In-person Meeting

August 16, 2017

Summary of workshop for the development of transparent approach to resource prioritization in the Delta

The meeting began with opening remarks by members of Delta Stewardship Council: Randy Fiorini, Chair and John Calloway and Cliff Dahm, Lead Scientist and Outgoing Lead Scientist, respectively. The remarks provided important background on the history and current motivation for initiating the structured decision making process.

Randy Fiorini indicated that the motivation for this workshop started with a workshop in Davis last year, where participants asked why more research dollars were not being invested in the Delta. The concept of integrated modeling approach was explored as a way to promote the One Delta - One Science concept, in addition to 10 near term science actions. At the May DPIC meeting, Dave Mooney proposed Structured Decision Making in the Delta and a means to integrate science and management in the Delta. This proposal was one of the DPIC actionable items, particularly to further communications across agencies and interests.

John Calloway stated that he was interested to further the development of the three legs of leveling the three legged stool discussed at Jim Peterson's recent brownbag: Monitoring, Research and Management. He also noted that the emphasis that structured decision making places on the importance of people and connections is critical to successful adaptive management efforts. These will be important moving forward as we are likely facing something very complex in the Delta, which has been described as a Devilishly Wicked Problem.

Cliff Dahm indicated that he was a convincible skeptic in the structured decision making process, with three areas of interest: (1) the concept of irreducible versus reducible uncertainty; (2) there is a lot of long-term data on species populations in the Delta, however processes are less understood, and therefore predictions are difficult; (3) the concept of the three-legged stool (integrating Monitoring, Research and Management) is something else to explore in the Delta. In the Delta, there is good long-term data and robust modeling (particularly hydrodynamic relationships); but poorly funded research programs (last grant program was in 2010) and poor understanding of how the hydrodynamic model affects food web processes make this a difficult problem.

The workshop participants then introduced themselves and provided participants with information on their affiliation and what they hoped to get out of the process. The 33 participants from 14 agencies and organizations (see Aug16 Participants.xlsx for a detailed list).

Dave Mooney then provided participants with additional background information on: "why are we here?" Dave stated that he was delighted to have the opportunity to works with the participants and collaborate to generate ideas about how the program prioritizes activities and looks forward to making progress. He hopes that the process will allow us to better communicate achievements to meet and justify more resource needs. Some of the motivation for developing a transparent process comes about from the need to quickly and efficiently communicate and defend complex issues to OMB. He further hoped that this Delta Science Pilot Program will result in a new tool that will help collaboration, further develop integrated modeling, and respond to independent reviews. In part, this is based on his experience with the explicit framework on how to use the Restoration Fund. He believes that compiling the proper information and developing a transparent process and tools will allows us to implement a process that helps prioritize management efforts. These tools can deal with uncertainty help us explain why we do what we do, and learn from decisions. In short, Dave believes that the existing prioritization approach is good, but he thinks we can we do better.

Dave then provided an example of how we might use this Pilot project, USBR needs to prioritize budget requests on a three-year cycle. They have a process that evaluates potential future needs, but what are the unfunded needs? How should we shepherd requests for resources within an existing budget? Success would be defined as a process that identifies needs and the justification for the resources. A wild success would be the development of a collaborative or shared view of how and where to spend explicit amounts of money. In looking for a collaborative way forward with a Project Management Team and a check-in with the DPIC. Some of Dave's initial thoughts / concepts included the following:

  1. Initiate a Pilot Project. If it fails, let it fail fast.
  2. First phase: develop simple decision support models to get started.
  3. Second phase: find a longer-term home for where to house the effort: generally the Delta Stewardship Council is seen as a neutral actor, so it may be ideal.
  4. Establish relationships with others complementary to the processes:
    • CVPIA - salmon-efforts could benefit with strengthened pieces addressing the Delta.
    • Collaborative Science work group for Delta Smelt
    • Water Fix, particularly the Adaptive Management Program.
    • Other stakeholders setting up decision making efforts

Following Dave's remarks, Jim Peterson provided a brief introduction to structured decision-making and adaptive management (see Peterson SDM brief introduction.pdf). Additional information on these topics can be found on Jim's website.

Dave Mooney then provided an overview of current prioritization process that included a description of sources of funding:

  • CVPIA
  • CALFED / Bay Delta
  • Water Operations

and the programs that receive the funding:

  • CVPIA
  • IEP monitoring
  • Federal science
  • Environmental monitoring

There was then a general discussion of the process with an initial focus in the IEP. Participants indicated that the decision-making process IEP happens at a director's level that includes a Science Management Teams pull together information from principal investigators, and develops a Science Agenda Process and outreach through a Stakeholder Workshop. At the end, the Science Agenda is largely based on professional judgment. The IEP does not dictate funding. Rather they try to inform funding decisions. Generally, IEP identifies needs, then USBR looks for money to direct to process through its three year budgeting process. 2017 looking to budget to 2020 for carryover budget. Normally the President's budget outlines priorities. Then Congress allocates and the budget is reallocated. Annual disbursement for three year forecast is heavily informed by past activities.

The discussing then turned identifying the problem and defining it's aspects and bounds, such as who were the decision makers and stakeholders and what are their roles. In addition, the group discussed other ongoing modeling and management efforts in the delta (e.g., CVPIA and CAMPT smelt resilience effort) and it was generally agreed that this pilot project should incorporate these efforts when possible.

Based on the discussions in the room, Jim drafted a problem statement and displayed it to the group. This statement included the following:

  • To conserve and restore at risk fish species by identifying, restoring, and conserving essential habitats and processes in the legal delta through research and monitoring recognizing, budgetary limitations, and responding to the needs of the public.

This helped to generate discussion focused on the problem at hand. Participants then suggested different problem statements that included the following two versions:

  • To allocate resources that help achieve a reliable water supply while protecting, enhancing, and restoring the delta ecosystem.

  • To improve collective decision making regarding BOR activity prioritization to inform resource allocation to achieve the coequal goals and recognizing and responding to the needs of the public.

The meeting then adjourned for lunch. Before leaving, Jim asked the participants to think about aspects of the problem, so the group could hit the ground running after lunch.

Following lunch, Dave Mooney suggested that, based on lunch conservations, the group start with the goals of the project. He then began to list off the goals, which included transparency, increasing fish populations, and maintaining water supply reliability. Jim then drafted a new problem statement based on these goals and group began to improve the specificity, clarity, and grammar of the statement. The final statement included the following:

  • To develop a transparent and inclusive decision support process, that can reduce key uncertainties over time, to inform the shared prioritization of resource investments focused on the delta, with the goals of supporting the recovery and long-term viability of important taxa, improving related ecosystem processes, and improving the supply and reliability of water for California.

The discussion then focused on the identity of the decision makers and the ideal situation where the decision-makers from the multiple funding agencies (listed above) would coordinate. However, for this pilot project the USBR was identified as the decision-maker.

After some discussion, the group then identified the spatial extent or boundary of the problem (includes actions and monitoring) included the Delta from: Sacramento to Vernalis, the Yolo Bypass, Colusa Basin Drain, and the Bay from Suisun Bay down to Napa River. The group also desired a multigenerational (ca. 50 year) planning horizon for the problem to ensure sustainability. However, the time step was 1 year because prioritization decisions could occur annually.

The group then identified multiple objectives that included the following, organized by group:

Ecological (Taxa)

Green sturgeon, Delta Smelt, Chinook Salmon (4 runs), Steelhead, Longfin Smelt, White sturgeon, Sandhill crane, Giant gartersnake, Swainson's hawk

Water

Agricultural Senior, Agricultural Service, municipal, industrial, refuge (consider using shortage measure), State Water delivery, (Agricultural, municipal), Settlement

Members of the group familiar with water operations, suggested that we use existing water reliability measures (Agricultural Service). However, they also indicated that refuges require different measure. In addition, some members of the group wanted to point out that the group should consider non-delta water alternatives when developing decision alternatives for the project.

The workshop concluded with a discussion of the next steps. Ben Geske stated that we will be following up with participants to schedule additional meetings aimed at developing the process and tools for prioritizing resources for the Delta. It was emphasized that regular attendance by team members is crucial to the success of the pilot project, so participants will be asked for genuine commitments.

Jim discussed then next steps for the pilot project that included:

  • Review of the results of this workshop
  • Refinement of the objectives
  • Identification of prioritization decision alternatives
  • Development of a prioritization process
  • Development and refinement of decision support models (DSM)
  • Beta implementation of the process

The future meetings will initially focus heavily on the management side (bullet items 2-4 above). Once these tasks are accomplished, we will bring in technical staff to assist with DSM development. The intent is to have an initial DSM(s) and process up and running within 12-18 months. To speed up the process, some participants suggested that we review DRERIP II conceptual models. Several participants suggested that the DSM include climate change and sea-level rise. Jim indicated that these factors will likely be included. Finally, Ben asked workshop participants to contact him if they were interested in continued work on this pilot project and he encouraged folks to let him know if other people should be included going in future.

Last updated on Dec 5, 2018