[env-trinity] Trinity Journal- River dwellers share views at Lewiston meeting

Tue Apr 17 12:33:17 PDT 2012

Concern about the filling of deep holes between Vitzhum's and Dutton Creek has been expressed in my writings and testimonies. A project plan which focuses on fry fish without maintaining adult fish habitat that nature created is not okay. Period.

Requests for plans to balance adult and fry fish habitat transcends money and recreation. It is simply logical not to destroy adult habitat for fry habitat.

Josh, buy a piece of land, manage it for ten to twenty years and you might develop a deep respect for how nature continues to do good and to make fascinating changes. Landowners are well used to change and to adapting.

There is wisdom in the requests to take a softer approach, and to avoid man-hurried overzealous implementation of a current favored restoration method. Fashions pass. Plopping methods, used on rivers very diffferent from the Trinity River, on our treasured river is not okay.

Those scientists and engineers who evolve slowly methods of river management appropriate to the multi-varied ecosystem and to the many different microclimates of the Trinity River will do well here and will build a respected reputation for their work. They will develop methods for each small section of the river rather than implementing blanket treatment of 10 to 40+ miles, or forwarding ideas that would make the Trinity look like a place far different than what nature intended or intends (e.g., [1] excessive revegetation plans for a river that for many miles historically had little vegetation close to river edge and its floodplain, [2] burying bedrock with gravel and [3] numerous, unnatural-looking, large log jams). The successful workers will be creators and innovators who are respectful of the diversity of the Trinity River and its people.

Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 11:35:28 -0700
From: trinityjosh at gmail.com
To: env-trinity at mailman.dcn.org
Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Trinity Journal- River dwellers share views at Lewiston meeting

Ok, just for discussion related purposes; I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment. A lot of people keep complaining about the gravel and holes being filled in between Lewiston and Douglas City. This has a lot to do, as I see it, with  a lack of fishing areas, and the river drastically changing from what it was in the past. Like it was reported, "...need to stop man-ipulating the river" and "what time period is the program trying to capture".

Though as I see it, it is not possible to not stop manipulating the river, because there is no period in the river's history that is trying to be captured. Instead a brand new section is being created that never existed before. The river has already manipulated to death since the dams were put up in the first place. 

~ Is not the whole point of the program is to create a stretch of river between Lewiston and Douglas City that mimics upstream spawning conditions lost by the dams? 
~ If so, isn't it then required that the holes and areas between those two communities be filled in flat with smaller pools behind them to provide spawning habitat so redds can be laid and juveniles have shallows to be raised in? 
~ If the area in question does not have uniform flat areas for natural spawning of salmonids, instead has huge holes like it did in the past, then spawning can not occur, areas to raise juveniles is limited, and what is left is a dependence upon the hatchery for production? 
~ Since this area is meant for spawning and raising of juveniles, does it also not make sense to provide shade cover, like the upper reaches, for said juveniles? 
~ Would it also not make sense to limit access to that stretch of river for sport fishing/recreation and instead move such areas out of redds and habitat areas to more appropriate places downstream where there are holes for holding? (i.e potential for Douglas City and Junction City to become the "new" fishing and financial resource areas of the county, while Lewiston focuses on dam related recreation activities.)
~ Should not people be the ones that must adapt to these changes since the fish have already had to adapt to huge changes in their environment with the installation of the dams which provides positive benefits to humans that are negative to natural salmonid production? 
~ Isn't the whole point of the program to increase natural production while reducing man-ipulated hatchery production? 
~ Can't anyone associated with the program just come out with this "secret" to the public through the participatory process in a way they can understand? 

I know, blasphemy! But to me, it seems like no one will be happy, because humans are unwilling to adapt to necessary changes, and instead are more focused on the human concepts of recreational use and money. Just my two cents. Though I would be interested in hearing from someone more knowledgeable about the needs of fish, who can answer these questions, and how humans can adapt to these requirements of a changing environment.  

2012/4/12 Tom Stokely <tstokely at att.net>

http://www.trinityjournal.com/sports/outdoors/article_dcf01834-83e8-11e1-9634-0019bb30f31a.html 
River dwellers share views at Lewiston meeting
By Amy Gittelsohn The Trinity Journal | Posted: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 8:15 am
Appreciation of the Trinity River and its wildlife was a common theme last week at the second in a series of outreach meetings, this one held in Lewiston, to get public input on the Trinity River Restoration Program.
A small group of about a dozen people attended the meeting April 4 at One Maple Winery put on by the Trinity County Resource Conservation District, under contract with the restoration program. The meeting was run by RCD employees Alex Cousins and Donna Rupp, and contractor Jeff Morris, who made clear they were not representatives of the restoration program but were there to bring concerns and questions back to agencies involved in the program.
>From Napa, Al Lilleberg said he has been visiting Lewiston four to five days a month since he was a teenager, and the river was basically his biology lab in college majoring in biology. The river has declined since construction of Trinity and Lewiston dams in the early 1960s, according to Lilleberg.
"I quit fishing because the river is dead," Lilleberg said. "I know people fish in it all the time, but it's dead by comparison."
Lilleberg said when the sun went down and fish were jumping for food, "you couldn't count fish fast enough … You might not see one now."
Several residents expressed concerns about restoration program activities.
Tom and Diane Gannon questioned the planting of willows which make the river less accessible.
"Somebody -- in my estimate -- is insane," Tom Gannon said, noting that at one time the program goal was to push the vegetation back.
"They did that," he said, "and now they've replanted where they pushed it back."
"Pre-dam there weren't all the willows they just planted," he said.
Describing herself as a "river lifer," Lewiston resident and County Administrative Officer Wendy Tyler said, "The river is the lifeblood of our county."
She spoke of the importance of the river for recreation and economic development, saying, "restoration is important – but it must be balanced."
Her husband, Bob Tyler, shared a concern that has come up repeatedly over the past year – that spawning gravels added to the river have filled in holes adult fish use.
Bob Tyler said he's fished along the river since childhood (the late ‘70s to early ‘80s), and "you'd come home with five salmon or two or three steelhead."
Below the Lewiston Bridge the hole was so deep, he said, "you used to be able to jump off the bridge into that hole. You can't do that anymore."
Others said the river is "not dead" and continues to support a variety of wildlife — particularly in comparison to other rivers.
"This is one of the best rivers left. We have a chance," said Dale Davey, who lives part time in Lewiston.
Davey said the Trinity River Record of Decision which increased Trinity River flows is the most important way to restore the river.
Under the Record of Decision river flows are determined based on water-year type, but over multiple years 49 percent of inflow to Trinity Lake is to be released to the river and 51 percent available for diversion and Central Valley Project use.
"That's the thing we can never let bury," he said. "That's what's helping recover the river and recover the fish."
"Let the water flow do it," Davey said. "Eventually, we've got to stop bulldozing and injecting gravel and say, 'We're going to stop man-ipulating the stream.'"
Regarding the river flows and the Record of Decision, Lilleberg said, "We are facing a challenge. The four biggest farms in California can crack that law."
Supporters of the river must be "rabid" about how rivers function, he said.
The audience also asked about goals of the program, what time frame the program is attempting to recapture in the river's history, and if there will be an endpoint to the mechanical restoration projects. County Sup. Judy Pflueger requested that the answers be "in terms we understand."
>From the RCD, Morris said written answers to the questions would be provided within 30 days.
Also, several more outreach meetings in communities along the river are planned. The locations, dates and times will be announced.
The outreach meetings began after the Trinity River Guide Association and California Water Impact Network requested a moratorium on channel restoration projects until a scientific review of earlier projects is complete. Gravel injections were of particular concern to the guides, and the restoration program has since announced that no gravel injections are planned for this year.
_______________________________________________
env-trinity mailing list
env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us
http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity

_______________________________________________ env-trinity mailing list env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20120417/da902aba/attachment.html>