Conference Call

February 24, 2021 Slides

By phone:

Denise Barnard, Mike Beakes, Tricia Bratcher, Matt Brown, Megan Cook, Flora Cordoleani, John Dealy, Matthew Dekar, Stephanie Durkacz, James Earley, Brian Ellrott, John Hannon, Brett Harvey, Jason Hassrick, Rene Henery, Baker Holden, John Kelly, Morgan Kilgour, Priscilla Liang, Duane Linander, Erin Lunda, Keith Marine, Bryan Matthias, Erica Meyers, Cyril Michel, Kirk Nelson, Jim Peterson, Corey Phillis, Emanuel Rodriguez, Derek Rupert, Alicia Seesholtz, Susan Strachan, Kate Spear, Mark Tompkins, Steve Tsao, Mike Urkov, Page Vick, JD Wikert, Alex Williams, Heidi Williams, Rod Wittler

Update on CVPIA Funding Processes

  • Matt Dekar gave brief Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) update.
  • Mike Beakes added that this coming NOFO may be specifically targeting restoration and facilities actions. Matt Dekar said this issue is still unresolved and will be reported when a decision is made.
  • Question from Brian Ellrot - asked if NOFO will take the place of the charter process in the past? Matt Dekar answered that NOFO doesn’t exactly replace charter process - after NOFO there will still be charters and CVPIA is currently working on a charter database that will track progress of projects funded under NOFO.
  • Rod elaborated that the program as a whole is moving to be more competitive based. NOFO is adding to former charter process and shifting to a more competitive approach.

SIT 2021 Process

  • Megan reviewed SIT 2021 general timeline.
  • Megan reviewed NTRS Schedule for five-year period of NTRS- big picture sequencing, what will work moving forward. Detailed timing worked out closer to those years.

Summary Model Change Proposal Process:

  • Describe change to conceptual model. Anybody at any point can propose changes for conceptual model. Calling this a pre-proposal step. Idea, information, subgroup.
  • Present initial idea to SIT: get sense to proceed, or modifications to approach
  • Develop full model change proposal: Spell out how model changes based off this proposal. Get SIT feedback to proceed. Next deadline: October 2022 for proposals to enter step 4 prototyping
  • Prototype model change
  • Discuss results of model change with SIT
  • Based on SIT input, finalize model change
  • First three steps can happen at any time, propose idea, move forward. Strict to keep moving forward with 5-year schedule with when proposals need to be ready to incorporate into model.
  • Rod has idea for a change to the model and want to propose it. Would like to discuss with either members of the SIT, or as a SIT meeting- should we try to schedule time during SIT, or contact people directly, formulate outside of SIT meeting?
    • Megan thinks either approach would work. Generally best thing is to reach out to Megan directly, and figure out best approach (existing subgroup, identify new people/discuss ideas in SIT meeting).

Status of SIT DSMs

  • Fall-run Chinook salmon: model “complete”, used to develop restoration action and info needs. Currently have prototyping changes in process. Survival changes based on what Cyril proposed. Moving forward, prototyping going on/habitat inputs group is working through.
    • During call next month, will see prototyped changes in model.
  • Spring-run: Will see prototyping results next month
  • Winter-run Chinook salmon: Will see prototyping results next month along with results of adding winter-run Battle Creek habitat.
  • Late-fall-run Chinook salmon: New model under development. During March meeting, will solicit feedback on using fall-run habitat estimates for late-fall-run model.
  • O. mykiss: initial model developed, but did not develop restoration actions. Focused on filling info needs during NTRS period.
  • Sturgeon: model same status as O. mykiss. Focusing on improving data.
  • Rod to Mike Beakes/group that organized recent steelhead monitoring seminar: how do we coordinate what we learned from that seminar with Mark’s development of steelhead model? Facilitate discussion in group and leverage what we learned?
    • Mike Beakes: Thought workshop went great, tentative timeline is to consolidate feedback and reconvene people from agencies to draft charter for how steelhead monitoring and research and commitments will be implemented in the spring. Developing monitoring plan to capture workshop. Good opportunity to include this group and plan for monitoring O.mykiss needs. Spring good time to interact with SIT on effort.
    • Megan: let’s plan for a summary presentation of the steelhead workshop during the March SIT meeting and then figure out additional coordination steps for the spring.
  • Mike Urkov: Have you talked about expanding any of that to expand salmon demographic work? What’s overlap between O.mykiss and salmon folks?
    • Mike Beakes: Several potential opportunities to coordinate, esp on Sac River of things. Talk about folks about infrastructure/ongoing agreements with USBR. As far as salmon demographics chapter drafted last year, separate effort.
  • Rod: Input from management that we need to use models and the order that they have learned from us is that we build a model, start with conceptual model, then numeric model, develop scenarios, test scenarios, sensitivity analysis- get idea where greatest uncertainty is. Use state to develop info need priorities. Sooner we get statement about uncertainty/info needs needed to reduce uncertainty, the better.
    • Megan: the info needs are stated in NTRS
  • Rod: what my management is saying, understand how we take to priorities in NTRS for the species we named, model utilization was crucial to that. NOFO more competitive-based funding for meeting priorities. Sooner we go through priorities for other species (green/white sturgeon, steelhead), the sooner we can go with rest of process to dedicate resources to prioritizing others.
    • Jim: It’s already been done for white/green sturgeon, that’s why we identified needs for that. Steelhead model is there, not full sensitivity analysis because there is no data to calibrate the model against. That’s the reason why there’s not been a formal sensitivity analysis. Sensitivity analysis has been for green/white sturgeon.
  • Rod: What’s holding up with steelhead?
    • Jim: Can run it, but don’t believe anything it says right now because nothing to calibrate to. That’s the problem with that one.
    • Mike Beakes: Jim characterized perfectly, right now best guess, nothing to validate steelhead model. One of the things we’re working towards right now is trying to collect demographic info. Without that info, sensitivity analysis is meaningless.

Proposal Update: Growth/Bioenergetics (Corey Phillis MWD, Mike Beakes USBR)

  • History/Context
    • Corey Phillis and Mike Beakes working on a bioenergetics model
    • SIT has seen a version of the growth/bioenergetics proposal (pre-proposal)
    • SIT requested additional details about how to incorporate the food manipulation-fish growth into SIT model
    • Today: Refresher on the bioenergetics model
  • Issue of Concern: Juvenile growth sub-model currently doesn’t account for temperature or prey in growth transition matrices
  • Model lacks ability to evaluate:
    • Change in growth rate through the rearing period as river temperatures warm (+ consequences of management alternatives that address temperature)
    • Tributary-specific growth rates (+restoration action best suited to tributary’s intrinsic growth opportunity (temp and prey))
    • Trophic subsidies from managed floodplains
  • Proposed Change to Model: Update growth transition matrices with mass-specific growth rates estimated from bioenergetics model requiring prey density, temperature, and initial fish mass
  • Bioenergetics model: not created on own, based on published bioenergetics models for salmonids, parameters derived from lab studies
  • We’re taking advantage of some work Flora Cordoleani has worked on the last few years- caged-fish growth data from CVPIA funded study. Using observed growth and predicting what we expect based on temps and prey they collected.
  • Next steps: formal proposal to change growth transition matrices for SIT to review. Assuming SIT approval, request for prey and temperature data from watershed experts.

March SIT Meeting Agenda

  • Review FY20 Memo, Updated SIT Guidance
  • Model Updates
    • Results of prototyping proposed model changes
    • Winter-run Battle Creek habitat
    • Late-fall-run habitat estimates
  • Subgroup Updates
    • Growth/Bioenergetics
    • Monitoring
  • Update on CVPIA Funding Process
  • Report out on San Joaquin Steelhead Monitoring Workshop
  • New Business
    • Contact megan_cook@fws.gov if you have topics to add

New Business

  • Matt Brown: Would like to hear what Rod wants to propose as change to the model
    • Rod: Is there a reason to make minor change around confluence of American River? Necessary or not? Accounting issue, a lot of juveniles coming out of American don’t rear in American, in Sac instead. Want to make sure we’re targeting management actions towards the American juveniles.
    • Megan: let’s have separate chat to
  • Mike Beakes: folks working on habitat degradation submodel components, any progress on that, or plans to work on model this year?
    • Mark Tompkins: Focused really on process to update input itself (with new 2D hydraulic modeling, habitat criteria). Degradation/change part in charters/information need, haven’t prototyped that like with habitat input. No update yet, would be done through charter process if funded.
  • See meeting slides for SIT 2021 schedule