To point out the convoluted way the U.S. Forest Service figures out the future of Pennsylvania’s only federal woodlands — the Allegheny National Forest — environmental groups cite Forest Service regulations from August 1997. There, agency officials explain how “to quantify the idea of ‘solitude'” to create a “core area of solitude” — all in the name of studying what might become, legally, “wilderness.”
Their bureaucratic definition, which itself references a “book” of other regulations, has managed to make it nearly impossible to declare new spots officially free of roads or motorized recreation, let alone logging and oil or gas drilling, the groups charge. In formulating rules that disallow wilderness too close to a power line or a road, the federal government is merely creating more opportunities for roads, power lines and worse developments to cut apart the woods, they say.
It’s not as if the more than 700,000-acre Allegheny National Forest is already teeming with official, solitude-inducing zones. The Forest Service owns only 513,000 acres within the forest’s official boundary. Cobbled together from private owners beginning in 1923, these lands are a patchwork of property, and less than two percent, or 9,031 acres, of it is now classified as wilderness — places without roads, permanent structures or vehicular recreation but which still allow hunting, fishing, camping and hiking.
The Forest Service’s proposal for the next decade or more of the forest’s life would create, at most, a further 5.6 percent (or 38,960 acres) of new wilderness. At worst, it calls for no additional wilderness at all, depending on which option the agency chooses.
The Forest Service will pick its next plan in March. Congress, when later making the plan law, usually follows the agency’s recommendations.
Environmental groups say there is still time to influence both the Forest Service and Congress to go further in keeping the forest as wild as possible. They point to a move by senators in Vermont and Maine this fall to add more wilderness to the Green Mountain National Forest than the Forest Service recommended.
But the Forest Service still seems an obstacle locally.
“They’ve emphasized logging, oil and gas [drilling], and ATVs over all other uses,” says Jim Kleissler, of Regent Square. Kleissler is the long-time leader of the Allegheny Defense Project, an environmental group hoping to get more wilderness designations into the Forest Service plan (among a host of changes) through its own proposal, called Allegheny Wild.
“The agency can’t ignore such a groundswell of support for [our] Citizens Proposal,” says Kirk Johnson, head of Friends of Allegheny Wilderness, another environmental group whose 2003 alternative forest plan would create 54,460 new acres of wilderness.
This fall’s official public comment period drew support for both alternative plans. But Johnson, for one, realizes that the forest’s future will not be decided by popular vote. “It’s not like American Idol,” he shrugs.
For starters, more money is at stake.
In Pennsylvania, rights to mine underground are owned separately from the right to use the surface. In the Allegheny National Forest, more mineral rights are in the hands of private owners — covering 94 percent of the territory — than in any other national forest in the country. It already has more oil and gas wells than the United States’ 177 other national forests and grasslands combined.
And more wells are coming. The state Department of Environmental Protection, which issues oil and gas drilling permits, gave out a record 6,046 permits in 2005, beating 2004’s record by 32.4 percent.
“It seems like this year we’re going to set another record,” reports Freda Tarbell, DEP spokesperson for the northern region of the state, which includes all of the Allegheny National Forest.
On top of that — literally — each year about 5,000 forest acres are being logged, adding up to about a fifth of the forest over the past two decades.
It’s no coincidence that the Forest Service falls under the federal Department of Agriculture. This forest is, first, a commodity.
“Every day there are new roads through the forest that weren’t there the day before,” says Ryan Talbott, who replaced Kleissler as Allegheny Defense Project leader on Dec. 4. “In 10 years there’s not going to be any reason to visit that forest.”
Those who visit the forest regularly for various types of recreation may actually be wary of creating more official wilderness. They might well believe that federal wilderness designations put too many restrictions on human activity, says Kirk Johnson, of Friends of Allegheny Wilderness. To qualify as “wilderness,” he says, the acreage “just needs to be largely natural in character” — untrammeled, as the governing 1964 Wilderness Act puts it. “It doesn’t have to be a pristine old-growth forest.”
Of course, national forests, created more than 100 years ago, were never pristine preserves like national parks, except in the unsettled West. Here in the East, our national forests are second- or even third-growth woodlands. Just a year after the Allegheny National Forest was created, a new law called for such woodlands to be a continuous source of timber for America.
While the Allegheny National Forest was created in part to keep the headwaters of the Allegheny River there from filling with runoff soil from overdeveloped land and washing south — a situation that once caused more Pittsburgh flooding — all national forests are still multiple-use lands.
And as the Forest Service prepares its new management plan — the first since 1986 — environmental groups say the Allegheny’s use as wildlife preserve and as plain wilderness is losing the competition to every other interest.
Jack Hedlund speaks for some of those interests as executive director of the Allegheny Forest Alliance, which represents the economic future of the four counties in which the forest lies — Warren, McKean, Forest and Elk — as well as the territory’s seven school districts and most of its 35 townships. Designating increased acreage of the forest as wilderness, Hedlund believes, “is more related to emotion than a pragmatic look at the woods. It makes lots of people feel good, but it doesn’t put a meal on the table of our people” by drawing more tourists.
“It might help the folks in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia or Cleveland who like to bop over here, do a little hiking and go home,” he adds. “Hikers typically come here and spend little on anything. They may pick up some gas … [but] our restaurants aren’t filled with hikers. Wilderness has an appeal to a certain very minor segment of the population. We’re looking for active use of the forest” — from ATV trails to timbering, which by law gives a quarter of its receipts to the local economy.
His group, Hedlund says, is hoping no wilderness at all gets added to the plan.
That sentiment is echoed by Sue Swanson, who represents logging interests as head of the Allegheny Hardwood Utilization Group. Swanson estimates that the forest this year will produce “about 27 million board feet” of lumber — only half of what these woodlands can produce under Forest Service supervision, she says.
“In the Allegheny National Forest, there’s always a profit from their timber sales” because of demand for the forest’s hardwood, Swanson explains. “It is, and it has been, the national forest that has the best profit.”
Plus, as she and Hedlund contend, wilderness sections can’t be managed for invasive species, diseases or insects, all of which can affect neighboring, non-forest areas.
“We would rather be able to deal with the impacts,” Swanson says.
Of course, she adds, “there’s a lot of areas [we] wouldn’t log” because the terrain is too tough, or too ecologically sensitive. “But you like to keep your options open.”
Mary Hosmer, a federal spokesperson for the Allegheny National Forest’s administration, says they did not tally the 8,285 comments sent in by the public on the proposed forest plan. But she reports that the comments called for everything from “wilderness to no wilderness” — from increases to decreases in everything from habitats for protected species to logging, drilling and recreational space.
Adding more than 50,000 acres to the forest’s wilderness reserve is not feasible, she says. “There are other, higher uses. … Some people want to have better fishing and hunting opportunities,” which requires putting out deer forage. Bird watching is best in shrubs and younger trees, which requires “wood harvesting. Some people want to have motorized vehicle trails. Some people want to have snowmobile trails.” And among the “other, higher uses,” she says: “Some people want more oil and gas.”
Environmental groups, however, can’t agree on what exactly they want for the forest’s future.
In devising the Friends of Allegheny Wilderness alternative wilderness plan, says Kirk Johnson, “We consciously selected … areas so they would not have a conflict with other uses of the forest” — including logging. “We sought to strike the right balance. Until Congress changes that [logging] mandate, and there has been no indication they have any plan to do that … it is an entirely appropriate use of our national forests.”
The Allegheny Defense Project, however, says the various laws creating national forests, instituted over decades, offer an option to treat the Commonwealth’s forest differently. The organization now calls for an end to logging on all such federal lands. They also believe the state and federal governments should do everything possible to mitigate the effect of drilling, despite the overwhelming amount of privately held mining rights.
“They’re taking the position that somebody else owns this and we can’t do anything about it,” says Tom Buchele, head of the University of Pittsburgh’s Environmental Law Clinic, who assisted the Defense group with its critique of the Forest Service plan. “There’s things they can do. There’s a middle ground and they don’t want to consider it.”
Buchele suggests that the Forest Service could do everything from buying the mineral rights under forests outright to policing drilling platform sizes, making sure road construction doesn’t cause the land to wash away, and instituting deviated drilling — starting from a platform in more disturbed areas to drill into less disturbed areas.
Bob Gleeson, the permitting chief for the state DEP oil and gas management program, says such deviated drilling works on deeper holes but not on the forest’s wells, which are considered shallow at 2,000 feet. “They’ve just been experimenting on these shallow holes,” Gleeson says of the oil and gas industry. “So far it hasn’t worked very well.”
“It’s really just a question of attitude,” counters Buchele. “Clearly the Allegheny [forest administration] has taken the position that they want to create the least amount of wilderness possible.”
“If everybody goes away unhappy, maybe the Forest Service thinks they’ve got a balance,” concludes timber industry rep Swanson. The Forest Service “should be more up front about what’s possible and what’s not possible.”
Johnson, of Friends, is more hopeful about the plan. “The best that can be done at this point is for people who are interested in protecting the last remnants of wilderness in our national forest” to write to their members of Congress, encouraging an eventual vote for maximum wilderness. He also says the 90-day legal appeals period following the springtime publication of the Forest Service proposal could provide an opening to change the plan if needed.
The Defense group has long criticized the Forest Service’s decision-making methods, and ex-Defense head Kleissler says suing for plan changes is “the problem — the way the process is set up, that’s your only recourse.”
But his group, too, believes public pressure can be effective.
“This is a national forest” and doesn’t just belong to its four home counties, emphasizes Buchele. “We all have a stake in this and should be listened to. I think Pittsburgh should be thankful we have this forest three hours from us.”
The Allegheny National Forest online:
National Forest Service plans: www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/Allegheny
Friends of Allegheny Wilderness alternative plan: www.pawild.org
Allegheny Defense Project alternative plan: http://www.alleghenydefense.org/
This article appears in Dec 21-27, 2006.
![Best OnlyFans Accounts [2024] Top OnlyFans Girls & Models to Follow!](https://i0.wp.com/www.pghcitypaper.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/image6-1.png-1.png?fit=950%2C621&ssl=1)
Friends of Allegheny Wilderness (FAW) is not opposed to logging in the Allegheny National Forest (ANF), nor do we support the efforts of those who are. After all, timber production was part of the long-term rationale for President Calvin Coolidge in establishing the ANF in 1923. Correctly, there will still be high-quality saw logs going to the marketplace from the ANF in 2056 and 2106, just as there are in 2006.
However, one use of the ANF that will be significantly diminished over the long-term unless decisive, forward-thinking action is taken soon is backcountry wilderness recreation.
Remote roadless sections of the ANF, such as the Cornplanter area on the west shore of the Allegheny Reservoir, the Tracy Ridge area on the east shore of the Reservoir, and many others, are highly qualified for permanent protection under the Wilderness Act of 1964 as part of America¹s National Wilderness Preservation System.
At less than two percent of its total land base protected as wilderness, compared to 18 percent for all national forest land in general and 11 percent for eastern national forests, the Wilderness Act is far from being fully implemented on the ANF.
Of the 8,277 public comments the Forest Service received over the summer on their draft plan, more than 6,700 were written specifically in support of the eight prospective wilderness areas precisely delineated by FAW in our “Citizens’ Wilderness Proposal for Pennsylvania’s Allegheny National Forest” (online at http://www.pawild.org/exec_summary.html). The agency should not arbitrarily ignore this overwhelming public outcry in their final plan.
Those who resist additional ANF wilderness designations brazenly flaunt a long-standing Congressional mandate to permanently protect qualifying national forest land as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System for future generations to use and enjoy. Such a position, whether taken by an elected official, community leader, agency employee, or others is just as mistaken as those who openly flaunt federal statue mandating that the ANF be managed “to furnish a continuous supply of timber.”
Protecting qualifying areas of the ANF under the Wilderness Act will not eliminate other uses of the forest such as timbering, oil & gas production, or motorized recreation. It would, however, bring real balance so that the ANF is truly managed for the “greatest good for the greatest number over the longest period of time.”
To help, readers can contact their Member of Congress (http://www.house.gov) in support of our Citizens’ Wilderness Proposal.
See also: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/15643920.htm
Kirk Johnson, Executive Director
Friends of Allegheny Wilderness
220 Center Street
Warren, PA 16365
(814) 723-0620
kjohnson@pawild.org
http://www.pawild.org
It is important to clarify that timber production was not part of the reason for designating the Allegheny National Forest. President Coolidge’s proclamation for the Allegheny can be seen at the Allegheny Defense Project’s website:
http://www.alleghenydefense.org/images/forest_watch/proclamation.jpg
As the proclamation clearly establishes, the Allegheny was designated for the protection of the watersheds of navigable streams by referencing the Weeks Act of 1911. Note that there is nothing there pertaining to the Allegheny being established for timber production.
It was not until a year or so after the Allegheny was established in 1923 that the Weeks Act was amended to include timber production as one of the reasons for establishing national forests in the east.
Turning to today, there is no need for logging or oil and gas drilling in the Allegheny National Forest. The Allegheny is a mere 3% of Pennsylvania’s forestlands. Even in the northwestern part of the state, there is still far more private land than there is public land. We simply do not need the taxpayer subsidized logging that is occurring in our state’s only national forest.
Oil and gas drilling is devastating the Allegheny right now. Every day, more and more of the forest is lost to more roads, wells, pipelines, and storage tanks. It is nothing short of a tragedy and is robbing future generations, first of the joy of experiencing a place for solitude and second by leaving the cleanup and restoration costs to taxpayers.
And make no mistake. The amount of oil being extracted in the Allegheny is miniscule compared to our consumption as a nation. In other words, the Allegheny is literally being destroyed for the profits of oil companies with virtually no benefits for consumers.
Ryan
For more information:
http://www.alleghenydefense.org
It is contradictory to claim to represent interests in the wild back country in the Allegheny National Forest while expressing such unfettered support for the logging program which includes at least two active proposals to log in Allegheny National Forest roadless areas. The Millstone Creek Watershed has some of the highest concentration of roadless areas in the forest, yet is not a candidate for Wilderness. Does this mean that its wild back country is not worthy of protecting?
The facts are tough to argue with. 2/3 of all Americans wish to see an end to commercial logging within the Allegheny National Forest. Local and regional residents overwhelming support Wilderness, recreation, and conservation over logging and oil&gas drilling uses.
The Allegheny Defense Project continues to work hard for a complete version of the Allegheny National Forest that restores watershed protection as a primary purpose and which allows access for low impact recreation by Americans of all stripes. It is time to bring an end to the unfettered industrial use of the forest for private interests, and bring about a new era.
My family and I are residents living within the boundaries of the Allegheny National Forest. We are snowmobilers as well as fishermen, hikers, skiers, and hunters. My husband and I (both natives of the area) have been volunteers on the Forest since 1972. We care deeply about the Forest and its ties to the communities in the four county area. My husband serves on the Warren County Tourism Task Force.
That is the reason we are extremely concerned about the impact of the current “oil boom” on the ANF. Since the Forest is included in the “PA Wilds” Region, we know how important the campgrounds, trails, scenic overlooks, streams, and rivers of this area are; in addition to the motels, restaurants, and other businesses that serve visitors. Note that I am speaking about the entire ANF. In addition, I find it bizarre that anyone would speak only of their concern about wilderness and not be concerned about the entire Forest–after all, the proposed wilderness areas are not an island, isolated from the remainder of the ANF.
Mr. Hedlund’s comments are also completely biased in favor of the timber industry. The Forest is supposed to adhere to the “multiple-use” concept where one use on the Forest is not supposed to dominate or adversely affect the other uses. Certainly a moderate amount of timber could be harvested, without the use of clearcuts, fences, and herbicides. I believe beautiful wood products could be marketed successfully as manufactured in the “PA Wilds”, but the area needs a diverse balance of many things allowed to flourish in order for the economy to recover–especially tourism.
If the readers care about this Forest, please speak up and tell their Congresspeople that we should not allow the ANF to be destroyed for the small amount of oil under the surface that belongs to the citizens of the United States.
Thank you.
Karen Atwood
Warren, PA
Reading this article just reminds me what a disgraceful job the Forest Service has done in “managing” the Allegheny National Forest. The only managing they do is allowing the timber and oil interests to completely exploit and destroy what not too long ago was a beautiful National Forest. It should be a national treasure for all Americans throughout the country, not just a reserve for a few greedy individuals to trash.
I used to lead several hiking and camping trips up to the Allegehny each year,stopping in Warren to buy supplies for our trip. I quit going in 2002, after seeing what that forest has turned into: nothing more than a patchwork of gravel roads, clearcuts, and numerous oil and gas wells. Its no longer a forest. I beg anyone with an open mind to drive north and see it for themselves. It’s just pathetic how a few wealthy coporations have destroyed that place.
Sadly, those in the Forest Service care only for those who want to use the forest for timber and oil intrests. Adding a few measly acres for wilderness is just too much ask, God forbid! Not too mention attracting individuals up to that area who could and would spend money to use that forest in a responsible manner, adding a steady stream of money into the local economy.
Coming from a snowmobile family I have been enjoying snowmobiling with my family on the ANF since 1970. This makes me a firm believer in the saying a Family that Plays together, stays together.
The days of families playing on the ANF are numbered if someone doesn’t do something about the Oil and Gas activity on the Allegheny National Forest. After seeing what’s been going on over the past few years, I now truly believe that the oil companies really do run this country. They have raped and pillaged the ANF so bad you can’t recognize it from one year to another, and yet no one will listen or do anything about it. If you don’t believe me then visit the ADP web site, they are not exaggerating it’s that bad, but again, no one will do anything about it. Not the USFS not the DEP, not Harrisburg or Washington, and I want to know why!!!! I understand that who ever owns the mineral rights has every right to extract there minerals, BUT they don’t have the right to totally destroy the surface of a National Forest in doing so.
These people by destroying the surface are also destroying every recreation aspect the ANF has to offer…. Hunting, Fishing, Camping, Snowmobiling, Cross Country Skiing, Hiking and Biking and yet how is this allowed to happen??? And why won’t someone do something about it??? Just wait until the oil boom is over; all that will be left is a skeleton of what use to be a forest. Then where will the local economy be? So the local businesses and politicians better wake up.
As for the Forest Plan, it’s a joke; I really don’t know any other way to put it. This process started to take place back in 1996 and then took a hiatus for a few years then picked back up in 2002 and now we are on the final stretch. It’s alarming to think that in this time we have been through 5 different Forest Supervisors. The process that was used (collaborative learning) was only to stifle the public, and keeping everyone from speaking out. It’s also fact that written public comments from the meetings held in 2005 that were supposed to be posted on the ANF web site, just happen to disappear with out a trace never to be seen. I my self along with numerous other snowmobilers have attended every phase of the Forest Plan process, trying to address the need to allow snowmobiles on more forest roads and pipelines along with the need to control the impact of the Oil and Gas companies on the Forest. And yet the forest plan draft was released stating only in one small paragraph pertaining to snowmobiles that nothing was going to change, even verbiage that was promised would be struck from the plan was still in there.
As for the Oil and Gas…. Well that section of the draft is filled with terms like “should” “could” and “might”. So basically nothing was in the draft to control the OGM impact on the forest surface only recommendations.
The Allegheny Federation of Snowmobile Clubs along with the ADP has sat in all these meetings with the USFS trying to get them to do something to curb the Oil impact on the forest and recreation. But they keep saying there is nothing they can do. They say they want balance… balance for who? It seems to me that the scales are weighted towards the Oil and Gas companies.
I don’t know about anyone else, but wouldn’t it be a good idea that if they don’t have any policies in place to address the Oil and Gas impact on the forest, that maybe it would be a good idea to implement some.
And my last statement is this; I wonder why it’s not ok for snowmobiles (which are low impact) to ride on National Recreation Areas and yet the Oil Companies can build a road and drop a well any where they please on the same NRA. Not to mention that even though I am not a proponent of more Wilderness, these same NRA’s now with Oil Wells are also proposed for Wilderness in the Forest Plan….. Like I said the Forest Plan is a Joke!!!
Kevin Davis
For anyone interested in seeing the destruction from oil and gas drilling, download Google Earth if you haven’t already and check out the Allegheny National Forest from space. It is really astonishing.
In the meantime, check out these images I’ve downloaded of specific areas in the Allegheny.
http://s58.photobucket.com/albums/g262/noneliteliberal/Allegheny/?action=view¤t=TracyRidge.jpg
I’ve put up images here that show areas that have been impacted from obvious clearcutting and oil and gas drilling and areas that are protected (or at least ought to be).
I don’t know who can look at these images and be ok with what is going on in Pennsylvania’s only national forest.
Ryan
I am a native of Warren County. I grew up here, graduated from local schools and earned a degree at a nearby college campus, having worked here all of my adult life, and I have been a recreational trails volunteer in and around the Allegheny National Forest for many years.
I am wary of this “wilderness” discussion. It’s all about imagery and politics. People get this idea in their heads that once something is declared “wilderness”, it is off-limits to development and nobody can touch it. Following this logic, the more “wilderness” is declared, the happier the environmental-minded interests will be.
But there’s a fly in the ointment: In July of 2006, U.S. Senator Rick Santorum was touring northern counties during his (now-doomed) re-election bid. Some of his appearances were taped and subsequently played on PCN, the Pennsylvania Cable Network. I happened to catch (and record) a rather strange appearance made by Santorum (on or about July 6) at a picnic table outside of the U.S. Forest Service’s Marienville Ranger Station on PA Hwy. 66 in Forest County.
I say the appearance was strange for several reasons:
(1: There was no advance fanfare in the local media to indicate this appearance was about to take place. Not a peep about what was going to happen.
(2: A United States Senator, all three Forest County Commissioners, and State Senator Mary Jo White (R-21st), and State Rep. Kathy Rapp (R-65th) were all there, sitting around a picnic table with nothing to eat on a sunny day wearing their “Sunday best”. Lo and behold: were they being hosted by Rob Fallon, the Marienville District Ranger? (It is, after all, his office’s campus) Nope, Ranger Fallon was nowhere in sight. Sitting at the table with this decidedly political cast of characters was none other than Forest Supervisor Kathleen Morse, decked out in full Forest Service uniform! (Morse is stationed at the Forest Supervisor’s Office in Warren, at least a 45-minute drive from this picnic.) Now, I ask you: how’s that for timing?
(3: Everyone seemed to gush without hesitation about the importance of the Allegheny National Forest, the timber harvest, and especially oil and gas operations, to Senator Santorum. It was as if they had all of their talking points memorized in advance. I was left with the impression that someone knew of this impromptu foodless, well-dressed picnic along Route 66.
(4: Among the topics “discussed” in the Senator’s presence was the possible relationship of oil drilling operations and possible “wilderness”. Forest Supervisor Morse stressed that she believed that even if a tract of land were bestowed such a declaration, oil and gas speculators would STILL BE ABLE to exercise their subsurface rights in the affected areas. So much for “wilderness”.
(5: With all of this well-articulated impromptu concern being expressed about assuring continued logging and drilling operations for Senator Santorum to digest, did anyone mention the needs of numerous recreational trail projects that seem perpetually stuck in limbo, or the poorly maintained U.S. Forest Service public facilities (especially restrooms)? Not a peep. Apparently, these poor, hapless, well-paid, well-dressed elected officials were all caught flat-footed by this unplanned, unrehearsed, unstaged impromptu event I just happened to catch with my VCR.
I drew some conclusions from what I saw (and recorded) on PCN that day…
(1: Nothing is ever as it seems on the Allegheny National Forest, especially at a Forest Service picnic attended by a select few who look like they’re on their way to a funeral.
(2: The funeral, by the way, is to mourn the loss of any hope that the Forest Service (whose motto is “caring for the land and serving people”) is ever going to get serious about genuine multiple-use of the Allegheny. As it stands, the Allegheny is little more than a government tree farm/oil patch, with much of the territory gated shut to the public except during hunting season. Recreation is allowed in small doses that receive fleeting attention, and watershed protection is no longer even a joke. The bottom line? Logging and drilling get the red-carpet treatment. Any other use is strictly for appearances’ sake.
(3: Want to see a bunch of politicians fall all over each other to court your favor? Want to see the Forest Supervisor host a picnic along Route 66 and have it cablecast all over the state? All this can be yours if you play loggers & drillers version of Monopoly.
(4: Seriously, though, I’m concerned that the Forest Service is manipulating everyone with the goal being to pit various interests on the forest against each other so the agency can escape accountability for their own practices. When will the Forest Service assert its powers to control the impact of industrial and ATV activities on the forest surface? Drillers and ATVs seem to destroy trails and little is done about it. If more “wilderness” enters the picture, I fear the conflicts will intensify on the remaining forest that isn’t “wilderness”.
Reading the article and comment threads, I think one may get the impression that the Allegheny has been completely destroyed, and that it is essentially a lost cause. This however, is certainly not the case.
While it is true that huge swaths of the forest have been destroyed by oil and gas drilling and clearcutting, there is much that remains relatively pristine…for now, at least.
I lived just southeast of the Allegheny for about 6 years. I spent a lot of time exploring the woods and the streams, and there still exist so many beautiful and amazing places. Some of these areas should be federally protected as Winderness, but others, as Jim Kleissler points out above, simply don’t meet the legal definition yet are wonderful little gems of solitude and beauty, and play a vital role for wildlife and watersheds.
It is discovering a hillside covered in lady-slippers in an old growth forest, hiking through a valley with orange and yellow leaves floating down all about me, watching a black bear amble along, and so many other beautiful memories I have of spending time in this forest that lead me to work to make sure that future generations have the opportunity to find the same joy and wonder in the Allegheny that I have found.
So, yes, take a trip to the forest, and you will certainly see oil derricks, clearcuts, and other wounds. But you will also find your own treasures and special places, and it is these that we must work to defend.