Public hearings on Plum Creek’s development plan are still months away, but already some groups are expressing concern that residents of the Moosehead Lake region are being given short shrift by state regulators.

Several organizations are objecting to a proposal from staff at the Maine Land Use Regulation Commission to hold only one of three public hearings on Plum Creek’s development plan in the Moosehead Lake region. The other two meetings would be held in Augusta and Portland.

Attorneys from these groups are urging LURC officials to relocate at least one of the hearings to Greenville, Rockwood or nearby communities or to schedule additional hearings. The full commission is expected to discuss the issue during a meeting today in Rangeley.

“In a word, the staff recommendation on location of hearings is astounding,” Tom Federle, an attorney for the Coalition to Preserve and Grow Northern Maine, said in a letter to LURC Chairman Bart Harvey.

“It effectively removes this proceeding from the very region that is at the heart of, and the subject of, the proceeding. It is tantamount to the Portland City Council’s conducting the review of the Portland Pier project in Greenville.”

Other groups requesting additional hearings in the Moosehead region include the town of Greenville, the Maine Snowmobile Association, Professional Logging Contractors of Maine and the Maine Professional Guides Association.

Seattle-based Plum Creek Timber Co. is seeking LURC authorization to develop 975 house lots and two sizable resorts near Maine’s largest lake.

The proposal, which also contains more than 400,000 acres of permanent conservation, has sparked intense statewide debate over how to promote job growth in the economically distressed region without ruining the natural beauty that has made Moosehead one of Maine’s most beloved destinations.

As proposed, LURC would hold public hearings on Plum Creek’s plan in Greenville on Nov. 4, in Augusta on Nov. 17 and in Portland on Nov. 18. In between, the commission would hold two weeks of meetings with officially recognized parties known as “intervenors.”

The intervenor meetings, scheduled for the weeks of Nov. 5 and 12, likely would be held in the Bangor-Orono area. All meetings would be open to the public, although nonintervenors would be permitted to testify only during the three regular public hearings.

LURC director Catherine Carroll said she received more than 400 e-mails from all over the state on the issue of where to hold public hearings.

“I do believe … this is the most significant land use proposal that this agency has seen in its history, and I hear from people in all corners of the state expressing support or opposition to this project,” Carroll said.

The concerns over where public hearings are held seems to underscore the intense emotions and regional tensions surrounding Plum Creek’s plan.

In a letter to Carroll, Jim Batey, executive director of the Somerset Economic Development Corp., called holding only one public hearing near Moosehead Lake “a disservice and a rebuke” to Moosehead-area residents.

William Logan, an attorney for SEDC, wrote that all Mainers are entitled to voice their opinions on the issue.

“However, individuals who are truly concerned or who have strongly held opinions as to the proposal should certainly be willing to make a journey to the very region they profess to care so much for,” Logan wrote.

Several letters to LURC specifically targeted the Natural Resources Council of Maine, which has been one of the organizations most vocal in its criticism of Plum Creek’s plan. As part of that campaign, NRCM encouraged its members to contact LURC in support of public hearings in Portland and Augusta, even supplying a form letter.

Cathy Johnson, NRCM’s North Woods project leader, said that in creating LURC several decades ago, the Legislature recognized that what happens inside the Unorganized Territory is of statewide interest. The fact that Plum Creek’s plan has generated more statewide interest than any other plan NRCM has been involved in further demonstrates the need for hearings around the state, Johnson said.

“If LURC staff or the commission want to hold additional public hearings, then we certainly would not oppose that,” she said.