Resource Name (Heading 1) - USDA Forest Service - US ...
Resource Name (Heading 1) - USDA Forest Service - US ...
Resource Name (Heading 1) - USDA Forest Service - US ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Summary of Public Comments - Managing Recreation Uses in the<br />
Upper Segment of the Chattooga Wild and Scenic River Corridor EA<br />
user groups merely seek to protect their esthetic sense of solitude, natural scenery and spontaneity of<br />
access. (Ltr# 171, Cmt# 5)<br />
Boating has less environmental impact than virtually any other activity in the watershed. Boats leave<br />
ripples. Boaters do of course use access trails, as do all users. We do not typically use trails that run along<br />
the river. Boaters are legitimate users of the Wild and Scenic area. The fact that other users might prefer<br />
not to see boaters does not change that. Segregation is no longer acceptable in America. I believe that<br />
natural user preferences of water level will minimize conflict between boaters and fishers. Any other<br />
conclusion should be based on data from an extended trial period. If, against my expectations, there is<br />
excessive conflict, the two groups should be treated equally. Boaters should not be denied river time to a<br />
greater extent than fishers. Long term, I believe all will prefer minimum interference by the <strong>US</strong>FS. Threats<br />
and acts of violence by one user group against another should be dealt with as the serious offenses that<br />
they are. (Ltr# 173, Cmt# 1)<br />
I believe some groups should be more restricted in order to preserve the area for generations to come;<br />
however, I also believe that all user groups considered and studied should receive equal treatment from a<br />
government agency that we all support. (Ltr# 178, Cmt# 1)<br />
Of the various user groups under consideration for the Chattooga, the boaters/kayakers/canoeists are the<br />
group which has the least impact on the area. We are primarily IN the water, not on shore any more than<br />
we have to be. We are not the folks who litter the banks with fish bait containers, beer/alcohol (boaters<br />
don’t drink while boating, due to dangers of hypothermia), or lead sinkers and the like. As a group, boaters<br />
are very conservation-minded and would leave the least impact there. It astounds me that this very group is<br />
the one targeted by the forest service to NOT be allowed our legal, rightful, opportunity to enjoy this<br />
resource. (Ltr# 181, Cmt# 1)<br />
Paddlers should have equal access with all other users to all portions of the Chattooga Wild and Scenic<br />
River. Discrimination against paddlers will not ultimately hold up in court. Therefore, please quit wasting<br />
taxpayer dollars in attempting to draw out the process. (Ltr# 187, Cmt# 1)<br />
#14- The second flawed premise in the EA is that boaters should bear the full burden of preventing any<br />
conflicts that would occur. The EA places this burden on boaters by virtually banning boating access, while<br />
placing no limits on access for other users. This allocation of responsibility is particularly unfair<br />
considering boaters are generally quite tolerant of user groups. Limits on all uses are necessary to protect<br />
the outstandingly remarkable values of the headwaters. (Ltr# 193, Cmt# 12)<br />
#21- The Alternative presented continues the practice of discriminating against certain user groups and I<br />
cannot accept any alternative or proposal that does that. Nothing short of a policy that allows equal<br />
access for anyone who wishes to enjoy the Chattooga or any other <strong>US</strong>FS-managed area is acceptable.<br />
(Ltr# 193, Cmt# 17)<br />
#23- Preferred alternative includes a total ban on 2/3 of the upper river, a ban on tributary boating, and<br />
allows only 0-6 days of limited boating on the remaining reach – while allowing all other wilderness<br />
conforming existing uses in unlimited numbers. This is not equitable and not acceptable! (Ltr# 193, Cmt#<br />
19)<br />
#63- Choosing to uphold a boating restriction on the Chattooga will set a negative precedent that could<br />
affect millions more Americans across the country. (Ltr# 193, Cmt# 57)<br />
#66- The <strong>US</strong>FS preferred alternative includes a total ban on 2/3 of the upper river, a ban on tributary<br />
boating, and allows only 0-6 days of limited boating on the remaining reach - while allowing all other<br />
wilderness conforming existing uses in unlimited numbers.. This is not equitable and not acceptable. (Ltr#<br />
193, Cmt# 60)<br />
#99- Boating is not significantly different from fishing in terms of creating portage trails along the bank<br />
and around large woody debris or steep drops. This argument in itself does not warrant a boating ban.<br />
(Ltr# 193, Cmt# 92)<br />
#100- Remember, every other user group, not boaters, is responsible for the current damage. Would it not<br />
make sense to limit their access? In addition, having zero proof or evidence that boating would harm the<br />
river corridor; does it not make sense to allow boating until proven otherwise? Innocent until proven<br />
173