Read C:\Documents and Settings\wwrc\My Documents\Conference\Proceedings\Session 8B\Annear_Robert.prn.pdf text version

Getting It Done: The Role of TMDL Implementation in Watershed Restoration, October 29-30, 2003, Stevenson, WA

WILLAMETTE RIVER SYSTEM TEMPERATURE WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION MODEL Robert L. Annear, Scott A. Wells, Chris J. Berger, Michael McKillip, Sher Jamal Khan, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Portland State University, P. O. Box 751, Portland, Oregon, 97201-0751, (503) 725-3048, [email protected] INTRODUCTION The State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) is in the process of developing a TMDL for the entire Willamette River basin as shown in Figure 11. The study area included the Willamette River and all major tributaries (except the Tualatin River where a TMDL process was already concluded). A large section of the Columbia River from the head-of-tide at Bonneville Dam to a downstream water level and temperature gage in the tidal portion of the estuary was also modeled to provide adequate boundary representation of tidal flows in the lower Willamette River. In the Portland area a diurnal tidal range of 1 m is not uncommon. The development of a dynamic model of temperature and hydrodynamics incorporating shading were primary requirements of this modeling study. The model would be used by ODEQ to set temperature limits on point source dischargers, evaluate the impact on temperatures of dam modifications at the Willamette River Falls south of Portland, and propose techniques to improve temperature habitat for fish. The project involved four elements: model selection, model development, model calibration, and testing management strategies with the model for TMDL development.

Figure 1. TMDL study area - the Willamette River basin with drainage basins delineated. Numbers refer to Dam facilities MODEL DEVELOPMENT The river basin model was originally divided into several reaches. Individual models were developed for each reach. The reaches are described in Table 1. Also see Figure 1.

1

Getting It Done: The Role of TMDL Implementation in Watershed Restoration, October 29-30, 2003, Stevenson, WA

Table 1. Willamette River main stem model development reaches Reach Columbia River Lower Willamette Middle Willamette River Upper Willamette River Clackamas River Santiam-North Santiam River South Santiam River Long Tom River McKenzie River Middle Fork Willamette River Coast Fork Willamette River Description Beaver Army Terminal to Bonneville Dam Confluence with Columbia River to Willamette Falls Willamette Falls to the City of Salem, OR City of Salem, OR to the confluence of the Coast and Middle Forks Confluence with Lower Willamette to River Mill Dam Confluence with Upper Willamette River to Detroit Dam Confluence with North Santiam to Foster Dam Confluence with Upper Willamette River to Fern Ridge Dam Confluence with Upper Willamette River to South Fork McKenzie River up to Cougar Dam Confluence with Coast Fork to Dexter Dam and including Fall Creek to Fall Creek Dam (7.1 mi) Confluence with Middle Fork to Cottage Grove Dam including Row River to Dorena Dam (7.5 mi) RM Range 54 - 145 0.0 - 26.8 26.8 - 85 85 - 187 0 - 26 0 - 49 0 - 38 0 - 26 0 - 64 0 - 17 0 - 29

The model development consisted of obtaining river channel morphology or bathymetry data, meteorological data (air temperature, dew point temperature or relative humidity, wind speed/direction, solar radiation and/or cloud cover), flow and temperature upstream boundary conditions (in most cases determined by continuously monitored dam release flows), and water level and temperature downstream boundary conditions in the tidal Columbia River The river channel was divided into longitudinal model segments of approximately 250 m with a vertical grid resolution of between 0.2 to 1 m. An example of the river channel segmentation is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Longitudinal segments of the Willamette River model near the Willamette Falls at RM 26.

2

Getting It Done: The Role of TMDL Implementation in Watershed Restoration, October 29-30, 2003, Stevenson, WA

Since this project was a cooperative project between the Oregon DEQ, USGS and Portland State University, the model development was divided into several areas of responsibility. ODEQ had overall TMDL responsibility, model development of South Santiam basin, data collection, coordination and quality assurance checks for entire river basin, determination of management strategies for TMDL development, development of shade (vegetation cover) for the entire basin. The USGS had responsibility for model development of the North Santiam and Santiam River, flow, stage and temperature monitoring, river channel bathymetry determination and dye studies in selected portions of the river system. PSU had responsibility for model development of the Lower Willamette and Columbia Rivers, Clackamas River, Middle Willamette River, Upper Willamette River, Middle Fork Willamette River, Coast Fork Willamette River, Long Tom River, McKenzie River, Row River (tributary of Coast Fork), and Fall Creek (tributary of Middle Fork). MODEL CALIBRATION After obtaining the model grid and all boundary condition data, the model calibration consisted of modeldata comparisons of hydrodynamic and temperature data for the periods of 2001 and 2002. The hydrodynamics calibration consisted of comparing model output with flow data, water surface elevation data, dye study travel times, and channel width data. The temperature calibration consisted of comparing model output with continuous temperature data. Hydrodynamic calibration involved adjustment and re-examination of Manning's friction factors and model bathymetry (in many cases river channel morphology data was limited). Once model hydrodynamics were reasonable, temperature calibration was obtained by re-examining channel morphology (for example, was the channel too deep or too wide?), meteorological data source (is the meteorological station representative for this reach?), and adjusting model predicted evaporation usually by adjusting wind sheltering. Model-data error statistics were also developed to evaluate the model calibration. These included the mean error, absolute mean error, and the root-mean-square error. Also, the model was compared to all instantaneous data collected in the field. This involved model data comparisons of continuous flow, stage, and temperature at close to 100 locations in the basin. Lower Willamette and Columbia Rivers These tidally influenced rivers were initially studied by Berger et al. (1999) who applied a CE-QUAL-W2 model for the years 1993, 1994, 1997, 1998, and 1999. This model was updated with data from 2001 and 2002 and model data comparisons were made for flow, stage, and temperature. Figure 3 shows typical tidal flow model data comparisons in the Columbia River. Continuous temperatures were compared at 8 locations. Average absolute mean error and root mean square errors for all these locations was 0.29o C and 0.39o C, respectively for 2001 and 2002. Middle Willamette River In this reach, flow and stage was monitored only at 1 location, but 22 continuous temperature gages were used for model-data comparisons. The average AME and RMS error for temperature were 0.56o C and 0.68o C, respectively. An example of this comparison is shown in Figure 4.

3

Getting It Done: The Role of TMDL Implementation in Watershed Restoration, October 29-30, 2003, Stevenson, WA

8/8/01 15,000

8/12/01

8/16/01

8/20/01

8/24/01

8/28/01 529,720 Willamett e River Temperature, C

6/9/01 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 160 170

6/29/01

7/19/01

8/8/01

8/28/01

9/17/01

10/7/01

Data, USGS 14246900 Model, Segment 347

Columbia River Flow, m 3 /s

10,000

353,147

Columbia Riv er Flow, ft3/s

5,000

176,573

0

0

Data, PGE Canby A Data, PGE Canby B Model, Segment 348

-5,000 Columbia River at Beaver Army Terminal, RM 53.8

-176,573

Willamette River at Canby, RM 34.5

-10,000 220 222 224 226 228 230 232 Julian Day 234 236 238 240

-353,147

180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 Julian Day

280

Figure 3. Model-data comparison of tidal flow in Columbia River in 2001. Upper Willamette River

Figure 4. Middle Willamette River temperature model-data comparison for 2001.

The model domain for the Upper Willamette River is shown in Figure 5. For 2001, model data statistics for water level and flow are shown in Table 2. Similar results were obtained for 2002. Typical flow and water level comparisons for 2002 are shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7 for Harrisburg gage, respectively. Another important calibration is that the model surface widths represent the actual surface widths.

Figure 5. Upper Willamette model domain

4

Getting It Done: The Role of TMDL Implementation in Watershed Restoration, October 29-30, 2003, Stevenson, WA

Table 2. 2001 Hydrodynamic calibration statistics at 5 sites along the Upper Willamette River. Station Name Gage ID. Willamette RM Model Segment Number of Comparisons ME Flow, m3 /s: AME Flow, m3 /s: RMS Flow, m3 /s: ME Water Level, m: AME Water Level, m: RMS Water Level, m:

3/31/02 240 220 200 Willam ette River flo w, m3 /s. 180

Water elevation, m

Eugene Harrisburg EUGO3 14166000 181 161 19 156 5032 0.23 0.49 0.70 -0.04 0.05 0.05

9/7/02

Corvallis CORO3 132 352 1728 NA NA NA -0.06 0.07 0.08

3/31/02 5/10/02

Albany 14174000 119 434 4683 -0.23 0.89 1.15 -0.18 0.18 0.19

6/19/02 7/29/02

Salem 14191000 85 665 5040 -0.02 0.30 0.43 NA NA NA

9/7/02 10/17/02

5040 -0.21 0.46 0.62 0.23 0.23 0.23

10/17/02

5/10/02

6/19/02

7/29/02

90.0

Willamette River flow at Harrisb urg RM 162.0, segm ent 156 , USGS 1416 6000

89.5

Willamette River flow at Harrisburg RM 162.0, segment 156, USGS 14166000

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 Julian d ay 230 250 270 290 310 data model

89.0

88.5

88.0 data mode l

87.5

87.0 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 Julian day 230 250 270 290 310

Figure 6. Willamette River at Harrisburg, OR flow model-data comparison for 2002.

Figure 7. Willamette River at Harrisburg, OR water level model-data comparison for 2002.

A 1968 travel time study by the USGS was used to compare to model predictions at 14 different model reaches. Also, dye studies were performed in 1992, 1998, and 2002 for various reaches at different flow rates. There were 12 continuous model-data comparison sites for temperature. Table 3 shows a list of these sites and model-data error statistics for 2001. Similar results were obtained for 2002. Typical model predictions of temperature compared to continuous measurements for 2001 and 2002 at RM 135 are shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9, respectively. Table 3. Upper Willamette River continuous water temperature model-data error statistics for 2001. RM 185.3 177.7 162.0 Model Segment 2 53 156 Temperature 2001 Number of ME, AME, o o Comparisons C C 5040 0.02 0.04 2362 -0.18 0.40 5040 0.15 0.62 RMS, o C 0.05 0.51 0.74

5

Getting It Done: The Role of TMDL Implementation in Watershed Restoration, October 29-30, 2003, Stevenson, WA

151.6 147.4 142.4 135.2 120.2 113.9 96.9 88.9 84.7

227 255 287 334 434 476 589 643 666

5040 5040 5040 2520 2179 4967 4958 2520 600

0.38 0.49 0.36 0.21 -0.11 0.02 -0.17 0.13 0.17

0.58 0.64 0.60 0.49 0.37 0.45 0.42 0.63 0.51

0.74 0.81 0.75 0.62 0.47 0.58 0.52 0.82 0.64

3/31/01 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 90 110

5/10/01

6/19/01

7/29/01

9/7/01

10/17/01

3/31/02 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 90 110

5/10/02

6/19/02

7/29/02

9/7/02

10/17/02

data mod el

Willame tte Rive r temp era tu re, °C.

Willamette R iver te mperature , °C .

Willamette River temperature at C orvallis w ater intake RM 135.2, segment 33 4, LASAR 10353

Willam ette River temperature a t Corvallis water intake RM 135.2, segment 224, LASAR 10353

data model

130

150

170

190 210 Julian da y

230

250

270

290

310

130

150

170

190 210 Ju lia n day

230

250

270

290

310

Figure 8. Upper Willamette River at Corvallis temperature model-data comparison for 2001. Long Tom River

Figure 9. Upper Willamette River ay Corvallis temperature model-data comparison for 2002.

The Long Tom River had one flow and stage comparison site and several continuous temperature monitoring sites. Figure 10 and Figure 11 show model-data comparisons for temperature in the Long Tom River near the confluence with the Willamette River for 2002. Temperature model-data error statistics were less than 1.0 o C with mean error statistics close to 0.5 o C.

3/31/02 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 90 110

5/10/02

6/19/02

7/29/02

9/7/02

10/17/02

8/1/02 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 213 215

8/5/02

8/9/02

8/13/02

8/17/02

8/21/02

Long Tom River Temperature, C

Long Tom River T emperature, C

D ata, LASAR 29644 Mo del, Segment 177

D ata, LASAR 29644 Model, Segment 177

Long Tom River, RM 0.91

Long Tom River, RM 0.91

130

150

170 190 210 Julian Day

230

250

270

290

217

219

221 223 225 Julian Day

227

229

231

233

Figure 10. Long Tom River temperature modeldata comparison for 2002.

Figure 11. Long Tom River temperature modeldata comparison, August 1 to 21, 2002

6

Getting It Done: The Role of TMDL Implementation in Watershed Restoration, October 29-30, 2003, Stevenson, WA

Clackamas River The Clackamas River below River Mill Dam was modeled for temperature and compared to four continuous monitoring stations for 2001 and 2002. Typical results for August 2001 are shown in Figure 12.

8/1/01 30 28 26 Clackamas River Tempe ra ture, C 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 213 215 217 219 221 223 225 Julian Day 227 229 231 233 Data, PGE CRATCB Model, Segment 93 8/5/01 8/9/01 8/13/01 8/17/01 8/21/01

Clackamas River at Carver Bridge, RM 8.11

Figure 12. Clackamas River temperature model-data comparison for 2001. McKenzie River The McKenzie River had 4 flow and water level comparison stations. Figure 13 shows water level comparison of model and data for 2001 at McKenzie River RM 44.56. Figure 14 shows flow rate comparison of model and data for 2002. Temperature statistics at 12 locations on the river are shown in Table 4, and a model-data temperature comparison for 2002 at RM 44.56 is shown in Figure 15.

5/20/01 263.0 262.8 Water Surface Elevation, m NGVD29 262.6 262.4 262.2 262.0 261.8 261.6 261.4 261.2 261.0 260.8 260.6 260.4 260.2 260.0 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 Julian Day 260 270 280 290 Data, USGS 14162500 Model, Segment 108 McKenzie River, RM 44.56

Mc Kenz ie River Flow, m3/s

6/9/01

6/29/01

7/19/01

8/8/01

8/28/01

9/17/01

10/7/01

5/20/01 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 Julian Day Data, USGS 14162500 Model, Segment 108 Mc Kenzie Riv er, RM 44.56 6/9/01 6/29/01 7/19/01 8/8/01 8/28/01 9/17/01 10/7/01

Figure 13. McKenzie River water level model data comparison for 2001.

Figure 14. McKenzie River flow model-data comparison for 2001.

7

Getting It Done: The Role of TMDL Implementation in Watershed Restoration, October 29-30, 2003, Stevenson, WA

Table 4. Model ­ data temperature error statistics for the McKenzie River. RM 60.39 50.99 44.56 40.74 35.72 30.38 28.45 24.97 17.90 15.61 10.40 3.38 Model Segment 4 65 108 132 167 203 215 240 285 299 333 378 Temperature 2001 Number of ME, AME, o o Comparisons C C 6982 0.07 0.11 6638 -0.38 0.60 7104 -0.33 0.56 NA 5711 -0.33 0.87 5715 -0.30 0.89 4678 -0.35 0.84 3284 -0.28 0.65 5709 -0.12 0.60 4825 -0.38 0.61 NA NA

5/20/01 30 28 26 McKenzie River Temperature, C 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 Julian Day 270 280 290 Data, USGS 14162500 Model, Segment 108 McKenzie River, RM 44.56 6/9/01 6/29/01 7/19/01

RMS, o C 0.17 0.68 0.68 1.01 1.05 1.00 0.79 0.76 0.74

Temperature 2002 Number of ME, AME, o o Comparisons C C 10271 0.05 0.13 5856 -0.17 0.31 10270 0.42 0.49 3385 0.45 0.50 5668 0.31 0.70 NA 5666 0.14 0.72 10270 0.25 0.59 NA 5669 0.07 0.49 5857 0.06 0.54 5715 0.22 0.56

8/28/01 9/17/01 10/7/01

RMS, o C 0.20 0.38 0.64 0.64 0.88 0.87 0.74 0.63 0.68 0.72

8/8/01

Figure 15. McKenzie River continuous temperature model-data comparison for 2001. Coast and Middle Fork of the Willamette River, Row River, and Fall Creek Typical comparisons of flow, water level and temperature are shown in 2001 for the Middle Fork in Figure 16, Figure 17, and Figure 18, respectively. Similar results were obtained for the Coast Fork, Row River and Fall Creek.

8

Getting It Done: The Role of TMDL Implementation in Watershed Restoration, October 29-30, 2003, Stevenson, WA

3/31/01 160 140 Midd le Willamette River Flow, m3 /s 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 90 110

5/10/01

6/19/01

7/29/01

9/7/01

10/17/01

3/31/01 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 90 110

5/10/01

6/19/01

7/29/01

9/7/01

10/17/01

Model, Segment 3 03 Middle Fork Willamette River, RM 8.15

Middle Fork Willamette River Temperature, C

Data , USGS 1 4152000

Data, USGS 14152000 Model, Segment 303

Middle Fork Willamette R iver, RM 8.15 Downstream of confluence with Fall Creek

130

150

170

190 210 Ju lia n Day

230

250

270

290

310

130

150

170

190 210 Julian D ay

230

250

270

290

310

Figure 16. Middle Fork Willamette River flow model-data comparison for 2001.

3/31/01 30 Middle Fork Willamette River Temperature, C 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 90 110 130 150 170 5/10/01 6/19/01

Figure 17. Middle Fork Willamette River water level model-data comparison for 2001.

7/29/01 9/7/01 10/17/01

Data, USGS 14152000 Model, Segment 303

Middle Fork Willamette River, RM 8.15 Downstream of confluence with Fall Creek

190 210 Julian D ay

230

250

270

290

310

Figure 18. Middle Fork Willamette River continuous temperature model-data comparison for 2001. DISCUSSION OF MODEL CALIBRATION In general, calibration results were deemed acceptable based on the data for which the model was constructed. A goal of the calibration was to have flow data to be in almost exact agreement, water levels to be within the error of the finest grid resolution, dye travel times to be in agreement, and AME/RMS errors for temperature below 1o C. Most of these goals were met. For temperature, most results were close to AME/RMS errors of 0.5o C. In a system this large there were several temperature monitoring stations that recorded data that were hard to understand and consequently the model also did not match the uniqueness of the monitoring data. In those cases further research is required to see if the model is missing important boundary condition information, such as localized groundwater inflow, meteorological conditions not reflective of a meteorological station nearby, inaccurate channel morphology, or whether the temperature gage was in an area of stagnant water not in the main-stem.

9

Getting It Done: The Role of TMDL Implementation in Watershed Restoration, October 29-30, 2003, Stevenson, WA

MODEL SCENARIOS IN SUPPORT OF THE TEMPERATURE TMDL In support of the TMDL development process, a series of model scenarios were proposed and organized in two categories, those needed to establish point source waste load allocations and those needed for other informational purposes in support of the TMDL narrative. The point source waste load allocation scenarios examined no point sources with different system potential scenarios, the existing point sources with different system potential scenarios, and the point sources at design flow with different system potential scenarios. The additional informational scenarios consisted of sensitivity runs varying the boundary flow rates, boundary temperatures, shade characteristics and channel complexity. Point sources that were included in the model included 27 primary sources which were primarily wastewater treatment plant dischargers, pulp and paper mills, and a steel mill. The term system potential was defined as the maximum potential shade along the river channels and included other assumptions relating to tributary temperatures (both historical observed and estimated `best' temperature for the basin with maximum shade) and upstream boundary condition temperatures and flows (assuming historical observations and estimated flows and temperatures in the absence of upstream dams). Besides evaluating these scenarios with hourly model output for temperature and flow rate at each critical location (28 different locations as defined by ODEQ), the 7-day moving average of daily maximums temperatures and 7-day moving average flow rates were also determined for each location. Also, 2 seasons were simulated: 2001 from June 1 to October 31 and 2002 from April 1 to October 31. CONCLUSIONS Approximately 550 miles of rivers in the Willamette River basin were modeled using CE-QUAL-W2 in support of a temperature TMDL, which will be finished in December of 2003. The results of the current modeling effort were deemed acceptable to use for setting the TMDL. Often the determination of temperature in a river system is a function of the travel time of the water in the river. This was a critical element in successfully modeling a river system since the trave l time determines the daily maximum and minimum. For example, downstream from a dam discharge, the daily maximum and minimum will usually occur at a travel time approximately 12 hours downstream if conditions of shade are similar over this stretch of river and there are no appreciable tributary inflows. In some cases where model-data agreement was not reasonable, further effort is needed to better determine boundary conditions. As the modeling study progressed, it became apparent where there were data gaps and it was usually in these areas that poor model data agreement was seen. The modeling effort itself was an excellent tool to focus effort on understanding whether the knowledge base on which the model was based was adequate or not. Further work on this TMDL effort will include eventually modeling water quality conditions (eutrophication parameters) and resolving model data uncertainties. REFERENCES Berger, C., Annear, R. L., and Wells, S. A. (2001)"Lower Willamette River Model: Model Calibration," Technical Report EWR-2-01, Department of Civil Engineering, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, 100 pages. Cole, T. and Wells, S.A. (2002) "CE-QUAL-W2: A Two-Dimensional, Laterally Averaged, Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Model, Version 3.1," Instruction Report EL-2002-, USA Engineering and Research Development Center, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

10

Information

C:\Documents and Settings\wwrc\My Documents\Conference\Proceedings\Session 8B\Annear_Robert.prn.pdf

10 pages

Report File (DMCA)

Our content is added by our users. We aim to remove reported files within 1 working day. Please use this link to notify us:

Report this file as copyright or inappropriate

498754


You might also be interested in

BETA
C:\Documents and Settings\wwrc\My Documents\Conference\Proceedings\Session 8B\Annear_Robert.prn.pdf