Yuba -- Dams to be removed?

[Troutsource]

From yesterday's Sacramento Bee: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/02/4305090/help-for-fish-ordered-on-yuba.html#storylink=misearch


Federal wildlife officials have ordered the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to ensure that salmon, steelhead and green sturgeon are able to surmount its two dams on the Yuba River.

The National Marine Fisheries Service, in a biological opinion released late Wednesday, concludes that Daguerre Point and Englebright dams threaten the survival of the fish species. The order does not require dam removal, but that is one potential outcome.

A permanent fix is required by Jan. 31, 2020.

Though the fisheries service states in the document that dam removal is the "most preferred approach," it is not required. The final fix would involve permanent trucking of fish, new fish ladders or complete removal of the dams, depending on results of additional research.


This reminded me of another article from last November regarding reintroducing steelhead into the North Fork Yuba: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/04/4029670/yuba-county-water-agency-looks.html#storylink=misearch


No salmon or steelhead have swum in the North Yuba River since at least 1941. But if a trial program is successful, it could be one of the first major Sierra Nevada streams to welcome back the majestic fish.

The Yuba County Water Agency is preparing a plan to move spring-run chinook salmon and Central Valley steelhead around its New Bullards Bar Dam.

What are the odds?

[aaron]

I've had some good discussion with both DFG scientists and independent biologists working in this area. While some think it's ludicrous to transport fish others are happy that at least solutions are being thrown around and that maybe some good will come out of it. It's an interesting can of worms for sure.

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

In my life time we have had dams on most of our California rivers.

I would love to see some removed before I die.......

[Darian]

So,.... If I understand this correctly, if trucking is the solution a capture facility would be required on each side of of each dam involved (3 :?: ); plus trucks with refrigerated water to move the fish. Trying to capture Salmon/Steelhead on return from spawning :?: IMO, trucking is ludicrous.

All of this discussion by the feds about removing dams or providing alternative spawning strategies on valley rivers/streams at a time when wheels are in motion to divert 15,000 CFS from the Sacto River below Freeport thru 5 ports/pumps in addition to that already drawn. This will probably divide the Delta and turn it into a salty estuary over 50 year period (est. length of the project). All at an estimated cost of $25 billion.... :\\

Not to mention that in order to pump at those levels year 'round for water exports will probably require diversion of additional water from the Trinity River project during the fall (at least until Shasta Dam is raised. :confused:

Maybe NMFS oughta try prioritizing projects before proposing something like this. :\\

[Mike O]

I think many of us can show proof in pics that Daguerre isn't much of an impediment for either species. If they blow Englebright, they better dredge the muck out first, or there ain't gonna be any more spawning habitat.

Pump/truck that stuff down into the valley for fertilizer.

[Terry Imai]

They have taken many of the barriers on Butte Creek and now have both salmon and steelhead coming up the creek. I understand the amount of material before Englebright but what a fishery if the salmon and steelhead can go all of that distance to spawn. If enough people can get behind a good idea (and science), it may be done in our lifetimes. You need to remember all of the dams being taken down up in Oregon and Washington...

[aaron]

Apparently trucking works quite well ins certain places in the PNW. Some of the biologists I've talked to are stoked it's being brought up as many people are realizing the logistics are going to be difficult therefor making damn removal seem like the better solution. Just what I've heard thrown around.

[ricards]

The Lower Yuba has evolved into a wonderful tailwater fishery. It still has (to use fishery biologist jargon) that alluvial flood plain (lots of rock and gravel) that steelhead and salmon need for spawning and smolt need for rearing habitat. Any disruption in this ecosystem will have a disasterous impact on the fishery. The ecosystem has evolved with Englebright Dam in place. Removing the dam could have dire, irreversable consequences - the big concern, of course, being siltation (as has already been pointed out).

[rusty fly]

so how do you capture the smolts from lake to transport to the river below the dam? how would you know which are regular rainbows and which are steelhead? The salmon would be obvious of coarse. I must be missing some details on trucking spawning fish

[ricards]

so how do you capture the smolts from lake to transport to the river below the dam? how would you know which are regular rainbows and which are steelhead? The salmon would be obvious of coarse. I must be missing some details on trucking spawning fish

I'm not an advocate for trucking fish, either. I think things should be left as they are. I'm a great believer in man's ability to engineer dams and alter watersheds. I have less faith in his ability to reverse-engineer and restore altered habitat, or native runs of fish in areas where they have long-since disappeared. Creating a passage way for fish around Englebright Dam would be the only viable option, and the same option has been discussed for restoring native runs of chinook salmon to the Upper Sacramento River above Shasta Lake. Can you image the cost? Will it ever be done? I don't think it will. Especially, in today's economy.

[Darian]

IMO, reverse engineering isn't really an option for mitigation purposes for all of the reasons previously mentioned. I agree that a system of ladders is the only viable alternative for this situation.

I, also, agree that DaGuerre Point dam is really not an insurmountable obstacle to fish passage and doesn't really need to be removed. Removal fo Englebright Dam would provide access to the middle/South Forks of the Yuba and its tributaries; not the north fork. Bullards Bar on the north fork blocks access to that water.

If Englebright were to be removed, is the benefit of providing passage to Salmon/Steelhead worth the 1) cost of removing the dam, 2) result of allowing collected sediment to enter the area below the dam or sequestering/removal/disposal of that sediment, 3) loss of the value of any fishery behind the dam, 4) loss of whatever flood control benefits arise from the dam :question: (this wasn't intended as an all inclusive list of potential obstacles to removal of the dam)

Frankly, considering the costs and potential negative, downstream ramifications of this idea and our lack of revenue to pay for it, I think it's DOA.... :neutral:

[Mike O]

Funny...I wonder how voices would change if access to the fishable areas were easier above Englebright than they are below, or if mankind hadn't already screwed up nature below the dam, by creating decent spawning grounds from the tailings of upstream hydraulic mining.

Seems people wanna bring down dams all over, unless the dams acually CREATE (or at least don't screw up) decent salmonid fishing.

[Black Cloud]

If they could get past Englebright, how far up the Yuba could they travel

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

I think that one thing a dam will cause is the lack of gravel flow through the entire drainage which is needed for spawning.

[JasonB]

If they could get past Englebright, how far up the Yuba could they travel

They would have at least theoretical access to about 1 mile of the North fork (below bullards bar), many many miles up the middle and south forks, and quite a few tributaries as well. There are some falls on the south fork and middle fork as one gets higher up the streams, although I would guess that salmon and steelhead would be able to attain these.

While I'm not so sure about the concept of trucking fish, I do think it's about time that we're having conversations of this degree of severe and drastic measures. The thought of salmon and steelhead once again reaching up into the foothills of the sierras is a tantalizing one...
JB

[Ralph]

Trap and haul is being discussed for the NF around Bullards Bar. Historically steelhead would swim well above Sierra City. Currently neither laddering or trap and haul would work on the MF. Even though fish can run all the way up through the Third Box canyon below Graniteville (40 river miles) so much water is diverted at Spaulding that the Yuba gets too warm for salmon or steelhead to survive.

The Daguerre problem is not so obvious. While we don't see piles of dead salmon in the plunge pool, many fish simply can't find their way through the decrepit ladder system and spawn in inferior water downstream of the dam. The smolts get hammered on their downstream run. They go over the dam and get stunned or confused in the reversal at the apron. They will spend days in the pool below the dam to recover and are sitting ducks for large number of pike minnow and stripped bass. I'm certain more smolts die at the dam than do in the entire rest of the river. The Yuba used to be a vital spawning ground for sturgeon. They certainly can't breach Englebrite.

[Black Aztec]

Having fished the river Y since 1985 I would hate to see any changes except fewer fisherman - voluntarily of course. I have heard from long time fisherman of the river - read pre-Englebright Dam - that the river ran so low and warm in the late summer that it was an algae filled mess and nearly fishless. Winter was the only time to fish it.

----- Dave

[Ralph]

The Lower Yuba is cold because of releases from New Bullards Bar. The water coming into Englebrite is sometimes colder than the water going out! Englebright is an afterbay that acts as a buffer for the hydro pulse releases from Bullards Bar. Bullards is one of the most useful and cost effective reservoirs in the country - it isn't going anywhere. Whatever might happen to Englebrite, the Lower Yuba will remain cold (and crowded).

[Bob Loblaw]

Didn't they try trucking fish around Shasta Dam years ago and it was a miserable failure? One major concern that needs to be addressed is the likely huge mercury buildup in the Yuba system....that's why Daguerre was built to stop that crap and other mining spoils from flushing into the delta. Before anything is done to remove dams that stuff has to be removed and a superfund site needs to be found that is big enough to take it. Talking $$$$$$$$. I'd bet removing a dam the size of Englebright would cost nearly a billion dollars all told. Nobody has that sort of cash laying around and if they did I think it would be better spent removing 25 smaller and probably more harmful dams.

[Ralph]

Neither dam has to be removed.The Yuba's natural course use to split around Daguerre Pt. All they have to do is split the river again with most of the flow traveling south around the point and bypass the dam. Turn the gravel field above Daguerre into a pothole wetlands for ducks and smolt habitat. The two YCWA ditches could continue to operate. Western Aggregate has even given a tentative green light to running the river through their land.
Englebrite has no capacity for irrigation or flood control. The power generation could be supplied by a run of the river system rather than by a high head dam. The dam could be lowered to a point where it would be feasible to ladder it for salmon/steelhead migration. Currently the canyon is too narrow and the dam too tall to allow that. Any entrained mining debris would still be much lower than the dam level. Sturgeon would thrive in the 6 miles of deep narrows below the dam. Gold and mercury reclamation would likely pay for any dredging costs. Experimental heavy metal removal is being done at Combi Reservoir down the road from Grass Valley.

[Darian]

Ralph,.... Do you know what happened to the proposal by Archon to construct a power generation station on one side or the other of Daguerre??? Is Archon still pursuing that proposal??

[Ralph]

It may still be a "plan" on paper somewhere but everyone from the feds, the state, the local water authorities and the enviros were unanimously opposed. A pretty formidable wall of resistance. It looked more like a plan to raise funds from possible stakeholders rather than a realistic scenario.
Biops for Daguerre have been volleyed for years and are still being litigated between USFWS, Army Corp, SYRCL, etc. Until they come up with a biop that sticks, no one will be doing anything.

[wineslob]

I'd say, be careful what you wish for. While this is not the "same" an example would be Butt Valley Res. At one time Butt was a "Trophy Trout Lake" And I mean Trophy. However, do-gooders complained of "fish kills" from the Power House on Butt. This turned into PG&E having to pull water from deeper (not near the surface) in Almanor cutting off the pond smelt supply. The very supply that MADE Butt what it was.

Compound this with the cry from more do-gooders for lowering the temp in the NFF (the infamous and ill conceived curtains), cabin owners wanting no draw-down from Memorial Day to Labor day, gotta have their dock accessible, don't cha know, and you now have a lake that is a shade of it's former self.

So, just like with Englebright, it may screw things up more than you know.

[Ralph]

WS-
I hear you loud and clear. Butt used to be one of my favorite "secret" spots.
Temps in the Lower Yuba are kept cold by pulling water from various strata in New Bullards. You can believe the water skiers in Englebrite don't like that but it is dictated by some pretty strong Federal Law and does seem to have impacted the Lower Yuba fishery in nothing but positive ways. I think the bigger unknown is what might happen when shad and stripers can freely access the water above Daguerre. Depending on the biologist and the model, you'll get a variety of answers. I have an opinion, but you know what that's worth!

[wineslob]

Butt used to be one of my favorite "secret" spots.


Oh, the stories I could tell you from the late 80's to the mid 90's.....:D

[cyama]

From Ralph "I think the bigger unknown is what might happen when shad and stripers can freely access the water above Daguerre. Depending on the biologist and the model, you'll get a variety of answers. I have an opinion, but you know what that's worth!"
From earlier posts Ralph has dived the area below Daguerre, I can't remember if it was biologists or not, but it is known fact that at certain times there are several large stripers right below Daguerre. It is believed that the "big trout" do not pass much below Daguerre due to the stripers. If they do they swim back upstream to the bountiful food sources on the Yuba. It is one reason that there are only a few real steelhead on the Yuba. I guess the real test for all dam removal on valley rivers is the Lower Sac. This year or last the gates at Red Bluff were removed to allow sturgeon and steelhead upriver. No one really talked about the stripers going up to Keswick. As a reference for the Striper fishers fishing around the lower lower Feather you will not see too many trout. I have nothing against fishing for stripers, but some barriers may be good for the trout....

[cyama]

Butt Lake is still good. It has the biggest and meanest smallies I have ever battled!!!

[wineslob]

I've gotten a few in the 4-5 lb range..........:cool: