DOCSLIB.ORG

Lake Mendocino FORECAST INFORMED RESERVOIR OPERATIONS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lake Mendocino FORECAST INFORMED RESERVOIR OPERATIONS Lake Mendocino FORECAST INFORMED RESERVOIR OPERATIONS Final Viability Assessment December 2020 Lake Mendocino FIRO Steering Committee Jay Jasperse, Co-chair, Sonoma Water F. Martin Ralph, Co-chair, U.C. San Diego, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes (CW3E) Michael Anderson, California Department of Water Resources Levi Brekke, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Nicholas Malasavage, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), San Francisco District Michael Dettinger, CW3E (formerly U.S. Geological Survey) Joseph Forbis, USACE, Sacramento District Joshua Fuller, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Service Cary Talbot, USACE, Engineer Research and Development Center Robert Webb, NOAA, Office of Atmospheric Research, Earth System Research Laboratory Alan Haynes, NOAA, National Weather Service, California-Nevada River Forecast Center Staff Support Arleen O’Donnell, Eastern Research Group, Inc. Robert Hartman, Robert K. Hartman Consulting Services Chris Delaney, Sonoma Water Ann DuBay, Sonoma Water John Mendoza, Sonoma Water David Ford, HDR, Inc. Mike Konieczki, HDR, Inc. Nathan Pingel, HDR, Inc. The final viability assessment (FVA) for Lake Mendocino was produced by the Lake Mendocino FIRO Steering Committee. The FVA does not address all USACE regulations and requirements for a potential update of the Water Control Manual at Coyote Valley Dam-Lake Mendocino. Because each watershed and location is unique, the analysis, results, and conclusions of the FVA are only applicable to Lake Mendocino. Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 1 Project Overview......................................................................................................... 1 Key Finding: FIRO is Currently Viable at Lake Mendocino and Will Deliver Significant Benefits ..................................................................................................................... 2 Key Finding: Further Investment in Research Will Increase Future Benefits at Lake Mendocino and Transferability to Other Locations .......................................................... 5 Key Finding: This Research and Operations Partnership Offers a Model for Successful Collaboration .............................................................................................................. 5 Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 6 Section 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Overview .................................................................................................................. 7 1.2 The Russian River Watershed, Lake Mendocino, and Lake Sonoma ............................... 8 1.2.1 Russian River Watershed ..................................................................................... 8 1.2.2 Lake Mendocino ................................................................................................10 1.2.3 Lake Sonoma ....................................................................................................12 1.2.4 Russian River System Operation .........................................................................13 1.3 The Case for Change at Lake Mendocino ....................................................................13 1.4 FIRO and FIRO at Lake Mendocino ............................................................................16 1.5 Importance of Atmospheric River Research ................................................................17 1.6 Research and Operations ..........................................................................................18 1.7 Lake Mendocino Steering Committee .........................................................................22 Section 2. Evaluation of Existing Weather and Water Forecast Skill ........................................24 2.1 Existing Forecasting Methods ....................................................................................24 2.1.1 Weather Forecasting ..........................................................................................24 2.1.2 Water Forecasting .............................................................................................25 2.2 Forecast Verification .................................................................................................27 2.2.1 Deterministic Precipitation and Streamflow Forecasts ............................................27 2.2.2 Ensemble Forecasts ...........................................................................................29 2.3 Regional Variation in Forecast Skill ............................................................................33 2.4 Sustainability of Existing and Future Forecast Services ................................................35 Section 3. Evaluation of FIRO WCP Alternatives Using Existing Streamflow Forecasts ..............36 3.1 Background .............................................................................................................36 3.2 WCP Alternatives .....................................................................................................36 3.2.1 Baseline WCP ....................................................................................................38 3.2.2 EFO ..................................................................................................................38 i 3.2.3 Hybrid EFO .......................................................................................................41 3.2.4 Modified Hybrid EFO ..........................................................................................41 3.2.5 Five-Day Deterministic Forecast ..........................................................................42 3.3 WCP Performance Metrics .........................................................................................43 3.4 Procedure ...............................................................................................................43 3.4.1 Study Boundary Conditions .................................................................................43 3.4.2 Analysis Methods ...............................................................................................44 3.5 Results ....................................................................................................................46 3.5.1. Key Findings ....................................................................................................46 3.5.2 Making Sense of the Metrics ...............................................................................58 3.6 Additional Robustness Testing ...................................................................................59 3.7 Summary ................................................................................................................59 Section 4. Interim Operations .............................................................................................61 4.1 Description and Analysis of Planned Major Deviations .................................................61 4.1.1 WY 2019 Major Deviation ...................................................................................61 4.1.2 WY 2020 Major Deviation ...................................................................................64 4.2 Decision Support System and Situational Awareness ...................................................66 4.2.1 Interactive FIRO on California Data Exchange Center ...........................................66 4.2.2 CW3E Website ..................................................................................................69 4.2.3 Major Deviation Operations ................................................................................70 4.2.4 Virtual Operations ..............................................................................................71 4.3 Summary ................................................................................................................73 Section 5. FIRO Gains Through Research, Studies, and Enhanced Observations .....................74 5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................74 5.1.1 Scientific Advancements that Contribute to FIRO’s Viability at Lake Mendocino .......74 5.1.2 Potential Gains Through Additional Research and Development .............................76 5.1.3 Research and Operations: A Blueprint for Success ................................................76 5.2 Weather Forecast Improvements ...............................................................................77 5.2.1 Current Forecast Procedures ...............................................................................78 5.2.2 Research to Improve Week One Forecast Skill .....................................................79 5.2.3 Machine Learning and Bias Correction .................................................................84 5.2.4 Decision Support ...............................................................................................84 5.2.5 Opportunities for Future Gains ............................................................................86 5.3 Enhanced Observations ............................................................................................87
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Archival Study for the Fish Habitat Flows and Water Rights Project
    APPENDIX D Archival Study for the Fish Habitat Flows and Water Rights Project An Archival Study for the Fish Habitat Flows and Water Rights Project Mendocino and Sonoma Counties, California Eileen Barrow, M.A. June 6, 2016 An Archival Study for the Fish Habitat Flows and Water Rights Project Mendocino and Sonoma Counties, California Prepared by: _________________________________ Eileen Barrow, M.A. Tom Origer & Associates Post Office Box 1531 Rohnert Park, California 94927 (707) 584-8200 Prepared for: Sonoma County Water Agency 404 Aviation Santa Rosa, California 95407 June 6, 2016 ABSTRACT Tom Origer & Associates conducted an archival study for the Fish Habitat Flows and Water Rights Project, as requested by the Sonoma County Water Agency. This study was designed to meet requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Per the findings of the National Marine Fisheries Service (2008), the Sonoma County Water Agency is seeking to improve Coho salmon and steelhead habitat in the Russian River and Dry Creek by modifying the minimum instream flow requirements specified by the State Water Resources Control Board's 1986 Decision 1610. The current study includes a ⅛ mile buffer around Lake Mendocino, Lake Sonoma, the Russian River from Coyote Valley Dam to the Pacific Ocean, and Dry Creek from Warm Springs Dam to the Russian River. The study included archival research at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University (NWIC File No. 15-1481); archival research at the Museum of Paleontology, University of California, Berkeley; examination of the library and files of Tom Origer & Associates; and contact with the Native American community. Documentation pertaining to this study is on file at the offices of Tom Origer & Associates (File No.
    [Show full text]
  • Russian River Watershed Directory September 2012
    Russian River Watershed Directory September 2012 A guide to resources and services For management and stewardship of the Russian River Watershed © www.robertjanover.com. Russian River & Big Sulphur Creek at Cloverdale, CA. Photo By Robert Janover Production of this directory was made possible through funding from the US Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Conservation. In addition to this version of the directory, you can find updated versions online at www.sotoyomercd.org Russian River Watershed Directory version September 2012 - 1 - Preface The Sotoyome Resource Conservation District (RCD) has updated our Russian River Watershed directory to assist landowners, residents, professionals, educators, organizations and agencies interested in the many resources available for natural resource management and stewardship throughout the Russian River watershed. In 1997, The Sotoyome RCD compiled the first known resource directory of agencies and organization working in the Russian River Watershed. The directory was an example of an emerging Coordinated Resource Management and Planning (CRMP) effort to encourage community-based solutions for natural resource management. Since that Photo courtesy of Sonoma County Water Agency time the directory has gone through several updates with our most recent edition being released electronically and re-formatting for ease of use. For more information or to include your organization in the Directory, please contact the Sotoyome Resource Conservation District Sotoyome Resource Conservation
    [Show full text]
  • 4.14 Water Supply
    Cotati Downtown Specific Plan WATER SUPPLY Draft EIR 4.14 Water Supply 4.14.1 Issues Implementation of the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) will increase the demand for water as compared to the existing demand in the Downtown Specific Plan area. Improvements to water supply and conveyance infrastructure may be required to support buildout of the project and the surrounding area. According to the Downtown Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment (WSA), the City will have sufficient water supply for the project. The WSA considers water supply and demand requirements during normal, single dry, and multiple dry years. This section is largely derived from the WSA, which is incorporated by reference and included in this EIR as Appendix 4.14. 4.14.2 Setting Planning Area For the purpose of assessing direct impacts, the planning area is the DSP area. The cumulative analysis includes the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) service area (see Figure 4.14-1). The City of Cotati serves the planning area with a 6- to 14-inch waterline distribution system. Water System Water supply to the planning area is provided by the City of Cotati through three city wells and the SCWA aqueduct. The planning area is also served by a 1.0 million gallon (mg) storage tank located on West Sierra Avenue outside the City limits. Cotati receives most of its water supply from the SCWA, using its city wells for supplemental supply. Water Sources Sonoma County Water Agency. The SCWA receives groundwater from wells and surface water from the Russian River, with rights to divert up to 75,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) to its customers.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Mendocino Water Supply Reliability Evaluation Report Term 17
    State Water Resources Control Board Order 5/1/2013 Lake Mendocino Water Supply Reliability Evaluation Report Term 17 April 30, 2015 Prepared by Sonoma County Water Agency 404 Aviation Blvd Santa Rosa, CA 95403 LAKE MENDOCINO WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY EVALUATION REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Purpose and Scope ........................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Organization of Report ..................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Project History and Description ........................................................................................................ 4 2.2 Flood Management Operations ....................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Water Supply Operations ................................................................................................................. 5 2.4 Potter Valley Project Operations .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • (Coyote Valley Dam) in the Upper Russian River System. Storage
    Planning Alternatives for Lake Mendocino (Coyote Valley Dam) in the Upper Russian River System Storage and Water Supply Reliability Study By PABLO TOMAS SILVA JORDAN B.S. (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile) 2010 THESIS Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Hydrologic Sciences in the OFFICE OF GRADUATE STUDIES of the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS Approved: _____________________________________ (Samuel Sandoval-Solis, Chair) _____________________________________ (Carlos E. Puente) _____________________________________ (Jay R. Lund) Committee in Charge 2016 1 To Vero, Tomas, Joaquin and the ones to come… 2 “A model is a platform for a disciplined discourse” Professor Uri Shamir 3 Table of Contents List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 6 List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 7 Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 9 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 10 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. Research objectives ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality Report This Report
    City of Santa Rosa 200 - Water System #490009 Why You Receive Water Quality Report this Report A Message from the while acknowledging the harsh realities The federal Environmental Protection Director of Utilities, of the economic downturn. Santa Rosa Agency (EPA) sets regulations on water Miles Ferris is like many other California utilities that quality and ensures you are informed are facing the need to replace aging about your community’s water quality n behalf of through this required annual report. our Utilities infrastructure and maintain our current assets while keeping utility rates as We are mandated to provide certain staff and basic information but we also use the O reasonable as possible. The economy members of the opportunity to share other important has adversely affected the fees we Santa Rosa Board information about your water. This of Public Utilities, collect on new water and wastewater report is printed on 40% post-consumer I am pleased to present our annual connections and increased the number recycled paper. water quality report. This report covers of uncollectable utility bills due to home all testing completed from January foreclosures. The reduction of water usage through December 2010. Our goal is due to conservation and a cool summer to provide excellent customer service last year has also resulted in a significant Radiation Concerns from reduction to rate revenue. along with exceptionally high quality Fukushima Nuclear Plant water to your home or business. The The Santa Rosa Utilities Department has U.S. Environmental Protection Agency made significant strides to overcome our s a result of the (EPA) requires this printed report be current budget shortfall by participating incident _with delivered to you in accordance with in a City furlough equivalent to a 5% A the Fukushima the Consumer Confidence Report Rule.
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 State and Federal Legislative Program
    P a g e | - 0 - SONOMA COUNTY 2014 STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM SONOMA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Susan Gorin ....................................................... District 1 David Rabbitt..................................................... District 2 Shirlee Zane ....................................................... District 3 Mike McGuire ................................................... District 4 Efren Carrillo ..................................................... District 5 Veronica A. Ferguson………..……County Administrator - 1 - County Staff Peter Rumble, Deputy County Administrator–Community and Government Affairs County of Sonoma 575 Administration Drive, Suite 104A Santa Rosa, CA 95403 (707) 565-3771 [email protected] Rebecca Wachsberg, CAO Analyst County of Sonoma 575 Administration Drive, Suite 104A Santa Rosa, CA 95403 (707) 565-3782 [email protected] State Advocates Peterson Consulting, Inc. – Shaw / Yoder / Antwih, Inc. 1415 L Street, Suite 1000 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 441-4424 [email protected] Federal Advocates Alcalde & Fay Madison Government Affairs, Inc. th 2111 Wilson Boulevard, 8 Floor 444 North Capitol Street, NW Arlington, VA 22201 Washington, DC 20001 (703) 841-0626 (202) 347-1223 [email protected] [email protected] - 2 - Sonoma County Legislative State Delegations Governor Jerry Brown (D) Email: www.govmail.ca.gov Governor of California Website: www.gov.ca.gov State Capitol Building Washington D.C. Office Sacramento, CA 95814 124 Hall of
    [Show full text]
  • Russian River Integrated Water Management
    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.
    [Show full text]
  • Dry Creek Rancheria, Vegetation
    Proposal for NCRP Demonstration Projects and Processes Drone image of Dry Creek Rancheria after the kincade fire taken by Anthony Falzone EXHIBIT A PROPOSAL COVER PAGE Proposal Type X Concept Proposal for Demonstration Projects and Processes Organization Name (Lead Applicant) __________________________________________________________Dry Creek Rancheria _______________ Organization Type X Federally recognized Indian Tribe California State Indian Tribe Public agency Local or state agency/special district Resource Conservation District Non-profit organization Public utility Other: ________________________________________________________________ 7 2 3 Demonstration Projects and Processes Organization Statement of Qualifications Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians Settlement in the Dry Creek area by the Southern Pomo, called the Mihilakawna and Makahmo, was evident by 500 A.D. Descendants of these ancient inhabitants survive and continue to live as a tribe in the Alexander Valley, and are known as the Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians. The Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians is a federally-recognized Indian tribe located in Sonoma County, California. The Dry Creek Rancheria was established on June 1, 1915, and consists of 93 acres, located in Alexander Valley north of Healdsburg and southeast of Geyserville. Loss of traditional lands was a direct result from the decades of forcible relocation and today, the original Dry Creek Pomo habitation area is flooded by the water from the Warm Springs Dam and Lake Sonoma. In addition to the Rancheria, the Tribe owns and operates the Alexander Valley RV Park and Campground on the banks of the Russian River and recently purchased 306 acres of vineyard along Rancheria Creek and the Russian River.
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Map and Map Database of Western Sonoma, Northernmost Marin, and Southernmost Mendocino Counties, California
    Geologic Map and Map Database of Western Sonoma, Northernmost Marin, and Southernmost Mendocino Counties, California By M.C. Blake, Jr., R.W. Graymer, and R.E. Stamski Pamphlet to accompany MISCELLANEOUS FIELD STUDIES MAP MF-2402 Version 1.0 2002 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Contents Geologic explanation and acknowledgements 1 Introduction 1 Stratigraphy 1 Mesozoic and Tertiary terrane complexes 1 Description of Terranes 2 Tertiary Stratigraphy 10 Quaternary Surficial Deposits 11 Paleontology 11 Radiometric Ages 11 Structure 12 Structural History 12 Description of Map Units 15 Acknowledgements 23 Digital publication and database description 24 Introduction 24 For those who don’t use digital geologic map databases 24 MF-2402 Digital Contents 24 PostScript plotfile package 25 PDF plotfile package 25 Digital database package 25 TAR files 26 PostScript plotfiles 27 PDF plotfiles 27 Obtaining the Digital Database and Plotfile Packages 28 To obtain TAR files of database or plotfile packages from the USGS web pages 28 To obtain TAR files of database or plotfile packages by ftp 28 Obtaining plots from a commercial vendor 28 Obtaining plots from USGS Map On Demand Services 28 Revisions and version numbers 28 Digital database format 29 Converting ARC export files 29 Digital compilation 29 Base maps 29 Faults and landslides 29 Spatial resolution 29 Database specifics 30 Lines 30 Areas 32 Points 33 References Cited 35 ii Geologic Explanation and Acknowledgements Introduction The map in this report is modified from and supercedes USGS Open-File Report 71-44 (Blake and This report contains a new geologic map at 1:100,000 others, 1971).
    [Show full text]
  • Russian River
    RUSSIAN RIVER AND DROUGHT The Recent Drought in the Russian River Watershed The Russian River recently experienced the worst 12 month drought (Feb. 2013 – Jan. 2014) in the middle of the worst 3-year drought (Feb. 2012 – Jan. 2015) in the historical record (Figure 1). During this 3-year dry period precipitation was 58% below average and was exacerbated by high temperatures1 which caused enhanced drying. Other notable droughts include the 1976-1977 drought and several years during the 1920s. Drought indicators, which help to characterize historical and potentially future droughts in the Russian River watershed, include precipitation, temperature, reservoir levels, climatic water deficit (the thirst of the land), stream flow, and the water available to recharge the water table1. Impacts of the 2012-2015 Drought Figure 1. A historic record of precipitation in • In January 2014, Lake Mendocino was at 40% of target storage the Russian River watershed based on stations in Santa Rosa and Ukiah. The blue bars are the and Lake Sonoma was at 82% of average storage (Figure 2). deviation from the mean and the maroon line is • To maintain reservoir levels, reservoir releases and stream a 36 month running average of precipitation. flows were reduced to some of the lowest levels since flow regulations began. • Many water supply agencies reported lost revenue; some had to increase water rates to cover fixed costs. • Mendocino County livestock, range, pasture and hay producers reported more than a 54% revenue loss and wine grapes reported a $14.7 million loss2,3. • More tributaries went dry by the end of summer contributing to reduced salmon abundance4.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Benefits to Mendocino and Lake Counties from Removing the Dams on the Eel River
    Economic Benefits to Mendocino and Lake Counties from Removing the Dams on the Eel River A Report Prepared by Daniel M. Ihara, Ph.D. & Matthew R. Marshall The Center for Environmental Economic Development (CEED) 1175 G Street, Suite B, Arcata, CA 95521; P.O. Box 4167, Arcata, CA 95518 (707) 822-8347; fax (707) 822-8347; [email protected] for FRIENDS OF THE EEL RIVER P.O. Box 2305, Redway, CA 95560 707-923-2146; fax 707-923-1902; [email protected] Fall 2004 CEED: Economic Benefits to Mendocino and Lake Counties from Removing Dams on the Eel River Preface Restoration of natural ecosystems is not an abstract, purely idealistic and altruistic gesture; rather, restoration of natural ecosystems materially benefits living things, including people, and results in tangible economic and social improvement. This report supplements and complements our study A River in the Balance: Benefits and Costs of Restoring Natural Water Flows to the Eel River. That report focused on the benefits of restoring natural flows downstream of the Potter Valley Project (PVP) dams. This report focuses on the benefits to Mendocino and Lake Counties of physically removing the PVP dams, restoring the affected watershed, and increasing nature-based tourism. Furthermore, this report illustrates the significant magnitude of these benefits and shows how water demands can be more than satisfied by the abundant water resources available in the Upper Russian River basin. Because these benefits from removing the PVP dams and restoring the Eel River have not been analyzed previously, they are the subject of the present report. It is beyond the scope of this report, however, to examine in detail all impacts related to removing the PVP dams and restoring the Eel River: such an examination would more properly belong to a full environmental impact assessment.
    [Show full text]