DOCSLIB.ORG

Maine Integrated Freight Strategy Final Report, 2014 Maine Department of Transportation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Maine Integrated Freight Strategy Final Report, 2014 Maine Department of Transportation Maine State Library Digital Maine Transportation Documents Transportation 6-2014 Maine Integrated Freight Strategy Final Report, 2014 Maine Department of Transportation Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalmaine.com/mdot_docs Recommended Citation Maine Department of Transportation, "Maine Integrated Freight Strategy Final Report, 2014" (2014). Transportation Documents. 102. https://digitalmaine.com/mdot_docs/102 This Text is brought to you for free and open access by the Transportation at Digital Maine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Transportation Documents by an authorized administrator of Digital Maine. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Maine Integrated Freighht Strategy final report prepared for Maine Department of Transportation prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. June 2014 www.camsys.com final report Maine Integrated Freight Strategy prepared for Maine Department of Transportation prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 100 Cambridge Park Drive, Suite 400 Cambridge, MA 02140 date June 2014 Maine Integrated Freight Strategy Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 1 Current Freight System in Maine ......................................................................... 3 Freight-Related Programs and Investments ......................................................... 6 Key Trends Impacting the Freight System .......................................................... 6 Key Issues and Challenges .................................................................................. 11 Solutions and Recommendations ....................................................................... 12 1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Organization of This Report ...................................................................... 1-2 2.0 Current Freight System in Maine .................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Freight Profile .............................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Freight Demand – Commodity Flow Analysis ...................................... 2-11 2.3 Industry Interview Results ...................................................................... 2-16 3.0 Freight-Related Programs/ Investments ......................................................... 3-1 3.1 Recent/Planned Investments .................................................................... 3-1 3.2 State Programs ............................................................................................ 3-3 4.0 Key Trends Impacting the Freight System .................................................... 4-1 4.1 Maine-Specific Trends ................................................................................ 4-1 4.2 International Trade ..................................................................................... 4-6 4.3 Transportation Industry Trends ............................................................... 4-7 4.4 Regulations and Policy .............................................................................. 4-9 5.0 Key Issues and Challenges ............................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Funding Challenges.................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Physical, Operational, and Institutional Chokepoints .......................... 5-1 5.3 Environmental and Community Constraints ............................................ 5-2 6.0 Solutions and Recommendations ...................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Infrastructure/Operational Improvement Recommendations ............ 6-2 6.2 Policy Strategies .......................................................................................... 6-5 A. Appendix A – Commodity Flow Analysis .................................................... A-1 A.1 Background and Methodology ................................................................ A-3 A.2 Mode Split Analysis .................................................................................. A-5 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. i 008783.001 Maine Integrated Freight Strategy A.3 Freight Flow Patterns ................................................................................ A-6 A.4 Top Commodities .................................................................................... A-14 A.5 Freight Distribution by Counties ........................................................... A-21 A.6 Domestic Trading Partners ..................................................................... A-24 A.7 Cross-Border Trade (Trade with Canada) ............................................ A-26 B. Appendix B – Shipper/Receiver Survey ........................................................ B-1 B.1 Company Profile and Operations ............................................................ B-1 B.2 Freight Flows .............................................................................................. B-6 B.3 Modes ........................................................................................................ B-11 B.4 Trucks/Highway Freight ....................................................................... B-15 B.5 Rail Freight ............................................................................................... B-20 B.6 Marine Freight .......................................................................................... B-22 B.7 Air Freight ................................................................................................. B-25 B.8 Freight Transportation System Issues/Recommendations ............... B-26 B.9 Shipper/Receiver Survey Trends .......................................................... B-35 C. Appendix C – Freight Projects ......................................................................... C-1 D. Appendix D – References ................................................................................. D-1 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ii 008783.001 Maine Integrated Freight Strategy List of Tables Table ES.1 Crosswalk of MAP-21 Requirements with the Maine Integrated Freight Strategy and Other Plans ....................................... 2 Table 2.1 Maine Intermodal Connectors ............................................................. 2-5 Table 3.1 Highway and Bridge Maintenance and Operations Efforts ............ 3-2 Table 6.1 Example of How Maine’s Freight Performance Measures Align with National Transportation Goals ....................................... 6-7 Table 6.2 Crosswalk of MAP-21 Requirements with the Maine Integrated Freight Strategy and Other Plans .................................... 6-8 Table A.1 Geographic Region Definitions ......................................................... A-24 Table A.2 Dynamics of Maine-Canada Trade ................................................... A-29 Table B.1 Other Locations/Terminal/Plants ..................................................... B-2 Table B.2 Where Are the Other Locations/Terminal/Plants ........................... B-3 Table B.3 Primary Inbound Commodities .......................................................... B-6 Table B.4 Primary Outbound Commodities ....................................................... B-7 Table B.5 International Freight – Inbound .......................................................... B-9 Table B.6 Ports/Gateways Used for Imports ..................................................... B-9 Table B.7 International Freight – Outbound ...................................................... B-9 Table B.8 Ports/Gateways Used for Exports .................................................... B-10 Table B.9 Key Inbound Routes for Trucks ........................................................ B-12 Table B.10 Key Outbound Routes for Trucks ..................................................... B-13 Table B.11 Top Carriers/Brokers Used to Move Freight .................................. B-16 Table B.12 Closest Major Highway Intersection to Facility ............................. B-17 Table B.13 Roadway Improvements Needed ..................................................... B-19 Table B.14 Truck Weight Limit Increase Affected Operations ........................ B-19 Table B.15 Truck Weight Limit Increase Affected Travel Times/Efficiency ............................................................................... B-20 Table B.16 Direct Rail Service ............................................................................... B-21 Table B.17 Facility Has Rail Support/Siding ..................................................... B-21 Table B.18 Rail/Truck Intermodal Ramp Usage ............................................... B-21 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. iii Maine Integrated Freight Strategy Table B.19 Ports Used ............................................................................................ B-23 Table B.20 Ocean Carrier/Broker ........................................................................ B-23 Table B.21 How Freight Is Transferred to Port .................................................. B-24 Table B.22 Satisfied with Adequacy of Ports...................................................... B-24 Table B.23 Considering Utilizing Other Gateways ........................................... B-25 Table B.24 Airports Used .....................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Comparison of Observed and Predicted Abutment Scour at Selected Bridges in Maine
    Comparison of Observed and Predicted Abutment Scour at Selected Bridges in Maine By Pamela J. Lombard and Glenn A. Hodgkins Prepared in cooperation with the Maine Department of Transportation Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5099 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark D. Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2008 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Lombard, P.J., and Hodgkins, G.A., 2008, Comparison of observed and predicted abutment scour at selected bridges in Maine: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5099, 23 p., available only online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5099. iii Contents Abstract ...........................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • United States National Museum
    * si 'a*»/ ^ ^ l^// kh < (M->'^^'' ^eparfrrxenf of fhc inferior: U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM. 21 BULLETIN UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. NO. 18.—EXHIBIT OF THE FISHERIES AND FISH CULTURE OP THE ^^^ —-UNITED STATES OF AMERfCA. MADE AT BERLIN IN 1880. PREPARED UXDEU THE DIRECTION OF a. BROA^^ls^ ooode, DEPUTY COiTMISSIONEE. WASHINGTON: aOVFiRNMENT PETNTTNG- OFFICJE 18 80. '^epavimeni of ihc 55nfcrior U. a. NATIONAL MUSEUM. 21 BULLETIN unu'ei) states national museum. No. 18. PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION. WASHINGTON: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1880. ADYEETISEMENT. This work is the twenty-first of a series of papers intended to illnstrate the collections of natural history and ethnology belonging- to the United States, and constituting the i^ational Museum, of which the Smithsonian Institution was placed in charge by the act of Congress of August 10, 1846. It has been prepared at the request of the Smithsonian Institution, and printed by authority of the honorable Secretary of the Interior. SPEXCER F. BAIRD, Secretary of the Snuthsonian Institution. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, March 29, 1880. INTERNATIONAL FISHERY EXHIBITION, BERLIN, 1880. EXHIBIT THE FISHERIES AND FISH CULTlIPiE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INTERNATIONALE FISCHEEEI-AUSSTELLUNG, HELD AT BERLIN, APRIL 20, 1880, AND FORMING A PART OF THE COL- LECTIONS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEmi, MADE BY THE UNITED STATES FISH COMMISSION. PKEPARED UNDEU THE DIRECTION OI' a. BIlo^^^]s^ aooDE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEK. WASHINGTOIT: <3-OVEENMENT FEINTING OFPIOE. 1880. TABLE OF CONTENTS. Section A.—AQUATIC ANIMALS AND PLANTS OF NOKTH AMERICA BENE- FICIAL OR INJURIOUS TO MAN. VERTEBKATES. Page. I. Mammals 1 1. Ferae (carnivores) 1 Fissipedia (laud carnivores) 1 Piunipedia (seals, Sec.
    [Show full text]
  • Alasmidonta Varicosa) Version 1.1.1
    Species Status Assessment Report for the Brook Floater (Alasmidonta varicosa) Version 1.1.1 Molunkus Stream, Tributary of the Mattawamkeag River in Maine. Photo credit: Ethan Nedeau, Biodrawversity. Inset: Adult brook floaters. Photo credit: Jason Mays, USFWS. July 2018 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service This document was prepared by Sandra Doran of the New York Ecological Services Field Office with assistance from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Brook Floater Species Status Assessment (SSA) Team. The team members include Colleen Fahey, Project Manager (Species Assessment Team (SAT), Headquarters (HQ) and Rebecca Migala, Assistant Project Manager, (Region 1, Regional Office), Krishna Gifford (Region 5, Regional Office), Susan (Amanda) Bossie (Region 5 Solicitor's Office, Julie Devers (Region 5, Maryland Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office), Jason Mays (Region 4, Asheville Field Office), Rachel Mair (Region 5, Harrison Lake National Fish Hatchery), Robert Anderson and Brian Scofield (Region 5, Pennsylvania Field Office), Morgan Wolf (Region 4, Charleston, SC), Lindsay Stevenson (Region 5, Regional Office), Nicole Rankin (Region 4, Regional Office) and Sarah McRae (Region 4, Raleigh, NC Field Office). We also received assistance from David Smith of the U.S. Geological Survey, who served as our SSA Coach. Finally, we greatly appreciate our partners from Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada, the Brook Floater Working Group, and others working on brook floater conservation. Version 1.0 (June 2018) of this report was available for selected peer and partner review and comment. Version 1.1 incorporated comments received on V 1.0 and was used for the Recommendation Team meeting. This final version, (1.1.1), incorporates additional comments in addition to other minor editorial changes including clarifications.
    [Show full text]
  • Lighthouses on the Coast of Maine Sixty-Seven Lighthouses Still Perch High on the Rocky Cliffs of Maine
    ™ Published since 1989 Where, when, and how to discover the best nature 116 photography in America Number 116 - October 2010 Cape Neddick Light - 62 mm / 93 All captions are followed by the lens focal length used for each photograph - DX and FX full-frame cameras. Lighthouses on the Coast of Maine Sixty-seven lighthouses still perch high on the rocky cliffs of Maine. Some of these lighthouses were built more than two hundred years ago to help sailors navigate their way through storms, fog, and dark of night. These beacons saved wooden merchant vessels sailing dangerous courses through narrow and shallow channels filled with countless hazards. Maine’s lighthouses were a part of our country’s history at a time when we were defending our shores, as far back as the Revolutionary war. Some were damaged by war and many were destroyed by the violence of nature. Light keepers risked their own lives to keep their lamps burning. A proud and dramatic beauty can be seen in these structures and their rugged environments–the reason I recently returned to Maine for another photo exploration. Issue 116 - page 2 You can fly into local airports like Portland or Whaleback Light Bangor, but fares are better and flights are more 43˚ 03’ 30” N frequent into Boston. You may want to rent a car 70˚ 41’ 48” W with a satellite navigation system or bring your From U.S. Route 1, drive east on State Route own portable GPS receiver. Just set your GPS 103 for 3.8 miles. Turn right onto Chauncey coordinates for the degrees/minutes/seconds Creek Road until you reach Pocahontas Road.
    [Show full text]
  • Salmo Salar) in the United States
    Status Review for Anadromous Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) in the United States Atlantic Salmon Biological Review Team Clem Fay, Penobscot Nation, Department of Natural Resources Meredith Bartron, USFWS, Northeast Fishery Center Scott Craig, USFWS, Maine Fisheries Resource Office Anne Hecht, USFWS, Ecological Services Jessica Pruden, NMFS, Northeast Region Rory Saunders (Chair), NMFS, Northeast Region Tim Sheehan, NMFS, Northeast Fisheries Science Center Joan Trial, Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission July 2006 Acknowledgements Clem Fay was a key member of the Atlantic Salmon Biological Review Team (BRT) until he passed away in October of 2005. His understanding of ecological processes was unrivaled, and his contributions to this document were tremendous. Since his passing preceded the publication of this Status Review, he was not able to see the completion of this project. We would also like to acknowledge Jerry Marancik’s early contributions to this project. He was a BRT member until he retired in the spring of 2004. At that time, Scott Craig assumed Jerry Marancik’s role on the BRT. We would also like to acknowledge the many people who contributed to the completion of this document. Primarily, the work of previous Atlantic Salmon BRTs helped form the basis of this document. Previous BRT members include M. Colligan, J. Kocik, D. Kimball, J. Marancik, J. McKeon, P. Nickerson, and D. Beach. Many other individuals contributed helpful comments, ideas, and work products including D. Belden, E. Cushing, R. Dill, N. Dube, M. Hachey, C. Holbrook, D. Kusnierz, P. Kusnierz, C. Legault, G. Mackey, S. MacLean, L. Miller, M. Minton, K. Mueller, J. Murphy, S.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of Observed and Predicted Abutment Scour at Selected Bridges in Maine
    Comparison of Observed and Predicted Abutment Scour at Selected Bridges in Maine Final Report 2008 A Publication from the Maine Department of Transportation’s Research Division Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No.08-04 2. 3. Recipient’s Accession No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Comparison of Observed and Predicted Abutment 2008 Scour at Selected Bridges in Maine 6. 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Pamela J. Lombard and Glenn A. Hodgkins SIR 2008-5099 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No. U.S. Geological Survey, Maine Division 11. Contract © or Grant (G) No. 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Maine DOT 16 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333-0016 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract (Limit 200 words) Maximum abutment-scour depths predicted with five different methods were compared to maximum abutment-scour depths observed at 100 abutments at 50 bridge sites in Maine with a median bridge age of 66 years. Prediction methods included the Froehlich/Hire method, the Sturm method, and the Maryland method published in Federal Highway Administration Hydraulic Engineering Circular 18 (HEC-18); the Melville method; and envelope curves. No correlation was found between scour calculated using any of the prediction methods and observed scour. Abutment scour observed in the field ranged from 0 to 6.8 feet, with an average observed scour of less than 1.0 foot. Fifteen of the 50 bridge sites had no observable scour. Equations frequently overpredicted scour by an order of magnitude and in some cases by two orders of magnitude.
    [Show full text]
  • Appleton Bog-Pettingill Swamp-Witcher Swamp
    Focus Areas of Statewide Ecological Significance: Appleton Bog- Pettingill Swamp- Witcher Swamp Beginning with Focus Areas of Statewide Ecological Significance Habitat Appleton Bog-Pettingill Swamp-Witcher Swamp Biophysical Region • Central Maine Embayment WHY IS THIS AREA SIGNIFICANT? Rare Animals The three large wetlands that make up Appleton Bog, Creeper Witcher Swamp, and Pettingill Swamp represent rare and Upland Sandpiper exemplary examples of unpatterned fen, spruce- larch Rare Plants wooded bog, and Atlantic white cedar bog as well as one Atlantic White-cedar of the largest Atlantic white cedar swamps in the state. Because these wetlands function in part as headwaters Rare and Exemplary of the St. George River, this area also provides flood Natural Communities and water quality protection for the St. George River. Atlantic White Cedar Bog Atlantic White Cedar Swamp The proximity of the three large wetlands, and their Black Spruce Bog combined habitat diversity, suggest that they may be Red Maple Fen viewed as one large conservation entity. Unpatterned Fen Ecosystem OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONSERVATION Significant Wildlife Habitats Inland Wading Bird and Waterfowl Habitat » Educate recreational users about the ecological and Deer Wintering Area economic benefits provided by the Focus Area. » Work with willing landowners to permanently protect remaining undeveloped areas. » Encourage town planners to improve approaches to development that may impact Focus Area functions. » Encourage best management practices for forestry, vegetation clearing, and soil disturbance activities. » Encourage landowners to maintain intact forested buf- fers along water bodies and wetlands. » Monitor and remove invasive plant populations. Public Access Opportunities For more conservation opportunities, visit the Beginning • Appleton Bog Preserve, TNC with Habitat Online Toolbox: www.beginningwithhabitat.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report of the U.S Atlantic Salmon
    ANNUAL REPORT OF THE U.S. ATLANTIC SALMON ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 32 - 2019 ACTIVITIES Portland, Maine March 2 – 6, 2020 PREPARED FOR U.S. SECTION TO NASCO Contents 1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Description of Fisheries and By-catch in USA Waters ................................................................... 4 1.3 Adult Returns to USA Rivers .......................................................................................................... 4 1.4 Stock Enhancement Programs ...................................................................................................... 5 1.5 Tagging and Marking Programs .................................................................................................... 5 1.6 Farm Production ........................................................................................................................... 5 1.7 Smolt Emigration ........................................................................................................................... 6 1.8 References .................................................................................................................................... 6 2 Viability Assessment - Gulf of Maine Atlantic Salmon .......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form
    NPS Form 10-900-b 0MB Wo. 1024-0018 (Jan. 1987) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form This form is for use in documenting multiple property groups relating to one or several historic contexts. See instructions in Guidelines for Completing National Register Forms (National Register Bulletin 16). Complete each item by marking "x" in the appropriate box or by entering the requested information. For additional space use continuation sheets (Form 10-900-a). Type all entries. A. Name of Multiple Property Listing Androscoggin River Drainage Prehistoric Sites_____________________ B. Associated Historic Contexts ~~ Early and Middle Archaic Susquehanna Tradition Ceramic Period Early Contact Period C. Geographical Data The Androscoggin River Drainage Prehistoric Sites multiple property document encompasses those prehistoric sites located See continuation sheet D. Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this documentation form meets the National Register documentation standards and sets forth requirements for the listing of related properties consistent with the National Register criteria. This submission meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth [oJ36 CFR Part 60 and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Planning and,Evaluation. Signature of certifying official Maine Historic Preservation ssion State or Federal agency and bureau I, hereby, certify that this multiple property documentation form has been approved by the National Register as a basis for evaluating related properties for listing in the National Register. Signature/jf the Keeper of the National Register Date NP8 Form 10-900* OMBAppmnlNo.
    [Show full text]
  • Class G Tables of Geographic Cutter Numbers: Maps -- by Region Or Country -- America -- North America -- United States -- Northe
    G3701.S UNITED STATES. HISTORY G3701.S .S1 General .S12 Discovery and exploration Including exploration of the West .S2 Colonial period .S26 French and Indian War, 1755-1763 .S3 Revolution, 1775-1783 .S4 1783-1865 .S42 War of 1812 .S44 Mexican War, 1845-1848 .S5 Civil War, 1861-1865 .S55 1865-1900 .S57 Spanish American War, 1898 .S6 1900-1945 .S65 World War I .S7 World War II .S73 1945- 88 G3702 UNITED STATES. REGIONS, NATURAL FEATURES, G3702 ETC. .C6 Coasts .G7 Great River Road .L5 Lincoln Highway .M6 Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trail. Mormon Trail .N6 North Country National Scenic Trail .U5 United States Highway 30 .U53 United States Highway 50 .U55 United States Highway 66 89 G3707 EASTERN UNITED STATES. REGIONS, NATURAL G3707 FEATURES, ETC. .A5 Appalachian Basin .A6 Appalachian Mountains .I4 Interstate 64 .I5 Interstate 75 .I7 Interstate 77 .I8 Interstate 81 .J6 John Hunt Morgan Heritage Trail .N4 New Madrid Seismic Zone .O5 Ohio River .U5 United States Highway 150 .W3 Warrior Trail 90 G3709.32 ATLANTIC STATES. REGIONS, NATURAL G3709.32 FEATURES, ETC. .A6 Appalachian Trail .A8 Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway .C6 Coasts .I5 Interstate 95 .O2 Ocean Hiway .P5 Piedmont Region .U5 United States Highway 1 .U6 United States Highway 13 91 G3712 NORTHEASTERN STATES. REGIONS, NATURAL G3712 FEATURES, ETC. .C6 Coasts .C8 Cumberland Road .U5 United States Highway 22 92 G3717 NORTHEAST ATLANTIC STATES. REGIONS, G3717 NATURAL FEATURES, ETC. .C6 Coasts .T3 Taconic Range .U5 United States Highway 202 93 G3722 NEW ENGLAND. REGIONS, NATURAL FEATURES, G3722 ETC. .C6 Coasts .C62 Connecticut River 94 G3732 MAINE.
    [Show full text]
  • 12 Rivers Initiative: a Regional Conservation Plan
    12 Rivers Conservation Initiative A Regional Conservation Plan The 12 Rivers Conservation Initiative is a regional conservation planning effort of ten land trusts1 whose service areas include the watersheds of the coastal rivers that flow into the Gulf of Maine between the Kennebec and the Saint George rivers. The total project area encompasses about 825,000 acres. This Plan identifies important natural resource areas and themes for protection (e.g. connectivity, working landscapes) that provide the regional focus for the Initiative, as well as the selection of nine (9) focus areas. The Initiative hired Janet McMahon, a conservation biologist consultant who completed the following tasks: 1. Worked with Paul Hoffman(SVCA) to prepare the following draft base maps: a. Topography and hydrography (including watershed boundaries of lakes and first-order streams) b. Conserved properties and land trust focus areas c. Habitat (significant habitats, Rare, Threatened & Endangered species occurrences; exemplary communities) d. Undeveloped habitat blocks (1,000 acres and larger) 2. Reviewed The Nature Conservancy Maine Aquatics Database to identify portfolio lakes and streams. 3. Met with Dan Coker (TNC) to review results of Habitat Connectivity Modeling Project which identified potential connectors between undeveloped habitat blocks. 4. Reviewed base maps, aerial photographs, and connectivity study data to determine potential linkages between focus areas and habitat blocks. Key Findings and Observations These findings are based on the review of the natural resources in the region from a landscape perspective. The protection of headwater first and second order streams and their watersheds is a high priority because headwaters have a disproportionately important impact on overall river water quality.
    [Show full text]
  • Fishing Regulations
    STATE OF MAINE OPEN WATER FISHING REGULATIONS Regulations Effective January 2008 - March 31, 2010 www.maine.gov/ifw SPECIAL REGULATIONS FOR OPEN WATER FISHING Waters which have exceptions to the general law are listed by county. In most cases, the exception will be one of the codes listed below and may affect only a portion of the regulations that govern that particular body of water, i.e. only the bag limit on salmon is different from the general law in which case it would read as follows: Smith Pond, Anytown. S-22. All other provisions of general law would apply. S-1: Closed to the taking of smelts. S-17: Daily bag limit on trout: 2 fi sh; minimum S-2: Closed to the taking of smelts, except by length limit: 10 inches, only 1 may hook and line. exceed 12 inches. S-3: Tributaries closed to the taking of smelts. S-18: Daily bag limit on trout: 1 fi sh, minimum length limit 18 inches. S-4: Use or possession of live fi sh as bait is prohibited. (The use of dead fi sh, salmon S-19: Daily bag limit on trout: 2 fi sh. eggs, or worms is permitted). S-20: Daily bag limit on white perch: 25 fi sh. S-5: Fly fi shing only. S-21: Daily bag limit on trout: 1 fi sh, minimum S-6: Artifi cial lures only. length limit 14 inches. S-7: Boundary waters with New Brunswick, S-22: Daily bag limit on landlocked salmon: 1 see page 56. fi sh.
    [Show full text]