The public has a chance to weigh in on the Nantahala-Pisgah National forest plan revision – a.k.a. the policy and strategic framework that will affect how the complex ecosystems in the forests are managed over the next 10-15 years. The plan is still being refined, and people are invited to share their feedback on the details, including four alternatives that have all been proposed.

The backstory

Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests are two of four national forests in the state (the others are Uwharrie and Croatan). They are managed by the USDA Forest Service and together are over one million acres in size. Pisgah National Forest was established in 1916, and Nantahala National Forest was created in 1920. DYK: They are the most visited national forests in the country.

Within them, you’ll find –

1,900 types of plants, including 130 types of trees
300+ vertebrate animals

The US Forest Service is in charge of managing public lands across 155 forests + 20 grasslands – a total of about 193 million acres. That management includes improving + protecting forests, ensuring favorable watershed conditions, and furnishing a continuous supply of timber to the nation. And, they oversee experimental forests + ranges (used for land management techniques and scientific studies), research + development centers, and job corps centers. Read more about the history of the Forest Service here.

The plan

The Forest Service worked with several partners, including tribal, state + local governments and NGOs (non-governmental organizations) to create the land management plan and the four alternatives, which are designed based on values of each community and organization and minimize polarization. They also took over 1,000 pieces of individual feedback into account from earlier public comment periods. Watch this short video for a brief overview of the plan + process.

Why it’s important

For the next 10-15 years, every decision in the forest system will be made according to this framework. That means trail development, stream restoration, and tree harvesting will all be in line with what’s laid out here. All proposed trails, roads, recreation sites, as well as decisions about land leasing for oil and gas, will still be decided on individually and analyzed – so the plan doesn’t provide guidance on specific projects.

There’s a lot of information, so we recommend checking in with MountainTrue – a partner in the plan’s creation. They’re running several free virtual webinars to help the public understand the plan + the four alternatives. You’ll want to add these dates to your iCal –

- Forest Plan Info Session: Water Quality | Tues., April 28 | 5:30-6:30 p.m. | With a specific focus on waterways + water quality measures outlined in the plan.
- Public Policy Network Forest Plan Presentation | Sun., May 3 | 4-6 p.m. | A general presentation with info on MountainTrue’s position on the entire draft of the plan.
- Management Area Info Session | Tues., May 19 | 5:30-6:30 p.m. | Learn about the 12 management areas outlined in the plan, which determine the activities allowed in specific sections of the forests.
- Invasive Species Info Session | Tues., June 2 | 5:30-6:30 p.m. | A presentation on how the plan addresses invasive species, which threaten biodiversity and forest resilience, and their management in the forests.
- Recreation Panel Discussion | Tues., June 16 | 5:30-6:30 p.m. | Explore how the plan + the alternatives will affect hikers, bikers, horseback riders, paddlers, and other recreational users.

Before you attend the meetings, here are a few more things to know about the revised plan and the alternatives –

Here’s what’s different from the current plan.

The revised plan places more emphasis on creating conditions for each ecological community, or ecozone, rather than using traditional guidelines that focus on output.

There’s also a much greater emphasis on how people connect with + use the land. Twelve management areas have been created, each with goals for connecting people with the forest and ideas on how to collaborate with neighboring lands.

The plan’s creators worked closely with tribal governments to consider their ecological knowledge and recognize places of tribal significance, including within the Trail of Tears Heritage Corridor.

Also new in this revision – ideas for sustainable recreation, including limiting bicycle + horseback riding to designated areas; outlining future collaborative potential between the Forest Service and partners; and using a more refined method for availability + accessibility of timber for harvesting.

The four alternatives

Four alternatives to implement the plan have been presented, and they all have different approaches to managing vegetation patterns and wildlife habitat, special designations, access, sustainable recreation, and economic contribution of the forests.

Alternative A

The No-Action Alternative
Forest management continues as it is now with existing plan management, with no changes.

Alternative B

The most amount of land is available for active timber management, motorized access + recommended wilderness – a.k.a. areas under consideration for preservation. Wilderness areas are mostly free from human development + influence.
This alternative provides the most flexibility for new trail development and adjustment of the old growth network (i.e. areas where tree growth has been free of human-caused disturbance for many years and trees are of a certain size).

Alternative C

This alternative has the least amount of land available for active timber management, motorized access + recommended wilderness
It has the most restrictions on trail development.
It identifies the greatest acreage of old growth forest, and eliminates adjustments to the stated plan goals for the old growth network.
More land is placed in the backcountry (i.e. remote and less developed/unroaded portions of the forests).
A new management area will be created to emphasize active management for species composition.

Alternative D

A moderate amount of land is available for active timber management, motorized access + recommended wilderness.
A moderate amount of land is also available for backcountry and active management for species composition.
Trail development and the old growth network are adjustable if certain conditions are met.

Want to comment? Submit your thoughts here, and check out these Forest Service guidelines for commenting (scroll to the end of the document). Comments that will be considered will be solution-oriented (rather than in favor or opposed) and should describe specifics in terms of what management and resources are desired and the general areas where they would be implemented.

The backstory

The plan

Why it’s important

Here’s what’s different from the current plan.

The four alternatives

Quiz