[env-trinity] Trinity Guides and C-WIN Request Moratorium on Trinity River Channel Projects
Tom Stokely
tstokely at att.net
Mon Nov 28 12:47:50 PST 2011
http://www.c-win.org/content/trinity-river-press-room-c-win-and-trinity-guides-ask-moratorium-trinity-river-mainstem-proj
www.c-win.org www.trinityriverguidesassociation.com
808 Romero Canyon Road P.O. Box 327
Santa Barbara, CA 93108 Douglas City, CA 96024
Press Release
For Immediate Release, November 28, 2011
Contact: Tom Stokely, C-WIN: 530-524-0315
Bill Dickens, Trinity River Guides Association: 530-623-1905
Fishing Guides, & Conservationists Ask for Moratorium on Trinity River
Channel Projects
Douglas City, Calif.– Today the Trinity River Guides Association and the California Water Impact Network asked the Trinity River Restoration Program to take a break to determine if river restoration projects completed to date have met their objectives or had unintended impacts. The letter states that there is public concern about significant filling of pool habitat for adult salmon and steelhead from excessive gravel introduction into the river channel as well as numerous side channel failures.
Bill Dickens of the Guides Association said, “There is no choice but to oppose this type of project until an evaluation of the existing projects is complete. We are just asking the Restoration Program to do what is already required as part of the Trinity River Record of Decision.” The Record of Decision was signed by former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and former Hoopa Valley Tribe Chairman Duane Sherman in Hoopa on December 19, 2000.
Tom Stokely with C-WIN said “The Interior Department and the Trinity River Restoration Program are not responsive to public concerns. The Guides Association wrote a letter on March 14, 2011 that has still not received a response. It’s inexcusable.” C-WIN is the successor organization to Friends of Trinity River that closed earlier this year after the passing of Friends founder Byron Leydecker.
Dickens said “As fishing guides, we fully support restoration of the river’s fisheries, but we’re not convinced that they are doing it the right way. It’s time to take a break and look at what’s been done before tens of millions of additional taxpayer dollars are spent.”
Stokely added “C-WIN and the Guides Association have long been supporters of the goals of the Trinity River Restoration Program, but the Program has ignored the stakeholders for too long and we have no choice but to speak up before more money is wasted on failed projects.”
A copy of the letter can be found at: http://c-win.org/webfm_send/199
# # #
For more information on C-WIN and the Trinity River, see http://www.c-win.org/meet-trinity-river.html. The California Water Impact Network promotes the equitable and environmental use of California's water, including instream uses, through research, planning, public education, and litigation. www.c-win.org
The Trinity River Guides Association represents licensed and permitted professional sport fishing guides on the Trinity and Lower Klamath River and is dedicated to the protection and preservation of the Trinity River and its habitat. http://www.trinityriverguidesassociation.com/
Ω
www.c-win.org www.trinityriverguidesassociation.com
808 Romero Canyon Road P.O. Box 327
Santa Barbara, CA 93108 Douglas City, CA 96024
November 28, 2011
Robin Schock, Executive Director Brian Person, Chairman
Trinity River Restoration Program Trinity Management Council
P.O. Box 1300 16349 Shasta Dam Boulevard
Weaverville, CA 96093 Shasta Lake CA 96019
Subject: Objection to New Trinity River Mainstem Projects Prior to
Completion of Phase One Review
Dear Ms. Schock and Mr. Person:
We write again to restate that we recommend a moratorium on Trinity River mainstem restoration projects until an independent Phase 1 review has been completed per direction contained in the Implementation Plan for Trinity River Record of Decision.[1]
The TRGA intended that the letter dated March 14, 2011 (copy enclosed) be brought before the TMC for consideration and a written response. At that time we were advised that the appropriate protocol was to address our concerns to TAMWG so that TAMWG could forward to the TMC our letter together with its own recommendations on the subjects covered by our letter. That seemed logical at the time. However, we have recently been informed that some interests may take the odd position that TMC does not owe us a written response because our letter happened to be addressed to TAMWG with cc to TMC, rather than the other way around. We believe that TMC should directly respond to the points of concern in our March 14 letter. TRGA is not only a stakeholder in the process, but represents more hours of observation on the affected river reaches than all other stakeholders combined.
It is our understanding that a Phase 1 review is being completed, but that Phase 2 mainstem projects are already being designed for implementation beginning in 2012, prior to the completion of the Phase 1 review. We vigorously object to both the design and construction of additional mainstem projects in 2012 prior to completion of the Phase 1 review. We also write to provide you with our recommendations regarding the Phase 1 review.
We will not reiterate the objections contained in our March letters, but our observations of the Trinity River as a result of this year’s historic 11,000 cfs fishery flow strengthens our objections to additional ill-designed mainstem “restoration” projects until the Phase 1 review has been completed. Numerous side channels constructed in the Trinity River prior to and since the 2000 Trinity Record of Decision (Trinity ROD) have completely failed[2]. The 80,000 tons of spawning gravel placed in the river near Lewiston over the past few years have continued to overwhelm approximately twenty significant adult fish holding/staging pools in the river upstream of Douglas City[3], with no scouring of additional pools to replace them. We object to public statements made by TRRP staff that the Guides have observed formation of significant new pools from the high flows. There have been significant negative environmental consequences of the TRRP’s actions that have not been adequately analyzed in your programmatic or site-specific environmental documents and we can no longer idly stand by.
Our observation is that the 11,000 cfs flow was able to mobilize existing gravels to a much greater extent than previous high flows and it clearly negates the need to inject any additional spawning gravel. This should be evaluated in the Phase 1 review prior to implementation of new projects with gravel injection.
We understand that a pool depth survey is being completed by a consultant, which we support. We recommend that the results of the pool depth survey be incorporated into the Phase 1 review to determine if the reduction in pool volumes and depths for adult fish may now be the limiting factor for salmon in the Trinity River instead of juvenile rearing habitat. Is the lack of pools causing crowding, increased predation and disease of fish at Lewiston Dam?
We also request that the Phase 1 review determine how the mainstem “restoration” projects will affect Coho and steelhead production? Since Coho and steelhead largely spawn and rear in tributaries, does the mainstem work that impacts adult steelhead and Coho staging areas adversely impact their success in getting to tributary spawning grounds in good condition?
We also recommend that the Phase 1 review consider the fact that huge volumes of spawning gravel already exist within the mainstem channel from tributaries and years of inadequate flows, thereby negating the need to inject additional gravels in the river to create habitat. The huge volumes of spawning gravel present in the river became apparent following the high flow this year.
We request that upon issuance of the draft Phase 1 Report, but prior to completion of the final Report, a public hearing be held by your Science Advisory Board to present the draft findings of the consultants to accept public testimony and respond to questions on the report. Failure to incorporate an open public process would be indicative to us that the Phase 1 Report is not independent science, but instead a foregone conclusion and justification to continue with the failed restoration policies of the past.
The failure of so many side channels constructed by the Trinity River Restoration Program in recent years casts significant doubt on the professional judgment of the mainstem project Design Team. Our conversations with various Design Team members indicates that after a decade of project designs, there is hardly consensus or unanimity about the appropriate course of action for future mainstem projects and nobody is accepting responsibility for obvious failures.
We also find that relations between various agency and tribal members are poor with a great deal of mistrust and personal animosity, which has been documented in reports by independent consultants and program participants. This does not reflect well upon the Trinity River Restoration Program’s so-called “Adaptive Management” approach and “interagency cooperation.” It points to a need for significant change in the management structure of the TRRP that is the subject of other correspondence.
Despite the clear failures related to side channels and pool filling, the TRRP’s determination to proceed with additional projects in 2012 prior to completion of the Phase 1 review shows an abject disregard for the public that is increasingly concerned about the TRRP’s actions. We strongly support restoration of the Trinity River, but the observations of our fishing guides formed by many thousands of hours on the river over a period of many years conflicts greatly with the “science” behind the TRRP. We believe that completion of the Phase 1 review prior to design and implementation of new projects is the prudent thing to do and is required as part of the Record of Decision.
We strongly object to both the design and construction of additional mainstem projects prior to completion of the Phase 1 review. Design and completion of new projects prior to the Phase 1 Review is a waste of tax dollars and cannot be justified. The TRRP continues to ignore public opinion and we find ourselves in the position of having no other option but to ask Congress and the Administration to eliminate funding for these mainstem projects until there is a truly independent scientific review of your actions.
Absent a change of policy direction by the TRRP, we have no choice but to do everything we can to ensure that the TRRP does no further harm to the Trinity River and its fisheries. We intend to dissect your environmental documents and vigorously oppose the issuance of permits for additional mainstem projects until such time as the Phase 1 Review is complete and the public is given a real voice in the direction of the Trinity River Restoration Program. Meanwhile, we are committed to educate the public that many of the mainstem projects are an abject failure and should not proceed as planned until completion of a review as required by the Trinity ROD.
We look forward to the TMC’s written response.
If you have any questions or comments about this letter, please feel free to contact any of us.
Sincerely,
Bill Dickens, President Tom Stokely
Trinity River Guides Association California Water Impact Network
webefshn at com-pair.net Tom.Stokely at c-win.org
530-623-1905 530-524-0315
Carolee Krieger Liam Gogan
Board President and Executive Director Past President
California Water Impact Network Trinity River Guides Association
caroleekrieger at cox.net kristagogan at hughes.net
805-969-0824 530-623-6224
Michael Caranci Travis Michel
michael at theflyshop.com sweettrinity at live.com
530-222-3555 530-623-4695
Ed Duggan Steven Townzen
yen2fish at netzero.com steve at trinityfishing.net
530-629-3554 530-623-2112
Paul Catanese Scott Stratton
pcatanese at dhscott.com scott at trinityriveradventures.com
916-623-2328 530-623-4179
Bob Norman
bnorman at sonic.net
530-778-3540
Enclosure: March 14, 2011 TRGA Letter
cc: Senator Dianne Feinstein
Senator Barbara Boxer
Congressman Wally Herger
Congressman Mike Thompson
Congressman George Miller
Trinity Management Council
Trinity Adaptive Management Working Group
Katherine Kuhlman, North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
Interested Parties
[1] Page C-8, Appendix C, Final EIS/EIR for Trinity River Mainstem Fishery Restoration, http://www.fws.gov/arcata/fisheries/reports/technical/treis/final/appndx_c.pdf
[2] Recent side channel failures include but are not limited to Lowden Ranch, Teepee Burner, Sven Olbertson, Lower Salt Flat, Douglas City BLM Campground and Reading Creek.
[3] Pools alleged to have been damaged by Trinity Guide members include but are not limiting to the following pools: "Fly Only " waters Tapering Glides and Bend Pool, Diversion Pool, New Bridge Pool, Pyramid Rock Pool Behind TR Trailer Park (1/4 mile) below new bridge, Glide Pool above Old Bridge, Old Bridge Pool, Peterson's Pool (1/8 mile below Old bridge), Teepee Burner Pool, Top end of Rush Creek Pool, Salt Flat Pool, Webbers Pool, Browns Alley Pool (1/4 Mile above Bucktail), Holey Water Pool(1/8mile above Bucktail), Graveyard Pool (above Bucktail Bridge), Johnnies Pool (1/8 mile below Bucktail Br.), Perries Pool (Across Lowden Meadow), Ponderosa Pines Pool, Moon Lim Lee Pool (above Poker Bar), Slough Pool (above Poker Bar) and the Reading Creek Pool.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20111128/f99123ce/attachment.html>
More information about the env-trinity
mailing list