Opponents to the construction of an interstate through the far western tip of North Carolina en route from Savannah to Knoxville have had a hard time deciphering how the planning process for the project will work.

The interstate — dubbed Interstate 3 — is being pushed by Georgia congressmen as a way to improve the status of the port of Savannah and relieve traffic congestion in Atlanta. A bill initially calling for a $400,000 study of the proposed interstate tripled overnight during transportation budget talks to a total of $1.3 million in the final transportation bill.

Opponents claim the interstate would ruin the cultural fabric of rural communities and the environment, while supporters claim it will bring needed economic development to Clay, Cherokee and Graham counties. A meeting last month in Murphy attracted 300 people, most against the interstate judging by the “Stop I-3” T-shirts, hats and stickers and nearly unanimous applause that followed negative comments made about the project.

Discussion largely focused on how the planning process will work and ways to get involved. Many were hopeful that the government would conduct a feasibility study of a proposed route, a formal process that invovles a steering committee and public input.

But it now appears that may not be the case.

The bill simply calls for “a report that describes the steps and estimated funding necessary to designate and construct” an interstate.

“The point is to find out what would it take to build an interstate,” said John Stone, aide to Georgia Rep. Charlie Norwood, the leading champion of the proposed interstate.

Opponents say the approach is backwards.

“All of this seems to presume this highway is a good idea and there is a need to build it. That of course bypasses the whole idea of whether this is good idea at all,” Lou Lanwermeyer said at the interstate meeting.

But Stone said in a phone interview that the discussion over whether to build an interstate will come later.

“We need something so we can say ‘OK, here is the proposal,’ so we have something we can talk about,” Stone said. “Before you say whether we should build anything you have to figure out what we are building.”

N.C. Sen. John Snow, D-Murphy, who was at the meeting, said he didn’t need to see sample routes to decide whether the area needs an interstate.

“There’s no question in my mind that we don’t need this road,” said Snow, sporting a Stop I-3 sticker on his lapel. “I can’t imagine how they are going to go through Graham County without devastating that community. To think they want to put a road through our area because it is a little congested in Atlanta kind of makes me ill.”

But the biggest concern now is how this $1.3 million report will be conducted. D.J. Gerken with the Southern Environmental Law Center said the language in the bill is ambiguous. Gerken said residents should demand the Federal Highway Administration conduct a formal feasibility study, not just a report.

“If there was ever a project that warranted a full study, this is it,” said Gerken. “They have more than enough money to do a full process with public invovlement.”

Meanwhile, officials with the North Carolina Department of Transportation are also in the dark. They don’t know how or if they will be involved in this report. DOT division engineer Joel Setzer and the appointed transportation commissioner for the region Conrad Burrell both said they first learned of the proposed interstate in the newspapers. Burrell said he took a copy of a news article to a state transportation board meeting in Raleigh, and it was the first anyone down there had heard of it.

Both Burrell and Setzer attended the meeting in Murphy last month.

“I-3 is not on our radar screen or a project for us as of yet. We are not here to speculate whether it ever will be a project,” Setzer told the audience, who hoped he could deliver answers. “DOT’s approach or position at this point is wait until the feasibility study is done and make determinations from there.”

But opponents of the interstate are not settling for a “wait and see” strategy. Once a project makes it to a study list, it is sometimes too late, audience members said.

“I’m not content sitting back and waiting for 19 months for somebody to tell us what would be a good route when we can sit here and look at the map now and realize any of the routes through the mountains would have profound impacts,” said Hugh Irwin with Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition.

Setzer said he can’t think of a time when a construction project was completely wiped off a list once it was put on.

“A feasibility study does not just come out a say ‘No, it’s not feasible.’ It’s a tool for advancing a project,” Setzer said. “We have seen feasibility studies done where a project wasn’t advanced, but it doesn’t mean that a project just went away or was quote killed.”

Teresa Hart, a DOT official with the project development branch in Raleigh, assured the audience at the meeting they would get public input.

“I know that what’s partly on your minds tonight is whether you will be given the opportunity to provide input if this ever becomes a project. The answer is ‘yes,’” said Hart.

Stone offered the same assurance during an interview.

“What this process will have is full public input before a decision is made,” said Stone.

But the opponents want input now, during the planning stages before the interstate becomes an official project, not just as a formality once the project makes it to the DOT’s to-do list.

“This is a decision point where the public should be involved before we waste a lot of money on a road that may not be wanted,” said Gerken.