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

[Grunbaum, Jon B -FS]

I think Lou is on the right track …..

From: env-trinity-bounces+jgrunbaum=fs.fed.us at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us [mailto:env-trinity-bounces+jgrunbaum=fs.fed.us at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] On Behalf Of lou jacobson
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 11:49 AM
To: Michael Caranci; Paul Catanese
Cc: Al Smatsky; Steve Huber; Matt Mitchell; John Hodges; Greg Hector; Mike Parker; Matt Dover; Brad McFall; Chris Parsons; Bryan Balog; Trinity List; Bruce McGregor; Gabe Durand; Aaron Grabiel; Liam Gogan (TrinRvOut); Todd LeBoeuf; Dave Morton; Dax Messett; Mike Corley; Michael Charlton; Mike Hibbard; Zack Collins; Dave Neal; Dennis 'Popeye' Franco; Chuck Volckhausen; Matt Swan; Bill Dickens; Jeff Parker; Kevin Peterson; John Letton; Shannon Engh; Eric Wiseman; Ron Purl; Joe McCarthy; Lonnie Boles; Ross Wilkerson
Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Trinity Journal- River dwellers share views at Lewiston meeting

All,

Issues like these are certainly not black and white, both Michael and Josh seem to have valid points. However, it is very disconcerting that such aggressive language is being used to communicate. This is not productive nor will it afford various stakeholders an ability to find common ground. Something that is absolutely necessary should we ever want to take real steps forward in restoring the Trinity to what it once was ( what ever that means considering no point in time has been selected per this conversation, as Josh notes).

Michael is certainly right, the real solution is removing the dams. And as he points out, this is most likely not going to happen any time soon--and would most likely create a very contentious situation with those who have come to enjoy the Trinity's water in the central valley or even those who depend on guaranteed summer flows for recreational activities downstream.  Further he certainly is correct that a dominant western worldview rather than a ecological based worldview is at the root, a real problem.

Josh has presented a perspective with merit as well. Since we are left in a bad situation with a handful of less then ideal solutions why not attempt to find the best alternative to an all around bad situation. Especially considering that we live in a society where, whether we like it or not, the dominant worldview  informs actions oriented around human caused environmental change. Currently I think it would be safe to assume we can and we will continue to change natural environments to suit a political/societal/economic context.

So why  not attempt to find the best alternative to removing the dam, even if that means pushing human adaptation to a changing environmental context. Why not recognize we live under very specific geo-policial and economic structures that limit choice. And in doing so why not develop a constructive conversation on how to best mitigate and adapt to changing natural environments. And again, we should always recognize that this is not black and white and any choice or action will have various consequences associated with it whether it be environmental, social, political or economic.

In the end we could certainly throw our arms up, cuss the situation, attack all who provide critical perspectives and contribute to a unhealthy conversation. Or we can make the choice to recognize that this issue exists in a complex structural context. And by doing so, we could recognize that each potential solution will have consequences, and that these consequences whether good or bad will require a select group of stakeholders to communicate in a healthy constructive fashion.

The choice is yours, but I hope in the end more respect is brought to the table in an attempt to promote healthy discussion and an increased ability to take on the role of the other.

Lou

________________________________
From: Michael Caranci <michael at theflyshop.com<mailto:michael at theflyshop.com>>
To: Paul Catanese <pcatanese at dhscott.com<mailto:pcatanese at dhscott.com>>
Cc: Al Smatsky <algofish at softcom.com<mailto:algofish at softcom.com>>; Steve Huber <steve at stevehuberguideservice.com<mailto:steve at stevehuberguideservice.com>>; Matt Mitchell <matt at mattmitchell-fishing.com<mailto:matt at mattmitchell-fishing.com>>; John Hodges <jandjhodges at snowcrest.net<mailto:jandjhodges at snowcrest.net>>; Greg Hector <HooKemheckys at charter.net<mailto:HooKemheckys at charter.net>>; Mike Parker <kgparker at shasta.com<mailto:kgparker at shasta.com>>; Matt Dover <nataliedover at sbcglobal.net<mailto:nataliedover at sbcglobal.net>>; Brad McFall <brad at mammothflyfishing.com<mailto:brad at mammothflyfishing.com>>; Chris Parsons <chris at bethefly.com<mailto:chris at bethefly.com>>; Bryan Balog <bcbalog at yahoo.com<mailto:bcbalog at yahoo.com>>; Trinity List <env-trinity at mailman.dcn.org<mailto:env-trinity at mailman.dcn.org>>; Bruce McGregor <NorthCoastOutfitters at yahoo.com<mailto:NorthCoastOutfitters at yahoo.com>>; Gabe Durand <flyfishingnorcal at gmail.com<mailto:flyfishingnorcal at gmail.com>>; Aaron Grabiel <buckslayer4x4 at frontiernet.net<mailto:buckslayer4x4 at frontiernet.net>>; Liam Gogan (TrinRvOut) <Krista at trinityriveroutfitters.com<mailto:Krista at trinityriveroutfitters.com>>; Todd LeBoeuf <linnea1 at charter.net<mailto:linnea1 at charter.net>>; Dave Morton <fyrmanmorty at comcast.net<mailto:fyrmanmorty at comcast.net>>; Dax Messett <Daxmessett at aol.com<mailto:Daxmessett at aol.com>>; Mike Corley <mjcorley63 at hotmail.com<mailto:mjcorley63 at hotmail.com>>; Michael Charlton <Michael at Redwoods-Rivers.com<mailto:Michael at Redwoods-Rivers.com>>; Mike Hibbard <mikehibbard at sbcglobal.net<mailto:mikehibbard at sbcglobal.net>>; Zack Collins <zcollins at excite.com<mailto:zcollins at excite.com>>; Dave Neal <neal2fish at gnet.com<mailto:neal2fish at gnet.com>>; Dennis 'Popeye' Franco <popeye5 at charter.net<mailto:popeye5 at charter.net>>; Chuck Volckhausen <chuck at mtshastaanglers.com<mailto:chuck at mtshastaanglers.com>>; Matt Swan <swanmatt at yahoo.com<mailto:swanmatt at yahoo.com>>; Bill Dickens <webefishn at com-pair.net<mailto:webefishn at com-pair.net>>; Jeff Parker <jfpfish at yahoo.com<mailto:jfpfish at yahoo.com>>; Kevin Peterson <Kevin at hotcreekranch.com<mailto:Kevin at hotcreekranch.com>>; John Letton <jletton at wildblue.net<mailto:jletton at wildblue.net>>; Shannon Engh <steelheadtrinity at earthlink.net<mailto:steelheadtrinity at earthlink.net>>; Eric Wiseman <wise-fish at hotmail.com<mailto:wise-fish at hotmail.com>>; Ron Purl <rpurl at trinityriverdrifters.com<mailto:rpurl at trinityriverdrifters.com>>; Joe McCarthy <jwmccarthyhome at sbcglobal.net<mailto:jwmccarthyhome at sbcglobal.net>>; Lonnie Boles <flyguide1 at att.net<mailto:flyguide1 at att.net>>; Ross Wilkerson <rosswilkerson1 at gmail.com<mailto:rosswilkerson1 at gmail.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Trinity Journal- River dwellers share views at Lewiston meeting

It's pretty apparent that Mr. Allen really knows very little, or has very little actual, on-the-river understanding of how fish and rivers interact together, focusing more on an idealistic, uber-environmentalist, false-utopian concept that man is better than nature in our attempts to "recreate" nature, nor has he listened to or paid any attention to any of the dialogue in the past year pertaining to these topics.  The only way to fully recreate the spawning (and rearing) habitat lost by the implementation of the dams is to remove said dams and re-open access to the hundreds of miles of habitat above the dams (something we all know is extremely unlikely to happen anytime soon, if ever).  Destroying 40+ more miles of river habitat, to mitigate the loss of the upstream habitat, is simply a foolish idea, and one without merit from the river's, fishes', and stakeholders' standpoints.  Only government bureaucracies can find a modicum of sense in spending billions of dollars to destroy habitat under the illusion that they're "helping the river".

Furthermore, if you have 40 miles of spawning and rearing habitat, where exactly do you propose the adult fish hold and stage before attempting to spawn?  If there's nowhere for adult fish, you won't have adult fish to make juvenile fish, and the end result will be no fish at all.  Do the math.  If you get to that point, you won't need to limit fishing in the upper river because there won't be any fish to catch anyway.  So much of this pressure for excessive gravel and spawning habitat is intended towards the salmon populations, and the lowly steelhead, also an integral part of the ecosystem (and economy of Trinity County), is conveniently forgotten.  Steelhead often arrive in the upper sections of river as early as September, and often don't spawn until March/April.  Where are these fish supposed to live and survive for 6+ months with no holding water?

--Michael Caranci
2012/4/18 Paul Catanese <pcatanese at dhscott.com<mailto:pcatanese at dhscott.com>>
Whoever Joshua is I have to say you have hit the nail on the head and confirmed everyone's fears. That fear that man himself rather than nature would dictate what transpires on this river. Moreover, a few select men who by and large do not live here or own property here would decide what's good for others based on the little knowledge they actually have about restoring a river. This year we will have close to a record return return of salmon having little to do with any restoration effort other than water. Seems to me that plenty of spawning has taken place in spite of man made efforts.

Whatever caused this should be duplicated over and over because it worked. Bulldozers and gravel or man did not create the huge run we are predicting mother nature did along with restricting commercial fishing.i will bet you curtailing tribal fishing will also lead too more fish. There is not enough time in the day to address what should or shouldn't be done on this river and frankly the less that's done the more success will be achieved. Keep in mind we are going to have a record return of fish with no connection to bulldozers and gravel, just water. Peace love I am going fishing.


On Apr 17, 2012, at 11:35 AM, "Joshua Allen" <trinityjosh at gmail.com<mailto:trinityjosh at gmail.com>> wrote:
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

_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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



--
Michael Caranci
Director of Outfitters
Director of Schools & Camps
The Fly Shop
530-222-3555 or 800-669-3474
michael at theflyshop.com<mailto:michael at theflyshop.com>

_______________________________________________
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





This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for the intended recipients. Any unauthorized interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the information it contains may violate the law and subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete the email immediately.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20120420/142528a8/attachment.html>