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

Summary of Public Comments - Managing Recreation Uses in the
Upper Segment of the Chattooga Wild and Scenic River Corridor EA
After examining the range of alternatives presented in the Draft EA, I prefer Alternative 3. This alternative
is the best one presented that will ensure that my value of a boat-free, solitude experience while recreating
on the upper Chattooga will be met, while also addressing concerns of damage to the resource from overuse.
(Ltr# 103, Cmt# 2)
Subconcern # A H
#403- TU supports Alternative 3, the no-boating alternative, as a better choice for protecting the river and
its fisheries (Ltr# 193, Cmt# 391)
Subconcern # C-G
I am supportive of Alternatives 1, 2, or 3, but I am opposed to Alternatives 8,11,12,13, and 14. The
following discussions summarize some of the reasoning why I recommend you choose one of the first three,
and do not choose one of the other options. They also pose several questions to which I desire the US
Forest Service’s official answers. The Chattooga River trail head is the most upstream limit of where the
Chattooga River courses through public land. But this point is not a suitable put-in point for boating. The
parking area is a very long way from the river itself, via a portage of at least 2/3 mile of steep unofficial
trail, or more than a mile via the main official trail. A closer access point, but on private land, is at the
intersection of our driveway and Greens Creek Cemetery Road, where woods roads are shared with Forest
Service, the Cranston Family Partnership and me. It is presently common to have hikers park cars here to
cut off the first 1/8 mile of steep trail from the official parking lot. These occasional parkers have not been
much of a problem to us thus far, but they are not trying to carry boats either. I believe that there will be
increased parking by the new boaters (with associated trespassing and potential conflicts), if preventive
measures are not taken. But, the Forest Service states that no new parking will be developed and relies on
that fact to limit access and usage to the interior trails and river. I believe that the added users will try to
park in our driveway. Parking at the trail head is available for only eight to ten cars, and little suitable
public land exists to expand. As mentioned in the background section above, my mother donated several
acres of beautiful land near this location to the US Forest Service for the purpose of protecting the land
and for providing a green buffer at the trail head. Any expansion of the trail head facilities would be
inconsistent with the spirit of this gift. What measures will the US Forest Service take to mitigate or prevent
the inevitable overflow parking problem, including potential trespassing and public nuisance to adjacent
private properties? From the trailhead entrance (the upper end of public ownership) it is about 6.5 miles to
the Steel Bridge on the Bullpen Road, and there are no put-in points for boats anywhere in this reach that
would be convenient to parked vehicles. Even at the Steel Bridge, the river access is precipitous and is
right at the top of a waterfall, far below the road elevation. Downstream of the Bullpen Road is the Ellicott
Rock Wilderness. There is not even a trail along the river in most of this area, much less a boat launch. By
definition this area is a wilderness with very little built infrastructure, and should remain so. Below the
Ellicott Rock Wilderness, a trail follows the river, and there is a greater flow of water in it. The river itself
is more conducive to boating, but again there is no boating launch point. At Ellicott's Rock, the upper end
of the riverside trail system, it is over 3.5 miles by trail to the nearest road, hardly a good portage. The next
access downstream is Burrell's Ford, where more parking exists. The river downstream of this place is
more suitable for boating than any place upstream. Why will the US Forest Service not restrict boating to
the reaches below Burrells Ford and prohibit it upstream? Back upstream, beyond the Chattooga River
trail head, the next public access to the river is the small isolated parcel of public land at Grimshawes,
where the public uses the sliding rock falls on the river. It is not a suitable nor adequate entrance for
boaters either. Parking is very minimal here, and large overflows of parked cars often line Whiteside Cove
Road currently, even without boaters as additional users. It is not uncommon to see 30 to 40 cars on the
narrow shoulders. As for the use of the river for boating, the Chattooga between Grimshawes and Greens
Creek could hardly be deemed navigable. For example, I cannot imagine someone wanting to go over
Corkscrew Falls in any vessel. Nevertheless, if such daredevil stunts should be undertaken by boaters,
those activities will almost certainly result in injuries, if not deaths. How could the US Forest Service and
rescue personnel access a boating accident site to transport victims effectively and without trespassing on
adjacent private lands? (Ltr# 147, Cmt# 5)
Public Concern 6
The Forest Service should select Alternative 8 and:
18