The Battle of Land Use

Details: Created on Wednesday, 21 October 2015 17:18; Written by Camille DeLongis

contirefugethumbnail The U.S. Fish and Wildlife service is in the process of figuring out how to manage the Silvio O. Conte Natural Fish and Wildlife Refuge for the next fifteen years. The refuge is contained in the entire Connecticut River Watershed. They recently released a draft plan to discuss possible management alternatives that are beneficial to land, habitats, and people. Part of that plan, though, could restrict the access people have to land right here in the Northeast Kingdom.

Looking back sixteen years ago, Champion International Paper Company sold their forest land in Northeastern Vermont to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. When the land was logged by the timber industry, it also provided acces to recreational activities, like snowmobiling, to an abundance of people. That land is now a part of the Silvio O. Conte Natural Fish and Wildlife Refuge, and it has continued to allow recreational access thoughout. Now that Fish and Wildlife have released a new Comprehensive Conservation Plan to manage the land in the future, that access could be changed. The issue of competing land use comes into play here--how different groups of people have conflicting views of the way the land should be utilized.

Fish and Wildlife is required to create this draft plan, called a Comprehensive Conservation Plan, or CCP. The National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1977 requires every refuge to create one to help achieve the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. That mission is, "to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats."

As required the draft plan contains four possible conservation alternatives, which are listed as A through D. Each Alternative maps out how they plan to conserve wildlife and habitats, manage educational opportunities and recreational access on the refuge. They also show how they will enhance partnerships with land owners near refuge owned lands. This would help to conserve even more habitats, on more land than Fish and Wildlife owns.

Currently, the refuge covers 36,000 acres in Connecticut, Massachusettes, New Hampshire, and Vermont, with nearly 26,000 acres of it contained in the Northeast Kingdom's Nulhegan Basin. Each of these alternatives would aquire more land into the refuge.

Fish and Wildlife prefers Alternative C, which would bring 197 thousand acres under their control, up and down the Connecticut River watershed, but Alternative D aquires even more land at nearly 236 thousand acres.

Mark Maghini of the Fish and Wildlife Service says, "It's striving for what we know from conservation biology, ecological studies, that if we want to maintain the integrity of habitats and the species dependent on them, that areas larger are more resilient."

The refuge manages land in what they call "Conservation Focus Areas." There are currently 65 throughout the watershed. These areas are the specific areas beng actively managed. While the amount of acres in the Refuge would grow, under some alternatives, the amount of Conservation Focus Area's would shrink. Fish and Wildlife would actively manage less plots of land throughout the entire watershed, but the fewer areas in which they would manage would be larger in size.

While land aquisition would occur in all four states, we'll turn our focus to Northeastern Vermont--how much land they plan to acquire and what they will do with it under each alternative.

Alternative A:

Grow the refuge in the Nulhegan Basin by 185 acres
Continue with 65 Conservation Focus Areas
Continue modest habitat management
Continue limited environmental education opportunities on refuge land
Continue existing recreational activities on refuge land
Continue partnerships with landowners they currently work with

Alternative B:

Grow the Refuge in the Nulhegan Basin by 932 acres
Reduce to 18 Conservation Focus Areas
Start aquiring land in the Ompomponoosuc River Basin, totaling 4,464 acres
Enhance habitat management to maintain a wider variety of species
Enhance environmental education
Continue to offer recreational activities, on current land increase connecting people to nature
Seek to expand existing partnerships, and develop new partnerships

Alternative C (Preferred by Fish and Wildlife):

Grow the Refuge in the Nulhegan Basin by 5,936 acres
Reduce to 22 Conservation Focus Areas
Start aquiring land in the Ompomponoosuc River Basin, totaling 15,071 acres
Intensely manage land ad habitats
Greatly enhance environmental education
Significantly increase recreational acesss
Seek to expand existing partnersips, and develop new partnerships

Alternative D:

Grow the Refuge in the Nulhegan and Omomponoosuc by the same acreages under Alt. C
Reduce to 22 Conservation Focus Areas
NOT Conduct habitat management, let natural processes occur
Continue natural processes education
Seek to expand existing partnersips, and develop new partnerships
Limit recreational access, eliminate snowmobiling

"It would be low impact, back country, pedestrian type uses, says Maghini."

When totaled, that would be nearly 32,000 acres in the Nulhegan and 15,000 acres in the Ompomponoosuc where snowmobiling would be banned. Snow mobiling on lands in those areas has been a long-standing tradition for families in Northeastern Vermont, and out-of-state visitors alike. When Champion International Paper Company owned the land, they leased it to families. Those families built camps on the land in the Nulhegan, and largely utilized them for snowmobiling.

Steve McLeod is a lobbyist for the Vermont Association of Snow Travelers, as well as a member of the Vermont Traditions Coalition.

He says, "Those lands are ideal for snowmobiling because they are a huge expanse of woodlands."

For him, Alternative D would be hurtful to the community that has been using those lands for years.

He goes on to say, "Why on Earth would you take something that provided enjoyment to thousands and thousands of families for generations and just ban it?"

While their lobbyist has been quite outspoken on the issue, VAST themselves says they are optimistic that their relationship with with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will continue to grow in the future.

McLeod understand that Alternative C is not Fish and Wildlife's preferred alternative, but says that any organization that supports that alternative has no regard for the wide human use of natural resources.

McLeod says "I am only for land conservation if it is going to allow people to use the land" and "we're always concerned until [the plan] is finalized."

Fish and Wildlife says that is the exact reason why they named Alternative C as their preffered, rather than D.

Maghini says, "It wasn't the intention to concern people, it was the intention to provide as required a range of alternatives... I think there is a high likelihood that Alternative C would be selected... people would be able to realize a landscape that isn't all that different from what it is today."

The Fish and Wildlife Service has already held informational meetings up and down the Connecticut River Valley. They begin official hearings on the plan in St. Johnsbury on November 2nd. You can submitt a written comment Fish and Wildlife about the plan at this website until November 16th. Based on submissions, they will make final revisions on the draft plan, and submit it to their regional director for final action. The regional director will choose an alternative they deem appropriate.

Conti_Refuge from NewsLINC on Vimeo.