ADDISON, Maine — An effort to create a new 2,070-acre wildlife management area on the eastern shore of Washington County’s Pleasant Bay has been awarded a $980,000 federal grant to be used in acquiring 177 acres abutting Long Cove.
The funds awarded under the Department of the Interior’s National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant Program were among $6.8 million in grants awarded this week to support seven projects designed to conserve and restore coastal wetlands in Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Virginia. The Maine grant is being matched by $450,000 being provided through the Pleasant River Wildlife Foundation, which submitted the federal grant application.
The parcels being acquired Down East will be managed to protect rare plants and fragile wildlife habitats in areas adjacent to Long Cove, Seal Cove and Oscar’s Pond. The relatively intact natural landscape includes spruce forests, freshwater wetlands, intertidal lands and eel grass beds, which provide food for many types of wildlife, from bufflehead and goldeneye ducks to salmon and softshell clams.
Through a partnership with nine conservation agencies, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife will manage the new Pleasant Bay Wildlife Management Area.
“This area will not only protect public access forever, but will allow all things that typically happen at a state wildlife management area to happen here,” said Lois Winter, executive director of the Pleasant River Wildlife Foundation. “We’ll be setting up an endowment fund that will be used to make a payment in lieu of taxes donation to the town of Addison and to support stewardship costs, as Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is cash-strapped. That money can be used to construct trials, or do whatever the state deems appropriate for an area like this.”
While most wildlife management areas are created to preclude property subdivision that fragments ecologically sensitive habitats, Winter said this project is “de-fragmenting” an area that has already been subdivided but has seen minimal development.
“The process of putting this wildlife management area together is quite complex,” she said. “We’re taking an area that is now divided into 37 parcels and putting them together.”
Winter said the foundation has submitted many other applications for grants to a wide range of potential supporters. The timeline for completing property acquisition and turning the area over to state management will be determined by the pace of attracting the additional funds required.
The Pleasant River Wildlife Foundation, Winter said, is a small land trust organization.
“We are not membership-based, as are most of the larger land trusts,” she said. “But we are laser-focused on land protection.”
Maryland received two federal wetlands grants, collectively totaling $2 million. Grants of $1 million each were awarded to projects in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Virginia. A Delaware conservation effort was awarded an $829,400 grant. Nationwide, the National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant Program is expected to award $20.5 million in grants that will be matched by almost $21 million from state and local governments, private landowners and conservation groups.
Wonderful award of $1 million dollars to preserve 177 acres on the water.
A natural treasure.
I’d like to see what will happen the first time Mr. Public decides to start accessing this property. You go first … I’ll be looking for my flak jacket.
State WMA’s are accessed all the time with minimal to no problems. I’ve found them to be great places to go recreate.
If all things were equal I would agree.
Oh, give me a break with the alarmist baloney. It will be public land and like all other Maine wildlife management areas, the public is allowed to recreate there. Obviously, you don’t get out much.
Mr./Mrs. Worms. I know the compounds this land buffer has created – I live here. Thank you for your observation, I stand by my concerns.
please enlighten us
Look closely at the map. Do you notice any property within the bounds of all this public land that might still be private? Now consider who is behind the creation of this “nature preserve”. It seems that we the people are blindly being lead to believe that all this is somehow for the greater good, when evidence and actions might suggest differently. Further, I am not sure that public access to any of these parcels has ever been an issue, it certainly has on those parcels not included, but this land has never been posted in my memory. So what in the public interest are we really accomplishing?? Taking land out of private ownership, eliminating any chance it might be used for some economic good that this area so desperately needs seems short sighted and self serving. Come on people!
I don’t live in that area so I don’t know any of the politics involved with this issue. But if what you are getting at with the use of the word nature preserve is that this is being done for the benefit of a few people that want to restrict the land use, I think you are mistaken as to what is allowed on a WMA. As for it not being posted, that may not always be the case if it were in private ownership I guarantee that if it all of a sudden got bought up by someone and posted people that have been using that area would be upset. Just because something has been one way for so long doesn’t mean it will stay that way. Eliminating the possibility of the land being used for an economic purpose, well if someone wanted to do that they missed their chance to buy it. That’s how things work either you are the one to get the property to do what you are able to do, or someone else gets it and has their own plans. From what I see here, I see a piece of land that will now be open to the public and available for many people to be able to do various activities. Most WMA’s are also used primarily by people that live in that area. I could be wrong, maybe this new WMA isn’t good, but from where I’m standing it looks good to me. If you know otherwise enlighten us with a little more than what you’ve already told us.
Kired, I think we agree on a whole bunch of things. First, the people that own the land have every right to do with it as they please. A point I have been trying to make in this town, unsuccessfully for a while now. My biggest complaint I guess is that State and local government are being used to facilitate the creation of what in affect is a buffer zone around private property. Usually these WMA areas come with some signage, parking, and possibly other facilities to make folks aware of their existence and encourage their use. The is none of that here now, nor do expect there ever will be. The folks driving this have been excluding people from their property for years (their right), and I suspect will be happiest if this new WMA never sees a single visitor (disingenuous). They say they will, and have so far made payments to the town in lieu of taxes, but are under no legal obligation to do so, or to continue to do so. Will this practice continue once the land grab is complete? One can hope so.
They have every right to do exactly as they have done, as they do in fact own the property, but lets not pretend they have always been good neighbors and that this is really supposed to accomplish anything more than protecting privacy in the short term and real estate values in the long. Heaven forbid that somebody that works for a living actually buy a lot next door and move in with wife, kids, and all the other baggage of a normal Downeast existence.
Thank you for a more clear picture, all too often people don’t explain their reasoning and it leaves little room for discussion.
I do think that once it becomes a WMA that there will be some parking and a large sign put up, as all the other WMA’s I have been to have some small parking area and a large wooden sign. What is lacking though are signs that lead to these places, I think that many people simply don’t know that the WMA’s are there, or even know what they are in some cases.
To what degree were the people of Addison involved in this effort? The reporter does not indicate any interest in this question. What percentage of land does this group believe should be transferred from the private to the public sector without creating other political and economic problems vital to a healthy society? The reporter, and the organization, do not appear to have any interest in this question.
One senses that it could never be enough, raising the question of their understanding of the role private property has played in raising civilizations from poverty to prosperity. These seem like fundamental questions to ask, but they don’t appear to be present in this group’s discussion or the reporter’s curiosity, transfixed as they are on preservation as an end-all, be-all, a given good thing without question of its effect on other aspects of life. The discussion about ecological sensitivity seems overwrought. How is any one place more ecologically sensitive than any other place to those precious creatures who inhabit it? It’s as if they were saying that some people are to be valued more than other people, a most repugnant thought. It’s as if they romanticize the particular situation then no other serious discussion is necessary or to be considered.
The State, Town and Federal Governments have a lot of money, time, and resources in building these private compounds for two property owners. Any benefit to the rest of us is questionable.
Another place for commie, alien, welfare, minority, ecco terrorist, Obama-ites, slimy democrats and all people from away, to establish secret base camps and feed the birds.
I look forward to scoring a few buffleheads, whistlers, and black ducks.
You are right, I think most people don’t realize that those areas are open to many activities
Activities? The other day I saw a guy there named Paul, (some big fat guy), haveing lunch with a bunch of snails. What a nasty guy he was, He got so mad he ate the snails.
I’m betting most of the people that will use that area are not what you say.
That’s exactly what I plan to do. So watch out!!
How’d you guess my plan?? You must be real smart-like.