1 / 42

Temperature Modeling for Middle Fork American River Project

This status report provides a recap of the upper Middle Fork American River application and progress made in temperature modeling, including updates to flows and results. The report also covers the modeling approach, habitat flow, temperature monitoring locations, and boundary conditions for the Rubicon River and Lower Middle Fork American River.

haring
Download Presentation

Temperature Modeling for Middle Fork American River Project

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Placer County Water AgencyMiddle Fork American River ProjectAQ 4 –Temperature Modeling(Status Report) May 14, 2009

  2. Progress Report • Recap of Upper MF application • MF – Interbay to Ralston • Geometry • Flow • Temperature • Rubicon • Geometry • Flow • Temperature • MF – Below Ralston • Progress • Schedule

  3. Recap of Upper MF application • Continued to refine model • Updated flows • Results

  4. Temperature Modeling Approach: Recap • Low Flows: < 10 cfs in upper reaches • Model Features • Habitat type cross sections • Pool Volume below Stage of Zero Flow • Bed conduction • Topographic shading • Riparian shading • Terrestrial long-wave radiation • Groundwater accretion

  5. MF American Below French Meadows MF2-RM46.6

  6. MF American Below French Meadows MF2-RM46.6

  7. MF American MF 12-RM44.6

  8. MF American MF 12-RM44.6

  9. MF American MF 11-RM39.4 (above Duncan Cr)

  10. MF American MF 11-RM39.4 (above Duncan Cr)

  11. MF American MF 3-RM36.1 (above Interbay)

  12. MF American MF 3-RM36.1 (above Interbay)

  13. Middle Fork American – Interbay to Ralston • Representation • Geometry • Flow • Temperature

  14. Middle Fork American – Interbay to Ralston Interbay Ralston

  15. Middle Fork American – Interbay to Ralston: Geometry Plan (UTM Coordinates) Profile (25 meter node spacing)

  16. Middle Fork American – Interbay to Ralston: Habitat

  17. Flow • Inflows to Interbay • MF • Hell Hole Reservoir (HH-MF Tunnel) • Accretion • Outflows from Interbay • MF • Ralston Tunnel • Change in storage – assumed zero

  18. Temperature • Three monitoring locations between Interbay Dam and Ralston • RM35.5 (MF4) • RM29.4 (MF13) • RM26.0 (MF10) • Time series from May - September • Graphical and statistical performance measures

  19. MFAR (Interbay-Ralston) MF4-RM35.5

  20. MFAR (Interbay-Ralston) MF13-RM29.4

  21. MFAR (Interbay-Ralston) MF10-RM26.0

  22. Rubicon River • Implementation assumptions • Flow: from Hell Hole Reservoir simulation • Water temperatures: from Hell Hole Reservoir simulation • Relationship to span alluvium

  23. Rubicon model representation

  24. Rubicon habitat type distribution • Note: • NOXSEC were assumed as HGR • Values rounded to whole percentages

  25. Upper Rubicon: Habitat

  26. Middle Rubicon: Habitat

  27. Lower Rubicon: Habitat

  28. Temperature stations RR 28.8 RR 25.3 RR 0.7 RR 3.7 RR 22.7 RR 22.5 RR 5.3 RR 14.3

  29. Rubicon River Boundary Conditions

  30. Rubicon River Boundary Conditions RR 30.2 RR28.8 RR 30.2 RR28.8

  31. Rubicon River Boundary Conditions • Objective: Estimate appropriate boundary condition in alluvial section at headwater under spill and non-spill condition. • Headwater of the Rubicon River model was placed at RR28.8 because of the dry alluvial reach upstream. • Develop dual criteria to provide river inflow temperature boundary condition • When Hell Hole Dam is spilling: • RR28.8 Tw is similar to Hell Hole spill Tw – Large flows overwhelm small releases from the dam and short transit time yields minimum opportunity for heating. • Potential lag effect at RR28.8 Tw – Due to the spill filling alluvium and then slowly released. • When Hell Hole Dam is not spilling: • Between RR30.2 and RR28.8, Tw difference of about 2oF in June. It diminishes to nearly 0oF by October 1st. • Linear relationship assumed from terminus of spill to mid-October

  32. Model Temperature Boundary Condition: Headwater

  33. Temperature: RR 25.3

  34. Temperature: RR 22.7

  35. Temperature RR 22.5

  36. Temperature RR 14.3

  37. Lower MF American River • Geometry File • Flow Files • Temperature Files

  38. River Modeling Status • Successful implementation of several temperature components important to small streams • Effectively modeled small flows • Limitations based on available system representation • Rubicon test case suggests good model performance as well • Model sensitivity testing provides insight on boundary conditions, model parameters, system response

  39. Next Steps • Assess objective of flow and temperature modeling on individual reaches • Implement modeling method globally throughout project area and formally calibrate models

  40. Progress • Upper Basin River model testing • Upper MF American – Test Reach: draft calibration • Upper MF American – Interbay to Ralston: precalibration • Rubicon River: precalibration • Lower Basin model implementation: started

  41. Estimated Schedule • Upper Basin River model calibration (May-June) • Upper MF American – Test Reach • Upper MF American – Interbay to Ralston • Rubicon River • Ralston calibration (June) • Lower American River model calibration (July) • Overall system calibration refinement (July/August)

  42. Rubicon River

More Related