 |
||
 |
|
|
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
|
|||||
|
US Forest
Service Projects Tallulah Ranger District, Georgia Compartment 32: This proposed timber sale lies in the Warwoman Wildlife Management Area in between Sarah's Creek and Pounding Mill Creek, and consists of 225,000 board feet of mostly 80 to 100 year old pitch pine and white pine. Proposed access to the site would require .4 miles of "temporary" road construction, and construction of a "temporary log stringer bridge" across Hickory Bottoms Creek. Along with many concerned residents around the sale area, the CRWC opposes this project and believes the area would best be managed as an old growth stand. In September, we filed an appeal based on several well-researched contentions. Our primary contention is that the sale would result in a conversation of a predominantly hardwood stand into pine monoculture, which violates the Chattahoochee Forest Plan. We believe the old trees would best be managed as old growth (of which there is very little), to sustain wildlife and preserve the aesthetic values associated with undisturbed forest ecosystems. Our appeal was denied by the Forest Service. The "rubber-stamping" of the Tallulah District Ranger's decision is typical; however, we obtained legal counsel and have filed a lawsuit. Stay tuned. Andrew Pickens Ranger District, South Carolina Swafford Creek Timber Sale: The CRWC endorsed this proposed timber sale's "Alternative 4," which would result in the greatest economic return to Forest Service coffers (our tax dollars!) while implementing a large timber sale for thinning several stands of densely stocked pine plantations in the Swafford Creek area. However, the Forest Service chose another alternative that would re-build the section of the Old Fall Creek Road that lies right next to Swafford Creek, in it's "stream-side management zone." The agency's decision directly contradicts the recommendations of their own study of sedimentation sources in the Chattooga watershed, known as the "Van Lear Report," and also contradicts state Best Management Practices! The CRWC urges the agency to abide by it's own scientific research as well as save our tax dollars, re-issuing a reasonable Decision Notice to implement this project's "Alternative 4." Highlands, Tallulah and Andrew Pickens Ranger Districts(NC, GA and SC) Gypsy Moth Eradication Project: All of the Ranger Districts in the Chattooga watershed held public meetings to obtain input and defuse fears about their proposed Gypsy moth eradication program. Currently, the greatest concentration of moths is in Highlands area, with some detected in Georgia and South Carolina. The Gypsy moth is an invasive, non-native species most likely brought here accidentally by tourists or new residents from infested areas, which lie north of the Chattooga watershed. Gypsy moth caterpillars feed on more than 500 species of trees, shrubs and vines; their favored hosts are oak, apple, birch, basswood, witch hazel and willow. The caterpillars can completely defoliate their host, if left unchecked, and continual defoliation can result in a weakened tree that eventually will die. The Forest Service has proposed three alternatives ranging from "no action," mass trapping, and/or aerial spraying of large areas with "Btk." Btk is a biological insecticide toxic to Gypsy moths, as well as all other species of caterpillars, moths and butterflies. Another alternative would treat most areas with Btk, and treat sensitive areas with a gypsy moth specific treatment called "Gypchek," a biological insecticide consisting of a gypsy moth specific virus that disrupts mating. The CRWC is concerned that the eradication project lacks another alternative, which would treat areas with gypsy moth specific insecticide only. The blanket spraying of Btk could have a devastating effect on other beneficial species of the same genus. The Gypsy moth is a definite threat to our forest ecosystem; however, with the advanced mapping and trapping system the Forest Service has in place, the Gypsy moth specific treatment would be a more responsible alternative. Forest Service Planning Update & the Chattooga Conservation Plan Forest Service planners continue to develop eight "alternatives" to present in the draft document for our new Forest Plans, and this work may extend through the spring and summer of '99. Then, one alternative will be tentatively designated as "preferred." Public meetings will follow, with the agency's "preferred" alternative serving as the focus for discussions. In 1997, The CRWC submitted the "Chattooga Conservation Plan" to be considered for the watershed's new Forest Plans. The Chattooga Conservation Plan proposes managing these national forests according to principles of conservation biology, which would include timber harvesting, as well as increased protection for recreation resources, water quality, old growth, and native species of flora and fauna. We ask that CRWC members continue expressing support for the Chattooga Conservation Plan, as the planning process for our new Forest Plans unfolds. US Forest Service Denies Roadless Areas Recently, over 500 Forest Service employees signed a petition opposing logging in inventoried roadless areas. The petition was organized by Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, and was sent to Mike Dombeck, Chief of the agency. The petition stated the signatories were "deeply concerned about road management," and supported "protection of unroaded areas that are critically important as habitat for wildlife and fish, and as sources of clean water for our communities." While the agency's own employees concur that roadless areas need maximum protection, our US Forest Service Region 8 director, Ms. Elizabeth Estill, denied roadless area status for a list of qualified areas in the state of Georgia that were recommended by many citizens, environmental groups, and elected officials. Those areas are: Moccasin Creek, West Fork of Jack's River, Trail Ridge, Windy Gap, Cold Mountain, Gurley Branch and Three Forks. Successful Cost-Share Project with the Forest Service The CRWC and the Tallulah Ranger District recently completed a cost-share project that involved trail maintenance work, and re-building the Ammons Branch bridge and observation deck that is located on the Holcomb Creek trail. A grant from the Katherine John Murphy Foundation helped fund the project, by enabling the CRWC to pay for the costs of labor and transporting the building materials to the site. The Tallulah Ranger District provided the building materials. The CRWC welcomed this unique opportunity to work cooperatively with the Tallulah Ranger District. Native Grass Seed Collection This past fall, Dr. Bill Stringer (of Clemson University and the SC Native Plant Society) taught a group of volunteers how to identify native grasses, and led a field trip to collect a variety of native grass seeds. These attractive grasses, which include Big Blue Stem, Little Blue Stem, Purple Top, Indian Grass and Split-Beard Blue Stem will be used to re-seed the log landing at the CRWC's Brown Gap Timber Sale project. CRWC & NC Outward Bound Team Up for Community Service In the "dog days" of August, CRWC Director Buzz Williams and a group of Outward Bound students tackled the ominous job of removing a patch of Kudzu from the highway 76 bridge parking area at the Chattooga River. Kudzu is an extremely invasive non-native species that is very difficult to eradicate, and also requires persistent efforts to control its spread. The two-day event was organized by the CRWC as a cooperative project between the US Forest Service, Outward Bound and the CRWC. Thank you, North Carolina Outward Bound! Forestry "Certification" in the Appalachian Region On December 9th, 1998, I received a letter from the Mountain Association for Community Development (MACED), the organization that is hosting a working group to craft "certification" standards for sustainable forest products operations in the Appalachian Region. The first two sentences of the letter read, "After our meeting in September, we forwarded the draft standards to both certifying organizations in the United States (Scientific Certification Systems and Smartwood) for their review and comment. In their response, both organizations indicated that the standards as written would be difficult and costly to implement in Appalachia." This was the last straw for me. I had been working with the group for two years, trying to hammer out these so-called "standards." The group was selected to represent those with expertise in forestry, conservation, and the wood products industry. From the beginning, those of us who had been tagged as "environmentalists" had been given the cold shoulder by the "industry" folks. We were having a tough time getting even the most remote standards of specificity into the formal certification standards. The first draft of standards for sustainable forest products operations was so weak that two of us threatened to walk away. A firestorm of protest came from everywhere. Why were we quitting the group that had such an important mission? It seemed that everybody had jumped onto the certification bandwagon. Funders were generous in their support for certification, and nobody wanted to see the idea abandoned and the money dry up. So, I hung in there-until now. Sure, third party certification is a wonderful idea. But these standards were so weak in the first place that they were almost meaningless. I was convinced for a while that "moving in the right direction" was worth the compromise, to get the ball rolling. Now, I believe that the current proposed weakening of these already weak standards does great disservice to those who trust us for our judgement. I am now committed to exposing the whole mess. Let me give an example. At the meeting in September, we were trying to arrive at a standard for riparian zone protection. Given the overwhelming opposition, including some of "our own," we argued for a 25 foot no-cut buffer zone. Folks, this is minimal protection. The industry screamed that they must be given the flexibility to cut high quality trees growing right on the stream bank. We gave ground. We got them to agree to staying out of Outstanding Resource Waters, as defined by the state; however, in the proposed certification prescriptive standard, the private land manager could still cut high quality trees right on the stream bank. Okay, now even this minimum standard has been rejected. In other words: a land manager could still clear-cut, violate sensitive stream buffers, and follow a myriad of other "worst management practices." Consequently, "certification" appears to be simply a tool of the industry, for marketing to well-intentioned buyers of wood products, while continuing business as usual. The really sad part is that so many in the conservation business refuse to cry foul, in fear that the Foundation will cut them off. Well, try this on for size: If you go into a store and see a certification label on their wood products, boycott the product! In that sense, certification is good. It lets people know, so they can stay away. Bull Pen Road Update Concerned property owners who live along the scenic Bull Pen Road, which traverses
the headwaters of the Chattooga River above the Ellicott Rock Wilderness Area,
have submitted a new proposal for modifying a NC Department of Transportation
project to pave the road. The modifications would involve width reductions to
allow retention of trees, and a design speed of 30 km per hour (18.8 mph), which
is recommended for mountainous terrain. Lower speeds provide road engineers
the flexibility to preserve the rural character of the road. The CRWC has worked
with many of the area's residents in trying to resolve differences about the
paving project, and we believe the new proposal is a good compromise that addresses
community concerns while allowing paving in areas prone to ongoing erosion.
Citizens can write to the North Carolina Department of Transportation in support
of this proposal. The address is: 42 Riders Passed with the Omnibus Spending Budget Bill The 1999 federal budget battle ended with 42 riders incorporated amongst the language of the 2,000-plus page spending bill. All of the riders indicate that the backdoor strategy for passing controversial legislation, which should be outlawed, is alive and well. Most of the riders signal an "about face" for the progress of many of our nation's environmental laws. Once again, citizens will see our tax dollars used to support anti-environmental activities, rather than budget line items for conservation and protection of our natural resources. Although a few of the worst riders were modified to be more palatable, the remainder indicate cozy deals between certain Members of Congress and special interests unfriendly to environmental protection. For a copy of the riders and their sponsors, you may contact the CRWC office; or, check out the internet site for GREEN (Grassroots Environmental Effectiveness Network)/Defenders of Wildlife at: rfeather@defenders.org Note: As deliberations for the new FY 2000 federal budget will begin soon, please contact your Members of Congress and tell them that attaching riders to Spending Bills is not acceptable. How Did Your Senators and Representatives Score on Environmental Legislation? Every year the League of Conservation Voters compiles an "Environmental Scorecard," which presents the overall "pro" voting record for individual Members of Congress (MOC) on environmental issues. Below are the scores for all of the Chattooga River watershed's MOCs. For the scores of MOCs outside of the watershed, check the League of Conservation Voters' internet site at: www.lcv.com Congressmen: GA 9 Nathan Deal(R) 17% Senators: GA Paul Coverdell(R) 00% |