PLUM CREEK, VERSION 3.0

Now that Plum Creek Timber Co. is, for a second time, revising its proposal for major development around Moosehead Lake, the company should take the time to improve the plan by ensuring that both the development and conservation are the right size in the appropriate location. It can begin by offsetting shorefront development with shorefront conservation.

In 2005, Plum Creek applied to the Land Use Regulation Commission to rezone, through a lake concept plan, about 10,000 acres to allow for 975 house lots, two resorts and three campgrounds. After public concerns were raised about the amount and location of the development and conservation, the company submitted a revised plan last year. It still included 975 house lots, although some were moved from remote ponds to larger bodies of water, and one of the resorts was moved next to the existing downhill ski area.

The company also negotiated with three conservation groups to develop a “conservation framework” that includes land purchases and easements on more than 300,000 acres on either side of Moosehead Lake. The framework deal, in which Plum Creek will be paid $35 million, will be completed only if LURC approves the concept plan.

The concept plan would allow Plum Creek to develop its land more quickly than allowed under other LURC rules, but it requires that development be offset by conservation.

In reports released this week, the Open Space Institute calculated that the company could develop about 600 lots under current LURC rules. Under this alternative, the company would gain about $31 million in value on the development, according to the OSI analysis. With the lake concept plan, the company would gain about $53 million, assuming the conservation land the company was required to gave up was worth $10 million. This makes the lake concept plan worth $20 million to the company. In addition, the company would get this money much quicker than the incremental development under current rules. Further, under current rules, if lawmakers were concerned that Plum Creek was doing too much development, they could tighten LURC rules making further development difficult if not impossible. Plum Creek could also get the $35 million from the conservation framework.

Plum Creek’s finances are beyond the purview of LURC, but the OSI analysis shows that, because the concept plan is valuable to the company, there is room to demand that it is done right.

The institute, which is reviewing the project because it is interested in how government regulation affects conservation, praised the Plum Creek plan for focusing development on only seven water bodies, while protecting 59, and for some of its conservation. But the group found much of the land Plum Creek has slated for conservation has little development value and that much of the proposed development may not meet LURC requirements. For example, a LURC analysis found that only 300 of the proposed lots met its adjacency requirements.

Most troubling, while much of the proposed development is along shorelines, the majority of the conservation involves “back lots,” land far from water. The required compensatory conservation should include a lot of shorefront, because undeveloped scenic vistas are what bring many visitors to the Moosehead Lake area.

By reworking its plan, Plum Creek has an opportunity to fix these problems and present a proposal that meets its needs while ensuring the character and economy of the Moosehead region are enhanced.