86
Preliminary PVP Model Results Modeling Sub-Group presentation to the Water Supply Working Group 10/3/2018 1
Preliminary PVP Model Results
Modeling Sub-Group presentation to the Water Supply Working Group 10/3/2018
1
Presentation Outline
• Description of Model Scenarios• Preliminary Model Results: Potter Valley Project Decommission
Scenario • Key Assumption for Run of the River Model Scenario (starts Slide 43)
• Preliminary Model Results: Run of the River Scenario • Next Steps
2
Hydrology Historical - USGS BCM Historical - USGS BCM
Both Simulation Period 1910-2017 1910-2017
Calpella Reach Source Natural Flows/ Tunnel Div Natural Flows
Upper River Losses Fish Flow EIR Fish Flow EIR
Russian River
ResSim
Plot Legend Current Ops PVP Decommission
Minimum Flows BO TUC/ D1610 BO TUC/ D1610
Hydrologic Index D1610 D1610
LM Year Storage Capacity 2001 2001
Calpella Reach Loss 8,600 af 8,600 af
Max Tunnel Capacity 170 0
Hydrology Historical - Cardno Historical - Cardno
PVP Decommission
Operations RPA/ Current Ops No Scott Dam/ No Tunnel Div
Year Storage Capcity 2016 -
Scenarios1 2
Model Assumption Current Operations PVP Decommission
PVP ResSim
Plot Legend PVP Current Ops
Description of Current Operations & PVP Decommission Model Scenarios • PVP Decommission scenario is results are shown with the Current Operations Scenario• Scott Dam is completely removed under decommission scenario• Eel River tunnel transfers are discontinued under decommission scenario
3
Preliminary Results
4
Preliminary Results
5
Preliminary Results
6
Preliminary Results
7
Preliminary Results
8
Preliminary Results
9
Preliminary Results
10
Preliminary Results
11
Preliminary Results
12
Preliminary Results
13
Preliminary Results
14
Preliminary Results
15
Preliminary Results
16
Preliminary Results
17
Preliminary Results
18
Preliminary Results
19
Preliminary Results
20
Preliminary Results
21
Preliminary Results
22
Preliminary Results
23
Preliminary Results
24
Preliminary Results
25
Preliminary Results
26
Preliminary Results
27
Preliminary Results
28
Preliminary Results
29
Preliminary Results
30
Preliminary Results
31
Preliminary Results
32
Preliminary Results
33
Preliminary Results
34
Preliminary Results
35
Preliminary Results
36
Preliminary Results
37
Preliminary Results
38
Preliminary Results
39
Preliminary Results
40
Preliminary Results
41
Preliminary Results
42
Key Assumptions for “Run of the River” Scenario
Ø An entity will operate the Potter Valley Project (Project) without Scott Dam and Lake Pillsbury.
Ø Water supply transferred through the Project can be monetized and paid for by beneficiaries.
Ø The Coyote Valley Dam – Lake Mendocino Water Control Manual is revised to include Forecast Informed Reservoir Operations (FIRO) as a tool to manage flood control operations.
Ø The State Water Resources Control Board issues an order approving Sonoma Water’s pending water rights petitions that would change the current hydrologic index and instream flow requirements as proposed by the Fish Flow Project.
Ø A project is constructed to provide water supply to the Potter Valley Irrigation District when transfers through the Project cannot occur. The current assumption is that this water demand would be met by water stored in Lake Mendocino.
Ø Potential of increased sedimentation resulting from the removal of Scott Dam does not impact diversions at Van Arsdale.
43
Model Assumption Current Operations PVP Run of River
Scenarios1 2
PVP ResSim
Plot Legend PVP Current Ops Run of RiverOperations RPA/ Current Ops No Scott Dam/ Run of River DiversionsYear Storage Capcity 2016 -
Hydrologic Index D1610 Fish Flow EIR
Max Tunnel Capacity 170 0Hydrology Historical - Cardno Historical - Cardno
LM Year Storage Capacity 2001 2001Calpella Reach Loss 8,600 af 8,600 afCalpella Reach Source Natural Flows/ Tunnel Div Natural Flows/ Tunnel DivUpper River Losses Fish Flow EIR Fish Flow EIRHydrology Historical - USGS BCM Historical - USGS BCM
Both Simulation Period 1910-2017 1910-2017
Russian River ResSim
Plot Legend Current Ops Hyb FIRO + FFEIRMinimum Flows BO TUC/ D1610 Fish Flow EIR
Description of Current Operations & Run of the River Model Scenarios
44
Preliminary Results
45
Preliminary Results
46
Preliminary Results
47
Preliminary Results
48
Preliminary Results
49
Preliminary Results
50
Preliminary Results
51
Preliminary Results
52
Preliminary Results
53
Preliminary Results
54
Preliminary Results
55
Preliminary Results
56
Preliminary Results
57
Preliminary Results
58
Preliminary Results
59
Preliminary Results
60
Preliminary Results
61
Preliminary Results
62
Preliminary Results
63
Preliminary Results
64
Preliminary Results
65
Preliminary Results
66
Preliminary Results
67
Preliminary Results
68
Preliminary Results
69
Preliminary Results
70
Preliminary Results
71
Preliminary Results
72
Preliminary Results
73
Preliminary Results
74
Preliminary Results
75
Preliminary Results
76
Preliminary Results
77
Preliminary Results
78
Preliminary Results
79
Preliminary Results
80
Preliminary Results
81
Preliminary Results
82
Preliminary Results
83
Preliminary Results
84
Current OpsLM FIRO
Hybrid & FFEIR Raise CVDRaise CVD &
FIROReduce RR Demands PVID Storage
Current Ops xPVP Decommission xPVP Revised Ops ?
Lowered SDReduce EBRR FlowsRun of River Alt1 xRun of River Alt2
Russian River/ Lake Mendocino Alternatives
PVP
Alte
rnat
ives Next
?
?
UC Davis Study?
Integrate
Next: Add Climate Change
Done
Done
Done
Next
Suggestions for next round of model runs (per 10/3 Water Supply Working Group discussion):• Climate Change Scenarios to PVP Run of the River (Alt1) + LM FIRO Hybrid & FFEIR• PVP Revised Ops (e.g., reduce EBRR flows) + LM FIRO Hybrid & FFEIR• PVP Decommission + LM FIRO Hybrid & FFEIR
85
Next Steps
Ø Perform additional review of estimated historical unimpaired hydrology being used by the PVP-ResSim model.
Ø Simulate “Run of the River” scenario using a range of climate futures.
Ø Develop a model scenario for the existing project and facilities that could improve water supply benefits to both watersheds.
Ø Continue to refine model assumptions and data inputs.
86
