Sediment Removal as aWater Management Strategy

2014 Sierra Water Workgroup Summit

June 13, 2014

Panel Overview

• Introduction [Liz]– The bill and preliminary coordination effort

• Sedimentation basics [Minear]

• A planning tool to assess sediment removal [Yates]

• Evaluating sediment removal as one of a portfolio of strategies [Groves]

• SWWG project and outreach [Betancourt]• Discussion

Upper Watersheds

25 “Rim” watersheds delineated by land use and elevation

Central Valley Water Management Model

Rivers and TributariesIrrigated Agriculture

M&I/ Environ. Demand

Inter-Basin Transfer

ReservoirCanals and Diversions

InstreamFlow Requirement

Interactive Groundwater

Rivers and TributariesIrrigated Agriculture

M&I/ Environ. Demand

Inter-Basin Transfer

ReservoirCanals and Diversions

InstreamFlow Requirement

Interactive GroundwaterIrrigated Agriculture

M&I/ Environ. Demand

Inter-Basin Transfer

ReservoirCanals and Diversions

InstreamFlow Requirement

Interactive Groundwater

Sacramento River

Tulare Lake

San Joaquin River

Upper Trinity River

Delta

Pit R.

Cow Ck.

Battle Ck.Cottonwood Ck

Shasta

Trinity R.

Clear Ck

OrovilleSouth Fk. Feather R.

Almanor

Big Chico Ck.Butte Ck.

Elder/Thomes Ck

East Park/Stony Gorge/Black Butte

Cache Ck.

New Bullards BarNorth Fk. Yuba R.

Bear R.

Folsom

Cross CanalNorth and Middle Fk. American R.

North and Middle Fk. Feather R.

Upper Pit R.

McCloud R.

1

Net Delta Outflow

Stanislaus R.

San Luis

San Joaquin R.

Delta-M

endota

Canal

Camp Far West

Mokelumne R.

Calaveras R.

Tuolumne R.

Merced R.

San Joaquin

River

Chowchilla/Fresno R.

Madera

Canal

Eastside

Bypass

Millerton

McClure

New Don Pedro

New Melones

New Hogan

Pardee

Putah Ck.

Yolo

Byp

ass South Fk. AmericanBerryessa

Clear Lake

Stony Ck.

Sacr

amen

to R

.

TrinitySacramento R.

Teha

ma-

Colu

sa

Cana

l Middle and South Fk. Yuba R.

Sutt

er

Byp

ass

Gle

n-Co

lusa

Ca

nal

Whiskeytown

Camanche

Cosumnes R.

California

Aqueduct

Tulloch

Eastman/Hensley

DELTA

San Luis

Friant-Kern

Canal

San Luis Canal

Kings R.Pine Flats

Kern R.Isabella

Tule R.Success

Kaweah R.Kaweah

James

Bypass/Fresno

Slough

TulareLake

Coastal Aqueduct

California Water Balance

Regional Water Balances (2005)

The bulk of developed water originates in Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Tulare Lake Regions

Sacramento, Feather, & American River Inflows2065 - 2099

Water Supply Impacts

• Earlier runoff into reservoirs by end of century• Annual runoff volume about the same

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00CNRM - CM3 GFDL - CM21

MIROC - MED MPI - ECHAM5

NCAR - CCSM3 NCAR - PCM1WEAP Historic (1950-2005)

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00CNRM - CM3 GFDL - CM21

MIROC - MED MPI - ECHAM5

NCAR - CCSM3 NCAR - PCM1WEAP Historic (1950-2005)

1 Million Acre-Feet = 326 Billion Gallons

• Irrigation requirements increase with rising temperature under Business As Usual assumptions

Sacramento & San Joaquin Valley Irrigation

Increasing Agricultural Demands

1 Million Acre-Feet = 326 Billion Gallons

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00CNRM - CM3 GFDL - CM21

MIROC - MED MPI - ECHAM5

NCAR - CCSM3 NCAR - PCM1WEAP Historic (1950-2005)

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00CNRM - CM3 GFDL - CM21

MIROC - MED MPI - ECHAM5

NCAR - CCSM3 NCAR - PCM1WEAP Historic (1950-2005)

Zooming in to a regional Application

Mehta et al, 2011 “Potential Impacts on Hydrology and Hydropower Production Under Climate Warming of the Sierra Nevada.” Journal of Water and Climate Change 2, no. 1 (March 2011): 29. doi:10.2166/wcc.2011.054.

Example Output: New Bullards Bar Storage, Upstream Flows

Observed and Modeled Reservoir VolumeReservoir: New Bullards Bar, Weekly Average WY 1982-2012

Observed Volume Model Volume

Oct 7 Oct 21 Nov 4 Nov 18 Dec 2 Dec 16 Dec 31 Jan 14 Jan 28 Feb 11 Feb 25 Mar 11 Mar 25 Apr 8 Apr 22 May 6 May 20 Jun 3 Jun 17 Jul 1 Jul 15 Jul 29 Aug 12 Aug 26 Sep 9 Sep 23

Thou

sand

Acre

-foot

900

850

800

750

700

650

600

550

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Streamflow Weekly Average WY 1982-2012, Yuba River North Fork

Modeled flow Observed Flow N YUBA 11413000

Oct 7 Oct 21 Nov 4 Nov 18 Dec 2 Dec 16 Dec 31 Jan 14 Jan 28 Feb 11 Feb 25 Mar 11 Mar 25 Apr 8 Apr 22 May 6 May 20 Jun 3 Jun 17 Jul 1 Jul 15 Jul 29 Aug 12 Aug 26 Sep 9 Sep 23

Cubic

Feet

per S

econ

d

1,900

1,800

1,700

1,600

1,500

1,400

1,300

1,200

1,100

1,000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Example Output: Applied Irrigation Water

Example Output: Annual Hydropower

Hydropower GenerationScenario: ReferenceClimAnom, All weeks (52)

Narrows 2 Ph Narrows 1 Ph Colgate Ph

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Milli

on M

egaw

att-H

our

3.0

2.8

2.6

2.4

2.2

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

THANK YOU

Evaluating Sediment Removal as Part of A Water Management Portfolio

• Recap Central Valley vulnerability and response option analysis for California Water Plan Update 2013

• Approach for incorporating sediment removal as a strategy

Slide 15

California Water Plan analysis looks into the uncertain future…

• How vulnerable is California’s water management system?

• How can the water managementcommunity reduce these vulnerabilities?

• Builds on the scenario analysis begun for California Water Plan 2005 Update

• Focuses on Central Valley• Evaluates plausible futures out

to 2050• Uses new data and tools

South Lahontan

North Coast

Sacramento River

Tulare Lake

Colorado RiverSouth Coast

San Joaquin River

Central Coast

North Lahontan

San Francisco Bay

Uppe

r Trin

ity

Slide 16

Nine land use scenarios reflect uncertain population growth and land use patters

• Three population projections for the Central Valley– Low population: 11 million habitants – Current trends: 13 million habitants– High population: 16 million habitants

• Three urban density scenarios– Low: More single family homes, less irrigated

agricultural land– Current – High: More multi family homes, more irrigated

agricultural land

Slide 17

Twenty-two climate scenarios reflect uncertainty about

hydrologic conditionsDownscaledGCM projections

Historical withextended drought

Historical withextended drought and warming

Slide 18

Performance of water management system evaluated

using four key metricsUrban reliability

Agricultural reliability

Groundwater levels

Environmental flows

Slide 19

Which management strategies can reduce these vulnerabilities?Urban water use efficiency

Agricultural water use efficiencyRecycled municipal waterConjunctive managementNew environmental flow targetsGroundwater recovery targetsNew surface storageSediment removal

Slide 20

How would sedimentremoval stack up?

• Sierra-wide assessment– How much sediment would need to be

removed to affect state-wide water objectives under climate change?

– What costs would be acceptable?• Watershed assessment

– Develop refined WEAP model of specific watershed and operations

– Evaluate broader range of uncertainties and objectives

20

Slide 21

SWWG Project - Overview• Based on SWWG structure –

IRWM-focus• IRWM-based outreach

– Regional groups (SNA, SNC, SBA, MCWRA, etc.)

– RWMGs– Interest-groups– Individuals

Slide 22

SWWG Project – Phased Approach• Phase I

– Outreach– Data gathering with dam

owners/managers– Screening-level analysis– Assessment of impact on regional and

statewide water resources management

– Identification of target detail area, based on:

• Interest of stakeholders• Results of assessment

Slide 23

SWWG Project – Phased Approach• Phase II

– Focus on specific watershed/storage system

• Based on stakeholder interest and outcome of assessment

– Discuss and assess specific benefits:

• On a regional and statewide basis• Response to climate change and other

future uncertainty• General feasibility assessment:

cost/benefit

Slide 24

Discussion Questions1. What critical uncertainties

would affect sediment removal as a strategy?

2. What metrics should be used to evaluate sediment removal?

3. What more do we need to know?