Upper Sacramento River Snowpack Only 40% of Normal, and Going Fast
By Tom Chandler on Apr 11, 2007 in News
I just got off the phone with Chris Carr — co-owner of Shasta Mountain Guides, and a top alpine guide who spends a lot of time in the backcountry.
His take on this year’s weather? He’s looking at at one of the shortest mountain guiding seasons in many, many years.
Survey Says…
Forest Service surveys suggest a Northstate snowpack only 40% of normal, and snow’s almost entirely missing from the lower elevations.
The Upper Sacramento watershed snowpack is 46% of normal, and the McCloud watershed is running at only 41%.
You won’t see high flows (like last year’s) on the Upper Sacramento this year.
What’s This Mean?
Bad news for mountain guides and whitewater fiends. Good news for springtime fly fishers.
The big spring runoff event — which rendered the river largely unfishable for long stretches last spring — might barely register on this year’s flows.
I volunteer to check the river on a regular basis — selflessly sacrificing my spare time in an effort to make sure that you (my readers) know what hatches you’re missing.
See you on the (low flowing) river, Tom Chandler.
Technorati Tags: upper sacramento river, upper sac, snowpack, fly fishing
Heddon17 | Apr 11, 2007 | Reply
Of course the flip side of this is that we’ll likely be facing a 2+ month period of low river levels and tough fishing from early July to about mid Sept………
Brian
Tom Chandler | Apr 11, 2007 | Reply
Sure, but I wasn’t going to dwell on the negatives…
Heddon17 | Apr 11, 2007 | Reply
The nice thing is the by the time the river levels become low and fishing gets tough, the high lakes should be fishing well so one could just concentrate on fishing those until the weather cools off by mid Sept. The other option starting by mid August is half-pounder steelhead fishing on the Klamath.
Fishing for half pounders with a 9′ Phillipson is an absolute blast!
In other words there are other options to thing about once the low water and tough fishing go into effect on the Upper Sac later this summer.
Brian
Tom Chandler | Apr 11, 2007 | Reply
There are no fish in the backcountry lakes. Let’s just squelch those ugly rumors now.
Well, there might be fish, but with all the bears, mountain lions and disease-transmitting ticks, no one’s ever fished one and lived to tell about it.
No one.
Jim Webb | Apr 11, 2007 | Reply
Just where exactly are these disease and vermin infested lakes? Probably have rare, extra venomous rattlesnakes that live above 6,000′, as well.
Heddon17 | Apr 11, 2007 | Reply
Well I wouldn’t worry too much about our local high lakes being overrun with fly fishers this summer. With demographics of fly fishers being what they are (most are aging baby boomers, etc.), most of them are either unwilling or physically unable to make the trek into the high lakes.
For various reasons, the overwhelming majority of fly fishers don’t venture more than a mile or so from their cars. This eliminates a lot of folks from fishing high lakes.
Brian
Clay | Apr 11, 2007 | Reply
Lazy bastards!!! I used to walk 20 miles uphill both ways in the snow just to steelhead fish! Of course I had lost my license on a drunk driving charge and had no choice. VIVA LE’ FEET !!!
smellslikefish | Apr 11, 2007 | Reply
Tom,
Let’s not forget Sasquatch. ‘Cause if the bears, mountain lions and disease infested ticks don’t get you, Sasquatch surely will. Also, rumor has it that our local bigfoot lost his mate last year. He’s mighty lonely…
eric | Apr 12, 2007 | Reply
i was with a couple of PG&E hydrographers measuring the water levels in the snow pack a little over a week ago down around wishon reservoir. although it looked dismal for most areas in the sierra with about 40 percent of last years’ levels, the shasta county area was up around 80 percent of last years’ levels they said.
Tom Chandler | Apr 12, 2007 | Reply
Eric: Are you saying our reservoirs are 80% full?
My snowpack numbers were produced by the Forest Service survey team, so I’m not sure what you mean by 80%?
Heddon17 | Apr 12, 2007 | Reply
It was the same thing up here on the Klamath NF. The snowpack ended being about 50% of normal.
Brian
eric | Apr 12, 2007 | Reply
tom. no, i wasn’t speaking of reservoirs. the hydrographers (field workers, as oppposed to hydrologists who, as the hydrographers explained usually stay in the office at a desk evaluating numbers) measure the water CONTENT in the snow on a hillside. part of a coop effort between many agencies including power, water, nature, state of Cali, etc. they have about 300 sites throughout the sierra. they basically insert a metal tube deep into the snow, pull it out and measure the tube with snow in it. minus the weight of the tube leaves them with a standard of water content in a given amount at the same spot within a 3 foot diameter, part of a program in use for 60 years. you can google it using california coop snow survey.
a chart compiled by one of the guys i was with showed in a bar graph the measurements for this year in comparison to last year. 2007 was about 40 per
cent of last years’. he said on the 60 year average, we were just about average, but that’s over 60 years. of all of the areas he had on his graph, he pointed out “shasta” and said they had the highest moisture content in the snow pack this year, and if i recall correctly, he said about 80 percent.
most of the snow survey reports we read about in the news come from these snow surveys. i’m a newspaper photographer, we make this trip annually with the PG&E guys who chopper us into a remote meadow and i went this year.
eric
Tom Chandler | Apr 12, 2007 | Reply
Eric: I understand moisture content, but I wonder what’s 80& up here (it’s not snowpack).
Perhaps our moisture content is 80%, but I’d gather our total snowpack is quite low — far below the average.