Well, good morning, everyone. Perhaps we can get started on the obstacle course. Well, good morning, everyone, and welcome back to day two of this National Academies Committee. I'd just like to recognize that Dr. Deborah Glickson, who's the director of the Water Science and Technology Board is joining us today. It's quite unusual to have two directors from the National Academies, and I think it's just indicative of the interesting commitment of the National Academies in this effort. So, this morning, we're going to be covering all the Middle River flow management. We've got two presentations. The first will be given by the California Department of Water Resources. I'll ask the committee to hold questions after that. We'll then go to the US Bureau for Acclamation, and then we'll invite the presenters to come up front and we'll do a Q&A session on both presentations. So, the first speakers, Brian Giorgio, who's section manager and senior engineer. He's the export manager responsible for optimizing the state water project while meeting regulatory and environmental requirements of the delta. So right at the heart of what we're taking a look at. Dr. Brian Schreyer, also with Department of Water Resources. He's the lead smelt biologist with the Department of Water Resources. He's responsible for implementation of the Longfin Smelt Science Plan. He's responsible for the state water plan compliance with the 2019 biological opinion and the 2020 incidental take. He's been with DWR for more than 15 years. He was heavily involved in the YOLO bypass floodplain research, which we've heard about. And has also been involved in some of the early application of EDNA technologies. So welcome both of you. I don't know who's going to go first. Good morning everyone. So, as Peter mentioned, I'm Brian Schreyer with DWR. I'm going to also acknowledge Brian Marjo from USBR who have contributed to these slides. We've got Brian, Brian and Brian tier so hopefully you can keep us all straight. And I'm going to be talking at a very high level about OMR flow management and conceptual models around how species are interacting with OMR flows. Is there an arrow, maybe? A redirect notice, that's not good. I feel like I'm breaking it more. Okay, I broke it already. So let's go. So, for those of you that were on the field trip in January, you'll hopefully recognize some of this. So we drove along Old River for a bit, saw the export facilities, sellage facilities at the SWP. Again, very high level just to establish. We're going to be talking about OMR here. OMR is Old and Middle River flows. We're talking about these two channels, Old and Middle River and the South Delta that lead down to the export facilities, which are denoted by the two gold stars. And harkening back to Dr. Summers presentation from January. We've got these three tiers of water that are going to the export facilities. The first being from the San Joaquin River. The second being from the Sacramento River to the north, which is by far the largest proportion of the freshwater flows going to the export facilities. And then tier three, the one we tried to generally avoid the brackish water coming from the bay. As I mentioned, most of the time that export water is coming from the Sacramento River, which sets up an interesting hydrologic dynamic in the Delta where we've got water moving north to south across the Delta pre export facilities. We would have had water in the southern part of the Delta moving from the southeast up to the Northwest with a natural flow of the San Joaquin River. Therefore, we end up with a situation where we have reversing flows. Now it's important to remember here that the entire Delta is title and any instantaneous moment, any place in the Delta can have either positive or negative flows to pan your orientation flows are moving back and forth what we're talking about here is highly average to daily flows that are the net movement of water is either in a positive direction or a negative direction and here positive direction is that natural flow of the river towards the ocean. In this case from the south to the north, and the negative flow is opposite of that which would be in that north to south direction towards the export facilities. So, going into some of the seasonality of our listed fish species. I throw up a lot of stuff here this is just showing for each of our listed fish species, where they're observed in the Delta and where we have observations and salvage. I don't put this up here to give you any kind of immediate detail but just to highlight that we have an Omar management season that conveniently and purposefully overlaps where all of these fish species are occurring in the Delta. So there is a heavy amount of seasonality to listed fish species they've mostly been kind enough to all show up at the same time. We have flows in the winter and no flows in the summer so that's not a coincidence. And our Omar management season is around that period where we have that potential for entrainment because of fish species present. So Omar management season kicks off can kick off in December 1. There's some flexibility and different triggers on how we on ramp Omar management season that flexibility primarily exists in the December timeframe December 1 to January 1. By January 1 we have a hard on ramp for Omar management season. And then that goes clear through to June where we can either have an early off ramp or a calendar off ramp at the end of June. So I'm going to go back to the map again and really emphasize that when I'm talking about managing Omar flows for the protection of the list of these listed fish species. We're really dealing with fish these fish coming at us from all directions. So we've got the smells coming at us from the West as they migrate upstream for spawning. And we've got the juvenile Salonids that are migrating downstream both on the San Joaquin and on the Sacramento side. So managing fish getting entrained from multiple different directions and different timing and rates is creates a challenging situation that we tried to adapt to every year. I'm going to again revisit some terminology here just to make sure we're on the same page. So when we're talking about entrainment. Entrainment is really specific to the. It's important to know the context with which anyone is particularly talking about entrainment so we can have entrainment from the lower San Joaquin River into the Omar corridor. We'd have entrainment of fish into the salvage facilities themselves. We have entrainment of fish into Clifton Court for Bay. I'll try to be careful on how I say that and encourage others to be careful about when we're talking about entrainment specifying exactly what we're talking about. And here for this talk mostly I'm talking about entrainment of those fish into the Omar corridor which then triggers Omar flow management to prevent entrainment of fish into the actual salvage facilities. Then we have salvage and should be very familiar to you because you saw our salvage facility at the SWP salvage is where we collect these fish from the water getting exported. So that we can truck them back up away from the export facilities. And then for certain species notably our salmonids we also have loss which is a calculation that's applied to salvage to take into account provide estimates for the number of fish that were lost due to mortality as part of the salvage and entrainment process. Most notably covering predation across Clifton Court for me. So now I'll go into some concepts about how we manage our exports in relation to all these regulations. So I like to refer to this as kind of the multi layered onion of all the different regulations we have in the Delta. And this is just us mattering of what Brian can go into a lot more detail on. At the highest level we have just a raw infrastructure capacity. So the pumping plants have a certain maximum capacity, the aqueducts that that water goes into have a certain maximum capacity. So, given no limitations, regularly we have a certain capacity to the system for exporting water. And there are certainly periods like last year where we had a lot of water in the system where that is the limiting factor for exports. So down from that we have storm flex operations that allow us during certain circumstances to be able to increase exports during certain storm events. We then have both the state and federal endangered species acts that layer on the Omar management and of course the biological opinion Omar management is the key part of what this panel will be evaluating. We also have D 1641 which is water rights decision from the state water resources control board that governs both SWP and CBP operations with respect to water quality and flow criteria and I'll go I'll touch on that in a little bit more detail as well. Then we have drought operations we can have temporary urgency change orders that adjust those D 1641 requirements during severe drought. And then at the most basal level we've got health and safety minimum exports and this is important thing to remember too is that for combine for the CBP and the SWP 1500 exports and note that's not Omar it's 1500 CFS exports is required to meet statutory health and safety needs and that includes things like minimum refuge supplies on the CBP side. Senior water right holder obligations and on the SWP side. There's actual municipal. I off takes from the SWP that will become dry and not have any water to pump if we go below that health and safety minimum so we need to provide that water so that particularly residents of the South Bay. Have their residential water supply. Oh another concept here. So with this multi layered onion, these shift around in their priority as we go through the season. We have a term we call controlling factor for operations. When we refer to something that's controlling it's whatever is the most restrictive of this late this multi layer of regulatory environment so that can change. Even day to day it changes week to week it changes can change quite frequently. And really that is maybe the best summation of Brian's job during the whole more management season is figuring all of that out. So I touched on D 1641 D 1641 has water quality and flow criteria. For a variety of different I put this figure up here just to. Drive home the point that in of itself is not 1 regulation, but it has a number of different standards in it. None of these are direct on our flow management though, but a lot of these during even during the on our flow management period can control exports.  And now I want to dive a little bit more into Omar flow management and cover at a high level some bins of the types of Omar flame flow management. That we conduct so the first of those are what I kind of call the ecosystem response. Omar flow management criteria and that a good example of that perhaps really the only example is first flush where we're responding to the first flushing flows in the estuary for the protection of migrating delta smelt. And that's what we meant to be a in response to a system wide event. Taking preventative action to keep upstream migrating delta smelt from being placed into an area where there would be a further risk later in the season for subsequent entrainment into the salvage facilities. So this is a real time species management response. So this is where we're responding to either detections and monitoring or detections and salvage and then limiting Omar to respond to that. And in particular, when we're doing this for salvage, the Lenny touched on yesterday, the notion that we want to try to find opportunities to be more prescriptive and less reactive. And then moving to salvage is of course the most reactive we can really get where we have fish that are already entrained they're already affected, and we're responding with Omar management to limit further entrainment. If we could prevent that salvage. Those are opportunities that we're constantly looking for. So we're thinking of minimizing the treatment using environmental surrogates and smelt guide so I'm thinking of Delta smelt here primarily. Two examples for Delta smelt we have temperature threshold where we use that as an indicator of when we should switch from entrainment management for adults to entrainment management for larvae. So we have the ability for both of those life stages. We utilize water clarity metrics for as a surrogate for smelt presence. Most notably because we don't have a lot of smelt detections as has been highlighted several times. So, visiting Omar flow levels and what those kind of where those come from. So in the Omar management season, we have a baseline of a negative 5000 Omar and this is. I mentioned hard on ramp, January 1 through the off ramp in in June. Well supported in the literature for a wide variety of species as being an inflection point where we below which more positive than which be specific. More positive than which we see reduced levels of detection and salvage and more negative than which we see elevated levels and here I just for the sake of having some examples. I'm sure all would all have a couple of figures for Delta and long fence melt, highlighting that negative 5000 inflection point. Notably, you know, we don't have zero salvage we don't have zero entrainment when we're more positive than negative 5000. And even when Omar's are positive. We often still see some limited salvage. In that range that I highlighted before that kind of negative 1200 negative 2000 to negative 5000 that room we have to adaptively managed within a season. Generally speaking, we consider more positive Omar's in that range to be more protective and they have less entrainments. So now I'll go into some conceptual models of how some of our listed species are moving around the Delta and how they're interacting with the Omar corridor. And so for Delta smelt, we've seen this figure a couple times now. So we have adults moving upstream with that first flush action in the winter. Spawning and then those resulting larvae are in the freshwater estuary until they move back downstream to the salinity so and later in the spring early summer, and during both of those life stages for adults and for larvae. And we do have entrainment here referring to the mass conceptual model that you've seen the entrainment effects on as a source of mortality for both of those life stages and we have a pretty diverse and deep robust amount of literature that supports this. Thanks for Longfin. Longfin are definitely a little bit behind on our understanding of some of the nuances of their life history, but we've learned a lot in the last several years. On the left is our kind of old conceptual model from maybe 10 years ago where we had Longfin down in the outer bay and Pacific Ocean moving upstream into the freshwater Delta to spawn, where those resulting larvae would be at risk of entrainment into the Omar corridor and which is in red on these maps. Based on some new odorless microchemistry work, new genetic analyses, new sampling in Bay title marshes. We now understand that Longfin are spawning across a wide array of habitats in areas of the Delta and in Bay. And really only that most inland portion of the population is moving far enough to have to be at any risk of entrainment. And we have a couple of recent papers that have highlighted and spoke and quantified estimates of this amount of larval loss at the facilities and we're in the half a percent to two to 3% and notably for Longfin, there is a high association with outflow where when we have reduced outflow Longfin tend to come further upstream to spawn. And when we have higher outflow, we often have far less Longfin, even zero Longfin in the areas where we would expect them to be at risk of entrainment. So now moving to Chinook salmon, I'll talk about Chinook salmon kind of generally and then go into our two listed runs. So our listed salmonids are moving downstream through that second tier through the Sacramento River corridor. There's really two ways that they can enter the Delta and very, very fortunately tomorrow you're going to get to see the Yolo bypass actually activated with water on it and salmon on it, which is a very exciting thing to see. The Sacramento River main stem is the primary conduit for salmon to come down into the Delta. When we do not have flood flows, when we do have that floodplain activation and do have water going on to Yolo bypass that provides another conduit routing route for those juvenile salmon to come down into the Delta. So not only is the old bypass providing a lot of benefits to juvenile salmon with increased growth, increased survival, increased food resources. It also provides a route for them to bypass some of the entrainment corridors down into the Interior Delta and the Ormar Corridor. And speaking of that entrainment into the Interior Delta for those fish in the Sacramento River that come down, we have three primary pathways where they can be entrained into the Interior Delta. And several of these should look familiar. We saw these on the field trip in January, the Delta cross channel gate, the Georgiana slew and three mile slew. Notably, for a couple of these we've got infrastructure that exists to prevent that entrainment for the case of the Delta cross channel we've got the Delta cross channel gates which you saw that completely occluded that pathway and keeps any salmon for moving in there during certain periods of time. And then notably in Georgiana slew we recently completed construction of the biopoustic fish fence which is reducing entrainment of juvenile salmon into that pathway into the Interior Delta. All of which is the goal is to keep those fish in the Sacramento River, so that they're not ending up in the Interior Delta. Not only is it a conduit for fish to move down into the Ormar Corridor and then subsequently get detected in salvage, but we also have within that Interior Delta corridor, much reduced survival, much higher mortality for those juvenile salmonids, primarily through predation by introduced primaries. So looking at winter run specifically, we have winter run spawning below Keswick Dam in the extreme northern part of the Sacramento River, taking about six months to move downstream to the Delta. Once we have fish showing up in the Delta we're dealing with the fry and smolt life stages and that's where our Ormar management comes into play. So we've got Ormar management that's in place for the specific times that we'd be concerned about Ormar entrainment of winter run. Similarly for spring run, the Ormar management system works somewhat similarly, notably for spring run we've got a bit more diversity and timing and we've got the yearling life stage that's also present in the Delta. And we have multiple source populations so as winter run is spawning just below in the Sacramento River is full of Keswick, we've got spring run for multiple different tributaries, though notably all entering the Delta through that Sacramento River corridor. I should also note that for winter run salmon we've got what we call a juvenile production estimate I think Brian's going to go into that a bit more later. That gives us a number of an estimate of the total number of fish that are produced every year and then that gives us benchmarks by which we can set triggers for for salvage management Ormar management. We don't currently have that tool for spring run but we're currently developing that that's a very complex and large project that involves new monitoring and a lot of coordination across the watershed. And then finally we have steelhead which we're very much now in the middle of a surprise steelhead salvage event that's triggering Ormar management. And steelhead we have much greater diversity with the age of out migrants across multiple different years. We have a much greater degree of variability and timing of migration, and generally less well understood factors that contribute to migration. And generally Ormar management still works the same, roughly as we have for the Chinook salmon, but notably for steelhead we also don't have as great of monitoring their and exiting through the delta a little bit larger size, and we don't have very good quality in any of our monitoring for them. And now I'll hand it over to Brian to talk about calculate you know what. All right. So, so far it's been kind of a conceptual idea for for all the middle river flow. Now we're going to kind of a more practical application of how we calculate it. So, from the initial studies and everything we're based on actual measurement of all middle river, based on two USGS gauges that come on the south side of bacon island of one that old river bacon island the other one's called middle river at middle river. But yeah, USGS gauges there that they collect. I really stay, but continuous stage and flow readings. But then they apply a golden filter to it to eliminate the short term title cycle from the data. I kind of flatten it out. That does require three days of continuous data and it kind of averages out to the middle point, which causes some problems that we'll get into a little bit later. Yeah, so the initial biological opinion 2008 2009 use this calculated value or this some of these two title the average stations in the regulation. They do on the 14 day average and seven day. But we had to maintain a more more positive than those readings. They're staying compliance. That good and felt it did require a three days worth of data. So if you had one hour missing hour anywhere, you could potentially lose three days worth of time average data, which made meeting a seven day average kind of difficult when half year data was missing. In addition, the good and filter because it took the center point. You're always a day lagged. So you're operating today without knowing what happened yesterday. And for power scheduling, we're finding a day or two in advance. So again, tricky with a trying to get a seven day average when we only have part of the data to work with. So for practical matter, midway through those biological implantations by the cultural biological opinions implementation. We moved over to what's called the open river index method of determining old and middle estimating old and old and middle river flows. This was based on work by Paul Hutton base running through many DS and two simulations. Calibrating an equation that was effectively a mass balance of the South Delta. But calibrating what how you split. So the main input is the same working river flow based on physical structures within the South Delta, particularly grant line canal and previously the head of old river barrier that would reduce. So we'll basically split the same kind of river into what goes down further down and what moved into old river. Subtract out the exports at the two main project as well as to the Contra Costa diversions and a percentage of the total in basin use calculations from the day flow. So what was left over was a leftover was that combined open river flow. Again, but when we moved into 2019 2022 actions, those were all based on the older mirror index, which simplified matters on a practical level significantly. An input is just that same working river flow, which if there are missing data points, it is outside the title boundary. So it's easier to estimate and fill the data. It also uses the previous days when I was flow to as the input for today's old remember today's Omar I value. So we know exactly what hey we plan to do this export today. This is what we know the old Walmart is so made planning for and demonstrating much easier. In addition, because it was a very title and very natural system. A lot of other factors can influence the measured the USGS tightly filtered flows, particularly if there's a title anomaly in the bay if stages are foot higher than anticipated that would propagate up and make old mirror river flow unexpectedly more negative. So you don't have half the data and suddenly one data point is significantly far off from what you expect. Again, it made operating to a compliance tricky. So we moved into this as a practical matter. Next we're going to roll into kind of how some of the last couple of years have been 2021 was incredibly dry, but then so was 2022. So we ended up very having very little time where old mirror river flow was actually controlling our operations. So we had a lot of quality through for the end begin of the water year and into the calendar year, but yet the very just near the end of December is a bit of a storm that came through gave us a bit of hope, played every dashed. So we figured the first flush action, which is a minus 2000 or more for 14 days. But then yeah we rolled through the rest of January and things were looking. Okay, we're too many fish related actions and we're able to hold that minus 5000 Omar baseline. So we rolled into February, things were incredibly dry we dropped off significantly but not for an all more control. It was for D 1641 and this bring X two requirements. But things just got worse as the year went on, we ended up being at our basically health and safety minimums for significant periods. So really third party water started coming to the system in July to move through our exports. And it really wasn't till the start of the next water that we're starting to actually use move project water for south all those being used for our flow and D 1641. But the next year was quite different. Again, we started that year managing to water quality. But then we started off January. We had two, three days of a minus 5000 for the baseline, but trigger that first flush. Actually on the last day of December, but then it took a day or two to implement it in our marketing. And that controlled us through the first 14 day next 14 days. But then their turbidity actions for Delta smelt controlled us at a minus so keep maintaining the minus 2000 Omar for a couple days. Then the storm just kept coming and suddenly mid January we're able to maximize Clifton Court exports to the physically we the most we could physically do, which ended up being just over 9000 CFS and Clifton Court and Jones up to maintain their full exports, but even with that there was so much flow or more was positive. But relatively short lived just around 10 days at that maximum and drifting down as the month came to an end. And in February, those same water quality standards that controlled us in 2022 were come down in February 2023. But with the significantly dry years previous governor requested and was authorized a relaxation of the most restrictive parts of the 1641 per that month. So we fell back into that next layer of the onion, which was the minus 5000 Omar for the first part of February. But then some smelt actions for the ITP searching to get more negative Omar's are more positive Omar's. And then give me then we got to the end of March or the beginning of March and another series of what storms came and we maximize to the fullest we could and our system again and that lasted through all of the spring. A slight difference being that at this point we were actually filled up all of our southern reservoir storages and it was actually our south of the delta capacity that started limited in us as close to the early in the season when it was at the actual export facilities. Flow started to drop off early July and order quality started to control us for these things in 41. But then we rolled into the follow up to action starting in September. And that brought us into how this year started off switch to a daily average for this one so we can see some of the finer details. But Fox to control their operations for October. And you know as a deposit of their as all the reservoirs were required to decrease down to minimum and stream flow requirements will not quite to that level but had to reduce back to prevents reduce down to prevent stranding within the upper system. That forced exports to cut back to order to maintain water quality for X to as best we could. We ended up with positive OMR for a little bit there. And post that point into November, we're up into these different requirements, particularly for net delta outflow. That is another indexing method, kind of based off the day flow program, but basically mass balance of all the inflows into the delta versus all the exports was left over as the outflow. And that required that control this through most of November and into December. But then water quality starts to degrade and it really start to cut back exports to keep that up. But we started off January again with that baseline OMR minus 5000 action into effect. And that will control this for the first part of January into an ITP action required the SVP only to reduce back and meet more restrictive OMR. But then again, first flush triggered near the end of January. That hell is in that minus 2000 until early February. At which point at one day where we could meet the minus 5000, but other actions triggered us back to minus 3500 and pass the point where this graph ends. We're now at a minus 2500 for steelhead protection. That's kind of how we've managed OMR for the last couple of years. And exciting ride bouncing from one thing to the next. It's not clear on what the knobs are you're turning. So the only you control exports with the pumps, but do you have any other controls on OMR? No. For net delta outflow and for other delta regulations, particularly that are more for D 1641, we can increase reservoir releases, depending on the time of year and the conditions going on. And flood control significant increases there, but really the only knob we can move to influence all the mineral flows is exports. Now, other projects do you have reservoirs on the same working river that influence it as well. But as the department, we don't control any of those reservoirs. The Sanislas River is controlled by the CVP, but it's not within the rights to control for most of those kind of actions. So, yeah, the only thing we as SAP and CVP can really do is change our exports. And the sauce is, yes. And then Folsom doesn't give you any help. Well, it's north of the Delta, so it won't impact the San Joaquin River. It's only going to go on to the Sacramento River, which will affect things like net outflow. You may have heard the term of Q West, which is gets influenced on the Sacramento River through the cross channel gates and Georgina slope and Reavista flows as another one that Folsom and other North Delta reservoirs can help with but yeah. Omar that really only the input is that San Joaquin River, which don't have any control. I just want to make sure I understand. Brian, you've been using these colored boxes to kind of indicate what this Brian had called the controlling factors but this terminology didn't have OMR as a controlling factor. If you go back to slide five. Yeah, the things he listed were CSA and the biops. Is that what you please interpret that. So, within the CSA, the ITP and those overarching regulations, Omar is one mechanism by which they can control operations. So, it is in with it's within a bunch of those and D621 is and follow to is also within those documents. These are kind of more of the direct action versus the right overarching regulation deception being D1641 is that overarching regulation it has a couple actions with it has a lot of actions within them. So, I am mixed matching between a couple things here, but in general that D1641 and then the rest of them are. Yes, they are ITP related. Okay, and I answered my second question, which was the same thing with fall X to which you haven't listed is under either buy off or the ITP correct correct. Yeah, so we could further divide this red box here into ITP and buy off, but where a lot of times we have alignment between those two permits and with our new reconciliation we're trying to have complete alignment between those two permits. Yeah, for the most part, they overlap so. Can you clarify D1641. Is that that suite of things associated with water qualities is that associated with upstream or downstream areas. I'm trying to understand how you have such large negative flows under that D1641 period, which seems kind of unconstrained, but if your government if the management objective is being governed by water quality. It depends over the course of the year where D1641's requirement force us to be in the spring. It really tries to maintain have us maintain water quality. Really, in the Susan Marshes and Bay it's basically west of Collinsville as the rest of the as we move into the summer, those restrictions change from efficient wildlife based requirements to an agricultural based requirements so it's really asked us to protect conditions and more in the central delta and in the south delta. I thought that the kind of runs all year long because it's somewhat independent from our operations in many respects, but it is there. And then as you roll into the positive and negative direction. So then influence the flow in a positive and negative direction. Yeah, but the Omar flows are somewhat independent of those actions. It's more of a consequence of operating to something else that is that Omar moving one or the other, and it will depend on how much water supply we have to contribute. So if we have significant water supply like in 2023 that Omar is going to be more negative because we're going to be moving more water from the north and exporting it south, which is going to make more more negative. So we may be producing enough outflow to maintain those water quality conditions and same as we might otherwise on a lower flow condition. We'll just do it more through an export cut than a reservoir release if depending on if we have the water supply to achieve that. So I find it is that the conclusion of this session. Yeah, it was just questions like that. So that's it. So perhaps what we'll do is sort of with the recommendation and then type those questions together because you're integrated. Okay, so the second presentation this morning is going to be given by US Bureau of Reclamation. Brian Mahaji who we've had reference to a lot during the last two days is a biologist with reclamations Bay Delta Science Division. He's worked for more than 10 years on San Francisco Bay Delta issues. He's published on population genetics fish community dynamics, and the implementation of machine learning tools to this very complex system. His focus is on our management and monitoring to inform actions. So here is Captain with also with reclamation and a fish biologist in the science division of the Bay Delta office. I'd also like to highlight that she's a Sea Grant state fellow. Those of you not familiar. It's a wonderful program for attracting the best and brightest to show there's careers in federal and state agencies. So cat great to see that you're continuing your career, both in system and with agencies. So, this first up cattle. Everyone. Thanks for being here. I'm captain. And I'll be sharing this talk today with Brian. So we're going to continue the discussion by talking more about the monitoring and the data that goes into informing management. So review of regulatory context you just heard about. So, you'll hear a lot of things that Brian tryer talked about earlier, but just to remind you briefly throughout presentation what's relevant. So, on the federal side, we've got the, the 2019 proposed action for the Central Valley project. And then the 2019 Delta smelt and some on its search and biological opinions on the state side. We have the 2020 incident will take permit for state water project operations. The interim operations plan or IOP is a court order that aims to align federal and state regulations. You had heard that there are some differences in those. To permits and so, yeah, there has been some effort to, to have them be more similar and each year there's a new IOP that comes out. The guidance documents links provided here provide a summary of. Oh, my management, the governance involved the different actions. So it's a useful document that we refer to a lot to remind ourselves what we should be looking out for. So these are the species and the approximate order in which we'll cover the species today. We have Delta smell, you've heard a lot about Delta Smelt, Longfin Smelt, which are currently state protected and pending federal listing. Winter run Chinook salmon spring run Chinook salmon, Central Valley Steelhead and green surgeon, which are covered in our management, but don't really have any actions that are relevant. So we won't be really talking about that today. There will be a focus on Delta smell and winter run Chinook salmon for this presentation with a light touch on the other species. So, just going over some of the teams, people that are involved in our management that. So, like Brian and I participate in the salmon monitoring team and the monitoring team, the salmon monitoring team. Even though it says salmon also covers a green surgeon, so Chinook salmon Steelhead. The surgeon. The smelt monitoring team covers Delta Smelt and Longfin Smelt, and these teams are made up of biologists and operators. And the agencies on the left are those that participate in the teams. We'll talk a little bit more about the products and next couple of slides, but some of the things that these teams come out with is an outlook which summarizes. Some of the water operations, as well as some other information. We also have two different versions of there's a federal and a state assessment, which looks at the potential risk to species for that week. And if it's relevant, the teams provide recommendations and advice to management in terms of an Omar index. So those like negative 2000 negative 5000 numbers that you've been hearing about. The Delta monitoring work group DMW is made up of water contractors and stakeholders. So everyone gets together and the anyone who's not on the teams can provide input on the risk assessment, ask questions, clarifying questions for what happened for that week. And the water operations management team or want this is made up of regulatory agency managers and operators. So if there are any issues that come up during the SMT and Samt meetings, or any recommendations or advice come up. This goes to want to be talked about and a operations decision is made. This team doesn't just cover salmon and smelt monitoring team. It also will talk about some of the tributary teams and some of the other management teams as well. And so just going over again some of the tasks for salmon and smelt monitoring teams. So review a variety of data, including hydrologic operational water quality and fishery data on weekly basis from December to June. This provides opportunities for engagement between biologists and operators to talk through issues on both ends and provide relevant information on what's going on that week. They then provide all of that input into the proposed action assessment and advice on the risk assessment for warmth. And the results of those discussions are captured in all these documents that we listed as well as meeting notes. So quick screenshot of the outlook. You'll see there are a couple different tributaries that will be listed here, including the delta. And then there'll be anticipated weekly ranges. So looking at what are the, what's storage, what are the releases? What are things like exports? And then some related environmental and fish conditions and fish survey information. So what's happening that week? Are there any disruptions? And we can provide copies of that. And then the final link to some of these documents later. The assessment documents as I mentioned, there's two versions of the state version and the federal version. These both summarize any of the relevant data hydrologic environmental fish data. And then leading to an assessment of the species status or risk for that week based on data and evaluation from the team members. Yeah, I think we need, we can use a mic. Yeah, that's fine. Yeah. Is this the mic? We have a handle one that is stronger. Thank you. You do have to hold it kind of close to your mouth. They're perfect. Really loud. Okay, so as I was just mentioning there are two assessment documents, the state and the federal. These summarize the relevant data for that week. And come up with an assessment of species status or risk based on that data and evaluation of certain questions or discussions by team members. Again, as I mentioned, there may be recommendations or advice to want this doesn't happen that often. It depends on what is relevant at that time and what the conditions are and if there's flexibility. But yeah, that is summarized in these documents as well. So Brian talked about some of the different types of data used in our management. Here's just a reminder of some of those different kinds of data sources. So I broke this up into our management phase, which is onset, which is the start of our season export reduction. So during the bulk of our season, there may be triggers that occur and leading to export reductions. And then off ramp, which is the end of our management season. So some of these are calendar based to start on a particular date, but in other cases we use environmental data such as for smell, flaunt, turbidity, second up water temperature, other flow metrics. As well as the presence and spatial distribution of fish to. These are the different types of data that can be to. Changes in our manager. And then for salmon, this is mostly based on actual some modern presence either in the delta or counter and salvage. So daily or cumulative loss. I might just go really quickly through salvage since Brian talked about this as well and you had a field trip already, but there is a state and a federal facility for the federal facility. We have the trade to fish collection facility and for the state water project, the senior delta fish project facility was one of the big differences being that big risk bar lifting for four by leading into senior fish facility. And leading to more relation opportunities. And then there are a number of different terms that Brian covered salvage is actually observed in the salvage sampling and then dream and incorporates also into it. So loss and screen efficiency, which incorporates variation loss in there as well. And then there's also handling and truck loss that can be associated with the fish actually detected in salvage so when the fish are getting transported. They have mortality so loss in the end is a treatment minus the number that survived the release. And then there's a number of other information details can be found on the CFW salvage FPP website. I mentioned this is mostly is for some months. So the general goal for setting a take limit is that it should be based on population size. Due to various factors can change from year to year. And so it makes sense that the take should also be determined based on how that population changes. So for some honest, as you heard about the JPE already juvenile production estimate, which is the estimate of juvenile salmon is entering the delta. Currently, the what currently winter run are the only species that are implementing JPE for the statement, because the other species not currently have a JPE developed. But this is in development and Brian will cover this more later. The smell equivalent that has been used in the past is the fallen water trawl survey smelt abundance index. This is an index that was used for the adult delta smelt and survey in the fall. And there as you've heard, there's been a major decline in delta smell. And so this abundance index has declined and become a little bit less useful over time. So there's been a movement towards environmental surrogates. As you have a you have also heard about and we'll hear about more. And the way that this loss is actually used in our management is export reductions are taken by law succeeds certain thresholds that are written into the IP and the VA. So moving into adult delta smell detection data. So in the past, we had a number of surveys that were maybe seasonal or a year around that were conducted on a monthly scale. These include spring code after all fall middle or fall and base study. All of these studies produced a delta smell index and we're catching one adult smell at the time. You can see the distribution of sampling locations. Matt. However, as the abundance index has declined. You can see it's been zero since 2018 for the fall mid water trawl survey. It's been harder to know what else is not are doing. And so the enhanced delta smell monitoring program was initiated in 2016 to be much more intensive. And this program samples almost daily to produce a weekly delta smell abundance index. And I think Rosie mentioned this yesterday, but this is the main survey where we actually see delta smell detections these days. So we rely on the survey a lot. And the survey will switch its sampling locations and gear based on the light stage that is in play. So for a lot of all juvenile smell detections. We have a number of surveys, the smell larva survey. It gets more long and smelled. It's a little bit earlier in the water here. And the 20 millimeter survey, except where smell larva survey ends and targets for the delta smell larvae and juveniles. The enhanced delta smell survey also samples as well. And at least for the state sampling, the detection of larval and juvenile smell in the central and south delta can trigger certain actions. So remember these stations will be on the next map as well. So due to the decline in delta smell detections, there has been a shift to environmental surrogates for some actions. These environmental surrogates are expected to reflect delta smell behavior. And you can see the environmental data stations highlighted on the map. All of the solid ones are measured with continuous water quality sensors. And then the blue stars are the south delta stations. So that second data is collected during the fish surveys. These surrogates represent different types of behaviors. So for example, the high flow of turbidity at freeport, which is the top point reflects population scale migration, spawning migration based on studies such as from Aldo et al 2009. And then water hitting certain water temperature thresholds reflects a change in monitoring from adult delta smell entrainment to larval and juvenile delta smell entrainment. And then low second ups and high turbidity represent greater potential for delta smell presence in the south delta and thus greater entrainment rates. So all of these triggers can lead to actions being implemented. So reductions in pumping or attrition in actions that are relevant. And then that last point at the bottom lifting core four bay temperature also indicates the end of Omar management season once temperatures redesception reach a certain threshold of being too warm for delta smell. So just a quick slide on long pen smell. These are safe protected and have a federal listing pending. They are slightly different from Delta smell in that their life issues on a two year cycle on the annual cycle, and they are distributed further west, all the way to the ocean. And so some of the surveys realizing their distribution have expanded for the West into San Pablo Bay. Data sources that I covered with Delta smell are also relevant to long and smelt and some of the environmental and hydrologic information that are relevant are because long and smell are so associated with outflow. We have high flows on Sacramento or San Joaquin river offering certain actions, believing that they are far west to need those actions in place. Water year time can reflect throughout conditions. And so certain actions are only in place during dry years. And then flow metrics such as outflow QS are also used to help them form risk to long pens. So to bring it all together here's how smell data are used to form our operations today. Some of the data sources as we saw include the current distribution of fish, including a salvage so just seeing this informs kind of what is happening in their life stage what kinds of movements are happening where they are, are we seeing any. And reason Delta smell detections are mostly supplementation fish, you can see the yellow are the untagged fish that we've detected in 2023 and then 2024 that's far. So continued detections are really dependent on supplementation and the number of fish being added to the Delta has been increasing so we'll see how that translate to our detections. And then when they start not present a lot of the time at the beginning of the year before supplementation occurs, we rely on the historical distribution of fish based on literature and pass data to inform where we think they are at that time. So use environmental data as you saw to inform where they are and hydrologic data and modeling which you'll hear a little bit more about in the next presentation and SMT on a weekly basis makes the determination of risk that can be dependent on life stage and location. You'll see the table on the bottom is central Delta and is broken up but it's very small but you can see a copy of it in our risk assessments. The risk levels are in itp requirement and laid out in the itp. The risk levels align with different or I recommendations and can also inform management on salvage expectations. The risk determinations are not very quantitative and do have a lot of uncertainty around them. And that's all right data and risk levels are detailed in the assessment documents that you heard about. There's not usually need for a recommendation but recommendations are solicited when applicable. And that I'll hand it off to Brian to talk about some moments. Thanks Kat. If it's okay with everybody I'll try to project so that I can move my hands freely and just to kill it widely. But do let me know if I'm not speaking loud and. Yeah so thank you Kat so I'm going to go over like she said the salmon and portion of this talk. And I'll be going over primarily winter run because there are a lot of similarities as we mentioned across all the different salmon species in terms of how we manage them in the delta. And I think winter run Chinook salmon is a good one to go over because it's probably the most well studied out of the list of another fish species. And it also has the most well established or management framework. And you'll probably visit this area to the right here this is cast with them. You probably visit this next month. So the bad downstream of this dam is where winter run would spawn. So as we've already briefly touched upon there's this juvenile production estimate or jpe hopefully you can remember the acronym that we try to kind of put together before winter run enters the delta. And you know we take advantage of the fact that it takes about half a year for juvenile salmon to migrate from the red bluff around the red bluff diversion dam area with the star up there, all the way down to the delta proper. And we want to do this in advance so we do forecast the numbers ahead of time. Because we know it's easier to manage when we have a number of static number that we try to kind of managed for towards rather than changing the number dynamically as we see fish within the delta. And you know I just want to want to note that this is estimated by taking advantage of the area that's up top there as juvenile salmon migrate downstream into the delta by looking at the number of winter run that passed the red bluff diversion dam in terms of the number of fry. And then we try to kind of estimate how many of those fry will become small. And of course then we try to estimate how many survive from the red bluff diversion dam all the way to the delta. So once they're in the delta, we do have delta monitoring in place, primarily to understand the timing and the number of fish that are kind of entering and exiting the delta. Some of the example of monitoring programs that we use is nights landing rotary screw trap run by California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and this delta juvenile fish monitoring program run by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. These are combination of the screw traps, trawls, beach saints as well as electric fishing. There are key points like the nights landing screw trap, which is in this area right here. Sorry folks on the call. And then the the segment trawl are kind of considered the entry points for winter run. And then the Chips Island over here in the yellow ports past the confluence is kind of generally when we what we use to kind of indicate when salmon path exit at the delta. So obviously, this goes without saying it's not that we don't use the delta small survey obviously if we see salmon data in those surveys we use them as well. These are just kind of the ones that we usually rely on. Another key information that we typically use this acoustic telemetry. There are a lot of telemetry studies going on even today. But we use that to estimate movement and survival of forest salmonids. And a lot of the data is in the past and a lot of studies using this acoustic tag data in the past have found that, like Brian Schreiber mentioned that survival is pretty low once fish entered into your delta or anything south of the Sacramento river. And this routing in terms of how many fish go into the interior delta how many stay in the Sacramento river is driven a lot by hydrology. And I have links here which you know we'll share the slides afterwards, which you can click to kind of see how the data looks like in real time. This is a website put together by Sir Michelle at NIMPS through these telemetry studies. This is why we have these barriers in place that you've seen in previous field trip I believe. So, as Brian Schreiber mentioned, there are different junctions at which salmon can enter the interior delta. The first one that they typically encounter is the delta cross channel gate, which as you probably saw in the field trip can be closed. And we typically close them almost the whole entirety of the salmon migration period. There's also the Georgina slew non physical barrier that is where that is run by the state that is in place this year. And that's the one on the left and cross channel on the right picture there. But there are some kind of challenges. There are additional challenges with management managing for salmon in the delta once they entered the delta. If you recall this slide from Steve Lindley in the previous meeting, there's a diversity in terms of timing and behavior for these salmon runs in the central valley. And they are genetically distinct from one another there's the fall run spring run and winter run and late fall run. But despite these differences, there's considerable overlap in timing. The runs are morphologically indistinguishable for one another. And if we focus on just the OMR management period that Brian Georgia talked about, and looking at just kind of the rearing and migration period. You see that the different colors have overlaps at a given month sometimes. But there needs to be a way for us to manage just for the list of runs or identify the listed runs. So that's where this length that date criteria come in. It was kind of a really clever way to identify salmon run for practical purposes because it's fast, cheap and easy. Just kind of quick rundown on how that works is that if you see the figure on the right. Those colors are kind of a way for us to classify the different runs of salmon. So the colors I believe is in the red is the fall run green slate fall and if we focus and just went around that would be kind of the blue. So at a given date, if they are within a particular size, then this in the blue area, then we would call them winter run. But this results in a lot of misclassifications. So if they're perfect, so these panels are the different runs that we identified based on genetic data. So we know that these are the correct identification on these kind of different rows. So if you focus on the kind of middle one here that I kind of highlighted in this black outline, you see that the scatter plot sometimes deviate away from the blue area. If it was 100% accurate, then everything would always be in this blue area. And you can see that there's not just a false positive. There's also false negative. So if you see in the fall and late fall panels on the top two, there's a lot of points within the blue line as well. And this is also complicated. It's also further complicated by the fact that this error rates varies from year to year. And because of this, there's been a lot of push in the past couple of decade at least to correct a lot of the identification that we do in the field and that salvage facilities through this length of day criteria by using genetic assignment. So this is kind of the primary method that we use for genetically IDing salmon runs today. So this GT seek using single nucleotide polymorphism panel. And because we've advanced a lot of the genetic technologies over years, I think we've gone down in terms of the speed of the processing all the way down to 48 hours. But it's still not as fast as we would like, even with rapid analysis because typically management agencies and folks that manage the system, what an almost immediate response based on what we see at the salvage facility. So that's all I'm going to kind of touch upon on winter run. I'm just going to highlight some key differences with spring run Chinook salmon. So we don't currently have a threshold that we use where we if we hit a certain amount of wild spring run or young if you're spring run, we reduce pumping. So there's no weekly daily or annual to last thresholds as you will probably see once you kind of go into those documents. As branch I mentioned, there is this kind of yearling migratory behavior where some fish might stick around fresh water for about a year, and then they decide to migrate when they're larger of larger size. So what we do typically currently in the in the regulation is to use surrogate by using a late fall hatchery fish, which are which are of similar size as yearly spring run. And if we hit a certain number or certain percentage of this release, then we take an action. Some key issues that are kind of different from winter run is that there is some hybridization with fall run for the species, possibly to do to a lot of the hatchery practices. So it can make genetic identification difficult in the future. And as I mentioned, there is no juvenile production estimate established, but I do want to note that the state have been working hard towards kind of putting this together in the past few years at least. All right, so moving on to Central Valley Steelhead. There are a lot of things that we don't know about this species. They can now migrate and become anadromous at any point in their life. They can now migrate this year. They can wait for a year in the freshwater tributaries, or maybe two years, three years and decide to migrate then there is no currently no annual last threshold. Because we don't really have a way to estimate the population size that's coming into the delta at the moment. Right now the threshold set based on just whatever we saw was the highest around 2010 to 2018. And even though, but even though there's no JPE at the moment, we do have a draft framework. So Mike Beaks that used to work for Reclamation and others from a multi agency team put together this steelhead science plan that is currently in draft form, but we're happy to share that. So feel free to contact us about it where we try to kind of put together some rough plans of how we can potentially work on putting together a JPE framework. Not only do we not know how many fish are coming in, it's also important for us to understand where which fish are coming from the Sacramento and how many and which fish are coming from the south from the San Joaquin Basin. And it has a very complicated life history. So we also don't quite know what drives an androids, right? So there's a lot of fish that are kind of in the resident freshwater form referred to as rainbow trout that can become triggered to become an androids at any point. So it'd be good for us to know what drives that. And as Brian Schreiber mentioned, also there is low gear efficiency because these fish are bigger and they have better swimming capability. So it is hard to kind of determine what is best, how to best monitor them in the delta, because our current methods don't really capture them that well. So all in all, what we do in a weekly basis in the monitoring teams that Kat mentioned is to estimate the distribution of the different runs, largely based on professional opinion but also informed by data that we currently monitor, as well as historical data. We talk about what percentage of each of the runs and the steelhead are we think are yet to enter the delta what percentage are in the delta and what percentage have exited the delta. And just kind of want to note that the salmon monitoring team believe that this is meant to reflect the actual listed runs, as in genetic winter run and not length of date, even though length of date is really the information that we typically can rely on on a real time basis. And I just want to note that there's also a determination of risk, similar to what we do in the SNOT teams. So I just want to mention that a lot of these data can actually be accessed in real time basis so there's these two web pages, those are links on the underline there that you can click when you have these slides. And there's also environmental data initiative website where we do a post the QA QC so the clean data sets that we've collected over the years that Luis Conrad and Josh is really mentioned in previous presentations. I also kind of want to just give a sampling of what we think are good information coming down in the pipeline. So we've talked about spring run JPE so this is the work that the state agencies have kind of spearheaded, implementing additional genetic and field monitoring, as well as plans for modeling for spring run for steelhead we do have a pretty comprehensive monitoring for steelhead in the Stannis-Loss River spearheaded by reclamation that can serve as a good foundation for life cycle monitoring and JPE as well. For longfin smelt there is a science plan that's been put together that you can check out, which is going to work towards a life cycle model and understanding all the factors that are kind of driving its population dynamics. There's a lot to smell. Kat mentioned that there are a lot of hatchery smelt that we're releasing that we have been tagging with the IE so we can kind of track where they go. And there's also future plans to do acoustic tagging to kind of better understand the fine scale movement and behavior. We also have a lot of predictive tools and modeling that we can use to kind of forecast what how many fish are potentially going to come at salvage, which I will go over in the next session in the modeling presentation. We also have genetic tools we always improve our genetic tools that there's always new things that are being innovated. One thing that I want to mention is the prentage based tagging where we try to kind of genetically ID every single fish that are being spawned in hatchery so that we can track whether hatchery fish are truly hatchery fish and exactly which hatchery they're coming from, a south side of from coated wire tax that have been used in the past. And the one that I'm going to kind of just have us extra slide for is this Sherlock assay stands for that title there on the top. It's a little bit forced but I mean I think it's a cute name. I think. So this is a work that DWR has been kind of leading. It's a CRISPR based assay originally developed for human pathogen detection. It's similar in that you use to you take DNA from fin clips or mucus swap. But what's really unique about it is that the CRISPR reaction happen at 37 degrees Celsius or human body temperature. And unlike the typical DNA amplification that you think of with PCR where you requires while changes in temperature. This one can react at a pretty stable temperature. So the instrument itself is pretty cheap. It's fast. So it takes about an hour to get results. And you and DWR has recently developed with UC Davis, a way to ID salmon run. So this is going to be a technique that we're probably going to rely on more and more in the future. And it's probably the most of most immediate use so that's what that's why I kind of want to highlight highlight that here. The papers are there on the bottom left. If you want to kind of check it out. All right, so how do we evaluate evaluate our actions so they're three times skills that I'm thinking of. So there's one in real time where we meet on a weekly basis. At the end of the season where we kind of try to see what happens at the end of the Omar management season. And then there's kind of the multi year decadal scale almost in terms of like long term planning. So during the Omar management season that Brian and Brian talked about from January to June. For the most parts, we have these monitoring teams. We look at salvage data what's happening in the monitoring in the Delta we use expert opinion and modeling tools. In terms of time, you know, just thinking about time I'm going to kind of skip over this because we've already kind of gone over it. But those are the links where you can pass. We look at past assessment and I'll look documents for at least the past three years, I believe. Now once the June hits, and we're sort of done with the Omar management season. We do have seasonal reports that reclamation and DWR put together trying to summarize what has happened throughout the course of this half year or so, or for the water year. We usually evaluate that by looking at what is the last numbers look like, whether we've exceeded some of these triggers. And often, again, we try to kind of frame it in terms of the population size rather than just, well, this is how many we saw at salvage. But again, that's only mean that type of information is really only available for winter run. Now for long term planning, in terms of multi year scale. Of course we want to put this in the context of what it's doing for population trajectory. So we briefly touch upon lifecycle models yesterday so this is where we try to kind of put Omar management in context of like what it's doing in terms of population growth. So let's try out for Delta smell. These are kind of the two that's been the most available and easiest to kind of implement with calcium so there's the Delta smart lifecycle model that has a lot of efficient loss service and not no bring us sitting in the back have worked on the LCME there's the monitor drizzle model from a publication from 2011. And then for Salman it's Shinok salmon really we have the CVPA science integration team decision support model and those develop primarily by Jim Peterson that USGS. I want to mention that this is these are the ones that, you know, like I kind of put down here but there are others. It's not an exhaustive list there are others, they can probably find. So, I encourage you to kind of reach out to the interest parties to see water models that they would like to rely on more in the future. And lastly, I kind of want to go over some key uncertainties surrounding Omar management, just want to firstly note that these are our opinions. I want to kind of suggest that the panel reach out to all the parties that have participated in the meeting so far to understand what they view as key uncertainties and the biggest science questions. You know, like implicit in all this, there are kind of water costs economic costs associated with all the actions. So just keep that in mind, as I'm focusing on just kind of the fish. So for what around Shinok salmon, we do have a JPE, but the target was kind of, again, set based on kind of the greatest annual loss that we've seen over the past decade or so. And it's unclear whether or not that's a meaningful number so it'd be good to hear from you all about what is the right target for the percentage of JPE that we should be concerned about. For spring run, you know, of course we don't know how many are entering the delta as well. You know, similar to winter run in terms of like what is the proper target once we develop that with the monitoring that we have. For center valley steelhead. As I mentioned, there's a lot of on them so we don't know how many juvenile steelhead are entering the delta proportion they're coming from each basin. What is driving anatomy. And of course, ultimately, what what is Omar management doing to the population is it really harming the population or not. I'd say for Delta small personally speaking I feel like we have somewhat established kind of like how Omar impacts the population. But there are also a lot of unknown still we don't know how well environmental surrogates represent not Delta smelting behavior and movement. We don't have a whole lot of them right now to kind of be able to understand their large scale movement patterns. And of course, as Lenny mentioned yesterday, you know, we don't know how different these hatchery fish behave from wild fish. And for a long fit smell. Of course, we just kind of went generally know what what is the role of our management and long fence motorcycle. Which you can kind of click on the long fits with science plan to kind of understand what this agencies have kind of thought about so far in terms of next steps. And that is the last letter. Hopefully we have time for questions. Thank you, Brian. Thank you, Kat. Perhaps we could have all of the presenters come up and sit at the front and we'll engage in a discussion. All connected. And which way rounds we go here. Actually start with you in the room. Thank you guys for. Sure thing. So, there's been a number of statements about triggers. And I understand that careers can be abilities will be all these kinds of things I'm interested in the features. So, to me, as I'm struggling a little bit to try to fully understand this. Which to me it sounds like the fish density sort of increases at a certain point point that results in a trigger where the flow is modified is that correct. More or less. And, and these triggers will vary to the whole population size of the fish in the system. Yeah. So we're talking about Delta smell. If the number of fish that are here goes up. Is there greater flexibility in terms of the flow so you can let more flow out because there's more fish. So the overall percentage of mortality will be less. That's what happened in the past. I'll let Brian start speaking to that. So for Delta smell, we've moved away from responding to direct fish measurements and move to those environmental surrogates and that was primarily in response to reduced abundance of Delta smell. And now with supplementation, we still have a lot of unknowns and how management is going to be able to own our management is going to be able to respond and what our tools for what wild smells would be how effective they would be for those released fish. Notably, now we this year have I think 56 today salvage Delta smells. All released fish from this year's releases on the turbidity surrogate that we referenced has not been triggered this entire year. So there has been clear water present in the Omar corridor this entire time yet we've seen these fish show up at salvage under our old conceptual model we would not have expected that. So as we move forward, we're going to have to presumably be reevaluating the effectiveness of those in light of these released fish. Yeah, correct. Yeah, they were marked so we know that they were released. Yeah. As a follow up then. The environment is used because you didn't really see the fish. We had from 2015 2016 up until we started releasing fish. It wasn't literally zero but we had virtually zero detections. So our previous metrics, looking at presence in certain areas. So we had a huge density of salvage triggers things like that. We're not we all those were zero. So it was hard to have Omar management but we knew the fish was still present. They were not extinct. So we developed these environmental surrogates so that we had an ability to manage effectively to their habitat. This is affected about by where the stock fish are being stocked. So Omar management is not responsive to where we're releasing fish. Where we're releasing fish is influenced by a number of things. One of which is not releasing them in a place that's right near old corridor. And that's not a great place for them to be because we acknowledge that that's not a great place for them to be. Yet we're finding that regardless of where we release these fish, we're observing that they're dispersing from that area and for factors that we have maybe some conceptual models but no real good evidence. So our fish that are moving from those areas of release to areas of entrainment and are showing up in salvage. And that is going to be a component of the supplementation program currently and going forward is trying to understand those dynamics but we would expect that as supplementation releases. So hopefully our successful build the population we have more delta smell present in the estuary we are going to see them we would expect to see them in the Omar corridor as well because that is within their native range. So I'll comment here at the end respond to you. Could you just be based on the rest of the stocks to be lost. Well, and that is what we're basically doing. Yes. So the the three years of experimental release that we've done. I forget who said this but we were somewhere just shy of 200,000 fish total over those three years that have been stocked. As we move forward, we have what I would say are fairly aggressive targets to ramp that up to hundreds of thousands of fish per year being being stocked. So those numbers are based on outputs from the life cycle model that's been referenced fish while I'm service life cycle model. So it's not directly tied to losses from our entrainment. And but those numbers are being. Yeah, it's kind of indirectly and part of that. Thank you very much. I want to just sort of more clarification question and then a bigger comment. So you brushed over relatively quickly. This is Brian three. I'm sure that with steel and there's lots of things that are unknown and that you kind of use as a threshold, the highest something between 2010 and 2018 to clarify that. Yeah, so it's the highest annual loss that we've seen that I believe from 2010 to 2018, I would check back the document for the specifics. And then I think they take the 90% of that. And that's what we're trying to kind of avoid this to exceed that threshold. Interesting. And so then it seems like you're putting a lot of time effort and money into making sure that you don't protect the wrong run of salmon. I think it'd be better to take all that money and effort and just say if a salmon shows up a salmon is salmon salmon. He do something good for a non endangered salmon. It's also going to be good for an endangered salmon. Yeah, sorry about that. Yeah, I don't know if I can answer that fully. I mean that's that's above my pay grade. Yeah, where's a where's Dave and Lenny. Yeah, I can speak mainly to the science in terms of kind of the policy costs and what is that in the regulations. I'll leave that to the managers that you can probably reach out to directly. Thanks. Thank you. So, sorry. The data that you seem to be relying on triggers and turbidity and flow data and salvage numbers is 15 years old. Clearly populations have changed. Restoration has occurred. Have you have those numbers been updated? Is it worth considering that? Same. Updating the numbers in terms of the relation between, you know, that you showed the camera and paper. That's salvage on the y axis and turbidity and flow and something else on the x axis.  And so that's why you're managing the 5,000 and there's a relation between turbidity and flow. As you expect. And so I'm just wondering if those relations which you're managing to are still applicable, given changes in fish population, changes in, you know, area, marsh restored marsh, other physical changes. Yeah, I mean, yeah, that is a good question. I think for Salmanis that hasn't really been revisited as much. I think it's, you know, the figures, I think that was in Brian Shrier's presentation. I believe those figures primarily exist in some of these regulatory documents for a specific analysis that was just done for that purpose, and not an actual peer review publications, but folks can correct me if I'm wrong. So I think like in terms of turbidity too, hasn't been directly linked to Salmanis. I think that's more of a kind of a smell relationship. Yeah, so you're referring to the, like I showed from Aldo et al. 2009. Yeah, so those relationships are supported by later publications, notably the Fish and Wildlife Service Lifecycle Model, their assessment of entrainment. Supported to the previous OMR management structure that also highlighted the relationship of water clarity with presence and entrainment risk. So, from the perspective of OMR flows, I think we have a pretty good idea, especially with Delta smelt on OMR flows and what flows are associated and we're not seeing any evidence yet. I guess I would say that we need to reevaluate that. The flow responses anyways. The turbidity responses that I highlighted. In terms of my personal opinion, it seems like the early indications are that some of these released fish that were raised in a hatchery under large turbidity conditions seem less impeded by the presence of low turbidity water in the OMR corridor and thus are showing up at salvage. So we will need a lot more information, a lot more years of releases and and detections and salvage to be able to articulately model that and determine whether we need to reevaluate the validity of those circuits. Those triggers are independent if they're operated independently, turbidity and flow. So, okay, so we didn't get into a lot of the details when we refer to, we have a turbidity trigger and we have a second trigger which, you know, we can get into why that is. The turbidity trigger is for adult Delta smelt. That is a station, Old River Bacon Island, it's kind of midway down Old River, where we have a water quality instrument that's measuring every 15 minutes measuring turbidity. And when turbidity at that station daily average gets above 12 FNU, which is a threshold that's been established that was also established in that Grimoldo adult 2009 paper. When we have turbidity elevated above 12 at that station, we then have an OMR response so we reduce exports so that we manage to an OMR negative 2000 CFS. Then the ideas that we keep with that reduced export rate. We stopped the movement of that turbid water further south with the goal of trying to prevent the creation of a full turbidity bridge of at least 12 FNU water all the way from the lower San Joaquin River to the export facilities themselves. Thank you.  So, um, my question is probably a little similar to Jared's but one of the things that the National Academy Committee back in 2010 said about the OMR action was that conceptually the idea of, of, you know, making flows less negative in the area was sound. And the question was, how much more positive should it be, right? And so you showed. Thank you. Foreign shirt. You have the slide with the formato at L, you know, there's probably, I don't know, 10 dots on like a look at the point of inflation, right, which I've never been to see the point of inflation, but the arrow on I think this is kind of your point. And then, um, and, you know, I'm trying to do CFS and Q makes in my head, which is not particularly good, but then other Brian showed the results of the lifecycle model and the relationships, but they don't, they seem to be continuous curves to me. I don't see, there's no hockey stick there, right? So how do we tell how much more positive we should make them? And where's the science kind of behind how restrictive we should be? Should it be 5? Should it be 2,500? Should it be 3,500? Could you talk a little bit about that? Yeah. Um, yeah, so that's, that's the challenge that we, that these teams are having to deal with. And I think in my kind of most, I don't want to say flippant response, but in my most unbarnished response, a lot of that comes down to a policy call of how we balance water supply with species protection. And, you know, really that's not something that a team of biologists is going to be able to really speak articulately to because we do have, generally speaking, I mentioned we've got a range of OMRs, they're all negative. They're all associated with some amount of entrainment. Where is that threshold where we have, I guess, a colloquially acceptable level of entrainment that balances all of this. And that's something that is, well, functionally, a discussion that happens a lot at WAMD. Case in point, with our point, yeah, but this is, this is a big part of the challenge and this is where we are over time trying to move away from move to some of these more quantitative triggers rather than just having these team discussions and expert elicitation kind of processes so that we can at least get into a realm where we're a little bit more consistently applying protections and have these decisions be made in a little bit more transparent way. I can just do one quick follow up and we don't need to go into it, but if it now, but we'll have more conversations about this later in the future meetings. But is that issue about where you put that point of inflection, is that a similar kind, is that analogous to what percent of the JPEE do you manage to take to on whatever it is. So those kind of analogous competitions. Yeah, yeah, because yeah, once we sort of hit a certain percentage of the JPEE then we take an action where we reduce pumping to manage or mark to a more positive. So if we were to think that what's the science behind where you put that what's the science behind the 10% or whatever that would be a similar kind of set. Right, right. Yeah, and I think, you know, I just want to know that like, yeah, I think that's what we're hoping the panel can help us out with. You know, I think, you know, like one thing to keep in mind right like you've heard from all these parties that have a you know, let's take on the CVP and SWP that there is kind of like a cost to all these actions and finding the right balance and kind of the best inflection points to target and what and how it impacts the population and how can we achieve the recovery for the species while maintaining water delivery is kind of like what we're hoping to kind of achieve from this panel or what we're hoping to get from this panel. Okay, Steve, Jerry, and then across to Renee. Okay, so two simple questions one salmon or one smell. The salmon question is, is a process you're using to me seem perfectly straightforward, the good estimate of production. And you're trying to just calculate it was written that will be a very, very straightforward answer and so forth. So the question is, what is your daily variability and, and train you get big pulses is it often can either hopefully can you respond to pulses and there is some variable day to day. Is there any correlation with our metal birds. After people you get a big pulse. Yeah, this is specifically for for salmon right. Yeah, yeah. So I think in terms of the data from what I've seen so far and from studies, you know, I think there's going to be a pretty good auto correlation. So I think when you get big number of fish from one day it's probably you're probably going to see quite a few fish like similar numbers for at least a week generally. And of course they're going to be correlated with a lot of things that's happening in the system right like how much what's Omar how much are we exporting out of the system. What is the what does the flow look like. In addition to the number of fish that just they're just coming in. So generally speaking based on telemetry studies that's been done so far, which I think have been linked in previous presentations as well. We understand that blow higher inflow into the delta increased survival for some months. And at the same time that you've heard that there's a lot of steelhead that we're salvaging at the facilities at the moment now we're also seeing that some of the modeling that's been done by USGS are an indicating that we're having higher survival like almost 0.8. 0.9 survival for winner on estimated at the moment. You know the spell question is more challenging because it doesn't seem like you have a way you can test whether or not your changes as well have any impact at all. Because you don't have a measure of the system and you don't have a measure of the proportion of your training and getting five or six in a year. That's all of this sort of like clean success or although that could be a population. And so I'm wondering, and given the resources also said like, the vanity was low but you got 50 some this year already was kind of high. You start to change in those parameters. How would you even use this? I was in tomorrow. I mean, when did you use environmental surrogates and just wondering how you ever relate that back to. I don't think there's an answer to this. You know, what is your measure of success or failure. So quite a few things there. So I would say, first off, for the turbidity surrogate. We have a lot of publications that there's very good acceptance of that. That is a surrogate. We've got a lot of instances over the last since 2008, where we've had turbidity greater than 12 NTU show up. We've been able to connect and connect that turbidity bridge at the facilities, and within 24 hours, 48 hours, we're seeing Delta smelt at salvage. So we have, and in the life cycle mod, we've got a lot of different avenues of support for the validity of that as a good surrogate for smell presence. We have a wild card in that how weather and how released fish are going to how that surrogacy is going to be applicable to them is something that we need to evaluate. We haven't had enough time, I would say to have the information to be able to speak to that articulately. I would say that, you know, he's 56 compared to. So we have, through the life cycle model, fish model service life cycle model, we have estimates of abundance, and that's based on catch that's the enhanced delta smelt monitoring program. We get weekly updates when they catch fish of abundance estimates. And we know how many fish we're putting out into the system every year through the releases. So when we have 56, like, that's a high number relative to the last 10 years of delta smelt salvage, but acknowledging that we released almost 100,000 fish into the system this year and only 56 of them showed up. Now obviously those 56 are likely indicative of possibly much greater presence in the Omar corridor we don't know. But relative to the fact that we put in 100,000 fish plus we may have had likely had survival of some offspring of fish released in previous years. That the problem really just comes in, you know, how robust are our estimates for that overall population we know how many fish we're putting in in a given year. But survival through the summer and fall is low enough that we don't have good detections during those periods to understand how many fish are left over from the previous year. So quantifying that that level of impact that salvage represents is very challenging. Okay, just a minor question you said you weren't guessing any smell in the regular. But then you had the enhanced survey and we're starting to get some. Yes. Well, like I in the plot you see that they're mostly hatchery fish but I think this year. It's been 30 something fish in the enhanced auto smell survey with so Brian's 50, was it 56 or 54 is like an expanded number of the number that were counted in salvage so I think there were like 14 counted in salvage which were expanded to 56 based on like their number. And then the number in EDSM was yeah I think it's 30 something because we have 42 total if I'm remembering. So yeah, I, I'm not sure what the detections were like before supplementation started for EDSM do you remember what numbers were like then there's a couple years where we had zero across the board.  But even in with our releases, you know, releasing 100,000 fish let's say what less than 100 of those fish ever get detected again and monitoring or salvage, you know that's still, you know, dropping the bucket right so that's where ramping up releases is part of that and we're going to get a point where we can have more reliable detections. Yeah, we've also been we've also been noticing that detections really ramp up, at least this year and last year when first flush occurred. So, yeah, we were having really low detections up until the storm started started coming in the flow started going that might be partly because of the spawning migration and they're moving but it's been interesting to see that pattern both years. Thanks for going to chair and squeezing two more questions we did start a little late so we'll take one five minutes into the into the break but we go to Jerry and then Renee will give you the last question and then I know there's a lot of other questions around the table but we could pick those up perhaps during the break with the panelists. So restrictions on the corner affect your ability to get water to the funds. Are you able to deliver all the water that you want to deliver. Are these restrictions actually hurting the water management side of things. Yes, compared to have some of the regulations, just to try and remember the number on top of my head that I believe is around 300,000 acre feet of water wasn't delivered compared to F we were just operating to D 1641 is 340,000. And to that effect. State Water Project allocation came out a week ago rolling out in 15% to our contractors. So 15% of their requested amount. So, pretty significant chunk of that water. So yes, the contractors are receiving much less water than they would like and that influences the decisions on how they use the water. So those water from the Sacramento did it end up being stored or did it go out to the Bay would have gone to increased outflow. Yeah, so yeah. Okay, and how do you split when you pump water out for the to go south. How do you split it between the state and the federal water projects. And the trans projects. The coordinated operations agreement. When we're restricted by something like all more which restricts fully on our export restrictions, not it doesn't. Our upstream resume releases, they don't play a part of it. But so, when we have an export restriction, we split that 60% for the Bureau and 40% for the STP. Appreciate the stamina. So, yesterday, Chandra with the state water contractors was mentioning a desire for dynamic thresholds, which makes a ton of sense to me, and sexually, and I've been thinking about how would that work for salmon. Being a salmon centric being and I feel like I noticed you didn't mention the Noah life cycle model in your list of models which seems like sort of a glaring ambition to me just and I feel like a dynamic threshold would need a life cycle awareness, because like you want a number that was actually sensitive to how those juveniles were contributing to cohort replacement rate and not just for a given, you know, sweet of adults and out migrant cohort but based on a sequence of years and how the cohorts had fared in previous years. Which seems like a totally doable thing to Steven's point, given what we know about winter run and the math. And so I just, I was curious if you all had all and contemplated something like that at all and the application of that model, or the CBPA models that matter to doing that. I think that's all questions and last I was throughout the other one too because the other ones just sort of a naive fun one, but you also mentioned this identification challenges between the runs, and then we heard a bunch yesterday about like the baby panic is too strong or for the concern over the slide that are showing up. I'm starting out and I'm like, are we sure that there's steelhead like I've looked at a lot of juvenile cell monitors and a small steelhead could be misidentified for motion depending so maybe that's on totally unlocked down but it was just like the only question that I wonder. Okay, I'll try to go backwards. In terms of the steelhead they're mostly showing up at around 200 to 250 millimeters for clients so they're sizable. We did. We did receive genetic information back from our Genesis. You know a few were turned out to be steelhead because they were kind of running salmon for for genetic analysis and few of them end up becoming steelhead. And in terms of the okay so going back to the life cycle model. Yes, so that's a model that certainly exists I think sleep Steve Lindley mentioned in terms of kind of the, the nymphs life cycle model. I just kind of listed the ones that were accessible to our division and reclamation most recently as part of kind of the long term operations plan that we're trying to kind of model some of these different alternatives, or for the next biological opinion. So I'm going to switch out the nymphs for and Steve Lindley and Noble Hendricks and folks who come from work been working on sort of on that model about, you know what the model looks like, but as far as I know the publication hasn't been out yet. But if you, thank you, and I work with those guys a lot have you thought about independent of which model you use a life cycle approach to a dynamic target it's like oh if we, you know, this is how this number in the case of a really small population number is contributing to cohort replacement rate or this cohort and this is like a second bad year in a row or the third bad year in a row or it's not or we just had a whole bunch of wet years so. Yeah, I mean I would say that's a good idea and concept I think of course it has to be kind of in line with kind of what is feasible with the water projects I mean I think Brian would have like the more input in terms of kind of what is the proper lag time like how quickly can we react to kind of those things different things. How does it impact kind of like the water delivery later down the line for the season. So I'm not so sure about that, but I think in terms of like fish perspective. I think that seems like a good idea and I do want to note in with regards kind of how simple the management for salmon is. I just want to note that you know I think I wouldn't characterize it as simple I guess from my perspective because you know there might be some that say that the JP is too high, some might say that JP is too low there's a lot of uncertainty surrounding right. It's also kind of our best guess as to what's coming into the delta, but I mentioned survival in the delta also matters right so there might be when higher survival occurs, we might be seeing more at salvage facility and vice versa so I just kind of want to note that. But yeah I think a more dynamic threshold might make sense. And I think that's something that we should potentially explore and we look forward to hearing more recommendations, such as that from the panel. So thank you Brian and with that we have to bring this session to your clothes I think just make two points for those of you who weren't in the first meeting when we heard about the National Academy process. The committee members are invited to ask probing questions and often it doesn't represent their personal opinions or views. They're just trying to get the information out so I wanted to emphasize that, but I also like to thank all of you. We know you're under many other pressures at the moment in the time to put these coordinated presentations together and to give such detailed responses to those questions is very much appreciated it certainly makes our work a lot easier so let's give the panelists about. If we could get started again please. If folks would like to take their seats. Every time. Okay, I think you break up the great conversation but if we could. Let's find out. The difference between before you go on to work, you know, I'm not sure. I'll do that. I'm not sure. That is fine. We're going to pass around the signage. Yeah, but I don't want to find my language. I'm not sure. Well, yeah, what do I have to do? I'm going to go next. I'm going to go to our building. Yeah. Well, thanks. Perhaps everyone could find their seats and we'll get going again. Two points of business. Just for our records, there'll be a sign up sheet going around the back. Please add your name to that. Just so we have a record of participants. Also in the back, there's a sign up for the open mic session this afternoon. I just so we can. Ensure that everyone gets. At a good time. So if you wish to speak to the committee this afternoon, please sign up at the back. Or send an email to Maya. At. And fray. And fray. Perfect. Okay. And this. This session. We have an additional speaker to our lineup. Cameron. I see me from US Bureau of reclamation. He's an expert in the calcium and where he's worked for the past four years. And most recently he's worked closely with DWR colleagues to develop an updated old and middle river management logic for the current LTO process. So. Thanks. Who's first up. Right. This is of course focusing on the mother. All right. Hello, everybody. Welcome back. I'm going to start off talking to that about data we collect in for operations. How that influences kind of the inputs for modeling. Going forward. And starting off, starting talking about particle tracking. And kind of how that's used. For risk and treatment. Risk and treatment. All right. So as mentioned earlier, we produce this weekly during the period of interest. So. November through June. We produce a weekly operations outlook that is provided to the two technical teams and to want. But it's basically our best guess at how operations will go over this next week. Depending on what regulations are affecting us. So. Primarily it's kind of come up with our best as a middle three part flows going to be where for now flows going to be. And then we're going to look at what alpha result in outflow is. What we think all tomorrow will be. And we provide this to the official agencies. For others. And then it goes public. But yeah, it's used to inform the risk assessments. To come up with this. So first we look at the precipitation forecast. CNRFC has a great tool for this. I can break it down to six hour increments. The center for what's weather and what are extremes has a good long range kind of probability of something will happen. That's not great detail on what, how much that would actually be. But it's come online in the last couple of years and it's been a great help. But CNRFC kind of where we deal with a lot of our forecast. From that precipitation, they then take it down into flow forecasts at various boundary conditions. And then there's just in particular is Verona is the furthest down on the Sacramento. So you still need to incorporate in the American river flows. Anything downstream. Vanalis on the south end, which is primary, a primary focus for when we're talking about our management. They produce a five day forecast of a termistic, termistic forecast. They do have ensemble products that go about 10 days. But even with the best information they have, there's still a lot of uncertainty. The second pot over here. You can kind of see the green was their forecast for that particular date. This was February 20th, but after it was all said and done, they were 1000 off on the tail end and 500 or so off at the peak, which can be a lot. Most of this on the tail end, I will say is because the CNRC takes into account the precipitation and the runoff from the precipitation and known reservoir releases. So if a reservoir decides to change the release pattern from when they do the forecast, that's going to drive a lot of that big differences at the end in that particular case. But so we tried to develop scenarios based on all this information. The key question is, what effect will it change in the OMR operation have on the treatment risk? We tried to develop these scenarios. So if it's going to be a high San Joaquin flow, this is the OMR we think it will be. This is going to be a low San Joaquin flow. This is where we think OMR will be. But how would export, what exports need to be to hit these different OMR objectives and potentially different scenarios of different OMR objectives. So we will form the basis for what a lot of the shorter term models that we'll talk about are based off of particularly ETM and some of the model. So we're going to practical tracking model. So the version we use is uses DSM2 as a hydrodynamic base. DSM2, that's a model built by DWR. But it has a lot of applications. It's a water quality module that is used for other aspects. But yeah, it's a one-dimensional model. But out of it, we can get decent estimates for velocity, depth, flow. It takes into account a lot of the structures and the delta and how we think they'll behave. But typically for a PTM run, we'll do a three-week forecast. As I mentioned, the NFC only really goes out five days. So we just kind of have to make our best possible guess as they go forward. A lot of that tends to be a steady state kind of assumption. But it will depend on if we think that's a storm peak happening now, then we have to make an estimate of where we think that baseline flow will be afterwards. But first hydro is run and that serves as the base input into what's called the particle track wing module. That's a quasi-3D model for neutrally buoyant particles. Basically assuming the thing just floats along wherever it's going, you try to see where it's going to end up. It tries to separate out the particle in the depth and the width of the channel. But inherently, hydro is a one-dimensional model. But that can influence how a particle will behave at a junction in a river between nodes. The additional inputs we need to give PTM beyond the assumption we put into the hydro model. We need to choose where we want these particles to inject, tend to inject about 10,000 or so. We're trying to dump a lot in so we can get some statistics on where they go. But we choose an injection date. How long are we going to inject them? Typically, we just have them spread out evenly over the course of a day. But those are all decision points. And then, of course, where you want to see the model output to be. In particular, the model we look for in this is the flux past certain points. We try to break it into distinct chunks where there's not too many paths that the water could take away from the points. But we look at how much it goes past the ships. So how many particles do we think are going out towards the ocean? How many are going down the Old and Middle River corridors by those two primary paths? And then also, how many have made it to the export facilities? Kind of assess what's the risk of these particles entering in the older corridor or further south. The directionality of flux tends to go with the natural direction of flow for those rivers. So negative flux will be down the Old River corridor or up inwards. But basically, it's looking at the net number of particles that pass by that location. So particle can go back and forth, back and forth, but only count them the last time it goes through in daily averages. But as I mentioned, these are only neutrally buoyant particles. So we try not to use this when we're talking about anything that tries to swim. So salmon, I'm pretty much out of the course. And adult smelt, we really don't try to treat those neutrally buoyant particles. So it is really for juvenile and larval delta length and smelt that we try to use this to try to help influence our risk assessments. Output ends up looking like this where you see the flux past a particular point in a different particular scenario. And you can see it over the course of time. Tables will just break down at particular points in time, what percentage has gone past. But the idea is to compare between different scenarios of this chunk that was released at this point in time from this location, it reached this point this fast and how does that change over time? So it's a process on how that influences and how much we relate it to delta smelt or length and smelt, but it is a point of evidence that is looked at in our risk assessments. All I have for political tracking. Let's see. Someone else to get to the other presentation. So I'm going to be talking about the OMR representation in CalSIM. So before we get into how OMR is represented, we talk about what CalSIM is. CalSIM is a planning model. And besides the mass balance part between nodes and arcs, CalSIM is not a physical model. What we're really modeling is operational decisions bounded by regulatory requirements and deliveries that have to be made. We do this using linear optimization that relates on those different decisions. A normal CalSIM 3 study is a hundred year period. It's a monthly time step. And we're generally using the historical hydrology or some version of climate adjusted hydrology. Here we have example of the CalSIM schematic. CalSIM 3 is very large. So you can't really read the different arcs and nodes, but labeled Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Delta Outflow. And then here's our old and middle river. And then the pumping plants that are pulling water out of, or near the old and middle river. So the challenges in modeling OMR and CalSIM. First, a lot of the OMR actions are real time adjustments. And we're working with a monthly time step in CalSIM. A lot of the triggers for the OMR actions are based on fish presence, fish salvage, temperature. We can't really represent any of these things in the model itself. So we have to find some way to either correlate to something we can model in CalSIM, such as flow. And then we're working with a limited historical dataset to make those correlations. This graph up here is the number of winter run salvage from 2000 to 2020. So after the 2009 biops, we saw much less winter run salvage. And that had a lot to do with the difference in operations. So when we were going back and looking at the historical dataset, we looked at the data after 2010. Even within that 2010 to 2021 period, there were a lot of holes in that dataset. And then finally, the regulatory language can be left open-ended for operational flexibility. And an example here of the turbidity bridge avoidance off-ramp where reclamation DWR may determine that OMR restrictions to manage turbidity are infeasible and will instead implement an OMR target that is being protective based on turbidity, adult, delta smell distribution and salvage. This kind of open-ended regulation is hard to model in CalSIM. So using the 2019 biops as the example, here's a collection of the OMR actions. And we really looked at three different categories of the actions. Ones that we could correlate to the flow. Ones that we could look at the historical timing to determine when it would trigger. And looking at the historical triggers and then using categorical averages of that historical record. In all of these, we first attempted to correlate the, either the triggers or the off-ramp to flow because that's something that we could dynamically model in CalSIM. We could look at the flows that were happening in CalSIM and then respond accordingly. A lot of the actions that we were able to model that way have either flow or turbidity triggers to begin with. So those examples are first flush, on-site of OMR, turbidity bridge of board-ins and storm flags. The next set, the historical timing. These tended to be more temperature-based ones where we can look at historical record and see that around this time is when we hit those temperature targets. In a climate- adjusted hydrology, we would do the same thing, but with the climate in mind. And these would be on-site of OMR and in OMR and in the turbidity bridge off-ramp. And then finally, the historical triggers. This was the most difficult group to model. It tended to relate to fish behavior. So these were the larval and juvenile delta-smelt action, salamander, cumulative loss threshold, and a single-year loss threshold. And I'll get more into that later. So for each one of these groups, let's talk about an example of how we implemented it in CalSIM. So for first flush, the trigger is a running three-day average of 25,000 CFS at Freeport and 50 NTU or greater at Freeport as well. This is looking at data between 2010 and 2021. And on the y-axis, we have the number of days that would have triggered first flush within the normal period, which is December and or January. Or January. And then on the x-axis, we have a monthly average of the unimpaired river runoff. So we drew a line at the 20,000 CFS for a monthly average. And decided that if we had a larger than 20,000 CFS Sacramento River runoff index, then first flush would be triggered in that typestone. And that was in either December or January. An example of historical timing for end of Omar management for salmoneeds. We have both. 95% of salmoneeds have migrated past Chipps Island or seven days during June, where the temperatures at Mossdale exceed 71.6 degrees Fahrenheit. We looked at all our time period 2010 through 2021. And found that end of May, usually by the end of May, that one of those triggers will have happened. And so the end of all my management happens at the end of May and the model. Finally, we have the historical triggers for the single year lost threshold for salmoneeds. And this reduces or has an Omar requirement of negative 3500 CFS when it is triggered. These are the triggers right here when we hit 50% of any one of those thresholds. And what we ended up doing was looking at that at the historical record from 2010 to 2021. And taking an average by water type of what percentage of the month was covered by the action. And then applied that percentage to each month. So, for example, if we were in March during dry year. 71% of that March would be covered by that Omar requirement of negative 3500. And then the remaining 29% would have no Omar requirement of negative 5000. Just to point out that the count there is the number of years within that 2010 to 2021. So, you know, above normal years happened during that period. We ended up taking an average between the below normal and the white years to come up with those percentages. Hi again. So we kind of talked about kind of a more near term and real time kind of operations with Brian and then Cameron kind of went over kind of like how we model things in the long term. So we're going back again in real time operations. We're saying that in an ideal world, I wouldn't be the one giving this presentation. I'm only involved with the kind of the last item on that list. But these are kind of the biological models that we're using in real time. So that's why we're not really, you know, highlighting the life cycle models here. But again, I encourage you to kind of look into those as well. So the first is this stars model. See what it stands for above there. These are models developed from acoustic tag studies. So the telemetry studies that I mentioned in the previous talk. And you may also remember about the low survival in the interior Delta.  So just went around coming down there are coming down the Sagina River, which junctions are you going to take and which right they're going to take and what is kind of the survival probability associated with those routes. So on the top there, you can't really probably read those, but in the red is the Delta cross channel. So this is kind of and it gives you the survival probability there. So in the bottom red there, that's when the Delta cross channel gate was open this year. So there's a probability that the fish are going to enter there. And it has low survival probability. I believe the purple is George and a slew. So that's where you saw kind of the non physical barrier that we are installed this year. You can kind of see that's also interior Delta. So it's a little lower. I believe yellow is that are in steamboat slew. So those are kind of the slews that are kind of north of Sacramento River and joined back on the Sacramento River. And Sacramento, I think it's the one that's on top. So you can kind of track and see how they change over time, I believe low and temperature are kind of the primary drivers in this model. And you can kind of see that the DCCA operations and kind of the flow values on the bottom. So if you look at websites that you can check out this models are developed by us geological survey Russ Perry and Delta hands are the primary authors. So it's helpful in for us when we're looking when we're meeting weekly in the salmon monitoring team to kind of understand what is happening in the system. Okay, so the second model that I'm going to go over is this one calling steelhead and winter on the loss and salvage predictor. It's a boosted regression tree models developed by Mike Tillitson that I see F in conjunction with scientists from metropolitan water district. So this is a forecasting model of what we could we think salvage would look like in the following week. So predict predicts a loss for winter and steelhead a sort of two separate models. That's why you see two figures there. We have a link on the sack pass website there that you can click on. And you can kind of switch the toggles of all the different predictors to see how that changes what your prediction would be. So, yeah, I think that's kind of like the thing that I really want to highlight here so it kind of automatically scrape kind of the data that the water operators like Brian put together. Tries to give like what we would predict for the following week.  And there are a lot of discussion at the managers team about like what is the proper Omar that we should operate to give in this fact. So this is one way we can kind of look at the different Omar values and have an expect and understand what the expectations are in terms of loss or steelhead based on those different scenarios. Just to explain the figure on the right there so it's a little hard to see, but once you go to website you'll see that there's this kind of gray line in the background and the gray shade the gray shade is the kind of the confidence interval. And the gray line is kind of the historical rate of salvage for their respective species. So we're in this figured I kind of screen capture. This is something that I kind of captured sometime in early March or late February. So you see it kind of stops in the middle there and the green lines is what the model predicts and the blue line is what's already been observed so far this year. I guess one thing I want to highlight is that for winter run, it does predict length that they went around. So I think there's kind of as I mentioned there's been kind of like a push towards looking at genetic winter run instead. But what this model does is a predicts link that they because that's what we're currently operating to, at least in the current biological opinion. I guess I should also mention that like one of the strongest predictor for this model is the previous weeks observation in terms of salvage. So relies heavily upon kind of the observation of what loss looks like in the previous week. And then it gives us a kind of a number of what to expect next week. It might be a little weaker in terms of prediction of like when fish starts showing up because when it's zero, it's not really going to be as accurate as the previous week observation is zero. Okay, so the last one I'm going to that I'm going to go over is this what we're calling the machine learning model for winter run. So the primary author and really the one who's kind of been driving this project the most is Dr. Jeremy Gada at California Department of Fish and Wildlife. So I recommend that you reach out to him if you have further questions or want to kind of see the draft report that we've put together. So unlike the previous two models, this one is not yet online. We have not yet published the paper yet, but we have distributed or at least share kind of like the results and the predictions at a given week in the salmon modern teams. So this is pretty complete. They use this extreme gradient is pretty much complete and finalize it's an extreme gradient boosting model with drop up additive, additive regression tree so it is kind of a machine learning technique in a sense, although it we're not updating it live. It consists of 30 separate models so you see kind of those lines are the 30 different models. So here is a prediction throughout the course of a single water year or Omar management season. The, the, it predicts a categorical variable so instead of like an exact number like the previous model that I showed you so the purple is predicting absence. So this is predicting low presence or less than 4.29 expanded salvage that's kind of the median value threshold that we kind of set and the dark green is the high presence so if we expect a lot of winning. I want to mention that this is also predicted predicting like that they went around, because we did have a stakeholder group that we can regularly reach out to for this project. And this is what they recommended, because at the time of when at the inception of the project. This is what we were managing to. So for the figure on the left there it kind of predicts what's going to happen over the course of fun from November, all the way through January, and you can kind of see that like over time. The model is predicting that we have declining upper probability of absence, and around like January 26 or so. It's predicting an increase in in low presence. And this is so you can see on the top there. This is predicting what would happen the following week. So January 27 of 2020. On January 20. So we're predicting one week in advance again for this model. And I just want to note that the model was not built for data for 2020. And that this is kind of like a testing model. And we kind of have pretty good predictive capability based on kind of the testing data set. I just want to highlight another thing that we can also do is to that what we're also hoping to produce on a weekly basis is to kind of see how the predictions would change depending on what we change export to. The other line there is what the the export value that was given to us from the water operators for the following week. But with this we can kind of see like, well, it's okay so we're predicting low presence of winter and length that date, because you see that the green line the light green line is at the top there, but as we change to higher pumping you can see that we start to increase the probability of high presence the dark green. And as we go to lowest export possible, you see that the purple starting to kind of climb up, suggesting that we're going to the model is going to try to predict absence more. And this is kind of like something that you know like we think could be potentially be helpful in terms of discussion. What we should do in case we exceed a loss, you know, an annual loss threshold, for example. So in this case, it might be that the other factors that are included in the model are kind of driving this presence because you can see that the model is not really guaranteeing absence. So that's the lowest export in this particular instance. Okay, I think I said that was the last I but I remember that there's one thing I kind of want to talk about is this shop values. So I think machine learning is kind of like a black box type of model, as some of you probably aware. So it's not really a mechanistic model, and it's hard to kind of understand what the model is doing and how it's making predictions so this shop value is kind of a way to figure out how the model is making predictions so how to machine learning thinking. And I think this is kind of like going to be useful as we develop more models such as this one. So what you're seeing here is kind of a time series of predictions from the model. So all the predicted variables for the models are up top there and labeled in different colors. And what in and on the figure itself is a time series of what's driving the predictions for absence at the particular day. So the predictions itself is in the color bars. So up top there or on the bottom test mean that it's a data that the model has never seen before training or train means that this is the model. It's data that the model is using to create the model. But what's interesting is that you can kind of see that the model in terms of the color again green means presence you can see that when around this expected to show up between January to May, and that's exactly what the model is doing. So, and when when we're looking at January to April, the models predicting absence so that's why all these predictors are on the negative side. So when it's negative is predicting the opposite of absence and when it's positive that the model is predicting absence. So all these time things are contributing towards the prediction of presence or the opposite of absence during the January to April months. And it's kind of making those decisions based on those categories up top and you can kind of see which one has the highest proportion. And as we go towards the summer, the model kind of is really relying on its predicting absence and it's really you can tell that it's really relying on this temperature at Sherwood Arbor or Sacramento River near the city of Sacramento. And as well as a good day of year which is a good deal why to the left hand side there. So it's really under the models kind of understands that it's using kind of these seasonal predictors to say that hey, this is the summer and fall, we're really not going to expect a lot any winter run at salvage at all. So I think that's just one neat thing to kind of highlight. And hopefully we can kind of post this model online at some point in the near future. Unfortunately Jeremy has taken up another position recently so it's kind of delayed kind of the posting of the data set a little bit or the models. All right, and that's all we got. Well, thank you. That's so if you'd like to take a seat at the front. And for the others, we were colleagues that you'd like to bring up the front to thank you for those insights to the modeling. And please, please grab a seat. And see if we have the mic, shall we start with with Jay and then go to Joe. I have a question on the last slide. What is our being being passed. So that's the red bluff the version dam passage estimate so how many fish are passing to red bluff. Before you get down. Yeah, so like the model is using data from six months past roughly. So in your machine learning the model, you had 30 models running I'm sure they are very slow running because of the complexities and stuff and then you use the machine to get another model. What are the physical data going into this? Now, in the weather models, they use the same thing, 30, 30 different models, they basically get in and have data injection. You have that kind of thing going on. It's just based on models. So I'm hoping I'm answering the question. Right. Yeah, so yeah, the training is based on all these predictor variables. In terms of how it's making prediction for the future is it's scraping the data from kind of the information online that the water operators produce just like the other ones. I'll observe data. And training also to that data being good for training. Yeah, so. Oh yeah, so in terms of the model construction, we have data. I can't exactly remember. I think from the 1990s all the way to 2019. And then we split chunks of that time series and leave them out for kind of the purpose of training the model for cross validation models also being used. Yeah, the 30 models is to kind of reduce the amount of stochasticity that can be, you know, because depending on the iteration, sometimes it will give a different type of results or models so we kind of want to account for them. At least that's my basic summary. So how is it performed? I think the performance measure. I think, yeah, I mean, I'm a little biased because I'm part of the team, but I mean I think it's been aligning fairly well this year in terms of what is showing up. And so I saw another one, which is the other one, which is the machine learning model is the artificial neural network where they use a calcium and BSM to that one. Actually, they had very good correlation. They were predicting in general. They published. So that's what I was asking with the correlation questions. Whether you can tell it about it. Yeah, I think some of that validation results are in the model. I think we, we fit it based on Kappa to kind of account for the fact that there's not, you know, the number of presence observations is much lower than. Thank you. So we're getting very close to the end of time, but we will go to Stephen and then we'll go to David and mode and you won't have the last question of the day of the morning. So we'll take three questions and then break for lunch, which means so we're going to see Stephen. Thanks you guys. Can you speak a little bit to elaborate on risk assessment? You've sort of heard it referred to several talks this morning. I'm kind of curious as to how the risk assessments are done, how they're evaluated and how the assessments are informing operational decisions because it seems like they are. Yeah, so in each of the technical meetings, so the smell working group smelting monitoring team and the same monitoring team. I kind of provide an operational update to them. This is how we think to be present the modeling results. But then it is an open discussion kind of amongst the members there to assess under this condition. Do we think this is a high risk of entertainment for this species or low risk of entertainment. That will then go to guiding some recommendations for Omar management. It's a qualitative, synthetic process, not a quantitative. Yeah, generally, just more qualitative. I have a question for you. I can certainly see why you would need to use the DSM to particle tracking to try to get quick answers. I'm wondering if you have any. How much information you have about how will that forms relative to a few months back tomorrow. I cannot think of any way to say how well, even any particle tracking model respond to how well a fish egg moves, or how it will actually move to the system. No, no, we can't put a tracker on a. That was not a lot right to tell where it came from. How does it respond to a three dimensional part of a tracking process. How does it compare. I do not know that. Could you just repeat the question. I think that was difficult. I was just asking how much fidelity there is between say a ball between the DSM to particle tracking model and a full three dimensional particle tracking events. So, no, I've never seen a comparison between the two questions. Question. Last question of the morning. Thank you for the. Thank you f