Forest plan amendment sparks debateJessica SchneiderSpecial to THE CONWAY DAILY SUNWASHINGTON A proposed amendment to the 1986 Forest Plan that would impose a new set of restrictions on logging and recreational activities in White Mountain National Forest is drawing mixed response from forest officials, environmental and logging groups in New Hampshire.Forest officials view the amendment as essential for protecting endangered animal species. But environmentalists do not think it goes far enough, and logging groups see it as a direct attack on their industry.The amendment is simply part of an anti-logging campaign, said Gene Chandler, Bartlett selectman and Speaker of the N.H. House.The amendment comes after a 1999 study by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that determined certain management activities would harm the existence of the Indiana bat, a federally listed endangered species that is thought to live in the forest. Five different alternatives have been proposed by U.S. Forest Service including a no-change alternative, an alternative that would protect the Indiana bat habitat by preserving five trees of suitable roosting quality, per acre harvested and two alternatives that include banning summer timber harvesting.David Carle, of the environmentalist group Conservation Action Project in Nashua, opposes the amendment. But his complaints differ from Chandler's. A long time advocate of turning the national forest into a national park to prevent all logging, Carle says the amendment would not do enough to protect endangered species.They will argue with me, but they are suggesting little in terms of change, said Carle. The forest service is playing games. They are ignoring public concerns and exhibiting a pattern of deceit.One of the most contested elements of the amendment is the restriction on management activities including logging in certain areas of the forest, based on the presence of the endangered Indiana bat. Many dispute that the single documented case of an Indiana bat habitat in White Mountain National Forest warrants such restrictions.We understand that endangered species ought to be taken care of, but the Indiana bat has only been sighted once, years ago, argued Eric Kingsley, former executive director of N.H. Timberland Owners Association. The forest management has not shown the logging industry to be detrimental to its habitat.Chandler concurred. There is no credible evidence that the Indiana bat exists in the White Mountain National Forest. There was talk that one was photographed many years ago, and thats about it. We should never stop industry and recreation for something that is non-existent. Forest officials, however, argue that the amendment is necessary in order to comply with federal laws protecting endangered species.It doesnt appear that the bat is extremely prevalent, and its not a frequent visitor, said Donna Hepp, supervisor for White Mountain National Forest. But its something that we need to provide for and make sure we meet its habitat requirement. Its our responsibility to provide conditions for endangered species.Biologist Leighland Prout of N.H. Forest Service agrees that the measures to protect these species are necessary and should not raise concern for logging and environmental groups.The amendment encompasses pretty minor changes, said Prout. What a lot of people dont realize is that it is commonplace to have management guidelines that reserve trees. The current amendment just adds more trees. The net result is very minor.The discussions over the amendment also raise an issue that was debated late last year when President Clinton issued his roadless initiative, which designated 45,000 acres of White Mountain National Forest as roadless area. Local and state officials as well Sen. Judd Gregg expressed concern that control over local matters was being addressed at the national level. Many argue that these planning issues should be the responsibility of the local forest service, not the federal government.We have to rely on the White Mountain National Forest Planning Association to make those restrictions, said Chandler. They have always done an excellent job in planning and this planning process works very well. Its terrible when congress passes legislation concerning these local matters.The public can access the amendment document online at www.fs.fed.us/r9/white/projects/index.html. Discussion on the proposed amendment is open for public comment until Feb. 21. Given the controversy surrounding it, supporters of the amendment urge residents to become involved and inform themselves about its pros and cons.We want to make sure that we hear from the public, stressed Hepp. They are incorporated in the decision making process. We have a responsibility as managers of the national forest to work with the public and make these decisions jointly."
(0) comments
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.