Opinion ID: 2293877
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Plum Creek's Payment of Compensation to Achieve Land Conservation

Text: [¶ 49] Plum Creek will receive compensation from third parties for the conservation land included in the Moosehead Legacy Conservation Easement and the Roaches Ponds Tract Conservation Easement, two areas within the concept plan that total nearly 400,000 acres. NRCM and Forest Ecology Network do not assert that the easements are inadequate, but they do contend that LURC should not have permitted Plum Creek to meet mandatory conservation requirements through its sale, rather than donation, of these conservation easements. [¶ 50] LURC addressed these concerns explicitly in its decision, concluding that current law does not give it authority to declare that a landowner does not, per se, meet these regulatory standards if, as a way to meet them, the landowner is able to arrange financial assistance from a private third party. The court agreed, concluding that under the applicable statutory and regulatory structure, there is nothing to prevent Plum Creek from receiving compensation for the conservation easements. [¶ 51] The position adopted by LURC and the court accurately reflects the current state of the law regarding this issue. Section 10.23(H) of LURC's rules, which addresses Resource Plan Protection Subdistricts, requires plans associated with redistricting to satisfy several criteria, including: The plan, taken as a whole, is at least as protective of the natural environment as the subdistricts which it replaces. In the case of concept plans, this means that any development gained through any waiver of the adjacency criteria is matched by comparable conservation measures. 4 C.M.R. 04-061 010-78 § 10.23(H)(6)(d) (2011). The plan must also strike a reasonable and publicly beneficial balance between appropriate development and long-term conservation of lake resources. Id. § 10.23(H)(6)(f). Nowhere in LURC's rules or statutory authority is there any requirement that these comparable conservation measures be donated. Indeed, as the court noted, NRCM's and Forest Ecology Network's arguments regarding this issue are largely based on policy considerations untethered to any administrative, statutory, or common law authority. LURC's conclusion that compensation by a third party is immaterial when considering the adequacy of conservation measures is a reasonable interpretation of its rules.