September 20, 2017 Slides
Brett Harvey, Mike Urkov, Chris Hammersmark, Chuck Hanson, Flora Cordoleani, Josh Israel, Jim Shannon, Julie Zimmerman, Rod Wittler, Russ Perry, Sadie Gill, Shelly Hatleberg, Stephanie Theis, Michelle Workman, Mark Tompkins, Jim Peterson, Adam Duarte
We reviewed the output of the proposed metrics. Josh said to present hatchery stray rate but keep it to a separate thing. Julie agreed, but understands we want to limit what we are looking at. Brett would be interested in cutting off the hatchery influence to see if hatchery fish are supporting or competing with the natural producing fish. Brett said that he is fine minimizing the effect of hatchery stray rate on our viability metric because it is still integral to the other responses right now. We will send out the proposed metrics output and will discuss at the next meeting. SIT was asked to look at the metrics, hatchery proportions in particular, to see if there is a cutoff that they would be comfortable with.
Rod said the multiple things in a single watershed scenario is a good concept but he would like to set us up better to tackle it, but it would take a long time to set up 25 "master conceptual plan" – one for each watershed. Michelle thinks this scenario kind of goes down a slippery slope and is for getting rid of it. She thinks this goes back to letting watersheds set priorities within their own watershed.
SIT discussed the hatchery fish evaluation/scenario. Rod is okay with dropping it. Brett asked if it was a real management action on the table. Michelle said it could be beneficial in that if we can coordinate with the HSRG and if we find it is helpful to the fishery they may be able to accommodate this, but she agrees that this is probably not something CVPIA will spend money on for a charter. Michelle, Chris, and Brett are in favor of keeping it. Brett talked about reducing in ocean survival for hatchery fish rather than reducing hatchery production. Josh thinks we should include Dick in this conversation because he has a lot of formed ideas.
SIT liked the combined hatchery spawners with habitat improvement scenario.
SIT discussed the evaluate delta productivity scenario. Josh wants to think more about this. He thinks it is something for the future. He does not know how we could tackle this now. Jim asked about manipulating survival, growth, etc. in the delta. What would productivity lead to? Josh thought they would focus on invertebrate production, so carrying capacity and growth rates. We could increase the carrying capacity or increase the productivity of the current amount of habitat. We will spend a little bit of time on this during the next meeting.
Chris said that this (putting a cost per habitat estimate together) might be a better task for someone at the Service or Reclamation to look at previous projects. Rod said he can volunteer some folks to work on putting this together by (hopefully) mid-October.
Shelly will contact with Dan to get specific information to Mike U. and Adam for the cost of screening diversions.
Rod said the work plan comment period is open till October 7th. Rod would like to talk about the role of the SIT and how we interact with the work plan at the next meeting. Shelly will redistribute the work plan to the SIT.