The Chattooga Headwaters Issue: Our Position

The August 2009 final decision by the Forest Service to create a new access point for whitewater boating in the remote and biologically rich headwaters of the Chattooga River above and through the Ellicott Rock Wilderness Area, while maintaining a total ban on whitewater boating below Burrells Ford to protect trophy fishing for stocked fish at water levels when it is too high to even fish, is arbitrary and capricious, unfair, and unenforceable, and will cause irreparable damage to the headwaters of the Chattooga River watershed.

The Forest Service's decision is arbitrary and capricious, and thus is illegal as a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, because the agency's Environmental Assessment sets a standard to consider limited whitewater boating without creating new access trails, while the final decision encourages new access by developing an undesignated, "user-created trail" in one of the last inaccessible places in the Chattooga River headwaters. The resulting damage to one of the most biologically sensitive areas in the Southern Appalachian Mountains from a host of new users who will inevitably attempt to access the Chattooga's remote upper gorges via user-created extensions of the new proposed access was not adequately studied in the Forest Service's Environmental Assessment.

Similarly, the Forest Service's decision is arbitrary and capricious because it concludes on the one hand that the seasonal and flow-level restrictions will be sufficient to meet standards under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the Wilderness Act to protect the "wilderness experience" through Ellicott Rock Wilderness Area but yet on the other hand, the Forest Service proposes to maintain a total ban on whitewater boating below Burrells Ford to protect a high quality fishing experience at water levels too high to fish. In other words, the Forest Service bans boating to protect a user group that does not even utilize the river at the proposed boating levels. This is a double standard, to wit: if the Forest Service claims that restrictions on proposed levels of boating in the Ellicott Wilderness will be sufficient to protect users from conflict, it would follow that these same restrictions would also be sufficient to allow use below (downstream) without conflict between user groups, especially since according to the Forest Service's own Environmental Assessment, the potential for conflict between boaters and fishermen is extremely low at the proposed boating levels.

The decision by the Forest Service to allow whitewater boating in the upper Chattooga River headwaters is seemingly unenforceable. One needs only to assess the damage that has been done to the lower Chattooga River area from out-of-control "user created trails" (including off-road vehicle trails) in areas managed for hikers, mountain bikes, and horseback riders.

Finally, the Forest Service's decision reveals an agency that has shunned its responsibility to be impartial to all user groups, uphold the law, and to protect the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the Chattooga River. It can be summed up as a decision by a weak agency that has allowed itself to be maneuvered by two powerful special interest groups into a decision that protects a favored ally, throws a bone to boaters to call off the attack, while ignoring other users, the law, and an ethical responsibility to protect a national treasure.

Please get involved and comment on the 8/25/09 decision notice issued by the Forest Service regarding boating in the headwaters of the Chattooga River. As outlined by the Chattooga Conservancy, our position includes: no new access and no permitted boating above Bull Pen Bridge, but allowing restricted boating from the Bull Pen Bridge all the way to the Highway 28 Bridge. We also believe that the number of boater groups should be limited to no more than four groups of six people during a boatable day, and that more resources and money should be designated for law enforcement.

July 2, 2008: Forest Service Releases the Upper Chattooga Draft Environmental Assessment
Our Comments

On July 2, 2008, the U. S. Forest Service released an Environmental Assessment of the user capacity of the headwaters of the Chattooga River above the Highway 28 Bridge. In this Environmental Assessment, the Forest Service selected Alternative 4 as their "preferred alternative." Alternative 4 would allow boating from the County Line Road in North Carolina near the Chattooga Cliffs, to Burrells Ford. Boating would only be allowed From December 1st to March 1st, and further restricted to 4 groups of 6 boaters per day. Alternative 4 also proposes restrictions on camping, and to discontinue parking at the Burrells Ford Bridge.

Background

The original question of allowing boating in the headwaters of the Chattooga River caught fire in 2004, when the Chief of the Forest Service directed forest managers in the Chattooga River watershed to reconsider their decision to continue a ban on boating above the Highway 28 Bridge. The Chief's direction came as a result of American Whitewater's appeal of the recent revision of the Sumter National Forest Plan.

Four years later, and after spending over two million dollars on a user capacity analysis, the Forest Service is no closer to a fair solution to this vexing problem than before. Alternative 4 would violate the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act that directs forest managers to protect and enhance the outstandingly remarkable values of the headwaters, and secondly, it does not consider a viable alternative to allow boating that would not harm the wilderness experience still existing in the headwater reaches of the Chattooga River.

Explanation

Boating in the Chattooga headwaters should be allowed all the way to Highway 28, if it is sufficiently restricted in order to prevent resource damage and to protect the wilderness experience by preventing too many encounters between users of the area. The number of groups and individuals within a group as proposed in Alternative 4 for boating through the upper section of the Chattooga above Burrells Ford is sufficient to prevent too many encounters. But Alternative 4 prevents boating below Burrells Ford to protect quality fishing. This is a glaring oversight, given the fact that fishermen do not fish at higher levels because the water is too swift. Any alternative should consider this fact and divide boaters and fishermen by water level, allowing boating above about 500 cubic feet per second. Thus, all user groups could use the upper Chattooga without impacting the wilderness experience, with exceptions as follows.

Alternative 4 would direct boaters to put in above numerous strainers, including a massive log jam that spans the entire width of the Chattooga River.

Click here to see a larger version.

Exception: Any proposed boating use above Cane Creek (just upstream of the Iron Bridge) on the Chattooga Cliffs reach should be prohibited for two very important reasons. First, Alternative 4's proposed boating put-in at the confluence of Norton Mill Creek and the Chattooga River should not be permitted because it is not practical or safe. The first third of a mile downstream from this proposed put-in contains at least four strainers (logs in the river) that pose a threat to life and limb. In addition, at about one quarter of a mile downstream of this proposed put-in is a massive log jam that must be portaged. Under the right conditions, a swimmer going into this sieve of logs would surely result in an eventual fatality. However, there is a perfectly good put-in at Cane Creek, just below this huge jumble of logs, that is within 350 paces of a gated Forest Service system road.

The second reason for not allowing a put-in at Norton Mill Creek is because this would create a new access point on the Chattooga Cliffs reach of the river. The Forest Service's Environmental Assessment clearly points out that this area is the most sensitive and least used section of the Chattooga River. A new access point would bring in a host of other uses that would destroy the wilderness character of this area.

Using the Forest Service's Cane Creek Road as a boater put-in point would not require creating a new access point. It would require a short trail to the river from the Cane Creek Road. This trail could be constructed for boater access if certain criteria were followed to prevent resource damage. Currently, Alternative 4 would not allow this option since it states that no new trails would be designated.

There are other good reasons for using the Cane Creek Road for a put-in: The road is gated, which would be a perfect point to control and regulate access.

Please write the Forest Service today and ask them to:

Modify and choose Alternative 5 to reflect the above changes. Your comments don't have to be long. Simply say that you would prefer Alternative 5 if it were modified to allow boating, at water levels above around 500 cubic feet per second and group size restrictions of 4 groups of up to 6 paddlers, from the Cane Creek Road all the way to Highway 28.

This would allow for a safe, reasonable proposal for boater use of the upper Chattooga River, where group encounters are regulated by water level, group size, and number of individuals in a group, in order to protect the wilderness experience of the Chattooga headwaters.

This is an urgent matter. The decision to open more use in the headwaters must be carefully implemented to preserve the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the Chattooga River. This is the last best place. Be a part of saving it!

-Buzz Williams, Executive Director
Chattooga Conservancy

Send your comments to: comments-southern-francismarion-sumter@fs.fed.us or USFS, Chattooga River Project, 4931 Broad River. Road, Columbia, SC 29212