Home > Newsletter Home > TOC > Article

Monongahela Draft Plan highlights four alternatives for future Management of West Virginia’s National Forest
click for print view

by Fran Hunt, The Wilderness Society | 2005

Forest Service highlights 4 management alternatives in new Draft Management Plan and requests public input

By the time you read this, the Forest Service will have released its Draft forest management plan for the Monongahela National Forest.  This means that the public will have about 2 months left during the 90-day public comment period to tell the Forest Service that it should carefully protect the Mon and its special places to safeguard West Virginia’s valuable natural heritage.

Once the Draft forest plan is finalized, it will determine the future of wilderness and wildlands protection, backcountry recreation, and the conservation of wildlife, watersheds, rivers and fisheries on the Mon far into the future.  As a result, citizens who care about the future of wilderness, backcountry recreation opportunities, fish and wildlife habitat conservation and the protection of clean streams and rivers on the Mon are urged to take action and comment on this Draft plan. 

Critical Timing

Even as these critical decisions are being made for the Mon, wild lands, forests and wilderness are under assault at a national level.  On May 5, the Administration announced the repeal of the popular and scientifically sound Roadless Area Conservation Rule.  Put in place by the Forest Service in 2001 after an extensive national process of hearings and public comment, the rule had previously protected 58.5 million acres of special and pristine roadless areas, including over 180,000 acres on the Mon, from further logging, mining and road construction.

Against such an alarming national backdrop, the Forest Service is poised to determine the future of the Monongahela National Forest for the next 20 years and beyond.  Will it opt for more logging or continue to emphasize conservation?  Will is chose to build more roads that it cannot afford financially and which may threaten the Mon’s fish, rivers and watersheds or will it focus investments on recreation opportunities and conservation?  Even as the Voice goes to press and conservationists anxiously await the release of the Draft plan, a review of the agency’s material available to date indicates that the Forest Service may indeed be backing away from the goals of backcountry recreation and wildlife habitat conservation that West Virginian’s supported 20 years ago and which have been the hallmark of the Mon since that time.

Changing Directions?

Even as the Administration works to open up important roadless lands and wildlife habitats to logging and development on national forest across the country, the Forest Service is considering 4 alternative futures (identified with numbers, not names) specifically for the Mon, only one of which, Alternative 3, comes close to presenting a balanced vision for forest use and conservation.  These 4 alternatives will be the basis of the Draft forest plan when it is released.

Alternative 1.  Referred to as the “no action” alternative required by law, it represents management as it now stands on the Mon.  Specifically, Alternative 1 reflects the ways in which the original 1986 plan, which marked a decision by the Forest Service to emphasize backcountry recreation and wildlife protection on this special forest, has been amended several times since it was finalized, most recently to provide additional habitat protection for various threatened and endangered species including the Indiana Bat, Cheat Mountain Salamander, and Northern Flying Squirrel.  While it will not be chosen by the Forest Service as the forest management approach for coming years, it serves as a useful comparison of how the other 3 alternatives would differ from current management. 

For example, planning materials previously released by the Forest Service describing this alternative indicate that approximately 48% of the Mon is currently considered to be “suitable” for timber production.  Almost 14% of the Mon is currently managed for backcountry recreation in popular areas such as Seneca Creek, Canaan Mountain, Tea Creek and Big Draft.  The Mon’s 5 existing congressionally designated Wilderness Areas, Dolly Sods, Otter Creek, Cranberry and Laurel Fork North and South account for less than 9 percent of the forest.  [Note, because this alternative represents “current” management on the Mon, it does not recommend any new Wilderness or other “new” management directions.]

Alternative 2.   This alternative would increase the emphasis on logging and timber management over current levels. At present, it is assumed that this is the alternative “preferred” -- and most likely to be chosen by -- the Forest Service.  This approach signals that the Forest Service is apparently moving away from the current and popular vision for the Mon which emphasizes wildlife habitat protection and backcountry recreation.  According to Forest Service documents, the agency is recommending that roughly 70% of the forest be placed in prescriptions that allow logging and road construction – a sharp increase from current levels. 

Under this alternative, popular protections currently in place for several important backcountry wildlife and recreation areas would be abandoned.  As a result, a number of well-loved and currently protected areas (MP 6.2), including Canaan Mountain, Little Mountain, Lower Laurel Forest, Laurel Run and others would be open to potential logging and road construction.  Roughly 10 percent of the Mon would be managed as backcountry under Alternative 2.

Your Input Will Help Shape the Future of the Mon

Alternative 2 recommends only a small amount (an additional 3% of the Mon) as proposed Wilderness (only Congress can designate Wilderness; the Forest Service makes recommendations for new Wilderness to Congress via the revised Forest Plan).  Of the 15 special wild areas that the West Virginia Wilderness Coalition has carefully studied and is advocating for congressional Wilderness designation, the Forest Service is only recommending the Cranberry Expansion, and portions of Cheat Mountain and Roaring Plains area for Wilderness.  In addition this alternative recommends a small addition to Otter Creek Wilderness.  Worse still, this alternative would allow logging in 7 of these 15 special wild places, including all or parts of Roaring Plains, Cheat Mountain, Spice Run, Upper Shavers Fork and Little Allegheny (as well as Laurel Run and Lower Laurel Fork as mentioned above.)

Finally, this alternative also appears to roll-back current protections for the Indiana Bat and other threatened and endangered species and fails to provide adequate protections for rivers, streams, fisheries and drinking water by allowing logging and road construction to degrade sensitive areas.  At a time when recreation is an increasingly strong component of the West Virginia economy and private forestlands across the state are increasingly being affected by development, logging and mining, the emphasis of this alternative is as difficult to understand as it is troubling.  The Mon is a unique forest that deserves careful management; the Forest Service can do better than Alternative 2.

Alternative 3.   This is the most balanced approach to forest management that the Forest Service is proposing, Alternative 3 goes the furthest in keeping the Mon the way it is now -- wild and wonderful.  Currently available Forest Service documents indicate that this alternative would place some 49% of the forest in prescriptions that allow logging and road construction, roughly maintaining the current balance on the Forest while also expanding important backcountry habitat protection and recreation opportunities across the Mon. 

Alternative 3 recommends the most new Wilderness (approximately 99,000 new acres, an additional 11% of the Mon) including all or parts of 9 of the West Virginia Wilderness Coalition’s 15 areas: Cranberry Expansion, Seneca Creek, East Fork Greenbrier, Turkey Mountain, Middle Mountain, Spice Run, Bit Draft and parts, but not all, of Roaring Plains and Cheat Mountain.  Nevertheless, this alternative does not recommend congressional Wilderness protection of Dolly Sods Expansion, North Fork Mountain, Upper Shavers Fork, Lower Laurel Fork, Little Allegheny Mountain, and Laurel Run

Under this alternative, an additional 11% of the Mon would be managed for backcountry wildlife habitat and recreation opportunities.  Some of these proposed backcountry additions, however, contain roads that currently provide public access to the forest, in which case these areas will not be appropriate for backcountry management.  The West Virginia Wilderness Coalition is not proposing any road closures in the Mon as part of either its current Wilderness campaign or its forest plan revision comments.

Alternative 3 is the only option the agency is considering which would provide balance between conservation and extractive use, and it would give people the opportunity to continue enjoying the forest while ensuring that the Mon is protected for generations to come.  Because it does the most to protect the Mon’s special roadless areas, watersheds and backcountry habitats, Alternative 3 also would provide the best protection for the Mon’s unique and special areas as well as its fish and wildlife habitats, local drinking water, and wildland-based economic opportunities. 

Alternative 4.   Alternative 4, while not thought to be the Forest Service’s preferred alternative for future management of the Mon, nevertheless signals just how far the agency might be willing to diverge from the Mon’s current management direction – and from the expectations of West Virginia’s conservation community. This alternative would maximize logging and expand the discretion of the Forest Service to manage the Forest with a minimum of conservation guidelines and safeguards.  Nearly 80% of the forest would be placed in management prescriptions that would allow logging and road construction – including several proposed wilderness areas and other popular backcountry wildlife and recreation areas that are currently protected from logging and road construction.  Alternative 4 also appears to roll-back current protections for threatened and endangered species and fails to provide adequate protections for rivers, streams, fisheries and drinking water by allowing logging and road construction in sensitive areas.  Alternative 4 recommends NO new wilderness.

Get Engaged:
West Virginia is by some measures one of the most rapidly developing states in the nation and our wild land base shrinks daily to development.  Urban sprawl and second home development are consuming our farm and forest lands at an accelerating pace.  There are other threats as well: mining by mountain top removal; pollution of our air and water; and, still today, ill-advised logging on both public and private lands. 

In the face of these changes, many West Virginians see the Mon as an oasis which should be left just as it is.  The forest provides clean drinking water to nearby communities and holds some of the best places the state offers to camp, hike, fish, and hunt.  The Administration’s decision to roll-back protections for roadless areas nationally defies common sense.  The Forest Service has all the roads it needs to manage its lands and more than it can afford to maintain.  On the Mon alone, the Agency is responsible for the management of several thousands miles of roads and has a maintenance backlog of nearly $50 million that has been accumulating for years. 

The Forest Service would serve West Virginia better if it spent its limited budget on protecting clean water, protecting our communities from flooding, conserving recreation opportunities and protecting and restoring fish and wildlife habitats.  While not perfect, Alternative 3 offers the best framework the Forest Service is proposing to achieve these goals.  Please tell the forest service how you feel!  Your comments can be sent to:

Forest Plan Revision
Monongahela National Forest
200 Sycamore Street
Elkins, WV 26241

Make sure you tell the Forest Service that you want more wilderness and backcountry areas protected as well as the other items listed above, and tell them about your experiences in the Mon and why these things are important for you and important for the health of Monongahela National Forest.