Copyright 2000 Globe Newspaper Company
The Boston
Globe
January 16, 2000, Sunday ,THIRD EDITION
SECTION: NEW HAMPSHIRE WEEKLY; Pg. 1
LENGTH: 1126 words
HEADLINE:
NEW HAMPSHIRE WEEKLY;
GROUP FINDS SUPPORT FOR ROADLESS
AREAS
BYLINE: By Robert Braile, Globe
Correspondent
BODY:
CONCORD - A national
environmental group found in a poll it released last week that most New
Hampshire voters want "roadless" areas in the White Mountain
National Forest and other national forests around the country protected from
logging and other activities. That view sharply contrasts with much of the
reported sentiment from this state.
The Wilderness Society, a forest
preservation group, also found in an economic analysis that logging in the
Whites is of little value when compared to other, more benign, activities like
backcountry recreation. That is even the case with preservation of the land,
which might seem at first glance to have little economic
value. "It's no surprise that so many people support protecting
these areas," said Julie Wormser, the Wilderness Society's Northeast regional
director. She was referring to the as much as 150,000 acres in the 774,000-acre
Whites where roads for logging and other activities have not been built, but
could be, since roads are not formally prohibited. "We've seen poll after poll
across the country report the same thing: People overwhelmingly want some places
to remain truly wild, and they think these are the right places to do it,"
Wormser said.
President Clinton proposed in October to protect 40
million acres of roadless areas in America's national forests, including the
Whites. The US Forest Service, which is charged with managing America's 192
million-acre national forest system, is taking stock of the more than 1 million
written and oral comments it received on the proposal between October and
December.
The Forest Service must develop regulations to implement the
proposal, which it says it will do this year in cooperation with local interests
of every kind in and around each forest, including timber, industry,
conservation groups and municipalities.
The proposal has sparked a furor
nationwide, pitting various interests against one another. It has also drifted
into the presidential campaign, most recently in a debate between Democratic
candidates Al Gore and Bill Bradley at the University of New Hampshire in
Durham.
And the proposal has prompted criticism from the New Hampshire
congressional delegation. US senators Judd Gregg and Bob Smith led a broad
assault from Capitol Hill against the Forest Service. Gregg drafted a letter he
and 32 other senators signed, requesting a 120-day extension to the comment
period. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman denied the request, arguing that the
Forest Service's outreach and provisions for comment were more than ample.
Smith and US Senator Frank Murkowski of Alaska, both of whom are
influential committee chairmen, wrote another letter suggesting the Forest
Service has violated a major federal law, the National Environmental Policy Act,
in failing to provide the public with enough information and opportunity to
comment.
Gore and Bradley briefly skirtmished over the Clinton move in
their debate Jan. 5, with Gore defending it as merely a proposal, and Bradley
saying he favored "local control" in managing the forests. Another candidate, US
Senator John McCain of Arizona, a Republican, also favored local control in a
stump speech he gave last month in the North Country.
"The notion that
Washington knows best and that local residents cannot be trusted to do what's
right in their own backyard is the epitome of federal arrogance," McCain said,
in outlining his environmental agenda during that speech. That view has been
echoed by many people, not just in the congressional delegation and on the
campaign trail, but by everyone from editorial writers to state officials.
"A one-size-fits-all philosophy, conceived and generated from within the
Beltway, is a poor substitute for local control and management that balances
wildlife habitat, economic and recreational needs," the state Fish and Game
Commission wrote in a Dec. 15 resolution opposing the Clinton proposal.
But the Wilderness Society poll raises a new question: How do the
"locals" who would be in control of this proposal actually feel about it? If the
locals are defined as statewide residents who are likely to vote in this year's
presidential election, the answer is overwhelmingly supportive, the poll found.
The poll of 600 registered New Hampshire voters was done Oct. 10-13. It
has a 4 percent margin of error.
It found that 72 percent favored
protection for all national forest roadless areas of 1,000 acres or more in size
from road construction, off-road vehicles, mining, oil drilling and other
development activities.
The poll also found that 78 percent of the
voters want to prohibit commercial logging in all national forest roadless
areas, and 76 percent want to prohibit oil drilling and exploration in those
areas. New Hampshire voters were found to be more strident in their desire to
protect these areas than voters nationwide, although a majority in the rest of
the country still wants the areas protected. The poll found that 72 percent of
New Hampshire voters want the areas protected; nationwide, only 63 percent of
voters do.
The Wilderness Society's economic analysis found that logging
in the Whites is a minor economic activity. It accounted for only 2.1 percent of
the state's timber harvest in 1997, while forest products manufacturing
accounted that same year for only 1.6 percent of jobs, 1.2 percent of personal
income of New Hampshire residents, and 4 percent of personal income in the White
Mountain National Forest counties.
The analysis also found that 36.5
percent of all logs cut in New Hampshire are exported out of state rather than
processed here, a quantity of logs that represents 17 times the volume harvested
in the Whites alone. With logging in the Whites already losing about
$1 million a year, the analysis concluded that the Forest
Service would be better off directing its efforts toward developing
opportunities for log processing in the state.
Further, more logging
does not necessarily result in more jobs in the forest products industry, the
analysis found. In Maine, thanks to industry modernization and mechanization,
logging increased by 38 percent from 1977 to 1992, while industry employment
dropped by 12 percent, the analysis found.
The analysis found much
support for other uses of the forest. Some 45 percent of current residents and
60 percent of recent migrants say wilderness areas are an important reason for
living in or near the forest. Properties that abut protected land tend to have
higher value than properties that don't. Open space tends to generate more tax
revenues than the cost of the public services it requires. And protected land
provides an array of ecological benefits, from water filtration to wildlife
habitats, the analysis found.
LOAD-DATE: February 18,
2000 
