Chattooga EA Released: Deadline Extended to June 12, 2002

By Jason Robertson

“The Forest Service seems to be playing a shell game with river and land management issues in the Chattooga watershed. While the agency’s employees earnestly believe in what they’re doing, their actions demonstrate little regard for public input, the NEPA process, or the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. We want the agency to commit to resolving water quality issues on the tributaries and boating access above Highway 28.” -Jason Robertson, Access Director American Whitewater

Following American Whitewater’s request, the deadline for submitting comments is extended from May 28th to June 12, 2002
Send comments to the Forest Service at chattoogariver@yahoo.com and cc AW’s Regional Coordinator Don Kinser at Dkinser@EDILtd.com or District Ranger, 112 Andrew Pickens Circle, Mountain Rest, SC 29664

AW’s INITIAL REACTION: American Whitewater is in the process of evaluating the 140 page Environmental Assessment (EA) for Amendment #14.

Our initial reaction is that the Forest Service’s preferred Alternative 4 will damage private boater use and recreation opportunities, have no measurable environmental or social benefits, and increase management obligations without purpose.

Thus we are leaning towards an endorsement of Alternative 1 (AKA the “no-action alternative”) or Alternative 3 with caveats.

Thus far we have not been able to determine any substantive differences between Alternative 3 and 5 other than the number of craft allowed on commercially guided trips.

We would appreciate your feedback on the document as we prepare our comments this week.

CONFUSION OVER DIFFERENT PLANNING ACTIONS IN CHATTOOGA: The USFS appears to be mismanaging the NEPA planning process and ignoring public comments that they are required to solicit by law.

Consider that the amendment was mailed on May 7th and that comments are due just three weeks later on May 28th. As of May 14th, few on the mailing list, including American Whitewater, have received the document.

Note that the Forest Service is developing two different plans. The first is the Forest Plan and the second is the Amendment 14 EA.

Consider that the EA release follows on the heels of an announcement regarding Forest Plan in which the agency announced its intention to cut names from the mailing list that do not respond to their latest mailing. The agency will only send planning documents about the Forest Plan to people who write and request to be added to the mailing list. If you care about watershed health on the Chattooga, you should ask to have your name added as a contact. The Forest Plan has not been released and is still in early NEPA scoping stages, as it has been for more than 5 years. However, this is the document that AW has been told will address boating in the headwaters above Highway 28 and water quality issues on Stekoa Creek. Amendment 14 makes no promises to this affect regarding either issue.

AW ANALYSIS	ALT. 1 No Action AW Choice	Alt. 2	Alt. 3 AW Choice	Alt. 4 USFS Choice	Alt. 5
AW ANALYSIS OF EA AMENDMENT 14 (EARLY OBSERVATIONS)
Self-Guided Boating: Section III	Not Regulated	175 weekend 125 weekday	200 weekend/holiday 125 weekday	175 weekend 125 weekday	200 weekend/holiday 125 weekday
Self-Guided Boating: Section IV	Not Regulated	160 weekend 75 weekday	200 weekend/holiday 125 weekday	160 weekend 75 weekday	200 weekend/holiday 125 weekday
	American Whitewater requested the use allocation under Alternative 3 & 5. This was based on: Historic use levels; The fact that use rarely exceeds these amounts except on busy holiday weekends such as Memorial Day and the Fourth of July; and The fact that private or self-guided boater use at current levels has not been found to have negative environmental or social impacts.
Private Boater Reservation System Section III Apr. 1 – Aug. 31	None	If use is exceeded for 20 weekends in a given year, then reservations would be required on weekends the following year.If use is exceeded for 50 weekdays in a given year, then reservations would be required on weekends (pg 27) [sic – should probably state weekday based on info on pg 18] the following year.
	Since 1996, self-guided use on these dates has reached 200/weekend an average of 3 days/year, and has not reached 125 people/weekday. Since 1996, self-guided use on these dates has reached 175/weekend an average of 4 days/year, and has not reached 125 people/weekday.
Private Boater Reservation System Section IV Apr. 1 – Aug. 31	None	If use is exceeded for 20 weekends in a given year, then reservations would be required on weekends the following year.If use is exceeded for 50 weekdays in a given year, then reservations would be required on weekends (pg 28) [sic – should probably state weekday based on info on pg 19] the following year.
	Since 1996, self-guided use on these dates has reached 200/weekend an average of 2 days/year, and has reached 125 people/weekday an average of 1 day/year. Since 1996, self-guided use on these dates has reached 160/weekend an average of 2 days/year, and has reached 75 people/weekday an average of 4 days/year.
	AW credits the USFS for looking at a reservation system under a proactive management plan. However, we question the need for the restrictive permit reservations suggested under Alternatives 2 & 4 if use at the higher levels under Alternatives 3 & 5 are atypical and not generally viewed as unacceptably crowded. Hence AW’s general support for Alternative 3 & 5. AW generally supports advance planning to address anticipated future use patterns. Yet we are prompted to question the need to change the existing plan, given that use has plateaued at a self-regulated level for the past 6 years and permits do not appear to be necessary in the next several years.
	AW will encourage the USFS to consider modifying the proposal to trigger permits only after two consecutive years at the trigger levels. This will allow the agency time to plan for the reservation permit system, time to educate visitors about use levels and the need for a permit system, and time to determine whether use patterns were a fluke or the result of unusual weather patterns that might attract visitors. For instance, whitewater use dramatically increased across the board in 1994 and 1995 following the release of the movie “River Wild” featuring Meryl Streep. However, since 1995, use has steadily declined as the fad component of whitewater recreation has declined.
Allow Headwaters Boater Access Above Highway 28	AW Request to Consider Denied: Despite receiving more than 200 letters during the scoping period in support of access to the headwaters, the USFS writes “We have received many comments requesting the Forest Service consider either opening these of the river to boaters or to make sure these sections remain closed to boaters. The issue is outside the scope of the Purpose & need and Proposed Action for this project. At this time, we are only analyzing recreational boating use on Sections I-IV of the Chattooga River” (pg 7). The EA does not specify when our request to consider will be evaluated.
Improve Stekoa Creek Water Quality: Reduce fecal coliform	AW Request to Make Improved Water Quality a Priority Denied & Recognized: USFS responds that the “issue is outside the scope of the Purpose & Need and Proposed Action for this project” (pg 7). The agency later notes that “To assess the current and future impacts of boating use on the river, focused monitoring is needed on the water quality areas of sedimentation and fecal coliform…” (pg 24). However, the EA later clarifies that “Known water quality problem areas should be targeted first until we get better information. Stekoa Creek has been and continues to be the most contaminated tributary within the Chattooga Watershed. Estimates are that Stekoa Creek may also have about 2/3 of the total fecal (and sediment) loading for the Chattooga Watershed. Warwoman Creek, West Fork Chattooga River, and Whetstone Creek have periodic fecal contamination (pg 25).”
Scope of Purpose & Need Statement	The report states that “Because of the perceived inadequacies of the current Forest Plan as it relates to boating and the need for a more timely response; because these other issues involve other National Forests; and because Forest Plan Revision is underway but on a more extended timeline, the agency determined that the scope of proposed activities should be limited to only recreational boating on Sections I – IV for guided and self-guided use” (pg 8). Note that these same arguments apply to AW’s reasons for requesting a review of Headwaters access too.
Outfitter Use: Definition of “raft”	Raft does not equal inflatable kayak	Raft does equal inflatable kayak
Shuttle Permits	1	More than 1	No more than 2 (by permit <30% of all boaters could be shuttled)	More than 1	No more than 2 (by permit <30% of all boaters could be shuttled)
	Note that under Alternative 4 inflatable kayak rentals (aka IK’s duckies, funyaks, etc.) will be managed as private boater uses and are no longer considered “rafts”. Note that the shuttle permits are issued to the companies that rent duckies. Note that Alternative 4 provides for multiple shuttle permits. Note that there is no restriction on the number of IK’s a company can rent. Note that the agency professes a need to restrict private boater access with reserved permits based on historic use levels. Finally, note that the act of creating a new commercial IK industry under the private boater allocation will only make the river more congested and access more difficult for the traditional visitors. American Whitewater does not oppose inflatable kayak use on the river; however we believe strongly that all inflatable kayak rentals and shuttle users should be counted under the commercial outfitted allocation, which is the sector from which anticipated increased visitation will actually arise from.
Outfitter Use: Number of clients per trip	30	Allow trips to exceed 30 clients as long as each trip does not exceed 40 total people (including guides). The overall daily commercial allocation does not change.
	The change will have the affect of allowing outfitters flexibility to take a 25 and 35 person trip instead of a 30 and 30 person trip. This proposal simply gives the outfitters greater flexibility in booking trips and AW’s analysis is that it will have little effect on private boater use.
Guided Boating: Number of boats/trip when water levels are above 1 foot at Hwy. 76 bridge	7 rafts on 3 trips/day	12 boats on 3 trips/day	7 rafts on 3 trips/day	max 12 boats/trip	max 12 boats/trip
AW Questions & Comments	How is the current system not working? AW has asked the USFS to fully explain their compulsion to change the system. “If it ain’t broke, why fix it?”	Alt.2 is not acceptable because it restricts private boater use without purpose.	Alt. 3 is preferable over 2, 4, & 5 because it recognizes historic and traditional use patterns.	Alt. 4 is not acceptable because it restricts private boater use without purpose.	Alt. 5 differs from alternative 3 principally in the number of craft that commerical trips can use.

AW’s Request for a Comment Period Extension

On May 9th, American Whitewater requested an extension of the EA comment period. Ranger Crane responded that:

Since this is a Forest Plan amendment, there is no requirement for a 30-day comment period. In fact, as the original scoping letter indicated, there is no requirement to make the EA available for public review at all. However, we elected to do so and for 3 weeks. I’ll consider the request and let you know.

On May 12th, American Whitewater’s Access Director Robertson responded:

Thanks for agreeing to consider an extension of the comment period.
The requested extension seems like a good idea, particularly so since you [Ranger Crane] authorized on behalf of the Forest Service a 63 day comment period during the original scoping period when you gave the public 30 days to comment from July 16th to August 16, 2001 and later (on August 10th) extended the comment period to September 17th. If you felt that the public deserved 63 days to comment on a much shorter 6-page document, it seems logical to approve Mr. Kinser’s extension request since this latest amendment proposal is considerably larger with nearly 140 pages.
I would personally appreciate a longer period to digest this information, as would many other members of the public. Based on prior personal experience with soliciting and reviewing public comments under NEPA, I’m sure that the more time the public has to digest the document, the more considered will be their (our) responses. Further, since the agency was in no hurry to release this document, which you have led us to believe was largely completed in January, giving the public a few more weeks to comment on the plan should not significantly affect agency actions or implementation of the final decision.
I look forward to your decision regarding the requested extension.

On May 15 Ranger Crane responded:

I’ve decided not to extend the comment period for the Amendment 14Environmental Assessment. I believe that a 3-week period is an adequateamount of time to receive and review the analysis and provide feedback.This is especially true, I believe, since individuals receiving the EA arealready familiar with the details of the original Proposed Action and havesubmitted comments during the initial scoping period.

As of May 15th, the Forest Service had not supplied American Whitewater with a copy of the document despite repeated requests from AW to do so and AW’s long participation in the planning process. This raised the question of how many other people on the mailing list had not been notified that the document was released and had not received their copies?

Thus on May 20th, the Forest Service agreed to extend the deadline for comments to June 12, 2002.

Chattooga EA Released: Deadline Extended to June 12, 2002

Following American Whitewater’s request, the deadline for submitting comments is extended from May 28th to June 12, 2002

AW ANALYSIS OF EA AMENDMENT 14 (EARLY OBSERVATIONS)

AW’s Request for a Comment Period Extension