A-1

Appendix A - Legislated Purposes of the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge

The Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge Act set forth the following purposes for establishing the refuge:

1. Conserve, protect, and enhance the Connecticut River watershed populations of Atlantic salmon, American shad, river herring, shortnose sturgeon, bald eagles, peregrine falcons, osprey, black ducks, and other native species of plants, fish, and wildlife.

2. Protect species listed as endangered or threatened, or identified as candidates for listing, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.

3. Conserve, protect, and enhance the natural diversity and abundance of plant, fish, and wildlife species and the ecosystems upon which these species depend within the refuge.

4. Restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of wetlands and other waters within the refuge.

5. Fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States relating to fish and wildlife and wetlands.

6. Provide opportunities for scientific research, environmental education, and fish and wildlife-oriented recreation and access to the extent compatible with the other refuge purposes.

B-1

Appendix B - Interim Goals of the Nulhegan Nulhegan Refuge

Goals for the units of the Conte Refuge must be consistent with the purposes and goals of the Refuge. Goals for Refuge units are customized to emphasize how the unique attributes of each parcel can best contribute to the Refuge purposes.

Goals which have been developed through the ongoing collaborative planning process are fairly general and are presented as Ainterim@ goals. They will be refined and made more detailed during the development if the Nulhegan Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan, which is currently scheduled to begin in 2005. However, the general intent for management of Nulhegan Refuge is not expected to differ substantially from that expressed in the interim goals.

Interim Goal 1: The Refuge contributes to the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Nulhegan Basin and the Northern Forest. Emphasis is placed on conservation, management, and as appropriate, restoration and enhancement of federal trust species, state-listed species, native species of regional and local significance, habitats of priority species, and rare or exemplary natural communities.

pDesign and implement habitat management activities consistent with Conte Refuge purposes and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) policy that will provide favorable conditions within the Nulhegan Refuge and within the broader contexts of adjacent state and private lands and the Great Northern Forest as a whole for:

a) Federal and state listed species;

b) migratory birds (including Priority Species for the North American Bird Conservation Initiative=s Atlantic Northern Forest Bird Conservation Region); waterfowl, particularly, black ducks; and American woodcock);

c) other native plant and wildlife species;

d) perpetuation of viable deer wintering habitat;

e) conservation of aquatic and terrestrial systems, including rare or exemplary natural communities.

pDesign and implement habitat and wildlife inventory and monitoring strategies that will provide a basis for development of management plans and support a program of adaptive management.

pDesign and implement strategies for the detection, prevention, and control of undesirable exotic, invasive, or non-native species.

Interim Goal 2: Refuge public use program provides opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreational activities that are low-impact, low-density, and allow visitors to make connections with and value Refuge habitat and wildlife resources.

pDevelop a public use program that:

a) Provides opportunities for compatible priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation), and other recreational experiences that are appropriate, compatible, and do not conflict with priority public uses;

b) Accounts for public safety and access;

c) Avoids negative impacts to Refuge habitat, wildlife, and cultural resources;

d) Emphasizes conservation messages derived from Goal 1;

e) Promotes appreciation of the habitat, wildlife, and cultural resources of the Nulhegan Basin and the Northern Forest;

f) Considers the rugged and undeveloped character of the land in the design and implementation of facilities and infrastructure that support public use; and

g) Considers the role of the Refuge in providing connectivity for public access to the lands of Essex Timber Company and the West Mountain Wildlife Management Area (e.g., providing vehicular and snowmobile access via road system and the VAST trail network, respectively).

pDesign and implement strategies to:

a) monitor and evaluate public use activities and associated impacts;

b) incorporate results of monitoring and evaluation into the feedback loop to enable adaptive management; and

c) protect Refuge resources and reasonably provide for visitor safety.

Interim Goal 3: Outreach and interpretation programs foster public understanding of and support for Refuge, Ecosystem Team, Regional, National Wildlife Refuge System and Service goals, and increase public awareness of the need for and benefits of habitat and wildlife conservation and management, especially regarding priority species and habitats listed in Goal 1.

pDevelop and implement environmental education and other outreach strategies that focus on Refuge management priorities described under Goal 1.

pRefuge will serve as a demonstration area to showcase examples of Refuge research and management programs to target audiences.

pPromote understanding and appreciation of natural and cultural resources of the Nulhegan Basin and surrounding lands in the Connecticut River watershed and Northern Forest, and support for Service/Refuge goals and objectives.

pEnsure that Refuge outreach and interpretation programs are supported by readily available and understandable products (e.g. reports, brochures, maps, signs, exhibits).

Interim Goal 4: Research efforts support accomplishment of Service, National Wildlife Refuge System, Regional, and Refuge management programs.

pActively work with partners to identify, support, and implement priority research, including projects that are designed to increase our understanding of:

a) ecological processes and the effects of forest management on native plant and wildlife species at the site-specific, stand, landscape, and ecosystem levels; and

b) the effects of public use activities on plant and wildlife species.

pIncorporate research results into the feedback loop to enable adaptive management.

pEnsure that Refuge-supported research results are readily available and understandable (e.g. scientific publications, lectures, fact sheets) to target audiences.

Interim Goal 5: Working cooperatively with partners, the Refuge fulfills the role of an effective conservation leader in the Northern Forest and upper Connecticut River watershed.

pHonor commitments made in AThe Conservation Partnership for the Nulhegan Basin and the Paul Stream Area@ agreement between the Service and the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (January 28, 1999).

pDevelop and maintain positive relationships that will aid in accomplishment of Service/Refuge programs in the Northern Forest by working with Champion Lands partners, conservation groups and other relevant non-governmental organizations, and local, state, and other federal government entities.

pAcquire funding and staffing levels necessary to accomplish Service/Refuge goals and objectives.

C-1

Appendix C - Regional Economics

1. Employment by sector Coos, Essex, Orleans, and Caledonia counties 1970-1998 (Phillips 2000).

2. For Essex County, employment is reported as follows (Phillips, 2000):

Manufacturing 57.2%

Government 20.2%

Trade 9.1%

Services 5%

Contract Construction 3.1%

Transportation and Utilities 2.9%

Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 1.4% (22 jobs)

Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 1.1%.

This only accounts for those covered by unemployment insurance, omitting most agricultural production firms and the self-employed.

D-1

Appendix D - Regional Demographics

The table below summarizes the education, age profiles, and the ethnicity of Vermont residents for the four county study area used by Phillips (2000).

Education (percent of population, 25 years +)(Phillips, 2000)

4 + years of college....................................................................14%

some college, < 4 yrs.................................................................17%

high school only........................................................................40 %

< high school.............................................................................27%

Age Group as of 1998 and % change, 1980-1998 (Phillips, 2000)

<18 ..........................(-12%)...................................................20,500

18-34.........................(-27%)..................................................15,500

35-64.........................(+34%).................................................35,500

65 and older..............(+22%).................................................14,500

Ethnicity - Vermont from Vermont Recreation Plan, 1993

White/Caucasian......................................................................98.6%

Hispanic.....................................................................................0.7%

Native American........................................................................0.3%

Asian..........................................................................................0.6%

African American......................................................................0.3%

Other..........................................................................................0.1%

 

E-1

Appendix E - Summary of the Vermont State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan

1. Findings

b. Limits to:

acceptable change, human carrying capacity, growth, sustainability, impacts of development

b. Concerns about:

encroachments, incompatible uses, inappropriate uses, and overuse

loss of scenic landscapes

posting land

regulations that protect certain natural/cultural resources restricting public use

investments in forest-based recreation will burden the public agencies

c. Trends in:

recreational uses of public lands require conflict resolution and management tradeoffs

public use of some parks show more congestion, overcrowding and resource degradation

d. Benefits of:

recreation and tourism - economic diversification and a strong forest-based economy

e. Needs for:

sharing information about compatibility between recreation/tourism and wood products industry

information on existing recreation/tourism opportunities for visitors

information on appropriate public use behavior on public lands for users and providers

2. The Demand

c. Trends in:

almost all recreational activities increase

cross-country skiing, hiking, backpacking through 2040 - greatest growth rates

hunting and trapping - decline with increase in age, more urban life-style

Aconsumerism@ showing desire for convenience over complexity

Aback-to-nature@ recreation increasing

Adestination-oriented@ tourists/recreationists increasing impacts on environment

privatization of public lands for ecotourism increasing

recreational use of public lands - increasing 5% per year (Green Mtn. National Forest projection)

posting private lands - increasing

recreational splinter groups - increasing

recreational use of and benefits to forest-based economy - increasing

b. Support for:

expansion of environmental education and interpretation

more programs for the active aging baby boomers

more culturally diverse programs

more opportunities for the disabled

3. The Supply of outdoor recreation resources and facilities in Vermont

d. Land and Water

Nearly 19 percent of Vermont's land base, including federal, state, municipal, and private holdings, is permanently conserved. State-owned properties are found in all 14 counties.

Vermont has 285 lakes larger than 20 acres. Nine are classified as wilderness.

The state provides 38 forests, 55 parks, 151 boating access areas, 5 fish hatcheries, 31 pond sites, 12 stream banks, 84 wildlife management areas, 88 dam properties, and 22 miscellaneous properties. There are 33 State Natural Areas, comprising more than 18,000 acres within State Parks and Forests.

e. Wildlife

Black bears need large forested blocks of sufficient size to meet the home range and food requirements of female bears and cubs. Vermont's turkey population continues to expand and is found in every county of the state. The white-tailed deer populations increased approximately 50 percent from 1989 to 1998. The annual net growth of statewide moose population is estimated at 10 percent. Ninety-two percent of all towns in Vermont report moose sightings or sign.

f. Public Use

Use of public land has increased: some facilities have fallen into disrepair; there are some safety concerns; and some maintenance is lacking. The special events and park naturalist programs are still in place and increasing in popularity. Many day-use areas have private food concessions, and boat rentals. Many sites provide access for the disabled. Many historical buildings in the parks have been preserved, rehabilitated, interpreted, and retrofitted for public use. Visitors have pointed out a need for more laundries, stores, water and electric hookups, remote and canoe or kayak camping, horse riding and "horse camping" at state parks. (Vermont Parks Long Range Plan)

4. The Implementation-partial list

e. Recommendations:

Assess, report on and propose law changes for water quality within the Northern Forest

Develop a plan and address environmental/ economic impact of recreation on the natural environment

Promote natural resource education for the general public (all ages) including appropriate behaviors, uses, and ethics for using public land for recreation

Designate formal access points, including handicapped accessible sites

Cooperate with partnering organizations to maintain recreational trails

Continue to evaluate visitor opinions

Develop more partners and networks and expand relationships with communities

Use conservation tools to enable public purchase of recreation rights (fishing, boating access, snowmobile, cross-country skiing, hiking trails)

Acquire public land or easements for outdoor recreation and resource protection (emphasize water access, trails, wildlife habitat, unique resources)

Protect undeveloped/remote ponds, rivers and shoreline

Provide primitive camping opportunities

Protect long-distance trail systems, mountaintops and ridgelines

Provide linkages between public lands, loop trails, and planned water recreation trails

F-1

Appendix F - Cultural Resources

Vermont=s Northeast Kingdom has a rich and diverse history of human use and occupation, which the Nulhegan Basin shares. However, scientific field investigations are lacking and most of the information submitted in the Scharoun et. al. (2001) report was gleaned from historic documents, interviews with local citizens, or inferences from other studies in the region. The following information was taken from that report.

Native Americans

Little is known of Native American activities in the Nulhegan Basin prior to Euro-American settlement. There is direct evidence of occupation in Vermont and New Hampshire during earliest era of occupation, known as the Paleoindian Period (circa 9000-7000 B.C.), but none of it from the upper portions of the Connecticut River. Based on information provided by the sovereign Abenaki Nation, areas with the highest likelihood of Paleoindian evidence are high grounds near Lewis Pond and the confluence of the Nulhegan and Connecticut rivers. The Nulhegan Basin area was likely an important hunting and fishing region for the Cowasucks. As Natives were displaced from their ancestral regions following contact with Anglos, the region probably served as an important refuge for other tribes.

Euro-American Period

During the late 1700s permanent settlement by Euro-Americans began in earnest. From about 1780 to 1850 people were primarily engaged in agricultural enterprises including farming, raising livestock, and water-powered mills for grain and lumber.

Logging

The logging industry probably had the most significant affect on the economy, culture, and natural resources. Large expanses of forest were owned by individual companies beginning with George Van Dyke and continuing through the tenure of Champion International Corporation. Initially, lumber was finished at small, local sawmills. Beginning about 1850, large sawmill complexes were constructed to serve the burgeoning logging industry. Railroads made their appearance during this period and had an immediate impact on the timber industry. Timber in the Nulhegan and Paul Stream areas, previously too remote to harvest, was efficiently transported by rail to markets.

At the turn of the century the high demand for timber products resulted in legendary log drives that transported huge quantities of softwoods to large mills farther south on the Connecticut River. These log drives required dam construction on smaller tributaries in proximity to harvest. Logs were stockpiled behind the dam, and during spring high water, dams were breached allowing logs to flow down to the Connecticut River. This process had a significant impact on river channel morphology and riparian vegetation.

Today, mechanized harvesting and logging trucks have replaced the river drives. Trees cut in one area are often driven to distant mills, eroding the local economic benefit of wood product manufacturing. Even so, the logging industry continues to play a role in the Essex County economy.

Manufacturing

In addition to timber, there were numerous other enterprises in the Nulhegan area. Manufacturing included production of potash and pearl ash, maple sugar, tannin from hemlocks for tanning hides, and hardwood for boxes and barrels to transport West Indies sugar. Brunswick Springs was touted as a therapeutic cure for ailments.

Camps

Hunting, fishing, and trapping were important sources of food and trade goods for the residents. Some timber companies, including St. Regis and Champion leased small plots of land for people to erect cabins. These Adeer camps@ have traditionally been the center of activity during the game harvest seasons, but now also function as vacation cabins. This arrangement had mutual benefits: people were allowed to construct recreational cabins in a remote, wild setting; and the presence of camp owners provided timber companies with some protection of company assets.

Travelways

The Nulhegan River was a link in an ancient long-distance waterway linking the St. Lawrence and St. Francis drainages in Canada with the Androscoggin River and the coast of Maine. This area continued to play a role in regional transportation following Anglo settlement. The Magog Road, which traversed the Nulhegan Basin, provided Montreal with access to ice-free ports in Maine, making it an essential link in Canadian trade. The first international railway in the United States (the Grand Trunk Railroad) was completed in Island Pond in 1853, establishing a connection between Montreal and Portland, Maine.

Cultural Resource Evidence

The authors included several lines of evidence for historical and archeological resources. Although little work has been done on-site, literature sources and interviews with long-time residents were used to give perspective to the historic context. From this information the authors provided insight on the settlement patterns, land use, and cultural traits of the region. This paints a relatively complete picture of the Nulhegan Basin area since Euro-American settlement, but our knowledge of Native American use is more limited.

Native Americans inhabited and traversed the area for several thousand years, but there has been virtually no archeological research in the area. As a means of giving structure to their report the authors produced sensitivity maps, in geographic information system (GIS) format, that ranked the archeological potential of a site based on factors known to influence use in the Northeast (e.g. slope, alluvial terrace, waterfalls, river rapids). There are several areas on the Nulhegan Basin Division property classified as High and Very High sensitivity. The sensitivity analysis was followed by limited field validation, which yielded no archeological finds. Because the sample size was small and the excavation limited the results were not surprising. The authors recommended additional investigation using their sensitivity maps as the basis for structured sampling. As mentioned earlier, two Abenaki leaders also were consulted, and provided information on two areas of historical settlement. Several long-time area residents provided locations and other details on dams, mill sites, and other developments. No mills were found on the Nulhegan Refuge, there are however, remnants of dams.

Activity-Related Management Recommendations

Several recommendations were included in the report for consideration prior to implementing land management. Additional field work was recommended especially in high sensitivity areas and especially prior to ground disturbance. Also, appropriate protocols for reporting artifact or human remain discoveries were set forth.

G1

Appendix G - Sample of Southern Vermont College Windshield Card Visitor Surveys

For January through March-

The Natural Resource Conservation class of Southern Vermont College is conducting a survey of outdoor recreation activities in the Nulhegan Basin Division of the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge. This information will be used as part of a class project and may be used in public use planning. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. Please mail this postage paid survey when complete. If you have previously completed this survey, you may give it to someone else in your party. For more information, contact Dr. John B. Davis (802) 447-6365. Thank you.

19. Including today, how many days are you planning to visit the Nulhegan Basin Division on your current trip? If you visit for only part of a day, count it as an entire day. _____ days

20. About how many miles did you travel to reach the Nulhegan Basin Division on your current trip? __less than 50 miles __ 50-200 miles __ more than 200 miles

21. Which outdoor activities did you participate in today on the Refuge? Please check all that apply. _ Wildlife observation _ Photography _ Fishing

_ Skiing/ Snowshoeing _ Snowmobiling _ Trapping

22. Please indicate where you originated your snowmobile trip today?

_ Island Pond _ Private camp on Refuge _ Canaan

_ Norton _ south of Highway 105 _ Other: _____________

23. Are you visiting the Nulhegan Basin Division with anyone else today? If so, how many persons are with you today? ______

For April through December-

The Natural Resource Conservation class of Southern Vermont College is conducting a survey of outdoor recreation activities in the Nulhegan Basin Division of the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge. This information will be used as part of a class project and may be used in public use planning. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. Please mail this postage paid survey when complete. If you have previously completed this survey, you may give it to someone else in your party. For more information, contact Dr. John B. Davis (802) 447-6365. Thank you.

24. Including today, how many days are you planning to visit the Nulhegan Basin Division on your current trip? If you visit for only part of a day, count it as an entire day. _____ days

25. About how many miles did you travel to reach the Nulhegan Basin Division on your current trip? __less than 50 miles __ 50-200 miles __ more than 200 miles

26. Which outdoor activities did you participate in today on the Refuge? Please check all that apply.

_ Wildlife observation _ Photography _ Fishing _Hunting _Dog training

_ Walking/Jogging _ Snowmobiling _ Trapping _Boating _Private camp

27. Please indicate whether you visited these places on the refuge today?

_Lewis Pond _Mollie Beattie Bog Trail

28. Are you visiting the Nulhegan Basin Division with anyone else today? If so, how many persons are with you today? ______

H-1

Appendix H - Interpretive Objectives derived from the Silvio O. Conte Draft Interim Outreach Master Plan

1. Interpretive Objectives

Visitors will know that:

b. the purpose of the National Wildlife Refuge System is distinct from other conservation agencies, and value the benefits provided to people;

b. the primary purpose of the Conte Refuge is to work with partners to conserve, protect, and enhance the biodiversity in the Connecticut River watershed;

c. conservation of the Nulhegan Refuge contributes to the biological integrity, natural diversity and environmental health of the Connecticut River watershed;

d. the Nulhegan Refuge places special emphasis on conservation, management, and as appropriate, restoration and enhancement of federal trust species, state-listed species, species of regional and local significance, habitats of priority species, and rare or exemplary natural communities;

e. Conte=s local partners in Nulhegan Refuge and the work they do to conserve biodiversity; and

f. other Conte Refuge visitor centers offer more information about other key resources and habitat issues in the Connecticut River watershed.

2. General Audience Interpretive Objectives

a. Natural Diversity

Visitors will:

Understand the concept of natural diversity / biodiversity and that native species/natural communities are important assets;

Value natural diversity / biodiversity and feel that people can help preserve natural

diversity; and

Recognize the management activities at the Nulhegan Refuge that provide favorable conditions for the species listed in Interim Goal 1.

b. Different Habitats for Different Life Stages

Visitors will:

Understand what habitat is, why it is important, how species= requirements change during different life stages,, and how Conte Refuge and its partners are protecting habitats for species in Nulhegan Refuge and the Connecticut River watershed.

c. Threats to Biodiversity

Visitors will:

Understand that any habitat changes can cause changes in species composition and populations; and

Understand that it important to minimize human impacts on wildlife.

d. Stewardship

Visitors will:

Understand what Conte, Service and partners are doing to address complex conservation problems in Nulhegan Refuge; and

C Recognize that people, partners and Conte Refuge can work together to protect

biodiversity in Nulhegan Refuge.

Outreach and interpretation programs and facilities will foster public understanding of and support for the Refuge, Ecosystem Team, Regional, and the National Wildlife Refuge System goals, and increase public awareness of the need for and benefits of habitat and wildlife conservation and management, especially regarding priority species and habitats listed in Interim Goal 1 (see Appendix B).

Appendices I-N

See II Compatibility Determinations

Appendix O. Summary Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Visitor Services Plan/Compatibility Determinations/and Environmental Assessment

The Nulhegan Basin Division (Nulhegan Refuge) of the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge (Conte Refuge) released a draft of a Visitor Services Plan, which included six compatibility determinations, and an environmental assessment (DVSP/EA) on October 9, 2001 to the public for review and comment. The comment period extended from October 9 to November 19, a total of 42 days.

Public input to the draft documents was requested through a range of outlets. Press releases were sent to the Barton Chronicle, Newport Daily Express, Caledonia Record, Northern Beacon, Coos County Democrat, and New Hampshire News and Sentinel. Notifications were sent to people on the Conte Refuge mailing list (approximately 1,600 in Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut). The state also sent announcements of the release of the Nulhegan Refuge documents in conjunction with the release of their draft planning documents for the West Mountain Wildlife Management Area and Essex Timber Company lands. Their mailing list included all the people who had signed up at any of the many meetings held during development of the draft documents.

The public was given the opportunity to send comments directly to the Conte Refuge via traditional mail service or email. People also provided input at six public meetings, hosted by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources and attended by Conte Refuge staff. These meetings, advertised by the state in the same newspapers listed above, were held in Island Pond, Lyndonville, Springfield, Rutland, Waterbury, and Essex Junction.

Both the Conte Refuge and the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources posted the availability of the DVSP/EA and information regarding comment submission on their respective web sites. The documents were available electronically on the Conte Refuge web site. The DVSP/EA package also was available at the Nulhegan Refuge office in Island Pond, Vermont and the Conte Refuge office in Turners Falls, Massachusetts.

We received nine letters or email correspondences and 18 oral comments on the DVSP/EA from interested individuals, organizations, and the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife. Most commentors focused on support or opposition of specific public uses, while others provided technical clarification to improve the documents. Comments have been summarized into ten categories to limit the length of this response document and to avoid redundancy. Although individual comments are not necessarily distinguishable in the summary format, the record maintained at the Conte Refuge Headquarters contains the original public comments and how they were categorized.

We considered all comments, suggestions, and corrections to the DVSP/EA. Document improvements from draft to final are, to a large degree, the result of incorporating recommendations received from the public.

Summary Comments and Responses

Comment 1. It was suggested that the DVSP/EA does not conform with the requirements of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Act), applicable Code of Federal Regulations, or the Fish and Wildlife Service policy.

Planning at the Nulhegan Refuge, like most refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System, is out of sync with the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) process. This is due to the fact that the System=s current planning direction was not formally adopted until June 21, 2000 (602 FW 1). It was not feasible for the agency to begin the planning process at all refuges simultaneously due to limitations of people and resources. A CCP schedule was adopted by the Northeast Region and the Nulhegan Refuge is currently scheduled to begin about 2005.

There was a suggestion that a Conceptual Management Plan (CMP) (602 FW 1(1.7)(C)) was required because the refuge does not have an approved CCP. CMPs describe refuge purposes, interim goals, and pre-existing compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses that will be allowed to continue on an interim basis. The ASilvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge Final Action Plan and Environmental Impact Statement@ (Conte EIS) and the AFinal Environmental Assessment, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Participation in a Partnership to Protect Athe Champion Lands@ in Essex County, Vermont, Options for Protecting the Nulhegan Basin Special Focus Area@ (Nulhegan EA) established interim management guidance for the refuge. However, these documents were not termed a CMP, nor were they structured to fully meet the manual=s recommended contents because they were completed in 1995 and 1999, respectively and the CMP manual section was not adopted until June 21, 2000. However, the Conte EIS and Nulhegan EA, combined with information in the VSP/EA (e.g. Appendix B - Interim Goals of the Nulhegan Basin Division), provide the refuge with the interim guidance envisioned in the current planning manual. Management direction will be revisited during the Comprehensive Conservation Plan process currently scheduled to begin about 2005, but until then the referenced documents provide the Nulhegan Refuge with sufficient interim management direction.

Based on the information provided above, the VSP/EA fully comply with the requirements of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, applicable Code of Federal Regulations, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policy.

Comment 2. Concern was raised that the Draft Visitor Services Plan does not follow the processes required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Response: The National Environmental Policy Act requires the examination of the impacts of any proposed federal action. The appropriate level of analysis depends on the anticipated magnitude of the impacts. The analysis must be made before the decision to allow the activity is made. Development of a Visitor Services Plan, in and of itself, does not necessarily trigger a NEPA analysis. Such analysis is only required on any new or modified federal actions proposed that have not previously undergone NEPA analysis .

A Compatibility Determination (CD) is an analysis and decision document used to determine whether or not a proposed or existing use of a national wildlife refuge will materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the National Wildlife Refuge System mission or the purposes of the national wildlife refuge (603 FW 2.6 A and B). Compatibility determinations are required for all refuge public uses (603 FW 2.9). A Compatibility Determination is not an action under NEPA, rather it is one of many factors that we take into account whenever we consider taking an action (603 FW 2.18).

The Draft Visitor Services Plan included several actions requiring NEPA compliance: siting and construction of the Headquarters/Visitor Contact Station, priority public uses (wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation), snowmobile access, vehicular access, recreational camp leases, and pedestrian access.

A draft environmental assessment (one form of NEPA analysis) for the Headquarters/Visitor Contact Station was included in the draft VSP/EA package for public review and comment. A Finding of No Significant Impact is included with the Final VSP/EA.

Four priority public uses (i.e. wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education and interpretation) and vehicular and snowmobile access were existing uses at the time the Nulhegan Refuge was established. All were considered and analyzed in the Nulhegan EA (1999). Interim CDs were issued for these four priority public uses and snowmobile access at that time. The updated CDs for these uses incorporate over two years of staff experience since the Nulhegan Refuge was established (Note: Hunting and fishing, the other two priority public uses, also were addressed in the Nulhegan EA and will be re-evaluated during the CCP process). Refuge staff considered all the information available today and determined that there were no substantial changes in these allowed uses, nor any new information that would substantially alter the previous conclusions about impacts. Therefore, the analysis included in the recent 1999 Nulhegan EA is still valid and there is no need to complete another NEPA analysis for these public uses at this time.

Vehicular and pedestrian access also were existing uses at the time the Nulhegan Refuge was purchased. Vehicle use on the Refuge was analyzed in the Nulhegan EA, but no compatibility determination was issued. Because no substantial changes in this allowed use have been proposed at this time and no substantial new information came to light during development of the Vehicular Access CD, the 1999 Nulhegan EA analysis is still valid and there is no need to complete another NEPA document at this time.

Pedestrian access was not considered in the Nulhegan EA, so a new NEPA analysis was warranted. This was an existing use on the land prior to purchase, and no changes in pedestrian access from that allowed by the former owner are now proposed, except for exclusion on snowmobile trails during the winter snowmobiling season. Although Champion did not expressly prohibit pedestrians on snowmobile trails, dual use was discouraged for obvious safety reasons. Because only a minor change in use is being considered, this action is categorically excluded under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Categorical Exclusion B(10) (another form of NEPA compliance) - AThe issuance of new or revised site, unit, or activity specific management plans for public use, land use, or other management activities when only minor changes are planned.@ Therefore, a categorical exclusion is the appropriate level of NEPA analysis and the final package will include the categorical exclusion.

Privately-owned camp use was evaluated in the 1999 Nulhegan EA. An interim compatibility determination was not completed at that time, since the existing camp leases from Champion International Corporation were still in force when the property was acquired. On August 4, 2001, prior to the replacement of these leases with Service-issued Special Use Permits, a CD on this topic was completed. This CD incorporated the required notices for public review. We included the privately-owned camps CD in the Draft Visitor Services Plan (Appendix I) for informational purposes only. This document is up-to-date and there was no reason to reconsider it at this time. As for most of the uses discussed above, the analysis included in the 1999 Nulhegan EA is still valid and there is no need to complete another NEPA analysis for this use at this time.

Another currently allowed use, furbearer management, was not discussed in depth in the draft VSP. NEPA compliance for furbearer management activities was established through a Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact issued in October 2000, prior to the issuance of Special Use Permits allowing trapping.

Although compliance with NEPA requirements was not clearly explained in the Draft Visitor Services Plan, all NEPA mandates were fully met and are complete in the Final Visitor Services Plan.

Comment 3. Some people supported privately-owned camps, snowmobile and vehicular access, while others were opposed to these public uses.

Response: There were two distinct philosophies expressed during the public comment period. People tended to either support or oppose these uses on the Nulhegan Refuge. We have made significant efforts to listen to, respect, and balance the views of both sides. Considering all of the public input within the framework of our regulations and policies, we believe we have made appropriate decisions, both in accommodating and conditioning/restricting uses.

Comment 4. There were questions regarding the validity of our conclusions about the effects of snowmobiling on wildlife resources and the Nulhegan Refuge.

Response: The interim Compatibility Determination (CD) published with the 1999 final environmental assessment for the Nulhegan Basin Division was based on the best information available at that time. However, there was no first hand knowledge of snowmobiling in the Nulhegan Basin by Refuge staff. Now the Refuge Manager has over two years worth of experience observing, monitoring, and managing snowmobile use. In addition, the manager completed a literature review to supplement the information available for the draft CD. The effects of snowmobiling on Nulhegan Refuge wildlife resources and the rationale for our conclusions are clearly presented in the draft and final CD. We feel that, based on all of the information available to us and the professional judgement of the Refuge Manager, snowmobile access (as allowed under the restrictions and conditions described) is a compatible use on the refuge (see VSP, Appendix L).

Comment 5. Some commentors were concerned that non-motorized uses were not given much consideration in the documents, especially when compared with snowmobiling and vehicular access.

Response: It is true that more of the text in the draft Visitor Services Plan (VSP) and Compatibility Determinations (CD) is dedicated to motorized uses than non-motorized recreation. There are several reasons for this; however, it does not mean that the Nulhegan Refuge is ignoring non-motorized uses. The reality is that motorized access requires a number of limitations/restrictions to comply with Federal regulations and State statutes, and to ensure the safety and well-being of wildlife and other visitors (e.g. limit motorized travel to designated roads/snowmobile trails, speed limits). There also are more issues to consider, such as noise and air pollution, that are specific to motorized recreation. We realized that motorized activities on a National Wildlife Refuge would engender controversy and that the public would expect a full disclosure and analysis of the available information. Also, each public activity/use on a refuge requires a separate CD, so there are individual, comprehensive determinations for vehicular and snowmobile access.

In contrast, non-motorized uses such as pedestrian, canoe and paddle craft access require minimal restrictions, have fewer issues to evaluate, and evoke little controversy. In contrast to motorized recreation, that is concentrated on roads, nearly the entire Nulhegan Refuge is open to non-motorized access. The only restricted area is the winter exclusion of pedestrians from VAST snowmobile trails that encompass only about 50 acres of the Refuge. People are not restricted from these same trails nor any of the road network outside the winter season. Unlike vehicles, pedestrians are not limited to the developed access points; hikers, skiers, and snowshoers can enter the refuge anywhere on the boundary.

Although the discussions/analyses of motorized recreation are more voluminous in the draft VSP/CD/EA, it is incorrect to conclude that these activities are a special refuge emphasis. The reality is that these activities are limited to designated areas, during certain seasons, and include several restrictions. Pedestrians, on the other hand, have virtually the entire refuge open to them, year-round, with few constraints.

 

Comment 6. Several people/organizations asked us to consider additional uses, prohibit specific uses (other than those covered under Comment 2), or to clarify certain aspects of an allowed use.

Response: The refuge was asked to consider several other public uses and modify the draft direction for others during the public comment period. These included:

Canoes and Paddle Craft - There was a question about the omission of canoes and other paddle craft as means to access the Nulhegan Refuge. Canoes and kayaks are identified as acceptable on the Nulhegan River and its tributaries, and Lewis Pond (Appendix M), but non-motorized watercraft were inadvertently omitted from Table 1 in the Draft VSP. Table 1 in the Final VSP identifies non-motorized watercraft as an allowable activity.

Gasoline Powered Boats - A campowner on Lewis Pond expressed concern with the outright ban of gas powered motors on boats because that is how they and other campowners on the west side of Lewis Pond access their camps and transport supplies and materials . He also provided us with a 1992 decision by the state water resources board authorizing gasoline powered motors with a speed limit of 5 miles per hour on Lewis Pond (State of Vermont Water Resources Board, December 22, 1992). We were unaware of the state decision, and the dependence on boats for transporting supplies to and from these camps. The final VSP makes provisions for permittees to access their camps on the west side of Lewis Pond with motor boats, however there will be a 5 mile per hour speed limit. This activity will be administered on a case-by-case basis through separate Special Use Permits, and the activity will cease when the few camps in question are eventually phased out. However, there will be no change in the prohibition of gas powered boats for recreational purposes on Lewis Pond or any other waterbody on the Nulhegan Refuge.

Recreational Horseback Riding - Requests were made to allow horses on the refuge as will be the case on the adjacent state and privately owned timberlands. Horses were not allowed by the former owners, Champion International Corporation (due, at least in part, to safety concerns). The easements for the state lands and privately-owned timberlands made a commitment to allow recreational horseback riding; however, these easements do not apply to the Nulhegan Refuge. Opening the State and private lands to equestrian use substantially increases the area available for equestrian recreation in the Nulhegan vicinity. Currently, there appears to be little demand for additional equestrian trails in the vicinity. There has been some discussion by proponents of using part of the refuge road network to complete a north-south trail system, but no formal proposals have been submitted. At this time equestrians will not be allowed on the refuge. This use can be reconsidered during the Comprehensive Conservation Plan process, scheduled to begin about 2005.

Bicycles - Some people requested that bicycles be allowed on gravel roads open to motor vehicles. As with horses, bicycles were not allowed by the former owners (due, at least in part, to safety concerns), so there was no previous authorized use on the Nulhegan Refuge. The easements for the state lands and privately-owned timberlands made a commitment to allow recreational bicycling; however, these easements do not apply to the Nulhegan Refuge. Bicycles will be allowed on the adjacent state and private timberlands, so the area available to bicyclists in the Nulhegan Basin is considerably larger than it was prior to 1999. There does not appear to be a compelling reason to open the refuge to bicyclists in support of priority wildlife-dependent recreation at this time. Bicycling can be reevaluated during the Comprehensive Conservation Plan process.

Motorsports - It was suggested that motorsports be permitted on the refuge. Under the final VSP and compatibility determinations, vehicles that meet the licensing requirements for use on public roads in Vermont (i.e. cars, trucks, and certain motorcycles) will be allowed access. Vehicular access will be to facilitate priority wildlife-dependent public uses, rather than as a recreational activity as suggested by the term motorsports. All-terrain vehicles were not granted access by Champion and the refuge will retain this policy. We feel that there are ample opportunities for people to access the refuge without adding other modes of transportation.

Campfires - Campfires are permitted on the adjacent West Mountain Wildlife Management Area, and it was recommended that the refuge should adopt a consistent policy. There also will be camping on the state lands. In contrast, Nulhegan Refuge will have no camping so there will not be any developed sites. Campfires outside of developed camp sites present a wildfire risk and we do not want to incur this risk. Therefore, camp fires will be prohibited on the refuge.

Dogs - There was concern about the proposed leash requirements for dogs. People felt that leashes were too restrictive and did not necessarily ensure control. Based on public input and further consideration we will not require leashes at this time. Instead, dogs must be accompanied and under control while on the refuge. Refuge staff will monitor compliance with this Aaccompanied and under control@ stipulation during the period prior to the development of the CCP. If non-compliance is a problem and dogs off leash are causing negative impacts to wildlife and other visitors, the leash restriction will be reconsidered.

There also was a concern about the use of pursuit dogs for bear hunting. Hunting is not one of the public uses being considered in the Visitor Services Plan. This issue will be thoroughly evaluated during the development of a Hunting Management Plan, which will follow the Comprehensive Conservation Plan process. Until then, hunting on the Nulhegan Refuge will be guided by the 1999 Nulhegan EA and the associated Interim Compatibility Determination for Hunting and Fishing and will be conducted according to state seasons and regulations.

Comment 7. Some people disagreed with the conclusions drawn in the draft compatibility determinations.

Response: Comment responses specific to the draft compatibility determinations can be found in the Public Review and Comment section of the individual compatibility determinations (Appendices I through N of the Visitor Services Plan).

Comment 8. Recommendations that resulted in edits, additions, or clarification in the draft Visitor Services Plan, Compatibility Determinations, or Environmental Assessment.

There were several suggestions made by commentors that improved the final version. For example, it was noted that Mollie Beattie was not a native of Vermont as originally stated in the VSP/EA. Another commentor asked us to recognize the importance of the Nulhegan Refuge to public hunting because there is a trend towards closing access to private lands elsewhere in the state. These and several other corrections, technical clarifications, and information additions have been incorporated into the final documents.

Comment 9. There were some comments that warranted no specific action in these documents.

We received comments that required no follow-up actions. Examples include praise for the quality of the documents, support for a law enforcement officer, and agreement that the refuge should be managed for wildlife. There also was a recommendation that trapping be considered a recreational activity instead of solely being regarded as a management tool. Trapping is not one of the six priority public uses as specified by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). Trapping on the Nulhegan Refuge will continue to be regarded as a management tool, and administered under the Special Use Permit system, as required.

Comment 10. Some comments were unrelated to the Visitor Services Plan and accompanying documents.

Some comments were outside the scope of the draft VSP/EA package. For instance, opposition to federal ownership of the Nulhegan Basin was raised. This issue was completely dealt with in the 1999 Nulhegan Environmental Assessment and was not related to the draft VSP/EA. Opposition to a ACore Area@ on the Nulhegan Refuge was expressed. As with the previous example, this is outside the scope of the VSP/EA. Habitat management will be addressed during development of a Habitat Management Plan that will follow the Comprehensive Conservation Plan process currently scheduled to begin in 2005.