[env-trinity] Trinity Journal- River dwellers share views at Lewiston meeting
Jay_Glase at nps.gov
Jay_Glase at nps.gov
Wed Apr 25 09:45:26 PDT 2012
Seems like the gloves have been off, back on, then off again about 10 or 12
times over the last 20 years. And that's only going back to 1992. All of
this sounds familiar - just different current issues. The debate has gone
back and forth for decades, not just a couple of years. So, a couple of
thoughts.
First, linked below are a couple of documents that perhaps some folks have
forgotten about, some have never heard of, and others will remember but
will just once again thumb their noses at - these are the Flow Evaluation
Final Reports that helped guide the mainstem EIS. Some of you should read
at least parts of these, it'll help with all the arguments. These and a
tonne of other reports are available at the TRRP website (yes, I like
metric tonne over domestic ton).
http://odp.trrp.net/Data/Documents/Details.aspx?document=225
http://odp.trrp.net/Data/Documents/Details.aspx?document=226
Next, maybe the chinook salmon redd and spawner distribution paper recently
posted on this listserve by Charlie Chamberlain will shed a little light on
what the adult fish have actually been up to for the last 10 years. The
following is from the document abstract.
Though spawning distribution responded to physical alterations on a local
feature scale (salmon constructed redds in newly created side channels for
example), the proportion of redds constructed within the up and downstream
boundaries of these rehabilitation sites had not yet significantly changed
at broader reach scales. High density spawning area locations remained
consistent year to year with little exception. We observed an increase in
the mean distance from Lewiston Dam for construction of natural origin
Chinook salmon redds over the course of this study.
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but to me this sounds like redds are still
being constructed in those places where they've always been constructed (or
at least for the last 10 years, but in all likelihood, a lot longer). It
also sounds like restoration sites aren't changing the distribution over
the broader reach, which if I recall correctly wasn't the primary intent of
the restoration sites; the main objective is creation of fry (and some
juvenile) rearing habitat because that's what was determined to be limiting
populations way back when. However, at the same time, natural chinook have
produced proportionately more redds over the last few years than hatchery
chinook and are spawning further from the dam than they have in the recent
past. Again, maybe I'm reading into this what I'd like to think, but
perhaps there's increased survival of naturally produced fish, leading to a
higher proportion of natural spawners and a greater downstream distribution
from the dam. it's only been 10 years - not a lot of chinook generational
turnover - so there's probably no significant change to be seen just yet.
But to me it sounds possibly like good news.
There's so much more in that report - and I should really get back to work,
so I'll just say y'all should read it and see what you come away with. The
results might not influence how anyone will "pick sides", but it's a
thorough and informative document - nice work guys.
cheers,
jay
p.s. one last thought, there's obviously value in rafting the river and
knowing where to catch adult salmon and steelhead (and maybe the occasional
brown trout if they still persist), but if you want to know about the other
half of their in-river life, the best thing a person can do to is put on a
mask and snorkel and see where their progeny are hanging out - you'll get
wet, it'll be cold, and you'll have to look really hard to find all the
places where they'll be hiding, but it's really rewarding!
travis michel
<sweettrinity at liv
e.com> To
Sent by: <dpa4 at sonic.net>, Cat Man
env-trinity-bounc <pcatanese at dhscott.com>,
es at velocipede.dcn <trinityjosh at gmail.com>
.davis.ca.us cc
env-trinity at mailman.dcn.org
Subject
04/23/2012 10:27 Re: [env-trinity] Trinity Journal-
AM River dwellers share views at
Lewiston meeting
Enough BS I think the time is coming to take the gloves off, pick a side
and quit playing nice. After dealing with the TRRP and the BOR for a couple
years now, from my point of view, they tell you what you want to hear, then
do what they want. I feel strongly about what is happening to the river,
and think it is time to get ready to fight for what you believe. Peace and
love???? Save it for a BBQ or something!! Travis
From: dpa4 at sonic.net
To: pcatanese at dhscott.com; trinityjosh at gmail.com
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:34:07 -0700
CC: env-trinity at mailman.dcn.org
Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Trinity Journal- River dwellers share views at
Lewiston meeting
Gentlemen please do not exhale yet. The fish are not in the river..yet.
Parky
From: Paul Catanese
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 5:47 AM
To: Joshua Allen
Cc: Trinity List
Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Trinity Journal- River dwellers share views at
Lewiston meeting
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> 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>
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
env-trinity mailing list
env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us
http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity
More information about the env-trinity
mailing list