Operator and Modeler Collaboration on Truckee- Carson River Operations Using Ensembles River Ware User Group Meeting Thursday February 1, 2018 Caleb Erkman, P.E. PWRE David Wathen Deputy TROA Administrator
Collaboration Lahontan Basin Area Office Federal Water Master Office Reno, NV
Outline Mr. Erkman Model Overview Multiple Run Management - MRM Process Trace scaling Mr. Wathen Sample MRM Output Comparison of Deterministic and Probabilistic Results Probabilistic Decision Support
Model Overview: TROA Operations and Accounting Model Simulation time Period ~ 1 Water Year Backward Looking Accounting Ops Start Day Operations, Forecasting & Scheduling One model, four purposes Specify Ops Start Date Seamless transition from backward looking accounting to operational forecasting in one model run Run period stays the same RiverWare Accounting, per TROA, done in both modes Backward looking accounting mode Input pool elevation and stream gage measurements Model solves for inflows to reservoirs and reaches Reconcile imperfect accounting Operational forecasting mode Forecasted inflows Logic sets releases RiverWare simulates system Informs current operational decisions Used by parties to develop Schedules
Model Overview: Policy Logic TROA prescribes many specific operational and accounting criteria 276 pages long ~9,600 lines ~30 years to compose/negotiate Model needs to follow this criteria ~24,000 lines of RPL code ~17 years of work to implement Still working
Multiple Run Management Input April through July Volume - Exceedance Curves 6,300-18,700 6,100-6,300 5,900-6,100 5,700-5,900 5,500-5,700 5,300-5,500 5,100-5,300 4,900-5,100 4,700-4,900 4,500-4,700 4,300-4,500 4,100-4,300 3,900-4,100 3,700-3,900 3,500-3,700 3,300-3,500 3,100-3,300 2,900-3,100 2,700-2,900 2,500-2,700 2,300-2,500 2,100-2,300 1,900-2,100 1,700-1,900 1,500-1,700 1,300-1,500 1,100-1,300 900-1,100 700-900 500-700 300-500 100-300 Less than 100 Output Stream Flow-Heat Map May-18 Jun-18 Jul-18 Aug-18 Mar-18 Apr-18 Sep-18 Jan-18 Feb-18 Oct-18 Nov-18 Oct-17 Nov-17 Dec-17 Dec-18 Legend (Number of traces in each bin, 59 traces total) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 59 Peak Flow - Histogram TROA Operations- Accounting Model Pool Elevation - Spaghetti Plot
Multiple Run Management (MRM) Purpose: Characterize uncertainty in the model outputs Method: Configure TROA RiverWare model will stakeholder & decision maker scheduling Run model with a variety of hydrologic conditions Provides: Robust decision support Communication of expectations Pyramid Lake Pool Elevation
Multiple Run Management: Vetting Ensemble forecasts introduce the model to a wide variety of conditions. QA/QC of results and debugging can be time consuming! After continued use, the debugging time requirements diminish. The River Forecast Center (RFC) traces are raw model output and may contain overly extreme events! Requires QA/QC CNRFC has been very receptive to feedback
MRM: Hydrology This method only propagates uncertainty in hydrology. Historical observations can be used to estimate uncertainty in: Local Inflows Precipitation rates Evaporation rates (if available) Additional methods are necessary to propagate uncertainty in other inputs. Diversions Evaporation rates Scheduling RFC Trace Analysis Exceedance Farad AJ Vol (KAF) Ft. Churchill AJ Tahoe GCR Volume (KAF) (ft) Max 447 484 2.28 10% 353 302 1.75 20% 307 239 1.33 30% 223 187 1.06 40% 195 151 0.86 50% 164 110 0.69 60% 153 87 0.58 70% 140 63 0.49 80% 120 48 0.40 90% 97 31 0.23 Min 45 0 0.00 1901-2017 Average 269.2 184.1 1.48 Percent of Average 61% 60% 47%
MRM: Trace Scaling Farad April-July Volume (KAF) Exceedance The CNRFC traces are raw model output Raw RFC Scaled RFC NRCS Ref. St. (%) May not Traces be consistent Traces with Coordinated official Dev. 5 forecast 692 volume distribution 745 N/A 10 May not 677 be consistent 719 with 690 latest 70.2 30 observed 606flows 629 624 45.8 Developed 50 569 Exceedance 600Distribution N/A 70 551 577 570 57.2 Functions based on: 90 526 545 531 53.8 95 Historical 513 hydrology 535 N/A And today s CNRFC traces Scale each trace to the volume corresponding to it s exceedance and the Median 569 601 KAF St. Dev 56.9 65.00 KAF Average 583.5 KAF desired forecast distribution 80% CI 151 174 159
2015 vs 2017 Extreme Years Reliance on the standard 10-50-90 Exceedance volume forecasts can really limit the range of forecasted outcomes Very recent history tells us we must consider the FULL range of possible outcomes 111 Years of Hydrologic Record Year Truckee River @ Farad AJ Volume (KAF) Exceedance Truckee River @ Farad WY Volume (KAF) Exceedance Carson @ Ft Churchill AJ Volume (KAF) Exceedance Carson @ Ft Churchill AF Volume (KAF) Exceedance Lake Tahoe GCR - April thru High (FT) Exceedance Lake Tahoe WY Low to the High GCR (FT) 2015 45.2 99% 138.8 96% 3.9 99% 30.9 99% 0.2 99% 1.2 88% 2017 662.101 3% 1207.612 1% 570.816 1% 946.947 1% 3.73 3% 7.52 1% Exceedance
Tahoe Outflow Spill Potential 50% deterministic indicates approximately 70KAF of spill for the remainder of the WY. Comparing the 50% to the full set of MRM output traces quite a different picture
Lake Tahoe Inflow Volume (GCR) vs. Total Outflow Volume 10%, 50%, 90% exceedance inflow volumes translate to a range of ~207 KAF in release volume Miscommunicates the range of possible release volumes 90% 50% 10% 1986 Trace: 17% Exc GCR, 5% Exc Outflow Full range of the CNRFC Ensemble inflow show a range of 370KAF in release volume The 10-50-90 inflow forecasts don t necessary translate to the 10-50-90 Outflow 1988 Trace: 98% Exc GCR, 36% Exc Outflow GCR: Gates Closed Rise (ft)--- measure of computed inflow as the daily change in reservoir elevation + daily outflow.
Flood Control Operations Truckee River @ Reno Gage 50% deterministic output would indicate flows never reaching 6,000 cfs no flood control issues at any time for the remainder of the WY Again, a very different picture when you consider the full set of traces
Lahontan Precautionary Releases 50 % Deterministic output: Approximately 10KAF precautionary releases March 15 th thru April 1 st. Minimal impacts Comparing this result with the full set of MRM output indicates that the 50% deterministic output is fairly unlikely 61% of the traces show zero level control releases 27% of the traces would require at least 50KAF and up to approx. 297KAF of precautionary release.
Operation with Uncertainty Example 2017 was record setting! Federal Water Master must spill to prevent the water surface elevation from exceeding elevation 6229.1 It is also critical that the lake be filled to the maximum (~6229.1 ) During runoff, daily inflows can be tens of thousands of cfs Maximum release is 2,600 cfs Level control releases must be initiated well in advance of the peak inflow High degree of uncertainty in future hydrology Lake Tahoe Releases - 2017
Operation with Uncertainty Example Lake Tahoe Releases - 2017 Release schedule for May set on May 8th Goals: Guaranteed step down Low end is above minimum Maximize chances for rafting Run MRM Model determines distribution of remaining releases Observed Lake Tahoe Outflow (cfs) Input Model Output
Operation with Uncertainty Example Lake Tahoe Releases - 2017 Option #1: Set release to fill the median forecast (750 cfs) Run MRM Evaluate Goals: x Guaranteed step down Low end is above minimum x Maximize chances for rafting Observed Lake Tahoe Outflow (cfs) Input Model Output
Operation with Uncertainty Example Lake Tahoe Releases - 2017 Option #2: Choose a more aggressive release (1250 cfs) Run MRM Evaluate Goals: Guaranteed step down Low end is above minimum Maximize chances for rafting Observed Lake Tahoe Outflow (cfs) Input Model Output
Operation with Uncertainty Example Lake Tahoe Releases - 2017 Compare Results Option 1: Median (750 cfs) Option 2: Aggressive (1250 cfs) Operating to minimize uncertainty improves the probability of success Operating to the median may not meet all the objectives Observed Lake Tahoe Outflow (cfs) Input Model Output
2,400-2,688 2,325-2,400 2,250-2,325 2,175-2,250 2,100-2,175 2,025-2,100 1,950-2,025 1,875-1,950 1,800-1,875 1,725-1,800 1,650-1,725 1,575-1,650 1,500-1,575 1,425-1,500 1,350-1,425 1,275-1,350 1,200-1,275 1,125-1,200 1,050-1,125 975-1,050 900-975 825-900 750-825 675-750 600-675 525-600 450-525 375-450 300-375 225-300 150-225 75-150 Less than 75 Operations With Uncertainty: Tahoe Outflow 2018 Heat Map Truckee at Truckee: Flood Stage Some methods of showing uncertainty in flow data can be problematic and potentially misleading Heat Map shows the density of traces in each flow bin This is similar in concept to a radar map Truckee at Truckee: Monitor Stage Qualitative, but accurately displays uncertainty especially in flow data Optimum Rafting Oct-17 Nov-17 Dec-17 Jan-18 Feb-18 Mar-18 Apr-18 May-18 Jun-18 Jul-18 Aug-18 Sep-18 Oct-18 Nov-18 Dec-18 Legend (Number of traces in each bin, 59 traces total) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 59
In Closing We must not discard and overlook forecasts that might lie outside of the 10% and 90% exceedance levels In 2 of the last 3 years on the Truckee and Carson River Basins we have experienced a record dry and a record wet year Characteristics of hydrology other than volume impact operations With the right tools RFC ensemble forecasting products The RiverWare MRM utility Modeling expertise and many additional tools developed by PWRE that further analyzes and assist in interpreting the model output We can effectively manage a very complex river and reservoir system, and feel confident in operational decisions in a very uncertain and highly variable hydrologic climate.
Questions? Special Thanks to: Shane Coors, PWRE Heather Gacek, PWRE Tony Powel, PWRE Chad Blanchard, USWM Dave Wathen, USWM Patrick Fritchel, USWM Jim Kjeldsen, USWM CADSWES Jeff Boyer, Formerly TROA Planning Office Nadira Kabir, USBR LBAO Dan Lahde, USBR LBAO Jordan Lanini, Formerly USBR LBAO Tom Scott, CA DWR Paul Larson, CA DWR Bill Hauck, TMWA