In-person Meeting

December 12–13, 2018 Slides

Day 1 - Cottage Way, Sacramento


Mike Urkov, Mike Beaks, JD Wikert, Bruce McLaughlin, Dick Pool, John Hutchings, Corey Phillis, Levi Johnson, John Kelly, Sadie Gill, Mark Tompkins, Robyn Billski, Alicia Seesholtz, Mike Wright, Kirk Nelson, Doug Killam, Mark Gard, Russ Perry, Chris Hammersmark, Lisa Hunt, Chester Lindley, Bret Harvey, Tanya Sheya, Flora Cordoleani, Cesar Blanco, Rod Wittler, Jim Peterson, Adam Duarte

08:30–10:00 - Report out progress

Necessary adjustments to model inputs (Mike, Mark, Sadie et al.)

Flow West has been getting the data ready for calibration. Getting the habitat data where it needs to be is trickier than initially thought. Hopefully, this will be wrapped up this week or early next week. O. mykiss habitat is not readily available, but they are going to apply some logic to fill these numbers in. Sadie reviewed the SIT apps and the R documentation that can be found online. Once the DSMs are calibrated, she can update the survival app. Flow West then discussed the website and their plans on how they are going to make the agenda and notes available on the website. The group talked about the usefulness of developing a data repository going forward. JD said the La Grange reports are the closest to real-time data for SJ watersheds. Dick would like to see an app that relates doing a project and estimating the number of fish that pass the Golden Gate Bridge.

Status of Chinook and O. mykiss models and calibration (Adam)

The models are built but need to be calibrated and the Chinook models need to be integrated – then recalibrated. This can be done once we have the new habitat estimates. It is estimated to take ~3 weeks.

Temperature modeling (Mike(s))

Mike and Kirk gave an overview of the work they have been doing for temperature modeling. In particular they have been correlating water temperatures to flow and air temperature. JD and Chris said grouping by month or day length would greatly improve the relationship. This estimates temperature at a point in the river. It would still need to be extrapolated to the larger area. Mike Beakes suggested checking out the spatial stream model network (by NorWest) because it integrates network geometry and spatial autocorrelation. Jim suggested fitting the model to the monthly values, instead of the daily data. Jim will put Mike in contact with Stuart Rounds with USGS.

10:00–10:20 - Break

10:20–12:00 - Review timeline for FY20 priorities (Adam and Jim)

The group reviewed the schedule for the FY20 priorities. It was noted that the group will first identify candidate priorities for on the ground projects. Then, the SIT will be asked to score them. The SIT will not be doing both (identification and scoring) at the same time. Rod would also like to score monitoring priorities. This process with incorporate previous model runs, tech memo, and PWT feedback. Rod and Cesar said the timeline might be tight because of their new process of providing transparency to other stakeholders. Rod suggested that they might have enough time if they stick to the tech memo that will be done by Feb. 5th (without the addendums). Rod said they will start drafting the call for charters on Feb. 5th and then probably submit the call for charters on Feb. 22nd. There was discussion on the cost of ongoing projects and the importance of getting new estimates as soon as possible so that everyone knows how much money is available for. Rod suggested that if you have a charter idea that you submit it regardless of the funding situation this year because those charters will be there for the CORE team to reference in the future.

Proposed approach for prioritizing actions with discussion (Jim)

It was reiterated that the SIT does not recommend projects. This caused issues when communicating with the PWTs and translating their feedback, so it is important that we remember this going forward. The group reviewed the excel workbook that Jim and Adam put together for the scenarios. For monitoring data prioritization, the SIT monitoring data sheet and the SIT evaluation of the model components. Rod said that works for previous/ongoing efforts, but that does not cover potentially new monitoring priorities. JD suggested looking at the sensitivity analysis to look at what parameters most influenced model output. It was noted that Eric Danner and his group have been marking wild fish for 5 or 6 years, but the captures are low. Flora would be a good contact for this.

12:00–13:00 - Lunch

13:30–14:30 - Review previous SIT priorities (Adam and Jim)

Review sturgeon priorities for FY2019 (Adam and Jim)

The group reviewed the FY18-19 SIT priorities for Chinook, Sturgeon, and O. mykiss. We will send the tech memos to the group.

14:30–15:00 - Discuss previous and expected (FY20) CORE team process used to identify charters (Rod and Cesar)

Last year was a second look at the FY2018 charters. For FY2019, they chose charters that they thought were worth funding but could not afford in FY2018. In 2018, each agency ranked the charters and gave their top 10. In 2019 they asked for the next top ten. They wrote and presented their annual work plan at the open house.

For FY2020, they want to re-evaluate their ranking criteria used to score charters. They expect that once they get the tech memo they will use a ranking criteria to generate a call for charters. They will be using a tier system to order/rank the charters.

Jim noted that it would be great to incorporate any science-based disagreements from the open house meetings into the SIT and save disagreements that are not science based for those forums

15:00–15:20 - Break

15:20–16:00 - Review funded charters, compare with SIT FY18 priorities (in Tech memo), and identify any unmet priorities (all)

The group reviewed previous SIT priorities and funded charters. For American River # 2, John Hannon and Paul Caudrett would be a good point of contact for details. We can provide the spreadsheets we reviewed and the SIT score sheets for FY18 and the sail document. JD suggested that if the model does not have the resolution to examine something then we shouldn't score it. Update "tributary or section of Sacramento mainstem" to "CV tributary, section of Sacramento mainstem, or SJ". JD noted that above the rim dams is outside CVPIA geographic scope. He is not saying we shouldn't run it, but he doubts this action can be carried out by CVPIA.

New Business

Mark G. is putting a proposal together for a symposium at AFS for "modeling for anadromous fish restoration". Please let him know if you are interested.