August 07, 2019 Slides
Bret Harvey, Chris Hammersmark, Rene Henry, Mike Berry , Steve Thomas, Priscilla Liang, Corey Philis, Erica Myers, Mike Beakes, Steve Thomas, Sadie Gill, JD Wikert, Pam Taber, Cesar Blanco, Rod Wittler, Mike Urkov, Jim Peterson, Adam Duarte, Bernard Aguilar, Kate Spear, Michael Prowatzke, Page Vick, Matt Brown, Robyn Bilski
Update on model modification proposal for Managed Wetland Trophic Subsidies (rice field food) (Brett)
- Review of conceptual mixing rate of food sources into mainstream river segments.
- Built a mixing model.
- Question: how fast does mixing occur?
- Example: Knights Landing mixing observable on Google Earth
- Errors came down to visual errors on documenting full-mixing.
- Back calculated from full mixing to food mixing
- Russ Perry bio-physical model based on hatchery growth rates / temperature / rations
- Nags data + suisun growth rates. Also cage fish measurements upstream / down stream of sources.
- Finding density that represents saturation ration.
- Should be able to assign higher growth rates
- Question: what about saturation level through time? Is there a relationship between number of fish and removal of food because of consumption?
- Assume dilution is primary driver
- What about good holding habitat?
- Don’t consider thalweg to be good habitat for holding salmon
- Need to assume food directed at margins
- Would it make sense to expand from linear distance?
- Proxy estimate good for now. Some rivers would have more definition.
- Assuming mixing is linear, but really more complex mixing.
- Intention to develop initial operation, then expand to other streams as appropriate.
- Acres flooded to numbers of fish affected. Could result in changed growth rates or different growth matrices. Initial results are greater than current Perry estimates.
- Question: why not just implement Rene’s idea out of the box?
- Will follow-up off line
Status of Science Coordinator (Cesar)
- No significant update from last call.
- Announcement sometime in August
Discuss where we are now and where we are going
- Review slides from draft implementation plan cross-walked with current status
- Presentation Slides
- Near Term 5 Year Restoration Strategy
- Schedules and updates reflected in slides
- SIT likely to meet less often
- Science coordinator outreach and review in year 4 of 5
- Benchmark schedule from 2017. Now pushing things back
- Contracting issues delayed watershed meetings and participation by Adam and Jim
- Revised timelines
- Would be helpful to have interim science coordinator to write up tech memo
- Would like to continue to develop subgroups to consider habitat decay stuff
- Would be nice to continue to develop time per unit effort to justify strategy rates
- Relationship to Salmon Partnership and CAMP? When would these be done?
- Assume we will be talking about acreage increases across habitat types.
- When would we need something? Probably October of this year after AFS meeting
- Who is keeping track of the monitoring in order to answer questions
- Working on draft data guidance. Lots of data is stovepiped. Looking to organize the monitoring team.
- How will we correlate and coordinate data
- Develop broad agreements about monitoring reviews
A quick review of the Near-term Restoration Strategy development (Jim and Adam)
CPAR and the Strategy: How are they related? (Cesar, Heather, and Rod)
- Reclamation has been meeting with Commissioner regarding CPAR
- Assumption that CPAR list will be updated to replace outdated projects with current priorities from near-term restoration actions
Using the DSMs to develop the strategy (Jim and Adam)
Status of the Chinook and O. mykiss DSMs (Jim and Adam)
- How to efficiently develop calibration?
- Coordination with FlowWest to talk
Status of watershed expert meetings (Mike U.)
- September 9 in Lodi
- Red Bluff and Sacramento dates pending
- Modeling 101 still under development
Status of the habitat decay proposal (Rod)
- Everyone has been on leave, nothing to report
The role of the SIT after the Near-term Restoration Strategy (Cesar, Heather, and Rod)
- Draft Data Guidance should be available soon
- Expert elicitation could include customers / stakeholders. What level of detail would be appropriate
- See cvpia.scienceintegrationteam.com
- Notes from chat:
The Role of the Sit after NTRS Monitoring direction - improvements - data gaps Feedback loop - Hindcast completion and monitoring of recent projects Incorporate new sub-models - e.g. Habitat Decay; Rice Field Food; etc. Revisit - Revise DSMs Peer Review Revisions to NTRS - Schedule & Purposes - what needs fixing/modification first?
From Rod Wittler to Everyone: (10:43 AM) CPAR and the Strategy: Evaluate remaining 81 CPAR actions in context of NTRS Replace CPAR actions with NTRS actions by EOY 2019
From Rod Wittler to Everyone: (10:54 AM) 3 sets of charters/projects to collect feedback from: Those in the pipeline already (thru FY19) Historical (Hindcast) 2020 and beyond - those generated by the NTRS
From Sadie to Everyone: (10:57 AM) http://cvpia.scienceintegrationteam.com/meetings/