California Water DialogCalifornia Water DialogMarch 24, 2010March 24, 2010

Jerry JohnsJerry JohnsDeputy Director Deputy Director

California Department of California Department of Water ResourcesWater Resources

OverviewOverview

Hydrology UpdateHydrology Update

Current SWP and CVP allocationsCurrent SWP and CVP allocations

Effects of Biological opinions on Water Effects of Biological opinions on Water AllocationsAllocations

Some specific issues with the Bioglogical Some specific issues with the Bioglogical Opinions (BO)Opinions (BO)

NRC report findings on the BO RPAsNRC report findings on the BO RPAs

Sacramento Valley Water Year Type History Sacramento Valley Water Year Type History 2007 Dry 2008 Critical 2009 Dry 2010 Dry 2007 Dry 2008 Critical 2009 Dry 2010 Dry (as of 3/1)(as of 3/1)

2010 Precipitation 2010 Precipitation (Percent of average as of Mar 15) (Percent of average as of Mar 15)

North Sierra 101% North Sierra 101% San Joaquin 109%San Joaquin 109%

2010 Snow Content 2010 Snow Content (Snow Surveys as of Mar 15) (Snow Surveys as of Mar 15)

North 127% North 127% Central 93% South 108%Central 93% South 108%

Unimpaired April – July RunoffUnimpaired April – July Runoff (Actual as of Mar 9 + Median Projection)(Actual as of Mar 9 + Median Projection)

Shasta 95% Folsom 85% Oroville 82%Shasta 95% Folsom 85% Oroville 82%

Hydrologic Update (3/15/10)

Hydrologic Update (3/15/10)

StorageStorage (Percent of average as of Mar 17)(Percent of average as of Mar 17)

Shasta 104% Folsom 85% Oroville 57%Shasta 104% Folsom 85% Oroville 57%

Water AllocationsWater Allocations (as of Mar 17 )(as of Mar 17 )

Allocation Average (Information)Allocation Average (Information) as of Mar 17 (as of Mar 1)as of Mar 17 (as of Mar 1)

CVP WR 100% 100%CVP WR 100% 100% CVP Refuges 100%CVP Refuges 100% 100% 100% CVP M&I 75% CVP M&I 75% (55%)(55%) NOD 100% SOD 75% NOD 100% SOD 75% CVP AG NOD 50% CVP AG NOD 50% (5%)(5%) NOD 100% SOD 30% NOD 100% SOD 30%

SOD 25% SOD 25% (5%)(5%)

SWP 15% 35% to 45%SWP 15% 35% to 45%

DRAFT 2009 Delivery Reliability ReportEstimated Delivery Reduction under Average Conditions

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Pre-BO/Pre-Wanger (D1641) FWS & NMFS BO(Most Likely)

Average Conditions

Del

iver

y (T

AF

)

0.86maf(24%)

Water Supply Impacts to the State Water Project (SWP)

DRAFT 2009 Delivery Reliability ReportEstimated Delivery Reduction under Dry Conditions

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Pre-BO/Pre-Wanger (D1641) FWS & NMFS BO(Most Likely)

Dry Conditions

Del

iver

y (M

AF

)

0.65maf(34%)

Water Supply Impacts to the State Water Projects (SWP)

Forecasted 2010 SWP Water Supply Allocation

4.2

3.8

3.4

2.9

2.5

2.1

1.7

1.3

0.8

0.4

0.00%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%

All

oca

tio

n (

%)

Vo

lum

e (m

af)

2010 Final Allocation 0 Allocation w/o USFWS & NMFS BiOp RPAs 0 Series5

Dry Average Wet

2009 Final Allocation

Four Basic Bay/Delta FactsFour Basic Bay/Delta Facts

(1) The fishery food web recently altered(1) The fishery food web recently altered (2) The Delta is a Tidal Estuary(2) The Delta is a Tidal Estuary (3) Some good relationship exist between Delta (3) Some good relationship exist between Delta

flows and “take” (salvage) at SWP/CVP pumps flows and “take” (salvage) at SWP/CVP pumps in South Deltain South Delta

(4) Relationship between fish take and fish (4) Relationship between fish take and fish abundance – “small to negligible”abundance – “small to negligible” Need comprehensive solution to the many fish Need comprehensive solution to the many fish

stressors and “reasonable” controls on SWP/CVP stressors and “reasonable” controls on SWP/CVP exportsexports

Ammonia Ammonia

ContaminantsContaminants

FlowFlow

““Harvest”Harvest”

PhosphorusPhosphorus

TemperatureTemperature

TurbidityTurbidityClamsClamsJellyfishJellyfishEdge & benthic fishEdge & benthic fishMicrocystisMicrocystisAquatic WeedsAquatic Weeds

LotsHigh

Low and ConstantHigh

LimitedWarmLow

LittleLow

Highly variableLowLotsCoolHigh

DiatomsPelagic fishNatives thriveResists invasions

Alternative Stable StatesSource: Anke Mueller-Solger CALFED

Regime Shift

How Water Gets How Water Gets to the California Economyto the California Economy

How Water Gets How Water Gets to the California Economyto the California Economy

Sac River– Delta Cross Channel– Mokelumne River– Old & Middle Rivers

Sac River– Delta Cross Channel– Mokelumne River– Old & Middle Rivers

1111

San Joaquin

River

San Joaquin

River

2222

Sac River /West DeltaSac River /West Delta

3333

SWP PumpsSWP PumpsSWP PumpsSWP Pumps

CVP PumpsCVP PumpsCVP PumpsCVP Pumps

Tidal Flow300,000 cfs 30,000 cfs

Typical Delta Smelt Seasonal Typical Delta Smelt Seasonal DistributionDistribution

July - July - DecemberDecember

December - JuneDecember - June

Older Juveniles and Older Juveniles and AdultsAdults

Spawning adults, larvae Spawning adults, larvae and young Juvenilesand young Juveniles

ESA RPAs to addressESA RPAs to addressDelta Smelt Take (Entrainment)Delta Smelt Take (Entrainment)

Range of RPA Actions

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June

Rev

erse

OM

R F

low

s (c

fs)

RPA Low

RPA High

Expected Dry

Expected Critical

Range of Range of DiscretioDiscretion n

1.3 MAF1.3 MAF

AdultsAdults Larval - early JuvenileLarval - early Juvenile

January Analysis PeriodAll Data Points, 1993-2006

ln(Y+1) = -2.64129 * ln(X+10000) + 27.6812r2 = 0.885324

p = 0.00000054

Sheila G reene, D W R4/26/2007

-10000 -5000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000Average January O ld & Middle Rivers Flow cfs, 1993-2006

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

Su

m J

an A

du

lt D

elta

Sm

elt

Sal

vag

e, 1

993-

2006

0 6

0 5

0 4

0 3

0 2

0 1

0 0

9 99 8 9 7

9 6

9 5

9 4

9 3

Delta Smelt Adult Salvage as a Function of OMR Flows - Delta Smelt Adult Salvage as a Function of OMR Flows - JanuaryJanuary

YearYear

February Analysis PeriodAll Data Points, 1993-2006

ln(Y) = -0.949365 * X + 14.4161r2 = 0.299694p = 0.042735

Sheila G reene, DW R4/26/2007

-10000 -5000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000Average February Old & M iddle Rivers Flow cfs, 1993-2006

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

Su

m F

eb A

du

lt D

elta

Sm

elt

Sal

vag

e, 1

993-

2006

0 60 5

0 40 3

0 2

0 1

0 0

9 9

9 8 9 7

9 6

9 59 4

9 3

Delta Smelt Adult Salvage as a Function of OMR Flows - Delta Smelt Adult Salvage as a Function of OMR Flows - FebruaryFebruary

Station Station 815815

Current Current method method focuses on focuses on Station 815 Station 815 “Control “Control Point Point Method”Method”

Juvenile smelt - Juvenile smelt - 20 mm 20 mm samplingsamplingEvery 2 weeksEvery 2 weeks

Mid April - JuneMid April - June

Project Effects and Delta Smelt ResponseProject Effects and Delta Smelt Response

D/DD/DW/ANW/AN W/ANW/AN D/DD/D D/DD/D AN/ANAN/AN BN/DBN/D BN/WBN/W W/WW/W D/CD/C C/CC/CYear TypesYear Types Sac/SJRSac/SJR

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Avg

. Neg

. OM

R in

CF

S (

Jan

-Feb

)

J-F Exports

Project Effects and Delta Smelt ResponseProject Effects and Delta Smelt Response

D/DD/DW/ANW/AN W/ANW/AN D/DD/D D/DD/D AN/ANAN/AN BN/DBN/D BN/WBN/W W/WW/W D/CD/C C/CC/CYear TypesYear Types Sac/SJRSac/SJR

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Avg

. N

eg.

OM

R i

n C

FS

(Ja

n-F

eb)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per

cen

t P

EI

J-F Exports

PEI %

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Av

g. N

eg

. OM

R in

CF

S (

Ja

n-F

eb

)a

nd

FM

WT

tim

es

10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pe

rce

nt

PE

I

J-F Exports

FMWT X 10

PEI %

Project Effects and Delta Smelt ResponseProject Effects and Delta Smelt Response

Water Supply Costs (TAF) 502 731 570 Water Supply Costs (TAF) 502 731 570 485 485

Last 4 years reduced project effects,Last 4 years reduced project effects,no delta smelt responseno delta smelt response

W/ANW/AN W/ANW/AN D/DD/D D/DD/D AN/ANAN/AN BN/DBN/D BN/WBN/W W/WW/W D/CD/C C/CC/C D/DD/DYear TypesYear TypesSac/SJRSac/SJR

SWP Water Costs (TAF) 510 250 405

2010

3/16

Frustrations with ESA Frustrations with ESA Section 7 ProcessSection 7 Process

One Stressor / One Fish at a timeOne Stressor / One Fish at a time

Need more Holistic / Systems approachNeed more Holistic / Systems approach

Delta is one of the most studied systemsDelta is one of the most studied systems We need to be looking at all this dataWe need to be looking at all this data

Hammer / Nail syndrome Hammer / Nail syndrome

““Take” focus instead of population effectsTake” focus instead of population effects

““Critical Habitat” has become “Any Habitat”Critical Habitat” has become “Any Habitat”

DWR Conclusions to NRCDWR Conclusions to NRC Exports - the only source of fish mortality evaluatedExports - the only source of fish mortality evaluated

Many factors affecting “at-risk” fish species in the DeltaMany factors affecting “at-risk” fish species in the Delta Controlling exports only has not improved delta smelt abundanceControlling exports only has not improved delta smelt abundance

Reasonable export constraints are prudent to prevent Reasonable export constraints are prudent to prevent peak entrainment eventspeak entrainment events

A comprehensive effort is needed to better protect “at-A comprehensive effort is needed to better protect “at-risk” fish species – risk” fish species –

Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP)Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP)

RPAs should be adjusted to useRPAs should be adjusted to use Better Tools - Delta Smelt PEI - (USFWS action 3)Better Tools - Delta Smelt PEI - (USFWS action 3) Better Actions – Salmon Non-Physical Barrier – SJR - (SJR I/E)Better Actions – Salmon Non-Physical Barrier – SJR - (SJR I/E) Better Approach - Food - Tidal Habitat / N loading - (Fall X2)Better Approach - Food - Tidal Habitat / N loading - (Fall X2)

National Research Council Report National Research Council Report Conclusions on the RPAsConclusions on the RPAs

March 19, 2010March 19, 2010 Scientifically Justified (3)     - Delta Cross Channel (Salmon) Scientifically Justified (3)     - Delta Cross Channel (Salmon)

- Fish Passage in Yolo (Salmon) - Fish Passage in Yolo (Salmon)                                                                                                - Floodplain Habitat (Salmon)- Floodplain Habitat (Salmon)

Scientifically reasonable    - Winter OMR – (Adult Smelt)Scientifically reasonable    - Winter OMR – (Adult Smelt)

  Conceptually sound (2)       - Tidal Habitat (smelt)Conceptually sound (2)       - Tidal Habitat (smelt)                                                                                                          - OMR for salmon - OMR for salmon

(but flow targets uncertain)(but flow targets uncertain)

  Justification difficult toJustification difficult toUnderstand                     - Fall X2 (Smelt)Understand                     - Fall X2 (Smelt)

Weak Influence of  - San Joaquin River Inflow/Export ratioWeak Influence of  - San Joaquin River Inflow/Export ratioExportsExports (Salmon) (Salmon)

NRC Evaluation of the RPA actions (Chapter 6)

ActionConclusions Caveats Recommendations

Delta Smelt - USFWS

Adult Smelt OMR Actions 1 and 2 (Pg 39)

“Scientifically reasonable to conclude that high negative flows in winter probably adversely affect Smelt”

“no confident assessment of the population benefit” of this action

Implementation needs careful monitoring, adaptive management and additional analysis

Young Smelt Action 3 No evaluation noted

Fall X2 Action 4 (pg 40 & 41) “Justification for this action difficult to understand”“Delta Smelt can be successful even when habitat is limited”

“Weak statistical relationship between X 2 location and the size of the delta smelt population”“details of this action lacks rigor”

adaptive management and further study needed “in light of the uncertainty about the biological effectiveness of the action and its high water costs”

Tidal Habitat (pg 41)

Increasing and improving tidal habitat is conceptually sound

Scientific justification in the Biological Opinion is weak

More justification is neededImplement is phases

Action Conclusions Caveats Recommendations

Salmon and SturgeonNMFS

Delta Cross Channel (IV.1)(pg 43& 44)

“Action appears to be scientifically justified”

Does not appear to constitute an important conflict between salmon and smelt

Need for closer integration of the action in the Delta and “systematic analysis”

OMR flows (IV.2.3) (pg 44)

The “flow management strategy is conceptually sound”“support for the specific flow targets is less certain”

“little direct evidence this action alone will benefit San Joaquin Salmon”

“No quantitative analysis that integrates across the actions to systematically evaluate the aggregate effects on both salmonids and smelt”

San Joaquin Inflow export ratio (IV.2.1) (pg 45& 46)

“Given the weak influence of exports in all survival relationships, continued negation offers the opportunities to reduce water use in this specific action without risk to salmon”

“Increasing San Joaquin River flows has a stronger foundation than the prescribed action of concurrently managing inflows and exports”

“Implementation of the 6-year steelhead smolt survival study (action (IV.2.2) could provide useful insight”.

Increased fish passage through Yolo Bypass (pg 46)

“This action is scientifically justified”

Implications of routing of flows were not transparently evaluated

Implementation needs more integrated evaluation

Floodplain Habitat (pg 46) “This action suite appears scientifically justified”“strong basis”

Consider implications like flow routing and mercury cycling

Early Implementation

NRC Evaluation of the RPA actions (Chapter 6)

ConclusionsConclusions The operation of the Biological Opinions are having an The operation of the Biological Opinions are having an

effect on water supply allocations - most effects on SWPeffect on water supply allocations - most effects on SWP

The last 4 years have not helped Delta SmeltThe last 4 years have not helped Delta Smelt

Biological Opinions can be improvedBiological Opinions can be improved

Change in Delta Conveyance is the best hope of Change in Delta Conveyance is the best hope of improving water supplyimproving water supply

Must have “holistic approach” to Delta IssuesMust have “holistic approach” to Delta Issues

BDCP has developed – New water conveyance option, BDCP has developed – New water conveyance option, new tidal habitat, other stressors new tidal habitat, other stressors

Effects analysis being conductedEffects analysis being conducted Draft Plan – fall of 2010 Draft Plan – fall of 2010 Draft EIR/S - late 2010 (still working on dates)Draft EIR/S - late 2010 (still working on dates)