November 7, 2018 Slides
JD Wikert, Brett Harvey, Chester Lindley, Chris Hammersmark, Corey Phillis, Felipe Carrillo, Flora Cordoleani, Carl Dealy, Josh Israel, John Kelly, Mark Gard, Mike Beakes, Mike Hendrick, Mike Urkov, Dick Pool, Rod Wittler, Russ Perry, Sadie Gill, Sarah Gallagher, Shane Abeare, Steve Thomas, Tanya Shepard, Heather Casillas, Brian Ellrott, Jim Peterson, Adam Duarte
Possible change in our approach for FY20 priorities
The SIT discuss a possible change in our approach for FY20 priorities. In particular BOR and USFWS proposed:
The Science Coordinator will notify all interested parties that the SIT will be developing priority recommendations during the December in-person meeting based in part on input provided by the PWTs. The Science Coordinator will reach out to the PWTs (with the exception of the Sturgeon PWT – they developed updated priorities ~6 months ago) to ask them for their taxa/run-specific priorities. The Science Coordinator also should provide a list of funded charters that address previous priorities. The Science Coordinator will collate and distribute that information to the SIT no later than December 3rd. The SIT will review and discuss this information during the December in-person meeting and will also review and discuss the model results used during the FY18 prioritization process. Using this information, the SIT will make priority recommendations. The Science Coordinator will develop an updated/revised FY18 tech memo for the FY20 call for charters using the updated/revised priorities recommended by the SIT. The Agency Technical Team will review the draft memo prior to the Science Coordinator submitting the Memo to the Core Team. SIT members will be provided with the opportunity to attach comments to the Tech Memo prior to submission to the CORE team. After determining priorities, the SIT will return its focus to production of the Near Term Restoration Strategy.
Questions: Is this going to establish a bad precedence in which the DSMs are not going to be used for the priorities? How do we ensure that this does not become the new norm?
- Rod sees this as still using the DSMs from the FY18 prioritization. Also, the Near-Term Restoration Strategy will rely on the DSMs.
- Please send thoughts and concerns to Shane, Cesar, Heather, Rod, Jim and Adam
Bay-Delta modifications to Chinook DSM
Jim gave a review of what the Bay-Delta is doing to update the Chinook DSM for their efforts. They are breaking up the delta into multiple subregions and using transition probabilities provided by Russ Perry and some the juvenile survival probabilities from the south delta (using a meta analysis). All the information can be found on a web portal on Google Drive and most of it is pulled over to the Delta SDM site. These changes will not come over the SIT without a formal proposal review
- For access to the Bay-Delta SDM website, see here
More discussion on how the SIT wants to respond to requests to review priorities/proposals
Jim and Adam asked the SIT if they would like to review proposals sent to the SIT for approval when the funds that the authors are seeking are not CVPIA funds. Corey said we should do that. What is the process we want to go through? Shane suggested having a page on the SIT website that has the priorities and then folks can reference the page, the tech memo, or near term strategy. Josh liked that idea. Rod said a letter could be written by the SC that just copies the tech memo or the restoration strategy. Josh said he does not think the SC or the SIT can write a letter of support. Federal employees can't support particular projects, but they can refer to or quote formal documents.
ROC-ON LTO CVP: Use of Shiny Apps
Rod discussed what ROC-ON LTO is. There will need to be NEPA work on this for EIS. BOR has been approached to use the DSMs or the shiny apps. They wanted to be transparent that they intend to use the Shiny apps. Dick said it makes sense to use. No one expressed opposition to the use of the Shiny apps. Rod will give an update on this as things move forward.
Update from Flow West
Sadie gave an update on some of the work Flow West is doing. One of the main tasks they are completing is figuring out why spawning data is not matching up and getting temperature and redd count data. The group discussed the carcasss survey data vs. the WUA habitat amounts vs. the amount habitat used for spawning on Clear Creek. Mark G. mentioned that the amount habitat used includes some area with less suitable habitat. Flow West is trying to set up a time to meet with Matt Brown and his group to discuss these data. Mark G. would like to participate in these discussions.
Shane is moving on to a new position. Please copy Rod, Cesar, Jim, and Adam on all future SIT related tasks
- Coordinate with PWTs and relay information to the SIT for prioritizations to occur during the December in-person meeting
- Please send thoughts and concerns about the change to the schedule to Shane, Cesar, Heather, Rod, Jim and Adam