In-person Meeting

August 22, 2018 Slides

Cottage Way, Sacramento

Participants:

Mike Urkov, Mike Beaks, Lisa Hunt, Robyn Bilski, Mark Gard, Mike Berry, Corey Phillis, Tanya Sheya, Flora Cordoleani, Doug Killam, Mike Hendrick, John Kelly, Matt Brown, Cesar Blanco, Josh Israel, Brett Harvey, John Hutchings, JD Wikert,Dan Kratville, Shane Abeare, Chris Hammersmark, Carson Jeffres, Felipe Carrillo, Jim Peterson, Adam Duarte

Updates

  • Watershed expert meetings (Shane)
    • The delta watershed meeting is occurring on Friday. The other watershed expert meetings have been postponed until we get an update on contracting issues for Flow West
  • Habitat decay proposal (Chris, Adam, and Jim)
    • Sediment transport models will tell you what has moved, but won't be exactly usable habitat. We may take project level monitoring to scale up to the tributary level. Mike Berry has information for the Feather. Robyn has a lot of data but needs to know what we exactly need (i.e., redd data, habitat suitability, sediment loss). Rod suggested bringing into the sediment transport folks. Adam will contact folks for the data.
  • Fall-run Chinook integrated analysis (Adam)
    • Models are having issues with convergence. Adam and Jim are working through different parameterizations to see if that fixes the issue
  • Calibration of the DSMs (Jim and Adam)
    • How do we want to handle historic escapement estimates related to the proportion of hatchery fish? JD said the data are on RMIS, but that system is hard to retrieve data. Doug has some information for everything north of Chico. He breaks out the hatchery fish for his tributaries. They expand the values based on the proportion marked for that cohort through RMIS. Might Contact Bret Cormos or Vanessa Gusman does a presentation at Ocean Salmon meeting that has this information. Mike B. noted that the values change substantially each year, so getting the annual data would be better than taking a mean.
    • Dan just talked to Bret and Bret said that the 2013 report comes out in 2 weeks. 2014-2016 will come out in monthly intervals. The caveat is that we will have clean data and there are assumptions that went into how those data are collected.
    • For O. mykiss, we have RST data we plan to use. Mossdale Trawl has minimal steelhead captures. Video data are available but folks are still working out some of the kinks of separating anadromous fish from non-anadromous fish
  • Sturgeon DSM (Jim)
    • We have a skeletal model put together for sturgeon.
    • Mark G. said the latest he heard was Bear River was white sturgeon only, but he said to check with Alicia.
    • There is a bioenergetics model for green sturgeon that we could lift some information from. It was developed by Nantel (natenel) as part of the science center. (ask Josh) There is a full manuscript on this.
    • Peter Dudely might also have information for habitat complexity (for salmon) based on remotely sensed data (ask Josh)
    • Dave Diamond might also have habitat information from Trinity (ask Rod). Jim Shannon is working on HECRAS stuff (ask Rod)
    • Mike B. asked if there is any information from Katz's work for food availability. Josh said there are a lot of data from USGS in the delta region. Josh said we need to define what food availability means.
    • After 9 months juveniles are salt water tolerant based on Peter Allen's work
    • Mike B. mentioned that he doesn't see invasive species influencing food availability in the delta. Josh said there is a paper on sturgeon and invasive clams eating clams but not actually absorbing the nutrients. paper: Kogut (author). Dan said he doesn't know if this is true.
    • Dan said that predation is usually not observed for adults. Usually they are smaller fish. Josh said predation is one of those things we may want to keep in and see how it influences model output.
  • CVPIA SIT special section (Jim and Adam)
    • Write an email to Heather and Cesar to describe this and get administrator approval
    • Dan said the department is currently setting up a data policy to structure data and make it available.
  • Chinook scenarios (Jim and Adam)
    • Delta scenarios: Corey said the end and 4th one are somewhat linked through downstream effects. Routing through Fremont will change routing in Georgiana Slough.
    • Base flow scenarios are a base flow, so if the flow is 60 cfs then do nothing. To reach 50 cfs, you turn off the pumps. Change "base" to "minimum". This is for the gage that is related to the node that is downstream. JD suggested bumping the timeframe to the while month interval.
  • Modified CVPIA SIT Schedule (Jim and Adam)
    • SIT reviewed the modified SIT schedule.

Review discussion with Sac River Exchange Contractors and discuss next steps

  • Rod discussed how it is in our best interest to interact with these folks and see where our efforts can complement each other. Josh suggested Steve or Mike B. present how they are monitoring these habitat restoration efforts in the Sac. What the biological response is and the impact they are thinking about. Josh said they are funding some work out of Chico State or maybe Pacific State and they would like to help them figure out how to prioritize. Mike B. said that would be good. They were looking for more feedback on the document they put together. Mike B. said that Dr. Mandy Vanen from Chico State would be a good person to have give a talk. Dan said the formal group is named Upper Sac River Science Collaborative. They are hoping to have a science workshop this fall. They are in the early stages. They are focused on the upper Sac above the Fremont Weir. Mike B. said that to him the most important thing is to engage with them on monitoring because often times they have their own projects they want to (and will) implement. We should use their efforts to learn via monitoring.
    • ERP has a database that has all the information for CALFED projects. These projects complemented and added to CPVIA projects. So, we need to have this history of actions to quantify the true value of CVPIA related projects

Food For Fish Proposal

  • Jacob reviewed their efforts related to the food for fish SIT proposal. The focus is on increasing growth rates based on the amount of floodplain acres being fed into the river habitats. This will not increase carrying capacity. Brett et al. will finalize their draft proposal and send out to the SIT for feedback.

SIT performance measures

  • Rod discussed the SIT performance measures documents, which is the list of attributes folks would monitor when carrying out a restoration project. JD suggest we incorporate "you must do this", "would be nice to have this", and "we already know a lot about this' categories. Jim mentioned that the purpose of the project may dictate what the performance measure is. Rod's hope is that the charter folks can look at this spreadsheet and make plans to monitor to feedback into the SIT process. Rod would like SIT's feedback by the next in-person meeting. Josh said we can rank them based on whether they are in the influence diagram or not.

Rod's proposals and update from John Hutchings

  • Rod will get values from John Hannon about mixed habitat scenarios and to refine the list of projects for the upper Sac habitat proposal.
  • John gave an update of his efforts to document past completed projects. John is looking for if anyone has data on some of these projects. He will send to Shane for SIT to provide feedback on where John can get help filling out the table.
  • Rod said the FRP and Hindcasting proposals might be combined. JD discussed how a lot of the FRP did not have quantities associated with them so it would be really hard to put numbers to the actions in an unbiased way. JD and Matt said Butte Creek you might be able to do, but some of the tributaries were not well articulated. Matt noted that to use the information John is collating we need to have the actual amount of useable habitat, not a footprint. Robyn noted that John might want to add more categories because in some cases we only have foot print, in some cases we have usable habitat, and in some cases we have both. Matt noted that other programs are in play that contributed to these efforts that we would want to include in this effort. To do the hindcast, we would need to consider current and past operations as well as areas that were open for anadromy. John will send this spreadsheet to Shane so that the SIT can provide feedback. We need help in finishing Johns inventory and the hindcast proposal in a month.
  • Decisions: No AFRP proposal, work on John's sheet to see if hindcasting is a possibility, and Rod will refine the habitat proposal with John Hannon.

Mike Wright gave an update on his efforts to model water temperature

  • They have fit things to Clear Creek and Battle Creek. Jim will send code to Mike Wright on how to calculate median days >20 C based on monthly flows. Jim will also send reports from Oregon on this topic. Mark G. said he has done air temp for upstream and upstream X air temp for downstream temperature. Mike B. said that some streams like Mill, Deer, etc. have thermograph data. Doug Killam has a lot of these data. JD said Dean Marsten might have some of these data for the Stan. Mike W. will give another update at the next in-person meeting.

Marching Orders…

Adam

  • Contact folks with a specific request for data associated with spawning habitat decay
  • Retrieve green sturgeon bioenergetics model documentation
  • Write an email to Heather and Cesar to describe this and get administrator approval

Shane

  • Invite Dr. Mandy Vanen from Chico State to give a presentation to the SIT to see where our efforts can complement each other.

Brett et al.

  • Finalize their draft proposal on food for fish scenario and send out to the SIT for feedback.

Rod

  • Retrieve values from John Hannon about mixed habitat scenarios and to refine the list of projects for the upper Sac habitat proposal.

Jim

  • Send code to Mike Wright on how to calculate median days >20 C based on monthly flows.
  • Send reports to Mike Wright on water temperature-flow relationships in Oregon.

Mike W.

  • Give another update at the next in-person meeting.

SIT

  • Rod would like SIT's feedback on the performance measure sheet by the next in-person meeting.
  • John would like SIT's feedback on his spreadsheet of past projects by COB September 14th.