RUSSIAN RIVER INTEGRATED WATER MANAGEMENT
Raising Coyote Valley Dam Lake Mendocino Water Supply Reliability Study. Term 17 Project.
Pablo Silva Samuel Sandoval, Ph.D.
Tuesday, October 6th, 2015 – ANR Strategic Initiative Joint Conference Outline 1. Background 2. Methodology i. Lake Mendocino Water Allocation Model ii. Raising Coyote Valley Dam Assessment 3. Results 4. Discussion / Conclusion 5. Communications and Outreach
West Fork
PVP Project Calpella Lake Mendocino
Hopland
Cloverdale
Healdsburg 1. Background Technical Assessment and Hydrologic Modeling on the Russian River i. Phase 1 (2014 – 2015): • Became the technical advisor for hydrologic, planning and forecasting models of the RRFC – RVCWD. • Provide communication and briefings to RRFC-RVCWD regarding the current and future modeling efforts in the Russian River. ii. Phase 2 ( 2015 – 2016): • Continue Phase 1 status of technical advisor. (Only RRFC) • Water Allocation Model • Evaluate Scenarios: (1) Raising Coyote Valley Dam (CVP) (2) Failure of Imported water from Potter Valley Project (PVP) 2. Methodology PVP • Build a Model • Scenarios: Calpella Lake Mendocino 1)Raising Coyote Valley Dam (CVD) (Coyote Valley Dam) Ukiah 2)Evaluate the failure/influence of Potter Valley Project (PVP) Hopland River Russian Mendocino County CVD Project Background: Sonoma County Cloverdale Two Phases Lake Sonoma – First one finished in 1959 (Warm Springs Dam) Healdsburg (Storage Capacity: 145,000 acre-feet), – Second phase considered 75,000 acre-feet of additional storage capacity (220,000 acre-feet, never completed) Pacific Ocean 2. Methodology: Lake Mendocino Allocation Model
West Fork PVP PVP Project
Calpella Calpella
Lake Mendocino Lake Mendocino (Coyote Valley Dam)
Ukiah
Hopland Hopland River Russian Mendocino County Sonoma County Cloverdale Cloverdale
Lake Sonoma Healdsburg (Warm Springs Dam) Healdsburg
Pacific Ocean 2. Methodology: Conceptual Model
Water Demand Operation Water Supply Irrigation Agricultural Decision 1610 Frost Control Head flows Post-harvest Soak Municipal Incremental Flows Water Allocation
Riparian BO Modified Summer Flows
Water Allocation Model
Current PVP operation vs. No PVP Current Climate vs. Future Wet / Dry Scenarios Current Water Demands vs. 2045 Low/High Current Storage Capacity vs. Augmented
Lake Mendocino Storage Outputs Stream Flows Water supply and shortages
Reliability - Risk Analysis 3. Results: Storage
200,000 180,000 PVP On 160,000 140,000 feet) 120,000 PVP 100,000 80,000
- (acre Storage 60,000 Lake Mendocino 40,000 (CVD) 20,000 Ukiah 0
200,000 PVP Off 180,000 160,000
140,000 PVP feet) 120,000 100,000 X 80,000 60,000 Lake Mendocino - (acre Storage (CVD) 40,000 Ukiah 20,000 0 4. Discussion • There is a direct relation between the reliability of the system and the storage capacity • Strong dependence of PVP diversions to sustain inter- annual storage – With PVP, system response is almost the same. Reservoir storage is shifted upward. – Without PVP, system response is better under Augmented capacity, although will not prevent it to go dry. • Reservoir gets filled between Jan and Jun: – Top of Conservation is at the lowest or gradually increasing – Main inputs of the system are not fully stored • Bigger reservoir allows to transfer water inter-annually, improving water supply reliability (reducing dry risk) ANR UC Davis
Stakeholders 5. Collaboration and Outreach 5. Collaboration and Outreach RUSSIAN RIVER INTEGRATED WATER MANAGEMENT
Thank you for your attention! Questions?
Pablo Silva Samuel Sandoval, Ph.D. ([email protected])
2. Methodology: Lake Mendocino Allocation Model
• Developed by SCWA in Excel • Upper Russian River system • Monthly time step • Historic Data from 1911 to 2013 (Current Climate) • Future Climate Data from 2000 to 2099 (Wet and Dry) • Hydrology developed by USGS (Flint et al, 2013) • Future scenarios developed for year 2045 (30 years from now) 3. Results: Reliability
PVP On PVP
Lake Mendocino (CVD) Ukiah
PVP Off PVP X
Lake Mendocino (CVD) Ukiah 3. Results: Storage Current Rule Curve from Jan to Jun 200,000 PVP On 180,000 3 3 3 3 160,000
140,000 PVP feet) 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 Lake Mendocino - (acre Storage 40,000 (CVD) 20,000 Ukiah 0
200,000 180,000 3 3 3 3 PVP Off 160,000 140,000 feet) 120,000 PVP 100,000 80,000 X 60,000 - (acre Storage 40,000 Lake Mendocino (CVD) 20,000 Ukiah 0 3. Results: Storage Current Rule Curve from Jan to Jun PVP On PVP
Lake Mendocino (CVD) Ukiah
PVP Off PVP X
Lake Mendocino (CVD) Ukiah 3. Results: Monthly Storage Monthly distribution of the reservoir storage PVP On
PVP 200,000 180,000
160,000 Lake Mendocino (CVD) 140,000
ft) Ukiah 120,000
100,000
80,000 - (acre Storage LM 60,000 PVP Off 40,000
20,000 PVP 0 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep X Month (Water Year) Lake Mendocino (CVD) Ukiah 3. Results: Monthly Storage Monthly distribution of the reservoir storage PVP On PVP
Lake Mendocino (CVD) Ukiah
PVP Off PVP X
Lake Mendocino (CVD) Ukiah
Current Storage Augmented Storage Capacity Capacity 1. Background
Water Supply Reliability Study: Term 17 Project
– Ordered by SWRCB in May 2013 after petition from SCWA requesting approval to reduce instream flows. – Under Term 17 (out of 18):
Water Agency is required to evaluate long-term water supply reliability of the Lake Mendocino and the upper Russian River system.
2. Methodology: Raising CVD Assessment
• Assumptions: – Same Dry Spring and Water Supply Conditions (D1610 Thresholds + 75,000 acre-feet) – Extrapolation of exiting elevation vs. storage and elevation vs. area curve. • Scenarios: – Current Storage conditions: Baseline scenario with current PVP operations. – Current Storage conditions with PVP Off: Baseline scenario without PVP diversions. – Augmented Storage conditions with PVP On: Baseline conditions with augmented storage capacity and current PVP diversions. – Augmented Storage conditions with PVP Off: Baseline conditions with augmented storage capacity and without PVP diversions. 3. Results: Performance Criteria
• Reliability: – Percentage of the number of years that the reservoir went dry at least once during the year • Probability distribution functions: – Frequency distribution curves (histogram). – Non-exceedance probability: focused on the lower end and flat regions of the curve • Monthly Storage: – Observed storage compared with the respective Rule Curve between January and June – Observed storage compared with the current Rule Curve between January and June – Monthly distribution comparison of the reservoir storage under the current and the augmented capacity 3. Results: Reliability
200,000 180,000 PVP On 160,000 140,000
feet) 120,000 PVP 100,000 80,000
- (acre Storage 60,000 Lake Mendocino 40,000 (CVD) 20,000 Ukiah 0
200,000 PVP Off 180,000 160,000
140,000 PVP feet) 120,000 100,000 X 80,000 60,000 Lake Mendocino - (acre Storage (CVD) 40,000 Ukiah 20,000 0 3. Results: Reliability
PVP On PVP
Lake Mendocino (CVD) Ukiah
PVP Off PVP X
Lake Mendocino (CVD) Ukiah 3. Results: Histogram
40% PVP On 35% Current Storage Capacity 30% Augmented Storage Capacity
25% PVP 20% 15% 10% Lake Mendocino 5% (CVD) 0% Ukiah
LM Storage (acre-ft)
25% PVP Off
20% Current Storage Capacity Augmented Storage Capacity PVP 15% X 10%
5% Lake Mendocino (CVD) Ukiah 0%
LM Storage (acre-ft) 3. Results: Non-exceedance Probability
200,000 PVP On 180,000 Flood Control Pool 160,000 ft) 140,000 “Raising Limb” 120,000 Water Supply Breakpoints 100,000 Pool 80,000 60,000 - (acre Storage LM 40,000 Current Storage Capacity 20,000 Augmented Storage Capacity 0 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%0.0% 0.1% 1.0% 10.0% 100.0% Non-excedance probability Non-excedance probability
200,000 PVP Off 180,000 160,000 ft) 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000
- (acre Storage LM Current Storage Capacity 40,000 Augmented Storage Capacity 20,000 0 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%0.0% 0.1% 1.0% 10.0% 100.0% Non-excedance probability Non-excedance probability 3. Results: Monthly Storage Respective Rule Curve from Jan to Jun 200,000 180,000 3 3 3 3 PVP On 160,000 140,000
feet) PVP 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 - (acre Storage Lake Mendocino 40,000 (CVD) 20,000 Ukiah 0
200,000 180,000 3 3 3 3 PVP Off 160,000 140,000
feet) PVP 120,000 100,000 X 80,000 60,000 - (acre Storage Lake Mendocino 40,000 (CVD) 20,000 Ukiah 0 3. Results: Monthly Storage Respective Rule Curve from Jan to Jun PVP On PVP
Lake Mendocino (CVD) Ukiah
PVP Off PVP X
Lake Mendocino (CVD) Ukiah 3. Results: Monthly Storage Current Rule Curve from Jan to Jun 200,000 PVP On 180,000 3 3 3 3 160,000
140,000 PVP feet) 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 Lake Mendocino - (acre Storage 40,000 (CVD) 20,000 Ukiah 0
200,000 180,000 3 3 3 3 PVP Off 160,000 140,000 feet) 120,000 PVP 100,000 80,000 X 60,000 - (acre Storage 40,000 Lake Mendocino (CVD) 20,000 Ukiah 0 3. Results: Monthly Storage Current Rule Curve from Jan to Jun PVP On PVP
Lake Mendocino (CVD) Ukiah
PVP Off PVP X
Lake Mendocino (CVD) Ukiah 4. Discussion
• There is a direct relation between the reliability of the system and the storage capacity • Strong dependence of PVP diversions to sustain inter- annual storage – With PVP, system response is almost the same. Reservoir storage is shifted upward. – Without PVP, system response is better under Augmented capacity, although will not prevent it to go dry. • Reservoir gets filled between Jan and Jun: – Top of Conservation is at the lowest or gradually increasing – Main inputs of the system are not fully stored • Bigger reservoir allows to transfer water inter-annually, improving water supply reliability (reducing dry risk)
2. Methodology: Lake Mendocino Allocation Model Inputs – Water Demand PVP
Agricultural: Calpella Lake Mendocino Irrigation: (Coyote Valley Dam) – Ukiah • Land Use: Acreage per reach per crop.
• Monthly Demand factor: monthly share of Hopland annual volume. • Crop Water Duty: acre feet of water per Russian River irrigated acre. Cloverdale – Frost Control. – Post harvest. Healdsburg – Monthly ratio to land use: share of water that is diverted from the river 2. Methodology: Lake Mendocino Allocation Model Inputs – Water Demand PVP
For each reach & for every Crop: Calpella Lake Mendocino TOTAL Ag: (Coyote Valley Dam) Ukiah Acreage x Crop Water Duty x Monthly Demand Factor + Post Harvest Hopland + Frost Control. TOTAL Surface Water:
TOTAL Ag x Monthly Ratio to Land Use. Russian River Cloverdale
Adjustable Variables: - Crop Water Duty. Healdsburg - Changes in land use. 2. Methodology: Lake Mendocino Allocation Model Inputs – Water Demand PVP
Municipal and Industrial: Calpella Lake Mendocino – Monthly demand factor. (Coyote Valley Dam) Ukiah – Annual water demands.
Hopland For every reach:
TOTAL M&I: Annual Water Demand x Monthly Demand Factor Russian River Cloverdale
Adjustable Variables: Healdsburg - Rate of population growth. - Low-flow policies: reducing WUPC. 2. Methodology: Lake Mendocino Allocation Model Inputs – System operation
PVP
– Operation of the Reservoir Calpella Lake Mendocino • Decision 1610 (Coyote Valley Dam) • BO for Summer flows Ukiah • Water rights. – Indexes: Hopland • Dry Spring – Depends on Lake Mendocino and Lake Pillsbury Storage combined. Russian River Cloverdale – Applies from June to December. • Water Supply Condition (WSC) – Based on cumulative inflow from Lake Pillsbury Healdsburg between January and May.
Adjustable Variables: - New D1610 maintaining the BO flows. - Ramping rates. 2. Methodology: Lake Mendocino Allocation Model Inputs – System operation 2. Methodology: Lake Mendocino Allocation Model
Inputs – System operation PVP
– Streamflow Requirements: Calpella • Always: 25 cfs from Coyote Valley Dam. Lake Mendocino • If WSC: (Coyote Valley Dam) Ukiah – Critical: 25 cfs – Dry: 75 cfs.
– Normal: 150 cfs between 1/1 and 3/31 Hopland 185 cfs between 4/1 and 5/31 If Lake Pillsbury + Lake Mendocino < 130,000 AF 75 cfs between 6/1 and 12/31
If Lake Pillsbury + Lake Mendocino > 130,000 AF Russian River Cloverdale 125 cfs between 6/1 and 10/31 150 cfs between 11/1 and 12/31 unless Lake Mendocino storage < 30,000 AF Healdsburg 75 cfs between 10/1 and 12/31 200 Normal LM < 30,000 AF 150 100 Dry LP & LM > 130,000 AF
50 Critical LP & LM < 130,000 AF Stream flow (cfs) 0