|
Here’s an interesting analysis of “Flow Issues”, (times boaters and anglers will use the river) in the Upper Chattooga. I won’t bore you with all the number crunching and details. If you want to read it for yourself and check out all the pretty charts, its starts on page 77 of the Capacity and Conflict report. Download it here:
What I found most interesting, is it concludes that in a year, 34 days (9%) will be optimal boating flows with low quality fishing (also called HIGH overlap days), 77 days (21%) of the year will be optimal fishing with low quality boating (also called LOW overlap days), 247 days (70%) are optimal angling with no boating, 3 days (1%) with “big water boating” and low quality angling and 4 days (1%) where the water is too high for either.
Note that fishing is broken into fly, lure and bait. Each discipline works best at different water levels.
Read the “Flow issue conclusions” below from this study then my editorial after that:
Flow issue conclusions
Studies on many other rivers show that better boating flows are higher and better fishing flows
are lower. When natural flow regimes provide a range of flows through the year, these two
groups tend to separate and there is less likelihood of conflict. However, there are overlap ranges
on the Chattooga, and they occur more often than estimated during the Sumter Forest plan update
in the early 2000s. On the Upper Chattooga, boaters can probably get down the river at lower
flows, and optimal standard boating starts at slightly lower flows, than was believed prior to the
expert panel fieldwork.
However, for many days in the “high overlap” period, boater-angler conflict and related capacity
problems would be unlikely. These are lower quality fishing days for all but bait anglers, and
they tend to occur in winter when bait angling use is low. Some fly and spin anglers certainly
fish these flows, particularly in March and April on the DH reach, but they have lower quality
flow conditions in comparison to the other 320 or so days per year that have lower flows. For
boaters, these optimal flows are also infrequent and difficult to predict, requiring attention to
weather reports, and a flexible work schedule to take advantage of them. Most boatable days
come during or immediately following a storm, and the “boatable window” may be less than a
day, particularly in summer. In addition, only about 10 of these “best boating days” are likely to
occur on weekends or holidays (assuming about 30% of days are on weekends/holidays, and
boatable days are distributed randomly). Realistically, only optimal flows on a weekend day are
likely to produce the maximum boater use levels identified in Chapter 4.
For the “low overlap” period, the converse is true. These are high quality fishing flows, but lower
quality technical boating flows. There are more of these days (77), and they tend to occur in
warmer times of the year (when angling use is higher and boaters might be motivated by good
weather). In this “overlap range” management actions (such as use limits, separation by segments
or timing) may be necessary to protect high quality fishing if boating were allowed.
Rob’s Editorial:
Notice that the report does not conclude that the “best” boatable days (34 - high overlap days) should be restricted by season, because there is so little “conflict” with fishing. Furthermore, it does not suggest fishing should be restricted during this time either. So, this and the “Interference with Angling” section of the report show some amount of “conflict” seems acceptable. Earlier in the report it also states that anglers can avoid seeing boaters by simply choosing where to fish. (i.e. fish by a put-in during the afternoon or a take-out early in the day). It then seem obvious that all “conflicts” and/or “interferences” may be managed simply by anglers taking personal responsibility for their own “solitude” and choosing what location to fish on overlap days.
Now let’s look at the lower water level overlap days (77 – low overlap days). These days are more likely to occur during warmer weather months, thus attracting more boaters and more anglers. It concludes, boaters should be restricted here. Not anglers – just boaters. Again, going back to that “anglers can avoid boaters by choosing where to fish argument” – it doesn’t seem like those who put this report together think the anglers are able to take personal responsibility for their wilderness experience. Sad, I guess I think more highly of anglers then they do.
Also, in the “Interference with Angling” section it concludes there is no evidence that a passing boat significantly spooks a fish. It says that fish will, and have, become accustom to boat traffic on other rivers. Anglers, report that fish, unaccustomed to boats, are spooked for a couple of minutes to an hour after a boat has passed. One angler (who was on the angler panel during the boating study last year) reported after the boats passed, he caught nothing for the rest of the day. He knew exactly what his comments were going to be used for, so I find that assertion questionable at best.
To recap, if boating is permitted, it seems likely that the fish will be spooked initially. For how long is up for debate. As they become accustom to boating, the “spook time” will, more than likely, shorten greatly or disappear. As was said before, anglers are able to choose their fishing location in order to avoid seeing a boater during “overlap water levels”. I conclude that there is no need to restrict boating in the headwaters because there will be no long term impact on the fishing or the angler’s solitude. Of course this is predicated on IF the angler takes some personal responsibility and times his visits and/or fishing locations to avoid seeing a boat on overlap days. Remember, this will only occur on a minority of the fishing days (77 out of 365). Identifying overlap days is as simple as checking a USGS gage.
If the goal is to protect the “outstanding fishing qualities of the Upper Chattooga.” I have a win-win solution the report doesn’t address. Just like boaters who hone their skills and progress from Section 2, to 3, to 4 and beyond, I’m sure anglers feel the same sense of pride in mastering their sport. Therefore, I suggest the Forest Service create a more rewarding fishing experience by stocking only Native Eastern Brook Trout and stop stocking the non-native trout. This will have a two fold effect. The “Brookies” are a more illusive prey, which takes considerable skill to catch. They may be small, but the rewards are great. Furthermore, it will reduce the number of lesser skilled anglers visiting the Upper Chattooga. This will reduce the environmental impact of the user load and lessen the competition for fishing spots between anglers. In short, it not only returns the Chattooga to its original natural state, it creates a more rewarding fishing experience with less competition for fishing spot, and it protects the wilderness resource from overuse. And again, anglers can choose their fishing locations to protect their solitude. I think this is a win-win for everyone.
I’m still reading the report, so stay tuned for more insightful nuggets of useful information! Remember August 18 is the deadline for getting your first, second or third or fourth letter in!
Back of the bus everyone!!
Rob Maxwell
Atlanta, GA
TU and the FS knows who I am, do they know who you are yet? |
Upper Chattooga - Flow Studies from the "Capacity and Conflict" report New 
BoaterTalk 
