james d. dana, jr. eugene orlov northeastern university compass

A Daily Time-Step CALSIM Model of the American River

Basin

Presentation to

California Water and Environmental Modeling Forum

Brian Van Lienden

March 2, 2006

Presentation OverviewPresentation Overview

• Project Purpose

• Potential Model Applications

• Overview of Basin

• Compilation of Historical and Operations Data

• Hydrology Development

• Future Tasks

• Project Purpose

• Potential Model Applications

• Overview of Basin

• Compilation of Historical and Operations Data

• Hydrology Development

• Future Tasks

Project PurposeProject Purpose

• The primary objectives of the project are:– Simulate Upper American River system to

approximate daily inflows into Folsom Lake

– Simulate daily Folsom Lake and Lower American River operations

– Provide a flexible platform for assessing current and future CVP operations of the American River system

• The primary objectives of the project are:– Simulate Upper American River system to

approximate daily inflows into Folsom Lake

– Simulate daily Folsom Lake and Lower American River operations

– Provide a flexible platform for assessing current and future CVP operations of the American River system

Potential Future ApplicationsPotential Future Applications

• Climate change scenarios

• Assistance with weekly operations (CVO) forecasts

• Assistance with lower American River temperature forecasts

• Analysis of storage projects– e.g. Alder Creek, Auburn Dam

• Simulation of water transfers

• Simulation of hydropower operations

• Climate change scenarios

• Assistance with weekly operations (CVO) forecasts

• Assistance with lower American River temperature forecasts

• Analysis of storage projects– e.g. Alder Creek, Auburn Dam

• Simulation of water transfers

• Simulation of hydropower operations

Major Water Projects in the American River Basin Major Water Projects in the American River Basin

• Central Valley Project– Folsom Lake, Lake Natoma

• Middle Fork Project– French Meadows & Hell Hole Reservoirs

• Upper American River Project– Loon Lake, Union Valley & Ice House Reservoirs

• El Dorado Project– Silver Lake, Caples Lake

• Chili Bar Project• Stumpy Meadows Project

• Central Valley Project– Folsom Lake, Lake Natoma

• Middle Fork Project– French Meadows & Hell Hole Reservoirs

• Upper American River Project– Loon Lake, Union Valley & Ice House Reservoirs

• El Dorado Project– Silver Lake, Caples Lake

• Chili Bar Project• Stumpy Meadows Project

Model SchematicModel Schematic

NORTH FORK AMERICAN RIVER

RubiconRes.

RUBICON RIVERBuck Island Res

RUBICON RIVER

Hell Hole Res.

Georgetown Divide PUD Ditch

RUBICON RIVER

SOUTH FORK RUBICON RIVER

French Meadows Res.

Pilot Creek

Duncan Creek

MIDDLE FORK

950

Middle Fork PP

Interbay Dam

Ralston PP952

Ralston Afterbay (Oxbow Res)

NORTH FORK OF MIDDLE FORK AMERICAN RIVER

AMERICAN

Local Inflow

RIVER

Loon Lake Res

Gerle Creek

Gerle CreekRes.

953

Loon LakePP (Underground)

LongCanyonCreek

951

Union Valley Res.Junction

Res.

954

Ice HouseRes.

SOUTH FORK AMERICAN RIVER

Rock Cr, Jaybird Cr, White Rock Cr, Misc Accretions South Fork

Silver Creek

Silver Creek

955Local Inflow

Alder Creek

Pipeline

El Dorado Canal

Silver Fork of South Fork American

Echo LakeImport

Caples Lake

Silver Lake

Chili BarRes.

957

Slab CreekRes.

956

904 903

Stumpy Meadows Res.

902

901

910913

914

916

911

958

Lake Valley Res.

NORTH FORK OF NORTH FORK AMERICAN RIVER

Blue Canyon, Fulda Creek, Misc Accretions

Lake Clementine

FolsomReservoir

Junction node

Channel flow arc

Diversion arc ( penstock, canal, open flume, tunnel, or pipe)

LEGEND

Storage node

South Canal Spills (import from Bear River Basin)

908

PCWA and Georgetown Divide PUD Diversion @ Auburn Dam

Lake Valley Canal (Export)

900

Local Inflow

906

Local Inflow

905

Ellis Cr

912

No. & So. Fork Long Cyn Cr Diversions

923

922

917

Diversion to Placerville Area

924

918

El Dorado Forebay

920

Brush Cr, Slab Cr, Misc Accretions

909

921

907

Inflow arc

Diversion arc (out of basin or consumptively used)

925

Lake Natomas

Fair Oaks

Misc Accretion

Folsom South Canal Diversion for So Cal/Arden Cordova, SMUD, Canal Losses

Diversion for City of Folsom, Folsom Prison, SJWD, EID, PCWA, Roseville, Parks & Rec, SSWD

Mormon Ravine, Misc Accretions

Local Inflow

959

Misc Accretion

926

Carmichael WD diversion (Ranney Collectors)

927

City of Sacramento, SSWD diversion (Fairbairn WTP)

Misc Accretion

Misc Accretion

928

Misc Accretion

To Sacramento River Accretions

H Street

USGS gage location (potential model calibration)

"Incidental" components (Only to be included only to the extent that data are available and a defensible analysis can be developed. Do not significantly enhance model capabilities for evaluating Folsom inflow.)

Lake Aloha

Local Inflow

Local Inflow

Local Inflow

Local Inflow

Local Inflow

Local Inflow

919

915

Local Inflow

Local Inflow

I900B

I905

I907

C900

C905

C906

C907

C908

C904 C952

I958

C903

C912

I904

I912A

I912B

C913

C911

C902

I902AC901 D901

I901

I950C950

D950

D951

I953BI909

C951I911

I910

C909 C953

I954

I955

I914

C914

I915

C955

C954

D955

C915

D916

C916

C922

C917C918C919C956C920

C957

C921

D924A

D922

D923

I918I956I920

I921

I922

I908

C958C959C925C926C927

C928

I925I926I927I928

I959

I952

D913

D907

D958

D959

D926D927

D924B

D909

I900A

I929

I951

I913 I953A

C910

D903

D953

I916

929

C929

I923

Misc. Accretions

Collect Historical DataCollect Historical Data

MonthlyOct 1922 – Sep 2002

El Dorado Canal, El Dorado Forebay, Alder Creek Pipeline

DiversionEID

DailyOct 1993 – Sep 2001

Chili Bar ReservoirStorageSMUD

DailyMay 1967 – Sep 2002

French Meadows, Hell Hole, Interbay, Ralston Afterbay

Storage, Inflow, River Release, Power Release, Diversions, Evaporation

PCWA

MonthlyAug 1982 – May 2000

Auburn Dam SitePCWA DiversionUSBR CVO

DailyMarch 1955 –Sep 2002

Folsom Lake, Lake NatomaStorage, Inflow, Release, Diversions, Evaporation

USBR CVO

DailyOct 1967 – Sept 2002

Slab Creek ReservoirStorageCDEC

DailyOct 1921 – Sept 2002

Throughout watershedFlow, StorageUSGS

Time StepTime PeriodLocationsData TypeAgency

Middle Fork Region: 1922-1943Middle Fork Region: 1922-1943

Note: these schematics assume that Ralston and Interbay dams and Oxbow, Ralston, Middle Fork, and French Meadows powerplants were constructed in 1965

RUBICON RIVERRUBICON RIVER

Duncan Creek

MIDDLE FORK

North Fork Long Canyon Creek

South Fork Long Canyon Creek


AMERICAN RIVER

LongCanyonCreek

Gage Station and abbreviated ID

Flow direction of stream or river

Flow direction of canal, open flume, tunnel, or pipe

Powerplant (PP) or Powerhouse (PH)

LEGEND

4279.6

Reservoir

Hydrology Flow Computation Point

C910

C911

C952 C902

C929 C950

C951

C912

C903

C904

I912B

I912A

I902I952

I904

I950

I951

I901

I911

D950

D903

D901

D951

C901


Gerle Creek

I910

C909

C953

D953

D909

I953A

I953B

Pilot Creek I913

C913

I929

I909

D913



4275(51-02)

4277(60-03)Duncan Creek

MIDDLE FORK




AMERICAN 4333(58-02) RIVER

LongCanyonCreek





LEGEND

4279.6

Reservoir

4331(60-91)


C910

C911

C952 C902

C929 C950

C951

C912

C903

C904

I912B

I912A

I902I952

I904

I950

I951

I901

I911

D950

D903

D901

D951

C901


Gerle Creek

I910

C909

C953

D953

D909

I953A

I953B

4318(60-02)Georgetown Irrigation District Ditch

Pilot Creek I913

D913

C913

4332(58-84)

4310(43-64)

4305(56-62)

4315(50-61)

I929

I909



4275(51-02)


MIDDLE FORK





4300(61-02)

LongCanyonCreek





LEGEND

4279.6

Reservoir

4331(60-91)


C910

C911

C952 C902

C929 C950

C951

C912

C903

C904

I912B

I912A

I902I952

I904

I950

I951

I901

I911

D950

D903

D901

D951

C901

4283(63-02)


4295(62-02)Gerle Creek

Gerle Creek Res.(const. 1962) 4296 (90-02)

Tunnel

Robbs Peak PP4293(62-02)

I910

C909

C953

D953

D909

I953A

I953B


4330.4(61-02)

Pilot Creek

Stumpy Meadows Res. (const. 1961)

I913

D913

C913

4332(58-84)

4298(62-67)

4310(43-64)

Loon Lake Res.(const. 1963)4293.5 (63-02)

I929

I909


RUBICON RIVER

Hell Hole Res.(const. 1965)4287 (65-02)

RUBICON RIVER

French Meadows Res.(const. 1964)

4274 (64-02)4275(51-02)

4277.5(64-02)


MIDDLE FORK 4277.6(65-02)

French Meadows PP4272(70-02)


4330.8(?-02)

Middle Fork PP4286

(74-02)


4330.6(65-02)

Interbay Dam4277.7

(65-02)

Ralston PP4277.65(73-02)

RalstonAfterbay

Oxbow PP4332.12(73-02)



4300(61-02)

LongCanyonCreek





LEGEND

4279.6

Reservoir

4332.6(65-85)

4331(60-91)

4288(65-02)


C910

C911

C952 C902

C929 C950

C951

C912

C903

C904

I912B

I912A

I902I952

I904

I950

I951

I901

I911

D950

D903

D901

D951

C901

4283(63-02)


Loon Lake Res.(const. 1963)4293.5 (63-02)

4295(62-02)Gerle Creek

Gerle Creek Res.(const. 1962) 4296 (90-02)

Loon LakePP (Underground)4293.4(74-02)Tunnel

Robbs Peak PP4293(62-02)

I910

C909

C953

D953

D909

I953A

I953B


4330.4(61-02)

Pilot Creek

Stumpy Meadows Res. (const. 1961)

I913

D913

C913

4332(58-84)

I929

I909

Other Data CollectedOther Data Collected

• The following was collected for each agency:– SWRCB Water Rights

– FERC Storage and Flow requirements

– DSOD Flood Pool requirements

– Agreements• e.g PG&E and PCWA re operation of Middle Fork

Project

• The following was collected for each agency:– SWRCB Water Rights

– FERC Storage and Flow requirements

– DSOD Flood Pool requirements

– Agreements• e.g PG&E and PCWA re operation of Middle Fork

Project

Hydrology DevelopmentHydrology Development

• Model time period: Oct 1921 – Sep 2002

• Fair Oaks gage used as the “anchor” for all hydrology development in the watershed

• Monthly hydrology developed first

• Daily hydrology developed by downscaling from monthly hydrology

• Model time period: Oct 1921 – Sep 2002

• Fair Oaks gage used as the “anchor” for all hydrology development in the watershed

• Monthly hydrology developed first

• Daily hydrology developed by downscaling from monthly hydrology

Historical Monthly Hydrology Development - StepsHistorical Monthly Hydrology Development - Steps

• Geographic boundaries were defined for each inflow on the model schematic– developed using a GIS delineation of the

watershed topography to determine which areas would runoff to each river reach

• Geographic boundaries were defined for each inflow on the model schematic– developed using a GIS delineation of the

watershed topography to determine which areas would runoff to each river reach

Middle Fork Region Inflow AreasMiddle Fork Region Inflow Areas

Historical Monthly Hydrology Development - StepsHistorical Monthly Hydrology Development - Steps

• Monthly inflows were calculated using mass balance equations whenever data was available

• If data was not available synthesis methods were used instead

• Initial monthly inflow estimates were adjusted so that total monthly inflow equaled unimpaired Fair Oaks flow

• Monthly inflows were calculated using mass balance equations whenever data was available

• If data was not available synthesis methods were used instead

• Initial monthly inflow estimates were adjusted so that total monthly inflow equaled unimpaired Fair Oaks flow

Unimpaired Fair Oaks Flow (USGS ID 4465) versus Upstream Adjusted Computed Inflows

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

7000000

1922 1932 1942 1952 1962 1972 1982 1992 2002

Water Year

Flo

w (

AF

/yea

r)

Total Calculated Inflows

Unimpaired Fair Oaks Flow

Comparison with Un-anchored Locations UpstreamComparison with Un-anchored Locations Upstream

• Monthly and Annual Values were compared with unimpaired historical flows at:– Inflow into Folsom

– Middle Fork at USGS Gage 4333

– South Fork at Chili Bar (USGS Gage 4445)

• Monthly and Annual Values were compared with unimpaired historical flows at:– Inflow into Folsom

– Middle Fork at USGS Gage 4333

– South Fork at Chili Bar (USGS Gage 4445)

Unimpaired Middle Fork Flow (USGS ID 4333) versus Total Upstream Computed Inflows

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

1922

1925

1928

1931

1934

1937

1940

1943

1946

1949

1952

1955

1958

1961

1964

1967

1970

1973

1976

1979

1982

1985

1988

1991

1994

1997

2000

Water Year

Flo

w (

acre

-fee

t/ye

ar)

-300000

-200000

-100000

0

100000

200000

300000

Unimpaired Middle Fork Flow (USGS ID 4333)Total Upstream Computed InflowsDiff

Total Upstream Computed Inflows versus Unimpaired Middle Fork Flow (USGS ID 4333)

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

0

100,

000

200,

000

300,

000

400,

000

500,

000

600,

000

Unimpaired Middle Fork Flow (acre-feet/month)

To

tal U

ps

tre

am

Co

mp

ute

d In

flo

ws

(ac

re-f

eet/

mo

nth

)

Comparison with Un-anchored Locations UpstreamComparison with Un-anchored Locations Upstream

• Average annual and monthly differences of unimpaired flows:

• Average annual and monthly differences of unimpaired flows:

AF/yr Pct AF/mon PctFolsom Inflow -40,400 -1.4% -3,413 -1.4%Middle Fork Flow -4,220 -0.4% -351 -0.4%South Fork Flow 34,971 4.4% 2,490 4.4%

Avg Ann Difference Avg Mon Difference

Daily DownscalingDaily Downscaling

• Downscaling maintained total monthly flow values

• If possible, downscaling was performed using mass balance equations

• Synthesis method was used if historical data was not available to do mass balance method

• Downscaling maintained total monthly flow values

• If possible, downscaling was performed using mass balance equations

• Synthesis method was used if historical data was not available to do mass balance method

Daily Downscaling: Synthesis MethodDaily Downscaling: Synthesis Method

• 8 percent-of-monthly time series were developed (4 each for South Fork and Middle Fork):– 1 Precipitation method time series

– 3 Snowmelt method time series with 1, 2, or 3 day lags

• Precipitation Method– used in all months in rainfall-dominated regions

– used July-March in snowmelt-dominated regions– Qday = B.F. + (Qmon-B.F.)*(DayPrecip/MonPrecip)

• Snowmelt Method– used April-June in snowmelt-dominated regions– Qday = Qmon*(DailyTemp-32)/Sum(DailyTemp-32)

• 8 percent-of-monthly time series were developed (4 each for South Fork and Middle Fork):– 1 Precipitation method time series

– 3 Snowmelt method time series with 1, 2, or 3 day lags

• Precipitation Method– used in all months in rainfall-dominated regions

– used July-March in snowmelt-dominated regions– Qday = B.F. + (Qmon-B.F.)*(DayPrecip/MonPrecip)

• Snowmelt Method– used April-June in snowmelt-dominated regions– Qday = Qmon*(DailyTemp-32)/Sum(DailyTemp-32)

Precipitation Method: Daily Flow and Precipitation at Duncan Creek (I901)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

90001

/01/

1986

01/0

3/19

86

01/0

5/19

86

01/0

7/19

86

01/0

9/19

86

01/1

1/19

86

01/1

3/19

86

01/1

5/19

86

01/1

7/19

86

01/1

9/19

86

01/2

1/19

86

01/2

3/19

86

01/2

5/19

86

01/2

7/19

86

01/2

9/19

86

01/3

1/19

86

Date

Flo

w (

AF

/day

)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Precip

itation

(in/d

ay)

Synthesized Flow

Precipitation

SnowMelt Method: Daily Flow and Temperature at Duncan Creek (I901)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

3500

5/0

1/1

98

6

05

/03

/19

86

05

/05

/19

86

05

/07

/19

86

05

/09

/19

86

05

/11

/19

86

05

/13

/19

86

05

/15

/19

86

05

/17

/19

86

05

/19

/19

86

05

/21

/19

86

05

/23

/19

86

05

/25

/19

86

05

/27

/19

86

05

/29

/19

86

05

/31

/19

86

Date

Flo

w (

AF

/day

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

Tem

peratu

re (Deg

F -32)

Synthesized Flow

Temperature

Comparison of Synthesized Daily Flow Versus Historical Daily Flow for Duncan Creek Inflow (I901)

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

01/0

1/19

8601

/08/

1986

01/1

5/19

8601

/22/

1986

01/2

9/19

8602

/05/

1986

02/1

2/19

8602

/19/

1986

02/2

6/19

8603

/05/

1986

03/1

2/19

8603

/19/

1986

03/2

6/19

8604

/02/

1986

04/0

9/19

8604

/16/

1986

04/2

3/19

8604

/30/

1986

05/0

7/19

8605

/14/

1986

05/2

1/19

8605

/28/

1986

06/0

4/19

8606

/11/

1986

06/1

8/19

8606

/25/

1986

Date

Flo

w (

AF

/day

)

Synthesized Flow

Historical Flow

Comparison of Synthesized Daily Flow Versus Historical Daily Flow for Ice House Inflow (I955)

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

01/0

1/19

8601

/08/

1986

01/1

5/19

8601

/22/

1986

01/2

9/19

8602

/05/

1986

02/1

2/19

8602

/19/

1986

02/2

6/19

8603

/05/

1986

03/1

2/19

8603

/19/

1986

03/2

6/19

8604

/02/

1986

04/0

9/19

8604

/16/

1986

04/2

3/19

8604

/30/

1986

05/0

7/19

8605

/14/

1986

05/2

1/19

8605

/28/

1986

06/0

4/19

8606

/11/

1986

06/1

8/19

8606

/25/

1986

Date

Flo

w (

AF

/day

)

Synthesized Flow

Historical Flow

Comparison of Synthesized Daily Flow Versus Historical Daily Flow for Duncan Creek Inflow (I901)

0

50

100

150

200

25001

/01/

94

01/0

8/94

01/1

5/94

01/2

2/94

01/2

9/94

02/0

5/94

02/1

2/94

02/1

9/94

02/2

6/94

03/0

5/94

03/1

2/94

03/1

9/94

03/2

6/94

04/0

2/94

04/0

9/94

04/1

6/94

04/2

3/94

04/3

0/94

05/0

7/94

05/1

4/94

05/2

1/94

05/2

8/94

06/0

4/94

06/1

1/94

06/1

8/94

06/2

5/94

07/0

2/94

07/0

9/94

07/1

6/94

07/2

3/94

07/3

0/94

08/0

6/94

08/1

3/94

08/2

0/94

08/2

7/94

Date

Flo

w (

AF

/day

)

Synthesized Flow

Historical Flow

Comparison of Synthesized Daily Flow Versus Historical Daily Flow for Ice House Inflow (I955)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

50001

/01/

94

01/0

8/94

01/1

5/94

01/2

2/94

01/2

9/94

02/0

5/94

02/1

2/94

02/1

9/94

02/2

6/94

03/0

5/94

03/1

2/94

03/1

9/94

03/2

6/94

04/0

2/94

04/0

9/94

04/1

6/94

04/2

3/94

04/3

0/94

05/0

7/94

05/1

4/94

05/2

1/94

05/2

8/94

06/0

4/94

06/1

1/94

06/1

8/94

06/2

5/94

07/0

2/94

07/0

9/94

07/1

6/94

07/2

3/94

07/3

0/94

08/0

6/94

08/1

3/94

08/2

0/94

08/2

7/94

Date

Flo

w (

AF

/day

)

Synthesized Flow

Historical Flow

Remaining TasksRemaining Tasks

• Finalize Implementation of Model Operating Criteria

• Model Calibration/Verification

• Projected Level Analysis– 2004 Level of Development

– 2030 Level of Development

• Project will be completed in June 2006

• Finalize Implementation of Model Operating Criteria

• Model Calibration/Verification

• Projected Level Analysis– 2004 Level of Development

– 2030 Level of Development

• Project will be completed in June 2006

james d. dana, jr. eugene orlov northeastern university compass

Documents