RSS Available

We have heard from many citizens who are wondering, "What happened?" in regard to the Plum Creek application reviewed by Maine's Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC). We hope that the information below will help to answer some of the most asked questions. Thank you to all of you who wrote letters, testified at hearings, and continue to contact us to offer your support and encouragement.

• Photo by Allison Wells.

  What is the status of Plum Creek’s application for a massive development around Moosehead Lake?
• What are the biggest remaining flaws in Plum Creek’s proposed development?
• How did LURC reach its decision to approve Plum Creek’s proposal?
• Did LURC ensure that a “publicly-beneficial balance” was achieved?
• Did LURC meet the “demonstrated need” requirement?
• How has Plum Creek’s proposal changed since 2005?
• What else could Maine people have done?
• What options is NRCM considering now?
• Read Brownie Carson's op-ed, "Plum Creek Teaches Mainers Lessons to Remember"
• Learn more about NRCM's work to protect Moosehead Lake from Plum Creek's massive development proposal.
  

1. What is the status of Plum Creek’s application for a massive development around Moosehead Lake?

On October 1, 2008, Maine’s Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC) approved a proposed set of amendments to the current version of Plum Creek’s massive development proposal for the Moosehead Lake region. The proposed amendments have changed very little since June 4, 2008, when the Commission posted for public comment a set of draft changes. Plum Creek’s proposal is the largest proposed development in Maine history, yet LURC did not recommend any reductions in the overall number of accommodation units.

Despite overwhelming public opposition to any development by Plum Creek at Lily Bay, the Commission has decided that it will approve a plan that would allow Plum Creek to develop a resort with up to 404 accommodation units at Lily Bay.

Plum Creek has now accepted LURC’s changes, so LURC staff have spent the last five months working on the legal documents necessary to implement the proposed changes in Plum Creek’s development plan. The draft final language of the proposal was released in March and the Commission will likely have a final vote on the project this summer.

2. What are the biggest remaining flaws in Plum Creek’s proposed development?

Many changes have been made in Plum Creek’s proposal over the past three years, but LURC failed to address the two biggest issues: the plan proposes too much development, and it proposes development in places, like Lily Bay, that are inappropriate for development.

3. How did LURC reach its decision to approve Plum Creek’s proposal?

Photo by Jason Heindel

We believe that LURC staff, consultants, and commissioners were seduced by a conservation package that Plum Creek put forward in 2006 following private negotiations with The Nature Conservancy and others.

This package, the so-called “Conservation Framework,” was a privately negotiated $35 million conservation agreement that should not have had any bearing on Plum Creek’s rezoning application. But Plum Creek for the past two years has threatened to walk away from the $35 million agreement if LURC did not provide the company with an acceptable development plan. In the end, we believe this threat had a major influence on LURC. They did not want to be blamed if Plum Creek scuttled the Conservation Framework – a threat that NRCM believes was wholly implausible. Why would Plum Creek, in today’s real estate market, walk away from a $35 million land sale? It wouldn’t. As described below, NRCM believes that this larger context of undue influence by the Conservation Framework contributed to LURC’s flawed decision-making with this application.

4. Did LURC ensure that a “publicly-beneficial balance” was achieved?

No. The law requires that there be a “publicly beneficial balance” between appropriate development and conservation. After three revisions of its plan, Plum Creek identified 91,000 acres as its required donated conservation easement to balance the proposed development.

LURC staff and consultants determined that the 91,000 acres of required easement was insufficient to balance the harm that would be caused by Plum Creek’s development, and thus provide a publicly beneficial balance. But rather than require Plum Creek to donate additional lands, LURC decided to allow part of the private $35 million conservation sale by Plum Creek to The Nature Conservancy (the Conservation Framework) to count toward the conservation.

This is a new and unprecedented interpretation of the regulatory requirement to provide a publicly beneficial balance. We are not aware of another circumstance where paid-for conservation has been used to satisfy a regulatory requirement. By changing this regulation that is so integral to protection of Maine’s North Woods, LURC is setting a dangerous precedent for development in our North Woods.

A number of attorneys experienced in land use and environmental law, including a former Attorney General of the State, a former Chair of the Board of Environmental Protection, and a former Assistant Attorney General, share our great concern about this terrible precedent. On July 10, 2008, they wrote LURC a letter urging them to abandon this new interpretation. Unfortunately, LURC refused to alter its decision.

5. Did LURC meet the “demonstrated need” requirement?

Mt. Kineo in Moosehead Lake. Photo by Allison Wells.

No. Plum Creek argued for three years that its project was “needed” in order to provide economic benefits to the Moosehead Lake region. But LURC staff found that Plum Creek’s argument was not persuasive because Plum Creek has refused to promise that the resorts will ever be built and even Plum Creek did not argue that the house lots would provide economic benefit.

6. How has Plum Creek’s proposal changed since 2005?

Because Maine people spoke out in such large numbers, with such passion and conviction, Plum Creek was forced to make many changes in its plan. In fact, Plum Creek was required to go back to the drawing board twice, and still more improvements were made to the plan by LURC at the urging of the public, NRCM and Maine Audubon.

Kayakers on Prong Pond. Photo by Allison Wells.

Improvements included removing development from eight remote ponds, the northwestern (Big W) and northeastern (Spencer Bay) shores of Moosehead Lake, the north shore of Long Pond, the northwestern shore of Brassua Lake, the East Outlet of the Kennebec River, the Moose River, the eastern shore of Upper Wilson Pond, and Prong Pond.

In addition, small areas that had important wildlife habitat were removed from a number of development zones (including Lily Bay.) The number of shorefront lots was cut in half. The amount and quality of conservation was improved. The amount of donated conservation required to balance this project increased from 11,000 to 92,000 acres of permanent conservation easement lands.

7. What else could Maine people have done?

We are dismayed and very concerned that LURC failed to listen to the overwhelming public voices that sought to protect the natural character of the beautiful Moosehead Lake region, which is so special to Maine people and visitors alike. It is difficult to imagine how Maine people could have been more engaged, more passionate, and more determined to curb Plum Creek’s plan than they were. It is important to remember that Plum Creek is an $8 billion corporation that purchased an army of lawyers to help them in Maine’s permitting process. In no other state that we are aware of has Plum Creek faced such stiff opposition and been forced to make such major changes during a permitting process as was the case here in Maine.

8. What options is NRCM considering now?

Like the thousands of Maine people who took the time and care to write to LURC to share their concerns, NRCM believes that the plan allows too much development in the wrong places. We are concerned about LURC’s failure to meet the requirement of the law that there be a publicly beneficial balance between development and conservation.

Photo by Allison Wells.

We are considering a wide variety of future actions including a possible appeal, once the decision is final, early in 2009. In addition, before Plum Creek can actually begin any development, they must get further permits from state and federal agencies. The area has been designated critical wildlife habitat under the federal Endangered Species Act for the federally protected Canada Lynx, and we believe that development of this scale should not be allowed in critical habitat. We are also considering a variety of legislative and other legal options to protect the area. Over the next weeks and months, we will evaluate which path will be the most successful next steps.

Maine’s North Woods is the largest undeveloped forest in the eastern United States. It is a treasure of both state and national significance. We will continue to work to protect it from sprawling development such as that proposed by Plum Creek.