Special use permit would lock up 27.2 acres on Monongahela National Forest roads
Issuance of a Special Use Permit for Forest Roads 223 and 249
U.S. Forest Service· Monongahela National ForestU.S. Forest Service project page ↗
Forest ServiceWe track this on the agency’s own system of record, where most on-the-ground decisions live.
The groups on this fight
4 groups work West Virginia
By footprint, from the same match the STAND matchmaker runs; none is linked to this decision in our record yet. Give straight to them; nothing routes through us.
- Appalachian Voices
Works West Virginia: 2 live federal cases across all their work.
- Friends of the Allegheny Front
Works West Virginia: they work only in West Virginia.
- Mountain Institute
Works West Virginia: west Virginia is one of the 2 states they work in.
- Potomac Appalachian Trail Club
Works West Virginia: west Virginia is one of the 4 states they work in.
Every group above is on STAND for Public Lands, with its court record, its filings and who backs it.
The Forest Service would hand a private operator a ten-year hold on two public forest roads.
What’s at risk
Public access and agency control over 27.2 acres along Forest Roads 223 and 249 on the Monongahela National Forest are at stake. A ten-year special use permit would give one applicant the right to use and maintain these roads, potentially limiting how the public can use them.
If this goes through
If approved, the permit locks in private use of these two forest road corridors for a full decade, constraining public access and Forest Service flexibility for ten years.
Our plain-English read of the official notice ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words below.
9 holes in the agency’s own analysis
What the public could have raised, from the agency’s own document
- I oppose this action as proposed, and I ask the agency to weigh the specific harms below.
- The EA dismisses the 'no action' alternative on the grounds that the proposal met screening criteria, but NEPA requires a meaningful comparison of alternatives including no action. The document states the no action alternative 'will not be discussed further,' yet the agency's own analysis acknowledges significant environmental risks from increased truck traffic on FR 249, closure of a public road for 10 years, and potential sediment delivery to candy darter critical habitat. Without a no-action baseline analysis, there is no way to measure whether the permit's impacts are significant enough to require an EIS. The agency should prepare a full no-action alternative analysis or prepare an EIS.
- The EA authorizes up to 125-ton gross vehicle weight coal trucks on FR 249 daily but explicitly states the action will cause 'a net increase' in both number and size of vehicles on a road that is being simultaneously closed to the public. The document never quantifies how many coal truck trips per day are expected, making it impossible to assess noise, sediment, spill risk, or cumulative effects on candy darter critical habitat in the South Fork Cherry River watershed. The agency should quantify projected daily truck trips and analyze their incremental effects before issuing the permit.
- The EA relies on eDNA surveys conducted from 2019 to 2021 and physical capture records from 1995 and 2007 to conclude candy darter is absent from the headwater reaches nearest the project. However, the permit would run for ten years starting in winter 2026/2027, and no current (2025 or 2026) candy darter presence surveys are cited for Bear Run or the South Fork Cherry River headwaters. Using survey data that is at minimum five years old to support a 'may affect, not likely to adversely affect' determination for a federally endangered species over a ten-year permit term is an unreasoned leap. The agency should require current candy darter presence surveys before finalizing the permit.
- The EA states that tribal consultation is 'ongoing' as of the document's August 2026 date, with initial letters sent only on August 5, 2026. The document simultaneously moves toward a decision. Completing a NEPA decision before tribal consultation is finished violates the government-to-government consultation obligation and forecloses the possibility that tribal input could alter the agency's analysis or design criteria. The agency should extend the comment and decision timeline until tribal consultation is complete and formally documented.
Show all 11 points from the document
- The EA identifies the Headwaters Spring Creek headwaters catchment as having the lowest assimilative capacity of all catchment pairs, with 73.9% of the combined catchment-and-receiving-catchment area in the higher-risk catchment. Table 3 shows the paired receiving catchment (Beverly Fork, 1,344 acres) is far smaller than the source catchment (3,802 acres). Despite flagging this as the weakest link in the watershed risk framework, the document provides no additional mitigation measures specific to this catchment and no explanation of why the standard BMPs are adequate where assimilative capacity is most limited. The agency should analyze and explain what additional protective measures apply to the Headwaters Spring Creek catchment pair.
- The EA lists hazardous materials that will be hauled on both roads, including ammonium nitrate fuel oil, blasting supplies, waste oil, diesel fuel, gasoline, kerosene, and hydraulic fluid. The watershed risk assessment acknowledges 'a substantially smaller risk would exist for potential groundwater and surface water contamination associated with accidental spills of hazardous material,' but the document contains no spill response plan, no analysis of spill probability over a ten-year term, and no assessment of proximity of spill risk to Bear Run or South Fork Cherry River tributaries. The agency should require a site-specific hazardous materials spill response plan and analyze spill risk before issuing the permit.
- Table 6 shows that only 4.2% of mapped stream length in the SF Cherry River UNT catchment is unaffected by project road runoff, the lowest of any catchment in the analysis. Yet the EA's effects determination for candy darter and its critical habitat relies heavily on physical separation and assimilation capacity to reach 'not likely to adversely affect.' The document does not reconcile this near-total potential stream exposure in the SF Cherry River UNT catchment with its overall benign effects conclusion. The agency should directly address the SF Cherry River UNT catchment's 95.8% potentially affected stream length in its ESA effects rationale or seek formal consultation with USFWS.
- The economic analysis details severe poverty and population decline in Pocahontas and Greenbrier Counties and notes growing recreation and tourism employment, with visitor spending growth of nearly 40% and 58% respectively from 2019 to 2023. Yet the EA makes no attempt to analyze whether closing FR 249 to public use for ten years and authorizing industrial coal hauling could reduce recreation-based economic activity, harm tourism businesses, or offset the mining employment benefits. The agency should analyze potential adverse effects on the recreation economy before concluding the permit produces net economic benefit.
- The EA rules out two alternative routes partly because they run 'often within 100 feet of the rivers' and would be closer to candy darter critical habitat, yet FR 223 itself runs parallel to Bear Run and the document acknowledges FR 223 is 'no closer than approximately 100 feet to Bear Run' at points along its length. The agency applies a stricter standard to rejected alternatives than to the proposed action without explaining why 100-foot proximity is disqualifying for alternatives but acceptable for the preferred route. The agency should explain this inconsistency or analyze the alternatives under equivalent protective standards.
- Say something only you can say. The law requires the agency to consider and respond to substantive comments, and specifics are what make a comment substantive.
In the agency’s own words
This project proposes to authorize a ten-year term special use permit (SUP) to Applicant to use/maintain 27.2 acres of National Forest System land (existing Forest Road (FR) 223 and FR 249).
Did the agency answer?
9 issues are on this record. The agency has not published its decision document yet, so each one stays pending until the agency answers.
Issues on the record, awaiting the decision
- PendingThe EA dismisses the 'no action' alternative on the grounds that the proposal met screening criteria, but NEPA requires a meaningful comparison of alternatives including no action.
The EA dismisses the 'no action' alternative on the grounds that the proposal met screening criteria, but NEPA requires a meaningful comparison of alternatives including no action. The document states the no action alternative 'will not be discussed further,' yet the agency's own analysis acknowledges significant environmental risks from increased truck traffic on FR 249, closure of a public road for 10 years, and potential sediment delivery to candy darter critical habitat. Without a no-action baseline analysis, there is no way to measure whether the permit's impacts are significant enough to require an EIS. The agency should prepare a full no-action alternative analysis or prepare an EIS.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe EA authorizes up to 125-ton gross vehicle weight coal trucks on FR 249 daily but explicitly states the action will cause 'a net increase' in both number and size of vehicles on a road that is bein
The EA authorizes up to 125-ton gross vehicle weight coal trucks on FR 249 daily but explicitly states the action will cause 'a net increase' in both number and size of vehicles on a road that is being simultaneously closed to the public. The document never quantifies how many coal truck trips per day are expected, making it impossible to assess noise, sediment, spill risk, or cumulative effects on candy darter critical habitat in the South Fork Cherry River watershed. The agency should quantify projected daily truck trips and analyze their incremental effects before issuing the permit.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe EA relies on eDNA surveys conducted from 2019 to 2021 and physical capture records from 1995 and 2007 to conclude candy darter is absent from the headwater reaches nearest the project.
The EA relies on eDNA surveys conducted from 2019 to 2021 and physical capture records from 1995 and 2007 to conclude candy darter is absent from the headwater reaches nearest the project. However, the permit would run for ten years starting in winter 2026/2027, and no current (2025 or 2026) candy darter presence surveys are cited for Bear Run or the South Fork Cherry River headwaters. Using survey data that is at minimum five years old to support a 'may affect, not likely to adversely affect' determination for a federally endangered species over a ten-year permit term is an unreasoned leap. The agency should require current candy darter presence surveys before finalizing the permit.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe EA states that tribal consultation is 'ongoing' as of the document's August 2026 date, with initial letters sent only on August 5, 2026.
The EA states that tribal consultation is 'ongoing' as of the document's August 2026 date, with initial letters sent only on August 5, 2026. The document simultaneously moves toward a decision. Completing a NEPA decision before tribal consultation is finished violates the government-to-government consultation obligation and forecloses the possibility that tribal input could alter the agency's analysis or design criteria. The agency should extend the comment and decision timeline until tribal consultation is complete and formally documented.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe EA identifies the Headwaters Spring Creek headwaters catchment as having the lowest assimilative capacity of all catchment pairs, with 73.9% of the combined catchment-and-receiving-catchment area
The EA identifies the Headwaters Spring Creek headwaters catchment as having the lowest assimilative capacity of all catchment pairs, with 73.9% of the combined catchment-and-receiving-catchment area in the higher-risk catchment. Table 3 shows the paired receiving catchment (Beverly Fork, 1,344 acres) is far smaller than the source catchment (3,802 acres). Despite flagging this as the weakest link in the watershed risk framework, the document provides no additional mitigation measures specific to this catchment and no explanation of why the standard BMPs are adequate where assimilative capacity is most limited. The agency should analyze and explain what additional protective measures apply to the Headwaters Spring Creek catchment pair.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe EA lists hazardous materials that will be hauled on both roads, including ammonium nitrate fuel oil, blasting supplies, waste oil, diesel fuel, gasoline, kerosene, and hydraulic fluid.
The EA lists hazardous materials that will be hauled on both roads, including ammonium nitrate fuel oil, blasting supplies, waste oil, diesel fuel, gasoline, kerosene, and hydraulic fluid. The watershed risk assessment acknowledges 'a substantially smaller risk would exist for potential groundwater and surface water contamination associated with accidental spills of hazardous material,' but the document contains no spill response plan, no analysis of spill probability over a ten-year term, and no assessment of proximity of spill risk to Bear Run or South Fork Cherry River tributaries. The agency should require a site-specific hazardous materials spill response plan and analyze spill risk before issuing the permit.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingTable 6 shows that only 4.2% of mapped stream length in the SF Cherry River UNT catchment is unaffected by project road runoff, the lowest of any catchment in the analysis.
Table 6 shows that only 4.2% of mapped stream length in the SF Cherry River UNT catchment is unaffected by project road runoff, the lowest of any catchment in the analysis. Yet the EA's effects determination for candy darter and its critical habitat relies heavily on physical separation and assimilation capacity to reach 'not likely to adversely affect.' The document does not reconcile this near-total potential stream exposure in the SF Cherry River UNT catchment with its overall benign effects conclusion. The agency should directly address the SF Cherry River UNT catchment's 95.8% potentially affected stream length in its ESA effects rationale or seek formal consultation with USFWS.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe economic analysis details severe poverty and population decline in Pocahontas and Greenbrier Counties and notes growing recreation and tourism employment, with visitor spending growth of nearly 40
The economic analysis details severe poverty and population decline in Pocahontas and Greenbrier Counties and notes growing recreation and tourism employment, with visitor spending growth of nearly 40% and 58% respectively from 2019 to 2023. Yet the EA makes no attempt to analyze whether closing FR 249 to public use for ten years and authorizing industrial coal hauling could reduce recreation-based economic activity, harm tourism businesses, or offset the mining employment benefits. The agency should analyze potential adverse effects on the recreation economy before concluding the permit produces net economic benefit.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe EA rules out two alternative routes partly because they run 'often within 100 feet of the rivers' and would be closer to candy darter critical habitat, yet FR 223 itself runs parallel to Bear Run
The EA rules out two alternative routes partly because they run 'often within 100 feet of the rivers' and would be closer to candy darter critical habitat, yet FR 223 itself runs parallel to Bear Run and the document acknowledges FR 223 is 'no closer than approximately 100 feet to Bear Run' at points along its length. The agency applies a stricter standard to rejected alternatives than to the proposed action without explaining why 100-foot proximity is disqualifying for alternatives but acceptable for the preferred route. The agency should explain this inconsistency or analyze the alternatives under equivalent protective standards.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
The reporting behind this
From More Than Just ParksAfter more than a decade chasing peak color across America, we built the foliage map we always wanted.
Another foreign mining company wants a piece of America’s public lands. This one comes with millions of gallons of groundwater pumping and radioactive radon.
The administration went looking for a sliver of Yosemite for a private developer and finally convinced the rest of public-lands world that if Yosemite is negotiable, nothing is safe.
More actions that need you
Go deeper, free
See how your members of Congress vote on public lands
Every representative, graded on the votes that decide the fate of parks, forests, and refuges.
Open ↗The mapSee the places under active threat
A live map of the parks, monuments, and wild country in the crosshairs right now.
Open ↗A wrong fact, a dead link, a form that wouldn’t take your letter: one tap and it comes to the people who build PLAN, with this fight attached.
Know an open comment period we are missing, or spotted a wrong deadline? .