Ocklochonee River Water Trail: Comprehensive Plan

OCKLOCHONEE RIVER WATER TRAIL Comprehensive Trail Plan UGA MEPD Practicum

Spring 2016 Rachel Haddon

CONTENTS

OCHLOCKONEE RIVER, HIGHWAY 93

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

PHOTO CREDIT

Many thanks to Margaret Tyson with the Ochlockonee River Water Trail for her help and support in the project. Thank you to Betsy McGriff and the Archway Partnership for the opportunity to experience and research a truly beautiful place. Thank you to Jack Crowley, Umit Yilmaz, and Sharon Liggett for all of their feedback and contributions to the defense process. Your suggestions and insights were incredibly helpful in polishing some rough edges.

All photos without citations taken by Rachel Haddon in 2015.

ORWT |

02

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Ochlockonee River Water Trail was recently established and designated as a developing trail by the Georgia River Network. The water trail is a blueway, and makes uses of a river as a trail through signage and marked access. The trail begins near the City of Moultrie, Georgia in Colquitt County. From there, it stretches 63 miles, with many access points along the route. This report builds on a baseline research report completed by Amanda Lanphere in 2015. The report aims to look comprehensively at the trail, first giving context information for the surrounding region and other rivers in Georgia. Secondly, the economic impact of water trail is discussed, particularly in relation to the rural setting of the trail. Next, an overview

of the ecology of the region is given. Following ecology, water policy in Georgia is explored, with a discussion of the implications of this policy on recreation in general, as well as the Ochlockonee Trail specifically. The trail itself is then discussed, with detailed maps given for each portion including all access points. Recommendations are given for further implementation of the trail, including signage, marketing and trail promotion. Lastly, the report will make recommendations for boat landing improvements for three access points in Grady County. Improvements to the trail will be planned in phases, with phase one placing emphasis in Grady County, which is the southernmost portion of the trail in Georgia.

ORWT |

03

CONTENTS

01 INTRODUCTION

02 CONTEXT

06

RIVERS IN GEORGIA

10

AREA CONTEXT

07

THE OCHLOCKONEE BASIN

12

DEMOGRAPHICS

08

WHAT IS A WATER TRAIL?

13

FLOOD PLAIN

03 LAND

04 ECONOMICS

17

GEOGRAPHICAL REGIONS OF GEORGIA

22

ECONOMICS OF THE RED HILLS REGION

18

THE COASTAL PLAIN

23

19

THE OCHLOCKONEE BASIN

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF WATER TRAILS

20

THE RED HILLS ECOREGION

05 POLICY

06 TRAIL

25

WATER POLICY IN GEORGIA

42

TRAIL OVERVIEW

37

IMPLICATIONS FOR TRAIL

44

ACCESS POINTS

46

DETAILED ACCESS MAPS

07 RECOMMENDATIONS

08 CONCLUSION

58

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

72

CONCLUSION

59

ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS

73

NEXT STEPS

65

PHASE ONE IMPROVEMENTS

ORWT |

04

SECTION ONE

INTRODUCTION Rivers in Georgia The Ochlockonee River What is a Water Trail?

ORWT |

05

TENNESSEE

COOSA

SAVANNAH

TALLAPOOSA OCONEE CHATTAHOOCHEE

OGEECHEE

OCMULGEE ALTAMAHA

FLINT

SATILLA

SUWANNEE OCHLOCKONEE SAINT MARYS

RIVER BASINS IN GEORGIA Georgia is home to 70.150 miles of rivers and streams. There are 14 major river basins, which contain 52 watersheds total (GRN, 2016). One of Georgia’s 14 river basins, the Ochlockonee basin drains approximately 6,330 square miles, 1,46o of

which are in located in Georgia. Principal tributaries include the Little Ochlockonee River, Tired Creek, Telogia Creek, and Crooked River. Two smaller watersheds exist within the basin, however, neither drain into the Ochlockonee itself. (EPA, 2002)

ORWT |

06

TENNESSEE

NORTH CAROLINA

GEORGIA

SOUTH CAROLINA

ALABAMA

FLORIDA

THE OCHLOCKONEE RIVER

The river winds 206 miles through Georgia and Florida before emptying into the Gulf of Mexico.

The Ochlockonee River is located in southwest Georgia. The river’s headwaters are in Worth County, Georgia at an elevation of 420 feet.

ORWT |

07

SECTION ONE

WHAT IS A WATER TRAIL? Water trails, or blueways, are marked routes along rivers, lakes and coastlines intended for boating. These routes have varying levels of amenities including signs and makers, maps and promotion, facilities for parking and camping, boat ramps, or boat landing amenities. Unlike other trail systems, these trails already exist, however, direction and coordination to guide users is needed. Water trails offer users a unique way to experience a place from the water, and encourage users to get outside. A National Water Trail System was developed in 2012, and is administered by the National Park Service. (Macdonald, 2008) Additionally, state and local trails exist. In Georgia, the Georgia River Network promotes water trail usage through the Georgia Water Trail Clearinghouse. Currently, there are 15 established water trails in Georgia, and 13 in development. A map of these trails can be seen below. (GRN, 2016)

ORWT |

08

SECTION TWO

CONTEXT Area Context Demographics Land Use Floodplain

ORWT |

09

SECTION TWO

RIVER AREA CONTEXT The Ochlockonee River’s headwaters are located in Worth County, Georgia. From there, it flows south through Colquitt, Thomas, and Grady Counties before crossing the state line and entering Leon County, Florida. The river counties are mostly rural, with densities mostly under 1 person per acre. The sizeable cities in the counties include Sylvester, Moultrie, Thomasville, and Cairo, all being county seats. The densities in these cities vary, but all remain under 6 people per acre. The

topography of the area is mostly flat, and much of the area surrounding the river lies within the floodplain. Only 2% of the river basin classified as urban, with 41% of the land remaining forested, and 44% dedicated to agriculture. Commodities grown in the area include peanuts, corn, cotton, oats, rye, sorghum, soybeans, and tobacco (Georgia River Network, 2016).

OCHLOCKONEE RIVER, HADLEY FERRY ORWT |

10

SECTION TWO

TURNER COUNTY

RIVER AREA CONTEXT MAP

WORTH COUNTY Sylvester

DOUGHERTY COUNTY TIFT COUNTY Doe Run Norman Park

Moultrie MITCHELL COUNTY Pelham

COLQUITT COUNTY

GRADY COUNTY Coolidge Ochlockonee

Whigham

Cairo Thomasville Quitman

THOMAS COUNTY

BROOKS COUNTY 0 1 2

ORWT |

11

4

6

8 Miles

°

SECTION TWO

RIVER AREA POPULATION DENSITY The population density surrounding the Ochlockonee River is mostly under .15 people per acre. This fluctuates slightly higher as the river nears cities or towns, including Thomasville and Cairo.

People per acre 0.020 - 0.15

0.92 - 2.2

0.16 - 0.33

2.3 - 3.5

0.34 - 0.91

3.6 - 5.4

based on 2010 Census data by census block group ORWT |

12

0 1 2

4

6

8 Miles

°

SECTION TWO

100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN, MAP 1

Mack Dekle Road

!

Smithwick Bridge Road

! !

Zion Grove Church Road

Bee Line Road

!

!

!

State Route 188

State Route 202

LEGEND:

°

OCHLOCKONEE RIVER

Sources: Google Earth, GA DOT, State Base Map of Georgia, FEMA

ACCESS POINTS 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, 2 4 IGP, swisstopo, and the0GIS User1Community Miles

ORWT |

13

SECTION TWO

100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN, MAP 2

State Route 202

!

US Hwy 19

!

State Route 3

!

State Route 84

!

State Route 93

!

LEGEND:

°

Sources: Google Earth, GA DOT, State Base Map of Georgia, FEMA

OCHLOCKONEE RIVER

ACCESS POINTS 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, 2 1 GIS User Community 0 2 IGP, swisstopo, and the miles

ORWT |

14

SECTION TWO

100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN, MAP 3

! STATE ROUTE 93

! HADLEY FERRY ROAD

! DICKEY FERRY ROAD

LEGEND:

°

OCHLOCKONEE RIVER 2

Sources: Google Earth, GA DOT, State Base Map of Georgia, FEMA

100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN

ACCESS POINTS 1

0

2 miles

ORWT |

15

SECTION THREE

LAND CHARACTERISTICS Geographic Regions of Georgia The Coastal Plain The Ochlockonee Basin The Red Hills Ecoregion

ORWT |

16

SECTION THREE

GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS OF GEORGIA The state of Georgia contains five distinct geographic regions including the Appalachian Plateau, the Ridge and Valley, the Blue Ridge, the Piedmont, and the Coastal Plain. The northern part of the state, including the Appalachian Plateau, Ridge and Valley, and Blue Ridge, are the mountainous regions. Further south sits the Piedmont. This area is the foothills of the mountains, and contains the majority of the state’s population. The Coastal Plain lies below the fall APPALACHIAN PLATEAU

line, which seperates the plain from the Piedmont.

The fall line is a geological boundary about 20 miles wide, marking a rise in elevation from the Coastal Plain. The line demarcates the prehistoric coast of Georgia, and signifies the end of historically navigable waters used for commerce from the ocean.

Agriculture dominates this region, particularly the upper portion. The Lower Coastal Plain extends to the Atlantic Ocean, creating space for the shipping industry and recreation along the coast (Georgia Encylopedia, 2016).

RIDGE AND VALLEY BLUE RIDGE

PIEDMONT

UPPER COASTAL PLAIN

LOWER COASTAL PLAIN

ORWT |

17

SECTION THREE

THE COASTAL PLAIN The Coastal Plain of Georgia begins just south of the Fall Line and extends to the Atlantic Ocean. This region comprises about 60% of the state, covering 36,650 square miles. The soils of the Coastal Plain are mostly sandy, as this region was originally the prehistoric sea floor (Georgia DNR, 2016). Due to wave action in the prehistoric ocean, the region is relatively flat, with some gentle slopes. South of the Fall Line, rivers drop in elevation and become much slower flowing and more winding. Rivers

also widen, making navigation easier. Historically, this was important to commerce by boat in the Coastal Plain, and dictated the locations of major settlements. This is seen in Georgia along the Fall Line with the cities of Augusta, Milledgeville, Macon, and Columbus. Swampy areas are common, due to poor drainage. Soils are mostly clay and sand, and not well suited for agriculture, although this is the main industry in this part of the state.

Agriculture consists mainly of timber farming (GeorgiaInfo, 2016).

COASTAL PLAIN CYPRESS SWAMP

http://www.nespal.org/sirp/waterinfo/state/common/images/CypresSwamp.jpg

ORWT |

18

SECTION THREE

THE OCHLOCKONEE BASIN with iron-rich layers. A mixture of hardwoods and pines surround the banks, and much of this portion of the watershed is used for agriculture including but not limited to cotton, peanuts, soybeans and corn.

Just south of Thomasville, Georgia, the landscape changes as the river enters the Red Hills. This ecoregion is characterized by red clay soils and a rich diversity of plant and wildlife (Lenz).

The Ochlockonee River flows undammed in Georgia through four counties before winding into Florida.

The basin drains a total of 2,416 square miles, of which about 55% are in Georgia. The river flows into Florida, eventually draining in the Ochlockonee Bay in the Gulf of Mexico. From its start in Worth County, the river flows through the Tifton Upland District, a part of the Coastal Plain. The Tifton Upland is characterized by brownish, loamy soils 85°

84°

83°

82°

81°

Level III and IV Ecoregions of Georgia Charlotte

67 Chattanooga

NORTH CAROLINA

TENNESSEE

67h 67g 67i

68d

67f

67f

67h

66g

15 10 5 0

67

60 mi 120 km

INA

OL AR

Rome

34°

Columbia

67f

45a

Athens

oo ch e

e Ri

67i

ver

67g

67

Russell Lake

Gainesville

30 45 60 Albers Equal Area Projection

30 20 10 0

HC

Lake Sidney Lanier

67g

67h

34°

UT

Hartwell Lake

67h

SO

68c

68

G.E. Griffith, J.M. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, S. Lawrence, and T. Foster 2001

66d

67f

67g

ah

45c 45c

Atlanta

J. Strom Thurmond Lake

at t

45d Anniston

Ch

65

GIA GEOR AMA ALAB

Augusta

65p

65c

Lake Sinclair

45b

45

33°

65k

La Grange

63

65p

65p

Macon

e Og

ttl Li

West Point Lake

45h

Sa v an

Statesboro

75f

65p

75i

65l

75i

Vidalia

75f 65d

Altamaha R lgee R iv

er

75j

er

Tifton

75f

Waycross

iv

t Fl in

R

Brunswick

65h

65p

75j

75e

75 65

ree k

75 83°

82°

66 Blue Ridge 66d Southern Crystalline Ridges & Mountains 66g Southern Metasedimentary Mountains 66j Broad Basins 67 Ridge and Valley 67f Southern Limestone/Dolomite Valleys and Low Rolling Hills 67g Southern Shale Valleys 67h Southern Sandstone Ridges 67i Southern Dissected Ridges and Knobs

81°

68 Southwestern Appalachians 68c Plateau Escarpment 68d Southern Table Plateaus 75 Southern Coastal Plain 75e Okefenokee Plains 75f Sea Island Flatwoods 75g Okefenokee Swamp 75h Bacon Terraces 75i Floodplains and Low Terraces 75j Sea Islands/Coastal Marsh

re dC

Ti

Tur

C ree

k

k ree

y ke

ECOREGIONS OF GEORGIA

iv

e Riv one ock

Big Creek

er

hl

Level III ecoregion Level IV ecoregion State boundary County boundary

84°

65 Southeastern Plains 65c Sand Hills 65d Southern Hilly Gulf Coastal Plain 65g Dougherty Plain 65h Tifton Upland 65k Coastal Plain Red Uplands 65l Atlantic Southern Loam Plains 65o Tallahassee Hills/Valdosta Limesink 65p Southeastern Floodplains and Low Terraces

eR ne

Oc

85°

45 Piedmont 45a Southern Inner Piedmont 45b Southern Outer Piedmont 45c Carolina Slate Belt 45d Talladega Upland 45h Pine Mountain Ridges

ol Och

eek k Cr r ee etts ts C arn net Branch B Ba r

Jacksonville

il

lC

75e

Tallahassee

eM

st Ea

75g

65o

FLORIDA

nc

Valdosta Lake Seminole

65

31°

S pe

31°

k re e st C

Albany

reek eC

Lo

65g

Dothan

75i

75h

dg

65l Walter F. George Lake

32°

r eek eC ttl

Troy

Savannah

Hinesville

B ri

O

65

cm u

iver

hl

Li

65k

Oc

75

iver onee R ock

65k

r ive

65p

e

Ri v er

hR na

65l

er

Columbus

ec he e

ee Riv on Oc

65k

65p

65c

Atlantic Ocean

33°

32°

35°

Greenville

er

68d

66j

66j

67i 67f

35°

cko

68

66

THE OCHLOCKONEE BASIN

ORWT |

19

SECTION THREE

THE RED HILLS ECOREGION The Red Hills ecoregion comprises about 300,000 acres defined by Thomasville, Georgia to the north and Tallahassee, Florida to the south. The region is rich in biodiversity, and known for its rolling hills and red clay soils, creating a truly beautiful landscape. Much of the area is dedicated conservation land, harboring a large portion of the remaining native longleaf pine forest in the nation as well as around 64 endangered or threated plant and animal species. The region boasts the largest concentration

of undeveloped concentration land in the nation, and has been designated one of America’s “Last Great Places” by the Nature Conservancy (Tall Timbers, 2016).

Great biodiversity in the Red Hills provides this area with abundant ecosystem services, estimated to be valued around 1.136 billion dollars annually (Tall Timbers, 2016).

LONGLEAF PINE HABITAT

http://vanjesterwoodworks.com/files/2014/07/Longleaf-Pine-Forest.jpg

ORWT |

20

SECTION FOUR

ECONOMICS Economics of the Red Hills Economic Impact of Water Trails

ORWT |

21

SECTION FOUR

ECONOMICS OF THE RED HILLS The Red Hills region, including portions in Georgia and northern Florida, is recognized as a great ecological treasure. With over 165,000 acres of permanently protected conservation lands, the region boasts diverse wildlife and a wild beauty that makes it one of America’s “Last Great Places”.

However, the region also has a strong economic value. A survey and subsequent research in 2012 resulted in comprehensive information regarding the economic value of rural working lands in the Red Hills region. This study was jointly conducted by the Tall Timbers Research Stations & Land Conservancy and the Center for Economic Forecasting and

Analysis (CEFA) at Florida State University. Research estimated that the total economic impact of the working rural lands in the region was $147.1 million.

Additionally, the lands generated 1,419 full-time local jobs, 706 of which are located in Thomas and Grady Counties (Fleckenstein, 2013). The conservation lands in the Red Hills are not only important as an ecological resource, maintaining the wild and natural character along the Ochlockonee River, but also make a significant contribution to the area’s economy. Summaries of the research from Grady and Thomas counties can be seen below.

ECONOMIC IMPACT REPORT PAGES

ORWT |

22

SECTION FOUR

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF WATER TRAILS The establishment of water trails in rural areas provides a unique opportunity for economic development in rural communities. Very little infrastructure and investment is needed by the communities, and can result in a large economic impact. Research done in 2002 showed that paddlers in several case communities spent between $27 and $63 per day in communities along the trail.

Destination paddlers spend an average of $88 dollars per day when on multiple day trail trips.

These expenses are both direct and indirect, and

include spending at local businesses such as dining establishments, camping and lodging, retails sales, and recreation service industries. Lindsy Johnson, who studied these impacts, summarized, “Water trails are not a panacea for rural development, however, water trail development can help achieve goals of economic diversification and improved quality of life in communities. Paddle trails are an effective approach to rural economic development and recreational access while enhancing natural and cultural qualities of a community” (Johnson, 2002).

“Tourists seeking natural-resource-based settings, tranquility, and adventures have affected rural economies by injecting new dollars into local businesses, supporting local tax bases, and creating increased demands for locally available land, labor, and capital. With regard to recreational use of natural resources, tourist expenditures create local demands for traded goods and services, thus creating jobs and income for local residents” English, 2000

ORWT |

23

SECTION FIVE

POLICY Georgia Water Policy Implications for ORWT

ORWT |

24

SECTION FIVE

CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER, DEVIL’S SHOALS https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Devil’s_Shoals.JPG

WATER POLICY IN GEORGIA With a vast number of waterway resources, most of which are non-tidal inland rivers, Georgia offers a large network of rivers able to be used for recreational boating. Historically, there has not been an issue with recreational boaters being denied access on rivers, although many of Georgia’s rivers would likely be deemed non-navigable in court and thus the public would be barred from using them for any purpose, including recreation. However, in recent years, there have been several cases involving the definition of navigability stated in the Official Code of Georgia, warranting interpretation of the definition by the courts. To the dismay of

recreational boaters, the courts have typically sided with private property owners, due to the archaic definition of navigability based on commercial transport, and its non-inclusion of provisions for recreation. These two purposes are distinct and have different impacts on the rivers themselves as well as riparian property owners, and should be treated differently by the law. Ultimately, in order to allow for recreational boating in the state and the public right of passage for this purpose, it is necessary to evaluate and reconsider the Georgia Code pertaining to water rights.

ORWT |

25

SECTION FIVE

GEORGIA CODE Georgia water law is based in English common law principles of riparian rights. The Georgia Code has been developed around the principle of “natural flow subject to reasonable restricted uses” which stems from the common law principle of natural flow in relation to surface streams. At the time that the Georgia Code was established, there was much debate in England over the common law principles of water rights. Early common law doctrine was anchored in the “natural flow” theory, which proposed that a property owner had rights to the water as it flowed in a non-navigable river, and that the rights of the water were held by the owner of the riverbed itself. At the time of this doctrine, if a river was non-tidal, it was considered non-navigable.

This narrow definition in the English Common Law is appropriate due to the geography of the United Kingdom, and the fact that a large portion of its rivers are tidal. Additionally, “where a nonnavigable river flowed between two properties, each owner had a joint ownership right in the use if it”

(Kates, 1969).

The common law allowed for the Crown to exercise authority to waters flowing over privately owned beds as a “guardian of the public right of use” in two circumstances: the right of use by ferry enterprises and the public right of passage on navigable freshwater streams (Kates, 1969). It also specified that fishing rights were real property rights granted through ownership of the bed of the stream, fully severable from the property to which they were attached. In the eighteenth century, riparian law began a slow evolution that led to the adoption of a doctrine of “prior appropriation”. This doctrine was based on the concept that the first use of water prevailed over subsequent uses, and it is the doctrine which dominates current water rights in the western states (Kates, 1969). At the time of the Revolutionary War, Common Law still followed the “natural flow” doctrine, and thus Georgia Code draws from this doctrine as its authority.

ALTAMAHA RIVER, GEORGIA https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Altamaha_River_towards_Atlantic_Ocean,_Georgia,_USA.jpg

ORWT |

26

SECTION FIVE

GEORGIA CODE, CONTINUED There are several facets to the code pertaining to water rights in Georgia. The Code specifies the rights of property owners whose land adjoins a waterway, with a distinction made between navigable and non-navigable rivers. The Georgia Code defines a navigable river as: “a stream which is capable of transporting boats loaded with freight in the regular course of trade either for the whole or a part of the year. The mere rafting of timber or the transporting of wood in small boats shall not make a stream navigable” (O.C.G.A. § 44-8-5, 2013).

This definition is more restrictive than the federal definition as well as the Common Law definition by discounting commercial transport of logs by floating as a reasonable use, although historically this was a common method for the commercial transport of timber. The Code further specifies, “The rights of the owner of lands which are adjacent to navigable streams extend to the low-water mark in the bed of the stream” (O.C.G.A. § 44-8-5, 2013 ). If the river is deemed non-navigable the following applies to adjoining owners: The beds of non[-]navigable streams belong to the owner of the adjacent land. If the stream is a dividing line between two parcels of land, each owner’s boundary shall extend to the thread or the center of the main current of the water. If the current changes gradually, the boundary line follows the current. If from any cause the stream takes a new channel, the original line, if identifiable, remains the boundary. Gradual accretions of land on either

side accrue to the owner of that side (O.C.G.A. § 448-2, 2013).

In addition to property rights for streambeds, the Georgia Code specifies, “[r]unning water belongs to the owner of the land on which it runs” (O.C.G.A. § 44-8-1, 2013). If the banks of a non-navigable stream in Georgia have one property owner, the entire bed and the water flowing above it belong to the property owner alone. If the stream is the property boundary between two different property owners, the property line runs to the middle of the streambed, and thus both property owners are given equal rights to the water flowing above. In an early court case relating to riparian rights, the Supreme Court of Georgia simplified the Georgia code in saying: Rivers are of three kinds: First, such as are wholly and absolutely private property. Second, such as are private property, subject to the servitude of the public interest, by a passage upon them. The distinguishing test between these two is, whether they are susceptible or not of use for a common passage.

Third, rivers where the tide ebbs and flows, which are called arms of the sea (6 Ga. 130, 1849).

Georgia water law makes a distinction between navigable and non-navigable rivers in reference to their use by the public. According to the code and its interpretation by the courts, the public has no right of passage or use on a privately owned stream, regardless of the purpose or nature of the passage.

ORWT |

27

SECTION FIVE

DEFINING NAVIGABILITY The Georgia code relating to water rights and river navigation has been discussed in numerous court cases. There are many rivers in Georgia which could be considered non-navigable by the code’s standards, and private property owners with riparian rights along these rivers have historically taken advantage of the narrow definition of navigable to bar the

public from passing through their land via the waterway mostly relating to commercial purposes including the building of bridges or dams, or additional alterations to the flow of water. However, there have recently been several cases which involved the barring of the public from passing on nonnavigable streams for strictly recreational purposes.

PADDLERS, BROAD RIVER, GEORGIA

http://www.thebroadcollective.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/georgiarivernetwork.jpg

ORWT |

28

SECTION FIVE

COURT CASES Seaboard v. Sikes An early case discussing the definition of a navigable river in Georgia is the case of Seaboard v. Sikes. This case involved the obstruction of the Canoochee River in southeastern Georgia by a bridge constructed by a railway company. The plaintiffs alleged that the river is navigable, and thus they had a prescribed right to use the river as a highway. The plaintiffs regularly use the river for the purpose of floating timber, transporting it for commercial use.

They assert that the defendants, Seaboard Railway, intended for the bridge to allow passage down the river, but that its construction was inconsistent with these plans. To prove an inability to use the river in its current state for the desired use of floating timber, the defendants constructed a log raft containing some 700 pieces of timber, which would not pass under the bridge due to the placement of the piers, which were spaced approximately 16 feet apart. The river was from 75 to 100 feet wide in the location of the bridge. Considering this evidence, the lower court decided in favor of the plaintiffs, acknowledging the plaintiffs right to use the river, deeming it navigable. However, on appeal, the court further discussed the navigability of the Canoochee River, and ultimately determined it non-navigable (Seaboard v. Sikes, 1908).

not convinced that the Canoochee River qualified under the definition set out in the Georgia code.

Referring to the code the court pointed out, “the mere rafting of timber, or transporting of wood in small boats, does not make a stream navigable” (O.C.G.A. § 44-8-5, 2013 ). The stream must be capable of accommodating “boats loaded with freight in regular course of trade” (O.C.G.A. § 44-8-5, 2013 ). The court described the Canoochee as “a small, crooked stream, incapable of floating freight or passenger boats, and ‘only used for rafting timber and fishing’.” (Seaboard v. Sikes, 1908). The court holds that because the river is only capable of floating timber, and is not able to accommodate

The court generally acknowledged the public’s right to use a river as a highway in a similar manner to the right to use public highways on land. However, the appellate court noted that this right only applies to navigable rivers, and consequently was

ORWT |

CANOOCHEE RIVER

29

SECTION FIVE

http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wabe/files/styles/x_large/public/201206/DSC_0395.jpg

commercial vessels during any part of the year, it should be deemed non-navigable. While the court mentions the ability to use non-navigable rivers for floating timber in other states and case decisions to support this ability, it clearly states that this is not the case in Georgia, as prescribed by the code.

The plaintiffs make a separate argument in contending the issue of their right to use the river: the grant of right of way through longstanding use, similar to the grant of right of way via prescription on land. The court references the decision in an earlier New York case regarding the right to use a non-navigable waterway by right of prescription: “Battenkill river, although not navigable according to the statute, had been used by the public for rafting for twenty-six years. The court held that such usage had created a public right…” In the case of the

Canoochee River, the use had not been continuous and there were breaks in time during which there was no use. Thus, the plaintiffs were not awarded right to use the river by prescription.

This case highlights the strict adherence to the definition as stated in the Georgia code. The definition is narrow and implies that the ability to transport any boat does not make a river navigable, it must be loaded with freight with the intention of commerce. Although the floating of timber is seen as a legitimate method of transporting logs, it is explicitly discounted as such in the Code. The court also suggests that it is possible to garner a right of passage on the surface of a river’s waters after a number of years of use, but that the requirements were not met in this particular case.

ORWT |

30

SECTION FIVE

FLINT RIVER, GEORGIA http://gallery.usgs.gov/images/12_04_2008/nRIu48Xkk2/large/Flint_River_Ga.JPG

Ichauway v. Givens An additional case highlighting the importance of the type of vessel which can float the river and its impact on the navigability is seen in the case of Ichauway v. Givens. The waterway in question, Ichauwaynochaway Creek, presents an issue similar to the Canoochee River in the case of Seaboard v. Sikes, except in this case, the use desired by the public was strictly recreational, not commercial.

The court must firstly define the river’s navigability, and if found to be non-navigable, whether or not the public has a right to use it by prescription.

Givens, a member of the public using the creek for recreational boating, travelled up the creek, but was forced to portage his boat around an existing dam on the property of Ichauway, Inc., an ecological research center. Ichauway sued Givens to bar him from using any part of its property, including the waters of the creek itself, due to the fact that Ichauway owned the property on both sides of the waterway, and consequently the river itself, if deemed non-navigable. Ichauway’s sole defense in the case was that according to the definition

outlined in the Georgia code, the creek was not currently, nor had it ever been, navigable. The court then had to delineate if there was any admissible evidence contrary to this claim. The record shows, “In an attempt to show the creek is navigable, Givens floated through Ichauway’s leasehold on a Styrofoam and wood raft that was four feet wide, sixteen feet long, and drew one foot of water. He loaded the raft with a goat, a bale of cotton, and two passengers…” (Givens, 1997). Givens claimed that his raft was “representative of craft that were so used in the nineteenth century” and argued that the success of his trip indicated the capability of the river to transport freight under the Georgia code.

The court found this evidence inadmissible, due to the lack of documentation presented to indicate that Givens’ vessel was historically accurate, the fact that at present the river would be unable to support commercial trade, and due to the lack of evidence that the river had been used for commerce at any point in history.

ORWT |

31

SECTION FIVE

The second argument that Givens proposes after courts consider the creek non-navigable is the right of the passage by the public through prescription.

Givens relies on earlier discussion in the Seaboard v.

Sikes case in arguing that the public has boated on the creek for more than 20 years, and thus should be granted an easement of passage. The court contends that in order to acquire an easement through prescription, the party granting the easement, in this case Ichauway, would have needed notice that the passage was occurring. The court noted, “Use of the stream without such notice establishes nothing more than a revocable license” (Givens, 1997). Given the preceding evidence and opinions, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, enjoining the defendant and members of the public from travelling down Ichauwaynochaway Creek.

It is noted that in this decision, there were two dissenting opinions, which came to a different conclusion than the final decision of the court.

Judges Fletcher and Hunstein concur in the matter of navigability that Ichauwaynochaway Creek is in fact navigable. The dissent states that the creek ranges between 75 and 200 feet wide along the 14 miles of Ichauway’s property. This considerable width and the belief that at one time the river was use to transport agricultural products south to its joining with the Flint River, and was still capable due to evidence presented by Givens through his “Goat Float” led the dissent to believe that the river was navigable in its natural state. In regards to the small, nonoperational dam that the defendant was

required to portage around, the court noted that it should be disregarded in determining navigability.

The river in its natural state must be evaluated, which would not include any manmade structures impeding traffic.

The judges also make a case for the river’s navigability based on Federal law, which should be deferred to in the case of interstate commerce. The dissent argues that the creek flows into the Flint River, which eventually joins the Chattahoochee River, the combination of which is the Appalachicola River. This river flows directly into the Gulf of Mexico, and while Ichauwaynochaway Creek does not facilitate interstate commerce, it is part of a larger system which does. In this mindset, due to the creek’s involvement in interstate commerce it is inherently navigable, which gives the public the right to use it. The dissent makes the argument that the federal test of navigability must be evaluated prior to evaluation under the state definition. Although the court ultimately ruled in favor of the property owner, barring the public from using the creek, this case highlights the controversial nature of the subject of navigability in Georgia. It also underscores the differences in the use of a river for commercial purposes and recreational purposes. These two purposes vary greatly in the needs of vessels with regards to water width and depth, and should be evaluated separately.

The dissenting opinion brings to light several valid arguments, and should be considered in future decisions regarding river navigability.

ORWT |

32

SECTION FIVE

PADDLERS, ARMUCHEE CREEK http://www.coosa.org/DSC_4222.JPG

Georgia Canoeing Association v. Henry A few months before the decision in Ichauway v. Givens, the Supreme Court of Georgia heard another case involving trespassing members of the public on a non-navigable waterway in the northern part of the state in Georgia Canoeing Association v. Henry. The plaintiff, Henry, owns property on both sides of Armuchee Creek in northern Georgia, and desires to have boaters permanently enjoined from travelling down the creek through his property. In this case, the court first defers to the Federal definition of navigability in determining Henry’s rights as a riparian property owner. The court indicates that because Armuchee Creek is not capable of supporting “useful commerce between states in its natural and ordinary condition” it does not qualify as a navigable river (Georgia Canoeing Association v. Henry, 1997). After using the Federal

standard for evaluation, the court then looks at Georgia’s standard, which decidedly the creek does not meet either. The court also states that the public has not acquired a right of passage through prescription, due to the lack of longstanding use without interruption and with notice given to the property owner. While this case was decided before the Ichauwaynochaway case, it is similar to the dissenting opinion in its deference to the federal definition of navigability. The federal standards for navigability are less narrow, and thus are easier to meet, although in applied in this case, they were not met. Like the Ichauway case, this case draws attention to the need for the consideration of recreation in the legislation. While Armuchee creek may not be able to facilitate commercial transport, it is likely about to support recreational boating.

ORWT |

33

SECTION FIVE

POLICY ISSUE The cases discussed expose the issues at hand with the current Georgia code, including the vague nature of the code in regards to navigability and the archaic standards set forth in the definition. It is clear that the definition outlined in the Georgia code can be interpreted in many ways, which can cause confusion and differing opinions on the navigability of rivers.

In the cases of Ichauway v. Givens and Seaboard v. Sikes, the rivers in question were thought to be navigable by members of the public, and thus would automatically grant a right of passage. However, in determining the navigability of a river, the Georgia code states that it must be “capable of transporting boats loaded with freight in the regular course of trade either for the whole or a part of the year.” This definition is vague due to the lack of clarification in what qualifies as a “boat loaded with freight.”

In Ichauway v. Givens, the defendant attempted to prove navigability of his own accord, which the court determined to be inadmissible evidence.

The court stated that Givens did not provide adequate proof that the vessel he constructed was representative of commercial boats carrying freight in the 19th century. However, the code does not make any specifications about the size of the boat or the amount of freight it should be able to carry.

Given that these specifications do not exist, it is difficult for courts to make consistent decisions related to the definition.

In addition to the ambiguity surrounding the definition of navigable river, the court cases also highlight the antiquated standards put forth by the code, having not been changed since their inception in 1860. At this time, the standards for navigability

corresponded to the contemporary needs.

Transportation needs were different at the time the code was established, and commercial transportation via non-tidal waterways was common. In the present day, there are a greater number of transport methods, and these methods support modern day commerce in a more efficient manner than the use of boats on non-tidal rivers in Georgia. The boats used for commerce have also evolved, and if the present day description for a commercial vessel is used in defining navigability, the burden of proof will be much higher. This definition as it stands is not modern, and it is very difficult to prove in a modern setting.

As the needs for commercial transportation have changed, so have the needs of the public in relation to waterways in general. Since the adoption of the Georgia Code in 1860, other uses for waterways have increased in popularity including the use of rivers for recreation. This use was likely not anticipated in the writing of the code, due to the lack of references to any use other than commercial transport. Recreational boats can be much smaller in size than commercial vessels, and include nonmotorized boats such as kayaks and canoes, as well as motorized boats. These boats are not only smaller in size, but also draw less water than commercial vessels. According to data published in 1997 by the U.S. Coast Guard, “50% of all registered boats are less than 16 feet long and 93% of all registered boats are less than 26 feet long” (US Coast Guard, 1997).

Taking this into consideration, recreational boats could navigate waters that a commercial vessel may not be able to, especially in the case of nonmotorized recreational boats.

ORWT |

34

SECTION FIVE

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the issues presented with the current Georgia code and subsequent definition pertaining to navigability of rivers, the code itself should be revisited and amended. According to projections by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association in 2000, the number of canoers and kayakers in the United States will increase by 3 million and 6 million respectively by the year 2020 (Leeworthy, 2005). In order to facilitate this increase in the number of boaters, it is necessary to ensure that the public’s right of passage will remain intact on Georgia’s waterways. If the definition is left as it was written in 1860, there are many more rivers in the state that could be considered non-navigable, and the public could be barred from using them for recreation. If Georgia broadened its definition of navigability and updated it so that it was more easily interpreted by the courts, the right of passage for recreation could be protected for future generations.

Two states which have adopted less conservative definitions of navigability for waterways are California and Texas. Each example has merit in its ability to convey a contemporary definition and ease of interpretation by the courts, and should be looked to for persuasive precedence in redefining Georgia’s test of navigability. The code of California is similar in concept to the Georgia code: “Navigable waters

and all streams of sufficient capacity to transport the product of the country are public ways for the purposes of navigation and of such transportation.”

Although this definition limits navigable waters to those which are in fact used for commercial transport, the definition was expanded in 1971 by the courts of California to include waters able to be used for recreation. The courts looked to the case of Lamprey v. State in Michigan for reasoning in this decision: But if, under present conditions of society, bodies of water are used for public uses other than mere commercial navigation, in its ordinary sense, we fail to see why they ought not to be held to be public waters, or navigable waters, if the old nomenclature is preferred. Certainly, we do not see why boating or sailing for pleasure should not be considered navigation, as well as boating for mere pecuniary profit.’” Lamprey points out that there are innumerable waters -- lakes and streams -- which will never be used for commercial purposes but which have been, or are capable of being used, ‘for sailing, rowing, fishing, fowling, bathing, skating’ and other public purposes, and that it would be a great wrong upon the public for all time to deprive the public of those uses merely because the waters are either not used or not adaptable for commercial purposes (Baker v. Mack, 1971).

ORWT |

35

SECTION FIVE

In deciding the fate of a river in California, the court adopted the definition spelled out in the Lamprey case. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff of the case, supporting the idea that “the test of navigability is met if the stream is capable of boating for pleasure.” This new definition is broad, and allows for modern uses of the waterways including recreation. The courts of Michigan as well as the courts of California recognize the need for updated definitions which hold in high regard the “present conditions of society” and seek to ensure that the waterways are able to be used for modern purposes (Baker v. Mack, 1971).

The second example of code which is easily interpreted and also allows for modern use is the code in the state of Texas. The courts of Texas have determined in past cases two separate tests for navigability. In Texas, a waterway is named navigable if it is either “navigable in fact” or “navigable in statute” (Texas Parks and Wildlife, 2013). The statute pertaining to the definition of navigability is found in the Natural Resources Code: “Navigable stream” means a stream which retains an average width of 30 feet from the mouth up” (Tex. Natural Resources Code § 21.001). This definition does not leave any room for interpretation, and gives specific measurements for determining navigability, and also stipulates that the measurements should be taken from the river banks. The second test involves whether or not the river is “navigable in fact”. In 1917, in the case of Welder v. State, the courts stated, “Behind all definitions of navigable waters lies the idea of public utility. Waters, which in their natural state are useful to the public for a considerable

portion of the year are navigable…hunting and fishing, and even pleasure boating, ha[ve] been held to be proper public uses” (Welder v. State, 1917).

In this decision, the courts name recreation as a “proper public use” and allow this use to define a river as “navigable in fact”. The use of two tests for navigability allows for a strict test of width, which is clearly interpreted, as well as a test involving determination of public use by the courts.

Both the Texas and California codes in combination with interpretation by their respective courts could be easily applied in the state of Georgia. If the wording of the code was amended to include some flexibility for changing needs of the public, the code would not become antiquated in definition and thus difficult to interpret by the courts. A simple definition such as width makes it very clear what the minimum qualifications should be for a river to be declared navigable. In addition, however, a definition which can mature with changing uses for waterways over long periods of time is equally as useful. Both of these tactics should be used in developing amendments to the current Georgia Code.

ORWT |

http://www.atlantatrails.com/images/rei-outdoor-school-kayaking /04-rei-stone-mountain-paddle.jpg

36

SECTION FIVE

PADDLERS, OCHLOCKONEE RIVER http://www.tampabay.com/resources/images/dti/rendered/2012/12/c4s_riverone122612_253262a_8col.jpg

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE ORWT The Ochlockonee River would likely be judged nonnavigable by the court system. This means that in the event that a private landowner held property on both sides of the river, and desired to bar the public from crossing into his land, he or she could attempt to do so. There are four occurrences of this along the Ochlockonee River Water Trail in Grady County.

The river runs directly through these parcels, creating a situation where a single landowner owns both banks of the river. A table of land ownership along the portion of the river in Grady county can be seen on the following pages, as well as a map of the affected parcels.

It is important to be aware of land ownership on either side of the river when planning for the trail.

As code and case precedent stand, this could become an issue if landowners disapprove of recreational use of the river. It is also important to educate paddlers using the trail about laws regarding public use of waterways, ensuring that they use caution and consideration when paddling through private property. There is no current concern in paddling through this area, however, landowners could at any time decide that they do not wish for recreational use along their property, and sue for rights to bar public use.

ORWT |

37

SECTION SIX

LAND OWNERSHIP, GRADY COUNTY This map depicts the four parcels in which a single landholder owns property on both sides of the river.

Parcels are labeled by PID number.

Cairo

STATE ROUTE 93

86.23 72.9 88.1 73.1 HADLEY FERRY ROAD

DICKEY FERRY ROAD

°

Sources: Google Earth, GA DOT, State Base Map of Georgia, Grady County

0

ORWT |

38

1

2

4 Miles

SECTION SIX

LAND OWNERSHIP, GRADY COUNTY PARCEL ID

OWNER

ACREAGE

95-35 96-4.1 96-4 96-2 96-3 85-33 85-32.1 85-32 85-41 85-43 86-13 86-14.3 86-14.6 86.14.4 86-15 86-16 86-14.2 86-14 86-14.1 86-17 86-11.1 86-19 86-11.2 86-11.4 86-7 86-18 86-23 71-53 72-9 71-47.3 71-47.6 72-6 71-55 71-47.7 72-7

Coastal Lumber Co Balfour Land CO LP The Oliva Company Clayton L. Norton Georgia Oliva Jr. John Holton John Randall Holton Clayton L. Norton Langdale Company William Collins Fussell Vickie A Newcomb John W Crosby Shane Carroll David Lee Stewart Jr. D. Ronnie Mills D. Ronnie Mills Arness Patrick Dawkins Judy S Holton Marlene Jo Watson Roger C. Murphy Walter Harvey Murphy Robert D. Webb James Royce Lewis Gail D. Lewis Trust John B Wight Jr Mayfield Land Co. Inc. Marion Blair Partnership June W. Wells Melton Family LTD Charles A Thomas W.T. Barclay Adam Fielder Earl Raymond Harrell Michael B. Collins Emmett E. Cox

1064.33 13 2753.24 273 354 9.35 213.37 367.35 226.75 195.25 1.59 3.31 3.83 5.72 2.51 8.4 3.03 3.92 3.47 23.2 88.93 110.8 39 3 468.83 195.93 577.39 34.5 993.6 1.38 2.07 2 3.24 2.5 2

ORWT |

39

BOTH SIDES OF RIVER? no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no YES no YES no no no no no no

SECTION SIX

LAND OWNERSHIP, GRADY COUNTY PARCEL ID

OWNER

ACREAGE

72-4 72-5 71-47.1 71-47.4 71-47.8 71-54 72-8 71-53.3 71-47.2 71-56 71-47 72-2 72-3 88-1 72-10 57-12 73-1 58-12 58-11 59-19 58-13 58-16 58-15 58-14.1 58-14 59-20 44-30 44-26.2 44-26 44-26.1 44-16 44-29 44-21

Emmett E. Cox Robert E. Flora Judy A. Jecko David G. McCurry June W. Wells Lamar Keith Lacy Harry D. Scott Roger Dennis Singletary Alvin J. Tight III Secretary of Housing and Urban Dev. Prine Partners LP William H. Ready Richard Wells Rosemary LLC Richard Wells Balfour Land CO LP Qtip Trust Qtip Trust Gadwall LLC Deerwood LLC MRJH Land Partnership LLCP Richard Franklin Wells Brenda H. Kilgore Riverchase LLC Grady County Ausley Timber Corp Mitchell Land Charles Rushing Gail C. Harrell Myron G Jones Winmar Investments Hales Place Pine Hills Lands LLC

2.5 1.95 1.38 1.38 0.75 3.7 1.9 6 1.38 2.75 92.4 451.2 5 3354.17 12 2000 137 90 13 2961.47 252.32 63.7 41.2 593.41 0.83 1260.7 32.84 8.19 69.69 8.19 295.04 255 236.65

BOTH SIDES OF RIVER? no no no no no no no no no no no no no YES no no YES no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no

45-1 44-24

Hales Place The Bigham Family LP

329 612

no no Source: Grady County Tax Assessor

ORWT |

40

SECTION SIX

TRAIL Overview Access Points Detailed Access Maps

ORWT |

41

SECTION SIX

OCHLOCKONEE RIVER WATER TRAIL

The Ochlockonee River Water Trail begins in Colquitt County, just southwest of Moultrie, Georgia. From there, the trail stretches about 63 miles before reaching Florida. There are 12 access points in Georgia, beginning at Mack Dekle Road.

The last access point in Georgia is located at Dickey Ferry Road in Grady County. Sections in between access points vary in length, anywhere from three to fourteen miles. A complete map of the trail can be seen on the following page.

STATE ROUTE 3, THOMAS COUNTY

ORWT |

42

SECTION SIX

OCHLOCKONEE RIVER WATER TRAIL Moultrie access points by road name MACK DEKLE RD

SMITHWICK BRIDGE RD ZION GROVE CHURCH ROAD BEE LINE ROAD STATE ROUTE 188

STATE ROUTE 202 US HWY 19

Cairo

STATE ROUTE 3 STATE ROUTE 84

Thomasville STATE ROUTE 93

HADLEY FERRY ROAD DICKEY FERRY ROAD

STATE ROUTE 12 (FL)

°

Sources: Google Earth, GA DOT, State Base Map of Georgia

0

ORWT |

43

2.5

5

10 Miles

SECTION SIX

CURRENT ACCESS POINTS A table with information on current access points can be seen below. Access to the river starts in Colquitt County, 7 miles from Moultrie. The last access point in Georgia is in Grady County, off of

ACCESS POINT

ROAD NAME

LATITUDE LONGITUDE

Dickey Ferry Road. The total mileage in Georgia from Access Point A to Access Point L is 63 miles.

A map of the access points by letter can be seen on the following page.

COUNTY

NEAREST CITY/TOWN

LANDING OPERATED BY

A

Mack Dekle Road

31.10545

-83.83306

Colquitt

Moultrie, GA

County

B

Smithwick Bridge Road

31.06908

-83.87161

Colquitt

Coolidge, GA

County

C

Zion Grove Church 31.05619 Road

-83.89919

Colquitt

Coolidge, GA

County

D

Bee Line Road

31.03358

-83.93500

Thomas

Coolidge, GA

County

E

State Route 188

31.00251

-83.93917

Thomas

Coolidge, GA

County

F

State Route 202

30.95031

-83.96231

Thomas

Thomasville, GA

County

G

US Hwy 19

30.92577

-83.99747

Thomas

Thomasville, GA

County

H

State Route 3

30.91207

-84.00802

Thomas

Thomasville, GA

County

I

State Route 84

30.87593

-84.04662

Grady

Thomasville, GA

County

J

State Route 93

30.79174

-84.15465

Grady

Cairo, GA

GA DNR

K

Hadley Ferry Road

30.73208

-84.23595

Grady

Cairo, GA

County

L

Dickey Ferry Road

30.70638

-84.26019

Grady

Cairo, GA

County

M

State Route 12 (FL)

30.66925

-84.30523

Leon

Havana, FL

County

ORWT |

44

SECTION SIX

CURRENT ACCESS POINTS Moultrie by letter

A C

B

D E F G H

Cairo I

Thomasville J K L M

°

Sources: Google Earth, GA DOT, State Base Map of Georgia

0

ORWT |

45

2.5

5

10 Miles

SECTION SIX

ACCESS POINTS The following pages contain detailed maps of each portion of the trail between access points. Distances are listed, including total distance of each portion, and distances along the way. The average paddler will paddle between 2-3 miles per hour.

This average can be used to determine approximate length in hours of each section. For example, the first portion between access points A and B is 4.2 miles. This section would likely take between one and a half to two hours to complete. This is only an average, and varies depending on the paddler.

STATE ROUTE 84, THOMAS COUNTY

ORWT |

46

SECTION SIX

OCHLOCKONEE RIVER WATER TRAIL

Access Point A-B: Mack Dekle Road to Smithwick Bridge Road

! MACK DEKLE ROAD

4.2 miles

B ig Creek

mile 3

mile 4.2

COLQUITT COUNTY

! SMITHWICK

Big C reek

BRIDGE ROAD

°

Sources: Google Earth, GA DOT, State Base Map of Georgia

0

ORWT |

47

0.25

0.5

1

Miles

SECTION SIX

OCHLOCKONEE RIVER WATER TRAIL

Access Point B-C: Smithwick Bridge Road to Zion Grove Church Road 2.3 miles ! SMITHWICK BRIDGE ROAD mile 1

mile 2.3

! ZION GROVE CHURCH ROAD

COLQUITT COUNTY THOMAS COUNTY

°

Sources: Google Earth, GA DOT, State Base Map of Georgia

0

ORWT |

48

0.25

0.5

1

Miles

SECTION SIX

OCHLOCKONEE RIVER WATER TRAIL

Access Point C-D: Zion Grove Church Road to Bee Line Road 3.2 miles dg eC ree k

! ZION GROVE CHURCH ROAD

i Br

mile 1

COLQUITT COUNTY THOMAS COUNTY

mile 2.9 mile 3.2

! BEE LINE ROAD

°

Sources: Google Earth, GA DOT, State Base Map of Georgia

0

ORWT |

49

0.25

0.5

1

Miles

SECTION SIX

Brid ge

C

ek

re

COLQUITT COUNTY

OCHLOCKONEE RIVER WATER TRAIL

Access Point D-E: Bee Line Road to State Route 188

! BEE LINE ROAD

3.5 miles

THOMAS COUNTY

mile 1.5

! STATE ROUTE 188

°

Sources: Google Earth, GA DOT, State Base Map of Georgia

0

ORWT |

50

Big Creek

0.25

0.5

1

Miles

SECTION SIX

OCHLOCKONEE RIVER WATER TRAIL

! STATE ROUTE 188

Access Point E-F: State Route 188 to State Route 202 6 miles

reek Big C

mile 3

THOMAS COUNTY

! STATE ROUTE 202

°

Sources: Google Earth, GA DOT, State Base Map of Georgia

0

ORWT |

51

0.25

0.5

1

Miles

SECTION SIX

THOMAS COUNTY

OCHLOCKONEE RIVER WATER TRAIL

Access Point F-G-H: State Route 202 to State Route 3 5.2 miles ! STATE ROUTE 202 mile 1.7

L

i

kon loc Oc h ttl e

e

eR

ive r

mile 3.7

mile 3

! US HWY 19

mile 5.2

! STATE ROUTE 3

°

Sources: Google Earth, GA DOT, State Base Map of Georgia

0

ORWT |

52

0.25

0.5

1

Miles

SECTION SIX

THOMAS COUNTY

OCHLOCKONEE RIVER WATER TRAIL

Access Point H-I State Route 3 to State Route 84

! STATE ROUTE 3

4.4 miles

mile 2.2

! STATE ROUTE 84

°

Sources: Google Earth, GA DOT, State Base Map of Georgia

0

ORWT |

53

0.25

0.5

1

Miles

SECTION SIX

OCHLOCKONEE RIVER WATER TRAIL

Access Point I-J State Route 84 to State Route 93

STATE ROUTE 84

Bar

ne tts C

ree k

14.1 miles

!

mile 6.5

mile 11.7

THOMAS COUNTY

mile 14.1

! STATE

GRADY COUNTY

ROUTE 93

°

Sources: Google Earth, GA DOT, State Base Map of Georgia

0

ORWT |

54

0.5

1

2 Miles

SECTION SIX

red Ti ek Cre

Turk ey C OCHLOCKONEE RIVER reek WATER TRAIL

Access Point J-K State Route 93 to Hadley Ferry Road

! STATE ROUTE 93

10 miles

mile 8 mile 10

! HADLEY FERRY ROAD

GRADY COUNTY

°

Sources: Google Earth, GA DOT, State Base Map of Georgia

0

ORWT |

55

0.5

1

2 Miles

SECTION SIX

OCHLOCKONEE RIVER WATER TRAIL

Access Point K-L Hadley Ferry Road to Dickey Ferry Road

! HADLEY FERRY ROAD

4 miles

mile 2

mile 4

! DICKEY FERRY ROAD

GRADY COUNTY

°

Sources: Google Earth, GA DOT, State Base Map of Georgia

LEON COUNTY FL 0

ORWT |

56

0.25

0.5

1

Miles

SECTION SEVEN

IMPLEMENTATION General Recommendations Access Recommendations Phase One Improvements

ORWT |

57

SECTION SEVEN

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS In order to further develop the trail improvements will need to be made to access points. These improvements should be done in phases, beginning with the easiest to implement. In addition to physical site improvements, other elements are needed. These include components of information and education as well as marketing and promotion.

All aspects of the trail, including physcial and nonmaterial should promote the Ochlockonee River as a unique resource in South Georgia. The Ochlockonee River Water Trail is a unique opportunity to experience the landscape of southwest Georgia from the water. Priority recommendations are listed to the right.

1

access point improvements

2

signage and wayfinding

3

tourism network and marketing

STATE ROUTE 3, THOMAS COUNTY ORWT |

58

SECTION SEVEN

ACCESS POINT IMPROVEMENTS Planning for the water trail should encourage three phases of development. Phase One should account for improvements to all access points in Grady County. These access points, including Highway 93, Hadley Ferry, and Dickey Ferry, are the most developed access points along the entire trail thus far.

However, the landings are in need of improvements to encourage visitor use and offer amenities to those

using the trail. Phase Two should plan improvements to access points in Thomas County, including access at State Route 84, State Route 3, US Highway 19, State Route 202, State Route 188, and Bee Line Road.

Lastly, Phase Three should include improvements to access in Colquitt County at Zion Grove Church Road, Smithwick Bridge Road, and Mack Dekle Road.

HIGHWAY 93

HADLEY FERRY

ADDITIONAL ACCESS POINT Additionally, the stretch of the river between Highway 84 in Thomas County and Highway 93 in Grady County is 14 miles. Ideally, an additional access point would be created between these, creating a more manageable paddle. As there is currently no publicly accessible location in between these sites, the access point would need to be on private land.

Several large parcels exist in this area, held mostly by timber companies. One such parcel is parcel number

95-35. This parcel is located on Pine Park Road, and can be seen on the map on the following page. This parcel is owned by Coastal Lumber Company and is 1064 acres in total. The western edge of the property is about 6 miles from the access point at Highway 93, making this an ideal point for an additional access point. This would require an easement from the owner, and development of access from Pine Park Road.

ORWT |

59

SECTION SEVEN

SUGGESTED ACCESS POINT

!

Ba r

ne tts

C re

ek

STATE ROUTE 84

95-35 SUGGESTED ACCESS

! STATE ROUTE 93

°

GRADY COUNTY

Sources: Google Earth, GA DOT, State Base Map of Georgia

THOMAS COUNTY

0

ORWT |

60

0.5

1

2 Miles

SECTION SEVEN

KIOSKS Information kiosks are needed at each access point. Kiosks provide a visual cue when entering boat ramp, informing visitors of their arrival at an access point to the water trail. Kiosks should have large map of trail prominently displayed. The map should depict the entire trail, but also should denote the user’s current location. In addition to a

trail map, the kiosk will have space for information for the visitor to take with them including smaller trail maps, tourism information, and educational materials. Lastly, the kiosk will have space for a donation box. Kiosks should be the same at each access point to provide visual continuity, although materials included can vary, depending on location.

sheet metal roof treated wood space for informational material

INFORMATION KIOSK

DICKEY FERRY KIOSK

HADLEY FERRY KIOSK ORWT |

61

SECTION SEVEN

TOURISM NETWORK AND MARKETING Several other tourism opportunities exist within the area surrounding the Ochlockonee River.

These opportunities should be taken advantage of, creating a network for tourism within the Red Hills Region. Many attractions are related, and are of interest to visitors. A comprehensive promotion of tourism opportunities within the region encourages visitors to stay longer and visit more attractions and businesses in the area. Tourism efforts should follow trail development, beginning in Grady County and moving north.

Â

Grady County has several other tourism opportunities that go hand in hand with the Ochlockonee River Water Trail. This an opportunity to market this area as an outdoor recreation destination. These sites include the Birdsong Nature Center and the Wolf Creek Trout Lily Preserve. While these attractions are not

located directly on the water trail, they might be of interest to visitors to the area. Birdsong Nature Center is a center for conservation and education including 565 acres of wildflower meadows, swamps and ponds.

The Wolf Creek Trout Lily Preserve is a 140 acre conservation area home to the largest extent of trout lilies known anywhere in the world. The preserve offers walking paths and beautiful views of the flowers in blooming season.

Additionally, another outdoor recreation opportunity is under construction in Grady County: Tired Creek Lake. Permitted in 2010, the result will be a 960-acre recreational lake. This is yet another outdoor recreation opportunity available in the area. These attractions could all provide a network of opportunities for visitors, expecially if marketed as such.

ORWT Wolf Creek TROUT

LILY PRESERVE

ORWT |

62

SECTION SEVEN

TOURISM NETWORK AND MARKETING Georgia State Parks and Historic Sites in the area should also be connected for visitors to the area to enjoy. Creating a network with all available

ORWT |

opportunites, including marketing of these attractions, encourages visitors to stay longer.

63

SECTION SIX

THE TRAIL IN FLORIDA After entering Florida, two additional water trail sections are designated. The first section, the Upper Ochlockonee River, begins near the Florida border and ends at Lake Talquin. This portion is 27 miles.

The second section begins at the south end of Lake Talquin, below the dam, and winds for 62 miles to the Ochlockonee Bay. This portion winds through the Appalachicola National Forest, and is mostly

¯

undeveloped. These two portions of the trail make it possible for paddlers to start near the rivers headwaters in Georgia and paddle to the Gulf of Mexico, with the exception of portaging around Lake Talquin. This is a great opportunity for a partnership between states, encouraging visitors to use all sections of the river.

)n a t e d F l o r i d a D e s i g" « Paddling Trails

« 12

) L o w eCR" r1641O c h l o c k o n e e R i v e r

159

Hinson

157

«

" ) 67

Liberty

" )

«

Orange

L Lo ow w ee rr O O cc h h ll o o cc kk o on n ee ee R R ii vv ee rr P P aa d dd d ll ii n ng g T T rr aa ii ll M M aa p p 33

" ) 67

" )

TALLAHASSEE

Capitola

" ) 375

Sanborn

27 £ ¤

267

" )

375

Sopchoppy

319 £ ¤

WAKULLA FRANKLIN

259

McIntyre

« 267

Helen

Wetlands

Designated Paddling Trail 319 £ ¤

Wetlands

" )

Water

61

Water

Designated Paddling Trail Index

WAKULLA

Designated Paddling Trail Index

0

319 £ ¤ Arran

St James Island

Designated Paddling Trail

Woodville

2.5

" ) 61

5

10 Miles

0

Newport

ORWT |

64

3

6

12 Miles

Lanark Village 319 £ ¤ Carrabelle

61

Medart 22

" )

" )

98 £ ¤ " )

L Lo ow w ee rr O O cc h h ll o o cc kk o on n ee ee R R ii vv ee rr P P aa d dd d ll ii n ng g T T rr aa ii ll M M aa p p 55

319 £ ¤

LEON Bloxham

Crawfordville

L Lo ow w ee rr O O cc h h ll o o cc kk o on n ee ee R R ii vv ee rr P P aa d dd d ll ii n ng g T T rr aa ii ll M M aa p p 44

20

«

319 £ ¤

Arran

Smith Creek

10

263

; : 9 13

Vilas

§ ¦ ¨

«

«

Helen

WAKULLA

65

Bradfordville

1541

Lake Talquin

373

LEON

L Lo ow w ee rr O O cc h h ll o o cc kk o on n ee ee R R ii vv ee rr P P aa d dd d ll ii n ng g T T rr aa ii ll M M aa p p 22

27 £ ¤ Lake Jackson

Midway

" )

267

342

U Up pp p ee rr O O cc h h ll o o cc kk o on n ee ee R R ii vv ee rr P P aa d dd d ll ii n ng g T T rr aa ii ll M M aa p p 22

90 £ ¤

«

«

319 £ ¤

344

263

" )

12

GADSDEN

«

Bloxham

Telogia

« Quincy

20

343

Lake Iamonia

Havana

267

«

«

267

L Lo ow w ee rr O O cc h h ll o o cc kk o on n ee ee R R ii vv ee rr P P aa d dd d ll ii n ng g T T rr aa ii ll M M aa p p 11

Hosford 12

" )

90 £ ¤

TALLAHASSEE

«

«

GEORGIA

¯

159

Midway

GADSDEN

«

20

U Up pp p ee rr O O cc h h ll o o cc kk o on n ee ee R R ii vv ee rr P P aa d dd d ll ii n ng g T T rr aa ii ll M M aa p p 11

65B

SR 267

Blountstown

" )

10

268

" )

SR 12

Upper Ochlockonee River

" )

¦ ¨ " )§

CR 65A

Florida Designated Paddling Trails

98 £ ¤ Gulf of Mexico

" ) 372

Panacea 98 £ ¤ Ochlo

St Teresa

ckonee

Bay

SECTION SEVEN

PHASE ONE: GRADY COUNTY ACCESS POINTS Access in Grady County includes boat landings at Highway 93, Hadley Ferry Road, and Dickey Ferry Road. These landings are more developed than others in Thomas and Colquitt counties, but are in need of some attention to attract users to the trail. Currently, no signage exists welcoming visitors to the landings, and indicating access to the Ochlockonee River Water Trail. This can be achieved through both signage at the entrance from the main road, but also with information kiosks. In addition to signage, each access point should have

adequate parking, both convenient to the river, and well away from the floodplain area so that the river can be used even with water level variation. Other site amenities such as picnic tables and benches can be installed, but should be chosen based on durability of materials due to frequent flooding.

Later, once the trail is established, amenities such as restrooms or bath houses could be considered and installed. The rural setting would lend itself towards compostable toilets, as running water would not be needed.

HADLEY FERRY

ORWT |

65

SECTION SEVEN

HIGHWAY 93

INFORMATION KIOSK

EXISTING PARKING

PICNIC TABLES

0

50

100

200 feet

ORWT |

66

SECTION SEVEN

REMOVE DUMPSTERS

HADLEY FERRY

ADDITIONAL PARKING

INFORMATION KIOSK

EXISTING PARKING

PICNIC TABLES 0

75

150

300 feet

ORWT |

67

SECTION SEVEN

HADLEY FERRY ENTRY DRIVE The entry drive to Hadley Ferry is picturesque.

A circular drive to the left is already in place as a turnaround, and can offer parking spaces for the kiosk. The kiosk should be located at this point due to the floodplain, as water levels vary greatly.

CURRENT

SUGGESTED ORWT |

68

SECTION SEVEN

DICKEY FERRY

INFORMATION KIOSK OPTION 1

PARKING

INFORMATION KIOSK OPTION 2

0 feet

ORWT |

69

50

100

200

SECTION SEVEN

SITE FURNISHINGS Site furnishings will create a space for visitors to enjoy time off of the river. They can create a park-like setting at the access points, creating an amenity for both water trail users and local citizens. Due to the proximity to the river, and the large floodplain that covers most access points, all site furnishings should be resistant to harsh conditions, particularly flooding. One possible option would be site furnishings fabricated with recycled plastic. These are durable, and will not rot, which is helpful in a site prone to flooding. Examples of picnic tables made of this material can be seen to the left. These are meant to be typical examples, not suggested brands. Below is a rendering of the tables at Hadley Ferry, near the river’s edge and historic bridge trestle.

POLYWOOD® PICNIC TABLE

BRP® PICNIC TABLE

PICNIC TABLES AT HADLEY FERRY ORWT |

70

SECTION EIGHT

CONCLUSION

ORWT |

71

SECTION EIGHT

CONCLUSION The establishment of the Ochlockonee River Water Trail is a unique opportunity for economic development and tourism in the area surrounding the river. The river winds through a rare and extraordinary landscape in South Georgia, creating an unprecedented paddling experience for visitors and river users. The area already takes great pride in its natural resources, with a large concentration of permanently conserved lands protecting the Red Hills region, a hidden gem in this area of the country. The Ochlockonee River Water Trail will continue in this tradition, offering visitors a chance to experience the natural beauty of the area from the water. The Ochlockonee boasts a wild and intimate character, winding through one of America’s “Last

Great Places”. The natural and pristine character should be preserved, but also enjoyed by locals and visitors. Developing amenities along the trail, along with signage and wayfinding assistance will greatly improve the trail’s accessibility. However, it is important to consider how water policy could negatively affect the trail’s development. An opportunity exists to premptively avoid this impact by developing strategies and incentives encouraging buy in from private landowners. Lastly, increased marketing and the development of a tourism network with other attractions and resources in the area would promote the trail, as well as ensure sustainability of the trail as a tourism opportunity.

PADDLERS, SAVANNAH RIVER

http://www.garivers.org/images/photos/full_size/pg_savannah.jpg

ORWT |

72

SECTION EIGHT

NEXT STEPS To continue development of the trail, further work is needed. Additional steps for research and development are listed to the right and include priorities related to graphic identity, river access, and incentives for those supporting the trail.

1

Development of graphic identity for outdoor recreation in the area

2

Research additional access points utilizing easements or tax incentives

3

Further development of access points including camping amenities

4

Incentives for local businesses supporting water trail and outdoor recreation

STATE ROUTE 3, THOMAS COUNTY ORWT |

73

REFERENCES

REFERENCES Baker v. Mack. 19 Cal. App. 3d 1040 (1971).

California Harbor & Navigation Code § 100.

Fisher, Robert G. Vernon County Outdoor Recreation Plan 2000-2004. Mississippi River Regional Planning Commission (MRRPC). 2000.

Fleckenstein, Neil. The Economic Impact of the Red Hills Region of Southwest Georgia & North Florida. Tall Timbers Research Station & Land Conservancy.

2013.

Georgia Canoeing Association v. Henry. 482 S.E.2d 298 (Ga. 1997).

Georgia Code. O.C.G.A. § 44-8-1 (2013).

Georgia Code. O.C.G.A. § 44-8-2 (2013).

Georgia Code. O.C.G.A. § 44-8-5 (2013).

Georgia Department of Natural Resources. “Project WILD Teacher Resource Guide: Coastal Plain.” Accessed April 20, 2016. http://www.georgiawildlife.org/node/1059.

GeorgiaInfo. “Geographic Regions of Georgia.” Digital Library of Georgia. Accessed April 20, 2016. http://georgiainfo.galileo.usg.edu/topics/geography/article/geographicregions-of-georgia.

Givens v. Ichauway. 493 S.E.2d 148 (Ga. 1997).

Johnson, Lindsy. “Case Studies of Water Trail Impacts on Rural Communities.”

University of Oregon, 2002.

Leeworthy, Vernon R. and Michael J. Bowker, Justin H. Hospital, and Edward A. Stone. Projected Participation in Marine Recreation: 2005 & 2010. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2005.

Lenz, Richard J. “Ochlockonee River.” Tall Timbers Research Station & Land Conservancy. Accessed April 20, 2016. http://talltimbers.org/images/ttlc/OchlockoneeRiver.pdf.

Macdonald, Stuart. “Paddling and Water Trails.” American Trails. Accessed April 18, 2016. http://www.americantrails.org/resources/water/intro.html.

Seaboard Air-line Railway v. Sikes et al.. 60 S.E. 868 (Ga. 1908).

ORWT |

74

REFERENCES

Tall Timbers Research Station & Land Conservancy. “What is the Red Hills Region?”

Accessed April 20, 2016. http://talltimbers.org/red-hills-region/.

Texas Natural Resources Code § 21.001 “Texas River Guide.” Texas Parks and Wildlife. Accessed April 10, 2016. http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/nonpwdpubs/water_issues/rivers/nav igation/riddell/navigability.phtml.

U.S. Coast Guard. State Registered Boat Data . 1997.

Welder v. State, 196 S.W. 8686 (1917).

ORWT |

75