Lake Roosevelt Water Quality and Hydrodynamic Model Calibration with Fish Bioenergetics

Transcription

1 Portland State University PDXScholar Civil and Environmental Engineering Faculty Publications and Presentations Civil and Environmental Engineering 3-27 Lake Roosevelt Water Quality and Hydrodynamic Model Calibration with Fish Bioenergetics Michael Lee McKillip Let us know how access to this document benefits you. Follow this and additional works at: Citation Details McKillip, Mike, and Scott Wells. Lake Roosevelt Water Quality and Hydrodynamic Model Calibration with Fish Bioenergetics. Technical Report EWR-3-6, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Portland State University. Portland, Oregon, 27. This Technical Report is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Civil and Environmental Engineering Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. For more information, please contact

2 Lake Roosevelt Water Quality and Hydrodynamic Model Calibration with Fish Bioenergetics By Mike McKillip, And Scott Wells Technical Report EWR-3-6 Civil and Environmental Engineering Department Maseeh College of Engineering and Computer Science P.O. Box 751 Portland, Oregon March 18, 27 1

3 Table of Contents: Table of Contents:... i Table of Figures... iv Table of Tables...xiii Acknowledgments... xiv Introduction... 1 Monitoring Sites... 3 Hydrodynamic Calibration... 5 Calibration Stations... 5 Year Year Year Temperature Calibration Calibration Stations Grand Coulee Dam, Continuous Temperatures Vertical Profile Stations, Periodic Sampling Abiotic Water Quality Calibration Calibration Stations Constituent Calibration Discussion Alkalinity and Ammonium and Nitrate plus Nitrite Dissolved Oxygen... 2 Orthophosphate... 2 Total Dissolved Solids... 2 Grand Coulee Dam Outflow Alkalinity Ammonium Dissolved Oxygen Nitrate plus nitrite Orthophosphate Total Dissolved Solids Vertical Profile Stations, Periodic Sampling Alternate Boundary Conditions Spokane River Dissolved Oxygen Total Inorganic Carbon () Biotic Modeling Approach and Calibration Approach Algae Zooplankton Fish Bioenergetics (kokanee) Calibration... 4 Algae... 4 Zooplankton i

4 Fish Bioenergetics (kokanee) Summary References Appendix A: Water quality boundary condition generation... 7 Overview... 7 Conductivity Coliform bacteria Alkalinity Dissolved oxygen Orthophosphate Ammonium Nitrate plus nitrite Chlorophyll-a (algae) Total dissolved solids Total inorganic carbon and total organic matter Total inorganic carbon Dissolved organic carbon Total organic carbon Total organic matter Total suspended solids Total inorganic suspended solids (ISS) Dissolved organic matter Particulate organic matter Zooplankton Data and Daily Boundary Condition Model Input Comparison Mainstem Columbia River Kettle River Colville River Spokane River Sanpoil River Banks Lake Return Flows Appendix B: W2 control files W2_con.npt W2_bio_con.npt Appendix C: Fish Bioenergetic Parameter Formulation Growth Fish energy density Digestion Digestion coefficient (function) Stomach content and capacity Consumption, Search Volume, and Reaction Distance Egestion & Excretion Specific Dynamic Action (SDA) Respiration Ancillary function values ii

5 Appendix D: Bioenergetics control file explanation Fish Computation Bioenergetic time control Fish temperature kinetics Fish oxycaloric stoichiometric constant Fish physical properties initial conditions Zooplankton property cards Foraging constants Fish growth potential animation cards Fish mass type Fish mass function parameters Diagnostic output controls Single location controls User defined input and output filenames Appendix E: Plots of weighted model results and model-data comparisons Station Station Appendix F: Vertical profile model-data comparison plots Total dissolved solids Dissolved oxygen Temperature Appendix G: Statistics Calculations Appendix H: W2 Model Water Quality Parameters iii

6 Table of Figures Figure 1. Lake Roosevelt model area Figure 2. Water quality sampling site locations... 4 Figure 3. Model-data comparison, Grand Coulee Dam forebay stage, Figure 4. Waterbalance flow magnitudes, Figure 5. Waterbalance flows as percentage of downstream flows, Figure 6. Model-data comparison, Grand Coulee Dam forebay stage, Figure 7. Waterbalance flow magnitudes, Figure 8. Waterbalance flows as percentage of downstream flows, Figure 9. Model-data comparison, Grand Coulee Dam forebay stage, Figure 1. Waterbalance flow magnitudes, Figure 11. Waterbalance flows as percentage of downstream flows, Figure 12. The effects of wind sheltering coefficients on temperature calibration. The default value of WSC of.85 was not considered accurate but was used as a basis for comparison to the calibrated value Figure 13. Locations of the temperature calibration sites Figure 14. Model-data temperature comparison, below Grand Coulee Dam, Figure 15. Selected model-data temperature profile comparisons at Porcupine Bay (LRFEP sta 4.) Figure 16. Selected model-data temperature profile comparisons at Spring Canyon (LRFEP sta 9.) Figure 17. Alkalinity time-series near Grand Coulee Dam Figure 18. Ammonium time-series near Grand Coulee Dam Figure 19. Dissolved oxygen time-series near Grand Coulee Dam Figure 2. Nitrate time-series near Grand Coulee Dam Figure 21. time-series near Grand Coulee Dam Figure 22. Orthophosphate time-series near Grand Coulee Dam Figure 23. Total dissolved solids time-series near Grand Coulee Dam Figure 24. Selected model-data dissolved oxygen vertical profile comparisons at Porcupine Bay (LRFEP stat 4.) Figure 25. Selected model-data dissolved oxygen vertical profile comparisons at Spring Canyon (LRFEP sta 9.) Figure 26. Selected model-data total dissolved solids vertical profile comparisons at Porcupine Bay (LRFEP stat 4.) Figure 27. Selected model-data total dissolved solids vertical profile comparisons at Spring Canyon (LRFEP stat 9.)... 3 Figure 28. Selected model-data vertical profile comparisons at Porcupine Bay (LRFEP stat 4.) Figure 29. Selected model-data vertical profile comparisons at Spring Canyon (LRFEP stat 9.) Figure 3. Model-data comparison of dissolved oxygen at LRFEP station 4. under different boundary condition scenarios Figure 31. Model-data comparison of at LRFEP station. under different boundary condition scenarios iv

7 Figure 32. Model-data comparison of at LRFEP station 9. under different boundary condition scenarios Figure 33. Conceptual diagram of the water quality, algae, and zooplankton interaction Figure 34. Model-data comparison of weighted total algae, LRFEP station... 4 Figure 35. Model-data comparison of weighted total algae, LRFEP station Figure 36. Model-data comparison of weighted total algae, LRFEP station Figure 37. Model-data comparison of weighted total algae, LRFEP station Figure 38. Model-data comparison of weighted total algae, LRFEP station Figure 39. Model-data comparison of weighted total algae, LRFEP station Figure 4. Model-data comparison of weighted total algae, LRFEP station Figure 41. Model-data comparison of weighted total algae, LRFEP station Figure 42. Model-data comparison of weighted total algae, LRFEP station Figure 43. Model-data comparison of weighted total algae, LRFEP station Figure 44. Model-data comparison of weighted total algae, LRFEP station Figure 45. Model-data comparison of weighted total algae, LRFEP station Figure 46. Model-data comparison of weighted total zooplankton, LRFEP station Figure 47. Model-data comparison of weighted total zooplankton, LRFEP station Figure 48. Model-data comparison of weighted total zooplankton, LRFEP station Figure 49. Model-data comparison of weighted total zooplankton, LRFEP station Figure 5. Model-data comparison of weighted total zooplankton, LRFEP station Figure 51. Model-data comparison of weighted total zooplankton, LRFEP station Figure 52. Model-data comparison of weighted total zooplankton, LRFEP station Figure 53. Model-data comparison of weighted total zooplankton, LRFEP station Figure 54. Model-data comparison of weighted total zooplankton, LRFEP station Figure 55. Model-data comparison of weighted total zooplankton, LRFEP station Figure 56. Model-data comparison of weighted total zooplankton, LRFEP station Figure 57. Model-data comparison of weighted total zooplankton, LRFEP station Figure 58. Base case temperature and prescribed fish mass function Figure 59. Daily average consumption (includes nighttime) and prey density Figure 6. Daily growth and bioenergetic parameters Figure 61. Daily maximum and actual consumption; p-values Figure 62. Daily growth and bioenergetic parameters, vertical foraging strategy Figure 63. Comparison of fish location optimization strategies: best growth cell and vertical foraging Figure 64. Daily maximum and actual consumption for the foraging model. Comparison of best growth cell and vertical foraging p-values Figure 65. Comparison of daily average consumption rates Figure 66. Foraging depths at each time-step, best growth cell method Figure 67. Foraging depths at each time-step, vertical foraging method Figure 68. Comparison of water temperatures... 6 Figure 69. Comparison of prey densities Figure 7. Comparison of consumption rates Figure 71. Comparison of p-values Figure 72. Comparison of respiration and daily growth Figure 73. Growth and Consumption rate at C max for a 1 g and 1g kokanee Figure 74. System wide daily fraction of total algal chl-a... v

8 Figure 75. TDS:Conductivity ratio at LRFEP station., 1999 to Figure 76. Mainstem Columbia River conductivity boundary condition, Figure 77. Mainstem Columbia River coliform boundary condition, Figure 78. Mainstem Columbia River dissolved oxygen boundary condition, Figure 79. Mainstem Columbia River alkalinity boundary condition, Figure. Mainstem Columbia River orthophosphate boundary condition, Figure 81. Mainstem Columbia River ammonium boundary condition, Figure 82. Mainstem Columbia River nitrate plus nitrite boundary condition, Figure 83. Mainstem Columbia River algal dry weight boundary condition, Figure 84. Mainstem Columbia River total suspended solids boundary condition, Figure 85. Mainstem Columbia River inorganic suspended solids boundary condition, Figure 86. Mainstem Columbia River total organic carbon boundary condition, Figure 87. Mainstem Columbia River total organic matter boundary condition, Figure 88. Mainstem Columbia River particulate organic matter boundary condition, Figure 89. Mainstem Columbia River dissolved organic matter boundary condition, Figure 9. Kettle River conductivity boundary condition, Figure 91. Kettle River coliform boundary condition, Figure 92. Kettle River dissolved oxygen boundary condition, Figure 93. Kettle River orthophosphate boundary condition, Figure 94. Kettle River ammonium boundary condition, Figure 95. Kettle River nitrate plus nitrite boundary condition, Figure 96. Colville River coliform boundary condition, Figure 97. Colville River orthophosphate boundary condition, Figure 98. Colville River ammonium boundary condition, Figure 99. Colville River nitrate plus nitrite boundary condition, Figure 1. Spokane River conductivity boundary condition, Figure 11. Spokane River dissolved oxygen boundary condition, Figure 12. Spokane River alkalinity boundary condition, Figure 13. Spokane River orthophosphate boundary condition, Figure 14. Spokane River ammonium boundary condition, Figure 15. Spokane River nitrate plus nitrite boundary condition, Figure 16. Sanpoil River dissolved oxygen boundary condition, Figure 17. Banks Lake return flow conductivity boundary condition, Figure 18. Banks Lake return flow coliform boundary condition, Figure 19. Banks Lake return flow dissolved oxygen boundary condition, Figure 11. Banks Lake return flow orthophosphate boundary condition, Figure 111. Banks Lake return flow ammonium boundary condition, Figure 112. Banks Lake return flow nitrate plus nitrite boundary condition, Figure 113. Plot of the Thornton-Lessem function Figure 114. Model-data comparison of orthophosphate at LRFEP station Figure 115. Model-data comparison of ammonium at LRFEP station Figure 116. Model-data comparison of nitrate plus nitrite at LRFEP station Figure 117. Model-data comparison of dissolved oxygen at LRFEP station Figure 118. Model-data comparison of alkalinity at LRFEP station Figure 119. Model-data comparison of at LRFEP station Figure 12. Model-data comparison of total dissolved solids at LRFEP station vi

9 Figure 121. Model-data comparison of orthophosphate at LRFEP station Figure 122. Model-data comparison of ammonium at LRFEP station Figure 123. Model-data comparison of nitrate plus nitrite at LRFEP station Figure 124. Model-data comparison of dissolved oxygen at LRFEP station Figure 125. Model-data comparison of alkalinity at LRFEP station Figure 126. Model-data comparison of at LRFEP station Figure 127. Model-data comparison of total dissolved solids at LRFEP station Figure 128. Model-data comparison of orthophosphate at LRFEP station Figure 129. Model-data comparison of ammonium at LRFEP station Figure 13. Model-data comparison of nitrate plus nitrite at LRFEP station Figure 131. Model-data comparison of dissolved oxygen at LRFEP station Figure 132. Model-data comparison of alkalinity at LRFEP station Figure 133. Model-data comparison of at LRFEP station Figure 134. Model-data comparison of total dissolved solids at LRFEP station Figure 135. Model-data comparison of orthophosphate at LRFEP station Figure 136. Model-data comparison of ammonium at LRFEP station Figure 137. Model-data comparison of nitrate plus nitrite at LRFEP station Figure 138. Model-data comparison of dissolved oxygen at LRFEP station Figure 139. Model-data comparison of alkalinity at LRFEP station Figure 14. Model-data comparison of at LRFEP station Figure 141. Model-data comparison of total dissolved solids at LRFEP station Figure 142. Model-data comparison of orthophosphate at LRFEP station Figure 143. Model-data comparison of ammonium at LRFEP station Figure 144. Model-data comparison of nitrate plus nitrite at LRFEP station Figure 145. Model-data comparison of dissolved oxygen at LRFEP station Figure 146. Model-data comparison of alkalinity at LRFEP station Figure 147. Model-data comparison of at LRFEP station Figure 148 Model-data comparison of total dissolved solids at LRFEP station Figure 149. Model-data comparison of orthophosphate at LRFEP station Figure 15. Model-data comparison of ammonium at LRFEP station Figure 151. Model-data comparison of nitrate plus nitrite at LRFEP station Figure 152. Model-data comparison of dissolved oxygen at LRFEP station Figure 153. Model-data comparison of at LRFEP station Figure 154. Model-data comparison of total dissolved solids at LRFEP station Figure 155. Model-data comparison of orthophosphate at LRFEP station Figure 156. Model-data comparison of ammonium at LRFEP station Figure 157. Model-data comparison of nitrate plus nitrite at LRFEP station Figure 158. Model-data comparison of dissolved oxygen at LRFEP station Figure 159. Model-data comparison of alkalinity at LRFEP station Figure 16. Model-data comparison of at LRFEP station Figure 161. Model-data comparison of total dissolved solids at LRFEP station Figure 162. Model-data comparison of dissolved oxygen at LRFEP station Figure 163. Model-data comparison of at LRFEP station Figure 164. Model-data comparison of total dissolved solids at LRFEP station Figure 165. Model-data comparison of orthophosphate at LRFEP station Figure 166. Model-data comparison of ammonium at LRFEP station vii

10 Figure 167. Model-data comparison of nitrate plus nitrite at LRFEP station Figure 168. Model-data comparison of dissolved oxygen at LRFEP station Figure 169. Model-data comparison of alkalinity at LRFEP station Figure 17. Model-data comparison of at LRFEP station Figure 171. Model-data comparison of total dissolved solids at LRFEP station Figure 172. Model-data comparison of orthophosphate at LRFEP station Figure 173. Model-data comparison of ammonium at LRFEP station Figure 174. Model-data comparison of nitrate plus nitrite at LRFEP station Figure 175. Model-data comparison of dissolved oxygen at LRFEP station Figure 176. Model-data comparison of alkalinity at LRFEP station Figure 177. Model-data comparison of at LRFEP station Figure 178. Model-data comparison of total dissolved solids at LRFEP station Figure 179. Model-data comparison of orthophosphate at LRFEP station Figure 1. Model-data comparison of ammonium at LRFEP station Figure 181. Model-data comparison of nitrate plus nitrite at LRFEP station Figure 182. Model-data comparison of dissolved oxygen at LRFEP station Figure 183. Model-data comparison of alkalinity at LRFEP station Figure 184. Model-data comparison of at LRFEP station Figure 185. Model-data comparison of total dissolved solids at LRFEP station Figure 186. Model-data comparison of orthophosphate at LRFEP station Figure 187. Model-data comparison of ammonium at LRFEP station Figure 188. Model-data comparison of nitrate plus nitrite at LRFEP station Figure 189. Model-data comparison of dissolved oxygen at LRFEP station Figure 19. Model-data comparison of alkalinity at LRFEP station Figure 191. Model-data comparison of at LRFEP station Figure 192. Model-data comparison of total dissolved solids at LRFEP station Figure 193. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 194. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 195. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 196. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 197. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 198. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 199. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 2. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 21. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 22. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 23. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 24. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 25. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 26. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 27. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 28. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 29. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 21. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 211. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 212. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J viii

11 Figure 213. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 214. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 215. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 216. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 217. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 218. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 219. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 22. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 221. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 222. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 223. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 224. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 225. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 226. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 227. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 228. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 229. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 23. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 231. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 232. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 233. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 234. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 235. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 236. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 237. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 238. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 239. Vertical total dissolved solids model-data comparison, J Figure 24. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 241. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 242. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 243. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 244. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 245. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 246. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 247. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 248. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 249. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 25. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 251. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 252. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 253. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 254. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 255. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 256. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 257. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 258. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J ix

12 Figure 259. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 26. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 261. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 262. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 263. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 264. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 265. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 266. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 267. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 268. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 269. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 27. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 271. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 272. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 273. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 274. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 275. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 276. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 277. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 278. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 279. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 2. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 281. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 282. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 283. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 284. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 285. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 286. Vertical dissolved oxygen profile model-data comparison, J Figure 287. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 288. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 289. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 29. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 291. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 292. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 293. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 294. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 295. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 296. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 297. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 298. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 299. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 3. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 31. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 32. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 33. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 34. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J x

13 Figure 35. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 36. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 37. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 38. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 39. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 31. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 311. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 312. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 313. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 314. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 315. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 316. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 317. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 318. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 319. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 32. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 321. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 322. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 323. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 324. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 325. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 326. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 327. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 328. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 329. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 33. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 331. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 332. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 333. Vertical temperature profile model-data comparison, J Figure 334. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 335. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 336. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 337. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 338. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 339. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 34. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 341. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 342. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 343. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 344. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 345. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 346. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 347. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 348. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 349. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 35. Vertical model-data comparison, J xi

14 Figure 351. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 352. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 353. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 354. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 355. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 356. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 357. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 358. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 359. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 36. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 361. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 362. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 363. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 364. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 365. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 366. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 367. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 368. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 369. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 37. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 371. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 372. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 373. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 374. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 375. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 376. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 377. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 378. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 379. Vertical model-data comparison, J Figure 3. Vertical model-data comparison, J xii

15 Table of Tables Table 1. Model calibration periods Table 2. Grand Coulee Dam forebay stage statistics, Table 3. Grand Coulee Dam forebay stage statistics, Table 4. Grand Coulee Dam forebay stage statistics, Table 5. LFREP vertical profile stations Table 6. Grand Coulee Dam temperature statistics, Table 7. Organization of the Grand Coulee Dam outflow constituent model-data comparison statistics Table 8. Discrete constituent model-data comparison statistics Table 9. Calibration statistics summary, Table 1. Conductivity boundary condition generation summary Table 11. Coliform bacteria boundary condition generation summary Table 12. Alkalinity boundary condition generation summary Table 13. Dissolved oxygen boundary condition generation summary Table 14. Orthophosphate boundary condition generation summary Table 15. Ammonium boundary condition generation summary Table 16. Nitrate plus nitrite boundary condition generation summary Table 17. Chlorophyll-a (algae) boundary condition generation summary Table 18. boundary condition generation summary... Table 19. Dissolved organic carbon boundary condition generation summary Table 2. Total suspended solids boundary condition generation summary Table 21. Zooplankton boundary condition generation summary Table 22. Bioenergetics parameters summary Table 23. Digestion parameter variables and units Table 24. Digestion coefficient formulations Table 25. Consumption parameter variables and units Table 26. Egestion parameter variables and units Table 27. Excretion parameter variables and units Table 28. Specific dynamic action parameter variables and units Table 29. Respiration parameter variables and units Table 3. Representative ancillary function values for 76 and 125 g kokanee at 4 and 2 C. 16 Table 31. Vertical profile calibration statistics, Table 32. W2 Model Water Quality Parameters Summary xiii

16 Acknowledgments Funds were provided by the Bonneville Power Adminstration to the Spokane Tribe of Indians to conduct this project for the Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Evaluation Program. Deanne-Pavlik- Kunkel and Ben Scofield (Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Evaluation Program) provided data, system knowledge, and data interpretation. Dr. Mike Mazur and Dr. Dave Beauchamp (University of Washington, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences) collaborated on the fish bioenergetics modeling. Dr. Robert Annear and Dr. Chris Berger (Portland State University, Water Resources Research Group) provided technical assistance and advice for the hydrodynamic and water quality model. xiv

17 Introduction An understanding of the effects of hydrodynamics and reservoir operations on the Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake (Lake Roosevelt) aquatic food web allows for better management of the reservoir. A CE-QUAL-W2, v.3.5, hydrodynamic and water quality model (Cole and Wells, 26 1 ) is being applied to the reservoir. The models zooplankton algorithms are expanded and a fish bioenergetics model is incorporated. The Lake Roosevelt model extent is shown in Figure 1. The model includes the lacustrine arms up to full pool on the Sanpoil, Kettle, and Colville Rivers; the Spokane River arm up to Little Falls Dam; and the Columbia River from Grand Coulee Dam to the U.S.-Canadian border. The previous companion report, Boundary Conditions and Set-up (McKillip, Annear, and Wells, 26), covered A limnological overview Hydrodynamic boundary condition data and model inputs Grand Coulee Dam structures (powerhouse and spillway characteristics) Water temperature boundary condition data and model inputs Meteorological data and model inputs Water quality boundary condition data Model bathymetry data and model grid development Topographic shading Primary and secondary production data Kokanee hatchery release data This report discusses the model calibration and issues related to the calibration. This report discusses the topics of 1) Hydrodynamic calibration: Hydrodynamic calibration focuses on matching the water surface elevation at Grand Coulee Dam. 2) Temperature calibration: Temperature calibration focuses on matching temperature profiles throughout the reservoir and continuous data below Grand Coulee Dam. Many of the calibration issues centered on properly characterizing the localized wind and powerhouse withdrawals. 3) Abiotic water quality calibration: Abiotic water quality calibration focused on matching water quality profile data in the reservoir. The selection of proper rate kinetics and understanding the impact of hydrodynamics on water quality state variables was critical to proper calibration 1 The CE-QUAL-W2 version was upgraded from v.3.2 to v.3.5 since release of the Data Report (McKillip, Annear, and Wells, 26 (EWR-1-5)). References to the User Manual also changed from Cole and Wells, 24 (v.3.2) to Cole and Wells, 26 (v.3.5.) 1

18 4) Bioenergetic (algae, zooplankton, kokanee) modeling approach and calibration 5) Sensitivity analyses The hydrodynamic calibration was performed for three independent years: 2, 21, and 22. Temperature, water quality and bioenergetic calibrations were performed for 2. Table 1 shows the model calibration periods. U.S. Canadian border Kettle R. Colville R. Grand Coulee Dam Sanpoil R. Spokane R.; Little Falls Dam Hawk Cr. Figure 1. Lake Roosevelt model area. 2

19 Table 1. Model calibration periods. Calibration Start date End date Hydrodynamic January 1, 2 January 1, 21 January 1, 22 December 31, 2 December 31, 21 December 31, 22 Water temperature January 1, 2 December 31, 2 Water quality January 1, 2 December 31, 2 Bioenergetics January 1, 2 December 31, 2 Monitoring Sites The water quality monitoring sites are discussed in McKillip, Annear, and Wells (25). Figure 2 shows the locations of the water quality monitoring stations. Hydrodynamic calibration sites include USACOE FDRW at Grand Coulee Dam and GCGW downstream of the dam. These sites were used for boundary conditions and for model-data comparisons during calibration within Lake Roosevelt. 3

20 Canada BC8NN21 (Kettle R. at Carson Bridge) BC8NE5 (Columbia R. at Birchbank) BC8NE1 (Columbia R. at Waneta) Washington USGS USGS BC8NE29 (Pend Oreille R. at Waneta) USGS. Environment Canada USGS 1249 LRFEP Hydrolab 2. USGS Avista, Little Falls Dam USGS Figure 2. Water quality sampling site locations. 4

21 Hydrodynamic Calibration Hydrodynamic calibration was performed by balancing all of the sources and sinks with a waterbalance flow to match the dam forebay water surface elevation data. Sources include tributary and mainstem inflows, precipitation, and return flows from Banks Lake (cogeneration flows). Sinks include outflows at the dam (powerhouse flows, outlet tubes, and spillway flows) irrigation withdrawals to Banks Lake, and evaporation. Calibration Stations The sole hydrodynamic calibration station is at the forebay of Grand Coulee Dam, USACOE gage (GCL). The station reports hourly water surface elevation (stage). Year 2 Figure 3 shows the model-data comparison of forebay stage. Table 2 reports the model-data comparison statistics. The magnitude of the waterbalance flows are shown in Figure 4. Figure 5 shows the percent of the waterbalance flows compared to the total flow through the dam. The magnitude of the waterbalance flows is largely within the flow gage measurement error range of 5 to 1%. Water surface elevation, m /1/ 2/26/ 4/22/ 6/17/ 8/12/ 1/7/ 12/2/ Model Data (forebay, USACOE GCL) Jday, 1999 Figure 3. Model-data comparison, Grand Coulee Dam forebay stage, 2. 5

22 Table 2. Grand Coulee Dam forebay stage statistics, 2. Statistic (m) Count ME* AME* RMS* Daily-average values Hourly-average values * ME=mean error, AME=absolute mean error, RMS=root mean square error, see Appendix G. 6 1/1/ 2/26/ 4/22/ 6/17/ 8/12/ 1/7/ 12/2/ Waterbalance flows, m 3 /s Net: -4 m 3 /s St. Dev.: 115 m 3 /s Jday, 1999 Figure 4. Waterbalance flow magnitudes, 2. Percent of downstream flow (USGS ) /1/ 2/26/ 4/22/ 6/17/ 8/12/ 1/7/ 12/2/ Net: -1.7 % St. Dev.: 4.1 % Jday, 1999 Figure 5. Waterbalance flows as percentage of downstream flows, 2. 6

23 Year 21 Figure 6 shows the model-data comparison of forebay stage. Table 3 reports the model-data comparison statistics. The waterbalance flows are shown terms of magnitude (Figure 7) and percent of total flow through the dam (Figure 8). Unlike the water balance for 2, the 21 water balance shows a bias toward negative flows (water being removed from the river). 12/31/ 2/25/1 4/22/1 6/17/1 8/12/1 1/7/1 12/2/1 394 Forebay water surface elevation, m Model Forebay data Jday, 1999 Figure 6. Model-data comparison, Grand Coulee Dam forebay stage, 21. Table 3. Grand Coulee Dam forebay stage statistics, 21. Statistic (m) Count ME* AME* RMS* Daily-average values Hourly-average values * ME=mean error, AME=absolute mean error, RMS=root mean square error, see Appendix G. 7

24 5 1/1/1 2/26/1 4/23/1 6/18/1 8/13/1 1/8/1 12/3/1 Waterbalance flows, m 3 /s Net: -172 m 3 /s St. Dev.: 151 m 3 /s Jday, 1999 Figure 7. Waterbalance flow magnitudes, 21. Percent of downstream flow (USGS ) /1/1 2/26/1 4/23/1 6/18/1 8/13/1 1/8/1 12/3/1 Net: % St. Dev.: 11.2 % Jday, 1999 Figure 8. Waterbalance flows as percentage of downstream flows, 21. 8

25 Year 22 Figure 9 shows the model-data comparison of forebay stage. Table 4 reports the model-data comparison statistics. The waterbalance flows are shown terms of magnitude (Figure 1) and percent of total flow through the dam (Figure 11). Unlike the water balance for 2, the 22 water balance shows a bias toward negative flows (water being removed from the river) /1/2 2/26/2 4/23/2 6/18/2 8/13/2 1/8/2 12/3/2 Forebay water surface elevation, m Model Forebay data Jday, 1999 Figure 9. Model-data comparison, Grand Coulee Dam forebay stage, 22. Table 4. Grand Coulee Dam forebay stage statistics, 22. Statistic (m) Count ME* AME* RMS* Daily-average values Hourly-average values * ME=mean error, AME=absolute mean error, RMS=root mean square error, see Appendix G. 9

26 5 1/1/2 2/26/2 4/23/2 6/18/2 8/13/2 1/8/2 12/3/2 Waterbalance flows, m 3 /s Net: -183 m 3 /s St. Dev.: 13 m 3 /s Jday, 1999 Figure 1. Waterbalance flow magnitudes, 22. Percent of downstream flow (USGS ) /1/2 2/26/2 4/23/2 6/18/2 8/13/2 1/8/2 12/3/2 Net: -6.3 % St. Dev.: 4.2 % Jday, 1999 Figure 11. Waterbalance flows as percentage of downstream flows, 22. 1

27 Temperature Calibration The temperature calibration focused on matching the vertical stratification by adjusting the local wind sheltering coefficient and properly characterizing the powerhouse flows. The selective withdrawal elevation for flow through the third powerhouse had a lower bounds set to allow for more of the warmer surface water characteristic during stratification to be withdrawn. Meteorological inputs were adjusted to allow for the proper level of mean heating in the vertical profile sampling stations and continuous data downstream of Grand Coulee Dam. Figure 12 shows a comparison of the vertical temperature profile at LRFEP station 9. (upstream of Grand Coulee Dam) under the calibrated wind sheltering coefficients [WSC] and with the default values [1.]. Areas upstream of the dam had decreased WSC values (this in a decrease in wind speed, and hence mixing) which helped to allow greater stratification in the epilimnion. 11

28 1 2 3 Data, LRFEP sta 9. Model, calibration WSC values Model, default WSC values 1/12/ (J651) 4 Depth, m Temperature, C Figure 12. The effects of wind sheltering coefficients on temperature calibration. The default value of WSC of.85 was not considered accurate but was used as a basis for comparison to the calibrated value. Calibration Stations Two temperature calibration data types were available. Periodic vertical profile data were available at some or all of the 11 LRFEP stations shown in Figure 13. Table 5 lists the gage locations, numbers, and names. Sampling general occurred at a temporal frequency up to monthly at a typical vertical resolution of 3 m over the bulk of the vertical range. Roughly 1 km (6 mi) downstream of Grand Coulee Dam is the USACOE gage (GCGW) which records hourly temperatures. The Columbia River at the gage is riverine, and the temperatures were taken to be representative of the mean temperature. 12

29 Two additional temperature data sources were not used for calibration. The USGS gage at Northport (12452) reported low frequency samples. The values reported were generally much colder than the nearby upstream temperatures reported at the International Boundary (USACOE CIBW) used for the Columbia River temperature boundary condition. The upstream gage, CIBW, agreed well with the most upstream vertical profile station (LRFEP.). The USBR collects temperatures from a station at the left side of Grand Coulee Dam that floats 6 ft (18.3 m) below the water surface (reported as USACOE: FDRW). These data were likely unrepresentative of the temperatures in the last model segment (which is 1 m in length) as the instrument was attached to a trash rack near the dam face. Refer to McKillip, Annear, and Wells (25) for further discussion of the instrument and data quality. Figure 13. Locations of the temperature calibration sites. 13

30 Table 5. LFREP vertical profile stations. Gage/Station Location Name Latitude Longitude. Evan's Landing Kettle Falls Gifford Hunters Porcupine Bay Spokane R. Confluence Seven Bays Keller Ferry Sanpoil R Sanpoil R. Confluence Spring Canyon Grand Coulee Dam, Continuous Temperatures Temperature calibration focused on adjusting the wind magnitude (via the wind sheltering coefficient) temporally and spatially. Because actual wind speed and direction are highly variable around the lake, in order to monitor the wind with sufficient accuracy for calibration, one or a couple of wind monitoring locations may be inadequate to account for the full spatial and temporal variability of the wind field. The temperature data provide a good measure of the level of wind-driven mixing available between stations over the sampling time intervals. Thus, by adjusting the wind magnitude over reaches and time periods where the level of mixing is known (i.e., where temperature data are present), the mean wind speed can be better approximated. The first target was to approximate the mean downstream temperature data (USACOE GCGW). The second target was to match the vertical temperature profiles (refer to Appendix F), which are a good indicator of the appropriate wind magnitude. In matching the temperatures near Grand Coulee Dam, the vertical profile data at LRFEP station 9. were given greater weight than the downstream river temperatures at USACOE GCGW. There is some uncertainty in how representative the downstream data are of the combined dam outflow temperature. This comparison is shown in Figure 14. Statistics are reported in Table 6. The depth of the powerhouse intakes, when compared to the vertical temperature profiles of the data at LRFEP station 9. and the model at the last Columbia River segment, suggests that the outflow temperature should be much colder during the summer than the downstream, riverine data. In order to 1) match the downstream, riverine data and 2) obtain the shape of the vertical profile data, the bottom of the selective withdrawal algorithm for the third powerhouse was limited to a minimum elevation of 353 m. This is higher than the centerline intake elevation of m. Given the narrow inlet length of the third powerhouse, the surface waters appear to be preferentially withdrawn from the surface. This model characterization is a simplification of the more complicated three-dimensional nature of the flow within the third powerhouse inlet. 14