Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
Battle for upper Chattooga continues
 |
| This massive log jam blocks the upper Chattooga River about a quarter mile downstream from the proposed put-in at Norton Mill Creek. Buzz Williams, executive director with the Chattooga Conservancy, demonstrates where the river will reach during days deemed boatable in the preferred alternative being considered by the U.S. Forest Service. |
By Justin Raines Staff Writer
One of America's last best places flows close to Rabun County, and its future depends on you.
The deadline for public comments on the upper Chattooga River has been extended through Monday. It likely will be the last chance for stakeholders and concerned residents to offer feedback on how the pristine stretch of riverine wilderness is managed.
"If solitude, remoteness and wildness are values people think should be presented for future generations, here's your chance," local angler and Trout Unlimited member Doug Adams said.
On July 2, the U.S. Forest Service released its proposed management plan for the 21-mile section of river between Burrells Ford Bridge and Norton Mill Creek in North Carolina.
The "preferred alternative" chosen by the Forest Service would allow a limited amount of recreational boating from Dec. 1- March 1 during times when average river flow is 450 cubic feet per second or greater.
In 1974, the Chattooga was protected under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, which mandated that it be managed to preserve a wilderness experience that emphasizes solitude.
A total boating ban was passed in 1976, and the upper Chattooga has been off limits to all water craft since that time. Commercial and private boating is allowed south of the Highway 28 bridge.
The Forest Service's alternative has fueled an already fiery debate on how the river should be managed.
Many members of the boating community and organizations including American Whitewater and the American Canoe Association feel that the alternative is another way to keep boats off the river.
"If you peel back the layers of the onion and realize what it really says, it is a boating ban," AW president Don Kinser said. "We fully support limits to use if impact demonstrates a need to limit use. However, those limits must be applied to all user groups equitably."
Other river users and groups have opposed any boating on the upper river. Some, such as Georgia ForestWatch, would have preferred an alternative that ruled out boating in the upper river entirely.
"The solitude of it would be disturbed," Georgia ForestWatch volunteer district leader Joe Gatins said. "It would change the experience that people have enjoyed for years. Boating adds more human pressure to the experience."
Some consider the alternative a fair deal that would minimize conflict between users while improving deteriorating conditions in places such as the Burrells Ford Bridge, which have become overused in recent years.
"I really think the Forest Service has done an outstanding job of designing (preferred alternative) number four," Adams said. "I think it's a compromise for those that really want to see (the upper river) from a boat, and if they are qualified and skilled, it gives them an opportunity."
The primary contentions voiced by those opposed to boating are based on the impact a new group of users may have on a very sensitive, remote and largely untouched section of land.
Issues of increased parking, trail usage and decreased solitude are among the arguments being made against boating. Such claims are disputed by AW.
"I say there's no need for new access, parking areas, trails or roads," AW national stewardship director Kevin Colburn said. "They haven't found any reason to conclude that boating would have any physical effect on the river. Paddling is very consistent with wilderness."
There is also the question of safety. Although Forest Service policy prohibits management based on safety, if alternative four is approved, the proposed put-in point near the County Line Road trail in North Carolina would have boaters embark at the confluence of Norton Mill Creek.
About a quarter mile downstream is a massive logjam that some consider to be a life-threatening hazard. There are also a number of other trees, known as strainers, lodged in the river channel farther downstream.
"It's irresponsible to put people in above a logjam," Chattooga Conservancy executive director Buzz Williams said. "It requires new access, and there's no real whitewater up there. It's just a mass of deathtrap strainers, and its going to get worse."
Williams said considerations should also be made for the hundreds of dead and dying hemlock trees that line the river, which are expected by some to increase the amount of "woody debris" in the river within the next decade.
Some boaters, however, dismiss the logjam and other strainers as an accepted fact of rafting.
"Part of paddling is dealing with wood," Colburn said. "It's just part of the sport. Wood is not a problem on the upper Chattooga. It's a nonissue."
Kinser, who was part of a 12-person team that paddled the upper stretch in 2007, encountered the logjam and also downplayed its hazards.
"It basically dams the river," Kinser said. "You basically float over it. No one is going to get swept under that. It's a red herring."
Williams crafted a proposal based on the premise that fishermen and boaters need different water levels to use the river. By allowing boating at 500 cfs and above, Williams' plan, which allows boating to the Highway 28 bridge, would minimize conflicts between paddlers and anglers simply because very few people fish the river at high water, levels which make for optimum boating.
Adams said anglers can indeed fish at high water by moving to low-gradient sections of the river.
Colburn and Kinser said the main problem with both Williams' plan and the preferred alternative was the issue of regulating access according to water levels determined by the Forest Service.
If alternative four is approved, a Forest Service hydrologist would be in charge of deeming which days could be boated by predicting current ahead of time. Boaters would be notified when the river was high enough to float.
AW member and recreational boater Milt Aitken was also a member of the 2007 expert boating panel. He said a major problem with the plan involved the rapid fluctuations in current on the Chattooga and the difficulty in forecasting high water.
"It appears that the Forest Service means to predict mean daily flow in advance," Aitken said. "They won't know that days in advance. They'd be lucky to know that a few hours in advance."
Aitken disagreed with the notion that boaters on the river will detract from the wilderness experience on the Chattooga.
"I think that a wilderness area gains from having visitors," he said. "If a wilderness area gets visited, the visitors leave with an appreciation of that area and want to protect it."
With only four days left in the public comment period, the one thing all groups seemed to agree on was the importance of voicing an opinion.
"There's a real strong feeling for what the river means for Rabun County," Gatins said. "From that point of view, (the public) should definitely let the Forest Service know how they feel about it."
Comments can be e-mailed to comments-southern-francismarion-sumter@fs.fed.us.
They can be mailed to U.S. Forest Service, Chattooga River Project, 4931 Broad River Road, Columbia, SC 29212.
For more background information or to read a summary of all the alternatives, visit www.fs.fed.us/r8/fms.
The deadline for public comments on the upper Chattooga River has been extended through Monday. It likely will be the last chance for stakeholders and concerned residents to offer feedback on how the pristine stretch of riverine wilderness is managed.
"If solitude, remoteness and wildness are values people think should be presented for future generations, here's your chance," local angler and Trout Unlimited member Doug Adams said.
On July 2, the U.S. Forest Service released its proposed management plan for the 21-mile section of river between Burrells Ford Bridge and Norton Mill Creek in North Carolina.
The "preferred alternative" chosen by the Forest Service would allow a limited amount of recreational boating from Dec. 1- March 1 during times when average river flow is 450 cubic feet per second or greater.
In 1974, the Chattooga was protected under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, which mandated that it be managed to preserve a wilderness experience that emphasizes solitude.
A total boating ban was passed in 1976, and the upper Chattooga has been off limits to all water craft since that time. Commercial and private boating is allowed south of the Highway 28 bridge.
The Forest Service's alternative has fueled an already fiery debate on how the river should be managed.
Many members of the boating community and organizations including American Whitewater and the American Canoe Association feel that the alternative is another way to keep boats off the river.
"If you peel back the layers of the onion and realize what it really says, it is a boating ban," AW president Don Kinser said. "We fully support limits to use if impact demonstrates a need to limit use. However, those limits must be applied to all user groups equitably."
Other river users and groups have opposed any boating on the upper river. Some, such as Georgia ForestWatch, would have preferred an alternative that ruled out boating in the upper river entirely.
"The solitude of it would be disturbed," Georgia ForestWatch volunteer district leader Joe Gatins said. "It would change the experience that people have enjoyed for years. Boating adds more human pressure to the experience."
Some consider the alternative a fair deal that would minimize conflict between users while improving deteriorating conditions in places such as the Burrells Ford Bridge, which have become overused in recent years.
"I really think the Forest Service has done an outstanding job of designing (preferred alternative) number four," Adams said. "I think it's a compromise for those that really want to see (the upper river) from a boat, and if they are qualified and skilled, it gives them an opportunity."
The primary contentions voiced by those opposed to boating are based on the impact a new group of users may have on a very sensitive, remote and largely untouched section of land.
Issues of increased parking, trail usage and decreased solitude are among the arguments being made against boating. Such claims are disputed by AW.
"I say there's no need for new access, parking areas, trails or roads," AW national stewardship director Kevin Colburn said. "They haven't found any reason to conclude that boating would have any physical effect on the river. Paddling is very consistent with wilderness."
There is also the question of safety. Although Forest Service policy prohibits management based on safety, if alternative four is approved, the proposed put-in point near the County Line Road trail in North Carolina would have boaters embark at the confluence of Norton Mill Creek.
About a quarter mile downstream is a massive logjam that some consider to be a life-threatening hazard. There are also a number of other trees, known as strainers, lodged in the river channel farther downstream.
"It's irresponsible to put people in above a logjam," Chattooga Conservancy executive director Buzz Williams said. "It requires new access, and there's no real whitewater up there. It's just a mass of deathtrap strainers, and its going to get worse."
Williams said considerations should also be made for the hundreds of dead and dying hemlock trees that line the river, which are expected by some to increase the amount of "woody debris" in the river within the next decade.
Some boaters, however, dismiss the logjam and other strainers as an accepted fact of rafting.
"Part of paddling is dealing with wood," Colburn said. "It's just part of the sport. Wood is not a problem on the upper Chattooga. It's a nonissue."
Kinser, who was part of a 12-person team that paddled the upper stretch in 2007, encountered the logjam and also downplayed its hazards.
"It basically dams the river," Kinser said. "You basically float over it. No one is going to get swept under that. It's a red herring."
Williams crafted a proposal based on the premise that fishermen and boaters need different water levels to use the river. By allowing boating at 500 cfs and above, Williams' plan, which allows boating to the Highway 28 bridge, would minimize conflicts between paddlers and anglers simply because very few people fish the river at high water, levels which make for optimum boating.
Adams said anglers can indeed fish at high water by moving to low-gradient sections of the river.
Colburn and Kinser said the main problem with both Williams' plan and the preferred alternative was the issue of regulating access according to water levels determined by the Forest Service.
If alternative four is approved, a Forest Service hydrologist would be in charge of deeming which days could be boated by predicting current ahead of time. Boaters would be notified when the river was high enough to float.
AW member and recreational boater Milt Aitken was also a member of the 2007 expert boating panel. He said a major problem with the plan involved the rapid fluctuations in current on the Chattooga and the difficulty in forecasting high water.
"It appears that the Forest Service means to predict mean daily flow in advance," Aitken said. "They won't know that days in advance. They'd be lucky to know that a few hours in advance."
Aitken disagreed with the notion that boaters on the river will detract from the wilderness experience on the Chattooga.
"I think that a wilderness area gains from having visitors," he said. "If a wilderness area gets visited, the visitors leave with an appreciation of that area and want to protect it."
With only four days left in the public comment period, the one thing all groups seemed to agree on was the importance of voicing an opinion.
"There's a real strong feeling for what the river means for Rabun County," Gatins said. "From that point of view, (the public) should definitely let the Forest Service know how they feel about it."
Comments can be e-mailed to comments-southern-francismarion-sumter@fs.fed.us.
They can be mailed to U.S. Forest Service, Chattooga River Project, 4931 Broad River Road, Columbia, SC 29212.
For more background information or to read a summary of all the alternatives, visit www.fs.fed.us/r8/fms.
 |
||
| Kelly tourney a smashing success |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of theclaytontribune.com.
Nate Rozell wrote on Aug 15, 2008 5:27 PM:
" After watching this issue over the last few years it is my feeling that the opposition groups either don't really understand how low impact the whitewater kayaking community (and whitewater canoeists albeit very few) are or they don't really care. We are accustomed to very remote experiences where no designated "put in" or "take out" is provided so further development shouldn't be an issue. The small groups of individuals that will paddle these sections on the very few days that they run will be skilled and prepared for safety. My point is should boating be allowed at some point. I firmly believe opposition groups will be very pleasantly surprised how little of an impact we leave. One thing is for certain ... the impact will be significantly less than the current impact of foot traffic along the banks. "
Tera Wilson wrote on Aug 15, 2008 4:27 PM: