Conservationists push for ban on timbering, but local residents fear adverse economic effect

Creek area, the upland bluffs and LaRue swamp meet to form the unusual environmental conditions necessary for rare and endangered species such as the spring cave fish and Indiana bat.

The original Forest Service proposal to Congress for Illinois study areas included substantially smaller acreages than those supported by conservationists. Out of the 19,000 acres suggested by the Sierra Club for Pine Hills-Hutchins Creek, the Forest Service excluded the Hutchins Creek drainage and recommended 2, 800 acres for study. For Lusk Creek, the agency proposed 11, 000 acres for study, 4, 000 less than the Sierra Club recommendation. The conservation group argued that the larger acreages would be more representative of the natural character of southern Illinois.

The Sierra Club proposal for Lusk Creek was included in the Senate version of the Eastern Wilderness Bill which was passed in spring 1974, but the Senate accepted the Forest Service's recommendation for Pine Hills. In the House, both Illinois tracts are in danger of being deleted from H.R. 13455. Out of 24 representatives, only Reps. Findley, Anderson, Railsback, Rostenkowski and Young have cosponsored H.R. 13455. Even so, with a show of public support, it is possible that the House will retain the Illinois study areas and bring the bill to a full Congressional vote before the 1974 session closes.

It is often overlooked that neither of the Illinois areas have been proposed for immediate wilderness designation. The Eastern Wilderness Bill would merely direct the Forest Service to

formally study each tract to determine if it would qualify for wilderness status. Over a period of five years, the Forest Service would gather data on the values of the areas' recreational, scientific and

economic resources. Public hearings would be held to gather citizen opinion on the question. Any residents within the study area boundaries would be allowed to continue their occupancy, and access to any such private in-holdings would remain.

Even with such provisions, some southern Illinoisans object to the Eastern Wilderness Bill as a threat to both private landholders and the economy of the surrounding towns. They point out that if the tracts were classified as national wilderness areas, privately owned lands within the boundaries would be purchased by the federal government. Nearby county governments fear that the reduction of privately held land in the county would substantially decrease property tax revenues. At present, the federal government owns 36 per cent of the land in Pope County, where Lusk Creek is located, and 13 per cent in Union County where Pine Hills-Hutchins Creek is located..

In response to these objections, Jerry Wray, Midwest Coordinator of the Sierra Club Wilderness Task Force, states that with a decrease in private land in rural areas, the counties' costs for road maintenance and fire protection would also decrease. If the areas were declared wilderness and private property purchased by the federal government, county operating costs would be lowered in an amount corresponding to the loss in taxes. Wray also points out that the bill provides for long-term leases for any occupants of federally purchased lands. These individuals would be allowed to continue residency for their lifetimes.

Opponents of the bill also fear that resources within designated wilderness areas would be unavailable for commercial use. Local industries would be forced to obtain raw materials elsewhere. Mining interests such as the Minerva Company are opposed to wilderness status for Lusk Creek because of potential fluorspar deposits there. Opponents of the bill also note that timber in the Hulchins Creek drainage would be unavailable for local cutting and milling operations.

Conservationists counter by explaining that even if the largest acreages proposed for study were eventually made wilderness areas, the total area would be relatively small. Only 13 per cent of the 253, 000 acre Shawnee National Forest would be affected. Lands outside the wilderness areas would still be open to timber and mineral withdrawal.

Because wilderness classification excludes motorized vehicles, some local businessmen object to the Eastern Wilderness Bill. They claim that revenues derived from outdoor recreation will be reduced. Rather than a wilderness designation, groups such as the Shawnee Hills Recreation Council support construction of large reservoirs on Lusk and Hutchins creeks. These groups feel that the tourists attracted by the reservoirs would increase revenues.

On the other hand, Conservationists underline the fact that Lusk Creek and Pine Hills-Hutchins Creek are the only large tracts remaining in Illinois which offer recreation not dependent on motor vehicles. The Wilderness Society suggests that camping, fishing and hunting in wilderness areas could be profitable for local residents, and that national wilderness status can attract visitors from across the country.

Southern Illinoisans feel their way of life threatened by potential wilderness areas. Some of them argue that farming and mining may no longer be profitable. Both Union and Pope counties have been declared areas of substantial unemployment by the federal government, and the southern Illinois landscape is dotted with abandoned mines and farms where trees have taken the place of men working the land. It is possible that the tourism from wilderness recreation could bolster the economy of the two counties. Perhaps it is time to decide that land returned to forests will provide an investment in our State's quality of life.

Illinois Issues/January 1975/21