Wednesday, August 23, 08:30 to 12:00 PM

CVPIA Fisheries Science Integration Team Workshop

Wednesday, August 23, 08:30 to 12:00 PM

08:30–09:00 Welcome and introductions as needed

08:30–10:00 Update progress report- Update on FY18 Charters (Rod)- Update on watershed expert elicitation meetings

(Shelly & Mike U.)- Arrival times for spring run?

- Proposed modification to SJ outmigrant survival- Update on analysis of fall run screw trap data (Adam)- Update on O. mykiss efforts (Adam & Jim)- Discuss floodplain habitat proposal (Shelly)- Does SIT want to set aside time to discuss black duck adaptive management program? (Adam)

10:00–10:20 Break

10:20–11:00 Update progress report (cont.)

11:00–12:00 Discuss Tracy Fish Facility and its role in the DSM (Rod)

12:00–1:00 Lunch

Back in Corvallis…

R. Peterson

A. Duarte






- Proposed modification to SJ outmigrant survival- Update on analysis of fall run screw trap data (Adam)- Update on O. mykiss efforts (Adam & Jim)- Discuss floodplain habitat proposal (Shelly)- Does SIT want to set aside time to discuss black duck adaptive management program? (Adam)

10:00–10:20 Break



12:00–1:00 Lunch

Possible modification to SJ outmigrant survival

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

Small Medium Large

Out

mig

rant

sur

viva

l pro

babi

lity

Body size group

Current SJ Fall Chinook outmigrant survival

V-large

Fall run screw trap data

• American River, 2013–2016• Battle Creek, 1999–2006

• Clear Creek, 1999–2016• Feather River, 1999–2016 • Mokelumne River, 1999–2015

• Red Bluff Diversion Dam, 1998–2016 • Stanislaus River, 1998–2016

Fall run screw trap data• R functions

• Maximum likelihood estimator • Steinhorst, K., Y. Wu, B. Dennis, and P. Kline 2004. Confidence intervals for fish out-migrant estimates

using stratified trap efficiency methods. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics 9:284-299.

• Bootstrap procedure • Thedinga J. F., M. L. Murphy, S. W. Johnson, J. M Lorenz and K. V Koski. 1994. Determination of salmonid

smolt yield with rotary screw traps in the Situk River, Alaska, to predict effects of glacial flooding. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 14:837-851.

• Generalized additive model (GAM) with a penalized spline smooth term• Can accommodate missed sampling days

• Adjust for capture efficiency• Matches trap efficiency trials by nearest to release date

• Reasonable months to include?• December – October

• Full Sample = 24 hours ± 2 hours• Can accommodate subsampling with sample design

Fall run screw trap data• >1 trap positions

• More than 1 trap? Trapping same fish?

• Hatchery and natural fish• Natural fish only for now

• Debris Category vs. debris volume• Are there standardized cut-off points to go from volume to category?

• “When the check meets protocol, can either be a complete enumeration of captured fish, or an estimate based on random subsampling when too many fish are captured to enumerate.” –McDonald and Banach 2010

• Many fish not measured for FL• Random and Analyses Columns?

• Trial data• Half Cone (Y/N)?






- Update on analysis of fall run screw trap data (Adam)- Update on O. mykiss efforts (Adam & Jim)- Discuss floodplain habitat proposal (Shelly)- Does SIT want to set aside time to discuss black duck adaptive management program? (Adam)

10:00–10:20 Break



12:00–1:00 Lunch

Jan Mar May July Sept Oct Dec

smolting

Half poundersSpawning

smolting

Age 0

Ages 1-3

smolting

Emergence

Spawning

Ages 4+

Spawner return

Half pounders return

Emigration

Freshwater

Saltwater

Freshwater

Saltwater

Freshwater

Saltwater

Proposed baseline life-cycle and timing

Anadromous LH Hypotheses

Genetic propensityBody size / somatic growthEnvironmental

Streamflow and temperatureInfluenced by location and timing

Not marked “RBT”

Removed - one 0 FL- one September

Breaks- 180 & 240

Summary- n = 109- Min=36- Median = 211.7- Mean = 218.5- Max=350

Size distribution Sac Trawl, 1998–2017

TL mm4590

135180220270320375 (16 in)

Initial O. mykiss size classes (8)

# ofFry

Spawning Success

# of Females

FecunditySpawning

Habitat

IncubationTemperatures

HyporehicCondition

ReddDisturbanceSuperimposition

ScouringOr

Stranding

Human(Physical)

# of Hatchery Spawners

Fish Size

Egg Size

AdultSource

SedimentSurface Fines

Water Quality

Contaminants Waste Water

Runoff

Details

Details






- Update on analysis of fall run screw trap data (Adam)- Update on O. mykiss efforts (Adam & Jim)- Discuss floodplain habitat proposal (Shelly)- Does SIT want to set aside time to discuss black duck adaptive management program? (Adam)

10:00–10:20 Break



12:00–1:00 Lunch

1:00–2:00 Discuss 1946–2015 fall-run releases from state and federal hatcheries (Anna and Corey)

2:00–3:00 Review fundamental vs. means objectives (Jim and Adam)

Focus and clarify Chinook objectives and scenarios

3:00–3:20 Break

3:20–4:30 Focus and clarify Chinook objectives and scenarios (cont.)

4:30 Adjourn

CVPIA Fisheries Science Integration Team WorkshopO. mykiss Volunteers


Why discuss objectives again?

Decision

Everything depends on your objectives



ModelObjectives

(must be quantifiable)

Case study: Bobwhite Quail Initiative

GA DNR program for improving quail populations on private landsInitial focus, maximum effort in 3 counties

Increase quail populations

Increasecarryingcapacity

Decreasenatural

mortality

Increasehabitat

Predatorcontrol

SupplementalFeeding

(food plots)

Stated objective:

Why do we need to identify and structure objectives?

Minimizes misunderstandingFocuses efforts things that matter most to the decision-maker

Increase quail populations

Increasecarryingcapacity

Increasehabitat

Decreasenatural

mortality

Predatorcontrol

Supplementalfeeding

Maximizeharmony

Makeconstituents

happy

Increasehabitat

Makeboss

happy

Biologists Administrators/Politicians

An alternative perspective

Result: eliminate monitoring, expand program to set aside lands additional counties

Basic types of objectives

Fundamental objectives: what the decision-maker really wants to accomplish.

Means objectives: the things that need to be accomplished to realize the fundamental objective

>>>>>> Clarity is essential <<<<<<<

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Once we have lists of objectives we need to put them into a framework that reveals their relationships and helps identify fundamental objectives from means objectives.

The importance of identifying and structuring objectivescommon sticking point

Confusing fundamental and mean objectives

Stated (fundamental) objective of stream fishery manager:Natural Hydrologic Regime

Time

Wat

er le

vel

I regimes

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Often decision makers confuse fundamental and means objectives. On common example is, “create/implement monitoring protocols.” Natural resource decision makers don’t value monitoring for its own sake but because it is a means to understanding what is happening with a population- community- ecosystem of interest. Similarly, decision-makers confuse fundamental and means objectives because of their mental model of the system dynamics. For example, fishery biologists may believe that the flow regime affects ecosystem processes such that a natural flow regime will produce a natural (or pristine) aquatic community. However, the fundamental objective of maintaining a natural flow regime means that the decision makers value natural flow regimes for their own sake.

I regimes

?

Possible outcome: The flow regime is natural but….all the fish are dead

Would the fishery managers be happy with the outcome???

Presenter

Presentation Notes

What happened to the decision-makers if this is the outcome.

Maximize nativefish biodiversity

Maintain natural hydrologic regime

Maximize habitatavailability

Means objectives (sometimes) helprealize the fundamental objective

Means objectives often are hypotheses aboutsystem dynamics

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Means objectives sometime help realize the fundamental objectives and they often reflect the beliefs and “mental models” (aka black boxes) of system-dynamics of the decision-makers. In other words, they are often hypotheses. The keys are to recognize and differences between fundamental and means objectives, realize that there may be more than one way to realize a fundamental objective, and not box themselves in a corner by accepting a limited view of how the system works.

Three very important phrases

Structuring objectives

Identify and organizing fundamental and means objectives.

Why Is That Important?

How can you / I achieve that?

What do you / I mean by that?

>>>>>> Clarity is essential <<<<<<<

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Once we have lists of objectives we need to put them into a framework that reveals their relationships and helps identify fundamental objectives from means objectives.

Identify and separate fundamental and means objectives

Means objectives network

Minimizeextinction risk

Maximizespatial

distribution

Increasehabitat

Minimizemortality

Why is that important?

Fundamentalobjectives

How could I achieve this?

Meansobjectives

Exoticcontrol

Establishcorridors

Structuring objectives

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Two key questions are used to separate fundamental and means objectives.

1:00–2:00 Discuss 1946–2015 fall-run releases from state and federal hatcheries (Anna and Corey)

2:00–3:00 Review fundamental vs. means objectives (Jim and Adam)

Focus and clarify Chinook objectives and scenarios

3:00–3:20 Break


4:30 Adjourn



Fundamental objective Category Fundamental objective attribute

Valley Wide

Spatial structure Total no. of viable spawning populations per diversity group (NMFS def. of independent population)

Abundance

Total no. of spawning natural origin adults (across watersheds)

Naturally-spawned juvenile abundance at Chipps

Naturally produced fish in the ocean

Natural productivity

Total number of natural origin spawning adults per natural origin escapement

Nat. returning adult/natural spawner (cohort replacement)

No. natural juveniles at Chipps /Natural origin spawning adults

Life history diversityVariation (CV) of timing of peak outmigration among screwtraps

Outmigrating proportion juvenile stages (size classes) size/developmental stage at Chipps

Genetic Diversity Prop of hatchery fish that are strays

Watershed specific

Abundance No. of returning natural origin adultsNaturally-spawned juvenile abundance

Natural Productivity

Nat. origin returning adult/natural origin spawner prev cohort



Life history diversity

Timing of outmigration by juvenile stage (number of weeks detected per life stage and distribution shape) per watershedOutmigrating proportion juvenile stages (fry parr smolt yearlings) size/developmental stage at location

Genetic diversity Prop of natural spawners vs hatchery

Scenarios Evaluated for Fall Run Chinook Salmon FY18Scenario Changes

Reduce diversion in April and May (one month at a time) San Joaquin watersheds (individually) % of tributary Q5%

10%35%

Eliminate predator contact points each watershed (individually)5%

10%50%

Increase seasonally inundated juvenile habitat each watershed individually (2 yr freq) % ESHE value25%50%75%


Increase perennially inundated juvenile habitat each watershed individually % ESHE value25%50%75%

Increase spawning habitat each watershed individually % pseudo ESHE value25%50%75%

Reduce the % hatchery origin spawners5%

15%30%

Pulse flows: Shasta only to 17500 cfs, 1 week (during month) prompt juvenile fall chinook migration

JanFeb

MarchApril

Change multiple factors in single watershed vs. multiple factors single watershed 1) decrease diversion 50%; eliminate contact points 50%; increase FP habitat 50% ESHE; increase spawning habitat 50% ESHE

Upper SacramentoStanislaus

MokelumneFeather

American

Big questions that drive fall run Chinook persistence are different for the Sacramento system than for the San Joaquin system. Given spatial diversity is an important element, specific big picture questions in the San Joaquin system are important.

There are two critical issues for San Joaquin/east side fish in my mind: sublethal or lethal temperature impacts during juvenile outmigration when fish outmigrate as late season smolts (May/June) and predation in the Delta during that time period.

H1: Juvenile SAR is higher when tributary conditions allow for longer rearing times (i.e., improved juvenile habitat quality in the tributary), so outmigrants hit the mainstem and Delta at a larger, more robust size, therefore improving survival to ocean entry.

And conversely:

H2: Juvenile SAR is higher when early high flows move fish into the mainstem and Delta at a smaller size, and high abundance (i.e., low in-tributary losses due to low residence times), so that outmigrants enter the mainstem and Delta when conditions are more conducive to juvenile salmonids and less conducive to high predator activity (i.e., temperatures are lower).

I think there is generally a lack of understanding over which life history strategy can be more successful, and there varying evidence supporting both smolt outmigrants as the preferred size, but also fry outmigrant contribution, so I think it would be interesting to test each against.

Big Questions – 1st submission


10:00–10:20 Break

10:20–12:00 Focus and clarify Chinook objectives and scenarios (cont. if necessary)

New business

12:00 Adjourn


Thursday, August 24, 8:30 to 12:00 PM

Motivation: Modeling Scenarios FY 18

Climate type (wet/dry)

Output at year 5 and 20 tributary and valley-wide metrics

Process repeated for each scenario

Experts had to process26 scenarios x 2 climates x 2 time periods x 18 metrics = 1872!

reminder

What are we doing?

Not changing the modelNOT changing the modelNOT CHANGING THE MODEL

Identifying reduced set of objectives (from original list)What objectives do you really care about?Reduced list used to prioritize objectives

If unable to reduce -- default is use all

Process question: should we identify SIT members that did not review all output prior to discussion?

More common objectives problems

Please leave yourmodel at the door

Dismissing potential objectives due to perceived conflicts

Dismissing potential objectives due to perceived lack of information or complexity

Values (objectives) masquerading as facts or process

Treating numeric targets as objectives

Process: pairwise comparison of objectives

2 possible outcomes over 50 yr. time span: low high

Ignore biology– this exercise is about values

Total no. of viable spawning populations per diversity

groupTotal no. of spawning natural origin adults Preference

Low (< 1) High

High (> 3) Low

Process: pairwise comparison of objectives

3 possible answers: Low-HighHigh- LowNone

Sheet


10:00–10:20 Break


New business

12:00 Adjourn



Scenarios Evaluated for Fall Run Chinook Salmon FY18Scenario Changes

Reduce diversion in April and May (one month at a time) San Joaquin watersheds (individually) % of tributary Q5%

10%35%

Eliminate predator contact points each watershed (individually)5%

10%50%



Increase perennially inundated juvenile habitat each watershed individually % ESHE value25%50%75%

Increase spawning habitat each watershed individually % pseudo ESHE value25%50%75%

Reduce the % hatchery origin spawners5%

15%30%

Pulse flows: Shasta only to 17500 cfs, 1 week (during month) prompt juvenile fall chinook migration

JanFeb

MarchApril

Change multiple factors in single watershed vs. multiple factors single watershed 1) decrease diversion 50%; eliminate contact points 50%; increase FP habitat 50% ESHE; increase spawning habitat 50% ESHE

Upper SacramentoStanislaus

MokelumneFeather

American

Big questions that drive fall run Chinook persistence are different for the Sacramento system than for the San Joaquin system. Given spatial diversity is an important element, specific big picture questions in the San Joaquin system are important.

There are two critical issues for San Joaquin/east side fish in my mind: sublethal or lethal temperature impacts during juvenile outmigration when fish outmigrate as late season smolts (May/June) and predation in the Delta during that time period.

H1: Juvenile SAR is higher when tributary conditions allow for longer rearing times (i.e., improved juvenile habitat quality in the tributary), so outmigrants hit the mainstem and Delta at a larger, more robust size, therefore improving survival to ocean entry.

And conversely:

H2: Juvenile SAR is higher when early high flows move fish into the mainstem and Delta at a smaller size, and high abundance (i.e., low in-tributary losses due to low residence times), so that outmigrants enter the mainstem and Delta when conditions are more conducive to juvenile salmonids and less conducive to high predator activity (i.e., temperatures are lower).

I think there is generally a lack of understanding over which life history strategy can be more successful, and there varying evidence supporting both smolt outmigrants as the preferred size, but also fry outmigrant contribution, so I think it would be interesting to test each against.

Big Questions – 1st submission


10:00–10:20 Break


New business

12:00 Adjourn



Wednesday, August 23, 08:30 to 12:00 PM

Documents

Transcript of Wednesday, August 23, 08:30 to 12:00 PM