December 11, 2019 Slides
JD Wikert, Bruce McLaughlin, Emanuel Rodriguez, Mike Beakes, Mark Tompkins, Cathy Marcinkevage, Tricia Bratcher, Bernard Aguilar, Felope Carrillo, Erin Strange, Michael Prowatzke, Kate Spear, Brian Ellrott, Chris Hammersmark, Michael Wright, Priscilla Liang, Erica Meyers, Mike Urkov, Carl Dealy, Corey Phillis, John Kelly, Susan Strachan, Suzanne Manugian, Rod Wittler, Adam Duarte
Update on Science Coordinator (Cesar)
- Cesar was unable to make it to the meeting there is no update
Update on O. mykiss and Sturgeon PWT meetings (Adam and Jim)
O. mykiss group developed a set of long term and near term information needs priorities. These will be integrated with the draft near-term restoration strategy. The Sturgeon group will be meeting next monday to develop a priority information list for Sturgeon.
Review Responses on Chinook Salmon DSM Grading Sheets (Adam and Jim)
- Adam reviewed the responses from the grading sheet
- Received 7 responses
- Compared new grades to the old grades
- Based on the 7 responses created summary stats and plot to compare these
- Tricia Bratcher: does low = low priority? No. how well we trust input (confidence). Empirical vs model
- caller: what is the best source on how the model is written up? Since this is input you can review all the inputs at the website for docs that FlowWest was put together
- Tricia - new habitat designation, had a discussion about side channel and floodplain rearing, how is that being approached since most of the channels are perennial but floodplain not so much — Adam: floodplain look at how many weeks are activated and apply growth and survival, for side channel we need to define exactly how these are different from in-channel and floodplain habitats
- Tricia: what info do people use to make these grades? (water temp stats as an example) JD gave a high rating since we went off of empirical data
- Tricia: I’d be more inclined to say that water temp stats are moderate, it varies from watershed to watershed
- Tricia: what about # of unscreened diversion this one is also all over the place; Adam: this is a new one, we got mix bag because we are not sure how accurate the PAD database is.
- Adam: @Mike, do you know how often PAD is updated? Mike: it is updated irregularly
- Brian : it is hard to map each of the model inputs from in the grading sheet to the data documentation can you provide grades since you know the model? Adam: It is not a good idea to do this, since this should reflect what the SIT feels comfortable with. Furthermore, the exercise is meant to have the SIT familiarize themselves with the DSM inputs/parameters and identify where there are opportunities to update model inputs/parameters.
- Rod: we should add a column with the impact that each of the model inputs has on the model as part of the grading sheet. This information will be included in the near-term restoration strategy
- Tricia: on the unscreened diversion we can get you a better answer, will email people to get better data on that.
- Brian: we need to improve the way the grading is done to have better accuracy, overall though the grades are probably correct. I based off the grades from the last time and see if improvements happened or not.
- Adam: now looking at the model parameters, have a similar plot comparing the old grades to the new grades. Does anything pop out for anyone
- Adam: What I noticed was the changes where previously we had a high and got downgraded to low (ocean entry)
- Brian: for those who graded what changed their mind? Rod: I think recent discussion on this parameter caused people to want to grade low.
- Mike Beakes: is there anyone on the call that went from high to low I would like to know what your justification… Mike: I placed a low since it had a combination of high influence and low empirical data. I think last time we did not know how impactful this was to the model yet.
- Rod: it stands out that there very few high scores and the abundance of the low scores, we seem to not have a lot confidence in the model parameters at the moment.
- Adam: I think this is in part due to the recent discussions we have had on some of these. For example, juvenile survival, growth and movement are driving model results and most of these parameters are calibrated (for survival).
- Adam: we have future actions for some of these where we hope to improve the confidence in the model.
- Rod: I think the grades given and future actions all look reasonable to me
Review 2020 Schedule (Adam and Jim)
- Remaining in 2019:
- We have now met with O.mykiss team
- Next monday we meet with the Sturgeon experts
- Once we have the initial draft we will distribute it to SIT for comments.
- Adam reviews the Tentative schedule for 2020
- We have now met with O.mykiss team
- Rod: review the sit critical modeling data needs sheet; once NTRS is done we need to focus on this
- Rod: revisit the todo list and make sure we are checking up on these items. Rod said we need someone to coordinate subgroups, who is in the subgroup, and what the deliverables are on that subgroup. Science coordinator is supposed to do that. Mike Urkov is filling that role. Please keep him up to date.