FRANKLIN COUNTY – For the last few months, the potential for establishing a National Wildlife Refuge located in Maine’s High Peaks has been the topic of detailed discussion and, at times, heated debate. Here is an update on the information available so far, including the response from Maine’s federal delegation: Senators Susan Collins and Angus King, and Representative Jared Golden.
What is a National Wildlife Refuge?
The National Wildlife Refuge System is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The USFWS is tasked with protecting fish, wildlife, and plant assets in the U.S., with a focus on endangered species. A National Wildlife Refuge is land placed in wildlife conservation and actively managed for the targeted species for that refuge. In addition, Congress has directed the USFWS to facilitate the following public uses on refuge lands: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and outdoor education. To date there are 568 refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System, covering 95 million acres of land across the country. There are 11 refuges in Maine to date, according to the USFWS.
What is the NWR process?
The USFWS has a lengthy public process for developing a formal proposal for a new refuge. The process has created some confusion in the community as it can seem backwards in order of operations, but it is the process required by NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) for a project of this nature.
The first step is to identify a wide ‘scoping’ region in which to conduct land searches and surveys, and hold listening sessions with the public to help identify land uses and needs within that region. Initially, the USFWS identified a preliminary region of approximately 200,000 acres around the Appalachian Trail in the Western Mountains. The actual proposal for the refuge is expected to be between 5,000 and 15,000 acres, potentially as large as 20,000 acres.
A group of locals representing the stakeholders in the region helps identify the needs and goals of the community. These representatives would help inform the development of a formal proposal for a refuge.
Once a specific area or areas are identified within the study region, a preliminary land protection plan would be developed. The plan would then go out for public review and discussion with a minimum 45-day comment period, and after the public comment period, revisions for a final plan would be presented.
The plan may recommend no action, a preferred action, and secondary actions. These recommendations are based in part on the feedback gathered from the communities during the scoping sessions and public review.
Once a plan is established, it provides an ‘acquisition boundary’ where the USFWS can consider approaching landowners to see if they would consider selling property or entering into a conservation easement with USFWS to then create a wildlife refuge. A refuge may not be completed if the landowners are unwilling to sell.
The final decision on creating a refuge acquisition boundary is made at the administrative level at the USFWS, although feedback from the community and representatives would be taken into consideration.
What does a refuge actually look like?
There is no formal proposal yet to outline what a High Peaks Refuge may look like. However, to better answer this question, the Daily Bulldog visited Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge, which includes land in both Maine and New Hampshire.
Paul Casey, with the USFWS, is the project manager for the High Peaks proposal as well as the Refuge Manager at Umbagog. Casey recommended researching Umbagog or Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge, two refuges in rural Maine, that could be similar to the proposal in the High Peaks.
The Umbagog Refuge was established in 1992, and is still in the acquisition phase; not all of the land parcels identified in the acquisition boundaries have been placed under conservation easements or purchased by the USFWS. However, a substantial portion of the original acquisition plan and large portions of the revised plan have been secured as part of the refuge.
Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge surrounds Umbagog Lake in Maine and New Hampshire, encompassing the headwaters of the Androscoggin River. The refuge follows the Magalloway River into Umbagog Lake, which then feeds into the Androscoggin River.
Hundreds of species of wildlife and birds such as moose, deer, muskrats, otters, black bears, bald eagles, herons, kingfishers, black ducks, loons, and Canadian geese make the refuge their home. The USFWS has developed trails and information kiosks throughout the refuge, and continues to work on development and accessibility projects.
The public uses the refuge for boating, kayaking, paddling, hiking, nature observation, photography, hunting, fishing, and snowmobiling.
What about the High Peaks?
The USFWS has previously identified the High Peaks as a critical habitat for migratory and neotropical birds due to the high elevation and broad swaths of undeveloped land in the mountains. In addition, the higher elevation can provide research opportunities for how different species adapt to a changing climate.
Casey said that some of the species under observation in the High Peaks region are Bicknell’s Thrush, Blackburnian Warbler, Atlantic Salmon, and – while the species is not currently endangered – the Brook Trout. The USFWS intends to do detailed environmental and ecological studies to inform decisions about where to locate a refuge.
In addition, the USFWS is aware that ATV trails and snowmobile trails are an important part of the local and regional economy. A formal proposal is expected to take those trails into consideration.
Community members share concerns about local control and land access
Since May, the potential High Peaks refuge has been discussed in a number of public meetings and municipal meetings. Outspoken opponents include Tom Saviello, Bob Carlton, and James Cote; other municipal officials, local businesses, and other members of the community have also shared concerns.
Carlton and Saviello have spoken with a number of municipal boards in the High Peaks region, focused around Franklin County. Casey and local conservation advocate Nancy Perlson have represented the USFWS in these discussions.
Two themes emerged in the conversation opposing the refuge: loss of land access, and loss of local control. Maine’s High Peaks is focused around outdoor recreation, but supports a substantial conservation movement. Most recently, over 13,000 acres on the Quill Hill and Perham Stream parcels were conserved by a partnership with the State of Maine, local, state, and federal organizations and agencies, and the landowners.
Concerns have been raised about the potential loss of land access, particularly for ATV and snowmobile trails, if land is placed into a federal refuge.
The other main theme is the loss of local control. The USFWS would likely have a local manager for the refuge, but policy decisions are made at the department’s administrative level or at the Congressional level. Opponents to the refuge said that when problems arise it is better to go to Augusta and work with local and state representatives to address the issues, rather than being required to go to the federal legislature.
Local Actions
On May 16, the Franklin County Commissioners voted 2-1 to take a stance opposing the refuge. Commissioners Bob Carlton and Lance Harvell voted to oppose the refuge, while Commissioner Terry Brann abstained from the vote, saying he was not sure if this was an issue for the commissioners to take action on at that point.
On June 10, the Town of Carrabassett Valley facilitated a public informational meeting on the potential refuge. This meeting was well-attended by folks from across the region; some had established opinions in favor of or opposed to the refuge, while many were still looking for more information to make a decision. Land access along with local control and representation were among the top concerns voiced in this meeting.
An invitational meeting was held at Sugarloaf on June 28, including spokespersons from the federal delegation offices, local and state representatives, local businesses, and various outdoor recreation and advocacy groups. This meeting was an opportunity for local stakeholders to ask questions of Casey and learn more about the proposal.
On July 18, the Franklin County Commissioners voted, 2-1, to sign a letter opposing the potential refuge. This letter was sent to the federal delegation. Commissioners Carlton and Harvell voted to sign the letter while Brann opposed, reiterating his earlier concern that he was not sure this was a matter for the county to become involved in. The Avon select board voted to sign a letter to oppose the refuge that same night.
On July 25, the select boards in Eustis and Phillips reviewed and signed letters opposing the refuge.
The Carrabassett Valley select board did not take action when presented with a letter on July 31; the board expressed concerns about the refuge but indicated they did not have enough information to make a decision at that time.
The Wilton select board voted to sign a letter on August 1, again opposing the refuge.
Local businesses and organizations combined to send a letter to the federal delegation, outlining four points in opposition of the refuge: top-down conservation; lack of clarity about why a national wildlife refuge is necessary; poor process; and lack of future certainty. These organizations included: Maine Guides Association, Maine Trappers Association, Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, Pleasant River Lumber Co., Sugarloaf, Professional Logging Contractors of Maine, GCA Logging, ReEnergy, Stratton Lumber, Main-Land Development Consultants, Freeman Ridge Forestry, and Franklin Timberlands.
The letter from local businesses concludes, “As key stakeholders who represent private landowners, local businesses and employees, thousands of sportsmen members and other recreational interests we are urging you to stand with us and intervene to encourage the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to cease their pursuit of federal land acquisition and give Maine-based interests the right of first refusal as we contemplate the future of what conservation should look like in the High Peaks Region. We are firm believers that the High Peaks Region is an area worthy of conserving. We live here, recreate here, and work here, or represent people that do. However, we firmly believe that the conservation of this area should be pursued under locally driven and managed conservation models such as Land for Maine’s Future, and not blanket acquisition by federal agencies.”
Nancy Perlson of Madrid, who is a long-time conservation advocate and is currently working with the USFWS on the High Peaks proposal, has spoken with several of these municipalities and asked that the boards refrain from taking action as there is no plan to take action against. The process allows for the development of a plan that can address the concerns from the community, including taking no action. Other supporters of the refuge have said that the process should be followed through and a plan created, for the community and municipalities to then give feedback on. The argument is that it is difficult to give feedback on something that does not exist.
Opponents have said they oppose the concept and the process, and do not want to see a formal plan developed.
Legislative Actions
On July 11, state representatives sent a letter to Maine’s federal delegation outlining their concerns with the refuge. The letter was signed by Senator Russell Black, Senate District 5; Senator Lisa Keim, Senate District 19; Senator Brad Farrin, Senate District 3; Representative Mike Soboleski, House District 73; Representative Scott Landry, House District 75; and Representative Larry Dunphy, House District 72.
The letter outlines local efforts for conservation, concerns about federal oversight, and concludes with, “In closing, we ask that you join us in opposing the pursuit of this specific national wildlife refuge proposal at this specific moment in time by asking the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to halt their current efforts in this region. We believe that it is critical that the Service hear from you about the concerns you are hearing from stakeholders and constituents in this region.”
On August 3, Senators Susan Collins and Angus King, and Representative Jared Golden sent a letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The federal delegation states in their letter, “We understand that the process so far has included several scoping sessions to allow constituents to voice their opinions directly to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and that the sentiment expressed in those meetings has made it clear that the overwhelming majority of residents have serious reservations about federal involvement in the region’s land conservation efforts.”
In their letter to the USFWS, the delegation outlines the region’s commitment to and history of protecting the land in the High Peaks region, stating that nearly two-thirds of the 200,000 acre scoping area originally outlined by the USFWS is already conserved through state or local efforts, and additional protections exist for high elevation and shoreland areas.
“Many of these efforts have been in cooperation with federal programs like the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Forest Legacy Program, and the Department of Defense’s Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration Program,” the delegation writes.
“Given the extensive conservation efforts already established in the region, it is unclear what additional benefits the creation of a new National Wildlife Refuge would provide. To date, the USFWS has not articulated a clear conservation failure that needs to be corrected or a conservation objective that could only be addressed through the establishment of a federal
refuge. If existing conservation efforts are failing or not living up to their potential, the USFWS should work with state and local partners to adjust existing management efforts rather than layering direct federal management over the existing conservation landscape.”
The letter continues to say that Maine already has eleven wildlife refuges across the state and many of them are currently understaffed. An additional refuge in the system would only stretch resources. “Wildlife refuges can play important roles in the communities where they are located but only when adequately resourced to function properly.”
The delegation writes that it is clear to them that the project does not have sufficient public support from the local communities which may be directly impacted by the proposal.
“In short, this region has a long tradition of tending to its own conservation needs; the imposition of a new federal enclave would serve neither the local communities nor the values such a project would seek to advance.
“Given these concerns, we ask that you terminate the evaluation of the High Peaks region for inclusion in the National Wildlife Refuge System and instead, work with the established local conservation entities and the state to address any wildlife-related issues which may be identified by USFWS. This kind of partnership arrangement would be much preferable – and more effective – than one imposed from outside the region.”
The letter is signed by Collins, King, and Golden.
Where are we now?
It is unclear at this point where the project stands. The letter from the federal delegation gives a request to the USFWS to stop the process. These statements from local, state, and federal representatives may not represent every person or business in the High Peaks region, but the representatives have indicated that they are speaking for a majority.
The Daily Bulldog will continue to follow-up as more updates become available.
Previous coverage of the High Peaks National Wildlife Refuge proposal:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to host workshops of wildlife refuge in Western Maine
County commissioners vote against possible National Wildlife Refuge in Maine High Peaks
Land access remains top concern in National Wildlife Refuge proposal; members of public weigh in
Commissioners sign letter for federal delegation, opposing National Wildlife Refuge proposal
Wilton selectboard votes to oppose potential High Peaks National Wildlife Refuge
Carrabassett Valley board takes no action on potential High Peaks National Wildlife Refuge
