Page 1 of 9 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 89

Thread: Salmon and steelhead spawning gravel at Sailor Bar. Here they go again...

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,067

    Default Salmon and steelhead spawning gravel at Sailor Bar. Here they go again...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ARGRAVEL.PNG 
Views:	397 
Size:	1.77 MB 
ID:	14907

    Once again, the Bureau of Reclamation, in conjunction with DWR, NMFS, USFWS, CDFW, will be adding gravel from the quarry at the Olive Access to the stretch of river between the Nimbus Hatchery Weir and the end of Sailor Bar.

    This is basically an enhanced repeat of what was the first of 6 installments in 2008 of the Lower American River Anadromous Fish Habitat Restoration Project .

    In order of completion, the remaining 5 are:

    Lower Sailor Bar/Upper Sunrise = the 1/4-mile stretch above Upper Sunrise Island

    The crossing below the Jim Jones Walk Bridge (Lower Sunrise) and south 'side channel' at Lower Sunrise Island (directly across from mile marker 19 on the north side)

    The Nimbus Basin and subsequently-created side channel

    The area immediately downstream of the Arden/Goethe Bridge

    The Sacramento Bar above El Manto on the north side of the river

    I know this not because I read about it somewhere but because I've fished the Lower American River 200-300+ days per year for at least... the last 17 years. I have personally witnessed the effects of these so-called restoration projects and sadly, they have failed miserably to accomplish their desired goal of enhancing salmon and steelhead spawning habitat.

    What really concerns me about this waste of taxpayers' dollars is

    A) It creates a foil for said agencies to hide behind and thus avoid an actual solution to the problem.

    B) It perpetuates the fallacy that the American River has ANY potential to sustain a 'wild' population of salmon and or steelhead without reestablishing access to their native headwaters. Besides, without adhering to increased, mandatory flow regimes and creating more nursery habitat, all the gravel in the world will not equate to more fish.

    C) It does so at the expense of providing more fish and fishing opportunities for anglers. And sadly, the effects of these projects actually punishes legitimate anglers and rewards poachers and anglers lacking ethics (and no, this is definitely not a fly-guy versus gear-guy issue...). The long. shallow, unprotected runs of gravel created for supposed habitat enhancements actually makes spawning fish more vulnerable to; sight-fishing, flossing, snagging, and being pulled from their beds whether targeted or hooked incidentally.

    D) The addition of gravel without thoughtful placement thereof has not only failed to create new habitat but has filled in existing, deeper sections of river which once had active and viable spawning beds thus, leading to a net loss of salmonid habitat. If you doubt this, you do not spend much time on the river.

    I always place the needs of the fish before and above the needs of anglers but sadly, both are being compromised by this political, PR stunt so called the, "Lower American River Anadromous Fish
    Habitat Restoration Project"

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The OV
    Posts
    490

    Default

    Thanks Steelies - I hadn’t seen that aerial map before.

    No arguments with your concerns. I was surprised that they didn’t close some of the areas for longer times after they added the gravel a few years back. For example, I’d be in favor of closing the river upstream of Sunrise from Nov 1 - April 1 if the DFW truly wanted to reestablish more in-river spawning.

    Where are you referring to when you talk about them creating a side channel? Do you mean the one upstream of the Hazel bridge?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,067

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hwchubb View Post
    Thanks Steelies - I hadn’t seen that aerial map before.

    No arguments with your concerns. I was surprised that they didn’t close some of the areas for longer times after they added the gravel a few years back. For example, I’d be in favor of closing the river upstream of Sunrise from Nov 1 - April 1 if the DFW truly wanted to reestablish more in-river spawning.

    Where are you referring to when you talk about them creating a side channel? Do you mean the one upstream of the Hazel bridge?
    I would be for any and all closures on the American River, IF they would result in healthier runs and greater numbers of fish. Unfortunately, this cannot happen for many reasons. I used to think... well it sure can't hurt. I no longer believe that to be the case based on much empirical evidence to the contrary...

    Honestly, CDFW should be raising and releasing a lot more than the mandated quota of 435,000 steelhead and 4 million salmon smolts annually. This would probably have little effect on the ability of the river to produce natural-origin fish but it would help to offset the perils of a compromised ecology and provide better angling opportunities for we anglers who pay lots of money to enjoy them.

    Save restoration money for streams and rivers which actually CAN sustain populations of wild fish.

    A gentleman who in the 1980's worked for Nimbus Hatchery was chastised and eventually transferred from his station there based on his practice of releasing excess smolts in to the river. Today, he works at the Mokelumne River Hatchery and without as much pressure and intervention by bureaucrats... along with increased production of eggs, net pen releases and habitat restoration, the hatchery has successfully restored the salmon and steelhead to record numbers as of 2017. Nimbus Hatchery should take notes...

    As for the side channels...

    There are several side channels in the AR but only 3 which were created by humans during the various stages of the stream-bed enhancements...

    The first was Lower Sunrise (southwest of the Sunrise Walk Bridge) It rejoins the river below the island and into the run directly across from Sacramento Bar above the turn at Ambassador Drive.

    Next, came the Nimbus Basin side channel which begins below and roughly in line with the middle of Nimbus Dam and rejoins the river just upstream (and southeast) of the Hazel Avenue Bridge.

    And finally, the side channel which begins rather immediately and to the southwest exposure of the Arden/Goethe (River Bend) bridge and rejoins the river before the sharp curve leading toward the Walnut Orchard run below.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The OV
    Posts
    490

    Default

    No empirical evidence, but I do know we had 3-4 really good years after the few year’s closure that we had in the late 90’s. 1999- 2003 or so were the best years I’d seen in the 30+ years that I’ve fished the American, but then the crowds were smaller and I had more time on the water.

    Hadn’t realized that the side channel at Goethe was man made. Don’t know if the one at Nimbus has helped, but certainly appears to be little spawning in the one below Jim Jones Bridge.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    On the River in Shastanistan
    Posts
    162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by STEELIES/26c3 View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ARGRAVEL.PNG 
Views:	397 
Size:	1.77 MB 
ID:	14907

    Once again, the Bureau of Reclamation, in conjunction with DWR, NMFS, USFWS, CDFW, will be adding gravel from the quarry at the Olive Access to the stretch of river between the Nimbus Hatchery Weir and the end of Sailor Bar.

    This is basically an enhanced repeat of what was the first of 6 installments in 2008 of the Lower American River Anadromous Fish Habitat Restoration Project .

    In order of completion, the remaining 5 are:

    Lower Sailor Bar/Upper Sunrise = the 1/4-mile stretch above Upper Sunrise Island

    The crossing below the Jim Jones Walk Bridge (Lower Sunrise) and south 'side channel' at Lower Sunrise Island (directly across from mile marker 19 on the north side)

    The Nimbus Basin and subsequently-created side channel

    The area immediately downstream of the Arden/Goethe Bridge

    The Sacramento Bar above El Manto on the north side of the river

    I know this not because I read about it somewhere but because I've fished the Lower American River 200-300+ days per year for at least... the last 17 years. I have personally witnessed the effects of these so-called restoration projects and sadly, they have failed miserably to accomplish their desired goal of enhancing salmon and steelhead spawning habitat.

    What really concerns me about this waste of taxpayers' dollars is

    A) It creates a foil for said agencies to hide behind and thus avoid an actual solution to the problem.

    B) It perpetuates the fallacy that the American River has ANY potential to sustain a 'wild' population of salmon and or steelhead without reestablishing access to their native headwaters. Besides, without adhering to increased, mandatory flow regimes and creating more nursery habitat, all the gravel in the world will not equate to more fish.

    C) It does so at the expense of providing more fish and fishing opportunities for anglers. And sadly, the effects of these projects actually punishes legitimate anglers and rewards poachers and anglers lacking ethics (and no, this is definitely not a fly-guy versus gear-guy issue...). The long. shallow, unprotected runs of gravel created for supposed habitat enhancements actually makes spawning fish more vulnerable to; sight-fishing, flossing, snagging, and being pulled from their beds whether targeted or hooked incidentally.

    D) The addition of gravel without thoughtful placement thereof has not only failed to create new habitat but has filled in existing, deeper sections of river which once had active and viable spawning beds thus, leading to a net loss of salmonid habitat. If you doubt this, you do not spend much time on the river.

    I always place the needs of the fish before and above the needs of anglers but sadly, both are being compromised by this political, PR stunt so called the, "Lower American River Anadromous Fish
    Habitat Restoration Project"
    You are absolutely incorrect in your assertion that the created spawning beds have failed miserably. Spawning bed activity was extensively monitored by biologists after their creation for a number of years. Their scientific observations concluded that spawning activity was extremely high, in fact, the beds were over utilized and could not support the extensive activity they were observing, so the program was expanded to other locations. There is a reason so many anglers are targeting fish in the beds. It's because there are a ton of fish there. Now, the issue of closing those areas to anglers is a wholeother issue.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,067

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WLREDBAND View Post
    You are absolutely incorrect in your assertion that the created spawning beds have failed miserably. Spawning bed activity was extensively monitored by biologists after their creation for a number of years. Their scientific observations concluded that spawning activity was extremely high, in fact, the beds were over utilized and could not support the extensive activity they were observing, so the program was expanded to other locations. There is a reason so many anglers are targeting fish in the beds. It's because there are a ton of fish there. Now, the issue of closing those areas to anglers is a wholeother issue.
    We'll just have to disagree

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Placer County
    Posts
    1,135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by STEELIES/26c3 View Post
    We'll just have to disagree
    +1

    Pouring gravel into the river is a PR stunt.

    Instead, fix the habitat (that has been converted to a conduit/reservoir for water deliveries south) that used to house/protect/educate all stages of the fishes life prior to swimming out the GG. Until then, trucking smolt to various drop off areas closer to the GG is the only thing keeping the smattering of Winter, speck of Spring, and inconsistent Fall runs alive.

    Rebuilding/reclaiming habitat for fry to smolt salmon/steelhead will do far more good than the 1% returns from a short stretch of gravel on the shortened American River.
    Last edited by OceanSunfish; 08-23-2019 at 11:24 AM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Shatanistan
    Posts
    94

    Default

    Pouring gravel into the river is not a "PR stunt". It is an attempt to mitigate for some of the spawning habitat loss due to the dams. BOR is required to fund "restoration" projects as part of the mitigation for the dams. These projects are not "taxpayer" funded per se, they are almost entirely funded through water and hydropower sales (as they should be). That money is earmarked for restoration and can't be used for other tasks (i.e. hatchery management, monitoring, etc.). I too question the effectiveness of it, but that money needs to be used otherwise it is gone. Would you rather have a small increase in spawning and rearing habitat or none at all? I'm sure BOR would love to have that money back.

    Another big upside of these projects is it provides lots of useful data and funding for scientists who can then make recommendations and fund other science for the future (where do you think the funding for CalTrout's Yolo Bypass study came from?). This is a science-based approach and science takes time unfortunately. I have seen studies where scientists do not expect to see results from restoration for 5-10 generations of salmonids. With most of our salmon being 3 year olds, that's a minimum of 15 years to see any sort of effect.

    Do I think these projects help the salmonid populations more than they hurt them? Yes. Do I realize that these projects are a drop in a bucket compared to what we need to do to restore salmon populations to historic levels? Also yes.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    1,246

    Default

    Excellent discussion. I didn’t know about the funding.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,067

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fishtopher View Post
    Pouring gravel into the river is not a "PR stunt". It is an attempt to mitigate for some of the spawning habitat loss due to the dams. BOR is required to fund "restoration" projects as part of the mitigation for the dams. These projects are not "taxpayer" funded per se, they are almost entirely funded through water and hydropower sales (as they should be). That money is earmarked for restoration and can't be used for other tasks (i.e. hatchery management, monitoring, etc.). I too question the effectiveness of it, but that money needs to be used otherwise it is gone. Would you rather have a small increase in spawning and rearing habitat or none at all? I'm sure BOR would love to have that money back.

    Another big upside of these projects is it provides lots of useful data and funding for scientists who can then make recommendations and fund other science for the future (where do you think the funding for CalTrout's Yolo Bypass study came from?). This is a science-based approach and science takes time unfortunately. I have seen studies where scientists do not expect to see results from restoration for 5-10 generations of salmonids. With most of our salmon being 3 year olds, that's a minimum of 15 years to see any sort of effect.

    Do I think these projects help the salmonid populations more than they hurt them? Yes. Do I realize that these projects are a drop in a bucket compared to what we need to do to restore salmon populations to historic levels? Also yes.
    Directly or indirectly... BOR is an agency in the Dept of Interior of the U.S. Federal Government and its funding, though largely subsidized by hydroelectric power, is still at the expense of public trust resources which ultimately, we as consumers and taxpayers pay for (in one form or another).

    Yes, the money must be used or lost but I can cite MANY, MANY, very case-specific and proven examples of how the gravel addition to the AR has been a failure and how the project has not only failed to accomplish its objectives but has undermined the already established, though limited, success of the river to produce natural-origin fish.

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
  •