Michael R. "Squeak” Smith
Board of Trustees
Trout Unlimited
4281 Bill Epley Avenue
Morganton, NC 28655
Email: squeaksmith@earthlink.net

Back by popular demand, after a several year hiatus, here is the first installment of Squeak’s Squiggles for 2007. I will do my best to provide monthly updates for use by any chapter and the NCTU council on websites, or you may download and reprint for your newsletters. This initial report will be much longer than normal, as I want to introduce myself to new readers, and bring all members up to date on various projects and several hot issues. Future installments will be significantly smaller and much easier to incorporate into your communication formats!

Ground Rules:
I will attempt to provide updates on projects supported by NCTU and chapters around the state, with links to other websites for additional information. If you have information you’d like included in future Squiggles, please email me the information, with a local email contact, early in the month. Issues of regional and national significance will be addressed as required/requested. If asked, I will answer questions from the general membership on any topic and give you ‘Squeak’s Opinion’, not necessarily approved or sanctioned as an ‘official’ position of NCTU or TU National.

Who is Squeak?
I am your elected TU "Grassroots" Trustee, serving at your pleasure. I’m originally from Michigan, where I began fly fishing in the early 1950s with my Grandfather, a fishing guide on the Manistee River in Grayling, Michigan the birthplace of TU. I was medically retired from the Air Force in 1983, where I was an F-4E "Phantom II" Flight Commander. I have been actively involved in TU since moving to NC in 1986.

For the past 20 years, I have been a full time volunteer at virtually every level of TU (except Council Chairman) including: Chapter Banquet Chairman, Newsletter Editor, Vice-President, President, NCTU Council Water Quality Chairman, NCTU Rivercourse Instructor, National Resource Board Director, Southeast Regional Vice-President, and currently the Board of Trustees, serving on the Volunteer Operations Committee.

I currently serve in the following positions: Executive Committee of NCTU as Water Quality Chairman; immediate past Chairman and now Board Member of the Muddy Creek Partnership; Linville River restoration project liaison for NCTU; Secretary of the Catawba-Waterie Relicensing Coalition, Board of Resource Institute, Inc.; past Vice-Chairman of the Foothills Conservancy of NC; member FCNC Finance Committee.

I am a member of: NC Wildlife Federation, Air Force Association, American Legion, and Headwaters Limited.

Awards include: Burke County Environmental Visions Award-Volunteer of Year 1991, NCWF Governor’s Award- Sportsman of the Year 1998, TU National "Ray Mortenson Award"- Volunteer Leader of the Year 2005.

For the past 20+ years I have spent over 50 days per year chasing salmon and steelhead on Great Lakes tributaries, and an additional 100+ days per year on Southeastern headwaters freestone streams and tailraces, logging well over 30,000 catch and releases.
Some say I’m addicted to salmonids. I prefer to believe, I am just committed to preserving, protecting, and restoring our exceptional natural resources, locally, regionally and nationally so future generations will have those resources to enjoy tomorrow, just as much as you and I do today!

Project Updates:

Muddy Creek Partnership:

The Muddy Creek Story:

The Executive Summary below, is a work product generated by the original Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Initiative partners (Duke Power, Trout Unlimited, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, Foothills Conservancy NC) with funding and in-kind services from those partners combined with additional money from Clean Water Management Trust Fund, Trout and Salmon Foundation, USFWF and others from 1998 to 2003. It resulted in the establishment of the Muddy Creek Partnership, set priorities, gave an analysis of what we were dealing with, where we were, where we felt we should be, and where we wanted to go. It is included here for historical perspective. Following the Executive Summary is a bulleted listing of where we are today. If inadvertently, an organization has been omitted from this report it is totally unintentional.
It has been a remarkable journey...one not yet ended!(SQUEAK)

Executive Summary Dec 2003

The Muddy Creek watershed is impaired. Fish and benthic macroinvertebrate data from the NC Division of Water Quality, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, and Duke Energy Corporation all indicate "fair" to "good-fair" water quality. Duke water chemistry monitoring show mean coliform bacteria concentrations at levels higher than the state health standard at six of eight data stations dispersed throughout the watershed. The Muddy Creek Restoration Partners own physical assessment of the entire 96 square mile watershed indicates widespread habitat degradation and impaired stream functionality.

Stream entrenchment is severe and pervasive on 36 miles of the main stems of North and South Muddy Creeks, their larger tributaries, and at the mouths of smaller tributaries. This condition reduces or eliminates in many cases the functionality of adjacent floodplains. Resulting exposed barren banks are actively eroding, with bank pin data at 38 of 886 total barren bank sites confirming a minimum of 350 tons of sediment loaded into the Muddy Creek watershed in the last year and a half alone.

Since bank pin data is collected at only 4% of barren bank sites, it is no exaggeration to speculate that the remaining barren banks contributed a minimum of ten times that amount of sediment (3,500 tons) or more to the watershed during the last year during normal and above normal rainfall. This is part of the reason that silt and fine sands are the predominant substrate materials at 40% of riffle areas and 100% of pools surveyed, reducing quality in-stream habitat for an appropriately diverse aquatic community. Another reason for the imbedded stream substrate is overland flows of sediment that enter the watershed, primarily from smaller 1st and 2nd order tributaries.

Riparian forest vegetation is less than 25 feet wide on 780,000 feet of creekside land, which is inadequate in most circumstances to filter those additional overland flows, especially those occurring from rapidly increasing development and clearcutting of timber on the steeper hillsides. The lack of riparian buffer coverage also diminishes detrital inputs and tree canopy shade, both functions that are critical to fish and wildlife diversity and overall stream health. In addition to those sediment sources, livestock are known to regularly access 20,000 feet of stream at minimum, trampling creekbanks and contributing also to the coliform problem.

The Muddy Creek Restoration Partners believe that a reversal of this condition is feasible, but it will likely require a minimum commitment of 10 more years and an additional $17.5 million beyond the $1.1 million already raised and used toward restoration. This benchmark budget includes preservation costs for intact riparian lands, which accounts for $15 million of project costs. The time and money required would be invested on implementation of four restoration strategies that include natural channel design stream restoration; riparian reforestation; livestock exclusion; and riparian forest preservation. A random, haphazard approach at restoration will not work.

Successful attainment of project goals will require adherence to the conservation project priorities list generated by this plan. Additional on-the-ground conservation projects may also prove necessary but should not be pursued to the neglect of the priority sites. While this plan establishes scientifically sound priorities for conservation, it does not factor for contingencies; such as what to do about intact riparian forest lands once prioritized for preservation that are logged before acquisition is possible. Other contingencies may also appear throughout the project duration that require Partner value judgments and an occasional shift in immediate emphases to manage for those contingencies.

The Partners can expect an investment in the four restoration strategies as follows:

1) Natural Channel Design Stream Restoration

This plan reveals six high priority stream reaches in the watershed totaling approximately 12,000 linear feet that would benefit from natural channel design stream restoration. These reaches contain 18 of the 26 highest priority barren bank sites identified during field inventories that were responsible for the sediment delivery estimates stated above. Natural channel design stream restoration here will likely consume $1.053 million of the benchmark cost estimate given above.

2) Riparian Reforestation

This plan reveals approximately 32,000 feet of creekside land without any riparian forest vegetation that are first priorities for riparian reforestation projects. Three additional sub-watersheds lack adequate riparian forest coverage on over 50% of their stream lengths. Riparian forest enhancement should extend to these drainage areas as well. Riparian reforestation of these inadequate buffer areas would likely consume $224,000 of the benchmark estimate.

3) Livestock Exclusion

This plan prioritizes 15 livestock exclusion projects, which should eliminate an estimated 1/2 -2/3 of the cattle access issues in the watershed. The Partners would like to do more, but livestock market forces make prioritization unpredictable since lands grazed with cattle last year may not have cattle this year. These projects would likely consume $124,000.

4) Riparian Forest Preservation

This plan also recognizes that gains made in these restoration strategies will be nullified if intact upstream areas become degraded. Therefore, approximately 15,200 acres have been prioritized for riparian forest preservation. Most of this acreage is in large tract holdings and occurs at headwater areas and in sub-watersheds whose riparian zones are currently forested and intact. The $15 million preservation estimate is a ballpark figure and would require purchase of conservation easements and donations of conservation easements to cover anticipated costs. Fee simple purchase agreements would likely increase the cost estimate. A fully supporting rating for the Muddy Creek watershed and a trophy trout fishery on the Catawba River tailrace at Lake James have been the two driving goals of the project since its inception in 1998. These goals are lofty but they can be attained. Success will require participation from a critical mass of watershed landowners, continued private/public partnerships, local government support, and adequate funding. Some substantial successes have already been realized. Since 1999, the Partners have restored over 8,000 feet of barren banks through natural channel design stream restoration and have reforested an additional 6,000 feet of riparian land that had absolutely no riparian forest buffer. Water quality and ecological integrity should be improving at these areas. The other restoration projects recommended by this plan will deliver additional water quality and ecological benefits to the watershed, but they will ultimately do more. The Partners believe that a successful restoration of Muddy Creek could deliver over $1.2 million annually to the economies of Burke and McDowell Counties through capitalization of Farm Bill conservation programs and a bonafide trophy tailrace fishery. This figure does not include other financial benefits derived from restoration such as the improvements in wastewater treatment capacity, which can be used as an industrial/commercial recruitment tool; and cost savings due to improved efficiency in treatment capabilities of drinking water supplies downstream. The economic benefit calculation also does not include quality of life improvements.

Muddy Creek Partnership Sept 2007

The following is a current quick look status report on the Partnership and how it has grown in size, impact and scope since Dec 2003.
Partners: McDowell County Soil and Water Conservation District, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, NC Cooperative Extension Service, McDowell County, City of Marion, Burke County, Trout Unlimited, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, Duke Energy Corporation, Foothills Conservancy of North Carolina, Mountain Valleys RC&D, Carolina Land and Lakes RC&D, McDowell & Burke County Landowners Funders: NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund, NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program, NC Division of Water Resources, NC Division of Water Quality, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, NC Agricultural Cost Share Program, Trout Unlimited, Trout & Salmon Foundation, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Duke Foundation, US Environmental Protection Agency, US Fish and Wildlife Service, USDA Environmental Quality Incentives Program, McDowell SWCD, Vulcan Materials, Equinox Environmental, Muddy Creek Watershed Landowner Participants

Measures of Success:

Number of Projects Generated = 39
Natural Stream Channel Restoration = 55,141’
Livestock Exclusion from streams = 28,500’
Streamside Revegatation = 5,900’
Total approximately = 88,000’
Number of Landowners Involved = 34
Cash Funders and "In-Kind" Providers = 28
Grant funding for projects on the ground to Date = $7,967,981
Partnership cash and in-kind funding to Date = $1,919,703
Landowner funding to Date = $127,103
Grand Total Project Value to Date = $ 10,014,724 Million

Trout Unlimited funding commitment to project $80,000

That is leveraged use of hard earned TU conservation dollars!

Linville River:

The Linville River Restoration Project started about 5 years ago as a NCTU sponsored project. Initially we hoped it might be approved for a TU Home Rivers Initiative, however funding support proved extremely difficult to secure. We pressed forward on the project in coordination with Pilot View RC&D. We signed sponsorship papers and after several starts and stops finally got funding and finished the first Phase of the restoration Spring 07. The site of the project is on the headwaters of the West Fork of the Linville. Approximately one mile of stream has been completely restored, and it is absolutely beautiful! The entire project cost just under $1 million. The landowner and Clean Water Management Trust Fund covered the majority of funding with TU’s ‘cost’ for sponsorship just under $40K again LEVERAGE! We have completed design work on Phase II, another 6,000’of the main-stem, plus 2,500’ of a major tributary. This will complete restoration of the entire West Fork (Note: the uppermost headwaters is in very good condition and did not require additional restoration efforts) to the confluence with the Linville River in the town of Linville. We have secured funding for the construction phase of the project and are working with the landowners to secure/finalize conservation easement contracts. TU’s ‘cost’ to complete this project will be approximately $30K, and I’m working to secure this funding through TU National. I will likely need some ‘$ support’ from NCTU and NC Chapters to finalize this...expect a funding request in early 08. If all goes as planned, Phase II should be completed by Summer 08. Although both these restorations are on private land without public access, the improved water quality will have a significant impact on the main-stem of the Linville. Remember, it’s about the water folks!

Catawba-Waterie Relicensing:

After six years of stakeholder education through the Catawba Waterie Relicensing Coalition www.cwrc.info , three years of monthly meetings in a collaborative relicensing process with nearly 140 stakeholders in NC and SC, untold hours of negotiations with the licensee, local, state and federal agencies, Duke Energy filed its application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for Relicensing of the Catawba Waterie Hydro system!
I, for one am pleased with the proposed license application. We now await FERC’s decision and the implementation of the license conditions. We are expecting approval sometime in 2008, barring unforeseen complications.

From a coldwater perspective, here are a few of the highlights of the negotiated settlement agreement that are of potential interest to the TU membership. Don’t quote these figures, they are estimates! Remember, until the license is finalized none of this is ‘in stone’, however I am optimistic they will happen!

The following issues relate to the upper 12+ miles of river between Lake James and the city of Morganton, remember, this is the only ‘coldwater’ in the entire system that supports trout. While not a complete listing of the negotiated items, here is a sampling of what you can expect.

Access: Four public access/egress sites in the upper river. Nearly 800+/- acres of public access along the river, with 2-4 miles of public access/trails to be constructed during implementation phase.

Flows: Continuous minimum flows 24/7, for the system that average 280+/- cfs (seasonally adjusted). Note: currently when the system is not generating we have leakage flow from the Linville dam of only 25cfs!

Water Quality: NC water quality standards will be met as required through the NC DWQ 401 process. This will insure DO, etc. requirements are maintained. (Note: this area will be subject to considerable negotiation as the license WQ standards are established by the state!)
Recreational Flows: We negotiated 85 days per year of ‘rec flows’, approximately 1000 cfs ( one generator), 5hrs/day(10am-3pm), mostly weekends, May through Oct timeframe. This will allow morning wading, daytime floating, evening wading. (Note: of the 24+ shoals between Lake James and Morganton nearly 20 can be waded under these conditions.) Additionally, Duke started recreation flows on a ‘trial’ basis this summer, however, drought conditions have necessitated curtailment of these flows for now….pray for rain!

Public Information: A Website listing flows, as well as telephone call in for information with a three day look ahead (currently the phone system is in operation for Bridgewater generation (828) 584-1451).

In addition, the current Bridgewater Hydro plant will- be relocated just downstream of its current position between now and 2010+/-, as the Linville dam is resurfaced. This activity should prove to be an interesting time to be on the river, and a challenge to Duke Energy, expect more info as it develops!
Once the license is granted by FERC, these and other actions will be implemented during the course of the license (30-50yrs), with the majority of these specific actions occurring during the first 5 years.

Hot Issues:

Wilson Creek:

SAVE WILSON CREEK!
Action Alert to Caldwell County Citizens & Recreational Users

NOTE: THE ARCHER GROUP HAS WITHDRAWN THEIR OPTION AS OF 27 AUGUST, 2007...HOWEVER, LETTERS,EMAILS AND CALLS TO THE CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WILL KEEP THIS ISSUE IN THE FOREFRONT AND WILL GREATLY HELP LONG-TERM PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION EFFORTS WITHIN THE WATERSHED. (SQUEAK)

· A highly significant tract of land along Wilson Creek in Caldwell County is threatened by a proposed residential development by The Archer Group (under option at this time) that would include 250 "cottages" along nearly 2 miles of Wilson Creek

· The tract is 650+ acres, surrounding both sides of Wilson Creek for approximately 4 miles, and includes the confluences of 4 streams - Phillips Branch, Harper Creek, Estes Mill Creek, Thorps Creek

· June 2007 - Caldwell County Commissioners pass a 1-year moratorium to allow sufficient time to plan for the protection of Wilson Creek and the surrounding area

· Two months after the 1-year moratorium was passed, the commissioners and planning board have scheduled two meetings to consider two different options:
o 1) a 4-acre minimum lot size and 25% open space scenario that would allow approximately 120 - 160 homes throughout the 650-acre tract, and
o 2) the proposed plan from The Archer Group that includes 250 "cottages" along approximately 2 miles of Wilson Creek. Nearly all of the proposed cottages will be constructed within 200-300 feet of Wilson Creek.

· 10 years ago during the proposal stage of the "National Wild & Scenic River" designation, there was wide support from Caldwell County Commissioners, Chamber of Commerce and the Economic Development Commission
o Resolutions cited Wilson Creek as a source of clean, cold, pristine mountain water, it’s significance for fish and wildlife habitat, public access and recreation opportunities, scenic wilderness values, and the imperative need for "steps to be taken today to preserve such areas as Wilson Creek (in its present state) if they are to be available for future generations to enjoy...
o 1990 the Caldwell County Commissioners went on record in a letter to the Grandfather District Ranger, "suggesting the corridor of land on each side of Wilson Creek be increased to cover property "ridge to ridge" because of the steep terrain and the negative impact any construction may have on the stream...

Public opinion must be heard on this issue of critical importance

Talking Points:
· Wilson Creek is a national treasure worthy of the utmost protection
· Current plans would strip Wilson Creek of Wild and Scenic values
· Appreciative of all the hard work involved in getting Wilson Creek designated a National Wild and Scenic River
· Implications of the proposals are broad and will affect the character of the area for future generations
· Ask commissioners and boards to slow the planning process and take as much of 1 year needed to plan for the protection of Wilson Creek
· REJECT the planning and development proposals and allow adequate planning
· Caldwell County must adequately put these issues in front of citizens;
· The process up to this point has been done too quickly with no public input

Wilson Creek Public Recreation Uses:
· Trout Fishing - Hatchery Supported Trout Waters & Wild Trout Waters (trout survival depends on cold, high quality waters devoid of significant sediment loads)
·Canoeing/Kayaking - Wilson Creek Gorge supports Class III+ rapids; canoe put-ins planned by the county for less difficult stretches of water
·Mountain Biking on several different public trails
·Hiking on many public trails to waterfalls and scenic viewpoints
·Swimming and other leisure activities on public lands

Wilson Creek Water Quality & Natural Heritage:
·Wilson Creek is a National Wild & Scenic River
·NC Division of Water Quality Ratings:
"Class B” surface water (primary recreation uses, and Class C uses that include aquatic life propagation/protection)
"Trout water” (TR - provides protection to freshwaters for natural trout propagation and survival of stocked trout)
"Outstanding Resource Waters” (ORW - unique and special surface waters which are not impacted by pollution and have some outstanding resource values)
"Excellent” water quality rating in 2002 Catawba Basinwide Water Quality Report
· Supports 59 significant plant and animal species (1 of federal concern, 2 are state rare) and natural plant communities
· Watershed includes 8 different State Significant Natural Heritage Areas (2 Nationally Significant)
Numerous other ecological, cultural, historical, scenic and recreational values
Contact Information:

Caldwell County Commissioners: Contact phone number - (828) 757-1300
·Chairman – Faye Higgins, Vice-Chairman – Ron Beane, Don Barrier, Herb Greene, Dr. John Thuss
·Commissioners can be emailed through the following website
http://www.co.caldwell.nc.us/comm/comm.html
·Caldwell County Planning Board: http://www.co.caldwell.nc.us/depart/planning/planningboard.html

Tellico OHV:

NOTE: NO Decision has been made on filing suit at this time, negotiations with the USFS, and collaborative meetings with the OHV community continue to progress toward a potential solution. (Squeak)

Sportsmen, conservationists join forces to protect prized trout habitat in NC and TN
Groups to sue Forest Service for mismanagement of off-road vehicle area

Asheville, NC - The U.S. Forest Service is violating multiple federal and state laws – and its own regulations – in failing to prevent mud from severely eroded off-road vehicle trails from polluting streams in the Tellico River watershed in the Nantahala National Forest in North Carolina and Cherokee National Forest in Tennessee, sportsmen and conservation groups said in a letter today to the agency. Muddy runoff in the Tellico watershed is devastating one of the last, best strongholds for native brook trout, a native species in decline in the two states.

The Tellico Off-Road Vehicle (ORV) area, located in the Nantahala National Forest in the headwaters of the upper Tellico River, is one of the largest and most heavily used ORV areas on public lands in the Southeast. The area has twice as many designated ORV trails as allowed by the Forest Service’s own plan – not counting innumerable illegal trails. The agency has also documented dozens of stretches where trails are within 100 feet of streams – again, contrary to its own rules. Years of heavy use have turned many of Tellico’s ORV trails into massive ditches, some more than seven feet deep. In wet conditions, these eroded trails turn into ditches that send muddy water directly into nearby creeks and streams, violating state and federal water laws.

Sportsmen and conservation groups have repeatedly asked the Forest Service to rein in damaging ORV traffic, but the agency has taken little effective action. In their letter today, the groups – the North Carolina and Tennessee Councils of Trout Unlimited, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), and the Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project – notified the Forest Service of their intent to sue for repeated violations of the Clean Water Act and other laws.

"The Forest Service has come up short in taking decisive action to fix this problem. We are letting them know that the law is unambiguous – water quality and mountain trout come first,” said DJ Gerken, staff attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, which represents the groups. Gerken said the Tellico issue is a bellwether for how the agency handles growing ORV use throughout the Southeast.

"With ORV use on public lands growing rapidly and our water resources at a premium, it’s imperative the Forest Service gets on top of these problems now.”

"The Tellico flows into Tennessee, bringing sediment with it,” said Tennessee PEER Director Barry Sulkin, the former Chief of Enforcement and Compliance for the Tennessee Division of Water Pollution Control. "The streams running out of the Tellico area have 100 times more mud in them than similar streams unaffected by ORV use.”

"Trout Unlimited has worked cooperatively with the Forest Service in many ways over the years in North Carolina and Tennessee, and a lawsuit is a conservation tool of last resort for us, but we will not stand down when the agency allows destruction of some of the most valuable brook trout habitat in the region,” said Kirk Otey, Vice Chairman of the TU Board of Trustees, from Charlotte, NC.

The groups are calling on the Forest Service to permanently close the most environmentally damaging trails, and temporarily close the entire system in the wettest months. This option was considered by the agency in a recent evaluation of the trail system, but ultimately rejected by the Forest Supervisor who, without conducting the requisite environmental review, implemented only a seasonal closure of a few of the worst trails in the four wettest months of the year, and took no action to address problems throughout the rest of the eroded trail system.

The federal agency, at times in partnership with ORV users, has over the years installed culverts, ditches, sediment traps and water bars, and conducted other trail projects. But, as the agency’s own studies show, these erosion-control projects are improperly designed, poorly maintained, and often fail due to heavy ORV use.

In their letter today, the groups say the Forest Service is in violation of the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Forest Management Act, the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act, and myriad federal and state regulations. In addition, the groups’ letter states that:
§ The almost 40 miles of designated trails in the roughly 6 to 7 square-mile system exceed the maximum density of trails allowed by the Forest Plan by 200%.
§ The agency’s own studies reveal that streams affected by the Tellico ORV trails have 100 times more mud in them than unaffected streams of similar characteristics.
§ The Nantahala National Forest management plan says ORV trails should provide "easy to moderate levels of challenge.” But ORV users have rated at least half of the Tellico trails as difficult or highly difficult, attracting the biggest ground-disturbing off-road vehicles.

Chattooga’s North Fork:

NOTE: YOUR INPUT TO THIS IS CRITICAL AND URGENT. (SQUEAK)

Chattooga Wild and Scenic River Action Alert

In 1974, the Chattooga River was designated as a National Wild and Scenic River because of its biodiversity and beautiful scenery. The river and surrounding area provides places for fishing, hiking, swimming, hunting, wildlife viewing, and whitewater boating. It starts in North Carolina on the Macon and Jackson County line and flows down on the Georgia and South Carolina border. The Chattooga North Fork is listed in Trout Unlimited 100 Best Trout Rivers in America and is prime undisturbed habitat for black bear, white-tailed deer, ruffed grouse, and wild turkey.

The original 1976 Chattooga Management plan instituted a zoning policy that balanced use between potential competing recreational activities. The lower 36 miles of the designated river were open to boating while the upper 21 miles were preserved for anglers, birders and hikers. The Department of Natural Resources eliminated fish stocking in lower sections of the river and the US Forest Service (USFS) restricted all boating above Hwy 28.

Most of the earlier conflicts on the river disappeared, and growth in outdoor recreation activities was significant. The policy transformed the lower Chattooga into a world-class whitewater resource while the upper Chattooga remained a haven for anglers, hikers and wildlife. The balanced policy is an exemplary model for river management that has resulted in high visitor satisfaction by offering a broad spectrum of recreational opportunities while protecting the resource from overuse. This balanced policy was continued under the 1985 and 2004 revised management plans.

American Whitewater, a paddling access lobby organization, appealed the 2004 Sumter Forest Service Management Plan that continued boat limitations. The association demanded year-round unrestricted access for the entire Wild and Scenic Corridor, which includes national forest land and private properties. Fortunately, the 2004 plan continued restrictions on kayaks, motorized boats, horses, mountain bikes and ATVs, which were restricted under the original 1976 management plan.

The geographical area offers hundreds of alternate boatable streams including thirty miles of the lower Chattooga and both flanking creeks: Overflow Creek and the Whitewater River. The Chattooga headwater contains the last section of public creek in Southern Appalachia protected against the escalating growth of whitewater boating. It currently offers the only alternative to boat-filled creeks during high-water times.

Talking points:

·The entire Chattooga watershed remains one of the largest wilderness areas in the
Eastern US. It is one of the largest free flowing trout streams in southern Appalachia that supports healthy trout reproduction.

·The Upper Chattooga is the last boat-free creek for a quiet angling experience especially during the higher water periods when other creeks are filled with kayaks.

·Any policy for the Upper Chattooga should consider opportunities on the entire river so that no one particular activity would dominate the corridor.

·Boats enjoy 96% of the watershed without restrictions; only 4% of the watershed is protected from creek boating to protect anglers and fish habitat.

·Current Chattooga management policy is a balanced model that should be utilized elsewhere, minor limits on boating will ensure anglers, birders and wildlife enthusiasts have a section to also enjoy their respective outdoor hobby.

·Every visitor incrementally and invariably increases the impact on a resource. Each activity impact is distinctive and alters an ecosystem’s natural character. For hikers it is a trail system, for ATVs it is roads, for boaters it is turning a small mountain stream into a trail for travel. Boat impacts may include displacement of wildlife, riparian corridor degradation, and potential user conflicts with regards to habitat management e.g. woody removal.

·The lower river and many feeder creeks already offer ample whitewater opportunity. Angling values have been in decline within the entire watershed because of growth in boating.

·Adding new restrictions to boating on the West Fork and lower Chattooga would improve angling throughout the corridor.

·The current Upper Chattooga restrictions should be applied to the West Fork. For the Ellicott Wilderness, restricting all access from 1/4-mile segments for one year every ten years will allow for some recovery from overuse.

The Forest Service requests your comments

In response to public comments, data collected from a visitor use capacity analysis and information gathered during a series of public hearings and workshops, the Forest Service has developed six preliminary management alternatives that cover a range of options on recreation uses of the North Fork of the Upper Chattooga River, upstream of the Highway 28 Bridge to Cashiers, NC. They range from maintaining current management, to introducing new boating use, to implementing restrictions on all users. The first, second and third alternatives maintain the North Fork for foot travel only, the fourth and fifth alternatives provide limited boating, and the sixth alternative provides unrestricted boating (any time, any water level, any number of floaters per day). The Forest Service is now asking for your comments on these alternatives for managing future recreation uses. For details. go to: http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/fms/documents/Chattoogascopingpackagefinal08142007.pdf .
For more background, go to: http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/fms/.

Even if you have commented previously, please take time to share your views specifically on these six alternatives. The Forest Service is requesting your comments on potential environmental effects of the alternatives, including the effects on aesthetic values (solitude, remoteness, wildness, protecting endangered experiences, psychological, etc) and social values (encounters, user conflicts, interference with activities such as angling, bird watching, wildlife viewing, the rights of others to solitude, etc). The North Fork’s recreational Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORV) includes aesthetic and social values in a foot travel only backcountry setting.

Have you experienced user conflict or interference from whitewater boating on a mountain trout stream? Is it worse now than it was 20 years ago? What’s it going to be like in another 20 years? Do we need more stream sections zoned like the North Fork of the Upper Chattooga, for "foot travel only”? Help protect for present and future generations the only section of the Chattooga not damaged by allowing access for too many user groups. Comment on the preliminary management alternatives, urging the Forest Service to protect and enhance the unique ORVs, which caused the North Fork to be designated a National Wild and Scenic River.

In order for your comments to be adequately considered, send them in by next Thursday, Sept. 13, 2007 via e-mail to comments-southern-francismarion-sumter@fs.fed.us or by US Postal Service to: Project Coordinator John Cleeves, USDA Forest Service, 4931 Broad River Road, Columbia, SC 29212.

Zoning of conflicting uses is good stewardship, not discrimination. Stewardship encompasses far more than picking up litter; it includes the protection of the aesthetic values of natural resources such as remoteness and wildness, the proper regard for the rights of others to solitude, and the responsibility of preserving these values intact for future generations.

Doug Adams: edadams1@alltel.net

Drought

As most of you are well aware….we’re in a significant drought situation. Some say the worst in recorded history…at least on a temporary basis. Please obey drought advisories, comply with implemented restrictions, and do your personal best to conserve water!! With local streams virtually drying up in some areas, the aquatic life forms are being stressed and sometimes eliminated. The Catawba Riverkeeper organization has been providing excellent coverage of the situation and you can get added to their email listing. For a complete analysis of the current situation and updates as the situation progresses go to www.catawbariverkeeper.org

Questions:

Email me (squeaksmith@earthlink.net)with any questions this report may have brought to light, or on any subject, if you feel I might be able to provide you with information. I’ll do my best to answer them all in a timely manner via this format.

Well, there you have it. I hope this report, albeit lengthy, helps each of you better understand some of the issues and challenges we face, and informs you about some of the projects TU is currently undertaking. I hope this report gives you an incentive to volunteer, get involved, and support local, state, regional and national TU mission objectives!
Squeak…..1Fish-On