Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Delta Independent Science BoardAugust 1 2014
Outline
Background
Methods(Drive-by)
Findings(recent
applications)
Where to From Here?
Discussion !
1. Evaluate ecological trade‐offs of alternative water projects and water project operations.
2. Develop a broader set of functional ecological flow guidelines.
Why TNC developed EFT
Shasta Dam
NODOS
BDCP
Vision
Link hydrogeomorphic models to representative suite of functional ecosystem indicators in one decision analysis tool for evaluating multipletrade‐offs
Sufficient detail …
6
high
low
simple intermediate very complexModel Complexity
• ability to understand model behaviour
• ease of application (data, cost)• ease of interdisciplinary linkage• community of users (shrinks)
• spatial / temporal resolution• acceptability to disciplinary
specialist• perceived “realism” of process
representation• cost• tuning & equifinality
Things that increase w complexityThings that decrease w complexity
“…The panel believes it is essential that a … dedicated project to build a simplified ecosystem model … [including] existing modeling capabilities … will require a full‐time multidisciplinary team devoted for at least several years…”~ CALFED Science Advisory Panel, June 24, 2008
Your predecessors said…
“… A variety of modeling approaches needed … including those … model the behavior of a complex system by simplifying it… Developing a decision analysis tool for the Delta, similar to SacEFT, should be considered.” ~ CALFED Science Program, 2008, Summary Findings of Workshop 2: Linking Physical and Biological Models for Ecosystem Prediction, Planning, and Performance
1 decision support platform
13 species
25 performance indicators
Over 70 scientists
Outline
Background
Methods(Drive-by)
Findings(recent
applications)
Where to From Here?
Discussion !
Other2 Reservoir Operations & Conveyance• Sacramento River dam / diversion
operations• Delta conveyance & pumping operations• Coordinated operational criteria (e.g.,
biological opinions, D-1641 variations)• External climate forcing• Alternative human population demands
Reservoir Operations & Conveyance• Sacramento River dam / diversion
operations• Delta conveyance & pumping operations• Coordinated operational criteria (e.g.,
biological opinions, D-1641 variations)• External climate forcing• Alternative human population demands
Bank protection & gravel augmentation• River meander , soil erosion• Effects on bank swallow habitat suitability,
large woody debris recruitment, flows• TUGS model, effects on salmon spawning
habitat suitability
Bank protection & gravel augmentation• River meander , soil erosion• Effects on bank swallow habitat suitability,
large woody debris recruitment, flows• TUGS model, effects on salmon spawning
habitat suitabilityMan
agem
ent a
ctio
ns e
valu
ated
Sacr
amen
to R
iver
foca
l spe
cies
&
obje
ctiv
es
Del
ta fo
cal s
peci
es &
obj
ectiv
es
Ecologically important life history timing
Coupled modeling
Ecologically important index locations
Outline
Background
MethodsTypes of output
Findings(recent
applications)
Where to From Here?
Discussion !
Relative suitability rating
Output: Annual “roll-up”
Output: Multi-year “roll-up”
Output: Relative suitability
Output: effect size (ES)
Output: effect size (ES) box plots
Output: within year daily results @ specific locations
Water year:Location of interest:
River MilesSpecies
Units Sq FeetSteelhead
1986CS Reach 5280.2 - 298.5
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
0
100
200
300
400
500
16-J
un23
-Jun
30-J
un07
-Jul
14-J
ul21
-Jul
28-J
ul04
-Aug
11-A
ug18
-Au g
25-A
ug01
-Se p
08-S
ep15
-Sep
22-S
ep29
-Sep
06-O
ct13
-Oct
20-O
ct27
-Oct
03-N
ov10
-Nov
17-N
ov24
-Nov
01-D
ec08
-Dec
15-D
ec22
-Dec
29-D
ec05
-Jan
12-J
an19
-Jan
26-J
an02
-Feb
09-F
eb16
-Feb
23-F
eb02
-Mar
09-M
ar16
-Mar
23-M
ar30
-Mar
06-A
pr13
-Apr
20-A
pr27
-Apr
04-M
a y11
-May
18-M
ay25
-May
01-J
un08
-Jun
Cu
mu
lati
ve A
nn
ual
WU
A(1
,00
0 s
q ft)
Daily
WU
A (
1,0
00
sq
ft)
Period of Interest
SacEFT - Chinook & Steelhead Rearing WUA Report
Distribution
WUA
Good
Fair
Poor
Cumulative
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1416
-Jun
23-J
un30
-Jun
07-J
ul14
-Jul
21-J
ul28
-Jul
04-A
u g11
-Aug
18-A
ug25
-Aug
01-S
ep08
-Se p
15-S
ep22
-Sep
29-S
ep06
-Oct
13-O
ct20
-Oct
27-O
ct03
-Nov
10-N
ov17
-Nov
24-N
ov01
-Dec
08-D
ec15
-Dec
22-D
ec29
-Dec
05-J
an12
-Jan
19-J
an26
-Jan
02-F
eb09
-Feb
16-F
eb23
-Feb
02-M
ar09
-Mar
16-M
ar23
-Mar
30-M
ar06
-Apr
13-A
pr20
-Apr
27-A
pr04
-May
11-M
a y18
-May
25-M
ay01
-Jun
08-J
un
Flow
(kC
FS)
Period of Interest
Output: Spatial visualizations / animations
http://youtu.be/WcwRdM3f6Ao
Overall weight of evidence
Outline
Background
Methods
Findings(recent
applications)
Where to From Here?
Discussion !
Other2 Effects Analysis Application of SacEFT to North-of-the-Delta Offstream Storage Investigation• SacEFT• 5 alternatives including reference case• Analysis based on RS method (only)
Effects Analysis Application of SacEFT to North-of-the-Delta Offstream Storage Investigation• SacEFT• 5 alternatives including reference case• Analysis based on RS method (only)
Effects Analysis Application to BDCP• SacEFT & DeltaEFT• 8 alternatives including reference case and
future climate change variants• Full analysis
Effects Analysis Application to BDCP• SacEFT & DeltaEFT• 8 alternatives including reference case and
future climate change variants• Full analysis
Pilot investigation – Incorporating EFT Derived Ecological Flow Criteria to CALSIM• Rule-sets converted to WRESL• Winter-run chinook and Delta smelt
Pilot investigation – Incorporating EFT Derived Ecological Flow Criteria to CALSIM• Rule-sets converted to WRESL• Winter-run chinook and Delta smelt
Rec
ent E
FT a
pplic
atio
ns
EFT effects analyses
• EFT baseline simulation (relativesuitabilitythresholds)
• Study simulations:• Reference case• Alternatives
• Establish structure of comparisons
Step 1• Assess degree of change physical variables (flow, water temp, salinity, etc.)
Step 2• Examine changes in EFT perf. indicators using different methods (RS, ES, boxplots, etc.)
• Identify major trade‐offs
Step 3• Perform weight of evidence net effect scoring (NES)
• Provide interpretative narrative
• Document caveats/ limitations
Step 4
1. LOS preferable for species in Sacramento River HOS preferable for Delta species.• LOS ecosystem benefits only slightly better for
Sacramento River, results from HOS generally very similar.
• Various trade‐offs noted, HOS alternative is likely most preferable.
BDCP effects analysis: Key Findings
Winners LosersFall‐run Chinook, Late fall‐run Chinook & Splittail
Green sturgeon, deterrence of invasives, brackish wetland habitats
BDCP effects analysis: Key Findings
2. Climate change dwarfed effects of operational alternatives, • From ecosystem point of view, inadequate to compare
future operations relative to a progressively deteriorating baseline.
BDCP effects analysis: Key Findings
Deteriorating baseline comparisons mask “what matters” ecologically
Ecological Flows Tool: Indicator w ; % of simulation years with favorable conditions
90
66
34
-30-20-10
0102030405060708090
100
Base Case 1 With operationalternative 1
Change Base Case 2 With operationalternative 2
Change Base Case 3 With operationalternative 3
Change
% o
f sim
ulat
ion
year
s
Climate and/or demand effect
Current ELT LLT
3. BDCP alternatives include some offsetting benefits. • e.g., Delta rearing conditions improved by notching
Fremont Weir, higher X2 outflows, USFWS (2008), NMFS (2009) actions.
• Relative benefit of flow mediated improvements will depend on detrimental effects of warming water temperatures.
BDCP effects analysis: Key Findings
4. Reservoir operational criteria cemented in BDCP effects modeling highly constrained, limiting ability of BDCP to fully explore and realize opportunities.
BDCP effects analysis: Key Findings
Caveats / Limitations1. EFT focuses on flow operations & includes Yolo Bypass
enhancement, does not evaluate all 22 conservation measures.
2. EFT addresses 13 species, not every species, nor food web interactions, nor attempt to model all behavioral movement & life‐cycle survival progression• Framework ready for new species & performance indicators
3. EFT uses outputs from external hydrologic models (CALSIM, DSM2, etc.). • Easy to swap in results from any physical model in EFT
BDCP effects analysis: limitations
Pilot test: integrating EFT with systems operations models
CALSIMsuite
Incorporating EFT derived ecological flow criteria to CALSIM
CALSIMsuite
Step 1: Define ecological flow criteria
Step 5: Results
Salmonid WinnersCS1 Spawning WUA Winter +35% GoodCS6 Redd Dewatering Spring +36%CS4 Juvenile Stranding Winter +34%
Salmonid LosersCS1 Spawning WUA Spring –15% GoodCS1 Spawning WUA Fall –14%CS2 Rearing WUA Steelhead –13%
• Compare ecological change for Baseline and pilot Ecological Flows scenario
• Winter Chinook: notable improvement in CS1, CS6, CS4; decline in CS2
• Delta Smelt: moderate improvement (i.e. reduction) in entrainment
• Jagger’s Law*: inverse correlations exist
* You can’t always get what you want
1. We successfully demonstrate EFT rule‐sets can be “inserted” and generate beneficial effects in CALSIM
...without significantly impacting storage or exports2. Irreconcilable, ceaseless trade‐offs will always exist
between‐species and ecoregions
These trade‐offs do not owe to failure to create clever enough models.
A single, unchanging optimal solution does not exist.
Integrating EFT with systems operations models: Key Findings
Outline
Background
Methods(Drive-by)
Findings(recent
applications)
Where to From Here?
Discussion !
Other2 A new paradigm: flexible ecosystem priorities• Recognize multiple, equally acceptable solutions exist• Smart, state-dependent priorities• Build multi-objective, state-dependent optimization
engine
A new paradigm: flexible ecosystem priorities• Recognize multiple, equally acceptable solutions exist• Smart, state-dependent priorities• Build multi-objective, state-dependent optimization
engine
Sustained refinement & application of EFT• EFT one element of community modeling hub• “Gathering place” for generally accepted functional
relationships / algorithms• Every CALSIM run should be coupled with an EFT run
Sustained refinement & application of EFT• EFT one element of community modeling hub• “Gathering place” for generally accepted functional
relationships / algorithms• Every CALSIM run should be coupled with an EFT run
Design adaptive management experiments,real-time decision support tools• Disproportionate amount of effort devoted to water
planning models in California
Design adaptive management experiments,real-time decision support tools• Disproportionate amount of effort devoted to water
planning models in California
Whe
re to
from
Her
e?
A New Paradigm: flexible ecosystem priorities
Existin
gNew
Parad
igm
Other2 Sustained Refinement & Application of EFT• EFT one element of community modeling
hub• “Gathering place” for generally accepted
functional relationships / algorithms• Viewer distribution & training program
Sustained Refinement & Application of EFT• EFT one element of community modeling
hub• “Gathering place” for generally accepted
functional relationships / algorithms• Viewer distribution & training program
Whe
re to
from
Her
e?
• EFT provides a very successful & rare example of synthesis & integration.
• Intuitive, durable user interfaces, data visualizations, data mining/exploration
• Leveraging investment more cost‐effective than duplication / re‐invention.
Other2W
here
to fr
om H
ere?
• EFT can help winnow ecological flow mgmt alternatives & direct more efficient adaptive management experiments.
• In‐season modeling tools that build‐in ecological guidelines needed that impact on‐the‐ground decisions.
Design adaptive management experiments,real-time decision support tools• Disproportionate amount of effort devoted to
water planning models in California
Outline
Background
Methods(Drive-by)
Findings(recent
applications)
Where to From Here?
Discussion !
EFT software: essa.com/tools/ecological‐flows‐tool/eft‐userguide.essa.com/
Final Report:Please contact Ryan Luster
Clint Alexander Ryan [email protected] [email protected](250) 860‐3824 (530) 897‐6370, ext. 213
Information
