Get Your Gardening Gloves on Our New Native Planting Guide

Get Your Gardening Gloves on Our New Native Planting Guide

Get Your Gardening Gloves on Our New Native Planting Guide

MountainTrue has published a brand new guide to help you replace harmful non-native invasive plant species with native alternatives that benefit wild birds, hummingbirds, butterflies, and other wildlife. This beautifully designed and durable guide conveniently folds up to fit in your wallet — perfect for your next visit to the garden center or nursery. 

How can you get one? Guides are available for free at invasive plant workdays and events.

  1. Sign up to volunteer for one of our workdays or join us for a hike
  2. Meet us at a tabling event.
  3. Buy one for $5 and get it mailed to your door by filling out the form below.

Want free copies for your neighbors, gardening club, or organization? Contact bob@mountaintrue.org to arrange for one of our Resilient Forests staff to present to your group and bring free copies for all.

Want to purchase multiple copies for personal use? Contact members@mountaintrue.org.

2021 State of the River Reports

2021 State of the River Reports

2021 State of the River Reports

The 2021 State of the River Reports are finally here! In this blog, we’ll discuss the cleanliness and water quality of the French Broad, Broad and Green, and Watauga River watersheds. 

There are four sets of data that MountainTrue uses to formulate our water quality rankings for each stream, including:

  • E. coli data taken by MountainTrue’s riverkeepers and water quality monitoring volunteers.
  • Aquatic insect (a.k.a., benthic macroinvertebrate) data — part of the Stream Monitoring Information Exchange program (SMIE) — from the Environmental Quality Institute. Learn more about SMIE here
  • Chemical data — part of the Volunteer Water Information Network (VWIN) — from the Environmental Quality Institute.
  • Chemical, aquatic insect, fish, and bacteria data from the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ).

The data from testing sites in streams across each watershed are weighed, and each stream is given a letter grade. The grading scale is as follows: 

A (90-100): These streams have excellent water quality, low pollution levels, and healthy aquatic insect and fish populations.

B (80-89): These streams have good water quality but some impacts from pollution or development. The aquatic life and fish populations are relatively healthy.

C (70-79): These streams have average water quality. There are some concerns about pollution inputs and development impacts. Generally, aquatic life and fish populations are healthy but could become negatively impacted

D (60-69): These streams have below-average water quality. Pollution is a concern, and aquatic life and fish populations are not as healthy as they should be.

F (<60): These streams have poor water quality. Pollution levels are often high, and aquatic life and fish populations are impacted.

When comparing this year’s report to 2018’s report, it’s important to note that the way we process our water samples for E.coli at MountainTrue has changed. Up until 2018, we used an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-approved method using Coliscan Easygel. The results from this method were sometimes subjective and thus could be less accurate. In 2019, we switched to another EPA-approved protocol, using the Idexx system. Those results are quicker, more objective, and more accurate. This 2021 report includes E.coli data from both analysis methods (2018 Swim Guide data using Coliscan Easygel and 2019-2021 Swim Guide data using the Idexx system).

 Now, let’s review the findings from each of the three reports.

The state of the French Broad River Watershed:

 Of the 62 testing sites across the French Broad River Watershed, 16% received an A grade, 20.9% received a B grade, 29% received a C grade, 25.8% received a D grade, and 6% received an F grade. 

Overall, we observe a general decline in water quality. We attribute this to two primary factors — climate change and increasing construction and development throughout the watershed. Asheville and the surrounding region have experienced more frequent heavy rains in the last several years. Climate change in the Southern Blue Ridge region is expected to present random “boom and bust” patterns in precipitation, seen as floods and droughts in our region. This causes increased stormwater runoff from urban areas and agriculture operations, along with more sewer overflows and saturated septic fields surrounding failing septic systems. It also brings extra sediment into our waterways from construction sites and weak riverbanks, which can smother aquatic habitats, increase water temperature, and transport toxins into our rivers. All of this is happening during a period of unprecedented recreational growth on the French Broad. 

We documented the most dramatic change in Transylvania County, as the quality of the Upper French Broad decreased significantly. We attribute part of this decrease in quality to our transition to new, more accurate E.coli sampling protocols. However, that doesn’t explain the whole picture since water quality in other parts of the watershed didn’t drop as steeply. Notoriously the wettest county in the state, this drop in water quality is indicative of the effects that a changing climate coupled with increasing development is having on our region. 

On a positive note, the Nolichucky Watershed saw increased water quality with high grades in benthic and fish samples. Such pristine waters cannot be taken for granted, which is why we’re advocating for the Nolichucky River between Poplar, NC, and Erwin, TN, to be permanently protected with a Wild and Scenic Rivers designation.

Four Cleanest Streams:

  • Cataloochee Creek (A)
  • Cathey’s Creek (A)
  • Bent Creek (A)
  • South Toe (A)

Four Dirtiest Streams:

  • French Broad River – Pisgah Forest (F)
  • French Broad River – Etowah (F)
  • French Broad River – Hominy Creek (F)
  • French Broad River – Westfeldt (F)

 Learn more about the state of the French Broad River Watershed by reviewing last year’s Swim Guide results.

The state of the Broad and Green River watersheds: 

Of the 18 testing sites across the Broad and Green River watersheds, 27% received an A grade, 61% received a B grade, none received a C grade, 5.5% received a D grade (1 site), and 5.5% received an F grade (1 site). 

The Green River is the largest tributary of the Broad River in North Carolina, and its headwaters are largely protected. From its source in Henderson County to Lake Summit, the Upper Green is significantly impacted by agriculture, poor stream management practices, and lack of appropriate riparian buffers. 

The Green River flows into the Broad River near the Polk and Rutherford County Line. Major tributaries in the lower Green River Watershed include Walnut Creek from the north and White Oak Creek from the south. In a tale of two tributaries, the former touts excellent water quality and benefits from a large nature preserve while the latter suffers from degraded water quality as a result of development, land clearing, agriculture, and other intensive land use. 

By the time the First Broad reaches Shelby, it fails to meet EPA bacteria standards nearly 50% of the time. First Broad tributary Buffalo Creek has a history of high bacteria levels and feeds Moss Lake — Cleveland County’s only public reservoir and the water supply for Kings Mountain. In June 2020, NC DEQ documented Moss Lake’s first-ever harmful algal bloom (HAB) — this is a big concern for nearby residents, recreationists, and all who depend on Moss Lake for their drinking water supply. 

Overall, water quality in the most popular recreational area on the main stem of the Broad River is pretty good. The river is so large that contaminants of concern in the tributaries are diluted, and bacteria levels at the Broad River Greenway in Cleveland County almost always meet EPA standards for safe recreation.

Four Cleanest Streams:

  • First Broad River – North Fork (A)
  • Moss Lake (A)
  • North Pacolet River – Near Tryon (A)
  • Big Hungry River (A)

Four Dirtiest Streams:

  • Buffalo Creek – Above Moss Lake (F)
  • Sandy Run Creek (D)
  • Lower Broad River (B)
  • Upper Broad River (B)

Learn more about the state of the Broad and Green River watersheds by reviewing last year’s Swim Guide results.

The state of the Watauga River Watershed:

Of the 27 testing sites in the Watauga River Watershed, 37% received an A grade, 33% received a B grade, 11% received a C grade, 3.7% received a D grade (1 site), and 14.8% received an F grade. 

Overall, water quality is pretty good across the Watauga River Watershed, which originates at an elevation of 5,964 feet on the northern slopes of North Carolina’s Grandfather Mountain. The 78-mile-long Watauga River Basin includes the headwaters and tributaries of the Elk and Watauga Rivers, flowing northwest from North Carolina into Tennessee’s Holston and Tennessee Rivers before joining the Mississippi River and draining into the Gulf of Mexico. 

The Watauga River Watershed includes mountain bog wetlands that sit at the head of the basin and serve as an important water purification system and habitat for native wildlife. Nearly 90% of mountain bogs in North Carolina and throughout the Southeastern United States have been destroyed. The rapid elimination of mountain bogs poses a challenge for water quality and environmental conservation in the Watauga River Basin. 

Increases in development, plastic pollution, soil erosion, sedimentation, and excess nutrients are stressors on aquatic health and habitats. When combined, these stressors can significantly damage aquatic habitats and ecosystems. Much of the land disturbance in the basin takes place on steep mountain slopes, which are naturally vulnerable to soil erosion. As land is cleared due to urbanization and agriculture, rain and melting snow carry eroded sediments, pesticides, fertilizers, and road salt into the Watauga River. 

Fortunately, North Carolina has designated 18 miles along Boone’s Fork Creek for conservation to receive extra protection. More than half of the basin’s streams are classified as trout waters and thus require additional treatment at local wastewater treatment plants. In addition, 25-foot buffers of shrubs and trees must be maintained between trout streams and graded construction sites to filter runoff and prevent erosion.

Four Cleanest Streams: 

  • Watauga River @ Adam’s Apple Dr Bridge (A)
  • Watauga River @ Wilbur Dam Rd Bridge (A)
  • Watauga River @ Smalling Rd Bridge (A)
  • Elk River @ Lees-McRae Mill Pond (A)

Four Dirtiest Streams:

  • Watauga River @ Lover’s Lane (F)
  • Watauga River @ Hunter Bridge (F)
  • Watauga River @ Blevins Boat Ramp (F)
  • Watauga River @ Calloway Rd. Bridge (F)

 Learn more about the state of the Watauga River Watershed by reviewing last year’s Swim Guide results.

MountainTrue is Objecting to the Revised Forest Plan for the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forests. These are our Reasons.

MountainTrue is Objecting to the Revised Forest Plan for the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forests. These are our Reasons.

MountainTrue is Objecting to the Revised Forest Plan for the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forests. These are our Reasons.

After over eight years of work and more than 25,000 public comments, the United States Forest Service (USFS) has released its Revised Forest Plan for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. Comprised of a 360-page plan, a 738-page Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), and more than 1,000 pages of appendices to the FEIS, the Forest Plan provides a strategic framework for the next 20 years of management in the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. We offer this critique of the Revised Forest Plan so that our members and the general public can better understand the plan and its implications and why and on what grounds MountainTrue is filing formal objections to the plan.

MountainTrue is a longtime advocate for the sustainable management and conservation of Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. Our members led the successful campaign to stop the practice of clear-cutting in the forests, and our staff conducted the first inventory of old-growth stands in the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. MountainTrue’s Public Lands Team members are intimately involved in protecting these public lands: monitoring timber sales to ensure old-growth forests, water quality, and sensitive habitats are protected, restoring and protecting native habitats by treating invasive non-native plants and pests, and helping the Forest Service design and implement restoration projects.

Our views are influenced by our intimate history with these national forests, but also by our membership in the Nantahala-Pisgah Forest Partnership (Partnership) and our endorsement of the Forest Plan Alternative provided to the USFS by the Partnership in June 2020.

Protect Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests

Support our Resilient Lands program and help protect the places we share.

The Partnership consists of 27 active member and affiliate organizations representing conservation, economic development, forest products, recreation, water, and wildlife interest groups. The Partnership worked collaboratively to negotiate the outcomes presented in the Forest Plan Alternative. The Partnership hoped the heavily negotiated compromise would resolve the Draft Forest Plan’s key issues, streamline its implementation, and reduce future conflicts with the Forest Service and between user groups.

There were two key innovations in the Partnership’s Forest Plan Alternative. First, the group identified the largest broadly supported area for timber production — approximately 500,000 acres or nearly half of the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, where timbering could be done without impacting important recreation and conservation areas. The second innovation was the linking of objectives that are in tension with one another. For example, the Partnership Alternative required that roads and trails in a geographic area be well-maintained before the Forest Service constructed new ones, and base levels of timber harvest would have to be accomplished before any new Wilderness designation was sought. These innovative ideas would have incentivized collaboration.

The Partnership’s Forest Plan Alternative was a painstakingly negotiated road map that included maps and specific consensus recommendations that would have achieved:

  • the protection of old-growth stands, natural heritage natural areas, backcountry wilderness, and other sensitive recreation areas;
  • the protection, maintenance, and expansion of recreation areas and trail systems;
  • the creation of new young forest habitats at biologically significant levels for the benefit of wildlife and hunters alike;
  • and, at the same time, meet the Forest Service’s goals to increase timbering.

The Forest Services’ previous management plan suffers from some of the same issues as the proposed plan, namely inefficient management area allocation, and its implementation resulted in public controversy and conflict. Forest interests groups — such as timber companies, hunters, recreators, and conservationists — often perceived themselves to be in competition with one another when timber harvest was proposed in areas with multiple high values. The result was gridlock and damaged ecosystems: the Forest Service trampled on biologically sensitive areas without meeting their timbering goals, and forest interests groups blamed each other.

This was supposed to change with the 2012 Planning Rule adopted by Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, which sought to modernize forest management by addressing the “evolving scientific understanding of approaches to land management, changing social demands, and new challenges such as changing climate.”

At the core of the new planning rule was a commitment to a collaborative process that would ensure transparency and effective public participation. In its preamble, the Department of Agriculture states that the new rule “emphasizes providing meaningful opportunities for public participation early and throughout the planning process, increases the transparency of decision-making, and provides a platform for the Agency to work with the public and across boundaries with other land managers to identify and share information and inform planning.” In this spirit, the Nantahala-Pisgah Forest Partnership was established and painstakingly negotiated its consensus Plan Alternative.

Unfortunately, the Forest Service declined to adopt or even fully analyze the Partnership proposal as an alternative. Instead, the Forest Service has proposed a plan that offers vague assurances while placing important conservation areas in areas designed for timbering, expanding the road network without providing plans to maintain it, and establishing loopholes that undermine the protection of the conservation areas that are established by the plan. Many of our concerns relate to the potential for poorly conceived timber harvest to impact water quality, steep slopes, and areas critical for the preservation of biodiversity. We want to emphasize, though, that we fully support meeting the timber harvest goals agreed to by the Partnership, even going so far as to compromise in supporting rotational timber harvest in the consensus suitable timber base.

While there are some bright spots in the Forest Service’s Revised Plan — such as an increase in active fire management, recommendations for Wild and Scenic Rivers, and a recommitment to adequate streamside zones — they are far outweighed by its shortcomings:

Land Allocations Unnecessarily Prioritize Timber at the Expense of Conservation Areas

The Forest Services divides the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests’ 1.045 million acres into 17 unique management areas with specific management needs in the Revised Forest Plan. Because many ecological communities exist at various elevations, the Forest Service’s management approach must be specialized and place-based to support each management area’s abundant biodiversity.

Ensuring the efficacy of the Forest Service’s proposed place-based management area allocations was a primary objective of the Nantahala Pisgah Forest Partnership as it negotiated its Forest Plan Alternative. Instead of adopting these recommendations, the Forest Service puts the ecological well-being of more than 100,000 acres of important conservation areas at risk. These conservation areas include North Carolina Natural Heritage Areas, existing old-growth forests, and potential Wilderness Areas.

In the chart below, you will see that the Partnership identified 501,646 acres (or roughly half of the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forests) to be included in Matrix and Interface — the two management area designations where the emphasis is placed on timber harvesting/production. This is more than sufficient for the Forest Service to meet its goal of harvesting up to 3,200 acres per year.

*The difference in acreage is not significant
**While the Forest Service did not include a specific Management Area for the proposed Craggy Mountain National Scenic Area, it does recognize the scenic value of an approximately 10,000-acre core.
***The Middle Creek Research Natural Area was included in the Black Mountains Recommended Wilderness by the Partnership
****Special Interest Areas are largely composed of North Carolina Natural Heritage Natural Areas. The Partnership recommended that most of these areas either be allocated to management areas not suited for timber production or protected through Forest Plan Standards.

The Forest Service’s Revised Plan includes an additional 108,723 acres in their Matrix and Interface allocations. All but roughly 8,000 (7,823) acres come from conservation areas that include North Carolina Natural Heritage Areas, existing old-growth forests, and potential Wilderness Areas.

As it currently stands,  at least 12,000 acres of inventoried, existing old-growth forest, more than 45,000 acres of Natural Heritage Natural Areas ranked “High” to “Exceptional” by the NC Natural Heritage Program, and over 100,000 acres of important conservation areas have been designated for “regularly scheduled timber harvest” within the Matrix and Interface allocations. Not all of the important conservation values designated to suitable management areas will be proposed for logging, but some certainly will.

This regrettable management area allocation prioritizes commercial timber harvest projects that will negatively impact these important conservation areas, making timber harvest unnecessarily complicated, controversial, and damaging.

^ Return to Top

The Old-Growth Network Shell Game

Old-growth forests are vital for native species, scientific study, aesthetic and spiritual reasons, and are crucial for sequestering and storing carbon that would otherwise contribute to climate change. Before the industrial age, most of the forest in the Southern Blue Ridge were old-growth forests with complex structures and a vast diversity of tree sizes and ages. A wave of logging for national and international markets from 1880-1940 removed most of the original forest, and today only 10% of Nantahala and Pisgah and just 3% of the region as a whole are believed to be in old-growth condition. The analysis in the Revised Forest Plan acknowledged that approximately half of the tree canopy of Nantahala and Pisgah would have been in old-growth condition prior to European colonization.

The Forest Service has touted the Revised Plan as an improvement for old-growth forests because it designates approximately 265,000 acres for old-growth management (ROD p.22). While this is a big number, it’s important to note that all but 44,000 acres of old-growth designations are already protected at a higher level, such as by the Wilderness Act, the Inventoried Roadless Rule, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Research Natural Areas, and others. So, these are primarily designations of convenience — in the sense that they are already off-limits to logging rather than because of their outstanding values.

MountainTrue and our predecessor organization, the Western North Carolina Alliance, began mapping the old-growth forests of Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests in 1994. Through that work, we have documented over 90,000 acres of old-growth on Forest Service lands. We shared that inventory with the Forest Service, and unfortunately, over 12,000 acres of field-verified old-growth remains in timber production management areas, where the plan direction is to create young forest through timber harvest.

What’s more, 110,000 acres of the designated old-growth network in the plan is relatively young — less than 100 years old, according to Forest Service Records. The Forest Service claims that by designating middle-aged forests, they are ensuring the development of old-growth in the future, even though they are leaving much more worthy forests unprotected.

The network of old-growth designations begins to look like a shell game when you realize that thousands of acres of small patch old-growth designations made in the last 28 years were not included in the Revised Plan. The Forest Service seems to be setting up a precedent where they can open up more mature, lucrative forests that had previously been “designated old growth” to logging now, and only protect middle-aged forests until the next plan — when they could theoretically open up some of those more mature stands to timbering. Examples of this dynamic include very high-quality designations that were made and subsequently discarded in the Upper Santeelah and Shope Creek Projects but have now been allocated to a timber production management area.

Another major concern is that the Forest Service is providing project staff and district rangers with too much flexibility and decision-making power to cut the last remnants of existing old-growth forests under their stewardship. The Record of Decision states:

“The District Ranger, or the Forest Supervisor for multi-district projects, will retain the option of how to manage old trees, old stands, or old growth forest patches in the project itself, depending on the management area direction, site-specific conditions, and ecological needs in the area” (ROD pp. 44-45, emphasis added)

In recent years, we have provided input on numerous projects where the Forest Service proposed to cut existing old-growth forests and only relented under vigorous public pressure (see the Globe Project, Big Choga Project, Haystack Project, Harmon Den Project, Mossy Oak Project, Buck Project, and more).

Old growth takes centuries to develop, and the fact that the Forest Service discarded thousands of acres of designations from the last plan, so casually and without analysis or effort to include them in the new plan, needs to be corrected. And protecting existing old-growth forests should not be up to the discretion of Forest Service staff at the project level. It is crucial that the Forest Service not just manage for future old growth but also protect the old-growth forests we have now. To be meaningful, old-growth designations need to be nearly permanent.

^ Return to Top

The “such as, but not limited to” Timber Loophole

The USFS has historically focused on cutting and growing trees, emphasizing active forest management that prioritizes timber harvest revenues over economic activity and public benefits derived from outdoor recreation, wildlife, and clean water. This emphasis is reflected in the binary designation of Management Areas as either “suitable” or “unsuitable” for timber production:

TIM-DC-06 Lands identified as suitable for timber production have a regularly scheduled timber harvest program that contributes to forestwide desired conditions. Rotation ages needed to meet restoration and habitat objectives for young forest and future middle-aged mast producing forests are also compatible with the production of sawtimber and pulpwood products.

TIM-DC-07 Land identified as not suitable for timber production, but where timber harvesting could occur for other multiple-use purposes, has an irregular, unscheduled timber harvest program. Harvest meets management direction and desired conditions for the area while providing services and benefits to the public.  

(Forest Plan Page 91)

Now, let’s consider the Forest Plan’s definition of what is allowed in management areas classified as “not suitable for timber production.” The sections we have bolded create a loophole big enough to drive a logging truck through.

TIM-S-02 While timber harvest can occur on lands both suitable and not suitable for timber production, unless otherwise specified in management area direction, it can only occur on lands not suitable for timber production when it is determined that timber harvesting activities are needed for salvage or to protect multiple use values other than timber production, such as, but not limited to:

(1) addressing issues of public health or safety; 
(2) reducing hazardous fuels and managing wildfire; 
(3) restoring or maintaining a terrestrial or aquatic ecological system or wildlife habitat over time; 
(4) restoring or maintaining habitat for federally threatened and endangered animals or plants and SCC; 
(5) harvesting dead or dying trees due to fire, natural disturbances, insects, and disease; (6) restoring or maintaining recreation, scenery, or transportation management; 
(7) accommodating special use permits and outstanding rights; or
(8) for research, demonstration, or education purposes.

(Forest Plan page 91, Emphasis added)

The use of “such as, but not limited to” negates the purpose of the list that follows by allowing timbering for any reason that a ranger or project manager may contemplate in the future. As close observers of Nantahala and Pisgah National Forest know, every single timber sale in the past 40 years has purported to “restore or maintain terrestrial wildlife habitat.”

There is a common thread throughout the Forest Plan of delegating most decision-making to individual rangers at the project level with overly broad language. As it stands now, the binary distinction between what management areas are suitable and unsuitable for timber harvest is rendered moot by a set of criteria that neglects to exclude much of anything. Essentially, this makes no part of the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests off-limits to logging. For there to be a distinction between the suitable and unsuitable management areas, the Forest Service must strengthen this language.

^ Return to Top

Nantahala National Forest is Treated as a Second-class Forest by the Forest Service

Nantahala and Pisgah National Forest have equivalent acreages, physical features, biological values, and both are beloved by the public. Why then is the Forest Service proposing to manage the two forests so differently based on their management area allocations?

The USFS plan places approximately half (50.3%) of Pisgah National Forest in the Interface and Matrix designations, where active timber production is a primary or secondary goal. Nearly two-thirds of Nantahala National Forest, on the other hand, is open to rotational logging.

Of the two forests, Nantahala National Forest is certainly the more remote, and more of its acreage qualifies for the backcountry management allocation. Why then, is so much more land dedicated to timber production in Nantahala National Forest versus Pisgah National Forest? The USFS is proposing to only place 8.9% of the Nantahala National Forest in Backcountry designation (where logging is not supposed to happen) compared to an already modest 16.5% in Pisgah National Forest.

There is no analysis in the Forest Plan to support this discrepancy. We are concerned that this is the result of arbitrary decision making on the part of the Forest Service and, once again, a desire to delegate the decisions that should have been made by the Forest Plan, such as whether or not to cut old-growth forest, to District Rangers at the project level. If the Forest Service had adopted a more balanced plan, similar to the Partnership alternative, the land allocation would be more equitable for Nantahala National Forest.

^ Return to Top

Highly Rated Natural Heritage Natural Areas Remain Vulnerable to Timbering

Every state in the United States has a Department of Natural Heritage whose mission is to catalog and preserve the natural diversity within the state’s boundaries. North Carolina has had a better-than-average Natural Heritage Program, though at times, protecting natural resources has been politically controversial, despite being overwhelmingly popular.

North Carolina’s Natural Heritage Program has inventoried Natural Areas in 97 of the state’s 100 counties. Many of North Carolina’s very best Natural Areas are situated within the boundaries of Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. Unfortunately, the Forest Service has historically been ambivalent, at best, about these important areas. More recently, the Forest Service has acknowledged that some of these areas deserve special attention.

Natural Heritage Areas have a five-tiered ranking that categorizes natural values as General, Moderate, High, Very High, and Exceptional. In one of the bright spots of the Revised Plan, the Forest Service chose to place most of the acreage of Natural Heritage Areas rated as Exceptional in Special Interest Area Management. Unfortunately, over 45,000 acres of Natural Heritage Areas rated as High, Very High, and Exceptional were placed in timber production management areas, ensuring that some of these areas will continue to be proposed for timber sales. To reduce the potential for project-level conflict, the Forest Service should place these remaining highly rated natural areas in protected management areas.

^ Return to Top

Water Quality at Risk from Logging without Steep Slope Protections or Adequate Road Maintenance

The Forest Plan is a mixed bag when it comes to protecting water quality. On the positive side, the new plan maintains the 50’ buffers on intermittent streams and 100’ buffers on perennial streams introduced in 1994. In these areas, trees must be retained and heavy equipment is excluded to prevent erosion and sediment pollution from stormwater runoff.

On the other hand, the Forest Service is proposing to remove the prohibition on ground-based logging for steep slopes, providing only vague assurances that new technology would prevent harm. In the previous plan, logging on slopes over 40% required aerial logging systems that lifted trees off the ground and negated the need to build logging roads on steep slopes. The revised plan proposes to remove this requirement. There may be new technologies that would be as protective as aerial logging methods, but the plan should continue to prohibit the creation of harvest roads on steep slopes and have stronger standards as to how logging methods on steep slopes are chosen.

Finally, sedimentation from forest roads is the primary threat to water quality and aquatic wildlife, and the Revised Plan should have made meaningful progress towards decreasing sedimentation from roads. Instead, the Forest Service is projecting 6 miles of road construction annually to meet Tier 1 timber harvest goals and an additional 4 miles to meet Tier 2 goals, while declining to produce a plan for meaningfully maintaining the 2,200 miles of roads already under Forest Service management. It would be more logical and more protective of water quality to require road maintenance goals from Tier 1 to be met before moving to Tier 2 levels of road building.

^ Return to Top

Forest Service Drew Management Areas Around Controversial Projects

If the forest plans are the map given to Forest Service personnel to manage the land and water, then the projects proposed by Forest Service staff are the vehicles to get to the destination or the “desired conditions” identified in the Forest Plan. For the past 40 years, the Forest Service has struggled to propose vegetation management projects within the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests that have been broadly acceptable to timber, recreation, and conservation interest groups alike.

Such controversial projects can damage important conservation areas, as occurred in the Pisgah Ridge Natural Heritage Area in the Courthouse Creek Project. In Courthouse Creek, logging on steep slopes caused severe erosion that led to a landslide during Tropical Storm Fred and turned Courthouse Creek the color of chocolate milk during the average rainy season of 2017. Such projects also tend to be less efficient and require a large amount of planning and analysis time. Only one-third of the approved timber harvesting at Courthouse Creek was ever accomplished.

Erosion and logging at Courthouse Creek. Photos by Nicholas Holshouser.

There is a spate of recent projects that were approved under the old forest plan but will be implemented under the new plan. Some like the Twelve Mile Project had consensus support and approved over 1,800 acres of timber harvest and wildlife habitat while protecting old growth and Natural Heritage Natural Areas. Others, like Buck and Southside, were very controversial because they proposed logging old growth, areas inventoried as potentially suitable for Wilderness Designation, and Natural Heritage Natural Areas, while also building miles of roads across steep slopes. Some projects, like Crossover and Lickstone, are still in development but have a high potential for controversy because of these same issues.

Reviewing the Forest Plan, it appears that the Forest Service has drawn management area boundaries in all of those projects that would support the controversial steep slope logging and excessive road building (8 miles) of Buck, the old-growth logging of Southside, and potential logging of old-growth and backcountry areas in Crossover. We believe that the Forest Service should not be building the new plan around poorly designed old projects, but instead, create a new plan that is consistent in its application and leads to more broadly supported and efficient projects.

^ Return to Top

Curious Omissions Among the Designations

Wilderness Designations

There are several categories of designation requiring an act of Congress that the Forest Plan addresses. The first is Wilderness recommendation. The designation of new Wilderness areas under the Wilderness Act of 1964 requires an act of Congress and the Signature of the President. The first step in that journey is the recommendation of suitable areas by the Forest Service during the forest planning process.

The Revised Plan allocates just over 49,000 acres in 14 areas to Recommended Wilderness. Compared to the current Forest Plan, that is an increase of 33,000 acres. While over 100,000 acres were both suitable and had collaborative support, the Revised Plan offers more for those that appreciate Wilderness than any time since the RARE II process of the late 1970s.

Despite being an improvement over the old plan, there are some curious omissions in the Revised Plan’s designations and some strange logic in those omissions. For example, the Black Mountains were disqualified because you can see sights and sounds of human development from the area, but Mackey Mountain was included despite I-40 being in the foreground view and very audible. A portion of the Chunky Gal is recommended for addition to Southern Nantahala Wilderness, but about 1,000 acres of the Inventoried Roadless Area was not recommended — again due to claims that sound from US Hwy 64 disqualified the area. The truth is that all of these areas are suitable for Wilderness recommendation, and the Forest Service should acknowledge that, regardless of whether they decide to recommend them for designation.

Wild & Scenic Rivers

The second major type of designation is the identification of streams eligible for protection under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The primary benefit of Wild and Scenic designation is to keep streams free-flowing and free of impoundments. There are three categories of Wild & Scenic Eligibility: recreational, scenic, and wild. Recreational is the least protective category, and Wild is the most protective. All three categories prevent eligible river segments from being impacted by dams once they are Congressionally designated.

The old plan recognizes 10 streams as eligible for Wild and Scenic designation, and the Revised Plan adds another 8 streams to that total. We were disappointed that the Forest Service did not find the North Fork of the French Broad, Panthertown Creek, and Greenland Creek eligible, and we believe the Forest Service should correct that error when the plan is finalized.

National Scenic Areas

The final designation opportunity in the Revised Plan is National Scenic Area (NSA) designation for the Craggy Mountains. This is perhaps the designation most likely to succeed in the next year because the people and government of Buncombe County support the protection of the area. Senators Burr and Tillis have indicated that they will not support federal designation without the endorsement of local governments. That box has been checked for the Craggy National Scenic Area.

The Forest Service has also designated over 10,000 acres of Big Ivy as a Forest Scenic Area. There is some ambiguity about the final boundaries of the Craggy NSA, as Buncombe County has endorsed a 15,000-acre area composed of all Forest Service Lands in the Craggy Mountains, while Forest Service has excluded Coxcombe Mountain, Snowball Mountain, Ox Creek, and Shope Creek from their recognition and placed them into areas where timber production is an emphasis. MountainTrue believes this should be corrected when the plan is finalized, and all these areas should be allocated to more protective management such as Ecological Interest Areas.

^ Return to Top

Sensitive Wildlife Could Be Impacted by Faulty Assumptions

The Revised Forest Plan has laudable goals for wildlife and wildlife habitat. The Plan emphasizes the creation of young forest and open woods for the wildlife that benefit from those conditions, and also includes strategies and standards for protecting more disturbance-sensitive species like green salamanders, bats, northern flying squirrels, and dozens of rare habitats that support an abundance of rare species.

The new plan aims to create more of this young forest through timber harvesting, but the top levels of allowable harvest, while being three to four times higher than current levels, are no higher than what is allowed in the old plan. As discussed above, we believe that the timber harvest goals will be counterproductive until the Forest Service has consistent direction regarding Natural Heritage Natural Areas, old-growth forests, and potential Wilderness Areas that are currently allocated to timber production. As far as strategies for increasing timber harvest, we fail to see how the Revised Plan is an improvement over the status quo.

Perhaps the biggest flaw in the plan content on wildlife is that the Final Environmental Impact Statement fails to show any benefits or costs to the management strategies and objectives in the Forest Plan. As a rhetorical question, why manage the forest for wildlife at all if there will be no benefits? We suspect that there will be costs and benefits for the management the Forest Service is proposing and that the Environmental Analysis is either too flawed or lacks the sensitivity needed to detect the changes that will occur. We also suspect that increased levels of young forest habitat would benefit associated species and cause declines in disturbance-sensitive species, but the Final Environmental Impact Statement shows neither trend. In general, we have serious concerns that the Forest Service is relying on flawed assumptions and inaccurate analysis for many of the decisions (and in some cases, the absence of a decision) in the Revised Forest Plan.

On the other side of the coin are dozens of rare species, many of them unique to this region, that the Forest Service analyzes with a coarse filter and without plan content to protect them. In particular, disturbance-sensitive species reliant on closed-canopy forest, old trees, and down wood are presumed by the Forest Service to be well protected by the 40% of the Forest that will remain lightly managed in this Forest Plan, again, partly due to faulty modeling, and partly due to not making assumptions from the models (for example, that old-growth forests will not be cut), management standards, or guidelines in the plan. So the Forest Service is assuming that old-growth forest-associated wildlife will not be impacted because the models assume no old growth will be cut. All the while, the Forest Service is asserting the right to cut old-growth forest in the plan.

The Forest Service should address these issues by improving their environmental analysis, and making the assumptions in their analysis translate into management strategies.

^ Return to Top

Recreation: Improvements to Trail Access but Too Restrictive to Other Activities

The Forest Service’s Revised Plan is an improvement over its own Draft Plan in terms of trail access. Two of the potential draft alternatives severely limited the potential to expand the existing trail network. Limiting opportunities for new trails would have been draconian considering the increasing demand for outdoor recreation, the already high use of Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, and the social and economic benefits of outdoor recreation to our region.

The Revised Plan allows existing user-created trails and new construction to be added to the official trail system. However, the addition of any trails requires collaborative planning processes that consider supply and demand issues and have committed resources for long-term maintenance.

Overly restrictive limitations on other recreation resources — like rock climbing — lack the specificity needed to protect those resources and provide equitable public access. The Forest Service did not adopt Partnership’s suggestions regarding limitations on rock climbing as a recreation resource, nor is there a process for rock climbers or other recreationists to engage in collaborative management like there is for trail users.

The Forest Service should treat all user groups as potential partners and extend opportunities for collaborative management in the text of the plan to all interest groups.

^ Return to Top

Support Healthy, Resilient Forests

MountainTrue’s Public Lands Team tracks and analyzes every timber project in the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests to protect old-growth forests, sensitive habitats, and rare species. We help protect the places we share to ensure they stay healthy and beautiful for future generations. Support this work by making a donation to MountainTrue.

Raleigh Report: With District Maps in Place, We Preview the Primary Election

Raleigh Report: With District Maps in Place, We Preview the Primary Election

Raleigh Report: With District Maps in Place, We Preview the Primary Election

Now that the months-long political mud wrestling match known as redistricting is over, it’s a good time to take a look at what the state’s new legislative and congressional maps mean for Western North Carolina. 

We won’t go over the legislature’s – and the courts’ – torturous path to finalizing districts maps. Suffice to say that the process reached its inglorious end with decisions by both the NC and US Supreme Courts. The House and Senate maps will remain in place for a decade, but the congressional map will be redrawn next year because it was imposed by a court rather than adopted by the legislature. 

By far, most media attention has focused on the adventures of Congressman Madison Cawthorn, who has been a politician in search of a district in which to run. With congressional districts finally settled, Cawthorn decided to run in his current district in the state’s westernmost – and GOP-leaning – counties, where he faces a crowded field of other Republicans in the primary, including state Senator Chuck Edwards and Michele Woodhouse, both of Henderson County. 

Whatever his prospects in the congressional race, Edwards’ departure from the legislature has to be judged as a loss for WNC conservation interests. A staunch conservative, Edwards is the chair of a key Senate appropriations committee and has used his influence to direct millions of dollars in conservation, restoration, and water quality protection to our region. We will miss his strong work in Raleigh. 

While the new maps have altered many legislative districts, they have not produced many newly competitive districts. One of the exceptions is state Senate District 47, where two GOP Senate incumbents – Ralph Hise and Deanna Ballard – will battle it out in the primary for the right to run in the general election. This newly drawn district includes Alleghany, Ashe, Avery, Caldwell, Haywood, Madison, Mitchell, Watauga, and Yancey counties. The district leans strongly Republican, so the primary winner is very likely to win the general election. Both Hise and Ballard are strong legislators who chair important committees in the Senate, so this race is being billed as a sort of clash of Senate titans. 

Aside from Ballard vs. Hise, there is surprisingly little political drama left in the WNC primary season in either the GOP or Democratic races. Rep. Tim Moffit will run unopposed in the GOP primary to fill Edwards’ seat in the state Senate in a district that leans heavily Republican. In the Senate’s far west District 50, incumbent GOP legislator Kevin Corbin is unopposed in the primary for this conservative district. Barring an upset, Corbin will also return to the legislature in 2023. 

Buncombe incumbent Senator (and MountainTrue co-director) Julie Mayfield faces a primary challenge from Asheville City Councilwoman Sandra Kilgore and two-time candidate in other races, Taylon Breeden, in a district that leans heavily Democratic. 

In House District 93, which includes Ashe and Watauga counties, incumbent GOP Rep. Ray Pickett and Democratic challenger Ben Massey are both running unopposed in the primary. This seat has changed hands between the two parties in recent years and is expected to be a bit of a dogfight again this fall. 

In House District 113, two incumbent Republicans – Rep. Jake Johnson of Polk County and Rep. David Rogers of Rutherford County – face off in the GOP primary for another conservative-leaning district. 

In House District 114, which includes a portion of Buncombe County, Eric Ager is running unopposed in the Democratic primary to replace his father John, who is retiring his liberal-leaning House seat. 

In another Buncombe House seat, District 115, Lindsey Prather will run unopposed in the Democratic primary for the right to replace retiring Democratic Rep. Brian Turner in a district that favors Democrats. 

And in Buncombe House 116, Democrat Caleb Rudow will run unopposed to hold the Democratic-leaning House seat he was appointed to when long-time Buncombe Rep. Susan Fisher retired in January. 

Over in Henderson County, two Republicans – Jennifer Balkcom and Dennis Justice – are running to fill Tim Moffit’s House seat, which is likely to remain in GOP control. 

Farther west, incumbent GOP House members Mark Pless (District 118) and Mike Clampitt (District 119) are running unopposed in Republican primaries. Barring unexpected upsets in the general election, both are likely to return to the legislature in these safely conservative districts. Likewise, incumbent GOP House member Karl Gillespie in District 120 is running unopposed in the primary and will have a free ride in the general election as no Democrat filed to run in the opposing party’s primary. 

For a complete list of House races and candidates, click here. Senate races and candidates can be found here. 

So the upshot is that in WNC, most of our delegation will remain solidly Republican, with most incumbents likely to return. Known exceptions are our primary GOP environmental champion, Sen. Chuck Edwards, either Sen. Ralph Hise or Sen. Deanna Ballard, and either Rep. Jake Johnson or Rep. David Rogers. Democrats are likely to win all of the Buncombe County legislative races, with new members in all of the county’s three House seats. 

Again, most of these races will be won in the primary, so we will be back in touch after May 17 to report on these races again.

Henderson County Volunteer Spotlight: Fred Thompson

Henderson County Volunteer Spotlight: Fred Thompson

Henderson County Volunteer Spotlight: Fred Thompson

“MountainTrue’s Volunteer Water Information Network (VWIN) has some pretty terrific volunteers” says Lucy Butler, co-leader of the VWIN volunteer base in MountainTrue’s Southern Region. This month, we’re spotlighting the creative and much-appreciated work of Fred Thompson, a MountainTrue VWIN volunteer in Henderson County.

Over the years, Fred’s craftsmanship skills and dedicated volunteerism have made MountainTrue’s participation in the VWIN program much more efficient! 

About VWIN

The Volunteer Water Information Network (VWIN) program is a volunteer-based network that has been conducting chemical surface water monitoring in WNC streams on a monthly basis since 1990. VWIN is a major program of the Environmental Quality Institute (EQI), a longtime partner of MountainTrue. Learn more about/get involved with EQI’s VWIN work here, and click here to learn more about MountainTrue’s 30-year partnership with EQI.

Water samples taken by VWIN volunteers help us to better understand water chemistry trends in Western North Carolina and identify and quantify sources of pollution in our region’s watersheds. VWIN water samples are stored in individual bottles and many samples can be collected along riverbanks at various sampling sites. However, a few of our VWIN sites are easier to sample from atop a bridge. This “bridgetop” sampling involves the securing of sample bottles to a box which is then submerged, filled with water, and hauled back up to the top of the bridge.

Several years ago, Fred built steel boxes that allow VWIN volunteers to easily load and unload sample bottles, minimizing the possibility of samples escaping and floating downstream. When we asked him to build more boxes, he found that the price of steel had skyrocketed and his usual sources were not discarding their steel scraps… So he started experimenting with six inch PVC pipe, eventually constructing multiple efficient bridge testing boxes through many hours of trial and error. Fred and his friend, cabinetmaker Thomas Kline, fabricated a series of wooden tooling (molds) to form softened PVC plastic into Fred’s desired box shape. Fred and his wife, Andrea, then used their home oven to soften the plastic. Finally, Fred used concrete over reinforcement wire to reach the requisite five pounds (the bridge boxes must be weighted so they can properly submerge and collect water samples).

Fred’s innovative new bridge testing boxes work perfectly! 

In addition to the bridge boxes (pictured right), Fred and Thomas have developed prototypes for improved VWIN sample transport boxes. Each month, VWIN volunteer coordinators for Henderson County transport 37 boxes — each full of water samples from Henderson, Transylvania, and Polk Counties — to EQI’s lab in Black Mountain and return them to the volunteer pickup location. The weight and bulk of the current transport boxes makes this an arduous task, so plans are in place to replace the boxes with lighter, smaller, and more easily handled boxes.

About Fred

Fred moved to Henderson County in 1993 and retired in 2019. He worked as a maintenance supervisor at NC State and has an Associate’s Degree in Ceramic Engineering. He and Andrea volunteer at the Park at Flat Rock where they maintain the park’s 22 bluebird houses. 

Pictured: Andrea and Fred Thompson

Many thanks to Fred, Andrea, and Thomas for improving the VWIN program and supporting efficient, reliable citizen science in Western North Carolina!

MountainTrue FAQ: SMIE Volunteering

MountainTrue FAQ: SMIE Volunteering

MountainTrue FAQ: SMIE Volunteering

Let’s chat bugs! Last December on the MountainTrue blog, we considered What’s Bugging Our Rivers. Today, we’ll take a deeper dive into our participation in the Stream Monitoring Information Exchange (SMIE) program and our partnership with the Environmental Quality Institute (EQI), based in Black Mountain, NC. We’ll split this blog post into two main sections: we’ll start with a summary of the SMIE program and our partnership with EQI and conclude with a brief SMIE volunteer FAQ.  

About SMIE

SMIE is a collaborative, volunteer-based biological water quality monitoring program that analyzes aquatic macroinvertebrate population data from across Western North Carolina (WNC). The SMIE program was developed in 2004 by Clean Water for North Carolina (CWFNC) (as creative lead), EQIHaywood Waterways AssociationRiverlink, and two of MountainTrue’s predecessor organizations: the Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO) and the WNC Alliance. 

 Benthic macroinvertebrates — including aquatic stream bottom-dwelling insects like stoneflies, caddisflies, hellgrammites, and more — are excellent indicators of the comprehensive water quality of a stream because they have limited mobility, specific habitat requirements, and distinct pollution tolerance levels. You could say that aquatic macroinvertebrates are artists — they paint a revealing picture of the overall health of aquatic ecosystems. As the metaphorical art historians of the SMIE world, experts at EQI and their partner organizations analyze the physical cues left by these tiny yet essential aquatic insect artists. The expert analyses of SMIE data across multiple watersheds help us better understand our region’s vibrant water quality history and present reality. 

 About EQI and MountainTrue’s partnership

 Our partnership began in 1992 when EQI partnered with ECO — one of MountainTrue’s three predecessor organizations — to conduct surface water monitoring in Henderson County as part of EQI’s *Volunteer Water Information Network (VWIN) program. Thirty years (and a whole lot of water quality testing) later, MountainTrue continues to collect and deliver monthly water quality samples to EQI, and we now provide EQI with our SMIE data for analysis. 

One of EQI’s primary goals is to increase public awareness about regional water quality and environmental issues across WNC. Involving the public in the SMIE data collection process allows EQI and MountainTrue to significantly expand our sampling capacity and add credibility to citizen science programs.

EQI currently coordinates SMIE sampling at 49 sites in five WNC counties (Buncombe, Madison, Haywood, Mitchell, and Yancy). EQI also provides technical support for its partner organizations using the SMIE protocol throughout WNC and Eastern TN. As an EQI partner, MountainTrue coordinates SMIE volunteer training and sampling in Henderson, Polk, and Cleveland counties. SMIE sampling efforts occur each spring and fall, typically in April and October.

Check out EQI’s Water Quality Map to see sampling locations and review data from the past 30 years of water quality monitoring!

*One of EQI’s major programs, VWIN is a volunteer-based network that has been conducting chemical surface water monitoring in WNC streams on a monthly basis since 1990. Learn more about and get involved with EQI’s VWIN work here

 Why our partnership matters

The North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NC DWR) monitors water quality throughout the state, prioritizing testing sites with existing and pressing issues. The agency’s minimal number of testing sites and low sampling frequency have both continued to decrease over time due to lack of capacity — this means that water quality in many WNC streams is not regularly monitored… That’s where we come in! 

The SMIE program monitors the water quality of urban, rural, and forested streams in priority WNC watersheds and tributaries without existing watershed plans or projects. By consistently monitoring WNC streams, EQI and MountainTrue can assess long-term water quality trends that highlight the interrelated relationship between the health of local waterways and resident aquatic insect populations. 

This comprehensive knowledge provides valuable insights into the effects of *pollution in our local waterways. Essentially, WNC streams with higher pollution levels have fewer aquatic insects and are less hospitable to other aquatic and riparian species, like native fish, salamanders, and streamside plants. Alternatively, the presence of pollution-sensitive aquatic insect species indicates cleaner, healthier streams with greater biodiversity. 

*The most common types of pollution include:

  • Stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces like parking lots, roads, buildings, and other structures. Littered trash is frequently swept up in the flow of running stormwater, quickly making its way into local waterways.   
  • Bacteria and chemical pollution, often caused by sewer and septic system overflows, agriculture runoff, and industrial effluent. 
  • Sediment pollution, often caused by erosion of stream banks, some animal agriculture practices, and runoff from construction sites and plowed fields. 
  • Wastewater human and animal waste, industrial effluent, and trash. 

SMIE Volunteer FAQ 

Q: Why should folks want to volunteer for SMIE?

It’s a super fun way to connect with the environment and your community through citizen science and shared experience. SMIE volunteers get hands-on experience with a unique and essential facet of environmentalism (aquatic insects!) and make meaningful contributions to environmental protection!

Q: What does a typical SMIE volunteer day look like?

MountainTrue or EQI’s SMIE experts meet volunteers at our sampling sites and provide all the supplies needed for a day of aquatic insect sampling: nets, buckets, filters, ice cube trays, forceps, datasheets, and waterproof waders. A group leader accompanies each volunteer group, completing all aquatic insect identification and ensuring proper SMIE protocol is followed. The data collected by SMIE volunteers is recorded and sent back to the EQI or MountainTrue labs, where it’s entered into our long-term database. 

In total, sampling an SMIE site takes between one and a half to three hours. Volunteers are expected to sample at least two SMIE sites each spring and fall season. We collect our samples using the three collection methods detailed in the SMIE protocol: 

Kick Net Collection

One volunteer holds the large net while another kicks just upstream. The kicking disturbs the stream bed, dislodging aquatic insects from the sediment and off of rocks before they’re picked up in the stream’s flow and caught in the net. SMIE protocol calls for two volunteers to collect macroinvertebrates from the net for 20 minutes.

Leaf Pack Collection

Fallen leaves are an important source of nutrients and shelter for many aquatic insects. As the leaves move downstream, they collect on rocks, fallen sticks and logs, and along stream banks — as they decompose, insects move in. Volunteers fill a bucket with decomposing leaves and sort through the leaf pack to find insects. Volunteers can also collect insects with a strainer used to filter water from the soggy leaves. Volunteers typically spend five minutes collecting insects from the leaf pack. 

Visual Collection

A volunteer wades through the stream and examines various microhabitats for aquatic insects. Insects are typically found under rocks, along river banks where tree roots interact with the stream, and in leaf packs. They can also be found by filtering stream water through a strainer.

Q: Do I have to be trained to volunteer? Where can I sign up for a training/when is the next one? 

In order to ensure our data is reliable, the SMIE program requires all volunteers to be trained. EQI and MountainTrue host SMIE training workshops twice per year in the fall and spring. Training workshops are broken into morning and afternoon sessions. Morning sessions are education-focused — volunteers learn about the basics of stream ecology, aquatic insect identification, SMIE protocol, and the history and importance of the SMIE program and water quality monitoring in general. Afternoon streamside sessions offer volunteers the chance to put their newfound knowledge to the test — volunteers are trained in all collection methods and get hands-on practice with aquatic insect identification. 

Additionally, EQI offers group leader training to especially passionate SMIE volunteers. Group leaders receive additional training in SMIE protocol and insect identification. 

Both EQI and MountainTrue are hosting SMIE training workshops this spring! MountainTrue will be training volunteers for Henderson and Polk counties on March 5. EQI will be training volunteers for Buncombe, Madison, Haywood, Mitchell, and Yancy counties on April 2. Stay tuned for updates on upcoming training workshops in MountainTrue’s High Country Region! 

 

Have other SMIE questions? Feel free to reach out to our SMIE experts and SMIE Volunteer FAQ co-authors: