Home > All Issues > Vermont Public Lands > Silvio O. Conte NFWR - Letter to Andrew French

Silvio O. Conte NFWR - Letter to Andrew French

by Don Dickson |
Sep 15, 2008

January 31, 2008 Andrew French Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge 103 East Plumtree Road Sunderland, MA 01375 Re: Comments of Center for Biological Diversity, Conservation Law Foundation, and Sierra Club on the Silvio O. Conte NFWR CCP Alternative Development Dear Mr. French: We write on behalf of the boards and members of the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), and Vermont Chapter of the Sierra Club (SC). We appreciate the opportunity to provide input on the development of alternatives for the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge (or “Conte Refuge”) Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). Please accept the following as our official comments for this phase of the planning process.....

Letter to Andrew French, Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge

January 31, 2008

Andrew French

Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge

103 East Plumtree Road

Sunderland, MA 01375

Dear Mr. French:

We write on behalf of the boards and members of the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD),

Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), and Vermont Chapter of the Sierra Club (SC). We

appreciate the opportunity to provide input on the development of alternatives for the Silvio O.

Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge (or “Conte Refuge”) Comprehensive Conservation

Plan (CCP). Please accept the following as our official comments for this phase of the planning

process.

The Center for Biological Diversity’s mission is to protect and restore biodiversity for the sake

of nature and people; public lands are of particular interest because they offer core habitat where

species may be restored and can flourish. CBD has over 40,000 members nationwide, including

several thousand in New England. On January 1, 2008, CBD assumed the operations,

membership, assets, and programs of Forest Watch, based in Richmond, Vermont, and from it

created the new Northeast office of CBD. Forest Watch had been involved with the CCP

development process since early 2007.

The Conservation Law Foundation works to solve the most significant environmental challenges

facing New England. CLF’s advocates use law, economics and science to create innovate

strategies to conserve natural resources, protect public health and promote vital communities in

our region. Founded in 1966, CLF is a nonprofit, member-supported organization with offices in

Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont. Conservation Law

Page 2 of 12

Foundation has participated in various aspects of the planning and management of the Conte

National Wildlife Refuge since its inception. CLF members use National Wildlife Refuge

System lands throughout New England for hunting, fishing, observation and photography of

native flora and fauna, and nonmotorized recreation.

The Sierra Club has a history of more than 100 years of working to protect natural areas and

wildlife habitat, and has more than 2,800 members in Vermont. Vermont Chapter members have

been following the CCP process since October 2005 and have been actively participating since

November 2006. Chapter members visited the Nulhegan Basin Division at least six times in

2007.

The CCP development process is guided by and must comply with the directives of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as required in the 1997 Refuge Improvement Act. NEPA

was written to help policymakers and citizens understand the effects of proposed actions on the

environment, and to carefully weigh the benefits and costs of the proposed action and

alternatives to it. During the planning process, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has a

duty under NEPA to systematically respond to each issue and alternative identified by the public,

carrying forward for analysis those determined to be “significant” and providing reasons for

eliminating from detailed study each issue or alternative determined to be not significant.1

Well-crafted alternatives are considered to be “the heart” of the NEPA process and EIS, enabling

policymakers and citizens to better understand the tradeoffs involved with responding to the

identified issues. Alternatives should be chosen and designed to sharply define the issues and

clearly illuminate for policymakers and the public the choices and tradeoffs to be made. Agency

officials have a legal duty to explain their reasons for not performing a detailed study of any

alternative identified by the public. 2 To avoid being arbitrary and capricious, those reasons

should be supported by data, information, and at least a preliminary analysis.

1 1501.7 (a) As part of the scoping process the lead agency shall…(2) Determine the scope (Sec. 1508.25) and the

significant issues to be analyzed in depth in the environmental impact statement. (3) Identify and eliminate from

detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec.

1506.3), narrowing the discussion of these issues in the statement to a brief presentation of why they will not have a

significant effect on the human environment or providing a reference to their coverage elsewhere.

2 Sec. 1502.14 Alternatives including the proposed action.

This section is the heart of the environmental impact statement. Based on the information and analysis presented in

the sections on the Affected Environment (Sec. 1502.15) and the Environmental Consequences (Sec. 1502.16), it

should present the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply

defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decisionmaker and the public.

In this section agencies shall:

(a) Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives which were

eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated. (Emphasis added).

(b) Devote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail including the proposed action so that

reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits.

(c) Include reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.

(d) Include the alternative of no action.

Page 3 of 12

Our organizations have identified and describe below a Wildlife First alternative for the Conte

Refuge’s CCP. We request that you incorporate the issues, arguments, and strategies outlined in

these comments into the planning process, per the requirements of NEPA.

We believe that the Wildlife First Alternative provides an approach to refuge management and

wildlife conservation that is in complete alignment with the spirit and intent of the mission of the

National Wildlife Refuge System3, the laws governing the NWRS4, and the vision of the FWS5.

The importance of national wildlife refuges, managed in accord with the core value of “wildlife

first,” is especially vital here in the densely populated, heavily developed Northeast United

States. Large, unfragmented blocks of forest or other natural habitat are uncommon, and rarer

still are such lands devoted first and foremost to the protection and restoration of biodiversity.

Thus, the Conte Refuge, and in particular, the 26,000 acre Nulhegan Division, has a critical role

to play in furthering the aims of the NWRS.

Global climate change adds further weight to the necessity of putting wildlife first on our scarce

public lands. Some scientists, including the highly esteemed ecologist, E.O. Wilson, now believe

it possible that 30-50 percent of all species on Earth will be extinct within a century, due to the

catastrophic changes wrought by global warming and other human-induced wounds to

ecosystems around the world.6

The urgency of focusing every conservation resource as directly and effectively as possible on

protecting wildlife and their habitats is clear, and should be reflected in the plans and

administrative priorities of land management agencies, the FWS in particular.

Our organizations believe FWS’ paramount responsibility to wildlife should illuminate and guide

every aspect of the CCP process, and the subsequent implementation of that plan.

The Wildlife First Alternative emphasizes the following key issues and values of the refuge:

• Landscape-scale restoration

• The protection and restoration of threatened, endangered, and other imperiled or rare

species

• Habitat management for those habitat features which are uncommon; vital for

biodiversity, particularly imperiled species; and difficult to maintain or create on private

or non-refuge lands.

• The creation of federal wilderness areas

• Protection and restoration of water quality, aquatic habitat, riparian and wetland habitats,

and management for intact watersheds

• The phase out of incompatible, disruptive, and polluting motorized recreation; namely

snowmobiling

3 http://www.fws.gov/refuges/policymakers/mandates/HR1420/indes.html

4 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-57, Sec. 4 (2).

5 Fulfilling the Promise: The National Wildlife Refuge System, 1999, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Dept. of

Interior.

6 The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth, 2006, Wilson, E.O., W.W. Norton Pub.

Page 4 of 12

• Mitigation for and buffer against impacts of climate change

Landscape-scale restoration requires a vision of the Big Picture: think of the 80-million acre

Northern Appalachian/Acadian ecoregion stretching from New York’s Adirondack Park, through

Northern Vermont, Northern New Hampshire, Northern Maine, Eastern Quebec to the Gaspé

Peninsula, and including New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Nova Scotia -- two

countries, five states, and four provinces. This region is a key transition zone between the boreal

forests of the north, and the temperate forests of the south. A collaboration of over 50

conservation organizations, under the umbrella of Two Countries One Forest, is beginning to

coordinate efforts to protect and restore large forested areas of this region along with protected

migration corridors between them. Purposes of landscape-scale restoration include preserving the

option for both plants and animals to migrate both north and south as their survival needs dictate.

Migration of plant and animal species to flee their gradually warming habitats will become

crucial as global climate change increasingly affects the viability of plants and animals now

living in Vermont and New Hampshire.

The Nulhegan Basin Division and the Pondicherry Division occupy strategic positions within

that Big Picture. They are at the intersection of two major ecosystems, the Connecticut River

watershed and the Great Northern Forest. The entire Conte refuge territory spans the length of

the Connecticut River, from its headwaters in northern New Hampshire to its mouth on Long

Island Sound. The Vermont and New Hampshire Divisions also lie within the Northern

Appalachian/Acadian ecoregion described above, sometimes known as the Great Northern

Boreal Forest.7

The Nulhegan Basin is a large wetlands complex with some of the North Country’s richest

natural diversity. The Audubon Society describes it as an internationally “Important Bird Area”

for waterfowl and a suite of boreal species including black-backed and three-toed woodpeckers,

boreal chickadees, and endangered spruce grouse. In addition, Nulhegan and Pondicherry are in

the most likely route by which locally extirpated carnivores like Canada lynx, pine martens, and

wolves could possibly migrate south from Quebec to Maine and New Hampshire and then west

7 For a regional map of the Northern Forest and one organization’s perspective on the challenges to wildlife in this

region, please refer to the Wildlands Project at: http://www.wildlandsproject.org:80/cms/page1115.cfm.

Page 5 of 12

through Vermont into New York’s Adirondack Park. Surrounding the Nulhegan, the timberlands

west, north, and east are already under conservation easements held by The Nature Conservancy,

Vermont Land Trust, and others; and to the south, the State of Vermont owns and manages

22,000 acres as a Wildlife Management Area.

In particular, FWS should:

1. Coordinate the management of the Conte, particularly Nulhegan and Pondicherry, with Two

Countries One Forest and its constituent organizations to give top priority to ecological

restoration, landscape linkage, and biodiversity protection including the protection and

restoration of migratory and endangered species.

2. Use management practices that support protection of large blocks of contiguous forests. Such

management practices should include: (a) accelerated the buy-out and removal of

recreational cabins and the restoration of natural conditions on former cabin sites,

concentrating first on those at the periphery of those Divisions; (b) decommissioning of roads

that are not necessary for access to occupied recreational cabins, and revegetation of those

roads to return them to their natural state.

3. Work with state and local land conservation organizations to educate private and public

landowners in the region between Nulhegan and the Quebec and New Hampshire border, and

likewise between Pondicherry and the Quebec and Vermont borders, regarding landscape

conservation. Seek voluntary easements for lands managed for forest products, as well as

lands managed for wilderness values, and prevent further road or real estate development on

those private and public lands. Coordinate land protection efforts with cooperating public

agencies in New Hampshire and Quebec.

• federally listed threatened and endangered species

• federal candidate species

• state listed threatened and endangered species

• migratory birds

• anadromous and resident native fish

• species listed in state Wildlife Action Plans as being of conservation need

The FWS is charged with protection of “Trust” species in the specific language of the Silvio O.

Conte NFWR Act, and the 1997 Refuge Improvement Act. The Wildlife First Alternative

spotlights the purpose of the Conte, to “conserve, protect, and enhance the natural diversity and

abundance of plant, fish, and wildlife species and the ecosystems upon which these species

Page 6 of 12

depend within the refuge8.” Among the species that are part of the natural diversity of the

Refuge are native wildlife that were extirpated over the last two centuries by human persecution,

habitat disruption, and other activities. We believe these species, such as Canada lynx, gray wolf,

and pine marten should be restored to the Refuge through the protection and creation of secure,

suitable habitat, and where feasible, active reintroduction efforts.

The Nulhegan Division, in particular, due to its size, proximity to other conserved lands, and

strategic location between extensive public lands elsewhere in Vermont and in northern New

Hampshire, offers the potential to serve as core habitat for rare, wide-ranging carnivores, and

other species sensitive to human disturbance, habitat disruption, and direct persecution.

The creation of secure, core habitat for such species could include the closure of some roads,

seasonally or permanently; restriction of motorized recreation; and prohibition on types of

trapping that could harm or kill lynx, wolves, marten, or others.

Logging, roads, and forest fragmentation are commonplace throughout the Northern Forest. Old

growth, once the predominant forest age class in the region, is now extremely rare. Therefore, we

believe the Conte’s forest lands, and the Nulhegan Division in particular, should be managed

primarily for the conservation and restoration of late-successional forests, and for the recovery of

large forest blocks.

The Nulhegan Basin is currently dominated by very young forests, having been heavily logged

by Champion prior to transfer of ownership to the federal government. In addition, the Nulhegan

Division is bounded on several sides by lands actively managed for timber production, where

early successional and young forests will be created into the foreseeable future.

Late-mature and old-growth forest, not early successional forest, are in shortest supply in

northeast Vermont and the Northern Forest region, generally. A number of species dependent on

mature and/or old-growth forest habitat for some or all of their life cycle, are rare to virtually

non-existent in Vermont (e.g., pine marten). Many others (e.g., most bat species, northern flying

squirrels, salamanders, and forest-breeding neotropical migrants and other cavity-nesting birds)

are known to be most abundant in old-growth forests.9

8 (PL 102-212. Sec. 104 (2), emphasis added).

9 Lapin, Marc. 2005. “Old-growth forests: A literature review of the characteristics of eastern North American

forests.” Vermont Natural Resource Council, Montpelier, VT.

Page 7 of 12

Many native species are uncommon, declining, or in jeopardy because of the heavy extent of

forest fragmentation in our region. Given the accelerating rate of fragmentation on private lands

in Vermont, it is imperative that public lands be managed to provide large, continuous forest

blocks. Wise land management and conservation planning should prioritize the protection of

large tracts of unmanipulated habitat on public land.

Active forest management depends on roads, and the harmful biological and environmental

impacts associated with roads provide further reason to adopt a management alternative

emphasizing natural forest restoration, and restraint from overt and heavy-handed manipulation

of habitat. 10

Roads, whether permanent or temporary, introduce exotic invasive species. The Nulhegan is

currently free of serious problems with invasive plant species, but this could readily change with

the entry of one vehicle or piece of heavy machinery harboring the seeds of an invasive plant.

Roads also disrupt hydrological processes, fragment wetlands, degrade water quality, introduce

heavy metals and other harmful chemicals into the environment, and increase mortality of certain

species due to roadkill.

Roads increase hunter and trapper “efficiency” and penetration into habitat—thereby increasing

the take of wildlife, whether they are legal or illegal targets. Increased efficiency due to heavy

road networks and ample motorized access has eventually led, on many other public lands

throughout the country, to the need for hunting restrictions, such as shorter seasons.

National wildlife refuges are no longer “duck factories,” existing solely to produce large game

populations for hunters. As stipulated in law (i.e., 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System

Improvement Act) and evolving policy, the national wildlife refuges are “anchors for

biodiversity,” with a focus on the conservation and restoration of all native species. In the current

era, and into the future, refuge management should be, as much as possible, management for

natural landscapes and whole ecosystems.

Artificial creation of habitat for select species (such as woodcock) should not be a priority where

those habitats exist, or can be readily created, on private lands. Given the abundance of private

timberland in northeast Vermont, and in the Northern Forest region generally, we believe efforts

to create or maintain early successional habitats should be focused on those lands.

10 Trombulak, Stephen C. and C.Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic

communities. Conservation Biology 14:19-29.

Page 8 of 12

Wilderness protection is a vital component of any plan to conserve and restore biodiversity—

including and especially wide-ranging wildlife—over time. Wilderness is also a symbolic

landscape that inculcates in visitors the appreciation and sense of respect for wildlife and their

habitats which national wildlife refuges are intended to promote. This view is strongly

emphasized in the vision for the National Wildlife Refuge System:

The 1997 Refuge Improvement Act requires that wilderness reviews be conducted as part of the

CCP process. We expect that the wilderness review for the Conte will be thorough, fair, and take

into consideration the opportunities for restoration of wilderness characteristics, as through road

closures, phasing out of private recreational camps, and other actions.

The Nulhegan Division offers the most substantial and significant opportunities for wilderness

designation on existing Conte lands, due to its size and remoteness. The FWS should assess the

opportunities for wilderness designation in the Nulhegan under present conditions, as well as

future scenarios where permanent road closure and reclamation could be implemented.

Among the numerous possibilities for road closure to increase the size and enhance the

wilderness values of potential wilderness areas on the Nulhegan are these:

• southern section of Lewis Pond Road, at junction of Four Mile Road

• Peanut Dam Road, from intersection with Stone Dam Road

• Black Branch Road

• Eagle’s Nest Road, north from intersection with Canal Road

• Tin Shack Road

• unnamed road intersecting Tin Shack Road at northern boundary

• Tim Carroll Brook Road

• northern section of Lewis Pond Road, beyond junction with Lewis Pond access

11 Fulfilling the Promise, FWS 1999, pp. 21-22.

Page 9 of 12

The FWS should focus on the role Congress envisioned for the Conte Refuge in staving off

“spoilation, removal from public access, and ecological downgrading” in the Connecticut River

Valley. In creating the Conte Refuge, Congress recognized that “[t]he Connecticut River and its

riparian lands are unique environmental resources which provide habitat for significant

anadromous, migratory, and resident fish.”

But in a watershed as large as the Connecticut River’s it would be impossible and undesirable for

the FWS to fulfill its congressional charge exclusively through the purchase and management of

fee-simple riparian lands. Educational and management partnerships could provide a powerful

vehicle for protecting and restoring the Connecticut River’s resources.

The FWS should:

1. Focus on partnerships that reduce nutrient pollution in the watershed. Anadromous and

migratory fish as well as other marine wildlife are threatened by the hypoxic zones in the

Long Island Sound fed by nutrient pollution from upstream sources within the

Connecticut River watershed. Nutrient pollution comes from myriad sources, including

agricultural fertilizer, wastewater treatment plants and septic systems, and stormwater

runoff pollution from developed areas.

2. Focus on partnerships that educate upstream communities about the connection between

land use and waste disposal policies in their local areas and the problems in the Sound.

Partners could focus on encouraging broader roll-out of low-impact development

techniques to control stormwater runoff, fertilizer reduction in agricultural lands, and on

the need for modern nutrient removal technologies at wastewater treatment programs.

3. Manage land and aquatic resources, in cooperation with partners, for high water quality,

protection of wetlands and riparian areas, and restoration of degraded aquatic habitats.

4. Manage its lands and waters to protect native aquatic species, including wild brook trout

populations, non-game native fish, and other native aquatic species; and to prevent or halt

the spread of exotic, invasive aquatic species.

Page 10 of 12

The Nulhegan Division offers the most substantial and significant opportunities for wild, scenic,

and recreational river designations, with the headwaters of several branches of the Nulhegan

River—North, Yellow, Logger, and Black—originating on and flowing for several miles through

the refuge. Few national wildlife refuges in the eastern United States offer such an opportunity to

designate nearly an entire river system under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and we urge you to

examine and recommend this protection for the Nulhegan River.

Continued operation and maintenance of the high-speed, miles-long snowmobile network in the

Nulhegan Basin Division is incompatible with the Conte Act’s purposes and the Fish and

Wildlife Service’s wildlife-first management charge because:

• Scientific studies strongly suggest that snowmobiles disrupt and pollute fragile deepsnow

ecosystems. The Conte Act was established in part to protect threatened and

endangered species. The Canada lynx is a federally-listed threatened species and a

Vermont state-listed endangered species that has evolved longer legs and wider feet to

compete against other ubiquitous carnivores (coyotes and bobcats) in deep snow. Peerreviewed

scientific studies show that snowmobile routes deprive lynx of these

evolutionary advantages in the competition for scarce prey during deep snow conditions

by providing coyotes and bobcats easier access to deep snow environments.12

As this one example demonstrates, much more study must be done on the effect of

snowmobiles on wildlife, including the well-documented air pollution associated with

snowmobiles, before the FWS can conclude that high-speed snowmobiling is compatible

with refuge purposes.

• Snowmobiling diverts resources away from wildlife-focused scientific work on

refuge lands by requiring allocation of scarce staffing resources to law enforcement

personnel who police the high-speed, high-traffic snowmobile routes. During this time of

chronic under-funding for scientific personnel focusing on the conservation, protection,

and enhancement of wildlife and its habitat, allocation of staffing focused on the

12 Bunnell et al., Potential Impacts of Coyotes and Snowmobiles on Lynx Conservation in the Intermountain West,

Wildlife Society Bulletin 2006.

Page 11 of 12

protection and enhancement of snowmobiling on federal land is incompatible with the

purposes of the Conte Refuge.

• Nulhegan Basin lands should be a true “refuge” for wildlife in an area where

Snowmobile routes crisscross large portions of Essex County, leaving wildlife few areas

to hunt, hide, or travel without having to cross a packed-down, air-polluted motorized

corridor. In fact, the 35 miles of snowmobile routes in the Nulhegan Basin comprise only

8% of the snowmobile network in Essex County.

Existing corridor and alternate routes already bypass the Nulhegan Basin Division on all

sides, including Trail 114 alternates on the west and Trail 106 on the east. Snowmobile

route closure in the Nulhegan would provide wildlife a rare boreal forest sanctuary free of

winter motorized traffic, while leaving more than ample opportunities for snowmobiling

on privately-owned and state-owned lands. Better wildlife and habitat protection can be

accomplished without compromising the motorized winter tourism economy of the

region.

• Snowmobiles interfere with the six priority wildlife-dependent uses of the refuge in

the winter, for everyone except those riding snowmobiles because the Nulhegan Basin

Division has limited winter access routes—all of which are controlled by and open

exclusively to snowmobile clubs. Moreover, the noise and air pollution emitted by

snowmobiles using the refuge’s access roads and travel network significantly interfere

with the ability of non-motorized users to partake in and enjoy the wildlife-dependent

uses.

The consensus of the global scientific community recognizes human-caused global climate

change as one of the biggest threats facing wildlife worldwide. Erratic and dramatically

changing climate patterns are shifting forest composition, the composition of food webs, and the

traditional ranges species occupy. The Conte Refuge can and should play a role in mitigating

negative climate change impacts on wildlife.

The FWS should:

1. Reduce the refuge’s operational carbon footprint. In its refuge operations and

compatibility decisions regarding motorized recreation, the Conte Refuge staff must seek

to minimize the Conte Refuge’s carbon footprint.

Page 12 of 12

2. Study climate change consequences on Connecticut River wildlife species.

3. Build support for stronger controls on global warming pollution by educating refuge

visitors and residents of the Connecticut River Valley on the negative impacts and threats

facing trust wildlife species.

Again, we thank you for the opportunity to provide this Wildlife First Alternative for

consideration and inclusion in the draft CCP for the Conte Refuge, and we look forward to

continued dialogue and information exchange as the planning process proceeds.

Sincerely,

/s/

Mollie Matteson

Public Lands Advocate, Center for Biological Diversity

PO Box 188, Richmond, VT 05477

/s/

Anthony Iarrapino

Staff Attorney, Conservation Law Foundation

5 East State Street, Suite 4

Montpelier, VT 05602

/s/

Don Dickson

Chair, Wildlife and Public Lands Committee

Vermont Chapter, Sierra Club

43 Ledgemere Street, Burlington, VT 05401