April 24, 2019
Bruce McLaughlin, Felipe Carrillo, Brett Harvey, Michael Prowatzke, Carl Dealy, Bernard Aguilar, Mike Urkov, Corey Phillis, Chris Hammersmark, JD Wikert, Chester Lindley, Rod Wittler, Sadie Gill, Erica Meyers, Michelle Workman, John Kelly, Mark Gard, Mark Thompkins, Mike Hendrick, Mike Beakes, Matt Brown, Shelly Hatleberg, Adam Duarte
Update on habitat decay proposal (Rod)
No progress since last update, but plans are to continue working on it now that we are moving past the Charter submission period.
Update on habitat builder app (Mike/Sadie)
The smaller group has met a couple of times. Corey had the original idea for the app that was presented during the last call. Talked about how it might be used, what its strengths are,and what makes sense on how to make a series of strategies over the 20-year timeframe of the model.
They are now talking about other things folks would want to work into a strategy other than habitat. They have a list of those inputs and the next step is to talk to Jim and Adam about potential parameters that we can manipulate for the evaluations. There's a list of what the inputs could be. Right now we have spawning and rearing habitat and have a good idea of that. Other inputs need to be discussed. No proposed changes to the model, but varying inputs in different places (Rod had sent list to Adam). Mike Beakes said that one of the goals is to make sure we can clearly articulate what is being tweaked when implementing these actions in the model. They are going to need help coming up with cost estimates for the habitat builder. The idea they are showing is that there is only so much capacity to influence how much work can be done. Our capacity is potentially costs or things we can do within a set amount of time.
Mike and Adam had some cost information (diversions, Sac, American). Mike U. – the idea is that there is only so much capacity to influence how much work can be done so we are trying to put limits on what can be done (ultimately cost). Rod – it's not really putting 'limits' on. Also, would like to refer to it as a strategy, not habitat, builder. Unit cost would accumulate to give cost over time for all management actions in that strategy ("Three little bears" analogy). Adam - saying cost estimates aren't associated for capacity, but to build a strategy then to have cost afterwards? Rod – estimate we have roughly $10M each year for new starts; over 5 years that's $50M so you could put self-imposed limit on strategy. On the other hand, it would be useful to know if a strategy costs $100M and would triple the salmon population that would be very helpful information. Right now, the app is a counter and shows how much you're spending. Mike U. – it has the ability to go into the negative to see what happens (so no limit in that regard). Adam - do we want SIT thinking about costs? Rod – rough cost would be a useful guide; want to avoid people coming up with ideas that don't take cost/time into consideration, but don't want to dwell on it. How this tool can be used as a strategy builder with an associated cost, not necessarily a capacity measure, so we can go into the "negative" cost-wise with the tool. The idea is to get the SIT thinking about things in the "real world" where there are cost and time associated with actions.
Rod – what we need right now is (1) the mapping of the list of actions and how input changes in model and (2) cost (typical) of those actions.
Update on model calibrations (Adam)
Chester was able to provide juvenile abundance estimates from the CAMP platform. Adam and Jim are fitting the integrated model to these data to estimate transition probabilities (i.e., survival, movement, and growth). Adam will be presenting output from this effort during the next call in meeting (May 8). Afterward, we will use these estimates to work with FlowWest to refine DSM inputs and calibrate the DSMs before the watershed meetings.
Update on status of watershed meetings (Mike U./Shelly)
No update. Dependent on model calibration. Timeline is about a month out from that calibration. At these meetings we will be discussing the inputs and the models themselves, so it is important to have some model output for these meetings.
Rod – going to need model results to show folks at meeting correct? Mike U. – we present the best information we have and part of that will be some realistic expectations of making rough estimates and then get expert input to refine estimates; helps folks believe what the model is suggesting. Rod – are experts looking at inputs and/or models? Mike U. – looking at both usually; biggest challenge is in translation to make sure we're all talking about the same thing (ex. scour estimates).
Adam – want to make sure we're still moving forward with developing strategies. Mike – yes, the expert meetings are more for further refining the models.
Clarification of S3 model meeting (Rod)
This is not an official SIT meeting. They borrowed our email list which has caused some confusion. This model was developed for the Trinity River Restoration Program. If you participate in this meeting, great, but it is not a SIT effort.
Rod – would like to talk to Carl about fish salvage and south Delta and model.
Next SIT Call-in Meeting scheduled for May 8
Next SIT In-person Meeting scheduled for June 19-20
Adam, Rod, Shelly and Mike – need to discuss a road map for getting to the NTRS