DOCSLIB.ORG

Subalpine and High-Elevation Spruce

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Subalpine and High-Elevation Spruce Subalpine and High-elevation Spruce-Fir Forest in the Delineation of areas above 2700 feet Evaluation of harvest history Northeast: An Assessment of Ecological Value and 567 separate areas greater than one Right: 3,677-acre area around Kibby Mountain in the northern Boundary Mountains of acre in size totaling 475,600 acres. Maine. Existing Kibby wind power project is visible in the southern part of the area. Conservation Priorities Extensive recent (R) and older (O) harvesting is evident (outlined in yellow); additional 22 areas larger than 5,000 acres David Publicover and Kenneth Kimball, Appalachian Mountain Club, Gorham, NH older harvesting may have taken place in other parts of the area but is not evident. shown in dark red. Area contains a documented occurrence of the rare (S3) Fir - Heartleaved Birch Introduction and Project Goals (3 additional areas in MA Subalpine Forest natural community, though the value of this occurrence is diminished High-elevation areas comprise a small totaling 1,865 acres not shown.) by past harvesting. part of the Northern Forest but Below: 2,097-acre area around Tumbledown Mountain, about four miles northeast of provide significant ecological value. Kibby Mountain. Area contains little evidence of past harvesting (though some older They represent the most natural part harvesting has most likely occurred). Fir – Heartleaved Birch Subalpine Forest has not of the landscape and provide critical been documented but is likely to be present. Delineating potential undocumented habitat for a number of wildlife occurrences of this community is an important component of this on-going research. species of concern, including This area may be a relatively high priority for future high-elevation conservation. Bicknell’s thrush, pine marten and Canada lynx. Numerous state and regional wildlife conservation plans recommend the identification and conservation of the most valuable areas of high-elevation coniferous forest. These areas also have important adaptive value in the face of future climate change because of their potential to serve as stable refugia for coniferous forest species as this habitat declines at lower elevation (as occurred during the Subalpine forest, Dixville Peak, NH post-glacial Hypsithermal period of 9,000 to 5,000 YBP). Of particular interest is subalpine forest, a subset of high-elevation coniferous state forest. Dominated by balsam fir and heartleaved paper birch, it provides the primary habitat for Bicknell’s thrush, the Northeast’s rarest songbird. While alpine areas are well-documented and generally well-protected, and the extent of broader high-elevation coniferous forest can be readily estimated from land Conservation status Base image: 2009 National Agriculture Imagery Program. cover data, the extent and conservation status of true subalpine forest is less well known. The goal of this project is to proactively assess the ecological value of the Maine’s Western High Mountains Preliminary results numerous distinct areas of high-elevation spruce-fir forest across the Northern Maine’s Western High Mountains region, stretching from • Areas above 2700’ make up just 1.4% of the three- Forest of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and Massachusetts in order to Saddleback to Bigelow, is the region’s highest high-elevation better resolve the current conflicts between wind power development and the state region. conservation priority. Its conservation values include: the largest • protection and stewardship of these areas. The supporting objectives are to: contiguous area of land above 2700’ in the Northeast outside of While the overall level of conservation of these areas is high (78% of the total area above 2700’), there • the White Mountain National Forest, 9 of the 13 highest summits assess the current condition of all distinct areas above 2700 feet in in Maine, multiple documented occurrences of rare alpine and remain large areas that are unconserved, especially in elevation (with a focus on intact cores of spruce-fir habitat); subalpine vegetation communities, extensive Bicknell’s thrush Maine and northern New Hampshire. Less than half • assess the relative value of these areas both as current habitat and as habitat, multiple large roadless areas, and identification as a of the high-elevation area in Maine is conserved. adaptive refugia in the face of future climate change; priority Habitat Focus Area in Maine’s Comprehensive Wildlife • The largest areas are the most highly protected – the • assess the relative risk of these areas to wind power development; Conservation Strategy. ten areas over 10,000 acres in size (which in total • assess the relative importance of these areas to an overall regional While the Bigelow Range is fully protected, only 22% of the comprise 45% of the total area above 2700’) have conservation strategy and their value as potential mitigation sites for 20,800-acre Sugarloaf/Abraham/ Crocker area, and only 49% of almost 92% of their area conserved, and eight are at development in other high-elevation areas; the 5,800-acre Saddleback area, lie on conservation land. least 95% conserved. The two exceptions are both in • propose proactive strategies to policy makers on how to address the Conservation activity in the region is on-going, but parts of the Maine – the Sugarloaf-Abraham-Crocker and conflicts between development and conservation of these areas. area remain at risk. Extensive areas have been heavily Kennebago Divide areas. harvested, a wind power project has been proposed for • Areas between 1,000 and 10,000 acres in size make Methodology Redington and Black Nubble mountains (but denied a permit), and the ridges west of Saddleback Ski Area and east of Sugarloaf up over 40% of the total extent of high-elevation land The project will utilize the following methodology: Ski area are potential wind power development sites. but have a lower level of protection, as only two- thirds of their area is conserved. 1) Delineate discrete blocks of land above 2700 feet in Maine, New • 22 areas across the three states have at least 1,000 Hampshire, Vermont and New Hampshire using USGS 30-meter DEM data acres of unconserved land, and four areas (all in (complete). (New York will be added pending additional funding). Maine) have at least 5,000 acres. 2) Assess the current conservation status of each area. • Some of these areas have known significant resource 3) Assess the value and condition of each area based on its size, elevation values (rare natural communities, large roadless range, extent of past logging and remaining intact core block of spruce-fir areas , Wildlife Action Plan focus areas, etc.) habitat (based on recent and historical satellite imagery and aerial photography), known Natural Heritage Inventory element occurrences, Next steps existing development, landscape context, recognition as a priority area in state Wildlife Action Plans and other regional conservation assessments The next steps in this research include: and other relevant factors. • Completing assessment of harvesting history, 4) Delineate potential undocumented occurrences of rare subalpine forest including examination of older aerial photography to natural community based on aerial photography and field verification. delineate earlier (<40 years ago) harvesting. 5) Assess the potential for wind power development based on published • Identify potential undocumented occurrences of wind resource data and topographic suitability. intact subalpine (fir-heartleaved birch) forest. We 6) Rank areas on a value/risk scale to identify areas of high ecological value at will be working with Maine Natural Areas Program in high risk of development. that state; MNAP will provide valuable field 7) Identify potential conservation or mitigation strategies for these areas. verification of identified potential areas..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 7.0 Wildlife and Fisheries Overview
    Redington Wind Farm Redington Pond Range, Maine Section 7: Wildlife and Fisheries Prepared by Woodlot Alternatives, Inc. Topsham, Maine Redington Wind Farm Page i Section 7 – Wildlife and Fisheries Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Ecological Setting of Project area........................................................................... 3 3.0 Natural Communities and Wetlands ....................................................................... 5 3.1 Methods................................................................................................................ 5 3.2 Natural Community Descriptions ........................................................................ 7 3.2.1 Terrestrial Communities ................................................................................ 8 3.2.2 Beech-Birch-Maple Forest............................................................................. 9 3.2.3 Spruce-Northern Hardwood Forest.............................................................. 10 3.2.4 Spruce-Fir-Mountain Sorrel-Feathermoss Forest ........................................ 11 3.2.5 Fir-Heartleaved Birch Subalpine Forest ...................................................... 11 3.2.6 Regenerating Forest Stands.......................................................................... 14 3.2.7 Wetlands and Streams.................................................................................. 16 4.0 Fish
    [Show full text]
  • State of Maine Land Use Regulation Commission
    STATE OF MAINE LAND USE REGULATION COMMISSION Application for Development of ) PRE-FILED TESTIMONY TransCanada Maine Wind Development, Inc. ) OF DYLAN VOORHEES Kibby Mountain Wind Farm ) NATURAL RESOURCES Rezoning Application ZP 709 ) COUNCIL OF MAINE I. Summary My name is Dylan Voorhees. I am the Clean Energy Director for the Natural Resources Council of Maine (NRCM). NRCM is a private, non-profit, membership organization established in 1959 to advocate for the protection and conservation of Maine’s natural resources. NRCM has a strong interest in the development of clean forms of electricity generation that will help reduce the environmental and public health harm caused by existing forms of power production. We share the view articulated in the Maine Land Use Regulation Commission’s (the “Commission”) Comprehensive Land Use Plan that “windpower offers an attractive alternative to the burning of fossil fuels.”1 NRCM also has a strong interest in land conservation for areas with unique natural resource, recreation, and remote resource values. Accordingly, we recognize that the Commission has an important responsibility in considering how to balance impacts and benefits when it comes to wind power projects in its jurisdiction. NRCM has carefully examined the application, visited the site, and strongly concludes that this project conforms to the Commission’s evaluation criteria and policies, Maine’s energy policies, 1 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (1997), Chapter 3, Natural and Cultural Resources, p. 40 ZP 709, Kibby Wind Farm 1 Voorhees Pre-Filed Testimony and the public interest. The Kibby Wind Farm would generate a substantial amount of new renewable power in Maine at a time when we need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
    [Show full text]
  • State of Maine Department of Conservation Land Use Regulation Commission
    STATE OF MAINE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION LAND USE REGULATION COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF MAINE MOUNTAIN POWER, LLC ) BLACK NUBBLE WIND FARM ) ) PRE-FILED TESTIMONY REDINGTON TOWNSHIP, FRANKLIN ) APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN CLUB COUNTY, MAINE ) DR. KENNETH D. KIMBALL ) ZONING PETITION ZP 702 ) I. INTRODUCTION My name is Kenneth Kimball. I hold a doctorate in botany from the University of New Hampshire, a Masters in zoology from the University of New Hampshire and a Bachelors of Science in ecology from Cornell University. I have been employed as the Research Director for the Appalachian Mountain Club since 1983. I have overall responsibility for the club’s research in the areas of air quality, climate change, northeastern alpine research, hydropower relicensing, windpower siting policy and land conservation and management. I was the organizer of the Northeastern Mountain Stewardship Conference, held in Jackson, NH in 1988, co-organizer of the National Mountain Conference held in Golden, CO in 2000 and one of the original founders of what is now the biannual Northeastern Alpine Stewardship Symposiums. I have conducted research on New Hampshire and Maine’s mountains, including on Mount Katahdin, Saddleback, Sunday River Whitecap and the Mahoosucs. I am currently the principal investigator of a NOAA-funded research project titled “Climate and air pollutant trends and their influence on the biota of New England’s higher elevation and alpine ecosystems”, which includes partner organizations the University of New Hampshire and Mount Washington Observatory. I have been involved in research and policy development related to windpower siting in the northeast for over a decade. I have organized and chaired several forums on the need for states to develop windpower siting policy in Massachusetts and New Hampshire and spoken at a number of forums on this need.
    [Show full text]
  • Kibby Wind Project Visual Impact Assessment Part A
    KIBBY WIND PROJECT Visual Impact Assessment April 2007 Jean E. Vissering Landscape Architecture KIBBY WIND POWER PROJECT VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Abstract: The following report examines the aesthetic impacts of the proposed Kibby Wind Power Project. The project would consist of 44 turbines located along the Kibby Range and portions of the Kibby Mountain ridge. Based on the criteria contained within the Maine Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and on standard visual impact assessment criteria, the proposed project would not result in undue adverse aesthetic impacts within the surrounding landscape. The project ridges are difficult to see generally, and are not distinctive in form or important focal points. They are not located near any designated recreational uses of either high sensitivity or of state or national significance. The proposed project would be over 15 miles away from the closest point of the Appalachian Trail. The project size is modest, occupying only two named ridges with numerous undeveloped ridges remaining around the project including the northernmost summit of Kibby Mountain itself. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Part I: Introduction 1 A. Purpose of Report …………………………………….... 1 B. Author Background and Qualifications ………………... 1 C. Aesthetic Assessment Methodology …………………… 2 Part II: Visual Impact Assessment 7 A. Project Description……………………………………... 7 B. Project Site Characteristics ……………………………... 8 C. Character of the Region ………………………………… 10 D. Visibility of the Proposed Project ……………………... 12 E. Sensitivity of Viewpoints ………………………………. 23 F. Assessment of Visual Impacts …………………………... 31 G. Rezoning Criteria and Land Use Review Standards ……. 39 H. Conclusions ……………………………………………... 41 Appendices A. Viewshed Maps Project Map 15- Mile Radius Viewshed 20-Mile Radius Viewshed Viewshed Methodology B.
    [Show full text]
  • USACE Environmental Assessment
    CENAE-RDC; NAE-2017-01342 MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above-Referenced Standard Individual Permit Application This document constitutes the Environmental Assessment, 404(b)(1) Guidelines Evaluation, as applicable, Public Interest Review, and Statement of Findings for the subject application. The construction, connection, operation, and maintenance of the proposed electric transmission facility at the proposed location for the U.S.-Canada international border crossing at Beattie Township will require authorization from the United States Department of Energy (DOE) in the form of a Presidential permit. The applicant applied to DOE on July 27, 2017 for a Presidential permit for the proposed Project in accordance with Executive Order (EO) 10485 (September 3, 1953), as amended by EO 12038 (February 3, 1978), and the regulations at 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 205.320 et seq. (2000), "Application for Presidential Permit Authorizing the Construction, Connection, Operation, and Maintenance of Facilities for Transmission of Electric Energy at International Boundaries." As required by 10 CFR 205.320(a), any entity "who operates an electric power transmission or distribution facility crossing the border of the United States, for the transmission of electric energy between the United States and a foreign country, shall have a Presidential permit." The DOE Office of Electricity, Transmission Permitting and Technical Assistance Division, is responsible for reviewing Presidential permit applications and determining whether to grant a permit for electric transmission facilities that cross the United States' international border. The Presidential permit Docket Number for this project is PP-438. DOE will author an independent assessment in support of their permit decision and pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Existing and Potential Wind Power Development on High-Value Scenic Resources in Maine
    The impact of existing and potential wind power development on high-value scenic resources in Maine APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN CLUB The impact of existing and potential wind power development on high-value scenic resources in Maine David Publicover and Catherine Poppenwimer Appalachian Mountain Club Research Department Gorham, NH AMC Technical Report 19-1 November 2019 Acknowledgements Funding for this project was provided by the Horizon Foundation, the Sally Mead Hands Foundation and five individual donors. We thank them for the support. We also thank our Maine Audubon Society colleagues Sarah Haggerty, Eliza Donohue, Sally Stockwell and Susan Gallo for their assistance and support during this project. Suggested citation Publicover, D. and C. Poppenwimer. 2019. The impact of existing and potential wind power development on high-value scenic resources in Maine. AMC Technical Report 19-1. Appalachian Mountain Club, Gorham, NH. This study was undertaken as part of a collaborative project with Maine Audubon Society. MAS has released a companion report titled “Renewable Energy and Wildlife in Maine: Avoiding, Minimizing and Mitigating Impacts to Wildlife and Habitat from Solar, Wind and Transmission Facilities”, available at https://www.maineaudubon.org/advocacy/climate-energy/. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overview This project was undertaken to better understand the visual impact of existing wind power projects on high-value scenic resources in Maine (especially mountains and large lakes), how these impacts have been evaluated in permitting decisions, and the potential for future impacts to these resources from proposed or potential projects. The information was developed to better inform the on-going discussion on the future development of this renewable energy technology in Maine’s landscape.
    [Show full text]
  • The Lithologic and Structural Controls on the Geomorphology of the Mountainous Areas in North-Central Maine
    Maine Geological Survey Studies in Maine Geology: Volume 5 1989 The Lithologic and Structural Controls on the Geomorphology of the Mountainous Areas in North-Central Maine Lindley S. Hanson Department of Geological Sciences Salem State College Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Dabney W. Caldwell Department of Geology Boston University Boston, Massachusetts 02215 ABSTRACT In the mountainous areas of north-central Maine, the highest peaks are commonly formed in hornfelsic rocks which surround Acadian plutons. Quartzites and felsic volcanic rocks form ridges and steep-sided mountains. The only summit supported by granitic rock is Mount Katahdin, which has a resistant cap of granophyre that overlies the weaker granular-textured granite. Lowlands are underlain by platonic rock, of both granitic and gabbroic composition, and by pervasively cleaved pelitic rocks. In Maine, the area of greatest relief occurs in a northeast-trending belt, referred to here as the Central Highlands. High peaks that exceed 4000 feet (1220 m) are most abundant in the Rangeley area, western Maine. The highlands continue into New Hampshire to the even higher peaks of the Presidential Range. In the center of the belt, near Greenville, there are no peaks that rise above 4000 feet (1220 m). All other high elevations are associated with the Katahdin massif, near the northeastern terminus of this mountainous region. The rugged topography of the Central Highlands has formed from the erosion of the Acadian orogen, which was either originally higher toward the southwest or has been differentially uplifted by one or more subsequent thermal events. Trellis drainage systems are best developed in areas of low-grade, regionally metamorphosed sandstones and petites.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017-7-26 Presidential Permit Application
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OFFICE OF ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY Docket No. PP-_____ APPLICATION OF CENTRAL MAINE POWER COMPANY FOR A PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR THE NEW ENGLAND CLEAN ENERGY CONNECT July 26, 2017 Pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended by Executive Order 12038, Central Maine Power Company hereby applies to the United States Department of Energy for a Presidential Permit authorizing the construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of facilities for the transmission of electric energy at the international border between the United States and Canada. This application is made pursuant to the United States Department of Energy’s applicable administrative procedures (10 C.F.R. §§ 205.320, et. seq.). {W6269174.1} Contents GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................................................ 9 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................................................ 12 SECTION 1 INFORMATION REGARDING THE APPLICANT ............................................................ 16 1.1. Legal Name and Description of Applicant ........................................................................16 1.2. Legal Names of All Partners ...................................................................................................16 1.3. Correspondence and Communications .............................................................................16
    [Show full text]
  • Franklin County by Foot and Paddle Doug Dunlap Progress Report
    Franklin County by Foot and Paddle Doug Dunlap Progress Report August 15, 2020 For walks and hikes; and travel by kayak and canoe, August 1-15 How About You? First, I hope so very dearly that you who read this are well, and are caring for yourself and those dear to you, during these so very difficult times of the COVID-19 pandemic. Too, I hope that there is time and energy in your life to extend your caring to those whom you do not know, or do not know well – your neighbors of Franklin County . Those are high hopes. Those are true hopes. If the times are overwhelming for you, I encourage you to call the United Way . About what? Food, clothing, shelter; about being alone or perhaps overwhelmed at how to care for yourself, your child, your aging parents or grandparents, or your family member with a disability; your needs as a veteran; with matters of domestic violence, alcohol and other drugs; with how to pay utility bills – again, matters that seem overwhelming. Get connected to the Maine – and Franklin County - safety net. Call at 207-78-5048. Or 24 hours/day, call 211 where there is someone to speak with 24 hours per day. The 211 service is connected with the United Way of Maine. You are not alone! You and the Franklin County Outdoors We live in one of the world’s most beautiful, and readily reached, outdoor settings. Within minutes of wherever you live in this county, there is a quiet trail, or a park, or a spot near water, that can be reached at no cost or little cost, for a time of peace of mind.
    [Show full text]
  • Kibby Wind Project: Visual Impact Assessment
    Appendix A: Methodology for Performing a viewshed analysis Viewshed identifies the cells in an input raster that can be seen from one or more observation points or lines. Each cell in the output raster receives a value that indicates how many observer points can be seen from each location. If you have only one observer point, each cell that can see that observer point is given a value of 1. All cells that cannot see the observer point are given a value of 0. The observer points feature class can contain points or lines. The nodes and vertices of lines will be used as observation points. Why calculate viewshed? Viewshed is useful when you want to know how visible objects might be—for example, from which locations on the landscape will the water towers be visible if they are placed in this location? or What will the view be like from this road? In the example below, the viewshed from an observation tower is identified. The elevation raster displays the height of the land (darker locations represent lower elevations), and the observation tower is marked as a green triangle. The height of the observation tower can be specified in the analysis. Cells in green are visible from the observation tower, and cells in red are not visible. Displaying a hillshade underneath your elevation and the output from the Viewshed function is a useful technique for visualizing the relationship between visibility and terrain. Not only can you determine which cells can be seen from the observation tower, if you have several observation points, you can also determine which observers can see each observed location.
    [Show full text]
  • THE MAINE WOODS a Publication of the Forest Ecology Network “In Wildness Is the Preserva- Tion of the World.” Henry David Thoreau
    THE MAINE WOODS A Publication of the Forest Ecology Network “In wildness is the preserva- tion of the world.” Henry David Thoreau Volume Fourteen Number One • Spring 2014 Free No Compromise When It Comes to Saving Maine’s Wild Places and Scenic Beauty Why Maine Wilderness Matters - page 2 Looking across Flagstaff Lake to the Bigelow Range. Photo by Jonathan Carter Maine Woods Major Threats - page 3 First Wind’s Rampage in Maine - page 7 Lawsuit Filed over First Wind’s Expanded Wind Project - page 9 Southern New England’s Asault on Maine - page 14 Forest Ecology Network An East-West Wind Way? - page 16 336 Back Road NON-PROFIT ORG. Free Trade Agreements Exacerbate Threat of E-W Corridor - page 18 Lexington Township, ME 04961 Metallic Mining: Maine’s Wilderness Foundering - page 24 http://www.forestecologynetwork.org Bald Mountain Speaks Its Own Truths - page 26 [email protected] The Indispensable North American Beaver - page 30 Silent Fall - page 34 South Portland Says No to Tar Sands - page 36 The Arctic Ocean, Fossil Fuels, Methane, and Maine’s Forests - page 39 A Voice in the Wilderness by Jonathan Carter DISAPPEARING MONARCHS I have always been fascinated by the amazing migratory decline. And yes, climate change may have something patterns of wildlife. You may recall that I wrote once to do with it, but the two primary causes appear to be about the Red Knot, which annually migrates from the related to deforestation and herbicides. Interestingly, Arctic to Terra del Fuego. B95, a tagged individual bird, these are two issues FEN has worked diligently to try was sighted again in 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • Maine Chapter Made Its Facebook Debut on February 26, 2013
    2013 Maine Annual Report The year 2013 was another active year with respect to tower activities. With the state of Maine’s new radio system nearing completion, we saw no tower removals this year. Restoration efforts continue to be burdened by liability issues and the lack of a liability insurance policy. We are working with several groups to try and spur some restoration efforts. We continued with research and archive collection, including several visits to Maine archival sites. We created a Facebook presence and collected a variety of new information from it. We continued to keep the Maine tower inventory up to date as there were changes, new discoveries and updates. The findings are below – 2013 Tower Survey Data as of 12/23/2013 There was no significant change to the inventory this year. Summary: Total Known Tower Sites – 143 Total Towers Still Standing – 58 Total Towers Gone or Removed – 85 Of the 58 Standing Towers: Standing Steel Only, No Cab – 19 Standing Steel Converted to Observation - 6 Standing Steel and Cab – 32 Standing Wooden Enclosed – 1 Average Condition of the 33 Standing Towers with Cabs: Good Condition – 12 Fair Condition – 11 Poor Condition – 8 Bad Condition – 2 The full tower summary list can be found on the FFLA Web Site on the Lookout Library page under the Maine section. We will continue to update these lists as new information is found. Tower Losses – None for 2013 Planned Removals – The following towers may be removed in 2014: 1. Mount Abraham tower is still being recommended for removal by the Maine State DOC, but discussing with some officials, there are no immediate plans above a general recommendation.
    [Show full text]