Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 89

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

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,067

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WLREDBAND View Post
    Thank you Fishtopher and YC. I'm glad there are fly fishing enthusiasts like yourself that are also dedicated professionals restoring our rivers destroyed by bad decisions made years ago during the dam building era of our state. Just because a gravel augmentation project has filled in your favorite run, doesn't mean it's a failure, like some people here think.
    NO Wrights Lake Redband... it is NOT because my favorite run was filled in. And at least have the balls and directness to address a person by his name instead of "some people"...

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    On the River in Shastanistan
    Posts
    162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by STEELIES/26c3 View Post
    NO Wrights Lake Redband... it is NOT because my favorite run was filled in. And at least have the balls and directness to address a person by his name instead of "some people"...
    Don't worry, I got plenty of balls. Even though you were indeed included in my comment, don't worry it wasn't specifically for you. The argument, that they filled in my favorite run, as F pointed out is one of the most frequent complaints that the restoration has failed. And the most wrong argument because the measure of success from biologists is increased juvenile production.
    And it's not Wrights Lake Redband, if you're a biologist you'd know what it really is.
    Last edited by WLREDBAND; 08-24-2019 at 12:16 PM.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,067

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WLREDBAND View Post
    Don't worry, I got plenty of balls. Even though you were indeed included in my comment, don't worry it wasn't specifically for you. The argument, that they filled in my favorite run, as F pointed out is one of the most frequent complaints that the restoration has failed. And the most wrong argument because the measure of success from biologists is increased juvenile production.
    And it's not Wrights Lake Redband, if you're a biologist you'd know what it really is.
    OK we're both being a bit childish here... I call treuce and I apologize for any offense. The last thing I want to do is make enemies on a fishing board. I do believe we have more in common than not.

    and my argument is not that the project has filled in my favorite runs. There are plenty of places to catch fish and just as some runs have filled in, others have opened.

    I should not have even mentioned the bit about the disappearance of the the run below the walnut orchard.

    What really saddens me is that as few as 8 years ago, there were hundreds of salmon spawning annually in the tailout above that run I referred to as a good fishing spot. I don't fish around spawning beds but I enjoyed seeing them doing their thing unmolested. 5 or so years ago, however, the spawning riffle and the flat above completely filled in with gravel such that they are no longer utilized by the salmon. The deeper water below and along the opposite bank which was one spot I seldom but sometimes fished for steelhead is now also filled in with gravel.

    That spot sees very little pressure because it is far from any trail or park access.

    What was most sacred about that area to me was its inaccessibility and wildness and that it was one of the few downriver spots which hosted lots of spawning salmon but is now gone... When I said I could cite specific examples... I was referring to the many other spots along the river which have filled in and are no longer utilized by spawning fish. And again, it's not that I lost fishing territory that saddens me.

    I am currently replying to YCF's earlier post.

    I'm not going to argue with either of you. We're on the same team. I just am perhaps a bit more skeptical towards those who control the water and the management decisions/restoration plans.

    I am NOT against those in the field trying to make improvements.

    If that is you, thank you for your efforts!

    Have a nice day

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,067

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ycflyfisher View Post
    Not to sound terse, but this entire posting is not remotely accurate and IMO seems completely agenda driven by your obvious need to “cultivate the Hate” for the DWR, DFW,etc. But when you literally start bashing the entities you love to hate for implementing restoration principles that have been known to produce results everywhere they’ve been utilized, you cross a line. Clearly you’re bashing the method also.

    Habitat restoration and preservation is the only thing that has produced consistently favorable results amongst the efforts in anadromous salmonid restoration all along the west coast.

    Gravel injection is a necessary part of geomorphic restoration where you have downstream sediment transport where a dam stops the potential for replenishment. This is NOT just about increasing available spawning substrate, but giving a river that has been highly channelized and typically has long stretches of large embedded, immobile substrate and few feathered edges to become somewhat alluvial again. SOME AREAS THAT ANGLERS FEEL ARE PRODUCTIVE ARE GOING TO BECOME LESS PRODUCTIVE. That's part of the process. It's the net overall positive results that drives fish response.

    Feeding a river like the American gravel, combined with mechanical geomorphic restoration on a regular basis, in addition to creating more viable spawning habitat, exponentially increases the interstitial void spaces in the substrate which directly increases invert abundance (more forage) and also has the potential to increase invert diversity. It also eliminates adjacency issues when it fills in areas most anglers like yourself think is productive habitat. e.g. increasing the amount of zipped up fry that emerge from spawning gravel does nothing if those fry that haven’t even gulped enough air to fill their swim bladders have to search 100+ yards of predator infested river to find suitable fry rearing habitat.

    Gravel injection offers numerous potential benefits that work synergistically together to significantly increase survival rates to the next life stage for all salmonids.

    There is a mountain of data that proves geomorphic restoration works. Take the work spurred by the 2000 ROD for example. The amount of stream-born Chinook that survive to smoltification and hit the WC screw trap has literally increased several hundred percent over the pre-project baseline in several years. Note the manner in which they index Chinook abundance has changed a bit but these are absolutely HUGE, favorable results that are directly tied to habitat improvement.

    If you look at O. Mykiss, pre-project, we were lucky if one in every four or five fish over the WC weir was stream-born. From 2008ish to present, stream-born fish in terms of run comp, have come to comprise significant and in several years, the majority of the escapement numbers. This isn’t just a favorable result, but IMO “Holy shit” levels of success, particularly when you take into account that the fish manifested these gains in multiple, back to back years of extreme drought that should have hammered in stream Mykiss production down to nothing.

    These are also not performance measures based on assumption that may or may not be true, or angler rhetoric, but rather rock solid, direct fish response indicators based on results, not theory. Also keep in mind only a portion of the upper river has been restored.

    These numbers have been so extremely favorable that the Trinity Hatchery has dropped O. Mykiss production from 800k fish per year (pre-project) down to a more reasonable 280K fish per year. Keep in mind Trinity isn’t an enhancement facility, it’s a mitigation facility.

    This isn’t a waste of taxpayers money, or a foil and it’s definitely not creating any fallacies that there’s enough habitat to restore on a severely truncated river like the American that mothballing the Nimbus facility is a potential reality.
    Nor is anyone involved, disillusioned that the stream-born fish this project produces are “wild” fish linked to eons of evolution honed survival strategies that work. They’re the progeny of hatchery products.

    The truncated American is never going to have “significant” instream production, when compared to hatchery production. But does it significantly improve instream production? Hell yes it does, and hell yes they should be doing it regardless of the cost.
    First of all, I'm not just some disgruntled angler who is angry at DWR or DFW because my fishing has been compromised... I actually do care about the resource above and beyond all else.

    I spent the first half of my adult life, after graduating from Humboldt State University, working for CDFG USFS NPS, The Nature Conservancy, and other public and private agencies, in parks, forests, wildlife reserves and at the Nimbus and Trinity River Hatcheries, toward the goal of conserving nature and sharing information about its importance with the public.

    Since moving back to this area in the late 90's, I have logged over 60.000 hours on the American River mostly fishing but also birding, teaching, cleaning up trash, helping with non-native plant eradication like; sesbania, star thistle, etc...

    I've been a constant advocate and activist for the river and not because I want to protect my favorite fishing runs for ME...

    To say I hate anyone is presumptuous. Do I trust DWR with our water? our natural resources? HELL NO I don't and their history of water management (or lack thereof) and their recent/current political involvement in supporting the Delta Twin Tunnels aka, Cal Waterfix shows just how much they care about our fisheries and the ecology of the Sac/SJ Delta ecosystem in general...

    CDFW is a complex beast... I realize that limited funding reduces their ability to do as much as is needed. I also realize that the RA's, the biologists, the hatchery personnel and the wardens in the field do indeed care about the resources and the long term health of fish and wildlife. They do the best they can with what they have.

    Unfortunately, however, it is the CDFG Commission which ultimately hands down policies. The current commission is comprised not of biologists nor anything remotely-to-do with managing fish and wildlife. They are lawyers, developers, land-use planners, grape growers. Their resumes reflect; business, politics, and rail transit authority, water municipality projects. They were put in place by Governor Brown to be in alignment with his pet projects namely, the high speed bullet train and the Delta twin tunnels. For this, I have disdain for the CDFG policy makers who oversee and dictate policy to CDFW but not to CDFW nor its employees.

    As for the restoration and gravel injection. On the surface, yes it makes sense. Nimbus Dam stops gravel from entering the system and so needs to be replenished. It has worked on coastal rivers and streams so let's try it here. There are some major differences between the central valley, American River and coastal rivers like, the Trinity where restoration has been a success.

    The American River seems to never have high nor cold enough water to provide for the needs of spawning fish. Also since there is a temperature gradient, king salmon and the Eel River strain steelhead pretty much shoot upriver quickly, seeking the colder water. Fortunately, the best cobble for spawning has traditionally been between Sunrise and Hazel Ave but the carrying capacity of such a small area is limited (even with increasing amounts of gravel).

    As for interstitial void spaces... what REALLY increases that is higher flows like the 80,000 cfs in February of 2017. I was out rescuing herps around that time...

    Attachment 14922 Attachment 14923

    I walked the entire river after it receded the next summer and noticed that most of the aquatic plants were wiped out and most of the river's visible substrate was scoured clean. It was rather alarming but I knew that in less than 2 years, the system would recycle itself and recover exponentially.

    Now, after 3 subsequent high water years, I am seeing a tremendous uptick in river biota production. The salmon smolts in May were fairly abundant and got out quickly. The late winter/spring steelhead which come up between late February and March/April not only spawned this year but for the first time in many years, had water high enough and cold enough for their fry to actually survive and emerge in late July and early August.

    I am certain there has been greatly-improved survival of salmon and steelhead offspring in these last 3 years but I believe it to be related to high, cold water which offers more nursery habitat and significantly decreases predation of; eggs, alevin, fry and smolts by; larger salmonids, pike minnows, striped bass, goldeneyes, mergansers, gulls, cormorants, etc... and not so much because of the gravel enhancement project.

    I am not against adding gravel to the river for the reasons you so eloquently laid out YCF. Anything to benefit the river we all know and love is a good thing. My concern is that A) it is haphazardly implemented and B) it ignores the much larger and more relevant (TO FISH NOT ANGLERS) issues of consistent and respected flow and temperature regimes, and the expansion of nursery habitat. If I were not a realist, I would also suggest a push for access of our salmonids to their headwaters in the upper forks of the American...

    The gravel enhancement does come across as a PR stunt because it seems to be in lieu of addressing the larger issues which without addressing will likely make it futile.


    CONTINUED ON NEXT LINE...

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,067

    Default

    If you are involved in the project, whether here or on the Trinity, I commend you and I thank you. My anger is never towards those in the field actively engaged in protection and attempting restoration of our precious natural resources.

    Thus is the paradox of public agency management of our public lands. The decision makers who pull the purse strings usually have a very different agenda than those whom they employ to carry out their mitigatory obligations...

    In keeping with the scientific method... and especially since the AR was plagued by 5+ years of drought and then saw excessive winter flows for the following 3 years, perhaps I should withhold my criticism of the gravel enhancement project for at least another 5 years. I DO WANT it to work. It's just that from what I have seen, specifically, how the gravel has traveled and settled... there appears to have been a net loss not gain in viable spawning habitat.

    When I said I could cite specific examples... I was referring to the many spots along the river which have filled in and are no longer utilized by spawning fish. And again, it's not that I lost fishing territory that saddens me, it is that I have seen traditional spawning areas up and down the river get filled in and render them fish-less in the fall and winter

    I should never have juxtaposed my statement about the run along and below the walnut orchard with the bit about "what was once a magnificent run...

    As I just told WL (NOT Wrights Lake) redband... Please enlighten me about 'WL' because I'm not a biologist...

    What really saddens me is that as few as 8 years ago, there were hundreds of salmon spawning annually in the tailout below the walnut orchard and above the run I referred to as a good fishing spot.

    I don't fish around spawning beds but I enjoyed seeing the salmon in the tailout and on the flat above, doing their thing unmolested, for many years.

    Six or so years ago, however, the spawning riffle and the flat above completely filled in with gravel such that they are no longer utilized by the salmon. The deeper water below and along the opposite bank which was one spot I seldom but sometimes fished for steelhead is now also filled in with gravel.

    That spot sees very little pressure because it is far from any trail or park access.

    What was most sacred about that area to me was its inaccessibility and wildness and that it was one of the few downriver spots which hosted lots of spawning salmon but is now gone...

    There are many like it which once were and are no more. I could name at least 20 off the top of my head but I'll spare you. And for those which filled in, there has not been a corresponding number of spawning areas which have emerged as a result of gravel migration.

    Still, I will keep an open mind and be hopeful that restoration efforts can and will someday effect positive change on our river.

    Thanks for your contributions toward that end.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Antelope
    Posts
    384

    Default

    Let's not talk about the trinity river devastation project and use that as a credible successful restoration project. That's the furthest from the truth
    And Always Remember
    Keep Those Line Tights
    Brian W Clemens
    Nor Cal Fly Guides
    530-354-3740
    norcalflyguides@gmail.com
    www.norcalflyguides.com


    "I have many loves and Fly-Fishing is one of them; it brings peace and harmony to my being, which I can then pass on to others."
    ~ Sue Kreutzer

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Shatanistan
    Posts
    94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by STEELIES/26c3 View Post
    In keeping with the scientific method... and especially since the AR was plagued by 5+ years of drought and then saw excessive winter flows for the following 3 years, perhaps I should withhold my criticism of the gravel enhancement project for at least another 5 years. I DO WANT it to work. It's just that from what I have seen, specifically, how the gravel has traveled and settled... there appears to have been a net loss not gain in viable spawning habitat.
    You are greatly overemphasizing the importance of spawning habitat. Most of our regulated rivers are not spawning habitat limited, they are rearing habitat limited. When a single Chinook female has the potential to produce 5,000 offspring each, you can see why. The biggest bottlenecks for salmonid survival are egg to alevin and alevin to swim-up fry. You are completely correct in the high flows improving interstitial space. Those interstitial spaces are absolutely critical to these two life stages. Improving survival in these two stages by even a few percent will cause a far greater population difference than increasing spawning habitat a few percent. Those spawning areas that you mention that have been choked with new gravel are now excellent rearing habitat. This is where things like gravel augmentation and geomorphic flows shine. Without sufficient geomorphic flows, these projects are destined to fail. Plenty of restoration took place on the Trinity pre-ROD, and they were less than successful because they did not have a flow regime to cause geomorphic change.

    I would love to see truck and haul of adults above the dams but you come back to the same issue with the juveniles. How do you get them through the dams? Trapping is extremely costly and inefficient, we'd be better off improving limited habitat below the dams. Maybe once we can figure out a way to get juveniles through, trucking and hauling adults may be feasible.

    It seems like you mostly have issues with the political side of things which is completely understandable. Unfortunately, BOR and DWR's job is to improve water deliveries for customers. That will never change. The CASWRCB has greatly pushed back on these efforts. The only way to fix these issues is to support groups and vote for candidates who support your agenda.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,067

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fishtopher View Post
    You are greatly overemphasizing the importance of spawning habitat. Most of our regulated rivers are not spawning habitat limited, they are rearing habitat limited. When a single Chinook female has the potential to produce 5,000 offspring each, you can see why. The biggest bottlenecks for salmonid survival are egg to alevin and alevin to swim-up fry. You are completely correct in the high flows improving interstitial space. Those interstitial spaces are absolutely critical to these two life stages. Improving survival in these two stages by even a few percent will cause a far greater population difference than increasing spawning habitat a few percent. Those spawning areas that you mention that have been choked with new gravel are now excellent rearing habitat. This is where things like gravel augmentation and geomorphic flows shine. Without sufficient geomorphic flows, these projects are destined to fail. Plenty of restoration took place on the Trinity pre-ROD, and they were less than successful because they did not have a flow regime to cause geomorphic change.

    I would love to see truck and haul of adults above the dams but you come back to the same issue with the juveniles. How do you get them through the dams? Trapping is extremely costly and inefficient, we'd be better off improving limited habitat below the dams. Maybe once we can figure out a way to get juveniles through, trucking and hauling adults may be feasible.

    It seems like you mostly have issues with the political side of things which is completely understandable. Unfortunately, BOR and DWR's job is to improve water deliveries for customers. That will never change. The CASWRCB has greatly pushed back on these efforts. The only way to fix these issues is to support groups and vote for candidates who support your agenda.
    Whereas, I did mention that spawning habitat seems to have diminished, I also stated that nursery habitat and proper flows/temps were the greater limiting factors crucial to increased salmon numbers.

    I understand carrying capacity and how more spawning habitat does not necessarily translate to increased, future escapement. I also get the synergistic nature (as YCF put it) of the added gravel... but if the flows are not maintained at healthy levels, the resulting desiccation, deoxygenation and predation of eggs, alevin and fry will undermine the benefits that healthy interstitial space among gravel provides...

    As for truck and haul... MAN! wouldn't that be something? Have there been studies on the feasibility of netting juveniles? Surely, there must have been. I would assume they could not tolerate electro-shocking and that either method would require so much work and fuel per capita as to render it cost-ineffective. Perhaps a screen-covered flume could be constructed to link the headwaters to Nimbus Basin, hahaha.

    Yes, my issues are definitely with bureaucrats and not biologists.

    Thanks for a civil dialogue.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Shatanistan
    Posts
    94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by STEELIES/26c3 View Post

    ...but if the flows are not maintained at healthy levels, the resulting desiccation, deoxygenation and predation of eggs, alevin and fry will undermine the benefits that healthy interstitial space among gravel provides...
    This is the million dollar question. I'm hoping there is a flow plan for the American that will provide suitable conditions for salmonids, but I am unaware of one. Luckily since Folsom is such a small reservoir, flows tend to be pretty good during the rearing periods. My guess is the predation issue in the river and Delta may be the biggest issue for the juveniles.

    Quote Originally Posted by STEELIES/26c3 View Post
    As for truck and haul... MAN! wouldn't that be something? Have there been studies on the feasibility of netting juveniles? Surely, there must have been. I would assume they could not tolerate electro-shocking and that either method would require so much work and fuel per capita as to render it cost-ineffective. Perhaps a screen-covered flume could be constructed to link the headwaters to Nimbus Basin, hahaha.
    There was a planned pilot study (maybe even partially implemented?) to trap and haul winter-run Chinook over Shasta Dam and into the McCloud River. I haven't heard any updates about it in several years. It would not surprise me if the administration eliminated it altogether. Here's a link to BOR's page about it that hasn't been updated since 2017.

    https://www.usbr.gov/mp/bdo/shasta-dam-fish-pass.html

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Shatanistan
    Posts
    94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Clemens View Post
    Let's not talk about the trinity river devastation project and use that as a credible successful restoration project. That's the furthest from the truth
    YC gave some great examples of success stories of the TRRP. Naturally produced juvenile production is up significantly for Chinook and Steelhead. How do you explain the nearly five-fold increase in naturally produced Chinook juveniles since the ROD took effect? Remember, the TRRP can only influence in-river conditions in the Trinity which is why it is a metric they focus on.

    Even though adult escapement is a terrible metric to judge them on, adult escapement at worse has not significantly changed since the ROD went into effect. In fact, steelhead escapement has increased and that's with the hatchery producing fewer fish. Here's a few graphs from CDFW demonstrating this.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	JuvEstimates2017-1.png 
Views:	135 
Size:	105.4 KB 
ID:	14931   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	springrun.PNG 
Views:	169 
Size:	140.4 KB 
ID:	14929   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	fallrun.PNG 
Views:	147 
Size:	89.4 KB 
ID:	14928   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	steelhead.PNG 
Views:	157 
Size:	88.8 KB 
ID:	14930  

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
  •