The new Management Plan for our Green Mountain National Forest (GMNF) is now in place, and it has stirred up a great deal of controversy among Vermonters. Most of the controversy seems to focus on the additional lands set aside as “wilderness”.

With the adoption of the plan as presented by the Forest Service, Vermont’s total conserved lands -- including federal, state, municipal and privately-owned parcels -- will total nearly one quarter of Vermont’s total land mass, or nearly 1.5 million acres. Of that, “wilderness” -- land that is open only to hiking and camping -- today comprises about 59,000 acres. Under the new Forest Service plan, wilderness would expand by about 27,500 acres. In federal legislation proposed to ratify the new plan, our Congressional delegation has added roughly another 20,500 acres of wilderness. If enacted by Congress, the Vermont Wilderness Act of 2006 would set aside a total of 107,000 acres of Vermont land as wilderness.

For the record, I agree with those who believe that we need wilderness in our National Forest. At the same time, conserved lands in our state should reflect the needs and values of all Vermonters.

No matter what the issue, we who develop public policy must acknowledge that tradeoffs are part of the process, whenever the needs and values of some Vermonters differ from the needs and values of others.

We should have wilderness. But how much is enough? How much is too much?

In the course of the last several months, Vermont’s demographics have been the subject of much discussion. As a state, our population is one of the fastest aging in our nation. We are losing our young people and young families to states where they see a brighter future and a more affordable way of life. We must address the affordability gap for young Vermonters.

The forest should be a part of that conversation.

It’s a reasonable question: When does our desire for wilderness work against our desire to preserve an economic future for young Vermonters and their young families?

From an economic standpoint, Vermont’s conserved lands should be managed as a resource, a working forest. That means that the assets of the forest -- be it lumber for new houses, wood chips for heat, wind to turn turbines and generate electricity, maple syrup, recreational trails, wildlife habitat, wilderness and more -- should all be optimized. Our wildlife biologists and foresters now develop fact-based and science-based management plans for the forest, in accordance with professional standards and practices.

The final GMNF plan took two years to create. Thousands of Vermonters provided input, as did interest groups, selectboards, and other regional and municipal bodies. Governing bodies of 10 towns that either include or abut GMNF lands, as well as the Bennington County Regional Planning Commission told GMNF planners “We need productivity from our forest. We have enough wilderness.”

The last GMNF Plan was enacted in 1987. It called for the harvest of wood in order to create wildlife habitat and successional habitat for songbirds, partridge, deer, and other animal and plant life. Biologists and foresters detailed science-based practices for designated areas. They estimated that 15,600,000 board feet of lumber should be produced annually as a result of that harvesting.

In recent years, that harvest has been less than 3,000,000 board feet, or just shy of 20%. The management plan was not followed. Why? Although the new plan calls for a harvest of 16,400,000 board feet per year, the Forest Service’s planners concede now that they have little hope of meeting that goal.

Meanwhile, with oil at $70 per barrel, our state and our nation must think new thoughts about where our energy should come from.

The Public Service Board hearing officer recently delivered an opinion on the East Haven wind project, saying that proximity to wilderness (former Champion Lands) makes the East Haven site wrong for a wind energy project.

Will the same reasoning take all wilderness lands and wilderness-abutting lands off the table for wind development? Even sites where there is no significant visual impact? Would that be wise?

Fifteen percent of the schools in our state utilize high-tech, greenhouse-neutral wood chip boilers to heat our classrooms and our children. North Country Regional Hospital in Newport generates a third of its electricity from wood chips -- a renewable fuel harvested by Vermont loggers from Vermont’s working forestlands.

I have toured the middle school in Bennington where their cutting-edge wood chip boiler keeps students warm as they learn on the coldest days, with wood from the forests of Bennington County.

But the new GMNF plan would put tens of thousands of forest acres out of reach to the loggers who cut the trees that keep those classrooms warm.

The plan is a voluminous and detailed document that provides numerous benefits for Vermonters.

But the thought of trucks rolling out of Bennington, west into New York state to pick up the wood chips to heat the schoolchildren of Bennington, and back to Bennington -- while the Green Mountain National Forest sits off-limits to logging in the school’s own back yard -- does not pass the common sense test.

If you have thoughts about the new forest plan, I would like to hear them, and I urge you to contact our US Senators and Congressman as well.