    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

      ELEVATING LOCAL VOICES AND PROMOTING TRANSPARENCY FOR A POTENTIAL
                         MONUMENT DESIGNATION IN MAINE

    =======================================================================

                            OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING

                                   before the

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

              Wednesday, June 1, 2016, in East Millinocket, Maine

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-46

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
                                       or
              Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov

                                _________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

     20-480 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2016
    ____________________________________________________________________
     For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
      Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                            ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
                RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member

    Don Young, AK                        Grace F. Napolitano, CA
    Louie Gohmert, TX                    Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
    Doug Lamborn, CO                     Jim Costa, CA
    Robert J. Wittman, VA                Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
    John Fleming, LA                         CNMI
    Tom McClintock, CA                   Niki Tsongas, MA
    Glenn Thompson, PA                   Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
    Cynthia M. Lummis, WY                Jared Huffman, CA
    Dan Benishek, MI                     Raul Ruiz, CA
    Jeff Duncan, SC                      Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
    Paul A. Gosar, AZ                    Matt Cartwright, PA
    Raul R. Labrador, ID                 Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA
    Doug LaMalfa, CA                     Norma J. Torres, CA
    Jeff Denham, CA                      Debbie Dingell, MI
    Paul Cook, CA                        Ruben Gallego, AZ
    Bruce Westerman, AR                  Lois Capps, CA
    Garret Graves, LA                    Jared Polis, CO
    Dan Newhouse, WA                     Wm. Lacy Clay, MO
    Ryan K. Zinke, MT
    Jody B. Hice, GA
    Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
    Thomas MacArthur, NJ
    Alexander X. Mooney, WV
    Cresent Hardy, NV
    Darin LaHood, IL

                           Jason Knox, Chief of Staff
                          Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
                    David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director
                      Sarah Lim, Democratic Chief Counsel
                                     ------

                                    CONTENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on Wednesday, June 1, 2016..........................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of Utah....................................................     7
            Prepared statement of....................................    11
        Poliquin, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Maine.............................................     2
        Westerman, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Arkansas..........................................     5

    Statement of Witnesses:
        LePage, Hon. Paul, Governor of the State of Maine............    13
            Prepared statement of....................................    14
        Meyers, Bob, Executive Director, Maine Snowmobile
          Association, Augusta, Maine................................    33
            Prepared statement of....................................    35
        Sannicandro, Paul, Councilman, Millinocket Town Council,
          Millinocket, Maine.........................................    21
            Prepared statement of....................................    23
        Stanley, Stephen, Representative, District 143, Maine House
          of Representatives, Medway, Maine..........................    16
            Prepared statement of....................................    18
        Trahan, David, Executive Director, Sportsman's Alliance of
          Maine, Augusta, Maine......................................    36
            Prepared statement of....................................    38

    Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
        List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
          Committee's official files.................................    50

       OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING ON ELEVATING LOCAL VOICES AND PROMOTING
           TRANSPARENCY FOR A POTENTIAL MONUMENT DESIGNATION IN MAINE

                                  ----------

                            Wednesday, June 1, 2016

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                         Committee on Natural Resources

                            East Millinocket, Maine

                                  ----------

        The committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in the
    East Millinocket Town Office, 53 Main Street, East Millinocket,
    Maine, the Hon. Rob Bishop [Chairman of the Committee]
    presiding.
        Present: Representatives Bishop and Westerman.
        Also Present: Representative Poliquin.
        The Chairman. The committee hearing will come to order.
        We are functioning under the rules of the House of
    Representatives, so there are a couple of things we will talk
    about in a second to you.
        But we want to start this off with the Presentation of our
    Colors. To do that, I am going to ask if Representative
    Poliquin from this area will introduce the Color Guard, and
    then they will present the Colors to you.
        Mr. Poliquin, if you will introduce the Color Guard.
        Mr. Poliquin. Everyone stand, please, and thank you very
    much for presenting the Colors.
        [Colors.]
        [Pledge of Allegiance.]
        The Chairman. We would ask if the Color Guard would stay
    here for one second. Mr. Poliquin has a presentation for you.
        Mr. Poliquin. On behalf of my representation of the 2nd
    District of Maine in the U.S. House of Representatives, I would
    like to present to you this American flag that has been flown
    over the United States Capitol. Thank you very much.
        [Applause.]
        The Chairman. We would like to welcome all of you here to
    this hearing. By way of introduction, my name is Rob Bishop. I
    am the Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee in Congress.
    I hail from Utah, which is a desert.
        I am joined here by Bruce Westerman, who is from Arkansas,
    and Representative Bruce Poliquin, who is from your district.
    Because Representative Poliquin is not a member of our
    committee and this is a committee hearing, the first thing we
    need to do is ask unanimous consent to allow him to join us on
    the panel and participate in today's hearing.
        So, hearing no objection, that will be so ordered.
        I just want to go over a couple of the rules with you
    before we start. Since this is a House of Representatives
    hearing, we have a couple of rules.
        Under Committee Rule 4(f), we are all going to give an
    opening statement. Then we will get to the witnesses that we
    have here.
        We are also grateful that the governor of Maine has joined
    us and we will be asking him after those opening statements if
    he would like to do a 5-minute opening statement as well.
        Please realize the way we run this hearing is under House
    rules. I know some of you have brought signs. I don't want to
    see them. You can't hold them up. I would also ask you, whether
    you agree with what is being said or not, don't let me know
    about it.
        They each have 5 minutes. If your applause is in there
    because you like it, you are just taking away the time of those
    people being able to say something more that you might like as
    well. So, this is as if it were a hearing in the Capitol. There
    can be no demonstrations. There can be no signage. We just
    thank you for being here and participating in a quiet way.
        With that, I am going to yield my time for an opening
    statement to Representative Poliquin. This is still your
    district. I would like to recognize you for the first opening
    statement for 5 minutes, if you would.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRUCE POLIQUIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                    CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MAINE

        Mr. Poliquin. Thank you, Chairman Bishop, very much for
    this opportunity. I am very grateful that you responded
    positively to my invitation to you and your committee to hold
    this congressional field hearing.
        It is very rare to have a hearing outside of Washington,
    DC. This is an official, on-the-record congressional hearing. I
    believe, Mr. Chairman, there have only been two so far this
    year that have been held outside of Washington, DC.
        Mr. Bishop is the most experienced elected official in the
    U.S. Congress dealing with the issue that we are facing today,
    and I am going to be very eager to hear his comments on the
    important topic in front of us.
        To my immediate left is Congressman Bruce Westerman, who is
    here with his lovely wife, Sharon, on their 25th wedding
    anniversary. I thank you, Bruce, very much for coming up and
    participating in this process.
        I want to thank all of the witnesses that we have here
    today that will be testifying on the record about this issue.
        And I also want to thank Senator Angus King, who
    approximately 2 weeks ago brought up an individual, a very
    senior member of the Administration, a fellow by the name of
    Mr. Jon Jarvis, who runs the National Park Service. Mr. Jarvis
    works for the President of the United States. I do not. I work
    for 650,000 people who are hard-working that live in our 2nd
    district. They may be on one side of this issue or the other,
    but I represent all of them, and that is why I asked for this
    congressional hearing.
        I want to make sure that Congress, not the White House,
    hears loudly and clearly the opinions of the folks that live in
    the Katahdin region. It is very, very important to do that.
        I know this is a very passionate issue that has divided
    this community and the communities surrounding East
    Millinocket. I understand that. This is not a political issue
    for me. This is about our families. This is about our jobs.
    This is about the people that live in the Katahdin region and
    the people of the state of Maine. This is not about politics.
        Now, I have to make sure I mention this very clearly. In
    any congressional hearing, whether or not you are in Washington
    or a field hearing like this outside of Washington, Republicans
    and Democrats are always expected and invited to participate.
    Unfortunately, no Democrat has found this hearing important
    enough to participate on the committee.
        When it comes to our witnesses, Democrat witnesses, pro-
    monument witnesses were asked to participate. They chose not
    to. We continued to reach out to them, including last night at
    dinner. They have chosen not to be witnesses here today.
        After this there will be a public forum where I am asking
    everybody to please weigh in, and hopefully there will be some
    folks that are pro-monument, folks that will speak up publicly
    after this congressional hearing.
        But I want to make this very clear: this is not a political
    issue. This is about our families, about our jobs, and about
    the people in the Katahdin region.
        During the past year, my office and I have met with dozens
    of individuals personally on both sides of this issue. We have
    responded to thousands of emails, letters, and phone calls. We
    have responded to every single one, to the best of my
    knowledge. We have done very thorough work to make sure we hear
    everybody, and this is an extension of that.
        Now, what I would like to do is recognize folks on my
    congressional staff, those on Senator King's staff, Senator
    Collins' staff, and Representative Chellie Pingree, who
    represents the 1st District of Maine.
        All those staffers who are here, please raise your hand.
        Let it be noted, Mr. Chairman, that there are
    representatives from the entire Maine delegation here. Thank
    you very much. Again, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.
        At the beginning of this process, which for me was about a
    year ago, I made it very clear to everybody I talked to, I
    cannot and will not support any proposal that threatens our
    good-paying, full-time forest products jobs in the state of
    Maine. Right now we have about 33,000 to 34,000 good-paying
    forest products jobs in the state of Maine. We must make sure
    at all costs we protect those jobs.
        At the same time, I made it clear to everybody I have
    talked to, I will not support any proposal that threatens our
    outdoor way of life, or somehow, in some way, restricts our
    access to hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, and snowmobiling.
    That is very important, as is the relationship that we have as
    Mainers with our small number of very large private landowners.
    It is critical that we maintain that relationship and make sure
    we do not threaten our way of life and recreational jobs that
    come with that outdoor activity.
        Today, during this hearing, I am going to be asking our
    witnesses about a number of different issues. First of all, I
    am going to be asking about the economic impact study that was
    conducted by the owners of this property, asking them to
    justify the number of jobs that are promised by this proposal.
        The reason I am going to be asking that question is because
    the study is predicated on a fully developed tourist industry
    in this area, including restaurants and hotels, and so forth
    and so on. We need to make sure we get this right, and I want
    to hear what they have to say about it.
        I also want to understand why the folks that wrote the
    economic impact study guessed 10 to 15 percent of visitors from
    Acadia National Park would find their way to go to a national
    monument here. How did they come up with that number?
        I am also going to ask about the financing of this
    operation. This is a very big project. We have about 405
    national monuments, national parks, and recreation centers
    around the country. We are about $12 billion in arrears to
    maintain those properties--$12 billion. Acadia National Park, a
    few hours away, has a $69 million backlog to maintain that
    national park. So, we need to make sure the numbers work on
    this.
        And this morning, Congressman Westerman, myself, and others
    went out to our working forest near the town of Patten, not far
    from here, as we all know. We have very narrow logging roads
    that extend throughout our working forests. I need to make sure
    that a 260,000-pound logging truck traveling on a gravel road
    where the dust is flying can co-exist with a Subaru with a
    couple of kids in the back seat, a dog, and a canoe on the
    roof. We need to make sure that we get this right.
        A short time ago, Mr. Chairman, I was across the street
    having hot dogs with some nice folks who were very pro-national
    monument, and good for them for speaking up. And I asked them a
    very simple question. We have had here in the Katahdin region
    three referendums. These are actual votes in East Millinocket,
    Medway, and a couple of months ago in Patten, not a poll taken
    in a different part of the state by those that live in a
    different part of the state, but actual voting in the area. Why
    don't we have more of these to make sure we know how the people
    feel about this issue?
        But with that, I want to thank Chairman Bishop for coming
    to our great state of Maine. It is a wonderful place to live,
    to vacation, to move you and your wife here, Mr. Bishop. We
    have great lobster. We have great hunting. We have great moose,
    great bear, and this is a vacation spot that you will love, and
    I am sure you will consider that.
        With that, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much. You also have great sea
    urchins, right?
        Mr. Poliquin. Yes, we do.
        The Chairman. All right. I appreciate the comments.
        I understand, or am informed, that one of the expressions
    you have up here is that you consider me and Mr. Westerman here
    ``awayers.'' I have not heard that before. I am sure it is a
    term of endearment.
        [Laughter.]
        The Chairman. But as you hear us speak, I am sure you are
    going to find out that Mr. Westerman sounds like a more awayer
    than I do. In fact, I think I am the only one in the room who
    does not have an accent right now.
        [Laughter.]
        The Chairman. But other than that, thank you for being
    here.
        I would like to turn to Mr. Westerman, if we would, for his
    opening statement.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRUCE WESTERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to
    the other Bruce in Congress for hosting us here today and for
    having this important hearing.
        As my friend, Bruce Poliquin, said, this is my 25th wedding
    anniversary. About 45 minutes from now, to be exact, is when my
    wife Sharon and I were married.
        [Applause.]
        Mr. Westerman. It is great to get to celebrate here in
    Maine. My wife actually has connections with Maine. Her father
    grew up in Stockton Springs, so we are not unfamiliar with
    Maine. I have been here several times, to Acadia and all along
    the coast. I have been here in Millinocket before. It is always
    a pleasure to be back here and to see your beautiful state.
        As I look at this issue today, I look at it from two
    different perspectives. Number one as a Congressman, and my job
    there is representing the 4th District of Arkansas; and also
    from a professional perspective, because I am the only forester
    in the whole House or Senate. So I look at it from that
    perspective as well.
        But as a Congressman, when I look at the state of Maine and
    my district, there are a lot of similarities. Maine is 90
    percent forested. My congressional district is 86 percent
    forested. Forest products is a huge business in my district. A
    lot of people's livelihoods depend on that, both in the forest
    products business and also in outdoor recreation.
        We have a lot more Federal land in my district, about 2
    million acres of national forest and Fish and Wildlife Service
    land. My hometown of Hot Springs, Arkansas is actually the
    first land set aside by the Federal Government that later
    became a national park; so I am familiar with national parks
    from that perspective. And serving on the Natural Resources
    Committee, I get to hear a lot about our parks, our forests,
    and all of our Federal lands across the country.
        One of the things that is alarming to me, especially in my
    hometown of Hot Springs, Arkansas, is that we have one of the
    smallest national parks and we have a $12 million backlog on
    maintenance and operations there in that park. But that pales
    in comparison to the $11.8 billion of backlog in maintenance
    and operations across the country. As Representative Poliquin
    already mentioned, just up the road here there is a $68 million
    backlog at Acadia.
        So, when we also look at the fact that the Federal
    Government owns a third of our country, which is more than the
    British government owns of the United Kingdom, my first
    reaction as a Congressman is do we really need more Federal
    land? Do we not already have enough Federal land in enough
    places set aside? And how would we ever pay for it and manage
    it properly if we were to accumulate more land?
        Then I switch gears a little bit and look at it from a
    forestry perspective. I try to look at things through the lens
    of, number one, are the actions we are taking compassionate and
    are they fair? I think we need to think about that regardless
    of the issue. I am thousands of miles away from here, where my
    district is, but I still want what the Federal Government does
    to be compassionate and fair to the folks here in Maine. Is
    creating more Federal land a compassionate thing? Is it a fair
    thing? As we would say in Arkansas, I really don't have a dog
    in the hunt other than I am a Member of Congress that has a say
    in what happens with Federal lands.
        When we look at this from a forestry perspective, and I am
    a huge proponent of healthy forests, there is no downside to a
    healthy forest. If we have a healthy forest, we have better air
    quality, we have better water quality, we have better wildlife
    habitat, we have better recreational opportunities, and we have
    a better economy. There are no downsides to a healthy forest.
    If you are worried about carbon in the atmosphere, a healthy
    forest sequesters carbon. A young, healthy forest does it at a
    higher rate than an old, stagnated forest.
        Forests are living, dynamic organisms, and when Teddy
    Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot worked together to set aside the
    national forests, they set them aside in the name of
    conservation and stewardship, to have these Federal lands there
    for future generations, so that we would have all the multiple
    uses that the forests provide, they would be sustainable, and
    it would be a matter of conservation.
        We have this mixed-up idea in the Federal Government
    anymore where we confuse this preservation with conservation.
    To preserve something, you have to basically kill it. You
    cannot preserve something that is living. You can take a
    cucumber and pickle it and put it in a jar and you have
    preserved it, but you cannot pickle a forest, because
    regardless of what laws we make in Washington, DC, and
    regardless of what laws are made here on the state level, the
    forests don't care. The trees don't listen. They have one
    purpose. They grow and they fill the growing space. When they
    fill that growing space up, they start competing with each
    other. They get stressed. They are subject to disease and
    insect infestation, and they are subject to wildfires.
        So, to be a good steward and to conserve our resources, we
    have to manage those resources. My concern is when I look
    across the country at the track record of the Federal
    Government in forestry management and stewardship, it is not
    very good. You can look out west with our lands that are
    managed by the Department of the Interior, or by the Forest
    Service. They are adjacent to private lands. They are adjacent
    to tribal lands. And by every measurable metric, the lands that
    the Federal Government manages, not just the Forest Service,
    the National Park Service included, fall below the standard
    that is done on private and tribal lands.
        So, it is hard for me to understand why we are going to
    take land that is a working forest and cede all the rights to
    manage that land to the Federal Government, which does not have
    a very good track record of managing that land in the first
    place. And in the end, I am afraid you will end up with not as
    good a natural resource as what you had to start with.
        We think we can have what are called collaborative efforts
    where the communities get together and they come up with a plan
    to manage the forest, which is a great idea. It happens in my
    state. All the stakeholders sit down at the table with the
    Federal agency. They come up with a collaborative plan. They
    follow that management plan almost to the T, and they get held
    up in court in a Federal lawsuit. At the end of the day, no
    management takes place.
        Even though you may think you are going to have a seat at
    the table on how this land is managed and what is done with it
    in the future, reality shows that you will not. And once you
    give those rights up and the Federal Government gets that, it
    is very, very hard to take them back.
        The President can do what the President wants to do. He has
    executive authority to create a monument without the blessing
    of Congress. I hope he does not do that. I hope he looks at the
    facts and I hope that they make a decision based on sound
    science and on what is best, what is most compassionate, and
    what is most fair to the people it is going to affect.
        I am glad we are having this hearing today so we can get
    some of the information out in the open. I look forward to
    hearing from the Governor and the other witnesses. I yield
    back, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Bruce, and Bruce.
        Let me do two other things of housekeeping here.
        First of all, you can see we have a lot of microphones up
    here. Apparently, these are all fake. They are for the
    stenographer and some of the media. They are not real
    microphones. We are going to have to pass the microphone
    around, so that is going to be somewhat cumbersome.
        Also, for those of you who wish to make a comment, there
    are some comment sheets in the back of the room. If you would
    like to fill those out, those will also be made part of the
    official record of this hearing, so just avail yourself of that
    opportunity. Our staff will pick them up after we are done. But
    there is the ability for you to make comments back there.
        Let me say a word just at the beginning of this one.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                         FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

        The reason we are here is to try and gain some kind of
    local input into this particular issue. It is not necessarily
    that the Administration won't. In some respect they can't. If
    they actually do have too much input, then it triggers the need
    for process, and they would have to do NEPA if they did.
        But nonetheless, everyone is always going to be impacted by
    these decisions one way or the other. So, even though I don't
    live here, I will still be impacted if indeed a monument is
    made here. That is because we have, as has been mentioned, a
    $12 billion maintenance backlog in the National Park Service by
    itself, and $19 billion in the entire land owned by the
    Department of the Interior. So, even if free land were given,
    it ain't free. There is still going to be a cost for the
    management and the ownership of that, and that comes out of my
    constituents' pockets and Mr. Westerman's constituents'
    pockets, as well as your pockets here in Mr. Poliquin's
    district. That becomes significant.
        Let me just go through a couple of the experiences that I
    have had in the state of Utah with the idea of national
    monuments. In the waning days of the first term of the Clinton
    administration, President Clinton, who was running for re-
    election, established the Grand Staircase-Escalante National
    Monument in Utah. That is a national monument that is about 2
    million acres, or 3,000 square miles. The three smallest states
    in the Nation do not equal that size. That was made by the
    stroke of a pen.
        The problem was there was nobody in Utah who supported it,
    either the delegation, or the Governor, or the legislature, or
    anyone who lived in the area. It was just simply done. In fact,
    the White House told the Governor and the delegation the night
    before they made the announcement of the monument, ``Don't
    worry about it; there will be no monument that is going to be
    made.'' It didn't necessarily happen that way.
        They also said, and this is over 20 years ago, that there
    would be certain deals that would be made to maintain grazing
    rights, road right-of-ways, and hunting and fishing
    opportunities. We are still fighting over all those issues 20
    years later because we did not do it the right way, which is to
    get the input first and then figure out how the management plan
    would be done. Instead, they established the national monument
    and then said we will work out the management. It does not
    necessarily work that way.
        So, if some people think you can establish a national
    monument by presidential decree that will have forest
    management, the Forest Service can do that, but the National
    Park Service cannot. You think you are going to have logging in
    there; the National Park Service does not do that. If you
    actually think there is going to be access through that area,
    already the National Park Service closes roads even if they are
    public rights-of-way, state roads, and local roads. They close
    them if they go through the park and it takes an Act of
    Congress to actually change that. Already we had one this last
    month. We did another one in the state of Pennsylvania to say
    the National Park Service had to open up a road that ran
    through National Park Service property. So, access is a
    significant problem.
        All of those things have to be done, if you are smart, in
    writing before you actually declare anything. If you do not do
    that, you are going to find the same problem that we have in
    Utah. We have a loss of productivity with that national
    monument. It affects grazing families most significantly, but
    it also affects schools in our area. In Utah, we do have in-
    state trust land that funds the public school system. The chief
    of staff of the Administration the night before he made the
    announcement didn't know what state trust land was, and 20
    years later we are still fighting over what those state trust
    lands will be, who will get access to them, and how they can be
    used to help fund kids education in Utah.
        In fact, the local school district where this national
    monument is now stationed is thinking of closing down some
    necessary small existing schools there simply because the
    population is depleted in that particular area. There are no
    jobs around that area. Although, I still get surveys being
    done, some by an institution that has already given you a
    preliminary study of how much this would generate for you. They
    did the same thing in mine which said that national monument is
    creating the bucks for us in Utah. There is no one who lives in
    that area who can find where those bucks are or where those
    jobs may happen.
        So, it is not that it can't be done, but if you are going
    to do it, do it the right way, which is why Congress should be
    the ones who do this so you can have the open hearings, you can
    go about it in a realistic process, and you can answer the
    questions ahead of time, not after the fact. That is one of the
    problems we have and one of the reasons we are trying to have
    this hearing, so we can try and open this process up in a more
    public way.
        When we get done here, I am going down to Massachusetts, to
    New Bedford. It is the same issue, a proposed national monument
    down there, except this time you are dealing with fish off the
    coast in which, once again, the delegation and the governor of
    Massachusetts have written a letter to the President saying
    please do not do this now, let's have some input first. That is
    coming from the opposite party. My state is all Republican. We
    are asking the President not to do another one in my state
    unless you have the input first. You have both Republicans and
    Democrats here in Maine that I think are saying let's make sure
    we have the input first. That is what we are attempting to do
    with this particular meeting, which is why I am somewhat
    perplexed by some of the statements that I heard before we came
    up here about what this hearing is or is not.
        This is a congressional hearing. It is not a debate. Mr.
    Poliquin will be holding a town hall meeting afterwards. The
    Governor will have a town hall meeting today. That is where
    everyone has the opportunity of actually expressing something.
    In these meetings, we invite people from different groups to
    come and tell us what the impact will be for that particular
    group.
        I admit, there is no Democrat that is here today. I don't
    know why, to be honest with you. This is the first time they
    have chosen not to attend one of these hearings or not to
    specifically send a witness. We also gave out certain
    invitations to those who are openly in favor of the national
    monument here. They chose not to attend. I don't have a window
    to their heart or their soul. I don't know why. That is just
    the realization it is. But that is OK because if you are saying
    we are stacking this meeting, that is just not right. If you
    are saying I am anti-national monument, no, not really. I
    actually have a piece of legislation in my state to create a
    new national monument. I just want to do it the right way, with
    Congress doing it, so these questions are done ahead of time
    and not fighting over it 20 years later because, I am sorry,
    but people from my personal experience have been harmed when a
    national monument is done without proper background and
    understanding exactly what the impact will be on them. That is
    why I want to make sure we do it this way, so that people have
    the chance to have their input so they are not going to be
    over-run or squashed by the heavy hand of the Federal
    Government in some particular way.
        If you have concerns, not necessarily about the
    establishment, but about how it will be organized, I think you
    are wise to have those concerns as you look toward the future.
    The Antiquities Act was passed in 1906. Please realize, when
    that was passed, there was no Bureau of Land Management and
    there was no National Park Service. There were only 45 states
    over 100 years ago and there were no environmental laws. It was
    passed to give the President the ability of designating land if
    it met three specific criteria. Number one, it had to be the
    smallest footprint possible, so you had to give options. Number
    two, there had to be some identifiable archeological,
    historical, geographical, or geological feature that you were
    trying to preserve, something specific. And number three, it
    had to be in danger of being destroyed.
        Those three criteria have not been done by the past three
    administrations. Instead they have said, ``Well, we will do
    something if there seems to be local support for it.'' We have
    some concerns here because, quite frankly, there has been no
    legislation that has been introduced. Some elected officials
    are antagonistic, some are negative, some are skeptical, some
    are just ducking the issue, and some maybe have some quasi-
    support for it. We are coming up all over the place. These
    types of issues should be discussed openly ahead of time.
        As we said before, we have a situation where there is a $12
    billion maintenance backlog in the National Park Service. There
    is a $19 trillion debt. The Federal Government owns 640 million
    acres of land; that is one-third of all of America. They do a
    poor job managing the land and it is not because the people in
    Washington are malevolent or incompetent. They just have too
    damn much land to manage. That is why local management of the
    land usually is the one that produces the best.
        My state has five national parks. I wanted to create one
    national monument into the sixth national park in Utah. The
    people who live in that area became ballistic because they have
    had such a difficult time in dealing with the national monument
    management that they did not want to escalate it to have to try
    to deal with the National Park Service management at the same
    time. I still thought it was a good idea.
        I want you to know that even though there are six wonderful
    areas for visiting in Utah, the best park in Utah is still the
    State Park down in Kane County, which has been listed in
    magazines as probably the premiere park to visit and to
    recreate in, and it is done by state. States have equal ability
    of maintaining and coordinating this, so if you all want
    conservation up here, fine. Designation just for the sake of
    designating it as something really does not have a lot of
    background or a lot of sense with it.
        Land management decisions at any level should be developed
    with transparency through local collaboration, not done
    unilaterally, period. This hearing is one more way to ensure
    that local voices in this region are going to be heard. So, we
    are here today to listen to the views of local people and some
    of the individuals who represent them, because I think it is
    significant and important. If the President uses the
    Antiquities Act, he by law cannot engage in that process. As
    soon as he involves the Interior Department or anyone else in
    the planning, NEPA kicks in and you have to have public
    hearings. The Antiquities Act is used as a gotcha moment to
    surprise people with the President acting boldly and
    decisively, and in doing so he cuts out the voice of people.
    That is why we are here, to make sure that whatever decision is
    made, that all of you here have a say in what it is, and that
    becomes the driving factor, not just the desire to say, ``I
    created something, wow, isn't that cool.''
        With that, I appreciate your attendance here, and I
    appreciate your attendance afterwards in the meetings that you
    are going to be holding.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:]
       Prepared Statement of the Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman, Committee on
                               Natural Resources
        I want to thank Representative Poliquin for bringing this issue to
    my attention and inviting me here today to consider local views of the
    proposed national monument. I also want to thank Mr. Westerman for
    traveling all the way from Arkansas to be here.
        I have been informed that Mr. Westerman and I are considered
    ``Awayers''--I have never heard that term before, but I think it must
    be a term of endearment.
        I want the audience to know that we have comment sheets you can
    fill out that will be part of the official record and we will make all
    of the comments during the listening session part of the official
    hearing record as well.
                    experience with national monuments--utah
        Coming from Utah, I unfortunately have a lot of experience with
    national monument designations. In the waning days of the Clinton
    administration, President Clinton designated the Grand Staircase-
    Escalante National Monument.
        This designation locked up 1,880,000 acres. That's 2,938 square
    miles of Utah. This was designated with little to no public outreach
    and virtually no local support. The designation was opposed by the
    congressional delegation and the governor. The Utah delegation is still
    trying to un-do what was done by the stroke of pen almost 20 years ago.
        Most disturbing was the loss of productivity of the land--ranching
    families have been hit hard by a reduction in livestock allowed to
    graze on the monument. Thousands of acres of Utah State land--set aside
    to support schools in Utah--is still locked up in the designation and
    provides no revenue for public education.
        These are real consequences that impact the day-to-day lives of
    good, hard-working Americans trying to provide for their families and
    obtain the American dream. Yet a stroke of the pen, made from a fancy
    office in Washington, DC, completely changed the lives of these
    Americans.
        Now, President Obama is currently considering the designation of a
    new national monument in Utah. Similar to what I hear is happening
    here, the Administration promises an ``open, public process''--but
    unfortunately, I know better than to take them at their word.
        That's why Mr. Westerman and I are here today. After I leave Maine,
    I am heading to another community, New Bedford, Massachusetts, which,
    unfortunately, is also under the threat of a national monument
    designation. There, just like here, Utah, and so many other
    communities, people are concerned and worried about their future.
        There have been a lot of recent inaccurate public statements made
    about this hearing, so I'd like to set the record straight on a number
    of items:

         This hearing is being held in accordance with the Rules of
                the House of Representatives--it is an official
                congressional hearing and, like it or not, we must abide by
                the Rules of the House of Representatives and the Natural
                Resources Committee just like a town meeting must abide by
                its rules.

         The minority, otherwise known as the Democrat Members of
                the Natural Resources Committee, were all invited to attend
                this hearing. They were also given the opportunity to
                suggest witnesses with different points of view. They
                declined both opportunities.

         We went ahead and invited some folks that supported the
                Monument designation--including Lucas St. Clair--who also
                declined our offer.

         After all of these efforts, it is disappointing to hear
                accusations of stacking the panel to one that is opposed to
                a Monument--but in truth, I believe our panel represents
                bipartisan local voices--just as our hearing name states.

         I also have never been, and don't now claim to be unbiased
                about National Monument designations declared by this or
                any other President. This is because I've had personal
                experience with them and I have seen the livelihood of
                families harmed by these designations.

         I will not sit before you today and pretend that if the
                President declares the Maine North Woods a National
                Monument that everything will be OK and life here will be
                hunky dory. I have serious concerns based on my experience
                with numerous national monument designations in the West--
                you are wise to be concerned about your future.

         Finally, what's probably the most disgusting part of the
                situation with the Maine North Woods is the way its
                proponents have tried to skirt Congress to create a
                National Monument without the support of the entire
                delegation, legislature and Governor.

         Elected officials are held accountable by the electorate.
                If I (or any elected official) do a bad job, I get fired in
                November. But the people making the decisions on
                designating national monuments are unelected bureaucrats
                presenting their case to a lame duck President.

         Mainers and New Englanders in general are used to being
                part of the political process--the Town Meeting is one of
                the purest forms of direct democracy. I believe that's why
                this the Maine Woods proposal is so divisive--many Mainers
                feel they have no say in the ultimate decision made by the
                President. Sadly, through my experience in Utah, I know
                this to be true.

                 antiquities act versus national park creation
        Under the Antiquities Act of 1906, which was originally intended to
    prevent looting of archaeological and Native American structures and
    objects, the President can unilaterally declare national monuments of
    arbitrary size and scope, without congressional approval or input from
    states.
        The Act can only be used to designate a national monument--it
    CANNOT be used to create a national park. Only Congress has the
    authority to create national parks.
        Even if President Obama designated the North Woods area as a
    national monument, Congress--both the House and Senate--would have to
    pass a bill making it a national park and that bill would have to be
    signed by the President.
        To date, not a single piece of legislation has even been introduced
    in Congress--not even legislation to study the feasibility of a Park in
    this area.
                           reality versus lofty goals
        We must seriously ask ourselves if it is wise and prudent to
    designate yet another national park.
        The National Park Service has a $12 BILLION dollar maintenance
    backlog. Adding a new park that has no infrastructure whatsoever would
    only significantly add to this problem.
        The United States is $19 TRILLION dollars in debt. We should take
    care of the Parks we already have in poor condition rather than adding
    to the huge backlog.
        The Federal Government already owns 640 MILLION acres of the United
    States and by and large does a poor job managing this land.
        As I've said before, it's not because the land management agencies
    are filled with bad people: it's just too much land to manage. State
    and local governments ought to manage these lands.
        Setting all this aside, if a community and its congressional and
    local representatives are in favor of a new national park designation,
    then that proposal should be considered through the established
    legislative process that is designed to incorporate local input.
        Land management decisions at any level should be developed with
    transparency and through local collaboration, not unilaterally. The
    hearing is one more way to ensure more local voices of the Katahdin
    region are heard. We are here today to listen to the views of locals
    and some of the individuals that represent them.

                                     ______

        The Chairman. I would like to recognize the governor of the
    state of Maine, the Honorable Paul LePage. We appreciate you
    coming here and being with us. As always, any written testimony
    you have will also be included in the record, but now I would
    like to recognize you for the public statement you would like
    to make on this particular issue.
        Governor, it is all yours.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL LePAGE, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF
                                 MAINE

        Governor LePage. Thank you so much. It is a pleasure to be
    here. Chairman Bishop, Congressman Westerman, thank you for the
    opportunity to address the House Committee on Natural
    Resources.
        Let me begin by welcoming you to Maine. I believe Maine is
    the most beautiful state in the Union. I know you might
    challenge that, but I win because it is my house.
        [Laughter.]
        Governor LePage. I sincerely appreciate the committee's
    consideration of the Antiquities Act and this proposed
    designation in Maine. It is through meetings like this, and not
    rallies, where we bus in supporters from around the state or
    out of state, that is the real opportunity for the people of
    Maine, Mainers, who will be affected by the national monument
    designation.
        I have been a vocal critic of a national park in northern
    Maine for many, many years, and now the national monument. I am
    proud to say I am a Mainer, born and raised, and have spent
    much of my career in forest products and understand the forest,
    while I am not a forester.
        The residents of East Millinocket, Medway, and Patten have
    voted very strongly in opposition of Federal control of this
    area. I have heard supporters from southern Maine dismissing
    this local opposition saying it is common with any Federal
    designation. However, the opposition here is real. The
    opposition here, of Maine people, they are people that live in
    the area in which people criticize.
        Mainers have battled proposals for Federal control of this
    region for over 25 years. In an interview with Forest Magazine,
    Roxanne Quimby called the Mainers old, obese, drug abusers, and
    dependent on welfare. Shame on her. Shame on her and her
    family. I really resent that.
        There has been much distrust that has been building on this
    whole issue. There is also opposition to this proposal on the
    state level. In 2011, the Maine legislature adopted a joint
    resolution opposed to the creation of a national park. This
    year, the legislature enacted legislation, which I proposed, to
    withdraw the state's consent for exclusive Federal jurisdiction
    over a national monument in Maine.
        But the owners won't quit. They have put millions of
    dollars on lobbying, focus groups, and polling in an effort to
    convince one man, the President of the United States, that this
    cut-over wood lot is worthy of being a national monument, while
    it sits right beside one of the best jewels and the best assets
    the state of Maine has, Baxter State Park.
        I agree with the Congressman that the states can have
    everything that the Federal Government says they can do for
    you. This is a good case study for reforming the Antiquities
    Act. The law should require some local or statewide support for
    the national monument designation. The way it stands now, there
    is really no way to check the President's power by the people
    who will be affected.
        This proposal does not square with a plain reading of the
    Antiquities Act. It was intended to preserve threatened areas
    and artifacts in the smallest area compatible with this
    purpose. This proposal calls for 90,000 acres of land to be put
    under Federal control to preserve Maine timberland, even though
    it is already under conservation and has been cut over.
        I have said repeatedly that we would happily support this
    project if it was part of the state public land system and we
    could do some research on our forest for the future generations
    and for those who live in this region.
        There is no threat to this land. The real threat is in the
    situation from an ambitious wealthy family seeking to create
    its own legacy.
        You know, in Maine, we have a legacy and a way of life in
    this region. It is hunting, fishing, hiking, snowmobiling in
    the winter, and outdoor sports. It will go away, make no
    mistake about it, and let me give you two examples.
        When the Federal Government shut down a few years ago, many
    of our fishermen were not able to go to work because they had
    to go across Federal lands to get to the shores and they were
    prevented from going to work. I got a call from the National
    Forest Service one day a few years ago saying you have some
    people in a cottage up on the Appalachian Trail and they are
    going across the Trail because the lake is not frozen yet. It
    was in December, and they said you need to go summons them. And
    I did say this, and I know they were offended, I said, ``No, I
    will not summons them, and if you come to Maine, I will summons
    you because those people are just trying to go snowmobiling and
    the lake hasn't frozen.'' They were going over a strip of land
    about 8 feet with snow on it, and the Federal Government said
    it is not possible.
        Well, that is what happens when you go to one-size-fits-all
    with the Federal Government taking control of your lives. I
    believe that this land is in Maine, and the Maine people ought
    to make the decision on how we are going to preserve it, how we
    are going to conserve it, and how we are going to use it.
        I agree with the Congressman: preservation is pickling, and
    I am sure that most Mainers do not want to pickle this land.
        So, thank you for being here. Thank you for inviting me to
    testify. I will work with the committee in any way we can to
    get you all the information that you need on this issue. Thank
    you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. LePage follows:]
    Prepared Statement of the Hon. Paul R. LePage, Governor, State of Maine
        Chairman Bishop and Congressman Westerman, thank you for this
    opportunity to address the House Committee on Natural Resources. Let me
    begin by welcoming the committee to northern Maine. I sincerely
    appreciate the committee's thoughtful consideration of the Antiquities
    Act in general and this specific proposed designation in Maine. It is
    through meetings like this--not rallies with bussed-in supporters--that
    you have a real opportunity to hear from the Mainers who would be
    affected by this National Monument designation.
        I have been a vocal critic of a National Park in northern Maine for
    a long time and now a National Monument. I am proud to say I have some
    good company in opposing this proposal. As this committee knows, the
    residents of East Millinocket, Medway, and Patten have all voted
    strongly in opposition to Federal control in this area. I have heard
    supporters from southern Maine dismiss this local opposition, saying
    that it is common with any Federal designation. The opposition in this
    area, however, is something more than that. Mainers have battled
    proposals for Federal control of this region for more than 25 years. In
    an interview with Forbes Magazine, Roxanne Quimby called these Mainers
    old, obese, drug abusers and dependent on welfare. There is plenty of
    mistrust that has built up over the years.
        There is also opposition to this proposal on the state level. In
    2011, the Maine Legislature adopted a Joint Resolution opposed to the
    creation of a National Park. This year, the Legislature enacted
    legislation--which I proposed--to withdraw the state's consent for
    exclusive Federal jurisdiction over a National Monument in Maine.
        The Quimby family, however, will not quit. They have spent millions
    of dollars on lobbying, focus groups and polling in an effort to
    convince one man--the President--that this cut-over woodlot is worthy
    of being a National Monument. This is a good case study for reforming
    the Antiquities Act. The law should require some local or state-wide
    support for a National Monument designation. The way the law stands
    now, however, there is really no way to check the President's power by
    the people who would be affected.
        This proposal also does not square with a plain reading of the
    Antiquities Act. It was intended to preserve threatened areas and
    artifacts in the smallest area compatible with this purpose. This
    proposal calls for 900,000 acres of land to be put under Federal
    control to preserve Maine timberland--even though it is already under
    conservation and has been cut-over. I have said repeatedly that I would
    happily accept this property to be included in the state's public lands
    system. There is no threat to this land. The real threat in this
    situation is from the ambition of a wealthy family seeking to create a
    legacy.
        Again, thank you for traveling to Maine to hold this hearing. I
    strongly support a frank examination of the Antiquities Act. I will
    support the work of your committee, including calling on the entire
    Maine delegation to support limiting abuses of this law.

                                     ______

        The Chairman. Thank you, Governor LePage. I appreciate you
    being with us and your testimony. As I said, if you want to
    have anything written added to the record, we will be happy to
    do that. With that, we appreciate you and realize you have a
    busy schedule, so thank you for stopping by.
        At this time, I think we need to bring up the gentleman who
    will be on the second panel, if we could. If you would come up
    here and join us at this table.
        Mr. Stephen Stanley is a member of the House of
    Representatives from this area. Come join us on this panel.
        Mr. Paul Sannicandro, I understand has a great deal of
    experience on land management, land issues, and is also on the
    Town Council.
        Mr. Bob Meyers, from the Maine Snowmobile Association, I
    appreciate having you here.
        Mr. David Trahan, from the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine.
        We appreciate having you gentlemen here. Once again, you
    come from a diversified aspect. We want to give you the
    opportunity of telling us what the impact of this potential
    designation would be.
        At this point, once again, anything that you have written
    for the record is included. The oral statements are limited by
    our Rule 4(a) to 5 minutes. There will be a timer in front of
    you to help you deal with that. Also, any questions we ask will
    be limited to 5 minutes. When the light is green, that means
    you have plenty of time, keep going. As soon as it turns
    yellow, just do what you do when you are driving, go real fast.
    And when it is red, please stop at that point.
        With that, we will recognize Mr. Stanley. I understand you
    are the Representative from the 143rd District here in Maine,
    and I understand you are from the wrong political party, but we
    can work on that later on, if that is OK.
        We thank you for joining us. You are recognized for 5
    minutes for your statement.

      STATEMENT OF STEPHEN STANLEY, REPRESENTATIVE, DISTRICT 143,
             MAINE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MEDWAY, MAINE

        Mr. Stanley. Thank you, Congressman Bishop and Congressman
    Poliquin, for being here. I want to welcome you to the Katahdin
    area, a very beautiful place to live and a beautiful place to
    work, if you have a job.
        My name is Stephen S. Stanley, and I represent Millinocket,
    East Millinocket, Medway, Patten and the nearby unorganized
    townships in the Maine House of Representatives. I am currently
    serving my sixth term in the Maine legislature, having
    previously served four terms in the House and one in the
    Senate.
        A majority of people in my district and the surrounding
    region are opposed to a national monument or national park.
    Earlier this year, the people of Patten voted by a roughly 2-
    to-1 margin to oppose the formation of either a national
    monument or national park in the Katahdin region. Last year,
    both Medway and East Millinocket voted by similar overwhelming
    margins to reject the same proposal.
        During the session that recently ended, the Maine
    legislature reaffirmed what the people of the Katahdin region
    have made clear. Maine lawmakers approved Public Law 458, also
    known as LD 1600, which the Governor introduced and I
    sponsored. In its final form, the measure specifies that the
    legislature does not give its consent in cases of the Federal
    Government acquiring land for the designation of the property
    as a national monument.
        Numerous and varied concerns have led the majority of local
    residents, as well as many people outside our area, to oppose
    moving forward with the proposed national monument or national
    park. I am submitting this testimony to give voice to the
    concerns my constituents have raised, which I share.
        One of the greatest concerns is how a national monument or
    national park would impact our region economically. Though
    proponents tout the potential gains, there are serious
    questions around whether a national monument or national park
    would be the economic driver they claim it would be.
        The forest products industry is critical to Maine's
    economy, and this proposal would do serious harm to the
    industry. It would take tens of thousands of acres of
    productive woodland out of play. Creating a national park or
    national monument could have detrimental consequences on wood
    supply and mills across the state. Papermaking jobs are vital
    to the economic health of working families and communities
    around Maine, and there are many concerns about the effect that
    it may have on the paper industry.
        There are other questions around the dampening effect a
    national monument or national park could have on our region.
    Would industry-related emissions be held to a higher standard
    near the proposed national monument or national park? How would
    that impact businesses in the region?
        Proponents counter that hundreds of jobs could be created
    to replace the jobs in our legacy industries. However, when we
    look at the example that Baxter State Park provides, it seems
    unlikely that these estimates are realistic. Beyond that, these
    jobs would be low-paying and largely seasonal.
        In an area that has been devastated by the loss of more
    than 2,000 good-paying jobs in the past 10 years, replacing
    good-paying, year-round forest products jobs with these tourism
    jobs is not a good solution for the Katahdin region.
        Right now, there is a lot of economic uncertainty in our
    area as plans are discussed to create a national park.
    Businesses do not want to locate to our area, and there is a
    lot of panic about what may occur if a national park is
    created.
        There are legitimate questions around whether the proposal
    would even bring the suggested number of tourists to our region
    each year. While our region is beautiful and special, it does
    not have a unique feature like the Grand Canyon or the geysers
    at Yellowstone. It cannot be compared directly to Acadia
    National Park, which is a very different place in a very
    different part of Maine.
        But let's assume for a moment that the tourists would come
    in these numbers. The region lacks the infrastructure to
    accommodate so many visitors each year, and we have yet to see
    any reasonable explanation or plan for how that infrastructure
    will be created.
        It also seems that the type of visitor attracted to our
    region will be different from the visitors that bring economic
    activity to the area surrounding Acadia National Park. Bar
    Harbor and nearby communities are shopping and dining
    destinations with hotels and many other attractions. Here we
    have productive forestland. It can be enjoyed, but it would
    likely be by people who are prepared for an outdoor experience,
    not a shopping and dining experience.
        Another great concern is whether or not there will be any
    local control. We have managed and operated the Maine woods for
    many years now and we know the ins and outs of the area. Many
    people in my area are concerned that if the national monument
    is established, nobody in Maine will have a say in the
    rulemaking.
        Historically, we in northern Maine have had access to this
    land. The woods in our area that were owned and operated by
    paper companies were able to be used for other recreational
    activities such as hunting, fishing, and snowmobiling as well.
    A national monument would limit access to land we have used all
    our lives.
        At the public hearing we had on LD 1600, the Professional
    Logging Contractors of Maine, the Maine Snowmobile Association,
    the Maine Woods Coalition, as well as many other local
    individuals, testified in support of the bill and in opposition
    to the national monument. As Anne Mitchell of the Maine Woods
    Coalition said, ``I support LD 1600 for the freedom it returns
    to our state. The people of Maine deserve no less.''
        I have also included with my testimony a map of land that
    has been conserved in northern Maine. As you can see, there is
    quite a lot of land, Baxter State Park being the largest that
    is already protected. We need the rest of the land to support
    the timber harvest industry. Taking away quality land will hurt
    jobs and negatively impact our state.
        To some, a national monument or national park might sound
    like an easy fix for the economic challenges our region faces.
    But the solution to the problems we face needs to come from
    within our community, not from outside our community without
    our support. The people of the Katahdin region need to come
    together to work toward driving growth that is homegrown and
    sustainable. There is no magic solution, especially not one
    that is driven by outside forces.
        I am currently working with economic development folks,
    organizing leadership trainings, and inviting speakers from
    around the country who had similar situations like in this
    area. This is a very divisive and complicated situation and
    could greatly hinder economic development in our area. I need
    to be sure it is the right decision before it moves forward.
        If Elliotsville Plantation and supporters of the national
    monument/park proposal want to be a part of those efforts, I
    hope they will start by listening to the people of my
    community. I believe there are other ways to move forward that
    would not be so controversial or potentially harmful to our
    area. Let's put the divisive question of the national monument
    or national park proposal behind us so we can work together for
    a better future in the Katahdin region.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Stanley follows:]
      Prepared Statement of Stephen S. Stanley, State Representative for
                              Maine, Medway, Maine
        Congressman Rob Bishop and esteemed members of the House Committee
    on Natural Resources, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony
    in opposition to the proposed monument designation in Maine's Katahdin
    region.
        My name is Stephen S. Stanley, and I represent Millinocket, East
    Millinocket, Medway, Patten and the nearby unorganized townships in the
    Maine House of Representatives. I am currently serving my sixth term in
    the Maine Legislature, having previously served four terms in the House
    and one in the Senate.
        A majority people of my district and the surrounding region are
    opposed to a national monument or park. Earlier this year, the people
    of Patten \1\ voted by a roughly 2:1 margin to oppose the formation of
    either a monument or park in the Katahdin region. Last year, both
    Medway \2\ and East Millinocket \3\ voted by similarly overwhelming
    margins to reject the proposal.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ http://bangordailynews.com/2016/04/19/outdoors/patten-
    residents-reject-national-park-and-monument-in-vote/.
        \2\ http://bangordailynews.com/2015/06/23/outdoors/medway-rejects-
    national-park-proposal-by-wide-margin/.
        \3\ http://bangordailynews.com/2015/06/23/outdoors/medway-rejects-
    national-park-proposal-by-wide-margin/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        During the session that recently ended, the Maine Legislature
    reaffirmed what the people of the Katahdin region have made clear.
    Maine lawmakers approved Public Law 458,\4\ also known as LD 1600,
    which the Governor introduced and I sponsored. In its final form, the
    measure specifies that the Legislature does not give its consent in
    cases of the Federal Government acquiring land for the designation of
    the property as a national monument.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ http://www.mainelegislature.org/LawMakerWeb/
    summary.asp?ID=280059474.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Numerous and varied concerns have led the majority of local
    residents, as well as many people outside our area, to oppose moving
    forward with the proposed monument or park. I am submitting this
    testimony to give voice to the concerns my constituents have raised,
    which I share.
        One of the greatest concerns is how a monument or park would impact
    our region economically. Though proponents tout the potential gains,
    there are serious questions around whether a monument or park would be
    the economic driver they claim it would be.
        The forest products industry is crucial to Maine's economy, and
    this proposal would do serious harm to the industry. It would take tens
    of thousands of acres of productive woodland out of play. Creating a
    national park or monument could have detrimental consequences on wood
    supply and mills across the state. Papermaking jobs are vital to the
    economic health of working families and communities around Maine and
    there are many concerns about the effect that it may have on the paper
    industry.
        There are other questions around the dampening effect a monument or
    park could have on our region. Would industry-related emissions be held
    to a higher standard near the proposed monument or park? How would that
    impact businesses in the region?
        Proponents counter that hundreds of jobs could be created to
    replace the jobs in our legacy industries. However, when we look at the
    example that Baxter State Park provides, it seems unlikely that these
    estimates are realistic. Beyond that, these jobs would be low-paying
    and largely seasonal.
        In an area that has been devastated by the loss of more than 2,000
    good-paying jobs in the past 10 years, replacing good-paying, year-
    round forest products jobs with these tourism jobs is not a good
    solution for the Katahdin region.
        Right now, there is a lot of economic uncertainty in our area as
    plans are discussed to create a national park. Businesses do not want
    to locate to our area, and there is a lot of panic about what may occur
    if a park is created.
        There are legitimate questions around whether the proposal would
    even bring the suggested number of tourists to our region each year.
    While our region is beautiful and special, it does not have a unique
    feature like the Grand Canyon or the geysers at Yellowstone. It cannot
    be compared directly to Acadia National Park, which is a very different
    place in a very different part of Maine.
        But let's assume for a moment that the tourists would come in these
    numbers. The region lacks the infrastructure to accommodate so many
    visitors each year, and we have yet to see any reasonable explanation
    or plan for how that infrastructure will be created.
        It also seems that the type of visitor attracted to our region will
    differ from the visitors that bring economic activity to the area
    surrounding Acadia National Park. Bar Harbor and nearby communities are
    shopping and dining destinations with hotels and many other
    attractions. Here we have productive forestland. It can be enjoyed, but
    it would likely be by people who are prepared for an outdoor
    experience--not a shopping and dining experience.
        Another great concern is whether or not there will be any local
    control. We have managed and operated the Maine woods for years now,
    and we know the ins and outs of the area. Many people in my area are
    concerned that if the national monument is established, nobody in Maine
    will have a say in the rulemaking.
        Historically, we in northern Maine have had access to this land.
    The woods in our area that was owned and operated by paper companies
    was able to be used for other recreational activities such as hunting,
    fishing and snowmobiling as well. A national monument would limit
    access to land we have used all our lives.
        At the public hearing we had on LD 1600, the Professional Logging
    Contractors of Maine, the Maine Snowmobile Association and the Maine
    Woods Coalition, as well as many other local individuals, testified in
    support of the bill and in opposition to the national monument. As Anne
    Mitchell of the Maine Woods Coalition said, ``I support LD 1600 for the
    freedom it returns to our state. The people of Maine deserve no less.''
        I have also included with my testimony a map of land that has been
    conserved in northern Maine. As you can see, there is quite a lot of
    land, Baxter State Park being the largest that is already protected. We
    need the rest of the land to support the timber harvest industry.
    Taking away quality land will hurt jobs and negatively impact our
    state.
        To some, a national monument or park might sound like an easy fix
    for the economic challenges our region faces. But the solution to the
    problems we face needs to come from within our community, not from
    outside our community without our support. The people of the Katahdin
    region need to come together to work toward driving growth that is
    homegrown and sustainable. There is no magic solution, especially not
    one that's driven by outside forces.
        I am currently working with economic development folks, organizing
    leadership trainings and inviting speakers from around the country who
    have had similar situations in their area. This is a very divisive and
    complicated situation and could greatly hinder economic development in
    our area. I need to be sure it is the right decision before it moves
    forward.
        If Elliotsville Plantation and supporters of the monument/park
    proposal want to be a part of those efforts, I hope they will start by
    listening to the people of my community. I believe there are other ways
    to move forward that would not be so controversial or potentially
    harmful to our area. Let's put the divisive question of the national
    monument or park proposal behind us so we can work together for a
    better future in the Katahdin region.
                                  attachments

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Sannicandro.

      STATEMENT OF PAUL SANNICANDRO, COUNCILMAN, MILLINOCKET TOWN
                      COUNCIL, MILLINOCKET, MAINE

        Mr. Sannicandro. Chairman Bishop and distinguished members
    of the Committee on Natural Resources, my name is Paul
    Sannicandro. I am a Registered Maine Guide. For 16 years, I
    have managed wilderness hiking trails as a Trails Advisor for
    Baxter State Park. I am a volunteer at the local ATV and
    snowmobile club.
        I also hold a seat on the Millinocket Town Council. I am
    not here to testify on behalf of the constituents of
    Millinocket, for this controversy has been divisive in our
    town. I am here to testify on my own behalf, for my interest in
    recreational tourism, economic development, and securing my
    values, future, and how I interpret this great state as
    ``Maine: The Way Life Should Be.''
        National park and national monument proponents continue to
    say that by virtue of EPI's lands becoming a National Park
    Service unit, that the branding in itself will bring 10 percent
    of Acadia National Park's visitors northbound. In other words,
    300,000 visitors annually would flock to an area that is less
    than half the size of Baxter State Park.
        Let's compare some statistics to refute the sustainability
    and scope of EPI's 87,500 acre gift to the National Park
    Service. Baxter State Park is just over 210,000 acres. It has
    eight drive-to campgrounds, two backcountry hiking-only
    campgrounds, and approximately 60 miles of gravel roads to
    access campgrounds. There are 225 miles of hiking trails. There
    are 46 mountain peaks. There are 65 lakes and ponds, and in
    2013 it had approximately 117,500 visitor days for the year.
    Baxter State Park's visitor carrying capacity is governed by
    the finite designated campsites throughout the park and the
    availability of limited parking capacity for day hikers within
    the park's campgrounds.
        Presently, EPI's proposal does not include the planning for
    camping and recreational infrastructure. How is it possible
    that the Katahdin region could absorb an additional 300,000
    visitors annually when the land base of EPI's ownership in
    Northern Penobscot County is less than half of Baxter State
    Park's acreage? How will flooding the gates with that much
    traffic sustain visitor impacts and preserve the quality of a
    wilderness experience? It is not possible when figuring the
    scale of the proposed national monument or national park is
    only a mere 87,500 acres, as promised.
        You will find attached to my written testimony, excerpts
    from the National Park and Conservation Association's 1988 plan
    titled, ``National Park System Plan'' that describes Baxter
    State Park and the surrounding lands as significant areas to be
    considered as a future National Park Service unit. It stated
    and recommended that it should initiate an NPS study of
    alternatives for the State Park and surrounding lands, NPS
    monitoring of resource conditions, designation of national park
    around Baxter, and inclusion of Baxter State Park in the
    National Park System when opportunity arises.
        The National Park Service plan was produced under the
    direction of Destry Jarvis, who at the time served as the
    Director of the National Park's program for the NPCA. He, of
    course, is the brother of the current National Park Service
    Director, John Jarvis, who recently visited the Katahdin region
    and believes EPI's land holdings are worthy of a national
    monument designation.
        With all of the focus on EPI's lands in the Katahdin East
    Branch region, it would be easy for the uninitiated to be
    distracted from the fact that EPI also owns over 60,000 acres
    in Dover-Foxcroft/Katahdin Iron Works Region. By simply adding
    the total acreage from the two regions, the sum comes close to
    150,000 acres. Does everybody know the 150,000 acre number?
    What is the relevance of this point? Each region is host to a
    gateway community that has been identified for over 25 years in
    the 3.2 million acre Restore The North Maine Woods proposed
    National Park model. The Town of Millinocket would be the
    south-easterly gateway community, and the Town of Greenville
    would be to the southwest as a gateway community.
        The allure of the Katahdin region is a strong one that has
    fascinated many before me and will continue for generations to
    come. My hope is that the Katahdin region will retain its rural
    feel, find creative ways to build sustainable economies that
    allow for true diversification, and not become a gentrified
    play land for elitists.
        I will leave you with these words from the former Maine
    Governor Percival Baxter: ``Man is born to die. His works are
    short lived. Buildings crumble, monuments decay, wealth
    vanishes, but Katahdin in all its glory, forever shall remain
    the mountain of the people of Maine.''
        Forever shall remain the mountain of the people of Maine.
    Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Sannicandro follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Paul Sannicandro, Moose Woods Guide Service, LLC,
                               Millinocket, Maine
        My name is Paul Sannicandro. I want to first give thanks for the
    opportunity to share my testimony with you and the Committee on Natural
    Resources, on an issue of profound importance to those that live in the
    Katahdin Region, in the great state of Maine.
        I'm a Registered Maine Guide, who has called the Katahdin Region
    home for the last 20 years. During the majority of that time, I managed
    wilderness hiking trails as the Trail Supervisor of Baxter State Park.
    I've also been an advocate and volunteer, for diversifying the tourism
    economy of the region, by working with my local ATV & Snowmobile Club,
    in negotiating with private landowners, for securing, maintaining and
    developing ATV trail access for connectivity to Maine's larger trail
    network. Most recently, I've launched a four-season guide business,
    catering to visitors of the Katahdin Region. I also hold a seat on the
    Millinocket Town Council. I am not here to testify on behalf of the
    constituents of Millinocket, for this controversy has been divisive in
    our town. I'm here to testify on my own behalf and for my interests in
    Recreational Tourism, Economic Development and securing my values,
    future and how I interpret this great state as, ``Maine, The Way Life
    Should Be.''
        As you may know, the controversy of the creation of a National Park
    in the North Maine Woods goes back to the 1930s. It is not a new idea.
    From the political battles of former Governor Percival Baxter, sparring
    with his successor, Governor Owen Brewster, to the tug of war between
    the forest products industry and the environmental community, this
    debate has been ongoing. Through an evolution of both natural processes
    and human ingenuity, the North Maine Woods has forever been a renewable
    resource. It has seen the shift from hundreds of men with axes and
    cross-cut saws using horses, boats and waterways, into a mechanized
    harvesting operation, using million dollar machinery, a ``crew'' of
    three people, diesel tractor trailers and woods roads to transport logs
    for industry. All while, the rivers kept flowing and the forest
    continued to grow back.
        The North Maine Woods has seen wood products' transportation shift
    away from our waterways, overland, to be hauled by trucks. Waterways
    were dammed, diverted, and in some cases the natural flows reversed.
    It's seen the Clean Water Act, and the private landowners' adaptation
    to transport raw materials by creating thousands of miles of logging
    roads. Roads that opened up new opportunities, creating a more
    convenient means for adventure and recreation for visitors to the North
    Maine Woods. All awhile, the rivers kept flowing, and the forest
    continued to grow back.
        The North Maine Woods has witnessed, experienced and felt the
    pressures of natural processes, also. Major fires also changed the
    ecology of regions for generations. Spruce budworm infestations came
    and went, also. Most notably in recent history, the spruce budworm
    infestation of the late 1970s and early 1980s, resulted in larger scale
    clear cut operations. Industry leaders defended their decisions to the
    fact that salvaging the dead or dying standing timber, would prevent a
    predicted storm of cataclysmic wildfire that could jeopardize their
    operations for the long run. The salvage would prevent waste. The
    environmental community was appalled, and years later, forest practices
    were changed through referendum. All awhile, the rivers kept flowing,
    and the forest continued to grow back.
        What happened to those clear cuts? Well, they grew back. Slowly . .
    . even aged stands of spruce and fir became the thickest cover, which
    became perfect habitat for snowshoe hare. This in turn became the
    perfect habitat, at the southern most end of its range, for the
    Canadian Lynx. More on that later . . . And, all awhile, the rivers
    kept flowing, and the forest continued to grow back.
        Yes, there is a common theme here. In Maine, we have two amazing
    renewable natural resources, water and forests. Elliotsville
    Plantation, Inc. (EPI), the organization that is willing to gift its
    land to the Department of the Interior and has been championing the
    idea of the creation of the proposed National Monument and National
    Park, contracted a study with Headwaters Economics. In the study, there
    were 16 so called, ``peer regions'' that were used to discuss the
    economic benefits of National Parks, in their communities. There are
    sharp contrasts in the comparisons, such as the demographics, proximity
    to other industries and population centers, but most notably, the peer
    regions' former industries. Some of them were boom and bust communities
    from the mining industries out West. It doesn't make those communities
    insignificant. It's just not a good comparison when we're
    differentiating a non-renewable natural resource that is mined and a
    renewable resource that is harvested, such as trees. The paper industry
    may be gone, but there are other uses for wood fiber and wood products.
    So again, the rivers keep flowing and the forest continues to grow
    back.
        Giving my brief overview of the history of the Maine Woods, it's
    also important to note that as a state, Maine has held the bar high
    when it comes to conservation, all awhile this federalization concept
    has been on the backburner. Let's not forget that former Governor
    Percival Baxter, who was vehemently opposed to Federal Government over-
    reach in Maine, created the nearly 250,000 acre Baxter State Park,
    given to the state of Maine and its people, in trust. And, over time,
    for example, other NGOs such as the Forest Society of Maine have
    amassed holdings on 1.5 million acres, in conservation easements. These
    easements guarantee recreational access and the ability to continue
    harvesting trees, a renewable natural resource, for the wood products
    industry. The headwaters and waterways of five major rivers located in
    the North Maine Woods have been protected from development through
    conservation easements or purchased in fee by the state of Maine, or by
    other conservation groups and land trusts, that have continued to allow
    for multiple uses.
        In fact, another NGO, North Maine Woods, Inc., which is a
    consortium of private landowners within the working forest, assists
    with recreational management of nearly 3.5 million acres, providing
    roads, campsites and infrastructure for visitors to access and use for
    recreation. My point is that Maine, being the largest forested,
    contiguous tract of undeveloped forest land, east of the Mississippi
    River, already has secured a future for its forests and recreation
    through the benevolence of private landownership working in concert
    with conservation groups and industry, to strike a balance of multiple
    uses. And yes, there is also the dynamic of preservation groups holding
    these landowner's feet to the fire, to ensure that the scales are
    balanced.
        Let's focus now on the purported values and reasons for the high
    level of environmental ``protection'' that the Department of the
    Interior believes is needed, of the EPI lands in question. Of any
    feature, in or around the EPI parcels in question, it's the East Branch
    of the Penobscot River that has the highest value. The features of the
    river itself are unique. There is nothing else like it. Does it
    necessitate NPS regulations? Absolutely not! In fact, in 2014, members
    of the Maine Woods Discovery team paddled the East Branch, in
    commemorating Henry David Thoreau's river trip, 150 years before.
    During that experience they said that they felt the river had changed
    very little with respect to its wilderness character. What is not
    commonly known is the fact that the river corridor, itself, is already
    protected from development.
        In 1981, the former Great Northern-Nekoosa paper company, gifted
    the East Branch of the Penobscot River's corridor to the state of
    Maine, which in turn conveyed it into a conservation easement, managed
    by Maine's Bureau of Parks and Lands. It is listed as ``PRC Upper West
    & East'' on the BPL's Conservation Easement List. ``PRC'' represents
    Penobscot River Corridor. It's already protected and enjoyed annually
    by paddlers, people who fish, birdwatchers and others.
        Recently, I had the amazing opportunity to paddle the East Branch,
    which was why I was unable to attend the meetings with NPS Director
    John Jarvis. This was my first chance to canoe the upper section
    starting at Matagamon. What I can relay from my experience is this . .
    . the East Branch of the Penobscot River Canoe trip is a wilderness
    journey, with or without a Federal designation. It is not for the
    casual paddler, inexperienced, ill prepared or anyone over zealous of
    their own paddling prowess. It is wild! And . . . it did not take a
    Federal agency to keep it that way, for it's as wild today as it was
    when our native peoples traveled it prior to this country's European
    influence. And, even though private landownership, whether it is owned
    by those with a preservation agenda or active forestry plans, abuts
    that corridor, it is off limits to development through that
    conservation easement, period. There is no need for national
    designation, it's already protected. We should leave it alone to be the
    wild place that it is, for the few souls that travel it.
        There is also an 18-mile gravel ``Loop Road'' on the preserve
    property, west of the river. Currently, access to the loop road is
    possible through the traditional benevolence of private landowners,
    some of which may be impacted greatly, should this National Monument
    come to pass. The road winds around and through a predominantly early
    succession forest of pioneer species, such as white birch and aspen.
    There are some spectacular views . . . of Katahdin, the ``Greatest
    Mountain,'' the mountain of the People of Maine, which of course is the
    center piece of Baxter State Park.
        Other features include, the pristine Wassataquoik Stream, which
    begins in Baxter State Park, and whose confluence with the East Branch,
    is already protected as a State of Maine Bureau of Park's and Lands
    ecological preserve area, within the silver maple floodplain. There are
    also some smaller mountains and foothills, that have some hiking
    opportunities, and add to the landscape and charm of the East Branch
    River paddle. The International Appalachian Trail also traverses
    through EPI's land holdings within the ``proposed acquisitional
    boundaries.'' These offerings are not insignificant. However, do they
    really behold the grandeur and allure of National Park distinction and
    designation?
        National Park and Monument proponents continue to say that by
    virtue of EPI's lands becoming a National Park Unit, that the branding,
    in itself, will bring 10 percent of Acadia NP's visitors, northbound.
    In other words 300,000 visitors annually, would flock to an area that
    is less than half the size of Baxter State Park.
        Let's compare some statistics to refute the sustainability and
    scope of EPI's 87,500 acre gift to the NPS. Baxter State Park is just
    over 210,000 acres. BSP has 8 drive-to campgrounds, 2 backcountry,
    hike-in only, campgrounds, approximately 60 miles of gravel roads to
    access campgrounds, 225 miles of hiking trails, 46 mountain peaks, 65
    lakes and ponds and in 2013 had approximately 117,500 visitor days for
    the year. Baxter State Park's visitor ``carrying capacity'' is governed
    by the finite designated campsites throughout the Park and the
    availability of limited parking capacity for day hikers within the
    Park's campgrounds.
        Presently, EPI's proposal doesn't include the planning for camping
    and recreational infrastructure. How is it possible that the Katahdin
    Region could absorb an additional 300,000 visitors, annually, when the
    land base of EPI's ownership, in Northern Penobscot County, is less
    than half of Baxter State Park's acreage? How will ``flooding the
    gates'' with that much traffic sustain visitor impacts and preserve the
    quality of the wilderness experience? It's not possible when figuring
    the scale of the proposed National Monument or NP, is only a mere
    87,500 acres, as promised.
        It was only recently, in the last couple of months, that
    Elliotsville Plantation, Inc. began listing their proposed gift of
    lands in the Katahdin/East Branch Region, as a more accurate number of
    87,500 acres. Up to that point, since the spring of 2015, EPI had
    promoted their gift as 150,000 acres. Looking at a map, created in
    2015, of proposed ``acquisitional boundaries''; it was easy to realize
    that much of the land base also included privately owned parcels within
    the proposed ``acquisitional boundaries.''
        Not only are there private lands that are within the proposed
    boundaries, but there are also public reserved lands and publicly owned
    easements that were paid for with Maine bonds, such as the Land for
    Maine's Future program, and Federal subsidies, such as the Forest
    Legacy Program.
        The focal point of EPI's marketing, for their Katahdin Woods and
    Waters brand, is Katahdin, Maine's highest mountain. The glossy
    mailings sent to locals, with slogans like, ``Let's Continue the
    Conversation,'' show Katahdin. The rallying infomercial contains video
    clips of Katahdin and other mountains within Baxter State Park. Once
    visitors drive the 18-mile loop road once, and see the views of
    Katahdin, surely they will want to visit BSP. How is EPI being a ``good
    neighbor'' to Baxter State Park, when they're constantly showing images
    of Maine's crown jewel, Katahdin? It begs the question, ``does the
    National Park Service have its eye on the most stunning geological
    feature in the North Maine Woods? '' Is Baxter State Park part of a
    greater plan, to be consumed by Federal designation into the National
    Park System? Many would deny that. However, there is evidence that
    suggests just that.
        You will find attached to this testimony, excerpts from the
    National Parks and Conservation Association's 1988 plan, titled:
    National Park System Plan that describes Baxter State Park and the
    surrounding lands as significant areas to be considered as a future NPS
    Unit. It's stated recommendation is to, ``Initiate NPS study of
    alternative for the state park and surrounding lands; NPS monitoring of
    resource conditions; designation of national park around Baxter,
    inclusion of Baxter in the national park system when opportunity
    arises.'' The NPS Plan was produced under the direction of Destry
    Jarvis, who at the time served as the Director of the National Parks
    Program for the NPCA. He, of course, is the brother of the current NPS
    Director, John Jarvis, who recently visited the Katahdin Region and
    believes EPI's land holdings are worthy of National Monument
    designation.
        With all of the focus on EPI's lands in the Katahdin/East Branch
    Region, it would be easy for the uninitiated to be distracted from the
    fact that EPI also owns over 60,000 acres in the Dover-Foxcroft/
    Katahdin Iron Works Region. By simply adding the total acreage from the
    two regions, the sum comes close to 150,000 acres. What is the
    relevance of this point? Each Region is host to a ``Gateway'' community
    that has been identified for over 25 years in the 3.2 million acre--
    ``RESTORE: The North Maine Woods'' proposed National Park model. The
    Town of Millinocket would be the south-easterly Gateway Community and
    the Town of Greenville would be the south-west Gateway Community.
        Again, why would the Headwaters report include Northern Piscataquis
    County, when all of the public relations work and promotions for EPI's
    lands have been near Katahdin? Its inclusion was to garner the needed
    support from the neighboring economically depressed county, for the
    eventual addition of EPI's lands in Piscataquis County, to later be
    added to the NPS fold.
        An irony of this debacle is the fact, out of the many private
    landowners that comprise the North Maine Woods, Elliotsville
    Plantation, Inc., is the only new major regional landowner who actually
    shut off recreational access, prior to working on its new positive
    public relations campaign, to gift their land holdings to the
    Department of the Interior.
        In 2011, Ms. Roxanne Quimby made several visits to the Katahdin
    Region, sharing her plan and vision, with hopes that she could convince
    the local population to agree to a feasibility study. That feasibility
    study would have needed to be initiated by Maine's delegation to
    Washington, DC, with their constituents' approval. The people of the
    Katahdin Region overwhelmingly said, no. That summer of 2011, Secretary
    of the Interior, Ken Salazar visited Millinocket to get a feel for the
    local sentiment toward a National Park. The feasibility study was
    dropped.
        Over the years, the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine, the Maine
    Professional Guides Association and the Maine Snowmobile Association
    have all been unified in sending the message, NO PARK! The Maine
    Legislature in 2011 drafted a proclamation where the majority of the
    legislature voted to denounce the creation of a National Park. Our
    current Governor of Maine, Paul LePage, is against the formation of a
    National Park. Most recently, the Town of Patten held a vote, with the
    resounding message, NO! The Town of Millinocket, twice, wrote resolves,
    denouncing the creation of a National Park. The Towns of East
    Millinocket and Medway both held straw poll votes for their residents,
    with both votes sending the message, NO NATIONAL PARK! And finally, at
    the state level, Maine passed legislation through LD 1600, which once
    again showed that the majority of lawmakers within the Maine State
    government would retain their sovereignty as a state to not accept
    Federal designation of a National Monument.
        It brings us to the point where we are now. Without convincing
    numbers to support the concept and a lack of cooperation from the local
    residents, our delegation in Washington, DC would not move to support
    the development through legislation. But, by using the Antiquities Act,
    EPI has found a way around the local sentiments and has lobbied hard in
    Washington, DC with hopes that courting President Obama to use his
    authority will circumvent the will of the local residents.
        All throughout the years of debate, never has there been a
    suggested compromise that would be amenable to the local voices.
    Somewhere, there is a hybrid model, which would allow the area to
    retain its identity, continue sustainable yield forestry for crafters
    and industry, incorporate trade skills, and identify trails and
    opportunities for all recreational user groups. My initial thought is
    something comparable to the state run model of the Adirondacks Park in
    upstate New York. But unfortunately the conversation seems to always be
    a YES or NO answer, with no discussion of a middle ground.
        The allure of the Katahdin Region is a strong one that has
    fascinated many before me and will continue for generations to come. My
    hope is that the Katahdin Region will retain its rural feel, find
    creative ways to build sustainable economies that allow for true
    diversification and not become a gentrified play land for elitists.

        I will leave you with these words from former Maine Governor
    Percival Proctor Baxter:

            ``Man is born to die. His works are short lived. Buildings
            crumble, monuments decay, wealth vanishes, but Katahdin in all
            its glory, forever shall remain the mountain of the people of
            Maine.''

                                  Attachments

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Background to the National Parks and Conservation Association's
            1988
    Plan
    The National Parks and Conservation Association is the private lobby
    arm of the National Park Service. It was created in 1919, three years
    after the start of the National Park Service, by the first Director of
    the National Park Service, Stephen Mather, with his own money to act on
    behalf of the agency in ways a government agency could not.

    The National Park System Plan of 1988 (which targeted rural Maine and
    the Baxter area in particular) was produced in conjunction with the
    National Park Service and released by NPCA because the planning could
    not be done within the agency under the Reagan administration. The NPS
    Plan was the major activity of NPCA during that period and was
    privately funded, primarily by the Mellon Foundation and Laurence
    Rockefeller, who also arranged for the Mellon Foundation involvement.

    NPCA executive director Paul Pritchard had previously been a Deputy
    Director of the Interior Department in the Carter administration
    running National Park Service programs (in what at the time was called
    the Heritage and Conservation and Recreation Service). The NPS Plan was
    produced under the direction of Destry Jarvis, brother of today's
    National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis.

    William Penn Mott, Director of the National Park Service at the time
    was on the NPCA board of trustees. Several other high level NPS
    officials and former officials were also involved, some associated with
    Acadia. NPCA collaborated with NPS officials throughout the planning
    and had routine access to agency files. Political pressure groups were
    consulted in targeting new areas including, for Maine, at least the
    Wilderness Society and the Maine Coast Heritage Trust.

    The NPCA Plan is comprised of 9 volumes and an executive summary.
    Volume 8 is devoted to new National Parks and contains the new area
    briefs and descriptions for Maine. Volume 5 describes expansions of
    existing National Parks, including Acadia. The other volumes are about
    controlling in-holdings and areas outside the National Parks, and
    internal organization and policies of the agency.

    The NPCA Plan was publicly jointly announced by Pritchard and the
    Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Parks, Bruce Vento (D-MN) in
    early 1988. Copies were distributed throughout the agency, to all
    members of Congress and to the press in a massive lobbying and PR
    campaign. National Park Service Director Mott praised the plan
    publicly. Vento also introduced legislation directing the National Park
    Service to pursue detailed planning in accordance Volume 5 of the NPS
    Plan (it ultimately failed to pass).

    (For the history of NPCA and in particular the NPS Plan see John C.
    Miles, Guardians of the Parks: A History of the National Parks and
    Conservation Association, published by Taylor and Francis in
    cooperation with NPCA in 1995, and the National Park System Plan
    itself.)

    The public phase of the campaign for expansion of the National Park
    System, including in Maine, was launched in March 1988. It began with
    major spreads in newspapers--including the Boston Globe (where I first
    say it), the Portland Press Herald, The Ellsworth American, and the
    Bangor Daily News for the targets in Maine in particular.

    The NPS/NPCA agenda for Maine was fronted by the Natural Resources
    Council of Maine. Jerry Bley was their press spokesman. The other
    pressure groups, including Maine Audubon, backed it as well. Michael
    Kellet and Jym St. Pierre were also distributing a complementary
    Wilderness Society plan for a huge National Park and Preserve in the
    Maine woods.

    The pressure groups had become accustomed to getting what they wanted
    from Congress in the 1970s and had expected to roll over Maine with
    opposition only from a few paper companies and what they regarded as
    unsophisticated rural yokels. Instead they ran into a storm of
    opposition lasting for years.

    Most of the NPCA promotion of the NPS Plan for specific new National
    Parks in Maine (and elsewhere nationally) died in the controversy by
    the end of the first summer. NPCA ceased distribution of the Plan,
    which had cost about $100 [in 1988 dollars] for private citizens,
    during the summer because property owners were seeing it and speaking
    out, so it is very hard to find now.

    But the general campaign continued. It took four years to stop NPS in
    Washington County: Sen. Mitchell finally put a moratorium on the
    National Natural Landmarks Program within the National Park Service--
    which was still driving it in collaboration with the Maine Coast
    Heritage Trust and The Nature Conservancy--for violations of civil
    rights following a report by the Interior Inspector General. The
    Landmarks program, surveilencing private property and declaring it to
    be ``nationally significant'' as a feeder program for new National
    Parks and other means of control, is one of the programs that had been
    run by Pritchard while in the Carter Interior Department and is openly
    promoted as a means to target new National Parks in the NPS Plan.

    The Northern Forests Land Study run by Stephen Harper of the U.S.
    Forest Service and the four-state Northern Forests Lands Council, both
    targeting 26 million acres from the coast of Maine to the Adirondacks
    in New York for a combination of acquisition and controls across the
    entire region, lasted well into the 1990s. Along with a stream of
    official meetings and waves of regional and national media promotion it
    disrupted people's lives for years, pitting them against both
    government planning and the pressure groups, which operated in a
    consortium called the Northern Forests Alliance, but ultimately failed
    to achieve the park and wilderness pressure groups' objectives. The
    pressure groups were funded in part by the national Environmental
    Grantmakers Association.

    They also failed to pass Sen. Leahy's (D-VT) repeated attempts for
    Federal legislation throughout the 90s, which stopped only when he
    moved from the Agriculture Committee to Judiciary.

    With the collapsing major PR and ``study'' campaigns for Federal
    control and acquisition, including the NPCA campaign on behalf of the
    National Park Service, the Wilderness Society's Kellet and St. Pierre
    started RESTORE: The North Woods in the early 1990s--with support also
    from the Sierra Club and the National Audubon Society--to keep the
    agenda alive for the Baxter area with the still well-known 3.2 million
    acre target based on the original NPCA Plan (but they describe the
    ``north woods'' as much more).

    Restore was in place when Quimby entered in the mid 90s, joining the
    Restore board of directors and buying up land, openly intending to turn
    it over to the National Park Service in a plan to bypass public
    opposition against establishment of National Park Service authority.
    She left Restore, saying in 2008 that the organization was too
    controversial in rural Maine, but continued to promote her own land as
    a ``seed'' and a ``down payment'' for the rest. She later began
    marketing the plan as for ``the economy'' to try to avoid the
    unpopularity of the wilderness agenda and Federal control, but refuses
    to give up on the National Park Service agenda, now 27 years old.

    The Quimby organization and its supporters are attempting to evade this
    record. When they have to acknowledge it they try to dismiss it as only
    an irrelevant ``proposal from 1987'' mischaracterizing it as an old one
    time event of no significance rather than the 27 year old ongoing
    campaign for eventual control which started but did not end in 1988.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chairman Bruce Vento, House Subcommittee on Parks, and NPCA
            President Paul Pritchard presented the NPCA's National Park
            System Plan in 1988

                      Baxter State Park and Central Maine*

    SITE: Baxter State Park and surrounding lands, ME.

    DESCRIPTION: Baxter State Park, the State of Maine's largest protected
    area, is located 30 miles north of Millinocket, and is itself
    surrounded by vast acreages of Maine wildland. The park was a gift to
    the State of Maine by former Gov. Percival P. Baxter. A large rectangle
    including approximately 200,000 acres, Baxter was officially designated
    as a park by the Maine Legislature in 1933. The terrain is mountainous,
    thickly forested, and dotted with lakes Mt. Katahdin, the state's
    highest point (5,267 ft.) and the northern terminus of the Appalachian
    Trail, is the central feature of the park. There are 46 mountain peaks
    and ridges, 18 of which exceed an elevation of 3,000 feet, including
    Doubletop Mountain (3,488 ft.), South and North Turner Mountains (3,122
    ft. and 3,3323 ft., respectfully), North Brother Mountain, (4,143 ft.)
    and Traveler Mountain (3,541 ft.). Portions of Grand Lake Matagamon and
    Nesowadnehunk Lake are within the park, as well as numerous smaller
    lakes and streams. A road (50.5 miles) circles the perimeter of the
    park, and there are approximately 5.6 miles of side roads, but the
    interior is near-wilderness. Some 150 miles of trails intersect the
    park. The park offers opportunities for camping, hiking, picnicking,
    swimming, fishing, and snowmobiling. There are eight campgrounds with a
    variety of facilities, including bunkhouses, leantos, and tent sites.
    The lands surrounding Baxter, especially to the southwest and
    northeast, also include huge chunks of privately-owned, yet largely
    undisturbed north woods terrain. North of Baxter are mostly
    unincorporated towns, in the entire area north of the park, east of Rt.
    11 and south of Ashland there are perhaps 40 miles of improved roads. A
    potential network of protected areas could reach north from Baxter to
    the Machias River, east to Rt. 11 and the town of Patten, southwest to
    Monson and Sebec Lake, and west to include lands around Moosehead Lake.
    As much as two million acres could be involved.

    SIGNIFICANCE: Baxter State Park is Maine's proudest possession. It is
    the jewel of the New England Adirondacks--a paradise for the
    naturalist, mountain climber, hiker and photographer--and has been
    recognized as such since the early 19th century. Together with Acadia
    National Park and the White Mountain National Forest, Baxter is really
    one of only three large natural areas in public ownership in the
    region. Mt. Katahdin was designated a national natural landmark in
    1967. The citation to the registry describes Mt. Katahdin as ``an
    outstanding example of glacial-geological features, such as karnes,
    eskers, drumlins, kettleholes, and moraines, containing virgin forest
    alpine-tundra ecosystems surrounding unaltered lakes and streams.''
    Many species of orchid, fern and alpine plants grow in abundance. The
    various fossil and rock types (such as Katahdin granite) are
    geologically interesting. And the lands around the park share equally
    in the natural grandeur of inland Maine. They could become the basis
    for the first national park to preserve the northwoods ecosystem--a
    park which would rival the great western units of the system Baxter is
    an anchor--the northern terminus--of the Appalachian Trail, and is one
    of the most enjoyable portions of the route. Protecting lands to the
    southwest of Baxter could bring additional Trail mileage, and lands
    adjoining it, under federal protection Wildlife abounds in the Maine
    woods. Moose have made a resurgence and the potential exists to
    reintroduce species such as the eastern timber wolf and caribou.
    Recreational value is extremely high. While the mountains beckon the
    hiker, countless lakes and beautiful streams such as the Machias, the
    Aroostock, and the East and West branches of the Penobscot need
    protection. And, the landscape has national significance in several
    cultural senses as well. The Maine woods were one of the favorite
    haunts of the Transcendentalists, including Emerson and Thoreau. Since
    the history of social conscience movements in America--and especially
    the history of conservation--are not well represented in the national
    park system, the Katahdin area would be an excellent venue for
    interpreting such themes.

    THREATENING CONDITIONS: With Baxter State Park, there is concern for
    park water quality. Throughout Maine, development pressure is intense.
    As land values remain high, residential, second home and lakeside
    projects are increasingly altering the lands around Katahdin and the
    park. Land use decisions are being made right now which will have long-
    term impacts on the development or conservation of lands south of the
    park.

    EXISTING LAND USE: Within Baxter State Park there are two distinct
    hunting zones at the northeastern and southeastern edges of the park,
    and a scientific forestry management area in the northwest corner.
    Surrounding lands are privately owned. Some are developed, some support
    commercial timber operations. Most are wild.

    OWNERSHIP: Baxter is owned by the State of Maine. Most of the lands
    adjacent to the park are privately owned.

    ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERATIONS: The State of Maine recently approved a
    conservation bond measure that will provide funds for land acquisition
    and outdoor recreation projects. The disposition of these funds may
    affect any federal involvement in new park establishment in Maine.
    Nonetheless, options for Baxter State Park include:

      1.  Continued management by the State of Maine, with possibilities
                for expanded state conservation lands and/or stronger
                protection for both the East and West branches of the
                Penobscot River.

      2.  Transfer to the National Park Service and designation as a
                national park.

      3.  Designation of a vastly expanded complex of national park unit(s)
                to include Baxter State Park as a core. The NPS could
                manage Baxter, or the State might retain management of
                Baxter, while the National Park Service could administer
                surrounding lands for their conservation and recreation
                values. Opportunities exist for incorporating as much as
                2.0 million acres of land and water into a management
                scheme. Lands to the south west of Baxter are particularly
                important. Branches of the Penobscot River could be
                designated as national wild and scenic river segments.

    SOURCE OF INFORMATION: State of Maine; The Wilderness Society.

    RECOMMENDATlON: Initiate NPS study of alternative for the state park
    and surrounding lands; NPS monitoring of resource conditions;
    designation of national park around Baxter, inclusion of Baxter in the
    national park system when opportunity arises.

    National Parks and Conservation Association
    New Area Brief
    February 1988

            Mt. Katahdin , Maine--Mt. Katahdin State Park, once
            considered for the national park system before Maine Gov.
            Percival Baxter derailed the effort, is the jewel of northern
            New England. The park, however, has faced tremendous
            visitation. Severa1 million acres of forest land surround
            Katahdin, the choicest of which are on the park's north, west,
            southwestern boundaries. This area includes hundreds of lakes
            and miles of candidate rivers for the national wild and scenic
            river system, including the East and West Branch of the
            Penobscot River. The area could become an outstanding national
            park or similar conservation reserve. A national park here
            could encompass substantial mileage along the Appalachian
            Trail.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Mr. Meyers.

     STATEMENT OF BOB MEYERS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MAINE SNOWMOBILE
                      ASSOCIATION, AUGUSTA, MAINE

        Mr. Meyers. Thank you, Chairman Bishop and Representatives
    Westerman and Poliquin. My name is Bob Meyers and I am here
    representing the Maine Snowmobile Association.
        Our 289 snowmobile clubs groom and maintain 14,000 miles of
    the finest snowmobile trails on earth. Ninety-five percent of
    those trails are on private land. Our association has been on
    record opposed to Federal ownership in the North Woods since
    1998. This opposition has been reiterated in two subsequent
    votes of our directors over the past 18 years. The reason is
    simple: Federal ownership and their distant management
    conflicts with Maine tradition of virtually unfettered access
    for public recreation on private land. Provided they behave
    themselves, folks are able to enjoy not only snowmobiling, but
    other traditional activities like hunting, trapping, fishing,
    and camping on locally-managed private lands. These activities
    combine to produce over $1 billion a year in economic activity
    in our state. Conflicts on usage may arise on occasion, but
    they are worked out with ongoing dialogue between landowners
    and the recreational land users. More importantly, this
    recreation takes place as a secondary activity within actively
    managed, working forests. The forest products industry has an
    economic value of over $7 billion a year.
        What Elliotsville Plantation is proposing is not a gift, as
    they call it, but rather it is an outlier in the larger context
    of land conservation in Maine. Maine people take their land
    conservation seriously. We have 3.8 million acres conserved in
    fee and easement, including 2.1 million acres in working
    forests. It is no accident that Mount Katahdin is featured
    prominently in promotional materials for this proposed national
    monument. Baxter State Park and Katahdin represent everything
    that the land proposed for a national monument designation is
    not. Ironically, one of Governor Baxter's motivations for
    creating this remarkable gift to the people of Maine was his
    desire to protect those lands from becoming a Federal park.
        Over the past several years, park proponents have been
    traveling the state telling just about anyone anything they
    wanted to hear. No problem was too big to overcome. Concerned
    about recreation access? No problem, we will make a national
    recreation area too. No access to our ownership? No problem, we
    will share the timber management roads. And this is a really
    important point, because these roads are active timber
    management roads and it will be difficult, if not impossible,
    for them to co-exist with visitors to a national monument. Do
    you want local input? Sure, we will have a local input advisory
    group that will oversee the management of the park. But, of
    course, all of this is still a problem.
        Elliotsville Plantation has identified the national
    recreation area, but they only own 20 percent of the proposed
    land. Most of the 64 landowners who own the other 80 percent
    are rightly concerned that the National Park Service will be
    painting bull's-eyes on their backs. Vacationers will be
    surprised when they come around a curve and encounter 250,000
    pounds of wood coming toward them. And the advisory group?
    Well, every national park has one, but their job is to
    advocate, not advise. When the National Park Service completed
    their illegal acquisition of Maine land in Schoodic last fall,
    the local acquisition review committee learned about it after
    the fact from the local papers.
        One of the more telling points in the presentations by park
    proponents is the economic study they have completed. The rosy
    picture they painted is far from reality and plays on the
    concerns of local communities that have been devastated by the
    closure of the local paper mills. Estimates of 400 to 1,000
    jobs have been thrown around, yet neglect to mention that those
    estimates are based on a full build-out of the park, which is
    likely to be at least 15 years down the road, if it is ever
    authorized by Congress and funded.
        That same exaggeration is used with the promise of a $20
    million endowment for the park, with a pledge to help raise an
    additional $20 million. They claim that the proceeds from the
    endowment will help fund construction and ongoing maintenance
    at the park. In reality, as you know, the maintenance backlog
    is almost $12 billion, and there is little, if anything, that
    this endowment will do to help that park.
        It is probably more important that the endowment was
    revealed at the recent public meetings with Director Jarvis in
    Orono, Maine. When asked a question about the Board of the
    National Park Foundation, and if Quimby had bought her way in,
    Jarvis' response was telling: ``We like wealthy people because
    they give us their money. And they know other wealthy people
    who also give us their money. And philanthropy has always been
    part of the National Park System.'' Basically, what Jarvis told
    the people of Maine was that Roxanne Quimby had bought her
    admission ticket and they are just about ready to punch it.
        From the perspective of our organization, we have watched
    the ongoing battles over access in national parks for the past
    25 years. Millions of dollars have been wasted on these fights,
    and access continues to be lost. The local people have said no
    to this proposal. The state of Maine has said no to this
    proposal. And we urge you to pay attention to the folks in
    Maine.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Meyers follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Bob Meyers, Executive Director, Maine Snowmobile
                          Association, Augusta, Maine
        Chairman Bishop and distinguished committee members, my name is Bob
    Meyers and I am presenting information on behalf of the 26,000
    individuals and 2,100 businesses that belong to the Maine Snowmobile
    Association. Our 289 snowmobile clubs groom and maintain 14,000 miles
    of trails in Maine, 95 percent of which are on private land.
        Our Association first went on the record in opposition to Federal
    ownership in the North Woods in 1998. That opposition has been
    reiterated in two subsequent votes of our directors in the past 18
    years. The reason is simple. Federal ownership and their distant
    management conflicts with Maine's tradition of virtually unfettered
    access for public recreation on private land. Provided they behave
    themselves, folks are able to enjoy not only snowmobiling, but other
    traditional activities like hunting, trapping, fishing, and camping on
    locally managed private lands. These activities combine to produce over
    a billion dollars a year in economic activity. Conflicts on usage may
    arise on occasion, but they are worked out with ongoing dialogue
    between landowners and recreational land users. More importantly, this
    recreation takes place as a secondary activity within actively managed
    working forests. The forest products industry has an economic value of
    over $7 billion annually.
        What Roxanne Quimby, Lucas St. Clair and Elliotsville Plantation
    are proposing is not a ``gift,'' as they call it, but rather an outlier
    in the larger context of land conservation in Maine. Mainers take their
    land conservation seriously. Maine has 3.8 million acres conserved in
    fee and easement, including 2.1 million acres in our working forests.
    It's no accident that Mount Katahdin is featured prominently in
    promotional materials for this proposed national monument or park.
    Baxter State Park and Katahdin represent everything that the land
    proposed for a monument designation is not. Ironically one of Governor
    Baxter's motivations for creating the remarkable gift of this state
    park for the people of Maine was his desire to protect the lands from
    becoming a Federal park.
        For the past several years, park proponents have been traveling the
    state telling everyone just about anything they wanted to hear. No
    problem was too big to be overcome. Concerned about recreation access?
    No problem--we'll make a national recreation area too. No access to our
    ownership? No problem--we'll share the use of timber management roads.
    Want local input? Sure we'll have a local advisory group that will
    oversee the management of the park. But of course all of it remains a
    problem.
        Elliotsville Plantation has identified the recreation area, but
    they only own 20 percent of the proposed land. Most of the 64
    landowners who own the other 80 percent are rightly concerned that the
    park service will be painting bull's-eyes on their backs. Vacationers
    will be mighty surprised when they come around a curve and encounter
    250,000 pounds of wood coming toward them. And the advisory group? Just
    about every national park has one, but their job is to advocate, not
    advise. When the Park Service completed their illegal acquisition of
    Maine land in Schoodic last fall, the local acquisition review
    committee learned about it after the fact from the local paper.
        One of the more telling points in the presentations by park
    proponents is the economic study they have completed. The rosy picture
    that is painted is far from reality and plays on the concerns of local
    communities that have been devastated by the closure of the local paper
    mills. Estimates of 400 to 1,000 jobs are thrown around, yet neglect to
    mention that those estimates are based on a full build-out of the park
    15 years down the road, if it is ever authorized by Congress and
    funded.
        The same exaggeration is used with the promise of a $20 million
    endowment, for the park with a pledge to help raise an additional $20
    million. They claim that the proceeds from the endowment will help fund
    construction and ongoing maintenance at their park. In reality, with
    almost $12 billion in deferred maintenance shortfalls for the Nation's
    National Parks, that endowment will do little if anything to help build
    that park.
        It is likely that the more important role of the endowment was
    revealed at the recent public meetings about the park proposal by
    National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis. When asked a question about
    the Board of the National Park Foundation, and if Quimby had bought her
    way in, Jarvis' response was telling: ``We like wealthy people because
    they give us their money. And they know other wealthy people who also
    give us their money. And philanthropy has always been part of the
    national park system. We have always had this relationship with wealthy
    people.'' That remark at the very least implies that pay-for-play is
    alive and well at the Park Service. The members of my Association find
    it appalling that a Federal Government agency would operate on that
    level.
        From the perspective of our organization, we have watched the
    ongoing battles over access between the Park Service and their allies
    and snowmobilers over the past 20 years. Millions of dollars have been
    wasted in impact studies and lawsuits, usually filed by environmental
    groups with ties to the service. In each case, we have watched
    snowmobile access be slowly eroded, and have no doubt that path will be
    followed in Maine if the Park Service assumes control over more land.
        The local residents have said no to the park proposal, and
    emphatically. Votes in three communities close to the proposed monument
    rejected the proposal for a park by votes of more than two to one. Not
    a single member of Maine's congressional delegation will introduce
    legislation to create a park in spite of hundreds of thousands of
    dollars spent on lobbyists and public relations consultants. In
    reality, the monument designation is not a step in the path to a
    Federal park, it is an admission of failure in their quest to create
    this boondoggle. Maine people understand that this is not about
    conservation, it is about control and buying a legacy. If Roxanne
    Quimby and Lucas St. Clair truly believe in conservation, we urge them
    to abandon this monument proposal and work with the state of Maine to
    create a lasting conservation legacy.

                                     ______

        The Chairman. Mr. Trahan.

      STATEMENT OF DAVID TRAHAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SPORTSMAN'S
                   ALLIANCE OF MAINE, AUGUSTA, MAINE

        Mr. Trahan. Chairman Bishop, Representative Westerman and
    Representative Poliquin, my name is David Trahan. I am the
    Executive Director of the 10,000-member Sportsman's Alliance of
    Maine (SAM). SAM is Maine's largest and most influential
    advocate for hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation. Our
    members come from all parts of Maine, as well as other states.
    Thank you for the opportunity to address this committee.
        It is SAM's mission to defend the rights of sportsmen and
    firearm owners. In addition, we promote the responsible
    conservation of our natural resources. On several occasions,
    including last year, we polled our members on whether they
    supported the creation of a national park for the Katahdin
    region of Maine, as proposed by Roxanne Quimby. Each time the
    answer was a resounding no, with our last poll at 92 percent
    opposition.
        Land ownership in Maine is unique: 94 percent of our land
    is in private ownership, and forests cover 90 percent of the
    state, making Maine the most heavily forested state in the
    country. Maine has a long-standing tradition of allowing public
    access to private land for hunting, fishing, snowmobiling, and
    wildlife watching. It is particularly noteworthy that
    industrial timberland owners in the Great North Woods
    traditionally keep their lands open to recreational users. It
    is the rare exception when a large landowner, like Roxanne
    Quimby, denies reasonable access for outdoor recreation.
        Through the generations, Mainers have struck a delicate
    balance with landowners, sharing the land for all sorts of
    recreational uses, like hunting, fishing, trapping, and
    snowmobiling. Over time, large landowners have leased land and
    camps to outdoor recreationists, and as a result, thousands of
    camps have sprung up in the wilds of Maine. Families have
    invested tens, and sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars,
    building and maintaining these second homes. During these
    adventures into the Maine woods, moms, dads, grandfathers,
    uncles, aunts, and friends learned how to hunt, fish, camp, and
    conserve our natural resources, and in the process built bonds
    that made families stronger, and men and women better citizens.
        The 12 million acres comprising the North Woods are not all
    logging activity. Much of the land has been placed in
    conservation protection on privately and publicly owned
    property. More than 3 million acres are protected from
    development using conservation easements, and others are being
    managed for multiple public uses by land trusts. Still others
    are being conserved as natural areas. More than 300,000 acres
    are being conserved as deer habitat. And logging activity
    throughout the North Woods is regulated by the Forest Practices
    Act of 1997. It is a mistake to believe that a national park or
    national monument is needed to preserve either a forest or
    access to it anywhere in northern Maine.
        In the last 100 years, a great forest products industry
    grew from our renewable forest, which has provided billions of
    dollars in economic activity and thousands of good jobs. Rugged
    men and women learned to live with and love our magnificent
    natural resources. Unfortunately, that delicate balance between
    landowners and Mainers was threatened in the early 1990s when
    the radical group Restore the North Woods (Restore) appeared on
    the scene. They proposed abandoning traditional recreation like
    hunting, snowmobiling, and motorized recreation, as well as
    ending logging. Instead, they proposed creating a 3.2 million
    acre national park surrounding Baxter State Park. The
    opposition to this attempt to place northern Maine in Federal
    ownership was swift and overwhelming. No Maine congressional
    delegation or governor has ever supported the idea. There has
    been no feasibility study nor legislation introduced to
    establish this behemoth of a park. However, in the aftermath,
    Restore did not go away; they merely changed tactics beginning
    in about 2004.
        With Restore's national park idea crushed, Restore board
    member, Roxanne Quimby, took on the role of national park
    advocate. A self-made multi-millionaire, she launched a plan to
    personally acquire land and then donate that acreage to become
    the seeds of a national park. Beginning in 2004, Quimby used
    her millions to begin assembling the land to build the
    wilderness park. Unfortunately, she used a meat cleaver to hack
    her way through the region.
        As Quimby purchased large tracts of land, she gated once
    accessible roads, not just to her land, but access roads that
    when gated created landlocked parcels that she could then buy
    cheaply. Her treatment of lease holders was even more hostile.
    This is an excerpt from the book ``Queen Bee: Burt's Bees, and
    Her Quest for a New National Park,'' in the chapter titled
    ``Elliotsville Purchases'': ``Roxanne didn't require lessees to
    vacate, but most were informed that their annual leases would
    increase from $600 to $1,500 after one year--similar to rates
    elsewhere in Maine--and that hunting, trapping, and the use of
    motorized vehicles would be prohibited. Most camp owners chose
    not to renew their leases after the initial year, and their
    vacated buildings were burned. One lessee, Michael Weymouth of
    Boston, was allowed to stay on, perhaps as her eyes and ears in
    the area. An artist, photographer, and poet, Weymouth was
    simpatico with Roxanne as a lover of the natural world. He
    offered to let other writers, photographers, and artists use
    the camp when he wasn't there.''
        In addition to spreading her money around, she worked
    outside of the new national park designation process. Studies
    of the park that claim 500 new jobs will be created were paid
    for by her. None of them are experts, just products of a well-
    funded Washington, DC consultant campaign.
        With that, Mr. Chair, I would love to finish my testimony,
    but I see I have used up my time.
        Our organization remains steadfastly opposed to the
    creation of a national monument or a national park.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Trahan follows:]
      Prepared Statement of David Trahan, Executive Director, Sportsman's
                        Alliance of Maine, August, Maine
        Chairman Bishop, Rep. Westerman, and Rep. Poliquin, my name is
    David Trahan. I am the Executive Director of the 10,000-member
    Sportsman's Alliance of Maine (SAM). SAM is Maine's largest and most
    influential advocate for hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation. Our
    members come from all parts of Maine, as well as other states. Thank
    you for the opportunity to address this committee, and this important
    issue.
        It is SAM's mission to defend the rights of sportsmen and firearm
    owners. In addition, we promote the responsible conservation of our
    natural resources. On several occasions, including last year, we polled
    our members on whether they supported the creation of a National Park
    for the Katahdin region of Maine, as proposed by Roxanne Quimby. Each
    time the answer was a resounding NO, with our last poll at 92 percent
    opposition.
        Land ownership in Maine is unique: 94 percent of our land is in
    private ownership, and forests cover over 90 percent (17.7 million
    acres) of the state, making Maine the most heavily forested state in
    the country. Maine has a long-standing tradition of allowing public
    access to private land, for hunting, fishing, snowmobiling, and
    wildlife viewing. It is particularly noteworthy that industrial
    timberland owners in the great north woods traditionally keep their
    lands open to recreational users. It is the rare exception when a large
    landowner, like Roxanne Quimby, denies reasonable access for outdoor
    recreation.
        Through the generations Mainers have struck a delicate balance with
    landowners, sharing the land for all sorts of recreational uses, like
    hunting, fishing, trapping, and snowmobiling. Over time, large
    landowners have leased land and camps to outdoor recreationists, and as
    a result, thousands of camps have sprung up in the wilds of Maine.
    Families have invested tens, and, sometimes hundreds, of thousands of
    dollars building and maintaining these second homes. During these
    adventures into the Maine woods, moms, dads, grandfathers, uncles,
    aunts, and friends learned how to hunt, fish, camp, and conserve our
    natural resources, and in the process built bonds that made families
    stronger, and men and women better citizens.
        The 12 million acres comprising the North Maine Woods are not all
    logging activity. Much of the land has been placed in various forms of
    conservation protections, on privately and publicly owned property.
    More than 3 million acres are protected from development using
    conservation easements. Other lands are being managed for multiple
    public values by land trusts. Still others are being conserved as
    natural areas. More than 300,000 acres of timberland are being managed
    as deer wintering habitat. And logging activity throughout the north
    woods is regulated by the Forest Practices Act of 1997. It is a mistake
    to believe that a National Park or National Monument is needed to
    preserve either the forest or access to it, anywhere in northern Maine.
        In the last 100 years a great forest products industry grew from
    our renewable forest, which has provided billions of dollars in
    economic activity and thousands of good jobs. Rugged men and women
    learned to live with, and love, our magnificent natural resources.
    Unfortunately, that delicate balance between landowners and Mainers was
    threatened in the early 1990s when the radical group Restore the North
    Woods appeared on the scene. They proposed abandoning traditional
    recreation like hunting, snowmobiling, and other motorized recreation,
    as well as ending logging. Instead, they proposed creating a 3.2-
    million acre wilderness National Park surrounding Baxter State Park.
    The opposition to this attempt to place northern Maine in Federal
    ownership was swift, and overwhelming. No Maine congressional
    delegation or governor has ever supported the idea, and Restore was run
    out of the Katahdin region. There has been no feasibility study nor
    legislation introduced to establish this behemoth of a park. However,
    in the aftermath, Restore did not go away; they merely changed tactics,
    beginning about 2004.
        With Restore's wilderness park idea crushed, Restore board member
    Roxanne Quimby took on the role of National Park advocate. A self-made
    multi-millionaire, she launched a plan to personally acquire land and
    then donate that acreage to become the seed of a wilderness National
    Park. Beginning in 2004, Quimby used her millions to begin assembling
    the land to build the wilderness park. Unfortunately, she used a meat
    cleaver to hack her way through the region.
        As Quimby purchased large tracts of land, she gated once accessible
    roads, not just to her land, but access roads that when gated created
    landlocked parcels that she then could buy on the cheap. Her treatment
    of lease holders was even more hostile. This is an excerpt from the
    book, Queen Bee: Burt's Bees, and Her Quest for a New National Park, in
    the chapter titled ``Elliotsville Purchases'': ``Roxanne didn't require
    lessees to vacate, but most were informed that their annual leases
    would increase from $600 to $1,500 after one year--similar to rates
    elsewhere in Maine--and that hunting, trapping, and the use of
    motorized vehicles would be prohibited. Most camp owners chose not to
    renew their leases after the initial year, and their vacated buildings
    were burned. One lessee, Michael Weymouth of Boston was allowed to stay
    on, perhaps as her eyes and ears in the area. An artist, photographer,
    and poet, Weymouth was simpatico with Roxanne as a lover of the natural
    world. He offered to let other writers, photographers, and artists use
    the camp when he wasn't there.''
        On May 22, 2008, the Bangor Daily News reported that camp lease
    holder Muriel Fortier, age 92, would spend her last days on the
    Penobscot River. Quimby, the new landowner who held Fortier's lease,
    would not renew it, and told Fortier that she must leave within a year.
    Muriel responded, ``I am heartbroken. I have been living off the land
    and alone for the last 15-18 years ,and it's been my lifeline up
    there.''
        Finally, on Oct. 7, 2011, Quimby's legacy with Mainers was sealed
    when in an interview with the Bangor Daily News she called Maine, ``a
    welfare state'' that ``has a large population of obese and elderly
    people, and whose major landowners are committed to a forest products
    industry model that hasn't worked in years.''
        With her National Park public relations campaign in shambles,
    Quimby turned the reins of the campaign over to her son, Lucas St.
    Claire. Using her vast wealth, and the Quimby Family Foundation, St.
    Claire and his mother have made countless donations to organizations
    and likely park supporters, including: the Natural Resources Council of
    Maine, the Maine Audubon Society, the Sierra Club, and many others.
    Quimby has promised huge donations ($40 million) to the National Park
    Foundation, and funded friendly politicians and at least one prominent
    Maine outdoor writer. At the same time, she ignored lopsided votes from
    all the communities in the affected region that remain in opposition to
    the National Park proposal. I am proud to say that SAM has never taken
    a dime from Quimby, and our organization has opposed her National Park
    scheme from Day One!
        In addition to spreading money around, Quimby has worked outside of
    the normal National Park designation process. Studies of the park that
    claim 500 new jobs will be created were paid for by her, not Congress.
    Those who say this land is park-worthy are either paid to say so,
    sympathetic politicians, or the pro-park press. None of them are
    experts in such matters, just products of a well-funded public
    relations campaign produced by Quimby's Washington, DC consultants.
        Last, SAM does not believe for a moment that Roxanne Quimby or
    Restore the North Woods have deviated from their original plans. We do
    not believe the land will remain an 87,000-acre National Monument for
    long. Instead, we believe the National Park Service will transition
    this land to National Park status as soon as it becomes politically
    feasible. This National Park will then quickly grow like a cancer,
    gobbling up the region's land, and destroying its history as a working
    forest with unfettered access to traditional outdoor recreation. Given
    that Quimby has bought and donated land to Acadia National Park and
    other National Parks around the country, we believe she intends to use
    her money and Park-friendly landowners around Baxter State Park to
    immediately begin growing the National Monument to what she and Restore
    really want: a 3.2-million acre wilderness park.
        Consistent with Quimby's and Restore's philosophy, once
    established, this park is really designed to exclude, not welcome
    people. To quote Restore's 2014 online brochure: ``As we enter the new
    millennium, we have an extraordinary opportunity to save, for all time,
    the largest remaining wilderness east of the Rockies.'' Unlike Acadia
    National Park, Quimby and Restore envision few roads in their proposed
    park. That was the plan that Restore presented to Mainers in the 1990s,
    and it will likely be stated in the property deeds Quimby presents to
    President Obama in the near future.
        In the early 1990s, Roxanne Quimby and her friends at Restore began
    a takeover of the land and the culture of the Millinocket region. Using
    her money to buy political influence, she steamrollered over camp
    owners, sportsmen, and traditional land users, and in the process
    stamped out generations of local Mainers' memories and traditions.
    Nationally, Quimby bought her way onto the prestigious National Park
    Foundation Board of Directors. What better way to politically wrangle
    her way to a National Park designation? Clearly, the designation of a
    National Monument by Executive Order by President Obama will be viewed
    as cynical end-run around Congress and the people of northern Maine. We
    hope those politicians who support this maneuver will ultimately pay a
    political price for their collusion.
        If Quimby is successful, she will impose her vision of quaint art
    galleries and benign sightseers mostly from urban cities like Portland
    to be forced down the throats of rural Mainers. What happens if her
    vision and social experiment fails, and American citizens refuse to
    travel past our already established magnificent National Parks to visit
    what I would argue is cut-over average industrial forest? Who will hold
    her son and supporters accountable to the promises of jobs and
    prosperity?
        I believe President Obama and park supporters have made their
    political deal with Roxanne Quimby, and hence, the National Monument
    designation is imminent. When that day comes, the President, Senator
    Angus King, and all those who will trumpet this designation as a
    victory must also accept the legacy that they enabled this injustice to
    happen.
        SAM steadfastly opposes the designation of any land in the Maine's
    north woods as a Katahdin Woods National Monument, National Park, or
    National Recreation Area. Any such designation will diminish the
    working forest and its strategically important timber resources. It
    will also deprive hunters, fishermen, snowmobilers, and other outdoor
    enthusiasts much-needed recreational access. Diminishing this access
    also diminishes the economic potential of northern Maine. Maine and the
    Nation do not need a National Park in our north woods.

                                     ______

        The Chairman. Thank you. I appreciate that. And like I said
    before, everything you have written will be part of the record
    as well.
        Now we will move into the bonus round where we get to ask
    questions. Nothing personal, but I am going to be keeping a
    closer watch on you guys.
        You will be limited to 5 minutes for the questions. We will
    start with Mr. Westerman.
        Are you ready?
        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And also, thank you to the witnesses for coming today and
    testifying. I found your written testimony very informational,
    and I just have a few questions I want to run by you.
        Representative Stanley, I served in my state legislature,
    so I understand what that is like a little bit. I was
    researching the state forests and parks in Maine. I was very
    impressed with what I found out. I think there are 48 state
    parks. On their Web site they actually have management plans
    listed. I don't know how well those are followed, but at least
    the structure and the way those state parks are set up seems to
    be operating quite well. I know in my state we get positive
    feedback on the state parks.
        But what kind of feedback do you get from your constituents
    on the way the state parks and forests are managed?
        Mr. Stanley. As far as the state parks, I get no feedback.
    The way the forest is managed is productive for the people that
    own the land, and also a lot of the people who go on that land
    have free access.
        Mr. Westerman. OK. That leads into my next question for Mr.
    Sannicandro and Mr. Meyers.
        I served in my state legislature. I rarely got questions
    about state parks in my state. Since being in the Federal
    Government, I get questions all the time about Federal lands in
    my state, and one of the main issues is access.
        I just went through a big effort to put a new management
    plan in place on a Fish and Wildlife refuge, where one of the
    most contentious points was that the Fish and Wildlife Service
    was trying to take roads and trails out of the management plan.
    I get feedback from constituents on Forest Service land about
    the Forest Service closing roads, even to the point that people
    are getting ticketed for riding four-wheelers because they
    create too much dust that gets over in the ditch and gets in
    the streams, so the Forest Service says. Nonetheless, it is
    constant.
        How damaging would limited access be to the businesses that
    you two have with outdoor recreation?
        Mr. Sannicandro. That is an interesting question. In
    particular, there have been several land transactions since
    2007. Some of them are land swaps with Elliotsville Plantation.
    One in particular is called the Hunt Farm Tract. Elliotsville
    Plantation still retains ownership of that particular tract.
    The state of Maine and Maine taxpayers own an easement on it
    for recreational access and for our sustainable forestry
    practices. It is the only easement in the state of Maine that
    specifically says ATV access.
        Unfortunately, around here, ATV has been turned into a 4-
    letter word for some reason and we are having more and more
    difficulty trying to get access for that through traditional
    means, like working with landowners. That is something that we
    do with local snowmobile and ATV clubs.
        That parcel was also purchased with forest legacy funds
    that come from the USDA. If this is conveyed to the Federal
    Government in a national monument, we have basically lost the
    ability to recreate. The forest legacy funds were given to us
    for access, yet we are going to lose that.
        Mr. Westerman. I see the irony. In hearings, we have
    Federal land managers come into the hearing, the National Park
    Service being one of them. They complain that their numbers are
    down, there are not as many young people going to national
    parks, and what can they do to get more young people into
    national parks, yet they are closing down access to the parks
    at the same time.
        Mr. Meyers, what is your take on the access?
        Mr. Meyers. Well, I will go back to your original question.
    I have been with the Association for a little over 20 years now
    and I have participated in more management plans than I care to
    remember on state lands, which they do regionally and focus on
    the local parcels that the state owns.
        We have no problems with access because it is all worked
    out in the plans, and there are protected areas where we are
    not allowed, and we are fine with that and we respect that.
        Several years ago, we had a major trail that ran through
    two different wildlife refuges, Suncase Meadows and Moose Horn.
    We were about to lose access because of rules that were
    promulgated in Washington. We were in contact constantly with
    the local managers of the refuges. They were saying, ``Gee,
    your trail keeps everybody right on target, where we want them
    to be.'' It took 3 years and the assistance of our
    congressional delegation to be able to get that access back.
        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Mr. Poliquin.
        Mr. Poliquin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you all very much for being here today.
        With a show of hands from the four witnesses, would you
    please let us know if you have met with Mr. Lucas St. Clair or
    other representatives who own this land?
        Mr. Stanley, have you met with Mr. St. Clair?
        Mr. Stanley. No.
        Mr. Poliquin. OK. Mr. Sannicandro, during your meeting with
    Mr. St. Clair, were you ever presented with a specific build-
    out plan for the proposed national monument, including roads,
    amenities, visitor centers, bathrooms, and an entrance to the
    property?
        Mr. Sannicandro. I think the entrance is still up in the
    air. We had several meetings right here in the Millinocket area
    about a year ago. It seemed the target was always moving, and
    of course the acquisitional boundaries also included other land
    holdings.
        I have met with Lucas probably two or three, maybe four
    times over the years, and I think we have a lot in common, but
    what we do not have in common is pretty big.
        Mr. Poliquin. Mr. Meyers, in meeting with the
    representatives of the landholders, were you given a clear
    indication of where the entrance would be to this presumed
    national monument? The reason I ask that is our office and
    myself have met with Mr. St. Clair a number of times and it has
    always been presumed and indicated to us clearly that the
    entrance would be in the Millinocket area. However, if I am not
    mistaken, recently Mr. St. Clair said otherwise, that the
    entrance would be about an hour and 15 minutes or so toward the
    northern tip of the property in the general Patten area. What
    is your understanding of this, sir?
        Mr. Meyers. Well, I have met in the past several times with
    both Lucas and Roxanne, and the only road access they actually
    own is on the Baxter Park Road up by Matagamon, which is
    essentially at the opposite end of the park from where we are
    now. Everything else is by easements, and these were
    traditionally logging company roads and still are. There are
    easements and agreements for use on those roads. There is
    recreational use. A lot of those roads can be snowmobile trails
    in the wintertime. We lost a significant trail that traveled
    essentially north to south through their property when they
    originally bought it, and I just have a real hard time getting
    my head around how these roads can be shared use between two
    pretty incompatible types of uses.
        Mr. Poliquin. Thank you.
        Chairman Bishop, if the owners of this property give this
    land to the Federal Government and the President of the United
    States, with the authority he has today to accept this land,
    then so designates it a national monument, after that happens,
    is there any opportunity for the state, our local communities,
    or the congressional delegation to weigh in and demand specific
    management practices such that the property can be harvested
    for timber? Can we make sure there are recreational uses that
    are designated with this land, or is it too late?
        The Chairman. Actually, it is too late for local
    government. You could do a piece of legislation to do it, or
    the new president could mandate that. But that is why the wise
    decision is to answer all these questions ahead of time, before
    they make the designation. It is too late at that point.
        Mr. Poliquin. Congressman Westerman, you are a professional
    forester. Thirty-five years ago we had a horrible infestation
    of spruce budworm that decimated a significant part of our
    working forest. There is a problem brewing north of the area,
    in Canada, with the same issue. If that were to find its way to
    our working forests, what opportunities exist if this land
    becomes the property of the Federal Government to deal with a
    spruce budworm epidemic and harvesting that before it is
    destroyed, and what happens if there are forest fires on this
    property?
        Mr. Westerman. I don't pretend to be a spruce budworm
    expert. My understanding is it is an insect that has an
    outbreak about every 40 years, and maybe in the 80th year it is
    a very severe outbreak, and I think the last one here was in
    the 1970s. But to react to that spruce budworm quickly usually
    involves harvesting fir trees because that is the first tree
    that the budworm attacks. If this were a national monument, all
    the trees would be considered part of the national monument and
    it could probably take a year or more, if ever, to be able to
    get a plan in place to go in and harvest the trees to help
    salvage that forest and maintain forest health.
        The problem with that is that it would not only affect that
    area, it can affect surrounding areas of private timberland,
    and then you eventually get insect killed or weakened trees and
    you get an increased fire danger, which also threatens the
    property around it. So, being able to maintain that management
    and not yielding that to the Federal Government I think is an
    issue that everybody needs to weigh seriously as to whether
    they want somebody in DC making that decision or do they want
    somebody here on the ground making those decisions.
        Mr. Poliquin. Thank you, Mr. Westerman.
        The Chairman. I have a couple of questions. Representative
    Stanley, national parks can only be created by Congress, so the
    President can never designate a national park. Without the
    constant plan, as well as planning document going through this
    first, it is actually not going to happen in Congress. Those
    people who think a national monument would be an initial step
    toward a national park are naive thinkers. It has not happened
    before and it is not going to happen again.
        But one of the things that could happen is local support.
    You actually passed a piece of legislation this last session
    that mandated the Maine legislature would have to approve any
    national monument. Why did you do that?
        Mr. Stanley. I think the reason why we did that is because
    right now the state has no say on any of this. We are just
    sitting back, letting the President do whatever he wants to do.
    He can sign it or not sign it. That is up to him. Congress can
    pass a law to make a national park. They can do that. But we in
    the state, we have to just sit back and do nothing, that is
    wrong. We are Representatives of the people of this state and
    also represent all the land that is in the state, the laws, and
    everything else that goes forward with it.
        The Chairman. Was this passed bipartisanly?
        Mr. Stanley. This was passed by the majority in the House
    and the majority in the Senate. It was bipartisan in the
    Senate.
        The Chairman. Has the Administration been in contact with
    you about this proposal at all?
        Mr. Stanley. Are you talking about the present
    administration?
        The Chairman. The present administration.
        Mr. Stanley. No.
        The Chairman. All right.
        Let me ask Mr. Trahan, you said that 92 percent of your
    members were opposed to this. Who are your members? Who do they
    represent?
        Mr. Trahan. My members are from Maine and mostly New
    England. We do have some members outside of New England. We are
    made up of sportsmen, women, and conservationists. Our mission
    has become very broad, everything from land conservation, to
    protection of hunting, fishing, trapping, and other activities.
        The Chairman. All right. What I am dealing with in Utah is
    that recreation is very important and a lot of the issues on
    public lands have been modified as time goes on. They will
    simply close down the trails for ATV or cut the area off for
    hunting or fishing.
        Were you told that hunting would be able to continue on
    with this? Because basically there is no national park in the
    system that allows recreational hunting anywhere.
        Mr. Trahan. It was pretty clear in our meeting with Lucas
    St. Clair that the lands that would become a proposed national
    park would have no hunting, and that he would propose opening
    up land outside the park that they continue to own for some
    sort of recreational activity, including hunting.
        I would remind everyone in this room and those listening
    that that land was always open to hunting and it was not a gift
    or any kind of expansion of opportunity. All of that
    opportunity was taken away. We have been given back small
    little piecemeal opportunities.
        The Chairman. So, Mr. Meyers, if I could----
        Mr. Trahan. If I could add just one last thing. It is
    extremely important. There is a national push going on by
    groups like the National Humane Society of the United States to
    ban lead on Federal lands, and we have no control on bans on
    lead no matter where it is on Federal land. That is being
    controlled by you folks in Congress and the Administration.
        The Chairman. That is a problem with only hunting and
    fishing. But the National Park Service has been good about
    banning water bottles. They allow Coke cans but not water
    bottles.
        Mr. Meyers, if I could ask the same thing. Once again, the
    issue in my state is designating these trails so that once it
    is designated they will not arbitrarily and capriciously take
    them off and not have any other replacement. I am insisting
    that they have to have at least some replacement value.
        Can you tell me the relationship you had between snowmobile
    owners and the private landowners prior to all this?
        Mr. Meyers. Well, as I mentioned originally, Mr. Chairman,
    95 percent of our trail system is on private land in the state.
    Basically, our clubs go out and talk to landowners and obtain
    permission. Very few of those trails are permanent because the
    landowners need changes if they have a logging operation going
    on or something happens. They work with the clubs and re-route
    the trails.
        The importance for us is getting from point A to point B.
    In this case in particular, the Katahdin region is a very
    popular snowmobiling area. People travel up from the south,
    from the west, from the north, and the important thing is the
    continuity of the trail system. If we had the National Park
    Service come in and just randomly decide to shut down a trail,
    all we need to lose is a quarter of a mile and we are shut
    down.
        The Chairman. Got it.
        Mr. Westerman.
        Mr. Westerman. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to go back to Mr. Trahan. You mentioned the Forest
    Practices Act. I assume that is a statewide act that sets
    standards for forest management?
        Mr. Trahan. Yes. I am very familiar with the Forest
    Practices Act. I was a logger for 32 years. I remain a logger
    part time. After the spruce budworm problem that we had, the
    legislature and the governor at the time, Angus King, felt it
    was time to put tougher regulations on forestry. That was
    adopted and I followed the Forestry Practices Act, like many of
    the people in this room, and we are doing a fine job of
    managing our forests today.
        Mr. Westerman. I noticed in studying up on Maine forests
    that most of them are either Council or SSI certified, and
    there are tree farms here. There are certification programs in
    place that ensure, or do the best job they can ensuring along
    with your Forest Practices Act, that the timber is managed
    sustainably.
        Could you elaborate a little bit, from a wildlife
    perspective, on the importance of habitat management to
    wildlife and what maybe early habitat does for certain kinds of
    wildlife?
        Mr. Trahan. Yes, absolutely. A great point. My organization
    has concerns that under Federal ownership, particularly around
    de-wintering areas that need management, and need new growth to
    maintain our deer and other wildlife, those decisions will be
    made at a Federal level outside the state of Maine. It is our
    opinion that there are virtually no conditions where the
    wildlife habitat that we are seeing the Federal Government
    manage is better than what we do here in the state of Maine.
        Our organization has led an effort the last few years to
    change our land conservation programs to include the purchase
    of de-wintering areas, particularly in this region to help the
    deer. I don't see this as helping in any way with that effort.
        Mr. Westerman. Correct me if I am wrong, but you hunt and
    are a guide for hunting trips?
        Mr. Trahan. No, I am a guide of sorts. I take children,
    women, and disabled veterans fishing and hunting, but I do that
    on my own time. I do it on a volunteer basis.
        Mr. Westerman. OK, and do you find these working forests
    are being managed for multiple uses? I don't even know if you
    have areas here that are set aside and have no management
    practices.
        Mr. Trahan. In statute, we require traditional uses on the
    land when it is purchased. That is the best model that works in
    Maine. Conservation groups like the Nature Conservancy, the
    Heritage Trust and others, work very closely with us, and when
    lands are purchased, there is a shared piece of the land. That
    model has maintained a balance that the outdoor communities
    think is extremely important for the future of our forests.
        What we are proposing here today, it basically crushes that
    model and replaces it with a model that is one-dimensional,
    which says, ``Let's shut down the traditional uses and let's
    remake our culture and history.'' I think the most offensive
    component of this for me is that when Roxanne Quimby bought her
    lands, she came in and she squashed the culture. She evicted
    the hunters, the fishermen, the people in the camps, and then
    burnt their camps to the ground. She replaced them with her art
    types, the people who wanted to come there and bird watch. That
    is not the culture or the history of this region.
        I heard recently that Lucas said that the best way to
    maintain the history and culture of the area is to have the
    National Park Service do it. I could not disagree with that
    more. The people of that region are the best to maintain their
    history and culture.
        Mr. Westerman. We hear a lot about landscape-wide
    management and larger-scale management areas. It appears that
    this is going to be a stand-alone area that is managed
    different from everything else around it, and it might almost
    be an area that becomes avoided rather than used over time
    compared to the successful management practices that have been
    on the private lands around it and also on the large state park
    that is there.
        So, if this goes through, would you foresee more sportsmen
    activities on this property, or do you think it would limit the
    amount of space that the public had to use?
        Mr. Trahan. Absolutely, I do not see sportsmen going there
    and I think it wouldn't be that they were avoiding it. I think
    they would be pushed out of it.
        Mr. Westerman. I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. I yield
    back.
        The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Poliquin.
        Mr. Poliquin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Sannicandro, when you met with Mr. St. Clair and Ms.
    Quimby, or representatives thereof, did you ask them about an
    idea to donate their land to the state of Maine instead of the
    Federal Government?
        Mr. Sannicandro. I can't remember if that was part of the
    conversation, no. I can't remember that. We did talk about the
    Hunt Farm parcel up there on the East Branch, and they made it
    sound as if they had never heard about that conservation
    easement before. It was interesting. It was an interesting
    dialogue.
        Mr. Poliquin. Mr. Meyers or Mr. Trahan, I will ask you the
    same question. When you met with the representatives of the
    landowners, did you talk to them about donating the land to the
    state instead of the Federal Government?
        Mr. Meyers. I have. I suggested making a donation to Baxter
    State Park, and I was told that it does not have the national
    brand that is needed to attract visitors.
        Mr. Poliquin. Mr. Trahan?
        Mr. Trahan. Yes, I stated it several times. I really only
    had one meeting with Lucas, other than an invitation to fly
    over his lands. But, yes, we have indicated, under a structure
    similar to what we use as a conservation model, that he would
    have less restriction or less opposition if he proposed
    donating it to the state of Maine. We are not opposed to people
    giving land to the state for a state park.
        Mr. Poliquin. The reason I asked you this is I want to make
    sure that what is not lost in this hearing is the tremendous
    generosity that Ms. Quimby and her family have offered to give
    this land that they rightly own to the people. It seems to me
    that that is an option, to donate to the state, and I want to
    make sure that others have expressed that and to see if their
    reaction has been anything different.
        Chairman Bishop, there has been a discussion about an
    endowment that the landowners have promised of $20 million, and
    then an additional $20 million if they can raise that money. A
    $40 million endowment to maintain the property is a big sum of
    money. However, in order to maintain this type of money in
    perpetuity, normally no more than 4 or 5 percent of the funds
    are used in any one year to make sure they do not deplete the
    principal. If you say 5 percent of $40 million, that is $2
    million per year.
        Acadia National Park, which has a very small footprint
    relative to this, if this were to become a national monument,
    has an annual operating budget of $8 million a year.
        My question to you, Mr. Chairman, given your experience
    with national monuments around the country--if, in fact, a
    Federal Government that has a $19 trillion debt and a $12
    billion backlog in the National Park Service to maintain the
    existing parks and monuments cannot fully fund the build-out
    and the maintenance of this national monument with the
    endowment alone, who gets stuck with the tab?
        The Chairman. Well, it is the taxpayers. And, yes, that $40
    million is not enough to manage it.
        Mr. Poliquin. Thank you.
        Mr. Bishop, one more question, if I may, because I think
    this is something that you have expertise in.
        If, in fact, the owners donate this land to the Federal
    Government and the President designates it a national monument,
    which he has the authority to do, is there a way for this to be
    used for a period of time of 5 years, and if it does not work
    out, can we go backwards?
        The Chairman. Theoretically, but I have never seen that
    done in practice.
        Mr. Poliquin. Mr. Bishop, one more question. The
    Antiquities Act, which we have discussed here today, was
    designated to set aside and protect small pieces of land like
    Indian burial grounds. In my office, I have introduced
    legislation such that no president, this president or any other
    president, is able to sidestep the legislative process, the
    people's representatives, and designate national monuments
    without the approval of the state legislature and the governor.
        How long will it take for this to work its way through
    Congress, and what are the chances of this becoming law?
        The Chairman. It is actually a good idea. You are not the
    first one to suggest it, but the President has vowed to veto
    any such legislation. So, if you are going to have another
    president, then it is feasible.
        Mr. Poliquin. Thank you very much. My time has expired.
        The Chairman. Let me get just a couple of very quick
    questions in here.
        Mr. Sannicandro, you have experience in this area that is
    being proposed for the national monument. To meet the criteria,
    are there any historic or prehistoric structures on the land?
        Mr. Sannicandro. I am unaware of that.
        The Chairman. OK. Is there any substantial difference
    between the natural and geological figures between this
    proposal and Baxter State Park?
        Mr. Sannicandro. What I see as the main asset to this
    proposed national monument is the East Branch of the Penobscot
    River. What is interesting about the East Branch of the
    Penobscot River is it is already held in easement. The former
    landowner, the Great Northern Nekoosa, back in 1981, gave an
    easement for the corridor. They gifted it to the state of
    Maine. The greatest asset, that waterway, in my opinion is
    already protected.
        The Chairman. Which was the intent of the original
    Antiquities Act in the first place.
        Is there anything of the proposed 80,000 acres that is more
    pristine? Is there anything that would put that on a calendar
    instead of what you have in Baxter State Park?
        Mr. Sannicandro. Well, I think you are comparing apples and
    oranges there. Grand Falls is beautiful. It is amazing. But
    again, this trip of the East Branch, which, ironically enough,
    I paddled that when Director Jarvis was up here, is a difficult
    paddle. You are not going to have 300,000 people paddling on
    the East Branch.
        The Chairman. It seems to me that if this was to going to
    become a national park, the main purpose would be a park that
    is established to look at a state park. Other than that, I
    don't find something necessarily that is truly unique about
    having to use the Antiquities Act for this particular area. Am
    I wrong with that?
        Mr. Sannicandro. Baxter State Park, which has preserved
    Mount Katahdin, or Katahdin since 1931, is your greatest
    geologic feature in the area. It is already being preserved.
        The Chairman. You can't see it from this other land, can
    you?
        Mr. Sannicandro. Oh, you can see it.
        The Chairman. You can? All right.
        Mr. Sannicandro. In fact, that view shed is what is being
    promoted. You can see it from Utah.
        The Chairman. You are only 5,000 feet.
        Mr. Meyers, you did an FOIA request. Have you ever received
    anything about your FOIA request?
        Mr. Meyers. I filed an FOIA request with the White House
    Counsel on Environmental Quality on November 13. I got a
    response about a week later saying they were working on it, and
    then nothing. In late March, when Representative Poliquin and I
    met with the counsel, we asked about it and we were told they
    would look into it. Several weeks later, I received an email
    saying that it was in process, and then a couple of days later
    I got an email saying it had got lost somehow in the system.
    Since then, I have been told I will receive the information I
    requested on July 29. I don't know what is so special about
    that day or how they can pinpoint it so accurately.
        The Chairman. It is after both conventions.
        Mr. Meyers. That is right. July 29, that is the day we are
    waiting for.
        The Chairman. If I can get a copy of that, I would like it.
        I was originally told you went to the Department of the
    Interior. I was going to say that is useless because DOI has to
    say they don't know anything about it, by law. If they say they
    know something about it, it triggers NEPA.
        Mr. Meyers. I did file an FOIA request and I did get a
    response. Basically, it was mostly about scheduling meetings
    with Lucas St. Clair, who apparently is pretty notorious for
    not making meetings on time. So, I received nothing of
    substance other than emails discussing when they might possibly
    change a meeting date.
        The Chairman. Thank you. With that, I appreciate the
    witnesses all being here. Your testimony will be included in
    the record.
        I would also like to say, since we are going to bring this
    to a close, that if there are any additional questions we may
    have to ask of you, our hearing record is kept open for 10 days
    and we would ask you to respond to that. If there is anything
    in addition you want to add to that, you have 10 days after the
    end of this meeting also to add that as far as the hearing
    record is concerned.
        With that, I appreciate you coming here, I appreciate you
    going through this. This is one of those significant issues in
    which, from my past experience with national monuments in Utah,
    you need to get these questions answered first, like what will
    the access be, what will the roads be, will there be active
    forest management or not, and that better take place before the
    designation because it does not happen afterwards.
        The only advantage you have is whatever is designated by a
    president is not sacrosanct. It can be repealed or changed by
    any Congress. It can also be repealed or changed by any future
    president. So, there is nothing that is permanent about it. It
    just happens to, unfortunately, kind of limp along on its way
    and there are problems. We have had problems in our area. Make
    sure the questions are answered ahead of time before you allow
    any kind of designation to go forward. It becomes essential.
        With that, I appreciate all of you being here. I appreciate
    your kindness and your courtesy in this particular hearing. I
    would like to give the microphone to Mr. Westerman for one
    quick closing comment.
        Mr. Westerman. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
        As I listen to the testimony and as I leave here today,
    there is one question that I have in my mind. Maybe this is a
    rhetorical question for everyone, but if somebody owns the land
    and they want to give it away, that is their prerogative to do
    that. But from a Federal Government standpoint, why would we
    want to own this land? The land right now is self-sustaining.
    We have heard testimony that there will be a $40 million
    endowment set up to generate maybe $2 million a year to manage
    this property that right now requires no extra fees to be
    managed. So that tells you that something is going to change
    about this property that is going to make it more of a
    liability than an asset. It will make it different from all the
    property around it.
        As I leave here and consider this, my question is why would
    the Federal Government want to take on a liability and change a
    culture and a way of life when something has already been
    successful in the way it is managed and would be different from
    everything around it?
        The Chairman. All right, thank you.
        If there is a right way and a wrong way to do something,
    let's try to do it the right way and get it worked out ahead of
    time.
        With that, I appreciate your patience. I appreciate
    everything.
        Remember, there are comment papers in the back if you would
    like to leave those comments, with an appreciation for your
    kindness and hospitality in having us here.
        Representative Poliquin, I want to thank you for inviting
    us up here to deal with this particular issue in your district.
        With that, this hearing is adjourned.

        [Whereupon, at 3:32 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

    [LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
                                OFFICIAL FILES]

        --  Comments submitted for the record from members of the
                public and attendees at the field hearing.