In-person Meeting

July 12-13, 2017 Slides

Day 1


Russ Perry, Corey Phillis, Dan Kratville, Michelle Workman, Sadie Gill, Tatiana Carrillo, Matt Brown, JD Wikert, Flora Cordoleani, Mike Thomas, Felipe Carrillo, Mike Urkov, Rod Wittler, Cesar Blanco, Jim Peterson, Adam Duarte

Review of charter process

  • Charter process was delayed because of directive by DOI for Core Team not to meet
  • They have received charter rankings from reviewers
  • There were 86 charters total
  • Funding is very limited this year, which means many charters that are scored high will not be funded
  • Overall, charters were put together well and referenced the priorities in large part
  • The draft annual work plan is scheduled to be published on August 1

Review Chinook DSMs

  • We plan to have working, but not calibrated, DSMs to review at the August in-person meeting
  • A draft manuscript for the fall run model/process will be available for comments around August
  • Adam and Jim reviewed what integrated population models are, what we can do with them, how they are useful to directly feed monitoring data into DSMs for adaptive management programs, and how we plan to use an integrated model for CVPIA SIT modeling/monitoring efforts

We reviewed progress on the Steelhead and Sturgeon efforts to date

Discussion on watershed expert elicitation efforts

  • Michelle wanted clarifying language on what would be expected of the experts at these meetings.
  • Sadie and Mike U. reviewed the app Sadie has created to demonstrate what the model is doing
  • Sadie and Mike U. will set up a couple conference calls to go over the app in more detail for those that are interested
  • Matt wants our questions on disease to be more focused
  • Russ talked about how disease and temperature are highly related. That is, you can have high prevalence of disease and low mortality at low temperatures.

Review of SIT DSM package and databases

  • Sadie talked about the data package she has been developing
  • SIT members provided feedback on what they would like to see in this package
  • Sadie discussed the use of package versioning and documentation to maintain the package
  • There was discussion of SacPas and how it could be integrated into SIT's efforts
  • SIT members discussed having Josh give a run through or demo of what SacPas can do.
  • SIT discussed the access/release of the SIT R package. Russ said the timeline of the tech memo seemed reasonable. Dan said whenever it is ready but to explicitly state the limitations of the released version. Rod said to make the version from last year available but not the current version until the tech memo is released. Jim mentioned that any products need to be peer-reviewed before it can be released outside of SIT based on the USGS fundamental science practices (FSP).

Sit discussed the process for transitioning to a 5-year plan

  • Rod and Cesar discussed the possibility of refining current priorities rather than starting all over this year, given the limited funding resources available this year.
  • Michelle mentioned that she envisioned the 5-year plan would be driven by the SIT's confidence in the DSMs, not funding, which is evaluated at the end of each cycle during the annual review of the models.
  • Corey also mentioned some of these priorities were based on the understanding that could be reevaluated after a year.
  • Matt also talked about some things that were overlooked last fiscal year that we could improve upon this year. He also talked about using the current charters and then focusing on the development of a 5-year plan this year if the timeline is too fast to ensure a quality product for the DSMs.
  • JD mentioned that the 5-year plan could be the SIT's objectives over the next 5 years to refine and develop models to identify priorities, rather than putting the priorities in the 5-year plan.
  • Russ mentioned that the 5-year plan could include the multispecies/run model.
  • Corey talked about how we could have a 5-year plan with annual addendums.
  • Michelle asked if the legislation requires a new set of priorities every year. Cesar said no and read section 3406 (b)1(A) : "(A) This program shall give first priority to measures which protect and restore natural channel and riparian habitat values through habitat restoration actions, modifications to Central Valley Project operations, and implementation of the supporting measures mandated by this subsection; shall be reviewed and updated every five years; and shall describe how the Secretary intends to operate the Central Valley Project to meet the fish, wildlife, and habitat restoration goals and requirements set forth in this title and other project purposes."
  • Jim talked about using the DSMs to develop strategies and identify large uncertainties and including that information in the 5-year plan. He mentioned the tech memo could include an evaluation if those uncertainties were resolved and if that resulted in a change in the strategies.
  • SIT was asked to think about a 5-year plan right now, understanding that we are not there yet till be have more models developed and higher confidence in those models.

Discussion on clarifying and focusing objectives and decision alternatives

  • SIT members liked the idea of focusing the objectives and separating the means and fundamental objectives.
  • Discussion also focused on how the scale of % ESHE values for the scenarios was problematic, because it is not the same amount (and can be drastically different) across watersheds.
  • Matt mentioned that we could look at the charters to see the amounts of habitat people think they can build in a single charter. Cesar and Rod said that that information is not usually in the charters.
  • Dan noted the complexities of using daily temperature and how daily mean temperature is related to variability in temperature. That is, the daily mean is too simple to capture the influence of temperature on fish.

Day 2


Josh Israel, Michelle Workman, Dan Kratville, Mike Urkov, Rod Wittler, Cesar Blanco, Russ Perry, Tatiana Carrillo, Felipe Carrillo, JD Wikert, Jim Peterson, Adam Duarte

Jim discussed the email about the expectations for watershed experts at the expert elicitation meetings.

  • Dan is concerned about the variability in answers for "predation hotspot". He said he would be more comfortable if this information were based/informed by actual data.
  • JD agreed and mentioned asking based on where you think it is and how certain you are in that might be a better approach.
  • Michelle said that maybe we should instead ask what type of data/information they have on predator distribution, prevalence, fidelity, etc.
  • Jim asked about the disease question.
  • Josh mentioned DFW has data on this from the hatcheries and Dan said he would ask about this.
  • Michelle mentioned that we could have invited the hatchery biologists to expert meetings as we are missing information on their efforts/operations.
  • Dan said this information will be available online soon.

Discuss habitat definitions

  • The group reviewed the revised habitat definitions based on the feedback that was provided
  • Shelly has contacted the floodplain group and is waiting on their proposed modified definition

Data needs

  • Stanislaus has size distribution for escapement data
  • Michelle has redd survey data, size distributions, less accurate hatchery fish sizes, redd by habitat data, and they may have some prespawn mortality data
  • JD said Cramer did some survival stuff for them in the past
  • Josh mentioned how SacPas has RBDD to Mossdale raw data for all runs
  • Josh mentioned that we should put a list together of the model inputs and ask people you have had funded charters "please tell us if you have modified any of the following through your project".
  • There are O. mykiss redd survey at Clear Creek.
  • John Hannon may have redd counts in the American.
  • Sarah will have screw-trap data
  • Dan mentioned that raw EC conditions in the Delta may be misleading because of the detected salinity from other sources.
  • There are creel surveys available for O. mykiss and a "Steelhead report card" to get clipped/unclipped steelhead information.

Josh gave a demo of SacPas

  • SacPas
  • He said that if there is any feedback on how they can modify SacPas to improve its usefulness to please email him your thoughts.