Reorienting to Recovery Documentation Site
  • Home
  • Modeling Documentation
    • Modeling Overview
    • Values and Performance Metrics
    • Scenarios
      • Actions
      • Bookend Scenario Overview
        • Baseline Overview
          • Reorienting to Recovery Baseline Habitat Methodology and Overview
        • Theoretical Maximum Habitat Overview
          • Calculating Theoretical Maximum Habitat
          • Theoretical Maximum Habitat Methodology
          • In-channel Rearing Suitability for High Gradient Reaches
      • Blended Scenario Overview
        • Kitchen Sink Overview
          • Sacramento Functional Flow Analysis
      • Balanced Scenario Overview
        • Elephant Habitat Overview
          • Elephant Habitat Modeling Details
    • Modeling Resources
      • Model FAQs
      • Web Apps
      • Model Updates
        • Hatchery Updates
        • Harvest Updates
        • Habitat Updates
          • Upper San Joaquin Habitat
    • Page
Powered by GitBook
On this page
  • Overview
  • Methods
  • Read and functionalize flow-to-area curves
  • American River
  • Feather River
  • Mokelumne River
  • Generate estimated habitat using flow
  • Other HRL commitments
  • Sacramento Floodplain improvements (Sutter, Colusa, Butte Sink)
  • 20,000 acres fish food production
  1. Modeling Documentation
  2. Scenarios
  3. Balanced Scenario Overview
  4. Elephant Habitat Overview

Elephant Habitat Modeling Details

PreviousElephant Habitat OverviewNextModeling Resources

Last updated 3 months ago

Overview

Habitat and flow commitments made under the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes (HRL) program were included as inputs to the R2R modeling framework for the following watersheds:

  • American River

  • Feather River

  • Mokelumne River

  • Yuba River

  • Tuolumne River

Staff from the Tuolumne River and Yuba River provided flow-to-suitable area relationships representing anticipated effects of the HRL commitments. These watersheds developed methodology to scale existing flow-to-suitable habitat relationships based on existing and proposed habitat projects. Documentation for the Tuolumne River methodology is available and for the Yuba River methodology .

For the Mokelumne, American, and Feather Rivers, R2R used the flow-to-suitable area relationships provided for the to ensure consistency across the basin.

Methods

The following workflow was used to incorporate these relationships into the R2R habitat model framework:

  1. Read in the flow-to-suitable area relationship used in the SBR.

  2. Functionalize the relationship using interpolation with flow as the predictive variable and suitable habitat as the response variable.

  3. Generate estimated habitat using flows from the HRL CalSim3 run for the model years (1980-2000).

Read and functionalize flow-to-area curves

American River

HRL flow-to-habitat relationship

Instream and floodplain rearing habitat were provided. They are the same as those used in the SBR.

Watershed
Flow (cfs)
VA juvenile habitat (acres)

American River

500

20

American River

800

30

American River

2000

40

American River

3500

50

American River

5500

65

American River

7500

55

Feather River

HRL flow-to-habitat relationship

Spawning and instream rearing actions are only for the LFC.

Data Source: Data came from the FERC relicensing spawning WUA/RSI and were provided for the SBR by Jason Kindopp.

Watershed
Location
Scenario
Flow (cfs)
Habitat type
Suitable acres

Feather River

LFC

Existing

150

Spawning

3.36

Feather River

LFC

Existing

200

Spawning

5.72

Feather River

LFC

Existing

250

Spawning

8.31

Feather River

LFC

Existing

300

Spawning

10.86

Feather River

LFC

Existing

350

Spawning

13.28

Feather River

LFC

Existing

400

Spawning

15.49

Mokelumne River

HRL flow-to-habitat relationship

Instream and floodplain rearing habitat were provided. They are the same as those used in the SBR.

Data Source: Data were provided by Robyn Bilski for the SBR.

Flow (cfs)
Habitat type
Suitable acres
Scenario

105

Spawning

8

HRL

105

Juvenile

209

HRL

105

Fry

189

HRL

140

Spawning

10

HRL

140

Juvenile

202

HRL

140

Fry

179

HRL

Generate estimated habitat using flow

Habitat is generated using the functionalized flow-to-area curves. Flow inputs are provided by a CalSim3 LTO_12a run, which incorporates some HRL flow commitments. The plot below shows an example comparison of juvenile and floodplain habitat (Baseline and HRL) generated using the LTO_12a flow run.

Other HRL commitments

Area
Total acres

Sutter Bypass, Butte Sink, and Colusa Basin

20,000 (floodplain)

Sutter Bypass, Butte Sink, and Colusa Basin

20,000 (fish food production)

Sacramento Floodplain improvements (Sutter, Colusa, Butte Sink)

  • 20,000 acres were added to the Sutter Bypass watershed after the existing flow-to-area relationship was modeled using HRL flows.

  • From December 1st to March 15th, Sutter Bypass will be assumed to have 20,000 acres of suitable habitat in each year.

20,000 acres fish food production

  • We then calculated the proportion of the committed 20,000 acres those acreages provide, and use that proportion to scale instream habitat for those watersheds.

  • This will occur in every year from Jan 1st to Feb 28th

Watershed
Dry
Wet
Proportion

Colusa Basin

576,753

163

0.035

Sutter Basin

263,652

23,321

0.076

Data Source: FlowWest coordinated with representatives for the American River to determine the best scientific information available to quantify existing suitable habitat, and to describe the VA non-flow habitat as suitable area that varies with flow. Habitat data were provided to R2R for use in accounting for planned habitat projects by and . Data provided represented the HRL commitments based on flow-to-habitat relationships borne out by recent EIP designs and constructed projects for the subject habitat type.

We modeled additional commitments that were listed in the :

To model the effects of 20,000 acres of fish food production, we calculated the available acreage for dry side floodplain for Sutter and Colusa basins using

here
here
Scientific Basis Report (SBR), Section 6
Erica Bishop
Chris Hammersmark
Memorandum of Understanding, Appendix 2
these data