July 25, 2018 Slides
Mark Gard, Steve Thomas, JD Wikert, Mike Berry, Brett Harvey, John Hannon, Corey Phillis, Felipe Carrillo, Rod Wittler, Shane Abeare, Mike Hendrick, Russ Perry, Matt Brown, Mike Urkov, Jim Peterson, Adam Duarte
Discuss habitat decay questionnaire responses
Rod talked about using sediment transport equations to replicate what Joe Merz has done for the Mokelumne. He said data is helpful, but they can do it simply by having information on the geomorphology of the stream. JD warned that we also need the slope because that influences the movement of the gravel.
David's information includes habitat on the Trinity River. Rod will send out additional documents for this work.
Mark talked about his submission. He said the problem with this is that it is just one flow event. Not necessarily a decay. He said for the American they actually got more habitat after the flow event because the gravel was redistributed. Mark said we probably can get at the loss of WUA at different flows. He said there is probably a threshold at which you won't get any change till you reach a certain threshold. American 2011 was after the high flow event. The 2008-2009 was a new addition of habitat.
Mike wondered if these categories of habitat should be based on proximity to dam or place like Clear or Trinity where habitat is available 10 miles down.
John discussed his submission. For Sacramento River there are GIS shapefiles associated with redd mapping and aerial photos 1 time a year. For the American, 2 to 3 surveys per season. American is packed full in some years and not others, so you would want to make it proportion to escapement. The Sacramento may give an idea of habitat decay when gravel is not added.
Matt discussed his submission. PSAM – potential spawning are mapping. Matt discussed that Phase 3B may also need to be corrected for escapement. That is, less fish so less used area. One simple way is to look at SAM in aggregate for the lower creek. Might get at the amount of tons that create a certain amount of habitat from some of these figures. Rod also mentioned that this relationship is probably site and flow specific. Matt said they also have more tradition geomorphic survey data. That is been done on Clear Creek for many years, probably started in 2002. They have similar data in 2000. Report came out in 2010. Matt can send those reports via a DOI Google Drive. Sam Provins also put some of this together for Clear Creek. Matt can share that as well.
Rod talked about the possible need for site specific relationships. Mike B. said maybe attribute specific (i.e., closeness to dam, regular flows, etc.).
Rod discussed sets of scenarios he put together that he wants SIT's feedback. Rod would have to develop these within a SIT proposal that the SIT would then discuss and decide if they want to do. Mike B. said they have a lot of information of scenario 4 and 5 if the SIT decides to pursue those. Rod will start putting a draft SIT proposals together. Jim, Adam, and John H. will help with 1. Rod will work with Mike B., Matt, and John Hutchings for number 2 with the understanding that this may take longer.
John Hutchings can show us what he has at the next in-person meeting on the 22nd.
Jim will find the Trinity report by USGS on channel restoration
Adam will go through the GIS shapefiles John sent and reports Matt will share
Rod will start developing SIT proposals for his suggested scenarios