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 />
I find your proposed alternative 12 entirely too restricting to paddling. Mother nature restricts us enough,<br />
by water level. (Ltr# 184, Cmt# 3)<br />
Subconcern # A<br />
Option 12 still has way too many restrictions on boating. Why can’t boating and fishing be treated equally?<br />
I still fail to understand why there are perceived boating and fishing conflicts on the Chattooga when it’s<br />
not an issue on every other stream I have ever paddled and/or fished on. There is less environmental<br />
impact from boating than fishing - no gear left behind (fishing line), no footprints. Few of the masses even<br />
have the skills to paddle the class 4/5 whitewater of the headwaters so there would be no crowds to speak<br />
of. (Ltr# 190, Cmt# 1)<br />
Subconcern # A<br />
#333- The problem I have with the preferred alternative offered by the <strong>Forest</strong> <strong>Service</strong> for managing visitor<br />
use in the upper Chattooga is that it fails in regard to the aforementioned principle of fairness, and the<br />
standard for protection and enhancement of the outstandingly remarkable values of the upper Chattooga<br />
River. (Ltr# 193, Cmt# 323)<br />
Subconcern # A Q<br />
#342- The compartmentalized analysis that ranges from involvement by the Washington Office of the<br />
<strong>Forest</strong> <strong>Service</strong>, the Regional Office, three National <strong>Forest</strong> Supervisor Offices, three District Offices and a<br />
host of consultants have resulted in a lack of focus and consequently, has led to a preferred alternative that<br />
is both unfair to all users, and which fails to protect the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the Upper<br />
Chattooga River. (Ltr# 193, Cmt# 332)<br />
Subconcern # A T<br />
#350- You preferred alternative is nothing more than a de facto ban and the "predictable mean daily flow"<br />
idea is absurd. Do you really think you have the ability to predict the flow in the river? This flawed<br />
measure is nothing more than a way for you to ensure that boating never occurs. (Ltr# 193, Cmt# 340)<br />
Subconcern # B C<br />
<strong>Forest</strong> planners led by the Sumter National <strong>Forest</strong> propose to open 16.5 miles of the narrow, twisting<br />
headwaters reaches of the Chattooga River from Green Creek to Lick Log Creek between Dec. 1 and<br />
March 1, at all flow levels rather than 7 miles of Upper Chattooga previously contemplated for boating by<br />
the Agency. I believe that opening these parts of the river is unwise. The extended stretch includes the<br />
sensitive Chattooga Cliffs, the entire Ellicott Rock Wilderness and the equally wild Rock Gorge section of<br />
the river. These parts of the river include a variety of sensitive and endangered plant and lichen species.<br />
Currently a wild, spiritual haven, the Upper Chattooga is Georgia's only stretch of river designated as wild<br />
and scenic and closed to boating. Keep one piece of river natural! ...Please reject the boating lobby’s<br />
insistence on unrestricted access and the <strong>Forest</strong> <strong>Service</strong>’s partial opening of the river. (Ltr# 18, Cmt# 1)<br />
Subconcern # D<br />
I tried to sell myself on the “preferred” Alternative #12, and just can’t do it. The upper section of river is<br />
too narrow to support two conflicting hobbies, as are many other areas within the Delayed Harvest Section<br />
down to Hwy 28 (Ltr# 24, Cmt# 2)<br />
Subconcern # E<br />
I testified at your public hearing on this issue several years ago as to how a moving disturbance such as<br />
kayakers has a much greater impact on lentic and lotic habitats than does a point source disturbance such<br />
as swimmers or fishermen. I felt (and still feel) that the existing kayak usage is ALREADY a compromise<br />
from the perspective of wildlife, and I was disappointed when in your original decision you allowed<br />
kayaking to start at the iron bridge on Bull Pen Road. I did not complain then, but I must say that this<br />
newest alternative demands my condemnation. It is nebulous in its definition of where boating can start,<br />
and greatly expands the impact of a very select group of constituents (kayakers) at the detriment of the<br />
natural environment. Revisit and reselect your earlier compromise. (Ltr# 29, Cmt# 1)<br />
Subconcern # E<br />
Please cancel and reconsider Alternative 12 of the forest plan for the upper segment of the Chattahoochee<br />
Wild and Scenic River. Whitewater boaters of all kinds degrade fish habitat as well as banks of rivers, and<br />
do not maintain existing opportunities for solitude. (Ltr# 43, Cmt# 1)<br />
40