United States            EPA Region 10
Environmental Protection Agency	(OEA-095)	
910-R-03-003
December 2003
 oEPA
 Developing a Temperature Total Maximum Daily
Load  for the   Columbia  and  Snake   Rivers:
Simulation Methods

-------
               vvEPA
Developing a Temperature Total Maximum Daily Load
       for the Columbia and Snake Rivers:
             Simulation Methods
                John Yearsley
                EPA Region 10
              Seattle, Washington

                December 2003

-------
                              Table of Contents



Introduction	1



Model Description	1



Conceptual Approach	2



Model Development	2



  Model Domain	3



  Data Requirements	3



  Parameter Estimation	4



  Model Acceptance	4



TMDL Analysis	5



  \Appendix_A\Forcing_Functions	5



  \Appendix_A\TMDL\Site_Potential	6



  \Appendix_A\TMDL\Point_Sources	8



  \Appendix_A\TMDL\Dam_lmpacts	8



  \Appendix_A\TMDL\Obverse_lmpacts	9



  \Appendix_A\TMDL\Work_Space	9



  \Appendix_A\TMDL\Hourly_Max	10



References	11

-------
List of Figures



Figure 1.  Location map for Columbia TMDL	12



List of Tables



Table 1. Data sources foradvected energy in the Columbia and Snake rivers	13



Table 2. Temperatures monitoring sites in the Columbia River	15



Table 3. Temperatures monitoring sites in the Columbia River	15



Table 4. Meteorological station used to estimate heat budget	16



Table 5. Model performance statistics for RBM10	17



Table 6. Model applications in TMDL	18



Table 7. Point sources of thermal energy in the Columbia River	24



Table 8. Point sources of thermal energy in the Snake River	30

-------
               Developing a Temperature Total Maximum Daily Load
                       for the Columbia and Snakes Rivers:
                               Simulation Methods
                                   Introduction

The States of Idaho, Oregon and Washington and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) are working in coordination with the Columbia Basin Tribes to develop Total Maximum
Daily Loads (TMDL) for Temperature and Total Dissolved Gas (TDG) on the Columbia and
Snake Rivers.

A TMDL for a water body is a document that identifies the amount of a pollutant that the water
body can receive and still meet Water Quality Standards (WQS). A TMDL also allocates
responsibility for reductions in the pollutant load that are necessary to achieve WQS. A TMDL is
required by the Clean Water Act for any stream reaches included by States or Tribes on their
lists of impaired waters required under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. Impaired waters
are those that do not attain State or Tribal Water Quality Standards (WQS).


The Snake River from its confluence with the Salmon River at RM 188 to its confluence with the
Columbia River has been included on the 303(d) list of impaired waters for Temperature and
TDG by Idaho,  Oregon or Washington as appropriate. Oregon and Washington included all of
the Columbia River on their 303(d) lists for TDG and most of the Columbia River on their lists for
Temperature. The Columbia River also exceeds the WQS of the Colville Confederated Tribes
for Temperature and TDG. The Spokane Tribe of Indians has WQS for the Columbia River that
have been adopted by the Tribe but not yet approved by EPA. These standards are also
exceeded in the Columbia River.

The  states of  Idaho, Oregon  and  Washington have  assumed  responsibility for developing
TMDL's for total dissolved gas for their respective waters in cooperation with the dam operators
within their boundaries.  EPA is working with the Colville Tribe and the Spokane Tribes for the
portion of the  dissolved gas TMDL  within reservation  boundaries.    Oregon  DEQ and
Washington DOE will collaborate on the total dissolved gas TMDL for the interstate  portions of
the Columbia River.

The purpose of the Columbia and Snake  River main stem  temperature TMDL is to understand
the sources  of temperature loadings and to allocate those loadings  to meet state and tribal
water quality standards. EPA Region 10 is the technical lead for the temperature TMDL.  EPA
Region  10 has chosen the  mathematical  model, RBM10,  developed  by EPA Region  10
(Yearsley et al, 2001)  as the technical basis for developing a TMDL for temperature for the
Snake/Columbia Main stem.

                                Model Description

RBM10  (Yearsley et  al, 2001) is a dynamic, one-dimensional  model  that  simulates water
temperature  using the  energy  budget method.    It was  originally  developed  to  perform a

-------
temperature assessment of the Snake  River from Lewiston, Idaho to its confluence with the
Columbia and of the Columbia River from Grand Coulee Dam to Bonneville Dam.  The model
implements  a  mixed Eulerian-Lagrangian method  for solving  the  dynamic energy budget
equation. The model uses reverse particle tracking to locate the starting point of a water parcel
at each computational time step.  The water temperature at the starting point of each time step
for a parcel  is  determined by polynomial interpolation of simulated temperatures stored  on a
fixed grid.  The energy budget method (Wunderlich and Gras, 1967) is used to simulate the time
history of temperature as the parcel moves from its starting point at time, t-At, to ending point at
time, t.   Kalman filtering is used to account for uncertainty in the water temperature data  used
to develop the model.

                              Conceptual Approach

One-dimensional models have been used to assess water temperature in the Columbia River
system for a number of important environmental analyses.  The Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration developed and applied a one-dimensional thermal energy  budget model to the
Columbia River as  part of the Columbia River Thermal Effects Study (Yearsley, 1969).  The
Bonneville Power Administration and others  used HEC-5Q, a one-dimensional water quality
model, to  provide  the temperature assessment  for the  Columbia  River System  Operation
Review (BPA, 1994). Normandeau Associates (1999) used a one-dimensional model to assess
temperature conditions in the Lower Snake River for the US Army Corps of Engineers.  Perkins
and Richmond  (2001) used the one-dimensional temperature model,  MASS1, to simulate both
the impounded and  unimpounded Snake rivers.

The water quality standards for most of the subject river reaches are written so as to limit the
increase  in  water  temperatures  as a result of human  activities (Washington  WQS)  or
anthropogenic activities (Oregon WQS). This requires an estimate of temperature conditions in
the absence of the human activities. The conceptual approach used in the development of the
temperature TMDL is based on the notion that the effect of "human activities" can be estimated
by simulating conditions  in the unimpounded  river segments with no point sources present.
These results can then be used to determine the impacts of human activities associated with
hydroelectric  projects,  water  withdrawals  and  point source  discharges.   An  important
assumption in this approach is that impacts of "human activities" on water temperature outside
the geographical limits of this analysis will be addressed by other TMDL's or water quality plans;
that water quality and quantity at the boundaries of this TMDL are the result of existing
upstream activities.
                                Model Development

Much of the model development was done in the problem assessment phase of the TMDL and
is described in Yearsley et al (2001).  Although the basic mathematical structure of the model
was not changed, the model framework was changed in a number of ways to accommodate the
needs of the TMDL.

-------
Model Domain

 The Columbia River and the Snake River (Figure 1) are listed by the states of Oregon and
Washington  as  water-quality limited under Section 303(d)  of  the Clean  Water Act.   Listed
segments of these rivers in the model domain for the TMDL include the Columbia River from the
International Boundary (Columbia River Mile 745.0) to the Pacific Ocean near Astoria, Oregon
and the Snake River from its confluence with the Salmon River (Snake River Mile 188.2) to its
confluence with the  Columbia River near Pasco,  Washington (Columbia  River Mile  324.0). In
addition, the Clearwater River from Orofino, Idaho (Clearwater River Mile 44.6) to its confluence
with the Snake River near Lewiston, Idaho (Snake River Mile 139.3) was included in the model
domain.  The Clearwater River was included because of the  influence releases from Dworshak
Dam on the  North  Fork of  the Clearwater have  on water  temperatures of the Snake  River
downstream from Lewiston.  Although the Clearwater is not listed as water-quality limited under
Section  303(d), it may have  an important role in any implementation plans  developed from the
TMDL.

Major tributaries to the Columbia River and Snake River (Table 1) are included in the model
domain  simply as point source inputs. That is the temperatures are  not simulated, rather the
advected energy is treated as data input.  While  some of these tributaries  are listed as water-
quality limited for temperature, any improvement in temperature that may  result from TMDL's
written for these segments is not considered in this analysis.  There are two reasons for this.
The size of these tributaries is such that their impact on the  well-mixed  temperature of the
Columbia is  small.  Furthermore, any temperature improvement in the development of TMDL's
on the tributaries will be included  in the interpretation of the  States' water quality standards as
described below.

Data Requirements

Data requirements for simulating water temperatures with RBM10 include the following

   •  The speed of the parcel along its characteristic path and the geometric properties of the
       river  are  estimated  from  functional relationships between  flow  and geometry.  A
      gradually  varied, steady flow model  (USACE-HEC 1995)  is used to establish the
      functional relationships between flow and geometry. The basic data needed to establish
      these relationships are depth as a function of width at various cross-sections.   For the
       purposes  of the TMDL, data of this type were acquired from a number of sources as
      described in Yearsley et al (2001).

   •  The energy budget is developed from meteorological data. The data  are wind speed, dry
       bulb temperature, relative  humidity (or similar measure of water content), cloud cover,
      and station pressure as a function of time.
   •   Advected thermal energy is  defined  by the  stream flow and water temperature of
       headwaters, tributaries and points sources.

-------
Parameter Estimation

The  basic model framework for the TMDL was developed in the problem assessment and
described  in Yearsley et al  (2001).  In  the  problem  assessment the parameter estimation
process was implemented using a smaller model domain and water temperature data from the
period  1990-1994.   For  the TMDL, the parameter estimates were updated  using the larger
model domain and water temperature data from the period 1995-1999.  The water temperature
data are from monitoring sites below the dams  and appear to be of higher quality and more
representative of well-mixed river temperatures.  Station descriptions for the Columbia and
Snake  rivers are given in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.  The only parameter estimated was the
coefficient, Ke, in the relationship describing the rate of heat transfer due to evaporation
where,

       qevap = the heat flux across the air-water interface due to evaporation,

       p    = the density of water,

       L    = the latent heat of vaporization,

       ew   = the saturated vapor pressure at the water surface temperature,

       ea   = the vapor pressure of the air above the water.
The energy budget for the model domain of the TMDL analysis is characterized by five different
meteorological provinces as described above (Table 4). The coefficient, Ke, was treated as a
variable for each meteorological province. The parameter estimation process was designed to
select the set of coefficients, Ke ,  that resulted in the minimum  mean squared difference,
between simulated and observed for the monitoring sites shown in Table 5.

Model Acceptance

Statistics used to assess performance of the one-dimensional mathematical model, RBM10, are
similar  to those described  as appropriate for temperature models (Bartholow,  1989)  and
recommended by van  der  Heijde  and Elnawawy  (1992)  in  EPA's guidance  for selecting
groundwater models.  The performance measures calculated for the TMDL simulations include:

Mean Difference
       n
       "-"mean
                   . .

-------
Absolute Mean Difference


              N
              YI T   -T   I
              £-11  sim  ' obs I
       Damd = —
                   N
Root-Mean-Squared Difference
                    N
where,

       N   = the number of matched pairs of simulated and observed temperatures,

       Tsim = the simulated temperature at the time of the nth observation

       Tobs = the observed temperature.
The model  performance statistics for the five-year (1995-1999) simulation period are given in
Table 5.

                                   TMDL Analysis

Several types of simulations were used in the development of the temperature TMDL for the
Columbia and Snake rivers.   Table 6 gives a summary of the simulation types.  Simulation
results are reported at the compliance points as described in the TMDL .  The compliance points
are just downstream from hydroelectric projects or,  in the case of the unimpounded portion of
the Columbia River below  Bonneville Dam, the compliance points are generally downstream
from  major  discharges.  All the data and model source codes for developing the  TMDL are on
the data CD (Appendix A).
The following discussion describes the contents of the directories on the data CD.    The
computer programs and data files can be used to reproduce all the results used in the Final
Draft Temperature TMDL for the Columbia and Snake rivers.  Each of the headings below is the
name of a  directory on the data  CD, Appendix A.  File and directory names are given in
boldface.

\Appendix_A\Forcing_Functions

The files containing thirty-year record (1970 through 1999) of energy inputs to the system are
stored in this directory. Thermal energy inputs to the river system are from advected sources
(main stem  boundaries and tributaries) and heat transfer across the air-water interface.
                                          5

-------
Advected thermal energy from tributaries and main stem boundaries are estimated from river
flow and water temperatures. Data for advected thermal energy were obtained from the
sources shown in Tables 2 and 3. Missing water temperature data were filled by linear
interpolation when data gaps were of the order of a week or less.  For larger gaps, a lag-one
Markov model was used to fill in missing data.

Heat transfer across the air-water interface is estimated from the meteorological data.
Meteorological data from six weather stations are used to estimate the energy budget for the
TMDL. The weather stations used in the TMDL and the segments of river are defined  in
Table 4. Weather data for these stations are in the directory,\Appendix_A\Meteorology\.  Only
three of the weather stations, Lewiston, Portland and Yakima, are primary stations, ones where
all the required meteorological variables are  measured and reported.  The other three weather
stations, Coulee Dam, Wenatchee and Richland, report only air temperature. The remaining
meteorological data for these stations was synthesized from the the primary station as shown in
Table 4. The energy budget files were created in the folder, ..\System_iv\setup, using the
programs, build_heat.exe, and energy.exe.  The source code for build_heat.exe, and
energy.exe has hard-wired coding that looks for weather data in specific directories. The code
should be modified to ensure that the pathways specified in the  coding are correct for the
particular application   The output files with energy budget  are named, CityName.budget.avg,
as in,  Portland.budget.avg.

The file with thermal energy from advective sources (main stem boundary conditions and
tributaries) is named, No_Ocean.advect.  The file with elevation data is named,
No_Ocean.elev. These files were created in the folder, ..\System_iv\setup using the program,
start_iv.exe in conjunction with the control file. no_ocean.control. These advection and
elevation files were used as the forcing functions for all the  scenarios simulated for the TMDL.
\Appendix_A\TMDL\Site_Potential

The framework for implementing the State of Washington's water quality standards is
constructed around the concept of "site potential."  Site potential, in the case of the temperature
TMDL, is defined as the daily-averaged, cross-sectional average temperature that would result
in the absence of impoundments and discharges of thermal energy from municipal and
industrial point sources as well as from various nonpoint sources. As described above,  those
impacts on the thermal energy budget external to the defined boundaries of the temperature
TMDL are considered to be part of site potential.  These impacts include those changes in flow
and temperature at the boundaries of the TMDL resulting from human activities.  Non-stationary
impacts on climate such as global warming from  industrial carbon dioxide production may also
be present in site potential as defined and realized with the inputs described below. Site-
potential is not, therefore, the temperature of the river prior to human  development. Rather it is
the temperature that would result in the absence of major human activities in  the listed river
segments.

Human activities in  the existing river system configuration that have altered the thermal  regime
of the Columbia and Snake rivers are:

-------
    1.  Construction of impoundments for hydroelectric facilities and navigational locks, which
       increase the time waters of the Columbia and Snake are exposed to high summer
       temperatures, increase the surface area exposed energy transfer across the air-water
       interface and change the system's thermal response time.

    2.  Discharge of thermal energy from industrial and municipal point sources and agricultural
       and urban nonpoint sources

    3.  Hydrologic modifications to the natural river system to generate electricity, provide
       irrigation water for farmlands, and facilitate navigation.

    4.  Modifications of the watershed by urban development and agricultural and silvicultural
       practices that reduce riparian vegetation, increase sediment loads, and change stream
       or river geometry.


The TMDL focuses on those activities associated with the construction of impoundments,
thermal discharges from point and nonpoint sources and, implicitly, on the effects of hydrologic
modifications.  The TMDL's developed for the listed tributaries of the Columbia and Snake
rivers should develop water quality plans that address thermal effects of modifications of the
watershed.

The impacts of impoundments on the thermal regime of the Columbia and Snake rivers are due
to both the change in river geometry and to operation of the hydroelectric facilities. All of the
hydroelectric projects within the model domain, with the exception of Grand Coulee Dam, are
run-of-the  river projects.  That is, the projects are operated such that approximately all the water
entering the reservoir is passed through the reservoir and released.  As a result, the water level
in these reservoirs fluctuates very little. This does not mean the effects of the operation do not
have ecological impacts. It is well known, for example, that daily fluctuations  in tailwater
elevations at Priest Rapids affect spawning and rearing habitat of fall Chinook and can cause
stranding of juvenile fish in the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River (Tiffan, 2003).  However,
the impact of these operations on the daily-averaged, cross-sectional average temperature is
small.  The major impact on the daily-average, cross-section water temperature is due to the
increase in width and depth resulting from the construction and operation of the impoundment.

Flood control is an operational feature of Lake Roosevelt, the reservoir behind Grand Coulee
Dam. As a result, the fluctuations in reservoir elevation are significant. Therefore, simulations
of water temperature for the existing conditions include the effects of storage  for this project.

Point source inputs for the TMDL analysis are based on permit numbers provided by the State
of Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the State of Washington's
Department of Ecology (DOE).  The energy  inputs associated with these sources are given in
Table 8. Major discharges are shown individually while smaller discharges are aggregated and
shown as aggregated sources at the end of certain river reaches.  In addition, a 20 megawatt
allowance of thermal energy is provided at each compliance point for general permits, general
permit includes impacts from stormwater discharge


The model domain for simulating site potential was created with the hydraulic properties in

                                           7

-------
the file crtes.model.input.no_dams in the directory.  A 30-year period of site potential
temperatures were simulated for the model domain using hydrologic data and weather data for
the period 1970 through 1999 and output to the files, Columbia.no_dams.avg and
Snake.no_dams.avg for the Columbia River and the Snake River, respectively.

 A 30-year period of daily cross-sectionally averaged temperatures for existing conditions were
simulated for the model domain using hydrologic data and weather data for the period 1970
through 1999 using the executable rbm10_iii.exe.  The control file used for simulating existing
conditions is crtes.model.input.dams.  The simulation results were output to the files,
Columbia.dams.avg and Snake.dams.avg for the Columbia River and the Snake River,
respectively.


 \Appendix_A\TMDI_\Point_Sources

The impact of point sources at compliance points was simulated by comparing the simulated
results from existing conditions, described above, with those same conditions when permitted
thermal sources are removed.  Environmental forcing functions and parameters were the same
as those used for simulations of site potential and existing conditions. The basic source code
for RBM10 was modified to accommodate the addition of point sources. The source code is in
..\Model_iii_pnt\rbm10_iii and is named rbm10_pnt.f.  The executable is named
rbm10_iii_pnt.exe.

Simulations were performed  in two directories,  ..\Existing_Sources and ..\Zero_Discharge
using rbm10_iii_pnt.exe (point source version) in conjuncton with the control file,
crtes.model.input.dams. The Fortran source code, rbm10_iii_pnt.f, in the directory,
..\Existing_Sources, differs  slightly from that in the directory, ..\Zero_Discharge.  The
difference is due to hardwired coding that ignores point sources in the directory,
..\Zero_Discharge. The source code for each version is stored in the appropriate directory.
This version of the control file has also been modified to accommodate the point sources.
Simulated results are output  at the compliance points as,
..\Existing_Sources\Columbia_Exist.RM_xxx,  ..\Zero_Discharge\Columbia_Zero.RM_xxx,
..\Existing_Sources\Snake_Exist.RM_xxx,    ..\Zero_Discharge\Snake_Zero.RM_xxx,
where "xxx" is the river mile  of the compliance point.  The directory labeled, Existing_Sources,
incorporates the thermal loadings associated with the point sources, while the directory labeled,
Zero_Discharge, simulated the impounded system with no thermal discharges from point
sources.
\Appendix_A\TMDI_\Dam_lmpacts

The effect of adding individual hydroelectric projects to the unimpounded river was simulated by
starting with the river systems in their present configuration of hydroelectric projects.
Simulations of the system were then performed by changing, one hydroelectric project at a time,
the hydraulic coefficients of the portion of the river upstream of the dam from freely-flowing river
type to reservoir type. This assumes that the  impounded section of the river associated with a
specific hydroelectric project will not affect the hydraulic characteristics of the unimpounded

                                          8

-------
river both upstream and downstream of the of the project being evaluated.   Environmental
forcing functions and parameters were the same as those used for other simulations. Results
are in,..\DamName\, where "DamName" is the name of the hydroelectric project.

Simulations were performed with the same forcing functions used for other scenarios and the
version of the source code used for the characterization of site potential. The version of the
source code is labeled, rbm10_ iii.f, in the directory, ..\Model_lll\rbm_iii\Original_Code. The
executable associated with this source code, rbm10_iii.exe, was used in conjunction with
control file for each each dam and labeled crtes.model.final.nnn, where, nnn, is the symbol for
the specific  dam as in the example, crtes.model.final.BON, the file containing simulated effect
of adding Bonneville Dam to the unimpounded river.
\Appendix_A\TMDI_\Obverse_lmpacts

For purposes of the TMDL, the impact of individual dams was simulated by changing, one
project at a time, the hydraulic properties of the reservoir behind the dam to hydraulic properties
representing the freely-flowing river. As in the case above where individual dams were added to
the natural river system, this set of scenarios assumes that the hydraulic properties of the freely-
flowing river will not be affected significantly by hydroelectric projects upstream or downstream
from the one being evaluated. Environmental forcing functions and parameters were the same
as those used for other simulations. Results are in,..\DamName\, where "DamName" is the
name of the hydroelectric project.

Simulations were performed with the same forcing functions used for other scenarios and the
version of the source code used for the characterization of site potential. The version of the
source code is labeled, rbm10_ iii.f, in the directory, ..\Model_lll\rbm_iii\Original_Code. The
executable associated with this source code, rbm10_iii.exe, was used in conjunction with
control file for each each dam and labeled DamName.Obverse, where, DamName, is the
symbol for the specific dam as in the example, Bonneville, for Bonneville Dam.

Output for the simulations in the Columbia and Snake rivers is to files named
RiverName.nnn.Obv. RiverName is either Columbia or Snake and nnn, is the symbol for the
specific dam as in the example, Columbia.BON.Obv, for the file with the simulated effects  of
removing Bonneville Dam from the impounded river.
 \Appendix_A\TM DL\Work_Space

The software that implements RBM10, the time-dependent, one-dimensional energy budget
model, was modified such that simulated results could be compared to the water quality
standards of Washington and Oregon. The reference data sets used for making comparisons
were the simulations based on site potential (COLUMBIA.NO_DAMS.AVG and
SNAKE.NO_DAMS.AVG).  The modified program is named RBM10_TMDL.F and is located in
the directory \Appendix_A\TMDL\Work_Space\RBM_TMDL.

-------
Several TMDL scenarios were evaluated using the RBM10 model framework. 21 of these
scenarios, including the scenario used for the draft final TMDL are in the directory,
\Appendix_A\TMDI_\Work_Space\TMDI__final. All but the scenario used for the draft final
TMDL, Scenario_21a, are archived in the compressed file, Scenario_Archive.zip. A brief
description of the 21 scenarios is in the document,
\Appendix_A\TMDL\Work_Space\Work_Space_log.doc.

The first step in the TMDL was to allocate loads to the permitted discharges. The simulations of
point sources described above provided estimates showing that the far-field temperature effects
of permitted discharges did not exceed the water quality standards of the states of Oregon and
Washington. The point sources were, therefore, allocated thermal loads based on their
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. The allocations for the
dams were determined from the results of the obverse impacts analysis.  That is, each dam was
allocated a temperature change based on the daily-averaged difference between simulated
results for the existing system and the results when the particular dam was removed from the
system.  The file containing the allocations is named "DELTA.TMDL".  The results were
compared with the water quality standards of the states or Oregon and Washington to assure
compliance.
\Appendix_A\TMDL\Hourly_Max

Hourly water temperatures in the Columbia and Snake rivers were simulated using hourly
meteorological data and daily averaged temperature and flow data. Hourly simulations were
performed for calendar years 1992 and 1997 and the results saved in the directory,
\Appendix_A\TMDL\Hourly_Max\Results. The forcing functions for advection and energy
transfer across the air-water interface are the advection file, No_Ocean.advect, and
meteorological data files CityName.199x.hourly, where "CityName" is the name of the
weather station "x" is either "2" or "7", as in the example, Lewiston.1992.hourly.

The source code, rbm10_iii.f, is the same as that used to develop the site potential.
                                         10

-------
                                     References

Bartholow, J. M.  1989. Stream temperature investigations—Field and analytic methods.
   Instream Flow and Info. Paper No. 13. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Bonneville Power Administration et al.  1994. Columbia River system operation review.
   Appendix M, Water quality. DOE/EIS-0170. Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Army
   Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Portland, Oregon.

Normandeau Associates.  1999. Lower Snake River temperature and biological productivity
   modeling.  R-16031.007. Preliminary review draft. Prepared for the Department of the Army,
   Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla, Washington.

Perkins, W.A.  and M.C. Richmond. 2001. Long-term, one-dimensional simulation of Lower
   Snake River temperatures for current and unimpounded conditions.  Battelle Pacific
   Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. 86 pp.

Tiffan, K. 2003.  Evaluation of the effect of water management on  Fall Chinook spawning and
   rearing habitat and on stranding of juvenile Fall Chinook in the  Hanford Reach of the
   Columbia River. http://wfrc.usgs.gov/research/fish%20populations/STRondorf8.htm viewed on
   10/16/2003.

USACE-HEC (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers).  1995.  HEC-RAS: River analysis system. U.S.
   Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, California.

Van de Heijde, P.K.M. and O.A. Elnawawy. 1992. Quality assurance and quality control in the
   development and application of ground-water models.  EPA/600/R-93/011.  US
   Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Ada, Oklahoma.
   68pp.

Wunderlich, W.O., and R. Gras. 1967. Heat and mass transfer between a water surface  and
   the atmosphere. Tennessee Valley Authority, Division of Water Cont. Planning, Norris,
   Tennessee

Yearsley, J.R. 1969.  A mathematical model for predicting temperatures in rivers and river-run
   reservoirs. Working Paper No.  65, Federal Water Pollution Control Agency, Portland,
   Oregon.

Yearsley, J., D. Kama, S. Peene and B. Watson. 2001.  Application of a 1-D heat budget model
   to the Columbia River system.  Final report 901-R-01-001 by the U.S. Environmental
   Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington
                                         11

-------
    CnliHHtxa - ilake Hl^cr IMUt
          <(,„,,.,,.. i ,,/iil, TDMI
          1 1(7

      "  0«n

       ^  Location? E«£««Jltn9
          W«tcrQudily Criteria
                                                                                             1->
                                                                        V  - S
                                                                               _
        't~^""^
         Psrlland
Figure 1.  Location map for Columbia TMDL
                                                     12

-------
Table 1. Data sources for advected energy in the Columbia and Snake rivers

Salmon River at White Bird,
Idaho
Grande Ronde River at Troy,
Oregon
Snake River near Anatone,
Washington
Clearwater River at Orofino,
Idaho
North Fork Clearwater at
Dworshak Dam
Tucannon near Starbuck,
Washington
Palouse River near Hooper,
Washington
Columbia River at the
International Boundary
Kettle River near Laurier,
Washington
Colville River at Kettle Falls,
Washington
Spokane River at Long Lake
Feeder Canal at Grand Coulee,
Washington
Okanogan River at Malott,
Washington
Methow River near Pateros,
Washington
Wenatchee River at Monitor,
Washington
Crab Creek near Moses Lake,
Washington
Yakima River at Kiona,
Washington
Walla Walla River at Touchet,
Washington
Umatilla River near Umatilla,
Oregon
John Day River at McDonald
Ferry, Oregon
Data Sources
Flow
USGS 13317000
USGS 13333000
USGS 13334300
USGS 13340000
DART Site DWR
USGS 13344500
USGS 13351000
USGS 12399500
USGS 12404500
USGS 12409000
USGS 12433000
USGS 12435500
USGS 12447200
USGS 12449950
USGS 12462500
USGS 12467000
USGS 12510500
USGS 14018500
USGS 14033500
USGS 14048000
Temperature
USGS 133 17000
Washington DOE 35C070
USGS 13334300; DART Site
ANQW
USGS 13340000
DART Site DWR
Washington DOE 35B060
Washington DOE 34A070
DART Site CIBW
Washington DOE 59A070
Washington DOE 60A070
USGS 12433000
	
Washington DOE 49A070
Washington DOE 48A070
Washington DOE 45A070
Washington DOE 41A070
Washington DOE 37A090
USGS 14018500
USGS 14033500
Oregon DEQ 404065
                                      13

-------
Table 1 (continued). Data sources for advected energy on the main stem Columbia and
Snake Rivers
Deschutes River at Moody, near
Biggs, Oregon
Klickitat River
Hood River
Sandy below Bull Run Reservoir,
Oregon
Willamette River at Portland,
Oregon
Lewis River at Ariel, Washington
Cowlitz River at Castle Rock,
Oregon
USGS 14103000
USGS 141 05700
USGS 14120000
USGS 14142500
USGS 14211720
USGS 14220500
USGS 14243000
Oregon DEQ 402081
USGS 141 13000
Oregon DEQ 402081
Oregon DEQ 402349
Constrained to Columbia River
Oregon DEQ 402081
Oregon DEQ402081
                                      14

-------
Table 2. Temperatures monitoring sites in the Columbia River
Station
Bonneville Dam tailwater
The Dalles Dam tailwater
John Day Dam tailwater
McNary Dam tailwater-Washington
Priest Rapids tailwater
Wanapum Dam tailwater
Rock Island Dam tailwater
Rocky Reach Dam tailwater
Wells Dam tailwater
Chief Joseph Dam tailwater
Grand Coulee Dam tailwater
Station
Identifier
BON
TDDO
JHAW
MCPW
PRXW
WANW
RIGW
RRDW
WELW
CHQW
GCGW
Station Description
Columbia RM 146: Right end
of spillway near center of dam
Columbia RM 190: Left bank
one mile d/s of dam
Columbia RM 215: Dam
tailwater Right bank of river
Columbia RM 291: Dam
Tailwater Right bank of river
Columbia RM 396: Tailwater
D/s of dam
Columbia RM 415: Tailwater
D/s of dam
Columbia RM 452: Tailwater
D/s of dam
Columbia RM 472 Tailwater
D/s of dam
Columbia RM 514: Tailwater
D/s of dam
Columbia RM 545: Tailwater
D/s of dam
Columbia RM 590: Six miles
D/s of dam
Table 3. Temperatures monitoring sites in the Columbia River
Station
Ice Harbor Dam tailwater
Lower Monumental Dam tailwater
Little Goose Dam tailwater
Lower Granite Dan tailwater
Station
Identifier
IDSW
LMNW
LGSW
LGNW
Station Description
Snake RM 6.8: Right bank
15, 400 feet d/s of dam
Snake RM 40.8: Left bank
4, 300 feet d/s of dam
Snake RM 69.5:Right bank
3, 900 feet d/s of dam
Snake RM 106.8: Right bank
3, 500 feet d/s of dam
                                      15

-------
Table 4.  Meteorological station used to estimate heat budget
 Station Name    Station #
                              Station Type
                 Station Used to
                 Synthesize
               River Segments
 Lewiston, Idaho   WBAN 24149


                WBAN 24229


                WBAN 24157


                WBAN 24243


                NCDC451767
Portland,
Oregon

Spokane,
Washington

Yakima,
Washington
Coulee Dam
 Richland
 Wenatchee
               NCDC457015
               NCDC 459074
Surface Airways

Surface Airways


Surface Airways


Surface Airways

Local
Climatological
Data
Local
Climatological
Data
Local
Climatological
Data
Spokane
Yakima
Spokane
               Snake RM 0.0-188.0
               Clearwater RM 0-42.0

               Columbia RM 0.0-1245.5
               Columbia RM 292.0-453.4
Columbia RM 738.0 - 596.5
Columbia RM 292.0-145.5
Columbia RM 596.5-453.4
                                              16

-------
Table 5. Model performance statistics for RBM10
 Columbia River
#       of
Samples
Absolute
Mean
Difference
Average     RMS         Standard
Difference   Difference     Deviation
Grand Coulee
Chief Joseph
Wells
Rocky Reach
Rock Island
Wanapum
Priest Rapids
McNary
John Day
The Dalles
Bonneville
1150
678
348
512
534
889
773
1222
666
703
493
0.73
1.05
0.52
0.67
0.64
0.81
0.78
0.56
0.46
0.43
1.07
-0.08
0.81
0.40
0.57
0.53
0.05
-0.09
-0.34
0.02
0.06
-0.59
0.97
1.46
0.70
0.86
0.85
1.25
1.03
0.72
0.59
0.54
1.36
0.94
1.46
0.32
0.42
0.43
1.56
1.06
0.40
0.35
0.29
1.49
 Snake River
 Lower Granite
 Little Goose
 Lower
 Monumental
 Ice Harbor
1144
746
819
1222
0.83
0.77
0.73
0.78
-0.64
-0.29
-0.19
-0.30
1.03
1.13
0.93
0.93
0.65
1.19
0.82
0.78
                                         17

-------
Table 6. Model applications in TMDL
 RBM10
 Application
Model Setup
Output Files
Findings
 1. Site Potential
  Temperature
Daily Time Step
Un-impounded River
Existing tributary/boundary inflows

No point sources
Columbia.no_dams.avg
Snake.no_dams.avg
Temperatures exceed numeric
criteria (e.g., 20 deg C in lower
Columbia) in absence of
human activity on mainstems
 2. Actual
  Temperature
Daily Time Step
Impounded River
Existing tributary/boundary inflows

All point sources
Columbia.dams.avg
Snake.dams.avg
Actual temperatures are higher
than site potential
temperatures in late
summer/fall
(e.g., 3.5 deg C warmer at
John Day dam)
 3. Point Source
  Cumulative
  Impacts
Daily Time Step
Impounded River
Existing tributary/boundary inflows

Point Sources - 2 scenarios
 Scenario  1: No  point sources
 Scenario 2: All point sources
 .\Zero_Discharge\

  Columbia_Zero.RM_xxx

  Snake_Zero.RM_xxx

 AExisting_Sources\

  Columbia_Exist.RM_xxx

  Snake Exist.RM xxx
Maximum, cumulative point
source impact less than 0.14
degC.
 4.  Individual
    Dam Impacts
Daily Time Step
Impounded River
Existing tributary/boundary inflows

All point sources
Dams -16 scenarios -
 Scenario 1: all dams included
 Scenarios 2-16:  one dam removed
and effects evaluated
                                                      . AO bve rse_l m pacts

                                                        Columbia.nnn.Obv

                                                        Snake.nn.Obv
                                                             18
                                  Maximum temperature
                                  increases due to dams range
                                  from 0.1 deg C (Rock Island)
                                  to 6.2 deg C (Grand Coulee)

-------
19

-------
Table 6 (continued). Model Applications Used in Development of TMDL
 RBM10
 Application
Model Setup
Outputs
Findings
 5. TMDL Target
   Temperatures
Daily Time Step
Un-impounded River
Existing tributary/boundary inflows

All point sources

Dams - 2 seasons:
 Aug-Oct
Mean daily effect from 5 dams (Wells,
Rocky Reach, Rock Island, Priest
Rapids, and The Dalles), zero effect
from remaining dams

 Nov-Feb
Mean daily effect from 5 dams (Wells,
Rocky Reach, Rock Island, Priest
Rapids, and The Dalles), 0.12 deg C
effect from remaining dams
                                                      .\TMDL_Final\Scenario_21 a\

                                                       Columbia_TMDL.RM_xxx

                                                       Snake TMDL.RM xxx
                                  This model setup represents a
                                  fully allocated temperature
                                  increment, based on
                                  compliance with standards at
                                  RM42
 6. Diurnal
 Fluctuation
Hourly time step
Impounded and Un-impounded
Existing tributary/boundary inflows
 .\Hourly_max\Results
  Columbia.no_dams.yyyy.hourly
  Columbia.dams.yyyy.hourly
  Snake.no_dams.yyyy.hourly
  Snake.dams.yyyy.hourly
                                                            20
Greater diurnal fluctuations in
un-impounded river than
impounded river

-------
21

-------
22

-------
23

-------
Table 7. Point sources of thermal energy in the Columbia River
 Facility

 Avista - Kettle Falls
 Grand Coulee - Chief
 Joseph
 Grand Coulee Dam
 Grand Coulee
 City of Coulee Dam
 Chief Joseph-Wells
 Chief Joseph Dam
 Bridgeport STP
 Brewster
 Patterns STP
 Wells - Rocky Reach
 Wells Dam
 Wells Hydro Project
 Chelan STP
 Entiat STP
 Rocky Reach - Rock Island
 Rocky Reach Dam
 Tree Top
 Naumes Processing
 Columbia  Cold Storage
 E Wenatchee STP
 KB Alloys
 Specialty Chemical
 Alcoa Wenatchee
 Rock Island - Wanapum
 Rock Island
 Rock Island West
 Powerhouse
 Vantage STP
 Wanapum - Priest Rapids
 Priest Rapids - McNary
 Columbia Generating Sta
 Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc
 Richland STP
 Baker Produce
 Twin City Foods
 Kennewick
 Pasco
River
Mile
702.4

596.6
596.6
596.0

545.1
543.7
529.8
524.1
515.8
515.0
503.5
485.0
474.9
470.8
470.5
466.3
465.7
458.5
456.3
455.2

453.4
453.4
420.6

351.8
347.0
337.1
329.2
328.3
328.0
327.6
Thermal
Load
(MW)
1.374

0.906
2.518
1.099

0.030
1.510
1.832
0.414
0.004
0.015
7.399
0.604
0.020
0.331
10.543
5.990
19.126
1.484
15.464
17.847

0.008
0.008
0.438

53.697
27.902
57.378
0.040
0.041
61.405
22.752
Allocation
Bubble

Bubble
Bubble
Bubble
Total
Bubble
Bubble
Bubble
Bubble
Total
Bubble
Bubble
Bubble
Bubble
Total
Bubble
Bubble
Bubble
Bubble
Bubble
Bubble
Bubble
Bubble
Total
Bubble
Bubble
Bubble
Total
Bubble
Bubble
Bubble
Bubble
Bubble
Bubble
Bubble
Flow, Q
(cfs)
0.360
0.360
0.279
1.063
0.464
1.806
0.009
0.464
0.563
0.127
1.164
0.002
0.006
2.274
0.186
2.468
0.006
0.127
2.674
0.928
5.879
0.464
6.189
6.962
23.230
0.002
0.002
0.135
0.139
15.114
8.475
17.638
0.012
0.012
18.876
6.993
Temperature
(deg C)
32.2
32.2
27.5
20.0
20.0
21.2
27.5
22.0
23.0
23.0
22.6
20.0
20.0
25.0
23.0
24.8
27.5
22.0
33.3
23.9
23.5
27.0
21.1
21.6
23.5
27.5
27.5
26.0
26.0
30.0
27.8
23.5
27.5
28.3
23.0
27.5
                                           24

-------
        Total
67.121
25

-------
Table 7(continued). Point sources of thermal energy in the Columbia River
 Facility                    River
                           Mile

 Agrium Bowles Road        322.6


 Agrium Game Farm Road     321.0

 Sanvik Metals               321.0
 Boise Cascade Walulla       316.0
 McNary to John Day
 Umatilla STP               289.0
 Goldendale                 216.7
 John Day- The Dalles
 Biggs OR                  208.8
 Wishram STP               200.8
 The Dalles - Bonneville
 Dalles/Oregon Cherry OR    189.5
 Northwest Aluminum OR     188.9
 Cascade Fruit OR           188.3
 Lyle                       183.2
 MosierOR                 174.6
 SDS Lumber               170.2

 BingenSTP                170.2
 Hood River OR             168.4
 Cascade Locks OR          151.0
 Stevenson STP             150.0
 Bonneville - Coast
 Tanner OR                 144.2
 North Bonneville STP        144.0
 Multnomah Falls OR         134.2
 BBA Nonwovens
 Washougal                 124.0
 Exterior Wood, Inc.          123.8
 Washougal STP             123.5
 CamasSTP                121.2
 Georgia Pacific             120.0
Thermal
Load
(MW)

405.821
484.694

0.920


234.905


39.813

0.236
0.488

7.877
8.793
0.875
0.008
0.131


160.323

4.027
0.438
0.381
1.830

1.113
0.508
0.186

0.336
0.295
9.111
24.812


313.206

     26
Allocation

Individual


Individual

Individual


Individual

Individual
Individual

  Bubble
  Bubble
Tot
  Bubble
  Bubble
  Bubble
  Bubble
  Bubble
Total

Individual

  Bubble
  Bubble
  Bubble
  Bubble
Total
  Bubble
  Bubble
  Bubble

  Bubble
  Bubble
  Bubble
  Bubble
Total
 Flow, Q
(cfs)

62.150
62.150

102.410
102.410
0.388
0.388

51.200
51.200
0.780
12.888
12.888
0.084
0.234

2.784
2.228
0.309
0.930
0.046
6.298

16.240
16.240
1.238
0.155
0.135
0.696
Temperature
(deg C)
2.223
0.392
0.193
0.059

0.155
0.077
3.466
9.438
13.780
22.9
Individual   93.230
24.0
22.2
26.7

18.3
32.2
22.2
22.2
22.3

30.6

-------
27

-------
Table 7 (continued). Point sources of thermal energy in the Columbia River
 Facility

 Toyo Tanso USA OR
 Gresham OR
 Marine Park
 Vancouver Ice & Fuel Oil
 Graphic Packaging OR
 Northwest Packing Co.
 Portland STP OR
 Great Western Malting
 Vancouver Westside STP
 Support Terminal Services
 Clark County PUD
 Van Alco
 Salmon Creek STP
 Boise/St Helens OR

 Columbia River Carbonates   83.5

 Coastal St Helens OR

 Clariant Corp
 Kalama STP
 Noveon Kalama, Inc
 Steelscape, Inc.
 PGE Trojan OR

 Port of Kalama
 Riverwood OR
 Cowlitz STP
 Longview Fiber
 Rainier OR
 Cytec Industries
 Houghton International
 Longview STP

 Weyerhauser Longview
River
Mile
118.1
117.4
109.5
106.0
105.6
105.2
105.0
105.0
105.0
104.8
103.2
103.0
95.5

85.8
83.5
82.6
76.0
75.0
74.0
73.5

Thermal
Load
(MW)
0.196
106.708
64.431
0.005
31.503
0.348
521.939
36.278
183.024
0.008
5.198
25.321
38.236

219.555
5.898
365.094
5.894
1.627
7.450
1.885

Allocation
Bubble
Bubble
Bubble
Bubble
Bubble
Bubble
Bubble
Bubble
Bubble
Bubble
Bubble
Bubble
Bubble
Total
Individual
Individual
Individual
Bubble
Bubble
Bubble
Bubble
Total
Flow, Q
(cfs)
0.071
39.176
24.755
0.002
9.852
0.077
195.881
15.317
71.093
0.002
1.099
7.705
14.544
379.574
52.970
1.547
77.266
1.547
0.619
1.547
0.278
3.992
Temperature
(deg C)
23.4
23.0
22.0
20.0
27.0
30.0
22.5
20.0
21.7
16.0
40.0
27.8
22.2
22.5
35.0
32.2
39.9
32.2
22.2
40.7
57.2
35.7
72.7
511.152
Individual   0.035
22.0
72.2
70.2
68.0
67.4
67.1
67.0
67.0

66.0
64.0
0.081
0.072
109.027
540.993
2.436
3.232
0.008

10.983
398.626
Bubble
Bubble
Bubble
Bubble
Bubble
Bubble
Bubble
Total
Individual

0.031
0.025
41.766
116.530
0.979
1.516
0.016
160.864
4.177
73.610
22.2
24.0
22.0
33.0
21.0
22.0
27.0
30.0
22.2
38.9
                                          28

-------
Reynolds                   63.0       58.208
Stella STP                  56.4       0.014
PGE Beaver OR             53.4       7.026
New Source OR             52.8       24.841
GPWaunaOR              42.3       301.706

Cathlamet STP              32.0       0.549
Astoria OR                 11.8       23.383
Ft. Columbia State Park      7.2         0.020
Bell Buoy Crab Co.           6.0         0.329
Warrenton OR              5.0         2.505
llwaco STP                 2.0         3.523
Jessies llwaco Fish Co.       2.0         2.748
Coast Guard Sta.            1.0         0.010
Individual

  Bubble
  Bubble
  Bubble
  Bubble
Total

Individual

  Bubble
  Bubble
  Bubble
  Bubble
  Bubble
  Bubble
  Bubble
  Bubble
Total
73.610
24.600
0.005
1.695
6.992
33.293

76.27
76.277
0.209
8.227
0.008
0.139
0.881
1.083
1.160
0.003
38.9
20.0
22.2
35.0
30.0
20.0
33.4
22.2
24.0
22.2
20.0
24.0
20.0
16.0
27.5
22.8
                                            29

-------
Table 8. Point sources of thermal energy in the Snake River
 Facility

 Salmon R - Lower Granite
 Asotin STP
 Clarkston STP


 Potlatch

 Lower Granite to Little
 Goose
 Lower Granite Dam
River
Mile

145.0
138.0
139.3
107.5
 Little Goose - Lower Monumental
 Little Goose Dam           70.3
 Lyon's Ferry                59.1

 Lower Monumental - Ice Harbor

 Lower Monumental Dam     44.6
 Ice Harbor- Columbia R.

 Ice Harbor Dam
9.7
Thermal
Load
(MW)

4.016E
6.265E
298.8
0.0194
           0.0116
           1.381
           0.00392
0.00395
Allocation    Flow'Q    Temperature
Allocation  (cfe)        ((Jeg Q)
   Bubble
   Bubble
rota I
1.5626438  21.7
2.0267955  26.1
3.5894393  24.
Individual   75.697228   33.3
Individual   0.0077689   21.1
           0.0077689   21.1

   Bubble  0.0045907   21.3
   Bubble  0.4484799   26.0
Total       0.4530706   26.0
             Individual   0.0015472  21.4
Individual   0.0015472   21.5
                                            30

-------