Posted 12-13-2007 

We would like to ask you to consider attending one of the LURC public hearings this Saturday in Portland or Sunday in Greenville?  It would be great to get 3-4 people at each hearing, voicing valid concerns about the plan. Various special interest groups who favor the proposal hired a telemarketing firm to get the pro-plan people to the hearings. We need to balance that, or the LURC commissioners will think the public is all for the current plan.   The Maine Wilderness Guides filed as neutral interveners.  There are parts of the plan that we support however we also have concerns regarding the amount of development in several areas that are important to our members

Following is a list of key points to get across with the LURC commissioners. We would be happy to talk with anyone about these points in greater detail (Kevin: 824-2073; Greg: 549-3326)

                                                        Key Points  (in 3 minutes!)

(Acknowledge the area needs an economic boost but that the current plan needs modification)

A.    Balance easement, as it currently stands, is not a very fair trade for the citizens of Maine.  There is a need to consider not just  the total acreage (20,000 developed vs. 90,000 “donated” to offset or mitigate the development.

Two other considerations:

1.     The public value of lands lost to development. Undeveloped shorefront is of high public outdoor recreational value—this plan has a lot of shoreline sprawl.  Example: one can’t mitigate the loss due to over development of a canoe route like the lower Moose River. There is only one.

2.     Balance easement fair trade in terms of dollars for citizens of Maine to approve the zone change. The $ value of the “donated balance easement” should be roughly equal to the increased value of the land to the developer after the zoning change. Otherwise the citizens of Maine are writing a check to Plum Creek for the difference.

Tell LURC you recommend the plan be modified according to the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife filed testimony: Section II Balance Easement and Section III, Recommended Change to Proposed Development Envelopes. This is the agency that is charged with protecting the public resources of fish and wildlife and their recommendations should be followed.

B.    In general the current plan violates a number of LURC stated goals and statutes in the following areas: Long Pond and Lily Bay. A sample of the language designed to protect “primitive recreation” (defined in Appendix A of LURC’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan as “non-motorized travel,” fishing, hunting, canoeing, tent camping, etc.):

“Minimize non-compatible outdoor recreational use “

“no undue adverse impacts on traditional recreational use”

“new uses or activities do not diminish the experience for traditional users”

“Commission’s approach to recreational use focuses on supporting and protecting primitive recreation resources.”

“Safeguard the principal values of the jurisdiction including a working forest, integrity of natural resources and remoteness.”

C.    There is no overall recreational management plan for the area to address the increased pressure that will be put on the area’s natural resources. An inventory of current use and areas of high public value use should be done initially. A management plan needs to address at a minimum:

1.     increased use and competition for primitive campsites

2.     increased usage of affected ponds, lakes, rivers and trails

3.     incompatible recreational activities resulting in user conflict (i.e. motorized vs. non motorized)

4.     loss of remoteness

5.     loss of primitive recreational opportunities

6.     negative impacts on existing  guides and outfitters

7.     negative impact on existing Maine residents who enjoy “quiet” outdoor recreational activities

The rezoning request should be contingent upon the development and approval of a recreational management plan.

September 6, 2005
Dear LURC,
We are a group of like minded guides and camp owners engaged in people powered trips, fishing for wild native fish; and/or engaged in fair chase hunting; or extended canoeing trips. We require areas large enough for multi-day trips summer and winter that are not easily accessed by  motorized vehicles. As part of your scoping process on issues related to the rezoning of commercial woodlands and concept plan presented by Plum Creek we would like you to consider the following Issues.
Dangerous Precedent
The current plan would allow Plum Creek to “cash in” by purchasing commercial woodlands then rezone and develop most of the larger lakes, ponds and rivers. We consider this would set a dangerous precedent that would lead to future development in Maine’s remote unorganized and undeveloped territories. The current plan represents shoreline sprawl. Another possible consequence of the rezoning change whereby a company buys a commercial woodlot for $300-$400 acre, sells shore lots for $200,000-$250,000 acre is that it would fuel speculative buying thereby driving up the cost to the state (and taxpayers) for future purchases of land and/or easements.
Unfair Balance
We believe the current plan presents substantial losses of public resources (impact on fisheries, wildlife habitat losses, lake and river front development, loss of public access) so great that it will be difficult to offset. Most of the proposal development is taking place in shorefront areas that are already in high public use for primitive pursuits (camping, fishing, guiding, etc.). There is a very high public cost associated with this type of development. The current plan proposes major development on all (except E.O. Kennebec and Roach River) of the accessible major lakes, ponds and rivers In Plum Creeks land ownership which by law belong to all the citizens of Maine. Plum Creek likes to say only 2% of this land is being developed. We would urge LURC to look at the percentage of shoreline proposed to be developed) (excluding undevelopeable shorefront, i.e. remoteness, wetlands, etc.) from that equation. When considering what is a publicity beneficial balance between development and conservation compare apple to apple orange to orange in terms of public resources are lost by the proposed development. For example 1200’ of public use shorefront loss on Brassua Lake cannot be compared to 1200’ of shorefront protected on a remote inaccessible pond which is seldom used by the public.
Economic Impact
We believe Greenville, Rockwood and Jackman could benefit from some economic stimulus as forest industry related jobs are declining and will probably continue to do so. We feel this is not the right type of economic stimulus and development. It would surely degrade the principal values of the area and turn Moosehead into a Lake Winapausakee, We feel large scale residential development is inappropriate and that it would compromise the areas ability to attract the “right type” of tourist. The tourist we hope to attract would be a mix of sportsmen and women for fishing, hunting and camping; eco tourist - Interested in wildlife viewing, birding, etc. non motorized recreation enthusiasts - hiker, mountain bikers, canoers & kayakers. We believe there is significant potential to expand tourism in these areas without compromising principal values of the area since they have a common theme of being primitive pursuits
Impact on Current Uses
We are guides, outfitters and commercial camp owners/managers who strongly believe the Plum Creek Concept Plan would have a negative effect on our current businesses. Our clients come to fish in quiet and remote areas and to canoe and camp and view wildlife along undeveloped shoreline. We strongly oppose the shoreline sprawl concept this represents. For example the current commercial camp owner on Second Roach Pond recently purchased their land from P.C. The concept plan calls for 10 shorefront lots. Their clients come for fishing, hunting, peace and quiet. It will not be the same.
Development
Some issues to consider in guiding development for the Moosehead area would be to:
cluster development in or adjacent to existing communities so that tax and economic benefits go to the towns and development is not sprawled.
‘development outside municipal boundaries should have a fair percentage of property taxes going to the neighboring communities supplying necessary services such as ambulance, fire and schools, etc.; mill rates should be similar. Development should be culturally and environmentally appropriate. For example it should not impact areas which already have high public use. Culturally we have a large history of small family run sporting camps, we do not have (or want) large scale exclusive private resorts and sporting clubs for the rich, Any development needs to provide assurance to the public of future access for traditional outdoor uses. development should be driven and shaped by citizens of the nearby communities and unorganized territories, with general public input. The current plan takes into account only one thing; maximizing corporate profits. Concept plan should not negatively impact (Including visually and quality of experience) current existing publicly owned areas (parks, public lands) or areas of high public use/value. In closing we would like to make an observation about process, It is backwards. instead of drawing up a concept plan in their office about proposed development in the Moosehead area and presenting it to the public to react to; Plum Creek should have fully engaged and involved the public, Due to the planning process Plum Creek chose to undertake we urge LURC to scrutinize It carefully and thank you for the opportunity to comment on the issues it raises.

Sincerely,
Kevin Slater