Robbinsville – Graham County Government is included among 872 “eligible objectors” to proposed plans that will guide resource management in the Nantahala and Pisgah national forests for the next 20 years.
Four choices were proposed — a status quo plan, plans that favor timber harvest or recreation, and a fourth that blends timber harvest and recreation. Following a series of public comment periods during which Graham County Government favored the plan most favorable to timber harvesting, the U.S. Forest Service came up with a fifth alternative – called Alternative E – which combines elements of other plans.
Graham County Government submitted its objection to Alternative E. This comes as a 60-day objection period closed March 22, following the release of the revised forest plan and final Environmental Impact Statement in January.
The public had an opportunity to file an objection if they had concerns with some aspect of the revised plan and had engaged with the Forest Service during the process.
The Forest Service reviewed all objections that were received. Of the nearly 14,000 received, more than 1,000 were submitted anonymously or submitted multiple times by the same individual. Additionally, several thousand form letter objections were submitted by individuals who had not previously commented and were therefore not considered eligible.
Most of the issues identified by non-eligible objectors are the same – or similar to – issues identified by eligible objectors, said Regional Forester for the Southern Region Ken Arney.
The intent of the public engagement process the Forest Service has conducted in North Carolina over the past nine years was to listen to diverse public interests and incorporate them in the planning process as much as possible, said Arney. The purpose of public engagement is so that issues and concerns can be addressed prior to the objection process.
Those who are ineligible to formally object can still attend objection resolution meetings that are open to the public.
All eligible objections can be viewed on the forest’s website at fs.usda.gov/goto/nfsnc/nprevision
County’s objections
The Graham County Board of Commissioners has submitted previous comments during the public comment process for the Nantahala and Pisgah Forest Plan. These comments addressed issues specific to the proposed plan.
The commissioners submitted unanimous resolutions and letters in 2015, 2016 and 2020, addressing specific components of the proposed plan.
The county’s comments have supported an increase in timber production within Graham County and stated opposition to any additional “Wilderness” or “Wild and Scenic River” designations within Graham County, while also supporting additional recreational opportunities on Forest Service property in Graham County.
“The comments stated the county’s view that too much acreage was being designated as old growth in all plan alternatives that were made public by the Forest Service in 2020, and stated concerns about the process used by the Forest Service in determining old growth designations,” Graham County Manager Jason Marino said in a March 22 filing.
In addition to opposing any additional inclusion of land in the National Wilderness Preservation System, the county’s comments expressed opposition to Forest Service treatment of other management areas that effectively creates wilderness conditions without the land being designated as wilderness, Marino said.
The county also expressed its concerns regarding the lengthy internal processes used by the Forest Service in order to execute projects.
The Nantahala and Pisgah Revised Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Record of Decision published in January of 2022 introduced a new alternative that was not available during previous opportunities for public comment and input, Marino wrote.
“The final proposed alternative includes excessive old growth designations, recommends additional land for wilderness designation, and increases acreage of areas such as an excessive Appalachian Trail Corridor buffer that includes extensive restrictions on timber harvest. The terminology used in the plan makes it extremely difficult to understand its true impact on timber harvest and recreation opportunities,” Marino wrote.
Unique situation
Graham County is a small county by landmass, with Forest Service land comprising 65 percent of the county’s lands, Marino wrote. Graham County is also isolated from towns in neighboring counties in both North Carolina and Tennessee.
The county is economically distressed, being designated as a Tier 1 (most distressed) county by the N.C. Department of Commerce and as an at-risk county by the Appalachian Regional Commission.
In addition to Graham County’s size and distance from nearby towns in neighboring counties, large swaths of federal lands within Graham County disconnect portions of privately owned lands within the county. The county must still provide service to citizens who live in these areas, resulting in increased costs for law enforcement, first responders, school transportation, solid waste services and other areas, he wrote.
In addition to increased costs to the county, the creation of these small pockets of private land within the county places limits on opportunities for full use of private property for personal and business use, limiting the overall economic growth of Graham County.
Graham County is forced to finance its essential county services with the limited tax base provided by the 35 percent of privately owned lands within the county, Marino said.
Federal programs – such as Payment in Lieu of Taxes and Impact Aid – are inconsistently funded and do not adequately compensate for the lost tax value of the land that is under federal ownership.
“Every year when creating its budget, Graham County is forced to balance the need for services with the ability of its property-owning citizens to afford the taxes necessary to cover these services,” Marino wrote. “These same citizens are limited in their ability to be financially successful by the amount of federal land within Graham County and are further limited by excessive restrictions on the use of such land.”
Inadequate maintenance and upkeep of Forest Service recreational facilities – and limitations on recreational opportunities within the forest – place limitations on Graham County’s tourism, impacting the county’s sales tax base.
Restaurants, retail stores, overnight accommodations and adventure/tour guides are all negatively impacted by restrictions on recreational opportunities within the Forest.
“Graham County has worked for decades to make the best of the unique limitations created by the amount of federal lands within its borders,” Morino wrote. “The county’s only ability to raise significant revenue on its own is through the property tax and the sales tax. The ability to increase the sales tax is limited by state statute, and the county’s economically distressed citizens cannot afford constant increases in property taxes to keep up with the rising cost of services.
“Graham County desires to help itself and grow its own economy, enabling citizens to pursue opportunities that increase incomes and improve their financial stability, increasing private investment in Graham County and thereby increasing the tax base to fund needed services while maintaining a reasonable tax burden for all citizens.”
In order to do this, Morino argued, the forest plan must provide every reasonable opportunity for Graham County’s citizens to benefit financially from the maintenance and use of Forest Service property within the county.