PLUM CREEK CONFUSION

Early in its handling of an application from Plum Creek Timber Co. to rezone much of its land for development, the Land Use Regulation Commission sought to make a clear distinction between the development proposal and an agreement between the company and conservation groups to protect nearby land through a large conservation easement and purchase. LURC now appears to have retreated from this logical position by suggesting that the conservation agreement, for which Plum Creek will be paid $35 million, could help offset development.

Plum Creek is seeking to rezone the land through what is known as a lake concept plan, which will allow the company to develop resorts and house lots more quickly than under other LURC rules. But a lake concept also requires that land be conserved to offset the development. Plum Creek has proposed 91,000 acres of conservation offsets. It appears some LURC members feel this is inadequate. They have three options: They can require more land to be set aside; they can scale back the development; or they can do a combination of the two. Looking toward the paid conservation agreement is not an appropriate option.

After submitting its development plan, the company signed a private agreement with the Nature Conservancy, Forest Society of Maine and Appalachian Mountain Club to preserve nearly 340,000 acres near the proposed development. The company would be paid $35 million for a 270,000-acre easement and two land purchases totaling nearly 75,000 acres.

In a 2006 letter to Plum Creek, LURC staff encouraged the company to avoid confusion by either eliminating all references to the so-called conservation framework in its concept plan or explicitly stating that the framework is nonregulatory and voluntary. The commission did not follow up with a firm request to keep the two separate. The result is the muddled direction from the commission last week after two days of deliberations on staff recommendations for changes to Plum Creek’s plans.

While several of the seven commission members expressed concerns about the scale of the development proposed, especially at Lily Bay, their concerns appeared to be eased by the prospect of conserving more than 400,000 acres through the concept plan and the conservation framework. This is likely what Plum Creek wanted by tying the two together. It is not necessarily what is best for the region or the state, however.

The people of Maine own Moosehead Lake and its outlets. The state has spent considerable money buying land along the lake shore, in part to keep it undeveloped and accessible to the public. Though less tangible than development rights, the value of scenic vistas and clean water owned by Mainers also needs to be protected.

For this reason, LURC must ensure that the required conservation truly offsets the proposed development or the amount of development must be reduced.

It appears the commission is prepared to approve the plan with the changes recommended by its staff, which include restrictions on the height of buildings and limits on the numbers of docks. This is premature given concerns about the amount of development and conservation.