If West Virginia's congressional delegation has its way, as many as 47,000 acres of wilderness might someday be added to the Monongahela National Forest map.
If West Virginia's congressional delegation has its way, as many as 47,000 acres of wilderness might someday be added to the Monongahela National Forest map.
Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., introduced legislation earlier this week that proposes four new wildernesses and additions to three existing ones. Reps. Alan Mollohan, D-W.Va., and Shelly Moore Capito, R-W.Va., co-sponsored the measure. Sens. Robert Byrd and Jay Rockefeller, both D-W.Va., are expected to lend support.
West Virginia currently contains 78,041 acres of wilderness, all inside the borders of the Monongahela. The proposed legislation could add more than half again as much.
Opponents will scream bloody murder. They'll claim that wilderness designation "closes off" large areas of forest to timbering, mining and grazing. They'll claim that those economic "losses" could cost wilderness-area counties millions in potential tax revenue. Some might even claim that wilderness designation prevents hunters and fishermen from using the forest.
Wilderness supporters will cry foul as well. They had clamored for more than three times as much added acreage - 143,230 to be exact, spread among 15 new or existing areas.
Rahall's legislation, the "Wild Monongahela Act," amounts to a compromise. It omits from consideration a few areas that wilderness advocates really wanted - the upper Seneca Creek watershed in Pendleton County, the headwaters of the East Fork of the Greenbrier in Pocahontas County, and the northern and eastern ends of the Roaring Plains in Tucker County.
On the other hand, it totals nearly 20,000 acres more than the "official" Sept. 2006 plan put forth by the U.S. Forest Service.
From where I sit, I don't see much to gripe about.
If West Virginia's congressional delegation has its way, as many as 47,000 acres of wilderness might someday be added to the Monongahela National Forest map.
Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., introduced legislation earlier this week that proposes four new wildernesses and additions to three existing ones. Reps. Alan Mollohan, D-W.Va., and Shelly Moore Capito, R-W.Va., co-sponsored the measure. Sens. Robert Byrd and Jay Rockefeller, both D-W.Va., are expected to lend support.
West Virginia currently contains 78,041 acres of wilderness, all inside the borders of the Monongahela. The proposed legislation could add more than half again as much.
Opponents will scream bloody murder. They'll claim that wilderness designation "closes off" large areas of forest to timbering, mining and grazing. They'll claim that those economic "losses" could cost wilderness-area counties millions in potential tax revenue. Some might even claim that wilderness designation prevents hunters and fishermen from using the forest.
Wilderness supporters will cry foul as well. They had clamored for more than three times as much added acreage - 143,230 to be exact, spread among 15 new or existing areas.
Rahall's legislation, the "Wild Monongahela Act," amounts to a compromise. It omits from consideration a few areas that wilderness advocates really wanted - the upper Seneca Creek watershed in Pendleton County, the headwaters of the East Fork of the Greenbrier in Pocahontas County, and the northern and eastern ends of the Roaring Plains in Tucker County.
On the other hand, it totals nearly 20,000 acres more than the "official" Sept. 2006 plan put forth by the U.S. Forest Service.
From where I sit, I don't see much to gripe about.
Arguments that wilderness designation closes off commerce simply don't bear up under scrutiny. All of the lands in question are already Forest Service property, and they're already managed as backcountry recreation areas. Timbering, mining, gas drilling and other commercial activities are off limits.
Forest Service officials could alter the off-limits designation with the stroke of a pen, but they've historically shown little inclination to do so. Most of the areas in question have held their backcountry designations for more than 20 years.
Counties that receive new wilderness areas won't need to worry about lost property tax revenue, either. The federal government makes annual PILTs - "payments in lieu of taxes" - to county governments for all national forest lands, wilderness areas included.
As I see it, the main downside to wilderness designation is that it might conceivably affect resource agencies' or conservation groups' efforts to improve fish or wildlife habitat. The Cranberry Wilderness, for example, has hampered Division of Natural Resources efforts to restore trout fishing in the acid-damaged Middle Fork of the Williams River.
DNR crews wouldn't be allowed to cut "wildlife clearings" or maintain food plots on areas designated for wilderness. That could affect deer and turkey populations.
On balance, though, I believe the backcountry areas outlined in Rahall's bill are worthy of wilderness designation. They would add significantly to the amount of acreage set aside for permanent wilderness status, yet they would have relatively little negative effect on West Virginians' ability to hunt, fish, hike and camp.
If good legislation can be defined as something that gives each side some of what it wants while leaving each side wanting for more, then this is good legislation.
Post a comment