United States EPA Region 10 EPA910-R-01-008
Environmental Protection OEA-095 December 2001
Agency
&EPA Evaluation of Water Temperature
Regimes in the Snake River
using Transect Measurements
and the RBM10 Model
EPA Region 10
Office of Environmental Assessment
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
-------
Introduction
Transect Measurements 3
Technical Evaluations 4
Heat Transfer at Dams 4
Stratification 5
Comparison of RBM10 Simulations and Transect Measurements 5
Simulating Cold Water Fronts 6
Conclusions 8
References
10
List of Tables
Table 1:
Table 2A:
Table 2B:
Table 3A:
Table 3B:
Table 4:
Station Locations
Comparisons of Average Temperatures Above/Below Snake River Dams (1991)
Comparisons of Average Temperatures Above/Below Snake River Dams (1992)
Comparison of Average Temperatures and Surface Temperatures Above and Below Dams (1991
Transects)
Comparison of Average Temperatures and Surface Temperatures Above and Below Dams (1992
Transects)
Difference Between Simulated and Measured 1992 Temperatures
List of Figures
Map 1 Study Area
Figure 1 A: Average Temperatures Above and Below Lower Granite Dam
Figure 1B: Average Temperatures Above and Below Lower Monumental Dam
Figure 2A: Difference in Surface/Average Temperatures in Lower Granite Reservoir
Figure 2B: Temperature Profile in Lower Granite Reservoir - River Mile 130
Figure 2C: Temperature Profile in Lower Granite Reservoir - River Mile 120
Figure 2D: Temperature Profile in Lower Granite Reservoir - River Mile 110
Figure 3A: Clearwater River at Mouth -1992
Figure 3B: Snake River (RM 130) - 1992
Figure 3C: Lower Granite Pool (RM 111) -1992
Figure 3D: Lower Granite Tailrace (RM 101) - 1992
Figure 3E: Little Goose Forebay (RM 80) -1992
Figure 3E: Little Goose Tailrace (RM 65) -1992
Figure 3E: Lower Monumental Forebay (RM 44) -1992
Figure 3E: Lower Monumental Tailrace (RM 36) - 1992
Longitudinal Profiles of River Temperature (RM140 to RM100)
-------
Introduction
In order to evaluate impacts to the temperature of the mainstem Columbia and Snake rivers,
EPA Region 10 has developed a dynamic, one-dimensional heat budget model (RBM10) of the
basin. While EPA continues to apply RBM10 using long-term records (tributary
inflows/temperatures, meteorology, etc.) to evaluate temperature variability over time, this
report focuses on detailed monitoring information collected by the Columbia River Inter-Tribal
Fish Commission (CRITFC) and Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences in the early 1990s at 18
locations in the Snake River (Karr et al, 1998). This data is used to evaluate questions about
the underlying assumptions and performance of the RBM10 model, including:
(1) Does available data support the assumption, inherent in one-dimensional temperature
analysis, that cross-sectionally averaged temperatures are uniformly transferred through
dams?
(2) To what extent do surface temperatures deviate from the cross-sectional average
temperature, and are these deviations influenced by flow augmentation from Dworshak
reservoir?
(3) How do RBM10 model simulations compare to measured cross-sectionally averaged
temperature of the Snake River?
(4) How do RBM10 model simulations compare to measured temperatures under the dynamic
conditions associated with flow augmentation from Dworshak reservoir?
Transect Measurements
Long term monitoring of temperature has been conducted since the construction of the Snake
River dams, but temperature measurements have been taken at single, fixed depths in the
vicinity of the dams (e.g, forebays, tailraces, and scroll cases). Evaluation of the performance
of one-dimensional models has been hampered somewhat by the absence of transect data
(Yearsley 2001, Cope 2001). The transect data from the CRITFC study offers an opportunity
to evaluate model performance against more specific measures of cross-sectional average
temperature.
The data used for these evaluations were collected over the periods July 23-October 15,
1991, and July 1-October 22, 1992. Transect measurements were collected during the
summer at 14 stations in the lower Snake River and four stations in the Clearwater River (see
Table 1). The distance between each Snake River station is approximately 10 miles, with
-------
some adjusted distances based on dam locations. Measurements were collected at varying
time intervals ranging from one day to several days between samples.
At each transect, temperature was measured at three locations (1/4, %, and 3/4 river width)
and at four depths (surface, 1/3 river depth,2/3 river depth, and near bottom). For this
analysis, rectangular cross sections around each sampling point were assumed and the area-
weighted average temperature was calculated for both the entire cross-section and the
surface layer.
Technical Evaluations
Heat Transfer at Dams
As discussed above, EPA is simulating Snake River temperatures using a one-dimensional
model. The model simulates cross-sectional average temperatures, and its use implies an
assumption that the energy upstream of a dam is uniformly transferred downstream. This
assumption appears reasonable when assessing run-of-river reservoirs, which release all of
the upstream flow through their control structures. Nevertheless, given that there is some
stratification in the water impounded behind the dam, and that the dam intakes structures can
draw water from the reservoir preferentially from a particular elevation, it is reasonable to
question whether net heat is stored behind the dams. Another way to frame the question is
ask if "short-circuiting" of cold water through the lower waters of an impoundment can be
observed.
If net heat storage is occurring behind the dams, one would expect to see higher cross-
sectional average temperatures at locations upstream of a particular dam, compared to
average temperatures downstream of the same dam. Graphical comparisons of upstream
and downstream temperatures at two dams (Lower Granite and Lower Monumental) for 1992
are shown in Figures 1A and 1B. The data do not indicate a pattern of consistently higher
temperatures above the dams, except for the period from July 21 to August 6 at Lower
Granite. This was the two weeks following the July 19 cessation of flow augmentation from
Dworshak Dam.
The difference in cross-sectional average temperature for each sampling day was calculated
at upstream and downstream locations around each dam for 1991 and 1992 data sets. The
results are shown in Tables 2A and 2B. Since the difference is calculated as the upstream
temperature subtracted from the downstream temperature, net heat storage behind a dam
would be indicated by a negative difference. The 1992 comparisons indicate minor negative
differences (less than -0.4 °C) between upstream and downstream monitoring locations at
Lower Granite, Little Goose, and Lower Monumental dams over the sampling period. Data
for the vicinity of Ice Harbor Dam data indicate at small positive difference, indicating higher
-------
temperatures below the dam than above the dam. The 1991 comparisons show higher
temperatures below the dams than above the dams with the exception of Lower Granite
(mean difference of -0.18 °C). For both years and all dam locations, the standard deviation
of the upstream/downstream differences is greater than the absolute value of the mean
difference. Thus, it appears that significant short-circuiting of cold water (and associated heat
storage behind dams) is not a consistent feature in the Snake River.
Stratification
While the Snake River is amenable to use of a one-dimensional model based on the above
evaluation of uniform downstream heat transfer, the model will provide only the cross-sectional
average temperature of the river. It will not provide information on lateral and vertical
temperature variations in the river. In particular, thermal stratification due to surface heating
will not be estimated. The transect data can be used to compute and compare cross-
sectional average temperatures to the surface temperatures. This provides a comparison
between model outputs (cross-sectionally averaged temperatures) and associated surface
temperatures for the summer months.
For the transect data collected in the summer of 1991 and 1992, the differences between
cross-sectional average temperature and surface temperature are provided in Tables 3A and
3B. As would be expected, stratification in the nearest downstream stations from the dams is
lower than in the reservoirs just upstream of the dams. The mean difference in 1991 for these
stations ranged from 0.08 °C to 0.26 °C. For the stations closest to the dam forebays, Ice
Harbor in 1991 had the highest mean (1.22 °C) and maximum (4.3 °C) stratification of the four
reservoirs, while Lower Monumental had the lowest mean (0.96 °C) and maximum (3.2 °C).
For the 1992 data, Lower Granite had the highest mean (1.65 °C) and maximum (4.5 °C)
stratification of the four reservoirs, while Lower Monumental again had the lowest mean (0.96
°C) and maximum (3.2 °C).
A time series view of the changes over time at Lower Granite Dam in 1992 indicates that
stratification is greater during flow augmentation periods than other periods (Figure 2A). The
highest stratification occurred during periods of flow augmentation in July and September,
while stratification was lower when augmentation ceased in August. Vertical temperature
profiles near Lower Granite Dam (Station 5) indicate that reductions in temperature in
response to Dworshak releases are more dramatic in deeper waters than at the surface
(Figures 2B through 2D). Also, the temperature at depth corresponds to the calculated mixed
temperature at the confluence of the Snake and Clearwater rivers.
Comparison of RBM10 Simulations and Transect Measurements
In recent years, EPA has used the RBM10 model to generate predictions of water
5
-------
temperatures that would result from a variety of flow conditions, meteorological conditions,
and flow augmentation operations at Dworshak Reservoir in Idaho. To compare RBM10
simulations to measured temperatures, RBM10 was run using measured temperatures at the
upstream model boundaries; then simulated downstream temperatures were compared to
measured cross-sectional average temperatures. Since flow augmentation was conducted at
Dworshak in 1992, this comparison provides insights on the ability of the model to simulate
cold water fronts and changes in flow over short time-scales.
Upstream transect temperatures, collected in the Clearwater, North Fork Clearwater, and
Snake Rivers, were used as boundary condition inputs to the model. Since samples were not
collected every day over the study period, linear interpolation was used to estimate
temperatures between sampling days. Aside from these upstream boundary temperature
inputs, all other model inputs and assumptions were similar to those described in EPA's
documentation for the RBM10 model (EPA, 2001).
Graphical presentations of the model outputs and measured temperatures at selected
transect sampling locations in the Snake River are shown in Figures 3A through 3H. For the
upstream stations, the flows from Dworshak Reservoir are included for comparison to
temperature patterns. For one of the dams (Lower Granite), the forebay and tailrace data for
this 1992 period is also displayed for comparison to the nearest transect sampling locations
(Stations 5 and 6).
A qualitative review of the graphical comparisons indicates that the model is successful in
simulating both the magnitude and temporal patterns in the Clearwater River and the Snake
River (river mile 130) above Lower Granite reservoir. The same can be said of stations in the
reservoir (stations 4 and 5), except some of the temperature effects of the three periods of
flow augmentation from Dworshak appear to be shifted to later days in the model simulations.
This is quite evident in the Station 6 outputs, and the pattern shift is also apparent at
downstream transect stations. Also, at the locations downstream of Lower Granite dam, the
simulated patterns of cooling in response to Dworshak releases are more distinct in the
RBM10 simulations than in the measured temperatures. This suggests that longitudinal
dispersion, which is not currently included in the model, may be an important process in the
actual river system.
A quantitative comparison of the differences between simulated and measured values at four
transect locations is presented in Table 4. The mean difference in simulated and measured
values for the summer 1992 period is low, indicating that the bias between simulated and
measured values is low. While the differences are small, it can be noted that they increase in
the downstream direction. The range of differences is relatively high, as would be expected
when time of arrival of sharp cold fronts is different in simulations and measurements.
Simulating Cold Water Fronts
-------
There are a number of potential problems associated with simulation of abrupt changes in the
system such as the release of cold water fronts from Dworshak Reservoir into the Clearwater
River and subsequently the Snake River. One potential problem for any Eulerian (fixed-grid)
model run in a dynamic mode, particularly in advection-dominated systems, is error due to
numerical dispersion. Numerical dispersion occurs when high-frequency inputs at a model
boundary are erroneously propagated to downstream model cells by the advection scheme of
the model.
RBM10 employs a mixed Lagrangian-Eulerian advection scheme (Reverse Particle Tracking).
Within this hybrid scheme, RBM10 employs a second-order polynomial estimation of segment
temperatures. These features reduce, but do not eliminate, numerical dispersion associated
with abruptly changing inflows. Numerical dispersion would tend to both reduce the peak and
advance a cold water front ahead of the advected inflow. This would result in a simulated cold
front reaching a downstream river location faster (and lower in magnitude) in the model than in
the measurements.
Another feature of RBM10 that affects its simulation of flow augmentation is its hydrodynamic
scheme. The model employs a constant elevation, continuity-based algorithm to calculate the
river velocity, under the assumption that flows are gradually varied in the system. Good model
performance during normal flow conditions indicates that this is a reasonable assumption;
however, flow augmentation episodes create a more complex hydrodynamic regime that is not
simulated by the model. For example, the abrupt change in the river geometry created by the
abrupt release of flows from Dworshak would create a dynamic wave, which would affect
velocities as it moved downstream. This feature, and the complex velocity patterns it would
create, are not simulated in the model. Rather, the continuity function in the model would
instantaneously adjust all velocities downstream in response to the change at the upstream
boundary of the model. This would result in a simulated cold front reaching a downstream
river location slightly faster in the model than in observations when flow increased abruptly at
the boundary.
Finally, the Dworshak releases one-dimensional RBM10 model would not capture the
complexities of a gravity flow (also termed a density flow) resulting from cold Clearwater River
flows plunging under the warmer, impounded waters of Lower Granite reservoir. Since
density underflows move at a higher velocity than the river as a whole, this would result in a
cold front reaching a downstream location slower in the model than in observations.
To aid in evaluating the cold water fronts and performance of the model, longitudinal profiles of
the Snake River temperature (simulated and measured) from river mile 140 to 100 were
constructed for each transect sampling date in 1992. Based on a qualitative review of these
figures and Figures 3A through 3H, it appears that numerical dispersion is not a significant
problem in the RBM10 model. This is evident in the results for the mouth of the Clearwater
River (Figure 3A) and Snake River 20 miles upstream from Lower Granite dam (Figure 3B),
which indicate a good matching of both the timing and magnitude of cold water flows moving
7
-------
downstream from Dworshak dam. The results for downstream locations, however, indicate
that the time of arrival of the cold front is later in the model than in the measurements,
particularly for the highest flow augmentation spike in mid-July (see longitudinal profiles for the
period around 7/23/92 and 9/17/92). This suggests that in order to more accurately capture
the time of arrival of the cold front downstream, model constructs that capture the flow and
density conditions occurring in the actual system would be needed. For a one-dimensional
model, these conditions may be represented more accurately by incorporating longitudinal
dispersion into the model. Finally, it appears that while the travel times are shifted, the
magnitude of the temperature changes from the Dworshak releases appear comparable in the
simulations and measurements.
Conclusions
Based on the evaluation of transect data from 1991 and 1992, the following can be concluded:
(1) Small differences in cross-sectionally averaged temperatures above and below each of
the dams indicate that the dams transfer heat downstream rather than store heat. This
lends support to the use of one-dimensional temperature model for the lower Snake
River and other large rivers with run-of-the-river dams.
(2) Thermal stratification in the four Snake River reservoirs, measured as the mean
difference between surface temperatures and cross-sectionally average temperatures,
ranged from 0.97 °C at Lower Monumental Dam to 1.22 °C at Ice Harbor Dam over the
summer 1991 transect record. They ranged from 0.96 °C at Lower Monumental Dam
to 1.65 °C at Lower Granite Dam over the summer 1992 transect record.
(3) Stratification occurs throughout the summer months in the four reservoirs, and flow
augmentation appears to increase stratification.
(4) The mean difference between simulated and measured temperatures over the summer
1992 period at four transect locations ranged from -0.25 °C to 0.20 °C.
(5) The time of arrival of cold water from Dworshak releases tends to be longer in the
simulations than in the measurements beginning at the Lower Granite forebay station.
This may be caused by elevated velocities in a gravity-underflow of cold water from the
mixed Snake and Clearwater rivers during flow augmentation, which is not simulated in
the RBM10 model.
(6) The timing and magnitude of cold water fronts suggests that errors associated with
numerical dispersion and continuity-based hydrodynamics in RBM10 are minor.
-------
(7) Incorporation of longitudinal dispersion in RBM10 may improve accuracy in the timing
and magnitude of cold water fronts.
-------
References
Yearsley, J. An Outline of a Monitoring Program for Estimating the State of Water
Temperature In the Columbia and Snake Rivers, EPA Region 10. 2001.
Cope, B., et al. Site Visits to Six Dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers, EPA Region 10,
Memorandum to the file dated 4/18/2001.
Karr, Fryer, and Mundy. Snake River Water Temperature Control Project. Phase II.
Methods for managing and monitoring water temperatures in relation to salmon in the lower
Snake River. May 21, 1998.
EPA Region 10. Application of a 1-D Heat Budget Model to the Columbia River System.
May, 2001.
10
-------
Table 1: Station Locations
Station
Description
River Mile
Dam Mile
1A
2A
3A
N.F. Clearwater
Clearwater abv N.F.
Clearwater blw N.F.
1.3
41.5
39.5
1
Snake abv Clearwater
140.5
2
Clearwater mouth
0.8
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Lower Granite Reservoir
Lower Granite Reservoir
Lower Granite Reservoir
Dam
Little Goose Reservoir
Little Goose Reservoir
Little Goose Reservoir
Dam
Lower Monumental Reservior
Lower Monumental Reservior
Lower Monumental Reservior
Dam
Ice Harbor Reservoir
Ice Harbor Reservoir
Ice Harbor Reservoir
Dam
Snake River blw Ice Harbor
129.5
119.5
110.5
101.0
91.5
80.5
65.0
57.5
44.0
35.5
25.0
15.5
5.0
107.6
70.0
41.7
9.6
11
-------
Map 1 : Study Area (from Karr et al, 1992)
Figure 1. Map of the Lower Snake River Basin showing the major hydroelectric dams, and the location of water
temperature monitoring transects. Symbols used in this report for dams are DWR, Dwwstiak Dam; LWO, Lower
Granite Dam; LGS, Little Goose Dam; LMN, Lower Monumental Dam; IHR, Ice Harbor Dam.
Columbia
Snake Wver
Grande
M fork Clearwater
Dam
C/earwater
Salmon ffiver
Hell's Canyon Dam
12
-------
Table 2A: Comparisons of Average Temperatures Above/Below Snake River Dams (1991 Transects)
Dam
Lower Granite
Little Goose
L. Monumental
Ice Harbor
Stations
5,6
8,9
11,12
14,15
Mean Temperature
Difference (deg C)
[downstream-upstream]
-0.18
0.12
0.12
0.22
Max
0.60
1.00
1.20
0.90
Min
-2.20
-1.00
-0.60
-0.90
Std Dev
0.59
0.53
0.38
0.41
Table 2B: Comparisons of Average Temperatures Above/Below Snake River Dams (1992 Transects)
Dam
Lower Granite
Little Goose
L. Monumental
Ice Harbor
Stations
5,6
8,9
11,12
14,15
Mean Temperature
Difference (deg C)
[downstream-upstream]
-0.38
-0.39
-0.09
0.23
Max
0.80
1.00
0.70
1.10
Min
-1.90
-2.50
-0.70
-0.40
Std Dev
0.59
0.84
0.36
0.33
13
-------
Table 3A: Comparison of Average Temperatures and Surface
Temperatures Above and Below Dams (1991 Transects)
Station
5
6
8
9
11
12
14
15
Mean Temperature
Difference (deg C)
[surface-average]
1.13
0.17
1.07
0.26
0.97
0.24
1.22
0.08
Max
3.90
0.60
2.60
1.30
2.70
1.70
4.30
0.40
Min
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.10
0.00
Std Dev
0.98
0.17
0.71
0.28
0.64
0.39
1.14
0.10
Table 3B: Comparison of Average Temperatures and Surface
Temperatures Above and Below Dams (1992 Transects)
Station
5
6
8
9
11
12
14
15
Mean Temperature
Difference (deg C)
[surface-average]
1.65
0.15
1.14
0.40
0.96
0.30
1.40
0.09
Max
4.50
0.60
3.90
3.40
3.20
1.40
3.50
0.30
Min
0.00
-0.10
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
Std Dev
1.10
0.19
1.10
0.66
0.77
0.33
1.08
0.10
14
-------
Table 4: Difference Between Simulated and Measured 1992 Temperatures
Location
Clearwater River
Snake River
Snake River
Snake River
Station
2
3
6
9
River Mile
0.8
130
101
65
Mean Temperature
Difference (deg C)
[measured-simulated]
-0.25
-0.02
0.14
0.20
Max
(deg C)
4.20
3.20
4.80
2.20
Min
(deg C)
-5.50
-1.50
-2.80
-2.10
Std Dev
1.97
0.96
1.67
1.17
15
-------
Figure 1A: Average Temperatures Above and Below Lower Granite Dam
25 n
20-
o"
0)
0) _
a 15 -
>_
3
s
S. 1°-
E
a)
5
0-
6/
(July 1 - October 22, 1992)
6 H
D 5 - Above Dam
6 - Below Dam
*
K H
0
25 7/9 7/23 8/6 8/20 9/3 9/17 10/1
Date
16
-------
Figure 1B: Average Temperatures Above and Below L. Monumental Dam
25 1
20-
O
O)
S 15-
0)
3
(0
o 10-
E
a)
5
6/
(July 1 - October 22, 1992)
1* * ftnfi i«H Bg ft * ft
y
D 1 1 - Above Dam
12 - Below Dam
ft ft g
n
25 7/9 7/23 8/6 8/20 9/3
Date
9/17 10/1
17
-------
Figure 2A: Difference in Surface/Average Temperatures in
Lower Granite Reservoir (Station 5 - RM110)
4C .
.0
(J
_ A
O) 4
0
a
o c
a, 3.5
o
{= 0 .
0 o
^ O t^ -
5 2'5
|
0 1 .5
Q.
£ 1
0 >
Oc
.O '
n
/
i i
i
p-1
U 1 i
6/15/92 7/5/92
V
i
Lower Granite
Stratification
Dworshak Flows
* *
i
i i
'' , '
I
_ /
I
1 1 1
7/25/92 8/14/92 9/3/92
Date
i
I
i
i
I :
»
9/23/92 10/13/92
25000
- 20000
- 15000
I
- 10000 "
- 5000
- 0
18
-------
Figure 2B: Temperature Profile in Lower Granite Reservoir
- River Mile 130 -
(7/1/92 - 7/8/92)
24
00 .
£.£.
T\ on -
O ^"
O)
o>
2- 1R -
lo
3
+j
(0 4C .
i_ ID
a>
a.
-------
Figure 2C: Temperature Profile in Lower Granite Reservoir
- River Mile 120 -
(7/1/92 - 7/8/92)
24
00
o"
5? 90
^ 18-
3 1 0
2
Q)
-------
oc _,
ZD
94
Al
oo .
_ __ ^^
O
-------
Figure 3A: Clearwater River at Mouth - 1992
ic
Z-J
£\J
O)
o>
a
' -IK .
a, 1o
3
15
S_ 1f~\
<1) IU
a.
E
0)
n -
I
W
f"/ V vy^\J '
» Data Station 2
.*« .
u-^,
l»l X.
6/22 7/1
7/10
7/19 7/28 8/6 8/15 8/24 9/2 9/11 9/20 9/29 10/8 10/17 10/26 11/4
Date
Figure 3B: Snake River (RM 130) - 1992
50000
40000
10000
0
6/22 7/1 7/10 7/19 7/28 8/6 8/15 8/24 9/2 9/11 9/20 9/29 10/8 10/17 10/26 11/4
Date
22
-------
Figure 3C: Lower Granite Pool (RM1 11) - 1992
5000C
4000C
3000C
2000C
1000C
6/22 7/1 7/10 7/19 7/28 8/6 S15 8/24 9/2 9/11 9(20 929 10/8 10/17 10/26 11/4
Date
Figure 3D: Lower Granite Tailrace - 1992
O
5000C
4000C
3000C
if 20000
1000C
6/22 7/1 7/10 7/19 7/28 8/6 8/15 8/24 9/2 9/11 9/20 9/29 10/8 10/17 10/26 11/4
Date
23
-------
Figure 3E: Little Goose Forebay (RM80) - 1992
o"
O)
* -i£
H, '3
3
2 -in .
0) I U
1
*>n ^y^*^-->
» Data Station 8
J _ ***> »
vw-x
111111111
6/22 7/1 7/10 7/19 7/28 8/6 8/15 8/24 9/2 9/11
Date
9/20 9/29 10/8
10/17 10/26 11/4
Figure 3F: Little Goose Tailrace (RM65) - 1992
6/22 7/1 7/10 7/19 7/28 8/6 8/15 8/24 9/2 9/11 9/20 9/29 10/8 10/17 10/26 11/4
Date
24
-------
Figure 3G: L. Monumental Forebay (RM 44) - 1992
o"
O)
o> -IE _
₯
1
n fi
Q.
1
A^jP*C9^tf^ \ ATnn.l^X'ft^V^^ ^\ HAu»
I Data Station 1 1
-o-RBMIO
X^
^N
^. *
V
i i i i i i i i i i
6/22 7/1 7/10 7/19 7/28 8/6 8/15 8/24 9/2 9/11 9/20
Date
9/29 10/8 10/17 10/26 11/4
Figure 3H: L. Monumental Tailrace (RM 36) - 1992
^
_ ID
^
VV
* Data Station 12
-o-RBMIO
"^-v
^*s 4
i i i i i i i i i i
6/22 7/1 7/10 7/19 7/28 8/6 8/15 8/24 9/2 9/11 9/20
Date
9/29 10/8 10/17 10/26 11/4
25
-------
25 -i
20 -
o"
O)
0)
15
fe 10 -
Q.
£
£
5-
0.
(?
o? 1*5
"D
0)
3
2
0) .,
2. 15 -
HI
3
re
£ 1°'
1-
0 1S
HI
3
re
HI
5 -
Simulated vs Measured Temperatures -07/08/92
Snake River (RM 140 to RM100)
0 °
4RBM10
D Measured
140 130 120 110 100
River Mile (Lower Granite = RM108)
Simulated vs Measured Temperatures -07/16/92
Snake River (RM 140 to RM100)
*
D D D ft
4RBM10
u Measured
140 130 120 110 100
River Mile (Lower Granite = RM108)
26
-------
OC _
o"
O)
<» IK
2.
0)
1
" m -
0. 1U
0)
1-
0_
90 -
o
0> 1C
2,
HI
3
2
a) m -
a. lu
i-
5 -
0.
Simulated vs Measured Temperatures -07/18/92
Snake River (RM 140 to RM100)
° A
fi 0
n
n *
*RBM10
U Measured
140 130 120 110 100
River Mile (Lower Granite = RM108)
Simulated vs Measured Temperatures -07/23/92
Snake River (RM 140 to RM100)
n fi « *
0 n
n
*RBM10
D Measured
140 130 120 110 100
River Mile (Lower Granite = RM108)
25 -i
20
o"
O)
01 1C .
2.
0)
1
Hi 10 .
Q. IU
0)
1-
0.
?n -
o^
O)
HI 1C
2.
HI
3
2
a) m -
o. lu
i-
5 -
0_
Simulated vs Measured Temperatures -07/21/92
Snake River (RM 140 to RM100)
* «,
U
5
*RBM10
|D Measured |
140 130 120 110 100
River Mile (Lower Granite = RM108)
Simulated vs Measured Temperatures -07/25/92
Snake River (RM 140 to RM100)
a a * *
D
*RBM10
D Measured
140 130 120 110 100
River Mile (Lower Granite = RM108)
27
-------
Simulated vs Measured Temperatures - 07/30/92
Snake River (RM 140 to RM100)
O
f 15-
£
|
S. 10-
g
H
5.
e ?
D
140 130 120 110
ARRM10
D Measured
100
River Mile (Lower Granite = RM108)
Simulated vs Measured Temperatures -08/01/92
Snake River (RM 140 to RM100)
O
% 15-
£
|
a. 10-
g
H
5.
5 e
n
140 130 120 110
*RBM10
D Measured
100
River Mile (Lower Granite = RM108)
Simulated vs Measured Temperatures
- 08/04/92
Snake River (RM 140 to RM100)
O
I 15-
1
5-
0-
D ° o g
0
i i i
140 130 120 110
4RBM10
D Measured
1
100
River Mile (Lower Granite = RM108)
Simulated vs Measured Temperatures - 08/06/92
Snake River (RM 140 to RM100)
o"
_ 15
₯
1
0.
g a 9
0
*RBM10
D Measured
140 130 120 110 100
River Mile (Lower Granite = RM108)
28
-------
Simulated vs Measured Temperatures - 08/11/92
Snake River (RM 140 to RM100)
5*
S? 1*
1 15-
1
5. 10 -
£
D D fi *
2
I RBM10
D Measured
i i i i
140 130 120 110 100
River Mile (Lower Granite = RM108)
Simulated vs Measured Temperatures -08/20/92
Snake River (RM 140 to RM100)
5*
o>
33 -ic -
5, 15
i
4? -in -
£
0.
D D n D
* a
D
4RBM10
D Measured
140 130 120 110 100
River Mile (Lower Granite = RM108)
Simulated vs Measured Temperatures -08/18/92
Snake River (RM 140 to RM100)
on .
o"
flS -
_ 1S
₯
1
-------
Simulated vs Measured Temperatures -08/29/92
Snake River (RM 140 to RM100)
on .
0"
% 15-
1
S. 10
n n
P
n w
140 130 120 110
I RBM10
DMeasured
100
River Mile (Lower Granite = RM108)
Simulated vs Measured Temperatures -09/11/92
Snake River (RM 140 to RM100)
5*
8* is -
g 1&
₯
4l m -
5.
n D 5 8
4RBM10
D Measured
140 130 120 110 100
River Mile (Lower Granite = RM108)
25
20
o
i 15
10
Simulated vs Measured Temperatures -09/03/92
Snake River (RM 140 to RM100)
n
n
D
140
130 120 110
River Mile (Lower Granite=RM108)
100
Simulated vs Measured Temperatures -09/13/92
Snake River (RM 140 to RM100)
5*
o>
35 le .
5, 15
1
3? m -
i^
5.
b
n 0
0
4RBM10
D Measured
i i i i
140 130 120 110 100
River Mile (Lower Granite = RM108)
30
-------
Simulated vs Measured Temperatures - 09/15/92
Snake River (RM 140 to RM100)
on .
o"
I
4j_ 10
n i
a
0
140 130 120 110
River Mile (Lower Granite=RM108)
4RBM10
D Measured
100
Simulated vs Measured Temperatures - 09/21/92
Snake River (RM 140 to RM100)
5*
o>
35 ie .
5, 15
1
3? in -
£
0.
n
n n
o 8 5
*
4RBM10
D Measured
140 130 120 110 100
River Mile (Lower Granite = RM108)
Simulated vs Measured Temperatures -09/17/92
Snake River (RM 140 to RM100)
0"
15
!.
n 4
n D
4
n
4 *
140 130 120 110
River Mile (Lower Granite=RM108)
4RBM10
D Measured
100
Simulated vs Measured Temperatures -09/25/92
Snake River (RM 140 to RM100)
O*
TJJ TO
₯
4l m -
0.
D
n 4 i *
4RBM10
D Measured
140 130 120 110 100
River Mile (Lower Granite = RM108)
31
-------
Simulated vs Measured Temperatures - 09/29/92
Snake River (RM 140 to RM100)
on .
o"
5>
V 1C .
B.
I
g_ 10
£
* * 0 "
D *
140 130 120 110
River Mile (Lower Granite=RM108)
D
I
*RBM10
D Measured
100
Simulated vs Measured Temperatures - 10/22/92
Snake River (RM 140 to RM100)
erature (deg C)
i _i r>
D Ol C
£
0.
n n
D g g 5
n
4RBM10
D Measured
140 130 120 110 100
River Mile (Lower Granite = RM108)
25-
on .
o"
P>
33 m -
S- 15
I
5. 10
(^
5.
Simulated vs Measured Temperatures - 10/08/92
Snake River (RM 140 to RM100)
? 2 5
Q
140 130 120 110
River Mile (Lower Granite=RM108)
4RBM10
D Measured
100
32
-------
33
------- |