DOCSLIB.ORG

Town of Penobscot Maine Comprehensive Plan Penobscot Comprehensive Planning Committee

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Town of Penobscot Maine Comprehensive Plan Penobscot Comprehensive Planning Committee The University of Maine DigitalCommons@UMaine Maine Town Documents Maine Government Documents 1997 Town of Penobscot Maine Comprehensive Plan Penobscot Comprehensive Planning Committee Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/towndocs Repository Citation Penobscot Comprehensive Planning Committee, "Town of Penobscot Maine Comprehensive Plan" (1997). Maine Town Documents. 8348. https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/towndocs/8348 This Plan is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maine Town Documents by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UMaine. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PENOBSCOT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, 1997 Prepared by the Penobscot Comprehensive Planning Committee: Richard Washburn, Chair James Climo Jane Crossen Christine Gelinas David Gelinas Tad Goodale Gloria Siegel Leo Siegel Virginia Tetzel John Tetzel The committee acknowledges the invaluable assistance of Sherman H. Perkins and dedicates this plan to his memory. With technical assistance from the Hancock County Planning Commission. Introduction A comprehensive plan is an advisory document, which reflects a town's desired future. It consists of an inventory and analysis of current conditions; goals, objectives and policies; and implementation measures. Overall, it identifies current problems and opportunities that the town faces and discusses what is expected to happen in Penobscot over the next five to ten years. While the policies are intended to set a direction for Penobscot, they are meant as general guidelines and must be reviewed regularly to see if any modifications are needed to address unanticipated changes. The plan can be used by the selectmen, planning board, and other town groups to guide their decisions and provide continuity in town policy. It can also be used to help Penobscot seek funding from various state and federal grant programs. While the plan is the legal basis of any changes to zoning and other land use ordinances, all such changes must be voted upon at a town meeting and require separate public hearings before any vote. Residents are reminded that planning is an on-going process. This plan should be reviewed annually to see if its assumptions are still valid. A more thorough review may be needed in five y e a r s . NOTE: This plan is in draft form until adopted at town meeting. TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTIONS PAGE Introduction ...... ........................................ i SECTION I: INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS A. Population A.l Purpose ................................................. 1 A.2 Key Findings and Issues ................................. i A. 3 Public Opinion Survey Results ........................... 1 A.4 Historical Trends ....................................... 1 A. 5 Current Conditions ....................................... 4 A .6 Seasonal Population ................................... 7 A. 7 Institutional Population ................................. 7 A. 8 Projected Population ................................... 7 B . Economy B. 1 Purpose ................................................. 1 B.2 Key Findings and Issues ................................. 1 B.3 Community Survey Results ............................... 1 B * 4 Recent Employment T r e n d s .......................... • * 1 B.5 Projected Future Employment and Regional Issues .... 7 C. Housing C.l Purpose ...................... ...... .......... 1 C.2 Findings and Key Issues . ................ 1 C.3 Public Opinion Survey Results ..... ............... 1 C.4 Recent Housing Trends ................................. 1 C.5 Affordable Housing ..................................... 8 C.6 Dwelling Unit Projections ........................... 11 C.7 Regional Housing Issues . ........................... 12 D. Transportation and Roads D.l Introduction . .................................... D.2 Key Findings and Issues .............................. D.3 Community Survey Results .............................. D.4 Administrative Classification of Roads ................ D.5 Functional Classification of Roads .................... D.6 Road Conditions ...................................... D . 7 Usage and Capacity of Roads ......................... D.8 Parking .............................................. D.9 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities .................... D.10 Public Transportation Facilities and Services ........ D.ll Airports .............................................. D.12 Rail Service .......................................... D.13 Local Transportation Issues .......................... D.14 Regional Transportation Issues ........................ \0«000000(»'J^*iWHHHH E. Public Facilities E . 1 Purpose ................................................. 1 E.2 Key Findings and Issues ............................... 1 E.3 Public Opinion Survey Results ......................... 1 E.4 Town Government ......................................... 1 E.5 Solid Waste Disposal ................................... 2 E.6 Fire Protection ......................................... 3 E.7 Police Protection ................................. 6 E .8 Ambulance ............................................... 7 E.9 Libraries and Cultural Facilities .'..................... 7 SECTIONS PAGE E . 10 Education .................. 8 E.ll Town Buildings....................................... 10 E.12 Public W o r k s ......................................... 10 E. 13 Health Care .................. 11 F. Recreation F. l Introduction ........................................... 1 F. 2 Key Findings and Issues ............................. 1 F.3 Public Opinion Survey Results ........................ 1 F.4 Current Recreational Resources ......................... 1 F.5 Current and Future Adequacy of Penobscot's Recreational Resources ............................................ 3 F. 6 Open Space ............................................... 6 G. Marine Resources G. 1 Introduction............................................. 1 G.2 . Key Findings and Issues .............................. 1 G.3 Community Survey Results ............................... 1 G.4 Marine Resource Areas . .......................... 1 G.5 Public Access to the S h o r e ............................... 4 G.6 Water-Dependent U s e s ..................................... 5 G.7 Harbors & Marinas ....................................... 6 G .8 Effectiveness of Existing Measures to Protect and Preserve Marine Resources ............................ 7 G. 9 Regional Marine Resource Issues ....................... 7 H. Water Resources H . 1 Purpose ................................................. 1 H.2 Key Findings and Issues ................................. 1 H.3 Public Opinion Survey Results ......................... 1 H .4 Surface Water Resources ............................... 1 H.5 Ground Water Resources ................................. 4 H. 6 Future Adequacy of Penobscot's Water Resources ........... 6 H. 7 Adequacy of Existing Measures to Protect and Preserve Significant Water Resources .......................... 6 H. 8 Regional Issues .................... 6 I. Natural Resources I. 1 Introduction............................................. 1 1.2 Key Findings and Issues .................. ...... 1 1.3 Public Opinion Survey Results ........................ 1 1.4 A Summary of Critical Natural Resources .............. 2 1.5 Scenic Resources ...................................... 5 1.6 Assessment of Threats to Penobscot's Natural and Scenic Resources .................. 6 1.7 Assessment of Existing Efforts to Protect and Preserve Penobscot's Natural and Scenic Resources . 7 1.8 Regional Issues ...................................... 7 J. Agriculture and Forest Resources J . 1 Purpose ................................................. 1 J.2 Key Findings and Issues ................................. 1 J.3 Public Opinion Survey Results ......................... 1 J.4 Agricultural Resources ................................. 1 J.5 Forest Resources ....................................... 3 J.6 An Analysis of Threats to Forest Land from Projected Development .......................................... 5 J.7 Adequacy of Existing Measures to Protect Forest Land . 5 SECTIONS PAGE K. Historic and Archaeological Resources K.l Purpose ........................ .......... 1 K.2 Key Findings and Issues .................. 1 K.3 Public Opinion Survey Results ............ 1 K.4 Historical Background .................... 1 K.5 Archaeological and Historical Resources . - 5 K.6 Threats to Penobscot's Historical Resources 6 K . 7 Assessment of Current Protection Measures 6 L. Land Use L. l Purpose ............................... • 1 L.2 Key Findings and Issues .................. 1 L.3 Public Opinion Survey Results ............ 1 L.4 Major Categories of Land Use .............. 1 L.5 Land Use Patterns ........................ 3 L .6 Recent Land Use Changes .................. 5 L.7 Areas Suitable for Growth ................ 6 L. 8 . Projected Land Acreage Needed for Development 7 M. Fiscal Capacity M . 1 Purpose .................................. 1 M . 2 Key Findings and Issues .......... .. 1 M.3 Public Opinion Survey Results ............ 1 M. 4 Valuation and Tax Assessment ............. 1 M . 5 Current and Future Revenue T r e n d s ....... 6 M . 6 Current and Future Expenditure Trends . 9 M. 7 Municipal Debt and Capital Financing .... 10 N. Summary N.l Key Issues and Concerns .................. 1 N.2 Population .................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Up and Up: River Herring in Eastern Maine
    DOWNEAST FISHERIES PARTNERSHIP 2019 Up and up: River Herring in Eastern Maine PREPARED BY Anne Hayden, Medea Steinman, and Rachel Gorich This report is also available online at: downeastfisheries.org OUR PARTNERS coa.edu downeastinstitute.org mainesalmonrivers.org coastalfisheries.org mcht.org mainefarmlandtrust.org seagrant.umaine.edu manomet.org sunrisecounty.org wccog.net Contents 2 Introduction 2 Challenges for River Herring 4 What can be done? 5 What are River Herring? 6 Benefits of River Herring? 7 Managment 9 Status in 2018 11 Restoration Activities in Eastern Maine 14 Case Studies in River Herring Restoration 14 Bagaduce River 17 Patten Stream 17 Union River OUR PARTNERS 18 Narraguagus River 18 East Machias River 21 Orange River 21 Pennamaquan River 22 St. Croix River 23 Looking Ahead DOWNEAST FISHERIES parTNERSHIP / UP AND UP: RIVER HerrING IN EASTERN MAINE 1 Introduction River herring runs in eastern Maine are coming back! A string of successful projects, from the opening of the St. Croix fishway to the renewal of commercial fishing on Card Mill Stream in Franklin, have fueled growing momentum for restoration of rivers and streams, big and small. This report is an update on the status of river herring runs in eastern Maine. It describes the value of river herring and some of the many projects underway to allow river herring to swim upstream to their spawning habitat. Because river herring are a keystone species in freshwater and marine systems—and are so responsive to restoration efforts—they have become a focus of the Downeast Fisheries Partnership effort to restore fisheries in eastern Maine.
    [Show full text]
  • Shellfish Harvesting Area Classification-Notification of Changes
    S T A T E O F M A I N E D E P A R T M E N T O F M A R I N E R E S O U R C E S 2 1 S T A T E H O U S E S T A T I O N A U G U S T A, M A I N E 0 4 3 3 3 - 0 0 2 1 JANET T. MILLS PATRICK C. KELIHER GOVERNOR COMMISSIONER Shellfish Harvesting Area Classification-Notification of Changes October 18, 2020 This notice is in effect until repealed or replaced Ladies and Gentlemen: Under the authority of 12 M.R.S.A. § 6172; the Commissioner has made the following change to Area No. 500, Maine Coast Flood Closure: This notice reopens the Bagaduce River and from Eggemoggin Reach to Morgan Bay due to water quality returning to approved standards. Martin Pt (Friendship) to the Weskeag River, eastern Penobscot Bay, and from the Union River Bay to the Rt. 3 bridge in Trenton remain closed. All existing pollution and biotoxin closures remain in effect. The boundary descriptions of the area are as follows (struck text is being removed and underlined text is being added): Effective immediately, because of pollution from heavy rainfall, it shall be unlawful to dig, take or possess any clams, quahogs, oysters, mussels, whole or roe-on scallops from the shores, flats and waters; East of a line beginning at Martin Point (Friendship) running south to the limits of Maine territorial waters; AND south of a line beginning at the southern tip of Spaulding Island (South Thomaston) running west to the mainland shore and running east to the southern tip of Greens Island (Vinalhaven) then running northeast to the southern tip of Lane’s Island (Vinalhaven): AND east of a line beginning at Telegraph Point (North Haven) running south to Calf Point (Vinalhaven); AND east of a line beginning at Pendleton Point (Islesboro) running southwest to Crabtree Point (North Haven); AND south of a line beginning at Turtle Head (Islesboro) running southeast to Sawyer Pt (Cape Rosier); AND west of the Deer Isle Bridge (Sargentville/Deer Isle); AND south of the N.
    [Show full text]
  • A Chapter in Penobscot History
    The Rebirth of a Nation? A Chapter in Penobscot History NICHOLAS N. SMITH Brunswick, Maine THE EARLIEST PERIOD The first treaty of peace between the Maine Indians and the English came to a successful close in 1676 (Williamson 1832.1:519), and it was quickly followed by a second with other Indians further upriver. On 28 April 1678, the Androscoggin, Kennebec, Saco and Penobscot went to Casco Bay and signed a peace treaty with commissioners from Massachusetts. By 1752 no fewer than 13 treaties were signed between Maine Indians negotiating with commissioners representing the Colony of Massachu­ setts, who in turn represented the English Crown. In 1754, George II of England, defining Indian tribes as "independent nations under the protec­ tion of the Crown," declared that henceforth only the Crown itself would make treaties with Indians. In 1701 Maine Indians signed the Great Peace of Montreal (Havard [1992]: 138); in short, the French, too, recognized the Maine tribes as sov­ ereign entities with treaty-making powers. In 1776 the colonies declared their independence, terminating the Crown's regulation of treaties with Maine Indians; beween 1754 and 1776 no treaties had been made between the Penobscot and England. On 19 July 1776 the Penobscot, Passamaquoddy, Maliseet and Micmac Indi­ ans acknowledged the independence of the American colonies, when a delegation from the tribes went to George Washington's headquarters to declare their allegiance to him and offered to fight for his cause. John Allan, given a Colonel's rank, was the agent for the Passamaquoddy, Maliseet and Micmac, but refused to work with the Penobscot, ..
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of Hancock County, Maine Samuel Wasson
    The University of Maine DigitalCommons@UMaine Maine History Documents Special Collections 1878 Survey of Hancock County, Maine Samuel Wasson Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mainehistory Part of the United States History Commons Repository Citation Wasson, Samuel, "Survey of Hancock County, Maine" (1878). Maine History Documents. 37. https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mainehistory/37 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maine History Documents by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UMaine. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SURVEY OF HANCOCK COUNTY. A SURVEY OF HANCOCK COUNTY, MAINE BY SAMIUEL WASSON. MEMBER OF STATE BOARD OK AGRICULTURE. AUGUSTA: SPRAGUE, OWEN A NASH, PRINTERS TO THE STATE. 1878. PREFACE. At the meeting of the Board of Agriculture held at Calais. a resolution was passed, urging the importance to our agri­ cultural literature of the publication of surveys of the differ­ ent counties in the State, giving brief notes of their history, industrial resources and agricultural capabilities ; and direct­ ing the Secretary to procure such contributions for the annual reports. In conformity with this resolution, and also as ear­ ning out the settled policy of the Board in this respect— evidences of which are found in the publication of similar reports in previous volumes—I give herewith a Survey of the County of Hancock, written by a gentleman who has been a member of the Board of Agriculture, uninterruptedly, from its first organization, and who is in every way well fitted for the work, which he has so well performed.
    [Show full text]
  • Nonpoint Source Priority Watersheds List MARINE WATERS
    Maine Department of Environmental Protection February 2019 Nonpoint Source Priority Watersheds List MARINE WATERS Impaired* Marine Waters Priority List (34 marine waters) Marine Water Area/Town Priority List Reasoning Anthoine Creek & Cove South Portland Negative Water Quality Indicators (FOCB) Broad Cove Cushing DMR/NPS Threat Bunganuc Creek Brunswick CBEP Priority Water Cape Neddick River York MS4 Priority Water Churches Rock So. Thomaston DMR/NPS Threat Egypt Bay Hancock/Franklin DMR/NPS Threat Goosefare Bay Kennebunkport MHB Priority Water, MS4 Priority Water Harpswell Cove Brunswick CBEP Priority Water Harraseeket River Freeport DMR/NPS Threat Hutchins Cove Bagaduce River / DMR/NPS Threat Northern Bay (Penobscot) Hyler Cove Cushing DMR/NPS Threat Kennebunk River Kennebunk MHB Priority Water Little River and Bay Freeport CBEP Priority Water Littlefield Cove Bagaduce River / DMR/NPS Threat Northern Bay (Penobscot) Maquoit Bay Brunswick CBEP Priority Water Martin Cove Lamoine DMR/NPS Threat Medomak River Estuary Waldoboro DMR/NPS Threat Mill Cove South Portland Negative Water Quality Indicators Mill Pond/Parker Head Phippsburg DMR/NPS Threat Mussell Cove Falmouth CBEP Priority Water, DMR/NPS Threat North Fogg Point Freeport CBEP Priority Water Northeast Creek Bar Harbor DMR/NPS Threat Oakhurst Island Harpswell CBEP Priority Water Ogunquit River Estuary Ogunquit MHB Priority Water, DMR/NPS Threat Pemaquid River Bristol DMR/NPS Threat Salt Pond Blue Hill/Sedgwick DMR/NPS Threat, MERI Scarborough River Estuary Scarborough DMR/NPS Threat Spinney Creek Eliot MS4 Priority Water, Negative Water Quality Indicators Spruce Creek Kittery MS4 Priority Water, Negative Water Quality Indicators Page 1 of 2 MDEP NPS Priority Watersheds List – MARINE WATERS February 2019 Marine Water Area/Town Priority List Reasoning Spurwink River Scarborough MHB Priority Water, DMR/NPS Threat St.
    [Show full text]
  • Interpreting Penobscot Indian Dispossession Between 1808 and 1835 Jacques Ferland
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Maine Maine History Volume 43 Article 3 Number 2 Reconstructing Maine's Wabanaki History 8-1-2007 Tribal Dissent or White Aggression?: Interpreting Penobscot Indian Dispossession Between 1808 and 1835 Jacques Ferland Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/ mainehistoryjournal Part of the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Ferland, Jacques. "Tribal Dissent or White Aggression?: Interpreting Penobscot Indian Dispossession Between 1808 and 1835." Maine History 43, 2 (2007): 124-170. https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mainehistoryjournal/vol43/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maine History by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UMaine. For more information, please contact [email protected]. John Neptune served as Lieutenant-Governor of the Penobscot Nation for over fifty years. He, along with Tribal Governor John Attean, presided over the tribe during a period of turmoil in Penobscot history — a time marked by land dis- possession and subsequent tribal division in the first part of the nineteenth cen- tury. The portrait was painted by Obadiah Dickinson in 1836 and hung in the Blaine House for many years. Courtesy of the Maine Arts Commission. TRIBAL DISSENT OR WHITE AGGRESSION?: INTERPRETING PENOBSCOT INDIAN DISPOSSES- SION BETWEEN 1808 AND 1835. BY JACQUES FERLAND “I now come to the time when our Tribe was separated into two fac- tions[,] the old and the new Party. I am sorry to speak of it as it was very detrimental to our tribe as there was but few of us the remnant of a once powerful tribe.” So spoke Penobscot tribal leader John Attean, re- calling the 1834-1835 breach in tribal politics that shook the edifice of community and cohesion among the Penobscot people.
    [Show full text]
  • 2001 Annual Report Maine Coast Heritage Trust Works
    2001 Annual Report Maine Coast Heritage Trust works to conserve coastal and other lands that define Maine’s distinct landscape, protect its environment, sustain its outdoor traditions and promote the well-being of its people. Since 1970, MCHT has helped to protect permanently more than 111,000 acres including valuable wildlife habitat, farm and forest land and 275 entire coastal islands. MCHT provides conservation services to landowners, local land trusts, government agencies and communities throughout Maine. As a membership organization, MCHT is supported by individuals committed to protecting Maine’s natural beauty and resources. The Trust invites your support and involvement. On the cover: Tinker Island, Blue Hill © Sara Gray 2001 Annual Report CHRIS HAMILTON North Haven PRESIDENT’S AND CHAIRMAN’S MESSAGE In August 2001, we announced our Campaign for the Coast – a $100 million campaign that seeks to preserve the best of Maine’s coast for generations to come. Recognizing the threats posed by increasing development, we committed to accelerating our work to conserve coastal islands and archipelagos, prominent hills and meadows, shore access, community open space and intact landscape features. Campaign Chairman Richard Rockefeller inspired us to launch this ambitious effort and has stood at the helm ever since. He leads by example – guiding us with keen perception, good humor and unflagging energy. The Campaign’s success to date is due – in no small part – to his integral involvement. Already the Campaign for the Coast has expanded the horizon of land conservation in Maine, enabling protection of lands that could never before have been preserved. Among the 36 projects completed in 2001 are some of the most innovative and complex ones in MCHT’s history.
    [Show full text]
  • King Philip's War in Maine
    The University of Maine DigitalCommons@UMaine Electronic Theses and Dissertations Fogler Library 1-1970 King Philip's War in Maine John O. Noble Jr. Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/etd Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Noble, John O. Jr., "King Philip's War in Maine" (1970). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 3256. https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/etd/3256 This Open-Access Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UMaine. For more information, please contact [email protected]. KING PHILIP’S WAR IN MAINE By JOHN O. NOBLE, JR. A THESIS Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts (in History) The Graduate School University of Maine Orono January, 1970 KING PHILIP'S WAR IN MAINE By John 0. Noble, Jr. An Abstract of the Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts (in History). January, 1970 A study was made of the Indian war in Maine, which started in the late summer of 1675 and continued until the spring of *1678 The causes and consequences of the war are presented as they relate to the situation on the Northern colonial frontier (Maine), and as they contrast to the war and social situation in southern New England. The two major campaigns of the war in Maine are examined in detail. Three political questions are discussed as related to the war: (1) the legal control of Maine (2) the support of the war effort by the United Colonies of New England; and (3) the pacification effort of Massachusetts and New York to subdue the Maine Indians.
    [Show full text]
  • Centerpiece of Research on the Penobscot Experimental Forest: the U.S
    CENTERPIECE OF RESEARCH ON THE PENOBSCOT EXPERIMENTAL FOREST: THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE LONG-TERM SILVICULTURAL STUDY John C. Brissette and Laura S. Kenefic Abstract.—Established between 1952 and 1957, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service experiment comparing several silvicultural treatments is not only the centerpiece of research on the Penobscot Experimental Forest in Maine, it is also one of the longest-running, replicated studies of how management techniques influence forest dynamics in North America. Ten treatments representing even- and uneven- aged silvicultural systems and exploitative cutting are replicated twice on operational- scale experimental units averaging 21 acres in size. Treatments are applied uniformly to experimental units in accordance with prescriptions designed to direct both stand structure and composition. In some treatments harvests are scheduled at intervals (e.g., 5, 10, or 20 years); in others, harvests are triggered by stand conditions. Each experimental unit, or compartment (most recently termed management unit), has an average of 18 permanent sample plots (PSPs) for measuring attributes of trees ≥0.5 inches in diameter at breast height. Tree regeneration and other vegetation are measured on multiple subplots within each PSP. Measurements are taken before and after harvests and, in many treatments, at intervals between harvests. Over the past 60 years, this long-term experiment and associated short-term studies have generated fundamental knowledge about forest ecosystems and silvicultural guidelines for the northern conifer forest type, and, in a more general sense, have contributed to our understanding of mixed-species forest science and management. INTRODUCTION research has proceeded on the PEF with periodic harvests and regular re-measurement of treatment Between 1952 and 1957 the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Basketry of the Wabanaki Indians
    Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-3934-5_10220-2 # Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015 Basketry of the Wabanaki Indians Jennifer S. Neptunea* and Lisa K. Neumanb* aMaine Indian Basketmakers Alliance, Indian Island, ME, USA bThe University of Maine, Orono, ME, USA The Wabanaki The Wabanaki (People of the Dawn Land) are living Algonquian-speaking indigenous Native North Americans whose traditional homelands comprise what is today northern New England in the United States as well as Southeastern Quebec and the Canadian maritime provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island. In the United States, there are five federally recognized Wabanaki tribes, all of which reside in the state of Maine: the Penobscot Nation (with a reservation in Penobscot County, Maine), the Passamaquoddy Tribe at Pleasant Point or Sipayik (with a reservation in Washington County, Maine), the Passamaquoddy Tribe at Indian Township (also with a reservation in Washington County, Maine), the Houlton Band of Maliseet (in Aroostook County, Maine), and the Aroostook Band of Micmac (also in Aroostook County, Maine). The Wabanaki also own trust lands (property with federal status owned by the tribe or tribal members) and fee lands (taxable property owned by tribal members but for which a tribe regulates use) in other parts of the state of Maine (Fig. 1). As of 2014, there were approximately 8,000 people on the membership rolls of the five Wabanaki tribes in Maine, with a far greater number in Canada. A note here on terminology is important to avoid confusion.
    [Show full text]
  • Phase I Final Report USDA SBIR Bagaduce River Oyster Company
    USDA SBIR FINAL REPORT PHASE I Project Title: Evaluating subtidal and intertidal grow-out methods for cultured hard clams in eastern Maine: A series of manipulative field experiments USDA/SBIR Proposal Number: MEK-2008-00397 USDA/SBIR Grant Number: 0213564 Date: 24 January 2010 Project Directors: Mr. Joseph L. Porada; Dr. Brian F. Beal Performing Organization: Bagaduce River Oyster Company Grant Program: Small Business and Industry Grants Grant Program Area: Small Business Classification Headings: KA307 (Animal Management Systems); S0811 (Shellfish); S3724 (Clams and mussels); F1070 (Ecology); G2.2 (Increase Efficiency of Production and Marketing Systems) Keywords: cultured hard clams; Mercenaria mercenaria ; Eastern Maine; field growout; experimental manipulation; predator exclusion; stocking density; growth; survival; biomass; subtidal; block designs; spatial effects; clam farm; seed size; planting date; factorial design; analysis of variance Table of Contents Pages Acknowledgments …………………………………………………. 3 Executive Summary …………………………………………………. 4-7 Technical Objectives …………………………………………………. 8 Background …………………………………………………. 9-11 Results & Accomplishments Experiment I …………………………………………………. 12-17 Experiment I – Tables …………………………………………………. 18-22 Experiment I – Figures …………………………………………………. 23-34 Experiment II …………………………………………………. 35-38 Experiment II – Tables …………………………………………………. 39-42 Experiment II – Figures …………………………………………………. 41-48 Experiment III …………………………………………………. 49-51 Experiment III – Tables …………………………………………………. 52-56 Experiment III
    [Show full text]
  • "Appendix : 1820 Treaty Negotiation Between the Penobscot Indian
    The University of Maine DigitalCommons@UMaine Maine Bicentennial Special Collections 2007 "Appendix : 1820 Treaty Negotiation between the Penobscot Indian Nation and Maine" from Wabanaki Homeland and the New State of Maine: The 1820 ourJ nal and Plans of Survey of Joseph Treat Joseph Treat Micah A. Pawling University of Maine Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mainebicentennial Part of the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Treat, Joseph and Pawling, Micah A., ""Appendix : 1820 Treaty Negotiation between the Penobscot Indian Nation and Maine" from Wabanaki Homeland and the New State of Maine: The 1820 ourJ nal and Plans of Survey of Joseph Treat" (2007). Maine Bicentennial. 81. https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mainebicentennial/81 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maine Bicentennial by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UMaine. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A VOLUME IN THE SERIES Native Americans of the Northeast: Culture, History, and the Contemporary EDITED BY Colin G. Calloway and Barry O’Connell Wabanaki Homeland and the New State of Maine The 1820 Journal and Plans of Survey of Joseph Treat Edited with an introduction by Micah A. Pawling University of Massachusetts Press Amherst in conjunction with the Penobscot Indian Nation, Indian Island, Maine Copyright; 2007 by University of Massachusetts Press All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America LC 2006103299 ISBN 978-1-55849-578-4 Designed by jack Harrison Set in Deepdene Printed and bound by Sheridan Books, Inc.
    [Show full text]