SacramentoRiver

Delta

Conceptual models & functional relationships

Coupled modelling

Spatially explicit analyses

Multiple EFT outputs

Relative suitability

Absolute effect size

Focal species Performance indicator (incomplete listing)

Refer

ence

ca

se

Alt.

1

Alt.

2

Alt.

n

Upper and Middle Sacramento River IndicatorsFall Chinook Suitable spawning habitat (CS1; 000s ft2) 3,738 4,081

(9.2%)4,069

(8.9%)3,998

(6.9%)

Late Fall Chinook Suitable spawning habitat (CS1; 000s ft2) 1,272 1,195(-6.0%)

1,187(-6.7%)

1,232(-3.1%)

Winter ChinookJuvenile stranding index (CS4) 0.085 0.106

(-2.1%)0.094

(-0.9%)0.101

(-1.6%)

Suitable rearing habitat (CS2; 000s ft2) 37,153 37,602(1.2%)

37,804(1.8%)

37,101(-0.1%)

Effect size box plots

Yearly, monthly, daily, hourly resultsScenario:

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

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

We

ight

Ent

rain

me

nt (

%)

Export:Import Ratio

DeltaEFT - Delta Smelt Entrainment Report

Location Weight

Particle Tracking Model logistic fitDelta 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

We

igh

t

Flo

w (

CFS

)

Period of Interest

Old and Middle River (OMR) Flows

Daily weightsOMR FlowWeighted flowZero flow

Spatial visualizations

Net effect scoresUpper & Middle Sacramento River Ecoregion

ESO LOS HOS

+ – + – + –

Fall 5 5 5

Late Fall 1-ES 1-ES

Spring 3-ES 5 3-RS

Winter 1-RS

Steelhead

Bank swallow

Green Sturgeon 3-RS 3-RS 3-RS

Cottonwood 1-ES 1-ES

Woody Debris 1-RS

Delta Ecoregion

Fall +/– +/–

Late Fall 3-ES 3-ES 2-ES

Spring +/– +/–

Winter 3-ES 3-ES 2-ES

Steelhead 3-ES 3-ES 2-ES

Splittail 6 6 6

Delta smelt 6

Longfin smelt 6

Invasives 3-ES 4 3-ES

Tidal wetlands 3-RS 3-RS 3-RS

EFT applications to date

1. Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigation2. Sites Reservoir analysis3. BDCP upstream effects analyses4. BDCP alternatives analyses

Target flow guidelines

Persistent conflicting trade-offs…

The problem

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11YearTu

rn-T

akin

g O

ptim

izat

ion

Busi

ness

As U

sual

An alternative paradigm: turn taking optimization

Turn-taking optimization

Search uses Particle Swarm

Optimization algorithm

Uses cloud computing for fast processing

Reconfigured CALSIM modeling suite to run in single year mode

State-dependent piorities increase potential solutions

Ecological results of turn-taking

Key messages

1. No single best way to operate the water system. 2. EFT’s turn taking optimization allows for more

flexibility and solutions for more species.3. Water managers need real-time operational tools

paired with adaptive management to move beyond the status quo.

Thank you!

Improving multi-objective ecological flow management with flexible priorities and turn-taking: a case study from the Sacramento River and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. - San Francisco Estuary & Watershed Science, March 2018.

Ryan Lusterrluster@tnc.org