Reliability, sensitivity, and uncertainty of reservoir performance under climate variability in basins with different hydrogeologic settings (original) (raw)

Abstract

This study investigated how reservoir performance varied across different hydrogeologic settings and under plausible future climate scenarios. The study was conducted in the Santiam River basin, OR, USA, comparing the North Santiam basin (NSB), with high permeability and extensive groundwater storage, and the South Santiam basin (SSB), with low permeability, little groundwater storage, and rapid runoff response. We applied projections of future temperature and precipitation from global climate models to a rainfall-runoff model, coupled with a formal Bayesian uncertainty analysis, to project future inflow hydrographs as inputs to a reservoir operations model. The performance of reservoir operations was evaluated as the reliability in meeting flood management, spring and summer environmental flows, and hydropower generation objectives. Despite projected increases in winter flows and decreases in summer flows, results suggested little evidence of a response in reservoir operation performance to a warming climate, with the exception of summer flow targets in the SSB. Independent of climate impacts, historical prioritization of reservoir operations appeared to impact reliability, suggesting areas where operation performance may be improved. Results also highlighted how hydrologic uncertainty is likely to complicate planning for climate change in basins with substantial groundwater interactions.

Figures (13)

* F — Flood Control; N — Navigation; E — Environmental; HP — Hydropower; | — Irrigation; M — Municipal & Industrial; R — Recreation

* F — Flood Control; N — Navigation; E — Environmental; HP — Hydropower; | — Irrigation; M — Municipal & Industrial; R — Recreation

Figure 1. Left inset: santiam River Basin (SRB), reservoirs and geology. Right inset: willamette River Basin Reservoir Network. Thirteen multipurpose dams and reservoirs (in bold) work as a system to meet downstream flow targets at control points (in italic). The arrows indicate the direction of the flow, the black dots represent stream nodes in the stream alignment, the black dots with gray circles represent computational points where streamflow projections are added to ResSim model, and the black dots with gray boxes represent control computational points for reservoir operation.

Figure 1. Left inset: santiam River Basin (SRB), reservoirs and geology. Right inset: willamette River Basin Reservoir Network. Thirteen multipurpose dams and reservoirs (in bold) work as a system to meet downstream flow targets at control points (in italic). The arrows indicate the direction of the flow, the black dots represent stream nodes in the stream alignment, the black dots with gray circles represent computational points where streamflow projections are added to ResSim model, and the black dots with gray boxes represent control computational points for reservoir operation.

Figure 4. GSFLOW streamflow inputs at Detroit reservoir and Green Peter reservoir. Figures (a) and (b) shows the median confidence interval for the Simulated Historical (SH), Near Future (NF) and Far Future (FF) time periods, and figures (c) and (d) shows the median confidence interval (white line) for each time period with its uncertainty (shaded area).

Figure 4. GSFLOW streamflow inputs at Detroit reservoir and Green Peter reservoir. Figures (a) and (b) shows the median confidence interval for the Simulated Historical (SH), Near Future (NF) and Far Future (FF) time periods, and figures (c) and (d) shows the median confidence interval (white line) for each time period with its uncertainty (shaded area).

Figure 6. Flood to storage ratio represented as the ability of a reservoir, on any given day to store a three day event of a particular recurrence interval was calculated for Detroit, and Green Peter reservoirs for the Simulated Historical (SH), Near Future (NF), and Far Future (FF) time periods under A1B and B1 GHG emission scenarios. A higher ratio means a potentially larger failure to store high flood events.

Figure 6. Flood to storage ratio represented as the ability of a reservoir, on any given day to store a three day event of a particular recurrence interval was calculated for Detroit, and Green Peter reservoirs for the Simulated Historical (SH), Near Future (NF), and Far Future (FF) time periods under A1B and B1 GHG emission scenarios. A higher ratio means a potentially larger failure to store high flood events.

Figure 9. Reservoir (median) pool elevation and storage for a dry (left column) and wet (right column) water years during the Simulated Historical (SH) time period for Detroit, Green Peter, and Foster reservoirs.

Figure 9. Reservoir (median) pool elevation and storage for a dry (left column) and wet (right column) water years during the Simulated Historical (SH) time period for Detroit, Green Peter, and Foster reservoirs.

Figure 10. Spring flow target reliability. This figure shows the number of days (y axis) discharge is below spring minimum flow target per year at Mehama control point in the North Santiam basin and Waterloo control point in the South Santiam basin. Error bars represent the upper and lower confidence interval.

Figure 10. Spring flow target reliability. This figure shows the number of days (y axis) discharge is below spring minimum flow target per year at Mehama control point in the North Santiam basin and Waterloo control point in the South Santiam basin. Error bars represent the upper and lower confidence interval.

Figure 11. Summer flow target reliability at Mehama in the North Santiam basin and Waterloo in the South Santiam basin represented as the number of days (y axis) discharge is below summer minimum flow target per year. Error bars represent the upper and lower confidence interval.

Figure 11. Summer flow target reliability at Mehama in the North Santiam basin and Waterloo in the South Santiam basin represented as the number of days (y axis) discharge is below summer minimum flow target per year. Error bars represent the upper and lower confidence interval.

Figure 12. Hydropower production represented as reservoirs’ ability to produce the total power capability in a given year under the A1B GHG emission scenario. Error bars represent the upper and lower confidence interval. Scale for the y axis is different for each reservoir.

Figure 12. Hydropower production represented as reservoirs’ ability to produce the total power capability in a given year under the A1B GHG emission scenario. Error bars represent the upper and lower confidence interval. Scale for the y axis is different for each reservoir.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (29)

  1. Buccola, N. L., Rounds, S. A., Sullivan, A. B., and Risley, J. C.: Simulating Potential Structural and Operational Changes for Detroit Dam on the North Santiam River, Oregon, for Down- stream Temperature Management, http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5231/ (last access: 23 July 2014), 2012.
  2. Chang, H. and Jung, I. W.: Spatial and Temporal Changes in Runoff Caused by Climate Change in a Complex Large River Basin in Oregon, J. Hydrol., 388, 186-207, 2010.
  3. Hamlet, A. F., Salathé, E. P., and Carrasco, P.: Statistical Downscaling Techniques for Global Climate Model Simulations of Temperature and Precipitation with Applica- tion to Water Resources Planning Studies The Columbia Basin Climate Change Sce- narios Project (CBCCSP) Report, http://www.hydro.washington.edu/pub/itohver/HB2860/ CBCCSP_chap4_gcm_final.pdf (last access: 29 July 2014), 2010.
  4. Hashimoto, T.: Reliability, resiliency, and vulnerability criteria for water resource system perfor- mance evaluation, Water Resour. Res., 18, 14-20, 1982.
  5. Jefferson, A., Nolin., A., Lewis, S., and Tague, C.: Hydrogeologic controls on streamflow sensi- tivity to climate variation, Hydrol. Process., 22, 4371-4385, 2008. Liang, X.: A Two-Layer Variable Infiltration Capacity Land Surface Representation for General Circulation Models Thesis (Phd. thesis), University of Washington, source: Dissertation Ab- stracts International, 55, Section: B, p. 3788, University of Washington, 1994.
  6. McMahon, T. A., Adeloye, A. J., and Zhou, S. L.: Understanding Performance Measures of Reservoirs, J. Hydrol., 324, 359-382, 2006.
  7. Milutin, D. and Bogardi, J.: Evolution of Release Allocation Patterns within a Multiple-Reservoir Water Supply System Operation Water Management, Department of Water Resources, Wa- geningen Agricultre University, the Netherlands, 179-186, 1997. NMFS: National Marine Fisheries Service, Endangered Species Act Sect. 7(a) (2) Con- sultation Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Manage- ment Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation: seattle, Washington, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Log Number FINWR12000/02117, various Pagination, http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ Salmon-Hydropower/Willamette-basin/Willamette-BO.cfm (last access: 16 Januar 2014), 2008.
  8. Nolin, A. W.: Perspectives on climate change, mountain hydrology, and water resources in the oregon cascades, USA, Mt. Res. Dev., 32, 35-46, 2012. References Tables Figures Back Close Full Screen / Esc Printer-friendly Version Interactive Discussion Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Nolin, A. W. and Daly, C.: Mapping "at risk" snow in the pacific northwest, J. Hydrometeorol., 7, 1164-1171, 2006.
  9. Obeysekera, J and Salas, J. D.: Quantifying the uncertainty of design floods under non- stationary conditions, J. Hydrol. Eng., 19, 1438-1446, 2014.
  10. ODEQ, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 2006a Willamette Basin TMDL: north Santiam SubBasin, http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/tmdls/docs/willamettebasin/willamette/ chpt8nsantiam.pdf (last access: 28 July 2014), 2006a.
  11. ODEQ, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Willamette Basin TMDL: south Santiam Subbasin http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/tmdls/docs/willamettebasin/willamette/ chpt9ssantiam.pdf (last access: 28 July 2014), 2006b.
  12. Payne, J. T., Wood, A. W., Hamlet, A. F., Palmer, R. N., and Lettenmaier, D. P.: Mitigating the effects of climate change on the water resources of the Columbia River Basin, Climatic Change, 62, 233-256, 2004.
  13. Risley, J., Wallick, J., Mangano, J., and Jones, K.: An Environmental Streamflow Assessment for the Santiam River Basin, Oregon, Open-File Report, US Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, 66 p., 2012.
  14. Rosero, E., Yang, Z. L., Wagener, T., Gulden, L. E., Yatheendradas, S., and Niu, G. Y.: Quantify- ing parameter sensitivity, interaction, and transferability in hydrologically enhanced versions of the Noah Land surface model over transition zones during the warm season, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D03106, doi:10.1029/2009JD012035, 2010.
  15. Safeeq, M., Grant, G. E., Lewis, S. L., and Tague, C. L.: Coupling snowpack and groundwa- ter dynamics to interpret historical streamflow trends in the Western United States, Hydrol. Process., 27, 655-668, 2013.
  16. Schaefli, B., Hingray, B., and Musy, A.: Climate change and hydropower production in the Swiss Alps: quantification of potential impacts and related modelling uncertainties, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 1191-1205, doi:10.5194/hess-11-1191-2007, 2007.
  17. Sullivan, A. and Rounds, S.: Modeling Streamflow and Water Temperature in the North San- tiam and Santiam Rivers Scientific Investigations Report, US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report, Portland, Oregon, 35 p., 2004.
  18. Surfleet, C. G. and Tullos, D.: Uncertainty in hydrologic modelling for estimating hydrologic response due to climate change (Santiam River, Oregon), Hydrol. Process., 27, 3560-3576, 2013. References
  19. Tables Figures Back Close Full Screen / Esc Printer-friendly Version Interactive Discussion Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Tague, C. and Grant, G.: A Geologic Framework for Interpreting the Low-Flow Regimes of Cascade Streams, Willamette River Basin, Oregon, Water Resour. Res., 40, W04303, doi:10.1029/2003WR002629, 2004.
  20. Tague, C. and Grant, G. E.: Groundwater Dynamics Mediate Low-Flow Response to Global Warming in Snow-Dominated Alpine Regions Water Resour. Res., 45, W07421, doi:10.1029/2008WR007179, 2009.
  21. Tague, C., Grant, G., Farrell, M., Choate, J., and Jefferson, A.: Deep groundwater mediates streamflow response to climate warming in the Oregon Cascades, Climatic Change, 86, 189-210, 2008.
  22. USACE, US Army Corps of Engineers: Water Control Manual for Green Peter Lake, Oregon: Portland District Report, 5 September 1968, 1968a.
  23. USACE, US Army Corps of Engineers: Water Control Manual for Foster Lake, Oregon: Portland District Report, 26 December 1968, 1968b.
  24. USACE, US Army Corps of Engineers: Water Control Manual for Detroit and Big Cliff Lakes, Oregon: Portland District Report, 18 December 1953, 1953.
  25. USACE, US Army Corps of Engineers: Willamette Basin Guide: Standard Operating Pro- cedures (SOP) for Reservoir Control Center, available at: http://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/ Locations/WillametteValley.aspx, last access: 1 November 2011.
  26. USACE, US Army Corps of Engineers: HEC-ResSim Reservoir System Simulation Ver- sion 31, User's Manual, http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-ressim/documentation/ HEC-ResSim_31_UsersManual.pdf (last access: 1 June 2014), 2013. US Department of the Interior, U.: Bulletin 17-B: Guidelines for determining flood frequency fre- quently asked questions, http://acwi.gov/hydrology/Frequency/B17bFAQ.html (last access: 4 April 2013), 1982.
  27. Vonk, E., Xu, Y. P., Booij, M. J., Zhang, X., and Augustijn, D. C. M.: Adapting Multireservoir Op- eration to Shifting Patterns of Water Supply and Demand: a Case Study for the Xinanjiang- Fuchunjiang Reservoir Cascade, Water Resour. Manag., 28, 625-643, 2014.
  28. Watkins, D. W. and McKinney, D. C.: Robust optimization for incorporating risk and uncer- tainty in sustainable water resources planning, IAHS Publications-Series of Proceedings and Reports-Intern Assoc. Hydrol. Sci., 231, 225-232, 1995.
  29. Watts, R. J., Richter, B. D., Opperman, J. J., and Bowmer, K. H.: Dam reoperation in an era of climate change, Mar. Freshwater Res., 62, 321, 2011.