- 
Arabic
 - 
ar
Bengali
 - 
bn
German
 - 
de
English
 - 
en
French
 - 
fr
Hindi
 - 
hi
Indonesian
 - 
id
Portuguese
 - 
pt
Russian
 - 
ru
Spanish
 - 
es
TAKE ACTION to Protect Madison County Ridgetops

TAKE ACTION to Protect Madison County Ridgetops

TAKE ACTION to Protect Madison County Ridgetops

Let Madison County Commissioners know that our mountain ridges should remain pristine!

Responding to the desires of a single landowner, the Madison County Planning Board put aside the best interests of the wider community and recommended doing away with the rule that would prevent the construction of homes and buildings within 50 feet of ridgelines. This change would completely undercut Madison County’s Mountain Ridge Protection ordinance and open the door to unfettered home construction along the tops of our mountains. 

Allowing development on our ridgetops would threaten our county’s irreplaceable natural beauty, environmental health, economic vitality, and the overall well-being of our community. The move by the Planning Board has sparked widespread public opposition. 

Email Madison County Commissioners now and let them know you want them to protect our mountaintops!

We need you to take action today to let Madison County Commissioners know that we want them to vote to REJECT the Planning Board’s irresponsible recommendation. If you’ve emailed them already about this issue, we urge you to email them again to let them know we’re still watching.   

Bad for Public Safety:
Allowing development on our ridgetops would directly increase the risks of natural disasters like landslides and wildfires, consequences we cannot afford. These disasters, fueled by deforestation and soil disturbance, pose a significant threat to the safety and security of our residents. It is imperative that we stand firm on this ordinance to safeguard our community’s lives and properties.

Bad for Our Economy:
Madison County’s mountains are more than just natural features; they are the backbone of our regional identity, drawing visitors, outdoor enthusiasts, and residents seeking a peaceful, scenic living environment. These mountains bolster our local economy and tax revenue by attracting tourism and promoting local businesses. Compromising on this ordinance would not only tarnish our community’s allure but also strike a blow to the economic heartbeat of our region. We cannot allow our mountain landscapes, a cornerstone of our heritage and economy, to be compromised.

Bad for Our Environment:
Preserving our mountain ridgetops is critical for broader environmental initiatives, including combating deforestation and protecting vital water sources. These areas play a crucial role in water filtration and biodiversity conservation. Upholding this ordinance is key to Madison County’s leadership in environmental stewardship and sustainability.

Email Madison County Commissioners now and let them know you want them to protect our mountaintops! 

Background:
The county has received an application from a private citizen to amend the county’s Mountain Ridge Protection Ordinance and do away with a 50’ setback requirement, a key provision that protects mountain ridges from development.

In 1983, following the construction of the Sugar Top Resort in Avery County, the State of North Carolina passed a law protecting the mountain ridgelines of our state. Madison County then took the additional step of putting in place further safeguards to protect one of Madison County’s greatest assets: its natural beauty. One key rule that Madison County added was a 50’ setback on either side of a protected ridge. This simple rule makes protection of our ridgelines and enforcement of these rules relatively easy.  

For 40 years, this ordinance has ensured that Madison County landowners, residents, and visitors would be blessed with visually stunning and natural mountain views and have the confidence that those views would be protected for future generations.

Now, a single landowner wants to do away with the setback requirements in order to develop on a ridgeline. This change in the law would affect ridgelines throughout the county, even though the applicant could simply seek a variance for their individual property. 

Join us in opposing the proposed amendment to the Mountain Ridge Protection Ordinance. Learn more by checking out these resources:

  • Click here to read MountainTrue’s letter to the Planning Board. 
  • Click here to read Clear Sky Madison’s letter to the Planning Board.
  • Read more about the proposal in this article from the Asheville Citizen-Times, published November 10. 

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.

Oct. 13. Join us for The River Runs On Screening in Hendersonville, NC

Oct. 13. Join us for The River Runs On Screening in Hendersonville, NC

Oct. 13. Join us for The River Runs On Screening in Hendersonville, NC

After three years in the making, we’re excited to finally bring to Hendersonville the feature documentary, The River Runs On! This film explores the release of a forest plan that decides the fate of two of the most important national forests in the country – the Pisgah and Nantahala. Featuring some of the top conservationists and most popular spots within the region, the documentary reflects on our relationship with these public lands and what the future may hold for this unique part of the world.

Film Screening of The River Run On
Trinity Presbyterian Church
900 Blythe Street, Hendersonville, NC 28791
October 13. Doors at 6:30 p.m. | Film at 7:00 p.m.
Get tickets here: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/the-river-runs-on-film-screening-tickets-707948552177?aff=oddtdtcreator

Shortly following the film, we will have a Q&A with the director of the film, Garrett Martin, and Mountain True’s Public Lands Field Biologist, Josh Kelly. Members of the audience will be able to ask questions about the Pisgah-Nanatahala Forest Plan and its release.

To learn more about the film, please visit www.theriverrunson.com

Watch the trailer at https://vimeo.com/764170588