So heres some food for thought
1) "they" are willing to sacrifice "destroy" good healthy natural spawning habitat for rearing habitat, the 2017 and 2019 projects has shown us this. Why destroy it, why not work around it, leaving the good natural spawning habitat and create rearing habitat around that, no need to destroy good natural spawning habitat that is hard to come by these days on tailwater rivers
2) the hatchery is producing less hatchery fish as a hole
3) they say the projects are creating more fish as high as 5.4 million in a single year and it's best year, but numbers have significantly decreased after that to traditional numbers pre or post trrp. But with those numbers we dont know what the return success rate is, but we do have charts showing lack luster results in returning adults. So where are those fish.
4) if the so said "more fish" return in future years and they have less natural spawning habitat than in previous years because they are willing to sacrifice it, then how can these "more fish" spawn properly with less spawning habitat which includes proper gravel as as well as holding/resting water. "More fish" less spawning habitat, fish spawning on top of each other, at that point sounds a lot like the American and Feather Rivers. To many fish not enough spawning habitat. Well if they do successfully spawn their offspring with have all the rearing habitat they need.


Why arent the the biggest names in restoration part of this project? Ones that are all for restoring not only trout waters but are huge advocates for restoring anadramous waterssheds that once had or still have good numbers of wild fish. AKA Cal Trout or TU.

They are trying to create something that never was, is or ever will be. Work with what you currently have not what you want or that the pocket book allows you to do. How about a small well designed high end project instead of a large scale projects we are seeing. You don't see any other restoration projects completely ripping up the river and river bank redirecting the river the way they think it should be, and creating something that isn't natural. Other resto projects do small projects at a time, as to not be rushed, finished on time, they use the proper material, big riprap rocks that wont get pushed around by the water and fill the river in when protecting the tips of islands, side channels or changes in river direction. Great example is the project on the Lower Sac above Cypress Bridge river left, you would never know there was a project there. Better yet 90kcfs ran though there and wouldn't you know it, all their work is still there. They all work with the confines of what they currently have on that specific water system. With slightly controllable water regimes outside of big water years.


Let's get some organizations that are not paid of by the trrp and do inter-river studies, not studies just on the projects but the full healthiness of the river. Proper holding water,spawning habitat, rearing habitat,is the river shallower than it was in previous years and why. Is the river warmer now than in previous years and so on. This should be down annually even bi-annually by an unpaid trrp organization so there are no conflicts of interest. Thats one of our issues, to many hands in this multi-million dollar cookie jar, all working together with no outside organizations helping that aren't paid or persuaded by the trrp.


Maybe it's time to take a stand, get the media involved and picket the trrp building thats a start, and see what happens then.