CAFCS News

The Task Force has identified certain issues that are thought to affect the ability of the College to deal with farm and forest issues. Most important are those external issues which we are unable to control (although we may have some influence). External issues include those which arise from University policy, State and Federal regulations and public perceptions and concerns over the farms and forests. We identify the following as the most significant external issues relating to the farms and forests.

Continued pressure from university and non-university parties for uses of Morgantown farms and forests. There has been a steady attrition of lands managed by the College of Agriculture, Forestry and Consumer Sciences, piece by piece, for uses other than agricultural research and education. Recent examples include: about one-half of the Poultry Farm which has been designated for construction of a Research Park and the new library archive facility; 4 acres of the Horticulture Farm have been turned over to the Physical Plant for construction of a facility to house the Buildings and Grounds Operations; and a plot on the Old Dairy Farm has been given to the College of Business and Economics for location of an office facility. Ongoing discussions of gas development on the University Forest and the location of a bypass that would traverse the Animal Sciences Farm are examples of pressures to utilize the properties for activities other than research, teaching and service, making the maintenance of programs at the farms and forests difficult.

The College has been, and continues to be, a "good citizen" when it comes to uses of its farms. For instance, only a couple of years ago, at the recommendation of the University administration, the College acquiesced to annexation of its farms by the city of Morgantown. And the College has agreed to allocate portions of farm assets for benefit of the University and larger community, as indicated above. However, the Task Force could not avoid coming to the unsettling impression that the University's farms and forests, especially the Morgantown area properties, are viewed as a bank of land from which areas can be withdrawn as needed for campus and community development.

Interest in gas-drilling development in the University Forest. A significant deposit of natural gas underlies the University Forest. The underground gas is owned by the State of West Virginia and is not controlled by the University. There has been commercial interest in the gas deposits for several years. Gas drilling in the University Forest threatens long-term research projects and threatens the ecological balance established with the long-term management of this facility. Fragmentation of forest areas resulting from additional pipelines, well sites and access roads would result in long-term harm. The University Forest is the only State-owned experimental and research forest in West Virginia.

Impact of West Run Bypass on Morgantown farms. The proposed West Run Bypass threatens the loss of land, difficult access, and increases the threat of commercial development at the Animal Sciences Farm and Farm Woodlot. Such development would represent a slow death to the current operations at the Animal Science Farm and to the natural setting of the West Run area. Although the possibility of locating the bypass though the Animal Science Farm seems to have been diminished by early 1999, proposals for similar future developments could change the situation once again. It will be essential that legislators and stakeholders be kept fully informed of the key roles of the farms.

Unresolved questions concerning direction of funds from sales of College-managed properties back to College budgets.

Whether future attrition of farms and forest properties can be linked to compensation and redirection of proceeds from sales in order to replace areas and facilities remains to be established. The lack of an established linkage has created an environment of protectionism on the part of the College in light of the uncertain impacts of future actions on College resources.

The amount of property needed by the College to meet its existing and future needs. Although the current amount of property is considered adequate for existing needs of the College, and is comparable to other land-grant colleges of our nature (Table 2), future trends and the ability to have research sites available for unanticipated high need projects must be considered (e.g. threat of gypsy moth on deforestation on forest operations; development of new agricultural strategies such as sustainable agriculture). Development of new facilities must be based on long-term usage to prevent conflict with urban land development pressures and usage. Sufficient land is needed to isolate neighboring development from agricultural management and to buffer animal facilities.

The increased uncertainty of federal formula funding (Hatch and McIntire-Stennis) and State support. Hatch and McIntire-Stennis appropriations traditionally have been the mainstay of the College research programs. For some years, Congress has questioned the use of these formula-appropriated funds to universities in place of competitive funding. Those questions are likely to continue, casting some uncertainty on the future of these funds to the College. Among the Land Grant Universities, West Virginia already has one of the lowest levels of state funding to meet the required match for these federal funds.

Increasing restrictions placed on usage of animals. Animal care policies and regulations resulting from interpretations of the Animal Welfare Act have hampered teaching and research involving animals at the farms. There is rising concern that applications of regulations to animal research are reducing the spontaneity that is a characteristic of all research, and that these applications are also restricting the ability of researchers to determine the course of their research programs.

Inadequate funds for maintenance. Buildings, grounds, fences and roads on the properties are in need of continual maintenance. The Task Force estimated that $200,000 should be spent annually to maintain the facilities. Only about $100,000 has been available each year from appropriated funds.

Back to the Main Report Page