I haven't posted about anything political in a while, so I guess it's time to wade back into the fray. (I say that mostly because I'm sitting at the airport in Detroit on my way back to Maine, so I don't have any actual Camp news to post.)
This legislative session, a bill was introduced to abolish the Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC). Ultimately, the bill lacked legislative support, and lawmakers retreated from it. However, the Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee passed (7-5 along party lines) one of two proposed amendments to instead form a study group intended to make recommendations to the legislature next January.
Debate on the subject included a majority report proposed by Republicans and a minority report proposed by Democrats. Both reports include thirteen (13) members, but the breakdown is different. (I'll italicize the differences.) The minority report includes three members of the Senate (two Republican and one Democratic), four members of the House of Representatives (two from each party), two county commissioners, one major landowner, one statewide conservation organization, one regional planner, and one member representing the outdoor recreation/tourism business. The majority report includes the Department of Conservation, two residents, one major landowner, one minor landowner, two county commissioners, one sportsmen's representative, one statewide conservation organization, one regional conservation organization, one member representing the outdoor recreation/tourism business, one economic development representative, and one regional planner.
While I think the breakdown of the majority report study group is fine (although I reserve judgement on the actual members until we see who they are), I do have some concerns with the fact that the only mention the amendment makes of LURC is in one passage that "ensure[s] that any recommendation which entails the elimination of LURC provides an effective transition process, including a plan for LURC to complete any pending work or transfer it to relevant agencies." The remainder of the amendment focuses on reforming governance and "increased self-determination" in the Unorganized Territories. (Self-determination usually requires some manner of governing one's self, so I'm not sure what they're going for there.) The minority report amendment seems much more balanced in its focus on reforming and improving land-use planning in the Unorganized Territories, including a focus on improving the relationship between LURC and landowners.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't believe the counties, especially Aroostook, can take on the burden of effectively governing the Unorganized Territories. The Unorganized Territories are a land mass (and a huge one at that) belonging to the entire state, and they should not be governed piecemeal along county lines. They need an overseeing body, and that overseeing body must be able to pull resources from across the state. Yes, LURC needs to be updated to be more effective, streamlined, and efficient, just like any other organization created 40 years ago. No, it does not need to be abolished.
I apologize for ranting about this. When Governor LePage's LD1 proposal came out in January with the provision to open no less than 30% of the state's Unorganized Territory to unspecified development, it raised my hackles. That being what it is, I do hope the Commission picks me to be one of the study group's two resident members.
Hey, anything can happen.
As a side note, did you know that Maine's Unorganized Territories comprise over half the state and yet have only 9,000 year-round residents? (There are, of course, many additional seasonal residents, including yours truly.)
Showing posts with label North Maine Woods. Show all posts
Showing posts with label North Maine Woods. Show all posts
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Maine Superior Court Vacates Plum Creek Approval
Superior Court Justice Thomas Humphrey has ruled that LURC's 2009 approval of the Plum Creek development plan was completed illegally, and he has vacated the approval. The basis for the Court's decision hinged on the fact that, after LURC rejected Plum Creek's initial plan, they actually helped the company derive an "approvable" plan and then approved that plan without providing a public comment process. From the LURC website:
The article I referenced above notes that not everyone is happy with Justice Humphrey's decision. Even some environmental groups are disappointed because the vacation of Plum Creek's approval also vacates the nearly 400,000 acres of conservation easement agreements that went along with that approval. While I can understand that on a very basic level, I have to disagree with their view. Plum Creek's proposed conservation easements are no more conservative than the working forest that Plum Creek initially purchased; the easements retained Plum Creek's right to:
Sorry for the rant today. I could go on for days about why I disagree with Plum Creek's Moosehead development plan; it's one of the few items that I don't mind wading into the political area about. In the winter, I live in one of the fastest-growing areas of the country. Loudoun County, Virginia, was mostly farmland less than a decade ago. Now it's filled with these:
Mmmm... Nice, don't you think?
"On June 2, 2009, the Land Use Regulation Commission held one day of further deliberations on Zoning Petition ZP 707. During these deliberations, the Commission determined whether the specific language changes to Plum Creek's Concept Plan proposal, developed by LURC staff and consultants at the Commission's direction and in light of comments received from members of the public, governmental review agencies, and parties to this proceeding, are acceptable." (Emphasis added.)All of the documents related to the Plum Creek plan can be found on the LURC website. I'll warn you, though- the concept plan itself is over 150MB in size; it's NOT light reading. The gist of the matter is that Plum Creek proposes to rezone approximately a million acres (which it purchased at $200 per acre) to allow the company to develop 975 house lots (which it will sell for approximately $200,000 per acre), over 5,000 acres of resorts and associated accommodations, gas stations, golf courses, and restaurants. (I'd like to note here that none of Plum Creek's proposed development will take place on the 8,000 acres it owns within the town of Greenville.)
The article I referenced above notes that not everyone is happy with Justice Humphrey's decision. Even some environmental groups are disappointed because the vacation of Plum Creek's approval also vacates the nearly 400,000 acres of conservation easement agreements that went along with that approval. While I can understand that on a very basic level, I have to disagree with their view. Plum Creek's proposed conservation easements are no more conservative than the working forest that Plum Creek initially purchased; the easements retained Plum Creek's right to:
- Up to six commercial food and lodging facilities;
- Alternative energy generation (wind power);
- Septic field activities;
- Docks and piers;
- Telecommunications;
- Forest management and timber harvesting;
- Mining of sand, rock, and gravel; and
- Other easements as determined by Plum Creek and the easement holder.
Sorry for the rant today. I could go on for days about why I disagree with Plum Creek's Moosehead development plan; it's one of the few items that I don't mind wading into the political area about. In the winter, I live in one of the fastest-growing areas of the country. Loudoun County, Virginia, was mostly farmland less than a decade ago. Now it's filled with these:
Mmmm... Nice, don't you think?
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
The North Woods National Park?
The potential creation of a North Woods National Park has been hotly debated up here in Northern Maine. Passionate arguments come from both sides: those who fear the subdivision and development of the largest tract of undeveloped land east of the Mississippi, and those who fear the loss of that land's traditional recreation and logging uses. The Bangor Daily has a small poll up, and 62% of the votes are currently in favor of the park. I'm curious what you guys think- drop me a vote at the poll to the right.
Yesterday's Bangor Daily had an article about Roxanne Quimby's plans to dedicate over 70,000 acres (twice the size of Maine's Acadia National Park) to the east of Baxter State park to the National Park Service and set aside another 30,000 (about 8,000 acres larger than our very own Deboullie Township) for traditional recreational uses.
I've been watching the whole debate with interest. All of the plans I've seen for a national park are well to the south of Deboullie (see below), but a plan on paper is just that. While a national park up in our neck of the woods could be great for Red River's business and could ensure that we never have to fear a Deboullie Wal-Mart, it would be devastating for the area if traditional recreational uses were disallowed or if a national park would invite too much use to the region. I've seen several people call for a national forest (instead of a national park) if anything. By all accounts, a national forest would be friendlier to hunting and logging.
Another piece to this puzzle that I haven't seen in the news much, however, is John Malone's plan to purchase over 900,000 acres in Maine. The deal was supposedly finalized on February 1st, but I can't find anything about it. The sale would make him the largest landowner in the United States and give him ownership of approximately 5% of the entire land mass of the state. That's a lot of land. Malone also owns land out west, and by all accounts, he likes to see it remain in historic uses. Around here, that's recreation and logging. If anyone knows of a map, I'd love to see it.
A few resources on both sides if you're interested in this topic:
The Maine Woods Coalition
Restore: The North Woods (which doesn't appear to be updated past 2008)
A Yankee Magazine article from January/February 2010 (Warning: it's pretty long)
A .pdf of today's Bangor Daily story about Roxanne Quimby's plan
A .pdf of January 30th's Portland Press Herald story about John Malone's plan
So much for "short posts between now and May"! There have been quite a few pieces of woods-related news this week; I'll try to get to them all over the next several days.
Yesterday's Bangor Daily had an article about Roxanne Quimby's plans to dedicate over 70,000 acres (twice the size of Maine's Acadia National Park) to the east of Baxter State park to the National Park Service and set aside another 30,000 (about 8,000 acres larger than our very own Deboullie Township) for traditional recreational uses.
I've been watching the whole debate with interest. All of the plans I've seen for a national park are well to the south of Deboullie (see below), but a plan on paper is just that. While a national park up in our neck of the woods could be great for Red River's business and could ensure that we never have to fear a Deboullie Wal-Mart, it would be devastating for the area if traditional recreational uses were disallowed or if a national park would invite too much use to the region. I've seen several people call for a national forest (instead of a national park) if anything. By all accounts, a national forest would be friendlier to hunting and logging.
Another piece to this puzzle that I haven't seen in the news much, however, is John Malone's plan to purchase over 900,000 acres in Maine. The deal was supposedly finalized on February 1st, but I can't find anything about it. The sale would make him the largest landowner in the United States and give him ownership of approximately 5% of the entire land mass of the state. That's a lot of land. Malone also owns land out west, and by all accounts, he likes to see it remain in historic uses. Around here, that's recreation and logging. If anyone knows of a map, I'd love to see it.
A few resources on both sides if you're interested in this topic:
The Maine Woods Coalition
Restore: The North Woods (which doesn't appear to be updated past 2008)
A Yankee Magazine article from January/February 2010 (Warning: it's pretty long)
A .pdf of today's Bangor Daily story about Roxanne Quimby's plan
A .pdf of January 30th's Portland Press Herald story about John Malone's plan
So much for "short posts between now and May"! There have been quite a few pieces of woods-related news this week; I'll try to get to them all over the next several days.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Managing Maine's Declining Deer Herd
Last Thursday (March 17), the state unveiled its Game Plan for Deer, a road map that will hopefully lead to the stabilization of the declining deer herd in northern, eastern and western Maine. The plan is broken up into five elements:
1. Wintering areas and winter severity;
2. Deer population management;
3. Predation;
4. Deer planning and public involvement; and
5. Information and outreach.
These five elements are intended to address the largest factors causing the decline: severe winters; few, low-quality deer wintering areas; predation; and human influences such as illegal hunting, improper winter feeding, vehicle collisions, etc. There's a lot of information packed into the document's 40 pages, from outlining each problem to describing what has been done thus far to what needs to be done in the future. For instance, I'll take a look at the first element: Deer Wintering Areas and Winter Severity.
Northern Maine has pretty severe winters, even now, which drastically affects deer populations. (The report notes that three of the most severe winters in the past 60 years occurred in 2001, 2008, and 2009.) Deer wintering areas, where the snow is shallower and conifers provide cover, are essential to the survival of the species and once covered 900,000 acres in northern, western, and eastern Maine. The Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife has been conducting surveys of deer wintering areas by both air and ground to determine their current extent. The Department also conducts "winter severity" surveys, which include snow depths, deer sinking depths, snow characteristics, and temperature.
The report lays out the state's strategies to manage the deer wintering areas, including a set of published management guidelines, zoning by the Land Use Regulation Commission (which, if you'll remember from a previous post, some lawmakers want to abolish), cooperative management agreements, State acquisition of important deer wintering areas, and management programs and workshops. A few of the specific proposals include:
1. Ensure adequate wintering area habitat by working with cooperating landowners to implement the Guidelines for Wildlife documents or other management agreements (50% of acreage by 201 and 100% by 2013), and by implementing the Guidelines on all lands owned by the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and by the Bureau of Parks and Lands.
2. Conduct aerial surveys of all lands that have not been surveyed in the past three years where landowners have indicated a desire to cooperatively manage deer; coordinate efforts among private pilots to provide deer observations to the Department; coordinate the Warden Service to report known concentrations of wintering deer; and utilize GIS technology to assist in pulling the information together.
3. Purchase easements or titles to lands containing deer wintering areas as needed.
4. Determine which deer concentration areas are simply the result of winter feeding programs, and work with landowners to minimize feeding near roadways or other hazards.
(I'll have to apologize at this point because I haven't had time to write a synopsis of each element of the plan; until I get a chance to, I've provided links to the documents that you can peruse.)
The estimated cost to implement the plan appears to be about $660,000 per year. Definitely not cheap, but well worth it when you consider that deer hunting alone generated over $200 million in Maine in the late 1990s (page 4 of the Plan).
When it comes down to it, white-tailed deer are at the very northern end of their range up here in Northern Maine. Anything that upsets the balance is going to have a drastic effect on the population, and we have elements in at least four distinct sectors upsetting that balance. Even if the plan gets everything right, and even if every plan element is implemented tomorrow, it will take a good amount of time for the population to rebound.
A few other notable documents related to this topic:
The 2007 Resolution to Create an Effective Deer Habitat Enhancement and Coyote Control Program
The 2009 Resolution to Create a Deer Predation Working Group
1. Wintering areas and winter severity;
2. Deer population management;
3. Predation;
4. Deer planning and public involvement; and
5. Information and outreach.
These five elements are intended to address the largest factors causing the decline: severe winters; few, low-quality deer wintering areas; predation; and human influences such as illegal hunting, improper winter feeding, vehicle collisions, etc. There's a lot of information packed into the document's 40 pages, from outlining each problem to describing what has been done thus far to what needs to be done in the future. For instance, I'll take a look at the first element: Deer Wintering Areas and Winter Severity.
Northern Maine has pretty severe winters, even now, which drastically affects deer populations. (The report notes that three of the most severe winters in the past 60 years occurred in 2001, 2008, and 2009.) Deer wintering areas, where the snow is shallower and conifers provide cover, are essential to the survival of the species and once covered 900,000 acres in northern, western, and eastern Maine. The Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife has been conducting surveys of deer wintering areas by both air and ground to determine their current extent. The Department also conducts "winter severity" surveys, which include snow depths, deer sinking depths, snow characteristics, and temperature.
The report lays out the state's strategies to manage the deer wintering areas, including a set of published management guidelines, zoning by the Land Use Regulation Commission (which, if you'll remember from a previous post, some lawmakers want to abolish), cooperative management agreements, State acquisition of important deer wintering areas, and management programs and workshops. A few of the specific proposals include:
1. Ensure adequate wintering area habitat by working with cooperating landowners to implement the Guidelines for Wildlife documents or other management agreements (50% of acreage by 201 and 100% by 2013), and by implementing the Guidelines on all lands owned by the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and by the Bureau of Parks and Lands.
2. Conduct aerial surveys of all lands that have not been surveyed in the past three years where landowners have indicated a desire to cooperatively manage deer; coordinate efforts among private pilots to provide deer observations to the Department; coordinate the Warden Service to report known concentrations of wintering deer; and utilize GIS technology to assist in pulling the information together.
3. Purchase easements or titles to lands containing deer wintering areas as needed.
4. Determine which deer concentration areas are simply the result of winter feeding programs, and work with landowners to minimize feeding near roadways or other hazards.
(I'll have to apologize at this point because I haven't had time to write a synopsis of each element of the plan; until I get a chance to, I've provided links to the documents that you can peruse.)
The estimated cost to implement the plan appears to be about $660,000 per year. Definitely not cheap, but well worth it when you consider that deer hunting alone generated over $200 million in Maine in the late 1990s (page 4 of the Plan).
When it comes down to it, white-tailed deer are at the very northern end of their range up here in Northern Maine. Anything that upsets the balance is going to have a drastic effect on the population, and we have elements in at least four distinct sectors upsetting that balance. Even if the plan gets everything right, and even if every plan element is implemented tomorrow, it will take a good amount of time for the population to rebound.
A few other notable documents related to this topic:
The 2007 Resolution to Create an Effective Deer Habitat Enhancement and Coyote Control Program
The 2009 Resolution to Create a Deer Predation Working Group
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Regulatory Reform in Maine, Part I
I apologize in advance- this is a political post. I try to stay as far away from politics as I can, especially controversial politics in a public forum. However, when politics directly affects Red River or the North Maine Woods, I consider it fair game. On January 26, the LePage administration published its Phase I Regulatory Reform proposal, ostensibly in an effort to make Maine more "business friendly." As a small-business owner myself, I hoped to see some streamlining on the list, some innovation, and some great new ideas (maybe regarding tax reform or incentives).
The proposal, however, made my blood boil. I've put off writing about it for a full week because it makes me angry every time I look at it. Of the 63 bullet points in the proposal, maybe seven are an effort to streamline regulation, zero are innovative, zero are great new ideas, and well over fifty of them are simply rollbacks of environmental protections, many of which were put in place with bipartisan support over the last decade.
As an example that hits close to (my) home, the LePage administration wants to "require that not less than 30% of the LURC jurisdiction be zoned for development." If that doesn't make every single sportsman reading this post cringe, I don't know what will. Based on this proposal, it appears that the administration has forgotten that tourism (which, in Maine, depends on clean air, clean water, and natural character) brings to the state somewhere around $10 billion in goods and services yearly, in addition to $400 million in state and local tax revenue. According to the Maine Office of Tourism, between 140,000 and 176,000 people are employed in the tourism industry, making it Maine's largest industry.
The administration claims that each of the points in the proposal came directly from the "red tape listening sessions" they held with business leaders around the state, but it now appears that, at least in part, that may not be the case. Truly, there are very few things on the list that I can see helping small business; many of them, however, would greatly help large, multi-state companies. For example, at least a few of the bullet points suggest rolling back Maine's environmental protection regulations to match the Federal government or EPA regulations. Since a business only has to know and comply with the most stringent regulation, however, these provisions would only streamline the workload of those businesses that work across state lines.
I'll try to take a closer look at some of the points that would have direct impacts on my neck of the woods in the next few days and explain my concerns about them. Until then, I'll post the actual bullet points after the jump so you can form your own opinion.
And just so I don't leave you with a bad political taste in your mouth, here's a nice picture of Deboullie from last year. Ready to go fishing yet?
The proposal, however, made my blood boil. I've put off writing about it for a full week because it makes me angry every time I look at it. Of the 63 bullet points in the proposal, maybe seven are an effort to streamline regulation, zero are innovative, zero are great new ideas, and well over fifty of them are simply rollbacks of environmental protections, many of which were put in place with bipartisan support over the last decade.
As an example that hits close to (my) home, the LePage administration wants to "require that not less than 30% of the LURC jurisdiction be zoned for development." If that doesn't make every single sportsman reading this post cringe, I don't know what will. Based on this proposal, it appears that the administration has forgotten that tourism (which, in Maine, depends on clean air, clean water, and natural character) brings to the state somewhere around $10 billion in goods and services yearly, in addition to $400 million in state and local tax revenue. According to the Maine Office of Tourism, between 140,000 and 176,000 people are employed in the tourism industry, making it Maine's largest industry.
The administration claims that each of the points in the proposal came directly from the "red tape listening sessions" they held with business leaders around the state, but it now appears that, at least in part, that may not be the case. Truly, there are very few things on the list that I can see helping small business; many of them, however, would greatly help large, multi-state companies. For example, at least a few of the bullet points suggest rolling back Maine's environmental protection regulations to match the Federal government or EPA regulations. Since a business only has to know and comply with the most stringent regulation, however, these provisions would only streamline the workload of those businesses that work across state lines.
I'll try to take a closer look at some of the points that would have direct impacts on my neck of the woods in the next few days and explain my concerns about them. Until then, I'll post the actual bullet points after the jump so you can form your own opinion.
And just so I don't leave you with a bad political taste in your mouth, here's a nice picture of Deboullie from last year. Ready to go fishing yet?
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Lawmaker Moves to Abolish LURC
For the second time in as many years, a bill is before committee to abolish Maine's Land Use Regulation Committee (LURC), which oversees development in the state's Unorganized Territories. Last year, the bill to abolish LURC didn't make it out of committee; this year, Representative Paul Davis (R- Sangerville) proposes a 5-year plan to transfer responsibility from the 40-year old commission to the Counties.
Davis' main objection to LURC seems to be the recent Plum Creek rezoning, which took approximately 5 years and cost Plum Creek $25 million. Notwithstanding the fact that those statistics are actually pretty good for a national real estate developer and a big rezoning, I fail to see how transferring LURC's oversight responsibilities to the affected counties will remedy the situation. (I highly doubt that Piscataquis County has the staff or the resources to review Plum Creek's proposal for 975 house lots, two resorts, a golf course, a marina, three RV parks, over 100 rental cabins, and associated conveniences. Piscataquis county has not yet taken a stance on the legislation.)
Aroostook County, which has approximately 2.5 million acres in Unorganized Territory, has also not taken a stance on the legislation. Aroostook's 2010-2011 budget for those 2.5 million acres is $1.3 million: not a large resource for the kind of work LURC does.
A little more light reading on the subject if you're interested:
From the Bangor Daily News.
From the Lewiston Sun Journal.
Davis' main objection to LURC seems to be the recent Plum Creek rezoning, which took approximately 5 years and cost Plum Creek $25 million. Notwithstanding the fact that those statistics are actually pretty good for a national real estate developer and a big rezoning, I fail to see how transferring LURC's oversight responsibilities to the affected counties will remedy the situation. (I highly doubt that Piscataquis County has the staff or the resources to review Plum Creek's proposal for 975 house lots, two resorts, a golf course, a marina, three RV parks, over 100 rental cabins, and associated conveniences. Piscataquis county has not yet taken a stance on the legislation.)
Aroostook County, which has approximately 2.5 million acres in Unorganized Territory, has also not taken a stance on the legislation. Aroostook's 2010-2011 budget for those 2.5 million acres is $1.3 million: not a large resource for the kind of work LURC does.
A little more light reading on the subject if you're interested:
From the Bangor Daily News.
From the Lewiston Sun Journal.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Keeping Maine's Forests, Part III
The Keeping Maine's Forests initiative has currently published two proposals. (I covered the first of the two the other day in Part II of this series of posts.) The second proposal is "Keeping Maine's Forest-Based Economy: A National Demonstration Project." The 14-page proposal outlines seven themes-
1. Diversify Markets by funding a Forest Products Advisor.
2. Increase Energy Efficiency by restructuring the Rural Energy for America (REAP) grant program to better assist forest-based businesses. (On a side note, Red River applied for a REAP grant for our solar energy project but didn't make the cut.)
3. Enhanced Training and Assistance by increasing funding for the USDA Rural Business Enterprise Grant and Rural Business Opportunity Grant programs.
4. Expand Rural Broadband Access.
5. Improve Landowner Relations with recreational users of conservation lands.
6. Reduce Landowner Costs for trail construction and maintenance on conserved parcels.
7. Enhance Wood Supplies by restoring the WoodsWISE program, which stopped accepting applications in 2009 due to decreased USDA funding.
The Keeping Maine's Forests steering committee believes that, together, these seven themes will help strengthen Maine's forest economy, both from a products and a recreation/tourism perspective. I can't say I disagree with them; although I'm far from an economist. (In fact, I'm SO FAR from being an economist that I'm not going to even try to expand on the themes above; I'll just let you read the proposal for yourself. It's fairly short and sweet.)
1. Diversify Markets by funding a Forest Products Advisor.
2. Increase Energy Efficiency by restructuring the Rural Energy for America (REAP) grant program to better assist forest-based businesses. (On a side note, Red River applied for a REAP grant for our solar energy project but didn't make the cut.)
3. Enhanced Training and Assistance by increasing funding for the USDA Rural Business Enterprise Grant and Rural Business Opportunity Grant programs.
4. Expand Rural Broadband Access.
5. Improve Landowner Relations with recreational users of conservation lands.
6. Reduce Landowner Costs for trail construction and maintenance on conserved parcels.
7. Enhance Wood Supplies by restoring the WoodsWISE program, which stopped accepting applications in 2009 due to decreased USDA funding.
The Keeping Maine's Forests steering committee believes that, together, these seven themes will help strengthen Maine's forest economy, both from a products and a recreation/tourism perspective. I can't say I disagree with them; although I'm far from an economist. (In fact, I'm SO FAR from being an economist that I'm not going to even try to expand on the themes above; I'll just let you read the proposal for yourself. It's fairly short and sweet.)
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Keeping Maine's Forests, Part II
It's been quite a while since I looked at the Keeping Maine's Forests initiative. While it started life as almost a "secret society" due to the tensions between the negotiating parties, and finding information on it was like finding a needle among the many haystacks on the internet, it looks like it's now gone mainstream. They even have a website. The site doesn't have a lot of information yet, but they do have .pdf copies of their current proposals.
Among other things, the main proposal outlines two of the initiative's pilot projects. The Downeast Pilot Project appears to include purchasing a working forest conservation easement on several hundred thousand acres from a willing landowner. (Or purchasing 12,000 acres on a larger parcel; it was a little ambiguous.) Agreeing to a working forest easement means that the land will remain under timber production and/or recreational uses and will therefore also remain economically viable. (Detractors from the initiative worry that large conservation easements will drive down land values; conspiracy theorists then surmise that lower land values are all part of a plan to create a National Park as landowners sell their land to the only willing buyer: the Federal government.)
The Western Mountains and Lakes Pilot Project would place over 50,000 acres under conservation easements, but the proposal doesn't say whether these would be working forest easements or not.
The proposal also outlines four "Demonstration Landscapes," which, in short, equate to what the initiative strives for in terms of outcome. The Demonstration Landscapes are the Allagash and St. John Rivers, Moosehead to Katahdin, the Western Mountains and Lakes, and the Downeast region.
The proposal is an interesting read. (You can access the .pdf directly here.) I haven't yet read the "Keeping Maine's Forest-Based Economy" proposal, but I'll try to do that in the next day or two. Now that the initiative has entered the public eye, there's quite a bit of information (and opinions on both sides) available through a simple Google search.
Among other things, the main proposal outlines two of the initiative's pilot projects. The Downeast Pilot Project appears to include purchasing a working forest conservation easement on several hundred thousand acres from a willing landowner. (Or purchasing 12,000 acres on a larger parcel; it was a little ambiguous.) Agreeing to a working forest easement means that the land will remain under timber production and/or recreational uses and will therefore also remain economically viable. (Detractors from the initiative worry that large conservation easements will drive down land values; conspiracy theorists then surmise that lower land values are all part of a plan to create a National Park as landowners sell their land to the only willing buyer: the Federal government.)
The Western Mountains and Lakes Pilot Project would place over 50,000 acres under conservation easements, but the proposal doesn't say whether these would be working forest easements or not.
The proposal also outlines four "Demonstration Landscapes," which, in short, equate to what the initiative strives for in terms of outcome. The Demonstration Landscapes are the Allagash and St. John Rivers, Moosehead to Katahdin, the Western Mountains and Lakes, and the Downeast region.
The proposal is an interesting read. (You can access the .pdf directly here.) I haven't yet read the "Keeping Maine's Forest-Based Economy" proposal, but I'll try to do that in the next day or two. Now that the initiative has entered the public eye, there's quite a bit of information (and opinions on both sides) available through a simple Google search.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
MSCommNet, Part III
I saw this in the Bangor Daily the other day... It looks like the town of Veazie has recently adopted rules that will make it difficult for the MSCommNet program to install their proposed tower on Buck Hill (where, the article notes, "some of the town's most scenic views and priciest real estate are located"). Tower opponents would rather see it moved to an alternate site in Orono, but local public safety officials say that the proposed site will better help address radio dead spots in the area, and the state Chief Information Officer says that the new rule will "have a serious adverse impact" on local agencies including police, fire, and rescue services.
I don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, the proposed Buck Hill tower will be 180' tall; that's a big tower. On the other hand, though, I've been through more public meetings than I care to count where residents took a "my way or the highway" approach based on emotion rather than understanding or knowledge. That makes negotiation and collaboration virtually impossible, and no one wins in the long run.
I don't know what this means for the Deboullie site, or if it even means anything at all. The last news I heard about the northern tower was that the State was looking for alternative sites; I don't have any details for you, though. I think I am allowed to tell you at this point that if the Deboullie tower goes forward, we've discussed the option of creating a fire-tower look-alike that will house the communications equipment. The equipment would be in the tower's cab, so people wouldn't be allowed in there, but the tower would also have a viewing platform so that people could get up and enjoy the views. That's the kind of collaboration that dies when residents are unwilling to negotiate. Would the tower be exactly the same as it is now? No, of course not. Is the tower that's there now exactly the same as the original tree tower from 1919? Same answer. My thanks to Bill Cobb of the Forest Fire Lookout Association for letting me illustrate this with pictures. The first is 1919, and the second is around 1921:
I'll be very happy if the northern tower is moved to another site, but if it's not, I welcome collaboration.
I don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, the proposed Buck Hill tower will be 180' tall; that's a big tower. On the other hand, though, I've been through more public meetings than I care to count where residents took a "my way or the highway" approach based on emotion rather than understanding or knowledge. That makes negotiation and collaboration virtually impossible, and no one wins in the long run.
I don't know what this means for the Deboullie site, or if it even means anything at all. The last news I heard about the northern tower was that the State was looking for alternative sites; I don't have any details for you, though. I think I am allowed to tell you at this point that if the Deboullie tower goes forward, we've discussed the option of creating a fire-tower look-alike that will house the communications equipment. The equipment would be in the tower's cab, so people wouldn't be allowed in there, but the tower would also have a viewing platform so that people could get up and enjoy the views. That's the kind of collaboration that dies when residents are unwilling to negotiate. Would the tower be exactly the same as it is now? No, of course not. Is the tower that's there now exactly the same as the original tree tower from 1919? Same answer. My thanks to Bill Cobb of the Forest Fire Lookout Association for letting me illustrate this with pictures. The first is 1919, and the second is around 1921:
I'll be very happy if the northern tower is moved to another site, but if it's not, I welcome collaboration.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
MSCommNet, Part II
The Bangor Daily News had an article today regarding the proposed tower on Deboullie. (Hat tip to Kate for pointing it out to me.) It's good to see this issue getting some press- I know there are a lot of people out there who will make their voices heard once they know about the plans. The more voices that are heard, the better the result will be.I have a copy of the article here. It takes a very positive view of the project and cites Will Harris (director of the Bureau of Parks and Lands, BPL) specifically stating that, "the state is not tearing [the fire tower] down. It is on the Register of National Lookout Towers and it is in the middle of God's country, as far as I am concerned." I like the sound of that.
Later on in the article, Sen. Troy Jackson (D-Allagash) also echoed Mr. Harris' statement, saying, "From my standpoint, they will not be doing it. I think they have to find a different place to put up a communications tower other than Deboullie."
Those statements do conflict with others I've received from people connected to the project- the bottom line is that nothing is set in stone yet one way or the other. This is where the most important quote in the entire article comes in. Richard Thompson, chief information officer with the Maine Office of Information Technology (and listed under "Executive Management" on the MSCommNet directory site), said, "...my office would work with them on that site or if we had to use another site we would."
To sum up what we know so far: sketches and preliminary plans are on paper; the NJ firm who would be doing the work has begun looking for staging sites around Deboullie Mountain; and concern has been expressed about the Deboullie Mountain project site (and especially the fire tower removal). I'm still working on getting copies of the proposed plans, or at least sketches.
I suggest that if you want to weigh in on the topic, please do. You can contact me with your concerns, and I'll pass them on to the folks I've been talking with at the state. You can contact BPL or the MSCommNet project team, or you can get in touch with Senator Jackson.
I'm confident that this project will not be completed without a substantial review process and hopefully a lot of public input. I've said all along that I believe this is an important project, but I don't believe a "start from scratch on Deboullie Mountain" approach is a good one.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
MSCommNet
MSCommNet is the second of two "Big Items" that could signficantly affect Red River. (The first is Keeping Maine's Forest, which I mentioned yesterday and will be expanding on soon.)
MSCommNet stands for the Maine State Communications Network project, which will develop a unified statewide land mobile radio network for State law enforcement, public safety, and public service agencies. In other words, the project will update the infrastructure necessary to allow radio communications for the folks who help keep the woods safe. Let me start off by emphasizing that this is a good thing.
Why and how will this affect Red River? If you take a look at the proposed tower network (see here), one of the towers is slated for Deboullie Mountain. To answer your first question, yes, I have heard that the existing fire tower on the mountain may be slated for removal because it is not structurally-sound enough to hold the new radio infrastructure.
From what I understand, nothing is set in stone yet. This would obviously be a big impact on the area and the viewshed, though, especially if the new tower is significantly more modern than the fire tower. If you want to contact the state and voice your opinion, start at the MSCommNet site.
I've talked to some of the folks working on the project, and I'm trying to get copies of the plans to see if I can help the design company find a solution that doesn't impact the existing tower to the point of requiring its removal. (In engineering, the tendency is to start with a blank slate and work from there. It's easier. It also means that they might not have considered every option.) At the very least, the state has requested that the new tower have a viewing platform.
For the easier questions about funding and timelines, I'll direct you to the FAQ section of the MSCommNet site. Otherwise, I'll keep you posted as I get more information.
MSCommNet stands for the Maine State Communications Network project, which will develop a unified statewide land mobile radio network for State law enforcement, public safety, and public service agencies. In other words, the project will update the infrastructure necessary to allow radio communications for the folks who help keep the woods safe. Let me start off by emphasizing that this is a good thing.
Why and how will this affect Red River? If you take a look at the proposed tower network (see here), one of the towers is slated for Deboullie Mountain. To answer your first question, yes, I have heard that the existing fire tower on the mountain may be slated for removal because it is not structurally-sound enough to hold the new radio infrastructure.
From what I understand, nothing is set in stone yet. This would obviously be a big impact on the area and the viewshed, though, especially if the new tower is significantly more modern than the fire tower. If you want to contact the state and voice your opinion, start at the MSCommNet site.
I've talked to some of the folks working on the project, and I'm trying to get copies of the plans to see if I can help the design company find a solution that doesn't impact the existing tower to the point of requiring its removal. (In engineering, the tendency is to start with a blank slate and work from there. It's easier. It also means that they might not have considered every option.) At the very least, the state has requested that the new tower have a viewing platform.
For the easier questions about funding and timelines, I'll direct you to the FAQ section of the MSCommNet site. Otherwise, I'll keep you posted as I get more information.
Monday, March 15, 2010
A Vision for the North Woods?
From the Portland Press-Herald:
"A group called the Keeping Maine's Forests steering committee is working on a proposal to protect millions of acres of the working forest from further development. The committee is close to having a final plan and will deliver it to federal officials as early as this month."
Read the entire article here.
This could be a very big deal for those of us in and around the North Maine Woods. I think everyone who knows me knows how I feel about the woods. If done right, this deal could be very beneficial to the people of Northern Maine, and it could ensure that Deboullie retains its remote character well into the future.
I'll keep my eyes open for more information on this potential land deal, which is being negotiated only among a select few at this point, and I'll keep you posted. I'm optimistic with a healthy dose of skepticism at this point.
"A group called the Keeping Maine's Forests steering committee is working on a proposal to protect millions of acres of the working forest from further development. The committee is close to having a final plan and will deliver it to federal officials as early as this month."
Read the entire article here.
This could be a very big deal for those of us in and around the North Maine Woods. I think everyone who knows me knows how I feel about the woods. If done right, this deal could be very beneficial to the people of Northern Maine, and it could ensure that Deboullie retains its remote character well into the future.
I'll keep my eyes open for more information on this potential land deal, which is being negotiated only among a select few at this point, and I'll keep you posted. I'm optimistic with a healthy dose of skepticism at this point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)