Transcript 6--NMFS_Biological_Opinion.ppsx

NOAA National Marine Fisheries
Service’s (NMFS)
Biological and Conference Opinion on
the Long-Term Operations of the
Central Valley Project and State Water
Project
National Research Council
Committee on Sustainable Water and Environmental
Management in the California Bay-Delta
January 25, 2010
Status of Species
ESU
Sacramento River winter-run
Chinook salmon
Status
Endangered (Jan 1994)
Central Valley spring-run Chinook Threatened (Sep 1999)
salmon
Central Valley fall-run Chinook
salmon
Central Valley steelhead
Candidate (Sep 1999)
Southern DPS green sturgeon
Threatened (Apr 2006)
Southern Resident killer whale
Endangered (Nov 2005)
Threatened (Mar 1998)
2
Central Valley Salmon Population
Over Time
3
Salmon Population Viability
ABUNDANCE
POP GROWTH
RATE
DIVERSITY
SPATIAL
STRUCTURE
Freshwater
Estuarine
Marine
HABITAT CAPACITY AND DIVERSITY
4
Central Valley Spring Chinook
ESU Structure
5
Central Valley Steelhead
ESU Structure
6
Viability Criteria for Populations
7
Viability Criteria for ESUs

At least two viable populations per diversity group

If possible, the populations should not have highly
correlated risks of catastrophic disturbance
8
Current
Status of
CV SpringRun
Chinook
salmon
9
Climate Change
10
Effects of Water Projects on Salmon
11
Effect of Habitat Modification
s
12
Institutional Challenges
13
Summary





Central Valley Salmonid ESUs are threatened with
extinction
Water project facilities and operations have negative
effects on fish habitat, with cascading effects on spatial
structure, diversity, productivity, and abundance of
populations
Improving in-stream flows and curtailing exports is
necessary to conserve salmon, but will not be sufficient
for recovery
An ecosystem perspective is needed to understand how
human activities impact salmon
Adaptive management is needed to reduce risks
14
Scope of today’s presentation





Brief highlights of Opinion – not all topics presented
due to time constraints
Opinion itself is a summary document of over four
years of analytic work between 5 agencies
Biological assessment, NMFS technical memos, peer
review reports are important
700+ scientific citations
Administrative record is 150,000 pages - documents full decision-making process
15
Approach to Biological Opinion:
Challenges





Complexity - geographic scope
Multi-species
State and federal project – combined operations
Number of dams and diversions
Economic importance of project




Urban water supply, agricultural water supply, commercial
salmon fishery
Long-term proposed operations (21 years)
Litigation history
Current events (recession, drought, fishery closure)
16
Approach to Biological Opinion:
Constraints



Our task – Limited to analyzing the Federal
action, as proposed
Uncertainty in science; risk is balanced in favor
of the species
Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) –
Limited to actions within authority and discretion of
USBR and DWR
 Minimum to avoid jeopardy; NOT a recovery plan
 Must avoid jeopardy in short-term and long-term
 Not necessary to prove quantitatively

17
Consultation Process




Used a team of experienced federal biologists and
hydrologists.
Adhered closely to legal requirements, agency guidelines,
and used the best available scientific and commercial
information
Maintained close and meaningful collaboration with the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, CA Department of Water
Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and CA
Department of Fish and Game
Draft opinion peer reviewed by CALFED Independent
Science Panel and Center for Independent Experts (CIE)
18
Scientific Evidence






Used best scientific and commercial information
Literature review - 700 citations
Information from previous listing decisions,
critical habitat rules, etc.
USBR’s Biological Assessment, including model
outputs
Draft recovery plan
Monitoring reports
19
Consultation Background

NMFS OCAP biological opinions:
Feb. 14, 1992, limited to winter-run Chinook salmon
 1993-2002, interim opinions issued due to changes
in operations and new species listed
 October 22, 2004: In 2008, Federal court
invalidated that Opinion, and ordered that NMFS
prepare a new Opinion.
 June 4, 2009: Six complaints filed to date.


Close coordination with the USFWS throughout
the OCAP consultation process
20
Peer Reviews of the
Draft Biological Opinion

CALFED Science Panel:







James J. Anderson, University of Washington
& Columbia Basin Research
Mike Deas, Watercourse Engineering, Inc.
Philip B. Duffy, Climate Central, Inc.;
University of California, Merced
Daniel L. Erickson, Consultant
Reg Reisenbichler, Retired--U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS)
Kenneth A. Rose, Louisiana State University
Peter E. Smith, Retired--USGS

CIE reviewers:



Richard A. Marston
Ian A. Fleming
E. Eric Knudsen
CALFED & CIE reviews supported NMFS overall conclusions
21
Peer Reviews of the
Draft Biological Opinion (cont’d)

Significant changes made in response to peer
review recommendations:
Editing for clarity and consistency between division
analyses
 Estimate ranges of loss from compilation of existing
studies, even when we did not have complete data
sets
 Assessed risk based on weighting and key lines of
evidence
 Plan for drought sequence – not a single dry year

22
Analytical Overview

Evaluated each stressor by species, life stage, and
location





Risk and uncertainty incorporated throughout
 Weighted evidence by certainty and magnitude of
effect
Stated assumptions, reviewed model constraints and
applicability, used ranges
Identified all direct and indirect effects
Considered variability in the Bay-Delta ecosystem
Summed for individual, population, diversity group and
species levels.
23
Analytical Approach

Viable Salmonid Populations
ABUNDANCE
POP GROWTH
RATE
DIVERSITY
SPATIAL
STRUCTURE
Freshwater
Estuarine
Marine
HABITAT CAPACITY AND
DIVERSITY
24
Analytical Approach (cont’d)
 Central
Valley Technical Recovery
Team products:
 Historical population structure
 Assessing viability of Central Valley
salmon and steelhead populations
 Life cycle approach
25
Stressors on Listed Species

Loss of habitat and degraded water quality due to:
Non-Federal dams and diversions
 Land use activities





Invasive species
Hatcheries
Harvest activities
Environmental variations
Ocean conditions
 Climate change

26
Environmental Baseline
27
Effects Overview

Shasta Reservoir: Future operations, including climate
change:


Red Bluff Diversion Dam (RBDD):



5 to 65% mortality of winter-run Chinook salmon eggs and
fry
Delays adult passage of up to 15% of the winter-run and up
to 70% of the spring-run that spawn above the RBDD
Blocks up to 35% of green sturgeon from its only known
spawning ground
American River:


Mean water temperatures > 65°F, results in increased
incidence of disease in juvenile steelhead
~75% of time in June, 100% in July and August, >95% in
September
28
Effects Overview (cont’d)




Juvenile survival at export facilities:
 About 1 in 3 survive through the Federal facilities
 About 1 in 6 survive through the State facilities
Overall mortality in the interior Delta:
 35-90% of those that enter interior Delta
 5-20% of each winter-run Chinook salmon
population
Juvenile San Joaquin River steelhead:
90-99% mortality from project and non-project
stressors
Reduction in approximately 13-15% fall- and late fallrun Chinook salmon, which is killer whale prey; effects
from hatchery management.
29
Findings of the Biological Opinion



OCAP would likely jeopardize:
 Sacramento winter-run Chinook salmon
 Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon
 Central Valley steelhead
 Southern DPS of North American green sturgeon
 Southern Resident killer whales
Destruction or adverse modification of designated and
proposed critical habitat
Central California Coast steelhead – not likely to
adversely affect this species or its critical habitat
30
Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA)
Overview
 Identified
actions to alleviate major
stressors for each species and summed
these for short-term and long-term
 Included appropriate flexibilities in RPA
where possible
 Monitoring, reporting, research, adaptive
management
31
RPA Overview (cont’d)

Scope – minimum to avoid jeopardy


Over 50 individual actions grouped by division, plus
a fish passage program
Themes:
Water quantity and quality
 gravel augmentation
 improve passage
 decrease entrainment
 engineered solutions

32
Key Elements of the RPA
Clear Creek below Whiskeytown Dam increased flows and reduced temperatures
 Shasta Reservoir and the Upper Sacramento
River - new temperature management program
 Shasta Dam - long-term passage prescriptions
to allow re-introduction of listed salmon
 Red Bluff Diversion Dam - interim gate
operations until 2012, then gates up all year.
 Lower Sacramento River basin and Delta improved juvenile rearing habitat

33
Key Elements of the RPA (cont’d)



American River - New flow and temperature
plan; fish passage at Folsom Dam
 Hatchery Genetics Management Plan for
Nimbus Hatchery for steelhead and fall-run
Chinook salmon.
Stanislaus River – new flow schedule,
temperature criteria, and habitat improvements
Delta Cross Channel Gates - Additional gate
closures during key times when listed fish are
likely to be migrating through the area
34
Key Elements of the RPA (cont’d)
Old and Middle Rivers - Flows will be modified
to reduce the number of juveniles exposed to
the Delta pumps, and fish salvage improvements
to reduce mortality
 San Joaquin Basin - Increased flows and
pumping curtailments.
 Studies – 6 year study of acoustic tagged fish in
the San Joaquin Basin to evaluate the
effectiveness of the RPA and refine it over the
life-time of the project.

35
RPA Flexibilities






Real-time operations
Phased-in implementation
Performance-based approaches
Take limits based on annual juvenile production
estimates
Actions tiered to water year type/drought
exception
Research and adaptive management
36
Other Alternative RPA Actions

Evaluated during consultation and rejected
(ineffective, critical habitat concerns, smelt
concerns, predation issues, etc):





Trap and haul of San Joaquin steelhead
New screens at the existing pumps
New screens in the Delta (e.g., Georgiana Slough)
Permanent operable barriers at Head of Old River
Non-physical barrier alone at the Head of Old River
(without increased flows and export curtailments)
37
Alternatives (continued)
Alternatives to water supply evaluated and
included in RPA:
 Gravel augmentation
 Rearing habitat restoration
 Engineered solutions, including:
 New fish screen at Red Bluff
 New temperature infrastructure at
Whiskeytown and Folsom Dams
 Retrofits to existing salvage facilities
 Non-physical barrier (bubble curtain)
38
Sacramento River
Division
Bruce Oppenheim
Shasta Dam and Reservoir
40
Carry over Storage in Shasta
Long-term Average Annual and End of September Storage Differences
for Shasta Storage, Spring Creek Tunnel Flow, and Keswick Release
Study
7.0 Study
6.0
Study
7.1 Study
7.0
Study
8.0 Study
7.0
Study
8.0 Study
7.1
Shasta End-of-September
Storage
26
-121
-121
0
Annual Keswick Release
1
8
6
-2
Annual Spring Creek
Powerplant Flows
3
-1
-2
-2
Difference in Thousands of
Acre-feet [TAF]
Study 6.0 = 2004 operations
Study 7.0 =current operations
Study 7.1 = near future operations
Study 8.0 = future operations
41
Calsim and Sacramento River Water Quality Modeling results for
temperature exceedances at Balls Ferry under future conditions
Study 8.0
76
74
Avg
Max
5%
10%
25%
50%
75%
90%
95%
Min
72
Mean Daily Temperature (F)
70
68
66
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
1/1
1/22
2/12
3/5
3/26
4/16
5/7
5/28
6/18
7/9
7/30
8/20
9/10
10/1
10/22 11/12
12/3
12/24
Date (month/day)
42
Egg and Fry Mortality by Water Year Type at Balls Ferry
Sacramento River Winter-Run Chinook Salmon Mortality
20
18
PercentMortality
Mortality
Percent
16
14
Study 6.0
Study
6.0
(2004)
Study 7.0
Study 7.0(current)
Study 7.1
Study 7.1
Study future)
8.0
NA
(near
Study 8.0
NA
(future)
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Average
Wet
Above Normal Below Normal
Dry
Critical
WaterWater
Year Year
TypeType
40-30-30
43
Temperature effects with Climate Change
Sacramento River Winter-Run Chinook Salmon Mortality
Sacramento River Winter-Run Chinook Salmon Mortality
70
70
60
Percent Mortality
60
50
Percent Mortality
50
40
Study 9.0 Base
Study 9.1 Base w ith 1' Sea Level Rise
Study
Dryer, Less Warming
Study 9.4
9.0 Base
Study
9.2 Wetter,
Warming
Study
9.1 Base
w ith 1' Less
Sea Level
Rise
Study
Drier, More
Warming
Study 9.5
9.4 Dryer,
Less Warming
Study
9.3 Wetter,
Warming
Study
9.2 Wetter,
LessMore
Warming
Study 9.5 Drier, More Warming
Study 9.3 Wetter, More Warming
40
30
30
20
1020
10
0
0
Average
Average
Wet
Wet
Above
Below Normal
Normal
Above
Below Normal
40-30-30 Water Year Type
Normal
40-30-30 Water Year Type
Dry
Dry
Critical
Critical
44
Sacramento River Spring-Run Chinook Salmon Mortality
70
Percent
Mortality
Mortality
Percent
60
50
Study
Study 7.0
Study
6.0 6.0 Study 7.0
Study 7.1
(2004)
(current)
Study 7.1
Study 8.0
(near future)
NA Study
NA 8.0
(future)
40
30
20
10
0
Average
Wet
Above Normal Below Normal
Dry
Critical
WaterWater
Year Year
TypeType
40-30-30
45
Sacramento River Winter-Run Chinook Salmon Mortality
70
Sacramento River Spring-Run Chinook Salmon Mortality
100
50
90
Study
Dryer, Less Warming
Study 9.4
9.0 Base
LessRise
Warming
Study 9.1 Study
Base w9.2
ith Wetter,
1' Sea Level
80
Study
Drier, Less
MoreWarming
Warming
Study 9.5
9.4 Dryer,
Wetter,
More Warming
Study 9.2 Study
Wetter,9.3
Less
Warming
70
Study 9.5 Drier, More Warming
Study 9.3 Wetter, More Warming
Percent Mortality
60
30
20
10
0
Percent
Mortality
Mortality
Percent
40
Study 9.0 Base
Study 9.1 Base w ith 1' Sea Level Rise
60
50
40
30
20
Average
10
Wet
Above
Normal
Below Normal
Dry
Critical
40-30-30 Water Year Type
0
Average
Wet
Above
Normal
Below Normal
Dry
Critical
WaterWater
Year Year
Type Type
40-30-30
46
Summary of Significant Effects on the
Mainstem Sacramento River

Long-term average loss of 121 TAF September carryover storage (including effects of climate change) will:




Eliminate spring-run spawning in the mainstem
Reduce winter-run spawning habitat in the mainstem
Increase egg mortality substantially in consideration of
climate change [i.e., Critical years increases to 5 to 65% for
winter-run, 40 to 95% for spring-run (Sac. R mainstem only),
and 4% for steelhead (based on late fall-run Chinook salmon
as a surrogate)].
Result in shorter emigration period and lower survival for
juvenile salmonids
47
Red Bluff Diversion Dam (RBDD)
Gates in Open Position Looking Upstream
48
Percent of Run Present
RBDD Adult Fish Passage
Winter-run
Spring-run
Steelhead
Green Sturgeon
Fall-run
Late -fall
4 months closed
50
2 months
closed
40
30
20
10
0
Jan
Feb Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
49
RBDD Juvenile RunTiming
winter-run
80.0
spring-run
steelhead
green sturgeon
4 Months Closed
Percent Present
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
50
Effect of Operations on Winter-Run
Chinook Salmon
51
Summary of the Main Effects from
Operating RBDD

Adult upstream migration:



Juvenile downstream migration:


Delays passage of up to 15% of the winter-run and
up to 70% of the spring-run
Blocks up to 35% of green sturgeon from its main spawning
ground.
Higher predation rates on juvenile winter-run, steelhead, and
green sturgeon as they pass through Lake Red Bluff and the
diversion gates (i.e., 45% to 50% during May).
Critical habitat: Adverse modification of 6 stream miles
from inundation behind RBDD.
52
RPA Actions to Address Key
Sacramento River Division Effects

Clear Creek: New temperature curtain in Whiskeytown




Shasta Reservoir: Higher Shasta storage required in
Sept. & April
Shasta Dam: New temperature management program
Upper Sacramento River:



Reduce temperatures in October
Long-term passage prescriptions at Shasta Dam to allow reintroduction of listed salmon
RBDD gates up, year round by 2012
Lower Sacramento River and Delta: Restore juvenile
rearing habitat
53
American River
Division
Lower American River (LAR)
55
a
Jun
Exposure to daily
mean water temps.
above 65°F are
associated with anal
vent inflammation in
juvenile steelhead in
the LAR
80.0
78.0
76.0
June
Temperature (˚F)
74.0
72.0
70.0
68.0
66.0
65.0
64.0
62.0
60.0
100%
90%
80%
70%
Study 6.0
60%
50%
Study 7.0
40%
Study 7.1
30%
Study 8.0
20%
10%
0%
NA
Jul
b
80.0
78.0
76.0
July
Temperature (˚F)
74.0
72.0
70.0
68.0
66.0
65.0
64.0
62.0
60.0
100%
90%
80%
70%
Study 6.0
60%
Study 7.0
50%
Study 7.1
40%
30%
Study 8.0
20%
NA
10%
0%
56
Aug
a
80.0
78.0
76.0
August
Temperature (˚F)
74.0
72.0
70.0
68.0
66.0
65.0
64.0
62.0
60.0
100%
90%
80%
70%
Study 6.0
60%
50%
Study 7.0
40%
Study 7.1
30%
Study 8.0
20%
10%
0%
NA
Sep
b
80.0
78.0
76.0
September
Temperature (˚F)
74.0
72.0
70.0
68.0
66.0
65.0
64.0
62.0
60.0
100%
90%
80%
70%
Study 6.0
60%
Study 7.0
50%
Study 7.1
40%
30%
Study 8.0
20%
NA
10%
0%
57
“VSP” = Viable Salmonid Population
Entrainment
Folsom and
Nimbus Dams
Loss of natural river function
Flow
fluctuations
Predation
Redd scour
Low flows
Nimbus
hatchery
Warm
water
temps
Angling impacts
Project Stressors
Baseline Stressors
58
Summary of Main Effects on the
Lower American River


Mean water temperatures above 65°F ~75% in
June, 100% in July and August, >95% in
September, resulting in increased incidence of
disease in juvenile steelhead.
Reduced genetic diversity from hatchery
management program.
59
RPA Actions to Address Key
American River Division Effects


New flow and temperature plan; fish passage at
Folsom Dam
Structural modifications for
Improved water temperature control device at
Folsom Dam
 Temperature control curtains at Lake Natoma
 Temperature control at El Dorado Irrigation District
Diversion


Hatchery Genetics Management Plan for
Nimbus Hatchery for steelhead and Fall-run
Chinook salmon.
60
Eastside Division
New Melones and Stanislaus River operations
Rhonda Reed
62
Stanislaus River – New Melones Dam

Listed Species: Central Valley
steelhead

Southern Sierra Nevada
diversity group

Current population numbers
very low for all 4 populations
Stanislaus
Tuolumne
Merced
63
Summary of the Main Effects on the
Stanislaus River
Temperature
 Water temperatures too warm for CV steelhead,
3-20% of time , especially May-Sept.
Jul
70
68
66
64
Temperature (˚F)

62
60
58
56
54
52
50
100%
90%
80%
70%
Study 6.0
60%
Study 7.0
50%
40%
Study 7.1
30%
Study 8.0
20%
10%
0%
NA
64
Summary of the Main Effects on the
Stanislaus River


Temperature
Flow
 Instream flow requirements for CV steelhead not
addressed
65
Impaired Flow Pattern Affects
Habitat
6000
5000
Unimpaired
CFS
4000
3000
2000
Impaired
1000
0
1/1
2/1
3/1
4/1
5/1
6/1
7/1
8/1
9/1
10/1
11/1
12/1
66
1/1
Summary of the Main Effects on the
Stanislaus River



Temperature
Flow
Ongoing critical habitat degradation
 Channel incision cuts off rearing habitat
 Spawning gravel washed out
 Channel encroachment.
67
Jul
70
68
Modeled Monthly
Temperature Exceedance
Probability:
July- Orange Blossom
Bridge
66
Temperature (˚F)
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
100%
90%
80%
70%
Study 6.0
60%
Study 7.0
50%
40%
Study 7.1
30%
Study 8.0
20%
10%
0%
NA
Daily Temperature
Variability
68
Stanislaus River Minimum Steelhead
Flows
Stanislaus River Minimum Steelhead Flows
5000
4500
Spring Outmigration Cues Flow
4000
3000
CD
Dry
BN
AN
Wet
2500
Outmigration Flow
2000
Fall Attraction Flow
1500
1000
500
Date
9/26
9/16
9/6
8/27
8/17
8/7
7/28
7/18
7/8
6/28
6/18
6/8
5/29
5/19
5/9
4/29
4/19
4/9
3/30
3/20
3/10
2/28
2/18
2/8
1/29
1/19
1/9
12/30
12/20
12/10
11/30
11/20
11/10
10/31
10/21
10/11
0
10/1
CFS at Goodwin Dam
3500
69
Above Normal Releases vs Minimum
Flow Schedule
Stanislaus River Minimum Steelhead Flows Compared to Above Normal Year Operation
5000
4500
4000
CD
Dry
BN
AN
Wet
1999 AN
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
Date
9/29
9/18
9/7
8/27
8/16
8/5
7/25
7/14
7/3
6/22
6/11
5/31
5/20
5/9
4/28
4/17
4/6
3/26
3/15
3/4
2/21
2/10
1/30
1/19
1/8
12/28
12/17
12/6
11/25
11/14
11/3
10/23
10/12
0
10/1
CFS at Goodwin Dam
3500
70
Channel Demobilization
Kondolf, et al. 2001
71
RPA Actions to Address Key
East Side Division Effects






Establish Stanislaus Operations Group
Set operational temperature criteria
Set minimum flows for steelhead survival
Channel maintaining flows in wet years
Habitat improvements for spawning and rearing
habitat, building on Central Valley Project
Improvement Act authorities
Assess fish passage past New Melones Dam
72
Delta Division
Jeff Stuart
Key Elements in Delta Division
Climate Change
DCC Gates
Proposed Export Changes
Direct Entrainment at Project Facilities
Indirect Mortality within Delta
San Joaquin River Inflow to Delta

Temporal Occurrence of Species in
Delta
75
Climate Change Impacts to Delta:

Fall and winter seasons have greatest sensitivity to
climate change according to OCAP modeling.

Drier climates:



In wet years: > risk of pumping entrainment in winter
compared to current climate.
In dry years: minimal change in OMR flows during winter
and spring.
Wetter climates:


In wet years: < pumping entrainment risk in winter, more
positive OMR flows
In dry years: > risks in the winter , slightly more negative
OMR flows
76
DCC Gate Operations
S
E
W
N
DCC Gates
77
DCC Gates





Manmade channel (early 1950s) to enhance water quality for
CVP exports at Tracy
Can pass 6,000 cfs when gates are open, ≈ 20 to 25 percent of
Sacramento River flow at Freeport can move into the
Mokelumne River
Listed salmonids are diverted into the channel when the gates are
open. Entrainment rate is related to river flow, time of day, and
tidal cycle.
Survival of these fish is substantially lower than those fish that
remain in the Sacramento River .
Early migrating salmon and steelhead (Nov – Jan) are at risk
under current operations schedule.
78
Timing of Juvenile winter-run passage at Knights Landing
rotary screw trap sampling 1995-2006
(Low, White, and Chappell 2006)
79
RPA Overview for DCC Gates





Integrate current monitoring triggers with new gate
operations in December and January.
Close DCC gates from December 15 to January 31.
Weekly evaluations of monitoring data by the Delta
Operations for Salmonids and Sturgeon technical team
(DOSS).
Flexibility of gate operations regarding water quality
criteria and experimental studies.
Study alternative engineering solutions to control access
to the Delta interior
80
Modeled Changes in Export Levels



CVP and SWP exports increase in both near future
(Study 7.1) and future conditions (Study 8.0) compared
to the current condition (Study 7.0).
Significant increases in exports during the late fall and
winter time frames over current operations.
SWP exports increase in April and May due to decrease
in “fish water” available for export curtailment.
81
Effects to Listed Salmonids




Elevated exports result in an increased potential for
entrainment at the export facilities, as well as migrational
delays for fish entering the Delta interior,
Increases in exports reflected in increased negative Old and
Middle River flows
Diversion of listed fish into the interior of the Delta increases
the risk of mortality (i.e., predation) as well as exposure to
contaminants in the Delta interior. Overall mortality in the
interior Delta:
 35-90% of those that enter the interior Delta
 5-20% of winter-run Chinook salmon population entering
the Delta
San Joaquin River Basin fish have an increased vulnerability to
entrainment with increased exports levels.
82
Flow Patterns in the Delta
SWP
CVP
83
Projected Old and Middle River Flows
Study
Study 7.0
Study 7.1
Study 8.0
Wet and Above Normal Water Year Types
December
January
February
March
-8350
-6391
-7322
-6858
-8083
-6511
-7377
-7956
-8230
-6276
-7203
-7890
May
-4381
-4652
-4941
June
-4118
-3450
-3792
July
-643
-1146
-1193
Average
-7230
-7482
-7400
Study
Study 7.0
Study 7.1
Study 8.0
April
-5847
-6561
-6611
Study
Study 7.0
Study 7.1
Study 8.0
December
-7668
-6687
-6946
Study
Study 7.0
Study 7.1
Study 8.0
April
-6889
-7889
-8038
May
-6052
-5897
-5989
July
-1064
-1442
-1428
Average
-4895
-5167
-5215
Study
Study 7.0
Study 7.1
Study 8.0
December
-4576
-3375
-3312
Critical Water Year Type
January
February
March
-5633
-5293
-6158
-5399
-4892
-6389
-5317
-4333
-6315
Average
-5415
-5014
-4819
Study
Study 7.0
Study 7.1
Study 8.0
April
-5368
-5903
-5618
May
-4250
-4744
-4865
Average
-3232
-3578
-3594
Below Normal and Dry Water Year Types
January
February
March
-6125
-6767
-7117
-6098
-6504
-8063
-6030
6435
-8004
June
-5573
-5440
-5407
June
-2514
-2824
-3024
July
-797
-842
-870
Average
-3747
-3952
-4134
Average
-6919
-6838
-6854
84
85
Particle Entrainment at the Export Facilities
under different OMR flows
~ 40%
USFWS 2008
86
SWP Loss vs. OMR flows
Initial Slope
87
RPA Overview for Exports





Integrate current monitoring triggers with new export
operations January through June.
Limit OMR flows, no more negative than -5,000 cfs
January through June.
Staged Reductions in exports when fish are present at
the facilities, measured by OMR flow levels.
Weekly review of operations and fish salvage by the
DOSS technical group.
Actions compatible with the FWS Delta smelt actions
88
Direct Entrainment at Project
Facilities

Survival is low through the salvage facilities:
•
•



1 out of 6 fish survive at the SWP
1 out of 3 fish survive at the CVP
Screening Efficiency
Predation issues
CHTR operations (Collection, Handling,
Trucking and Release)
89
Overall survival estimates of fish
collection actions
Estimate of Survival for Screening Process at the SWP and CVP1
SWP
Percent survival
Running Percent
2
3
Pre-screen Survival
25 percent (75 percent loss)
25
Louver Efficiency
75 percent (25 percent loss)
18.75
CHTR Survival
98 percent (2 percent loss)
18.375
Post Release Survival
90 percent (10 percent loss)
16.54
(predation only)
CVP4
Pre-screen Survival5
Louver Efficiency6
CHTR Survival
Post Release Survival
(predation only)
Percent survival
85 percent (15 percent loss)
46.8 (53.2 percent loss)
98 percent (2 percent loss)
90 percent (10 percent loss)
Running Percent
85
39.78
38.98
35.08
90
RPA Overview for Direct Export
Entrainment
 Increase overall salvage efficiency to 75% for
both facilities
 Directed actions for both facilities include:
•
•
•
Improve screening efficiency/operations
Reduce predation losses
Improve reporting methodology
 Improve survival of salvaged fish releases
•
Release fish from mobile barges, multiple release
sites, or other methods
91
Indirect Mortality in Delta Interior



Assessed indirect mortality within delta interior
utilizing applicable studies and literature.
Compared export and non-export related
mortality within the interior delta utilizing
DWR’s Delta Survival model and CalSim II
output from Studies 7.0 (current operations),
7.1 (near future operations), and 8.0 (future
operations).
Assessed recent survival studies utilizing
acoustically tagged fish.
92
Results from DWR Survival Model





Monthly export related mortality for Sacramento River fish
ranged from <1% to 15% combining all studies and water year
types for the period between December and June.
Monthly Indirect mortality (non-export) for Sacramento River
fish ranged from 3% to 32% combining all studies and water
year types for the period between December and June.
Higher E/I ratios had higher mortality levels.
Higher E/I ratios typically occurred in December and January
in drier hydrological conditions.
Monthly total population mortality for Sacramento River basin
fish migrating downstream in the Sacramento River ranged
from 23% to 59% under same conditions as above.
93
RPA Overview for Indirect Mortality


Indirect mortality is related to most of the
project elements associated with the Delta
The suite of RPA actions that focus on the
Delta elements act in concert to reduce indirect
mortality by reducing exposure to the sources of
mortality
94
San Joaquin River Inflow to the Delta





OCAP assumes that VAMP – like flows and exports
will continue into the future.
BUT: No defined description of this operation has
been presented to date and there is limited “fish
water” available to offset VAMP water costs in the
future.
Spring-time flows currently seen during the VAMP
operations on the Tuolumne River and Merced River
are likely to decline
Project and non-project stressors result in 90-99%
mortality of Juvenile San Joaquin River steelhead.
Increased survival and subsequent adult returns are
linked to increased river flows during the juvenile
outmigration period
95
Relationship of April and May flows
to Adult Escapement
Fall-Run Chinook Salmon Escapemnt shifted 2 years
in relation to water year
30000
90000
80000
25000
60000
50000
15000
40000
10000
Adult Escapement
20000
30000
20000
5000
10000
0
0
19
22
19
26
19
30
19
34
19
38
19
42
19
46
19
50
19
54
19
58
19
62
19
66
19
70
19
74
19
78
19
82
19
86
19
90
19
94
19
98
20
02
20
06
Flow at Vernalis (cfs)
70000
Years
April Flow s
May Flow s
SJR Fall-run Escapement
96
Total Escapement to the San Joaquin River Tributaries, 1951 through 1996,
And Spring Time flows 2.5 years Earlier
From Baker and Morhardt, 2001
97
Relationship between Adult Fall-run Chinook Salmon Escapement
and the Vernalis flow to export ratio 2.5 years earlier
From 2006 VAMP report
98
RPA Overview for San Joaquin River
Flows into the Delta





Flows are based on previous studies and
historical gaged flows at Vernalis.
Numerous iterations of the proposed flow
criteria were run to examine the effects of the
action before deciding on a final action.
RPA is phased in over time
Flexibility in RPA pertaining to water year type
and drought conditions
Continuing adaptive management
99
NMFS’ OCAP Opinion is located at
http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/ocap.htm
Presentation can be found at:
http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/ocap/nasreview.htm
100