MountainTrue Advocates for Environmental Priorities During Raleigh Lobbying Trip

Photo: MountainTrue’s Legislative Advocacy Team sits down with Senator Tim Moffitt to discuss the specifics of a proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) bill.

At the beginning of May, the MountainTrue legislative advocacy team embarked on a lobbying trip to Raleigh, marking our first visit to the NC General Assembly’s short session. This trip was instrumental in advancing our legislative agenda and fostering meaningful conversations with key lawmakers.

We extend our heartfelt thanks to Representatives Dudley Greene, Jimmy Dixon, Jake Johnson, Jennifer Balkcom, Eric Ager, Ray Pickett, and Senators Warren Daniel, Kevin Corbin, Tim Moffitt, and Julie Mayfield. We also appreciate the staff of House Speaker Tim Moore and Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Burger for their valuable time and engagement.

Senator Kevin Corbin

Senator Kevin Corbin with MountainTrue High Country Director and Watauga Riverkeeper Andy Hill.

Senator Julie Mayfield

MountainTrue’s Legislative Advocacy Team with Senator Julie Mayfield.

Representative Jimmy Dixon

MountainTrue’s Gray Jernigan, Nancy Diaz, and Bob Wagner, posing for a photo with Representative Jimmy Dixon.

During our meetings, we discussed the various programs, projects, and policies that MountainTrue supports. We shared our legislative priorities for the session, receiving positive feedback and valuable insights from our legislators. Here are the key initiatives we are focusing on this year:

Helping Property Owners Reduce Stormwater Pollution

The Community Conservation Assistance Program (CCAP) is a vital initiative that allows local soil and water districts to assist property owners in reducing stormwater pollution. Unfortunately, the demand for CCAP exceeds its current funding. By advocating for dedicated funding for the CCAP program, particularly in the French Broad River watershed, we aim to significantly reduce stormwater pollution in areas frequently used for recreation.

Supporting Rural Families with Failing Septic Systems

MountainTrue has partnered with NC DHHS to administer funding for repairing failing septic systems in Western North Carolina. This partnership has inspired Buncombe County to launch its own septic repair program. We are pushing for grants to local health departments in WNC to enable other counties to establish their own programs, thereby improving public health and environmental quality in rural areas.

Expanding E. coli Monitoring in the French Broad River

By expanding the state’s real-time E. coli bacteria detection program in the French Broad River, we can provide the public with accurate and timely information about bacteria pollution levels. This expansion is crucial for ensuring the safety of the river, which is heavily used for recreational activities.

Securing State Trail Designations for Paddle Trails

We are working to secure State Trail designations for the First Broad River in Cleveland County and the Watauga River in Watauga County. These designations will accelerate the development of paddle trails, enhancing recreational and economic opportunities for local communities.

Advocating for Local Projects and Smart Infill Development

MountainTrue is actively seeking funding for several local projects, including dam removals, trails, and greenways throughout the WNC region. Additionally, we are advocating for legislation that mandates local governments to adopt ordinances permitting the construction of accessory dwelling units in residential areas. This initiative aims to promote smart infill development, address the housing shortage, reduce the climate impacts of commuting, and protect rural areas from sprawling development.

Stay Connected and Support MountainTrue

As the session progresses, we will continue to update you on our advocacy efforts and achievements. Your support is crucial in ensuring that WNC has a strong voice for the environment in the General Assembly. MountainTrue is proud to be the only environmental organization in WNC with a full-time presence in Raleigh, and with your continued support, we can make a significant impact.

Thank you for standing with us in our mission to protect and preserve the environment in WNC. Stay tuned for more updates and action opportunities!

Letter to Our Members: We’re Going to Court to Protect Endangered Wildlife

On Thursday, April 18, MountainTrue, in collaboration with our partners at the Southern Environmental Law Center, the Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Center for Biological Diversity, filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for violations of the Endangered Species Act committed during consultation and development of the Biological Opinion on which the Nantahala-Pisgah Forest Plan relies. This legal action seeks to protect endangered wildlife that are threatened by the new Forest Plan, which prioritizes commercial logging in habitat that is critical for the survival of several species.

Our decision to pursue litigation was not made lightly. After our previously issued Notice of Intent to Sue—a mandatory precursor under the Endangered Species Act—was filed last July, it became clear that the Forest Service was not going to take steps to correct its failures. Despite our extensive efforts to work collaboratively with the Forest Service to produce a balanced and scientifically sound plan, we are again forced to go to court to seek the changes necessary to protect endangered wildlife. This is MountainTrue’s commitment to protect our diverse ecosystems and the communities that cherish these forests.

DONATE TODAY

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.

Photo of a Virginia big-eared bat by Larisa Bishop-Boros – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0

The flawed Forest Plan jeopardizes not only the endangered northern long-eared bat, Indiana bat, Virginia big-eared bat, and the gray bat but also impacts species like the little brown bat and the tricolored bat, which are currently being considered for the endangered species list. Our lawsuit aims to rectify the inaccuracies, incomplete data, and flawed analysis that underpin the current plan, ensuring a more sustainable future for these critical habitats and the wildlife that dwell there.

To be clear, our goal with this lawsuit is not to stop logging on the national forest. However, we believe logging should be limited in areas known to be used by endangered bats. Unfortunately, the new forest plan allows run-of-the-mill logging in many of these areas without even looking for endangered wildlife.

Our Resilient Forests program, powered by the support of our members and donors, is essential in this fight. We thank you for your generous support. Every donation helps us work to protect old-growth, mature forests, and critical wildlife habitat.

The path ahead is challenging, but with you by our side, we can continue to advocate for a forest management plan that truly reflects the ecological and communal values we stand for. The future of the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests depends on our collective action.

Thank you for standing with us,

Gray Jernigan
Deputy Director & General Counsel

Conservation Groups sue Forest Service over Nantahala-Pisgah Forest Plan’s impact on endangered wildlife

ASHEVILLE, N.C. — This week, a coalition of conservation groups filed a lawsuit over glaring flaws in the Nantahala-Pisgah Forest Plan that put endangered forest bats at risk, following through on a previous 60-day Notice of Intent to Sue letter.

The Nantahala-Pisgah Forest Plan guides the long-term future of two of the nation’s most popular and beloved public lands. Together, the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests total more than a million acres, contain 1,500 miles of trails, and boast some of western North Carolina’s most iconic destinations. The forests are also major drivers of local economies — each year they attract millions of visitors looking to enjoy the area’s incredible diversity of wildlife.

But the newly published 2023 Forest Plan aims to quintuple the amount of logging in the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests and puts sensitive areas, including important habitat for endangered forest bats, on the chopping block. Instead of fully studying the impact this massive expansion in logging would have on federally protected bats, the Forest Service relied on incomplete and inaccurate information to downplay the increased risks posed by the new Plan. The agency even ignored data showing where bats are found on the national forests and wrongly assumed that forests outside of the bats’ ranges would make up for cutting their actual habitats.

The flawed analysis clearly violates the Endangered Species Act, which requires federal agencies to use the best available science when considering how their decisions might harm federally protected species.

The northern long-eared bat, Indiana bat, Virginia big-eared bat, and gray bat, which are the focus of this lawsuit, are teetering on the edge of extinction and the Forest Service has admitted that protecting their habitats in the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests is essential to the species’ survival. The bats are important pieces of these forests’ ecosystems and if they are unable to survive, there will be a domino effect throughout western North Carolina.

The Southern Environmental Law Center filed the case in federal district court for the Western District of North Carolina on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, MountainTrue, Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity. Statements from the groups are provided below:

“The amazing diversity of wildlife is a major part of what makes the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests so special. The Forest Service should be doing everything they can to protect the rare and endangered animals that call these forests home, not recklessly putting their habitats on the chopping block.” Sam Evans, Leader of SELC’s National Forests and Parks Program, said. “The Forest Service had a great opportunity to restore forests and protect endangered forest bats, but the agency refused – now we are suing.”

“The U.S. Forest Service is duty bound to conserve species listed under the Endangered Species Act,” said Ben Prater, Southeast Program Director for Defenders of Wildlife. “The revised Nantahala-Pisgah Forest Plan falls short of the obligation to prevent extinction and secure the habitat strongholds that these public lands provide for four critically endangered bat species. The Plan commits us to accelerated logging and road building for the next 20 years, putting these imperiled bats at even greater risk. This is simply unacceptable for endangered bats that so desperately need our best efforts to survive and recover.”

“Sustainable and economically viable commercial logging is not incompatible with protecting our endangered wildlife. Instead, the Forest Service ignored the best available science and withheld critical information from the Fish and Wildlife Service, which oversees endangered species protection. They forced our hand when they broke the law. Now, we’re going to court to protect wildlife and to win a more responsible Forest Management Plan,” Josh Kelly, Public Lands Field Biologist for MountainTrue, said.

“The Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests serve as anchor points for sensitive habitat that protects a marvelous array of plants and wildlife, which are increasingly under pressure. The revised Forest Plan misses the boat for protecting key wildlife 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.

“The Forest Service has prioritized logging over protecting some of the most endangered species on the planet,” said Will Harlan, Southeast Director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “These bats are on the brink of extinction, yet the Forest Service wants to aggressively increase logging in their forest habitats. It is another heartbreaking failure of the Forest Plan.”

Media Contacts:
Southern Environmental Law Center: Eric Hilt, 615-622-1199, ehilt@selctn.org
Defenders of Wildlife: Jay Petrequin, 202-772-0243, jpetrequin@defenders.org
MountainTrue: Karim Olaechea, 828-400-0768, karim@mountaintrue.org
Sierra Club: David Reid, 828-713-1607, daviddbreid@charter.net
Center for Biological Diversity: Will Harlan, 828-230-6818, wharlan@biologicaldiversity.org

###

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!

Email Madison County Commissioners

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!

Email Madison County Commissioners

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

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.

DONATE TODAY

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

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:

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

This broad definition raises three key concerns:

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.
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.
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.