Lawsuit alleges Forest Service timber sale is illegal
Logging in Project Area, Oct. 29, 2025.
From lawsuit
The Center for Biological Diversity and MountainTrue are suing the federal government, seeking to ensure laws are followed where they claim the U.S. Forest Service is skirting regulations in allowing the logging of a 135-acre parcel in the Nolichucky Gorge near the small Poplar community on the border between Yancey and Mitchell counties.
MountainTrue Deputy Director and General Counsel Gray Jernigan claimed in a letter issued to the public that the Forest Service has operated under a “long-expired” emergency order tied to Hurricane Helene and is doing so without informing the public or completing the required environmental review.
“The project was so secretive that we wouldn’t even have known this part of Pisgah National Forest was being logged without being informed by local residents,” the letter reads.
That letter also quotes MountainTrue’s Resilient Forests Program Director Josh Kelly.
“We asked the Forest Service for specifics about the project, and they refused, while also providing false information. We feel we have no other recourse but to sue to protect the outstanding qualities of the Nolichucky Gorge,” Kelly said in the letter.
The suit, filed in federal district court Nov. 6, claims that the Forest Service failed to prepare proper paperwork and comply with the requirements of the Pisgah Forest Plan under the National Forest Management Act. In September, the area, which includes a beloved boat launch, was closed to the public, and then the Forest Service entered into a contract with a company to harvest the timber.
Related Items
Over 1,000 acres protected in Haywood County
Forest bathing: slow down and immerse yourself
Lost apples of the Smokies: Rediscovering the park’s apple harvest heritage
Professional craft students to host holiday craft sale
“Logging has already begun,” the suit posits.
The Poplar timber sale is located at the head of the Nolichucky River Gorge, which the suit notes is “one of the deepest, wildest and most spectacular river gorges in the Southeast.” The Pisgah Forest Plan manages most of the gorge and according to the suit significant portions of the timber sale area. The forest plan limits logging and logging roads.
Following the damage and deforestation wrought by Hurricane Helene in September of last year, in February, the Pisgah National Forest received authorization from the Forest Service to conduct emergency salvage logging in project areas. The stated concern is that the downed trees would serve as fuel for a wildfire; however, the suit claims that the agency didn’t seek approval to conduct salvage logging in this instance and further notes that only a small portion of the 135 acres in question suffered significant storm damage.
According to the suit, the Forest Service noticed a “previously overlooked” opportunity to conduct salvage logging in the project area because of a temporary bridge already installed by CSX transportation for the purpose of rebuilding a railroad track through the gorge.
“However, the window of opportunity was short; permit conditions set by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers required the bridge to be removed by November 4, 2025,” the suit reads. “As a result, the Forest Service moved ahead with the new Project without first complying with public notice and environmental review requirements.”
The suit claims that the Forest Service is in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires federal agencies to “promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man.”
The suit cites other cases. One claims that NEPA “ensures that the agency and the public are aware of the environmental consequences of proposed projects.” Another case notes that NEPA has two aims.
“First, [NEPA] places upon an agency the obligation to consider every significant aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action,” the suit reads. “Second, it ensures that the agency will inform the public that it has indeed considered environmental concerns in its decision-making process.”
According to NEPA, if a proposal for major federal action “has a reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human environment,” the agency “shall issue” a “detailed” environmental impact statement.
Furthermore, the suit claims that under the National Forest Management Act, forest plans are used to provide a framework for how areas will be managed with considerations of specific social, economic and ecological conditions that are “concise, measurable and time-specific statement[s] of a desired rate of progress toward a desired condition or conditions.”
Overlay of Project Area with U.S. Forest Service Southern Research Station Mapping of Hurricane Helene Damage. From lawsuit
The Poplar timber sale is governed by the 2023 Pisgah National Forest Plan, which includes standards and guidelines that apply to the sale at the center of the suit. The suit highlights two relevant guidelines provided by the plan.
One mandates that when a state-designated Natural Heritage Natural Area is present within a project area, “coordination should occur with the [North Carolina] Natural Heritage Program early during project development to discuss the unique ecological values present, their locations, the representativeness and quality of these values, and potential management treatments.” Another provides that project-level field surveys for rare species must be conducted ahead of projects such as the Poplar timber sale.
The suit repeatedly raises the issue that the public wasn’t properly informed of the sale. On Sept. 11, the area of the Poplar timber sale was ordered to be closed with only the vague explanation that it weas “for the protection of public health and safety following Tropical Storm Helene.” On Sept. 18, the Forest Service posted the closure order on its website but did not otherwise circulate the closure order to interested members of the public. According to the suit, “Although the Forest Service’s website includes a page for active ‘Timber Sales,’ the Forest Service did not update this page or otherwise publicly post any timber sale documents, contracts, or environmental review documents for the Poplar timber sale.”
“In mid-October, local community members encountered the closure order at the
Poplar Boat Launch adjacent to the Project area. These members informed Plaintiffs about rumors of imminent logging on or about October 21, 2025,” the suit reads.
On Oct. 23, the Forest Service confirmed for the plaintiffs that the area was closed for salvage logging operations. By the time plaintiffs’ counsel visited the project area on the morning of Oct. 29, logging and road construction had already begun, the suit says.
The plaintiffs asked the Forest Service to limit logging, road construction and the spread of invasive plants, lest there be litigation. However, the suit claims that the defendants failed to even respond to that request. Now, the plaintiffs are concerned there will be long-term harm to the area.
“These harms are significant and irreparable because they will permanently change the ecological trajectory of the Project area,” it claims. “Rather than recovering naturally, the area will be marred by roads and infestations of invasive plants, rare species will be permanently displaced.”
On Nov. 7, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order that describes what transpired shortly after the suit was made official.
“About an hour after the complaint was filed, counsel for Conservation Groups sent the complaint by email to agency representatives, attorneys in the Department of Agriculture’s Office of the General Counsel and the Civil Chief Assistant United States Attorney for the Asheville Division of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Western North Carolina, Gil Beck.”
The emails to the USDA OFC bounced back, apparently due to employees being furloughed amid the ongoing federal government shutdown. However, Beck did engage and informed the plaintiffs’ counsel that a USDOJ attorney would handle the case.
At about 1 p.m. on Nov. 7, the attorneys representing the plaintiffs were informed by opposing counsel that the “government continues to believe that the Project is covered by the prior emergency authorization, and could not agree to Conservation Groups’ requested changes.”
Attached to an addendum in support of the motion for the TRO are affidavits from individuals supporting the plaintiffs. One was provided by a whitewater rafting guide who was disappointed by the logging operation, which caused the closure of the Poplar Boat Launch and delayed reconstruction of a boat ramp. The guide stated his concern that because the government has been shut down, there aren’t “on-the-ground oversight of timber harvest operations.”
The affidavit claims the boat launch has been monopolized by “private, extractive” industries for over a year now — basically since Helene — between the railroad company and now the logging operation.
“The closure has taken the boating community back to the 1970s without a designated or alternative access point,” the affidavit reads. “I am concerned this project will drag on and delay the planned repairs to the boat launch, further delaying public access to the river. Without any documentation on scope of work, best practices, remediation or a general timeline, the public continues to be held in the dark about when public access will be restored.”
In another affidavit, a local resident decried the traffic of logging trucks in contrast to the typical light, local traffic.
“Previously, the road was only frequented by locals and those accessing the Poplar Boat Launch, which is supposed to be a public amenity for recreation,” it reads. “Now, it has been closed to the public and given over to industry … To access the river, people now cross over the railroad tracks and risk their safety. It appears that the only people respecting the order are the whitewater boaters.”
That affidavit expresses concern about long-term impacts of the timber sale on the landscape, considering the loggers are cutting switchbacks into the hillside for roads, something this affiant also claims has been kept from the public. Those roads may cause a risk of landslides, he opined.
“The Poplar timber sale is already damaging the scenic value around my property, and if the timber sale causes long-term damage to the area, my personal and professional interests will be irreparably harmed,” the affidavit reads.
MountainTrue and The Center for Biological Diversity are requesting that the court directs the Forest Service to halt the timber sale until they “have complied with the law.” The suit claims that logging began as of Oct. 29 and may be finished as soon as Nov. 17. The plaintiffs are seeking to delay the logging to “ensure that the Forest Service follows the basic requirements of the law — including notice and analysis requirements and the provisions of its own forest plan — during a response that will continue for years, if not decades.”
The motion for the temporary restraining order will be heard in federal court the morning of Nov. 12.
