United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA Region 10
OEA-095
EPA910-R-02-008
September 2002
&EPA
Temperature Simulation of the
Snake River Above Lower
Granite Dam Using Transect
Measurements and the
CE-QUAL-W2 Model
September 2002
Office of Environmental Assessment
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
-------
EPA has developed this report as part of a multi-agency effort to improve our
understanding of temperature regimes in the Columbia and Snake Rivers. For
more information about this work, visit the EPA Region 10 website for the Total
Maximum Daily Load for the Columbia and Snake River mainstems:
www. epa.go v/r1 Oearth/columbiamains temtmdl/h tm
For more information about this report, contact:
Ben Cope
Office of Environmental Assessment
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave, OEA-095
Seattle, Washington 98101
(206) 553-1442
cope.ben@epa.gov
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Transect Measurements 1
Dworshak Operations 2
CE-QUAL-W2 Model Representation 2
Waterbody Segmentation for CE-QUAL-W2 2
Impoundment Bathymetry 2
Boundary Characteristics 3
River Flows 3
River Temperatures 4
Dam Structures 4
Meteorology 5
Comparison of Model Simulations and Transect Measurements 5
Contour Plots of Simulated Temperatures 6
Simulation of Spill Releases 7
Summary 8
References 9
Maps and Figures 10
List of Figures
Figure 1: Map of Study Area
Figure 2: Spatial Resolution for Lower Granite Pool Model
Figure 3: Elevation/Pool Volume Relationship for Lower Granite Pool
Figure 4: Flow from Dworshak Dam during Summer/Fall 1992
Figure 5: Flow in Clearwater and Snake Rivers
Figure 6: Cross-sectional Average Temperature of Clearwater and Snake Rivers
Figure 7: Air Temperature at Lewiston Airport
Figure 8: Comparison of Measured and Simulated Temperatures at Lower Granite Tailrace
Figure 9: Comparisons of Measured and Simulated Vertical Temperature Profiles (RM 130)
Figure 10: Comparisons of Measured and Simulated Vertical Temperature Profiles (RM 120)
Figure 11: Comparisons of Measured and Simulated Vertical Temperature Profiles (RM 110)
Appendix A : Contour Plots of Simulated Temperatures
Appendix B : Contour Plots of Powerhouse Release and Spill Release Scenarios
Appendix C: CE-QUAL-W2 Input Files - Bathymetry and Control Files
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation Page 1
Introduction
EPA has recently evaluated water temperature regimes of the mainstem Snake River
using transect measurements and the RBM10 one-dimensional heat budget model
(Cope, 2001). This work relied 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
transect data can also be used to examine and simulate vertical temperature structures
in the mainstem river. In this report, the two-dimensional CE-QUAL-W2 model
framework developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Cole and Buchak, 1995) is
used to simulate temperature regimes in Lower Granite Pool, from the confluence of the
Clearwater and Snake Rivers to Lower Granite Dam. The study period is July through
October of 1992.
Transect Measurements
Long term monitoring of temperature has been conducted since the construction of the
Snake River dams, but these temperature measurements have been collected at single,
fixed depths in the vicinity of the dams (e.g, forebays, tailraces, and scroll cases).
Evaluation of the performance of heat budget 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 with a detailed
sampling of cross-sectional average temperatures and vertical temperature gradients.
The data used for this evaluation was collected from July 1 to October 22, 1992.
Transect measurements were collected at 14 stations in the lower Snake River and four
stations in the Clearwater River (see Figure 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, 1/2, and 3/4 river
width) and at four depths (surface, 1/3 river depth, 2/3 river depth, and near bottom).
Because of the varying depth to the bottom at the three sampling locations of a
particular transect, the sampling depths can vary widely between the monitoring
locations of a given transect. CE-QUAL-W2 is a two-dimensional modeling framework
that simulates laterally-averaged temperatures for a waterbody. In this evaluation, all of
the discrete temperature measurements are included in the vertical profiles for
comparison to CE-QUAL-W2 estimates. For this reason, the vertical plots of
temperature at a given transect location may have duplicate measurements at or near
the same depth. In some cases, the variation in duplicate samples at a given depth
indicates that there can be significant lateral variation in water temperature. These
variations are not simulated by a two-dimensional model framework.
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation Page 2
In addition to comparisons between measured and simulated vertical profiles within the
impoundment, the simulated outflow temperature from Lower Granite Dam was
compared to the transect measurements at the site downstream of the dam. This was
accomplished by calculating the area-weighted average temperature at this transect site
(Station 6) over time and then comparing it to the single-value outflow temperature from
the CE-QUAL-W2 simulation.
Dworshak Operations
The release pattern from Dworshak Dam over the study period can be divided into three
flow augmentation periods. The first period began July 5th, when outflow was
increased from approximately 1,600 cfs to 11,000 cfs and held at that level until July
11th. After dropping back to approximately 2,000 cfs for three days, the second
augmentation period began on July 15th, with outflows of approximately 20,000 cfs for
three days (and 10,000 cfs on the fourth day). After this second augmentation period
ended, the period from July 19th to September 9th was characterized by low outflows
ranging from approximately 1,500 cfs to 3,000 cfs. A third augmentation period began
on September 10, with outflows increased to approximately 12,000 cfs for eleven days,
after which outflows were reduced to 1,600 cfs. A graphical depiction of the outflows
from Dworshak is included in Figure 4.
CE-QUAL-W2 Model Representation
Waterbodv Segmentation for CE-QUAL-W2
The Snake River from the confluence of the Clearwater River to Lower Granite Dam is
represented by 34 longitudinal segments with a uniform length of one mile. In the
vertical dimension, the river is divided into cells with a uniform layer thickness of 6 feet.
At its deepest point, the river is represented by 22 vertical layers. A graphic of the
model grid is provided in Figure 2.
Impoundment Bathymetry
Cross-sectional profiles of the river bottom were measured at approximately 40
locations in 1995 and 1996, but the measurements are not uniformly segmented as is
the model representation of the system. In order to provide width/depth relationships for
CE-QUAL-W2 grid cells with uniform lengths equal to one mile, the available cross-
sections were interpolated to provide uniformly spaced cross-sections using the HEC-
RAS model (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2001).
The width/depth relationships were estimated by iteratively running HEC-RAS with the
water elevation fixed at the depths of each model layer (i.e., from the maximum pool
elevation to the bottom in 6 foot increments). Very low flows were used to provide a flat
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation Page 3
water surface. The resulting top-width outputs from these HEC-RAS runs provide the
desired widths associated with each vertical layer of the CE-QUAL-W2 model. The
bathymetry and control files with the pertinent geometry information are included in
Appendix C of this report.
The elevation/pool volume relationship for the geometric grid representation of Lower
Granite Pool in CE-QUAL-W2 was compared to the elevation/pool volume relationship
used in HEC-5Q modeling assessments in the Columbia River System Operation
Review (USAGE, BPA, BOR, 1994). This comparison is shown in Figure 3.
Boundary Characteristics
The upstream boundary segment of the model represents the Snake River immediately
downstream of the confluence of the Snake River and the Clearwater River. Each river
is treated as a distinct input. In CE-QUAL-W2 terminology, the Snake River is a branch
boundary, and the Clearwater River is a tributary input.
River Flows
Daily average river flows for the upstream boundary were obtained from the National
Water Information System website maintained by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
Snake River flows into the upstream model segment are represented by daily flows for
1992 from the USGS station at Anatone, Washington. The daily flows recorded at the
USGS station at Spalding, Idaho, were used as inputs from Clearwater River. Figure 4
depicts the outflow from Dworshak Dam during the study period, and Figure 5 depicts
the boundary input flows for the Clearwater and Snake Rivers.
For the downstream boundary, powerhouse flows and spill flows from Lower Granite
Dam are recorded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and shared with the
public on a University of Washington website (DART - Data Access in Real Time,
http://www.cqs.washington.edu/dart/river.html).
The Corps also records the water surface elevation at the dam. This information can be
used in conjunction with river flows and geometry information from a pre-processing
module of CE-QUAL-W2 to perform a water balance on the model system. The pre-
processor outputs elevation/volume relationships for the model system. In order to
match the simulated water surface elevation to the measured elevation, the measured
inflows and outflows were adjusted. When the volume was too high, the powerhouse
outflow was increased by the necessary amount to match the daily average elevation.
When the volume was too low, the Snake and Clearwater flows were increased by the
necessary amount to match the elevation.
Another option, simply adjusting the outflow to match the elevation, was evaluated. The
model runs using these alternate outflows did not substantially alter the simulated
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation Page 4
temperatures of the outlet, so the flows from the first adjustment method above were
used for the simulations reported in this document.
River Temperatures
The CRITFC study (Karr et al, 1998) included temperature sampling in the Snake River
above the Clearwater confluence (RM 140.5) and in the Clearwater River near its mouth
(RM 0.8). As discussed above, at each transect, temperature was measured at three
locations (1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 river width) and at four depths (surface, 1/3 river depth, 2/3
river depth, and near bottom). In order to calculate a cross-sectional average
temperature for the CE-QUAL-W2 boundary representation, rectangular cross sections
around each sampling point were assumed and the area-weighted average temperature
was calculated for the transect. The resulting discrete sample values were input into
CE-QUAL-W2 as daily average temperatures (Figure 6).
CE-QUAL-W2 has two options for placement of boundary inflows to the model layers.
Inflows can be placed evenly from top to bottom in the boundary cell layers of the
model, or they can be placed according to their relative density. Both options were
evaluated, and even distribution (top-to-bottom) resulted in slightly better agreement
between simulated and measured temperatures below the dam. The only notable
difference between the two options was a pattern of colder outlet temperatures during
flow augmentation in the model runs using density-based placement.
As discussed above, transect measurements were collected at varying time intervals
ranging from one day to several days between samples. Gaps in the measurement
record were filled by linear interpolation between sample points.
CRITFC also sampled temperatures below Lower Granite Dam (RM 101). Based on an
assumption that temperatures do not change significantly between the dam tailrace
(RM107) and this location six miles downstream, these measurements can be
compared against the dam outlet temperatures simulated in CE-QUAL-W2 to evaluate
model performance. They were area-weighted in the same manner as the
measurements upstream.
Dam Structures
The releases at Lower Granite Dam are represented using the Selective Withdrawal
option in CE-QUAL-W2. Two structures are defined: powerhouse outflows and spill
outflows. Powerhouse withdrawals are drawn from bays that extend 75 feet vertically
from the bottom of the dam. For the model, the outlet structure is set between the
bottom and top of the powerhouse bays, with no constraints on the elevation from which
water can be drawn. The spill withdrawal elevation is set at a point near the pool
elevation and withdrawals are constrained to the top half of the water column. It should
be noted that the effect of spill is not a factor in the evaluation of model performance in
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation Page 5
this report, because spills in 1992 occurred in the early spring and measurements were
not collect until mid-summer.
Meteorology
There are a limited number of meteorological stations in the Northwest where all of the
parameters of the heat budget (air temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, cloud
cover, and barometric pressure) are reported. Hourly average observations in 1992
from the closest Surface Airways (SAMSON) station, which is located at the Lewiston
airport, were used in this analysis. Figure 7 depicts the hourly air temperature for the
simulation timeframe.
Comparison of Model Simulations and Transect Measurements
The initial model evaluation involves an evaluation of simulated and measured outlet
temperatures. As shown in Figure 8, the simulated outlet temperature is consistent with
the timing and trajectory of the measured temperatures during periods of flow
augmentation. This similarity in the temporal response to flow augmentation contrasts
with previous simulations using a one-dimensional model (RBM10) that employs
continuity-based hydrodynamics (EPA, 2001). In that analysis, the model predicted
arrival of cold water fronts later than the measured arrival time. It was surmised that
higher velocities of the cold water density underflow through the bottom of the
impoundment may account for the earlier arrival time. The results using CE-QUAL-W2,
which accounts for effects of vertical density gradients on velocities, support this
hypothesis.
While the simulations capture the timing and pattern of measured temperature change
over time, the simulated temperatures are generally lower than the measured
temperatures. CE-QUAL-W2 includes an option for adjusting the heat budget terms
associated with wind speed, which is relatively uncertain at the river location and has a
bearing on river temperatures. Even after adjusting the wind sheltering coefficient to
zero (which would result in less evaporation and higher water temperatures), the
simulated temperatures were lower than the measured temperatures. The mean
difference between simulated and measured temperatures (measured - simulated) for
the 29 sampling days was 0.7 °C with a standard deviation of 0.6 °C. The root mean
square difference was 0.2 °C.
Some of the under-prediction could be due to the direct comparison of outlet
temperatures with measurements from a transect location six miles downstream from
the dam. In order to determine the potential heating occurring between the dam and the
transect location, particularly during flow augmentation, RBM10 model outputs from a
previous report (Cope, 2001) were examined. On average, during the July
augmentation periods, the cross-sectional average river temperature is predicted to
warm by approximately 0.2 °C between River Miles 107 and 101. This result, for the
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation Page 6
period of highest heat transfer, indicates that the location of the measurement station in
relation to the dam outlet does not explain the under-prediction in outlet temperatures.
Graphical presentations of measured and simulated vertical temperature profiles at the
three transect sampling locations within Lower Granite pool are shown in Figures 9
through 11. The first profile on each page includes a graphic of the Dworshak outflow
for 1992 (see Figure 4) and a vertical line on the date of the first profile. An overview of
all of the graphical comparisons indicates that the model generally captures the
observed temperature patterns in the pool. However, some of the profiles show a
consistent deviation from the measured temperatures. For example, the profiles for
River Mile 110 from July 28 to August 11 show colder simulated temperatures than
measured temperatures below a depth of 40 feet.
The vertical profiles offers insights into the effect of Dworshak releases on temperature
stratification, and the profiles also indicate some uncertainties in both model and
measurement estimates of temperature. As described in the previous analysis of the
effects of flow augmentation (Cope, 2001), the releases of cold water increase the
thermal stratification within the pool. For example, large cold water releases (over
20,000 cfs) from July 15 to July 17 resulted in a measured vertical temperature gradient
(surface/bottom difference) of 9.5 °C on August 1 at River Mile 120. In contrast, on
August 29, after the cold water had moved through the pool, the measured gradient was
only 2.5 °C. The simulation results were consistent with this change, with the vertical
temperature gradient diminishing over this period from 6.9 °C on August 1 to 1.5 °C on
August 29.
As noted above, the transect measurements on each graph include measurements from
three monitoring stations along the transect. Since the sampling depths at each station
were non-uniform, the graphs include duplicate data at certain depths. In some cases
(e.g., RM130, 7/13/92), the duplicates vary substantially, suggesting that there are
lateral temperature variations in the river. At the same time, the scale of the
temperature difference at a given depth and/or the departure from the simulated
temperature in some cases (e.g., RM120, 7/23/92) could be the result of measurement
or recording errors.
Contour Plots of Simulated Temperatures
The dynamic changes in river temperature regime caused by flow augmentation from
Dworshak Dam can also be examined using contour plots. One advantage of
simulation estimates is that they can be obtained for each day during the period of
interest; as noted above, the measurement record is more sporadic. Daily contour plots
were generated using outputs from CE-QUAL-W2 for the augmentation period during
July; August and September plots were generated in 4-day increments. The plots are
constructed using CE-QUAL-W2 outputs for every 5 miles of river length. These plots
are provided in Appendix A.
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation Page 7
The contour plots for the July flow augmentation period indicate that the cold water front
from Dworshak remains well-mixed from the upstream boundary (where the Clearwater
and Snake are assumed to be completely mixed) to point approximately 15 miles
downstream of Lewiston (River Mile 125). The contour plots for July 6th and July 16th
show the arrival of the cold water front between miles 5 and 15, and the temperature
contours in this stretch are vertical. In subsequent plots, the surface layer downstream
of mile 15 remains relatively stable, while the cold water plunges underneath this stable
layer. There is little change in the surface layer temperatures during the period of flow
augmentation. In addition, stratification lingers for some time after cessation of flow
augmentation.
Another set of contour plots reflects the effects of changes in weather on pool
temperatures. After a period of warm temperatures and no flow augmentaion in early
August, the weather changes in late August (See Figure 7 for drop in air temperatures).
The plots for August 26th and August 30th show the effects of this change on the river.
The pattern of change is similar to the changes during to flow augmentation, with a
stable surface layer developing in the pool. This time the stable surface layer extends
from mile 5 below Lewiston (River mile 135). This pattern may be explained by the
more rapid effects of weather changes on the upstream rivers than on the pool. The
faster cooling upstream waters plunge under the warmer pool similar to the pattern seen
during the flow augmentation periods.
Simulation of Spill Releases
Water quality models can be used to predict the water quality effects of alternate river
management. For this report, a simple alternate management plan was simulated to
illustrate the potential predictive use of the CE-QUAL-W2 model. The assumption for
this simulation was that all flows would be sent over the spillway instead of the
powerhouse. This scenario was chosen to investigate the possible effects of release
through the spillway on the stable surface layer that occupies the lower half of the pool
during flow augmentation.
For this experiment, all model parameters and boundary inputs were identical to the
simulations of powerhouse releases (i.e., actual conditions in 1992), and only the
release structure was altered. Contour maps for selected days during the augmentation
period, presented side-by-side with the simulations of actual conditions, are included in
Appendix B. The effect of releasing water from the spillway on the surface layer is
apparent, particularly during the first augmentation period, when the stratification and
maximum temperatures are reduced in the surface waters of the lower portion of the
pool. It is more difficult to discern differences during the second, more pronounced, flow
augmentation episode.
In the future, the CE-QUAL-W2 framework or other available model frameworks can be
used to evaluate the effects of alternative operations at Dworshak Dam, the Hells
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation Page 8
Canyon Complex dams, and Lower Granite Dam on water temperature regimes within
Lower Granite Pool.
Summary
Based on the measurements and simulation outputs using CE-QUAL-W2, the following
observations are offered:
(1) The CE-QUAL-W2 model framework captures most of the observed patterns of
stratification occurring in the pool in 1992. The model also predicts the time-of-
arrival of cold water underflows at the dam after commencement of flow
augmentation from Dworshak Dam to within approximately one day of the
observed time-of-arrival.
(2) Using the model domain geometry, boundaries and inputs described herein, the
predicted outlet temperature was generally lower than the measured
temperature, even with the wind sheltering coefficient set to zero.
(3) During flow augmentation, measurements and simulations indicate that a stable
surface layer sets up beginning at approximately River Mile 125 to 135 and
extends to downstream to the dam at River Mile 107. Flow augmentation
appears to have little effect on temperatures within this surface layer; in fact,
augmentation may cause temperature increases at the surface.
(4) The temperature regime in the pool after the passing of a cold air mass
resembled the pattern observed during flow augmentation, with cooler input
waters at the upstream boundary plunging beneath a warmer surface layer within
the pool.
(5) An exploratory simulation assuming the release of all water over the spillway
(instead of the powerhouse) resulted in slightly lower surface temperatures at the
downstream end of the pool during the first augmentation period in July 1992,
when compared to the simulation of actual conditions (releases through the
powerhouse). Differences between the two simulations were harder to discern
during the other augmentation episodes.
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation Page 9
References
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.
Cope, B. Evaluation of Water Temperature Regimes in the Snake River using Transect
Measurements and the RBM10 Model. EPA 910-R-01 -008. December 2001.
Cole, T. and Buchak, E. CE-QUAL-W2: A Two-Dimensional, Laterally-Averaged,
Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Model, Version 2.0. User Manual. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. June 1995.
Karr M., Fryer J., and Mundy, P. 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.
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.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center. HEC-RAS River
Analysis System: User Manual. Version 3.0. January 2001.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and Bonneville Power
Administration. Columbia River System Operation Review. Draft Environmental Impact
Statement. Appendix M. Water Quality. July 1994.
U.S. EPA Region 10. Application of a 1-D Heat Budget Model to the Columbia River
System. May, 2001.
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation Page 10
Maps and Figures
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation
Pase 11
Lower Granite Dam
/"•-..
Dworshak Dam
Transect Sampling Location
Approx. 10 mi.
Figure 1: Study Area
Q.
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation
Pase 12
Figure 3: Area Capacity Relationship for Lower Granite Pool
finnnnn -,
cnnnnn
c~ cnnnnn
i
o
ro
' — ' ^nnnnn
E
D
o
> onnnnn
-i nnnnn
n
.... .System Operation Review (USAGE)
CE-QUAL Grid
/ /
/'
/'
j f
s +
S''
"'^^^
580 600 620 640 660 680
Elevation (ft)
700 720 740 760
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation
Pase 13
vnn _,
Rnn
cjnn -
•S2
^2 Ar\r\
> ^nn
_o
LJ- of)f) -
100 -
Figure 4 :
Flow from Dworshak Dam During Summer/Fall 1992
(July 1 - October 15)
1-Jul
\J
_
1-Aug 1-Sep 2-Oct
Date
Figure 5 :
Flow in Clearwater and Snake Rivers
(July 1 - October 15, 1992)
Clearwater River@Spaldmg
Snake River@Anatone
1-Jul
1-Aug
1-Sep
2-Oct
Date
Figure 6 :
Interpolated Cross-sectional Average Temperature of
Clearwater and Snake Rivers (Karr et al, 1998)
.Clearwater River (RM 0.8)
.Snake River (RM 140.5)
1-Jul
1-Aug
Date
1-Sep
2-Oct
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation
Pase 14
1-Jul
Figure 7 :
Air Temperature at Lewiston Airport (1992)
1-Aug
Date
1-Sep
2-Oct
23-Jun
Figure 8: Comparison of Measured and Simulated
Temperatures at Lower Granite Tailrace
Measurements
•CE-QUAL-W2
21-Oct
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation
Page 15
Figure 9 : Comparison of Summer 1992 Measured and Simulated Temperatures - River
,
g
'5.
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation
Pase 16
1
0 -
1 n
^n
g ,30
-*- 4n
Q. 4U
0)
Q RD
Rn
vn
Rn
Temp (C)
0 15 20
D«
D
D •
nl
_j
nt •
D
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation
Pase 17
Temp (C)
20 25 30
g 30
"^ 40
"5.
Q 50
60
70
80
u •
D •
U
RM 130 -8/1/92
Temp (C)
10 15 20
Ol I — .
10
9n
£ 3°
£ 40 -
•5. 4U
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation
Pase 18
40
70
80
20
25
30
u
• n
• n
• Measured
D Simulated
RM130 -8/26/92
Temp (C)
10 15 20
Ol — -
1O
90
£
Q.
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation
Pase 19
10
10
20
30
40
60
70
80
15
• D
D
^3^
• u
u
20
• Measured
D Simulated
RM 130 -9/1 7/92
10 15 20
0 ""•
in
40 -
fin
7n
fin
25
30
S0
n
n*
n
• D
n
• n
9 l_j
RM130 -9/21/92
• Measured
D Simulated
10 15 20
0^—. I
10
20
7D
25
30
• ^
u
• n
t • n
n
0 D
• D
n
• n
9 |_|
• Measured
D Simulated
RM130 -9/25/92
10 15 20
0 i ^ i
10
9n
^n
4D
'sn
60
vn
an
25
30
H.
D
D»
D*
n
n»
D*
n
n»
D •
RM130 - 10/8/92
• Measured
D Simulated
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation
Pase 20
Figure 10 : Comparison of Summer 1992 Measured and Simulated Temperatures - River Mile 120
30
50
60
70
80
90
100
Temp (C)
20
25
30
D
-tr
RM 120 -7/5/92
1
n -i
in
20
o(J -
•*-'" 40
Ji en
Q.
0 fin
Q DU
vn
on
an
1 nn
Temp (C)
0 15 20
"B
ftu
4n°
^
n
•D
n
e
n
n
f
%
RM 120 -7/8/92
25 3
0
Temp (C)
10 15 20
n ' ' ^
1 n
9n
£ *sn -
-£. ou
Q 60 -
7n
pn
cm
mn
25
30
rT
n4*
&
n
D
n
3
n
a
RM 120 -7/6/92
• Measured
D Simulated
1
n -j
10
9D
30
o 4n
£ 50 -
•5. DU
^ 60 -
7D
pn
on
mn
Temp (C)
0 15 20
ff
d^
^*
n
D
n
*
n
n
JH
J|
RM120 -7/13/92
25 3
0
1
0 -,
1 n
20 -
"o.
Q 60 -
7n
ftn
on
mn
Temp (C)
0 15 20
^?
n *"
^=> ,
n
Q
n
£j
n
n
RM120 -7/10/92
25 3
I
0
'5.
0)
Q
Temp (C)
10 15 20
n ' —•
10 -
30 -
4n
fin
7n
pn
on
100 -
25 30
0°
,§!»
^
n
n
D *
n
u
• D
RM120 -7/16/92
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation
Pase 21
L
30
~~ 40
-C erf)
o. SU "
^ 60 -
yn
on
on
100
Temp (C)
i 20
II J°
~H D*
•n •
n
• n
n
fl*
n
u
£
RM120 -7/18/92
25
I
• Measured
D Simulated
30
1
0 -,
1 O
9O
*"" 40
"o_
a 60 -
70
on
on
100
Temp (C)
0 15 20
D D
If
*«b*
n
• D
n
n
n
u
n
jl
^
RM120 -7/21/92
25 3
I
0
Temp (C)
10 15 20
Ol I —
10
90
„
t.
^ RO
7O
P.O
on
100
25 30
~nn
n^
DA
n
• D
n
ft0
n
a
wn
f
RM120 -7/23/92
• Measured
D Simulated
Temp (C)
10 15 20
n ' ^
10 -
_
^
Q.
70
on
on
1OO
B
i=
•
25
30
>
n
D •
n
n
n
i
u
C
• Measured
D Simulated
RM120 -7/25/92
Temp (C)
10 15 20
n ' ^
10
90
£ 60 -
yn
on
on
100 -
25
30
[?*
i •
n
• Q
n
n"1*
n
n
• D
RM120 -7/28/92
• Measured
D Simulated
Temp (C)
10 15 20
0 i i A
10
90.
"3D
$? 40 -
_n j-Q
1 60-
70 -
80 -
90 -
100 -I
25
30
f
DD*
D*
n
LJ 0
n
if*
n
n
m. n
* rj
9 ,_,
RM120 -7/30/92
• Measured
D Simulated
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation
Pase 22
£ 50
Q.
70
90
100
Temp (C)
20 25
30
D
-n-
tr
n
n
n
RM120 -8/1/92
Temp (C)
10 15 20
n ii-
m
9n
^n
o An
-£• 'sn
Q.
£ fin
7n
on
Qn
100
25 30
a^
^
Q»
n
• u
n
D™
n
n
n
RM120 -8/4/92
D Simulated -
Temp (C)
10 15 20
Ol I «
m
on
- 40
-C en
Q.
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation
Pase 23
11
g
_c
'£.
Q
. — •—
30
40 -
"^n
60
70
on
QO
100
Jl
Temp (C)
i 20
25 30
f?
ft
£
n
n
f*
a
a
•D
D
RM120 -8/26/92
Temp (C)
10 15 20
n ' ^
10
9n
30
O 40
-c en _
Q.
70
on
QO
100 -
25
30
1
g
•n
n
• D
n
fiD
n
u
^
D
RM110 -8/29/92
• Measured
D Simulated
Temp (C)
10 15 20
Ol I A
10 -
90
30 -
£ 50 -
£ RO
7O
on
QO
100 -
ff
25 30
g
•fl
n
• D
n
Q
n
n
•P
RM 120 -9/3/92
• Measured
D Simulated
Temp (C)
10 15 20
Ol A I
10
9O
30
-^ RO
Q.
0 fiO
Q DU
70
on
QO
1OO
"B
25 30
*n
*n
a
u
n
n
n
q»
RM 120 -9/1 1/92
• Measured
D Simulated
1
n -i
in
9D
j= en
Q.
<» en
7O
on
QO
100 -I
Temp (C)
0 15 20
** f?
n
• • D
n
u •
n
n \
D
n i
RM 120 -9/1 3/92
25 3
0
Temp (C)
10 15 20
Ol — . I
10
90
^
t-
-C en
Q 60 -
70 -
on
90 -
100 -I
25 30
I
B
• I |
•• n
n
• n
n
n
u
n A
D I
RM120 -9/15/92
D Simulated -
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation
Pase 24
Temp (C)
10 15 20
Ol A ^ I
m
9n
^n
^P" 40.
JI en
1 60-
7P,
on
90 -
inn
~ ^
•s
»»DD
fl
r
_^
D
u
n
°l
D
D
c
§
RM 120 -9/1 7/92
Temp (C)
10 15 20
n i i A i
m
on
„
-
'o.
Q 60 -
yn
on
90 -
inn
25 30
"B
*n
* tfD
n
D •
n
£
n
n
n
s
RM120 -9/21/92
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation
Page 25
Figure 11 : Comparison of Summer 1992 Measured and Simulated Temperatures - River Mile 110
£ 60
S" 80
Q
100
140
Temp (C)
20
25
30
I
RM1 10 -7/8/92
1
n -i
20
40
*^ RO
£
o
Q
mn
1 on
140
0 15
I
J
(
RM1
Temp (C)
20
| -m
^
n
•fl
/rP
• cP
B
10 -7/10/92
25 3
• Measured
D Simulated
0
Temp (C)
10 15 20
n ' ' —
9n
40.
*^ Rn
^
o
Q
mn
1 9n
140
25 30
ff
rf
n •
•E?
.
ff
i
RM110 -7/13/92
• Measured
D Simulated
1
n -j
9n
4n
^ fiO -
_C
"Q.
(D ftO
Q 5U
1OO
1 9O
14O
Temp (C)
0 15 20
^
• D
,JO
•fl
^
n
n
fi
RM110 -7/16/92
25 3
• Measured
D Simulated
0
Temp (C)
10 15 20
0 ' ' "•
90
4O
*^ fiO
o
Q
inn
I4n
n
25
30
°
S
• ^
*
RM110 -7/19/92
• Measured
D Simulated
1
90
40 -
*^ fiO
o
Q
100
1 9O
14O
0
1
r
:
=
I
Temp (C)
5 20
n°
tP
rll •
•
RM110 -7/21/92
25 3
• Measured
D Simulated
0
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation
Pase 26
1
n
J u^~-
40 -
*^ Rn
r>
Q
inn
I4n
Temp (C)
5 20 25 3
r ^P
I n
1 D •
DD*
•p^
n
n
n
§• • Measured
w D Simulated
RM110 -7/23/92
0
Temp (C)
10 15 20
n ' ^
9n
4n
*^ Rn
Q
mn
1 9n
25
30
B"
^
0°°*
jft
n
n
n
n
RM110 -7/25/92
• Measured
D Simulated
Temp (C)
10 15 20
Ol I —
20
40 -
"o.
Q
mn
1 on
i4n
25
30
f"
B"
^
Q ^
n *
n •
RM110 -7/28/92
• Measured
D Simulated
1
9n
40 -
^ Rn
_c
S" 80 -
Q
mn
1 on
140
Temp (C)
0 15 20
DD
_n
D •
J '
i? •
J
nJ'.'
^
,-P
D^ •
RM110 -8/1/92
25 3
• Measured
D Simulated
0
Temp (C)
10 15 20
Ol I A
20 -
AC\
^ Rn
_c
"Q.
Q 5U
mn
1 on
i4n
25
30
n^
q~
DDl
flf
#4
n^?
.0°°
° •
n •
RM110 -7/30/92
• Measured
D Simulated
Temp (C)
10 15 20
Ol I —
*^ Rn
Q
inn
•
c
n
d
25 30
^
#•
^H
n°D
• Measured
D Simulated
RM110 -8/4/92
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation
Pase 27
fl
fl
Ml
4?
-C
'S.
Q
fin
80
inn
120
14D
fl
/
F
Temp (C)
20 25 30
•o !
JP° I
I
'-Jf !
J*
rf .« !
r] w I
nD
n i
n • • Measured I
0 I
D Simulated j
RM1 10 -8/6/92
1
n -i
9D
4D
^ 60 -
-C
o
Q
mn
1 9n
I4n
Temp (C)
0 15 20
I?
°
ff*
UH
D 0
D w
DDD
Q
DD •
RM1 10 -8/1 1/92
25 3
• Measured
D Simulated
0
^
£
'5.
0)
Q
Temp (C)
10 15 20 25 30
Ol I •. I
9D
fin
an
mn
120
14D
f i
8* \
A* I
Hi I
ftp i
n * • Measured |
0 I
D Simulated |
I
RM110 -8/18/92
'5.
0)
Q
Temp (C)
10 15 20
n <
9D
6D
80 -
mn
120 -
i /in
25 30
^ 1
f
§\
fl*
fi
>:
/
D •
• Measured
D Simulated
1
RM1 10 -8/20/92
Temp (C)
10 15 20 25 30
Ol I — . I
9n
AC\
*^ fin
_c
"Q.
Q BU
1 nn
1 on
I4n
0*
5
£
5
*
) • Measured
w n Simulated
RM110 -8/26/92
Temp (C)
10 15 20 25 30
Ol A I
9n
AH
^ 60
S" 80 -
Q
inn
19D
140
^ i
j i
n i
?
i"C
I
J I
3 |
• • Measured j
D Simulated i
i
RM110 -8/29/92
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation
Pase 28
J
s_
.C
"5_
0)
Q
— ^^—
4D
fin
8n
1 00
1 9n
4 Ar\
n
Temp (C)
5 20
25 30
/f
-S
j
a9
RM110 -9/3/92
• Measured
D Simulated
1
n -i
9D
4D
*^ fin
£
m" SO
Q
mn
1 9n
140
Temp (C)
0 15 20 25 3
J
-
B
Q 0
D •
D *
B
p
n* •Measured
D Simulated
RM110 -9/11/92
0
Temp (C)
10 15
n
9n
4n
Q
100
i4n
•
J?
RM1
d*.
20
Cl
25
30
=
=
I
10-
9/1 3/92
• Measured
D Simulated
Temp (C)
10
n
9n
*^ fin
Q.
Q
100 -
120 -
i4n
15
jS
r
=
-
=
^
n
n1!
20
mt. I
25 30
3
»
•
RM110
- 9/1 5/92
• Measured
D Simulated
1
n -i
9n
S 60
£
o
Q
100
1 on
140
1
0 15
1-
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation
Pase 29
10
RM110 -9/29/92
1
n -i
9D
4D
*^ Rn
^
-t-«
S" 80
Q
inn
1 9n
140
0 15
I
1
n
E
=
c
c
fi1
n
D
^ !
RM
Temp (C)
20
A 1
•
|
•
!
»
110 - 10/8/92
25 3
• Measured
D Simulated
0
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation Page 30
Appendix A: Contour Plots of Simulated Temperatures
Notes regarding plots:
The x-axis in the following graphs is distance from Lewiston in miles. Miles 10, 20, and 30 on the plots
correspond to River Mile 130, 120, and 110, respectively.
The y-axis is river depth in meters. Temperatures contours are in degrees Celsius. Contours are drawn for
each 0.5 degree Celsius increment, and contours are labeled at 1 degree Celsius increments.
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation
Pase 31
Day 185-July 4, 1992
24
23.5
23
22.5
22
21.5
21
20.5
2O
1 9.5
1 9
1 8.5
1 8
1 7.5
1 7
18.5
18
1 5.5
1 5
14.5
14
Day 186-July 5, 1992
Day 187-July 6, 1992
Day 188-July?, 1992
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation
Pase 32
Day 189-JulyS, 1992
24
23.5
23
22.5
22
21 .5
21
20.5
2O
1 9.5
19
1 8.5
18
1 7.5
17
18.5
18
1 5.5
15
14.5
14
Day 190-July 9, 1992
Day 191 -July 10, 1992
Day 192-July 11, 1992
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation
Pase 33
Day 193-July 12, 1992
24
23.5
23
22.5
22
21 .5
21
20.5
2O
19.5
19
18.5
18
17.5
17
18.5
18
15.5
15
14.5
14
Day 194-July 13, 1992
Day 195-July 14, 1992
Day 196-July 15, 1992
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation
Pase 34
Day 197-July 16, 1992
24
23.5
23
22.5
22
21 .5
21
20.5
2O
19.5
19
18.5
18
17.5
17
18.5
18
15.5
15
14.5
14
Day 198-July 17, 1992
Day 199-July 18, 1992
Day 200-July 19, 1992
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation
Page 35
Day 201 - July 20, 1992
23.S
23
22.5
22
21 .5
2-\
20.5
2O
19.5
19
18.5
18
17.5
17
18.5
18
15.5
15
14.5
14
Day 202-July 21, 1992
Day 203-July 22, 1992
Day 204 - July 23, 1992
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation
Pase 36
Day 205 - July 24, 1992
24
23.5
23
22.S
22
21 .5
21
2O.S
2O
1 9.5
1 9
1 8.5
1 8
1 7.5
1 7
18.5
18
1 5.5
1 5
14.5
14
Day 206 - July 25, 1992
Day 207 - July 26, 1992
Day 208 - July 27, 1992
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation
Pase 37
Day 209 - July 28, 1992
24
23.5
23
22.5
22
21 .5
21
20.5
2O
19.5
19
18.5
18
17.5
17
18.5
18
15.5
15
14.5
14
Day 210-July 29, 1992
Day 211 - July 30, 1992
Day 212-July 31, 1992
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation
Pase 38
Day 214 - August 2, 1992
24
23.5
23
22.S
22
21 .5
21
2O. S
2O
19.5
19
18.5
18
17.5
17
18.5
18
15.5
15
14.5
14
Day 218 - August 6, 1992
Day 222-August 10, 1992
Day 226-August 14, 1992
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation
Pase 39
Day 230 - August 18, 1992
2.4
23.5
23
22.5
22
21 .5
21
20.5
2O
19.5
19
18.5
18
17.5
17
18.5
18
15.5
15
14.5
14
Day 234 - August 22, 1992
Day 238 - August 26, 1992
/I
Day 242 - August 30, 1992
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation
Pase 40
Day 246 - September 3, 1992
24
23.5
23
22.5
22
21 .5
21
20.5
2O
19.5
19
18.5
18
17.5
17
18.5
18
15.5
15
14.5
14
Day 250 - September 7, 1992
Day 254 - September 11, 1992
Day 258 - September 15, 1992
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation
Page 41
Day 262 - September 19, 1992
24
23.5
23
22.5
22
21 .5
21
20.5
2O
19.5
19
18.5
18
17.5
17
18.5
18
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
Day 266 - September 23, 1992
Day 270 - September 27, 1992
Day 274 - October 1, 1992
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation Page 42
Appendix B: Contour Plots for Powerhouse Release and Spill Release Scenarios
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation
Page 43
Day 185
TOP = Actual, BOTTOM = Spill Scenario
i
24
23.5
23
22.5
22
21 .5
21
20.5
2O
19.5
19
18.5
18
17.5
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
\
Day 189
TOP = Actual, BOTTOM = Spill Scenario
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation
Page 44
Day 193
TOP = Actual, BOTTOM = Spill Scenario
24
23.5
23
22.5
22
21 .5
21
20.5
20
1S.5
1S
18.5
1 8
1 7.5
17
1S.5
1S
15.5
15
14.5
14
Day 197
TOP = Actual, BOTTOM = Spill Scenario
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation
Page 45
Day 201
TOP = Actual, BOTTOM = Spill Scenario
Day 205
TOP = Actual, BOTTOM = Spill Scenario
II
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation Page 46
Appendix C: CE-QUAL-W2 Input Files - Bathymetry and Control Files
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation
Page 47
Lower Granite Geometry
for CE-QUAL-W2
(segment lengths=l mile, thickness=6 ft)
Segment Lengths
1609.3
1609.3
1609.3
1609.3
1609.3
1609.3
1609.3
1609.3
1609
1609
1609
1609
.3
.3
.3
.3
1609.3
1609.3
1609.3
1609.3
1609
1609
1609
1609
.3
.3
.3
.3
1609.3
1609.3
1609.3
1609.3
1609.3
1609.3
1609.3
1609.3
1609.3
1609.3
1609.3
1609.3
1609.3
1609.3
1609.3
W.S. Elevation
224.3
224.3
224.3
224.3
224.3
224.3
224.3
224.3
224
224
224
224
.3
.3
.3
.3
224.3
224.3
224.3
224.3
224
224
224
224
.3
.3
.3
.3
224.3
224.3
224.3
224.3
224.3
224.3
224.3
224.3
224.3
224.3
224.3
224.3
224.3
224.3
224.3
Seg Orientation
1. 6
1. 6
1. 6
1. 6
1. 6
1. 6
1. 6
1. 6
1
1
1
1
. 6
. 6
. 6
. 6
1. 6
1. 6
1. 6
1. 6
1
1
1
1
. 6
. 6
. 6
. 6
1. 6
1. 6
1. 6
1. 6
1. 6
1. 6
1. 6
1. 6
1. 6
1. 6
1. 6
1. 6
1. 6
1. 6
1. 6
Seg Thickness
1.83
1.83
1.83
Segment
.0
. 0
.0
Segment
. 0
.0
. 0
Segment
.0
. 0
.0
Segment
. 0
.0
. 0
Segment
.0
. 0
.0
Segment
. 0
.0
. 0
Segment
.0
166. 6
.0
Segment
. 0
180.2
. 0
Segment
.0
176. 7
1.83
1.83
1.83
1
.0
. 0
.0
2
748.4
.0
. 0
3
515.8
. 0
.0
4
504.5
.0
. 0
5
617.1
. 0
.0
6
452.2
.0
. 0
7
503.0
134.8
.0
8
414.9
146. 6
. 0
9
553.1
133.8
1.
1.
1.
735
504
470
609
442
458
405
511
83
83
83
.0
. 0
.0
.4
.0
. 0
.8
. 0
.0
.2
.0
. 0
.4
. 0
.0
.8
.0
. 0
. 6
. 0
.0
.4
.0
. 0
. 6
. 0
1.83
1.83
1.83
.0
. 0
.0
717 .1
.0
. 0
491.9
. 0
.0
450. 7
.0
. 0
601. 6
. 0
.0
434.4
.0
. 0
395.4
. 0
.0
390.2
.0
. 0
393.9
. 0
1.
1.
690
478
398
594
422
336
345
330
83
83
.0
. 0
.3
.0
. 7
. 0
. 7
.0
.1
. 0
. 7
.0
.0
. 0
. 0
.0
.3
. 0
1.83
1.83
.0
. 0
673.2
.0
467.0
. 0
302.1
.0
527 .2
. 0
411.3
.0
303.3
. 0
308.2
.0
299.2
. 0
1.83
1.83
.0
. 0
484. 6
.0
308. 6
. 0
248.8
.0
440. 6
. 0
350.4
.0
287 .3
. 0
273.1
.0
284.0
. 0
1.83
1.83
.0
. 0
102.3
.0
227 .8
. 0
201.9
.0
276. 7
. 0
316. 7
.0
270.3
. 0
243.9
.0
256.8
. 0
1.83
1.83
.0
. 0
. 0
.0
105.8
. 0
145.2
.0
177 .1
. 0
276.3
.0
246. 6
. 0
218.3
.0
237 .9
. 0
1.83
1.83
.0
. 0
. 0
.0
.0
. 0
. 0
.0
25. 6
. 0
210.8
.0
204.9
. 0
201.3
.0
210.1
. 0
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation
Pase 48
.0 .0
Segment 10
.0 418.5
276.9 148.9
.0 .0
Segment 11
.0 522.5
213.4 179.2
.0 .0
Segment 12
.0 422.2
264.1 247.2
.0 .0
Segment 13
.0 503.9
237.0 212.0
.0 .0
Segment 14
.0 586.6
264.1 232.0
.0 .0
Segment 15
.0 512.5
363.0 345.3
.0 .0
Segment 16
.0 433.4
253.3 238.5
.0 .0
Segment 1 7
.0 468.5
276.6 244.9
.0 .0
Segment 18
.0 431.0
284.4 266.0
.0 .0
Segment 19
.0 434.1
307.8 289.9
.0 .0
Segment 20
.0 516.6
342.8 313.9
.0 .0
Segment 21
.0 651.9
334.6 289.1
.0 .0
Segment 22
.0 658.2
405.1 349.8
.0 .0
.0
407 . 7
.0
. 0
487 . 6
128. 6
.0
395.8
176.9
. 0
484.2
190.2
.0
579. 7
197.1
. 0
504.2
299.3
.0
411. 0
226.9
. 0
460.9
222.8
.0
425.3
244. 7
. 0
426.5
276.3
.0
509. 0
291. 7
. 0
642.2
267 .9
.0
638.9
322. 7
. 0
.
401.
,
440.
83.
•
392.
117.
452.
165.
•
572.
157.
499.
234.
•
401.
215.
447 .
201.
•
417 .
226.
417 .
264.
•
498.
270.
631.
235.
•
618.
287.
0
8
0
0
3
4
0
2
6
0
9
8
0
8
7
0
0
1
0
6
4
0
4
3
0
0
7
0
0
3
0
9
1
0
4
9
0
5
5
0
385.
,
418.
38.
385.
65.
430.
115.
559.
,
493.
159.
390.
199.
425.
180.
408.
207.
406.
252.
488.
239.
609.
198.
590.
260.
0
0
6
3
5
3
8
2
0
0
9
6
8
3
6
0
9
1
6
6
5
5
3
3
9
5
370. 6
.0
354.0
. 0
359.8
.0
402. 7
. 0
421. 0
.0
488.5
103.8
362.8
166.2
398.5
149.2
400.4
184. 7
399.5
235.4
477 .8
195.4
482.5
169.0
564.9
233.9
364.
,
317 .
323.
,
373.
373.
,
473.
342.
82.
371.
110.
388.
148.
392.
184.
464.
143.
445.
145.
529.
181.
4
0
8
0
6
0
1
0
3
0
8
0
0
5
6
1
6
5
9
3
1
7
4
5
8
3
356.
,
297 .
315.
,
333.
348.
,
416.
322.
33.
352.
66.
356.
72.
383.
117 .
445.
86.
422.
113.
492.
114.
9
0
7
0
2
0
1
0
8
0
1
0
9
6
1
7
9
9
5
9
6
1
5
8
6
6
342.
,
280.
290.
,
284.
323.
,
400.
292.
,
321.
319.
,
370.
428.
,
400.
455.
,
9
0
0
0
5
0
6
0
1
0
3
0
9
0
0
0
5
0
5
0
2
0
4
0
4
0
322.
,
241.
278.
,
260.
298.
,
380.
270.
,
302.
298.
,
355.
408.
,
368.
430.
,
3
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
2
0
9
0
5
0
1
0
6
0
1
0
9
0
3
0
4
0
Segment 23
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation
Pase 49
.0
439.1
.0
Segment
. 0
468.9
. 0
Segment
.0
496.2
.0
Segment
. 0
527.0
. 0
Segment
.0
496. 0
.0
Segment
. 0
455. 7
128. 0
Segment
.0
490.3
188. 7
Segment
. 0
387.3
236.8
Segment
.0
784.5
253. 6
Segment
. 0
814.4
250. 0
Segment
.0
832.1
229. 6
Segment
. 0
858. 7
243. 0
Segment
.0
. 0
.0
TITLE C .
677.
416.
•
24
696.
450.
25
716.
481.
•
26
735.
508.
27
703.
479.
•
28
615.
422.
29
700.
445.
91.
30
900.
360.
150.
31
918.
712.
115.
32
933.
787.
83.
33
948.
814.
•
34
958.
845.
202.
35
,
•
5
9
0
7
6
0
0
5
0
5
2
0
0
9
0
3
5
0
5
6
1
7
1
4
9
2
7
8
5
9
9
8
0
9
6
4
0
0
0
657.8
362. 7
.0
678. 0
432.8
. 0
700.0
464.3
.0
723. 7
494.8
. 0
682.5
466.8
.0
603. 0
389.2
. 0
685. 6
383.1
.0
884.1
348. 7
. 0
907 .2
618.4
.0
922. 6
736.8
. 0
938.8
717 .1
.0
951.1
822.3
106.1
.0
. 0
.0
635. 6
332.1
.0
653.2
379.2
. 0
671.0
451.3
.0
688.9
481.4
. 0
663. 7
452.4
.0
592. 6
355.8
. 0
672.3
348.4
.0
854.3
336.2
. 0
894.0
434.2
.0
912.1
690.4
. 0
928.9
702.3
.0
942. 0
815.5
. 0
.0
. 0
.0
Lower
609.4
290. 0
628.5
342.3
648.0
402.2
668. 0
470.8
646. 7
420.3
578.1
324.8
649.2
323. 7
836. 6
321.4
878. 6
391.2
899. 0
614.9
917 .5
691.8
923. 0
780.1
.0
. 0
Granite
.... TITL
585. 7
260. 6
607.0
292.5
628.5
353.4
650.3
440.1
628. 6
379.4
553. 6
310.0
616.2
312.8
804.5
313.9
863.9
371.5
884. 7
429.9
903.5
637 .9
912.3
769.8
.0
. 0
Pool
E
557.8
223.8
584. 7
258.1
609.4
293.8
633.2
366.2
604. 7
323.1
539. 0
298. 6
587.9
304.3
770.9
306.5
850.3
349.1
871.8
377.1
889. 7
527 .1
902. 0
527.5
.0
. 0
521.9
161.1
553.1
211. 6
586.9
252.4
615.3
291.0
576.0
277.8
526. 6
284.9
568.0
296. 0
738.8
297.3
835.2
325.5
856.1
315. 7
875.5
364. 6
890.1
511.1
.0
. 0
484.4
. 0
517 .8
106.0
550.2
175.4
587 . 6
237.8
537.0
236.1
511.8
266.3
546.4
284. 6
693. 7
286. 6
818.8
286. 7
841.2
302.1
856.9
331.2
879.5
497.4
.0
. 0
459.
487 .
,
519.
548.
29.
515.
163.
487 .
225.
521.
255.
618.
269.
802.
276.
829.
289.
844.
316.
869.
477.
,
7
0
2
0
8
0
4
4
8
6
4
2
3
9
8
5
7
8
1
6
1
1
1
6
0
0
Lower Granite (KM 107-140) - Jan.l to Dec.31, 1992
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation
Pase 50
Evenly distributed Clr,Sna inflow, line sink outflow
Default hydraulic coefficients
Default light absorption/extinction coefficients
Temperature simulation - Lewiston weather - Selective Withdrawal
Ben Cope - EPA Region 10
TIME CON
DLT CON
DLT DATE
DLT MAX
DLT FRN
BRANCH G
Br 1
LOCATION
IN IT CND
CALCULAT
INTERPOL
DEAD SEA
ICE COVER
TMSTRT
2. 0
NTD
1
DLTD
1. 0
DLTMAX
3600.0
DLTF
0.85
US
2
LAT
46. 6
T2I
3. 7
VBC
OFF
QINIC
ON
WINDC
ON
ICEC
OFF
TRANSPORT SLTRC
QUICKEST
WSC NUMB
WSC DATE
WSC COEF
HYD COEF
SEL WITH
N STRUC
K BOTTOM
Br 1
SINK TYPE
Br 1
NWSC
1
WSCD
1. 0
WSC
0.0
AX
1. 0
SWC
ON
NSTR
2
KBSW
34
SINKC
LINE
TMEND
365. 0
DLTMIN
1.0
DLTD
DLTMAX
DLTF
DS
34
LONG
117.4
ICEI
0.0
EEC
OFF
TRIC
ON
QINC
ON
SLICEC
DETAIL
THETA
0.55
WINDH
10.0
WSCD
WSC
DX
1. 0
SWC
NSTR
KBSW
15
SINKC
LINE
YEAR
1992
DLTD DLTD
DLTMAX DLTMAX
DLTF DLTF
UHS DHS
0 0
ELBOT
185. 01
WTYPEC
FRESH
MBC WBC
OFF OFF
DTIC HDIC
ON OFF
QOUTC HEATC
ON ON
SLHTC ALBEDO
TERM 0 . 25
WSCD WSCD
WSC WSC
CHEZY CBHE
70.0 7.0E-8
SWC SWC
NSTR NSTR
KBSW KBSW
SINKC SINKC
DLTD DLTD DLTD DLTD DLTD
DLTMAX DLTMAX DLTMAX DLTMAX DLTMAX
DLTF DLTF DLTF DLTF DLTF
NL
2
PQINC EVC PRC
OFF ON OFF
QOUTIC WDIC METIC
ON ON ON
HWICE BICE GICE ICEMIN ICET2
10.0 0.6 0.07 0.05 3.0
WSCD WSCD WSCD WSCD WSCD
WSC WSC WSC WSC WSC
TSED BTHM TINADJ TINST TINE
14.0 0.90 0.0 200.0 300.0
SWC SWC SWC SWC SWC
NSTR NSTR NSTR NSTR NSTR
KBSW KBSW KBSW KBSW KBSW
SINKC SINKC SINKC SINKC SINKC
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation
Pase 51
E STRUC
Br 1
ESTR
202.0
ESTR
220.0
ESTR ESTR ESTR ESTR ESTR ESTR ESTR
W STRUC
Br 1
WSTR
168.0
WSTR
156. 0
WSTR WSTR WSTR WSTR WSTR WSTR WSTR
N OUTLET NOUT NOUT NOUT NOUT NOUT NOUT NOUT NOUT NOUT
0 LAYER KOUT KOUT KOUT KOUT KOUT KOUT KOUT KOUT KOUT
N WDRWAL NWD
0
W SEGMNT IWD
0
IWD IWD IWD IWD IWD IWD IWD IWD
W LAYER KWD
0
KWD KWD KWD KWD KWD KWD KWD KWD
N TRIES NTR
1
TRIE PLACE PQTRC
DISTR
PQTRC PQTRC PQTRC PQTRC PQTRC PQTRC PQTRC PQTRC
TRIE SEG ITR
2
ITR ITR ITR ITR ITR ITR ITR ITR
TRIE TOP ETRT ETRT ETRT ETRT ETRT ETRT ETRT ETRT ETRT
TRIE EOT ETRB ETRB ETRB ETRB ETRB ETRB ETRB ETRB ETRB
DST TRIE
DTRC
OFF
DTRC DTRC DTRC DTRC DTRC DTRC DTRC DTRC
SCR PRINT
SCRC
ON
NSCR
1
SCR DATE
SCRD
1.5
SCRD SCRD SCRD SCRD SCRD SCRD SCRD SCRD
SCR FREQ
SCRF
1. 0
SCRF SCRF SCRF SCRF SCRF SCRF SCRF SCRF
SNAPSHOT LJPC UPRC WPRC TPRC DLTPRC
OFF OFF OFF ON ON
SNP PRINT
SNPC
ON
NSNP
1
NISNP
6
SNP DATE
SNPD
1.5
SNPD SNPD SNPD SNPD SNPD SNPD SNPD SNPD
SNP FREQ
SNPF
1. 0
SNPF SNPF SNPF SNPF SNPF SNPF SNPF SNPF
SNP SEG ISNP ISNP ISNP ISNP ISNP ISNP ISNP ISNP ISNP
5 10 15 20 25 30
PRF PLOT
PRFC
ON
NPRF
1
NIPRF
1
PRF DATE PRFD PRFD PRFD PRFD PRFD PRFD PRFD PRFD PRFD
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation
Pase 52
PRF FREQ
PRF SEG
SPR PLOT
SPR DATE
SPR FREQ
SPR SEG
TSR PLOT
TSR DATE
TSR FREQ
VPL PLOT
1.5
PRFF
1. 0
IPRF
34
SPRC
ON
SPRD
182.0
204. 0
232.0
268.0
SPRF
4.0
2.0
6.0
4.0
ISPR
11
TSRC
ON
TSRD
2. 0
TSRF
1.0
VPLC
OFF
PRFF
IPRF
NSPR
31
SPRD
186.0
206. 0
238.0
272.0
SPRF
1.0
3.0
3.0
9.0
ISPR
21
NTSR
1
TSRD
TSRF
NVPL
0
PRFF
IPRF
NISPR
3
SPRD
187.0
209. 0
241.0
281. 0
SPRF
2.0
2.0
5.0
84.0
ISPR
31
TSRD
TSRF
PRFF PRFF PRFF PRFF PRFF PRFF
IPRF IPRF IPRF IPRF IPRF IPRF
SPRD SPRD SPRD SPRD SPRD SPRD
189.0 191.0 194.0 197.0 199.0 202.0
211.0 213.0 216.0 218.0 223.0 230.0
246.0 254.0 256.0 258.0 260.0 264.0
365. 0
SPRF SPRF SPRF SPRF SPRF SPRF
2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0
2.0 3.0 2.0 5.0 7.0 2.0
8.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0
ISPR ISPR ISPR ISPR ISPR ISPR
TSRD TSRD TSRD TSRD TSRD TSRD
TSRF TSRF TSRF TSRF TSRF TSRF
VPL DATE
VPLD
VPLD
VPLD
VPLD
VPLD
VPLD
VPLD
VPLD
VPLD
VPL FREQ VPLF VPLF VPLF VPLF VPLF VPLF VPLF VPLF VPLF
CPL PLOT CPLC NCPL
OFF 0
CPL DATE CPLD CPLD CPLD CPLD CPLD CPLD CPLD CPLD CPLD
CPL FREQ CPLF CPLF CPLF CPLF CPLF CPLF CPLF CPLF CPLF
RESTART RSOC NRSO RSIC
OFF 0 OFF
RSO DATE RSOD RSOD RSOD RSOD RSOD RSOD RSOD RSOD RSOD
RSO FREQ RSOF RSOF RSOF RSOF RSOF RSOF RSOF RSOF RSOF
CST COMP CCC LIMC SDC CUF
OFF OFF OFF 3
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation
Pase 53
CST ACT
CST ICON
CST PRINT
CIN CON
CTR CON
CDT CON
CPR CON
EX COEF
CO LI FORM
S SOLIDS
ALGAE
ALG RATE
DOM
POM
OM RATE
SEDIMENT
S DEMAND
1
10
19
28
CAC
OFF
OFF
OFF
C2I
30.0
0. 002
0.0
CPRC
OFF
OFF
OFF
CIN AC
OFF
OFF
OFF
CTRAC
OFF
OFF
OFF
CDT AC
OFF
OFF
OFF
CPRAC
OFF
OFF
OFF
EXH20
0.45
COLQ10
1. 04
SSS
1.0
AG
2. 0
ATI
5.0
LDOMDK
0.30
LPOMDK
0.08
OMT1
5. 0
SDK
0.08
SOD
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
CAC
OFF
OFF
OFF
C2I
2.0
0.14
0.1
CPRC
OFF
OFF
OFF
CIN AC
OFF
OFF
OFF
CTRAC
OFF
OFF
OFF
CDT AC
OFF
OFF
OFF
CPRAC
OFF
OFF
OFF
EXSS
0.01
COLDK
1.4
AM
0.10
AT 2
30.0
LRDK
0. 010
POMS
0.30
OMT2
30. 0
FSOD
1.0
SOD
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
CAC
OFF
OFF
OFF
C2I
10.0
1. 0
0.0
CPRC
OFF
OFF
OFF
CIN AC
OFF
OFF
OFF
CTRAC
OFF
OFF
OFF
CDT AC
OFF
OFF
OFF
CPRAC
OFF
OFF
OFF
EXOM
0.1
AE
0. 04
AT 3
35.0
RDOMDK
0. 001
OMK1
0.1
SOD
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
CAC
OFF
OFF
C2I
51.0
0. 0
CPRC
OFF
OFF
CIN AC
OFF
OFF
CTRAC
OFF
OFF
CDT AC
OFF
OFF
CPRAC
OFF
OFF
BETA
0.45
AR
0. 04
AT4
40.0
OMK2
0.99
SOD
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
CAC
OFF
OFF
C2I
0. 7
11.91
CPRC
OFF
OFF
CIN AC
OFF
OFF
CTRAC
OFF
OFF
CDT AC
OFF
OFF
CPRAC
OFF
OFF
AS
0.10
AK1
0.1
SOD
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
CAC
OFF
OFF
C2I
2.022
31. 0
CPRC
OFF
OFF
CIN AC
OFF
OFF
CTRAC
OFF
OFF
CDT AC
OFF
OFF
CPRAC
OFF
OFF
AS AT
100. 0
AK2
0.99
SOD
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
CAC
OFF
OFF
C2I
1.0
0. 0
CPRC
OFF
OFF
CIN AC
OFF
OFF
CTRAC
OFF
OFF
CDT AC
OFF
OFF
CPRAC
OFF
OFF
APOM
0.80
AK3
0.99
SOD
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
CAC
OFF
OFF
C2I
0.1
0. 0
CPRC
OFF
OFF
CIN AC
OFF
OFF
CTRAC
OFF
OFF
CDT AC
OFF
OFF
CPRAC
OFF
OFF
AK4
0.1
SOD
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
CAC
OFF
OFF
C2I
0.001
0. 0
CPRC
OFF
OFF
CIN AC
OFF
OFF
CTRAC
OFF
OFF
CDT AC
OFF
OFF
CPRAC
OFF
OFF
SOD
0.3
0.3
0.3
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation
Pase 54
CBOD
KBOD TBOD RBOD
0.25 1.0147 1.85
PHOSPHOR P04R PARTP AHSP
0.015
1.2 0.003
AMMONIUM NH4R NH4DK AHSN
0.05 0.10 0.014
NH4 RATE NH4T1 NH4T2 NH4K1 NH4K2
5.0 25.0
0.1
0.99
NITRATE N03DK
0. 05
N03 RATE N03T1 N03T2 N03K1 N03K2
5.0 25.0
0.1
0.99
SED C02
C02R
0.1
IRON
FER
0.5
FES
2.0
STOICHMT 02NH4 020M 02AR 02AG BIOP BION
4.57
1.4
1.1
1.4 0.005
0. 08
BIOC
0.45
02 LIMIT 02LIM
0.10
BTH FILE BTHFN.
bth.npt
VPR FILE VPRFN.
ypr.npt - not used
LPR FILE LPRFN.
Ipr. npt - not used
RSI FILE RSIFN.
rsi.npt - not used
MET FILE METFN.
met.npt
QWD FILE.
.QWDFN.
qwd.npt - not used
ELO FILE ELOFN.
elo.npt
QIN FILE QINFN.
Br 1 qin_brl.npt
TIN FILE TINFN.
Br 1 tin brl.npt
CIN FILE CINFN.
Br 1 cin_brl.npt - not used
QOT FILE QOTFN.
Br 1 got brl.npt
QTR FILE QTRFN.
Tr 1 qtr_trl.npt
TTR FILE TTRFN.
Tr 1 ttr trl.npt
-------
Snake River Temperature Evaluation Page 55
CTR FILE CTRFN.
Tr 1 ctr_brl.npt - not used
QDT FILE QDTFN.
Br 1 qdt brl.npt - not used
TDT FILE TDTFN.
Br 1 tdt_brl.npt - not used
CDT FILE CDTFN.
Br 1 cdt brl.npt - not used
PRE FILE PREFN.
Br 1 pre_brl.npt - not used
TPR FILE TPRFN.
Br 1 tpr brl.npt - not used
CPR FILE CPRFN.
Br 1 cpr_brl.npt - not used
EUH FILE EUHFN.
Br 1 euh brl.npt - not used
TUH FILE TUHFN.
Br 1 tuh_brl.npt - not used
CUE FILE CUHFN.
Br 1 euh brl.npt - not used
EDH FILE EDHFN.
Br 1 edh_brl.npt - not used
TDH FILE TDHFN.
Br 1 tdh brl.npt - not used
CDH FILE CDHFN.
Br 1 cdh_brl.npt - not used
SNP FILE SNPFN.
snp. opt
TSR FILE TSRFN.
tsr.opt
PRF FILE PRFFN.
prf. opt
VPL FILE VPLFN.
vpl. opt
CPL FILE CPLFN.
cpl. opt
SPR FILE SPRFN.
spr. op t
------- |