Ed Meadows leads the Land for Maine's Future program on broader mission
PHOTo / Amber Waterman
Ed Meadows, director of Land for Maine's Future, expects new collaborations and a focus on preserving working landscapes will enhance Maine's conserved public lands.
In one way or another, Ed Meadows has been involved with land management his entire professional career — including for the last 25 years working in the public sector at a variety of posts in Maine and Michigan. After serving as director of Maine's Bureau of Public Lands and then commissioner of the Department of Conservation in the McKernan administration, Meadows moved to a much larger state, Michigan, which years ago had done something Maine has never managed to accomplish: integrating its natural resources departments into a single agency.
In Michigan, Meadows worked on large projects that pioneered a new approach to outdoor recreation — connecting rural amenities such as campgrounds and bike trails into the state's urban core. This mix of public lands better fits the lifestyles of contemporary Americans, who are more likely to fit exercise and outdoor recreation into their daily schedule than to spend a week, for instance, paddling the Allagash Wilderness Waterway.
In 2012, Meadows returned to Maine as deputy commissioner of the new Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry — a small-scale version of the unified agency where he worked in Michigan. He helped bring the former departments of Agriculture and Conservation together in a merger proposed by Gov. Paul LePage and approved by the Legislature.
But he makes it clear that it's his current job — director of the Land for Maine's Future program, which has acquired and conserved land for public use since 1987 — that he came back for. With a board headed by William Vail — the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife commissioner at the time Meadows was conservation commissioner — Meadows says it's an effective team that can make a significant impact despite the pervasive fiscal austerity state government has been dealing with since the 2008 recession.
Excerpts follow from an interview that took place in his office at the old Augusta Mental Health Institute complex in Augusta.
Mainebiz: You've had the experience of working in the same field in two very different states — similar in climate, perhaps, but not in demographics or population. What did you learn while you worked in the Michigan Department of Natural Resources?
Ed Meadows: It's a very effective model. Michigan's Department of Natural Resources manages 5 million acres of public land, and it supports, and is supported by, all the natural resource industries, some of which we have here — namely fisheries, wildlife and forestry — and some we don't, such as mineral extraction and oil and gas leasing. It has major revenues from leasing, and all the major groups are strongly supportive of the department. It's able to use revenue from non-renewable fossil fuels and invest in resources that are permanent and renewable.
MB: It sounds like Michigan has a much larger scale than Maine.
EM: It does. There are 23.5 million visitors to state parks, most of which have campgrounds and other facilities, where Maine has about 2.5 million. But Michigan also has 10 million people, while Maine has 1.3 million.
MB: What else is different about Michigan's approach?
EM: Public recreation there is very much part of Michigan's economic development plans. That's something we're just starting to do in Maine. The cabins and other accommodations in state parks there are a big boost to tourism. The Department of Natural Resources was part of a $6 billion project that revitalized the center of Grand Rapids, the state's second-largest city. The key piece was an abandoned railroad bed that was used to connect a growing area around a new medical school with a trail network that runs for miles into the countryside.
MB: So why did you decide to come back to Maine?
EM: We had always intended to come back when the time was right. It's home.
MB: You were part of the startup of the Land for Maine's Future program as conservation commissioner. Was that part of the reason for returning?
EM: Those were different times in Maine. It was all brand new, the real estate market was hot and there was a lot of concern about development of some of Maine's most treasured wild places. As a result, we were able to do several big, iconic projects, all with the original state funding [from a $35 million bond in 1987]. By preserving places like Mount Kineo, Donnell Pond and the Bold Coast of Washington County, we were able to really put the program on the map.
MB: And it's retained that popularity with the voters, hasn't it?
EM: Yes, it has. Voters have supported nine bond issues, and after transportation it's always the most popular question on the ballot.
MB: Did you have some concerns about support from the present administration? Gov. LePage refused to issue the bonds approved by voters in 2010, and said he didn't support the bond that passed in 2012.
EM: The administration has agreed to release both bond issues. We're working on a new round of proposals right now.
MB: Even with two bond issues, you have only $10.4 million to work with. How far can that go?
EM: The program is very different now. Back then, when the state wanted a piece of land, it purchased it outright. Now, we contribute to a lot of projects proposed by others. Because LMF is such a well-known program, it creates a lot of confidence for potential donors. We might invest $1 million in what becomes a $10 million project. Almost everything we do now has a match in private or federal dollars. So the money goes a lot further.
MB: Are there other differences with the program you knew in the 1980s?
EM: The Legislature has added new components. We now have separate programs for water access, and preserving farmland and working waterfronts. Now we have a new mission to help preserve deer wintering areas that are important to deer survival in the north woods.
MB: Are the number of mandates from the Legislature spreading the program too thin?
EM: I agree with the new focus. Preserving working landscapes, both farming and fisheries, is an important way of connecting our program with the development and jobs we need in rural areas. Without this kind of work, a lot of those jobs would disappear.
MB: And Land for Maine's Future has a different location within state government as well.
EM: When the State Planning Office, where it was located until 2012, was broken up, we moved to the Bureau of Information Resources and Land Use Planning in the Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry. The other bureaus are familiar — agriculture, conservation and forestry — but this one is new.
MB: How is it working?
EM: It's created a lot of opportunity for synergy and focusing on things we can be doing together. The beauty of the merger is that it brings together programs that were similar in mission but had no direct working relationship.
MB: What new connections would you like LMF to have?
EM: Since there's less state funding, we have to do better at working together. We need to cooperate with other agencies, such as the Soil and Water Conservation Districts, which have funding for conservation and resource improvement. We need a closer relationship with towns and cities, which are allowed to propose projects now. We welcome their input.
MB: It sounds like coalition-building. Is LMF well positioned to do that?
EM: We have as much reach and interaction as any other state agency. I see us working more directly with municipalities on conservation, recreation and open space issues. Although we've focused a lot on rural parts of the state, there are needs in cities that are just as important. Michigan is a good example.
MB: At one time, there were concerns from landowners that you might be altering or restricting land uses in some of the areas where LMF made purchases. Has that changed?
EM: We get calls from landowners all the time. They want to work with us. They often ask about how their land might be included in a project. We help them with suggestions about a local nonprofit, like a land trust, that might partner with them.
MB: What do you think the reason is for that change in perspective?
EM: LMF is much more inclusive now. A lot of conservation has occurred in Maine over the last 25 years, literally hundreds of thousands of acres, much of it privately funded. LMF is no longer just a state program. We support projects that involve ownership by towns and cities, and by nonprofit land trusts. Over time, we've been involved in over $150 million in land purchases and easements, and that's because our partners have been able to bring more money to the table.
MB: You mentioned federal funding. Has Maine benefited there?
EM: It started back with the Northern Forest Land Council in 1990, which brought significant federal attention to Maine. We were pioneers with the Forest Legacy grants, which helped with some of the large-scale project in the north woods. That has also helped bring focus to our traditional industries, like agriculture, which is now growing again in several parts of the state.
MB: So how do you pick which projects are going to get LMF funding?
EM: It's a competitive scoring process that puts the emphasis on public benefits. It's not enough to have a great-looking piece of land. People have to be able to use it. Applicants also have to show how it provides economic benefits. For fishing and farming, those are well established. But tourism can benefit from investments in land, too. Michigan has a number of well-established wineries that are a big draw, and they're starting to appear here, too.
MB: After the 2010 bond issue was passed, the LMF board released a list of projects that were put on hold when the bonds were frozen. There were concerns at the time that some of those opportunities would be lost. Were they?
EM: No project on that list has been abandoned. It takes time to complete these deals. Between appraisals, evaluations and the legal work that needs to be done, it can often take two years or more. Did we lose some other opportunities during that time? That's harder to say.
MB: It sounds as if you'll already have plenty of demand for the $10.4 million. Will the level of funding allow you to achieve the program's goals?
EM: By the time we're through, we'll be involved with projects that cost at least $20 million to $25 million. One project on the previous list required $500,000 and has a $4 million federal match. Sure, we could use more money, but we're living in a time of limits. In a state the size of Maine, it's not a lot of money, but it can make a real contribution to our future.
Most Recent
Most Recent
Comments