http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/preservation/preservation-program-reports http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/preservation/preservation-program-reports/hollow-framework-plum-creeks-doublespeak As a precursor to reintroduction of its plan, Plum Creek announced on March 30, 2006 a “conservation framework” to accompany its unprecedented development plan for Moosehead Lake. While this “framework” has been very successful at garnering positive press for Plum Creek, most of its conservation promises are illusory. Moreover, even those false promises omit some of the most ecologically sensitive and recreationally vital areas from protection. On balance, the environmental degradation from Plum Creek’s proposed development would far exceed the actual commitments that the company is offering. Acres of Illusion Plum Creek’s oft-repeated claim its plan “permanently protects over 400,000 acres from development” is demonstrably false or misleading in several respects. First, there are no guarantees that these acres will in fact be protected. The Conservation Framework is not a conservation deal; it is a document of purchase options, only binding upon approval of Plum Creek’s development plan. The Framework simply sets up an understanding between the negotiators of how certain lands can be preserved, if Plum Creek is not paid for the lands or the conservation easements, there is no assurance that certain lands will be preserved. Second, even the framework’s purchase options come with strings attached – the framework becomes null and void if the State of Maine does not approve Plum Creek’s concept plan. Even if Plum Creek receives full approval from LURC, nothing in the framework guarantees that all 400,000 acres to be permanently protected from development. The only conservation component that state approval secures is a working forest conservation easement on 71,000 acres. For the remaining acres, the framework only creates purchase options, with considerable costs attached. The framework offers “a 15 year option to a qualified conservation entity to purchase a working forest conservation easement over another 269,000 acres, and a 5 year option to the State to purchase 27,000 acres in the Roach Ponds area. Third, there is the matter of the public purse. Plum Creek is offering this conservation framework in exchange for something it wants from the State of Maine – approval of its sprawling development plan. But it is not as if Maine gets the conservation easement in exchange for its regulatory approval. Maine simply gets the option to use taxpayer dollars to buy Plum Creek’s land in exchange for its approval. Additionally, current zoning would likely prohibit Plum Creek from aggressively developing these areas that it is offering up for conservation. Some development might be allowed under “two in five” exemption, which would allow Plum Creek to sell off two large parcels over a course of 5 years within parts of its holdings without regulatory review. Anyone looking to develop those lands would need to get approval from LURC. The Open Space Institute estimated that Plum Creek might be able to sell off approximately 800 lots, but the process would stretch over a longer period of time than they would under their current rezoning proposal, and return less profit to Plum Creek. Basically, Plum Creek is not offering Maine much, but requesting a lot in return- the largest development in Maine’s history. Fourth, it is crucial to note that Plum Creek’s promise to keep these acres in “conservation” does not mean pristine undisturbed habitat and recreational solitude. Rather, these areas will remain open to commercial logging. And while timbering has its place in the North Woods, such activity is a far cry from what most Mainers think when they hear the phrase “conservation lands.” Fifth, and finally, genuine conservation measures would place the acreage in question under a strong preservation rubric – including: • Landscape-scale conservation easements that include permanent protection of, and best management practices around, lake and river shorelines. • Permanent protection of, and no harvesting on, identified critical wildlife habitat, scenic resources, high-value nature-based recreation destinations, and ecologically sensitive areas. • Guaranteed public access for recreational uses on all conservation easements, except for limited access on critical wildlife habitat and ecologically sensitive areas. • Conservation easements offered to conservation entities and the State of Maine at below market value. • Third-party certified sustainable forestry on working forest conservation easements. http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/preservation/preservation-program-reports/hollow-framework-plum-creeks-doublespeak Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:42:26 -0500 http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/preservation/preservation-program-reports/plum-creek-buying-silence http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/preservation/preservation-program-reports/plum-creek-buying-silence Fri, 02 Nov 2007 10:44:06 -0500 http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/preservation/preservation-program-reports/our-national-legacy-the-value-of-our-roadless-national-forests On the final day of the public comment period on the Bush administration’s proposal to repeal the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Environment Maine Research & Policy Center and the Heritage Forests Campaign released a report documenting the clean drinking water, recreation, and wildlife habitat benefits of roadless areas in America’s National Forests. The Roadless Rule was enacted in January 2001 to protect 58.5 million acres of national forests across the country. The report, “Our Natural Legacy: The Value of America’s Roadless National Forests,” finds that: • Sixty million Americans rely on clean drinking water from the national forests. Roadless areas provide the purest source of that water due to their pristine and road-free condition. In the Eastern Forest Service Region, which includes Maine, drinking water is worth $144.7 million annually. • Outdoor recreation has become more and more popular over time as Americans participate in everything from mountain-biking to hunting in roadless areas. Approximately 607,000 Maine residents – 60% of the state population – took part in hunting, fishing, and wildlife-watching in 2001. In that same year, wildlife-related recreation contributed $916 million to the state economy. • A majority of the unspoiled habitat for hundreds of threatened, endangered, and declining species is found in roadless areas. In Maine, four at-risk species are found in national forests and could be harmed by destruction of roadless areas. “Maine residents have made it crystal clear that we need the strongest protections for our roadless forests, and for the clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities they provide,” said Heidi Overbeck, Preservation Associate for Environment Maine Research & Policy Center. “The right decision for the Bush Administration seems clear. Roadless areas are one of the nation’s greatest natural assets; their ecological and economic value is too great to sacrifice,” she concluded. Environment Maine also announced that a record-breaking 1.5 million Americans nationally and more than 8,000 in Maine have spoken out against the Bush administration’s July 16th proposal to repeal the Roadless Rule and replace it with a meaningless process that allows governors to seek protections – or logging, mining, and drilling – for roadless areas in their states. This brings the total number of comments in support of the 2001 Roadless Rule to more than four million nationally and over 14,000 in Maine over the last several years. In addition, during the comment period, more than 140 members of Congress, 130 scientists, and 110 economists spoke out in opposition to the proposal to repeal the rule. The Roadless Rule was finalized in January 2001 after years of scientific study, 600 local public hearings and meetings and a record number of public comments. Enacted to protect 58.5 million acres of national forests across the country, including 6,000 acres in Maine, it allows temporary road construction in order to fight wildfires, ensure public safety, and protect forest health. Despite indisputable public support for the rule, the Bush administration suspended it almost immediately after taking office, failed to defend it in court, exempted Alaska’s Tongass Rainforest, and in July 2004 proposed an outright repeal. “We urge the Bush administration to heed the overwhelming public mandate to protect our last wild forests,” said Overbeck. “They should start by keeping the Roadless Rule intact in the Lower 48 and in Alaska’s Chugach and reinstating the rule in Alaska’s Tongass Rainforest.” http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/preservation/preservation-program-reports/our-national-legacy-the-value-of-our-roadless-national-forests Thu, 06 Sep 2007 08:39:54 -0500