1. Middle Fork Project Flow and Temperature Modeling (Status Report) November 4, 2008

2. 1Agenda 9:00 AM - 12:00 PM 9:00 AM - 12:00 PM  Introductions  Water Temperature Models Development Progress Report  Reservoir Modeling  River Modeling  Interim Model Application and Testing  Data  Next Steps and Schedule 12:00 PM 12:00 PM  Adjourn

3. 2 Principal Project Tasks: Status Model Implementation/Construction Model Implementation/Construction  Reservoirs (complete)  Rivers (Rubicon complete, MF in progress)  Tunnel (complete - relationship) Model Calibration Model Calibration  Reservoirs  French Meadows – draft (2006-07)  Hell Hole – draft (2006-07)  Ralston – in progress  Rivers (pending)  Tunnel model calibration (complete - relationship) Other Tasks Other Tasks  model refinement  River Geometry  Technology transfer (ongoing)

4. 3Outline Reservoirs Reservoirs  French Meadows and Hell Hole  Ralston Afterbay Rivers Rivers  Rubicon  Middle Fork (above Ralston Afterbay)  Middle Fork (below Ralston Afterbay) Tunnels Tunnels  Data relationship

5. 4Reservoirs French Meadows and Hell Hole French Meadows and Hell Hole Refined calibration Refined calibration  Geometry  Wind sheltering considerations  Assumptions (a and b are constant among reservoirs, wind sheltering differs, etc.) 2006, 2007 results 2006, 2007 results

6. 5 Hell Hole Geometry

7. 6 Wind sheltering Meteorological data may not be representative of the effect over the reservoirs Meteorological data may not be representative of the effect over the reservoirs  (Location of met station) Effect of wind sheltering may be different for the different part of the reservoir and different time of the year Effect of wind sheltering may be different for the different part of the reservoir and different time of the year  Apply different wind sheltering values for upstream and downstream of the reservoirs seasonally

8. 7 Hell Hole Rubicon River and Five Lakes Creek inflow combine as one input Rubicon River and Five Lakes Creek inflow combine as one input Weighted averaged input water temperature is applied Weighted averaged input water temperature is applied RR1 is used for missing FL1 data RR1 is used for missing FL1 data

9. 8 French Meadows, 2006 Segment 23

10. 9 French Meadows, 2006 Segment 17

11. 10 French Meadows, 2007 Segment 23

12. 11 French Meadows, 2007 Segment 17

13. 12 Hell Hole, 2006

14. 13 Hell Hole, 2007

15. 14 Ralston Reservoir Geometry Geometry  Highly detailed (run time ~90 min)  Modified (run time ~ 18 min) Inflows and outflows Inflows and outflows  Actual  Water balance model representation  Ralston PH and Rubicon River inflows together Water Temperature Water Temperature  Placeholder data

16. 15 Ralston Reservoir geometry – high resolution

17. 16 Ralston Reservoir geometry- reduced

18. 17 Ralston Inflows and Outflows MF American River Rubicon River Ralston PH Oxbow PH Ralston Afterbay Ralston Reservoir RR+RPH MFA RAB OPH Water balance model representation

19. 18 Ralston Inflow Temperature RR4 OX1MF10 MF10RR4OX1 2006Available July 14- Dec 31 No 2007AvailableAvailableNo Water temperature data availability

20. 19 Ralston Reservoir Results (steady state)

21. 20Rivers  General  All meteorological data are complete  All temperature data are complete  Geometry X-Y-Z data complete  All shade files are complete  In progress  Cross sectional data  Sub-daily flow data

22. 21Rubicon Implementation assumptions Implementation assumptions  Estimated cross sectional geometry  Flow: from Hell Hole Reservoir simulation  Water temperatures: from Hell Hole Reservoir simulation  Relationship to span alluvium Next Steps Next Steps  Cross section geometry  Final simulated temperatures below Hell Hole (CE-QUAL-W2)

23. 22 Rubicon River Boundary Conditions

24. 23 Rubicon River Boundary Conditions

25. 24 Rubicon River Boundary Conditions Objective: Estimate appropriate boundary condition in alluvial section at headwater under spill and non-spill condition. Objective: Estimate appropriate boundary condition in alluvial section at headwater under spill and non-spill condition.  Headwater of the Rubicon River model was placed at RR3 because of the dry alluvial reach upstream.  Develop dual criteria to provide river inflow temperature boundary condition  When Hell Hole Dam is spilling: 1. RR3 Tw is similar to Hell Hole spill Tw – Large flows overwhelm small releases from the dam and short transit time yields minimum opportunity for heating. 2. Potential lag effect at RR3 Tw – Due to the spill filling alluvium and then slowly released.  When Hell Hole Dam is not spilling: 1. Between RR2 and RR3, Tw difference of about 2 o F in June. It diminishes to nearly 0 o F by October 1 st.  Linear relationship assumed from terminus of spill to mid-October.

26. 25 Rubicon River-Ralston Interface

27. 26 MF American Middle Fork above Ralston Middle Fork above Ralston  Implementation assumptions  Estimated cross sectional geometry  Flows  Characterization of Interbay  Temperatures (simulated from French Meadows)  Next Steps  Cross section geometry  Refinement at Interbay  Sub-daily flow representation  Final simulated temperatures below French Meadows Middle Fork below Ralston – in progress Middle Fork below Ralston – in progress

28. 27 MFAR (French Meadows-Ralston) Grid Interbay

29. 28 MFAR (French Meadows-Ralston) Grid

30. 29 Sub-daily Flow Representation Water Balance Model Disaggregation Water Balance Model Disaggregation Use production data to estimate sub-daily flow signal (ECORP) Use production data to estimate sub-daily flow signal (ECORP) Discrepancies existed. Discrepancies existed. Scaled flows such that sub-daily flows captured daily flow totals Scaled flows such that sub-daily flows captured daily flow totals

31. 30 River Reach Cross Sections Representative cross sections for each habitat type (in each reach) will be formulated and assigned to the longitudinal profile consistent with the habitat typing. All habitat types will be assessed to identify representative cross sections Representative cross sections for each habitat type (in each reach) will be formulated and assigned to the longitudinal profile consistent with the habitat typing. All habitat types will be assessed to identify representative cross sections Cross sections based on habitat types: HGR, LGR, RUN, and POOL (no cascades included). Cross sections based on habitat types: HGR, LGR, RUN, and POOL (no cascades included). Habitat designations were examined at three spatial densities: 25, 50, and 100 m inter-node spacing Habitat designations were examined at three spatial densities: 25, 50, and 100 m inter-node spacing

32. 31 River Reach Cross Sections Elements consist of 3 nodes. Assume that the top two nodes of each element represent the habitat type. The lower most node is common between adjacent elements. Because the finite element model integrates between nodes this lower node in the element serves approximately as a "transition" between adjacent element habitat types. Elements consist of 3 nodes. Assume that the top two nodes of each element represent the habitat type. The lower most node is common between adjacent elements. Because the finite element model integrates between nodes this lower node in the element serves approximately as a "transition" between adjacent element habitat types. Scheme will be tested and refined as necessary Scheme will be tested and refined as necessary Cross sectional area and surface width will be mapped from actual cross sections to a trapezoidal form to preserve the area and width in an appropriate fashion. Cross sectional area and surface width will be mapped from actual cross sections to a trapezoidal form to preserve the area and width in an appropriate fashion. Additionally, to improve pool representation in (depths and velocities), slope factors will be used for all pool elements. The riffles and runs will not be represented with explicit slope factors unless the need arises. Additionally, to improve pool representation in (depths and velocities), slope factors will be used for all pool elements. The riffles and runs will not be represented with explicit slope factors unless the need arises.

33. 32 Stream Cross Section Representation Map Area And Width

34. 33 Actual Cross Sections

35. 34 Actual Cross Sections

36. 35 Actual Cross Sections

37. 36 Actual Cross Sections

38. 37 Tunnel Work Heating assessment based on field data Heating assessment based on field data Filter data Filter data  Daily Average  Sub-daily data  Peaking periods  With transition removed  Lagging temperatures – based on travel time through tunnel at plant flow rate

39. 38 French Meadows Power House Daily temperature Temperature differences (70% 0.26 o F or less)

40. 39 Ralston Power House Daily temperature Temperature differences (90% 1 o F or less, 0.56 o F at full pipe)

41. 40 Rate of heating Approximately Linear, minimal heating Approximately Linear, minimal heating Rate of heating is approximately 0.015 o F per 1000 feet Rate of heating is approximately 0.015 o F per 1000 feet Recommend using this relationship Recommend using this relationship Ralston French Meadows Ralston French Meadows