Ryan Aylesworth ESPM 5242 November 2007

1. Addressing Change in the Northern Forest:An analysis of policy options for conserving Maine’s North Woods Ryan Aylesworth ESPM 5242 November 2007

2. Presentation Roadmap • Problem definition • Introduction to north-central Maine • forest lands and wildlife • regional economy, recreation and culture • land ownership trends • stakeholders • Evaluative criteria • Overview of policy options (alternatives) • Overview of data sources and research methodology • Analysis of policy options • Recommendations

3. Problem Definition Recent decline in the economic viability of the timber industry in northern Maine and subsequent predicted future rates of development and fragmentation of large forest parcels pose a serious threat to the long-term quality and quantity of forestland in the region, as well as associated wildlife and recreational uses.

4. Location of forest land in Maine by population density and urban status, 2002 (Source: McWilliams et al. 2005) NO PEOPLE… …NONE!

5. Characteristics of Maine forest lands… • 90% of the state is forested • Maine is the most heavily forested state in the U.S. (by %) • 95% of Maine’s forests are privately owned • The forests are heavily used by outdoor recreationists • Forest-based manufacturing is ME’s largest manufacturing industry Forest-land ownership (percent of area), Maine, 2006 (Source: Maine Forest Service)

6. Trends in forestland ownership • The forest products industry has suffered some decline in recent decades • 40% of Maine forest land have changed hands since 1998 • The amount of forestland proposed for subdivision has been rapidly rising

7. Stakeholders(not an exhaustive list) • Private property owners (corporate and family) • Forest products industry executives and workers • Wood products retailers • Tourism industry • Outdoor recreationists • Private property rights advocates • Trade and recreation associations • Environmental NGOs (i.e. TNC, The Wilderness Society) • Maine Woods Coalition • Maine Forest Service (MFS) • Maine Land Use Regulatory Commission (LURC) • National Park Service (NPS) • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) • Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife • Elected officials (federal, state, local)

8. Evaluative Criteria • Social/Political Feasibility i.e. Levels of stakeholder support/opposition • Equity i.e. Would certain stakeholders be disproportionately impacted? • Effectiveness i.e. Would future rates of development and forest loss & fragmentation be slowed? • Public-Sector Costs i.e.Initial capital expenditures and annual operating expenses • Administrative Ease/Operability i.e. How easy is implementation given existing administrative frameworks?

9. Alternatives not investigated in this analysis: • Creation of a national forest • Creation of a national wildlife refuge • Creation of a state park (modeled after the Adirondack Park in northern NY)

10. No Action Alternative (1 of 2) • Continuation of current forest conservation/management practices, and implements new approaches • Nearly all privately owned forest land would remain in private ownership • Maine Forest Service is promoting third party certification as a market-driven tool • Promotion of technologies for producing wood-based biofuels and biochemicals • Creation of carbon markets

11. No Action Alternative (2 of 2) • MFS is attempting to dramatically increase the amount of land that is under some form of official protection • Amendments to the existing Tree Growth Tax Law (TGTL)

12. Creation of a National Park (1 of 2) • Concept has been heavily promoted since 1990s • Would permanently protect 3.2 million acres from timber harvesting or development • Requires transferring large quantities of land from assorted private ownership to federal ownership • National Park Service retains total land management authority

13. Creation of a National Park (2 of 2) • Removes a large portion of the state’s land base from timber harvesting  facilitates a transition to a tourism economy. • Over time the forests within the park would age to old-growth • Would impact outdoor recreation

14. Creation of a National Reserve • Forests remain largely in private ownership and are managed under a comprehensive plan • Creates a coordinated program of tax incentives, zoning restrictions, public land acquisition, and conservation easements • Creates different categories of land uses • A state-level commission would administer the reserve

15. Data Types and Sources • Primary qualitative data collected via phone and email correspondence with agency officials and university faculty • Secondary qualitative data collected from local and regional newsprint • Secondary quantitative/qualitative data from government reports and scholarly publications

16. Analytic Methods • Combination of extrapolative and intuitive forecasting • Combination of political feasibility and implementation analysis • Scenario writing

17. Analysis – No Action Alternative • Socially and politically feasible because northern Maine residents generally support the “working forest” model • Few equity concerns… potential impacts to recreation/tourism • Effectiveness is questionable, and will depend largely on how successful MFS is in promoting/implementing new strategies • Public sector costs will remain relatively low • No anticipated administrative operability challenges • The region’s cultural identity should remain intact

18. Analysis – National Park • Lowsociopolitical acceptability due to concerns over how park designation would impact the FPI, recreation, and culture • Highly effective at protecting forest land within the park boundary, but could hasten development on adjacent lands • Equity issues abound as there are clear winners and losers • High costs of land acquisition may make option cost prohibitive • Low administrative complexity once land is transferred to NPS • Implementation feasibility is questionable given the need for congressional designation

19. Analysis – National Reserve • Social and political feasibility is relatively high given that forest lands would primarily remain in private ownership • Effectiveness should be high, but will depend largely on the extent to which the comprehensive plan is rigidly enforced • Few equity issues, but some property owners may be negatively impacted as a result of internal zoning and land use regulations • Public-sector costs should be fairly low • Administrative operability should be fairly high as LURC can assume control of the new reserve • Implementation feasibility is relatively high, but hurdles exist

20. Recommendation • Create a Maine Woods National Reserve modeled after the Pinelands National Reserve • Implementing this alternative does not require a totally new management paradigm • Allows for local control while providing important environmental safeguards and promoting additional tourism • MFS will still be able to pursue conservation strategies associated with the no action alternative • i.e. promoting Maine’s FPI as a leader in “green” wood products

21. Questions? My old stomping grounds… Rangeley, ME