The Pisgah Conservancy

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
475267129
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2017
Location
Brevard, NC, USA
Phone
7604815653
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Natural Resources Conservation and Protection

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,170,975
Expenses
$1,006,583
Assets
$1,067,023
Liabilities
$76,097

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOHN COTTINGHAM (PRESIDENT /)

People named in this filing

  • JOHN COTTINGHAM (PRESIDENT /)
  • KENT SATTERFIELD (TREASURER)
  • ALLEN MCMURTRY (SECRETARY)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The pisgah conservancy works in partnership with the u.s. Forest service to provide key resources for the benefit of pisgah and its visitors for generations to come.

What it reported doing in 2024

Supporting recreation - maintenance and construction - a primary goal of tpc will be to enhance the recreational experience of visitors to the pisgah while protecting the rich natural resources that attract them in the first place. Construction and maintenance of infrastructure, including trails, trailheads, buildings, monuments, parking lots, and other facilities will play a central role in accomplishing that goal. We work to maintain trail stability, reduce erosion and flow of sediments to waterways, prevent unacceptable trail impacts on wildlife and cultural resources, ensure that trails and trail shelters are not in disrepair and are supported by user groups and volunteers, make sure that they serve a meaningful purpose within a trail complex (or, if not, support their decommissioning), promote user safety (including through improved signage), help open and maintain approved scenic vistas, and contribute sustainable funding for the trails. We also seek to make improvements to trails and trailheads that are aesthetically pleasing. To the extent reasonably possible they should blend with the landscape and augment the natural beauty of the pisgah. Watershed improvement - through our trail maintenance and education programs we help reduce sediment runoff and keep trash from fouling our streams and rivers. When needed, we will take other steps to improve riparian health, opening clogged culverts, reducing damage from river access sites, and the like. Non-native invasive species eradication - we support the eradication of non-native invasive species from the pisgah in conjunction with the efforts of the forest service and other agencies. Removal of waste, litter, & graffiti - we support the forest service and organizations employed by the forest service in keeping the pisgah pristine. It is not acceptable to have waste, litter, and graffiti spoiling our campgrounds, trails, rivers, and forests. We plan to help through our education and volunteer activities to keep them clean and beautiful. Wildlife habitat improvement & restoration - we take steps to maintain and improve the environment for wildlife on the pisgah, in conjunction with the forest service and in accordance with its policies. Education - our goal is to enhance the awareness of individuals in local communities and users of the pisgah about its importance to our region and what is needed to protect it. We promote "leave-no-trace" principles, encouraging methods of trail usage that reduce damage to the environment. We will provide mechanisms both for educating users and for improving feedback to government agencies and volunteer trail maintainers on trail conditions.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 66.5%; rating input score 66
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.9 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 86
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 14%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.06; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 21.3% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 23.5% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 28.7% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58% of revenue deployed · 66.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $669K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 12/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 47/100.