APPENDIX A Bow River Project Participants MEMBER REPRESENTATIVE(S) Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development Roger Hohm Bob Riewe Alberta Environment Kent Berg Dave McGee Heather Sinton John Taggart Tom Tang Alberta Sustainable Resource Development Allan Locke Andrew Paul Jim Stelfox Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation Joey Young Alberta Water Research Institute David Hill Bow River Basin Council Mark Bennett Bow River Irrigation District Richard Phillips Calgary Regional Partnership Colleen Shepherd Natalie Guy, Dave Pernitsky (CH2M Hill) City of Calgary Paul Fesko Frank Frigo John Jagorinec County of Newell Kevin Stephenson Ducks Unlimited Canada Tracy Scott Eastern Irrigation District Earl Wilson Rocky View County Jorie McKenzie Trout Unlimited Canada Brian Meagher Water and Environmental Hub Alex Joseph Bruce MacArthur Mike Nemeth Western Irrigation District Erwin Braun Jim Webber EXPERT RESOURCES Alberta Sustainable Resource Development Paul Christiansen Alberta Water Research Institute Val Mellesmoen University of Lethbridge Dr. Stewart Rood PROJECT FACILITATION, MODELLING AND SUPPORT Alberta WaterSMART Mike Kelly Gary Reavie Kim Sturgess Megan Van Ham HydroLogics Inc. Dan Sheer Mike Sheer Sam Lebherz Green Planet Communications Kim Sanderson Bow River Project Final Report 57 APPENDIX B Bow River Operational Model Base Case SECTION 1. MODEL ORIGIN The Bow River Operational Model (BROM) is built on foundations lain by the South Saskatchewan River Basin (SSRB) model. Constructed for the University of Lethbridge, the SSRB model emulates the license-based operations of Alberta Environment’s Water Resources Management Model (WRMM). The BROM diverges from the SSRB model, however, in that it attempts to more accurately model existing and potential future operations beyond the constraints of a strict licensing system. Data sources are described later, but like the SSRB model much of it comes from Alberta Environment (AE) and Alberta Agriculture (AA). As the Bow River region officially operates under the metric system, internal model units are in metric. The primary volumetric unit is cubic decameters (cdm) with primary flow in cubic meters per second (cms). The model is capable of converting to or from metric “on the fly” however, as many users in the area prefer imperial units. For those wishing to evaluate and examine the SSRB model, it is available through the University of Lethbridge at the following URL: http://www.uleth.ca/research/node/432/. Questions regarding that model and its development should be directed to either Mike Nemeth of the University of Lethbridge at (403) 332-4038 and mike.nemeth@uleth. ca.edu or Dean Randall of HydroLogics, Inc. at (410)715-0555 and [email protected]. SECTION 2. DATA SOURCES *Note: Due to the limitations faced by earlier modeling efforts, the BROM has data current only from 1928 to 1995. PHYSICAL SYSTEM & INFLOWS Lower Bow River Most data regarding the physical system downstream of node 210 (i.e. the Bow River from Calgary all the way to the confluence with the Oldman) was copied directly from the SSRB model. Refinements were made, however, after discussion with specific stakeholders. Bow River Irrigation District (BRID) provided significant information regarding the diversion limitations of the structure at Carseland, as well as noting minimum flow requirements for pass-by flow at the BRID headworks and the dead storage level at McGregor Reservoir. Glenmore reservoir, absent from the original SSRB model, was added according to data provided by the City of Calgary. “Glenmore SAE & Ops.xls” collects data provided over a series of personal conversations and is attached. Upper Bow River The data for the Upper Bow River comes largely from TransAlta Utilities (TAU). Storage-Area-Elevations are collected from the Draft Report on the Calculation of Weekly Natural Flows (1987 to 2007) for the Upper Bow River Basin produced by Golder Associates. This report is named “Report for TransAlta Phase I.pdf.” Turbine capacity and maximum/minimum flows were also provided by TAU and can be found in the file “Reservoir and Conveyance Info.xls.” Natural flow data was acquired from TAU as well (filename “Hbdf for TAU (May 2010).txt”), though it was originally produced by Alberta Environment. Since these flows were provided on a weekly timestep, HydroLogics, Inc. converted the records to better reflect reality under a daily model. This was performed by adding statistical “noise” that preserved weekly totals while reintroducing stochasticity. Further documentation on this process can be found Section 5 of this Appendix. It is important to note that Smith-Dorian Creek, Kent Creek, and Ghost River have diversion canals that can allocate partial river flows to upstream reservoirs in the system. For modeling purposes, BROM uses historical diversion records to allocate these flows. Remaining river flow continues to the traditional reservoir. For Smith-Dorian and Kent Creek, the diversions are represented as inflows to OASIS nodes 075 and 140 respectively. Remaining flows (to 145 – Lower Kananaskis and 155 – Barrier) are adjusted in the inflow calculations to account for this (see set_inflows. ocl). Ghost River is treated similarly, though the diversions are handled slightly differently by forcing diversion flows using OASIS target statements in “set_TAU_div_flows.ocl.” Bow River Project Final Report 58 Figure 1 - BROM schematic as modeled in OASIS Red Deer and Oldman Rivers The Oldman and Red Deer Rivers from the SSRB model have been removed in the BROM. Their inflows and outflows, in relation to the Bow River, have been replaced with the calculated flows from the SSRB model. This affects the inflows to the following OASIS nodes: 342 – Travers Reservoir, 570 – Bow/Oldman Confluence, and 720 – Red Deer/ South Saskatchewan Confluence. DEMANDS Like much of the model, demands were originally drawn from Alberta Environment via the SSRB model. Discussions with Alberta Environment staff revealed that these were based off of the “Scenario 18” WRMM model run which Bow River Project Final Report 59 predicted significant growth for Calgary and other Irrigation districts. The data supplied by Alberta Environment was transcribed from model input and other sources. The full model data set was not provided. As a result, the assumptions underlying the data provided were not always clear. The demand data sets were thus distributed to the Modeling and Data Committee for review. As a consequence of this review, Calgary demands were modified to better reflect current (viz. future) demands and return flows. To correct for both circumstances, demands were increased by a factor of 2.7122 at the Bearspaw water treatment plant (Bearspaw WTP) and by a factor of 5.2614 at the Glenmore water treatment plant (Glenmore WTP). These ratios were found by comparing average actual WTP diversion against the SSRB demand dataset. Similarly, irrigation demands were adjusted to account for return flows. The WID demands also required a scaling factor to represent more current demand levels (0.588). BRID was similarly adjusted (factor = 0.9). Following correction, the demand sets were reviewed and approved by the Modeling and Data Committee members, which included highly knowledgeable staff from the appropriate organizations. SECTION 3. OPERATIONS GENERAL OASIS OPERATIONS DESCRIPTION At its most basic, an OASIS model is driven by weights on variables (flow and/or storage); positive weights encourage actions while negative weights discourage them. Further, the weights are ordinal; a variable with a higher weight is given preference over one with a lower weight, regardless of the magnitude of the difference. Thus, in a very simple, two-variable model, the solution will be the same whether the difference in the two weights is 0.1 or 100. Of course, as a model becomes more complex – the BROM is quite large and complex – the more complex it becomes to set the weights appropriately. The weight operations simulated in this model are summarized below in table form. The “Priority, Weight” column indicates the order in which the flows and storages are satisfied. Note that the Priority values are not part of the data read by OASIS; they are simply to help the user understand the hierarchy. BOW RIVER OPERATIONS MODEL WEIGHTS Traditionally, demand weights are recorded in the statdata.mdb file as model inputs. In order to support a simpler transition between WRMM emulation and BROM operations in the future, however, these weights are instead applied to deliveries to demands in the file set_demands.ocl. The list of demands and their associated weights can be found in the file _znode_lists.ocl, as set_demands.ocl refers only substitutes. In many cases, weights described below are the added values of both the demand’s specific weight and the value for passing through each ID’s diversion channel. The weights on channel flow maintain the hierarchy between WID, EID, and BRID licenses. Again, priority is not reflected anywhere in the model, it merely reflects the underlying hierarchy that the model uses the weight system to generate. In many cases (e.g. releases from TAU reservoirs to meet senior downstream licenses), the weights below are overridden by operational targets that force the release (or storage) of water in reservoirs and limit withdrawals. OASIS Node Number, Name Priority, Weight Category Notes Future Node, no effect on Will reflect Calgary diversions before release from Bearspaw. 205, Calgary Div 0, 0 model Currently set to 0 due to lack of data.