Home Page

o Vision: Support efforts that encourage quality trout habitats and fishing in the Roanoke Valley . Increase public awareness of the importance of fish habitats in our community and the positive impact on quality of life.

Ø (1) Carvin Creek - working with TU to use as pilot to other efforts Fish survived in a limited environment. What is TU and HU looking for Orvis to do on this project?

Ø (2) Glade Creek – work with TU to obtain landowner support to restore fish habitat to support trout and fishing.;

Ø Roanoke River – improve and restore fish habitat to support wild trout and improve small mouth bass fishery. Acknowledging this is a long term project involving multiple jurisdictions and constitutes.

Ø What does Orvis expect and want from the R-TU? Orvis wants to support TU in their efforts to restore trout and ideally wild trout habitats and align with Area, State and National objectives. Ultimately a local 'Watershed Association” or some formal sub-group of TU made of TU, Private industry (like Orvis), public like water authority (Rupe), Virginia Fish & Wildlife, educational/Universities (like Hollins) may be desirable. If formed, Local TU/State TU should organize the ‘Association” ; Orvis will support approved projects/public awareness etc., but funds and in-kind donations should not be used for establishing “councils” , “associations” or other Not-for-Profit structures. Watershed Associations are usually 501 (c) (3)s.

Ø How does Orvis want to use R-TU? I do not think Orvis wants to use R-TU, but to find ways to support each other. Create win/win solutions, but definitely stay focused on conservation. Ideally, local or state TU should organize the council and Orvis would participate as a member of the council. Orvis is willing to make immediately available to its employees membership to TU through payroll deduction. Thus, expanding the pool of members in this area for TU activities.

Ø How would Orvis like to see these opportunities develop, time frame, measurements, scope? Would like to establish a council of some type with local TU/state TU, obtain funds from Orvis corporate, generate public awareness to get other companies into the program, do some type of press release to formalize our plans and build public support.

Ø Next Steps:

Ø Move forward on projects at hand; Hollins is in progress. Adopt Glade as a target project and work through steps as soon as practical. Agree to a “Council" leadership / formalize structure / organize not-for-profit status

Ø Who to invite into participation and build community consensus

Ø Think bigger than Carvin Creek … we need to quickly engage other projects to get traction and public awareness.

Ø Announce TU’s “Watershed Council”, members of “council” and funding/ leadership by organizations like Orvis.

Ø TU Membership (Orvis Associates) – payroll deductions

o TU National has agreed to take Orvis payroll deductions as membership fees.

o Local TU leaders, [Jack Ward and a small committee],to come on site at Orvis/Blue Hills to meet with associates on what TU is doing, (local & national) and what are reasons for joining TU. Develop a campaign to increase membership through payroll deductions.

o Model for other Area employers.

End Note: Chapter 308’s methodology on adopting projects be it conservation, educational or recreational was discussed. Time lines and communication channels going forward were not discussed. Marvin Huffman 11/2/07

Update to Orvis Conservation Notes (Carvin/Glade/Roanoke River) 09/13/07

Carvin Creek, Glade Creek, and the Roanoke River are definitely included in I⁸¹ CARE.

Per John Ross, each has its own set of assets and challenges. Per John, Carvin offers the best potential for success in the near term, Glade would be farther out – 3 – 5 years maybe more, and the Roanoke River more in the neighborhood of 10 – 15 years. Of the trio recovering the Roanoke River offers the greatest economic/tourism potential and would probably generate, in the long run, the greatest visibility. It looks like the toughest nut but with the greatest payout.

As this develops, looks like an interesting plan would include all three. Hollins/TU already have Carvin in motion and the other two projects are building awareness and momentum. Per John, we need to determine who needs to be at the table to get the Glade and Roanoke balls rolling, and then see if we can muster the human and financial resources to move those plans ahead.

Glade Creek – follow up: Per Mark Taylor - It's tough to say on the Glade Creek permission thing. We'd need to identify the stretches of interest then take a close look at the number of landowners. Some probably wouldn't like it. Some would. Just like with Mossy Creek, we won't know until we start asking. My gut is that getting permanent easements from everyone would be a long shot.

As for the lack of reproduction, that's a question best left to Bud LaRoche, and perhaps the TU restoration and habitat expert. There has been relatively recent reproduction (Mark caught small fish in there around 2000) so it's not like the place has been dead for decades. Mike R has sent a follow up note to Bud regarding condition of stream.

DCR has funded a grant ($83,500) for a restoration project involving Tinker and Glade Creeks. The grant goes to the City. The grant targets sediment control.

Per Rupe Cutler (Water Authority): On access to Glade Creek, perhaps Roger Holnback or David Perry of the Western Virginia Land Trust staff in Roanoke and/or Josh Gibson of the Virginia Outdoors Foundation staff in Blacksburg could help contact riparian landowners regarding interest in donating easements with public access (in return for tax reductions and tax credits). That's what they do every day.

Carvin Creek – Follow up:

Per Morgan (Hollins): For Carvin Creek on Hollins University property, we have proposed practicing catch-and-release fishing with single-artificial lures only, and allowing access to the stream by a daily permit (this permit would be issued by the campus safety office; anglers would sign a waiver form as well). We have also proposed limiting the number of permits issued daily (4-6 permits per day), and that access to the stream from Hollins property be limited to members of the Hollins community (all faculty, staff, and students and their family members) and members of TU. This does not exclude the general public, however, as anyone may become a member of TU. There likely may be days during the academic year and/or during the summer months when daily permits would not be issued because of special campus events or to reduce negative impacts on the stream. As Rupert mentioned below, there does not seem to be any practical way to increase stream flow on Carvin Creek because of the current design and function of the dam. We hope to seek advice from stream restoration specialists to improve in-stream and stream-side habitat, as well as that of springs and surrounding wetlands. I certainly see the Carvin Creek project falling under the I81 CARE project.

Roanoke River : Rupe Cutler - On the Roanoke River, the Spring Hollow dam, reservoir and water treatment plant now are owned and operated by the Western Virginia Water Authority. The reservoir is a pumped storage operation. Water is pumped from the Roanoke River into the reservoir when the river is high and clear and released only through the treatment plant into the regional drinking water system where it is mixed with water from Carvins Cove, the Crystal Spring filtration plant, and other sources. As far as I know, it is not designed to release water directly back into the river, and I don't know why you would want to do that anyway. There is a minimum flow requirement that prohibits the water authority from pumping out of the river when it is at or below a certain minimum flow. It seems to me that work could be done higher on the watershed to get riparian owners to fence and replant riparian buffer strips and protect springs, as well as work to see that toxic chemical spills like the one at the country club on the north fork recently don't happen again. Some easements already have been obtained in this watershed by the Western Virginia and New River Land Trusts.

Rupe could work with the City of Roanoke , the greenway groups, and others in addition to TU on the revegetation of the banks of the Roanoke River after the Corps of Engineers finishes its flood reduction work to try to re-establish shade over the river and angler access to it.