Conference Call

September 25, 2019 Slides

By phone:

Bruce Mclaughlin, Mike Urkov, Rod Wittler, Cesar Blanco, Felipe Carrillo, Susan Strachan, Mike Beakes, Corey Phillis, Priscilla Liang, Carl Dealy, JD Wikert, Brian Ellrott, Matt Brown, Cathy Marcinkevage, Dominic, Erica Meyers, Kate Spear, Tricia Bratcher, Mark Tompkins, Michael Prowatzke, Brett Harvey, Sadie Gill, Bernard Aguilar, Jim Peterson, Adam Duarte

Update on watershed expert meetings (Mike U.)

  • Refine participant list, expanded list
  • Number of calls participated in meeting
  • Cathy: several staff thought it was helpful, an overview/distribution of information. Spawned a lot of questions, will follow-up

A review and discussion of the CPAR list (All)

  • Adam: Received a few more updates on ongoing projects, general comments same as before
  • Tricia: Commented on list, one/two were missing
  • Mike: After review of items, sounds like nothing on list that folks were concerned with not getting picked up with going forward
  • Rod: Move forward with CPAR list, continue for the items in the list that are more quantitative rather than evaluation (proposing action)–the data we need for that we should pursue. If we turn into strategy/scenario, we would have numbers to do it
  • Mike: Doesn’t mean actions in CPAR aren’t being considered if there was habitat projects in CPAR that don’t come up in priority list
  • Cesar: Concerns out there that unless we’re mindful in NTRS, to emphasize the ability to adapt, then we end up with a list of things to do on streams and take the adaptive out of adaptive management
  • Cathy: requested full transparency on actions included and not included.
  • Jim: said this was in the “unfiltered” spreadsheet and asked if Mike sent this around to everyone?
  • JD: asked for an email to be sent to SIT clarifying ask for proponents to provide information on specific projects that people want included in the CPAR set of projects to be evaluated.
  • Jim: If someone wants project to be included, then it’s up to the proponent to find information to make it able to be included in NTRS
  • Mike Beakes: When something can’t be included, we don’t have functions in model to evaluate through DSM process, need to build functions. Other actions that we can’t evaluate. Question for Adam and Jim: If CPAR can be modeled via DSM, then it will be through process of optimizing DSM
  • Mike: Thought more of CPAR list as being things that could be added in to scenarios being reviewed, serve as examples of what can be done in areas if prioritization indicated specific streams could use something to be done.
  • Bruce: Coming from power and water side, how are we going to spend power and water users pay? Folks want us to do these items, then put in maintenance mode. Is this going to achieve goal of CVPIA? Maybe not. Explain why we’re going towards science-driven strategy for tasks. See positive direction of actions, describe them to customers.
  • Jim: Need clarification from commissioner would be to see if actions need to be run through, or if actions need to be run through as priorities, see if CPAR actions fit in there
  • Rod: Need to get out of CPAR box
  • Adam: No time to go back two months of work to incorporate this stuff later. Are we developing strategy the way we’ve laid it out (this is how CPAR matches up?
  • Rod: Yes
  • Mike Beakes: Adam, that sounds like the best way forward at this point. When we write this up, we’ll have a number of section dedicated towards crosswalked CPAR list.
  • Jim: If we make crosswalk with CPAR, have to be clear what counts for what. No room for freeboard
  • Rod: we don’t evaluate individual projects.
  • Mike: Don’t need categorizations until NTRS charters come out (Feb/March). SIT can help direct which project fits with what prioritization but in terms of figuring out what to do with all of these in modeling effort, should see what numerical results are and be mindful in human interpretation of those. Need if there is anything in the list that doesn’t fit in model, that deserves consideration for explicit changes to the model, so far nothing has met that criteria.
  • Jim: If there’s something on the list that is very different from pulse flow action, a habitat action, and anything to do with diversions, then that thing needs to be flagged for further discussion when we do strategy development/refinement
  • Mike: There’s going to be more opportunities after NTRS to continue to improve the model, we just want to make sure in this prioritization, we’re capturing most important things

Update on Scenario Strategy Builder group (Rod)

  • Rod: Haven’t been active in few months bc put on hold when we were having discussions with where we were going, questions on model optimization process. Need to clarify what we want out of Shiny App. Tool to describe a set of actions that would then give instructions to model operator on how to change inputs to reflect that strategy. Then output from model, compared to baseline. Based upon unit effort concept. Can both have a limited amount of time/actions to be taken each year. Constraints in both time and number of actions you can take in any given year. Useful part of it. We need to know, should start back up, get tool available to SIT, how and when it can be used.
  • Jim: Anyone in SIT have desire to use scenario strategy builder, use for evaluation for strategy and some of the proposed strategies coming out of optimization?

Update on habitat change (Jim and Adam)

  • John Hannon, Matt Brown
  • Rearing habitat half of spawning habitat
  • Dam regulated (habitat changes) vs Not dam regulated (no habitat changes)
  • Some gray area watersheds. Battle Creek may behave more like unregulated
  • Agreed: will change

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

  • See presentation
  • ASF talk next week to develop optimal sequence of actions
  • Markov decision process
  • Recurrent decision process through time - evaluate action and subsequent population state
  • SIT process has been following process for a while
  • Focusing on what really matters: maximizing the number of adult equivalents
  • Characterization of tributaries as different systems
  • Need rule sets from SIT do set policy plots
  • Analysis says what top five things to do for fall-run, spring-run to come, winter-run will be simpler
  • Need SIT proposal if we want to add Battle Creek
  • Example shown uses older habitat decay rules. New decay rules not included
  • REQUEST: Establish rule sets to test in the next optimization run.
  • Note the constraints on habitat creation.
  • Battle Creek change needs to be submitted before next SIT call - October 9
  • Need some creativity on rule sets
  • Rule sets: how many actions per year? Best return regardless of location? Methods for moving around the system?
  • Need constraints on maximum capacity for locations
  • Right now if doubling goal is met, then drops off, but could come back on
  • Two different rule sets looking similar now
  • Feasible to do multiple actions per tributary - or based on size of stream (River versus Creek)
  • Mike: Preliminary results did not have downstream tributary considerations.

Timeline moving forward

  • See slides
  • note November 25 would be o mykiss / sturgeon
  • annual process concepts need to be vetted
  • See upcoming meeting schedules.

New Business