Wapack National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

              Wapack National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Assessment
March 2008
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for
conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the
continuing benefit of the American people. The Service manages the 97-million acre National
Wildlife Refuge System comprised of more than 548 national wildlife refuges and thousands
of waterfowl production areas. It also operates 69 national fish hatcheries and 81 ecological
services field stations. The agency enforces Federal wildlife laws, manages migratory bird
populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat
such as wetlands, administers the Endangered Species Act, and helps foreign governments
with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Assistance Program which
distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment
to state wildlife agencies.
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long term guidance for management decisions
and set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes and
identify the Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning
levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are
primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do
not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases,
or funding for future land acquisition.
This goose, designed by J.N. “Ding” Darling,
has become the symbol of the National Wildlife
Refuge System.
Cover Picture: View from North Pack Monadnock. Nancy McGarigal/USFWS
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation
Plan and Environmental Assessment
March 2008
Refuge Vision Statement
Encompassing the North Pack Monadnock Mountain in southern New Hamp-shire,
the Wapack National Wildlife Refuge provides exceptional mature
spruce-fir and northern hardwood-mixed habitat for wildlife, particularly mi-gratory
birds. We will manage the refuge to preserve its natural conditions in a
setting which appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature.
All visitors are welcome to enjoy opportunities to observe and photograph
nature along refuge trails, including a 4-mile segment of the Wapack trail. The
rock outcrop and cliff on the mountain peak afford an ideal location to view mi-grating
hawks each fall. Old and new partnerships with other federal agencies,
state agencies, local conservation organization, and volunteers will foster public
stewardship of this refuge and its resources, and enhance public understanding
of the role of the National Wildlife Refuge System in conserving our nation’s
trust resources.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and
Environmental Assessment
March 2008
Type of Action:  Administrative – Development of a Comprehensive

 Conservation Plan
Lead Agency:  U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
Location:  Wapack National Wildlife Refuge
 Greenfield and Temple, NH
Administrative Headquarters: Parker River National Wildlife Refuge
 Newburyport, MA
Responsible Official: Marvin Moriarty, Regional Director, Region 5, Northeast
For Further Information: Nancy McGarigal, Natural Resource Planner
 Northeast Regional Office
 300 Westgate Center Drive
 Hadley, MA 01035
 (413) 253-8562
 northeastplanning@fws.gov




This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment (EA)
analyzes two alternatives for managing the 1,625 acre Wapack National Wildlife Refuge
over the next 15 years. This document also contains four appendixes that provide additional
information supporting our analysis. Following is a brief overview of each alternative:
Alternative A: This alternative is referred to as our “No Action” or “Current Management”
alternative, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This alternative
would maintain the status quo in managing this 1,625 acre refuge for the next 15 years. No
major changes would be made to current management practices.
Alternative B: This is the Service-preferred alternative. It represents the planning team’s
recommended strategies and actions for achieving refuge purposes, vision and goals and
responding to public issues. Under this alternative, we focus on making improvements to our
biological as well as our visitor services program through the expansion of partnerships with
other federal agencies, state agencies, town departments, local conservation organizations,
and individuals. We would utilize partnerships for continued maintenance of trails and the
development and maintenance of a parking area. We would also work to increase Service
presence and visibility at the refuge and in the local community. Although we would not pursue
additional land acquisition at this time, we would work with partners to help them identify
land that should be protected for wildlife conservation and help them choose the best methods/
techniques for managing those areas.
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 The Purpose of and Need for Action  Page
Introduction............................................................................................................................... 1-1
The Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action............................................................. 1-3
The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding our Planning...... 1-3
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project...................................................... 1-7
Refuge Establishment Purposes and its Land Acquisition History.................................... 1-9
Refuge Administration.............................................................................................................. 1-10
Refuge Operational Plans (“Step down” Plans)................................................................... 1-10
Refuge Vision Statement and Goals....................................................................................... 1-10
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process......................................................... 1-11
Issues.......................................................................................................................................... 1-12
Issues Outside the Scope of this Analysis or Not Completely Within the
Jurisdiction of the Service....................................................................................................... 1-15
Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative
Introduction............................................................................................................................... 2-1
Formulating Alternatives.......................................................................................................... 2-1
Actions Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study.................................................... 2-2
Actions Common to Both Alternatives................................................................................... 2-3
Alternative A: Current Management...................................................................................... 2-8
Alternative B: Service-preferred Alternative........................................................................ 2-12
Highlights of Respective Alternatives’ Actions as they Relate to Goals.......................... 2-22
Chapter 3 Affected Environment
Introduction............................................................................................................................... 3-1
Geology and Land Use Setting................................................................................................ 3-1
Regional Demographics & Economic Setting....................................................................... 3-3
Refuge Staffing and Operations.............................................................................................. 3-5
Habitat Types and Vegetation.................................................................................................. 3-5
Wildlife Resources.................................................................................................................... 3-9
Visitor Services......................................................................................................................... 3-10
Cultural or Historic Resources................................................................................................ 3-11
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Introduction............................................................................................................................... 4-1
Effects on Socioeconomic Environment................................................................................ 4-2
Effects on Air Quality................................................................................................................. 4-3
Effects on Physical Resources................................................................................................ 4-3
Effects on Natural Soundscape.............................................................................................. 4-5
Effects on Biological Resources............................................................................................. 4-5
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences (continued)  Page
Effects on Public Use and Access.......................................................................................... 4-10
Effects on Cultural and Historic Resources.......................................................................... 4-12
Cumulative Impacts................................................................................................................... 4-12
Short-Term and Long-Term Productivity................................................................................ 4-14
Unavoidable Impacts................................................................................................................ 4-14
Potential Irretrievable and Irreversible Impacts.................................................................. 4-14
Summary of Environmental Consequences by Alternatives.............................................. 4-15
Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination with Others
A Public Involvement Summary.............................................................................................. 5-1
Refuge Partnerships.................................................................................................................. 5-1
Refuge CCP Planning Team...................................................................................................... 5-1
Assistance from Others............................................................................................................ 5-2
Glossary & Acronyms........................................................................................................... Glos-1
Bibliography.......................................................................................................................... Biblio-1

Appendixes
Appendix A. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations................. A-1
Appendix B. Wilderness Review............................................................................................. B-1
Appendix C. Species of Conservation Concern.................................................................... C-1
Appendix D. Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS).................... D-1
List of Figures
Figure 1.1. The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process...................................... 1-11
List of Tables
Table 2.1. Highlights of respective alternatives’ actions as they relate to goals............ 2-22
Table 3.1. Refuge revenue sharing payments to the towns of Greenfield
and Temple, 2000-2006.............................................................................................................. 3-4
Table 3.2. Acreage of habitat types at Wapack refuge....................................................... 3-5
Table 4.1. A summary of the foreseeable consequences of each alternative................ 4-15
List of Maps
Map 1-1. Location of Wapack NWR....................................................................................... 1-2
Map 2-1. Refuge Trails.............................................................................................................. 2-6
Map 3-1. Habitat Types............................................................................................................. 3-6
Chapter 1
The Purpose of and Need for Action
n Introduction
n The Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action
n The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding
our Planning
n Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project
n Refuge Establishment Purposes and its Land Acquisition History
n Refuge Administration
n Refuge Operational Plans (“Step-down” Plans)
n Refuge Vision Statement and Goals
n The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
n Issues
n Issues Outside the Scope of this Analysis or Not Completely Within the
Jurisdiction of the Service
Top of North Pack Monadnock
Andrew Ward/Conway School of Landscape Design
The Purpose of and Need for Action
Introduction
The Wapack National Wildlife Refuge became the first national wildlife refuge in New Hampshire in 1972,
when Laurence and Lorna Marshall donated land to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). The terms
of their deed prohibit hunting, fishing and trapping, cutting trees (except for maintaining trails), or driving
motorized vehicles. It also requires us to manage the refuge in a “wilderness-like” setting.
This 1,625 acre refuge was established with the purpose to protect migratory birds. It encompasses the
2,278-foot North Pack Monadnock Mountain in the towns of Greenfield and Temple (see map 1–1). Many
people visit the refuge to hike its three trails, including a 4-mile section of the Wapack Trail, which passes
over the top of the mountain and offers outstanding opportunities for viewing migratory hawks. Wapack
refuge is administered by staff from the Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge in Newington, New
Hampshire.
This draft comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and environmental assessment (EA) for the refuge
combines two documents, each required by federal law: a CCP, required by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Administration Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 668dd–668ee), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997 (Refuge Improvement Act) (Pub. L. 105-57; 111 Stat. 1253); and an EA,
required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; 83 Stat. 852).
This chapter explains the purpose of and need for preparing a CCP/EA, and sets the stage for
four subsequent chapters and four appendixes. It also
􀂃􈍤 defines our planning analysis area;
􀂃􈍰 presents the mission, policies and mandates affecting the development of the plan;
􀂃􈍩 identifies other conservation plans we used as references;
􀂃􈍬 lists the purposes for which we established the refuge and its land acquisition history;
􀂃􈍣 clarifies the vision and goals that drive refuge management;
􀂃􈍤 describes our planning process and its compliance with NEPA regulations; and,
􀂃􈍩 identifies public issues or concerns that surfaced in developing the plan.
Chapter 2, “Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative,” presents two
management alternatives, each with different strategies for meeting refuge goals and objectives and
addressing agency, partner, and public issues. After the public review of this draft CCP/EA, our regional
director’s decision on its management alternatives will produce a final CCP to guide refuge management
decisions during the next 15 years. We will also use it to promote understanding and support for refuge
management among state agencies in New Hampshire, our conservation partners, local communities and
the public.
Chapter 3, “Affected Environment,” describes the physical, biological, and human environment of the
refuge.
Chapter 4, “Environmental Consequences,” evaluates the effects on the environment from implementing
each of the two management alternatives. That is, it describes their foreseeable benefits and consequences
for the socioeconomic, physical, cultural, and biological environments described in chapter 3.
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge 1-1
Chapter 1
1-2 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
The Purpose of and Need for Action
Chapter 5, “Consultation and Coordination with Others and List of Preparers,” tells how we involved the
public and our partners in the planning process and credits this plan’s contributors. Four appendixes, a
bibliography, and a glossary provide additional supporting documentation and references.
The Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action
We propose to develop a final CCP for the refuge that best achieves its purpose, vision, and goals;
contributes to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System); adheres to Service
policies and other mandates; addresses significant issues; and, incorporates the sound principles of fish and
wildlife science.
NEPA regulations require us to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives, including our preferred action
and “no-action.” The no-action alternative described in alternative A incorporates existing management
practices. We did not consider among the range of reasonable alternatives either (1) continuing to manage
the refuge without a CCP, or (2) not managing the refuge altogether, because each of those would require
the Service to abdicate its statutory authorities and mandates.
The purpose of a CCP is to provide each refuge with strategic management direction for the next 15 years,
by
􀂃􈍳 stating clearly the desired future conditions for refuge habitat, wildlife, visitor services, staffing, and
facilities;
􀂃􈍥 explaining clearly to state agencies, refuge neighbors, visitors, and partners the reasons for our
management actions;
􀂃􈍥 ensuring that our management of the refuge conforms to the policies and goals of the Refuge System
and legal mandates;
􀂃􈍥 ensuring that present and future public uses are compatible with the purposes of the refuge;
􀂃􈍰 providing long-term continuity and direction in refuge management; and,
􀂃􈍪 justifying budget requests for staffing, operating and maintenance funds.
We identify several reasons as the need for this CCP. First, the Refuge Improvement Act requires us to
write a CCP for every national wildlife refuge to help fulfill the mission of the Refuge System. Second, the
Wapack refuge lacks a master plan to accomplish the purposes above. The need for a strategic plan is even
more compelling because this is an unstaffed refuge, and we rely heavily on informal agreements with
partners to assist in managing it. The proposals in this plan reflect the input of natural resource agencies in
New Hampshire, affected communities, individuals and organizations, our partners, and the public.
The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding our Planning
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its Mission
The Service is part of the Department of the Interior. Our mission is “Working with others to conserve,
protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American
people.”
Congress entrusts to the Service the conservation and protection of these national natural resources:
migratory birds and fish, federal-listed threatened or endangered species, inter-jurisdictional fish, wetlands,
certain marine mammals, and national wildlife refuges. We also enforce federal wildlife laws and
international treaties on importing and exporting wildlife, assist states with their fish and wildlife programs,
and help other countries develop their conservation programs.
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge 1-3
Chapter 1
The Service manual, available online at http://www.fws.gov/policy/manuals, contains the standing and
continuing directives on fulfilling our responsibilities. The 600 series of the Service manual addresses land
use management: sections 601–609 specifically address the management of national wildlife refuges.
We publish special directives that affect the rights of citizens or the authorities of other agencies separately
in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR); the Service manual does not duplicate them (see 50 CFR 1–99
online at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/index.html).
The National Wildlife Refuge System and its Mission and Policies
The Refuge System is the world’s largest collection of lands and waters set aside specifically for the
conservation of wildlife and the protection of ecosystems. More than 548 national wildlife refuges encompass
more than 97 million acres of lands and waters in all 50 states and several island territories. Each year,
more than 40 million visitors hunt, fish, observe and photograph wildlife, or participate in environmental
education and interpretation on refuges.
In 1997, President William Jefferson Clinton signed into law the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act (Refuge Improvement Act). It establishes a unifying mission for the Refuge System.
“The mission of the System 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 within the United States for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.”—Refuge Improvement Act; Public Law 105-57
It also establishes a new process for determining the compatibility of public uses on refuges, and requires us
to prepare a CCP for each refuge. The act states that the Refuge System must focus on wildlife
conservation. It also states that the mission of the Refuge System and the purposes for which each refuge
was established will provide the principal management direction on that refuge.
The Refuge System Manual contains policy governing the operation and management of the Refuge System
that the Service Manual does not cover, including technical information on implementing refuge policies and
guidelines on enforcing laws. You can review that manual at refuge headquarters. These a few noteworthy
policies affect this CCP.
Policy on Refuge System Planning
This policy (602 FW 1, 2, and 3) establishes the requirements and guidance for Refuge System planning,
including CCPs and step-down management plans. It states that we will manage all refuges in accordance
with an approved CCP that, when implemented, will help
􀂃􈍡 achieve refuge purposes;
􀂃􈍦 fulfill the Refuge System mission;
􀂃􈍭 maintain and, where appropriate, restore the ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System;
􀂃􈍡 achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System and the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers System; and,
􀂃􈍣 conform to other mandates.
The planning policy provides guidance, systematic direction, and minimum requirements for developing all
CCPs, and provides a systematic decision-making process to fulfill those requirements. Among them, we are
to review any existing special designation areas for their potential for such designations (e.g., wilderness
and wild and scenic rivers), and incorporate a summary of those reviews into each CCP (602 FW 3).
1-4 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
The Purpose of and Need for Action
Policy on the Appropriateness of Refuge Uses
Federal law and Service policy protect the Refuge System from inappropriate or harmful human activities,
and ensure that visitors can enjoy its lands and waters. This policy (603 FW 1) provides a national
framework for determining appropriate refuge uses and preventing or eliminating those that should not
occur in the Refuge System. It describes the initial decision-making process the refuge manager follows
when first considering whether to allow a proposed use. An appropriate use must meet at least one of the
following four conditions.
1. The use is a wildlife-dependent recreational use, as identified in the Refuge Improvement Act.
2. The use contributes to fulfilling the purpose(s) of the refuge, the mission of the Refuge System, or the
goals or objectives described in a refuge management plan approved after October 9, 1997, the date the
Refuge Improvement Act became law.
3. The use involves the taking of fish and wildlife under State regulations.
4. The use has been found to be appropriate at the conclusion of a specified process that uses 10 criteria.
You may view that policy online at http://www.fws.gov/policy/library/06-5645.pdf.
Policy on Compatibility
This policy (603 FW 2) complements the appropriateness policy. The refuge manager first must find a use
appropriate before reviewing its compatibility. If the proposed use is inappropriate, the refuge manager will
not allow it, and will not prepare a compatibility determination.
You may view this policy and its regulations online at http://policy.fws.gov/library/00fr62483.pdf, including a
description of the process and the requirements for conducting compatibility reviews. Our summary follows.
􀂃􈍔 The Refuge Improvement Act and its regulations require an affirmative finding by the refuge manager
on the compatibility of a public use before we allow it on a national wildlife refuge.
􀂃􈍁 A compatible use is one “that will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the
mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge.”—Refuge Improvement Act
􀂃􈍔 The act defines six wildlife-dependent uses that are to receive our enhanced consideration on refuges:
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
􀂃􈍔 The refuge manager may authorize those priority uses on a refuge when they are compatible, and are
consistent with public safety.
􀂃􈍁 A compatibility determination will stipulate the required maximum reevaluation dates: 15 years for
wildlife-dependent recreational uses; or, 10 years for other uses.
􀂃􈍔 The refuge manager may reevaluate the compatibility of any use at any time: for example, sooner than
its mandatory date or even before we complete the CCP process, if new information reveals
unacceptable impacts or incompatibility with refuge purposes (602 FW 2.11, 2.12).
􀂃􈍔 The refuge manager may allow or deny any use, even one that is compatible, based on other
considerations, such as public safety, policy, or available funding.
Policy on Maintaining Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health
This policy provides guidance on maintaining or restoring the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the Refuge System, including the protection of a broad spectrum of fish, wildlife,
and habitat resources in refuge ecosystems.
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge 1-5
Chapter 1
Biological integrity refers to the composition, structure, and functioning of the biota at the genetic,
organism, and community levels, when compared with historic conditions. The policy defines biological
diversity as the variety of life and its processes, including the variety of living organisms, the genetic
differences among them, and the communities and ecosystems in which they occur. Environmental health
refers to the composition, structure, and functioning of soil, water, air and other abiotic features compared
with historic conditions.
The policy provides refuge managers with a process for evaluating the best management direction to
prevent the additional degradation of environmental conditions and restore lost or severely degraded
environmental components. It also provides guidelines for dealing with external threats to the biological
integrity, diversity, and environmental health of a refuge and its ecosystem (601 FW 3). It is available at
http://www.fws.gov/policy/library/01fr3809.pdf
Other Mandates
Other federal laws, executive orders, treaties, interstate compacts, and regulations on conserving and
protecting natural and cultural resources also affect how we manage refuges. The centralized library of
Service-wide policies, executive orders, director’s orders, and the “Digest of Federal Resource Laws of
Interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service” are available at http://www.fws.gov/policy/.
Federal laws also require the Service to identify and preserve its important historic structures,
archaeological sites, and artifacts. NEPA mandates our consideration of cultural resources in planning
federal actions. The Refuge Improvement Act requires that the CCP for each refuge identify its
archaeological and cultural values. Highlights of some of those laws affecting CCP development and
implementation follows.
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (Pub. L. 102–575; 16 U.S.C. 470) requires federal agencies
to locate and protect historic resources—archaeological sites and historic structures eligible for listing or
listed in the National Register of Historic Places, and museum property—on their land or on land affected
by their activities. It also requires agencies to establish a program for those activities and carry them out in
consultation with State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs).
The NHPA also charges federal agencies with locating and evaluating sites on their land and nominating
them for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. We maintain an inventory of known
archaeological sites and historic structures in the Northeast Regional Office, and file copies at each refuge.
Our regional historic preservation officer in Hadley, Massachusetts, oversees our compliance with the
NHPA and our consultations with state SHPOs. We must also comply with the Archaeological Resources
Protection Act (Pub. L. 96–95, 16 U.S.C. 470aa–mm). It requires that we protect our archaeological sites
from vandalism or looting and issue permits for site excavation.
The Service also owns and cares for museum properties. The most common are archaeological, zoological
and botanical collections, art, and historical photographs or objects. Each refuge maintains an inventory of
its museum property. Our museum property coordinator in Hadley, Massachusetts, guides the refuges in
caring for that property, and helps us comply with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation
Act (25 U.S.C. 3001, et seq.) and federal regulations governing federal archaeological collections.
Our program ensures that Service collections will continue to be available to the public for learning and
research.
Chapter 4, “Environmental Consequences,” evaluates this plan’s compliance with the cultural and historic
acts cited above, the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and Endangered Species Act. As we mentioned
previously, we developed this draft CCP/EA to comply with NEPA.
1-6 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
The Purpose of and Need for Action
Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project
Birds of Conservation Concern 2002 Report
The Service developed this report (USFWS 2002) in consultation with the leaders of ongoing bird
conservation initiatives and partnerships such as Partners In Flight (PIF), the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan (NAWMP) and Joint Ventures, the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan
(NAWCP), and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. The report fulfills the mandate of the 1988
amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. §§2901, et seq.), which requires the
Secretary of the Interior to “identify species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory non-game birds
that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973.”
The 2002 report contains 45 lists that identify bird species of conservation concern at national, regional, and
landscape scales. It includes a principal national list, seven regional lists corresponding to the seven regional
administrative units of the Service, and species lists for each of the 37 Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs)
designated by the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) in the United States. NABCI
defined those BCRs as ecologically based units in a framework for planning, implementing, and evaluating
bird conservation. The refuge lies in the Atlantic Northern Forest BCR 14 (see additional discussion below).
Our agency’s overarching goal in developing that report is to stimulate federal, state, and private agencies
to coordinate, develop, and implement integrated approaches for conserving and managing the birds most in
need of conservation. The report is available online at
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/reports/BCC2002.pdf.
Atlantic Northern Forest Bird Conservation Region Blueprint (BCR 14)
The Atlantic Coast Joint Venture partnership created its “Blueprint for the Design and Delivery of Bird
Conservation in the Atlantic Northern Forest” (2003 draft and its update), in response to the NABCI
challenge of building on existing partnerships to plan, implement, and evaluate cooperative bird
conservation across North America. You may read the entire text of that document online at
http://www.acjv.org/documents/bcr14_blueprint.pdf. It presents a strategic design of the key components
that this BCR initiative will need to maintain healthy populations of birds native to the Atlantic Northern
Forest (BCR 14). Specifically, it establishes a series of goals for moving BCR 14 toward a vision of sustained
bird populations; it presents the biological foundation for its recommendations; and, it lays out a framework
for implementing and evaluating those (Dettmers 2004).
The blueprint for BCR 14 identifies 53 bird species designated “highest” or “high” conservation priority in
the region and 15 habitat types important for supporting one or more of those priority bird species during at
least one of their life stages. Seven of the 53 highest and high-priority species have been observed on the
refuge. The habitats identified either need critical conservation attention, or are crucial in long-term
planning to conserve continentally and regionally important bird populations. The refuge offers 3 of the
15 priority habitat types. We considered each of those species and habitats in writing appendix C, “Species
and Habitats of Conservation Concern,” and in developing our objectives and strategies for goal 1.
Partners In Flight Bird Conservation Plans
In 1990, PIF began as a voluntary, international coalition of government agencies, conservation
organizations, academic institutions, private industries, and citizens dedicated to reversing the population
declines of bird species and “keeping common birds common.” The foundation of its long-term strategy is a
series of scientifically based bird conservation plans using physiographic areas as planning units.
The goal of each PIF plan is to ensure the long-term maintenance of healthy populations of native birds,
primarily non-game birds. The plan for each physiographic area ranks its bird species according to their
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge 1-7
Chapter 1
conservation priority, describes their desired habitat conditions, develops biological objectives, and
recommends conservation measures. That priority ranking also factors in habitat loss, population trends,
and the vulnerability of a species and its habitats to regional and local threats.
Physiographic Area 27—Northern New England (June 2000 Draft).—Our planning area lies in
Physiographic Area 27, Northern New England. In developing our habitat goals and objectives, we referred
to its draft plan, now online at http://www.blm.gov/wildlife/plan/pl_27_10.pdf. That plan (Rosenberg and
Hodgman 2000) includes objectives for the following habitat types and associated species of conservation
concern on the refuge.
􀂃􈍎 Northern hardwood and mixed forest: black-throated blue warbler, Canada warbler, and blackburnian
warbler; and,
􀂃􈍍 Mature conifer (spruce-fir) forest: blackburnian warbler, bay-breasted warbler, sharp-shinned hawk.
Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation, National State Agency Herpetological
Conservation Report (Draft 2004)
Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (PARC) was created in response to the increasing, well-documented
national declines in amphibian and reptile populations. PARC members come from state and
federal agencies, conservation organizations, museums, the pet trade industry, nature centers, zoos, the
power industry, universities, herpetological organizations, research laboratories, forest industries and
environmental consultants. Its five geographic regions—Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, Southwest and
Northwest—focus on national and regional herpetofaunal conservation challenges. Regional working groups
allow for region-specific communication.
The National State Agency Herpetological Conservation Report (NHCR), a summary report sponsored by
PARC, provides a general overview of each state wildlife agency's support for reptile and amphibian
conservation and research through September 2004. Each state report was compiled in cooperation with its
agency’s lead biologist on herpetofaunal conservation. The purpose is to facilitate communication among
state agencies and partner organizations throughout the PARC network to identify and address regional
and national herpetological priorities.
PARC intends to expand the scope of the NHCR to include other states, provinces, and territories. It will
also include other state agencies that are supporting herpetofaunal conservation and research, such as
transportation departments, park departments, and forest agencies. New Hampshire has completed reports
included in the NHCR online at http://www.parcplace.org/documents/PARCNationalStates2004.pdf. The
next NHCR will integrate the list of species of conservation concern from each state’s wildlife action plan
(see below). We used the latest draft NHCR plan in developing appendix C, “Species and Habitats of
Conservation Concern.”
New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, Wildlife Action Plan (WAP 2005)
In 2002, Congress created the State Wildlife Grant Program (SWG), and appropriated $80 million in state
grants. The purpose of the program is to help state and tribal fish and wildlife agencies conserve fish and
wildlife species of greatest conservation need. The funds appropriated under the program are allocated to
the states according to a formula that takes into account their size and population.
To be eligible for additional federal grants, and to satisfy the requirements for participating in the SWG
program, each state and territory was to develop its “Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy”
(CWCS) and submit it to the National Advisory Acceptance Team by October 1, 2005. Each strategy was to
address eight required elements, identify and focus on “species of greatest conservation need,” yet address
the “full array of wildlife” and wildlife-related issues, and “keep common species common.”
1-8 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
The Purpose of and Need for Action
The New Hampshire plan (NHFG 2005) resulted from that charge. The goal of the plan is to create a vision
for conserving the state’s wildlife and stimulate other state agencies, federal agencies, and conservation
partners to think strategically about their individual and coordinated roles in prioritizing conservation.
In addressing the eight elements below, New Hampshire’s WAP supplements and validates the information
on species and habitat and their distribution in our planning analysis area, and helps us identify
conservation threats and management strategies for species and habitats of conservation concern in this
CCP. The expertise and the partner and public involvement that compiled the plan further enhance its
benefit for us. We used it in developing the objectives and strategies for goal 1. These are the eight
elements.
1. Information on the distribution and abundance of species of wildlife, including low and declining
populations, as the state fish and wildlife agency deems appropriate, that are indicative of the diversity
and health of the state’s wildlife.
2. Descriptions of locations and relative condition of key habitats and community types essential to the
conservation of species identified in element 1.
3. Descriptions of problems that may adversely affect species identified in element 1 or their habitats, and
priority research and survey efforts needed to identify factors that may assist in restoration and
improved conservation of these species and habitats.
4. Descriptions of conservation actions necessary to conserve the identified species and habitats and
priorities for implementing such actions.
5. Plans proposed for monitoring species identified in element 1 and their habitats, for monitoring the
effectiveness of the conservation actions proposed in element 4, and for adapting those conservation
actions to respond appropriately to new information or changing conditions.
6. Descriptions of procedures to review the plan at intervals not to exceed 10 years.
7. Plans for coordinating, to the extent feasible, the development, implementation, review, and revision of
the plan strategy with federal, state, and local agencies and Native American tribes that manage
significant areas of land and water within the state, or administer programs that significantly affect the
conservation of identified species and habitats.
8. Plans for involving the public in the development and implementation of plan strategies.
Other Regional Information Sources
We also consulted the plans and resources below as we refined our management objectives and strategies.
􀂃􈍎 New Hampshire Big Game Plan, 2006; available online at
http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Hunting/Hunting_PDFs/NH_Big_Game_Plan_FINAL.pdf
􀂃􈍓 Society for the Protection of NH Forests, New Hampshire’s Changing Landscape, 2005; available
online at http://www.spnhf.org/research/research-projects.asp#nhcl
􀂃􈍎 New Hampshire Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, 2003; available online at
http://www.nh.gov/oep/programs/SCORP/documents/scorpweb.pdf
Refuge Establishment Purposes and its Land Acquisition History
With the first donation of 738 acres of land in 1972, we established the refuge for the following purpose and
under the following authority: “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for
migratory birds” (Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 715d).
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge 1-9
Chapter 1
In 1977, another donated tract totaling 934 acres increased the size of the refuge to 1,672 acres. A final land
survey in 1998 adjusted the refuge boundary line, excluding the town of Lyndeborough. That adjustment
resulted in a loss of 47 acres. The refuge now comprises 1,625 acres.
Refuge Administration
The refuge manager at the Great Bay refuge in Newington, NH, administers the unstaffed Wapack refuge.
The 2006 Regional Strategic Downsizing Plan includes the decision to de-staff the Great Bay refuge and
administer both it and the Wapack refuge from the Parker River refuge in Newburyport, MA. We expect to
implement that downsizing and administrative change in 2008.
Refuge Operational Plans (“Step-down” Plans)
Refuge planning policy lists more than 25 step-down management plans that generally are required on
refuges. Those plans contain specific strategies and implementation schedules for achieving refuge goals
and objectives. Some plans require annual revisions; others require revision every 5 to 10 years. Some
require additional NEPA analysis, public involvement, and compatibility determinations before we can
implement them.
In 2005, we completed a Fire Management Plan for the Great Bay refuge that incorporated strategies for
Wapack refuge. No other step-down plans are current.
Refuge Vision Statement and Goals
Refuge Vision Statement
Very early in the planning process, our team developed this vision statement to provide a guiding
philosophy and sense of purpose in the CCP.
“Encompassing the North Pack Monadnock Mountain in southern New Hampshire, the Wapack National
Wildlife Refuge provides exceptional mature spruce-fir and northern hardwood-mixed habitat for wildlife,
particularly migratory birds. We will manage the refuge to preserve its natural conditions in a setting that
appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature.
All visitors are welcome to enjoy opportunities to observe and photograph nature along refuge trails,
including a 4-mile segment of the Wapack Trail. The rock outcrop and cliff on the mountain peak afford an
ideal location to view migrating hawks each fall. Old and new partnerships with other federal agencies,
state agencies, local conservation organizations, and volunteers will foster public stewardship of this
refuge and its resources, and enhance public understanding of the role of the National Wildlife Refuge
System in conserving our nation’s trust resources.”
Refuge Goals
We developed these goals after considering our vision and the purposes of the refuge, the missions of the
Service and the Refuge System, and the mandates, plans, and conservation initiatives above. These goals
are intentionally broad, descriptive statements of purpose. They highlight the elements of our vision for the
refuge we will emphasize in its future management. The biological goals take precedence; but otherwise, we
do not present them in any particular order. Each offers background information on its importance. In
chapter 2, “Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative,” we evaluate different
ways of achieving these goals.
Goal 1. Allow natural processes and disturbances to enhance biological diversity and integrity of upland
wildlife habitat.
1-10 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
The Purpose of and Need for Action
Goal 2. Establish a public use program that will encourage compatible, low-impact recreation on refuge
trails.
Goal 3. Enhance the conservation and stewardship of wildlife resources through partnerships with public
and private conservation groups, private landowners, State agencies and local entities.
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
Service policy establishes an eight-step planning process that also facilitates our compliance with NEPA
(figure 1.1).1 Our planning policy and CCP training course materials describe those steps in detail. We
followed that process in developing this draft CCP/EA.
Figure 1.1. The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
Since the first donation of land in 1972, we have focused on managing the refuge as the deed requires, with
minimal intervention, as in a wilderness area. We prohibit hunting, fish, trapping, cutting trees, and using
motor vehicles.
In January 2007, we began to prepare for the CCP by collecting information about resources on the refuge
and by requesting available information from surrounding conservation landowners (e.g., Miller State Park,
Joanne Bass Bross Preserve). Graduate students from the Conway School of Landscape Design in Conway,
MA, participated in that project from January to March 2007.
1 602 FW 3, “The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process” (http://policy.fws.gov/602fw3.html)
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge 1-11
Chapter 1
In February 2007, we convened our core team, which consists of refuge staff, regional office staff, and
representatives of the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department (NHFG) and the New Hampshire
Department of Recreation and Economic Development (NH DRED), Division of Parks and Recreation. We
discussed management issues, drafted a vision statement and goals, and compiled a project mailing list of
known stakeholders, interested individuals, organizations, and agencies. We initiated all of those steps as
part of NEPA Step A; “Preplanning” (figure 1.1, above).
In February 2007, we began NEPA Step B, “Initiate Public Involvement and Scoping,” by publishing a
newsletter to announce that we were starting the planning process, and to encourage community
involvement. We also worked concurrently on Step C, “Review Vision Statement, Goals, and Identify
Significant Issues.” On February 23, 2007, we formally published the start of the planning process in a
Federal Register Notice of Intent (NOI). We also announced one public scoping meeting in Peterborough to
identify public issues and concerns, share our draft vision statement and tentative goals, describe the
planning process, and explain how people could become involved in and stay informed about that process.
The twenty-six people who attended helped us identify the public concerns we would need to address in the
planning process.
During March 2007 we reviewed the public comments received at meeting and via email and regular mail to
firm up our key issues. We also reviewed our draft vision and goals and made some refinements. This
completed Step C, “Review Vision, Goals and Determine Issues.” Next, we moved right into Step D,
“Develop and Analyze Alternatives.” The purpose of this step is to develop alternative objectives and
strategies for addressing the issues and achieving the goals. Our preliminary ideas were presented at a
second public meeting on March 6, 2007. We then worked from March to August 2007 to finalize our
proposals to serve as a foundation for this draft CCP/EA. In November 2007, we distributed a newsletter
summarizing the alternatives in detail and updating our planning timeframes.
We completed Step E, “Prepare Draft Plan and NEPA document,” by publishing our Notice of Availability
(NOA) in the Federal Register, announcing the release of this draft CCP/EA and distributing it for public
review. During the 30-day period of public review, we will hold a public hearing to obtain comments. We also
expect to receive comments by regular mail or electronic mail. After the comment period expires, we will
review and summarize all of the comments we have received, develop our responses, and present them in an
appendix to the final CCP.
Once we have prepared the final CCP, our regional director will determine whether it addresses all
significant issues and our analysis was adequate. If he agrees with our analysis, and concludes that there are
no significant impacts and compliance with federal laws and mandates is complete, he will issue a Finding of
No Significant Impact (FONSI), and approve our final plan. That will complete Step F, “Prepare and Adopt
a Final Plan.” Then we can begin Step G, “Implement Plan, Monitor and Evaluate.”
We will modify the final CCP by following the procedures in Service policy (602 FW 1, 3, and 4) and NEPA
requirements as part of Step H, “Review and Revise Plan.” Minor revisions that meet the criteria for
categorical exclusions (550 FW 3.3C) will require only an environmental action memorandum. We must
revise each CCP fully every 15 years. We may revisit the compatibility determinations that accompany it
even sooner than that mandatory date, or even before we complete the CCP process, if new information
reveals unacceptable impacts or incompatibility with refuge purposes.
Issues
During the scoping process, our partners and the public brought to our attention the issues they wanted us
to address. We identified others in our planning team discussions. Initially, we distinguished between those
issues whose resolution lies within the jurisdiction of the Service, and those that either lie outside the scope
of this analysis or do not fall completely within Service jurisdiction. We summarize those in a separate
section below.
1-12 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
The Purpose of and Need for Action
Our discussion of the issues within Service jurisdiction generated a wide range of opinions on how to resolve
them. How we will treat them creates the primary distinctions among the objectives and strategies in each
alternative in chapter 2. A more detailed description of those issues follows.
Biological Surveys
Because the Wapack refuge is unstaffed, no one is available onsite to conduct biological surveys. Our limited
budgets also make it difficult to contract those surveys to other organizations or individuals. Members of the
community not only are concerned over the lack of biological surveys, but also want us to publish or make
available, present and future refuge biological information.
Active Management for Forest Habitat
Some members of the public suggested that the Service manipulate habitat to provide more habitat
diversity for wildlife species on the refuge. They also expressed an interest in reducing mature forest cover
through selective cutting and prescribed burning, to attract more species of mammals (e.g., moose, bobcat)
to the refuge.
Some suggested that the refuge establish clearings by cutting selectively along the trail, to provide better
birding and viewing at the top of the mountain. We heard that tree growth is obscuring those views.
One person also expressed an interest in our actively managing refuge habitat to maintain blueberry
bushes; they cannot survive under heavy shade. Annual or biannual selective cutting or prescribed burning
would be necessary to remove that shade and promote the growth of blueberries. The deed of donation
restricts any tree cutting on the refuge, except as necessary for maintaining trails.
Invasive Species
The establishment and spread of invasive species, particularly invasive plants, is a significant problem that
spreads across all types of habitat. For this discussion, we use the definition of invasive species in the
Service Manual (620 FW 1.4E): “Invasive species are alien species whose introduction [causes] or is likely to
cause economic or environmental harm, or harm to human health. Alien species, or non-indigenous species,
are species that are not native to a particular ecosystem. We are prohibited by executive order, law, and
policy from authorizing, funding, or carrying out actions that are likely to cause or promote the introduction
or spread of invasive species in the United States or elsewhere.”
The unchecked spread of invasive plants threatens the biological diversity, integrity and environmental
health of all refuge habitats. In many cases, because of their competitive advantage over native plants, they
form dominant cover types, thus reducing the availability of native plants as food and cover for wildlife.
Over the past several decades, government agencies, conservation organizations, and the public have
become more acutely aware of the negative effects of invasive species. Many plans, strategies, and
initiatives target the more effective management of invasive species, including The National Strategy for
Management of Invasive Species for the Refuge System (USFWS 2003c) and Silent Invasion—A Call to
Action, by the National Wildlife Refuge Association (NWRA 2002). The Refuge System biological discussion
database and relevant workshops continually provide new information and updates on recent advances in
control techniques. Funding sources to conduct inventory and control programs also have grown, both
within the Service budget and through competitive grants.
Trail Maintenance
The 4-mile section of the Wapack Trail that runs through the refuge is often difficult to maintain due to the
rocky terrain. That terrain and the unsure footing of the trail may also create a safety issue for refuge
visitors. The compaction of soil and vegetation can increase runoff and, consequently, increase erosion. In
trying to circumvent problem areas, people have created braided trail sections and stream crossings.
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge 1-13
Chapter 1
Establishment of New Trails
When we established the refuge, only the 4–mile segment of the Wapack Trail and the 1.1-mile Cliff Trail
were recognized. Since then, local residents have created two new trails: Ted’s and Carolyn’s trails (3 miles
of their total 5.15 miles run on the refuge). We are concerned that other trails may be established without
the consultation or knowledge of the Service.
Trailhead Access to the Northern End of the Refuge
The only way that visitors can access the northern end of the refuge now is by parking on the road shoulder
of Old Mountain Road. Parking there can be problematic for several reasons. First, on many weekends, not
enough parking is available for all the visitors who want access to the refuge. Because of the limited space
for cars, visitors often park in unsafe areas. Once visitors have parked, they must walk along the road to
access the trailhead. That creates another safety concern about traffic on the road. Parking on that road
also creates a problem for the Town of Greenfield’s Department of Transportation. In the winter, cars
parked on the side of the already narrow road make clearing it safely even more difficult for snowplows. The
Town of Greenfield is very concerned about this recurring problem, and wants us to work with them in
solving it.
Minimal Service Presence on the Refuge
Our limited staff and funding have prevented us from improving the visibility and presence of the Service at
the refuge and in the local community. Only one sign, erected by the Friends of the Wapack (FOW), shows a
topographic map at the trailhead (the northern end of the refuge). It shows the layout of the Wapack Trail,
but does not provide any information about the refuge (e.g., the refuge boundary, Service contact
information, or refuge rules and regulations). We posted the refuge boundary with standard Refuge System
“blue goose” signs; however, those are the only signs that notify the public they are on a national wildlife
refuge.
Dog Walking
Before this CCP, we had not decided whether to allow leashed dogs on the refuge. Technically, without a
finding of appropriateness or determination of compatibility, dog walking is prohibited on the refuge.
However, our limited staff has been unable to enforce that prohibition, and many refuge visitors are
unaware that the activity is prohibited. Consequently, many dogs have been seen on the refuge. During
several visits this spring and summer, we observed dogs roaming freely without leashes on the refuge trail.
The public expressed an interest in dog walking on the refuge. Many would be satisfied with adhering to a
regulation allowing only leashed dogs on the refuge. Others would like us to allow unleashed dogs that are
under the command and control of their owners. Everyone we spoke with stated that prohibiting dog
walking altogether on the refuge would create confusion when users of the Wapack Trail walk north from
other areas, (e.g., Miller State Park), where dog walking on leash is allowed.
Illegal Camping
No camping is allowed on the refuge. Members of the FOW have seen evidence of camping on the refuge,
but recently that evidence has decreased. The minimal Service presence makes it difficult to monitor the
area regularly for illegal camping and enforce the “no camping” restriction.
Illegal Hunting
The deed restricts any form of hunting on the refuge. Landowners nearby have complained of hearing
gunshots in the refuge area during the hunting season. In response, they called local wardens of the state
game division, with whom we have a partnership agreement. Again, the minimal Service presence makes it
difficult to monitor the area regularly for illegal hunting. Members of the community would like to see more
law enforcement officials (whether state or federal) patrolling the area, particularly during the hunting
season.
1-14 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
The Purpose of and Need for Action
Refuge Expansion
Several members of the public suggested that the Service consider expanding the refuge to create better
linkage with other conservation land areas. Some were interested specifically in acquiring adjacent, lower
elevation habitat, including old farm fields. They believe this protection would ensure the support of a
greater diversity of wildlife. Please refer to “Refuge Expansion” in chapter 2 for a more detailed discussion.
Issues Outside the Scope of this Analysis or Not Completely Within the Jurisdiction of the
Service
Giving or transferring refuge lands to other local conservation organizations
Members of the public suggested that the Service transfer or give the refuge or refuge management
authority to a state or local conservation organization. They are concerned that the Service is unable to
manage the refuge effectively due to its limited staff and budget. Some feel that other conservation groups
would do a better job of managing refuge resources and improving the visitor experience.
We have no plans to assign staff permanently to this refuge, as other regional priorities and current fiscal
conditions prevent us from doing so. On the other hand, we plan to make several improvements to the
refuge (under alternative B) through enhanced partnerships and cooperation with other federal agencies,
local conservation groups, and the public. Those proposals will promote better stewardship of the refuge
and raise the visibility and public awareness of its resources.
Although some suggest that we transfer or donate the refuge to another conservation entity, the deed
prohibits us from doing so. Furthermore, the Service can only relinquish lands it owns in fee through a land
exchange, legislation, or the disposal or transfer of excess property under the Transfer of Certain Real
Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act of 1948. For example, the Service can dispose of refuge
lands only after congressional legislation requires it, or because the agency determines that those lands are
excess to its needs and no longer serve the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes for which the
refuge was established. The Service can also exchange refuge land for land of equal market value and equal
or higher natural resource value. An equalization payment would settle any difference in value.
In summary, unless directed by congressional legislation to initiate a disposal or exchange process, the
Service would have to determine that the land of the Wapack refuge no longer contributes to the
conservation of migratory birds and, in the case of an exchange, that the agency would gain land more
important to our federal trust resources. In our professional judgment, that determination is unwarranted.
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge 1-15
Chapter 2
Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred
Alternative
n Introduction
n Formulating Alternatives
n Actions Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study
n Actions Common to Both Alternatives
n Alternative A. Current Management
n Alternative B. The Service-preferred Alternative
n Highlights of Respective Alternatives’ Actions as they Relate to Goals
View from the top of North Pack Monadnock
Andrew Ward/Conway School of Landscape Design
Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative
Introduction
This chapter presents
􀂃􈍴 the process for formulating alternatives,
􀂃􈍴 the actions common to both alternatives,
􀂃􈍴 the alternatives we considered but eliminated from detailed study, and
􀂃􈍴 the alternatives A, “Current Management,” and B, “The Service-preferred Alternative.”
At the end of this chapter, table 2.1 compares the alternatives: how they address the key issues in chapter 1,
support major programs, and achieve refuge goals.
Formulating Alternatives
Relating Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
One of the earliest steps in the planning process is to formulate refuge goals: the intentionally broad,
descriptive statements of the desired future condition of refuge resources. Goals articulate the principal
elements of refuge purposes and the vision statement, and provide a foundation for developing specific
management objectives and strategies. By design, goals are less quantitative and more prescriptive than
their objectives in defining the targets of our management. The goals stay the same in both management
alternatives below. Their objectives and strategies distinguish one alternative from the other.
The next step is to consider a range of possible management objectives that would help us meet those goals.
Objectives are incremental steps toward achieving a goal; they also further define the management targets
in measurable terms. They typically vary among alternatives, and provide the basis for determining more
detailed strategies, monitoring refuge accomplishments, and evaluating our success. “Writing Refuge
Management Goals and Objectives: A Handbook” (USFWS 2004) recommends that objectives possess five
properties to be “SMART”: They must be (1) specific, (2) measurable, (3) achievable, (4) results-oriented,
and (5) time-fixed.
A rationale accompanies each objective to explain its context and why we think it is important. When we
write our refuge step-down plans, we would base them on the objectives in the alternative selected for the
final CCP, and measure our success by how well we achieve them.
For each objective, we develop strategies: the combination of specific actions, tools, or techniques we may
use to achieve that objective. In writing our refuge step-down plans, we would reevaluate how, when, and
where we should implement most of the strategies.
Developing Alternatives, including the “No Action” Alternative
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that we evaluate a reasonable range of
alternatives for managing the refuge before selecting the best one possible. Alternatives are packages of
complementary objectives and strategies designed to meet refuge purposes, the Refuge System mission,
refuge goals, while responding to the issues and opportunities identified during the planning process. We
believe the objectives in the two alternatives below offer that reasonable range of proposals for managing
the refuge over the next 15 years.
Alternative A satisfies the NEPA requirement of a “no action” alternative, which we define as “continuing
current management.” It describes our existing management priorities and activities, and serves as a
baseline for comparing and contrasting alternative B. For detailed descriptions of current refuge resources
and programs, please see chapter 3, “Affected Environment.”
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge 2-1
Chapter 2
Many of the objectives in alternative A do not strictly follow the guidance in the Service’s goals and
objectives handbook, because we are describing current management decisions and activities that we
established prior to that guidance. Rather, our descriptions of those activities derive from a variety of
formal and informal management decisions and planning documents. Thus, the objectives in alternative A
are fewer and more subjective than those in alternative B.
Alternative B, the Service-preferred alternative, combines the actions that we believe would achieve the
purposes, vision, and goals of the refuge and respond to public issues most effectively. It emphasizes the
management of refuge species and habitats by engaging in partnerships to monitor refuge resources with
the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and local conservation organizations. This alternative also proposes several
improvements in visitor services, including the establishment of a parking area and a greater presence and
visibility of the Service, trail maintenance through memorandums of understanding (MOU) with both the
Friends of the Wapack and Mountain View Hiking Club, and increased outreach and education through
enhanced partnerships.
Actions Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study
Federal-Designated Wilderness
During the scoping phase of our planning process, we learned of an interest in designating the refuge as
part of the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). Appendix B, “Wilderness Review,”
documents our analysis of the wilderness potential of the refuge, and explains that the formal designation
requires an act of Congress. That usually is predicated upon a recommendation from a federal agency. Our
analysis determined that such a recommendation is not warranted at this time. However, we will reassess
that determination in 15 years, when we revise the CCP.
Refuge Expansion
Many responses in our public scoping process encouraged us to expand the refuge for a variety of reasons.
Some were concerned about the rapid rate of development nearby. Some wanted to link refuge land with
two large conservation areas nearby.
􀂃􈍏 One is the Quabbin to Cardigan Conservation Collaborative (Q2C), which focuses on protecting land
along the Monadnock Highlands, from the Quabbin Reservoir in central Massachusetts north to New
Hampshire’s Mt. Cardigan (The Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests 2004). The
refuge lies in the “Wapack Focus Area” of the Quabbin to Cardigan corridor. If you would like more
information, please visit the website http://www.spnhf.org/landconservation/q2c.asp.
􀂃􈍔 The other is the Temple to Crotched Community Conservation Corridor. The Monadnock Conservancy,
which leads this effort, envisions linking the conservation areas on Crotched Mountain, Pack
Monadnock, and Temple Mountain with a network of conservation easements in the towns of
Greenfield, Peterborough, Sharon, and Temple (Monadnock Conservancy 2006). As with Q2C, the
refuge lies directly in the Temple to Crotched Mountain corridor. For the latest information, please visit
http://www.monadnockconservancy.org/html/what_news20.html.
Despite our interest in seeing those lands conserved for wildlife, neither alternative recommends that we
acquire additional land at this time. Our regional perspective on all the other land protection priorities of the
Service leads to doubt we would be able to secure the funding to buy additional land here or hire staff to
manage it. However, if conditions change in the future and more land acquisition becomes possible, we may
pursue that under a separate environmental assessment, after public review. As always, we would evaluate
separately any opportunities that arose to accept donations of land.
2-2 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative
Vegetation Management
Some members of the public who suggested that we actively manage refuge habitats in order to support a
larger diversity of wildlife species were interested in providing less dense forest habitat, through selective
cutting and prescribed burning, to bring more mammal species (e.g., moose and bobcats) to the refuge.
Some suggested that the refuge establish clearings along the Wapack Trail to provide better views and bird
watching at the top of the mountain. They recommended selective cutting along the trail, particularly
because the tree growth at the top of the mountain has obscured some views. One individual expressed an
interest in actively managing trees and shrubs on North Pack Monadnock to maintain blueberry shrubs,
which cannot survive under heavy shade. That would require selective cutting or prescribed burning to
remove the shade. The deed donating the land to the Service prohibits cutting trees on the refuge, except as
necessary for maintaining trails. That restriction prevents us from implementing these proposals to manage
vegetation.
Actions Common to Both Alternatives
The alternatives share some actions in common. Some are required by law, policy, or refuge regulations, or
may be administrative actions that do not require public review, but we want to highlight them in this public
document. Others may be actions we believe are crucial in achieving the refuge purpose, vision, and goals.
Controlling Invasive Plant Species
One national priority of the Refuge System is to manage and control the spread of invasive plants. We have
not conducted an inventory of invasive species on the refuge; however, we recently initiated a partnership
with the USFS to conduct one.
One particular concern is glossy buckthorn, which is well established near the refuge. That invasive plant
rapidly forms dense, even-aged thickets in both wetlands and woodland understories. Its seedlings invade
apparently stable habitats, and grow most successfully where there is ample light and exposed soils, such as
along woodland edges and in forest openings created by windfalls (Nashua Conservation Commission 2004).
Those are the areas we would focus on in the future. Our objectives are to ensure that no new invasive
plants establish themselves, and to control the spread of any that the USFS inventory may find.
Maintaining Partnerships
We would maintain our present partnerships with the Friends of the Wapack (FOW), the New Hampshire
Fish and Game Department (NHFG), and the Mountain View Hiking Club. Those three groups are
particularly important and valued partners, whose contributions are vital to our success in managing many
aspects of the refuge. For example, the FOW maintains the 4-mile section of the Wapack Trail and the 1.1-
mile Cliff Trail where they run through the refuge. The Mountain View Hiking Club maintains the combined
5.15-mile Ted’s and Carolyn’s trails where they run through the refuge. The NHFG assists us with law
enforcement.
Permitting Special Uses, Including Research and Economic Uses
We would require the refuge manager to evaluate the appropriateness and compatibility of all activities that
require a special use permit. All research and commercial or economic uses require special use permits.
Research
Research on species of concern and their habitats would continue as a priority. We would continue to
approve permits that provide a direct benefit to the refuge, or for research that would strengthen our
decisions on managing its natural resources. The refuge manager may also consider requests that do not
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge 2-3
Chapter 2
relate directly to refuge objectives, but rather to the protection or enhancement of native species and
biological diversity in the region.
All researchers would be required to submit detailed research proposals following the guidelines established
by Service policy and refuge staff. Special use permits would also identify the schedules for progress
reports, the criteria for determining when a project should cease, and the requirements for publication or
other interim and final reports. All publications must acknowledge the Service and the role of Service staff
as key partners in funding and/or operations. We would ask our refuge biologists, other divisions of the
Service, USFS, select universities or recognized experts, and the state of New Hampshire to review as
peers and comment on research proposals or draft publications, and would share the research results both
internally and with those reviewers and other conservation agencies and organizations.
Some projects, such as depredation and banding studies, require additional Service permits. The refuge
manager would not approve those projects until all their required permits have been received.
Commercial and Economic Uses
All commercial and economic uses would adhere to Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
Subpart A, §29.1 and Service policy, which allow those activities if they are necessary to achieve the Refuge
System mission or refuge purposes and goals. Allowing those activities also requires the Service to prepare
a finding of appropriateness, a compatibility determination, and an annual special use permit outlining the
terms, conditions, fees, and any other stipulations to ensure compatibility.
We would consider issuing a special use permit to commercial operators for each activity, such as guided
wildlife viewing, that takes place completely on refuge lands, if that activity meets the thresholds noted
above, including compatibility. In addition, we would require all operators to complete a detailed summary
of their activities on the refuge each year, and require that they conduct periodic visitor satisfaction surveys
using a survey method we review and approve prior to its use. We would modify or deny any subsequent
issuance of annual permits based on annual reports, our field reviews and inspections, and the results of
those surveys.
Distributing Refuge Revenue Sharing Payments
In accordance with the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (16 U.S.C. 715s), Congress appropriates funds each
year for refuge revenue sharing payments, which are calculated by a formula based on the acreage and
value of refuge land in each taxing jurisdiction. Those payments change with changes in the appraised
market values of refuge lands and new appropriations by Congress. Both of the alternatives would continue
the payments described in chapter 3 to the Towns of Greenfield and Temple.
Protecting Cultural Resources
As a federal land management agency, we are responsible for locating and protecting all historic resources
on the refuge or on land affected by refuge activities: specifically, archeological sites and historic structures
eligible for or listed in the National Register of Historic Places, and any museum properties. Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires our evaluation of the effects of our actions on any
archeological and historical resources on the refuge, and our consultation with respective State Historic
Preservation Offices. Our compliance with the act may require any or all of the following: a State Historic
Preservation Records survey, literature survey, or field survey.
We know of no archeological or historic sites on the refuge. Nevertheless, both alternatives would comply
with the NHPA, should we find any.
Managing the Refuge According to Deed Stipulations
When the land for the refuge was donated to the Service, it was given under the condition that we would
manage the refuge in a “wilderness-like” setting. Although the Wapack refuge is not designated as part of
2-4 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative
the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS), the donors wanted the land to be preserved “as a
place where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man is a visitor who does
not remain.” That wording in the deed closely resembles the text in the Wilderness Act of 1964. We explain
in appendix B why we are not recommending the refuge for NWPS status. However, both of the
alternatives would continue to manage the refuge in a “wilderness-like” setting and adhere to the
restrictions listed in the deed: the prohibition of hunting, fishing, trapping, travel in or use of vehicles, and
the cutting of trees except for the maintenance of trails. Neither of the alternatives would result in the
manipulation of refuge habitat, including selective cutting or prescribed burning.
Establishment of New Trails on the Refuge
Since the establishment of the refuge in 1972, two new trails have been developed on the refuge in addition
to the Wapack Trail and the Cliff Trail: the Ted’s and Carolyn’s trails. We provided the descendant of the
donors with a map of all the refuge trails, after determining their exact locations by using the Global
Positioning System (GPS). With her approval, we officially recognized those two new trails in September
2007.
Neither alternative would authorize additional trails on the refuge. Please see map 2–1 below to view all
designated refuge trails.
Staffing the Refuge
This unstaffed refuge is administered by the refuge manager at the Great Bay refuge, headquartered in
Newington, NH. The 2006 Regional Strategic Downsizing Plan includes the decision to de-staff the Great
Bay refuge and administer both the Wapack and Great Bay refuges from the Parker River refuge in
Newburyport, MA.
We expect to implement that change in 2008. Under the new organization, we would continue to ensure that
visitors have a safe visit, engage in approved appropriate and compatible activities, and understand and
adhere to refuge regulations.
Operating Hours
We would continue to open the refuge for public use from one-half hour before official sunrise to one-half
hour after official sunset, seven days a week, to ensure visitor safety and protect refuge resources. At the
refuge manager’s discretion, special use permits may allow organized, nocturnal activities, such as celestial
observation or wildlife research.
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge 2-5
Chapter 2
2-6 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative
Adaptive Management
Both alternatives would implement adaptive management. “Adaptive Management: The U.S Department of
Interior Technical Guide (2007),” promotes flexible decision-making that can be adjusted in the face of
uncertainties as we understand better the outcomes of management actions and other events. Careful
monitoring of these outcomes advances scientific understanding and helps adjust policies or operations as
part of an iterative process. Adaptive management does not represent an end in itself, but rather, a means
to more effective decisions and enhanced benefits (William and Shapiro 2007).
The need for adaptive management is even more compelling, because our present information on refuge
species and habitat is incomplete, provisional, and subject to change as our knowledge base improves.
We realize that we must adapt our objectives and strategies to respond to new information and spatial and
temporal changes. We would continually evaluate management actions, both formally and informally
through monitoring or research, to reconsider whether our original assumptions and predictions are still
valid. In that way, management becomes a proactive process of learning what really works.
The refuge manager is responsible for changing management strategies or objectives if they do not produce
the desired conditions. Significant changes may warrant additional NEPA analysis and public comment.
Minor changes would not, but we would document them in our annual monitoring, in project evaluation
reports, or in our annual narrative report.
Generally, we can increase monitoring and research that support adaptive management without additional
NEPA analysis, and assuming the activities, if conducted by non-Service personnel, are determined
compatible by the refuge manager in a compatibility determination.
Additional NEPA Analysis
NEPA generally requires site-specific analysis of impacts for all major federal actions in either an
environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS). Our two alternatives propose
many actions and associated impacts in enough detail to comply with NEPA without additional
environmental analysis. The following examples fall into that category: implementing priority public use
programs, new visitor services infrastructure and controlling invasive plants. Other activities are
categorically excluded from the NEPA requirements to prepare environmental documents. Those generally
include routine administrative actions, and are listed in chapter 4, “Environmental Consequences.”
The only proposed action in this CCP that would require additional NEPA analysis is the construction of a
parking area (see alternative B). We have yet to determine the design and location of that parking area, so
we decided to postpone detailed NEPA analysis until that time.
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge 2-7
Chapter 2
Alternative A. Current Management
Introduction
This alternative portrays our current management activities and those already planned or approved.
􀂃􈍗 We would continue to manage the refuge in a “wilderness-like” setting.
􀂃􈍗 We would not actively manage habitat on the refuge. Rather, we would allow natural succession to
continue without human interference.
􀂃􈍗 We would allow only uses that are consistent with the “wilderness-like” setting, other deed restrictions,
and existing compatibility determinations. We would not allow hunting, fishing, trapping, driving motor
vehicles or cutting trees (except in maintaining trails).
􀂃􈍗 We would continue to prohibit camping, mountain biking, horseback riding and dog walking.
􀂃􈍗 We would not take any new actions to improve the presence or visibility of the Service (e.g., posting an
informational sign or posting refuge regulations) or access to the refuge (i.e., creating a parking area).
􀂃􈍗 We would continue our informal relationships with the FOW and the Mountain View Hiking club to
maintain refuge trails, and continue to work under a MOA with the NHFG to resolve interjurisdictional
issues on the refuge as they arise.
Goal 1. Allow natural processes and disturbances to provide biological diversity and integrity of
upland wildlife habitat.
Objective 1a. (Natural Succession)
Continue to let the process of vegetative succession occur on the 1,625-acre refuge, primarily to provide
breeding and migrating habitat for northern hardwood and spruce-fir-dependent birds.
Rationale for Objective
The deed of donation restricts the cutting of trees, except when necessary to maintain trails. That
restriction prohibits us from actively managing the forest. Therefore, by engaging in passive management,
we allow for the natural succession of the ecosystem. Succession is the natural, sequential change of the
species composition of a community. Beginning in the eighteenth century, sheep and cattle were pastured
on the hillsides. By the end of the nineteenth century, raising cattle became economically problematic and
the fields were abandoned and allowed to grow back into forest. Throughout the 1900s, forests in the area
were logged when demand was high. Since the last period of significant deforestation in the 1940s, timber
harvests have been selective, resulting in mixed-aged stands of forest. The lower elevations of the refuge
show signs of advanced succession into mature hemlock-beech-oak-pine forest. In higher elevations on the
refuge, juniper is an indicator of transition from cleared field stage to a shrub stage to a spruce/fir forest.
If a natural disturbance was to occur on the refuge (e.g., an ice storm, hurricane, wildfire), the Service would
not intervene unless the conditions became extreme. For example, if a fire posed a danger to surrounding
landowners, we would take action to control it. In the case of less extreme conditions, we would not remove
fallen trees, but rather, leave them to decompose as they would under natural conditions.
2-8 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative: Alternative A
Strategies
Continue to
􀂃􈍍 Maintain the refuge in a “wilderness-like” setting with no development, minimal signs and other
infrastructure.
􀂃􈍁 Allow natural succession and natural disturbances to occur without interference, except under extreme
conditions, such as those that threaten human health and safety or the catastrophic loss of forest
habitat.
Goal 2. Establish a public use program that will encourage compatible, low-impact recreation
on refuge trails.
Objective 2a. (Trail Maintenance)
Continue our informal relationships with the Friends of the Wapack (FOW) for maintaining the sections of
the Wapack Trail and the Cliff Trail that cross the refuge, and with the Mountain View Hiking Club for
maintaining the sections of the Ted’s and Carolyn’s trails that cross the refuge.
Rationale for Objective
The FOW is an independent, non-profit organization of hikers, volunteers, supporters and landowners. The
FOW encourages mutual courtesy, friendship and cooperation between hikers and landowners. Its
volunteers are dedicated to the preservation of the Wapack Trail. We have maintained an informal
agreement with FOW to maintain and preserve the 4-mile segment of the Wapack Trail and the 1.1-mile
Cliff Trail that cross the refuge. This segment of the Wapack Trail is very popular among hikers, and
sustains heavy use.
The Mountain View Hiking Club consists of neighboring landowners who provide maintenance of the Ted’s
and Carolyn’s trails: 5.15 miles of hiking trails, of which 3 miles cross the refuge. Both trails cross both
private and refuge land. From the top of North Pack Monadnock, one of their two spurs connects to the
Wapack Trail; the other connects to the Cliff Trail.
Hiking facilitates wildlife observation and photography. Providing opportunities for the public to engage in
those activities on the refuge promotes visitor appreciation of and support for refuge programs. According
to the FOW and the Mountain View Hiking Club, the section of the Wapack Trail on the refuge, the spur of
the Cliff Trail and the Ted’s and Carolyn’s trails are in very good shape. Continuing our informal
agreements with the FOW and the Mountain View Hiking Club would maintain those conditions and ensure
that refuge visitors enjoy a safe, quality experience.
Strategies
􀂃􈍃 Continue our informal agreement with the Friends of the Wapack to maintain the 4-mile segment of the
Wapack Trail that runs through the refuge and the 1.1-mile Cliff Trail.
􀂃􈍃 Continue our informal agreement with the Mountain View Hiking Club to maintain the 3 miles of the
Ted’s and Carolyn’s trails that cross the refuge.
Objective 2b. (Trailhead Access)
Continue to allow public access to the northern end of the refuge via the Wapack Trailhead on Old Mountain
Road, and to the southern end via Joanne Bass Bross Preserve and Miller State Park.
Rationale for Objective
To access the northern end of the refuge and the start of the Wapack Trail, visitors must enter via Old
Mountain Road. Parking is available only on the road shoulder; no established or developed parking area
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge 2-9
Chapter 2
exists. If visitors would like to begin at the southern end of the refuge, they can park at Miller State Park
and hike north about 1 mile. Admission to the state park costs $3 for adults and $1 for children. Before
entering the Wapack refuge, hikers would also pass through the Joanne Bass Bross Preserve, owned and
maintained by The Nature Conservancy (TNC). This objective would not improve refuge access or parking.
Maps, literature, and the refuge website direct visitors to these points of entry.
Strategies
Continue to
􀂃��� Direct visitor access to the northern end of the refuge (beginning of Wapack Trail) via Old Mountain
Road.
􀂃􈍄 Direct visitor access to the southern end of the refuge through Joanne Bass Bross Preserve; encourage
parking at adjacent Miller State Park.
􀂃􈍍 Maintain the refuge website (profile page) to communicate points of entry and directions to the refuge.
Objective 2c. (Service and Refuge System Visibility)
Continue limited Service presence and visibility at the refuge and in the local community.
Rationale for Objective
Limited refuge resources have prevented us from being able to focus on establishing greater presence and
visibility in the local community and to refuge visitors. Only one refuge sign, erected by the FOW at the
trailhead, carries a topographic map (the northern end of the refuge). That map shows the layout of the
Wapack Trail, but does not provide any information about the refuge or the Service. The boundary of the
refuge is posted intermittently with standard Refuge System “blue goose” signs. This objective would not
provide any additional signage or improve the visibility or presence of the Service.
Strategies
Continue to
􀂃􈍁 Allow the FOW to maintain one trailhead information sign.
􀂃􈍍 Maintain refuge boundary signs.
Objective 2d. (Public Uses on the Refuge)
Continue to allow uses that are consistent with the “wilderness-like” setting and have complete, approved
compatibility determinations.
Rationale for Objective
As we discussed previously, the land for the refuge was donated under the condition that we would manage
the refuge in a “wilderness-like” setting and adhere to other deed restrictions prohibiting hunting, fishing,
trapping, traveling in or using vehicles, and the cutting of trees except to maintain trails.
The Refuge Improvement Act and our compatibility policy require an affirmative finding by the refuge
manager on the appropriateness and compatibility of a public use before we allow it on a national wildlife
refuge. In 1994, the refuge manager completed compatibility determinations for observing and
photographing wildlife, berry picking, hiking/backpacking, jogging/walking, picnicking, and snowshoeing
and cross-country skiing. Those were found to be compatible with the mission of the Refuge System and the
purpose for which the refuge was established. We would continue to allow them in alternative A on the
refuge. In addition to the activities listed in the deed, we would continue to prohibit in alternative A the
following activities, which previous refuge managers either did not evaluate or determined them
incompatible: dog walking, camping, mountain biking, and horseback riding.
2-10 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative: Alternative A
Strategies
Continue to
􀂃􈍐 Prohibit those activities listed in the deed: hunting, fishing, trapping, traveling in or using vehicles, and
cutting trees, except to maintain trails.
􀂃􈍐 Prohibit dog walking, camping, mountain biking, and horseback riding.
􀂃􈍁 Allow wildlife observation, photography, berry picking, hiking/backpacking, jogging/walking,
picnicking, and snowshoeing and cross-country skiing
Goal 3. Enhance the conservation, management, and stewardship of wildlife resources through
partnerships with public and private conservation groups, private landowners, State agencies
and local entities.
Objective 3a. (Current Partnerships)
Continue to maintain our current partnerships with the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department
(NHFG) for assistance with law enforcement.
Rationale for Objective
Our limited refuge staff and budget make it difficult for us to address law enforcement issues. Partnerships
are essential in accomplishing the goals for this unstaffed refuge. In 1994, the Service and the NHFG
approved a memorandum of agreement (MOA) for cooperative law enforcement. Alternative A would
continue our work under that MOA. In it, our regional director delegated to the NHFG the authority to
enforce the following federal laws dealing with the protection and conservation of fish, wildlife and natural
resources: The
1. Lacey Act Amendments of 1981
2. Migratory Bird Treaty Act
3. Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act
4. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
5. Airborne Hunting Act
6. National Wildlife Refuge Systems Administration Act
7. Endangered Species Act of 1973.
Although the MOA allows conservation officers from the NHFG to enforce refuge regulations, we do not
expect them to take on the duties of full-time refuge law enforcement officers. At this time, the conservation
officer patrolling the surrounding area would be responsible only for responding to extreme situations or
complaints as they arise. For example, a conservation officer would provide search and rescue on the refuge.
Again, this relationship with NHFG is essential in protecting refuge resources and visitors.
Strategies
Continue to
􀂃􈍗 Work under the MOA for cooperative law enforcement with the NHFG.
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge 2-11
Chapter 2
Alternative B. The Service-preferred Alternative
Introduction
Alternative B is the one we are recommending to our regional director for implementation. It includes an
array of management actions that, in our professional judgment, work best toward achieving the purpose of
the refuge, our vision and goals for the refuge, and state and regional conservation plans. In our opinion,
this alternative would most effectively address the key issues identified by the Service, the state, and the
public (see chapter 1).
Alternative B proposes that we focus on improving our biological and visitor services programs by
expanding our partnerships with other federal and state agencies, town departments, local conservation
organizations, and individuals. We would assess and monitor threats to the integrity of refuge habitat. One
important component of that assessment is gathering baseline data on plant and wildlife populations on the
refuge. We would use partnerships to continue the maintenance of trails and the development and
maintenance of a refuge parking area. We would also work to increase the presence of the Service and the
visibility of the refuge in the local community, and better communicate information about the refuge, its
rules and regulations, and contact information to the public.
Although we cannot acquire more land for the refuge at this time, we would offer our support in protecting
other land in the area. We would help our partners identify land that should protected for wildlife
conservation, and help them choose the best methods or techniques for managing that land. Please refer to
alternative B, goal 3, for additional information on land protection partnerships.
Goal 1. Allow natural processes and disturbances to enhance the biological diversity and
integrity of upland wildlife habitat.
Objective 1a. (Collecting Resource Information)
Over the 15 years following the approval of this CCP, this alternative would promote a biologically diverse,
healthy, and mature forest habitat on 1,625 acres that supports breeding and migrating bird species of
conservation concern, such as the bay-breasted warbler, black-throated blue warbler, black-throated green
warbler, blackburnian warbler, blackpoll warbler, Canada warbler, eastern wood-pewee, ovenbird, veery,
wood thrush, and yellow-bellied sapsucker. In addition, we would conserve habitat for other species listed in
the NH Wildlife Action Plan whose presence is possible on the refuge, such as the American marten, bobcat,
eastern small-footed bat, marbled salamander, spotted turtle, and northern leopard frog.
Rationale for Objective
The Service policy “Maintaining the Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health of the
National Wildlife Refuge System” provides refuge managers with an evaluation process to analyze their
refuge and recommend the best management direction to prevent the further degradation of environmental
conditions. To fully implement that policy, we must first assess the current status of the biological integrity,
diversity, and environmental health through surveys of baseline vegetation, population surveys and studies,
and any other environmental studies necessary. Fully assessing the current environmental conditions at the
refuge would give us the information we need to maintain its biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health.
Because the Wapack refuge is unstaffed, resources are not readily available to conduct biological surveys.
Limited refuge budgets also make it difficult to contract those surveys to other organizations or individuals.
James Kowalsky completed the last surveys for the Wapack refuge in 2003. They included information on
breeding bird species presence; no information was collected on productivity and survivorship. We have not
conducted any surveys of forest health, mammals, amphibians and reptiles, or vegetation. Members of the
2-12 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative: Alternative B
local community are concerned with that lack of biological data and its unavailability to the public. It is
important that we obtain more up-to-date information on all refuge resources and make that information
available to the public.
We would use a partnership with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Forest Health Protection Program
(FHPP) to complete an assessment of forest health on the refuge. The FHPP works to protect and improve
the health of America’s forests. Its goal is to respond rapidly to forest health threats to avoid unacceptable
losses of forest resources. The FHPP would compile a plant species list, identify tree mortality, and
determine the presence of any invasive species. That assessment would allow us to identify and monitor any
threats to the integrity of the refuge forest habitat.
To gather information about vegetation and wildlife populations on the refuge, we would use such
partnerships as New Hampshire Audubon, The Nature Conservancy, the Keene State College citizen
survey group, local conservation groups, and individual volunteers. That research would focus on species of
concern that other state and conservation management plans have identified.
􀂃􈍔 The New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) (NHFG 2005) identifies the bay-breasted warbler,
Canada warbler, veery, and wood thrush as forest-dependent species of concern. In addition to bird
species, the New Hampshire WAP lists as species of concern some mammals known in the vicinity of
the refuge, including the black bear, bobcat, and moose.
􀂃􈍔 The Atlantic Northern Forest Bird Conservation Region (BCR 14) Blueprint (Dettmers 2005) lists the
black-throated blue warbler, black-throated green warbler, blackburnian warbler, blackpoll warbler,
eastern wood-pewee, ovenbird, and yellow-bellied sapsucker as moderate to high conservation priority
in forest types found on the refuge.
To provide consistent information that we can compare from year to year, the refuge would develop a
Habitat and Species Inventory and Monitoring Plan (HSIMP). That HSIMP would outline the methodology
to assess whether our assumptions and proposed management actions are, in fact, supporting our habitat
and species objectives. A HSIMP would promote the use of coordinated, standardized, cost-effective,
defensible methods for gathering and analyzing population data. It would also allow us to assess new and
ongoing surveys and focus our limited resources on data collection for resources of conservation concern.
Our primary interest in establishing a thorough, consistent inventory and monitoring program is that it
would allow us to control threats to refuge resources (e.g., a threat from invasive species, or overuse of an
area by recreational visitors).
Strategies
Within 2 years of CCP approval
􀂃􈍍 Meet with various partners (e.g., NHFG, New Hampshire Audubon, The Nature Conservancy, the
Keene State College citizen survey group, local conservation groups, and individual volunteers) to
discuss possible partnership opportunities for prioritizing, funding, and conducting compatible natural
resource surveys.
􀂃􈍔 The USFS Forest Health Protection Program would complete a full forest health assessment and help
us identify what to evaluate and monitor as threats to the biological integrity of the refuge.
Within 7 years of CCP approval
􀂃􈍕 Use partnerships (e.g., established from those contacts made in strategy above) for resource data
collection following peer-reviewed or agency approved protocols. Obtain all required permits prior to
field implementation.
􀂃􈍃 Complete a Habitat and Species Inventory and Monitoring Plan (HSIMP).
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge 2-13
Chapter 2
Goal 2. Establish a public use program that will encourage compatible, low-impact recreation
on refuge trails.
Objective 2a. (Trail Maintenance)
Within 2 years of the approval of this CCP, develop a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the
Friends of the Wapack (FOW) for maintaining the segments of the Wapack Trail and the Cliff Trail that
cross the refuge, and an MOU with the Mountain View Hiking Club for maintaining the sections of the Ted’s
and Carolyn’s trails that cross the refuge.
Rationale for Objective
Under an informal agreement, the FOW maintains the 4-mile section of the Wapack Trail that crosses the
refuge. They also maintain the 1.1-mile Cliff Trail, a spur off that 4-mile segment at the top of North Pack
Monadnock. Both the Service and the FOW are interested in formulating a MOU for refuge trail
maintenance. We would use as a template for our final MOU one we drafted in 2004 but never implemented.
Under the final MOU, the FOW would be responsible for removing major obstructions and litter, installing
water diversions to minimize erosion, or rerouting the trail if necessary to minimize erosion or mitigate the
effects of heavy use. They would assist in marking the trail, with care to mark only what is necessary to
keep people on the trail. Yellow triangles painted on trees or rock outcrops would designate the Wapack
Trail, while blue triangles would designate the Cliff Trail. Given the amount of work and the help the FOW
members provide to the refuge, it is important that we complete a formal agreement that documents their
exact responsibilities. We would meet annually with the FOW to discuss plans for trail maintenance for the
ensuing year. That would give both the FOW and the Service the opportunity to discuss any concerns over
the safety or inappropriate uses of the trail.
The Mountain View Hiking Club maintains the combined 5.15-mile Ted’s and Carolyn’s trails. Three miles
traverse the refuge, while the other 2.15 miles cross private land. The Mountain View Hiking Club is very
interested in developing a MOU with the Service for the continued maintenance of the sections of the two
trails that cross the refuge. As in the MOU with the FOW, the club would be responsible for removing
major obstructions and litter, installing water diversions to minimize erosion, or rerouting the trail if
necessary to minimize erosion or mitigate the effects of heavy use. They would also assist in marking the
trail. Some of the refuge sections of the Ted’s and Carolyn’s trails are designated sporadically with yellow
markers stamped with the Service logo. The Service would provide additional trail markers to the club so
that the refuge sections of the trails can be more adequately marked. In addition, we would meet annually
with the club to discuss plans for trail maintenance in the ensuing year.
During the planning process, we established communications with a direct descendant of Mr. and Mrs.
Marshall (the couple who originally donated the refuge property), who lives locally and is very interested in
the refuge and its management according to the deed restrictions.
Strategies
Within 2 years of CCP approval
􀂃􈍃 Complete a MOU with the Friends of the Wapack for trail maintenance on the refuge.
􀂃􈍃 Complete a MOU with the Mountain View Hiking club for trail maintenance on the refuge.
􀂃􈍍 Meet annually with the FOW and the Mountain View Hiking Club to review plans for trail maintenance.
􀂃􈍅 Establish contact with the Marshall family descendant, or designee, if refuge activities may result in
significant removal of vegetation or ground disturbance.
2-14 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative: Alternative B
Objective 2b. (Trailhead Improvements)
Within 15 years of the approval of this CCP, work with state and local partners to seek funding for the
design, construction, or, if necessary, land acquisition for a trailhead parking area.
Rationale for Objective
The only way that visitors can access the northern end of the refuge is by parking on the shoulder of Old
Mountain Road. That can be problematic for several reasons. First, we have seen up to 15 cars parked along
the road shoulder during peak season weekends for access to the Wapack Trail. With limited space for cars,
visitors are forced to park in unsafe areas or sometimes leave altogether. Once visitors have parked their
cars, they have to walk along the road to the refuge entrance. That creates another safety concern,
particularly when through-traffic on the road is heavy. Parking on the road also creates a problem for the
Town of Greenfield Department of Transportation. In the winter, cars parked on the side of the road make
it very difficult for snow plows to safely pass and clear a road that is already narrow. The Town of
Greenfield is very concerned about this recurring problem, and would like us to work with them in solving it.
If visitors wanted to access the southern entrance of the refuge, they would have to park at Miller State
Park and hike north through the Joanne Bass Bross Preserve (TNC). Parking at Miller State Park can be
inconvenient, not only because visitors have to hike a farther distance to get to the refuge, but also because
they have to pay for parking. In 2007, admission to the state park cost $3 for adults and $1 for children.
By creating a parking area at the northern entrance of the refuge, we would increase visitor convenience,
improve public safety, and resolve concerns about snow plowing. We would like to build the parking area on
a parcel of land on or near the refuge and the Wapack trailhead. We would consider purchasing a tract from
a willing seller at market value to provide adequate space to establish a safe parking area. If possible, we
would also like to work with the Town of Greenfield to arrange plowing for the new parking area. We do not
have a location or a parking design yet; the location and ownership of the land would dictate the size and
configuration of the parking area. Because the Town of Greenfield owns most of the land around the refuge,
we would meet with the town to discuss possible options for establishing a parking area.
The Brantwood Camp also owns land next to the refuge. It provides a positive camping experience for boys
and girls from various backgrounds who otherwise would miss the opportunity to attend summer camp
(Brantwood Camp 2007). We know that campers quite often use the refuge trail, so they also might benefit
from additional parking. We would also meet with the Brantwood Camp to discuss opportunities to work
together in establishing the parking area. Because the location of the refuge is so close to Miller State Park,
we also propose to meet with the NH Division of Parks and Recreation to discuss partnership and funding
opportunities to develop parking.
Over the next 5 years, we would seek sources of funding for the design and construction of the parking area.
Two possible sources are the Recreational Trails Program (RTP) and the Public Lands Highways
Discretionary Program (PLHD).
The RTP is an assistance program of the Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA). Federal transportation funds benefit recreation by making funds available to the states to develop
and maintain recreational trails and trail-related facilities for both nonmotorized and motorized recreational
uses. RTP funds come from the Federal Highway Trust Fund, and represent a portion of the motor fuel
excise tax collected from nonhighway recreational fuel use: fuel used for off-highway recreation by
snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles, off-highway motorcycles, and off-highway light trucks (FHWA 2006).
The PLHD Program was designed to improve access to and within federal lands. PLHD funds are available
for transportation planning, research, engineering, and the construction of the highways, roads, parkways,
and transit facilities on federal public lands. Those funds are also available for the operation and
maintenance of transit facilities. In both of these programs, the state would assist in applying for a grant,
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge 2-15
Chapter 2
which could propose funds for designing, constructing or, if necessary, acquiring land on which to build the
parking area.
Strategies
Within 2 years of CCP approval
􀂃􈍍 Meet with the Town of Greenfield, Brantwood Camp, and the NH DRED, Division of Parks and
Recreation, to discuss possible partnership opportunities for establishing and maintaining a parking
area on Old Mountain Road.
Within 5 years of CCP approval
􀂃􈍄 Determine a specific location for the construction of the parking area on Old Mountain Road.
􀂃􈍗 Work with the State of New Hampshire to seek funding for the design, construction, or, if necessary,
land acquisition for a parking area.
􀂃􈍗 Work with an engineer to design the layout of the parking area.
Within 15 years of CCP approval
􀂃􈍃 Complete construction of the parking area.
Objective 2c. (Service and Refuge System Visibility)
Within 5 years of the approval of this CCP, increase the visibility of the Service in the local community and
improve public recognition and awareness of the refuge and the Refuge System to the extent that
90 percent of visitors contacted know they are on a national wildlife refuge, can identify its purpose, and
know that it is part of a national system of refuges.
Rationale for Objective
Limited resources have prevented us from improving the presence of the Service and the visibility of the
refuge to the public as well as its recognition in the local community.
This alternative proposes that we increase Service visibility through increasing signage, engaging in new
partnerships for outreach and education, and communicating regularly with federal, state and local elected
officials. We would install a new informational panel at the northern trailhead of the refuge. That panel
would provide general refuge resource and contact information. It would also publish refuge rules and
regulations, including why keeping dogs on leash is important. Because the refuge does not provide any
accessible trails, the panel would also identify the accessible trails in the area.
We would meet with the FOW to discuss providing more signage, and providing information on the refuge
and the FOW. We would also work with the Mountain View Hiking Club to install standard “Welcome to
your National Wildlife Refuge” signs at the refuge entrances of the Ted and Carolyn’s trails. That sign
would simply notify trail users that they are leaving private land and entering a national wildlife refuge.
By posting the rules and regulations on a trailhead sign, we hope to minimize the number of violations on
the refuge. We hope that refuge visitors would respect and adhere to all rules and regulations.
We also propose to improve the posting of the refuge boundary. We would post additional signs around the
refuge boundary to ensure that they are intervisible.1 That would help visitors realize that they are on a
national wildlife refuge, and reduce the number of trespassers that enter it.
1 intervisible adj mutually visible (surveying): i.e., visitors can see from one sign to the next
2-16 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative: Alternative B
Our proximity to Miller State Park makes it a great asset in our effort to increase our visibility. We propose
to meet with the NH Division of Parks of Recreation to discuss developing a MOA for assistance in outreach
and education. The MOA would lay the foundation to work with the Miller State Park to increase public
recognition and awareness of the refuge. Ideas for further discussion include having park personnel hand
out refuge information at the park entrance toll booth. A small information panel might also be constructed
and placed at the end of the park’s trail, where visitors leave the park and enter the Joanne Bass Bross
Preserve. That panel would explain the detrimental effects of allowing unleashed dogs on the trail system,
and would help reduce such violations both on the refuge and in the park.
To help increase knowledge about the refuge in the local community, we propose to develop and distribute
at the Wapack trailhead an interpretative brochure describing key habitats, species and sights that visitors
should look for as they travel the refuge trails. We hope that the brochure would not only increase public
knowledge of the refuge, but also improve the visitor experience.
Strengthening our relationships with federal, state and local elected officials can strengthen political
support for the refuge and its programs. This alternative proposes that we provide updates on the refuge to
Congress each year, or as significant issues arise. We would also work to increase refuge visibility among
state and local elected officials by improving communication about refuge resources, issues, and visitor
activities.
Strategies
Within 1 year of CCP approval
􀂃􈍍 Meet with the FOW to cooperate in developing an informational panel at the Wapack trailhead.
Within 5 years of CCP approval
􀂃􈍉 Install an informational panel at the northern trailhead of the refuge that includes general refuge
information, rules and regulations, and contact information.
􀂃􈍉 Install standard “Welcome to the National Wildlife Refuge” signs at the refuge entrances of both the
Ted and Carolyn’s trails to notify hikers that they are entering a national wildlife refuge.
􀂃􈍉 Increase the number of boundary signs posted around the refuge, where necessary to make them
intervisible.
􀂃􈍍 Meet with the NH Division of Parks and Recreation to discuss the possibility of developing a MOA for
assistance with outreach and education.
􀂃􈍄 Develop an interpretative brochure that describes key habitats, species and sights that visitors should
watch for as they travel along refuge trails.
􀂃􈍐 Provide congressional updates each year or as significant issues arise.
􀂃􈍉 Improve refuge visibility among state and local elected officials through improved communication.
􀂃􈍃 Create a more informative website to provide better orientation to the refuge.
􀂃􈍃 Contact various authors of hiking guides that refer to the Wapack refuge to update refuge resource and
contact information.
􀂃􈍃 Contact publishers of regional hiking guides (e.g., Appalachian Mountain Club) to share accurate
information about refuge trails.
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge 2-17
Chapter 2
Objective 2d. (Public Uses on the Refuge)
Within 1 year of the approval of this CCP, communicate our findings of appropriateness and compatibility
determinations for refuge uses to the public, refuge partners, and elected officials.
Rationale for Objective
A compatible use is one “that will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission
of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge.” Please refer to “Policy on Appropriateness of Refuge
Uses and Compatibility” in chapter 1 for additional, detailed information.
In 1994, we determined that the following activities on the refuge were compatible: berry picking,
hiking/backpacking, jogging/walking, picnicking, cross-country skiing and snowshoeing, and observing and
photographing wildlife. At least every 15 years, or sooner if new information warrants, we reevaluate our
compatibility determinations for the six priority public uses: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and
photography, and environmental education and interpretation; we reevaluate all other uses every 10 years.
Except for wildlife observation and photography, all of those compatibility determinations have passed their
reevaluation date.
To comply with 2006 Service policy on appropriateness, we reevaluated all non-priority public uses and
completed draft findings for these activities: berry picking; walking/hiking, backpacking, cross-country
skiing, or snowshoeing; jogging; organized or facility supported picnicking; dog walking; research by non-
Service personnel; camping; mountain biking; and, horseback riding. Appendix A includes those draft
findings. Of those activities, we found jogging, picnicking, camping, mountain biking and horseback riding to
be inappropriate; we would not allow them on the refuge.
Although we found jogging and picnicking compatible in 1994, this alternative would prohibit them. Since
1994, conditions at the refuge have changed and our new policies have raised the standard for determining
appropriateness. We now feel the two activities could adversely impact refuge resources and other refuge
visitors. An increase in refuge visitation and trail erosion has elevated our cause for concern about the
effects on wildlife and public safety. After reevaluating those activities under current conditions and Service
policies, we determined that they are not consistent with those policies and public safety and would hinder
our ability to provide quality, wildlife-dependent recreation on the refuge. Furthermore, jogging and
picnicking are rarely observed at the refuge, and they were not raised as activities of interest at our public
scoping meetings. In our opinion, jogging would detract from the enjoyment of the refuge for other visitors
engaged in wildlife dependent activities.
We reevaluated the compatibility determinations from 1994 as well as added a few others (e.g., dog walking,
research by non-Service personnel). Prior to this CCP, no decision had ever been made on whether dogs
were allowed on the refuge. Without a finding of appropriateness and a compatibility determination, this use
technically is prohibited on the refuge. Alternative B would only allow dog walking if the dogs are leashed.
The public will have the opportunity to comment on all the draft compatibility determinations during the 30-
day review and comment period for this draft CCP/EA.
Strategies
Within 1 year of CCP approval
􀂃􈍄 Develop outreach materials to communicate the prohibition of jogging, picnicking, camping, mountain
biking, and horseback riding on the refuge.
􀂃􈍗 Work with partners and volunteers to monitor refuge uses and step up outreach and education on why
these uses are considered inappropriate with refuge purposes.
2-18 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-preferred Alternative: Alternative B
Within 5 years of CCP approval
􀂃􈍗 With help from our partners, monitor dog walking to determine whether visitors are adhering to the
“dog on leash” regulation. If we find that the majority are not complying, then we would prohibit dog
walking altogether.
Goal 3. Enhance the conservation, management, and stewardship of wildlife resources through
partnerships with public and private conservation groups, private landowners, State agencies
and local entities.
Objective 3a. (Partnerships Focusing on Refuge Resources)
Within 15 years of the approval of this CCP, increase our efforts to maintain and expand partnerships with
other federal agencies, state agencies, local conservation groups and individuals with similar conservation
missions.
Rationale for Objective
The refuge is an unstaffed satellite of the Great Bay refuge. In 2008, both the Wapack and Great Bay
refuges will become unstaffed satellites of the Parker River refuge in Newburyport, MA. Limited resources
make it difficult for the Service to address key refuge issues, including data collection on refuge resources,
trail maintenance, refuge access, outreach and education, and law enforcement. The refuge can receive help
to deal with those issues through partnerships. They will be essential for this unstaffed refuge to accomplish
its goals.
Goals 1 and 2 in alternative B propose several partnerships to fulfill our needs for inventorying and
monitoring species and habitat. We propose to partner with several groups in the local community: the
Monadnock Conservancy, the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, Open Space
Committee of Greenfield, Piscataquaog Watershed Association, and local town conservation commissions.
We would first contact each of these groups to converse about possible opportunities for their assistance in
monitoring the refuge. That could range anywhere from general observations while hiking the trail, to detail
analysis through scientific studies.
The Friends of the Wapack group is focused on maintaining the Wapack Trail both within and beyond the
refuge. If we discover enough interest in the local community, we may consider forming a Friends of
Wapack NWR group with a broader mission to help monitor refuge resources, facilitate visitor service
programs, and advocate for the refuge with the local community and elected officials.
Goal 2, objective 2a proposes MOUs with the FOW and the Mountain View Hiking Club for trail
maintenance. In conjunction with our proposed improvements to refuge access, under goal 2, objectives 2b
and 2c, we identify partnerships with various groups to help establish a parking area and signage at the
northern end of the refuge (Old Mountain Road). Those include the Town of Greenfield, Brantwood Camp,
the NH Division of Parks and Recreation, and FOW. We would also like to pursue partnerships with the
Harris Center for Conservation Education and the Brantwood Camp. They could play a crucial role in
helping with environmental education and outreach.
The Harris Center is dedicated to promoting understanding and respect for our natural environment
through education of all ages, direct protection and exemplary stewardship of the region's natural
resources, and programs that encourage active participation in the great outdoors (Harris Center 2005). We
would contact the Harris Center about distributing refuge information at their facility as well as using the
refuge as a site for their outdoor programs and hiking trips. Although the refuge lacks an active
environmental education program, the Harris Center could help in using the refuge as an outdoor
classroom.
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge 2-19
Chapter 2
The Brantwood Camp provides a positive camping experience for boys and girls who would not otherwise
have the opportunity to afford summer camp (Brantwood Camp 2007). Since the Brantwood Camp is
adjacent to the refuge, it provides campers with a great opportunity to learn about nature without them
having to travel too far. A part of their camping experience could incorporate a trip to the refuge, where the
staff could introduce them to the forest ecosystem and the many species of wildlife that inhabit it. Outreach
materials could also be handed out to campers at the main facility.
Our limited law enforcement capabilities are a concern on the refuge. We rely on the local community to be
the “eyes and ears” of the refuge and continue to encourage notifying the refuge