- 
Arabic
 - 
ar
Bengali
 - 
bn
German
 - 
de
English
 - 
en
French
 - 
fr
Hindi
 - 
hi
Indonesian
 - 
id
Portuguese
 - 
pt
Russian
 - 
ru
Spanish
 - 
es
Breaking: MountainTrue joins climate lawsuit on Forest Service logging practices

Breaking: MountainTrue joins climate lawsuit on Forest Service logging practices

Breaking: MountainTrue joins climate lawsuit on Forest Service logging practices

Dear MountainTrue Members and Supporters,

As advocates for our environment, we find ourselves at a pivotal moment in our fight against climate change. Last year, the Earth endured its hottest year, shattering previous records and exacerbating climate-related challenges such as droughts, loss of biodiversity, extreme weather events, and heat-related fatalities. The urgency to act has never been greater.

Amidst this escalating crisis, the US Forest Service’s outdated approach to forest management is perplexing. Despite clear evidence of our worsening climate reality, the Forest Service has increased the volume of timber harvested from our national forests to levels unseen in recent decades. This practice contradicts the urgent need to mitigate climate change and the Forest Service’s own policies and goals while posing a direct threat to the ecosystems within our Eastern forests, which have been disproportionately targeted for timber extraction.

This is why MountainTrue has taken the significant step of joining the Southern Environmental Law Center and the Chattooga Conservancy in filing a lawsuit challenging the Forest Service’s annual timber targets. Our legal action challenges the way the Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service set their timber targets and how the agency analyzes the cumulative carbon impacts of the timber projects it designs to fulfill these targets. It also seeks to halt further timber sales in the Southeast that contribute to the 2024 target (except where necessary for wildfire risk mitigation) until the Forest Service complies with the National Environmental Policy Act.
Read our court filing.
Read the press release.

Our members and supporters power our Resilient Forests program. Donate today to protect our forests as a critical part of our climate solution.

Our forests are invaluable resources in the fight against climate change, sequestering billions of tons of carbon and actively converting CO2 into oxygen. However, the Forest Service’s single-minded pursuit of timber targets undermines these natural processes, releasing significant amounts of carbon into the atmosphere and setting back our collective efforts to combat global warming. Additionally, chasing the national timber target creates impacts on water quality, recreation, and imperiled wildlife, while distracting the Forest Service from more pressing tasks like preventing wildfire, saving trees from invasive pests, and controlling invasive plant species.

This lawsuit is not an attempt to end logging in our national forests. Instead, it aims to challenge the outdated methods that prioritize crude volume targets over the health of our forests and the planet. By holding the Forest Service accountable, MountainTrue is also supporting the broader objectives of the Biden administration’s climate policies and efforts to protect our nation’s old-growth and mature forests.

We stand at a critical juncture, and this lawsuit represents a bold step forward in our mission to preserve our planet for future generations. Your continued support and engagement are vital as we navigate this challenge. Together, we can ensure that our forests are managed sustainably and in harmony with our climate goals.

Thank you for standing with us in this crucial fight. 

With determination,

Gray Jernigan
Deputy Director & General Counsel

 

Tell Madison County to Oppose Dangerous Industrial Biomass Facilities

Tell Madison County to Oppose Dangerous Industrial Biomass Facilities

Tell Madison County to Oppose Dangerous Industrial Biomass Facilities

The Madison County Planning Board is expected to vote on whether to recommend changes to the county’s land-use code that would allow dangerous, industrial biomass facilities in Madison County. The proposed amendments to the county’s land-use ordinance open the door to industrial-sized biomass facilities that would emit more climate-changing carbon into the atmosphere, cause significant air pollution, and pose serious fire risks to nearby residents. 

Take Action: Email the Planning Board and County Commissioners and let them know you want a clean and safe Madison County.

BACKGROUND: 

In response to public feedback, the board has significantly revised the definition of what constitutes a large biomass facility, requires they obtain a special permit,  and restricts their operations to industrial-zoned areas of the county. Here are the latest revisions to the definition of a “large biomass facility”:

A facility that converts biomass sources into value-added products energy for public or private use. Biomass includes but is not limited to wood and wood processing waste, wood pellets, agricultural crops and waste materials, biogenic materials in municipal solid waste, animal manure, and human sewage.”

Large Biomass Facility:

  1. Annual Biomass Throughput: A large biomass facility processes over 5,000 metric tons of biomass per year.
  2. Energy Production: A large biomass facility generates over 10,000 MWh or more energy annually.
  3. Number of Employees: A large biomass facility has over 50 employees
  4. Capital Investment Threshold: A large biomass facility requires an investment of over $5 million. 

This broad definition raises three key concerns:

  1. Inconsistencies in Regulation: The definition of “large biomass facility” appears to include activities already separately defined and regulated within the ordinance, such as sawmills and certain manufacturing facilities. This inconsistency in regulation creates confusion for residents, business owners, and the County in determining which set of rules applies to specific activities.
  2. Potential for Unintended Consequences: An overly broad definition could inadvertently allow certain activities, such as a sawmill evolving into a wood pellet production facility, to escape more stringent permitting requirements. This could occur because nonconforming land uses (i.e., land uses that pre-date an ordinance amendment that makes them newly “nonconforming”) are typically allowed to continue as long as they do not change their primary use or expand significantly. Therefore, a clearer definition is needed to prevent such loopholes.
  3. Unfair Scope: The proposal’s distinction between “large” and “small” biomass facilities does not serve the public or the ordinance’s purposes. It would both allow industrial-scale facilities in residential areas while punishing truly “small” biomass land uses—especially under the currently overbroad definition of “biomass”—by requiring regular folks to go through an expensive and time-consuming set of rezoning and permitting processes. The ordinance should focus on making sure industrial biomass facilities are properly located without sweeping up landowners looking to make occasional, harmless use of collected waste materials. Failing to make this distinction may lead to unnecessary hostility towards environmental advocacy and regulation.

A More Refined Definition

To address these concerns and create a more precise and effective regulatory framework, we propose a more tailored definition of “large biomass facility.” Our suggested definition would:

  • Apply only to facilities that produce biomass products for specific off-site uses, such as electricity generation, heating, or transportation fuel.
  • Tailor the amendment so that if the facility combusts biomass on site, the definition applies only if any electricity generated is transmitted for off-site use.
  • Include wood pellet biomass facilities explicitly within the definition to ensure they are adequately regulated.
  • Maintain the broad definition of “biomass” while narrowing the scope of facilities that fall under this definition.

Additional Considerations

In addition to refining the definition of “large biomass facility” to help distinguish between different types of biomass-related activities, we support:

  • Requiring special use permits for biomass facilities,
  • Correcting what may have been a mistake in section 8.11.12 (“Noise”) that regulates facilities that generate noise pollution “up to 70 decibels.” We believe the county meant “more than 70 decibels. 

It Shouldn’t Take A Lawsuit to Make the Forest Service Comply With Federal Law

It Shouldn’t Take A Lawsuit to Make the Forest Service Comply With Federal Law

It Shouldn’t Take A Lawsuit to Make the Forest Service Comply With Federal Law

Pictured above: Part of the Nantahala National Forest within the scope of the Southside Timber Project. Photo credit: Will Harlan, Center for Biological Diversity, via Michaela Gregory of the Southern Environmental Law Center.  

A letter to MountainTrue supporters from our Public Lands Field Biologist, Josh Kelly:

 

I’m writing to let you know that MountainTrue is part of a coalition of conservation groups that filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Forest Service to prevent the agency from logging a sensitive area of the Nantahala National Forest in violation of federal law. 

 

The lawsuit was filed this morning, January 31, in the federal district court for the Western District of North Carolina by the Southern Environmental Law Center on behalf of MountainTrue, the Center for Biological Diversity, Chattooga Conservancy, Defenders of Wildlife, and Sierra Club. 

 

The lawsuit addresses the Southside Timber Project, which aims to log areas near the Whitewater River in the Nantahala National Forest. The landscape boasts stunning waterfalls, towering oak trees, and critical habitat for rare species. 

 

The Southside Timber Project is not only massively unpopular but is also inconsistent with the recently updated Nantahala-Pisgah Forest Plan. Limiting logging in the Whitewater River and surrounding areas was one of the things the Forest Plan got right. Now, the Forest Service is poised to disregard its own Plan to pursue its outdated mission of turning old forests into young ones. The Forest Service believes that the new Forest Plan doesn’t apply to the Southside Project, but we insist that for the new plan to have any meaning at all, it must apply.  

 

MountainTrue does not oppose logging on principle, and we don’t take litigation lightly. However, with both the Forest Plan and this Southside Timber Project, Forest Service leaders have put commercial logging first and ignored federal law and overwhelming public support for conserving our most beloved natural areas and landscapes. Fixing these problems would have only removed 50 acres from over 300 acres of logging. They have even ignored concerns from the agency’s own scientists about the impact logging could have on the already imperiled Blue Ridge lineage of the green salamander. And don’t be fooled by the Forest Service’s claims that the project will benefit the Golden-Winged Warbler. There are no known populations of this bird in the project area, and it is well known that there must be a population within two miles of new habitat for it to become occupied.

 

There are one million acres in Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests. That’s plenty of land to accommodate sustainable logging practices and create new young forest habitat for deer and grouse without destroying an area that the Forest Service itself has deemed an ‘exceptional ecological community’ with ‘features that are not found anywhere else in […] the Eastern United States.’ 

 

We have opposed the Southside Timber Project from the beginning. MountainTrue analyzed the project to assess the damage it would cause to these important habitats and filed formal objections. We even offered to pay the Forest Service for the timber rights to 37 acres to keep old-growth and rare species habitat within the project area standing and intact. The Southside Project is the only example I know of in my 16-year career where the Forest Service documented the presence of old-growth forest and chose to cut it anyway. The decision to log inside a Special Interest Area and Wild and Scenic River Corridor follows the same stubborn and short-sighted pattern. 

 

The Southside Project was a bad project when the Forest Service first proposed it, and it is still a bad project today. Unfortunately, it looks like it’s going to take a public interest lawsuit to get the Forest Service to act responsibly and comply with federal law. 

 

Sincerely, 

Josh Kelly, MountainTrue Public Lands Field Biologist

 

Click here to read the joint statement about this litigation released on January 31, 2024, by the Southern Environmental Law Center, Center for Biological Diversity, Chattooga Conservancy, Defenders of Wildlife, MountainTrue, and Sierra Club.

Support resilient forests in the Southern Blue Ridge

 If you care about the forests and public lands of Western North Carolina and the Southern Blue Ridge Mountains, I hope you’ll consider donating to support this critical work.

Take Action to Protect Old-Growth and Mature Forests in Nantahala-Pisgah National Forests

Take Action to Protect Old-Growth and Mature Forests in Nantahala-Pisgah National Forests

Take Action to Protect Old-Growth and Mature Forests in Nantahala-Pisgah National Forests

The U.S. Forest Service has announced a plan to amend all 128 forest management plans nationwide — including the plan for the Pisgah-Nantahala National Forests — in accordance with President Biden’s Executive Order directing his administration to conserve old-growth forests. 

This is a critical opportunity to fix some of the issues with the deeply flawed Pisgah-Nantahala management plan that placed 100,000 acres of old-growth forests, natural heritage areas, roadless areas, and sensitive habitats in zones that are open to commercial logging. You can take action in two ways:

  1. Sign our petition calling on the Forest Service to amend the Nantahala Pisgah National Forests management plan to protect our old-growth forests.
    (Deadline: Feb. 2, 9 AM)
  2. Submit your own unique public comment through the Forest Service portal.
    (Deadline: Feb. 2, 11:59 PM)

Old-growth forests store large amounts of carbon, clean the air we breathe, maintain and increase biodiversity, filter water, and reduce wildfire risks. The old-growth forests of the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forests are home to several endangered and threatened species, including four species of endangered bats and the imperiled Blue Ridge lineage of green salamanders. 

The amendments proposed by the Forest Service should create standards for the protection of all old-growth forests on National Forest Lands. It’s important that the new rule is strong enough to protect the rich biodiversity of our region and to keep these massive carbon stores firmly rooted in the soil to mitigate climate change and flexible enough to allow for the restoration of old-growth stand structure and wildfire resilience. 

Thank you for your commitment to resilient forests. Please take action today.

MountainTrue and Conservation Groups prepare for lawsuit over Nantahala-Pisgah Forest Plan

MountainTrue and Conservation Groups prepare for lawsuit over Nantahala-Pisgah Forest Plan

MountainTrue and Conservation Groups prepare for lawsuit over Nantahala-Pisgah Forest Plan

Photo  of a Virginia big-eared bat by Larisa Bishop-Boros – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=32046949

MountainTrue has joined a coalition of conservation groups in sending a letter to the U.S. Forest Service, signaling our intent to sue over glaring flaws in the Nantahala-Pisgah Forest Plan.

MountainTrue Statement: 

The US Forest Service’s management plan for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests is deeply flawed. The Forest Service put commercial logging first, ignored the best science available, and is needlessly putting several endangered bat species at risk of extinction. The endangered species that would be affected are the northern long-eared bat, Indiana bat, Virginia big-eared bat, and the gray bat. Two species that are being considered for the endangered species list — the little brown bat and the tricolored bat — would also be adversely affected. 

From the beginning of the drafting process, we’ve tried to work in partnership with the Forest Service and many other stakeholders to develop a responsible win-win plan for the environment, our economy, and the people of our region. MountainTrue and our experts remain ready and willing to help the Forest Service fix its plan and make it more ecologically responsible and more responsive to the needs of our communities.  

Our incredibly diverse ecosystems deserve a better plan. The people who love and use these forests deserve a better plan. And MountainTrue and our litigation partners are willing to go to court to win a plan that we can all be proud of. 

Read the 60-Day Notice of Intent to Sue for Violations of the Endangered Species Act Related to Consultation on the Nantahala-Pisgah Land Management Plan.

Our members and supporters power our Resilient Forests program. Donate today, so we can continue to protect our old-growth and mature forests, which are critical habitats for many endangered and threatened species.

Press release from the Southern Environmental Law Center, MountainTrue, Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society, Defenders of Wildlife, and Center for Biological Diversity:

For immediate release: July 26, 2023

Media Contacts:
Southern Environmental Law Center: Eric Hilt, 615-921-9470, ehilt@selctn.org
MountainTrue: Karim Olaechea, 828-400-0768, karim@mountaintrue.org
Sierra Club: David Reid, 828-713-1607, daviddbreid@charter.net
The Wilderness Society: Jen Parravani, 202-601-1931, jen_parravani@tws.org
Defenders of Wildlife: Allison Cook, 202-772-3245, acook@defenders.org
Center for Biological Diversity: Jason Totoiu, 561-568-6740, jtotoiu@biologicaldiversity.org

Conservation Groups prepare for lawsuit over Nantahala-Pisgah Forest Plan 

ASHEVILLE, N.C. —A coalition of conservation groups sent a letter to the U.S. Forest Service signaling their intent to sue unless officials fix the glaring flaws in the Nantahala-Pisgah Forest Plan that put endangered forest bats at risk. 

On Tuesday, The Southern Environmental Law Center, on behalf of MountainTrue, Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society, Defenders of Wildlife, and Center for Biological Diversity, sent a 60-day Notice of Intent to Sue, which is a prerequisite to filing a lawsuit under the Endangered Species Act. The letter explains how the Forest Service relied on inaccurate and incomplete information during the planning process, resulting in a Forest Plan that imperils endangered wildlife.

At its most basic level, the Nantahala-Pisgah Forest Plan outlines where activities like logging and roadbuilding are prioritized and where they are restricted. The Plan, published in 2023, will have a significant and lasting impact on the beloved forests and the rare animals and plants that live there.

But even though these forests are a critical refuge for hundreds of rare species, the Plan prioritizes logging in the wrong places, even when it threatens endangered wildlife. For instance, some of our most critically imperiled bats are harmed by logging and need intact mature forests to survive. However, the Forest Plan aims to quintuple the amount of heavy logging, including in parts of the forest that are vitally important for forest bats. The Notice of Intent to Sue alleges the Forest Service had information showing increased risks to endangered species but withheld that information from the Fish and Wildlife Service, which oversees endangered species protection.

At every step of the planning process, the Forest Service ignored public concerns and the best available science about the new Plan’s harms to endangered species. Instead, the agency used misleading and inaccurate information to downplay the impacts this huge increase in logging in sensitive habitats will have on sensitive wildlife. The agency now has 60 days to reconsider its decision.

Below are statements from the Southern Environmental Law Center, MountainTrue, Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society, Defenders of Wildlife, and Center for Biological Diversity:

“The Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests are home to an amazing diversity of animals and plants, including some of the most critically endangered species in the country. We cannot sit back while this irresponsible Forest Plan ignores the science, breaks the law, and puts these remarkable species at risk.” Sam Evans, leader of SELC’s National Forests and Parks Program, said. “Forest plans are revised only every 20 years or so, and our endangered bats won’t last that long unless we get this Plan right.”

“The Forest Service’s management plan for the Nantahala Pisgah National Forests is deeply flawed. The Forest Service put commercial logging first, ignored the best science available, and is needlessly putting endangered species at risk of extinction. Our incredibly diverse ecosystems deserve a better Plan. The people who love and use these forests deserve a better Plan. And MountainTrue and our litigation partners are willing to go to court to win a Plan that we can all be proud of,” said Josh Kelly, Public Lands Field Biologist for MountainTrue.

“The Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests serve as anchor points for sensitive habitat that protects a marvelous array of plant and animal species, which are increasingly under pressure. The recently released Forest Plan misses the boat for protecting key species by emphasizing activities that fragment and degrade habitat, especially for species that rely on mature and undisturbed forests. The N.C. Sierra Club will continue to work to protect the wildlife and habitats that we cannot afford to lose,” David Reid, National Forests Issue Chair for the Sierra Club, said. 

“It is unacceptable that the Nantahala-Pisgah Forest Plan puts imperiled wildlife at even greater risk of extinction. The Forest Service has blatantly ignored the best available science and shirked its legal duties to protect forest resources at nearly every step of the way in this planning process, leading to a Plan that prioritizes logging in the wrong places and trivializes intact mature and old-growth forest habitat,” said Jess Riddle, Conservation Specialist at The Wilderness Society. “At a time when wildlife species face unprecedented threat from the climate crisis, we must do everything we can to protect the biodiversity that we have. We need to use every tool in our toolbox to safeguard healthy, connected nature, including litigation, if necessary.”

“The Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests are home to several endangered bat species that have already taken a terrible hit from white nose syndrome, a deadly fungal disease that infects them while they’re hibernating,” said Jane Davenport, senior attorney at Defenders of Wildlife. “These bats rely on intact, mature forests to forage and to rear their young. Heavy logging in some of their last and best habitat on the East Coast may tip the populations over the edge. We must hold the U.S. Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service accountable for violating their Endangered Species Act duties to get the science right in the forest planning process.”

“It’s outrageous that this forest plan greenlights a fivefold logging increase in important bat habitat even as our bat populations plummet from disease, habitat loss and climate change,” said Jason Totoiu, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “This misguided Plan will destroy tens of thousands of acres and jeopardize species like the Indiana, northern long-eared, Virginia big-eared and gray bat. We will ask a court to step in to protect these highly imperiled animals.” 

###

 

Take Action to Protect Old-Growth and Mature Forests in Nantahala-Pisgah National Forests

Take Action: Manage Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests in line with our Climate Reality

Take Action: Manage Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests in line with our Climate Reality

Public Comments Due by July 20, 2023

Our national forests are public treasures and should be managed to maintain the health of our environment and best serve our communities’ current and future needs. The Forest Service is soliciting public feedback on how it should adapt current policies to protect, conserve, and manage mature and old-growth forests on public lands for climate resilience. 

Climate change will significantly impact our region, our uniquely bio-diverse ecosystems, and our watersheds. Yet, here in Western North Carolina, the Forest Service has maintained an outdated focus on exploiting our forests for commercial logging, and this year they finalized a new Forest Management Plan that could allow logging on 60% of the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forests’ one million acres, including thousands of acres of old-growth forest. 

Please provide public comment to the Forest Service asking that they update their policies to prioritize the preservation of old-growth and mature forests, which provide critical functions as wildlife habitats, carbon sinks, and pristine watersheds and sources of clean drinking water.

Need help drafting public comments? Try Nick’s Comment Generator. 

MountainTrue Board Member Nick Holshouser has developed a Comment Generator Tool that uses OpenAI to generate a short, meaningful, and unique comment. By selecting from a menu of topics, you can easily generate a first draft that you can review, edit, and further personalize. Then, all you have to do is copy and paste your comment into the Regulations.gov comment portal.  

Try the Comment Generator Now. 

Public comments are due by July 20, 2023. (Note that the original June due date is still listed on the public feedback page, but the comment deadline has been extended.)