Paddlers have won concessions from the National Forest Service in a long-standing fight over the Upper Chattooga River, where a paddling ban has kept boaters at bay for more than three decades.

But the proposed compromise would saddle paddlers with a host of restrictions, curtailing paddling to just a few days out of the year at most on only a short section of river. Paddlers say the compromise is unacceptable and vow to keep fighting for full access.

“We want the same thing we’ve always wanted: we want equality,” said Kevin Colburn, a paddling advocate with American Whitewater, a national organization leading the fight. “No other recreational use has any limit whatsoever.”

Opponents to paddling are split. Some say they can live with the compromise, while others are sticking to their “no paddling, period” mantra, using the slippery slope argument.

“You can bet the boaters will want more,” said Joe Gatins, a hiker who opposes any paddling in the area. “I think people need to guard against the foot in the door in this case.”

Under the compromise, paddling would be allowed only in December, January and February, and only when the river is quite swollen following heavy rains, specifically at a volume of 450 cubic feet per second. Even when conditions are right, paddling would be further limited to 16 people per day. And only a portion of the Upper Chattooga would be open to boaters — roughly 7 of the 21 miles now off-limits.

It falls far short of what paddlers were hoping for when they first launched the fight.

“The basic take home here is this is still a boating ban,” said Colburn. “They are saying you can’t do what you do here. You can’t develop a special relationship with this place.”

The proposal was released by the forest service this month following great anticipation. Three years ago, paddlers waged a challenge against the paddling ban, including a lawsuit and appeal to the upper echelons of the forest service.

In response, the forest service launched a study of the issue, comparing the pros and cons of nine scenarios. The scenarios ranged from no paddling to unfettered access, with varying degrees in between. Some scenarios limited paddling to certain stretches of river, by flow, by time of year, or by number of paddlers. The scenario picked by the forest service is among the most heavy-handed.

“They created this menu of options on how to limit use and instead of picking one, they picked all of them,” Colburn said. “It is completely unbelievable.”

But it won over those who feared rampant paddling.

“It is the least egregious of any of the alternatives,” said Brent Martin with the Wilderness Society field office in Franklin. “We can live with it, if it is kept to the limits listed in the alternative.”

The proposal is not yet final. The forest service is taking public comment through Aug. and could theoretically change the proposal based on comments, although that rarely happens.

Least egregious

Mike Bamford of Cashiers, a staunch opponent to paddling on the Upper Chattooga, said the forest service gave in to paddlers.

“They sued, they kicked, they screamed, they whined, they moaned and they got something,” Bamford said of the paddlers.

Bamford said he can live with the compromise, however.

“What they are giving them is not going to make a big difference to me personally,” Bamford said.

Bamford was concerned paddlers would pose a danger to swimming holes along the river and interfere with the bird nesting season. But the winter limitation satisfies those issues, Bamford said.

James Costa, director of the Highlands Biological Station, said he was bracing for something worse.

“I think most people reckoned there would be some kind of concession,” said Costa. “My fear was of pretty wide open access. The compromise is much less impact than it could have been so I am heartened by that.”

Under the proposed limitations, Costa doesn’t think use will be high enough to impact natural resources.

“Some purists would say any access can be damaging, but it kind of cuts both ways because any access is any access,” Costa said. That means hikers and anglers, too, Costa said. The debate has pitted users against one another, arguing over who causes more impact, Costa said. But ultimately they all love the Chattooga, including the paddlers.

“It is a special place for some of these paddlers,” Costa said. “I can see where folks with these different interests can view that equally as an almost spiritual experience, so I am not passing judgment.”

Nationally, the Upper Chattooga is the only river in the country on National Forest Service land that is off-limits to paddling.

Unnecessary regs

The limitations proposed by the forest service would allow paddling only six days out of the year on average. In drought times, it’s been less. A review of river levels shows there has been only one weekend day in the past five years that would have met the proposed threshold, Colburn said.

Paddlers would have to be on alert with every big rain, ready to jump in the car and start driving toward the Chattooga. With only 16 spots available each day, it’s unclear what would happen to those who arrived too late to get a spot. And if the river fell short of the threshold, everyone would have to go home.

“It is unworkable,” Colburn said. “It is so logistically challenging, it would further reduce use.”

Throughout the debate, paddlers argued they would have little impact on other recreational users since there are very few days out of the year when the river was high enough to make paddling possible, with most falling during the rainier winter months.

“American Whitewater always said ‘We aren’t going to be there when the fishermen or the swimmers are there,’” Bamford said. “They got what they asked for, what they said were the only days they could go anyway.”

But the threshold at which paddling becomes doable is much lower than the 450 cfs the forest service has targeted.

“It is way too high. Even if you were going to regulate by flow, there is no grounds for 450,” Colburn said.

But Colburn emphasized that any limits are pointless.

“Why have a regulation when nature will provide the regulation? The primary problem is no other recreation has flow limits so it’s not equitable,” Colburn said.

Nor are they limited to one stretch of the river.

“That for us is huge. Any section of river that is banned to us is still a boating ban. It is saying this river has zero capacity for boaters and infinite capacity for everyone else,” Colburn said. “How can that be?”

Colburn is disappointed at the outcome of the forest service study.

“If it didn’t cost so much money and cause so much hardship, it would be laughable,” Colburn said. “You got to wonder where the money went and what we learned for all that.”

The lack of justification for the ban is how American Whitewater won its initial appeal. Colburn sees the current study the same way.

“It is the same thing they did last time that got overturned,” Colburn said. “They are replaying their same past mistakes.”

Colburn said the forest service decision seems once again based on politics.

Fishermen come out good

The conflict between fishermen and paddlers has dominated the Chattooga debate. When the ban on paddling was imposed in the early 1970s, the unspoken reason was to provide a haven for fishermen that was free of paddlers.

The fisherman-paddler conflict dominated the forest service’s study of the issue. Hikers, birders and backpackers complained they were being left out. For example, when the forest service wanted to test the impacts boating would have on other users, a trial was conducted with a pilot group of boaters and fishermen. Both groups were sent out on the river for two days to do their thing and report back on whether they could co-exist. Missing from the trial, however, were hikers, campers and other users.

“They have paid much more attention to the anglers’ concerns than the concerns of traditional users,” Gatins said.

The compromise being proposed does seem primarily aimed at satiating the fishermen.

“Our proposal maintains the existing high quality trout fishing experience on the Chattooga while providing some additional opportunities for challenging whitewater boating in a remote setting,” Sumter National Forest Supervisor Jerome Thomas said in a press release.

Foot in the door

Joe Gatins, an avid hiker who frequents the Upper Chattooga, is not happy about any compromise that gives paddlers an in. Paddling will only become more open in the future. Like a ratchet effect, it will never go back the other way.

From an environmental perspective, Gatins worries about trampling when paddlers get out of the river to skirt around rough rapids or log jams.

“The portages that would be necessary would affect sensitive plant areas,” Gatins said. The section of river that has been selected for boating is particularly pristine, known as the Chattooga Cliffs or Narrows. Cliffs rise 400 to 600 feet from the river, harboring unique plant communities.

Gatins questioned why the forest service chose this particular stretch to open to paddling. It cuts through the Ellicott Rock Wilderness Area, one of the more pristine sections of river.

“The forest service is duty bound to protect and safeguard ‘the outstandingly remarkable values’ of the wilderness, which include solitude. I think solitude will be at risk under this plan,” Gatins said.

Gatins also questioned the safety of boaters. The forest service’s study predicts there will be boater deaths. The remote nature makes a rescue complicated. If a rescue is necessary, it could tear up environmentally sensitive areas in the process, Gatins said.

Who watches

Those who oppose unfettered paddling are concerned by the “self registration” system for boaters designed to keep boaters limited to 16 a day. Gatins fears paddlers won’t adhere to the limits — nor the threshold for water levels and the particular stretch of river as well.

“It is impossible to predict how many people would break the rules,” Gatins said. “The boaters are a pretty independent bunch, particularly these creekers. In the past, there is no doubt that various runs that are prohibited have been poached on by boaters. The record of the creek boaters is that many of them will go in whenever they think they can run it whatever the level is.”

Despite the cap at 16 boaters a day, those who have driven long distance only to miss getting one of the permits might just go anyway, Gatins said.

“This is a remote stretch of river, a remote stretch of trail. There is very little forest service presence in that area. There never has been,” Gatins said.

The compromise calls for two to four new positions within the forest service to enforce the paddling regulations and monitor impacts from paddling, costing $133,000 to $227,000 a year. But it’s not clear whether those positions would actually materialize.

“Forest service budgets are being reduced, not increased,” Gatins said. “Without proper monitoring and enforcement I don’t think this alternative is going to work.”

It’s a major concern among paddling opponents who otherwise are willing to lend their support to the compromise.

“That’s the real key on this. Those of us wiling to work with this alternative are all concerned about that,” Brent Martin of the Wilderness Society’s Franklin office said. “How do they regulate this? How do they ensure it will not make an impact on the river? That is a little worrisome.”

Want to weight in?

Send comments on the Chattooga compromise to comments-southern-francismarion-sumter@fs.fed.us by August 1. To read the full analysis that led to the compromise proposal, go to www.fs.fed.us/r8/fms/forest/projects/ ChattoogaDraftEA.shtml.

For more information, call 803.561.4000.

No more making camp on a whim

The forest service has plans to reign in other recreational use along the Chattooga corridor as part of the paddling decision. Overnight camping, which is currently allowed anywhere, will be limited to designated campsites. Some unofficial campsites and trails will be closed. Roadside parking will be prohibited within a quarter mile of Burrells Ford Bridge, curtailing the number of people able to enter the river corridor at this spot.