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 Subconcern # L #79- The environmental impacts of boaters have been overestimated; those impacts can be minimized with minimal use of Forest service resources to manage access points and, if necessary, short portage trails. Floating on the water itself leaves virtually no impact on the environment. (Ltr# 193, Cmt# 73) Subconcern # L M #101- Whitewater boaters will only leave the river at access points and at a few rapids along the corridor to scout. Short established trails could easily be constructed along these rapids if necessary. In contrast, fisherman will walk primarily off trails to access fishing pools! (Ltr# 193, Cmt# 94) Subconcern # M The EA mischaracterizes the effects of low water on portages. The EA anticipates that low water conditions may cause more portages and thus more shore use by paddlers (see 197 and 276). This is not accurate. Typically, lower flows require less shore access because more rapids can be boat-scouted and many rapids become easier to paddle. Even more importantly, low water conditions allow relatively easy and desirable portaging within the river channel. This is a factual error in the EA that introduces bias against paddling in certain alternatives at certain flows. (Ltr# 168, Cmt# 39) Subconcern # O I was surprised by the emphasis put on the last section of the Headwaters, from below Rock Gorge to highway 28. I've been in or next to those waters several times, and have never seen more than a few people fishing. That was on weekends. But if you want to reduce paddler impact, then arranging for paddlers to carry in from Big Bend Road and to take out at Lick Log Falls would leave both the section just below Burrells Ford and the section below Lick Log free for fishing, for the few who are fishing when the river is high enough for paddling. (Ltr# 184, Cmt# 4) Subconcern # P #10- I am not suggesting that people should not be allowed to take risks, yet the prohibition of the removal of down woody debris is a matter of common sense. There is currently access at the Cane Creek Road below the log jam, but it would be better to put in at the Bull Pen Bridge and set the Chattooga Cliffs reach aside from the inevitable overuse that would follow new access. (Ltr# 193, Cmt# 9) Subconcern # Q #209- In the state of NC there is no conflict- there is a state statute already in place that prohibits any fishing activity from impeding any form of navigation. (Ltr# 193, Cmt# 201) Subconcern # R #223- The simple fact that the Cane Creek Road located immediately downstream from the County Line Road, and which would be a more feasible put-in, was never even mentioned in the Draft EA, reflects the arbitrary nature of the EA. (Ltr# 193, Cmt# 214) Subconcern # S #225- Eliminate all road side parking within 1/4 mile of all bridges. Not just create an additional parking area a distance from the bridge. (Ltr# 193, Cmt# 216) Subconcern # T #232- Boating will lead to portage paths around obstacles and new access routes to the river, and more user-created campsites. (Ltr# 193, Cmt# 223) Subconcern # U #526- I believe the upper put-in site and especially the Burrell’s Ford Bridge take-out should have signage on the river with “no boating above” and “no boating below the bridge” respectively. This is in addition to normal signage with permitting, seasons, minimum flows and group size restrictions. I believe the fine amounts for violations should be increased and posted at all put-in and take-out sites (see # 208 comment). (Ltr# 193, Cmt# 513) Subconcern # V #563- I believe the County Line Road/Trail must never be opened for access by private vehicles. I understand there are plans to use it as a temporary roadway (with gate) for hauling logs back to Whiteside Cove Road during the upcoming White Bull Timber Sale. I feel strongly that this temporary access road should be closed, blocked, and replanted after the sale and designated “Foot Travel Only”. I believe visitor 192
Summary of Public Comments - Managing Recreation Uses in the Upper Segment of the Chattooga Wild and Scenic River Corridor EA parking should remain at the Whiteside Cove Road. The ORVs of the Chattooga Cliffs segment are too sensitive and unique to provide easier access. (Ltr# 193, Cmt# 550) Public Concern 72 The Forest Service should disclose how the restrictions on boating at the Slide Rock Swimming Area will continue under the new management plan. Response to PC 72 Boating is not proposed through the Sliding Rock area in any of the alternatives analyzed in the Environmental Assessment, Managing Recreation Uses in the Upper Segment of the Chattooga Wild and Scenic River. Sample Public Comment(s) for PC 72: I have heard that through closure orders, the Slide Rock Swimming Area has been protected from boats interfering with those who swim and play there. I am thankful that Forest Service management has restricted boating at Slide Rock and at the Pisgah Forest sliding rock swimming area. The safety of the children is of primary importance. This local swimming opportunity is way more enjoyable for families and visitors when they are assured of that safety. Will boating at the Slide Rock Swimming Area remain restricted following the new Environmental Assessment currently proposed by the Forest Service? Please advise as to how the restrictions on boating at the Slide Rock Swimming Area will continue under the new management plan. (Ltr# 134, Cmt# 1) Public Concern 73 The Forest Service should evaluate the impacts to swimming compared to existing impacts and ensure the safety of swimmers regardless of season or time (all comments from 2009 EA comment period). Response to PC 73 Effects to recreation users are analyzed in Environmental Assessment, Managing Recreation Uses in the Upper Segment of the Chattooga Wild and Scenic River, Chapter 3, Section 3.2.1 Recreation ORV. Sample Public Comment(s) for PC 73: #29- Page 97 of the Assessment included “swimmer-boater” in the definition of ON-river encounters. Alternative #5 and #8 which allow summer boating would result in swimmer-boater encounters. Adding swimmers into the encounter calculation similar to anglers is appropriate. (Ltr# 193, Cmt# 23) #216- The agency’s final decision should ensure the safety of swimmers in the Upper Chattooga and should insure that the desired conditions from all users collected in 2005 during the LAC be incorporated into the final EA. (Ltr# 193, Cmt# 207) #263- On page 102 you indicate that "some swimmers anticipate goal interference from boaters". I have NEVER encountered a swimmer on the headwaters or on Overflow Creek and the idea that they would be endangered by boaters is absurd. After thirty four years of intensive boating and swimming activity at the Bull Sluice rapid on Section III I know of no incidence where a swimmer was ever injured by a boater. Please don't waste out time on this kind of junk. (Ltr# 193, Cmt# 254) #282- Swimming is mentioned but not assessed. Alternatives #5 and #8 could have catastrophic consequences to swimmers on the Upper Chattooga. Hunters were mentioned without any full discussion. Scenic Boating was defined as an activity based on rapid difficulty not flow levels during warmer seasons. Boating on the Upper Chattooga did not consider tubing, rafting or motorized craft. (Ltr# 193, Cmt# 273) 193
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:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144: Summary of Public Comments - Managi
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?