We would like to thank every-one who has participated inthe debate about Plum Creek’sdevelopment proposal and thefuture of the Moosehead LakeRegion. The strong opinionsthat have been expressed, frommany perspectives, havehelped to shape our collectiveunderstanding about theneeds, concerns and aspira-tions of those who live andwork in the Moosehead LakeRegion, and all who cherishthis part of Maine.

We give special thanks to thenearly 1,000 people whoattended the four “scoping sessions” held by the Land Use RegulationCommission in August 2005, and to the Moosehead Region Futures Committeeand Friends of Moosehead – two groups that have done pioneering work in theface of change to capture local sentiments and knowledge, as a way of definingthe values that need to be protected for the Moosehead Lake Region to retain itsunique character, heritage, and way of life.

Editing: Judy Berk, Diano Circo, Cathy Johnson, Allison Childs WellsCopy Editing: Beth Dimond, Sarah Hale KrullPrinter: J.S. McCarthyPhotographs: Judy Berk, Diano Circo, Stephen Gould, Jason Heindel, DominicJonak, Bill Silliker, Jr., Allison Childs Wells

3 Wade StAugusta, Maine 04330-6351800 -287-2345nrcm@nrcm.orgwww.maineenvironment.org

Protecting the nature of Maine

Spring 2006

Writers: Pete Didisheim; Terry DeWan (Appendix)

1

he Moosehead Lake Region is a treasure. It is a place of great natural beautyand ecological resources, an area steeped in tradition and history, and a regionwith cultural and landscape features that have enriched and nourished resi-

dents and visitors for generations. But the future of the Moosehead Lake Region is atrisk. Development pressures could cause irreversible damage to many of the area’smost significant resources and values. This is what many people fear would be theresult of Plum Creek’s development plan, first announced in December 2004.

But an alternative vision is achievable – a vision that would provide a careful balanc-ing of conservation and development, in a fashion that becomes a model for Maine –and the nation. The alternative approach would provide permanent conservationacross most of the Moosehead Lake Region, while directing development to areas nearexisting towns and the existing ski area at Big Moose Mountain. Such an approachwould protect the working forest, conserve wildlife and scenic resources, enhancerecreational opportunities, and ensure public access. It would bring new vitality andmuch-needed resources tothe communities ofGreenville and Rockwood,while sustaining the area’swild and remote charac-teristics in such a waythat it could makeMoosehead Lake the pre-mier gateway to Maine’sNorth Woods Experience– with an unrivaled rangeof features and activitiesto explore year-round.Giving further life to analternative vision is thepurpose of this report.

A Vision for theMoosehead LakeRegion

2

hen Plum Creek announced inDecember 2004 that it would seek

approval for a 426,000-acre developmentacross 29 townships1 surrounding MooseheadLake, shock waves were felt across the state. Thelargest land owner in the nation, the Seattle-basedPlum Creek Real Estate Corporation, was propos-ing the largest development in Maine history, inthe largest undeveloped area east of theMississippi. Debate and controversy quickly fol-lowed, as Maine people realized that the NorthWoods faced perhaps its biggest threat ever: asprawling plan for nearly 1,000 house lots in 30subdivisions, two resorts, a marina, three RVcampgrounds, more than 100 rental cabins, fournew sporting camps, a golf course, and muchmore.

Plum Creek in 1998 purchased a total of nearlyone million acres in Maine from South AfricaPulp and Paper International (Sappi), including426,000 acres around Moosehead Lake andanother 8,000 acres in the Town of Greenville.The land was purchased as forestland for lessthan $200 per acre, and it currently is zoned fortimber production. From 1998 through 2000, thecompany repeatedly denied having any plans topursue development of the land. But in late 2004,everything changed when Plum Creek announcedthat it would be seeking approval for the largestrezoning proposal ever to come before Maine’sLand Use Regulation Commission (LURC).

Plum Creek’s permit application, officially submit-ted to LURC in April 2005, proposed permanentdevelopment across the landscape, but only tem-porary conservation. The fine print of the 570-page plan revealed troubling loopholes, glaringinconsistencies, and specific development propos-als that would jeopardize important naturalresources. Although Plum Creek claimed that itsdevelopment would fit easily onto the landscape,massive and exclusive developments on the com-pany’s lands in Washington State and Montanaare worrisome examples of what could happen toMoosehead Lake.2

Some residents in the region initially felt that say-ing “no” would be risky, given the area’s strongneed for economic development. But others spokeup forcefully with concerns about the plan, fearingthat Plum Creek’s development could destroy thecharacter of the region and put its most preciousresources at risk as new house lots sprawled outacross the landscape.

People who love the region came out in recordnumbers to speak their minds. Nearly 1,000 peo-ple attended four “scoping sessions” held inAugust 2005 by Maine’s Land Use RegulationCommission (LURC) for the purpose of receivingcomments about the Plum Creek plan. The over-whelming majority of speakers expressed deep con-cerns about the Plan’s possible impacts. Issuesraised during the sessions, and from hundreds ofwritten comments, were chronicled by LURC staffin a lengthy, 19-page document released in October2005.3

More than 5,000 people signed a petition to LURCin opposition to the plan, stating, in part, “PlumCreek’s huge development proposal would spoil theMoosehead Lake area forever due to its unprece-dented size, sprawling nature, types of develop-ment, and the lack of permanent conservation.”4

By December 2005, Plum Creek announced that ithad heard the message loud and clear and wasreturning to the drawing board to take a fresh look,with the goal of submitting a new plan.5

1 Plum Creek’s proposal would occur in the part of Maine (10.4 million acres) without organized towns; the unorganized territories are comprised of townships (20,000-25,000 acreseach), which are managed and zoned by Maine’s Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC).

2 Plum Creek has sold land to developers and worked with them to create exclusive vacation resorts where second-homes sell in the millions of dollars. See Suncadia (http://www.sun-cadia.com/) and the Yellowstone Club (http://www.yellowstoneclub.com/).

3 http://mainegov-images.informe.org/doc/lurc/reference/resourceplans/moosehead/2005-10-31scopingsummary.pdf 4 This is the largest number of petitions ever received by LURC on a proposed development. 5 Plum Creek May Alter Moosehead Area Plans, Thursday December 22, 2005, Bangor Daily News.

Background

3

Alternative Visionike many others, the Natural Resources Council of Maine has felt that a better plan

could be developed for the region – one that provides meaningful economicdevelopment, while also protecting the natural resource base that is the region’s

greatest asset. We believe an alternative vision for the region can be centered on thethemes of community and conservation. Properly located development can build upon,rather than compete with, the strong sense of community that currently exists inGreenville and Rockwood. And a strategy for permanent, landscape-scale conservationcan preserve the working forest and timber jobs that are so vital for the region, while alsoprotecting wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and the potential for remote recreation thatwill be an increasingly important component of nature-based tourism for the region.

Through the course of public debate about Plum Creek’s plan, there appears to be anemerging consensus on core principles that should guide a community development andconservation strategy for the Moosehead Lake Region. These principles include:

• Provide permanent conservation of large blocks of contiguous woods andwaters as working forest, wildlife habitat, and recreation areas with guaran-teed public access for hunting, fishing, and nature-based tourism;

• Concentrate development near the existing communities of Greenville andRockwood in order to avoid sprawl, buttress the local labor force, minimize thecost of providing services, and preserve scenic and natural resources;

• Ensure economic benefits forthe local economy throughdevelopment that provides newjobs in and near Greenville andRockwood, adds value to exist-ing businesses, and providesnew local tax base. Focusingdevelopment near existing com-munities will provide a realisticprospect for additional year-round population growth –including families that help bol-ster local schools and helpachieve the “critical mass” need-ed for operating the hospital andmunicipal services; and

• Protect the North Woods character of the region by avoiding developmentthat fragments the forest, and by protecting and enhancing nature-basedtourism opportunities.

4

As stated in LURC’s Comprehensive LandUse Plan, “the Commission has long recog-nized the importance of promoting compactdevelopment patterns and discouragingsprawl.”7 Two of LURC’s central principlesare “discouraging growth which results insprawling development patterns,” andencouraging “orderly growth within andproximate to existing compatible developedareas, particularly towns and communi-ties.”8 The Commission’s Land Use Planalso notes the importance of large-scale landprotection, stating that “the value of naturalresources is generally enhanced when theyare part of a large, undisturbed area, espe-cially one that encompasses entire water-sheds or ecosystems.”9

What type of alternative development sce-nario would fit with these guidelines? Tohelp answer that question, NRCM hired aland use planning firm (Terrence J. DeWan& Associates) that is well versed in commu-nity planning and the protection of scenic,ecological, and recreational resources. Thisfirm assisted us in conducting a detailedanalysis of development scenarios for theregion.

Our analysis looked at lands owned byPlum Creek not only in the unorganizedtownships, but also within the Town ofGreenville. We also felt that it was impor-tant to examine some parcels of land notowned by Plum Creek, but which have great

potential for the region’s economic future –such as land near the existing ski area onBig Moose Mountain. We looked at a broadrange of areas potentially suitable for devel-opment near Greenville and Rockwood.The planner conducted multiple site visits toparcels within these areas, and conducted anextensive review of resource data about wet-lands, topography, soils, habitat, infrastruc-ture, scenic values, and current uses. A setof “candidate locations for development”were identified, and the planner used estab-lished techniques for determining an appro-priate development capacity for each site.

Regarding areas warranting conservationprotection, NRCM looked carefully at a con-servation proposal developed by Friends ofMoosehead, a group of more than 130 localbusinesses and individuals who believe thatmuch of the region should be protected fromdevelopment. We examined natural resourceinformation developed by Maine Audubonand The Nature Conservancy, and a map of“Suites of High Value Nature TourismExperiences” created by the MooseheadRegion Futures Committee. NRCM staff alsovisited the Moosehead Region more than 30times over the past year to meet with arearesidents to listen and learn about theirviews and priorities – both for conservationand development. This work provided thefoundation of the alternative vision present-ed in this report.

hese principles are consistent with a set of “Guidelines for a SustainableMoosehead Region Future” developed by the Moosehead Region Futures

Committee – a group of residents from the area that has gathered community inputin order to define the values that need to be protected in the region.6 These princi-

ples also are consistent with the planning approach that has been established by Maine’sLand Use Regulation Commission.

6 See http://www.mooseheadfutures.org/ 7 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Department of Conservation, Maine Land Use Regulation Commission, March 27, 1997. p. 122.8 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, p. 114.9 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, p. 114.

5

The resulting analysis isconceptual. It is offered fordiscussion purposes. It pro-poses a broad conservationstrategy for the region thatwould protect the area’snatural resource base. It alsoenvisions the possibility of300-450 carefully-locatedhouse lots, and a MaineWoods lodge and recreationarea that could serve as ahub for nature-basedtourism. The AlternativeVision for the MooseheadLake Region has the follow-ing features:

• Proposed developments would be fit har-moniously into the landscape, protectingwildlife habitat, water quality, andscenic views;

• Proposed neighborhoods would follow“smart growth” principles, incorporat-ing village housing patterns, walkingpaths, and protected natural areas. Thegoal would be to design well-planned,attractive communities providing theprospect for housing that is attractive tofamilies with school-aged children andaffordable to year-round residents;

• Resort development would be concentrat-ed near the existing ski resort at BigMoose Mountain, eliminating a pro-posed resort at Lily Bay or any otherlocation where it would cut into unde-veloped natural areas, detract fromexisting public lands, or drain resourcesaway from Greenville-area businesses;

• World-class nature-based tourism facilitieswould be created to take advantage of aprotected natural resource base with guar-anteed public access. The area would bemarketed as a key location for a MaineWoods Experience (see sidebar pg 10),featuring trips into Maine’s woods andwaterways with registered Maine guides,traditional vacations at existing sportingcamps, and a landscape filled with nature-based recreation opportunities;

• New development would be designed toenhance existing towns and complementexisting businesses, not compete with themor put existing businesses at risk, andshould be phased in carefully so increasedtraffic can be managed effectively;

• Permanent conservation would be providedacross the majority of the forest to protectcommercial timber harvesting and supportnature-based tourism; and

• Unique and valuable wildlife habitat andscenic resources would be protected.

6

Provide permanent conservation protection and public access for approximately 424,000 acres of Plum Creek land. Protection would be a combination of public land acquisition, andconservation easements that would allow continued timber harvesting.(See “Permanent Conservation” side bar page 9.)

Provide a carefully-planned neighborhood in the village of Rockwood withinwalking distance of the school, community center, recreation facilities andemployment opportunities. The site could accommodate approximately 25moderate homes arranged in a village setting. Plum Creek land aboveRockwood could accommodate up to 50 new homes overlooking MooseheadLake.

Up to 30 homes in the medium-priced range could be sited to overlookBurnham Pond. The shoreline would be protected. An internal trail systemcould be interconnected into a regional trail system to provide access forhiking, horseback riding, cross-country skiing, and snowmobiling to BigMoose Mountain, the proposed Maine Woods Lodge (see below), MountainView Pond, and other destinations.

Creation of a Maine Woods Lodge, on Plum Creek land west of the existingSquaw Mountain Ski Area, would be a four-season facility in a rustic moun-tain setting near remote ponds, moose habitat, and the Kennebec River. Thelodge would feature architecture found in the area, with an emphasis onnatural materials. The facility could offer accommodations for 50± in amain lodge, along with additional separate cabins.

30-35 attractive lots (many of which could have filtered views of MooseheadLake and/or Deer Island) could be situated on this site between Rt 6/15 andMoosehead Lake. The home sites could be designed in groups of 8-12 homeseach.

This 1,000± acre parcel is directly adjacent to Harfords Point, a communityof largely summer cottages on Moosehead Lake. The area has the potentialto support 100 moderate- to upper-priced home sites within a short distanceto Greenville, the ski area, and other nearby attractions.

Plum Creek owns over 8,000 acres of land in the Town of Greenville. Whilemost of this land may be best suited for timber production (based upon itsvisual quality and lack of access), there are several areas southeast of LowerWilson Pond that may be suitable for home development. These sites are

Alternative Vision Summary (See Appendix for Detailed Descriptions)

LandscapeConservation

Rockwood Villageand Backlots

Burnham Pond

Maine WoodsLodge

Burnham East

Harfords Highlands

Big Wilson Stream

Alternative Vision Component Description

7

adjacent to or nearthe existing RumRidge developmentand are easilyaccessed by the K.I.(Katahdin Ironworks)Road. They compriseapproximately 450acres and include:

• 85± acres onthe north side ofK.I. Road, adja-cent to RumRidge

• 150± acres between Big Wilson Stream, Rum Ridge, and Secret Pond,on the south side of the K.I. Road

• 35± acres on a knoll east of Secret Pond, on the south side of K.I.Road

• 180± acres on the south side of K.I. Road, south of Rum Pond.

With proper planning and phasing, between 100 and 200 homes in variousprice ranges could be accommodated within these areas. The land is withina 12-minute drive to downtown Greenville and is within two miles of theGreenville Airport. The area offers excellent opportunities for remote fish-ing, hunting, hiking, cross-country skiing, snowmobiling, and canoeingthrough use of the Little Wilson Pond public boat launch, Rum Pond, SecretPond, Salmon Pond, Rum Mountain, Big Wilson Stream, and the surround-ing area.

While the Squaw Mountain Ski area is not owned by Plum Creek, it doesrepresent one of the most significant recreational resources and economicdevelopment opportunities in the Moosehead Lake area. With proper plan-ning, there may be opportunities to greatly increase the amount of develop-ment at the base of the mountain. Several hundred units of housing couldbe added (in the form of condominiums, homes, expanded hotel, inn, etc.)in an area already zoned for development. Revitalization of this ski areainto a resort with four-season attractions should be a centerpiece of strate-gies to attract tourists to the Moosehead Lake Region.

Big Wilson Stream(continued)

Revitalized Ski Resort

Summary:• 424,000 acres conserved (through easement and acquisition) • 300 – 450 house lots• New “Maine Woods Lodge” with 50 rooms plus additional cabins • Revitalized Ski Area with several hundred new housing units

8

he Moosehead Lake Region contains a broad array of unique naturalresources, including remote ponds, wild rivers, abundant wildlife,

spectacular mountain peaks, stunning scenic vistas, and a range ofrecreational opportunities that are difficult to match anywhere. People

travel to Moosehead Lake to fish, hike, hunt, snowmobile, ski, and relax. Thearea was made famous by Henry Thoreau’s writings in the 1800s, but theMoosehead Lake Region has a range of features that make it nationallysignificant today, including:

• A century-old tradition of wilderness recreation and guiding;

• World-class fly fishing on the Roach River and the East Outlet of theKennebec River. The Roach is one of only two catch and release streamsfor wild trout and salmon in Maine;

• Ancient native canoe trails and world-class wilderness canoeing;

• Home to the famed “100-mile wilderness” section of the AppalachianTrail;

• Some of the last remaining wild and native brook trout ponds in the easternUnited States; 97% of the remaining wild brook trout ponds are in Maine;

• One of the most primitive river segments in the northeastern United States(the Kennebec River), which serves as the most heavily used commercialrafting stretch in the state; and

• Spectacular rivergorges with excep-tionally high ecologi-cal and recreationalvalue; one of the lastremaining “largelake” wildernessexperiences availablein the northeasternUnited States, andsome of the lastremaining high-value,remote, undevelopedponds in the East.

Special Features of theMoosehead Lake Region

he Alternative Vision proposes permanent conservation on 424,000acres in the Moosehead Region, the area included in Plum Creek's orig-inal development proposal.

Plum Creek has indicated its willingness to sell the state approximately30,000 acres surrounding the Upper Roach Ponds and West Branch Ponds,and adjacent to theAppalachian Trail. There maybe additional areas which couldbe acquired in fee by the State.

The remaining areas shouldbe protected by a permanentconservation easement thatprohibits development andguarantees public access.

In order to rezone existingforest land for the amount andlocation of development pro-posed in this AlternativeVision, Plum Creek is requiredto strike a "reasonable andpublicly beneficial balance"between development andconservation. Given that development is permanent, conservation shouldbe, too.

In its original proposal, Plum Creek proposed to put a 30-year prohibition ondevelopment on the area it was not proposing to develop, and allowed thedevelopment restriction to be extended indefinitely in 20-year increments.Plum Creek indicated that such protection was the equivalent of permanentprotection. No guarantee of public access was included.

In the Alternative Vision, Plum Creek's offer of permanent protection andpublic access is guaranteed through a permanent conservation easement.

Permanent Conservation

9

10

LURC has very clear criteria and policies, how-ever, for guiding development to appropriatelocations and determining whether a rezoningrequest protects the many values that theCommission is obligated to protect on behalf ofthe people of Maine. LURC’s purpose is to pro-tect the remote character and natural resourcesof the Unorganized Territories. As such,LURC’s priority is for proposed developmentto occur “in appropriate locations and in acompact development pattern.”10

The first rule for determining appropriate loca-tions is proximity to existing development –and the comprehensive plan makes clear thatthis does not simply mean “adjacency” to adevelopment that may not have been appropri-ately sited to begin with. “The adjacency prin-ciple”, observes LURC, “has the potential tosanction a leapfrogging effect in which eachnew development potentially becomes the exist-ing, compatible developed area from whichadjacency for the next development can bemeasured.”11 Thus, appropriately-located devel-opment really means proximity to areas withexisting infrastructure and services, in order toprotect other values in the jurisdiction and notdrive up costs of servicing remote develop-ments or sacrifice remote areas.

This Alternative Vision meets this goal bylocating all proposed development within twomiles of Rockwood, Greenville, or the existingski area at Big MooseMountain. TheAlternative Vision also meets LURC’s primaryreview criteria for appropriate development.See page 11

n an ideal world, the Land Use Regulation Commission would have developed a prospective zoningplan for the Moosehead Lake Region prior to receiving Plum Creek’s 426,000-acre rezoning request.Although LURC’s comprehensive land use plan called for such a plan, the work has yet to be done.

Plum Creek’s proposal should not be used as a substitute, since it did not emerge from a broad stakehold-er process and has failed to balance public values as required by LURC. The strong negative response toPlum Creek’s initial plan revealed the problemsinherent in allowing a private landowner toassume the role of proposing how an entireregion should be rezoned for the future.

10 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, p. 115.11 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, p. 124.

Maine has nature-based tourism opportunities thatpeople from throughout the world may want, but this“product” needs to be marketed. That was one of thegeneral conclusions of a September 2005 report byFERMATA, Inc., titled Strategic Plan for Implementingthe Maine Nature Tourism Initiative. Important for theMoosehead Lake Region is the plan’s identification of“The Maine Woods Experience” as an importantmarketing strategy.

The “Maine Woods Experience,” according to FER-MATA, can be marketed as tourism in the Maine Woodsregion that takes full advantage of the area’s heritage,culture, and natural resources, while also supportingtraditional resource-based activities. The report specifi-cally identifies the state’s unique resource of MaineGuides, which provide a “tremendous” marketingopportunity: Guides help to meet the specificinterests and needs of visitors to the Maine Woodsthrough customized guided trips led byknowledgeable local experts.

The Alternative Vision in this report envisionsGreenville becoming a gateway to the “Maine WoodsExperience,” with new, carefully planned facilities,improved existing facilities, and local resources (MaineGuides, tourist attractions, and sporting camps) readyand available for anyone who visits the region.

A Vision That Makes Sense for the Region

11

The permanent landscape-scale conservation for 424,000 acresprovided by the Alternative Vision would achieve this LURCrequirement by protecting remote ponds and timberlands fromscattered new house lots.

All of the proposed development in the Alternative Vision wouldbe within 2 miles of Greenville or Rockwood, or adjacent to theexisting ski area at Big Moose Mountain. The plan would elimi-nate Plum Creek’s proposed subdivisions, resorts and other devel-opments on remote ponds, lakes and forestlands.

The Alternative Vision would provide landscape-scale conserva-tion of the natural resource base, and the location and scale ofdevelopment has been premised on careful design criteria aimed atpreserving natural resources.

Additional factors beyond those considered in this analysis mustbe evaluated in determining need. However, we believe that thedevelopment concepts proposed in the Alternative Vision fit wellwith LURC’s criteria for “demonstrated need.” Specifically, the300-450 house lots contribute to the community and provideeconomic benefits because of their proximity to Greenville andRockwood. The proposed Maine Woods Lodge would improve theeconomic well-being of the area by creating year-round jobs andreinforcing existing employment opportunities related to nature-based tourism. In contrast, Plum Creek’s proposal for 975 lots andextensive other development appears to be based primarily onsatisfying a market for second homes in Maine’s north woods –which is not sufficient to meet LURC’s “demonstrated need”criteria.

The proposed development in the Alternative Vision is closeenough to existing road corridors that significant new road build-ing would not be required.

The proposed development in the Alternative Vision would benear existing power lines and close to existing communities, somajor new infrastructure would not be required.

1. Protection of theremote characterof the jurisdiction

2. Proximity toorganized townsand centers ofpopulation

3. Natural resourcecompatibility

4. Demonstrated needfor development

5. Access to majorroutes

6. Availability toinfrastructure

LURC ApprovalCriteria Alternative Vision Compatibility

12

Of particular concern to Greenville is the declinein the number of school-aged children and thedrop in population needed to provide an ade-quate job base for economic expansion. AsGreenville Town Manager John Simko explains,the region lacks a “critical mass” of year-roundpopulation to provide the workforce and level ofcommunity needed to efficiently sustain localservices.13 The number of young families inGreenville has been on the decline, and the num-ber of retirees has increased, which has made itdifficult to attract new employers.

The problem of insufficient “critical mass” isworsened by sprawl. “Sprawl discourages growthand investment in consolidated areas,” Simkohas observed.14 He also has told the Land UseRegulation Commission that “unmanaged sprawlwill kill this area,” because people who live out-side of the town border will not pay for many ofthe services provided by Greenville, but willincrease demand for those services. “To be avibrant and sustainable service center, Greenvillemust have a critical mass of population, infra-structure, resources and tax revenue,” saysSimko.15

For these reasons, one of the top goals for thecommunity is attracting a workforce by makingthe region more appealing to young profession-als. We believe the Alternative Vision would dothis, because nearly one-half of the proposeddevelopment on Plum Creek land would be locat-ed within the Town of Greenville. Those homeowners would pay taxes in Greenville, becomemembers of the community, and contribute tothe “critical mass” needed for a vibrant town. Aproposal by Plum Creek to locate houses muchfurther away would not serve this need as well.

This fact has been proven by Plum Creek’s 89-lotsubdivision at First Roach Pond, 18 miles up theeastern shore of Moosehead Lake. These houselots have not brought any new school-age chil-dren to the area, and have done nothing to con-tribute to Greenville’s tax base.

Plum Creek’s business model appears to befocused on second home development, primarilyin remote areas with high public, natural, andscenic resource values. Yet this type of housingis not the best fit for the region’s economy. Asnoted by LURC, “the location of many seasonalhomes away from existing services and facilitiesincreases potential service costs… The fiscal ben-efits of seasonal housing can therefore be limitedor fleeting, particularly second home develop-ment in more remote areas.”16 LURC also hasdescribed how second homes in remote locationsslowly erode the very experience that peopleare seeking by purchasing properties in remotelocations:

Compared with most recreational facilities,seasonal housing gives relatively few peoplethe opportunity to experience the jurisdic-tion’s recreational resources. Owning apiece of remote Maine is a widely shareddream, but it presumes an unyielding sup-ply of water frontage or scenic lands whosequalities are unaffected by others pursuingthe same dream.17

It is for these reasons that the Alternative Visionproposes development near existing services andfacilities, where new neighborhoods could bemagnets for not just second home investors, butalso year-round residents.

12 Town of Greenville Comprehensive Plan, 1999. p. 31.13 A Vision for the Greenville Area, John Simko, Greenville Town

Manager, LURC Meeting re: CLUP Revision; February 18, 2005.14 Ibid.

15 Ibid.16 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, p. 69.17 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, p. 118.

n addition to being compatible with LURC’s planningapproach, the Alternative Vision presented in thisreport also appears to be highly compatible with the

Town of Greenville’s development goals. One of the top goals inGreenville’s comprehensive plan, for example, is to “seek popula-tion growth and increased economic activity to increase the cost-

effectiveness of providing public services and facilities.”12

13

he Moosehead Lake Region is at the heart of the largest undeveloped forest east ofthe Mississippi River. Images of the night sky from NASA satellites show an area ofdarkness around Moosehead Lake – a refuge from the lights, sounds, traffic, houses,

and other ever-present features of urban life.

LURC has recognized that this “remoteness” is a precious resource. As stated in theCommission’s comprehensive land use plan: “Remoteness and the relative absence of devel-opment are perhaps the most distinctive of the jurisdiction’s principal values, due mainly totheir increasing rarity in the Eastern United States.”

Remoteness is a diminishing resourcewhich is constantly chipped awaythrough small, incremental developmentpressures and a growing interest frompeople throughout the world to own apiece of Maine’s North Woods. Each newdevelopment on a remote pond, on a sce-nic ridge, or near a favorite hunting, fish-ing, or hiking location reduces that rarequality of feeling remote.

Increasingly, development in the NorthWoods also is having a negative impact onpublic access – as “No Trespassing” signsblock the public from areas that tradition-ally have been used for recreation.

Remoteness: A Rare Resource

e believe the Alternative Vision presented in this report provides a solid framework for bal-ancing the need for landscape protection with the need for economic development. The

Alternative Vision would protect what is most special about the Moosehead Lake Region, whilestrengthening the economy by concentrating new homes and investments near existing infrastructure.

We recognize that this Alternative includes devel-opment in several locations that currently are notdeveloped. Some of these locations may be contro-versial. As with any vision for the region, deci-sions will need to be made about where develop-ment should happen, and where it shouldn’t hap-pen. We believe it is preferable to focus develop-ment near existing communities to reduce pres-sure on more remote, undeveloped lands. This isthe approach preferred by LURC. It is the strategy

that will work best for the Town of Greenville.And it is the vision that holds the greatest poten-tial for building community, conserving naturalresources, and protecting Maine’s heritage andthe future of the Moosehead Lake Region.

This proposed alternative is offered as a concept– for interested parties (especially residents ofthe Moosehead Lake Region) to consider, evalu-ate, improve upon, and – we hope – help imple-ment as a better way forward.

Conclusion

ITS Trail System and other trails not shown would be preserved and enhanced.

16 Appendix

NATURAL RESOURCESCOUNCIL OF MAINEAn Alternative Vision forthe Moosehead LakeRegion

IntroductionThe Natural Resources Council of Maine wentthrough a professional planning process, workingwith Terrence J. DeWan & Associates, a land-scape architecture and planning firm inYarmouth, to identify sites in the MooseheadLake region that could be developed in an envi-ronmentally sensitive manner. The planningprocess consisted of the following steps:

Establish Siting Guidelines. General sitingguidelines were established to address thequestion of where development should occur.Optimal locations should:

• Be in or within two miles of establishedcommunities or major development (such asski areas) to take advantage of existing infra-structure.

• Avoid sensitive wildlife habitats, majordrainage patterns, significant wetlands, orother important ecological features.

• Provide opportunities for safe, attractiveliving environments that would not requiremajor site alterations.

• Result in development patterns that would becompatible with the existing terrain and haveminimal impact on the visual and physicalenvironment.

Site Visits. The planning consultant visited thearea between Rockwood and Greenville on threeseparate occasions, looking at over a dozen differ-ent sites. While most of the property evaluated isowned by Plum Creek, some additional areas were

looked at that seemed important to the futureof the Moosehead Lake region. Site visits werestructured to get a sense of existing land use,topography, vegetation patterns, and other phys-ical and cultural features.

Site Evaluations. The list of potential siteswas winnowed down after a more detailedreview of existing data sources, includingBeginning with Habitat Maps, Soil ConservationService Maps for Piscataquis County, USGSTopographic Maps, snowmobile trail maps andaerial photographs. The results of the site visitsand site evaluations are presented in thedescription of Opportunities and Issues toAddress for each of the recommended sites.

Appendix

Appendix 17

Schematic Planning. Each site was evaluatedas a unique entity. The planning team wentthrough the following exercise to arrive at areasonable density for the projected land use:

• Identify the approximate size of the area,defined by roadways and other culturalfeatures, steep slopes and other naturallimits, and ownership patterns.

• Deduct a certain percentage (usually 50%)of the total area to account for land thatmay be undevelopable or should be avoided(e.g., steep slopes, wetlands, buffer zones,etc.).

• With the remaining land, establish a densi-ty level appropriate to the area, based uponsurrounding land use, visual sensitivity,soils, and other factors. In some areasdensities of 2-3 acres per home might beappropriate. In others (Rockwood village,for example), a much higher density patternis recommended to achieve different landuse goals.

• Develop performance criteria to show howthe sites could be developed in an environ-mentally sensitive manner. These are pre-sented as a set of Considerations for each ofthe recommended sites.

ROCKWOOD Back Lots and Village Housing

OVERVIEWPlum Creek had proposed a ‘backlot’ subdivi-sion on the west side of Rockwood Road abovethe village of Rockwood. No details were given,only an indication that there was a 300± acretract of land that may be suitable for this typeof development.

One of the comments heard during the publicinput process was the lack of housing for localresidents, especially in or near established popu-lation centers. Portions of the Plum Creek land

above Rockwood have the potential to provideboth back lots on the hillside looking towardMoosehead Lake and Mount Kineo as well as anew neighborhood adjacent to the RockwoodSchool. If planned with sensitivity to the viewfrom Mt. Kineo, this could be an effective wayto accomplish both goals.

OPPORTUNITIESThere is great potential to provide the villageof Rockwood with a new neighborhood withinwalking distance of the school, communitycenter, recreation facilities, restaurant, andemployment opportunities. The site couldaccommodate 25± moderately-priced homesitesarranged in a village design plus 50± back lotson the upper portion of the land.

The road leading to the upper lots (back lots)could also serve as access to this new village,thus realizing a cost savings that could bereflected in more affordable home prices andwould limit forest fragmentation.

The existing snowmobile route could become animportant component of an open space systemin “West Rockwood,” providing access for bothrecreation and utilitarian purposes.

Based upon an analysis of soils data, topogra-phy, and ownership patterns, it appears that theland has the ability to absorb up to 50 to 75 newhomes in several distinct areas, aimed at differ-ent market segments.

Of the 300± acres, approximately half may beconsidered unsuitable due to steep slopes, possi-ble wetlands, drainage channels, and ridgelineconsiderations. Of the remaining land, slopesvary between 6 and 12%, which could besuitable for single-family homes.

ISSUES TO ADDRESSThis land is a primary component of the view-shed from Mount Kineo, located two miles tothe north in Moosehead Lake. At this distance,the land is in the mid-ground viewing distance

18 Appendix

and any alteration to the forest canopy thatopens more than 1/4 acre± of woodland may beprominently visible.

The ridgeline of the Plum Creek land may beespecially sensitive. Any development above acertain elevation (e.g., 1,300 feet) may create avisual ‘notch’ in the horizon as viewed from Mt.Kineo.

Rockwood Road currently has no pedestriancrossing facilities. As this area is developed,there will be a need for some physical improve-ments to create a safe pedestrian route betweenWest Rockwood and the waterfront.

CONSIDERATIONSThe planning and design process for both theupper and lower communities should be guidedby several principles:

• Work with local residents to create a long-range master plan for the 300 acres abovethe school. This process should examine siteconditions, natural resources, available utili-ties, town needs, connectivity with existingneighborhoods, and physical image. (StatePlanning Office Smart Growth planninggrants may be a possible source of funds.)

• The homesites for the upper portion of thesite (back lots) should follow theConservation Subdivision approach, asdescribed by Randall Arendt in GrowingGreener.1 Optimal homesites should bedetermined in the field after a thoroughevaluation of primary conservation areas(e.g., wetlands, steep slopes), secondary con-servation areas (buffer zones, view corri-dors), soils for septic disposal systems, exist-ing roads and trails, visibility, and other sitespecific factors.

• The homes closest to the Rockwood Roadshould be laid out in a village pattern with-in walking distance to the school, communi-ty center, post office, and waterfront. The

lots should be surrounded by common openspace to be used for recreation facilities,buffers, trails, and possibly off-site septicdisposal.2

• The road system should be laid out to fol-low the contours and minimize cuts andfills. Road alignment should avoid creatingopenings that would be visible fromMoosehead Lake or Mount Kineo.

• Preserve existing trails, especially the exist-ing ITS snowmobile trail, in the layout ofroads and home sites. Allow a substantialbuffer zone between the trails and the near-est homes to preserve privacy.

• Avoid home sites that would break the hori-zon as viewed from sensitive viewpoints,such as the summit of Mount Kineo. Ingeneral, the tops of prominent hills shouldbe maintained as common open space.

• Establish permanent no-cut zones aroundall development to preserve the scenic valueof the new homes, maintain wildlife corri-dors, and protect water quality.

• Avoid creating large openings on the upperslopes that may be visible from MountKineo or other prominent viewpoints.Maintain a screen of trees on the downs-lope side of all homes to minimize contrastsin color, texture, and form.

• Develop a vegetation management plan for

Appendix 19

individual lots to guide prospective lot-buy-ers as they clear homesites, open viewcorridors, and perform routine maintenance.The plan should be based upon sound eco-logical principles, public safety considera-tions, and an awareness of regional visualquality.

BURNHAM PONDPond View Community

OVERVIEWPlum Creek proposed 20 waterfront lots on thenorth and south shores of Burnham Pond aspart of their April 15, 2005 Resource Plan. Inaddition, an area above the north shore wascalled out as a “reserve backlot area.” Thehouse lots as proposed would develop approxi-mately 5,000 feet (0.95 miles) of BurnhamPond, or 24% of the total shore frontage.

Burnham Pond is currently undeveloped. It isconsidered a unique natural resource for itsshallowness, and its relative lack of disturbance.It may support distinctive minnow and insectcommunities.3

This proposal calls for a limited number of sin-gle family home sites (up to 30) on a low riseoverlooking the pond, keeping the shoreline inits present natural condition.

OPPORTUNITIESDevelopment of a limited number of homes maybe possible on a low rise above the BurnhamPond Road on the south side of the pond. Up to30 homes in the medium-priced range could besited on the property and not have a severeimpact on the pond.

Old logging roads may form the core of the roadnetwork, which would limit the amount of treeclearing required. The site would be developedin tiers, with the upper level having filteredviews to Burnham Pond.

An internal trail system could be interconnectedinto a regional trail system providing access forhiking, horseback riding, cross-country skiing,and snowmobiling to Moose Mountain, MaineWoods Lodge (see other recommendations),Mountain View Pond, and other destinations.

The Burnham Pond development could be a log-ical adjunct to the Maine Woods Lodge. As anadded attraction, homeowners could be givenmembership in the Lodge, enabling them to useits year-round facilities and participate in amaintenance and rental program.

ISSUES TO ADDRESSThe land area available for development isrelatively narrow and parallels the BurnhamPond Road. While the slopes are suitable forhome construction, roads would have to bedesigned with care, with an 8% maximumgrade.

The access road may have to be upgraded toaccommodate additional traffic. Care should betaken to make improvements in such a mannerthat the inherent character is not compromised.

CONSIDERATIONSWith due consideration of the natural resourcevalues of Burnham Pond, the slopes on thesouth side of the pond should be able to bedeveloped with single family homes, guided byseveral design principles:

• Maintain a buffer zone of at least 250 feetfrom Burnham Pond to filter runoff fromthe upper slopes, protect water quality andprotect the natural condition of the pond.

• Maintain a buffer of at least 150 feet fromthe Burnham Pond access road to preservethe character of the road and the experienceof people using the lake.

• Homes should be sited 300-400 feet apart,with an undisturbed buffer zone of at least200 feet between each home.

20 Appendix

• Minimize the number of new roads offBurnham Pond Road. Prohibit direct accessfrom lots onto the road.

• Limit boat access to two hand-carry put-inson the south side of Burnham Pond, includ-ing the existing access point. Given its shal-lowness and relatively small size, the pondappears most suitable for canoe and kayakuse.

• The road system should be laid out to fol-low the contours (8% maximum gradient)and minimize cuts and fills. Avoid longstraight road sections. The use of flowingcurves is recommended to add visual inter-est, reduce speed, and limit linear cuts.

• Establish and enforce design standards forall construction, addressing site planning,topography and drainage, building formsand materials, colors and materials for roofsand siding, window placement, outbuildingsand accessory structures, outdoor storage,lighting, and other physical elements of con-struction. The emphasis should be on sus-tainable buildings that fit into theMoosehead vernacular and naturalizedlandscapes that demand minimal mainte-nance.

• Establish permanent no-cut zones aroundtrail systems to preserve the scenic value ofthe new homes, maintain wildlife corridors,and protect water quality.

• Develop a vegetation management plan forindividual lots to guide prospective pur-chasers as they clear home sites, open viewcorridors, and perform routine mainte-nance. Limit the amount of clearing foreach lot by establishing strict buildingenvelopes. The clearing plan should bebased upon sound ecological principles,public safety considerations, and an aware-ness of regional visual quality.

MAINE WOODS LODGEMaine Woods Experience

OVERVIEWAs part of their April 15, 2005 Resource Plan,Plum Creek had proposed a four-season resortnear Lily Bay. While a well-planned resortseems to be in line with the State’s vision fornature-based tourism, great concern wasexpressed at public meeting about the possibleimpacts such a facility could have on Lily BayState Park and Moosehead Lake.

Maine Woods Lodge, in the shadow of the exist-ing Squaw Mountain Ski Area, would be a four-season facility in a setting defined by ruggedmountains, pristine ponds, expansive views, andthe Kennebec River.

OPPORTUNITIESThere appear to be 3-4 square miles of landbelow Big Moose Mountain that may be suitablefor a four-season operation, with an emphasison cross-country skiing, hiking, mountainclimbing, hunting, fishing, nature study andphotography, mountain biking, and similar pur-suits. The area is bounded by Big MooseMountain on the south, Squaw Mountain SkiArea on the east, Burnham Pond on the north-east, and Indian Pond/Kennebec River on thenorthwest.

Within this larger area there appear to be loca-tions where it may be feasible to develop a mainlodge and related facilities. One area in particu-lar is a plateau of approximately 15 acres at thebase of Big Moose Mountain, an of elevation 1500feet. This site, which is at the same elevation asthe existing ski lodge, appears to offer panoram-ic views of the ponds and lakes while beingclose to many recreational resources. Additionalfield evaluation would be needed to select theoptimum location. The nearby ski area offersgreat opportunities to complement the MaineWoods Lodge.

Appendix 21

This area also is part of a much larger area thathas been designated by the Moosehead RegionFutures Committee as the Kennebec Headwatersin their Suites of High Value Nature TourismExperiences Map. While this map, datedFebruary 1, 2006, is very broad in its scope, itdoes seem to center on Indian Pond and theEast and West Outlets of the Kennebec River.

The Burnham Pond Road to Indian Pond wouldbe the most likely way into the site, since it iswell-maintained and reasonably level, withminimal development throughout its length. Aseries of existing haul roads may provide accessto development sites and thereby minimize theamount of clearing required for road construc-tion.

The facility could offer accommodations for50± in a main lodge along with additionalseparate cabins, depending upon the site.

ISSUES TO ADDRESSThe USGS topographic maps indicate a largepond/wetland complex on the southwest side ofBurnham Pond. The area surrounding BurnhamBrook between Burnham Pond and Indian Pondhas very little topographic relief, which may bean indication of extensive wetlands. This mayalso be a significant moose habitat (which couldalso be seen as an attraction to the area).

One disadvantage of this area is the distance to amajor waterbody. There may be little opportuni-ty to locate a main lodge on or near a lake.However, the views of the nearby mountainsand the proximity of Burnham Pond, MountainView Pond, and Indian Lake could be a compara-ble offset.

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has identifiedthe abutting Spruce Fir Northern HardwoodEcosystem on the north side of Big MooseMountain as a High Quality Exemplary NaturalCommunity.4 In addition, TNC has noted anoccurrence of Fragrant Cliff Wood Fern in thegeneral vicinity of Big Moose Mountain.5

CONSIDERATIONSIt appears that portions of this area could bedeveloped into an attractive year-round facilitythat would complement the MooseheadLake/Greenville area. There are a number ofplanning and design considerations that shouldbe followed in pursuing this concept:

• All development should be sited to avoidthe Spruce Fir Northern HardwoodEcosystem, the habitat of the Fragrant CliffWood Fern, and the large pond/wetlandcomplex on the southwest side of BurnhamPond.

• Any development in this area should startwith a thorough natural resources invento-ry to determine the carrying capacity of thelandscape relative to sewage disposal,impacts on native flora and fauna, traffic,existing land uses, etc.

• The lodge should stress a ‘green’ approachas part of its core values and operating prin-ciples. This should begin with site selectionand be reflected in architectural design,building orientation, preservation of habi-tats, buffer zones, stormwater management,material selection, etc. The lodge and relat-ed facilities should follow the National ParkService’s Guiding Principles of SustainableDesign.6

22 Appendix

• The lodge should be planned as an entity toensure a high level of design continuitythroughout. The architecture should reflectstyles that are commonly found in the area,with an emphasis on craftsmanship andnatural materials.

• Maintain a buffer of at least 250 feet fromstreams and 100feet from drainage channelsto filter runoff from the upper slopes andprotect water quality. Maintain a buffer ofat least 150 feet from the Burnham Pondaccess road to preserve the character of theroad and the experience of people passingthe lodge on the way to Indian Pond.

BURNHAM EASTLakeside Community

OVERVIEWIn their initial Concept Plan, Plum Creek identi-fied the area on the east side of Route 6/15 asBMD-B1 and called for up to 40 home sites.The area is immediately upslope from BMD-S1,a series of shorefront lots between the railroadtracks and Moosehead Lake.

This is an opportunity for 30-35± attractivelots (many of which could have filtered views ofMoosehead Lake and/or Deer Island). Since thesite is prominently visible from Route 6/15,design standards will be important to preservethe character of the landscape as viewed fromboth the lake and the public road.

OPPORTUNITIESThe land offers a number of features:

• Proximity to the ski area and the 15,000-acre Little Moose Public Reserve Land.

• Easterly and southerly exposure for goodmorning light and elevated views ofMoosehead Lake.

• Interesting topography that lends itself toseveral groups of homes separated by pro-nounced grade changes.

• A relatively short drive to several boatlaunches: i.e., in Greenville and Rockwood,at Mountain View Pond, and at the EastOutlet of the Kennebec River.

ISSUES TO ADDRESSThe land is adjacent to the highway, so trafficnoise may be an issue, especially to home sitesnearest the highway. The predominant vegeta-tion on the west side (adjacent to the highway)is deciduous, which will require a greater set-back for privacy.

While land abuts Moosehead Lake, the railroadprevents direct access to the water.

The land is prominently visible from BurnhamPond. Development should be prohibited orstrictly limited on the knoll on the southern endof the land.

CONSIDERATIONSDevelopment on this site could be accomplishedwith due consideration to the surroundinglandscape.

• Site planning should analyze local view-sheds from Moosehead Lake, Route 6/15,and Burnham Pond to avoid sites that willappear on the ridgeline or would otherwiseappear highly visible.

• Develop the home sites in smaller groups of8-12 homes each, separated by gradechanges and significant vegetation (300-500feet in width) for wildlife corridors.

• Preserve the knoll at the southerly tip of theland as common open space to preserve theridgeline and the views from BurnhamPond.

Appendix 23

• Maintain a buffer zone of at least 250 feetfrom Moosehead Lake to filter runoff fromthe upper slopes and protect water quality.

• Maintain a buffer of at least 150 feet fromRoute 6/15 to maintain privacy and pre-serve the character of the road.

• Homes should be sited 250-300 feet apart,with an undisturbed buffer zone of at least150 feet between each home.

• Locate the access off Route 6/15 oppositethe road into Burnham Pond. If a secondaccess is required (by fire codes or as a wayto minimize the length of new roads), uti-lize existing woods roads if proper sight dis-tance allows. No driveways should beallowed off Route 6/15.

• The road system should be laid out to fol-low the contours (8% maximum gradient)and minimize cuts and fills. Avoid longstraight road sections. The use of flowingcurves is recommended to add visual inter-est, reduce speed, and limit linear cuts.

• Establish and enforce design standards forall new homes and outbuildings. Standardsshould address site planning, topographyand drainage, building forms and materials,colors and materials for roofs and siding,window placement, outbuildings and acces-sory structures, outdoor storage, lighting,and other physical elements of construc-tion.

• Develop a vegetation management plan forindividual lots to guide prospective pur-chasers as they clear home sites, open viewcorridors, and perform routine mainte-nance. Limit the amount of clearing foreach lot by establishing strict buildingenvelopes. The clearing plan should bebased upon sound ecological principles,public safety considerations, and an aware-ness of regional visual quality.

HARFORDS HIGHLANDS ATMOOSE BAYLakeside Community

OVERVIEWPlum Creek identified the area between Route6/15, the railroad tracks, and Moose Bay asBMS-B1 (backlots) and BMS-S1 (shore lots) andprojected that it would be used for an undeter-mined number of house lots. This 1,000± acreparcel is adjacent to Plum Creek’s office and aMaine Forest Service Picnic Area. It is alsodirectly adjacent to Harfords Point, a denselydeveloped community of largely summer cot-tages on Moosehead Lake.

While the land does have some limitations, itseems to have great potential to support 100±upper to moderately priced home sites less than2 miles from Greenville, Squaw MountainVillage Golf Course, Little Moose Public ReserveLand, and other nearby attractions.

OPPORTUNITIESIn addition to its proximity to Greenville, theland has many inherent beneficial characteris-tics:

• An interesting array of building opportuni-ties, with many potential view lots orientedto Moosehead Lake and Moose Bay.

• An existing 2-mile gravel road, 20feet inwidth, throughout the lower elevationscould easily form the basis for a mainaccess road. The road appears to be welldesigned, with consideration for topogra-phy, alignment, and sight distance. Severalsections of the road are oriented toward BigMoose Mountain, four miles to the west.

• Several side roads have also been construct-ed that could be considered the start offrontage roads for new construction.

24 Appendix

• The railroad has created a small pond at thenorthern end of the property that could bethe focal point for a community recreationarea.

• If the pond provides access to MooseheadLake, a boat launch for the residents couldbe a very attractive amenity.

ISSUES TO ADDRESSApproximately 1/3 of the land, primarily on thesouth side, appears too steep for conventionalsingle-family home development.

Development on the upper reaches of the hill-side could create a highly visible series of notch-es on the ridgeline that could be seen through-out the southern portion of Moosehead Lake.

CONSIDERATIONSDevelopment on this site could be accomplishedwith due consideration to the surroundinglandscape.

• Site planning should take into account theviewsheds from Moosehead Lake, Route6/15, and Moose Cove to avoid disturbingthe ridgeline or putting development inhighly visible locations.

• Maintain a buffer of at least 2,000 feet fromRoute 6/15 to maintain privacy and pre-serve the character of the road. All newdevelopment should be sited off secondaryroads, leaving a buffer of 150 feet± alongthe existing access road.

• Develop the home sites in smaller clustersof 4-8 homes, separated by grade changesand 300-500 feet of vegetation for wildlifeand recreation corridors.

• Preserve the top of the hill as common openspace to preserve the ridgeline and theviews from Moosehead Lake.

• Site homes on the inlet in groups of 4-6,leaving 100-200 feet between groupings.

Preserve the shorefront as common openspace for a community trail system.

• Homes should be sited 150-250 feet apart,with an undisturbed buffer zone of at least100feet between each.

• The road system should be laid out to fol-low the contours (8% maximum gradient)and minimize cuts and fills. Avoid longstraight road sections. The use of flowingcurves is recommended to add visual inter-est, reduce speed, and limit linear cuts.

• Establish strict design standards for all newstructures. Standards should address siteplanning, topography and drainage, buildingforms and materials, colors and materialsfor roofs and siding, window placement,outbuildings and accessory structures, out-door storage, lighting, and other physicalelements of construction.

• Develop a vegetation management plan forindividual lots to guide prospective pur-chasers as they clear home sites, open viewcorridors, and perform routine mainte-nance. Limit the amount of clearing foreach lot by establishing strict buildingenvelopes. The clearing plan should bebased upon sound ecological principles,public safety considerations, and an aware-ness of regional visual quality.

BIG WILSON STREAMMountain View Lots

OVERVIEWAccording to the Greenville Tax Maps, PlumCreek owns over 8,000 acres of land in thesoutherly part of the community. While most ofthis land may be best suited for timber produc-tion (based upon its visual quality, abundance ofwetlands, and lack of access), there are severalareas southeast of Lower Wilson Pond andsouth west of Rum Pond that may be suitablefor primary and second home development.

Appendix 25

These sites are adjacent to or near the existingRum Ridge development and are easily accessedby the K.I. (Katahdin Ironworks) Road. Theycomprise approximately 450 acres and include:

• 85± acres on the north side of K.I. Road,adjacent to the existing Rum Ridge develop-ment.

• 150± acres between Big Wilson Stream, theexisting Rum Ridge development, and SecretPond, on the south side of the K.I. Road.

• 35± acres on a knoll east of Secret Pond,on the south side of K.I. Road.

• 180± acres on the south side of K.I. Road,south of Rum Pond.

With proper planning and phasing, between 100and 200 homes in various price ranges could beaccommodated within these areas.

OPPORTUNITIESThe land is a 12 minute drive to downtownGreenville and within two miles of theGreenville Airport.

The area is close to many recreational/scenicareas, including Little Wilson Pond public boatlaunch, Rum Pond, Secret Pond, Salmon Pond,Rum Mountain, and Big Wilson Stream. These

areas provide opportunities for canoeing, kayak-ing, fishing (including fishing in remote areas),hunting, hiking, cross-country skiing, and snow-mobiling.

Secret Pond, Salmon Pond, and Rum Pond aremanaged by Inland Fisheries &Wildlife underspecial regulations to produce better than aver-age size fish. Salmon Pond is catch and releaseonly. Rum Pond (245 acres) has been rated asOutstanding for Fisheries by the LURCWildland Lake Assessment. Secret Pond (7acres) has been rated as Significant by theWildland Lake Assessment for Fisheries. Thepond is catch-and- release only for fish greaterthan 12 inches.

Big Wilson Stream flows out of Lower WilsonPond, over two dams, and then meanders for3/4 mile until it leaves Plum Creek’s property.

Recent cutting operations have opened dramaticviews of the Big Moose and Little MooseMountain ranges 9 miles to the west.

ISSUES TO ADDRESSThe Beginning with Habitat Map7 for Greenvilleindicates that the land surrounding SalmonPond and Mud Pond, and a large wetland southof Grenell Pond, are considered SignificantWildlife Habitat for Waterfowl/Wading Birds.Approximately 25% of the total land area isclassified as High Value Forest Habitat, with aconcentration around Rum Pond and the small-er streams that drain the area.

The IF&W boat launch at Little Wilson Pondhas limited space for trailers and may becomecrowded with this amount of development.

Most of the soils in this part of Greenville aredescribed as having ‘severe limitations’ for sep-tic absorption fields due to a number of factors:season wetness, slow percolation rates, perchedwater tables, depth to ledge, and boulders at thesurface. However, these same soils are found

26 Appendix

near some of the more developed lakes, e.g., atLower Wilson Pond.

Significant portions of some of these areas havebeen cut over during the past decade and arejust starting to regenerate. Development wouldhave to be phased to allow tree cover to becomemore established in some areas. (On the otherhand, the open landscape provides dramaticviews to Little and Big Moose Mountain rangesto the west.)

CONSIDERATIONSWith coordinated planning and an awareness ofnatural/scenic resource issues, this area shouldbe able to be developed into a successful commu-nity. The following guidelines are proposed as aguide to future planning:

• Any development in this area should startwith a thorough natural resources inventoryto determine the carrying capacity of thelandscape relative to sewage disposal,impacts on native flora and fauna, traffic,existing land uses, buffer requirements, etc.

• Limit the number of new roads off the K.I.Road. Where possible use existing haulroads.

• Maintain a suitable buffer between theK.I. Road and new home sites. Minimumdistances will be a function of the size andcondition of existing vegetation.

• Investigate the need for additional boat-trailer parking to alleviate potential crowd-ing at the Little Wilson Pond boat launch.There should be ample opportunity to pro-vide this space within a few minutes walkof the launch.

• Identify future harvesting operations andpreserve a suitable buffer to avoid potentialconflicts with new homes and commonopen space areas.

• Each of the identified sites should be treatedas a separate village or community in terms

of natural resource inventories, planninggoals, distances between structures, etc. Forexample, the homes closest to Big WilsonStream should be sited with respect to pre-serving the natural condition of the visualcorridor along the stream and preventingsoil erosion, leaving as much of the existingforest intact as possible. On the other hand,homes on the north side of the K.I. Roadmay be designed around common greens, orwildlife openings, to maintain views to thewesterly mountains and provide open spacefor active recreation.

• Avoid disturbing the significant wildlifehabitat and the watershed of Secret Pond,Salmon Pond, or Grenell Pond with roads,homes, or other types of development. Donot include any of the watershed within thehouselots that may be offered for sale.

• Improvements to these remote ponds shouldbe limited to trail improvements aimed atreducing sedimentation and erosion thatcould degrade water quality. Maintain boataccess as carry-in only.

• New roads should be laid out to follow thecontours (8% maximum gradient) andminimize cuts and fills. Avoid long straightroad sections. The use of flowing curves isrecommended to add visual interest andkeep travel speed to a reasonable rate.

• Establish and enforce design standards forall construction, addressing site planning,topography and drainage, building formsand materials, colors and materials for roofsand siding, window placement, outbuildingsand accessory structures, outdoor storage,lighting, and other physical elements ofconstruction. The emphasis should be onsustainable buildings that fit into theMoosehead vernacular and naturalizedlandscapes that demand minimal mainte-nance.

• Common open space surrounding thedevelopment clusters should be managed

Appendix 27

to prohibit commercial timber harvesting.Establish permanent no-cut zones aroundtrail systems to preserve the scenic value ofthe new homes, maintain wildlife corridors,and protect water quality.

• Develop a vegetation management planfor individual lots to guide prospectivepurchasers as they clear home sites, openview corridors, and perform routinemaintenance. Limit the amount of clearingfor each lot by establishing strict buildingenvelopes. The clearing plan should bebased upon sound ecological principles,public safety considerations, and an aware-ness of regional visual quality.

SQUAW MOUNTAIN SKIAREARevitalized Resort

OVERVIEW

While the existing Squaw Mountain Ski Area isnot owned by Plum Creek, it does represent oneof the most significant recreational resources inthe Greenville/Moosehead Lake area. With thedevelopment of the Maine Woods Lodge and thehome sites on Burnham Pond, Burnham East,and Harfords Highlands, there should be addedincentive to revitalize the mountain into aworld-class ski area.

Although it is often forgotten because of itsremote location, the locals and regulars at theski area have no complaints about the uncrowd-ed trails and lifts. The mountain has a diversevariety of terrain and is split into 2 major areas:the upper and lower mountains (or double andtriple chair areas) The noted trail designer SelHanna once said, “Of all the 1,000 ski trails and300 ski areas I have designed, the PenobscotTrail at Big Squaw Mountain is by far the mostscenic.”8

OPPORTUNITIES• The revitalized ski area could be the corner-

stone of a long-range plan for theMoosehead Lake region. The area is easilyaccessible from Greenville.

• The views are a spectacular combination ofmountains and lakes unparalleled in Maineski country.

• Rudimentary infrastructure exists in theform of access roads, a base lodge, a 52-room hotel, trails, two chair lifts, electricity,snowmaking on 70% of the mountain, asewage disposal pond, etc. The infrastruc-ture would have to be evaluated to assessthe capacity to absorb additional develop-ment.

• The lower slopes of the mountain appear tobe suitable for higher density development.

• Connections could easily be made to region-al recreation trail systems.

• The land abuts the 15,000-acre Little MoosePublic Reserve Land, which could add tothe recreational value of the ski area.

ISSUES TO ADDRESS• The land that makes up the ski area is

privately held. The current owner has notbrought forth any substantial plans forlong-term improvements.

• Soils in the vicinity of Mountain View Pondare hydric, according to the county soilsmap. Substantial amount of soils testingwill be required to understand its ability tobe used for septic systems, absorption rates,wetland characteristics, etc.

CONSIDERATIONS• Recognize the need for and develop a long-

range development plan, stressing soundland-use planning and sympathetic sitedesign.

28 Appendix

• Any further development on the mountainshould start with a thorough naturalresources inventory to determine the carry-ing capacity of the property relative tosewage disposal, impacts on native flora andfauna, traffic, existing land uses, etc.

• With proper planning, there may be oppor-tunities to greatly increase the density ofdevelopment at the base of the mountain.It is not inconceivable that several hundredunits of housing could be added (in theform of condominiums, home sites, expand-ed hotel, inn, etc.) as a way to generateoperating and investment capital.

• The design of all structures should help createa new image for the mountain, one thattakes a fresh look at the styles that are com-monly found in the area. New constructionshould be examples of ‘green’ architectureand site planning (site selection, architec-tural design, building orientation, preserva-tion of habitats, buffer zones, stormwatermanagement, material selection).

• Maintain a buffer zone of at least 250 feetfrom streams and 100 feet from drainagechannels to filter runoff from the upperslopes and protect water quality.

• Consider re-aligning the access road byintroducing sweeping curves to make theroad more attractive and create a morememorable arrival experience.

• Maintain a buffer of at least 150 feet fromthe access road to preserve its character.

1 Arendt, Randall. Growing Greener: Putting Conservation intoLocal Plans and Ordinances. Natural Lands Trust, AmericanPlanning Association, American Society of LandscapeArchitects. Island Press. 1999.

2 This may present an opportunity to create a rural village, asdescribed in The Great American Neighborhood – A Guideto Livable Design, by Terrence J. DeWan & Associates andKent Associates for the Maine State Planning Office andGrowSmart Maine, June, 2004.

3 The Nature Conservancy. Rapid Assessment of ConservancyPriorities with the Plum Creek Resource Plan, Moosehead LakeRegion. January 2006.

4 The Nature Conservancy. Conservation Priorities in PlumCreek Resource Plan Area Map. Oct 27, 2005.

5 This is an uncommon fern that is imperiled in Maine becauseof rarity and vulnerability to further decline. MeDOC, NaturalAreas Program. Rare Plant Fact Sheet on Dryopteris fragrans,Fragrant Cliff Wood-fern.

6 Available athttp://www.nps.gov/dsc/d_publications/d_1_gpsd.htm

7 The Beginning with Habitat program is a cooperative, non-reg-ulatory effort between state and federal agencies, conserva-tion groups, and regional governments in Maine. The programprovides towns and land trusts with the best available informa-tion on rare plants and animals, important habitats, riparianareas, and undeveloped habitat blocks in the form of mapsdepicting habitats of statewide and national significance.

8 Description of Squaw Mountain Ski Resort fromAlpinezone.com.

“Plum Creek development should be sited closer to or between thetowns of Rockwood and Greenville, avoiding backcountry sprawland creating better revenue opportunities for the gateway commu-nities. People are well aware that this community needs economicvitality and opportunity, but the voices we hear are clear thatsacrificing the region’s unique character is too great a sacrifice.”- Mildred Kennedy, Greenville

“I want my grandchildren to have the opportunity to know thebeauty of wilderness…an ever decreasing resource on our planet.”– Jane Dineen Panek, Palermo

“I have hunted and fished in the Moosehead Lake region ever since1962. I believe Plum Creek’s plan will destroy all that I cherish.”– John R. Vinton, Phippsburg

“Our family has long enjoyed camping and hiking in these woods.Please don’t convert this special area into a giant suburbia,unavailable and unaffordableto Maine families. We needthis area to support wildlifeand simple human recreation.”– Betty Beach, Wilton

“The natural beauty of thearea cannot be duplicated; it isa treasure that I pray mygrandchildren will have theopportunity to appreciate.Some things are worth fightingfor. As we farmers have sooften said, ‘Asphalt is the lastcrop.’”– Mary M. Briggs, Turner