Take Action: Protect Hellbenders

SOS: Save Our Salamanders!

Friday, December 13 was a lucky day for eastern hellbender salamanders. Following years of advocacy from environmental organizations and conservation-minded individuals, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed listing hellbenders as an endangered species across their entire range. Listing this species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is a huge step towards their continued existence, offering substantial federal protections that have historically been massively successful in bolstering populations of other listed species. To ensure the hellbender is officially listed, we need you to comment in support of protecting them through the ESA.

Hellbenders experience population decline as a result of sedimentation, water quality degradation, and habitat loss. Impacts from Hurricane Helene also displaced hellbender populations, severely degrading available habitat in some of the healthiest parts of their range. Since the ESA is so successful in protecting vulnerable species and bolstering declining populations, it is crucial that the hellbender be listed and protected as quickly as possible.

Please comment now to support listing the eastern hellbender as a federally protected species under the Endangered Species Act. Remember to make your comment your own – unique comments carry more weight with agency staff. Comments are due February 11, 2025.

MT Raleigh Report: Politics, Disaster Relief, and the Fight for Western North Carolina’s Future

What a year – in Raleigh and, of course, in Western North Carolina.

Among the many lessons those of us here in the mountains learned, again, this year is that what happens – or does not – in Raleigh has a real impact on our communities, our mountains, and our future.

Certainly, that has to be one of the takeaways about the North Carolina General Assembly’s response to the disaster that hit the mountains a couple of months ago. Since September, the legislature has approved three bills that included disaster-related funding for a total of $1.13 billion in state funds. Click here for an overview of the legislature’s efforts on the disaster to date.

The most recent of these bills is SB382, which included $225 million transferred to a state fund for disaster relief but NOT approved for any specific program or project. Leaving that transfer aside, SB382 included a mere $32 million approved for disaster relief. The remaining balance must be earmarked and approved by the legislature before it reaches WNC.

Beyond the first dozen or so pages loosely focused around disaster relief are over 100 pages of “Various Law Changes,” the real meat of SB382 designed largely to shift power away from the executive branch. This power grab disguised as disaster relief caused three WNC Republican Representatives – Mike Clampitt, Karl Gillespie, and Mark Pless – to join Democrats in voting against the bill, although it passed both the House and Senate in otherwise party-line votes. It also prompted Governor Cooper to veto the bill, but his veto was later overridden by Republican supermajorities in both chambers and became law. Despite their initial opposition to the bill, Clampitt, Gillespie, and Pless all voted to override the veto and allow the bill to become law.

So why is disaster relief getting held up? It’s certainly not because money’s tight. State Budget officials recently told a legislative committee has a whopping $9.1 billion in inappropriate reserves, including almost $4.8 billion that was in the state’s “rainy day fund” itself when Helene hit, plus $1 billion in a stabilization and inflation reserve and another $732.5 million in a emergency response/disaster reserve. Legislators could also use another $1.1 billion from savings and still remain in compliance with state law.

Gov. Cooper’s request for a $3.9 billion state set-aside for hurricane relief presumed the use of about $3.5 billion from these sources.

So, if money is not the problem, what is the hold up on state disaster relief? For their part, budget writers for the Republican majorities in the House and Senate argue that it’s smart policy to hold back state relief funding and allow federal disaster relief to make its way to the region. They worry that if state funds are used on efforts that are eligible for federal relief, the feds may not reimburse the state for its recovery efforts. GOP budget writers say it’s better to let the federal money be the first in – and the state funding the last to address needs FEMA and other federal programs do not get to. They also point out that Congress is likely to provide more money for WNC recovery before the end of 2024.

The problem with waiting, of course, is that many in WNC need help, now, for things we know that the federal government won’t pay for. Many small business owners, for example, can’t afford to take on more debt via the disaster loan programs offered by FEMA. Without direct grants, many business owners say their businesses won’t survive the disaster.

Debris removal is also an urgent need. While the federal agencies and the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services have both state and federal funds to help local governments clear rivers of storm debris, these funds are often restricted to trees and other natural debris – not the cars, trucks, and tons of garbage that were swept into every river basin in the region – and are further restricted to those debris jams that pose a risk to flooding or structural damage. The funding is also distributed locally, making regional clean-up efforts more difficult to get up and running. And timing is important: our rivers and streams need to be safe and ready to use come spring when the outdoor recreational season brings thousands of visitors and their dollars to the region.

With those waters – and our outdoor economy – in mind, MountainTrue has asked legislators to fund a regional debris clean-up effort that is also supported by the outdoor recreation industry’s umbrella group, the Outdoor Recreation Coalition. Our goal is to employ those in the outdoor industry, who have been displaced by the disaster, to clear out tons of debris in time for the start of the recreation season this spring. Despite the legislature’s reluctance to use state funds for this kind of effort, MountainTrue has started a small pilot program in Madison County with private funds that will make some popular whitewater safe for paddlers early in 2025.

We plan to use this pilot to continue to lobby legislators for debris removal funding – and employment for those put out of work by the disaster. Early word in Raleigh is that legislators will take up a state-funded package of disaster recovery efforts early in their 2025 session, which begins in late January.

Looking further back into the legislature’s work this year doesn’t provide much more to celebrate. With GOP supermajorities in both the House and Senate AND a budget surplus topping $1 billion, legislative leaders were unable to muster the votes to send a revised budget for FY2024-2025 to Gov Cooper this summer. In the absence of a revised budget, they left the surplus uninvested and dozens of important conservation projects, including many in WNC, unfunded.

Unfortunately, the 2025 legislative session doesn’t provide much hope that lawmakers will address the many issues facing North Carolina. With the GOP supermajority now gone in the House, the 2025 session promises to be a drawn-out stalemate between the GOP leadership in the General Assembly and Governor-elect Josh Stein, a Democrat.

For its part, MountainTrue will continue to be in the middle of debates about disaster recovery and rebuilding, clean water and air, and sustainable development and rebuilding. Thank you for the investments you make in MountainTrue and its work in Raleigh – we couldn’t do it without you.

Protect the Nolichucky River: Tell NC DEQ: Require Responsible Railroad Build Back by CSX

This action has expired

Photo courtesy of Jubal Roe.

We need you to tell North Carolina’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to require railroad company CSX to apply for a permit to rebuild in the Nolichucky River Gorge. Please email Regional Supervisor Andrew Moore to request that DEQ make CSX apply for a permit.

Take Action + Tell NC DEQ: Require Responsible Railroad Build Back by CSX

Through their rebuilding work, CSX has left extensive damage in their wake on the Tennessee side of the Gorge. Fortunately, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has prohibited CSX from mining rock from the Nolichucky or its tributaries until new approvals are in place. North Carolina’s DEQ can ensure that the NC stretch of the Nolichucky does not experience the same damage as the Tennessee side by requiring CSX to apply for an additional permit prior to rebuilding. This permit must prohibit removal of rock below the Ordinary High Water Mark.

The Army Corps’ mandate follows an immediate cease and desist and notice of violation issued by Tennessee’s Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) to CSX. TDEC found that CSX mined rock well below the Ordinary High Water Mark, causing significant damage to the riverbed. The damages caused by CSX will now be the responsibility of Tennessee taxpayers. North Carolina’s DEQ can prevent the same fate by requiring CSX to apply for a permit that allows the railroad to rebuild, but prevents the removal of rock below the Ordinary High Water Mark. The permit should also require that CSX remove all leftover materials and temporary access roads following completion of their work.

Please take action to protect North Carolina’s side of the Nolichucky River Gorge and ensure that CSX, not NC taxpayers, are financially responsible for rebuilding the railroad. As always, thank you for your attention and action!

Speak Up for Old Growth Forests

This action has expired

We need you to tell the US Forest Service to implement strong protections for old-growth forests. Please submit a comment urging the Forest Service to strengthen NOGA by clarifying its language and better considering eastern forests.

The Forest Service is currently seeking public comment on their proposed National Old-Growth Amendment (NOGA). The amendment, which responds to a Biden-Harris Administration executive order mandating stronger protections for old-growth forests, would require all national forest plans across the country to incorporate additional consideration of old-growth forest management needs.

This amendment is an important step towards protecting a shrinking resource, but it needs to be improved. In its current form, NOGA lacks clarity and includes loopholes that could inadvertently worsen current management practices for old-growth forests. Far from meeting its intent of protecting and restoring old-growth forests, NOGA’s current language could allow for inappropriate old-growth harvest.

Submit a Comment

Comments are due September 20th.

Old-growth forests store large amounts of carbon, clean the air we breathe, provide critical wildlife habitat, 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. Unfortunately, across the nation, old-growth forests are in decline, facing stressors from pests, extreme weather, and commercial logging. NOGA offers an opportunity to better protect and restore old-growth forests, but only if it’s finalized and implemented properly.

Our Concerns:

As written, NOGA fails to allow passive management as a method of preserving or enhancing old-growth characteristics. Although the Forest Service recognizes that a “hands-off” approach can better serve old-growth forests, especially in areas that are not fire-prone, NOGA currently prescribes only active management options.
Solution: NOGA should be amended to include passive management as an option for managing old-growth forests.
Proactive stewardship of old-growth forests has the potential to degrade the old-growth ecosystem. The ambiguity of the draft text could lead to an interpretation that degradation of old-growth forests is ok if that degradation contributes to a project meeting other goals.
Solution: NOGA should include a non-degradation clause for cases where proactive stewardship methods are employed.
The exceptions allowed under NOGA are unclear. This lack of clarity could lead to a situation where development within old-growth forests is permitted, so long as there is sufficient old-growth outside of the developed area to make up for some loss within the developed area.
Solution: The Forest Service should remove the exception that allows for development at an “ecologically appropriate scale” and employ clear, already defined language to improve NOGA’s clarity.
While old-growth forests decline, threats to old-growth increase. Simply preserving existing old-growth will not be enough to stop the decline, so recruiting mature forests into an old-growth stage is crucial to protecting these ecosystems. As written, NOGA does not offer a clear path by which the Forest Service can identify suitable mature forests and manage them to become old-growth.
Solution: NOGA should be amended to include a clear plan for recruitment of mature forests into old-growth conditions.
Lastly, NOGA prescribes a one-size-fits-all approach to forest management. As written, NOGA characterizes threats to old-growth forests uniformly across the country. While fire poses a risk to western forests, eastern old-growth forests are more vulnerable to improper management and commercial logging. The same management actions that benefit fire-prone western forests will not be suitable for moist eastern forests.
Solution: NOGA should better characterize threats and more specifically prescribe management actions based on forest type and location.

Submit a Comment

Meet the newest MountainTrue team member, Katherine Stahl

If you’re a MountainTrue member, it’s a safe bet to say you love America’s public lands. It’s pretty likely that places like Dupont State Forest, Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, and Great Smoky Mountains National Park are near and dear to your heart. MountainTrue has a long history of standing up for local public lands. Whether it be in bringing places like the Needmore Tract, the Jocassee Tract, or Dupont into public ownership, or opposing oil and gas drilling and unsustainable clearcutting on our National Forests, MountainTrue has won some major victories, but never without a strong grassroots base.

MountainTrue is very excited to add to its grassroots organizing capacity by hiring Katherine Stahl as our Public Lands Engagement Manager. Katherine will help rally more communities, supporters, and partners to the continued protection and stewardship of public lands. In addition to organizing and mobilizing people to protect public lands, Katherine will also organize stewardship events like nonnative invasive plant removal and habitat improvement projects.

Meet Katherine:

As Public Lands Engagement Manager, Katherine works to foster public participation in processes affecting public lands in Western North Carolina. She comes to MountainTrue with a background in community organizing in Wyoming, where she focused on addressing the environmental impacts of fossil fuel production. She holds a Master’s Degree in Global Environmental Policy from The American University in Washington DC. Katherine is excited to connect with all of you passionate public land advocates – please feel free to reach out to her at katherine@mountaintrue.org to discuss any concerns or questions you may have on processes, policies, or projects affecting public lands.

Join us in welcoming Katherine to WNC and the MountainTrue team!

Encourage Clarity and Public Participation in GAP Restoration Project

This action has expired

Encourage Clarity and Public Participation in GAP Restoration Project

In July, the US Forest Service released a draft environmental assessment for the Grandfather, Appalachian, Pisgah (GAP) Restoration Project. The GAP Project aims to reduce wildfire risk, restore fire-adapted ecosystems, and improve forest health over the course of roughly a decade.

While these goals are commendable, the actions identified to achieve them lack specificity and could lead to inappropriate management of sensitive areas. This lack of site-specific information also obstructs public participation by limiting our ability to fully evaluate the project’s potential environmental impacts.

Please act now and encourage the Forest Service to clarify the GAP Project’s environmental impacts and improve collaboration with the public over the project’s duration.

TAKE ACTION

Comment Deadline: August 12, 2024

Review the locations affected by the project here: GAP Restoration Project (arcgis.com)
Review the project website here: Forest Service (usda.gov)

Our Concerns:

Project duration is not clearly defined: Although the GAP Project is part of the 10-year Pisgah Restoration Initiative, there is no clearly stated project duration for GAP included in the draft environmental assessment. However, the GAP Project includes annual goals for management activities such as timber harvest, prescribed burning, and temporary road construction. Without a clear project duration, the environmental impact of these and other activities is difficult to estimate.
Recommendation: The Forest Service should state a duration for the GAP Project to help clarify its environmental impacts.
Locations for logging activities are not clearly defined: A lack of specificity around exact locations for various management activities like burning and harvesting also creates confusion. A stated goal of the GAP Project is to reduce wildfire risk. However, the project identifies logging as a potential management activity in cove forests – moist forests that are not fire-adapted and do not pose any significant wildfire risk. The GAP Project proposes over 10,000 acres of potential timber harvest in cove forests.
Recommendation: The Forest Service should identify cove forests in the project area and exclude them from logging activities.
Allowable management activities are poorly defined for areas with saw timber versus areas without saw timber: In the GAP Project proposal, the Forest Service fails to make a distinction between allowed management activities in areas with sawtimber and areas without sawtimber. Both areas over a total of 29,000 acres allow for temporary road construction, tree removal, and the same harvest methods. All of these activities have the potential to contribute to erosion and habitat disturbance.
Recommendation: Rather than relying on the presence of sawtimber in an area, the Forest Service should make a distinction based on whether or not trees will be removed from the site – this will help avoid future confusion over which management activities are allowed in a particular site.
Project proposes to log along the Appalachian Trail, backcountry, and in sensitive ecological areas: Unfortunately, the GAP Project proposes several controversial sites for commercial timber harvest, including 1500 acres along the Appalachian Trail, 1600 acres of backcountry, and areas with unique ecological values. Logging in these areas could damage these values through road construction and the presence of heavy machinery.
Recommendation: The Forest Service should amend the project so as to not allow commercial timber harvest or road construction along the Appalachian Trail, in Backcountry Management Areas, or in Special Interest Areas.
The proposal lacks specificity on what kind of management activities will happen and where: The GAP Restoration Project promotes wildfire risk reduction and habitat restoration but lacks clarity on site-specific management activities and timelines. The Forest Service seeks to approve the project before determining where roads will be built, what type of timber harvest will occur where, what the harvest methods will be, which areas will be burned, and before biological and archeological surveys have been completed.
Recommendation: The Forest Service should provide more information and complete more analysis before approving the GAP Project.

The GAP Restoration Project has the potential to greatly benefit the Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests, but it needs clear guidance for which activities happen where. Unfortunately, as currently proposed, the project could open up sensitive ecological areas, backcountry, and areas along the Appalachian Trail to commercial logging.

Submit your comments now, and urge the Forest Service to provide more information and complete more analysis before approving the GAP Project.