Reducing Water Resources Vulnerability of Climate Change through Adaptive Management | Oroville Dam | Precipitation

Integrated Decision Support: Reducing Water Resources Vulnerability to Climate Change through Adaptive Management

Aris Georgakakos
Huaming Yao Martin Kistenmacher

Kosta Georgakakos
Nick Graham Fang-Yi Cheng Cris Spencer

• Integrated Decision Support Framework GCM Scenarios, Downscaling, Hydrology, Water Resources • Climate Change Assessments for Northern California Current vs. Adaptive Policies; Historical vs. Future Scenarios; Vulnerability • Conclusions/Further Assessments Mitigation potential of adaptive, risk based management

Integrated Modeling Framework
GCM Scenarios Downscaling Generate consistent climate forcing sequences of Rainfall and temperature.

Watershed Hydrology

Simulate soil moisture, evapotranspiration, runoff, and streamflow.

River/Reservoir Planning & Management

Simulate current and adaptive mgt. policies and assess impacts on water uses.

Clair Engle Lake
Trinity Power Plant Lewiston Lewiston
Whiskeytown Spring Cr

JF Carr

Shasta
Shasta Keswick

Feath er Ri

ver

Black Butte

Ameri can Riv er

River Node Power Plant Pumping Plant

Reservoir/ Lake

Trinity River

New Melones Oroville

Keswick
Thermalito

Oroville
New Bullards Bar

Melones

iver aR Yub

Folsom
Folsom Natoma Nimbus

Tulloch Goodwin

r Ri ve Bear

IES,IMC,IYB,I TI Tracy Pumping

nJ Sa

uin oaq

er Riv

ISV

DSF Delta-Mendota Canal

To Mendota Pool DDM DFDM San Luis
O’Neill Forebay

IFT

California Aqueduct DDLT,DBS,DCCW D,DNBA Banks Pumping DSB

DDA

To Dos Amigos PP

Vulnerability Assessment and Mitigation Potential

k r Cree Clea

to en am cr Sa er Riv

Sacramento San Joaquin River Delta

Climate Scenarios

CLIMATE MODEL: NCAR CCSM3.0  (COUPLED MODEL) SCENARIO:  A1B  MIDDLE LEVEL SCENARIO  DECLINING EMISSIONS AFTER 2050 MAX CO2 CONCENTRATON OF ~715 PPM AT 2100 RESOLUTION:  ~120KM HORIZONTAL RESOLUTION 26 VERTICAL LAYERS 6HRS TEMPORAL RESOLUTION   VARIABLES USED: 3‐D ATMOSPHERIC VARIABLES TWO INPUT SETS: 1970 ‐2019  AND 2050 ‐ 2099

Good Large Scale Precipitation Correspondence of Historical 1950‐1999 run with NCEP  Reanalysis 1948‐1997 for West Coast

Dynamic Downscaling: Mean Areal Precipitation and Temperature
OROGRAPHIC PRECIPITATION GRIDDED MODEL  WINDFLOW FROM QUASI STEADY STATE POTENTIAL THEORY FLOW  WATER SUBSTANCE SOURCE/ADVECTION MODEL WITH KESSLER MICROPHYSICS 10X10 SQKM SPATIAL AND 6HOURLY TEMPORAL RESOLUTION SURFACE TEMPERATURE GRIDDED MODEL INTERPOLATION/ADJUSTMENT OF  CCSM3.0 LOW LEVEL TEMPERATURE OVER TERRAIN SURFACE ENERGY BALANCE MODEL (OROGRAPHIC AND SNOW/SOIL MODEL COUPLING) 10X10 SQKM SPATIAL AND 6HOURLY TEMPORAL RESOLUTION GIS‐BASED SYSTEM FOR CATCHMENT DELINEATION AND PRODUCTION OF MAP AND MAT

Reference: HRC‐GWRI: http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/project_reports/CEC‐500‐2006‐109.html

Watershed Hydrology: Snow, Soil, and Channel Modeling System ADAPTATION OF NWS OPERATIONAL SNOW ACCUMULATION AND ABLATION MODEL ADAPTATION OF NWS OPERATIONAL SOIL WATER ACCOUNTING MODEL KINEMATIC ROUTING THROUGH RIVER NETWORK FOR ALL BASINS

Oroville Subcatchments

Hydrologic Model Domain

Oroville‐ Historical ESP Reliability Diagrams

Reference: HRC‐GWRI: http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/project_reports/CEC‐500‐2006‐109.html

Selected Results: Temperature, Precipitation, Streamflow

Temperature Difference (oC) – Feb 1800Z

Precipitation Difference (mm/6hrs) – Feb

Future winters are warmer and wetter (at higher elevations) than the historical.
Simulated Flows:  Future Historical

Future flows are somewhat higher and occur earlier (Shasta/Oroville)

River and Reservoir Modeling System Northern California River and Reservoir System Schematic
Clair Engle Lake
Trinity Power Plant Lewiston Lewiston
Whiskeytown Spring Cr

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);

JF Carr

Shasta
Shasta Keswick

Feath er R iver

Black Butte

River

Ame rican

River Node Power Plant Pumping Plant

Reservoir/ Lake

Trinit y Riv er

New Melones Oroville

Keswick
Thermalito

Oroville
New Bullards Bar

Melones

a Yub

er Riv

Folsom
Folsom Natoma Nimbus

Tulloch Goodwin

Feather River System (Oroville Lake, Oroville Power Plants, Thermalito Diversion Pond, Yuba River, and Bear River);
er Riv

ek r Cre Clea

er r Riv Bea

IES,IMC,IYB,ITI Tracy Pumping

uin oaq nJ Sa

ISV

DSF Delta-Mendota Canal

To Mendota Pool DDM DFDM San Luis
O’Neill Forebay

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).

DDLT,DBS,DCCWD,DNBA

to en am cr Sa r ve Ri
IFT

California Aqueduct Banks Pumping DSB

DDA

To Dos Amigos PP

Sacramento San Joaquin River Delta

Objectives: Water Supply Energy Generation Environment Ecology Recreation

River and Reservoir Modeling System (2)

Reservoir ID 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
River Nodes Lewiston JF Carr Clear Creek Spring Creek Keswick Wilkins Feather American River Freeport Goodwin SJR above Stanislaus SJR at Vernalis Antioch Delta Exit

Reservoir Name Clair Engle Lake Whiskeytown Shasta Oroville Folsom New Melones Tulloch San Luis

Hmin 2145 1000 900 640 327 800 57 300

Hmax 2380 1223 1068 900 470 1100 67 546

Smin 313 0.23 1167 852.2 83 273 10 15.5

Smax 2617 284 4347 3537.8 1022 2571 20 2026

Power Plant Trinity Lewiston JF Carr Spring Creek Shasta Keswick Oroville Folsom Nimbus New Melones
State Banks PP State Tracy PP Delta Mendota Canal Federal Dos Amigos Federal O'Neil to Dos Amigos San Felipe Cross Valley Canal Federal Exchange O'Neil Federal Exchange San Luis South Bay/San Jose State Dos Amigos Delta Consumptive Use Freeport Treatment Plant Yolo Bypass Transfer Inflow

Units 2 1 2 2 5 3 6 3 2 2

Capacity (MW) 140 0.35 141.4 150 659 75 600 210 13.5 150

Tributary Inflows Trinity Whiskeytown Shasta Keswick-Wilkins Oroville Yuba River Bear River Folsom Sacramento Miscellaneous Eastside streams Delta Miscellaneous streams New Melones San Joaquin River

Water Supply
Thermalito Folsom Pumping Folsom South Canal OID/SSJID CVP Contractors CCWD Barker Slough Federal Tracy PP Federal Banks On-Peak Federal Banks Off-Peak Federal Banks PP – Total Federal Banks PP – CVC Federal Banks PP - Joint Point Federal Banks PP – Transfers North Bay Aqueduct

AFRP (Anadromous Fish Restoration Plan) Clear Creek Below Whiskeytown Lake (Trinity) Below Keswick Dam (Sacramento) Below Nimbus Dam (American)

River and Reservoir Modeling System (3)

Base Demand Locations and Amounts (WS Deliveries)
Month Thermolito Folsom Pumping Folsom South Canal OID/SSJID CVP Contractors CCWD Barker Slough Federal Tracy PP Federal Banks On-Peak State Banks PP State Tracy PP Delta Mendota Canal Federal Dos Amigos Federal O'Neil to Dos Amigos San Felipe South Bay/San Jose State Dos Amigos Delta Consumptive Use Freeport Treatment Plant 30 40 0 6 2 105 -56 14 Jan 35 4 1 0 0 14 2 258 0 390 0 60 50 1 6 2 127 -37 13 Feb 0 4 1 0 0 17 2 233 0 355 0 100 60 1 10 2 158 -10 14 Mar 11 4 1 14 0 18 1 258 0 241 0 120 70 1 15 5 105 63 12 Apr 67 7 1 60 0 18 2 250 0 68 0 190 110 1 19 5 348 121 12 May 189 8 2 90 0 14 4 135 0 108 0 220 180 2 20 7 348 191 12 Jun 178 12 3 90 0 14 5 169 0 125 0 270 238 2 21 7 423 268 12 Jul 200 13 4 95 0 13 7 270 28 271 0 240 178 1 20 8 388 252 13 Aug 178 12 4 95 0 13 7 268 28 278 0 180 68 0 13 7 269 174 12 Sep 78 10 3 74 0 13 6 260 28 238 0 110 30 0 11 12 229 118 12 Oct 95 7 2 14 0 10 5 258 0 175 0 40 30 0 8 8 196 55 12 Nov 104 5 1 0 0 11 3 250 0 193 0 30 30 0 8 6 61 2 13 Dec 71 4 1 0 0 13 3 258 0 390 0

Delta-related Model Variables (68)
GroupID SeqID SeqName Delta Inflows 1 Sac Valley Acc/depl Delta Inflows 2 Freeport Treatment Plant Delta Inflows 3 Freeport Flow Delta Inflows 4 SJR at Vernalis Delta Inflows 5 Eastside Streams Delta Inflows 6 Misc Creeks Inflow Delta Inflows 7 Yolo Bypass Delta Inflows 8 Transfer Inflow Delta Inflows 9 Total Delta Inflow Delta Exports 10 CCWD Diversion Delta Exports 11 Barker Slough Delta Exports 12 Federal Tracy PP 13 F. Banks On-Peak FBON Delta Exports Delta Exports 14 F. Banks Off-Peak FBOFF Delta Exports 15 Federal Banks PP - Total Delta Exports 16 Federal Banks PP - CVC 17 Federal Banks PP - Joint Point Delta Exports Delta Exports 18 Federal Banks PP - Transfers Delta Exports 19 Total Fed Pumped Planned 20 Total Fed Pumped Computed Delta Exports Delta Exports 21 Total Federal Export Planned Delta Exports 22 Total Federal Export Computed 23 NBA Diversion Delta Exports Delta Exports 24 State Banks PP Delta Exports 25 State Tracy PP 26 Total State Export Planned Delta Exports 27 Total State Export Computed Delta Exports Delta Exports 28 Total Exports Planned Delta Exports 29 Total Exports Computed Delta COA 30 Required Delta Outflow Delta COA 31 Delta Consumptive Use Delta COA 32 Req. Combined Res. Release Delta COA 33 Computed Delta Outflow Delta COA 34 Excess Outflow Delta COA 35 Total Federal Storage Withdrawal Delta COA 36 State Storage Withdrawal Delta COA 37 Unstored Flow for Export Delta COA 38 Est. In-Basin Use of Stor. With. Delta COA 39 USBR Allowable Export Delta COA 40 USBR Monthly COA Account Delta COA 41 Accumulated COA Delta COA 42 Rio Vista Flow Delta Environment 43 X-channel Gates Delta Environment 44 Cross Delta Flow Delta Environment 45 Antioch Flow Delta Environment 46 QWEST Calculated Delta Environment 47 Inflow Diverted Std% Delta Environment 48 Inflow Diverted % Computed Delta Environment 49 X2 Location (km from GG) Delta Environment 50 Supplemental Project Water (Term 91) Delta South 51 Delta Mendota Canal Delta South 52 Federal Dos Amigos Delta South 53 F.D. . ON to DA Delta South 54 S. Felipe Demands Delta South 55 Cross Valley Demand Delta South 56 Fed to S Ex. in ON Delta South 57 Fed to S Ex. in SL Delta South 58 Fed SL P/G. Delta South 59 Federal Storage Delta South 60 S. Bay/ N S.J. Delta South 61 State Dos Amigos Delta South 62 State SL P/G. Delta South 63 State Storage Delta South 64 Total SL Storage Delta South 65 SL Area Delta South 66 SL Elevation Delta South 67 SL Est. Evap. Delta South 68 SL Evap Coefficients

Delta Inflows

Delta Exports

Delta COA

Base Water Demand Target 1200 1000 800 TAF 600 400 200 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Delta Environment

Delta South

River and Reservoir Modeling System (4) Current and Adaptive Management Policies
Current Policy
• Generate inflow forecasts—median trace (HA).

Adaptive, Risk-based Policy
• Generate inflow forecasts—full ensemble (HA).

• Determine reservoir releases for the next 9 • Adjust base demands based on year type. months to - meet water delivery targets and minimum • Determine next month reservoir releases to required flows at various river nodes, - meet water delivery targets and minimum - meet environmental and ecological Delta required flows at various river nodes, requirements associated with the X2, assuming no extra releases are required to meet location and Delta outflow, Delta demands (X2) and pumping to South CA. - generate as much energy as possible, and - maintain high reservoir levels and • If X2 requirements and south CA delivery targets sufficient carry-over storage. are not met, increase releases according to COA (roughly 25/75 rule). (System-wide, stochastic optimization; • If deficits persist, allocate water to meet X2 first, then south CA water deliveries. • Repeat at the next month. Not according to the COA. )

• Determine water year type (DWR: C/D/N/AN/W).

• Apply first month release and repeat. Main Policy Differences

• • •

Current Policy Focuses on current month. Deterministic. Adjusts demand targets twice a year. Follows COA in extra water allocation.

Adaptive Policy Optimizes over the next 9 months. Risk based. Re-optimizes every month. Finds optimal allocation strategy each time.

Adaptive Management System (INFORM DSS)

INFORM DSS: Overview Multiple Objectives, Time Scales, & Decision Makers
Actual Hydrologic Conditions

System-wide, stochastic optimization
Management Agencies/Decisions Planning Agencies/Decisions

Near Real Time Decision Support
Hourly / 1 Day
Benefit/Impact Functions
• • • • Water Supply Energy Flood Damage Env.-Ecosystem

Operational Planning and Management

Actual Demands

Daily Decisions
• Releases/Energy

Water Distribution Flow Regulation Hydro Plant Operation Emergency Response

Target Conditions
• State Variables

Climate-Hydrologic Forecasts Demand Forecasts
• • • • Water Supply Power Load/Tariffs Flood Damage Env.-Ecosystem Targets

Mid/Short Range Decision Support
Daily, 6-Hourly, or Hourly / 1 Month
Benefit/Impact Functions Monthly Decisions
• • • • Water Supply Energy Flood Damage Env.-Ecosystem • Releases/Energy

Operational Tradeoffs
• • • •

Flood Management Water Distribution Energy Generation Env.-Ecosystem Management

Target Conditions
• State Variables

Climate-Hydrologic Forecasts
• • • •

Long Range Decision Support
Weekly, 10-Day or Monthly / 1-2 Years
Management Policy Infrastructure Develpmnt. Water Sharing Compacts Sustainability Targets

Planning Tradeoffs
• • • •

Demand Forecasts
Water Food Energy Env.-Ecosystem

Water Supply/Allocation Energy Generation Carry-over Storage Env.-Ecosystem Management

Off-line Assessments

Inflow Scenarios Development/Demand Scenarios

Scenario/Policy Assessment
Monthly / Several Decades

Development Tradeoffs
• • • • Urban/Industrial Agriculture Power System Socio-economic & Ecological Sustainability

• Water/Energy • Water/Benefit Sharing • Environmental Sustainability

Reference: HRC‐GWRI: http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/project_reports/CEC‐500‐2006‐109.html

Assessment Process
Clair Engle Lake
Trinity Power Plant Lewiston Lewiston
Whiskeytown Spring Cr

9-month Forecast-Decision Horizon
Shasta
Shasta Keswick

JF Carr

Feath er R iver

Black Butte

r Bea

River

Amer ican

River Node Power Plant Pumping Plant

Reservoir/ Lake

Inflow Scenario Demand Scenario Regulation Policy

Trinity River

New Melones Oroville

ek r Cre Clea

Keswick
Thermalito

Oroville
New Bullards Bar

Melones

aR Yub

r ive

Folsom
Folsom Natoma Nimbus

Tulloch Goodwin

Inflow Forecasting
To Mendota Pool DDM DFDM San Luis
O’Neill Forebay

Assessment Criteria Lake Levels, Spillage Water Supply Reliability Energy Generation Bay Environment (X2) others.

r Rive

IES,IMC,IYB,ITI Tracy Pumping

n Sa

er Riv quin Joa

DDLT,DBS,DCCW D,DNBA

to en am cr Sa
ISV

DSF Delta-Mendota Canal

r ve Ri

IFT

California Aqueduct Banks Pumping DSB

DDA

To Dos Amigos PP

River/Reservoir Simulation Reservoir Mgt. Basin wide
Management Policy

Sacramento San Joaquin River Delta

(Monthly time steps)
One Step System Simulation

Simulation Horizon
1970 to 2019 (Historical) 2050 to 2099 (Future)

Inflow Comparison (Historical vs. Future Scenario)
System Historical vs. Future Inflows Trinity Historical vs. Future Inflows
Trinity Monthly Mean 3000 Trinity His Trinity Fut 2500

Total Reservoir Inflows 20000 18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 Future Historical

1500

1000

500

TAF/Year
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2000

4000 2000 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Exceedance of Probability (% )

0

Average future inflows are somewhat higher. (Trinity 6.3%; Oroville 10%; Shasta 4.3%; Folsom 5.6%.) Minimum future inflows are considerably lower indicating more severe droughts (27% reduction). Future inflows are more variable. Wet season shifts earlier.

Lake Levels: Current vs. Adaptive Policies for Historical and Future Scenarios
Historical
System Storage Sequences; Historical Period 12000
12000

Future
System Storage Sequences; Future Period

10000

10000

8000

8000

TAF

6000

TAF

6000

4000 His/DSS His/CurrentPolicy 2000

4000 Future/DSS Future/CurrentPolicy 2000

0 Jan-74 Jan-76 Jan-78 Jan-80 Jan-82 Jan-84 Jan-86 Jan-88 Jan-90 Jan-92 Jan-94 Jan-96 Jan-98 Jan-00 Jan-02 Jan-04 Jan-06 Jan-08 Jan-10 Jan-12 Jan-14 Jan-16 Jan-18

0 Jan-74 Jan-76 Jan-78 Jan-80 Jan-82 Jan-84 Jan-86 Jan-88 Jan-90 Jan-92 Jan-94 Jan-96 Jan-98 Jan-00 Jan-02 Jan-04 Jan-06 Jan-08 Jan-10 Jan-12 Jan-14 Jan-16 Jan-18

Lake levels exhibit considerably greater seasonal and annual variability in the future scenario. System conservation storage is used up in the future scenario. Drought vulnerability increases. Adaptive DSS policy exhibits higher lake levels and less spillage than current policy.

Water Deliveries: Current vs. Adaptive Policies for Historical and Future Scenarios
Historical
System Water Deliveries, Historical Inflows 9000 8000 7000 6000 TAF/Year
His/DSS His/CurrentPolicy

Future
System Water Deliveries, Future Inflows 9000 8000 7000 6000 TAF/Year 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0
Future/DSS Future/CurrentPolicy

5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Exceedance of Probability(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Exceedance of Probability(%)

Current policy provides higher amounts during wet years and lower during dry years. Adaptive DSS policy is more balanced and reliable—reduces vulnerability. Current policy WS during most severe drought (TAF): 4,798 (Historical); 2,545 (Future) Adaptive DSS WS during most severe drought (TAF): 4,923 (Historical); 4,949 (Future)

Energy Generation: Current vs. Adaptive Policies for Historical and Future Scenarios
Historical
Annual System Energy, Historical Period 7000
His/DSS His/CurrentPolicy

Future
Annual System Energy, Future Period 7000
Future/DSS Future/CurrentPolicy

6000

6000

5000

5000

GWH/Year

GWH/Year

4000

4000

3000

3000

2000

2000

1000

1000

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Exceedance of Probability (%)

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Exceedance of Probability (%)

Average energy generation increases by 5% in the future scenario under both policies. Firm energy generation decreases by 10% under the Adaptive Policy and 29% under the Current Policy.

Delta Outflow and X2 Location: Current vs. Adaptive Policies for Historical and Future Scenarios
Current Policy Adaptive DSS Policy

Delta Outflow

X2 Location

Adaptive DSS policy meets Delta outflow and X2 requirement in both scenarios. Current Policy violates Delta outflow and X2 requirement (by 28 kilometers) in future droughts.

Performance Differences (%) of Future relative to Historical Scenario
Current Policy

Future vs. Historical Period
40 30 20 10
3.0 27.9 35.0

DSS

14.5 7.7 0.5 3.5 3.9 0.0

Precent (%)

0 -10 -20
-21.4

Avg. Spillage

Avg. WS

Avg. Energy

-9.2

X2 Violation

-30 -40 -50 -60
-47.0

Firm Energy Min. WS

Current policy worsens in the future scenario: − More spillage (27.9%), less minimum water deliveries (47%), less firm energy (21.4%), and significant X2 and delta outflow violations (35%). + Increased average water deliveries (3%) and energy generation (3.5%). Adaptive DSS policy more robust between historical and future scenarios: + Increased average water deliveries (7.7%), increased minimum water deliveries (0.5%), increased average energy (3.9%), and no X2 and delta outflow violations. − Increased spillage (14.5%), less firm energy (9.2%).

Performance Differences (%) of DSS relative to Current Policy
Historical

DSS vs. Current Policy
110
94.4

Future

90

70 50 Precent (%)

30
18.8

10 -10
-2.1 -12.3

0.9 -3.5

2.6

-0.1

0.2

2.8

0.0

-30 -50

Avg. Spillage

Avg. WS

Min. WS

Avg. Energy

Firm Energy
-35.0

X2 Violation

Adaptive DSS vs. Current Policy differences are minor in the historical scenario. Adaptive DSS policy is notably more robust in the future scenario with respect to all criteria, especially minimum water supply, firm energy, Delta requirements, and spillage. There are nonlinear interactions and tradeoffs underlying system response and performance against the different criteria. Such assessments serve to quantify and communicate these interdependencies.

Conclusions
Future A1B scenario portents intensifying water stresses (due to seasonal inflow shifts and higher inflow variability) and higher vulnerability to extreme droughts. Adaptive, risk based, reservoir regulation strategies are self tuning to the changing climate, deliver more robust performance than current management practices, and can considerably mitigate the negative impacts of increased water stresses. Effective implementation of adaptive, risk based, reservoir regulation strategies require • more flexible laws and policy statutes (COA, heuristic rules, etc.), • a new level of institutional cooperation for water resources management, and • capacity building of agency personnel in modern decision support methods.

Uncertainty Management: Climate → Hydrology → Management
ˆ ˆ { (P, Pε ) , (T, Tε ) }

Climate Forecasts

ˆ ˆ ˆ {Q , Q ε } = fH [ S H , (P, Pε ) , (T, Tε ), α H , k ]
I, {ˆ I ε } = ˆ = fS [S S , (Q,Q ε ),(...), α S , u(S S ) , k ]

Hydrologic Forecasts
p

u: Dynamic/Adaptive

Decision Rules
Impact Forecasts

u: Static/Fixed
Impacts

Adaptive decision rules can manage forecast uncertainty. Heuristic regulation rules cannot.

Flood Damage, Water Supply, Energy Generation, Agriculture Public Health, etc.

Further Work
Bracket cloud influence in climate downscaling component. Incorporate impacts of sea-level rise. Assessments of other GCM scenarios (A2, B1, etc.) to investigate the sensitivity of the findings presented herein. Assessments with daily and sub-daily temporal resolution to quantify climate change impacts on other system functions and outputs (flooding, energy generation markets, ecosystem response, etc.). Multi-stressor assessments including demand and land use change. Conjunctive, statewide surface water – groundwater assessments.

Acknowledgements
The INFORM project was sponsored by the NOAA Climate Program Office, the California Energy Commission PIER Program, and the CALFED Program. Contributors included several scientists and managers from the California Department of Water Resources, the Bureau of Reclamation, the US Army Corps of Engineers, NOAA/NWS/CNRFC, NOAA CPO, and others. The Climate Change INFORM application was funded by the Energy Commission Pier Climate Change Program. We thank Guido Franco for his support and guidance, and Rob Hartman of CNRFC for making available operational historical data.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful