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
colored, which makes the rock markings stand out in the natural landscape.
Boating at different flows would result in markings at various levels on the rocks.
At lower flows, these residual boat markings may be visible to forest visitors
when the rock face is several feet above the water level. Certain rocks would be
struck repeatedly because of their location in the river channel. Therefore, higher
use levels may result in more heavily scarred rocks with multi-colored streaks.
These impacts could impair the aesthetics of the natural appearing landscape.
However, it is important to note that boat markings on rocks were considered a
minor concern from the Whittaker and Shelby (2007) report.
B) From Section 3.2.3 Scenery ORV, I. Summary of Findings, it is noted:
All action alternatives propose a limit on or reduction in parking, elimination of
unsustainable campsites and trails and prohibition on cutting large woody debris
to accommodate recreation, all of which serve to reduce impacts to scenery
resources and aesthetic values. In addition, various management strategies in the
alternatives that allow additional boating in the Chattooga WSR Corridor are
evaluated including season, reach and flow restrictions to reduce adverse
impacts. With its reduction in roadside parking, limits on campsite density, and
new user permit system, effects to scenery would be minimized with Alternative
2. All other alternatives would have varying degrees of scenery impacts
depending on allowed use levels and river miles open to boating; more use would
result in greater impacts. All alternatives would continue to protect the Scenery
ORV….
Sample Public Comment(s) for PC 81:
Subconcern # A
#74- On page 124 we are witness to a truly desperate attempt by the Forest Service to cast boating in a bad
light, by suggesting that boats mark the rocks in the river in a way that would degrade the resource. When
kayaks were made of gel-coated fiberglass and canoes were made of multiple laminated vinyl covered ABS
that was a minor concern in very high use sections. These days the boats are much tougher, stiffer, and
more abrasion resistant. Besides, boat marks pales in comparison to 19 miles of illegal trails, 91 points of
erosion, 27 campsites too close to the river, fire rings less than 20 feet from the river, large piles
(photographically documented) of broken glass, drink cans, and fishing equipment packaging that
currently mars the scenic beauty of the headwaters. (Ltr# 193, Cmt# 68)
Subconcern # A
#440- The EA claims that "Boating also will introduce another new impact to scenery: boat markings on
rocks" (EA 125). (Ltr# 193, Cmt# 428)
Subconcern # A
#493- The EA offers no proof for this asserted impact and thus any decisions based on the assertion that
boats mark rocks is arbitrary and capricious. (Ltr# 193, Cmt# 480)
Subconcern # A
#504- Boats do not, so far as we know, leave marks on rocks. Indeed Whittaker and Shelby 2007 conclude
regarding boat markings that "This impact does not appear to be a substantial concern on other rivers with
whitewater use, and we have not seen it discussed in the literature or at river management symposia." The
EA offers no proof for this asserted impact and thus any decisions based on the assertion that boats mark
rocks is arbitrary and capricious. (Ltr# 193, Cmt# 491)
Subconcern # B
In weighing the balance of hardships in reversing a longstanding policy of separation that has preserved
the “esthetic” of the river on the upper segment, (while abandoning this esthetic on the lower Chattooga)
the Forest Service should give greater weight of consideration to the stated human emotional experience
and impact on those existing users who assert that any kind of boating on the upper Chattooga will
247