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 ------- |