Multi-species ecosystem effects analysis & flow criteria evaluation

State Water Resources Control Board -Leo Winternitz - Clint Alexander November 13 2012

Sacramento EFT

Keswick Dam to Colusa

Delta EFT

Delta region including

Suisun Marsh

EFT’s Geographical Scope

Multiple management questions External forcing: climate & human demand

Delta Conveyance

Operational Standards

Sacramento River

Inte

ractio

n

Interaction

Gravel augmentation (TUGS model)

Rip-rap removal / levee

setback (Meander

Migration model)

BDCP + other “green”

water operation rules and

guidelines. (e.g., flood Yolo

bypass more frequently)

CVP-SWP BIOP

D1641 operations

(+1995)

New water storage

projects

Jan Jul Jan Jul Jan

1966 1967 1968 1969

Flo

w (

cfs

)

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

VINA BASE SACEFTFLOW BASE CFS FLOW VINA NODOS SACEFTFLOW NODOS CFS FLOW VINA SHASTA SACEFTFLOW SHASTA CFS FLOW

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Ele

ctro

cun

du

ctiv

ity

(µm

ho

s/cm

)

Exceedance Probability (%)

OLD R A BACON ISLAND CA: EC

Historical

NAA

NAA LLT

A1 LLT

A4 LLT

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Te

mp

era

ture

(Ce

lsiu

s)

Exceedance Probability (%)

SUISUN BAY A MALLARD IS CA: Temperature

Historical

NAA

NAA LLT

A1 LLT

A4 LLT

EFT: plug-in to preferred hydrologic &

water quality models

Sacramento

River

Delta

CALSIM-II

Monthly flows

USRDOM

Daily flow disagregation

Northern boundary =

Keswick

Southern boundary =

Knights Landing

SRWQMDaily flow

disagregation

Daily water

temperatures

Same boundaries as

USRDOM

The Unified

Gravel-Sand

(TUGS) sediment

transport model

Meander Migration

(MM) model

DSM2 (HYDRO-QUAL-PTM)

Flow, stage, salinity, water temperature, particle

fate, turbidity (if avail.)

Tides, hydrodynamics

Boundary conditions = stage at Martinez, monthly

water diversions into Delta

Own node-link representation

EFT

DatabaseHydro-

ecological

response

algorithms

“Plug-in”

SacEFT focal species & habitats

Chinook Salmon

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)

Steelhead

(Oncorhynchus mykiss)

Green Sturgeon

(Acipenser medirostris)

Bank Swallow

(Riparia riparia) Western Pond Turtle (Clemmys marmorata)

Proxy: Large Woody Debris

Recruitment

Fremont Cottonwood

(Populus fremontii)

Chinook Salmon

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)

Steelhead

(Oncorhynchus mykiss)

Splittail

(Pogonichthys macrolepidotus ) Tidal Wetlands

Delta Smelt

(Hypomesus transpacificus )

DeltaEFT focal species & habitats

Invasive deterrence

(E. Densa, Corbicula,

Corbula)

Performance indicators based on causally reasoned, functional relationships

Flow management (duration,

magnitude, timing, frequency,

and ramping rates)

Tidal marsh

restorationManagement

actions

Physical habitat

(quantity and

quality)

Life stage

Habitat forming

processes

Survival and mortality

mechanisms

egg

incubation/

emergence

larval stages juvenile adults

1a

Channel

connectivity

Turbidity

Water temperature

5b

Entrainment

[DS4]

8b

8b

3c

Spawning habitat

extent

Larval, juvenile and

adult habitat extent

[DS2, DS3]

5d, 6e, 7c

5d, 6e, 7c

Salinity

Sediment transport &

deposition

8b

7c

9c

5d, 6e, 7c

8a

Spawning success

[DS1]

5c

2f, 3f, 5e, 9e

5c

6d

Submerged

vegetation

Vegetation

removalWater export

Changing

Delta

geometry

2c, 6c

2b

5a

Sandbar

formation

3d

2e, 3e, 5d, 9d

2b,

3b,

6b

Food

availability

2d

1a

4a

1c, 4b

8a

Tides

7a, 9a

7b, 9b

7a, 9a5a

1b

1a, 2a, 3a, 6a

Important relationships

discussed at workshopImportant relationships not

discussed at workshopOut of scope relationships

Considered in

DeltaEFT

De

lta

Sm

elt

SacEFT indicators

Focal Species &

Habitats Performance Measures

Sacra

me

nto

Riv

er

Fremont cottonwood (FC) FC1 – Successful Fremont cottonwood initiation

FC2 – Cottonwood seedling scour.

Bank swallow (BASW) BASW1 – Habitat potential/suitability

BASW2 – Risk of nest inundation and bank sloughing

during nesting

Western pond turtle LWD1 – Index of old vegetation recruited to the

Sacramento River mainstem.

Green sturgeon (GS) GS1 – Egg-to-larvae survival

Chinook salmon,

Steelhead trout (CS)

CS1 – Area of suitable spawning habitat (ft2)

CS3 – Egg-to-fry survival (proportion)

CS5 – Redd scour risk

CS6 – Redd dewatering (proportion)

CS2 – Area of suitable rearing habitat (ft2)

CS4 – Juvenile stranding (index)

DeltaEFT indicators

Focal Species &

Habitats Performance Measures

Delta E

core

gio

n

Chinook & Steelhead

(CS)

CS7 – Smolt weight gain in alt. migration corridors

CS9 – smolt mortality index as a function of passage time

(negatively correlated with CS7)

CS10 – smolt temperature preference index (departures

from optimum v. weight gain)

Delta

smelt (DS)

DS1 – spawning success index

DS2 – index of habitat suitability

DS4 – entrainment risk (index)

Splittail (SS) SS1 – proportion of maximum potential spawning habitat

(index)

Fresh / brackish

tidal wetlands (TW)

TW1 – brackish wetland area

TW2 – freshwater wetland area

Invasive species

deterrence (ID)

ID1 – Brazilian waterweed suppression

ID2 (Corbula), ID3 (Corbicula) – invasive clam larvae and

recruit suppression

EFT: Not developed in a vacuum

Core Team SacEFT Workshop Participants Delta EFT Workshop Participants &

DeltaEFT Design contributors

Ryan Luster, TNC Tricia Brachter, DFG Peter Klimley, UC Lori Chamurro, DFG

Mike Roberts, (formerly TNC) Ron Schlorff, DFG Eric Larsen, UC Davis Dan Kratville, DFG

Greg Golet, TNC Dave Zezulak DFG Richard Corwin, USBR Neil Clipperton, DFG

Maurice Hall, TNC George Edwards, DFG Ron Ganzfried, USBR Tara Smith, DWR

Campbell Ingram, Delta Conservancy

(formerly TNC)

Barry Garrison, DFG John Hannon, USBR Jim Long, DWR

Anthony Saracino, (formerly TNC) Stacy Cepello, DWR Buford Holt, USBR Bill Harrell, DWR

Leo Winternitz, TNC Dan Easton, DWR David Lewis, USBR Eric Reyes, DWR

Clint Alexander, ESSA Jim Wieking, DWR Tom Morstein-Marx, USBR Sushil Arora, DWR

Don Robinson, ESSA Adam Henderson, DWR Mike Tansey, USBR Nazrul Islam, DWR

Frank Poulsen, ESSA Aric Lester, DWR Don Ashton, USFS Lars Anderson, USDA

Alex Embrey, ESSA Bruce Ross, DWR Ed Ballard, USFWS Rosalie del Rosario, NMFS

Katherine Wieckowski, ESSA Koll Buer, DWR Matt Brown, USFWS Bill Fleenor, UC Davis

Marc Nelitz, ESSA Jason Kindopp, DWR Dan Cox, USFWS Patrick Crain, UC Davis

David Marmorek, ESSA Ryon Kurtis, DWR Mark Gard, USFWS Tom Kimball, SWRCB

Katy Bryan, ESSA Sean Sou, DWR Andrew Hamilton, USFWS Chandra Chimalkuri, CH2M Hill

David Carr, ESSA Howard Brown, NMFS Derek Hilts, USFWS Michael Tansey, USBR

Steve Lindley, NMFS Brenda Olson, USFWS Allison Willy, USFWS

Bruce Oppenheim, NMFS Bill Poytress, USFWS Jon Rosenfield , The Bay Institute

Naseem Alston, NMFS Joe Silveira, USFWS Lisa Lucas, USGS

Brian Ellrott, NMFS Jim Smith, USFWS Larry Brown, USGS

Tag Engstrom, CSU Chico Joseph Terry, USFWS Brett Kawakami, CCWD

Dave Germano, CSU Bruce Bury, USGS John DeGeorge, RMA

Josh Israel, UC Davis Larry Brown, USGS Dave Harlow, SWS

Steve Greco, UC Davis John Bair, McBain and Trush Dave Fullerton, MWD

Joe Heubler, UC Davis Brad Cavallo, Cramer Fish Sciences Michael Williams, consultant

Michael Singer, UCSB Nadav Nur, PRBO Matt Nobriga, USFWS

Ken Kirby Nat Seavy, PRBO Frederick Feyrer, USBR

Tom Smith, Ayres Associates Chrissy Howell, PRBO Wim Kimmerer, SFSU

Dave Vogel Joel Van Eenennaam, UC Davis Ted Sommer, DWR

Delta Focal Species

(we care about)

Cumulative Effects & Multiple Mechanisms (DeltaEFT)

Flow RegimeDilution effects ~ Water

Quality (Ammonia, Toxic

chemicals, Algae

blooms)

Volume, timing,

frequency, variability

Water Quality

Domestic

wastewater

Ag run-off

Contaminants

Temperature,

Salinity, Turbidity

Food Webs

(Food supply)

Who Eats Who

(Predator-Prey)

Density

dependence

Invasive

Species

Habitat

(Alteration)

Floodplains

Tidal wetlands,

marshes

Levees,

weirs,

conveyance

diversions

Sea levelDelta

Exports /

Delta Outflow

SWP/CVP

Pumping

CLIMATE

CHANGE

Carbon-pollution

crisis

Catastrophic

Events

Seismic levee

failureSubsiding

land

Alternative regimes

Mortality &

selection forces

(genetic diversity)

Out-of-Delta

Effects

Harvest

Ocean

Conditions

Tributaries

Nutrient ratios

Sea level

Shifts in

precipitation timing

& volume

Warmer

water

More extreme

weather

High-level

summary:

% change in

number of

simulation

years having a

favorable

rating

NA

A-L

LT

(Sce

nario

225

)

A1-

LL

T

(Sce

nar

io 2

26)

A4-

LL

T

(Sce

nar

io 2

28)

Spawning success (DS1) 0 0 0

Habitat suitability (DS2) 0 0 0

Entrainment risk (DS4) 0 6 11

Splittail Splittail habitat (Yolo) (SS1) 2 82 82

Tidal wetland area (brackish) (TW1) -35 -35 -35

Tidal wetland area (freshwater) (TW2) -29 -29 -29

Egeria suppression (ID1) -6 3 -3

Corbula suppression (ID2) 0 -3 -3

Corbicula suppression (ID3) 0 0 0

Yolo Bypass rearing (CS7) -29 -29 -29

Smolt temperature stress (CS10) -12 -12 -12

Smolt predation risk (CS9) 0 -6 -6

Yolo Bypass rearing (CS7) -12 13 13

Smolt temperature stress (CS10) -6 -6 -6

Smolt predation risk (CS9) -6 -6 -6

Yolo Bypass rearing (CS7) -6 0 0

Smolt temperature stress (CS10) -12 -12 -12

Smolt predation risk (CS9) -7 -7 -7

Yolo Bypass rearing (CS7) -19 6 12

Smolt temperature stress (CS10) -31 -31 -31

Smolt predation risk (CS9) 0 0 0

Yolo Bypass rearing (CS7) -13 -13 -13

Smolt temperature stress (CS10) -6 -6 -6

Smolt predation risk (CS9) -6 -6 -6

Invasive deterrence

Focal species Performance measure

Baseline Reference Case NAA-Current vs. Alternative

Scenarios

Delta Smelt

Tidal Wetlands

Fall Chinook

Late Fall Chinook

Spring Chinook

Winter Chinook

Steelhead

2060s

+5% to +9%

–3% to +4%

–4%

–5% to –9%

≤ –10% Strong negative impact owing to project alternative and/or climate & demand state

Strong beneficial impact owing to project alternative and/or climate & demand state

Small beneficial impact owing to project alternative and/or climate & demand state

Negligible impact owing to project alternative and/or climate & demand state

Slight negative impact owing to project alternative and/or climate & demand state

Small negative impact owing to project alternative and/or climate & demand state

The climate of 2060s (and its associated sea level) +

increased human water demands = strong downward

impacts on most DeltaEFT performance measures

Exceptions: 1) Yolo Bypass habitats, which benefit from

notching of the Fremont Weir under the A1 and A4 alts

and 2) Delta smelt entrainment which is reduced by

lessening of frequency of reverse flows in Old and Middle

Rivers under A1/A4 operations.

Key Message

Multi-year “roll-up”

Annual “roll-up”

Spatial data visualizations (e.g. entrainment risk)

Delta Smelt Entrainment (DS4): Annual details Scenario:

Water year:

Location of interest:

Units Percentage

1995

VERSION 2 (HISTORICAL)

TURNER CUT NR HOLT CA

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0

0

0.1

0

0.2

0

0.3

0

0.4

0

0.5

0

0.6

0

0.7

0

0.8

0

0.9

0

1.0

0

We

igh

t

En

tra

inm

en

t (%

)

Export:Import Ratio

DeltaEFT - Delta Smelt Entrainment Report

Location Weight

Particle Tracking Model logistic fit

Delta Smelt Entrainment

0

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.01

0.012

0.014

-10000

-5000

0

5000

10000

15000

01-M

ar

08-M

ar

15-M

ar

22-M

ar

29-M

ar

05-A

pr

12-A

pr

19-A

pr

26-A

pr

03-M

ay

10-M

ay

17-M

ay

24-M

ay

31-M

ay

07-J

un

14-J

un

21-J

un

28-J

un

05-J

ul

12-J

ul

Da

ily W

eig

ht

Flo

w (

CFS

)

Period of Interest

Old and Middle River (OMR) Flows

Daily weights

OMR Flow

Weighted flow

Zero flow

Scenario:

Water year:

Location of interest:

Units Percentage

1991

VERSION 2 (HISTORICAL)

TURNER CUT NR HOLT CA

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0

0

0.1

0

0.2

0

0.3

0

0.4

0

0.5

0

0.6

0

0.7

0

0.8

0

0.9

0

1.0

0

We

igh

t

En

tra

inm

en

t (%

)

Export:Import Ratio

DeltaEFT - Delta Smelt Entrainment Report

Location Weight

Particle Tracking Model logistic fit

Delta Smelt Entrainment

0

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.01

0.012

0.014

-12000

-10000

-8000

-6000

-4000

-2000

0

01-M

ar

08-M

ar

15-M

ar

22-M

ar

29-M

ar

05-A

pr

12-A

pr

19-A

pr

26-A

pr

03-M

ay

10-M

ay

17-M

ay

24-M

ay

31-M

ay

07-J

un

14-J

un

21-J

un

28-J

un

05-J

ul

12-J

ul

Da

ily W

eig

ht

Flo

w (

CFS

)

Period of Interest

Old and Middle River (OMR) Flows

Daily weights

OMR Flow

Weighted flow

Zero flow

1. Determine priorities for ecological needs &

develop alternative ecological flow regimes x

water year class

• Include both flow and non-flow actions

2. Test alternative eFlow regimes (& paired non-flow

actions) vs. other beneficial uses.

• What would these guidelines do to ability to meet

established rights & standards? Which ones have least

impact on water deliveries, power production, water

temperatures, etc.?

Question 1: What types of analyses should be completed?

3. Effects on major linked eco-regions (Sacramento,

San Joaquin).

4. Develop more specific statements of frequency

different targets needed & characterize within year

trade-offs (e.g., “species x over species y if…”).

5. Resilience of strategies vs. future climate change

effects on water supplies, demand and sea level.

Question 1: What types of analyses should be completed?

Question 2: What tools should be used? Advantages & limitations?

Tool DeltaEFT, SacEFT

Advantages Limitations

• More representative: multiple focal species & habitats.

• Rapid scenario comparison – trade-offs in one framework.

• Eco-regions linked: Sacramento & Delta.

• Broad synthesis of science & advice of experts.

• Evaluate multiple actions (gravel, channel migration,

floodplain activation, conveyance, operations).

• Intuitive outputs simplify communication.

• Speed / agility – EFT effects analyses can be run in “days”

and “weeks” (rather than months/years).

• Plug-in to any hydrodynamic / water quality model.

• Extensible. Improve/add performance indicators as science

evolves. Design anticipates being refined over time.

• “Goldilocks” level of detail. Not as data hungry &

assumption rich as life-cycle models.

• Does not permit a

definitive assessment of

population level benefits

(not a life-cycle tool).

• As with other tools,

criteria & thresholds

identified by EFT need

to be accompanied by

monitoring & adaptive

management.

• Does not consider

effects on other

beneficial uses (water

deliveries, power, etc.)

• Not applicable to real-

time decision making.

Question 2: What tools should be used? Advantages & limitations?

Tools WEAP, CALVIN, CALSIM-USRWQM/USRDOM, DSM2, etc.

& related hydro-power, water temperature models

Advantages Limitations / Challenges

• Numerous. These tools

have multiple applications &

are essential to planning.

• Physical hydrosystem

effects on water deliveries,

storage, exports, water

temperature, power

generation, flood control for

SWP and CVP.

• Scenario evaluation -

tradeoffs.

• Options for integrating and accurately representing

ecological criteria / guidelines into operations.

• Ability to “unwind” and “re-constrain” hydrosystem

to rapidly evaluate ecological flow regime criteria

(rather than simply cumulatively add ever more low-

priority constraints).

• Economic evaluations not always included.

(Including economic benefits of

fish/wildlife/recreation).

• Future climate / sea level / demand and resilience of

boundary conditions & calibration assumptions?