*Scroll down for links to all previous articles posted on this subject*

In the last article I gave you a list of who was invited as possible candidates to participate in a “peer-review” group that would oversee the operations of the Backcountry Project – kind of like asking the sheep to watch over the sheep but in this case it became the sheep watching the sheep who were in fact the sheep.

On October 18, 2005 a meeting was held at the Maine Department of Conservation offices in Augusta. I have minutes to that meeting which I will share. I would like to point out a couple of things though first. One, the minutes are not well done. They are sketchy at best and at times they identify who is speaking and at others it is unknown. The second issue is that I realize as you probably will too by the way the minutes are recorded, this may have been more of a brainstorming session than a work one.

I will provide you with the full text of the minutes but first I want to take a look at some key points. The first disturbing bit of evidence comes before the minutes begin. The title of the meeting looks like this.

Maine Backcountry Project
Peer Review Group First Meeting Minutes
10/18/05 9-Noon DOC Augusta Office

From the information that I have been dissecting, I have been led to believe that there would be two separate, as best as could be expected, entities at work here. The first would be the Backcountry Project participants and the second would be a peer review group that would “keep an eye on” things, as requested by the Kendall Foundation.

What I find puzzling right off is that under the title of these meeting minutes it would appear that if there ever was two separate groups, they have already morphed into one. So much for overseeing and accountability.

The minutes actually show that no member of the DOC attended the meeting – more on that in a moment. A peer review group, whose function according to what DOC told Kendall Foundation, was to oversee the work of the MBP and make recommendations and assist in amassing knowledge.

Steve will be assembling a peer review group by July 31, 2005 to help guide each phase of the project.

I think it will become clear to you that the peer review group is in fact the Maine Backcountry Project. I wonder how long prior to the application process with Kendall Foundation did the DOC have this so-called peer-review group lined up and ready for action?

Let’s look one more time at what the Kendall Foundation had to say in Question One about how to utilize this peer review group and to what ends.

We would like to know how you envision the informal
peer-review process taking place, a process which we believe to be beneficial for the following reasons:

To build a solid “information base to objectively evaluate wilderness acquisition opportunities” (as stated in your preliminary proposal).

To obtain the best and varied conservation planning data in the State’s efforts to prioritize wilderness areas (i.e., to boost the State’s resources/staff capacity by drawing on the expertise and strengths of partner groups).

To strengthen existing partnerships between the State and conservation nonprofits, and perhaps build new ones, in the effort to build collaboration for wilderness protection.

To help the State achieve ambitious protection goals, making it a leader in terms of wildlife/wilderness protection.

That last objective jumps out at me. “To help the State achieve ambitious protection goals, making it a leader in terms of wildlife/wilderness protection.” In all honesty this doesn’t sound like anything that would be working in the best interest for all Maine people. This sounds like the Kendall Foundation has been told through this whole process to date, what the goals of the Baldacci administration is and that’s to join hands with people like Roxanne Quimby and other groups to buy up and close down Maine’s forests in the name of protection. All being done quite secretively I might add.

The first part of the minutes has introductions of the group – assuming that this introduction is of all of those who attended.

The group introduced themselves (Dave Publicover AMC, Brian Wentzell AMC, Jensen Bissell BSP, Greg Shute Chewonki, Ralph Knoll BPL, Dave Mention MIT A, Andy Cutko MNAP, Cathy Johnson NRCM, lan Burns NFA, Kate Williams NFCT, Karen Woodsum SC, Sandy Neilly MF, Garret Conover NWW).

Before I help you with better identification of those in attendance, let me say that in the introductions there are none from any employees of the Department of Conservation. Following the opening paragraph of the minutes, a statement refers to Steve. There were no Steves introduced above, so I have to assume that the Steve being referenced in the minutes, refers to Steve Spencer Director of the Backcountry Project. The minutes also do not state who is keeping the minutes.

In the introductions, it lists a name with some initials following the name. For those who don’t know, which included me inititially, I’ll do my best to tell you what they stand for and give you a link to their organization’s website if they have one or information about the organization if they don’t.
AMC = Appalachian Mountain Club
BSP = Baxter State Park
Chewonki = Chewonki Foundation
BPL = Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands (falls under the direction of the DOC)
MITA = Maine Island Trail Association
MNAP = Maine Natural Areas Program
NRCM = Natural Resources Council of Maine
NFA = Northern Forest Alliance
NFCT – Northern Forest Canoe Trail
SC = Sierra Club
MF = Moosehead Region Futures Committee????? Not sure on this one.
NWW = North Woods Ways

Steve states the goals of the day.

Steve stated that the goal of the day was to review various backcountry parcels of land that may be available and that should/could be considered for management as Wilderness.

Let’s quickly review for a moment what “wilderness” is as defined for the Kendall Foundation.

The terms “backcountry” and “wilderness” both refer to large areas of wild lands where nature prevails and human alterations are minimal (i.e. primitive hiking trails and camp sites). In Maine, these terms are conversationally used somewhat interchangeably. More technical terms can be found in the Bureau of Parks and Lands Integrated Resource Policy (IRP) that uses a system of resource allocations to direct management practices for lands basedfon their resource values. The IRP does not include a” wilderness” designation, per se, however there are two resource allocations that contain what we consider to be wilderness characteristics.

First, the Backcountry-Non mechanized Recreation designation is applied “for the values associated with a special combination of features including superior scenic quality, remoteness, wild and pristine character, and capacity to impart a sense of solitude. Most will encompass more than 1,000 contiguous acres”

Second, the IRP also establishes Ecological Reserves (as a sub-category of Special Protection) “for the purpose of maintaining one or more natural community types or native ecosystem types in a natural condition and range of variation and contributing to the protection of Maine’s biological diversity, and managed: A) as a benchmark against which biological and environmental change can be measured, B) to protect sufficient habitat for those species whose habitatneeds are unlikely to be met on lands managed for other purposes; or C) as a site for ongoing scientific research, long-term environmental monitoring, and education. Most ecological reserves will encompass more than 1,000 contiguous acres.”

While Backcountry Nonmechanized and Ecological Reserves are distinct allocations, together they provide the opportunities for public lands in Maine to be managed for wilderness values. We note that because we envision this project also working in partnership with other public and private landowners the Integrated Resource Policy will not always strictly apply. However we think it will provide guidance for these partnerships and sets a strong floor for creative approaches to wilderness-type management. Please refer to attached IRP excerpts for more detail.

I certainly wouldn’t want you to lose sight of what the goal of the Backcountry Project is. It has nothing to do with finding lands available for recreation for all or even lands that should be considered usable for forest management and industry. This Project is not broad based and includes very few interests only a few special interest groups. It has no goals or directions only to find lands they think could be bought and/or put into easements for wilderness designation as per their own definition.

Next we will further look into areas the peer group discusses as possible wilderness designation.

*Previous Posts*

Maine Backcountry Project – Meeting Minutes Part I
Grant For BackCountry Project Approved
Question Five – Who’s Going To Pay?Question Four – Is $25,000 Enough Money?
Question Three – Peer-Review Group, Who Will It Be?
Job Description – Backcountry Project Director
Integrated Resources Policy Excerpts
Grant Application For Backcountry Project – Question One
The Five Questions – Maine Backcountry Project
Wilderness Planning Initiative For Kendall Foundation – Proposal
Wilderness Planning Initiative For Kendall Foundation – Need
Wilderness Planning Initiative – Backcountry Project

Tom Remington

No related posts.