The latest news about Maine lakes and ponds.

AMC Responds to Most Recent Plum Creek Concept Plan

January 09, 2008 - While the current plan is an improvement over earlier versions, AMC continues to have concerns about the size, scope, and location of some of the proposed development in the Concept Plan.

These concerns are documented in our expert testimony to LURC. They include, but are not limited to, the following:

1 - We have serious concerns about the impact of the expansive residential development proposed for the Lily Bay peninsula. While we believe that some low-impact resort development is appropriate in this area, we believe the large residential development zone proposed is incompatible with, and would have a permanent undue impact on, the character of the wildest portion of the Moosehead region, and we believe it would be inconsistent with several Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) provisions. It would contradict the purpose of the state's purchase ofthe eastern Moosehead Lake shoreline, which was to maintain the wild character of this portion of the lake. We strongly recommend that the two residential development zones proposed for Lily Bay be eliminated from the Plan. These areas should be added to the Balance Conservation Easement.

2. We believe the Moose Mountain area is an appropriate location for a resort development zone, particularly due to its proximity to the Moose Mountain ski area and the Route 6/15 corridor. However, development proposed for the west side of the mountain would significantly degrade the remote recreational experiences - including flatwater paddling, rafting, fishing, wildlife watching, hunting and camping- offered by the northern end of Indian Pond because of the visibility of this development from Indian Pond. AMC recommends that the Big Moose development area be reduced in size, and the total number of accommodation units capped.
3. The applicant does not own title to the immediate shorefront lands proposed for rezoning on Indian Pond and Brassua Lake, These shorefront lands are owned by the operators of the Harris Hydro (Indian Pond) and Brassua Lake Hydroelectric projects. Some of these shorelands are or could potentially be encumbered through conservation easements from development by the landowners as part of their Federal Energy Regulatory Commission operating licenses. AMC argues that for these reasons and for impacts to the recreational experience at these locations, the proposed shoreline development at Indian Pond should be eliminated and the proposed development area on Brassua Lake should be reduced in size.

4. The extent of the development proposed along the Long Pond/Brassua Lake corridor would very likely make the paddling and primitive camping opportunities there less attractive. Such development would be inconsistent with the CLUP statement, "While the Commission encourages recreational diversity, it will ensure that new uses or activities do not diminish the experience for traditional recreation users."

5. We are concerned that the Concept Plan could allow considerable development in relatively close proximity to the popular fishing and paddling resources on the West Outlet between Moosehead Lake and Indian Pond. In addition, we recommend that road access to existing recreational infrastructure-such as put-ins and take-outs currently in use on major water bodies-must be guaranteed by the Plan.

6. We support the proposed Peak to Peak Trail, which would help meet anticipated demand for additional infrastructure from primitive recreation and would advance the goals of the CLUP. However, we believe that Plum Creek's proposed 15-foot wide corridor for this easement should be expanded to 300 feet to sufficiently buffer the trail and to provide adequate space to construct and maintain the trail. We also have concerns about ensuring sufficient funding for building and maintaining the trail, and long-term plans and funding for recreation management in the region.

7. We support the Conservation Framework, which will provide landscape-scale conservation that will serve to support the remote and natural character values associated with a vast forested area, and should support primitive recreation opportunities of the region in perpetuity. However, we have been clear that the Conservation Framework should not considered as part of the "balance" or off-set conservation required by LURC for all concept plans.

While we understand that moving or reducing development areas will not be easy, we believe that Plum Creek has the latitude to make the changes we have proposed and thereby to protect the qualities of key primitive recreation areas that attract nature-based tourists and contribute to the region's distinct character. We strongly believe that protecting these recreational resources in a manner that is consistent with the CLUP's vision and recreational resource policies is in the best interest of Plum Creek and the State of Maine, and in the long term will result in a plan that maintains the unique recreational values and experiences of the Moosehead Lake Region.


SOURCE: MOOSEHEAD MESSENGER

DATE: 12-18-2007


Lakes: Moosehead Lake
Regions: Moosehead


Print this story

Email this story

return to Lake News