habitat-actions.RmdThis document provides additional information about how habitat actions are implemented in the fall run model for Reorienting to Recovery (R2R). For more more information about the model itself, including the codebase, please see our documentation.
The habitat you select interacts with your flow selection, as habitat input objects are generated by relating flow to suitable area. For more information, please see the DSMhabitat documentation and the DSMflow documentation.
There are two steps to building out the habitat inputs for the model. The first is to select your base habitat input. There are 4 options and they are mutually exclusive:
1: Baseline Habitat2: Theoretical Max Habitat3: Healthy Rivers and Landscapes (HRL) habitatYou can then layer on additional habitat actions:
4: Add Rice Lands Salmon Rearing Practice Standard5: Increase prey density6: Decrease predation (scale contact points by
1/3)7: Add 20,000 acres of fish food production (HRL)8: Remove predation contact points (HRL)27: Add effects of spring run weir on fall run28: Add effects of above-dam spring run habitat on fall
run29: Add San Joaquin floodplain habitatImplemented in all watersheds and years.
This habitat action represents current habitat used in the SIT models as well as current and planned restoration projects. For further documentation on how project information was solicited and modeled, please see this documentation.
This habitat action represents the total potential habitat available for salmonids, above- and below-dams in the system. For further documentation on how the theoretical maximum habitat values were calculated and incorporated into the model, please see this documentation.
This habitat action was designed to approximate the effects of
ongoing and proposed projects under the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes
Program, as outlined in the Memorandum
of Understanding, Appendix 2. Some actions in the MOU are available
as “layered” on actions (i.e. actions 7, 8).
For further documentation on how these actions were incorporated into
the model, please see this
documentation.
This action models the effect of managing rice fields (wet and dry
side, outside the bypasses) to increase floodplain habitat and prey
density in Sacramento watersheds. This is modeled by increasing
floodplain in the Yolo Bypass in January and February by a factor of
9000 acres.
All years, Yolo Bypass
This action models the effect of improving habitat through food/prey subsidy management practices to increase salmon growth and survival. This is modeled by setting prey density in all watersheds (including the delta) and model years to “hi”, the maximum level possible.
All years, customizable watersheds
This action models the effect of removing predator contact points to
decrease predation on juvenile salmonids by decreasing the number of
contact points in a watershed by a factor of 1/3. Contact
points are sourced from the CalFish
Predator Assessment Database (PAD).
All years, all watersheds
This action approximates the effect of adding 20,000
acres of fish food production as outlined in the Memorandum
of Understanding, Appendix 2. This is modeled by setting prey
density to “hi” in the Sutter Bypass and Sacramento River (to represent
Colusa Basin) to coarsely represents effects of increasing 20,000 acres
off-channel. Additionally, the available acreage for dry side floodplain
for Sutter and Colusa basins was calculated using these
data. The proportion of the committed 20,000 acres those acreages
provide was calculated and then used to scale instream habitat for those
watersheds for the months of January and February.
All years, Sutter Bypass and Lower + Lower-mid Sacramento River
This action models a reduction in predator contact points based on
communications with parties for proposed or current projects. This is
currently modeled by removing 1 predator contact point for
Feather River, 9 for the Upper Sacramento River,
1 for Antelope Creek, and 1 for Butte
Creek.
All years, Feather River, Upper Sacramento River, Antelope Creek, and Butte Creek
This action models the effect of installing a weir to protect spring
run spawning habitat. This is modeled differently for tributaries where
spring- and fall-run spawning habitat completely overlap (Upper
Sacramento River, Antelope Creek, Feather River, Mokelumne River,
Stanislaus River, and Tuolumne River), partial overlap (Big Chico Creek,
Clear Creek, and Mill Creek), and for the Yuba River. For tributaries
with full overlap, we reduce fall-run spawning habitat by
1/3. For tributaries with partial overlap, we subtract the
overlapping part from fall-run spawning habitat. For Yuba River, we
reduce fall-run spawning habitat by half to approximate the effect of
installing a weir at Daguerre Point Dam.
All years, spring-run watersheds - specific for fall run model
This is modeled by reducing in-channel and floodplain rearing habitat
for fall-run by a factor of 10% (in development, may be
iteratively improved) for tributaries where spring-run are present:
Upper Sacramento River, Antelope Creek, Feather River, Mokelumne River,
Stanislaus River, Tuolumne River, Big Chico Creek, Deer Creek, Mill
Creek, Clear Creek, Yuba River, and Battle Creek. This is to approximate
the effect of above-dam habitat producing more spring-run juveniles,
which increases competition for space in rearing habitat for fall-run
juveniles.
All years, spring-run watersheds - specific for fall run model