Watershed Update, Fall 2005

Interstate 3 Road Notes

This past June the news broke of a proposal to build a new interstate highway known as I-3 through the Southern Appalachian Mountains. The proposed route could use the highway 441 corridor through the Chattooga watershed, while also crossing three national forests and skirting numerous federal wilderness areas, state parks, and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Since the proposal emerged, the Chattooga Conservancy has been working to defeat the unnecessary highway project, which is being led by congressional boosters including northeast Georgia’s own Representative Charlie Norwood. In August, pro-interstate members of congress moved the project forward by securing $1.3 million in the six-year federal transportation reauthorization bill for a preliminary study. However, both Georgia and North Carolina Departments of Transportation have declined to be the lead agency in letting the contract for the study report.

In the meantime, citizens from areas that would be affected by the proposed I-3 route, as well as those from distant points, have been mobilizing for the long battle to stop construction of this interstate highway. Here in the Chattooga watershed, the Rabun County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to oppose the routing and construction of I-3. The commissioners from White County and Habersham County (both in GA) have also issued formal statements against I-3. In western North Carolina, both state and national elected officials have expressed reservations about building a new interstate through the mountains. Representative Charles Taylor, known for his poor record on environmental issues and whose district includes the Chattooga River headwaters area in western North Carolina, said, “From a practical standpoint, it would be exceedingly expensive to build such a route through our mountains and I am concerned about the environmental effects such a project would carry.” In fact, each of the four states that would be affected by the proposed interstate now has its own coalition opposing the highway. The growing opposition to I-3 has also gained important media coverage and includes stories in publications such as Creative Loafing, Gainesville Times, and Atlanta Journal Constitution. National Public Radio also broadcasted a feature story in October where Conservancy Director Buzz Williams gave commentary against the proposed interstate. While we are encouraged by the growing number of citizens, civic organizations and elected officials who are stepping forward to fight the I-3 proposal, it’s clear that the funding for the interstate study report will allow the project to incubate and be nurtured by congressional allies and corporate interests. We urge our membership and their friends and neighbors to join the work to stop I-3, which will be long, difficult, and well worth the effort in order to protect our quality of life in the Southern Blue Ridge Mountains.

Chattooga Land Swap Controversy

A controversial land swap involving several important tracts within the Chattooga watershed was proposed in September by the supervisor of Georgia’s Chattahoochee National Forest. In the proposal, the Forest Service wants to trade about 166 acres of national forest land in Rabun County to Mr. Ed Poss, a well known Rabun County developer. The 166 aces would be exchanged for 97 acres that are contained in five separate tracts. The five tracts are presently owned by Mr. Poss and contain strategically located lands very important for increasing protection of the Chattooga River. For example, one parcel holds critical floodplain and riparian zones along Cliff Creek, which is a large tributary to the Chattooga River. Another two of the Poss-owned tracts are located next to the wild and scenic river corridor on the West Fork of the Chattooga River. The fifth tract is located on Yonah Mountain in White County, and all of this land would become part of the Chattahoochee National Forest system if the proposal moves forward.

What’s wrong with a deal that would yield so many benefits to the Chattooga River? The problem is with the flip side of the land swap, and concerns the 166-acre parcel that Mr. Poss seeks to acquire. This land is located within the Timpson Creek/Tallulah River watershed, and sits on the ridgeline and steep slopes of Tiger Mountain at altitudes of 2,200 feet and above. If traded, these steep slopes surely would be subdivided and intensely developed, as Poss happens to own adjoining land on the mountain that already has been developed as a residential area. Many property owners in the Tiger Mountain area have called the Chattooga Conservancy office offering harsh testimony against Mr. Poss’s record of protecting the environment during land development projects, and have urged the Conservancy to oppose the land swap in order to protect Timpson Creek and the surrounding view shed. In addition, the Rabun County Board of Commissioners has objected to the Poss land trade proposal because it runs counter to the mountain top protection guidelines in the county’s current draft land use plan. The Conservancy also has deep concerns over any existing land appraisals that would result in such wide ranging property values—166 acres for 97 acres—as in this case. In light of all of these factors, the Chattooga Conservancy regretfully opposes this attempt by the Forest Service to acquire critical lands within the Chattooga River watershed. Instead, we believe that our best option is to restore the federal Land & Water Conservation Fund so that priority tracts may be purchased outright from willing sellers.

White Bull Timber Sale Appeal Moves Forward

Following a scoping notice issued during the summertime, the Highlands Ranger District in the Chattooga River’s headwaters recently released an environmental assessment for their proposed White Bull Timber Sale. The assessment spells out the details of the timber sale, whose main objective is to produce more “early successional habitat” that is, by definition, land where trees are just 10 years old or younger. As per the environmental assessment, the Highlands District’s decision is to harvest trees in ten areas altogether totaling about 357 acres using mainly a “two-age” harvest method that would leave only 14-18 trees per acre. All of the trees slated for cutting are 75 years old or more, with a top age of 115 years old. Herbicides would be used to eliminate “undesirable species,” and 1 mile of road would be reconstructed—in an area where the existing road density already “far exceeds habitat objectives for eastern wild turkey and black bear” (as stated by the Forest Service). The Chattooga Conservancy has taken a close look at this proposed timber sale because the project targets trees that are either old growth and/or approaching old growth, and because the project area is located in the heart of the Chattooga River headwaters and encompasses numerous streams and sensitive habitats such as Chattooga Cliffs.

In spite of the Highlands District’s friendly reception of our concerns, the timber sale’s treatment of old growth remains unacceptable. At issue is the district’s non-compliance with the “old growth guidance” requirements contained in the Nantahala National Forest’s Land & Resource Management Plan (LRMP). In sum, the LRMP mandates that small, medium and large patches of old growth trees be designated at the watershed level, and disturbance in these areas be avoided. The Highlands District has been unable to supply adequate documentation of the size and location of old growth designations in the project area, which is necessary to comply with the overarching Nantahala Forest Plan. Furthermore, some of the proposed timber sale would cut down trees included in the Nantahala National Forest’s old growth inventory. The Chattooga Conservancy has joined with four more conservation organizations in filing an appeal of the Forest Service’s decision to implement the White Bull Timber Sale, with the aim of protecting stands of old growth for their conservation values, and for the use and enjoyment of the public.

New Public Land Logging Bill Moving Fast

Fast track congressional maneuvering to loosen environmental protections has become the norm in recent years. Recently, a new bill called the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act (H.R. 4200, or “Walden Bill”) to speed logging on public lands was proposed by representative Greg Walden (R-OR), who chairs the House Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health. This bill follows in the footsteps of the infamous “Salvage Logging Rider” of 1995, and essentially provides a greatly expedited process for carrying out logging projects after “natural disasters.”
Forest recovery is more effective when left to natural processes, as illustrated by the successful regeneration in Yellowstone National Park after the fires in 1989 (left) and nine years later (right). H.R. 4200 defines disaster events very broadly and includes drought, insect outbreak, storm damage, and fire. Under this bill, there is minimal opportunity for public involvement, and logging projects would be allowed to proceed with scant or no consideration of the environmental and cultural protections provided by the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, National Historic Preservation Act and other key legislation. Meanwhile, despite all of the bill’s green-washing in recent committee hearings, it cannot be defended as scientifically credible. For example, according to the best science available there is no ecological emergency to log forests after natural disasters, and forest recovery is more effective when left to natural processes. Finally, the Walden Bill would authorize the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to take money appropriated for fire management and spend it on salvage logging projects. This would rob funding for fire suppression and preparedness, hazardous fuel reduction, and community fire planning, effectively trading off community safety to produce more salvage timber sales. The Walden Bill could go to the house floor for a vote as early as the week of December 12th. Meanwhile, a reasonable alternative bill has been introduced by Representative Tom Udall (D-NM), called National Forests Rehabilitation and Recovery Act (H.R. 3973). The Udall bill would determine the best responses to natural disturbances on forest ecosystems based on science and community collaboration.