Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Environmental groups: Plum Creek plan falls short (Moosehead Lake, Maine)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-09-07 09:25 AM
Original message
Environmental groups: Plum Creek plan falls short (Moosehead Lake, Maine)
Edited on Fri Nov-09-07 09:25 AM by jpak
http://bangornews.com/news/t/news.aspx?articleid=156336&zoneid=500

BANGOR, Maine — Despite some significant changes over the past 2½ years in the Plum Creek timber company’s proposal to develop the Moosehead Lake area, two of Maine’s leading environmental groups on Thursday said the plan still falls short.

At an afternoon press conference in Bangor, Brownie Carson of the Natural Resources Council of Maine and Kevin Carley of Maine Audubon said Plum Creek has failed to respond adequately to concerns about habitat destruction, sprawl, increased traffic and other issues related to the massive development project. Both groups will oppose the proposal when it is presented at formal hearings before the Land Use Regulation Commission beginning Dec. 1, they said.

LURC’s approval of a zoning change is vital to the plan’s realization.

Carson said Plum Creek’s final plan represents a missed opportunity to develop a sustainable, nature-based tourism economy in the Greenville area. Instead, he said, the proposed project "would fundamentally damage what people in Maine hold dearest about the Moosehead Lake region — its natural beauty, wildlife and undeveloped character."

<more>

note: if approved, this will be the largest subdivision development in the state's history - in what is now a spectacular wild landscape.

:thumbsdown:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
lazyriver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-09-07 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
1. I am scared for the future of the region. Plum Creek's plans
for development are bad enough but I am even more worried about what they might do if their plans get shot down. I fear a wholesale sell off of hundreds of thousands of acres to dozens if not hundreds of smaller developers as Plum Creek has threatened they might do. It will look like the California Gold Rush of 1849 with out of state developers swarming in to stake their claims. These smaller scale plans might even fragment the unspoiled nature of the region more than Plum Creek's plan and would almost certainly lead to many more restrictions if not prohibitions to public use.

It seems like they have the State of Maine in a no win situation. The residents want more economic opportunity, the State can't seem to offer anything, and the majority landowner wants huge profits. Meanwhile, a truly beautiful and special place is being treated like a common commodity on the auction block.

I think a major underlying problem leading to the current situation is the decline of the paper industry in Maine and subsequent decline in demand and price of the forest products (translated as trees). Plum Creek's holdings don't make them as much as they used to so they are looking to make money developing that land. Perhaps a statewide initiative for expansion of cellulose based ethanol or bio-diesel produced at the paper mills being closed down would bring back the profitability of sustainable harvest of timber in that region. Maybe I'm being naive, but I haven't even heard anybody talking about trying such a plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-09-07 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Or the state could float a bond issue to buy up that land
Also - LURC would have to approve all those smaller developments.

And I agree with you on the shift in Maine's forest products industry - but there is R&D underway to build biorefineries in Millinocket and elsewhere.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2007/01/09/maine_sites_eyed_for_bio_oil_refinery/

Maine sites eyed for bio-oil refinery

MILLINOCKET, Maine --A developer is looking at several sites in Maine for a refinery that would turn forest products into clean-burning oil to be used as fuel in electrical plants.

Fractionation Development Center is considering Baileyville in Washington County, the Down East and Katahdin regions, Madison, Old Town, Presque Isle and Skowhegan among potential sites for a $45 million refinery, said FDC Executive Director Scott Christiansen.

The Rumford-based nonprofit firm, which promotes Maine biomass technologies, says the plant would be the first of several to eventually be built in Maine. Each would create at least 60 jobs for processing up to 900 tons of wood a day into bio-oil.

The oil helps to create electricity about as cleanly as natural gas in specially designed plants located near the refineries, Christiansen said.

<more>

...and with heating oil >$3 a gallon, fuel pellet mills could take up the slack left over from the paper industry crash.

None of this will happen though, if we let Plum Creek et al. turn the North Woods into New Jersey (racinos, coal gasification plants, gated upscale subdivisions, etc.) ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lazyriver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-09-07 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Yes, the first step is to stop the Plum Creek plan.
Everything else is but a pipe dream if they get to do what they want around Moosehead. The "multiple use" model for the surrounding forests will die because the people buying expensive homes up there will never allow logging to continue and will ultimately want access restricted around "their" property.

Having grown up in NJ, I know all too well what happens when a state government follows the quick money and lets business and developers do whatever they please regardless of long term consequences. It starts slow but all of a sudden you don't even recognize the landscape anymore.

True, LURC would have to approve anything planned even by smaller scale developers but think about this: If in the future Plum Creek bails and sells off their land, and John Doe LLC wanted to build 20 lakefront homes on their parcel of ex-Plum Creek land, will the big guns like Maine Audubon and others come to town to fight it? Probably not because it will be under the radar and they will have to focus on the big issues. Most likely they will be in Wiscasett fighting the coal gasification plant or something similar. So John Doe LLC is patient, makes a few friends in the community, promises to hire some local contractors to build his road and homes and after getting local consent, he quietly gets his way with LURC. After all, it's only 20 homes. Now there is precedent for others to repeat the process and the lawyers get involved. I've watched it happen before.

True, there is consideration for bio energy development in Maine (and I didn't even think of fuel pellets - that could be a gold mine). I believe the key to protecting the future of Maine's natural beauty is to look to its past and responsibly utilize the natural resources. It is an encouraging start to hear of plans to boost bio energy but I would like to see more effort by government to tie it all together with land issues so the people living around Moosehead Lake and such will be less likely to be sold the lie that the only way to better their economic situation is to accept the changes being forced on them by the Plum Creeks of the world.

One thing to watch for as the Plum Creek saga continues, as it has worked very well for developers in NJ, is the long term slow-bleed technique utilized by Intrawest Corp for their Mountain Creek development plan. They wanted to take a small local ski resort in Vernon, NJ they recently purchased and turn it into a huge resort, I mean really huge - 9 to 12 golf course, three shopping malls, dozens of chain restaurants, thousands of condos, etc. They were turned down numerous times and kept making minor revisions to their plan. What nobody noticed was as they kept pushing their ideas before the planning board and politely conceding when they were turned down, they were also slowly stacking the board with Intrawest cronies whose elections they funded and organized. After about six years of being turned down, they suddenly were approved...for everything they wanted. They had succeeded in seating 5 of their people on the 9 member board and lo and behold, won 5-4 approval. even more sinister, as they were gaining control of the board, they began blocking other companies & developers bidding to build smaller scale competitive operations in the town thus hindering economic growth and making their proposal sound all the better. The Plum Creek situation is a dirty one and I hope those opposed are ready to deal with some very nasty politics as the fight progresses.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-09-07 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. I'm going to LURC hearing in Augusta and oppose Plum Creek
After the news broke of Plum Creek's land purchases several years agao, I knew this would happen someday...

I hope LURC does its job!

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lazyriver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-09-07 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. It sounds like December 1st for Greenville...
I'll be at that one!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlecBGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-09-07 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. just to nitpick
this drives me crazy

"clean-burning oil"

There is no such thing as clean-burning oil. It can be cleanER than standard fuel oil but it still produces soot, ash, and GHG's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-09-07 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. If its produced from biomass, it's carbon neutral and would be extremely low-sulfur
Only inefficient boilers produce soot - and very little particulate material (ash) would be produced as well...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC