Conference Call

October 14-15, 2020

Day 1 Slides
Day 2 Slides

Summary of Action Items

  1. Incorporate submitted addenda to NTRS with responses that outline how those comments will be incorporated into the Sit process moving forward (Megan and Mike U)
  2. Coordinate with model prototyping between subgroups, Sadie, Jim, Adam
  3. Incorporate the model proposal process changes into the CVPIA Science Integration Team guidance (Megan)
  4. Update SIT website with upcoming timeline (Megan with Sadie)
  5. Schedule and send out calendar invites for next SIT calls (Megan)
  6. (ALL) Contact if you are interested in joining the new SIT Monitoring Subgroup. Megan will reach out to existing list to affirm participation (list as of 10 / 22: Megan Cook, Jim Peterson, Adam Duarte, Mike Urkov, Mark Tompkins, Sadie Gill, Mike Beakes, Matt Dekar, Rod Wittler, Bryan Matthias, Matt Brown, JD Wikert, Brian Ellrott, Jason Hassrick, Lisa Hunt).
  7. Jim and Adam will connect with Mike Beakes for assistance in incorporating the bioenergetics model into the SIT DSM.

Day One

By phone:

Kaylee Allen, Denise Barnard, Mike Beakes, Thad Bettner, Tricia Bratcher, Matt Brown, Felipe Carrillo, Megan Cook, Flora Cordoleani, Carl Dealy, Matthew Dekar, Lauren Diaz, Bruce DiGennaro, Adam Duarte, James Earley, Brian Ellrott, Sadie Gill, Chris Hammersmark, John Hannon, Mike Harris, Brett Harvey, Jason Hassrick, Baker Holden, Lisa Hunt, Josh Israel, John Kelly, Morgan Kilgour, Priscilla Liang, Erin Lunda, Todd Manley, Jeffrey Mclain, Mike Memeo, Erica Meyers, Cyril Michel, David Mooney, Kirk Nelson, James Peterson, Corey Phillis, Dick Pool, Donnie Ratcliff, Denise Reed, Derek Rupert, Will Satterthwaite, Alicia Seesholtz, Kate Spear, Mark Tompkins, Mike Urkov, Page Vick, John Wikert, Heidi Williams, Rod Wittler, Garwin Yip


Meeting Kickoff and Agenda Review (Megan Cook, FWS)

  • Matthew Dekar is new to the CVPIA program on USFWS side. Will be moving to California in the new year. He will be USFWS more management side and Megan with be USFWS more science side.


Near-term Restoration Strategy: Next Steps and Takeaways (Mike Urkov)

  • NTRS is finalized. None of the SIT’s recommendations have changed, but the document focuses more on the SDM process. Some cleanup in terms of terminology and consistency, developed executive summary for readability of document itself
  • Strategy includes 9 restoration actions, information actions (9 salmon/7 O. mykiss/5 Sturgeon)
  • Glossary improves way we talk about things going forwards
  • Concentrate on getting language clear
  • Posted when 508 review (ADA compliance) is completed
  • 508 process = disability act, reading web pages for visually impaired, etc.
  • 2 addenda were submitted: NMFS and Golden State Salmon Association. These will be appended to the NTRS as addenda to record them and hold ourselves accountable to work on or address in the next 5 years..
  • Reword “Reconsider doubling goal” in NMFS addendum list to “Fish passage to historical habitat” (clarifying NMFS did not request reconsidering the doubling goal).


NTRS Schedule (Megan Cook, FWS)

  • Five year term. Reminder of Purpose: slow the SIT process down – so there is a bit more breathing room between making changes to the model, understanding what those changes are, then using the model to test restoration strategies and update the priorities. Move away from a “constant tinkering” approach to one where there are defined windows of time for certain activities in a clear and transparent way that allows SIT members to understand when and how to engage.
  • Reminder that we’re aiming to alternate the focus in each of the 5 years to either be focused on model development or on updating recommendations, leading up to the next 5-year NTRS.
  • An important part of what will be happening over this time is further development on the 3 new DSMs for late fall run, O. mykiss, and sturgeon.
  • Every few years, going to have to go into models and make sure they’re working as efficiently as possible (model refactoring)
  • Megan reviewed the general schedule over the next 1.5 years. We are not getting away from the policy plots. We are acknowledging that it takes more than 1 year to implement a project. So the new schedule allows us to implement a project, monitor the result, and use that to confront model predictions. Integrating the Chinook salmon DSMs will take the habitat subgroup meeting and focusing on how to quantify habitat consistently across runs and the SIT developing a ruleset on who uses habitat first (big fish, first there, a particular run, etc.).

SIT Schedule Next 6 Months

  • Oct-Dec 2020: Refactor models (aka “spring cleaning” occurs every few years)
  • Nov 18, 2020: Monitoring Subgroup Call
  • Jan-Feb 2021: Prototype model changes based on proposals
  • Jan 2021: SIT Conference Call (2 hours). Discuss Adaptive Management Update (new term for “Tech Memo”) and DSM Tour.
  • March 2021: Estimated kickoff for FY22 funding process
  • March 2021: SIT Meeting (2 days). Discuss results of prototype model changes and affirm model changes

Future Key Milestones

  • Summer 2021: Integrate Model Updates, Model Calibration / Sensitivity Analysis
  • Approx. October 2021: Next Round of Candidate Restoration Strategies. Bring your next good ideas!
  • By March 2022: Next Version of Revised Priorities Finalized. In time for FY23 funding process by implementing agencies
  • By October 2022: Deadline for next round of model change proposals to enter prototyping step

Summary Model Change Proposal Process

  1. Describe change to conceptual model
    • Identify gap/modification needed, gather subgroup, describe data needed
    • New template for this “pre-proposal” forthcoming
  2. Present initial idea to SIT
    • Get comments, feedback, direction from SIT
  3. Develop full model change proposal
    • Describe needed modification and data to support change, get SIT thumbs up
    • Sadie can help subgroup define what’s needed for model change
    • If data doesn’t exist, how long will it take to get the data for the model change proposal?
    • Next deadline: October 2022 for proposals to enter step 4 prototyping
  4. Prototype model change
  5. Discuss results of model change with SIT
  6. Based on SIT input, finalize model change


  • Jim noted that long model run times was primarily for calibration. They never kept us from evaluating any scenario/strategy. The improved model performance would allow us to work with operations folks and evaluate optimal flow regimes.
  • Jim noted that the model change proposal process needs to be updated in the CVPIA SIT Guidance document. Megan: Where we are now- 3 proposals for model changes ready to be prototyped in model. Adam noted that there are two proposals that are already agreed on that will not be discussed today: Dick’s accepted proposal for late fall run Chinook salmon and Matt’s accepted proposal for winter run Chinook salmon on Battle Creek
  • Dick Pool - What does improving capacity to operate in adaptive resource management framework mean? Is this where analysis of GSSA proposal through CSAMP would happen?
  • Rod: On habitat estimates, working with habitat subgroup.
  • Jim: Need to incorporate the changes to the model proposal process into the CVPIA SIT guidance
  • The Jan SIT call will include a review of the current workings of the model.


Subgroup Reports

Proposal: Temperature vs. survival relationship in the Delta (Cyril Michel, NMFS)

  • Seems to be some thresholds in survival that are relevant to SIT model
  • Specific changes recommended: baseline survival of 50% below 15.5 degrees celsius for Sacramento basin, 10% survival for San Joaquin basin fish
  • Decreasing survival by a factor of 1.55 per degree Celsius increase up to 19.5C, at which point survival goes to zero above 19.5
  • Mike Beakes: Are there any other Delta survival terms in the model? Is Cyril adding a multiplicative term or replacing what currently exists?
  • Tricia Bratcher: Has anyone looked at NIS plant vegetation control (e.g. Ludwigia), in the context of “vegetation” and predator-prey contact points? There is an active program by Dept. of Boating and Waterways, as well as DWR (I think) to remove that aquatic vegetation annually. Just wondering in the context of the word “vegetation” that was mentioned.
  • Cyril: largely submerged-water vegetation, not talking about floating/emerging vegetation, which also plays an important role.
  • Discussion focused on how to apply this to a monthly scale. Cyril will work with Jim and Adam to develop a probabilistic relationship to match the temporal scale of the models. The SIT wants to keep diversions in the function and have the multiplicative effect of temperature based on Cyril’s proposal. Dick asked about the 50% survival in the Delta. Cyril said he can come up with a more precise estimate moving forward.

Proposal: Flow vs. survival relationship for the Sacramento River (Cyril Michel, NMFS)

  • Cyril discussed flow survival due to death or travel times. He finds travel times are fairly consistent below 10000 cfs. He proposed the maybe we change travel time instead of survival. Corey would like the survival to be applied based on average travel time so apportion this survival for the time that they are in the Sacramento River. Jason noted that outmigrating fish spend very little time in the delta. For winter run they spend ¾ time in the river and shoot through the delta. Folks agreed to replace the current linear function with the proposed step function. Brian asked if movement rulesets are different for each run. They are not currently. Flora would like to look at the movement ruleset in relation to timing. Jim noted that we need to have a focused discussion on this in the coming year.
  • Survival should vary in response to flow in the Sacramento River, with a step function
  • Specifically, survival for acoustic tagged spring-outmigrating (i.e., fall-run and spring-run) salmon smolts in the upper Sacramento (Deer Creek confluence to Verona):
    • 3% for flows below 4,259 cfs as measured as Wilkins
    • 18.9% for flows between 4,259 cfs and 10,712 cfs
    • 50.8% for flows above 10,712 cfs
  • Lisa: What’s the timescale for flow/survival relationship currently in the model, and how does that match with what Cyril’s data is based on? What’s in the model now for the Sac River?
  • Flow, avg temp, diversions on monthly timestep
  • Cyril: flows experienced by fish during their outmigration
  • Corey: what’s the range of days fish experience?
  • Cyril: maximum probably 20-25 days. Most fish out migrate much faster. Smolt-sized fish, some hatchery fish, some wild. Some hatchery fish may out migrate faster because of larger size. Tends to be more 3-5 day range.

Proposal: Habitat Inputs (Mark Tompkins, FlowWest)

  • Change way habitat inputs in life cycle models are developed and used in the model. Taking existing habitat inputs (mostly usable area-based, lots of variability in age of estimates, mixed bowl of habitat estimates that we think could be improved), take it to a consistent approach.
  • The better we quantify what’s there, the more accurate the need for additional habitat should be
  • Brian asked why temperature is not part of suitability. Mark noted that it is built into the survival function but not into the growth function.
  • Flora said inundation duration may be enough to capture temperature for floodplain growth. She asked about food being included for growth. Jim noted that that is the focus of the food for fish proposal.
  • Jason asked if we are looking at connectivity of habitats (ephemeral tributaries). Mark noted they plan to incorporate that for floodplain habitats. Jim noted that Mike Berry had brought that up and a proposal needs to be presented to include side channel habitats that become available. Jason said we should have more conversations on that. Chris noted that it is something we are thinking about for habitat availability.
  • Brian asked if temperature is part of spawning suitability. Degree days are part of spawning success already and temperature influences survival of other life stages too. Brian said it makes sense to go forward with this change, but he wonders why some of these watersheds won’t be worked into the charter. Mark said that some are.
  • Tricia asked about Battle Creek. Mark indicated his slides had a typo and listed Butte Creek instead of Battle Creek.
  • Jim: The SIT agreed that getting better habitat estimates is a priority in the NTRS. The decision made today was that the SIT agreed to evaluate the effect of updated habitat estimates on the model estimates.

Subgroup Update: Predator Contact Points (Cyril Michel, NMFS)

  • Currently in its second year (started third year), part of the charter, 3 major field campaigns (first ended in spring 2019, second is underway right now)
  • First field campaign investigated role of artificial illumination at night in Delta. Introduced light in random sites in Delta to see how it affected density and predation rates
  • Predation rates and predator density is impacted by artificial illumination at night
  • Mostly rainbow trout use bridge lights
  • Once sun set on nights there were lights, predator density increased compared to nights without light
  • Sourced rainbow trout from commercial hatchery, same size as winter-run fry as bait (both salmonids, both similar in size and shape). Given the main predator in Redding is rainbow trout, the question is do they eat rainbow trout? Likely
  • Next steps: predation around diversions in Delta, SAV removal study
  • Cyril noted the lack of evidence found for high numbers of predation events at sun dial bridge. It seems that predation on winter run in those upper areas around Redding does not seem to be very high. Next step include examining predation around diversions in the Delta and SAV removal study.
  • Dick noted that he hears reports that predation is huge at lighted areas in April. He wonders if Cyril will be expanding to other areas at other times. Cyril noted they were focusing in on winter run and that they do find that light increases predation events lower in the system.

Subgroup Update: Salmon Demographics (Mike Beakes, USBR)

  • Reminder that salmon demographics group is in response to the primarily knowledge gaps that have been identified. Goal is to address critical uncertainties about demographic parameters informing DSM.
  • Initial effort: PIT-tag monitoring program. Hope is to install PIT tag arrays in natal tributaries. Ideally will get antennas set up in migratory corridor (stationary to evaluate timing)
  • Dick wanted to know the timing on this. (see slides for study timeline) Mike noted that they are still looking for funding for this work but the intended timeline is to focus on fall run and done in cooperation with O. mykiss monitoring USBR is leading. Would want to do pilot effort in 2021 / 2023 and then continue the effort through 2024. Dick noted that efforts should be made to collaborate with other efforts like the science center.

Update: Food 4 Fish (Rod Wittler and Mike Beakes, USBR)

  • Jim noted that those teams are trying to integrate food and temperature into growth and he encourage Flora and Brian to work with this subgroup to get into that discussion. Jim and Adam will talk with Mike Beakes to discuss this a bit for bioenergetics and the SIT DSM.

Open Discussion on SIT Coordinating with Other Efforts

  • Brian: Makes sense at the CVPIA fish program level to coordinate. Don’t think SIT needs to coordinate on project funding across restoration program.
  • Jim suggests that the degree of interacting with other partners should be dependent on degree of shared objectives. Recommend that’s the thing to determine first. For example, our objectives for chinook abundance, spatial diversity, connectivity.
  • Mike B: there are a lot of ways to look at integration: (1) Information, datasets, (2) constraints on simulations to make sure accounting for regulatory requirements, and (3) parallel prioritization processes and whether there is value in crosswalking in what SIT produces with other efforts. As we have briefing meetings, clear on which of those categories or what we’re actually discussing.
  • Dick: capacity to do this also important consideration


Comparison of NTRS Priorities with Funded Actions (Rod Wittler, USBR and Mike Urkov)

  • Reclamation CVPIA has been moved out of regional office and under Bay Delta office, very technical reasons for that, mainly to consolidate most of the folks who are using a CVPIA authority whether they are working on a CVPIA habitat project or any biological opinion/LTO projects, Reclamation uses those authorities across that whole range. Everyone doing this is now under one office
  • Of the 9 actions called for in NTRS, 8 are directly addressed in one way or another in the obligation plan. The one that is not is habitat restoration in Battle Creek (will be more of topic coming up)
  • 4 actions in the Sac River above American River confluence, specific effort to look at ephemeral, non-natal tributaries
  • Overall, 14 information needs being addressed one way or another by the obligation plan
  • O. mykiss- fewer funded
  • 0 funded efforts related to sturgeon by obligation plan
  • Heidi asked if there are project funded that aren’t a SIT priority. Yes, like Delta Smelt and projects related to out of basin or refuge projects. Dick would like to know what the projects are, where they are, and how many fish they are expected to produce.


Data Guidance and EDI demo (Sadie Gill, FlowWest)

  • Anything funded under CVPIA authority needs to designate a data steward
  • There will be some interaction with data manager making sure material is paired in a way that is machine-readable
  • Metadata schema: ecological metadata language schema maps to federally approved metadata standards, EML documents are formatted using XML, encoding that are both human- and machine-readable
  • Data steward will fill out template and share with CVPIA data manager
  • R package EDIutils enables users to create valid EML documents with CVPIA best practices baked in
  • They are currently trying to work out the kinks in the system and will roll it out to the larger group (currently funded charters) in the new year


Agency Briefing on CVPIA LTO, BiOp, Implementation (Dave Mooney, USBR, Garwin Yip, NMFS, Donnie Ratcliff, FWS)

  • SIT is doing a good job and information they provide is being used. They hope to be more transparent in how charters are funded moving forward.
  • Dave Mooney
    • CVPIA is Reclamation’s main authority for Reclamation’s fish and wildlife efforts
    • Reclamation recently reorganized, so CVPIA staff is under Bay Delta office (downtown Sacramento, I Street)
    • Hope to see increased participation in group - hope SIT can welcome new folks and ideas.
    • Interagency agreement with Sacramento NMFS, goal is to increase efforts for collaborative work
    • More resources/outreach with CVP
  • Garwin Yip
    • Collaborative planning is a huge deal
    • Issued programmatic biological opinion, green light for USBR to proceed with restoration proposals
  • Donnie Ratcliff
    • Where we are in CVPIA implementation vs where we thought we’d be in 2015 when plan was drafted
    • FWS and USBR are revisiting the implementation plan.
    • Some challenges with CVPIA funding, not as much funding available to restoration fund in the years coming, there is not enough for an open call for new projects in 2021.
  • There was a request for staff at the federal agencies to be in the loop on the implementation plan revisions.
  • Q what role will SIT have in reviewing implementation plan? – Overall, not sure yet, at least want SIT to review the science-based section
  • In 2-3 months, will come back to the SIT with the FY21 obligation plan. For those who have charters in the plan, will be communicating sooner to update funding estimates and other details.


SIT and Other Science Partnerships

Coordinated Salmon Science Plan (Bruce DiGennaro)

  • CSAMP = Collaborative Science and Adaptive Management Program
  • A collaboration of: state and federal resource agencies, public water agencies, and NGOs
  • Focused on science and adaptive management associated with water project operations and species (recovery in the Delta)
  • Origins of CSAMP: outgrowth of BiOp Litigation, initiated in April 2013, in 2015, all parties agreed to continue the Program after final judgements were issued by the Ninth Circuit, In 2018, CSAMP was expanded to include additional NGOs, upstream and in-Delta PWAs

Sacramento River Science Partnership (Thad Bettner, Denise Reed)

  • SRSP Science Plan 2020 (see slides)
  • Charge to develop a science plan is to focus on mechanism, why things happen, how management actions that were a list- how do they change the system in a way that the species respond to?
  • SRSP Recent and Ongoing Activities (see slides)


Preview of Day 2 and Adjourn

  • Continue discussion at 9am

Day 2

By phone:

Bernard Aguilar, Mandy Banet, Denise Barnard, Mike Beakes, Matt Brown, Paul Cadrett, Felipe Carrillo, Megan Cook, Flora Cordoleani, Carl Dealy, Matthew Dekar, Lauren Diaz, Adam Duarte, James Earley, Brian Ellrott, Sadie Gill, Chris Hammersmark, John Hannon, Brett Harvey, Lisa Hunt, John Kelly, Morgan Kilgour, Priscilla Liang, Erin Lunda, Todd Manley, Bruce McLaughlin, Mike Memeo, Erica Meyers, Kirk Nelson, Jim Peterson, Corey Phillis, Dick Pool, Derek Rupert, Alicia Seesholtz, Kate Spear, Pamela Taber, Mark Tompkins, Mike Urkov, Page Vick, John Wikert, Rod Wittler


Meeting Kickoff and Agenda Review (Megan Cook, FWS)


  • Minimal effort to most effort (tier 1, tier 2, tier 3)
  • Monitoring subgroup, email Megan to join, have had a few people join already
  • No conflict of interest (have not written any of the charters)
  • Criteria = is it going to reduce uncertainty, is it going to help with uncertainty analysis?
  • When activities become funded, these groups collaborate with SIT, exchange of information/clarification
  • Call November 18 (2 hours) to discuss process, if you want to join, email Megan, who has list of things people have provided input about the monitoring guidance
  • Brian asked how a funded charter gets more funding to deal with monitoring. Rod said this is not totally figured out but he is working to find out how this can be navigated.


Project Updates (Monitoring and Data Focus)

Asked speakers to address:

  • Overview of the project objectives (where and why project done)
  • Overview of the data expected from the project
  • Description of the pre- and post-monitoring
  • If possible: look at the SIT monitoring guidelines see if or how the project’s monitoring aligns with one of the monitoring tiers.

Project Update: Clear Creek Phase 2A & 3C (Derek Rupert, USBR)

  • 2020 Clear Creek Salmon Habitat Improvements
  • Teamwork Makes the Dream Work (Clear Creek Technical Team- Oversight, CVPIA- Funding, BR’s Willows Construction Office- P3C Management, BR’s Technical Service Center- P3C Design, Contractors- P3C Design and Construction, Gravel Aug. Implementation, USFWS & CDFW- Gravel augmentation hydraulic modeling)
  • Phase 3C: Pre-construction, man-made ditch
  • Clear Creek runs at around 200 cfs for most of the year
  • Modeled WUA for Chinook Juveniles 250% increase in habitat at 200 cfs
  • Gravel Augmentations - “Lower Clear Creek Anadromous Fish Habitat Restoration and Management Project”
  • 2019 New Addition: Three gravel sizes (small, medium, large)
  • 2020 New Addition: Boulders (8), 3-5 ft in diameter
  • 2020 New Addition: Large wood (12 oak trees)
  • Accentuating meanders and habitat
  • Plan 2A/Gold Dredge: Plan was to build a series of five transverse bars, Large wood placed opposite to point bars
  • SIT Priorities: NTRS Actions for Chinook Salmon: (Action 6: Juvenile habitat restoration in Clear Creek, Action 9: Maintain existing spawning habitats)
  • NTRS Information Priorities for Chinook Salmon: (Info Need 2: Juvenile growth, Info Need 6: Update habitat modeling and estimates, Info Need 7: Habitat change through time, Info Need 9: Adult escapement and pre-spawn mortality
  • NTRS Information Priorities for O. mykiss (Info Need 2: Age and Growth in Tribs, Info Need 5: O. mykiss redd counts, Info need 6: Spatial distribution of anadromy prevalence, Info Need 7: Juvenile production and escapement… long term)
  • Wildfire Effects : Emerging issue not in SIT priorities
  • Questions? Derek Rupert,, 570-419-2823

Project Update: Yuba Hallwood (Paul Cadrett, FWS)

Visit the project website for more information and monitoring reports.

  • Planning began 2011 / 2012. Construction began 2019.
  • Currently completing Phase 1. Phase 2 to begin next spring. Phases 3 and 4 are currently seeking funding
  • Goals: Improve quantity and quality of juvenile salmon and steelhead rearing habitat, document restoration effectiveness
  • Finishing channel grading over next few weeks
  • Hallwood Monitoring Approach: evaluate project success through an efficient and scientifically-robust monitoring program, Before-After-Control-Impact to test for differences in habitat quality resulting from restoration while accounting for change in background conditions
  • SIT high effort criteria: physical feature monitoring (1 year pre and 5 years post action), biological monitoring (2 years pre and 3 years post action)
  • Matt asked where the extra gravel is going and if they plan to use it for fish. Paul note that the one thing the Yuba is not short on is gravel.

Project Updates: Stanislaus (JD Wikert, FWS)

Migratory Corridor Restoration Update

  • Completed: Prioritization tool, landowner outreach, landowner selection
  • Potential data: invertebrates, botanical, hydrodynamic, fish use, bioenergetics, topographical, water quality, predators
  • JD asked what he should focus monitoring on. Mike Beakes noted for his O. mykiss effort it would be great to have fish tags and scales, drift density, monitoring of temperatures especially in this lower reach. Mike said he would reach out to JD to explore this a bit more. JD noted the importance of flows and the timing of flows to work with fish movement and temperature. Jim noted that use and habitat capacity is worthwhile to monitor and he will send a paper to Jim on this for the Trinity.
  • JD offered to continue this discussion with anyone who has strong interest in what the monitoring data covers

Stanislaus Rotary Screw Traps Update

  • Status: attempting to continue funding, somewhere around mile 40

Restoration at Kerr Park Update

  • CVPIA Funding: $0. Completed: Pre-project surveys, Alternative Development and Analysis. Design Needs: Permitting, Implementation, Monitoring.

Project Update: Stanislaus gravel (John Hannon, USBR)

Project Report

  • Maintaining spawning and rearing habitats in upstream two miles (coolest and cleanest water, cascade barrier limits access: stops juveniles, limits adults to higher flows)
  • Work towards filling downstream pools to improve rearing in canyon (around 250,000 cu yds)
  • Prevent flooding above USACE right of way
  • Had to prove to Army Corps that gravel wouldn’t increase downstream floodplain elevation (completed about a year ago, previously worked in canyon in 2016)
  • Project is 58 miles up the SJ River, up in the foothill above agriculture in Goodwin Canyon. They just finished a project out there this year. Flora was wondering if they are taking tissue samples and doing genetics at the screw trap. John said not with the monitoring they are doing. He noted that they are basically maintaining spawning habitat for this project and have not made a whole lot of new habitat.
  • John will make the report he presented available to the SIT.

Project Update: American River (John Hannon, USBR)

  • Goals based off SIT actions (Action 4: Juvenile habitat restoration in American River, Action 9: Maintain existing spawning habitats in Upper Sacramento)
  • Annual riverwide spawning photos back to 2002 plus CDFW surveys prior to that, (GIS mapped 2014-2019)
  • They are making juvenile habitat and maintaining spawning habitat. They are doing snorkel surveys for juvenile monitoring (use and densities). They are doing genetic and otolith work with Cramer and UC Davis for genetic parentage analysis to understand when fish leave the river and which contribute successful adult returns (Ana Sturrock’s work). John noted that there was an initial push of small fish early on. The SIT has been using a constant age at return. John noted that the ocean salmon lab has been working that stuff up and we should be able to get it. John said there is not a report on this yet, but there should be one coming. Scott Blankenship has a good presentation and he could probably come present this information to the SIT.
  • Chris noted they are monitoring the topography of sites over time which will be important for habitat and grain size evolution over time for the SIT.
  • Natal reconstructions (preliminary results from Otoliths): “Who” contributed to the escapement? Stray 20%, American River (natural) 29%, Nimbus Hatchery 51% (escapement year 2016)

Upper Sac (John Hannon, USBR)

Project report. Visit the project website for more information

  • A lot of this work is using SIT monitoring guidance
  • Goal is to increase productivity of the habitat in upper Sac (abundance size and condition of fish). Chico State has been leading the implementation and monitoring of this work. They have a website on Sacramento river Forum and a monitoring plan posted. Flow needed to move gravel at Keswick dam is about 25000 cfs now. It used to be less, but the bank has moved.
  • John et al have worked with Sadie and provided the snorkel survey data and Sadie put it into the EDI database. He said it was going well so far and they can make a few tweaks to their data form for easier transfer. He said that there are lots of other data too, like project planning data, and it would be good to work that into the database. Sadie said she can follow up with John on how to do that. Sadie has also talked to fish for food group.
  • John noted he thinks they are in the tier 2 level with respect to the SIT. They are years into their protocol, so the timing isn’t a direct match, but they are thinking long term. They are working on ways to improve their abundance data, but he hopes they are in tier 2 of that.


Monitoring and Data Synthesis Discussion (Jim Peterson, USGS, Adam Duarte, USFS, Sadie Gill, FlowWest)

  • Sadie noted that the repository is online and available. There is a package id to control for versioning issues. The minimum we are going for is twice a year to update datasets. Sadie thinks a twitter bot could follow that or have updates made on the SIT website too.
  • Sadie has been thinking about the current data that the SIT is using and thinking about using rmarkdown to document these sub/side analyses. John noted that they should be able to get the data and not just the report but that is not in the agreement.
  • Adam noted it is best to have raw data, not just estimates so analyses can be replicated. Sadie noted that EDI can incorporate versioning and identifying raw vs. processed data.
  • Jim noted that we need to think about assurances for folks that share data. Rod will look into EDI vs CAMP and see if RST data can be uploaded there. John said Upper Sac RST and Calfish are redoing agreement so we should check out what they are providing and see if it is useful for the SIT’s efforts.
  • Rod would like to see similar efforts across areas so the SIT can make comparisons across areas.


Next Steps (Megan Cook, FWS)

  • Final NTRS document formatting, addenda and responses
  • Model refactoring and prototyping 5 model changes (3 approved yesterday, 2 previously approved)
  • Nov 18 Monitoring Subgroup Call (10am-12pm, invite coming)
    • Jim, Adam, Mike Urkov, Mike Beakes, Bryan Matthias, Matt Brown, JD Wikert, Brian Ellrott, Mark Tompkins. Email to join
  • January SIT Call (date TBD)
    • DSM Tour
    • Adaptive Management Update
  • March SIT Meeting (date TBD)
    • Review prototype model changes
    • Volunteer/nominate Project Updates?



  • Brian noted that a lot of their addenda was to request an open discussion with the SIT and he hopes that is not lost when responding to the addenda as part of the NTRS.