PORTLAND, Maine — Calling it the “missing piece” to a 2 million-acre jigsaw puzzle, groups on Tuesday announced the completion of a 363,000-acre conservation deal that was key to Plum Creek winning regulatory approval for its controversial Moosehead Lake development plan.

Representatives from Plum Creek, The Nature Conservancy and the Forest Society of Maine said the conservation easements — described as the second-largest easement package in U.S. history — will benefit the forestry and tourism industries critical to the Moosehead region’s economy.

The easements will continue to allow Plum Creek to harvest timber through logging practices certified through the Sustainable Forestry Initiative while allowing public access for hunting, hiking, snowmobiling and other activities. The land, which Plum Creek will continue to own, also links up with other protected natural areas to create a patchwork of conserved land stretching from northern Aroostook County to Baxter State Park.

Michael Tetreault, executive director for the Maine branch of the Nature Conservancy, called the newly conserved acreage “the jewel” on a necklace-shaped ring of previously protected forest land in the Moosehead Lake area.

“It’s the perfect piece to complete a 2 million-acre swatch, which is the size of Yellowstone,” Tetreault said in an interview. “Picture this: 80 ponds in one easement. Or 800 miles of rivers — that’s the distance from here to Detroit.”

Under the terms of the agreement, The Nature Conservancy paid Plum Creek $10 million for part of the 363,000-acre easement, with the company essentially donating the value of the remaining easements as part of the Moosehead Lake “concept plan” approved by state regulators.

Those easements will ensure the land will remain a working forest while guaranteeing public access for outdoor recreation. The Forest Society of Maine will hold the easements, as it has done for numerous other forestland conservation deals across the state.

Greenville Town Manager Gary Lamb attended the Tuesday press conference, held at the Maine Historical Society in Portland, where maps of the property and old black-and-white logging pictures circled the event room. Lamb touted the Plum Creek plan to concentrate development in small areas — on just 4 percent of the total land within the rezoning plan — while leaving large tracts of land open for recreation and wildlife.

“The biggest thing in my mind is the permanent public access,” Lamb said. “Some people when they buy property put up tight gates.”

Lamb added: “To have 96 percent conserved and 4 percent developed is something I never would have thought would be possible.”

Although negotiated privately between the parties, the 363,000-acre conservation deal was an integral component of the Land Use Regulation Commission’s decision to approve the largest development plan in Maine history.

That plan gives Plum Creek or any future landowner 30 years to develop 2,025 “dwelling units” near Maine’s largest lake. Those units could be single-family homes, condominiums, townhouses or lodges. The roughly 17,000 acres rezoned for development include two resort areas on Lily Bay near Beaver Cove and on Big Moose Mountain west of Greenville.

The debate over Plum Creek’s development plan raged for years and deeply divided Mainers, with some viewing it as wilderness sprawl and others as a healthy mix of planned development and conservation. LURC held hundreds of hours of hearings and heard or reviewed testimony from thousands of citizens during one of the longest and costliest regulatory hearings in state history.

But in their September 2009 decision, LURC officials made clear they were only comfortable rezoning land for that much development due to the equally historic conservation agreement negotiated between Plum Creek and three organizations.

In addition to the 363,000-acre deal involved in Tuesday’s announcement, the Appalachian Mountain Club and The Nature Conservancy purchased another 41,500 acres from Plum Creek. All told, the conservation package negotiated as part of LURC’s proceedings on the Plum Creek application total more than 400,000 acres.

The conservation deals had been largely completed before Tuesday’s announcement but were on hold while critics of LURC’s decision pursued appeals through the courts. The Maine Supreme Court upheld LURC’s decision in March, clearing the way for Plum Creek to proceed with its development plan and finalize the conservation package.

Development will not happen overnight, however. Plum Creek must receive permits for each individual subdivision or resort, and the company’s critics have pledged to stay engaged in the process.

Plum Creek Senior Land Asset Manager Luke Muzzy said before the Portland press conference his organization’s timetable for developing the land rezoned for houses and resorts is up in the air. He said the housing market and economy, as well as the state permitting process, are all factors Plum Creek will take into consideration.

He said the group is currently focused on finalizing the conservation and recreation portions of the plan, which he said provide predictability to Moosehead-area businesses that rely on wilderness space for campers, sportsmen and tourists.

One of the vocal critics of Plum Creek’s plan, the organization RESTORE: The North Woods, released a statement after Tuesday’s press conference saying that it continues to have concerns about the effects of second homes “scattered along hillsides and shorelands.” RESTORE said a better option would be the creation of a North Woods national park.

“The easement deal is great for Plum Creek shareholders, who are getting $10 million, as well as millions more for selling other lands for conservation,” RESTORE’s statement read. “Whether it is a good deal for the people of Maine and for the land and wildlife in the region, time will tell.”

The groups behind Tuesday’s announcement, meanwhile, pointed out that easement land includes 200 miles of lakeshore, access to 160 miles of hiking or snowmobiling trails, habitat for the federally protected Canada lynx and 30 sites that provide habitat to rare or endangered plants.

BDN staff writers Seth Koenig reported from Portland and Kevin Miller from Ellsworth.

Seth has nearly a decade of professional journalism experience and writes about the greater Portland region.

Join the Conversation

43 Comments

  1. More road blocks and gates.

    Whenever The Nature Conservancy puts it’s stamp on something, you know traditional uses will get sidelined.

    God forbid anybody tread heavier than a walking stick and birkenstock’s.

    1. The 363,000 acres is actually all working forest easement (only development rights sold) and will be owned and managed for timber by Plum Creek, and full public access–to roads, lands, boat launches, etc.–is written into the easement.

      1.  That’s great that they are willing to share with the public.  I hope that there won’t be idiots trashing the land.  If there is, I hope that TNC would appeal to the public for their help in stopping the land wreckers first before throwing up gates and ruining it for everybody.

  2. Human beings have turned the planet into factory to serve their short-sighted needs, mutiliating the beauty of the Earth, decimating its creatures, and turning splendor and abundance into a rat-race of consumption.

    Protecting the Earth preserves some of our dignity and gives us hope we might not wipe ourselves out, like a greedy pest, taking a great deal of the flora and fauna with us.

    1. Land owners can only do what they want with their land if they are in line with your world views right? This is why Roxanne is okay to do what she wants with her land but others who want to go another direction shouldn’t be allowed, at least according to you and your “side” of things. 

      I wish you would figure out just who deserves the right to do what they want with their own property and who doesn’t.

      1. Here’s what someone like you would have said, say, one hundred and seventy years ago:

        “Slave owners can only do what they want with their slaves if they are in line with your world views right?  This is why Ms. Jones is okay to do what she wants with her slaves but others who want to go another direction shouldn’t  be allowed … I wish you would figure out just who deserves the right to do what they want with their own slaves and who doesn’t.”

        My point:  we need to evolve, to stop treating the land like it’s our slave.

          1. People thought owning slaves was fine back then, and gave the same kinds of arguments as you to defend the practice.  As for our time, people in the future will look back at how horribly we mistreated the Earth and shake their head in amazement.

          2. That is a terrible comparison for many reasons and generally avoids the point I was getting at. Why should one person get free reign over their land and someone else be restricted just because they have different ideas on how they think land should be put to use?

          3. There you go again, seeing the Earth as this dumb, docile moldable thing for humans to do whatever they want with–kind of how slave owners saw slaves. 

          4. We all live under land use laws. Quimby has every right to her own property rights, just like you and me. Do you allow strangers to ride ATV’s all over your land?? Well, in many places, she does. There is a place for development. People need homes. But there is also a place for conservation. If we don’t keep a balance, we won’t have any beautiful places left to show our kids.

          5. When people complain about Quimby barricading her land from use people cry that it is her land to do as she wants. When a land developer wants to use their land as they wish it suddenly becomes a public issue about future generations. You cannot eat your cake and have it too.

          6. Apparently, you didn’t read my words. Developers have a right to develop. Conservationists have a right to conserve. We don’t always agree, but in this case it seems there has been a partnership. By the way, developers also barricade their land from public use. You obviously have a bias toward development.

            In addition, Quimby’s land is remaining the same. Her trees and widlife still live there (other than some sustainable harvesting).When land is developed it is changed, cut, animals are displaced and water and soils are impacted negatively. Very different land uses.

          7. Right I think you are forgetting about the huge push to disallow Plum Creek from developing anything up to and including vandalism and criminal activity.

          8. Debatable the next generation cares even less about the environment and world affairs, if that is the trend than the future isn’t looking too good a hundred years from now. 

          1. I am well aware of their positions, and actually I do get out a lot. Have hiked Katahdin several times,

  3. Not much differnce between the Nature Conservancy and Quimby, working it from both angles

        1. Your definition of a mess is keeping some land the way it is, wild and open to enjoy for generations to come? Yikes.

  4. Today’s conservation easement was brought to you by development! Thanks Plumb Creek, hopefully the wackos won’t stop the selling of lots that made this easement possible. We know they will costs you a boat load of money regardless as we wall know they will still try to stop any thing the could resemble development.

  5. THIS IS HORRIBLE NEWS. Any plan that fails to conserve 100% of the land around the lake is a total failure. When the debate was still in process, there was at least hope for full conservation, now we are guaranteed to have a pristine lake shoreline spoiled by developments. This area should have become a national park. 

    1. If you live in Greenville, have a business there, a camp or home … we might listen.  Otherwise, your “educated” (using the term loosely) opinion doesn’t matter.

  6. OUTSTANDING NEWS!!!!!! Another example of how Maine people can come together with practical, common sense solutions with outcomes we can all enjoy! Maine people rock!

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *