Addressing Change in the Northern Forest:
An analysis of policy options for conserving
Maine’s North Woods
Ryan Aylesworth
ESPM 5242
November 2007
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
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 longterm quality and quantity of forestland in the region,
as well as associated wildlife and recreational uses.
Location of forest land in Maine by
population density and urban status,
2002 (Source: McWilliams et al. 2005)
NO PEOPLE…
…NONE!
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)
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
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)
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?
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)
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
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)
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
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
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
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
Analytic Methods
• Combination of extrapolative and intuitive forecasting
• Combination of political feasibility and implementation analysis
• Scenario writing
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
Analysis – National Park
• Low sociopolitical 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
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
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
Questions?
My old stomping grounds…
Rangeley, ME