October 07, 2005
David Bott
Conservation spirit: Alternative 3 plan best way to protect
Monongahela forest
THE Monongahela National Forest (the Mon) is a haven for fish,
wildlife and human beings alike in a state and region facing rapid
development and increasing population, pollution and sprawl. As an
angler and past Council Chair of Trout Unlimited, Rick Steelhammers
Sept. 22 article prompted me to provide additional information about
the recently released Draft Forest Plan (Alternative #2), which
unfortunately proposes an uncertain future for the forests important
streams and the fisheries and drinking water dependent on them.
Much is at stake during this plan revision. The Mon is the
birthplace of five major river watersheds. Among these are the South
Branch, which flows into the Potomac, the Forks of Cheat, which flow
into the Monongahela, and the Greenbrier, Gauley, and the Elk, which
flow into the Kanawha before joining the Ohio River. These rivers
provide West Virginians with 5 billion gallons of water every day to
use in our homes and businesses. Residents of Richwood, Lewisburg,
Craigsville, Marlinton, Webster Springs, Parsons, Rowlesburg, and
many other towns get their drinking water from streams within the
forest.
These rivers also provide national recognized trout habitats; in
fact the Mon sustains more than 90 percent of West Virginias 576
miles of trout streams. Native trout are a special resource for our
states economic and natural heritage; they should be treasured and
protected. The figures from the West Virginia Division of Natural
Resources show that anglers account for around $205 million in
annual retail sales and more than $308 million in total economic
impact.
The forest lies within a days drive of roughly a third of the
nations population, hosts more than three million visitors a year,
and has the potential for even more. As the Forest Services own
Draft Plan notes, As the remainder of the country becomes
increasingly populated, it is reasonable to assume that the
relatively uncrowded state of West Virginia will become more
attractive for both recreationists and others seeking areas to get
away from the crowds.
Sadly the Draft Plan (Alternative 2) strays significantly from the
conservation spirit of the 1986 Forest Plan. First, the Agencys
preferred Alternative 2 fails to protect important roadless areas,
currently protected backcountry habitats, and other important
recreation areas and fish and wildlife habitats. Many of these
special areas are actually targeted for new logging and road
construction. For example, Alternative 2 would allow timber cutting
and road building in all or parts of 9 of the current total of 16
popular backcountry areas in the forest (where logging is currently
not allowed.) These so-called 6.2areas include Lower Laurel Fork.
Similarly, the 25,000-acre Seneca Creek Backcountry was not
recommended for permanent protection as wilderness. Seneca Creek is
listed among the best trout streams in America in John Rossbook
Americas 100 Best Trout Streams.This wonderful trout stream needs
the full protection wilderness designation will provide.
Second, the Draft Plan proposes to increase clearcutting by allowing
for larger clearcuts affecting a greater total annual acreage in the
forest. The Forest Service is proposing to raise the maximum size of
clearcuts in the Mon from 25 to 40 acres and double the total
acreage of clearcutting in the Forest per year. More clearcutting
will mean greater sedimentation and greater damage to brook trout
reproduction.
Third, the proposed plan threatens streams and rivers in several
other ways. While increased clearcutting and road construction will
increase erosion with logging, inadequate protection of the riparian
buffer zones (buffers) next to streams will also cause water
pollution and raise water temperatures, and reduced levels of
protection may harm river segments.
There is a better way. While maintaining a productive timber program
in the forest, Alternative 3 would also best protect watersheds,
wildlife and fisheries by providing the most protection for
backcountry habitats and intact roadless areas, which will in turn
control water runoff and thereby also prevent flooding of
communities downstream.
For trout fishers and Trout Unlimited members, Chapter 3 of the
Forest Services Draft Environmental Impact Statement (pages 88-89)
makes this clear in several places, as the Agency states that any
alternative that disturbs less acreage would be better for streams
and notes that Alternative 3 would produce the least habitat
disturbance. From a watershed, riparian and aquatics perspective,
the Agency states that Alternative 3 poses the least amount of risk
for potential effects for five out of the six issues (such as
proposed logging levels and harvest acreages) analyzed.
In addition, Alternative 3 would allow for access to streams
targeted for liming to treat the effects of acid rain, thereby
improving trout habitat. Simply put, Alternative 3 best protects
trout, while Alternative 2 poses greater risks and threats to
watersheds and riparian areas.
Nevertheless, Alternative 3 could be made even better for the
forests fisheries, too many of which have been damaged in the past.
The Forest Service should improve protection of fisheries in the
final forest plan by ensuring that streams not be compromised by
logging or earth-disturbing activity. The protected bufferareas near
streams (where logging, road building and other development should
be prohibited) should be more than twice as wide as the Draft Plan
recommends to adequately safeguard our watersheds and fisheries.
Good forest and fisheries protection makes sense for West Virginia.
Alternative 3 takes us in the right direction.
David Bott of Westover is the former chairman of the West
Virginia Council of Trout Unlimited.
|
|
