I don’t know how I first heard about it, but I learned recently that the 36,000-acre Silvio O Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge is writing a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which will guide refuge management over the next fifteen years. As FWS is a federal agency, the draft document was made generally available and the public invited to comment on it. Over the past few months, the Refuge staff held fourteen information sessions around the region to present the plan and also scheduled four public hearings. Together with about 35 other interested citizens, I attended the third of the four hearings this evening at the FWS regional office in Hadley. The comment period closes in a week, at midnight on November 16th; the final plan will be released in Spring 2016. Then after a 30-day review period, it will be submitted to the Regional Director.
Although I no longer live within a mile of the Connecticut River, as I did for over five years in the late 80s and early 90s, I still live within the Connecticut River watershed, as I confirmed earlier this summer. In fact, the Connecticut River watershed covers 7.2 million acres and extends through four New England states: Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. According to its website, the refuge was designed to include the entire watershed, as that is the only way migratory fish and other aquatic species can be adequately protected.
At the hearing tonight, Andrew French, Project Leader, first introduced the staff who worked on the project (Nancy, Mark, and Dean of the Core Team) and then Noah Kahn as the facilitator for the evening. The rules were that each person could speak for five minutes, and speakers would be called in the order they registered. The agency is particularly interested in which of the four proposed management plans, Alternatives A, B, C, or D, are generally supported and what are the reasons for choosing one over the others.
Though I knew the session would be recorded, I took notes anyway, and I’m pretty sure the names and affiliations of the speakers as I list them below are correct.
- Larry Bandolin, Belchertown, member of the team which wrote the first proposals to create the refuge, believes that Alternative C continues the original vision, is especially concerned with fish management
- Mike Leonard, Petersham, consulting forester, believes federal lands should be actively managed, which most are not, he’s against expansion of the refuge
- Declined
- Andrew Fisk, Amherst, member of Connecticut River Watershed Council founded in 1952, feels that refuge is unique because operates by means of partnerships, land is often acquired from willing sellers, wants more information on fisheries, prefers Alternative B
- Jonah Keane, Greenfield, Mass Audubon, supports Alternative C, agrees that active management of federal lands is a viable option and is desirable
- Noah Pollock, Sharon VT, Vermont River Conservancy, feels fortunate to work as refuge partner, satisfied with either Alternative B or C, would like flood plain resiliency as goal
- Kim Lutz, Northampton, Chair of Friends of Conte, which represents 70 organizations, all different, believes that refuge is an environmental and economic success story, has important role in improving quality of life in region
- Markelle Smith, Williamsburg, The Nature Conservancy, understands this CCP is enormous undertaking, endorses Alternative C, agrees with plans for CFA (Conservation Focus Area) even though it leaves out small areas, commends focus on Dead Branch and Westfield River, would like to share data on critical linkages, also interested in dam removal, restoration of rivers
- Kristen Sykes, Florence, Appalachian Mountain Club, oldest conservation and recreation organization in US, AMC has deep roots in CT River Valley, fully support mission and goals of CCP, appreciate attention to Paddlers’ Trail and other water trails, would like more details on recreational uses
- Declined
- Declined
- Kristin DeBoer, Pelham, Executive Director of Kestrel Land Trust, proud to be a refuge partner, Trust works in forest and farmland conservation, supports Alternative C, interested in plans for Mill River, Fort River, accessible trails are important
- Kurt Heidinger, Hilltowns, blogs at “The Ripple,” glad of emphasis on keeping Westfield River wild-and-scenic, would like to see more of a management focus, more attention to agriculture and forestry in the watershed
People spoke for about an hour, though more time had been allocated. I wanted to stay and look at the maps and other information, but I have an hour’s drive to get home, so after the last speaker relinquished the microphone, I quickly made my way out. I did not have time to review the documents in depth before the hearing (and in fact, in my cursory skimming online, didn’t see all that many differences among the alternatives), but I feel confident that the Refuge is in good hands, and that the watershed will continue to be managed for the public good and for the good of all the plants and animals who live within it.