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

[Jon Peterson]

Hi Josh,

I thought I would take a shot at answering two of your questions. I am trying to be objective.
>From the channel rehabilitation design guide (http://odp.trrp.net/FileDatabase/Documents/Trinity%20River%20Channel%20Design%20Guide%201-21-11%20reduced2.pdf ):
The overall strategy of the Trinity River Flow Evaluation Final Report (TRFEFR) and the Trinity River
Restoration Record of Decision (ROD) is to restore physical process and rescale the Trinity River as a
foundation for fishery recovery.

I will emphasize "foundation for fishery recovery".

So, to answer two of your questions:
~ 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?

The whole point is fishery recovery. Creating more spawning areas seems reasonable, but fishery recovery is way more complicated than just the spawning areas. Common sense is all that is needed to list a few of a myriad of other details:

*         Water of the right chemistry and velocity

*         The right coble structure and water depth

*         Food for the fry once they hatch

*         Suitable river habitat for the fry as they grow-safety, food, etc. I'll add emphasis to the food. Spend a summer watching a small section of river with salmon and steelhead fry. It's not just feather edged gravel bars where these guys hang out.

*         The smolts have to make it to the estuary and ocean-myriad of details here.

*         Proper ocean environment...food, clean water, etc.

*         After their ocean stint they need to make it back to the spawning grounds. Think of that journey of over 100 miles...

*         They need holding and staging water. Eggs need to mature, males and females need to stake out spawning areas.

*         Etc.

Screw up any of these or any of the myriad we don't understand and potentially screw up the whole thing. No one will argue that the fry will die if they don't have a food source they can reach. Does anyone think a long contiguous stretch of spawning grounds will promote the growth of a diverse and healthy food supply?

~ 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?

No it is not required to fill the holes. Read the document. It does not spend much time on holes but it does discuss them-generally associated with bed rock:
"The more directly the channel interacts with bedrock obstructions during high flow events, the greater the likelihood that pools, scour holes, and bars will form, thereby increasing channel and habitat complexity, and reducing the risk of future detrimental riparian encroachment."

Please note the "increasing channel and habitat complexity". They paper talks extensively of pools, pool-riffle spacing, pool scouring, etc. Figure 2-1 in the document shows a hypothetical rehabilitation. Have a look-the pool is in the before and after picture. The document talks at lengths about the many features of the river. Nowhere does the document discuss the need to create "smaller pools".

A couple of other comments:

*         I don't see a clear mission statement on TRRP website. The mission has to be clear and question everything that is done-is it supporting the mission. (I think the mission is "fishery recovery").

*         Don't confuse tactics and strategy with the mission. The mission is not to augment coarse sediment-that's a tactic to create more spawning grounds which is part of a strategy for fishery recovery.

*         People build models-the biologists working on this have their models. You cannot forget they are models-human approximations of very complex systems they can never fully understand. The models need to be questioned, arrogance must be avoided, remind ourselves how humbling nature really is.

*         Reach out to other experiences. The guides make their living from the river. They spend hundreds of days on the river. This tremendous experience should be complementary to the scientists working on the program. After all, they should share the same goals.

Finally Josh, I would be more than happy to show you  a piece of the river that I feel has been adversely effected by TRRP work. Specifically areas that I observed redds for years had no redds this last season. Of course this does not mean the whole program is failing-just a single instance.

I just saw the release schedule is based on a "Normal Year". We can be thankful for a wet March. I look forward to seeing the river next July when the water backs off.

Regards,

Jon Peterson
(home owner on the Trinity River in Lewiston)
From: env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [mailto:env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] On Behalf Of Joshua Allen
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 11:35 AM
To: Trinity List
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<mailto: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<mailto: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/20120418/60797d98/attachment.html>