Conference Call

August 21, 2019 Slides

By phone:

Mike Urkov, Bruce Mclaughlin, Rod Wittler, Matt Brown, Page Vick, Kate Spear, Sadie Gill, Corey Phillis, John Kelly, Michael Prowatzke, Carl Dealy, Mike Beakes, Mike Berry, Brian Ellrott, Cathy Marcinevage, Towns Burgess, Mark Tomkins, Pam Taber, Bernard Aguilar, Jim Peterson, Adam Duarte

Status of the Chinook and O. mykiss DSMs (Jim and Adam)

Status of watershed expert meetings (Mike U.)

  • 9-9 in Lodi
  • 9-12 in Sacramento
  • 9-16 in Red Bluff
  • Circulating agendas next week and hosting everything on the website as far as materials that go along with the meetings
  • Purpose of meetings is regional outreach meetings to share the work that the SIT has been doing to explain the model and to solicit feedback from experts to make sure we are representing things the best we can

Status of the habitat decay proposal (Rod)

  • No progress
  • Meeting on hold
  • Rod will work with Chris H to get data on Americn River
  • Rod can talk to Chris and Adam to see how they can use that for analysis (?)–Thursday afternoon
  • Matt B will also re-send information from Clear Creek

A review and discussion of the CPAR list (All)

  • Notice from Mike Urkov directing to .pdf
  • Have been discussing CPAR (CVPIA Program Activity Review)–some people have been confused with how the pieces fit together. We’re talking about two separate reviews of CVPIA - CPAR and Listen to the River
  • SIT is result of Listen to the River Report. Our current direction is to develop a series of 5-year restoration strategies until we achieve the doubling goal.
  • One of the results of CPAR effort was a list of actions authorized under 3406(6)(1) of the act. The idea that completion of 128 discrete actions has some support that it would constitute completion of the CVPIA requirements and would be reasonable efforts toward doubling, which would then trigger reduction in restoration fund
  • Two reviews are beginning to move together in a way where there’s discussion of how many 128 are left, disagreement between agencies of what the status of actions are
  • Discussion of final list of actions that constitute reasonable effort and then someone from policy perspective would decide it’s enough
  • Rod Wittler: we kind of boxed ourselves in here in 2018–this list is what we presented to them–those are the actions, we haven’t received updated list from service
  • Carl Dealy: There are other actions that add population effects. Rod has his checklist, some are still outstanding.
  • Mike: What we did was we compared the 128 CPAR (b)1 actions to the FY 2020 Tech Memo and Mike’s opinion is 13 of actions are consistent with Tech Memo priorities
  • Obviously, there is some overlap of actions between two processes
  • Mike: Our guess is that 40-60 unique actions will come up after modeling optimization. We will also identify some areas of uncertainty that require targeted research, which will be actions
  • Question: Are these actions we want to bundle for DSM, or should we wait and see what comes out of the DSM, crosswalk recommendations, and then talk about how a list may be developed of things that joins these two reviews together?
  • SIT prepared different options for managers to consider
  • Asking SIT to become familiar with this list, comment on list, and highlight particular actions that may be a high priority for running through the model– hybrid strategy
  • Rod: Feedback from SIT, describe to Core Team and Heather what the scenario would look like, actions we can/can’t run through, describe actions before we run through model
  • Matt: We can look at everything here and treat as strategy, however if we break apart just screen projects, impractical thing to implement, lots of diversions that need to get screened, a lot won’t be high priority from biological perspective, split up screen strategies and everything else. A lot of these are proven difficult to do
  • Brian: How has SIT handled what might be good restoration actions/strategies that can’t be modeled–how has SIT thought about that aspect? Afraid strategies will get locked if we can’t model it.
  • SIT participants should comment on list, get familiar with it
  • CPAR - near-term restoration strategy document
  • CPAR list of projects
  • Conclusion: CPAR will be reviewed again at the next SIT meeting, with a call for a conclusion / decision at the subsequent meeting.

Update on state-dependent Chinook strategies (Jim and Adam)

  • PRESENTATION
  • Examples of different approaches to manipulating habitat based on survival estimates and populations. Build floodplain habitat instead of more rearing habitat because habitat overall tends to be increasing overtime, and earlier on when floods occur, the probability of gaining is less
  • Rod has numbers for mainstem Sacramento
  • Model currently uses cfs-months
  • Spawning habitat has decay based off ecological impacts in stream. Rearing habitat has decay based off vegetation encroachment, so we can theorize some of these models
  • Really need to develop habitat decay function.

New Business

  • Matt: No new business that he knows of
  • Rod: To Jim- we need to take critical monitoring needs and take a second run at that to think about how the SIT would like to see monitoring structured to capture effectiveness of new strategy once we implement it