California Water Dialog March 24, 2010 Jerry Johns Deputy Director California Department of Water Resources

Overview  Hydrology Update  Current SWP and CVP allocations  Effects of Biological opinions on Water Allocations  Some specific issues with the Bioglogical Opinions (BO)  NRC report findings on the BO RPAs

 Sacramento Valley Water Year Type History 2007 Dry 2008 Critical 2009 Dry 2010 Dry (as of 3/1) 2007 Dry 2008 Critical 2009 Dry 2010 Dry (as of 3/1)  2010 Precipitation (Percent of average as of Mar 15) North Sierra 101% San Joaquin 109%  2010 Snow Content (Snow Surveys as of Mar 15) North 127% Central 93% South 108%  Unimpaired April – July Runoff (Actual as of Mar 9 + Median Projection) (Actual as of Mar 9 + Median Projection) Shasta 95% Folsom 85% Oroville 82% Hydrologic Update (3/15/10)

 Storage (Percent of average as of Mar 17) Shasta 104% Folsom 85% Oroville 57%  Water Allocations (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% 100% CVP Refuges 100% 100% CVP M&I 75% (55%) NOD 100% SOD 75% CVP M&I 75% (55%) NOD 100% SOD 75% CVP AG NOD 50% (5%) NOD 100% SOD 30% CVP AG NOD 50% (5%) NOD 100% SOD 30% SOD 25% (5%) SOD 25% (5%) SWP 15% 35% to 45% SWP 15% 35% to 45%

Water Supply Impacts to the State Water Project (SWP)

Water Supply Impacts to the State Water Projects (SWP)

Four Basic Bay/Delta Facts  (1) The fishery food web recently altered  (2) The Delta is a Tidal Estuary  (3) Some good relationship exist between Delta flows and “take” (salvage) at SWP/CVP pumps in South Delta  (4) Relationship between fish take and fish abundance – “small to negligible” Need comprehensive solution to the many fish stressors and “reasonable” controls on SWP/CVP exports Need comprehensive solution to the many fish stressors and “reasonable” controls on SWP/CVP exports

AmmoniaContaminantsFlow“Harvest”PhosphorusTemperatureTurbidityClamsJellyfish Edge & benthic fish Microcystis Aquatic Weeds Lots High Low and Constant High Limited Warm Low Little Low Highly variable Low Lots Cool High Diatoms Pelagic fish Natives thrive Resists invasions Alternative Stable States Source: Anke Mueller-Solger CALFED Regime Shift

How Water Gets to the California Economy Sac River – Delta Cross Channel – Mokelumne River – Old & Middle Rivers 11 San Joaquin River 22 Sac River / West Delta 33 SWP Pumps CVP Pumps Tidal Flow 300,000 cfs 30,000 cfs

Typical Delta Smelt Seasonal Distribution July - December December - June Older Juveniles and Adults Spawning adults, larvae and young Juveniles

ESA RPAs to address Delta Smelt Take (Entrainment) Range of Discretion 1.3 MAF Adults Larval - early Juvenile

Delta Smelt Adult Salvage as a Function of OMR Flows - January Year

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

Station 815 Current method focuses on Station 815 “Control Point Method” Juvenile smelt - 20 mm sampling Every 2 weeks Mid April - June

Project Effects and Delta Smelt Response D/D W/ANW/AN D/DD/DAN/ANBN/DBN/WW/WD/CC/C Year Types Sac/SJR Sac/SJR

Project Effects and Delta Smelt Response D/D W/ANW/AN D/DD/DAN/ANBN/DBN/WW/WD/CC/C Year Types Sac/SJR Sac/SJR

Project Effects and Delta Smelt Response Water Supply Costs (TAF) Last 4 years reduced project effects, no delta smelt response W/ANW/AND/DD/DAN/ANBN/DBN/WW/WD/CC/CD/D Year Types Sac/SJR SWP Water Costs (TAF) /16

Frustrations with ESA Section 7 Process  One Stressor / One Fish at a time Need more Holistic / Systems approach Need more Holistic / Systems approach  Delta is one of the most studied systems We need to be looking at all this data We need to be looking at all this data  Hammer / Nail syndrome  “Take” focus instead of population effects  “Critical Habitat” has become “Any Habitat”

DWR Conclusions to NRC  Exports - the only source of fish mortality evaluated  Many factors affecting “at-risk” fish species in the Delta Controlling exports only has not improved delta smelt abundance Controlling exports only has not improved delta smelt abundance  Reasonable export constraints are prudent to prevent peak entrainment events  A comprehensive effort is needed to better protect “at- risk” fish species – Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP)  RPAs 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 Conclusions on the RPAs March 19, 2010  Scientifically Justified (3) - Delta Cross Channel (Salmon) - Fish Passage in Yolo (Salmon) - Floodplain Habitat (Salmon) - Floodplain Habitat (Salmon)  Scientifically reasonable - Winter OMR – (Adult Smelt)  Conceptually sound (2) - Tidal Habitat (smelt) - OMR for salmon - OMR for salmon (but flow targets uncertain) (but flow targets uncertain)  Justification difficult to Understand - Fall X2 (Smelt)  Weak Influence of - San Joaquin River Inflow/Export ratio Exports (Salmon)

NRC Evaluation of the RPA actions (Chapter 6) Action ConclusionsCaveatsRecommendations 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 3No 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 needed Implement is phases

ActionConclusionsCaveatsRecommendations Salmon and Sturgeon NMFS 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)

Conclusions  The operation of the Biological Opinions are having an effect on water supply allocations - most effects on SWP  The last 4 years have not helped Delta Smelt  Biological Opinions can be improved  Change in Delta Conveyance is the best hope of improving water supply  Must have “holistic approach” to Delta Issues  BDCP has developed – New water conveyance option, new tidal habitat, other stressors Effects analysis being conducted Effects 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)