A message to the SCE&G Relicensing Fish & Wildlife Committee
stating Trout Unlimited's position regarding the lower Saluda River
and an evaluation of the Saluda's potential for trout reproduction

From Malcolm Leaphart

Thanks to SC DNR for suggesting, and to Kleinschmidt for preparing the white paper. The time and effort to scientifically measure, describe, and assess the lower Saluda River (LSR) is appreciative as such a study is the proper starting point for decision making, as long as the focus is accurate.

The first comment from Trout Unlimited (TU) however concerns the focus and scope of the white paper. I agreed at a past IFIM meeting on 10-31-07 and documented in writing that TU's main concern was for conditions needed for trout reproduction, not a 'self sustaining' trout fishery which is determined by too many factors outside of the utility company's operations. As I documented in my email to you for filing with the TWC minutes, I used the term 'self sustaining' synonymously with 'reproducing' in the TU ICD letter as is often done in the 'literature' and by fishery biologists all over the country. Clarifying that usage is important as it changes the scope of the white paper completely, certainly making the conclusions meaningless. If the 'self sustaining' response was necessary because of the TU ICD letter... fine, but a further evaluation of reproduction potential as agreed on needs to be done too.

Even with the unwanted 'self sustaining' focus, much of the report however has value in that it establishes the needs of rainbow and brown trout and attempts to evaluate how the LSR fares in meeting those needs (ie, recruitment potential). Specific comments regarding the white paper follow.

• We are not surprised that the temperature regime is satisfactory for trout reproduction and survival as that is consistent with the conclusions from the 1985 USGS study that TU funded for $5,250 for SC DNR. The note that the temperature range during brown trout spawning is marginal is somewhat surprising, but does provide a target for an important habitat improvement that should be closely evaluated for remedies.

• According to Monte Seehorn, retired USFS Southeast Fisheries Biologist, experience has shown that pool to riffle ratios are not absolutes and that many trout streams with much less than ideal ratios have significant reproduction, often from relatively small areas suitable for spawning. The point is that many other factors come to bear besides the ratio, or the size of the spawning area, and trout are quite resilient. Much of the documented brown trout spawn in the White River in Arkansas for example has been found to occur in stretches relatively short for the length of the river. And their resiliency has been shown there too as they adapted to huge fluctuations in release levels, including for spawning site selection.

• The implication that the LSR only has a 100' x 300' suitable for trout spawning is misleading. Most of the entire stretch of river on both sides of the islands below I-26 where the 'Oh Brother Rapids' and 'Ocean Boulevard Rapids' area has the potential for trout spawning. Since the islands extend for nearly half a mile, that would mean over a mile of potential spawning sites alone exists there, counting both sides. Plus, the riffles at the spillway channel juncture, the rapids above Hopes Ferry Landing, the rapids at Corley Islands, and those below the islands below I26 extending all the way to the to the confluence would all have some potential. The .8 mile of riffle habitat is certainly a conservative estimate, and to infer that trout spawning would not occur anywhere else is questionable. That's not even consistent with the cited Raleigh conclusions that trout can spawn in up to 8.2 feet of water with suitable velocity and substrate which could certainly fall out of the observed riffle areas. Again, an empirical study apparently beyond the scope of the white paper is needed to be more definite here.

• There appears to be a lack of comparison with many southern trout rivers that have more in common with the LSR than many in Maine. Tailrace trout fisheries in Arkansas for example were previously pointed out as examples that were very analagous and whose management could be looked at for guidance giving the hundreds of miles of those rivers and their longer history of research and management by both that state and the Corps of Engineers that built most of the dams. What other state has an 'Aquatic Habitats Manager' as Arkansas has in Larry Rider? But, apparently Mr. Ryder was not consulted after I shared his expertise and contact information with you as to trout habitat for this white paper. The success of their revetments to deepen channels (while providing handicap and other angler access), of gravel beds developed from anchored tree tops, and from root wads installed to provide holding areas (as we have done on the Eastatoe and other upstate streams) are all examples of tailrace habitat improvements for trout that should be considered as the LSR potential is evaluated for trout.

In "The Future of Trout in South Carolina" (A Plan for the Management of South Carolina's Trout Resources" (Geddings, 1998), "Put, grow, and take" trout fisheries are described as having "various habitat deficiencies" that "do not permit successful reproduction" by trout. The LSR is essentially described as 'deficient habitat' in the white paper, though without any empirical studies or peer reviewed research to support that categorization, only observations and assumptions. However, it's difficult to question that description as the Lake Murray dam transformed a warm water piedmont river into a cold water fishery in the late 1920's. That the aquatic habitat that once was a 'self sustaining' warm water fishery is out of sync with the coldwater fishery created is not a surprise to anyone. Indeed, that transformation is the crux of the 'habitat deficiency' problem for trout in the LSR and should be acknowledged, with remedies to get the two better in sync as part of the new license.

Summary: TU does not expect the utility company to develop a 'self sustaining' trout fishery as the white paper describes. TU does expect the utility to document steps in their plan to foster trout reproduction through habitat improvements, such as through annual projects developed in concert with TU, US Fish & Wildlife, and SC DNR. Those undertaken in upstate South Carolina in the SC DNR "Partners for Trout" program with the NRCS, and those in Arkansas as mentioned above would both be good starting points. While not totally replacing the need for trout stockings as the white paper indicates, the goal would be to improve the now coldwater habitat to the point where reproduction could at least occur, even if not in significant numbers to reduce stocking needs given the current fishing regs. To not do that while the dissolved oxygen and flow problems are being remedied would be short-sighted to say the least for a state 'wild and scenic' river that is the heart of the extensive rivere greenways of the Columbia area.

Article posted 1-19-08