trinity river restoration flow release schedule design for water … · 2013. 4. 16. · trinity...

TRINITY RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM P.O. BOX 1300, WEAVERVILLE, CA PHONE: 530-623-1800, FAX: 530-623-5944

Trinity River Restoration Flow Release Schedule Design for Water Year 2013 Draft [graphics here – photo of flow at peak, overlain by small copy of recommended hydrograph]

Workgroup Report: WG-TRRP-Flow-2013-1 April 10, 2013 Suggested Citation: TRRP (2013) Trinity River Restoration Flow Release Schedule Design for Water Year 2013. Technical Memorandum WG-TRRP-Flow-2013-1.

Trinity River Restoration Program. Weaverville, California.

WG-TRRP-Flow-2013-1: Restoration Flow Release Schedule, WY2013 DRAFT:April 10, 2013

i

Cover Photo: __.

Table of Contents

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................................... III

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................................................ III

COMMON ACRONYMS ...................................................................................................................................................... IV

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................................... I

TMC Recommendation Decision ..................................................................................................................... ii

USDI Concurrence ............................................................................................................................................ ii

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................. 3

1.1. The Trinity River Restoration Program ..................................................................................................... 3

1.2. Restoration Water Allocation ................................................................................................................... 3

1.3. The TRRP Annual Flow Schedule Recommendation Process .................................................................... 6

2. DETERMINATION OF WATER YEAR TYPE FOR WY2013 ........................................................................................................ 7

2.1. Discussion of Conditions ........................................................................................................................... 7

2.2. Forecasts ................................................................................................................................................... 9

3. FLOW SCHEDULE RECOMMENDATION FOR WY2013 ......................................................................................................... 12

3.1. Consensus Recommendation by the Flow Workgroup .......................................................................... 12

3.2. Purpose and Rationale ............................................................................................................................ 12

3.2.1. Ascending Limb and 2,000 cfs Bench ...................................................................................... 13

3.2.2. Peak Release for two days ...................................................................................................... 14

3.2.3. Descending Limb ..................................................................................................................... 14

3.2.4. Water Year 2013 Dry Alt 3 Hydrograph Purposes .................................................................. 14

3.2.5. Water Year 2013 Dry Alt 3 Hydrograph Benefits .................................................................... 15

3.3. Hypotheses and Predicted Response ..................................................................................................... 16

3.4. Effect on Management Targets .............................................................................................................. 16

3.5. Temperature Forecasting ....................................................................................................................... 17

3.6. Comparison of ROD Dry and Dry Alt 3 Hydrographs .............................................................................. 24

3.6.1. Geomorphic Differences, Dry Alt 3 versus ROD Dry ............................................................................ 25

3.6.1.1. Comparison of Flow Study Projections and Observed Dry Year Sediment Transport ...................... 25

3.6.1.2. Estimated Dry Alt 3 Sediment Transport Based Upon Observations in 2007 and 2009 .................. 25

3.6.2. Temperature Differences, Dry Alt 3 versus ROD Dry Hydrographs ..................................................... 29

3.6.3. Juvenile Habitat Differences, Dry Alt 3 versus ROD Dry Hydrographs ................................................ 32

3.7. Other Modeling and Analyses................................................................................................................. 34

3.8. Uncertainties and Other Considerations ................................................................................................ 34

3.9. Workgroup Consensus Recommendation to the TMC ........................................................................... 34

3.10. Consideration of Flow Schedule by the TAMWG.................................................................................. 37

3.11. Recommendation by the TMC .............................................................................................................. 37

3.11.1. Presentation and Discussion ................................................................................................. 37

3.11.2. Schedule Graph and Table .................................................................................................... 37

4. PUBLIC SAFETY PREPARATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 38

5. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................................... 38

APPENDIX A: PROPOSED FLOW SCHEDULE ALTERNATIVES TEMPLATE ....................................................................................... 39


ii

APPENDIX B: FLOW SCHEDULE PROPOSAL 1 (DRY ALT 1) ....................................................................................................... 43

APPENDIX C: FLOW SCHEDULE PROPOSAL 2 (DRY ALT 2) ....................................................................................................... 51

APPENDIX D: FLOW SCHEDULE PROPOSAL 2 (NORMAL ALT) .................................................................................................. 60

APPENDIX E: MEETING SUMMARY, FEBRUARY 25, 2013 ....................................................................................................... 70

APPENDIX F: MEETING SUMMARY, MARCH 28, 2013 .......................................................................................................... 78

APPENDIX G: POWER POINT PRESENTATION TO THE TMC, APRIL 2, 2013 ............................................................................... 91

APPENDIX H: LETTER FROM TMC TO REGIONAL DIRECTORS ................................................................................................... 92

APPENDIX I: CONCURRENCE LETTER FROM REGIONAL DIRECTORS............................................................................................ 93

APPENDIX J: U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION NEWS RELEASE ON TRRP FLOW SCHEDULE ........................................................... 94


iii

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. WATER YEAR 2013 RESTORATION FLOW HYDROGRAPH. ................................................................................................................ II FIGURE 2. LOCATION MAP OF THE TRINITY RIVER DIVISION OF THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT. ........................................................................... 4 FIGURE 3: COMPUTATION OF THE APRIL 1

ST FORECAST FOR THE ANNUAL RUNOFF OF THE TRINITY RIVER ............................................................. 5

FIGURE 4. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES TRACKING OF SNOW-WATER CONTENT FOR THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIAN BASIS OF

TRINITY, SACRAMENTO, FEATHER, AND TRUCKEE RIVER WATERSHEDS. AT THE END OF MARCH THE SNOW-WATER CONTENT WAS ROUGHLY 50%

OF THE APRIL 1 AVERAGE. ............................................................................................................................................................ 7 FIGURE 5. US DROUGHT MONITOR FOR CALIFORNIA. INDICATES 100% OF STATE IS IN DROUGHT AS OF MARCH 26, COMPATED WITH 87.15% AS OF

MARCH 19. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA (TRINITY) IS IN D0 (ABNORMALLY DRY) CLASSIFICATION. .................................................................. 8 FIGURE 6. CALIFORNIA-NEVADA RIVER FORECAST CENTER (NOAA) FORECAST OF 2013 WATERYEAR INFLOW INTO TRINITY ABOVE LEWISTON, AS OF

MARCH 29, 2013. ANNUAL INFLOW FORECAST (GREEN X’S) PEAKED IN DECEMBER 2012, AND HAS STEADILY DECREASED THEREAFTER. CURRENT

ACCUMULATED INFLOW IS 512,000 ACRE-FEET. ............................................................................................................................... 9 FIGURE 7. DAILY EPS FORECASTS OF ANNUAL INFLOW BY CNRFC. INCLUDES THE MONTHLY (FEB & MAR) B120 FORECASTS BY DWR (CIRCLES). .... 10 FIGURE 8. MARCH 50% EXCEEDENCE B2 OPERATIONS FORECAST BY RECLAMATION - CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT OPERATIONS OFFICE..................... 10 FIGURE 9. MARCH 90% EXCEEDENCE B2 OPERATIONS FORECAST BY RECLAMATION - CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT OPERATIONS OFFICE..................... 11 FIGURE 11. OUTPUT OF HEC-5Q MODEL RUNS BY CVO FOR TRINITY AND LEWISTON RESERVOIRS, BASED ON A FORECAST DRY WATER YEAR ON THE

RIVER AND THE MARCH B2 OPERATIONS FORECAST (FIGURE 9). ........................................................................................................ 19 FIGURE 12. PREDICTED LEWISTON RELEASE TEMPERATURES BETWEEN APRIL 21 AND DECEMBER 31, 2013, FOR BOTH 50% AND 90% B2 OPERATIONS

FORECASTS (FIGURE 8 AND FIGURE 9) .......................................................................................................................................... 20 FIGURE 13. PREDICTED LEWISTON RELEASE TEMPERATURES BETWEEN APRIL 21 AND MAY 29, 2013, FOR BOTH 50% AND 90% B2 OPERATIONS

FORECASTS (FIGURE 8 AND FIGURE 9). ......................................................................................................................................... 21 FIGURE 14. STREAM TEMP MODEL OUTPUT FOR WEITCHPEC SPRING-TIME RIVER TEMPERATURES UNDER AVERAGE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS. .. 23 FIGURE 15. STREAM TEMP MODEL OUTPUT FOR WEITCHPEC SPRING-TIME RIVER TEMPERATURES UNDER EXTREME METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS. .. 23 FIGURE 16. STREAM TEMP OUTPUT FOR SUMMER RIVER TEMPERATURES AT DOUGLAS CITY. ........................................................................... 24 FIGURE 17. COMPARISON OF DRY ROD (DRY_ORIG) AND DRY ALT 3 (DRY_ALT#) TEMPERATURE FORECASTS UNDER AVERAGE

HYDROMETEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS AND A CONSTANT 48°F RELEASE TEMPERATURE FROM LEWISTON DAM. THE LOCATIONS ILLUSTRATED ARE

LEWISTON (48°F), DOUGLAS CITY (DGC), NORTH FORK (NFH), BURNT RANCH, AND WEITCHPEC (WPC). ............................................. 30 FIGURE 18. COMPARISON OF DRY ROD (DRY_ORIG) AND DRY ALT 3 (DRY_ALT#) TEMPERATURE FORECASTS UNDER EXTREME

HYDROMETEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS AND A CONSTANT 48°F RELEASE TEMPERATURE FROM LEWISTON DAM. THE LOCATIONS ILLUSTRATED ARE

LEWISTON (48°F), DOUGLAS CITY (DGC), NORTH FORK (NFH), BURNT RANCH, AND WEITCHPEC (WPC). ............................................. 31

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: RESTORATION RELEASE WATER VOLUME ALLOCATION .................................................................................................................. 5 TABLE 2: PREDICTED WATER YEAR TYPE .................................................................................................................................................. 5 TABLE 3: HYPOTHESES AND PREDICTED RESPONSE OF DRY ALTERNATIVE (DRY ALT 3) RECOMMENDATION. ......................................................... 16 TABLE 4: ANTICPATED EFFECTS RELATIVE TO ROD DRY HYDROGRAPH PER OBJECTIVE OF THE INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT PLAN (IAP; TRRP 2009). ... 17 TABLE 5. FORMULATION OF SYNTHETIC HYDRO-METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS FOR INPUT TO STREAM TEMP RIVER WATER TEMPETERATURE MODEL. 22 TABLE 6. TEMPERATURE TARGETS FOR THE TRINITY RIVER. ........................................................................................................................ 22 TABLE 7: RECOMMENDED DAILY FLOW SCHEDULE. ................................................................................................................................... 36


iv

COMMON ACRONYMS CDFG .................................................. California Department of Fish and Game (now California Department of Fish and Wildlife)

CDWR ............................................................................................................................California Department of Water Resources

CNRFC ................................................................................... California-Nevada River Forecast Center (National Weather Service)

HVT ...................................................................................................................................................................... Hoopa Valley Tribe

ROD ................................................................................................................................................ Record of Decision (USDI 2,000)

TAMWG ................................................................................................................... Trinity Adaptive Management Working Group

TMC ..................................................................................................................................................... Trinity Management Council

TRRP ............................................................................................................................................ Trinity River Restoration Program

USBR ...................................................................................................................................................... U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

USDI ................................................................................................................................................. U.S. Department of the Interior

USFS..................................................................................................................................................................... U.S. Forest Service

USFWS ................................................................................................................................................. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS .............................................................................................................................................................. U.S. Geological Survey

WY2013 ................................................................................................................................................................... water year 2013

YT ..................................................................................................................................................................................... Yurok Tribe


i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The goal of this document is to provide a consolidated record of the development and establishment of the Trinity

River Restoration Program (TRRP) restoration flow release schedule for Water Year 2013 (WY2013). The flow

scheduling process was established under the U.S. Department of Interior (USDI) Record of Decision (ROD; USDI

2000). This document was provided in a draft form to the Trinity Adaptive Management Working Group (TAMWG)

and Trinity Management Council (TMC; April 1st and 3rd meetings) as background information for the presentation

of the Flow Workgroup consensus recommendation.

The 2013 water year began in a drying trend. In mid-November, 2012 precipitation began and continued through

December 25, 2012, varying between rain and heavy snowfall. At the end of calendar year 2012 the forecast

annual inflow was above the historical mean.

January, February, and March 2013 were very dry months. During this time the forecasted annual inflow steadily

decreased, and the accumulated inflow fell well below the historical mean.

At the time of the flow-scheduling process all indications led the TRRP to conclude that the water year would be

classified as ‘Dry’. The associated restoration release volume for a dry water year is 453,000 acre-feet.

This report describes the purpose, rationale, hypotheses, and predicted responses of the consensus hydrograph

developed by the Flow Workgroup during their March 28 meeting (Dry Alt 3). The Dry Alt 3 instream flow release

is recommended as a proactive management approach to provide improved rearing conditions for fry and juvenile

Chinook salmon during this dry water year that is preceded by exceptionally high natural Chinook salmon

escapement and subsequent high emergence success and fry abundance.


ii

Figure 1. Water year 2013 restoration flow hydrograph. Ascending limb begins April 23

rd with increases to the 2000 cfs eight day bench, then ascends to the two-day 4,500 cfs peak

(May 4-5), followed by a descending limb with three short duration benches at 2,000, 1,200, and 700 cfs for monitoring

purposes.

TMC Recommendation Decision

[pending – final report]

USDI Concurrence

[pending – final report]


3

1. INTRODUCTION

The goal of this document is to provide a consolidated record for the development and establishment of the

Trinity River restoration flow release schedule for Water Year 2013 (WY2013), under the U.S. Department of

Interior (USDI) Record of Decision (ROD; USDI 2,000). This document was provided in a draft form to the TAMWG

and TMC (April 1st and 3rd meetings) as background information for the presentation of the Flow Workgroup

consensus recommendation.

1.1. The Trinity River Restoration Program

The Trinity River is located in the coastal mountains of Northern California. It is the largest tributary to the

Klamath River. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) operates Trinity and Lewiston Dams on the Trinity River as

part of the Central Valley Project. The Trinity River Division of the Central Valley Project (Figure 2) creates a trans-

basin diversion that supplies water from the Trinity River, through tunnels, to the Sacramento River for water

supply, hydro-power generation, and water temperature control. Flow regulation of the Trinity River by Trinity

Dam began in November 1960 and diversion of water from the Trinity River to the Sacramento River via the

tunnels began in April 1963. Following dam construction, salmon and steelhead populations in the Trinity River

declined by 53-96%, depending on the species (USFWS and HVT 1999).

1.2. Restoration Water Allocation

The Trinity River Restoration Program (TRRP) was established by a federal Record of Decision (ROD; USDI 2,000).

The ROD recommended a suite of restoration actions and directed the USBR to provide annual in-stream flows

below Lewiston Dam to restore and maintain the Trinity River’s fishery resources. These restoration flow releases

are intended to accomplish a wide variety of objectives, from promoting fluvial process, to temperature control,

to habitat improvement. The recommended releases attempt to mimic snowmelt hydrology, create a more

natural cycle of flow variability, promote alluvial processes, and provide water temperature and habitat benefits

for fisheries resources. The ROD stipulates 1 that, “Based on subsequent monitoring and studies guided by the

Trinity Management Council, the schedule for releasing water on a daily basis, according to that year’s hydrology,

may be adjusted but the annual flow volumes established… may not be changed.” Thus the ROD established a

fixed set of five water year types (Table 1), and for each water year type, the ROD recommended daily schedules

for dam releases, with flexibility for adaptive management.

The TRRP develops annual flow release scheduling recommendations through a collaborative process with public

input. The focus of flow scheduling has typically been the spring and early summer releases at rates greater than

450cfs, however “base-flows” throughout the year are part of the restoration water allocation and are subject to

adaptive management. The TRRP Flow Workgroup develops annual flow release hydrographs to meet water year

specific objectives and broader program goals. Using technical input from the workgroup, the Trinity Management

Council makes the final flow recommendation in early April, which is forwarded for consideration by the U.S.

Department of the Interior (USDI), represented by the USBR and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) at the

regional level. The USBR has final authority over all releases and diversions from the Trinity River. The USBR also

conducts non-restoration flow releases to the Trinity River. These non-restoration releases are conducted for dam

safety, Native American ceremonies, and other purposes.

1 Page 12.


4

Figure 2. Location map of the Trinity River Division of the Central Valley Project.


5

Water allocation and flow releases are provided per water-year, extending from October 1 to September 30.

Reservoir inflow over a water year is not fully known until the water year ends. To set the water year type for

restoration water allocation and flow scheduling, the water year type is based on the CNRFC April 1st 50%

exceedance-forecast for the unregulated annual runoff of the Trinity River at Lewiston, California (Table 2).

This annual runoff forecast is jointly developed by the National Weather Service and the California Department of

Water Resources (CDWR) for the entire State of California, including the Trinity River and are published in the

‘DWR - Water Supply Outlook for California and Northern Nevada – Bulletin 120’2. The forecast is based on a

combination of snowpack measurements and predictive modeling using statistical and hydrological methods,

computed as shown in Figure 3. The predictive models used to determine the water year type for the Trinity River

use statistically average historical conditions, called “50% probability of exceedance”. Over the long term, use of

the statistically average conditions provides the most accurate predictor of the actual water year type.

Table 1: Restoration Release Water Volume Allocation3

Water Year Type Restoration Water Allocation (Acre-Feet)

Annual Probability of Occurrence (Percent)

Extremely Wet 815,000 12%

Wet 701,000 28%

Normal 647,000 20%

Dry 453,000 28%

Critically Dry 369,000 12%

Table 2: Predicted Water Year Type4

Forecast Annual River Runoff (acre feet)

Predicted Water Year Type

≥ 2,000,000 Extremely Wet 1,350,000 – 1,999,999 Wet 1,025,000 – 1,349,999 Normal 650,000 – 1,024,999 Dry

< 650,000 Critically Dry

Figure 3: Computation of the April 1st Forecast for the Annual Runoff of the Trinity River

2 http://cdec.water.ca.gov/snow/bulletin120

3 TRFES - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Hoopa Valley Tribe (1999). Probability of occurrence based on data from years

1912 to 1994. 4 Trinity Mainstem Fisheries Environmental Impact Statement, October 1999 Public Draft, Section 2.1, Table 2-1, Page 2-2.

Observed inflow to

Trinity Reservoir (Oct.

1 – Mar. 31)

Estimated inflow to

Trinity Reservoir based

on snowpack and

historical averages (Apr. 1 – Sept. 30)

Estimated runoff from small

drainages between Trinity

and Lewiston dams

(Oct. 1 – Sept. 30)

Forecast Annual River

Runoff for the Trinity

River at Lewiston, CA

(Oct 1. – Sept. 30)

http://cdec.water.ca.gov/snow/bulletin120


6

1.3. The TRRP Annual Flow Schedule Recommendation Process

Trinity River restoration flow release schedule establishment typically involves:

o TRRP Flow Workgroup proposes and evaluates different restoration flow alternatives on their technical

merits, including hydrology, geomorphology, fish biology, riparian vegetation, and practicalities of

collecting data for Adaptive Management;

See Appendix E: Meeting Summary, February 25, 2013

See Appendix E: Meeting Summary, March 28, 2013

See Appendix E: Meeting Summary, April 10, 2013

o External forecast of Lewiston Inflows is applied to the table of 5 water year categories under the Record

of Decision (USDI 2,000) to establish the water year type;

Discussed briefly below and more thoroughly in section 2

o TRRP Flow Workgroup provides recommendation on flow scheduling to the TAMWG and TMC;

Discussed briefly below and in section 3

o TMC decision on flow scheduling recommendation;

Section 3.10 [pending]

o TMC conveys recommendation to the USDI via regional directors for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Mid-

Pacific Region) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (California/Nevada Operations);

Appendix H [pending]

o USDI replies to the TMC via the regional directors and provides an official news release via USBR Mid-

Pacific Region office.

Appendices I and J [pending]

External forecast. The amount of water available for these restoration flow releases was established by the ROD

with variable annual volumes to be determined within five water-year classes. The determination of the water

year class is based on the DWR April 50% exceedence forecast of inflows to Trinity reservoir. This forecast is

provided externally by a collaboration between the U.S. National Weather Service and the California Department

of Water Resources, and serves other water-use planning purposes in the region beyond the Trinity River.

WY2012 Consensus Recommendation from Flow Workgroup. Flow schedule recommendations tend to follow

the base-flow defaults under the ROD for approximately the first half of a water year (beginning October 1st of the

prior calendar year) due to difficulty in estimating the water-year class and thus the volume of water available for

restoration flows. The TRRP Flow Workgroup generally begins discussion of flow release scheduling in January or

February, as preliminary forecasts of the water year become available. The final recommendation from the

workgroup to the TMC is typically established during meetings in March, anticipating the April forecast based

upon the March forecast. Assuming no major changes in the April forecast, this allows more time for planning

adaptive management activities around the anticipated flow schedule. The final decision on the flow schedule

recommendation to USDI is made by the TMC following the April forecast that establishes the water-year category

and release volume; meeting time for the flow work group between the release-date of the forecast and the TMC

decision is reserved in case of significant changes in the proposed alternative flow release hydrographs or the

water year determination between the March and April forecasts.


7

2. DETERMINATION OF WATER YEAR TYPE FOR WY2013

On April 9, 2013, DWR published the 50% exceedence forecast for the annual inflow into Trinity reservoir. The

forecast volume is 828 thousand acre-feet. This forecast indicates a Dry water year (per Table 2) and corresponds

(per Table 1) to a restoration release volume of 453,000 acre-feet.

2.1. Discussion of Conditions

The TRRP tracks inflow into Trinity & Lewiston reservoirs beginning October 1 of each new water year

(http://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvo/current.html). The TRRP also tracks the CNRFC annual inflow forecast

(http://www.cnrfc.noaa.gov/ensembleProduct.php?id=CEGC1&prodID=9). Planning for the annual hydrograph

commences in February even though the final water year determination isn’t usually published by DWR until the

second week of April. Tracking of various meterological conditions and inflow accumulations forms the basis for

predicting the likely water year types each year. Typically the TRRP plans for the two or three water year classes

that bound the current CNRFC and DWR forecasts.

The following figures illustrate the types and progression of data the program tracks beginning each February.

Figure 4 is an illustration of the snow water content in the northern section of California as of March 29. The chart

is useful for understanding the accumulation of snowfall relative to past years and the overall April 1 average.

Figure 4. California Department of Water Resources tracking of snow-water content for the northern Californian basis of Trinity, Sacramento, Feather, and Truckee river watersheds. At the end of March the snow-water content was roughly 50% of the April 1 average.

The US Drought Monitor (http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/classify.htm) is a state-of-the-art blend of science and

subjectivity. Figure 5 shows the drought monitor for California for March 26, 2013. The Drought Monitor summary

map identifies general drought areas (D0-D4), labeling droughts by intensity, with D1 being the least intense and

D4 being the most intense. D0, drought watch areas, are either drying possibly heading for drought, or are

recovering from drought but not yet back to normal, suffering long-term impacts such as low reservoir levels.

http://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvo/current.html

http://www.cnrfc.noaa.gov/ensembleProduct.php?id=CEGC1&prodID=9

http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/classify.htm


8

Figure 5. US Drought Monitor for California. Indicates 100% of state is in drought as of March 26, compated with 87.15% as of March 19. Northern California (Trinity) is in D0 (Abnormally Dry) classification.

‘Drought’ means a moisture deficit bad enough to have social, environmental or economic effects. A general

description of the primary physical effects of drought are:

S = Short-Term, typically less than 6 months (e.g. agriculture, grasslands)

L = Long-Term, typically more than 6 months (e.g. hydrology, ecology)

This year NOAA and the CNRFC made available on the Trinity basin a daily annual forecast tool that they call the

Ensemble Streamflow Prediction (ESP). CNRFC updates the EPS forecast daily on the web at

http://www.cnrfc.noaa.gov/ensembleProduct.php?id=CEGC1&prodID=9. Figure 6 is the EPS forecast as of March

29, 2013. The figure contains a record of all previous daily forecasts (the green x’s) beginning on October 1, 2012.

The graph also includes the accumulated inflow and daily inflows, as well as the 30-year history of average

seasonal inflow volumes.



9

Figure 6. California-Nevada River Forecast Center (NOAA) forecast of 2013 wateryear inflow into Trinity above Lewiston, as of March 29, 2013. Annual inflow forecast (green x’s) peaked in December 2012, and has steadily decreased thereafter. Current accumulated inflow is 512,000 acre-feet.

2.2. Forecasts

Two factors figure prominently in the flow scheduling process – 1. Predicted inflow, and thus the water year type,

and 2. Central Valley Project operations of Trinity and Lewiston reservoirs. CNRFC provides daily estimates of the

first, and the Reclamation Central Valley Project Operations Office provides monthly updates of the second.

Beginning in WY2013 CNRFC began publishing a daily estimate of the annual inflow into the Trinity above

Lewiston Dam (http://www.cnrfc.noaa.gov/ensembleProduct.php?id=CEGC1&prodID=9). DWR continues to

produce the official monthly forecast that is the basis of the water year determination. However, the daily CNRFC

estimate is an invaluable planning tool for the program’s flow scheduling process. Figure 7 is the graphical record

of the daily annual inflow estimates beginning mid-December, 2012. The estimates are published at the 10%, 25%,

50%, 75%, and 90% exceedence levels. Figure 7 also includes the monthly DWR forecasts from February and

March, 2013. Based on these data, the Flow Scheduling workgroup began planning for three water year types –

Normal, Dry, and Critically Dry. As the process unfolded, planning focused on the Dry water year as most likely.



10

Figure 7. Daily EPS forecasts of annual inflow by CNRFC. Includes the Monthly (Feb & Mar) B120 forecasts by DWR (circles).

Reclamation updated it’s 12-month forecast for CVP Trinity River Division in March 2013. Figure 8 and Figure 9

tabulate the storages and Carr PP diversions for the 50% and 90% exceedence levels, respectively. At the 50%

level, End-Of-September (EOS) Trinity storage is forecast to be 1,679,000 acre-feet, while at the 90% level the EOS

forecast is 1,331,000 acre-feet.

CVO indicates that as of March 27, observed inflows into Trinity are tracking closer to the 90% forecast, a

symptom of the diminishing accretion pattern observed in January, February, and March. At either level, the EOS

volumes do not seem to indicate any significant concerns in 2013 as far as reservoir discharge temperatures are

concerned. The TRRP believes that EOS values lower than those currently forecast are typical of temperature

issues. The TRRP will continue to monitor the EOS forecast over the long-term to assess potential drought impacts

that might foretell out-year operational issues.

Figure 8. March 50% exceedence B2 operations forecast by Reclamation - Central Valley Project Operations Office.


11

Figure 9. March 90% exceedence B2 operations forecast by Reclamation - Central Valley Project Operations Office.


12

3. FLOW SCHEDULE RECOMMENDATION FOR WY2013

3.1. Consensus Recommendation by the Flow Workgroup

This section describes the hydrograph recommended by the Flow Scheduling workgroup. This section summarizes

the proposal(s) that make up the consensus recommendation, pointing to the most important components, and

adding any points made during deliberations. Details of each of the proposals are in the Appendices.

3.2. Purpose and Rationale

The Flow Workgroup has developed the Dry Alt 3 instream flow release recommendation as a proactive

management approach to provide improved rearing conditions for fry and juvenile Chinook salmon during a

water-year preceded by exceptionally high natural Chinook salmon escapement and subsequent high emergence

success and fry abundance.

The natural spawning escapement of fall Chinook salmon in the Trinity River basin above the Willow Creek weir

monitoring site in 2012 was 51,253 adults (Figure 10). This was the fourth largest run observed from 1978 to

2012 and 2.1 times greater than the long-term mean. The large numbers of fry and juvenile Chinook salmon

currently being observed in the fry density study and in the outmigrant traps is consistent with the large spawning

escapement that occurred in 2012 (Joe Polos personal comm.). In addition, preliminary analysis of outmigration

monitoring data at the Pear Tree site (upstream of the North Fork Trinity), indicate that Age-0 Chinook catches

have been higher than typically seen in past years (Sean Ledwin personal comm.). This is supported by

preliminary analysis of outmigration monitoring data at the Willow Creek site, that also indicate that Age-0

Chinook catches have been substantially higher than observed in past years (Shane Quinn personal comm.).


13

Figure 10. Natural adult fall Chinook salmon spawning escapement in the Trinity River Basin, 1978 to 2012. Red line is mean for 1978-2012.

The modified Dry year hydrograph incorporates several management objectives including: increased available fry

rearing habitat, improved water temperature conditions for juvenile rearing, outmigration cues for juvenile

Chinook salmon, new information on sediment transport rates, rehabilitation site monitoring needs, and 2-

dimensional hydrodynamic/fish habitat modeling needs. It is recognized that ROD Dry-year management

objectives for sediment transport may not be achieved and improved fry and juvenile rearing as a management

objective are a priority during a year with a presumed exceptionally strong year-class of Chinook salmon

production.

The following sections describe the modified Dry year hydrograph components.

3.2.1. Ascending Limb and 2,000 cfs Bench

The ROD Dry flow schedule maintains 300 cfs through April 26th and water temperature objectives are to meet

marginal conditions for rearing salmon and steelhead. Dry Alt 3, by ramping to 2000 cfs earlier, is expected to

increase available habitat and the 2,000 cfs bench will provide improved water temperatures (Optimal). Analyses

to support these expectations are given in section 3.6.

Dry Alt 3 ascending limb flow schedule components:

Initiate ramp up beginning April 23 to 2,000 cfs.

Ramp up to 2,000cfs bench (according to OCAP) safely for human use

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

19

78

19

80

19

82

19

84

19

86

19

88

19

90

19

92

19

94

19

96

19

98

20

00

20

02

20

04

20

06

20

08

20

10

20

12

Nu

mb

er

of

Ad

ult

s

Year


14

Maintain 2,000cfs bench for 8 days (April 24-May 3)

3.2.2. Peak Release for two days

The two-day peak release of 4,500 cfs will simulate the maximum peak discharge of a ROD Dry peak flow. This

peak release, in combination with a similar ROD Dry descending limb is expected to provide the necessary

environmental cues (decreasing flows and increasing water temperatures) to stimulate smoltification and

outmigration of juvenile Chinook salmon.

Dry Alt 3 peak flow schedule components:

Peak release of 4,500 cfs for two-days (May 4-5)

3.2.3. Descending Limb

The Flow Workgroup recommends that the descending limb should remain similar to the ROD recommended

alternative to maintain marginal water temperature objectives for Chinook salmon, coho salmon and steelhead,

with the exception of several benches designed to provide habitat monitoring opportunities, including

investigations approved as part of the FY 2013 workplan. The benches will also allow for data collection at a 2-

dimensional habitat modeling site to develop quantitative flow/habitat relationships and for application during

the TRRP channel rehabilitation design process. Steadily decreasing flows and subsequent increasing water

temperatures increase smoltification rates of juvenile Chinook salmon and stimulate downstream outmigration of

Chinook salmon (USFWS & HVT 1999). Analysis of 2007 juvenile outmigration monitoring data at Willow Creek

(unmodified ROD Dry-year) show that 80% of the juvenile Chinook salmon outmigrated by June 9, prior to the

onset of base-flows and detrimental water temperature conditions in the Lower Trinity River.

We caution that delayed outmigration of Trinity River origin juvenile Chinook salmon during Dry years may result

in increased risk of exposure to sub-lethal/lethal conditions in the Lower Klamath River. Baker et al. 1995

described that water temperatures greater than 68F are unsuitable, and may cause Chinook smolts to revert to

parr or lose their ability to hypo-osmoregulate (osmoregulate in seawater).

Dry Alt 3 descending Limb Flow Schedule Components:

Descend at rate mimicking ROD Dry year hydrograph from 4,500 cfs (May 23-26)

Add a 4-day bench for monitoring at 2,000 cfs (June 4-6)

Add 3-day benches for monitoring at 1,200 cfs and at 700 cfs (June 17-19)

3.2.4. Water Year 2013 Dry Alt 3 Hydrograph Purposes

Provide better than marginal (Optimal) water temperatures for rearing Chinook salmon, coho salmon and steelhead

Increase quantity and quality of available rearing habitat for salmonids

Reduce fine sediment storage (<5/16 inch) within the surface channel bed

Descend at a rate similar to pre-TRD descent (see Dry year management target)

Provide no-lethal water temperatures to Weitchpec for coho smolts (<62.6F) until June 4, and for Chinook smolts (<68F) until June 15.

Provide stable flows to facilitate ongoing fish habitat monitoring at channel rehabilitation sites

Provide stable flows to facilitate newly proposed 2-dimensional hydrodynamic/fish habitat modeling at a future channel rehabilitation site


15

Minimize impacts to foothill yellow-legged frogs and turtles (anticipated)

Minimize potential impacts to Pacific lamprey redds (anticipated)

Maintain Dry year conditions for other wildlife and avian species (anticipated)

3.2.5. Water Year 2013 Dry Alt 3 Hydrograph Benefits

Increased growth and survival of salmonid fry

Increase salmonid fry production through improved egg-to-emergence success

Discourage riparian vegetation initiation along low flow channel margins

Improved juvenile Chinook salmon growth

Increase survival of steelhead fry

Provide outmigration cues for Chinook salmon smolts

Support high priority fish habitat assessments of channel rehabilitation sites

Support development of 2-dimensional fish habitat model of a future channel rehabilitation site to inform the TRRP Channel Design Team

Reduced foothill yellow-legged frog egg mass mortality (anticipated)

Increase spawning success of Pacific lamprey (anticipated)

Ecological benefits to other riverine and aquatic bird species (anticipated)

ROD Dry & Critically Dry Hydrograph Purposes (for comparison; excludes baseflows; USFWS & HVT 1999,

Tables 8.8 and 8.9)

Sustain steelhead and coho salmon smolt production by providing non-leathal temperatures for

survival

Discourage riparian vegetation establishment along channel margins

Minimize river stage change to preserve egg masses of yellow legged frogs

Inundate point bars

Improve salmonid smolt production by providing temperatures necessary for survival of steelhead,

coho, chinook smolts

Reduce fine sediment (<5/16 inch) storage within surface channelbed

Maintain seasonal variation of water surface levels in side channels and off-channel wetlands

ROD Dry & Critically Dry Hydrograph Benefits (for comparison; excludes baseflows; USFWS & HVT 1999, Tables

8.8 and 8.9)

Reduce travel time of outmigrating steelhead smolts

Transport limited amounts of surface fine sediment (<5/16 inch)

Prevent riparian initiation along low water channel margins

Reduce fine sediment (<5/16 inch) storage within surface channelbed

Maintain seasonal variable water surface levels in side channel and off-channel wetlands

Sustain/improve salmonid smolt production

Provide outmigration cues for chinook salmon smolts

Increase salmonid fry production through improved egg- to emergence success

Discourage riparian initiation along low water channel margins

Improve juvenile chinook growth

Increase survival of steelhead fry


16

3.3. Hypotheses and Predicted Response

Hypotheses and predicted responses are provided in Table 3, which is organized for ease of comparison with the

Trinity River Flow Study recommended releases for a dry year (USFWS and HVT 1999; Table 8.8, p. 254).

Table 3: Hypotheses and predicted response of dry alternative (Dry Alt 3) recommendation.

Dry Water Year Type

Date Release (cfs) Hydrograph Component

Proposed revision to Management Target

Proposed revision to Purpose / Hypotheses

Anticipated Relative Effects

Apr 23 May 2

300 - 2,000 with 2,000 bench

Ascending limb Addition of an ascending bench

Provide increased rearing habitat for young of the year salmonids; improved (Optimal) water temperatures

Increased rearing success of young of year salmonids

May 5 - May 7

2,000 - 4,500

Ascending limb Ramp-up rate identical to ROD

No change from ROD

No change from ROD

May 7 - May 11

4,500 Snowmelt Peak Abbreviated 2-day Peak

Shortening of peak to match decrease in sediment transport rates after two days

Reduction in total sediment transport

May 11 - Jun 10

4,500 - 450

Descending Limb

Ramp-down rate similar to ROD, with addition of brief benches for monitoring activities

No significant change to restoration objectives

Enables habitat monitoring and assessment toward adaptive management

3.4. Effect on Management Targets

Hypotheses and predicted responses are provided in Table 4, which is organized for ease of comparison with the

Trinity River Flow Study recommended releases for a dry year (USFWS and HVT 1999; Table 8.8, p. 254).


17

Table 4: Anticpated effects relative to ROD Dry hydrograph per objective of the Integrated Assessment Plan (IAP; TRRP 2009).

Dry Water Year Type

IAP Objective Anticipated Relative Effects Objective 1: Create and maintain spatially complex channel morphology

Reduction in total sediment transport

Objective 2: Increase/improve habitats for freshwater life stages of anadromous fish to the extent necessary to meet or exceed production goals

Increased rearing habitat for young of the year salmonids; improved (Optimal) water temperatures

Objective 3: Restore and maintain natural production of anadromous fish populations

As above

Objective 4: Restore and sustain natural production of anadromous fish populations downstream of Lewiston Dam to pre-dam levels, to facilitate dependent tribal, commercial, and sport fisheries’ full participation in the benefits of restoration via enhanced harvest opportunities

As above

Objective 5: Establish and maintain riparian vegetation that supports fish and wildlife

Objective 6: Rehabilitate and protect wildlife habitats and maintain or enhance wildlife populations following implementation

Possible (hypothesized) reduction of foothill yellow-legged frog egg mass mortality via delayed reproduction

3.5. Temperature Forecasting

CVO and TRRP model the proposed hydrographs to assess the certainty of meeting the temperature targets

specified by the ROD.

The temperature forecasting process begins with DWR providing an updated monthly inflow forecast for

February, March, and then finally, April. The flow scheduling process depends most heavily on the temperature

modeling using the March inflow forecast (Figure 7; above), the March B2 operations forecast (Figure 8, Figure 9;

above), and the range of hydrograph alternatives submitted by workgroup members in mid-March. Therefore

riverine temperature was initially modeled for Dry Alt 1, Dry Alt 2, and Normal Alt (Appendicies B-D).

shows the alternatives submitted prior to March 14, 2013. Figure 16 shows Dry Alt 3 along with the Dry ROD

hydrographs.

http://odp.trrp.net/Data/Documents/Details.aspx?document=400


18

Figure 11. Hydrograph alternatives submitted by workgroup members for WY2013.

CVO models Trinity & Lewiston reservoir temperatures using HEC-5Q models of each reservoir. CVO forwards the

daily average values of temperature in the model results to the TRRP for input into the river temperature model,

Stream Temp.

shows the model results from runs made for analysis of Dry Alt 1, Dry Alt 2, and Dry ROD hydrographs. After

creation of the Dry Alt 3 alternative the analysis was repeated.


19

Figure 12. Output of HEC-5Q model runs by CVO for Trinity and Lewiston reservoirs, based on a forecast dry water year on the river and the March B2 operations forecast (Figure 9).

TRRP/NCAO models Trinity River temperatures with the Stream Temp model. Stream Temp is a derivative of the

USGS SNTEMP model, differing primarily in the data entry and output presentation. The SNTEMP model was the

primary river temperature model used during the Trinity EIS and Flow Study period.

For temperature forecasting in the Trinity River, the modelers choose to ‘bracket’ the range of potential weather,

or hydro-meteorological conditions that might occur; model output should fall within a range based on this input.

For several years the StreamTemp modeling used the synthetic hydro-meteorological conditions tabulated in to

bracket possible outcomes and provide results from which relative comparisons between alternatives could be

reviewed by the Program Similarly as in past years, modeling of each alternative hydrograph included use of the

Normal (referred to hereafter as ‘average’) and Extreme Warm and Dry (referred to hereafter as ‘extreme’)

hydrometeorological conditions to provide this review.

For comparison between Dry ROD and Alt 3 hydrographs, additional analysis was produced. Figures 11 & 12

contrast modeled temperatures at Lewiston. Combinations of the 50% and 90% B2 operations forecasts and ROD

Dry and Dry Alt 3 hydrographs were produced. Figure 11 shows the remainder of the calendar year, while Figure

12 focuses on the period between April 21 and June 6. The narrower period of Figure 12 is the period when the

prescribed flows of the two hydrographs differ.


20

Figure 13. Predicted Lewiston release temperatures between April 21 and December 31, 2013, for both 50% and 90% B2 Operations forecasts (Figure 8 and Figure 9)

The primary difference in the summer and fall is due to larger forecast exports under the 90% B2 operations plan.

In that scenario, CVO will likely export more water to the central valley through the Clear Creek tunnel, reducing

the cold water pool in Trinity reservoir, compared to the 50% scenario.


21

Figure 14. Predicted Lewiston release temperatures between April 21 and May 29, 2013, for both 50% and 90% B2 Operations forecasts (Figure 8 and Figure 9).

The differences shown in Figure 12 are due to the effects of the 2,000 cfs bench on the ascending limb of Dry Alt

3. The additional water cools the river compared to the 300 cfs base flow prescribed in Dry ROD.

The Flow Scheduling workgroup assesses candidate hydrograph proposals for compliance with temperature

targets listed in . Under the dry water year planning scenario, the targets for Weitchpec, per the table, are relaxed

in both magnitude and duration.


22

Table 5. Formulation of synthetic hydro-meteorological conditions for input to Stream Temp river water tempeterature model.

Table 6. Temperature targets for the Trinity River.

Source Target Reach Dates Target

Basin Plan for the North Coast Region (Regional Water Quality Control Board, 1994) WR 90-5 ROD

Lewiston to Douglas City

Lewiston to Douglas City

Lewiston to North Fork Trinity River

All Years

July 1 to September 15

September 15 – 30

October 1 to December 31

≤ 60° F ≤ 56° F ≤ 56° F

Spring-Time Objectives of the Record of Decision for the Trinity River EIS/EIR (USFWS et. al., 2,000)

Lewiston to Weitchpec

Lewiston to Weitchpec

Normal & Wetter Water Years

April 15 to May 22

May 23 to June 4

June 5 to July 9 Dry or Critically Dry Water Year

April 15 to May 22

May 23 to June 4

June 5 to July 9

≤ 55° F ≤ 59° F ≤ 62.5° F

≤ 59° F ≤ 62.5° F ≤ 68° F

contains the Stream Temp model output based on Average weather, the 50% B2 operations forecast, and three

hydrograph alternatives -

1. Dry ROD; 2. Dry Alt 1; 3. Dry Alt 2

Based on model output for average meteorological conditions, each of the three alternatives meets the

temperature targets at Weitchpec. Note that the predicted temperatures for each of the three alternatives is

identical after June 24, as at that time all three share the same flow release from Lewiston and tributary inputs

are identical as well.

Normal Warm/Wet Warm/Dry Extreme Warm and Dry

Air Temp(Period of Record:75 to 04)

Water Temp @ LWS

(Period of Record:75 to 04

Relative Humidity


Percent Possible Sunshine


Windspeed


Tributary Hydrology

(Period of Record:75 to 04Avg of all records 90% Prob of Exceed Minimum of all records

10% Prob of Exceed

10% Prob of Exceed

Avg of all record

10% Prob of Exceed

Avg of all records

10 % Prob of Exceed

Avg of all records 10% Prob of Exceed Maximum of all records

Avg of all records Avg of all records Avg of all records


Avg of all records Avg of all record Avg of all record

Hydro-meteorological

Condition

Synthetic Water Year Type



23

Figure 15. Stream Temp model output for Weitchpec spring-time river temperatures under Average meteorological conditions.

contains the Stream Temp model output based on Extreme weather, the 50% B2 operations forecast, and three

hydrograph alternatives -

1. Dry ROD; 2. Dry Alt 1; 3. Dry Alt 2

Figure 16. Stream Temp model output for Weitchpec spring-time river temperatures under Extreme meteorological conditions.

Coho Temp Target ≤ 62.6 F

Chinook Temp Target ≤ 68 F

Chinook Temp Target ≤ 68 F

Coho Temp Target ≤ 62.6 F


24

In contrast, StreamTemp output under extreme weather , none of the three alternatives meets the temperature

targets at Weitchpec in June (Figure 12). The contrast between and shows the impact of the weather on spring-

time temperatures at Weitchpec.

At Lewiston, Stream Temp model outputs were not surprising. Given the relative coolness of outflow from Trinity

and Lewiston dams (), under forecast CVP operations (Figure 8, Figure 9), model results indicate that the Dry ROD

alternative will mostly meet or better the temperature targets ().

Figure 17. Stream Temp output for summer river temperatures at Douglas City.

The modelers did not specifically model Dry Alt 1 and Dry Alt 2 at Lewiston as their values were within the bounds

of the Dry ROD alternative, or were judged to produce cooler results than the Dry ROD alternative.

Nor were results produced at the North Fork. Again, judgment led the modelers to conclude that based on

Douglas City results, the CVO B2 operations forecast, and the relatively high forecast end of September storage,

there does not appear to be a significant likelihood of exceeding temperature targets at the North Fork under any

of the hydrograph alternatives. As at Weitchpec, extreme weather conditions could change this outlook.

3.6. Comparison of ROD Dry and Dry Alt 3 Hydrographs

The recommended Dry Alt 3 hydrograph enhances conditions for young-of-year salmonids for 2013 in exchange

for reduced sediment transport. To support this, TRRP partner staff provided three analyses to compare Dry Alt 3

to the ROD Dry year hydrograph, in the areas of sediment transport, riverine temperatures, and presmolt habitat.

The summary of differences includes:


25

1. Dry Alt 3 will result in a 40-60% reduction in total sediment transport (suspended and bedload) as compared

to the ROD Dry release hydrograph. This reduction in sediment transport means that the Dry Alt 3 releases

will not meet the ROD geomorphic objectives for a dry water year type.

2. Based on model results, juvenile salmonids will experience better temperatures further downstream earlier

under Dry Alt 3 as compared to the ROD DRY hydrograph Temperatures are marginally identical after <date>

3. Seven out of 10 two-dimensional model GRTS sites demonstrated increases in optimal habitat and 5 out of 10

GRTS sites showed increases in total habitat. The cumulative increases in optimal habitat were larger than the

cumulative decreases.

4. Due to changes that have occurred in floodplain vegetation and side channels at analyzed rehabilitation sites

since field measurements, an even greater positive difference in the mean habitat area densities at the

channel rehabilitation sites is hypothesized.

3.6.1. Geomorphic Differences, Dry Alt 3 versus ROD Dry

3.6.1.1. Comparison of Flow Study Projections and Observed Dry Year Sediment

Transport

The peak magnitude and duration of the ROD hydrographs for the various water year types were developed based

on projected bedload transport rates developed by the 1999 Trinity River Flow Evaluation Report. Figure 18

compares the projected and observed total bedload transport at the Lewiston and Limekiln Gulch transport

stations for the ROD Dry Year releases in 2007 and 2009. The 2007 and 2009 releases included 5-day peak

releases of approximately 4,500 cfs, similar to the ROD Dry Year hydrograph. On average, the observed bedload

transport in dry years is 78% of the projected value at Lewiston and 33% of the projected value at Limekiln Gulch.

Dry year flow releases are transporting less bedload than projected in the Flow Evaluation Report.

3.6.1.2. Estimated Dry Alt 3 Sediment Transport Based Upon Observations in 2007 and

2009

The geomorphic differences between the ROD Dry Year and the Dry Alt. 3 hydrographs may be assessed by

evaluating bedload and suspended sediment transport observed during the dry year releases in 2007 and 2009.

Total bedload sediment transport for 2007 and 2009 at the four sediment monitoring stations is shown in Figure

19. The suspended sediment transport for 2007 and 2009 at the same four sediment monitoring stations is shown

in Figure 20. The shaded bands indicate the 5-day peak release period when flow was approximately 4,500 cfs.

Figure 19 and Figure 20 show that bedload and suspended sediment transport rates are variable across the peak

release within the same year and transport trends are variable between years.

The dry year data from 2007 and 2009 was analyzed to compute the total sediment transport that occurred across

the first 5 days of the peak flow releases of approximately 4,500 cfs. The total sediment transport was again

computed for the first 2 days of the peak release and compared with the total transport across the 5-day peak.

The analysis shows that between 40% and 60% of total suspended and bedload sediment transport occurs in the

last three-days of a 5-day peak release for both observed years and at all four of the sampling stations.


26

Dry Alt 3 will result in a 40-60% reduction in total sediment transport (suspended and bedload) as compared to

the ROD Dry release hydrograph. This reduction in sediment transport means that the Dry Alt 3 releases will not

meet the ROD geomorphic objectives for a dry water year type.


27

Figure 18. Projected and Observed Total Bedload Transport in 2007 and 2009 Dry Year Hydrographs

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

TRFEDRY

2007DRY

2009DRY

Be

dlo

ad T

ran

spo

rt (

Ton

s)

1999 TRFE Projections and Observed Water Year Totals

Total Bedload Transport for Trinity River at Lewiston (TRAL)

0.5 - 8 mm > 8mm

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

TRFEDRY

2007DRY

2009DRY

Be

dlo

ad T

ran

spo

rt (

Ton

s)


Total Bedload Transport for Trinity River at Limekiln Gulch (TRLG)

0.5 - 8 mm > 8 mm


28

Figure 19. Observed Bedload Transport in 2007 and 2009 Dry Year Hydrographs


29

Figure 20. Observed Suspended Sediment Transport in 2007 and 2009 Dry Year Hydrographs

3.6.2. Temperature Differences, Dry Alt 3 versus ROD Dry Hydrographs

ROD-Dry year salmonid temperature targets are listed in (above). Modeling of the expected temperatures of both

hydrographs predicts that spring-time riverine temperatures between April 22 and May 6 will be generally cooler


30

under Dry Alt 36 (after May 6 both hydrographs exhibit the same flows and modeled temperatures are effectively

identical). This is especially true for the period April 15 to 29.

Temperature differences between the Rod Dry and Dry Alt 3 Alternatives were determined by simulating each

alternative under: 1) a constant 48 °F release temperature from Lewiston Dam, and 2) average and extreme

hydrometeorological conditions. In combination, these conditions of simulation provided relative comparisons

between alternatives, isolating the effects of flow change in the river. Model output was requested for April 15 to

May 6 (to illustrate the period of greatest change), and at 5 locations, including Lewiston Douglas City, North Fork,

Burnt Ranch, and Weitchpec.

The following figures illustrate the differences in riverine temperatures at five locations downstream of Lewiston

Dam for the period between April 15 and May 6 under average hydrometeorological conditions. The Dry Alt 3

hydrograph ascending limbs begin April 22, the Dry ROD hydrograph ascending limb begins April 27. The

descending limb of both hydrographs begin on May 6. For the most part, temperature response after May 5 will

be practically identical for both hydrographs.

Figure 21. Comparison of Dry ROD (DRY_ORIG) and Dry Alt 3 (DRY_ALT#) temperature forecasts under Average hydrometeorological conditions and a constant 48°F release temperature from Lewiston Dam. The locations illustrated are Lewiston (48°F), Douglas City (DGC), North Fork (NFH), Burnt Ranch, and Weitchpec (WPC).

Comparison of model results under all the same conditions, except for the use of extreme hydrometeorology,

show similar but more extreme responses in temperature along the river (Figure 15).


31

Figure 22. Comparison of Dry ROD (DRY_ORIG) and Dry Alt 3 (DRY_ALT#) temperature forecasts under Extreme hydrometeorological conditions and a constant 48°F release temperature from Lewiston Dam. The locations illustrated are Lewiston (48°F), Douglas City (DGC), North Fork (NFH), Burnt Ranch, and Weitchpec (WPC).

The model results suggest that in both cases (Average or Extreme hydrometeorological conditions) Dry Alt 3

causes temperatures to be lower, further upstream, earlier, as compared to the Dry ROD hydrograph. In the case

of average meteorological conditions, the maximum temperature difference is roughly 1.5°F. Under extreme

conditions, the maximum difference is roughly 2.5°F.

Dry ROD - Under extreme meteorological5 conditions modeling suggests that optimal temperatures (55.4°F) may

be reached upstream of Burnt Ranch beginning ~April 26 continuing at least thru May 6.

Dry Alt 3 - Under extreme meteorological conditions modeling suggests that optimal temperatures (55.4°F) may

be reached upstream of Burnt Ranch beginning ~April 21 continuing at least thru May 6.

Dry ROD - Under average meteorological6 conditions modeling suggests that optimal temperatures (55.4°F) may

be reached at Weitchpec beginning ~April 25 continuing at least thru May 6.

Dry Alt 3 - Under average meteorological conditions modeling suggests that optimal temperatures (55.4°F) may

exist at Weitchpec prior to April 22 continuing at least thru May 6.

Therefore, based on model results, juvenile salmonids will experience better temperatures further downstream

earlier under Dry Alt 3 as compared to the ROD DRY hydrograph.

5 The synthesis of the extreme weekly meteorology each week over a 20 year period of record, first compiled for the Flow

Evaluation Study by the USFWS. 6 The synthesis of the average weekly meteorology each week over a 20 year period of record, first compiled for the Flow

Evaluation Study by the USFWS.


32

3.6.3. Juvenile Habitat Differences, Dry Alt 3 versus ROD Dry Hydrographs

The Flow Workgroup’s consensus spring release recommendation included an 8 day 2,000 cfs bench occurring

prior to the 4,500 cfs peak. The objective of this bench is to improve rearing habitat and temperature conditions

for the large number of natural young of the year salmonids rearing in the project reach prior to the high flow

peak. This analysis is focused on evaluating the difference in rearing habitat between the 2,000 cfs bench (April 24

– May 1) and the base flow ROD alternative (300 cfs dam release).

We evaluated rearing habitat data developed from 10 systemic sample units using two-dimensional

hydrodynamic habitat models and 7 channel rehabilitation sites (post-construction) using streamflow to habitat

mapping data. This information was used to evaluate the difference in habitat between a 2,000 cfs release from

Lewiston Dam (consensus Dry Alt 3 recommendation) and winter base flow conditions (the ROD alternative).

Habitat area density (m² habitat/m river channel) was calculated for each site and the percent difference between

the Dry Alt 3 habitat values versus the ROD Dry habitat values were calculated. Percent difference was calculated

by (X-Y)/Y*100, where X was the Dry Alt 3 value and Y was the ROD Dry value. Therefore values over zero depict

an increase in habitat when considering Dry Alt 3. Five out of 7 rehabilitation sites increases in both optimal and

total habitat when comparing Dry Alt 3 to the ROD Dry values (Figure 23). Seven out of 10 two-dimensional model

GRTS sites demonstrated increases in optimal habitat and 5 out of 10 GRTS sites showed increases in total habitat.

It should be noted that the largest differences occurred on the positive side and all negative differences were

relatively small.

Upper Dark Gulch and Lower Dark Gulch (Bucktail) channel rehabilitation site data is included in this analysis.

Since being mapped, significant changes have occurred at both these sites where low flow side channel entrances

have filled in and do not flow until higher discharges. Also revegetation has occurred between the base-flow and

2,000 cfs edge, likely providing additional cover habitat. When considering 2013 conditions, there is likely more

optimal habitat at higher flows (additional cover) and an even greater difference in the mean habitat area

densities at the channel rehabilitation sites than displayed in Figure 23 (i.e. The ROD baseflow mean would be

even lower than the alternative due to a lack of a low flow side channel).


33

Figure 23. Difference in habitat density (m² habitat/m of main channel length) for presmolt Chinook and coho salmon at 7 channel rehabilitation sites (post-construction) and 10 systemic two-dimensional hydrodynamic model sample units for the flow workgroup consensus recommendation (Dry Alt 3-2,000 cfs dam release) and the ROD Dry year alternative (ROD - winter base flow condition). Optimal habitat includes areas that simultaneously meet depth/velocity and cover criteria. Total habitat is defined as areas that meet any combination of depth/velocity and cover criteria.

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Dif

fere

nce

in h

abit

at d

en

sity

(m

²/m

)

Site

Optimal Presmolt Habitat

Rehab Site

2D GRTS

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

Dif

fere

nce

in h

abit

at d

en

sity

(m

²/m

)

Site

Total Presmolt Habitat

Rehab Site

2D GRTS


34

3.7. Other Modeling and Analyses

Sediment transport analyses of Dry Alt 1, Dry Alt 2, and the Normal Alt by the Physical workgroup are included in

Appendix B - Flow Schedule Proposal 1 (Dry Alt 1), Appendix C - Flow Schedule Proposal 2 (Dry Alt 2), and

Appendix D - Flow Schedule Proposal 2 (Normal Alt) respectively.

3.8. Uncertainties and Other Considerations

Uncertainties include, but are not limited to:

1. Stream gage accuracy

2. Temperature gage accuracy

3. Operations following monthly forecasts

4. Daily or hourly variations in operations

5. Outmigrant timing

6. Sediment transport rates

7. Impacts on terrestrial animal species

Other considerations this year include:

1. Gravel augmentation plans

2. Channel rehabilitation plans

3. Public safety

4. Recreation

5. Ceremonial releases

3.9. Workgroup Consensus Recommendation to the TMC

The Flow Scheduling workgroup met March 28 and formulated a flow hydrograph recommendation to the TMC. Figure 24 is the graphical representation of the workgroup’s recommendation and includes the ROD Dry hydrograph for reference. The restoration release volume is 453,000 acre-feet. Table 7 lists the daily flows of the consensus hydrograph.

Supporting analyses for the workgroup recommendation were completed in early April and reviewed. This report

summarizes the final recommendation and supporting analyses to the TMC for approval on April 12th, 2013.


35

Figure 24: Flow Workgroup Recommendation, Dry Alt 3, for WY2013 Restoration Flow Release.


36

Table 7 shows dates and recommended flows throughout all periods when flow rates change and vary from

winter (300 cfs) and summer (450 cfs) baseflows. Extended periods of stable flows are consolidated (indicated

with double lines between rows). The two-day peak flow of 4,500 cfs is bold.

Table 7: Recommended daily flow schedule.

Date Day River Release

(cfs)

Date Day River Release

(cfs)

1-Oct-2012 Mon 450 25-May-2013 Sat 2,000 15-Oct-2012 Mon 450 26-May-2013 Sun 2,000 16-Oct-2012 Tue 300 27-May-2013 Mon 1,708 20-Apr-2013 Sat 300 28-May-2013 Tue 1,635 21-Apr-2013 Sun 300 29-May-2013 Wed 1,564 22-Apr-2013 Mon 300 30-May-2013 Thu 1,497 23-Apr-2013 Tue 1,000 31-May-2013 Fri 1,443 24-Apr-2013 Wed 2,000 1-Jun-2013 Sat 1,371 25-Apr-2013 Thu 2,000 2-Jun-2013 Sun 1,300 26-Apr-2013 Fri 2,000 3-Jun-2013 Mon 1,220 27-Apr-2013 Sat 2,000 4-Jun-2013 Tue 1,200 28-Apr-2013 Sun 2,000 5-Jun-2013 Wed 1,200 29-Apr-2013 Mon 2,000 6-Jun-2013 Thu 1,200 30-Apr-2013 Tue 2,000 7-Jun-2013 Fri 1,053 1-May-2013 Wed 2,000 8-Jun-2013 Sat 1,007 2-May-2013 Thu 2,400 9-Jun-2013 Sun 964 3-May-2013 Fri 3,300 10-Jun-2013 Mon 922 4-May-2013 Sat 4,500 11-Jun-2013 Tue 883 5-May-2013 Sun 4,500 12-Jun-2013 Wed 845 6-May-2013 Mon 4,306 13-Jun-2013 Thu 808 7-May-2013 Tue 4,121 14-Jun-2013 Fri 774 8-May-2013 Wed 3,943 15-Jun-2013 Sat 740 9-May-2013 Thu 3,773 16-Jun-2013 Sun 708

10-May-2013 Fri 3,611 17-Jun-2013 Mon 700 11-May-2013 Sat 3,455 18-Jun-2013 Tue 700 12-May-2013 Sun 3,307 19-Jun-2013 Wed 700 13-May-2013 Mon 3,164 20-Jun-2013 Thu 594 14-May-2013 Tue 3,028 21-Jun-2013 Fri 568 15-May-2013 Wed 2,897 22-Jun-2013 Sat 544 16-May-2013 Thu 2,773 23-Jun-2013 Sun 521 17-May-2013 Fri 2,653 24-Jun-2013 Mon 498 18-May-2013 Sat 2,539 25-Jun-2013 Tue 477 19-May-2013 Sun 2,430 26-Jun-2013 Wed 450 20-May-2013 Mon 2,325 30-Sep-2013 Mon 450 21-May-2013 Tue 2,225

22-May-2013 Wed 2,129 23-May-2013 Thu 2,000 24-May-2013 Fri 2,000


37

3.10. Consideration of Flow Schedule by the TAMWG

The workgroup recommendation was presented to the TAMWG on April 1, 2013. At that time, the 3 supporting

analyses on sediment transport, water temperature, and available habitat were pending. The TAMWG forwarded

a recommendation to the TMC to schedule the ROD hydrograph with the addition of the monitoring benches.

3.11. Recommendation by the TMC

3.11.1. Presentation and Discussion

On April 3, 2013 the workgroup’s recommendation was provided to the TMC. At that time, the 3 supporting

analyses on sediment transport, water temperature, and available habitat were pending. The TMC directed the

workgroup to complete analyses contrasting the Dry ROD and Dry Alt 3 hydrographs.

[Insert TMC April 12th, 2013 decision]

3.11.2. Schedule Graph and Table

[pending TMC and regional approvals]

The TMC recommendation (Appendix H) is forwarded to the USBR and USFWS Regional Directors for approval

(Appendix I).

Implementation of these recommendations will be covered in a future report, “Flow Releases and Diversions on

the Trinity River, Water Year 2013.”


38

4. PUBLIC SAFETY PREPARATIONS

5. REFERENCES

Graham Matthews and Associates 2012. Trinity River Wy 2011 Sediment Transport Monitoring Final Report, Trinity River Restoration Project, Prepared for U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Northern California Area Office, Shasta Lake, CA.

USFWS, HVT (1999) Trinity River flow evaluation final report. Report to the U.S. Department of the Interior, June

1999, from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata, CA and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Hoopa, CA. Available online at

http://odp.trrp.net/Data/Documents/Details.aspx?document=226.

[to be completed]

http://odp.trrp.net/Data/Documents/Details.aspx?document=226


Appendix A: Proposal Template 39

Appendix A: PROPOSED FLOW SCHEDULE ALTERNATIVES TEMPLATE

Proposed Flow Schedule Alternatives Template

Trinity River Restoration Program

DRAFT Version Date: 1/28/2013 12:13 PM

Prepared By:

Eric Peterson, Bureau of Reclamation

Tim Hayden, Yurok Tribe

Rod Wittler, Bureau of Reclamation

Ernest Clarke, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service



Introduction

This document serves as a template for submittal of flow schedule alternatives to the Trinity River Restoration

Program. The intent of this template is to standardize the submittal of proposed flow schedule alternatives and

flow experiments to contribute to the adaptive management and assessment program through improved

documentation, reporting, analyses and interpretation of scientific information. The standardized template will

improve the documentation of the purpose, rationale, objectives, hypotheses, predicted response and anticipated

contribution to adaptive management (learning) from implementing the proposed flow release alternative or flow

experiment. In addition, the standardize template will identify management constraints and provides supporting

information for technical staff and policy makers (TAMWG and TMC) to consider when deliberating and adopting

the annual Trinity River flow schedule.

The intent of the Proposed Flow Schedule Alternatives Template is to standardize the submittal of flow schedule

alternatives, improve documentation, analyses, and interpretation for adaptive management feedback. We

expect that the increased investment in time and workload during the flow planning process will result in

substantial efficiencies when compiling the Flow Schedule Briefing Memo (to the TAMWG and TMC) and Annual

Flow Release Report, as well as contribute to the Proposed Adaptive Flow Experiments document and Current

Knowledge Assessment reports that are being planned by the Flow Workgroup for future years.

The proposal template for WY2013 is identical that from 2012 except for (a) the organization of some information

into tables that match the Trinity River Flow Evaluation Final Report (TRFEFR) and the Integrated Assessment Plan

(IAP), (b) specific inclusion of what has been learned since the TRFEFR under section II, and (c) specification of a

descriptive title.

The following template will be submitted in support of the Flow Scheduler (hydrograph) for consideration by the

TRRP Flow Schedule Workgroup.

Flow Schedule Alternatives Template:

1) Descriptive Title

2) Purpose

Describe the purpose of the proposed flow schedule alternative or adaptive management flow

experiment. Include a description of the flow release hydrograph and detailed description of the

intended results/outcome (physical or biological) of the proposed alternative.

3) Rationale

Describe the rationale for the proposed flow schedule alternative or adaptive management flow

experiment. Describe the reason for variation from the water-year specific ROD flow schedule (i.e.

adaptive experiment, monitoring needs, implementation related, etc.). Identify information that has

been learned since the completion of the TRFEFR either from flows on the Trinity River or from

external sources.



4) Hypothesis/Predicted Response

Complete the following table similar to TRFEFR tables 8.5-8.9 except with relative targets, hypotheses,

and effects to identify differences between the proposal and the ROD hydrograph

(modify/add/remove dates as needed). Include any attributes lost with the proposed hydrograph as

well as those gained. If appropriate, add further description of the hypothesis and predicted response

(physical and/or biological) of the proposed flow schedule alternative or adaptive management flow

experiment after the table.





Apr 22 - Apr 28

500 Spring baseflow

Apr 29 - May 5

2,500 Spring baseflow/ Ascending limb

May 5 - May 7

2,500 - 6,000

Ascending limb

May 7 - May 11

6,000 Snowmelt Peak

May 11 - Jun 10

6,000 - 2,000

Descending Limb

Jun 10 - Jul 9

2,000 Descending limb bench

Jul 9 - Jul 22

2,000 - 450 Descending Limb

Jul 22 - Sep 30

Summer Baseflow

5) Effect on TRFEFR Management Targets

Complete the following table describing how the proposal is expected to perform, relative to the

standard ROD hydrograph, for each top-level IAP objective. If appropriate, further describe the effect

or impact on water-year specific TRFEFR management targets and expected physical or biological

impacts following the table; include description or quantification of the scale of variation from TRFEFR

management targets.









6) Recommended Modeling and/Technical Analyses

Document and describe any technical analyses or modeling that may inform the Flow Workgroup and

other managers to evaluate the potential physical and/or biological consequences of the proposed

flow schedule alternative or adaptive management flow experiment.

7) Monitoring Plan

Provide a brief description of the monitoring plan or assessment that will evaluate the physical or

biological response of implementing the proposed flow schedule alternative or adaptive management

flow experiment. Include a funding plan for the required monitoring and if it is not already covered by

the existing annual program of work. Attach and/or reference the investigation plan if currently

covered by the existing annual program of work.

8) Uncertainties/Potential Risks/Confounding Variables

Identify any uncertainties or potential physical or biological risks associated with implementation of

the proposed flow schedule alternative or adaptive management flow experiment. Identify

confounding variables that may influence the intended physical or biological response or confound

monitoring results and adaptive management feedback.

9) Other constraints and management considerations

Identify and describe other potential constraints or management considerations of the proposed flow

schedule alternative or adaptive management flow experiment. This may include; implementation

related constraints, biological impacts, fishery harvest impacts, cultural impacts, landowner concerns,

infrastructure impacts, etc.


Appendix B: Proposal, Dry Alt 1 43

Appendix B: FLOW SCHEDULE PROPOSAL 1 (DRY ALT 1)

Joint 2013 Physical, Riparian and Habitat Assessment Team Flow Release Proposal: DRY

YEAR ALT-1

Purpose

The Physical Workgroup/Habitat Team requests a modification in the peak portion of the 2013 release

hydrograph from the Record of Decision (ROD) flow hydrographs. The flow recommendations for higher

magnitude, shorter duration peak release in WY13 is only for this water year and does not apply to out years.

We have prepared one alternate hydrograph for a ROD NORMAL YEAR and two alternatives for a ROD DRY YEAR

using the “2013_flow_scheduler” spreadsheet. This proposal describes the rational, purpose, and hydrograph

components of DRY YEAR ALT-1.

We propose that the peak portion of the 2013 ROD DRY YEAR release hydrograph be modified from the ROD

prescribed five-day duration peak of 4,500 cfs to a two-day peak of 7,500 cfs. The proposed hydrograph maintains

the total ROD DRY YEAR release volume by increasing the rate of hydrograph recession following the peak and

reaching the summer baseflow release discharge of 450 cfs several days earlier than the ROD DRY YEAR

hydrograph.

The recession limb also includes flow benches at a discharge of 2,000 cfs, 1,200 cfs, and 700 cfs. Each flow

benches consists of a four-day period where flow is maintained at a constant discharge. The purpose of the flow

benches are to allow for a post construction/evolution habitat assessment of the Dark Gulch rehabilitation site.

These benches will also be used for collection of calibration/validation data at a future rehabilitation site where

2D hydraulic and habitat modeling will be conducted.



The rate of recession and steady stay flow benches are also designed to increase success of seed germination,

maturation, and root development within the riparian zone.

Rationale

DRY YEAR ALT-1 Rising Limb

The initiation date of the DRY YEAR ALT-1 hydrograph is the same and the ROD DRY Year hydrograph. The rate of

rise initially remains the same, but then increases to produce the peak flow of 7,500 cfs.

DRY YEAR ALT-1 Hydrograph Peak

There are several objectives for shifting from five-day duration peak of 4,500 cfs to a two-day peak of 7,500 cfs.

They are to:

(1) Increase the total sediment transport given available release water volume to closer meet sediment

transport objectives defined in the Trinity River Flow Evaluation Final Report (TRFEFR, prepared by USFWS

& HVT, 1999);

(2) Increase the mobilization of sediments from the Rush Creek Delta;

(3) Induce fine sediment flushing and gravel sorting at the Upper Junction City rehabilitation site that was

constructed in 2012; and

(4) Improve post construction evaluation of the Dark Gulch rehabilitation site.

The rationales for each of these objectives are explained below.

Increase sediment transport to meet TRFEFR sediment transport objectives

The Physical Workgroup reviewed the sediment transport measurements collected during the 2004 to 2012 at its

February 2013 meeting. The review was prepared by Graham Matthews (Graham Matthews and Associates,

GMA). A significant finding in the review is that the observed total bedload sediment transport is much less than

amounts forecast using the bedload transport relationships developed by the TRFEFR.

Figure 1 compares the total bedload sediment transport estimates for the Trinity River forecast using relationships

developed in the 1999 TRFEFR with observation bedload sediment transport made in the past several DRY and

NORMAL water years. This data is tabulated in Table1, which appears at the end of this memorandum. Figure 1

shows observations made at two of the four sediment sampling stations: the Trinity River at Lewiston (TRAL); and

the Trinity River at Limekiln Gulch (TRLG). Results for the Trinity River below Grass Valley Creek (TRVG) sampling

station are not shown because the TRFEFR did not develop a sediment transport relationship for this site. The

Trinity River at Douglas City (TRDG) site is not shown because this site picks up sediment and flow inputs from

tributaries which obscure effects of the ROD management flows.



Comparison of projected and observed bedload sediment transport rates show that the most of the observed

values are only a fraction of TRFEFR projections for ROD DRY YEAR and ROD NORMAL YEAR hydrographs. Some of

the observation or DRY Year releases at TRAL are larger than forecast, but this is thought to reflect the effect of

gravel augmentation directly upstream from the TRAL sampling station. The observations at the Limekiln Gulch

(TRLG) station show are all much less than the TRFEFR projections.

The TRRP Integrated Assessment Plan (IAP) Objective 1 is to Create and maintain spatially complex morphology

and one of the primary recommendations of the TRFEFR was to mobilize and scour the bed with flow releases

ranging from 4,500 to 11,000 cfs. Observed bedload sediment transport indicates the need for higher peak

releases to reach the sediment transport rates required to achieve these goals. The DRY YEAR ALT 1 hydrograph is

designed to increase the bedload transport for this release year and to better match the rates forecast for a ROD

DRY YEAR by the TRFEFR.

The Physical Workgroup developed estimates of the bedload sediment transport for ROD WET, ROD DRY, ROD

NORMAL, and the DRY YEAR ALT-1 hydrographs using observed sediment transport relationships developed for

the 2011 Water Year Release by GMA (2012). The bedload sediment transport estimates for TRAL and TRGV are

shown in Figure 2. We estimate that the DRY YEAR ALT-1 hydrograph will yield similar bedload sediment transport

as observed during ROD NORMAL YEAR releases. Note that this is still far less than the TRFEFR bedload transport

projection for a ROD NORMAL YEAR.

The Physical Workgroup is investigating how to better specify transport rates to achieve TRFEFR goals in light of

the improved record of sediment transport observations collected since ROD flows were initiated. Observations of

the DRY YEAR ALT. 1 hydrograph will provide important information to guide this analysis while also providing a

better match to bedload sediment transport targets.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

TRFEDRY

TRFENORMAL

2007DRY

2008NORMAL

2009DRY

2010NORMAL

2012NORMAL

Be

dlo

ad T

ran

spo

rt (

Ton

s)


Figure 1(a): Bedload Transport for Trinity River at Lewiston (TRAL)> 8.0 mm Size Class

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

TRFEDRY

TRFENORMAL

2007DRY

2008NORMAL

2009DRY

2010NORMAL

2012NORMAL

Be

dlo

ad T

ran

spo

rt (

Ton

s)


Figure 1(b): Bedload Transport for Trinity River at Lewiston (TRAL)0.5mm - 8.0 mm Size Class

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

TRFEDRY

TRFENORMAL

2007DRY

2008NORMAL

2009DRY

2010NORMAL

2012NORMAL

Be

dlo

ad T

ran

spo

rt (

Ton

s)


Figure 1(c): Bedload Transport for Trinity River at Limekiln Gulch (TRLG)> 8.0 mm Size Class

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

TRFEDRY

TRFENORMAL

2007DRY

2008NORMAL

2009DRY

2010NORMAL

2012NORMAL

Be

dlo

ad T

ran

spo

rt (

Ton

s)


Figure 1(d): Bedload Transport for Trinity River at Limekiln Gulch (TRLG)0.5mm - 8.0 mm Size Class



Increase mobilization of sediments from the Rush Creek Delta

Management goals for the Rush Creek delta developed by the TRFEFR are to transport coarse sediment through

the Mainstem at a rate equal to the tributary input downstream of Rush Creek.

Aggradation at the Rush Creek Delta can be qualitatively assessed using water surface elevation measurements at

the upstream crest of the Rush Creek Delta. A recent series of measurements is shown in Figure 3. The drop in

water surface between 2009 and 2011 indicate that the releases in 2010 and 2011 were effective in moving

accumulated sediment from the delta. The 0.85 foot rise in water surface feet in the two years following the 2011

release indicates the delta has aggraded.

The Physical Workgroup suspects that this is the result of the wet 2012 fall. The precipitation events in late

November and early December 2012 are thought to have induced large sediment tributary inputs into the

tributary deltas below the Trinity Dam, including Rush Creek9. Visual observations by TRRP staff and anecdotal

information from local residents provide additional verification that the fall 2012 storm events deposited large

amounts of new sediment in the delta10. Although the 2013 ROD release is likely to be a DRY or NORMAL water

year, the tributary sediment inputs are more typical of a WET year.

The increased peak discharge proposed for the DRY YEAR ALT-1 hydrograph will increase the amount of sediment

transported from the Rush Creek and other deltas. This will help to achieve TRFEFR objectives for delta

management and also supply coarse gravel to downstream areas.

9 Rush Creek is not gaged. However, the USGS is provisionally reporting that their gage on Indian Creek reached a stage of

3.55 feet, which would make it the fourth highest stage recorded in nine years of record. 10

Personal communication with Andreas Krause, Trinity River Restoration Program.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

ROD WET ROD NORMAL ROD DRY DRY ALT-1

Re

lati

ve S

edim

en

t Tr

ansp

ort

(%

)

WY2013 Flow Alternative

Figure 2(a): WY2013 DRY ALT1 - Estimated Relative Bedload Transport Trinity River at Lewiston

Transport estimates based on rating curves from GMA WY2011 report Relative transport shown as % of total bedload transport at Lewiston for a ROD Wet year releas

Qs (0.5 - 8 mm) Qs (> 8mm)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Re

lati

ve S

edim

en

t Tr

ansp

ort

(%

)


Figure 2(b): WY2013 DRY ALT1 - Estimated Relative Bedload Transport Trinity River below Grass Valley Creek

Transport estimates based on rating curves from GMA WY2011 report Relative transport shown as % of total bedload transport at Lewiston for a ROD We

Qs (0.5 - 8 mm) Relative Qs (%)



Induce fine sediment flushing and gravel sorting at the Upper Junction City rehabilitation site

The Upper Junction City rehabilitation project was constructed in 2012. One of the project features is a side

channel feature designed to operate at higher flows. The late November/early December 2012 storm events

caused some adjustments and deposited fine sediment in the side channel, which has impaired its function.

Hydraulic modeling indicates that a minimum flow of 7,000 cfs would flush the fine sediments and induce gravel

sorting within the side-channel, thus restoring its full functionality11.

The increased peak discharge proposed for the DRY YEAR ALT-1 hydrograph will provide sufficient flow to remove

accumulated fine sediment from the side-channel/

Conduct Post-construction/Evolution Evaluation of a Channel Rehabilitation Site

The Upper Dark Gulch project was constructed in 2008. Pre- and post-construction flow- habitat assessments

were conducted. Since then, the site has incurred high flows (>11,000 cfs) and significant change has occurred.

The habitat team proposed to return and evaluate the change in flow-habitat relationship there. This task was

funded for 2013, these benches are necessary to complete this assessment. Project habitat scientists intend to

collect hydraulic data at during peak flow releases to allow calibration of hydraulic models. The calibration is more

accurate if a larger range of flow may be observed. Increasing the flow peak this year would meet this objective.

DRY YEAR ALT-1 Recession Limb

The recession limb of the DRY YEAR ALT-1 hydrograph initially drops at a more rapid rate than the ROD DRY YEAR

Hydrograph until reaching a discharge level of 2,000 cfs. The increased recession rate is to compensate for the

additional flow released during the hydrograph peak and thereby maintaining the total flow volume release at the

ROD mandated value.

Upon reaching 2, 000 cfs, there is a four day steady state release of 2,000 cfs (i.e., flow bench), which is designed

to allow the Habitat team to collect flow velocity and stage data at the Dark Gulch rehabilitation site.

There are two additional flow benches at 1,200 cfs and at 700 cfs, which are designed to allow the Habitat Team

to collect flow velocity and stage data.

11 Personal communication with David Gaeuman, Trinity River Restoration Program

1,780.2

1,780.4

1,780.6

1,780.8

1,781.0

1,781.2

1,781.4

1,781.6

Nov-2009 Nov-2011 Mar-2013

Wat

er

Surf

ace

Ele

vati

on

(Fe

et)

Observation Date

Figure 3: Water Surface Elevation at Crestof Rush Creek Delta



The rate of recession below 2,000 cfs is also set to achieve a maximum stage drop of 0.10 foot per day at the

Trinity River at North Fork gage. This is the rate recommended by John Bair and is designed to promote successful

seed and root development of riparian trees.12

Hypothesis/Predicted Response





Aril 28 – April 30

1,500 – 4,000 Rising Limb No Change in start date or initial part of rising limb

May 1 6,000 Rising Limb Additional day of rising limb

May 2 - May 3

7,500 Peak Increase Peak magnitude – Decrease Peak duration to two days

The higher peak is expected to raise total bedload sediment to the range forecast by the TRFEFR.

May 4 – May 18

6,500 – 2,000 Recession Limb Increase rate of recession to compensate for increased peak volume.

May 18 - May 21

2,000 cfs Recession Limb Bench

Allow for flow measurements at

steady state flow bench;

May 22 – June 21

2,000 cfs – 450 cfs

Recession Limb Recession includes two four-

day flow benches at 1,200 cfs

and 700 cfs; The recession rate

is set such that the maximum

daily stage drop does not

exceed 0.10 foot at evaluated

at the Trinity River at North

Fork Gage.

June 22 – June 25 -

450 cfs Summer Baseflow

Summer baseflow level reached

four days earlier than standard

DRY YEAR release.

Effect on TRFEFR Management Targets


Coarse and fine sediment transport is required to achieve many of the sub-objective goals under IAP Objective 1. Observations have shown that the current ROD hydrographs are transporting only a fraction of the

12 Personal communication with John Bair, McBain and Trush.



desired sediment volume. Increasing the peak flow for this year’s DRY YEAR release will result in observed sediment transport more closely matched TRFEFR forecast goals.





Manage recession to encourage seed germination, root development, and survival of riparian vegetation.


Recession rate promotes frog hatchling survival.

Recommended Modeling and/Technical Analyses

Monitoring Plan

Annual sediment monitoring program conducted by Graham Matthews and Associates will evaluate impact on

sediment transport rates. Information will be used by Physical Workgroup to modify long-term sediment

management strategy.

Monitoring of crest water surface elevations at the Rush Creek Delta will help inform analyses to determine if

delta management objectives are being met. These measurements will be supplemented by topographic analysis

as data becomes available.

Annual Riparian Monitoring will evaluate effects of release of riparian recruitment.

Uncertainties/Potential Risks/Confounding Variables

None identified.

References

Graham Matthews & Associates, 2008. WY 2007 Sediment Transport Monitoring Report. Report for Trinity River

Restoration Program, US Bureau of Reclamation, Shasta Lake, CA.









Graham Matthews and Associates 2012. Trinity River WY 2011 Sediment Transport Monitoring Final Report,

Trinity River Restoration Program, Prepared for U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Northern

California Area Office, Shasta Lake, CA.

Graham Matthews & Associates, In Review. WY 2012 Sediment Transport Monitoring Report. Report for Trinity

River Restoration Program, US Bureau of Reclamation, Shasta Lake, CA.

US Fish and Wildlife Service and Hoopa Valley Tribe, 1999. Trinity River Flow Evaluation Final Report, Arcata, CA,

pp. 400.

Table 1: Forecast and Observed Bedload Sediment Transport at Lewiston and Limekiln Gulch Gaging Stations

for Normal and Dry Years Since 2007

Water Year

ROD Release Type

Bedload Transport 0.5 mm – 8mm

Bedload Transport > 8mm

TRFEFR Estimate

(Tons)

Observed* (Tons)

Observed as Percent of TRFEFR Estimate

TRFEFR Estimate

(Tons)

Observed* (Tons)


Trinity River at Lewiston (TRAL)

2012# NORMAL 370 80 22% 3509 222 6%

2010 NORMAL 370 39 11% 3509 550 16%

2009 DRY 16 65 415% 212 260 123%

2008 NORMAL 370 236 64% 3509 863 25%

2007 DRY 16 77 491% 212 93 44%

Trinity River at Limekiln Gulch (TRLG)

2012# NORMAL 1804 614 34% 2861 60 2%

2010 NORMAL 1804 666 37% 2861 364 13%

2009 DRY 404 236 58% 395 34 9%

2008 NORMAL 1804 1330 74% 2861 772 27%

2007 DRY 404 278 69% 395 12 3%

* - Source: GMA, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, in Review.

# - Provisional – in review.


Appendix C: Proposal, Dry Alt 2 51

Appendix C: FLOW SCHEDULE PROPOSAL 2 (DRY ALT 2)

Joint2013 Physical, Riparian and Habitat Assessment Team Flow Release Proposal: DRY

YEAR ALT-2

Purpose






components of DRY YEAR ALT-2.

We propose that the peak portion of the 2013 ROD DRY YEAR release hydrograph be modified from the ROD


the total ROD DRY YEAR release volume by increasing the rate of hydrograph recession following the peak and

reaching the summer baseflow release discharge of 450 cfs several days earlier than the ROD DRY YEAR

hydrograph.

The recession limb also includes flow benches at a discharge of 2,000 cfs, 1,200 cfs, and 700 cfs. Each flow

benches consists of a four-day period where flow is maintained at a constant discharge. The purpose of the flow

benches are to allow for a post construction/evolution habitat assessment of the Dark Gulch rehabilitation site.



These benches will also be used for collection of calibration/validation data at a future rehabilitation site where

2D hydraulic and habitat modeling will be conducted.



The DRY YEAR ALT-2 hydrograph is identical to the DRY YEAR ALT-1 hydrograph with the exception of the dates of

high flow release. The DRY YEAR ALT-2 hydrograph starts four days later than the DRY YEAR ALT-1 hydrograph and

ROD DRY YEAR hydrograph. The intent of the later start date is to match the date when summer baseflow starts

under a ROD DRY YEAR hydrograph, which might aid meeting water temperature goals.

Rationale

DRY YEAR ALT-2 Rising Limb

The initiation date of the DRY YEAR ALT-.2 hydrograph is four days later than the ROD DRY Year hydrograph. The

rate of rise initially remains the same, but then increases to produce the peak flow of 7,500 cfs.

DRY YEAR ALT-2 Hydrograph Peak


They are to:



& HVT, 1999);





























releases to reach the sediment transport rates required to achieve these goals. The DRY YEAR ALT 1 hydrograph is

designed to increase the bedload transport for this release year and to better match the rates forecast for a ROD

DRY YEAR by the TRFEFR.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

TRFEDRY

TRFENORMAL

2007DRY

2008NORMAL

2009DRY

2010NORMAL

2012NORMAL

Be

dlo

ad T

ran

spo

rt (

Ton

s)



0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

TRFEDRY

TRFENORMAL

2007DRY

2008NORMAL

2009DRY

2010NORMAL

2012NORMAL

Be

dlo

ad T

ran

spo

rt (

Ton

s)



0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

TRFEDRY

TRFENORMAL

2007DRY

2008NORMAL

2009DRY

2010NORMAL

2012NORMAL

Be

dlo

ad T

ran

spo

rt (

Ton

s)



0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

TRFEDRY

TRFENORMAL

2007DRY

2008NORMAL

2009DRY

2010NORMAL

2012NORMAL

Be

dlo

ad T

ran

spo

rt (

Ton

s)






NORMAL, and the DRY YEAR ALT-2 hydrographs using observed sediment transport relationships developed for

the 2011 Water Year Release by GMA (2012). The bedload sediment transport estimates for TRAL and TRGV are

shown in Figure 2. We estimate that the DRY YEAR ALT-2 hydrograph will yield similar bedload sediment transport

as observed during ROD NORMAL YEAR releases. Note that this is still far less than the TRFEFR bedload transport

projection for a ROD NORMAL YEAR.



the DRY YEAR ALT-2 hydrograph will provide important information to guide this analysis while also providing a

better match to bedload sediment transport targets.


















0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Re

lati

ve S

edim

en

t Tr

ansp

ort

(%

)


Figure 2(a): WY2013 DRY ALT-2: Estimated Relative Bedload Transport Trinity River at Lewiston

Transport estimates based on rating curves from GMA WY2011 report Relative transport shown as % of total bedload transport at Lewiston for a ROD Wet year releas

Qs (0.5 - 8 mm) Qs (> 8mm)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Re

lati

ve S

edim

en

t Tr

ansp

ort

(%

)


Figure 2(b): WY2013 DRY 2: Estimated Relative Bedload Transport Trinity River below Grass Valley Creek

Transport estimates based on rating curves from GMA WY2011 report Relative transport shown as % of total bedload transport at Lewiston for a ROD Wet ye




The increased peak discharge proposed for the DRY YEAR ALT-2 hydrograph will increase the amount of sediment

transported from the Rush Creek and other deltas. This will help to achieve TRFEFR objectives for delta








The increased peak discharge proposed for the DRY YEAR ALT-2 hydrograph will provide sufficient flow to remove

accumulated fine sediment from the side-channel/








DRY YEAR ALT-2 Recession Limb

The recession limb of the DRY YEAR ALT-2 hydrograph initially drops at a more rapid rate than the ROD DRY YEAR

Hydrograph until reaching a discharge level of 2,000 cfs. The increased recession rate is to compensate for the

additional flow released during the hydrograph peak and thereby maintaining the total flow volume release at the

ROD mandated value.


1,780.2

1,780.4

1,780.6

1,780.8

1,781.0

1,781.2

1,781.4

1,781.6

Nov-2009 Nov-2011 Mar-2013

Wat

er

Surf

ace

Ele

vati

on

(Fe

et)

Observation Date




Upon reaching 2, 000 cfs, there is a four day steady state release of 2,000 cfs (i.e., flow bench), which is designed

to allow the Habitat team to collect flow velocity and stage data at the Dark Gulch rehabilitation site.

There are two additional flow benches at 1,200 cfs and at 700 cfs, which are designed to allow the Habitat Team

to collect flow velocity and stage data.



seed and root development of riparian trees.16






April 27 – April 30

300 cfs Winter Baseflow

Delay start date for peak flow release and extend winter baseflow for four days

May 1 – May 4

900 - 4000 Rising Limb Match initial rising limb of ROD DRY YEAR.

May 5 6000 Rising Limb Additional day of rising limb

May 6 - May 7

7500 Peak Increase Peak magnitude – Decrease Peak duration to two days


May 8 – May 22

6500 – 2,000 Recession Limb

Increase rate of recession to compensate for increased peak volume.

May 22- May 25


Allow for flow measurements

at steady state flow bench;

May 25 – June 25

2,000 cfs – 450 cfs

Recession Limb

Recession includes two four-

day flow benches at 1,200 cfs

and 700 cfs; The recession

rate is set such that the

maximum daily stage drop

does not exceed 0.10 foot at

evaluated at the Trinity River

at North Fork Gage.






Coarse and fine sediment transport is required to achieve many of the sub-objective goals under IAP Objective 1. Observations have shown that the current ROD hydrographs are transporting only a fraction of the desired sediment volume. Increasing the peak flow for this year’s DRY YEAR release will result in observed sediment transport more closely matched TRFEFR forecast goals.









Monitoring Plan









None identified.

References

















pp. 400.





Water Year

ROD Release Type



TRFEFR Estimate

(Tons)

Observed* (Tons)


TRFEFR Estimate

(Tons)

Observed* (Tons)



2012# NORMAL 370 80 22% 3509 222 6%

2010 NORMAL 370 39 11% 3509 550 16%

2009 DRY 16 65 415% 212 260 123%

2008 NORMAL 370 236 64% 3509 863 25%

2007 DRY 16 77 491% 212 93 44%


2012# NORMAL 1804 614 34% 2861 60 2%

2010 NORMAL 1804 666 37% 2861 364 13%

2009 DRY 404 236 58% 395 34 9%

2008 NORMAL 1804 1330 74% 2861 772 27%

2007 DRY 404 278 69% 395 12 3%




Appendix D: Proposal, Normal Alt 60

Appendix D: FLOW SCHEDULE PROPOSAL 2 (NORMAL ALT)

Joint2013 Physical, Riparian and Habitat Assessment Team Flow Release Proposal:

NORMAL YEAR ALT-1

Purpose






components of NORMAL YEAR ALT-1.

We propose that the peak portion of the 2013 ROD NORMALYEAR release hydrograph be modified from the ROD


the total ROD NORMAL YEAR release volume by increasing the rate of hydrograph recession following the peak

and reducing the 30-day flow bench at 2,000 cfs to a four-day duration.

The recession limb also includes several three-day or four-day flow benches at a discharge of 4,500 cfs, 3,500 cfs,

2,500 cfs, 2,000 cfs, 1,200 cfs, and 700 cfs. Each flow benches consists of a three-day or four-day period where

flow is maintained at a constant discharge. The purpose of the flow benches are to allow for a post

construction/evolution habitat assessment of the Dark Gulch rehabilitation site. These benches will also be used

for collection of calibration/validation data at a future rehabilitation site where 2D hydraulic and habitat modeling

will be conducted.





Rationale

NORMAL YEAR ALT-1 Rising Limb

The initiation date of the NORMAL YEAR ALT-1 hydrograph is the same and the ROD DRY Year hydrograph. The

rate of rise initially remains the same, but after reaching 6,000 cfs, flow under the NORMAL YEAR ALT-1 continues

to increase to produce the peak flow of 8,500 cfs.

NORMAL YEAR ALT-1 Hydrograph Peak


They are to:



& HVT, 1999);





























releases to reach the sediment transport rates required to achieve these goals. The NORMAL YEAR ALT 1

hydrograph is designed to increase the bedload transport for this release year and to better match the rates

forecast for a ROD NORMAL YEAR by the TRFEFR.


NORMAL, and the NORMAL YEAR ALT-1 hydrographs using observed sediment transport relationships developed

for the 2011 Water Year Release by GMA (2012). The bedload sediment transport estimates for TRAL and TRGV

are shown in Figure 2. We estimate that the NORMAL YEAR ALT-1 hydrograph will yield an increase of

approximately 50% more sediment than would be produced by ROD NORMAL YEAR releases, but this amount is

still less than the TRFEFR bedload transport projection for a ROD NORMAL YEAR.



the NORMAL YEAR ALT. 1 hydrograph will provide important information to guide this analysis while also

providing a better match to bedload sediment transport targets.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

TRFEDRY

TRFENORMAL

2007DRY

2008NORMAL

2009DRY

2010NORMAL

2012NORMAL

Be

dlo

ad T

ran

spo

rt (

Ton

s)



0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

TRFEDRY

TRFENORMAL

2007DRY

2008NORMAL

2009DRY

2010NORMAL

2012NORMAL

Be

dlo

ad T

ran

spo

rt (

Ton

s)



0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

TRFEDRY

TRFENORMAL

2007DRY

2008NORMAL

2009DRY

2010NORMAL

2012NORMAL

Be

dlo

ad T

ran

spo

rt (

Ton

s)



0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

TRFEDRY

TRFENORMAL

2007DRY

2008NORMAL

2009DRY

2010NORMAL

2012NORMAL

Be

dlo

ad T

ran

spo

rt (

Ton

s)



















The increased peak discharge proposed for the NORMAL YEAR ALT.1 hydrograph will increase the amount of

sediment transported from the Rush Creek and other deltas. This will help to achieve TRFEFR objectives for delta





0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

ROD WET ROD NORMAL ROD DRY NORMAL ALT-1

Re

lati

ve S

edim

en

t Tr

ansp

ort

(%

)


Figure 2(a): WY2013 NORMAL 1: Estimated Relative Bedload Transport Trinity River at Lewiston

Transport estimates based on GMA(2012) rating. Relative transport shown as % of total bedload transport at Lewiston for a ROD Wet year release.

Qs (0.5 - 8 mm) Qs (> 8mm)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

ROD WET ROD NORMAL ROD DRY NORMAL ALT-1

Re

lati

ve S

edim

en

t Tr

ansp

ort

(%

)


Figure 2(b): WY2013 NORMAL ALT-1: Estimated Relative Bedload Transport Trinity River below Grass Valley Creek

Transport estimates based on GMA(2012) rating curves. Relative transport shown as % of total bedload transport at Lewiston for a ROD Wet year re










The increased peak discharge proposed for the NORMAL YEAR ALT.1 hydrograph will provide sufficient flow to

remove accumulated fine sediment from the side-channel/








NORMAL YEAR ALT-1 Recession Limb

The recession limb of the NORMAL YEAR ALT.1 hydrograph initially drops at a more rapid rate than the ROD

NORMAL YEAR Hydrograph until reaching a discharge level of 4,500 cfs. The increased recession rate is to

compensate for the additional flow released during the hydrograph peak and thereby maintaining the total flow

volume release at the ROD mandated value. The volume is also compensated by reducing the 30-day flow bench

of 2,000 cfs to a four-day flow bench.

Upon reaching 4,500 cfs, the recession limb contains several three-day or four-day flow benches at a discharge of

4,500 cfs, 3,500 cfs, 2,500 cfs, 2,000 cfs, 1,200 cfs, and 700 cfs. The flow benches are designed to allow the Habitat

Team to collect flow velocity and stage data.


1,780.2

1,780.4

1,780.6

1,780.8

1,781.0

1,781.2

1,781.4

1,781.6

Nov-2009 Nov-2011 Mar-2013

Wat

er

Surf

ace

Ele

vati

on

(Fe

et)

Observation Date






seed and root development of riparian trees.20 The lower recession rate extends the start date of summer

baseflows until July 29 and allows for slightly higher flows than the ROD NORMAL YEAR hydrograph in the last two

weeks of July.






April 22 – April 28

500 cfs Hydrograph step up from Winter Baseflow

No Change

Aril 29– May 7

900 cfs – 6000 cfs

Rising Limb No Change in start date or initial part of ROD NORMAL YEAR rising limb

May 8 - May 9

8500 cfs Peak Increase Peak magnitude – Decrease Peak duration to two days


May 10– May 14

8,500 – 4,500

Initial Recession Limb

Increase rate of recession to compensate for increased peak volume.

May 14 - May 17


Allow for flow

measurements at steady

state flow bench;

May 18– May25

4,500 cfs – 3,500 cfs

Recession Limb

Recession Limb drops at a

lower rate than the ROD

NORMAL YEAR hydrograph

and reaches a bench level of

3,500 cfs.

May 25 – May 28


Allow for flow

measurements at steady

state flow bench;








May 29 – June 18

3,500 cfs – 2,000 cfs

Recession Limb

During this period, the

recession limb rate is

decreased to maintain less

than a maximum of 0.10 foot

drop in stage at the Trinity

River at North Fork gage;

Also during this period,

discharge is higher than

specified by the ROD

NORMAL YEAR hydrograph.

June 18 – June 21


The duration of 2,000 cfs

bench is reduced to four

days from 30.

June 22 – July 14

2,000 cfs – 950 cfs

Recession Limb

During this period the flow

release is less than the ROD

NORMAL Year Release,

July 15 – July 28

900 cfs – 450 cfs

Recession Limb

During this period the

release is greater than the

ROD NORMAL YEAR release.

July 29 450 cfs Summer baseflow

Summer baseflow starts 7

days later than the ROD

NORMAL YEAR release.





Coarse and fine sediment transport is required to achieve many of the sub-objective goals under IAP Objective 1. Observations have shown that the current ROD hydrographs are transporting only a fraction of the desired sediment volume. Increasing the peak flow for this year’s ROD NORMAL YEAR release will result in observed sediment transport more closely matched TRFEFR forecast goals.









Monitoring Plan









None identified.

References

















pp. 400.





Water Year

ROD Release Type



TRFEFR Estimate

(Tons)

Observed* (Tons)


TRFEFR Estimate

(Tons)

Observed* (Tons)



2012# NORMAL 370 80 22% 3509 222 6%

2010 NORMAL 370 39 11% 3509 550 16%

2009 DRY 16 65 415% 212 260 123%

2008 NORMAL 370 236 64% 3509 863 25%

2007 DRY 16 77 491% 212 93 44%


2012# NORMAL 1804 614 34% 2861 60 2%

2010 NORMAL 1804 666 37% 2861 364 13%

2009 DRY 404 236 58% 395 34 9%

2008 NORMAL 1804 1330 74% 2861 772 27%

2007 DRY 404 278 69% 395 12 3%




Appendix E: Meeting Summary, Feb. 25 70

Appendix E: MEETING SUMMARY, FEBRUARY 25, 2013 Meeting Summary

FLOW WORKGROUP

TRRP Office, Weaverville, CA

February 25, 2013

MONDAY FEBRUARY 25, 2013, 9:30 AM

Participants

Core members: Eric Peterson (TRRP, Coordinator); Rod Wittler (TRRP); Wade Sinnen (DFG); James Lee (TRRP); Seth Naman (NMFS); Eric Wiseman (USFS); Tim Hayden (Yurok Tribe), Teresa Connor (DWR) Via Webex: Joe Polos (FWS); John Bair (McBain and Trush/HVT consultants). Other members: Ernie Clarke; Robert Franklin (Hoopa Valley Tribal Fisheries); Mike Berry (DFW); Andrew Jensen (DFW); Shane Quinn(Yurok Tribe); Bill Brock (USFS) Also: Leslie Mirise (NMFS Sacramento) Note takers: Teresa Connor / Ernie Clarke. LIST OF ACTION ITEMS DEVELOPED AT THE MEETING

Peterson will share draft Water Year 2012 implementation report (already on action tracker). Group will have 3 weeks to review and comment. Wiseman will draft a question to the Fish Workgroup related to the effect of low flows (450 – 300 cfs) on spawning. The question will be circulated first to the Flow Workgroup for revision, then forwarded to the Fish Workgroup. Additional tasks: Peterson to add a section for TAMWG recommendations to the binder document;

Clarke will work with Franklin on potential inclusion of Iron Gate flows in the implementation report; Physical workgroup will be queried for more information on sediment transport relative to ROD 5-day flow peaks

SUMMARY MEETING NOTES BY AGENDA ITEMS

Introductions/ Action Tracker

Peterson reviewed the proposed agenda (attached); no changes were made Status of action items: Wittler will ask the Trinity Public Utilities District to make a presentation to the Flow Workgroup on the Lewiston power plant. STATUS: Done.

Wiseman said he could calculate a volume of water needed for the period October 1 to April 22 for all water years and provide the supporting template.

STATUS: Working with Lee and Wittler. On agenda today.



Lee will pick up on Bair’s riparian concepts and develop these into a written proposal addressing summer baseflow to be submitting in February as part of the workgroup process.

STATUS: Same as the second item above. Ongoing.

Flow Workgroup will address the issue of managing base flow variability by considering the major issues of vegetation, fish and temperature.

STATUS: Same as the second item above. Ongoing.

Peterson will make minor edits to the flow planning document and it will be completed. STATUS: Done.

Wittler will circulate the draft WY 2012 Flow Releases and Diversions Report at the start of 2013. STATUS: Will circulate.

WATER YEAR 2012 ANNUAL REPORT

The draft report will be shared this week. It will follow the format of the water year 2011 report Group will have 3 weeks to review. Franklin expresses desire to include Iron Gate releases in the report.

Action item: Peterson will share draft Water Year 2012 implementation report (already on

action tracker). Group will have 3 weeks to review and comment.

FEBRUARY 2013 CURRENT CONDITIONS UPDATE

Wittler handed out and went over current conditions update. Intent is to update and circulate this weekly. Clarification based on discussion: Lewiston inflow is calculated not provided on CDEC. 2013 FLOW SCHEDULING PROCESS / CALENDAR / TEMPERATURE MODELING / PRIORITIES / 2013 WY

SPECIFIC FUNDS

Process: Peterson reviewed the process as described in last year’s binder document (page 3); group

will plan based on the most likely water types (now look like dry and extremely dry). Task – Peterson to add TAMWG role / recommendation to water year 2013 binder. Schedule: Feb 1 - Package Feb 25 – Flow scheduling meeting Mar 8 – Forecast update? Mar 14 – Flow scheduling proposal deadline Mar 28 – Flow scheduling meeting Apr 1 – TAMWG Apr 2-3 - TMC

Apr 8 – (approximate) Water year determination



Apr 10 – Flow scheduling meeting (back-up) Apr 22 – (approximate) Begin release Temperature modeling: will occur between March 14 and 27; Wittler, Paul Zedonis and Russ

Yaworsky to perform modeling.

Priorities: Discussion deferred until the 11:30 brain storing item 2013 Water Year specific funds: Clarke reports that as it stands now there are none. That should not

prevent the group from identifying needs. At 10:40 am the group took a 10 minute break When folks returned, Peterson asked guest Leslie Mirise (NMFS) to share a San Joaquin Restoration Program perspective; Leslie reported:

flow recommendations come from Restoration Administrator (RA; Rod Meade) RA is advised by Technical Advisory Committee which gets input from various technical work

groups. Have Feather River spring Chinook hatchery fish to release. Trucked fish to suitable spawning habitat and have had spawning. Screening for restoration project. Multi-species fish way. Rebuild dam for salmon passage. Discussion - how to maintain segregation between spring and fall Chinook?

PROPOSAL TEMPLATE IN DETAIL

Peterson walked through template – mostly same as last year. Couple of tweaks for organization:

(table from flow study – contrast, trade-offs)

IAP objectives

Goal is to develop a uniform set of information for all proposals.

Peterson walked through MS Excel flow scheduler.

Done at 11:10 moved on to the round table.

ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION OF LEARNING FROM PAST YEARS AND POSSIBLE PROPOSALS FOR THIS YEAR

Peterson posed the following question for discussion: What have we learned since the flow evaluation study to inform adaptive management?

Wiseman - Duration of peak event – get clarification from Andreas Krause / Physical Workgroup; FES assumed transport rate would be constant – not so.



Sinnen – how far is gravel moving? Wittler – have confirmed assumptions from FES related to baseflows and temp targets; meeting

targets; not a lot of excess water Sinnen – have not seen pre-spawn mortality with spring Chinook; temp flows are working Bair – can physical scientists provide recommendations on peak flow duration, sediment transport and

hysteresis? Bair – descending limb and riparian; 2010-2012 developed and refined; still need more GW

information; picking up a broader, more rich band of riparian vegetation – not causative; peak flow timing (set on historical averages)– every year is a little different; haven’t got timing perfect relative to seed dispersal; need to develop a better timing mechanism;

Brock – water year 2012, it might be good to plan for 3 water year types Variable flows (handouts from Wiseman, Wittler, and Lee, attached) – Wittler summarizes text

document (Late summer / fall flows; spring flows; temperature considerations) Wiseman provides broader discussion; baseflow hydrograph deviates from natural hydrograph;

potential negative considerations (spring Chinook spawning / dewatering (Franklin - body of evidence?1 memo of Loren Everest; Polos - limited surveys – haven’t noted substantial dewatering; Wiseman – what about other negative impacts – possible request for the Fish WG; fall Chinook spawning increase; chance of hybridization)

Wiseman to provide specific questions On the table – drop in September (Seth - will be tough on the temperature front) Accumulated degree day to schedule peak Split water year (pre-April 8 and post April 8) Franklin - Need strong evidence to consider changing flow releases.

Likely proposals for Water Year 2013:

End of WY 13 baseflow deviation (Wiseman) Riparian for normal year (not for dry or critically dry) (Bair) Flow benches for habitat monitoring (Aaron Martin, not present) Foothill Yellow-legged Frog timing (Lee) Degree day tracking (Lee)

Group considering dry as most likely plus Critically Dry and Normal

NEXT STEPS/REVIEW OF ACTION ITEMS/ACTION TRACKER

Notes:

Ceremonial releases from Lewiston this year. Do not include this release in your flow schedule proposal.

Auxiliary outlet works available.

Don Reck (USBR) is the POC for fall flows.

ADJOURN 12:15 PM; MAJORITY OF GROUP TAKES DAM TOUR.



DRAFT VERSION DATE 2013-FEB-25

FLOW WORKGROUP MEETING AGENDA

Feb 25, 2013 9:30AM

TRRP Office, Weaverville

WebEx: web-link Call in: 1-408-792-6300

code=573 142 979

Coordinators: Eric Peterson Rod Wittler

Desired Outcomes:

Broad understanding of the flow schedule proposal and recommendation processes. Head’s up on forecast water year types. Head’s up on (some) possible flow schedule proposals Work planning for FY13 flow activities

Please

read/review:

Current Conditions Update – Email week of Feb 11 Proposed Flow Schedule Alternatives Template Flow Scheduling Worksheet

Please bring: Thoughts on what we have learned about restoration flows in past years. Thoughts on objectives for this year’s hydrograph.

Agenda Items

Time Topic Presenter

2012 Flow Scheduling

9:30 Introductions / Action Tracker Eric Peterson

9:35 9 Rod Wittler

9:45 February 2013 Current Conditions Update Rod Wittler

10:00 2013 Flow scheduling process / calendar / temperature modeling /

documentation / priorities / 2013 WY specific funds Peterson/Wittler

10:50 SJRRP perspective Leslie Mirise

11:00 Proposal template in detail Peterson

11:30 Round Table discussion of learning from past years and possible proposals for

this year Peterson/Wittler

12:30 Dam Tour – RSVP REQUIRED to Andreas Krause ([email protected])

Upcoming schedule:

Early March: Temperature modeling of ~ water year types, ROD hydrographs

March 8th

: Updates (if any) to forecasts to be distributed.

March 14th

: DEADLINE - Flow Schedule Proposals due and disseminated .

Mar 14-27: Temperature modeling of priority proposed flow schedules

Mar 28th

: MEETING – Flow WG discussion and consensus recommendation to TMC

Apr. 1: TAMWG meeting

Apr. 2-3: TMC meeting

Apr. 10: Backup meeting in case required (e.g. forecast WY type changes)

https://trrp.webex.com/trrp/j.php?ED=222255757&UID=1383025887&PW=NYTZlZmIxZDEz&RT=MiM0

http://odp.trrp.net/Data/Meetings/AttachmentDetails.aspx?attachment=346&meeting=1449

http://odp.trrp.net/Data/Meetings/AttachmentDetails.aspx?attachment=349&meeting=1449



Variable Flow Concepts for WY2014 Presented by the Variable Flow Sub-Group (R. Wittler, J. Lee, E. Wiseman)

1) Late Summer/ Fall Flows –The annual reduction in Lewiston Dam flows from 450 CFS to 300 CFS on

October 15th may have unintended consequences to spawning Spring- and Fall-run Chinook salmon. Specifically, Spring-run Chinook redds may become dewatered and Fall-run Chinook redds may be subject to redd superimposition as available spawning habitat is truncated. We propose to develop concepts for a a flow experiment that would reduce summer base flows from 450 CFS to 300 CFS on 9/9/2014 and then increase fall base flows from 300 CFS to 450 CFS on 10/15/2014 and maintain these flows until 1/1/2015. The hypothesis is that this would; (1) Eliminate the dewatering of Spring-run Chinook redds by reducing flows before they begin to spawn, (2) Increase the available spawning habitat for Fall-run Chinook salmon to reduce redd superimposition, and (3) Reduce the chance of hybridization between Spring- and Fall-run Chinook salmon by allowing them to be more spatially isolated during spawning. The 2014 main stem spawning survey data would be utilized to test these hypotheses. The “cost” of this experiment would be approximately 11,880 AF of water. The cost of extending the 450 CFS base flow from 1/1/2015 until 4/22/2015 would be an additional 32,967 AF of water.

2) Spring Flows – Riparian hardwood initiation and foothill yellow-legged frog breeding are two processes that are associated with the snowmelt hydrograph. Presently, the timing of the recession limb is largely based on historic average snowmelt peaks for each water year. However, inter-annual variability in the timing of the recession limb may not be adequately captured in this average. Snowmelt-adapted organisms likely respond to environmental cues, such as the accumulation of degree-days, in timing important processes such as seed dispersal and egg mass deposition, so that critical processes occur during favorable hydrological conditions. Synchronizing spring flows with the timing of the upper watershed snowpack runoff could result in better conditions for these species. New tools exist to predict the timing of snowmelt in the upper Trinity River watershed, and these tools should be explored and if found valuable, implemented in flow scheduling. We propose to develop concepts for a flow experiment that would synchronize the spring ROD release with the snowmelt inflow into Trinity Reservoir, based on WY 2014 meteorological conditions. This would be preceded by an exercise in WY 2013 that tracks Trinity Reservoir inflow and snowpack condition timing in the upper watershed and relates this to the reproductive cycles of two snowmelt-adapted organisms in the restoration reach: black cottonwood and foothill yellow-legged frog. The hypotheses are: 1) meteorological data and NOAA Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Services’ Ensemble Streamflow Prediction Program can forecast the snowmelt runoff peak early enough to be useful for scheduling spring flows; 2) Synchronizing spring flows with the upper watershed snowpack runoff will reduce foothill yellow-legged frog egg mass mortality; and 3) Synchronizing spring flows with the upper watershed snowpack runoff will cause black cottonwood seed dispersal to be synchronized with the period that floodplain surfaces targeted for riparian establishment are wet and otherwise suitable for seed germination.

3) Temperature Considerations – The summer-time temperature targets (July 1 ~ October 15) may constrain management adaptations associated with Late Summer/Fall Flows. In many years the ROD flows are only adequate to meet down-river targets, and those mostly a function of end of year storage in Trinity Reservoir and Clear Creek Tunnel operations. Any modification to the summer base flows (either 450 or 300 cfs) may be constrained by the ability of Trinity/Lewiston/ Clear Creek Tunnel operations to meet temperature targets.



4) Necessary Management Actions/Adaptations a) Flow Benches – Flow benches are used to maintain adequate soil moisture for riparian hardwood

initiation, as well as to provide cues to outmigration anadromous fish. During WY 2012 two flow benches helped maintain soil moisture near the 4,500 cfs inundation zone. Preliminary monitoring results suggest that these benches did indeed help promote riparian hardwood initiation. The timing of the benches in WY 2014 could change depending on plant phenology, which is driven by similar meteorological conditions as those that drive the snowmelt hydrograph. Black cottonwood seed dispersal periods will be tracked in WY 2013 and compared to soil moisture conditions on 4,500 cfs floodplains, and WY 2014 benches may be adjusted if evidence suggests this is necessary.

b) Split WY Volumes – In order to provide flexibility for late summer/Fall/Winter base flow manipulations there is a need to split the flow volume allocations. We propose to divide the flow allocations as follows; From 10/1/2013 until 4/21/2014 would be a set volume and from 4/22/2014 until 9/30/2014 would be a set volume. In addition, to successfully conduct the late summer/fall flow experiment in WY2014 requires modifications to the WY2013 flow schedule which would result in a surplus of approximately 6,534 AF of water for the time period of 9/9/2013 to 9/30/2013.

c) Real-Time Temperature Management - Temperature model results suggest that the flow operations at Lewiston Dam may be managed to minimize the exceedances in Trinity River water temperature targets for the upper reach, Lewiston to Douglas City, in the period from July 1st through September 30th. Initial model results indicate the river's quick, notable response to flow change when the flow in the system is relatively low, i.e., 500 cfs and below. Weekly or 5-day weather forecasts and the knowledge of the system's water temperature response under the base flows with different rates under various meteorological conditions will be essential in real-time flow operations. However, current facilities constraints and forecasting knowledge may continue to provide challenges for realizing such management strategies. The timing on the flow operations is essential. The descending limb of the flow in the system extends to the second half of July, when the observed daily mean air temperature increases above 25°C in response to seasonal conditions, reaching a base flow rate around 450 cfs. Considering the low base flow rate and the high air temperatures, any flow operation schedule to attempt to "bank" water starting after mid July by decreasing flows below 450 cfs will be challenging due to (a) forecasting conditions when the river could be dropped below 450 cfs, and (b) lack of sufficient volume to reliably meet future needs for temperature management at Douglas City. A more reliable approach is to store water in the first 10 days of July when there is sufficient flow in the system to store an appropriate volume that can be used in the future, while avoiding temperature increases.

1) Summary/Proposal – Under the working name of ‘Variable Flows’, we propose that the workgroups examine the concepts of permanent changes in the management of the timing of the spring high flows and late-summer/early fall base flows. The concepts collectively could result in the shifting of water volume from geomorphic, or other, objectives to new objectives. These new objectives include timing of the spring peak with certain riparian species seed dispersal, managing initiation of willows during summer base flows, and spawning success in the late summer and early fall. Consideration of continuing temperature targets will be paramount.


Appendix F: Meeting Summary, Mar. 28 78

Appendix F: MEETING SUMMARY, MARCH 28, 2013 DRAFT Meeting Summary

FLOW WORKGROUP

TRRP Office, Weaverville, CA

March 28, 2013

Participants

Technical members: Eric Peterson (TRRP, Coordinator); Rod Wittler (TRRP);Eric Wiseman (USFS); George Kautsky

(Hoopa Valley Tribe); Joe Polos (USFWS); Tim Hayden (Yurok Tribal Fisheries); Seth Naman (NOAA Fisheries). Via

Webex: Teresa Conner (DWR);Wade Sinnen (CDFW); Andrew Jensen (CDFW)

Other participants: Robin Schrock, Ernie Clarke (TRRP/USFWS) and; James Lee (TRRP/Hoopa Tribal Fisheries),

Robert Franklin (Hoopa Valley Tribal Fisheries); Bill Brock (USFS); Aaron Martin (Yurok Tribal Fisheries), Shane

Quinn (Yurok Tribal Fisheries) , Connor Shea (USFWS),; Sean Ledwin (Hoopa Tribal Fisheries); Melissa Snover

(USGS); Bryson Swart (NOAA Fisheries); Via Webex:, John Bair, Scott McBain (McBain and Trush/HVT consultants).

Note taker: Jeanne McSloy (TRRP)

List of Action Items Developed at the Meeting

Action Item: Aaron Martin and Connor Shea will complete the new proposed hydrograph for

the Flow Regime by COB tomorrow.

Summary Meeting Notes by Agenda Items

Introductions-Review/Approve Agenda-Review Action Items

Peterson welcomed the group and started with introductions. The Levels and Nature of Agreement and

Disagreement memo was passed out and shown, and the group was asked to take a minute to read through it.

Clarke went over the Consensus definition points. Peterson briefly went over the Action Tracker items and

pointed out that the tasks labeled “outstanding” are ongoing. Peterson showed a slide of the 2013 Flow

Scheduling Process and went over the future schedule.

March 2014 Current Conditions Update

Wittler showed the Water Year History slide as a reference, followed by the CA snow water content graph percent

of April 1 average, March 27, 2013. He said it does not appear we will approach normal conditions this year.

Wittler then showed the US Drought Monitor for March 19, 2013, which forecasts that the drought may be

moderating, followed by the 5-day forecast (to get through the end of the month) for Weaverville; there is no

chance current conditions will change the trend. Wittler showed the Daily CVP water supply report and

highlighted the Trinity Reservoir; his estimate is that it is in very good shape right now. As of today his projection

is that the water year type will be dry. Rod next showed the NOAA three month outlook precipitation probability,

followed by the Forecast WY percentage of average (this is a new item). This is the total inflow for Trinity basin for

the water year. It shows that we have fallen significantly below average since December. Wittler then showed the

NWS CNRFC Trinity Inflow Forecast (EPS) graph. He said the old forecast is performing well compared with the



new daily one. We are looking at around 900,000 acre-feet for the year. The next forecast will come out on April

9th. Eric Peterson offered his interpretations. Any impact of storms occurring up through Sunday March 31st was

discussed. The next March B2 forecast from Central Valley Operations (CVO) was briefly discussed. Wittler said we

are tracking closer to the 90% level than the 50% level. The ROD recommended flow releases (5 water year types)

slide was shown.

2013 Flow Scheduling Proposals

Shea, a representative of the Physical Workgroup, began the presentation with the 2013 alternate hydrograph

proposals. He showed a slide of the 2013 Flow Release Schedule and gave the history of how the proposal was

developed. The dry hydro has a 5-day peak, whereas the alternative is a 2-day peak of 7500 cfs with recessional

benches where flow is held steady for 4 days at 1,200 and 700. He showed a slide of the goals and objectives in

proposing these changes. Key item: a normal year is not transporting nearly as much sediment as they thought it

would. Another concern is that the amount of normal year sediment movement is dropping off; the reason for

this is not yet known. He explained the motivation for his proposal for this year: part of the coarse sediment

transport goal is to move sediment on the river and inform geomorphic features. Since big events like the 11,000

cfs peak flow have moved sediment, that is one of the reasons for pushing for larger releases. The goal is not to

maximize sediment transport but to move enough coarse sediment to accomplish the goals for the river. We are

trying to move more sediment because not enough has been moving but a complete investigation is needed.

Shea then briefly discussed maintenance of the deltas. Although this has been a dry year above the Trinity, it has

been a wet year in the tributaries. A bigger argument for this release is that we need a punch to get that gravel

out of the tributaries and move aggraded material. He recommends a 7500 cfs peak flow to accomplish that. A

hydrograph of Trinity below Limekiln Gulch near Douglas City was shown. In terms of bedload discharge, the point

is that sediment moves in the first two days of peak release, then it drops off. The 5-day releases were not moving

much sediment during the final 3 days, so it would be more effective to distribute that water; this is why you see

the 2-day peak.

Martin discussed the utility of this proposal in terms of habitat monitoring. Monitoring obj include flow to habitat

mapping at specific rehab sites. He outlines what they will be doing Going back to upper dark gulch due to

significant amounts of change seen since then and potential utility in terms of future designs. They propose doing

a 2D Habitat and Hydraulic modeling exercise at a future rehab site, Lewiston Hatchery, which will start in January

of next year. There is potential for taking their model and turning it into a sediment transport model, to estimate

habitat. The benches are to allow them to get water surface elevations. They would like to see as high a peak as

possible to better calibrate their model. Shea pointed out that 7500 cfs puts water up on floodplain, which

extends the validity of the model especially for higher flow. The benefits of a 7500 cfs peak flow for fish versus

geomorphic and other purposes was discussed. Shea presented concerns with this proposal and clarified that this

is a recommendation for this year only. It was decided that the group would focus on physical issues for now,

biological issues later in the meeting. Scott McBain added that sediment transport rates are not an objective; they

need a different objective on the order of active coarse sediment storage or a better index that translates into

habitat complexity or habitat quantity. A concern is that if we do a lot of geomorphic work, over the last few years

gravel augmentation has declined, so if we transport more and augment less, we should expect bed coarsening,

loss of storage and reduced transport rates. His worry is that we are taking the “more transport is good” path

without understanding how that translates into more complexity, and doing that in a dry year. Shea clarified the



way hydrographs affect gravel augmentation, which lead to a discussion of the hydrographs being considered and

the process of making changes to them.

Discussion of Temperature Model Results (Dry)

Wittler presented the Temperature Model results and briefly explained the modeling process. We are in a dry

year. He said that these are the coldest temperatures we have ever seen on the Trinity, and discussed possible

reasons for this. Since according to CVO we are tracking closer to the 90% than the 50%, they will export more

water, so Lewiston is going to be colder. Wittler said he feels good about the temperature forecast for this year,

and that we will be able to maintain temperatures because of the cold water coming out of the Trinity. Output for

the River was shown; of the three dry year alternatives, for average weather things look good, but if there is

extreme weather there will be problems, as expected. It was pointed out that synthetic years are used for this

model. The forecasts and deliveries needed at Whiskeytown were briefly discussed.

Break

Public Technical Input Q&A

No members of the public were present so this section was skipped.

Technical Discussion of Hydrographs-Benefits/Concerns

Peterson went over comments received by email (attached below), beginning with comments from McBain.

Peterson briefly went over the differences between dry and critically dry years in the flow study; the concern

being raised is that we are bringing a hydrograph that has a peak that mimics the higher level of a wetter water

type than the ROD default. Kautsky expressed concern over the fact uncertainties have not been identified and he

feels there are many. Shea said that despite the big range of uncertainties, higher peaks mean more sediment

transport; the goal was moving more sediment to create more bar building. ROD flows represent the

management for a reconstructed river; if higher flows help build bar features and sediment coarse features up,

we need to get those in now and allow the ROD regime to manage the system.

McBain commented on the riparian encroachment risk. Martin said that the question for him is what hydrograph

is best for the river this year. He suggested considering what could happen that we don’t want to happen at 7500

cfs? Franklin said we are required in the annual experiment to come up with predictions that are quantitative,

measured, gain information, and are always associated with a Primary management objective (means

objective).Kautsky said that rather than just looking at what is best for the river this year, we need to consider the

next 100 years; we are missing it in these alternatives because we have not fully exhausted the ROD goals.

Repeatedly focusing on what is best for this year will derail the track of restoration philosophy, to see the

ecological reasons for the recurrence of various water year types. Schrock said Aaron has proposed an

experiment, which would be a first, and is in line with what the SAB suggested we do. Peterson said with adaptive

management there is room to shift the peaks we have.

Wittler said the long term view is as important as the short term. He believes we are in the first year of a drought,

so we need to think of how this year’s strategy could fit into a potentially several year drought cycle. Kautsky said

we are constrained by volume, not by peak and challenged the group to describe what are influences on the peak

values; what is lacking in the proposal is building out uncertainties and potential risks. It is not just transport but

also flow, which is a function of availability and supply; we need to talk about those confounding variables and



uncertainties before we depart from the long-term vision of the ROD. Shea added that another factor is what are

the tributaries are doing, which is a confounding factor this year.

Bair pointed out that this conversation is focused on the physical rather than ecological benefits of a dry year and

suggested the river might benefit from a year of rest through increased avian, frog, lamprey benefits. Martin

asked which are more important this year, ecological or geomorphic benefits? We are focused geomorphically on

two points on the river, but all 40 miles are impacted. What are the tradeoffs? Franklin said that he is inclined to

think that gravel addition is still needed. I am strongly of the opinion we have learned that there is great variability

in the Trinity River and I trust that as a signal to follow. I am resolute to an annual experiment oriented to

information needs. Franklin said that at this point in the discussion he is in category D relative to the 7500 cfs

release.

Biology

Tim Hayden presented the Fish workgroup’s comments to the flow work group:

We anticipate a strong year-class of emergent salmon and steelhead fry as a result of high 2012 adult escapement and assumed spawning and incubation success. We encourage the Flow WG to critically evaluate the effects of Dry Alt 2 alternatives on achieving water temperature targets (<59 F) during the April 22 to May 22 timeframe. Dry Alt 2 alternative may exceed “marginal” water temperature targets for steelhead (<59 F) from April 22-May 3. Depending on climatic conditions, dam releases up to 2500 cfs, may be required to achieve marginal temperature targets (see TRFES Table 5.16). Exceeding marginal water temperature targets for steelhead could interfere with parr-smolt transformation process, (reduced gill ATPase activity) negatively impacting osmoregulation and survival. (See TRFES pg. 182) Marginal water temperature targets for Coho salmon (<62.6 F) through June 4, and Chinook salmon (<68 F) though July 9 should also be maintained by all flow alternatives. Ramp down rates following the peak releases (Dry Alt 1and 2) should not exceed the rates described in the FEIS Implementation plan. We recognize and support the need to provide short periods of stable flows to support on-going fish habitat modeling efforts.

Hayden said early indications are that there are a lot of fry out in the river. He pointed out that they are making

certain assumptions. Looking at temperature modeling results, we would look at the extreme conditions as a

worst-case scenario. We are managing for marginal temperature targets in a dry year to begin with. It is a strong

signal for outmigration when you have sharp decrease in flow and increase in temperature you get fish moving.

Delayed out migration is in normal and wetter years, so this year I would expect to see normal outmigration

timing; it is the downramping and temperatures that are the signal for fish.

It was pointed out that this model will be used for hydraulic and sediment transport, it is not for modeling habitat

at 7500 cfs. Schrock pointed out that the SAB suggested looking at different inundation levels in considering the

value of floodplain lowering. Wittler asked if the river would actually rest if flows are not ramped up, and whether

or not it is a good year for the river to rest. Bair discussed the impact of various alternatives on cottonwoods and

on foothill yellow legged frogs. Lee pointed out that regeneration is not a riparian objective in a dry year.

Bair said their evaluations suggest that critically dry and dry years are the best at creating stable conditions on the

bank for plants. It appears that the system is keyed on a slow recession. A 4,500 cfs bench that is peak in a dry

year is the hinge point for many of our constructed floodplains. It interacts nicely with our constructed sites. A

recession down from 2,000 to 450 in most locations being nice and slow will not make a difference in the

moisture regime, but is “landing the plane softly.” Unintended benefits of a dry year in terms of a dry hydrograph.



Lunch

Continue discussion with consensus on Hydrographs to recommend to TMC

Peterson showed the draft 2013 Flow Release Schedule report and went over the parts that will be filled in as a

result of this meeting today. McBain’s decision tree (slide) was shown as a potential tool. Peterson asked for a

sense of where the recommendation is headed. All participants were asked to quickly state where they are with

respect to this decision. Opinions varied; there was some support for a hybrid hydrograph. Shea asked that the

group clearly define the hybrid. McBain’s decision tree was used to structure the discussion of defining the hybrid,

and the decision tree and its list of benefits/risks was altered accordingly. Frogs benefit from an earlier peak (drier

years). Risks include impact on gravel storage/gravel budget. The discussion of 7500 versus 4,500cfs and the

benefits of 2 days at either flow continued.

The group discussed whether or not this would be problematic or beneficial for outmigrant timing? The timing

and nature of the descending limb in various hydrographs was considered. Schrock pointed out that in-channel

construction can be impacted (July 15 – Sept 15) by higher flows. Ledwin said he is not convinced getting fish out

earlier is the best thing to do, since the Trinity has excellent rearing conditions. Hayden clarified that this is

avoiding a delay. The Dry Alt 2 hydrograph was presented. Naman suggested that this alternative looks more like

a natural hydrograph than anything else we have. Wittler said their flow tracking from last year confirms this.

Schrock reminded the workgroup that they should have a portfolio of options that they discuss throughout the

year instead of waiting until the last minute.

5 min break

Martin suggested that the hybrid hydrograph be a 2 day peak with 4,500 cfs flow and water water be added on

the front end for fish so as to maintain the same descending rates. Connor made a proposed hydrograph.

Peterson asked for clarification of the reason for the shift in water. Martin responded that it benefits habitat

available for the large number of juvenile fish this year. This was discussed further and consensus finally reached.

Wiseman asked about fine sediment transport rates. Scott’s slide will be used as the basis to document why Alt 1

and 2 were not chosen.

Action Item: Aaron Martin and Connor Shea will complete the new proposed hydrograph for the Flow Regime

by COB tomorrow

Public Technical Input on Consensus Recommendations

No public was present so this item was skipped.

Discussion of presentation to TMC on Workgroup consensus

Peterson asked for questions on how this would be presented. Wittler said the final form would be sent to the

group as soon as possible and asked for immediate feedback so they can complete the process. Our redistributing

this is not a review opportunity but a “fill in the details” opportunity. The details will be put into our proposal

document as well as the draft summary of the notes from this meeting. This will get distributed to the TMC.

Coordinating Public Outreach/Publishing the Flow Schedule



Peterson said since we are not going to 7500 there is not too much pressure on it this year, but we do distribute

flyers at local shops and various sites along the river. One of the handouts contains a list of sites where signs will

be put and asked for help in putting up the signs.

Wrap up/Review of Action Items

Peterson – this was covered in the wrap up of the previous items. For the June meeting Peterson said we need to

work on variable flow ideas, whether we want to put together a portfolio of ideas, particularly with solid

background information. A request was made to start meetings earlier so there would be more time. Variable

flows, other flows, potential portfolio with sediment transport are topics for agenda for next meeting.

Adjourn 2:55 PM



DRAFT Version Date 3-19-13

Flow Workgroup Meeting Agenda

Mar 28, 2013

9:30 AM

TRRP Office, Weaverville WEBEX: web-link

Call in: 1-408-792-6300

code = 578 659 832

Coordinators: Eric Peterson, Rod Wittler

Desired Outcome:

Finalize WY 2013 Trinity River Flow Schedule Alternatives for presentation to TAMWG and TMC

Please read/review:

March 18 Current Conditions Update (emailed ~ March 11) DRAFT Alternative Hydrographs (Excel Flow Scheduler Spreadsheet) and associated

Proposal Document (emailed ~ March 15; formatting into proposal template to be emailed prior to meeting)

Temperature Modeling Results (to be emailed prior to meeting) DRAFT flow recommendation planning document – to be used as TMC Brief (emailed ~

Feb. 26 under subject “Flow Scheduling, meeting summary)

Please bring: Updated flow scheduling considerations and comments on proposals

Agenda Items

Time Topic Discussion Leader 9:30 Introductions – Review/Approve Agenda – Review Action items Peterson

9:45 March 2013 Current Conditions Update Wittler

10:00 2013 Flow Scheduling Proposals Shea / Martin / Bair

10:30 Discussion of Temperature Model Results (Dry) Wittler

10:50 Break

11:00 Public Technical Input – Q & A Peterson

11:20 Technical discussion of hydrographs – benefits/concerns Wittler / Peterson

12:00 Lunch

12:45 Cont. discussion with consensus on hydrographs to recommend to TMC Wittler / Peterson

2:00 Public Technical Input on consensus recommendations (note: TAMWG also provides an opportunity for pubic input – Apr. 1st) Peterson

2:15 Discussion of presentation to TMC on Workgroup consensus Peterson

2:30 Coordinating Public Outreach / Publishing the flow schedule Peterson

2:45 Wrap up/Review of Action Items Peterson

3:00 Adjourn Peterson

2013 Scheduling Calendar: Early March: Temperature modeling of ~ water year types, ROD hydrographs March 8th: Updates (if any) to forecasts to be distributed. March 14th: DEADLINE - Flow Schedule Proposals due and disseminated Mar 14-27: Temperature modeling of priority proposed flow schedules Mar 28th: MEETING – Flow WG discussion and consensus recommendation to TMC Apr. 1: TAMWG meeting Apr. 2-3: TMC meeting Apr. 10: Backup meeting in case required (e.g. forecast WY type changes)

https://trrp.webex.com/trrp/j.php?ED=226094902&UID=1397059602&PW=NNjg5YWE5NDdh&RT=MiM0



The following slide was emailed by Scott McBain and edited within the meeting. Edits were to the top question

box, and supplementing the Potential Benefits and Risks.


Appendix G 91

Appendix G: POWER POINT PRESENTATION TO THE TMC, APRIL 2, 2013

[pending]


Appendix H 92

Appendix H: LETTER FROM TMC TO REGIONAL DIRECTORS

[pending]


Appendix I 93

Appendix I: CONCURRENCE LETTER FROM REGIONAL DIRECTORS

[pending]

[pending]


Appendix J 94

Appendix J: U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION NEWS RELEASE ON TRRP FLOW SCHEDULE