What I don't understand is how they intend to manage the silt stacked up in the lake bed. They say they're going to hold it down with big rocks??? Regardless, if the 400 steelies still returning can make it through that, then the reopened spawning/rearing territory could enable some sort of comeback...I think it's 2013 to BEGIN the process and several years for the removal.
That part wasn't clear but it seemed like the plan was to reroute a channel around the dam so that they could avoid having to deal with the silt.
Once the dam is removed and the flows pass unimpeded I wonder how much damage there will be due to lower water tables resulting from all the groundwater that has been pumped for drinking and irrigation.
I saw the bit about rerouting the channel, but thought that was to enable the demo. When the rains come hard up there as they often do, then that water will go where mother nature wants...not necessarily where engineers would choose.
I just hope we're not shooting ourselves in the foot. Removing dams sounds like the right thing, but we have a habit of not figuring out all the consequences and doing unintended harm.
In a way this could be similar to what happens when a glacier retreats and leaves behind kames and deltas that were once submerged but are now sitting on top of what was lake bottom (and open plain before that). 10,000 years ago these features were deposited all over the northern US as glaciers retreated, glacial lakes formed and emptied, and the features were quickly covered in vegetation, and they are still there today.
I think the only difference would be the unchecked erosion that occurred as the glacial lakes rapidly emptied when their ice dams broke. If they come up with a plan that provides a good channel, then those sediment deposits are likely to sit there unchanged for they next 10,000 years.
Anyone who has stood at the bottom of San Clemente (surprisingly big and very beautiful piece of work) and walked the shorelne of the lake would understand how much silt is behind that dam. The river cannot support or survive that much silt. It would take years/decades to wash that down stream below the spawning beds from Robles del Rio bridge upstream.
Bypassing and using rocks--are you kidding me? A flood would just cover the entire river for 10 miles with sand--no gravel beds. Has to be a better way--dredging is messy and expensive but may be the only alternative.
Having grown up on the Carmel River when trout fishing was still legal, I fished almost every day as a kid. The Carmel has taken a beat down by CalAm and yet still surviving. The infusion of the Mad River steelhead many years ago worked out well. Native steelies were maybe 6-7 lb max and Mad steelies are capable of 20 lb+.
Locals who've fished Sleepy Hollow or the Carmel between Los Padres and San Clemente know what a priceless piece of water it was. All closed to fishing as it should be, but hopefully they will find a way to remove the dam and maintain the integrity of the Carmel River.
Unless the plan has changed since I was involved, they intend to breach the ridge between San Clemente Creek and the Carmel River upstream of the dam so that the Carmel will flow down the San Clemente Creek channel and leave the silt bed intact between the breach and the dam. The silt will stabilize as it dries out and when the dam is removed the Carmel will flow alongside the silt bed but not through it. It will keep silt from moving at all, maybe ever. Ingenious.