DOCSLIB.ORG

Town of Union Comprehensive Plan 2005-2015 Union (Me.)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Town of Union Comprehensive Plan 2005-2015 Union (Me.) The University of Maine DigitalCommons@UMaine Maine Town Documents Maine Government Documents 2006 Town of Union Comprehensive Plan 2005-2015 Union (Me.). Comprehensive Plan Committee Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/towndocs Repository Citation Union (Me.). Comprehensive Plan Committee, "Town of Union Comprehensive Plan 2005-2015" (2006). Maine Town Documents. 841. https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/towndocs/841 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]. Town of Union Comprehensive Plan 2005 - 2015 A True Copy Attest Marcy Corwin Revision 4 Union Town Clerk June 19, 2006 Preface to Revision 4 This document constitutes Revision 4 of the Town of Union Comprehensive Plan, and is a limited update of Revision 3, which was approved by the Town Meeting in June 2005. The modifications in this Revision 4 are primarily responses to comments on Revision 3 provided by the Maine State Planning Office, as a result of its review of the Plan against the requirements of the State of Maine Growth Management Act. The State has accepted these modifications as fully responsive to its comments. Revision 3, approved by the Town Meeting in June 2005, was a major update to the previously-adopted version of the plan (Revision 1), which had been in existence since 1987. Revision 3 contains updated inventories of population, housing, land use patterns, transportation, and the local economy, and provides updated recommendations for modified zoning districts, preservation of open space, extensions to recreational facilities, and related improvements of the Town’s infrastructure. The Comprehensive Plan attempts to present a roadmap for the future of Union that all citizens can embrace as a basis for balanced planning. It addresses conflicting issues facing the Town as it seeks to find a middle ground among the competing forces of development and environmental protection, private property rights and community interests, tax control and public investment, and regional planning and local control. It provides a planning basis for development directions, ordinance updates, infrastructure extensions, and capital expenditures, over the next ten years. A major objective of the Comprehensive Plan is to assist the state in conducting statewide planning. Adoption of this Plan by the Union voters and approval by the State makes the Town eligible for a range of state grants and related financial support. The State has already approved this revision. The Comprehensive Plan is not an ordinance. Approval of this plan by the citizens of Union constitutes a general endorsement of the directions outlined in the plan, and authorization of the Union Boards (Board of Selectmen, Planning Board, Parks and Recreation Committee, and others) to formulate specific implementation initiatives for presentation to the Union citizens. None of the recommendations in this plan can be adopted without specific follow-on action by the citizens of Union, either directly through the Town Meeting legislative process, or by the elected representatives of the citizens through the Board of Selectmen. Table of Contents Page Preface Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………. i Revision History ……………………………………………………………………….. ii Part I. Summary of the Plan 1. Introduction to Part I 2. Principal Findings 3. Recommendations Part II. Detailed Elements of the Plan 1. Introduction to Part II 2. Population 3. Local Economy 4. Housing 5. Parks and Recreation 6. Transportation 7. Natural Resources and Surface Water Resources 8. Commercial Forestry and Agriculture 9. Historic and Archeological Resources 10. Public Facilities and Services 11. Current Land Use 12. Future Land Use 13. Fiscal Capacity and Capital Improvements Plan 14. Thematic Maps of the Town of Union Appendices A. 2002 Survey of Union Residents B. Town Government Acknowledgements The Union Comprehensive Plan Committee was commissioned by the Board of Selectmen in January 2001. The following citizens of Union served on the committee: Jeff Nims, Chairman Abraham Knight, Vice Chairman Travis Brown John Gibbons Erica Harriman James Ianello Jeff McCormick James Murphy Pamela Packard Marcia Soule In developing this plan, the Committee drew heavily on the work of an earlier committee that prepared a draft revision (Rev 2) to the original plan. This earlier draft was not enacted by the citizens of Union, but it contained data and analyses that were used extensively in formulating this current plan. The following citizens of Union served on this earlier committee: Mark Hedrich, Chairman Lynn Allen George Boger Howard Butler Fred Davis Raymond Holmes James Ianello Austin Jones Maurice Miller Mary Sabins Allan Smith Many additional citizens of Union contributed to the work of both committees through consultations and public hearings, and the present committee gratefully acknowledges the contributions of these citizens. The committee was assisted in the work of preparing the plan by Eric Galant of the Midcoast Regional Planning Commission. Additional valuable assistance was provided by Mary Ann Hayes of the Maine State Planning Office. Revision History Revision No. Date Description -- 6/85 Original. First release of the Town of Union Comprehensive Plan. 1 11/87 Limited updates to the 1985 plan, driven by concerns about recent increases in the pace of development. Incorporation of 1987 citizen-survey results, particularly regarding development directions. Revisions to the land use section to address issues arising from the impact of development on the rural nature of the Town. Recommendations for control of development in farmland and blueberry areas, and on hillsides. Revisions to the local economy section, with recommendations for encouragement of farming and cottage industry as the foundations of the local economy. 2 3/92 Extensive reformulation of the plan, to respond to the formal reporting and planning requirements imposed on all municipalities under the State of Maine Growth Management Act. Detailed surveys of the Town’s natural resources, including soil types, wetlands, underground aquifers, forested areas, farmlands, blueberry fields, and developable land. Preparation of detailed maps containing the results of these surveys, which are currently on display at the Town Office. Additional inventories of Town services, cultural resources, demographic trends, and the local economy. Incorporation of the results of a citizen survey conducted in 1990. Formulation of nearly a hundred specific recommendations for Town action on a range of topics from land use management to local government structure. Revision 2 was defeated at Town Meeting, and was not adopted. 3 6/05 Updating of the detailed inventories of Town resources and services developed for Revision 2. Incorporation of citizen views on a wide range of planning topics, obtained through a survey of residents conducted in 2002 together with feedback obtained at public hearings. Formulation of specific recommendations for consideration by the Town regarding revision of zoning districts, open space planning, recreational resource development, encouragement of affordable housing, and other areas. Reorganization of the plan to facilitate review and evaluation by the voters, and detailed analysis by involved State agencies. 4 6/06 Limited modifications to respond to State comments on Revision 3. Part I. Summary of the Comprehensive Plan Chapter 1. Introduction to Part I This Town of Union Comprehensive Plan attempts to present roadmap for the future of Union that all citizens can embrace as a basis for balanced planning. It addresses conflicting issues facing the Town as it seeks to find a middle ground among the competing forces of development and environmental protection, private property rights and community interests, tax control and public investment, and regional planning and local control. It provides a planning basis for development directions, ordinance updates, infrastructure extensions, and capital expenditures, over the next ten years. The Comprehensive Plan is not an ordinance. Approval of this plan by the citizens of Union constitutes a general endorsement of the directions outlined in the plan, and an authorization of the Union Boards (Board of Selectmen, Planning Board, Parks and Recreation Committee, and others) to formulate specific implementation initiatives for presentation to the Union citizens. None of the recommendations in this plan can be adopted without specific follow-on action by the citizens of Union, either directly through the Town Meeting legislative process, or by the elected representatives of the citizens through the Board of Selectmen. A major objective of the Comprehensive Plan is to assist the State in conducting statewide planning. Adoption of this Plan by the Union voters and acceptance by the State will make the Town eligible for a range of state grants and related financial support. The plan includes a projection of the population of the Town over the next ten years based on recent growth trends, an assessment of evolving land use patterns in the Town, and an evaluation of the local economy, housing stock, and road networks. It also includes an identification of natural resources in the Town that require active measures to protect in the presence of projected growth, and an assessment
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Comparison of Observed and Predicted Abutment Scour at Selected Bridges in Maine
    Comparison of Observed and Predicted Abutment Scour at Selected Bridges in Maine By Pamela J. Lombard and Glenn A. Hodgkins Prepared in cooperation with the Maine Department of Transportation Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5099 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark D. Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2008 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Lombard, P.J., and Hodgkins, G.A., 2008, Comparison of observed and predicted abutment scour at selected bridges in Maine: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5099, 23 p., available only online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5099. iii Contents Abstract ...........................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • United States National Museum
    * si 'a*»/ ^ ^ l^// kh < (M->'^^'' ^eparfrrxenf of fhc inferior: U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM. 21 BULLETIN UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. NO. 18.—EXHIBIT OF THE FISHERIES AND FISH CULTURE OP THE ^^^ —-UNITED STATES OF AMERfCA. MADE AT BERLIN IN 1880. PREPARED UXDEU THE DIRECTION OF a. BROA^^ls^ ooode, DEPUTY COiTMISSIONEE. WASHINGTON: aOVFiRNMENT PETNTTNG- OFFICJE 18 80. '^epavimeni of ihc 55nfcrior U. a. NATIONAL MUSEUM. 21 BULLETIN unu'ei) states national museum. No. 18. PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION. WASHINGTON: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1880. ADYEETISEMENT. This work is the twenty-first of a series of papers intended to illnstrate the collections of natural history and ethnology belonging- to the United States, and constituting the i^ational Museum, of which the Smithsonian Institution was placed in charge by the act of Congress of August 10, 1846. It has been prepared at the request of the Smithsonian Institution, and printed by authority of the honorable Secretary of the Interior. SPEXCER F. BAIRD, Secretary of the Snuthsonian Institution. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, March 29, 1880. INTERNATIONAL FISHERY EXHIBITION, BERLIN, 1880. EXHIBIT THE FISHERIES AND FISH CULTlIPiE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INTERNATIONALE FISCHEEEI-AUSSTELLUNG, HELD AT BERLIN, APRIL 20, 1880, AND FORMING A PART OF THE COL- LECTIONS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEmi, MADE BY THE UNITED STATES FISH COMMISSION. PKEPARED UNDEU THE DIRECTION OI' a. BIlo^^^]s^ aooDE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEK. WASHINGTOIT: <3-OVEENMENT FEINTING OFPIOE. 1880. TABLE OF CONTENTS. Section A.—AQUATIC ANIMALS AND PLANTS OF NOKTH AMERICA BENE- FICIAL OR INJURIOUS TO MAN. VERTEBKATES. Page. I. Mammals 1 1. Ferae (carnivores) 1 Fissipedia (laud carnivores) 1 Piunipedia (seals, Sec.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 American Canal Society
    National Canal Museum Archives Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor 2750 Hugh Moore Park Road, Easton PA 18042 610-923-3548 x237 – [email protected] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- American Canal Society – Stephen M. Straight Collection, 1964-1984 2000.051 Stephen M. Straight was apparently an amateur historian who collected material relating to North American canals, primarily in the New England area. His collection was given to Stetson University, which sent it on to the American Canal Society. The ACS then sent it to the National Canal Museum. Extent: 2/3 linear feet Box 1: Folder 0: Miscellaneous Correspondence • Letter from Sims D. Kline, director, DuPont-Ball Library, Stetson University, to American Canal Society (ACS) re: Stephen M. Straight material. 3-20-98. • Letter from ACS (William H. Shank, publisher, American Canals) to Sims D. Kline re: Stephen M. Straight material. 11-16-98. Folder 1: New England Canals, Book One • “America’s First Canal,” by Edward Rowe Snow, and “America’s First Canal Mural Series,” Yankee, March 1966. • “New England’s Forgotten Canal,” by Prescott W. Hall, Yankee, March 1960. • Letter from R. G. Knowlton, vice president, Concord Electric Company, to Stephen M. Straight (SS) • Xerox copies from Lyford’s History of Concord, N.H., pp. 9, 340-41, 839-40. • Letter from Elizabeth B. Know, corresponding secretary, The New London County Historical Society, New London, CT, to SS. • Editorial by Eric Sloane. Unknown source. • Typed notes (2 pages) from History of Concord, N.H., vol. II, 1896, pp. 832-40. • Letter from Augusta Comstock, Baker Memorial Library, Dartmouth College, to SS. • Xerox copies of map of Connecticut River, surveyed by Holmes Hutchinson, 1825.
    [Show full text]
  • Alasmidonta Varicosa) Version 1.1.1
    Species Status Assessment Report for the Brook Floater (Alasmidonta varicosa) Version 1.1.1 Molunkus Stream, Tributary of the Mattawamkeag River in Maine. Photo credit: Ethan Nedeau, Biodrawversity. Inset: Adult brook floaters. Photo credit: Jason Mays, USFWS. July 2018 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service This document was prepared by Sandra Doran of the New York Ecological Services Field Office with assistance from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Brook Floater Species Status Assessment (SSA) Team. The team members include Colleen Fahey, Project Manager (Species Assessment Team (SAT), Headquarters (HQ) and Rebecca Migala, Assistant Project Manager, (Region 1, Regional Office), Krishna Gifford (Region 5, Regional Office), Susan (Amanda) Bossie (Region 5 Solicitor's Office, Julie Devers (Region 5, Maryland Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office), Jason Mays (Region 4, Asheville Field Office), Rachel Mair (Region 5, Harrison Lake National Fish Hatchery), Robert Anderson and Brian Scofield (Region 5, Pennsylvania Field Office), Morgan Wolf (Region 4, Charleston, SC), Lindsay Stevenson (Region 5, Regional Office), Nicole Rankin (Region 4, Regional Office) and Sarah McRae (Region 4, Raleigh, NC Field Office). We also received assistance from David Smith of the U.S. Geological Survey, who served as our SSA Coach. Finally, we greatly appreciate our partners from Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada, the Brook Floater Working Group, and others working on brook floater conservation. Version 1.0 (June 2018) of this report was available for selected peer and partner review and comment. Version 1.1 incorporated comments received on V 1.0 and was used for the Recommendation Team meeting. This final version, (1.1.1), incorporates additional comments in addition to other minor editorial changes including clarifications.
    [Show full text]
  • Lighthouses on the Coast of Maine Sixty-Seven Lighthouses Still Perch High on the Rocky Cliffs of Maine
    ™ Published since 1989 Where, when, and how to discover the best nature 116 photography in America Number 116 - October 2010 Cape Neddick Light - 62 mm / 93 All captions are followed by the lens focal length used for each photograph - DX and FX full-frame cameras. Lighthouses on the Coast of Maine Sixty-seven lighthouses still perch high on the rocky cliffs of Maine. Some of these lighthouses were built more than two hundred years ago to help sailors navigate their way through storms, fog, and dark of night. These beacons saved wooden merchant vessels sailing dangerous courses through narrow and shallow channels filled with countless hazards. Maine’s lighthouses were a part of our country’s history at a time when we were defending our shores, as far back as the Revolutionary war. Some were damaged by war and many were destroyed by the violence of nature. Light keepers risked their own lives to keep their lamps burning. A proud and dramatic beauty can be seen in these structures and their rugged environments–the reason I recently returned to Maine for another photo exploration. Issue 116 - page 2 You can fly into local airports like Portland or Whaleback Light Bangor, but fares are better and flights are more 43˚ 03’ 30” N frequent into Boston. You may want to rent a car 70˚ 41’ 48” W with a satellite navigation system or bring your From U.S. Route 1, drive east on State Route own portable GPS receiver. Just set your GPS 103 for 3.8 miles. Turn right onto Chauncey coordinates for the degrees/minutes/seconds Creek Road until you reach Pocahontas Road.
    [Show full text]
  • Maine Integrated Freight Strategy Final Report, 2014 Maine Department of Transportation
    Maine State Library Digital Maine Transportation Documents Transportation 6-2014 Maine Integrated Freight Strategy Final Report, 2014 Maine Department of Transportation Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalmaine.com/mdot_docs Recommended Citation Maine Department of Transportation, "Maine Integrated Freight Strategy Final Report, 2014" (2014). Transportation Documents. 102. https://digitalmaine.com/mdot_docs/102 This Text is brought to you for free and open access by the Transportation at Digital Maine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Transportation Documents by an authorized administrator of Digital Maine. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Maine Integrated Freighht Strategy final report prepared for Maine Department of Transportation prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. June 2014 www.camsys.com final report Maine Integrated Freight Strategy prepared for Maine Department of Transportation prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 100 Cambridge Park Drive, Suite 400 Cambridge, MA 02140 date June 2014 Maine Integrated Freight Strategy Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 1 Current Freight System in Maine ......................................................................... 3 Freight-Related Programs and Investments ......................................................... 6 Key Trends Impacting the Freight System .......................................................... 6 Key Issues and
    [Show full text]
  • Salmo Salar) in the United States
    Status Review for Anadromous Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) in the United States Atlantic Salmon Biological Review Team Clem Fay, Penobscot Nation, Department of Natural Resources Meredith Bartron, USFWS, Northeast Fishery Center Scott Craig, USFWS, Maine Fisheries Resource Office Anne Hecht, USFWS, Ecological Services Jessica Pruden, NMFS, Northeast Region Rory Saunders (Chair), NMFS, Northeast Region Tim Sheehan, NMFS, Northeast Fisheries Science Center Joan Trial, Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission July 2006 Acknowledgements Clem Fay was a key member of the Atlantic Salmon Biological Review Team (BRT) until he passed away in October of 2005. His understanding of ecological processes was unrivaled, and his contributions to this document were tremendous. Since his passing preceded the publication of this Status Review, he was not able to see the completion of this project. We would also like to acknowledge Jerry Marancik’s early contributions to this project. He was a BRT member until he retired in the spring of 2004. At that time, Scott Craig assumed Jerry Marancik’s role on the BRT. We would also like to acknowledge the many people who contributed to the completion of this document. Primarily, the work of previous Atlantic Salmon BRTs helped form the basis of this document. Previous BRT members include M. Colligan, J. Kocik, D. Kimball, J. Marancik, J. McKeon, P. Nickerson, and D. Beach. Many other individuals contributed helpful comments, ideas, and work products including D. Belden, E. Cushing, R. Dill, N. Dube, M. Hachey, C. Holbrook, D. Kusnierz, P. Kusnierz, C. Legault, G. Mackey, S. MacLean, L. Miller, M. Minton, K. Mueller, J. Murphy, S.
    [Show full text]
  • Fel UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT of the INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Maine NATIONAL REGISTER of HISTORIC PLACES Knox
    fel UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Maine NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES Knox PROPERTY PHOTOGRAPH FORM FOR NPS USE ONLY ENTRY NUMBER (Type all entries - attach to or enclose with photograph) ttJZTW COMMON: George's River Canal AND/OR HISTORIC: General Knox Canal STREET AND NUMBER: River CITY OR TOWN: Warren PHOTO CREDIT-. State Park and Recreation Commission DATE OF PHOTO: 1970 NEGATIVE FILED AT: State House - Augusta , Maine DESCRIBE VIEW, DIRECTION, ETC. Photo #1. First rapids above tide water. Site of Guard Lock. No visible remains today. L, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Maine COUNTY NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES Knox PROPERTY PHOTOGRAPH FORM FOR NPS USE ONLY (Type all entries - attach to or enclose with photograph) ENTRY NUMBER COMMON: George ' s River Canal AND/OR HISTORIC: General Knox Canal ISTREET AND NUMBER-. Property up river from Warren,Maine~. Owned by Henry Conary. CITY OR TOWN: Warren Maine.. PHOTO CREDIT: State Park and Recreation Commissi DATE OF PHOTO: I?7C NEGATIVE FILED AT: State House - Augusta,Maine. DESCRIBE VIEW, DIRECTION, ETC. Southeast. Photo # 2. Upper end of first locks of the two built by Charles Barrett. Local name Knox Locks. * >, >; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STATE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Maine COUNTY Kn()X NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES PROPERTY PHOTOGRAPH FORM FOR NPS USE ONLY (Type all entries - attach to or enclose with photograph) ENTRY NUMBER DATE 75' iiiiiiilii^ :~?:*:"~->;::^$•/(£- OOtfO 3/3/70 COMMON: George's River Canal AND/OR HISTORIC-. General Knox Canal STREET AND NUMBER: property up river from Warren , Maine .
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of Observed and Predicted Abutment Scour at Selected Bridges in Maine
    Comparison of Observed and Predicted Abutment Scour at Selected Bridges in Maine Final Report 2008 A Publication from the Maine Department of Transportation’s Research Division Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No.08-04 2. 3. Recipient’s Accession No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Comparison of Observed and Predicted Abutment 2008 Scour at Selected Bridges in Maine 6. 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Pamela J. Lombard and Glenn A. Hodgkins SIR 2008-5099 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No. U.S. Geological Survey, Maine Division 11. Contract © or Grant (G) No. 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Maine DOT 16 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333-0016 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract (Limit 200 words) Maximum abutment-scour depths predicted with five different methods were compared to maximum abutment-scour depths observed at 100 abutments at 50 bridge sites in Maine with a median bridge age of 66 years. Prediction methods included the Froehlich/Hire method, the Sturm method, and the Maryland method published in Federal Highway Administration Hydraulic Engineering Circular 18 (HEC-18); the Melville method; and envelope curves. No correlation was found between scour calculated using any of the prediction methods and observed scour. Abutment scour observed in the field ranged from 0 to 6.8 feet, with an average observed scour of less than 1.0 foot. Fifteen of the 50 bridge sites had no observable scour. Equations frequently overpredicted scour by an order of magnitude and in some cases by two orders of magnitude.
    [Show full text]
  • Appleton Bog-Pettingill Swamp-Witcher Swamp
    Focus Areas of Statewide Ecological Significance: Appleton Bog- Pettingill Swamp- Witcher Swamp Beginning with Focus Areas of Statewide Ecological Significance Habitat Appleton Bog-Pettingill Swamp-Witcher Swamp Biophysical Region • Central Maine Embayment WHY IS THIS AREA SIGNIFICANT? Rare Animals The three large wetlands that make up Appleton Bog, Creeper Witcher Swamp, and Pettingill Swamp represent rare and Upland Sandpiper exemplary examples of unpatterned fen, spruce- larch Rare Plants wooded bog, and Atlantic white cedar bog as well as one Atlantic White-cedar of the largest Atlantic white cedar swamps in the state. Because these wetlands function in part as headwaters Rare and Exemplary of the St. George River, this area also provides flood Natural Communities and water quality protection for the St. George River. Atlantic White Cedar Bog Atlantic White Cedar Swamp The proximity of the three large wetlands, and their Black Spruce Bog combined habitat diversity, suggest that they may be Red Maple Fen viewed as one large conservation entity. Unpatterned Fen Ecosystem OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONSERVATION Significant Wildlife Habitats Inland Wading Bird and Waterfowl Habitat » Educate recreational users about the ecological and Deer Wintering Area economic benefits provided by the Focus Area. » Work with willing landowners to permanently protect remaining undeveloped areas. » Encourage town planners to improve approaches to development that may impact Focus Area functions. » Encourage best management practices for forestry, vegetation clearing, and soil disturbance activities. » Encourage landowners to maintain intact forested buf- fers along water bodies and wetlands. » Monitor and remove invasive plant populations. Public Access Opportunities For more conservation opportunities, visit the Beginning • Appleton Bog Preserve, TNC with Habitat Online Toolbox: www.beginningwithhabitat.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report of the U.S Atlantic Salmon
    ANNUAL REPORT OF THE U.S. ATLANTIC SALMON ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 32 - 2019 ACTIVITIES Portland, Maine March 2 – 6, 2020 PREPARED FOR U.S. SECTION TO NASCO Contents 1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Description of Fisheries and By-catch in USA Waters ................................................................... 4 1.3 Adult Returns to USA Rivers .......................................................................................................... 4 1.4 Stock Enhancement Programs ...................................................................................................... 5 1.5 Tagging and Marking Programs .................................................................................................... 5 1.6 Farm Production ........................................................................................................................... 5 1.7 Smolt Emigration ........................................................................................................................... 6 1.8 References .................................................................................................................................... 6 2 Viability Assessment - Gulf of Maine Atlantic Salmon .......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form
    NPS Form 10-900-b 0MB Wo. 1024-0018 (Jan. 1987) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form This form is for use in documenting multiple property groups relating to one or several historic contexts. See instructions in Guidelines for Completing National Register Forms (National Register Bulletin 16). Complete each item by marking "x" in the appropriate box or by entering the requested information. For additional space use continuation sheets (Form 10-900-a). Type all entries. A. Name of Multiple Property Listing Androscoggin River Drainage Prehistoric Sites_____________________ B. Associated Historic Contexts ~~ Early and Middle Archaic Susquehanna Tradition Ceramic Period Early Contact Period C. Geographical Data The Androscoggin River Drainage Prehistoric Sites multiple property document encompasses those prehistoric sites located See continuation sheet D. Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this documentation form meets the National Register documentation standards and sets forth requirements for the listing of related properties consistent with the National Register criteria. This submission meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth [oJ36 CFR Part 60 and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Planning and,Evaluation. Signature of certifying official Maine Historic Preservation ssion State or Federal agency and bureau I, hereby, certify that this multiple property documentation form has been approved by the National Register as a basis for evaluating related properties for listing in the National Register. Signature/jf the Keeper of the National Register Date NP8 Form 10-900* OMBAppmnlNo.
    [Show full text]