September 19, 2018 Slides
Mark Gard, Rod Wittler, Mike Beakes, Tanya Sheya, Mike Urkov, Shane Abeare, Corey Phillis, Alicia Seesholtz, Robyn Bilski, Matt Brown, Mike Berry, Brett Harvey, Russ Perry, Cesar Blanco, Jim Peterson, Adam Duarte
Discuss SIT proposal to quantity the remaining CPAR projects
Rod and Cesar reviewed the CPAR documents that were sent out to the SIT. CPAR was a list of "reasonable actions" that could be completed, which is needed for the CVPIA legislation. Basically, it was stated that if these actions were completed then the program made that reasonable effort. After which, the program would go into maintenance mode. 47 have been completed but the remaining 81 have not been completed. It would need some quantification by the SIT, so there will be that investment. CPAR was primarily driven by the water users. The documents Rod shared have a list of those actions. The problem is that some are very specific. Others are very broad, like "screen all diversions". We have made attempts to quantify these things. The SIT science process on those sorts of points are more fine scale than what is listed in CPAR. Matt brought up that some of these might not be feasible because of costs. Rod said that is outside the SIT's concern. Rod would like a committee to go through and compare to the SIT's scenario. Management is asking if this still needs to do these. Mike B. said he wouldn't mind being on this committee. Rod would like this to be included in the near-term restoration strategy. Matt asked that when it says to "evaluate" something, is the action to evaluate it or actually complete it. Rod said we should evaluate and implement it if it looks promising. Matt said that one thing to keep in mind is the ratings aren't very detailed and sometimes not based on biological importance. Structural actions were given "medium". Rod said we would probably model this as a staggered implementation since we cannot implement them all at the same time. Rod said we might use some of the Shiny apps developed by Flow West to prioritize the order. Rod said he was thinking we turn off all diversions and maybe 50% since it is more reasonable. This is something the committee could figure out. Rod said he imagines we will look at combinations of these actions, say top 7 of the 81 vs. top 10 of the 81. Rod would like to say which of these 81 projects or groups of 81 give us the most fish production over a reasonable time. Shane suggested we bring this list to the watershed expert meetings to ask if these are still priorities.
Mike Berry, Mike Urkov, Mike Beakes, Cesar Blanco, Shane Abeare, Matt Brown, Rod Wittler
They want to do an in-person meeting to discuss. Mike B. will be gone the week of the 8th and 15th of October.
Cesar said that in his mind the priority is to get this expert elicitation process underway and some sort of agreement on the acceptance of the models we are using (particularly the fall run model). He understands that this was slowed down with the contracting issues. Adam brought up the SIT grading process of the model and that will tell folks how well the SIT accepts the model and model components. Cesar said that he wants to get to the point that we can say that "these models are good enough to make priorities". Jim brought up that we are not currently modifying the model. These proposals are for different scenarios to run through the model.
Adam noted that the ruleset we are using, the input habitat data, and the monitoring data do not match. For example, based on the information we have Clear Creek would not be able to support the number of fish that it does. Mark Gard said most of the spawning habitat data came from his IFIM. The problem is that the amount of spawning habitat is not enough to support that run size. Matt said that early on there was a bit of density dependence but later on there is no evidence for this. So, he thinks the spawning habitat estimates and the amount of space they need to spawn is off. Mark said that it could be superimposition is not as bad as we assume. Mike B. agreed that superimposition may not mean no spawning. It was noted that ~15 sq meters may be too big. IFIM uses 100 square feet, or ~10 sq meters. Matt and Robyn said they find it to be ~100 feet per redd. Matt said he can share these data for Clear Creek. Mokelumne has some. Feather River has some too. Matt suggests using the area used for spawning on the Clear with carcass survey to back calculate redd size
Website here with pesticide data for those that are interested.