U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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 20402–0001

20–480 PDF 2016

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 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

John Fleming, LA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Paul Cook, CA 

Bruce Westerman, AR 

Garret Graves, LA 

Dan Newhouse, WA 

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 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Raul Ruiz, CA 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA 

Norma J. Torres, CA 

Debbie Dingell, MI 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

Lois Capps, CA 

Jared Polis, CO 

Wm. Lacy Clay, MO 

Jason Knox, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director 

Sarah Lim, Democratic Chief Counsel 

(III) 

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 

(1) 

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. 

2 

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 

3 

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, promonument 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. 

4 

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.] 

5 

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? 

6 

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 

7 

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. 

8 

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 alVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:44 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 J:\114TH CONGRESS\FULL COMMITTEE\06-01-16 FIELD\20480.TXT DARLEN
9 

ready 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 

10 

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 deVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:44 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 J:\114TH CONGRESS\FULL COMMITTEE\06-01-16 FIELD\20480.TXT DARLEN
11 

cisively, 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, hardworking 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. 

12 

• 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 

13 

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 

14 

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 

15 

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. 

16 

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 

17 

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 

18 

1http://bangordailynews.com/2016/04/19/outdoors/patten-residents-reject-national-park-andmonument-in-vote/. 2http://bangordailynews.com/2015/06/23/outdoors/medway-rejects-national-park-proposal-bywide-margin/. 3http://bangordailynews.com/2015/06/23/outdoors/medway-rejects-national-park-proposal-bywide-margin/. 4http://www.mainelegislature.org/LawMakerWeb/summary.asp?ID=280059474. 

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. 

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. 

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 quesVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:44 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\114TH CONGRESS\FULL COMMITTEE\06-01-16 FIELD\20480.TXT DARLEN
19 

tions 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. 

20 

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


20480.001.eps
21 

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. 


20480.002.eps
22 

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 

23 

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 crosscut 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 

24 

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 

25 

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 driveto 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 

26 

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 southwest 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 

27 

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 

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 


20480.003.eps 20480.004.eps
28 

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 

29 

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. 

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 


20480.005.eps
30 

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: 

31 

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. 

32 


20480.006.eps

How can Roxanne Quimby give 

away land she doesn't even own? For months, we've heard aoout Roxanne 

Quimby's plan to donate 150,000 of Maine 

forestland to the federal government -75,000 for 

a national park and another 75,000 acres for a 

national recreation area. 

The problem is, sheonlyownsaoout 87,000 

of the 150,000 acres she is proposing to give 

away. That's right, she owns less than 60% of 

the land she is planning to give to the federal 

government. 

The rest - well, most of that's productive 

forestland owned by private landow ners and the 

State of Maine. And one more thing, there are 

only a few access roads to these lands and it's 

not clear if Quimby's Elliotsville Plantation LLC 

controls any of them. 

So, the real question is: If Roxanne Quimby goes 

ahead and gives away the land that she does 

own, wi II the federal government come for the 

rest? 

1,000 jobs? Unbelievable! Park proponents promise a national park will create 

a few hundred to more than a thousand jobs. That's 

aw fully hard to believe w hen Baxt er State Park - more 

than twice the size of the proposed park- em oys ;n 

full time and 40 seDsonal workers and a University 

of Maine study reported Baxter's total impact is only 

the equivalent of 87full·time iobs. 

Compare that to Maine's forest products industry, 

which despte the mill closures in Millinocket and 

East Millinocket provides more than 38,000 jobs 

statewide, including nearly 14,000 in Penobscot, 

Piscataquis and Aroostook., where forest products 

are surging. That could happer'l here- if busine sses 

aren't scared away by the restrictions imposed by a 

national park. 

An economic resurgence already is underway in 

Aroostook with the Irving mil l, rebirth of the Masard is 

mill, restart of ReEnergy's b omass mill, a cedar 

operation, hardwood sawmill, tlooring m ill, familyowned pellet plant and chip Pant. 

Who will want to invest 

here if their next-door 

neighbor is the federal 

government? 

• u.s. . PROPERTY 

NO 

Don't close the door on jobs, opportunity and 

access. Say NO to the national park! 

Medway residents: Vote NO on Tuesday, June 23. 

E. Millinocket residents: Vote NO on Thursday, June 25. 
33 

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 


20480.007.eps
34 

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. 

35 

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 

36 

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. 

37 

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 

38 

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 

39 

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 

40 

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 parkworthy 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. 

41 

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. 

42 

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. 

43 

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 

44 

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 naı ̈ve 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 

45 

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 

46 

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 dewintering 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 dewintering 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. 

47 

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 

48 

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 

49 

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, 

50 

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. 

Æ