La Grange Hydroelectric Project Licensing (FERC No. 14581)
Fish Passage Facilities Alternatives Assessment
Reintroduction Goals Subcommittee Meeting
Thursday, December 1, 2016
2:30 pm to 4:00 pm
Final Meeting Notes
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Name
Steve Boyd
Paul Bratovich
Jean Castillo
Calvin Curtin
Jesse Deason
John Devine*
Greg Dias
Nann Fangue*
Dana Ferreira
Mark Gard*
Art Godwin
Andy Gordus
Chuck Hanson
Zac Jackson
Bill Ketscher
Patrick Koepele*
Bao Le
Ellen Levin*
Lonnie Moore
Marco Moreno
Gretchen Murphey
Bill Paris
Amanda Ransom
Bill Sears*
Samantha Wookey
John Wooster*
Ron Yoshiyama
Meeting Attendees
Organization
Turlock Irrigation District
HDR, consultant to the Districts
National Marine Fisheries Service
Turlock Irrigation District
HDR, consultant to the Districts
HDR, consultant to the Districts
Modesto Irrigation District
U.C. Davis, consultant to the Districts
Office of U.S. Congressman Jeff Denham
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Turlock Irrigation District
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Hanson Environmental, consultant to the Districts
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Private citizen
Tuolumne River Trust
HDR, consultant to the Districts
City and County of San Francisco
Private citizen
Latino Community Roundtable
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Modesto Irrigation District
HDR, consultant to the Districts
City and County of San Francisco
Modesto Irrigation District
National Marine Fisheries Service
City and County of San Francisco
* Attended by phone.
On December 1, 2016, Turlock Irrigation District and Modesto Irrigation District (collectively, the
Districts) hosted the third Reintroduction Goals Subcommittee (Goals Subcommittee) meeting for the La
Grange Hydroelectric Project (La Grange Project) Fish Passage Facilities Alternatives Assessment and
Upper Tuolumne River Fish Reintroduction Assessment Framework (Framework). This document
summarizes discussions during the meeting. It is not intended to be a transcript of the meeting. Attachment
A to this document provides meeting materials. This meeting began after the conclusion of the Water
Temperature Subcommittee meeting, held earlier that day from 1:00 pm to 2:30 pm. Notes from the Water
Temperature Subcommittee meeting are available as a separate document.
Goals Subcommittee Conference Call
Final Meeting Notes
Page 1
December 1, 2016
La Grange Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 14581
Mr. Bao Le (HDR) reviewed the background of why the Plenary Group formed the Goals Subcommittee.
Mr. Le said in April 2016, the Districts were tasked with crafting a simple narrative goals statement to help
begin discussions. The resulting statement is included in the agenda from the October 20, 2016, Goals
Subcommittee meeting. [Narrative draft statement, as provided in the October 20, 2016 meeting agenda:
“Identify and evaluate, in collaboration with stakeholders, reasonable efforts which may enhance and assist
in the recovery of ESA listed salmonids in the Central Valley”.]
Mr. Le summarized discussions held during the October 20, 2016 meeting. He noted that since that
meeting, the Districts have received no feedback on the draft goals statement. Given that no feedback was
received, the Goals Subcommittee has made little progress since the October 20 meeting.
Mr. Le said reported that at the October meeting two points were made by participants: (1) that the draft
goals statement represented a broad, overarching goal of the reintroduction program but possibly the
addition of corollary statements could help provide greater specificity; and (2) a potential source of
information to identify potential quantitative metrics to define recovery success may be found in Lindley
(2007). Mr. Le said after review of Lindley (2007), a possible quantitative metric to define a successful
recovery program might be achieving low extinction risk, which equates to an average of 2,500 adults over
3 years, with an annual effective population size of not less than 500 adults. Mr. Le asked if Mr. John
Wooster (National Marine Fisheries Service) or others had thoughts on this. Mr. Wooster said NMFS views
reintroduction differently than recovery. For example, you may have a system where the recovery goal is
a certain population size, but the reintroduction goal is just a fraction of the recovery goal because the
reintroduced population can be thought of as just a subset of the overall recovered population. Mr. Wooster
said this may not be the case for the Tuolumne River (i.e., reintroduction and recovery may be the same),
given that there are no spring-run Chinook and the steelhead population is very small.
Dr. Chuck Hanson (Hanson Environmental, consultant to the Districts) said Lindley (2007) contains criteria
that state multiple independent populations are preferred over having just one population. Prior to
development of the NMFS Recovery Plan, a guidance document was prepared that reviewed the criteria,
approaches, and metrics that NMFS should consider when developing the Recovery Plan. Dr. Hanson said
he believes the Recovery Plan has all the components necessary to inform the quantitative metrics needed
to support a reintroduction goals statement. Mr. Wooster noted that Lindley (2007) is a much shorter
document than the Recovery Plan and that the Recovery Plan leans heavily on Lindley (2007). Mr. Paul
Bratovich (HDR) said the Recovery Plan speaks directly to the recovery of populations and talks about
evolutionarily significant units (ESUs), diversity groups, and how many viable populations in each diversity
group would constitute recovery. Mr. Bratovich said the Recovery Plan also uses the simpler criteria
provided in Lindley et al. (2007) to define a viable population.
Dr. Hanson said during the planning phase of the San Joaquin River restoration effort, how far populations
needed to be from one another to be considered independent was defined. In addition, for a population to
be considered recovered, it must meet the cumulative criteria, which states there is no more than a 5 percent
probability of extinction in 100 years. Dr. Hanson said the simpler criteria were developed because
implementation of a population viability analysis (PVA) for each river was not feasible.
Ms. Gretchen Murphey (California Department of Fish and Wildlife) asked how steelhead on the Tuolumne
River would be considered from the point of view of reintroduction, given that there are O. mykiss already
above and below the dams. Ms. Murphey asked if those populations would be added together when
considering whether the population is viable. Dr. Hanson said it is likely that both populations would be
considered as one, given that they would not meet the distance criteria to be considered as two independent
populations. Interbreeding would also be assumed. Mr. Bratovich noted that there is also a percent hatchery
contribution criteria in the Recovery Plan. Mr. Wooster said he agrees that from a recovery perspective,
Goals Subcommittee Conference Call
Final Meeting Notes
Page 2
December 1, 2016
La Grange Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 14581
the upper and lower Tuolumne River O. mykiss populations would be considered to be a single population.
Mr. Wooster said it may be that the lower river group would have a different status than the upper river
group. Dr. Hanson said that would be similar to what occurred for the San Joaquin River, where NMFS
made spring-run Chinook an experimental/non-essential population from the perspective of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA).
Regarding low extinction number, Mr. Bill Paris (Modesto Irrigation District) asked if for example 10,000
fish is the number needed to avoid extinction, does that mean 10,000 fish is the goal or that the goal is more
than 10,000 fish. Mr. Bratovich said the low extinction risk number is based on the simpler criteria. One
way to define the simpler criteria is an average of 833 fish over three years, no less than 500 fish per year,
and a limit on hatchery contributions. Another component of the Recovery Plan states that the goal for a
recovered population ranges from the abundance associated with low extinction risk up to carrying capacity.
Dr. Hanson wondered how that criteria might apply if carrying capacity is less than the low extinction risk
number.
Mr. John Devine (HDR) asked if it is correct to state that if a population is not viable and does not meet the
effective population number, it would not add to recovery of the ESU or DPS. Dr. Hanson and Mr.
Bratovich both said Mr. Devine is correct. Dr. Ron Yoshiyama (City and County of San Francisco) said it
is possible that fish could be introduced into the upper river without there being enough habitat to support
an effective population, but that population could be supplemented by the lower river population in order
to achieve an effective population. Mr. Bratovich said that raises the question of how to define a population
as independent, because if the lower river population is a metapopulation of strays and hatchery fish, it may
not be independent. In that case, the question would be whether combining the lower river population with
the upper river population results in a single independent population.
Mr. Le said an additional question regarding steelhead is protecting a population versus protecting a
behavior. For example, in the Pacific Northwest, the intent of listing bull trout was to protect the migratory
form. The resident form is not protected and is not considered when evaluating recovery success. Mr.
Wooster said in California, resident fish do not have the same level of protection under ESA as the do the
anadromous fish. Mr. Wooster said the population numbers from Lindley (2007) only consider the
anadromous form, and the resident population is not taken into account. Ms. Murphey asked if there is
consideration that resident fish are taking up part of the carrying capacity, especially when it comes to
juvenile fish. Mr. Wooster said he does not know the answer to that question, but he thinks resident fish
would contribute towards the carrying capacity goal, and not take away from it. Mr. Wooster said regarding
juvenile steelhead, there is no way to differentiate between anadromous and resident fish. Mr. Le said it
seems as though different life stages would require different criteria. Mr. Bratovich said regarding the Yuba
Salmon Forum, thermally suitable habitat for spawning adult spring-run Chinook salmon was most limiting,
whereas thermally suitable habitat during the over-summer rearing period was most limiting for steelhead.
Regarding the draft goals statement, Mr. Le said, the Districts made an effort to develop a statement that
represented the diversity of positions on the issue of reintroduction. Mr. Le said given today’s discussion,
it appears that Lindley (2007) and the NMFS Recovery Plan contain information that would be helpful for
developing additional objectives and quantitative metrics.
In addition to contributing to the recovery of ESA listed salmonids in the Central Valley, Mr. Le said
socioeconomic and economic concerns are also captured in the draft goal statement. Mr. Le said in the
past, individuals have stated that it would not be prudent for the Districts to spend millions of dollars to
benefit just a handful of fish. Mr. Le asked meeting participants to provide feedback on this topic.
Goals Subcommittee Conference Call
Final Meeting Notes
Page 3
December 1, 2016
La Grange Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 14581
Mr. Devine said the phrases “establish a viable population” and “at fair cost” or “at reasonable cost” could
be added to the draft statement after “Identify and evaluate, in collaboration with stakeholders, reasonable
efforts to…”. Mr. Devine asked if an updated draft goals statement might be to “Contribute to the recovery
of ESA listed salmonids in the Central Valley by establishing viable populations in the Tuolumne River at
fair and reasonable cost.” Ms. Jean Castillo (NMFS) asked if “viable population” is a quantifiable metric.
Mr. Devine said it is quantifiable. Ms. Castillo said “fair and reasonable cost” is open to interpretation, and
we need to be clear on what that phrase really means. Mr. Le said there the subcommittee could further
define both “viable population” and “fair and reasonable cost” in corollary statements. Ms. Castillo asked
if the first two parts of the goals statement were met, does cost matter? Mr. Devine said that from the
Districts’ perspective, the cost matters, even if it does achieve a viable population. For example, if the cost
to achieve a viable population is a billion dollars, the Districts would certainly question whether the program
is worth doing. Mr. Lonnie Moore (private citizen) said “fair and reasonable” is very debatable, but possibly
“cost effective” is a better way to phrase it. Mr. Bill Ketscher (private citizen) said it is important to consider
impacts to the local economy. If the program costs a certain amount of money to achieve a viable
population, the cost may still not be reasonable because the impacts to the local economy are so great. Ms.
Murphey suggested using something more vague, such as “economic feasibility”, and that the
Socioeconomic Study might produce information that could be developed into a corollary statement. Mr.
Moore said the group could look at the costs of similar projects to determine what is “cost effective.” Mr.
Devine said such true cost data would very likely be hard to come by, that it would be difficult to compare
projects to one another, and that “cost effective” is also a phrase open to debate.
Mr. Paris requested that the new draft statement be sent out to the group. Mr. Le said the Districts will send
the statement out to allow time for folks to consider it and provide their thoughts. Mr. Bratovich noted that
the draft narrative goal statement is meant to be an overarching statement that addresses a number of
different elements at a high level. Given the discussion of better defining terms and identifying quantifiable
metrics to better measure recovery success, a potential next step might be to develop a series of objectives
that support the draft goal statement. Mr. Le stated that he sees these objective statements as being
synonymous to corollary statements. Mr. Moore asked if the Districts would be drafting corollary
statements. Mr. Le suggested it might be better as a first step for participants to review the new draft
statement and provide any further input. In the course of this review, suggestions for potential corollary
statements would be helpful as well. Dr. Yoshiyama asked that language be added to the end of the
statement that would lead into the corollaries, such as “specific issues and concerns are addressed in more
detail in the following corollaries”. Mr. Le agreed that such additional language could be added.
Meeting participants discussed a date for next meeting. Mr. Le said he send out a Doodle poll.
The meeting concluded.
Action Items
1. The Districts will circulate the revised draft narrative goals statement to the Goals Subcommittee
for review and comment (complete)
2. The Districts will send out a Doodle poll (complete)
Goals Subcommittee Conference Call
Final Meeting Notes
Page 4
December 1, 2016
La Grange Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 14581
La Grange Hydroelectric Project
Reintroduction Assessment Framework
Water Temperature/Reintroduction Goals Subcommittees –
In-person Meeting
Thursday, December 1, 2016, 1:00 pm to 4:00 pm
Modesto Irrigation District, 1231 11th St., Modesto, CA 95354
Conference Line: 1-866-583-7984; Passcode: 814-0607
Meeting Objectives:
1. Review and discuss updated water temperature literature review summary, glossary of terms/acronym
list based upon comments received.
2. Presentation and discussion on relevant temperature terms.
3. Discuss water temperature indices (WTI) when considering anadromous fish reintroduction in the Upper
Tuolumne River.
4. Discuss next steps and schedule for WTI selection.
5. Review, discuss and modify draft narrative reintroduction goals statement.
6. Discuss next steps and schedule for finalizing a reintroduction goals statement.
TIME
1:00 pm – 1:10 pm
TOPIC
Introduction of Participants (All)
Review Agenda and Meeting Objectives (Districts)
Water Temperature Subcommittee Topics (All)
1:10 pm – 2:30 pm
a. Updated Literature Review Summary and Acronym List– comments received
(Districts)
b. Presentation and discussion on relevant temperature terms (Districts)
c. Subcommittee discussion of potential WTI values (All)
- NMFS Input
Reintroduction Goals Subcommittee Topics (All)
2:30 pm – 3:50 pm
3:50 pm – 4:00 pm
a. Additional discussion on current draft narrative reintroduction goals statement (All)
b. Subcommittee discussion of further development of draft narrative goal statement
(All)
- Additional corollary statements?
- Quantitative input (Lindley 2007)?
Next Steps (All)
a. Schedule next call and agenda topics
b. Action items from this call