Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: Rice Fields

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Sutter Co and the KMP
    Posts
    274

    Default

    Matt,

    Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. There’s definitely some upside to this and I’m definitely emphasizing the negative and looking past the potential upside to a large degree. I certainly wouldn’t disagree with anything that you stated. However, I’m not sure it’s entirely fair to state that the loss of all but~5% of the once existing floodplain habitat has been overlooked. I don’t know for certain, but I’m inclined to think that nothing has been done to address that issue in the past simply because from a geomorphological standpoint, it would be impossible to restore or rebuild the lost floodplain habitat anywhere remotely close to where it historically existed. With our rock armored levies, and the subsidence issues in the delta, areas that used to flood every year, have simply lost that ability and I’m not seeing how it could somehow be restored without some very major restructuring and lots of political hurdles.

    I’m all for the restoration of existing habitat. And I’d certainly admit that I have a bias in favor of such restoration over other methods of potentially increasing abundance. I’d definitely agree that gravel replenishment to offset the natural loss of sediment transport caused by dams in the SR-SJ basin hasn’t “worked” but I think that has a lot more to do with the fact that there’s a minimal amount of suitable habitat that can be effectively restored via gravel replenishment on the severely truncated Sac river tribs.

    I’d feel a lot better about this arena of study if the simulated flood plain habitat were closer to the mainstem and the more commonly used migration path and could be discovered and exploited by the out-migrants by default. The problem as I see it is that for the fish to find and exploit any simulated floodplain habitat created in the bypasses is going to require a fairly large detour from the mainstem, meaning it will only be exploited by a percentage of fish on top of the seasonality issues you mention. Thus the potential upside would be highly variable as I’m seeing it under the best case scenario. And I’m seeing the potential “what if?” questions leading to paths I don’t think we want to venture down:

    What if we maximized the fish utilizing the artificial floodplain habitat, by mechanically inserting, growing, and then relocating the fish?

    What if we reduced the seasonal variability aspect by not flooding the entire flowing bypass but by flooding static individual rice fields? Because to do that, you only need a few acre feet and even that would only be required on dry years.

    What I’m seeing is potentially millions more, rice grown, hatchery frankenfish as the only thing that comes remotely close to being a “given” here.

    I think you’re definitely correct that there’s a potential upside here, and I’ll certainly admit I was looking past that upside and I really wish I could share your level of optimism. Truth is, this really scares the hell out of me.

    That said, I sincerely hope that your optimism proves to be well founded and my opinion that rice fields will become extensions of hatchery raceways proves to be wrong.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    North Valley
    Posts
    243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ycflyfisher View Post

    However, I’m not sure it’s entirely fair to state that the loss of all but~5% of the once existing floodplain habitat has been overlooked. I don’t know for certain, but I’m inclined to think that nothing has been done to address that issue in the past simply because from a geomorphological standpoint, it would be impossible to restore or rebuild the lost floodplain habitat anywhere remotely close to where it historically existed. With our rock armored levies, and the subsidence issues in the delta, areas that used to flood every year, have simply lost that ability and I’m not seeing how it could somehow be restored without some very major restructuring and lots of political hurdles.
    Agree. However, the Yolo Basin is located in its historical place. Notching out or lowering the Fremont Weir to allow the basin to flood at a lower Sac river stage is the only major restructuring required. I don't see any polotical hurdles as the Yolo Basin has remained in its current state is to provide flood protection for Sacramento. Flood protection will continue along with the additional benefits to salmon and other ecosystem processes.


    Quote Originally Posted by ycflyfisher View Post
    I’d feel a lot better about this arena of study if the simulated flood plain habitat were closer to the mainstem and the more commonly used migration path and could be discovered and exploited by the out-migrants by default. The problem as I see it is that for the fish to find and exploit any simulated floodplain habitat created in the bypasses is going to require a fairly large detour from the mainstem
    The fremont Weir is located right along the mainstem Sac, just upstream from the Feather River confluence. I have no doubt that that the Yolo Basin was used historically by juvenile salmon. Yes, a detour from the mainstem, but potentially a very good detour.

    Quote Originally Posted by ycflyfisher View Post
    it will only be exploited by a percentage of fish on top of the seasonality issues you mention. Thus the potential upside would be highly variable as I’m seeing it under the best case scenario.
    Agree that only a certain percentage of fish would use this habitat. Can't "tell" fish what to do. However, whatever fish would get on the Yolo by "chance" would have a great advantage in growth, and as Mike M. pointed out earlier, also have an advantage in passage to the ocean, as they would ultimately be routed down Liberty Island an into the main Sac at Rio Vista and not have to deal with potentially being entrained in the interior delta through the Delta Cross Channel or Georgiana Slough. Also, there have been many years of rotary screw trap data collected at Knights Landing. Thinking that data could be used to inform opportune times to inundate the bypass for either maximum numbers of juveniles or for particular races?

    I can't find any negatives in this concept. I can see how folks might think there must be some "stink" involved because it is associated with the BDCP, but this thing makes alot of sense to me. Here is some more information on the project from American Rivers:

    http://www.americanrivers.org/initia...-fremont-weir/

    Matt
    Church of Wild Steelhead!

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Sutter Co and the KMP
    Posts
    274

    Default

    Matt,
    Thanks for participating in this discussion. I think you’ve made a pretty compelling case for the potential upside.

    My reaction to this doesn’t really have anything to do with the BDCP, and is more based on the fact that rice fields could be envisioned as viable replacements for hatchery raceways and a cheap method to vastly increase hatchery production.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    7,786

    Default Spawning....

    I've been thinking about this and something Matt mentioned in an earlier post:

    "This is cutting edge restoration work. Most of the focus of salmon restoration in the Central Valley has been on spawning habitat (gravel injections) and egg incubation temps below rim dams.

    It has not really worked.

    95% of the floodplain rearing habitat for juveniles salmonids in the Central Valley has been lost. Amazingly, this has been overlooked."

    I know I'm probably missing something but doesn't the potential restoration of rearing habitat contribute to increased survival of already large numbers of hatchery fish, overall??? Or, does this project create an opportunity to reduce the need to produce large numbers of fish in hatcheries??? Doesn't this project just create fatter hatchery fish (since rearing fish doesn't address spawning and natural spawning habitat is extremely limited)???
    Last edited by Darian; 12-25-2013 at 12:11 AM.
    "America is a country which produces citizens who will cross the ocean to fight for democracy but won't cross the street to vote."

    Author unknown

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Sutter Co and the KMP
    Posts
    274

    Default

    Darian,

    Yes, but with some major caveats. Utilized in the manner Matt describes, it would potentially create habitat that could be exploited by both fish of hatchery origin and streamborn fish. So it wouldn’t be an exclusive benefit to hatchery fish only.

    I don't think this would potentially decrease the amount of hatchery fish produced but I think that's a matter of opinion and open to interpretation. In theory under adaptive management it could. In reality IMO it won't. In a perfect world, where fisheries professionals and fisheries professionals alone get to make ALL the decisions regarding fisheries management (i.e. where politicians who have no expertise and are influenced by the notion and public perception that artificial propagation is the solution to the declining abundance issue), that answer IMO would be yes. Adaptive management would actually be adaptive, common sense and not emotion would drive decisions on hatchery production. Adaptive management is applied by the DFW, just not to hatchery production IMO.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    7,786

    Question By-Pass Stuff....

    I think I see the potential for some safe fish passage around the proposed (see BDCP) intakes on the Sacramento River near Courtland by using the by-pass in this project; a good thing. However, for fish returning the American and Feather Rivers, I'm not sure they would benefit or use it as they're imprinted to those rivers. Isn't the mouth of both of those rivers located downstream of the entrance to the Fremont Weir???

    Re: BDCP, I do believe there is potential for negative impacts from that project in the form of pressure to divert a consistent volume of water each year, regardless of availability. All of the number of tunnel alternatives considered in the EIR/EIS, include a 40' diameter tunnel as the basic design which can divert up to 15,000 CFS. The preferred alternative is 9,000 CFS in a dual conveyance system (same size tunnel). IMO, the state won't build in capacity to divert 15,000 CFS of water and then elect not to use it. Especially when the water contractors/ratepayers are paying for that system.

    Call me a cynic, but I believe that maximum diversion will be the rule after a couple of years of operations. When there are little or no water reserves, diversion will still take place. Establishing a reliable water supply for the southern half of the state in support of major ag/industrial/municipal, economic activities is one of the bases for justifying construction of the conveyance system. All else would seem to be political frosting on the cake.
    Last edited by Darian; 01-04-2014 at 11:27 AM.
    "America is a country which produces citizens who will cross the ocean to fight for democracy but won't cross the street to vote."

    Author unknown

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •