[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.