Frequently Asked Questions

COULD LOCAL PEOPLE HAVE ANY SAY IN HOW A REFUGE IS MANAGED?

YES. Local people could continue to have a say in the management of a new High Peaks NWR. Beginning with the public scoping, assessment and planning process, everybody can help decide whether a refuge should be created, how big it should be, what its primary goals would be, even what its name should be. We are fortunate to live near an area with such outstanding fish and wildlife potential that a new NWR unit can be considered here. We respect the opinions and ideas of neighbors who may feel otherwise. We remind everyone that the Fish and Wildlife Service can find other places that are more eager for a new refuge.

Unlike many other public and private land management units, national wildlife refuges are managed locally by resident managers. High Peaks Alliance could help create a local “refuge friends” group to work with refuge managers to promote the beneficial public use of the refuge, and to help find reasonable solutions to any problems that may arise in the future.

COULD HUNTING OR FISHING BE ALLOWED IN A HIGH PEAKS REFUGE?

YES. Hunting and fishing are among the six priority recreation activities that are encouraged and actively supported in nearly all 560 NWR units. Refuges can regulate some activities by special permit, but generally, the state’s regular hunting and fishing practices are allowed on the refuge. A new High Peaks NWR would support hunting and fishing, and as an added bonus could help to restore and improve habitats, including deer yards, for all important game species.

WOULD A NEW REFUGE USE EMINENT DOMAIN TO TAKE LAND FROM PRIVATE OWNERS WHO DO NOT WANT TO SELL THEIR LAND?

NO. By longstanding policy, the Fish and Wildlife Service does not use the power of eminent domain to take land from an unwilling private landowner. Every parcel of land would be acquired solely from willing sellers, and every willing seller would be paid the land’s current fair market value.

HOW WOULD A REFUGE AFFECT FRANKLIN COUNTY’S TIMBER HARVESTS?

Our proposal involves working with supporting landowners willing to sell a total of about 25,000 acres – about 2% of Franklin County’s 1,125,713 acres of total land area. Much of the land  proposed for the refuge is located at high elevations featuring steep slopes and hence is marginal or inoperable for timber harvesting. A new High Peaks wildlife refuge would have an active forest management plan featuring commercial-scale harvest operations, and harvest contracts would be made available locally on a competitive bid basis. Thus, we believe that transferring this relatively small amount of land would not harm the local forest products industry, nor unduly diminish overall harvesting capacity.

COULD REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS BENEFIT FROM A NEW REFUGE?

YES. A new high peaks refuge would obviously remove some backcountry land from potential development. However, there would still be abundant nearby private land that could be developed. In the unorganized territory and plantations, the Land Use Planning Commission’s general policy has been to encourage new development near existing development and near public roads, rather than to encourage it in the backcountry. This helps limit the cost of public services that accompany any new development and also helps preserve the nearby open space for traditional uses like logging, outdoor recreation, and wildlife.

Numerous national economic development studies demonstrate that land values increase with proximity to well-managed conservation and open space land, especially lands featuring low-density public recreation access and trails.

WOULD RETAILERS AND OTHER BUSINESSES BENEFIT FROM A NEW REFUGE?

YES. A new High Peaks wildlife refuge would be well positioned within a growing tourism and seasonal home economic region that includes the Rangeley Lakes and Carrabassett Valley destination resort areas. Wildlife observation is a leading outdoor recreation activity in America, so a well-planned refuge could serve a valuable complementary role in Franklin County’s dynamic recreation industry. Well-planned trails and interpretation facilities in the refuge could help support future regional marketing efforts.

WOULD TAXES PAY THE COST OF BUYING REFUGE LANDS?

NO. Acquisition costs for new NWR units are paid from federal offshore oil and gas revenues allocated by Congress to the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund. This primary source would be supplemented by special conservation revenues known as “Duck Stamps” paid by hunters and anglers. So, no general purpose federal tax dollars are used to acquire land for a new refuge.

In addition, acquisition costs would be 100% federal dollars – unlike other conservation programs (like Forest Legacy), there are no “state matching funds” requirements. Because it would be a federal land management unit, acquisition and management costs for a high peaks refuge would be the responsibility of the federal government alone, and State of Maine taxes or bonds would not be used.

HOW WOULD A REFUGE AFFECT LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES?

Like all federal land units, National Wildlife Refuges do not pay state or local property taxes. Instead, they pay “Refuge Revenue Sharing” fees, derived from congressional appropriations, and from local revenue sources like timber harvests on refuge land. In Maine, these fees have historically resulted in local payments similar to the taxes paid by timberland owners under Maine’s Tree Growth tax law.

HOW COULD A REFUGE AFFECT FUTURE PRIVATE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT?

Economists who study public lands find that they often stimulate economic development in nearby communities, including new recreation businesses, new residential construction, and increasing local property values. The direct effect on Franklin County’s vital recreation industry could be very positive. Adding a well-managed backcountry area featuring excellent four season trail systems, enhanced hunting, fishing and wildlife viewing, and new fish and wildlife interpretation and education programs would enhance our region’s increasing economic reliance on recreation.

COULD SNOWMOBILING OR ATV RIDING BE ALLOWED IN A HIGH PEAKS REFUGE?

YES. Recreation trails for snowmobiling and ATV riding are supported in many units of the NWR system. Each unit determines if particular trails are appropriate and compatible in particular locations. Trail clubs and individuals can support the continuation or establishment of particular recreation trails or trail systems during the public Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Planning meetings.

Basically, pre-existing connecting recreation trails are usually continued as part of a new refuge, although some trails may have to relocate to prevent interference with sensitive wildlife habitats. New recreation trails have to be planned separately as part of the public process. Parts of a new High Peaks NWR would likely host many of the snowmobile and ATV club trails already developed and would consider proposals for new or re-established trails as well. Snowmobile trails are already allowed at all the larger NWRs in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. ATV trails are less common, but ATV trails are allowed at various locations around the country. High Peaks Alliance is confident that existing and renewed snowmobile and ATV trails will be part of a new NWR in the High Peaks.

COULD HIKING, SKIING, CAMPING AND SIMILAR USES BE INCLUDED?

YES. Six priority uses in a High Peaks refuge would be hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education and interpretation. Facilities to support and encourage these activities would need to be part of the refuge plan, with non-motorized public recreation access and activities located in appropriate locations. High Peaks Alliance will continue to work with all organized trail and recreation groups to assure that many public recreation activities are established and supported.

National Parks are located in unique natural places and developed to serve a large number of visitors. Facilities for cars and walking are given priority, with hunting and off-road vehicles generally prohibited. Creating a new national park in the Maine woods would be a departure from the traditional range of low-density recreation activities that most Maine people consider the true essence of the Maine woods experience.

National forests are large land areas managed for five purposes – timber production, water protection, wildlife protection, grazing, and outdoor recreation.  Most eastern national forests were established during economic hard times in rural locations found unsuitable for successful farming. During the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, Maine’s political leadership rejected several opportunities to expand the national forest system further into the Maine woods. Since that time, the National Forest Service has developed the alternative Forest Legacy program which funds 75% of the cost of acquiring forest land or easements by the State of Maine. In terms of the acreage acquired, the Forest Legacy program functions on a much smaller, parcel by parcel scale, than the traditional large units of the national forest system.

National wildlife refuges come in all sizes, from tiny to enormous. As noted above, on average there are more than 10 refuges per state (with 560 nationally and currently 6 in Maine). Their primary function is to help conserve wildlife, fish and plant resources and their habitats. Six priority visitor activities are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, interpretation and environmental education. Recreation facilities, such as trails and camping, can be established during each refuge’s comprehensive planning process. A High Peaks refuge would always feature active forest management including commercial-scale harvesting.