The Bush administration has recently announced a new “roadless areas conservation rule.” Like the Clear Skies Initiative, the words used to describe this proposal disguise the real intent, which is hardly conservation. Contrary to the implication of its wording, these new rules would open large areas of our national forests, including our own White Mountain National Forest, to logging and road building that is expensive, wasteful, and destructive.

The “roadless rules” regulate road building in the as yet roadless areas of the national forests, 60 million out of the total national forest acreage of 240 million. When the national forests were first established in the Organic Act of 1897 the priorities were wildlife preservation, timber production and protection of water quality. In the hundred or so years since then, a vast road system of 440,000 miles was created as part of logging. It is a road system in decay. The cost of maintaining even the current system of roads far exceeds the national forest budget so that at present 80 percent of the existing roads are not maintained to department standards. The cost of the backlogged maintenance is estimated at nearly $1 billion.

Decaying roads result in widespread siltation of streams and frequent mudslides in more mountainous terrain. Roads also fragment habitat and compromise range for many animal and plant species. These impacts come at great public cost. In fact, the cost to the government has always far exceeded any revenue from timber sales. Between 1992 and 1994, for example, the net loss from national forest logging was $995 million.

Recognizing that logging in areas still roadless would be expensive and environmentally destructive, the Clinton administration imposed a moratorium on further road building in 1999. This proposal was enthusiastically supported by the public, which sought protection for its public lands. More than 2 million Americans responded to the hearing process and 95 percent supported the moratorium. No environmental initiative ever has had this degree of public participation and support.

The national forests are diverse lands. Some of the national forests, such as the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, are pristine. Some, such as our White Mountain National Forest, are lands that were abandoned after they were either farmed or cut to exhaustion. The forests are home to diverse, rich ecosystems and the stomping grounds of hikers, anglers and hunters.

Is protecting these areas a threat to our timber supply? The national forests supply 5 percent of the nation’s timber and the roadless areas have represented 5 percent of that. We are talking about roughly 2.2 percent of America’s overall forestlands. The vast majority of the national forests will remain open to continued logging.

Nor is logging an important part of fire control. Most remote fires start in clear cuts where the sun has a chance to bake slash and brush. It could be argued, in fact, that we would be far better off using resources to support logging in areas nearer to habitation to protect them from fire.

While the national forests are a relatively small part of our timber supply, they figure large in other important ways. The forests are the headwaters of 80 percent of the nation’s major rivers and 60 million Americans depend on the forests for their water. Runoff from denuded hillsides and washing roads is a direct threat to water quality.

Don’t we need to protect timber industry jobs? In fact, we hear a great deal about jobs versus the environment, but the two go hand in hand. The recreational value of the forests has always far exceeded the economic value of wood harvest. Outdoor recreation provides 31 times the income and 38 times the jobs compared to extractive forestry, very important statistics for a state like Maine.

When the old growth forests in Oregon were protected from logging during the spotted owl wars, it is true that logging jobs were lost. But the economy there nevertheless boomed, and the economic growth more than compensated for the logging jobs that were lost. This is because people moved there in search of a kind of lifestyle and environment. In truth, jobs follow the movement of people, not the other way around, and only by maintaining the beauty and character of our state can Maine hope to thrive economically.

The new rules are not yet written in stone, and there remains a comment period. I urge all Mainers to think carefully about these issues and, if possible, relay their comments to the Forest Service. Rather than gutting our wild areas for the benefits of some corporate interests, we should continue to protect them for the public good.

Steve Bien is the president of the Western Maine Audubon Society.

Copy the Story Link