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