>> the meeting of the san francisco p.u.c. i am president. madam connect, will you read the roll, please. >> president maxwell. >> here. >> vice president moran. >> here. >> commissioner paulson. >> here. >> commissioner harrington. >> here. >> commissioner. welcome. we have a quorum. >> before you get started. i would like to welcome our newest member. thank you for joining us this afternoon for this special meeting. i think you will find it very

helpful. thank you so much. >> i look forward to working with you all. >> we have a lot to do. thank you. madam secretary. >> thank you. i would like to make an announcement. due to the covid-19 health emergency and given the public health recommendations issued by the san francisco department of public health, they have lifted restrictions. this is being televised. be aware of the time lag on sfgovtv. on behalf of the commission i extend thanks to the sfgovtv staff for assistance. if you wish to comment on an item dial 14156550001. meeting id1463830534-pound

pound. to raise your hand to speak press star 3. this is a special meeting of the commission. no general public comment at this meeting. it will be called at the commission of items 3 and 4 as listed on the agenda. >> thank you. as our first meeting i would like to say we have a hard stop at 5:00. make sure you get calls in. i would like to as the first meeting special meeting workshop turn this over to commissioner harrington to chair. commissioner harrington. >> thank you, commissioner maxwell. as noted before, our regular commission meetings are great. they are full of regular business, not a lot of time time forthe engagement.

this is to educate the public and engage with people for more than two minutes. we are here because we care about the river. it is intressick value and symbolic for the health of the river. if we think the river is doing well or not. there are two proposals from from the state water board providing more water for the health of the fish and river. the alternative from the p.u.c. at our last workshop we spend time on what the state was talking about and environmental community thought would be good for the river. today we hear from the public utilities commission staff for background and thoughts about the river and health of the

river. there will be a third workshop in the next month to talk about water demand and alternative. we hope the three workshops will give us a better understanding of what is going on. it will be good because we hope to have a chance to say we all agree on these five things. we disagree on these two things. how do we work through these disagreements and come to a conclusion helpful for everyone. we will have public comment at the end of item 3 and 4. at the end of item 4 you have more information to comment on. you are welcome to comment at either or both times. homing may be more useful for a full information to comment on. with that, i will ask the commission secretary to call item 3.

sfpuc for the presentation on the scientific basis for the proposed voluntary agreement. >> acting general manager would like to make a few comments introductory. >> thank you, commissioners and steve. i want to thank the commission in advance for your time and add tension. at the end of the november meeting. they are still being debated as you will hear today. we asked ourself to summarize 25 years of work on the lower too river. it will take 90 minutes to present. there is a lot of depth to this work to support our position. we are committed to this effort.

we hope getting a brief overview will be helpful as these important discussions continue. i will turn it to ag mrichie for the presentation. >> introduction here. i will describe how the sfpuv and irrigation districts arrived. there is an order of presenters and the topic. i would like to introduce each one. ellen worked for seven years in environmental consulting before april of 2000 she joined to represent the interests in the regulatory commission proceedings. she worked on the licensing process since 2011. it is nine years. these are long processes. she worked in her spare time as

deputy manager of water enterprise. she has a bachelor and master of science in natural resources management from uc berkeley. tim has led the lands management since inception in 2005. previously he spent six years assistant secretary at the california resources and policy adviser for ecosystem restoration at the delta authority. before that he was the executive director of the trust. he earned master in urban planning and engineering from ucla. matt moses worked for contra koss take water district from 2004 to 2013. his work for us is focused on planning analysis of future water supply conditions and strategies for new water supply projects. matt has bachelor of science in

bioresource and master in environmental engineering from uc berkeley. last is bill sears science and policy scientists. for five years he was project manager for watershed and river restoration and planning studies in california, oregon and washington. he joined in 2007 and coordinates 12 new system efforts and served to partner agencies including yosemite national park. he has a bachelor of science in biology from california state east bay and the uc santa barbara. we have other experts available to answer questions from the commission. they are doctor ron yoshiama.

he has worked and as assisted san francisco as a consulting biologist since 1993. doctor hume has 25 years of water quality and supply and treatment. he has worked on the river in particular on some of the modeling efforts there. john divine has many years of consulting on licensing projects. these require a lot of dedication and skills. he is the lead consultant for the relicensing. involved in all of the studies p during the process. last but not least andrea fully senior biologist with more than 20 years of fish bio. managed numerous studies and has

spent at least 20 years working on the rivers. we have a good stable of people working on these issues for us. i want to talk about the water improve meant established in 2005. we committed at that time to expending $50 million over 10 years on watershed environmental improvements. as part of that program we engaged in the acquisition and restoration of the ranch on the lower river that tim will talk about in his part of the presentation. also, the commission established the water enterprise in 2006 for investments in sound science to build a technical foundation.

we are carried out for the replacement project, lower crystal springs dam and the upper river dealing with the stipulations. we also have been working as we are all here for the don padro relicensing and water control plan. these decisions are made by federal commission and state water resources control board in hearing and testimony based systems. there is a lot of testimony and these are very long processes. what is different between the lower and upper river and the creeks? don pedro is operated by the districts, not p.u.c. the water to don pedro is under control of the irrigation districts. the state board regulatory context involved many, many

other players. it goes beyond this river encompassing the sacramento river and san joaquin river and through the delta and san francisco bay. our approach to working on the lower river is to guide improved stewardship and maintain reliability for customers in the bay economy. just to start off i will talk about the key conclusions we have reached. first. we agree the san joaquin valley need improved conditions. we agree existing conditions are insufficient. more habitat restoration and water released from don pedro. functional flees supporting important life stages and him

s are neededto support recoveryt with our policy. fourth, the t r.v. a measures were developed and are most effective to help the river. the irrigation and sfp of p.u.c. will commit $28 million to maintenance and operation over 15 years. we budgeted $5 million in this year and fy22 to get started. the state needs to do its part including commitment to policy shifts on hatchery. i would like to turn it over to ellen for the regulatory context. >> thanks. i am the deputy manager for

water enterprise. i will talk about the regulatory context for habitat improvement on the lower river. what i am going to talk about i talked about in the past. i will present in a summary text fashion. the federal commission regulated the don pedro project owned and operated by the irrigation districts. it is requiring flows on the lower river since 1966 when the original license for the enlarged don pedro was issued. in that license they required 20 years of additional scientific study on the lower river to determine the effects of enlarged reservoir on the fishery. the results were reported in 1992. based on that science the settlement agreement was reached among the parties in 1995. revised flow schedule which they

incorporated to the don pedro license. the signatory res to the 95 settlement agreement included tid, mid, san francisco, california department of fish and wildlife, u.s. fish and wildlife, california sportfishing protection, tuolum ne staff. that is still in place today. the current license expired in april of 2016 and the districts are in the relicensing process now. the relicensing for don pedro started in 2011. they applied thing licensing process to developness information to make regulatory

decisions in a single process with input from interested stakeholders. it starts by developing a study plan that lays out information they think they need to make regulatory decision. the study plan for relicensing consisted of 35 studies at $25 million, half was paid by san francisco. the study plans were developed and findings review through many public meetings with interested parties. they added 20 workshops above and beyond what is required to ensure opportunity for public resource agency input. using the sign develop prior to 20 eleven the additional studies provides the basis for the application another -- application and voluntary agreement.

over 200 studies over 45 years have been completed on the lower river. i talked to you about the studies in 1971 and the studies that recently concluded in 2016. in between those two periods we had a significant flood event on the river in which additional studies were prepared on the effects of the flood and filed with the settlement agreement. there was an agreement to do 10 years of study as part of the agreement. in addition to all of these requirements other studies on habitat changes within the river as well as recent advances in the understanding of central valley populations have occurred. you will hear about these studies through the presentation. the district filed their final license application in april of 2014 and substantially amended

in october of 2017. following the filing of the license application they responded with numerous filings recommending additional measures. in reaction to the recommendations and concern over conflict in june 2015 the districts in san francisco initiates the don pedro relicensing settlement group with mediation specialist to arrive at negotiation. similar to 1975 sim similar. it included numerous companies and met for four years until the voluntary agreement process at the states essentially sub took. it was to develop an agreement based on the reactions to the state board substituted

environmental document for phase one water control plan update. state agencies, department of water resources and california department of fish and wildlife presented a voluntary agreement to the state board in december 2018. the state board adopted the water control plan as proposed with acknowledgment a voluntary agreement could be implemented in place of the amendment if deemed adequate by state board. the voluntary agreement process is ongoing. the current voluntary agreement was analyzed in the final impact statement. the staff referred alternatives that include va flow schedule and measures. water qualification for the state board. voluntary agreement can serve as water qualification for the license. i am going to pass to tim to

talk about the environmental setting on the lower river. >> thank you, ellen. good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for taking time to talk about the lower river. my job is to provide context and try to set the stage for others that follow me including bill to focus on biology. i am the division manager for natural resources and lands management. the grandest scale and i will zoom in. this shows the entire watershed. also the corridor that the salmon have to migrate to and from the ocean. we are going to talk about these two species. the constant water system below the dams as well. the salmon will get the

attention here. as steve mentioned, those are creeks. this is the river in a different thing in a lot of things. we are going to talk about things really consistent and similar on the tributaries. but we are going to zoom in and focus on the tuolumne. this is the watershed. today we are going to zoom in to talk about the lower river and we will jump to the next slide to do that. the previous shows modesto. there are little communities. waterford, hickman, roberts ferry and la grange. la grange dam is the oldest dam built in 1883. this is river mile 52. this is the barrier. the previous to that salmon were able to navigate upstream.

spring run salmon are extricated at this point we are not able to get to there when the dam was completed. this is over flow, not to store water. we have another dam on the creek. built at the same time. you can see the canal on the one side the districts divert the water at this location. the dams do a lot of things. one of them is take water from the river and trap sediment. those two things dramatically affect the habitat downstream. it didn't affect the stream flow. don pedro was built in 1923. this is new. it was built in 1971. the focus every licensing. old from 23 is concrete and dam

probably the largest at the time gravity concrete dam in the world. it is under water now. it was much smaller reservoir. don pedro new stores 2 million-acre feet of water, with a much larger effect downstream familiar the original dam held a year of water for the districts and looked to survive drier sequence they needed a larger reservoir in 1971. this gives you a sense of the scale. this shows 1952 to 2020. this is not seal head. it goes back to 52 when really the way people were able to calculate these numbers became

consistent. they had spawned and died. they got an estimate for the entire year. people have heard and used numbers like hundreds of thousands of salmon spawning in the river. there is data from the 1940s. it counted all salmon at that point. fall and spring run also. we are focused on the right side. this is the problem. nobody is excited about the decrease in return for the salmon. that is what we are talking about today the problem we are trying to address. i am going to zoom in on four different places below the grange dam with restoration projects. we will go through the photos to provide context for the

presentation later. fundamentally, the approach now is very similar to what was done after 1995 when the group pulled together habitat restoration plan in 1999. the pictures we will hear today were covered then. they are similar. the river has been altered both hydrology, sediment transport and land uses downstream. these will provide examples of the changes. upper end bobcat flat. 52 miles of river between the dam and san joaquin. half is gravel. this is important for spawning habitat. photos from 37, 50, 2019. find a place of reference to go and move among the three photos. river at the bottom familiar far

left in 37 there was a lot of river habitat set. you can see the healthy river system. the point bars and some runs and some habitat. 1950 that changed dramatically. they went to mine for gold. these are the dredge trailings that turned the river upside down. there is nothing that grows. in 2019, tailings are gone. they were able to use the tailings from the flood plain to build san mateo. you can see the link in the flood plain. river is at the bottom. the corridor is narrow. we lost access to the habitat which is important in the spring when they are migrating as

juveniles. this is another location about halfway down on the river mile 26. special run pool 9 and 10. you will see the pool. this is really to demonstrate the impact of instream mining and mining in the flood plane for gravel. 1937 on the far left you can see the gravel bars, habitat. in 2002 big things are different. big lakes in the middle of the river. oval shapes at far left and right as the river moves flow from right to left. these are unnatural. this is where the striped bass are there. it is not natural habitat. you can see the flood plains. one of those they are captured by the river. 2019 you can see the white moving from the river to the pit

connected. this is a place where the bass are living and moving to the river and they are moving downstream. this is the river ranch 1937, 2019. 1937 is near the confluence of the river. you can see the floods plain and river from right to left. the corridor and flood plain. in 2000 that is gone. the elevation of that section looks different than surrounding area is lower and part of the river system and easily accessed by higher flows with the dams in place. some of the farmers were able to farm that. some years the river would recapture and it would be a newed plain again. there was a big flood in 1997. consequence of that the landowners didn't want to fight

the river. they wanted to restore it. they were ache to work through different programs to have easements on the farms. this is the result of the flood plain habitat now part of the river system. this is the last example. it is a good reminder of the ongoing role. in 2010 the commission provided $2 million which is led by the trust and partners. we were part of this. this is over $20 million to acquire and to restore. you can see in the red dose rios. this shows in green other areas part of restoration. grace and river ranch is upstream to the right that we talked about. this is the ranch. 1600 acres, six miles of

riverfronttage. extremely important at the confluence. what was done people came in and restored the habitat and restoration and access by breaching some of the levees. now the fish can access as they move downstreams. it is important to do that. there is a lot of evidence that the more fish grow and moving out as juveniles, the better chance to come back as adults. this is an example of what it looks like when it floods. this is not every year. when there is enough water this is what we would like to do in other places. it is important to tie the landscape back to the reduced stream flow. the river is not like it was historically and neither is the landscape. what we are doing is connect the dots to tie the flow back to the restored river habitat

downstream. this is my last slide. i want to live this picture. everything else was airflow. if you have new screen safers the upper river. usually they are taken below don pedro. there are quite a few scenic locations downstream. this is a picture that bill took, our lead on the biology for 15 years. before bill i will pass this to matt to talk about the hydrology. thank you. >> good afternoon. matt moses from water resources engineer. i will do a short segment on hydrology that may be some reminders. you may have heard this information before, but it serves as context for detailed discussion of the c r.v. a to

follow. my intent is just to help build the foundation that we can stand on when we think about the t r.v. a. this is a map of the river watershed. the direction of flow in the river is east to west. starting in the high sierra right side of the map. some of the flow passes through sftuc reservoirs and is released back. some is stored there temporarily or to the bay area. below the sfpuc reservoirs are forks of the river to the mainstream when it reaches don pedro in the middle of the map. some flow is stored in don ped driveway and some -- don pedro. it joins san joaquin river at the left side of the map.

green gauges operated by the u.s. geological survey are shown in yellow. these gauges record flow. two are important particularly operationally for the district and sfpuc. at la grange is the point where unimpaired flow is calculated for the river. this gauge is also used to allocate water supply between sfpuc and the district. the gauge at modes to is proposed complains for required flows in the river and the delta plan phase one update. next slide please. this is a zoom illustrating the path as the water goes to the sea. same as tim showed us. the river jones san joaquin.

water can take many directions. it flows to the san francisco bay. this map shows an additional stream gauge location on the san joaquin river at vernalis. this is considered to be where the san joaquin i have enters the delta. it is important in the management of the flow and it is included in the bay delta plan phase one update as additional compliance location for the tributaries including the tuolumne. this is the major point of diversion for water supply that are shown here. just to drag the point home. sfpuc water supplies ex ports are at canyon tunnel. the canals devert water from la

grange with one canal visible. that is downstream of don pedro. note all of these points are upstream of the la grange gauge shown in yellow. this is hydrograph unimpaired flow at la grange. it is calculated value representing the full flow in the river if reservoirs didn't exist. it measures at the la grange gauge and adding back in the diversions made that sfpuc and service areas and accounting for changes in storage in the reservoys. these are done daily by the staff and sf p.u.c. the average is shown for five water year types.

the system was developed by the state water board for the river basin. it is calculated each year and it is assigned based on unimpaired flow. we talk about wet and dry years. this system was created into five types in order of decreasing flow they are. wet years, above normal years, below normal, dry and critical. when we talk about dry years in california, we are likely talking about critical years according to this. water years used in california start in october through september. this way you capture the entire effects of one wet season in a single water year rather than splitting it. we are not on that slide yet. this is shown on the horizontal

access. unimpaired flow in cubic feet per second on the very cal very, verytical access. bill will follow up in his talk by describing how this river is adapted to use the portions of the hydrograph in their life cycle. typically, unimpaperred flow is low -- unimpaired flow is low in october. as it rains in the fall, unimpaired flow increases. the drier year types don't have much increase in unimpaired flow until winter. in the winter snow accumulates in the mountains and the rainfalls at lower elevations.

peak unimpaired flows in all years occur in the spring between april and june when snow in the mountains melts and flows to the river system. there is a substantial difference between unimpaired flow between wet and dry year types. this demonstrates what we know. very wet years and dry years occur in our climate. this is the same plot with the adtician of the dash line with the entitlement of the water supply between sfpuc and district. we call the top hat function. according to this act districts are entitled to unimpaired about low and sfpuc is entitled to above the line. in the last workshop they said

it is wet year water right for sfpuc. on this plot you can see in dry years very little unimpaired flow occurs above the dashed line. this is total annual volume unimpaired flow in the river each water year 1970 through 2020. the color code is same five water year types. volumes in units of acre feet. this looks at the variability between the water year types and indicates sequence where these years occurred. each of the red have been experienced as drought within the sfpuc and statewide in california. it is important to understand while we are talking about it

that we do not have a good method for predicts what kind of water year next year will be. that is true statewide. this plot is in the same format showing flow volume for 71 through 2020. the volumes are measured flow at la grange gauge. this is flow actually measured at that gauge. difference between this plot of measured flow and previous plots unimpaperred flow is water diversion to sfpuc and the district and to storage. wet years have large amount of measured flow in the river. in dry years the flow is quite low. typically the reservoir storage

on the river fills in the wetter years. remainder of inflow through the resreservoir to the lower river. by contrast the reservoir storage declines in dry years. the years of the fill the flow released at la grange measured here is driven by the instream flow requirements. that is what you see in the plot. a lot of fill in the wet years, less in above normal years and see consequences of dry and critical years releases at the required level than the mandated flow schedules. this is a comparison of flows

for context. this plot come pears annual sfpuc diversion to stay area and storage in the tuolumne system. the diversions are 12% total unimpaired flow on the tuolumne. this compares to total unimpaired inflow to the delto through sfpuc diversion. on average it is less than 1% of total delta unimpaired inflow. that concludes my review of hydrology. i will turn it over to bill to talk about the t r.v. a. >> thanks, matt. i am the science and policy analyst with sfpuc natural

resources division working under tim. it is my pleasure to talk about the scientific basis for development of the river voluntary agreement today. we are going to kickoff with terminology. i believe you have a separate sheet, commissioners. you might look at it as we roll through these slides. i will pick out a few of these terms here, the ones highlighted. i think you understand would be useful talking about the fish that migrate upstream and reproduces. young travel back to the ocean. the ones ready for the ocean are called smult. they are red de to go. lastly, something matt was talking about previously the idea of spill. this is water that can't be

stored and in the context of th releases is released to the river in excess of required flows, base flows or agreements that stand. so we think that rivers work like this. this is a cascading diagram how the river may function. the watershed inputs at the top with water sediment coming in. those inputs develop to processes such as travel transport. those processes end up developing into attributes we can see like point bars and pools and ripples that form habitat. the habitat with the biology lives on with the plants, fish, frogs and bugs. it is spawning habitat.

moving to the biology, there are two main species of interest to stakeholders on the lower river. there is the species of concern then the omikas. they have two life histories. the steel head which is like the chinook. they are listed as endangered under the federal act. the rainbow trout which remains in fresh water their entire lives. the tuolumne are rainbow trout. we will talk about the life stage that takes place in a different be part or multiple parts of the system. this is illustrated by the blue arks. you can see the ocean bay, san

joaquin river and tuolumne. black boxes are each life stage. starting with ocean, they grow for two to four years then begin to migrate to fresh water. once on the tuolumne they look for gravel to lay the eggs. the eggs develop two to three months. the small fish hatch out and grow to fry. three to four months the fry grow within the lower river but some leave early for the delta. they finally grow to smult size when they are ready to go to the ocean. april or may they are ready to leave. these are zero plus andrupt the

majority of smuhls. some remain before migrating. they are known as one plus. i will talk about the life history. as we mentioned earlier, two history drives steel head and rainbow trout. both are depicted here. steel head life the dominance of the rainbow trout history. they move through these life stages in fresh water as well. steel head however is different. it is similar to chinook but the juveniles head to the ocean after two years in fresh water. what are the basic things salmon need? stream flow. of course, the rivers don't exist without it. flow and flow is key variable

that influences other variables including water temperature. they need seasonal hydrology to maintain habitat and biological functions and fiscal habitat including clean gravel, rearing habitat with areas with cover and food, they need suitable temperatures. this graphic represents a river cross section. during low flow periods the water is in the channel as you can see in this slide. in wetter years and during flows they can inundate the flood plains to the right side of the slide. this is to orient you to the different life stages. adults will spawn in the gravel. after emerging from the gravel the fry rear in the shallow

habitats. that is highlighted here. as the fry grow to larger juvenile sizes they move to complex areas with feeding opportunities. lastly the, fry and juvenile rearing areas can be in the cam or out on the -- channel or the flood plain. we will talk about where the fish rear in coming slides. salmon are not doing well for different reasons. i will highlight a few reasons here. we will start with water resources development from gold rush through 1970s. dams changed and altered the hydrology and habitat that caused declines in the salmon population throughout the central valley. delta was a giant wetland, sacramento and san joaquin phone.

with the central valley and the state water project altered the hydrology and the rivers flowed backwards in time. the gold rush altered the food webs and predator relationships. climate change has and will continue to warm the ocean and fresh waters. it will shift the hydrologic patterns leading to less suesable conditions for -- less suitable conditions for salmon. hatcheries were established for production. as conditions have declined in the delta. they released fish further downstream for survival. downstream the hatchery are

released, less likely that they will find the way back and they will stray to other rivers. this out planting has increased the hatch fish to rivers. they reproduce poolly in the wild. when they reproduce with natural fish they reduce the overall success of the entire population. most adults that enter the tuoloumne in the fall. the 12% of the escapement. recreational harvest is closed, or harvest in ocean continues. sacramento and chinook met the over fish status in 2018 and

remained over fished in 2019. between 2014 and 2018 it was 53 to 68% for the fall run. let's talk about the pattern of escapement in the san joaquin system and tuolumne. there was a slide on the november 30th workshop. they return with winter and spring flows. on the right it is the rivers combined. on the x at the bottom you can the decades escapement year. gray bars represent the escapement number, which you can see over on the left-hand side. y access. black lines represent the total discharge from the san joaquin

system, two and a half years prior to escapement year. this would match flows to time where the juveniles were in the river. what you can see is visual correlation between the flows, black lines, and when there is high escapements in the system. there is a caveat to the data i will talk about in the next few slides. they aren't corrected for age distribution. it is assumed that everything is returning at age 3. the range is age 2 to 4. they aren't corrected for out of basic. hatcheries at play where the escapement may be hatchery fish that never experienced the san joaquin or tuolumne river. what changed around 1992? there is some change. it is hard to distinguish.

we are going to try to answer that or touch on it. we don't have an exact answer for that question. so we did poke around and some of the river data. we confirmed similar to the san joaquin. look on the left at the bottom. this is tuolumne only. said set up with years below on the left and spring flow on the right. you will notice there is big change in 20003-200 -- 2007-2008. it was not accompanied by large increase in escapement. around the time the ocean conditions collapse happened. the plot on the right is the same data, plotted as a scatter

plot. with the spring flows 2.5 years prior to the escapement on the x. on the y chinook escapement. there really is large variations from 52 to present. big variations with similar flows. so in poking around with this data in a preliminary way, it appears the flow escapement relationship is declines over time. you have a five year running average of flow. same lag flow we were talking about earlier. five year running average of escapement data we are talking about. what you can see looking at the trend lines over time over the decades, the increase in

escapement, you get less escapement, less change in escapement for changes inflow. in the '60s, strong relationship and big change in escapement for different flows and starts declining in the '70s, 80s and through the 90s and 2000 until the 2010s where there isn't a response. not the same response. part of this could be that as we saw earlier the escapement is declining in the population is declining over time. >> question. xaxis? >> five year running average of

the lag flow. >> 2000 means what? >> 2000cfs. that is not labeled. thank you for pointing that out. cubic feet per second. >> thank you. one of the things the flow and escapement are nottrenning in the same direction. this is the same data. years on the bottom, x axis. green is the green dots you see. the blue dots are the spring flow or late winter spring flow. you can see those on the x axis on the right. we have drawn the trend lines to show the general trend. escapement is falling slowing remaining the same in the five year running average representation of the flows. [please stand by]

hashry leases could have been increased in response to declining populations, so more work is needed to nail down this relationship, but it's an interesting one we'll be diving into a little further. >> so what do we think we know or what do we think we might know so far? we know the flow escapement relationships eroded over time and hatchery -- appears to be important, but we need to look at that a little further. we know from some further analyses that we didn't show here that there might be some specific flow metrics that might be important in this relationship, including high-flow frequency and variation. we know that ocean and delta conditions are big drivers as well, and we did find similar results from the san joachim system as a whole. so here is another plot that the n.g.o.s presented on at the

november 30 workshop that was entitled tuolumne salmon river returns the worst in the valley. it has tributary watersheds on the x axis and the y is the different in escapement between two periods, 197 to '91, which is the baseline, and the 1992 to 2011 period. fall in populations in rivers with the blue lines below the zero have declined between these two periods, and have increased in rivers where the blue line is above the zero. and the tuolumne certainly has experienced major declines as we saw. the state water board developed this figure and used natural escapement estimates from mills and fisher to produce this plot, and to get natural escapement, mills and fisher needed to subtract out the hatchery component. but they base their estimates on the hatchery component primarily on professional opinion rather than on actual data.

they did their best at the time, the data they had, be you there aren't really any good data on the hatchery data for that period. and so cummings et al. in reviewing this data found it's unreliable and production levels are unknown. the state water board science panel came to the same conclusion basically, and for some additional context i went ahead and added asterisk to some of these. next slide, please. we'll now talk about some of the key studies, talk about some living factors that are identified in these studies, and some of the trga measures that were developed based on this information. next slide, please. so even in natural settings, something's always limiting the productivity of salmon populations. somebody i once worked with told me if there were no limiting

factors, we'd have salmon flopping around all over the place. in dams and highly modified systems limitations are modified due to degraded habitat, changes in hydrology, and due to the broad range of factors affecting salmon in the central valley, the studies focused on limiting factors directly limited by the district's projects within the lower tuolumne. these include gravel, predation, temperature food and obviously the relationship between all of these and stream flow. next slide. so the trva approach uses flow and habitat improvements and other measures to address limiting factors. the flow measures that are included in the trva include three basic release categories, base flows, year round minimum flows that support habitat needs and temperature management -- flows which are short duration

high magnitude flows, and then spill management which are larger, again releaseses that are longer duration and are water basically that can't be stored, and matt talked about that. in the trva, spill is shaped to achieve functional flows that can achieve specific ecological objectives and we'll talk more about that in a bit. releases vary based on water types, the wet above normal and so on, and matt talked about those as well. basically more water is released in wetter years and less in drier years. pulse flows include dry year relief which is frequently referred to as off-ramps for water supply reliability. flow measures are paired with a series of complementary habitat combroouments to enhance productivity as well. and then finally the trva includes the tuolumne river partnership advisory committee, and it serves to advise the

districts and the agencies and others on how to implement certain portions, certain measures of the trva. the initial participants would be the u.s. fish and wildlife service, sfpc and tmid. next slide, please. so the first effort produced a lot of information, and here is a list of studies that helped inform the trva. and we'll talk about a handful of the key studies in a minute, but i first wanted to talk to you about the basic monitoring data that's been used in many of these studies. the long-term flow and temperature monitoring provide the basis for understanding relationships with reservoir operations. here is a map of the lower tuolumne river. you can see those there. so there's two u.s. gauges that provide flow and temperature information on the lower river. matt talked about those earlier. and then there are numerous small temperature monitoring

sites that have been established, and those are basically used to get a fine-tuned idea of how temperature changes as water flows downstream from don pedro. next slide. the long-term monitoring also provides data on population response to management, and there's two key components to this monitoring. one is the adult counting weir which counts adults coming into the river located about halfway up the lower river, and then two rotary screw traps. these estimate the numbers of juveniles on their way out. the two rotary screw trap locations that you see here also allow an estimation of juvenile survival between the two traps, which is really useful, and we'll see that later. i'll take a drink of water here for a moment. okay, so let's finally turn now to a discussion on the studies and trva measures.

so this figure is just meant to help illustrate the general timing of fall run chinook live stages with respect to calendar which you can see there at the bottom, but it's also to help provide a context against the natural hydrologic pattern. so you can see that adults are migrating in during periods of relatively low flow with juvenile rearing as flows increase during winter, and then finally you can see smolts moving out in the springtime during peak snowfall runoff there and -- the out-migration. so in the following slides i'm going to be using the fall run life history as a guide, but obviously the resident history is playing out simultaneously with spawning in the late winter and spring instead of the fall like the chinook and rearing occurring in late spring through summer. next slide, please. so let's talk about the spawning

and egg incubation period. i've highlighted the period in orange here and will be moving through basically this same figure to kind of guide us and show us where we are in the life cycle. next slide. so the spawning gravel study and the in-stream flow study that was conducted under the licensing suggests that spawning habitat isn't limiting under existing conditions. there's gravel for about 40,000 fall chinook spawners. gravel moves downstream in high flows, so pre-dam that gravel would have been replenished from the upper watershed, but post-dam augmentation is needed. we found that sediment has embedded itself in some of these gravels and that can reduce the egg to emergence survival. we know the gravel mobilizes around 6500 -- fine sediment, and that can actually improve gravel quality. between 2005 and 2012, there was an estimated loss of about 8,000

tons of coarse sediment over that dominant spawning region which is the upper 7 miles of the lower river. and then the red mapping study and the chinook population model have both been used, and they found that there may be a spawning habitat limitation at the very high escapements or higher escapements when spawners essentially establish new nests over existing reds. this is called superimposition, and it can happen when there's competition for space. so overall, these studies support the idea that gravel augmentation and high flow releases could be used to manage spawning habitat, and a superimposition might need to be addressed. next slide. so the trva includes gravel augmentation to maintain, improve and expand this spawning habitat. the initial effort would be 75,000 tons over 10 years, and

it would look at river miles 39 to 52. there is an upstream spawning preference for chinook salmon. they head up stream to spawn as far as they can get, and so there would be an upstream placement priority, essentially, in placing this gravel. there would be repeat spawning gravel studies, repeat study in year 12, and then annual surveys of spawning gravel use for the five years after augmentation. next slide. trva also includes a measure that would include spawning barriers that would discourage red superimposition and help better maximize spawning habitat. the barriers would be installed to prevent additional spawning where spawners have already been and perhaps maxed out the habitat. it would be deployed when the escapement is greater than 4,000 female spawners.

and then red surveys would be conducted to inform any annual decision about deployment. sorry, red surveys for chinook. next slide. so the trva includes releases to maintain and optimize suitable spawning habitat. there's a pulse flow which is designed to happen before spawning, chinook spawning, that would flush algae, debris and surface -- and it would happen in wetter years. base loads during this period focus on providing suitable depths and velocities of water over the spawning gravels. and then the spill management program would implement gravel mobility peak releases to help mobilize that gravel and improve gravel quality in the wetter years. next slide. it's also an experimental gravel cleaning measure that's included

in the trva. this would physically wash gravel to remove finds. it's a five-year experimental program with the sites to be determined later. it would be accomplished by physically washing the gravels with a pressure washer, essentially. it would occur, thought it might occur two to three weeks per year, and possibly during the spring out-migration pulse to help create turbidity which provides cover for chinook out-migration, and then there would be surveys prior to any of this work to make sure that spawning and reds are avoided. and the relationship between turbidity and chinook out-migration basically is that the turbidity provides cover and reduces predator site feeding effectiveness. okay, next slide. all right, so let's move into the rearing period here, january through about mid april. next slide. so we know that larger chinook

outmigrants represent the majority of the subsequent adult escapement, and some background on this, adult fish ear bones called autolus, they can be used to determine the relative contribution of five par and smolt to later adult escapement. so the study analyzed them from five different years. you can see the plot over here on the right. on the x axis you have the percent of tuolumne adults that are returning. the age classes are up on top there. the blue are fry. the orange is par and the gray is smolt. and then the y axis is the out-migration year. this is when the fry, par and smolts would be leaving the system. and we've got different water year types here, but what can see overall is generally that the relative contribution doesn't vary consistently with water year type, even though water years were selected here,

and the fry really infrequently return as adults, about 5% maximum, but we note that a 5% fry contribution at a higher escapement could be negligible, but overall the study suggests that there is size-related survival advantage in the tuolumne. this study suggests that management measures that help increase fry entering habitat should help retain fry and grow them and then increase the number of subsequent larger outmigrants that would survive better later. and base flows for the fry and juvenile rearing in the trva, since it's a study in the chinook population model analyses is unlikely to be limiting for chinook escapements, they are around 40,000 or less.

based on the flow study and other study, base flows from january to february focus on maximizing inchannel fry rearing habitat to keep and grow fry in the river while balancing spawning habitat needs, and some late spawning is still happening into this period. juvenile shi nike base flows from march to april aim to balance juvenile chinook rearing with omy kiss spawning which is happening during this period. next slide, please. so flood plain innovation can reduce predation risk and increase spawning. the two studies estimated similar capacities at low flows and at a moderate flood plain flow for juvenile chinook. if you look at the plot on the right, again you have discharge on the bottom there, so that's

in cfs, and on the y axis you have the juvenile chinook capacity, and this is in millions of juveniles on the tuolumne here. this is called the flow habitat curve, and what i pointed out, what i just talked about, which is that there's equivalent according to this analysis equivalent juvenile habitat capacity at 2500cfs, and as you go up the curb to the right, you'll see that there's higher capacities as flows get higher, and they move out on to these broad flow plains. okay, so the pulse flow study found that flood plain innovation could reduce predation risk and -- -- and behind that is this idea that predators and prey species have different habitat suitabilities on the flood plain. the additional habitat when flood plains are inundated would actually -- thought to actually reduce the encounter frequency, so how often predator and prey

run into each other in these expanded habitat areas. the floodplain hydraulic study also found that periods of inundation from 14 to 21 days occur every two to four years under current flows. so in general, these studies tell us that floodplain -- pulses and managed spill should increase rearing capacity, and they may reduce predation losses, therefore increasing overall productivity. next slide. so the trva includes a pulse flow, which should expand juvenile rearing habitat and reduce predation risk. the pulse flow was the result of negotiations with the california department of fish and wildlife. it would inundate about 80 acres of suitable rearing habitat for various durations depending on the water year. i want to turn to this plot on the right which is the same essential curve, same plot we

saw in the previous slide, but it's showing the juvenile rearing base flows we talked about that range from 2 to 250 cfs, and in the green it's showing the pulse flow, which is 2,750 cfs. if you look at the difference between the lines meeting, the y axis is this net increase in capacity due to the floodplain pulse. so the floodplain pulse -- -- capacity, and then on top of this, during wetter years the trva spill management program would also target floodplain inundation in wetter years and try to keep flows up on the floodplain as much as possible. next slide. >> bill, this is commissioner harrington, just a time check. i know we were trying to do this within a 90. minute period or so, and i think you have a lot of slides left. how much time do you think you

still need? >> good question, ed. you know, we can -- >> i would estimate about 25 minutes at this point. >> okay, maybe you might want to hit just more highlights than in-depth on some of it. it's useful, i realize. >> okay. sounds good. >> thank you. >> so floodplain restoration is also planned in addition to these flow measures, and it would expand available fry and juvenile rearing habitat for salmon. floodplain res restoration is part of the -- -- existing habitat to inundate during trva floodplain flows. next slide. so large wood is important in these systems for providing inchannel juvenile rearing habitat. so wood would be added as part

of the trva to provide greater in-stream structure and habitat complexity. this wood installation would also be part of the lower tuolumne river habitat improvement program. next slide. let's talk about the out-migration period. so we know juvenile chinook mortality is very high between -- sorry, next slide. we know juvenile chinook mortality is very high between the rotary screw traps, as we talked about. -- used data to estimate annual downstream juvenile passage, and they found what you can see on the right-hand side, which is plots of the two rsts, so these are basically tracking fish that pass these spots in the river. so in 2007, which is what this data is from, at the waterford trap, the upper plot there on the right, you can see in the blue fry in the orange the par

in the black the smolts. you see a lot of all those life stages moving past that screw trap. downstream at grayson, which is knew the confluence, you see no fry, no par and you see smolts. and in the table here on the left you can basically see the same -- relatively same data, 2007 is there. these are really high losses between these r.s.t.s. next slide. predation is hypothesized to be a significant source of mortality. it can be exacerbated by non-native fish species introductions, in particular bass. the study found that native and non-native fish prey on the salmon in the lower tuolumne river. that was confirmed by the study. what's interesting is that the non-native predator abundance and the rate at which they can consume salmon suggests that predation could account for nearly all the losses tweeb the

r.s.t.s that we just talked about the chinook population model basically suggests that if you have effective control for predation, it could dramatically increase sieve survival in this area. next slide. we know there's a significant and positive relationship between smolt out-migration -- and flow. they used the r.s.t. data to estimate smolt survival in this relationship with flow. and what you can see in the plot here with mean flow on the x axis and smolt survival and percentages on the y is that survival is variable at similar mean flow conditions. and while there are probably other factors in addition to flow that may be at play, this generally supports the use of high flows like spring flows and non-spill years or spill to increase smolt survival during out-migration. next slide. so the trva includes a predation

control and suppression measure that's hypothesized to increase out-migration survival. this would include the installation of a predator exclusion and adult counting weir at mile 25, a 10 to 15% target for reducing bass populations in the first five-year period. predator population abundance and density would also be measured and -- would be used to monitor effectiveness. and then there would be annual monitoring and adjustments to refine actions. and just one last point is that it's really a predator control and suppression measure. it's not meant to eradicate bass, which is not likely possible. next slide. so in the trva there's a spring out-migration pulse flow that should increase smolt survival. this addresses the relationship in years without significant spill. it would be managed to occur

annually when large numbers are present. and it includes a dry year relief plan. next slide. so during -- for base flows, during the out-migration period, essentially it would be balancing the base flows between out-migration and -- and the big focus here would be to manage water temperatures during this warming period in the spring. next slide. okay, let's move in, this is our last slide stage. i'm sure you'll be glad to hear, and this is omy kiss summer and fall rearing. we want to acknowledge there's robust disagreement for water temperature suitabilities. we need to assess temperature as a limiting factor, and we know water temperature is directly influenced by flow, but that

influence does diminish with distance downstream, especially during the summertime. the n.g.o.s and fisheries agencies have referenced the environmental protection agency's 2003 temperature guidance that was developed for the pacific northwest, those referenced those as criteria. other studies use scientific literature values for the fish, and those same literature values have been used by the epa in their guidance as well. the e.p.a.2003 document allows for the need to adjust criteria based on local conditions. next slide. so the districts funded a study which found the fish are likely locally adjusted to warmer temperatures compared to northern populations, and this includes researchers from uc davis and the university of british columbia which tested the juveniles for thermal tolerance. the findings basically are

consistent with existing peer-review literature that points to thermal adjustments and the ability to adapt to the higher temperatures of some, and it supports this hypothesis that tuolumne omy kiss can handle slightly higher temperatures than the data used in the e.p.a. document. next slide. another part of the trva is our infiltration galleries, and these would provide more suitable rearing temperatures for o. mykiss. the model indicated that over-summering habitat could be limiting due to temperature. the trva summer flows focus almost entirely on temperature management for o. mykiss, and -- don pedro and recaptured from the galleries at river mile 26. these additional releases would improve summer temperatures for

o. mykiss juvenile rearing -- down to about river mile 39. these releases were -- this change, the infiltration galleries, would require a change of the plan, and these would be operated during the summer and fall, june through october 15 in every single year. next slide. here is just a quick example of a infiltration gallery. it's a pipe with holes in it that pulls water through the bed of the river. next slide. i'm just going to give you a few examples of what the trva implementation might look like on top of a hydrograph. next slide. the bottom here we've got the light fishery stages that we've been talking about, and this is a hydrograph from -- it's the example year is 1974. it's a very wet year. and you see the months there on the x axis of that plot and flow

on the y. the blue areas are the base flows and pulse flows in the trva, and the black line is spill management, and that's the spill that you would see in -- or the flow that you would see in the river in this particular year. i'm just showing here the base flows starting on the left with minimum flows designed for life specific habitat. the fry pulses, which are intended to clean gravel of built-up algae and debris prior to spawning, and then at the top here you have spill management which are these functional flows we've been talking about. you have the floodplain pulse, which is designed to expand juvenile rearing habitat, and then you have the spring out-migration pulse, which is meant to move chinook smolts out. next slide. here's a look at a drier year, and what you see here in the blue are still the base flows and the pulse flows, but it's a drier year, no extra water. again the base flows, the fall

pulse and the spring out-migration. the floodplain pulse is the same magnitude of drier years, but it's shorter duration, and the spring out-migration pulse is smaller in these drier years. next slide. okay, so these are all of the habitat restoration and measures that are included in the trva.

>> represents total average annual discharge that includes so here the chinook model estimates the trva combination of flow and on flow measures produces more while both required discharge and total discharge are lower than the 40% of an impair flow scenario. and the model also estimates large improvements in small for female spawners over the base case. >> this is commissioner paulson, do a quick summary of what you just said. say what you just said at the end, one more time, please. >> sure. so basically, the trva provides about twice as many female spawner for half the water as the 40% of unimpaired flow. >> that was very good.

>> so, these are the results of the model. this is 500 the grown bars represent in this case the young of the year for female spawner and similar to the chinook model the o. mykiss produces more young of the year while both the required discharge and total discharge are lower than the 40% of unimpaired flow. it's similar output as the chinook model. and of course, it's showing an improvement over the base case as well. so, we wanted to acknowledge that the population models have been a source of concern for the national fishery services and the n.g.o.s and we wanted to

provide our thoughts and i provided a quote here, from 1987 is what you hear when someone talks about a model that all models are approximations and they're usually wrong and some are useful and sponsored by national fishery service was done by consulting company called anchor and it basically confirmed that the operations model. the reservoir temperature model and the rear temperature model were useable and the review it's what the purpose of the model was, i have a quote here that i won't go through but basically, this outlines the reviewers' over all review of the model and they diagnose the conditions in

the river and they also said that there were several areas they thought the model could be improved and they say it's assumed and all models contain assumptions and reviewers can disagree about assumptions and the districts did state about mortality rates and predator reduction and they were in the license application by using removal estimates. so, we generally, the p.c. staff agree with the districts that it's really difficult to manage every year with high flows and you can't provide high flows in every year and i know it's not what has been asked but it's an important point to make here. there are a series of dry years.

however, this chinook model indicates that increases in productivity from the trva flow and non flow measures are comparable in terms of benefits, to some of the flow-only measures that enclouds large flows and recommended by agencies. and i also wanted to touch on this, anchors' critique of the model didn't discredit the studies that the models were based upon as has been suggested by the ngos. they did suggest additional analysis within the appropriate within the scope of a model review and i think the districts have disagreed with some of the additional analysis requests including the existing models should have been life cycle models which they were never intended to be. the o. mykiss model focused on

residents o. mykiss. they were up front about the lack of data on steel head and the lack of time that was available in this licensing timeframe. so that's all i have for you. thank you for listening and i know it was a long one and i appreciate it. >> steve, do you have wrap-up comments? >> that's it. after the questions. >> got it. >> so, thank you very much. that was incredibly helpful and i think i'm starting to understand bigger chunks of this than i did before. i would like to see the commissioners have questions and then also see if our other panel members have any comments that they want to add to that. first, commissioners, do you have questions or comments you'd like to raise?

>> i have a question. >> you had a few slides, one at the beginning and i might be sort of confused a little bit, you mentioned that there's no relationship or sort of the relationship between flow and the number of spawning fish that's been decoupling over the years and then later when you were talking about some of the trva numbers, you mentioned that oh there's a very direct relationship between the two so i'm wondering, did i misunderstands what you were saying? can you clarify on that? >> so, i'll try to answer that.

so, the decoupling essentially or the degradation between the fish adults coming into the system and flow, that we don't totally understand that relationship and why it's happening. i think what you might be getting at is we have a very good understanding of how flow effects juveniles in the stream that have not left yet so we know there's a good relationship again higher flows and in the river and moving out and when they leave the system and they go to the ocean and come back, there's a lot of other things that can happen that effect their survival essentially. so, is that helpful? >> yes. that was helpful. >> and i have another question

for you, again, maybe i missed this. the model that you are using, did you mention that it's a 1987 model? >> no. sorry that that was confusing. no, that's just a quote that we used. >> when was this model made? i'm just wondering it's a model that you guys use, some of those scenarios that you ran, what kind of a model did you use for it. >>ed model has been updated over the years and i believe the chinook model probably first came out in 2014 or so and it's been updated over time. with both data and some of the mechanisms in the model have been updated as well. is that helpful? >> that was helpful, thank you.

so, mr. chair, i just want to say first of all, the second youngest and pushing to put of some of these workshops together because this is actually taking us from almost political and we're getting no some of the science and i know that we're volunteers on this commission and you know, our time is often limited but this is very much well worth it to talk about the entire health of our systems so, i want to thank you for that and i thought that without, i thought about asking questions as though i was in graduate school wanting to find out methodology and whatever else, i still feel this was helpful to make sure that i know as a commissioner that we are in, we have some incredibly talented people that are monitoring and nurturing and studying the entire ecology of our system and

just to see it during the course of this presentation was incredibly helpful we're all going to have more questions but because there is the idea of droughts and the idea of not having -- i mean we're in a climate change and environment for everything that we do not just here in our water system but you know, through out the entire earth so just for us to take the forefront on making sure that we're examining california and that was my long potification just to say thank you to coming harrington and making sure that we move this thing forward in the staff to tee this stuff up under within a

relatively short period of time and i am going to consider this could be a good step keeping us as informed as i expect to be so thank you. >> thank you. >> can you give me five reasons why with flood water we have a better outcome? >> >> bill, you want to take that one? >> well, sure. i would be happy to take that one and i'll turn my camera on too so you can see me. so, the flow and outflow measures in the trva work together. the main thing in the modeling

that helps provide increased production are the flows and non flow measures and it helps with higher survival and addresses together with these spring pulse flows especially in the dryer years and that survival relationships between flow and out migration survival. so, with flow, pushing fish out, and fewer predators, in that timeframe, you get higher survival and you get better productivity. that's not five, commissioner -- >> it was about the gravel. what about the big gravel move and adding more, how does that help and you mentioned cleaning the gravel and i just wanted some -- >> understood, yes, sorry to

interrupt you. just to say that so for spawning, currently the gravel situation is not limiting the population but travel moves downstream with high flows and it will move downstream or in large areas it moves far and providing additional gravel just keeps that capacity up and it can actually improve the existing gravel with some of these measures so it can provide additional productivity providing more places for more fish to spawn essentially. >> thank you. >> does that help you, commissioner? >> commissioner moran, do you have anything to add? >> just i guess translating what i think i've just heard is that the main differences are that there are a lot of non flow measures included in the voluntary agreement? and that is one distinguishing factor and the other is a minor

calibration of flows to the physical conditions of the river so it's not a theoretical thing in general how should you manage is it but it's specific to this river and the condition of its as a gravel areas and flow areas and calibrating the flow specifically to that morphology. i think those would be the two i would pull out of that. >> makes sense. we have a panel of other people if they feel the need to say something, i would like to give them a chance to do that. the variety of folks listed in items 3f, do they have comments and i know steve if you want to try to manage that or if they have a wave coming out between, i'm not sure? >> yeah, they do have a way of coming up on the screen and we might just go one by one and

starting with dr. yoshiyama any comments from the presentation and hearing the kind of questions from the commission, would you have any observations to make and you are not obligated to say anything but if you think you've got a contributing thought. >> rewind us of the time here that we have a hard stop at 5:00 and we have other people that wanted to ask questions and public comment. >> so through the chair if i can make a comment before the next speaker has, is this, if people want to speak they should be allowed to speak and i don't know if we need to tee people up

or not. if people want to speak, isn't that mr. chair or madam chair, what wore doing. it's like the line. >> we invited experts if there was an area that was a line of questioning that they can contribute to and to pine over all at that point. >> that should be what is going on if people want to they can get on. if not, we can move to public comment. >> so. >> i'm not hearing anybody jumping there so, madam secretary, would you like to move to public comment? >> >> members of the public who wish to make two minutes on item

3 and the proposed river voluntary agreement call (415)655-0001 and meeting i.d. (146)383-0534. followed by pound pound to raise your hand to speak, press star 3. >> do we have any callers? >> there are five callers in the queue. >> thank you. >>

>> i am a native of san francisco and co-chair of the social justice task force of san mateo county democracy for america and a resident of menlo park and i watched a presentation and i'm reminded of the saying, room burned and and

get along without power and and and you want to just allot many are baits secret backroom deals which our docked in the public citizen report and and you can find this online and it's treated you the san francisco public utility commission so i note that you are mission statement is hyper focused on san francisco and benefits and san francisco residents have shown they're willing and able to reduce water usage and below to protect the levels. and the atlantic magazine now has a very good article and it says with the development of so many work from homeworking arrangements during the

pandemic, experts predict that the coastal cities will continue to be depopulated rather than t- >> your time has extort fired. next caller. you have two minutes. >> commissioners, i've been listening to this and workshop and we should have had this workshop 20 years ago and this workshop now has given us all the details of a crime scene and we know who is responsible for the demise of the salmon and i often say, more respect for the salmon, so, conveniently and the for thousands of years and some came and screwed up everything and you all do have the decency

to invite them at stable but not have the decency to invite so-called experts. and the could called exports have given us all the details of the crime scene. much like what happened on capitol hill. we did what and what and what but we still don't allow some people who have the balls and the harm and so your commissioners others may not say that but i tell you that you have blood on your hands. thank you, very much. >> thank you for your comments. next caller, you have two minutes. >> yes, this is charles rock well from redwood city area and i wanted to make a comment on

the predator piece that was done particularly the and and in this system since the upper 1870s and they vary in population almost consistently and congruently with the population of salmon and the water years and the populations coming in no the river system of salmon go up and down. they do the same and the same period of time. and the preportion so i think killing predators are getting red of predators in this situation simply is not doable and secondly, i don't think scientists like peter moyl would agree killing predators is the way to go. are you going to kill the

rainbow crout that pray on the eggs? are you going to kill the birds that pick them off or the sea lions that eat the fish and the delta? or are you going to kill any other predators. where does that stop? i think the reality here is habitat improvements along with improvements both of those things are important. thank you. >> thank you, caller. >> there are seven callers remaining with their fans you have two minutes. >> >> good afternoon, my name is denise and i'm a san francisco resident come customer of the sfpuc and member of the center

for and the presentation reminds me of quote-unquote scientific studying denying climate change in order to protect interest and rather than the environment and words like could, suggest, and hypothesis reveal how sadly that presentation has been put together and for you deny the cool clear natural flow of river water and keeping the same level of unimpaired flows have not worked. the delta is on the verge of collapse is the tuolumne river now. reliance on hatchery fish should tell you the wild fish have needed help for decades. so i urge you to project half

truth and caused confusion about the need for increasing. >> thank you for your comments. next caller you have two minutes. >> john mack dennis here i'm a in a testify of san francisco and residents of the salmon association. couple things i just want to flag your attention to in the presentation that we just saw. there's some slides that point to hatchery fish as being the problem on the river and there are other slides that point to massive losses of jewel nile salmon that are between the traps in place and no one is

suggesting that hatchery salmon are causing between the traps and in fact, the suggestion is, that predators are causing those and is it hatchery salmon or predators and to a comment made earlier, historically, there have always been predators throughout that river including in the stretch between those two rotary screw traps and what is different that makes them deadly it's a question that you may want to direct back to your staff to investigate and something is lacking in their presentation you may want to ask them for and that is super impose graphics showing the increase in delta exports and there's no reference to that but you will see exports have gone up as tuolumne salmon numbers have gone down and i just want

to flag back to an admission. the steel head model is fundamentally use less since it's not built on steel head data but rainbow trout data so i can see why they found it to be so lacking and i hope you all heard the same thing i heard, where your presenter admitted that. i'll stop there and thank you. thank you for your comments. next caller, you have two minutes. >> good afternoon, president maxwell and members of the commission and special welcome to commissioner johnny and i'm chief executive officer for the bay area water fly and representing the 26 water flyers out there in san francisco that rely on your system and these 26 water flyers provide water to 1.8 million people and 40,000

businesses. thank you commissioner for facilitating this workshop to present the scientific under pinning of the tuolumne river agreement and on the long-term water supplies reliability from the regional water system through 2045. this must be relied upon for planning purposes and in particular for state required urban water management plan that must be submitted to the state over five years including this june.

would you taking drastic measures and resulting community impacts including water use below the health and safety limit. >> thank you for your comments. your time has expired. >> next caller you have two minutes. >> my name is steve rosenbloom

and i'm a resident of palo alto and i'd like to draw your attention to a slide that tim ramerez showed and slide 18 that showed the tuolumne river population estimates for full run chinook versus from 1952 up to 2020. i can see from the data that in 2009 it was 45,000 again and 1984 it was 40,000 and then suddenly, in 1990, it drops down to 17,000 and then by 2012, it's down to about 4,000. if you draw a line between

those, you can see a catastrophic drop in fall run chinook that something serious happened. what could happen within the presentation is that 1992 was the year that the perk agreements were put no effect. i suggest you look at flow limits put in place or any environmental effects that might have occurred. the measures are reasonable and they're no substitute for minimum flows. i think it's clear for ale den about what the model shows, models can be wrong and i think

the facts are that there's a crisis on the tuolumne for schnook salmon and this needs justified. >> thank you for your comments. your time is expired. commissioners, we have five additional callers in the queue. next caller, you have two minutes. >> good afternoon, this is mike, retired puc biologist and thank you for their presentations and i have three quick questions which can be answered now or later the first one being a mention of the 80 acres of 2 would be set as a goal and the second question is, the inside plain listed as one or two weeks

is there any data to support that? it seems like a short period for eggs to hatch and bugs to emerge and become food for the smokes. the last question, on the population model, did the 40% unimpaired flow include any non flow improvements as we did and that's all and i have to get those answered at some point, that would be great. thank you very much, bye. >> thank you for your comments. we now have seven remaining callers. folks that joined the queue. next caller, you have two minutes. >> good afternoon. this is peter policy director

from tuolumne river and at the beginning of the presentation, there was a comment that the trva is the most effective way to address these issues and i would say it's the most convenient for the water agencies or efficient if you only release 20% to 25%. there's a graph that was shown that compared salmon productivity between the base flow and the bay delta plan and the trva and that did not accurately depict the bay delta plan because they were showing those full results and it would go up to 50% and to answer another question, in that other graph, you saw that as flows increased the are juvenile more poorly until it got to a point where you see flood plain inundation and they did better and small fish want slow-moving

water and if they're stuck in the channel they'll get flushed out but if they can the flood plain, they'll do better so more water to help out with that and what is realistic is the you have to compare one option to the trva. i was involved in the first process since the beginning and the early settlement process and there was a lot of disagreement and basically they didn't want it to guess worse and the models were never intended for a management tool and also the trva the bay delta conditions and it's the bay water water quality plan so we're losing a lot of time talking about the volunteer agreement and it's time to move on with the bay

tell ta plan let's work together and get the best results possible. thank you. >> >> thank you for your comments. next caller, you have two minutes. >> my name is frederick (inaudible). >> the science and evidence is clear that the salmon population are in decline with over 99% of salmon from historic levels so the time is reform a behavior and protection of salmon and it's certainly undertaken and they need to be coupled with increased flows and if these measure together increase flows

the issues of flows and consider taking out more water and if we with inadequate flows and the salmon go extinct it's too late to reverse course and people are conserving water to protect it, the water districts are still adhering to their old models and extracting too much water farmers can adapt to lower water regions and the salmon cannot. the time is now. please take to heart your responsibility to protect the river and the ecosystem and with increased temperatures, droughts and climate change coming in we

need to increase flow to moderate those temperatures you need to act now and protect our samson. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next caller, you have two minutes. >> caller: hi, this is adrian covert the bay area council representing 300 of the largest employers in the san francisco bay area and located in san francisco since 1945 and i want to thank the commissioners and puc staff for continuing work on to create the trva. this was a very compelling and reassuring presentation. after the state board updated

and being adopted by the state board and i guess potioned to the rationing after a single drought year and climate change makes these concerns heightened and in response, the administration committed to working with water users to develop voluntary agreements and to benefit the ecosystems without putting water supply or liability at risk and since then, the trva is the only proposal that's been put forward by water users on the watershed and it's created combined the cities resources and position on the tuolumne to invest in habitat improvements and pulse flows to improve the ecosystems while protecting the region's water supply and independent reviews from uc davis and the national marine fishery service and elsewhere are validating the trva approach and i think the city should be proud of it's leadership on its role on the tuolumne. thank you.

>> we have throw more callers with their hands raised. caller, you have two minutes. >> caller: thank you president maxwell and president moran and fellow commissioners. my name is chris tom from bell and your environmental policy. in a communities and leadership. we collectively provide private (inaudible) in the region and more than $3 trillion to the global economy. we have the envy of much of the world is at risk of the (inaudible). meaning, the quality of life and we need to maintain a robust and

reliability and millions of people in san francisco bay area and (inaudible). the administration process and encouraged discussions continue between ngos and agencies. the liability ask predictability to (inaudible). of all kinds and manufacturers, farmers, ranchers and developers can accurately plan for future economic. thank you for our most precious

natural resources as community leaders for members of the silicon valley leadership group understand that access to safe affordable drinking water is a social justice issue and the state is reliable must remain a priority for our region to thrive. we request the sfpuc to continue the work of the voluntary agreement process. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next caller, you have two minutes. >> caller: thank you. i am tammy, the general manager for the mid water district and we've been in business for 92 years and we serve the cities of belmont, san carlos and we are really thankful for this presentation and to our colleagues in san francisco water. it's been really informative to learn more about the tuolumne

river voluntary agreement. our agency purchases 2.5ngd and we are 100% reliant on the register onal water system. we have a great group of customers and rate payers who are always responsive to our conservation demands. we are, however, very concerned and that is about the scenario one that information that we were presented with just two weeks ago from our partners at san francisco water, and putting in the bay delta ban impacts with the urban water management plan it's information we have to rely on for long-term planning and we understand that but we want to continue to urge you all on the commission and our colleagues there and staff working hard on the data too push forward with the trva and work with our partners and help to find a solution to bring everyone to the table to find out what is best for our system and we're all resource managers

and we all borrow the resource and we return it back to nature. and that is our goal as water managers. i thank you for your time today and i'll of the speakers and the presentations. >> thank you for your comments. next caller, you've got two minutes. >> my name is elizabeth and i'm the water resources manager with the city of mountain view. we serve water to nearly 80,000 residents within the city of mountain view and support a similar number of jobs. water from san francisco makes up 90% of mountain view's drinking water supply. and i'd like to take this opportunity to support the comments made earlier by nicole c.e.o. of vosska and to express concerns about water supply impacts from the adopted bay delta plan, particularly during dry years. i urge the commission to

continue pursuing a voluntary agreement alternative that needs the delta plan objective while ensuring sufficiently reliable water. thank you for this discussion today and for accepting our comments. >> thank you for the comments. commissioners, this is the last caller in the queue. go ahead caller, you've got two minutes. >> caller: hello. this is mark gonzales, and i've heard two things, one interesting thing was how can we have better environment with less water? and i think we also have to look at what it does for the whole river system. it's not only protecting it's all the other amphibians, mammals, and habitat.

>> with the golden state and i really don't have any opening comments i'll have some wrap-up

comments and i want today briefly introduce the came panel at your first work shap, bev john rosenfield with baykeeper and janet howard, another biologist with tnc and so i will just hand it over to doug and give him time. >> thank you commissioners and staff. we'll try to follow-up in writing after this workshop because time is limited. you know, i think as we talked about before, a goal is to narrow disagreements to make sure we're all on the same page and the place to start is just

in talking about how much water is available under the volunteer agreement proposal. one of the noticed in slide 33 and 44 is how much water gets diverted and it gets lost and i've heard that the voluntary agreement is about half as much water for 9 tuolumne river as the adopted bay delta plan and i think it would be helpful to have staff confirm that and show graphs what is required by water years given that they have these off ramps for consecutive went t critically dry years without

less water so i hope you would be interested in diving that a little bit more and then a question on slide 85, you know, bill you showed a lot of spill happening in a wet year like that but none of that is required. it's not a minimum flow or required flow and as we see sigma taking more effect in irrigation districts increasing demands, my understand is there's no guarantee that water will be in the river and just getting a better understanding and appreciate if staff would be willing to confirm my understanding that it is about half as much water for the river and that in those spills they're not required flows. >> are you asking for us to comment that as you go three or do you want to have john or

jeanette talk first? >> i thought it would be better to have dialogue and turn it over for them to ask questions about the science. it's your work shop and you know, you tell us how we should proceed. >> because you actually do see in many years, a lot more flow

than 40% in the river so it's something we're happy to engage on. >> the question was, is the required flow about half under the voluntary agreement from what it is from the state. >> we can get back to you on that what it is and you guys have the documents that you know what it calls for but we can generate those numbers and provide them it would be helpful just to draw that so we see where they're similar and different. >> i would be happy to. >> i'll turn it over -- i think i'll turn it over to john to ask

questions about the habitat and we can talk about some of the model results and we can go back to some of the other concerns that we and the agencies have raised. >> mr. rosenfield, you are on mute. >> hi. good afternoon to the commissioners and thank you to staff for the representation. i'll dive right in, bill's response in the question period was the flows and habitat are designed to work together and at this think that's one thing that bill said that we can agree on. the districts have a long history of doing habitat restoration on the tuolumne and yet we see the pattern that we see today and so i wanted to ask

specifically, tim, if tim is still there, tim and his presentation talked about a special tool nine as an area where there's habitat issues and special pool nine was a habitat restoration projects and i believe that it cost a lot, and i believe that it was completed and my question for others is did that work and one of the big things i think that came out of

the brooks element in 95 was salt of interest to generate funding but it wasn't included for monitoring and none for restoration. and the work that was done was the result of the group and the coalition supporting applications for grants and srp9 was done and it was expensive to fill an instream pit from a construction standpoint and i don't have the dollar numbers in front of me and there was work done to measure its effectiveness and i think something does exist and part of the problem was the plan was always to do srp10 also and we never had the funding, the district never had the funding directed to quote-unquote finish that project so that one still is sitting there as a warm water lake just downstream so, from the habitat standpoint, the answer is yes it was completed and the implication on the

biology, i don't have that but i can see what we can dig out but just recognize it was not entirely completed it was supposed to be effective when both are completed and i would be happy to follow-up and troy to share that with you. >> i'm glad you will follow-up and it would be great to get a follow-up because i'm having some network connectivity and i don't know whether other people are experiencing that but i'm reading from the 2007 report on the project and i just note that it says despite reduce habitat area for the predators that (inaudible) control srp9 project

did not reduce large mouth bass of the size and (inaudible) relative debris and project control sites. -- there's a whole set of pages there that describe the project was completed and ta design criteria but that everything that happened that was good at the site happened in wet years and everything in dry years was just as it was before the restoration was done. it makes bill's points and (inaudible). achieve the results but you know, it would be good to talk more about that.

the gravel restoration that bill described replacing gravel is

part of a restoration proposal when it's not eliminating (inaudible). john? >> falling in and out a bit. i think what bill said was that the travel restoration was going to be in the suppose stream areas where it started to be lost and even though it's not in the river and that placing it up stream.

>> i'm janet howard and we recently looked at the latest papers in the central valley and bill had mentioned that they assumed predator control we assume a lot of things but assuming predator control and just wondering what that means so your model assumed predator control and if to what was that based on? and the second one is, have you all been aware of the new papers by michelle at all in 2018-2020 that show that it has no effect on chinook survival. they're great papers. one on genetics, what is in the stomach of predators so predators eat predators as well as chinook salmon and so if you rye move predators you release other predators and theft potential to eat more and they

did a study on removing predators and increasing predators and there's no impact on survival so i'm curious what your basing the variable on your model on i want to ask about the shin i can population model. >> can you speak to the questions about i would like to hand it to andrea fuller. >> andrea? >> >> i wanted to comment on part of the work that was done in the san jaoquin around 2014 and 2014

and they were removing predators and adding predators to different areas and it was being implemented on the river looking at removing fish from different areas and how that effects perdition risk and part of talking to fellow researchers was they felt that their units sizes were and fish were able to move in from the surrounding habitat areas so they weren't seeing actually, depletions in the number of predators. so the recommendation going into the study design that we're implementing on now they were helpful in developing was to do

removing over a much larger reach. >> that showed that you can't remove the predators. if you can't move them and it's impossible so this intervention would be continual year after year after year. >> and looking at there's mechanisms to make it more doable. fishing derbies and there's a lot of things that can be considered to be successful in f predator populations over a large area. >> with those models, i want to move into the population models, did you run those models with or without some assumption of predator control? the chinook population models

that show with the v.a.s you increase the population size? >> i'd like to noah if he can. >> the model was constructed as an individual-based modeling spawners through eggs and fry and all the way out to smoltz. it did not simulate predators and their population dynamics. as a result, when they have to deal with the mortality about my migration so that was assumed. what we used, was an assumption that the predation or the observed mortality between the traps we saw was proportional to the population size of predators in the river. and so, we took that and said,

ok, we don't know the functional relationship in terms of relaxation of perdition or compensatory perdition and the things you were just talking about, so we'll go with a one to one and that's what we did. we basically said if we can reduce predator populations by 10%, our perdition rates would go down by 10%. other predator mechanisms we use included the flood plain innovation and that was done on simply a square footage area basis which is to say as flows go up perdition rates go down so that's how you represent the effectiveness of spring pulse flows. we did both of those things. now, in terms of the effectiveness of predator control, i think i would have a strong disagreement that removing predators would make perdition rates go up even though the individuals consumption rates of a individual predator may go up whether the functional

relationship is linear it's easily debatable and something cool to study and we had to make some operational assumption and that's what we did. >> the point being too, we don't really know what we do to ecosystems when you remove one predator and release other predators. we don't know what that is. >> right. >> the predator control plan has an ex conclusion and it does infact include long-term revisitation of these removal meth odds and we don't know and we considered it an adaptive process. this reflooding in from srp10 or srp9 it all can happen and the idea is we would adjust the program accordingly. >> yeah, i'd love to chat with you more about that. i have a thousand questions. my last question is the chinook

population model results and i'm wondering if you calculated which you must have the cohort replacement rates from those models because we did a -- we did that on back of the envelope estimates and show .6 cohort replacement rate based on those interventions which is basically an extra patient and 10 years as opposed to an extra patient in five years. i'm curious of your rate with those population models? >> we did such a thing for the o. my kiss in the river because we simulate those overtime. it's not a multi-year population dynamic model it's single-year run so you have a starting population and what happens after the end of that year so as a result, the cohort replacement rate of a like cycle model and

this was the peer review, can't be readily calculated and we have made such estimates separate from the model where where use the inriver components to do the survival of those data and you have to make up all these assumptions about the zero percent survival through the delta. those cohort replacement rates you are seeing are largely making big assumptions and row reflective. that's what you are seeing in terms of the flow escapement relationship. it's going down or going up in the last several decades. the cohort replacement going down for sure. >> do you want to? >> just a couple follow ups. one of the questions that jeanette and i were interested in, have you done the fish population model without the

assumptions of the effectiveness of predator control and what does that do to the results? because given that they have found another agencies have found that the predator control programs are not effective, i think it's worth seeing what those results look like in a more apples to apples comparison, in my view. >> i may want to call on -- pass it to another friend. we have done mixing and matching of measures and in fact, the predator control measure is the biggest sort of bang for your buck, right. if you increase gravel, you will increase egg survival and reduce and you get a little bump. if you increase you get survival so those are nibbling at edges and then there's the increase in flow. there's an increase in flow in the volunteer agreement which would improve immigration

survival so, i don't think you can stack that up against a 40 or 50% unimpaired and say obviously the flows are lower so without the non flow measures in deed. the flows are lower, the productivity will be lower. if john wants to weigh in on that a little bit -- >> sure. let's see, can you hear me? >> yes. >> this is john. and we did run the model, the population model chinook and o. mykiss model and it made a run with the management plan included and with the advantage plan which was a filing that we made in the afla in october 2017, i can give you the appendix number and attachment

number, that, with adaptive management, in terms of how we would exercise continuing to learn about the pulp flows and the behavior of chinook in the river, approached about if i'm remembering bill's slide the state board 40% estimate of 8.4 and without the adaptive management to the flow measures at about 8.1. >> that's helpful because one of the areas where we see the strongest disagreement is really around a lot of the studies and perdition model and fish model and the state and federal agencies i think have repeatedly

raised a lot of concerns at the conservation groups in the relicensing process. i think in contrast, one of the areas that i was pleased to see some agreement is that there is a strong relationship between juvenile survival and flow and i think i was really pleased to see the staff acknowledging that and i think that one of the thingsist struck by was you see a loss between the two except in the wet year and in that suggest to me that you know, you are really seeing a strong flow survival relationship like on most of these other rivers and based on the graph i see on slides 75, it does appear to be i curve that there isn't a break

point in the curve. curve.>> we want to end this son have public comment. >> barrie, you are muted. >> john is back on and i'm going to see if his sound is better. i have a couple of quick points to make before we wrap-up. john, let me hand it back to you. >> sorry about the connectivity issues, i hope it's better. i guess, i will just summarize

the many questions i have from the presentation. you know, i noticed several points in the presentation there's this agreement that we have that flows provide many different for wish. they wash gravel, making the gravel more suitable for spawning but instead of having higher flows, the proposal is to power wash the gravel. gravel. we heard flows inuntate flood plan habitat where fish can go but i haven't seen a rational for creating a pulse that only allows fish to access that habitat for two weeks to 18 days. and we heard i think just repeated that increased flows reduce perdition pressure and

instead this proposal is to add an item a pretty great effort to try and reduce predators and the evidence indicates that must be. >> we have not talked about the flows on temperatures in the river and we all, i think, acknowledge the temperatures are stressful for salmon. [please stand by]

get get to the river mouth try trying to age age through releases for the benefit what what we call the shoulder seasons, that is late or or late, early october western canadian sedimentary basinicly very difficult. thes you showed is peak im im papered flows would be in may and when when lehigh valley phantomsest flows occur.

it is important that we focus on the concerns with the model in general. remember, this is part of the delta plan process that is

stalled this approach, especially on the san joaquin ignores the existence of the delta. i am troubled by that. we seem never to get to the needs of the delta, and the ways in which a credible contribution from the san joaquin system is essential. i wanted to close with those three comments. we will respond in light of the time with some additional comments later in writing. >> thank you. there are a few general issues. people are dealing with this for years and years. obviously, we will not catch them all in three hours and solve them all. this is helping us all understand the different issues. public comment, madam secretary any public comment?

>> public comment. if you wish to comment on item 4 dial (415)655-0001. id1463830534-pound pound. to raise your hand to speak, press star 3. do we have any callers? >> we there three callers. >> thank you. >> caller, you have two minutes. >> hello, i am wes kitchler, bay area resident and taxpayer.

i backpacked in the watershed. to support the delta plan, it is important that the sfpuc encouraged increased water flows for the river. it is important that the bay and delta be protected. it is counterproductive to predict inter growth and it becomes self-fulfilling that the unintended consequences of putting further strain on water ecosystems in the economy. rather than the sfpuc encouraging economic growth, it should encourage economic sustainability. the present and the future will be protected. economic sustainability is very important for the bay area and

is not the same as growth. growth and sustainability are sometimes used interchangeably by mistake. sustainability is important. unrestrained growth can create serious problems with issues related to water. in the past few decades it is a slippery slope that has been continuing. sfpuc can correct this by standing up to political pressures and slowing the water diverted and experted from the theriver going south. >> thank you for your comments. >> i am gary with the city of santa clara. i want to thank commission and staff and others for this workshop today and presenting

scientific information related to the voluntary agreement. our utility served 130,000 with 250,000 in the daytime. 3 to $3.5 million per day. 15% of the total water. average resident in the fiscal year was 58.6 gals per person per day. we are 17% lower demand compared with 2013. i want to note, also, we understand the value of this precious resource. 20% of the water portfolio isvey cycled water. a couple weeks ago we did hear the impacts to pay delta plan to affect our water management as we plan in 2020 to finish in july of this year. that availability of supply potentiallico be cut 50%. we are concerned of impacts for

residents and development for housing. we want a solution to create healthy fish and entire ecosystem of the river for water and our residents and businesses. we urge you to pursue alternative water supply plans and make santa clara a permanent resident and support the alternative agreement to the adopted plan that meets the objectives. thank you for your time. i appreciate the workshop today. >> thank you for your comments. >> i speak on behalf of the international and 23 fly-fishing clubs in your region and 10,000 members. we recommend to the sf puc that

you need to meet the 40% state board requirement on new flows. you are spending a great deal of time and expense trying to figure out how to contribute less water to the system but the state board spent years in study to determine the needed flows for the system to improve. sign said 55% so the 40% the state board came to agreement on is significantly less than what science says you need. now sfpuc and your study is trying to say that the trinity river only fields to contribute half of what the state board is demanding. we think the sfpuc needs to meet 40% unimpaired flow plan date

and do habitat restoration you are talking about in the presentation. put those together and you would have a significantly improved delta watershed, improved trinity river watershed and you would make your customers, many of which the fly club which i represent very happy. thank you. >> that concludes comment for item 4. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. before i turn it back over to president maxwell, i want to thank all of the participants today. we don't think in three hours we are going to solve the world's problems. it is helpful to raise the ones up, and be more specific about

what the different issues are. that is helpful for me as commissioner. i appreciate you pointing that out and helping us come to further understanding what is going on in the delta and with that, madam president. >> thank you. if there are any other comments or discussion from our commission? seeing none, then i think this meeting is adjourned. madam secretary, is that the case? >> yes. >> thank you all for your -- we are going to have a third workshop. thank you to everyone for participation. this is what it takes to bring us altogether. i think w