susitna hydroelectric project - arlis.orgsusitna hydroelectric project federal energy regulatory...
TRANSCRIPT
SUSITNAHYDROELECTRIC PROJECTFEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMI8810NPROJECT No. 7114
STREAM FLOW ANDTEMPERATURE MODELING IN
THE SUSITNA BASIN, ALASKA
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA
ARCTIC ENVIRONMENTALINFORMATION ANDDATA CENTER
UND." CONTRACT TO FINAL REPORT
SEPTEMBER 1983DOCUMENT No. 882
3~tA\=~~tA\®OO·NA JOINT VENTURE
TK1425.sa1"472
___n_O.8_62_- ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY~--,
r:!
i!I
I'"'"
I
--
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
STREAM FLOW AND TEMPERATURE MODELINGIN THE SUSITNA BASIN r ALASKA
Report by
Arctic Environmental Informationand Data Center
Under Contract toHarza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture
Prepared forAlaska Power Authority
Final ReportSeptember 1983
Document No. 862
T/<\\'1J..SI S ~
f'i?~_
1'1'0· ~ (O'~
....
....
r
....
....
....
NOTICE
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS CONCERNINGTHIS REPORT SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO
THE ALASKA POWER AUTHORITYSUSITNA PROJECT OFFICE
iI
rI
rII
If'Il''i''Ili
....
....
-
This report was prepared by the following
AEIDC staff
William J. Wilson, Principal Investigator
Ken A. Voos, Ph.D., Environmental Engineer
Paul R. Meyer, Hydrologist
Lynn D. Leslie, Climatologist
Beverly J. Valdez, Information Coordinator
....
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
LIST OF FIGURES..................................................... vi
AC'KNOWLEDGEM.ENTS ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••viii
INTRODUCTION ••••••••••••••••••••••••• •-• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1
WATER BALANCE ACCOUNTING FOR THE SUSITNA BASIN...................... 3
INTRODUCTION ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••DESCRIPTION OF THE WATER BALANCE MODEL ••••METHODS TO APPORTION SUB-BASIN WATER••••••
Method I. Linear Watershed Area Contribution ••Method II. Areal Precipitation Weighting.Method III. Water-Yield Weighting ••••
TESTING THE C COEFFICIENTS ••••C COEFFICIENTS TEST RESULTS •••USE OF RELATIVE PRECIPITATION WEIGHTING••••
May through September .October through April ••••
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ••••••••
335779
101112121313
STREAM NETWORK TEMPERATURE SIMULATION MODEL......................... 17
r!
-
....
N('t')1.1')r-~
((.)('I)
000\!)\!)~('t')....('t')
-------~-
~
INTR.ODUCTION•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• _•••••DESCRIPTION OF THE STREAM TEMPERATURE MODEL•••••MODIFICATIONS '..••••.••••••••.•••••••.•.•••••••••STREAM. NETWORK•••••••••••••••••••••STREAM. STRUCTURE••••••••••••••••
Topographic Shading •••.••••Stream Widths ••••••••••••••Hydraulic Retardance •••Tributary Assumptions •••••••••
HYDROLO,GY •••• '•••••••••••••••••••••••Flows ' .Stream Temperatures ' .
Observed Temperatures ••••••••••••••••••••••Synthetic Temperatures •••••••••••••••••••••
USGS Cantwell gage on the Susitna River(RM 223.7) ' .
USGS gage data collected on the Chulitnaand Talkeetna rivers ••••••••••••••••••••
Temperatures of Distributed Flow.'METEOROLOGY •••••••••• '•••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Selection of Meteorologic Data •••••••••••Ground Reflectivity and Atmospheric Dust.Meteorologic Predictions •••.•••.••.•••••••••••••••
V~IDATION •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••CALIBRATION •••••••••••••••••••••RESULTS .ANl) DISCUSSION •••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••.•.•
iv
1718212124242729292929303030
30
333339394040465154
-
....
r!
r
....
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE NO.
FUTURE APPLICATIONS AND ENHANCEMENTS •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 55
BIBLIOGRAPHY. • . . • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 57
APPENDICES
A. TOPOGRAPHIC SHADING••.••.••••••••••••••••'••••••••••.•••..•• A-IB. WIDTH/FLOW FUNCTIONS...................................... B-1C. LONGITUDINAL TEMPERATURE PROFILES, JUNE TO
SEPT'EM:BER 1981-1982....................................... C-l
v
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE NO.
gage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
C coefficients, Cantwell to Gold Creek Basin.............. 11
Flow balance sub-basins, Cantwell gage to Sunshine
Period of record for gage stations used in H20BAL......... 6
Calculated mean annual precipitation and water-yield values, Cantwell to Sunshine Basin.................. 9
Mean pre- and postproject June flow profiles, Watanato Sunshine Station, using precipitation-weightingwater balance method....................................... 14
r FIGURENUMBER
'I
I"'" 1.
1
l2.
3.
!"'"
4.
5.
6. Mean preproject June flows, Watana to SunshineStation, using three weighting methods.................... 15
7. Vertical air temperature distribution. Anchorage andFairbanks 1968, 1969, 1970, 1980, 1981, 1982•••••••••••••• 22
- 8. Vertical relative humidity distribution. Anchorageand Fairbanks 1968, 1969, 1970, 1980, 1981, 1982 •••••••••• 23
9. Stream network from Watana to Sunshine •••••••••••••••••••• 25
10. Susitna mainstem reach definitions •••••••••••••••••••••••• 26
11. Tabular values of width function parameters ••••••••••••••• 28
12. Monthly stream temperatures, available data June toSept. 1980~ 1981, 1982••...•............•..•......•....... 31
r13. Monthly stream temperatures, usable data June to Sept.
1980, 1981, 198.2.......................................... 32
14. Temperature regression for Susitna River at Cantwellgage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
15. Temperature regression for Chulitna River at USGS gage •••• 35
16. Temperature regression for Talkeetna River at USGS gage ••• 36
17. Ground reflectivity and atmospheric dust coefficients,Matanuska Agricultural Experiment Station, Palmer .•••••••• 41
18. Susitna Basin observed air temperatures vs. tempera-tures predicted from Talkeetna data ••••••••••••••••••••••• 42
vi
,rI
FIGURENUMBER
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
PAGE NO.
r
19. Susitna observed humidities vs. humidities predictedfrom Talkeetna data........................................ 44
20. Average monthly wind speeds (M/S) , 1980, 1981, 1982 ••••.•• 47
21. Predicted vs. observed solar predictions, 1980, 1981,1982... .. ..•... ...•.... . .. .. . 48
22.
23.
Tributary temperatures; 3 C groundwater inflow assumed •••• 49
Tributary temperatures; postcalibration, includingdistributed flow temperature model•••••••••••••••••••••••• 52
-r
24. Temperature model calibration statistics for tributarypredictiona. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
vii
I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report is the result of a cumulative effort by a number ofpeople. Special appreciation is extended to Gail Heineman (ADF&G) forfacilitating necessary data transfers; Tim Quane and Jay Sauntner (bothof ADF&G) and Carl Schoch (R&M) for sharing their on-site knowledge;Fred Theurer (IFG) and Woody Trihey for their technical guidance; andJeff Coffin (R&M) for his continued assistance throughout the project.At AEIDC~ we would like to thank the Resource and Sciences staff fortheir ongoing support in all phases of this report; Information Servicesstaff for library and bibliographic services; Judy Brogan for hereditorial assistance; and Nancy Walters and Sherrie Cornett for theproduction of this report.
viii
rr
-
....I
....r
INTRODUCTION
The Alaska Power Authority, through Harza-Ebasco Joint Venture,
contracted with the University of Alaska's Arctic Environmental Informa
tion and Data Center (AEIDC) to simulate postproject physical habitat
conditions in the Susitna River drainage with a computerized model
system. Water balance and stream temperature models permit the simu
lation of unmeasured water discharges and temperatures at various
locations downstream from the proposed Watana or Devil Canyon dams
(AEIDC 1983). These predictions are necessary for the analysis of
project impacts on downstream fishery populations and habitats and will
allow identification of appropriate streamflow regimes to minimize
negative effects and aid mitigation efforts.
Determination of stream temperatures requires flow data at various
mainstem and tributary locations. This is the main purpose of the
Susitna water balance model. Water temperature is important because it
has various effects on fish behavior, including habitat selection,
migration, movement patterns, food selection, and the physiological
functions associated with growth and metabolism. It has a direct effect
on the time required for salmonid egg development. Many studies have
illustrated the relationship between small temperature change over long
periods of time and salmonid egg incubation (Reiser and Bjornn 1979).
Temperature has also been implicated as a factor affecting the timing of
outmigration of smolts and inmigration by adult spawners (Brett 1971;
Coutant 1970; Cherry, et a1. 1975; Reiser and Bjornn 1979). These
physiological and behavioral functions may be altered by temperature
changes of as little as 0.5 to 1.0 C.
For these reasons, it is important to predict downstream tempera
tures accurately and at the specific locations where fishery habitat may
be affected. Tributary flows and temperatures also should be simulated
so that the dilution or buffering effect of tributaries on the mainstem
can be understood. Water balance and temperature predictions will also
be critical to the river ice modeling efforts of Harza-Ebasco.
This report is organized into three major sections. The first
section describes the water balance model and hydrologic data synthesis.
The second section provides a description of the stream temperature
1
....
.-
P
I
-
model and how it was modified to more accurately reflect Alaska environ
mental conditions. It also includes an analysis of the temperature
model's performance to date. The last section is a discussion of the
future applications and enhancements of both the water balance and
stream temperature models. including how they will be applied for esti
mating project effects. This report does not include actual estimates
of project impacts.
2
....I
-
.....
WATER BALANCE ACCOUNTING FOR THE SUSITNA BASIN
INTRODUCTION
The task of water balance accounting in the Susitna Basin is one of
defining the methodology to assign inflows between known flows at
mainstem gage stations. The lack of hydrometeorologic data in this
region makes this a difficult task, subject to a number of gross
assumptions. Three basin water apportionment methods have been explored
and are discussed in this section. AEIDC developed a computer program
to employ these apportionment methods, generating time series of flows
at a number of mainstem and tributary locations within the Susitna
Basin. Output files containing these flows are directly usable as input
to the stream network temperature model (SNTEMP).
DESCRIPTION OF THE WATER BALANCE MODEL
The water balance accounting program, H20BAL, was designed to
operate on the Susitna Basin between the USGS gages at Cantwell (Vee
Canyon) and Susitna Station. AEIDC's initial modeling efforts focus on
the reach from the Watana dam site to the USGS gaging station near the
Parks Highway bridge at Sunshine. The Chulitna and Talkeetna river
flows are incorporated into the system at the gage station on each river
near Talkeetna.
The basin between Cantwell and Sunshine Station was divided into 16
sub-basins (excluding the Chulitna and Talkeetna basins above their
respective USGS gages) for the purpose of water apportionment. These
basins center around the larger tributaries and are defined by drainage
divides (Figure 1). They do not necessarily follow the watershed
boundaries of any single stream, often including drainages of three or
more streams. In most of the sub-basins, a node location on the
mainstem river was chosen, representing the point source for all inflow
to the mainstem. For the few sub-basins without a dominant tributary,
inflow is linearly distributed along the adjacent mainstem reach.
The accuracy associated with assigning flow within a basin between
gage stations increases as the distance between gage stations decreases.
Thus, it is advantageous to use as many data stations within the basin
as are available. Gaps in historical data records exist at some
3
J ' 1 1 J 1 I ) ) -- ---1 -1 1 1 I
~
+
@,l USGS Gaqa/Nodaloco tlon
Gl USGS - GOQl Stat Ion
• Node locol jon
o Sub-Basin Idenllflcatlon
'- Sub-Bosln Bliundliry
I Dam SiI,
LFORK
--..-9/"
e-9
FLOW BALANCE SUB-BASINS,Canlwei I Gage 10 Sunshine Goge
Scale t, 8miles
,,'"","
,,~<)
_____ 1
I'%j1-"
~IiCD
.....
rtl'%jo I-'
ocn:E:§ 0'tn. Pl
~'lu'::l ::lCD n
CDOQPl tn
OQ CCD 0'
I0'Pltn1-"::ltn
C"lPl::l
~CDI-'I-'
OQPl
OQCD
...
...
-
stations within the basin (see Figure 2 for historical flow data
periods). Rather than discarding all data at a gage with occasional
gaps, we used linear regression to fill them.
The H20BAL program requires input data for the following USGS gage
stations:
Susitna River near Cantwell (Vee Canyon)
Susitna River at Gold Creek
Susitna River at Susitna Station
Chulitna River near Talkeetna
Talkeetna River near Talkeetna
We used flows at the Yentna River gage for the period that they are
available. For the present extent of simulation, flow data at Watana
are preferable to those at Cantwell, and flows at Sunshine are used
instead of those at Susitna Station. These additional stations provide
for greater accuracy by effectively reducing the size of the basin under
consideration. Usable statistically-filled 32-year data sets are
available for the Cantwell, Watana, Devil Canyon, Chulitna, Talkeetna
and Susitna Station sites (Acres 1983a).
A filled data record is also available for Sunshine gage but was
not used in H20BAL because of resulting flow deficits in the Gold Creek
to Sunshine reach. These deficits occur when the sum of flows at the
Gold Creek, Chulitna, and Talkeetna gages exceed the synthesized flow at
Sunshine Station. The alternate method used to assign flows at Sunshine
was to assume that the f1ow-per-unit-drainage-area contribution to the
mainstem was the same for the Gold Creek to Sunshine basin as it was for
the summed Gold Creek, Chulitna, and Talkeetna drainages. The limited
accuracy of this method is acceptable considering this sub-basin
comprises only 3.3 percent of the total drainage area defined at
Sunshine.
METHODS TO APPORTION SUB-BASIN WATER
Once data records are collected or filled for the skeletal gage
station network, interstation flows incrementally increase downstream by
the following relationship:
(1)
5
~ -1 -j -J ) 1 1 1 J J 1 1 1 ]
(j\
Gage Station
Figure 2. Period of record for gage stations used in H20BAL.
Susitna near Cantwell
Susitna at Watana
Susitna at Gold Creek
Chulitna River
Talkeetna River
Susitna at Sunshine
Yentna River
Susitna at SusitnaStation
I"""I
where:
Q is the mean flow for the given period (L3/t),
C is a fractional constant determined from some combination of
watershed area, areal precipitation, and water yield esti
mates (decimal),
s, s - 1 are subscripts referring to mainstem locations,
numerically increasing for each sub-basin downstream,
1, 2 are subscripts referring to mainstem gage locations,
numerically increasing downstream,
and
L, t refer to dimensions of length and time respectively
The node structure defining the network of sub-basins is fixed
(nonvariable) within the water balance model. The different values of
the C coefficients are selected as input options. We developed three
different methods for determining values of the C coefficients.
Method I. Linear Watershed Area Contribution--Acres (1982) used
!"'"' this method to determine flow series at proposed dam sites
between the USGS gages at Cantwell (Vee Canyon) and Gold
.- Creek. A sub-basin that drains 10 percent of the basin area
between gage stations is consistently assigned 10 percent of
the diffe~ence in flow between these two sites. The CI"""
coefficients are defined by: .
....
....C =s
where:
As
(2)
....
....
2A is the planimetered area (L ), and subscripts refer to
sub-basin, s, and the total basin, b.
Method II. Areal Precipitation Weighting--The purpose of this
method is to incorporate the weight of relative sub-basin
precipitation into the C coefficients. These coefficients are
now defined by:
7
--
c =s
P As s (3)
-
....
8
where:
P is the mean annual precipitation (L). and the subscripts
and other variables remain as previously defined.
The methods employed to determine the mean annual
precipitat10n for each sub-basin are important to note, since
a great amount of subjectiveness is involved. The primary
data source for the precipitation distribution was a
statewide, annual precipitation isohyetal map prepared by
James Wise (1977). Alaska state climatologist. This map is
contoured in 10-in intervals for the 10- to 40-in annual
precipitation range. and 20-in intervals above 40-in annual
precipitation. These isohyetals were redrawn on a
1: 250,OOo-scale map of the Susitna Basin. Additional
isohyetals were interpolated between each of the existing
ones. resulting in 5-in contour intervals in the 10- to 40-in
range, and 10-in intervals in areas with over 40-in of annual
precipitation.
To find average precipitation for each basin, we assumed
that the total precipitation between two isohyetals could be
estimated as the product of the area between the isohyetals
(found by polar planimetry) and the average of the two
isohyetal values. These products were summed for all of the
intercontour areas within a sub-basin and then divided by the
sub-basin area to determine the average annual precipitation.
The same process was used to find the mean annual precipi
tation for the entire basin (Figure 3) •
Figure 3. Calculated mean annual precipitation and water-yield values,Cantwell to Sunshine Basin.
Method III. Water-Yield Weighting--A report by Evan Merrell of
the U. S. Soil Conservation Service (1982) suggests a third
method for determining the C coefficients. In this report
Merrell uses precipitation and evapotranspiration estimates to
develop a mean annual water-yield map of the Susitna Basin.
To incorporate the relative weights of sub-basin water yield
estimates, the C coefficients are defined as:
C =s
.Y As s (4)
9
-
where:
Y refers to the mean annual water yield (L), and the
remaining variables are as defined previously.
The mean annual water-yield values for each sub-basin
were determined in the same manner as the mean annual
precipitation values. The water yield isopleths were redrawn
on a base map of the basin, along with the sub-basin outline.
The exception to note is that no isopleths were interpolated
between those given by Merrell. Once again, polar planimetry
was used to determine the areally-weighted basin water-yield
values (refer to Figure 3).
TESTING THE C COEFFICIENTS
The C coefficients determined for any of the methods will sum to
the value 1. 0 over the basin defined by two gage stations. A variety of
basins can be defined within the area of concern by using different
pairs of gaging stations. As previously discussed, increased accuracy
results from using data at all available gage stations.
The applicability of each method was tested by determining the
three sets of C coefficients for the Cantwell to Gold Creek basin and
applying these methods to the period for which historical records are
available at the Watana dam site. The predicted values were then
compared to the historical record at Watana. Figure 4 gives the C
coefficients for the Cantwell to Gold Creek basin. Predicted flow at
Watana is given by:
(5)
-i where:
subscripts w, c and g refer to Watana, Cantwell and Gold Creek
respectively, and Q and C are as previously defined.
The calculated C for each of the three methods is:w
Method I Method II Method III
0.5104 0.6759 0.4636
10
Figure 4. C coefficients, Cantwell to Gold Creek Basin.
C Coefficients.... Meth I Meth II Meth III
Sub-Basin Name Area P Y A P A Y As s s s s s s....(mi 2)
Pb
Yb ~ Pb~ Yb~
Clarence 76.8 1.3660 .4741 .0383 .0524 .0181Kosina 485.1 1. 4049 .8954 .2421 .3401 .2153t·J!atana 242.4 1.4439 .8837 .1210 .1747 .1090Deadman 218.4 .9979 1. 0971 .1090 .1087 .1212Tsusena 191.5 .7248 1.2529 .0996 .0693 .1175Fog 175.0 .9394 1.0428 .0873 .0820 .0891Devil 174.5 .5603 1.0310 .0871 .0488 .0896Chin-Chee 94.2 .4739 .8425 .0470 .0223 .0399.... Portage 186.4 .5018 1.2548 .0930 .0467 .1150I
Indian 159.4 .6913 1.0358 .0796 .0550 .0852
....
The mean observed value of C for the 13 months of record when data werew
collected at all three stations (Cantwell, Watana, and Gold Creek) was
0.6034, with a standard deviation of 0.1119. It is important to note
that these data were collected during the June through November period,
and may not be representative for the entire year. However, since
approximately 82 percent of the annual flow occurs during this period""" .
(based on the 1950 through 1979 flow record at Gold Creek), this period
of record appears adequate.
C COEFFICIENTS TEST RESULTS
~
I
....
One conclusion that can be drawn from this simple test is that none
of the three methods show clear superiority. Based on the estimates of
C ,we preferred Method II, the relative precipitation weighting scheme,wfor determining C coefficients; however, a couple of points concerning
these three methods should be mentioned. One concerns the differences
resulting from use of the linear drainage area method and the observed
11
r
....
,.,.,
flows at Watana. Acres (1982), using a drainage area-based C value ofw
0.515, calculated a synthesized mean annual flow at Watana of 8023 cfs
(Acres 1983a) • The observed C value of 0.6034 applied to the samew .32-year period results in an annual flow of 8338 cfs. This constitutes
a 3.9 percent increase in available water for the Watana reservoir.
Though the magnitude of this increase seems insignificant, it indicates
that any error would probably be on the side of underestimating water
supply at Watana. Second, the wat.er-yield map used for Method III was
developed to consider the smaller topographic features of the Susitna
Basin, while the precipitation map used for Method II has considerably
less topographic resolution. Consequently, greater utility would be
expected from the increased sophistication of Method III. The
water-yield map, however, apparently underestimates the contributions of
the upper basin (Cantwell to Watana) substantially. In calibrating the
map, Merrell was restricted to the available gage data at Cantwell and
Gold Creek.
If used on a small scale sub-basin such as Cantwell to Watana,
Method III might prove to be much more accurate than Method II.
However, the lack of flow data for the smaller tributaries presently
makes this assumption untenable.
USE OF RELATIVE PRECIPITATION WEIGHTING
Method II accept~ the premise that the sub-basin watersheds
contribute to mainstem flow in amounts relative to the distribution of
mean annual precipitation. However, actual watershed conditions exhibit
strong seasonal influences which must be considered. Consequently, the
year was divided into two periods for application of this method •
May through September. Flow in the early part of this period (May
through June) is dominated by the melt of winter precipitation.
During July through September, when storm events contribute a large
amount to tributary flow, the accuracy of this method depends on
the matching of storm precipitation with average annual
precipitation patterns.
12
....
....
,....
r-,
October through April. Most tributary flow during this period is
generated by groundwater baseflow; very little is a direct result
of precipitation or of snowpack melting. Consequently, annual
precipitation patterns are not used to weight relative basin
contributions. For this period we have continued to use linear
drainage area weighting (Method I).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The water balance accounting model is largely a support program,
providing input flows to other component models. As such, it operates
on a specific scenario, generating an output flow time series for each
nodal location in the system.
To generate the postproject flow time series, H20BAL runs through
two cycles. A time series at each node is first determined based on the
natural input flows. Tributary contributions are determined in this
step. The next cycle reassigns postproject output flows to the dam node
and flows at the remaining mainstem nodes are re-adjusted.
Figure 5, longitudinal profiles of the pre- and postproj ect mean
June flow regimes, provides graphic representation of H20BAL output.
Figure 6 gives tabular comparison of the three apportionment methods for
the same preproject mean June flows.
Since .filled flow records for the 32-year period of simulation
exist for the Talkeetna and Chulitna rivers, flow from these systems can
be treated as point source inputs to the mainstem basin. The Yentna
River, however, cannot. be treated in this way, except when simulating
the period covered by the two-year gage record. When extending the
water accounting system downstream from Sunshine, Yentna River flow must
be apportioned as a fraction of the difference between Susitna Station
and Sunshine Station gage flows.
The decision to use the area weighting procedure in the lower
basin, regardless of the method used in the upper basin (i.e., upstream
from Sunshine Station), was based on the following considerations:
1. The large size of the Yentna Basin (6180 mi2 ) makes the task
of developing C coefficients for water-yield or precipitation
weighting formidable.
13
14
3.
r Figure 6. Mean preproject June flows, Watana to Sunshine Station,using three weighting methods.
I--------Preproject Flows (cfs)--------
r Location River Area Precip. Water-YieldI
Name Mile Weighting Weighting Weighting
Watana 184.4 23034 23034 23034Tsusena 181.3 23999 24056 24081
I"'" Fog 176.0 24844 25266 24876r Devil Canyon 161. 3 25688 25986 25675
Chinchee 154.6 26143 26314 26031Portage 148.8 27044 27003 27056Indian 138.6 27815 27815 27815Mckenzie 116.8 28543 28655 28687Whiskers 101.4 28787 28917 28952Chulitna 98.6 52359 52526 52589Talkeetna 97.2 63916 64064 64103Trapper 91.2 64117 64280 64291
I"'" Sunshine 83.8 64555 64555 64555
2. The lack of gage data for the Yentna River with which to
calibrate makes any selection of a weighting scheme somewhat
arbitrary.
The confluence of the Yentna River is at the downstream end of
the Susitna Basin, far from the dam sites. Consequently, this
is the region least sensitive to differences in flow
apportionment methods.
Enhancement of the apportionment methodologies might be undertaken
in a number of ways. The relative precipitation weighting method could
.-
....
be improved by using monthly or seasonal precipitation distribution
maps. Presently, however, these maps are not available. Kilday (1974)
developed mean monthly precipitation maps for the State, but they do not
have the resolution necessary to be used on the Susitna Basin •
Sub-basin water yield would be determined most directly using
Method III, relative water-yield weighting. Improvement of the present
water-yield map is possible as additional precipitation and streamflow
data become available. Continued enhancement could lead to monthly or
seasonal water-yield estimates.
15
rr
Fi
-i
..... 16
2.F-
F"'" 3.
I
....I
....
.....I
STREAM NETWORK TEMPERATURE SIMULATION MODEL
INTRODUCTION
AEIDC selected the Stream Network Temperature Simulation model
(SNTEMP), developed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Theurer et a1.
1983), for use in the Susitna simulation model. SNTEMP predicts average
daily and daily minimum and maximum water temperatures at selected
points within a river network. The model requires meteorologic,
hydrologic, and stream geometry data to compute heat flux relationships
and to transport heat through the system.
Several features of SNTEMP make it particularly applicable for use
in the Susitna system.
1. SNTEMP contains a temperature regression technique which
allows use of incomplete or noncontinuous input temperature
data. Much of the Susitna water temperature data are point
measurements or incomplete records.
SNTEMP contains a calibration technique which provides the
ability to adjust low-confidence input parameters to obtain
minimum prediction error.
Daily average, maximum, and minimum water temperatures can be
predicted for periods ranging from as short as one day to as
long as one year (continuously variable in one-day incre
ments). Thus, short yet critical river reaches could be
modeled in daily detail, but the full length of the system is
simulated with longer averaging periods.
For the Susitna system, SNTEMP has been configured to simulate mean
monthly temperatures at any location between the Watana dam site and the
Parks Highway bridge at Sunshine Station. The model utilizes either
historical or synthetic hydrologic and meteorologic data. In this
latter mode of simulation, referred to as "gaming, tI synthetic data are
used to approximate temperatures during the construction and postproject
phases of the proposed project.
17
3.
rj
DESCRIPTION OF THE STREAM TEMPERATURE MODEL
SNTEMP is a collection of several submodels:
1. a solar model which predicts solar radiation based on the
latitude of the stream basin~ time of year, basin topographic
characteristics~ and prevailing meteorologic conditions;
2. a meteorologic correction model accounting for changes in air
temperature, relative humidity, and atmospheric pressure with
elevation;
a heat" flux model accounting for all significant heat sources
and sinks;
4. a heat transport model to move the water and its associated
heat content downstream;
5. a regression model for smoothing or completing observed water
temperature data; and
6. a flow mixing model for merging tributary flows and heat
content with those of the mainstem.
A complete description for each of these components is provided in
the model description/documentation available from the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Theurer et al. 1983). A brief description of
the heat transport model will be provided since it is this component~
more than any other~ which determines the model's limitations. The heat
transport model used in SNTEMP is based on the following dynamic
temperature-steady flow equation (Theurer et al. 1983):
-
-
(A/Q) (aT/at) + aT/ax = (qd/Q) (Td - T) + (BEH)/(QPCp )
I<-dynamic term-->!<------steady state equation---------->I
!<----dynamic temperature - steady flow equation-------->\
where:
A = flow area, L2
Q = flow, L'3/ t
T = temperature, T
t = time~ t
x = distance, L
qd = distributed inflow, L2 /t
Td = distributed inflow temperature, T
18
(6)
r
r,
...,
B = stream top width, L
EH = net heat flux, {E/L2 )/t
p = water density, M/L 3
c = specific heat of water, {E/M)/Tp
and dimensions are:
M - mass
T temperature
L - length
t - time
E - energy
The assumption of steady state (aT/at = 0) can be used to reduce
the order of Equation (6) when 24-hour average temperature predictions
are sufficient, resulting in:
(7)
-
It is significant that this equation does not contain a stream
velocity term. SNTEMP does not require stream velocities for prediction
of average daily temperatures downstream from a known temperature.
Dynamic temperature predictions are possible if steady state is not
assumed. Equation (6) can also be solved by the method of
characteristics (Theurer et al. 1983) which results in a solution
identical in form to Equation (7). Dynamic temperature predictions
require Equation (7) to be solved along the characteristic line equation
as follows:
dx = (Q/A) dt (8)
....I
The factor Q/A is stream velocity. Dynamic temperature predictions
require an estimate of stream velocity which SNTEMP computes using
Manning's equation. Closed form solutions of Equation (7) are obtained
by assuming that 1) the flow is uniform within a reach and 2) a second
order approximation of the heat flux is valid. This heat flux
approximation can be expressed mathematically:
19
(9)
F
'I
....
....II
-i
....
i'I
where:
T = equilibrium temperature, Te
K1
= first order thermal exchange coefficient, [«E/L2 )/t)/T]
K2
= second order thermal exchange coefficient, [«E/L2 )/t)/T2 ]
The equilibrium temperature is the theoretical temperature the
stream would approach if all heat transfer processes were held constant
with time. If the water reached equilibrium temperature, the rate of
heat input to the water would equal the rate of heat loss (LH = D).
Equilibrium temperature and steady flow assumptions constrain the
methods used to average input data. The input hydrologic and
meteorologic conditions must be representative throughout the travel
time from the initial to final points of the model network. If the
travel time from the most upstream point to the downstream end of the
network becomes significant compared to the data averaging time, then
model prediction becomes less reliable. For example, assume that a
3D-day meteorologic data averaging period has been selected and that it
takes 3D days for water to travel from point A to point B. Water
passing point B on the first day of this 3D-day period left point A 3D
days earlier. Therefore, the meteorologic conditions which determine
the daily average water temperature at point B on the first day are not
included in the time period averages. Only the last day's water column
can be considered to have been influenced by the 3D-day average
meteorologic conditions.
This data averaging versus travel time dilemma can be overcome
either by 1) selecting averaging periods greater than the network travel
time or 2) dividing the network into serially connected subnetworks, or
reaches, and using moving average input conditions. The first technique
is the standard way of operating SNTEMP. If short-term average water
temperature predictions are necessary, the second technique can be
accomplished with SNTEMP by simulating an upstream reach with
appropriate average input data, and using this simulation's output as·
input to the next downstream reach.
2D
-
-
MODIFICATIONS
AEIDC modified SNTEMP to more accurately simulate conditions
specific to Alaska and the Susitna Basin, including techniques to
approximate the seasonal variation in canyon wall shading and winter air
temperature inversions which normally occur in the Susitna River basin.
The original design of SNTEMP assumed topographic shading to be
constant. Since solar altitude angles are so acute in Alaska, resulting
in extreme shading during the winter months, SNTEMP was modified to
accept a monthly topographic shading parameter.
SNTEMP originally featured a constant lapse rate to simulate air
temperature and humidity change at elevations other than those where
data were recorded. Radiosonde data from Fairbanks ana Anchorage
indicated this approximation to be a poor predictor of actual
conditions, especially in the colder months (U.S. National Weather
Service 1968, 1969, 1970, 1980; World Meteorological Organization 1981,
1982). AEIDC modified SNTEMP to accept monthly, nonconstant lapse
rates. Local monthly temperature lapse rates were determined by
regressing temperature on elevation using data recorded above Anchorage
and Fairbanks (1968 through 1970; 1980 through 1982) by U. S. National
Weather Service balloons. The temperature lapse rate curves for June,
July, August, and September are shown in Figure 7. Piece-wise linear
humidity lapse rate curves were also determined from the balloon data
and are presented in Figure 8.
In addition, we also adjusted the normal SNTEMP operating method to
accommodate the limited water temperature data available throughout the
study area. Typically, a built-in regression model provides missing
water temperature data and smooths the data but we had to bypass this
feature since it required more data than were available at any of the
water temperature collection sites. This will be discussed further in
the section entitled "Synthetic Temperatures."
STREAM NETWORK
The stream network as defined for SNTEMP is designed to allow easy
manipulation of flows and water temperatures at specific locations.
This network can be used for simulations with either or both Watana and
Devil Canyon reservoirs. Using expected water temperatures and outflows
21
] ) - J 1 1 ] 1 1~~,
":EjJUNE f-'.
N I!ll1IIAIlJlE LYS£ I'll AUGUST ~N I£IQlI 1M o(llJS TEIlPEIlAlURE LAPSE RATE t'im • i HE:1GHI IN METalS lD
~aa [
I-..l
I ._l .. ., • 2Sll11 ••• •• ":Ej<lIII lD
I 20aB l:- I f-'. t'i1lIIlIt- • 'f...o , ............. t'i rt...tt f-'•III nI. l-
IP o~ °Illo I 15011 t- o • ","".,.0••• I [~
III10011 t- ~l:I .D. I -f-"
18 l- N • ,p.... ° - , I • \Ot'i0'\OOn
SllIIr I
'(""~.. lD
* t- ° ° ""- • • I .... ~OD n' D. \OlD
I 8 I ! I I I ! I ! I , I , I I , I , ,DR P !, 0'It'i...\Dill
-18 -8 -6 -4 -2 8 2 4 6 8 18 12 14 .. n-II .. .. -I ·z • . l 1 • • II Il II TEMPERA TURE WEGREES Cl a
.... t'iIDlWlUi£~D \OlD
-..l00... f-'•
[jJ
.... rt\Ot'i00 f-'.ottJULY SEPTEMBER .. a
rtT£H?UlATURE LAPSE RATE IEHPEIlATURE LAPSE RATE_f-'oHEIGHT IN METEAs
i /lEIGHT IN METERS \003000 I 3008 00:;:1.....I ..
2508 t- I I .., rI' I 258a• 1/1 •• .... :;p-• • \0:;:1
oon~I- I IIl'.~ I I 2000 I=- N::r'
• ..~ . at'i
I 1588 r- III1588 l- """..'- .' I OQ1/1 III 'Ir6' .'" lD
1000 l- • • 11--... • • • I ,. r §• • •• • 0.
~t.• :>J 588 • •• • aD • a
0," .1 • ·0I , I I I , I , I • I I I , I . I ,8
-18 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 & 8 III 12 14 -18 -8 -6 -4 -2 8 2 4 6 B 18 12 14TEllPERATlJRE WEGREES 0 TEHPERATURE WEGREES Cl
Figure 8. Vertical relative humidity distribution. Anchorage and Fairbanks1968, 1969, 1970, 1980, 1981, 1982.
..----------- -
~ ~.. '".... ..~ .. ""..
..oil a ..,,"" .. 'C ..:- ...
,p ...... ,p .... a g.. .. "1 .. ...a • §l§ e::::UJ
".... l- e !Xl .. ::<f) ... :::l;:
'" ;;;:=l .. ;; UJ '" ~~ ~ l-e....l!:-e:: !l! l.1J
~U'l
~:; '"
~ ....- :; ...... ~ .. !I ""II!
~
is 8,!ii ~ !i! I I , I I I I , I I , I I I I ! , ~
'" '"~ ~ II ~ g ; ~ ~ ~ '-! !'1.
.. ..-'~
~
:;..a
~~ a .... .... .. ..,jI .. ..a .... .. ..
.P-8 a:- :-
'C'l.
<P B .. ....~ ..
~l!I §w ... ~ >-~
Z.:::J ..
~......l ..:=l
~--, --,
1;(~;; i :; ~-
~.. ..N
N.. ..~ ffi
~ ; ..i ..
~:'!
5 :s!ii .. i.. ....~ ::! Iiil
23
rr
....
.....
-~
I
""'",
....
II
from Watana reservoir (RM 184.4), the model predicts the water
temperatures at any specific location downstream to Sunshine Station (RM
83.8). This network (Figure 9) is easily modified for simulations with
flows and water temperatures at Devil Canyon. To obtain starting
temperatures at Watana for validation and calibration simulations, we
defined a 40-mi reach from the USGS Cantwell gage (RM 223.5) downstream
to Watana. River mile distances are based on interpolations of maps in
the Susitna River Mile Index (R&M 1981).
Tributaries between Watana and Sunshine Station were included in
the Susitna stream network. The flow and thermal contributions of
smaller tributaries not explicitly included were estimated, and either
incorporated into a nearby tributary or were linearly distributed to the
neighboring mainstem reach. A more detailed description of these
hydrologic approximations appears in the section "Water Balance
Accounting for the Susitna Basin."
STREAM STRUCTURE
Segmenting the system network into reaches with similar physical
characteristics (Figure 10) provided the physical model of the system.
Reach selection was based predominately on orientation and local topo
graphy with consideration of significant slope change, width change, and
elevation drop.
Topographic Shading
Topographic shading may significantly affect Susitna River tempera
tures especially in the winter months. The orientation of the reach and
the elevation of surrounding canyon walls limits the amount of sunshine
the stream surface receives. As previously mentioned, SNTEMP was
modified to accept changes in stream shading for each month. The
variable which defines the amount of shading is the sunrise/sunset
altitude angle (a). We chose a representative midchannel point in thesreach to compute this angle. A compass rose was centered on this point
and terrain elevation versus distance transects collected from 30
degrees east of North to due South to 30 degrees west of North at 15
degree increments. Maximum terrain altitude angles were determined from
24
Figure 9. Stream network from Watana to Sunshine.
FOG195.9
181. 3
176. l2l
WATANA DAM SITE184.4
0-~'----ebTSUSENA2l2l8.6
rI
DEVIL174.3 161. 3
H CHINCHEE163.3
flIII!!II"" PORTAGE175.5 148.8
-INDIAN
138.6159.6
-
-
llfflIIil!!<,
WHISKERS113.2
CHULITNA116.5
TRAPPER115. 4
HH.4
98.6
91. 2
SUNSHINERM 83.8
TALKEETNA11212. 121
H refers to tributary head~
waters as defined in thestream network
J refers to tributaryjunction with the mainstem
Numbers refer to River Mileas interpolated from R&MRiver Mile Index (1981).
25
Figure 10. Susitna mainstem reach definitions.
"'"
-.
::"-to en!<~ Z
'1-05'0 0Ezi:i:w0
z{> "'
.!! c:( .!?
~W "e
'" 0:: '"., "'" 0
a: .,::E --a:W
.,:-~e t- o
"ttl "'Zu «1;'J;~ ....,nQ ::E
c:(zt:ttl:::>en
26
rI
-.....
each of these transects and then transferred to solar altitude versus
bearing angle plots (Siefert 1981). We computed the average
sunrise/sunset altitude angles for each month from these plots
(Appendix A).
Stream Widths
The quantity of radiative energy entering or leaving the stream is
a function of the stream surface area. An estimate of the stream width
is necessary for surface area determination. Mainstem wetted widths
used in SNTEMP from the Talkeetna River confluence to Watana were
determined from the R&M cross sections and HEC-2 simulations (R&M
1982d). The stage-discharge relationships developed by ADF&G (1983)
were not available when our width analysis was being performed.
However, since the stage discrepancies noted between the R&M simulations
and ADF&G observations would not result in significant width
differences, we do not propose to modify the width functions at this
time.
Water surface widths simulated by R&M were measured from the cross
section diagrams (R&M 1982d) and plotted as a function of flow (Appendix
B). We calculated width/flow functions from these plots.
Other methods were used to estimate top width for other mainstem
reaches and tributaries. USGS (1980, 1981) observations at Cantwell,
Chulitna, and Talkeetna provided some stream width and flow data. Width
data at the Chulitna and Talkeetna gages were available for several
flows. Several width measurements within a narrow range of flows
provided a constant width estimate for the Susitna River between
Cantwell gage and the Watana dam site. The width of the reach below the
Chulitna junction to Sunshine Station was determined from transects
collected by R&M (Coffin 1983). This width was also assumed constant
with flow. Field personnel estimated widths of the tributaries
(Sauntner 1983; Schoch 1983; Quane 1983) which were assumed constant
with flow.
Figure 11 presents width/flow functions in tabular form with
graphic presentations in Appendix B. The plots present data points
connected by line segments and the computed function.
27
!F"Figure 11. Tabular values of width function parameters.
!
Stream Reach IF Start End a b(mile) (mile)
Susitna 1 184.5 179.5 98.26 0.1577
Susitna 2 ·179.5 175.5 105.40 0.1708rI
Susitna 3 175.5 166.0 98.13 0.1820u
r Susitna 4 166.0 163.0 189.96 0.077 4"I,
Susitna 5 163.0 146.5 144.88 0.1005
Susitna 6 146.5 142.5 98.15 0.1845
Susitna 7 142.5 124.0 13.16 0.4078
r Susitna 8 124.0 115.0 33.95 0.3117
- Susitna 9 115.0 99.5 29.77 0.3390
Susitna 10 99.5 83.8 1256
Tsusena 1 208.6 181.3 80
Fog 1 195.9 176.0 50
Devil 1 174.3 161.3 35
Chinchee* 1 163.3 154.6 25
Portage 1 175.5 148.8 60
F"" Indian 1 159.6 138.6 50
Whiskers 1 113.2 101.4 20r-I Chulitna 1 116.5 98.6 60.70 0.2086
Talkeetna 1 102.0 97.2 97.92 0.1761
Trapper 1 115.4 91.2 18
Values for "a" and "b" in the function width (feet) flow b If "b"= a . (ds) •is undefined. "a" represents a constant width (feet).
*A synthetic stream representing the combined Chinook and ~hechako tributaries.
28
r'J
rI
:1
r'"1L
riI
-
r!
-r
Hydraulic Retardance
SNTEMP does not require stream velocity estimates to predict
average daily downstream water temperatures (see uDescription of the
Stream Temperature Model"). On the other hand! daily minimum and
maximum temperature predictions do require estimates of stream
velocities. If daily maximum and minimum temperature estimates are
desired later, it will become necessary to obtain the Manning's n values
to compute stream velocities.
Tributary Assumptions
Except for the Chulitna and Talkeetna rivers, all Susitna
tributaries simulated by SNTEMP are essentially self-starting.
Simulation of these tributaries starts from their estimated headwaters
where a constant headwater temperature of 0 C is assumed. Since the
headwater flow is assumed to be zero! this seasonally constant initial
water temperature is not critical (the heat content of zero mass would
be zero, exclusive of the temperature assigned). Flow is added to these
tributaries based on the flow balance schemes discussed in the section
"Water Balance Accounting for the Susitna Basin." Predicted tributary
temperatures are highly sensitive to the temperature assumed for distri
buted flow. Techniques for estimating these temperatures will be
discussed in the section "Temperatures of Distributed Flow." Tributary
widths were based on field estimates and lengths were measured from
topographic maps with an opisometer. Each tributary in the model is
assumed to be a single stream. For branched tributaries we estimated a
sub-basin area-weighted average length. Tributary reaches were defined
based on 300 m elevation drops.
HYDROLOGY
Flows
As described in the section "Water Balance Accounting for the
Susitna Basin!" we investigated three types of flow balancing techniques
for supplying flow estimates to the temperature model. These techniques
are used both with historical flows and for gaming with reservoir
releases.
29
M""II'i
r~,
rI',
r,...I
....
rI
....
r
Stream Temperatures
Observed Temperatures. SNTEMP uses observed water temperature data of
two types--initial water temperatures necessary for starting the model
and validation/calibration water temperatures. Only three initial
temperatures are required for the Watana (or Cantwell) to Sunshine
Station simulations. These are Susitna River at Watana (or Cantwell),
Chulitna River at the USGS Gage, and Talkeetna River at the USGS gage.
The remaining observed water temperatures are essential in determining
how well the mainstream and tributary temperatures are being simulated
and in serving as a calibration target.
Most of the validation/calibration temperature data for this study
are being collected by ADF&G (1981, 1983); USGS (USGS 1980, 1981;
Bigelow 1983) collected the three initial water temperatures.
Unfortunately, most of these initial temperatures are unusable as a
result of incomplete records or discrete sampling. Usable data are
defined as those data which are complete for the month or, if not
complete, symmetric around the middle of the month. Data which cluster
evenly around the middle of the month should result in an unbiased
measure of the monthly mean. Figure 12 presents the available data, and
Figure 13 presents usable data collected for the June to September
periods of 1980 through 1982. Data collected by USGS at Gold Creek were
not used in this study since it had been observed that the temperature
recorder was in the plume of the Gold Creek tributary (Trihey 1983) and
thus not representative of mainstem flow. USGS recently relocated this
temperature recorder, and future data provided by USGS and ADF&G should
allow adjustment of the historical USGS data to be representative of the
mainstream temperatures •
Synthetic Temperatures. USGS Cantwell gage on the Susitna River (RM
223.7). St'I'eam temperature data were recorded at the Cantwell gage
during the 1980 and 1982 June through September periods. To verify
downstream temperature predictions with stream temperatures observed by
ADF&G (1981) and R&M (1982b), we estimated water temperatures at
Cantwell for 1981. SNTEMP incorporates a regression technique for data
filling, but, as discussed previously, more data than are available are
necessary for this technique to produce physically reasonable results.
30
r- Figure 12. Monthly stream temperatures, available data June toSept. 1980, 1981, 1982.
i MainstemlTributary Number of DaysI River Mile River name I description 1980 1981 . 1982
J J A S J J A S J J A S
10.1/0.5 Alexander Cr. 25 31 31 30
10.1 Susitna above Alexander Cr. 25 31 31 1
25.8 Susitna R., Su Station . 30 31 31 30 10
r 28.012.0 Yentna R. 26 31 31 14
I 28.0/4.0 Yentna R. 23 31 31 27
29.5 Susitna R. above Yentna R. 20 31 31 30
32.3 Susitna R. above Yentna R. 25 31 31 12,-Deshka R. 21 31 31 3040.6/1.2
49.8/4.9 "Deception Cr. near Willow 5 8 8
49.8111.6 ··Willow Cr. near Willow 5 18 22
50.5/1.0 Little Willow Cr. 7 31 31 30
50.5 Susitna R. above Uttle Willow Cr. 7 31 31 24
61.2 Susitna R. above Kashwitna R. 2 27
..., 77.210.0 Montana Creek 19 24 1
n.5 Susitna R. above Montana Cr. 19 3 2 30
83.8 Susitna R., east shore-Parks Hwy. 20 14 30
83.9 Susitna R., west shore-Parks Hwy. 23 9 10 3097.0 Susitna R.-LRX 1 17
97.215.0 ··Talkeetna R. near Talkeetna 1 - -97.0/1.0 Talkeetna R. 10 31 31 3097.211.5 Talkeetna R. 17 1 31 3098.5118.0 "Chulitna R. near Talkeetna 1 - 27 30 3 2098.6/0.5 Chulitna A. 11 17 2098.6/0.6 Chulitna R. 17 10 25
~
103.0 Susitna A.-TKA fish wheel 11 10 19 22 7 28 31 25113.0 Susitna R.-LRX 18 25 31 30120.7 Susitna R.-Curry 25 31 30126.0 Susitna R.-Slough 8A 4 31 30126.1 Susitna A.-LRX 29 22 31 30129.2 Susitna A.-Slough 9 4 31 24130.8 Susitna A.-LRX 35 23 4 17
1"'"131.3 Susitna A. above 4th of July Cr. 15 31 30 26136.5 "SJJsitna R. near Gold Cr. 30 31 31 30 8 25 29 12 30136.810.0 Gold Creek 7 3- 138.6/1.0 Indian R. 23 31 4 28138.610.1 Indian R. 10 25 14138.7 Susitna R. above Indian R. 11 29 16140.0 Susitna A.-Slough 19 5 13140.1 Susilna R.-LRX 53 23142.0 Susitna R.-Slough 21 4 29 4 31 30148.8 Susitna R. above Portage Cr. 13 31 29148.8/0.1 Portage Cr. 13 26 28181.3/0.0 Tsusena Cr. 12 7 31 30184.4 ·Susitna R. at Walana dam site 30 - 31 30194.1/0.0 Watana Cr. 11 31 15 16206.8/0.0 Kosina Cr 4 31 17 12223.7 ··Susitna R. near Cantwell - - - 27 31 31 22231.3/0.0 Goose Creek 31 31 30233.410.0 Oshetna Creek 31 31 30
"R&M gages• ·USGS gagt:s
All others are ADF&G gages.31
Figure 13. Monthly stream temperatures, usable data June to
r Sept. 1980, 1981, 1982.I;
Iil
MainstemITributary Number of DaysRiver Mile River name 1description 1980 1981 1982
J J A 'S J J A S J J A S
10.110.5 Alexander Cr. 18 31 31 26
10.1 Susitna above Alexander Cr. 18 31 27
25.8 Susitna R., Su Station 30 31 31 30
i 28.0/2.0 Ventna R. 20 31 31
i 28.014.0 Ventna A. 14 31 31 24
29.5 Susitna A. above Ventna A. 10 31 31 30
32.3 Susitna A. above Yentna R. 18 31 29 6....40.611.2 Deshka R. 10 31 31 30
49.814.9 "Deception Cr. near Willow 2
49.8111.6 "Willow Cr. near Willow 13 4.... 50.5f1.0 Little Willow Cr. 31 31 28
50.5 Susitna R. above Little Willow Cr. 31 31 10
61.2 Susitna A. above Kashwitna R. 22
77.210.0 Montana Creek 6 17
77.5 Susitna R.above Montana Cr. 8 30
83.8 Susitna A., east shore-Parks Hwy. 8 30
83.9 Susitna A., west shore-Parks Hwy. 14 30
97.0 Susitna A.-LAX 1 14
97.215.0 "Talkeetna A. near Talkeetna - - - -97.0/1.0 Talkeetna A. - 31 31 30
!"'" 97.211.5 Talkeetna R. 14 31 30
I 98.5/18.0 "Chulitna A. near Talkeetna - - - - 24 30 10[
98.6/0.5 Chulitna R. 3 12
98.6/0.6 Chulitna R. 14 18
103.0 Susitna R.-TKA fishwheel 17 13 21 31 16
113.0 Susitna A.-LRX 18 17 31 30120.7 Susitna R.-Curry 17 31 30
!"'" 126.0 Susitna A.-Slough SA 29 30126.1 Susitna A.-LAX 29 13 31 30129.2 Susitna A.-Slough 9 31 20130.8 Susitna A.-LAX 35 6r 131.3 Susitna A. above 4th of JUly Cr. 31 26 22136.5 • 'Susitna A. above Gold Cr. 30 31 31 30 24 24 30136.810.0 Gold Creek138.6/1.0 Indian A. 16 31138.6/0.1 Indian A. 17 8138.7 Susitna A. above Indian A. 21 10
r 140.0 Susitna R.-Slough 19140.1 Susitna A.-LRX 53 23142.0 Susitna A.-Slough 21 28 31 30148.8 Susitna A. above Portage Cr. 31 28- 148.8/0.1 Portage Cr. 15 25181.3/0.0 Tsusena Cr. 31 31 30184.4 ·Susitna A. at Watana dam site 30 - 31 30194.1/0.0 Watana Cr. 31 6206.8/0.0 Kosina Cr 31 3223.7 "Susltna A. near Cantwell - - - - 24 31 31 15231.3/0.0 Goose Creek 31 31 30233.4/0.0 Oshetna Creek 15 31 24
"R&M gages.... ··USGS gages
All others are AOF&G gages.
32
To fill this missing year, we simplified, but retained, the logic of the
SNTEMP regression technique.
SNTEMP uses what may be termed a "physical process" regression
model for data filling and smoothing. The regression model is based on
a simplified version of the heat transport
assumption where the
downstream water temperatures.
stream temperature
These models
model used
employ an
calculated
to predict
equilibrium
equilibrium
rtemperature (T) represents the value the stream is asymptotically
eapproaching. The standard regression model of SNTEMP uses the
calculated T and the rate of approach to T as independent variables.e eFor the Susitna River application, this model was simplified to use only
the equilibri.um temperature (Figure 14).
USGS gage data collected on the Chulitna and Talkeetna rivers.
Only three usable water temperatures were available for the Talkeetna
and Chulitna rivers during the June to September periods. These
-
temperatures were recorded on the Chulitna River during June, July, and
September of 1982 (Bigelow 1983). Because of the limited data at these...stations, regressions similar to those used for the Cantwell gage were
of little value (Figures 15 and 16). However, the values predicted by
these regressions were used to fill in the missing data and to smooth
those observled data points with only one observation per month. Where
available, ADF&G temperature data were used to adjust the temperatures
at the gages so that simulated temperatures matched the observed data at
the ADF&G sites. Figures 15 and 16 list the values assumed by the
model, but the reader should note the low confidence associated with
these values.
Temperatures of Distributed Flow. Flow accretions from groundwater
or surface inflow are included in the network as continuous additions to
the stream flow, referred to as distributed flows. This is the primary- mechanism for simulating Susitna tributary flows. Water temperature
predictions for smaller tributaries depend on the water temperatures
assigned to tributary distributed flows. Thus, the accuracy of
temperatures assigned to distributed flow is critical to the simulation.
Contribution from surface or groundwater flows have not been quantified
33
Figure 14. Temperature regression for Susitna River at Cantwell gage.
Month Regression 95 Percent·Regression Prediction Confidence Intervals
(C) (C)
June 81 8.82 ± 1.53
July 81 8.96 ± 1.54
August 81 8.20 ± 1.51
""" September 81 5.30 ± 1.74i
EQUILIBRIUM TDfPERATURE
-15
F-
I r.::l..::~Eo-<
10f"'" ~r.::l
s:r.::lE-+- ~r.::l 5:>..::r.::len~0
o!~
I!
,...
1"'" 34
5 10 15 20 25
....
....
Figure 15. Temperature regression for Chulitna River at USGS gage.
Regression95 Percent
Regression Confidence ValueObserved (C) / Prediction Intervals Used
Month Sample Size (C) (C) (C)
June 81 7.4/1· 6.68 ± 2.85 6.68
July 81 -/0 6.90 ± 2.89 7.10*
August 81 7.2/1 6.64 ± 2.84 6.64
September 81 -/0 4.95 ± 3.83 5.25*
June 82 7.3/24 6.53 ± 2.84 5.45*
July 82 5.7/31 7.01 ± 2.92 5.7
August 82 -/0 7.01 ± 2.92 7.01
September 82 4.6/10 5.22 ± 3.56 4.6
*Temperature at gage was adjusted so downstream simulation matched datacollected by ADF&G.
EQUILIBRIUM TEMPERATURE
r
rI
iI
r,
15
oo 5 10 15 20 25
35
*Temperature at gage was adjusted so downstream simulation matched datacollected by ADF&G.
r
252015105o
o
15
~~~ 1121wp.,
~E-o
A~ 5 I-----f-----f--~--_I_---___t---~
wl;I1i=Qo
r---I
....
....
EQUILIBRIUM TEMPERATURE
.....
,..,.II
36
r,...,I.....
in Susitna tributaries; therefore, they must be estimated. Presently,
two techniques can be used to estimate these temperatures. The first is
to assume groundwater inflow at a constant temperature for all time
periods and all locations. G. Nelson (1983) of the USGS suggested a
value of 3 C as representative of a wide range of conditions encountered
by that organization in adjacent drainages. This assumption does not
allow for 1) seasonal ground temperature variation, 2) ground tempera
ture variation with site elevation, or 3) the possibility of surface
runoff.
Rather than assuming a constant temperature for distributed flows,
an alternative technique is to vary temperature by location and depth.
AEIDC modified the ground temperature function presented by Williams and
Gold (1976):
T (x,t) = T +(~T /2) cos [(2~t/t ) - x/~/at ] exp(-x/~/at )g g goo 0
where:
(10)
T =gAT =
g
rl
t
to
x
average annual ground surface temperature (C)
annual range of ground surface temperature
variation (C)
= time from occurrence of peak temperature (days)
= time for one cycle of temperature variation (365 days)
= depth (m)
= thermal diffusivity (m2 /day) = thermal
conductivity/volumetric heat capacity
-
This formula can be used to predict ground temperatures at variable
depths and times if the average annual ground surface temperature (T )g
and annual range of ground surface temperature variation (~T) areg
known. The annual range of ground temperature can be assumed to be the
same as the annual range of air temperature variation (Williams and Gold
1976) which is 28.2 C at Talkeetna. Data presented in Williams and Gold
(1976). indicates that the average annual ground temperature is
approximately 1 to 7 C warmer than the average annual air temperature in
regions with persistent snow cover. If, for notational purposes, we
37
designate this 1 to 7 C offset by Toff and define A
the formula becomes:
= 21r/t , Bo
= /1r/a.t ,o
Tg(x,t) = Tair + Toff + 14.1 cos (At-Bx) exp(-Bx) (11)
r-Ii
Air and ground temperature data collected at Gulkana, Alaska
(Aitken 1964b) and Big Delta, Alaska (Aitken 1964a) suggest that this
offset temperature is in the range of 4.3 to 4.9 C. For purposes of
further discussion in this paper a value of 4.6 C will be assumed,
although in the SNTEMP implementation of this ground temperature model
Toff will be used as a calibration variable.
The mean annual air temperature of an arbitrary location at
elevation Z can be computed from the mean annual air temperature at
Talkeetna (0.3 C) using the lapse rate equations discussed in the
modifications section:
(12)
where:
TZ = air temperature at elevation Z (C)
TO = observed air temperature at elevation Zo (C)
~ Zo = elevation of site where air temperature is known
(Z = 105 m for Talkeetna)0
Z = elevation of site where air temperature is desired (m)
y = air temperature lapse rate (C/m)
...-
-
-
By substituting the air temperature lapse rate expression for air
temperature at elevation Z, the ground temperature formula can be
rewritten as:
T (x.t,Z) = 4.9 - y(Z-105) + 14.1 cos(At-Bx) exp(-Bx) (13)g
If a value is assumed for the· thermal diffusivity, the only
undefined variable for any location and time period is the depth of the
ground temperature. There are two depths of interest which correspond
38
-....
to two separate forms of heat flux--conduction to and from the streambed
and mass transfer of heat (distributed flow). Streambed conduction is a
function of the depth at which the ground temperature variation is
essentially zero for the simulation time period. Given an estimate of
a, a depth can be computed where daily temperature fluctuations are
essentially zero. Williams and Gold (1976) give an a-value for wet sand
of 0.01 cm2 Jsec. This value is also used to represent the thermal
diffusivity of sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders in the Susitna slough
hydrogeology study (Acres 1983b). Using this value, daily temperature
fluctuations penetrate to a depth of approximately 0.8 m. Substituting
0.01 cm2 Jsec for a and 0.8 m for depth, the above formula reduces to:
T (t,Z) = 4.9 - y(Z-lOS) + 10.3 cos(At-0.316)g
(14)
I"""I
I
-
The distributed flow heat flux is a function of the average depth
from which the water flows. Rather than assume a value, this depth has
been retained as a variable for calibration purposes.
This ground temperature model must be considered provisional as the
assumptions made cannot be tested or validated without further data
collection. Temperature at depth data at several locations within the
Susitna Basin would be required for validation of this model and
improving estimates of assumed values. AEIDC believes this model
currently provides the best available approximation of the physical
conditions existing in the Susitna Basin and will be applied without
validation until better estimates of existing conditions are obtained.
METEOROLOGY
Selection of Meteorologic Data
The SNTEMP model is designed for climatic data input from only one
representative meteorologic data station per stream network. The only
long-term meteorologic data station within the Susitna Basin is the U.S.
National Weather Service station located in Talkeetna. This station has
summarized monthly data (air temperature, wind speed, relative humidity,
and percent cloud cover)--the data required by SNTEMP--for the period
1968 to 1982. In addition, unreduced data are available from 1950 to
1968 on computer tape from the National Climatic Data Center. This
39
.-.Ii
rl
i'"I
-
period of record allows stream temperature simulations under extreme and
normal meteorologic conditions once these data are· adjusted to better
represent Susitna Basin conditions. We used meteorologic data collected
specifically for the Susitna study (R&M 1980, 1982a, 1982b, 1982c,
1982e, 1982f) to validate this meteorologic data adjustment and SNTEMP
solar model predictions.
Ground Reflectivity and Atmospheric Dust
The stream temperature model predicts solar radiation based on site
latitude, period of the year, cloud cover, ground reflectivity, and
atmospheric dust. AEIDC determined monthly ground reflectivity values
for the Susitna Basin using the percent area groundcover vegetation
types presented in McKendrick (1982) and Bredthauer and Drage (1982).
The remaining component necessary to predict solar radiation is an
estimate of atmospheric dust. Dust was estimated by calibrating monthly
average predicted solar radiation to observed values using the published
solar radiation and percent possible sunshine data collected at the
Palmer Agricultural Experiment Station (Matanuska Station as recorded in
Wise 1979). Figure 17 presents these coefficient values.
Meteorologic Predictions
Conditions observed at Talkeetna are not necessarily representative
of the entire basin. SNTEMP adjusts most of the recorded variables to
better represent the local conditions within the basin. For example,
the predicted solar radiation considers local topographic shading. The
following discussion compares Susitna Basin meteorologic predictions
with data collected by R&M.
As was previously discussed, SNTEMP has been modified to accept
monthly air temperature/elevation and humidity/elevation functions. The
air temperatures and humidities predicted by these equations using
observed data are compared to the data collected by R&M (Figures 18 and
19). From these plots it appears that the humidity lapse model is a
poor predictor of basinwide conditions; however, we retained it in
SNTEMP for three reasons: 1) Talkeetna humidity data are based on
wet/dry bulb measurements which are inherently more accurate than
ceramic plate recorders (Wise 1983); 2) balloon-carried radiosondes are
40
Figure 17. Ground reflectivity and atmospheric dust coefficients,Matanuska Agricultural Experiment Station, Palmer.
l"""
ii
r
I"""W!~-1<:>-,,- ..-Zl.LJ......U......u..u..w0u
7 '"l "-') -.~. /'
~. /'~.~\
-
.~.-
/ \( \ -
\\\/ -
I I\ ./ -
)/ -
./. \./ \ -
/ \( -
/l. / -"'.
I I I , '", I, I 1
.-
uw0
>-0z
..-u0
0-WU)
Co.:):=>-<.
-1:=> (J')....,
I:J-Z0
Z ::Ii::=>....,
>-<:::::E:
a::::a..-<.
a::::<::::Eo
CDl.LJ1...1-
Z<:....,
>f-......
0>z:=>..aua:::: wCo.:) -1
uwa::::
41
Figure 18. Susitna Basin observed air temperatures vs. temperaturespredicted from Talkeetna data.
JOOE 198B. 1981. 1982
PREDICTED TEMP. OEG C
SHERIlAN 14
(l
12
IJ£VIL CJo.NYDIl
f-Iii
VArANA 8
•5
I<OSIHA-2
B,....
B 2 4 5 8 III 12 14
IlISERVED TElIP. OEG C
JULy 198B. 19B1. 1982
PREDICTED TEMP. !lEGe
SIlERI~"'jl 14
D0 A- 12
OEVIt c..a.NYCN
- A111
~8
!YAWl/. r....
t•6 I-
KCSIW.
~4•
2
Z
a 2 6 B 18 12 14
!""" OBSERVE:: m? (lEG C
4?
,....II
Figure 19. (Continued)
....
foUGUST 19aa. 1981. 19a2
~ PREDICTED RH. OEC1lVJ.I.II
9i~N
a.9Q
Il.8 D
DE~'IL CANYON • A A·3.7
A
11.5t"'"
VAUNA9.5
+
9.4
KOSI/i},&.3
•0.2
11.1
Iil.0
ll.lI 9.1 9.2 3.3 0. ~ 15 11.6 117 z.a IJ.9 l.ll
OBSERVED Ril. DE.W!f,L
SEPTEMar..R 19SD, 1981. 1982
PREDICTED RII, DE.C1HfL1.0
- SIi£Rllf.N1l.9
00
3.8,""
DEY IL CUl'/ON11
+A.....
11.5
Vm.NAa.S
+
3.4
..... j(OSlllAI 3.3
+
;1.2
Il.l
~.3
~. a 11.1 <1.2 3.3 :1. 1, 11.5 U 0.1 Il.B 0.9 !.II
~::aSF.R'I:D PH. ~EC;~f.L
45
-
r
i"i
,-
....
calibrated at the time of release and resultant data are the means of
twice-daily observations; and 3) erratic behavior (e.g., daily 0 to 100
percent oscillations) was noted in several of the R&M humidity
recordings.
The wind speeds at Talkeetna are not currently adjusted in any way
to better represent winds within other parts of the Susitna River basin.
Wind speeds recorded at Talkeetna were compared to wind speeds recorded
by R&M at various locations within the basin (Figure 20). It would be
relatively simple to incorporate a linear adjustment equation to
translocate observed Talkeetna wind speed data to locations which would
be better represented by the observed R&M data. However, the wind speed
data collected by R&M does not necessarily represent the wind speeds
which occurred directly above the water surface and are responsible for
the rates of convective and evaporative heat flux. Since it appears to
be impractical to collect wind speed data within the canyons below the
existing meteorological data sites (Bredthauer 1983), the wind speed
data collected at Talkeetna will be used as representative of average
basin winds.
Figure 21 compares observed solar radiations to predicted solar
radiation. The simulated data are a reasonable approximation of the
field measurements.
VALIDATION
The purpose of model validation is to locate systematic prediction
errors. Systematic errors result when observed or assumed data for a
particular study do not represent actual conditions. Since the stream
temperature model has been verified with previous applications (Theurer
and Voos 1982; Theurer et a1. 1983) and, since some adjustments have
been made to SNTEMP to account for conditions particular to the Susitna
application, it is assumed that any remaining systematic errors are the
result of nonrepresentative input data.
An initial validation run of the Susitna-modified SNTEMP
demonstrated a tendency to underpredict the upper tributary temperatures
(Figure 22). Since most of the data defining these tributaries are
assumed or estimated values, much uncertainty exists in the definition
of each tributary. Several poorly defined variables which might be
46
Figure 20. Average monthly wind speeds' (MiS), 1980, 1981, 1982.
1'!'"\ AVE. WIND SPEED5,...--------------------WATANA
4
DEVIL CANYON
3TALKEETNA
aco0'\.....
2
-KOSINA
------1
.....co0'\.....
-- - - --
,01-- --'-_--'-_-'-_-'-_-'--_"'--__'------'"_--'-_----'
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
AVE. WIND SPEED5 ~:..:...;;;:..:.......;;~=-..;;.;;;..=:::....--------------·l
I,
~~ /:J_, / I ;'", / !',--~ i
.,)
i,
WATANA
3TALKEETNA
-'-" 2
. KOSINA
._--1
4DEVIL CANYON
r(
i
-
OL-----'"_--'-_-'-_-'-_-'--_.J...-_L....-____"_--'-_--'-_--'
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
5 ,=A;..;...VE=.::-• ...;.WI;..::=ND=-'S::.;:P;..::E=ED=- _
-WATANA
4DEVIL CANYON
TALKEETNA
2SHERMAN
'-- -
Nco0'\.....
47
"'-'-,... ...... / ................
.....,..- ...----~ ..._- ..._~---
1 -
Io ,-I-~--'-_.i..----'-_-"-----'-_-"-----'-_--"-----'-_I
JAN FEB MAR APR HAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
KOSINA
Figure 21. Predicted vs. observed solar predictions, 1980, 1981, 1982.
[J
[J
<l
lSIlSI--.......
r (..)UJ
I en"'~:;)
~
c=:<:.-J0en
~(..).....63c=:c- IS
LO
IS IS IS IS ISKl IS LO IS LON - -
r
r
....
.... 48
Figure 22. Tributary temperatures; 3 C groundwater inflow assumed.
N-c
I:S-c
c
!"'" co
-.(....).....
r 0-::Eu.JI-
0UJ
I"- :>0:::UJen§
r'" coI
r
9
N
N- 51- co N
49
flow gaging,
substantially
2.
3.
4.
adjusted to improve model predictions are 1) stream flow, 2) initial
stream temperature, 3) stream length, 4) stream width. and
5) distributed flow temperatures. An effort has been made to adjust
other variables to better represent prevailing conditions (e .g.. air
temperature, relative humidity, and topographic shading).
Of the five poorly defined variables, most improvement could be
gained from focusing on temperatures of distributed flows. This
determination was based on the following logic.
1. . Without the benefit of continuous tributary
present stream flow estimates cannot be
enhanced.
With the subsequent necessary assumption of zero flow at the
tributary headwaters, initial tributary temperatures have no
influence on the predictions.
Tributary lengths were measured from maps.
Stream widths are based on field estimates and initial tests
with SNTEMP demonstrated that this variable was not sensitive
I""'"I.
il
r'"!
.....
-
r
enough to remove the existing predictive bias.
.....
.....
Rather than arbitrarily modifying the constant 3 C estimate of
groundwater temperature, the ground temperature model previously
described was employed to generate physical process-based temperature
estimates. This model introduced three variables which must be
estimated--the average annual air/ground temperature offset (Toff)'
thermal diffusivity (a.), and depth of inflow (x). AEIDC is currently
seeking techniques and data for estimating values of these variables.
Until solid estimates can be obtained, these variables will be adjusted
to calibrate to observed water temperature data.
While the tributary temperatures have a relatively small influence
on the natural mainstem temperatures. this influence could increase in
importance during construction or operation of the dams. Future
temperature simulations will provide an indication of this effect and
perhaps suggest alternate modeling techniques or point out the need for
more tributary temperature data •
50
iI
rI,
CALIBRATION
Tributary temperature predictions were improved by adjusting the
three groundwater temperature parameters (Figure 23). The resulting
values were: Toff
= 1.0 C and a = 0.01 cm~/sec for the entire basin,
Z = 0.4 m for Kosina Creek, Z = O. 7 m for Watana Creek, and Z = 2.0 m
for the mainstem and remaining tributaries. Further analysis is
necessary to validate these values.
The goodness of fit was determined by using the following
statistics:
....where:
IJ. = I: o. /n1.
s = It(o. - 1J.)2/(n-1)1.
0i = difference between i th predicted and observedtemperatures, C
Ti = i th published temperature, C
thTi = i temperature predicted by 8NTEMP, C
IJ. = mean difference, C
n = number of observed temperatures
8 = standard error estimate, C
(15)
(16)
(17)
These statistics can be combined with Z values to define prediction
confidence intervals. For example, 90 percent of the predicted values
fall within 1J.±(1.645)8 of the observed values. Postcalibration
statistics for the tributaries indicate that predicted values are on the
average 0.28 C (IJ.) higher than the published values, and 90 percent of
the predicted values can be expected to fall between 2.10 above and
-1.54 C below the published water temperature (8 = 1.11 C, n = 12). The
model fit could be improved with additional adjustment of Toff ' Z, and
a. However, it was decided that additional calibration be postponed
51
Figure 23. Tributary temperatures; postcalibration, includingdistributed flow temperature model.
s...
-.....u.......
~.- cl:!:!u....~
N
N S CQ N... ...
- CQ
-U.......~
ffi~
..... ~ffienCQc
(Q
.....
.....
.... N...
.....
.....
,f,i1!IIll'l.,
52
....!
until research is completed to define reasonable physical limits of
these parameters.
Once the tributary predictions had been improved, the entire
mainstem/tributary system essentially was calibrated, and no additional
parameter adjustments were attempted. Statistics for the mainstem are
~ = -0.05 C, S = 0.90 C, n = 28. Figure 24 presents these statistics as
computed for each month.
Figure 24. Temperature model calibration statistics for tributarypredictions.
n ~ (C) S (C)
June 1981 2 -2.08 1. 39
July 1981 1 0.41
r-August 1981 6 0.59 0.42
September 1981 6 -0.002 0.74
June 1982 2 0.08 0.44
.... July 1982 3 -0.89 0.28
August 1982 4 0.19 0.80
September 1982 4 0.14 0.20
Average 28 -0.05 0.90
The statistics for June 1981 indicate a poor fit. This is
I"""!
understandable since the three required initial water temperatures
(Cantwell, Chulitna, and Talkeetna) were synthesized with linear
regression models. This is the only month which had all three initial
temperatures synthesized. A more reasonable estimate of the simulation
performance for the mainstem is obtained by eliminating this month from
the computations: ~ = 0.10 C, S = 0.66 C, n = 26.
percent confidence interval is 0.10 ± 1.09 C.
The corresponding 90
Appendix C provides
53
r
r
-
....
longitudinal temperature predictions for the 1981 and 1982. June through
September periods.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The Susitna River temperature model has been validated and
calibrated for the months of June through September 1981 and 1982. We
estimate that mainstem temperature predictions will be within 1.09 to
-0.99 C of actual values. and upper tributary temperature predictions
will be within 2.10 to -1.54 C of actual values (90 percent confidence
intervals). This estimate assumes that the statistics computed from
simulations using two years of historical data will apply to proj ect
conditions and there is no way of knowing if this assumption is valid.
Nevertheless. these statistics are a measure of the model's performance
given the best possible conditions and the available input data.
Tributary and mainstem temperature data from the 1983 field season are
expected to improve estimates of the model's accuracy and precision.
Additional analysis of distributed flow and temperature regimes and
tributary flow regimes will be required if the model's predictive
capabilities are to be improved. especially with respect to the upper
basin tributaries. We used a ground temperature model to estimate the
temperature of distributed flow. This model has not been validated with
data from within the Susitna Basin. If the parameter values defining
the model can be measured. or at least assigned physically relevant
constraints. the model can be applied with confidence to simulations of
the proposed project •
54
r3.
rI,
4.~
2.
r
-
FUTURE APPLICATIONS AND ENHANCEMENTS
AEIDC will continue the Susitna flow and stream temperature
analysis by the following steps.
1. Normal and extreme flow regimes within the basin will be
defined by statistical analysis of the pre- and postproject
32-year flow records.
Using statistical analysis, AEIDC will determine the location
where postproject flows are significantly different from
natural flows. This will identify the area facing possible
hydrologic/hydraulic impacts.
Combinations of hydrology and meteorology which produce normal
and extreme stream temperature changes will be determined from
simulations using recorded meteorologic and hydrologic data.
Ranges of expected flows and temperatures resulting from the
filling and operational phases of the project will be used as
input to the temperature model for simulating downstream
effects. These simulations will use normal and extreme basin
hydrology and meteorology.
5. Results of these simulations will be analyzed and a zone of
predictable impacts identified. This zone will be partially
defined by estimates of the model's performance statistics.
I"'"
Il
-
6.
7.
8.
9.
Weekly or daily prediction capabilities will be pursued if the
need is indicated by analysis of the monthly simulations.
Results of the 1983 field season will be incorporated into the
model and new model performance statistics calculated.
Techniques will be developed for improving the distributed
flow temperature model.
Fall and winter conditions will be used for water temperature
simulations to provide estimates of tbe most upstream limit of
ice cover. If the stream temperature model reliably predicts
the recorded limits J the model will be applied to proposed
project conditions. Ice observations by R&M will be used for
validation of these simulations.
55
-
-
-
r56
I""",
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Acres American, Inc. 1983a. Application for license for major project,Susitna Hydroelectric Project, before the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission. Vol. SA. Exhibit E, Chaps. 1 and 2 (figures). AlaskaPower Authority. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. 1 vol.
1983b.Authority.
Slough hydrogeology report. Draft Report.Susitna Hydroelectric Project. 27 pp.
Alaska Power
1982. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Feasibility report. Vol.4. Appendix A. Hydrologic studies. Final draft. Prepared forthe Alaska Power Authority. 1 vol.
Aitken, G.W.Alaska.Hanover,
1964a. Ground temperature observations, Big Delta,Cold Regions Research and Engineering lab., U. S. Army,
NH. CRREL Technical Report 104. 15 pp.
Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game. 1983. Susitna hydro aquatic studies,phase 2 basic data report. Vol. 4. Aquatic habitat and instreamflow studies, 1982. Preliminary draft report. Anchorage, AK.Alaska Power Authority. Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Report forAcres American, Inc. 7 vols.
.-iII
1964b. Ground temperature observations, Gulkana, Alaska.Regions Research and Engineering Lab., U. S. Army, Hanover,CRREL Technical Report 106. 13 pp •
ColdNH.
1981.report.Studies.
Aquatic habitat and instream flow project. Final draftAnchorage, AX. Alaska Power Authority. SuHydro AquaticReport for Acres American, Inc. 2 vols. in 3.
Alaska, University, Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center.1983. Methodological approach to quantitative impact assessmentfor the proposed Susitna hydroelectric project. Alaska PowerAuthority. Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies. Anchorage, AX. Reportfor Harza/Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture. 71 pp.
Bigelow, B.B. 1983. Letter, March 8.Anchorage, AK. 7 pp.
U.S. Geological Survey,
....
Bredthauer, S. 1983. Personal communication. Telephone conversation.R&M Consultants, Inc., Anchorage, AX.
Bredthauer, S., and B. Drage. 1982. River morphology. R & MConsultants Inc., Anchorage, AK. Alaska Power Authority. SusitnaHydroelectric Project. Report for Acres American, Inc. 1 vol.
Brett, J.R. 1971. Energetic responses of salmon to temperature. Astudy of some thermal relations in the freshwater ecology ofsockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). American Zoologist.11: 99-113 •
57
....Cherry, D.S., K.L. Dickson, and J. Cairns. 1975. Temperatures selected
and avoided by fish at various acclimation temperatures. Journalof the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 32:485-491 •
Coutant, C. C. 1970. Thermal resistance of adult coho (OncorhynchusKisutch) and jack chinook (0. tshawytscha) salmon, and adultsteelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri) from the Columbia River.Battelle, Pacific Northwest Labs., Richland, WA. USEAC R&D Dept.,BNWL-1508.
....Kilday, G.D. 1974. Mean monthly and annual precipitation in Alaska.
National Weather Service, U.S. National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration, Anchorage, AK. NOAA technical memorandum •NWSAR-10. 1 vol.
McKendrick, J. 1982. Plant ecology studies. Final Report.Agri.cultural Experiment Station, University of Alaska, Palmer, AK.Alaska Power Authority. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. 124 pp.
....i
Nelson, G. 1983. Personal communication •U.S. Geological Survey, Anchorage, AK.
Telephone conversation.
Quane, T. 1983. Personal communication. Interview. Alaska Dept. ofFish & Game, SuHydro, Anchorage, AK.
R&M Consultants, Inc. 1982a. Field data collection and processing,Supplement 1. Task 3-Hydrology. Alaska Power Authority. SusitnaHydroelectric Project. Prepared for Acres American, Inc. 215 pp.
1982b. Field data collection and processing.3-Hydrology. Alaska Power Authority. SusitnaProject. Prepared for Acres American, Inc. 1 vol.
Vol. 3. TaskHydroelectric
1982c. Field data index. Anchorage,Authority. Susitna Hydroelectric Project.American, Inc. 1 vol.
AK. AlaskaReport for
PowerAcres
1982d. Hydraulic and ice studies. Anchorage, AK. Alaska PowerAuthority. Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Report for AcresAmerican, Inc. 1 vol.
Devil Canyon Station.Susitna Hydroelectric
1 vol.
1982e. Processed climatic data. Vol. 6.Anchorage, AK. Alaska Power Authority.Project. Report for Acres American, Inc.
5. Watana Station.Susitna Hydroelectric
1 vol.
1982f. Processed climatic data. Vol.Anchorage, AK. Alaska Power Authority.Project. Report for Acres American, Inc.
1981.AttachmentAuthority.can, Inc.
Susitna River mile index: Mouth to Susitna Glacier.D to Hydrographic Surveys. Anchorage, AK. Alaska PowerSusitna Hydroelectric Project. Report for Acres Ameri
1 vol.
58
R&M Consultants, Inc. 1980. Field data index. Anchorage, AK. AlaskaPower Authority. Susitna Hydroelect~ic Project. Report for AcresAmerican, Inc. 1 vol.
Reiser, D.W., and T.C. Bjornn. 1979. Habitat requirements ofsalmonids. No.1. in U.S. Forest Service. Influence of forest andrangeland management on anadromous fish habitat in western NorthAmerica. Anadromous Fish Habitat Program. General TechnicalReport PNW-96. 54 pp.
Sauntner, J. 1983. Personal communication. Interview. Alaska Dept.of Fish & Game, SuHydro, Anchorage, AK.
Schoch, C. 1983. Personal communication. Telephone conversation. R&MConsultants, Inc., Anchorage, AK.
Theurer, F., and K. Voos. 1982. An instream water temperature model ofthe upper Colorado River basin. Unpublished. Paper for presentation at the International Symposium on Hydrometeorology, Denver,CO. 6 pp.
....I:
Siefert, R.D. 1981. A solar design manual for Alaska.Water Resources, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK.6. 163 pp •
Institute ofBulletin No.
i!
Theurer, F., K. Voos, and W. Miller. 1983.model. Draft report. Instream FlowU. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FortInformation Paper No. 16. 263 pp.
Instream water temperatureand Aquatic Systems Group,Collins, CO. Instream Flow
U.S. Geological Survey. 1981. Water resources data for Alaska.Anchorage, AK. Water-Data Report AK-81-1. 395 pp.
Interview.
.....
....I
Trihey, E.W. 1983. Personal communication.consultant, Anchorage, AK•
1980. Water resources data for Alaska •Water-Data Report AK-80-1. 373 pp.
Private
Anchorage, AK.
i
U.s. National Weather Service. 1980. Climatological data nationalsummary, Vol. 30, No.9. Washington, DC.
1970. Climatological data national summary, Vol. 20, No.8.Washington, DC.
1969. Climatological data national summary, Vol. 19, No.7.Washington, DC.
1968. Climatological data national summary, Vol. 18, No.6.Washington, DC.
U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 1982. Precipitation and water yield.Alaska Rivers Cooperative Study, Susitna River Basin,Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska. 4 pp.
59
i'II
Williams~ G.P., and L.W. Gold. 1976. Ground temperatures. CBD180 inNational Research Council Canada. Canadian Building Digests151-200. Ottawa, Canada~ 1979.
Wise, J.L. 1983. Personal communication. Interview. ArcticEnvironmental Information and Data Center, University of Alaska,Anchorage ~ AK.
1979. Alaska solar radiation analysis. Arctic EnvironmentalInformation and Data Center, University of Alaska~ Anchorage, AK.27 pp.
1977. Mean annual precipitation in inches. Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center, University of Alaska~
Anchorage~ AK. 1 map (scale 1:2~500~OOO).
World Meteorological Organization. 1982. Monthly climatic data for theworld~ Vol. 35, No.1. National Climatic Center~ Asheville~ NC.
1981. Monthly climatic data for the world~ Vol. 34, No. 1.National Climatic Center, Asheville~ NC.
60
-"""I
-
....
....
~I
....
APPENDIX A
TOPOGRAPHIC SHADING
....
-
TOPOGRAPHIC SHADING
These plots present the solar shading characteristics of the
Susitna reaches (refer to Figure 10). Mainstem reaches 9 and 10 and the
Talkeetna and Trapper tributaries were estimated to be unshaded for all
months. Fog Creek was assigned the same shading characteristics as
reach 1. The synthetic tributary (Cheechin) was assigned the same
characteristics as reach 4. The continuous curves represent the path of
the sun for each month. The hatched area represents the potential
shading of the surrounding terrain.
A-I
I I C>C] c~c- -1 1 -~1 -'-~-l --,-----) ~-1 ----] ] ) -----~-l J ------1
Reach 1RM 179.5-184.5
B4NL
-I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I leo'
-I I I , I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I i acr
-
-
-
:rN
I \ , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 170'UlW
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IsO' G2
r---+-+-+--i--r--r--t----,jJ~~w.;.:.r~bant-___r-_r__i-_r-_r-I_t-_l50' et
~~~?-+_4--\-_+_-+-_+_+--+__+"'""""l''"c_~..:.......;_7l--t_-+_-_t_-_+___i 40' WoJ
~~~-+_¥-+--_+_+-_++--+---_H_-_H-~"k_+_-+.,..~_.l:::'=__+_-_+_-_t_-__t 30' ...-~
-J.£+.rt-+-.I;-....,..f--l:-+--\-1,..L-+l----\6""l"""'C~~::_1!_--H..---:::'+T-_I_+__f".t__+_~~"'t___-+_-+____f~· <!
BEARING ANGLESEAST SOUTH WEST
Sun palh diagram lor 64 oN lalitude.
-
-
-
-
-_1l nc pn
~Inn-
10~
0.10.21 'U, 21K::~pm -
. 9p In/W \ t ~ pm
~V I I An, 21 .a.. , 71 I I "f...N\ v-r rr-.
~j:lpms. \ ~
I -I
/, I I I
~'/ I I I r--.../, ..
V \ [/'1\ I I I I I~ I
~pm
I~ lK L--t Mar 2 S.'" , ,I If( ~
I I r,---... , -
A IB I \
~ I pm\ \ II !I\ Icy[/(
~\
V\I \
, ,~
I
~ "f.-~n15 \ I I I II
\Ir,h'l Or, "
,'v \
~I -
\ ): V- -r--.. N N t-.. !!E".\
, I41Jm/ \ ./ r-....... I
~ ~~~~~........... I "-
I
~~~~0
~ ~ ~Join 21 Nl)"21 I I
I
~ ~~~ ~II
~~~ ~J
~ ~ ~" ~'\..'\..'\ ~ N ~~-- - ,,"-. " ,,'
~I
lJ,l
--I
,
]
Reach 2RM 175.5-179.5
EAST
Sun path diagram for 64°N latitude.
'1 J
SOUTH
] 1 1
WEST
J
64NL
1
so"
00-
70"
UlW
sO" ..J(j
250" ct
40" WoJ
30" J--~
~. ct
"KJ'
0"
1
<---") J J .I I ~ 1 'I -- --=J --c-c---l ) - --1 1 1 J j ----J
Reach 3RM 166.0*175.5
64NL
-I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I so'
-I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DO"
I I I I I I I I I I I -J-- I I I I I I I I I 70'
-
-
WESTSOUTHEAST
UlW
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 60' ffi2
~+-t--t---t--t--+--+---rlnu~~T~b*-t----r-t--t-T--t-f----j 50' q
~~-.,.~~-1-"-+-+----+--+-f--+---+-~-.::--~.:......;.-+---t:---1I---t--+------I 40' WoJ
------=eb--."L..J4---+--¥+-i:-t----l----t---+--I-+--t-+---I...:::..,.,..-l---r:-k--=~~=_____t_-+-_t_-__1 30' t--~
\----~-~-~,,,£-~__~_':_4--~~---++-~I6.-"~~~{.~~dJ-~~-+_.f___f'.t__+_+___"r_I_''i_-+_-+____l20·~
. --i--.",.('1 10'
BEARING ANGLES:»I
Po
Sun path diagram lor 64 ON latilude.
1 ) ] Co ~) »»
-D J "000>-1 ) J .» J J J J --~-l -J
Reach 4RM 163.0-166.0
64NL
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I lBO'
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I DO'
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I '70'
WESTANGLES
60UTH
BEARINGEAST
1>00~~~~~ \ -I I :;;(~,),)tb~~~'\t>~~';:-'~0l1O'
I I I I I I I I IliL·~ll"T" 4::Jp"q I I I I I I I 150'
I I I -,- I '" --ti" 7'f i I I' I I! I i 1"-oc ""':'("' I I I I 140'W
oJ
I-- I I J-<'k'i.~:A0 I -:AL" I j I ! I I I ! I! I .....k I / "" " L I ~ I 130' I--~
I J!-----l~; />..I'J..'c*:~a'0,p~~·J~' ... ' ...'d':"":""..7Sl.. I~' c:t
U1W..J-l-t--1-II-~160' rJI I I 2I I
I I I q:--l-+-jr--,'- I II I IL_~-+'-rl- ~ II I
~\JI
Sun palh diagram lor 64 ON lalilude.
----] '--1 ----1 -] -1 , ---I ') --, "I ---] J ---1 J 1 J
Reach 5RM 146.5-163.0
S4NL
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I leo"
~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 100-
WESTANGLES
SOUTHBEARING
EAST
~~~f-+-~+~~~h~~~~~~~~~~-J--l---L~L-L-Jqo"illoJ
~0\."..'\Io\.'\,'1.~~ I >,_L 7/ J4 I, 1/1, R"'....'\,'\...)..J\?'x"J..:"""....l'..>0-l'~?\o.'.}X'~~ 30" I-
~l'I. ',~ ':I. ,-", ,1.:'1. ,"~ I I f I I 'I~"\i.~'lJ~~~1· . Ar""'X'T' 'C'I\."~ I 7 I ,::cv'~~K''''~I~~~''N''''''~1 ',:"'k I I I&?G" '"
R' '\ ,,r:......Y'{ X "~~X'.['<\; I/'\ l'''\~'''l''~"""*" ?R ""~,\("-J~ 'R " "~ ~Xf "'~'\.I~ I C\.~ ~~~" '01 '10','- ,)4\jX.'-, V '. ~Ah. " x~, ,,'," 1-." \: "i ,,~/ ~ J ,,1'-.. .,,'
I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I \ I I I I I I 170"
I I I I I I I I I I I
;~~t=tj=tjtjt:b~;t~~'~tl=~I=tjtj~ U1
I I I WI Iom n 16" .J
~
250" ~
~0"\
Sun path diagram lor 64 oN latilude.
) --1 ~- ---~ -1 ----1 J J --1 ----] --1 '--, ---J
Reach 6RM 142.5·146.5
64NL
BO'
10'
70'
40' WoJ
30' t--~
~,~
oc:r
UJW
60" .J(!J
2so' <t
C'
WESTSOUTHEAST
-
-
-
-l---l~-1---+---+-----+---f-.--+---+--t----lr--+--+--+---+-+--+--+--t--i--i1
-.,.nc~n I
I~IC~~ "'. 21 JUI21~~pm _
. BO~/~ \ ; Ii(~ pm
I /[)(" \ I ~".21 ~"·'I I I "f.,i'--..'B.~/ \ I ~v-r n--~! K ",ppm -/IY \ .....V\ \ I I 'f'.../ I "{f'..
1,0~" r{7l)(\V\ - \ I 1",.,2
1S.n" I t l'"'If('"'-)!~pmIY \ \ \~I n--.. ' I I I 'f.,. -
6 • m ' / \ \ \ ~ \ ,/ ~ I I ! f"- c 6~m
e~V\ lX \V\ \ Lh" ~Ol"l ! ~! 1'- }~7~ -~h~/ 'J; \/ \ ); \ ~L.-- ~~r----. I If\. I N ~""~ D~'i--~
~_~ ;.(\ ~v \/~~~~~~~~~~!'~'~~~'" ~ i / \ -S(~-1~ ~~'I'~~~~~~~ \c"'-" '\I- ~'\~"\
/ ~ /,:r--J
Sun palh diagram lor 64 ON latitude.
~, I .. ) ] ] J ..,] -·~I 1
Reach 7RM 124.0-142.5
B4NL
-
-
-
~00
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I so'
-I I J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Iocr
-
I I I I I I I I I I I , I I 1 I I I I I \70' mW
\ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 16 0" a2
I I I I 50' <lI I I I I -
l--+--+--+-..-+--+-=-~~~+-+-\-t---+----I--+-~:--If--if>-.c~C:-----,+--+--+--+----+---J. 40' WoJ
~ ~~-~
---l--+---P-.:,......f--+-"""~--t---t----f 20' <l
SEARING ANGLESSOUTH WEST
Sun palh diagram lor 64 oN latitude.
Reach 8RM 115.0-124.0
~··~i ] --~J ~J -J
64NL
1
-
-
-
-,
-"non InIT _
~ M.. 21 1"'21 r--f"""'o.......12pm
IO~n->- r--r---f:~ p~. /k I I ~~ _. • '''/., I ••,,, -''''' I I ,.."","".p~/'~ \ ---t~ f-r-r--.. J I '-("'-.•• :r'/' \ ~ I I I r--.. J I '); p~
L' Y I -- I I I i, I I~", _,.y./' VI \ \I""'- <'.",(____.. ! : ~ I ~",p~~x)(\ \ I I f ~ f I i
a. ~ . / \ \ \ Lt \ I i I'f-,. I ~ 0~'Frn _L • I I 'II " I I ,z; v.: I Y \ -i \ :"",,- -"'J',_ I h IN, ~'!n'r---
", / \ V \ ;" / \ ,______ .c ~, ''',....' I " J 'N."-l. p,",
y V \ /" I /' _'"" "" " "0 I I:"l.K~"'"' IV"'~~\V \ /v p." __~~~~~I'",-<"',,'\::~~' &.:: \ k::::::\~~~~~l'\."':,R§~~~ /~l\."''>'\,'" "~'
BO'
00'
70'
rnw
sO' ..J~
250' e:t
40' Wo:J
30' ....
~00' e:t
-.0'
0"
:J>I
\0 EAST
Sun path diagram lor 64 oN latitude,
SOUTH WEST
~ -~1
i ! 1 ~'l '1 1 1 -- -J I 1 I '--1 -1 --J ----~-l J
Chulitna River64NL
-I I r I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I leo'
-I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DO'
-I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '70'
-
-
:;I-'o
U)
WI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 60' cl
21--+--+--t-+--t--t--t--'\r.~~9~~JPiTt--r---r---t--r---jr---T-r~ 50' ct
1--~-I--l--l--l-:--~~-7'-t=---t-1--+-1--1--+-+-+-~~~~~+---+---+--+---+---j 40' WoJ
~ ~~-l-..J
l--H----jI-!-~:+_-J.__+-f"c----iL-.t~+>+-__+-_+_-__j 20· c::t
BEARING ANGLESEAST SOUTH WEST
Sun palh diagram lor 64 ON latitude.
i 1 -J --J 1 -) _.. - ~I
I,_-0.-
i _OJ '''--,--
1
Devil Creek. Upper lS$SSl
Lower lZZZZl84NL
:r 1I-'I-'
-
-
-
-
....,.
,'U nconIll~ In ....
JO"''P............ ..--.L ",.. 21 '''121 r--~.2~~1 ~L ~pm -
ao~/)r' \ ~~pm
~v \ I ••,21 "1 , I~,,·R.V \ j,..--t- rt--....J J ~~pm -
/\ \ ............. \ I I I.............. I , :--..
\/ I I I r--.../ ~
''''''/./ \ 1./1 \' I I f'......r/J;~ >bc:n ~~...+-r-,..,...-br-'7":VlK£'~./ yV \ I 1~'21 S,'B'I I J I ,(//>///./;~ 'lh~_ \ \ \ ~I ~J, VAX/S(k'l'/: -
/7 'l~V~~~WX/I//i A \ I ~~-'7'/ I VA/:><:)X'7;// ">-...
%~~~~~0~~~~\ J..... "",,: /~~a0~~~~~~:rv~'/- ~Vh~f0~~~ >< ~///:~/~~ f< ~~~"I~~~~Vflv~~ ~ ~ I :"ll ~... J~V/2 ,/'Q X
~ ..><; -x.llN. to-. '/) . A. X Y
-_. ---- --_. ---- '- --- -- --- -- --- /'- --- -- -- -- -_. ./ - -- --- --- --
00'
ocr
70·(f]
W60" ..J
~
2~. ct
40' illoJ
30· ....-......J
~. c:t
10·
0"
EAST
Sun path diagram lor 64 oN latitude.
SOUTH WEST
~l J ] » ~J ---I c----1
Indian River Upper bSSSSJLower V/7/A
64NL~-
90'
(,
DO"
-
-
-
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 170'UJill..J
I I I I I I 16 0" l'lI I I I I I I I I 2I I I I I 5<> <l
'lJ'-1J-~-+---:;k4~t~~=:;;;~~If1r~~1-rTl~ 40' g30' J--_Jl-l-JL--,-,1;~~~~~rf~~~i1:",d=:;~H=jf~tt~~tt~rF~!~-r-1-1 -
~~ ~<l-~
~
:PI
I-'N
~x
100' 1315'
:x1lO!O' 10.~ ~~;;,:;,;
EAST
15' ~""> 15' 3D' 45' 60'
~ ANGLESGOUTH
76' .::(> 105'
~WEST
120' 135' 150'
Suo patll diagram lor 64 ON latitude.
- -) 1 J 1 J J ) --1
Portage Creek84NL
eo'
70'
aa
({JW
so- ..JrJ2
so' ct
40' WoJ
30' I--~
~, ct
10'
0'
WESTSOUTHEAST
-
-
-
-
-., m: Ion
Ivr -~10~ l-+- 0.1.,.21 JU'2.
~i-pm -
~/Y I I ~. ell I pm
fV~ \ I An,21 ~". 2/ I i ~~B.\ ~
Vi n---~
I N "'pm -/
,I I
~\/ I I i'..;,..V \ n, . \ , , , ,""'" I N
pm
I~ l)( vt lA., 21 Son >/ I ,I
~ ~orrnI ~ r,---.. I -I A ~
Is. \\ \ II I /\\ I
ry l/\ lX,
I I
~I
~ ~~n~\
~~~lI Ie
kJ ~~ I
~\ ,
I I
V \~~@ ~ I ~ I N N~.q noy \ r--.. I
l1~~~~~~~~)0~~)
~..........
I "
~~~'~~~"
~ ~ ~~I ~N~.~'"~ ~~ t\: ,; "-.l'J'o;:'" ~'\. ['1".1'\:~"" l"\.l\.
.,,", """-_. --_. ---- ---- / ....... -- -- -- / ....... ./'1;J;I.....
W
Sun path diagram lor 64 oN latitude.
) --J J J 1 j ,-- -, 1 1 --1
Tsusena Creek64NL
-I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 190°
-~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 100"
I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I 1'70°
-
-
-
WESTSOUTHEAST
UJW
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IsO" G2
~ ~.~
"::"::~:"-"'+--t-----+---l-+---I---"-+--4- .~~~:.F--+---f----+----4--+--j 40° WoJ
~ ~~-~
----JL:.."L--I-.L.-,.+----+--+----+..y.::~+____1I~--+_-H---I~..::....j,_+____t__.it~~~~~·___::~.,..__+_-___1 ~. C!
BEARING ANGLES>I....~
Sun palh diagram for 64 oN latitude.
-
.....
APPENDIX B
WIDTH/FLOW FUNCTIONS
I"""
!
I"""I
WIDTH/FLOW FUNCTIONS
These graphs represent the relationship of wetted river width to
flow on a log/log scale. The solid lines connect HEC-2 predicted widths
for the six different flows used in the R&M (l982d) simulations. The
numbers associated with these solid lines are R&M cross-section identi
fiers. Several R&M cross-sections were used for each reach as defined
for the SNTEMP network (refer to Figure 10). For more readable plots,
several plots are presented for a single reach when necessary. The
dashed line presents the flow/width function used in the SNTEMP simu
lations.
B-1
i
~
en
r co
e-
~ m t"- <c.-t ~ ~.-t .-t .-t
Ln
.....
r-N ("IJ
~--....~ e- l:§ ~-- ;::
1""" -- ttl::r: IL:i
u..L.) ('I') L.)
-< ~ - -en §l.Ji.J --0=:~
CO ::z-- ~ ~-~ ...Iu.......
~<c
CleJ w
\0t-:J..... Q.,~ -au
....
-~z
"'" -~~-:-~-en f3
("IJ -- f3 ~..... uJ- -....
B-2
--1 ---I - ) I 1 1 -- -1
REACH 1CROSS SECTIONS 111 - 114 J GRAPH 2 (If 2
STREAM VIDTH IN FEETlE4 I • I
5
2
114IS -I I·------::;;>"=-er~ _
-'113
112
111- ---COMPUTED WIDTH
5
2
1£2 I I I I I I , I I I 'I I I , , I , I
tpI
Vol 1£32 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
lE4
FLOY IN llJBIC FEET/SECOND
2 3 4 5 6 7 9 9IF.5
.....
F"; ~0)
CD....\ -
tolfl
CD \~,... - --- -- in
....
N
- N! -
l:!s
~Sr'"~
("'\J V)
;:::- tl:i::c -- ;::'jI.L..
U I.~- -ce::: in
\~ en ~-lJ.J -0:::: ~
CD :z:
\; -- - 9.-t3 I.L.U')
~C
to
r- lJJt- in:Ja..::E0 ...u
~.-V)/---I-....I......L......I..--l.-..L.-.J--_..t- J-I....J......I.....J..---Ji..-....L.._....L..__...l- 4-
L1i- f:3- ~-f:3-
r B-4
J 1 . 1 ] ) 11
REACH 3
) 1 .···1 ~J 1
STREAM WIDTH IN FEETlE4
1£3
lE2
5
2
5
2
CROSS SECTIlIlS 119 - 121, GRAPH 1 Of 1
l-I-
I-
.1-
l-
I-
-
I-
~ 118l-
I-12121
I-
~I- 119- ----I- COMPUTED WIDTH /
l-
I-
I I I I I I I , , , I I , I I I
tdI
VI
21£3
3 4 5 6 7 9 91£4
FLOV IN ClIJIC FEET/SECOOD
2 3 4 5 6 7 9 9IF.5
) J J 1 . 'I J ~1 J '1 ]
2
5
STREAM WIDTH IN FEET1£4
1£3
1£2
5
2
REACH 4CROSS SECTIONS 120 - 121 I GRAPH 1 (f 1
t-l-
f-
f-
f-
f-
l-
I-
-l-
I-
l-
I-
I-
- 12(21
COMPUTED WIDTH -- ~--.--.-------'-----
I-
- 121
l-
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
t:dI0\
21£3
3 4 5 6 7 8 91£4
FLOW IN UlJIC FEET/SEcm:J
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91£5
--
~C\J""-
ISl (Y) -(0~(O(O
(0
-
\ -
\ -
\
\-
\\
\ --
\::I: -l-e -1-1
~ -elJ.lI- -::Ja...~0u -
-
f I I 1 • I I I • • I I I I I I
-
....,
-
'"""'
N
~-5:tn ~
::J:: •(Q
u a-<I..J.J fS0::: -..-
~
§
8.....z-
~- ['3- ~-
~-
-
N
~t.n-..-ttl
~.....u- -en §
CD :z:-t- ~
-J.....(Q
U")
•
['3-
B-7
--
\t--.-
tn co CD -(0 CO ro CO
-\ -
N -l\
i\ -l
\\
\ --
\:c -I-0 -toot
3 -0WI- -:::lQ.:£0U -
-
, I , , • , , I I , 1 • • I f f
~
N
\5N....
I
~t..n
::c CZ)(Q
L..)tS-<
Lt...J~,.. 0::: -t-t3en
.... ~
-
...,.u.J-
N N
~-
~-
-
N
i-.....t:tl~
.....C-)- -a)
~CD =-e- 9.....cc
U")
-
N
C3-
B-3
,_..- --J '~·--l - 1
REACH 6·CROSS SEenONS 57 - 59 I GRAPH 1 Of 1
2
5
5
STREAM VIDTH IN fEETlE4 .
1E3
-
59
COMPUTED WlDTH---
59
,.---------
57
2
1£2
b:lI
'-0
2lE3
3 4 5 6 7 8 9lE4
fLOV IN CUBIC fEET/SECOND
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9lE5
1 --~1 ---1 -] --1 ~·]----1 -----1 J
REACH 7CROSS SECTIONS 28 - 32 r GRAPH 1 (J 6
STREAM VIDTH IN FEET1£4 . i • i
5
___ 3121
c:- ~ 311 ~ ·29
------COMPUTED WIDTH
2
5
28........-:::: :::: 32
1£3 I -- ----1""':::::""'-- ---.-::;:::00 I
2
JE2 J '" I I , I I_ _ I " I J I I I , ,
tpI
t-'o 1£3
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91£4
flOW IN (1JBJC FEET/SEC{}I()
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91E5
,....
t-
CCI
~N
~,....
~-<~
t'- ~
~-::::c F;; ~
i1iLa..
L.) U- --< ~ \ C)
~LJ.....la:::: ~ CD :z--
9-~
It'--~ La..
~CCI....
~U")
ClLIJ,.,.. t- -:Jtl.~0U
I!""~--
C)
CD~
It'--
('f) (0 r-. ~\ 10 CCI(Y) (Y) (Y) ('f) (Y)
In
r -l"'"
.... - Nl±ILa..
:z-- ::c.......l:::)-=-:II:,.... i:ia::.......
GJc.n -In N- ~ C:I...... L&.I- -
B-ll
- -) -I :---1 j 1 Cl § ) 1 1 1 1 1
REACH 7CROSS SECTIOllS 38 - 42 I GRAPH 3 If 6
lE~
5
STREAM VIDTtI IN fEET
1;;sJiJAi~ 40
--COMPUTED WIDTH
2
5
41
J :/'- 4238
18 -I' . I z? c=e ;a=- 5?C 39 1
2
Jf2 I " I , I I I I I ' , I I I I I I I
b:lIt-'N
1£32 3 4 5 6. 7 8 9
lE4
FLOW IN UJBIC fEET/SECOND
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9lE5
~-0)
CD
"¢'\ to en
r-
r-.. III <.c"¢' "¢' it "¢' "¢'
r ~r Ini
--
.....<.c
~
--.- if e~~
~ bS-I-:::J:: r- , ttl-- ?\ -- ~
t....) I uJ t~- --< ('"f)
\0) §--u...J saa::: cs CD %--.-
~ 9~r-.
u-
~<.c....
~
InCJIJJI-::J --a.:40U
~:z:-
;:::;-In
C3-In
~-al-
B-13
~~ J -1 'C] J - 1 1 . -) -1
REACH 7CROSS SECTIOlJS 48 - 52 I GRAPH 5 (f 6
STREAM VIOTJI IN FFIT1E4 I I ,
5
___ --- o:r ....COMPUTED WIDTH
2
5
/ 52
48
1£3 -I i /' 7C=;;;=- ---:- I_ 4t:1
51I _."..:;/~:'-;'~/L-_-------:;;-+- /pa<"'" 5# /'" 5122
2
1E2 , " I I I I I I , ' J I ( I I I , t
tJ:lI.....
.p.
1£32 3 4 5 6 7 B 9
1E4
FLOW IN CUBIC FEETlS£IDID
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91ES
1 C-l 1 J , 1 --1 --1 I -] 1
STRH.14 VIDrtt IN FEET
REACH 7CROSS SECTlOOS 53 - 56. GRAPH 6 OF 6
ilE4 i i
5 H
2
1£3 llr------------------~, ----------:=-~-.....:::::
5 ~~
2
--- J:-. ~ - 53--- ::>COMPUTED WIDTH
1E2Iii iii I I i I ! i I I I I I I ,
t::dIt-'VI
1£32 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
lE4
FlOV IN ClIBIC FEET/SEmI)
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9lE5
1 J 1 ] -c-~ --J 1
REACH 8CROSS SECTIONS 19 - 23 I GRAPH 1 (f 2
STREAM WIDTtI IN FEET1£4 I • I
5
2
COMPUTED "ttI"OTH"- I c= / -5
1E3 I I ;;»' .........-- 7" ...--- .-,.,;';-- I
2
1£2 I I I I I I I ! ! I I I I I I I I ! I
b:lJ.....0\
1£32 3 4 5 6 1 8 9
1£4
FlOY IN ClIJIC FEETISECOOD
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9lES
-1 -J -] J I -1 I ~·1 . ·--1 - 1
REACH 8CROSS SECTIOOS 24 - l/ I GRAPH 2 (f 2
STREAM WIDTH IN fEETlE4 I • i
5
25
27J =- - 24----COMPUTED WIDTH
2
5
2
lE3 . I I 7" ......... -- I
1£2 I " I I , , I , I I I I I I , I I I
t:xlI--...J lE3
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9lE4
FLOW IN ClIHe FEETISECCW
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9lE5
~,
I
rT)
~
""" ~~0") ~-r :::r:: l:'--
~ffi
L) I U- ---e: rT)
\ c::n mLW ~ t:Sa:::. CO :z.- --u
\~ l:'-- ~~l:i
~ e CO
3:
Cl II')
Wt-:Ja.~0U
tn-c::n
co
\l:'--
toen ~ 11') rot--
\ II')
\ .......I
I
.....
..-~:z.-F i=~-=-
.... ~IV)
II') N II')
..". f:3w.II""" - -
N
f:3-
B-18
i
F'
("I')
~N
en ~.- ::c N-<-..) I
<e::. CICI
l..L.J~Ct::: --ul:H
.-~
--
-l±iL&..
Z-~:.
--
\ -~ CD::: N -.... en
\ -
\ -
\ -\
-1\
~~
"
\J:--
~--
C1UJ -I-:Ja.. -~0U
-
-
I , r , , r I , , , , , r r I
N
C:f-
-
N
e~-l±i- L&..
uJ U- §en
CICI z-t-- ~
~(Q
II")
-
[3-
B-19
J ---] - 1 --l -J
REACH 9
,- ---1 - "J --~ 1
STREAM WIDTH IN FEET1£4
1£3
lE2
5
2
5
2
CROSS SECTIONS 13 - 18 I GRAPH 3 OF 3
-l-I-l-
I-
-l-
I..
14
16
..-:::::::::.. 17
I-
~~15,-
I-
~
~ ;::::::::;-- ~/13
- l--- --
- -- --COMPUTED WIDTH~
18
l-
.1--
l-
I-
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
tl::IItvo
2lE3
3 4 5 6 7 B 91£4
FLOW IN OJBIC FEET/SECOND
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91£5
,
....,
[ APPENDIX C
LONGITUDINAL TEMPERATURE PROFILES
JUNE TO SEPTEMBER 1981-1982
-
....,
-
,....
LONGITUDINAL TEMPERATURE PROFILES
JUNE TO SEPTEMBER 1981-1982
These graphs represent both the predicted and observed temperatures
for the June, July, August, and September period of 1981 and 1982.
The observed data points are shown with 95 percent confidence
intervals. These confidence intervals are measures of the monthly
variations in the usable historical data for the Susitna Basin
(Figure 13).
Predicted temperatures are from the postcalibration simulations
with SNTEMP.
C-l
) J ~...J 1 1 -"1 "J ) J 1 1
Temperoture (D20
15
5
Predicted Longitudinal Temp. ProfilesJune 81 (957. confidonce intervals)
o190 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 g~ . 80
('")I
N River Mila
"~J] ~1] 1 '] '~"1 --" ~ J J 1 ") J
20
15
Temperature (D
Predicted Longitudinal Temp. ProfilesJuly 81 (95% confidence intervals)
10
5
o
--L--1 -0 L- -- T l~._
190 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80(')I .
WRiver Mile
] c_] J j 1 ] J } - ] ---') _C_-~C'--l CJ C 1
Predicted Longitudinal Temp. ProfilesAugust 81 (95% confidence intervals>
20
15
10
5
o
Temperature (0
r 1 r t T I l_~
190 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80(')I
.j:-.
Ri vel" Mi Ie
ISlc:c
ISl0')
ISc:c-
lSIen-
ISl-Lrl-=(".y
CDt.::l....ot.oa..e~
""" gs-00Q)~
• r-fIS
4- --0L
0-.
-. ISII CO N
~0-. 0E >
I. t.ID 0....
I-- c...Q)
lSI.- (J~ l: CT')
0 ~ CD-C.... .........
:IE:C• ...-f 0
t.U
(JCD
~ >::) ....Lrl
IS e:::C)
+J ....... "'I"
• r-f -c:cI'-- OJ t.
C 0...D
0 eCD
--.J ....ISla.. LrlQ -"..,. c.n
-0ill
+J.... 0
ISl• ...-f (,0
-0illL
0-.ISle----
C-5
J -J - J '1- 1 ] -. -] ) ) 1 -1 ) 1 1
20
15
10
5
Temperature (C)
Predicted Longitudinal Temp_ ProfilesJune 82 (95% confidence intervals>
·11
o
River Mi Ie
nI0\
190 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 11~ am 90 80
J ··1 1 1 ~. 1 -J I
213
15
Tempef'otuf'e (C)
Predicted Longitudinal Temp. ProfilesJuly 82 (95t confidence intervals)
113
5
o
___ ~ I I I_ --- .. lI
190 180 170 160 1513 140 1313 120 110 1130 90 80nI
-...J River Mile
CSllSI
(J)
ill...--i
r- .......<..j.....
CSl
0--
LCL
.o.....~
lSIN
E 0
ill.:>
L
r-- ~....I:
...--i ell(,)
lSI
G cCT'l
0
C -CCII... .-
....... ... ...C
x
U 0I""" (,)
L
::>CII
~
:>
4-> L.r'l
...0)
lSI a::::
-- ~
....... -~
OI~C ....0
(0:J
-.-JC"l:J~
lSIL.r'l
U-
Q)
4->()
~ • r-f
UlSl(C
Q)
LCL
lSlr-.-
~
......W--
CII
lSl
~ 5cc
.....0LCD0-eCD..... lSl
0)
Gl L.r'lN
lSl- lSl
C-8
'~-1 ""'] ) ~~'1 '-~"
Predicted Longitudinal Temp. ProfilesSeptombe~ 82 (95% confidence intepvcls)
'IC'~J 1 )
20
15
10
5
o
Tompe~ctu~e (C)
~-----------h I I -r
190 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80
(')I
1.0 Rive~ Mile