Maine Gov. John Baldacci has been pushing for more promotion of Maine’s natural resources and appears to be an advocate for the establishment of more “preserved” lands including National Heritage Areas. Part of this summit at Sunday River was to discuss the prospects of mapping and inventorying lands and waterways in order to protect them. Included in that process was to tap into federal money available to protect these lands through National Heritage Areas.

It is my belief that very few people are even aware of what a National Heritage Area is, say nothing about how they might think how it could benefit them or more particularly the landowner and the local economy.

In the January 28th, 2008 issue of National Review Magazine, John J. Miller, National Political Reporter, writes about National Heritage Areas. One of the things that Miller brings to our attention is the fact that sometimes our land is yanked out from underneath us without our knowledge, all for the good of conservation and preservation.

He cites the example in Arizona of a new National Heritage Area, Yuma Crossing, in which landowner Lee Ott, was completely unaware that his land had been designated as part of it until one day he spotted surveyors on his land. In Ott’s effort to fight back against the encroachment and thievery of his land, 600 people attended a meeting to learn more about what was taking place around them.

“About 600 people came to our meeting,” says Harold Maxwell, a farm-equipment distributor. “When I asked for a show of hands from those who knew they were in the NHA, only one hand went up.”

Evidently, this is part of how the designation of lands for National Heritage Areas takes place. What’s to hide anyway?

Miller describes what National Heritage Areas are in terms most of us should be able to understand.

National Heritage Areas are like a poor man’s National Park­ they aren’t actually owned by the federal government, but they’re zoned by it. Instead of employing Park Rangers in stiff-brimmed hats, they’re often administered by liberal groups that want to weaken the property rights of the people who hold a piece of land within or even near NHA boundaries. This is generally done in the name of historic preservation and environmental conservation.

Miller also describes NHA as a very popular thing these days particularly because they are a means of gaining huge sums of money through earmarks and is a wonderful tool for those bent on controlling and limiting our land-use rights.

Peyton Knight, Director of Environmental and Regulatory Affairs for The National Center for Public Policy Research, says that NHAs become federal zoning laws that are enforced by private preservationist groups.

The rules governing NHAs vary from place to place, but they tend to have a few features in common. One important element is the involvement of a “management entity” that works in conjunction with the Park Service to come up with a plan. In the case of one NHA, this means creating an “inventory” of properties of “national historic significance” that it wants “preserved,” “managed,” or “acquired.”

Miller says that those who support NHAs, even though they claim they are not in the business of buying or regulating real estate, the end result does in fact do that. His claims are that supporters work with local government to enforce and create restrictive land ordinances that fall in line with plans for conserving and preserving “inventoried” and “mapped out” lands.

He gives an example of how that is done.

They do this by dangling the prospect of federal largesse in front of potential recipients. West Virginia’s Wheeling NHA, which is basically a downtown preservation project, makes this explicit, according to a Heritage Foundation report by Chumley and Ron Utt. Its management plan calls for new zoning ordinances and the acquisition of private property. And how will it achieve these goals? As Chumley and Utt write, “Major funding to support the activities . . . and the recommendations of this plan will be coming from the National Park Service.” In the year prior to its most recent available tax filing, the Wheeling NHA received more than $2.5 million in government contributions and not a dime from private sources.

Is this what we want in our own back yards? As we have now seen, these operations sneak about seeking people’s land to devour and control, even without the knowledge of the landowner. We have also been shown that you don’t even have to own land within a NHA, only to be “near” one.

While most of us favor conservation and in some cases we would like to see certain parcels of land protected, I want to believe that very few of us want these “Management Entities” empowered and funded by the federal government taking away our land and or limiting our uses for the sake of creating these National Heritage Areas.

As hunters, fishermen and outdoor sportsmen, our future depends on our ability to access the outdoors. We can’t blindly plunder into programs like this without knowing the facts. We just might end up “giving away the farm” as they say, without a clue as to what is really going to happen.

Severe limits and restrictions on lands and land use, including access to our waterways, will destroy our recreational opportunities and long time heritage of our love for the outdoors. Our property rights and those of our neighbors have to be protected from such programs.

We have to consider this effort as one that can easily be used by the incrementalists to stop hunting, fishing, trapping, etc. With local governments strong armed into creating restrictive land use, you know only the elite special interest groups will ensure their access while restricting or eliminating many others.

Get involved in what’s going on in your community and keep your eyes on your own land to make sure it isn’t being snatched away.

Tom Remington

We played phone tag for a few days until finally we connected. I spent nearly two hours on the phone talking with Whit and sharing much of what I had experienced as a child living on the river when it was literally an open cesspool. Today, that same river is teeming with fish, the water is mostly clean and people are beginning to discover what it has to offer.

Whit put together an article that touches on aspects of all three of Maine’s largest rivers – Androscoggin, Kennebec and Penobscot. Of course his focus, being the writer for a Maine business oriented magazine, is on how these three rivers can benefit the citizens of Maine economically.

Richardson talks with several people who have at least some degree of influence and knowledge of how these three rivers have in the past and are currently benefiting Maine people. The real question now becomes, what does the future hold?

Much of the talk these days is about how to lure the “deep pockets” of wealthy fly fishermen. While I agree that Maine needs to focus attention on luring the money-spending fishermen that will be a benefit to many businesses throughout Maine, we need to make sure this isn’t done at the expense of other aspects of fishing. More on that in a moment.

The goal, says Bill Pierce, a marketing specialist with the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, is to create a brand around the Androscoggin and the Kennebec. Both are big rivers that are close to a big marketplace — in this case, the entire Northeast as far south as the Mason-Dixon line — and they have the tourist infrastructures already in place to offer a comfortable vacation, as well as options for non-fishing members of a family.

Pierce draws parallels to the Madison River in Montana or the Yellowstone River that snakes through Montana and Wyoming. “Those are brands in the angling community that are highly regarded, like Apple and Microsoft are highly recognized brands in the computer industry,” Pierce says. “If we create that energy around the upper Andro and the Kennebec, we will establish those as brands and people will come and spend money and they will have an economic benefit.”

I have a lot of respect for Bill Pierce and I believe he has done a remarkable job marketing Maine’s outdoor industry with very limited funds. I agree that we can draw some parallels with our rivers in Maine to the Madison and Yellowstone, but we will never be those for several reasons. That shouldn’t however hinder our efforts to continue to promote the assets each of our three major rivers hold.

Phil Monahan, editor of American Angler magazine in Bennington, Vermont put it this way.

Maine has the best fly fishing in New England, and could certainly become a regional paradise for anglers if it promoted itself more. But he doesn’t think the upper Androscoggin or the Kennebec will ever have the allure a river like the Yellowstone does for anglers. “Fly fishing tourism to a certain extent depends on a sense of romance for the angler,” Monahan says. “You just say ‘the Yellowstone’ to any fly fisherman and it conjures up images. I don’t know how the town of Bethel can generate that same kind of excitement.”

Whether Maine’s rivers are a draw to tourists or not and how much that will translate into revenue for struggling businesses remains to be seen. There are two issues that I see that are stumbling blocks for those eager to promote these rivers.

Be assured that not all Mainers want to see the rivers used more. Maine is a unique state in that many of her people are very eager to keep Maine as it is today or perhaps see it regress twenty or thirty years. Without the support of the majority of the people, promoting the rivers for tourism is that much harder.

The second issue is one that I touched on briefly before – promoting the river at the expense of others. Some sportsmen, as well as tourism officials, believe that it is the “Orvis” or “Cabela’s” or the “L.L. Bean” fly fishermen that has deep pockets and will save Maine by bringing in the big spenders to fish our native brook trout and associated waters. Whether that can and will happen, I haven’t a clue but it can’t be done at the expense of shutting down the rest of the fishing industry or at a minimum, giving it the short end of the stick.

As pressure mounts from groups promoting fly fishing as the end all to the fishing industry, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is facing decisions on regulation of its waters. For the fly fisherman searching for the ultimate experience, he wants a “Yellowstone” river. This means managing that body of water for that purpose and that purpose only. When this is done, it shuts out a bigger majority of spin-casting or general law fishermen, including a lot of kids.

Fishing is a big industry that involves many aspects and disciplines. It requires a balancing act by fish and game to do what is right in both managing fisheries for science and regulating waters to benefit all anglers, which in turn fires the economy.

Even if it is determined that Maine can benefit financially from promoting its waters as a destination fly-fishing haven, we can’t shut down the rest of the fishing industry to promote just that niche. We have to find the right balance.

One thing is for sure though. However one views the best way to take advantage of the waters of the Androscoggin, the Kennebec and the Penobsot, none of this will much matter if we don’t all do our part to keep these rivers clean and accessible to the public.

Tom Remington

These two meetings were attended by 35-40 people.

4/26/2007 Thomas College, Waterville

TOPIC: Kennebec Corridor Protection, Restoration and Access

27 people attended the meeting on April 26th at Thomas College in Waterville. This goal of this meeting was to develop a menu of projects that fit into the: Kennebec Corridor Protection, Restoration and Access category.

Groups and individuals were asked to come to the meeting with ideas of definite specific project proposals (new projects or strengthen existing projects). The proposals received will be worked into the Action Plan and tied to the map work completed during the Reach Committee Meetings in January.

Participants were given guidance in developing their “project menus”. Proposed actions in this group should:

-protect natural resources and corridor values (habitat, aesthetic & cultural values, fisheries, etc);

-include the public, and help people buy into the larger goal of Kennebec River protection

-increase public access in appropriate places (land and water); minimize impacts on more wild stretches

-utilize partnerships; and

- be as specific to location(s) as possible.

Outcome of this meeting:

When the project proposals that came out of the meeting were sorted through and some combinations made, we ended up with the following project proposals. Many are site-specific actions but there are also a fair number of programs that should be implemented river-wide. While some projects are already underway, most are at the conceptual stage and need partners and funds to get started.

Project ‘menu’ from the first Action Group meeting:

1. River-wide boat launch inventory

2. Improvements at specific boat launches: Waterville (Map 7), Moscow (Map 12)

3. Protection of endangered waterbirds, Barrow’s goldeneye (Map 6)

4. Community river monitoring

5. Kennebec River-keeper

6. Focus on some point sources of pollution

7. Kennebec volunteer network and alert

8. Fee-free rubbish collection

9. Kennebec watershed wildlife education

10. Improve ATV enforcement in the Kennebec Corridor

11. Bingham-Embden multi-use trail (Map 10)

12. Public access on the lower east side (Maps 1-5)

13. Gravel pit remediation at specific sites (Map 9) and corridor-wide attention

14. Petroglyph protection (Map 10)

15. Sandy River bank restoration (Map 9)

16. Enhancement of Fort Halifax Park (Map 6)

17. Arnold History Trail

18. Forks Area Scenic Trails (Map 13)

19. Statten Mill site remediation, Augusta (Map 5)

20. Seven-mile Stream access point, Vassalboro (Map 5)

21. Save the Kennebec Gorge (Maps 13, 14)

22. Rail-Trail Extension, Augusta-Winslow (Maps 5 and 6)

23. Scenic views rights-of-way

24. Kennebec River map & guide

25. Restore fish spawning habitat, northern reach (Maps 9 to 11)

26. Riparian continuity (shoreline protection)

27. Messalonskee Trails Expanison (Map 6)

28. Livestock exclusion program

29. Access at Bath (Map 2)

30. Kennebec River canoe trail system (Maps 5 to 13)

31. Kennebec channel rehydration, Solon (Map 10)

32. Kennebec Estuary Collaboration (ongoing) (Maps 1 and 2)

Themes/issues particular to this meeting:

o The proposals for access points and trails can be treated as crossovers to the economic development and tourism category of actions. Trails are strong connectors of people, places, and project ideas. We expect that the Action Plan will use trail projects as a backbone on which to build both conservation and development.

o Many of the proposals for riverwide programs are seen as tasks for KRI Phase II. For example, a coordinating body is needed to start up a web site that could present information and keep groups in touch with one another.

o The issue of state and municipal zoning laws has come up repeatedly during the project. In some places shoreland zoning laws are not being enforced and in some cases towns may want to look at making local ordinances more restrictive to better protect the shoreline and perhaps make these regulations consistent within the corridor.

o Better and improved fish passage and protection/restoration of fish habitat is needed all along the corridor but some specifics were nailed down at this meeting.

o Farmland protection was not addressed at this meeting but will be an important part of the Action Plan.

o The Kennebec Corridor is home to some of Maine’s most interesting history yet it is unknown to most people. Protecting specific historic sites and creating trails with interpretive walks is a priority to many and towns may be willing to help with these projects.

5/2/2007 Thomas College Waterville

TOPIC: Economic Growth and Development in the Kennebec Corridor

Groups and individuals were asked to come to the meeting with ideas of definite specific project proposals (new projects or strengthen existing projects). The proposals received will be worked into the action plan and tied to the map work completed during the reach Committee Meetings in January.

15 people attended this meeting.

Participants were given guidance in developing their “project menus”. Proposed actions in this group should:

-have strong community support;

-fit character of river;

-bring revenue/jobs to local economy; and

-utilize regional coordination/where possible, link areas up and down the river corridor.

- be identified as either corridor-wide actions (e.g., marketing initiatives, linking businesses) or site-specific (e.g., investment at specific sites for hotels, restaurants, parks, etc).

Outcome of this meeting:

Project ‘menu’ from the second Action Group meeting:

1. Kennebec River Council

2. Tri-Fort touring package (Maps 1 through 6)

3. Kennebec River outfitters, corridor-wide

4. Brownfield and junkyard reclamation, Statler site (Map 5)

5. Bond Brook trail system, Augusta (Map 5)

6. Waterfront districts

7. Activity inventory, corridor-wide

8. Benton gateway revitalization (Map 7)

9. Kennebec River paddling trip (Maps 1 through 13)

10. Carp sport fishery (tidal reach) (Maps 1 through 5)

11. Cobbossee Corridor bike/pedestrian path (Map 4)

12. Continue Gardiner waterfront project (Map 4)

13. Historical tour of the Kennebec

14. Kennebec Turnpike Visitors Center (Map 4)

Themes/Issues particular to this meeting:

o The idea of product partnership where the public can be better served by businesses promoting each other. Lodge to lodge or activity to activity tours by cooperating competitors will help both businesses. This is working very well in places right here in Maine. A small but critical mass of town planners and private investors is needed to get a tour package together that includes lodging, recreation, cultural amenities and transportation if needed. The tour will likely be specific to one reach but not limited by geography. The project is defined by the players.

o Product development of activities. Conduct some promotional events to bring press and tourists to the Kennebec. An example would be an outdoor writers press event around the Kennebec fishery.

o Creation of a Kennebec Corridor visitor center to act as a clearinghouse of information. In the meantime, creating a comprehensive KRI website that answers the questions of potential tourists (and provides other services) is a good first step.

o Keep in mind the goal of drawing people to the entire region and not just one activity or location.

o Passenger rail is something that was not discussed at this meeting but should be explored in the Action Plan.

o The Maine Office of Tourism is a valuable resource. While greatly under-funded compared to most state programs, the Office’s staff can provide valuable insight. There may also be possibilities for collaboration funded by an outside source.

NEXT STEPS

In the Action Group meetings we collected some details for each of the proposed projects and names of people who volunteered themselves as contacts to develop these ideas and move the projects forward. We will be contacting these folks to develop the ideas further and see how they connect with one another and potential funding sources. The two Action Group meetings only reinforced the connection between economic development and protection of the corridor’s natural resources.

Once the Action Plan is completed over the summer, printing will take place in early fall and the document will be available by mid-November.

Josh Platt
KRI Project Director
Kennebec SWCD
9 Green Street, Rm. 307
Augusta, Me 04330
207-622-7847 x 3

Tom Remington

The second meeting will occur on Wednesday May 2nd at the same time and location. This meeting will focus on economic growth and development in the Kennebec Corridor. Discussions about marketing and tourism will be part of this meeting as well.

Driving to Thomas College Atrium: Thomas College is located at 180 West River Road in Waterville, Maine. From Interstate 95 exit 127 (formerly 33), go east on Kennedy Memorial Drive (Route 137). In approximately 1.5 miles, turn right onto West River Road (Route 104 South). Thomas College is 1.5 miles on the left past Strike Ten Bowling.

Tom Remington

This next set of KRI meetings will refine the goals for protection and restoration of river corridor areas and better define the amount and kind of economic growth and development desired. We expect the Action Group meetings to produce specific recommendations for KRI phase II projects.

At the Reach Committee meetings in January participants examined river uses and values and how these fit into one of three categories:

1. protection/remediation

2. Access

3. Growth/development

At the Action Group meetings we want to expand on the information collected at the Reach meetings and to identify, goals for future KRI activities and specific recommendations/projects for implementation during KRI Phase II. One meeting will focus on these goals in the context of conservation, restoration and access. The other meeting will focus on community-based economic development.

Why Two Meetings?

We decided to hold two Action Group meetings to provide additional structure and focus to the particular discussion topic.

At the protection/restoration meeting we hope to see land trusts, conservation groups, landowners and wildlife/fisheries management interests. Improved and better access for the Kennebec Corridor is included here as well.

Municipal officials, local businesses, commercial developers, citizen groups, recreation interests as well as tourism/hospitality groups should attend the economic development meeting.

While participants may have a particular area of interest, we invite anyone interested in the future of the Kennebec to participate in one or both meetings.

Group 1: Kennebec Corridor Protection and Restoration

Location: Thomas College; Student Center Atrium

Thursday, April 26 from 1 pm to 4 pm

Groups and individuals begin to define specific project proposals (new projects or strengthen existing projects). Funding and other needs should be specified as much as possible.

Proposed Projects in this group should:

-protect natural resources and corridor values (habitat, aesthetic & cultural values, fisheries, etc);

-include the public;

-increase public access in appropriate places (land and water);

-utilize partnerships; and

- be as specific to location(s) as possible.

Group 2: Economic growth and development in the Kennebec Corridor

Location: Thomas College; Student Center Atrium

Wednesday, May 2 from 1 pm to 4 pm

Groups and individuals begin to define specific projects and proposals (new projects or strengthen existing projects). Funds needed and other needs should be specified as much as possible.

Proposed Projects in this group should:

-have strong community support;

-fit character of river;

-bring revenue/jobs to local economy; and

-utilize regional coordination/where possible, link areas up and down the river corridor.

A Little Homework

Prior to the meetings, participants can work on two items.

1.) In addition to writing the KRI Action Plan this year, what should the role of KRI be into the future? List your ideas/goals for KRI. If possible, send your goal list ahead of time so we can group similar goals and items and present ideas at the Action Group meeting. At the meetings, KRI will present a summary of these proposed goals and facilitate a discussion on this topic.

2.) We invite you to submit short but specific project proposals for inclusion in the Action Plan. Projects should be as specific as possible with regard to location, feasibility, partnerships, and cost.

� Please go to the Kennebec SWCD website (www.kcswcd.org) to see the updated maps that came out of the reach meetings held in January. These maps should be used as reference for locating project proposals

� We encourage you to consult with professional colleagues, neighbors, and town officials in developing your project idea

� Submit to us a brief pre-proposal (1 page or less) for your project idea, with as many specifics as possible (reference area #(s) on maps, partners, costs, intended outcome) We have included a template to get you started.

We will collect these ideas (some may be merged with other proposals where appropriate, others may need more info) and present them to the groups at the Action meetings.

At the meetings

� Participants will introduce themselves and describe their key interest(s) and any partners they are working with or hope to work with.

� KRI staff will give an overview of the project to this point and where things are headed in the future. Discussion on goals for the future of KRI.

� A Look at the updated maps from the reach committee meetings held in January.

� Look at project proposals from individuals and groups tied to the maps. These projects will appear in the Action Plan. KRI staff will facilitate activities to connect proposals regionally. Each proposal will need a contact person or group associated with it for it to be included in the Action Plan.

Tom Remington

Each Reach Committee was asked to develop areas of interest that would fall under categories ranging from conservation/protection to development. With the information put together by each of these groups, the KRI hopes to formulate an action plan.

According to an update (pdf) I received from Josh Platt KRI coordinator, each group’s focus was different simply because of geographical, economic and major use issues, yet they all seemed to have a common theme.

All of the reach meetings were attended by some extremely knowledgeable and passionate participants who share an energy around protecting and enhancing the Kennebec corridor.

These committee meetings are hoped to be used to gather as much information from interested parties in order to put together the best plan. There is already beginning to show differences in opinions as to what should be done by this group.

The project has drawn a wide variety of interests in each of the three reaches. Stakeholders included landowners, town reps, business owners, professional guides, land trusts, State agency reps, and cultural specialists. We are using these contacts as resources to add more information to the maps.

All along the Kennebec, stakeholders stressed the value of a healthy and semi-wild river to local communities and the economy.

There was general agreement that the river was not being used as much as it could be; however, there were differences – both between reaches and among stakeholders in each reach – as to the carrying capacity of the river in terms of scenic/aesthetic enjoyment and profitability of the businesses that depend on the river. Consequently, the question of how to market the river for sustainable use will be an issue.

This differences will only grow bigger as time goes on. The length of the river and the varied uses will make for strange bedfellows in time. Just the make-up of the residents from beginning to end is quite varied. One can only expect major differences in opinions.

At each of the three meetings, participants began writing down locations on a map to pinpoint areas they thought should be looked at. Each of these areas were put into some kind of general classification made relatively common within each Reach. KRI then lumped these locations into four categories. 1.) Areas of protection, 2.) Remediate – things such as restoration, reclamation or erosion protection, etc., 3.) Access points, and 4.) Development areas.

The full report (pdf) lists these items more specifically within each reach.

What bothered me most about the report was the fact that at least from the perspective of reading the report, only one meeting, the Central Reach Group, discussed anything about property rights.

 Property rights issues were discussed as well as clustering development into appropriate areas near current development.

I find this approach disturbing and hope that this doesn’t or hasn’t become the norm for the Kennebec River Initiative. Groups can’t run roughshod over landowners to promote their agendas. It’s easy to stand up and say you would like to see this and that along the river but it is the landowners along the river that have certain property rights. Inevitably they are the ones who can make or break a project.

I think it is wonderful for this group or any other group to form and put together dreams and goals of how things could be, but to have these three meetings involving a minimum of 100+ people in attendance and to only have discussed property rights is quite troubling.

I’ll continue to watch this group as it evolves and hope that they can continue to bring in a unified community with common goals without alienating the landowners no matter how big or small.

Tom Remington