Local governments and entities – including one in Bradford – are
lining up to support a resolution which aims to influence the
direction of the Allegheny National Forest for the next decade.
Warren County Commissioner John Bortz, who recently talked of
the possibility of a resort on the Allegheny Reservoir, has been
spearheading a grassroots effort to ensure the voice of local
governments is considered when the ANF completes its 10-year plan
next year.
While the resolution itself addresses a number of area concerns
about recreation, it is also a virtual replica of the timber
industry’s position on the forest’s management.
So far, the resolution has been adopted by four school
districts, including the Bradford Area School District; Warren
County Planning and Zoning Commission; North Central and Northwest
Pennsylvania Regional Planning and Development Commissions; and the
Warren County Intergovernmental Co-op, which is made up of 19
municipalities. Bortz said he plans to continue to get it adopted
by as many affected county governments and entities he can before
the end of the year.
Counties that lie in the ANF include McKean, Elk, Forest, and
Warren counties.
Forest plan revision is occurring at this time with a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement due to come out in May of 2006.
The current forest plan has been in place for about 19 years and
in 1997, a revision plan was in process until the U.S. Congress
pulled funding and it was halted. Revision of the plan started two
years ago.
Not too long ago, Jack Hedlund of the Allegheny Forest Alliance
gave a copy of the “planning alternatives review” to The Era. The
review was drawn up after the unveiling of the draft alternatives
by the ANF.
In response to the proposed alternatives, the AFA listed reasons
for increasing the amount of timber harvest allowed and for not
promoting new wilderness areas. These points are also made in the
resolution being passed around by Bortz.
In addition to those proposals, the AFA suggests, “First and
foremost, forest health must be the focal point of any projected
alternative because sustainability remains the primary
responsibility of the Forest Service.”
When asked about the similarities in the two proposals, Bortz
said that many government entities and tourism groups worked
together to draft the resolution.
“I take exception to the fact that you might say it is sided
with the timber industry,” said Bortz. “It is an interpretation of
forest health in looking at Allegheny hardwoods.
“There is hemlock, beech, and we have black cherry, ash, maple
and the like and if we don’t go in there with some sort of
management, we will significantly change the composition of the
forest,” he added. “We are just saying let’s take advantage of what
is out there. I am siding with forest health.”
Bortz said they used some of what was in the proposal set forth
by the AFA, but added items, including a memorandum of
understanding, the idea of making room for equine use, and adding
modern lodging facilities.
The resolution reads, “to encourage better government to
government communications … and to enter into a memorandum of
understanding which will outline the procedures and protocol for
coordinated dialogue,” “the equine user should be accommodated in
any trail strategy,” and “the planning site selection for the
inclusion of modern facilities …”
The memorandum of understanding, Bortz believes, will be helpful
in ensuring that the ANF continues to work with surrounding
municipalities while making decisions that may affect them.
The resolution also contains a wide variety of recommendations
including eight provisions which are virtually identical to points
made by the timber industry in their proposal, other parts of the
resolution deal with recreation including ATV trails, and overall
motorized recreation trails which would not be allowed in a
wilderness area.
Statements made within the resolution and the proposal by the
AFA include language that they don’t support additional wilderness
areas or landscape corridors.
Point 7 of the resolution states, “adding additional Wilderness
is not readily supported; nor is the establishment of ‘de facto’
wilderness through the process of administration
consideration.”
Point 8 of the resolution addresses landscape corridors –
“landscape corridors need not by part of any proposed use of the
ANF.”
In a previous interview, Hedlund said landscape corridors are
supposed to connect two remote areas to enhance the migration of
endangered species. But he said the result is that the area really
just becomes a huge area that is not for commercial value.
These selected aspects of the resolution are in direct conflict
with what some agencies or groups have been working to achieve for
the ANF through the plan revision process and workshops.
Kirk Johnson, executive director of the Friends of Allegheny
Wilderness, responded in an e-mail.
“People are free to advocate that no new wilderness be
recommended to Congress as part of the Forest Plan revision, just
as “Zero Cut” advocates are free to assert that there should be no
logging at all in the national forest.
“However, neither of these extreme positions are consistent with
the Forest Service’s multiple-use mandate, and the agency is under
no obligation whatsoever to seriously consider them,” he
continued.
The FAW has recommended eight new areas for wilderness during
the revision process and so far, there are still areas within the
last four proposed alternatives that suggest wilderness area
designation. There is only one alternative that does not name
wilderness areas as an option.
“At a time when the Pennsylvania Wilds and other tourism
programs are being developed to promote the region, and it is
broadly recognized that our region can do better in providing
tourism amenities,” said Johnson. “It is counterintuitive that any
community leader should work to deliberately deny the public and
thousands of potential tourists of additional protected wilderness,
an amenity people have made abundantly clear they want.”
