James Gilbert, PhD Nancy Parker

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Cay Goude Ryan Olah Steve Detwiler Victoria Poage Derek Hilts U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Mike Chotkowski Lenny Grimaldo.
Advertisements

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program WY 2000 Low Steady Summer Flow Randy Peterson, BOR Barry D. Gold, GCMRC A Test of Concept.
1 NODOS/Sites Reservoir: A Local Perspective Glenn Colusa Irrigation District July 2009.
Climate Change and Water Resources Challenge in California Francis I Chung, Ph.D., P.E. Department of Water Resources.
SWRCB Modeling I Historical Modeling Tara Smith, Delta Modeling Section Department of Water Resources Tara Smith, Delta Modeling Section Department of.
Groundwater as a Statewide Resource Professor Richard E. Howitt Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Davis Professor Jay R. Lund Civil & Environmental.
June 26, PCWA - Middle Fork Project Project Operations
1 Measuring Performance of Resource Management Responses Rich Juricich (DWR) David Groves (RAND)
Drought and the Central Valley Project August 2014.
CRFS Technical Committee Spring Meeting LC Operations Update March 26, 2015.
CRFS Technical Committee Fall Meeting LC Operations Update November 20, 2014.
Use of Regional Agricultural Economic Models for Policy Analysis Stephen Hatchett CH2MHILL.
In-Delta Storage Process OverviewProcess Overview Program BenefitsProgram Benefits Project CostsProject Costs IssuesIssues Proposed Work Plan for FY 2003Proposed.
Fresno County Water Crisis and Opportunities. The Delta And Our Water Supply In August 2007 the Federal Court ruled that the Delta Smelt was in danger.
Urban Water Institute Conference August 22,
Cost Allocation Studies for the MP Region Bureau of Reclamation April 29, 2008 Central Valley Project Cost Allocation Study Update Public Meeting #2: October.
Proposal for Improved CVP/SWP Integrated Operations.
Middle Fork Project Flow and Temperature Modeling (Status Report) November 4, 2008.
44 th Annual Mid-Pacific Region 2011 Water Users Conference Water Supply Outlook Reno, Nevada January 26-28, 2011.
Study for Fish Screens at Existing Delta Facilities Dr. Leah Orloff Water Resources Manager CUWA Board MeetingJuly 24, 2009.
Draft Recommendations of the San Joaquin Water Quality Management Group Plan for Achieving Salinity/Boron and DO Objectives Plan for Achieving Salinity/Boron.
1 Development of Common Assumptions Common Model Package for the CALFED Surface Storage Investigations Presentation To: California Water and Environmental.
Where to From Here Jerry Johns, DWR EWA Development of OCAP Proposal.
James VanShaar Riverside Technology, inc
Species or RunONDJFMAMJJAS Fall Chinook Late fall Chinook Winter Chinook Spring Chinook Steelhead Delta smelt Figure 1. Comparison of the timing of life.
Assign Annual Demand for a Purpose CALSIM Simulation Compare the Long-term Average Annual Friant Unit Delivery to Benchmark Study CALSIM Simulation Completed.
Recommendations on export limits San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority.
California Water Dialog March 24, 2010 Jerry Johns Deputy Director California Department of Water Resources.
Resource allocation and optimisation model RAOM October 2003.
OCAP/SDIP Public Information Meeting Chet Bowling - Intro Ann Lubas-Williams – OCAP Andy Chu – SDIP Jerry Johns – EWA Ron Ott – Other CALFED Activities.
1 December 19, 2007 North-of-the-Delta Offstream Storage Project Overview State of California Department of Water Resources U.S. Department of the Interior.
Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation ACWA Regions 9 and 10 Carlsbad Water Summit U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation State.
CALSIM II - San Joaquin River Basin Refinements and Results Presentation by Dan Steiner On behalf of the San Joaquin River Group Authority March 14, 2005.
Project Status South Delta Improvements Program Project Status November 2003.
CVPIA §3406(b)(2) Water Operations on the Sacramento River Sacramento River Conservation Area Forum Technical Advisory Committee February 7, 2012.
1 September 13, 2007 North-of-the-Delta Offstream Storage ACWA Regions 9 and 10 Carlsbad Water Summit North-of-the-Delta Offstream Storage ACWA Regions.
In-Delta Storage Program. Background and historyBackground and history Evolution of the fish screensEvolution of the fish screens Proposed Re-engineered.
Drought Management Sheri Looper CVP Water Resource Specialist.
Draft example: Indicators for water supply reliability and storage projects Presented by Steve Roberts (Department of Water Resources, Storage Investigations)
California Water Supply Overview Robert Shibatani CEO & Consulting Hydrologist The SHIBATANI GROUP, Inc.
CRFS Technical Committee Fall Meeting LC Operations Update December 8, 2015.
Introduction Joint Presentation of State Water Contractors and San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority.
CRFS Technical Committee Spring Meeting LC Operations Update March 15, 2016.
Modeling Delta Flow-Turbidity Relationships with Artificial Neural Networks CWEMF Annual Meeting April 16, 2012 Paul Hutton, Ph.D., P.E.
2016 Water Inventory and Analysis Report Highlights on Land Use, Water Supply, and Water Budgets Christina Buck, PhD Water Resources Scientist Board of.
5th Shire River Basin Conference 22 February 2017 Shire River Basin Management Project Shire Basin Planning Tool Sub-Component A1 Development of a.
Santa Ana River Conservation and Conjunctive Use Program (SARCCUP) Decision-Support Model DSM Overview December 22, 2016.
Presented by Jon Traum, P.E.
Water Resource Management Planning Update
Num Dum Case Study.
Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN)
CWEMF Annual Meeting March 2005
Sustainable Management in the Lower American River
Bureau of Reclamation Central Valley Project Groundwater Transfers
Applications of Medium Range To Seasonal/Interannual Climate Forecasts For Water Resources Management In the Yakima River Basin of Washington State Shraddhanand.
In-Delta Storage Program
Climate Change and Potential Effects on California Water Operations
Water Resource Management Planning Update
San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority
Central Valley Salinity Coalition
In-Delta Storage Program
Summary of COA and Addendum
CBEWP Chino Basin Conjunctive Use Environmental
California Water Commission
C2VSimFG State of the IDC Calibration Dominick Amador Woodard & Curran
Implementation of Lower San Joaquin River Flow Objectives
SGMA Climate Change Desktop tools for IWFM and Modflow
Resource Management and Climate Protection Committee Meeting:
State of Calibration for California Central Valley Groundwater-Surface Water Simulation Model (C2VSim) CWEMF 2019 Annual Meeting Folsom, CA Presenter:
Presentation transcript:

A Comparison of CalSimII and CalSim3: Parallel Application of Two Planning Models James Gilbert, PhD (jmgilbert@usbr.gov) Nancy Parker US Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service Center

Outline Motivation Model setup and assumptions Comparing CSII and CS3 CSII and CS3 differencese What’s in COS? What’s in PA? Comparing CSII and CS3 Comparing scenario effects (PA-COS for each CSII and CS3) What does CS3 tell us that CSII can’t?

Motivation: Transition toward CalSim3 as primary planning tool for CVP and SWP Identify issues or refinements through comparisons In other words – start using CalSim3 What does a recent CalSimII analysis look like in CalSim3? Test case: implement RoC on LTO scenarios (we present a ‘proof of concept’ comparison of parallel CalSimII-CalSim3 studies – using recent RoC on LTO ‘Current Operations Study’ and ‘Proposed Action’ versions as the basis)

CalSim Background Long-term water resources planning models for CVP-SWP systems Assume a constant ‘level of development’ combined with historic hydrology pattern Monthly time step with layered (‘cycles’) rules within time steps System represented via LP formulation (constraints, weights, etc) CalSim3 (CS3) refines spatial resolution and hydrologic representation

CalSim3 network & domain Water Budget Areas and Demand Units Channel and conveyance network C2VSim Groundwater model CalSim3 network & domain

RoC on LTO Scenarios “Reinitiation of Consultation on Long-Term Operations” Current Operations Study (COS) Demonstrates applicable criteria for CVP/SWP operations today Includes D1641 and 2008 USFWS and 2009 NMFS Biological Opinion RPA’s December 12, 2018 COA decision Updates to CVP allocation and San Luis operation logic Proposed Action Study (PA) Increase operational flexibility through non-operational measures where possible to avoid adverse effects

Major Model Assumption Differences Current Operation (COS) Proposed Action (PA)   Sacramento River measures to reduce Fall-Run redd dewatering - shift in agricultural diversion timing 2006 American River Flow Management Standard 2017 American River Flow Management Standard (** not implemented in CalSim3) OMR requirements based on USFWS RPA Actions 1-3 and NMFS RPA Action IV.2.3 Risk-based OMR management incorporating real-time monitoring and models where possible Fall X2 standards based on USFWS RPA Action 4 Suisun Marsh Salinity Control Gate Operation for 60 days between June and September of above normal and below normal year types Exports limited by Vernalis I:E per NMFS RPA IV.2.1 Risk-based management incorporating real-time monitoring HORB installed between September 15 and November 30 of most years when flows at Vernalis is <5,000 cfs; occasionally also between April 15 and May 30 if Delta Smelt entrainment is not a concern No HORB installed Stanislaus River Appendix 2-E flows from NMFS RPA III.1.3 Stepped release plan for Stanislaus River flows

Implementation CalSimII studies were prepared as part of Reclamation’s consultation with Federal fisheries agencies (January 2019) CalSim3 updated based on review and revisions from DWR, Stantec Code for COS and PA studies mapped to CalSim3 Variable names changed where necessary CalSimII studies set up with historical hydrology (Q0) for consistency with CalSim3

Two ways of comparing: Direct comparisons – do CalSimII and CalSim3 represent each study consistently? Compare COS to COS, PA to PA Effects comparisons – do CalSimII and CalSim3 represent the effects of the actions the same way? Tabulate the difference between PA and COS for each CalSimII and CalSim3 – how do these differences compare?

CalSimII – CalSim3 Comparisons Operations logic mapped between CSII and CS3 Additional upstream operations in CS3 Hydrology is different Spatial refinement Land-use based demands Valley floor water budgets more complex Delta demands and salinity ANN Closure terms Expect direct mapping of CalSimII logic to CalSim3 to give the same results?

Flow Comparisons

Sacramento River at Hood – version comparison: Differences difficult to discern at monthly scale

Sacramento R at Hood – version comparison: Annual comparison shows ~330 TAF more flow in CS3 compared to CSII

Sacramento R at Hood – version comparison: CS3 monthly average flows higher in Oct, March, May, Aug

San Joaquin R at Vernalis – version comparison: High flows are lower in CS3

San Joaquin R at Vernalis – version comparison: Monthly average pattern: CS3 most different in October - April

Delta Outflow – version comparison: Differences dominated by Sacramento and Eastside inflows

Delta Outflow: CSII – CS3 differences are dominated by increased Sacramento and Eastside inflows in CS3

Delta Outflow – version comparison: Differences dominated by Sacramento and Eastside inflows

Delivery Comparisons

CVP SOD Ag Delivery – version comparison: Different demands -> different deliveries

CVP SOD Ag Delivery – version comparison: Demand pattern differences throughout year

CVP SOD Ag Delivery – scenario comparison: Benefits to delivery in both CSII and CS3

CVP SOD Ag Delivery – scenario comparison: Timing of increased PA delivery not the same in CS3

Storage Comparisons

Folsom – version comparison: Greater dry year drawdowns in CalSim3; Higher storage in average years

Folsom – version comparison: CalSim3 storage higher in summer and fall

Folsom – scenario comparison: CSII PA has greater storage increase compared to CS3

Groundwater Comparisons

Groundwater representation is simplified (or absent) in CalSimII CalSim3 coupled with C2VSim finite element mesh, stream reaches, and pumping/recharge Groundwater pumping in CS3 has consequences Explicit spatial representation of drawdown Stream-groundwater interactions along main waterways

SOD Groundwater Pumping – scenario comparison Delivery increases reduce pumping

SOD Stream-Groundwater– scenario comparison Combination of reduced pumping and different channel flows yields mix of groundwater exchange effects

Stream-Groundwater Interactions: Modified Stanislaus flows affect groundwater exchange

Summary Scenario analysis is feasibly implemented in CalSim3 Differences in CalSim3 analysis result from increased resolution, refined hydrology Simple mapping of CalSimII code to CalSim3 not sufficient – will need scenario-specific adaptation The way to make CalSim3 a comparable tool – start using and testing it!

Looking ahead… CalSim3 expands scope of what can be included in scenario analysis For example: land fallowing impacts to consumptive use and delivery; groundwater as an additional ‘reservoir’ Ongoing refinements: Water quality (salinity) in San Joaquin Allocation and other system logic testing Tulare expansion (Lauren Thatch’s presentation – next) The way to make CalSim3 a comparable tool – start using and testing it!

James Gilbert USBR – Technical Service Center jmgilbert@usbr.gov Thanks!