Wilderness Bill Near Death
For This Congress Session
By M. D. Drysdale

The wilderness issue exploded over the Vermont political landscape this week, pitting the Congressional delegation in a rare angry confrontation with Gov. Jim Douglas, and immediately spilling over into the 2006 governor's race.

The reason was Gov. Douglas' letter to Republican leaders in the U. S. House of Representatives pressing for changes in a proposed wilderness bill for Vermont.

By press time, it appeared that there is little likelihood of passage this year of an act of Congress adding 46,000 acres of officially-designated wilderness to the Green Mountain National Forest.

Meanwhile, a counter-action by U. S. Rep. Bernie Sanders may have prevented passage of a wilderness bill for New Hampshire, which had been widely supported in that state.

"There's a stalemate right now," said Granville Selectman Norman Arseneault yesterday. Arseneault is in Washington on the half of the Vermont Traditions coalition, presenting the case against more wilderness.

Sanders' bill "created a firestorm," he said.

"The legislation just blew up on Monday. Everybody is mad. There's no vehicle to make it go forward at this point."

Sanders, as well as Sens. Patrick Leahy and James Jeffords, were furious at Douglas, as were Vermont wilderness advocates. But New Hampshire wilderness advocates, including both U. S. Senators, were angry at Congressmen Sanders.

"I don't see how (Sanders') strategy was ever going to work," Arseneault said.

Douglas said he was acting in support of towns, like Hancock and Granville, which had voted opposition to expanding official wilderness within their borders.

The Trigger

The furor was triggered last week when Sen. Leahy's staff engineered a way to obtain quick passage of a Vermont wilderness bill by combining it with a New Hampshire bill and adding it to a must-pass bill in the U. S. Senate.

The Vermont bill had been introduced in April, and Leahy's plan was an end-of-session strategy to pass it.

The strategy worked, and the Senate passed the wilderness bill for both Vermont and New Hampshire by unanimous consent, through a procedure called hot-lining.

However, the reaction was markedly different in the two states.

In New Hampshire, the wilderness proposal had nearly unanimous support from both political parties, including both Republican senators.

In Vermont, however, the bill remained controversial, partly because it greatly expanded the wilderness acreage proposed by the Green Mountain National Forest Plan. The Douglas administration and others had been trying to reduce the acreage set aside as wilderness, partly based on the opposition of nine towns.

Douglas reacted to the Senate passage of the bill with a letter to GOP leaders in the House of Representatives, which had been scheduled to take up the bill this week. While saying he wanted a Vermont wilderness bill, Douglas pointed to the unhappiness in some Vermont circles.

The chair of the House Resources Committee, Rep. Richard Pombo of California, (generally not a friend of wilderness designations) responded by severing the Vermont and New Hampshire wilderness bills into two bills. One of them—the New Hampshire bill—seemed certain of passage, while the future of the Vermont bill would be more cloudy.

Leahy, Jeffords, and Sanders angrily denounced the governor's action "to thwart a Vermont wilderness bill that many Vermonters have worked toward crafting and enacting over many years."

Then Rep. Sanders, attempting to undo the damage, engineered a revolt against the New Hampshire plan. His strategy was to get the New Hampshire senators and others to insist that Vermont be put back in the wilderness bill.

Instead, judging by Tuesday's reaction, Sanders angered the New Hampshire senator, one of whom accused Sanders of "holding our bill hostage."

With Congress to go on recess Friday, it was appearing unlikely yesterday that the pieces could be put together to pass a Vermont wilderness bill until after the election.

Reversal of Fortune

Wilderness advocates had believed that Leahy's strategy was about to result in the bill sailing through Congress. They were predictably angry at Douglas. Jim Northrup of Forest Watch said Douglas' intervention was "covert political sabotage, contrary to the will of the people."

Sensing a new political issue, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Scudder Parker called a press conference yesterday to hold Douglas "accountable" for the loss of a Vermont wilderness bill.

Administration officials stoutly defended Douglas' letter to House GOP leaders as being necessary to stick up for Vermont towns and others who had favored a less-extensive wilderness bill.

It was Sen. Leahy who had obscured the issue by combining a universally-favored New Hampshire bill with a more controversial Vermont bill, they said.

The difference between the two states, said Forest, Parks and Recreation Commissioner Jonathan Wood, a key advisor, was that in New Hampshire, the wilderness proposal mirrored exactly the conclusion of a plan worked out by the White Mountain National Forest.

In Vermont, a similar plan for the Green Mountain National Forest had recommended 27,000 acres of wilderness, but the Congressional delegation, under pressure from the Wilderness Society, had tacked on another 19,000 acres, proposing a 46,000-acre addition in wilderness.

"If they had chosen to introduce a wilderness bill consistent with the Forest Plan, there would be a quality wilderness bill now," Wood said.

The D.C. delegation offices were clearly stung by Douglas's move. In their letter to the governor, they pointed out that they had agreed with his request in 2003 to delay putting together a wilderness bill until the Forest Plan, with its dozens of public meetings, had been completed.

Sanders' chief of staff Jeff Weaver pointed out that the delegation had tried to find an acceptable compromise with the governor's office but that Douglas "has shown no interest in talking to us."

That assessment was strongly disputed by Commissioner Wood.

"We're willing to talk," he said. "We would like to support a wilderness bill, but we would like it to be consistent with the Forest Service Plan and consistent with the wishes of the towns." He implied that the Congressional delegation had not been agreeable to those terms.

Vermonters' Views

Both sides in the dispute claim to have Vermont public opinion solidly on their side.

More wilderness was supported by "a strong majority of Vermonters," the delegation wrote. And Northrup of Forest Watch said in a column that comments received by the Forest Service "ran 9 to 1 in favor of wilderness."

Surveys consistently show that 70% of Vermonters favor more wilderness, he said.

However, in a resolution last spring, the Vermont House of Representatives voted by a substantial majority against establishing more official wilderness.

And live forums held as part of the planning process were dominated by residents who opposed a big expanson of official wilderness in the national forest, saying that the restrictions will make it harder for local residents to enjoy the benefits of the forest and will negatively impact the economy of towns near the national forest.

Among the most adamant towns have been Hancock and Granville, each of which has substantial acreage within the forest.

"There is absolutely no economic incentive to the Town of Granville from more wilderness," said a letter sent in 2002 from the Granville selectboard.

Douglas's Aims

What Does Gov. Jim Douglas want, anyway?

The Vermont Wilderness Bill in Congress is supported by all three of the state's representatives—Rep. Bernie Sanders and Sens. Pat Leahy and Jim Jeffords, but Gov. Douglas apparently scuttled early passage of the measure by sending a complaint to Republican leaders in the House that the bill remains controversial in Vermont.

The Washington delegation—Leahy, Jeffords and Sanders—said this week they were perplexed and were ready to work to mollify Douglas, if only they knew what he wanted. They've been getting mixed signals and no conversation, they said.

In a conversation with The Herald yesterday, however, a Douglas administration spokesman was quite clear. Douglas wants the wilderness bill rolled back to the 27,000 acres that were proposed in the Forest Plan for the Green Mountain National Forest last year after a two-year planning process, according to Jonathan Wood, commissioner of Forests, Parks and Recreation.

The Congressional plan, instead, proposed 46,000 acres of official wilderness. The biggest chunk of the new acreage is the proposed 12,000-acre Battell Wilderness, mostly between Route 73 to the south and Route 125 to the north. Much of it lies within the White River Valley towns of Rochester and Hancock.

Another big chunk added by the Congressional delegation is a 6000-acre piece added to the proposed Glastonbury Wilderness, in the southern part of the state.

"We would accept a plan that would be at least consistent with the Forest Service plan," Wood confirmed to The Herald yesterday.

That's what happened in New Hampshire, as the Forest Service plan was accepted by that state's delegation, he noted,

However, Wood admitted that the Douglas administration would prefer a couple of other changes as well, to mollify Vermont towns that have expressed concern. These towns include Granville, Hancock, Pittsfield, Chittenden, Mount Taboe, Sunderland, and Woodford.

For instance, Granville Selectman Norman Arseneault, a former National Forest district supervisor, argues strenuously that proposed extensions of wilderness in his town will pose a problem with boundary marking and access.

Once officially designated as official wilderness by Congress, forest land is indefinitely off-limits for any kind of motorized transportation or tools, roads, or shelters. Such land may not be logged, nor may it be managed by the Forest Service for animal and plant species protection.