November 28, 2017

Sacramento, CA

Participants:

Jim Peterson, Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit (facilitator) Tyrell Deweber, Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit (co-facilitator) Ben Gaeske, Delta Stewardship Council, Josh Israel, US Fish and Wildlife Service, You Chen Chao, CA Department of Water Resources, Rainer Hoenicke, Delta Stewardship Council, David Mooney, US Bureau of Reclamation, John Callaway, Delta Stewardship Council, Rene Henery, Trout Unlimited (remote), Cathy Marcinkevage, National Marine Fisheries Service (remote)

Action Items:

1. Ben Geske will coordinate so that upcoming 2018 meetings can be scheduled with the group by mid-December.
2. Jim Peterson and Tyrell DeWeber will send a draft participation guidelines document in early December to be revised by the group via email.
3. We will request input on water supply and reliability objectives in the January meeting.
4. Josh Israel will request additional expertise on delta smelt objectives and measurable attributes for tracking changes.
5. We will create an online repository where meeting summaries and related materials, data, and other supporting documents can be accessed.

Draft Problem Statement

The group made minor changes to the draft problem statement to more closely reflect the Delta Stewardship Council (DSC) enacting legislative language. Specifically, we changed "supply and reliability of water" to "water supply and reliability". This is still slightly different from the DSC enacting language of "water supply reliability" because it is intended to better represent both the volume (supply) and reliability of water provision.

"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 onthe delta with the goals of supporting the recovery and long-term viability of important taxa improving related ecosystem processes and improving the water supply and reliability for the state of California"

Timeline for decisions

There was discussion at various points during the meeting regarding the timeline for decisions and feedback from monitoring. David Mooney clarified that the USBOR is considering making decisions on a 3-5 year basis where decisions will be made based off of long-term (ca. 50-year) predictions. They will monitor to see if there are changes in fundamental objectives across years, and manage as needed according to the results.

Draft Fundamental Objectives

The group reviewed potential objectives identified during the first meeting to select a subset for inclusion in the first pilot phase of SDM. Where possible, the group expressed interest in having similar objectives and measurable attributes as other regional efforts (for example, the CVPIA) to enable better coordination.

Ecosystem objectives and potential measurable attributes

1. Chinook salmon (four runs) a. Adult and outmigrant abundance (used in CVPIA)
2. Delta smelt a. Population abundance – the exact metric (time of year, etc.) will likely be from fall trawl surveys but need further guidance on what measurable attribute to use.
3. Giant gartersnake – included as a constraint of some program activities since habitat protection can limit activities or require remediation.

Water supply objectives and potential measurable attributes

The following is a list of potential water objectives and measurable attributes, but there was limited representation in the meeting from key water people due to a competing meeting. Water uses include agricultural senior, agricultural service, municipal and industrial, refuge,state water delivery, and settlement. We will follow up with water managers and stakeholders to ensure that these objectives reflect their interest.

1. Reliability

   • Ability to meet priority water rights (refuge) in a drought year?

2. Supply

   • Total volume supplied?

Delta as a Place objectives and potential measurable attributes

1. Maintain potential agricultural productivity

   • Area of land

2. Recreation

   • No measurable attribute defined

3. Tourism

   • No measurable attribute defined

Flood protection reliability (constraint) objectives

1. Maintain flood protection reliability

   • No measurable attribute defined

Water quality (constraint) objectives

1. Maintain water quality within regulator obligations

   • Number or proportion of exceedances?

Decision Alternatives

We identified the following decision alternatives that could affect the Bay Delta and objectives. These will be further refined in future meetings.

1. Reservoir releases
2. Delta cross-channel operations
3. Operating Suisun marsh salinity gate to increase freshwater in summer
4. Install south delta flow and salinity barriers
5. Install permanent south delta flow and salinity gates
6. Increase export rates
7. Directed water routing for food production in the North Delta
8. Increase Delta flows
9. Install permanent Head of Old River gate
10. Continue operating temporary Head of Old River barrier
11. Improve Fremont weir for passage
12. Install non-physical barriers in north delta
13. Replace fish screens to improve salvage
14. Location specific habitat restoration (will be defined further)
15. Manage turbidity
16. Modify or eliminate predator habitat and ambush areas
17. Reconfigure channel geometry
18. Remove aquatic weeds
19. Reduce contaminant inflows
20. Remove predators
21. Relocate predators
22. Create a conservation hatchery
23. Monitor for compliance
24. Monitor status and trends
25. Conduct targeted research to reduce uncertainty and improve decision making

Consequence Table

We created a consequence table to coarsely link potential actions to each of the fundamental objectives and constraints listed above. Briefly, a consequence table records potential links in a spreadsheet where rows are the potential actions and columns include the different objectives. In each cell, we recorded whether an action would be expected to have a negative (-), positive (+), none (0), or unknown (?) effect on the objective. In some cases, there are more than one potential response (e.g., +,?) when the group had multiple ideas potential effects. The focus of the exercise is not to identify quantitative linkages but to broadly determine potential effects based on expert knowledge. NOTE: We will complete the consequence table during the next meeting.

• The consequence table is attached to these notes for review and is named 'DraftConsequenceTable_BayDeltaSDM_15Nov2017.xlsx'

Upcoming schedule

Below is a table with the necessary accomplishments to be completed in each month for Phase 1 (January, 2018 – September, 2018). Meeting dates will be set well in advance to ensure maximum participation.

Participation commitment and guidelines

Phase 1 will be completed between January and September, 2018. We plan to have the following meeting schedule with the expected total time commitment for key participants.

• Monthly 1 day meeting – 8 days
• Monthly 2 hour Webex calls – 16 hours
• Contribute to other tasks for up to 2 hours per month – 16 hours
• Attendance and participation in most meetings is expected from those involved
• The group will define participation guidelines that will be defined in an iteratively revised document. Some examples of criteria include:
  • Attendance and participation in most meetings
  • Willingness to collaborate, engage respectfully, and take ownership of the process and models