NRCM Blog

Timing, Commitment, and the Need to Stay Involved

“Timing is everything” or so the expression goes. I’m not sure where this bit of wisdom originated from, but it rings true today. Allow me to reflect once more on the Polar Dip and Dash from New Year’s Eve 2011 and how lucky I was with timing. On the day of the Dip and Dash, it was a balmy 30+ degrees. Now, two weeks later as I type this, it is -2 degrees outside. I feel very lucky with my timing! Even if the temperature had been hovering below 0, I was committed to going in no matter what. There is no turning back once the gun has sounded and you’re facing the ocean!

Enough with metaphors, but timing and commitment remain relevant and are resonating right now. NRCM’s first board meeting of 2012 took place on January 17, and one of our big agenda items was to finalize and approve our strategic plan. This document, produced by the staff and board after hours of productive meetings, began last summer. The final document will be our compass now through 2014. All staff departments and the board have set goals, strategies to achieve them, and benchmarks to measure our success. As supporters of NRCM, you should be proud, as these goals are ambitious but achievable if we all pitch in and take our personal commitment up a notch (or two).

Speaking of pitching in, I had the pleasure of collecting signatures for the Clean Energy ballot initiative. NRCM is part of a coalition that has made it a priority to get this initiative onto the November 2012 state ballot and then working hard to ensure its passage.  The governor has already come out against it, asking Maine citizens not to sign the petition. However, Maine people think for themselves, as my experience collecting signatures proved, with 100% of those I asked eager to sign on. In fact, many were dismayed that the renewable portfolio mix for 2020 was only 20%.

Remember in my December blog, how I discussed testifying at the BEP hearing on “moderate value” wading and shorebird habitat? Compelling testimony given that day by NRCM’s Nick Bennett encouraged BEP to seek further comment by wildlife biologists, and the outcome was a win for the environment, Maine’s wildlife, and all who appreciate the importance of protecting this valuable habitat. Strong work, Nick. 

The last bit of news is from Maine Superior Court. I attended the appeal of the court’s previous decision to remand back to LURC its decision on Plum Creek. Although the arguments can sound arcane to those of us not fluent in “legalese,” our attorney Russ Pierce again made a clear, logical case for sustaining the Superior Court’s initial decision. The court’s final answer is expected sometime this summer.

Finally, I want to alert you to an important date, Tuesday, Feb. 28th, which is NRCM Citizen Action Day. This is your chance to be briefed first-hand by NRCM’s experts, get a primer in citizen lobbying, and head to the State House for some persuasive conversation with your legislators.  It is a privilege and honor to serve you and our great state. I hope to meet as many of you there as possible.

Learn more:

Maine Citizens for Clean Energy Expects Lower Electricity Costs with Ballot Initiative

Maine High Court Hears Arguments in Plum Creek Development Case

NRCM Polar Dip and Dash Slideshow

Tony Owens, MD
NRCM Board President

Weathering the Storm and a Dip in the Icy Atlantic

Having survived (can I say “enjoyed?”) NRCM’s New Year’s Eve day Polar Bear Dip & Dash and welcoming in the New Year with a sunrise walk with the dog through the Spurwink Marsh, I feel like I am entering 2012 with a good reserve of energy and optimism. Looks like we will all need lots of both. Before I go further, let me thank all those runners and dippers who joined us for the Dip and Dash (that's me in the middle, with NRCM Board Treasurer Chris Bond and Executive Director Lisa Pohlmann). Record numbers and lots of enthusiasm—put it on your calendar for December 31, 2012, bring an old pair of sneakers, and the rest is easy.

No sooner had I submitted a letter-to-the-editor of the Portland Press Herald praising the EPA and our Congressional delegation for finally enacting strong controls on mercury than our governor’s administration garners front-page attention by stating it costs $6,000 to keep a pound of mercury out of our environment. This mercury, if not reclaimed, could end up in our land, or water, or head to be burned in an incinerator and become airborne.

Our long-standing commitment to the North Woods faces another key test January 10th when the Superior Court hears oral arguments on our Plum Creek appeal. Remember, we appealed the initial LURC decision based on two key areas. First, was the issue of “paid mitigation,” an oxymoron if there ever was one. Plum Creek was reimbursed for conservation that they were required to provide to offset the damage that would result if the company’s  massive Moosehead development becomes reality. Second was the impropriety of LURC commissioners voting to approve Plum Creek’s revamped development application without proper and required public input. We won our appeal, and this most recent court appearance is the appeal of that decision. Our attorney, Russ Pierce, has done great work throughout this process and will be representing us.

I’d like to end with a sincere thanks to you all for your loyalty to and generous financial support of NRCM. You have helped us weather the “perfect storm” of challenges, continued economic recession, a transition at the senior leadership position, and a hostile state administration and Legislature. To have faced those challenges and emerged in our current strong position is really a testament to your commitment to protecting the nature of the state we love. Full speed ahead.

Tony Owens, MD
NRCM Board President

Plum Creek update: our day in court

Thursday, Feb. 24, 2011, NRCM finally got its day in court on our appeal of the Land Use Regulation Commission's (LURC) approval of Plum Creek’s Concept Plan for three resorts including 2,000 house lots in the Moosehead Lake region. The hearing was held in the old courthouse in Portland. NRCM was represented by our wonderful and committed lawyer, Russ Pierce, of Norman, Hansen and DeTroy. FEN and RESTORE were represented by their lawyers Phil Worden and Lynn Williams.

Of course, there was a long line up of lawyers on the other side – the Assistant Attorney General, Jerry Reid, representing LURC, and lawyers representing Plum Creek, the Piscataquis County Economic Development Commission, The Nature Conservancy and Forest Society in Maine. Altogether, there were three lawyers on our side and seven on their side. 

The Judge, Justice Thomas Humphrey, was very well prepared. He clearly had read the briefs and LURC’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan and LURC’s procedural rules. He had lots of questions for the lawyers. 

While there are a number of issues included in the appeal and the briefs, the hearing focused primarily on two issues: 1) whether NRCM and FEN/Restore had “standing” to appeal, and 2) whether LURC had followed the right process in approving the Concept Plan.

The State had challenged NRCM’s standing (or legal right) to appeal in spite of the fact that LURC had granted us intervenor status and we had participated in every phase of the Plum Creek process. Frankly, we were outraged at the State’s challenge since the law on this issue is quite settled. The law says that if our members use and enjoy the region and will be harmed by the approval, NRCM has standing to appeal. We filed five affidavits from five members showing clearly that they use the region and will be harmed by the decision.  Fortunately, when the Judge started questioning the State’s lawyer, he quickly folded his cards, essentially abandoning his argument. I am very optimistic that the Judge will rule in our favor on this question.

On the question of whether LURC had followed the right procedure, the debate was more complicated. The Judge was trying to figure out whether the Plum Creek process was a rulemaking process or an “adjudicatory” process because different procedural rules apply to each. LURC had shifted gears after the public hearings and tried to transform what had started as an adjudicatory process into a “prospective planning” rulemaking process so that they could rewrite Plum Creek’s plan. 

After much back and forth, our lawyer Russ Pierce summed it up best. He said that it doesn’t matter what name you put on the process, the fact is that after following the written process (Chapter 5 process - used by LURC for 35 years to evaluate these types of applications) all the way through the public hearings, LURC abandoned that process and adopted a new, unwritten “ad hoc” process. The new “ad hoc” process deprived the public of the opportunity to fully explore the new proposals (paid for conservation, a new resort at Moose Bay, etc.) that then became part of the approved plan. 

When the State’s lawyer asserted that the whole proceeding was basically a prospective planning process allowing LURC to follow whatever process it wanted, our lawyers pointed out that prospective planning considers all the land in a region, not just the land of one owner.

The Judge made no decisions yesterday, but was clearly listening carefully, and I am cautiously hopeful. If he rules in our favor on both questions, LURC’s approval of Plum Creek’s plan would be vacated and the case would likely be sent back to LURC for further proceedings. If the Judge rules against us, we will strongly consider appealing to the Law Court. We could hear from the Judge any time in the next few months. Stay tuned!

- Cathy Johnson, NRCM North Woods Project Director and Senior Staff Attorney

To learn more about our work to protect the Moosehead Lake region, visit our website.

Plum Creek Update: Inside the Courtroom

I just came out of Courtroom 9 in the Cumberland County Courthouse where Judge Humphries heard our Motion to allow additional evidence into the Plum Creek record on appeal. We are asking the Judge to allow us to put into the record the information that came out in the media after the hearings showing that Plum Creek had made payments to at least 5 of the purportedly independent interveners. 

Russ Pierce from the law firm of Norman Hanson and DeTroy represented us very well at the hearing. He pointed out that the fact that Plum Creek paid all these parties harms their witnesses’ credibility and LURC should have known about that at the hearing. Restore and FEN’s lawyer also argued that the LURC staff acted as advocates, not just as advisors to the Commission, and asked the Judge to allow that evidence into the record also.

The Judge asked lots of questions.  He clearly had read our briefs. The Assistant Attorney General represented LURC.  Plum Creek’s lawyer also spoke. There was a phalanx (seven more, to be exact) of other lawyers there including those for Piscataquis County Economic Development Council, The Nature Conservancy, and Forest Society of Maine. At one point, the Judge asked out loud whether it was important for him to know who had paid for all the lawyers in court today!  The number of lawyers clearly made an impression on him.

The Judge did not decide the Motion today, nor did he tip his hand. He said he would likely rule within the next week or so.  We’ll have to wait until then for the decision. 

- Cathy Johnson, North Woods Project Leader and Senior Staff Attorney

Maine Public Radio reports: Plum Creek's Payments to Supporters Raising Questions

Here is an excerpt of the report by Susan Sharon of Maine Public Radio:

"Opponents of the controversial Plum Creek development project are raising questions about the fact that the company has paid groups that testified in support of the project before state regulators. In addition, a company spokesman also acknowledged today that Plum Creek has now paid $1.7 million to the Land Use Regulation Commission, the regulatory body that approved its plan after five years of review."

Read and listen to the full story here and then tell us what you think about this latest news.

See you in court: NRCM appeals Plum Creek decision

Today NRCM filed an appeal in Maine Superior Court of LURC’s decision on the Plum Creek development plan for the Moosehead region.  After spending countless hours reviewing LURC’s decision, and sharing the frustration of Maine people, it became clear that there were substantial grounds for an appeal and a need to do so.

We took on the Plum Creek issue knowing that the odds were stacked against us.  Appeals of this type are an uphill battle.  But we believe we have a strong case, and we are confident in the legal team that is representing us.  And without the strong commitment of our members and activists, we could not be doing this important work. 

We’ve posted information about the appeal on our website.  This includes a detailed position statement, a Question-and-Answer list, and the full text of the appeal for those of you who are interested in the details.

Plum Creek Update following LURC meeting last week

For months now it has become clear that Maine’s Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC) is heading toward an approval of Seattle-based Plum Creek’s revised development proposal for the Moosehead Lake region.  On Tuesday in Bangor, NRCM had one last opportunity to address LURC in person. 

After more than four years battling for changes in Plum Creek’s plan, and winning many improvements, NRCM and our partner, Maine Audubon, held a press conference in Bangor and presented a final statement to LURC.  This appears to be the last time that the Commissioners will deliberate on the proposal before casting final votes at a meeting in August or September.

We told the media and LURC that the world has changed dramatically since their last deliberations in September 2008. We explained that the global economic collapse, increased concern about energy costs, and designation of the entire Plum Creek plan area as critical habitat for Canada lynx should all be taken into account.  We urged LURC to pause, reconsider, and restructure the plan so that it is smaller and focused near the existing communities of Greenville and Rockwood.

In the current context, we believe that Plum Creek’s plan looks like land speculation that is simply designed to serve the interests of Plum Creek shareholders.

We urged the Commission to not sacrifice the undeveloped shorelines of Moosehead Lake, and remote stretches of Lily Bay peninsula, simply for the benefit of out-of-state real estate speculators like Plum Creek.  As we’ve said before, once it’s gone it’s gone forever. 

You can read Brownie’s (our Executive Director) press statement and watch part of our press conference here. 

At the end of the day’s deliberations, the Commission, unfortunately, directed its staff to prepare a final decision document for approval of the plan.  They will likely make their formal vote to approve this plan at their regular August or September LURC meeting.

In a surprise move by Plum Creek, the company attempted to create a massive loophole for itself that would have resulted in rezoning approvals around Moosehead Lake without having to provide conservation lands.  The company’s spokesman tried to get this change in the event that Plum Creek were to initiate termination of their Concept Plan project.  Maine’s Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC) rejected this request by Plum Creek.

Here is how we now understand that LURC dealt with Plum Creek’s request:  Plum Creek may file a request to LURC to terminate the Concept Plan, but the Plan would not be terminated until LURC and Plum Creek agree.  In the meantime, the provisions of the conservation easement will apply for up to five years even though the easement would not officially be in place.  This would allow LURC to put in place an alternative rezoning plan for the area.

We will continue to explore all of our options to affect the final outcome.  We ill continue working to protect Maine’s North Woods from poorly located development and those who seek to exploit what remains of the largest undeveloped forest east of the Mississippi.

For more information about our work to protect Maine's North Woods, visit http://www.nrcm.org/project_woods.asp.

Plum Creek documents released - new public comment period open

It’s been six months since the Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC) gave tentative approval to Plum Creek’s development proposal for the Moosehead Lake region.  LURC's staff and consultants have been working since then to rewrite the proposal so that it reflects the changes the Commissioners requested at the September meetings.    

Last week, LURC released and posted for public comments the final draft of the proposal.  You can find it here on LURC’s website.  Totaling over 1,000 pages, the documents include the revised plan, easements, development standards and several other documents. 

You can provide LURC with written public comments until April 3.  We have begun to review these new drafts but it will take us some time to comb through the details (as we have seen in the past with Plum Creek, the devil is in the details).

We’ll keep you up to date. In the meantime, any comments you would like to submit can be sent to LURC@maine.gov or Maine Land Use Regulation Commission, 22 State House Station, Augusta, ME 04333. 

-Diano
North Woods Policy Advocate and Outreach Coordinator

"Darth Vader" returns - Plum Creek is at it again

Once again Plum Creek’s bad behavior has put them in the spotlight.  When Seattle-based Plum Creek came to Maine in 1998 they had a reputation as the “Darth Vader” of the timber industry - a brand put on the company by a Republican congressman from Washington state who was upset over the company’s aggressive and controversial forest practices. 

Here in Maine, just a few years ago, NRCM used Maine’s Freedom of Access Act to review internal documents, which we used to compile a report on Plum Creek’s bad logging practices.  We found that Plum Creek had received the largest fine in state history for 18 violations of Maine’s Forest Practices Act.  Not only had Plum Creek broken the law by overharvesting, it had also destroyed deer wintering areas, violated water quality laws, and developed a power line corridor through a forest without a permit.

If we needed any confirmation that Plum Creek hasn’t changed, we got it last week. A group of local citizens and sportsman (The Native Forest Network) warned that the company was logging near a deer wintering area in Indian Stream Township (just west of Greenville) and were likely preparing to cut in the area.  After the story was reported, the company admitted that it had logged in the deer wintering area in violation of the agreement they had made with the state.  This was the same agreement Plum Creek signed to protect these critical deer wintering areas after public outrage flared over the violations reported by NRCM.  Since the Native Forest Network reported the likely violations, Plum Creek has denied members access to the area.

But this wasn’t the only bad news about Plum Creek last week.  Since late this fall, NRCM has been researching Plum Creek clearing on Kibby Mountain in Kibby Township (northwest of the Bigelow Preserve).  Again we reviewed internal documents and put together a detailed report of Plum Creek’s logging violations.  We found that Plum Creek, after ignoring the “stop work” recommendation of an independent inspector, caused significant erosion resulting in an unprecedented 900-foot mudslide.  You can find the story here.  Plum Creek spokesman Mark Doty said this was “not a mudslide,” instead, he said, “There was an erosion event in which sediment moved down a hill.”

These stories paint a bleak picture of Plum Creek management and give us great concern for the future of the Moosehead Lake region.  We don’t believe that a company that repeatedly violates fundamental Maine natural resource laws, rules, and agreements can be trusted to protect our Moosehead Lake region or treasured North Woods.

Diano Circo
North Woods Policy Advocate and Outreach Coordinator

Moosehead News from Diano in Bangor

Welcome to the Plum Creek finish line.  While we haven’t quite reached the end of the road yet, I think we can see it from here.  At the moment I’m in the hearing room at the Bangor Ramada Inn.  Just in front of me a row of Plum Creek attorneys are nodding and bobbing there heads as the Commission debates parts of their development proposal.  Along with the attorneys, Plum Creek’s private security has returned as well.  It’s been fun to see them again as they patrol the hallways and stake out positions at the corners of the room; I feel much safer.   

Yesterday more than a hundred people packed this room to listen to the interveners give closing arguments.  There were many well spoken and passionate speeches.  Our attorney, Russ Pierce of Norman, Hanson and DeTroy (who have graciously represented us pro-bono), delivered a great closing.  He focused on the need to protect Lily Bay and talked at length about the more than 1,700 people who provided public comments in opposition to this proposal (less than 10 comments were in support in the last comment period).  Several other interveners gave inspiring closings.  The comments ranged from detailed critiques of the conservation easements to issues with how the Commission determined there was a “need” for this project.  Part of the rezoning process is that the applicant must prove to the Commission that there is a need for a change of zoning.  Several of the interveners have argued that Plum Creek hasn’t proved the “need” argument.

Following the closing arguments the Commission had a discussion about the development at Lily Bay.  Several commissioners mentioned their concerns about Lily Bay and the LURC staff admitted that adding 404 "units" to Lily Bay would change the character of the area.  Despite this, it looks like the Commission is going to approve the development.  They won’t vote on the staff’s recommendations until later today but there were no major changes suggested by the Commission.  For more information take a look at Cathy Johnson’s blog post here.

The hearing went until 8:30 last night and we started up again at 8:30 this morning.  Today the Commission will discuss the easements that are a part of the Plum Creek proposal.  The hot topic is likely to be whether Plum Creek should be allowed to double-dip.  The Commission requires that developers off-set development with conservation.  In every instance in which we've been involved, the developer is required to donate the conservation.  Because of side deal with The Nature Conservancy, Plum Creek would be paid $35 million for most of the easement lands involved in this process.  Recently a group of attorneys, including a former Maine Attorney General, wrote a letter to the Commission expressing their concerns about paying for required mitigation.  Allowing Plum Creek to double-dip sets a scary precedent.  An op-ed that ran in the Bangor Daily News does a good job describing the issue.  You can see it here. 

Can You Hear Us Now?

We’ve been convinced that the unprecedented amount of public comment that came in to the Commission on Plum Creek hasn’t been given the attention it deserves.  Yesterday morning, before the official deliberations started, an amazing group of folks came to Bangor to make sure that the public comments were heard.  Seventeen volunteers, most who had written comments themselves, spent an hour reading excerpts of the public comments.  It was amazing to hear the heart-felt comments that came from all over Maine.  Reporters from Maine Public Radio, the Bangor Daily News, and all of the Bangor area TV stations were there to record the event.  You can find video and reports on the event here.  We hope that by reading a small selection of the public comments the Commission will better understand how passionately the public feels about protecting places like Lily Bay from development.  We thank all of those who were able to take time out of there day to come to Bangor and read.

Diano Circo
North Woods Policy Advocate and Outreach Coordinator