October 24, 2018 Slides
Nigel Quinn, Chris Hammersmark, Shane Abeare, Cesar Blanco, Bruce Mclaughlin, Alicia Sheezolts, Autumn Wolfe, Mike Beakes, Steve Thomas, Mike Hendrick, Robyn Bilski, Matt Brown, JD Wikert, Russ Perry, Cyril Michel, Corey Phillis, Rene Henery, Doug Killam, Steve Louie, Regina Reager, Lisa Hunt, Sadie Gill, Felipe Carrillo, Mike Urkov, Rod Wittler, Jim Peterson, Adam Duarte
Discuss stream contaminants in the Central Valley (Stephen Louie and Nigel Quinn)
Nigel talked about some of the things they have done in the past see how that lines up with what the SIT is doing. They didn't look at pesticides but looked at other organic and inorganic material. The reports from this work are available. The major thing they looked at was salinity because they didn't find anything else of great concern. About 15 years ago there was work specific to low DO for salmon (Stockton work). Because of low DO was a product of a number of things, it brought east and west side of the valley together because the nutrients coming out of agriculture allowed algae to grow at a faster than natural rate in the SJ River. One thing they looked at was using a 30 day running average to evaluate contaminant loads for regulatory purposes. One kind of action to reduce mercury going to delta is temporary holding of water in lakes and reservoirs at various times of year. Reclamation is funding a project to recirculate water into the wetland to reduce the amount of mercury headed to the delta. Selenium chemistry and mercury chemistry is not all that dissimilar but they are hard to monitor. Rene asked what the scenarios and outcomes of those scenarios the SIT would like to see. Steve L. said that one thing would be stricter water quality rules to reduce contaminants in the water. Steve can send us a couple papers related to contaminants in the valley. Rene talked about how it would need to be a really big load to see an effect but that could be different for other fish. He said that if we can dig up some information on the effect we should bring that in. It was brought up that one problem is that we do not have a good information on where and how much contaminants are in the valley. We do have some information in the delta. There was some data in 1993-2000 in Sac River and the tribs, but not every year. We might be able to pull in some of that information. All of that information in in CEDEN. Steve said the WARP model might be useful for modeling contaminants.
Discuss the data management strategy – 20k ft. view
Mike U. gave a 20K foot view of the data management strategy. He discussed how these data should be public, accessible, described, reusable, complete, timely, and managed post-release. Next steps are to develop a database scheme to support concurrent efforts, establish data protocols for data generated, build cloud infrastructure to support scalability, and continue outreach to input data sources. Cesar asked how we handle information that CVPIA obtained from other sources with nondisclosure agreements, specifically the juvenile RST data. They are not real time data and then there is a desire for people to keep those data, particular monitoring efforts that are paid for outside of the CVPIA. Rod asked for information on who has one of these nondisclosure agreements. Cesar said that Rod and he could talk about this in the near future. JD said that Doug Treloff put a list of this together so that would be a good place to start.
Discuss monitoring needs and how we would like to communicate monitoring priorities to the Core team
The group discussed how they are communicating monitoring needs to the Core Team, including the sensitivity analysis, response profile analysis, the SIT grading of DSM inputs and parameters, the SIT monitoring data sheet, and the performance measures sheet. Rod talked a bit about how the Core Team could use this information. Russ talked about how he sees this as very important in ensuring the SIT has the information on and the quality of those data. Cesar asked if these priorities will be merged or separated. Jim said that that is up to the SIT but that he thinks keeping them separated from the project priorities and maybe add tiers of priority. Mike Beakes asked about calculating the value of information. Jim said that the plan is to do that for the near-term restoration strategy. Matt said that there are also hatchery estimates that might be important. He asked if Jim and Adam know of any data needs. Jim mentioned juvenile survival from wild fish is a big unknown.
Discuss the request from Julie Leimbach for more information on the SIT
Julie works for Kearns and West and reached out to Cesar. She is doing work trying to determine priority actions for upper Sac. She doesn't want to duplicate effort and Cesar invited her to the SIT discussions. Shane will compile a list of folks that would like to participate in a 1 hour webex on the SIT's effort. Right now it would be Chester, Julie, Regina, and Bruce. Matt suggested the Sacramento River Collaborative Group. JD suggested the water district in the SJ river basin.
Estimate predation of juvenile salmonids throughout the Sac-SJ delta
Jim asked how the SIT wants Shane to respond to requests to review of priorities. Does the SIT want to review proposals, does the SIT want to just have the Science Coordinator say if a proposal addresses a key uncertainty based on the last tech memo or restoration strategy, or something else. Rod and Mike Beakes liked the second option. Rene and Matt concurred. Matt expressed that there is some gray on if the project is set up to address the priority, so maybe just have the SC say what the SIT priorities are. The SIT would like to discuss this more with an outline with how we might go about doing that.
Status update on outstanding proposals/subcommittees
Jim reviewed the outstanding proposals update. Rene said they are close to having a proposal for food for fish. Doug said the CDFW proposal was probability submitted Matt Johnson. We need someone at the December meeting to answer questions by the SIT. Doug asked for the SIT to send an email to him to remind him. Matt B. said that there is another pulse flow scenario that may be more up to date that we may decide to go with instead. Mike Beakes would like to be included on these discussions. Matt B will send something to Shane for the group. Matt asked Rod for a CPAR list again. Cesar sent this out and will resend. Rod suggested crosscutting 6 and 7 with RPAs in Mike Hendrick.
The meeting ran long and we will need to cover the other agenda items at a later date.
- Send out information on contaminants
- Coordinate meeting with folks that want to catch up on SIT progress to date
- Work with Matt B. and share information on pulse flow scenario proposal
- Resend information on CPAR list
Rod and Cesar
- Discuss data use agreements in the Central Valley as it relates to the data management strategy
- Add hatchery information to SIT data monitoring sheet