National Forest Service seeks public input on Pisgah-Nantahala management

Signs at Aug. 2018 Forest Service rally
GRASSROOTS ACTIVISM: Forest advocates display an array of signs calling for greater protections during an August 2018 rally at the U.S. Forest Service's Asheville headquarters. Photo by Daniel Walton

For members of the public interested in helping shape the future of the Pisgah and Nantahala national forests, last call is Thursday, May 14. On Feb. 14, the U.S. Forest Service kicked off a 90-day comment period on the long-awaited draft of a new plan for the forests, set to take effect in 2021 and guide the service’s management approach over the next 10-15 years.

During this ongoing comment period, Forest Service staffers hope to receive constructive feedback — just as they’ve been getting since early 2014, when public input on the document first began. In a press release announcing the new draft, Michelle Aldridge, who leads the service’s planning effort for Nantahala and Pisgah, wrote that previous comments had led her team to rewrite parts of the plan, alter management boundaries and add a new chapter with greater detail on specific places within the forests.

“What’s different about this plan from the current forest plan is the process we used to create it and the large amount of public input we have received,” says Aldridge. The current plan is the first for the two forests since federal regulations took effect in 2012 that required the Forest Service to seek more extensive public involvement.

Those with a stake in Pisgah and Nantahala can continue to offer their opinions online, by mail and in a series of meetings throughout Western North Carolina. (More information is available at But after May 14, work will begin on the plan’s final draft. “How we move forward will be within the range of what’s proposed, after taking into account both public feedback and the best possible science we have available,” Aldridge says.

Through the woods

The current proposal outlines four alternative forest management strategies. Although the desired outcomes for all four alternatives are nearly identical for many  goals — including levels of trail and road maintenance, stream restoration, acres of timber harvest and controlled burns — the alternatives differ in the particulars of what areas will be targeted and how they will be managed.

Alternative A is identical to the current forest management plan, while alternative B focuses on increasing road access to new places and creating new trails and recreation areas. Alternative C recommends preserving the largest old-growth forest network and places more restrictions on new trail systems, and Alternative D can be thought of as a compromise between B and C.

According to Aldridge, the proposed plan is a major step forward in how it establishes a clear vision for each ecosystem in the forest. The current forest plan, which was established in the mid-1990s, considers all forest communities as one basic entity, but the revised plan will distinguish between management techniques for high-elevation spruce-fir forest and other mixed hardwood forest types, for example. “Each part of the forest has goals that are unique to the way people use and interact with it,” she says.

Josh Kelly, public lands field biologist for Asheville-based environmental nonprofit MountainTrue, likes what he sees in the draft plan so far. He appreciates the document’s special protections for special ecological areas, as well as its more ambitious goals for controlled burns and general fire management.

Compared to the previous plan, Kelly adds, the current proposal includes only a slight increase in timber harvest. “There is more of an emphasis on restoring ecosystems and using timber harvest as a tool to do that as compared to the current plan,” he explains.

“We wanted to build a proposed plan in which each option moves multiple interests forward,” Aldridge says of the current draft plan. “We believe that all of the multiple uses can be accomplished on our million-acre forest and that we can set that up in combinations that allow everyone to move forward without pitting anyone’s interests against each other.”

Raising voices

Kelly notes that the draft has already incorporated many ideas from previous public comment but urges people to stay engaged through the current comment period. “Collectively, we know more about the forest than anyone does individually,” he says. “The Forest Service has a couple of dozen people working on this forest plan for this million-acre forest. The more information they get from the people who use, love and know the forest, the better the plan can be.”

To provide the most effective feedback, Kelly suggests, stakeholders should take time to research the details of the proposal and be as specific as possible. “If you are concerned about a particular place, name that place. If you are concerned by a particular proposed rule in the plan, cite that rule, the page it’s on and provide language you think would be better,” he says.

Kelly also encourages participants not to view commenting as a voting exercise among the plan’s four proposed alternatives. Because the final plan will never echo a draft version verbatim, he suggests that commenters “mix and match” the alternatives to help the Forest Service pull together a version with the best aspects of each. There’s no limit to the number of comments any person or organization can submit, so thoughts can be updated through the end of the comment period.

In the spring of 2021, the Forest Service plans to release a final draft of both the management plan and its environmental impact statement. Before those documents can be implemented, Aldridge explains, there will be one final five-month objection period for “individuals and entities who have submitted substantive formal comments” to flag any remaining issues. However, she emphasizes, that window is not intended to replace the current comment period.

Whatever form the new plan eventually takes, Aldridge is optimistic that it will represent a positive evolution of sustainable activity in Pisgah and Nantahala. “We want to make sure that the things people value now, and love, are still going to be sustainable for not just their kids, but their kids’ kids,” she says.


Thanks for reading through to the end…

We share your inclination to get the whole story. For the past 25 years, Xpress has been committed to in-depth, balanced reporting about the greater Asheville area. We want everyone to have access to our stories. That’s a big part of why we've never charged for the paper or put up a paywall.

We’re pretty sure that you know journalism faces big challenges these days. Advertising no longer pays the whole cost. Media outlets around the country are asking their readers to chip in. Xpress needs help, too. We hope you’ll consider signing up to be a member of Xpress. For as little as $5 a month — the cost of a craft beer or kombucha — you can help keep local journalism strong. It only takes a moment.

Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.