[env-trinity] Trinity Journal March 30 2011

[Byron Leydecker]

 <http://www.trinityjournal.com/>
http://www.trinityjournal.com/styles/logo.gif

Guides express concern over river projects

BY AMY GITTELSOHN 

THE TRINITY JOURNAL 

Calls are increasing for a suspension of earth and gravel moving projects
along the Trinity River meant to improve fish habitat.

The Trinity River Guide Association has requested a moratorium on these
projects until further information is available and shared with the public.

"We feel they should go back and study what worked, what didn't work, what
benefited the river, what didn't benefit the river," said Liam Gogan of
Douglas City, president of the guide association.

He stressed, that the association "is not anti-restoration at all."

Trinity River Restoration Program projects along the river have included
re-contouring of river banks and development of side channels to increase
the amount of shallow, low water velocity areas for salmonid fry rearing.
Spawning gravel and cobble have also been added. Along with higher flows
called for in the 2000 Trinity River Record of Decision, the projects are
intended to help bring back, on a smaller scale, features the river had
prior to construction of Trinity Dam.

In all, the restoration program plans 47 projects on the Trinity River
between Lewiston Dam and the North Fork at Helena, about half of which have
been completed.

The guide association believes these mechanical projects may be trying to
create fish rearing habitat at the expense of adult fish.

Gogan said all the projects are a concern, but to mention one, "the Sawmill
Project (from 2009) in the upper river in Lewiston - we feel there was too
much gravel put in that site," Gogan said. "It just kind of filled in that
hole there. They were putting it in faster than the river could disperse
it."

>From the restoration program, interim Executive Director Jennifer Faler
said, "We agree that the pool was impacted by our high-flow gravel
operations, and we're monitoring that and are hopeful this year's flow
releases will help to clear out that pool."

The guide association's letter, which went to agencies, lawmakers and
tribes, says, "Based on tens of thousands of hours of personal observations
on the river we believe that the aggressive mainstem channel projects over
the past few seasons may have adversely impacted adult fish holding habitat
upstream of the North Fork and have resulted in excessive sedimentation in
the river."

The letter continues, "It is apparent that excessive - and often ill-timed -
amounts of earth moving, combined with the placement of large amounts of
spawning gravel and a lack of high flow releases has filled in many of the
pools where adult spring Chinook, summer steelhead, and other species hold
over during the summer months."

"Under the (Record of Decision) they're supposed to pause and go back and
study the effectiveness," Gogan said.

During the suspension of work on the mainstem that they seek, the guides
suggest that restoration funds be put toward work in the watershed and in
tributaries that wild fish use. 

The guides' request has support from some members of the Trinity Adaptive
Management Working Group, the stakeholder group that advises the Trinity
Management Council.

Arnold Whitridge, chairman of the advisory group, said members will discuss
the issues brought up in the letter at the group's April 12 meeting.

Whitridge said he has not formed an opinion as to whether the projects are
causing harm, but "I support a review because I don't think anyone knows for
sure what all the effects are."

He noted the one project proposed for this year is relatively small. The
Wheel Gulch project would entail a side channel and bank reforming about
three miles downstream from Douglas City.

"It's not a complete pause," Whitridge said. "A dramatic reduction is taking
place this year while review goes on."

Whitridge is one of six of the 16-member advisory group to sign a letter to
Interior Secretary Kenneth Salazar that voices concerns about the direction
of the restoration program. Among those concerns, the signers of the letter
to Salazar state that channel manipulation projects constructed in the first
phase of the program appear to be in far greater scale than intended in the
Record of Decision.

Pre-project reviews were not done until recently, the letter to Salazar
says, and resulting suggestions by an independent science panel have not
been incorporated in proposed projects at this point. Like the fishing
guides, signers of the letter to Salazar request a pause in channel
construction projects to allow time to review what has been done.

>From the restoration program, Faler said the Trinity Management Council,
which has representatives from eight member agencies, did consider a
suspension of projects last September.

The decision was to continue, she said, but to involve the public and
stakeholders more in the second phase of planning - "do more outreach in the
design process."

"The program is receiving valuable input from a variety of stakeholders and
our own science and monitoring projects," Faler said, "and I expect we'll be
able to find a path forward that will accommodate the concerns being
raised."

She said one adjustment that may be made is a higher peak release from
Trinity Dam than normal in April. Faler said a release of 11,000 cubic feet
per second is being considered to see if the projects function as expected
with more water. Adjustments would be made to the rest of the dam release
schedule, and the overall amount allotted to the river for the year would
not be changed, she said.

>From the guides association, Gogan said a higher release could allow the
public to see for itself if the projects are working as intended. 

 

 

Byron Leydecker

Chair, Friends of Trinity River

PO Box 2327

Mill Valley, CA 94942-2327

415 383 4810 land

415 519 4810 mobile

bwl3 at comcast.net 

bleydecker at stanfordalumni.org 

http://www.fotr.org

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20110331/c4ad4fbb/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 21223 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20110331/c4ad4fbb/attachment.gif>