Resource Name (Heading 1) - USDA Forest Service - US ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Summary of Public Comments - Managing Recreation Uses in the Upper Segment of the Chattooga Wild and Scenic River Corridor EA but for a more 'extreme' experience that they don't get on a gentle hike but there is no restriction on the speed that one can travel on the trail. (Ltr# 93, Cmt# 2) User groups should be able to co-exist and some tolerance needs to be learned. We are all there for the same thing, to appreciate and enjoy the woods, and all it has to offer, in our own way. Paddlers would, regardless of legal restrictions placed upon them, only paddle the river when the water is higher and floatable for a boat. These higher water times are short and often during or following a period of excessive rain, which makes the water conditions less desirable for fisherman; a win-win situation for both parties. Wilderness would not be protected if people didn't have passion to do so. That passion grows when they experience a place and they can't do that if they aren't allowed in. We need responsible and wise access guidelines that are fair and not based on historical use but contemporary values and equitability. (Ltr# 93, Cmt# 3) Nothing should give one individual or one group anymore privilege over another when it comes to something we all collectively own as Americans. (Ltr# 95, Cmt# 3) All of the problems I've heard about make sense. But why are paddlers singled out as the one group of people that are banned when they have the least impact on the environment of them all? And paddling doesn't even require the expenditure of resources that fishing does in terms of fish stocking. (Ltr# 97, Cmt# 5) I have paddled the Chattooga River since Deliverance came out in 1972. Since then I have paddled most of the original 8 Wild and Scenic Rivers of the US, and a hundred other rivers. Nowhere else are they trying to limit paddling for the benefit of fishermen. We can live in harmony. I have nothing against fishermen. They should have nothing against me. Please change your policy to allow boating on all of the Chattooga. (Ltr# 99, Cmt# 1) Conversely I believe that fisherman should not interfere with the right of boaters to use the rivers for their enjoyment. In my experiences on the Chattooga there didn't seem to be enough private kayakers nor fisherman to bother each other. The upper section should be seen and admired by all. From a boat it would be a spectacular view of God's creation. No restrictions should be placed upon boaters wishing to float any portion of the Chattooga. There is plenty of river for all to find peace and solitude in their own way. (Ltr# 100, Cmt# 1) Why should a wild and scenic river be limited to fishermen, hikers and hunting? Boaters are entitled to the same rights as all others. Environmental impact is a high concern of a majority of boaters that I know. Many of my boating friends as well as myself are the ones who want to protect and preserve our wilderness area that we visit by cleaning up trash that fishermen or others may leave. My vote is to allow boating on all sections of the Chattooga at all times. It is a crime to discriminate against boaters or any others in this beautiful area intended for use by the public. (Ltr# 125, Cmt# 1) The concept of a Wild and Scenic River designation includes the concept that paddlers should be able to paddle the entire river as a multi-day trip if desired. The US Forest Service analysis is not reasonable because it singles out paddlers for inequitable treatment. (Ltr# 132, Cmt# 3) I might add on behalf of our taxpaying and political active membership, that we completely object to the waste of taxpayer dollars this continuing prohibition on the simple act of floating down a river, not to mention the resistance your office has provided to the fair and equitable use of our nations resources. (Ltr# 137, Cmt# 1) I would like to submit comments regarding access to the Chattooga River. As an avid kayaker and nature enthusiast, I am disappointed to have restricted access to the Chattooga. I'm an avid fly fisherman as well and am surprised that I'm able to commercially access sections of the Chattooga if I chose to fish or hire a fishing guide, yet I can't enjoy the river from the comfort of my own boat. This is equally our land as Americans and the restriction of access is unnecessary. The whitewater club that I belong to, the Atlanta Whitewater Club, is full of enthusiasts with a similar outlook. We have river cleanups several times a year to keep our rivers beautiful. I know that myself and this club would respect every inch of the Chattooga that we're granted access to. Please consider giving us the access we deserve (Ltr# 146, Cmt# 1) While the new Environmental Assessment presented this year excels at generating an enormous volume of paper, it continues to violate the spirit of “land of many uses” by unfairly scrutinizing paddlers while 170
Summary of Public Comments - Managing Recreation Uses in the Upper Segment of the Chattooga Wild and Scenic River Corridor EA failing to address the serious impact already present from other user groups. The document glazes over and minimizes the impact from existing user groups. While it does propose a reduction in campsites and user created trails, it does not make any serious attempt at determining the existing impact. Impacts from hikers and anglers who trample riparian areas blazing trails to the river are also largely ignored in this assessment. The impact of fishing lines and lures left hanging in trees is not addressed. Perhaps the most glaring oversight is that no assessment has been made of the impact of stocking this wild and scenic river with non-native fish species. These non-native fish undoubtedly impact native plants and animals within the Chattooga corridor yet this impact goes completely unmentioned in the environmental assessment. The sound of the helicopters used to stock tens of thousands of exotic fish species in a wild and scenic river corridor and its impact on river users is never discussed. The impact of those who wade into the river to fish or swim is also not determined by this environmental assessment. Does wading through a riparian corridor for 6 hours fishing have a greater impact on plants and fish than floating over the same section of the river in a boat? This EA makes no serious attempt to assess the impact of anglers on the Chattooga headwaters. (Ltr# 150, Cmt# 1) The 1971 Wild and Scenic River Assessment presented to congress describes the Upper Chattooga as follows: “Enormous boulders, some over 50 feet high with trees growing on top, rise from the river bed. In many places sheer rock outcrops and cliffs rise 400 to 600 feet above the river. The Chattooga Cliffs, a series of these outcrops continues along the river for two and one half miles. Rafting or some method of floating is the best method to see this portion of the river, for many of the pools are 10-20 feet deep and impossible to wade by hikers and fishermen. The sheer rock cliffs and dense vegetation along the shoreline make it extremely difficult to hike on foot.” If some method of floating is the BEST method to see the Upper Chattooga, why does the Forest Service ban this activity for the vast majority of the year? The pictures in the assessment further underline the importance of paddling – paddlers are pictured multiple times, including a drawing on the cover of the report. No other river users are pictured in the report. A better solution would be a fair and equitable approach that allows all users the same level of access. If floating is the BEST use of the river, other uses should be considered secondary and their use restricted to prevent interruption of floating the river. (Ltr# 150, Cmt# 7) The new assessment further adds a new and unwarranted idea in an attempt to justify a near total ban on paddling. The report states: “Anglers spend most of their time near the river and usually fish a small section of the stream where they are likely to be passed by nearly all boaters present on that day. When these encounters occur, impacts on users are also more likely to be asymmetric (more adverse for anglers than for boaters).” This completely unfounded assertion is used throughout the assessment to justify a near total ban on paddling. As a paddler, I can state that my wilderness experience is disturbed by anglers. Their presence is seen not only when I pass them on the river, but when I see monofilament line snagged in the trees and branches along the river bank. Their presence disturbs me when I see their hooks and flys snagged in the same trees and branches, when I hear helicopters circling above to deposit non-native fish into the river, when I see their trails dig into the banks of the river, or when I don’t see native species that have been displaced by the stocked fish. The difference between paddlers and anglers in this scenario is that after a 35 year ban, paddlers understand what it is like to be unfairly denied use of the resource. Paddlers are willing to share the resource despite being disturbed and affected by other users. It is the height of selfishness for a small group of anglers to demand banishment of another group. If anglers are unwilling to share the resource, it is their access which should be restricted. A more fair and equitable solution would be to allow boaters to decide for themselves when the weather and level is conducive to paddling. This would allow paddlers to make the decision of when to paddle, much as hikers decide when to hike along the river, and similar to anglers who are also able to decide when to fish along this scenic public resource. (Ltr# 150, Cmt# 8) Let us paddle (Ltr# 152, Cmt# 1) It’s very discouraging to read the comment from groups banning the kayakers as they try to paint all kayakers as someone trying to drag coolers down the river. That would never happen on the headwaters. The headwaters are a difficult section of river to kayak and one that very few people will even achieve the skill to paddle. Also, this is a “creeky” and narrow section of the river, so people complaint of it being like the Ocoee filled with rafts is totally unfounded. Rather its a section that if boating was allowed above the Highway 28 bridge, it will still be a wilderness. In addition, if there are going to be limits on visitors, it 171
Page 1 and 2:
Managing Recreation Uses in the Upp
Page 3 and 4:
Summary of Public Comments - Managi
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122: Summary of Public Comments - Managi
Page 171: Summary of Public Comments - Managi
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284:
show all

Resource Name (Heading 1) - USDA Forest Service - US ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?