By Bryce Oates for The Daily Yonder. Broadcast version by Chance Dorland for North Carolina News Service, reporting for The Daily Yonder-Public News Service Collaboration.

In Western North Carolina's Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest, a committed group of outdoor recreation enthusiasts, conservationists, hunting and fishing groups, forest product businesses and forest ecology advocates has been working closely with the U.S. Forest Service for years to update the agency's regional forest management plan.

But the Nantahala Pisgah Forest Partnership now is formally objecting to the plan the agency issued earlier this year, saying that the plan will lead to "more conflict and less collaboration" in several categories.

"One of our main objections is that the plan doesn't abide by the collaborative goals we set for progress toward ecological, social and economic sustainability," said Hugh Irwin, a Partnership participant and Landscape Conservation Planner for The Wilderness Society, in an interview with the Daily Yonder. "This group has been working together for years to avoid potential conflicts between harvest, old-growth, recreational goals, the needs of wildlife and carbon storage in forests."

The USFS plan expands timber harvest into more than 100,000 acres of known old-growth, state-recognized Natural Heritage Natural Areas, and largely undeveloped, inaccessible wilderness tracts, Irwin and other conservationists stated in official comments on the plan as part of a formal objection.

The Partnership's alternative, which included consensus agreement from timber harvesters and loggers, would have protected those same areas from logging and development.

In many cases, these forest collaboratives like the Nantahala-Pisgah Forest Partnership have successfully prevented potential conflicts in rural communities between the timber industry, environmental advocates, public land employees and a growing rural outdoor-recreation economy.

Irwin said that input into the planning process generated more than 14,000 public comments, among the largest response rates ever for a forest management issue in the eastern United States. "The Nantahala-Pisgah is at the heart of the Southern Appalachians in a lot of ways. It's the center of the Southern Blue Ridge area of the region. It represents some of the most consolidated areas of National Forest and ownership in the East, and is also adjacent to Great Smoky Mountains National Park, another center of public lands and biodiversity," Irwin said, explaining why so many citizens commented on the plan.

Among the most critical objections to the agency's plan is the role of old-growth forests in storing carbon as a means of climate-change mitigation. "There is an explicit link between old-growth and carbon storage, between old-growth and adapting to climate change. One of the major ways we have carbon stored on the landscape is through our forests. When you do scientific carbon modeling, it's obvious that there are many, many times more carbon stored in mature and old-growth forests than there are in young forest," Irwin said.

Old-growth forest protection and management issues on federal lands are likely to see increasing attention in the coming months. On Earth Day, President Joe Biden issued an Executive Order on Strengthening the Nation's Forests, Communities, and Local Economies, committing to conserve and restore forests, including old-growth forests, their assessment and cataloging, and the analysis of mature and old-growth forest contributions to climate change protections.

Old-growth forest advocates largely cheered the White House order and attention to the issue.

"Just to hear the words 'old-growth forests' come out of the mouth of the President of the United States is a big thrill for us," said Dr. Joan Maloof, executive director and fdounder of the Old Growth Forest Network, in an email to Daily Yonder.

"Biden's Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is an important step in what we hope will be an eventual moratorium on any logging of old-growth forests from our federal forests. With their large trees, complex biodiversity and rich soils, these are the most crucial forests for carbon storage and they should be left untouched by the impacts of logging."

OGFN, along with 135 climate and natural resource experts, recently sent a letter making the case for federal old-growth forest protections. "There are so many reasons to protect our nation's oldest forests, from climate to biodiversity to beauty, we have been saying this for years, and we are thrilled to be making political progress toward this. It is a great Earth Day to celebrate, indeed," Maloof said.

Some climate-action advocates were not pleased with Biden's Earth Day actions.

"The Administration had a real opportunity to show leadership on Earth Day this year and failed miserably," said Jim Walsh, policy director of Food and Water Watch. "We will never offset our fossil-fuel usage by planting more trees. What we need to do is actually get to the root of the problem, and the major sources of emissions are coming from our energy and transportation systems. We've got to stop burning fossil fuels."

Walsh added that additional reductions in climate emissions can be had in the agricultural sector. "Factory farming is continuing to grow and thrive, producing significant amounts of greenhouse gases through giant livestock operations and massive fertilizer usage. We simply cannot phase out fossil fuels or cut agricultural pollution while the administration continues to pump billions of dollars in subsidies [to fossil fuels and industrial agriculture]. . . while ignoring the real work that needs to be done to address the climate crisis," Walsh said.

Back in North Carolina, Irwin hopes that the renewed attention to old-growth forest issues at the federal level can help to both address climate change and support needed management improvements to the local Nantahala-Pisgah forest region.

"I'm really excited about the president's order," Irwin said. "This is the most obvious climate mitigation we should be doing in our public forests - saving the existing old-growth, but also preserving the existing forests that are in great shape that could become old growth in the future."

When the Champlain Towers South collapsed in Surfside in 2021 taking 98 lives, it sent shock waves across South Florida. The tragedy has left lingering questions about the safety of coastal high-rises and whether the ground beneath them is as solid as once thought.

A new study by scientists from the University of Miami uncovered a troubling pattern: 35 buildings along the coastline from Miami Beach to Sunny Isles Beach are sinking, some at rates of up to eight centimeters in the past seven years.

Farzaneh Aziz Zanjani, a postdoctoral researcher at Washington University in St. Louis and the study's lead author, called the findings significant.

"We saw a correlation between the start of the subsidence and the nearby construction activities and we also found some correlation between the geology," Aziz Zanjani explained. "As we move from Sunny Isles to Miami Beach, the amount of subsidence is less."

Using satellite-based technology, the team tracked subtle ground movements which are otherwise invisible. Sunny Isles Beach, known for its luxury high-rises, showed the most dramatic rates of subsidence. The researchers believe the southern Florida geology with softer sandy layers within the limestone may be a factor.

For longtime residents, the study is unsettling. The idea some buildings may be sinking in a region already grappling with rising seas and stronger storms adds concerns about the future. Aziz Zanjani cautioned against jumping to conclusions.

"It doesn't necessarily mean that these buildings are unsafe," Aziz Zanjani pointed out. "This is beyond the scope of the study we had. It just shows that there is something happening under these buildings and it's related to geology and a lot more factors that we don't understand, and we need to do more research."

The research was motivated by the Surfside collapse but scientists found no evidence subsidence contributed to the tragedy. Still, Aziz Zanjani emphasized the study highlights the need for transparency and better monitoring of structural stability across the region. Aziz Zanjani's paper is open-access to the public.


get more stories like this via email

The Iowa Department of Natural Resources is training operators of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations on the safest ways to apply manure to their fields and what to do if a spill happens. It is part of the state's effort to help reduce accidents and protect the environment.

Iowa produces about 50 million tons of manure every year or enough to fertilize roughly 17% of the state's cropland.

Jeff Prier, senior environmental specialist for the Iowa DNR, said the state is teaching commercial and smaller operators how to apply it safely by following a required manure management plan.

"When they go out to do their application, they need to comply with any separation distances to residence, church, business, school, public use area, water sources," Prier outlined. "Dependent on their application method."

Manure from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations is known to pollute air and groundwater when it is not properly applied. Commercial operators said they are looking for more environmentally friendly ways to operate while trying to meet consumer demand for high quality meat. The deadline to apply for the DNR training is next week.

The DNR charges commercial operators $225 for a manure application permit and $175 for smaller operators. Prier noted it is a small price to avoid fines of between $3,000 and $5,000 for applying fertilizer without state certification.

"When they hear the numbers, they tend to open their eyes pretty big and think that's a pretty big number," Prier observed. "But the best reason is being in compliance with the rules and regulations and knowing what to do if there is a spill."

Prier, who has been overseeing training for 26 years, added given the amount of manure spread on Iowa farms every year, the number of spills is relatively small.


get more stories like this via email

By Ilana Newman for The Daily Yonder.
Broadcast version by Eric Galatas for Colorado News Connection for the Public News Service/Daily Yonder Collaboration

Recycling may be a given in metropolitan areas, but in many rural communities, it is more complicated. Without the infrastructure and funding to reach isolated homes outside of city centers, it falls on individuals to try and dispose of their waste responsibly. 

In Montezuma County, Colorado (population 26,248), the main issue with recycling is the remote location. Located in the far southwest corner of the state, the Four Corners region sits nearly 400 miles from Denver and Salt Lake City, and 250 miles from Albuquerque. 

The isolation means that there is no backhaul trucking to the region — which is when a commercial truck can bring a load on the return trip — which would cut costs dramatically for recycling in the area. 

However a new law signed into law in 2022 is supposed to increase access to recycling infrastructure in rural communities of Colorado in the coming years. The law wants to promote circular economies that cut down on waste and support recycling in rural parts of the state. A circular economy looks at the end of life of a product and helps it to be revitalized, recycled or reused instead of trashed. 

The Producer Responsibility Program for Statewide Recycling Act was signed into law in 2022 and a needs assessment was published in early 2023 to assess the current state of recycling services in Colorado. Currently, Circular Action Alliance, Colorado’s Producer Responsibility Organization is working to create a program plan which is due by February 1, 2025.

But many people have already been working on the ground before to manage trash and recycling for their communities. Take Colby Earley, superintendent of refuse and recycling for the City of Cortez, Colorado, as an example. “There’s no magical place called ‘away,’” he said. Once your waste leaves your home, it has to go somewhere. Many people are doing their best to make sure that waste is disposed of responsibly.

Recycling in Montezuma County happens in a few different ways. The City of Cortez (population 8,909) has a curbside pickup program, which is free for residents. But for the rest of the county, recycling is much trickier. 

In 2009, the nonprofit Four Corners Recycling Initiative stepped up to fill the gaps in recycling infrastructure for Montezuma County, with three dropoff bins around the county that, when full, get brought to the Montezuma County Landfill for processing. 

Casey Simpson, president of the board for Four Corners Recycling Initiative, said that the nonprofit was not designed to exist forever. It was created to get the grant to pay for the bins because the small towns of Dolores and Mancos did not have the funding to support municipal recycling programs. 

The Producer Responsibility program in Colorado will require companies to pay for the eventual recycling of their packaging which will fund recycling around the state. Other states like California, Oregon, Minnesota, and Maine are beginning to implement similar extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs. 

Now, Simpson is working in collaboration with the circular economy work that is happening on a state level because of the Producer Responsibility Program. One of the ways that recycling could be increased in rural areas would be to incentivize businesses that use recycled material. 

“If there was a plastic company that was taking plastic and turning it into rain gutters in Montezuma County, you would have a high demand for recycled plastics, and it would be really cheap because it would be more lucrative. You wouldn’t have to transport that plastic anywhere,” Simpson said. 

Transportation is currently a big factor for Montezuma County recycling. According to landfill manager Mel Jarmon, number one plastics are currently sent to Georgia to make carpet backing. He sends out a semi-load of these every year. Number two plastics he can only send out every 15-16 months, to California. He sends cardboard and electronic waste to Oklahoma. The landfill can only recycle what they can make money off of. 

“We’re a business just like anybody else in town. We’re not taxpayer-funded. We make our money on what we do here. If it’s so contaminated that we can’t at least break even or make a little bit, then we can’t do it,” Jarmon said.

For one load of e-waste sent to Oklahoma, Jarmon said it costs the landfill over ten thousand dollars. 

Glass is one thing that currently does not make financial sense to recycle. Jarmon said there’s no market for it close by. But Earley at the City of Cortez continues to collect it because he hopes there will someday be a market closer to the Four Corners. For now, Earley crushes the glass himself, mixes it with street sweepings, and sells it to the landfill to create cover for the landfill itself.

Earley said that it remains to be seen what impact the Producer Responsibility program will have on Montezuma County and Cortez, but he hopes it will make it easier and cheaper to recycle in the area.

Simpson has personal reasons to continue to fight for increased recycling in his rural community. “I love where I live and I don’t want to see it all turn into a landfill. I would much prefer seeing the wild and open spaces that we have and keep the landfills as small as possible.”


Ilana Newman wrote this article for The Daily Yonder.


get more stories like this via email