Back to Forests of the Central Appalachians | Feedback
The
following article was originally published in 1991 in Wild Earth Vol.1 (3), pp
62-67. Some modifications of the text have been introduced as
corrections, usually in brackets. For example, [federal] has been
substituted for Forest Service to
indicate ownership. by R. F. Mueller To the
uninitiated the Eastern mountains present an aspect of sameness, of continuous
lush deciduous/conifer forest-covered ridges and valleys that contrast with the
terrain diversity of the Western mountains. To the initiated, however, this is
an illusion, merely concealing a rich underpinning of biologically diversity
that faithfully reflects geologic, geographic, topographic and elevational
variations. In many instances this illusion is perpetrated by the US Forest
Service (FS) and the state agencies, which refuse to recognize this cryptic
but real diversity and treat all mountain ecosystems in the same way. In some
instances the Forest Service has misclassified the vegetation of the higher
ridges even to the extent of erroneously listing tree species. To a large
degree this failing is attributable to the exploitative and anthropocentric
bent of these agencies. Recognizing different forest types and the presence of
rare and unusual biologic communities and habitats gets in the way of timber
sales and "game management" as well as other development schemes. A sickening
example, documented by Virginias for Wilderness, is the notorious California
Timber Sale in Virginia ( Earth First! Journal, 8-90), in which a
diverse bottomland forest was sacrificed to biologic ignorance and greed. This
shoddy management style is also reflected in the FS's persistent attempts to
justify clearcutting by arguing that in the absence of such daylight-exposing
activities, the forest would revert to less desirable, shade-tolerant species.
In its extreme form this mind warp holds that with proper management virtually
any species of native tree can be made to grow where intended. This illogic
ignores the fact that 90% of the George Washington and Jefferson National
Forests- lying as they do in a xeric oak-chestnut belt with shallow, stony
soils-can only support such drought-resistant and shade-intolerant species as
oaks, with only minor mesic components. By contrast, shade tolerant species,
such as Eastern Hemlock, Sugar Maple, American Beech and White Basswood, are
confined to topographically restricted high-moisture coves and riparian zones. Interestingly,
the self-serving "dread-climax" theory also fails in the case of the
Monongahela National Forest, where hemlock, beech, Sugar Maple and other mesic
species dominate because of the cool, moist climate. Because all these species
except hemlock generally sprout as prolifically as oak, clearcutting, unless it
destroys the soil, can only result in more of the same. Thus, in the
Monongahela, mesic species will generally out-compete oaks. On all three of
these Central Appalachian National Forests, the substitution of early
successional for late successional forest by clearcutting may result in the
loss of mast production as well as other mature and old growth food sources and
values.1 The
knowledge we need to place Eastern ecosystems on a track to recovery must
include what we can determine of the pre-settlement systems. The 80-90 year old
forests, many of them even-aged, that now occupy the Central Appalachians, are
only poor reminders of what once existed here. When Lucy Braun published her
classic work Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America (regrettably
now out of print), only scattered remnants remained, and now even some of
these remnants, such as Wilson Creek in the George Washington National Forest,
have been destroyed or severely degraded. Existing forests, except for isolated
tracts, are almost devoid of the vertical structure of high broken canopy and layered
understory, the large hollow trees (some of a size to provide living quarters
for bears) and the all important large debris on the forest floor and in water
courses forming cover and fish-rich pools. Gone also is most of the rich ground
cover of vernal flora (spring wild flowers) and other floras described by
Braun, with the nutritional variety of greens, bulbs and fungi, as well as the
micro and macro flora and fauna that depend on the multiple features that only
old growth can provide. In most localities soils have been degraded. Complex
mixed mesophyte forests, with their deep organic mull soils, have been replaced
by simple stands of a few rapidly-growing pioneer species like Tuliptree and
Virginia Pine. Extirpated
also for most of the settlement period was the Beaver, the great diversifier (Elliot, Earth First! Journal, 5-90). In the Central Appalachians this animal is of even greater importance than in the North, since we lack the many
wetlands formed by glacial action (so we really need to leave it to Beaver).
Happily the toothy wonder is returning to many parts of our region from which
it once was extirpated. However, it will be some time before there is a
pre-settlement array of ponds, meadows, successional vegetation and the many
other elements of Beaver-induced ecosystems that are now missing. It is from
the two-fold perspective of past diversity and present opportunity that
wilderness preserve systems should be devised. Given the constraints of land
availability on areas of low to moderate relief, our efforts should focus on
loci of high nutrient and moisture availability, on areas of low to moderate
relief, and on riparian zones. Unviolated riparian areas may, on a unit-area
basis, be as effective at overcoming the general effects of fragmentation as
many times that amount of unfragmented upland habitat. This point has been made
repeatedly to the Forest Service by Virginians for Wilderness, who have
stressed the need to close roads along streams. The
Virginias, and the Appalachians as a whole, are a mosaic of natural areas with
varying degrees of disturbance and interconnectedness. In this mosaic the
tracts owned by the [US Government] dominate, at least south of Pennsylvania,
but there are also many quite large tracts of state and private lands in a
substantially natural condition (if one forgets the original forest). In the
Virginias most of the latter lie within the National Forest proclamation
boundaries but have not yet been acquired by the federal government. Some
fairly large state-owned areas lie outside those boundaries, as do some highly
desirable private wildlands. Many of the private lands are reverting to forest
from marginal agricultural use. Some counties in western Virginia and West
Virginia have declining human populations, which causes great consternation
among local boosters. These land use trends should be seen as opportunities
being enhanced daily by changing perceptions of wilderness-its role in
sustaining native biodiversity and its global importance. The trend is clearly
toward recognition of the need for wilderness areas so large that they
transcend existing administrative units as great as entire national forests. To
accommodate these needs, either public lands must be expanded or a more
flexible regional administration involving private lands must be adopted. The
latter might be achieved by legislative formalization through zoning, tax
incentives, and the purchase of easements. Although
this paper concentrates on wilderness in National Forests, our ultimate goal in
the East as elsewhere must be establishment of large (as large as possible!)
integrated ecological preserves, as espoused by contributors to the premier
issue of Wild Earth. All wilderness proposed here is viewed as forming
the beginning of such a system. Designated wilderness
in Virginia and West Virginia now totals 252,681 acres: 32,384 acres in the
George Washington National Forest, 59,906 acres in the Jefferson NF; 78,131 in
the Monongahela NF; and 82,260 in Shenandoah National Park2. In
Virginia, wilderness accounts for about 0.7% of the total land area. In the
George Washington, it amounts to about 3% compared to about 17% of National
Forests as a whole. Virtually all wilderness areas are situated on the
steepest, rockiest and most inhospitable terrain. In aggregate they fall far
short of representing all ecosystem types, even in their immediate vicinities.
Next to their small sizes (the largest in Virginia is a little over 10,000
acres), perhaps their greatest deficiency is their lack of mature riparian
zones, the rich floodplains with alluvial soils, wetlands and mainstem rivers.
Terrain diversity, consolidated in unfragmented tracts of landscape dimensions,
is not possible for a wilderness system based on the existing small, isolated
and negatively-selected units. Thus, although small wilderness areas may afford
a refuge from the worst technological intrusions, such as vehicles and
chainsaws, they are for the most part cut off from prime foraging habitat. This
presents a serious difficulty for shy, wide-ranging species, for those with
varying seasonal requirements, and even for rare plants, which may be isolated
from their fellows. The following
is an outline of a wilderness/corridor system (Noss, Natural Areas
Journal, vol 7 (1), 1987) for the George Washington National Forest. It is
a slightly modified version of one presented by Virginians for Wilderness as an
alternative management plan to the George Washington planning staff, and it
appeared as "Alternative 3" with 12 other alternatives in the Forest
planning papers. Because a
number of existing and proposed wilderness areas extend to or near Forest
ownership boundaries, no buffer zones are presented. However, in many cases
general National Forest can be regarded as serving this function. It is
recommended that buffer zones be established as soon as land becomes available
for purchase or through or easements. Although
some roads would of necessity remain open in the corridors, it is envisioned
that management of the corridors would otherwise follow that of wilderness,
with the elimination of all timber harvesting and other extractive activities.
This would favor the subsequent establishment of late successional vegetation
modified only by natural disturbances. For the time
being, the only opportunities for even moderately large wilderness areas in the
Central Appalachians is afforded by certain blocks of low density land in the
George Washington and Monongahela National Forests. One of the largest of such
blocks lies in the Shenandoah Range astride the Virginia-West Virginia line and
was proposed earlier as a 65,000-acre Shenandoah Wilderness ( EF!, 9-86). This is the southern-most block. There are also several large blocks (not shown in the figures) just southwest of US Route 250 along the Shenandoah
Range and the North Mountain spur. This complex of almost contiguous blocks
amounts to several hundred thousand acres with high wilderness potential and
can be readily linked by corridors to other areas. Designation
of large wilderness blocks in the Shenandoah Range and adjacent areas would
give a substantial boost to biodiversity. The Range contains the largest and
most numerous concentrations of old growth (greater than 150 years in age) on
the George Washington, including the spectacular hemlocks and cove hardwoods of
the existing Ramsey's Draft Wilderness3. The Range is home to rare
endemic species, including the Cow Knob Salamander (Plethodon punctatus ),
a candidate for listing as Endangered, and a millipede (Nannaria shenandoah
), as well as variety of disjunct northern plants such as Paper Birch (Betula
papyrifera) and Trembling Aspen (Populus tremuloides ), and birds
such as the Red Crossbill (Loxia curvirostra ). It also appears to be prime
habitat for the Eastern Wood Rat (Neotoma floridiana ), which has
suffered declines in other parts of the East. According to the Forest Service, the
"probability is very high that a number of [other] rare species are
present in the area." (Roadless Area Review and Evaluation, Draft Working
Paper, 2-15-91). Also
proposed here is the restoration of the upper North River riparian zone, a rich
floodplain now degraded by an ill-conceived road (F.R. 95) and associated
unregulated vehicle camping. Even the Forest Service and state agencies admit
that fragmentation of habitat should be guarded against for species like the
Cow Knob Salamander. Wilderness status, particularly along the North River,
could extend these safeguards to other, perhaps as yet unknown, species that
presently suffer from fragmentation. In parts of
the George Washington lacking large contiguous areas of low road density, there
are generally "pods" of potential wilderness ranging in size from a
few thousand to more than 30,000 acres, some of which contain important
elements of diversity that need protection. Such is the case for a series of
areas along the eastern edge of the Blue Ridge in the Pedlar Ranger District (Fig. 2), which lie along the Appalachian Trail, the backbone of the Preserve
Appalachian Wilderness (PAW) ecological corridor system. Going from southwest
to northeast, these areas are Three Sisters Knobs (adjacent to the James
River and the existing James River Face Wilderness), Mt. Pleasant, The Priest,
and Three Ridges. On the western Blue Ridge lie part of the Three Sisters
Knobs, the proposed Adams Peak, and a greatly expanded St. Marys Wilderness
Areas. All have been connected by corridors in our proposal. The eastern
Blue Ridge illustrates well the effect of cryptic diversity. To the distant
observer the forest on these ridges appears little different from that on the
western Blue Ridge or the Valley and Ridge Province. Yet the species
composition and distribution is quite different. Since most of the eastern Blue
Ridge here is developed on granodioritic metamorphic and igneous rocks of the
Pedlar Formation, as distinguished from the sandstones, quartzites and shales
of the mountains to the west, its soils have a far better capacity for moisture
retention. As a consequence the eastern Blue Ridge forests tend to be mesic,
as distinguished from the dominantly xeric oak-chestnut types of the Valley and
Ridge. Thus one may find such moisture -loving species as Jack in the Pulpit (Arisaema), Cow Parsnip (Heracleum maximum) and trilliums on the highest peaks
and ridges, a situation far different from the dominantly heath-type ground
cover to the west. Due to this
moisture-enhanced diversity and high local relief (up to 3000 feet in 2.5
miles) on the eastern Blue Ridge, there are conspicuous elevational changes in
the flora, with such southern species as Chestnut Oak and Tuliptree confined to
successively lower levels and characteristically northern species (Yellow
Birch, Mountain Ash, Clintonia borealis, etc.) appearing at higher
elevations. In high wind-sheltered areas Shagbark Hickory replaces the other
hickory species of lower elevations, while on the wind-swept heights large
gnarled, thick-trunked Norther red Oaks dominate, on the most expose peaks,
such as Mt. Pleasant, there are assemblages of northern shrubs and rare montane
and boreal herbaceous plants (Saxifraga michauxi, Arenaria groenlandica). The Forest Service admits that it has paid little attention to this
impressive floral (and perhaps faunal?) diversity. With a gradual return to
more natural forest, this native diversity can only increase. The most
xeric oak-chestnut type forests of the Valley and Ridge (Fig. 3) have their
own characteristic diversity, which includes a great variety of heaths and
associated acid-loving plants of other families. The Valley and Ridge forests
also contain the shale barren communities, known for their rare and in some
cases endangered plants. Designated wildernesses include the Rough Mountain and
Rich Hole Areas, which-together with the intervening unprotected Mill Mountain
and Short Mountain roadless areas-form one of the largest potential wilderness
complexes in the James River watershed. Of special interest is the rare
mountain pond on the slopes of Mill Mountain (Pond Ridge). This pond, with
its salamanders and other isolated fauna and flora, in a distinct ecosystem in
its own right and serves wildlife such as Black Bear who come from miles around
to forage and wallow in its deep organic muds. The integrity of this pond, as
well as the animals that depend on it, can only be assured by wilderness
status since any roading near the pond would allow destructive ORV access. Attention
is also directed here to a wilderness proposal for the Hidden Valley Special
management Area (NW corner of Fig. 3). This area is unique because it
includes under [federal] ownership both banks of a mainstem watercourse, the
Jackson River, for a distance of seven miles. The area features rich floodplain
and river terraces, which are rare on public lands in the mountains and are
vital to any integrated preserve system. Although the Jackson easily qualifies
for designation as a Wild and scenic River, the Forest Service has done all it
can to disqualify it. Indeed, the area has long suffered abuse, which includes
keeping the largest part of the floodplain as hay fields (EF!, 11-89).
Recently, in a cooperative agreement with the Virginia Department of Game and
Inland Fisheries (DGIF) and Ducks Unlimited, the FS tried to go the Valley
Beavers one better by damming a small tributary to form "duck ponds."4 Hidden Valley is a
priority wilderness recovery area. Farther to
the northwest (beyond the areas mapped here) is a transition in a broad
ecotone from oak-chestnut forest to a more mesic type, with a dominantly
northern aspect, at the Virginia-West Virginia line. In some localities,
usually above 3500 feet in elevation and increasing in frequency westward into
the Monongahela NF of West Virginia, are stands of montane forest characterized
by Red Spruce. One such area, which is part of the George Washington NF, is the
Laurel Fork proposed wilderness (described in EF! Journal, 3-90). The
foregoing overview of our proposed wilderness-corridor system covers perhaps
one-third of the George Washington National Forest. Left out of our discussion
are large areas linking the system to the Jefferson National Forest to the
southwest and to the Monongahela to the northwest. Additionally, there is a
large complex of proposed new wilderness areas and corridors in the Massanutten
Range and the Big Schloss Area in the northern part of the GWNF. "Official"
potential wilderness areas of the George Washington National Forest have been
inventoried in a new "Roadless Area Review and Evaluation" (RARE)
by the Forest Service. Although the FS has identified 26 areas,5
many have attenuated boundaries when compared to corresponding areas in our
propose wilderness corridor system. Regrettably
the Forest Service's printed evaluations are narrow in scope and frequently
based on erroneous concepts that contradict conservation biology. Also
implicated in these flawed evaluations are the state agencies, including the
DGIF and the Division of Natural Heritage (DNH), which is specifically
charged with the protection of natural diversity. For example, the DNH would
like to create "research natural areas" or "special interest
areas" to protect rare plant communities, in some cases within the large
roadless or low road density tracts. Unfortunately, since such areas would be
served by well-marked trails or, as is often the case, even by old low-standard
woods roads, they would expose large areas to incursion by ORV bubbas and other
undesirable elements. By the admission of biologists, this further
fragmentation would negatively impact the Cow Knob Salamander and perhaps other
species yet with reference to one of the RARE areas, Kelley Mountain, the DNH
states that "new roads and trails and timber harvest...should not be
excluded entirely..." (RARE, Kelley Mtn., Pedlar R.D., p 15, 1991).
Surely this demonstrates a less than profound grasp of what is needed to protect
biodiversity! Citizens,
led by the Virginia Wilderness Committee, a group that promoted the 1984
Virginia Wilderness Bill, have proposed eight new or expanded wilderness areas
in Virginia based on the Forest Service RARE study, seven in the George
Washington NF and one in the Jefferson NF, (see table 1). Although
the proposed areas do not require any systematic road closings, several (little River and Ramseys Draft Addition) fall within the boundaries of the
proposed Shenandoah Wilderness [now referred to as the Ernie Dickerman
Wilderness] or other large blocks along the Shenandoah Range (Skidmore Fork). The Laurel Fork, Mt. Pleasant and Three Ridges areas are the same as
previously discussed under our wilderness-corridor system, albeit at different
acreages; while Kelley Mountain corresponds roughly to our suggested St. Marys
addition. Viewed as "politically realistic," these proposals are a
step toward eventual big, ecologically significant wilderness and deserve our
support, especially since they would afford some protection to the rare species
previously discussed. Management
of the George Washington National Forest is in a state of flux, as it is in the
National Forest System as a whole. In the evolving mental climate of the
administrators, the true function of big wilderness-as the imperative for
biodiversity and the evolutionary process-is still only faintly grasped.
Commodity extraction still has the highest priority, even to the extent of
deception and collusion with industry down to the district ranger level; and
wilderness is seen as a recreational resource-or worse, as an inconvenience
that doesn't create management jobs. The virtue of roadlessness is appreciated
by perhaps ten percent of administrators and roadless areas exist only by
virtue of the expense of roading them. In western Virginia, a vociferous,
ill-informed opposition-led by timber, pulp industry and ORV
interests-circulates before various local government bodies asking, and
frequently getting, anti-wilderness resolutions. In some cases this opposition
even garners the support of retired rangers what they did on the job. But none
of this should discourage us from promoting big wilderness in the Appalachians,
or anywhere in the East. We need
to write letters to the Forest Service in support of the Wilderness-Corridor
System alternative management plan for the George Washington, and to give
credence and a morale boost to the enlightened minority in the Forest Service
who [is] trying to give conservation biology a fair hearing. Write
Supervisor, GWNF, POB 233, Harrisonburg 22801. We also need to explore the
forest to become imprinted with our favorable wildlands, as advocated by Dave
Foreman and Howie Wolke, and so we won't depend on the Forest Service for
knowledge of what's there! We
should also give attention to the upcoming Virginia wilderness legislation (for areas in Table 1). Please write your representatives and senators: House
of Representatives, DC 20515: Senate, DC 20510.
The
writer appreciates steadfast assistance in the field as well as many
stimulating discussions with Crickett Hammond, Mike Jones, Steve Krichbaum and
Gus Mueller. He is also grateful to Chuck Bailey for steering him to the rare
flora of the Mt. Pleasant Area and to Brenda Vest for drawing our attention to
Pond Ridge. 1 An
excellent treatment of old growth issues
in the Appalachians is that of Zahner (Earth First!, Dec. 21,
1989). 2
Acreages on authority of George Washington planning staff 3 The
character of old growth in this and other parts of the George Washington has
been summarized by Mary Davis ("Old Growth in the East," Earth First!
Journal, June 21, 1990) 4
Characteristically all this was done without scoping notices or an
Environmental Assessment, a clear violation of regulations! 5 Based
on the criterion of less than 1/2 mile of system roads per 1000 acres. Bob
Mueller is a retired NASA scientist who now works wit Virginians for Wilderness
and PAW.
Back to Forests of the Central Appalachians |
Feedback
Wilderness Proposals
The George Washington National Forest
Central Appalachian Wilderness in Perspective
EXISTING
WILDERNESS
PROPOSED
WILDERNESS/CORRIDOR SYSTEM FOR THE GEORGE WASHINGTON
THE FS ROADLESS AREA
REVIEW & EVALUATION
CURRENT WILDERNESS
PROPOSALS
CONCLUSION
Figure 1: Proposed Shenandoah Mountain Wilderness/Corridor Complex.
Figure 2: Proposed Blue Ridge Mountain Wilderness/Corridor Complex.
Figure 3: Proposed James River Wilderness/Corridor Complex.
(All three maps drawn by Gus Mueller)
Wilderness Name
Size
Ranger District
George Washington National Forest
Laurel Fork 10,900 acres Warm Springs Little River 28,000 acres Dry River Ramsey's Draft Addition 13,000 acres Deerfield/Dry River Mt. Pleasant 8,500 acres Pedlar Skidmore Fork 5,600 acres Dry River Kelley Mtn. 7,900 acres Pedlar Three Ridges 4,800 acres Pedlar
Jefferson National Forest
Whitetop Mtn.
4,500 acres
Mt. Rogers NRA
Table 1. Areas Proposed for Wilderness by Virginia Wilderness Committee
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
FOOTNOTES