Lake Murray Fishermen

Lake Murray Fishermen

Focus Group

Low Inflow Protocol Evaluation and Proposal

January 22, 2009

Saluda Hydro Relicensing

To: Jim Landreth

V.P. Hydro and Fossil Fuel

SCE&G

Introduction

A focus group of LakeMurray sport fishermen/guides convened on January 22nd for the purpose of determining how certain low inflow protocol scenarios might affect LakeMurray’s fishery. The Group is very alarmed about the loss of near shore habitat as a result of shoreline clearing from past development practices. Also of concern is the loss of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) due to the introduction of grass carp as a means of controlling hydrilla. The Group is concerned that certain low inflow protocol (LIP) scenarios would likely result in the further reduction of habitat due to potential “draw downs” of LakeMurray during the critical time frame when spawning activities occur. Drawing from many years of experience on LakeMurray, the group provides the following comments.

Shoreline Habitat

In examining shoreline habitat, the group concluded that the littoral zone consist primarily of emergent vegetation including but not limited to button bushes, willows, and river birch. The group also agreed there is a scattering of floating vegetation, in most cases primrose, that generally thrives in certain near shore areas during the summer months. The group agreed that the littoral habitat typically lies between the 358’ (msl) elevation and the 356’ (msl) elevation.

Trigger Level Comparisons

The group compared LIP’s with a 2 ft. trigger level and a 6” trigger level.

The group examined the April-May time frame using the proposed targeted flows requested by the SC DNR(1000 cfs from April 1 to April 15, 1300 cfs from April 16 to May 15 and 1000 cfs from May 16- May 30). It was assumed the lake would be at 358’ on April 1.

The group determined that when using the 2 ft. trigger during this time frame, if very low inflows occur and persist, the lake could drop as much as 1 ft. in 22 days. If low inflow conditions continue, the lake would drop another 1 ft. during the next 18 days.

The group concluded that using a 2 ft. trigger during the peak spawning could affectively de-water most of the littoral habitat along the shoreline. As a result, would reduce significantly the survival rate of the “fry”. Additionally, unstable water levels could cause fish to “dump” their eggs or abandon their nest further impacting the quality of the year’s spawning class.

The group analyzed the same scenario but used the 6” trigger. It was determined that during times of very low inflows, the lake would drop 6” in 15 days with an additional 6” loss in the next 45 days. Furthermore it was found that the total de-watering of the littoral zone would not occur until Aug. 5. The group concluded that the majority of the habitat in this case would be available during the period when most of the spawning activity occurs, and would ensure adequate cover to protect the fry until they mature sufficiently to survive in deeper water.

Proposal

On behalf of the LakeMurray fishermen, the Group strongly supports an LIP which uses a 6” lake level drop to trigger reductions in target flows. The Group proposes the following reductions. If the lake drops 6 inches, target flows will be reduced to 400 cfs until the lake rebounds to the guide curve. ( 358’ msl in April-May). At that time target flows will be allowed to resume until the lake drops to 6” below the guide curve.

This scenario would better protect LakeMurray’s habitat and at the same time ensure a more “natural” flow regime for the lower Saluda. In contrast a 2 ft. trigger would result in “unnatural” flows and while this might enhance downstream habitat, at the same time it could reduce critical habitat on the lake to the point that spawning activities would be seriously compromised.

Conclusion

Based on our many years of observation, the Group believes that LakeMurray’s fishery has been in decline since the early 1990’s. This is likely the result of habitat loss from shoreline development practices, loss of SAV due to the introduction of grass carp to control hydrilla, and past lake level management practices that resulted in “dry ups” in the littoral zone. The group believes that a healthy fishery depends on proper water level management.[1]

Considering all concerns, it is apparent that extreme measures should be undertaken as part of the relicensing to protect and enhance Lake Murray’s fishery and other environmental resources so that future generations can enjoy the lake as we do today. Managing water levels to enhance and protect habitat may be our only tool to reverse the downward spiral. We urge SCE&G to adopt our proposal.

Regards,

Rick Kellemeyer- 30 years Professional Tournament Fishing

Doug Lown- Fishing Guide- 30 years on LakeMurray

Brad Taylor- Fishing Guide- 20 years experience on LakeMurray

David Whetstone- 20 years Tournament Crappie Fishing

[1] On LakeGreenwood in the early 1990’s, SC DNR believed that crappie reproduction had been adversely affected by Duke Power Company's spring water level management. The agency believed that extreme water level fluctuations during the spring spawning period may have been negatively impacting crappie spawning efforts (Hayes and Penny 1992). Duke Power agreed to raise water levels one foot higher than historic levels which resulted in the flooding of shoreline structure which normally would have still been exposed. This resulted in an increase in fall trap net samples from l.55 crappie/trap net night in 1993 to 9.14 crappie/trap night in 1996.