Watershed Update, Spring 2007

What’s Up With I-3?

Please write Senators Isakson and Chambliss and ask that they zero-out the money appropriated for this ill-conceived highway proposal, and direct funds instead to programs that are desperately needed.

As you may recall, in August 2004 Congress appropriated $2.4 million to study the feasibility of building an interstate highway from the port of Savannah, Georgia, to Knoxville, Tennessee. Georgia’s Senators Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss introduced the bill asking for the interstate highway feasibility study, giving reasons that such a highway was needed to honor the 3rd Infantry Division known as the “Tip of the Spear” during the second Iraq War; to promote the efficient movement of troops between military bases during an emergency; to promote regional commerce; and, for safety. One possible route for “I-3” would be right through the Chattooga River watershed along the highway 441 corridor.

Yet, the fact remains that an interstate highway is not needed in the north Georgia mountains. First, there are no military bases in the north Georgia mountains. Second, our economy in the region is dependent on protecting our natural resources, not promoting highway-spawned “sprawl.” Third, there is no way to build a “safe” highway in the mountains without massive earth moving that would also cause massive siltation into our rivers and streams. Finally, in a time when the war in Iraq is sapping money for schools, natural resource management, health care, and alternative energy initiatives, we simply do not need to spend $2.4 million to study a highway that we do not want or need.

Now, and since the end of 2005, the expensive “feasibility study” for I-3 has been buried in the bureaucracy of the Federal Highway Administration, and a growing number of groups and individuals opposed to this unjustified expenditure of taxpayer’s dollars have continued to spread the word about the I-3 interstate highway proposal. Meanwhile, due to chronic federal transportation budget shortfalls, the federal government recently asked the state of Georgia to return a share of federal highway funding to the U. S. Treasury. This rescission of transportation funding was required by congress in a recent appropriations bill, and highlights the need to stop wasting limited transportation dollars on studying unwanted and unneeded highway projects.

Please write Senators Isakson and Chambliss and ask that they zero-out the money appropriated for this ill-conceived highway proposal, and direct funds instead to programs that are desperately needed. It’s that simple: if enough people make the demand, they must listen. Also, please take the time to participate in the upcoming special elections to replace the late Charlie Norwood, congressman from northeast Georgia’s 10th district and sponsor of the I-3 legislation. The special election is scheduled for mid-June, with probable run-offs a month later. Learn about the candidate’s position on I-3, share your opinion about the unneeded highway and the environmental destruction it would bring, and vote accordingly!

Stekoa Creek & Sewage Public Hearing

On April 12, 2007, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division held a public hearing at the Rabun County Courthouse regarding a proposal by the City of Clayton to expand their wastewater treatment facility from .8 million gallons per day to 2 million gallons per day. This meeting was granted in response to numerous requests from citizens concerned about the urgent need to fix the City of Clayton’s aged and leaking sewage collection system, which is the main source of fecal coliform pollution going into Stekoa Creek, a major polluted tributary to the Chattooga River. A vocal crowd attended the hearing and nearly all comments called for repairing and replacing Clayton’s sewer system as the first priority for cleaning up Stekoa Creek. The outcry to withhold the sewage plant expansion permit until Clayton agrees to fix their sewage collection system was prompted by two years of water quality data gathered by the Chattooga Conservancy that clearly shows that the 60+ year old sewage collection infrastructure in Clayton is the primary source of Stekoa Creek’s pollution problems.

During this two-year period of water monitoring in Stekoa Creek and its tributaries, the Conservancy has found four major sewage leaks. Also, consider this: Of the 192 water samples taken in the Stekoa Creek watershed during 2006, 73% were above safe contact levels, and 29% were in excess of 1,000 fecal colonies (fecal coliform concentrations above 200 colonies per 100 milliliters of water are considered unsafe for contact). Some results from water samples at multiple locations throughout the sampling period showed fecal coliform levels 40 times higher than the acceptable limits.

Concerning the proposed sewage plant expansion, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency guidelines clearly state that the effectiveness of any wastewater treatment facility is directly dependent on the integrity of its sewage collection system as related to the system’s infiltration and exfiltration problems (i.e., leaks). Please write the Georgia EPD today and ask that Clayton be required to fix problems with the city’s sewage collection system before the wastewater treatment plant expansion is granted. Send to: Director, GA EPD, 2 MLK Dr., Ste. 1152 SE, Floyd Towers East, Atlanta, GA 30354.

Chattooga Headwaters Controversy

The ongoing fight spearheaded by American Whitewater (AW) to open the headwaters of the Chattooga River for unlimited boating use continues to defy logic. Readers may remember the start of the current controversy, which heated up when the chief of the Forest Service upheld AW’s 2004 appeal of the Sumter National Forest Management Plan, which excludes boating in the headwaters above the highway 28 bridge. The chief directed local Forest Service officials to revisit the question of not allowing boating in the headwaters. Yet on May 18, 2006, AW bolted in the initial phases of this analysis, and sued the Forest Service alleging that the “boater ban” was in violation of the Wilderness Act and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. AW’s lawsuit asked for “immediate and unlimited use” of the Chattooga headwaters. Judge William O’Kelly ruled in October 2006 that the suit had no merit, and sent AW back to participate in the Forest Service’s ongoing analysis to settle the issue. AW vowed to appeal O’Kelly’s decision but then suddenly dropped their lawsuit altogether, claiming that they were just trying to force the Forest Service to listen to their concerns. Wasn’t that what the Forest Service was doing when they initiated the analysis?

In the meantime, the Forest Service conducted “boater trials” this past winter to determine which water levels could be suitable for boating and also would not substantially interfere with other user groups. The Forest Service chose two panels of participants to make these important decisions: an “expert” boater panel made up of primarily AW people including the organization’s vice president, access coordinator, and several prominent AW members, and a panel of fly fishermen, many of whom support the “boater ban.” But what about everybody else who uses the headwaters area? Hardly a wink or nod from the Forest Service.

Surprise! The panel of boaters recommended that the upper Chattooga was prime for creek boating and could be run at even lower levels, regardless that during the boater trials the expert fishing team was still catching fish at moderately high water levels (2.5 feet at the highway 76 gauge). The boater panel made this recommendation for low water runs, even though for several months the AW web site recommended that the limits for running the upper Chattooga was from 2.6 feet to 4.0 feet on the highway 76 gauge. (Note: The “Upper Chattooga River Visitor Capacity Analysis Plan” prepared by the Forest Service states the following concern regarding possible bias by expert panel members: “… panelists reporting different demand or flow estimates than they actually believe because they think it will serve their advocacy interests in the analysis…”. Self fulfilling prophesy?)

What next? The Forest Service has just announced a new round of public meetings and workshops about the issue of boating in the Chattooga headwaters. The Forest Service’s website has this schedule, and can be found at: www.fs.fed.us/r8/fms/forest/projects/updatejune.shtml It is important for people to participate in this next round, and support the Chattooga Conservancy’s position of limited use of the headwaters to protect this unique resource.

Our take: AW is a powerful special interest that has the idea that Washington lobbyists, frivolous lawsuits, and slick maneuvering with the facts is more important than an unbiased approach to fact finding and balanced use to protect the resource. The Forest Service is washing its hands of the issue by hiring high dollar consultants to do conflict resolution between warring factions with almost total disregard to other users, biological analyses, impacts, and critical access issues.

Global Warming Heats Up

On May 4, 2007, the 2,000 scientists that make up the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a report intended for use by world leaders as a road map to check global warming trends. The panel emphasized the necessity for immediate implementation of key recommendations to stem atmospheric warming linked to human activity. The delegates to the IPCC that issued the report from Bangkok, Thailand, also made it very clear that unless steps were taken to stem global warming, disastrous consequences would almost certainly follow. The report followed two previous reports by the panel that documented the rise in global temperature and predicted the likely results including rising ocean temperatures, species extinction, mass human migration from affected areas, and unstable weather patters that would cause drought in some areas and flooding in others. It also warned of dire economic consequences, dwindling food supplies, and increased disease. Recommendations to combat global warming include increased fuel efficiency, biofuel development and increased use of solar and wind power. The panel suggested that we need to implement these measures by 2015, or face the consequences.