National Park Proposal East of Baxter Heating up

I wasn't at it but it sure sounded like two separate hearings. Lucas St Clair was invited to the first one but he claims only at the last minute with a 5 minute time limit. He decided he was better off attending the next one. Now that's its effectively become a political decision in DC any local activity is now just a side show.

Reportedly the reason for delay in the monument designation is that it will crank up the conservatives who support Poliquin, thus potentially keeping another republican in the house. By delaying the designation until late in term it delays Poliquin's ability to use it a point of contention. I don't even know if there is announced democratic candidate for the next 2nd districtt election but at some point the election will heat up.

sounds about right.

The benefits and history of prior endeavors are far to obvious to me.

I am content with my vote/voice for the park and let the chips fall where they may.

I don't particularly care for designation because it is creeping nationalization of lands that are unsustainable except to the political beneficiaries who will reap the spoils ... at least those spoils that survive the "we cannot afford" chorus that surrounds public endeavors. Having said that, my pass will get me in for free so I can turn back at new gates that say, "no public access".

I think we all agree that the north woods are lands worth saving with limited development and the model in place seems to work pretty well for me and ME ... though I be a flatlander from away ... and I don't need to listen to a clamor of why we need to raise taxes to pay for all this.

Federalization of lands ... ask the native Americans about that lie.

peakbagger said:

Contrary to popular belief there are forest dependent businesses that could provide future industrial work again in the region. The lack of carbon regulations and the enhanced oil recovery boom has slowed this industry but the reality is once carbon regulations are put in place, the demand for renewable transportation fuels along with natural feedstocks to replace fossil fuel feedstocks is going to skyrocket and set of studies a few years ago by the DOE indicates that renewable fuels made from biomass feedstock grown in predominantly the Northern Forest are the only viable replacement for fossil based transportation fuels. Fossil fuels will always be cheaper but at some point the carbon impact of them are going to make them unavailable. The same reasons that caused GNP to build the facilities in Millinocket and the current combination of inexpensive renewable electricity, access to a major interstate, the extensive Golden Road system and direct rail to a deepwater port in Searsport make the Millinocket region a logical future regional hub for a renewable fuels industry. This industry will most likely need environmental air permits to operate and a NP would add a fairly extensive permitting effort which could be costly to implement. Here is link to a review of the PSD permitting that would be imposed on any future industry should the monument be converted to a NP. http://www.fws.gov/refuges/AirQuality/permits.html. Putting in a future National Park does not preclude development but most likely would make the region far less attractive to the industry. The regions land owners are concerned that adding the national park diminishes the long term value of the income off their land and understandably are opposed.

Click to expand...

I must be prescient, http://www.pressherald.com/2016/06/04/maines-biobased-industry-on-national-sidelines/ Why not add a development component to the Monument proposal ? (of course this would need Roxanne to change her mind as she had already been asked to add a development component)

peakbagger said:

I must be prescient, http://www.pressherald.com/2016/06/04/maines-biobased-industry-on-national-sidelines/ Why not add a development component to the Monument proposal ? (of course this would need Roxanne to change her mind as she had already been asked to add a development component)

Click to expand...

Then you have to consider the political pressure of allowing our current public reserve lands to be harvested. It's a difficult task to balance the forests for recreational and industrial uses. Most times, they are at odds with one another.

egilbe said:

Then you have to consider the political pressure of allowing our current public reserve lands to be harvested. It's a difficult task to balance the forests for recreational and industrial uses. Most times, they are at odds with one another.

Click to expand...

Sustainable harvesting has several benefits. It pays for roads, trails and campsites. It opens a diversity of habitat for wildlife. It is a defense against wildfire and, in combination with other measures, can be part of a defense against harmful infestations. It can open up some terrific vistas. It provides jobs and product important to the economy of Maine. It grows back.

That's already happening in much of Maine. Why bring in an expensive, assertive and distant bureaucracy to manage it?

Probably because of just what you described - harvested woods that grow back are green, thick brush...basically young forest.

For my taste it is much more desirable to have as much of a MATURE forest as possible. Big trees, big tree trunks creating enough shade to create 'walkable forest' one you can walk through without getting your eye poked out, a mature forest that pleases the senses. It can be selectively cut to leave and support the mature trees around it.

There are tons of wood lots around in northern Maine to harvest. I would manage the new National Monument more toward fostering maturity as well as support for trees that traditionally grew in Northern Maine...hoping for some chestnuts and plenty of beautiful pine in the Pine Tree State.

Stan said:

Sustainable harvesting has several benefits. It pays for roads, trails and campsites. It opens a diversity of habitat for wildlife. It is a defense against wildfire and, in combination with other measures, can be part of a defense against harmful infestations. It can open up some terrific vistas. It provides jobs and product important to the economy of Maine. It grows back.

That's already happening in much of Maine. Why bring in an expensive, assertive and distant bureaucracy to manage it?

Click to expand...

Brambor said:

Probably because of just what you described - harvested woods that grow back are green, thick brush...basically young forest.

For my taste it is much more desirable to have as much of a MATURE forest as possible. Big trees, big tree trunks creating enough shade to create 'walkable forest' one you can walk through without getting your eye poked out, a mature forest that pleases the senses. It can be selectively cut to leave and support the mature trees around it.

There are tons of wood lots around in northern Maine to harvest. I would manage the new National Monument more toward fostering maturity as well as support for trees that traditionally grew in Northern Maine...hoping for some chestnuts and plenty of beautiful pine in the Pine Tree State.

Click to expand...

Why does it need to be managed as a National Monument to create areas of mature forest? Conservation easements and land transfers to state and non-profit conservation agencies already exist quite nicely maintaining local control. Rest asssured, a small National Monument will never be enough for those who favor federalization of lands. Your desire for mature forest controlled by the federal government comes with a high price for Mainers who already have a nice model of land conservation worthy of emulation in other places. It'll also come with a high price ultimately for taxpayers.

And what makes you think that your vision of "mature forest" (chestnut and pine) will prevail? Such a lack of biodiversity would not equate to a healthy fortest.

It doesn't NEED to be managed as a National Monument to create areas of mature forest. Any authorized agency could do this. The reason for National Monument is beyond forest management. It is the brand power of National Park to bring tourist dollars into economically starved region that is desired here.

Personally, I LIKE federalization of lands. I do not see the federal government as scary when it comes to protection of natural resources. I LIKE the national standard. Could someone do it better than feds ? Sure, possibly. Could it be much worse ? - definitely. Just look at today's headline of LePage overharvesting Bigelow Preserve. Just because it is not in federal hands doesn't mean it will be better managed. Depending on the current governor you can see a total handoff to private interests with little to none concern for the environment.

Most of this $potent$ interest and defamation of National Park system is basically a national agenda to hand off public lands to private corporation pillage and profit schemes.

Hey, I do not desire my vision of mature forest to prevail. I was only responding with an opinion to your stated need to harvest woods to reduce forest fires. I do not have an agenda, I am not a member of a political action group. I'm just saying what I like as an individual. If you think you are exchanging opinions with a mouthpiece for a group you are wasting your time I'm just a dude with full time job, kids in college and neverending hunger to stay outdoors. (added after edit - and I totally respect your opinion too. Just a lonely voice here.

Stan said:

Why does it need to be managed as a National Monument to create areas of mature forest? Conservation easements and land transfers to state and non-profit conservation agencies already exist quite nicely maintaining local control. Rest asssured, a small National Monument will never be enough for those who favor federalization of lands. Your desire for mature forest controlled by the federal government comes with a high price for Mainers who already have a nice model of land conservation worthy of emulation in other places. It'll also come with a high price ultimately for taxpayers.

And what makes you think that your vision of "mature forest" (chestnut and pine) will prevail? Such a lack of biodiversity would not equate to a healthy fortest.

Click to expand...

Reading that article, it sounds like all the cutting is done in the Bigelows preserve. I have no idea why they would want to cut a stand of poplar down. It just grows back. Birch and poplar are young forest growth. Cutting it, just creates another, younger forest. Dumb.

Brambor, I think we share many visions, just not how to achieve it. And, there are weird politics on every level though I have no idea of the purpose of the cutting in Bigelow Preserve ... revenue? Preserve applies to both flora and fauna and selective cutting favors the latter.

Down in the flatlands here, Maine's tourist office seems omnipresent; don't think the feds could do a better job ... besides, I want the outdoors to myself ... people with our iterests will find this with or without state or federal agencies.

Personally, I'd like to see more hardwood forests but the payback is too long for most corporate owners. And, yeah, a plantation of chestnut, hickory and other mast producing trees (for human consumption) would be nice.

As an aside, noting Plum Creek's presence in some of my favorite areas, I bought some stock before it merged with Weyerhouser. I liked the idea of the asset "growing" even in hard times. Gave me a different perspective of their sustainability and conservation measures. They are not as evil as some would like to portray them. As for realizing our forest visions, much more can be accomplished on a grander scale through regulation and tax treatment than a monument.

Stan said:

Brambor, I think we share many visions, just not how to achieve it. And, there are weird politics on every level though I have no idea of the purpose of the cutting in Bigelow Preserve ... revenue? Preserve applies to both flora and fauna and selective cutting favors the latter.

Down in the flatlands here, Maine's tourist office seems omnipresent; don't think the feds could do a better job ... besides, I want the outdoors to myself ... people with our iterests will find this with or without state or federal agencies.

Personally, I'd like to see more hardwood forests but the payback is too long for most corporate owners. And, yeah, a plantation of chestnut, hickory and other mast producing trees (for human consumption) would be nice.

As an aside, noting Plum Creek's presence in some of my favorite areas, I bought some stock before it merged with Weyerhouser. I liked the idea of the asset "growing" even in hard times. Gave me a different perspective of their sustainability and conservation measures. They are not as evil as some would like to portray them. As for realizing our forest visions, much more can be accomplished on a grander scale through regulation and tax treatment than a monument.

Click to expand...

Interesting thoughts about trees in Maine. I recently had my woodlot (20 ac) assessed for putting it into tree growth tax status, and the Licensed Forester who did the job for me had the following observation with regards to Maine's forestlands. For many years now after harvesting trees, the areas were replanted with softwoods with an eye toward re-harvesting in 25 years or so. Well, now that the paper and pulp industry has somewhat collapsed, the pulp and paper mills have switched over to utilizing hardwood species for papermaking leaving the forestland owners stuck with trees they cannot sell. There is a large wood pellet mill not far from me who only take hardwood. Same thing for the biomass power generating folks. One of the portions of the 10 required year plan for my woods is to eliminate almost all softwoods in favor of hardwood species. It looks like I will be focusing on establishing a Sugarbush with all my Maples.

This might be low on a totem pole but ticks do not live in a pine forest

Brambor said:

This might be low on a totem pole but ticks do not live in a pine forest

Click to expand...

Um...I've seen ticks in Pine forests.

Ticks require a warm-blooded creature. Not sure what trees have to do with blood suckers.

yeah, I could be wrong on that. Growing up in the relatively mature pine forests I've been told since I was a kid that ticks will be in the oak and leafy forests clinging to branches and leaves and undergrowth but not in the pine forest. I have never really questioned that but I quick google is pointing that this could be an old wife's tale.

egilbe said:

Um...I've seen ticks in Pine forests.

Ticks require a warm-blooded creature. Not sure what trees have to do with blood suckers.

Click to expand...

http://bangordailynews.com/2016/06/...itors-get-to-a-north-woods-national-monument/

The problem that many folks don't understand is that in developed areas, the state or local municipalities own the land (or the rights under a road. If its a new road associated with a development, the government requires the developer to cede the land over to public use. This establishes a right of way of a specific width and the government authority takes responsibility to maintain it in perpetuity unless at some point the road is no longer needed. On rural and areas that are private lands especially in the unorganized territories, the status of road right of ways are far less certain. Generally it comes down to past common use. Generally these right of ways sprung up from nothing, they usually are the path of least resistance through the woods, occasionally there is a historical reason for a road like the Old Canada Road that runs along the Kennebec, sometimes its an old native American path but sometimes the rational for the layout is lost to history. Nevertheless, all the owners of the land accessed by these roads end up having Rights of Way to access these roads by past use. This is not necessarily a registered legal document, its rather an established legal basis that when right of ways are used in common that the land owners gain rights in perpetuity to use them. If the lands are subdivided, these rights pass onto subsequent owners. Its important to note that the right of way does not typically apply to the public at large unless a local government gets involved. Thus private gate systems are entirely acceptable as long as any owners behind the gate can gain access to the locks. Typically, there is handshake agreement that the party that is actively using the road maintains the gate and the other owners whose land is inactive know who to contact it they want access. To further confuse the issue, local sportsman's groups aggressively pushed to access the private road networks. Some companies acceded to this access while others created the North Maine Woods management area where the public has to pay to access the area. Many folks don't realize that the Abol Bridge area and the West Branch region was behind these gates up into the eighties. The East Branch country is not part of NMW and traditionally road access has been hit or miss. The other confusing issue is maintenance, there is no inherent entity responsible for maintaining the road for the common good, most roads are informally maintained by the owners as a common interest, but if the road is not in active use it may fall into disrepair. The Atlantic Salmon Best Practices also factor in, traditional culverts under roads are now a issue and the cost to put in compliant structures is quite costly so many culverts and bridges are being removed when the road is not in use and the owners who want access now need to haul in potable bridges. In order to avoid this, some owners switch their usage to other roads that are less costly to access. Roxanne Quimby managed to upset many landowners and the public when she bought blocks of land that has long term roads that accessed lands owned by other landowners. She immediately put in gates and blocked access to all and would not let other land owners who had historical rights use the roads. This was somewhat tenuously resolved and some of the gates came down.

So now comes the federal government with a National Monument that is supposed to be tourist magnet, unfortunately the area is not accessed by any state or local government maintained roads. Therefore a government entity is going to have to negotiate with the owners of the lands where the limited right of ways exist to obtain a public right of way and determine an entity that will maintain the road to level that the public will accept. If they cant negotiate access,then a government entity has to seize a right of way for public use. It is highly likely that the roads will need to be widened and substantially upgraded and the source of funding for this is not yet determined. Building and maintaining a road for passenger car traffic is far less costly than one for logging trucks but given the combined use, the new road will have to be built for both. Rarely would a road reconstruction project be less than a million a mile not including major structures like bridges. Ongoing maintenance cost is highly variable but given heavy seasonal logging traffic, it would be higher than a typical NPS road. Loggers work in winter so it would be plowed when logging was active and this can expose the road to frost depth and pre mud season conditions which can really trash a road. The lternative is to gate it in winter but that causes economic hardships to the land owners who want to log their land and this is uncompensated diminution in value to the landowner. Thus the highly touted 40 million dollar endowment for the operation of the monument would be long gone if used to install and maintain the roads and other infrastructure through other lands required to access the park. More likely the endowment will be restricted to the actual monument land and therefore there will have to be federal funding to put in adequate access for the public in order to support the rosy predictions of a tourism rush. This project would be in competition for funding with all the other national parks and monuments for capital and maintenance dollars. Given the long term multi billion deficit in O&M funding for the current parks and monuments I expect that that funding will not come soon thus the rush of tourist dollars may take awhile to appear. Given the big rush for the declaration there are definitely a lot of "white elephant" questions that come up that should have been resolved by an independent entity previouslyrather than relying on potentially biased reports by the owner that is most interested in rushing the process.

I'm sure there are several ideas on how to get to the park but the way I've been getting there is the way to North Gate of Baxter State Park and that road seems to be public all the way.