|
Green Mountain National Forest
|
LLmt-@webtv.net
|
Apr 27, 2005 22:24 PDT
|
Hi all,
Thought you all might be interested
in this story from the Rutland Herald. An indication of what we're up
against.
Having attended the meeting, i will say that
i was pleasantly surprised by the possibilities for mtb access that the
FS preferred Alternative
E offers, it's third in total acreage available, but the two better
alternatives B and C don't offer that much more. The 17,900 acres of
wilderness recommended for the Glastenbury
area are on the west side of the AT / LT corridor, leaving the bulk of
the forest roads and trails on the east side available. There would also
be possibilities for accessing the fire tower by means of the VAST
trail, which would make for a spectacular destination ride unlike almost
anything else in New England, that i know of.
Hopefully someone from VMBA attended the
Montpelier meeting who can give us some feed back on the impact of Alt.
E on the northern half of the forest. Tom Yennerell did co-ordinate
VMBA's effort to inventory the trail possibilities on the National
Forest lands, so hopefully the results of that inventory are on a map
somewhere.
But, the following story gives you some idea of what we're going to
be up against. Wilderness advocates are obviously doing the job of
generating comments on the plan.
I think we need to show them what the MTB community can do, which will
have to include IMBA, obviously The Forest Service stressed that they
are looking for specific comments on the draft alternatives at this
point in the process, so if you have time to review the plan
alternatives online, please do so.
Visit the Forest Service plan site at:
www.fs.fed.us/r9/gmfl/nepa_planning/plan_revision.htm
We might want to strategize a bit more on a response, but i think in
addition to advocating for bike access, we have to suggest that we can
live with the amount of wilderness that Alt E calls for, as well as its
location.
So, IT"S CRUNCH TIME! let's not blow it....
Rob Macgregor
VT NEMBA
Here's the story:
Rutland Herald
Article published Apr 27, 2005
Forest staff flooded with e-mail touting protected wilderness
The staff of the Green Mountain National Forest has been inundated with
more than 5,500 e-mails from proponents of more protected wilderness,
who are unhappy with the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to add only
18,000 acres.
Forest supervisor Paul Brewster said the number of comments was
surprising because all them had been received in less than a month —
with more than two more months left in the formal comment period.
"I haven't read them all yet, obviously," Brewster said Tuesday during
the third informational open house held by the Forest Service.
The open houses are being held around the state to offer information
about the new plan for using the 400,000-acre national forest, which
represents 6 percent of the state's land.
Brewster said all comments, written or electronic, would be read and
considered before a final environmental impact statement is issued for
the new forest master plan. The final plan isn't due for a year.
Brewster said Forest Service staff expected a large number of responses
about the plan, the first revision in about 18 years.
But he said the early response was surprising. He said many of the
letters appeared to be form letters and focused on wilderness issues.
By comparison, the White Mountain National Forest in New Hampshire
received 6,500 comments over its three-month comment period last year.
The proposed plan adopts more wilderness protection areas in the forest,
but far less than the Vermont Wilderness Association, a consortium of
environ-mental groups, wants.
About half of the e-mails came from members of the Wilderness Society, a
national environmental group that has about 2,000 members in Vermont,
according to Heather Dowey, Eastern Forests outreach coordinator for the
society.
Dowey said the Wilderness Society posted an alert on its Web site a week
ago, mobilizing its members about the Vermont situation.
Dowey, who attended Tuesday's session at Rutland Intermediate School,
said the avalanche of e-mails would have an effect "in the court of
public opinion."
Dowey and Julie Wormser, director of advocacy for the Appalachian
Mountain Club, said the Vermont Wilderness Association represents 80,000
Vermonters.
Wormser defended the number, saying the groups had done a "merge purge,"
eliminating any duplicate members.
Dowey defended the e-mail deluge, saying the Green Mountain National
Forest was a national treasure, not just a Vermont one. She said the
alert was sent only to Wilderness Society members east of the
Mississippi River.
Wormser said that while the Forest Service says 70 million people live
within a day's drive of Vermont's national forest, that figure is 20
years old and the number should be closer to 100 million.
Tuesday's open house gave people the opportunity to ask Forest Service
staff questions, but didn't allow a public forum on the draft
environmental impact statement.
Bruce Waterworth of Pittsfield came to the informational session
concerned that most of Pittsfield would become less accessible to the
public.
Waterworth, a mountain biker, said he had been told "half of the town
would become wilderness."
The facts were different, Brewster told him during one of the one-on-one
sessions. While the recently acquired lands in Pittsfield would be
classified as remote backcountry recreation, it wasn't as restrictive as
wilderness and existing trails would be continued.
Waterworth was interested in expanding the trail network.
Ken Gagnon, owner of Gagnon Lumber of Pittsford, said he supported the
plan and said the timber market was strong and would support additional
cutting of trees on the national forest.
Gagnon said that over the past 18 years, timber cutting had declined in
the Green Mountain National Forest, because of legal challenges by
environmental groups and concerns over potential damage to the habitat
of the Indiana bat, a federally protected species.
He said that of the 6 million acres in Vermont, 4 million are forested,
so the national forest represents 10 percent of the state's forested
lands. He also said high-quality hardwood, primarily maple, is available
in the national forest.
Gagnon, who employs 10 people at his Pittsford mill, said "the Vermont
lifestyle is very dependent on the working forest."
In his mind, adding more wilderness acreage to the forest would mean
less timber.
Despite all the planning, Vermont's congressional delegation has the
last say on the wilderness issue, Brewster said.
Vermont's two senators, Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy and Independent
Sen. James Jeffords, and its congressman Independent Rep. Bernard
Sanders, are expected to introduce legislation in Congress calling for
more wilderness in the national forest.
A Jeffords aide who attended Tuesday's meeting, however, said it was too
soon to say when the legislation would come down.
The last informational open house is at 6:30 p.m. today at the Capital
Plaza in Montpelier.
Public comments on the proposed forest plan will be accepted until July
5, Brewster said. The e-mail address is gmflplan-@fs.fed.us., or
Green Mountain National Forest, 231 N. Main St., Rutland, VT 05701.
Contact Susan Smallheer at susan.sm-@rutlandherald.com.
|
|
 |
|
