Upper Chattooga water is polluted. How?!?!?
I spent some quality time reading select sections of the “Final Draft EA: Managing Recreation Uses On The Upper Chattooga River” document and came across a jaw dropping fact the Forest Service won’t address. If you care to read the EA passage, I’ve included it at the end of this post. For those with a short attention span, allow me to paraphrase:
Open your Final Draft EA to page 22 (PDF page 27) under “Water Quality.” Its no surprise that most of the water quality in the Upper Chattooga is excellent. However, the East Fork of the Chattooga is considered “impaired” (i.e. polluted). How does this happen in a Wild and Scenic River with a small drainage area and very limited exposure to civilization’s impact?
Look at “Table 3.1-2. Upper Chattooga Stream Reaches of Concern” the pollution on the East Fork of the Chattooga River starts “DOWNSTREAM OF FISH HATCHERY” and the pollutant and source are “Unknown”. UNKNOWN!?!?
What the Forest Service does know, is the introduction of non-native aquatic species artificially attracts thousands of anglers to the headwaters annually. The Forest Service knows, by their sheer numbers, anglers stress the roads and trails in the Upper Chattooga. The Forest Service knows, by their chosen sport, anglers trample and destroy the banks and beds of the river. The Forest Service knows, anglers are responsible for over 19 miles of unauthorized trails in the wilderness. The Forest Service knows, the non-native trout compete with the native Eastern Brook Trout for food, habitat, eat their fry and have made them extinct on all but a few tributaries. To the Forest Service, this is acceptable, in order to artificially create and maintain an “outstanding fishery”. This, the Forest Service knows.
Yet they can’t figure out what is polluting the East Fork of the Chattooga River “DOWNSTREAM OF FISH HATCHERY!?!?
It seems that with the millions spent on studies and reports to develop a rationale for banning or severely restricting boating in the headwaters, they might have dedicated a few pennies to find out what was polluting the river “DOWNSTREAM OF FISH HATCHERY.”
What I know is, boating was banned WITHOUT an impact study and environmentally damaging fishing is supported and receives preferential treatment WITHOUT an impact study.
What the Forest Service also knows and chooses to ignore is:
From “Capacity and Conflict Report” bottom of page 16 (PDF page 20): “The WSR (wild and scenic river) Act provides explicit direction that river values (free-flow, water quality, and OR (Outstanding & Remarkable) values) must be protected and, to the extent possible, enhanced. The WSR anticipates (and the case studies show) that specific OR values and the actions used to protect them vary from river to river based on existing and desired conditions, so professional judgments about impacts, standards, and management actions are appropriate and important. These judgments are best understood if they are made “transparent.”
What I know is, the Forest Service’s “professional judgement” is as impaired by the TU lobbiest as the water quality of the East Fork.
If you haven’t written a second or third comment to the FS about the draft EA, you have until August 18th. Maybe in your next comment you could suggest where they might look for the pollution source “DOWNSTREAM OF FISH HATCHERY”.
Below is the “Water Quality” section of the EA.
If we can’t boat it, at least SAVE it!
Back of the bus everyone!
Rob Maxwell
Atlanta, GA
***********************************
Page 22 (PDF page 27) of Final Draft EA: Managing Recreation Uses on the Upper Chattooga River
Water Quality
The Chattooga River and its tributaries have various classifications developed by each state
water quality agency, in addition to the federally designated wild and scenic river status. The
predominant beneficial use for the Chattooga and its tributaries is fishing, with waters designated
as primary trout waters above Big Bend Falls. Below Big Bend Falls, a cool to warm temperature
transition results in changes to the trout community.
Sediment is the primary pollutant of concern in forested watersheds in the Southeast (Coats and
Miller, 1981). Excess fine sediment in stream systems fills interstitial space between larger rocks
and reduces the amount of available fish and macroinvertebrate habitat. Many of the streams on
the Chattooga River watershed have excess stored sediment from past land management
activities in addition to the high erosive potential of micaceous and alluvial soils in the region.
Unpaved dirt and gravel roads are the primary contributors to stream sedimentation in the
Chattooga River watershed; only 2.6% of sediment was attributed to recreational uses (Van Lear
et al. 1995). However, data collection for this report did not specifically focus on pinpointing
sediment from trails and campsites and did not estimate what portion of the road use and impacts
were related to recreational use. Further, recreation uses have increased since 1995; therefore,
recreation impacts to water quality in the Chattooga watershed are likely higher today. Managing
impacts from these uses can improve water quality in the Chattooga watershed.
Under the Clean Water Act, if a stream does not have high enough water quality to meet its
designated beneficial uses (fishing in the case of the Chattooga), it is listed as either “partially
supporting” or “not supporting” based on the presence of certain pollutants. Streams that are not
supporting or partially supporting their designated beneficial uses are added to the 303d list of
impaired streams. As part of the Georgia Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) settlement
agreement, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency conducted an assessment of water quality
conditions for streams in the Chattooga watershed from 1997 - 1999. Results of the assessment
were used to determine if any stream reaches in Georgia were impaired due to sediment
concerns. Stream reaches in South Carolina and North Carolina were also sampled and results
were forwarded to the appropriate state water quality agency for further action.
Stream reaches of concern that are located at least in part in the upper Chattooga Corridor are
East Fork, Norton Mill Creek, Fowler Creek, and Ammons Branch. Table 3.1-2 describes the
beneficial use status and pollutants of concern for these stream reaches.
Table 3.1-2. Upper Chattooga stream reaches of concern
Use Support Status Pollutant of Concern
South Carolina
Stream:
East Fork Chattooga River
(downstream of fish hatchery)
Use Support Status:
Partial Support
Pollutant of Concern:
Unknown
BoaterTalk 
