View
3
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
02/25/2010HRC-GWRI NCEP 1
HYDROLOGIC RESEARCH CENTER
GEORGIA WATER RESOURCES INSTITUTE
Kosta Georgakakos and Nick Graham
Aris Georgakakos
02/25/2010HRC-GWRI NCEP 2
The INFORM Demonstration ProjectIntegrated Forecast and Reservoir Management
Phase I (2003 – 2009) Development and ImplementationDemonstration
Phase II (2009 – 2012)EnhancementsTransition to Operations
02/25/2010HRC-GWRI NCEP 3
Increase efficiency of water use in Northern California using climate, hydrologic and decision science
02/25/2010HRC-GWRI NCEP 4
Implement an integrated forecast-management system for the Northern California reservoirs using real-time data and operational forecast models
Perform tests with actual data and with management input
Demonstrate the utility of climate and hydrologic forecasts for water resources management in Northern California
Transition to Operations
02/25/2010HRC-GWRI NCEP 5
123.5 123 122.5 122 121.5 121 120.5
38.5
39
39.5
40
40.5
41
41.5
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Elevation (meters)
Degrees West Longitude
Degr
ees N
orth
Lat
itude
Major Resevoirs in Nothern California
TrinityShasta
Orovil le
Folsom
Trinity River
Pit River
Sacramento River
Feather River
N. Fork American RiverOroville
Folsom
TrinityShasta
02/25/2010HRC-GWRI NCEP 6
Sponsors:CALFED Bay Delta Authority California Energy CommissionNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Collaborators:California Department of Water Resources California-Nevada River Forecast CenterSacramento Area Flood Control Agency U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Bureau of ReclamationNational Centers of Environmental Prediction
SPONSORS-COLLABORATORS
02/25/2010HRC-GWRI NCEP 7
HRC‐GWRI, 2006. Integrated Forecast and Reservoir Management (INFORM) for Northern California: System Development and Initial Demonstration. California Energy Commission, PIER Energy‐Related Environmental Research. CEC‐500‐2006‐109, 244pp. and 9 Appendices
http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/final_project_reports/CEC-500-2006-109.html
http://www.hrc-lab.org/projects/dsp_projectSubPage.php?subpage=inform
02/25/2010HRC-GWRI NCEP 8
Generate consistent real-time forcing sequences of rainfall and temperature.
River/ReservoirPlanning & Management
Simulate soil moisture, evapotranspiration, runoff, and streamflow.
GFS & CFS INPUTDownscaling
Simulate current and adaptive mgt. policiesand assess impactson water uses.
Watershed Hydrology
Economic and otherbenefits
02/25/2010HRC-GWRI NCEP 9
San Joaquin River
San Luis
Clair Engle Lake
Trinity Power Plant
Lewiston
Lewiston
JF Carr
Whiskeytown
Shasta
Keswick
ShastaSpring Cr
Keswick
Oroville
Thermalito
Folsom
Natoma
New Melones
Tulloch
Goodwin
Oroville
Folsom
Nimbus
Melones
Tracy Pumping
Banks Pumping
San Joaquin River
Amer
ican
Riv
er
Feat
her R
iver
Sacramento River
Trinity River Clear Creek
Yuba River
Bear River
Delta-Mendota Canal
California Aqueduct
O’Neill Forebay
To Dos Amigos PP
To Mendota Pool
Sacramento San Joaquin River DeltaReservoir/
Lake
Power Plant
Pumping Plant
River Node
Reservoir/Lake
Power Plant
Pumping Plant
Reservoir/Lake
Power Plant
Pumping Plant
River Node
ISV
IFT
IES,IMC,IYB,ITI
DDLT,DBS,DCCWD,DNBA
DDM
DFDM
DDA
DSF
DSB
Black Butte
New Bullards Bar
Trinity River System (Clair Engle Lake, Trinity Power Plant, Lewiston Lake, Lewiston Plant, JF Carr Plant, Whiskeytown, Clear Creek, and Spring Creek Plant);
Shasta Lake System (Shasta Lake, Shasta Power Plant, Keswick Lake, Keswick Plant, and the river reach from Keswick to Wilkins);
Feather River System (Oroville Lake, Oroville Power Plants, Thermalito Diversion Pond, Yuba River, and Bear River);
American River System (Folsom Lake, Folsom Plant, Natoma Lake, Nimbus Plant, Natoma Plant, and Natoma Diversions);
San Joaquin River System (New Melones Lake, New Melones Power Plant, Tulloch Lake, Demands from Goodwin, and Inflows from the main San Joaquin River); and
Bay Delta (Delta Inflows, Delta Exports, Coordinated Operation Agreement--COA, and Delta Environmental Requirements).
Objectives:Water SupplyEnergy GenerationEnvironmentEcologyRecreation
02/25/2010HRC-GWRI NCEP 10
ATM FORECASTS
Adjustments
HYDROLOGIC MODEL
Ensemble Forecast
DECISION MODEL MANAGER
Release Schedule
ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
Management Benefits
ATM DATA
02/25/2010HRC-GWRI NCEP 11
Decision Maker
ACTUAL VIRTUAL
Real Time Input
System
Characteristics
Flexible
Trade-offs
Measurable
Benefits
Other
BenefitsMeasurable
Benefits
Other
Benefits
Fixed Operation
Rules
02/25/2010HRC-GWRI NCEP 12
UPSTREAM ANDLATERAL FLOW
HYDROLOGIC MODELS
DOWNSCALINGBIAS ADJUSTMENT
DECISION MODELSDOWNSTREAM FLOW MODELS
CNRFC
DWR/USBR
INFORM SYSTEM
RESERVOIRRELEASES
TRADE-OFFS/MANAGEMENTINPUT
GFS & CFS FORECASTS
NCEP
02/25/2010HRC-GWRI NCEP 15
Distributed Tributary Basin System for Oroville Example of INFORM Hydrology Modeling
02/25/2010HRC-GWRI NCEP 16
Phase I - Assessment Summary:
1. Orographic model downscaling without bias adjustment tends to overestimate (underestimate) precipitation in high (low) elevations (for areas of order 500 km). Temporal variability is reasonably well represented.
2. Temperature downscaling exhibits generally small bias with good diurnal variation.
3. Simulation with adaptations of the operational snow-soil models exhibits generally good performance with some late lags for high events of FNF.
4. Forecasts of 2-day inflow volume appear reasonable but require adjustment for bias for the range of GFS-driven ensembles to include the observed FNFs.
02/25/2010HRC-GWRI NCEP 29
San Joaquin River
San Luis
Clair Engle Lake
Trinity Power Plant
Lewiston
Lewiston
JF Carr
Whiskeytown
Shasta
Keswick
ShastaSpring Cr
Keswick
Oroville
Thermalito
Folsom
Natoma
New Melones
Tulloch
Goodwin
Oroville
Folsom
Nimbus
Melones
Tracy Pumping
Banks Pumping
San Joaquin River
Amer
ican
Riv
er
Feat
her R
iver
Sacramento River
Trinity River Clear Creek
Yuba River
Bear River
Delta-Mendota Canal
California Aqueduct
O’Neill Forebay
To Dos Amigos PP
To Mendota Pool
Sacramento San Joaquin River DeltaReservoir/
Lake
Power Plant
Pumping Plant
River Node
Reservoir/Lake
Power Plant
Pumping Plant
Reservoir/Lake
Power Plant
Pumping Plant
River Node
ISV
IFT
IES,IMC,IYB,ITI
DDLT,DBS,DCCWD,DNBA
DDM
DFDM
DDA
DSF
DSB
Black Butte
New Bullards Bar
System SchematicTrinity River System (Clair Engle Lake, Trinity Power Plant, Lewiston Lake, Lewiston Plant, JF Carr Plant, Whiskeytown, Clear Creek, and Spring Creek Plant);
Shasta Lake System (Shasta Lake, Shasta Power Plant, Keswick Lake, Keswick Plant, and the river reach from Keswick to Wilkins);
Feather River System (Oroville Lake, Oroville Power Plants, Thermalito Diversion Pond, Yuba River, and Bear River);
American River System (Folsom Lake, Folsom Plant, Natoma Lake, Nimbus Plant, Natoma Plant, and Natoma Diversions);
San Joaquin River System (New Melones Lake, New Melones Power Plant, Tulloch Lake, Demands from Goodwin, and Inflows from the main San Joaquin River); and
Bay Delta (Delta Inflows, Delta Exports, Coordinated Operation Agreement--COA, and Delta Environmental Requirements).
03/20/2008HRC-GWRI INFORM 30
Water DistributionFlow RegulationHydro Plant OperationEmergency Response
Monthly Decisions• Releases/EnergyTarget Conditions• State Variables
Planning Tradeoffs
• Water Supply/Allocation• Energy Generation• Carry-over Storage• Env.-Ecosystem Management
Development Tradeoffs
• Urban/Industrial • Agriculture• Power System• Socio-economic & Ecological
Sustainability
Operational Tradeoffs
• Flood Management• Water Distribution• Energy Generation• Env.-Ecosystem Management
Benefit/Impact Functions• Water Supply• Energy• Flood Damage• Env.-Ecosystem
Scenario/Policy Assessment
Monthly / Several Decades
Actual Hydrologic Conditions
Actual Demands
Climate-Hydrologic Forecasts
Demand Forecasts• Water• Food • Energy• Env.-Ecosystem
Climate-Hydrologic Forecasts
Demand Forecasts• Water Supply• Power Load/Tariffs• Flood Damage• Env.-Ecosystem Targets
Inflow Scenarios
Development/Demand Scenarios• Water/Energy• Water/Benefit Sharing• Environmental Sustainability
Daily Decisions• Releases/EnergyTarget Conditions• State Variables
Benefit/Impact Functions• Water Supply• Energy• Flood Damage• Env.-Ecosystem
Near Real Time Decision Support
Hourly / 1 Day
Mid/Short Range Decision Support
Daily, 6-Hourly, or Hourly / 1 Month
Long Range Decision Support
Weekly, 10-Day or Monthly / 1-2 Years
Infrastructure Develpmnt.Water Sharing CompactsSustainability Targets
Management Policy
INFORM DSS: OverviewMultiple Objectives, Time Scales, & Decision Makers
Man
agem
ent
Agen
cies
/Dec
isio
ns
Plan
nin
g A
gen
cies
/Dec
isio
ns
Oper
atio
nal
Pla
nnin
g a
nd M
anag
emen
tO
ff-lin
eA
sses
smen
ts
02/25/2010 30HRC-GWRI NCEP
03/20/2008HRC-GWRI INFORM 31
Set- up:
• Forecasted inflows were provided by HRC with start date March 1st (112 traces, 9 month horizon, and five locations: Clair Engle Lake, Shasta, Oroville, Folsom, and Yuba);
• Historical monthly average values are used for locations where forecasted inflows are not available;
• Monthly reservoir parameters and constraints (max, min, and target storage levels; evaporation rates);
• Minimum river flow and Bay Delta requirements; and
• Base monthly demands at all locations;
DSS objective: Develop the tradeoff between water supply deliveries and carry over storage that meets all other stated requirements.
Spring 2006, 2007, and 2008 Case Studies
02/25/2010 31HRC-GWRI NCEP
03/20/2008HRC-GWRI INFORM 32
Forecasted Inflow Mean Comparison
1727
6988
5108
3139
2511
9184
5174
3578
2009
7195
40673482
1802
4805
35883334
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
Trinity Shasta Oroville Folsom
Inflo
w (c
fs)
Historical F2006F2007F2008
Mean 9- month Inflow Forecasts Comparison: 2006, 2007, 2008
02/25/2010 32HRC-GWRI NCEP
03/20/2008HRC-GWRI INFORM 33
Mean Monthly Inflow Forecasts Comparison: 2006, 2007, 2008 Forecasted Inflow Means - Trinity
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Mar-01 Apr-01 May-01 Jun-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Sep-01 Oct-01 Nov-01
cfs
His.F2006F2007F2008
Forecasted Inflow Means - Shasta
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
Mar-01 Apr-01 May-01 Jun-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Sep-01 Oct-01 Nov-01
cfs
His.F2006F2007F2008
Forecasted Inflow Means - Oroville
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
Mar-01 Apr-01 May-01 Jun-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Sep-01 Oct-01 Nov-01
cfs
His.F2006F2007F2008
Forecasted Inflow Means - Folsom
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Mar-01 Apr-01 May-01 Jun-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Sep-01 Oct-01 Nov-01
cfs
His.F2006F2007F2008
02/25/2010 33HRC-GWRI NCEP
03/20/2008HRC-GWRI INFORM 34
March 1 Reservoir Storages: 2006, 2007, 2008
Reservoir Initial Storages On March 1st
2013
3872
2992
463
2020 20191902
3786
2997
594
20021895
1490
2660
1456
375
1532
1774
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
Trinity Shasta Oroville Folsom New Melones San Lius
Stor
age
(100
0 AF
)
Y2006Y2007Y2008
02/25/2010 34HRC-GWRI NCEP
03/20/2008HRC-GWRI INFORM 35
Water Deliveries vs. Carry over Storage vs. Energy Tradeoffs Total Demand Fraction vs. Terminal Storage Tradeoff
8871
8040
7210
6373
5533
88808372
8078
7478
6718
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Demand Fraction
Term
inal
Sto
rage
(100
0 A
F)
Y2008
Historical Mean
Total Demand Fraction vs. System Energy Tradeoff
3736
4164
4556
4923
5254
47554932
5233
5515
5802
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Demand Fraction
Ener
gy (G
WH
)
Y2008
Historical Mean
02/25/2010 35HRC-GWRI NCEP
03/20/2008HRC-GWRI INFORM 36
Mean Carry Over Storage and Energy Comparisons: 50% Base Demand
Simulated Total Terminal Mean Storage Comparison
95378995
5533
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Y2006 Y2007 Y2008
1000
AF
Simulated System Mean Energy Comparison
7841
6946
5254
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
Y2006 Y2007 Y2008
GW
H
02/25/2010 36HRC-GWRI NCEP
03/20/2008HRC-GWRI INFORM 37
Lake Level Forecast Ensembles: 2008
10% Base Demand 50% Base Demand
02/25/2010 37HRC-GWRI NCEP
03/20/2008HRC-GWRI INFORM 38
X2 Location Forecast Ensembles: 2008
10% Base Demand
02/25/2010 38HRC-GWRI NCEP
02/25/2010HRC-GWRI NCEP 40
System Carryover Storages of Major Reservoirs
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
2006 2007 2008
TAF
Initial
Carryover9537(INFORM)
8995(INFORM)
5633(INFORM)
02/25/2010HRC-GWRI NCEP 41
Carryover Storage Comparisons
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
2006 2007 2008
TAF
ObservedDSS AVGDSS MinDSS MAX
Energy Generation from Major Plants
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
2006 2007 2008
GW
H
ObservedDSS AVGDSS MINDSS MAX
Relevant and decision worthy – Energy Commission funded Phase II
High Visibility and Impact Project for Forecast and Management Agencies in California
02/25/2010HRC-GWRI NCEP 42
Objective: Test Utility of using dynamic downscaling beyond 16 days
Why?So that physically consistent and coherent events produced by the CFS are downscaled in a way that preserves significant precipitation or warming episodes in the watersheds of interest
Potential Benefit:Reduce uncertainty bounds for significant episodes for forecast lead times out to 30 – 45 days.
02/25/2010HRC-GWRI NCEP 43
NCEP Data (Ken Mitchell and Rongqian Yang – thank you):
Two case studies:16 CFS runs with start dates at twelve-hourly intervals extending 45-days each
Case A:CFS run period 12/02/2005-12/09/2005INFORM forecast evaluation period 12/09/2005 06Z – 01/16/2006 00Z
Case B:CFS run period 01/30/2006-02/06/2006INFORM forecast evaluation period 02/06/2006 06Z – 03/16/2006 00Z
02/25/2010HRC-GWRI NCEP 50
Upgrade and implementation of INFORM multicomputer platform to allow timely processing of 20 GFS ensembles for better statistical estimation of uncertainty
Development of bias adjustment procedures that combine physical model improvements and statistical methodologies (benefits to all leads)
Utilization of 3-D CFS fields to produce downscaling of precipitation and temperature products commensurate with those from GFS (benefits to 16 – 30/45 day forecasts)
Continued validation of system forecasts and demonstration assessments
02/25/2010HRC-GWRI NCEP 51
Available data not directly usable for dynamic downscaling (e.g., onlyPrecipitable water is available for downloading)
For INFORM we developed a post-processor to convert the available data to level data usable with INFORM dynamic downscaling models (very Approximate and temporary until 3-D CFS data becomes available)
Issues of transmission from NCEP to HRC and CNRFC in California
02/25/2010HRC-GWRI NCEP 52
Z T Q U V1000 X X X
850 X X X X X
700 X X X X X
500 X X X X X
400 X X X X X
200 X X X X
Z U V P.WAT1000 X
850 X X X
700 X X X
500 X X X
200 X X X
N/A X
OAKLAND RADIOSONDE DATAMONTHLY 1981-2004
BY MONTH:
- CALCULATE & SAVE MONTHLY MEANS, STD. DEV.- REMOVE MEANS, STANDARDIZE DATA -> Y* & Z*- CALCULATE EOFS OF YOB & ZOB
- GET α,e s.t. Y* = α et and β,f s.t. Z* = β ft
LINEAR REGRESSION: = A Y*
with A = et Ct f and C=<α β>/(<α2>1/2<β2>1/2) (orthogonality)
SAVE A (monthly regression coefficients;
hindcast skill ~ 0.8-0.9 for Q 850 and 700
YOB as in CFS ZOB (for downscaling)
EOF > EOFregression
Z
Z U V P.WAT1000 X
850 X X X
700 X
500 X
200 X
N/A X
CFS DATA - MONTHLY 1981-2004LEAD TIMES OUT TO 60 days, 12 hourly
BY MONTH:- CALCULATE & SAVE MONTHLY MEANS, STD. DEV. OF Ycfs
Then, for each sounding out to 60 days lead time:
-REMOVE MEANS, STANDARDIZE -> Y*cfs
- USE REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS *cfs = A Y*cfs
-TRANSFORM *cfs to observations using OBS means and STD DEVs
AVAILABLE CFS AUGMENTED CFS = YcfsZ U V P.WAT
1000 X
850 X X X
700 X X X
500 X X X
200 X X X
N/A X
GEOSTROPHY
Z
Z
02/25/2010HRC-GWRI NCEP 54
Operational GFS and CFS forecast information is shown to have beneficial impactfor regional water resources planning and management in Northern Californiaif used within the integrated forecast and reservoir management proceduresof INFORM
But there are improvements needed for adoption in operational use:
Availability of CFS forecasts out to 45 days in form suitable for use withdynamic downscaling procedures
Improved method of delivery to CNRFC of real-time ensemble forecast products (both GFS and CFS) for use in the INFORM system
Recommended