Conference Call

July 11, 2018 Slides

Participants:

Mike Berry, Brett Harvey, Mike Urkov, JD Wikert, Julie Zimmerman, Chris Hammersmark, Tanya Sheya, Lisa Hunt, Steve Thomas, Alicia Seesholtz, Rod Wittler, Cesar Blanco, Mark Thompkins, Cathy Marcinkevage, Flora Cordoleani, Felipe Carrillo, Rene Henery, Matt Brown, Robyn Bilski, Shane Abeare, Jim Peterson, Adam Duarte

Discuss the use of a 0.27 habitat suitability factor for floodplains

Mark talked about where this value comes from. It is based on different regions and different flow scenarios: dry, normal, and wet. He shared the San Joaquin River Restoration Program report with the group and the tables of interest can be found in the meeting slides. He emphasized that this could be improved if we have better site-specific information. Lisa said the 27% sounds reasonable at the time step of the model, but she is concerned that it is not directly tied to flow. At some point, the suitability factor should decrease with flow. Chris pointed out that when looking at the tables the values seem to be much lower than 27% across all water year types. Jim discussed how we can include the uncertainty of the 27% in a sensitivity analysis. Mark said that to do that we need to consider the lower and higher range flows when doing this because that is where we are less certain. Jim suggested we form a subgroup to discuss this more. Please email Shane if you want to be in on those meetings.

Lisa asked about how we are modeling the addition of habitat for the scenarios. Are they tied to flow? Mark said that we have done it 2 ways: add new area or increase current suitable by a certain percentage. The way the model does it, we are adding suitable area, not total area worked in. Mark said that for the added habitat we can either add suitability or adjust the flow to area curve where you think you are adding habitat. Jim said that we are currently assuming the new habitat behaves similar to existing habitat with flow. Mark said it is also weighted by inundation time/duration.

Discuss the type of support Steve Thomas (NMFS) can provide the SIT

Steve Thomas (NMFS) introduced himself. He is an engineer and can provide those expertise to the SIT when/where they are needed. We can send information to Steve on what the SIT has done and where they are going so he can be caught up.

Update on locations of invertebrate sampling for use as a DSM input

Jim reviewed the data we have found for invertebrate sampling. It is all available on the CEDEN online system.

Remaining issues…

  • Rene said for floodplain inundation we have a change in growth rate for floodplain based on inundation timing/duration that incorporates food. He thinks we do not need to do anything different for this. He thinks what we do need to figure out is how to apply the increase in growth based on the routing food to fish (food for fish proposal). He thinks whatever we do there will big error bars around it. One way we can do this is: whatever percent increase in floodplain habitat we can take the growth rate we have now and use a simple bioenergetics model to back-calculate the amount of food in-channel, increase it, and take the growth rate and apply it to that in-channel growth. Another approach would be: come up with a metric for how much food and then do the bioenergetics equation that way. To do that, we first need to create a bioenergetics model that uses our current growth rate. Matt said the Esteban and Marquette paper looked at the Rader paper and found issues with that equation. Jim said that he looked at their paper and they didn't do a direct comparison/evaluation. We did meet with our invertebrate expert in the department here at OSU to adjust some of the Esteban and Marquette scoring values and came up with scoring for taxa that weren't included in any of the two papers. Rene suggested we step back and see if we need to approach food (talking about the food for fish proposal) from this angle with so many open questions. He said we can look at how much that ration would have to change to encourage anadromy in O. mykiss. Mike B. said he thinks that is a good approach but he wanted to know if we can do that for the other habitat types too. That is, we can increase food other ways.
  • Delta: Jim asked about using the otolith data to back-calculate how much food should be there. Rene said the issue is those data tell us how the fish is doing, but not what should be there. Rene said we can come up with some sort of ideal size distribution give the extent of delta rearing that we are modeling right now. Jim said he can talk to Larry Brown at USGS because he has been looking at amphipods in the delta. Jim will try to back out what

Discuss feedback received for habitat decay questionnaire

A habitat decay questionnaire was sent out and some feedback was received. If you still have a questionnaire, please submit as soon as possible. Shane will send out the responses to the subgroup so they can discuss at the next meeting.

Update on Sturgeon literature review and Google Doc

Adam created a Google Drive folder that has all the PDFs so far and a excel worksheet that was uploaded to Google Docs. Please add papers that are needed/missing. Also, please make comments in the worksheet where you know there is a missing parameter that we should have an estimate for. If the worksheet will not let you comment, feel free to email Adam directly.

Update on regional watershed expert meeting schedule

Region 2 through 6 is scheduled. Shane will have to re-poll for region 1. They are currently all in the 2nd or 3rd week of August. He will send out the full schedule to everyone when it is finalized.

Discuss feedback received and next steps on proposed Special Section of CVPIA efforts

Jim and Adam reviewed the new draft of the outline. They will create short blurbs for each of the papers and send out for feedback. Please add your name to the list where you would like to contribute.

Marching Orders

Shane

  • Send out food for fish proposal before the call-in meeting with the subgroup
  • Coordinate meeting for floodplain subgroup (current list: Lisa, Mark T., Chris, Rene, Jim, Adam)
  • Send out habitat decay questionnaire feedback to the habitat decay subgroup and coordinate meeting to discuss

Adam

  • Send Steve SIT information
  • Create draft blurbs for the special section.

Jim

  • Talk to Larry Brown at USGS concerning amphipods in the delta.