Framing a Regional Landscape-Scale Conservation Plan for the Penobscot River Corridor Using Best Practices and Lessons Learned

FRAMING A REGIONAL LANDSCAPE-SCALE CONSERVATION PLAN FOR THE PENOBSCOT RIVER CORRIDOR USING BEST PRACTICES AND LESSONS LEARNED

A thesis submitted by

Janna M. Newman

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

Urban and Environmental Policy & Planning

TUFTS UNIVERSITY

May 2015

Adviser: Robert Russell

Reader: Scott Horsley

ABSTRACT

At 350 miles long, the Penobscot is Maine’s largest watershed, and New

England’s second largest waterway -- draining nearly one-quarter of the state. The Bay

to Baxter (B2B) Initiative is a proposed regional landscape-scale conservation strategy

for the Penobscot River corridor. The initiative’s name is derived from two natural

features and recreational attractions that define the corridor -- Baxter State Park, near the

river’s headwaters, and Penobscot Bay at its mouth. The intent behind this initiative is to

link these two hubs in order to transform the Penobscot River corridor into an economic

development region, primarily supported by recreational, historic, and cultural tourism.

For this initiative’s vision to become a reality, and the region to experience the benefits

obtained from regional landscape-scale conservation planning, a strategic regional

landscape-scale conservation plan will need to be developed.

This thesis provides an analysis of strategic conservation planning frameworks

utilized by comparable conservation entities in the United States in order to develop a

conservation planning framework for the B2B Initiative’s strategic landscape-scale

conservation plan. In addition, to aid in the plan’s formulation, implementation, and

evaluation, best practices and lessons learned from regional landscape-scale conservation plans and initiatives in regions similar to the Penobscot River corridor are analyzed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many thanks to Rob Lilieholm for introducing me to the Penobscot River corridor and the B2B vision and for providing me with this thesis topic, reviewing my text, and inviting me to be a student and presenter at the Acadian Program. To the staff and board at Island Heritage Trust, thank you for expanding my conservation knowledge, inviting me to the Land Trust Rally, and giving me the support necessary to work on this thesis. To Rusty Russell, thank you for being flexible as my long-distance thesis adviser, for taking the time to review my text, and for your suggestions and support. To my loving family, friends, and boyfriend, thank you for your patience and encouragement, and for nurturing me when necessary. And to my dog, Peter, thank you for providing me with necessary distractions and a comforting presence while I wrote this thesis.

iii

FREQUENTLY USED ACRONYMS

AMC – Appalachian Mountain Club

B2B – Bay to Baxter

DACF – Maine Department of Agriculture Conservation and Forestry

DEP – Maine Department of Environmental Protection

DIFW – Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

DMR – Maine Department of Marine Resources

DOI – U.S. Department of Interior

EPA – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

GIS – Geographic Information Systems

LCC – Landscape Conservation Cooperative

LTA – Land Trust Alliance

LUPC – Land Use Planning Commission

LURC – Land Use Regulation Commission

MCHT – Maine Coast Heritage Trust

MEACC – Maine Association of Conservation Commissions

MFCM – Maine Future’s Community Mapper

MtA2C – Mount Agamenticus to the Sea Initiative

NPS – National Park Service

TNC – The Nature Conservancy

TPL – Trust for Public Land

USDA – U.S. Department of Agriculture

USFWS – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS – U.S. Geologic Survey

W&W – Wildlands and Woodlands

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ...... ii

Acknowledgements ...... iii

Frequently Used Acronyms ...... iv

Table of Contents ………..………………………………………………………………..v

List of Figures ………….………………………………………………………………..vii

List of Tables…………………..………………………………………………………...vii

CHAPTER 1 Introduction ...... 1

CHAPTER 2 Literature Review ...... 3 2.1 What is Landscape-Scale Conservation? ...... 3 2.2 Landscape-Scale Conservation and Smart Growth ...... 5 2.3 Landscape-Scale Conservation Design ...... 6 2.4 What is Landscape Conservation at the Regional-Scale? ...... 8 2.5 What are the Ecological Benefits of Landscape-Scale Conservation? . 10 2.6 What are the Economic Benefits of Landscape-Scale Conservation? .. 12 2.7 What are the Health and Social Benefits of Landscape-Scale Conservation? ...... 15

2.8 Planning Frameworks for Strategic Landscape-Scale Conservation .... 19 2.8.1 Non-Governmental Conservation Organizations ...... 19 2.8.2 Land Trusts Nation-wide ...... 26 2.8.3 Federal Government ...... 33

2.9 Framework Analysis ...... 36

CHAPTER 3 Argument for a Regional Landscape-scale Conservation Plan for the Penobscot River corridor – The “Bay to Baxter” Vision ...... 37

CHAPTER 4 Methodology ...... 44 4.1 Background ...... 44 4.2 Regional Landscape Conservation Plan and Initiative Review and Criteria ...... 45 4.3 Definition of Best Practices and Lessons Learned ...... 54 4.4 Organizing Best Practices and Lessons Learned into a Strategic Conservation Planning Framework ...... 55

CHAPTER 5 Developing a Regional Landscape-scale Conservation Plan for the “Bay to Baxter” Region Using Best Practices and Lessons Learned ...... 60 5.1 Steps to Formulate the Plan ...... 60 5.1.1 Assembling the Planning Team ...... 60 5.1.2 Forming a Vision, Goals, and Objectives ...... 77 5.1.3 Using Models and Maps to Identify Priority Focus Areas ...... 90 5.2 Steps to Implement the Plan...... 99

5.2.1 Employing Multi-objective Conservation Strategies and Tools ...... 99 5.2.1.1 Non-Regulatory Conservation Options for Private Land...... 99 5.2.1.2 Conservation Options with Public Land ...... 112 5.2.1.3 Combined Conservation Strategies – Private and Public Land Models ...... 123 5.2.1.4 Regulatory Conservation Strategies ...... 129 5.2.2 Public and Municipal Outreach and Education ...... 152 5.3 Steps to Monitor and Evaluate the Plan ...... 154

CHAPTER 6 Conclusion and Next Steps ...... 157

Appendices ...... 161 Appendix I ...... 161 Appendix II ...... 163 Appendix III ………………………………………………………………...... 164

Bibliography ...... 167 Reviewed Plans ...... 167 Best Practice and Lessons Learned Case Studies ...... 168 Personal Communication ...... 169 Works Cited ...... 169

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 - Health and Social Wellbeing Benefits from Landscape-scale Conservation ... 19

Figure 2 - TNC's Framework for Conservation Planning ...... 20

Figure 3 - TNC Eastern North American Ecoregions ...... 22

Figure 4 - Landscape Conservation Cooperatives ...... 34

Figure 5 - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Strategic Conservation Framework ...... 35

Figure 6 - The Penobscot River and the Penobscot River Watershed ...... 39

Figure 7 - Penobscot River Corridor Proposed Planning Area ...... 40

Figure 8 - Wildlands & Woodlands Forest as Infrastructure Scenario ...... 92

Figure 9 - AMC 100-Mile Wilderness ...... 126

Figure 10 - Conservation Lands in AMC's 100-Mile Wilderness ...... 127

Figure 11 - Penobscot River Watershed Conserved Lands ...... 128

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 - Green Infrastructure Hubs and Links ...... 7

Table 2 - Regional Landscape Conservation Plans Analyzed for Best Practices and

Lessons Learned ...... 48

Table 3 - Regional Landscape Conservation Initiatives Analyzed for Best Practices and Lessons Learned ...... 51

Table 4 - Regional Landscape Conservation Plan Best Practices and Lessons Learned Summary ...... 56

Table 5 - Regional Landscape Conservation Initiative Best Practices and Lessons Learned Summary ...... 58

Table 6 - Land Trusts Operating in the B2B Region ...... 62

Table 7 - Conservation Non-Profit Organizations Operating in the B2B Region ...... 63

Table 8 - Recreational Interest Groups, Organizations, and Clubs Operating in the B2B Region ...... 64

Table 9 - Economic Development and Tourism Groups Operating in the B2B Region ... 65

vii

Table 10 – Agriculture, Forestry, and Marine Fisheries Specific Organizations Operating in the B2B Region ...... 66

Table 11 - Academic Institutions and Educational Programs Relevant to the B2B Initiative ...... 66

Table 12 - Federal, State, and Tribal Departments, Agencies, and Programs Relevant to the B2B Initiative ...... 67

Table 13 - Municipalities within the B2B Region ...... 68

Table 14 - Community and Ecological Priority Data Resources for the B2B Planning Area ...... 97

Table 15 - Federal and State-owned Land in the B2B Region ...... 113

Table 16 - Federal Land Designations ...... 115

Table 17 - Maine State Legislation that Supports Environmental Protection and Conservation ...... 130

Table 18 - Maine Current Use Taxation Programs ...... 133

Table 19 – State Grants to Fund Conservation Projects ...... 135

Table 20 - Local Land Use Planning Tools ...... 144

Table 21 - Immediate Action Items ...... 160

viii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

The Penobscot is Maine’s largest watershed, and New England’s second largest

waterway. At 350 miles long, it drains nearly one-quarter of the state (Lilieholm et al.

2012). The Penobscot River corridor can be defined as ranging from its headwaters near

Baxter State Park to its mouth at the Penobscot Bay. Due to the challenges facing the

forest and recreational-based tourism sector, both traditional engines of economic growth

within the Penobscot River corridor, this region has suffered economic decline in the past

decade. This decline has resulted in an aging population and fractured social networks, particularly threatening the vitality of the region’s rural communities (Lilieholm et al.

2012).

In 2006, the Brookings Institution published a report with suggestions on how

Maine could grow its economy. With Maine’s economy ranked 49 th in the nation, this

report holds a significant impact on the livelihood of Mainers (Mainebiz 2015). The

report recommends investing in Maine’s outdoor recreation and tourism industries to

foster “Quality Places” and marketing the “Maine Brand” -- the combination of natural

and social assets that attracts visitors and new residents to the state (Brookings Institution

Metropolitan Policy Program 2006). Given this recommendation, a vision for a regional

landscape-scale conservation strategy that would transform the Penobscot River corridor

into an economic development region, primarily supported by recreational, historic, and

cultural tourism, was formulated. This vision has been dubbed the Bay to Baxter (B2B)

Initiative. To be achieved, it will require a regional collaborative effort and strategic

decision-making process, both of which, according to a range of conservation planning

experts who have examined the issue, are best formed and managed through the

development of a strategic regional landscape-scale conservation plan.

This thesis’s literature review will define regional landscape-scale conservation planning and the benefits that regional landscape-scale conservation planning initiatives

afford the regions in which they operate. It will also review and analyze strategic

conservation planning frameworks used by The Nature Conservancy, by other land trusts

throughout the country, and by the federal government to support landscape-scale

conservation planning. Conclusions drawn from this framework analysis will inform the

strategic conservation planning framework chosen for the B2B Initiative’s Regional

Landscape-Scale Conservation Plan. Within this framework, best practices and lessons

learned derived from regional landscape-scale conservation plans and initiatives

operating in regions similar to the Penobscot River corridor will be provided to answer

the question: “ What regional landscape conservation planning initiatives across the U.S. exemplify the approaches and techniques useful for the formulation of a landscape conservation plan for Maine’s Penobscot River corridor? ” This thesis will conclude

with a list of recommended action items as next steps to be carried out in order to

formulate, implement, monitor, and evaluate the B2B Initiative’s Regional Landscape

Conservation Plan.

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 What is Landscape-Scale Conservation?

Site-based conservation protects natural resources, wildlife, and ecosystems

within small, designated areas such as parks and wildlife and conservation areas. Alone,

this approach to conservation is fragmented and not sufficient to support larger ecological processes -- such as watersheds and wildlife corridors -- that extend across political and jurisdictional borders (Noss 1993). In addition, climate change may cause a shift in the

location of habitats, making these site-specific locations unsuitable for the habitats they

are designed to protect. Given growing population trends, development needs are

expected to increase, placing more pressure on protected areas hosting critical biodiversity (Alger et al. 2005). There is a need for larger-scale, more comprehensive

and multipurpose conservation planning that provides connectivity across landscapes and

takes into account the ecological processes as well as economic and community-based

needs that occur within these landscapes. Landscape-scale conservation is a supplement

to site-based conservation, with its objective to connect isolated, protected areas to each

other through the formation of a larger-scale open space network.

In comparison with site-specific conservation, landscape-scale conservation is a

conservation planning approach that can work over a variety of geographic scales, with

the potential to cross political and jurisdictional boundaries, and incorporate various types

of land use and land ownership, biodiversity and habitats, and socioeconomic human populations. Preserving land on a parcel-by-parcel, opportunity driven basis is

considered to be a haphazard conservation approach that ultimately leads to the loss of

natural functions. Alternatively, landscape conservation is a strategic approach to

conservation planning that channels urban growth and preserved lands into more suitable

locations (McDonald et al. 2005). Landscape conservation differs from conventional

approaches to open space planning because it looks at conservation values and actions in

concert with land development, growth management, and built infrastructure planning.

Other conservation approaches are typically undertaken in isolation from, or sometimes

in direct opposition to, development (Benedict and McMahon 2002). Landscape

conservation planning can assist the traditional land use planning process, delineating

lands for protection before the allocation of lands for new development. This ensures

that important natural systems are not fragmented by urbanization, while also providing a

framework for locating new development (McDonald et al. 2005).

A major objective of landscape conservation initiatives is to create an open space

network that links lands affording ecological, economic, and cultural benefits

(Richardson 2008). This is not a new idea and stems from conservation planning efforts

that have their origin in two important concepts: linking parks and other green spaces for

the benefit of people, and preserving and linking natural areas to benefit biodiversity and

counter habitat fragmentation (Benedict and McMahon 2000). The first concept is

influenced by the work of landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted, who believed that parks need “to be linked to one another and to surrounding residential neighborhoods”

and “a connected system of parks and parkways is manifestly more complete and useful

than a series of isolated parks” (Mell 2008, 71). The second concept of creating an

interconnected conservation system to counter habitat fragmentation has been promoted by wildlife biologists and ecologists as the best way to preserve native plants, animals,

and supporting ecological processes (Benedict and McMahon 2002).

Today, due to federal government agency support and smart growth policies and programs implemented at the state, regional, and community levels, there has been an

increase in the application of landscape-scale conservation concepts and values

throughout the land use planning community (Benedict and McMahon 2002). Other

trends that may have influenced a shift to using landscape conservation planning

techniques include: an increased recognition of the problems associated with urban

sprawl, federal water quality mandates, endangered species protection, public health

concerns, urban revitalization, and an increase in the market value of homes near protected green space (Benedict and McMahon 2000). John Randolph (2004) summarizes a shift in conservation planning efforts over the past three decades in his book Environmental Land Use Planning and Management. His observation is that

conservation planning efforts that are occurring in this decade incorporate greater

conservation techniques, including land acquisition, easements, smart growth

management tools, and partnerships with private landowners and land trusts. These

initiatives establish multiple goals within a single conservation planning effort and have a

tendency to incorporate a broader, landscape-scale focus (Randolph 2004).

2.2 Landscape-Scale Conservation and Smart Growth

There are many parallels between landscape conservation and smart growth, and

it can be concluded from the literature that landscape conservation initiatives support

smart growth initiatives. This is in great part because the goals of landscape conservation

initiatives are similar to the objectives of smart growth initiatives in that both offer the promise of continued development and economic growth coupled with environmental

improvement and greater social integration (Daniels and Lapping 2005). The reviewed

literature focuses on three prominent ways in which components of landscape

conservation support smart growth. First, landscape conservation initiatives call for “the preservation of working rural landscapes, wildlife habitats, urban parks, recreational

trails, and protecting water supplies and floodplains” so that these preserved lands can be

linked together to form a landscape-scale open space network (Daniels and Lapping

2005, 318; and Richardson 2008). Daniels and Lapping (2005) conclude that land preservation, as described above, is an integral component of smart growth programs.

Second, those land conservation strategies employed by landscape conservation

initiatives to encourage the voluntary conservation of private land should be viewed as

5 being just as critical and complementary to state and municipal land regulation as a tool

for controlling the sprawl of land use development patterns (Richardson 2008; Daniels

and Lapping 2005). Third, while these non-regulatory techniques are recognized as being

vital to smart growth, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Smart Growth

Program also identifies proactive conservation planning as a critical element to achieving

smart growth (EPA 2015). Therefore, the landscape conservation plans developed by

landscape conservation initiatives in order to proactively delineate priority lands for protection, prime developable land, and working landscapes provide smart growth planning initiatives with the tools and resources necessary to attain smart growth objectives.

2.3 Landscape-Scale Conservation Design

Landscape-scale conserved networks consist of varying types of open space land, broadly defined under the umbrella term “green infrastructure.” According to the

Green Infrastructure Center, Inc., an organization that assists local communities with conservation planning decisions, green infrastructure is defined as:

“an interconnected network of waterways, wetlands, woodlands, wildlife habitats, and other natural areas; greenways, parks and other conservation lands; working farms, ranches and forests; and wilderness and other open spaces that support native species, maintain natural ecological processes, sustain air and water resources, and contribute to the health and quality of life for America’s communities and people” (Green Infrastructure Center 2015).

Green infrastructure networks are comprised of “hubs” and “links” (Benedict and

McMahon 2002). The hubs range from large national and state parks, forests, and wildlife refuges to smaller private farms, ranches, regional and community parks, preserves, and nature areas. The links also range in size, function, and ownership. They include watershed corridors and other corridors protected for resource conservation, and working lands such as greenways, greenbelts, and ecobelts (Benedict and McMahon

2002). Through the connectivity of hubs and links, green infrastructure provides a

6 solution for land fragmentation and the resulting degradation of natural systems.

Additionally, it supports the conservation of lands for human uses, such as working landscapes and recreational open spaces (McDonald et al. 2005). According to Benedict and McMahon (2002), hubs and links require long-range planning, proper management, and continual commitment, in order to ensure long-term protection.

Table 1 - Green Infrastructure Hubs and Links

Hubs Links Reserves Large protected areas, Landscape Large protected such as a national and Linkages natural areas that state parks and wildlife connect existing refuges parks, preserves, or natural areas and provide sufficient space for native plants and animals to flourish while serving as corridors connecting ecosystems and landscapes. May also provide space for the protection of historic sites and opportunities for recreation use. Managed Large publicly owned Conservation Less extensive linear Native lands, such as national Corridors protected areas, such Landscapes and state forests, as river and stream managed for resource corridors that serve extraction as well as as biological natural and recreational conduits for wildlife values and may provide recreational opportunities. Working Private farms, forests, Greenways Protected corridors Lands and ranches that are of land managed for managed for commodity resource production yet remain in conservation and/or a predominantly open recreational use and undeveloped state

Hubs Links Regional Less extensive hubs of Greenbelts Protected natural Parks and regional ecological lands or working Preserves significance lands that serve as a framework for development while also preserving native ecosystems and/or farms or ranchland Community Smaller parks and other Ecobelts Linear woody Parks and sites at the community- buffers that can ease Natural level where natural the zone of tension Areas features and ecological between urban and processes are protected rural land uses while and/or restored providing ecological and social benefits for urban and rural residents. Source: (Benedict and McMahon 2002).

2.4 What is Landscape Conservation at the Regional-Scale?

Landscape conservation initiatives are occurring throughout the world, including

North America, at various scales, across diverse landscape types, and under management

of multiple stakeholder groups (Benedict and McMahon 2002). While landscape

conservation initiatives have the potential to cross international borders, to involve

multiple states, or to be conducted at the state-level, those initiatives that have been

implemented in Maine have primarily been at the regional-scale, involving multiple

towns, municipalities, and service centers (Richardson 2008). These regional landscape

conservation initiatives are shaped by both ecological and human characteristics that are

significant to and unify the region (Perlman and Milder 2005). Ecological qualities

include the preservation of natural resources, wildlife habitats, and surface waters and

riparian areas that contribute to watersheds. These “ecological properties transcend borders and create shared benefits that motivate regional stakeholders to collaborate for

their conservation and stewardship” (Richardson 2008, 11). Human qualities include

existing political and socioeconomic conditions that tend to unify a region, as well as

transportation networks that connect regional service centers to surrounding rural and

working lands.

Once the region has been defined based on these interconnected ecological

and/or human qualities, it is the intent of landscape conservation planning to integrate

green infrastructure and open space planning into the region’s existing comprehensive planning framework (Benedict and McMahon 2006). This can be accomplished by

merging municipal land use planning with private, voluntary conservation. Long-term,

collaboration among stakeholders and land owners within the region; however, is

necessary in ensuring landscape conservation objectives are met (Richardson 2008).

While landscape conservation planning efforts are primarily conducted at the

regional- level in Maine and can be shaped by the interconnected ecological and human

qualities of the region, defining the scale of the focus region is still subjected to

additional, current land tenure and development patterns. In Richardson’s (2008) review

of 14 regional landscape conservation initiatives in Maine, which represented a wide

range of scale, he concluded that the less-developed regions of Maine, consisting of large

tracts of land held by a limited number of landowners, such as those found in the northern

half of the state, permit for larger regional focus areas. These larger regional focus areas

reflect greater conservation opportunities. In contrast, more highly-developed regions of

Maine, consisting of smaller parcels of land held by multiple landowners, such as those

found in the southern half of the state, allow for relatively smaller-scale regional

conservation initiatives. These smaller-scale regional initiatives “tend to reflect greater

threats to open space, higher land values and grater staff requirements to identify willing

landowners and execute land deals” (Richardson 2008, 12).

There is no general formula for identifying the correct scale of regional landscape

conservation initiatives. Richardson (2008) asserts that “Defining the scale of the focus

region entails striking a balance between going large enough to maximize conservation

9 benefits while remaining small enough to keep effective collaboration, coordination, and fundraising feasible” (12). Another professional opinion weighing in on the size of regional-scale conservation initiatives suggests that the scale should be large enough to surround the “problem” area, but “small enough to tailor the solution” (McKinney,

Scarlett, and Kemmis 2010, 14). Given this broad methodology, many regional landscape conservation initiatives in Maine map lands within their general focus area that promote their ecological, recreational, cultural, and economic objectives, as well as areas where gaps exist, in order to determine the size and delineate the boundaries of their regional focus area (Richardson 2008).

2.5 What are the Ecological Benefits of Landscape-Scale Conservation?

Much of the literature reviewed indicates that one benefit of landscape conservation planning efforts is their ability to promote healthier ecosystems and habitats.

The “conservation landscape” is by definition ecologically diverse (Sanderson et al.

2001). According to Rapport (1995) biodiversity is one of the most important indicators of ecosystem health. The landscape-scale promotes the livelihood of many species

(Sanderson et al. 2001). Species-rich habitats are considered to be more resilient and more resistant to invasion than species-poor communities (Loreau et al. 2002). Species- rich ecosystems also have higher productivity than simpler ecosystems (Naeem et al.

1996). Contributing to ecosystem resilience and vigor, landscape-scale conservation can be seen as preserving and enhancing diversity within ecosystems in terms of habitats, species, and genes (Tzoulas et al. 2007).

Landscapes are also defined by ecologists as being spatially heterogeneous areas

(Turner 1989). Most organisms depend on heterogeneity for their survival (Pulliam and

Danielson 1991). They “occupy multiple habitats, depend on temporary concentrations of resources, and move around the landscape according to spatially and temporally distributed requirements” (Sanderson et al. 2001, 42). Therefore, protecting organisms

10 means protecting their ability to meet these requirements within a larger landscape, not just on a site-by-site basis. Promoting conservation at the landscape-scale allows for the protection of organisms, thus supporting ecosystem health.

Landscape-scale conservation maintains the integrity of heterogeneous habitat systems and provides the physical basis for ecological networks (Tzoulas et al. 2007).

The development of ecological networks has been advocated as a means of alleviating the ecological impacts of habitat fragmentation. Defragmented landscapes, connected through hubs and links, promote stability, under which ecological functions such as water and soil protection, air purification, and soil erosion control, are able to occur naturally, eliminating the disturbances by urbanization (Hawkins and Selman 2002). Thus, landscape-scale conservation aids in the preservation of essential ecosystem services.

Landscape-scale conservation efforts are not limited to land, or terrestrial, ecosystem protection. Surface waters and aquatic resources also represent critically important environments for landscape-scale conservation (Nislow et al. 2010). As

Nislow et al. (2010) assert, “These habitats support a diverse and important biota, provide vital ecosystem services, and possess powerful esthetic, economic, recreational, and spiritual values” (100). The two types of ecosystems, terrestrial and aquatic, are not isolated from each other. A major consideration in landscape-scale conservation planning efforts that focus on watersheds is the linkage between surface waters and their contributing terrestrial environment (Golley 1996). Conserving terrestrial habitats at the landscape-scale is crucial to conserving aquatic ecosystems. Landscape-scale land preservation contributes to the achievement of a majority of aquatic conservation objectives; such as increasing water quality, maintaining water flow and runoff rates, and sustaining water temperatures that organisms rely on to survive (Nislow et al. 2010).

Nislow et al. (2010) reveal two other important ecological benefits of conservation planning at the landscape-scale in relation to protecting aquatic ecosystems.

First, planning at a larger-scale allows conservation planners to view river processes that are “difficult to consider at a limited geographic scale,” such as flow, sediment transport, and channel migration, in relation to target species and their habitats (116). Second, site- specific planning tends to place an emphasis on protecting only the “best habitats,” while regional landscape conservation planning encourages the implementation of strategies that range from protection of the best habitats to restoration of degraded habitats. The latter approach, according to Nislow et al., “will undoubtedly lead to a healthier watershed” (116).

2.6 What are the Economic Benefits of Landscape-Scale Conservation?

In addition to having ecological benefits, literature on landscape conservation also verifies that large landscape conservation provides significant benefits to rural and urban communities in areas near the conserved landscapes through “increased income, employment, and economic prosperity, and improved fiscal balance” (McKinney,

Scarlett, and Kemmis 2010, 9). Rural and urban areas that provide access to environmental and cultural amenities, such as outdoor recreation and agricultural opportunities, clean air and water, and scenic vistas, attract a portion of the population who seek a nature-based lifestyle (McKinney, Scarlett, and Kemmis 2010). This appeal can result in an inflow of people moving to these areas to live, work, and conduct business (McKinney, Scarlett, and Kemmis 2010). In-migration has the ability to

stimulate both rural areas and urban service centers that are steadily losing population

and businesses (Headwaters Economics 2012). A 2004 study on the influence that protected public lands – including designated wilderness, national parks, and national

conservation areas -- have on the economy in the western region of the United States

concluded that those counties hosting or close to protected lands have the fastest population and economic growth (Rasker et al. 2004). In addition, other studies have

shown that the closer residential properties are to open space and/or park land, the higher

12 the property value (de Brun 2007). Increased property values, in turn, increase property tax revenues for local governments.

Landscape conservation initiatives strive to protect lands that afford recreationally-based and culturally-based tourism opportunities as well as working lands such as forests, farms, and waterfronts. These lands are significant economic assets for local and regional rural economic development (McKinney, Scarlett, and Kemmis 2010).

Recreational-based and cultural-based tourism stimulates local economies by bringing in outside dollars, which in turn benefits locally-based recreation businesses, amenities such as restaurants and lodging, and a myriad of other businesses that support these industries.

The local government benefits through increased tax revenues, which can help support quality services for residents (Larose 2011).

In addition, increasing tourist activity in local towns leads to overall business and job growth (McKinney, Scarlett, and Kemmis 2010). A 2005 study conducted by the

USDA’s Economic Research Service compared economic and social statistics from non-

metropolitan counties in the United States with existing mature recreation tourism

industries (including non-outdoor recreation, such as casinos), to other non-metro, non-

recreation counties. The study found that from 1990 to 2000, employment growth was

higher in recreation counties, with higher employment rates for younger (24 years old and below), and older (65 years old and above) workers. Employment rates for 25-64 year

olds were roughly the same in recreation and non-recreation counties (Reeder and Brown

2005). Finally, in addition to job growth and increased tax revenues, the infrastructure

improvements needed to support tourism, such as enhanced transportation and

telecommunications, can attract other industries to the area, further spurring economic

growth (Reeder and Brown 2005; Pott and Marsinko 1998).

Natural resource-based industries, such as the forest-products sector, ranching,

farming, and fishing, are a significant contributor to rural economies and, therefore,

13 conserving and ensuring public access to the lands that support these industries, including working forestlands, farmlands, and waterfronts, is a priority of landscape-scale conservation initiatives (McKinney, Scarlett, and Kemmis 2010). Not only do the goods produced on working lands yield revenues for local and state economies, many working land owners allow the public to access their land for recreational purposes, which in turn supports the revenues generated from the recreational services and tourism industry

(Talberth and Yonavjak 2011). Furthermore, while working lands and conservation land may generate less tax revenue than lands with development potential, they do not incur nearly as much infrastructure and public services costs that residential, commercial, and industrial properties demand (McKinney, Scarlett, and Kemmis 2010; Talberth and

Yonavjak 2011). According to the American Farmland Trust (2006), “fiscal analyses of the costs of providing community services indicate that working landscapes generate more public revenues than they receive in the form of public services” (McKinney,

Scarlett, and Kemmis 2010, 11). Similarly, the natural ecosystems conserved on recreational and working lands provide services for environmental protection, such as flood control and water purification/treatment, that municipal governments would normally have to finance in order to construct and maintain man-made structures in areas that are more developed (McKinney, Scarlett, and Kemmis 2010; Talberth and Yonavjak

2011).

In addition to supporting local and state economies, landscape-scale conservation also has the ability to provide economic benefits to the private owners of working lands through working land conservation easements. These easements can result in lower property taxes for the landowner, affording them the ability to continue farming, ranching, fishing, and timber harvesting, while their property still contributes to the local economy and remains on municipal tax rolls (Fox 2011).

2.7 What are the Health and Social Benefits of Landscape-Scale Conservation?

Integrating open space conservation and green infrastructure into the built environment at the landscape-scale contributes to improved health and social wellbeing among local communities throughout the region. While ecological and economic benefits may create incentives for local communities to support large-scale conservation efforts, it is primarily the social benefits that motivate stakeholders and citizens who reside within and utilize the landscape to be stewards of the land, assuring environmental sustainability over time (Russell). The social benefits from large-scale conservation, which can be categorized into two main focal areas: (1) improved public health (both physical and mental) and (2) social wellbeing, can only be felt if people are given the opportunity to access the conserved lands and, are therefore exposed to the natural environment and the cultural heritage that these lands offer (National Recreation and Park

Association 2015).

While this may seem obvious, it is important to note that there are places throughout the United States where access to green space is an issue of social justice – places in which some people have considerable access to the outdoors and recreation,

while others do not (Garcia and Kao 2014). It is not just urban areas that are

disadvantaged in their limited access to green spaces; public access can even be

restrained in more natural, rural areas where large tracts of land are privately owned and

restricted to public use (Richardson 2008). As President Obama stated [October 10,

2014] in designating a national monument in the San Gabriel Mountains in Southern

California, “it’s not enough to have this awesome natural wonder within your sight – you

have to be able to access it” (Garcia and Kao 2014). This philosophy of social equity and

access “is the foundation that allows people to benefit from what public parks and

recreation provide,” such as exercise and youth outdoor-education programs (National

Recreation and Park Association 2015). To support this philosophy, landscape-scale

15 conservation initiatives call for an increase in strategic local and regional open space conservation and green infrastructure development, with the intent of augmenting the amount of protected land that allow communities within the region public access, and, in turn, improving the probability that local citizens are afforded the opportunity to reap the health and social benefits that these protected lands offer (McKinney, Scarlett, and

Kemmis 2010).

As stated above, one of the main social benefits of landscape-scale conservation is its ability to promote public health. There is sufficient evidence documented in literature to argue that green infrastructure and open space networks contribute to the promotion of public health, defined by the World Health Organization as being a state of complete physical, mental, and social wellbeing (Kuppuswamy 2009). Various studies providing this evidence are summarized below.

Through his designs in the U.K., Ebenezer Howard’s work suggested that placing

green spaces in close proximity to residential zones would improve both the psychological and physical health of local populations (Howard 1985). This view is

supported by the research of Kaplan and Kaplan (1989) and Ulrich (1991) who propose

that green infrastructure can provide “a number of formal and informal benefits for people that includes improvement of physical and psychological health, promotion of

environmental education, and a better understanding of the world around them” (Mell

2008, 75). These benefits can be increased by providing better access and connectivity between urban, suburban, and rural land uses and natural environments (Mell 2008).

Residents in areas with green spaces demonstrate increased longevity, a higher level of physical activity, and better health among senior citizens (de Vries et al. 2003). Children

who are given the opportunity to play in green spaces develop muscle strength and

coordination, cognitive thinking, reasoning abilities, as well as the ability to acquire the

skills necessary to interact and cooperate with others (Sherer 2006). Douglas (2005)

16 reports that green areas provide fresh energy that helps people to relax. Simply viewing green spaces from residential areas is shown to reduce psycho-physiological stress and aggression, and to improve blood pressure and muscle tension (Kuppuswamy 2009).

Health initiatives in the U.S. and U.K. that encourage using green spaces within close proximity for exercise have gained positive feedback, with participants stating that being outside not only improves their physical health, but also their psychological health

(Mell 2008). Green infrastructure has been viewed by many as a way of achieving nationally established health targets, such as lowering obesity and health care costs (Mell

2007). In the U.K., Maller studied the relationship between exercise and open green space. He reported that green infrastructure will help the government reach targets to increase levels of physical activity and to provide a significant economic reason to maintain green space (Kuppuswamy 2009). In the U.S., where physical inactivity and obesity among adults and children has been recognized as a significant health problem by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, studies have shown that the creation of or enhanced access to places for physical activity led to a 48.4 percent increase in frequency of physical activity and a 25.6 percent increase in the percentage of people exercising on three or more days per week (Sherer 2006). These numbers have motivated conservation organizations to collaborate with public health organizations to increase access to parks and other recreational opportunities and exposure to nature and greenery (Sherer 2006).

All of these studies add to the mounting evidence of the benefits to public health, both physical and psychological, provided through access to nature.

In addition to promoting mental wellbeing and physical wellbeing, landscape-

scale conservation initiatives also support social wellbeing through their efforts to

conserve land for local community interaction. The literature suggests that social

wellbeing is achieved through having access to places that offer “social integration,”

where people can engage in “community building and development” as well as

“collectively experience nature” (Abraham, Sommerhalder, and Abel 2009, 64). These places can range from small municipal parks, community gardens, and other outdoor green spaces designated for community events like farmers markets to nature preserves, community forests, and iconic community landscapes. To further support social wellbeing, landscape-scale conservation initiatives may implement community-based programs designed to connect local people to the land and to each other. Examples of

these types of programs include establishing environmental/outdoor education programs

and projects with local schools or hosting community events, such as ice cream socials,

movie nights, or concerts, on conserved land (Goltra 2014). These types of places and programs connect people to nature and with their neighbors, enabling people to feel “less

isolated and less focused on themselves” and, as a result, “a greater sense of community

and social ties emerge, as do increases in generosity, trust, and civic-mindedness”

(National Recreation and Park Association 2010, 4; Sherer 2006).

To help summarize the health and social wellbeing benefits of landscape-scale

conservation, the following graphic was extract from a relevant literature review:

Figure 1 - Health and Social Wellbeing Benefits from Landscape-scale Conservation

Source: (Abraham, Sommerhalder, and Abel 2009, 64).

2.8 Planning Frameworks for Strategic Landscape-Scale Conservation

2.8.1 Non-Governmental Conservation Organizations

The Wildlands Project, initiated in 1991 by a group of conservation biologists advocating for the formation of an integrated system of conserved lands throughout North

America, is credited with bringing landscape-scale conservation into the mainstream of conservation practice and theory, “directly or indirectly stimulating the development of landscape-scale conservation plans in North America” (Trombulak and Baldwin 2010, 6).

The Nature Conservancy (TNC), the largest conservation non-governmental organization in the world, was motivated by these landscape ecology principles and recognized the importance of re-focusing their conservation efforts from protecting significant isolated, distinct sites to regional landscapes in order to achieve their conservation goals (Kareiva,

Groves, and Marvier 2014). It was at this time, in the mid-1990’s, that TNC developed the first edition of their conservation planning framework, known as Conservation by

Design: A Strategic Framework for Mission Success, which outlined the process the

19 organization would utilize to plan for the conservation of both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems at the regional, landscape-scale. While other conservation organizations in

North America, particular the Sierra Club and World Wildlife Foundation, followed suit and also began strategically planning at the landscape-scale, this portion of the literature review will focus on the planning framework utilized by TNC.

TNC, an early adopter of advances in ecological theory and a producer of new science as a result of their vast experience in practicing conservation, can be viewed as setting a precedent in strategic conservation planning at the landscape-scale (Karieva,

Groves, and Marvier 2014). TNC coined the term “ecoregions,” which will be discussed in more detail below, to more accurately define the scale at which they focus their conservation efforts. While TNC’s planning framework has evolved over time, with the most recent edition being released in 2006, it continues to guide and inform their worldwide, regional conservation initiatives in order to support the organization’s overarching mission and vision (TNC 2006).

The framework is based on a four-pronged approach: (1) setting goals and priorities; (2) developing strategies; (3) taking action; and (4) measuring results (TNC

2006; Kareiva, Groves, and Marvier 2014). The graphic below displays the components of TNC’s framework for conservation planning.

Figure 2 - TNC's Framework for Conservation Planning

Source: (TNC 2006).

The focus of TNC’s mission is to promote biodiversity. To support this mission,

TNC works at the ecoregional-scale, setting goals and priorities and employing conservation actions based on species and habitat protection within each geographically defined ecoregion (TNC 2006). An ecoregion is a “regional landscape that supports recognizably distinctive groupings of plants, animals, and natural communities due to regional patterns of climate, landform, soil, and hydrology” (TNC 2015). The biodiversity of flora, fauna and ecosystems that characterize one ecoregion tends to be

distinct from that of other ecoregions. TNC currently recognizes 78 terrestrial ecoregions

in the United States, including Hawaii and Alaska (Landscope America 2015). The

following graphic is a map showing the distinct ecoregions, which have been delineated by TNC, in the eastern region of North America.

Figure 3 - TNC Eastern North American Ecoregions

Source: (TNC 2015).

Ecoregional Assessments, conducted for each ecoregion, are a significant component of TNC’s goal and priority setting process. The assessments supply the quantitative data necessary to set measurable goals for the protection of the species and habitats that exist within each ecoregion. Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in combination with a decision support system technological program, ecoregional assessments also provide a portfolio and map of sites that collectively represent the best

22 examples of species and habitats that characterize the ecoregion (TNC 2015). These sites are thought to be “the most important places for conserving biodiversity,” within the ecoregion, and are therefore, prioritized for protection (TNC 2006).

The resulting map is considered to be “the most important product” derived from the Ecoregional Assessments (Karieva, Groves, and Marvier 2014, 1139). This is in large part because TNC is able to use the maps to denote where they should be directing their conservation strategies, such as land acquisition and easements, in order to conserve priority sites and thus reach their ecoregional goals in a more efficient manner (TNC

2006). Using the maps derived from the Ecoregional Assessments to systematically prioritize their conservation efforts has “transformed TNC’s investments from a largely opportunistic to a highly strategic enterprise. A recent analysis of TNC’s land purchases revealed that 86% of acquired properties fall within priority areas identified by science- based ecoregional plans” (Karieva, Groves, and Marvier 2014, 1139).

The next steps of TNC’s conservation planning framework are developing

strategies to protect priority areas and putting those strategies into action in order to meet

conservation goals. While TNC initially developed strategies predominately based on

reducing threats to biodiversity, such as purchasing lands or easements for protection and

creating parks, they have since expanded to incorporate social, political, and economic

factors occurring within the ecoregions into their strategy development (TNC 2006;

Karieva, Groves, and Marvier 2014). Thus, conservation strategies are currently

designed to offer the solutions necessary to promote species and ecosystem health as well

as the livelihoods of people (TNC 2006). Examples of these “multi-objective”

conservation strategies include “marine spatial planning that establishes zones of

economic activity (Gleason et al. 2010), planning for alternative energy development

(Cameron, Cohen, and Morrison 2012), securing environmental flows through

sustainable hydropower development (Richter and Thomas 2007), protecting

23 groundwater-dependent ecosystems (Brown et al. 2011) and conserving biodiversity on grazed ranchlands (Pyke and Marty 2005)” (Karieva, Groves, and Marvier 2014, 1141).

Given TNC’s worldwide presence, these strategies require collaboration, planning, development, and implementation at various scales, including the global-scale, the regional-scale, which for TNC includes large regions such as Southeast Asia or all of

North America, and the local-scale, which may equate to a local region, such as New

England, or one particular state in the US, or a group of or one particular community

(TNC 2006).

Similarly, while “taking action” once primarily included the traditional activities

of a land trust, such as land and water protection, through purchasing land or placing a

conservation easement on land, and ecological stewardship, TNC’s strategy

implementation has grown to support their multi-objective approach and now includes:

• Developing and employing myriad innovative conservation tools;

• Creating and maintaining supportive public policies, practices and incentives;

• Public outreach to build an ethic and support for biodiversity conservation;

• Government and other outreach to strengthen the institutional capacity of governments; and non-governmental organizations to achieve conservation results; and

• Outreach to generate private and public funding.

Broadening their conservation approach has also meant increasing the resources,

including staff and funding, necessary to execute TNC’s dynamic strategies (TNC 2006;

Karieva, Groves, and Marvier 2014).

To ensure that their conservation strategies and actions are working as intended

in order to protect biodiversity and support other multi-objective goals, the last step in

TNC’s conservation planning process includes measuring results. While this stage is

important because it evaluates the effectiveness of TNC’s actions and, at the same time,

24 their resource allocation decisions, developing a strategic evaluation approach is something that has been a struggle, not only for TNC, but also for the entire conservation community (Karieva, Groves, and Marvier 2014). To address this weakness, TNC has joined other conservation organizations on initiatives to improve the monitoring and evaluation stage of the conservation planning process.

Literature shows that TNC has instituted science-based monitoring programs that identify specific biological data to be collected in the field to measure the progress of biodiversity within each ecoregion (Groom, Meffe, and Carroll 2005). According to

Groom et al. (2005), “The movement toward measurement of ecological integrity and

threat status of biodiversity is an attempt to more accurately assess conservation

outcomes. This approach more directly assesses progress toward the Conservancy’s

mission than do the indirect measures of number of acres in conservation status and

numbers of dollars raised for conservation action traditionally tracked by the

organization” (2-4). However, as Karieva et al. (2014) reveal, “managers are reluctant to

invest in monitoring because it is sometimes seen as a wasted expenditure” (1140). To

curb this reaction, monitoring programs have been limited to select projects that have

“the greatest opportunity for learning and leverage” (Karieva, Groves, and Marvier 2014,

1140). In addition, conservation Return on Investment (ROI) analyses have also been

used to measure ecological benefits beyond biodiversity, such as social outcomes

attributed to conservation (Boyd, Epanchin-Niell, and Siikamaki 2012). Finally, TNC

uses benchmarking to monitor and evaluate conservation actions. Benchmarking is “the process of identifying common standards or criteria by which future qualitative and quantitative monitoring could measure the success,” including ecological and social benefits and implications, of conservation actions over a given time period (Fitzsimmons et al. 2012, 52). Groom et al. (2005) suggests that the information collected during the monitoring and evaluation stage in the planning process not only needs to be used to

25 improve conservation strategies and actions, but should also be communicated as lessons learned, both bad and good, throughout the conservation community so that only effective and comprehensive conservation approaches are widely adopted.

2.8.2 Land Trusts Nation-wide

Land trusts follow a similar strategic conservation planning framework as TNC in order to “aid decision makers in identifying, prioritizing, pursuing, and protecting those specific tracts of land that will most effectively and efficiently achieve the land trust's mission” (The Land Trust Alliance 2015). The Land Trust Alliance (LTA), a nationally recognized conservation organization that supports the work of land trusts, advocates the use of strategic conservation planning by land trusts in their guidebook

Land Trust Standards and Practices . Standard 1: Mission, Practice B recommends that

“the land trust regularly establishes strategic goals for implementing its mission and routinely evaluates programs, goals and activities to be sure they are consistent with the mission” (Land Trust Alliance 2004, 1). In addition, Standard 8: Evaluating and Selecting

Conservation Projects proposes that “The land trust carefully evaluates and selects its conservation projects” (Land Trust Alliance 2004, 8). Furthermore, LTA produced a more detailed publication, Strategic Conservation Planning (2011), to help land trusts learn how to implement these standards and practices related to strategic conservation planning.

LTA’s substantial efforts to promote strategic conservation planning among the

land trust community provides evidence that this approach to conservation planning is

important and beneficial to land trusts. To further understand its significance, land trust professionals and volunteers have summarized and documented their rationale for engaging in strategic conservation planning. First, many land trusts have limited resources, both human and financial, to achieve their conservation goals. It is therefore imperative that land trusts focus their efforts on land projects that support their mission

26 and that also maximize conservation benefits (Sedgwick 2014). Pairing strategic planning with geospatial analysis produces a map of land and resources that helps land

trusts locate and visualize the land that is most important to conserve, as defined by their

mission (Amundsen 2011). This knowledge informs the land trust on making decisions

to accept land donations and directs them to initiate relationships and projects with key

stakeholders and landowners (Land Trust Alliance 2004). Thus, this process is seen to

transform the land trust from being primarily opportunistic to more strategic (Amundsen

2007).

Second, strategic planning can increase the trust’s pace of conservation.

According to the 2010 National Land Trust Census, land trusts that had strategic

conservation plans protected twice as much land as land trusts without plans (Amundsen

2007; Amundsen 2011). Third, strategic conservation plans give validity to the trust’s

conservation decisions, while also demonstrating to donors, grant programs, foundations,

and members of the land trust that money and resources are being allocated strategically

and effectively (Amundsen 2011). This can increase the chances of continued funding

due to wise spending practices, and may also augment public and government support, both in funding and in regulation (Amundsen 2007).

Similarly, a positive reputation built upon strategic conservation planning can aid

the land trust in forming collaborative, regional landscape-scale conservation planning

efforts with local governments. Participation in these efforts can further the goals of the

land trust (Amundsen and Culp 2013). Since land use decisions are primarily made at the

local government level, land trusts can influence those local processes by providing the

conservation tools and expertise derived from strategic planning that might not be

available in a comprehensive planning process. In summary, “Informing local land use planning efforts with conservation planning developed by land trusts can increase impact

27 by ensuring that local land use plans incorporate a strong conservation element informed by land trust priorities” (Amundsen and Culp 2013, 15).

LTA acknowledges that the steps taken to develop and implement a strategic conservation plan will be unique to each land trust (Amundsen 2011). However, to guide strategic conservation planning for the Maine Coastal Protection Initiative, a collaborative regional conservation effort to protect environmental, economic, scenic and cultural features along Maine’s coast, LTA developed a broad framework for strategic conservation planning with four common steps that land trusts undertake in developing strategic conservation plans (Amundsen 2007). These steps include: (1) Getting Started,

(2) Understanding Your Community, (3) Setting Priorities, and (4) Implementation.

Included under each of these major steps is a list of elements that a land trust can benefit from addressing during that stage of the planning process (Amundsen 2007).

The first step of LTA’s strategic conservation planning framework is “Getting

Started”. This stage ensures that specific prerequisites have been established by the land trust prior to going forth with a strategic conservation plan. These prerequisites include:

• Establishing a “geographic area of interest” or “service area” that the land trust will work within and that the conservation plan will be focused upon,

• Scripting a clear mission statement that expresses the land trust’s purpose and priorities, and

• Identifying conservation project criteria to “determine whether a single land protection opportunity is eligible for the land trust’s consideration, spelling out characteristics or minimum standards that qualify a parcel of land to be considered for protection.” (Amundsen 2007, 34).

In addition to a mission statement, many land trusts form a land conservation vision prior to engaging in a strategic conservation plan to provide inspiration as to what the community’s or region’s landscape could look like once the strategic plan has been carried out (Amundsen 2007). While the vision supports the land trust’s mission, goals developed during this stage in the planning process support both the mission and the

28 vision. Goals may vary depending on the intent of the land trust as defined in their mission/vision, but can revolve around such categories as land, water quality, habitat, or species protection; collaboration with other partners; fundraising; community economic development; education; or community outreach and engagement (Amundsen 2011).

During the “Getting Started” phase of LTA’s strategic conservation planning framework, the land trust should also identify the people who will be involved in the planning process, what role these people will play, and who will take leadership responsibility of the plan. For collaborative, regional conservation plans, thought must be put into determining the role and responsibilities of other partnering organizations

(Amundsen 2007). According to LTA, it is also helpful to decide during this early stage of the planning process if the public will be involve in the process, when they will be involved, and the degree of their involvement. The level of stakeholder involvement in the conservation planning process varies depending on the purpose of the plan (Gregory et al. 2012; Amundsen 2011). Some land trusts, especially those that are more community-based in nature, actively seek input from both their members and the communities they serve as part of this process. However, Amundsen (2011) describes that public involvement is not always appropriate “If… one of the plan’s goals is to serve as an internal tool to identification the location of sensitive resources, such as rare orchids or archaeological sites, then the role of the public may be more limited” (65). In addition, identifying gaps in their internal capacity during this stage may result in a land trust determining their need to reach out to external planning and/or technical consultants to facilitate the planning process (Amundsen 2007).

The second step in LTA’s strategic conservation planning framework involves

“Understanding Your Community.” Through research, data collection, and analysis, it is assumed that this step in the planning process will prepare land trusts for the third step in the planning process, “Setting Priorities” (Amundsen 2007). “Understanding Your

Community” suggests not only understanding the significant environmental resources that are distributed within the service area, but also the people who reside within it

(Amundsen 2007).

To understand community priorities, land trusts may consider reaching out to community members to collect stories, artwork, or literature that identify the places and resources within the community that have historically been and continue to be valued.

Through the review of historical land use data, a land trust is able to grasp how past land use decisions have led to the contemporary layout of the service area, which may help explain why some land was slated for conservation while others were not (Amundsen

2007). Similarly, reviewing changes in regional land cover data can reveal threats to conservation, such as development pressure. In addition, “demographic information is useful in diagnosing threats to conservation resources as well as forecasting needs about the use of conservation resources” (Amundsen 2007, 56). For example, knowing population trends can help determine the rate of growth, future development, and

resulting land consumption in the service area, while recognizing economic trends can

help identify the natural resources that should be protected in order to sustain the

livelihoods of local residents. To streamline this stage of the planning process,

Amundsen (2007) recommends gathering existing planning studies conducted by

government agencies or non-profit organizations. As he states, “Some of your planning

questions may have been answered in these planning studies or have information that you

can extrapolate for your own conservation planning purposes” (Amundsen 2007, 53).

Finally, map creation is a large component of the second step of LTA’s strategic

conservation framework. Amundsen (2007) claims that a map of existing conservation

lands within the land trust’s service area “may be one of the most important products of

your entire strategic planning process” since this map “will help determine your priorities

as well as highlight opportunities for the land trust” (58). Furthermore, before a land

30 trust engages in a prioritization exercise, building a natural, scenic, and cultural resource inventory and corresponding maps that portray the distribution of significant areas such as species habitats, prime agricultural soils, and public access to shorelines and recreational hiking trails within the land trust’s service area, is recommended. These inventories not only provide insight on where conservation opportunities reside, but they also highlight areas where threats exist, which can further “inform land trust priorities and the assessment and identification of appropriate conservation tools” during the next steps of the planning process (Amundsen 2007, 49).

Step three in LTA’s strategic conservation planning framework is “Setting

Priorities.” While there is a range of prioritization tools available for evaluating a land trust’s current conservation holdings and identifying focus areas for future conservation projects, this literature review will not go into the technical details of these tools. Instead, it will explain the rationale for including this step in the planning process. First, as part of the prioritization process, a land trust will develop a set of criteria for selecting the type and location of conservation projects. Ideally, these criteria will support achieving the land trust’s goals, vision, and mission, developed during the first stage of the planning process. Thus, this step serves as a verification method for the trust to ensure they are being consistent with their purpose and priorities, and may result in a revision of their mission, goals, or criteria (Amundsen 2007). Second, after completing the prioritization process, land trusts will acquire a list and map of parcels of land that are designated as focus areas for the trust’s future conservation work. This information is vital to the local comprehensive planning process and can be shared with municipalities to ensure proactive land use planning is conducted throughout the land trust’s service area

(Amundsen and Culp 2013). Third, the resulting focus areas produce a list of landowners who the land trust can approach to discuss conservation options. Again, this step can help

31 transform the land trust from being primarily opportunistic to being more proactive

(Amundsen 2007).

The fourth and final step in LTA’s strategic conservation framework is

“Implementation.” This is a broad step that encompasses:

• identifying the best conservation tools to execute conservation projects in the targeted focus areas (i.e. conservation easement, land acquisition, zoning, etc.);

• determining the resources (i.e. staff/volunteers/partners/consultants and money) necessary to take action; and

• measuring successes.

Once the resources necessary to take action are identified during the strategic conservation planning process, the land trust may realize there are gaps that need to be filled in order for them to reach their goals. Establishing partnerships that involve collaborating with government agencies, another land trust, or other non-profit organizations may build the capacity of the land trust. In addition, forging a capital campaign to fundraise for projects is an option to leverage the funds necessary to go forth with the conservation projects identified in the strategic conservation plan (Amundsen

2007).

While land trusts tend to measure successes in terms of “bucks and acres,” other factors are also useful to evaluate if the organization is progressing toward achieving their goals (Amundsen 2007). A land trust may track the number of landowners they have contacted in conservation focus areas, the resulting positive relationships that have formed due to that contact, and the type of communication used to formulate that positive relationship so it can be replicated. They may also calculate the number of conservation projects being conducted within the conservation focus areas versus outside the focus areas to evaluate if they are being proactive or opportunistic. While it may be difficult to measure, Amundsen (2007) also recommends that a land trust assess the amount the

32 public is benefiting from conservation projects in order to ensure that they are effectively

meeting community needs. To measure their successes, land trusts should ensure that

their metrics are measurable, time limited, and geared toward a specific geographical area

or natural resource (Amundsen 2007). Qualitative analysis, such as reaching out to

landowners and community members, may also be necessary to measure success.

2.8.3 Federal Government

Since taking office in January 2009, President Barack Obama and his

administration have made large landscape conservation a focus of many natural resource

initiatives (McKinney, Scarlett and Kemmis 2010). Landscape Conservation

Cooperatives (LCCs) is one initiative that formed in 2010 as a result of the federal

Department of Interior’s Secretarial Order No. 3289, which recognized that “Interior bureaus and agencies must work together, and with other federal, state, tribal and local

governments, and private landowner partners, to develop landscape-level strategies for

understanding and responding to climate change impacts” (Salazar 2010). LCCs are a

collaboration between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Park

Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Bureau of Land Management, and other public

and private partners in order to (1) provide the science and technical expertise needed to

support conservation planning at the landscape-scale, and (2) define shared conservation

goals, priorities, and strategies that contribute to the conservation of fish and wildlife populations at the landscape-scale (USFWS 2015). As of February 2015, there are 22

LCCs operating throughout the country. The map below shows the distribution of the 22

LCCs throughout North America.

Figure 4 - Landscape Conservation Cooperatives

Source: (USFWS 2015)

While the individual conservation planning process for each of the LCCs may vary depending on their organization and stakeholder involvement, many LCCs have adopted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Strategic Conservation Framework as a science-based approach to support and inform their conservation planning efforts

(Appalachian LCC 2015; Haubold, E. 2015, March 16. Phone interview). This framework is based on five steps: (1) Biological Planning, (2) Conservation Design, (3)

Conservation Delivery, (4) Assumption-based Research, and (5) Outcome-based

Monitoring. A graphic presenting the components of the Strategic Conservation

Framework is shown below.

Figure 5 - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Strategic Conservation Framework

Source: (Appalachian LCC 2015).

Biological planning involves identifying and mapping the priority species and habitats that are prevalent throughout the LCC’s jurisdiction and assessing their current condition in order to understand the conservation deficit that exists for the species/habitat to reach desired outcomes (USFWS 2014). These desired outcomes are known as

“population objectives.” Important social and cultural resources may also be identified as part of this planning stage, and more qualitative objectives can be established to promote

these assets (Appalachian LCC 2015). This planning step informs the second step of the

conservation framework, Conservation Design, during which strategies designed to reach population objectives and other qualitative goals are identified. During step three,

Conservation Delivery, the strategies identified in step two are employed. Finally, steps

four and five, which involve research and monitoring, are implemented in order to

evaluate the effectiveness, progress, and success of the conservation strategies and of the

entire Strategic Conservation Framework approach (USFWS 2014).

Considering the LCC model is relatively new, literature that establishes whether

or not all LCCs utilize a generic strategic conservation planning framework could not be

35 found. Neither could literature documenting how the findings of the USFWS’s Strategic

Conservation Framework are incorporated into individual LCC conservation planning processes. Future research may be conducted surrounding these and similar focus areas to complement the above analysis of landscape-scale conservation planning frameworks.

2.9 Framework Analysis

The above review has revealed commonalities and variations between the three different planning frameworks for strategic landscape conservation. Within each framework, there are steps that are conducted prior to implementing conservation strategies. For both the TNC and USFWS frameworks, these steps include identifying priorities and setting goals, both of which include a mapping component. The LTA

framework includes these steps as well, but also recommends and provides justification

for the inclusion of additional prerequisite steps in the planning process prior to

implementation, such as establishing a mission/vision, identifying planning team

members and their roles, and understanding the community through research, data

collection, and map analysis. For the purpose of this thesis, all of these steps prior to

implementing conservation strategies will be grouped together into the category “Steps to

Formulate the Plan.” Each framework includes a step in the planning process to

implement conservation strategies. Thus, for this thesis, another category, “Steps to

Implement the Plan,” will be included to provide an overview of various multi-objective

conservation strategies and tools aimed at achieving environmental, economic, and social

goals. Public and municipal outreach will also be a component of this step. Finally, each

of the frameworks reviewed above includes steps for monitoring and evaluating

conservation strategies. These steps, which include benchmarking, will be combined

together under the category “Steps to Monitor and Evaluate the Plan.”

CHAPTER 3 ARGUMENT FOR A REGIONAL LANDSCAPE-SCALE CONSERVATION PLAN FOR THE PENOBSCOT RIVER CORRIDOR – THE “BAY TO BAXTER” VISION

The Penobscot is Maine’s largest watershed, and New England’s second largest waterway, draining nearly one-quarter of the state (Lilieholm et al. 2012). The

Penobscot River corridor hosts a variety of land covers and uses. From the heart of

Maine’s North Woods – one of the most remote and undeveloped regions remaining in the U.S. – the Penobscot river flows east through forests, agricultural lands, communities, and over a series of dams on its way to Penobscot Bay, where the Penobscot River meets the Atlantic Ocean. The region promotes recreational activities such as canoeing, kayaking, camping, whitewater rafting, fishing, hunting, skiing, snowmobiling, sailing, boating, and hiking, and is home to renowned recreational tourist attractions such as

Baxter State Park. Aside from Baxter State Park and nearby Nahmakanta Public

Reserved Land, these recreational activities are primarily conducted on private land, which, in the Maine tradition, typically remains open to public access (Acheson 2006).

In addition, working forests and the paper industry are still prevalent within the corridor, as is commercial fishing within the Bay. Rural development can be found in the upper reaches of the river corridor, while urban development is primarily concentrated in the

Lower Penobscot Watershed, which includes the University of Maine’s Orono campus, as well as larger municipalities relative to the region, such as Bangor.

The Bay to Baxter (B2B) Initiative is a proposed regional landscape-scale conservation strategy for the Penobscot River corridor. The initiative’s name is derived from two natural features and recreational attractions that define the corridor -- Baxter

State Park, near the river’s headwaters, and Penobscot Bay at its mouth. The intent behind this initiative is to link these two hubs in order to transform the Penobscot River corridor into an economic development region, primarily supported by recreational, historic, and cultural tourism. The region already boasts recreational, historic, and

37 cultural tourist attractions, but through a coordinated effort, these resources have the opportunity to be enhanced and diversified to further foster tourism. The region’s more rural communities, such as Millinocket, have the potential to develop into gateway communities offering tourist amenities, while the more urban communities, such as

Bangor, could act as main service centers and transportation hubs. Two maps of the

Penobscot River corridor – one showing the corridor within the greater Penobscot watershed, and the other depicting the municipalities and townships within the corridor – are included below. These maps and an explanation of how the corridor’s boundary was delineated can also be found in Appendix III. A table listing the incorporated municipalities included in the Penobscot River corridor planning area is on pages 68-69.

Figure 6 - The Penobscot River and the Penobscot River Watershed

Figure 7 - Penobscot River Corridor Proposed Planning Area

The B2B vision is supported by the Brooking Institution’s 2006 and updated

2012 reports that provide insight on how to grow Maine’s economy. Both reports call for fostering “Quality Places” by making a significant investment in Maine’s outdoor recreation and tourism industries and for marketing the “Maine brand” – with its

“distinctive towns and villages,” “the stunning natural areas that lie between them,” and

“great recreational opportunities” -- to attract tourists and stimulate the economy

(Brookings Institution 2006; GrowSmart Maine 2012).

A regional landscape-scale conservation initiative such as B2B would be advantageous to the Penobscot River corridor, a region in economic and social decline.

Maine’s forest and recreational-based tourism sector, both traditional engines of economic growth in the Penobscot River corridor, have faced challenges in recent decades (Lilieholm et al. 2012). The number of jobs in the forest industry within the state has declined, with the greatest decrease in the high-paying pulp and paper sector. Since

2004, five paper mills on the Penobscot River have closed, two of which shut down in

2014, with a combined loss of 700 jobs (MacQuarrie 2014). In addition, many forms of recreation have also declined in popularity, as measured by visitation to well-known destinations within the river corridor, such as Baxter State Park. These losses have disproportionately affected Maine’s rural communities, resulting in “an aging population and fractured social networks, both of which threaten the long-term vitality of many rural

Maine communities” (Lilieholm et al. 2012, 5). Bangor, a larger and less rural municipality within the region, has lost many “talented, young people” because they are

unable to find high-paying jobs. As City Councilor Ben Sprague asserts, “If we don’t

reverse this trend of people leaving and not coming back, we’ll be in a demographic

winter … if we’re not there already” (McCrea 2013). Even commercial fishermen, who

can generate $365 million per year from lobster catch alone, are beginning to consider

41 tourism as a way to diversify their income given the uncertain future of fisheries in Maine

(Van Allen 2014; Island Institute 2015; Maine Sea Grant 2014).

In addition, the Penobscot River corridor has both the ecological and human characteristics necessary to define and to “unify the region” (Perlman and Milder 2005).

The River, an important asset to varying regional stakeholders, has motivated collaborative efforts for its conservation and stewardship. The Penobscot River

Restoration Trust’s (PRRT) recent success in removing the Veazie Dam, which has re- opened 1,000 miles of river habitat, from Old Town to the Atlantic Ocean, to eleven sea- run fish species, including Atlantic salmon and shortnose sturgeon, is evidence of these types of efforts (PRRT 2015). Communities within the Penobscot River corridor also share similar socioeconomic and demographic issues, as detailed above, with a strong dependence on deteriorating natural resource-based industries and a loss in population

(Lilieholm et al. 2012). The region is also united by another human characteristic – the transportation network that connects Bangor, the region’s biggest service center, to surrounding rural and working lands (Richardson 2008). These shared human qualities drew the attention of Governor Angus King, who in 2002 recognized that the greater

Bangor region held the greatest potential for bringing together urban and rural communities to collaborate on implementing a regional plan (Richardson 2008).

Finally, the Penobscot River corridor has great potential to be sustainably developed, which, as indicated in this thesis’s literature review, is a major component of landscape-scale conservation planning. Since much of the Penobscot River corridor is sparsely settled, it provides an opportunity for “coordinated efforts to understand and anticipate development and its impacts” (Lilieholm et al. 2012, 3). While in-migration is critical for the state’s economic future given its aging population and limited natural rate of increase, the Penobscot River corridor’s existing landscape, with its rural towns, working lands, pristine and protected natural areas, and recreational opportunities, affords

42 the potential to plan for new residents and associated development while protecting the

“Maine brand” – the combination of natural and social assets that attracts visitors and new residents to the state – (Reilly and Renski 2007).

To attain the proposed vision of the B2B Initiative, a strategic regional landscape conservation plan, following a framework similar to those reviewed in this thesis’s literature review, needs to be developed. In Maine, a “home rule” state, municipalities are granted autonomy and are not accustomed to working regionally (Richardson 2008).

In addition, Mainers prefer small local government authority as they believe this approach helps maintain their sense of community (GrowSmart Maine 2012). A strategic regional landscape conservation plan will help facilitate the regional coordination necessary to execute a successful landscape-scale conservation initiative (Richardson

2008). In addition, some of Maine’s citizens and municipalities are also hesitant to enact and embrace certain conservation and economic development tools, strategies, and models (Richardson 2008). A strategic regional landscape conservation plan will (1) offer a “big picture” vision and goals, (2) provide an analytic, science-based approach to rationalize the need for implementation of these tools and strategies, and (3) educate landowners and municipal governments on the varying types of conservation and economic tools, strategies, and models that exist and the benefits that they can afford.

Other strategic regional conservation plans and initiatives in regions similar to the Penobscot River corridor can offer insight on how to develop a plan to further the

B2B Initiative’s vision. The next Chapter of this thesis will describe the steps taken to extract best practices and lessons learned from these plans and initiatives to help develop a regional landscape conservation plan for the B2B region.

CHAPTER 4 METHODOLOGY

4.1 Background

In 2008, the Maine State Planning Office (which was eliminated in July 2012)1 released a report on the best practices of regional landscape conservation in Maine. This report supported one of the goals of The Governor’s Council on Maine’s Quality of

Place, created through a 2007 executive order by former Maine Governor John Baldacci, that regional landscape conservation be recognized and promoted in the state. The purpose of the report was to “provide guidelines that can be used across the state to organize effective regional landscape planning and conservation efforts” (Richardson

2008, 5). Since then, new regional landscape conservation plans and initiatives in Maine and throughout the U.S. have emerged that offer additional insight on strategic conservation planning techniques that can be emulated and should be considered when forming a regional landscape conservation plan for the Penobscot River corridor. In addition, regional conservation planning efforts that were just materializing when the report was released are now, six years later, able to provide a new set of best practices and lessons learned that are applicable to developing a B2B regional landscape-scale conservation plan.

While the findings and recommendations from the Maine State Planning Office report continue to be useful in guiding regional landscape conservation planning efforts in Maine and will be drawn upon frequently in this thesis, additional best practices and lessons learned that are relevant to the B2B Initiative will be introduced. These additional best practices and lessons learned have been derived from the review of nine regional

1 A supplemental budget bill was passed in 2012 under Governor LePage that did not provide funding for the State’s Planning Office, thus dismantling it. Planning responsibilities were reallocated to other agencies such as the Department of Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry and the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). In that same year, the Land Use Regulation Commission was restructured and renamed the Land Use Planning Commission (LUPC) within the newly merged Department of Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry. LUPC was revoked of some of its responsibilities such as the permitting of certain development projects, now conducted by DEP.

44 landscape conservation plans and fourteen regional conservation initiatives and then, based on this review and the findings of the above literature review, organized into a strategic conservation planning framework. The sections below provide: (1) a definition of relevance that was employed to select the nine regional landscape conservation plans and fourteen initiatives that were analyzed to extract best practices and lessons learned;

(2) a definition of best practices and lessons learned based on an established set of criteria; and (3) the approach taken to organize the extracted best practices and lessons learned into a strategic conservation planning framework.

4.2 Regional Landscape Conservation Plan and Initiative Review and Criteria

Numerous regional landscape conservation plans and initiatives were evaluated

for this thesis. In order to identify a useful set of plans and initiatives, the following

sources were drawn upon:

• The Maine State Planning Office report – The report’s appendix contains a comprehensive list of regional landscape conservation initiatives that were being implemented in Maine as of 2008;

• Highstead (highstead.net) – An organization dedicated to conserving New England’s natural landscapes and charged with helping lead the Wildlands and Woodlands Initiative as well as the Regional Conservation Partnership (RCP) Network. A map of New England RCPs, “networks of people representing private and public organizations and agencies that implement shared long-term conservation visions that cross town and sometimes state boundaries,” is available online at http://hfgis.fas.harvard.edu/flexviewers/RCPWebMap/. The map portrays almost 40 RCPs operating in New England, 11 of which are within the bounds of Maine;

• Lincoln Institute of Land Policy’s Large Landscape Conservation: A Strategic Framework for Policy and Action – Chapters 2 and 3 of this report provide examples of regional landscape conservation initiatives taking place throughout the US;

• 2014 Acadian Program in Regional Conservation and Stewardship (https://acadianinternship.wordpress.com/ ) – In late July to early August 2014, five teams from all over the world led a half-day discussion on landscape conservation initiatives occurring in their home state or region. After giving a two-hour presentation, the presenting team worked with colleagues from across the world to brainstorm and then propose an effective

response to the challenges facing their initiative. The 2014 presentations showcased best practices and lessons learned from regional landscape conservation initiatives in Chile, Argentina, Belize, Vietnam, Pennsylvania, Maine, Maryland, and Virginia;

• 2014 Land Trust Alliance Rally – An extensive three-day training session, hosted by the Land Trust Alliance, organized to be a venue for local and regional land trusts and conservation organizations to share best practices and lessons learned in conservation. Many land trusts and conservation organizations operating at the regional-level offered presentations on best practices and lessons learned.

After a list of over 50 regional planning initiatives were collected from the above sources (a comprehensive list can be found in Appendix I), a definition of relevance was applied to narrow the scope and quantity of regional landscape conservation plans and initiatives. This exercise was conducted in an effort to ensure that only those plans and initiatives that are relevant to the B2B region were reviewed for this thesis. This definition of relevance is based on the characteristics of and the existing conditions in the

Penobscot River corridor, particularly focusing on the region’s:

(1) Location – The Penobscot River corridor is located in the State of Maine and, therefore, those regional landscape conservation plans and initiatives that are being implemented or developed in Maine, or within the New England region with Maine included, were highly regarded. These plans and initiatives take place within a landscape, including land cover and land ownership patterns, that resembles the Penobscot River corridor. In addition, the contributors to these plans and initiatives are faced with similar political and socioeconomic challenges that exist within the Penobscot River corridor.

(2) Geography – A regional, watershed- or river corridor-scale planning area, encompassing multiple towns and municipalities.

(3) Land cover – A primarily rural landscape with minimal development pressure that includes working lands such as forests, farms, waterfronts, and rangeland.

(4) Land ownership patterns – The majority of land within Maine and within the corridor is privately owned. However, there is a custom of allowing public access to private land for traditional recreational activities.

(5) Socioeconomic makeup – A population that is reliant on natural resource- based livelihoods within the forest, fishing, and recreational tourism sectors. Also, an increasingly aging population given the migration of younger residents out of the region to seek better opportunities elsewhere.

(6) Political perceptions – A “home rule” state in which local municipalities have autonomy, Maine’s cities and towns are not accustomed to working at the regional-level. Mainers prefer local government because it preserves a sense of community. In addition, citizens and local officials in some areas of Maine hold distrust for the federal government and federal control.

Applying the set of criteria listed above to the initiatives originally collected resulted in a more limited and refined set of regional landscape conservation plans and initiatives. These plans and initiatives are being developed or are already being implemented in planning areas with comparable characteristics and experiencing similar conditions to the Penobscot River corridor and were therefore given priority for analysis in this thesis.

As a result, those regional landscape conservation plans and initiatives that have been developed and implemented in Maine ranked the highest in precedence since they share many of the same qualities outlined in the bullets above. Six out of the nine conservation plans analyzed for this thesis are located in Maine. Out of those six, four are being implemented at the watershed-scale or are river-based. The remaining three regional landscape conservation plans selected for this analysis that are not located in

Maine were still given special consideration because they act at the watershed-scale or are river-based. The nine regional landscape conservation plans that were analyzed for this thesis are listed in Table 2, along with the plan’s primary author, and the plan’s relevance to the B2B planning area based on the set of criteria listed above. To help clarify each plan’s relevance to the B2B planning area, the number listed in the

“Relevance to B2B Regional Conservation Plan” column corresponds with the numbered criteria described above.

Table 2 - Regional Landscape Conservation Plans Analyzed for Best Practices and Lessons Learned

Plan Title Primary Plan Author Relevance to B2B Regional Conservation Plan Penobscot Valley The Trust for Public (1) - Maine Community Greenprint Land (2) - River-based (Penobscot River) (2) - Multiple cities and towns (3) - Working landscape (4) - Private landownership (5) - Socioeconomic makeup (6) - Political perceptions The Land Conservation Plan Walker et al. (1) - Maine for Maine’s Piscataqua (2) – Watershed-scale Region Watersheds (Piscataqua River watersheds) (2) - Multiple cities and towns (3) - Working landscape (4) - Private landownership (6) - Political perceptions A Conservation Plan for the Mt. Agamenticus to the (1) - Maine Mt. Agamenticus to the Sea Sea Initiative (2) - River-based (York Conservation Initiative River) (2) - Multiple cities and towns (3) - Working landscape (4) - Private landownership (5) - Socioeconomic makeup (6) - Political perceptions

Plan Title Primary Plan Author Relevance to B2B Regional Conservation Plan Unity Wetlands Friends of Unity (1) - Maine Conservation Plan Wetlands (Now the (2) - Multiple cities and Sebasticook Regional towns Land Trust) (3) - Working landscape (4) - Private landownership (5) - Socioeconomic makeup (6) - Political perceptions To Save a River – Ducktrap River (1) - Maine Documenting the Natural Coalition / Coastal (2) – Watershed-scale History, Restoration, and Mountains Land Trust (Ducktrap River Preservation of the Ducktrap (Dickerson) watershed) River (2) - Multiple cities and towns (3) - Working landscape (4) - Private landownership (5) - Socioeconomic makeup (6) - Political perceptions Wildlands & Woodlands Foster et al. (1) - Maine (2) - Multiple cities and towns (3) - Working landscape (4) - Private landownership (5) - Socioeconomic makeup (6) - Political perceptions Cultural Heritage and Land Blackstone River (2) – Watershed-scale Management Plan for Valley National (Blackstone River Blackstone River Valley Heritage Corridor watershed) National Heritage Corridor Commission and State (2) - Multiple cities and Planning Council towns (3) - Working landscape (4) - Private landownership (5) - Socioeconomic makeup

Plan Title Primary Plan Author Relevance to B2B Regional Conservation Plan Blackfoot Community Blackfoot Community (2) – Watershed-scale Conservation Area – Conservation Area (Blackfoot watershed) Management Plan for the Council (2) - Multiple cities and Core towns (3) - Working landscape (4) - Private landownership (5) - Socioeconomic makeup Conserving Chesapeake Chesapeake (2) – Watershed-scale Landscapes Conservancy and the (Chesapeake Bay Chesapeake Bay watershed) Commission (2) - Multiple cities and towns (3) - Working landscape (4) - Private landownership (5) - Socioeconomic makeup

After assessing the five sources listed on pages 45-46, and applying the definition

of relevance to the initial set of initiatives collected, an Internet search was conducted to

find the regional landscape conservation plans online. Through this search it became

apparent that not every regional landscape conservation initiative had a readily available plan to review for best practices and lessons learned. However, it was also found that

these initiatives still provide best practices and lessons learned case studies that are

applicable to the B2B Initiative. The same set of criteria that was used to limit the

regional landscape conservation plans to those that are most relevant to the B2B planning

area was also applied to the list of initiatives collected. Again, those initiatives that

operate at the watershed-scale or are river-based in Maine held the highest priority. Ten

of the fourteen initiatives take place in Maine and, out of those ten, five initiatives are

conducted at the watershed-level or are river-based.

Table 3 below provides the resulting fourteen initiatives that were analyzed for

this thesis, including the primary organization behind the initiative and the initiative’s

50 relevance to the B2B planning area. If the primary organization behind the initiative is the same as the name of the initiative listed in the first column of the table, the author was not listed to avoid duplication. In addition, as was done in Table 2 above, the number listed in the “Relevance to B2B Regional Conservation Plan” column corresponds with the numbered criteria that make up the definition of relevance that was applied to all of the plans and initiatives collected.

Table 3 - Regional Landscape Conservation Initiatives Analyzed for Best Practices and Lessons Learned

Regional Primary Organization Behind Relevance to B2B Landscape Initiative Regional Conservation Conservation Plan Initiative Damariscotta River (1) - Maine Association (2) - River-based (Damariscotta River) (2) - Multiple cities and towns (3) - Working landscape (4) - Private landownership (5) - Socioeconomic makeup (6) - Political perceptions Schoodic to Schoodic to Schoodic (1) - Maine Schoodic Initiative Coordinating Committee (2) - Multiple cities and towns (3) - Working landscape (4) - Private landownership (5) - Socioeconomic makeup (6) - Political perceptions The Intertwine (2) – Watershed-scale Alliance (encompasses 5 watersheds in Washington State and Oregon) (2) - Multiple cities and towns (3) - Working landscape (4) - Private landownership

Regional Primary Organization Behind Relevance to B2B Landscape Initiative Regional Conservation Conservation Plan Initiative Katahdin Woods Elliotsville Plantation LLC (1) - Maine and Waters (2) - River-based (Penobscot River) (2) - Multiple cities and towns (3) - Working landscape (4) - Private landownership (5) - Socioeconomic makeup (6) - Political perceptions “Whole Place” Maine Coast Heritage Trust (1) - Maine Initiatives (2) – Watershed-scale and River-based (2) - Multiple cities and towns (3) - Working landscape (4) – Private landownership (5) - Socioeconomic makeup (6) - Political perceptions Maine Woods Appalachian Mountain Club (1) - Maine Initiative / Greater (2) - Multiple cities and Moosehead towns Initiative (3) - Working landscape (4) - Private landownership (5) - Socioeconomic makeup (6) - Political perceptions Forest Works! (1) - Maine (2) - Multiple cities and towns (3) - Working landscape (4) – Private landownership (5) - Socioeconomic makeup (6) - Political perceptions

Regional Primary Organization Behind Relevance to B2B Landscape Initiative Regional Conservation Conservation Plan Initiative West Branch Forest Society of Maine (1) – Maine Project and (2) – Multiple cities and Moosehead Lake towns Forest Project (3) – Working landscape (4) – Private landownership (5) – Socioeconomic makeup (6) – Political perceptions Valles Caldera Valles Caldera Trust (3) – Working landscape National Preserve (4) – Private landownership (5) – Socioeconomic makeup Connecticut River Numerous conservation partners (2) – Watershed-scale National Blueway and river-based (Connecticut River) (2) – Multiple cities and towns (3) – Working landscape (4) – Private landownership (5) – Socioeconomic makeup Saco River (1) – Maine Corridor (2) – River-based (Saco Commission River) (2) – Multiple cities and towns (3) – Working landscape (4) – Private landownership (5) – Socioeconomic makeup (6) – Political perceptions Smart Growth Town of Brunswick (1) – Maine Overlay District (3) – Working landscape (4) – Private landownership (6) – Political perceptions

Regional Primary Organization Behind Relevance to B2B Landscape Initiative Regional Conservation Conservation Plan Initiative Penobscot River Towns of Bangor, Brewer, and (1) – Maine Revitalization Old Town (2) – River-based (Penobscot River) (4) – Private landownership (5) – Socioeconomic makeup (6) – Political perceptions Berkshire Berkshire Regional Planning (2) – Multiple cities and Benchmarks Commission towns (3) – Working landscape (4) – Private landownership (5) – Socioeconomic makeup

4.3 Definition of Best Practices and Lessons Learned

The nine regional landscape conservation plans and fourteen initiatives offer best practices and lessons learned that are applicable to developing a regional landscape-scale

conservation plan for the B2B region. “Best practices” can be defined as innovative

strategic conservation planning techniques that were found to be beneficial in formulating

and implementing regional landscape conservation plans in regions with similar

characteristics and existing conditions to the Penobscot River corridor. These

characteristics and conditions were outlined in the previous section of this Chapter.

“Lessons learned,” on the other hand, can be defined as those conservation strategies

utilized in regions comparable to the Penobscot River corridor that produced unintended

and undesirable results during the plan formulation and implementation stages. The

intent is that the best practices identified in this thesis will be duplicated and lessons

learned avoided when developing a regional landscape conservation plan for the B2B

region.

4.4 Organizing Best Practices and Lessons Learned into a Strategic Conservation Planning Framework

This thesis’s literature review concludes (see Framework Analysis, page 36) that

strategic conservation planning frameworks consist primarily of three large categories – plan formulation, plan implementation, and plan monitoring and evaluation. Within these three larger categories are subcategories, or steps, that are usually conducted in order, but may also be cyclical. Steps to formulate the plan include: (1) assembling the planning team, (2) forming a vision, goals and objectives, and (3) using maps and models to define priority or focus areas. Plan implementation primarily includes: (1) employing multi- objective conservation strategies and tools and (2) public and municipal outreach and education to gain support for conservation actions. Plan monitoring and evaluation includes approaches for ensuring conservation goals are achieved, which includes benchmarking.

After reviewing the nine regional landscape conservation plans for this thesis, I found that they follow a similar structure that includes the categories and subcategories that have been identified and discussed in more detail in this thesis’s literature review on strategic conservation planning frameworks. Each plan was evaluated for best practices and lessons learned within each of these categories and corresponding subcategories.

Some plans offer best practices or lessons learned for more than one category/ subcategory, while others offer best practices and lessons learned for only one category/subcategory. Table 4 provides a summary of the nine plans and indicates for which category/subcategory the plan offers best practices and lessons learned.

Table 4 - Regional Landscape Conservation Plan Best Practices and Lessons Learned Summary

Steps to Formulate the Plan Steps to Implement the Plan Assembling Forming a Using Employing Public & Steps to the Vision, Models Multi- Municipal Monitor Planning Goals & and objective Outreach and Team Objectives Maps to Conservation and Evaluate Identify Strategies and Education the Plan Priority Tools Focus Areas Penobscot Valley X X X Community Greenprint The Land Conservation Plan for Maine’s X Piscataqua Region Watersheds A Conservation Plan for the Mt. Agamenticus X X to the Sea Conservation Initiative Unity Wetlands X Conservation Plan To Save a River – Documenting the Natural History, Restoration, X X and Preservation of the Ducktrap River Wildlands & X X X X Woodlands

Steps to Formulate the Plan Steps to Implement the Plan Assembling Forming a Using Employing Public & Steps to the Vision, Models Multi- Municipal Monitor Planning Goals & and Maps objective Outreach and Team Objectives to Conservation and Evaluate Identify Strategies and Education the Plan Priority Tools Focus Areas Cultural Heritage and Land Management Plan for the X Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Blackfoot Community Conservation Area – X Management Plan for the Core Conserving Chesapeake X Landscapes

In addition to the plans, each of the regional landscape conservation initiatives were evaluated for best practice and lesson learned case studies within each of the categories and subcategories. Table 5 provides a summary of the fourteen initiatives and indicates for which category/subcategory the initiative offers best practices and lessons learned.

Table 5 - Regional Landscape Conservation Initiative Best Practices and Lessons Learned Summary

Steps to Formulate the Plan Steps to Implement the Plan Assembling Forming a Using Employing Public & Steps to the Planning Vision, Models Multi- Municipal Monitor Team Goals & and objective Outreach and Objectives Maps to Conservation and Evaluate Identify Strategies Education the Plan Priority and Tools Focus Areas Damariscotta River X Association

Schoodic to Schoodic X Initiative

The Intertwine X X Alliance Katahdin Woods and X Waters “Whole Place” X Initiatives

Maine Woods Initiative / Greater Moosehead X Initiative Forest Works! X West Branch Project and X Moosehead Lake Forest Project Valles Caldera X National Preserve Connecticut X River National Blueway Saco River X Corridor Commission Smart Growth X Overlay District River X Revitalization Berkshire X Benchmarks

Once best practices and lessons learned were collected for each of the categories and subcategories, they were inserted into the strategic conservation planning framework that was derived from the literature review and from the regional landscape conservation plan review. The following Chapter 5 – Developing a Regional Landscape-Scale

Conservation Plan for the “Bay to Baxter” Region using Best Practices and Lessons

Learned is organized to be consistent with this framework. The best practices and lessons learned will be discussed in detail within each of the categories and subcategories in an effort to guide the formulation, implementation, and evaluation of the Bay to Baxter strategic regional landscape-scale conservation plan.

The following flow chart summarizes the analytical steps taken to prepare

Chapter 5 of this thesis.

Initial Collection

Research 5 sources and form a collection of all regional conservation initatives.

Apply Definition of Relevance

Narrow initiatial collection to 23 initatives.

Online Search for Plans Results in finding 9 plans. Remaining 14 initatives are kept as case studies.

Review Plans & Initiatives for Best Practices and Lessons Learned Results in a set of best practices and lessons learned for each category/subcategory in the strategic conservation plan framework.

Chapter 5 - Developing a Regional Landscape-scale Conservation Plan for B2B Using Best Practices and Lessons Learned The best practices and lessons learned have been inserted and organized within the strategic conservation planning framework.

CHAPTER 5 DEVELOPING A REGIONAL LANDSCAPE-SCALE CONSERVATION PLAN FOR THE “BAY TO BAXTER” REGION USING BEST PRACTICES AND LESSONS LEARNED

5.1 Steps to Formulate the Plan

5.1.1 Assembling the Planning Team

The inclusion of a diverse set of stakeholders “representing varied “A few years ago, we realized that constituencies, perspectives, and all of our greatest achievements organizational capacities” on the planning had one thing in common. team was found to be a best practice for Whether launching a natural area regional conservation planning by the acquisition initiative, completing a

Maine State Planning Office (Richardson new trail, or opening a major new

2008, 8). The report states that park, behind every major success

“Participants representing varied stood a coalition of public, private perspectives, specialized knowledge, and and non-profit organizations and regional constituencies can strengthen the leaders” (The Interwine Alliance respective vision for landscape 2014). conservation initiatives and increase the likelihood of gaining public support through the implementation phase” (16). This technique remains true in the Penobscot River corridor, where there is a recent history of backlash against conservation-minded organizations and land owners in some

municipalities and sections of the citizenry (see “Lessons Learned” on pages 78-79).

Encouraging the participation of interest groups that the local public can relate to

may incentivize buy-in for the Bay to Baxter vision. In many cases, these interest groups,

such as the Maine Snowmobile Association and the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, have

similar goals as conservationists, even though they are not traditionally associated with

leading conservation initiatives. For example, there is clear common ground between

60 recreationists and conservationists, who both lobby for large tracts of land to be preserved, hold concern regarding the livelihood of Mainers, and can foresee the promotion of the Maine brand as a means of stimulating the state’s lagging economy

(Swartz, Theberge, and Sinnott 2007). Even those groups that do not share such an obvious connection need to be part of the planning process. While “regional conservation partnerships have been weighted toward traditional natural resource stakeholders, including land trusts, statewide non-governmental conservation organizations, and state and federal agencies”, these entities are not conventionally qualified to consult on the economic development strategies that will be necessary to achieve the overall goals of the

B2B initiative (Richardson 2008, 7). Therefore, it will be essential to break down the long-standing barriers that exist between the conservation, economic development, and real estate development communities in order to create comprehensive and coordinated strategies for the B2B region (7).

Fortunately, organizations that have experience working within broad sectors – e.g. conservation groups, recreationists, economic development, tourism, forestry, marine fisheries, agriculture, and academia -- already exist within the Penobscot River corridor.

Thus, there is opportunity to draw on the skills and assets of these diverse stakeholders to tackle the vital and distinct responsibilities and roles needed to support the B2B Initiative, while also engaging the varying interests of the general public, with the intent of gaining a wide range of public support.

Tables 6 through 14 include lists of potential organizations who could be invited to participate in the B2B Initiative’s planning process. To generate these lists, an internet search was conducted to find local organizations within each of the various stakeholder categories. This list was then reviewed by a regional expert, who was able to suggest additional regional stakeholder for inclusion. While this list attempts to be as comprehensive as possible, it is meant to be dynamic in nature and altered as appropriate

61 over time, after a core planning team has been established. At that time, it will be clearer if any gaps in the planning team exist.

Table 6 - Land Trusts Operating in the B2B Region

Land Trust Headquarters Jurisdiction Appalachian Trail Conservancy, New England Regional (Multi- Egremont, MA Regional Office State) Bangor Land Trust Bangor, ME Local Regional (Multi- Blue Hill Heritage Trust Blue Hill, ME Town) Brewer Land Trust Brewer, ME Local Regional Coastal Mountains Land Trust Camden, ME (Multi-Town) Forest Society of Maine Bangor, ME State Regional Great Pond Mountain Conservation Orland, ME (Multi-Town) Holden Land Trust Holden, ME Local Regional Island Heritage Trust Deer Isle, ME (Multi-Town) Islesboro Islands Trust Islesboro, ME Local Regional Landmark Heritage Trust Dixmont, ME (Multi-Town) Regional Maine Appalachian Trail Portland, ME (Multi- Land Trust Town) Maine Coast Heritage Trust Topsham, ME State Maine Farmland Trust Belfast, ME State North Haven Conservation Partners North Haven, ME Local Regional Northeast Wilderness Trust Montpelier, VT (Multi-State) Orono Land Trust Orono, ME Local Regional Augusta and Old Penobscot River Restoration Trust (Multi- Town, ME Town) Regional (Multi-State) and Sweet Water Trust Boston, MA International (Canada) The Trust for Public Land, Maine Office Portland, ME National

Vinalhaven Land Trust Vinalhaven, ME Local

Table 7 - Conservation Non-Profit Organizations Operating in the B2B Region

Organization Headquarters Focus Bagaduce Watershed Association Penobscot, ME Water Land and Belfast Bay Watershed Coalition Belfast, ME Water Coastal Conservation Association, Portland, ME Water Maine Land, Water, Conservation Law Foundation Rockland, ME and Wildlife Water and Downeast Salmon Federation Columbia Falls, ME Wildlife Friends of Baxter State Park Union, ME Land Land, Water, Friends of Sears Island Searsport, ME and Wildlife Land and Lower Penobscot Watershed Coalition Holden, ME Water Maine Appalachian Trail Club Augusta, ME Land Maine Association of Conservation Land and Woodstock, ME Commissions Water Water and Maine Rivers Yarmouth, ME Wildlife Land and Maine Woods Forever Oakland, ME Water Land, Water, Natural Resource Council of Maine Augusta, ME and Wildlife The Appalachian Mountain Club, Portland, ME Land Maine The Audubon Society, Maine Falmouth, ME Wildlife Land, Water, The Nature Conservancy, Maine Brunswick, ME and Wildlife Land, Water, The Wilderness Society, Maine Hallowell, ME and Wildlife The Wildlife Society, Maine Wildlife

Table 8 - Recreational Interest Groups, Organizations, and Clubs Operating in the B2B Region

Group/Organization/Club Headquarters Focus Alliance of Trail Vehicles of Jefferson, ME ATVing Maine Hiking, Baxter State Park Authority Millinocket, ME Camping Eddington Salmon Club Eddington, ME Fishing Katahdin Woods and Waters T3 R7 WELS, ME All Recreation Area (Unorganized Territory) Activities Maine Association of Charterboat Alna, ME Boating Captains Maine Association of Sea Kayak Bowdoinham, ME Kayaking Guides and Instructors Maine Ducks Unlimited Augusta, ME Hunting Maine Island Trail Association Portland, ME Kayaking Fishing, Maine Professional Guides Wilton, ME Hunting, Kayaking, Association Rafting Maine Snowmobile Association Augusta, ME Snowmobiling Maine Wilderness Guides All Augusta, ME Association Activities Maine Windjammer Association Blue Hill, ME Sailing Northern Penobscot Salmon Club Lincoln, ME Fishing Penobscot Fly Fishers Bangor, ME Fishing Penobscot Salmon Club Brewer, ME Fishing Fishing and Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine Augusta, ME Hunting Trout Unlimited Augusta, ME Fishing Veazie Salmon Club Veazie, ME Fishing

Table 9 - Economic Development and Tourism Groups Operating in the B2B Region

Organization Headquarters Focus Eastern Maine Development Economic Bangor, ME Corporation Development Economic GrowSmart Maine Portland, ME Development Economic Island Institute Rockland, ME Development Maine Community Economic Augusta, ME Development Association Development Maine Development Economic Augusta, ME Foundation Development Maine Municipal Economic Augusta, ME Association Development Economic Maine Realtors Association Augusta, ME Development Maine Small Business Economic Portland, ME Development Center Development Penobscot Valley Council of Economic Bangor, ME Governments Development Economic Plum Creek Timber Greenville, ME Development Economic Elliotsville Plantation Inc. Old Town, ME Development/Tourism Bangor Region Chamber of Bangor, ME Tourism Commerce Bucksport Bay Area Bucksport, ME Tourism Chamber of Commerce Katahdin Area Chamber of Millinocket, ME Tourism Commerce Lincoln Chamber of Lincoln, ME Tourism Commerce Maine Innkeepers Augusta, ME Tourism Association Maine Sporting Camp Augusta, ME Tourism Association Maine Tourism Association Hallowell, ME Tourism Penobscot Bay Regional Camden and Tourism Chamber of Commerce Rockland, ME

Table 10 – Agriculture, Forestry, and Marine Fisheries Specific Organizations Operating in the B2B Region

Organization Headquarters Focus Agricultural Council of Maine Augusta, ME Agriculture Maine Farm Bureau Augusta, ME Agriculture Maine Organic Farmers and Unity, ME Agriculture Gardeners Association Maine Rural Partners Orono, ME Agriculture Forest Guild, Maine Grey, ME Forestry Maine Forest Products Augusta, ME Forestry Council Maine Wood Products Belfast, ME Forestry Association New England Forestry Littleton, MA Forestry Foundation Northern Forest Center South Portland, ME Forestry Small Woodlot Owners Augusta, ME Forestry Association of Maine Maine Aquaculture Marine Hallowell, ME Association Fisheries Maine Coast Fishermens’ Marine Topsham, ME Association Fisheries Maine Lobstermens’ Marine Kennebunk, ME Association Fisheries Penobscot East Resource Marine Stonington, ME Center Fisheries

Table 11 - Academic Institutions and Educational Programs Relevant to the B2B Initiative

Academic Institution/Program Affiliate Focus Northeastern States Research University of Forestry Cooperative Maine, Orono University of Marine Maine Sea Grant Maine, Orono Fisheries Agriculture, University of Cooperative Extension Forestry, Marine Maine Fisheries Center for Research on Sustainable University of Forestry Forests Maine Center for Cooperative Aquaculture University of Marine Research Maine Fisheries Agriculture, Senator George J. Mitchell Center University of Forestry, Marine for Sustainability Solutions Maine Fisheries Agriculture, Maine Agricultural and Forest University of Forestry, Marine Experiment Station Maine Fisheries University of Maine, Orono Maine Maritime Academy, Castine

Table 12 - Federal, State, and Tribal Departments, Agencies, and Programs Relevant to the B2B Initiative

Integral Department/Agency Federal/State/Tribal Agencies/Programs -Natural USDA (Department of Resource Conservation Federal Agriculture) Service -Forest Service -National U.S. Department of Commerce Federal Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -National Park Service -Fish and USDOI (Department of Interior) Federal Wildlife Service -Geological Survey US EPA ( Environmental Federal Protection Agency) -Bureau of Forestry -Land Use Planning Commission -Land for ME Department of Maine’s Future Conservation, Agriculture, and State -Bureau of Parks Forestry and Lands -Maine Natural Areas Program -Municipal Planning Assistance -Office of Tourism ME Department of Economic State -Office of and Community Development Community Development

-Natural Resource Protection Act -Shoreline ME Department of State Zoning Environmental Protection -Watershed Management and Water Quality Standards ME Department of Inland -Outdoor State Fisheries and Wildlife Partners Program ME Department of Marine State Resources ME Department of State Transportation Penobscot Nation Tribal

Table 13 - Municipalities within the B2B Region 2

Municipality City/Town Population 3 Alton Town 890 Amherst Town 265 Bangor City 33,039 Belfast City 6,668 Bradley Town 1,492 Brewer City 9,482 Brooksville Town 934 Bucksport Town 4,924 Camden Town 4,850 Castine Town 1,366 Chester Town 546 Clifton Town 921 Dedham Town 1,681 Deer Isle Town 1,975 East Millinocket Town 1,723 Eddington Town 2,225 Edinburg Town 131 Enfield Town 1,607 Frankfort Town 1,124 Greenbush Town 1,491 Glenburn Town 4,594 Hampden Town 7,257 Hermon Town 5,416 Holden Town 3,076 Howland Town 1,241 Indian Island Tribal 610 Isle au Haut Town 73 Islesboro Town 566 Kenduskeag Town 1,348 Lincoln Town 5,085 Lincolnville Town 2,164 Lowell Town 358 Mattawamkeag Town 687 Medway Town 1,349 Milford Town 3,070 Millinocket Town 4,506 North Haven Town 355 Northport Town 1,520 Old Town City 7,840

2 This list includes incorporated municipalities within the B2B region. Unincorporated townships are also included within the B2B region; however, the unincorporated townships are represented by the LUPC. 3 Populations were derived from the U.S. Census 2010 data.

Municipality City/Town Population 3 Orland Town 2,225 Orono Town 10,362 Orrington Town 3,733 Owls Head Town 1,580 Passadumkeag Town 374 Penobscot Town 1,263 Prospect Town 709 Rockland City 7,297 Rockport Town 3,330 Searsport Town 2,615 South Thomaston Town 1,558 Stockton Springs Town 1,591 Stonington Town 1,152 Veazie Town 1,919 Verona Island Town 544 Vinalhaven Town 1,165 Winn Town 407 Winterport Town 3,757 Woodville Town 248

While numerous regional conservation planning initiatives report that engaging

diverse partners in the planning process is vital and has yielded positive results (see quote

from The Intertwine Alliance above), as the Maine State Planning Office report points

out, businesses, town select boards, planning commissions, and the economic

development community are less willing to participate in regional conservation planning

collaborations than traditional conservation groups and land managers (Richardson

2008). The participants interviewed for the report (provided in Appendix II) suggested

that “a proactive and personalized approach is essential to recruit the diverse perspectives

and organizational assets necessary for success” (16). Suggested personalized tactics to

enlist potential partners include giving presentations on the regional conservation vision

and then initiating one-on-one personal conversations “to understand the motivations of potential partners, or opponents, and how values shape their view on conservation” (16).

The organizers of the Wildlands and Woodlands (W&W) vision, a regional conservation plan for New England that envisions at least 70% forestland retention across the region,

69 have begun to take this approach to gain further support from private landowners in

Maine’s forest sector, as Executive Director of the New England Forestry Foundation

Robert Perschel reported at the 2014 Land Trust Alliance Rally. The B2B Initiative should follow many of the engagement tactics that W&W employs since both proposed plans share a similar vision and require participation from the forest sector and private

landowners living in the North Woods region of Maine.

Two case studies outlined below provide replicable techniques for engaging with

two distinct types of stakeholders – universities and local municipalities. In addition to private landowners, these two constituencies hold a strong presence in the B2B region

and it will be necessary to gain their support in moving forward with this plan (Lilieholm,

R. 2014, July 30. Personal interview).

BEST PRACTICE CASE STUDY Chesapeake Conservancy - Annapolis, MD University Engagement Program

Due to funding and staff constraints, many conservation organizations and local governments do not have access to the latest software or training in advanced techniques and are therefore not able to maximize the effectiveness of their planning efforts. The

Conservancy has partnered with colleges and universities within the Chesapeake Bay watershed to address their regional conservation initiative needs. Forming a symbiotic relationship, the Conservancy is able to obtain much needed datasets derived from watershed studies that are integrated into the students’ academic curriculum, while students receive valuable real-world experience. Examples of how colleges and universities have partnered with the Conservancy include:

• Remote sensing and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) coursework related to the watershed.

• Sociology and economic analysis studies to gather feedback from the local public within the watershed planning area.

• Students majoring in education teach lessons on local wildlife, landscapes, and introductory environmental concepts related to the watershed. • Students studying the visual or performing arts look to the local watershed for inspiration.

• Biological research on species, flora, fauna, etc. within the watershed.

BEST PRACTICE CASE STUDY Mt. Agamenticus to the Sea (MtA2C) – Ogunquit, ME Municipal Outreach Program

While the MtA2C initiative has made significant conservation achievements since their conservation plan was developed in 2005, the Coalition acknowledges that the goals of the conservation plan cannot be achieved without full participation by, and regional cooperation among, the six towns within its region. The Coalition would like the towns to work collaboratively on community-based activities such as land conservation, municipal zoning and planning, and investment in and maintenance of community infrastructure, including green infrastructure. As the Coalition reports, “Experience predicts that the towns will not do this all on their own, and in the case of a region encompassing six towns, not all towns will be equally engaged” (Lyman 2006, 13). The

MtA2C Municipal Outreach Program has connected with the six towns in the following ways:

• Education on the importance of natural assets to the towns and of regional cooperation among municipalities in the planning area.

• Support and technical assistance to the towns to help them integrate the goals of the Conservation Plan into local decision-making processes.

• Expanding access to resources to help towns invest in these natural assets. • Advocacy before town boards and decision-making bodies on issues related to the goals of the Conservation Plan.

The Municipal Outreach Program reports accomplishments with the towns in four areas:

• Education and Public Awareness - Example: The Town of Kittery established an Open Space Committee and developed an Open Space Plan as a result of outreach activities.

• Regional Collaboration – Example: All six towns agreed to participate in and contributed $2,000 toward the required matching funds for a planning grant from the Maine State Planning Office, administered by the Southern Maine Regional Planning Commission. Each of the towns has a member on the grant’s steering committee and has committed to ongoing meetings. The grant supports a project designed to enhance collaboration and cooperation between the towns by providing them with consistent and compatible conservation planning tools.

• Resources for Conservation – Example: The Town of South Berwick contributed $35,000 towards a MtA2C land conservation project.

• Town Decision-making – Example: Ogunquit endorsed the MtA2C Conservation Plan and has incorporated regional language into the revisions of their Comprehensive Plan.

The Program also reports lessons learned and recommendations for the future:

• Further education and outreach to additional town employees, such as public works and water and sewer departments, would be valuable.

• Expand education and outreach programs to develop an active and involved group of residents who can advocate within each town on issues relevant to achieving the goals of the Conservation Plan.

• Develop benchmarks that measure progress of municipal outreach work.

• Develop a strategy for coordinating the municipal outreach work of the Initiative with local land trusts.

In addition to providing an opportunity for diverse stakeholders to be included in the planning process, another best practice when organizing the planning team for regional conservation plans is to designate a core group tasked with carrying on the momentum of the initiative. This ensures that the planning effort does not become stagnant and diminish over time (Richardson 2008). This is what transpired with the

Penobscot Valley Community Greenprint, a regional planning initiative driven by The

Trust for Public Land in the area of the lower Penobscot River watershed, which will be highlighted as an example of a best practice for formulating a vision, goals, and priorities for regional conservation plans in the next section of this Chapter. While the Greenprint is an exemplary application in ensuring that public opinion is voiced during the planning process, once completed, the Greenprint struggled to be put into practice. One possible explanation for why the overall project deteriorated is because the region lost the support of select local leaders, including the main leader of the project, who were integral in maintaining regional momentum (Tone 2014). More recently, however, the Bangor Land

Trust, which expended significant resources in supporting the Greenprint, along with other partners, has united to carry on the creation of a regional recreational trail system, which was a component identified in the Greenprint. As Lucy Quimby, Bangor Land

Trust president, pointed out, “we invested a lot of time and energy on it [the Penobscot

Valley Community Greenprint], and we didn’t want it to just sit and gather dust on the shelf. We thought we’d take the trails piece of it because it seemed popular and something we could move ahead on” (Sarnacki 2013).

Through review of numerous regional landscape conservation plans, it is apparent that the majority of successful regional landscape conservation initiatives have structured themselves as one core group, typically referred to by various titles such as

“initiative,” “alliance,” “conservancy,” “coalition,” or “cooperative,” supported by partner organizations throughout the region who are actively engaged in local efforts that

74 contribute to the overall regional initiative. McKinney and Johnson (2009) affirm this analysis and maintain that “Based on both practical experience and a study of hundreds of regional initiatives in North America, there appears to be a continuum of approaches – from informal networks, to more formal partnerships, to regional institutions.” While there are slight differences between these approaches to governing regional landscape conservation initiatives, “All regional efforts are assemblages of cooperating interests and groups, and all have established some type of working arrangement” (McKinney and

Johnson 2009, 12).

McKinney, Scarlett and Kemmis (2010) offer ten key elements of regional collaboration that they regard as a means of bringing “together the appropriate people with the best available information to address large landscape conservation” (15). They assert that while “All ten elements are present in every successful large landscape conservation effort…Successful practitioners manage these elements in such a way that the process and set of actions that emerge are designed and built by those who best know the particular landscape” (15). Therefore, it is essential for the designated core group to partner with and have the support of regional organizations who best understand the B2B region.

This structure was also found to work best by the Maine State Planning Office report, which found that “Individual organizations capitalize on established identities and existing relationships within their respective service area to identify willing landowners and navigate the politics surrounding local land use. By linking their work to a broader landscape, each partner benefits from the additional capacity of other organizations to increase conservation benefits” (Richardson 2008, 18).

The core group is tasked with coordinating this collective effort, which includes designating committees, staffing them with key personnel from partnering organizations who are qualified to take the lead on the specific tasks assigned to that committee, and

75 setting benchmark deadlines for the committee to meet. Successful, collaborative groups take measures in order to ensure there is equity among key stakeholders so that the core group does not divert the collective will of the collaborative effort. For example, with the

Penobscot Valley Community Greenprint, a decision-making structure was developed that assured equity, with two representatives from each town involved on the lead steering committee, regardless of the town’s population size (Richardson 2008). Thus, each town had an equal vote on all decisions made by the partnership. To also ensure fairness in financing projects, a financing structure was also developed, with each town participating on a per capita basis at $.50 per resident (Richardson 2008).

The bullets below provide suggestions for committees that could be established to advance the goals of the B2B Initiative. These committees were recommended by a team of regional conservation specialists from around the world at the 2014 Acadian

Program in Regional Conservation and Stewardship. The list of organizations in Tables 6

-14 above can be drawn upon to determine potential leaders and members for each of the committees.

• Executive or Steering Committee

• Finance and Fundraising Committee

• Public Outreach, Communications, and Marketing Committee

• Educational Outreach and Program Committee

• Economic Development and Tourism Committee

• Working Lands and Conservation Committee

• Stewardship, Monitoring, and Management Committee

• Research and Development Committee

5.1.2 Forming a Vision, Goals, and Objectives

As LandScope America, an online tool for conservation planning practitioners, suggests “A vision of what we are hoping to accomplish is paramount for success. In the case of conservation planning, what do we want the land to look like? Conversely, yet typically just as important, what do we want the land NOT to look like?” (LandScope

America 2014). Just as engaging a diverse range of stakeholders in the planning process is important in helping to elicit community buy-in for regional conservation initiatives in

Maine, so is investing the necessary time and resources early on to create a clearly defined, consensus-driven vision (Richardson 2008). While many regional planning initiatives report that reaching consensus among partners can be time consuming, it is an invaluable exercise that proves beneficial for the future of the effort in three fundamental ways (Lyman 2006). First, a shared vision provides organization and inspiration for the planning team and aids them in focusing future implementation strategies in support of the initiative (Lyman 2006). Second, the vision statement can be used as an important tool for public outreach during later phases of the initiative, such as to gain funding and political support (Richardson 2008). Third, and perhaps most critical to advancing a regional conservation plan in the Penobscot River corridor, collaborating on a shared vision in the preliminary stages of the planning process builds trust among the community and partners and helps to avoid opposition during the later stages of the effort

(Richardson 2008).

This later point resonates loudly as a lesson learned in the B2B planning region, where recent conservation efforts resulted in a contentious relationship between a conservation-minded large landowner in northern Maine and the local public. This case study is presented in more detail below.

LESSONS LEARNED CASE STUDY Katahdin Woods & Waters – Northern Maine Take Time to Build a Shared Vision

In 2005, Roxanne Quimby, founder of Burt’s Bees personal care products company, established a 40,000-acre wildlife sanctuary in northern Maine and has since proposed donating over 100,000 additional acres to the federal government to create a

new national park. When establishing the wildlife sanctuary, she limited access to roads

crossing her property and was criticized by traditional recreation enthusiasts and

supporters of Maine’s open land tradition, which favors public access to private land for

outdoor recreational use, “for threatening the local economy by reducing the areas where

hunting was permitted, for prohibiting trucks going to and from other plots of land being

worked by forest products companies, and for making direct access to some wilderness

camps impossible” (Acheson 2006, 19-20). Quimby also closed-off her land to

snowmobiling, hunting, and timber harvesting, further infuriating members of both the

recreation and forest industries, as well as making her unpopular with native Mainers,

who “saw her as a threat to their livelihoods and lifestyles” (Haughey 2013).

In 2013, Quimby’s son, Lucas St. Clair, became president of the board of

Elliotsville Plantation, Inc., the organization responsible for making the estate’s land use

decisions. St. Clair opened up 40,000 acres of their land near Baxter State Park to hunting

and snowmobiling and pledged to add 35,000 more acres to the recreation area, with the

hope of turning this 75,000 acres into a National Recreation Area (Haughey 2013). His

goal remains, however, to create a national park, which he has named Katahdin Woods

and Waters National Park, with another 75,000 acres of their land (Seelye 2014). St. Clair

is adamant that the land be designated as a national park, not a national forest or

monument, because a “national park is the only ‘brand’ that could accomplish one of

their goals: to draw enough tourists to help revitalize the local economy” (Seelye 2014).

To create the park, he needs the support of local residents. Opening the recreation area to snowmobiling and hunting may have gained St. Clair more support from recreationists and proponents of the open land tradition. George Smith, a former executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine who once opposed the idea, has begun to believe a park could help the local economy, especially in an area that has seen significant job loss (Seelye 2014). However, it is not just opposition to closing land off to certain types of recreation and timber access that deter local residents from supporting a national park. There is also a distrust of the federal government. It is of the local mindset that “the government would seize control of local decision making, take over even more land, ban hunting and snowmobiling, and ruin the forest products industry by restricting air emissions from the mills and limiting the timber supply” (Seelye 2014).

Clearly, a history of local aversion to strong regulatory control and an allegiance to the open land tradition in northern Maine provide a difficult political and social arena in which to implement large-scale conservation efforts. This is especially foreboding for the B2B Initiative, since regional conservation plans are most successful when private landowners, conservation groups, government officials, and other partners share a common vision. As Jamie Williams, Director of Landscape Conservation for North

America at the Nature Conservancy, asserts, the most successful efforts stem from local landowner leadership backed by strong private-public partnerships. Best stated in his own words, “I have learned in 21 years of collaborative conservation work that local landowners must be in front and everyone else behind” (Williams 2011, 4).

In fact, collaborative efforts that have followed this landowner driven design include some of the country’s most successful large, intact landscape conservation initiatives. One example includes the Blackfoot Challenge in Montana, where 250,400 acres of private land, including corporate timber land, has been conserved, with 123,800 acres placed into conservation easements. This collaborative effort consists of 160 landowners, 30 businesses, 30 non-profits, and 20 county, state, and federal agencies

(Williams 2011). Unfortunately for the B2B Initiative, the majority of private landowners and municipal officials within the Penobscot River corridor appear reluctant to support a collaborative regional conservation effort. As stated above, a shared vision may help to build community and political support.

The Maine State Planning Office report provides guidance on creating a common, shared vision that has the potential to garner municipal and public support in northern Maine. The report emphasizes that,

“A vision that includes economic and cultural objectives, in addition to conservation goals, helps to broaden public support during the early phases of the initiative. Integrating an economic theme, such as the preservation of working forests and farms that support natural resource-based livelihoods, helps to achieve buy-in from stakeholders beyond the traditional conservation

community. Articulating cultural goals, such as preserving the region’s rural character and public access for outdoor recreation, helps demonstrate that conservation partnerships seek to preserve the open space and scenic views that underpin these cultural assets” (Richardson 2008, 16-17).

As a primary example that best portrays the above recommendations, the W&W initiative has been successful at integrating environmental, economic, social, and cultural goals into its vision for the New England landscape. The vision, which should be reviewed by the B2B planning team prior to beginning their visioning process, is described below.

BEST PRACTICES CASE STUDY Wildlands & Woodlands – New England How to Build a Shared Vision

The W&W Vision for New England supports traditional socioeconomic and cultural values by calling for the conservation of forestland and farms, which the W&W report notes “have always been intertwined in New England’s cultural history” (Foster et al. 2010, 6). To gain support from a wide range of stakeholders throughout New England, the Vision emphasizes that while the conservation values of protecting forestland and farmland are crucial, the economic and cultural incentives are equally as important. Since achieving the W&W Vision will rely heavily on conservation easements from willing private landowners, expansive public buy-in is absolutely necessary. A vision that

includes New England’s working landscape provides an opportunity to connect with a

considerable portion of the region’s demographic.

As the report summarizes, forestland provides essential infrastructure for society,

supporting diverse human needs for work, health, resources, and enjoyment. The forests provide economic benefits, including natural resource production, tourism, outdoor

recreation, and locally and sustainably produced food and forest products (Brookings

Institution 2006). Locally, forests sustain jobs and communities; regionally, it defines

New England as a beautiful place to live, visit, and explore. Toward that end, the W&W

Vision calls for the retention of 70% of the region as forestland, of which 90% would be expansive “woodlands” that are voluntarily protected from development and managed for forest products, water supply, wildlife habitat, recreation, and aesthetics. The other 10% would be designated as “wildlands,” or reserves subject to minimal human impact and shaped by natural processes (Foster et al. 2010).

In addition to forestland, preserving farmland is recognized as an important component of the W&W Vision. From a cultural point of view, pastoral landscapes offer a backdrop to a lifestyle that is distinctly New England. The W&W report argues that “As

82 much as we embrace deep forests, many residents also cherish woods broken by open fields, a stone wall, and a row of sugar maples” (6). Socioeconomically speaking, the

Vision calls farming the “foundation for our rural economy,” with local farms providing the opportunity for people “to engage with their source of food through Community

Supported Agriculture, pick-your-own enterprises, farmers’ markets, agricultural tourism, and farm internships” (6). As unfragemented forestland can be viewed as an ecological and economic asset that draws people to the New England region, so too can farmland. In that respect, the W&W Vision promotes the retention of 7% of the New England landscape as farmland, while providing the capacity for sustainably managed land to grow to 10-15% of the landscape.

The W&W Vision also calls for a transition toward more robust land use planning and zoning through the adoption of compact development. Again, while this element of the Vision benefits the environment, it is also intended to attract the economic development sector and proponents for growth. The Vision acknowledges that New

England is an already populous and ever-expanding region, and that development needs to be accounted for to support this growth. Thus, 18% of New England has been reserved for future development. This allotment should please real estate and development groups who would be integral in creating the sustainable communities defined in the W&W

Vision.

As a part of the visioning process, and as seen in the W&W best practice case study above, many regional conservation plans include a set of goals and objectives, identified by the planning team, to help accomplish their stated vision. In the past, these goals placed a heavy emphasis on environmental protection only. More recently, however, the overall intent of achieving regional conservation goals has been not only to promote ecosystem health, but also increasingly to encourage economic viability, social wellbeing, and a dedication to cultural values (TNC 2006). The W&W Vision and supporting goals demonstrate this trend.

As the Maine State Planning Office report indicates, ecological objectives for regional conservation initiatives in Maine include the conservation of large habitat blocks and connecting corridors and riparian areas that preserve biodiversity and watershed integrity. Economic objectives include the development of recreational tourism and the conservation of working lands and waterfronts that sustain the forest products sector and farming and fishing employment. Ensuring public access to recreational lands and the conservation of scenic views and traditional natural resource-based livelihoods are cultural objectives sought to be achieved through implementation of regional conservation plans (Richardson 2008). Other objectives not included in the Maine State

Planning Office report, but that are becoming more commonly found in regional conservation plans, include those that address increasing resiliency to climate change, augmenting regional and community-based environmental education and research, and investing in green infrastructure and similar smart growth planning tools (The Intertwine

Alliance 2012).

In addition, and relevant to the

Penobscot River corridor, in the years since the “The buzz word in the land

Maine State Planning Office report was trust world is “community published, land trusts and conservation conservation.” Land trusts organizations in Maine have begun to take on all over the country are more projects with social objectives because looking for ways to better they aspire to “improve the lives of local integrate themselves into people by connecting them to the land” (Goltra their communities… like

2014, 15). These entities are focusing on the protecting public access to creation of “Community Conservation Lands,” areas that are important to which are “nature-based places, community local residents; working to farms or food areas, parks and downtown protect natural resources spaces that promote strong emotional vital to livelihoods; connections between people and the outdoors” connecting people with says Judy Anderson, principal of Community nature and the outdoors…”

Consultants and recognized for creating the Michael Little, Executive community conservation land concept in the Director of Island Heritage

1990s when she was a land trust executive Trust, Deer Isle, Maine. director in upstate New York (15). Anderson 2014, September 30. saw a gap in the conservation toolbox. As she Personal Interview. states: “Nature preserves, for example, were focused on protecting fragile habitat and wildlife species, often at a large landscape-scale, and they typically steered the public away from these sensitive areas to maximize protection” (16). Her response was a new conservation tool, Community Conservation

Lands, which draws people to conservation, to other people in the community, and to land trusts in order to build a greater sense of community and a stewardship ethic. In this

85 way, Community Conservation Lands build a broad and lasting base of support for conservation (Goltra 2014).

In the B2B region, conservation initiatives that include a community conservation focus may help to connect with those in communities who are skeptical of conservation organizations and their initiatives. As an example, the Damariscotta River

Association (DRA), a regional land trust that operates in five towns and on multiple islands in mid-coast Maine, became interested in the idea of community conservation as an alternative to focusing on nature preserves. In 2011, they acquired a “flat expanse of grass next to a highway” which they have turned into a place for children to ice skate in the winter and for farmers to sell their produce in the summer (15). As Steven Hufnagel,

Executive Director of DRA notes, “People gather here to exercise, play and be together outside. It allows us to build a sense of community that’s rooted in the land” (15). By incorporating community conservation into their organization’s focus, which also includes creating nature preserves and conserving working landscapes, DRA has been able to alter the opinion of the communities which they serve. Hufnagel reports, “We’ve had people tell us that they thought we only worked with wealthy landowners or those who owned a lot of land. But now we are known in the community as a group who cares about people as much as the land” (17).

One of the main themes of community conservation that both Hufnagel and

Anderson bring to light is that conservation initiatives, whether at the local or regional- level, should concentrate on conservation objectives that are in the interest of and address the needs of the community. As Anderson asserts “When we think about what’s important to people in their community, or what addresses a community need, and then choose and design conservation projects that address those desires, we are taking another step forward in terms of making conservation responsive rather than prescriptive to a broader sector of the community.” Thus, just as it is important to include a diverse set of

86 stakeholders on the planning team and to include economic and cultural objectives in the regional conservation vision, it is also key to solicit public input during the goal identification process in order to engage a broader audience and generate greater support for regional conservation initiatives.

This conclusion was also made in the Maine State Planning Office report, which determined that “Successful regional initiatives seek public input when establishing priorities for conservation, particularly related to prized scenic, cultural, historic and recreation lands” (Richardson 2008, 20). The Trust for Public Land Greenprint is one collaborative planning framework that can be utilized to solicit input on conservation objectives from community stakeholders and representatives. As stated in a previous section of this thesis, a TPL Greenprint was conducted in the central Penobscot region of

Maine, which is within the region of the planning area for the B2B Initiative. While the

Penobscot Valley Community Greenprint initiative has lost momentum since its completion in 2009, the Greenprint planning process still remains an exemplar in portraying how regional conservation initiatives can employ numerous approaches to solicit public input, particularly in a region that holds “local reservation” to regional conservation planning, in order to understand local and regional conservation interests and needs.

BEST PRACTICES CASE STUDY Penobscot Valley Community Greenprint – Bangor, ME Identifying Regional Goals based on Community Interests and Needs

Maine is a state “where land use decisions are guided by local autonomy and

‘home rule’ traditions,” and this perception is evident and magnified within the

Penobscot Valley region, which encompasses the 12 towns of Bangor, Bradley, Brewer,

Eddington, Hampden, Hermon, Holden, Milford, Old Town, Orono, Orrington, and

Veazie (Richardson 2008, 34). Thus, during the initial planning stages of the Penobscot

Valley Community Greenprint, it was evident that significant strategic outreach to municipalities, conservation groups, and the general public would be essential in order to perform a true collaborative regional planning effort. The following outreach mechanisms were utilized to ensure community conservation interests and needs were captured in the conservation plan for the Penobscot Valley region.

• Presentations: TPL made presentations to local select boards about the Greenprinting process. Lessons learned using this medium of outreach was that it was time-consuming and required personal contacts with municipal officials and staff (Richardson 2008). However, it was a rewarding process in that the initiative was able to recruit two representatives from each participating town to be part of the planning process. This is noteworthy since “Incorporating the ideas and goals of policymakers… is often a significant step in generating greater trust and support from local communities within the region, and increases the likelihood of successful implementation” (20).

• Social Networking: Numerous local land trusts and other conservation organizations, such as watershed associations, operate in the Penobscot Valley with established outreach networks. These entities were able to generate awareness of and increase participation in the regional planning effort and associated meetings among their members, volunteers, and supporters.

• Media: A local newspaper was used to advertise two public meetings and endorse the benefits of regional conservation planning in the Penobscot Valley. Today, in addition to newspapers, Facebook and Twitter may reach more prospective participants in the planning process, as well as other traditional forms of media such as radio and television.

• Public Forums: Two “listening session” were hosted by TPL and a core group of supporters for the initiative, during which the public shared their

priorities for conservation. Local residents were able to share their ideas and identify special locations, such as a favorite scenic view or icon, trail, or fishing spot. The results of these public forums, surveys and interviews (described below), and review of local comprehensive plans of participating towns were then used to determine regional conservation priorities (Richardson 2008).

• Surveys and Interviews: Surveys of over 1,000 regional residents as well as interviews with community decision-makers were conducted to determine their conservation perceptions for the region. While TPL contracted an independent research firm to conduct the surveys, today, online survey tools such as SurveyMonkey ( https://www.surveymonkey.com/ ) could be utilized at minimal additional cost, aside from the staff time needed to interpret the results.

It was found during the Greenprinting process that it was difficult to engage the business community to determine their aspirations for the region. This would be one area

that could be improved upon during the B2B planning initiative.

Once conservation objectives have been identified, it is important to ensure that

they are measurable over a given timeframe. For example, the W&W Vision includes an

objective to retain 70% of New England as forestland, of which 90% would be

woodlands and 10% left as wildlands, over the next 50 years. This objective is

measurable in that it provides an established amount and type of land to be retained and provides a timeframe in which this objective should be achieved. Measurable goals with established benchmarks allow for implementation strategies identified later in the planning process to be evaluated, ensuring that they are effective in achieving goals

within the designated time period.

5.1.3 Using Models and Maps to Identify Priority Focus Areas

After a regional conservation Defining priority areas using maps and models can act as a: vision has been established with Decision Making Tool – Helps identify supporting goals and objectives areas that best support ecological, economic, cultural, and social value and identified, and before plan where conflicts and synergies exist between land uses. Allows the initiative implementation, an important step in to understand where implementation strategies should be targeted. the planning process is to portray to Resource Allocation Tool – Many stakeholders and the general public regional conservation initiatives have limited dollars with which they are able how the vision will come to fruition. to implement conservation strategies. Identifying priority lands allows for the During a presentation entitled “From best use of these limited resources.

Vision to Landscape Scale Funding Tool – Specific land characteristics meet the criteria necessary Collaboration” at the 2014 Land Trust to acquire federal, state, and local funding for conservation projects. Using Alliance Rally, Robert Perschel, these characteristics to define priority areas may increase the probability of Executive Director of the New being approved for funding.

England Forestry Foundation and co- Regulatory Tool – Providing an alternative landscape to the existing one author of the Wildlands & Woodlands can inspire change in current zoning regulations and policies pertaining to Vision, emphasized that while regional forests, farms, urban growth, health care, and the environment. conservation visions should be compelling and engage the emotions of the general public, they should also be tangible.

To demonstrate this point, he introduced Harvard University Forest’s Science and Policy

Integration Project Director Kathy Fallon Lambert, who presented four modeled scenarios for the future of the Massachusetts landscape, of which one scenario, “Forests as Infrastructure,” results in a “W&W-style future” (Highstead 2013). In particular, the

Forests as Infrastructure scenario “clusters much of the [new] development, applies

‘improvement forestry techniques,’ and increases conservation of priority habitat for

wildlife -- all goals endorsed by W&W” (Highstead 2013).

The modeled scenario, shown in Figure 8 below, allows stakeholders and the public to: (1) visualize what the landscape would look like if the W&W vision were to be

implemented; and to (2) realize that W&W is not just a vision, but could be an actuality if

land use planning and forestry practices were slightly modified. In addition, the model

designates land suitable for forestry and agriculture, as well as for mixed-use and

residential development, so that the location where conservation, smart-growth, and

sustainable forestry tactics should be devised and implemented in order to achieve the

W&W vision and goals are depicted. This provides focus for the W&W visionary team.

Lastly, comparing the Forest as Infrastructure scenario to existing land use

conditions is helpful in identifying specific target areas within the broader landscape that

conflict with carrying out the scenario, such as an area where prime agricultural lands are being threatened with conversion to development and therefore, to achieve the Forest as

Infrastructure scenario, where W&W would want to concentrate its efforts to conduct

landowner outreach and education on agricultural conservation easements and possibly

discuss a Transfer of Development Rights program with a nearby municipality. Similarly,

areas that converge with the Forest as Infrastructure scenario, such as a large, protected,

unfragmented forest, would be prioritized by W&W to ensure proper future protection is

in place and where the group may see the potential to establish a connectivity corridor

with other protected lands in the future.

Currently, these four land use scenarios were constructed for Massachusetts only;

however, the team, which includes Harvard Forest and the Smithsonian Institution,

expect to prepare similar scenarios for the entire New England landscape within the next

10 years. Given its applicability to the B2B region, those involved in the B2B planning process should be kept apprised of the impending regional study to guide future work of

the initiative.

Figure 8 - Wildlands & Woodlands Forest as Infrastructure Scenario

Source: (Thompson et al. 2014)

The Forest as Infrastructure scenario modeled by Harvard Forest and the

Smithsonian Institution supports the goals of the W&W initiative and in many ways, given a similar landscape, the objectives of the B2B Initiative. The scenario presents a concrete depiction of what the New England landscape could look like and affords numerous opportunities, such as the potential to inspire public participation, build land trust collaboration, foster support for policies and plans that encourage zoning reform, and to be incorporated into current public policy such as the Massachusetts

Environmental Bond Bill (Highstead 2013). However, referring back to Judy Anderson’s quote regarding community conservation, the W&W-modeled scenarios are more prescriptive than responsive to meet community needs and interests.

A modeling tool such as the Maine Futures Community Mapper (MFCM), which was developed with the participation of local citizens, conservationists, scientists, business leaders, and policy-makers, offers local residents, planners, and policy-makers the ability to design their own land use suitability models and alternative futures scenarios that reflect their local interests and needs within the broader landscape. MFCM

“helps Mainers: (1) identify locations that are most suitable for future development, conservation, agricultural uses, or forestry; (2) identify potential conflicts and compatibilities between different land uses; and (3) envision their future landscape under different possible scenarios of change” (MFCM 2014). MFCM is designed to be user- friendly, easily accessible online, and was developed with local citizens and stakeholders, making local policy-makers as well as the development and business community, who traditionally are hesitant to engage in land use planning with a sustainability focus, more inclined to use the modeling tool in their future land use decisions. In addition, MFCM supports the objectives of the B2B Initiative, which includes the promotion of vibrant communities through economic development with a sustainable natural resource base.

Currently, two municipalities within the B2B planning area are using the MFCM --

Searsport and Bucksport.

The MFCM does have two limitations to being fully operational within the B2B region. First, the MFCM currently only focuses on the Casco Bay/Lower Androscoggin

River watershed in southern Maine and Lower Penobscot River watershed in the midcoast region. The tool would need to be expanded throughout the entire state or, at a minimum, inland to the upper reaches of the Penobscot watershed to be effective in the entire B2B region. Second, all stakeholders that influence land use planning decisions within the region, including municipal planning boards (or the Land Use Planning

Commission in the Unorganized Territory), land trusts, conservation organizations, academic institutions, and economic development organizations, would need to be willing to work collaboratively in order to ensure that their future land use plans coincide with one another. An outreach program, similar to the one developed by MtA2C (see pages 72-73), could help coordinate the land use decisions made by these disparate stakeholders.

In addition to models, the maps created through the use of Geographic

Information Systems (GIS) can help define priority areas for regional conservation efforts. In keeping with engaging a broader community in the regional conservation planning process, participatory use of GIS, “where community priorities are displayed in relation to ecological data on a base map, is an innovative approach to merging ecological and community priorities applied by regional initiatives in Maine”

(Richardson 2008, 21). The Penobscot Valley Community Greenprint used this approach to create a “composite map that spatially represents the region’s conservation priorities by merging identified community priorities with hard ecological data and current land

uses” (41).

The resulting map allows the planning team to identify areas within the region that are best suited for “strategic investments to create a network of conserved lands that fulfills the priorities of the region’s residents and stakeholders” (41). Ideally, the regional map is designed to act as a planning tool and catalyst for implementation strategies. For example, (1) local municipalities can view their local conservation priorities in relation to the broader regional network and incorporate the results into the open space elements of their comprehensive plans; (2) land trusts and conservation organizations operating in the region can focus their local conservation strategies on areas that promote regional priorities; and (3) the economic development community can better locate areas best suited for development without receiving significant pushback from the environmental community. However, as previously stated, all stakeholders who influence land use planning decisions would need to continue to work collaboratively and be willing to invest their resources into achieving the regional priorities identified through mapping.

As learned in an earlier section of this thesis, the Penobscot Valley Community

Greenprint struggled to do this and was unable to sustain the momentum necessary to implement portions of the regional conservation plan. Again, a program similar to

MtA2C’s Municipal Outreach Program could aid in stimulating municipalities to implement strategies and contribute resources that are geared toward the support of the regional conservation plan.

Very recently, land trusts that operate at the regional-level, through multiple towns within the B2B region, have defined their conservation priorities and subsequent focus areas in a similar fashion to the process used by the Penobscot Valley Community

Greenprint (Ulbrich, C. 2014, October 23. Email interview). For example, the Great Pond

Mountains Conservation Trust worked with an independent consultant to identify focus areas based on ecological significance and then conducted surveys and interviews within their community to identify community priorities. The Coastal Mountains Land Trust

95 used GIS and existing spatial data layers to create maps showing “hot spots” or focus areas of ecological significance after which they disseminated community-wide surveys to obtain feedback on locations residents deem to be “special places” and therefore a community priority. In addition, the Maine Coast Heritage Trust (MCHT), a land trust working primarily throughout the coastal region of the entire state, has altered their 2014 strategic plan and hired a community conservation planner to support their efforts in better connecting with the communities that exist within their “Whole Place” initiatives

(Gabrielson, J. 2014, November 7. Phone interview). While Whole Places were

historically defined based mainly on scenic and ecological priorities and focus areas,

MCHT is revisiting these regions to include community priorities. The updated Whole

Places framework is still in the draft stages; however, it is slated to include a section on

community engagement with a plan to identify community conservation goals, priorities,

and implementation strategies for executing community conservation projects within the

Whole Places region. In addition, the framework will include a map of ecological values

within the region as well as “Community Well-Being Values.” From these examples, it is

clear that land trusts in Maine are trending toward focusing on and mapping/modeling both community and ecological priorities in an effort to guide their future regional

conservation implementation strategies.

Community priorities can be solicited through surveys, interviews, personal

informal conversations, and community forums as described above, and then converted

into spatial data layers that can be viewed in GIS. Determining the spatial location of

other community and ecological values throughout the region, however, may involve the

collection of best-available spatial data from a vast array of sources. Table 14 below

includes community and ecological values and related spatial data layers and sources that

could be utilized to create a map or model to define priority areas in the B2B region. This

96 data list is not meant to be all encompassing, but rather is intended to be used as a starting point for this step of the planning process.

Table 14 - Community and Ecological Priority Data Resources for the B2B Planning Area

Community Priorities Data Layers Data Sources Water Resources Drinking Water Supply Local Comprehensive Plans/Maine Office of GIS Ponds, Lakes, Rivers, Local Comprehensive Streams Plans/Maine Office of GIS/USGS Archeological and Historic Sites Archaeological Survey Local Historic Society/Maine Historic Preservation Commission Historic buildings Local Historic Society/Maine Historic Preservation Commission Scenic Viewpoints Scenic View Inventory Local Comprehensive Plans/State Working Farms, Forests, Waterfronts Land Cover Data Local Comprehensive Plans/Maine Office of GIS Prime Soils Maine Office of GIS/USDA Tree Growth Tax Program Local Comprehensive Plans/State Open Space Tax Program Local Comprehensive Plans/State Waterfront Access Island Institute/Local Land Trusts/Local Comprehensive Plans/Land for Maine's Future Public Access Existing Conserved Lands Local Land (trails, greenways, Trusts/Conservation waterways, preserves, Organizations/Local forests, etc) Comprehensive Plans/Maine Office of GIS

Ecological Priorities Data Layers Data Sources Wildlife Aquatic Species (shellfish, Maine Office of GIS diadramous fish runs, etc.) Seabirds/Shorebirds Maine Office of GIS Important Bird Areas Maine Audubon Species of Greatest Maine Wildlife Action Conservation Need Plan Fish and Wildlife Key Maine Wildlife Action Habitats Plan Vernal Pools Maine Office of GIS Endangered/Threatened Maine Department of Species Inland Fish and Wildlife Rare Natural Communities Maine Natural Areas Program Plants Important Plant Habitat Maine Natural Areas Program Rare Plants Maine Natural Areas Program Landscape Connectivity TNC Ecoregions The Nature Conservancy/Landscope America Beginning with Habitat Maine Natural Areas (BwH) Focus Areas Program/Landscope America Existing Conserved Lands Local Land (trails, greenways, Trusts/Conservation waterways, preserves, Organizations/Local forests, etc) Comprehensive Plans/Maine Office of GIS

In addition, it is recommended that those involved in the B2B mapping/modeling

of priority areas consult with The Nature Conservancy, The Trust for Public Land, Maine

Land Trust Network/Maine Coast Heritage Trust, Maine’s Beginning with Habitat program, or other regional conservation planning initiatives that have established

methodologies for mapping/modeling priority focus areas.

5.2 Steps to Implement the Plan

5.2.1 Employing Multi-objective Conservation Strategies and Tools

In order to achieve the multi-objective conservation goals (see pages 84-89) identified by the B2B Initiative during the plan formulation phase of the planning process, multi-objective conservation strategies and tools will need to be employed within the established priority focus areas. The regional landscape conservation plans and initiatives reviewed for this thesis offer insight on various techniques that have been successful in, or that have fallen short of, helping to achieve multi-objective conservation goals within regions similar to the Penobscot River corridor.

This section will provide an overview and examples of:

• non-regulatory conservation options for private land,

• conservation options for public land,

• private and public land conservation models, and

• regulatory conservation tools.

The structure of this section was derived from the Maine Audubon Society’s informational document, What Conservation Looks Like In Maine (1997). While the

Audubon’s document categorizes and provides a basis of various types of conservation strategies and examples of how these strategies have been successful in Maine, this section will expand upon these strategies and examples with techniques derived from the reviewed plans and initiatives. For further reference, the Audubon’s document can be found at http://maineaudubon.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/MEAud-What- conservation-looks-like.pdf .

5.2.1.1 Non-Regulatory Conservation Options for Private Land

Non-regulatory conservation options for private land include fee and less-than- fee acquisition of lands that, through their protection, promote multi-objective

conservation goals. “Non-regulatory tools have the advantage of avoiding the regulation

of private property and the attendant potential negative political and legal consequences”

(American Planning Association 2012, 31). The non-regulatory conservation options for private land that will be discussed in detail in this section include various types of

conservation easements and fee acquisition. Other forms of non-regulatory conservation

options for private land include education and outreach programs, which will be

discussed in another section of this chapter, Public and Municipal Outreach and

Education.

5.2.1.1.1 Conservation Easements

The most traditional tool for conserving private land is a conservation easement

(LTA 2015a). Easements are a voluntary “legal agreement between a landowner and a

land trust or government agency that permanently limits uses of the land in order to protect its conservation values. It allows landowners to continue to own and use their

land, and they can also sell it or pass it on to their heirs” (LTA 2015a). When a

conservation easement is donated or sold to a land trust or government agency, the

landowner relinquishes some of the property rights associate with their land, often the

right to subdivide or develop (TNC 2015a). “An easement on property containing rare

wildlife habitat might prohibit any development, for example, while an easement on a

farm might allow continued farming and the addition of agricultural structures” (LTA

2015a). An easement may apply to all, or to a portion of the property. The land trust or

agency that holds the easement is responsible for ensuring that the easement’s terms are being followed, which are commonly monitored by the group’s stewardship program

(LTA 2015a; TNC 2015a).

Private landowners are motivated to place a conservation easement on their property primarily for two main reasons. First, landowners are driven to donate or sell

easements because it ensures their land will be protected from development in perpetuity

100

(Gattuso 2008). Easements can be tailored to the personal needs of the landowner as long

as certain conservation values, such as outdoor recreation for the general public; protection of animals, plants, water quality or ecosystems; preservation of open spaces; maintenance of scenic views for the general public; or the preservation of historic land or structures, are protected (TNC 2015a). Second, through the donation of a conservation easement, landowners are eligible to receive federal and state tax deductions on their property (Gattuso 2008). At the federal-level, landowners are eligible for both income and estate tax deductions. Several states, including Maine, also offer income and property tax deductions to eased property owners. To be eligible for tax deductions, property owners need to be in compliance with Internal Revenue Service rules at the federal-level, and state enabling legislation at the state-level (TNC 2015a).

Maine is accustomed to conservation easements; with the largest amount of land

under easement of any state, the largest easement size, and arguably one of the best

conservation easement laws in the country (Rankin 2014). In comparison with land

acquisition, easements appear to be more favored because they are less costly for land

trusts. In addition, since the land remains in private ownership, a property subject to an

easement continues to provide economic benefits to the local municipality through property taxes (TNC 2015a).

This is significant for small, rural communities in Maine, such as those located

within the B2B region, that rely on property taxes to pay for essential and degrading

municipal services. A recent article in the Ellsworth American, a newspaper covering the

communities of Hancock County in Maine, reported that, “Preserving Maine’s pristine

lands from development means a bigger tax bill for everyone else” (Osborn 2014). In

other words, conservation non-profits in Maine are usually exempt from or pay a much

lower rate in property taxes on their land holdings. The money that would have been

generated to provide for municipal services must then come from another taxpaying

101

source, usually shared by the community (Osborn 2014). With easements, the

community still receives taxes from the landowner, even though the value may be

reduced (Maine Audubon Society 2001).

Another recent development regarding property taxes includes Governor

LePage’s 2016 proposed budget for the State of Maine, which would allow municipalities

to levy property taxes on non-profits who have more than $500,000 assessed value in

land holdings. While this change would generate income for cities and towns, it would be burdensome on small land trusts throughout the state, primarily those that work within poor, rural towns who rely on state funding to provide municipal services. If state

funding is reduced, these municipalities would have little choice but to tax non-profits.

As Alan Stearns, Executive Director of the Royal River Conservation Trust in Yarmouth,

Maine asserts, “it would be extraordinarily difficult to continue conservation in poor

towns if the governor’s idea gets traction” (Miller and Mistler 2015). Wolfe Tone, Maine

State Director for the Trust for Public Land, echoes this sentiment, stating that a tax on

land trusts and other non-profit conservation organizations could have a “chilling effect”

on future conservation efforts (Miller and Mistler 2015). The Governor’s proposal would

only pertain to land owned outright by land trusts, and would not apply to land held in

conservation easements.

With large swaths of undeveloped land in Maine’s northern forests, a widespread

hostility to federal land ownership, and limited funds for conservation, conservation

easements have, over the past 30 years, become a standard, go-to tool in the land protection-conservation toolbox for land trusts and government agencies working in the

state (Rankin 2014). In Maine, easements have evolved to not only protect wildlife

habitat, water quality, scenic vistas, and historic sites, but also to preserve public access

to trails, shoreline, and other recreational opportunities, as well as working waterfronts,

farms, and large swaths of working forestland (Rankin 2014). Thus, the tool which

102 traditionally was used to protect the environment has become a multi-objective conservation tool, affording Maine’s natural resource-based industries, agricultural industry, and recreational and cultural-tourism industries with a means of ensuring that the land and water access they require for job safety is protected in perpetuity (Maine

Audubon Society 2001; Rankin 2014). A recent article Saving Land , a publication disseminated by the Land Trust Alliance, provides details on other “atypical” conservation easements, including easements for caves, battlefields, hunting grounds, and vineyards, further proving the evolution of this land protection tool (Weber 2015).

The following case studies present best practice case studies of various types of conservation easements that are already in use or that could be used to protect land within the B2B region given the types of land cover, land ownership, political, and socioeconomic conditions that exist within the region.

103

Best Practices Case Study Ducktrap Water River Coalition – Lincolnville, ME Conservation Easements for Watershed, Habitat, and Recreational Protection

In their plan To Save a River – Documenting the Natural History, Restoration,

and Preservation of the Ducktrap River (2005), Scott Dickerson, Executive Director of

the Coastal Mountains Land Trust, maintains that “The most effective tool in our

conservation workbox is maintaining a broad, forested buffer beside all waterbodies,

from the headwater brooks through the wetlands, ponds, and along the river” (25). To

that regard, the Ducktrap River Coalition, with support from the Coastal Mountains Land

Trust, 28 other partners including conservationists, farmers, a snowmobile association,

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, along with 40 landowners within the Ducktrap

watershed collaborated to stitch together a river corridor trail using conservation

easements as one of their main conservation strategies (DOI 2004). As a result, the

Coalition has conserved over 83% of the Ducktrap River corridor, including 5,500 acres

of the watershed and almost eight miles of riparian corridor (Defenders of Wildlife 2014).

The Ducktrap River is one of only eight rivers in the U.S. that continues to support wild

Atlantic salmon and conservation easements that offer land and water protection have been an essential ingredient in producing the high-quality habitat needed to support

salmon spawning and rearing (Dickerson 2005). In addition, the protected riparian buffer

also helps guarantee continued community recreational use of the river corridor trail

(DOI 2004).

104

Best Practices Case Study Mt. Agamenticus to the Sea (MtA2C) – Ogunquit, ME Conservation Easements for Working Waterfront Access

Acknowledged for facilitating the purchase of the country’s first working

waterfront easement, the York Land Trust, part of the MtA2C initiative, worked with

commercial fishermen to purchase a dock on the York River in York that was threatened by residential development. The easement protects the property’s scenic value and limits

its future use to commercial fishing, thus making the 2,290-square-foot dock and

adjoining 0.15 acres affordable for two local lobstermen to purchase. Without the

easement, the property would not have been affordable for the lobstermen. Even when

development pressure is minimal, the cost of coastal property and associated property

taxes in Maine remains high and out of reach for local fishermen (Snyder 2011). Jeff

Donnell, a lobster wholesaler and one of the new owners, stated that the dock was “the

last piece of local property that could meet our needs, having both deep water and easy

access for trucks” (Maine Coastal Program 2013).

To cover the easement acquisition costs, the York Land Trust received a loan

from Coastal Enterprises, Inc.'s Working Waterfront Loan Fund, and gained support from

area residents and foundations. Financing for the purchase was done through Farm

Credit, the first coastal project in the state (Dandurant 2003). After the deal was

finalized, the conservation community, fishing community, and both state and local

coastal planning programs hoped the project would be a model and inspire greater use of

conservation techniques to protect Maine's working waterfronts (Dandurant 2003; Maine

Coastal Program 2013). Serving as a public benefit, working waterfront properties

contribute economically to the livelihoods of commercial fishermen in Maine.

Working waterfronts also support the cultural heritage and seafood industry that

help sustain the state’s tourism industry (Snyder 2011).

105

Best Practices Case Study Forest Works! – York County, Maine Conservation Easements for Working Forests

While large, undeveloped tracts of forest land in Maine’s North Woods allow for

large-scale working forest easements, smaller woodlots can be found within other areas

of the Penobscot River corridor (Benke and Cushing 2005). Like the large-scale efforts,

working forest conservation easements on these privately-owned woodlots are integral to protecting large blocks of contiguous forests for wildlife and recreation in Maine, as well

as for supporting the state’s economy with jobs such as lumber and firewood production,

Christmas tree farms, and maple syrup production (Quimby 2012). With a working

forest easement, landowners sell or donate their development rights, lowering their property taxes, while still retaining the right to work the land.

Forest Works! is a regional collaboration of local land trust organizations and state and federal agencies in the western region of York County, Maine, with a focus on helping local landowners, who typically own between 30-300 acre woodlots, with keeping their land in timber production, rather than development (Quimby 2012). The organization teaches landowners and communities how to use working forest easements, promotes sustainable forestry practices, and encourages landowners to allow public access to their land for recreation. As an example, the founder of the organization,

Everett Towle, has a working forest easement on 65 acres of his land where he harvests eastern white pine while keeping it open for recreational uses such as snowmobiling and cross country skiing (Quimby 2012). Forest Works! also works with municipalities to create community forests, like the Shapleigh Town Forest, a 500-acre woodland next to the 5,000 acre state-owned Vern Walker Wildlife Management area. Towle emphasizes working with willing landowners and communities, while also establishing outreach and education programs to further engage with private landowners and towns (Quimby 2012).

106

Best Practices Case Study Forest Society of Maine – West Branch Project and Moosehead Lake Region Conservation Easements for Large-Scale Working Forests

Two of the largest conservation easements in Maine’s history, and in the history of conservation in the United States, are two working forest easements in Maine’s North

Woods, both held by the Forest Society of Maine (Rankin 2013). The first, completed in

2003, is known as the West Branch Project (329,000 acres). The second, completed in

2012 on Plum Creek timberland, is known as the Moosehead Forest easement (360,000 acres). The only easement that is larger in the state is another working forest easement, known as the Pingree easement, held by the New England Forestry Foundation on

762,192 acres in Maine’s North Woods. According to Sherry Huber, the executive director of the Maine TREE Foundation, out of all the easements that the Forest Society of Maine holds, “the two that have had the greatest impact have been the West Branch and Plum Creek easements because of their size and the fact that they provide for no development, sustainable forest management and because they provide for public access”

(Rankin 2013).

The West Branch Project, which spans lands that include the West, North, and

South Branches of the Penobscot River, as well as Baker Lake and some of the St. John

River's headwater ponds, is also noteworthy because, according to the Forest Society of

Maine, it was “the most openly negotiated conservation project ever developed in Maine.

This transparency was by design, with the intention of utilizing the project as a means to advance public opinion, public policy, and public funding to benefit long-term and large- scale Northern Forest conservation” (Forest Society of Maine 2015). The Forest Society of Maine believes they have been successful in their approach and claim that the West

Branch project “earned the enthusiastic endorsement of a broad list of North Woods stakeholders” (Forest Society of Maine 2015). To back this claim, they offer a quote from a Maine guide and North Woods resident who testifies that “The open policy of

107 public access I have taken for granted all my life is uncertain for our children…The West

Branch conservation easement is the tool to keep a tremendous tract of land intact,

ensuring all of us and future generations continued access and traditional uses of these

lands” (Forest Society of Maine 2015).

The Moosehead Lake Forest project exemplifies the definition of landscape-scale

conservation (TNC 2012). First, the easement promotes multi-objective goals; from an

environmental standpoint, it protects critical habitat, establishes vast connectivity between other conserved lands in the North Woods, and sets standards for sustainable

forestry; from an economic standpoint, it protects the forest that local foresters and

hunting and fishing guides have historically built their livelihoods on; and from a social

wellbeing standpoint, it ensures that traditional public access for recreation will continue

(TNC 2012). Second, the easement was part of a concept plan that Plum Creek Timber

Company developed to form a balance between conservation and development. The plan

allows for 4% (roughly 17,000 acres) of their land to be developed, while the other 96%

is in conservation. While some Mainers view the concept plan as “wilderness sprawl,”

others see it as “a healthy mix of planned development and conservation” (Miller and

Koenig 2012). Representatives from the conservation, timber and local municipalities

such as Greenville believe that the deal will benefit the forestry and tourism industries

that are critical to the Moosehead region’s economy (Miller and Koenig 2012). This project also exemplifies various other conservation techniques, in addition to

conservation easements, that have been exercised in Maine, including concept plans,

certified timberlands, corporate conservation, resource plans, partnerships and corporate

management agreements (Maine Audubon Society 1997).

108

The best practices case studies above provide examples of conservation

easements held by land trusts. Easements can also be held by federal and state agencies.

For example, in Maine, the federal Forest Legacy Program has assisted in the purchase of

easements on private land to be held by the US Forest Service or by the Maine

Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry to ensure they remain working

forests (Maine Audubon Society 1997). Other federal agencies that hold conservation

easements are primarily those within the Department of the Interior and the Department

of Agriculture and include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service,

and the Natural Resource Conservation Service.

An important component of conservation easements is that they are monitored

regularly to ensure that the rights and restrictions documented in the easement are being

followed (Gattuso 2008). Many times, when the easement is bought or donated, a

stewardship fund is established by the landowner to finance the monitoring by the land

trust who holds the easement. As an example, for the large-scale Moosehead Lake

Region easement, Plum Creek provided $1.56 million in stewardship funds for the property, which is managed by the Maine Community Foundation (TNC 2012). Maine’s

easement Reform Law requires conservation easements to be registered in the state’s

database and monitored by the easement holder once every three years. While there is no penalty for failing to comport with these requirements, as of 2011, self-reported

compliance with the law’s three-year monitoring requirement was well over ninety percent (Pidot 2011).

While stewardship monitoring has the potential to be adverse, Alan Hutchinson,

Executive Director of the Forest Society of Maine, contends that easements have become

more sophisticated in that the easement holder has a more credible voice in management

decisions (Rankin 2013). In Hutchinson’s words, “We know all their people and are

109

making sure they’re paying attention. By doing that we’re avoiding probably 90 percent

of the problems” (Rankin 2013).

On the other hand, land trusts and state and federal agencies that hold easements

may turn to each other for help with monitoring if they do not have the capacity in-house,

or if they have worked out management partnerships. For example, the Maine Island

Trail Association (MITA) works with holders of easements on Maine’s coastal islands to

help oversee public access and to monitor those islands (Maine Audubon 1997). Land

trusts may also implement volunteer easement monitoring programs and educate and

train local citizens in helping to monitor their land holdings (Coastal Mountains Land

Trust 2015).

5.2.1.1.2 Acquisition

Another private land conservation strategy that is often used in combination with

conservation easements includes the purchase of land by a land trust. However, many

times, the fair value market price can be out of reach and this type of acquisition is

usually reserved for parcels of property that (1) embody the top goals and priorities of the

organization, and (2) face an imminent threat to development (MCHT 2015).

Organizations may also embark on a fundraising campaign to raise funds for the purchase

of the property if they are not already available.

With willing, conservation-minded landowners, however, there are other

conservation acquisition options (MCHT 2015). If the landowner’s aspiration is to have

their property conserved, they may donate their land to a land trust, or engage in a bargain sale in which they donate a portion of the property's value to a buyer, lowering

the purchase price to below market value. Both of these options are more affordable to

the land trust and allow the landowner to be eligible for a charitable tax deduction

(MCHT 2015).

110

While municipal property tax implications surround conservation acquisition, Examples of Land Acquisition Projects land trusts with fee holdings in the B2B region that Support Local Economies by have argued that they “choose to pay taxes as a Regional Land Trusts in Maine matter of organizational policy, in recognition Downeast Lakes Land of services provided by the towns” (Osborn Trust: Farm Cove 2014). This is known as Payment In Lieu of Community Forest – Timber Taxes (PILOT). In addition, what they do not Island Heritage Trust: contribute in taxes, land trusts can make up for Causeway Beach, Reach Beach, and in other public benefits, like offering the Plumb Point – Commercial communities and regions in which they operate Clamming and Fishing Access with places to hike outdoors, hunt, or fish, or allow for sustainable timber harvesting. As Jim Androscoggin Land Trust: Verso Dow, Executive Director of Blue Hill Heritage Androscoggin Mill Land - Timber Trust, states “What is often missing from these conversations about taxing non-profits is a full recognition of the public benefits they provide to our communities, benefits which in other places are provided by local government” (Osborne 2014).

Public benefits that land trusts provide through land acquisition are not restricted to offering recreational opportunities and environmental protection. While these types of land acquisition initiatives are still a priority, so is acquiring land to ensure local economic vitality, to support enhanced youth education and health programs, and to facilitate community interaction (Goltra 2014). Thus, like conservation easements, land acquisition has progressed to be a multi-objective conservation tool.

111

5.2.1.1.3 Additional Tools

Other conservation methods, such as leases, deed restrictions, mutual covenants and management agreements may also be a considered for conserving private land; however, consensus among the conservation community is that these options do not lead to permanent conservation of land and do not provide the landowner with tax incentives

(MCHT 2015a). The Maine Coast Heritage Trust offers a guidebook entitled

Conservation Options, A Guide for Maine Landowners that can be referred to for more information on conservation easements, land acquisition, and the other conservation methods listed above. In addition, MCHT offers other resources for initiating, facilitating, and organizing conservation projects on private land at http://mltn.org/resources/information-resources.php.

The best practice case study focusing on the Forest Society of Maine referenced non-regulatory conservation strategies that pertain to large, corporate land holdings, such as corporate conservation initiatives and certified timberlands. These are further defined in the Maine Audubon Society’s document, available at http://maineaudubon.org/wp- content/uploads/2012/08/MEAud-What-conservation-looks-like.pdf.

5.2.1.2 Conservation Options with Public Land

This section will focus on conservation options with public land, which are owned, in varying capacity, by federal, state, and local governments. It will first highlight the types of public land that already exist within or share a border with the B2B region, and will then specifically examine federal land designations.

While only approximately 10% of Maine is publicly-owned land, these lands -- ranging from local boat ramps and municipal beaches to state parks and forests to national parks and wildlife refuges -- are critical elements of multi-objective conservation strategies (Maine Audubon Society 1997). Public lands provide diverse recreational opportunities in all four seasons – from snowmobiling and cross country skiing, to

112

hunting and fishing, to whitewater rafting and backcountry hiking – which contribute to

the state’s local recreational tourism industry and strengthen the social wellbeing of

Maine residents who are accustomed to engaging in these activities (Maine Audubon

Society 1997). Depending on the public land designation, these lands can be set aside

strictly for scenic, recreational, and ecological values, or allow traditional recreational

uses of the land such as hunting and fishing, or can be managed for multiple uses,

including regulated timber production (Maine Audubon Society 1997).

The B2B region boasts significant publicly-owned conservation lands that act as

recreational destinations. Federal and state-owned land within and bordering the B2B

region include: Baxter State Park, the Appalachian Trail, Nahmakanta Public Reserved

Land, Pond Farm State Wildlife Management Area, Sunkhaze Meadows National

Wildlife Refuge, Sandy Point Game Management Area, the Penobscot Narrows Bridge

Observatory and Fort Knox, Fort Point State Park, and the Holbrook Island Sanctuary

State Park. This list does not include city-owned parks and forests that are scattered

throughout the region, many of which are located directly on the river corridor. The table below provides information on the federal and state-owned land that currently exists

within the B2B region.

Table 15 - Federal and State-owned Land in the B2B Region Public Land Designation Ownership Allowed Uses State Park State -Camping -Hiking -Snowshoe/Cross country -Boating and Swimming -Fishing Appalachian Trail Federal/State -Camping -Hiking Public Reserved Land State -Camping -Hiking -Snowshoe/Cross country -Boating and Swimming -Fishing -Hunting -Timber Harvesting -Snowmobile/ATV

113

Public Land Designation Ownership Allowed Uses Wildlife/Game State -Hiking Management Area -Snowshoe/Cross country -Boating and Swimming -Fishing -Hunting -Snowmobile/ATV Wildlife Refuge Federal -Hiking -Snowshoe/Cross country -Boating -Hunting -Fishing -Snowmobile

The B2B region has been presented with a unique opportunity -- a private owner of a large tract of land, Lucas St. Clair, is willing to donate two 75,000 acre parcels to the federal government, one to be turned into a national park and the other to be turned into a national recreation area (Seelye 2014). As described in further detail in this thesis’s literature review, studies show that counties and gateway communities adjacent to large federally-owned and managed lands, such as national parks, receive a substantial economic boost, not only from tourism, but also from in-migration and broad economic revitalization (Vail 2007). However, while the positive economic and social benefits from the proposed national park and recreation area have recently been captured in a

2013 Headwaters Economics report, and while St. Clair continues to educate the public on the benefits of the proposal and to listen to suggestions from local citizens, the region remains split on passing the necessary legislation to approve the formation of the park and recreation area (Fishell 2015). One of the main objections to the proposal is that it

“would bring federal authority into Maine” (Sambides 2015).

To provide context behind this current proposal, the following table provides information on federal land designations that have been a component of other regional landscape conservation initiatives. These designations vary in their allowed uses, land ownership, and management styles.

114

Table 16 - Federal Land Designations

Federal Land Allowed Uses Ownership Management Designation National Park -Non-motorized -Federal -Federal recreation National -Motorized and -Public (Federal/State) -Public-Private Recreation Area non-motorized & Private Partnership recreation -Hunting National Forest -Resource -Federal -Federal Extraction -Non-motorized recreation -Hunting National Heritage -Motorized and -Public -Public-Private Area/Corridor non-motorized (Federal/State/Local) & Partnership recreation Private -Hunting National -Motorized and -Federal -Federal Monument non-motorized recreation -Hunting National -Non-motorized -Federal -Federal Wilderness Area recreation -Hunting National Wildlife -Non-motorized -Federal -Federal Refuge recreation -Hunting National Trail -Non-motorized -Public -Public-Private System (Scenic, recreation (Federal/State/Local) & Partnership Historic, -Hunting Private Recreation) National Wild and -Motorized and -Public (Federal/ -Public-Private Scenic River Non-motorized State/Local) & Private Partnership recreation -Hunting National Preserve -Resource -Public (Federal) & -Public-Private extraction Private Partnership -Motorized and Non-motorized recreation -Hunting National Reserve -Non-motorized -Public -Public recreation (Federal/State/Local) & -Hunting Private

115

Given an opposition to federal control by some citizens and municipalities in the

B2B region, those federal conservation land designations with public-private land ownership and management partnerships may seem like a more viable alternative to those options that include absolute federal control (Baldwin, Kenefic and LaPage 2007).

However, there are benefits and pitfalls to these models as well. The following case studies highlight best practices and lessons learned as they apply to federal land designations with public-private land ownership and management partnerships.

116

Best Practice Case Study Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Public-Private Partnership

Following the Blackstone River from central Massachusetts into Rhode Island,

the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor showcases a public-private partnership between federal, state, and local governments, as well as non-profits, businesses, and local landowners. Each of these entities has an essential role in helping

the corridor function as an environmental protection, educational, recreational, and

economic tool in the region (Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor

Commission and State Planning Council 1990). The federal government does not own

any land there. Its primary role is to help fund and advise on activities conducted within

the corridor. The corridor has been essential in drawing attention to the river and its

cleanup (Pina 2014). A 2009 report by the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage

Corridor Commission, an organization set up to ensure the public-private management plan of the corridor is being followed, emphasized the successes of the corridor,

including an increase of recreational activities on and along the river such as fishing and boating, restoration of anadromous fish runs, establishment of a youth career

development program, development of the Blackstone River Bikeway, local waterfront

redevelopment, and other commercial activities along the river (Blackstone River Valley

National Heritage Corridor Commission 2009).

Given the success of the corridor, significant sites within it were designated as a

National Historical Park in December 2014. The new park will exist in conjunction with

the corridor and will maintain a similar ownership and management partnership as exists

under the National Heritage Corridor designation. In this partnership, the National Park

Service will manage and operate facilities and provide educational services within the park, while regional and local preservation groups will continue to lead the efforts to

117 preserve the surrounding rural and agricultural landscape within the existing corridor

(Pina 2014).

118

Lessons Learned Case Study Valles Caldera National Preserve Public-Private Partnership

The US Forest Service has experimented with new models of protecting

landscapes that include federal funding with local control (Baldwin, Kenefic and LePage

2007). The Valles Caldera National Preserve in New Mexico was purchased by the

federal government in July 2000 and was run by the Valles Caldera Trust, overseen by a

nine member board, of which seven were “local experts in the areas of culture,

economics, sustainable forestry, livestock management, wild game management, and

members of state and local government” (Baldwin, Kenefic and LePage 2007, 85).

While this case study takes place in New Mexico, it is relevant to the B2B region because, under this federal land designation, legislators attempted to form (1) a public- private ownership and management partnership, and (2) a multi-use preserve combining

working land with recreational land. In summary, the Valles Caldera was tasked with

maintaining a working ranch that also offered recreation such as hiking, fishing, and

hunting. They were given 15 years to make the property “self-sustaining” (Robinson

2014).

A 2011 report by The Harbinger Consulting Group stated that the Valles Caldera

Trust was not on track to reach its goal (Kamerick 2011). With minimal management

experience, the Trust was unable to balance requests from the various interests groups

involved in the multi-use preserve. Ranchers made demands for more cattle,

recreationists argued for more public access, and environmentalists voiced concerns

about the impacts of allowing too many cattle as well as too many people (Robinson

2014). The lesson that was learned from this experiment with semi-private management

of public land is that the National Park Service -- given their agency mission,

management experience, budget processes, and funding reliability – is better equipped to

manage and protect public lands (Kamerick 2014). The Harbinger report supports this

119 notion, asserting that “the National Park Service would produce more economic benefits, more reliable resource protection, allow for a ‘superior visitor experience,’ and allow more opportunities for public recreation” than the existing management (Kamerick

2014). With this backing, the preserve was transferred to the National Park Service in

December 2014 and is still in the stages of being integrated into the system (National

Park Traveler 2015).

120

Lessons Learned Case Study The Connecticut River versus the White River National Blueway Designations Public-Private Partnership

The National Blueway System was established in 2012 “to recognize and support

locally-led efforts to sustain the economic, recreational, and natural values of rivers and

watersheds of national significance” (Jewell 2014). It was a voluntary recognition program intended to highlight and support successful collaborative strategies for sustainable river and watershed resources led by diverse stakeholder organizations.

Supporters of the program “hoped that gaining a National Blueway designation would put their waterways at the front of the line for federal grants” (Weiss-Tisman 2014).

The Connecticut River watershed was the first to receive the National Blueway designation. With a history of local property owners, conservation organizations, and government agencies and officials working together to improve the river and its watershed, the designation was well-received by both the public and government officials within the watershed (DOI 2012). In comparison, when the White River, which flows through Arkansas and Missouri, was presented with the designation, local people and local government officials criticized the program, asserting that the designation would lead to increased federal regulations and land seizures (Weiss-Tisman 2014).

The major difference between the two watersheds is that, in the Connecticut

River watershed, local people and government officials have a longstanding history of collaborating on watershed improvement efforts. These efforts, which include public outreach and education, provided them with insight on the National Blueway program, helping them recognize its benefits to their watershed (Weiss-Tisman 2014). By contrast, in the White River watershed, there was a disconnect between the conservation community and the majority of landowners within the watershed who were not involved in the collaborative process. Informing these landowners about the designation and

121 soliciting their feedback might have eased the fears of the local citizens within the watershed, reducing the backlash held against the designation (Weiss-Tisman 2014).

122

David Vail, former Project Director at the Maine Center for Economic Policy,

asserts that the land designation model that is chosen for the North Woods needs to be

compelling enough to make the region a “world-class outdoor recreation destination”

(Vail 2007, 111). This would not only entice tourists to the region, it also would spur businesses and residents to move to the area, would bring more amenities to the area, and

would draw awareness for funding enhanced public services such as transportation

networks and high speed internet (Vail 2007). While Vail believes “we can fashion a

world-class outdoor recreation destination from this mosaic of protected lands and

waters,” meaning the already privately and publicly-owned conservation lands within the

B2B region and expanding into the Moosehead Lake and 100-Mile Wilderness areas, he

asserts that a coordinated strategy, such as the B2B Initiative, would be essential in bringing this idea into a reality (Vail 2007). In addition, while the foundation for a

world-class outdoor recreation destination is already in place, Vail (2007) contends that

“the National Park Service logo has proven to be a powerful marketing tool” (114). To

overcome political opposition in the region, Vail suggests continuing to educate

opponents on the differences between federal land designation models in terms of

allowed uses, management, and ownership (Vail 2007).

5.2.1.3 Combined Conservation Strategies – Private and Public Land Models

The B2B region currently includes significant public land holdings, has the potential to host a new national park and national recreation area, and contains both large

and small private conservation land holdings. Joined together, these lands allow for

environmental protection, as well as public access for recreation, and working access for

timber management and commercial fishing. However, as of now, there is no coordinated

strategy for connecting these lands to form a conservation and recreation corridor that a

regional economic development strategy could be based upon. Given that developing

this corridor is the B2B Initiative’s main focus, this section will offer details on two

123 initiatives in Maine that model how to strategically merge together private and public land holdings.

The following case study provides a best practice example of how the

Appalachian Mountain Club has developed a corridor surrounding the Appalachian Trail in Maine’s 100-Mile Wilderness out of both privately and publicly-owned land. This corridor, known as the Maine Woods Initiative, was recently awarded the 2015 Maine

Governor’s Conference on Tourism Award for “Leadership & Growth” for their ability to develop new recreational opportunities for those visiting Maine and helping to address the region’s ecological and economic needs (AMC 2015).

124

Best Practices Case Study AMC – Maine Woods Initiative/Greater Moosehead Initiative Forming a conservation corridor from private and public land

The Appalachian Trail in Maine stretches 281 miles. The most isolated segment of the trail is the 100 mile-stretch between the town of Monson and Mt. Katahdin in

Baxter State Park. This portion of the trail, known as the 100-Mile Wilderness, is owned primarily in partnership by the state and the National Park Service, with a small segment owned by TNC (Field, D. 2015, April 1. Email interview). The Appalachian Mountain

Club’s Maine Woods Initiative is a strategic plan to create a conservation corridor consisting of the land surrounding the 100-mile section of the Appalachian Trail. AMC’s focus area is 100,000 acres, of which they have successfully been able to conserve 70,000 acres as of March 2015 (AMC 2015a). The land that AMC has been able to purchase strategically connects with large swaths of land owned by TNC and the state. Together, these lands account for a 63-mile unbroken conservation corridor with over 650,000 acres open to the public for recreational use (AMC 2009). In addition, the Moosehead Lake

Forest conservation easement lies due west of the Maine Woods Initiative, providing further potential for large-scale conservation in the region. The first two maps on the following pages show the connectivity of conservation land in the region. Not shown on the map is a recent purchase (March 2015) of just over 4,000 acres of land that includes

Baker Mountain and surrounding lands, on which TNC also holds a “forever wild” easement on a portion of the land (AMC 2015a). A third map portrays AMC’s conserved lands and other large swaths of conserved lands that are adjacent to and in the vicinity of

Baxter State Park and the Penobscot River corridor.

AMC’s lands protect the region’s natural resources while allowing for recreational use. They operate Maine Wilderness Lodges to support visitation in the 100-

Mile Wilderness, promoting nature-based tourism in the region (AMC 2015a).

Sustainable forestry is also allowed on AMC’s lands. They hire local loggers and supply

125 local mills, further supporting the region’s economy (AMC 2015a). The Maine Woods

Initiative includes an educational outreach component, which connects local school children to AMC’s conservation lands, contributing to community social wellbeing

(AMC 2015a).

Figure 9 - AMC 100-Mile Wilderness

Source: (AMC 2015a).

126

Figure 10 - Conservation Lands in AMC's 100-Mile Wilderness

Source: (AMC 2015a)

127

Figure 11 - Penobscot River Watershed Conserved Lands

At a smaller-scale than the 100-Mile Wilderness, and in a more developed, coastal area of Maine, a partnership between land trusts, conservation non-profits, local landowners, the state, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service emerged to stitch together a 15-mile wildlife corridor between two significant

128

conservation lands, the State of Maine Donnell Pond Unit near Schoodic Mountain and

the Schoodic Point section of Acadia National Park (Richardson 2008). The Schoodic to

Schoodic Initiative is similar to the AMC initiative in that both initiatives have

incorporated already existing and noteworthy conservation land holdings into their

regional landscape conservation strategies. In addition, both initiatives utilize private

conservation options (easements and acquisitions) and public conservation options (state-

owned parks, trails, public reserved lands, and wildlife management areas and federally-

owned parks and national wildlife refuges) to form conservation corridors and to

accomplish their initiative’s multi-objective goals. Thus, both of these conservation

strategies are best practices that the B2B Initiative should emulate.

5.2.1.4 Regulatory Conservation Strategies

Working together, easements on and acquisition of private land coupled with public land holdings can be an effective strategy in forming permanently, connected conservation corridors that support multi-objective conservation goals. However, as a region that includes multiple municipalities, the B2B Initiative, like MtA2C, will need to work with local cities and towns (see map of cities and towns in the B2B region in

Appendix III) to encourage the use of regulatory conservation and economic development strategies in order to further promote the plan’s multi-objective goals

(Lyman 2006). Regulatory strategies exist at the federal, state, and local levels and include zoning, subdivision controls, environmental permitting and health laws. This section will examine Maine legislation that supports environmental protection and conservation, as well as state programs and reserved funds that incentivize private landowners and municipalities to conserve land. It will also consider regulatory strategies that are implemented at the local-level, such as comprehensive and open space plans and innovative land use ordinances.

129

5.2.1.4.1 Federal and State Legislation

Federal and state laws serve as the backbone for environmental protection,

including the protection of the Penobscot River’s water quality. In many cases, these

laws form the minimum standards for protection, and local communities can choose to

adopt these minimum standards, or to implement stricter laws. Conservation easements

are designed with the assumption that the landowner is already abiding by federal, state,

and local laws. At both the federal and state-level, there are laws protecting endangered

species, significant wildlife habitat, fragile ecosystems such as mountains tops and

coastal dunes, fresh water quality, freshwater and tidal wetlands, shoreline, and air

quality. These laws promote environmental protection and conservation and help to

ensure that development does not disturb natural areas (Maine Audubon Society 2002).

The table below includes Maine state legislation that supports environmental protection and conservation. While the main purpose behind these laws is environmental protection, they also support the protection of Maine’s natural and cultural resources,

which reinforce Maine’s economy and the social wellbeing of its residents (Richardson

2008).

Table 17 - Maine State Legislation that Supports Environmental Protection and Conservation

State Legislation Administered By Purpose Natural Resources DEP To protect the state’s critical natural Protection Act resources, including “rivers and streams, great ponds, fragile mountain areas, freshwater wetlands, significant wildlife habitat, coastal wetlands and coastal sand dunes systems.” Coastal DACF; DEP; To encourage developing ports and Management Policy DMR harbors, managing marine resources and shorelines, increasing recreation and tourism, protecting natural and scenic areas, and protecting air quality.

130

State Legislation Administered By Purpose Shoreland Zoning DEP To “prevent and control water pollution; Ordinance to protect fish spawning grounds, aquatic life, bird and other wildlife habitat…to protect commercial fishing…to protect freshwater and coastal wetlands…to conserve natural beauty and open space; and to anticipate and respond to the impacts of development in shoreland areas.” It requires local governments to restrict certain land uses within 250 feet of the normal high-water line of any great pond, river or saltwater body, within 250 feet of the upland edge of coastal or freshwater wetlands, and within 75 feet of the high water mark of a stream. Maine’s Rivers Law DACF; DEP To restore fisheries, improve recreation, restore the water to fishable/ swimmable standards, revitalize waterfronts, and maintain the scenic beauty of Maine’s rivers. The law requires several state agencies to cooperate to create a comprehensive river resource management plan for each watershed with a hydroelectric facility. Water Pollution DEP To implement water pollution control Control Law measures by granting funds for municipal pollution abatement projects, and requiring licenses for discharges of waste into bodies of water. Interstate Water Signatory States of To manage interstate waters to meet the Pollution Control the New England industry and agriculture’s growing need Water Pollution for water and the growing population’s Control Compact increasing need for clean water for consumption and recreation. Subdivision Law DACF This law requires local governments to review applications for subdivisions. A subdivision will not be approved if it has an undue effect on the natural beauty of the area, or on rare and irreplaceable natural areas. The developer must map and identify all freshwater wetlands within the proposed area regardless of their size and indicate any rivers, streams, lakes and ponds so the town may consider the potential impact of the subdivision on these natural resources.

131

State Legislation Administered By Purpose Site Location of DEP To control the locations of certain Development Law developments and subdivisions that may substantially affect the natural environment. The natural resources protected under this act are existing uses, scenic character, air quality, water quality or other natural resources in the municipality or in neighboring municipalities. Maine Forest DACF To create size limits for clearcuts, Practices Act establish requirements for buffer zones between clear cuts, require reforestation within clearcuts, require a forest management plan for clearcuts over 20 acres, and expand the authority of the Maine Forest Service to create and enforce water quality protection rules. Source: (Maine Audubon Society 2002; Maine Legislature 2015)

5.2.1.4.2 State Incentives

Maine law (MRSA Title 36) offers property tax incentives to landowners who maintain their land as open space or as working lands such as farmland, timberland, or working waterfronts. The state recognizes that “It is in the public interest to encourage the preservation of farmland and open space” and in some cases those applying to the open space program may be required to make a “public benefit factor” claim as to how their open space parcel benefits the public (Maine Revenue Service 2011). These incentives are part of the state’s Current Use Taxation Program, which is administered by the Department of Administrative and Financial Services.

There are currently three laws that support property tax deductions for open space and working lands: Tree Growth Tax Law (MRSA Title 36 § 571-584-A), Farm and Open Space Tax Law (MRSA Title 36 § 1101-1121), and Current Use Valuation of

Certain Working Waterfront Land (MRSA Title 36 § 1131-1140-B). These programs are similar in that they can be applicable to small tracts of land (5-10 acres), they require active participation by the landowner to maintain their status, including an initial application, and they exact a penalty if the land is withdrawn from the program. The

132 entire parcel does not need to be placed in a program as long as the minimum acreage is met. Also, if the use of the property remains the same, a withdrawal penalty is not incurred when the land is sold or transferred to another party (Great Works Regional

Land Trust 2007). The table below provides more details on these programs.

Table 18 - Maine Current Use Taxation Programs

Current Use Purpose Specific Requirements Taxation Program Tree Growth To provide an incentive to -Own at least 10 forested maintain land in actively acres used for commercial managed timber production. harvesting. All forest lands suitable for the -Obtain a forest planting, culture, and management and harvest continuous growth of forest plan certified by a products will be taxed on the licensed professional basis of their potential for forester. annual wood production. -Recertify forest management and harvest plan to local assessor every 10 years. Farm Use To provide an incentive for -Minimum of 5 keeping land in farming or contiguous acres used for horticultural by basing farming, agriculture, or property valuations on the horticulture. current use rather than -Produce an income of potential uses. To encourage $2,000 per year preceding and maintain a readily application. available source of food and -Provide annual income farm products. To prevent the reports to town assessor loss of farmland to that confirms continued development. agricultural use. Open Space To provide an incentive for -No minimum lot size. keeping land in open space by -Provide a public benefit basing property valuations on factor. the current use rather than -Provide town assessor potential uses. To encourage with a site plan or map preservation of open space and designating the open the conservation of the state’s space classified area and natural resources. To prevent unclassified area. the loss of open space to development.

133

Current Use Purpose Specific Requirements Taxation Program Working Waterfront To encourage the preservation -Provide a description of of Maine’s working waterfront the parcel and the manner and to prevent the conversion in which the land is used of this land to more intensive for commercial fishing uses as the result of economic activities. pressures caused by high -Provide a map property taxes. The program is identifying the parcel’s intended to support location and boundaries commercial fishing activities. Source: (Maine Revenue Service 2011; Great Works Regional Land Trust 2007)

Together, these programs have aided in the conservation of significant amounts of land in Maine. The Maine Revenue Service Property Tax Division reports that as of

2011, out of Maine’s approximately 21 million acres of land:

• 11 million are enrolled in the Tree Growth Program (52%),

• 99,000 acres of cropland and 162,700 acres of woodland are enrolled in the

Farm Use Program (1%), and

• 88,900 acres are enrolled in the Open Space Program (0.4%) (Maine

Revenue Service 2011).

In addition to property tax reductions, Maine law incentivizes the conservation of open space and working lands as well as environmental protection through their grant funding programs. The grants are available to non-profit agencies and municipalities and usually have a component that requires public and/or working access to the land they help fund. The following table provides the grant name and purpose as it relates to conservation, recreation, environmental protection, job security, and public access.

Because funding opportunities are affected by state budget levels, this list should be reviewed regularly. For more information visit: http://maine.gov/dacf/about/grants/index.shtml , http://www.maine.gov/dep/assistance/grants-loans/ , https://www1.maine.gov/ifw/grants/index.htm , and http://www.projectcanopy.me/ .

134

Table 19 – State Grants to Fund Conservation Projects

Grant Title Administered by Purpose Boating Facilities Fund Bureau of Parks and -Conservation Lands -Recreation -Public Water Access Land and Water Bureau of Parks and -Conservation Conservation Fund Lands -Recreation -Public Access Maine Trails Fund/ Bureau of Parks and -Conservation Recreational Trails Lands -Recreation Program -Public Access Land for Maine’s Future Land for Maine’s Future -Conservation Board -Recreation -Public Access -Public Water Access -Working Waterfront Access -Environmental Protection -Farmland Maine Outdoor Heritage Maine Outdoor Heritage -Conservation Fund Fund Board -Recreation -Public Access -Public Water Access -Working Forest -Environmental Protection Project Canopy Maine Forest Service -Conservation -Recreation -Public Access -Environmental Protection Shore and Harbor Maine Coastal Program -Conservation Planning Grants -Public Access -Working Waterfront Access WoodsWISE Incentives Maine Forest Service -Conservation -Environmental Protection -Working Forest Working Waterfront Maine Coastal Program -Conservation Initiative -Public Access -Working Waterfront Access -Environmental Protection Nonpoint Source Water DEP -Environmental Protection Pollution Control Grants

In addition to grants from the public sector, many national and Maine-based

foundations, private businesses, academic institutions, financial institutions, and non- profit agencies offer grants for conservation projects (MCHT 2014). In Maine, these

135 private entities include the Maine Community Foundation, University of Maine, L.L.

Bean, and Coastal Enterprises, Inc. The B2B finance and development committee should pursue these private funding opportunities when implementing conservation projects.

5.2.1.4.3 Local Comprehensive Plans, Open Space Plans, Resource Protection, and Concept Plans

By law, Maine requires that local zoning ordinances be consistent with a

comprehensive plan adopted by the municipal legislative body (MRSA Title 30-A §

4301-4350). Many of the required elements of a community comprehensive plan can

highlight significant natural resources that exist within a town and document town policies and strategies aimed at conserving those resources. The elements of the comprehensive plan are the starting point for developing local conservation actions, including tax incentive programs, open space land acquisition, and regulatory mechanisms that shape future growth within the municipality (Beginning with Habitat

2003). The suggested strategies included in the comprehensive plans “are the legal underpinning of subsequent land use ordinances and typically serve as the catalyst for open space plan development” (Beginning with Habitat 2003).

Comprehensive plans in Maine are required to address thirteen topic areas, all of which have an influence on and could be used to facilitate regional conservation planning in some capacity (Beginning with Habitat 2003). These topics include:

• Topography, Soils, Geology, & Water Resources

• Habitat & Other Critical Natural Resources

• Historic and Archeological Resources

• Agriculture & Forest Resources

• Marine Resources

• Economy

• Population & Demographics

136

• Existing Land Use Patterns

• Housing

• Transportation

• Recreation & Open Space

• Public Facilities and Services

• Fiscal Capacity.

Conclusions drawn from each of these topic areas are intended to lead the municipality to devise a future land use plan, which delineates areas for growth, rural areas, and critical resource areas, and identifies the regulatory and non-regulatory tools the municipality will impose to achieve their desired layout. In this way, the intent of comprehensive planning in Maine, which is to protect the rural character and natural resources of the community while still encouraging responsible growth, is parallel with the multi-objective goals of regional landscape conservation planning (Beginning with

Habitat 2003). Thus, comprehensive planning, if done with conservation priorities in mind, is essential to achieving B2B goals.

Maine’s Beginning with Habitat Program provides assistance in incorporating conservation and open space information and data into municipal comprehensive plans.

Their website offers three recently completed exemplary comprehensive plans that include thorough natural resource inventories as well as policies and implementation strategies designed to protect those resources. These plans, which should be reviewed by the B2B planning committee, are for the towns of Brunswick, Monmouth, and

Beddington. The Beginning with Habitat Program also promotes developing an open space plan in addition to the comprehensive plan so that municipalities are aware of where their natural resources are located (Beginning with Habitat 2003). Again, they offer examples of plans from five municipalities that have used the Beginning with

137

Habitat resources to conduct a “habitat-oriented approach” to open space planning in their communities (Beginning with Habitat 2003).

Maine’s Municipal Planning Assistance Program also offers assistance in helping communities develop comprehensive plans that are consistent with the state’s Growth

Management Act. Maine’s Land Use Planning Commission has their own comprehensive plan (2010) specifically for the townships and plantations they serve.

This comprehensive plan includes a chapter dedicated to the region’s natural and cultural resources and an implementation strategy for protecting those resources. LUPC also works with private landowners to develop Resource Protection and Concept Plans, both of which call for the protection of natural and recreational areas and provide standards for development and timber harvesting (Maine Audubon Society 1997; Land Use Planning

Commission 2013).

Despite these state planning resources, comprehensive and regional planning in

Maine has taken a step backward since the LePage administration eliminated the Maine

State Planning Office and reformed the Land Use Regulation Commission, renaming it the Land Use Planning Commission, in 2012, reducing their capacity and mission

(Higgins 2011). The Beginning with Habitat Program also reports that while many towns have “crafted comprehensive plans that successfully result in on the ground changes…60-80% of new growth in Maine occurs in rural areas where costs for services and impacts to hometown identity and wildlife habitat are highest” (Beginning with

Habitat 2003). Furthermore, regional coordination, which supports regional landscape conservation efforts and is a required component of Maine’s local comprehensive plans, is diminished by Maine’s “home-rule” tendencies and preference for local government control (Richardson 2008).

Facing similar challenges, land trusts throughout the country are becoming more involved in their local and regional land use planning processes, providing municipalities

138

with the resources necessary to ensure future growth is channeled away from

conservation priority focus areas. Amundsen and Culp (2013) offer examples from

around the country of how land trusts can become more involved in local/regional planning processes. Land trusts can:

• offer new ideas, input, and information that results in a more robust plan with greater public support.

• play a critical role in bringing new tools to the table, including detailed mapping of conservation values in the community and access to expertise and knowledge that might not otherwise be available in a comprehensive planning process.

• integrate the results of their strategic conservation plan into the municipality’s comprehensive, open space, stormwater, stream buffer, and neighborhood plans.

• act as conveners or facilitators of a planning process in the absence of a strong regional-scale framework for land use and conservation planning. • partner with a public agency to develop an open space plan.

• provide planning support to help implement more complex conservation tools, such as a Transfer of Development Rights program.

This thesis has already provided a best practice example of the way in which

MtA2C is working with municipalities within their planning area to encourage and

coordinate the implementation of conservation actions (see pages 72-73). However,

without state statutes that provide for enforceable regional regulation, some jurisdictions

may employ these conservation actions, while others may not. This imbalance

contributes to a “free rider” problem, which may be avoided if all municipalities within

the river corridor are within one management authority (Rosenbaum 2003). The case

study below will provide an example of a regulatory, regional approach to protecting

shared natural resources, like the Saco River corridor in southern Maine.

139

Best Practice Case Study Saco River Corridor Commission Regional Coordination in Maine

While this approach to regional conservation may receive pushback from many

cities and towns surrounding the Penobscot River due to its regional, regulatory nature, it

is still important to showcase how towns in Maine have the ability to form a multi-town,

regulatory authority to protect a shared natural resource that crosses jurisdictional boundaries (Beginning with Habitat 2003; Richardson 2008; Baldwin, Kenefic and

LaPage 2007; GrowSmart Maine 2012). While regional open space and conservation plans have been developed throughout the state (i.e. The Land Conservation Plan for

Maine’s Piscataqua Region Watersheds 2010; Western Maine Regional Open Space

Policy 2009; Penobscot Valley Community Greenprint 2009), these plans are ineffective

if the cities and towns within the region do not implement the necessary regulatory and

non-regulatory actions to protect the natural areas identified in them (Walker et al. 2010).

In this regard, the Saco River Corridor Commission, established in 1973, is a

regulatory, state chartered commission, composed of a representative from each of the 20

towns that surround the river in Maine, with permitting authority for land use on both

sides of the river. The land and water area within the Saco River Corridor is classified

into three districts: Resource Protection, Limited Residential, and General Development.

Within each of these districts, the possible uses of land and water is divided into three

categories: uses for which no permit is required, uses allowed by permit, and prohibited

uses. In the Resource Protection District, prohibited uses include: residential,

commercial, and industrial development; billboards; and filling or dredging of wetlands.

The Limited Residential district allows for residential and low-impact development, but prohibits such uses as hotels, restaurants, hospitals, and mobile home parks. Within the

General Development district, prohibited uses include junkyards, oil refineries, and

smelting operations (Maine Legislature 2015). In addition to their regulatory role, the

140

commission conducts water quality testing on the river and performs community

outreach.

There has been pushback from some local landowners in recent years stating that

the commission is “another layer of regulatory bureaucracy” that is “burdensome,

repetitive and expensive” (Ackley 2011). However, as a significant tourist attraction, protecting the water quality of the Saco River is an important investment made by the

commission (Ackley 2011). The majority of the river’s 1,600 square mile watershed

remains undeveloped or underdeveloped and is one of the primary reasons why the public

water supply in the Saco Bay region has won awards for water quality over the years

(Thornburgh 2013).

141

5.2.1.4.4 Local Ordinances

Since Maine is a home rule state with its municipal governments granted

autonomy, many federal and state laws are implemented through ordinances at the local-

level (Richardson 2008). Federal and state laws that pertain to environmental protection

and conservation were discussed in the previous section. This section will focus on local

land use ordinances that have been used by municipalities as planning tools to allow for

development, but that are designed to guide development away from areas identified as being best suited for conservation, open space, or working lands. In Maine, enforceable land use tools are a powerful approach that municipalities have to effectively encourage growth in appropriate areas and discourage growth where it could degrade community values including natural resources (Walker et al. 2010).

It is important to note here that many of the strategies and tools that will be explored in this section are currently not in use within the B2B region, with minimal exceptions. Instead, these tools and strategies are primarily used in Maine’s southern region, where development threats are much more significant (Richardson 2008).

Though development pressure is currently minimal in the B2B region, these strategies and tools can be drawn upon by cities and towns in the B2B corridor to ensure future proactive, sustainable development. In addition to southern Maine, there are some instances where these strategies and tools are being implemented in cities and towns that are part of regional landscape conservation initiatives in regions that are similar to the

Penobscot River corridor. These strategies and tools were extracted during the review of plans and initiatives, as described in Chapter 4. For clarification purposes, Table 20 will

indicate where in Maine these tools and strategies are being implemented.

The following table identifies and defines land use planning tools that were

compiled from the local conservation planning strategies documented in the Unity

Wetlands Conservation Plan , the Land Conservation Plan for Maine’s Piscataqua

142

Region Watersheds , and by Maine’s Beginning with Habitat Program, a state program

that assists municipalities in Maine with incorporating habitat data into their

comprehensive plans, open space plans, and land use ordinances. Many of these tools not

only allow municipalities to conserve open space and working lands, they also offer a

mechanism for funding conservation projects. Other mechanisms that municipalities can

use to fund conservation projects (aside from the public/private grants mentioned above)

include:

• Establishing a conservation fund/account – This fund is strictly dedicated to funding conservation and recreation projects. The fund can be created from fees, land sales, annual budget contributions, grants, or other sources, such as a land bank and/or municipal bonds as described below. This fund ensures that money is actually going toward these types of projects and not toward other municipal services.

• Establishing a land bank – A land bank can be set up by local governments to identify land within the municipality to be protected as open space. The land bank pursues funding from private and public sources for acquisition of open space, as approved by the governing body.

• Municipal bonds – These bonds are approved by local voters in order to help finance conservation projects. They can be used to help match federal and state funding. • Fees acquired from the sale of municipal natural resources, such as the sale of wood products from town-owned land or fees collected for entrance to city parks or forests (Town of Holden 2010).

143

Table 20 - Local Land Use Planning Tools

Land Use Purpose Success in B2B Region Success in Regions Success in southern Planning Tool similar to B2B Maine Transfer of A TDR program encourages land -Two of the six towns -The Town of Development conservation in rural areas (sending in the Unity Wetlands Scarborough uses a TDR Rights (TDR) areas) and transfers development to region encourage the provision within their Program growth zones (receiving areas). A use of voluntary TDR Stream Protection District successfully implemented TDR programs to preserve that allows for the program offers towns the ability to agricultural land and transfer of residential accomplish two complimentary goals maintain the full value units within that overlay in one transaction: strategic open of developable land for district for denser space preservation to protect habitat, the owners, as development in the same recreational opportunities and rural documented in their parcel outside the overlay industries, and development directed comprehensive plan. district or to properties to traditional town centers and However, limited within designated Growth designated growth areas. action has taken place. Areas

Development Similar to a TDR program, except -Various towns in Transfer Fee that it is fee-based using a third party southern Maine have Program as a broker. A developer pays a enacted this program, transfer fee to the town, which including the towns of enables them to buy and build an Scarborough, Gorham, additional number of units in the and Sanford. designated growth area than would be allowed under current density limits. In turn, the payment is deposited into a municipal fund for conservation land acquisition in the rural sending area when an opportunity becomes available. Open Space This program is established by local -Various towns in Impact Fees ordinance, and allows communities to southern Maine have assign fees so that new development enacted this program, compensates for its impact on reduced including the towns of open space. Funds are then used for Brunswick and Saco. public conservation and open space preservation.

144

Land Use Purpose Success in B2B Region Success in Regions Success in southern Planning Tool similar to B2B Maine Conservation The developer is required to set aside -The Plum Creek Concept -Various towns in Subdivision a given amount of conservation land Plan, in the Moosehead southern Maine have based on a percentage of the net Lake region that borders enacted this ordinance, residential acreage. To be accepted, the B2B region, approved such as the towns of the conservation lands must be by the LUPC follows a Freeport and Falmouth. screened against certain conservation similar approach, with priorities set by the town and based 4% of their land to be on identified concerns in the town's developed and 96% to be comprehensive plan and open space conserved. plan. Natural Resource The districts apply additional -The City of Bangor has Overlay Districts development performance standards an overlay district for the to projects within the natural Penjajawoc Marsh that boundaries of a mapped resource such calls for the use of cluster as an aquifer, forest block, or local development standards conservation focus area. and expanded open space and buffer zones in areas adjacent to the marsh. Resource These ordinances include specific - The City of Bangor has Protection protections for natural resources that a Resource Protection Ordinances fall through the gaps of typical state District with limited and local shoreland zoning rules in permitted uses. Maine. Most of these municipal approaches target wetlands smaller than the shoreland zoning 10-acre threshold, often including all wetlands, even small forested wetlands. Many towns have also included protections for headwater streams, whereas shoreland zoning guidelines generally limit stream protections to those larger stretches below the confluence of two perennial streams as depicted on USGS maps.

145

Land Use Purpose Success in B2B Region Success in Regions Success in southern Planning Tool similar to B2B Maine Performance Performance Standards help to -The City of Brewer has Standards provide clear and definitive standards subdivision standards for that current and future land uses must any projects that involve meet. Among other uses, these significant wildlife or standards can apply to residential fisheries habitat or that development and road construction. are within a unique natural area. Tax Increment TIF districts establish a distinct -As of January 2015, Financing (TIF) geographical area in which growth Franklin County, in rural District Funds and development are encouraged. western Maine, is The increase in tax revenue from the considering using money new and expanded development is acquired from a TIF captured by the municipality or agreement related to the county to provide tax benefits to the 44-turbine Kibby businesses in the district, or for other Mountain Wind Power public services and benefits. Project to fund improved Traditionally, TIF funds are used for access to trails and downtowns or other business waterways, supporting development, but there is opportunity the region’s recreational to establish a TIF district for the use and economic benefit of conservation and open development. Costs space funding. related to acquisition of roads and easements over roads that provide access to recreational areas and trails are also being considered.

Source: (Maine Beginning with Habitat Program 2003; Town of Holden 2010; Walker et al. 2010; Richardson 2008; Perry 2015; Friends of Unity Wetlands 2006).

146

Two best practice and lessons learned case studies highlight planning efforts conducted by the town of Brunswick , which is located in southern Maine, and the cities of Bangor, Brewer, and Old Town, which are within the B2B region, to further their environmental, economic, and social wellbeing goals.

147

Best Practice and Lessons Learned Case Study Town of Brunswick, Maine Smart Growth Overlay District

The Town of Brunswick adopted the Rural Brunswick Smart Growth Overlay

District in March 2006 as a tool for conserving continuous habitat blocks (150 acres or

greater) and naturally vegetated wildlife corridors that link these blocks. According to

the Maine Association of Conservation Commissioners (2009), “the overlay district

approach was chosen as the best mechanism for regulating future development within the project focus areas given the ability of overlay districts to be drawn around natural resource features without necessitating changes to allowed uses, densities and other underlying zone provisions”. The amount of land that can be developed within the overlay district is limited, based on parcel coverage, and those projects that are within the set limitations receive density bonuses. Those projects that exceed the set limitations are required to mitigate for habitat disturbance by protecting acreage elsewhere in the overlay district, or by paying into an account that allows the Town to acquire the acreage on the developer’s behalf. After reviewing the new ordinance with local, rural landowners, the

Town incorporated provisions to exempt clearing for agricultural purposes and single family residential development on one acre or less from the overlay district stipulations

(Richardson 2008).

As of 2009, after 3 years of being implemented, five major subdivisions were reviewed and approved using the Rural Brunswick Smart Growth provisions. As a result,

230 acres located within the habitat blocks are permanently protected and approximately

90 acres concentrated along the block edges are fragmented by development (MEACC

2009). The Town considers these numbers to be a success (MEACC 2009). They also believe the entire planning process leading up to the ordinance was successful in that it resulted in a “publicly endorsed conservation blueprint” which has secured them grant funding to protect rural land, identified as strategically important to the Town, and

148

educated local landowners on conservation benefits, such as tax credits, that are available

to them (MEACC 2009).

Two “lessons learned” have emerged from implementing the ordinance. The

Town has realized that it is difficult, using the existing code enforcement and building permit process, to track cumulative habitat disturbance on single lots that are divided or

developed over time. In addition, landowners have difficulty understanding the

calculations for determining the mitigation requirements within the overlay district.

Based on these difficulties, Brunswick will improve the ordinance’s language to make it

more user-friendly and will implement a new software system that they anticipate will

help track cumulative disturbances (MEACC 2009).

149

Best Practice and Lessons Learned Case Study Cities of Bangor, Brewer, and Old Town, Maine River Revitalization Efforts

Like many cities throughout the country, the cities of Bangor and Brewer are

making concentrated efforts to revitalize their riverfronts by capitalizing on their

economic and recreational potential (BDN Editorial Board 2014). Proving their

commitment, both cities have recently updated their comprehensive plans with strategies

to drive development and recreational opportunities toward the Penobscot River

waterfront. However, as the Bangor Daily News (2014) reports, “commitment alone

hasn’t been enough to drive wholesale riverfront transformation…Developers have proposed condominiums, but they’ve been unable to pre-sell enough units to move ahead

with constructions. Efforts to entice restaurants to locate in the waterfront area have

come up short.” Despite their inability to generate large-scale economic development at

this time, both cities have succeeded in aesthetically transforming the riverfront, helping

to make the area a recreational destination “that adds to the quality of life” in both cities

(BDN Editorial Board 2014). Both Bangor and Brewer have invested in constructing and

maintaining walking paths along the Penobscot River.

Looking up the river to Old Town provides inspiration as to what can result from

investing in green infrastructure along the riverfront. The City tore down an abandoned paper plate factory and developed a park along the Penobscot riverfront. Since then, a business complex and new restaurant have opened on the river and another abandoned mill has been turned into housing for senior citizens (NRCM 2007). While Old Town only has the capacity to make land use decisions within its jurisdiction, they are looking regionally to draw on attractions and opportunities within the Penobscot River corridor that will stimulate their growth. Ron Harriman, Old Town’s Director of Economic

Development, believes their proximity to the University of Maine, Orono and the

Penobscot Nation provides Old Town with “some real qualities” that the City can build

150 on (WABI 2014). Mobilize Maine, an organization that works with Maine’s economic development districts, advocates for this type of regional economic development strategy in which a region’s assets are used as a foundation for future growth (Mobilize Maine

2014).

151

5.2.2 Public and Municipal Outreach and Education

Throughout this thesis it has been implied that public and municipal outreach will

need to be conducted throughout the plan formulation and plan implementation stages in

order to gain consensus on the vision and goals of the planning effort and to gain support

for the conservation actions that will need to be employed in order to achieve the

initiative’s vision and goals. This outreach will be particularly necessary in the B2B

region, where (1) some citizens, businesses, developers, and municipalities hold

reservation toward regional landscape conservation efforts, and where (2) these entities

may not be educated on conservation strategies, tools, and models and the benefits that

regional landscape conservation efforts can afford them (Richardson 2008). Continued

outreach and education can result in:

• willing landowners placing easements on or donating their property,

• municipalities adopting land use ordinances that promote smart growth,

• municipalities discovering how they can increase their planning capacity by partnering with land trusts and conservation organizations,

• timber companies, farmers, and commercial fishermen discovering how they can profit from partnering with land trusts (Richardson 2008).

As a prime example, in 2002, before the Great Northern Paper Company’s mill in

East Millinocket closed, they formed a partnership with TNC. Great Northern sold TNC

41,000 acres and placed an easement on another 200,000 acres of their forest land in exchange for TNC purchasing $50 million of the paper company’s debt (Legasse 2002).

This financing model, called a “debt for nature swap,” is a unique conservation tool that many entities do not know is available to them (Open Space Institute 2015). Conducting presentations for various stakeholders throughout the region during which strategies, tools, and models and their benefits are showcased will help garner support (TNC 2006).

The best practice case studies and the tables identifying and defining conservation tools

152

and models that are presented in the previous section of this Chapter should be

incorporated into B2B’s outreach and education materials. In addition, public presentations are a forum in which the B2B Initiative can understand the needs of the

community and integrate these needs into their initiative. After years of public presentations in which he received feedback, Lucas St. Clair changed his conservation

approach to include a proposal for both a national park and national recreation area in

order to address the needs of the snowmobiling community in Maine (Seelye 2014). The

use of websites and social media can also be used to facilitate outreach and education

campaigns.

Outreach may also bring forth partnerships and private and public funding

opportunities that are not as well-known (TNC 2006). In some cases, conservation

advocates have established family foundations that offer grants to support efforts like

B2B. Public outreach has the potential to link B2B with these private funders. Outreach

has produced partnerships between AMC and other conservation organizations, which in

turn has helped them formulate unusual funding strategies. For example, AMC partnered

with The Climate Trust in 2014 to sell carbon emissions credits from their Katahdin Iron

Works property. The money acquired from the sale was used to buy the Baker Mountain parcel, part of the Maine Woods Initiative (AMC 2014).

Lastly, public outreach and education can help build an ethic for conservation

(TNC 2006). Many times, regional landscape conservation initiatives will establish outdoor education programs to engage local youths and adults on topics concerning environmental protection. Outdoor classrooms are designed to connect children with their community and natural environment to learn the natural and social history of the place in which they live (Sherer 2006). Citizen science opportunities are geared toward both youths and adults as ways to promote science learning through participation in gathering data, making observations and contributions to research. Wildlands &

153

Woodlands, for example, hosts a Stewardship Science program that invites landowners to

monitor their forests in order to report specific changes to the woods over time

(Wildlands & Woodlands 2013). Another innovative public outreach and education

strategy utilized by the Ducktrap River Coalition in partnership with the Coastal

Mountains Land Trust, was writing and publishing a book, with professional photographs, that documents the methodology the Coalition took to conserve the

Ducktrap River watershed, while also providing scientific facts on the Atlantic salmon

that inhabit the river (Dickerson 2005).

5.3 Steps to Monitor and Evaluate the Plan

As this thesis’s literature review on strategic conservation planning points out, plan monitoring and evaluation is an important step in the planning process because it

helps assess the effectiveness of the initiative’s conservation actions and, at the same

time, B2B’s resource allocation decisions (TNC 2006). However, as also mentioned in

the literature review, this step of the planning process is one that has been a struggle

among the entire conservation community (Karieva, Groves, and Marvier 2014). Many

land trusts that work at the regional-scale are reporting that it is important to track both

quantitative and qualitative indicators and measures to ensure they are making progress

toward enhancing community wellbeing and a better economy, in addition to achieving

their land protection goals. For example, in addition to tracking acres of land protected,

the Land Conservancy of McHenry County in Illinois tracks their level of engagement

with the community through invitations “to sit on a village planning committee or write a

guest column in a newspaper” (Erickson 2015, 16). As their Executive Director states,

“These are soft measures that don’t fit nicely in a bar graph. The conservancy pays

attention to the bar graph, but want to acknowledge much more” (16).

Through review of regional landscape conservation initiatives, the Berkshire

Benchmarks program of the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission, serving 32

154 municipalities in Berkshire County, Massachusetts, stood out as a best practice in monitoring and evaluating regional plan strategies.

155

Best Practice Case Study Berkshire Benchmarks Plan Monitoring and Evaluation

In 2010, the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission developed the Sustainable

Berkshires Regional Plan with eight focus areas: Climate and Energy, Conservation and

Recreation, Economy, Food and Agriculture, Historic Preservation, Housing and

Neighborhoods, Infrastructure and Services, and Land Use. For each category, Berkshire

Benchmarks has established indicators with metrics to be tracked over time in order to

see if they are reaching established goals. The indicators are posted online so that

regional community members are able to view the progress the Commission and its

regional partners are taking to reach their goals. As an example, for Climate and Energy,

indicators include Vehicle Miles Traveled per day, CO2 Emissions, Emissions by Fuel

Type, Renewable Energy Production, and communities that have become Green

Communities (Berkshire Benchmarks 2013). Berkshire Benchmarks works with regional partners in order to collect the data necessary to track progress. When developing goals

for the B2B Initiative, (1) indicators and metrics should be established for each goal and

(2) a process and responsible party for collecting the data should be identified. This will

assist the B2B Initiative in tracking their progress toward achieving their multi-objective

conservation goals and will allow for adjustments to be made to conservation actions if

the indicators present inadequate results.

156

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS

This thesis has offered best practices and lessons learned, extracted from other regional landscape conservation plans and initiatives that have been implemented in regions similar to the Penobscot River corridor, in order to assist in the development of a strategic regional conservation plan for the B2B Initiative. Based on these best practices and lessons learned, recommended “action items” for the B2B Initiative to carry out within each of the subcategories that make up the strategic conservation planning process were generated. These action items, which serve as the next steps for the B2B Initiative to formulate, implement, monitor, and evaluate their plan, are summarized here in the following chart.

157

•Invite a diverse set of stakeholders who are regional experts to join the B2B planning team. •Utilize a personal approach to recruit less willing stakeholders. •Follow up with the organizers of the Wildland & Woodlands Initative to learn more about their engagement tactics. •Set up a university and muncipal outrach program to futher engage with these regional stakeholders. Assembling the •Designate a core group, or Executive Planning Team Committee, to carry momentum of the initative. •Set up committees and staff them with regional partners who are experienced in that focus area.

•Establish a vision with environmental, economic, cultural, and social objectives. •Involve the public in establishing goals and objectives. Forming a Vision, •Set indicators and metrics for each goal to ensure Goals, and Objectives they are measurable and acheiveable.

•Assemble GIS data layers that will help define conservation and community priority focus areas. •Determine the method (map, model, or both) that will be used as a planning tool and catalyst for implementation strategies. Using Maps and • To gain technical assistance, work or partner Models to Identify with other conservation organizations who have Priority Focus Areas established methodologies for mapping/modeling regional conservation priority focus areas.

158

•Explore and understand the various strategies, tools and models, including ownership and management options, available. •Strategically combine these techniques to form a conservation and economic development corridor. Employing •Work with municipalities to implement Multiobjective regulatory strategies and tools. Conservation Strategies •Research and apply for private and public & Tools grants to finance conservation.

•Conduct outreach and education consistently throughout plan formulation and implementation stages. •Highlight success stories from other initatives during public presentations. •Educate on the various types of strategies, tools, Public and Municipal and models available and the incentives and benefits they afford. Outreach and Education •Implement youth environmental education and citizen science programs.

•Use established quantitative and qualitative indicators and metrics for each goal to monitor progress. •Work with regional partners to collect data that informs the se indicators. Monitoring and •If necessary, alter strategies, tools, and models Evaluating to achieve goals.

159

Drawing from the above list, the following table provides more detailed information on immediate action that should be taken to initiate the development of a Bay to Baxter regional landscape-scale conservation plan.

Table 21 - Immediate Action Items

Action Item Timeframe for Estimated Cost Likelihood for Completion Success Form a Core Short-term Minimal High Planning Team Establish a Vision Short-term Minimal High and Goals Conduct Public Long-term Moderate High Outreach to Obtain Public Feedback on Vision and to Recruit Partners Inventory and Map Long-term High Moderate Conservation Lands within the B2B Planning Area and Conduct Public and Municipal Outreach to Strategically Set Priorities Areas for Conservation Action

160

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I

The following is a comprehensive list of regional conservation initiatives that

were originally collected for this thesis, prior to applying a definition of relevance for the

Penobscot River corridor (see Section 4.2, pages 45-54). The list is organized by the

source that was drawn upon to collect the initiatives. The chosen initiatives are indicated by an asterisk (*).

Source #1:

Richardson, Brett. (2008). Regional Landscape Conservation in Maine: Best Practices for Enhancing Quality of Place . Augusta, Maine: Maine State Planning Office.

• Mahoosuc Initiative • Penobscot Valley Community Greenprint* • Portland Trails • Cobscook Bay • Downeast Lakes Forestry Partnership • Ducktrap Coalition* • Kennebec Estuary Collaboration • Kennebec Highlands • Kennebec River Initiative • Mount Agamenticus to the Sea* • Mount Blue Region and Tumbledown Mountain • Sagadahoc Region Rural Resource Initiative • Schoodic to Schoodic Initiative* • Unity Wetlands* • Brunswick Smart Growth Overlay District* • Saco River Corridor Commission* • Appalachian Mountain Club 100-Mile Wilderness*

Source #2:

Highstead. 2014. Regional Conservation Partnerships (RCPs) December 2014. Retrieved on December 1, 2014 from: http://hfgis.fas.harvard.edu/flexviewers/RCPWebMap/

• Downeast Research and Education Network • Lower Penobscot Watershed Coalition • Kennebec Woodland Partnership • Twelve Rivers Collaborative • Mt. Agamenticus to the Sea Conservation Initiative* • Forest Works!*

161

• Upland Headwaters Alliance • Salmon Falls Watershed Collaborative • Great Bay Resource Protection Partnership • Mountain Conservancy Collaborative • High Peaks Initiative • Mahoosuc Initiative • Upland Headwaters Alliance • Quabbin to Cardigan Partnership • Berkshire Regional Planning Commission* • Connecticut River National Blueway*

Source #3:

McKinney, M., L. Scarlett, and D. Kemmis. (2010). Large Landscape Conservation: A Strategic Framework for Policy and Action (Policy Focus Report Code: PF026). Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

• The Blackfoot Challenge* • Crown of the Continent • Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative • Freedom to Roam • America’s Longleaf Pine Initiative • Platte River Recovery Implementation Program • Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor* • Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan • Las Cienegas National Conservation Area • Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Source #4:

Personal Attendance at the Acadian Program in Regional Conservation and Stewardship, July 27 – August 3, 2014.

• Chesapeake Conservancy* • Susquehanna River Heartland Coalition • Valles Caldera National Preserve* • Forest Society of Maine* • Katahdin Woods and Waters* • Penobscot River Revitalization*

Source #5:

Personal Attendance at the Land Trust Alliance Rally, September 18 – 20, 2014.

• Damariscotta River Association* • The Intertwine Alliance* • Wildlands & Woodlands* • Southern Maine Regional Planning Commission • PCC Farmland Trust

162

APPENDIX II

The following list includes participants interviewed for the Maine State Planning

Office report (2008) that is referenced throughout this thesis:

• Mark Berry –Downeast Lakes Land Trust • Stephen Keith –Downeast Lakes Land Trust • Karen Tilberg – Senior Policy Advisor, Governor’s Office • Dennis Phillips – Belgrade Regional Conservation Alliance • Jerry Bley – Creative Conservation • Tin Smith – Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve • Jeannie Demetircopolous – York Land Trust • Doreen MacGillis – York Land Trust • Katrina Van Dusen – Midcoast Council for Economic Development and Planning • Rod Melanson – Town of Topsham • Vanessa Lavesque – Town of Brunswick • Liz Hertz – Maine State Planning Office Coastal Program • Alan Stearns – Maine Department of Conservation Bureau of Parks and Lands • Jim Gooch – The Trust for Public Land • Jim Hinds – Bangor and Orono Land Trusts • Bryan Wentzell – Appalachian Mountain Club • Alix Hopkins – Turning Ideas into Action • Nan Cummings – Portland Trails • Robin Zinchuk – Bethel Area Chamber of Commerce • Dave Thompson – Bangor and Orono Land Trusts • John Noll – Penobscot Valley Council of Governments • Barbara Vickery – The Nature Conservancy, Maine • Alan Brooks – Quoddy Regional Land Trust • Evan Richert – Town of Orono • Barbara Welch – Frenchman Bay Conservancy • Jim Dow – Blue Hill Heritage Trust • Ben Emory – Schoodic to Schoodic Coordinating Committee • Steve Walker – Maine Beginning with Habitat Program • Scott Dickerson – Coastal Mountains Land Trust • Paul Dest – Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve • Kenneth Young Jr. – Kennebec Valley Council of Governments • Fergus Lea – Androscoggin Valley Council of Governments • Mick Rogers – Maine Department of Conservation • Jym St. Pierre – Restore: The North Woods • Stephanie Gilbert – Maine Department of Agriculture • Jim Mitchell – Mahoosuc Land Trust • Laura Sewell – Kennebec Estuary Coalition • Lucy Quimby – Bangor Land Trust • Ed Barrett – City of Bangor • Kate Williams – Northern Forest Canoe Trail

163

APPENDIX III

Methodology to Develop the Penobscot River corridor boundary (the B2B region)

The boundary of the Penobscot River corridor was set using Baxter State Park in

the north, and the Penobscot Bay in the south. The southern limit of Penobscot Bay was

determined by using longitude line 69, as indicated in the description of the Penobscot

Bay quadrangle by the USGS. A five-mile buffer was created around the Penobscot

River as it flows from Baxter State Park to Penobscot Bay. Those municipalities and

unincorporated townships that fell within the majority of the buffer zone (greater than

50%) were included in the Penobscot River corridor. If one of the municipalities or

townships that was within the buffer zone included conservation land, and that

conservation land passed over into an adjacent jurisdiction, that jurisdiction was also

included in the corridor boundary. Another buffer was created around the center of

Penobscot Bay, and those municipalities that were within five miles were included in the

corridor. Since the B2B vision defines Bangor as the region’s main service center and

Millinocket as a potential gateway community, ten mile buffers were drawn around these

municipalities, and those cities or towns that fell within the ten mile buffer were included

to help account for the economic gravitational pull that these areas may draw. All

municipalities included in the Penobscot River corridor are labeled on the detailed map below. Unincorporated townships are labeled on the map with the abbreviation UT. The

municipal level was designated as the unit to build the Penobscot River corridor since, as

this thesis has demonstrated, local government in Maine is the preferred governing

authority in the state and it is at this scale where land use planning decision-making is

executed.

164

165

166

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Reviewed Plans

Blackfoot Community Conservation Area Council. (2010). Blackfoot Community Conservation Area – Management Plan for the Core. Ovando, MT: Blackfoot Challenge. Retrieved from http://blackfootchallenge.org/Articles/wp- content/uploads/2010/08/BCCA-Management-Plan-for-the-Core.pdf

Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission and State Planning Council. (1990). Cultural Heritage and Land Management Plan for the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor . Providence, RI: State Planning Council. Retrieved from http://www.planning.ri.gov/documents/guide_plan/131.pdf

Chesapeake Conservancy and the Chesapeake Bay Commission. (2010). Conserving Chesapeake Landscapes: Protecting Our Investments, Securing Future Progress . Annapolis, MD: Chesapeake Bay Commission. Retrieved from http://www.chesbay.us/Publications/Conserving-Chesapeake-Landscapes.pdf

Dickerson, Scott. (2005). To Save a River – Documenting the Natural History, Restoration, and Preservation of the Ducktrap River. New York, NY: Aperture Foundation.

Foster, D., B. Donahue, D. Kittredge, K. Lambert, M. Hunter, B. Hall, L. Irland, R. Lilieholm, D. Orwig, A. D’Amato, E. Colburn, J. Thompson, J. Levitt, A. Ellison, W. Keeton, J. Aber, C. Cogbill, C. Driscoll, T. Fahey, and C. Hart. (2010). Wildlands & Woodlands: A Vision for the New England Landscape. Petersham, Massachusetts: Harvard Forest. Retrieved from http://www.wildlandsandwoodlands.org/sites/default/files/Wildlands%20and%20 Woodlands%20New%20England.pdf

Friends of Unity Wetlands. (2006). Unity Wetlands Conservation Plan: Sustaining our Wild and Working Landscape . Retrieved from http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs141p2_002767.pdf

Mt. Agamenticus to the Sea Initiative. (2005). A Conservation Plan for the Mt. Agamenticus to the Sea Conservation Initiative . Retrieved from http://www.mta2c.org/mta2c_conservation_plan.pdf

The Trust for Public Land. (2009). The Penobscot Valley Community Greenprint: A Regional Vision for Environmental and Economic Opportunity . Portland, Maine: The Trust for Public Land. Retrieved from https://www.tpl.org/sites/default/files/cloud.tpl.org/pubs/convis_me_PenobscotR eport.pdf

Walker, S., T. Smith, P. Schumacher, J. Czapiga, D. Sowers, J. Oman-Saltmarsh, and P. Dest. (2010). The Land Conservation Plan for Maine’s Piscataqua Region Watersheds . Durham, NH: Piscataqua Region Estuaries Partnership. Retrieved from http://www.prep.unh.edu/resources/pdf/the_land_conservation-BwH- etal.10.pdf

167

Best Practice and Lessons Learned Case Studies

AMC. (2015). Greater Moosehead Initiative: A New Phase for the Maine Woods Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.outdoors.org/conservation/wherewework/maine/mwi-faqs.cfm

AMC. (2015). Maine Woods Initiative . Retrieved from https://www.outdoors.org/conservation/wherewework/maine/

Berkshire Benchmarks. (2015). Berkshire Benchmarks . Retrieve from http://www.berkshirebenchmarks.org/

Choose Bangor. (2015). Bangor Riverfront . Retrieved from http://www.choosebangor.com/

Damariscotta River Association. (2015). About Us . Retrieved from http://www.damariscottariver.org/about-us/

Forest Society of Maine. (2015). FSM Conserved Lands . Retrieved from http://www.fsmaine.org/projects.shtml

Forest Works! (2015). Forest Works! Retrieved from http://www.forestworksme.org/

Frenchman Bay Conservancy. (2005). Schoodic to Schoodic Initiative . Retrieved from http://www.frenchmanbay.org/old/library/05_Fall.pdf

The Intertwine Alliance. (2013). The Intertwine Alliance . Retrieved from http://theintertwine.org/about

Katahdin Woods and Waters. (2015). Katahdin Woods and Waters Recreation Area . Retrieved from http://katahdinwoods.org/

Maine Coast Heritage Trust. (2015). Regional Accomplishments . Retrieved from http://www.mcht.org/land_protection/accomplishments/index.html

Saco River Corridor Commission. (2015). Saco River Corridor Commission. Retrieved from http://srcc-maine.org/

Town of Brunswick. (2010). Zoning Ordinance . Retrieved from http://www.brunswickme.org/wp- content/uploads/2012/01/Rural_Brunswick_Smart_Growth_Overlay_District- .pdf

USFWS. (2014, January 3). Connecticut River National Blueway. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/northeast/ctblueway.html

Valles Caldera National Preserve. (2015). Valles Caldera National Preserve . Retrieved from http://www.vallescaldera.gov/

168

Personal Communication

Field, D. (2015, April 1). Email interview.

Gabrielson, J. (2014, November 7). Phone interview.

Haubold, E. (2015, March 16). Phone interview.

Lilieholm, R. (2014, July 30). Personal interview.

Little, M. (2014, September 30). Personal interview.

Ulbrich, C. (2014, October 23). Email interview.

Works Cited

Abraham, A., K. Sommerhalder, and T. Abel. (2010). Landscape and well-being: a scoping study on the health-promoting impact of outdoor environments. Public Health , 55 , 59-69. Retrieved from http://hiddencorner.us/html/PDFs/Landscape_Wellbeing.pdf

Acheson, James M. (2006). Public Access to Privately Owned Land in Maine. Maine Policy Review , 15 (1), 18-30.

Ackley, L. (2011, April 7). Landowners seek to ‘retire’ Saco River Corridor Commission. The Bridgton News. Retrieved from http://www.bridgton.com/landowners-seek- to-retire-saco-river-corridor-commission/

Alger, Keith, Gustavo A.B. da Fonseca, Aaron Bruner, Russell Mittermeier, Claude Gascon, and Richard Rice. (2005). On Defying Nature’s End: The Case for Landscape-Scale Conservation. The George Wright Forum , 22 (1), 46-60.

American Planning Association. (2012). Planning and Urban Design Standards . Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Amundsen, Ole. (2007). Strategic Conservation Planning Student Guide for the Maine Coastal Protection Initiative . Washington, DC: The Land Trust Alliance. Retrieved from http://www.mltn.org/documents/Final%20Full%20Student%20Guide%20for%20 Rally07.pdf

Amundsen, Ole. (2011). Strategic Conservation Planning . Washington, DC: The Land Trust Alliance.

Amundsen, Ole and Susan Culp. (2013). Conservation in a Broader Context: Land Trusts and Land Use Planning. SavingLand , Winter, 14-19.

Appalachian LCC. (2015). Strategic Conservation Framework SHC . Retrieved from http://applcc.org/principles/strategic-habitat-conservation- framework-shc

169

Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC). (2009). Maine Woods Initiative Overview . Retrieved from https://www.outdoors.org/conservation/wherewework/maine/mwi-overview.cfm

Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC). (2014, July 22). Appalachian Mountain Club Announces Sale of Carbon Credits from Maine Ecological Reserve. Retrieved from http://www.outdoors.org/about/newsroom/press/2014/carbon-credit- sale.cfm

Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC). (2015, March 18). Appalachian Mountain Club’s Maine Woods Initiative Recognized with Governor’s Conference on Tourism Award . Retrieved from https://www.outdoors.org/about/newsroom/press/2015/tourism-award.cfm

Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC). (2015a, March 3). Appalachian Mountain Club Protects 4,311 Acres in Maine with Baker Mountain Purchase. Retrieved from http://www.outdoors.org/about/newsroom/press/2015/amc-purchases-baker- mountain.cfm

Baldwin, E., L. Kenefic, W. LaPage. (2007). Alternative Large-Scale Conservation Visions for Northern Maine: Interviews with Decision Leaders in Maine. Maine Policy Review , 16 (2), 78-91.

BDN Editorial Board. (2014, December 3). Bangor and Brewer waterfront changes don’t revitalize economy, but they add to quality of life. The Bangor Daily News . Retrieved from http://bangordailynews.com/2014/12/03/opinion/editorials/bangor-brewer- waterfront-changes-dont-revitalize-economy-but-they-add-to-quality-of-life/

Beginning with Habitat. (2003). Comprehensive Planning . Retrieved from http://www.beginningwithhabitat.org/toolbox/compplan_guide.html

Benedict, Mark and Edward McMahon. (2000). Green Infrastructure. Planning Commissioners Journal , 37 , 4-7.

Benedict, Mark and Edward McMahon. (2002). Green Infrastructure: Smart Conservation for the 21 st Century. Renewable Resources Journal , 20 (3), 12-17.

Benedict, Mark and Edward McMahon. (2006). Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and Communities. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Benke, A. and C. Cushing. (2005). Rivers of North America. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.

Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission. (2009, August). Heritage Corridor News. Washington, DC: National Park Service. Retrieved from http://www.nps.gov/blac/learn/news/upload/Commission%20News%2007%2009 .pdf

170

Boyd, James, Rebecca Epanchin-Biell, and Juha Siikamaki. (2012). Conservation Return on Investment Analysis (RFF DP 12-01). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1984709

Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program. (2006). Charting Maine’s Future: An Action Plan for Promoting Sustainable Prosperity and Quality Places. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/metro/pubs/maine.pdf

Coastal Mountains Land Trust. (2015). Volunteer Opportunities . Retrieved from http://www.coastalmountains.org/get_involved/volunteer.html

Dandurant, Karen. (2003). Joint effort saves pier from development. The Portsmouth Herald . Retrieved from http://www.mta2c.org/news_12.05.03_ports_herald.html

Daniels, Thomas and Mark Lapping. (2005). Land Preservation: An Essential Ingredient in Smart Growth. Journal of Planning Literature , 19 (3), 316-329. de Brun, C. (2007). The economic benefits of land conservation . San Francisco, CA: The Trust for Public Land.

Defenders of Wildlife. (2007). Coastal Mountains Land Trust: Ducktrap River Coalition (Living Lands Case Study #8). Retrieved from http://www.defenders.org/sites/default/files/publications/case_study_8_handout.p df

Department of Interior (DOI). (2004). Ducktrap River, Maine . Retrieved from http://www.doi.gov/partnerships/tools/stories/Ducktrap-River.cfm

Department of Interior (DOI). (2012). AMERICA’S GREAT OUTDOORS RIVERS: Secretary Salazar Creates National Blueways System, Designates Connecticut River and Its Watershed as First National Blueway. Retrieved from http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/AMERICAS-GREAT-OUTDOORS- RIVERS-Secretary-Salazar-Creates-National-Blueways-System-Designates- Connecticut-River-and-Its-Watershed-as-First-National-Blueway.cfm

De Vries, S., R.A. Verheij, P.P. Groenewegen, and P. Spreeuwenberg. (2003). Natural Environments – Healthy Environments? An Explanatory Analysis of the Relationship between Greenspace and Health. Environment and Planning , 35 (10), 1717-1731.

Douglas, I. (2005). Urban Greenspace and Mental Health (Discussion Paper). United Kingdom: UK MAB Urban Forum. Retrieved from http://www.psykinfo.regionsyddanmark.dk/dwn109162

EPA. (2015, March). Smart Growth and Open Space Conservation . Retrieved from http://www2.epa.gov/smart-growth/smart-growth-and-open-space-conservation

Erickson, D. (2015). Measuring Success: Land trusts combine old and new ways to gauge their progress. SavingLand , Winter, 14-17.

171

Fishell, Darren. (2015, March 27). Bangor would see new national park’s benefits. The rest of the region? Not so clear. The Bangor Daily News . Retrieved from http://bangordailynews.com/2015/03/27/the-point/bangor-would-see-new- national-parks-benefits-the-rest-of-the-region-not-so-clear/

Forest Society of Maine. (2015). West Branch Project . Retrieved from http://www.fsmaine.org/west_branch_campaign.shtml

Fox, James. (2011). A Policy Analysis of the Role of Working Land Conservation Easements Using Dedicated Lottery Funds . Bend, Oregon: Public Policy Consulting. Retrieved from http://www.oregon.gov/OWEB/docs/role_of_working_land_conservation_easem ents.pdf

Fitzsimons, J., J. Russell-Smith, G. James, T. Vigilante, G. Lipsett-Moore, J. Morrison, and M. Looker. (2012). Insights into the biodiversity and social benchmarking components of the Northern Australian fire management and carbon abatement programmes. Ecological Management & Restoration , 13 (1), 51-57.

Garcia, Robert and Michelle Kao. (2014, December 1). The San Gabriel Mountains: A National Monument for All. Parks & Recreation . Retrieved from http://www.parksandrecreation.org/2014/December/The-San-Gabriel-Mountains- A-National-Monument-for-All/

Gattuso, D. (2008). Conservation Easements: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly . Washington, DC: The National Center for Public Policy Research. Retrieved at http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA569.html

Golley, F.B. (1996). A history of the ecosystem concept in ecology: More than the sum of the parts . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Goltra, Edith. (2014). Fostering a Love of Land. SavingLand , Fall, 14-17.

Great Works Regional Land Trust. (2007, May). Maine’s Tree Growth and Open Space Laws . Retrieved from http://www.gwrlt.org/index.php/for-landowners/66-tree- growth-farm-open-space-/245-maines-tree-growth-and-farm-and-open-space- laws

Green Infrastructure Center, Inc. (2015, April). What is Green Infrastructure? Retrieved from http://www.gicinc.org/about.htm

Gregory, R., L. Failing, M. Harstone, G. Long, T. McDaniels, and D. Ohlson. (2012). Structured Decision Making: A Practical Guide to Environmental Management Choices. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

Groom, MJ., G.K. Meffe, and R.C. Carroll. (2005). Principles of Conservation Biology . Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Press.

GrowSmart Maine. (2012). Charting Maine’s Future: Making Headway. Augusta, Maine: GrowSmart Maine. Retrieved from http://www.growsmartmaine.org/sites/default/files/cmfMH_Final.pdf

172

Haughey, J. (2013, September 20). Compromising Over Hunting and Fishing Access Boosts Odds for New National Park in Maine . Retrieved from http://outdoorlife.com/blogs/gone-fishin/2013/09/compromise-over-hunting-and- fishing-access-boots-odds-new-national-park-m

Hawkins, V. and P. Selman. (2002). Landscape Scale Planning: Exploring Alternative Land Use Scenarios. Landscape and Urban Planning , 60 , 211-224.

Headwater Economics. (2012, December). Report Shows Economic Potential of a New Maine National Park. Retrieved from http://headwaterseconomics.org/land/reports/katahdin

Higgins, A.J. (2011, July 26). LePage Eyeing Ways to Downsize Maine State Planning Office . Retrieved from http://www.mpbn.net/News/MPBNNews/tabid/1159/ctl/ViewItem/mid/3762/Ite mId/17380/Default.aspx

Highstead. (2013). Changes to the Land: W&W Partner releases anticipated land-use scenarios report . Retrieved from http://www.wildlandsandwoodlands.org/news/changes-to-land-ww-partner- releases-anticipated-land-use-scenarios-report

Howard, E. (1985). Garden Cities of Tomorrow. Eastbourne, United Kingdom: Attic Books.

Island Institute. (2015). Sustainable Fishing Businesses . Retrieved from http://www.islandinstitute.org/program/marine-programs/sustainable-fishing- businesses

Jewell, S. (2014, January 3). Supporting Watershed Partnerships (Secretarial Order #3331). Washington, DC: Department of the Interior.

Kamerick, M. (2011, October 24). Study advocates putting Valles Caldera under National Park Service. Business Journal . Retrieved from http://www.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/news/2011/10/24/study-advocates- putting-valles-caldera.html?page=all

Kaplan, R. and S. Kaplan. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective . Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Kareiva, P., C. Groves, and M. Marvier. (2014). Review: The evolving linkage between conservation science and practice at The Nature Conservancy. Journal of Applied Ecology , 51 (5), 1137-1147.

Kuppuswamy, Hemavathy. (2009). Improving Health in Cities Using Green Infrastructure: A Review. FORUM Ejournal , 9, 63-76.

Lagasse, Mary Anne. (2002, August 28). GNP deal protects 241,000 acres; Nature Conservancy forges $50M land pact. The Bangor Daily News . Retrieved from http://archive.bangordailynews.com/2002/08/28/gnp-deal-protects-241000-acres- nature-conservancy-forges-50m-land-pact/

173

LandScope America. (2014). Defining a Vision of Success. Retrieved from http://www.landscope.org/focus/plan_projects/vision/

LandScope America. (2015). Ecoregions 101 . Retrieved from http://www.landscope.org/explore/natural_geographies/ecoregions/2/

Land Trust Alliance. (2004). Land Trust Standards and Practices . Washington, DC: The Land Trust Alliance. Retrieved from https://www.landtrustalliance.org/training/sp/lt-standards-practices07.pdf

Land Trust Alliance. (2015). Strategic Conservation. Retrieved from http://www.landtrustalliance.org/conservation/strategic-conservation

Land Trust Alliance. (2015a). Conservation Easements . Retrieved from http://www.landtrustalliance.org/conservation/landowners/conservation- easements

Land Use Planning Commission. (2013). Plans, Maps, & Data . Retrieved from http://www.maine.gov/dacf/lupc/plans_maps_data/index.shtml

Larose, Alyssa. (2011). Recreation/Nature-based Tourism in Rural Areas: Literature Review and Case Study. Greenfield, MA: Franklin Regional Council of Governments. Retrieved from http://frcog.org/wp- content/uploads/2014/04/RecreationNature-Based-Tourism-in-Rural-Areas- Literature-Review-and-Case-Study-.pdf

Lilieholm, R.J., Cronan, C.S., Johnson, M.L, Meyer, S.R., & Owen, Dave. (2012). Alternative Futures Modeling in Maine’s Penobscot River Watershed: Forging a Regional Identity for River Restoration (Lincoln Institute Product Code: WP12RL1). Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute for Land Policy.

Loreau, M., A. Downing, M. Emmerson, A. Gonzalez, J. Hughes, P. Inchausti, J. Joshi, J. Norberg, O. Sala. (2002). A new look at the relationship between diversity and stability. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning , 79-91.

Lyman, Martha. (2006). An Evaluation of the Mt. Agamenticus to the Sea Conservation Initiative: An Assessment of the Mt. Agamenticus to the Sea Conservation Initiative . Quebec-Labrador Foundation/ Atlantic Center for the Environment. Retrieved from http://www.mta2c.org/MtA_evaluation.pdf

Macquarrie, Brian. (2014, December 20). Closing of Maine papermaker ends a way of life. The Boston Globe . Retrieved from http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/12/20/bucksport-paper-mill-t here- tomorrow/6gfQpGSy5qbV3a1LIIp1GL/story.html

Mainebiz. (2015, March 6). Business Insider Ranks Maine 49 th . Retrieved from http://www.mainebiz.biz/article/20150306/NEWS0101/150309969/business- insider-ranks-maine-economy-49th

174

Maine Association of Conservation Commissions (MEACC). (2009). Rural Brunswick Smart Growth Project . Retrieved from http://www.meacc.net/achievements/brunswick_112809.pdf

Maine Audubon Society. (1997). What Conservation Looks Like in Maine . Retrieved from http://maineaudubon.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/MEAud-What- conservation-looks-like.pdf

Maine Audubon Society. (2001). The Economic Arguments for Conservation . Retrieved from http://maineaudubon.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/MEAud-Economic- arguments-for-conservation.pdf

Maine Audubon Society. (2002). Protecting Wildlife and Habitat in Maine . Retrieved from http://maineaudubon.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/MEAud-Primer-on- Federal-State-Environmental-Laws.pdf

MCHT. (2014). Conservation Funding . Retrieved from http://www.mltn.org/resources/conservation-funding.php

MCHT. (2015). Selling Land . Retrieved from http://www.mcht.org/land_protection/options/selling_land/index.html

MCHT. (2015a). Other Techniques . Retrieved from http://www.mcht.org/land_protection/options/other_techniques/index.html

Maine Coastal Program. (2013). Working Waterfront Initiative, Case Study: Protecting a Working Dock with a Conservation Easement . Retrieved from http://www.maine.gov/dacf/mcp/wwi/casestudies/casestudy_workingdock.htm

Maine Futures Community Mapper (MFCM). (2014). Project Overview . Retrieved from http://www.mainelandusefutures.org/about-project/project-overview/

Maine Legislature. (2015). Maine Revised Statues . Retrieved from http://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/

Maine Revenue Service. (2011, March). Current Use Taxation (PowerPoint slides). Retrieved from http://www.maine.gov/revenue/propertytax/propertytaxbenefits/currentusepp.pdf

Maine Sea Grant. (2015). Fisheries, Aquaculture, and Tourism . Retrieved from http://www.seagrant.umaine.edu/fisheries-tourism

McCrea, Nick. (2013, June 15). Why some bright young people leave Bangor and what might bring them back. The Bangor Daily News . Retrieved from http://bangordailynews.com/2013/06/15/news/bangor/why-some-bright-young- people-leave-bangor-and-what-might-bring-them-back/

McDonald, L., W. Allen, M. Benedict, and K. O’Connor. (2005). Green Infrastructure Plan Evaluation Frameworks. Journal of Conservation Planning , 1(1), 12-43.

175

McKinney, M. and S. Johnson. (2009). Working across boundaries: People, nature, and regions . Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Mell, I.C. (2007). Green Infrastructure Planning: What are the costs for Health and Well- being? Journal of Environment, Culture, Economic and Social Sustainability , 3(5), 117-124.

Mell, I.C. (2008). Green Infrastructure: Concepts and Planning. FORUM Ejournal , 8, 69- 80.

Miller, K. and Koenig, S. (2012, May 15). Groups tout completion of historic 363,000- acre Plum Creek conservation deal. The Bangor Daily News . Retrieved from http://bangordailynews.com/2012/05/15/news/state/plum-creek-conservation- groups-to-announce-363000-acre-easement-near-moosehead-lake/

Miller, K. and S. Mistler. (2015, January 20). Plan to tax nonprofits could be costly to Maine’s land-conservation trusts. Portland Press Herald . Retrieved from http://www.pressherald.com/2015/01/20/plan-to-tax-nonprofits-applies-to- maines-land-conservation-trusts/

Mobilize Maine. (2014). Our Purpose . Retrieved from http://mobilizemaine.org/our-purpose/

Naeem, S., K. Hakansson, J.H. Lawton, M.J. Crawley, L.J. Thompson. (1996). Biodiversity and Plant Productivity in a Model Assemblage of Plant Species. Oikos, 76 (2), 259-264.

National Parks Traveler. (2015, January 22). National Park Service Starting Process to Establish Valles Caldera National Preserve. Retrieved from http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2015/01/national-park-service-starting- process-establish-valles-caldera-national-preserve26183

National Recreation and Park Association. (2010). Synopsis of 2010 Research Papers: The Key Benefits . Ashburn, VA: NRPA. Retrieved from http://www.nrpa.org/uploadedFiles/nrpa.org/Publications_and_Research/Researc h/Papers/Synopsis-of-Research-Papers.pdf

National Recreation and Park Association. (2015, March). Impacting Communities . Retrieved from http://www.nrpa.org/About-NRPA/Impacting-Communities/

Natural Resources Council of Maine (NRCM). (2007, January 10). Linking Rivers and Economic Development . Retrieved from http://www.nrcm.org/projects-hot- issues/woods-wildlife-and-wilderness/linking-rivers-and-economic-development/

176

Nislow, Keith, Christian Marks, and Kimberly Lutz. (2010). Chapter 6: Aquatic Conservation Planning at a Landscape Scale. In S. Trombulak and R. Baldwin (Eds.), Landscape-scale Conservation Planning (99-120). New York, New York: Springer.

Noss, R.F. (1993). Wildlife Corridors. Ecology of Greenways . 43-68.

Open Space Institute. (2015). Katahdin Forest . Retrieved from https://secure2.convio.net/osi/site/SPageServer?pagename=Project_CFP_Norther nForest_Katahdin_Forests

Osborne, Jennifer. (2014, October 8). Tax-exempt nonprofits a vexation for town officials. The Ellsworth American . Retrieved from http://www.ellsworthamerican.com/maine-news/nonprofits-and-taxes-focus-of- discussion-in-blue-hill

Penobscot River Restoration Trust (PRRT). (2015). The Project . Retrieved from http://www.penobscotriver.org/content/4003/the-project

Perlman, Dan and Jeffrey Milder. (2005). Practical Ecology . Washington, DC: Island Press.

Perry, Donna. (2015, Januay 8). Franklin County to seek stakeholder input on proposed TIF amendment. Franklin Sun Journal . Retrieved from http://www.sunjournal.com/news/franklin/2015/01/08/franklin-county-seek- stakeholders-input-proposed-tif-amendment/1640119

Pina, Alisha. (2014, December 3). Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor could soon become national park. The Providence Journal . Retrieved from, http://www.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/content/20141203-blackstone- river-valley-national-heritage-corridor-could-soon-become-national-park.ece

Pidot, Jeff. (2011). Conservation Easement Reform: As Maine Goes Should the Nation Follow? Law and Contemporary Problems , 74 (1), 1-27.

Pott, Thomas and Allan Marsinko. (1998). Developing Naturally: An Exploratory Process for Nature-based Community Tourism. Clemson, South Carolina: Clemson University.

Pulliam, H.R. and B.J. Danielson. (1991). Sources, sinks, and habitat selection: a landscape perspective on population dynamics. American Naturalist , 137 , 50-66.

Quimby, Beth. (2012, February 6). Group’s goal: Protect working forest. Portland Press Herald . Retrieved from http://www.pressherald.com/2012/02/06/goal-protect- woodlands_2012-02-06/

Randolph, J. (2004). Environmental Land Use Planning and Management . Washington, DC: Island Press.

177

Rankin, J. (2012, March 25). Protecting Maine’s forest landscape through conservation easements. Forests for Maine’s Future. Retrieved from http://www.forestsformainesfuture.org/fresh-from-the-woods-journal/the-forest- society-of-maine.html

Rankin, J. (2014, July 28). Maine is a leader in conservation easements. Forests for Maine’s Future . Retrieved from http://www.forestsformainesfuture.org/fresh- from-the-woods-journal/maine-is-a-leader-in-conservation-easements.html

Rapport, D.J. (1995). Ecosystem Health: more than metaphor? Environmental Values , 4, 287-309.

Rasker, R., B. Alexander, J. van den Noort, and R. Carter. (2004). Prosperity in the 21 st century west: The role of protected public lands. Tuscon, Arizona: Sonoran Institute. Retrieved from http://sonoraninstitute.org/library/recoreading/doc_download/575-prosperity-in- the-21st-century-west-high-resolution.html

Reeder, Richard and Dennis Brown. (2005). Recreation, Tourism, and Rural Well-Being (Economic Research Report Number 7). Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture.

Reilly, C.J., and Renski, H. (2007). Place and Prosperity: Quality of Place as an Economic Driver. Maine Policy Review , 17 (1), 12-25.

Robinson, Sherry. (2014, December 26). Valles Caldera’s grand experiment comes to an end. The Daily Times . Retrieved from http://www.daily-times.com/farmington- opinion/ci_27211074/column-valles-calderas-grand-experiment-comes-an-end

Rosenbaum, Walter. (2003). Achieving Sustainable Development: The Challenge of Governance Across Social Scales . Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Russell, Diane. Integrated Landscape Scale Conservation: The Four-S Approach (Draft). Washington, DC: USAID. Retrieved from http://www.fcmcglobal.org/documents/bangkok/Four_S_Approach.pdf

Salazar, K. (2010). Addressing the impacts of climate change on America’s water, land, and other natural and cultural resources (Secretarial Order No. 3289). Washington, DC: Department of the Interior.

Sambides, Nick. (2015, March 11). ‘This park will not happen’: Opponents slam North Woods national park proposal. The Bangor Daily News . Retrieved from http://bangordailynews.com/2015/03/11/news/penobscot/this-park-will-not- happen-opponents-slam-north-woods-national-park-proposal/

Sanderson, Eric, Kent Redford, Amy Vedder, Peter Coppolillo, and Sarah Ward. (2001). A conceptual model for conservation planning based on landscape species requirements. Landscape and Urban Planning , 58 (2002), 41-56.

178

Sarnacki, Aislinn. (2013, March 13). Bangor-area towns to discuss new regional trail system. The Bangor Daily News . Retrieved from http://bangordailynews.com/2013/03/13/outdoors/bangor-area-t owns-to- discuss-new-regional-trail-system/

Schwartz, A., E. Theberge, and E. Sinnott. (2007). The State of Land and Resource Use in the Unorganized Territory in Maine . Waterville, Maine: Colby College. Retrieved from http://www.colby.edu/environ/courses/ES493/stateofmaine2007/papers/SOME07 _ResourceAccess.html

Sedgwick, Carolyn. (2014). Strategic Conservation Planning in Maine’s Bagaduce River Watershed (Unpublished master thesis). Duke University, North Carolina.

Seelye, K. (2014, January 9). National Park Proves a Hard Gift to Give. The New York Times , A11. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/10/us/a-national- park-for-maine-proves-a-hard-gift-to-give.html?_r=2

Sherer, Paul. (2006). The Benefits of Parks: Why American Needs More City Parks and Open Space . San Francisco, CA: The Trust for Public Land.

Snyder, Robert. (2011). Toward a Working-Waterfront Ethic: Preserving Access to Maine’s Coastal Economy, Heritage, and Local Seafood. Maine Policy Review , 20 (1), 79-86.

Talberth, John and L. Yonavjak. (2011). Current Use Valuation Programs: Property Tax Incentives for Preserving Local Benefits of Forests (Southern Forests for the Future Incentive Series, Issue Brief 5). Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Retrieved from http://www.seesouthernforests.org/files/sff/wri_current_use_valuation.pdf

The Intertwine Alliance. (2012). Regional Conservation Strategy . Retrieved from http://theintertwine.org/RegionalConservationStrategy

The Nature Conservancy. (2006). Conservation by Design: A Strategic Framework for Mission Success . Arlington, Virginia: The Nature Conservancy. Retrieved from http://www.nature.org/science-in-action/conservation-by-design/cbd.pdf

The Nature Conservancy. (2012). 363,000 Acres of Moosehead Lake Region Conserved . Retrieved from http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/maine/ne wsroom/363000-acres-of-moosehead-lake-region-conserved.xml

The Nature Conservancy. (2015). Ecoregional Plans . Retrieved from https://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationByGeography/NorthAmerica /UnitedStates/edc/reportsdata/terrestrial/ecoregional/Pages/default.aspx

The Nature Conservancy. (2015a). Conservation Easements . Retrieved from http://www.nature.org/about-us/private-lands-conservation/conservation- easements/what-are-conservation-easements.xml

179

Thompson, J., K. Fallon Lambert, D. Foster, M. Blumstein, E. Broadbent, and A. Zambrano. (2014). Changes to the Land: Four Scenarios for the Future of the Massachusetts Landscape. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Retrieved from http://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/sites/harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/files/Chan ges%20to%20the%20Land%20-%20final%20report%20-%20Jan%202014.pdf

Thornburgh, Eric. (2013, February 28). Maine Voices: Maine Water Co. appreciates state’s reverence for a critical resource. Portland Press Herald . Retrieved from http://www.pressherald.com/2013/02/28/maine-water-co_-appreciates-states- reverence-for-a-critical-resource_2013-02-28/

Tone, Wolfe. (2014). Leveraging Private Sector Investments and Public Funds to Support Smart Growth Through the Lens of Greenprinting (PowerPoint slides). Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/growsmart/wolfe-tone

Town of Holden. (2010). Holden Open Space Plan . Retrieved from http://www.holdenmaine.com/vertical/sites/%7BF485F62D-81A7-489A-ACF6- 6CF5E665D80F%7D/uploads/Holden-Open-Space- Plan_FinalMay2010%281%29.pdf

Trombulak, S. and R. Baldwin. (2010). Introduction: Creating a Context for Landscape- Scale Conservation Planning. In S. Trombulak and R. Baldwin (Eds.), Landscape-scale Conservation Planning (1-16). New York, New York: Springer.

Turner, M.G. (1989). Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics , 20 , 171-191.

Tzoulas, Konstantinos, Kalevi Korpela, Stephen Venn, Vesa Yli-Pelkonen, Aleksandra Kazmierczak, Jari Niemela, and Phillip James. (2007). Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A Review. Landscape and Urban Planning. 81 (2007), 167-178.

Ulrich, R.S. (1991). Stress Recovery During Exposure to Natural and Urban Environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology , 11 (3), 201-230.

USFWS. (2014). Our Conservation Approach . Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/landscape-conservation/shc.html

USFWS. (2015). Landscape Conservation Cooperatives . Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/landscape-conservation/lcc.html

Vail, David. (2007). Tourism Strategy for the Maine Woods: A Big Push to World Class. Maine Policy Review , 16 (2), 104-115.

Van Allen, Jennifer. (2014, September 18). Steady hand holds Maine lobster industry’s fate. Portland Press Herald . Retrieved from http://www.pressherald.com/2014/09/18/stonington-lobsterman-markets-maines- trappings-of-success/

WABI. (2014, November 14). Old Town to Revitalize Downtown . Retrieved from http://wabi.tv/2014/11/14/old-town-revitalize-downtown/

180

Weber, M. (2015). Caves, Commons, & Conservation: Tips for Handling Specialty Easements. SavingLand , Winter, 18-23.

Weiss-Tisman, Howard. (2014, January 7). Connecticut River program ends. Brattleboro Reformer . Retrieved from http://www.reformer.com/localnews/ci_24857984/connecticut-river-program- ends

Wildlands & Woodlands. (2013). Stewardship Science . Retrieved from http://www.wildlandsandwoodlands.org/science-initiatives/stewardship-science

Williams, Jamie. (2011). Large Landscape Conservation: A View from the Field (Lincoln Institute Product Code: WP11JW1). Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

181