U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Workshop on the San Juan Basin Hydrology Model February 17, 2005.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Overview of Protocol for Determining Reasonable In- Season Demand & Predicting Demand Shortfall Presented by Mat Weaver Spring 2009.
Advertisements

WinTR-20 Calibration ProceduresFebruary WinTR-20 Calibration Procedures.
Antamina Mine Water Management Model Alan Keizur Golder Associates Roberto Manrique Arce Compañia Minera Antamina User Conference 2006 Background The Antamina.
ITIL: Service Transition
USBR Updates: Forecast and Modeling Changes CRFS Meeting Nov 8, 2011.
Defining the Status Quo. Definition of Status Quo The “Status Quo” describes existing or anticipated conditions of a water resources system if policies,
Investigating the Colorado River Simulation Model James Prairie Bureau of Reclamation.
Simulation.
Nathan VanRheenen Richard N. Palmer Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Washington Recasting the Future Developing.
June 23, 2011 Kevin Werner NWS Colorado Basin River Forecast Center 1 NOAA / CBRFC Water forecasts and data in support of western water management.
Colorado Basin River Forecast Center Water Supply Forecasting Method Michelle Stokes Hydrologist in Charge Colorado Basin River Forecast Center April 28,
Climate Change and Water Resources Management WEB pages on water management activities Max Campos San Jose – Costa Rica.
How Much Do We Have Left? Coming to Terms With the Colorado River Water Availability Study Annual Colorado Water Workshop July 21, 2010 Ben Harding – AMEC.
Long-Term Salinity Prediction with Uncertainty Analysis: Application for Colorado River Above Glenwood Springs, CO James Prairie Water Resources Division,
Green River Water Rights Distribution Model (MODSIM) Update By Division of Water Rights
Reclamation Mid-Term Operational Modeling Seasonal to Year-Two Colorado River Streamflow Prediction Workshop CBRFC March 21-22, 2011 Katrina Grantz, PhD.
The Upper Rio Grande. Multi-objective River and Reservoir System Modeling Flood Control Water Supply Navigation Aquatic/Riparian Habitat Recreational.
Water Resources Planning and Management Daene C. McKinney Simulating System Performance.
Dr. David Ahlfeld Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering The Westfield River Basin Optimization Model Demonstration:
1 Brainstorming for Presentation of Variability in Current Practices Scenario B. Contor August 2007.
Verification & Validation
Cost Allocation Studies for the MP Region Bureau of Reclamation April 29, 2008 Central Valley Project Cost Allocation Study Update Public Meeting #2: October.
Boise River Accounting Liz Cresto February 26, 2013.
ESET ALEMU WEST Consultants, Inc. Bellevue, Washington.
IRP Approach to Water Supply Alternatives for Duck River Watershed: Presentation to XII TN Water Resources Symposium William W. Wade Energy and Water.
The Entry Capacity Transfer & Trade Methodology Statement Transmission Workstream
HIC MEETING July 12, 2005 Streamflow Regulation Accounting by Tom Gurss Missouri Basin River Forecast Center National Weather Service Pleasant Hill, MO.
Adaptation Baselines Through V&A Assessments Prof. Helmy Eid Climate Change Experts (SWERI) ARC Egypt Material for : Montreal Workshop 2001.
Managing Western Water as Climate Changes Denver, CO February 20-21, 2008.
1 Certainty in Uncertain Times? Policy Implications of the Colorado River Compact Eric Kuhn, General Manager.
James VanShaar Riverside Technology, inc
Modeling Development CRFS—Technical Meeting November 14, 2012.
San Juan River Environmental Flows Workshop Background on 1999 Flow Recommendations for the San Juan River February 12-13, 2015.
Analytic Vs Numeric Ground Water Models Ray R. Bennett, PE Colorado Division of Water Resources.
South Platte Decision Support System Colorado Water Conservation Board and Division of Water Resources.
Dr. Richard Palmer Professor and Head Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Central Valley Project Cost Allocation Study -- Irrigation and Municipal & Industrial (M&I) Benefits Public Meeting August 9, 2013.
Yellowtail Dam & Bighorn Lake Water Supply & Operations Meeting Billings, Montana October 9, 2008 RECLAMATION Managing Water in the West.
Resource allocation and optimisation model RAOM October 2003.
Colorado River Update Terry Fulp Deputy Regional Director
Klamath ADR Hydrology Report Modeling Results Historical Record and Instream Claims Model Accuracy Jonathan La Marche KADR Hydrologist3/11/2000.
US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® Mark Twain Lake Water Control Manual Update Joan Stemler St. Louis District Water Control.
Martin Rule Curve Study Ashley McVicar, APC Maurice James, Water Resources Consulting LLC.
PCWA MFP Operations Model All Models are Wrong But Some Models are Useful.
Reservoir Operation Simulation D Nagesh Kumar, IISc Water Resources Planning and Management: M7L2 Simulation.
1 Understanding Sources of Error and Uncertainty NOAA’S COLORADO BASIN RIVER FORECAST CENTER.
Progress Report Snake River Measurement Technical Committee Presented by Sean Vincent March 12, 2012.
CADSWES Engineering Enhancements New Methods and Improved Functionality Steve Setzer.
Hydrology and application of the RIBASIM model SYMP: Su Yönetimi Modelleme Platformu RBE River Basin Explorer: A modeling tool for river basin planning.
Water Resources Planning and Management Daene C. McKinney System Performance Indicators.
Model Overview Application of CALSIM II to Friant System.
MRC-MDBC STRATEGIC LIAISON PROGRAM BASIN DEVELOPMENT PLANNING TRAINING MODULE 3 SCENARIO-BASED PLANNING for the MEKONG BASIN Napakuang, Lao PDR 8-11 December.
Colorado Basin River Forecast Center Greg Smith Senior Hydrologist National Weather Service Colorado Basin River Forecast Center January 25, 2011 Navajo.
CRFS Technical Committee Fall Meeting LC Operations Update December 8, 2015.
Hydrology and application of the RIBASIM model SYMP: Su Yönetimi Modelleme Platformu RBE River Basin Explorer: A modeling tool for river basin planning.
Modeling with WEAP University of Utah Hydroinformatics - Fall 2015.
Strategies for Colorado River Water Management Jaci Gould Deputy Regional Director Lower Colorado Region.
CRFS Technical Meeting LC Operations Update November 14, 2012.
WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
Yuma Agriculture Water - Rights and Supply Terry Fulp Director, Lower Colorado Region Yuma Agriculture Water Conference January 13, 2016.
5th Shire River Basin Conference 22 February 2017 Shire River Basin Management Project Shire Basin Planning Tool Sub-Component A1 Development of a.
ITIL: Service Transition
Presented by Jon Traum, P.E.
The Future of the Colorado River – Business as Usual or ???
Ten Reasons to Use South Carolina’s Surface Water Quantity Models
Water Budget & Bank Storage
Chapter 10 Verification and Validation of Simulation Models
Ten Tribes Partnership Tribal Water Study
Stevenson 5 Capacity Planning.
Tami Thompson - MBK Engineers
Presentation transcript:

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Workshop on the San Juan Basin Hydrology Model February 17, 2005

Purpose of Workshop To provide an opportunity for interested parties to gain a better understanding of how the SJBHM works. Discuss Model Capabilities and Limitations Discuss Interpretation of Model Results

AGENDA I.Basis of Hydrology Modeling II.Overview of the Generation II Model. III.Rationale for the Transition from Gen II to Gen III - Including capabilities and limitations of Gen II. IV.Overview of the Gen III Model - Including capabilities and limitations of Gen III. V.Interpreting the Results - Discussion on the Precision and Accuracy of the Model(s). VI.Open Discussion, Q&A, etc.

What Is A Hydrology Model? A computer representation of the physical processes associated with consuming and moving water moving through a river basin. Simulation model Natural Flow Based –Natural flow estimation –Period of Record ( for the present SJBHM). Calibration Process –Apply historical demands to natural flows –Calibrate to replicate gage flows –Calibrate on one period of record –Validate on another period of record

What Is A Hydrologic Model? (continued) Assumptions in Simulation –Use historical hydrology to represent future conditions –Substitute future expected demands for historic demands –Historical and future statistics similar Baseline configuration –Basin conditions expected to occur in the future. –Foundation to which conditions of a future project are added to determine incremental impact. SJRIP Baseline –Initially established with first ALP consultation 1991 –Updated with new input for flow recommendations –Updated by adding new projects as approved or new information received.

Purpose of SJBHM Provide a tool to analyze ways to manage flows in the San Juan River Basin for the benefit of Endangered Fish while allowing water development to proceed. Provide technical input to the development and periodic evaluation and analysis of flow recommendations Assess the impact of project development on basin depletions and recommended flows for endangered fish

SJBHM Overview First generation model –Monthly timestep ( ) –Implicit ALP –Reclamation natural flows –Post processing required to assess impacts Second generation model (May 2000) –Operating ALP with interaction with Navajo Reservoir –Other conditions same as first generation Third generation model –Daily timestep in decision model –StateMod natural flows

Overview of 2 nd Generation Model Computer Modeling Tools Basic Model Data Input Model Adjustments and Operating Rules Model Verification and Calibration Simulation Scenarios and Model Runs

Computer Modeling Tools RiverWare – Generic hydrologic modeling tool that allows the user to build basin specific models. MS Excel and Basic Programs are used to post-process monthly model output to find daily flows necessary to compute flow statistics

Riverware Workspace

Overview of 2 nd Generation Model Computer Modeling Tools Basic Model Data Input Model Adjustments and Operating Rules Model Verification and Calibration Simulation Scenarios and Model Runs

Basic Model Data Input Reclamation estimated Natural flows ( ) Extended Natural Flows 1929 to 1969 using a combination of spatial and temporal disaggregation methods. Historical or Baseline Non-Agricultural Depletions. Agricultural demands were calculated from acreage, crop water demand and efficiencies Reservoir Evaporation is calculated using Reclamation’s Upper Colorado Region methods. Reach gains and losses are computed as water balance closure terms Data came from Colorado, New Mexico, BIA, USGS, Reclamation & other published sources

Overview of 2 nd Generation Model Computer Modeling Tools Basic Model Data Input Model Adjustments and Operating Rules Model Verification and Calibration Simulation Scenarios and Model Runs

Model Adjustments Off-stream depletion adjustment to natural gains and losses. Return Flow Lag Adjustment Corrections Due to Missed Colorado Depletions in Natural Flow Calculations CRSS Data correction in the Natural Flow extension

Operating Rules San Juan - Chama Project Pine River Project (Vallecito Reservoir) Navajo Reservoir (historical and future rules) Florida Project (Lemon Reservoir) La Plata River Compact Mancos Project (Jackson Gulch Reservoir) Animas-La Plata Project (Lake Nighthorse) Simplified Criteria

Overview of 2 nd Generation Model Computer Modeling Tools Basic Model Data Input Model Adjustments and Operating Rules Model Verification and Calibration Simulation Scenarios and Model Runs

Model Verification and Calibration Verification Model ( ) –Actual depletions and reservoir releases –Check for correct model configuration –No rules are involved Calibration Model ( ) –Non-shorted depletions and computed diversions –Adds rules that operate reservoirs, and compute depletions and shortages.

Navajo Reservoir Inflow

Overview of 2 nd Generation Model Computer Modeling Tools Basic Model Data Input Model Adjustments and Operating Rules Model Verification and Calibration Simulation Scenarios and Model Runs

Depletion Base Irrigated acres and depletions Ground water storage and return flow lagging Non Irrigation depletions Transmountain diversions Animas-La Plata Project

RIP Flow Recommendation Simulation Navajo release decision tree –Navajo peak release hydrographs –Conditional selection of release hydrograph –Average base release implied in hydrograph volumes –Navajo release center date Minimum allowable release Maintain target base flow Avoid Reservoir Spills Avoid Induced Shortage

Simulation Scenario for Project Analysis 1.Request is made for a model run with a new or changed project depletion which is provided by the project proponent through the approved SJRIP process. 2.Modeler examines the project data to see if it is compatible with the model and there is sufficient provided data. 3.If it is compatible then the SJBHM is configured. 4.Model is Run.

Simulation Scenario (cont.) 5.Test against minimum reservoir level, minimum release, minimum base flow. 6.Post-process data to generate flow statistics if Step 5 passes 7.Daily flows at Four Corners are used to evaluate the flow statistics. 8.If the flow criteria are met then the process ends and the results are reported.

If criteria are not met - In consultation with project proponent: Iterate by adjusting release parameters until statistics are met. –Minimum available storage, target space, weighted outflow etc. –Or manipulate project operation. Adjustments to the project demand may be necessary. If flow criteria are still not met, the results are provided to the project proponent for consultation with FWS.

Qualifications and Objections State of New Mexico –Use of the Modified Blaney-Criddle Methodology –Use of the Northwest Unit Assessment Study –Not to be used for anything but flow recommendation analysis Other interested Parties –Documentation of the CRSS Data

Rationale for the Transition from Gen II to Gen III The Gen II model cannot make a release decision based on past conditions (limitation of post-processing) Data set not easily extended beyond 1993 Concerns with natural flows No return flow lagging

Operates on a daily timestep Allows inclusion of past statistics in release decisions Can make release adjustments on the fly Hydrologic period more easily extendable More closely simulates actual operation Compatible with and linked to Colorado flow model Based on improved natural flows Capable of lagging return flows Better simulation of base flows Mix of RiverWare and StateMod Hydrologic Models SJBHM – 3 rd Generation Overview

SJBHM Gen III Modeling Steps Compute Naturalized Flows Using StateMod Compute Colorado Baseline Water Supply Using StateMod Operate SJC By All Operating Criteria and Compute Forecasting Data Using RiverWare Migration Model Disaggregate Monthly Data to Daily Data Using RiverWare Models Operate RiverWare Daily Decision Model

Gen III Natural Flow Computations StateMod Advantages –Automatic management of missing data –Use of Mixed Stations Model to extend natural flows –Ability to spatially distribute flows to ungaged areas

Migration Model (full Basin)

Daily Decision Model

Gen III – General Operations StateMod Baseline Operation –Water rights solver –Modified Direct Solution Algorithm –Standard operations –Special operations – La Plata Compact –Establishes water supply for most Colorado water users San Juan Chama Animas La Plata Project –Normal operations –Mitigation Operations Navajo Normal Operations –NIIP –Downstream Demands –Fill and Not Spill –Flood Control

SJBHM – RIP Operations Baseflows – 7 Day running average of 500 cfs at combination of gages –Three Gage –Two Gage Maximum –Two Gage Minimum Peak Releases –Event types targeted toward primary criteria –Decision tree used to make and track decisions –Can use previous statistics to make release decision –Can adjust release based on in-year condition

SJBHM RIP Operations Third Generation Enhancements –Ability to look back at actual events rather than releases –Prioritization of target events –More frequent decision dates –Inclusion of Animas forecast in decision process –Alternative adjustments (in lieu of nose adjustments) –Release curtailments or extensions based upon realized conditions

Interpreting the Results Discussion on the Precision and Accuracy of the Model(s)

Model Precision: The ability of a measurement to be consistently reproduced Simulation models are typically very precise Given a set of inputs, the results are predictable and every drop of water is accounted for. Output precision is to the nearest acre-foot If a criteria is missed by 1 acre foot once in 65 years, it is deemed missed. The precision sometimes leads to a false sense of the model accuracy.

Model Accuracy: The ability of a measurement to match the actual value of the quantity being measured. Model accuracy limited by the accuracy of: –Input data –Model assumptions –Ability to simulate complex interactions For Example: –Gage accuracy for the best gages is 95% ( ±5%) –Historical gage record sometimes show impossible water balance –Assumptions such as return flow lag are approximations –Future hydrology may not maintain statistics of historical hydrology

Implications to Model implementation Precision Issues –All water projects should be accounted for as precisely as possible in the model, regardless of size Small Projects should be included in minor depletions accounting, particularly when depletion patterns are not well defined. Projects with adequate definition and sufficient magnitude should be explicitly modeled. –It may be advisable to output rounded values in the model to avoid the implication of unrealistic accuracy. (e.g. 500 cfs or 510 cfs rather than 504 cfs or 507 cfs)

Implications to Model Implementation Accuracy Issues: Critical to develop criteria and evaluate projects with the same model, configuration and time series Important to understand the accuracy of the basis for the criteria in interpretation of the assessment of meeting the criteria. Most error in the model is random, with equal probability of over and under prediction. Computation of an error band around the model output is problematic, but cannot be better than about ± 5%.