Trinity River Steelhead Winter Fishing in Jeopardy

[ricards]

Get your Trinity river Steelhead fishing in early this year. Things could change on December 15, 2021.

There is a proposal in the works to increase the flows on the Trinity River to flood stage during the winter months. As part of the Trinity River Restoration Program (TRRP), the Bureau of Reclamation has decided to change the time period for high-flow releases that normally have occurred beginning in April. This, in an effort to restore floodplain that was lost with the construction of Trinity Dam.

To quote: "The current approach to implementing variable flows in the Trinity River results in cold water releases from Lewiston Dam that are out of sync from when the pre-dam Trinity River would have naturally received seasonal peak flows. And then there’s this: The asynchrony between flow management and the natural variability of pre-dam flows has cascading impacts on the river’s form and ecology, and perhaps the most detrimental of the impacts is to young salmon."

An online public comment meeting is scheduled for this Tuesday, October 5, 2021.

https://www.trrp.net/restoration/flows/winter-flow-variability/

If the new winter flow regime is put into effect on December 15 of this year, you can kiss the winter steelhead season on the Trinity River goodbye. With the proposed changes, the flows will be at or near flood stage throughout the winter months (Dec. 15 - Feb. 15). They might be as high as 6,500 cfs.

Can we really afford to send an allocation of 60,000 cubic feet of water down the Trinity River in a critically dry year? Especially when the benefits of such a release are questionable at best?

[WLREDBAND]

Totally incorrect information posted here. The river flows will be tied to natural flows and only get to those high unfishable flow levels when all the tribs are flowing high due to rain fall. No rain, no high unfishable flows. Just the natural hydrograph in winter that should be occuring. To suggest that it will "can kiss the winter steelhead season on the Trinity River goodbye, With the proposed changes, the flows will be at or near flood stage throughout the winter months (Dec. 15- Feb. 15)" is completely false.
More incorrect info here: "Can we really afford to send an allocation of 60,000 cubic feet of water down the Trinity River in a critically dry year? Especially when the benefits of such a release are questionable at best?". The new flow regime is not going to send water down the Trinity that is not already in the total diversion of the river. It merely reallocates water that would be released from late spring/early summer to winter flows.

[Dugger]

Thanks Redband ... although there are lots of people on this board impervious to reason, I support your efforts.

[WLREDBAND]

You're welcome D. And here another little piece of information to help dispel the myth that is perpetuating on the interwebs about what this new proposed flow regime would actually change. Hydrographic models have been run predicting the flow levels that would have occurred during the actual rain events observed for the previous five years (yep, using actual observed rainfall data), and have shown that on average there would have been 6 days yearly under this new flow regime that the river would be unfishable. Yes, on high water years there would be more than 6 days; yes on low water years there would be less than 6 days. So much for the mistaken notion that "you can kiss the winter steelhead season on the Trinity River goodbye".

Thanks Redband ... although there are lots of people on this board impervious to reason, I support your efforts.

[Bwag]

Gotta say I kissed that river goodbye years ago but I respect what redband has going. Facts are facts. I doubt the original poster intended to provide misinformation, it’s easy to lead with your heart.

[ricards]

Thank you all for getting me on track here!

I called the TRRP and had a long conversation with Chad. The verbiage used in the general description of the Winter Flow Variability Proposal is somewhat confusing. I was under the impression that the Bureau would be shifting its high-flow regime that normally begins in April to December 15. That is not the case at all.

As I understand it (and someone please correct me if I am wrong), if a major storm event brings the river to 4,500 cfs at the North Fork gauge at any time during the period of December 15 to February 15, then the Bureau will help mother nature along by increasing the flows from Lewiston Dam. However, those flows will not exceed 6,500 cfs in a critically dry year, such as we are having now.

Which is not needed in my opinion. Let nature do its work during the winter months. The Bureau will continue to increase flows in the spring and early summer months, regardless.

Bottom line: We will still have a winter steelhead season. I do apologize for my error.

[WLREDBAND]

Just to be clear here, I'm not picking on you personally. IMNSHO, you're one of the more conservation oriented dudes posting here. The two points you raised, that I rebutted, have been floating around for a while as part of a mis-information campaign, and you didn't say anything that others have not already said.
And yes, your interpretation from Chad is basically correct. Flows will be tied to the NF gauge, and when they go up as a result of a rain event, so will releases. How much gets released is a complicated number as it's tied to the 5 water classification years, and dependent on what classification is in effect at that particular time. And yes, there are maximum limitations as you describe. And when the flows go down on the NF after a rain event, so will the releases, so this is just a short term impact.
However, we can agree to disagree on whether or not this new flow regime is needed. I feel strongly that the increased winter flows will provide numerous benefits as described in the TRRP proposal. I'm all in favor for restoring a more natural hydrograph to regulated rivers, because that's how Mother Nature does it. YMMV.


Thank you all for getting me on track here!

I called the TRRP and had a long conversation with Chad. The verbiage used in the general description of the Winter Flow Variability Proposal is somewhat confusing. I was under the impression that the Bureau would be shifting its high-flow regime that normally begins in April to December 15. That is not the case at all.

As I understand it (and someone please correct me if I am wrong), if a major storm event brings the river to 4,500 cfs at the North Fork gauge at any time during the period of December 15 to February 15, then the Bureau will help mother nature along by increasing the flows from Lewiston Dam. However, those flows will not exceed 6,500 cfs in a critically dry year, such as we are having now.

Which is not needed in my opinion. Let nature do its work during the winter months. The Bureau will continue to increase flows in the spring and early summer months, regardless.

Bottom line: We will still have a winter steelhead season. I do apologize for my error.

[ricards]

Yes, we can agree to disagree. And I am glad that we are having this discussion. More of it is needed. Thank you.

[Darian]

the TRRP Proposal appears to be based on the assumption that downstream water rights holders (e.g. major valley water contractors/growers/users) won't object or litigate in opposition. After all they've attempted to enforce their rights to water stored in the Trinity drainage in opposition to other projects in the past. Nothing here is chiseled in stone yet. Based on past history not sure I think those users won't exercise their influence/money to try either modify or scrap this proposal.

Add: the tone of the responses to the original post and the one under the "Conservation Forum" were clearly inappropriate. Hopefully, we can get back to a civil discussion of this topic....

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

At almost 77 I don't trust any government agencies any more.

It's all about money so just let that help you understand everything that happens in California.

Rhetoric is all we get for our tax dollars.

When they say that if California was one of the ~200 countries on earth it would be the 5th richest.

Go into a dark quiet place and try to calculate how much money that really is.

If you were a greedy, corrupt, unscrupulous politician what state in America would you be in?

Most of us just work, commit no crimes, pay our taxes, raise our children and try to go fishing once and a while.

We are too busy to realize what is actually going on in California, let alone America.

If you think you can watch the "nightly news" and get any truth you are really ?????????????????


90% of the World's politicians are corrupted and now with the Internet many around the World are figuring this out.


Now go tie some flies and pay your taxes and be quiet.

[ycflyfisher]

the TRRP Proposal appears to be based on the assumption that downstream water rights holders (e.g. major valley water contractors/growers/users) won't object or litigate in opposition. After all they've attempted to enforce their rights to water stored in the Trinity drainage in opposition to other projects in the past. Nothing here is chiseled in stone yet. Based on past history not sure I think those users won't exercise their influence/money to try either modify or scrap this proposal.

Add: the tone of the responses to the original post and the one under the "Conservation Forum" were clearly inappropriate. Hopefully, we can get back to a civil discussion of this topic....

Darian,

I can't envision that to be a valid concern. As Redband mentioned this isn't a proposed addition to ROD flows, merely a change when some of those flows are released. No amount of bitching and whining by water interests changes the fact that they lost that battle 21 years ago.

Releasing water in the winter is something they'd like to see happen IMO because it could under the right circumstances, lead to more actual carry over storage than the current fixed flow hydrographs based on water year designation. Ex: Say we're in a normal water year and they shoot 120k acre feet down the river in the winter during a year when Trinity is at the high end of conservation pool and approaching an elev-temporal flood control trigger point. Releasing that water earlier could prevent that trigger from happening.

[ycflyfisher]

Thank you all for getting me on track here!

Let nature do its work during the winter months.

First, x2 what Redband said.

That can't really happen in the upper part of the river if the base flow at Lewie is locked at ~350cfs. The science this action is largely supported by is the second to the last source in the link you provided. It's not someihing I'd recommend attempting to read and understand if you've never read any peer reviewed science before, but from the abstract this should be pretty easy to understand:

"These analyses indicate that warmer water temperatures during the initial time of the ROD-flows would increase the potential for growth and suggest that the warmer water will encourage earlier outmigration. Larger smolt size at time of ocean entry may enhance ocean survival. Water quality issues and risk of parasitic infection increase and may reduce survival later in the summer in the Klamath River. Selective withdrawal from Trinity Lake could provide warmer water temperatures during late April and May."

Along the lines of what RB is trying to convey 60,000af equals 6.1 days at a constant 5000cfs release. Hardly enough to ruin the winter. However it could become slightly less revisionistic and more true should we ever get a wet or better year.

All that said, if I had a magic wand that I could wave and make anglers do what you just did (call a CREDIBLE source who forms opinions based on data and science) I'd be waving it like it was a flag on parade day.

[WLREDBAND]

X2 to what YC said.
Letting the status quo prevail won't allow Mother Nature to do its work if the flows are locked in at 300 at Lewiston. Mother Nature can't even happen.
To amplify just one sub-point on the reference that was discussed and YC extracted, the natural temperature profile of the entire river is completely out of synch with Mother Nature (amongst many other issues). The higher flows in late spring/early summer, when they should be much lower, are causing the temperature of the water to stay much too low due to the additional release of cold water. This is turn is affecting smolt growth and delaying the out-migration to the Klamath much later than it should happen. And by the time the out migration happens, water temps in the Klamath are too high and conducive to disease and thermal issues, and they die in large quantities.
And that's only one small part of the benefits of the new flow regime. To discuss the rest would take pages and pages.


First, x2 what Redband said.

That can't really happen in the upper part of the river if the base flow at Lewie is locked at ~350cfs. The science this action is largely supported by is the second to the last source in the link you provided. It's not someihing I'd recommend attempting to read and understand if you've never read any peer reviewed science before, but from the abstract this should be pretty easy to understand:

"These analyses indicate that warmer water temperatures during the initial time of the ROD-flows would increase the potential for growth and suggest that the warmer water will encourage earlier outmigration. Larger smolt size at time of ocean entry may enhance ocean survival. Water quality issues and risk of parasitic infection increase and may reduce survival later in the summer in the Klamath River. Selective withdrawal from Trinity Lake could provide warmer water temperatures during late April and May."

Along the lines of what RB is trying to convey 60,000af equals 6.1 days at a constant 5000cfs release. Hardly enough to ruin the winter. However it could become slightly less revisionistic and more true should we ever get a wet or better year.

All that said, if I had a magic wand that I could wave and make anglers do what you just did (call a CREDIBLE source who forms opinions based on data and science) I'd be waving it like it was a flag on parade day.