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 />
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# 9)<br />
Public Concern 12<br />
The <strong>Forest</strong> <strong>Service</strong> should consider that all alternatives that would have allowed<br />
boating below Bull Pen Bridge have been eliminated from detailed study, therefore<br />
purposely limiting the range of alternatives and violating NEPA.<br />
Response to PC 12<br />
The phrase "range of alternatives" refers to the alternatives discussed in environmental<br />
documents. It includes all reasonable alternatives, which must be rigorously explored and<br />
objectively evaluated, as well as those other alternatives, which are eliminated from detailed<br />
study with a brief discussion of the reasons for eliminating them. Chapter 2 Section 2.4<br />
Alternatives considered but not evaluated in detail are part of the range of alternatives.<br />
Sample Public Comment(s) for PC 12:<br />
The agency has removed all the previously considered alternatives that would have only allowed boating<br />
below Bull Pen Bridge. The EA claims this alternative has “became redundant and unnecessary”(p41), but<br />
that is not true. Eliminating Bull Pen as a proposed Put-in, the assessment misrepresents the available<br />
options as a dichotomy to either allow boating into the most ecologically sensitive area, or allow no<br />
additional boating at all. The reduced variety of alternatives considered in this EA appears deliberately<br />
designed to produce a desired outcome of pushing boating upstream toward Greens Creek. Every scoping<br />
and previous EA during the past four years evaluated alternatives that did not allow boating above Bull<br />
Pen Bridge. In addition, the 1971 Study Report Recreational Development Plan lists Bull Pen Bridge as the<br />
uppermost put-in indicating boating above the bridge is not a congressionally recognized value. By<br />
deliberately limiting the range of alternatives available to the decision maker (after having done the<br />
assessment), possibly the environmental alternative, is a NEPA violation. (Ltr# 92, Cmt# 10)<br />
Public Concern 13<br />
The <strong>Forest</strong> <strong>Service</strong> should consider the following regarding alternative<br />
development and/or the development of new alternatives:<br />
A) The environmental alternative in the 2011 EA is not labeled as such, nor any<br />
explanation given as to why it is preferable over the other alternatives;<br />
B) An alternative that would consider motorized boat use on the lower section<br />
of the Chattooga during higher flow levels above 2.2 feet on the 76 gauge;<br />
C) An alternative that would give limited boating access while protecting<br />
resources and minimizing trespass on private property, such as permitting<br />
boating below Burrells Ford at all stages and seasons and below the steel<br />
bridge at Bullpen Road during the winter;<br />
D) An alternative that would open the upper segment of the Chattooga WSR to<br />
boating that is self-regulating, since the water levels required to boat make<br />
the water deep, turbid, and unsuitable for fishing; and implement the<br />
current permit system that is used on Sections II, III, and IV of the<br />
Chattooga River;<br />
E) Amend the preferred alternative to include the potential damage to<br />
biological resources that have not been adequately inventoried, along with<br />
a more detailed analyses of the potential effects of building new access<br />
into the remote Chattooga Cliffs Reach, and potential portage trail damage;<br />
46