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 Storage (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 Storage (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 Storage (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 Storage (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 LM Storage (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 Storage (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 Storage (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 LM Storage (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 LM Storage (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 Storage (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 Storage (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 Storage (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 Storage (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.