October 10, 2018 Slides
Adam Duarte, Cesar Blanco, Chris Hammersmark, Corey Phillis, Doug Killiam, Flora Cordoleani, JD Wikert, Jim Peterson, John Kelly, Julie Zimmerman, Mark Gard, Mark Tompkins, Matt Brown, Michelle Workman, Mike Beaks, Mike Hendrick, Mike Urkov, Rod Wittler, Russ Perry, Sadie, Shane Abeare, Towns Burgess
The call started with a discussion of the where we were in the process. We are primarily waiting on information to calibrate the Chinook salmon models (fall, spring, winter) and O. mykiss models. Now that Flowest is on board with a new contract (hooray!), Jim and Adam will be meeting with Flowest next Monday to identify information needs, flow, and priorities.
Rod asked about status of the Bay-Delta SDM effort and requested that Jim and Adam incorporate a proposal to include delta portion of the Bay-Delta SDM effort modifications.
Adam discovered some discrepancies between spawning habitat availability and the escapement estimates for tributaries included in the integrated analysis and presented some summaries of estimated spawning habitat (SIT model uses) vs. escapement (with some assumptions, e.g., 50⁄50 sex ratio).
Discussion on the Mokelumne, Michelle indicated that Adam should contact her to fill in some missing data.
Matt indicated that measured redd size for fall Chinook in Clear Creek was closer to the 9.29 m2.
Mark noticed that the 2 mile restoration reach was not included in the spawning habitat report, which is the basis for the SIT model habitat estimates. Matt did not think that it would be sufficient to explain the discrepancy. Much discussion followed regarding superimposition, spawning season length, and emergence 1650-1850 ATUs (°F), which translated to a 10 day range. But group decided that the time from first to last spawn within a run may not be sufficient for fry to emerge and allow another fish to spawn on the (now former) redd.
Adam will follow-up with evaluating weekly timing of carcass and visual redd surveys as a possible explanation for discrepancy. Sadie and Adam will follow-up with Mark to come up with a solution to the discrepancies.
Rod discussed CPAR proposal to run 81 proposed projects through the SIT Chinook model, plus lower Amer. River projects, but none of the CPAR are on the mainstem Sacramento. Rod will get a list and we will try to cross walk with existing scenarios and identify gaps between the two.
JD discussed the gravel obligations under CVPia-b-13 for Stan., Amer., Sac., and Clear Crk plus BiOP obligations and asked how SIT would incorporate these in the process. Rod indicated that the habitat decay submodel is essential to bringing this in the process for SIT but that the CORE team is currently the group that is responsible for ensuring that the obligations are met.
Rod requested that Jim and Adam provide a proposed format for communicating the SIT FY2020 priorities
Rod and Cesar requested/discussed the need to:
- Add discussion of the data management strategy to next agenda (Mike U provide 20K foot view) also be sure to keep Josh I in the loop
- Add discussion of monitoring needs and how we would like to communicate monitoring priorities to the CORE team
- Add presentation of Bay-Delta modifications to next agenda
- Add Julie Leimbach (contractor/facilitator) to agenda so she can discuss the request for more information on the SIT
Shane and Cesar will organize stakeholders to participate in briefing them of on the SIT process, history, and future direction.