News & Updates

Allagash Working Group Draft Report

DRAFT - November 21, 2006 (Subject to further review and revision by the members of the Working Group following public input)

INTRODUCTION TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE WORKING GROUP ON GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT STRUCTURE FOR THE ALLAGASH WILDERNESS WATERWAY

In his June 19, 2006, executive order, Governor Baldacci directed the Working Group to “offer its best guidance and advice to the Governor respecting the long-term governance, management, and oversight structure for the Allagash Wilderness Waterway” and asked that its recommendations be designed to “assure:

1. effective communication and compatibility between the goals and objectives of the Allagash Wilderness Waterway Act and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and the goals of recreational and commercial users and neighboring landowners;
2. the continuing protection and preservation of the Allagash Wilderness Waterway and enhancement of its ecosystems;
3. the continuing and effective expression of the history and culture of the region in which the river exists; and
4. the sound, effective, and efficient management of all its resources.”

For almost five months we have been engaged in an examination of the forty-year history of the Waterway and an analysis of the conditions and circumstance that led to the Governor’s executive order. We have reviewed documentation of the history, taken testimony at hearings, conducted correspondence with members of the several Waterway constituencies, engaged in an on-site examination of part of the Waterway, and have sought advice from experts in and outside the state.

There are those who suggest that the Waterway “ain’t broke,” so no changes are needed to “fix it.” They cite University of Maine Professor John Daigle’s survey that found a 97% satisfaction rate among Waterway users. The Working Group’s observations and inquiries have validated the generally favorable view of the Waterway itself and the experience it offers a variety of users. It should be noted also that, in addition to being successful as a recreational resource, the Waterway has achieved its initial, protective aims: (1) to prevent flooding of the river by high dams on the St. John River; (2) to prevent destructive timber harvest operations along the watercourse; and (3) to prevent vacation home development or other intensive recreation developments in the Waterway area. In addition, the Waterway restricted zone has, as intended, a more “wilderness” appearance and there have been no significant incidents of ecological damage within the Waterway.

We have also identified a number of serious problems related to the objectives cited in Governor Baldacci’s executive order. They need to be addressed by changes in the governance, management and oversight structure of the Waterway.

The problems include the following:

1. There are several passionate Waterway constituencies with very different perceptions of the range of intended uses of the Waterway. Their disagreements have led to ongoing conflicts over access points and differences over whether the Waterway was intended only for long trips by those engaged in a primitive canoeing experience or whether it was intended to be a recreational resource for a range of users, from long trip canoeists to day trip visitors. The conflicts and accusations have led to a decline in public confidence in the management of the Waterway, undermining even the valiant effort by the Department of Conservation to achieve consensus through the River Drivers’ Agreement. The vehemence of the rhetoric and the persistence of sniping suggest that there is “something under the skin” of virtually every constituency that calls for coherent, transparent and effective leadership to build public confidence and mutually supportive action to care for and enhance this extraordinary public natural resource.

2. Policy and management practices have contributed, often unwittingly, to the loss of public confidence in the state’s management of the Waterway. The effort to develop the maximum wilderness character of the restricted zone, for example, resulted in the loss of historic and cultural structures and remains in the lower reaches of the river, offending and alienating a number of local residents with strong family ties to former settlements and ancestral involvement in the use of the river. What some might consider minor access limitations have become major issues for people of the Allagash, the St. John Valley and neighboring communities. Likewise, what some might consider insignificant and merely convenient points of access developed over time in the middle and upper stretches of the Waterway, are an accumulating offense to those who consider that the state has reneged on its legislated responsibility to protect and enhance the wilderness character of the Allagash. Thus, unresolved conflicts have festered in the minds of many, and communication across the broad group of users of the Waterway is strained and occasionally combative.

3. Government reorganization efforts have resulted in shifting the Waterway from being a separate, unique state conservation and recreation entity to being another state park, understaffed in terms of its special requirements and vulnerable to further cuts as spending reform efforts try to apply comparative measures related to cost per visitor day and similar metrics. The financial problem is compounded by the fact that actual use of the Waterway is down, for a variety of reasons. The reduced number of user days, coupled with fixed operating and management expenses, have caused costs per user day to soar, to the point where the Department of Conservation has difficulty justifying the investment in comparison with other State recreation areas. As a state park, without special status, the Waterway is not in a position to acquire sufficient state and other funds to make adequate capital investments in infrastructure, expenditures for maintenance, investments in archeological and historic site protection, preservation, restoration and interpretation, or to acquire additional lands or easements that may be needed to conserve and enhance the ecosystems of the Waterway and its surroundings.

4. There never has been an attempt to develop an ongoing strategic planning process for the Waterway. The different constituencies and the managers of the Waterway have not worked together to determine the long term goals, objectives and evaluative criteria for this extraordinary public resource. Planning exercises have been limited to intermittent management plans that address tactical issues and have not involved consistent, stable or broadly credible governing or advisory bodies. The absence of a strategic vision and implementation plans further confounds opportunities to obtain sufficient funds to support operations, management, capital investment and investment in general enhancement of the ecosystems of the area. An example of this shortcoming is the absence of a strategic examination of the Allagash watershed and a determination of what steps, if any, would be desirable to protect the Waterway and its tributaries.

Our recommendations are designed to establish a structure of leadership that can enlist support from the different Waterway constituencies in rebuilding a vision for the jewel in our northern crown and setting the strategic direction for its enhancement as a natural area offering a variety of recreational opportunities and a monument to those who braved the wilderness and built communities. Strategic planning of that breadth and magnitude will lead to implementation plans – including sufficient funding – that will make achievement of our vision possible, and ensure efficient and effective management of the Waterway on behalf of all our citizens and support stewardship of the wilderness and its history for future generations.

Proposed Allagash Wilderness Waterway Governance Structure

I. Policy Guidance
The Working Group recommends that the basic mission and goals of the AWW continue to be articulated in Maine law through the legislative process. The Working Group recommends the creation of an AWW Board of Overseers to develop and oversee implementation of strategic and management plans consistent with the AWW statutes and the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

II. AWW Board of Overseers
The Working Group recommends that an AWW Board of Overseers (the Board) be established in statute. The dictionary definition of “overseer” is “one who keeps watch over and directs the work of others; a supervisor or superintendent.” The Working Group believes that it would be counterproductive for the Board members to “represent” established interest groups and believes it preferable for Board members to possess a range of leadership and management skills, knowledge of the Waterway, and technical areas of expertise. The proposed geographic distribution of the public members recognizes the importance of ensuring involvement of regional perspectives in governance of the Waterway. The creation of the Board is intended to enhance the credibility, visibility and continuity of AWW leadership.

The recommended Board membership would be as follows:

1. The Commissioner of the Maine Department of Conservation;
2. The Maine Attorney General or his/her designee;
3. The Director of the Maine State Planning Office;
4. A member of the public from the First Congressional District of Maine; and
5. A member of the public from the Second Congressional District of Maine.

The first three Board members would serve by virtue of the public offices to which they have been appointed or elected, while the last two would be appointed for four year terms in accordance with Title 3, Chapter 6, of the Maine Revised Statutes. That is, they would be nominated by the Governor, reviewed by the legislative committee with jurisdiction over AWW issues, and confirmed by vote of the Maine Senate. The initial terms should be staggered so as to promote continuity of the public representation, and the number of terms should not be limited. The public members of the Board should receive compensation in the form of legislative per diem and expenses allowable under Title 5, Section 12002-B, of the Maine Revised Statutes.

The Working Group does not believe it necessary to create a new government agency for AWW management. Therefore, the Board should be nested within the Department of Conservation for administrative, personnel, budgeting, and support purposes.

Throughout the Working Group process, stakeholders pointed to several serious challenges facing the AWW. Based on the stakeholder input, the Working Group recommends that the Board should have the authority to:

1. Develop strategic and long-range management plans for the AWW and, with private landowners, watershed management plans for the Allagash River;
2. Participate in the hiring and evaluation of the Director of AWW;
3. Monitor implementation of established strategic and long-range management plans;
4. Report biennially to the Legislature on progress, challenges, and needs;
5. Build relations with neighboring landowners;
6. Increase financial base of AWW; accept grants and other monies to this end;
7. Establish an Advisory Council and Technical Committees as needed;
8. Conduct public meetings and hearings;
9. Establish rules for administration of AWW;
10. Enter into agreements with other entities in furtherance of its purposes; and
11. Prepare and submit AWW budget requests to the DOC and to the Legislature.

III. Management and Funding
The Working Group heard from stakeholders a fair amount of frustration that the AWW was run as “just another park.” The Working Group agrees that the AWW is one of Maine’s crown jewels of natural recreation areas. In recognition of that fact, the Working Group recommends elevating the position of AWW Director and making the Director responsible for carrying out the Board’s legal mandate and collaborating with other State and federal agencies, local volunteers, and interested parties. The Director would be hired by the Commissioner of the Department of Conservation, with the consent of the Board.

The AWW Director would hire, supervise, and evaluate AWW staff. Hiring would require approval of the Commissioner of the Department of Conservation.

The AWW budget would be prepared by the Board and submitted to both the Department of Conservation and the Legislature’s Joint Standing Committee on Appropriations and Financial Affairs. This process would allow the legislative committee to review the Board’s requests in their entirety, not just the requests included in the administration’s budget.

The AWW needs additional financial resources in order to flourish. While funding for the new AWW Director position would necessarily come from State funds, the Working Group believes that a coordinated effort by the Director, the Board, and interested stakeholders could raise federal and private funds that would more than justify the additional State expense.

The Working Group recommends that the Board and Director pursue federal and other sources of funds for needed AWW capital improvements, land acquisition, physical facilities, visitor information and education, and heritage programs.

Because the Working Group believes there are significant opportunities for private fundraising for AWW improvements, it recommends that an AWW Permanent Endowment Fund be created to receive such funds. Expenditures from the Permanent Endowment Fund should be limited to a percentage of the income to the Fund to allow for continuous growth of the Fund. The Permanent Endowment Fund should be created to provide the maximum protection that can be afforded by law, so that prospective donors would have comfort that their gifts could not be diverted to address other governmental needs.

IV. Public Involvement and Support
The Working Group recommends that the Board be authorized to create both an Advisory Council and technical committees, as needed. The Advisory Council should consist of six to ten people to serve at the pleasure of the board with knowledge and experience in such areas as forest management, recreation, watershed management, wildlife conservation, cultural and historic preservation, and Wild and Scenic River planning and management. A representative of the National Park Service would serve as an ex officio member of the Council. The Board should annually appoint a Chair of the Advisory Council.

The Working Group believes that the Board may wish to establish technical committees to advise the Board on specific subjects or tasks such as Permanent Endowment Fund management, personnel management, private landowner relations, watershed planning, public education, historic preservation, forest and fisheries management, campsite management and fees, etc. Each technical committee should have a chair, appointed as determined by the Board.

The Mission of the Allagash Wilderness Waterway

Governor Baldacci’s charge to the Working Group did not include action on the mission of the Waterway. Nevertheless, the Group soon found that, forty years after its founding, there are heightened disagreements over the purposes of the Waterway, in the context of its beginnings and in light of the experience of the last four decades. Mission-related issues were raised with the Working Group again and again.

We recommend that the question of mission be addressed by the legislature and by the proposed Allagash Wilderness Waterway Board of Overseers as part of a major strategic planning effort. We offer the following as our vision of what might be and as an initial contribution to the discussion.

1. Protect and enhance the wilderness character of the Allagash Wilderness Waterway and ensure its optimum public use through judicious management of it as a wilderness area and enhancement of the integrity of its tributaries, with priorities in the Waterway placed on offering wilderness experience to its primary users, the canoeists and fishermen;

2. Demonstrate the value we attach to the culture and history of the Allagash region by preserving, protecting and interpreting significant artifacts that reveal the life experience and impact of the native peoples, the settlers and those who came to use the forests and waters of the region in harvesting and transporting timber from the forest;

3. Enrich the lives of current and future generations by supporting and facilitating a variety of low impact recreational and educational uses of the Waterway that respect the integrity of the natural areas and history of the peoples of the area and are consistent with the Waterway’s natural and historical conservation and enhancement programs.

NOTE: the term “low impact” refers to the uses now permitted in the Waterway under the constraints established by the statutes to protect the natural environment and its enjoyment by a variety of users.

Back to News & Updates