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