Maine Audubon Perspective

Help for Habitat

EVEN THOUGH IT’S JUST 10 miles away, you can’t quite see Maine’s Moosehead Lake from the mountain for which Borestone Mountain Audubon Sanctuary is
named. But I’m told that these days, it’s not unusual at the summit to hear people talking about the lake.

In fact, the Moosehead Lake region is a hot topic throughout the state. More than 700 people turned out for listening sessions Maine’s Land Use Regulation Commission facilitated in August so it could learn what Maine residents think LURC should consider as it evaluates a controversial proposal by Seattle-based Plum Creek Timber Company. The company wants 426,000 acres of land surrounding Moosehead
Lake rezoned to allow 975 house lots, two resorts, three recreational vehicle parks, a golf course, a marina, four large commercial sporting camps, and a 1,000-acre industrial park.

People’s opinions at the four meetings—called “scoping sessions” and held in Greenville, Rockwood, Jackman, and Hallowell—revealed substantial concern about the largest subdivision ever proposed in Maine. In fact, so many local citizens in Greenville voiced questions and criticism that the town’s board of selectmen rescinded its earlier endorsement of the Plum Creek plan. Even people who, in the words of one businessman, “accept some level of development in the Moosehead region as inevitable” strongly urged LURC to fully investigate and
address the wide-ranging effects of such large-scale development on the natural resources and wilderness character that have attracted visitors to Maine’s North
Woods since the mid 1800s.

LURC’s job now is to consider the issues Maine people have raised as it reviews Plum Creek’s proposal within the context of a land-use plan the commission
adopted in 1997 for Maine’s 10.5-million acres of unorganized territory. The review is expected to take many months.

Maine Audubon, too, has a job to do regarding the proposal, which we began several months ago: evaluate its potential effects on Maine wildlife.

Concerned that Plum Creek’s plan could seriously degrade the natural resources of the region, the undeveloped character of its expansive forestlands, and opportunities for nature-based tourism and recreation, we have studied the proposal extensively and met with Plum Creek representatives to learn firsthand about their plans. At the scoping session in Hallowell (see page 13), Maine Audubon requested that LURC analyze the plan’s impact on important plant and animal species and habitat and how it would affect nature-based tourism businesses in the area.

Above all, we asked LURC to ensure appropriate, effective conservation that protects the region’s working forest and wildlife habitat as well as the public’s
access to the land.

Our work to evaluate a proposal this massive continues. Using mapping technology, data on the locations of rare and important plant and animal habitats, and other tools, Maine Audubon is studying exactly where and how the proposed development and infrastructure, such as roads, will affect the region’s wildlife and wildlife habitat. We’ll keep Maine Audubon members and supporters informed through letters and special alerts, as well as our Web site and Habitat.

Plum Creek’s proposal for the Moosehead region is big news in Maine, but in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina this fall, it’s impossible not to look beyond the state to the tragedy along our country’s Gulf Coast. To restore the region’s cultural, social, Plum Creek’s proposal for
and economic well-being, there is great need—as there has been for decades—for long-term solutions to environmental damage, to the Gulf Coast, particularly its wetlands.

A New York Times editorial on September 5 encouraged Congress to approve a plan that impossible not to look beyond Audubon helped design to restore the vanish-the state to the tragedy along our Louisiana coast that in times past would have served as a buffer against the storm.

Referencing the huge jump in gasoline prices following the storm’s devastating impact on oil-drilling and refining operations in the Gulf, the Times said, “The
oil and gas industry has as much incentive as anyone to protect the marshes from further erosion.”

In the Boston Globe the next day, however, science writer Don MacGillis worried that oil and gas industry lobbyists had already begun using the results of storm damage to argue a need for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. “Never mind that it will take at least 10 years for any oil to flow from the refuge, or that much greater amounts of oil could be saved sooner simply by requiring the auto industry to use available technology to improve fuel efficiency,” he wrote.

The final vote on the federal budget bill, expected to take place in mid to late September, is the last chance for Maine senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins to defend the Arctic refuge that’s critical habitat for polar bears, caribou, snow geese, and wolves. Please urge them to vote to protect the refuge.

Kevin Carley
Executive Director

Fall, 2005