FAW Responds To Reps.
Spokesman calls Rapp assertions ‘a stretch’By DEAN WELLS dwells@timesobserver.com
Would additional designated wilderness in the Allegheny National Forest cut off access to recreation areas and oil, gas and lumber producing areas?
Would it slow the economy in a time of recession?
More importantly, would it violate federal law?
A group of Pennsylvania state lawmakers, including Rep. Kathy Rapp, R-Warren, think it would.
Kirk Johnson, executive director of Friends of the Allegheny Wilderness (FAW), does not.
On April 13, Rapp, along with State Reps. Martin Causer and Matt Gabler released a statement blasting FAW for its efforts to convince Congress to designate eight areas in the national forest over 54,000 acres as wilderness.
The state representatives said they oppose conservationists' efforts to "restrict access" to what would amount to be over 54,000 acres of new wilderness in the ANF. "In these difficult economic times," Gabler said, "any endeavor that is a detriment to jobs and the financial well-being of our region must be stopped."
The state representatives also have a bone to pick with the U.S. Forest Service, saying they are concerned with the agency's efforts "to scale back development of mineral, oil and gas drilling rights on private property in the ANF."
All three representatives sent a letter to state Attorney General Tom Corbett stating their concerns about what they view is an infringement on private property rights.
Rapp went on to say that she believes the FAW's official proposal for creating more wilderness in the national forest would be "a clear violation of federal law," the Weeks Act, in particular.
According to Rapp, the Weeks Act of 1911 was specifically enacted to keep the federal government from blatantly trespassing on both the private property and day-to-day activities of private entrepreneurs where it has no authority to do so.
"Well, that's a stretch," Johnson said in response.
According to Johnson, the Weeks Act allowed the federal government to establish national forests on important watersheds in the eastern United States to protect against flooding, protect water quality and establish a base for timber production.
"Forests created under the Weeks Act are national forests just like every other national forest," Johnson said, "and they are managed just like any other national forest. That means the Wilderness Act applies."
Johnson added: "The Wilderness Act doesn't prohibit access to private property."
"I think (Rapp) is saying that designating wilderness (in the ANF) would violate the Weeks Act because it would deny access to mineral rights owners. If that's what she is saying, it's not true. If they own that property, they have the legal right to access it, even if it's designated wilderness."
Johnson said his organization has no desire to prohibit mineral rights owners from their private property.
"We don't want to put them out," Johnson said. "Ideally, we'd like to be able to pay them the fair market value for their property and purchase it. We're not out to gore anyone's ox.
"The bottom line on those mineral rights are they are privately owned. They are people's private property. Ideally, conservancy groups would work to buy those rights and get them into Forest Service ownership."
A similar instance of purchasing mineral rights from private owners occurred in the 1980s with the formation of the Hickory Creek Wilderness area.
In 1984, the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy purchased the mineral rights under the Hickory Creek Wilderness Area at the time it was designated. Similarly, the conservancy purchased the mineral rights under the Tionesta Research Natural Area in 1987.
In 2004, the state and other organizations facilitated the purchase of mineral rights under the Hammersly Wild Area on state forest land east of the ANF.
"These acquisitions and others provide good models for what we hope to achieve with new ANF wilderness designations," Johnson said.
Johnson said critics shouldn't view the FAW's efforts to increase wilderness areas in the national forest as an attempt to restrict access. "Just the opposite is true," he said, pointing out that the FAW supports the Forest Service's timber cut numbers provided in the agency's Revised Forest Plan.
"We're not trying to prevent the Forest Service from reaching their annual board cut," Johnson said. "Congress could designate all 54,000 acres and the Forest Service could still achieve that board cut. There's no conflict there."
Johnson said that the FAW has no quarrels with oil production in the national forest, either.
"We wouldn't stop production on the 10,000 active wells in the ANF," Johnson said. "Even if we acquired all eight areas and the mineral rights, there will still be 10,000 existing wells and more on the way."
Currently, less than two percent of the ANF is designated as wilderness. If all eight areas proposed by the FAW are approved by Congress, that number would raise to 12 percent.
The mean for national forest land designated as wilderness is 18 percent. The average is 11 percent in the Forest Service's Eastern Region.
"Why can't we protect 12 percent of the areas?" Johnson said. "Surely that's reasonable, as any reasonable person would agree."
According to Johnson, the eight areas FAW has identified in the national forest are the remaining areas qualifying under the Wilderness Act. "It falls entirely under the Forest Service's multi-use forest program. There is abundant precedence for doing this on eastern forest land."
Johnson noted that in the state representatives' statement, Gabler pointed out, "The Allegheny National Forest has always been, and always will be, a multi-use forest." Johnson said he completely agrees with Gabler.
"Multi-use includes wilderness preservation," Johnson said. "It was written into the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960."
|
WTOCommenter
|
|
|---|---|
|
05-05-09 10:23 AM
|
You said it exactly right Milkman. There will always be logging in the national forest, having a handful of wilderness areas designated isn't going to change that one bit.
|
|
Milkman
|
|
|
04-24-09 8:03 PM
|
State Reps. Rapp, Causer and Gabler do not seem to have a very good grasp on what Wilderness Designation is all about. Timber yield in the ANF would not change. The mineral right holders would be paid full market value for their OGMs. What's their beef? The oil producers are in the energy business. There are many different types of energy and oil is quickly becoming the least popular. It is time for the oil producers to diversify into wind, solar and hydro. Just like McDonalds expanded from just hamburgers to a varied menu, energy producers need to meet the demands of their consumers. The producers who do meet those demands will survive. The rest will not survive.
|