View Full Version : Maine Woods National Monument
peakbagger
08-23-2016, 14:14
Looks like its getting close
https://bangordailynews.com/2016/08/23/news/state/quimby-transfers-87000-acres-planned-for-national-monument-to-us-government/
Nice time to fly up to the north woods and make speech, the black flies are gone, things are so dry that the mosquitoes are probably pretty mild and leaf season is coming up.
Queue the whining from the Mainers about how this is going to destroy their state and how they, not Mrs. Quimby, should get the final say over what happens to this land.
CoolBobby
08-23-2016, 15:14
Queue the whining from the Mainers about how this is going to destroy their state and how they, not Mrs. Quimby, should get the final say over what happens to this land.
Not all Mainers are angry about this, just like our friends to the the south are not ALL Massholes...
Not all Mainers are angry about this, just like our friends to the the south are not ALL Massholes...
I know...my comment was mostly snark. But there is a vocal contigent of anti-Quimby/anti-monument folks around here. Hopefully this announcement (which is great news, btw), will shut them up for good.
(Also, I'm not originally from MA and haven't lived there in years. Feel free to insult Massholes to your heart's content :)
CoolBobby
08-23-2016, 15:55
I know...my comment was mostly snark. But there is a vocal contigent of anti-Quimby/anti-monument folks around here. Hopefully this announcement (which is great news, btw), will shut them up for good.
(Also, I'm not originally from MA and haven't lived there in years. Feel free to insult Massholes to your heart's content :)
I can't insult too many massholes while I wear this BoSox hat.
Being from Maine, and still a Maine tax payer, I am very familiar with the " That is the way its always been he'a, fuh a wicked long time..." mentality with regard to public use of private land. We constantly have long time neighbors mad at us for closing our property off from public hunting, snowmobile trails, and public access. We didn't stop all access, we just require written permission now.
I wish I had 70K acres to give away. I sure as (#$*%# would not give it to the Government. But the beauty of our system allows Mrs. Quimby to do just that... Good for her.
What a remarkable thing for Mrs. Quimby and her family to do.
If it comes with some guarantee of public access, and prevents real estate development and/or commercial exploitation (eg. lumber harvesting) I'm all for it. Good on Ms. Quimby.
peakbagger
08-23-2016, 20:46
Its biggest limitation is that the major attraction, Mt Katahdin and all the nearby high peaks are not in the proposed monument boundary and it is highly unlikely that they will ever be accessible directly from the monument due to substantially different management approaches. Unlike the monument that is starting with a clean slate, BSPs rules were pretty well cast in stone in June of 1969 when Percival Baxter passed away. He established his dislike for the feds having any control of BSP and his intent along with the deeds of trust pretty well limits any future changes. The last time an outside party, the IAT, attempted to establish access through the wassatquoik region things didn't end well.
If it comes with some guarantee of public access, and prevents real estate development and/or commercial exploitation (eg. lumber harvesting) I'm all for it. Good on Ms. Quimby.
Smart lumber harvesting is good for the forest...and creates jobs.
Smart lumber harvesting is good for the forest...and creates jobs.
That's not remotely true in Maine. Thanks to all of the industrial logging that happens in the state, there is absolutely no need for additional logging to promote "forest health." (FWIW, I'm a PhD with multiple publications on this very subject). And the Monument will bring far more jobs than logging does--as the logging industry automates processes, it has been shedding jobs for decades.
colorado_rob
08-24-2016, 10:41
Smart lumber harvesting is good for the forest...and creates jobs.Hmmmm.... lumber harvesting also creates... let's see... Houses? Other buildings? Furniture? Paper products? Mostly kinda important products, one would think.
I thought this was originally slated as a National Park rather than a mere National monument? Is this some sort of compromise perhaps?
Slo-go'en
08-24-2016, 12:45
Hmmmm.... lumber harvesting also creates... let's see... Houses? Other buildings? Furniture? Paper products? Mostly kinda important products, one would think.
I thought this was originally slated as a National Park rather than a mere National monument? Is this some sort of compromise perhaps?
With the demise of nearly all the paper mills, they have resorted to burning the trees as "renewable energy" mostly to keep some loggers and truckers busy. Although there are some trees used for lumber, the majority of our trees are "junk wood".
I seem to remember most of the opposition by locals to designating the land as National Park was some of them would loose the leases on their camps and possible restrictions to snowmobiling and hunting. But mostly loosing access to their camps.
Alligator
08-24-2016, 13:34
Monument it is http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/24/travel/katahdin-woods-newest-national-monument/index.html
TJ aka Teej
08-24-2016, 14:17
This a wonderful news - many thanks to the Quimby family!
The new KW&W National Park page: https://www.nps.gov/kaww/index.htm
peakbagger
08-24-2016, 14:34
"I thought this was originally slated as a National Park rather than a mere National monument? Is this some sort of compromise perhaps?"
Its a backdoor method of someday establishing a national park. NPs requires congressional approval which would not be forth coming. NMs just require presidential approval. The big difference is the NM is only the land Quimby donated, any inholdings aren't affected by the designation (although they may be more valuable for tourism if a tourist trade ever occurs). A NP designation draws a big "circle" around an area called a declaration boundary. The previously proposed NPs declaration boundary was much larger encompassing significant private land owned by other entities. Once a NP is declared it can impose its will on the private properties inside the boundary. The NP also can impose their will on development outside the boundary under the guise that outside development will impact the park.
Quimby had already thrown out all the leaseholders. She did keep a couple and fixed them up for use by the NM. The leases may have been in familys for many years but they were year by year at the will of the owner. There is rather famous regional book about a lost kid on Katahdin called Lost on a Mountain in Maine. He was found in one of the camps in the area of the proposed NP
With respect to burning wood for power, that's pretty much a fallacy locally, it costs far more to cut a tree and chip if for fuel than it can be sold for. The only way it pencils out is if the trees are being cut for something else like sawmills and then the tops get chipped for biomass.
colorado_rob
08-24-2016, 14:36
Thanks for the excellent summary on NM's vs. NP's, Peakbagger.
"I thought this was originally slated as a National Park rather than a mere National monument? Is this some sort of compromise perhaps?"
Its a backdoor method of someday establishing a national park. NPs requires congressional approval which would not be forth coming. NMs just require presidential approval. The big difference is the NM is only the land Quimby donated, any inholdings aren't affected by the designation (although they may be more valuable for tourism if a tourist trade ever occurs). A NP designation draws a big "circle" around an area called a declaration boundary. The previously proposed NPs declaration boundary was much larger encompassing significant private land owned by other entities. Once a NP is declared it can impose its will on the private properties inside the boundary. The NP also can impose their will on development outside the boundary under the guise that outside development will impact the park.
Quimby had already thrown out all the leaseholders. She did keep a couple and fixed them up for use by the NM. The leases may have been in familys for many years but they were year by year at the will of the owner. There is rather famous regional book about a lost kid on Katahdin called Lost on a Mountain in Maine. He was found in one of the camps in the area of the proposed NP
Even after the monument has been established, Peakbagger is still making up lies about it. Let me correct the record.
First, when a national park is established by Congress, the enacting legislation determines how inholdings are handled. Most purchases of inholdings require congressional approval (https://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/RM25.pdf ). In the absence of a law turning this monument into a national park, there will be NO condemnation of any property. Given which party controls Congress, I can't imagine that changing anytime soon.
Second, NPS has ZERO control over development outside of the park on private lands. Development adjacent to parks is actually a big problem, and studies have documented large increases in such development in recent decades. Some relevant figures are here: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/2/940.full There have also been numerous instances of states and federal agencies approving mines and other industrial development adjacent to parks. Even USFS has little respect for parks--the national forests in Wyoming did so much logging adjacent to Yellowstone in the 70s and 80s that you could, at the time, see the western boundary of the park from space.
Third, as a property owner, Quimby is not under any legal or ethical obligation to continue any leases on her property. If she violated any laws or contracts, I hope that the affected people pursue legal remedies. But I have yet to hear of any such instances, and I suspect that this is just more whining by anti-park people.
Frankly, I'm getting a little tired of the BS from the anti-park people. You guys lost, move on--I'm sure you can find another park proposal somewhere else to oppose.
Odd Man Out
08-24-2016, 16:07
It says it was established today and they already have a web site and a superintendent. Plus two visitor centers today. That was quick.
peakbagger
08-24-2016, 16:21
Thanks for the education Doctor. Where exactly did I say that there would be condemnation of land in either situation?
You may or may not be familiar with the recent addition to Acadia NP outside the declaration boundary that was done without congressional approval. After the stink was raised both sides made up so it didn't tarnish the celebration.
I agree with you entirely that Quimby could and did throw long term leaseholders off the land, she did it years ago when she bought it. It just was one of many things that did not win her any fans.
LoneStranger
08-24-2016, 16:43
Can we be OK with the park and still hate Quimby? As someone who has walked those lands, not the part where she scraped a road, but the IAT section, I am glad that land will be protected. I'm especially glad it is no longer in her possession. A mean and spiteful person, she had previously threatened to fence off the entire thing and eliminate any access at all if she didn't get her NP. Considering she doesn't have anything there to make a NP out of other than a view of the really nice park next door I'm glad she backed off on that.
I agree with you entirely that Quimby could and did throw long term leaseholders off the land, she did it years ago when she bought it. It just was one of many things that did not win her any fans.
I'll bet that Quimby has a lot more fans than haters today. Like I said, find another park to whine about.
peakbagger
08-24-2016, 19:09
Second, NPS has ZERO control over development outside of the park on private lands
I guess the Doctor isn't familiar with PSD permitting
[I]Class I areas are areas of special national or regional natural, scenic, recreational, or historic value for which the PSD regulations provide special protection. The Federal Land Manager (FLM), including the State or Indian governing body, where applicable, is responsible for defining specific Air Quality Related Values (AQRV's) for an area and for establishing the criteria to determine an adverse impact on the AQRV's. If a FLM determines that a source will adversely impact AQRV's in a Class I area, the FLM may recommend that the permitting agency deny issuance of the permit, even in cases where no applicable increments would be exceeded. However, the permitting authority makes the final decision to issue or deny the permit.
Source https://www.epa.gov/nsr/prevention-significant-deterioration-basic-information
"Class I Area: In the context of the prevention of significant deterioration program, all state air quality jurisdictions are divided into three classes of air quality protection. Class I areas are special areas of natural wonder and scenic beauty, such as national parks, national monuments, and wilderness areas, where air quality should be given special protection. Class I areas are subject to maximum limits on air quality degradation called air quality increments (often referred to as PSD increments). These air quality increments are more stringent than national ambient air quality standards (more so in Class I areas than Class II areas)."
Source http://www.arb.ca.gov/bact/docs/definitions.htm
This wasn't in effect in that region prior to the designation and is now in effect today. Another hurdle against anyone attempting to redevelop the remnants of the GNP operations.
TJ aka Teej
08-24-2016, 19:30
the FLM may recommend that the permitting agency deny issuance of the permit, even in cases where no applicable increments would be exceeded. However, the permitting authority makes the final decision to issue or deny the permit.
...
Class I areas are subject to maximum limits on air quality degradation called air quality increments (often referred to as PSD increments).
...
Another hurdle against anyone attempting to redevelop the remnants of the GNP operations.
Somebody wants to "redevelop the remnants of the GNP operations" with something that pollutes the air outside the new monument? Who? And why would you want them to?
Second, NPS has ZERO control over development outside of the park on private lands
I guess the Doctor isn't familiar with PSD permitting
[I]Class I areas are areas of special national or regional natural, scenic, recreational, or historic value for which the PSD regulations provide special protection. The Federal Land Manager (FLM), including the State or Indian governing body, where applicable, is responsible for defining specific Air Quality Related Values (AQRV's) for an area and for establishing the criteria to determine an adverse impact on the AQRV's. If a FLM determines that a source will adversely impact AQRV's in a Class I area, the FLM may recommend that the permitting agency deny issuance of the permit, even in cases where no applicable increments would be exceeded. However, the permitting authority makes the final decision to issue or deny the permit.
Source https://www.epa.gov/nsr/prevention-significant-deterioration-basic-information
"Class I Area: In the context of the prevention of significant deterioration program, all state air quality jurisdictions are divided into three classes of air quality protection. Class I areas are special areas of natural wonder and scenic beauty, such as national parks, national monuments, and wilderness areas, where air quality should be given special protection. Class I areas are subject to maximum limits on air quality degradation called air quality increments (often referred to as PSD increments). These air quality increments are more stringent than national ambient air quality standards (more so in Class I areas than Class II areas)."
Source http://www.arb.ca.gov/bact/docs/definitions.htm
This wasn't in effect in that region prior to the designation and is now in effect today. Another hurdle against anyone attempting to redevelop the remnants of the GNP operations.
Your second quote there is from California. If a new monument is going to affect air pollution permits in CA, I'll be a monkey's uncle (oh, wait, I am--thanks, Darwin.)
As for restricting development, these regulations only come into play if there are air quality issues in a park, and they only affect major pollution sources. Are there air quality problems in central Maine now? I doubt it. But, more importantly, are you actually arguing that bad air quality is somehow okay? You do realize, I hope, that air pollution has tremendous and well-documented negative impacts on human health.
Anyway, feel free to comment on, but I'm done here. We (park supporters) won and you (provincial people looking out for their own self-interest) lost. Move on, dude.
Slo-go'en
08-24-2016, 22:35
I just found this local take in the Bangor daily news: https://bangordailynews.com/2016/08/23/outdoors/officials-public-react-to-land-transfer-for-north-woods-national-monument/
TJ aka Teej
08-24-2016, 22:42
I just found this local take in the Bangor daily news: https://bangordailynews.com/2016/08/23/outdoors/officials-public-react-to-land-transfer-for-north-woods-national-monument/
Ole Man and Navigator from the AT lodge!
I just can't figure out the people that think they should control something that they don't own. If they wanted to have a huge hunting preserve, they should have bought the land themselves and done that.
Complaining about losing your "heritage" of working in a paper mill? Really? This is like the people that complain about decline in coal mining jobs. These aren't good jobs. You really want your child to grow up and work in a coal mine? Times change, the economy evolves.
If anyone wants to buy up all of the land around my house and turn it into a National Park, please do. Few things would make me happier.
Debates aside...
I'm just happy that a chunk of some of the most wild lands left in the Northeast US is now accessible.
Remote, little or not light pollution and I suspect lots of wildlife.
Something tells me that any trip to this destination in the autumn would be very special.
peakbagger
08-25-2016, 12:47
No need to wait, just drive up to Baxter and head up on the Golden road, 1/4 of the state of Maine accessed by it. No state roads and few if any areas with power past Abol Bridge. The NM tract is quite small when compared to the entire region that already open to visit. There is a private entity that manages the area that does charge a road fee but I expect at some point the NM will have to charge a fee. There are actually quite a few large conservation easements in the area. Usually all you do is pay a gate fee to North Maine Woods and then you can go anywhere you want in the region unless there is active logging. Unfortunately there is a nascent spruce budworm epidemic in the region so it best to go quick as if it hits like the last one, large tracts will be dead trees probably similar to what the folks out west are seeing. That region was the refuge for moose when they were basically exterpreated from the rest of New England for 80 or 90 years. The Canadian lynx has moved back into the area as they have a decided preference for actively logged lands as it generates good snowshoe hare habitat. There are occasional gray wolf/coyotes hybrids sightings but it open to debate how prevalent they are compared to coyotes. It in the far northern range for whitetail deer so they are present but tend to get hit hard by cold winters.
The best way to visualize this area is go on Google Earth and search for Millinocket, now zoom out until you can see the Canadian border, now draw a line north to the border and another line west to the Maine NH line and that's roughly delineates the undeveloped places with only one state highway (RT 27 near Jackman), almost no power and darn few people. By comparison the MN does have a few towns to the east, Patten and Sherman and the Millinockets to the south. It still would be darker than most folks have seen but head over to the St John River or the Allagash Wilderness Water way area and the potential is there for even darker skies.
The NM land was purchased cheap after the last budworm epidemic, its going to take awhile before it approaches mature woods, it you zoom in on the area you will see plenty of evidence of heavy cutting. The views may be nice now but give it 50 years or so to recover. Baxter State Park was bought in patches and there were active cutting rights up until the nineteen seventies but going through it these days it definitely seems to have healed up nicely.
And a map of the monument:
https://www.nps.gov/kaww/planyourvisit/maps.htm
Looks like plenty of campsites and shelters on the IAT.
BSP is just to the west.
Cosmo
Now that the park debate has died down a bit, can we start critiquing the name? It is too cumbersome, right? Will it be referred to as KW&W? K Dub & Dub?
Offshore
08-26-2016, 10:47
I just can't figure out the people that think they should control something that they don't own. If they wanted to have a huge hunting preserve, they should have bought the land themselves and done that.
So true. They seem to feel that by transfer of this land, they somehow lost their (nonexistent) say over how the land is used (and by whom). Meanwhile in the reality-based world, Quimby could have sold it off or made it a private hunting reserve and completely cut off the locals' access. It strikes me as a bunch of selfish, presumptuous locals whom wanted it only for themselves so they could ramble around land that they somehow consider theirs by some accidental geographic birthright, while pining for the good old days (that never were).
this is a great day. The Maine Woods National Monument is today a reality. With great gratitude to Ms. Quimby (who purchased the land and then gave it to the federal government) and to President Obama who created this national monument with the stroke of a pen!
As for Mainers.. even Baxter State Park would not exist if many of them had their way. The late Gov. Baxter had to secretly buy up land and then donate it to the state to be kept forever wild.
There are things in life that have more value than can possibly be measured in material/financial terms. The north Maine Woods is one of them. There is a paradise up there!
DavidNH