Is it or isn't it?
Is Plum Creek's much-ballyhooed "conservation framework" part of its
application to the Land Use Regulation Commission for an unprecedented
rezoning around Moosehead Lake - or isn't it?
Is Plum Creek's demand that LURC approve its 975-lot, two-resort
development plan before conservation groups pay tens of millions of
dollars to secure an easement an improper attempt to sway LURC's
commissioners - or isn't it?
The answers carry significant implications for the future of Maine's unorganized territories.
Plum Creek has asked LURC to rezone about 420,000 acres around
Moosehead Lake, the liquid heart of the North Woods. The rezoning would
allow the company to turn $200-per-acre timberland into
$200,000-per-acre trophy-home lots in the biggest development scheme
ever proposed in Maine.
Plum Creek initially submitted its Moosehead concept plan in 2004, but
LURC found that it was deficient, particularly in the lack of permanent
conservation.
So this spring, Plum Creek announced it had struck a deal with The
Nature Conservancy, the Appalachian Mountain Club and The Forest
Society of Maine in which the company agreed to sell a 269,000-acre
easement, the second-largest conservation easement in U.S. history.
If the groups could raise enough money.
And if LURC approved its new concept plan.
Now LURC's staff has asked Plum Creek to clear up some of the questions
surrounding the conservation side deal. That's appropriate because Plum
Creek has been sending mixed signals.
On May 26, Virginia Davis, Plum Creek's attorney, wrote the LURC staff regarding the matter.
"So that the record is perfectly clear, the Conservation Framework is
part of the proposed Concept Plan for Plum Creek's lands in the
Moosehead Lake Region," Davis wrote.
Yet precisely one week later, Plum Creek regional manager Jim Lehner
phoned this writer to "eliminate any confusion" raised by a Kennebec
Journal editorial questioning whether the framework should be included.
Plum Creek, Lehner said, never intended for the framework to be
considered as part of the formal application. The proposed sale of the
easement did not meet the test of conservation donation required by
LURC's "concept plan" format, he acknowledged. The easement was
included in the application so that commissioners could see the broader
picture, he said.
Lehner was traveling this week and unavailable for comment.
Asked to reconcile the apparent discrepancy, Davis said Lehner "may have misspoken."
"I just can't answer that question," she added. "It has always been
part of the application in my mind. It has to be part of the
application because it attaches to land in the plan. It would be not
transparent if we didn't tell people what future plans for that land
were. It's also a huge public benefit."
Transparency is a fine word. So let's try to cut through the confusion.
The conservation framework is a non-regulatory, non-binding option on a
future transaction between private parties over which LURC has no
authority and about which, at this point, it has no details. The
references to the framework, beginning on page 1 of the application and
appearing in roughly 60 other places throughout, are tremendously
prejudicial to an objective review of Plum Creek's plans.
And it's clear that the framework is contingent on LURC's approval. There is no ambiguity from the company on this point.
LURC director Catherine Carroll outlined these concerns in a June 26
letter giving Plum Creek fair warning the agency may require the
removal of all references to the conservation option.
The agency also asked Plum Creek to address a number of deficiencies in this application.
For example, Plum Creek has not submitted an evaluation of the services
that the owners of 975 house lots and visitors at two resorts, an RV
campground and other camps will expect from nearby towns.
Plum Creek has not identified or explained all deviations from LURC's land-use standards.
There is no documentation for the conservation easement or how it may differ from LURC's standard easement.
Plum Creek wants to have it both ways. If company officials are seen as
trying to hold conservation hostage, it could backfire with the
commission. At the same time, linking the side deal to the rezoning
plan breeds climate of uncertainty and fear for what might happen if
LURC rejects the development.
The commission would set a horrible precedent if it allowed Plum Creek's gambit to succeed.
It should set the conservation framework aside and let the development succeed or fail on its merits.
