29.12.2013 Views

Resource Name (Heading 1) - USDA Forest Service - US ...

Resource Name (Heading 1) - USDA Forest Service - US ...

Resource Name (Heading 1) - USDA Forest Service - US ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Summary of Public Comments - Managing Recreation Uses in the<br />

Upper Segment of the Chattooga Wild and Scenic River Corridor EA<br />

River (Whittaker and Shelby 2007) and informed the analysis in the EA. The report Capacity &<br />

Conflict on the Upper Chattooga River (Whittaker and Shelby 2007) discusses backcountry<br />

angling on pages 19-22.<br />

N) The comment "Very little fishing is done from floatable craft" is taken from a reference to a<br />

statement in the March 22, 1976 Federal Register Notice. Boating is restricted to certain craft<br />

type in Alternative 13A. Alternative 13A does not place any restrictions on fishing from craft.<br />

The document Capacity & Conflict on the Upper Chattooga River (Whittaker and Shelby 2007)<br />

was used to inform the effects analysis. In the Environmental Assessment, Managing Recreation<br />

Uses in the Upper Segment of the Chattooga Wild and Scenic River, there is a discussion on the<br />

existing recreation opportunities and recreation effects are described in Section 3.2.1 Recreation<br />

ORV in Chapter 3.<br />

O) Fishing regulations are controlled by the various state agencies based on river habitat<br />

conditions. Impacts to aquatic habitats are described in Section 3.2.2A, Aquatics. The fish<br />

species diversity of the Management Indicator Community in the Chattooga River watershed has<br />

not changed in more than 20 years of sampling the main stem of the river (SCDNR unpublished<br />

data).<br />

P) There is natural reproduction of trout in the Chattooga River. It is not entirely hatchery<br />

dependent. Stocking of trout was occurring in 1971 and in the 1971 Wild and Scenic River Study<br />

Report, Chattooga River (referred to as the Designation Study report) notes that stocking of<br />

catchable size trout was occurring in some of the Chattooga River in all three states. The 1971<br />

Designation Study report includes an action plan for fisheries on pages 87-89 and notes that<br />

Game and Fish State organization recommend managing Chattooga as a “Wild River fishery”;<br />

stocking sub-adults and fingerlings in the wild and scenic sections, stocking any size fish in the<br />

recreation sections; and providing vehicular access for stocking in the recreation sections.<br />

Q) Existing opportunities are described in the Environmental Assessment, Managing Recreation<br />

Uses in the Upper Segment of the Chattooga Wild and Scenic River Corridor and considered<br />

throughout the effects analysis in the EA and in more detail in the Capacity & Conflict on the<br />

Upper Chattooga River (Whittaker and Shelby 2007) (also referred to as the integrated report).<br />

R) The report Capacity & Conflict on the Upper Chattooga River (Whittaker and Shelby 2007)<br />

and public input were used to inform the analysis and effects determinations in the EA.<br />

S) The pair of studies that looked at "substitutability," "involvement," and "place attachment" for<br />

Chattooga non-commercial boaters (on the lower river) and trout anglers, along with additional<br />

analyses of these two groups were discussed on page 25 of the report Capacity & Conflict on the<br />

Upper Chattooga River (Whittaker and Shelby 2007). Whittaker and Shelby qualified some of<br />

the findings in these reports. One problem they noted is that the two groups were sampled<br />

differently (boaters via permits from known visits; anglers via census of two local Trout<br />

Unlimited chapters). Because a "wider net" was cast across the angler population, it may have<br />

included fewer avid Chattooga anglers. In addition, some of the involvement and place<br />

attachment variables were statistically but not substantively different (e.g., 4.39 vs. 4.61 on a five<br />

point "importance"). Finally, boaters were rating the lower segment of the Chattooga WSR<br />

(because they cannot currently boat the upper segment), and it is unclear whether their<br />

assessments will apply to the upper segment. Because of these problems, the data was not<br />

brought forward into the Environmental Assessment, Managing Recreation Uses in the Upper<br />

Segment of the Chattooga Wild and Scenic River.<br />

T) True. This was considered in developing the range of alternatives.<br />

Sample Public Comment(s) for PC 16:<br />

Subconcern # A<br />

59

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!