Monongahela National Forest Forest-wide Travel Analysis Report

Appendix H

Monongahela National Forest Forest-Scale Roads Analysis 2003

September 2015 Appendix H 200 Sycamore Street Phone 304-636-1800 Monongahela National Forest Elkins, WV 26241 Fax 304 636 1875

Roads Analysis Report

Forest Scale Roads Analysis

Monongahela National Forest

January 13, 2003

Version 2.0

Page 1 of 160 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page OVERVIEW OF ROADS ANALYSIS GUIDANCE…………………………………… 5

INTRODUCTION Background………………………………………………………………………. 7 Process…………………………………………………………………………… 7 Products………………………………………………………………………….. 8 This Report………………………………………………………………………. 8

STEP 1: SETTING UP THE ANALYSIS

Purpose and Products……………………………………………………………. 9 Objectives of the Analysis………………………………………………………. 9 Interdisciplinary Team Members and Participants……………………………… 10 Information Needs………………………………………………………………. 10 Analysis Plan……………………………………………………………………. 10

STEP 2: DESCRIBING THE SITUATION

Purpose and Products……………………………………………………………. 11 The Analysis Area………………………………………………………………. 11 Existing Road and Access System Description…………………………………. 13 Forest Plan Goal…………………………………………………………………. 17 Forest Plan Objectives…………………………………………………………… 17 Meeting Forest Plan Objectives…………………………………………………. 20 Budget……………………………………………………………………………. 22 Road Inventory…………………………………………………………………… 22 Human Population in the Analysis Area…………………………………………. 30 Road Definitions…………………………………………………………………. 45 Basic Data Needs………………………………………………………………… 50

STEP 3: IDENTIFYING ISSUES

Purpose and Products…………………………………………………………….. 51 Issue Summary…………………………………………………………………… 51 Status of Current Data……………………………………………………………. 52

STEP 4: ASSESSING BENEFITS, PROBLEMS, AND RISKS

Purpose and Products…………………………………………………………….. 53 Current Road System Benefits, Problems, and Risks Ecosystem Functions and Processes (EF) ……………………………….. 53 Aquatic, Riparian Zone, and Water Quality (AQ) ………………………. 67 Terrestrial Wildlife (TW) ………………………………………………... 81 Economics (EC) …………………………………………………………. 87 Commodity Production (TM, MM) ………………………………...... 89 Range Management (RM)………………………………………………… 101 Water Production (WP) ………………………………………………….. 104 Special Products (SP) ……………………………………………………. 105

Page 2 of 160 Special Use Permits (SU) ………………………………………………... 105 General Public Transportation (GT) ……………………………………... 109 Administrative Use (AU) ………………………………………………… 113 Protection (PT) …………………………………………………………… 114 Recreation………………………………………………………………… 115 Passive-Use Values ………………………………………………………. 118 Social Issues……………………………………………………………… 120 Civil Rights and Environmental Justice…………………………………… 124 Ability of the Road System to meet Objectives………………………………….. 124

STEP 5: DESCRIBING OPPORTUNITIES AND SETTING PRIORITIES

Purpose and Products…………………………………………………………….. 125 Problems and Risks Posed by the Current Road system…………………………. 125 NEPA Analysis Needs…………………………………………………………… 126

STEP 6: REPORTING

Purpose and Products…………………………………………………………….. 127 Report…………………………………………………………………………….. 127 Maps……………………………………………………………………………… 127

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………… 128

Appendices

APPENDIX A: Maintenance Level 3, 4, 5 Road Maps…………………………………. 129 APPENDIX AQ: Aquatics Maps………………………………………………………… 137 APPENDIX WP: Water Production Map………………………………………………… 149 APPENDIX D: Road Matrix……………………………………………………………... 151

List of Tables

TABLE 1: Interdisciplinary Team Members…………………………………………….. 10 TABLE 2: Roadway Summary by District and Maintenance Level …………………….. 15 TABLE 3: Monongahela National Forest Road Totals in 1986………………………….. 18 TABLE 4: Road Activities since the Forest Plan was Completed in 1986……………… 20 TABLE 5: Summary of Funds Needed for Road Maintenance………………………….. 22 TABLE 6: Populations of Cities and Towns throughout the Forest……………………... 30 TABLE 7: Population of Counties throughout the Forest……………………………….. 31 TABLE 8: Management Prescription Summary…………………………………………. 34 TABLE EF 2a: LTAs with agricultural land…………………………………………...... 61 TABLE EF 2b: Forest system roads open to year-round public travel………………..…. 61 TABLE EF 2c: Resource Management Value and Risk rankings……………………….. 62 TABLE EF 4: LTAs suitable for prescribed fire…………………………………….…… 65 TABLE AQ 1: Ranking 5th Level Watersheds Based on Road Densities………………… 69 TABLE AQ 2: Ranking 5th Level Watersheds Based on Amount of Erodible Soils…….. 71 TABLE AQ 4: Ranking 5th Level Watersheds Based on the Number of Road Crossings.. 74 TABLE AQ 7: Ranking 5th Level Watersheds Based on Municipal Water Supplies……. 76 TABLE AQ 10: Ranking 5th Level Watersheds Based on the Total Number of Fish Species Reported in the Watershed……………………………………. 78 Page 3 of 160 TABLE AQ 14: Ranking 5th Level Watersheds Based on the Presence of Sensitive Fish Species……………………………………………………………. 81 TABLE EC 1a: Maintenance Activity Usually Performed Depending on Maintenance Level……………………………………………………………………. 88 TABLE EC 1b: 2001 Maintenance Summary……………………………………………. 88 TABLE EC 1c: Rates of Collection………………………………………………………. 88 TABLE TM 3a: Access to Opportunity Areas Available for Timber Harvest…………… 94 TABLE TM 3b: Resource Management Value Rankings………………………………… 95 TABLE RM 1a: Current Access to National Forest Grazing Areas……………………… 102 TABLE RM 1b: Resource Management Value Rankings………………………………... 103 TABLE WP 2: Ranking of 5th Level Watersheds Based on Municipal Water Supplies….. 104 TABLE SU 1: Summary of Current Special Use Permits and Applications……………… 106 TABLE GT 3: Shared Maintenance Roads……………………………………………….. 111

List of Figures

FIGURE 1: Major Roads through West Virginia…………………….………………….. 13 FIGURE 2: Major Roads through the Monongahela National Forest...…………………. 14 FIGURE 3: Monongahela National Forest Ranger Districts…………………………….. 15 FIGURE 4: District Totals (ML 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)…………………………………………….. 16 FIGURE 5: Operational Maintenance Level Totals…………………………………….. 16 FIGURE 6: District Totals of ML 3, 4, 5 Roads…………………………………………. 17 FIGURE 7: Roadway Mileages on the Monongahela in 1986 …………………………. 19 FIGURE 8: Roads on the Monongahela in 1986.……………………………………….. 19 FIGURE 9: Road Construction since 1986……………………………………………… 20 FIGURE 10: Road Reconstruction since 1986………………………………………….. 21 FIGURE 11: Roads Abandoned/Decommissioned since 1986………………………….. 21 FIGURE 12: Cities and Towns Within and Near the Proclamation Boundary …………. 30 FIGURE 13: Counties throughout the Monongahela…………………………………….. 31 FIGURE 14: Total Persons – 2000: U.S. by State………………………………………. 32 FIGURE 15: Total Persons – 2000: W.V. by County…………………………………... 32 FIGURE 16: Persons per mi2 – U.S. by State………………………………………….… 32 FIGURE 17: Persons per mi2 – W.V. by County………………………………………… 32 FIGURE 18: Management Prescriptions…………..…………………………………….. 33 FIGURE 19: Wildernesses…...……………….………………………………………….. 39 FIGURE EF 2: LTAs Primarily in Farmland…………………………………………….. 60 FIGURE EF 4: LTAs Suitable for Prescribed Fire………………………………………. 66 FIGURE TM 3a: Distribution of Land to Management Prescriptions...…………………. 93 FIGURE TM 3b: Management Prescriptions Suited to Timber Management...…………. 97 FIGURE GT 1: Forest and State Routes………………………………………………….. 110

List of Images IMAGE 1: Dolly Sods Wilderness………………………………………………………. 39 IMAGE 2: Maintenance Level 1 Road…………………………………………………… 47 IMAGE 3: Maintenance Level 2 Road…………………………………………………… 48 IMAGE 4: Maintenance Level 3 Road…………………………………………………… 48 IMAGE 5: Maintenance Level 4 Road…………………………………………………… 49 IMAGE 6: Maintenance Level 5 Road…………………………………………………… 49

Page 4 of 160 OVERVIEW OF ROAD ANALYSIS GUIDANCE

Federal Register Volume 66, Number 9 Friday, January 12, 2001 Notices Pages 3234-3235

7712.1 – Roads Analysis

“The Responsible Official shall incorporate an interdisciplinary science-based roads analysis into multi-forest, forest-scale, and watershed or area-scale analyses and assessments to inform planners and decision-makers of road system opportunities, needs and priorities that support land and resource management objectives. Conducted by an interdisciplinary team, the science-based roads analysis process provides Responsible Officials with critical information needed to identify and manage a minimum road system that is safe and responsive to public needs and desires, is affordable and efficient, has minimal adverse effects on ecological processes and ecosystem health, diversity, and productivity of the land, and is in balance with available funding for needed management actions.”

“Units are to use an authorized science-based roads analysis process, such as that described in the report Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions About Managing the National Forest Transportation System (USDA Forest Service, 1999, Misc. Report FS-643). …”

7712.1 – Outcomes

“The roads analysis results in a report and accompanying maps that document the information and analysis methods used to identify social and environmental opportunities, problems, risks, and priorities for future road management. The report documents the key findings of the analysis and contains graphical, tabular, and geospatial displays of the transportation system options, including a minimum road system. It is important that the roads analysis identify access needs and opportunities that are based on current budget levels and realistic projections of future funding. Analysts should locate, interpret, and use relevant scientific literature in the analysis and disclose assumptions on which the analysis is based. …”

“While the report contains factual information concerning the transportation system, road management decisions are not a product of roads analysis. Rather, road management decisions must be informed by roads analysis and disclosed in an appropriate NEPA document. …”

Page 5 of 160 7712.13b – Roads Analysis at the Forest or Area Scale

“Roads analysis at the forest scale is critically important, as it provides a context for road management in the broader framework of managing all forest resources. Close coordination with broader scale ecosystem assessments and analyses is essential. Area-scale assessments may be appropriate on forests with assessment areas composed of islands or groups of islands, on forests with widely separated units, or in areas where watershed boundaries do not make logical or effective assessment boundaries. Examples include forest with large physically or ecologically discrete subdivisions such as the large islands in southeast Alaska, or widely separated units of National Forests such as: National Forests in Texas, Mississippi, Florida, Missouri, and Louisiana, or on forests where watershed boundaries do not make logical or effective assessment boundaries, such as the coastal plains of the eastern United States.

1. Consider the following at this scale: a) Environmental issues potentially affected by road management proposals, such as soil and water resources, ecological processes, invasive species spread, and biological communities. b) Social issues potentially affected by road management proposals such as socio- economic impacts, public access, and accessibility for handicapped persons. c) An evaluation of the transportation rights-of-way acquisition needs. d) The interrelationship of State, county, Tribal, and other Federal agency transportation facility effects on land and resource management programs. e) Transportation investments necessary for meeting resource management plans and programs. f) Current and likely funding levels available to support road construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and decommissioning.

2. Prepare a report with accompanying map(s) that documents the information and analysis methods used to identify access and environmental priorities, issues, and guidelines for future road management and the key findings. At a minimum, the report will: a) Inventory and map all classified roads, and display how these roads are intended to be managed. b) Provide guidelines for addressing road management issues and priorities related to construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and decommissioning. c) Identify significant social and environmental issues, concerns, and opportunities to be addressed in project-level decisions. d) Document coordination efforts with other government agencies and jurisdictions.”

Federal Register Volume 66, Number 9 Friday, January 12, 2001 Notices Pages 3234-3235

Page 6 of 160

Introduction

Background

In August 1999, the Washington Office of the USDA Forest Service published Miscellaneous Report FS-643 titled “Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions about Managing the National Forest Transportation System”. The objective of roads analysis is to provide decision makers with critical information to develop road systems that are safe and responsive to public needs and desires, are affordable and efficiently managed, have minimal negative ecological effects on the land, and are in balance with available funding for needed management actions.

In October 1999, the agency published Interim Directive 7710-99-1 authorizing units to use, as appropriate, the road analysis procedure embodied in FS-643 to assist land managers making major road management decisions. The Rocky Mountain Region of the Forest Service then published a roads analysis guidance document as a supplement to Appendix 1 of FS-643. This document provides guidance concerning the appropriate scale for addressing the roads analysis.

Process

Roads analysis was a six-step process. The steps were designed to be sequential with the understanding that the process may require feedback and iteration among steps over time as an analysis matures. The amount of time and effort spent on each step differed by project, based on specific situations and available information. The process provided a set of possible issues and analysis questions for which the answers could inform choices about road system management. Decision makers and analysts determined the relevance of each question.

Step 1 – Setting up the analysis. The analysis was designed to produce an overview of the road system. Line officers established appropriate interdisciplinary teams and identified the proper analytic scales. The interdisciplinary team developed a process plan for conducting the analysis. The output from this step included assignment of interdisciplinary team members, a list of information needs, and a plan for the analysis.

Step 2 – Describing the situation. The interdisciplinary team described the existing road system, descriptions of access needs, and information about physical, biological, social, cultural, economic, and political conditions associated with the road system.

Step 3 – Identifying issues. The interdisciplinary team, in conjunction with line officers, identified important road-related issues and the information needed to address these concerns. The interdisciplinary team also determined data needs associated with analyzing the road system in the context of the important issues, for both existing and future roads. The output from this step included a summary of key road-related issues, a list of screening questions to evaluate them, a description of status of relevant available data, and a discussion of the additional data that will be needed to conduct the analysis.

Page 7 of 160 Step 4 – Assessing benefits, problems, and risks. After identifying the important issues and associated analytical questions, the interdisciplinary team systematically examined the major uses and effects of the road system including the environmental, social, and economic effects of the existing road system, and the values and sensitivities associated with unroaded areas. The output from this step was a synthesis of the benefits, problems, and risks of the current road system and the risks and benefits of building roads into unroaded areas.

Step 5 – Describing opportunities and setting priorities. The interdisciplinary team and line officers identified management opportunities, established priorities, and formulated technical recommendations that respond to the issues and effects. The output from this step included a map and descriptive ranking of management options and technical recommendations.

Step 6 – Reporting. The interdisciplinary team produced a report and maps that portrayed management opportunities and supporting information important for making decisions about future characteristics of the road system. This information set the context for developing proposed actions to improve the road system and for future amendments and revisions of forest plans.

Products

The product of an analysis is a report for decision makers that documents the information and analyses used to identify opportunities and set priorities for future National Forest road systems. Included in this report is a map displaying the known road system for the analysis area, and the risks and opportunities for each road or segment of road. This report also includes other maps and tables necessary to display specific priorities throughout the analysis.

This Report

This report documents the procedure used for completion of the forest-scale roads analysis of the Monongahela National Forest.

Page 8 of 160 Step 1 Setting up the analysis

Purpose and Products

The purpose of this step is to: • establish the level and type of decision making that the analysis will inform, • identify the geographic scale or scales for the analysis, • develop a process plan for conducting the analysis, and • clarify the roles of technical specialists and line officers in the team.

The products of this step are: • a statement of the objectives of the analysis, • a list of interdisciplinary team members and participants, • a list of information needs, and • a plan for the analysis.

Objectives of the Analysis

The objectives of this roads analysis are to complete a forest-wide summary of all Maintenance Level 3, 4, and 5 roads on the Monongahela National Forest and to identify ecological, social, and economical issues that deal with the current road system. Road-related issues to be addressed both while answering the 72 questions in Step 4 and in area and project- level analyses will be identified. Also, a road matrix will be completed that will identify the benefits (recreation, resource management) and risks (soils, watershed, wildlife) associated with each road. The information from this report will be used to aid in forest level transportation planning decisions, and will be a source of information for watershed, opportunity area (OA), and project-level roads analyses.

Page 9 of 160 Table 1: Interdisciplinary Team Members

Member Title Location

Jacob D'Angelo Civil Engineer, Transportation Planner, Team Leader MNF, SO, Elkins Ray Brown Wildlife Biologist MNF, Greenbrier Ranger District Gary Bustamente Fire Program Manager MNF, SO, Elkins Tom Cain Fish Biologist MNF, SO, Elkins John Calabrese Forest Archeologist MNF, SO, Elkins Stephanie Connolly Soil Scientist MNF, SO, Elkins Jan Garrett Ecologist / Botanist MNF, SO, Elkins Tim Henry South Zone Recreation Manger MNF, Marlinton Ranger District Sara Schell Special Use Manager MNF, Potomac Ranger District Melissa Thomas-VanGundy Natural Resource Specialist MNF, SO, Elkins Linda Tracy Geologist MNF, SO, Elkins Carol Whetsell North Zone Recreation Manager MNF, Cheat Ranger District

Information Needs

All Maintenance Level 3, 4, and 5 roads in the analysis area were mapped and exist as layers in the GIS system. Although there has been additional minor private road construction, the data currently housed in the geographic information system (GIS) will be the information used for this analysis. GIS maps are needed for the various resource fields and are discussed in Step 2. These maps are displayed throughout this report and in the appendices.

Analysis Plan

The review of this document will occur on the Monongahela National Forest, and, once completed, will be used to inform the line officer of opportunities that exist within the project (Forest) boundary. The interdisciplinary (ID) team will develop issues related to road management and review all the questions in Step 4 to determine which are applicable to the analysis area. In Step 5, the team will bring together all the resource information, make recommendations, and set priorities.

Page 10 of 160 Step 2 Describing the situation

Purpose and Products

The purpose of this step is to:

• describe the existing road system in relation to current forest plan direction.

The products of this step are:

• a map or other descriptions of the existing road and access system defined by the current forest plan or transportation plan, and • basic data needed to address roads analysis issues and questions.

The Analysis Area

The first National Forest lands to be acquired for the Monongahela National Forest were purchased in 1915 in Tucker County. The Weeks Law (1911) provided the authorization as a response to the devastating floods and fires occurring in the watersheds of the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers around the turn of the century. The depression and the Civilian Conservation Corps era was a period of rapid land acquisition. By 1985, the Forest included 857,000 acres of land located in the eastern highlands of West Virginia. The Forest is about one hundred miles from north to south and forty miles wide. It is located within three hundred miles of about one-fifth of the population of the Nation.

The Forest is located in the following counties (see Figure 13, pg. 31):

Barbour Pocahontas Grant Preston Greenbrier Randolph Nicholas Tucker Pendleton Webster

These counties and their residents are supported, in part, by the National Forest with natural resources, recreation opportunities, transportation systems, fire protection, and routine cash payments.

The Forest is mountainous and ranges in elevation from nine hundred feet at Petersburg to over four thousand feet at points along Spruce Mountain in Pendleton County. A “rain shadow” effect drops about sixty inches of precipitation on the west side and half that in the east. The Forest is underlain by sedimentary rocks that result in beautiful scenery, valuable mineral resources, excellent timber production, grazing opportunities, and generally good water quality.

The mineral resources include commercial quantities of coal, natural gas, and limestone, and limited amounts of iron, silica, and gravel. Page 11 of 160

Grazing for sheep and cattle occurs on about seven thousand acres of land, primarily located on soils that have limestone and calcareous geologies.

Northern hardwood trees merge on the Monongahela with oak-hickory timber typical of the Ohio Valley and cove hardwoods and pines from the south to form a very complex and diverse hardwood ecosystem. Ample rainfall and fertile soils produce excellent tree growth and timber potential. Most of the trees had their origin after widespread logging and are now sixty to ninety years old.

The scenic and recreational attributes of the Forest support over a million visitor days of recreation use each year. Those attributes have been recognized by the designation of the Spruce Knob- Seneca Rocks National Recreation Area, five Wildernesses, two scenic areas, and several National Natural Landmarks. Recreational facilities include two visitor centers, twenty-five campgrounds, seventeen picnic areas, and five hundred sixty-three miles of hiking trails. Recreational activities on the Forest include:

Berry Picking Hunting Cross County Skiing Camping Fishing Whitewater Canoeing Picnicking Trapping Spelunking Hiking Nature Study Rock Climbing Driving for Pleasure Swimming

Water quality is generally good. The Monongahela is astride the Eastern Continental Divide and is drained by both the Potomac and Ohio River Systems.

Populations of deer, bear, wild turkey, and squirrel are found as well as a very large variety of upland game, fur bearers, and non-game species. Both warm and cold water fishing opportunities are present. Two species of endangered bats, one species of endangered flying squirrel, one species of threatened salamander, and one species of threatened raptor are found on the Forest.

The managerial organization of the Monongahela consists of a forest supervisor, and four Ranger Districts with offices at Elkins, Petersburg, Parsons, Bartow, Marlinton, Richwood, and White Sulphur Springs. Two of the districts; Marlinton-White Sulphur and Cheat-Potomac; are managed as combined units. Because they were previously separate and are still defined as individual units in databases, this analysis refers to them as individual districts.

Page 12 of 160 Existing Road and Access System Description

ACCESS TO THE MONONGAHELA NATIONAL FOREST

Figure 1: Major Roads through West Virginia

Approximate Scale 1” = 40 mi.

Page 13 of 160 Figure 2: Major Roads through the Monongahela National Forest

Approximate Scale 1” = 16 mi.

Page 14 of 160 Figure 3: Monongahela National Forest Ranger Districts

Approximate Scale 1” = 17 mi.

Table 2: Roadway Summary by District and Maintenance Level (in miles)

District # District Name OML 1 OML 2 OML 3 OML 4 OML 5 District Total

1 Cheat 8.7 145.4 53.5 34.1 4.8 246.5 2 Gauley 12.3 161.6 45.7 52.3 6.1 277.9 3 Greenbrier 141.0 206.9 178.0 83.1 0.3 609.4 4 Marlinton 46.7 141.3 74.2 28.5 33.3 324.0 5 Potomac 20.8 59.7 18.1 54.1 4.4 157.0 6 White Sulphur 4.6 122.8 34.1 2.4 5.0 168.9 OML TOTALS 234.1 837.8 403.6 254.5 53.9

GRAND TOTAL 1783.8 miles

Page 15 of 160 Figure 4: District Totals (Maintenance Level 1,2,3,4,5) Monongahela National Forest 700

600

500

400

300 Total Miles of FS Roads 200

100

0 Cheat Gauley Greenbrier Marlinton Potomac White Sulphur District

Figure 5: Operational Maintenance Level Totals Monongahela National Forest 900

800

700

600

500

400 Total Miles Total

300

200

100

0 ML1 ML2 ML3 ML4 ML5 Maintenance Level

Page 16 of 160 Figure 6: District Totals of Maintenance Level 3,4,5

200

180

160

140

120 OML 3 100 OML 4 OML 5 Road Miles Road 80

60

40

20

0 Cheat Gauley Greenbrier MarlintonPotomac White Sulphur Districts

Forest Plan Goal

The goal statement found in the Forest Plan (1986) states that the goal is to “construct and maintain a transportation system that will allow efficient management and safe public use of National Forest lands.”

Forest Plan Objectives

Several transportation issues were addressed in the Forest Plan (1986). The following is an excerpt from the Plan, which identifies and addresses the issues raised:

“The number of roads proposed to be built, their mileage, construction standards, costs, management, and locations all were controversial in the draft Plan.

Basic to all concerns about transportation systems on the Forest are the effects such systems have on wildlife. The public motorized use of roads can adversely affect wildlife in two ways. Those species such as wild turkey and black bear that require remote habitat may be disturbed by the sights and sounds of motorized use, particularly during breeding seasons. All species can be adversely affected by higher levels of legal and illegal hunting pressures to which motorized access can substantially contribute.

The number and location of roads that are open to motorized use also affects the type and quality of recreational experience available on the Forest. Some of the public have voiced the desire to drive some of the roads, usually during hunting seasons. Other members of the public, however, have

Page 17 of 160 said that some roads should be closed to motorized use to protect remote habitat for wildlife and provide non-motorized recreational opportunities.

Construction standards are controversial because some people believe that the higher standard to which a road is build, the more likely there will be pressure to open it to motorize use. Others generally agree to building to lower standards for economic reasons, but see the value of adequate standards to protect other resources from adverse effects of construction. Still others urged the use of temporary roads without any controls or standards.

There was a large body of comments urging that those areas of the Forest now unroaded be left in that condition.

Resolution: The number of roads to be built within the plan period will be much lower than proposed in the draft Plan. As a consequence of the lower timber harvest, the designation of large areas of Forest for semi-primitive non-motorized recreation, fewer new roads will be needed to manage the Forest resources. In addition, wilderness areas and the existing transportation system are closed to motorized use. These designations and rate of timber harvest combine to provide large areas of the Forest suitable for remote wildlife habitat and semi-primitive non-motorized recreation.

New roads will be built to the lowest standard possible, which will permit maximum economy in meeting the intent of the prescription, commensurate with protection of other resource values. Appropriate surfacing and drainage structures will be included to protect soil and water resources.”

(Forest Plan, pgs. 17-18)

See the following table and graphs for information concerning the different types of roads found on the Monongahela National Forest in 1986:

Table 3: Monongahela National Forest Road Totals in 1986

Roadway Type Mileage Percent of Total

system roads 1207 36% state highways 334 10% temporary roads 139 4% railroad grades 468 14% logging roads 641 19% miscellaneous roads 587 17% 3376 100%

Today (2002), there are approximately 3,665 miles of road inside of the Forest boundary.

Page 18 of 160 Figure 7: Roadway Mileages on the Monongahela in 1986

1400

1200

1000

800

600 Road Miles Road

400

200

0 system roads state highways temporary roads railroad grades logging roads miscellaneous roads Roadway Type

Figure 8: Roads on the Monongahela in 1986

17%

36% system roads state highways temporary roads railroad grades 19% logging roads miscellaneous roads

10% 14% 4%

Page 19 of 160 Meeting Forest Plan Objectives

The Plan projected that between 1986 and 2000, 25 miles of road construction, 15 miles of reconstruction, and 8 miles of abandonment would be accomplished each year. See the following table and graphs for the road construction, reconstruction, and abandonment/decommissioning that has taken place since the Forest Plan was finalized in 1986:

Table 4: Road Activities since the Forest Plan was completed in 1986

Road Road Roads Year Construction Reconstruction Abandoned/Decommissioned (miles) (miles) (miles)

87 22 12 95 88 17 4 84 89 26 7 18 90 17 14 37 91 28 55 31 92 17 19 26 93 17 0 0 94 23 17 2 95 19 32 36 96 11 9 0 97 10 7 0 98 10 36 0 99 10 39 18 Totals 227 251 347

Figure 9: Road Construction Since 1986

Forest Plan Projection = 25 miles/yr 88-99 Average = 17 miles/yr 68% of Projected

30

28 25 26

23 22 20 19 17 17 17 17 15 Miles

10 11 10 10 10

5

0 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 Year

Page 20 of 160 Figure 10: Road Reconstruction Since 1986

Forest Plan Projection = 15 miles/yr 88-99 Average = 19 miles/yr 127% of Projected

60

55 50

40 39 36 30 32 Miles

20 19 17 14 10 12 9 7 7 4 0 0 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 Year

Figure 11: Roads Abandoned/Decommissioned Since 1986

Forest Plan Projection = 8 miles/yr 88-99 Average = 27 miles/yr 338% of Projected

100

90 95

80 84

70

60

50 Miles 40 37 30 36 31 20 26 18 18 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 Year

Page 21 of 160 Budget

The Forest budget allocation for planning, construction, and maintenance of roads has been averaging roughly $1,690,000 per year for the past couple of years. There has been an increasing trend in the funding level for roads; however, the annual cost to maintain the entire road system to standard is considerably higher than the amount allocated by Congress.

The Forest conducts road condition surveys to determine the actual cost of maintaining the road system to standard. Both annual and deferred maintenance items are identified and logged into a computer program. The following table lists the summary of needed maintenance dollars:

Table 5: Summary of Funds Needed for Road Maintenance

Maintenance Total Annual Maintenance Deferred Maintenance Level Miles $/mile Total $ $/mile Total $

1 235 $2,029 $476,989 $25,473 $5,987,367 2 816 $2,762 $2,253,581 $24,837 $20,368,393 3 403 $2,271 $915,319 $30,501 $12,292,025 4 222 $3,166 $704,398 $48,806 $10,858,348 5 43 $2,268 $97,295 $32,870 $1,409,791 $12,496 $4,447,482 $162,487 $50,815,924

Source: INFRA 2001 Summary Reports

Due in part to this lack of funding, there is a need to identify the minimum road system necessary for access and operation of the Monongahela. Currently, during landscape scale planning efforts, such as watershed assessments, unneeded roads are identified to be abandoned or decommissioned.

Road Inventory

The road inventory is a list of the Maintenance Level 3, 4, and 5 roads on the Monongahela National Forest. Information contained in the inventory includes the following:

• Road Number ● County • Road Name ● Lanes • Beginning Termini ● Maintenance Level • Ending Termini ● Quad • BMP (beginning mile point) ● Surface • EMP (ending mile point) ● Closure • Segment Length ● Functional Classification

Page 22 of 160 Forest Scale Roads Analysis

Road Inventory

Maintenance Levels 3, 4, and 5

Road Road Begin End BMP EMP Segment County Lanes OBJ ML OPR ML Quad Surface Closure Functional Number Name Termini Termini Length Classification

Cheat Ranger District 120 BEARDEN ST 32/14 - BEARDEN ST 32/14 - BEARDEN 0 0.2 0.2 TUCKER 1 3 3 10 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 1333 MOZARK KNOB S. RD43/6 - GATE GATE - MP 1.38 0 0.7 0.7 TUCKER 1 3 3 9 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 18 BACKBONE MTN US 219 - MP 2.10 MP 2.10 - ST 27 0 7 7 TUCKER 1 3 3 5 NAT D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 229 THREE SPRINGS RD 162 - MP 3.40 MP 3.40 - END 0 3.5 3.5 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 14 AGG A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 229B THREE SPGS. / B RD 229 - END RD 229 - END 0 1.04 1.04 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 14 NAT A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 303 CONDON RUN FR91-END FR91-END 0 0.6 0.6 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 13 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 319 LOWER CHEAT II ST 6 - END ST 6 - END 0 0.1 0.1 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 12 AGG A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 324 MCGOWAN MTN MP 0.00 - CO LINE EXP BDY - RD 701 0 1.7 1.7 TUCKER 1 3 3 8 AGG 001 - SUMMER CLOSURE - TURKEY AND BEAR A - ARTERIAL 324 MCGOWAN MTN MP 0.00 - CO LINE EXP BDY - RD 701 1.7 6.9 5.2 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 13 AGG 001 - SUMMER CLOSURE - TURKEY AND BEAR A - ARTERIAL 702 JOHN B. HOLLOW MP1.20-END MP1.20-END 1.3 2.4 1.1 TUCKER 1 3 3 8 AGG A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 703 WILSON HOLLOW MP1.00-END MP1.00-END 0 1.2 1.2 TUCKER 1 3 3 8 AGG A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 704 HICKMAN SLIDE RD 701 - NETWORK RD 701 - NETWORK 0 2.5 2.5 TUCKER 1 3 3 8 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 705 LOW. FISH TROUGH RD 704 - END RD 704 - END 0 2.1 2.1 TUCKER 1 3 3 8 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 707 BEAR RUN RD 701 - MP 1.10 MP 1.30 - RD 704 0 2 2 TUCKER 1 3 3 8 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 712 CAMP HOLLOW RD 701 - MP 0.90 RD 701 - MP 0.90 0 0.9 0.9 TUCKER 1 3 3 8 AGG 003 - OPEN SMALL GAME - CLOSE END DEER L - LOCAL 717 BACKBONE RIDGE RD 18 - OLSON RD 18 - OLSON 0 1.6 1.6 TUCKER 1 3 3 9 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 779 NAIL RUN ST 7 - GATE GATE - END 0 0.8 0.8 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 8 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 828 SUGAR CAMP ST 41 - RD 709 ST 41 - RD 709 0 3.1 3.1 TUCKER 1 3 3 8 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 903 CLOSE MTN ST 16 - END ST 16 - END 0 3.2 3.2 TUCKER 1 3 3 5 AGG A - CLOSED - WITH GATE C - COLLECTOR 91B STUART DR. / B MP 2.9 FS91 -- END MP 2.9 FS91 -- END 0 0.013 0.013 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 13 IMP D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 927B DRY RUN - B MP1.74 FS927 - END MP1.74 FS927 - END 0 0.3 0.3 TUCKER 1 3 3 5 NAT A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 929 BONIFIELD RUN ST 5 - MP 5.20 ST 5 - MP 5.20 0 5.3 5.3 TUCKER 1 3 3 4 AGG A-Q - CLOSED W/GATE - OPEN Q PERMIT ONLY C - COLLECTOR 929A BONNIFIELD - A MP4.66 FS929 - END MP4.66 FS929 - END 0 0.6 0.6 TUCKER 1 3 3 4 AGG A-Q - CLOSED W/GATE - OPEN Q PERMIT ONLY L - LOCAL 929B BONNEFIELD - B RD929-END RD929-END 0 0.6 0.6 TUCKER 1 3 3 5 AGG A-Q - CLOSED W/GATE - OPEN Q PERMIT ONLY L - LOCAL 929C BONNEFIELD - C RD929A-END RD929A-END 0 1.2 1.2 TUCKER 1 3 3 5 AGG A-Q - CLOSED W/GATE - OPEN Q PERMIT ONLY L - LOCAL 929D BONNEFIELD - D RD929A-END RD929A-END 0 0.4 0.4 TUCKER 1 3 3 5 AGG A-Q - CLOSED W/GATE - OPEN Q PERMIT ONLY L - LOCAL 930 DRIFT RUN ST 9 - END ST 9 - END 0 4.4 4.4 TUCKER 1 3 3 5 IMP A - CLOSED - WITH GATE C - COLLECTOR 940 CLOSE MTN. S SR 16 TO END SR 16 TO END 0 2 2 TUCKER 1 3 3 5 AGG A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 952 GAY'S SPUR ST 38 - END ST 38 - END 0 0.1 0.1 TUCKER 1 3 3 3 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 53.453

125 HORSESHOE CAMP ST 7 - THRU ORG ST 7 - THRU ORG 0 0.2 0.2 TUCKER 1 4 4 5 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 13 CANAAN MTN ST32-GATE GOVT.BDY-PRIVATE 0 0.4 0.4 TUCKER 1 4 4 10 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 13 CANAAN MTN ST32-GATE GOVT.BDY-PRIVATE 0.4 10.6 10.2 TUCKER 1 4 4 9 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 162 KUNTZVILLE ST 12 - GATE GATE - RD 229 0 2.1 2.1 RANDOLPH 1 4 4 14 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 243 OTTER CK TR. PK. 0.00 ST72 -- END 0.00 ST72 -- END 0 0.1 0.1 TUCKER 1 4 4 9 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 392 STUART REC RD91-LOOP RD91-LOOP 0 0.1 0.1 RANDOLPH 1 4 4 12 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 701 ELKLICK ST 219/7 - LOOP ST 219/7 - LOOP 0 7 7 TUCKER 1 4 4 8 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 709 FORK MTN RD 701 - END RD 701 - END 0 3.4 3.4 TUCKER 1 4 4 8 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 91 STUART DRIVE ST 6- US 33 ST 6- US 33 0 10.3 10.3 RANDOLPH 1 4 4 12 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 91A STURT DR. / A RD 91 - BICKEL KNOB RD 91 - BICKEL KNOB 0 0.3 0.3 RANDOLPH 1 4 4 13 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 34.1

391 STUART REC AREA ST 6 - THRU REC ST 6 - THRU REC 0 1.2 1.2 RANDOLPH 2 5 5 12 BIT 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE L - LOCAL 391A STUART REC AREA CG-A 0 0.35 0.35 RANDOLPH 2 5 5 12 BIT 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE L - LOCAL 391B STUART REC AREA-BEACH-B 0 0.3 0.3 RANDOLPH 2 5 5 BIT 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE L - LOCAL 50 PARSONS NURSERY US 219 - ADM SITE US 219 - ADM SITE 0 0.7 0.7 TUCKER 2 5 5 8 BIT D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 50A PARSONS NUR. - A RD 50 - LOOP RD 50 - LOOP 0 0.4 0.4 TUCKER 1 5 5 8 BIT D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 50B PARSONS NUR.- B RD 50 - RD 50A RD 50 - RD 50A 0 0.1 0.1 TUCKER 1 5 5 8 BIT D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 50C PARSONS NUR. - C RD 50 - LOOP RD 50 - LOOP 0 0.4 0.4 TUCKER 1 5 5 8 BIT D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 726 CAMP SPUR ST 7 - REC AREA ST 7 - REC AREA 0 0.3 0.3 TUCKER 1 5 5 5 BIT 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE L - LOCAL 840 SARATOGA STAR CITY CORP* 840.3-THRU PAR* 0 0.1 0.1 MONONGALIA 2 5 5 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 840 SARATOGA STAR CITY CORP* 840.3-THRU PAR* 0.3 0.5 0.2 MONONGALIA 2 5 5 BIT L - LOCAL 840 SARATOGA STAR CITY CORP* 840.3-THRU PAR* 0.7 0.8 0.1 MONONGALIA 2 5 5 BIT L - LOCAL 840 SARATOGA STAR CITY CORP* 840.3-THRU PAR* 0.8 1 0.2 MONONGALIA 2 5 5 BIT L - LOCAL 840 SARATOGA STAR CITY CORP* 840.3-THRU PAR* 0.5 0.7 0.2 MONONGALIA 2 5 5 AGG L - LOCAL 840 SARATOGA STAR CITY CORP* 840.3-THRU PAR* 0.2 0.3 0.1 MONONGALIA 2 5 5 AGG L - LOCAL 840 SARATOGA STAR CITY CORP* 840.3-THRU PAR* 0.1 0.2 0.1 MONONGALIA 2 5 5 BIT L - LOCAL 4.75 Road Road Begin End BMP EMP Segment County Lanes OBJ ML OPR ML Quad Surface Closure Functional Number Name Termini Termini Length Classification

Gauley Ranger District 102 S. FK CRANBERRY GATE-N.FK. BRIDGE MP5.10 - RD 76 1.6 2.6 1 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 58 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 102 S. FK CRANBERRY GATE-N.FK. BRIDGE MP5.10 - RD 76 2.6 6.4 3.8 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 58 AGG 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE A - ARTERIAL 102 S. FK CRANBERRY GATE-N.FK. BRIDGE MP5.10 - RD 76 6.4 6.9 0.5 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 49 AGG 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE A - ARTERIAL 108 MIDDLE FK WMS 86-PK LOT 86-PK LOT 0 0.5 0.5 WEBSTER 1 3 3 49 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 133 WHITE OAK RD86-MP03.20 MP 3.20 -- END 0 3 3 WEBSTER 1 3 3 48 IMP D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 232 DOGWAY SOUTH ST.39-GATE MP07.00-RD76 0 1.3 1.3 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 58 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 234 GAULEY RIVER 101 - MP 05.20 101 - MP 05.20 0 5.2 5.2 WEBSTER 1 3 3 39 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 249 SUGARTREE ST.29/4 - MP 1.2 ST.29/4 - MP 1.2 0 1.2 1.2 GREENBRIER 2 3 3 58 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 425 LAUREL RUN 133-GATE GATE-END 0 3.8 3.8 WEBSTER 1 3 3 48 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 730 FORK MOUNTAIN ST.39-MP06.50 ST.39-MP06.50 0 6.6 6.6 GREENBRIER 1 3 3 57 AGG A - CLOSED - WITH GATE C - COLLECTOR 735 SAWYER RUN ST42-RD236 RD236-END 0 2.8 2.8 WEBSTER 1 3 3 39 AGG A - CLOSED - WITH GATE C - COLLECTOR 77 POCAHONTAS ST.39/5-MP01.00 MP 5.80 - MIKES KNOB 0 1 1 GREENBRIER 1 3 3 57 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 78 DOGWAY RD77-RD232 RD77-RD232 0 1.6 1.6 WEBSTER 2 3 3 48 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 82 RED OAK 101 - RED OAK * 101 - RED OAK * 0 2.5 2.5 WEBSTER 1 3 3 48 AGG 001 - SUMMER CLOSURE - TURKEY AND BEAR C - COLLECTOR 82.2 RED OAK EXT RED OAK-END RED OAK-END 0 2.4 2.4 WEBSTER 1 3 3 48 AGG A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 83 JAKEMAN RUN ST7/5-END ST7/5-END 0 3.2 3.2 NICHOLAS 1 3 3 47 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 99 CRANBERRY RIDGE MP2.00 -- CO LINE MP 6.47 - CO.LINE 0 1.2 1.2 NICHOLAS 1 3 3 47 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 99 CRANBERRY RIDGE MP2.00 -- CO LINE MP 6.47 - CO.LINE 1.2 2 0.8 NICHOLAS 1 3 3 48 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 99 CRANBERRY RIDGE MP2.00 -- CO LINE MP 6.47 - CO.LINE 2 3.6 1.6 NICHOLAS 1 3 3 48 AGG 003 - OPEN SMALL GAME - CLOSE END DEER C - COLLECTOR 99 CRANBERRY RIDGE MP2.00 -- CO LINE MP 6.47 - CO.LINE 3.6 4.3 0.7 WEBSTER 1 3 3 48 AGG 003 - OPEN SMALL GAME - CLOSE END DEER C - COLLECTOR 99 CRANBERRY RIDGE MP2.00 -- CO LINE MP 6.47 - CO.LINE 6.8 7.8 1 NICHOLAS 1 3 3 48 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 45.7

101 CRANBERRY DYER 76 - ST.81 ST46 - ST RD81 0 2.7 2.7 WEBSTER 1 4 4 48 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 223 BEAR RUN ST 39 - BM 4181 ST 39 - BM 4181 0 3.8 3.8 GREENBRIER 1 4 4 58 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 395 BIG ROCK C.G. RD76-RD76 RD76-RD76 0 0.2 0.2 NICHOLAS 1 4 4 47 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 400 CRANBERRY CG. RD 76-76 RD 76-76 0 0.6 0.6 WEBSTER 1 4 4 48 AGG 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE L - LOCAL 76 CRANBERRY ST 76/1- FR 81 CO.LINE-RD102 0 4.5 4.5 NICHOLAS 2 4 4 47 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 76 CRANBERRY ST 76/1- FR 81 CO.LINE-RD102 10.6 17.3 6.7 WEBSTER 2 4 4 48 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 76 CRANBERRY ST 76/1- FR 81 CO.LINE-RD102 17.8 22 4.2 WEBSTER 2 4 4 49 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 76 CRANBERRY ST 76/1- FR 81 CO.LINE-RD102 17.3 17.8 0.5 WEBSTER 2 4 4 48 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 76 CRANBERRY ST 76/1- FR 81 CO.LINE-RD102 5.1 10.6 5.5 WEBSTER 2 4 4 48 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 76 CRANBERRY ST 76/1- FR 81 CO.LINE-RD102 4.5 5.1 0.6 NICHOLAS 2 4 4 48 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 81 COE RD76-CO.LINE MP 2.0 - 101 0 2 2 NICHOLAS 1 4 4 47 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 81 COE RD76-CO.LINE MP 2.0 - 101 2 5.5 3.5 WEBSTER 1 4 4 47 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 86.1 WILLIAMS RIVER ST46/2-MP1.8 ST46/2-MP1.8 0 1.8 1.8 WEBSTER 2 4 4 48 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 86.2 WILLIAMS RIVER MP 1.80 - CO LINE MP 1.80 - CO LINE 0 10.7 10.7 WEBSTER 1 4 4 48 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 86.3 WILLIAMS RIVER CO.LI-DIST.BDY CO.LI-DIST.BDY 0 3.7 3.7 WEBSTER 1 4 4 49 AGG A - CLOSED - WITH GATE A - ARTERIAL 890 BISHOP KNOB CG. 101 - THRU CMP* 101 - THRU CMP* 0 1.2 1.2 WEBSTER 2 4 4 48 AGG 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE L - LOCAL 944B LAKE PARKING 0 0.07 0.07 GREENBRIER 1 4 4 57 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 52.27

102 S. FK CRANBERRY GATE-N.FK. BRIDGE MP5.10 - RD 76 0 1.6 1.6 POCAHONTAS 2 5 5 58 BIT D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 126 NORTH BEND ST.39-ST.39 ST.39-ST.39 0 0.2 0.2 GREENBRIER 2 5 5 57 BIT 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE L - LOCAL 1632 FALLS OF HILLS CR. ST.39-PARKING * ST.39-PARKING * 0 0.3 0.3 POCAHONTAS 2 5 5 58 BIT D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 350 CRANBERRY VIS ST.39-PARKING LOT ST.39-PARKING LOT 0 0.3 0.3 POCAHONTAS 2 5 5 58 BIT D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 388 RCHWOOD ADM. SITE ST.39-PARKING LOT ST.39-PARKING LOT 0 0.2 0.2 NICHOLAS 2 5 5 56 BIT D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 399 SUMMIT L. REC. ST.39/5-THRU C* ST.39/5-THRU C* 0 1.3 1.3 GREENBRIER 2 5 5 57 BIT 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE C - COLLECTOR 399A SUM. LK. R. SP. A 399-PARKING LOT 399-PARKING LOT 0 0.3 0.3 GREENBRIER 1 5 5 57 BIT 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE L - LOCAL 898 WOODBINE 76 - END 76 - END 0 0.5 0.5 NICHOLAS 2 5 5 47 BIT 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE L - LOCAL 944 COATS RUN RD399 - END RD399 - END 0 0.8 0.8 GREENBRIER 1 5 5 57 BIT D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 944.1 BOAT RAMP PARK ST39/5-GATE ST39/5-GATE 0 0.3 0.3 GREENBRIER 2 5 5 57 BIT D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 944A LAKE ROAD 0 0.3 0.3 GREENBRIER 1 5 5 57 BIT D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 6.1 Road Road Begin End BMP EMP Segment County Lanes OBJ ML OPR ML Quad Surface Closure Functional Number Name Termini Termini Length Classification

Greenbrier Ranger District 106 ALLEGHENY RD54-MP8.02 MP8.02-ST28 0 8.1 8.1 POCAHONTAS 2 3 3 36 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 1446 ZINN RIDGE ST10 - WELL 7429 WELL 7429-END 0 3.8 3.8 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 20 NAT A - CLOSED - WITH GATE C - COLLECTOR 1446 ZINN RIDGE ST10 - WELL 7429 WELL 7429-END 3.8 4.26 0.46 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 20 IMP A - CLOSED - WITH GATE C - COLLECTOR 1446A ZINN RDGE - A RD1446 - WELL 74 RD1446 - WELL 74 0 0.8 0.8 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 20 IMP A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 14A MIDDLE MTN - A ST 10/1 - END ST 10/1 - END 0 0.2 0.2 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 28 AGG A - CLOSED - WITH GATE A - ARTERIAL 163 CHEAT BRIDGE US 250-DEADEND US 250-DEADEND 0 2.4 2.4 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 35 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 1678 SUTTON RUN ST 6/1 - MP0.51 MP0.51 - END 0 0.7 0.7 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 44 NAT D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 17 LITTLE RIVER 44-MP 02.20 MP 2.20 - ST 250/9 0 2.2 2.2 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 35 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 17 LITTLE RIVER 44-MP 02.20 MP 2.20 - ST 250/9 2.2 6.5 4.3 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 28 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 176 IRON BRIDGE RD 44 TO WELL * RD 44 TO WELL * 0 2 2 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 27 NAT A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 177 MILL RUN RD 44.2 - WELL* RD 44.2 - WELL* 0 3.2 3.2 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 27 NAT 001 - SUMMER CLOSURE - TURKEY AND BEAR L - LOCAL 177A MILL RUN / A RD 177 - DEAD * RD 177 - DEAD * 0 0.5 0.5 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 27 NAT 001 - SUMMER CLOSURE - TURKEY AND BEAR L - LOCAL 178 GERTRUDE RUN RD 44.2 - WELL* RD 44.2 - WELL* 0 1.8 1.8 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 27 NAT 001 - SUMMER CLOSURE - TURKEY AND BEAR L - LOCAL 178A GER. RUN / A RD 178 -- WELL 7464 WELL 7464 -- MP 2.16 FS 179 0 3.4 3.4 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 27 AGG 001 - SUMMER CLOSURE - TURKEY AND BEAR L - LOCAL 179 ELKLICK RUN RD 44 - ST 10/1 RD 44 - ST 10/1 0 4.4 4.4 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 27 NAT 001 - SUMMER CLOSURE - TURKEY AND BEAR C - COLLECTOR 179D ELCK RUN / D FS179 -- PIPELINE FS179 -- PIPELINE 0 0.1 0.1 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 27 NAT A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 183 EAST FORK GLADY FS422 -- FS 183B MP 3.70 - WELL 7448 0 3.3 3.3 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 20 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 183 EAST FORK GLADY FS422 -- FS 183B MP 3.70 - WELL 7448 3.3 4 0.7 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 28 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 183A E.FK. GLADY / A MP 0.73 FS183 -- END MP 0.73 FS183 -- END 0 0.8 0.8 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 20 NAT A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 183B E.FK. GLADY / B MP 3.26 FS 183 -- END MP 3.26 FS 183 -- END 0 1.9 1.9 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 28 IMP D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 183C E.FK. GLADY / C MP 3.22 FS 183 MP 3.22 FS 183 0 0.5 0.5 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 28 NAT A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 187 DANIELS RUN ST 10 -- PIPELINE MP 2.70 - P.LINE END 0 3.3 3.3 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 20 NAT A - CLOSED - WITH GATE C - COLLECTOR 187A DAN. RUN / A RD 187 - WELL 74 RD 187 - WELL 74 0 0.1 0.1 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 20 NAT A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 187B DANIELS RUN / B RD187-END RD187-END 0 0.5 0.5 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 20 IMP A - CLOSED - WITH GATE C - COLLECTOR 187C DAN. RUN / C RD 187 - END RD 187 - END 0 1.5 1.5 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 20 IMP A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 188 YOKUM RUN 92-MP2.0 MP02.00-END 0 2 2 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 27 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 209 SHAVERS FORK US 250-DEADEND US 250-DEADEND 0 2.6 2.6 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 26 NAT D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 210 MC GEE RUN 92 - SHAVERS F* 92 - SHAVERS F* 0 2 2 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 27 NAT A - CLOSED - WITH GATE C - COLLECTOR 224 SPAN OAK 250/4-END 250/4-END 0 2.3 2.3 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 35 AGG A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 227 OLD MINE ST92-FR233 ST92-FR233 0 6.9 6.9 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 26 NAT D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 233 RIVER ROAD ST25O/4-FR227 FR227-BEAVER CR. 0 10 10 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 34 NAT 001 - SUMMER CLOSURE - TURKEY AND BEAR L - LOCAL 235 MOWER EAST ST250/4-FIRST FORK ODEY RUN-ST.1 0 8.5 8.5 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 34 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 245 WHITE TOP ST92-ST250/4 ST92-ST250/4 0 0.6 0.6 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 34 NAT D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 247 TOLINS TURN RD235-END RD235-END 0 0.5 0.5 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 34 AGG 001 - SUMMER CLOSURE - TURKEY AND BEAR C - COLLECTOR 254 PIGS EAR RD 112 - GOV T* RD 112 - GOV T* 0 1.3 1.3 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 28 NAT D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 259 WHITE RUN ST 22 - GOV BDY ST 22 - GOV BDY 0 0.9 0.9 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 20 NAT A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 259A WHITE RUN / A RD 259 - END RD 259 - END 0 0.3 0.3 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 20 NAT A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 259B WHITE RUN / B GOVT BDY - WELL GOVT BDY - WELL 0 0.6 0.6 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 20 NAT A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 259D WHITE RUN / D GOV BDY - WELL 74 GOV BDY - WELL 74 0 0.7 0.7 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 20 NAT A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 26 RIFFLES CREEK US 250 - MP 0.50. MP 0.5 - DEADEND 0 0.3 0.3 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 26 AGG A - CLOSED - WITH GATE C - COLLECTOR 27A GAUDINEER - A 27 - END 27 - END 0 0.5 0.5 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 35 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 317 JOHNS CAMP RUN 27 - MP 0.4 27 - MP 0.4 0 0.5 0.5 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 27 NAT A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 35 SNORTING LICK RD 44 - ST 10 RD 44 - ST 10 0 3.9 3.9 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 27 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 35A SNORT.LICK- A RD 35 - WELL 7468 WELL 7468 - END 0 0.4 0.4 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 28 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 36 ISLAND CAMP ST 28 - ISLAND ST 28 - ISLAND 0 0.3 0.3 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 36 AGG 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE L - LOCAL 364 SPRING RUN MP1.22 -- END ST10- MP 1.22 0 1.3 1.3 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 20 IMP A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 364A SPRING RUN - A RD 364 - WELL 74 RD 364 - WELL 74 0 0.3 0.3 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 13 IMP A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 366 FRAZIER RIDGE ST10 --WELL 7427 WELL7327 - MP 3.43 0 2.5 2.5 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 20 IMP A - CLOSED - WITH GATE C - COLLECTOR 366A FRZR RDGE - A RD 366 - END RD 366 - END 0 0.35 0.35 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 20 NAT A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 369 FOX RUN ST10 -- WELL 7458 ST10 -- WELL 7458 0 2.6 2.6 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 28 NAT A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 369A FOX RUN - A FS369 -- WELL 7453 FS369 -- WELL 7453 0 0.4 0.4 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 28 NAT A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 369B FOX RUN - B MP1.01 FS369--END MP1.01 FS369--END 0 2.1 2.1 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 27 IMP A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 369C FOX RUN - C FS369--WELL7467 FS369--WELL7467 0 0.1 0.1 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 27 NAT A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 369E FOX RUN - E FS369--WELL7455 FS369--WELL7455 0 0.2 0.2 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 27 NAT A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 382 DANIELS RIDGE RD 187 - END RD 187 - END 0 1.8 1.8 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 20 NAT A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 382A DAN RDGE. - A RD 382-PUMP STA. RD 382-PUMP STA. 0 0.3 0.3 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 20 NAT A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 385 CAMP HOLLOW FS 183--WELL 7472 FS 183--WELL 7472 0 2.9 2.9 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 20 NAT A-Q - CLOSED W/GATE - OPEN Q PERMIT ONLY C - COLLECTOR 385A CAMP HOL. - A RD 385-MP 0.80 RD 385-MP 0.80 0 0.8 0.8 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 20 NAT A-Q - CLOSED W/GATE - OPEN Q PERMIT ONLY L - LOCAL 385B CAMP HOL. - B FS385--WELL74* FS385--WELL74* 0 0.2 0.2 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 20 NAT A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 385C CAMP HOL. - C FS385 - WELL 74* FS385 - WELL 74* 0 0.7 0.7 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 20 NAT A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 385D CAMP HOL.- D FS385-MP0.92 FS183B FS385-MP0.92 FS183B 0 0.3 0.3 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 28 NAT A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 422 OSCEOLA ST22--MP18.73 ST10 ST22--MP18.73 ST10 0 2.6 2.6 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 20 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 423A OSCEOLA - A RD423--LOOP RD423--LOOP 0 0.19 0.19 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 28 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 423B OSCEOLA - B .RD 423 - END .RD 423 - END 0 0.2 0.2 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 28 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 427 LITTLE BEECH MTN. ST10--WELL7* ST10--WELL7* 0 1 1 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 28 NAT 002 - OPEN DEER SEASON - GUN BUCK ONLY L - LOCAL 463 EAST FORK RIDGE ST10 --RD183C ST10 --RD183C 0 1.4 1.4 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 28 NAT A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 464 UPPER MIKES RUN ST10/1 - WELL 7479 ST10/1 - WELL 7479 0 0.6 0.6 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 28 NAT A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 464A U. MKES RUN - A RD 464-WELL 74* RD 464-WELL 74* 0 0.2 0.2 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 28 NAT A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL Road Road Begin End BMP EMP Segment County Lanes OBJ ML OPR ML Quad Surface Closure Functional Number Name Termini Termini Length Classification 47 WHITMEADOW 92 - DEADEND 92 - DEADEND 0 2.3 2.3 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 26 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 475 FILL RUN RD92-END RD92-END 0 0.8 0.8 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 35 AGG A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 477 UPPER MTN. LICK 250/4 - WELL 7474 WELL 7474 -END. 0 1.8 1.8 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 35 IMP A - CLOSED - WITH GATE C - COLLECTOR 481 FISH FOR FUN 27 - DEADEND 27 - DEADEND 0 2.3 2.3 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 27 NAT D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 49 CROUCH RUN 92 - DEADEND 92 - DEADEND 0 4 4 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 26 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 496 LOUK RUN II 422 - DEAD END 422 - DEAD END 0 1.43 1.43 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 20 NAT A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 51 ABES RUN ST.28-EAST FORK MOUND-FR51-A 0 2.6 2.6 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 36 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 52 DILLY HOLLOW ST 28 - FR 106 ST 28 - FR 106 0 2.3 2.3 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 36 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 54B BUF. FK. - B RD54-PARKINGLOT RD54-PARKINGLOT 0 0.1 0.1 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 36 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 55 ALLEGHENY FR 815 -ST.39 ST.84-GATE-2.1MI 27.5 28.2 0.7 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 53 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 57 LONG RUN ST 28- 106 ST 28- 106 0 3.2 3.2 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 36 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 58 SMOKE CAMP 106 - SMOKE CA* 106 - SMOKE CA* 0 3 3 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 36 AGG 001 - SUMMER CLOSURE - TURKEY AND BEAR L - LOCAL 756 LITTLE RIVER WEST RD17-WELL 7473 WELL 7473-END 0 2.5 2.5 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 35 NAT A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 757 STONEY ST.6-MP0.8 MP0.8-END 0 0.8 0.8 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 53 IMP 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE C - COLLECTOR 799 MC CRAY RIDGE ST10 -- WELL7426 WELL 7426 - END 0 1 1 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 20 NAT A - CLOSED - WITH GATE C - COLLECTOR 811 GRASSY KNOB US 250-FOR. BD* US 250-FOR. BD* 0 4.1 4.1 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 36 NAT A - CLOSED - WITH GATE C - COLLECTOR 817 FOX RIDGE ST10/1 - WELL ST10/1 - WELL 0 1.7 1.7 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 28 NAT A - CLOSED - WITH GATE C - COLLECTOR 817A FOX RIDGE - A RD 817-WELL 74* RD 817-WELL 74* 0 0.2 0.2 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 27 NAT A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 817C FOX RIDGE - C 817-PIPELINE 817-PIPELINE 0 0.2 0.2 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 27 NAT A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 821 CHERRY RUN ST 10/1 - DEADEND ST 10/1 - DEADEND 0 0.7 0.7 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 35 NAT A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 821A CHERRY RUN RD821-END RD821-END 0 2.6 2.6 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 35 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 826 BEAVER DAM RIDGE FR14-END FR14-END 0 4.6 4.6 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 20 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 826A BEAVER D. RDG-A RD826-END RD826-END 0 2.5 2.5 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 20 AGG A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 863 SANDY RIDGE 0 0.3 0.3 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 35 AGG A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 866 SUTER RUN RD 92 - MP 2.50 RD 92 - MP 2.50 0 2.9 2.9 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 19 AGG A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 90 GALFORD RUN ST. 6/2 - 90-A MP1.5-MP3.2 0 1.5 1.5 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 44 AGG A - CLOSED - WITH GATE C - COLLECTOR 90 GALFORD RUN ST. 6/2 - 90-A MP1.5-MP3.2 1.5 3.2 1.7 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 53 AGG A - CLOSED - WITH GATE C - COLLECTOR 90A GAL. RUN / A RD90-MP3.3 RD90-MP3.3 0 3.3 3.3 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 53 AGG 001 - SUMMER CLOSURE - TURKEY AND BEAR C - COLLECTOR 90B GAL. RUN / B 90-MP0.1 MP3.3-END 0 0.1 0.1 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 53 NAT D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 97 LTL RIV. PLANT. MP 8.93 ST 250/9 MP 8.93 ST 250/9 0 3.7 3.7 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 28 NAT A-Q - CLOSED W/GATE - OPEN Q PERMIT ONLY L - LOCAL 178.03

14 MIDDLE MTN ST 28 -SR250/4 FS 14 - ST MAINT 0 10.17 10.17 POCAHONTAS 1 4 4 36 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 14 MIDDLE MTN ST 28 -SR250/4 FS 14 - ST MAINT 10.17 28.8 18.63 RANDOLPH 1 4 4 28 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 27 GAUDINEER US 250-317 RD27E-END 0 6 6 RANDOLPH 1 4 4 35 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 27 GAUDINEER US 250-317 RD27E-END 6.1 6.14 0.04 RANDOLPH 1 4 4 27 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 27 GAUDINEER US 250-317 RD27E-END 6 6.1 0.1 RANDOLPH 1 4 4 27 AGG A - CLOSED - WITH GATE C - COLLECTOR 27B GAUDINEER - B RD 27 - GLADE * RD 27 - GLADE * 0 0.6 0.6 RANDOLPH 1 4 4 27 AGG A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 27C GAUDINEER - C RD 27 - LINA RD 27 - LINA 0 0.5 0.5 RANDOLPH 1 4 4 27 AGG A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 27E GAUDINEER - E RD27 - LINAN N* RD27 - LINAN N* 0 0.1 0.1 RANDOLPH 1 4 4 27 NAT A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 423 OSCEOLA MP18.45 ST10-423-A MP18.45 ST10-423-A 0 1.6 1.6 RANDOLPH 1 4 4 20 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 44 GLADY DURBIN MP 0.13-MP 5.00 CO. LINE-ST22/2 0 0.013 0.013 POCAHONTAS 1 4 4 35 BIT D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 44 GLADY DURBIN MP 0.13-MP 5.00 CO. LINE-ST22/2 0.13 8.1 7.97 POCAHONTAS 1 4 4 35 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 44 GLADY DURBIN MP 0.13-MP 5.00 CO. LINE-ST22/2 8.1 17.6 9.5 POCAHONTAS 1 4 4 27 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 44 GLADY DURBIN MP 0.13-MP 5.00 CO. LINE-ST22/2 17.6 20.4 2.8 RANDOLPH 1 4 4 20 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 44 GLADY DURBIN MP 0.13-MP 5.00 CO. LINE-ST22/2 0.013 0.13 0.117 POCAHONTAS 1 4 4 35 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 54 BUFFALO FORK ST 28 - MP 2.80 MP 2.8-FR106 0 9 9 POCAHONTAS 1 4 4 36 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 54A BUF. FK. SPUR A RD54-PARKINGLOT RD54-PARKINGLOT 0 0.1 0.1 POCAHONTAS 1 4 4 36 NAT D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 92 CHEAT MTN. US 250-MP02.80 MP12.40-ST.37 0 7 7 RANDOLPH 1 4 4 26 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 92 CHEAT MTN. US 250-MP02.80 MP12.40-ST.37 7 15.9 8.9 RANDOLPH 1 4 4 27 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 83.14

1836 OLD HOUSE RUN REC US 250 - US 250 US 250 - US 250 0 0.1 0.1 POCAHONTAS 2 5 5 36 BIT D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 360 BARTOW ADM. SITE US 250- MP 0.03 US 250- MP 0.03 0 0.15 0.15 POCAHONTAS 1 5 5 35 BIT D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 360 BARTOW ADM. SITE US 250- MP 0.03 US 250- MP 0.03 0.15 0.24 0.09 POCAHONTAS 1 5 5 35 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 0.34 Road Road Begin End BMP EMP Segment County Lanes OBJ ML OPR ML Quad Surface Closure Functional Number Name Termini Termini Length Classification

Marlinton Ranger District 1002 MONDAY LICK STILLWELL-MESS* MASSIR CEM.-RD* 0 3.8 3.8 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 60 AGG 003 - OPEN SMALL GAME - CLOSE END DEER C - COLLECTOR 1026 BUZZARD RIDGE US 219-GATE MP3.3-END 0 3.3 3.3 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 42 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 1026 BUZZARD RIDGE US 219-GATE MP3.3-END 3.3 5.6 2.3 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 42 AGG 001 - SUMMER CLOSURE - TURKEY AND BEAR C - COLLECTOR 115 FRIEL RUN ST MAINT - GATE ST MAINT - GATE 0 3.7 3.7 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 50 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 1179 BIRD RUN REC. ST.84-LOOP ST.84-LOOP 0 0.4 0.4 POCAHONTAS 2 3 3 53 AGG 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE L - LOCAL 202 CLOVERLICK US 219-GATE GATE-DEADEND 0 1.8 1.8 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 51 AGG 005 - OPEN DEER SEASON - CLOSED END BEAR L - LOCAL 24 GAULEY MTN ST.219/1-GATE CO.LINE-END 0 3.2 3.2 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 41 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 24 GAULEY MTN ST.219/1-GATE CO.LINE-END 4.2 8.9 4.7 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 41 AGG 001 - SUMMER CLOSURE - TURKEY AND BEAR C - COLLECTOR 24 GAULEY MTN ST.219/1-GATE CO.LINE-END 3.2 4.2 1 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 41 AGG C - COLLECTOR 251 CROOKED FORK US 219 - GATE GATE-DEADEND 0 2.9 2.9 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 51 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 304 STILLHOUSE RUN STILLWELL-MP4.2 MP04.20-DEADEND 0 4.2 4.2 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 60 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 368 LEATHERWOOD S. ROAD 24 - MP 2.9 MP 2.9 - END 0 2.7 2.7 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 41 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 368 LEATHERWOOD S. ROAD 24 - MP 2.9 MP 2.9 - END 2.7 2.9 0.2 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 41 AGG A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 370 POCAHONTAS CG ST. 92-LOOP ST. 92-LOOP 0 0.3 0.3 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 69 AGG 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE C - COLLECTOR 404 TEA CREEK CG RD 135- LOOP RD 135- LOOP 0 0.8 0.8 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 50 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 437 MTN. LICK RUN 216 - ST 18 216 - ST 18 0 3.3 3.3 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 59 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 55 ALLEGHENY FR 815 -ST.39 ST.84-GATE-2.1MI 0 6.1 6.1 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 69 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 55 ALLEGHENY FR 815 -ST.39 ST.84-GATE-2.1MI 6.1 12.1 6 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 61 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 55 ALLEGHENY FR 815 -ST.39 ST.84-GATE-2.1MI 12.1 16.8 4.7 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 62 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 55 ALLEGHENY FR 815 -ST.39 ST.84-GATE-2.1MI 16.8 27.5 10.7 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 53 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 748 CHICKEN HOUSE R. RD146-GATE/END RD146-GATE/END 0 5.4 5.4 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 60 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 999 SWAGO 216 - MP 2.70 MP 2.70 - DEADEND 0 2.7 2.7 POCAHONTAS 1 3 3 50 AGG 005 - OPEN DEER SEASON - CLOSED END BEAR C - COLLECTOR 74.2

1101 DAY RUN CG. 216 - LOOP 216 - LOOP 0 0.3 0.3 POCAHONTAS 1 4 4 50 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 216 UPPER WILLIAMS HSH 150-MP4.0 MP 4.0 TO 86 0 4 4 POCAHONTAS 1 4 4 59 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 216 UPPER WILLIAMS HSH 150-MP4.0 MP 4.0 TO 86 4 9.6 5.6 POCAHONTAS 1 4 4 50 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 356 MARLN. ADMN. SITE CEMETERY RD. - SITE CEMETERY RD. - SITE 0 0.2 0.2 POCAHONTAS 1 4 4 60 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 363 RIMEL PARKING WV39 - LOOP WV39 - LOOP 0 0.1 0.1 POCAHONTAS 1 4 4 61 AGG 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE A - ARTERIAL 86 WILLIAMS RIVER DIS BDY-BM 3052 DIS BDY-BM 3052 0 3.7 3.7 WEBSTER 1 4 4 48 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 86 WILLIAMS RIVER DIS BDY-BM 3052 DIS BDY-BM 3052 3.7 10.5 6.8 WEBSTER 1 4 4 49 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 86 WILLIAMS RIVER DIS BDY-BM 3052 DIS BDY-BM 3052 10.5 18.3 7.8 POCAHONTAS 1 4 4 50 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 28.5

150 HIGHLAND SCENIC HWY 0 22.3 22.3 POCAHONTAS 2 5 5 60 BIT D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 362 CASS TO LINWOOD CASS TO LINWOOD CASS TO LINWOOD 0 11 11 POCAHONTAS 2 5 5 43 BIT D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 33.3 Road Road Begin End BMP EMP Segment County Lanes OBJ ML OPR ML Quad Surface Closure Functional Number Name Termini Termini Length Classification

Potomac Ranger District 112A RD112 / A RD112-END RD112-END 0 0.02 0.02 PENDLETON 2 3 3 29 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 112B RD112 / B RD112-END RD112-END 0 0.02 0.02 PENDLETON 2 3 3 29 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 112c RD112 / C RD112-END RD112-END 0 0.02 0.02 PENDLETON 2 3 3 29 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 131 GATEWOOD 112 - GATEWOOD* GATEWOOD TOWER 0 1.1 1.1 RANDOLPH 2 3 3 29 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 1B OSCEOLA - B RD 1-LAKE_PK.LOT RD 1-LAKE_PK.LOT 0 0.4 0.4 RANDOLPH 2 3 3 29 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 315 BIG RUN PK. LOT ST.29-LOT ST.29-LOT 0 0.02 0.02 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 29 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 347 UDI 2120-USA 1B RD 19 - END RD 19 - END 0 0.4 0.4 PENDLETON 1 3 3 11 AGG A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 48 BIG MTN. GOVT. BDY- MP 1.87 MP01.87-END 0 1.3 1.3 PENDLETON 1 3 3 37 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 48 BIG MTN. GOVT. BDY- MP 1.87 MP01.87-END 1.3 3.1 1.8 PENDLETON 1 3 3 37 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 60 OWL KNOB HOLLOW. 106 - VANCE RUN 106 - VANCE RUN 0 4.1 4.1 PENDLETON 1 3 3 37 NAT D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 771 WEST SIDE BIG RUN 0 0.7 0.7 PENDLETON 1 3 3 29 AGG A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 79 NORTH MTN. GOVT BDY-HIGH KN. GOVT BDY-HIGH KN. 0 3.5 3.5 PENDLETON 1 3 3 23 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 814 BACK RIDGE ST.28/10-END ST.28/10-END 0 2.8 2.8 PENDLETON 1 3 3 29 AGG A-Q - CLOSED W/GATE - OPEN Q PERMIT ONLY L - LOCAL 858 TWIN RUN ST.2/2 MP 0.20 MP O.2 - END 0 0.2 0.2 PENDLETON 1 3 3 23 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 916 WARNER RUN GATE - ST29/1 GATE - ST29/1 0 1.4 1.4 RANDOLPH 1 3 3 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 978 BIG MTN. ST.2-MP0.3 MP0.3-DEADEND 0 0.3 0.3 PENDLETON 1 3 3 23 AGG 003 - OPEN SMALL GAME - CLOSE END DEER L - LOCAL 18.08

1 OSCEOLA ST.29-ST 13 ST.29-ST 13 0 3.2 3.2 RANDOLPH 1 1 4 29 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 104 SPRUCE KNOB TOW. FS 112 - MP 1.90 MP01.90-THRU LOOP 0 1.8 1.8 PENDLETON 2 4 4 29 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 112 SPRUCE MOUNTAIN ST. 28 - ST. 13/2 ST. 13/2 - ST. 6 0 7.5 7.5 PENDLETON 1 4 4 29 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 112 SPRUCE MOUNTAIN ST. 28 - ST. 13/2 ST. 13/2 - ST. 6 7.5 13.4 5.9 PENDLETON 1 4 4 29 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 112 SPRUCE MOUNTAIN ST. 28 - ST. 13/2 ST. 13/2 - ST. 6 13.4 19.1 5.7 RANDOLPH 1 4 4 36 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 112 SPRUCE MOUNTAIN ST. 28 - ST. 13/2 ST. 13/2 - ST. 6 19.2 23.1 3.9 POCAHONTAS 1 4 4 29 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 112 SPRUCE MOUNTAIN ST. 28 - ST. 13/2 ST. 13/2 - ST. 6 19.1 19.2 0.1 POCAHONTAS 1 4 4 36 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 1264 SPRUCE MTN REC. 104 - DEADEND 104 - DEADEND 0 0.1 0.1 PENDLETON 1 4 4 29 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 19 LANEVILLE N. FORK ST.45/4 - CO.LINE ST.28/6 - ST.28/7 0 3.25 3.25 RANDOLPH 1 4 4 15 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 19 LANEVILLE N. FORK ST.45/4 - CO.LINE ST.28/6 - ST.28/7 3.25 9.9 6.65 GRANT 1 4 4 16 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 1A OSCEOLA - A ST 28/10-CABIN ST 28/10-CABIN 0 0.2 0.2 RANDOLPH 1 4 4 29 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 312 SEVENMILE 75 - LOOP 75 - LOOP 0 0.2 0.2 TUCKER 1 4 4 11 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 346 JUDY GAP W.H. ST 28 - END ST 28 - END 0 0.2 0.2 PENDLETON 1 4 4 30 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 406 P-BURG ADM. SITE ST. 28 - SITE ST. 28 - SITE 0 0.2 0.2 GRANT 2 4 4 11-A AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 75 DOLLY SODS .819 - CO. LINE CO. LINE - ST * 0 5.1 5.1 TUCKER 1 4 4 16 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 75 DOLLY SODS .819 - CO. LINE CO. LINE - ST * 7.5 10.8 3.3 GRANT 1 4 4 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 75 DOLLY SODS .819 - CO. LINE CO. LINE - ST * 5.7 7.5 1.8 TUCKER 1 4 4 16 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 75 DOLLY SODS .819 - CO. LINE CO. LINE - ST * 5.1 5.7 0.6 GRANT 1 4 4 16 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED A - ARTERIAL 809 BIG BEND GOVT BDY-REC SITE GOVT BDY-REC SITE 0 3.8 3.8 GRANT 2 4 4 16 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 810 SM. HOLE REC AREA ST. 2-PARKING * ST. 2-PARKING * 0 0.6 0.6 PENDLETON 1 4 4 23 AGG 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE L - LOCAL 54.1

104A SPRUCE KB TW LOOP FS 112 - MP 1.90 MP01.90-THRU LOOP 0 0.203 0.203 PENDLETON 1 5 5 29 BIT D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 389 SPRUCE KN. L. CG. 1 - LOOP 1 - LOOP 0 0.8 0.8 RANDOLPH 1 5 5 29 BIT 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE L - LOCAL 700 S.ROCKS DISC. CENT ROY GAP RD-LOOP ROY GAP RD-LOOP 0 0.6 0.6 PENDLETON 2 5 5 23 BIT 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE C - COLLECTOR 744 SENECA SHA. C. GRD. US 33 - LOOP US 33 - LOOP 0 1.2 1.2 PENDLETON 2 5 5 22 BIT 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE L - LOCAL 744A SENECA SHADOWS C G /A 0 0.2 0.2 PENDLETON 2 5 5 21 BIT 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE L - LOCAL 744B SENECA SHADOWS C G /B 0 0.2 0.2 PENDLETON 2 5 5 21 BIT 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE L - LOCAL 744C SENECA SHADOWS C G /C 0 0.14 0.14 PENDLETON 2 5 5 21 BIT 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE L - LOCAL 744DEF SENECA SHADOWS C G /DEF 0 0.16 0.16 PENDLETON 2 5 5 21 BIT 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE L - LOCAL 744G SENECA SHADOWS C G /G 0 0.1 0.1 PENDLETON 2 5 5 21 BIT 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE L - LOCAL 745 SENECA ROCKS VIS/OLD ST. 28 - LOOP ST. 28 - LOOP 0 0.3 0.3 PENDLETON 2 5 5 23 BIT 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE L - LOCAL 745A PIC/SEW MOUND ROAD 0 0.5 0.5 PENDLETON 2 5 5 23 BIT 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE L - LOCAL 4.403 Road Road Begin End BMP EMP Segment County Lanes OBJ ML OPR ML Quad Surface Closure Functional Number Name Termini Termini Length Classification

White Sulphur Ranger District 1219 BLUE MEADOW CG. ST.21/2-LOOP ST.21/2-LOOP 0 0.3 0.3 GREENBRIER 2 3 3 70 AGG 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE L - LOCAL 139 ROCKY RUN ST.21/2-MP03.40 MP.3.40-END 0 3.5 3.5 GREENBRIER 1 3 3 70 AGG 294 BEAR BRANCH ST.92-DEADEND ST.92-DEADEND 0 0.1 0.1 GREENBRIER 2 3 3 68 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 296 PEACH ORCHARD ST.21/2- ST 11 ST.21/2- ST 11 0 14.5 14.5 GREENBRIER 1 3 3 71 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 367 ANTHY. BOAT LAU. ST 21/2 - END ST 21/2 - END 0 0.1 0.1 GREENBRIER 2 3 3 70 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 718 WHITMAN'S DRAFT ST 92 - MP.3.2 ST 92 - MP.3.2 0 3.7 3.7 GREENBRIER 1 3 3 74 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 797 SALT ROCK FS296 -- FS298 FS296 -- FS298 0 1.1 1.1 GREENBRIER 1 3 3 70 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 860 NEOLA WAREHOUSE ST.92-END ST.92-END 0 0.2 0.2 GREENBRIER 2 3 3 71 AGG A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 875 COLES RUN ST.92-MP3.8 MP3.8 -MP5.55 0 3.8 3.8 GREENBRIER 2 3 3 72 AGG 001 - SUMMER CLOSURE - TURKEY AND BEAR C - COLLECTOR 89 KNIFE HOLLOW ST92-GATE ST92-GATE 0 0.3 0.3 GREENBRIER 1 3 3 72 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 89 KNIFE HOLLOW ST92-GATE ST92-GATE 0.3 0.8 0.5 GREENBRIER 1 3 3 72 AGG 001 - SUMMER CLOSURE - TURKEY AND BEAR C - COLLECTOR 96 DOUTHAT-ANTHONY ST.14 - MP 1.10 MP 4.70 - PVT. 0 1.1 1.1 GREENBRIER 2 3 3 71 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 96 DOUTHAT-ANTHONY ST.14 - MP 1.10 MP 4.70 - PVT. 1.1 6 4.9 GREENBRIER 2 3 3 68 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 34.1

124 BLUE BEND ST.21/2-REC AREA ST.21/2-REC AREA 0 0.5 0.5 GREENBRIER 1 4 4 70 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 124A BLUE BEND PARKING 0 0.1 0.1 GREENBRIER 1 4 4 27 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 372 UPPER LAUREL RUN ST 14/1 - MP 0.2 MP. 0.2-END 0 0.2 0.2 GREENBRIER 1 4 4 72 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 884 DAM ADMIN RD ST.14/1 - MP 0.40 MP 0.40 - END 0 1.6 1.6 GREENBRIER 1 4 4 68 AGG A - CLOSED - WITH GATE L - LOCAL 2.4

371 WH. SLPHR ADM. SITE CITY STREET - SITE CITY STREET - SITE 0 0.03 0.03 GREENBRIER 2 5 5 73 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 371 WH. SLPHR ADM. SITE CITY STREET - SITE CITY STREET - SITE 0.03 0.2 0.17 GREENBRIER 2 5 5 73 BIT D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 374 SHERWD REC AREA THRU REC AREA THRU REC AREA 0 0.4 0.4 GREENBRIER 2 5 5 68 BIT D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 374A SHERWD REC AREA/A 0 0.4 0.4 GREENBRIER 2 5 5 68 AGG 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE L - LOCAL 374B&C SHERWOOD PIC & REC./B&C 0 0.7 0.7 GREENBRIER 2 5 5 BIT D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 374B/C SHERWD REC AREA/B 0 0.7 0.7 GREENBRIER 2 5 5 68 BIT D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 374D SHERWOOD BCH ROAD/D 0 0.5 0.5 GREENBRIER 2 5 5 68 AGG 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE L - LOCAL 374E SHERWD REC. W. SHR 0 0.4 0.4 GREENBRIER 2 5 5 68 AGG 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE L - LOCAL 374F1 SHERWD RC. PN R CG/F1 0 0.6 0.6 GREENBRIER 2 5 5 68 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 374F2 SHERWD PN R BT L./F2 0 0.4 0.4 GREENBRIER 2 5 5 68 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 374G SHERWD REC BT LNCH/G 0 0.2 0.2 GREENBRIER 2 5 5 68 AGG D - OPEN - MAINTAINED C - COLLECTOR 374G2 SHERWD RC MDW CR C/G2 0 0.4 0.4 GREENBRIER 2 5 5 68 AGG 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE L - LOCAL 375 WH. SULPHUR OFF. HATCH. RD- OFFICE HATCH. RD- OFFICE 0 0.08 0.08 GREENBRIER 2 5 5 73 BIT D - OPEN - MAINTAINED L - LOCAL 4.98 Human Population in the Analysis Area

The information contained in the following section illustrates the uses of the Forest from both a local and national perspective. Maps showing towns and cities (Figure 12) and counties (Figure 13) are used to illustrate the local uses of the Forest road system. The density maps from the U.S. Census Bureau (Figures, 14-17) show that the Monongahela is a National Forest that lies in close proximity to more densely populated states, making the Forest a likely destination for non-residents to visit.

Figure 12: Cities and Towns Within and Near the Proclamation Boundary

Approximate Scale 1” = 19 mi.

Table 6: Populations of Cities and Towns throughout the Forest (Census 2000)

City or Town Population (2000) Elkins 7,032 Richwood 2,477 Petersburg 2,423 White Sulphur Springs 2,314 Parsons 1,463 White Sulphur Springs Marlinton 1,204

Franklin 797

Davis 624 Thomas 452 Durbin 262 Hillsboro 243 Huttonsville 217 Harman 126

Page 30 of 160 Figure 13: Counties throughout the Monongahela

Approximate Scale 1” = 25 mi.

Table 7: Populations of Counties throughout the Forest

Population County (Census 2000)

Greenbrier 34,453 Preston 29,334 Randolph 28,262 Nicholas 26,562 Barbor 15,557 Grant 11,299 Webster 9,719 Pocahontas 9,131 Pendleton 8,196 Tucker 7,321

Page 31 of 160 U.S. Census Bureau Information

Figure 14: Total Persons - 2000: U.S. by State Figure 16: Persons per mi2 - 2000: U.S. by State

Figure 15: Total Persons - 2000: W.V. by County Figure 17: Persons per mi2 - 2000: W.V. by County

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet

Page 32 of 160 MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS

The following map shows how the Monongahela National Forest is divided into the different Management Prescriptions:

Figure 18: Management Prescriptions

(acquired after the Forest Plan was completed-currently has no management prescription)

Approximate Scale 1” = 15 mi.

Page 33 of 160 The Land and Resource Management Plan for the Monongahela National Forest (1986) provides the following table as a brief description of each Management Prescription:

Table 8: Management Prescription Summary

Forest Management Summary of Desired Land Conditions Emphasized in Management Prescription Prescriptions

1.1 - Location of mineral extraction developments.

2 - A continuous, forested scene. - Wildlife species primarily associated with shade-tolerant vegetation. - Primarily tolerant hardwood trees for fiber and sawtimber achieved through uneven-aged silviculture.

3-A variety of forest views and a feeling of openness within older tree stands. - A primarily motorized recreational environment. - Large, high quality hardwood trees for lumber and veneer, hard mast (acorns and nuts) production, and scenic attributes. - Primarily intolerant hardwood trees for sawtimber achieved through even-aged silviculture.

4 - A variety of coniferous forest views and scenes. - A primarily motorized recreational environment. - Wildlife species associated with conifers. - Softwood trees for fiber and lumber.

5-Protects the Wilderness attributes for future generations. - Provision of a Wilderness experience.

6.1 - Remote habitats for wildlife species intolerant of disturbance. - A mix of forest products.

6.2 - A semi-primitive non-motorized recreation environment. - No timber management - No Forest Service road construction

7-A high density, self-contained forest recreation environment.

8 - The preservation of unique ecosystems. - Access to conduct research. - The protection of unique areas of National significance.

9 - Minimum management and investment. - Protection and maintenance of environmental values. - Protection of the health and safety of the public.

Forest Plan, pgs. 106-107

Page 34 of 160 Management Prescription 1.1

Purpose

This prescription provides the land base suitable for the development of mineral resources.

Area Description

Areas dominated by mineral extraction operations such as mines, compressor stations, coal washing facilities, and associated roads and utilities are assigned to this prescription. Timber products, motorized recreation uses, and wildlife tolerant of disturbance are other resources that may be produced from these areas.

As additional areas are developed, the total acreage in the management area may increase with a corresponding decrease in the acreage of management areas where the development occurred. Areas assigned to this prescription will be created only when mineral operations commence.

When mineral operations cease, these areas will be rehabilitated and incorporated into adjacent management areas.

Desired Future Condition

Rehabilitation will occur on sites no longer needed for mineral extraction. Soil and water resources will be protected and vegetation established. The opening may or may not be maintained depending on its desirability for helping meet diversity standards.

Management Prescription 2

Purpose

This prescription will emphasize the following:

• A continuous, forested scene. • Wildlife species primarily associated with shade tolerant vegetation. • Primarily shade tolerant hardwood trees for fiber and sawtimber achieved through uneven-aged silviculture.

Area Description

This prescription will be applied on lands suitable for hardwood timber production. They will generally have slopes less than 60% and no factors limiting management of the area or reforestation efforts. The timber types must be suitable for management by the uneven-aged silvicultural system.

A relatively high degree of activity will usually exist including roads open to public use, recreation areas, mineral exploration, grazing allotments, and special use permits.

Page 35 of 160 Desired Future Condition

The Forest will generally appear as a continuous canopy with a diversity of tree sizes and ages throughout. There will be an emphasis on shade tolerant vegetation and associated wildlife. There will be occasional interspersed openings due to transportation corridors, wildlife habitat improvements, or special land uses.

A system of roads and trails will be completed to provide access within the area for recreation, general land management activities, and transporting forest products. Public motorized use will occur but most roads will not be open.

There will be considerable human activity resulting from many different uses, including recreation use and facilities, wildlife habitat improvement, timber management, mineral exploration, forage improvement, and special uses such as utility corridors.

Development activities will be compatible with environmental considerations, as provided in the standards and guidelines.

Management Prescription 3

Purpose

This prescription will emphasize the following:

• Large, high quality hardwood trees for lumber and veneer, hard mast production, and scenic attributes. • A variety of Forest views. • Wildlife species tolerant of disturbances, such as deer, grouse, and squirrel. • A primarily motorized recreation environment.

Area Description

This prescription will be applied on Forest lands with a potential to produce hardwood timber. They will generally have slopes less than 60% and no factors limiting management of the area or reforestation. Timber types may be suitable for either uneven-aged or even-aged silviculture.

Desired Future Condition

The Forest will be a mosaic of stands of predominantly hardwood trees and associated understories that provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species. The stands will vary in size, shape, height, and species depending on the silvicultural system applied.

The scenic attributes of the Forest will be greatly enhanced, and acclaimed by the viewer due to the large size trees that are evident and the variety achieved through use of both silvicultural systems and visual management principles.

The gray squirrel will benefit in oak-hickory forest types and will be stabilized at a high level. Other species that prefer mature forests will also benefit.

Page 36 of 160 A system of roads and trails will be completed to provide access within the area for recreation, general land management activities, and transportation of forest products. Public motorized use will occur, but not every road will be open.

Development activities may occur from many different uses; however, they will be compatible with environmental consideration, particularly the visual resource, as provided in the standards and guidelines.

There will be considerable human activity resulting from many different uses, including recreational use and facilities, wildlife habitat improvements, timber management, mineral exploration, forage management, and special uses. Development activities will be compatible with environmental considerations, particularly the visual and water resources, as provided in the standards and guidelines.

Management Prescription 4

Purpose

This prescription will emphasize the following:

• A variety of coniferous forest views and scenes. • A primarily motorized recreational environment. • Wildlife associated with conifers. • Softwood trees for fiber and lumber.

Area Description

The Forest area will be assigned this management prescription where existing conifer stands and associated hardwoods and understories provide habitat for game and non-game species. Stands have varying sizes and shapes, however, within individual stands, most of the trees are of similar ages. Snowshoe hare will be featured in spruce forest types. Deer and associated species will be featured in other forest types. This prescription provides habitat for the endangered West Virginia northern flying squirrel and the threatened Cheat Mountain salamander.

A system of roads and trails provide access within the area for recreation, land management activities, and transporting forest products. Public motorized use will occur but not every road will be open.

Desired Future Condition

Age classes of conifer stands will be balanced, increasing the diversity and stabilizing the long term sustained yield. The transportation system will be completed to facilitate efficient management of the area. In spruce stands, the snowshoe hare population will be at a higher level and stabilized with their habitat. Development activities will be compatible with environmental considerations, as provided in the standards and guidelines.

Page 37 of 160 Management Prescription 5

Purpose

This prescription will emphasize management of congressionally designated wilderness to:

• Protect the wilderness attributes for future generations. • Provide a wilderness experience. • Preserve natural ecosystems.

Area Description

The following five areas are assigned to this prescription:

Cranberry Wilderness 35,864 acres Dolly Sods Wilderness 10,215 acres Laurel Fork North Wilderness 6,055 acres Laurel Fork South Wilderness 5,997 acres Otter Creek Wilderness 20,000 acres Total 78,131 acres

These areas are primarily forested, with access provided by trail. They offer a natural setting for dispersed forms of recreational use.

Desired Future Condition

Vegetation will be affected by natural succession. The areas will continue to provide a wilderness experience with little evidence of other uses and low interaction between users. Facilities of a primitive nature may be present to protect the resources and the safety of visitors. Natural succession will eventually result in a climax forest of predominantly shade-tolerant vegetation with reduced plant and animal diversity.

Page 38 of 160 The following map shows the locations of the five Wildernesses assigned to Management Prescription 5: Figure 19: Wildernesses

Approximate Scale 1” = 24 mi.

Image 1: Dolly Sods Wilderness

Page 39 of 160 Management Prescription 6.1

Purpose

This prescription will emphasize the following:

Primary

• Remote habitat for wildlife species intolerant of disturbance.

Secondary

• A semi-primitive and non-motorized type of recreational environment will be featured. When roads are open to motorized use, semi-primitive motorized experiences will be provided. • A mix of forest products • A strategy for management of sites reverting from hardwood to conifer (pine and spruce) and the intermingled high site hardwood types.

Desired Future Condition

The Forest area will be a mosaic of tree stands and openings with a near optimum quantity and dispersion of the habitat elements that feature the wild turkey and black bear along with associated wildlife species. Management emphasis will focus on manipulation of the naturally occurring tree species composition to optimize hard mast production and age class distribution, and ensure a continuous mast supply. Normal forest management activities will be used to achieve vegetative diversity that will enhance the habitat of the wildlife species being featured. Wildlife populations will increase and stabilize. Management activities will help stabilize the long-term sustained yield of timber products.

A system of roads and trails will provide access within the area for administrative and management purposes, including the transportation of forest products. Non-motorized recreational opportunities will be provided by controlling public motorized vehicle use. Where roads are temporarily opened, semi-primitive motorized experiences will be provided.

The permanent road system will be constructed to the lowest standard possible. The construction standards will protect the soil and water resource. Permanent road density will be influenced by terrain and the needs of the wildlife species in the Management Area. The number of roads open to public vehicle use will be less than the number opened in areas with Management Prescriptions 2, 3, and 4. Where feasible, roads will be physically closed to prohibit all but emergency vehicle use. Most roads will be seeded to preferred wildlife food when not open for vehicle traffic.

Facilities such as utility corridors or other special uses will be permitted, provided they are compatible with the objective of minimizing disturbance to wild turkey and bear populations.

Collector road densities will average 1.0 mile per square mile of management prescription area and will be generally gated and maintained for recurring administrative use. Local road densities will average an additional 1.5 mi/mi2 of management prescription area.

Page 40 of 160 Management Prescription 6.2

Primary Purpose

• A semi-primitive, non-motorized setting with opportunity for a variety of dispersed recreational activities. • A largely natural, undisturbed environment.

Secondary Purpose

• Wildlife habitat for species requiring a low level of disturbance. • Protection of watersheds and soils.

Area Description

The area is characterized by a predominantly natural appearing environment where interaction between users is low. Management areas will be at least 2,500 acres in size, or will have the potential to reach that size through acquisition. Although there may be some evidence of other uses and encounters with other visitors, there is a high probability of experiencing isolation from the sounds and sights of man. Little or no evidence of roads or motorized use exists. Structures are rare, but may include rustic Adirondack-type shelters and primitive sanitary facilities.

In addition, these areas may have a distinctive quality exhibited by outstanding scenery, rugged natural beauty, vegetative type, species diversity, geology, or dispersed recreation potential. In order to protect these amenities and the remoteness of each area, limitations of man’s activities is necessary. The level of this control is less than in designated wilderness in which no man-made structures are appropriate, but tighter than in Management Prescription 6.1 in which timber management and road building are allowed.

The areas to be managed under this prescription are:

Opportunity Area No. Area Acres 56.201 North Fork/Hopeville 4,637 56.203 Flat Rock/Roaring Plains 7,772 36.201 Cheat Mountain 7,527 56.204 Seneca Creek/Gandy Creek 19,644 36.202 East Fork of Greenbrier 7,637 16.201 Laurel Fork 3,151 16.202 Canaan Mountain 13,532 56.202 Smokehole 2,670 36.203 Little Mountain 10,407 36.204 Peters Mountain 2,350 46.201/26.201 Tea Creek Mountain/Turkey Mountain 10,358 26.202 Cranberry Backcountry 7,890 66.201 Spice Run 7,698 66.204 Big Draft 8,006 66.202 Upper Middle Mountain 8,175 66.203 Laurel Run 3,037 Total 124,491 acres

Page 41 of 160 Desired Future Condition

The area will be managed in such a way as to meet the criteria for semi-primitive, non-motorized recreation. Natural succession will be the primary vegetative objective, with vegetation management used only to protect the resource or complement the recreational value. A variety of dispersed recreational activities may include providing limited, rustic facilities such as Adirondack shelters and primitive sanitary disposal, as well as publicity, to maximize the semi-primitive recreation potential of the area. The transportation system will be closed to public motorized use; no additional system roads will be built. Wildlife management compatible with the recreation objective will occur, and wildlife species that prefer a low level of disturbance will be favored.

Management Prescription 7

Purpose

This prescription will emphasize a high density, self-contained forest recreation environment. Non- game wildlife species will be emphasized.

Area Description

The Lake Sherwood and Seneca Rocks recreation complexes are included in this prescription. Each is a destination-type development with motorized access and recreational facilities and structures. Surrounding areas provide complimenting recreational opportunities such as hiking.

Desired Future Condition

The recreation emphasis will continue. Design, building materials, and placement of facilities will be in harmony with the environment. The vegetation will be managed to ensure long-term viability, safety, and development. Large number of users will be present, human sights and sounds evident, and there will be a high degree of interaction between users.

Management Prescription 8

Purpose and Desired Future Condition

This prescription will emphasize: • The preservation of unique ecosystems or areas for scientific or recreational purposes. • Areas to conduct research. • The protection of unique areas of national significance.

Area Description

These areas are scattered throughout the Forest and are of varying sizes. Their unique characteristics are recognized by a variety of administrative designations.

Page 42 of 160 The specific Monongahela National Forest areas applied to Management Prescription 8 include the following:

Scenic Areas. Scenic areas are places of outstanding beauty that require special management to preserve these qualities.

Botanical Areas. Botanical areas contain specimens or groups of plants in plant communities which are significant because of form, color, occurrence, habitat, location, life history, arrangement, ecology, environment, and/or variety.

Experimental Forests

Fernow Experimental Forest, 4,726 acres; Greenbrier Cooperative Area, 839 acres.

Research Natural Areas

As a result of the planning process (1986), areas recommended as Research Natural Areas. Following Forest Plan approval, Forest Service Research will evaluate RNA recommendations for inclusion in the National Research Natural Area system. Any areas not selected for the RNA system will remain as Special Interest Areas in Management Prescription 8. There are thirteen areas that are candidates to be Research Natural Areas. The following four standards and guidelines pertain to these areas:

1600 The area will not be signed for public identification. 2300 No facilities will be constructed to support recreation uses. 2410 The distribution of age and size class objectives will be defined based on research needs. 7730 No roads will be constructed.

Geologic Area Forest Lands that have special or unique geologic characteristics of scientific interest and importance.

National Natural Landmarks. The National Park Service, Department of Interior, administers the Natural Landmarks Program, which includes maintaining the National Registry of Natural Landmarks (pursuant to the authority of the Historic Sites Act of 1935).

The objective of the program is to assist in the preservation of a variety of significant ecological and geological natural areas that, when considered together, will illustrate the diversity of the country’s natural heritage.

Registered sites are those that the owner has voluntarily agreed to preserve the natural values of the site.

The following categories may also be included in Management Prescription 8 if subsequently located on the Forest.

Zoological Areas. A zoological area embraces animals, animal groups, or animal communities that are natural and important because of occurrence, habitat, location, life history, ecology, environment, rarity, or other features.

Page 43 of 160 Paleontological Areas. Paleontological areas contain relic specimens of fauna and flora. These are the plants and animals that span geologic time between the period when life first appeared and the age of man. Significant areas may include Precambrian rocks, shellfish, early vertebrates, coal swamp forest, early reptiles, dinosaurs, and prehistoric animals.

National Registry of Historic Places. The National Register of Historic Places is a listing of sites, district, and thematic groups of sites significant in history and prehistory at local, state, or National levels. Sites listed on, or eligible for the Register may include standing historic buildings, and both prehistoric and historic archaeological sites that are representative of occupations and uses of the Forest which have occurred over the last 10,000 years.

As additional areas are identified and approved, the total area in this management area will increase with a corresponding decrease in the acreage of management areas where new sites are discovered.

Management Prescription 9

Purpose

This prescription will emphasize:

• Minimum management and investment. • Protection and maintenance of environmental values • Protection of the health and safety of the public.

Area Description

Lands most suitable for this prescription are those where it is not appropriate to make capital investments. Included are environmentally sensitive lands where tree regeneration cannot be assured, such as rhododendron thickets, or lands where desired resource benefits can be maintained efficiently without intensive management. This prescription applies only to those lands that are mapped as unsuitable in the Forest Plan planning records. Precise locations will be determined in the field, as necessary, during layout of projects.

Existing roads and trails that provide access and existing facilities will generally be maintained. Utility corridors and other special uses may exist. Depending on the area, there may be evidence of human activities such as mineral exploration, hunting, fishing, other dispersed types of recreational use, and previous timber harvesting.

Desired Future Condition

Whatever conditions now (at the time of the Forest Plan (1986)) exist will be maintained and influenced primarily by natural forces. Management activities and facilities will ensure the protection of public health and safety and the prevention of significant loss of existing resources or productivity of the area and adjacent lands.

Page 44 of 160 Road Definitions

The Federal Register published the Final Rule and Administrative Policy January 12, 2001; this established new definitions for road management on the National Forests. Listed below are the new definitions for roads.

Road – A motor vehicle travelway over 50 inches wide, unless designated and managed as a trail. A road may be classified, unclassified, or temporary (36 CFR 212.1).

Classified Roads – Roads wholly or partially within or adjacent to National Forest System lands that are determined to be needed for long-term motor vehicle access, including State roads, country roads, privately owned roads, National Forest System roads, and other roads authorized by the Forest Service. (36 CFR 212.1)

Temporary Roads – Roads authorized by contract, permit, lease, other written authorization, or emergency operation, not intended to be a part of the forest transportation system and not necessary for long-term resource management. (36 CFR 212.1)

Unclassified Roads – Roads on National Forest System lands that are not managed as part of the Forest transportation system, such as unplanned roads, abandoned travelways, and off-road vehicle tracks that have not been designated and managed as a trail; and those roads that were once under permit or other authorization and were not decommissioned upon the termination of the authorization. (36 CFR 212.1, FSM 7705)

Road Construction – Activity that results in the addition of Forest classified or temporary road miles (36 CFR 212.1).

Road Maintenance – The ongoing upkeep of a road necessary to retain or restore the road to the approved road management objective (FSM 7712.3).

Road Decommissioning – Activities that result in the stabilization and restoration of unneeded roads to a more natural state (36 CFR 212.1), (FSM 7703).

Road Reconstruction – Activities that result in improvement or realignment of an existing classified road as defined below:

1. Road Improvement – Activity that results in an increase of an existing road’s traffic service level, expansion of its capacity, or a change in its original design function.

2. Road Realignment – Activity that results in a new location of an existing road or portions of an existing road and treatment of the old roadway (36 CFR 212.2).

Deferred Maintenance – Maintenance that was not performed when it should have been or when it was scheduled and that, therefore, was put off or delayed for a future period.

Unroaded Area – An unroaded area is defined as an area that is not designated as a roadless area, but that meets the criteria for roadless area designation. The following criteria must be met for an area to be designated as roadless:

1. The land is regaining a natural, untrammeled appearance.

Page 45 of 160 2. Improvements existing in the area are being affected by the forces of nature rather than humans and are disappearing or muted.

3. The area has existing or attainable National Forest System ownership patterns, both surface and subsurface, that could ensure perpetuation of identified wilderness values.

4. The location of the area is conducive to the perpetuation of wilderness values. Consider the relationship of the area to sources of noise, air, and water pollution, as well as unsightly conditions that would have an effect on the wilderness experience. The amount and pattern of Federal ownership is also an influencing factor.

5. The area contains no more than a half-mile of improved road for each 1,000 acres, and the road is under Forest Service jurisdiction.

6. No more than 15 percent of the area is in non-native, planted vegetation.

7. Twenty percent or less of the area has been harvested within the past 10 years.

8. The area contains only a few dwellings on private lands and the location of these dwellings and their access needs insulate their effects on the natural conditions of Federal lands.

Passive-Use Value – "Passive use value is a value or benefit people receive from the existence of a specific place, condition, or thing, independent of any intention, hope, or expectation of active use. Recreation activity, such as fishing, hunting, camping, wildlife viewing, hiking, boating, picnicking, and viewing pictures or movies, or reading books about outdoor recreation, are examples of active use of recreation-related resources. Such activity requires direct or indirect use of specific recreation sites, facilities, or opportunities. Passive-use value is divided into two components, existence value and bequest value. Existence value is the value or benefit people receive from the existence of a specific place, condition, or thing, independent of any intention, hope or expectation of their active use by the person receiving the passive-use benefit. Bequest value is value or benefit received because a place, condition, or thing is available for active or passive use by others.

When the affected resources are unique or rare, such as threatened or endangered species, spectacular scenic views, pristine wilderness, unusual geological or natural conditions, or unique cultural heritage resources, passive-use value can be greater than the value produced from the same place by active recreational use or commodity production." (FS-643)

Roaded Recreation – Recreational opportunities that are directly correlated to a roadway, such as driving a vehicle, sightseeing, photographing, observing wildlife, joyriding, etc. Roaded recreation also includes activities such as walking, cycling, horseback riding, and skiing if they are performed while using the roadway as their path of travel.

Unroaded Recreation – Recreational opportunities that do not involve a roadway, such as hunting, fishing, walking, cycling, and sightseeing. These activities can take place on trails, but can also take place anywhere in the forest.

(Author’s Note: The definitions for roaded and unroaded recreation could not be located in FS documentation, thus, the definitions above were fabricated for the purpose of this report only. If any

Page 46 of 160 reader of this work knows of documentation that includes definitions for these terms, the author would appreciate this information so that further reports can include citable definitions.)

Arterial Road - A Forest road that provides service to large land areas and usually connects with other arterial roads or public highways. (FSH 7709.54 - Forest Transportation Terminology Handbook, no longer in print)

Collector Road - A Forest road that serves smaller land areas than an arterial road. Usually connects forest arterial roads to local Forest roads or terminals. (FSH 7709.54 - Forest Transportation Terminology Handbook, no longer in print)

Local Road – A Forest road that connects terminal facilities with Forest collector, Forest arterial or public highways. Usually Forest local roads are single purpose transportation facilities. (FSH 7709.54 - Forest Transportation Terminology Handbook, no longer in print)

Maintenance Level - Defines the level of service provided by, and maintenance required for, a specific road, consistent with road management objectives and maintenance criteria. (FSH 7709.58, Sec 12.3 - Transportation System Maintenance Handbook)

Maintenance Level 1: Assigned to intermittent service roads during the time they are closed to vehicular traffic. The closure period must exceed 1 year. Basic custodial maintenance is performed to keep damage to adjacent resources to an acceptable level and to perpetuate the road to facilitate future management activities. Emphasis is normally given to maintaining drainage facilities and runoff patterns. Planned road deterioration may occur at this level. Appropriate traffic management strategies are "prohibit" and "eliminate". Roads receiving level 1 maintenance may be of any type, class or construction standard, and may be managed at any other maintenance level during the time they are open for traffic. However, while being maintained at level 1, they are closed to vehicular traffic, but may be open and suitable for non-motorized uses.

Image 2: Maintenance Level 1 Road

Page 47 of 160 Maintenance Level 2: Assigned to roads open for use by high clearance vehicles. Passenger car traffic is not a consideration. Traffic is normally minor, usually consisting of one or a combination of administrative, permitted, dispersed recreation, or other specialized uses. Log hauling may occur at this level. Appropriate traffic management strategies are either (1) discourage or prohibit passenger cars or (2) accept or discourage high clearance vehicles.

Image 3: Maintenance Level 2 Road

Maintenance Level 3: Assigned to roads open and maintained for travel by a prudent driver in a standard passenger car. User comfort and convenience are not considered priorities. Roads in this maintenance level are typically low speed, single lane with turnouts and spot surfacing. Some roads may be fully surfaced with either native or processed material. Appropriate traffic management strategies are either "encourage" or "accept." "Discourage" or "prohibit" strategies may be employed for certain classes of vehicles or users.

Image 4: Maintenance Level 3 Road

Page 48 of 160 Maintenance Level 4: Assigned to roads that provide a moderate degree of user comfort and convenience at moderate travel speeds. Most roads are double lane and aggregate surfaced. However, some roads may be single lane. Some roads may be paved and/or dust abated. The most appropriate traffic management strategy is "encourage." However, the "prohibit" strategy may apply to specific classes of vehicles or users at certain times.

Image 5: Maintenance Level 4 Road

Maintenance Level 5: Assigned to roads that provide a high degree of user comfort and convenience. Normally, roads are double-lane, paved facilities. Some may be aggregate surfaced and dust abated. The appropriate traffic management strategy is "encourage."

Image 6: Maintenance Level 5 Road

Page 49 of 160 Public Forest Service Road - A National Forest System Road that is open to public travel and has been approved for inclusion into the Public Forest System Road Program.

Inventoried Roadless Area - Those areas identified in a set of inventoried roadless area maps, contained in Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2, dated November, 2000, which are held at the National headquarters of the Forest Service, or any update, correction, or revision of those maps. (FSM 1900 – Planning, Chapter 1920 - Land and Resource Management Planning, Interim Directive No.: 1920-2001-1)

Basic Data Needs

Basic data needs are listed below for the Forest-Wide Roads Analysis; these were data needed to adequately address the issues. Some of the data are displayed in this report, and other data were used to help answer questions in Step 4.

• GIS layer of existing Forest Service road network (Maintenance Levels, 3, 4, and 5) • GIS layer of existing state road network • Road inventory for Maintenance Level 3, 4, and 5 roads • GIS coverage and mapping of critical, unique, or sensitive wildlife habitats • GIS mapping of the current special use permit areas • GIS mapping of the current mineral use areas • Classification of all roads by type and level of use, season of use, and maintenance needs • Identification of wildlife species most at risk from roads, whose viability is a concern • The location of roads relative to riparian areas and the intersections that influence riparian vegetative communities • GIS soil and geology layers • GIS stream layers

Page 50 of 160 Step 3 Identifying issues

Purpose and Products

The purpose of this step is to:

• identify the key questions and issues affecting road-related management, and • describe the origin of the issues.

The products of this step are:

• a summary of key road-related issues, including their origin and basis, presented by general categories of environmental, socio-cultural and economic, and

• a description of the status of current data, including sources, availability, and methods of obtaining information.

Issue Summary

The road-related issues brought forth by line officers and/or personnel involved include the following:

Ecological

How does the road system affect wildlife habitat quality and fragmentation?

How does the road system affect threatened and endangered species populations and distribution?

Some roads constructed in the past (up to 40 years ago) and still being used for access to private lands, authorized special uses, or for the development of private or federal mineral rights may not meet 1986 Monongahela National Forest Plan standards and could be generating environmental effects. Should we, and if so, how do we ensure these roads are upgraded to meet Forest Plan standards?

The increased use of helicopter logging, resulting in more roads that will need to be upgraded to support four-season use.

Forest roads affect hydrologic processes within watersheds by intercepting groundwater, altering runoff patterns, and extending drainage networks.

Forest roads affect physical stream channel processes by constricting stream channels and floodplains, increasing sediment loads and reducing riparian vegetation.

Page 51 of 160 Forest roads affect biological processes within watersheds by creating passage barriers along stream channels, reducing stream productivity through habitat modifications, increasing access for anglers and facilitating the introduction of non-native species.

Economical

Given the current and foreseeable future budget, what size road system can be maintained?

What are the budget needs to meet the objectives of the Forest Plan?

Social

Does the road system meet the needs of the public for accessing parts of the Forest for recreational purposes such as hunting, fishing, hiking, backpacking, canoeing, kayaking, etc.?

Is the road system serving high profile recreation areas suitable to provide safe travel now and in the future, while also blending with the desired recreational setting?

Increased use of Corridor H may result in increased use of Forest roads.

Status of Current Data

At the present time, virtually all roads on the Forest are inventoried in the Infrastructure Database (INFRA). Information contained in the database includes the following:

• Road name ● Operational Maintenance Level (1,2,3,4,5) • Road number ● Objective Maintenance Level (1,2,3,4,5) • Beginning termini ● Functional Class (Local, Collector, Arterial) • Ending termini ● Surface Type (Native, Improved Native, Aggregate, Bituminous) • BMP ● Lanes • EMP ● Primary Maintainer • Segment length ● State • Jurisdiction (FS, private, etc.) ● County • Route status (existing, planned) ● Congressional District • Administration Organization

As of September 20, 2002, condition surveys were completed for 50% (380 miles) of the Maintenance Level 3, 4, and 5 roads on the Forest using a program named ERL (Electronic Road Log). The condition surveys record and evaluate every road feature (gate, sign, culvert, etc.). The information is stored in the INFRA database and is used to identify work needs and to estimate maintenance costs. Surveys on the remaining Maintenance Level 3, 4, and 5 roads will likely be completed in the next few years.

Page 52 of 160 Step 4 Assessing benefits, problems, and risks

Purpose and Products

The purpose of this step is to:

• assess the various benefits, problems, and risks of the current road system and whether the objectives of Forest Service policy reform and Forest Plans are being met.

The products of this step are:

• a synthesis of the benefits, problems, and risks of the current road system, • an assessment of the risks and benefits of entering any unroaded areas, and • an assessment of the ability of the road system to meet objectives.

Current Road System Benefits, Problems, and Risks

Ecosystem Functions and Processes (EF)

EF 1 – What ecological attributes, particularly those unique to the region, would be affected by roading of currently unroaded areas?

Our roadless areas contain some ecologically unique features and provide habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species of plants and animals. These areas provide large tracts of intact forest, which National Forests are uniquely able to provide for species requiring such habitat. Approximately 20% of our known populations of tracked species (threatened, endangered, and rare species) are located in our roadless areas, which include Wildernesses and inventoried roadless areas. These are probably low estimates because there are no activities proposed in these areas so we do not regularly conduct surveys there. The rarity of these species can, in most cases, be attributed to their requirements for a specific habitat type that is rare, or that has been heavily impacted throughout the species’ range. Roads can impact biological diversity directly by physical destruction or disruption of this specific habitat, or indirectly through fragmentation of populations, introduction of pathogens, insects, diseases, and invasive species, and by changing hydrologic regimes and biogeochemical cycling. Part of the ecological uniqueness of roadless areas is due simply to the fact that they do not contain roads, or at least, high densities of roads; therefore more of their essential ecological processes are unaltered.

Ecological processes that may be affected by roading currently unroaded areas include:

1. Complexity and connectedness – Roads can reduce the complexity of natural systems by providing corridors for exotic species and for species that are common in early successional forests that may displace species requiring large, intact areas of forest. Gravel placed on Forest roads can carry seeds of invasive species. Roads can fragment populations of plants and animals that have limited dispersal abilities.

Page 53 of 160 2. Hydrologic flux and storage – Roads can redirect water flow and concentrate it, causing erosion and increased siltation in and near riparian areas and changing moisture regimes both uphill and downhill of the road. Water flow during storm events may also be increased. Roads in riparian areas restrict the natural movement of the water channel, increase water temperature, and increase sedimentation. 3. Biological productivity – Roads may affect biological productivity by changing moisture regimes, introducing invasives and pathogens, and fragmenting populations. Fragmentation creates more edge habitat, reduces interior habitat, increases human disturbance to species intolerant of disturbance (such as bears), provides corridors for hunters and gatherers, and cause loss of habitat due to road construction. Animals and plants can move more freely across the landscape of roadless areas. 4. Biogeochemical cycling and storage – Placing limestone gravel, the most common form of gravel used on this Forest, on Forest roads, may change the pH of the surrounding areas by adding alkalinity to the system, which could change species composition of the affected area. Certain species, such as the threatened Cheat Mountain salamander, are very sensitive to changes in soil pH. Increased concentration and flow of water can result in increased loss of nutrients due to erosion, which can impact soil fertility. 5. Decomposition – Increased sunlight on the forest floor in the road right-of-way and forest edge will lead to increased decomposition rates, which can affect biogeochemical cycling and soil fertility. 6. Maintenance of biological diversity – Our roadless areas provide large areas of intact forest, which National Forests are uniquely able to provide for species requiring such habitat. Approximately 20% of our known populations of tracked species (threatened, endangered, and rare species on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species (RFSS) list) are located in our roadless areas, which includes wilderness areas and inventoried roadless areas. These are probably low estimates because there are no proposed activities in these areas so we do not regularly conduct surveys there. The rarity of these species can in most cases be attributed to their requirements for a specific habitat type that is rare or for a habitat type that has been heavily impacted throughout the species’ range. Roads can impact biological diversity by impacting some or all of the ecological processes discussed above.

Some of our inventoried roadless areas are Wildernesses. These areas will not be addressed; it will be assumed that since they are congressionally designated, and since no road activities are proposed, they will not be affected by the Roads Analysis. The general effects discussed above would be common to all of the currently unroaded areas. Unique features of our other inventoried roadless areas that may be impacted from roading currently unroaded areas include:

1. Canaan Loop – in Land Type Association (LTAs) Ba08 (90-95% of Opportunity Area (OA) and Ba10. Ba08 is high elevation spruce, with a few wetlands. These are poor, rocky, high elevation sites. Threatened and Endangered species include the WV Northern flying squirrel (WVNFS) and Cheat Mountain salamander (CMS). These species require relatively undisturbed areas. The WVNFS prefers older, mature spruce forests, and the CMS could be negatively impacted by roads due to fragmentation of populations (inability to move across roads) and drying of habitat. Since there is no active timber management in these areas, the present roads are adequate. 2. Cheat Mountain – in LTA Ba01. High elevation spruce. Cheat Mountain supports one of the highest concentrations of rare plants and animals in the Appalachians, including three

Page 54 of 160 federally listed species: WVNFS, CMS, and running buffalo clover. The Cheat Mountains support a significant portion of the known remaining populations for these species. This area is also home to 9 plants and animals considered to be rare or very rare globally, and an additional 50 species considered rare in WV. These species’ vulnerability is due to the ongoing ecological consequences of the nearly total destruction of these subalpine forests about a century ago. Today, the Cheat Mountains support the most extensive spruce and spruce-hardwood forests in the Central Appalachians. High elevation spruce communities of WV are among the most endangered ecosystems in the U.S. The area is slowly recovering from the massive logging and burning that took place around the turn of the century. Though only a portion of this area is in the inventoried roadless areas, the Monongahela has acquired more of the Cheat Mountain area since the roadless inventory, so more of this area may officially qualify as “roadless” than the current inventory suggests. The southern part has a particularly low road density, and there are some old logging roads that are not maintained and have revegetated. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has identified development, including road maintenance and construction as a potential fragmenting feature of this landscape. Roads could be a corridor for invasives (Phragmites has been advancing toward this area along the railroad track), impact hydrology in the numerous wetlands that support rare plants and animals, and fragment the habitat. 3. Cranberry Addition – LTA Bc01. Northern hardwoods, highly-dissected topography. Home of WVNFS, and sensitive species including the timber ridge cave beetle, a rare isopod, and the northern goshawk. Highly erodible soils – Mauch Chunk geology. Ground disturbance in highly dissected areas with this geology can cause major problems with erosion and landslides. One major roadless attribute of this area that would be affected by roading would be the recreational aspect, since it gets high use from bikers and hikers because the one road that runs through it is closed to vehicles. 4. Cranberry Glades Botanical Area – This is a Research Natural Area where no road construction is allowed by Forest Plan standards and guidelines. This is a wetland with some unique plant species, such as Jacob’s Ladder, long-stalked holly, heart-leaf twayblade, kidney-leaf twayblade, early coralroot, lance-leaf grapefern, bog buckbean, and netted chain fern. Roads could potentially impact the glades by affecting the hydrology of the area, and introducing invasives. 5. Dolly Sods – Roaring Plains – LTA Ba07 – high elevation plateau, bogs and meadows, supports several rare plant species and communities, a unique scenic area. Also LTA Ba10 – Allegheny Front Slopes – sideslopes of plateau blocks. These are productive sites with some of the best examples of the mixed mesophytic forest anywhere. Some of the rare elements present in this Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) include: Cheat Mountain salamander and white monkshood. Road building in this area could alter hydrology, fragment populations, and introduce exotics that could disrupt the native communities here. 6. Dry Fork – LTA Ba10. Contains Greenbrier Limestone and Mauch Chunk geology. Greenbrier Limestone is the habitat of one of our threatened plant species, running buffalo clover. We have no known locations of running buffalo clover in the Dry Fork roadless area, but it has not been thoroughly inventoried. Unaltered Greenbrier Limestone habitat is rare on this Forest. Most of it has been historically used for pasture, due to high soil fertility, and much has been roaded and used for utility lines, such as for natural gas. The major value of this roadless area is to preserve some of this unique habitat that is essential for organisms specific to it, such as the running buffalo clover. The Mauch Chunk geology, which is common on the Forest, is highly erodible, and road construction presents risks of erosion. Mauch Chunk soil provides habitat for one of our sensitive plants, white monkshood, another plant requiring a specific type of geology. Road building can impact

Page 55 of 160 white monkshood by altering the hydrology (it requires moist habitats), opening the canopy and drying the habitat, and introduction of exotics. Running buffalo clover is often found growing along old logging roads, but cannot survive much canopy opening or much disturbance, as would be found on a frequently used or a maintained road. 7. East Fork of Greenbrier - LTA Ba09 – High elevation northern hardwoods, red spruce. Federally listed species in this OA include: WVNFS and CMS. Rare species (RFSS) include: Candy darter and white monkshood. We do not currently actively manage in red spruce/WVNFS habitat, so the present road system is adequate for this habitat. The candy darter could be impacted by sedimentation from road construction. Road building can impact white monkshood by altering the hydrology (it requires moist habitats), opening the canopy and drying the habitat, and introduction of exotics. 8. Falls of Hills Creek - LTAs Bc01 and Bc02. This is a scenic area where no commercial timber harvest is allowed by Forest Plan standards and guidelines, no timber stand improvement is permitted, and no wildlife openings are constructed. Bc01 – Allegheny Plateau, northern hardwoods, mixed mesophytic, geomorphic processes include landslides and surface erosion. These sites require special consideration when building/maintaining roads. Bc02 – Frigid soils above 4000’. Support red spruce. Tracked species (species kept track of in a database by the West Virginia Heritage Program) in this area include: CMS, long-stalked holly, Allegheny woodrat, Appalachian vittaria, white monkshood, Darlington’s spurge, and WVNFS. No commercial timber management occurs in this habitat. These species could potentially be impacted by road construction. 9. Gauley Mountain – LTAs Bc02, Bc01 Bc01 – Allegheny Plateau, northern hardwoods, mixed mesophytic, geomorphic processes include landslides and surface erosion. These sites require special consideration when building/maintaining roads. Bc02 – Frigid soils above 4000’. Support red spruce. Tracked species:WVNFS, white monkshood, Jefferson salamander. 10. Glady Fork – LTAs Ba10, Ba08, Ba08 is high elevation spruce, with a few wetlands. These are poor, rocky, high elevation sites. This area contains some Greenbrier Limestone (discussed above under Canaan Loop). Listed species: running buffalo clover. LTA Ba10 – Allegheny Front Slopes – sideslopes of plateau blocks. Productive sites, some of the best examples of the mixed mesophytic forest. 11. Laurel Fork – LTAs Ba09, Ba15. Ba09 – Burner Mountain Laurel Fork VA system – higher elevation northern hardwoods and red spruce. Ba15 – Allegheny Front Foothills – steep, deeply incised foothills. Dry hillsides and narrow coves. Most of these sites suitable for prescribed burns, but the roadless area is at the Forest boundary, which may limit opportunities. No known tracked species. Road building would be difficult due to the topography. This area probably presents few opportunities for timber management due to poor sites and high elevation spruce communities, which are not currently managed for timber. 12. Little Allegheny Mountain – LTA – Bd01 – Allegheny Mountain System. Primarily dry oak habitat, which has low timber productivity. This IRA contains shale barrens with known locations of the federally listed shale barren rockcress. Roads have been identified as a potential threat to these habitats by providing corridors for exotic species.

Page 56 of 160 13. Little Mountain System – LTAs Bd03 and Bd02 (small area). Highly dissected, irregular mountain topography. These are oak ecosystems and are suitable for prescribed burns. The topography would probably limit the spread of fire. This is unique in that it is one of our few roadless areas with no mapped roads (except for 1 short one at the boundary) on the map. 14. Marlin Mountain - LTA Bd03. Red oak, sugar maple, red oak plant communities. This IRA already contains a road that extends all the way through the center that could provide access to the core area. 15. McGowen Mountain – LTAs Ba10 and Ba08. This is a unique area of the Forest due to its species richness. It is home to the Federally listed species, including the WVNFS, Indiana bat, CMS, running buffalo clover; and rare species, southern rock vole, Appalachian blue violet, and snowy trillium. This area comprises approximately 1.2% of the NF, but contains 2.5% of the rare species occurrences. The Greenbrier Limestone runs through the OA. This OA already contains several roads. 16. Middle Mountain- LTA Bd01. Dry Oak communities. Fire will encourage white pine establishment, logging will encourage red maple and black locust competition. These factors limit timber productivity. The north portion of the OA already contains roads that allow access to core area. 17. North Mountain – Hopeville. LTA Aa01. North Fork Mountain/River Knobs. Dry climate, steep topography, oak/pine associations with a high occurrence of rare plant elements. A relatively intact portion of NF land, this LTA ranks highly as habitat for bat species, including the Indiana and Virginia big-eared bats. It is among the highest value habitat on the Monongahela NF for worm-eating warblers, eastern wood pewees, and whippoorwills. It has moderate value for Cerulean warblers. Most sites are suitable for prescribed burning; some communities, such as the Table Mountain pine found on ridgetops, are fire-dependent. Following logging, tree regeneration response is often slow because of dry conditions. Red maple and black locust can out-compete desirable species if not controlled. This is an ecologically-unique area of the Forest, which is not currently suitable for commercial timber production, but is highly valued for recreation. It has a high biodiversity value, partially due to its uniqueness and irreplaceability (it contains a high number of endemic species). This area is one of TNC’s conservation targets on the Forest. Critical ecological processes, such as metapopulations dynamics, debris avalanches, storm and drought events are fully intact, with the exception of fire at high elevations. Major threats include development, alien weed invasions, incompatible grazing, and recreation uses. Road construction in this area would potentially disrupt some of these critical ecological processes and allow access for incompatible land uses. 18. Seneca Creek – LTA Ba06. Spruce Knob System. High elevation red spruce/northern hardwoods. Some is Mauch Chunk geology with steep mountains and some dissected plateaus. Tracked species include: Allegheny woodrat, mountain earth snake, pink-edged sulphur, WVNFS, CMS, and white monkshood. This area is highly valuable for recreation. The west side has a few roads, but the map shows none on the east side. The east side contains some Greenbrier Limestone. 19. Spice Run – LTA Bd03. Relatively intact area of the Forest. 20. Tea Creek Mountain – LTAs Bc01, Bc02. Bc01 – Allegheny Plateau, northern hardwoods, mixed mesophytic, geomorphic processes include landslides and surface erosion. These sites require special consideration when building/maintaining roads. Bc02 – Frigid soils above 4000’. Support red spruce. No commercial timber harvest occurs in this habitat.

Page 57 of 160 Tracked species include: Candy darter (could be impacted by increased sediment from road construction), WVNFS, long-stalked holly, and rock skullcap. 21. Turkey Mountain – LTAs Bc01 (majority) and Bc02. Bc01 – Allegheny Plateau, northern hardwoods, mixed mesophytic, geomorphic processes include landslides and surface erosion. These sites require special consideration when building/maintaining roads. Bc02 – Frigid soils above 4000’. Support red spruce. No commercial timber harvest occurs in this habitat. The road system in this habitat is adequate. Tracked species include: New River shiner, Appalachian darter, candy darter, long-stalked holly, and Curtis milkweed. The shiner and darter are particularly vulnerable to sedimentation and could potentially be impacted by road building in this OA.

EF 2 – To what degree do the presence, type, and location of roads increase the introduction and spread of exotic plant and animal species, insects, diseases, and parasites? What are the potential effects of such introductions to plant and animal species and ecosystem function in the area?

Roads may influence the spread of non-native invasives and other non-native organisms in two ways. Spread may occur directly by transportation of organisms by vehicles or indirectly by altering habitat and creating ear`1ly seral stage vegetation or bare soil areas that favor weed species. The effects of these introductions or non-native species spread on plants, animals, and ecosystems could include crowding out native plant species, reducing numbers of preferred food sources, reduction of native wetland habitat, or other undesirable effects.

Common weeds are already established on the Forest. Dandelions, garlic mustard, thistles, crown vetch, teasel, autumn olive, Saint Johnswort, and other common weeds are known on the Forest. Autumn olive was planted on log landings for wildlife food. Crown vetch has been used for erosion control along road cuts. Weed control efforts are occurring mainly on grazing areas in conjunction with range management.

Current non-native insect concerns on the Forest include beech bark disease, hemlock wooly adelgid, and gypsy moth. Beech bark disease is caused by the combination of bole damage from adelgid feeding (a non-native species) and subsequent infestation by a fungus (native and air born). The adelgids and gypsy moth do not rely on vehicles or roadways for transportation, although gypsy moth is known to spread by eggs laid on vehicles.

Roads create edge habitat generally suited to most invasive plants. The existing road system and any proposed additions or removals would be considered in the fragmentation analysis at the watershed or project level. At the Forest level, an attempt has been made to determine large parts of the Forest where the existing road system has the greatest chance of influencing the introduction and spread of non-native plants and animals, insects, and diseases.

Roads that connect open areas (pasture, croplands, suburban development) with interior forest are more likely to increase the spread and introduction of non-native plants and animals. Roads in Land Type Associations (LTAs) with large portions of area in pasture or farmland should be more closely reviewed for possible risks. Table EF2a gives the names of the LTAs comprised of large agricultural areas and their acreages. Figure EF2 gives the

Page 58 of 160 location of these areas. Given the low amount of National Forest land in these LTAS, the road densities for Forest Service system roads are also low. The assessment to be made at the project level should include the connectivity of the existing and proposed road system between these LTAs and adjacent, forest dominated, LTAs.

Page 59 of 160 Figure EF 2 – Land Type Associations (LTAs) Primarily in Farmland

Page 60 of 160

Table EF 2a – LTAs with Agricultural Land

LTA Number LTA Name Acres Acres Comments private/state National ownership Forest ownership M221Aa03 Germany 15,017 332 Valley M221Aa04 Potomac 6,082 735 Riparian M221Bd04 Deer Creek 4,805 1 M221Bc03 Cloverlick 40,243 5,609 Agriculture System mainly in limestone areas M221Ba04 Tygart Valley 7,118 0 River Riparian M221Ba11 Northern 31,300 6,624 Agriculture Allegheny mainly in Mountain limestone areas

Roads open to year-round public travel are more likely to increase introduction and spread of non-native animals, insects, and plants by direct means. Given the opportunity for year-round use for a variety of users, these roads have the greatest likelihood of being sources for introduction.

For this analysis, only roads of maintenance level 3, 4, or 5 are considered. These maintenance levels represent higher quality roads more likely to be traveled by passenger vehicles and more likely to be open to the public as opposed to lower maintenance level roads. There are about 330 roads or road segments for a total of about 712 miles of roads of these maintenance levels on National Forest land. Of these, there are 181 roads or road segments for a total of about 505 miles currently open to year-round use by the public. This includes about 2 miles of roads to Ranger District offices, and road systems in concentrated recreation developments such as Lake Sherwood. The effects from these types of roads are expected to be less than roads or road segments that allow year round public travel through the general forest area. Table EF2b displays a summary of these miles of road by maintenance level.

Table EF 2b – Forest System Roads Open to Year-Round Public Travel

Maintenance Number Miles Level of Roads 3 89 220.3 4 65 242.1 5 27 42.6

Page 61 of 160 Seeding of existing or newly constructed roads or during abandonment of roads increases the chance of introduction of non-native plants. Bare soil as a result of these actions can also be a way for non-native plants to spread. Seed mixes are stipulated in contracts, but a certain percentage of weeds and other undesirable species will be found in most mixes. Seeding needed for road abandonment projects is expected to increase as old, unnecessary roads are identified through watershed assessments and project road analyses.

Roads used by horses also have a greater likelihood of allowing introduction and spread of non- native or invasive plant species. Horses that consume weeks off the Forest can deposit week seeds in their stool on the Forest for days afterward. All roads on the Forest are open to travel by horseback.

Roads and road segments listed in the INFRA database were ranked for resource management value based on length of road. Roads greater than 10 miles in length were ranked as high value, roads 1 mile to 9.99 miles ranked as moderate, and roads less than one mile in length were rated as low in value, with the value of roads being based on access to any area for management of invasive species. Roads and road segments were also ranked for risk to the resource based on access for year round public travel. Roads open to year round public vehicle travel were ranked as high risk (excluding roads to administrative sites such as district offices), roads open seasonally to public vehicle travel were ranked as moderate in risk, and those closed to public vehicle travel or less than 1 mile in length were ranked as low in risk. Table EF2c gives the total miles per ranking value by maintenance level. This ranking is the result of a quick office search and should not be considered the final analysis of the transportation system as it relates to ecosystem functions across the Forest. Individual road rankings can be found in the project record.

Table EF 2c – Resource Management Value and Risk Rankings

Value Ranking Maintenance Level Total 3 4 5 High 35.2 60 33.3 128.5 Moderate 335.6 183.1 5.3 527.1 Low 32.8 8.2 15.3 56.3 Total 403.6 251.3 53.9 711.9 Risk Ranking High 210.4 236.6 34.9 485.1 Moderate 64 1.2 3.7 68.9 Low 124.7 13.5 15.3 153.5 Blank 0 4.5 0 4.5 Total 403.6 251.3 53.9 711.9

Forest roads may be seeded to exotics, such as crown vetch. This may cause no problem in some areas, in other areas, whereas such as those on limestone geology, crown vetch may escape the roadside and invade native communities, often outcompeting and replacing the native species. A problem exists with this in some sensitive plant communities on soils that form from limestone parent material. Exotics that move in along the road corridor on their own may also become a problem and invade shady areas of the Forest, outcompeting the native vegetation. Japanese stilt grass is one of these. It is now the most common grass in the northern part of the Forest. Roads

Page 62 of 160 are the primary path for its advancement. Multiflora rose, too, often moves from the roadside into the Forest, persisting for long periods of time under the shade of the canopy. Some of these plants not only outcompete the native plants, but provide no food for wildlife. The tree of heaven is near the Forest now. It can displace native trees and form mononcultures. It usually advances along Forest roads and invades Forest openings.

Summary

Roads have created conditions for the spread of non-native weed species common to the state and region. The Forest continues to monitor the effects of invasive species on native populations.

In analyses at the next scale below the Forest level, roads open to year-round public travel should be reviewed for their role in increasing the spread of non-native plants and animals. Also, connections to large tracts of farmland by Forest system roads should be reviewed for risk of introduction of non-native species.

EF 3 – To what degree does the presence, type, and location of roads contribute to the control of insects, diseases, and parasites?

The Forest road system is a benefit to the control of insects. Any Forest system road could be used in suppression efforts. Known forest insect and disease impacts on the Forest include: gypsy moth defoliation, beech bark disease, and hemlock wooly adelgid. The Forest has sprayed B.t. (Bacillus thuringiensis) in recent years to reduce gypsy moth populations. A current environmental assessment proposes to treat beech trees with herbicides to reduce sprouting after death from beech bark disease in a small area of the Forest. There is no Forest-wide direction on beech bark disease treatments. The Forest is working in cooperation with the State and Private branch of the Forest Service on biocontrol release to reduce hemlock wooly adelgid impacts. There are no known parasites on the Forest affecting management.

The tools currently used to manage forest insects and diseases include active vegetation management (for example thinning) and application of pesticides. Passive management (natural succession), a conscious choice for much of the Forest, can also be considered as a method used. For example, allowing red spruce to succeed and replace hardwoods aids in recovery of this ecosystem.

Currently, gypsy moth control is conducted on portions of the Forest by air. Roads are used for spotters, weather observations, and can be used to locate corners of spray blocks. Monitoring traps and egg mass surveys are located throughout the Forest and accessed by all levels of roads.

Beech bark disease management often occurs through commercial timber sale actions. Roads used for the removal of timber products could also be used to treat stands.

Summary

The current road system is adequate for the level of past and current management of insect and disease issues on the Forest. If, due to insect, disease, and/or parasite problems, future management is required, additional roads may be necessary to support management actions.

Page 63 of 160

EF 4 - How does the road system affect ecological disturbance regimes in the area?

Some ecological disturbance regimes on the Forest include: 1. windthrow 2. insects and diseases 3. floods 4. fire 5. landslides

1. Windthrow- roads may increase windthrow if a small patch of forest is surrounded by roads, wind speed may increase along the corridor. There would be less protection provided by surrounding trees. 2. Insects and diseases – Some insects and diseases are spread by automobiles, which would be enhanced by roads. Some are spread by wind; these may also be enhanced by roads. Alternatively, control could be supported by access provided by the Forest road system. 3. Floods – Roads can alter hydrology, concentrating and increasing water flow during storm events and decreasing absorption rates on roaded areas. Roads in floodplains can interfere with the natural movement of streams and rivers during floods, exacerbating the effects of the flood. 4. Fire – Roads can interfere with the movement of fire through the landscape by acting as a firebreak. This may lead to fuel build up and a more intense fire later on. Roads can also help in suppressing unwanted fires, as well as making good barriers to burn from during prescribed fires. 5. Landslides – Some communities, such as limestone glades or barrens and shale barrens, are dependent on landslides for ground disturbance to set back succession. Roads may initially increase such events by undercutting the hillsides. In some cases, areas may be seeded with exotics, such as crown vetch, which may invade the natural community. These types of road mitigation measures may eventually reduce the occurrence of these critical ecological processes and the native community may eventually be replaced by those requiring a more stable substrate, or by the exotics planted to stabilize the site.

Forest Staff expect to increase use of fire and re-introduce this disturbance regime to sites suited to prescribed fire. The 1998 LTA descriptions include an assessment of the suitability of prescribed fire as management tool. The table below lists those LTAs with at least part of the area suited to management by prescribed fire and the size of these areas; Figure EF 4 shows the distribution of these areas. Based on the total National Forest acreage in the LTA coverage for the forest, about 49% of the Forest could be managed with prescribed fire (this includes total acreages for LTAs listed in table EF 4).

Page 64 of 160 Table EF 4 – LTAs Suited for Prescribed Fire

LTA number LTA Name Acres Comments National Forest land M221Aa01 North Fork Mountain/River Knobs 27,831 M221Aa06 Cave Mountain System 10,499 M221Bd01 Allegheny Mountain System 103,189 M221Bd02 Beaverlick – Brushy System 25,640 M221Bd03 Slabcamp – Little Mountain System 78,191 M221Bc03 Cloverlick System 5,609 Sites on lower elevations most suited M221Ba03 Upper Tygart Valley 16,434 Sites on lower elevations most suited M221Ba09 Burner Mountain – Laurel Fork Va. 52,201 Some lower elevation System sites suited; red oak being replaced by beech M221Ba10 Allegheny Front Sideslopes 67,830 Some sites suited M221Ba14 Cheat River Hills 40,523 Plant assoc. 310, 311, 410, and some 230 suited M221Ba15 Allegheny Front Foothills 14,460 Total 442,407

Reasonable access in these areas will make re-introduction of fire as a disturbance regime safer, easier, and more economical. Both large - (100s of acres) and small - scale (25 acres or less) burn units are likely. Roads used for the prescribed burn program can be of lower maintenance levels than considered in this analysis. It depends on the complexity of the burn, but typically, only pickup trucks are used in prescribed burn operations.

Summary

There will likely be an increase in the use of prescribed fire across the Forest as this disturbance regime is reintroduced. The current road system is adequate for the foreseeable future for access, as maintenance level 1 and 2 roads would also be used for this short duration action.

Page 65 of 160 Figure EF 4 – LTAs Suitable for Prescribed Fire

Page 66 of 160 EF 5 – What are the adverse effects of noise caused by developing, using, and maintaining roads?

Road development is the most noticeable source of noise. Heavy machinery may be in the area for several months and the noise may be heard from ½ mile away, or perhaps farther, depending on the landscape. We currently construct an average of about 6 miles of road/year. If we increase timber harvest, road construction could increase, but as we increase the amount of helicopter logging, road construction increase will be offset. Helicopter logging will cut the amount of road construction needed by about 1/3.

Using roads causes some noise disturbance, depending on the type of road. Gravel roads generally have less traffic than paved ones, but can produce more noise. The noise may be heard from ½ or more miles away, depending on the terrain, wind, and background noise, for example. The noise will probably be less late at night, but it may be heard farther away under certain atmospheric conditions.

Maintaining roads involves noise from road scrapers and from mowing machines. The noise may be heard from ½ mile away and may last for an hour for each type of maintenance, depending on the terrain. If a person is on a ridge, he may hear the noise for a longer period of time and from a farther distance. The roads are usually maintained once per year.

Aquatic, Riparian Zone, and Water Quality (AQ)

Watershed and upper catchment processes

Introduction

Roads can have a number of influences on the health and function of aquatic ecosystems. Factors such as road location, level of use, design, and maintenance can modify aquatic habitat conditions and impair stream productivity. The Roads Analysis Process (RAP) is a broad-level assessment that will help identify watersheds that have the highest potential for road related problems. The RAP is not a site-specific inventory of road related problems. Actual effects depend upon a number of site variables such as road location, surfacing, drainage frequency, use levels, soil types, aspect, etc. that cannot be adequately addressed for every road on a Forest-wide basis. A more detailed evaluation of road conditions needs to be completed during subsequent watershed assessments and project planning efforts.

Although the RAP is designed to evaluate the potential effect of maintenance level 3-5 roads on streams and watershed conditions, to answer the questions related to aquatic ecosystems (AQ 1-14), and to address the potential effects of roads at a watershed scale, the entire transportation system is included in the road analysis. By assessing the entire

Page 67 of 160 transportation system, a more accurate picture of the potential cumulative effects of the road system can be considered within a given watershed, and the level 3-5 roads can then be placed in an overall context of watershed health.

The foundation of the analysis is a watershed integrity ranking (WIR) conducted by the Monongahela National Forest, in conjunction with the Regional Office, in 2001 (Monongahela NF, draft Watershed Integrity Ranking 2001), and Forest-wide data themes located in the geographic information system (GIS) library. At this cursory level, the assessment considers the overall road density within 5th level watersheds, the number of road crossings, the amount of sensitive soils within watersheds, proximity of roads to stream channels, and other factors. The result is an assessment of the potential for roads to affect aquatic ecosystems based on watershed conditions and road densities. In simple terms, watersheds with the highest road densities and/or sensitive soils have the greatest potential for road-related problems. A more detailed analysis of these high probability areas is needed to identify specifically where road related problems occur.

This portion of the Roads Analysis Plan (RAP) was conducted using the GIS system and the Monongahela National Forest Soil Database. All soils data originates from the county soil survey reports and was gathered by the USDA- Natural Resources Conservation Service in cooperation with the USDA Forest Service. Currently within the Proclamation Boundary there are data voids on private lands due to the current status of digital data available for those areas. Also there is a data void in the northern portion of the MNF due to the lack of digital data from outdated soil survey reports for Tucker, Northern Randolph, Preston, and Barbour Counties. Currently these soil surveys are being updated by the USDA-NRCS Soil Survey program and will be available in 2007. For this analysis no adequate soils data surrogate is available, therefore this area was omitted from the analysis. (See Map 1 in Appendix AQ)

AQ1: How and where does the road system modify the surface and subsurface hydrology of the area?

Roads can modify the hydrologic response of an area by intercepting and converting ground water to surface flows, by increasing the drainage density of a watershed where ditch lines flow into functioning channels, and along road surfaces that are compacted and reduce water infiltration rates. The level of modification depends upon a number of variables such as rainfall, soil type, the slope and location of the road, the frequency of road drainage structures, the road surface material, and the density of roads in a watershed.

The primary factor considered in prioritizing potential hydrologic modification due to roads is the overall road density within 5th level watersheds. Watersheds with higher road densities have a greater relative potential for roads to modify the quantity and timing of streamflows. The WIR has calculated road densities for 31 out of the 44 fifth level watersheds on the Forest. Nine watersheds were not evaluated because they contained less than 0.85% National Forest System lands, and four watersheds were consolidated with adjacent watersheds because of their

Page 68 of 160 size. The analysis utilized road and watershed data located in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Non-point Sources (EPA -BASINS) database. The scale of the analysis was 1:100,000. Road densities were calculated using a spatial grid analysis with 100- meter grids and the resulting road density is the percentage of grids within a watershed that are intersected by a road. It is not a measure of miles of road per surface area of watershed. Table AQ 1 shows the watersheds in descending order from the highest road density to the lowest. It also includes the percentage of NFS lands within the watersheds.

Table AQ 1. Ranking of 5th Level Watersheds Based on Road Densities.

Road %FS Road %FS Name density ownership Name density ownership Gauley River 17.4 28.5 Glady Fork 12.3 67.3 North and South Mill Creek 16.5 2.1 North Fork 12.2 35.6 Cheat River Direct Drains 16.1 18.9 Upper Tygart Valley River 12.1 17.2 Howards Creek 16.0 0.9 Knapp Creek 12.0 51.3 Leading Creek 16.0 2.5 Gandy Creek 11.7 30.0 Upper Gauley River 15.6 13.2 Blackwater River 11.5 15.9 Tygart Valley Direct Drains 15.6 14.0 Laurel Fork 11.4 58.3 Cherry River 15.1 26.8 Greenbrier River 11.3 32.4 South Branch 14.6 5.2 South Branch 1 10.8 53.3 Spring Creek 13.9 6.1 Shavers Fork 10.6 70.2 Upper Elk River 13.7 21.4 Dry Fork 9.9 72.0 Lunice Creek 13.4 1.4 Cranberry River 9.3 97.4 Greenbrier River 1 13.4 27.9 Anthony Creek 8.6 76.2 Upper Greenbrier River 12.9 81.5 Williams River 8.0 88.5 Horseshoe Run 12.8 39.3 Red Creek 6.5 67.8 Deer Creek 12.4 40.9

It should be noted that the watersheds with the highest road density generally have limited NFS lands within the watershed. Our ability to minimize the impact of the transportation system within these watersheds may be limited, and inventories should be conducted to evaluate the potential contribution of roads on NFS lands to the overall cumulative effects of the transportation system within these watersheds. Conversely, the watersheds with the lowest road densities generally have the highest percentage of NFS lands. Our ability to reduce the potential impacts of roads is greatest in these watersheds by improving existing road conditions and/or by reducing the road densities by eliminating unneeded roads.

Approaching the question from a soils standpoint, it is answered by analyzing the length of roads that intersect soils with drainage classes of moderately well

Page 69 of 160 drained or wetter. These roads are classified as having a high risk of modifying the surface and subsurface hydrology of the area. Approximately 109.9 miles of road intersect the soils sensitive for wetness, hydric properties, and flooding (Appendix AQ, Map AQ 1a.)

The road system has a high chance of intersecting subsurface flows in drainages or colluvial landscapes causing subsurface flows to become surface flows during times of soil saturation and periods of wetness. Colluvial landscapes often indicate movement of soil material over long periods of time due to a combination of water and gravity. Surface flows originating from subsurface flows have been observed, even in well-drained colluvial soils, leaving exposed soil profiles (i.e. a road cut). These colluvial soils with drainage classes of well drained or drier are considered to be of moderate risk. Approximately 55.6 miles of road intersects these types of colluvial soils (Appendix AQ, Map AQ 1b.)

AQ2: How and where does the road system generate surface erosion?

Road construction and maintenance represent ground disturbing activities that can accelerate erosion rates in a watershed. Cut slopes, fill slopes, road surfaces, and drainage outfalls expose soils to precipitation and modified runoff patterns that create new sources of surface erosion and deliver sediment to drainage networks. Factors influencing road-related surface erosion include soil type, slope position, drainage frequency, road surface material, level of use, and the age of the road.

Studies have found that sediment delivery to stream systems is highest in the initial years after road construction, although raw ditch lines and road surfaces with little binder can remain chronic sources of sediment. Roads with native surface material, inadequate gravel surface, poorly vegetated slopes or ditches, inadequate ditch armor, and inadequate drainage are the largest sources of erosion and sedimentation. The potential for erosion and sedimentation increases as the road grade increases. This occurs because water moves at higher velocities and increased volumes as grade increases. Drainage structure, function, and spacing are key to minimizing the amount of surface flow, which directly affects surface erosion. The Water Conservation Practices Handbook (FSH 2509.25) and Forest Plan provide standards and guidelines for drainage structure spacing.

For this analysis, watersheds with the highest amount of erodible soils are considered to have the greatest potential for surface erosion. The WIR calculated the amount of highly erodible soils by utilizing slope and soil erodibility data from the USDA NRCS STATSGO database. To account for soil coverage Forest- wide, the scale of the analysis is 1:250,000 and soils were combined into broad soil units. The result may overstate the amount of erodible soil in some watersheds and underestimate the amount in others. Soil mapping at the watershed and project level is important for refining the level of resolution of

Page 70 of 160 erodible soils. Table AQ 2 displays the 5th level watersheds and the amount of erodible soils based on the NRCS STATSGO database.

Table AQ 2. Ranking of 5th Level Watersheds Based on Amount of Erodible Soils.

% Erodible % Erodible Name Soils Name Soils Dry Fork 100.00 Knapp Creek 41.24 Cheat River Direct Drains 90.63 Upper Elk River 40.81 Howards Creek 86.75 North Fork 39.11 Horseshoe Run 78.68 Lunice Creek 37.48 Glady Fork 76.57 North and South Mill Creek 31.74 Blackwater River 76.56 Shavers Fork 29.57 Gandy Creek 69.01 Leading Creek 28.40 Red Creek 61.40 Greenbrier River 26.19 Laurel Fork 57.22 South Branch 21.05 Greenbrier River 1 54.14 Deer Creek 20.26 South Branch 1 48.08 Cranberry River 12.57 Anthony Creek 44.25 Upper Greenbrier River 9.85 Williams River 43.98 Cherry River 8.94 Upper Tygart Valley River 43.97 Upper Gauley River 0.13 Spring Creek 42.02 Gauley River 0.00 Tygart Valley Direct Drains 41.64

At this level of analysis, watersheds with the greatest amount of erodible soils generally occur on the northern end of the Forest. Strategies to reduce the road density or relocate roads off of sensitive soils can help minimize the potential for surface erosion. Even though watersheds on the southern end of the Forest generally show less erodible soils, experiences with watershed assessments and project planning in this area have identified a number of road-related sources of erosion.

The surface erosion potential was also evaluated using NRCS Soil Survey interpretations generated using NASIS for the soil map units across the Forest. This provides a higher resolution of soil characteristics and sensitivity, but due to data gaps could not be used on a Forest-wide basis. Erosion potential is rated as severe, moderate, and slight, which corresponds respectively with high, medium, and low road related risks (Appendix AQ, Map AQ 2). Approximately 353.2 miles of roads exist on soils that are rated as severe erosion hazard potential. These soils are rated as high risk. Approximately 79.5 miles of roads exist on soils that are rated as moderate erosion hazard potential. These soils are rated at medium risk.

Page 71 of 160 AQ3: How and where does the road system affect mass wasting?

Mass wasting is a general term for the dislodgement and downslope transport of soil and rock material under the direct application of gravitational body stresses. Mass wasting includes slow displacement, such as creep and solifluction, and rapid movements such as rockfalls, rockslides, and debris flows. (Glossary of Geology 2nd Edition, Bates and Jackson, 1980)

Road-related mass wasting results from (1) improper placement and construction of road fills and stream crossings, (2) inadequate culvert sizes to accommodate peak flows, sediment loads, and woody debris, (3) roads located on soils prone to mass wasting, and (4) water diversion onto unstable hillslopes. The sensitivity of an area to mass wasting depends on the interaction of the soils and underlying bedrock, slope steepness, and the subsurface hydrology. Mass wasting is not a widespread concern on the Monongahela National Forest, but it does occur in localized areas. These areas are characterized as having one or more of the following resource features: (1) soils with potential for slippage, (2) steep slopes defined as 50% or greater slope, and (3) areas with a high density of colluvial soils. Road design and maintenance frequency are primary management-related factors.

Forest analysis shows that there are 45.4 miles of roads in these areas characterized as having a high potential for mass wasting based on geology and potential for slippage. Appendix AQ, Map AQ 3a identifies roads built on soils with potential for mass movement (slippage).

The Forest is also characterized as having steep topography. Road-related mass wasting typically occurs in steep terrain or mountainous topography. Studies in California indicated an increase in mass wasting road failures when slopes exceeded 40 and 50 percent (USDA Forest Service 1999). There are approximately 103,148 acres (calculated using 30m Digital Elevation Maps) of slopes greater than 50% on the Monongahela National Forest. Approximately 17.1 miles of road cross slopes that are 50% or greater in slope. Appendix AQ, Map AQ 3b identifies roads built across slopes 50% or greater.

Roads that cross colluvial soils on slopes greater than 15% are considered moderate risk for failure due to mass wasting or slippage. Colluvial material can become unstable when the toe slope is cut away in a road cut or when water tables are exposed thereby interrupting subsurface flows and redirecting them to the surface. The exposure of the soil profile in colluvial soils can potentially create areas on roads where subsurface water is left to pond on a road surface and saturate fill areas, which then could fail. However, proper mitigation and road maintenance (directed by Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines) can be used to prevent road failures in these areas where colluvial soils exist.

Page 72 of 160 In addition to the number of road miles crossing sensitive soil types and slopes, the potential for mass wasting also increases with the number of stream crossings within a watershed. Crossing structures that are undersized or poorly maintained can fail and wash out portions of the road, fill and downstream reaches. The WIR identified the number of road crossings within the 5th level watersheds and is addressed in AQ 4.

Project-level analyses will consider the effects of maintenance level 1- 2 roads on mass wasting and potential concern areas for new road construction. More in- depth analysis from sub-forest scale analyses will identify areas where the interaction of the soils, underlying bedrock, slope steepness, and subsurface hydrology are creating high priority concern areas. This analysis will also help us identify watersheds where additional road construction may increase risk for mass wasting.

Opportunities to address existing roads in areas with high mass wasting potential include:

• Road relocation to an area with more stable soils. • Relocation of drainage structures so that the outlets are on less sensitive areas which may include flatter slopes and better-drained soils. • Frequency of relief culvert spacing, outlet pads at culvert outlets

Watersheds of particular concern for risk are: 1) the Upper portion of Williams River, 2) Spring Creek Watershed, 3) the most upper reaches of Cranberry River 4) Upper Elk River, 5) North Fork, 6) eastern portion of the Upper Tygart River, 7) the headwaters of Shaver’s Fork, 8) the western portion of the Greenbrier River, 9) Gandy Creek, and 10) the head waters of Red Creek. Some of these watersheds have more acreage of sensitive soils prone to mass wasting than others.

AQ4: How and where do road-stream crossings influence local stream channels and water quality?

Road crossings can influence stream channels by delivering sediment and other pollutants to the drainage network, by constricting channel widths and floodplain functions, by modifying the movement of water, woody debris, organic and inorganic sediments, and by modifying the movement and passage of aquatic organisms. Variables that affect the level of influence road crossings have on stream channels and their biota include the type of crossing, the width of the crossing relative to the width of the channel, the stability of the channel above and below the crossing, the level of road use, the hydrologic integrity of the watershed, and the frequency of drainage structures on the road.

Page 73 of 160 Utilizing the TIGER road data in the EPA-BASINS database and the EPA-RF3 stream reach data, the WIR calculated the number of intersections between the roads and stream layers for each 5th level watershed (Table AQ 4).

Table AQ 4. Ranking of 5th Level Watersheds Based on the Number of Road Crossings.

Stream Stream Name Crossings Name Crossings South Branch 330 Blackwater River 102 North Fork 296 Knapp Creek 94 Upper Elk River 198 Upper Greenbrier River 86 Cheat River Direct Drains 188 Gauley River 78 Spring Creek 178 Gandy Creek 66 Upper Tygart Valley River 168 Upper Gauley River 63 Tygart Valley Direct Drains 166 Deer Creek 61 North and South Mill Creek 156 Williams River 51 Howards Creek 151 Dry Fork 50 Anthony Creek 137 Cranberry River 48 Cherry River 130 South Branch 1 47 Lunice Creek 130 Glady Fork 37 Greenbrier River 130 Horseshoe Run 34 Leading Creek 113 Laurel Fork 34 Greenbrier River 1 105 Red Creek 21 Shavers Fork 105

The analysis addresses the number of road crossings per 5th level watershed, but it will require on-the-ground inventories to identify what type of stream crossing is present (bridge, culvert, ford) and how the crossing influences the stream channel. It should also be noted that the TIGER road layer is at the 1:100,000 scale, so not all roads are depicted in this layer. The road densities and number of road crossings are probably greater than what is shown in the tables.

The effects of road crossings on channel characteristics and water quality can be minimized by using crossings that span the channel and provide a natural substrate, such as bridges, open bottom arches, or oversized culverts that are partially sunken.

AQ5: How and where does the road system create the potential for pollutants, such as chemical spills, oils, deicing salts, or herbicides, to enter the surface water?

Water quality can be affected by accidental spills of pollutants, or from road management activities that utilize salts, herbicides, or other chemicals. The highest potential for pollutants to enter surface waters is at stream crossings and along sections of roads that are in close proximity to streams. Factors such as the number of stream crossings, the frequency of cross drains, the level of road use,

Page 74 of 160 and maintenance can increase the potential for pollutants to enter surface waters. Table AQ 4 shows the number of road crossings for each of the 5th level watersheds, which would be the points with the greatest potential for pollutants, including chemicals and sediment, to enter surface waters.

Drainage from roads that are in close proximity to stream channels can also connect to functioning channels and deliver pollutants. Road segments that are within 100 feet and 250 feet of streams, respectfully, were identified using GIS layers in the Monongahela National Forest data set (Appendix AQ, Map AQ 5). Approximately 553 road miles are within 100 feet and 1,410 road miles are within 250 feet of stream channels identified as blue lines on USGS quads (1:24,000 scale). (Note: Road miles include all roads (USFS and state) that are shown on USGS quads.) Not all perennial channels are identified on quad maps and this also does not consider the proximity of roads to intermittent and ephemeral channels.

The potential for pollutants to enter surface waters can be minimized by using frequent cross drains or outsloping to avoid concentrating runoff that can reach stream channels, and by minimizing the length of ditchlines that drain directly into stream crossings.

AQ6: How and where is the road system “hydrologically connected” to the stream system? How do the connections affect water quantity and quantity?

Similar to AQ5, roads are hydrologically connected to stream systems where roads cross functioning channels, or where road runoff connects to functioning channels. For this exercise, roads that are within 250 feet of a stream channel are considered to be in close proximity and potentially hydrologically connected. The potential to affect water quality includes the delivery of sediment and chemical pollutants to the drainage network, and elevated sediment levels from increased bank erosion and channel instability associated with roads that modify channel and floodplain characteristics. Potential affects to water quantity include intercepting groundwater, ditchlines that add to the drainage network, compacted soils and impervious road surfaces that reduce water infiltration rates. These affects increase the efficiency of water movement through the watershed and the timing of runoff. Using frequent cross drains or out sloping roads to avoid concentrating runoff volumes can minimize the hydrologic connection.

Page 75 of 160 AQ7: What downstream beneficial uses of water exist in the area? What changes in uses and demand are expected over time? How are they affected or put at risk by road-derived pollutants?

The West Virginia Division of Water Resources establishes designated uses for the waters of the state and water quality standards to protect those uses. Streams draining the Forest provide a number of uses such as sources of drinking water, coldwater fisheries habitat, and water related recreation such as swimming and boating. Roads can affect these uses by impairing water and habitat quality as discussed earlier. Table AQ 7 identifies the 5th level watersheds that provide drinking water to local municipalities. All of the 5th level watersheds on the Forest support coldwater fisheries, swimming and boating opportunities, but not necessarily in all streams within the watersheds. A more detailed analysis identifying the designated water uses and potential impacts from roads should be conducted at the watershed and project planning level.

Table AQ 7. Ranking of 5th Level Watersheds Based on Municipal Water Supplies.

Municipal Municipal Name Supply Name Supply Blackwater River 7 South Branch 0 Tygart Valley Direct Drains 6 North and South Mill Creek 0 Gauley River 4 Anthony Creek 0 Upper Tygart Valley River 4 Upper Gauley River 0 Upper Greenbrier River 4 South Branch 1 0 Dry Fork 4 Spring Creek 0 Shavers Fork 3 Williams River 0 Upper Elk River 2 Horseshoe Run 0 North Fork 2 Deer Creek 0 Cherry River 2 Gandy Creek 0 Knapp Creek 2 Glady Fork 0 Cheat River Direct Drains 2 Leading Creek 0 Greenbrier River 2 Cranberry River 0 Lunice Creek 2 Laurel Fork 0 Greenbrier River 1 1 Red Creek 0 Howards Creek 0

AQ8: How and where does the road system affect wetlands?

Roads can affect wetlands directly by encroachment, and indirectly by altering hydrologic surface and subsurface flow paths. Encroachment results in a loss of wetland area directly proportional to the area disturbed by the road. Alteration of the hydrologic flow paths can affect wetland function with the effects extending beyond the area directly affected by the road. The Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (FSH 2509.25)

Page 76 of 160 provides measures to protect wetlands. During project-level analyses, opportunities to reduce the effects of the road system on wetlands include the following: • Relocate roads out of wetland areas. • Where relocation is not an option, use measures to restore the hydrology of the wetland. Examples include raised prisms with diffuse drainage such as french drains. • Set road-stream crossing bottoms at natural levels of wet meadow surfaces.

Roads also provide a source of sediment that can reach wetlands by surface runoff. Sediment then acts to fill in the wetland disrupting natural proper function of the wetland. There are 0.92 miles of road intersecting wetlands within the MNF Proclamation Boundary (Appendix AQ, Map AQ 8.)

There are also numerous areas in the Forest with hydric soils but may not meet the full wetland classification. The Upper Greenbrier, Cranberry River, and Laurel Fork watersheds have several roads that are constructed on hydric soils and may be altering potential wetland properties of these areas. 22.4 miles of road intersect hydric soils.

AQ9: How does the road system alter physical channel dynamics, including isolation of floodplains, constraints on channel migration, and the movement of large wood, fine organic matter, and sediment?

Roads can directly affect physical channel dynamics when they encroach on floodplains or restrict channel migration. Floodplains help dissipate energy during out of bank flows and recharge soil moisture and groundwater. Floodplain function is compromised when roads encroach on or isolate floodplains. This can artificially intensify peak flows. When peak flows increase, more energy is available for in-channel erosion, which, in turn, affects channel stability. Restricting channel migration can cause channel straightening that increases the stream energy available for channel erosion. This can also result in channel instability. Altering the hydrologic and morphologic properties of the channel affects various stream processes including the ability to transport materials, such as woody debris, and sediment. There are 44.5 miles of road (FS and state) that intersect floodplain soils (Appendix AQ, Map AQ 9). These concerns are greatest on floodplain reaches where the stream naturally meanders and typically has a lower gradient.

Road crossings also have the potential to constrain channels and affect the movement of wood and sediment. Culverts are often undersized relative to the channel width, which can create areas of deposition upstream of the pipe, restrict the movement of wood through the pipe, and increase channel scour below the pipe. AQ 4 addressed the number of road crossings for each 5th level watershed, and those crossings need to be inventoried to determine what type of channel crossing is present and if it has an influence on the channel characteristics.

Page 77 of 160 AQ10: How and where does the road system restrict the migration and movement of aquatic organisms? What aquatic species are affected and to what degree?

The influence of culverts on the movement of aquatic organisms is becoming an increasingly important issue related to the connectivity of aquatic habitats and populations. The improper sizing and installation of culverts can result in passage barriers for organisms moving upstream and down. This in turn has the potential for isolating populations and habitat upstream of barrier culverts, and reducing the genetic mixing between populations. Should the upstream populations fail, for example during a period of drought, then downstream populations would be unable to recolonize that habitat during more favorable conditions. In some cases, the presence of a barrier can be favorable if it protects populations that are at risk from non-native species moving upstream.

The number of fish species and road crossings in each 5th level watershed are listed in Table AQ 10. Site by site inventories are necessary to determine if passage problems exist at each road crossing, and to determine if other potential passage barriers, either natural or road related, occur downstream of each crossing point. Little is known of the mobility of many aquatic organisms, so road crossings that retain or mimic the natural stream width, gradient, and substrate, such as bridges, open bottom arches, or oversized sunken pipes are preferred for providing passage.

Table AQ 10. Ranking of 5th Level Watersheds Based on the Total Number of Fish Species Reported in the Watershed.

Total Fish Stream Total Fish Stream Name Species Crossings Name Species Crossings Cheat River Direct. Drains 34 188 Howards Creek 24 151 Shavers Fork 32 105 South Branch 1 24 47 Upper Elk River 31 198 Upper Tygart Valley River 24 168 Knapp Creek 31 94 Deer Creek 24 61 Upper Greenbrier River 31 86 North and South Mill Creek 23 156 North Fork 29 296 Laurel Fork 23 34 Anthony Creek 29 137 Horseshoe Run 22 34 Williams River 28 51 Blackwater River 22 102 Cherry River 27 130 Upper Gauley River 21 63 South Branch 26 330 Glady Fork 21 37 Gandy Creek 26 66 Gauley River 17 78 Spring Creek 25 178 Leading Creek 17 113 Lunice Creek 25 130 Greenbrier River 16 130 Greenbrier River 1 25 105 Cranberry River 16 48 Dry Fork 25 50 Red Creek 12 21 Tygart Valley Direct Drains 25 166

Page 78 of 160 Watershed assessments and project planning efforts can help prioritize the need for correcting passage problems at road crossings. Site-specific information such as the species present, management objectives for the aquatic communities, presence or absence of barriers downstream, and amount of habitat upstream are a few things to consider when correcting passage problems. An inventory of road crossings and their effects on fish species was completed in the Upper Greenbrier River watershed in 2002. The findings and results are still being analyzed, but differences in species compositions above and below culverts were noted in a number of areas.

AQ11: How does the road system affect shading, litterfall, and riparian plant communities?

Roads that cross stream channels or run within close proximity to channels influence the structure and composition of riparian vegetation present in those areas. The reduction of forest cover in areas can affect stream shading and organic inputs (leaves, large woody debris). Factors that influence these effects include the distance from the road to the channel, the gradient of the sideslope, the aspect of the drainage, the soil type, and the vegetation type. Generally, roads within 100 feet of a stream channel affect riparian vegetation and reduce the amount of organic recruitment to the drainage. Approximately 553 miles of roads run within 100 feet of streams identified as blue lines on 1:24,000 quad maps (Appendix AQ, Map 11). Large woody debris and small organic matter are also important inputs to intermittent and ephemeral channels that are not portrayed on the quad maps, so the number of miles of roads within 100 feet of the overall drainage network is much greater than 553 miles.

AQ12: How and where does the road system contribute to fishing, poaching, or direct habitat loss for at-risk aquatic species?

Though there are no threatened, endangered, or sensitive game fish on the Forest, legal and illegal fishing can affect populations of brook trout that are considered and Management Indicator Species. Roads that are in close proximity to fish bearing waters provide access to anglers and poachers and may contribute to excessive angling pressure on brook trout populations. Brook trout populations in streams with relatively low productivity can be over harvested if angling pressure is too high and/or poaching occurs. A number of larger streams and rivers on the Forest are stocked with hatchery trout to support heavy angling pressure. However, the smaller headwater streams that are crossed by open roads are susceptible to over-harvest. Fish sampling data on the Forest has not been analyzed to determine a relationship between trout biomass and road access, but a general observation is that where aquatic habitat is good and access and harvest are limited, the size and number of trout seem to be greater.

Page 79 of 160

AQ13: How and where does the road system facilitate the introduction of non- native aquatic species?

The road system supports the introduction of non-native species where rainbow and brown trout are stocked to support angling pressure, and wherever the public intentionally or unintentionally releases non-native baitfish or aquarium fish. Roads that are in close proximity to stream channels or cross fish-bearing streams have the highest potential for introduction of non-native species.

AQ14: To what extent does the road system overlap with areas of exceptionally high aquatic diversity or productivity or areas containing rare or unique aquatic species or species of interest?

Roads that create barriers to movement, modify habitat conditions, or reduce water quality can impact aquatic species that are at risk. The greatest risk comes from roads that have a direct effect on occupied habitat, but the cumulative impacts of roads and other management activities within a watershed can threaten at-risk species far downstream.

Table AQ 14 identifies the number of proposed endangered, threatened, or sensitive fish species (PETS) reported in the 5th level watersheds. There are no proposed or federally listed endangered or threatened fish species on the Forest, but seven sensitive species are reported to occur here. These include the redside dace, candy darter, pearl dace, New River shiner, Cheat minnow, Appalachian darter, and the Kanawha minnow. Watershed assessments and project plans will identify the specific sub-watersheds that support, or historically supported, rare aquatic species and the potential impact roads have on habitat quality and populations.

Page 80 of 160 Table AQ 14. Ranking of 5th level Watersheds Based on the Presence of Sensitive Fish Species.

Sensitive Sensitive Fish Fish Name Species Name Species Williams River 4 Gauley River 1 Upper Greenbrier River 4 Shavers Fork 1 Anthony Creek 3 Dry Fork 1 Cherry River 3 Laurel Fork 1 Howards Creek 2 Tygart Valley Direct Drains 1 Upper Gauley River 2 Red Creek 1 Knapp Creek 2 Blackwater River 1 Greenbrier River 2 South Branch 0 Greenbrier River 1 2 Upper Elk River 0 Deer Creek 2 North and South Mill Creek 0 Gandy Creek 2 South Branch 1 0 Glady Fork 2 Lunice Creek 0 Horseshoe Run 2 Upper Tygart Valley River 0 North Fork 1 Leading Creek 0 Spring Creek 1 Cranberry River 0 Cheat River Direct Drains 1

The Williams River and Upper Greenbrier River support four of the seven sensitive fish species and have the greatest potential for roads having a direct impact on sensitive fish populations. Even in watersheds with no sensitive fish species present, the potential may exist for cumulative effects downstream on rare fish species.

In addition to fish, the Forest supports two sensitive mollusks (elktoe and green floater) and one sensitive amphibian (eastern hellbender) whose habitat could be affected by roads that alter stream conditions. A number of rare aquatic invertebrates, mollusks, insects, isopods, and other species inhabit caves and subsurface waters, but roads are unlikely to affect the cave stream conditions in which these species are found.

Terrestrial Wildlife (TW)

TW 1 - What are the direct effects of the road system on terrestrial species’ habitat?

The Monongahela National Forest provides habitat for an abundance of game and non-game wildlife. A total of 230 species of birds have been recorded on the Forest, 159 of which are known to nest here. An additional 68 species of mammals, 42 species of reptiles, 42 species of amphibians, 160 species of fish, and hundreds of species of invertebrates are also found on the MNF. Some of

Page 81 of 160 these species tolerate, or even thrive, in some types of habitat disturbance and areas where human activities have had a long-lasting impact on the forest, but most species are adversely impacted by roads.

Roads impact terrestrial wildlife habitat in a number of ways, and most of the impacts are negative for the majority of wildlife species. Road construction typically results in the direct loss of wildlife habitat, fragmentation of habitat, and the introduction of exotic species. The clearing of vegetation, the re-contouring of the land, and the addition of aggregate, asphalt, or other road base for road construction create an unnatural condition and lead to a loss of wildlife life history requirements in the road rights-of-way, namely the loss of cover, food, water, and breeding opportunities. Those species with very limited ranges, such as the Cheat Mountain salamander may be greatly affected by the direct loss of habitat to road construction. The Cheat Mountain salamander is a habitat specialist that requires particular vegetation, moisture, temperature, and ground cover conditions, and when its habitat is destroyed for the construction of a road, the species is unable to expand its range into unsuitable habitat to compensate for the human-induced loss of suitable habitat. Similarly, the West Virginia northern flying squirrel is also a habitat specialist, and is closely tied to mature high elevation red spruce/northern hardwood forest. Destruction of the northern flying squirrel’s habitat for road construction or other developments generally leads to a range retraction for the species, since they are unable to colonize non-suitable habitat types.

Roads also cause fragmentation of wildlife habitat. Fragmentation of habitat is a process by which continuous natural habitat is fractured into smaller and smaller “islands” of wildlife habitat surrounded by non-habitat. Human development projects isolate sub-populations or individuals of a given species in these habitat islands where they may be cut off from large blocks of habitat, stable sources of food, water, and cover, and other members of their species. The relatively small size of the habitat fragments and the high proportion of edge-to-interior habitat make the wildlife in these fragments vulnerable to depredation and stochastic events. For example, many species of neotropical migratory songbirds have been shown to be negatively affected by forest fragmentation, including that brought about by road construction, and will abandon small fragments below a minimum critical threshold.

Road-induced forest fragmentation may also negatively affect wildlife habitat quality through human disturbance. Wildlife species associated with interior habitats, and those species that are easily disturbed by humans, such as northern goshawks, seem to be most affected by the human disturbance factor associated with roads. However, even some common big game animals and other species that utilize openings and other early successional habitats for some activities have shown an avoidance of roads that humans frequent. For example, wild turkeys have been shown to avoid roads that have high human use, especially during critical breeding and brood-rearing times. Roads represent a major disturbance

Page 82 of 160 potential for black bears in West Virginia, since bear hunters are currently allowed to pursue bears with hunting dogs year-round for training purposes, and the bear hunters use the road system on the Forest to locate bears and to track the progress of their dogs with radio telemetry equipment.

Roads act as barriers to dispersion for small species and less mobile species. For example, the Cheat Mountain salamander is reportedly unable to cross bare surfaces, such as roads and trails, because of its complete dependence on moist and cool living conditions, and thus roads isolate small populations of this species from each other.

Road systems facilitate the spread of exotic plant and animal species. Seeds from exotic plant species may attach to vehicles and be transported down roads to new locations. Roads also act as natural wind dispersal corridors for seeds, and the wind vortex associated with vehicle traffic may exacerbate this problem. Aquatic plant species attach themselves to boats and may be transported down roadways to new water bodies. Exotic insects and other insect pests can be carried by vehicles long distances to start new infestations.

TW 2 - How does the road system facilitate human activities that affect habitat?

The road system facilitates human activities that affect habitat by facilitating the transportation of humans, their vehicles, and equipment into areas to which they otherwise would not have easy access. On the National Forest, the most obvious way that the road system affects habitat is that roads are usually required for the economical harvesting and removal of timber. Without a well developed road network, timber would have to be removed either by helicopter, which is an expensive undertaking usually reserved for the most valuable timber, or by skidding or cabling logs long distances, which can be expensive and destructive to the soil, residual trees, and existing regeneration. Timber harvesting may have positive or adverse impacts toward habitat, depending upon the method of silviculture employed and the wildlife species of interest. This Roads Analysis Process does not include logging roads and other primitive forest roads that are the primary roads associated with timber harvesting; however, the class 3, 4, and 5 roads under consideration are necessary for getting the harvested timber to the mill.

The Forest’s road system gives humans access to remote areas where they may accidentally or intentionally start wildfires that may affect wildlife habitat. In dry conditions and the right fuel type, wildfires may have a devastating affect on wildlife habitat in some areas. Intense wildfires can affect habitat through the loss of cover, forage, and mast producing plants. Low intensity wildfires, such as those that have occurred on the MNF in recent years, may have a beneficial effect for some wildlife species, by reducing the litter layer, returning nutrients to the soil, and promoting a luxurious growth of herbaceous plants and tree seedlings.

Page 83 of 160 Even moderate and high intensity wildfires may be beneficial for ecosystem health in the long term, but the short-term changes in habitat type would be detrimental for some species.

Forest roads may affect wildlife habitat on private in-holdings within the proclamation boundary of the MNF by facilitating residential construction or agricultural clearings on private lands that would otherwise be inaccessible by construction equipment. Clearing of the private in-holdings, the construction of buildings and other facilities, the use of herbicides, pesticides, and other chemicals, and the introduction of non-native plant and animal species can have far-reaching effects on habitat conditions both on the private in-holdings and the adjacent MNF lands. Non-native plants introduced on private in-holdings may spread into the interior of MNF lands and out-compete native flora. Domestic carnivores, particularly house cats, can have devastating impacts on local songbird and small mammal populations.

TW 3 - How does the road system affect legal and illegal human activities (including trapping, hunting, poaching, harassment, road kill, or illegal kill levels)? What are the effects on wildlife species?

The road system on the MNF facilitates legal hunting and trapping activities on the Forest. The road system allows hunters access into remote areas to legally scout, hunt, and trap game animals. A majority of hunting on the MNF occurs with one mile of an ungated road, and a large percentage probably occurs within one half mile of an ungated road. The rugged terrain of the MNF and hunters’ increasing reliance on motorized vehicles for access to hunting locations and the extraction of their harvested big game from the Forest suggest that this trend will continue into the foreseeable future. The road system of the MNF allows hunters greater access to remote areas of the MNF for harvesting of female white-tailed deer, which helps the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (DNR) to effectively manage deer herd overpopulation on the Forest. The road system also facilitates hunting and increases hunting success by modern bear hunters who track the progress of their hunting dogs from the roads with radio telemetry equipment and rarely enter the woods on foot until their quarry has been immobilized by their dogs.

The road system on the MNF also facilitates illegal hunting activities on the Forest. Because of the isolation of many of the Forest roads from major highways and human populations, poachers often go undetected. A majority of poaching takes place from roads or within a short distance of roads. Poachers typically are looking for an easy kill, and want to be able to drive away from their illegal kill sites soon after the kill to avoid detection by conservation officers. Many poachers are probably opportunistic, and cruise the roads looking for game crossing the road or foraging within sight of a road. Increased road system mileage leads to an increase in the area that poachers can operate, and a dilution of the efforts of conservation officers to detect illegal hunting.

Page 84 of 160

The road system on the MNF also facilitates the legal and illegal collection of plants, fungi, and non-game animals. Certain plants and fungi that occur on the MNF, such as ginseng, ground pine, ramps, morels and other edible fungi, shelf fungi, and rare plant species are collected on the MNF periodically by Forest users, either for personal use or for commercial purposes. Collection of at least some of these organisms may be legal if the collectors obtain the proper permits. Collection of these organisms without the proper permits and collection of proposed or listed threatened or endangered species constitute illegal activities. In some parts of the country, turtles and flying squirrels are collected for the pet trade, which may have negative consequences for local populations in some areas, though the degree to which this is conducted on the MNF is unknown.

Roads increase the numbers and distribution of humans on the Forest, which in turn leads to an increase in human disturbance and harassment of wildlife. Harassment of wildlife on the MNF may be either direct, such as the chasing or handling of wildlife, or indirect such as traffic noise, human noise, or even just human presence. The black bear is one example of wildlife harassment that is facilitated by the MNF’s road system. Black bears in West Virginia, including bears on the MNF, are pursued and harassed by bear hunters during year-round dog training exercises. Radio-collared bears in West Virginia have shown an avoidance of roaded areas, probably in response to the harassment they receive there.

Roads lead to road-kill of a wide range of wildlife species. Generally, improved road condition, increased road surface width, and increased vehicle speed increase the probability that an animal attempting to cross the road will be killed. Therefore, class 5 roads probably represent a greater road-kill hazard than class 3 and 4 roads. However, wildlife has been struck and killed on even the MNF’s most primitive roads. White-tailed deer, black bears, raccoons, gray and red foxes, opossums, woodchucks, striped skunks, red, gray, and fox squirrels, and eastern chipmunks are the most common victims of road-kill on the Forest. Hawks and owls are occasionally struck when single-mindedly pursuing prey on or adjacent to roads. Turkey vultures, crows, ravens, butterflies, and carrion- eating arthropods are struck when feeding on other road-killed animals. Songbirds whose territories occur on both sides of a roadway are often struck when crossing from one side of their territory to the other. Many songbirds are also struck on roadways when they congregate at berry-producing and seed- producing plants on roadsides. Snakes crossing roads are often run over by vehicles, sometimes intentionally. Frogs and other amphibians may be killed on roads, especially during and following rain events in the breeding season, when amphibians become very mobile in their search for suitable breeding ponds and mates. Water in tire ruts and potholes in dirt roads may attract breeding amphibians, and the adults, egg masses, and juveniles may be destroyed when vehicles splash through puddles in the road. Butterflies are often killed by

Page 85 of 160 vehicles on Forest Service roads, particularly those surrounded by wildflowers that are attractive to butterflies.

TW 4 - How does the road system directly affect unique communities or special features in the area?

The road system of the MNF negatively affects threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) species of wildlife primarily through the loss of suitable habitat, fragmentation of habitat, impedance of dispersal, introduction of exotic species, and facilitation of disturbance by humans. The road system of the MNF may adversely affect each of the TES species in one or more of these ways. Those species with very limited ranges, such as the threatened Cheat Mountain salamander, may be greatly affected by the direct loss of habitat to road construction. Since this salamander is a habitat specialist that requires particular vegetation, elevation, moisture, temperature, and ground cover conditions, it is unable to expand its range into unsuitable areas when its habitat is destroyed for the construction of a road or other purpose. Similarly, the endangered West Virginia northern flying squirrel is also a habitat specialist, and is closely tied to mature high elevation red spruce/northern hardwood forest. Destruction of the northern flying squirrel’s habitat for road construction or other developments generally leads to a range retraction for the species, since they are unable to colonize non-suitable habitat types.

Recently, construction of several new roads off the MNF resulted in the partial destruction of a number of small populations of the endangered shale barren rockcress. Hikers have also accidentally trampled this plant and damaged its fragile habitat while traversing shale barrens on foot. Road construction and right-of-way maintenance are also thought to be among the greatest threats to the endangered running buffalo clover.

Fragmentation of wildlife habitat may have had, and may continue to have in the future, significant consequences for several of the TES species on the MNF. In particular, the Cheat Mountain salamander may suffer greatly from habitat fragmentation. Since this species is reportedly unable to cross bare surfaces such as roads and trails, populations of this species in different “islands” of habitat cannot interbreed and thus are genetically isolated from each other.

Several species of wildlife may be affected by the increase in human disturbance that has been facilitated by the road system of the MNF. Some area roads were constructed particularly close to certain caves on the Forest, thus increasing the likelihood that spelunkers will locate the caves and disturb any roosting or hibernating bats inside, possibly including the endangered Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bat. The northern goshawk, which has been classified as a sensitive species on the Forest, is also sensitive to human disturbance. In other parts of its range, females of this species have been known to abandon nests near

Page 86 of 160 roads that received too much vehicular or human traffic during the critical early phases of the nesting cycle. The road system of the MNF facilitates human entry into the mature, normally isolated forested habitat that the northern goshawk uses for nesting and foraging. At one nest of this species near a recreation area on the MNF, the brooding female was observed to become physically agitated when Forest visitors traversed along the road at the end of the drainage within which the nest was situated—a distance of over 400 feet.

The road system of the MNF is thought to have facilitated invasion by exotic invasive plants. Seeds of exotic plants may have attached themselves to vehicles or Forest visitors in other areas, and dropped off on the MNF to colonize the disturbed road rights-of-way. The roads may also facilitate long distance wind- borne seed dispersal of exotics by creating open wind tunnels free from obstructions. The endangered running buffalo clover is often found on disturbed sites. Competition with non-native plant species may adversely affect RBC, especially within and near rights-of-way.

Roads also facilitate the collection of rare plants and plants with commercial value. Roads allow plant collectors access to remote areas that otherwise would be too difficult for bulk plant collectors to reach. This is especially true for heavy or bulky plant products. For example, roadsides on the MNF may be stripped bare of commercially valuable ground pine and other mosses, while the hillsides just 50 yards from the road will be left undisturbed. Black cherry, which is not only extremely economically valuable but is also an important source of fruit for wildlife in years of good production, is also a target of timber thieves near roads. Because of the mass of large, valuable cherry logs, thieves generally select trees near roads that they can quickly load onto their trucks.

Economics (EC)

EC 1 – How does the road system affect the agency’s direct costs and revenues? What, if any, changes in the road system will increase net revenue to the agency by reducing cost, increasing revenue, or both?

To maintain the Forest’s road system up to the operational maintenance level, annual maintenance must be performed. Annual maintenance is different for each maintenance level, but in general it includes activities such as grading, placing aggregate, shaping ditches, cleaning culverts, maintaining water bars and dips, and performing road condition surveys.

The following table shows the road maintenance that may be required for each maintenance level of road. It should be noted that all of these activities need not be performed on a yearly cycle; rather, a multi-year cycle may suffice, depending on conditions.

Page 87 of 160

Table EC 1a: Maintenance Activities Usually Performed Depending on Maintenance Level

Gate and/or Maintain Clean/ Maintenance Surface Stone Cleaning Condition Sign Water Replace Mowing/Brushing Level Grading Placement Ditches Survey Maintenance Bars/Dips Culverts

1 x x x 2 x x x x 3 x x x x x x x 4 x x x x x x x 5 x x x x x x x

When annual maintenance is not performed when it should be, that maintenance activity then becomes deferred. The following table shows the maintenance summary from 2001:

Table EC 1b: 2001 Maintenance Summary

Maintenance Total Annual Maintenance Deferred Maintenance Total (Annual+Deferred) Level Miles Total Dollars Cost Per Mile Total Dollars Cost Per Mile Total Dollars Cost Per Mile

1 235 $476,989 $2,029 $5,987,367 $25,473 $6,464,356 $27,502 2 816 $2,253,581 $2,762 $20,268,393 $24,837 $22,521,974 $27,599 3 403 $915,319 $2,271 $12,292,025 $30,501 $13,207,344 $32,772 4 222 $704,298 $3,166 $10,858,348 $48,806 $11,562,646 $51,972 5 43 $97,295 $2,268 $1,409,791 $32,870 $1,507,086 $35,138

Totals 1719 $4,447,482 $12,496 $50,815,924 $162,487 $55,263,406 $174,983

Maintenance funds are collected from some users of the road system. The following road maintenance charges and allowances are used Forest-wide for Timber Sale Contract, Road Use Permits, and Cooperative Agreements unless experienced costs are available and an analysis is made in accordance with FSH 7709.15, Chapter 14.32, on an individual sale or permit basis. When the user’s share of maintenance is incidental ($200 or less), no charge will be made.

Table EC 1c: Rates of Collection Collection Deposit Purchaser Allowance Typical Haul Product Rate Rate Application

$0.50 / MBF / Mile $0.40 / MBF / Mile Sawtimber $0.30 / MBF / Mile $0.24 / MBF / Mile Any Roundwood $0.20 / MBF / Mile $0.16 / MBF / Mile Cordwood

Page 88 of 160

When companies extracting materials, such as natural gas, use Forest system roads, there is an agreement as to how the road system will be maintained. In most cases, if a company wishes to use a road that is closed to public use, the company is responsible for 100% of the maintenance of that roadway. If the road is open to public use, the company pays a percentage of the annual maintenance dollars for the mileage they wish to use.

EC 2 – How does the road system affect priced and non-priced consequences included in economic efficiency analysis used to assess net benefits to society?

Both locals and people traveling to the Forest from other areas that participate in summer recreational activities, such as hiking, camping, turkey hunting, cycling, and fishing contribute to the local economy by purchasing food and supplies at local shops. Local inns, bed and breakfasts, and motels will also benefit from travelers staying at their establishments. Winter recreation opportunities such as big and small game hunting, fishing, and skiing continue to draw people to the Forest during the winter months, keeping local businesses busy throughout the year. Road construction, reconstruction, nor decommissioning would dramatically affect the aforementioned sources of economic benefits to local communities. One exception may be that a widespread decommissioning of roads in an area, to the point of eliminating roaded access, could possibly displace or eliminate the road-based recreation, possibly resulting in lost revenues to local communities.

EC 3 – How does the road system affect the distribution of benefits and costs among affected people?

“Economic contributions to the local and national economy from the Monongahela include receipts from Forest products such as timber, federal minerals, leased grazing land, and special use fees, plus the income earned from recreation and tourism related to the Forest, and the availability of products such as firewood and medicinal plants.” (Niche Statement excerpt) Roads facilitate all of these functions by providing access to the Forest.

Costs could be experienced in the form of noise pollution, littering, and increased human activity, all of which could detract from a wilderness experience.

Commodity Production Timber Management (TM)

TM 1 - How does road spacing and location affect logging system feasibility?

This question is addressed at the project scale as timber sales are proposed. Road spacing and location are only part of what is reviewed when determining logging system feasibility. At the Forest level, impacts of road spacing and location will

Page 89 of 160 be discussed in general terms. In this analysis, only roads of maintenance level 3, 4, and 5 are considered. These are generally roads that connect the lower maintenance level roads to the state and county road systems.

Road spacing and location on the Monongahela is primarily driven solely by the desire to commercially log an area and by the type of logging system used. Road construction is allowed where it is determined to be economically and technically necessary to achieve resource management objectives. The Forest Plan, Appendix M, outlines principles of transportation planning. Principle 1 is to keep the miles of road to a minimum considering the access needs and protection of resources. To do this, use of existing roads is to be maximized and roads not needed are to be abandoned. Principle 2 is to locate roads on the best possible site to protect resources and minimize the need for maintenance and future reconstruction. Use and upgrade of existing road systems often drive the choice of logging system and the feasibility of logging any given area of the Forest available for commercial timber management.

Most commercial timber harvesting on the Monongahela National Forest is accomplished by conventional, ground-based equipment. Generally, rubber tired grapple skidders are used on temporary roads or skid trails to yard logs to a central landing. Tractor-trailers, tandem trucks, and tri-axle trucks are used to remove products from the landing. These roads are often maintenance level 2, but for economic efficiency, these lower level roads need to connect to the county or state road system within a reasonable distance.

Other logging systems on the Monongahela include yarding by cable set and helicopter. Both of which, while requiring less total miles of road per square mile of land, do require closer attention to location and spacing of roads. Use of cable logging systems has declined on the Forest and was never a large part of the timber sale program. Cable logging generally occurs on steeper slopes of the Forest, however, roads are needed at the slope break (point of change from steep to gentler slope) to provide proper cable deflection to increase productivity and decrease ground disturbance. The amount of land suitable for steep slope cable yarding will be determined during the suitable timberland analysis for Forest Plan revision.

The number of timber sales where at least a portion of the units are required to be yarded by helicopter has increased starting with one sale in 1997, two in 1998, four in 2001, and four in 2002. The use of this logging system is dependent on high value timber species and usually determined to be needed as mitigation for effects to water quality from road construction on steep slopes. While fewer roads per square mile of land are required for helicopter yarding, sale units need to be within ½ to 1 mile of a landing to make the sale economically feasible. Helicopter yarding is the most expensive logging system used on the Monongahela.

Page 90 of 160 It is Forest policy not to conduct large-scale earth disturbance or conventional ground-based harvesting operations on sensitive soils unless a site-specific analysis indicates that the effects of such activities could be mitigated. Soils are considered sensitive to higher risk of soil erosion, slippage, compaction, and potential for sediment delivery to streams due to being in floodplains, on steep slopes, a high level of wetness, and forming on limestone and fine grained sandstones. On the Forest, the acres of highest risk are areas of sensitive soils or geology in management prescriptions that allow large-scale earth disturbance. The total of National Forest System lands meeting these criteria is approximately 160,000 acres. In these areas, no large-scale earth disturbance or conventional ground-based harvesting operations could occur unless a site-specific analysis determined that the effects of such would be within acceptable levels. One option for timber harvesting on sensitive soils would be yarding trees by helicopter. This limits or avoids major earth disturbance in sensitive soil areas.

3 Season to 4 Season Road Upgrade Procedure

In recent years, the MNF has started to utilize helicopters to harvest timber from timber sales. Due to the nature of this industry currently in West Virginia, helicopter-logging outfits operate during winter months. Consequently, haul trucks are operating on Forest Service roads during winter months. The majority of the road system on the MNF is not designed to handle these types of operating conditions and is subject to failure. In order to mitigate effects to the road system, haul roads needed for wintertime operation are identified during the planning process. Once identified, the Engineering Staff and Forest Soil Scientist analyze the roads for suitability for wintertime use. Soil types are analyzed through the GIS system, and then soil samples are taken either from the road surface or from the road cut adjacent to the road. The sampler tries to obtain a sample of soil material that matches the road surface material used. The soil sample is then sent away to a geotechnical testing facility for UNIFIED or AASHTO analysis. The results are used in calculating the type and amount of materials needed to upgrade the road in question for wintertime use.

Soil wetness and presence of floodplain are included in determining soil sensitivity to risk of damage or sediment movement. Commercial timber harvest is unlikely in floodplains or wetlands even through helicopter yarding due to protection afforded under various laws and policies. Roads of maintenance level 3, 4, or 5 already exist on sensitive soils, mainly in floodplains or wet soils along streambeds. These generally are multi-purpose roads.

Summary

Issues of appropriate logging systems for given areas of the Forest will be addressed during Forest Plan revision. Guidelines will likely be outlined to guide the manager’s choice of logging system based on factors such as distance to potential landings, presence of sensitive soils, and commercial timber values.

Page 91 of 160 Helicopter yarding was not considered in formulation and analysis of the current Forest Plan. At the project or watershed scale, the road system will be assessed for needs for additions, upgrades, or abandonment.

TM 2 – How does the road system affect managing the suitable timber base and other lands? TM 3 – How does the road system affect access to timber stands needing silvicultural treatment?

These two questions can be answered together since silvicultural treatments are generally tied to the suitable timber base as they are usually in response to, or for the long-term benefit of, the commercial timber program on the Forest.

The Forest Plan determined lands suitable for timber management by: 1. Identifying all forest land from non-forested land. 2. Subtracting forested land withdrawn from timber production including the Fernow Experimental Forest, Research Natural Area candidates, wildernesses, and areas of special concern such as botanical or scenic areas. 3. Subtracting areas where irreversible damage would be likely if timber harvest occurred. 4. Subtracting areas where restocking or regeneration could not be assured within five years of a regeneration harvest. 5. Subtracting areas where adequate information on the response to possible timber management was not available. In these areas no prediction of response to timber management could be made and the land was not considered part of the suitable timber base until more information was gathered.

As a result of the above steps, 723,670 acres of the Monongahela National Forest were identified as tentatively suited for timber management. In 1986 when the Forest Plan was developed, the Forest included 851,848 acres of forested and non- forested land. The last step in the suitability analysis at the Forest Plan level was to subtract those areas where timber management was determined to be inappropriate due to cost efficiency in meeting Forest Plan harvest levels. This brought the acres available for commercial timber management to 331,160 acres, or about 40% of the forested land on the National Forest.

In terms of acres available for commercial timber production based on management prescription (MP) allocations, active management (commercial and non-commercial) of forest types and age classes occurs in MPs 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, and 6.1. Management of forested lands under MP 2.0 emphasizes a continuous forested scene, mainly shade tolerant tree species, and uneven-aged silvicultural techniques. MP 3.0 emphasizes the production of commercial, large diameter, hardwood trees and animals tolerant of disturbance. MP 4.0 emphasizes

Page 92 of 160 management of existing conifer stands. About half of the Forest is assigned to MP 6.1, which emphasizes remote habitats for wildlife species intolerant of disturbance and a mix of forest products. Figure TM 3a shows the distribution of land to major management prescriptions. The category of “Other” in the chart includes MPs 2.0, 4.0, and 7.0. Figure TM 3b shows the spatial distribution of management prescriptions suited to commercial timber management.

Figure TM 3a – Distribution of Land to Management Prescriptions

8.0 Other 1% 3% 6.2 3.0 14% 22%

3.0 5.0 6.1 5.0 9% 6.2 8.0 Other

6.1 51%

As timber sales are proposed, site-specific analyses of the areas determines further suitability of commercial timber management. For example, while timber production is allowed in MP 6.1 areas, threatened or endangered species habitat found in these areas is withdrawn from suitability for timber harvest.

A Forest Plan amendment to address changes in threatened and endangered species habitat management is underway. This amendment and associated environmental assessment may change allocations to management prescriptions. The Forest Plan revision will include a new analysis of suitability to commercial timber harvest.

In the above descriptions of lands suited to timber management, access is only a factor in the last step of the Forest Plan analysis where economic cost efficiency is brought in. In allocating land to management prescriptions, existing road access was considered in general as an area’s suitability and capability to produce a mix of goods, services, and uses was matched with a group of desired future conditions described for each MP. The economic cost of road construction to

Page 93 of 160 meet the desired future condition of an MP was included in analysis of present net value and cost efficiency. Economic cost efficiency was one of the decision criteria used to determine the current land allocations to MPs.

For this analysis of current roads of maintenance level 3, 4, and 5, a review was made of access to opportunity areas allowing timber management. Opportunity areas reviewed are those assigned to MPs 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, and 6.1. This review was made using GIS layers, and has not been reviewed for accuracy on the ground.

Table TM 3a – Access to Opportunity Areas Available for Timber Harvest

Management Number of Acres Access Prescription Opportunity (GIS) Yes No Limited Perimeter Perimeter/limited Areas 2.0 6 21,763 1 2 1 2 0 3.0 49 194,844 6 23 13 4 3 4.0 1 3,800 1 0 0 0 0 6.1 78 466,130 16 27 13 14 8 Total 134 686,537 24 52 27 20 11

Since this analysis only includes maintenance level 3, 4, and 5 roads, access may be provided to these areas by lower level roads. A rating of “no access” in Table TM 3a does not mean these opportunity areas are designated as roadless areas or are eligible for such designation.

A detailed analysis of the transportation system of the opportunity areas determined to have no or limited access was not undertaken because Forest Plan revision may change land allocations to areas considered available for timber production. The Forest Plan revision process will include an inventory and evaluation of roadless areas, and make recommendations on how to manage roadless areas if suitable areas are found. Also, more detailed transportation planning will be done during project and watershed level analysis.

Roads and road segments listed in the INFRA database were ranked for resource management value based on access to existing areas with management prescriptions of 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 or 6.1. Table TM 3b gives the total miles per ranking value by maintenance level. This ranking is the result of a quick office review using maps and knowledge of the timber resource and should not be considered the final analysis of the transportation system as it relates to the timber resource. Individual road rankings can be found in the project record.

Page 94 of 160

Table TM 3b – Resource Management Value Rankings

Ranking Maintenance Level Total 3 4 5 High 353.0 237.3 23.9 615.5 Moderate 20.6 0 2.5 60.4 Low 29.9 14.0 16.5 23.1 Blank 0 0 11 13 Total 403.6 251.3 53.9 711.9

Summary

While roads are needed for access to manage the vegetation of the Forest through both commercial and non-commercial means, the reasons for road construction, reconstruction, and abandonment are likely to be based on resource needs other than access for timber or vegetation management. As the next level of analysis is made, either at the project or watershed scale, access for vegetation management is one aspect to be considered. As directed by the Forest Plan, the existing road system is to be used to the extent possible.

Page 95 of 160

This page has been intentionally left blank.

Page 96 of 160 Figure TM 3b – Management Prescriptions Suited to Timber Management

Page 97 of 160 Minerals Management (MM)

MM 1 – How does the road system affect access to locatable, leasable, and salable minerals?

Locatable minerals are deposits subject to location and development under the General Mining Law of 1872 (as amended). There are no locatable minerals within the Monongahela National Forest, as there are no public domain lands within the Forest. Thus, the Monongahela National Forest road system does not affect access to locatable minerals.

The Monongahela National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) contains the land management-guiding goal of keeping primarily energy mineral resources available for exploration and development consistent with other appropriate resource uses and protection of the environment (Forest Plan, p. 38). This Forest Plan goal is consistent with Forest Service minerals program objectives and policy, which include administering its minerals program to provide commodities for current and future generations commensurate with the need to sustain the long-term health and biological diversity of ecosystems. A specific component of Forest Service minerals policy is to plan for and provide for access to and occupancy of National Forest lands for mineral resource activities consistent with the overall management objectives and the rights granted through statutes, leases, licenses, and permits (Jack Ward Thomas. August 3, 1995. Forest Service Minerals Program Policy).

Salable minerals are mineral materials, otherwise known as “common varieties”, which generally include deposits of sand, gravel, clay, rock, or stone used for a number of purposes including stone surfacing on roads, construction or landscaping. In the area including the Monongahela National Forest, limestone, sandstone, chert-like material, and stream gravel or cobbles have historically been excavated or quarried. National Forest land, however, has not been and is not foreseen to be a significant source of these materials, as these resources have typically come from private land where they continue to be relatively abundant. The Monongahela National Forest’s salable minerals program currently is, and is expected to continue as a small-scale program, producing several tens of tons of personal use, dimension stone per year that is hand-gathered from National Forest land surface adjacent to existing roads open to public travel. The Monongahela National Forest road system open to public travel provides a number of opportunities for access to the current and foreseeable salable minerals within the Forest.

Leasable minerals are Federally owned deposits of coal, phosphate, sodium, potassium, oil, oil shale, and natural gas that are managed under the authority of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (for Public domain land) and 1947 (for acquired land) together with the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987. The development of these minerals under leases, permits or licenses is managed

Page 98 of 160 by the U.S. Department of Interior, subject to Forest Service consent. The Monongahela National Forest contains coal and natural gas leasable mineral deposits.

There is no record of serious expression of interest in the leasing and development of Federally owned coal within the Forest at any time in its history. As such, the Forest’s road system currently does not and is not reasonably foreseen as providing access to leasable (Federally owned) coal deposits.

Roads are needed to access Federally owned and leased oil and gas deposits. The Monongahela contains leased and developed, as well as potential, natural gas deposits. A natural gas storage field underlying roughly 50,000 acres of Monongahela National Forest land is managed under the leasable mineral authorities.

Activities associated with exploration for and development of the natural gas resource, and gas storage in this area typically can include geophysical exploration using vibroseis and shot hole prospecting methods, and gas well drilling and development, including access roads, wells sites, and buried gas pipelines. Roads needed to support these activities, with the exception of the seismic shot hole prospecting, must be a high enough standard for heavy and long vehicles during certain periods, such as during construction and well drilling. Frequent, year-round, light-weight vehicle use on roads, with an occasional need for access by heavier vehicles, occur associated with the operation and maintenance of gas developments. Existing arterial and collector roads are used to access the general area of gas activities. Existing or planned local roads that are part of the Forest transportation system are used as much as reasonably possible to access gas developments in order to meet Forest Plan direction that road location will be coordinated with need and protection of other resources (Forest Plan, p. 99).

Approximately 372,000 acres of Monongahela National Forest land could generally be allowed to have gas developments (road access, well sites and gas pipelines) on them (U.S.D.A. Forest Service Monongahela National Forest. September 30, 1991. Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact, Oil and Natural Gas Leasing and Development, p. 11). In other words, these lands could be leased with the expectation that surface occupancy by the lessee in order to develop the lease would be allowed, except for individual small areas that need to be avoided to protect forest resources. The remaining land within the Forest is either underlain by privately owned oil and gas (see MM2) or surface occupancy would not be allowed within the leased area.

Prior to development of Federal oil and gas leases, the Forest Service must approve the surface use proposed by the lessee, including roads planned for use or to be constructed. Transportation needs and plans for gas lease developments are addressed during the site-specific analysis of a lease development proposal.

Page 99 of 160

As of September 2002, about 210 miles of maintenance level 3, 4, and 5 Forest system roads are used by Federal oil and gas lease operators to support gas development. Roads used by gas operators are either maintained by the gas operator or the gas operator contributes dollars to road maintenance commensurate with their share of road use, depending on the whether the gas operator is the sole user or the road has multiple users.

MM2: How does the road system affect access to private minerals?

Roads are needed to access privately owned oil and gas estates. About one-third of Monongahela National Forest System land is underlain by privately owned oil and gas rights.

Activities associated with the development of privately owned gas are the same as those described for the development of Federal gas leases. Private mineral owners have the right to access their mineral estate for the purposes of developing it. Existing arterial and collector roads are used to access the general area of their planned gas activities. Existing or planned local roads that are part of the Forest transportation system are used as much as reasonably possible to access gas developments in order to meet Forest Plan direction that road location be coordinated with need and protection of other resources (Forest Plan, p. 99).

Prior to development of private gas beneath National Forest System land, the Forest Service works with the mineral owner or operator in planning the location and standards of roads to be constructed and used. Through negotiations with the mineral owner or operator, transportation needs and plans are incorporated into the Forest Service concurrence with the proposed gas development proposal.

As of September 2002, about 40 miles of maintenance level 3, 4, and 5 Forest system roads are used by private mineral owners or operators in the development of their mineral rights. These roads used by private gas owners or operators are either maintained by the gas operator, or the gas operator contributes dollars to road maintenance commensurate with their share of road use, depending on the extent of the mineral estate owner or operators rights. Roads built by private gas owners to access their gas developments represent a situation of joint ownership. As the surface landowner, the Forest Service may use these roads for National Forest management, but is obligated to involve the gas owner or operator in decisions about road management. Similarly, the Forest Service would inform or consult with private gas owners or operators regarding decisions about management of Forest roads built for other Forest resource management that access their developments.

Page 100 of 160 Range Management (RM)

RM 1 - How does the road system affect access to range allotments?

The grazing program on the Forest is the third largest in Region 9. Approximately 7,000 acres of the Forest are available for grazing in 50 grazing allotments. Allotments occur on three of the four ranger districts. There are no grazing allotments on the Gauley Ranger District and therefore there are no range related road system issues on this portion of the Forest. All grazing on the Forest is seasonal, usually from mid-May to mid-October. Permittees pay grazing fees to the U.S. Treasury to graze National Forest allotments.

The range program relies on road access to manage the grazing resource and the grazing program. Grazing permittees use roads to carry out maintenance and repairs to range improvements such as fences, watering facilities and corrals, to move livestock in and out, to check on their livestock, to provide mineral supplements, and other actions. Forest Service managers use the existing road system to conduct compliance checks of grazing permits, to make improvements on allotments, and to administer improvement contracts occurring on allotments. Contractors use the Forest’s road system to carry out improvements to allotments such as liming, repairing ponds, and installing new fences. The public also uses roads to access allotments for recreational activities such as hunting, berry picking, hiking, and bird watching.

Based on Forest Plan direction, on approximately two-thirds of our allotments, management of these non-forest areas through grazing is conducted for the benefit other resources such as wildlife and/or visual quality. Grazing is considered one of several tools we use to slow forest succession and to help keep these areas in a non- forest/old field/savannah/herbaceous condition for selected species of wildlife.

Table RM 1a gives the access for each grazing allotment on the Forest. Those with direct access by roads of maintenance level 3, 4, or 5 are highlighted. However, many other allotments that are directly accessed by maintenance level 1 and 2 roads also require the use of level 3, 4, and 5 roads to connect to the public road system in the area. As also shown in Table RM 1a, access to some allotments is provided by county, state, or federal roads.

No new allotments are planned for development on the Forest. Areas currently in pasture on the Forest were pastureland when acquired by the Forest Service. Besides helping to maintain important habitat for selected wildlife species, grazing on the National Forest allows local farmers to use their own lands to grow hay and crops for winter-feed which helps the local agricultural economy. Over the long term approximately 20% of allotments will be phased out of the range program. Under current range funding, it is considered uneconomical on certain allotments to mitigate adverse effects from grazing on other resources, such as fencing out extensive riparian areas.

Page 101 of 160 Table RM 1a – Current Access to National Forest Grazing Areas

ALLOTMENT ACRES ACCESS Vickers 26 County road 6 Watchword North 37 County road 6 Queens 40 County road 6 Allegheny 27 County road 28/11 Smoke Hole - Champ 269 County road 28/11 Coberly Sods North 131 FR 91 Coberly Sods South 67 FR 91 Farinas 64 FR 793A, maintained by gas co. Camp Bright 24 FR 91 Andy Champ 250 No FS road, no ROW, cross river and private land Ours Tract 101 No FS road, cross private, no ROW Glen Miller 32 No FS road, cross private land, no ROW White Sods 100 FR 14 Walter Nelson 84 cross private land and river, no ROW Lambert Hollow 34 county road, Lambert Hollow Road Alvin Shreve 90 county road, Jake Hill Road Strader Run 48 county road, Strader Run Road Grant Alt 101 county road, Jake Hill Road Mallow Tract 305 county road, Harper Gap road, 9/1 Whitmer 140 FR 887 Hartman Heirs 50 county road Mowery-Glover 162 FR 839 Tingler 372 FR 421 Dry Fork 296 county road, Dry Fork Road , 40 Little Tingler 42 FR 421 Pharis Knob 225 county road, Dry Fork Road, 40 Cunningham Knob 993 FR 472, admin ROW across private Big Run 289 Short spur off FR 112, recently improved Widney 336 FR 430 Elk Mountain 49 FR 112 Allegheny Battlefield 125 county road 3, non-system spur off county road Elleber Sods 389 FR 1681 Ramshorn 179 FR 90J or spur off FR 90A Barlow Top and Lottie Top 84 spur off FR 1026A Lower Meadow 41 FR 1026A Beale-Hacking 86 FR 1026 Ruckman 30 county road, Lake Reed road Hannah 74 county road, Lake Reed road McAllister 287 FR 251 to FR 791 Hoover 560 FR 831 and FR 202

Page 102 of 160 ALLOTMENT ACRES ACCESS Gay Sharp 118 FR 202 Mullenax 37 non-system spur off US 219 Friel Run 25 spur off FR 115 Shearer North 60 Highland Scenic Highway (HSH) Shearer South-lower pas. 35 HSH Shearer South- upper pas 30 Short non-system spur off HSH Day Run 109 FR 999 Thorny Creek 43 county road Halfway Run 44 FR 300N, Halfway Run Road, off FR 300 Kramer 18 county road, Thompson Road, off SR 39/55 Rimel 34 off State Route 92

Roads and road segments listed in the INFRA database were ranked for resource management value based on access to existing grazing areas. Since there are no grazing areas on the Gauley Ranger District or the White Sulphur portion of the Marlinton/White Sulphur Ranger District, roads on those districts were given a ranking of not applicable. Roads that did not access a grazing area directly or indirectly were ranked as low, however even these could be considered as not applicable to management of the range resource. Table RM 1b gives the total miles per ranking value by maintenance level. This ranking is the result of a quick office review using maps and knowledge of the range resource and should not be considered the final analysis of the transportation system as it relates to the range resource. Individual road rankings can be found in the project record.

Table RM 1b – Resource Management Value Rankings

RANKING Maintenance Level Total 3 4 5 High 16.7 62.2 22.3 101.2 Moderate 6.5 9.6 0 16.1 Low 300.6 124.8 20.5 448.1 Not Applicable 79.8 54.7 11.1 145.6 Total 403.6 251.3 53.9 711.9

Summary

This Forest-wide analysis is concerned mainly with maintenance level 3, 4, and 5 roads. Roads of this maintenance level provide direct access to 15 of 50 grazing allotments. Lower maintenance level roads that come off of maintenance level 3, 4 or 5 roads access several other allotments. Lower maintenance level roads off county, state, or federal roads access other allotments. The Forest Service road system, at maintenance level 3, 4 or 5, appears adequate for the needs of the range program. As project level assessments are made, opportunities for range management access, both to and inside allotments, can be addressed. The wildlife and range staff has prioritized all grazing allotments on the Forest based on needs and benefits of each grazing area. None of the roads considered in

Page 103 of 160 this analysis (the level 3, 4, and 5 roads) were identified as concerns for the range management program. Rights of way issues are noted in Table RM 1a and are known by the rangeland program manager.

Water Production (WP)

WP1: How does the road system affect access, constructing, maintaining, monitoring, and operating water diversions, impoundments, and distribution canals or pipes?

Water impoundments and diversions are relatively limited on the Forest. Large impoundments include Summit Lake, Buffalo Lake, Spruce Knob Lake and Sherwood Lake used primarily for recreational opportunities. Summit Lake is used as a supplemental source of water for Richwood when the North Fork Cherry River is low and cannot support the water demand. Road access to these impoundments is good, and road related problems do not appear to be an issue with operation, maintenance, or distribution of water resources.

WP2: How does road development and use affect water quality in municipal watersheds?

Roads can potentially affect water quality in streams used for municipal water sources. Table WP2 identifies the 5th level watersheds that are used as municipal water supplies. Watershed assessments and project level planning conducted within these watersheds should evaluate the potential effects of the transportation system on drinking water quality within these watersheds (Appendix WP, Map WP 2).

Table WP 2. Ranking of 5th Level Watersheds Based on Municipal Water Supplies.

Municipal Municipal Name Supply Name Supply Blackwater River 7 South Branch 0 Tygart Valley Direct Drains 6 North and South Mill Creek 0 Gauley River 4 Anthony Creek 0 Upper Tygart Valley River 4 Upper Gauley River 0 Upper Greenbrier River 4 South Branch 1 0 Dry Fork 4 Spring Creek 0 Shavers Fork 3 Williams River 0 Upper Elk River 2 Horseshoe Run 0 North Fork 2 Deer Creek 0 Cherry River 2 Gandy Creek 0 Knapp Creek 2 Glady Fork 0 Cheat River Direct Drains 2 Leading Creek 0 Greenbrier River 2 Cranberry River 0

Page 104 of 160 Lunice Creek 2 Laurel Fork 0 Greenbrier River 1 1 Red Creek 0 Howards Creek 0

WP3: How does the road system affect hydroelectric power generation?

Not applicable. There are no hydroelectric projects on the Monongahela National Forest.

Special Forest Products (SP)

SP 1 – How does the road system affect access for collecting special forest products?

Roads facilitate access for collecting special forest products. More people collect near the road, particularly for heavy items, such as moss, Christmas trees, and boughs, because of the ease of access. Light items, such as ginseng that can be carried in a small bag or back pack may be hauled longer distances, and therefore more people will hike longer distances from the road to gather them. This is particularly true for items that are of high value and are scarce. More collection is generally done along open roads than along closed ones. As the products become depleted along the roadsides, people will travel farther away from the roads to get them, as long as it is still lucrative. However, there seems to be a limit to the distance that people will be willing to walk to gather heavy or bulky items.

Special-Use Permits (SU)

SU 1 – How does the road system affect managing special-use permit sites (concessionaires, communication sites, utility corridors, and so on)?

Private citizens and industry are making vast demands of both public and private lands. The challenge is to strive to have the public lands managed for maximum public benefits consistent with their primary purposes, to prevent the dissipation of their productive capacity, and to assure that they are treated with as much thought and attention to the future as they are to the present. Authorizations to occupy and use public land impose encumbrances that can affect future management options and the way others can use and enjoy the land. The authority to allow others to use National Forest land can be a two-edged sword. It can allow the Forest Service to supplement management but, if not carefully administered, can also result in loss of resource values. These authorizations or rights can be created by deed or legislation or granted by permit following applications for use. Some authorizations grant access to private lands and improvements while others permit a variety of special uses of public lands for personal use or profit. Safe and efficient access to private lands or National Forest can directly affect the number of potential permittees and their operation and maintenance costs.

Page 105 of 160 Recreation special use proposals and/or authorizations at the Forest scale include organizational camps, a ski slope, outfitting and guiding, a golf course, a target range, recreational events, and concessions. These recreation special uses are normally designed around the existing road system. Currently, the Monongahela National Forest has 65 recreation special use authorizations (See Table SU1). Outfitters and guides commonly use Forest roads, but the specific roads used and the frequency of use changes on an annual basis.

The remaining 241 special uses on the Forest rely on the existing road system for the construction, maintenance, and operation of the special use authorizations. Common examples are utility rights-of-ways, road rights-of-ways, communication sites, and agricultural use.

Large sections of the Forest have “checkerboard” land ownership patterns resulting in continued requests for special use authorizations to facilitate road access and utility rights-of-ways. Subdividing of large private tracts of land is becoming a common practice. The Forest road system will play an increasing role in future special use management.

Table SU1: Summary of Current Special Use Permits and Applications ISSUED 1 BOAT DOCK AND WHARF 3 ORGANIZATION CAMP 2 CAMPGROUND AND PICNIC GROUND 1 TARGET RANGE 6 RECREATION EVENT 39 OUTFITTER AND GUIDE 1 STORE, SHOP, OFFICE 1 SKI SLOPE, TRAIL 13 CULTIVATION 3 LIVESTOCK AREA 3 BARN, SHED 1 FENCE 1 AGRICULTURE RESIDENCE 1 BUILDING 2 GROUP EVENT 2 CEMETERY 3 SEWAGE TRANSMISSION LINE 1 RESIDENCE, GOVERNMENT-OWNED BUILDING 1 SCHOOL 1 SHELTER 1 EXPERIMENTAL AND DEMONSTRATION 2 RESEARCH STUDY 1 WEATHER STATION 1 EDUCATION CENTER 1 WAREHOUSE AND STORAGE YARD 1 STOCKPILE SITE 1 GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL EXPLORATION 10 OIL AND GAS PIPELINE

Page 106 of 160 25 POWERLINE 1 DOT EASEMENT 2 FOREST ROAD AND TRAIL ACT EASEMENT 3 FEDERAL LAND POLICY & MGMT ACT EASEMENT 88 FEDERAL LAND POLICY & MGMT ACT PERMIT 2 AMATEUR RADIO 2 PERSONAL/PRIVATE RECEIVE ONLY 1 MICROWAVE-INDUSTRIAL 9 PRIVATE MOBILE RADIO SERVICE 2 CABLE TELEVISION 3 RESOURCE MONITORING SITE 3 COMMERCIAL MOBILE RADIO SERVICE 9 TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH LINE 6 TELEPHONE LINE, REA FINANCED 1 OTHER COMM IMPROVEMENT, NOT REA 1 IRRIGATION WATER DITCH 1 IRRIGATION WATER TRANS PIPELINE < 12" D 3 WATER TRANS PIPELINE < 12" D 3 DAM, RESERVOIR 1 RESERVOIR 9 WELL, SPRING OR WINDMILL 1 WATER STORAGE TANK 280 Total ISSUED

PENDING SIGNATURE 1 ORGANIZATION CAMP 1 GOLF COURSE 2 RECREATION EVENT 7 OUTFITTER AND GUIDE 1 LIVESTOCK AREA 1 LIQUID WASTE DISPOSAL AREA 1 DISTURBING USE, 1979 ACT 1 STOCKPILE SITE 1 MOTION PICTURE AND TV LOCATION 2 OIL AND GAS PIPELINE 2 POWERLINE 6 FEDERAL LAND POLICY & MGMT ACT PERMIT 26 Total PENDING SIGNATURE

Page 107 of 160 Additional Questions Related to Land Use (LU)

LU 1 - Does the Forest Service have appropriate legal authority to cross private property necessary for existing and future access to National Forest lands? Large areas of National Forest are frequently isolated from public access. In some cases, including the eastern U.S., privately owned tracts can block the public from thousands of acres of public land. Objectives of the Forest Development Road System right-of-way program are: (1) to acquire road and trail rights-of-way, in perpetuity, adequate for the protection, administration and use of the National Forests and also accommodate use and development of resources in other ownerships; (2) to acquire the rights in time to meet road and trail construction and resource development program schedules; and, (3) to acquire such interests to permit use of roads and trails to meet the short and long-term multiple-use and sustained yield objectives of the National Forests. Condemnation might be recommended when negotiations fail to secure, in a timely manner, the rights-of-way needed. All efforts should be made to secure legal recorded access and not rely on presumed existence of rights such as many “prescriptive easements,” both public and private, assumed to exist but without formal, legal determination. LU 2 - What National Forest lands have use restrictions or encumbrances placed on them by legal authority or private landowner rights and interests that would affect transportation planning? A withdrawal is a management tool for withholding an area from entry or for limiting activities such as settlement, sale, exchange, or mineral location. Some activities that may be protected by withdrawals include capital improvements and scientific, scenic, cultural, historical, ecological, air, and water resources. Some areas are withdrawn for federal waterpower purposes, administrative sites, reclamation, and military use. Withdrawals do not take away existing rights or invalidate existing claims. Special acts of Congress such as the Wilderness Act prohibit certain transportation related activities. Some special areas such as recreation areas, trails, and historic areas receive “National” designation carrying certain guidelines and restrictions. Forest Plans identify unique areas and guide management toward the protection of special characteristics. Title to property can involve the “whole bundle of rights” associated with a piece of land or can be a very complicated dissociation of rights, both surface and subsurface, by a number of parties, private and government, on the same parcel of land. Identification of encumbrances such as permits, easements, and reserved or outstanding rights to such things as timber or minerals is crucial prior to making decisions on any land or resource activities including transportation.

Page 108 of 160 LU 3 - Can landownership adjustment authorities, such as purchase, exchange, transfers, or donations aid in improving and consolidating National Forest landownership patterns to simplify road management objectives? The Forest Service has the full range of authorities necessary to provide a consolidated landownership base suitable to meet management needs. Although authority to divest National Forest land is limited, land exchange, land purchase, acceptance of donations, and transfers and interchanges with other federal agencies are all tools that can be used to acquire, or dispose of, any land or interest in land necessary to meet management objectives. The Forest Service maintains a close adherence to the requirements of law, regulations, and policy in completing landownership adjustments. Landownership adjustment can be a lengthy process. Appropriate coordination and lead-time is necessary to meet program objectives. Early public involvement is important in land decisions because land activities affect a broad segment of the public and deal with property rights, which often generate intense concerns. Land decisions have economic and land use implications affecting adjacent owners and other units of government. They involve specific legal issues requiring reviews and advice by appropriate legal staffs. Coordination with partners to accomplish management objectives often involves Memorandums of Understanding and other agreements. Depending on the tools used and the size of projects, certain lands activities are subject to upper level agency reviews and Congressional oversight. General Public Transportation (GT)

GT 1 – How does the road system connect to public roads and provide primary access to communities?

As a whole, the Forest’s road system is intertwined with the state’s road system. This is due to the fact that the Forest is a patchwork of land rather than one large, continuous tract (see the following map). In most cases, the state road system provides primary access to communities, and the Forest's road system usually provides secondary access. There are cases, however, where the forest’s provides the only access to small communities, such as Wildell, located in the Greenbrier Ranger District. The series of maps included in Appendix A: Maintenance Level 3, 4, and 5 Roads by District, show the relationship between the location of FS System roads and the surrounding communities.

(Note: In the following map, Forest Service roads of maintenance levels 3, 4, and 5 are shown in red, while state routes are shown in grey.)

Page 109 of 160 Figure GT 1: Forest and State Routes

M O N O N G A H E L A NF

Mono ng ah ela Na ti on al Fore st GEOGRAPHIC INFORM ATION SYSTEM Forest Roads and State Roads

state roads Mnf_rte_rd_f.shp non-rap rap

Mnf_fs_own.shp

Mnf_bndy

0 5 10 15 Miles

1"= 13. 0 miles

Original data was compil ed from multipl e source data and may not meet the U.S. National Mapping Accuracy Standard of the Office of Management and Budget. For specific data source dates and/or additi onal digital information contact the Forest Supervisor, Monongahel a Nati onal Forest Elk ins WV N This map has no warranties as to i ts contents or accuracy.

Plo t d at e: Oct 30 , 2 002 ; C :\d ang elo \g is_d ata \a v_p ro ject s\fo re st_ sca le\f or est _sc ale. ap r

GT 2 – How does the road system connect large blocks of land in other ownership to public roads (ad hoc communities, subdivisions, inholdings, and so on)?

The Forest has a legal obligation to provide current and future access to all private inholdings, which are surrounded by National Forest system land. The network of Maintenance Level 3, 4, and 5 roads, along with county and state roadways, provides access to large blocks of land in both public (state) and private ownership.

Page 110 of 160

GT 3 – How does the road system affect managing roads with shared ownership or with limited jurisdiction? (RS 2477, cost-share, prescriptive rights, FLPMA easements, FRTA easements, DOT easements)?

The Forest Service works cooperatively with the West Virginia Division of Highways through a maintenance agreement. As part of this agreement, there are several roads in which maintenance activities are shared. Also, easements are considered on a case-by-case basis. The following tables list the roads, both state and Forest Service, on which maintenance is shared:

Table GT 3: Shared Maintenance Roads State Roads

Name and Number Length Description and Termini

CR #250/4, #250/9, #10/1, #10 44.52 US 250 to CR #250/9, from CR #250/4 to Randolph County Line From Pocahontas County Line to Pocahontas County Line From Pocahontas County Line to CR #12

CR #40 3.0 CR #29/1 to Pendleton County Line Osceola #1 Randolph County

SR #66 11.0 Jct. US 219 to Cass, WV Pocahontas County

CR #28/6 4.0 Jct. Forest Sevice Road #19 to SR #28 Grant County

CR #25/4 1.3 End of current State Maintenance to End Tucker County

SR #39 and SR #55 21.2 Intersection of SR #39 and SR #150 at Kennison Mountain west to Richwood Pocahontas, Nicholas, and Greenbrier Counties

CR #15/6 0.64 From 0.15 mile northwest of the junction of CR #15/6 and CR #94/5 to 0.79 mile northwest of same junction Nicholas County

CR #7/5 0.7 From milepost 1.08 to milepost 1.78 Nicholas County

CR #8 2.1 Milepost 0.8 (intersecgtion with CR #8/5) to milepost 2.9 Tucker County

CR #7 4.0 Intersection with CR #9/1 to intersection with CR #7/2 Randolph County

Page 111 of 160 Forest Service Roads

Name and Number Length Description and Termini

Canaan Loop #13 0.7 Jct. SR #32 at Canaan Heights to FS (Forest Service) gate Tucker County

Right Fork Dry Run #458 0.4 CR #39/3 to Jct. with Private Road Randolph County

Cranberry/Dyer #101 3.2 Jct. SR #46 to Jct. SR #48 Webster County

Laneville #19 4.7 CR #328/7 to CR #328?6 Grant County

Dolly Sods #75 1.2 CR #28/7 to Forest Boundary Grant County

Vance Run #818 0.3 CR #17 to End Pendleton County

Mower East #235 1.3 CR #250/4 to Milepost 1.3 Randolph County

Cranberry Ridge #99 2.0 CR #76/1 to Milepost 2.0 Nicholas County

Five Mile Hollow #14 3.9 SR #28 to CR #250/4 Pocahontas County

Big Run Road #290 0.9 End CR #11/5 to Milepost 0.9 Greenbrier County

Osceola #423 1.6 CR #10 to CR #40 Randolph County

Spruce Mountain #112 23.1 Jct. SR #28 to Randolph Co. Line Pocahontas County Pocahontas Co. Line to Pendleton Co. Line Randolph County Randolph County Line to CR #33/4 Pendleton County

Page 112 of 160 GT 4 – How does the road system address the safety of road users?

When the roads of the Forest were constructed, safety standards were included in the road design. Any further road design and/or construction should make the safety of the road users a primary concern. Traffic control signing should follow the standards set forth in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), developed by the U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration.

In 1975, the Forest Service developed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Federal Highway Administration that required the Forest Service to apply the requirements of the National Highway Safety Program, established by the Highway Safety Act, to all roads open to public travel. In 1982, this agreement was modified to define “open to public travel” as “those roads passable by four- wheeled standard passenger cars and open to general public use without restrictive gates, prohibitive signs…” Most roads of the Forest maintained at Maintenance Levels 3, 4, and 5 meet this definition. Likewise, most of the Forest’s maintenance dollars are spent on these roads open to public travel. Annual maintenance such as grading, shaping ditches, cleaning culverts, adding aggregate surfacing, and maintaining traffic signing all combine to make the roads safe for public use.

Administrative Uses (AU)

AU 1 – How does the road system affect access needed for research, inventory, and monitoring?

The current road system is adequate for research, inventory, and monitoring needs. Any shortcomings or additional roads needed for research, inventory, and monitoring needs can be accommodated on a case-by-case basis.

AU 2 – How does the road system affect investigative or reinforcement activities?

The road density levels are adequate for law enforcement activities. The number of through roads, whether gated or not, hinders law enforcements ability to enforce game laws. This is due to the fact that many gates are located in remote locations, where removed (vandalized) locks may go unnoticed if Forest Service personnel are not a constant presence.

Page 113 of 160 Protection (PT)

PT 1 – How does the road system affect fuels management?

Due to the low occurrence of fire on the majority of the Forest, little to no mechanical or hand treatment of fuels has occurred or is planned.

To date we have only used fire to reduce fuels levels and restore ecosystems on those ecosystems that have some level of fire dependency.

Good access to a work site greatly reduces the cost of completion of any fuels project.

PT 2 – How does the road system affect the capacity of the Forest Service and cooperators to suppress wildfires?

In the event of a fire, good access is critical to minimizing fire size. Lightning causes five to ten percent of our fires; hunters cause an additional 20 percent. These fires can be remote and can cause significant additional expenses due to their larger size. (The other 70% of fires have other miscellaneous man-related causes, such as powerlines.)

In reference to the ability of resources to respond to wildfires, the current status of the road system on the Monongahela National Forest can best be summarized as adequate. Despite the very mountainous terrain, the vast majority of fires are promptly reported by the public and quickly contained by the local volunteer fire departments (VFD’s).

Without such a road system it could possibly necessitate the Forest having to contract for a helicopter to help provide rapid delivery of firefighter resources. The cost of such a resource is estimated to be $100,000 for both portions of our fire season.

The Forest Plan, Forest-Wide Standards and Guidelines, pg 92, states that, “Suppression actions will be based on an analysis of …, and risk to health and safety.” Without the current road network, our ability to support the local VFD’s would be greatly impaired.

Generally, our all our roads are considered to be fire breaks since the vast majority of our fires do not have the potential to spot over the typical road clearing width.

Page 114 of 160 PT 3 – How does the road system affect risk to firefighters and to public safety?

The condition of the road system has drastic affects on the safety of everyone, firefighters and general public as well. In general, most of the populated areas have more than one egress route. However, on the Forest itself, there are many areas that only have one egress route.

The typical size of emergency vehicles used on the Forest is commensurate with the road standards. The exception to this would be for the private driveways of some remote homes.

PT 4 – How does the road system contribute to airborne dust emissions resulting in reduced visibility and human concerns?

Comments have been received concerning dust from the roads in the Spruce Knob Lake area FR1, FR112, in Big Bend Campground, the Williams River Rd 86, and along Gandy Creek SSR 29. Airborne dust becomes a problem on roads that are either natural or aggregate surface in areas that receive heavy traffic and do not receive sufficient rainfall. A closed canopy will assist in reducing dust emissions. Generally speaking, on the Monongahela, these conditions are localized and are temporary.

Recreation

Unroaded Recreation (UR)

UR 1 – Is there now or will there be in the future excess supply or excess demand for unroaded recreation opportunities?

Currently approximately 650,000 acres of the Forest’s 910,000 acres (70%) is managed as: (1) wilderness, (2) semi-primitive areas managed for non-motorized recreation, or (3) special management areas that have no roads, limited roads, and/or special motorized restrictions. Based on the Forest Plan goals and objectives, user demographics, and national and regional recreational activity studies, it appears that the Monongahela is currently providing and will continue to provide adequate un-roaded recreational opportunity areas.

UR 2 – Is developing new roads into unroaded areas, decommissioning of existing roads, or changing the maintenance of existing roads causing substantial changes in the quantity, quality, or type of unroaded recreation opportunities?

The Monongahela is not currently building and does not have plans to build or decommission level 3-5 roads into any areas currently managed for non- motorized use.

Consistent with Forest plan standards and guidelines to maintain/ enhance semi- primitive non-motorized recreational opportunities in wilderness and special and semi-primitive management areas, road densities ranging from 0 miles/square

Page 115 of 160 mile in wilderness to a maximum of 1 mile/ sq. mile in semi-primitive will maintain/ enhance un-roaded recreational opportunities on the Forest.

UR 3 – What are the effects of noise and other disturbances caused by developing, using, and maintaining roads on the quantity, quality, and type of unroaded recreation opportunities?

Based on Forest Plan standards and guidelines, management area objectives, and visitor comments, no affects on the quantity, quality, and types of non-motorized recreation have been identified. The potential does exist to affect un-roaded recreational opportunities in areas where specific roads are opened during hunting seasons, but no visitor complaints have been reported.

UR 4 – Who participates in unroaded recreation in the areas affected by constructing, maintaining, and decommissioning roads?

Participants of unroaded recreation are primarily West Virginia residents with growing numbers of visitors from Virginia, Maryland, Ohio, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.

The primary recreational activities on the Monongahela that are associated with un- roaded recreation include: viewing natural features and wildlife, relaxing, hiking, backpacking, mountain biking, horseback riding, cross-country skiing, canoeing, dispersed area camping, fishing and hunting. Based on recreational visits to the Forest, approximately 15% of the estimated 2.6 million visits (390,000 visits) are primarily associated with non-motorized recreational activities.

All Forest visitors travel the existing transportation system roads (level 3-5) to access non-roaded recreational opportunity areas. The decommissioning of any level 3-5 Forest road would most likely affect access to the semi-primitive non-motorized recreational opportunity areas.

UR 5 – What are these participants’ attachments to the area, how strong are their feelings, and are alternative opportunities and locations available?

Many visitors view congressionally designated wildernesses, semi-primitive non- motorized areas, and special management areas as places to hike, fish, hunt, ride a horse, etc. and to experience a feeling of remoteness and solitude. The Monongahela National Forest is by far the largest public land provider of semi-primitive recreational opportunities in West Virginia and provides a strong attachment to our visitors who use these areas.

Based on the West Virginia State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) 1993-1997, Federal lands provide 74.6% of available land for outdoor recreation in the state. The Monongahela National Forest is the largest Federal

Page 116 of 160 land administrator with over 910,000 acres and provides 52% of the total available public recreation land in the state.

Road-Related Recreation (RR)

RR 1 – Is there now or will there be in the future excess supply or excess demand for roaded recreation opportunities?

Currently there are 181 Forest Service roads totaling 505 miles open to public vehicle travel on the Monongahela National Forest. At the present time, the Forest service does not have any plans to substantially increase or decrease the current transportation system, so no effects to our visitors are anticipated. The existing transportation system provides adequate access to all developed recreation facilities, trails, and special areas on the Forest. No additional recreational developments are planned that would require additional road construction of Maintenance Level 3, 4, or 5 roads at this time. Based on the existing Federal, State, and local transportation system on and adjacent to the Forest, no supply or demand concerns have been identified.

RR 2 – Is developing new roads into unroaded areas, decommissioning existing roads, or changing maintenance of existing roads causing significant changes in the quantity, quality, or type of roaded recreation opportunities?

The Forest’s primary transportation system infrastructure is in place. There are no plans to substantially change or modify the current system, therefore, no affects/ changes to the current quality, quantity, or type of roaded recreational opportunities are anticipated.

RR 3 – What are the adverse effects of noise and other disturbances caused by constructing, maintaining, or decommissioning?

Based on Forest Plan standards and guidelines, management area objectives, and visitor comments, no affects on the quantity, quality, and types of roaded recreational opportunities have been identified.

RR 4 – Who participates in roaded recreation in the areas affected by road constructing, maintaining, or decommissioning?

Participants of roaded recreation are primarily West Virginia residents with growing numbers of visitors from Virginia, Maryland, Ohio, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.

The primary recreational activities on the Monongahela that are associated with roaded recreation include: Viewing natural features and wildlife, relaxing, camping, mountain biking, horseback riding, dispersed area camping, fishing, and hunting. However, many visitors seeking un-roaded recreational opportunities

Page 117 of 160 utilize the current road system to access their semi-primitive non-motorized recreational opportunity areas. Based on recreational visits to the Forest approximately 85% of the estimated 2.6 million visits (2,221,000 visits) are primarily associated with motorized recreational activities.

RR 5 – What are these participants’ attachments to the area, how strong are their feelings, and are alternative opportunities and locations available?

Individuals who use the National Forest road system have very strong feelings about their right to access public lands. Public land is limited in West Virginia and as more and more landowners exclude the public from private lands, access to their National Forest becomes more important.

Based on the West Virginia State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) 1993-1997, Federal lands provide 74.6% of land available for outdoor recreation in the state. The Monongahela National Forest is the largest Federal land administrator with over 910,000 acres and provides 52% of the total available public recreation land in the state.

Passive-Use Value (PV)

PV 1 – Do areas planned for road entry, closure, or decommissioning have unique physical or biological characteristics, such as unique natural features and threatened or endangered species?

Threatened, endangered, and sensitive species are widespread on the Forest, and occur on every district and in every watershed. Certain habitat types, such as the high elevation spruce forest and some caves, support higher densities of these rare species. As stated above, new road construction may have adverse impacts to a number of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species on the Forest, depending upon the precise location of the right-of-way selected. Road construction in currently roadless areas would also have adverse impacts on black bears, wild turkey broods, and other species that are sensitive to human disturbance and harassment. Road closures and decommissionings typically would be expected to positively affect most rare species, or have no noticeable effect. Each proposed road construction, closure, or decommissioning should be examined on a project- by-project basis for its potential impacts to threatened, endangered, and sensitive species.

Page 118 of 160

PV 2 – Do areas planned for road construction, closure, or decommissioning have unique cultural, traditional, symbolic, sacred, spiritual, or religious significance?

Several areas of the Forest that have a high sensitivity for heritage resources. These areas include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:

• the entire western side of the Gauley District; • the area within a five mile circumference from the center of Parsons on the Cheat Ranger District; • the eastern side of the Potomac Ranger District.

Other sensitive areas are present (e.g., all National Register listed and/or potentially eligible sites) and these three areas are those with the highest known site density on the Forest. The Forest has not been completely surveyed for archaeological resources and therefore, many more sites and site clusters remain to be recorded and evaluated.

Road development, which is examined and analyzed site-specifically, should take into consideration the effects, both direct and cumulative, that increased traffic may have on individual heritage resources and to larger clusters of these.

PV 3 – What, if any, groups of people (ethnic groups, subcultures, and so on) hold cultural, symbolic, spiritual, sacred, traditional, or religious values for unroaded areas planned for road entry or road closure?

Traditional uses of the Forest today consist primarily of gathering Forest products (e.g., ginseng, moss, mushrooms). The introduction of new roads into currently roadless traditional gathering areas would increase traffic flow and possibly deplete the long-term availability of the gathered products.

PV 4 - Will road construction, closure, or decommissioning significantly affect passive-use value?

"Passive use value is a value or benefit people receive from the existence of a specific place, condition, or thing, independent of any intention, hope, or expectation of active use. Recreation activity, such as fishing, hunting, camping, wildlife viewing, hiking, boating, picnicking, and viewing pictures or movies, or reading books about outdoor recreation, are examples of active use of recreation- related resources. Such activity requires direct or indirect use of specific recreation sites, facilities, or opportunities. Passive-use value is divided into two components, existence value and bequest value. Existence value is value or benefit people receive from the existence of a specific place, condition, or thing, independent of any intention, hope or expectation of their active use by the person

Page 119 of 160 receiving the passive-use benefit. Bequest value is value or benefit received because a place, condition, or thing is available for active or passive use by others.

When the affected resources are unique or rare, such as threatened or endangered species, spectacular scenic views, pristine wilderness, unusual geological or natural conditions, or unique cultural heritage resources, passive-use value can be greater than the value produced from the same place by active recreational use or commodity production." (FS-643)

Road construction, closure, and decommissioning could all positively and/or negatively affect the passive use value of the Monongahela National Forest to the communities in and around the Forest. The residents of the communities in and around the Forest experience passive-use value of the land. They do so by enjoying the fact that their community is bordered by National Forest land that will remain an uninhabited area, and is not threatened by sporadic change, as is sometimes the case with privately owned land. Likewise, outdoor recreation enthusiasts throughout the state experience passive use value of the land because they appreciate the fact that there is a place they can visit where they can partake in a plethora of recreation and wilderness opportunities.

Social Issues (SI)

SI 1 – What are people’s perceived needs and values for roads? How does road management affect people’s dependence on, need for, and desire for roads?

Simply put, people need roads to get to where they are going. Roads are expected to be in good condition and to provide a safe path of travel. The values of a well- managed and maintained road are numerous, including an enjoyable route to a camping or fishing destination, or a good road to take for a sightseeing trip. A rough and/or unsafe road decreases the value of the experience.

SI 2 – What are people’s perceived needs and values for access? How does road management affect people’s dependence on, need for, and desire for access?

The public needs access to the Forest so that they can partake in recreational activities. These activities can be either road-related or unroaded recreational opportunities. The management of the road system on the Monongahela National Forest addresses both ends of the spectrum. Unroaded areas exist where people can partake in a wide variety of recreational opportunities without the sights or sounds of a nearby roadway. On the other end of the spectrum, there are areas where persons with disabilities can experience an outdoor recreational experience just by getting out of the vehicle. Two examples of recreational areas that do not require much physical activity to enjoy would be Stuart Recreation Area and Middle Mountain Cabins.

Page 120 of 160

SI 3 – How does the road system affect access to paleontological, archaeological, and historical sites?

Cultural resources studies on approximately 40% of the Monongahela National Forest conducted since 1978 have documented approximately 1,800 heritage sites. These sites are estimated to represent less than half of the total number of sites on the Forest. Prehistoric sites range from small isolated finds of single artifacts to villages. Historic sites are also varied and numerous, ranging from Civil War battlefields and encampments, cemeteries, fire towers, and home sites, to entire towns that were settled and then abandoned during the 20th century.

All of the roads that were constructed on the Forest prior to the early 1980s were not surveyed for heritage resources. Roads can follow natural contours that can be consistent with areas of human use and settlement; it is documented that road construction has impacted cultural resources in the past.

Forest plan direction and various federal laws and regulations require that all federal undertakings take into consideration effects to cultural resources. Cultural resources that are listed in, determined eligible for, or are potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places are to be avoided or effects to them mitigated during Forest undertakings.

Since road construction, abandonment, and obliteration can all have adverse effects to cultural resources, the Forest has instituted a cultural resources management program that, as part of its work, surveys areas planned for road construction or management. Sites are located, evaluated, and/or avoided, thereby mitigating the damage to cultural resources that can be caused by roads.

SI 4 – How does the road system affect cultural and traditional uses (such as plant gathering, and access to traditional and cultural sites) and American Indian treaty rights?

The portions of this question that relate to gathering have already been addressed in the response to Question PV 3 and will not be repeated here.

As far as Native American treaty rights are concerned, there are no ceded or tribal trust lands in West Virginia. There are therefore no Native American treaty issues. There may, however, be instances in which Native Americans can interject themselves into the affairs of the Forest as regards roads. These would include cases in which a road could potentially impact a Native American grave, a traditional cultural property, or a sacred site.

Page 121 of 160 SI 5 – How are roads that constitute historical sites affected by road management?

Two kinds of sites are discussed here: those that are roads or transportation routes (roads that are sites) and those that exist on or in association with roads (non-road sites). Non-Road Sites

It is well-documented that many archaeological sites on the Forest have been directly impacted by initial road construction, continued road maintenance, and erosion, which results in irretrievable data loss when unmitigated. In order to analyze the effects of the current road system on archaeological sites and historic properties it would be necessary to correlate the locations of each and examine site-specific information for evidence of impacts. It would also be necessary to survey all those roads that were constructed prior to the initiation of a heritage program for the presence of heritage resources. It is sufficient at this point to recognize that some damage has occurred and to avoid similar situations in the future.

Roads that are Sites

There are many instances on the Forest of historic roads and trails, prehistoric trails, and railroad grades that have been utilized in the current transportation system. Generally, adaptive re-use of a National Register of Historic Places listed or eligible former transportation route as a current transportation route is an acceptable management practice, provided that such re-use does not undermine the continued integrity or eligibility of the route. As far as determined non-eligible former historical routes are concerned, these can be managed without further consideration of their value as heritage sites.

Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Authorities Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 USC 431-433) Historic Sites Act of 1935 (16 USC 461-467) National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 USC 470) National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC 4321-4347) Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 USC 470) Archaeological and Historical Conservation Act of 1974 (16 USC 469) Executive Order 11593 FSM 2361 Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation

Monongahela National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Appendix Q Table 1, page 40 Monitoring and Evaluation Concern #18, page 260 Forest-Wide Standards and guidelines Table, page 70 “Special Interest Areas”

Page 122 of 160 SI 6 – How is community social and economic health affected by road management (for example, lifestyles, businesses, tourism industry, infrastructure maintenance)?

For many of the communities in and around the Monongahela, the health of the tourism industry relies heavily on the health of the Forest. The Forest’s road network allows access for managing and maintaining the Forest’s resources, such as fish and wildlife, soils, water, minerals, fire prevention, heritage sites, and recreation areas.

SI 7 – What is the perceived social and economic dependency of a community on an unroaded area versus the value of that unroaded area for its intrinsic existence and symbolic values?

See the answers to questions above relating to unroaded recreation.

Many outdoor enthusiasts seek unroaded areas for recreational opportunities devoid of the sights and sounds that are associated with roads. Activities such as hiking and nature viewing are enjoyed in unroaded areas. It would seem reasonable that the location of an unroaded area in close proximity to a community would aid that community in drawing an economic boost from visitors seeking the outdoor experience that an unroaded area provides. It would also seem logical, however, that the majority of the economic benefit to a community would stem from activities such as hunting and fishing, both of which are made more accessible by the presence of Forest roads.

SI 8 – How does road management affect wilderness attributes, including natural integrity, natural appearance, opportunities for solitude, and opportunities for primitive recreation?

The existing transportation system on the Monongahela National Forest was in place prior to designation of the five Congressionally designated wildernesses on the Forest. Therefore, all of these wildernesses have roads adjacent to one or more of the wilderness boundaries. Many of the existing level 3-5 roads provide access to these areas for our visitors. The Forest Service Manual states that buffer strips of undeveloped wildland should not be maintained adjacent to wildernesses to provide an informal extension of these areas.

The noise from vehicle traffic and road management activities may have some effect on visitors using portions of wilderness relatively close to roads. As visitors travel further into the interior of these areas, the noise from road related activities will diminish. This is consistent with wilderness transition zone planning for wilderness. Input from wilderness users has not identified any major effects to visitors’ expectations of solitude, natural appearing landscapes, or primitive recreation experiences by vehicle traffic on roads outside of wilderness.

Page 123 of 160 SI 9 – What are the traditional uses of animal and plant species within the area of analysis?

Big game animals such as deer, turkey, and bear and small game such as grouse and squirrels are hunted both for food and recreation. Fur-bearing mammals, such as raccoons, foxes, and beavers, are trapped and hunted for their pelts, but the intensity of trapping and hunting pressure fluctuates from year to year with fur prices. Plants such as wild berries and ramps are also collected for food and medicinal purposes.

SI 10 – How does road management affect people’s sense of place?

Whether they are traveling to a stream, trailhead, campground, or hunting access point, the majority of people who visit the Monongahela National Forest do so by traveling to their intended destination by using a motor vehicle. People feel better about their experience if they can enjoy the scenery along the way instead of worrying about traversing poor road conditions such as rutting, potholes, or wash boarding. In general, the better the road conditions, the more people enjoy their trip to their National Forest point of interest.

Civil Rights and Environmental Justice (CR)

CR 1 - How does the road system, or its management, affect certain groups of people (minority, ethnic, cultural, racial, disabled, and low-income groups?

The road system has no more or less effect on certain groups of people than on other groups of people. All groups of people use the road system. Changes in road management including closing or decommissioning of any of the roads would have the same effect on all groups of people including minorities and different cultures.

Ability of the Road System to meet Objectives

To meet the objective of determining needed and unneeded roads (minimum road system needed), each road segment can be examined to determine its uses. These uses, such as hunter access, timber access, mineral access, special uses, access to private land, research access, and wildlife management access can then be displayed on maps. With more in-depth research, these maps can be provided. The road matrix, which can be found in the appendices, ranks each section of road based on the numerous benefits and risks associated with each roadway.

Page 124 of 160 Step 5 Describing opportunities and setting priorities

Purpose and Products

The purpose of this step is to:

• compare the current road system with what is desirable or acceptable, and • describe options for modifying the road system that would achieve desirable or acceptable conditions.

The products of this step are:

• a map and descriptive ranking of the problems and risks posed by the current road system, • an assessment of the potential problems and opportunities of building roads in a currently unroaded area, • a map and list of opportunities, by priority, for addressing important problems and risks, and • a prioritized list of specific actions, projects, or Forest Plan adjustments requiring NEPA analysis.

Problems and Risks Posed by the Current/Future Road System

The risks of the current road system that were evaluated in the road matrix include the following:

• Ecosystem Functions Resource Management Risk • Soils Risk • Watershed Risk • Wildlife Risk • Heritage Risk

These risks, as well as the benefits of each roadway were ranked as High (H), Medium (M), or Low (L) in the matrix. The benefits of the current road system include the following:

• Recreation Use Value • Special Used Resource Management Value • Value for Minerals Management • Range resource Management Value • Resource Management Value (Length) • Timber Resource Management Value

Page 125 of 160 • Watershed Resource Management Value • Heritage Value

The road matrix can be found in Appendix D.

NEPA analysis needs

The authors are uncertain of any further NEPA analysis needs. As stated on page 5, “While the report contains factual information concerning the transportation system, road management decisions are not a product of roads analysis. Rather, road management decisions must be informed by roads analysis and disclosed in an appropriate NEPA document. …”

As watershed assessments, and project-level analyses are made, the road system in that analysis area will be reviewed. The road matrix in Appendix D may be used to determine roads not needed for management of resources in the project area or roads of high risk of resource impacts. At the point where site-specific projects are developed, NEPA analysis is needed, including sharing planned actions with the public.

Page 126 of 160 Step 6 Reporting

Purpose and Products

The purpose of this step is to:

• report the key findings of the analysis.

The products of this step are:

• a report including maps, analyses, and test documentation of the roads analysis, and • maps that show the data and information used in the analysis, and the opportunities identified during the analysis.

Report

This report draft will be reviewed by the Monongahela National Forest, with any and all questions and/or comments from reviewers welcome. If needed, the next draft of this report, Draft 2.0, will include information not available on the deadline date of January 13, 2003 and any further information or corrections needed. Maps

The following maps were produced using information in the GIS system and are included in the Appendices:

Map 1 Monongahela National Forest Maintenance Level 3, 4, and 5 Road System Map 2 Cheat portion of the Cheat-Potomac Ranger District Map 3 Gauley Ranger District Map 4 Greenbrier Ranger District Map 5 Marlinton portion of the Marlinton-White Sulphur Ranger District Map 6 Potomac portion of the Cheat-Potomac Ranger District Map 7 White Sulphur portion of the Marlinton-White Sulphur Ranger District

Appendix AQ includes 10 soils and watershed maps Appendix WP contains a map showing the locations of municipal waters supplies

Page 127 of 160 REFERENCES

U.S. Forest Service. 1986. Land and Resource Management Plan Monongahela National Forest. Pp. 256 plus appendices.

U.S. Forest Service. 1986. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Monongahela National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

U.S. Forest Service. 1999. Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions About Managing National Forest Transportation System (FS-643).

U.S. Forest Service. 2001. Federal Register, Volume 66, Number 9, Friday, January 12, 2001, Notices, Pages 3234-3235

U.S. Forest Service. 1999. Monongahela National Forest. Monitoring and Evaluation Report Fiscal Year 1999. Pages 28-30.

U.S. Forest Service. 2000. Monongahela National Forest. Monitoring and Evaluation Report Fiscal Year 2000. Pages 28-30.

Jack Ward Thomas. August 3, 1995. Forest Service Minerals Program Policy.

U.S.D.A. Forest Service Monongahela National Forest. September 30, 1991. Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact, Oil and Natural Gas Leasing and Development.

Page 128 of 160

`

Appendix A

Maintenance Level 3, 4, and 5 Roads By District

Page 129 of 160

Map 1: Monongahela National Forest Maintenance Level 3, 4, and 5 Road System

Approximate Scale 1” = 15 mi.

Page 130 of 160

Map 2: Cheat Ranger District

Approximate Scale 1” = 5 mi.

Page 131 of 160

Map 3: Gauley Ranger District

Approximate Scale

1” = 5 mi.

Page 132 of 160

Map 4: Greenbrier Ranger District

Approximate Scale 1” = 6 mi.

Page 133 of 160

Map 5: Marlinton Ranger District

Approximate Scale 1” = 7 mi.

Page 134 of 160

Map 6: Potomac Ranger District

Approximate Scale 1” = 7 mi.

Page 135 of 160

Map 7: White Sulphur Ranger District

Approximate Scale 1” = 5 mi.

Page 136 of 160

APPENDIX AQ

Page 137 of 160

The 5th level hydrologic units analyzed for watershed integrity across the Monongahela National Forest.

The EWAP is based on the delineation of 5th level hydrologic units as established

by the US Natural r e e o iv s h n s Resources R i e t a s a r r n e D o u R Conservation Service h . H r C i D Blackwater (NRCS). Thirty-five River Lunice th Creek g of these 5 n Dry Fork i k d e a e Red watersheds are e r L R C Creek P included in the B Mill S y k Creek e r le ll k R o r k P d analysis for the a s d F o e V n B i i F e t k y S r a r l r M r d o e C k a a Monongahela D l r r g F y . u y o r s G d F T i r a e L n h D t National Forest. v a r a G o t h r N R S However, 4 of these a r Upper P g e B y v S i Greenbrier T r R watersheds were r e e y River p p e p l p l U a combined with Upper U V adjacent watersheds Elk River Upper y & n n r o Gauley River to e t of similar form and S e g Gauley / D in r tl Williams ie i r function to address River C b S ra River n n e be e watershed size criteria rr r y R G iv er Knapp contained in the Cherry River Creek EWAP and simplify Greenbrier the analysis process. River k Spring e The combining of re Creek C y n 5th Level Watersheds o watersheds for the h nt 5th Level Watersheds EWAP resulted in the A s rd analyses of 31 a w k o e watershed units. H e 10 0 10 20 Miles Cr

Page 138 of 160

MAP A-1 Monongahela National Forest Soils Coverage.

Approximate Scale 1” = 23 mi.

Page 139 of 160 MAP AQ 1a Roads on Moderately Well Drained or Wetter Soils

Approximate Scale 1” = 22 mi.

Page 140 of 160 MAP AQ 1b Roads on Colluvial Soils with Drainage Classes of Well Drained, Drier Soils

Approximate Scale 1” = 21 mi.

Page 141 of 160

MAP AQ 2 Roads on Erodible Soils

Approximate Scale 1” = 22 mi.

Page 142 of 160 MAP AQ 3a Analysis of soils sensitive to slippage (mass wasting) and RAP roads based on soils that form on Mauch Chunk Geologic Group

Approximate Scale 1” = 22 mi.

Page 143 of 160 MAP AQ 3b Roads on Slopes > 50%

Approximate Scale 1” = 22 mi.

Page 144 of 160 MAP AQ 5 Roads Within 100 feet and 250 feet of Stream Channels

Approximate Scale 1” = 22 mi.

Page 145 of 160 MAP AQ 8 Analysis of soils that are located in wetlands and RAP roads.

Approximate Scale 1” = 22 mi.

Page 146 of 160 MAP AQ 9 Analysis of floodplain soils and RAP roads.

Approximate Scale 1” = 21 mi.

Page 147 of 160 MAP AQ 11 Roads Within 100 feet of Stream Channels

Approximate Scale 1” = 22 mi.

Page 148 of 160

APPENDIX WP

Page 149 of 160 MAP WP 2 Municipal Water Supplies

Approximate Scale 1” = 22 mi.

Page 150 of 160

Appendix D

Road Matrix

Page 151 of 160 Road Matrix Table

Annual Annual Deferred Special Uses Range Resource Timber Watershed Resource Road Name Length County Surface Maint. Quad Private Closure Maint. Maint. Maint. Deferred Maint. Recreation Resource Overall value for Resource Wildlife Resource Management Resource Resource Heritage Management Soils Watershed Wildlife Heritage PFSR Cost per Management minerals (federal Management Value (Road Management Management Risk Number Level Access mile Cost (rank) Cost per mile Cost (rank) Use Value Value and private) Value Management Value Length) Value Value Value (Public Access) Risk Risk Risk Risk (miles) x=yes (2001) (L,M,H) (2001) (L,M,H) (L,M,H) (L,M,H) (L,M,H) (L,M,H) (L,M,H) (L,M,H) (L,M,H) (L,M,H) (L,M,H) (L,H,U) x=potential Cheat Ranger District 120 BEARDEN 0.2 TUCKER AGG 3 10 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M L H M L LLLL L MMMU 1333 MOZARK KNOB S. 0.7 TUCKER AGG 3 9 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M L M L 2 wildlife openings, one of which is old homesite L L L L L H H LL 18 BACKBONE MTN 7 TUCKER NAT 3 5 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M M M M L High: 3 wildlife openings, only ones on Backbone Mtn. M H L L H M M MH x 229 THREE SPRINGS 3.5 RANDOLPH AGG 3 14 x A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L M L wildlife opening(s) M H L L L H H M H 229B THREE SPGS. / B 1.04 RANDOLPH NAT 3 14 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L M L wildlife opening(s) M H L L L H H M L 303 CONDON RUN 0.6 RANDOLPH AGG 3 13 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M H L L LLLL L HHHL 319 LOWER CHEAT II 0.1 RANDOLPH AGG 3 12 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L M L wildlife opening(s) L L L L L M M L H 324 MCGOWAN MTN 1.7 TUCKER AGG 3 8 001 - SUMMER CLOSURE - TURKEY AND BEAR $2,271 L $30,501 M H M L wildlife opening(s) M H L L M H H H H 324 MCGOWAN MTN 5.2 RANDOLPH AGG 3 13 001 - SUMMER CLOSURE - TURKEY AND BEAR $2,271 L $30,501 M H M L MHLL M HHHU 702 JOHN B. HOLLOW 1.1 TUCKER AGG 3 8 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L M L MHLL L HHLH 703 WILSON HOLLOW 1.2 TUCKER AGG 3 8 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L M L MHLL L MMLL 704 HICKMAN SLIDE 2.5 TUCKER AGG 3 8 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M L M L MHLL H HHHH 705 LOW. FISH TROUGH 2.1 TUCKER AGG 3 8 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M L M L MHLL H HHLL 707 BEAR RUN 2 TUCKER AGG 3 8 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M L M L M H L not in data H H H L 712 CAMP HOLLOW 0.9 TUCKER AGG 3 8 003 - OPEN SMALL GAME - CLOSE END DEER $2,271 L $30,501 M L M L LLLL L HHMH 717 BACKBONE RIDGE 1.6 TUCKER AGG 3 9 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M M H M L 2 wildlife openings M H L L H M M H L 779 NAIL RUN 0.8 RANDOLPH AGG 3 8 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M M M M L wildlife opening(s) L L L L L H H M H 828 SUGAR CAMP 3.1 TUCKER AGG 3 8 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M M L MHLL H HHLL 903 CLOSE MTN 3.2 TUCKER AGG 3 5 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L M M L MHLL L MMLL 91B STUART DR. / B 0.013 RANDOLPH IMP 3 13 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M L M H wildlife opening(s) L L L L L M M L U 927B DRY RUN - B 0.3 TUCKER NAT 3 5 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L M L LLLL L MMLH 929 BONIFIELD RUN 5.3 TUCKER AGG 3 4 A-Q - CLOSED W/GATE - OPEN Q PERMIT ONLY $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L 10 wildlife openings M H L L L H H L H 929A BONNIFIELD - A 0.6 TUCKER AGG 3 4 A-Q - CLOSED W/GATE - OPEN Q PERMIT ONLY $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L 2 wildlife openings L L L L L M M L L 929B BONNEFIELD - B 0.6 TUCKER AGG 3 5 A-Q - CLOSED W/GATE - OPEN Q PERMIT ONLY $2,271 L $30,501 M L M L 1 wildlife opening L L L L L M M L L 929C BONNEFIELD - C 1.2 TUCKER AGG 3 5 A-Q - CLOSED W/GATE - OPEN Q PERMIT ONLY $2,271 L $30,501 M L M L 2 wildlife openings M H L L L M M L L 929D BONNEFIELD - D 0.4 TUCKER AGG 3 5 A-Q - CLOSED W/GATE - OPEN Q PERMIT ONLY $2,271 L $30,501 M L M L LLLL L HHLL 930 DRIFT RUN 4.4 TUCKER IMP 3 5 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L M L 12 wildlife openings, 1 old farm with high wildlife value M H L L LMMLL 940 CLOSE MTN. S 2 TUCKER AGG 3 5 x A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L M M L MHLL L MMLH 952 GAY'S SPUR 0.1 TUCKER AGG 3 3 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M L M L LLLL L MMLL 53.453

125 HORSESHOE CAMP 0.2 TUCKER AGG 4 5 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H H M L LLLH L MMLL 13 CANAAN MTN 0.4 TUCKER AGG 4 10 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H H L L 7 wildlife openings, only brood range on Canaan Mtn. L L M L L H H HH x 13 CANAAN MTN 10.2 TUCKER AGG 4 9 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H H L L 7 wildlife openings, only brood range on Canaan Mtn. H H M L H H H HU x 162 KUNTZVILLE 2.1 RANDOLPH AGG 4 14 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H H M L wildlife opening(s) M H L L H H H L U x 243 OTTER CK TR. PK. 0.1 TUCKER AGG 4 9 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H L L L L L not in data L M M L 392 STUART REC 0.1 RANDOLPH AGG 4 12 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H H M L wildlife opening(s) L L L H L M M L L 701 ELKLICK 7 TUCKER AGG 4 8 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H H M L MHLL H HHHHx 709 FORK MTN 3.4 TUCKER AGG 4 8 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M L M L wildlife opening(s) M H L L H M M L H 91 STUART DRIVE 10.3 RANDOLPH AGG 4 12 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H H H H wildlife opening(s) H H L H H H M H H x 91A STURT DR. / A 0.3 RANDOLPH AGG 4 13 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H M L wildlife opening(s) L L L H L M M L H 34.1

391 STUART REC AREA 1.2 RANDOLPH BIT 5 12 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE $2,268 L $32,870 M H H M L MMLH M HMLH 391A STUART REC AREA 0.35 RANDOLPH BIT 5 12 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE $2,268 L $32,870 M H H M L LLLH L MMLH 391B STUART REC AREA- 0.3 RANDOLPH BIT 5 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE $2,268 L $32,870 M H H M L LLLH L MMLH 50 PARSONS NURSERY 0.7 TUCKER BIT 5 8 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,268 L $32,870 M H H M L DNR storage building access L L L not in data L M M L 50A PARSONS NUR. - A 0.4 TUCKER BIT 5 8 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,268 L $32,870 M H H M L DNR storage building access L L L L L M M L L 50B PARSONS NUR.- B 0.1 TUCKER BIT 5 8 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,268 L $32,870 M H H M L DNR storage building access L L L L L M M L L 50C PARSONS NUR. - C 0.4 TUCKER BIT 5 8 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,268 L $32,870 M H H M L DNR storage building access L L L L L M M L L 726 CAMP SPUR 0.3 TUCKER BIT 5 5 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE $2,268 L $32,870 M H H M L LLLL L MMLH 840 SARATOGA 0.1 MONONGALIA AGG 5 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,268 L $32,870 M L 840 SARATOGA 0.2 MONONGALIA BIT 5 $2,268 L $32,870 M L 840 SARATOGA 0.1 MONONGALIA BIT 5 $2,268 L $32,870 M L 840 SARATOGA 0.2 MONONGALIA BIT 5 $2,268 L $32,870 M L 840 SARATOGA 0.2 MONONGALIA AGG 5 $2,268 L $32,870 M L 840 SARATOGA 0.1 MONONGALIA AGG 5 $2,268 L $32,870 M L 840 SARATOGA 0.1 MONONGALIA BIT 5 $2,268 L $32,870 M L 4.75 Annual Annual Deferred Special Uses Range ef (length) Timber Watershed Resource Road Name Length County Surface Maint. Quad Private Closure Maint. Maint. Maint. Deferred Maint. Recreation Resource Overall value for Resource Wildlife Resource Resource Resource Resource Heritage Management Soil Watershed Wildlife Heritage PFSR Cost per Management minerals (federal Management Management Management Management Risk Number Level Access mile Cost (rank) Cost per mile Cost (rank) Use Value Value and private) Value Management Value Value Value Value Value (Public Access) Risk Risk Risk Risk

Gauley Ranger District 102 S. FK CRANBERRY 1 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 58 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M H M NA MHML H HHMHx 102 S. FK CRANBERRY 3.8 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 58 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE $2,271 L $30,501 M H M NA MHML M HHMUx 102 S. FK CRANBERRY 0.5 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 49 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE $2,271 L $30,501 M H M NA LLML L HHMUx 108 MIDDLE FK WMS 0.5 WEBSTER AGG 3 49 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M H M NA LLLL L HHLU 133 WHITE OAK 3 WEBSTER IMP 3 48 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M L M NA MHLL H MHLH 232 DOGWAY SOUTH 1.3 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 58 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M M M NA MHML H MHLU 234 GAULEY RIVER 5.2 WEBSTER AGG 3 39 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M L M NA M H L L H H H M H(U) x 249 SUGARTREE 1.2 GREENBRIER AGG 3 58 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M L H NA MHLL H HMMH 425 LAUREL RUN 3.8 WEBSTER AGG 3 48 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M L M NA MHLL H HHLH 730 FORK MOUNTAIN 6.6 GREENBRIER AGG 3 57 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L M NA MHML L HHMH 735 SAWYER RUN 2.8 WEBSTER AGG 3 39 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L M NA MHLL L MHLH 77 POCAHONTAS 1 GREENBRIER AGG 3 57 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M L H M NA M H L L H M H L L(U) 78 DOGWAY 1.6 WEBSTER AGG 3 48 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M M M NA M H L L H H H M H(U) 82 RED OAK 2.5 WEBSTER AGG 3 48 001 - SUMMER CLOSURE - TURKEY AND BEAR $2,271 L $30,501 M L H M NA MHLL M HMHH 82.2 RED OAK EXT 2.4 WEBSTER AGG 3 48 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L M NA M H not in data L M L 83 JAKEMAN RUN 3.2 NICHOLAS AGG 3 47 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M M H M NA M H L L H H H L L(U) x 99 CRANBERRY RIDGE 1.2 NICHOLAS AGG 3 47 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M M H M NA M H L L H M M L H(U) x 99 CRANBERRY RIDGE 0.8 NICHOLAS AGG 3 48 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M M H M NA L H L L L M M L H(U) x 99 CRANBERRY RIDGE 1.6 NICHOLAS AGG 3 48 x 003 - OPEN SMALL GAME - CLOSE END DEER $2,271 L $30,501 M M H M NA M H L L M M M L H(U) x 99 CRANBERRY RIDGE 0.7 WEBSTER AGG 3 48 x 003 - OPEN SMALL GAME - CLOSE END DEER $2,271 L $30,501 M M H M NA L H L L L M M L H(U) x 99 CRANBERRY RIDGE 1 NICHOLAS AGG 3 48 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M M H M NA M H L L H M M L H(U) x 45.7

101 CRANBERRY DYER 2.7 WEBSTER AGG 4 48 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H M NA MHLL H HHMH 223 BEAR RUN 3.8 GREENBRIER AGG 4 58 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M M H NA MH ,L H MHMU 395 BIG ROCK C.G. 0.2 NICHOLAS AGG 4 47 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H M NA LLLL L HMLL 400 CRANBERRY CG. 0.6 WEBSTER AGG 4 48 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE $3,166 L $48,806 M H M NA LLLL L HMLH 76 CRANBERRY 4.5 NICHOLAS AGG 4 47 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H H M NA M H L L H H H M H(U) x 76 CRANBERRY 6.7 WEBSTER AGG 4 48 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H H M NA M H L L H H H M H(U) x 76 CRANBERRY 4.2 WEBSTER AGG 4 49 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H H M NA M H L L H H H M H(U) x 76 CRANBERRY 0.5 WEBSTER AGG 4 48 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H H M NA L L L L L H H M H(U) x 76 CRANBERRY 5.5 WEBSTER AGG 4 48 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H H M NA M H L L H H H L H(U) x 76 CRANBERRY 0.6 NICHOLAS AGG 4 48 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H H M NA L L L L L H H L H(U) x 81 COE 2 NICHOLAS AGG 4 47 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H M M NA M H L L H H H L H(U) x 81 COE 3.5 WEBSTER AGG 4 47 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H M M NA M H L L H H H L H(U) x 86.1 WILLIAMS RIVER 1.8 WEBSTER AGG 4 48 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H M NA M H L L H M M L H(U) 86.2 WILLIAMS RIVER 10.7 WEBSTER AGG 4 48 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H M NA H H L L H M M L H(U) 86.3 WILLIAMS RIVER 3.7 WEBSTER AGG 4 49 x A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $3,166 L $48,806 M H M NA M H L L L M M L H(U) 890 BISHOP KNOB CG. 1.2 WEBSTER AGG 4 48 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE $3,166 L $48,806 M H M NA M L not in data M M L 944B LAKE PARKING 0.07 GREENBRIER AGG 4 57 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H L NA L L L not in data L M M L 52.27

102 S. FK CRANBERRY 1.6 POCAHONTAS BIT 5 58 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,268 L $32,870 M H M NA M H L L H H H L H(U) x 126 NORTH BEND 0.2 GREENBRIER BIT 5 57 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE $2,268 L $32,870 M H M NA L L not in data L M L 1632 FALLS OF HILLS CR 0.3 POCAHONTAS BIT 5 58 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,268 L $32,870 M H L NA LLLL L HMMU 350 CRANBERRY VIS 0.3 POCAHONTAS BIT 5 58 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,268 L $32,870 M H M NA LLLL L MMMU 388 RCHWOOD ADM. SIT 0.2 NICHOLAS BIT 5 56 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,268 L $32,870 M H M NA LLLL L HMLL 399 SUMMIT L. REC. 1.3 GREENBRIER BIT 5 57 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE $2,268 L $32,870 M H M NA MMLL M HMLL 399A SUM. LK. R. SP. A 0.3 GREENBRIER BIT 5 57 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE $2,268 L $32,870 M H L NA LLLL L HMLL 898 WOODBINE 0.5 NICHOLAS BIT 5 47 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE $2,268 L $32,870 M H M NA L L L L L H M L H(U) 944 COATS RUN 0.8 GREENBRIER BIT 5 57 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,268 L $32,870 M L M NA LLML L HMLL 944.1 BOAT RAMP PARK 0.3 GREENBRIER BIT 5 57 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,268 L $32,870 M H L NA L L L not in data L M M L 944A LAKE ROAD 0.3 GREENBRIER BIT 5 57 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,268 L $32,870 M H M NA L L L not in data L M M L 6.1 Annual Annual Deferred Special Uses Range ef (length) Timber Watershed Resource Road Name Length County Surface Maint. Quad Private Closure Maint. Maint. Maint. Deferred Maint. Recreation Resource Overall value for Resource Wildlife Resource Resource Resource Resource Heritage Management Soil Watershed Wildlife Heritage PFSR Cost per Management minerals (federal Management Management Management Management Risk Number Level Access mile Cost (rank) Cost per mile Cost (rank) Use Value Value and private) Value Management Value Value Value Value Value (Public Access) Risk Risk Risk Risk

Greenbrier Ranger District 106 ALLEGHENY 8.1 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 36 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M M H L 1 wildlife opening, 2 gas pipelines M H L L H H M M H(U) x 1446 ZINN RIDGE 3.8 RANDOLPH NAT 3 20 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L M H L High: 4 openings, 1 waterhole M H L L L H M M L 1446 ZINN RIDGE 0.46 RANDOLPH IMP 3 20 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L M H L High: 4 openings, 1 waterhole L H L L L H M M L 1446A ZINN RDGE - A 0.8 RANDOLPH IMP 3 20 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L H H L High: 5 wildlife openings L L L L L H M L L 14A MIDDLE MTN - A 0.2 RANDOLPH AGG 3 28 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M H L L LLLL L HHML 163 CHEAT BRIDGE 2.4 RANDOLPH AGG 3 35 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M M M L MHLL H HHHU 1678 SUTTON RUN 0.7 POCAHONTAS NAT 3 44 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M L M L High: 3 openings, 1 seeded road L L L L L M H L H(U) 17 LITTLE RIVER 2.2 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 35 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M M H L High: 8 wildlife openings, 3 seeded roads M H L L H H H M H x 17 LITTLE RIVER 4.3 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 28 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M M H L High: 8 wildlife openings, 3 seeded roads M H L L H H H M H x 176 IRON BRIDGE 2 POCAHONTAS NAT 3 27 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L High: 3 wildlife openings, 1 seeded road M H L L L H H M H 177 MILL RUN 3.2 POCAHONTAS NAT 3 27 001 - SUMMER CLOSURE - TURKEY AND BEAR $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L MHLL M HHMH 177A MILL RUN / A 0.5 POCAHONTAS NAT 3 27 001 - SUMMER CLOSURE - TURKEY AND BEAR $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L LLLL L HMML 178 GERTRUDE RUN 1.8 POCAHONTAS NAT 3 27 001 - SUMMER CLOSURE - TURKEY AND BEAR $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L MHLL M HHLH 178A GER. RUN / A 3.4 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 27 001 - SUMMER CLOSURE - TURKEY AND BEAR $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L MHLL M MHLL 179 ELKLICK RUN 4.4 POCAHONTAS NAT 3 27 001 - SUMMER CLOSURE - TURKEY AND BEAR $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L 2 wildlife openings, 1 seeded road M H L L MHHMHx 179D ELCK RUN / D 0.1 RANDOLPH NAT 3 27 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L LLLL L HHLL 183 EAST FORK GLADY 3.3 RANDOLPH AGG 3 20 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L MHLL H HHML 183 EAST FORK GLADY 0.7 RANDOLPH AGG 3 28 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L LLLL L HHMH 183A E.FK. GLADY / A 0.8 RANDOLPH NAT 3 20 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L 1 wildlife opening L L L L L H M L L 183B E.FK. GLADY / B 1.9 RANDOLPH IMP 3 28 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L 2 wildlife openings M H L L H H H M L 183C E.FK. GLADY / C 0.5 RANDOLPH NAT 3 28 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L LLLL L HHMU 187 DANIELS RUN 3.3 RANDOLPH NAT 3 20 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L M H L 2 openings, 1 waterhole M H L L L H H H H 187A DAN. RUN / A 0.1 RANDOLPH NAT 3 20 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L 1 wildlife opening L L L L L H H L L 187B DANIELS RUN / B 0.5 RANDOLPH IMP 3 20 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L 1 wildlife opening L L L L L H H L L 187C DAN. RUN / C 1.5 RANDOLPH IMP 3 20 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L 1 wildlife opening M H L L L H M H L 188 YOKUM RUN 2 RANDOLPH AGG 3 27 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M M M M L MHML H HHML 209 SHAVERS FORK 2.6 RANDOLPH NAT 3 26 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M M M L MHLL H HHMLx 210 MC GEE RUN 2 RANDOLPH NAT 3 27 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L M L wildlife openings M H M L L H H M L 224 SPAN OAK 2.3 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 35 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L MHLL L HMMH 227 OLD MINE 6.9 RANDOLPH NAT 3 26 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M M M L M H M L H H H M H(U) x 233 RIVER ROAD 10 RANDOLPH NAT 3 34 001 - SUMMER CLOSURE - TURKEY AND BEAR $2,271 L $30,501 M M H L MMML M HHMUx 235 MOWER EAST 8.5 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 34 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M M M L High: main access road to Mower tract M M M L H M H L H(U) x 245 WHITE TOP 0.6 RANDOLPH NAT 3 34 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M M H L LLLL L HMLU 247 TOLINS TURN 0.5 RANDOLPH AGG 3 34 001 - SUMMER CLOSURE - TURKEY AND BEAR $2,271 L $30,501 M L M L LLLL L MMLU 254 PIGS EAR 1.3 POCAHONTAS NAT 3 28 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M L M L 1 wildlife opening, 1 seeded road M H L L H H H H H(U) 259 WHITE RUN 0.9 RANDOLPH NAT 3 20 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L 1 wildlilfe opening L L L L L H M L U 259A WHITE RUN / A 0.3 RANDOLPH NAT 3 20 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L L L L L L H H L L(U) 259B WHITE RUN / B 0.6 RANDOLPH NAT 3 20 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L LLLL L MMLU 259D WHITE RUN / D 0.7 RANDOLPH NAT 3 20 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L 1 wildlife opening L L L L L H H M L 26 RIFFLES CREEK 0.3 RANDOLPH AGG 3 26 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L M L 2 wildlife opening L L L L L H H L H(U) 27A GAUDINEER - A 0.5 RANDOLPH AGG 3 35 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M H M L LLLL L HMHU 317 JOHNS CAMP RUN 0.5 RANDOLPH NAT 3 27 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L M L LLLL L HHHL 35 SNORTING LICK 3.9 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 27 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M M H L MHLL H HHMHx 35A SNORT.LICK- A 0.4 RANDOLPH AGG 3 28 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L 2 wildlife openings L L L L L H M M L 36 ISLAND CAMP 0.3 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 36 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE $2,271 L $30,501 M M M L High: stock trout L L L L L H H L L 364 SPRING RUN 1.3 RANDOLPH IMP 3 20 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L M H L 2 wildlife openings M H L L L H M L L 364A SPRING RUN - A 0.3 RANDOLPH IMP 3 13 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M H M H L 1 wildlife opening L L L L L H M L L 366 FRAZIER RIDGE 2.5 RANDOLPH IMP 3 20 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L M H L High: 5 wildlife openings M H L L L H M M H 366A FRZR RDGE - A 0.35 RANDOLPH NAT 3 20 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L M H L High: 3 wildlife openings L L L L L H M L L 369 FOX RUN 2.6 POCAHONTAS NAT 3 28 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L apple trees for wildlife along road M H L L L H H L H 369A FOX RUN - A 0.4 POCAHONTAS NAT 3 28 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L apple and crabapple trees for wildlife along road L L L L LHMLL 369B FOX RUN - B 2.1 POCAHONTAS IMP 3 27 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L 1 wildlife opening (landing), 1 seeded road, apple trees M H L L L H M L L 369C FOX RUN - C 0.1 POCAHONTAS NAT 3 27 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L apple and crabapple trees for wildlife along road L L L L LMMLL 369E FOX RUN - E 0.2 POCAHONTAS NAT 3 27 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L apple and crabapple trees for wildlife along road L L L L LHHLH 382 DANIELS RIDGE 1.8 RANDOLPH NAT 3 20 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L L H L I wildlife opening M H L L L H H L H 382A DAN RDGE. - A 0.3 RANDOLPH NAT 3 20 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L L H L LLLL L HMLL 385 CAMP HOLLOW 2.9 RANDOLPH NAT 3 20 A-Q - CLOSED W/GATE - OPEN Q PERMIT ONLY $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L High: 4 wildlife openings M H L L L H H H H 385A CAMP HOL. - A 0.8 RANDOLPH NAT 3 20 A-Q - CLOSED W/GATE - OPEN Q PERMIT ONLY $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L 1 wildlife opening L L L L L H H L L 385B CAMP HOL. - B 0.2 RANDOLPH NAT 3 20 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L 1 wildlife opening L L L L L H M L L 385C CAMP HOL. - C 0.7 RANDOLPH NAT 3 20 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L 2 wildlife openings L L L L L H M H L 385D CAMP HOL.- D 0.3 RANDOLPH NAT 3 28 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L 1 wildlife opening L L L L L H M L L 422 OSCEOLA 2.6 RANDOLPH AGG 3 20 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M H H L 2 wildlife openings M H L L H H H L H x 423A OSCEOLA - A 0.19 RANDOLPH AGG 3 28 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M H L L LLLH L HMLL 423B OSCEOLA - B 0.2 RANDOLPH AGG 3 28 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M H L L L L L L L H M L L(U) 427 LITTLE BEECH MTN 1 RANDOLPH NAT 3 28 002 - OPEN DEER SEASON - GUN BUCK ONLY $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L 2 wildlife openings MHLL M HHML Annual Annual Deferred Special Uses Range ef (length) Timber Watershed Resource Road Name Length County Surface Maint. Quad Private Closure Maint. Maint. Maint. Deferred Maint. Recreation Resource Overall value for Resource Wildlife Resource Resource Resource Resource Heritage Management Soil Watershed Wildlife Heritage PFSR Cost per Management minerals (federal Management Management Management Management Risk Number Level Access mile Cost (rank) Cost per mile Cost (rank) Use Value Value and private) Value Management Value Value Value Value Value (Public Access) Risk Risk Risk Risk Greenbrier Ranger District Continued 463 EAST FORK RIDGE 1.4 RANDOLPH NAT 3 28 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L 1 wildlife opening M H L L L H M M L 464 UPPER MIKES RUN 0.6 POCAHONTAS NAT 3 28 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L High: 5 wildlife openings, 1 seeded road, apple trees L L L L L H M L L 464A U. MKES RUN - A 0.2 POCAHONTAS NAT 3 28 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L 1 wildlife opening L L L L L H M L L 47 WHITMEADOW 2.3 RANDOLPH AGG 3 26 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M M M L High: wildlife openings along road M H M L H H H M L 475 FILL RUN 0.8 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 35 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L M L L L L L L H M M H(U) 477 UPPER MTN. LICK 1.8 RANDOLPH IMP 3 35 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L MHLL L HHMU 481 FISH FOR FUN 2.3 RANDOLPH NAT 3 27 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M M M L MHLL H HHHUx 49 CROUCH RUN 4 RANDOLPH AGG 3 26 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M M M L MHML H HHMLx 496 LOUK RUN II 1.43 RANDOLPH NAT 3 20 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L High: 3 wildlife openings M H L L L H H L L 51 ABES RUN 2.6 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 36 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M M H L 1 wildlife opening, 1 seeded road M H L L H M H L H(U) 52 DILLY HOLLOW 2.3 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 36 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M M L 2 wildlife openings, 1 seeded road M H L L H H H M L(U) x 54B BUF. FK. - B 0.1 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 36 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M M L L LLLL L HMMU 55 ALLEGHENY 0.7 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 53 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M M M L L L L L L M M L H(U) 57 LONG RUN 3.2 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 36 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M L M L High: 3 wildlife openings, 2 seeded roads, apple trees M H L L H H H L H(U) x 58 SMOKE CAMP 3 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 36 001 - SUMMER CLOSURE - TURKEY AND BEAR $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L 2 wildlife openings, 1 seeded road, 1 waterhole, apple+crab M H L L M H M M H 756 LITTLE RIVER WEST 2.5 POCAHONTAS NAT 3 35 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L High: 3 wildlife openings, 1 seeded road, apple+crab trees M H L L L M M L L 757 STONEY 0.8 POCAHONTAS IMP 3 53 x 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE $2,271 L $30,501 M M H M L LLLL L MHLH 799 MC CRAY RIDGE 1 RANDOLPH NAT 3 20 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L M H L High: 3 wildlife openings M H L L L M M L L 811 GRASSY KNOB 4.1 POCAHONTAS NAT 3 36 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L L L M H not in data L M L 817 FOX RIDGE 1.7 POCAHONTAS NAT 3 28 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L High: 6 wildlife openings, 2 seeded roads, apple+crab trees M H L L L H M L L 817A FOX RIDGE - A 0.2 POCAHONTAS NAT 3 27 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L LLLL L HMLL 817C FOX RIDGE - C 0.2 RANDOLPH NAT 3 27 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L L L not in data L M L 821 CHERRY RUN 0.7 POCAHONTAS NAT 3 35 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L M L LLLL L HMML 821A CHERRY RUN 2.6 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 35 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M L M L MHLL H HMML 826 BEAVER DAM RIDGE 4.6 RANDOLPH AGG 3 20 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M L M L High: 4 wildlife openings M H L L H H H M H 826A BEAVER D. RDG-A 2.5 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 20 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L M L 1 wildlife opening M H L L L H H L L 863 SANDY RIDGE 0.3 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 35 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L M L L L not in data L M L 866 SUTER RUN 2.9 RANDOLPH AGG 3 19 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L M L MHLL L HMHL 90 GALFORD RUN 1.5 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 44 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L M M Grazing allotment M H L L L H H L H 90 GALFORD RUN 1.7 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 53 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L M M Grazing allotment M H L L L H H L H 90A GAL. RUN / A 3.3 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 53 001 - SUMMER CLOSURE - TURKEY AND BEAR $2,271 L $30,501 M M M M MHLL M MHLH 90B GAL. RUN / B 0.1 POCAHONTAS NAT 3 53 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M L M L LLLL L HHLL 97 LTL RIV. PLANT. 3.7 POCAHONTAS NAT 3 28 A-Q - CLOSED W/GATE - OPEN Q PERMIT ONLY $2,271 L $30,501 M L L L MHLL L HHMH 178.03

14 MIDDLE MTN 10.17 POCAHONTAS AGG 4 36 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H M H H 14 wildlife openings, 5 seeded roads, 1 waterhole, apple+cra H H L L H M M L H x 14 MIDDLE MTN 18.63 RANDOLPH AGG 4 28 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H M H H 14 wildlife openings, 5 seeded roads, 1 waterhole, apple+cra H H L L H M M L H x 27 GAUDINEER 6 RANDOLPH AGG 4 35 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M M H L M H M L H H H H L(U) x 27 GAUDINEER 0.04 RANDOLPH AGG 4 27 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M M H L L H M L L H H H L(U) x 27 GAUDINEER 0.1 RANDOLPH AGG 4 27 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $3,166 L $48,806 M L H L L H M L L H H H L(U) x 27B GAUDINEER - B 0.6 RANDOLPH AGG 4 27 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $3,166 L $48,806 M L M L LLLL L HMHL 27C GAUDINEER - C 0.5 RANDOLPH AGG 4 27 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $3,166 L $48,806 M L H L Road closed, waterbarred, seeded L L L L L H M H L 27E GAUDINEER - E 0.1 RANDOLPH NAT 4 27 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $3,166 L $48,806 M L H L Road closed about 6-8 years ago, not in use L L L L L H H H L 423 OSCEOLA 1.6 RANDOLPH AGG 4 20 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H M M L M L L H H H M L L(U) 44 GLADY DURBIN 0.013 POCAHONTAS BIT 4 35 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H H L High: stock trout, many wildlife openings, apple orchards, etc L H L L L H H L H(U) x 44 GLADY DURBIN 7.97 POCAHONTAS AGG 4 35 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H H L High: stock trout, many wildlife openings, apple orchards, etc M H L L H H H M H(U) x 44 GLADY DURBIN 9.5 POCAHONTAS AGG 4 27 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H H L High: stock trout, many wildlife openings, apple orchards, etc M H L L H H H M H(U) x 44 GLADY DURBIN 2.8 RANDOLPH AGG 4 20 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H H L High: stock trout, many wildlife openings, apple orchards, etc M H L L H H H M H(U) x 44 GLADY DURBIN 0.117 POCAHONTAS AGG 4 35 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H H L High: stock trout, many wildlife openings, apple orchards, etc L H L L L H H L H(U) x 54 BUFFALO FORK 9 POCAHONTAS AGG 4 36 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H H L High: 14 wildlife openings, 5 seeded roads, apple+crab trees M H L L H H H M H(U) x 54A BUF. FK. SPUR A 0.1 POCAHONTAS NAT 4 36 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H L L LLLL L HMLL 92 CHEAT MTN. 7 RANDOLPH AGG 4 26 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H H M L M H L L H H M M H(U) x 92 CHEAT MTN. 8.9 RANDOLPH AGG 4 27 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H H M L M H L L H H M M H(U) x 83.14

1836 OLD HOUSE RUN RE 0.1 POCAHONTAS BIT 5 36 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,268 L $32,870 M H M L LLLL L HMLL 360 BARTOW ADM. SITE 0.15 POCAHONTAS BIT 5 35 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,268 L $32,870 M H M L LLLL L MMLL 360 BARTOW ADM. SITE 0.09 POCAHONTAS AGG 5 35 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,268 L $32,870 M H M L LLLL L MMLL 0.34 Annual Annual Deferred Special Uses Range ef (length) Timber Watershed Resource Road Name Length County Surface Maint. Quad Private Closure Maint. Maint. Maint. Deferred Maint. Recreation Resource Overall value for Resource Wildlife Resource Resource Resource Resource Heritage Management Soil Watershed Wildlife Heritage PFSR Cost per Management minerals (federal Management Management Management Management Risk Number Level Access mile Cost (rank) Cost per mile Cost (rank) Use Value Value and private) Value Management Value Value Value Value Value (Public Access) Risk Risk Risk Risk

Marlinton Ranger District 1002 MONDAY LICK 3.8 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 60 003 - OPEN SMALL GAME - CLOSE END DEER $2,271 L $30,501 M M M L High: several maintained wildlife openings and a savannah M H L L M M H L H(U) 1026 BUZZARD RIDGE 3.3 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 42 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M L H M H High: access to 3 allotments, but no wildlife openings M H L L H H H L H(U) 1026 BUZZARD RIDGE 2.3 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 42 x 001 - SUMMER CLOSURE - TURKEY AND BEAR $2,271 L $30,501 M L H M H High: access to 3 allotments, but no wildlife openings M H L L M H H M H(U) 115 FRIEL RUN 3.7 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 50 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M M M H M H L L H H M M L(U) x 1179 BIRD RUN REC. 0.4 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 53 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE $2,271 L $30,501 M L M L Low: not used by DNR L L L L L H H L H 202 CLOVERLICK 1.8 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 51 x 005 - OPEN DEER SEASON - CLOSED END BEAR $2,271 L $30,501 M L M H MHLL M HMLH 24 GAULEY MTN 3.2 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 41 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M H M M L M H L L H H M M H(U) x 24 GAULEY MTN 4.7 RANDOLPH AGG 3 41 001 - SUMMER CLOSURE - TURKEY AND BEAR $2,271 L $30,501 M H M M L M H L L M H M M H(U) x 24 GAULEY MTN 1 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 41 $2,271 L $30,501 M H M M L M H L L H H M M H(U) x 251 CROOKED FORK 2.9 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 51 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M L M H M H L L H M H L L x 304 STILLHOUSE RUN 4.2 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 60 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M M M L High: several wildlife openings M H L L H M H L H(U) 368 LEATHERWOOD S. 2.7 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 41 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M L M L MHLL H HHMU 368 LEATHERWOOD S. 0.2 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 41 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L M L LHLL L HHMU 370 POCAHONTAS CG 0.3 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 69 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE $2,271 L $30,501 M M M L Low: not used by DNR L L L L L H M L L 404 TEA CREEK CG 0.8 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 50 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M H L L LLLL L HMLH 437 MTN. LICK RUN 3.3 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 59 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M M M L MHLL H HHMHx 55 ALLEGHENY 6.1 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 69 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M H M L Moderate: some wildlife openings M H L L H H M L H(U) 55 ALLEGHENY 6 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 61 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M H M L Moderate: some wildlife openings M H L L H H M L H(U) 55 ALLEGHENY 4.7 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 62 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M H M L Moderate: some wildlife openings M H L L H H M L H(U) 55 ALLEGHENY 10.7 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 53 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M H M L Moderate: some wildlife openings H H L L H H M L H(U) 748 CHICKEN HOUSE R. 5.4 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 60 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M L M L : a few maintained wildlife openings and one unfinished sava MHLL H HHLLx 999 SWAGO 2.7 POCAHONTAS AGG 3 50 x 005 - OPEN DEER SEASON - CLOSED END BEAR $2,271 L $30,501 M L M H M H L L M M H L L(U) 74.2

1101 DAY RUN CG. 0.3 POCAHONTAS AGG 4 50 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M M M L LLLL L HMML 216 UPPER WILLIAMS 4 POCAHONTAS AGG 4 59 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H H M M MHLL H HHMHx 216 UPPER WILLIAMS 5.6 POCAHONTAS AGG 4 50 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H H M M MHLL H MHHH 356 MARLN. ADMN. SITE 0.2 POCAHONTAS AGG 4 60 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H M L Low: not used by DNR L L L L L M L L U 363 RIMEL PARKING 0.1 POCAHONTAS AGG 4 61 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE $3,166 L $48,806 M H M L Low: no wildlife openings L L L L L H M L L 86 WILLIAMS RIVER 3.7 WEBSTER AGG 4 48 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H H M L M H L L H H H L H(U) x 86 WILLIAMS RIVER 6.8 WEBSTER AGG 4 49 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H H M L M H L L H H H L H(U) x 86 WILLIAMS RIVER 7.8 POCAHONTAS AGG 4 50 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H H M L M H L L H H H M H(U) x 28.5

150 HIGHLAND SCENIC 22.3 POCAHONTAS BIT 5 60 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,268 L $32,870 M H L L L H H L not in data H M M L x 362 CASS TO LINWOOD 11 POCAHONTAS BIT 5 43 not in GIS D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,268 L $32,870 M H not in data M M L 33.3 Annual Annual Deferred Special Uses Range ef (length) Timber Watershed Resource Road Name Length County Surface Maint. Quad Private Closure Maint. Maint. Maint. Deferred Maint. Recreation Resource Overall value for Resource Wildlife Resource Resource Resource Resource Heritage Management Soil Watershed Wildlife Heritage PFSR Cost per Management minerals (federal Management Management Management Management Risk Number Level Access mile Cost (rank) Cost per mile Cost (rank) Use Value Value and private) Value Management Value Value Value Value Value (Public Access) Risk Risk Risk Risk

Potomac Ranger District 112A RD112 / A 0.02 PENDLETON AGG 3 29 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M H L L LLLL L HMLL 112B RD112 / B 0.02 PENDLETON AGG 3 29 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M H L L LLLL L HMLL 112c RD112 / C 0.02 PENDLETON AGG 3 29 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M H L L LL L L M LL 131 GATEWOOD 1.1 RANDOLPH AGG 3 29 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M M M M L 6 ac. Wildlife openings, 25 ac. Mtn. Holly release M H L L H H M L H 1B OSCEOLA - B 0.4 RANDOLPH AGG 3 29 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M H M L Access road to Spruce Knob Lake L L L L L H M M L(U) 315 BIG RUN PK. LOT 0.02 RANDOLPH AGG 3 29 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M H L L LLLL L HMLH 347 UDI 2120-USA 1B 0.4 PENDLETON AGG 3 11 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L L L not in data L M L 48 BIG MTN. 1.3 PENDLETON AGG 3 37 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M L M L ac. Wildlife openings, 3 mi. linear wildlife openings, 9 waterho M H L L H M M L H(U) x 48 BIG MTN. 1.8 PENDLETON AGG 3 37 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M L M L ac. Wildlife openings, 3 mi. linear wildlife openings, 9 waterho M H L L H M M L H(U) x 60 OWL KNOB HOLLOW 4.1 PENDLETON NAT 3 37 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M L M L M H L L H H H L L(U) x 771 WEST SIDE BIG RUN 0.7 PENDLETON AGG 3 29 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L M L L L not in data L M L 79 NORTH MTN. 3.5 PENDLETON AGG 3 23 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M M H L L MHLL H HMLU 814 BACK RIDGE 2.8 PENDLETON AGG 3 29 A-Q - CLOSED W/GATE - OPEN Q PERMIT ONLY $2,271 L $30,501 M L M L 5 ac. Wildlife openings, 4 mi. linear openings, 2 waterholes M H L L L H H L U 858 TWIN RUN 0.2 PENDLETON AGG 3 23 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M L L L 4 ac. Wildlife openings, 2 mi. linear openings, 3 waterholesL L L L L M H L L 916 WARNER RUN 1.4 RANDOLPH AGG 3 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M L H L fe openigs, 5 mi. linear openings, 2 waterholes, 25 ac. Mtn. H MHLL H MMLL 978 BIG MTN. 0.3 PENDLETON AGG 3 23 003 - OPEN SMALL GAME - CLOSE END DEER $2,271 L $30,501 M L L L L 5 ac. Wildlife openings, 1 waterhole L L L L L MHLL 18.08

1 OSCEOLA 3.2 RANDOLPH AGG 1 29 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H H H L 2 ac. Wildlife openings, 1 mi. linear wildlife opening M H L L H H H M H(U) x 104 SPRUCE KNOB TOW 1.8 PENDLETON AGG 4 29 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H M M L M H L L H H M H H x 112 SPRUCE MOUNTAIN 7.5 PENDLETON AGG 4 29 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H H M H this area. 150 ac. Wildlife openings, 30 waterholes, 40 mi. l M H L L H H M H H(U) x 112 SPRUCE MOUNTAIN 5.9 PENDLETON AGG 4 29 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H H H H same as above M H L L H H M H H(U) x 112 SPRUCE MOUNTAIN 5.7 RANDOLPH AGG 4 36 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H H H H same as above M H L L H H M H H(U) x 112 SPRUCE MOUNTAIN 3.9 POCAHONTAS AGG 4 29 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H H H H same as above M H L L H H M H H(U) x 112 SPRUCE MOUNTAIN 0.1 POCAHONTAS AGG 4 36 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H H H H same as above L H L L L H M H H(U) x 1264 SPRUCE MTN REC. 0.1 PENDLETON AGG 4 29 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M M L L L L L L M M H L(U) 19 LANEVILLE N. FORK 3.25 RANDOLPH AGG 4 15 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H H M L M H L L H H H H L(U) x 19 LANEVILLE N. FORK 6.65 GRANT AGG 4 16 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H H M L MHLL H HMHHx 1A OSCEOLA - A 0.2 RANDOLPH AGG 4 29 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M L M L Access road to Potomac WMA headquarters L L L L L H M L L 312 SEVENMILE 0.2 TUCKER AGG 4 11 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H Red Creek Campground LL LLLL L MMLL 346 JUDY GAP W.H. 0.2 PENDLETON AGG 4 30 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H L L L LLLL L MMLU 406 P-BURG ADM. SITE 0.2 GRANT AGG 4 11-A D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H L L LLLL L MMLU 75 DOLLY SODS 5.1 TUCKER AGG 4 16 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H L L L MHLL H HMHHx 75 DOLLY SODS 3.3 GRANT AGG 4 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H H H L MHLL H HMLLx 75 DOLLY SODS 1.8 TUCKER AGG 4 16 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H H L L MHLL H HMMLx 75 DOLLY SODS 0.6 GRANT AGG 4 16 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H H L L LHLL L HMMLx 809 BIG BEND 3.8 GRANT AGG 4 16 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H H L L MHLL H HMLHx 810 SM. HOLE REC ARE 0.6 PENDLETON AGG 4 23 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE $3,166 L $48,806 M H H L L LLLL L HHMHx 54.1

104A SPRUCE KB TW LOO 0.203 PENDLETON BIT 5 29 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,268 L $32,870 M H M L L L L not in data L M M H 389 SPRUCE KN. L. CG. 0.8 RANDOLPH BIT 5 29 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE $2,268 L $32,870 M H H M L LLLL L HMML 700 S.ROCKS DISC. CEN 0.6 PENDLETON BIT 5 23 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE $2,268 L $32,870 M H L L LLLH L MMLL 744 SENECA SHA. C. GR 1.2 PENDLETON BIT 5 22 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE $2,268 L $32,870 M H H L L MHLL M HMLH 744A SENECA SHADOWS 0.2 PENDLETON BIT 5 21 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE $2,268 L $32,870 M H H L L LLLL L HMLH 744B SENECA SHADOWS 0.2 PENDLETON BIT 5 21 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE $2,268 L $32,870 M H H L L LLLL L HMLH 744C SENECA SHADOWS 0.14 PENDLETON BIT 5 21 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE $2,268 L $32,870 M H H L L LLLL L HMLH 744DEF SENECA SHADOWS 0.16 PENDLETON BIT 5 21 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE $2,268 L $32,870 M H H L L L L L not in data L M M L 744G SENECA SHADOWS 0.1 PENDLETON BIT 5 21 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE $2,268 L $32,870 M H H L L LLLL L HMLH 745 SENECA ROCKS VIS 0.3 PENDLETON BIT 5 23 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE $2,268 L $32,870 M H H L L LLLL L HMLH 745A PIC/SEW MOUND RO 0.5 PENDLETON BIT 5 23 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE $2,268 L $32,870 M H H L L LLLL L MMLL 4.403 Annual Annual Deferred Special Uses Range ef (length) Timber Watershed Resource Road Name Length County Surface Maint. Quad Private Closure Maint. Maint. Maint. Deferred Maint. Recreation Resource Overall value for Resource Wildlife Resource Resource Resource Resource Heritage Management Soil Watershed Wildlife Heritage PFSR Cost per Management minerals (federal Management Management Management Management Risk Number Level Access mile Cost (rank) Cost per mile Cost (rank) Use Value Value and private) Value Management Value Value Value Value Value (Public Access) Risk Risk Risk Risk

White Sulphur Ranger District 1219 BLUE MEADOW CG. 0.3 GREENBRIER AGG 3 70 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE $2,271 L $30,501 M H M M NA LLLL L HMMH 139 ROCKY RUN 3.5 GREENBRIER AGG 3 70 $2,271 L $30,501 M L H M NA High: 17 wildlife openings, 7 water holes M H L L H H H L H 294 BEAR BRANCH 0.1 GREENBRIER AGG 3 68 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M M M M NA LLLL L HMLH 296 PEACH ORCHARD 14.5 GREENBRIER AGG 3 71 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M M M NA H H L L H H H M L(U) x 367 ANTHY. BOAT LAU. 0.1 GREENBRIER AGG 3 70 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M M M NA LLLL L HMLU 718 WHITMAN'S DRAFT 3.7 GREENBRIER AGG 3 74 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M L M NA MHLL H HMLL 797 SALT ROCK 1.1 GREENBRIER AGG 3 70 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M L M NA High: 5 wildlife openings, 3 water holes M H L L H M M L L(U) 860 NEOLA WAREHOUS 0.2 GREENBRIER AGG 3 71 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $2,271 L $30,501 M L M NA L L not in data L M L 875 COLES RUN 3.8 GREENBRIER AGG 3 72 001 - SUMMER CLOSURE - TURKEY AND BEAR $2,271 L $30,501 M L M NA High: 5 wildlife openings, 3 savannas, 4 water holes M H L L M H H L H(U) 89 KNIFE HOLLOW 0.3 GREENBRIER AGG 3 72 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M L M NA LLLL L HHLU 89 KNIFE HOLLOW 0.5 GREENBRIER AGG 3 72 001 - SUMMER CLOSURE - TURKEY AND BEAR $2,271 L $30,501 M L M NA LLLL L HHLU 96 DOUTHAT-ANTHONY 1.1 GREENBRIER AGG 3 71 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M M L M NA High: 5 wildlife openings M H L L H H H M L(U) x 96 DOUTHAT-ANTHONY 4.9 GREENBRIER AGG 3 68 x D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,271 L $30,501 M M L M NA High: 5 wildlife openings M H L L H H H M L(U) x 34.1

124 BLUE BEND 0.5 GREENBRIER AGG 4 70 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H M NA LLLL L HMLU 124A BLUE BEND PARKIN 0.1 GREENBRIER AGG 4 27 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M H M NA LLLL H HMLU 372 UPPER LAUREL RUN 0.2 GREENBRIER AGG 4 72 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $3,166 L $48,806 M L M NA LLLL L MMLL 884 DAM ADMIN RD 1.6 GREENBRIER AGG 4 68 A - CLOSED - WITH GATE $3,166 L $48,806 M L L NA 2 wildlife openings M H L L L M M L U 2.4

371 WH. SLPHR ADM. SI 0.03 GREENBRIER AGG 5 73 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,268 L $32,870 M H L NA L L L not in data L M M L 371 WH. SLPHR ADM. SI 0.17 GREENBRIER BIT 5 73 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,268 L $32,870 M H L NA L L L not in data L M M L 374 SHERWD REC AREA 0.4 GREENBRIER BIT 5 68 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,268 L $32,870 M H M NA LLLL L HMLL 374A SHERWD REC AREA 0.4 GREENBRIER AGG 5 68 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE $2,268 L $32,870 M H M L NA LLLL L MMLL 374B&C SHERWOOD PIC & R 0.7 GREENBRIER BIT 5 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,268 L $32,870 M H M L NA LLLL L MMLL 374B/C SHERWD REC AREA 0.7 GREENBRIER BIT 5 68 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,268 L $32,870 M H M L NA 3 wildlife openings, 2 water holes L L L L L M M L L 374D SHERWOOD BCH RO 0.5 GREENBRIER AGG 5 68 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE $2,268 L $32,870 M H L NA LLLL L MMLL 374E SHERWD REC. W. S 0.4 GREENBRIER AGG 5 68 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE $2,268 L $32,870 M H L NA LLLL L MMLL 374F1 SHERWD RC. PN R C 0.6 GREENBRIER AGG 5 68 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,268 L $32,870 M H L NA LLLL L MMLL 374F2 SHERWD PN R BT L 0.4 GREENBRIER AGG 5 68 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,268 L $32,870 M H L NA LLLL L MMLL 374G SHERWD REC BT LN 0.2 GREENBRIER AGG 5 68 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,268 L $32,870 M H L NA LLLL L MMLL 374G2 SHERWD RC MDW C 0.4 GREENBRIER AGG 5 68 006 - REC. AREA ROADS - SEASONAL CLOSURE $2,268 L $32,870 M H L NA LLLL L MMLL 375 WH. SULPHUR OFF. 0.08 GREENBRIER BIT 5 73 D - OPEN - MAINTAINED $2,268 L $32,870 M H L NA L L L not in data L M M L Ranking Criteria

Rationale for Mineral Resource Management Value of Maintenance Level 3, 4, and 5 Roads

High= a road that provides access to an existing or authorized (via permit) "active" mineral operation, such as a gas well, gas pipeline, coal mine, gas storage facility Moderate= a road that provides access to an area with natural gas resource potential where there is a reasonable expectation that surface occupancy for gas development would be allowed; or a road that provides access to an area with some potential for the occurrence of mineable coal. Low= a road that provides access to an area in which mineral exploration or development is not likely or not foreseeable, such as no potential for natural gas from the Oriskany Formation and no potential for coal because coal bearing rocks do not occur there; or a road that provides access to an area in which the Forest Plan would no allow surface occupancy in the development of federal oil and gas leases

The column labelled "overall value for minerals" should be used for Forest RAP mineral roads value.

WILDLIFE RISK DEFINITIONS

HIGH: Either (1) the road intersects known or potential habitat for threatened Cheat Mountain salamanders (CMS) or (2) the road occurs within 200 feet of an endangered Indiana bat hibernaculum, an endangered Virginia big-eared bat hibernaculum, or a Virginia big-eared bat maternity colony (bat caves), or (3) the road occurs within 150 feet of a population of threatened or endangered plant, or (4) any one or more of the above, plus any of the conditions under "MEDIUM" risk.

MEDIUM: Either (1) the road occurs within 300 feet of Cheat Mountain salamander habitat, but does not intersect the habitat, or (2) the road occurs within 0.5 mile of an endangered bat cave, but is more than 200 feet from the cave, or (3) the road intersects West Virginia northern flying squirrel (WVNFS) habitat, or (4) the road occurs within 0.25 mile of a threatened or endangered plant, but is more than 150 feet from the plant, or (5) any one or more of the above conditions.

LOW: The road is not known to occur within the specific distances (listed above) of any threatened or endangered species.

NOTE: Roads are rated at the highest risk factor they present to individual T&E species. For example, a road that intersects CMS habitat (High risk) and occurs within 0.25 mile of an endangered plant (medium risk) gets a

"high" risk rating. A road that intersects WVNFS habitat (medium risk) and occurs within 0.5 mile of a bat cave (medium risk) receives a "Medium risk". Two medium risk factors for a given road do not lead to a rating of High risk.

Rationale for Resource Management Priorities Those in BOLD used for this ranking

Recreation Use Value H = High use levels, major through roads, and points of interest M = Medium use levels, destination roads , and numerous dispersed campsites L = Minor through road, no point of interest

Resource Management Value Criteria

Level 1 rating High = a road 10 miles or more in length Moderate = a road 1 to 9.99 miles in length Low = a road < 1 mile long Short segments may be ranked higher if part of road that is access to Mps listed below.

Level 2 rating - the following road use factors were used to adjust Level 1 ratings up or down Access to suitable timber base, MP 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, or 6.1 MP area Access to Fernow Experimental Forest Access in "Mower Tract" given "M" ranking Access to grazing allotments

Resource Management Risk Criteria

High = Roads open to public year round (excluding admin. Sites) Moderate = Roads open seasonally to public Low = Roads less than a mile long or closed to public

Aquatic Resource Criteria

The following rationale was used for ranking roads based on their values and risks to aquatic resources:

Values - Due to the number of potential effects roads may have on stream channels and their aquatic communities, the value of Class 3-5 roads for aquatic resources was considered to be "low". The exception to this is roads that are used to deliver limestone sand to acid impaired drainages. The value of the roads in these cases was considered "moderate" because they are used to mitigate the impacts of acid deposition and acid mine discharge. The use of roads for stocking fish was considered to be more of a function of recreation management than aquatic resource management.

Risks - In the absence of site specific information, and at such a broad scale of analysis, no road was considered to be a "low" risk to aquatic resources. Even a minimal effect from a road can be detrimental to aquatic resources if it occurs at the wrong place or time, or cumulatively with other effects occurring in the drainage. Roads that are in close proximity to streams (250 feet) and/or cross sensitive soil types are considered to be "high" risk, and midslope or ridge top roads on soils characterized as stable are considered "moderate" risk. Site specific information is needed to determine the true influence of roads on aquatic resources and drainage networks.

Note: Other criteria not mentioned here are discussed in Step 4 of the report.