CALAIS — The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service held a public information meeting Tuesday night to review a plan to add 1,190 acres of wetland and upland habitat to the Baring Unit of the Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge. The proposed acquisition is adjacent to the unit’s southeastern boundary.

A second hearing was scheduled for Wednesday, May 2, to review the service’s plan to add about 1,000 acres of shoreline habitat to the Moosehorn’s Edmunds Unit along the Dennys Bay arm of Cobscook Bay.

An environmental assessment plan released by the service last week, said that the Baring Unit was noted for its importance as nesting, brood-rearing and migration habitat for woodcock and black duck.

The majority of the 30 people who attended the Tuesday night meeting appeared to favor the proposal to expand the Baring Unit, but two Washington County residents, who said they were not opposed to the service’s acquisition of the land in Baring, expressed concern about the effect the steady growth of federal control eventually could have on Washington County.

William Zinni, wildlife biologist for the service’s regional office in Newton Corner, Mass., stressed that the land the service wanted to acquire had been voluntarily offered for sale by the owners. He said when owners were unwilling to sell their land, or development rights, his agency did not react like other federal agencies that had been criticized for having a heavy-handed approach to land acquisition.

If a landowner did not want to sell, he said, the service either would take no action; rely on existing federal, state and local regulations to protect the habitat; or rely on the involvement of conservation organizations such as the Land for Maine’s Future Board, the Nature Conservancy, the Maine Coast Heritage Trust or the Quoddy Regional Land Trust.

Erich Veyhl, a Trescott property owner, told the group that he was concerned about the tone of the environmental assessment that had been circulated by the service prior to the public hearing.

“The environmental assessment was supposed to assess the impact on the human community, yet everything in the report is disparaging toward private ownership saying that we all are a threat to the wildlife,” he said.

Veyhl said the report focused on a “dire threat” of development which, in fact, was not occurring.

“At least half of the coast in the Cobscook area is owned by the state and the Maine Coast Heritage Trust, and there are conservation easements, covenants and very strict zoning restrictions. I don’t know anyone who owns land or lives here who doesn’t care a great deal about trying to maintain what we have,” he said.

Zinni said that information he had received from the state planning office, the Washington County Regional Planning Commission, and local land trusts suggested that there was an increase in subdivision and development pressure in Washington County.

Veyhl said there were fewer people in Washington County today than there were at the turn of the century. “If you are familiar with the area, you can see that kind of dire development is not taking place,” he said.

Robert Voight, a property owner in Lubec, said that although he was not opposed to the purchase of the land that would be added to the Baring Unit, he was concerned that local control eventually would be lost.

“Maine has just put into effect a very restrictive shoreland zoning ordinance that is going to restrict all communities. … Don’t you think that the controls that Maine is now establishing will diminish the threat you see?” Voight asked.

Doug Mullen, the refuge manager, said he believed the new ordinance would relieve pressure in some areas, but not along Cobscook Bay. He said that the service was not “big brother” and would continue to try to work closely and cooperatively with landowners and abutting property owners.