common and roseate terns colonies in the Gulf of Maine (Donehower 2003). Annually in New Hampshire, a significant proportion of the states few piping plover nests fail because of predation and storms (NHFG, unpublished data). Overwintering survival of Karner blues may be limited by the number of days with snow cover (Dirig 1994), and in general, mating success, oviposition, and lepidopteran survival are limited by Risk Category Habitats Species 4

0 5

3 0

9 2

0 3

1 1

6

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-54 Wildlife Risk Assessment weather (Pollard 1991, USFWS 2002). Cobblestone tiger beetle larvae inhabit burrows for 2 years at one location in the Connecticut River, and population estimates seldom exceed 100 individuals. Flooding or hydrologic alteration could decimate the population (Nothnagle 1993). During winters with unusually shallow snow depth, New Hampshires small marten population may be limited by competition with overlapping fisher populations. Kelly (2005) found that areas with low catch per unit effort for fisher were more likely to have higher values for marten. Krohn et al. (1995) observed differing age and recruitment ratios for marten across areas of overlap with fisher.

(C) Population isolation Isolated or sparsely distributed populations may be subject to adverse demographic and genetic effects because of limited immigration (Nei 1972, Brown and Kodric-Brown 1977, Fahrig and Merriam 1985, Pulliam 1988, Taylor et al. 1993). Viability of the low density New Hampshire lynx population may depend on lynx dispersing from larger populations (Litvaitis et al. 1991). Increasing southern Canadian and northern Maine human populations may hamper lynx dispersal (Carroll 2005). Spruce grouse are iso-lated in the WMNF (Todd 2003), and their habitats are fragmented by conversion of low elevation spruce and fir habitat to deciduous land cover (NHFG GIS).

Historic Karner blue butterfly and extant frosted elfin populations are separated by distances greater than documented dispersal capabilities (King 1998).

Ringed boghaunter populations are sparsely distrib-uted, little is known about their dispersal, and habitat utilization may be hampered by development.

(C) Natural rarity and sensitive life history Because of their life history traits or unique ecological niches, some species have naturally small breeding populations (Allee et al. 1949). Small changes in survival rates, landscape connectivity, or habitat availability may result in extirpation. Blandings, box, wood, and spotted turtles may require 5 to 15 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 S

EI C

E P

S e

k a

n s

eltta R

re b

m iT ts er o

F e

niP k

a O

n aih c

ala p

p A

4 4

4 4

4 0

0 4

4 elte e

B re g

iT e

n ots elb b

o C

cita u

q A

4 4

4 3

4 7

6 3

4 ylfrettu B

e ulB re nr a

K s

n err a

B e

niP 4

4 4

3 4

7 6

3 4

nre T

eta e

s o

R s

d n

alsIlats a

o C

4 4

4 3

4 7

6 3

4 re v

olP g

nipiP s

e n

u D

4 3

4 4

4 0

5 3

4 eltru T

s g

nid n

alB s

d n

alte W

b urh S

d n

a h

sr a

M 4

4 1

4 4

0 0

3 3

x n

yL sts er o

F d

n alp U

4 4

2 3

4 0

0 3

3 eltru T

d etto p

S s

d n

alte W

b urh S

d n

a h

sr a

M 4

4 1

4 4

0 0

3 3

n etr a

M n

a cire m

A ts er o

F riF-e c

ur p

S n

oita v

elE h

g i

H 3

4 4

4 2

2 9

2 3

citcr A

niatn u

o M

etih W

e nipl A

4 4

3 3

2 7

6 2

3 yr allitirF niatn u

o M

etih W

e nipl A

4 4

3 3

2 7

6 2

3 e

s u

o r

G e

c ur p

S ts er o

F riF-e c

ur p

S d

n al w

o L

4 3

4 3

2 3

6 2

3 re d

n a

m ala S

d elb r

a M

s d

n alte W

b urh S

d n

a h

sr a

M 4

4 3

3 1

3 3

2 2

e k

a n

S e

s o

n g

o H

s n

err a

B e

niP 4

3 3

2 3

3 3

2 2

retn u

a h

g o

B d

e g

niR s

d n

alta e

P 2

4 3

2 3

0 0

2 2

n oita m

r ofnI

=

5 d

o o

hile kiL

=

4 g

ni m

iT

=

3

,ytire v

e S

=

2 e

p o

c S

=

1

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-55 Wildlife Risk Assessment years to reach sexual maturity in New Hampshire (Carroll 1991, Degraaf and Yamasaki 2001) and therefore require high adult survival. Bog lemming observations are rare in New Hampshire. Although little is known about the life history traits driving their rarity in New Hampshire, elsewhere the species appears to occur in isolated metapopulations with few individuals in each location and limited dispersal (Clough and Albright 1987, Reichel and Corn 1997).

Disruption of individual colonies in a metapopulation may jeopardize the entire metapopulation (Hanski and Simberloff 1997). Marbled salamanders are extremely rare in New Hampshire but little is known about their population dynamics. White Mountain fritillary and arctic butterflies are endemic to New Hampshire, occur only on Mt. Washington, and may be susceptible to climate change (Pollard 1991, McFarland 2003).

4. RESEARCH NEEDS

• Evaluate population genetic structure for the New Hampshire timber rattlesnake population

• Evaluate opportunities to develop captive breeding in zoos for high priority species, especially invertebrates

• Investigate link between species population dynamics and habitat / natural community distribution and conditions

5. LITERATURE CITED Adler, F.R., and B. Nuernberger. 1994. Persistence in patchy irregular landscapes. Theoretical Population Biology 45:41-75.

Allee, W.C., A.E. Emerson, O. Park, T. Park, and K.P. Schmidt. 1949. Principles of Animal Ecology.

Saunders, Philadelphia.

Brown, J.H., and A. Kodric-Brown. 1977. Turnover rates in insular biogeography: effect of immigration and emigration. Ecology 58:445-449.

Burkey, T.V. 1989. Extinction in nature reserves:

the effect of fragmentation and the importance of migration between reserve fragments. Oikos 55:

75-81.

Carroll, D.M. 1991. The year of the turtle: A natural history. Charlotte, VT. Camden House.

Carroll, C. 2005. Carnivore restoration in the northeastern U.S. and southeastern Canada.

Report 2: marten and lynx viability analysis.

Wildlands Project, Richmond, Vermont, USA.

Caughley, G. 1994. Directions in conservation biology. Journal of Animal Ecology 63:215-244.

Clough, G.C. and J.J. Albright. 1987. Occurrence of the northern bog lemming, Synaptomys borealis, in the northeastern United States.

Canadian Field-Naturalist. 101(4): 611-613.

DeGraaf, R.M., and M. Yamasaki. 2001. New England wildlife: habitat, natural history, and distribution. University Press of New England, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA.

Dennis, B., P.L. Munholland, J.M. Scott. 1991.

Estimation of growth and extinction parameters for endangered species. Ecological Monographs 61(2):115-143.

Dirig, Robert. 1994. Historical Notes on Wild Lupine and the Karner Blue Butterfly at the Albany Pine Bush, New York. In Karner Blue Butterfly:

a symbol of a vanishing landscape / edited by David A. Andow, R.J. Baker, and C.P. LaneSt.

Paul: Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station:

1994.(Miscellaneous Publication Series).

Donehower, C. 2003. Predation rate and predatory behavior of large gulls on Eastern Egg Rock.

Unpublished Report. National Audubon Society.

Fahrig, L., and G. Merriam. 1985. Habitat patch connectivity and population survival. Ecology 66(6):1762-1768.

Ferson, S., and M.A. Burgman. 1990. The dangers of being few: Demographic risk analysis for rare species extinction. New York State Museum Bulletin 471:129-132.

Gibbs, J.P., and D.A. Steen. 2005. Trends in sex ratios of turtles in the United States: Implications of road mortality. Conservation Biology 19:552-556.

Goodman, D. 1987. Consideration of stochastic demography in the design and management of biological reserves. Natural Resource Modeling 1:

205-234.

Hanski, I., and D. Simberloff. 1997. The metapopulation approach, its history, conceptual domain, and application to conservation. In:

Hanski, I., and M.E. Gilpin (eds.), Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, Genetics, and Evolution.

Academic Press, San Diego, California.

Kelly, J. R. 2005. Recent distribution and population characteristics of American marten in New Hampshire and potential factors affecting

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-56 Wildlife Risk Assessment their occurrence. M.S. Thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts.

King, R.S. 1998. Dispersal of Karner blue butterflies (Lycaeides melissa samuelis Nabokov) at Necedah National Wildlife Refuge. Transactions 86:101-110.

Krohn W. B., K. D. Elowe, and R. B. Boone. 1995.

Relations among fisher, snow, and martens:

Development and evaluation of two hypotheses.

The Forestry Chronicle, 71(1)97-105.

Litvaitis, J.A., D. Kingman Jr., J. Lanier, and E.

Orff. 1991. Status of lynx in New Hampshire.

Transactions of the Northeast Section of the 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 Population Biology 3:406-433.

Taylor, P.D., L. Fahrig, K. Henein, and G. Merriam.

1993. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571-573.

Todd, A. E. 2003. Population Distribution and Vegetative Structure of Brood Rearing Habitat of Spruce Grouse in the White Mountain National Forest of New Hampshire. M. S. Thesis, University of New Hampshire, Durham 57 pp.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003.

Final recovery plan for the Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis). US Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota, USA.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-57 Wildlife Risk Assessment

1. DEFINITION As human populations grow and expand, the demand for improved and more extensive transportation networks rises. Major transportation infrastructures in New Hampshire include roads, railroads, and airports.

Direct threats from construction, improvements, maintenance, and regular use of transportation networks include habitat loss and fragmentation, inhibition of wildlife dispersal, and direct mortality.

Several indirect threats are known and summarized under Altered Hydrology, Development, Introduced Species, Mercury, Non-point Source Pollution, and Predation and Herbivory (see Forman et al. 2003 for a detailed review of known impacts).

2. EXPERT OPINION Roads have a somewhat to very extensive effect on species and habitats of conservation concern in New Hampshire. Well-documented impacts are likely to be critical for Appalachian oak pine forests, and serious for pine barren species, vernal pools, marsh and shrub wetlands, and floodplain forests in the near term.

In the next decade, threats may become critical or serious to rare species, including timber rattlesnake, hognose snake, black racer, Blandings, spotted, and wood turtles, Jefferson salamander, Fowlers toad, American marten, and Karner blue butterfly. In the longer term, threats will be serious or greater for many forest habitats, watersheds, and wide-ranging species, and area-sensitive species.

3. KNOWN WILDLIFE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS (A) Rapid growth New Hampshires human population density and associated development are rapidly increasing, especially in the southern counties (Society for Protection of New Hampshire Forests 2005).

Transportation Infrastructure 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 =

Greatest risk.

Increasing human population density leads to increasing road densities, road widening, and traffic volume (see Development threat).

(B) Uncoordinated planning Local land use planning efforts often are isolated from large-scale conservation planning efforts.

Lack of planning and coordination among towns, transportation and natural resources agencies, and the conservation community may result in the most ecologically significant resources being affected.

(C) Habitat loss and fragmentation The construction of roads, railroads, and airports results in a considerable loss of habitat (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Wildlife is affected well beyond the scope of the actual physical disturbance (Forman 2000, Forman and Deblinger 2000, Jones et al.

2000). For example, effects of roadway noise may extend hundreds of meters from a heavily traveled road, reducing species occupation (e.g., forest interior birds) and altering behavior (Forman and Deblinger 2000, Forman et al. 2003). Areas bisected by roads result in smaller blocks of contiguous habitat, fragmenting the landscape, reducing habitat quality, and isolating populations (Saunders et al. 1991)

(D) Vegetation management Areas surrounding airport runways and roadsides Risk Category Habitats Species 4

1 0

3 3

8 2

8 4

1 6

12

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-58 Wildlife Risk Assessment often are cleared of native vegetation and are maintained as homogenous mowed habitat, largely due to safety concerns (Forman et al. 2003). Because roads are extensive in the landscape, roadside habitat loss can be substantial. Mowing during critical times can have serious effects on local populations of plants or wildlife (e.g., Karner blue butterfly, frosted elfin butterfly, Persius duskywing skipper, and grasshopper sparrow). Karner blue butterflies are attracted to abundant non-native nectar plants along road edges (S. Fuller, NHFG, unpublished data).

(E) Dispersal The effects of roads as barriers to wildlife movement are widespread (Forman et al. 2003, Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Roads that bisect seasonal or annual wildlife migration routes are of particular concern, especially for rare amphibians and reptiles that migrate 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 S

EI C

E P

S re d

n a

m ala S

n o

sreffeJ slo o

P la nre V

4 3

3 4

4 1

2 3

3 eltru T

s g

nid n

alB s

d n

alte W

b urh S

d n

a h

sr a

M 4

4 2

3 4

0 0

3 3

eltru T

d etto p

S s

d n

alte W

b urh S

d n

a h

sr a

M 4

4 2

3 4

0 0

3 3

d a

o T

srel w

o F

s n

err a

B e

niP 4

3 2

4 4

2 9

2 3

g o

rF d

r a

p o

e L

nre htr o

N s

d n

alss a

r G

4 3

2 4

4 2

9 2

3 ylfrettu B

e ulB re nr a

K s

n err a

B e

niP 2

4 4

4 3

5 7

2 3

re c

a R

s n

err a

B e

niP 4

4 2

3 3

7 6

2 3

e k

a n

S e

s o

n g

o H

s n

err a

B e

niP 4

3 3

3 3

3 6

2 3

eltru T

d o

o W

sts er o

F nialp d

o olF 4

3 1

3 4

3 3

2 2

n etr a

M n

a cire m

A ts er o

F riF-e c

ur p

S n

oita v

elE h

g i

H 3

2 4

4 3

9 2

2 2

ta c

b o

B sts er o

F d

n alp U

4 3

2 3

2 4

0 2

2 e

s u

o r

G e

c ur p

S ts er o

F riF-e c

ur p

S n

oita v

elE h

g i

H 2

2 4

4 4

0 0

2 2

S T

A TIB A

H ts er o

F e

niP k

a O

n aih c

ala p

p A

4 4

3 3

4 3

3 3

4 slo o

P la nre V

4 3

3 4

4 1

2 3

3 sts er o

F nialp d

o olF 4

3 2

3 4

3 6

2 3

s d

n alte W

b urh S

d n

a h

sr a

M 4

3 2

3 4

3 6

2 3

s d

e h

sreta W

la n

oitis n

a rT lats a

o C

3 3

4 3

3 0

5 2

2 ts er o

F riF-e c

ur p

S d

n al w

o L

2 3

4 4

4 0

5 2

2 s

e h

sr a

M tla S

2 3

4 4

3 9

2 2

2 s

d e

h sreta W

lats a

o C

la diT-n o

N 3

3 3

3 3

5 2

2 2

s d

e h

sreta W

lats a

o C

la diT 3

3 3

3 3

5 2

2 2

ts er o

F e

niP-d o

o w

d r

a H

-k c

ol m

e H

3 2

3 3

3 8

8 1

2 ts er o

F refin o

C

-d o

o w

d r

a H

nre htr o

N 3

2 3

3 3

8 8

1 2

s d

e h

sreta W

d n

alp U

nre htu o

S 2

3 3

3 3

8 8

1 2

n oita m

r ofnI

=

5 d

o o

hile kiL

=

4 g

ni m

iT

=

3

,ytire v

e S

=

2 e

p o

c S

=

1

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-59 Wildlife Risk Assessment between wetlands and uplands or between wetland complexes (Fahrig et al. 1995, Trombulak and Frissell 2003). New England cottontails may be reluctant to cross a wide road because of the break in dense cover that they prefer (J. Litvaitis, University of New Hampshire, personal communication). Lepidoptera may be impeded from crossing roads by vehicular wind (S. Fuller, NHFG, personal communication).

Road design can block wildlife; Jersey barriers and steep-sloping granite curbs can trap small organisms on roadways and increase mortality risk (Klemens 2000; M. Marchand, NHFG, personal observation).

Underpasses (e.g., culverts) at stream crossings may be ineffective for passage of aquatic organisms (Jackson 2003).

(D) Mortality and collision Mortality can affect the dispersal and viability of isolated populations, and eventually cause local extirpation (Trombulak and Frissell 2000, Forman et al. 2003). At greatest risk are slow-moving species (e.g., reptiles and amphibians), species that depend on high adult survivorship (turtles), species that are long range dispersers (bobcat, American marten, wolves), or species with scarce populations (timber rattlesnake). Low population densities and skewed age and sex ratios have raised concerns about the effect of road mortality on the viability of some turtle populations in the region (e.g., Marchand and Litvaitis 2004, Gibbs and Steen 2005). Turtles are attracted to the bare soil and open canopy of road shoulders, but adults and hatchlings are at risk from vehicles. Snakes may be attracted to roads to bask on warm pavement surfaces (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Wide-ranging mammals, such as bobcat, lynx, American marten, and wolves, are likely to encounter and cross roads. As traffic volume increases, vehicle collisions become increasingly probable, reducing local population abundances and decreasing the likelihood and frequency of dispersal to unoccupied or low-density habitats (Litvaitis, University of New Hampshire, personal communication). Large mammals crossing roadways (e.g., black bear, moose, and deer), although not likely to be a population viability concern, may cause safety concerns for motorists.

4. RESEARCH NEEDS Note: A group of biologists from NHFG and other environmental agencies and staff from the Department of Transportation will meet in the future to determine research priorities related to roads as determined by a Roads Working Group forum held on December 1, 2004 hosted by the NHFG, Concord.

• Identify specific areas of the landscape where connectivity is limited by a road and identify options for increasing safe passage of wildlife

• Identify significant travel corridors for species of concern to provide guidance to transportation planners

• Monitor (e.g., with radio-telemetry, remote cameras, or mark-recapture) wildlife populations in areas where underpass systems have been installed or are proposed, to evaluate success

• Expand collection of road-killed data. Currently, the only species monitored are deer, bear, moose, and turkey. Data collection could make use of volunteers (e.g., Reptile and Amphibian Reporting Program) and those likely to encounter road kill (New Hampshire Department Of Transportation road agents).

• Evaluate road design, roadside habitat management, and road placement so that it is least detrimental to significant natural resources

5. LITERATURE CITED Fahrig, L., J.H. Pedlar, S.E. Pope, P.D. Taylor, and J.F.

Wenger. 1995. Effect of road traffic on amphibian density. Biological Conservation 73:177-182.

Forman, R.T. 2000. Estimate of the area affected ecologically by the road system in the United States. Conservation Biology. 14:31-35.

Forman, R.T., and R.D. Deblinger. 2000. The ecological road-effect zone of a Massachusetts (U.S.A.) suburban highway. Conservation Biology 14:36-46.

Forman, R.T.T., D. Sperling, J.A. Bissonette, A.P.

Clevenger, C.D. Cutshall, V.H. Dale, L. Fahrig, R.

France, R. France, C.R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J.A.

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 4-60 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.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-61 Wildlife Risk Assessment

1. DEFINITION Loss of individuals may result in locally reduced population size, altered population structure, or extirpation, especially for small or isolated populations and species that depend on high adult survivorship. In New Hampshire, many species are currently unregulated (exceptions include threatened or endangered species, game species, and those protected under New Hampshire Fish and Game possession rules). Regulated species may be vulnerable to incidental take from legal activities (e.g. hunting, trapping, and commercial fishing). Enforcement of incidental take may be difficult, and penalties may not be sufficient to deter illegal take.

2. EXPERT OPINION Unregulated take is considered a chronic to serious threat for wildlife species found in pine barren, cliff, alpine, floodplain, and peatland habitats.

Unregulated take was considered very localized but may have more extensive and more severe effects on wildlife populations with limited distributions (e.g.,

timber rattlesnakes and hognose snakes) or high exposure to human populations (e.g., Blandings and spotted turtles) or human activities (i.e., trapping of American marten). Some local populations are likely to be affected in the short-term. However, effects on populations of long-lived species may go undetected for years. Effects are weakly to somewhat documented for most species or habitats and well documented for timber rattlesnakes.

3. KNOWN WILDLIFE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS (A) Commercial collection Many reptiles and amphibians are popular pets, and the international pet trade market is large (Franke and Telecky 2001). Most native reptiles and Unregulated Take 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 risk.

amphibians are vulnerable to commercial collection and sale. Those species characterized by late ages of maturity and high adult survival rates are generally most vulnerable (e.g., turtles and some snakes). Also, some species are extremely vulnerable due to the congregation of individuals (e.g., timber rattlesnakes and wood turtles). It is illegal to possess, sell, or import timber rattlesnakes (state endangered), eastern hognose snakes (state threatened), Blandings turtles, spotted turtles, wood turtles, eastern box turtles, and marbled salamanders (state endangered) (RSA 212-A, New Hampshire Fish and Game (NHFG) Rules Fis 800). It is not known to what extent illegal collection of protected species occurs in New Hampshire, but some rare species have been sold in the past (Levell 2000). No other reptiles and amphibians are regulated at this time. Painted turtles were one of the top reptile species exported from the United States (Franke and Telecky 2001). Harvesting snapping turtles for food is currently unregulated in New Hampshire, and at least one commercial collector has been reported (Taylor in Tyning 1997, M. Marchand, personal observation); strict regulations in surrounding states (e.g., Maine) may increase collection pressure for New Hampshires populations.

(B) Human values Humans have a negative perception (fear) of some species and regard others as pests. Negative Risk Category Habitats Species 4

0 0

3 0

1 2

0 2

1 6

13

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-62 Wildlife Risk Assessment perceptions may lead people to destroy wildlife regardless of actual danger. Only 1 of the 11 native New Hampshire snakes are venomous, and this species (timber rattlesnake) is extremely rare and unlikely to strike unless provoked. Slaughter of individuals or purposeful destruction of critical habitat (e.g., den sites) may result in the local or state extirpation of some species (e.g., timber rattlesnakes, Brown 1992).

Bats found in homes may be killed. Bug zappers often kill non-target species such as beetles and moths that are attracted to light. Some insect control programs are implemented to ease public concern (e.g.,

mosquito spraying to control West Nile virus), but may harm non-target species.

Conversely, many humans are fascinated with wildlife. Humans with positive intentions may move animals from what seems unfavorable habitat to another location, with adverse consequences. For example, relocating turtles may be the functional equivalent of removing the turtle from the wild because the relocated turtle can no longer interact with wild individuals.

(C) Incidental take Some species, including those that are rare or endangered in New Hampshire, are incidentally taken because of legal harvesting activities (hunting, trapping, and recreational or commercial fishing).

For example, lynx and bobcat may be incidentally captured in leghold traps designed for canids or killing (e.g., conibear) traps designed for mustelids.

American marten may be taken in fisher traps.

Spruce grouse may be confused with ruffed grouse and taken by hunters (J. Kelly, NHFG, personal communication). Turtles may be taken in conibears set under water for beaver and otter but the impact on at-risk turtle populations is unknown (K. Tuttle and E. Orff, NHFG, personal communication). On a larger scale, incidental take of non-target species is a persistent problem in the commercial fishing industry (National Marine Fisheries Service 1998).

(D) Scientific collection Scientific research has been conducted on a variety of taxonomic groups in New Hampshire, often resulting in take of individuals. Although this activity is often regulated, some species, especially invertebrates that are not state or federally threatened or endangered, are not regulated. Also, those species that are protected may be difficult to identify. For example, collection of some pine-barrens Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths) could have an impact on highly fragmented or small populations.

4. RESEARCH NEEDS

• Monitor focal populations to assess survivorship and loss of individuals from local populations, especially where human activity is intense (e.g.,

timber rattlesnakes, hognose snakes, wood turtles, Blandings turtles, spotted turtles)

• Create list of pet stores, pet trade expos, and web sites that sell reptiles and amphibians in New Hampshire; survey which species of reptiles and amphibians are for sale (both native and non-native)

• Assess Cliff, Floodplain Forest, and other vulnerable habitats for risk of over collection of vegetation 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 S

EI C

E P

S e

k a

n s

eltta R

re b

m iT ts er o

F e

niP k

a O

n aih c

ala p

p A

4 3

3 3

4 2

9 2

3 n

etr a

M n

a cire m

A ts er o

F riF-e c

ur p

S n

oita v

elE h

g i

H 3

2 4

4 3

9 2

2 2

e s

u o

r G

e c

ur p

S ts er o

F riF-e c

ur p

S n

oita v

elE h

g i

H 1

4 4

4 3

9 2

2 2

e k

a n

S e

s o

n g

o H

s n

err a

B e

niP 3

3 2

3 3

0 0

2 2

n oita m

r ofnI

=

5 d

o o

hile kiL

=

4 g

ni m

iT

=

3

,ytire v

e S

=

2 e

p o

c S

=

1

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-63 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 Actin Plan 4-64 Wildlife Risk Assessment

1. DEFINITION Timber harvests greatly affect (positively or negatively) the current and future condition of New Hampshires forests and associated wildlife habitats (NHDFL and SPNHF 1997). When done in an ecologically sustainable manner, timber harvesting can enhance New Hampshires economy while enhancing certain wildlife habitat. However, if neglected or overlooked, 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, high-intensity harvesting that exceeds forest growth over large areas increases habitat fragmentation and dramatically decreases age-class diversity (McCarthy 1995, Hunter 1999). This, in turn, results in less available wildlife habitat, especially for species that require mature forest or abundant coarse woody debris (e.g., American marten) (Hargis et al. 1999).

Additionally, ecologically unsustainable harvesting can result in forest type conversion (e.g., from spruce-fir to tolerant hardwoods) (Hunter 1990, Hunter 1999), thereby reducing habitat for certain species.

2. EXPERT OPINION Ecologically unsustainable forest harvesting, including liquidation harvesting and harvesting that leads to forest type conversions, is a serious to critical threat to New Hampshires lowland spruce fir forests and associated wildlife species, especially American marten, spruce grouse, and three-toed woodpecker.

Harvesting without regard to soil productivity and erosion, water quality, plant and wildlife habitat, and other non-timber values is a serious threat in most forest types. Harvesting in general is ecologically unsustainable in high-elevation spruce-fir forests and floodplain forests and is a serious threat in both forest types.

Unsustainable Forest Harvesting 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 4 = Greatest risk.

3. KNOWN WILDLIFE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS (A) Liquidation harvesting The state of Maine defines liquidation harvesting as the purchase of timberland followed by a harvest that removes most or all commercial value in standing timber, without regard for long-term forest management principles, and the subsequent sale or attempted resale of the harvested land within 5 years (Sec. A-1. 12 MRSA c. 805). Liquidation harvesting commonly leads to subdivision and development that causes a decrease in available wildlife habitat and fragmentation of what remains (Maine Forest Service (MFS) 2002). MFS has concluded that 3% to 12% of all harvests in Maine are liquidations (6,300 to 25,200 ha/yr) (MFS 2002). No such assessment has yet been completed for New Hampshire. However, based on observations of wildlife and forestry professionals, similar percentages are expected in this state, mostly in the north. This has serious implications for American marten, three-toed woodpecker, spruce grouse, and other species. The Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests and the Timberland Owners Association is in the process of assessing timber harvest patterns in New Hampshire.

(B) Forest type conversion Forest type conversion is most pronounced in low Risk Category Habitats Species 4

1 0

3 0

4 2

7 1

1 9

15

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-65 Wildlife Risk Assessment elevation spruce-fir forests when stands are clear-cut prior to the establishment of adequate levels of advanced regeneration (Frank and Bjorkbom 1973, Demming et al. 1995). In these situations, spruce-fir is generally replaced by light tolerant hardwoods (e.g., pin cherry, birch, aspen, red maple) (Demming et al. 1995). Eventually, spruce-fir forest may become reestablished, but it will take many more decades than if harvests were carefully planned to ensure advanced regeneration. According to mapping conducted for the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (see low elevation spruce-fir forest profile), New Hampshire only has 34% of the low elevation spruce-fir forest that is ecologically possible (106,411 ha of 311,629 ha possible).

(C) Lack of on-timber values Timber harvesting can have a significant impact on soil quality, wetland and water quality, plant and animal habitats, and other non-timber values.

For instance, timber harvesting can compact soil, particularly organic soils such as peat, leading to increased runoff and nutrient loading (NHDFL and SPNHF 1997).

Harvesting near vernal pools may reduce canopy cover, increase water temperatures not suitable to breeding amphibians, and cause premature drying of the pool (Calhoun and deMaynadier 2004).

Short rotation harvesting limits the availability of bark beetles in dead and dying spruce trees, which is the major food item for three-toed woodpeckers (Leonard 2001). It also limits the size and amount of coarse woody debris, which is required by American marten for denning and foraging (Hargis et al. 1999).

Timber harvesting can also limit the number of large trees with strong upper branches to support the nests of bald eagle, osprey, red-shouldered hawk, and Coopers hawk, unless such trees are deliberately identified and protected during harvesting operations (Titus and Mosher 1981, Speiser and Bosakowski 1991, Bosakowski et al. 1992, Buehler 2000).

4. RESEARCH NEEDS

• Assess current timber harvest levels and patterns in New Hampshire to better understand the extent of 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 S

EI C

E P

S n

etr a

M n

a cire m

A ts er o

F riF-e c

ur p

S n

oita v

elE h

g i

H 3

4 4

4 3

1 2

3 3

e s

u o

r G

e c

ur p

S ts er o

F riF-e c

ur p

S n

oita v

elE h

g i

H 3

4 4

4 3

1 2

3 3

nre T

n o

m m

o C

s d

n alsIlats a

o C

4 3

3 3

4 2

9 2

3 nre T

eta e

s o

R s

d n

alsIlats a

o C

4 3

3 3

4 2

9 2

3 re k

c e

p d

o o

W d

e ot-e erh T

ts er o

F riF-e c

ur p

S d

n al w

o L

2 3

3 3

4 8

0 2

2 S

T A

TIB A

H ts er o

F riF e

c ur p

S d

n al w

o L

4 3

4 4

4 0

5 3

4 ts er o

F e

niP-d o

o w

d r

a H

-k c

ol m

e H

3 3

4 3

3 0

5 2

2 ts er o

F riF-e c

ur p

S n

oita v

elE h

g i

H 2

3 4

4 4

0 5

2 2

ts er o

F refin o

C

-d o

o w

d r

a H

nre htr o

N 3

3 4

3 3

0 5

2 2

ts er o

F e

niP k

a O

n aih c

ala p

p A

2 3

4 4

3 9

2 2

2 s

d e

h sreta W

d n

alp U

nre htr o

N 3

3 3

3 2

0 0

2 2

sts er o

F nialp d

o olF 2

3 3

3 3

8 8

1 2

s d

n alta e

P 2

3 3

3 3

8 8

1 2

n oita m

r ofnI

=

5 d

o o

hile kiL

=

4 g

ni m

iT

=

3

,ytire v

e S

=

2 e

p o

c S

=

1

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 4-66 Wildlife Risk Assessment unsustainable harvesting in the state

• Determine the forest structure and management actions needed to sustain three-toed woodpeckers

• Define long-and short-term impacts of clear-cutting on vernal pool wildlife survival and reproductive success

5. LITERATURE CITED Bosakowski, T., D.G. Smith, and R. Speiser. 1992.

Nest sites and habitat selected by Coopers hawks, Accipiter cooperii, in northern New Jersey and southeastern New York. Canadian Field-Naturalist 106: 474-479.

Buehler, D.A. 2000. Bald Eagle (Halieaeetus leucocephalus). In The Birds of North America, No.

564 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Calhoun, A.J.K., and P. deMaynadier. 2004.

Forestry habitat management guidelines for vernal pool wildlife. MCA Technical Paper No.

6, Metropolitan Conservation Alliance, Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York, USA.

Cullen, J.B. 1996. Best management practices for erosion control on timber harvesting operations in New Hampshire. University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension, Durham, New Hampshire, USA.

Damman, A.W.H., and T.W. French. 1987. The ecology of peat bogs of the glaciated northeastern United States: a community profile. United States Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7.16), Washington, DC., USA.

DeGraaf, R.M., M. Yamasaki, W.B. Leak, and J.W.

Lanier. 1992. New England wildlife: management of forested habitats. United States Departement of Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical Report NE-144.

Demming, L., L. Falk, C. Foss, J. Lanier, D.

Publicover, E. Snyder, K. Staley, and T. VanRyn.

1995. Hypothesis 13. Pages III-89-101 in New Hampshire Division of Forests and Lands. New Hampshire forest resources plan assessment report. New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development, Concord, New Hampshire, USA.

Frank, R.M., and J.S. Bjorkbom. 1973. A silvicultural guide for spruce-fir in the Northeast. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report NE-6.

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Broomall, Pennsylvania, USA.

Hansen, A.J., T.A. Spies, F.J. Swanson, and J.L.

Ohmann. 1991. Conserving biodiversity in managed forests. BioScience 41:382-392.

Hargis C.D., J.A. Bissonette, and D.L. Turner.

1999. The influence of forest fragmentation and landscape pattern on American martens. Journal of Applied Ecology 36:157-172.

Hunter, M.L. Jr. 1990. Wildlife, forests, and forestry:

principles of managing forests for biological diversity. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA.

Hunter, M.L. Jr. 1999. Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Leonard, D.L. Jr., 2001. Three-toed woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus). In The Birds of North America, No. 588 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.).

The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Maine Forest Service (MFS). 2002. The 2001 biennial report on the state of the forest and progress report on forest sustainability standards. Department of Conservation, Maine Forest Service, Forest Policy and Management Division, Augusta, Maine, USA.

McCarthy, P. 1995. Hypothese 2. Pages III-39-58 in New Hampshire Division of Forests and Lands.

New Hampshire forest resources plan assessment report. New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development, Concord, New Hampshire, USA.

New Hampshire Department of Forests and Lands (NHDFL) and The Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests (SPNHF). 1997. Good forestry in the Granite State: recommended voluntary forest management practices for New Hampshire. The Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, Concord, New Hampshire, USA.

Speiser, R., and T. Bosakowski. 1991. Nesting phenology, site fidelity, and defense behavior of northern goshawks in New York and New Jersey.

Journal of Raptor Research 25(4):132-135.

Titus, K., and J.A. Mosher. 1981. Nest site habitat selected by woodland hawks in the central Appalachians. Auk 98:270-281.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-1 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 objectives. The objectives that make up the WAP were developed to be inclusive of all wildlife, with a focus on priority wildlife and wildlife habitats named in chapter 2. Objectives were cross-referenced to in-formation about threats, affected species and habitats, and feasibility. These linked data will form the basis for objective prioritization of the WAP (chapter 7).

Throughout this chapter, specific objectives are refer-enced by their number (e.g., 101, 703, 1201).

Actions were developed at the following levels of detail:

Four broad focus areas: regional air and water quality, local land and water conservation, state-wide biodiversity stewardship, conservation sci-ence and information management The short summaries of objectives presented in this chapter, which are based on the strategy tem-plate (provided in Appendix O) and organized by strategic program areas The complete strategy templates (not provided) containing detailed information relevant to fea-sibility and priorities, which NHFG is using in-ternally to guide implementation. See chapter 6, page 6-6, for an example of a complete strategy.

Conservation Actions section of the species and habitat profiles (Appendix A and B), containing detailed conservation actions and information about potential monitoring protocols for each species and habitat Monitoring, performance evaluation, and adaptive management systems are integrated with all objec-tives and are the topic of Chapter 6. Since these subjects are an integral part of the WAP, they are introduced below.

Monitoring: Effective monitoring requires an efficient set of indicators that are surrogates for species or habi-tat health. The Monitoring Strategy prescribes a start-ing point for identifying an efficient set of indicators for each habitat.

CHAPTER FIVE Conservation Strategies FIGURE 5-1. Risk assessments, condition assessments, and actions identified in species and habitat profiles were used to identify general strategies important to many wild-life species and habitats.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-2 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 O

/

BJECTIVES y

cilo P

d n

a n

oita nid r

o o

C y

c n

e g

A

-a rtnI 0

0 1

elb a

cilp p

a to N

g nin n

alP n

oita vre s

n o

C 0

0 2

2 4

e vitc ejb o

4 la o

g r

a e

b k

c alB 2

4 e

vitc ejb o

4 la o

g e

s o

o M

2 4

e vitc ejb o

4 la o

g re e

d d

eliat-etih W

e c

n atsiss A

la cin h

c e

T d

n a

n oita c

u d

E 0

0 3

3 4

d n

a 2

4 s

e vitc ejb o

4 la o

g 1

3 e

vitc ejb o

3 la o

g r

a e

b k

c alB 4

la o

g 1

3 e

vitc ejb o

3 la o

g 2

2 d

n a

1 2

s e

vitc ejb o

2 la o

g e

s o

o M

3 4

d n

a 2

4 1

4 s

e vitc ejb o

3 4

d n

a 2

4 1

4 s

e vitc ejb o

4 la o

g re e

d d

eliat-etih W

2 2

d n

a 1

2 s

e vitc ejb o

2 la o

g y

e krut dli W

w eiv e

R latn e

m n

o riv n

E 0

0 4

4 la o

g r

a e

b k

c alB 4

la o

g e

s o

o M

4 la o

g re e

d d

eliat-etih W

tn e

m e

g a

n a

M tatib a

H 0

0 5

3 4

d n

a 2

4 s

e vitc ejb o

4 la o

g r

a e

b k

c alB 3

4 d

n a

2 4

1 4

s e

vitc ejb o

4 la o

g e

s o

o M

3 4

d n

a 2

4 1

4 s

e vitc ejb o

4 la o

g re e

d d

eliat-etih W

2 2

d n

a 1

2 s

e vitc ejb o

2 la o

g y

e krut dli W

y cilo P

d n

a n

oitalu g

e R

y c

n e

g a

retnI 0

0 6

1 4

e vitc ejb o

4 la o

g r

a e

b k

c alB n

oitc eto rP d

n a

L 0

0 7

3 4

e vitc ejb o

4 la o

g r

a e

b k

c alB 3

4 d

n a

1 4

s e

vitc ejb o

4 la o

g e

s o

o M

3 4

d n

a 1

4 e

vitc ejb o

4 la o

g re e

d d

eliat-etih W

s e

vitn e

c nIre n

w o

d n

a L

0 0

8 3

4 d

n a

2 4

s e

vitc ejb o

4 la o

g r

a e

b k

c alB 3

4 d

n a

2 4

1 4

s e

vitc ejb o

4 la o

g e

s o

o M

3 4

d n

a 2

4 1

4 s

e vitc ejb o

4 la o

g re e

d d

eliat-etih W

2 2

d n

a 1

2 s

e vitc ejb o

2 la o

g y

e krut dli W

g nir otin o

M 0

0 9

3 4

d n

a 1

4 s

e vitc ejb o

4 la o

g 1

la o

g r

a e

b k

c alB 1

4 e

vitc ejb o

4 la o

g 1

la o

g e

s o

o M

1 4

e vitc ejb o

4 la o

g 3

la o

g 1

la o

g re e

d d

eliat-etih W

1 2

e vitc ejb o

2 la o

g y

e krut dli W

tn e

m e

g a

n a

M n

oitalu p

o P

0 0

0 1

3 d

n a

1 sla o

g r

a e

b k

c alB 1

la o

g e

s o

o M

3 d

n a

1 sla o

g re e

d d

eliat-etih W

1 la o

g y

e krut dli W

n oita nid r

o o

C la n

oi g

e R

0 0

1 1

elb a

cilp p

a to N

h cr a

e s

e R

0 0

2 1

elb a

cilp p

a to N

y cilo P

d n

a n

oitalu g

e R

la c

o L

0 0

3 1

3 4

d n

a 2

4 s

e vitc ejb o

4 la o

g r

a e

b k

c alB 3

4 d

n a

2 4

s e

vitc ejb o

4 la o

g e

s o

o M

3 4

d n

a 2

4 s

e vitc ejb o

4 la o

g re e

d d

eliat-etih W

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-3 Conservation Strategies Performance Evaluation: Performance evaluation is built into each objective by explicitly identifying af-fected threats, expected benefits, and critical inputs.

Two monitoring objectives were developed to mea-sure the first two aspects of performance, the direct effects of management (affected threats), and ecologi-cal response (expected benefits).

Adaptive Management: Annual summary reports will include baseline information, measured indicators, trends in threatened and endangered populations, changes in the level of managed threats, and a sum-mary of inputs. This information will be used to adapt management to current conditions.

Integration With the Big Game Plan As we prepared to develop the WAP, another major planning effort was scheduled to take place: the New Hampshire Big Game Plan (focused on black bear, moose, white-tailed deer and turkey, see Appendix E). To ensure the long-term protection of all wildlife species and habitats in the state, we integrated the planning efforts of the Big Game Plan into the over-arching WAP. While the Big Game Plan and its goals and objectives may be viewed separately from the WAP, the integration of these two planning processes ensured that conservation strategies were consistent with each other. In Table 5-1, we identify those goals and objectives in the Big Game Plan that are parallel to the conservation strategies described in this chap-ter. In this way, we hope to more fully integrate wild-life conservation actions in the state, whether directed toward game or non-game species.

Fisheries Operational Plan The goals of the WAP overlap with the objective of the NHFG Anadromous and Inland Fisheries Opera-tional Management Investigations to monitor and assess the status of New Hampshires freshwater and anadromous fisheries resources through a planned scientific approach and to develop, implement, and evaluate management strategies that are consistent with resource capabilities. Restoration efforts for anadromous species are guided by the Strategic Plan for the Restoration of Atlantic Salmon to the Con-necticut River (revised 1998), the Status Review of the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program for the Merrimack River (revised 1997), and The Saco River Fish Passage Assessment Plan 2004-2007 (approved 2003).

Broad Focus Areas Regional Air and Water Quality Action Plan Even the best-protected wildlife populations and hab-itats are increasingly threatened by climate change.

Meanwhile, atmospheric pollutants in the form of acid deposition, mercury, and other heavy metals continue to degrade water quality and diminish for-est health. The overarching goal is to reduce harmful air and water pollutants by promoting sustainable energy, transportation, and industrial development practices.

• Promote the adoption of structured risk assess-ments by state and federal agencies engaged in energy, transportation, and industrial development projects. Assessments include a goal, identification of risks, risk monitoring, and mitigation for un-avoidable impacts (601, 602, 603, 604, 607)

• Promote the use of regional and national air and water quality policies and funding in New Hamp-shire (1103, 1104)

• Advise the coordinators of regional conservation initiatives on air and water quality issues in New Hampshire that need to be addressed at the re-gional or national level (1103, 1104)

Local Land and Water Conservation Action Plan Wildlife habitats are diminished or destroyed by rap-id urban development in many parts of New Hamp-shire. Many areas are degraded by indirect effects of development, such as non-point source pollution and light pollution. We must promote sustainable devel-opment and resource use to support wildlife health and diversity through a combination of coordinated working groups, technical guidance, and the produc-tion of targeted educational materials.

• Develop and disseminate up-to-date information, including maps, about wildlife and sensitive habitat areas that is pertinent to developers, permit appli-cants, land managers, municipalities, conservation commissions, and regional planning commissions

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-4 Conservation Strategies (206, 401, 1301)

• Develop and promote guidelines and best manage-ment practices to mitigate common development and land use impacts in sensitive habitat areas (304, 305, 403, 406)

• Provide technical guidance on the application of conservation science, planning tools, maps, and other information to land planning (609, 1302, 1303)

• Provide technical guidance on monitoring proto-cols so the success of restoration and mitigation can be clearly demonstrated (408, 904, 905)

• Promote inter-agency working groups to address broad threats with strategies outlined in the WAP (104, 105, 106, 605, 606, 608)

• Develop and implement a program to provide landowner incentives for land conservation (703, 802, 803)

• Educate the public about smart growth, safe re-source use, sensitive habitat areas, and sustainable development (302, 307)

Statewide Biodiversity Stewardship Program To maintain New Hampshires biodiversity and habi-tats, the state needs coordinated voluntary and regu-latory management, restoration, and land protection.

• Protect and restore rare and declining plants and animals (101, 102, 103, 208, 804, 1004, 1005)

• Protect and restore threatened habitats and natural communities (405, 407, 409, 502, 503, 505, 507, 508, 701, 702, 801)

• Coordinate agencies to protect populations and habitats (107, 402, 404, 410)

• Coordinate agencies to plan and implement resto-ration (610, 1101, 1102)

• Manage human impacts on plant and animal diver-sity (501, 504, 506, 1003, 1006)

Conservation Science and Information Manage-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-sess ecological responses of habitats and organisms.

Protocols for monitoring and management will help ensure consistency, efficacy, and a measured response.

Therefore, the overall goal of this focal area is to use best available science and protocols to monitor those species and habitats of greatest conservation concern.

• Gather and refine information about the locations of New Hampshires wildlife and habitats and maintain a database to map populations and habi-tats (201, 202, 901)

• Gather and refine information about the condi-tion of New Hampshires landscape and maintain a database to assess the status of populations and habitats to help direct management actions (204, 205, 902, 903)

• Research and comparatively analyze threats to the condition of wildlife populations and habitats to identify critical problems (203, 204, 1001)

• Prioritize proposed conservation actions before im-plementation to ensure that resources are targeted effectively (207, 1201, 1202)

• Track and evaluate performance to determine the success of management actions. This entails measuring changes in the level of a risk factor, demonstrating a beneficial ecological response, and establishing a correlation between management and changes in threat levels (207, 904, 905)

• Continually refine and adapt management activi-ties to reflect new conservation science (207, 904, 905, 1002)

• Manage information and develop media for dis-semination to all levels in conservation (201, 202, 206, 401)

• Develop a system to monitor ecological health that includes under-surveyed taxa, indicators of condi-tion, threatened and endangered species, effects of management, and ecological responses to manage-ment. Produce succinct, standardized annual re-ports on wildlife health by habitat (901, 902, 903, 904, 905, 906, 907)

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-5 STRATEGY 100 Intra-Agency Coordination and Policy Native New Hampshire wildlife should be adequately protected by state laws and regulations for the en-joyment of New Hampshires residents and visitors.

These laws should be clearly understood by all indi-viduals, agencies, and organizations affected by them.

Conservation officers should be trained, equipped, and funded to enforce wildlife laws, including those pertaining to non-game, threatened, and endangered species. NHFG oversees the protection, restoration, and conservation of wildlife in New Hampshire, and regulates its take, sale, and possession. RSA 212-A and associated rules protect endangered and threat-ened wildlife. Under this law, other state agencies that authorize, fund, or carry out activities must consider potential impacts to state-listed wildlife.

101 Objective: Revise protocols to review threat-ened and endangered wildlife habitat Long-term recovery of endangered and threatened species is best achieved by focusing on protecting high quality habitat rather than only preventing the take of individuals. New Hampshires Endangered Species Conservation Act (RSA 212-A) should be revised to provide more comprehensive habitat pro-tection for endangered and threatened wildlife and protect buffers around critical habitats. Representa-tives from state agencies, business, timber, energy, ag-riculture, and government should be engaged in the development of revisions to the RSA 212-A, and an advisory committee with a legislative liaison should be established to assure successful implementation.

102 Objective: Revise endangered wildlife list Resources for wildlife conservation are limited, and a revision of the NHFG threatened and endangered wildlife list (Administrative Rule FIS 1000) would ensure that these resources are directed toward those species most in need of management, intensive moni-toring, or similar recovery efforts. Revising the threat-ened and endangered wildlife list also would ensure that regulatory protection goes to those species in greatest need. Detailed assessments have been com-pleted for those species of greatest conservation con-cern as part of the WAP, and NHFG rules (Chapter FIS 1000) identify threatened and endangered species.

Conservation partners and taxonomic experts from universities should assist in identifying those species in need of greater protection or those no longer in need of protection under RSA 212-A. This objective is best accomplished through the forma-tion of taxon-specific technical committees. For taxa where expertise is readily available, the organizational framework for revision is already in place and simply requires that the appropriate parties convene and develop a plan for reviewing existing lists. For more obscure taxa, experts must first be identified.

103 Objective: Develop protocols for limiting ac-tivity in sensitive habitats Fragile and sensitive ecosystems can be damaged by human presence, even when no harm is intended. To prevent disturbance, sensitive threatened and endan-gered species areas should be buffered from human disturbance. Adopting rules that specify where these areas are and how they can be properly protected would improve enforcement. Sensitivity to private property rights is necessary when considering the approach to this objective. We recognize the value of working cooperatively with landowners to balance use of their property with the need to protect threat-ened and endangered species of wildlife (also see Safe Harbor Agreements objective 804).

104 Objective: Revise/Enforce Chapter FIS 800:

The Importation, Possession, and Use of Wildlife Revising administrative rules on the importation,

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-6 Conservation Strategies possession, and use of wildlife (Administrative Rule FIS 800) will help prevent unnecessary take, diseases, and invasive species from harming wild populations.

A number of species are unregulated, and reptiles and amphibians are particularly vulnerable. New rules might prohibit the sale of any native New Hamp-shire wildlife, add new rules for reptiles, amphibians, and some invertebrates, add protected wildlife from neighboring states to New Hampshires rules, elimi-nate non-native species, and change wording from no possession of venomous reptiles to venomous species.

105 Objective: Minimize OHRV wildlife impacts Eliminating OHRV use in sensitive endangered and threatened species habitats, such as coastal dunes and pine barrens, removes a potential mortality factor es-pecially for piping plovers and rare pine barrens spe-cies such as the Karner blue butterfly. Where OHRV use is deemed appropriate, well designed and main-tained trail systems will reduce impacts to wildlife and will provide OHRV riders with safe and reliable recreational opportunities.

NHFG conservation officers, land managers, 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 on potential impacts to natural resources, will help protect wildlife and habitats. Boat access projects should consider ecological significance and potential effects before selecting priority sites for public water access. Access sites that will harm significant natural resources should not be funded.

The Public Water Access Advisory Board advises, monitors, and coordinates state public access efforts.

When projects are proposed, wetland permits must be requested from the NHDES Wetlands Bureau.

107 Objective: Enforce wildlife regulations The NHFG has a law enforcement division with approximately 40 conservation officers spread across six districts. These conservation officers are primarily responsible for enforcing NHFG rules and regula-tions. Biologists at NHFG have extensive knowledge regarding the identification and biology of regulated species. Greater coordination among conservation of-ficers and biologists at NHFG will help ensure that wildlife rules and regulations are enforceable and that conservation officers are trained to enforce regula-tions pertaining to species of conservation concern, and other fish and wildlife.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-7 STRATEGY 200 Conservation Planning Conservation planning entails organizing and analyz-ing data derived from direct observation of wildlife and habitats. Scientists with advanced training in conservation biology and wildlife ecology are needed to lead efforts to use computer models to synthesize statewide patterns of wildlife health and to develop strategies for conserving biodiversity. Critical analysis of perceived threats to wildlife is an important part of strategy development. One of the outputs of con-servation planning are maps that depict the ability of lands to support wildlife health and help guide land use planning decisions. The goals of conservation planning are as follows:

• Describe the potential of the land to sustain wild-life

• Develop conservation objectives that balance hu-man interests with wildlife health and avoid costly interventions for endangered species

• Organize and prioritize diverse projects to maintain ecological integrity across the landscape

• Deliver information supporting conservation ob-jectives in media that can be integrated into state and local planning processes 201 Objective: Model Validation and Refinement Continually validate and refine maps of predicted distributions of wildlife populations and habitats, be-ginning with the most scarce and imperiled and pro-gressing to the most abundant and stable. Confirming or refuting predicted locations of wildlife populations and habitats will improve efficacy of and support for the implementation of local and statewide conserva-tion strategies and actions.

Computer models predicting the distributions of species and habitats were developed to produce maps for the WAP. NHFG has adequate expertise, facilities, and equipment for oversight of model development and validation, but staff for ground-truthing is lim-ited. NHFG will likely partner with DRED for this objective because NHNHB ecologists are trained to identify habitats and natural communities and can train others to do so. Model validation and refine-ment is highly feasible because staff and resources already exist, and efforts can begin immediately.

202 Objective: Maintain Wildlife Database New Hampshire should maintain its ability to ac-quire, verify, and maintain records of wildlife obser-vations. Improved knowledge of species distributions, particularly species of conservation concern, will greatly benefit conservation and regulatory actions.

NHFG and NHNHB currently have staff dedicated to acquiring, verifying, and maintaining wildlife records derived from NHFG, partner orga-nizations (e.g., NHA, RAARP, contractors), and the New Hampshire Wildlife Sightings web page. Staff may be inadequate to address incoming records in a timely manner.

203 Objective: Assess Threats to Wildlife Health Assess threats to wildlife and habitats based on methodologies developed during the WAP. Focus ef-forts on taxa with significant knowledge gaps, such as invertebrates, amphibians, and fish, as well as on emerging threats. Identifying patterns of risk to wild-life may allow management to adapt incrementally, before species decline to threatened or endangered status and before habitats are seriously degraded. This may preempt drastic and costly interventions and increase resources for other potentially threatened or endangered species.

204 Objective: Map Landscape Potential for Wildlife Habitat Create maps that portray the potential of the land-

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-8 Conservation Strategies scape to support a sustainable and diverse array of wildlife and wildlife habitats. Maps should incorpo-rate wildlife distributions, ecological processes, and influence of human activities on the landscape. Maps will identify critical areas to support priority wildlife habitats and biodiversity, resulting in more efficient and effective protection.

Much of the data gathering and mapping has already been completed for the WAP. NHFG has ad-equate expertise, facilities, and equipment to conduct analyses to assess the potential condition of the land-scape; however, expert consultation will be required to develop and refine methodology. Key partners include TNC and NHNHB.

205 Objective: Map Potential Wildlife Corridors and Buffers Map landscape connectivity using models to repre-sent spatial processes, such as dispersal, migration, colonization, and foraging. Mapping connectivity and buffering critical wildlife areas can target lands that help retain ecological connectivity and sustain wildlife diversity.

Mapping landscape connectivity will be achieved through coordinated inter-agency and inter-orga-nizational efforts, and NHFG is not likely to lead the effort. TNC and NHFG have completed a frag-mentation model that will contribute to mapping of connectivity, and NHFG has contracted UNH to de-velop methodology for modeling movements of large carnivores. Initiatives are in place to secure funding to model landscape connectivity from transportation planning resources.

206 Objective: Produce and Deliver Planning Maps Produce and distribute summary maps of wildlife habitat at town and ecoregional scales. Summary maps will provide town and regional planners with easily interpreted information that supports wildlife conservation objectives. Technical guidance will help planners use available tools for implementing a range of objectives, from land protection to mitigating impacts of development. In the long-term, conserva-tion planning practices will be integrated with land use planning. Maps will guide the public, develop-ers, land-use planners, regulatory agencies, and land managers in decision-making.

NHFG developed preliminary wildlife conserva-tion maps and distributed them to planning organiza-tions during 2004-2005. Coordinated data manage-ment and publication mechanisms will be required to publish and distribute updated maps to all towns and regions. GRANIT and Complex Systems are equipped to manage, publish, and distribute mapped data via the Internet and other media.

207 Objective: Prioritize and Refine Strategies to Conserve Wildlife The efficacy of wildlife conservation efforts will be im-proved by focusing on the most effective and feasible strategies for sustaining wildlife populations, habitats, and landscapes, and to abate the most pressing causes of degraded wildlife health. Information gathered for the WAP should guide this effort in coming years.

Input on strategies from partners, stakeholders, and the public has been obtained via collaboration, review, forum, and web-based survey. For each objec-tive, feasibility will be reviewed thoroughly by NHFG with input from relevant experts upon completion of the WAP and prior to implementation.

208 Objective: Use Natural Communities and Systems as Surrogates for Poorly Represented Taxa There is a wide variety of taxa, predominantly inver-tebrates, for which very little information exists. By identifying and protecting the full range of natural communities and systems that occur in the state, it should be possible to provide habitat for all native species, including those not represented in the WAP.

Natural Communities of New Hampshire (Sper-duto and Nichols 2004) provides the most up-to-date descriptions of natural communities in the state.

Likewise, systems are described in Natural Commu-nity Systems of New Hampshire (Sperduto 2005). The NHNHB database contains records of all known occurrences of exemplary natural communities and systems throughout the state, and NHNHB staff is continuously updating it as new information is gathered.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-9 STRATEGY 300 Education, Information, and Technical Guidance Education includes formal (school-based) and non-formal (camp, agency, adult, non-government, volunteer, conservation commission, and profes-sional) instruction and involvement across a variety of media. Technical guidance is primarily non-formal instruction and direction through workshops, field tours, one-on-one consultation, publications and presentations.

Education and technical assistance create an aware and ecologically knowledgeable citizenry who has the appropriate skills to identify and help resolve environmental challenges and participate in activities that lead to positive action on behalf of the wildlife resources. Through an educated citizenry many of the issues facing wildlife can be ameliorated. The ultimate goal is a change in human behavior leading to a sus-tainable and environmentally friendly quality of life.

This strategy identifies both immediate, discrete actions and long-term processes that can be taken to address conservation issues through education, infor-mation and technical guidance. While we recognize the importance of prioritizing education, information and technical guidance needs and supporting actions (objective 301), the WAP process has allowed us to better understand many of the critical conservation needs. We have provided direction to address some of the most critical needs in objectives 302-307.

301 Objective: Identify actions to address through education, information, and technical guidance Identify and implement conservation actions that can productively be addressed through various means of education, information and technical guidance.

Public support will lead to additional conservation, management, and legislation that will protect wildlife and habitat.

There is great potential for partnerships to devel-op in the process of reaching this general education, information and technical guidance goal. NHFG has a Public Affairs Division, with personnel, training, fa-cilities, and equipment for conducting education ac-tivities. UNH Cooperative Extension has personnel, training, and facilities for conducting education and technical guidance. Funding and personnel are needed to develop curricula and other educational materials.

302 Objective: Landowner education series Work with partners to inventory and evaluate exist-ing homeowner/landowner wildlife educational ma-terials. Assess need for additional materials in light of new information. Work with partners to develop and distribute a homeowner/landowner education series including brochures, web based information, and program presentations. These projects would address issues such as living with wildlife, landscaping native plants and preventing the spread of invasive species.

Programs can be developed either on the regional or national level and could benefit the state regard-ing homeowner education series and guide. NHFG and UNH Cooperative Extension currently have the capacity to implement and distribute such materials.

In addition there are many willing partners includ-ing state agencies and non-government organizations who could be involved, including USDA -Wildlife Services, Association of Federated Garden Clubs, DRED, and NHDES.

303 Objective: Foster supply of native plants New Hampshire should encourage landowners and landscapers to use native plants. Increasing the avail-ability of native plants from nurseries is important to encourage the use of more native plants with wildlife benefits in lieu of introduced and invasive species. By fostering the supply of native plants we also reduce the risk that non-native pests and diseases will be in-troduced into New Hampshire.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-10 Conservation Strategies Ornamental horticulture in New Hampshire is a $380 million industry, representing 56% of total agricultural productivity in the state. This industry has more than adequate resources and potential to develop a healthy supply of native plants if there is a financial incentive to do so. The New England Wild Flower Society has nurseries in Massachusetts that supply native plants to New Hampshire and other states, but are limited in capacity. NHDFL maintains a state nursery that provides more than 50 species of trees, shrubs, and vines for forestry, conservation and education purposes, including many native species.

The Jordan Institute, UNH Cooperative Extension, NHFG, and UNH Thompson School are collaborat-ing on a grant-funded project to complete a manual on integrated landscaping practices. This new manual describes natural landscaping techniques and encour-ages people to buy native plants from local growers.

NHFG and UNH Cooperative Extension can play a key role in organizing and motivating partners to foster an increased supply of native plants. The first step would be to organize a meeting of the potential partners to develop a feasible approach to fostering an increased supply of native plants. NHFG can work with the NHDFL State Nursery to assess the poten-tial to increase their supply of native plants, including expansion into the perennial and aquatic plants areas.

With funding, UNH Cooperative Extension can de-velop demonstration sites based on the new integrated landscaping practices manual and provide education, information and technical guidance to growers, ho-meowners, landscapers, and other relevant audiences.

304 Objective: Revise and promote agricultural best management practices Work with partners in the agricultural community to revise voluntary best management practices that would improve conditions for key wildlife species and habitats, particularly in grasslands, floodplain forests, and aquatic habitats. Potential revisions to best man-agement practices would include mowing techniques and timing, pesticide and fertilizer applications, stream buffer widths, vegetation composition buffers, and floodplain farming recommendations.

NHFG and UNH Cooperative Extension could take the lead in revising agricultural best manage-ment practices. They could work with partners to publicize and encourage adoption of the revised best management practices. There are many potential collaborators, including UNH Cooperative Exten-sion, New Hampshire Department of Agriculture, New Hampshire Farm Bureau, USDA-NRCS, and County Conservation Districts.

305 Objective: Promote sustainable forestry practices Continue to work with partners in the forestry and conservation communities to strategically promote sustainable forestry. This will benefit many species and habitats throughout New Hampshire. Encourag-ing sustainable forestry can encourage landowners to derive economic benefit from their forestlands and maintain them in an undeveloped state. A key element of a successful program is the proactive, purposeful targeting of owners of larger lands with significant wildlife resources. This program should consider actions mentioned in the sustainable forest manage-ment recommendation of the Northern Forest Lands Council Tenth Anniversary Forum Final Report.

NHFG, NHDFL, and UNH Cooperative Ex-tension should continue to work with the land trust community (e.g., through the Center for Land Con-servation Assistance) to promote the acquisition of easements (targeting lands with high wildlife value) that help maintain land in private ownership. Such groups should encourage easements to be accom-panied by resources needed to support sustainable management.

Other potential collaborators include the New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association, New Hampshire Timber Harvesting Council, Granite State Division of the Society of American Foresters, Tree Farm Program, SPNHF, USDA-NRCS, USDA Forest Service, local and regional conservation or-ganizations, and private consulting foresters. Forest Legacy and other easement programs represent fund-ing sources for the purchase of development value of land and ensure that forestry is sustainable.

306 Objective: Advise town conservation com-missions and planning boards Develop a program to provide technical assistance to town conservation commissions and planning boards regarding key wildlife species and habitats in and around their communities. Key species and habitats

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-11 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 5-12 STRATEGY 400 Environmental Review Various state, federal, and local agencies or boards currently have the authority to review potential environmental impacts of a proposed activity on protected resources (e.g., wetlands, threatened and endangered species). Project evaluation ranges from database searches to extensive interactions with devel-opers, engineers, and environmental consultants. Site inspections by a biologist are often essential to pro-vide recommendations needed to minimize and miti-gate impacts. Several potential enhancements could be pursued to improve the established environmental review process in New Hampshire, and subsequently species conservation. In particular, greater coordina-tion among agencies and dissemination of informa-tion to stakeholders will improve the environmental review process. The identification and implementa-tion of changes will be done in collaboration with other state agencies, non-government organizations, and the public.

401 Objective: Release Wildlife Maps to the Public The state should make wildlife-related information accessible to developers and public, while also pro-tecting sensitive information and landowner rights.

If developers and consultants have access to informa-tion prior to planning their projects, they will know which agencies to contact for a full review or for help in developing project designs before investing large amounts of time and money in a project. This will also help to streamline the review process and reduce redundancy in review requests.

Data layers are currently available or are being de-veloped which could be made available to the public on a limited basis. The Complex Systems Research Center at UNH (GRANIT) or a state agency website would be a proper venue for public access to this data.

NHDES currently provides public access to environ-mental information through its OneStop database.

402 Objective: Improve inter-agency coordina-tion for environmental reviews Revise protocols to improve coordination and ef-ficiency among state and local regulators and advi-sory boards. State and local regulators and advisory boards should coordinate with NHDES, NHFG, and NHNHB to establish the order in which projects are reviewed and responded to. This will reduce redun-dancy, provide critical information for formulating recommendations, and ensure that recommendations made by different groups are not contradictory.

403 Objective: Develop guidelines to minimize impacts to endangered, threatened, and special concern species NHFG should develop guidelines for reviewing projects affecting threatened, endangered, and special concern species. Guidelines will allow the NHFG to provide a more consistent and effective response to proposed development projects. Through these guide-lines, the expectations of NHFG reviewers will be better understood by developers and engineers so that conflicts can be avoided prior to the permit process.

NHFG has developed informal guidelines for re-viewing projects threatening some species (e.g., fresh-water mussels). However, guidelines have not been de-veloped for all species. NHFG staff should work with species experts and other state and federal wildlife agencies to develop guidelines for reviewing projects.

404 Objective: Expand environmental review to other projects potentially threatening wildlife Many projects receiving minimal environmental re-view could be improved by having access to informa-tion and resources from NHFG and NHNHB, which may help reduce impacts to rare wildlife, plants, and natural communities. Expanding the review process

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-13 Conservation Strategies to include both agencies will facilitate habitat and species conservation in these projects. For example, review of site-specific permits will allow NHFG and NHNHB to evaluate threats to uplands where wet-land impacts do not occur.

Expanding the scope of environmental reviews may be as simple as applying existing procedures to other projects. New or revised rules may be needed for programs that currently lack a review process.

Cooperation between NHDES, NHFG, NHNHB, NHDFL, and Division of Parks and Recreation will be necessary to determine which projects warrant additional review procedures. The NHDES Site Spe-cific Program is currently working on rule revisions; NHFG and NHNHB should provide input on these rule changes.

405 Objective: Expand existing protection to in-clude significant wildlife habitats that currently lack protection.

Wetlands are currently regulated by the NHDES Wetlands Bureau. Protection should be expanded for other significant wildlife habitats that currently lack adequate regulatory protections in New Hampshire.

Providing additional protection for these habitats will be critical to maintaining the biodiversity of New Hampshire, especially in the rapidly developing southern part of the state. Examples of unprotected or inadequately protected significant wildlife resourc-es might include vernal pools, floodplains, and beaver impoundments (See Appendix B, Habitat Profiles).

This objective will require meetings among many parties (i.e., regulatory agencies, conservation groups, private wetland consultants) to identify specific tasks and timelines. In some cases, existing rules and regu-lations may be adjusted relatively easily. Vernal pools have existing protection as wetlands but need to be explicitly protected as significant wildlife habitat. In other cases, new regulations may be needed to expand protection, and this process will require interdisci-plinary coordination and support.

406 Objective: Develop stream crossing guide-lines and restoration protocols Roads, driveways, and trails frequently bisect streams, rivers, and wetlands. Structures may impede passage of aquatic organisms and change the natural flow and structure of streams or rivers. Upgrading or replacing ineffective structures (e.g., culverts and bridges) with well-designed ones will enhance connectivity of wild-life populations and will increase population viability.

Project designers and engineers are more likely to incorporate environmentally friendly designs if infor-mation is readily available. Various BMP guidelines have been developed in New Hampshire or elsewhere (e.g., erosion and sedimentation control), and further guidance and training will bolster this objective.

Recommendations for stream crossing design have been developed in Massachusetts and a New Hamp-shire Stream Team has been formed to focus on this topic. Two meetings have been hosted recently by the NHDES, in cooperation with the NHFG, in an effort to initiate this objective. Sources of funding should be identified to upgrade ineffective culverts during scheduled maintenance or replacement.

407 Objective: Support wetland compensatory mitigation program at NHDES NHFG and NHNHB should be active participants and supporters of the NHDES wetland mitigation in-lieu-fee program by participating in drafting rules and becoming active on the site selection committee.

A bill to establish an in-lieu wetland compensation program is currently under consideration. The pro-gram will allow permit applicants that propose to harm wetlands to pay a fee rather than selecting land for protection or restoration. Payment into the fund would be allowed only after applicants demonstrated that wetland harm was minimized. Once established, this program could generate up to several million dollars annually for the protection and restoration of wetland habitats in New Hampshire.

NHDES Wetlands Bureau has held multiple meetings with many stakeholders including represen-tatives from state (e.g., NHFG) and federal regulators (e.g, EPA, USFWS) and other agencies, conservation organizations, private consultants, the New Hamp-shire Association of Conservation Commissions, the New Hampshire Association of Natural Resources Scientists, and the Conservation Law Foundation.

When the program is implemented, a committee will need to make recommendations for disbursal of mitigation funds.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-14 Conservation Strategies 408 Objective: Require monitoring to demon-strate success of mitigation Monitoring the effects of a project on habitats and wildlife will enable biologists to determine if mitiga-tion procedures were effective. Landowners involved in projects that have the potential to endanger rare species or natural communities, or who have engaged in habitat restoration as part of a mitigation require-ment, should be required to provide scientifically sound habitat or species monitoring. Environmental consultants, University faculty, and graduate students may be contracted to conduct monitoring research.

Existing NHDES permit requirements involving 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.

410 Objective: Increase biologist interaction on project reviews Staff at NHFG, NHNHB, and NHDES should in-crease interaction with project designers, engineers, developers, and environmental consultants. This interaction would increase communication among natural resources agencies and developers, leading to a shared understanding of expectations and options for reducing impacts to wildlife habitat. Site visits are currently uncommon because of limited time and personnel. Funding is needed to conduct reviews, co-ordinate with NHDES, NHFG, and NHNHB, and develop an efficient review process.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-15 STRATEGY 500 Habitat Management Management and restoration can protect species and habitats that have languished due to historic and current development or natural processes such as succession. Intiatives could include everything from backyard landscaping to improve habitat for song-birds, to replacing culverts to restore stream flow and wildlife passage, to creating and maintaining early succesional stages, to allowing late-successional con-ditions to develop on selected tracts of forest. Habitat management will involve federal, state, non-govern-ment organizations, local, and private landowners.

The goal of this strategy is to provide and maintain critical habitats for wildlife and natural communities via active restoration and management.

501 Objective: Reclaim or maintain grassland and shrubland habitats This objective will involve identifying priority areas for grassland and shrubland management and work-ing with landowners to assess landowner objectives and current management. Reclamation and main-tenance of grasslands and shrublands will benefit a number of at-risk wildlife species such as northern leopard frog, American bitterns, New England cot-tontails, migratory songbirds, and wood turtles.

Of greatest concern are the effects of high intensity agriculture (e.g., mowing during the breeding and nesting season), development, altered natural distur-bance, and altered hydrology.

NHFG is currently identifying priority grasslands and is evaluating methods for mapping shrublands.

For priority areas on state lands, NHFG staff should work with the appropriate agencies to conduct field assessments and recommend management objectives.

Implementation will likely require the addition of at least one NHFG state lands staff member dedicated to maintaining grasslands and shrublands on state lands.

Early efforts to implement this strategy could focus on critical species such as New England cottontails.

502 Objective: Generate early successional and young forest habitats Some wildlife species that prefer early successional habitatssuch as New England cottontail, Ameri-can woodcock, and several species of migratory songbirdsare declining in New Hampshire due to habitat limitation. Early-successional aspen and birch stands and sapling-dominated forests are increasingly uncommon in New Hampshire because of silvicul-tural practices. However, current early successional habitat availability in northern New Hampshire is higher than prior to the 1600s. Even-aged manage-ment would help to create new stands and expand existing stands, thereby improving habitat for critical species and increasing foraging opportunities for game animals (such as moose, deer, bear, and turkey).

New Hampshire has many forest managers for both public and private lands that can help address this objective. UNH Cooperative Extension can provide workshops on forest management to benefit wildlife. An inter-agency forestry and wildlife team could assess how much aspen, birch, and young for-est is desired to maximize wildlife health and develop management goals by ecoregion subsection (see Strat-egy 600, Interagency Regulation and Policy). This effort can coincide with the development of the state lands management plan and Forest Resources Plan coordinated by DRED. It would take one year to develop management goals and less than five years for education and technical assistance.

503 Objective: Restore and maintain late-succes-sional forests Late successional forests are not exclusively relied on by any vertebrates, yet are nevertheless important for other species such as mosses, lichens, and some inver-tebrates. Most of New Hampshires rare forest plants inhabit mid-to late-successional forests. Reserves of

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-16 Conservation Strategies late-successional forest will eventually enhance overall habitat diversity through the addition of complex patterns of dead and downed wood, increased varia-tion in forest canopies, and greater habitat complexity in forest streams. Many species would benefit from these conditions. American marten would benefit from the plethora of coarse-woody debris. Three-toed woodpeckers would benefit from abundant snags commonly found in late-successional high-elevation spruce-fir stands. Deer, moose, and bear would benefit from the protection and maintenance of spruce-fir and hemlock stands that provide winter shelter and old growth hardwood stands that provide hard mast.

Most late-successional forests in New Hampshire were lost during the extensive timber harvesting of the nineteenth century. Areas that are currently al-lowed to grow unimpeded are those that are largely inaccessible because of steep slopes or some other bar-rier to timber harvesting. The greatest amount of late-successional forestland is within the White Mountain National Forest, with smaller tracts owned by NHFG, SPNHF and TNC. An inter-agency forestry and wildlife team could assess how much late-succes-sional forest is desired and develop goals by ecoregion subsection. Additional protection and management objectives can be based on the state lands manage-ment plan nd Forest Resources Plan currently being coordinated by DRED.

504 Objective: Develop and implement an urban wildlife management plan The development and implementation of an urban wildlife plan would help provide long-term nesting habitat for common nighthawks that have adapted to nesting atop flat roofed buildings. It would also enhance habitat for migrating songbirds, wintering bald eagles, and pine barrens Lepidoptera. Migrating songbirds require suitable stopover areas for resting and foraging. In winter, bald eagles roost and forage along major rivers even in urban areas. Pine barrens Lepidoptera require certain plants for larval foraging and adult nectaring that would be suitable to incor-porate in backyard landscaping.

An urban wildlife management plan should include detailed strategies for education, habitat management, and monitoring. It should also outline funding needs for implementation. Educational ef-forts should include developing resource guides that address rooftop and backyard habitat, geared toward landowners, building managers, developers, land-scapers, and municipal officials. NHFG should col-laborate to develop and implement the urban wildlife habitat plan. This objective could commence in less than two years, and educational efforts would be a long-term endeavor.

505 Objective: Restore rare habitats and natural communities Some critical habitats and natural communities have become so rare and degraded that restoration is nec-essary to maintain associated wildlife. Restoration should focus first on pine barrens, lowland spruce-fir forests, salt marshes, and coastal dunes. Restoration of pine barrens would benefit a suite of rare Lepidop-tera, common nighthawks, whip-poor-wills, and oth-er species. Restoration of lowland spruce-fir will ben-efit marten, three-toed woodpecker, spruce grouse, and others. Successful restoration of salt marshes will improve habitat conditions for Nelsons sharp-tailed sparrow, saltmarsh sharp-tailed sparrow, seaside spar-rows, willets, black ducks, and others. Restoration of sand dunes will benefit piping plovers.

TNC and NHFG are involved in pine barrens restoration in the Ossipee-Madison area and Con-cord airport. Prescribed burning is the primary tool needed to restore pine barrens habitat, and prescribed burning is primarily administered by NHDFL, USFS, TNC, and NHFG. A number of agencies and organizations will need to coordinate a statewide prescribed burn program to address limiting factors associated with that management tool (e.g., liability and training).

A number of organizations are involved with salt marsh monitoring and restoration, including the NHCP. Thus far, over 700 acres of salt marsh have been restored and more restorations are planned.

NHCP is the lead agency on salt marsh and coastal sand dune restorations. NHFG should work with NHCP and its partners (NHEP, NRCS, county Conservation Districts, Ducks Unlimited, the Great Bay Estuarine Research Reserve, and local towns) to support salt marsh restoration and to prioritize and implement coastal sand dune restoration.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-17 Conservation Strategies 506 Objective: Develop and implement a terres-trial invasive species control program The NHDES Exotic Plant Program is currently developing a comprehensive management plan for the prevention and control of aquatic nuisance spe-cies. Under this objective, a strategic plan would be developed to create and implement a comprehensive terrestrial invasive species control plan, primarily fo-cusing on plants and invertebrates. In a separate but related effort, NHFG, NHA, and USDA-Wildlife Services should collaborate to develop a predator control plan for coastal islands and dune habitats. If successful, an invasive species control program would reduce the effects of invasive species in a variety of habitats and improve conditions for native species.

A staff person dedicated to the development of a terrestrial invasive species control plan (e.g., plants, invertebrates) should be housed within the New Hampshire Department of Agriculture.

507 Objective: Restore or maintain natural flow regimes Since European settlement, many aquatic habitats in New Hampshire have undergone alterations because of impoundments, hydroelectric production, seasonal lake drawdowns, water withdrawals, and impervious surfaces. Restoring natural flow regimes will benefit migratory and local fish populations, as well as many species of amphibians, reptiles, and invertebrates that depend on seasonal changes in water levels to fulfill critical life history functions.

The River Restoration Task Force regulates dam removals in New Hampshire. NHFG employs bi-ologists capable of providing technical input on the impacts of altered flow regimes on habitats used by aquatic species. NHDES, along with other agencies, is conducting an instream flow pilot study to establish minimum flow regulations necessary for fish, wildlife, and other interests. TNC and the USACE are col-laborating in the Sustainable Rivers Project to modify the way dams are managed to improve the ecological health of rivers. The NHDES Dams Bureau is cur-rently working on a guidance document that will better protect water levels. Currently there is a gap between researchers working on ways to better man-age flow, such as the Sustainable Rivers Project, and those responsible for dam management, such as the NHDES Dams Bureau.

In the short term, this gap must be bridged by better interagency communication and training ses-sions related to managing flow regimes. In the fu-ture, it would be extremely helpful to have a central program office in a single agency to coordinate all activities related to flow regimes in the state. There is an immediate need for personnel to provide input on flow-related issues and guidance documents, but restoring natural flow regimes will likely take a long-term effort of more than 10 years.

508 Objective: Restore and maintain watershed continuity Stream crossings (e.g., bridges, culverts, railroads) and dams fragment aquatic ecosystems. Constricted flow and perched culverts can prevent passage of fish, amphibians, and other aquatic organisms, denying them access to certain habitats and isolating popu-lations. Reducing fragmentation in a watershed will be especially beneficial for species such as migratory fish that require different habitats throughout their lives. Stream crossings may also alter the natural geo-morphology of a river or stream, changing sediment deposition patterns above and below the crossing.

In 2004 the River and Stream Continuity Steer-ing Committee, composed of representatives from state, federal, and non-government organizations, established technical guidelines for river and stream crossings in Massachusetts. The River Continuity Assessment of the Ashuelot River Watershed project, initiated by the Nature Conservancy, will incorporate volunteer-gathered data on dams, stream crossings, and culverts that impede fish passage or alter hydrol-ogy. This survey could be easily expanded to other watersheds and can be used to prioritize and evaluate potential restoration projects.

The NHDES Wetlands Bureau currently has the authority to regulate and mitigate the impacts of stream crossings. NHFG should work with the NHDES Wetlands Bureau, NHDOT, and non-gov-ernment agencies to establish new guidelines for river and stream crossings in New Hampshire. A stream crossing assessment and guidelines could be com-pleted within one year, but it would be a long-term endeavor to restore river continuity throughout New Hampshire.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-18 STRATEGY 600 Interagency Regulation and Policy Improved coordination among agencies removes ob-stacles and creates opportunites to maintain and re-store wildlife health. To improve air and water quality, efforts should focus on reducing air and water pollut-ants through science-based decisions. An interdisci-plinary, interagency risk assessment team can identify selected indicator species and habitats to monitor changes in water and air quality that may negatively impact sustainability of wildlife populations. Topics for additional working groups include development, transportation, recreation, and forest management.

601 Objective: Integrated inter-agency risk as-sessment teams for air and water quality Interagency risk assessment teams can work together for the common goal of high air and water quality in New Hampshire. Teams can further identify and prioritize pollutants, habitats, and species at greatest risk, measurable outcomes and endpoints, and mile-stones.

The National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) operates air-monitoring stations in New Hampshire. Currently only one NADP site is in operation in New Hampshire (at Hubbard Brook Re-search Station) and includes collection of wet deposi-tion of mercury as part of the Mercury Deposition Network. The USGS and NHDES operates many water quality and flow monitoring stations across New Hampshire. The New Hampshire Lakes Asso-ciation monitors lake quality statewide.

The BioDiversity Research Institute tracks methlymercury availability in aquatic (i.e., Global Loon Mercury Monitoring and Research Program (GLMMR) and terrestrial (i.e., Appalachian Moun-tain Mercury Network) ecosystems. NHDES is providing resources for developing a statewide risk assessment for mercury in loons and some funding for aquatic system monitoring of mercury.

Formulating state regulations will require net-working among various state and federal (EPA, USFWS, USGS, and NOAA) agencies and a strong commitment between NHDES and NHFG. Re-gional regulation and policy representation for New Hampshire are best met through the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers.

602 Objective: Incorporate reduced wildlife mercury levels as a priority endpoint for air and water quality assessments By reducing methlymercury availability in New Hampshires aquatic and terrestrial systems, mercury body burdens in fish and wildlife will also lower. Any decreases will be timely; a comprehensive analysis of air, water, fish, bird, and mammal data shows that mercury levels are high and pervasive in New Hampshire. Intelligent mercury management will use indicator species (e.g., long-lived species, or high-tro-phic level predators) to detect system-wide changes in mercury content.

603 Objective: Promote a Transportation Work-ing Group A New Hampshire transportation-wildlife working group can proactively identify opportunities to main-tain or improve the ecological integrity of landscapes impaired by existing or proposed roads. Improved planning and coordination among state (NHDES, NHFG) and federal regulatory (EPA, ACOE) and transportation agencies (NHDOT, FHWA), conser-vation groups, researchers, and local planners would have a statewide benefit to wildlife, as well as broad project support, increased permitting predictability, and improved highway safety. A multidisciplinary working group should include biologists, land-use planners, engineers, transportation project manag-ers, and technical assistance specialists. Goals of a transportation working group may include prioritiz-

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-19 Conservation Strategies ing research needs, identifying funding opportuni-ties, improving data sharing and coordination, and increasing education and technical assistance. Also, the products from the WAP should be integrated into NHDOTs long-range project planning effort that is currently underway.

604 Objective: Promote a sustainable develop-ment working group Promote a New Hampshire non-regulatory working group that proactively identifies opportunities to im-prove decisions on how and where development occurs.

This would help maintain and improve the ecological integrity of landscapes and would promote a commit-ment to environmentally sustainable development.

Many organizations and agencies in New Hampshire can help plan sustainable development and reduce impacts to wildlife. The working group may be best coordinated by a non-regulatory non-governmental agency, and would require a consistent long-term funding source. Any effort to develop a sustainable development working group should build off of the work of the Minimum Impact Development Partner-ship coordinated by the Jordan Institute and NHA.

605 Objective: Recreation Working Group The state needs a better understanding of the ef-fects of different forms of recreation on species and habitats of concern. New Hampshires wildlife and habitats could greatly benefit from better planning and coordination among state and federal regulatory agencies, conservation groups and recreation groups.

The state should coordinate a New Hampshire rec-reation-wildlife working group that identifies issues, trends, and solutions to potential impacts caused by 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.

606 Objective: Promote reactivation of the Forest Sustainability Work Team The Forest Advisory Board assists the State Forester in carrying out the provisions of the forest resources ed-ucation, promotion, and planning chapter. The New Hampshire Forest Sustainability Standards Work Team was created in 1997. It developed Good For-estry in the Granite State: Recommended Voluntary Forest Management Practices for New Hampshire, which outlined voluntary actions that forestland owners could take to ensure forest and ecological sus-tainability. The Work Team is now defunct but could be reactivated with staff from NHDFL, NHFG, SPNHF, UNH Cooperative Extension, and others.

The team should review issues and prescribe actions to address threats to forests, natural com-munities, and wildlife health. Prescribed actions may include outlining further research, recommending and assisting with policy or regulations at the agency or state level (502, 503, 803) and recommending ad-ditional best management practices.

607 Objective: Explore a wildlife biologist licens-ing program To provide increased opportunities for communities, developers, agencies, and others to access qualified wildlife biologists, we propose to explore the devel-opment of a wildlife biologist licensing program. We expect that this will increase access to qualified wild-life technical assistance. Relevant laws and regulations would need to be modified accordingly. UNH Coop-erative Extension, ASNH, UNH, NHFG, NHDES, USFWS, private consultants, and non-government organizations have the expertise to educate wildlife biologists.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-20 STRATEGY 700 Land Protection New Hampshire requires a network of permanently conserved lands that effectively represents the states wildlife and habitat diversity. Land protection through conservation easements and acquisition ensures the long-term protection of our wildlife resources. Approximately 25% of New Hampshires land is currently in conservation ownership through fee ownership by natural resource agencies, conserva-tion organizations, and municipalities, or by perma-nent conservation easement. The current system of conservation lands is not equitably distributed across the states geography, ecological regions, and critical wildlife habitats. More than two thirds of the states conservation land is located in or north of the White Mountains, and the elevation distribution of con-served areas is heavily skewed towards areas higher than 1,700 feet. Coastal areas, southern forests, sand plains, large river valleys, and floodplainsmany of which are vital for wildlife conservationare poorly conserved. Highly threatened and essential habitat resources should be priorities, such as riparian/

shoreland habitat, larger unfragmented blocks, and wildlife corridors that connect significant habitat.

Specific targets for land protection will be identified via analysis of habitat maps to identify critical areas that will support priority wildlife habitats and biodi-versity (see Conservation Planning strategy).

701 Objective: Protect riparian/shoreland habi-tat and other wildlife corridors NHFG and others involved in land protection should promote the protection or restoration of wildlife cor-ridors, including riparian and shoreland habitats.

Maps of prioritized wildlife habitat should be used as guides when selecting areas to protect or restore.

Habitat management that is implemented in these areas should be held to the highest standards, espe-cially when promoted or supported by state agencies.

Additional protection could also be provided through environmental review of proposed development projects within the shoreland protection zone. This objective will retain and restore sufficient habitat to sustain populations of wildlife species that require or benefit from riparian and shoreline ecosystems, and from the landscape connectivity often provided by these features. Wildlife such as turtles, amphibians, common loon, bald eagle, terns, bear, bobcat, New England cottontail, and mussels will benefit.

Riparian and shoreline areas are among the most expensive lands in the state, and effective protection at meaningful scales will require multi-million dol-lar investments. With limited funds, it is important to prioritize areas for protection. The conservation community needs to continue advancing our under-standing of how to conserve aquatic habitat through targeted riparian protection, and which riparian and shoreland areas to focus on for habitat and connectiv-ity goals.

702 Objective: Protect unfragmented blocks and other key wildlife habitats NHFG should use maps of prioritized unfragmented blocks and other key habitat information to review and identify land protection projects. These maps should also be distributed to the conservation community. There are a number of large unfrag-mented blocks in northern New Hampshire and in the Monadnock Highlands of southwestern New Hampshire, with far fewer unfragmented blocks of similar size in southeastern New Hampshire. There-fore, prioritization of unfragmented blocks in New Hampshire should consider in which part of the state they occur and the relative size of other blocks in the region. Virtually all wildlife and habitats will directly or indirectly benefit from habitat protection, and the land protection strategy should be viewed as one of the most important ways to ensure long-term wildlife protection.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-21 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 5-22 STRATEGY 800 Landowner Incentives With over 80% of the land in New Hampshire under private ownership, the land use decisions of private landowners have an enormous effect on habitat qual-ity and sustainability. Thus, it is imperative to work with landowners to protect, manage, and restore habitat on their property. Landowner incentives may include tax benefits, financial and technical assistance to private landowners to restore and/or manage at-risk species and critical habitats, or the purchase of conservation easements.

801 Objective: Financial and Technical Assistance for Habitat Management and Restoration Develop new programs and better coordinate exist-ing programs to manage and restore critical habitats and natural communities on private lands. Financial incentives would be provided in the form of cost shar-ing for implementation, management, and restora-tion plans with potential of payments for maintaining practices. Existing financial and technical assistance programs include the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program and Environmental Quality Incentives Pro-gram administered by the NRCS, the Conservation Reserve Program administered by the Farm Services Agency, the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program administered by USFWS, the Forestland Enhance-ment Program (FLEP) administered by NHDFL, and the Habitat Small Grants Program administered by NHFG. NHFG should work with partners to focus resources on the most critical habitats.

These programs are typically limited in funding and scope and therefore are unable to adequately address many relevant threats. Consistent long-term funding is critical for the success of financial and technical assistance programs. Regional and national efforts will be needed to help secure long-term fund-ing for programs.

802 Objective: Financial Incentives to Maintain Private Land in Open Space Development pressure and rising carrying costs (e.g.,

taxes, liability insurance, and workers compensation benefits for industrial forests) have created numerous disincentives for long-term forest ownership. Under this strategy, critical wildlife habitats and natural communities on private lands would be conserved through tax incentives that make owning land more affordable or through the purchase of conservation easements. Maintaining private land in open space will benefit many types of habitats and wildlife, and with careful planning, may help mitigate the effects of fragmentation and population isolation maintaining habitat linkages.

Existing incentives to maintain private land in open space include the Current Use Taxation pro-gram (RSA 79-A), which helps conservation-minded landowners maintain their land in open space by re-ducing their property taxes. However, in areas of the state where land values are high, the economic incen-tive is high to sell land for development. There are a number of local and state conservation organizations, municipalities, and state and federal agencies that will purchase conservation easements on private lands, but all are limited in funding.

Options to consider include amendments to the Current Use Tax program, decreased capital gains taxes on timber harvested on land, the use of current use tax rates for valuating estate and inheritance taxes, and tax credits given to people or companies who in-vest in forestland.

803 Objective: Financial Incentives to Promote Sustainable Forestry Practices Sustainable forestry will benefit many types of up-land and aquatic habitats and associated wildlife.

This strategy aims to provide financial incentives to

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-23 Conservation Strategies forestland owners who practice sustainable forestry. It would provide funding to landowners for inventories of critical resources (e.g., wildlife, natural communi-ties, plants, etc.) so the information can be incorpo-rated into forest management plans.

Financial and technical assistance programs in-clude the Current Use program (see objective 802),

FLEP, and EQIP. FLEP, administered by NHDFL 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 able to enter into such agreements with private land-owners if a statewide agreement is enacted between USFWS and NHFG. The USFWS would provide a permit to the state, which can then offer individual landowners authorizations through a certificate of inclusion. NHFG would then assist landowners with habitat enhancements as outlined in objective 801.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-24 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.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-25 STRATEGY 1000 Population Management Protecting, enhancing, or augmenting scarce popula-tions of wildlife may prevent their extinction, may perpetuate naturally scarce populations, or may in-crease populations to desired levels. Controlling dis-ease, introduced wildlife, and over-population of cer-tain wildlife is a way of protecting resources that are valued by human society. Responsible game harvest-ing promotes retention of wildlife populations while maintaining plant and animal biodiversity. Population management should be responsive and adapt to new information generated from monitoring and perfor-mance evaluations and changing biological conditions.

1001 Objective: Evaluate the viability of wildlife populations For rare and declining species, assess long-term viabil-ity and potential management scenarios based on cur-rent knowledge of wildlife demographics. This will identify opportunities to enhance the health of wild-life populations, especially those listed as threatened or endangered (e.g., timber rattlesnake, piping plover, Karner blue butterfly, American marten) or those that likely will be considered for state listing status in the near future (e.g., Blandings turtle, New England cottontail). Analyzing viability will inform decisions about the scarcity of wildlife populations and indi-rectly affect underlying causes for scarcity, such as unregulated take and loss of habitat to development.

NHFG will lead viability assessments, with con-tracted support from experts on individual species.

Existing contracts with UNH may be negotiated to ac-complish the objective for select species. Endangered species recovery teams may provide technical support.

1002 Objective: Augment rare and declining populations Augmentation can help to restore rare and declining populations to the size and genetic diversity needed for long-term viability and can help to maintain overall ecosystem diversity. Rare and declining populations should only be augmented when abatement of limit-ing factors is feasible. Direct forms of augmentation include translocation and release of captive-bred ani-mals. Indirect forms of augmentation include manage-ment of factors that limit population growth, such as predation, forage scarcity, and lack of nest or den sites.

Implement protection and captive breeding in zoos for rare and declining populations when augmen-tation in the wild or abatement limiting factors are not feasible within the timeframe of potential extinction.

This will counter factors, such as scarcity, genetic drift, and environmental caprice that threaten to extirpate some species. It will delay population extinction or catastrophic population losses so that other factors such as habitat loss and predation can be addressed.

Existing programs under the Association of Zoos and Aquariums are dedicated to supporting field conservation initiatives. Roger Williams Park Zoo (RWPZ) currently provides support for the Karner blue butterfly captive rearing program and is commit-ted to developing support for other field conservation efforts. RWPZ has had success in captive breed-ing for other rare invertebrates and reptiles as well.

1003 Objective: Prevent and control wildlife dis-eases and overpopulation New Hampshire should attempt to curtail the spread of wildlife diseases and damaging effects of overpopu-lated wildlife. Diseases of greatest concern include chronic wasting disease (CWD), avian cholera, and West Nile virus. A number of diseases impacting wildlife (e.g., amphibians) are under study elsewhere.

Introduced wildlife, such as zebra mussels and feral cats, and some native subsidized wildlife such as gulls, corvids, and raccoons, often become overpopulated and threaten native wildlife populations and human health. Wildlife benefits from disease and popula-

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-26 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.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-27 STRATEGY 1100 Regional Coordination Regional coordination builds consensus on the most critical conservation issues. The majority of wildlife species at risk in New Hampshire are not restricted to the state, and thus it is imperative that conser-vation efforts take into consideration their status in neighboring states. In addition, many regional planning documents identify threats that are com-mon throughout the region. Given that many of the threats identified in this WAP occur over a large area (e.g., mercury, acid deposition, invasive species),

these are best approached in a regional or multi-state manner. Species and habitats of regional concern have been identified by both the Northeast Endangered Species and Wildlife Diversity Technical Committee (ESWD) and North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI).

1101 Objective: Develop and implement existing regional conservation plans Conservation plans have been or are being developed for several species of conservation concern in the Northeast. These include plans created for species identified by the ESWD as being potential candi-dates for federal listing, including three species that occur in New Hampshire: Blandings turtle, timber rattlesnake, and New England cottontail. NABCI has developed, or is developing, broad conservation strategies for birds across the two Bird Conservation Regions that include parts of New Hampshire. Such 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.

Dedicated regional staff could ensure that commit-ted conservationists from different areas collaborate.

In this way, many disparate conservation efforts and funding sources can be concentrated more effec-tively.

1103 Objective: Step down federal air and water quality policy Mercury emission sources in New Hampshire are mi-nor compared to sources within and outside of New England. New Hampshires air and water quality will largely depend on regional and national standards.

Regional and national mercury databases and policies should be adapted to New Hampshire. Establishing a formal link with scientists and policy makers within New England will increase leverage for improving water quality, particularly on the Connecticut River and along the coast.

The benefits of working together at a regional level are crucial to improving ecological condition in New Hampshire. Reductions in major pollutants, including nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, and mercury need to be made outside of New Hampshire. Key participants outside of New Hampshire agencies are NESCAUM, NEIWPCC, NEWMOA, federal agencies such as the USEPA, US-FWS, USGS, and NOAA, and university and other nonprofit research (such as BioDiversity Research Institute) and policy groups.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-28 STRATEGY 1200 Research The goal of the research strategy is to develop an ongoing research program in New Hampshire that identifies and facilitates funding of priority surveys, research, and monitoring. Species and habitat profiles (Appendix A and B) contain research recommenda-tions for:

• Providing information on the distribution of poorly understood species and habitats

• Assessing the current condition of species and habi-tats

• Identifying threats to these species and habitats

• Clarifying whether a conservation action will lead to a change in the threat and whether a change in the threat will lead to a change in the current condi-tion of the species or habitat If a convincing, research-based case is made for con-servation, social and political support will be more likely. Sound research will also make grant writing and donation requests more compelling and will make conservation more effective.

1201 Objective: Prioritize Research Needs NHFG biologists should lead a group of conservation 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 directly or through regional working groups (e.g.,

Northeast Endangered Species and Diversity Techni-cal Committee, NEPARC) would be an effective way of sharing research objectives and addressing regional environmental issues.

1202 Objective: Facilitate funding of priority con-servation research To facilitate priority survey, monitoring, and research efforts, priorities (as determined in objective 1201) will be communicated to other entities that fund con-servation research in New Hampshire. NHFG can facilitate the development of a process to disseminate conservation research money and encourage other conservation researchers and funding entities to fo-cus their efforts on priority research. Substantial, yet limited, conservation research money at the federal level has come to New Hampshire from many sources (e.g., from the USFS, USFWS, USEPA, and con-gressional appropriations). Research funded by the NHFG should support the goals of the WAP. NHFG administrators and biologists must discuss the most efficient method to disseminate conservation research funds, while receiving a desired designated product (e.g., request for proposals).

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-29 STRATEGY 1300 Local Regulation and Policy Municipalities have broad power to regulate land use, but broad policies and visionary statements are not always translated into meaningful planning or conser-vation. Communities should have a sound, scientific basis for developing and implementing innovative land use incentives, legislation, and other measures that conserve habitat and landscape connections, maintain ecological function, and protect water qual-ity and quantity.

1301 Objective: Incorporate Habitat Conservation into Local Land Use Planning Master plans, zoning ordinances, subdivision regula-tions, and other innovative land use tools that use sci-entific basis for addressing wildlife habitat will lead to greater protection of these habitats, will conserve wa-ter quality, and will maintain landscape connections.

NHFG should provide technical guidance to New Hampshire municipalities on master plan goals and land use policies and regulations aimed at protecting significant or sensitive wildlife habitats. An integrated approach to land use decisions can maintain unfrag-mented blocks of upland forests and protect species of concern such as the Karner blue butterfly and common nighthawk. It will also protect functional connections that support wide-ranging species such as moose, bear, and deer. This approach will better protect the integrity of aquatic and wetland systems such as marsh and shrub wetlands, floodplain forests, and rivers, which are habitat for American bittern, common moorhen, spotted, Blandings and wood turtles, cobblestone tiger beetles, and other species.

The critical gap that NHFG can address is the scientific basis for implementing land use policies and regulations that protect the ecological function and health of wildlife populations and their habitats.

This technical assistance needs to be combined with an integrated approach to land use decisions among local decision-makers. NHFG should work with UNH Cooperative Extension and New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning, key outreach partners to facilitate training for NHFG biologists on the inte-gration of wildlife habitat information into local land use planning and regulation. Likewise, Cooperative Extension can facilitate training for town planners, planning boards, regional planners, and others in-volved in writing master plans and local ordinances, on how to integrate wildlife considerations into local planning. NHA and The Jordan Institute are other important partnering entities, through their Three Infrastructures Analysis with local communities.

1302 Objective: Advise Conservation Commis-sions and Open Space Committees Many Conservation Commissions are permanently protecting lands using current use change tax revenues that accumulate in their conservation fund. In recent years many communities have passed multi-million dollar open space bonds through town warrant ar-ticles. Despite many successful individual land con-servation efforts, most local efforts are not informed by conservation science. Moreover, other local land use decisions continue to fragment, degrade, and eliminate critical lands and waters. NHFG should guide municipal Conservation Commissions and Open Space Committees in identifying critical wild-life habitats in their communities for protection using conservation funds, open space bonds, and through engagement in land use planning decisions within their community. The Center for Land Conservation Assistance (CLCA) and regional land trusts are criti-cal partners for NHFG and local communities.

1303 Objective: Promote Role of the Regional Planning Commissions in Landscape-Scale Conservation Regional Planning Commissions (RPCs), established

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 5-30 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.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 6-1 Overview Element 5 of the NAAT Guidelines requires that the WAP propose plans for a) monitoring species of great-est conservation need and their habitats, b) monitor-ing the effectiveness of the conservation actions proposed, and c) adapting conservation actions to respond appropriately to new information or chang-ing conditions. Chapter 6 describes New Hampshires plan for addressing this required element.

Conservation Strategy 900, presented on page 6-6, is the full-length version of New Hampshires monitoring strategy and also serves as an example of one of the complete strategy templates that are being used internally by NHFG. Table 6-1 (page 6-

13) shows some of the criteria for selecting efficient indicators and cross-references technical monitoring objectives with species, habitats, and risk factors.

Many objectives in chapter 5 are directly related to monitoring, performance evaluation, and adaptive management. Species and habitat profiles (Appendix A and B) also contain strategic information about monitoring and detailed information about potential monitoring protocols, performance evaluation, and adaptive management.

Monitoring The full version of Conservation Strategy 900 (Monitoring, page 6-6) outlines seven categories of monitoring that apply to New Hampshires wildlife:.

• Conduct surveys to describe distribution (Objec-tive 901)

• Detect changes in the condition of wildlife and habitats (Objective 902)

• Monitor population trends for threatened and en-dangered species (Objective 903)

• Measure direct effects of management (Objective 904)

• Monitor ecological responses to management (Ob-jective 905)

• Select an efficient set of indicators by habitat (Ob-jective 906)

• Report the condition of wildlife health by habitat (Objective 907)

Other strategies in chapter 5 that pertain to monitor-ing include:

• Provide technical guidance on monitoring proto-cols so the success of restoration and mitigation can be clearly demonstrated (408)

• Gather information about the locations of New Hampshires wildlife and habitats and maintain a database to map populations and habitats (201, 202)

• Gather information about the condition of New Hampshires landscape and maintain a database to assess the status of populations and habitats to help direct management actions (204, 205)

Within species and habitat profiles, monitoring needs were identified in several locations: distribution re-search (element 1.9), condition assessment research (element 2.9), threat assessment research (element 3.4), and conservation action research (element 4.2),

conservation action performance monitoring (ele-CHAPTER SIX Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 6-2 Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management ment 4.1.X-D), and response monitoring (element 4.1.X-F).

Several important issues to consider when design-ing monitoring efforts include: existing monitoring programs and the scale and frequency of monitoring necessary to achieve objectives.

Overview of Existing Monitoring Programs National and State Monitoring Programs An early step to developing new monitoring proto-cols is to identify what currently exists. In some cases, existing monitoring may be sufficient for particular species, habitats, risk assessment, or management response. Some monitoring programs could be eas-ily adapted or expanded to focus on priorities. For example, the North American Amphibian Monitor-ing Program (NAAMP) actively monitors amphibian populations at select sites (routes) in New Hamp-shire annually. These routes do not adequately sample for several amphibians of conservation concern (e.g.,

leopard frog, mink frog, Fowlers toad) but this pro-gram could be expanded to include several priority species or habitats. In other cases, an entirely new monitoring scheme may be necessary.

The following list of monitoring efforts should provide readers with a sampling of ongoing monitor-ing and the relative level and scale of existing pro-grams among taxonomic groups. It should be obvious that some taxonomic groups and species have been monitored far more intensely than others have.

Plant & Natural Communities NHNHB conducts ongoing inventories for natural communities and plants.

Invertebrates The Marine Division of NHFG conducts ongo-ing monitoring programs for lobsters and breeding horseshoe crab around Great Bay and coastal New Hampshire. The NHFG Nongame & Endangered Species Program, NHNHB, TNC, USFWS, and UNH have conducted occurrence surveys for several threatened or endangered invertebrates including but not limited to dwarf wedgemussels, brook floaters, ringed boghaunter, cobblestone tiger beetle, and pine barrens Lepidoptera. Intense population and habitat management monitoring occurs for Karner blue butterfly at the one extant population. Long-term population monitoring has been initiated for dwarf wedgemussels in the Ashuelot River.

Birds Birds have traditionally been the most intensely monitored group of wildlife (other than perhaps game mammals). Major monitoring efforts have been initiated in New Hampshire by NHFG, USFWS, NHA, UNH, Dartmouth College, Vermont Institute of Natural Science, Biodiversity Research Institute, the Loon Preservation Committee, and others. New Hampshire participates in both nationally (Breeding Bird Surveys and Christmas Bird Counts) and state coordinated programs, as well as intense local surveys.

NHBR is a state-reporting program for trained bird observations and is primarily used to collect distribu-tion information. Long-term intense monitoring of occupied locations and population conditions has been conducted for several threatened and endan-gered species including common loon, piping plovers, bald eagle, osprey, and peregrine falcon. Habitat-based bird surveys have been conducted to varying extent for grassland, salt marsh, freshwater wetland, high elevation spruce fir, and floodplain forest habi-tats. Several game birds of conservation concern have been monitored annually as well (e.g., American black duck, ruffed grouse, American woodcock).

Fish Anadromous fish species are monitored annually by NHFG and USFWS biologists at fishways during spring spawning runs. Atlantic Salmon populations are also monitored in cooperation with the USFWS and the USFS at designated salmon index sites. The Marine Division of NHFG has a number of ongoing monitoring programs as part of the multi-state man-agement of marine fisheries administered by the At-lantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Programs include a juvenile American eel survey and a juvenile finfish seine survey. The Marine Division also cooper-ates with the Maine Department of Marine Resources in the Inshore Trawl Survey, which has been moni-toring marine fish populations in the Gulf of Maine since 2000. Surveys are conducted semi-annually by the NHFG Division of Inland Fisheries to moni-tor the populations of recreationally fished species such as brook trout. NHFGs Inland Fisheries also conducts surveys under the Fish Habitat Program to

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 6-3 Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management assess the condition of fish habitats throughout the state. The Fish Habitat Program has recently initiated surveys to investigate the status of certain fish species of concern, including the bridle shiner, banded sun-fish, redfin pickerel, swamp darter, and the American brook lamprey.

Reptiles and Amphibians New Hampshire participates in the nationally co-ordinated NAAMP, designed to examine long-term trends of breeding frog populations. The Amphib-ian Research and Monitoring Initiative (ARMI) has conducted some inventory work in New Hampshire including the Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Ref-uge. The Reptile and Amphibian Reporting Program (RAARP) and the Vernal Pool Identification and Documentation program are coordinated by NHFG and are designed to gather statewide distribution in-formation based on volunteer observations. Surveys of malformed frogs have been conducted by the NHDES and UNH. Local occurrence and condition surveys have been conducted for some rare, threat-ened, and endangered species, but have been limited.

Mammals NHFG intensely monitors population trends of big game (e.g., white-tailed deer, black bear, Moose, tur-key) and furbearer populations. Traditionally, small mammals (e.g., bog lemmings, shrews) have had minimal monitoring; the USFS has conducted some small mammal inventories on the WMNF. Known bat hibernacula are inventoried periodically to get a general species and numbers count. Recently, an in-tense inventory was conducted for American marten by the NHFG, in cooperation with the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.

Scale Monitoring can occur at several scales. Three of these efforts reflect a hierarchical set of spatial scales (National/Regional, State, Local). The fourth is a one-time survey for inventory purposes that may not necessarily occur with any regularity, and which can occur at any of the three spatial scales (Surveys). The appropriate scale will differ depending on the objec-tive.

The first step for monitoring is to determine regional/national and statewide distributions for species and habitats of conservation concern. Once statewide distributions are known, monitoring will be adapted to the condition of targeted local popu-lations or habitat polygons. For habitats, we have assessed the statewide distribution by mapping pre-dicted habitats. Following validation of habitat maps, target polygons will be identified to monitor habitat condition. Similarly, the distribution for many prior-ity species is known, and monitoring will focus on identifying the condition of local target populations either directly or through indicators. As a population recovers, sampling intensity can decrease. Similarly, many monitoring efforts targeting challenging issues (e.g., climate change) may start at the regional level but intensify at the state or local level as specific issues are identified.

Some existing monitoring programs designed to detect long-term trends in species populations are co-ordinated nationally (e.g., NAAMP, BBS). However, many existing monitoring programs are specific to states (e.g., NHBR, RAARP), and wildlife obviously does not recognize these jurisdictional restrictions.

Therefore, communication among states within a region will be critical for species and habitat conser-vation, and monitoring protocols should be designed or adapted to integrate with others. Monitoring of many priority species, especially those that are rare or locally distributed, often occurs at the local scale.

Species that are difficult to detect will also require targeted local surveys.

Local

• Monitoring of single populations (terns, Karner blue butterfly)

• Monitoring of specific sites (IBAs, WMAs)

• Response to management (pine barrens, grass-lands)

State

• Statewide sampling of priority species

• Indicators of biodiversity

• Changes in habitat availability or distribution (land use change)

• Status of statewide threats (mercury)

Regional/National

• Large-scale population trends (BBS, NAAMP)

• Monitoring of cross-border threats (acid deposition, mercury)

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 6-4 Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management Surveys (small to large scale applications)

• Assessment of conditions before and after a perturbation (mortality at towers)

• Site inventories (IBAs)

• Validation of habitat models

• Snapshots of species distributions (RAARP, Atlases)

Frequency Frequent monitoring may be needed, especially when species are at immediate risk of extirpation from New Hampshire (e.g., Karner blue butterfly, timber rattle-snake). However, intense monitoring often is costly and may not be needed to ascertain a particular eco-logical response. Therefore, frequency of monitoring must be critically evaluated for any monitoring pro-gram initiated. Some programs will require consistent long-term annual monitoring to compare datasets and trends (e.g., BBS, NAAMP). However, as species begin to recover, monitoring often can be adapted to less intense methodologies or frequency. To initiate a discussion regarding the frequency of monitoring indicators, we identified three levels of monitoring frequency: annual, 2-5 years, and >5 year intervals (Table 6-1). Selection and monitoring of indicators will be reviewed before implementation.

Monitoring by Citizens In some cases, monitoring by highly qualified sci-entists may not be necessary. Trained citizens can provide important information on the distribution of species and assist with monitoring of the condition of habitats. In addition to the cost-effective means of collecting valuable data, citizen science is a valu-able tool in educating the public. Several groups have been actively studying the feasibility of using citizens to assist with scientific studies or monitoring (e.g.,

Ashuelot Valley Environmental Observatory, UNH).

Trained citizens are already used heavily to collect distribution information for some groups of species (e.g., RAARP, NHBR).

Indicator Monitoring It is not possible to intensely monitor every species and habitat listed in the WAP as well as those not listed. Therefore, in some cases effective monitoring requires an efficient set of indicators that are surro-gates for species or habitat condition. The monitoring strategy prescribes a starting point for identifying an efficient set of indicators for each habitat. Our ap-proach is to seek efficient variables. By efficient, we mean variables that fit into more than one of the categories described above and represent many wildlife. Efficient also means that we can measure a variable and detect changes with minimal effort.

When a variable meets these criteria, we consider it a useful indicator because it indicates changes that are happening for many variables. Our goal is to select efficient indicators for habitats and species listed in the WAP and to monitor them rigorously.

Indicators to monitor habitat To identify species to serve as appropriate indicators of habitat conditions and risks factors, we created Table 6-1 with several monitoring metrics (scale and frequency of monitoring needed). This table will help facilitate discussions of appropriate and efficient indicators. During the first steps of implementation (chapter 7), a working group will be convened to refine species-specific monitoring needs based on details provided in species and habitat profiles (Ap-pendix A and B). This information will be used to select a set of habitat indicators.

Performance Evaluation Performance evaluation was built into the WAP planning process at several stages including statewide strategies (Chapter 5) and species and habitat profiles (Appendix A and B).

Statewide Strategies Performance evaluation is built into each strategys objective (chapter 5) by explicitly identifying affected threats, expected benefits, and critical inputs. Two monitoring objectives were developed to measure the first two aspects of performance: the direct effects of management (affected threats, objective 904) and ecological response (expected benefits, objective 905).

Periodic summary reports will include baseline infor-mation, measured indicators, trends in threatened and endangered populations, changes in the level of managed threats, and a summary of inputs. This information will be used to adapt management to current conditions. The following are strategies that pertain to performance evaluation:

• Track and evaluate performance to determine

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 6-5 Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management the success of management actions. This entails measuring changes in the level of a risk factor, demonstrating a beneficial ecological response, and establishing a correlation between management and changes in threat levels (207, 904, 905)

• Monitor ecological health of under-surveyed taxa, indicators of condition, threatened and endan-gered species, effects of management, and ecologi-cal responses to management. Produce succinct, standardized periodic reports on wildlife health by habitat (901, 902, 903, 904, 905, 906, 907)

Conservation Actions for Species and Habitats For each species and habitat, a profile template was completed to the extent that information was avail-able (Appendix L). In element 4 of these profiles, pri-ority Conservation Actions were identified. For each 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-making. Identifying performance objectives for each strategy and action will be critical for evaluat-ing performance and adapting when objectives do not meet expectations. Strategies listed in chapter 5 that pertain to adaptive management include:

• Research and comparatively analyze threats to the condition of wildlife populations and habitats (203, 204, 1001)

• Prioritize all proposed conservation actions before implementation to ensure that resources are tar-geted effectively (207, 1201, 1202)

• Refine and adapt all management activities to re-flect new science (207, 904, 905, 1002)

• Manage information and develop media to dis-seminate to all levels in conservation (201, 202, 206, 401)

Figure 6-1 Adaptive management flow chart Regional Air and Water Quality Wildlife and Habitat Management and Restoration Science and Information Management Local Land Use Decisions Prescriptions Monitoring Planning Maps Wildlife Monitoring/

Expertise Feedback/Requests Feedback about Risks

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 6-6 Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management 900 Description Monitoring entails the measurement of changes in ecological, spatial, or social variables over time. Tradi-tionally, monitoring has included direct enumeration of species populations, but also can include species distributions, population productivity, genetic integ-rity, community analysis, habitat variables, and risks to wildlife health. Monitoring provides essential in-put and feedback for all kinds of wildlife conservation efforts, and is almost unilaterally prescribed when concern arises over a particular species or habitat.

It is not feasible to intensively monitor all species and habitats of concern. Certain species and other bi-ological components that reflect pertinent ecological changes may serve as broad indicators of the health of natural systems. By tracking a subset of species or conditions, monitoring can elucidate the nature of threats and the effectiveness of restoration and man-agement efforts prescribed to address those threats.

Monitoring programs must carefully evaluate statistical considerations to ensure that monitoring efforts provide useful information. The objectives presented in this monitoring strategy represent differ-ent levels of statistical rigor and monitoring intensity.

Although there is some overlap between objectives, it is important to evaluate each to ensure that a monitor-ing program is comprehensive and adequately reflects the condition of species or habitats. Specific details about monitoring needs can be found in species and habitat profiles (Appendix A and B). Table 6-1 sum-marizes much of the information gathered during the planning process for priority species and habitats and indicates which monitoring objectives (901-905) are most appropriate for each species, habitat, and threat addressed in the WAP. Table 6-1 is an important first step in identifying an efficient suite of indicators (906).

900 Goal The goal of monitoring is to provide wildlife man-agers with meaningful data on the status of wildlife populations and habitats. Monitoring will provide data and feedback for performance evaluation and adaptive management. In some cases, broad early-de-Monitoring Strategy (900) tection monitoring programs are necessary to inform managers about changes that may require more active management in the future. In other cases, it is neces-sary to monitor less tangible variables such as public attitudes, efficacy of regulatory enforcement, and economic values of natural resources.

901 Objective: Conduct Surveys to Describe Distribution Assess the distribution of wildlife species and habitats by conducting presence/absence surveys that range from targeted confirmation of historic wildlife re-cords to participation in coordinated statewide and regional surveys. Generally, distribution surveys oc-cur at relatively coarse spatial and temporal scales, and have little or no statistical power to detect trends in abundance.

901(A) Expected Benefits Determination of presence/absence is the simplest form of monitoring. For some rare or poorly known species, surveys provide the only data available to guide conservation efforts. Distribution information is critical for implementing a management strategy.

Periodic assessment of distribution is also valuable for more common or widespread species, potentially showing range expansions and contractions that re-flect the nature or distribution of broad scale threats.

Poorly surveyed taxa (i.e., amphibians, fish, and invertebrates), and rare wildlife benefit most from distribution surveys.

901(B) Affected Threats Threats are not directly affected by the implementa-tion of any monitoring strategy, although distribution surveys form the baseline for all conservation efforts.

901(C) Existing Resources Resources available for distribution surveys depend on taxa and scale, and are generally inadequate to obtain complete information about distribution.

Models for distribution surveys exist in other states and in regionally coordinated efforts. Currently, the only distribution information that is consistently collected in New Hampshire is from volunteers par-

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 6-7 Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management ticipating in the Reptile and Amphibian Reporting Program (RAARP) or New Hampshire Bird Records (NHBR), and via the Wildlife Sightings website.

The information provided by these programs is not conducted in any standardized manner and thus only provide rough approximations of distributions in New Hampshire. NHNHB conducts relatively comprehensive localized surveys of natural commu-nities and plants and maintains records of exemplary natural communities, rare plants, and animals. All wildlife records are tracked via the Wildlife Sightings website, and records for tracked species of conserva-tion concern are maintained by NHB. Taxonomic expertise is a limiting factor for many taxa, especially invertebrates.

901(D) Critical Inputs

• Develop contracts to utilize existing taxonomic ex-pertise to identify existing unidentified collections

• The Wildlife Sightings and NHB databases require enhancement and maintenance

• Evaluate the feasibility of statewide atlas efforts for broad groups of under-surveyed taxa (e.g. reptiles, amphibians, fish, and invertebrates); models exist for Lepidoptera and Odonata atlases in other states Integrate inter-agency survey results

• Repeat Breeding Bird Atlas at regular intervals

• Evaluate the need and feasibility of a mammal at-las

• Identify rare species requiring targeted searches.

901(E) Organization NHFG needs to coordinate with independent con-sultants, university researchers, and other qualified individuals to ensure all wildlife sightings obtained during independent surveys are incorporated into the Wildlife Sightings database. All survey results con-ducted under this strategy also need to be incorpo-rated into the database. NHFG can coordinate with RAARP volunteers and ASNH can coordinate with NHBR contributors to prioritize surveys. ASNH should repeat the Breeding Bird Atlas, which is now greater than 10 years old. Other distribution research should be assessed via discussions among interested partners including ASNH, TNC, universities, and others. Assessing compatibility of monitoring objec-tives within habitat types is described under 906, and reporting requirements are described under 907.

901(F) Feasibility: 2.19 901 (G) Initiation: 1 year 901 (H) Duration: <10 years 902 Objective: Detect changes in the condi-tion of wildlife and wildlife habitats Conduct monitoring to detect changes in the condi-tion of wildlife populations and habitats. The pur-pose of this objective is to detect emerging risk factors (threats) and population declines before they become critical ecological problems. Variables that may be monitored include indicators of the extent or com-position of habitats and natural communities, indi-cators of long-term trends in populations, and levels of risk factors that pose a potential threat to wildlife.

Generally, indicators of condition will be monitored regularly across a network of fixed locations, with minimal statistical power to detect short-term local trends, and increasing power at broader spatial and temporal scales.

902 (A) Expected Benefits Information on the current condition of indicator species or habitats can reflect broad patterns of dis-tribution and abundance for all species and habitats.

At a broad scale, monitoring programs such as the BBS generate trend information for many common species, and thus serve as an early warning system.

Early detection of broad changes in condition will allow management to adapt incrementally, before species decline to threatened or endangered status, and before habitats are seriously degraded by emer-gent threats. Ultimately, this will preempt drastic and costly interventions.

902 (B) Affected Threats Threats are not directly affected by the implementa-tion of any monitoring strategy, although monitoring broad changes in condition will indirectly allow man-agers to address any potential threat that arises.

902 (C) Existing Resources Several existing programs assess broad patterns of species and habitat condition. Many broad-based threats (atmospheric pollution, water quality, popula-tion growth, etc.) are extensively monitored. SPNHF regularly reports on the status of landscape-level threats that are relevant wildlife habitat condition.

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 6-8 Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management Additionally, existing remotely sensed data can pro-vide an efficient means of evaluating habitat health at broad scales (e.g., looking at trends in habitat abun-dance and distribution over time) using GIS. Even with these resources to evaluate habitat health, many programs are inadequate (e.g., we currently cannot accurately assess the abundance or distribution of shrubland habitats using existing remotely sensed data) and assessments of habitat health are often not tied to wildlife population health.

NHDES monitors stream macroinvertebrates to detect changes in stream quality. Several regional monitoring initiatives exist for birds, including the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NAB-CI). Similarly, the BBS, and to a lesser extent the North American Amphibian Monitoring Program (NAAMP) is an important monitoring program in New Hampshire. Keeping Track is an international organization based in Vermont that teaches mammal tracking and survey skills to individuals so the infor-mation can be applied to local and regional conserva-tion planning. Such information can also provide an indicator of ecological health at the landscape level.

For other taxa, however, there is rarely the funding, organizational structure, or expertise to conduct re-gional monitoring.

902 (D) Critical Inputs

• Identify appropriate indicators of habitat and wild-life health (Objective 906)

• Integrate existing air and water quality and other landscape level assessments of broad threats into assessments of wildlife and habitat health

• Coordinate with and participate in regional moni-toring efforts, including BBS, NAAMP, and Keep-ing Track 902 (E) Organization Species monitored under existing programs (e.g.

Partners in Flight, NABCI, RAARP, Christmas Bird Count, BBS, stream surveys, etc.) need to be cata-logued to determine how they interact with identified monitoring needs. Assessing compatibility of moni-toring objectives is described under 906, and report-ing requirements are described under 907.

902 (F) Feasibility: 1.88 902 (G) Initiation: 1 year 902 (H) Duration: Indefinite 903 Objective: Monitor Population Trends for Threatened and Endangered Species Monitor indicators of trends in population health for threatened and endangered species. Indicators of trends may include abundance, productivity, genetic diversity, or demographic structure. Trends will be used to assess the effectiveness of recovery efforts.

Generally, monitoring for population health should be able to detect local and relatively short-term trends with relatively high statistical power. For many spe-cies, it is feasible to achieve statistical power >0.8 with intensively surveyed fixed sampling units, but often, it is not feasible to achieve power >0.5. Decreasing in-tensity of monitoring (and power) is acceptable with increasingly stable populations.

903 (A) Expected Benefits Intensive monitoring for threatened and endangered species helps ensure that inputs invested in recovery are effective, and definitive confirmation of recovery can lead to changes in listing status and potentially free resources for other threatened or endangered spe-cies. The species most likely to benefit may include timber rattlesnake, piping plover, roseate terns, cob-blestone tiger beetle, Karner blue butterfly, Blandings turtle, spotted turtle, lynx, American marten, White mountain arctic, White mountain fritillary, spruce grouse, New England cottontail, brook floater, dwarf wedgemussel, eastern pondmussel.

903 (B) Affected Threats Threats are not directly affected by the implementa-tion of any monitoring strategy, although the break-down of population processes in small populations is, in itself a threat (see Scarcity). Accurate measurement of population parameters, as means of directing inter-vention, may help determine recovery.

903 (C) Existing Resources Resources vary extensively depending on the species being monitored. Many species listed at the federal level (e.g., Karner blue butterfly, roseate tern, bald ea-gle, and peregrine falcon) receive regular funding and are the subject of extensive work throughout their ranges. Other federally listed species and the major-ity of state-listed ones are not adequately monitored, generally because of limited expertise and funding.

Expertise frequently exists within the academic sci-

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 6-9 Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management entific community, and there is high potential for collaboration among academic researchers, regional, and state recovery efforts. Resources and technical expertise exist within USFWS and USGS to evaluate monitoring protocols.

903 (D) Critical Inputs

• Develop monitoring protocols for listed species

• Collaborate with other states, federal agencies, and IAFWA to evaluate existing protocols to determine effectiveness

• Implement revised and existing protocols

• Evaluate opportunities for collaboration 903 (E) Organization Threatened and endangered species monitoring is currently conducted via partnerships and contracts involving NHFG, NHA, USFWS, academic re-searchers, and private consultants. Existing contracts may be amended to implement new protocols. Con-tracts for rare amphibians, invertebrates, and fish need to be developed, most likely with academic researchers or consultants. Existing regional programs should be taken into consideration. Monitoring and reporting requirements need to be integrated with all recovery plans and incorporated into the scope of service for new contracts. Assessing compatibility of monitoring objectives within habitat types is de-scribed under 906, and reporting requirements are described under 907.

903 (F) Feasibility: 1.56 903 (G) Initiation: 1 year 903 (H) Duration: >10 years 904 Objective: Measure direct effects of management Measure the magnitude of changes in threats as a direct result of management. Indicators that may be measured to quantify the direct effects of management are highly variable. Some examples include the level of duff or canopy reduction by fire or forestry, rate of survival of propagated plants, rate of recreational visits by a group targeted for education, or changes in the distribution of lead sinkers after restrictions are implemented. Generally, measuring the direct effects of management entails detecting local and relatively short-term changes with moderate power (0.5-0.8). Typically, change need only be measured over several intervals (i.e., before and after implemen-tation), depending on the duration and frequency of management and the degree to which effects attenu-ate over time. Sample sizes and units will vary widely, and often statistical or quantitative methods are not applicable. For example, some types of management may be recorded photographically.

904 (A) Expected Benefits Measuring whether management inputs have their intended direct effect is a critical component of performance evaluation and adaptive management.

Together, information on the direct effect and the ecological response (see 905) allow managers to evalu-ate linkages between problems and solutions. Species and habitats under restoration or management will benefit most.

904 (B) Affected Threats Threats are not directly affected by the implementa-tion of any monitoring strategy, although measuring direct effects of management help determine whether management affects threats.

904 (C) Existing Resources Resources available for threat monitoring vary in conjunction with the nature of a given threat. Many broad-based threats (atmospheric pollution, popula-tion growth, etc.) are already extensively monitored, while local threats (effects of a particular dam on stream conditions, human use of beaches, etc.) are poorly monitored or not monitored at all. Effects of department-level habitat management are monitored by NHFG, but need integration across programs.

Habitat management projects completed under ex-isting cost-share programs (e.g., WHIP, FLEP - see strategy 800) and other projects on private lands are rarely monitored.

904 (D) Critical Inputs

• Funding to adequately monitor effects on public and private lands is needed

• Existing cost-share programs should set aside a seg-ment of funding to support monitoring of habitat management effects

• Appropriate indicators need to be identified by a group of stakeholders to make monitoring effective

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 6-10 Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management and cost efficient (objective 906)

• Trained staff or contractors are needed to apply monitoring protocols, analyze data, and make habitat management recommendations based on principles of adaptive management 904 (E) Organization Monitoring and reporting requirements need to be integrated with all NHFG management plans and in-corporated into the scope of service for new contracts.

NHFG and UNH Cooperative Extension should work with other conservation partners and land managers in monitoring the effects of their work.

Regional coordination is needed to ensure appropri-ate levels of funding are provided for monitoring of existing cost-share programs that are funded by the federal government (e.g., WHIP, FLEP). Assessing compatibility of monitoring objectives within habitat types is described under 906, and reporting require-ments are described under 907.

904 (F) Feasibility: 1.56 904 (G) Initiation: <1 year 904 (H) Duration: >10 years 905 Objective: Monitor Ecological Respons-es to Management Conduct monitoring to determine whether the changes caused by management are having the de-sired beneficial effect on wildlife. Indicators that may be measured to quantify ecological responses to man-agement are highly variable. For example, if captive breeding is proposed as a management tool, it is nec-essary to measure whether captive-reared individuals are successfully surviving and reproducing in the wild. See 904 for typical monitoring requirements.

905 (A) Expected Benefits Follow-up monitoring of ecological responses to management is a critical component of performance evaluation and adaptive management, allowing man-agers to test the underlying assumption that manage-ment benefits targeted species or habitats. Together, information on direct effects (see 904) and ecological responses allow managers to evaluate linkages between problems and solutions (i.e., whether management is actually improving the health of wildlife and habitats, and whether the problem being managed is actually the cause of diminished wildlife health).

905 (B) Affected Threats Threats are not directly affected by the implementa-tion of any monitoring strategy, although monitoring ecological responses may allow for better understand-ing of how threats affect species and habitats or the extent to which management reduces any given threat.

905 (C) Existing Resources Resources needed and available for monitoring under adaptive management vary extensively depending on the species or habitat being managed and the scale at which management is occurring. Ideally, indicators measured under 902, 903, and 904 will adequately reflect ecological responses (905) to evaluate manage-ment.

905 (D) Critical Inputs See objectives 902, 903, 904, 906, 907 for additional inputs. Develop or evaluate protocols prior to imple-mentation of management.

905 (E) Organization See objective 904. Assessing compatibility of moni-toring objectives within habitat types is described under 906, and reporting requirements are described under 907.

905 (F) Feasibility: 1.56 905 (G) Initiation: 1 year 905 (H) Duration: >10 years 906 Objective: Select an efficient set of indicators by habitat Select an efficient set of indicators of wildlife health and management performance by habitat type. It is not feasible to monitor all species, risk factors, and management within a given habitat. Key components for monitoring within each habitat type includes un-der-surveyed taxa, indicators of condition, threatened and endangered species, effects of management, and ecological responses to management. Objectives 901, 902, 903, 904, 905 represent criteria for determin-ing the collective adequacy of monitoring to provide

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 6-11 Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management essential information on wildlife health and manage-ment performance. Existing monitoring programs, known threats, and proposed management will be systematically evaluated by habitat to identify com-patible objectives and a set of efficient indicators.

906 (A) Expected Benefits Choosing an appropriate set of indicators streamlines monitoring by reducing the number of species that 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-able evidence indicates that a rare mussel is most sen-sitive to the availability of a fish host species, it may actually be more effective to monitor populations of the fish than the mussel. This would be even more appropriate if the fish was known to be a good indi-cator of several other environmental variables, such as stream temperature, sedimentation, or hydrologic alteration. Choosing indicators should not replace direct monitoring for the most threatened taxa, nor should it be assumed that threatened and endangered species are the best indicators.

906 (B) Affected Threats Threats are not directly affected by the implementa-tion of any monitoring strategy, although monitoring may allow for better understanding of how threats impact populations or the extent to which a given threat has been reduced through management.

906 (C) Existing Resources Information on monitoring needs was gathered in species and habitat profiles completed for the WAP.

Needs were tabulated and refined to reflect known threats and strategies (see Chapter 5). Within habitat types, the feasibility and efficacy of proposed indi-cators need to be evaluated. Criteria for assessing indicators are developed under the previous objec-tives, and during the Assessing Biodiversity Indicators Workshop (TNC 2005).

906 (D) Critical Inputs NHFG should conduct a workshop or series of work-shops to assess all indicators proposed in the WAP and identify other appropriate indicators by habitat. This will allow the termination of redundant monitoring for species and habitats, and reduce the intensity for over-surveyed or over-monitored taxa.

906 (E) Organization NHFG will host a workshop or series of workshops to assess ongoing monitoring and indicators proposed in the WAP. TNC may serve as a partner in workshop organization.

906 (F) Feasibility: 3.28 906 (G) Initiation: 1 year 906 (H) Duration: 1 year 907 Objective: Report the condition of wild-life health by habitat Produce succinct, standardized annual reports on the condition of wildlife health by habitat.

907 (A) Expected Benefits Standardized reporting on a set of indicators selected by an informed process will provide critical informa-tion to summarize the status of ongoing monitoring and management, and serve as input to adapt man-agement to current conditions. Funding invested in ineffective management may become available for more effective approaches. Reports may lead to changes in listing status and potentially free resources for other threatened or endangered species.

907 (B) Affected Threats See above 907 (C) Existing Resources Biometric expertise and data management resources to analyze and summarize monitoring data for most rare and declining wildlife are limiting. For instance, NHFG currently only has one biologist who works part time analyzing wildlife data for the entire depart-ment. Even when NHFG staff or partners collect rigorous data, data are often not summarized annu-ally or for multiple years. Data collected on similar projects in different states are typically not integrated across state and regional programs to inform planning and management.

907 (D) Critical Inputs Additional biometricians are needed for data analysis, interpretation, and reporting. Standardized reporting protocols are needed to guide NHFG staff and con-tractors. Technical assistance is needed for contractors

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 6-12 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

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 6-13 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 6-14 Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management TABLE 6.1 s

eic e

p S

1 k

siR d

n a

2 tati b

a H

y b

sr otc a

F 3

n oitu b

irtsi D

)

1 0

9

(

4 tc ete D

)

2 0

9

(

e g

n a

h C

5 n

oitalu p

o P

)

3 0

9

(

d n

e rT 6

tn e

m e

g a

n a

M

)

4 0

9

(

tc effE 7

la ci g

olo c

E

)

5 0

9

(

e s

n o

p s

e R

8 g

nitsix E

s m

a r

g o

r P

9 y

c n

e u

q e

r F

0 1

ela c

S 1

1 E

N IP L

A X

3 2

D B

A tipiP n

a cire m

A X

3 D

A yr allitirF niatn u

o M

etih W

X X

F N

M W

2 A

citcr A

niatn u

o M

etih W

X X

F N

M W

2 A

n oitis o

p e

D dic A

X e

g n

a h

C eta m

il C

X yticr a

c S

X X

D N

A L

S S

A R

G X

X X

X 3

2 B

re pip d

n a

S d

n alp U

X X

X X

X S

B B

E T

2 C

A reirr a

H nre htr o

N X

X X

X X

E T

S B

B

,R B

H N

2 D

C B

A w

o rr a

p S

re p

p o

h ss a

r G

X X

X X

X S

B B

E T

2 D

C B

A nitr a

M elp ru P

X X

X S

B B

E T

2 D

B A

kr al w

o d

a e

M nrets a

E X

X S

B B

1 D

C B

w o

rr a

p S

re p

s e

V X

X S

B B

,R B

H N

2 D

C B

kr a

L d

e nr o

H X

S B

B

,R B

H N

2 D

C B

g o

rF d

r a

p o

e L

nre htr o

N X

X P

R A

A R

2 D

B re c

a R

k c

alB X

P R

A A

R 3

D B

e k

a n

S n

e er G

hto o

m S

X P

R A

A R

2 D

B erutlu cir g

A X

X erutc urts a

rfnI n

oitatr o

p s

n a

rT X

X X

yr o

vib re H

d n

a n

oita d

erP X

X D

N A

L B

U R

H S

X X

X X

3 2

B e

s u

o r

G d

effu R

X X

X X

S B

B G

F H

N 1

C B

relb r

a W

d e

g ni w

-n e

dlo G

X S

B B

,R B

H N

1 D

C B

A liatn otto C

d n

alg n

E w

e N

X X

X X

H N

U 2

D C

B A

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 6-15 Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management s

eic e

p S

1 k

siR d

n a

2 tati b

a H

y b

sr otc a

F 3

n oitu b

irtsi D

)

1 0

9

(

4 tc ete D

)

2 0

9

(

e g

n a

h C

5 n

oitalu p

o P

)

3 0

9

(

d n

e rT 6

tn e

m e

g a

n a

M

)

4 0

9

(

tc effE 7

la ci g

olo c

E

)

5 0

9

(

e s

n o

p s

e R

8 g

nitsix E

s m

a r

g o

r P

9 y

c n

e u

q e

r F

0 1

ela c

S 1

1 k

c o

c d

o o

W n

a cire m

A X

X X

X G

F H

N 1

C B

n oiss e

c c

u S

la ruta N

X X

tn e

m p

ole v

e D

X yr o

vib re H

d n

a n

oita d

erP X

X T

S E

R O

F E

N IP K

A O

N A

I H

C A

L A

P P

A X

X X

e k

a n

s eltta R

re b

m iT X

X 2

1 A

tn e

m p

ole v

e D

X erutc urts a

rfnI n

oitatr o

p s

n a

rT X

X X

yticr a

c S

X X

e c

n a

b rutsi D

la ruta N

d eretl A

X X

)s p

u o

r g

d e

h sr eta w

7

(

C IT A

U Q

A X

X X

n o

o L

n o

m m

o C

X X

X X

X C

PL 1

C B

A elg a

E dla B

X X

X X

X E

T 1

C B

A y

er p

s O

X X

S B

B E

T 2

B tu o

rT k

o o

r B

X

?

2 D

B to b

ru B

X

?

3

?

tu o

rT e

k a

L

?

?

h sifetih W

e k

a L

X X

?

D A

h sifetih W

d n

u o

R X

X 3

2 D

A niplu c

S y

m ilS X

X 2

D A

tu o

rT e

e p

a n

u S

X C

n o

e g

rutS citn alt A

X 3

A retr a

D p

m a

w S

X 3

D A

h sifn u

S d

e d

n a

B X

3 D

A re nih S

d eldir B

X 3

D A

TABLE 6.1

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 6-16 Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management TABLE 6.1 s

eic e

p S

1 k

siR d

n a

2 tati b

a H

y b

sr otc a

F 3

n oitu b

irtsi D

)

1 0

9

(

4 tc ete D

)

2 0

9

(

e g

n a

h C

5 n

oitalu p

o P

)

3 0

9

(

d n

e rT 6

tn e

m e

g a

n a

M

)

4 0

9

(

tc effE 7

la ci g

olo c

E

)

5 0

9

(

e s

n o

p s

e R

8 g

nitsix E

s m

a r

g o

r P

9 y

c n

e u

q e

r F

0 1

ela c

S 1

1 y

er p

m a

L k

o o

r B

n a

cire m

A X

3 D

A e

c a

D ela c

s e

niF X

3 D

A e

c a

D ylle b

d e

R nre htr o

N X

3 D

A lere k

ciP nifd e

R X

3 D

A retr a

D d

etalle ss e

T X

3 D

A n

o e

g rutS e

s o

ntr o

h S

X 3

A tle m

S w

o b

nia R

X X

?

3 2

?

B A

n o

m la S

citn alt A

X X

X efi w

el A

X X

?

2

?

B g

nirre H

k c

a b

e ulB X

X

?

2

?

B le E

n a

cire m

A X

X

?

2

?

B y

er p

m a

L a

e S

X

?

2

?

B d

a h

S n

a cire m

A X

X

?

2

?

B le ss u

m e

g d

e W

fr a

w D

X X

X 2

B A

reta olF k

o o

r B

X X

X 2

B A

le ss u

M d

n o

P nrets a

E X

2 n

oita erc e

R X

X X

s eic e

p S

d e

c u

d o

rtnI X

X X

tn e

m p

ole v

e D

X n

oitullo P

e cru o

S tnio p-n o

N X

X X

y g

olo r

d y

H d

eretl A

X X

yru cre M

X X

erutlu cir g

A X

X X

S E

N I

M d

n a

S E

V A

C X

X X

2 1

B A

ellertsipiP nrets a

E X

2 D

B A

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 6-17 Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management TABLE 6.1 s

eic e

p S

1 k

siR d

n a

2 tati b

a H

y b

sr otc a

F 3

n oitu b

irtsi D

)

1 0

9

(

4 tc ete D

)

2 0

9

(

e g

n a

h C

5 n

oitalu p

o P

)

3 0

9

(

d n

e rT 6

tn e

m e

g a

n a

M

)

4 0

9

(

tc effE 7

la ci g

olo c

E

)

5 0

9

(

e s

n o

p s

e R

8 g

nitsix E

s m

a r

g o

r P

9 y

c n

e u

q e

r F

0 1

ela c

S 1

1 ta B

d eto of-lla m

S nrets a

E X

2 D

B A

ta B

a n

aid nI X

2 D

sito y

M nre htr o

N X

2 D

B A

n oita erc e

R X

X S

F FIL C

X X

X 3

2 B

A n

o cla F

e nir g

ere P

X X

X X

X E

T 2

C A

elg a

E n

e dlo G

X R

B H

N 3

D C

n oita erc e

R X

X yru cre M

X S

D N

A L

SI L

A T

S A

O C

X X

X nre T

n o

m m

o C

X X

X X

X E

T 1

C B

A nre T

eta e

s o

R X

X X

X X

E T

1 C

B A

nre T

citcr A

X X

E T

1 C

B A

to m

elliu G

k c

alB X

C B

C 2

C A

re pip d

n a

S elp ru P

X X

C B

C

,R B

H N

M SIR P

2 C

yticr a

c S

X X

tn e

m p

ole v

e D

X yr o

vib re H

d n

a n

oita d

erP X

X sllip S

li O

X X

X s

eic e

p S

d e

c u

d o

rtnI X

X X

ts e

vr a

H elb a

niats u

s n

U X

X X

S E

N U

D X

X X

1 B

A re v

olP g

nipiP X

X X

X E

T 1

C B

A nre T

ts a

e L

X E

T

,R B

H N

2 C

re pip d

n a

S d

eta m

la pi m

e S

X X

M SIR P

,R B

H N

1 C

A

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 6-18 Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management TABLE 6.1 s

eic e

p S

1 k

siR d

n a

2 tati b

a H

y b

sr otc a

F 3

n oitu b

irtsi D

)

1 0

9

(

4 tc ete D

)

2 0

9

(

e g

n a

h C

5 n

oitalu p

o P

)

3 0

9

(

d n

e rT 6

tn e

m e

g a

n a

M

)

4 0

9

(

tc effE 7

la ci g

olo c

E

)

5 0

9

(

e s

n o

p s

e R

8 g

nitsix E

s m

a r

g o

r P

9 y

c n

e u

q e

r F

0 1

ela c

S 1

1 n

oita erc e

R X

X yr o

vib re H

d n

a n

oita d

erP X

X tn e

m p

ole v

e D

X yticr a

c S

X X

sllip S

li O

X X

X T

S E

R O

F N

I A

L P

D O

O L

F X

X X

X k

w a

H d

ere dlu o

h s-d e

R X

X S

B B

,R B

H N

2 D

C relb r

a W

n a

elure C

X S

B B

,R B

H N

2 D

A eltru T

d o

o W

X X

P R

A A

R 2

D B

tn e

m p

ole v

e D

X erutc urts a

rfnI n

oitatr o

p s

n a

rT X

X X

T S

E R

O F

E N

IP D

O O

W D

R A

H K

C O

L M

E H

X X

X tn e

m p

ole v

e D

X s

eic e

p S

d e

c u

d o

rtnI X

X X

e c

n a

b rutsi D

la ruta N

d eretl A

X X

T S

E R

O F

RIF E

C U

R P

S N

O IT A

V E

L E

H G

I H

X X

X 3

2 C

B h

s urh T

s'lle n

k ciB X

X h

cta w

d riB

.t M

1 D

C B

e s

u o

r G

e c

ur p

S X

X R

B H

N 2

D C

B n

etr a

M n

a cire m

A X

X G

F H

N 2

D C

B ts e

vr a

H elb a

niats u

s n

U X

X X

tn e

m p

ole v

e D

X yticr a

c S

X n

oitis o

p e

D dic A

X T

S E

R O

F RIF E

C U

R P

S D

N A

L W

O L

X X

X d

rib k

c alB yts u

R X

X S

B B

,R B

H N

1 D

C B

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 6-19 Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management TABLE 6.1 s

eic e

p S

1 k

siR d

n a

2 tati b

a H

y b

sr otc a

F 3

n oitu b

irtsi D

)

1 0

9

(

4 tc ete D

)

2 0

9

(

e g

n a

h C

5 n

oitalu p

o P

)

3 0

9

(

d n

e rT 6

tn e

m e

g a

n a

M

)

4 0

9

(

tc effE 7

la ci g

olo c

E

)

5 0

9

(

e s

n o

p s

e R

8 g

nitsix E

s m

a r

g o

r P

9 y

c n

e u

q e

r F

0 1

ela c

S 1

1 re k

c e

p d

o o

W d

e ot-e erh T

X S

B B

,R B

H N

2 D

C B

h c

niF elp ru P

X X

S B

B

,R B

H N

1 D

C B

relb r

a W

d ets a

er b-y a

B X

X S

B B

,R B

H N

1 D

C B

e s

u o

r G

e c

ur p

S X

X G

F H

N

,R B

H N

2 D

C B

ta B

yr a

o H

X 2

C B

ts e

vr a

H elb a

niats u

s n

U X

X tn e

m p

ole v

e D

X yticr a

c S

X X

n oitullo P

e cru o

S tnio p-n o

N X

X e

c n

a b

rutsi D

la ruta N

d eretl A

X X

S D

N A

L T

E W

B U

R H

S D

N A

H S

R A

M X

X X

2 B

e b

er G

d ellib-d eiP X

X X

X X

R B

H N

2 D

C B

nrettiB n

a cire m

A X

X S

B B

,R B

H N

2 C

B n

er W

e g

d e

S X

X R

B H

N 2

C nrettiB ts a

e L

X X

R B

H N

2 C

n e

hr o

o M

n o

m m

o C

X X

R B

H N

2 C

n o

re H

e ulB ta er G

X X

S B

B G

F H

N 2

B A

k c

u D

k c

alB n

a cire m

A X

X S

W W

M G

F H

N 1

C B

e k

a n

S n

o b

biR X

P R

A A

R 3

D eltru T

s'g nid n

alB X

X X

P R

A A

R 2

D C

B A

eltru T

d etto p

S X

X P

R A

A R

3 2

D B

tn e

m p

ole v

e D

X erutc urts a

rfnI n

oitatr o

p s

n a

rT X

X X

yru cre M

X X

X X

yticr a

c S

X X

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 6-20 Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management TABLE 6.1 s

eic e

p S

1 k

siR d

n a

2 tati b

a H

y b

sr otc a

F 3

n oitu b

irtsi D

)

1 0

9

(

4 tc ete D

)

2 0

9

(

e g

n a

h C

5 n

oitalu p

o P

)

3 0

9

(

d n

e rT 6

tn e

m e

g a

n a

M

)

4 0

9

(

tc effE 7

la ci g

olo c

E

)

5 0

9

(

e s

n o

p s

e R

8 g

nitsix E

s m

a r

g o

r P

9 y

c n

e u

q e

r F

0 1

ela c

S 1

1 R

E FI N

O C

D O

O W

D R

A H

N R

E H

T R

O N

T S

E R

O F

X tn e

m p

ole v

e D

X n

oitis o

p e

D dic A

X S

D N

A L

T A

E P

X X

B H

N 3

2 B

relb r

a W

m la P

X S

B B

,R W

N

,R B

H N

2 D

C retn u

a h

g o

B d

e g

niR X

E T

2 D

A g

ni m

m e

L g

o B

nre htr o

N X

3 D

g o

rF k

ni M

X X

P M

A A

N

,P R

A A

R 3

D B

tn e

m p

ole v

e D

X S

N E

R R

A B

E N

IP X

X X

X G

F H

N C

N T

B H

N lli w

-r o

o p-pih W

X X

H N

S A

,FIP

,R B

H N

1 D

C B

k w

a hth g

i N

n o

m m

o C

X X

X X

R B

H N

2 D

C B

A e

e h

w o

T nrets a

E X

X S

B B

1 D

C B

e k

a n

S e

s o

n g

o H

nrets a

E X

P R

A A

R 2

D A

d a

o T

s'rel w

o F

X X

P M

A A

N

,P R

A A

R 2

D A

eltru T

x o

B X

P R

A A

R 3

D A

a hta n

g olc n

a Z

s n

err a

B e

niP X

X C

N T

G N

R A

H N

G F

H N

1 D

A ylfrettu B

e ulB re nr a

K X

X X

X C

N T

G N

R A

H N

G F

H N

1 D

A niflE d

ets o

rF X

X C

N T

G N

R A

H N

G F

H N

1 D

A g

ni w

y k

s u

D y

p e

elS X

C N

T G

N R

A H

N G

F H

N 1

D A

g ni w

y k

s u

D o

g id nI dli W

X C

N T

G N

R A

H N

G F

H N

1 D

A e

m atI s

n err a

B X

X C

N T

G N

R A

H N

G F

H N

1 D

A e

p ytoly X

s n

err a

B X

X C

N T

G N

R A

H N

G F

H N

1 D

A g

ni w

y k

s u

D s

uisre P

X X

C N

T G

N R

A H

N G

F H

N 1

D A

hto M

n oiniP e

niP X

X C

N T

G N

R A

H N

G F

H N

1 D

A

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 6-21 Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management TABLE 6.1 s

eic e

p S

1 k

siR d

n a

2 tati b

a H

y b

sr otc a

F 3

n oitu b

irtsi D

)

1 0

9

(

4 tc ete D

)

2 0

9

(

e g

n a

h C

5 n

oitalu p

o P

)

3 0

9

(

d n

e rT 6

tn e

m e

g a

n a

M

)

4 0

9

(

tc effE 7

la ci g

olo c

E

)

5 0

9

(

e s

n o

p s

e R

8 g

nitsix E

s m

a r

g o

r P

9 y

c n

e u

q e

r F

0 1

ela c

S 1

1 a

hrry p

ota C

d e

nil-d a

o r

B X

X C

N T

G N

R A

H N

G F

H N

1 D

A hto M

re g

iT a

rilly h

P X

X C

N T

G N

R A

H N

G F

H N

1 D

A hto M

a r

o C

e h

T X

X C

N T

G N

R A

H N

G F

H N

1 D

A tn e

m p

ole v

e D

X e

c n

a b

rutsi D

la ruta N

d eretl A

X X

X yticr a

c S

X X

erutc urts a

rfnI n

oitatr o

p s

n a

rT X

X X

yr o

vib re H

d n

a n

oita d

erP X

X X

s eic e

p S

d e

c u

d o

rtnI X

X X

H S

R A

M T

L A

S X

X X

U D

,P C

H N

1 B

A w

o rr a

p S

d eliat-p r

a h

S s'n o

sle N

X X

H N

U 2

C A

w o

rr a

p S

d eliat-p r

a h

s h

sr a

m tla S

X X

H N

U 1

C B

A w

o rr a

p S

e dis a

e S

X X

H N

U 2

C telli W

X X

M SIR P

,R B

H N

H N

U 2

C tn e

m p

ole v

e D

X y

g olo r

d y

H d

eretl A

X X

X S

K N

A B

/

S E

R O

H S

E L

B B

O C

/

D N

A S

elte e

B re g

iT e

n ots elb b

o C

X X

2 D

A elte e

B re g

iT n

atiru P

X 3

D A

yticr a

c S

X X

y g

olo r

d y

H d

eretl A

X X

X S

E G

D IR Y

K C

O R

D N

A S

E P

O L

S S

U L

A T

X X

X X

n oita erc e

R X

X S

T S

E R

O F

D N

A L

P U

X x

n yL X

G F

H N

3 C

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 6-22 Monitoring, Performance Evaluation, and Adaptive Management s

eic e

p S

1 k

siR d

n a

2 tati b

a H

y b

sr otc a

F 3

n oitu b

irtsi D

)

1 0

9

(

4 tc ete D

)

2 0

9

(

e g

n a

h C

5 n

oitalu p

o P

)

3 0

9

(

d n

e rT 6

tn e

m e

g a

n a

M

)

4 0

9

(

tc effE 7

la ci g

olo c

E

)

5 0

9

(

e s

n o

p s

e R

8 g

nitsix E

s m

a r

g o

r P

9 y

c n

e u

q e

r F

0 1

ela c

S 1

1 ta c

b o

B X

G F

H N

2 B

ta B

d e

R nrets a

E X

2 C

B ta B

d eria h-re vliS X

2 C

B k

w a

H s're p

o o

C X

X C

B C

S B

B

,R B

H N

1 D

C B

k w

a h

s o

G nre htr o

N X

X S

B B

S F

S U

1 D

C B

tn e

m p

ole v

e D

X yticr a

c S

X X

S L

O O

P L

A N

R E

V X

X X

X re d

n a

m ala S

d elb r

a M

X P

R A

A R

3 D

re d

n a

m ala S

n o

sreffeJ X

X P

R A

A R

2 D

B re d

n a

m ala S

d etto p

s-e ulB X

X P

R A

A R

2 D

B tn e

m p

ole v

e D

X erutc urts a

rfnI n

oitatr o

p s

n a

rT X

X X

n oitis o

p e

D dic A

X X

X S

D RIB G

N I

D E

E R

B N

O N

X X

X 3

2 1

D C

B A

tn e

m p

ole v

e D

X TABLE 6.1

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 7-1 CHAPTER SEVEN Implementation This chapter addresses Elements 6 and 7 of the NAAT Guidelines. Element 6 requires, descriptions of procedures to review the strategy at intervals not to exceed ten years. Element 7 asks for, Plans for co-ordinating the development, implementation, 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. Described here is our expected approach to implementing the New Hamp-shire WAP. Implementation will involve department staff, other agencies, and the many partners that as-sisted in the plans development. Partners who have helped write, review, and edit the plan have a good understanding of its components and have a vested interest in its successful implementation.

We recognize that having the resources to imple-ment the plan will be critical. We will need major support from future federal funding, such as the State Wildlife Grants that provided money to generate this Plan. While we will ask partners to support the WAPs goals in many ways, it will be difficult for NHFG to play the leadership role that is expected absent signifi-cant funding.

Years 1-2 To foster awareness and support for implementing the plan, initial actions will focus on internal and external outreach regarding plan strategies, and the prioritization of strategies and objectives into opera-tional work plans. NHFG staff from many divisions and program areas will be engaged in these efforts to ensure a coordinated agency approach to strategy implementation.

The NHFG public affairs division will dis-seminate information about the WAP. A major public release of the plan will be developed for the early part of 2006, in coordination with national WAP promotion strategies. The intent is for target groups to understand how they can assist in strategy imple-mentation to achieve conservation of species at risk.

A component of this is likely to be a Wildlife Summit II, where partners from the conservation community, landowners, businesses, and agencies will be brought together to discuss the WAP and provide their input on implementation.

Internal discussions with NHFG staff will also be occurring. Many NHFG divisions, including wildlife, fisheries, marine, and law enforcement have important roles to play in the implementation of the WAP. Administrators and staff need to understand these roles, identify available resources, and commit to the successful implementation of plan strategies.

Partners who participated in developing the WAP should also be engagedtheir continued involve-ment and assistance is as important now as it was at the beginning of the planning process.

A principal need is the prioritization of WAP strategies and objectives. This task will be aided by the risk assessment scores and feasibility ranking forms developed as part of the WAP. Priority strategies and objectives will be reviewed by partners and revised as appropriate. Further, agencies and organizations need to be identified that have the interest and ability to

New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 7-2 Implementation take on leadership roles in the four broad conserva-tion focus areas: local land and water conservation, regional air and water quality, statewide biodiversity stewardship and conservation science, and informa-tion management. NHFG will be a leader on many strategies, but others may lend their leadership as ap-propriate. Specific coordinators should be established for the implementation and monitoring of conserva-tion strategies.

Contact with state and federal agencies will be made to integrate the priorities and strategies of the WAP into their plans and operations. Agencies and their existing plans include but are not limited to:

State Agencies/Organizations

• NHDFL including the NH Forest Resources Plan due to be revised in 2006

• 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.

Years 2-10 Progress toward WAP goals will be measured, and allowances will be made for adaptive management.

Details on measuring and monitoring progress are described in detail in the Monitoring chapter.

Year 10 We will conduct a major plan review in 2015. The public will be involved in the review process through a Wildlife Summit type meeting, and other forums similar to those outlined in our public participation process described in this document. We will provide information on progress toward our goals to date, and facilitate a reassessment of WAP priorities and strategies.