Conference Call

November 1, 2017 Slides


Mike Urkov, Felipe Carrillo, JD Wikert, Shelly Hatleberg, Flora Cordoleani, Corey Phillis, Jim Shannon, Mike Wright, Mark Tompkins, Michelle Workman, Rod Wittler, Matt Brown, Mike Berry, Cesar Blanco, Julie Zimmerman, Dan Kratville, Russ Perry, Chuck Hanson, Chris Hammersmark, Jim Peterson, Adam Duarte

Jim and Adam showed some summary statistics of the habitat restored under average conditions from the information Jim Shannon has put together. They will contact Jim S. to see if these data are complete or if he is still collating estimates from different projects. Shelly just received feedback on cost/effort estimates for screening diversions. Jim and Adam will pull the information together and give options to the SIT on what we should consider a unit of effort. They will send out the information so the SIT can decide. Matt said the cost will be very different so maybe we can think about the common cost and correct for that, instead of looking strictly at area created.

SIT reviewed the responses that were submitted for the scenario specific data sheet. Michelle said that for the Mokelumne, base flows during April and May are ca. 350 cfs, so a pulse flow is 1500 – 2000 cfs. JD said that for the Stanislaus, they would like to see pulse flows over ca. 1000 cfs for 4 days in that February period with pulse flows at ca. 3000 cfs in April and May. Jim asked Rod if he has values in mind for the types of flows he proposed. Rod does not have values in mind and he wanted SIT to define them and then assign values to them. He said flushing flows are in the ca. 10 year interval. Channel forming flows are in the ca. 5 year interval and greater. Flushing flows rejuvenate spawning beds. Geomorphic is re-channelizing the river, which are outside of our realm and beyond our scope. Mark T. said we may capture this through a change in habitat. Jim brought up how we have talked about adding a habitat decay function to the model and that may be relevant here. That is, pulse flows change habitat and that habitat decays using a decay function over time. Rod would be happy to look at doing that. This would require a proposal to make these changes to the model. Chris, Jim, Adam, and whoever else is interested can start putting something together. Rod would like to work on this too. Chris said Cramer Fish Sciences have developed a habitat decay function and he will re-ask for that from Joe. Dan said the CVPIA SIT could look at these to help prescribe management actions as they relate to parasites. Matt said the flows he provided are really providing passage over low areas, not really migration signaling. Mike B. said that it is a bit of both. Some of it is barrier and some of it is to trigger migration and we should talk to Matt Johnson more about this. Mike B. sent him an email about it. Flora said the values she provided for the Sac flows was centered on spring run. Mike B. thinks the magnitude of the pulse flow on the Sac needs to consider the different runs at different times and magnitudes. Rod would like Josh to give a presentation on this at the December meeting using SacPass. He is meeting with Josh tomorrow at 4:30, if anyone is interested in discussing this. Jim proposed using a mark-selected fishery as a scenario for reducing in-ocean survival for hatchery fish. He referred to the Pyper et al. paper. Brett liked the idea. SIT discussed scenarios for delta productivity and how to do it. For increases to accessibility, Russ has relationships developed to route fish in the delta based on flows and those relationships can be modified for our needs to apply a benefit to a proportion of fish. Rod, Levi Johnson, and Adam are going to check the Ecorestore values for habitat created in the delta to see which are projected and which are completed projects. Watershed Science Center at UC Davis is doing work on productivity increases in the delta. Bret will email some folks to see what type of information they may have.

Mike W. gave an update on his and FlowWest's effort for integrating temperature and flow. They are documenting all of the steps and that will be provided to the SIT when it is done, but he does not have an expected completing date at this time.

Mike T. said the floodplain proposal is updated to more accurately describe how we are getting at the duration weighting. He said it is roughly two thirds of the locations that they have modeled floodplain to flow area. For the data gaps, they are using a GIS approach. Shelly will send out the floodplain proposal to the SIT.

SIT reviewed the current draft of the SIT monitoring data sheet. Matt brought up that negotiations are outside the SIT, and he wonders if columns that indicate cost share information should be in the table. Rod talked about his needs for managing data gathering charters. Cesar thinks Matt's point is valid and we want a sheet that provides information to the SIT. He says Rod wants both and in doing so we are giving information to the SIT outside their scope that may influence their prioritization process. Matt also said that if we include all of the monitoring efforts we are going to have a lot of rows with "no" for "Used by DSM", and if so, why have it in the SIT's table? Cesar said it would be good to have a column on wants and needs for SIT monitoring data. Shelly will send out for comments next week.

Rod would like to talk about the AFP Restoration Strategy next month. John Hutchings will present at the December meeting as well. Rod also wants to talk about how to complete that adaptive management loop.

Marching Orders

Jim and Adam

  • Summarize information on screening diversions and habitat restoration for SIT to review

Jim, Chris, Rod, and Adam

  • Develop a proposal to incorporate a habitat decay function in the DSM

Mike B.

  • Contact Matt Johnson concerning flows in Clear, Mill, and Deer Creeks. Keep Matt in the loop.

Mike B., Rod, Dan, Flora, and Josh

  • Discuss the use of SacPass to derive pulse flow values and timing for the Sacramento


  • Provide options on how to route fish in the delta based on flows for delta productivity scenarios

Rod, Levi Johnson, and Adam

  • Check the Ecorestore values to see which are projected and which are completed projects.


  • See what type of information the Watershed Science Center at UC Davis has concerning productivity increases in the delta

Mike W., Mike U., Mark T., and Sadie

  • Provide documentation on the steps involved in linking temperatures to flows (after this task is completed)


  • Send out the floodplain proposal to the SIT
  • Send out SIT monitoring data sheet for comments next week

Next in-person meeting topics

  • Talk about timeline and tasks to be completed for developing a AFP Restoration Strategy
  • John Hutchings will give an update on past CVPIA projects that were funded
  • Josh will present information on pulse flows in Sac River, based on SacPass