April 4-5, 2018 Slides
Day 1 - Bay Delta Offices, Sacramento
Mike Urkov, Cesar Blanco, Mark Gard, Dick Pool, Bruce McLaughlin, Matt Brown, Lilly Allen, Mike Berry, Dan Kratville, Rene Henery, Josh Israel, Corey Phillis, Lisa Hunt, Robyn Bilski, Cassie Miller, JD Wikert, Rod Wittler, Brett Harvey, Felipe Carrillo, Towns Burgess, Brad CAvallo, Shane Abeare, Jim Peterson, Adam Duarte
Update on Sturgeon efforts
SIT reviewed the sturgeon efforts. In particular, the group has identified objectives and decision alternatives. They have scored these actions as they relate to the objectives and reviewed these scores. We are currently scheduling a meeting so the group can recommend priorities based on these score sheets. Rod would like the SIT to review the Sturgeon recommended priorities from a scientific need perspective tomorrow with the understanding that these scores are not finalized.
Review draft agenda for regional watershed expert meetings
SIT reviewed the watershed expert meeting material (draft agenda, meeting invitation, and description on what a restoration strategy is). Matt said that we should lay out what the models can be used for and what they cannot be used for at the beginning of each meeting. Mark said we need to give them an update on how we used their information, so it is clear we value their input. Matt said that there is a limiting factor analysis/process where they are also meeting with watershed experts to identify needs in the American, Clear, Sac, Stan, and probably the delta. We should coordinate with them. Jim asked if the SIT can review this information to make sure we are clear and sending the right message by the 13th of April. Mark said that we need to be clear we are looking for types of projects, not particular projects. Matt volunteered for the workshop hot for region 2. Rod will check with their office in Willows for the region 1 meeting. Cesar, Rod, and Shane will host region 1. The water forum will host region 3. Robyn will host region 4. JD can host region 5 meeting. Josh will host the delta, probably with the parallel efforts Jim and Josh are involved in with the delta science group. Rene asked if their models are similar to ours and if we should be asking ourselves why they are different and if we want to maintain those differences. Jim said he will pull that information together to share with the SIT.
Update on Chinook DSMs, including calibration results
SIT reviewed Chinook DSMs. Corey said there is harvest of winter run. He said it is 5-10%. There is an allowable take. Steve Hindley presented this at the winter run workshop that has this information. Corey will send the tech memo with this information. Dan said Brett Kormos is on that group and can explain it. Mike Berry said the 4% for winter run is too low. Dan said that in the last couple years these have been entirely hatchery fish because of drought years. Normally, it is a certain number of fish based on the population at that time. He said they always aim for ~120 adults, 60 of each sex. In really bad years, they take hatchery origin fish. Mike Berry will get us the percentages taken of winter run for the last few years, which includes what proportion is hatchery or natural origin. Adam will see what the NMFS winter run model uses. Dan said that the 120 rule is pretty stable except under extreme cases. Corey said that 15% were adults, not juveniles so we need to make sure those line up. Matt said you might separate location with high and low. For example, Butte, Clear, Battle, Antelope, and Cottonwood are lower proportions. Don't know about Yuba and Feather. Matt said we can look at juvenile outmigrant data. Mike Berry will track some information. Ryon Kurth and Jason Kindopp will know more for the Feather and Yuba. Rachel Johnson and Anna Sturrock might also know. SIT reviewed the locations where a spring run population exists. JD suggested we look at CVPIA goals. Matt said they don't have doubling goals in a lot of places, but suggested we look at GrandTab. Corey said we should check the spring run outmigration timing. Matt said we should look at RBDD counts for adult returns, in particular when they stop. Mike B. said those counts weren't really reliable because they mixed runs. Matt said the winter run data are probably better. Dan said they also do redd surveys. Matt said these data will be hard to use because they hold before they spawn.
Review of Calibration Results
The overall simulation estimates of adults match up well with the observed data; however, when looking at these values tributary by tributary the estimates are quite a bit off for some tributaries. SIT discussed why this might be the case. Matt said it could be the quality of the data for adults in some of these watersheds. Robyn that said Cosumnes could be accessibility. Dan said it could be that the operations have changed drastically, and we are applying the new operation rules to old data. Dan said the hatchery practices were very different, so we would have high stray rates that weren't monitored. JD said what they are calling a hatchery fish is probably off by a lot in some areas. Matt said the Battle Creek estimates of abundance might be really off due to the number of hatchery fish. Mike B. said Matt Johnson has Chinook data on Clear and mainstem Sac for proportion hatchery. Robyn said Cosumnes and Yuba get relatively high strays from neighboring hatcheries. Adam said the data for winter run are very sparse and asked for other data sources to do a calibration. Corey said the NMFS winter run model calibrates to Chipps, knights landing, RBDD and carcass survey data, but we are using a different set of years. Rene asked about the straying ruleset based on flows. That is, what is the baseline and are we using something that would lead to very different rulesets based on the accessibility of sites. Matt asked if the stray rate depends on where the fish came from. Yes and DCC operations. Dan cautioned against using the old monitoring data but the last 10-15 years is much better, with everything from 2005 is better. Brett Kormos at CDFW has coded wire tag data. Dick disagrees with the coded wire tag data estimates on the proportion of hatchery fish taken for brood stock.
Review Units of Effort
SIT reviewed the information that was submitted for restoration projects and the associated cost. Although the cost can vary considerably and many projects create multiple types of habitat, the amounts of habitat created were pretty consistent. The SIT began to identify units of effort based on the amounts of habitat created in the past and discussed having scenarios that created multiple types of habitat. Lilly said that a ratio of 3:2:1 for spawning:rearing:floodplain in the American River was reasonable. Robyn said a ratio of 2:1 for floodplain:spawning in the Mokelumne River was reasonable. Adam asked what was meant by "lowland." JD said he thinks the distinction was based on areas of gravel vs. sandy reaches. Rod like that distinction. Robyn will find more information on costs and amounts of habitat for lowland projects. Lilly can get costs and area for an American River project. Lisa said that Appendix H of the conservation strategy has the standard habitat discount factor to translate area worked in to useable fish habitat. Since Dan Meir has retired, Shane, Felipe, Matt, Levi, and Cesar need to be in on conversations centered on diversion screenings.
Mike Urkov, Cesar Blanco, Shane Abeare, JD Wikert, Robyn Bilski, Bruce McLaughlin, Levi Johnson, Lisa Hunt, Corey Phillis, Dan Kratville, Felipe Carillo, Towns Burgess, Rod Wittler, Brad Cavallo, Jim Peterson, Adam Duarte
Review of where hatchery proportions come from
Jim prepared to review how these numbers are calculated, but the people who had concerns were not present. Brett Kormos is supposed to release more recent data this spring.
Review Sturgeon information
SIT reviewed the scores provided by the Sturgeon group. Importantly, these scores are not the final scores and are being updated by the group.
Scenarios and units of efforts
SIT reviewed the scenarios. Robyn said that she looked up a lowland floodplain habitat and the amount created was comparable to what we currently have for delta rearing habitat. John Cain has spent some time thinking about opportunities to do a lowland project in San Joaquin. Levi will get more information on the diversion screening units of effort. Dawn Weinrich CV flood protection plan conservation strategy. Robyn sent the appendix, link, or document – Check this.
Spring and Fall Chinook introgression
NMFS does not consider spring run in these tributaries to count toward doubling goal because of lack of separation between the two runs and Feather River hatchery. Cesar thinks we need to discuss this for spring run, but he doesn't think it will change how we think about the fall run. On the 18th, we will have a broader discussion about this, so the SIT can agree on this ahead of the prioritization process.
Meeting schedule updates
The proposed SIT meeting schedule through June 2019 has been slightly modified to accommodate other SDM efforts in the Central Valley. Shane will send out meeting invitations.
- Check to see what the NMFS winter run model does for in-ocean harvest
- Back out the number of juveniles that exhibit the yearling life history strategy for spring run, since the percentage was based on adult samples (not juveniles). Also, Butte, Clear, Battle, Antelope, and Cottonwood are lower proportions of yearlings, so we may make the percentage location specific.
- Check on the locations that have spring run and the timing of winter run adults returns (particularly when they stop).
- Share comparison of the Bay Delta groups conceptual model for the delta and the SIT's conceptual model of the delta
- Check on what the baseline flows are that we are using for straying in the models and see how different they are from the years we are simulating.
- Check to make sure hatchery values match the coded wire tag report. This was completed and present on day 2 of this meeting.
- Check with Ryon Kurth, Jason Kindopp. Rachel Johnson, and Anna Sturrock on the proportion of spring run juveniles in Feather and Yuba that exhibit the yearling life stage.
- Check with Matt Johnson and Mike Berry for the proportion of hatchery fish in Clear Creek and mainstem Sacramento.
- Check with Brett Kormos for more up to date coded wire tag data.
- Contact Levi Johnson on range in diversion screening size scenarios and step (i.e., 5⁄10 cfs per unit for 1 to 6 units or something else)
- Send watershed expert materials to SIT for feedback.
- Send out meeting invitations for SIT meetings through July 2019.
- Send out meeting poll/invitation for Sturgeon group.
- Coordinate meeting with Rod, Shane, and Adam to discuss monitoring data sheets
- Send report with information on the percent in-ocean harvest for winter run.
Robyn Bilski and Lilly Allen
- Find information on cost and amounts of habitat for lowland areas.
- Get estimates on the number of fish and proportion hatchery fish taken as brood stalk for winter run hatchery operations.
- Review and send revisions of the draft material for the watershed expert meetings by April 13th