Simulating High-Elevation Hydropower with Regional

Climate Warming in the West Slope, Sierra Nevada

David E. Rheinheimer 1; Joshua H. Viers 2; Jack Sieber 3; Michael Kiparsky 4; Vishal K. Mehta 5;
and Scott T. Ligare 6
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Berkeley on 04/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Water systems in snowmelt-dominated hydroregions such as California’s Sierra Nevada mountains are sensitive to regional
climate change, hydropower systems in particular. In this study, a water resources management model was developed for the upper west
slope Sierra Nevada to understand the potential effects of regional climate warming on hydropower at the watershed scale, a scale that has
been largely neglected but is important for hydroregional planning. The model is developed with the Water Evaluation and Planning system
(WEAP) and includes most water management infrastructure in the study region. Hydropower is simulated assuming historical long-term
electricity demand and a spill minimization rule. The method is suitable for simulating generation for most of the main watersheds in the
region. To assess the potential effect of climate warming, uniform air temperature increases of 0°C, 2°C, 4°C, and 6°C were considered, with
no change in precipitation, to approximate regional warming through 2100. The highly productive northern Sierra Nevada sees large re-
ductions in hydropower generation with decreases in annual runoff. The central watersheds see less reduction in annual runoff and can adapt
better to changes in runoff timing. Generation in southern watersheds, which are less productive, decreases. Results from this study can help
identify which watersheds might easily adapt to climate change, where hydropower is likely to conflict with other uses, and where more
detailed operational studies are needed. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000373. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Hydro power; Simulation models; Climate change; Reservoirs.

Introduction
Hydropower systems are at the management nexus of energy sup-
ply, water supply, freshwater ecosystems and ecosystem services,
recreation, and flood control. High-elevation hydropower systems
are particularly sensitive to global climate warming in snowmelt-
dominated regions, where major shifts in runoff magnitude and tim-
ing are expected (Barnett et al. 2005; Bates et al. 2008; IPCC 2007),
exacerbating existing trade-offs between competing water uses
(Kundzewicz et al. 2007). The Sierra Nevada in California, USA,
is one such snowmelt-dominated hydroregion with extensively
developed hydropower systems vulnerable to climate change. This
paper describes a water resources management model developed
for the upper west slope of the Sierra Nevada, applied to assess
spatial trends of potential effects of climate warming on hydro-
power generation across the entire region.
1
Postdoctoral Researcher, Center for Watershed Sciences, Univ. of
California, One Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616 (corresponding author).
E-mail: drheinheimer@ucdavis.edu
2
Associate Director, Center for Watershed Sciences, Univ. of California,
One Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616. E-mail: jhviers@ucdavis.edu
3
Senior Scientist, Stockholm Environment Institute, 11 Curtis Ave.,
Somerville, MA 02144.
4
Associate Director, Wheeler Institute for Water Law & Policy, Univ. of
California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720.
5
Staff Scientist, Stockholm Environment Institute, 400 F St., Davis, CA
95616.
6
Water Resources Control Engineer, State Water Resources Control
Board, 1001 I St., Sacramento, CA 95814.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on November 4, 2011; approved
on April 18, 2013; published online on April 20, 2013. Discussion period
open until October 1, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Water Resources Plan-
ning and Management, Vol. 140, No. 5, May 1, 2014. © ASCE, ISSN
0733-9496/2014/5-714-723/$25.00.
The high-elevation, upper west slope of the Sierra Nevada pro-
vides most of the water for California’s vast water supply system,
supporting hydropower generation, ecosystems, recreation, and
municipal and agricultural water supply for much of the state.
Hydrologic patterns in the Sierra Nevada are typical of a Mediter-
ranean-montane climate, with a cool, wet period from about
November to April and warm, dry period from about May to
October (Null et al. 2010). Of California’s in-state hydropower
generation capacity of 14,000 MW, about 134 high-elevation
hydropower plants in the Sierra Nevada contribute approximately
8,800 MW, representing 63% of in-state hydropower capacity and
16% of in-state generation capacity from all sources (California
Energy Commission 2009; Franco and Fagundes 2005). The value
of this hydropower is disproportionate to its total output because
high-elevation hydropower systems are typically operated when
electricity prices are high and to respond to short-term fluctuations
in energy demand (Madani and Lund 2009; Olivares 2008; Vicuña
et al. 2011).
Many studies over the last three decades have focused on
climate change effects on California’s water resources (Vicuna and
Dracup 2007; Franco et al. 2011), including effects on hydropower.
Studies consistently show substantial air temperature increases and
modest precipitation decreases in California by the end of the cen-
tury, though California will retain its Mediterranean climate (Cayan
et al. 2008; Dettinger 2005; Franco et al. 2011). Specific statewide
estimates of warming range from about 1.5°C to 6°C with business-
as-usual greenhouse gas emissions (Franco et al. 2011) with greater
warming expected in the northern Sierra Nevada (Hayhoe et al.
2004). Warming alone has and will decrease the fraction of precipi-
tation falling as snow, increasing winter precipitation runoff and
decreasing spring snowmelt runoff, shifting runoff to earlier in the
year (Cayan et al. 2008; Dettinger et al. 2004; Null et al. 2010;
Young et al. 2009). Warming will also reduce annual runoff, even
with no change in precipitation (Null et al. 2010).

714 / JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MAY 2014

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 2014.140:714-723.

 Investigations of the effects of regional climate change on Cal-
ifornia’s hydropower generation have historically been quite gen-
eralized over the entire state or detailed and limited to one or two
specific hydropower projects. California-wide, Madani and Lund
(2010) estimated mean hydropower generation decreases of
1.3% assuming a change in runoff timing only and 19.7% assuming
reduced runoff (drier conditions), providing an approximate range
for expected changes. Vicuña et al. (2011) focused on two specific
systems in the Sierra Nevada, the Big Creek system in the San Joa-
quin River (R.) watershed and the Upper American River Project in
the American R. watershed, and estimated end-of-century reduc-
tions in generation of 10.4% in the former and 12.2% in the latter,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Berkeley on 04/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

averaged over a range of downscaled general circulation models.

Mehta et al. (2011), meanwhile, estimated a reduction of approx-
imately 22% in the Middle Fork Project in the American R. water-
shed, assuming 6°C warming and historical precipitation levels. No
previous study in California has assessed spatial trends of climate
change effects on hydropower across a larger region, primarily be-
cause of the greater modeling challenges associated with achieving
higher spatiotemporal accuracy.
The watershed as a spatial unit of analysis, if sufficiently large,
can allow for coarser scale water system modeling while still pro-
viding useful insights about spatial trends within a larger hydrore-
gion (Muñoz and Sailor 1998). Here, the “watershed” is considered
to be large enough to including at least one major river, with pos-
sibly several hydropower systems. The watershed scale, however
defined, can be useful for hydroregional planning. For example,
management of regional freshwater ecosystems is necessarily at
the watershed-to-catchment scale (Viers 2011). Recognizing this,
others have begun to use the watershed as a spatial unit for analysis
in the western Sierra Nevada. Young et al. (2009) developed a
hydrologic model of the western Sierra Nevada, calibrated using Fig. 1. Features included in SIERRA
rivers from the 15 largest watersheds in the region. Null et al.
(2010) assessed the results of Young et al. (2009) to further under-
stand the vulnerability of the same 15 watersheds to changes in assessment and results. SIERRA also builds on the water manage-
hydrologic patterns. Similarly, Ficklin et al. (2012) used mostly ment simulation model of Mehta et al. (2011), which focuses on the
the same rivers for calibration of a different hydrologic model Cosumnes, American, Bear, and Yuba River (CABY) watersheds
of the Sierra Nevada. within the study region.
The main goal of this study was to develop and apply a water As with the study by Mehta et al. (2011), SIERRA uses the
resources simulation model that builds on the work of Young et al. water management module of the Water Evaluation and Planning
(2009) and the related hydropower study of Mehta et al. (2011). system (WEAP), a modeling platform commonly used in water
Objectives included developing a network model that simulates planning studies [e.g., Thompson et al. (2012)] that integrates a
dominant water management systems of the upper west slope Sierra physically based, lumped hydrology model with a priority-based
Nevada in sufficient detail to assess spatial trends of climate change water resources management simulation model (Yates et al. 2005).
effects on high-elevation hydropower without the operational detail To simulate water management, WEAP requires infrastructure rep-
required for specific systems. The intent was thus to help bridge the resentation, infrastructure parameters, initial and boundary condi-
gap between single-system studies and general, statewide studies to tions, and operating rules. Rules include assignment of priorities,
further the scientific basis for regional watershed planning. To do which range from 1 (highest) to 99 (lowest). WEAP uses a tradi-
this, a coarse water management simulation model was developed tional linear programming solution method to apportion water as
for 15 watersheds in the upper west slope of the Sierra Nevada equitably as possible among water demands with the same priority
(Fig. 1), called the Sierra Integrated Environmental and Regulated (Yates et al. 2005). System infrastructure and operations rules are
Rivers Assessment (SIERRA) model. The rest of this paper de- summarized here, with greater detail found in Rheinheimer (2011).
scribes the model methods and limitations, model performance,
and application of the model to assess regional climate warming
effects on hydropower generation. Study Area and Infrastructure
The study area includes 13 of the 15 largest watersheds in the high-
elevation, upper west slope of the Sierra Nevada, with most water-
Methods sheds defined by the large, low-elevation, multipurpose terminal
“rim” dams just above California’s Central Valley floor (Fig. 1).
The SIERRA model builds on the unregulated hydrologic model of The watersheds range in size from 730 km2 to 9,400 km2 , totalling
the west slope Sierra Nevada developed by Young et al. (2009), 47,700 km2 , and collectively drain approximately 26.2 × 109 m3
including the same watershed and subwatershed definitions and per year (Null et al. 2010). Watersheds include the Feather
the same weekly time step. Though the weekly time step was (FEA); American, Bear, and Yuba (ABY); Mokelumne (MOK);
used, this paper focuses on the seasonal time step in performance Calaveras (CAL); Stanislaus (STN); Tuolumne (TUO); San

JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MAY 2014 / 715

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 2014.140:714-723.

 Joaquin (SJN); Kings (KNG); Kaweah (KAW); Tule (TUL); and
Kern (KRN) Rivers. Two watersheds in the region—Cosumnes
(COS) and Merced (MER)—are omitted for lack of major infra-
structure. The Yuba, Bear, and Kern River watersheds are defined
by low-elevation, low-volume diversion dams. Null et al. (2010)
provides more detailed characteristics of these watersheds.
The SIERRA model simulates management of reservoirs, hy-
dropower, water supply, and in-stream flow requirements above
the rim dams (exclusive) in the study area. Fifty-eight (58) reser-
voirs listed by the California Data Exchange Center (CDEC;
cdec.water.ca.gov) are included, out of about 300 with dams rou-
tinely inspected (http://www.water.ca.gov/damsafety), with most
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Berkeley on 04/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
small (< ∼2 × 106 m3 ) reservoirs excluded. Rim reservoirs are
omitted, with major exceptions of New Bullards Bar Reservoir
(ABY) and Lake Isabella (KRN). Most high-elevation systems
are operated independently of the rim dams, except for Hetch
Hetchy, which provides some flood-control functions for the
low-elevation New Don Pedro Reservoir. Other infrastructure
and managed features include 86 fixed-head hydropower plants,
16 variable-head hydropower plants, 126 conveyances (canals,
flumes, tunnels, and pipelines), 25 water supply demand nodes,
and 109 in-stream flow requirements. All high-elevation hydro-
power plants are included, except for a few small, private, isolated
hydropower plants. Demands for water supply are included where
data were available or where a diversion clearly exists from public
documents and maps. No important water management features
were excluded, such that exclusions would have very minor effects
on model results at the spatial resolution considered.
Reservoirs
Reservoir storage capacities and initial storage were obtained from
CDEC and the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS; http://www.usgs
.gov) or estimated from available data. Volume-elevation relation-
ships are used to determine surface area, needed for estimating
evaporation, and for variable-head hydropower. The USGS
volume-elevation data are used where available or estimated using
a second-order polynomial fit using historical volume and elevation
data from CDEC.
Reservoir operations for recreation, water supply, and flood con-
trol were defined by setting requisite volumes for the inactive zone,
buffer zone, and conservation zone of reservoirs (Yates et al. 2005).
A maximum conservation zone level, or rule curve, is used to create
flood space. Rule curves are from public documents describing
operations objectives (e.g., for flood control operations) and from
observed reservoir data and knowledge about broader operational
objectives within specific hydropower systems.
Lake evaporation is estimated using the Penman equation
(Penman 1948), modified by Van Bavel (1966) and Kohler and
Parmele (1967), as described by Dingman (2002). Meteorological
data is from Daymet (daymet.ornl.gov), as described and used by
Young et al. (2009). Surface area is derived from reservoir volume-
elevation curves.
Hydropower
Hydropower systems are difficult to model correctly. Multireser-
voir hydropower systems are best modeled with multireservoir op-
erations optimization methods (Labadie 2004; Rani and Moreira
2010), reflecting operational goals of maximizing profit (Jacobs
et al. 1995) and, therefore, minimizing spill (Madani and Lund
2009). However, simulation models, including an optimization-
based simulation such as WEAP, are still widely used, especially
in planning and management studies (Rani and Moreira 2010)
716 / JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MAY 2014
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 2014.140:714-723.
because they are better able to represent more intricate relationships
among system components, multiple nonmarket water uses such as
found in the Sierra Nevada, and contractual operations policies
(Sigvaldason 1976). Within a simulation framework, hydropower
operations decisions can be from an optimization subroutine or
from explicit rules (Rani and Moreira 2010), such as derived ana-
lytical rules (Lund 2000; Lund and Guzman 1999).
Despite decades of research in modeling multireservoir systems,
developing and applying either an embedded optimization method
or system-specific analytical rules within a short time frame for a
region as extensively developed as the Sierra Nevada remains chal-
lenging. Rather than focus on modeling every hydropower system
accurately, a first approximation of hydropower operations was
sought. Here, two methods are used to define water demand for
hydropower. The first method, called the water year index method
(WYIM), uses historical observations to approximate hydropower
release requirements. The second method, called the spill demand
method (SDM), is based on water demand and is used to
minimize spill.
Water Year Index Method
The modeling objective was to represent average historical diver-
sions for hydropower at the seasonal scale rather than simulate ac-
tual operations in any given week. To do this, the model followed
the approach of Mehta et al. (2011), who demonstrated that mean
weekly hydropower operations can be coarsely represented by es-
tablishing a historical correlation between a discrete water year type
(WYT) and diversions for hydropower during any given week.
Such an approach accounts for two important features of historical
operations but neglects others, described in further detail in a fol-
lowing section. First, hydropower operational goals are to meet en-
ergy demand patterns (Jacobs et al. 1995). Second, over the long
term, hydropower operations depend on total amount of water
available, as determined by runoff patterns and storage capability
(Madani and Lund 2009). It is assumed that historical hydropower
releases over the long term reflect historical energy demand. Thus,
if energy requirements are assumed constant, as in this study, it is
assumed that hydropower operators will attempt to continue to
maintain long-term historical operations patterns, even with a
changed hydrology. This is the basis for the WYIM, which tries
to maintain historical operations. A major limitation of the WYIM
is that it does not account for the long-term changes in runoff
timing expected with warming; this is accounted for by the SDM.
The WYIM modifies the approach of Mehta et al. (2011) for
quicker application to many hydropower plants across a region us-
ing a water year index. Whereas Mehta et al. (2011) assumes a step-
wise, discrete relationship between regional water availability, the
WYIM assumed a continuous, linear relationship. Annual regional
water availability is approximated using a supraregional water year
index (WYI).
Energy demand E for a powerhouse can be represented with an
expression that includes variable percent α of constant energy
generation capacity Emax :
Et ¼ αt Emax ð1Þ
where t is the time step. The percent αt is calculated for each time
step and each powerhouse using historical observations. For each
time step, a linear fit is calculated from historical flow and WYI
values for the time step. The slope mt and intercept bt of the linear
fit are used to calculate αt :
mt · WYI þ bt
at ¼ ð2Þ
Qmax
 where Qmax = maximum turbine capacity. In implementation,
Eq. (2) is modified to ensure that 0 ≤ at ≤ 1, except for pumped
storage plants, where αt can be negative to allow reverse flows.
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Sacra-
mento Valley WYI (WYISac ) and San Joaquin Valley WYI (WYISJ )
were used to approximate water availability for the northern water-
sheds (Feather through American) and southern watersheds
(Mokelumne through Kern), respectively. These WYIs, estimated
by DWR from inflows to several regional rivers, are continuous and
have units of million acre-feet (MAF) per year (1 MAF ¼ 1.23×
109 m3 ) (CDEC 2010). The time series for WYISac and WYISJ
were calculated for each atmospheric warming scenario using
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Berkeley on 04/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
simulated runoff from Young et al. (2009) and estimates of
Sacramento River runoff. Historical powerhouse flows included
all available data from 1970 to 2008, obtained from USGS gauges
and water utilities. Available period-of-record data ranged from 7 to
39 years, with a median of 28 years.
Energy generation capacity Emax is assumed constant in all
high-head hydropower plants, such that
Emax ¼ ρghηQmax
where ρ = density (assumed 1,000 kg=m3 ); g = gravitational con-
stant (9.81 m=s2 ); h = fixed hydropower head; η = plant efficiency
(assumed 90%); and Qmax = hydropower turbine flow capacity.
Plant head and capacity are from publicly available documents,
such as Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licenses,
and observed data, primarily USGS gauge data.
Fig. 2 demonstrates the WYIM, including its strengths and
inherent limitations, by showing the relationship between WYISJ
and hydropower turbine flow for Big Creek No. 1 powerhouse
(San Joaquin watershed) for two weeks of the year: July 25–31
and November 7–13. As with most hydropower plants below large
reservoirs, the linear relationship between WYI and turbine flow is
stronger when reservoirs are full and water is more plentiful
(e.g., July) and weaker during drier weeks, when reservoirs are
empty or refilling (e.g., November). During wet periods, hydro-
power and other users can take as much as is available, even in
drier years. During dry periods, however, hydropower operators
are more selective, basing release decisions on many factors other
than just water availability, such as wholesale electricity prices, pri-
ces of other energy sources, air temperature at load centers, hydro-
power operation type, and agreements with other users. Results
from this method reflect the relative consistency in storage hedging
25.0
Hydropower turbine flow (m 3/s)
July 25-31
20.0
Nov. 7-13
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
San Joaquin Valley WYI (billion m 3)
Fig. 2. Historical San Joaquin Valley water year index (WYI) and Big
Creek No. 1 powerhouse turbine flow for the weeks July 25–31 and
November 7–13
that historically occurred during the wet season for later generation
during the dry period.
Spill Demand Method
One important limitation of the WYIM is a lack of adaptation to
changes in runoff timing due to warming. The WYIM implicitly
hedges during the wet season, by operating hydropower plants
at less than capacity, based on historical inflow patterns, electricity
prices, and so on. With greater precipitation-driven winter runoff,
the WYIM would hedge too much, generating at less than capacity
even when there is spill, which is undesirable (Jacobs et al. 1995).
The SDM explicitly accounts for this.
To ensure that hydropower generation is always prioritized over
spill, the SDM requires that reservoir inflows in excess of existing
downstream demands (storage, hydropower, water supply, and
environmental releases) be released to generate hydropower. The
SDM is implemented by setting Qsd equal to 100% of turbine flow
capacity, though with a priority lower than other local demands.
This method is used for all hydropower plants but for three dis-
ð3Þ tinct purposes. First, the SDM ensures that the WYIM does not
result in overhedging for peaking plants when inflows are high.
Second, the SDM ensures that hydropower plants that lack up-
stream storage always divert as much as possible, constrained only
by water availability, in-stream flow requirements (IFRs), and
facility capacities. Finally, the SDM ensures de facto coordination
among plants operated in a series.
Water Demand
Diversions for municipal and agricultural water demand is limited
above the large rim dams, though they can be important because
they have a higher priority than hydropower and play a central role
in some systems (e.g., the Hetch Hetchy system in the Tuolumne R.
watershed). Demands are modeled based on historical mean weekly
flows, using data provided by water agencies, publicly available
gauge data, or descriptions of operations from agency documents.
All demands are independent of water year type, except for deliv-
eries to San Francisco from the Hetch Hetchy system (Tuolumne R.
watershed). Because historical diversions to San Francisco are neg-
atively correlated with WYISJ , they were determined by regressing
historical annual diversions against WYISJ , with fixed intra-annual
delivery patterns.
In-Stream Flow Requirements
In-stream flow requirements (IFRs) represent minimum flow
requirements below dams and diversions. Most IFRs identified
Qt = 1.32WYISJ + 9.38 in regulatory documents such as FERC licenses are included, with
R² = 0.57
more complex, short-term IFRs, such as occasional pulse flows and
recreation flows, omitted. Many IFRs depend on facility-specific
or regional WYTs. Most WYT definitions use a combination of
year-to-date flows and flow forecasts for the remainder of the water
Qt = 0.99WYISJ + 2.15 year. For expediency, WYTs were computed assuming perfect
R² = 0.12 foresight of the water year type using the unimpaired hydrology
data, without forecasting.
Priority Setting
7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
WEAP allocates water in part based on assigned priorities, with
allocations first to higher priority uses within each time step. To
ensure that upstream, nonconsumptive demands are met before
downstream demands, upstream demands are assigned higher
priorities than downstream demands. Demand types are generally
prioritized in order from highest to lowest priority as follows:
JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MAY 2014 / 717
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 2014.140:714-723.
 (1) IFRs, (2) water supply demand, (3) hydropower, and
(4) reservoirs.
Some priorities were adjusted as needed to reflect real system
operations, such as assigning a higher priority during the refill
period for some reservoirs. Hydropower plants immediately below
a reservoir, which used the WYIM, have priorities equal to the res-
ervoir. Per the SDM, lower elevation hydropower plants in a series
have priorities lower than the upstream-most plant.
Inflow Hydrology
SIERRA represents inflows as artificial tributaries to real river
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Berkeley on 04/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
locations. For this study, the water years (WY) 1981–2000 from
the weekly inflow data described by Young et al. (2009) were used,
modified for the CABY region by Mehta et al. (2011). This period
includes representative recent historical runoff conditions, includ-
ing an extended drought (1987–1992), the wettest year on record
(1983), and the flood year of record (1997). Young et al. (2009)
used WEAP to estimate runoff in the western Sierra Nevada by
simulating hydrologic processes within “catchments” consisting
of homogeneous physical characteristics and meteorological con-
ditions (Yates et al. 2005). Catchments were defined by Young et al.
(2009) by intersecting “subwatersheds” with 250-m elevation
bands. Subwatersheds were defined by locations of management
interest (“pour points”), such as dam or flow gauge locations.
Flows from each catchment within a subwatershed were aggregated
to determine the subwatershed contribution to flow at each pour
point. Young et al. (2009) used spatially interpolated historical
(WY 1980–2000) Daymet (daymet.ornl.gov) climate data. They
calibrated their model at the watershed scale using monthly flows
at the outlets of 13 of the 15 watersheds, omitting BAR and
CAL for lack of observed data, and for snow water equivalent at
15 high-elevation locations.
Climate Change Scenarios
To represent climate change, this study used the runoff data from
Young et al. (2009), who applied a sensitivity analysis approach
(Wilby et al. 2009) to calculate effects of regional climate change
on runoff. Specifically, Young et al. (2009) considered uniform in-
creases in air temperature of 0°C, 2°C, 4°C, and 6°C, approximating
regional warming through 2100 (Franco et al. 2011) and no change
in regional precipitation. Potential changes to other, nonmeteoro-
logical factors, such as land use disturbance (Miller et al. 2009)
and electricity demand patterns (Miller et al. 2008), were not
incorporated.
Limitations
The key limitations to the methods and inputs are summarized to
provide a better interpretation of model results and to suggest
potential future improvements.
Hydropower Logic
Hydropower operations rules represent the record of long-term
diversions rather than explicitly responding to fluctuations in
resource availability and energy demand. Further, integration of
energy prices would allow a more appropriate sensitivity to warm-
ing because warming affects energy prices through changing
demand (Miller et al. 2008).
Inflow Hydrology
The inflow hydrology data set calibration was limited to the larger
watersheds used here, limiting accurate representation of all facili-
ties, as discussed in a subsequent section. There is currently no
718 / JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MAY 2014
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 2014.140:714-723.
hydrologic model of the Sierra Nevada calibrated with the spatial
and temporal resolution needed for weekly scale accuracy of all
facilities.
Climate Change Representation and Sensitivity
Climate change was represented as uniform, homogeneous in-
creases in air temperature over a historical climate with precipita-
tion unchanged. Historical variability also remained unchanged.
Actual climatic changes are expected to be heterogeneous and
nonuniform and will include changes in magnitude, timing, and
variability of temperature and precipitation (Franco et al. 2011).
This inhibits the ability to make more advanced analyses related
to changes in the climate variability expected with warming.
Additionally, SIERRA is sensitive to climate change only though
hydrologic processes. However, climate warming will also affect
other management drivers, such as land use disturbance (Miller
et al. 2009).
Rim Dams
Operation of rim dams can affect upstream operations in some
cases but are not currently present in SIERRA. Inclusion of rim
dams and upstream flood-control operations would enable a better
understanding of flood risk and control, including the possibility of
utilizing higher reservoirs for some flood control, as is already done
in some instances (Hickey et al. 2003).
Calibration and Model Assessment
Parameters and operating rules used were derived from historical
data, as described previously, so calibration was limited to adjust-
ing priorities, particularly for reservoirs in series or parallel in com-
plex systems. Priorities were adjusted based on a visual comparison
of observed and modeled differences in storage among reservoirs.
No adjustments were made to the inflow hydrology data set.
The performance of turbine flow for individual power plants and
hydropower generation for each watershed was assessed following
the guidance of Moriasi et al. (2007), who reviewed a range of met-
rics for simulating watershed processes. For each of mean seasonal
and annual turbine flow for power plants and total hydropower gen-
eration for watersheds, the authors calculated the Nash-Sutcliffe
model efficiency index (NSE) (Nash and Sutcliffe 1970) and
root-mean-square error standardized by the standard deviation of
the observed series (RSR) (Moriasi et al. 2007). The NSE indicates
how well the model performs compared to the historical mean and
can range from −∞ to 1, with values exceeding zero indicating
better performance. The NSE is not a perfect predictor, necessitat-
ing additional metrics and visual assessments (Moriasi et al. 2007;
Jain and Sudheer 2008). The following criteria were used to
determine whether the model results can be considered “satisfac-
tory” or better: seasonal NSE > 0.60, annual NSE > 0.70, seasonal
RSR ≤ 0.60, annual RSR ≤ 0.50, and mBias within
15%. These
are more stringent than suggested by Moriasi et al. (2007), who
considered the monthly time step.
Across the study region, SIERRA simulates mean seasonal
hydropower turbine flow as shown in Fig. 3, where each point
in Fig. 3 represents a single powerhouse (eight powerhouses are
omitted for lack of observed data). In aggregate, the model tends
to under-represent diversions for hydropower in the summer (JAS)
and fall (OND) and slightly over-represent diversions in winter
(JFM) and spring (AMJ). Table 1 summarizes turbine flow model
performance metrics at multiple temporal scales, indicating that
most individual plants are less well simulated than in aggregate.
The most well-modeled hydropower plants also have the greatest
historical diversions and energy generation, which is partly
 Table 1. Summary of Hydropower Turbine Flow Performance Metrics Table 2. Hydropower Generation Performance Metrics by Basin
NSE RSR mBias (%) NSE RSR mBias (%)
Non-exceedance (%) Seasonal Annual Seasonal Annual Seasonal Basin Seasonal Annual Seasonal Annual Seasonal
100 0.90 0.83 4.18 2.91 203 FEA 0.67 0.84 0.58 0.40 5
75 0.63 0.47 1.05 1.15 24 ABY 0.73 0.95 0.52 0.22 2
50 0.20 0.21 0.89 0.89 1 MOK −0.61 −0.39 1.27 1.18 −37
25 −0.11 −0.33 0.61 0.73 −14 STN 0.70 0.76 0.54 0.49 −11
0 −16.46 −7.49 0.32 0.41 −82 TUO 0.12 0.04 0.94 0.98 −29
SJN 0.74 0.86 0.51 0.37 −8
Note: Higher NSE is better; lower RSR is better; mBias closer to zero is
KNG 0.68 0.88 0.56 0.35 5
better.
KAW 0.68 0.73 0.57 0.52 −4
TUL 0.78 0.84 0.46 0.40 −9
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Berkeley on 04/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

reflected in Fig. 3. Conversely, the least well-modeled plants tend
to be small, though small powerhouses were not necessarily poorly
represented. In general, the model better represented operations of
power plants with low storage capacities compared with total up-
stream runoff. Thus, small run-of-river power plants were generally
well simulated as were larger power plants. In contrast, small- to
medium-size power plants below larger reservoirs were less well
modeled with the method used.
In contrast to individual powerhouses, the model is generally,
though not entirely, satisfactory or better for representing hydro-
power generation by watershed, indicating the watershed a suitable
unit for spatial analysis with this model. Table 2 lists watershed
performance metrics for hydropower generation, whereas Fig. 4
compares mean seasonal observed and modeled generation by
watershed. Based on the mentioned thresholds, simulation of all
watersheds except for TUO and MOK can be considered satisfac-
tory or better. The KRN is less than satisfactory at the annual time
step. The poor representation of TUO and MOK is due to inherent
limitations in the generalized method used for representing hydro-
power operations in more operationally complex systems and the
sensitivity of the model to local hydrology. The TUO is operated
primarily for water supply for San Francisco, rather than hydro-
power, rendering the WYIM for hydropower less useful for
TUO. Poor MOK performance is due to inadequate representation
Fig. 3. Mean observed and simulated mean hydropower turbine flow
by season
KRN 0.72 0.67 0.53 0.58 14
Note: Bold values indicate satisfactory or better.
of operations for one major reservoir (Salt Springs) and poor rep-
resentation of hydrology above an important power plant (Tiger
Creek). However, TUO and MOK are retained in subsequent analy-
ses because MOK contributes relatively little hydropower and TUO
changes little with warming, resulting in little overall effect on ag-
gregate results.
These assessments indicate that SIERRA is appropriate for use
for watershed-scale hydropower assessments (exclusive of MOK
and TUO) rather than for individual facilities, consistent with
coarse inflow hydrology calibration (Young et al. 2009) and the
approximation method used for modeling hydropower. Further im-
provements are needed in inflow hydrology and operational logic to
simulate hydropower operations with greater spatial detail.
Results with Warming and Discussion
Hydropower generation sensitivity to warming were assessed in ag-
gregate and by basin. Results described are best used as relative
measures, due to the model limitations discussed. Systemwide, hy-
dropower generation increases in JFM and decreases in all other
seasons (data not shown), resulting in a total decrease of about
1,700 GWh, approximately 8%, with 6°C warming compared to
historical climate conditions. This represents approximately 1%
of California’s mean annual in-state electricity production and
5% of annual in-state hydroelectricity production for years
1990–2001 (Murtishaw et al. 2005).
Across most watersheds, hydropower generation decreases
compared with historical generation with long-term warming
(Table 3); changes by watershed vary substantially with near-
and medium-term warming (Fig. 5). However, there is a discernible
trend in changes latitudinally. Mean annual hydropower generation
decreases in the northern watersheds (FEA and ABY) under all
warming scenarios, by about 11% (FEA) to 15% (ABY) with
long-term warming. Exclusive of MOK and TUO, generation in
central watersheds changes relatively little compared to the
northern watersheds and even increases somewhat with lesser
warming (Fig. 5). For example, SJN sees only increases in gener-
ation, even with long-term warming. Generation trends with warm-
ing in the southern watersheds, which produce relatively little
energy compared to northern and central watersheds, are some-
where in between—generation decreases, but magnitude decreases
are small. These trends are generally both quantitatively and quali-
tatively consistent with results reported by others (Mehta et al.
2011; Rheinheimer et al. 2013; Vicuña et al. 2011), as discussed
previously.
Seasonal changes in hydropower generation within watersheds
with warming (Fig. 6) combined with an understanding of specific

JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MAY 2014 / 719

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 2014.140:714-723.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Berkeley on 04/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Mean observed and modeled hydropower generation by watershed

Table 3. Mean Annual Hydropower Generation Change with þ6°C

compensated for in other seasons, JFM in particular. Though
Warming by Watershed MOK and TUO are poorly modeled, the better modeled watersheds
also show this trend.
þ0°C þ6°C Change Change Throughout the Sierra Nevada warming causes less snowmelt-
Watershed (GWh=year) (GWh=year) (GWh=year) (%)
driven runoff in the late spring and early summer and greater pre-
FEA 3,827 3,392 −435 −11 cipitation-driven events in the winter (Null et al. 2010; Young et al.
ABY 5,736 4,889 −847 −15 2009). As this change in timing occurs, runoff initially becomes
MOK 693 625 −68 −10 more uniform throughout the year. Some hydropower systems, par-
STN 918 899 −19 −2
ticularly in the central watersheds, benefit from this increased uni-
TUO 1,256 1,261 6 0.5
SJN 4,267 4,311 44 1 formity with some warming (þ2°C and þ4°C) by being able to use
KNG 1,476 1,396 −79 −5 a greater percentage of inflows and spilling less. Rheinheimer et al.
KAW 45 40 −6 −12 (2013) also report a similar phenomenon for hydropower in the
TUL 38 35 −2 −6 Upper Yuba River watershed. Hydropower generation with greater
KRN 605 543 −62 −10 warming (þ6°C) is also influenced by changes in runoff timing, but
Total 18,861 17,391 −1,468 −8 in most cases it is dominated by magnitude reductions. The com-
bination of increased winter runoff, which increases winter spill,
and lower total annual runoff reduces annual generation with 6°
infrastructure explain the annual scale responses to regional climate C warming. The degree to which a hydropower system can benefit
change. In the north, generation decreases in JAS with little to from changes in runoff timing, such as in the central watersheds,
no compensatory increase in JFM generation. By contrast, in cen- depends on both changes in total magnitude and the current
tral watersheds reductions in JAS generation are consistently physical and operational configuration of the system. In SJR,

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 5. (a) Absolute mean annual hydropower generation with warming by watershed; (b) absolute mean annual hydropower generation change with
warming by watershed; (c) relative mean annual hydropower generation change with warming by watershed; an asterisk indicates unsatisfactory
calibration metrics

720 / JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MAY 2014

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 2014.140:714-723.

 (a)
(b)
(c)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Berkeley on 04/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 6. (a) Absolute mean seasonal hydropower generation with warming by watershed; (b) absolute mean seasonal hydropower generation change
with warming by watershed; (c) relative mean seasonal hydropower generation change with warming by watershed; an asterisk indicates unsatis-
factory calibration metrics
for example, annual runoff magnitude changes are relatively small
(Null et al. 2010), whereas the large Mammoth Pool Reservoir has
existing extra storage capacity to be able to accommodate shifting
runoff patterns, resulting in minimal reductions in runoff with
þ6°C warming.
Limitations of the model, including inaccuracies in inflow hy-
drology and operational logic, also contribute to the observed
trends in changes with warming. The rainfall-runoff model used
was calibrated to watershed outlets and a few snow gauge locations
(Young et al. 2009), resulting in poorly simulated runoff in specific
locations within watersheds, which affects operations of specific
powerplants, as discussed previously. Operational logic, such as the
WYIM and SDM, also affects system response to changing inflows
but was found to be less of an issue than other influences.
Though modeled long-term changes are greater than mean bias,
which translates to uncertainty in the magnitudes of changes pre-
sented here, based on the combination of representation of seasonal
generation patterns, anticipated hydrologic changes, and knowl-
edge of historical operational patterns in specific locations, the au-
thors anticipate these trends to be representative of potential future
conditions for most watersheds. Thus, while specific quantitative
changes reported here would change with improved input and
methods, these results provide a preliminary qualitative indication
of how spatial and temporal patterns of hydropower in the Sierra
Nevada will change with regional warming.
There are important water resources management implications
that stem from this study, particularly given the uncertainty present.
Modeling specific water systems over large areas in sufficient detail
to make actionable decisions remains elusive, due to the human
resources required to develop such detailed models. Thus, there re-
mains a trade-off between modeling accuracy and spatial and tem-
poral resolution. There is uncertainty in all components of the
climate change effects modeling spectrum, from world develop-
ment assumptions, to general circulation models and regional
downscaling, to hydrologic models, to water resources manage-
ment models, partly due to numerous approximations made at each
level. In the face of such approximations and both propagated and
accumulated uncertainty, there is still useful information from each
modeling level that can inform long-term water resources planning
(Kiparsky et al. 2012).
In this study in particular, results indicate both where there may
be greater adaptation potential within specific systems and where
JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MAY 2014 / 721
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 2014.140:714-723.
efforts should be made to reduce uncertainty to better understand
the magnitude and nature of climate effects and adaptation poten-
tial. For example, there are indications that there may be greater
potential to adapt hydropower systems to climate warming in
the central watersheds of the Sierra Nevada, such that improve-
ments in hydrologic and operations models would be useful in
identifying that potential. Meanwhile, it appears that there is much
less adaptation potential in the northern watersheds. In this case,
reductions in uncertainty with improved modeling efforts can help
identify the most efficient ways to manage increased water scarcity.
Conclusions
In this study, the authors developed a water system operations
model (SIERRA), performed a basic performance assessment,
and applied SIERRA to consider the sensitivity of seasonal hydro-
power generation to regional climate warming. The hydropower
methods used are satisfactory for simulation of seasonal and annual
hydropower generation across larger watersheds, consistent with
the inflow hydrology model used, but require further refinement
for greater spatial and temporal specificity.
These results also further the scientific basis for better under-
standing the potential vulnerabilities of different water-use sectors
to anticipated regional climate change. However, further scrutiny of
specific locations across the Sierra Nevada are needed to better
understand how regional climate change could affect local trade-
offs between water uses. Improvements to SIERRA, with better
hydrologic representation and project-specific modeling, are neces-
sary to achieve the finer spatial and temporal resolution needed to
make these kinds of assessments. Such improvements are also
needed to answer key questions related to changes in climate vari-
ability and water year types expected with warming. Results from
this study indicate that improvements should be prioritized in the
northern watersheds to better understand and help resolve potential
water management conflicts likely to occur with the major de-
creases in runoff magnitude and other hydrologic changes expected.
Acknowledgments
This work was funded in part by the California Energy Commis-
sion’s Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) program. We thank
 the Pacific Gas & Electric Company and the San Francisco Public
Utilities Commission for providing historical data, the Stockholm
Environment Institute for providing and supporting WEAP and hy-
drology data, and students Jason Emmons and Shannon Brown for
their data-gathering and modeling assistance. Finally, we also thank
the anonymous reviewers of this article for their thoughtful critique.
References
Barnett, T. P., Adam, J. C., and Lettenmaier, D. P. (2005). “Potential
impacts of a warming climate on water availability in snow-dominated
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Berkeley on 04/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
regions.” Nature, 438(7066), 303–309.
Bates, B. C., Kundzewicz, Z. W., Wu, S., and Palutikof, J. P. (2008).
“Climate change and water. Technical paper of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change.” IPCC Secretariat, Geneva.
California Data Exchange Center (CDEC). (2010). “Chronological recon-
structed Sacramento and San Joaquin valley water year hydrologic clas-
sification indices.” 〈http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/iodir/wsihist〉
(June 1, 2010).
California Energy Commission. (2009). “2009 Integrated energy policy
report.” Sacramento, CA.
Cayan, D. R., Maurer, E. P., Dettinger, M. D., Tyree, M., and Hayhoe, K.
(2008). “Climate change scenarios for the California region.” Clim.
Change, 87(S1), 21–42.
Dettinger, M. D. (2005). “From climate-change spaghetti to climate-change
distributions for 21st century California.” San Francisco Estuary &
Watershed Sci., 3(1).
Dettinger, M. D., Cayan, D. R., Meyer, M., and Jeton, A. E. (2004).
“Simulated hydrologic responses to climate variations and change in
the Merced, Carson, and American River basins, Sierra Nevada,
California, 1900–2099.” Clim. Change, 62(1–3), 283–317.
Dingman, S. L. (2002). Physical hydrology, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey.
Ficklin, D. L., Stewart, I. T., and Maurer, E. P. (2012). “Projections of 21st
century Sierra Nevada local hydrologic flow components using an
ensemble of general circulation models.” J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc.,
48(6), 1104–1125.
Franco, G., Cayan, D. R., Moser, S., Hanemann, M., and Jones, M.-A.
(2011). “Second California assessment: Integrated climate change
impacts assessment of natural and managed systems. Guest editorial.”
Clim. Change, 109(1), 1–19.
Franco, G., and Fagundes, M. (2005). “Potential changes in hydropower
production from global climate change in California and the western
United States.” California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA.
Hayhoe, K., et al. (2004). “Emissions pathways, climate change, and
impacts on California.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 101(34),
12422–12427.
Hickey, J. T., Bond, M. V., Patton, T. K., Richardson, K. A., and Pugner,
P. E. (2003). “Reservoir simulations of synthetic rain floods for
the Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins.” J. Water Resour.
Plann. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2003)129:6(443),
443–457.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2007). “Climate
change 2007: Synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II
and III to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change.” Geneva.
Jacobs, J., et al. (1995). “SOCRATES: A system for scheduling hydroelec-
tric generation under uncertainty.” Ann. Oper. Res., 59(1), 99–133.
Jain, S. K., and Sudheer, K. P. (2008). “Fitting of hydrologic models: A
close look at the Nash-Sutcliffe index.” J. Hydrol. Eng., 13(10),
981–986.
Kiparsky, M., Milman, A., and Vicuña, S. (2012). “Climate and water:
Knowledge of impacts to action on adaptation.” Annu. Rev. Environ.
Resour., 37(1), 163–194.
Kohler, M. A., and Parmele, L. H. (1967). “Generalized estimates of
free-water evaporation.” Water Resour. Res., 3(4), 997–1005.
Kundzewicz, Z. W., et al. (2007). “Freshwater resources and their manage-
ment.” Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability.
Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment rep.
722 / JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MAY 2014
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 2014.140:714-723.
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M. L. Parry,
O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, and C. E. Hanson,
eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 211–272.
Labadie, J. W. (2004). “Optimal operation of multireservoir systems: State-
of-the-art review.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9496(2004)130:2(93), 93–111.
Lund, J. R. (2000). “Derived power production and energy drawdown rules
for reservoirs.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9496(2000)126:2(108), 108–111.
Lund, J. R., and Guzman, J. (1999). “Some derived operating rules for
reservoirs in series or in parallel.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.,
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(1999)125:3(143), 143–153.
Madani, K., and Lund, J. R. (2009). “Modeling California’s high-elevation
hydropower systems in energy units.” Water Resour. Res., 45(9),
W09413.
Madani, K., and Lund, J. R. (2010). “Estimated impacts of climate warming
on California’s high-elevation hydropower.” Clim. Change, 102(3–4),
521–538.
Mehta, V. K., et al. (2011). “Potential impacts on hydrology and hydro-
power under climate warming of the Sierra Nevada.” J. Water Clim.
Change, 2(1), 29–43.
Miller, J. D., Safford, H. D., Crimmins, M., and Thode, A. E. (2009).
“Quantitative evidence for increasing forest fire severity in the Sierra
Nevada and southern Cascade Mountains, California and Nevada,
USA.” Ecosystems, 12(1), 16–32.
Miller, N. L., Hayhoe, K., Jin, J., and Auffhammer, M. (2008). “Climate,
extreme heat, and electricity demand in California.” J. Appl. Meteorol.
Climatol., 47(6), 1834–1844.
Moriasi, D. N., Arnold, J. G., Van Liew, M. W., Bingner, R. L.,
Harmel, R. D., and Veith, T. L. (2007). “Model evaluation guidelines
for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations.”
Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Biol. Eng., 50(3), 885–900.
Muñoz, J. R., and Sailor, D. J. (1998). “A modelling methodology for
assessing the impact of climate variability and climatic change on
hydroelectric generation.” Energy Convers. Manage., 39(14),
1459–1469.
Murtishaw, S., Price, L., de la Rue du Can, S., Masanet, E.,
Worrell, E., Sathaye, J. (2005). “Development of energy balances for
the state of California.” California Energy Commission, Sacramento,
CA.
Nash, J. E., and Sutcliffe, J. V. (1970). “River flow forecasting through
conceptual models: Part I, A discussion of principles.” J. Hydrol.,
10(3), 282–290.
Null, S. E., Viers, J. H., and Mount, J. F. (2010). “Hydrologic response and
watershed sensitivity to climate warming in California’s Sierra Nevada.”
PLoS ONE, 5(4), e9932.
Olivares, M. A. (2008). “Optimal hydropower reservoir operation with
environmental requirements.” Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of California,
Davis, CA.
Penman, H. L. (1948). “Natural evaporation from open water, bare soil, and
grass.” Royal Soc. London Proc., 193(1032), 120–145.
Rani, D., and Moreira, M. M. (2010). “Simulation-optimization modeling:
A survey and potential application in reservoir systems operation.”
Water Resour. Manage., 24(6), 1107–1138.
Rheinheimer, D. E. (2011). “Modeling multi-reservoir hydropower systems
in the Sierra Nevada with environmental requirements and climate
warming.” Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of California, Davis, CA.
Rheinheimer, D. E., Yarnell, S. M., and Viers, J. H. (2013). “Hydro-
power costs of environmental flows and climate warming in
California’s Upper Yuba River watershed.” River Res. Appl., 29(10),
1291–1305.
Sigvaldason, O. T. (1976). “A simulation model for operating a
multipurpose multireservoir system.” Water Resour. Res., 12(2),
263–278.
Thompson, L. C., Escobar, M. I., Mosser, C. M., Purkey, D. R., Yates, D.,
and Moyle, P. B. (2012). “Water management adaptations to prevent
loss of spring-run Chinook salmon in California under climate change.”
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452
.0000194, 465–478.
 Van Bavel, C. H. M. (1966). “Potential evaporation: The combination
concept and its experimental verification.” Water Resour. Res., 2(3),
455–467.
Vicuna, S., and Dracup, J. (2007). “The evolution of climate change impact
studies on hydrology and water resources in California.” Clim. Change,
82(3), 327–350.
Vicuna, S., Dracup, J. A., Lund, J. R., Dale, L. L., and Maurer, E. P. (2010).
“Basin-scale water system operations with uncertain future climate
conditions: Methodology and case studies.” Water Resour. Res.,
46(4), W04505.
Vicuña, S., Dracup, J. A., and Dale, L. (2011). “Climate change impacts on
two high-elevation hydropower systems in California.” Clim. Change,
109(1), 151–169.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Berkeley on 04/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Water Evaluation and Planning [computer software]. Stockholm Environ-
ment Institute, U.S. Center, Somerville, MA.
Viers, J. H. (2011). “Hydropower relicensing and climate change.” J. Am.
Water Resour. Assoc., 47(4), 655–661.
Wilby, R. L., et al. (2009). “A review of climate risk information for
adaptation and development planning.” Int. J. Climatol., 29(9),
1193–1215.
Yates, D., Sieber, J., Purkey, D., and Huber-Lee, A. (2005). “WEAP21: A
demand-, priority-, and preference-driven water planning model: Part 1,
Model characteristics.” Water Int., 30(4), 487–500.
Young, C. A., et al. (2009). “Modeling the hydrology of climate change in
California’s Sierra Nevada for subwatershed scale adaptation.” J. Am.
Water Resour. Assoc., 45(6), 1409–1423.

JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MAY 2014 / 723

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 2014.140:714-723.