Technical Memorandum
Technical Memorandum Date:
September 29, 2015
To:
Charlie Kuffner, Rugraw, LLC
From:
I. Ertugrul Sogutlugil, Watercourse Engineering, Inc. Mike Deas, Watercourse Engineering, Inc.
Copies:
Jim Tompkins, Rugraw, LLC Steve Cramer, Cramer Fish Sciences
Re:
South Fork Battle Creek W3T Modeling: 2015 Results
1.
Introduction
As part of the proposed Lassen Lodge Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 12496), which is located on upper South Fork (SF) Battle Creek, roughly between the Lassen Lodge and Mineral, California, Watercourse Engineering, Inc. (Watercourse), in cooperation with and Cramer Fish Sciences (CFS), and support from Rugraw, LLC conducted a modeling study assessing the performance of the existing water temperature model (Watercourse 2015) with the available measured data in March – June, 2015 period. Flow data was available at the upstream end of the study reach (above Old Highway 36 Bridge, ABS), and inflows from springs identified in previous surveys were applied (Rugraw 2014, Watercourse 2014). Water temperature data were available at several locations as listed in Table 1 and shown in Figure 1. Inflow water temperatures associated with springs were assumed the same as those measured in 2014. Available flow and temperature data from the Above Bridge Station (ABS) site were assumed to represent the headwater boundary (HW) conditions of the model near the intake site, and temperature data collected in 2015 from seven additional stations were used to validate the model. Table 1. SF Battle Creek water temperature stations. Year 2015. Station Name Above Bridge Station (ABS) Station No. 5 Station No. 4 Station No. 3 Station No. 2 Proposed Powerhouse(PH) Return Site Station No. 1 Ponderosa Way Bridge 1
Cumulative Distance, ft 2,640 6,507 8,226 10,166 12,078 12,671 12,906 24,131
1
Approximate/assumed distance from the HW boundary at the proposed Diversion/Intake Site.
1 1195 Battle Creek
Watercourse Engineering, Inc.
DRAFT
2
4
5
3 1
Figure 1. SF Battle Creek model project area with temperature stations and key locations.
2.
Model Results
The model was run from March 18th to May 23rd in weekly steps to produce a continuous time series. South Fork Battle Creek ceased to flow at stations 3, 4 and 5 in early June. Based on stage recorders placed in the creek, stream flows began to notably diminish starting after May 23, and thus the modeling analysis period was terminated on this date. Each week used the weekly average of the corresponding daily flows. Model performance was assessed both graphically and statistically. Model results are shown graphically in Figure 2 to Figure 8 for the locations/stations listed in Table 1. Statistical performance metrics are included in Table 2. No model parameter or coefficient values were modified from the previous calibration, i.e., the model was not re-calibrated, but rather simply applied with the new data to validate model performance with the latest (2015) data set. As the time series graphs and the statistical metrics suggested, the model performed well and captured the overall characteristics of temperature in the system. Mean bias ranged from 0.43 to 0.79oC and absolute error from 0.61 to 1.05oC. Root mean squared error ranged from 0.74 to 1.23oC. Diurnal range was largely replicated, but did deviate at times. These values are consistent with model performance for years 2007, 2013, and 2014 (Watercourse 2015). Where common locations were available, all four years were compared. As shown in Table 3, model performance in 2015 was consistent with the previous three simulation years.
2 1195 Battle Creek
Watercourse Engineering, Inc.
DRAFT
Sim.
60
Flow@Old Hwy.36 Br.
10
0
0
05/20/15
5
05/13/15
20
05/06/15
10
04/29/15
30
04/22/15
15
04/15/15
40
04/08/15
20
04/01/15
50
03/25/15
25
Flow Rate, cfs
Meas.
03/18/15
Water Temperature, oC
30
Figure 2. Simulated versus measured water temperature for SF Battle Creek at Station 5 site, and measured daily flow in SF Battle Creek at ABS.
Sim.
60
Flow@Old Hwy.36 Br.
10
0
0
05/20/15
5
05/13/15
20
05/06/15
10
04/29/15
30
04/22/15
15
04/15/15
40
04/08/15
20
04/01/15
50
03/25/15
25
Flow Rate, cfs
Meas.
03/18/15
Water Temperature, oC
30
Figure 3. Simulated versus measured water temperature for SF Battle Creek at Station 4 site, and measured daily flow in SF Battle Creek at ABS.
3 1195 Battle Creek
Watercourse Engineering, Inc.
DRAFT
Sim.
60
Flow@Old Hwy.36 Br.
10
0
0
05/20/15
5
05/13/15
20
05/06/15
10
04/29/15
30
04/22/15
15
04/15/15
40
04/08/15
20
04/01/15
50
03/25/15
25
Flow Rate, cfs
Meas.
03/18/15
Water Temperature, oC
30
Figure 4. Simulated versus measured water temperature for SF Battle Creek at Station 3 site, and measured daily flow in SF Battle Creek at ABS.
Sim.
60
Flow@Old Hwy.36 Br.
10
0
0
05/20/15
5
05/13/15
20
05/06/15
10
04/29/15
30
04/22/15
15
04/15/15
40
04/08/15
20
04/01/15
50
03/25/15
25
Flow Rate, cfs
Meas.
03/18/15
Water Temperature, oC
30
Figure 5. Simulated versus measured water temperature for SF Battle Creek at Station 2 site, and measured daily flow in SF Battle Creek at ABS.
4 1195 Battle Creek
Watercourse Engineering, Inc.
DRAFT
Sim.
60
Flow@Old Hwy.36 Br.
10
0
0
05/20/15
5
05/13/15
20
05/06/15
10
04/29/15
30
04/22/15
15
04/15/15
40
04/08/15
20
04/01/15
50
03/25/15
25
Flow Rate, cfs
Meas.
03/18/15
Water Temperature, oC
30
Figure 6. Simulated versus measured water temperature for SF Battle Creek at the proposed Powerhouse Return site, and measured daily flow in SF Battle Creek at ABS.
Sim.
60
Flow@Old Hwy.36 Br.
10
0
0
05/20/15
5
05/13/15
20
05/06/15
10
04/29/15
30
04/22/15
15
04/15/15
40
04/08/15
20
04/01/15
50
03/25/15
25
Flow Rate, cfs
Meas.
03/18/15
Water Temperature, oC
30
Figure 7. Simulated versus measured water temperature for SF Battle Creek at Station 1 site, and measured daily flow in SF Battle Creek at ABS.
5 1195 Battle Creek
Watercourse Engineering, Inc.
DRAFT
Sim.
60
Flow@Old Hwy.36 Br.
10
0
0
05/20/15
5
05/13/15
20
05/06/15
10
04/29/15
30
04/22/15
15
04/15/15
40
04/08/15
20
04/01/15
50
03/25/15
25
Flow Rate, cfs
Meas.
03/18/15
Water Temperature, oC
30
Figure 8. Simulated versus measured water temperature for SF Battle Creek at Ponderosa Way Bridge site, and measured daily flow in SF Battle Creek at ABS.
Table 2. Model temperature statistics for South Fork Battle Creek. Year 2015. Station 2
Proposed PH Return
Station 1
Ponderosa Way Bridge
0.79
0.71
0.77
0.43
0.94
1.02
1.05
0.96
0.97
1.01
0.61
Root mean squared error (RMSE), C
1.11
1.17
1.23
1.13
1.13
1.18
0.74
COUNT
1,551
1,547
1,521
1,526
1,552
1,525
1,588
Station 3 0.57
Station 4 0.47
Station 5 0.58
Location
(March 18th to May 22nd) o
Mean Bias (Sim. – Meas.), C o
Mean absolute error (MAE), C o
6 1195 Battle Creek
Watercourse Engineering, Inc.
DRAFT Table 3. Model temperature statistics for common monitoring locations in South Fork Battle Creek: Years 2007, 2013, 2014, and 2015. PH Tailrace Return Site
Location
th
Ponderosa Way Br.
th
Year 2007 ( Apr.29 to Jul. 15 ) - Dry o
Mean Bias (Sim. – Meas.), C
0.10
NA
o
0.79
NA
1.07
NA
1,849
NA
Mean absolute error (MAE), C o
Root mean squared error (RMSE), C COUNT th
st
Year 2013 (Sep.05 to Oct.31 ) – Below Normal o
Mean Bias (Sim. – Meas.), C o
Mean absolute error (MAE), C o
Root mean squared error (RMSE), C COUNT st
0.51
0.36
0.86
0.47
1.07
0.54
1,342
1,342
th
Year 2014 (Jul.21 to Oct.13 ) – Critically Dry o
Mean Bias (Sim. – Meas.), C
-0.26
0.18
0.93
0.35
Root mean squared error (RMSE), C
1.17
0.45
COUNT
1,355
1,336
o
Mean absolute error (MAE), C o
Year 2015 (March 18th to May 22nd) – Critically Dry o
Mean Bias (Sim. – Meas.), C
0.71
0.43
0.97
0.61
Root mean squared error (RMSE), C
1.13
0.74
COUNT
1,552
1,588
o
Mean absolute error (MAE), C o
References Rugraw, LLC (Rugraw). 2014. Stream Monitoring Project. Technical memorandum. September 30. Watercourse Engineering, Inc. (Watercourse). 2015. Water Temperature Model Development: South Fork Battle Creek, Lassen Lodge Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 12496) - Interim Report. Prepared for Rugraw LLC, Lassen Lodge Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 12496), South Fork Battle Creek, Tehama County, California. May 14. Watercourse Engineering, Inc. (Watercourse). 2014. South Fork Battle Creek Proposed Flow and Temperature Modeling – Study Plan. Prepared for Rugraw LLC, Lassen Lodge Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 12496), South Fork Battle Creek, Tehama County, California. December 1.
7 1195 Battle Creek
Watercourse Engineering, Inc.
September 29, 2015
To:
Charlie Kuffner, Rugraw, LLC
From:
I. Ertugrul Sogutlugil, Watercourse Engineering, Inc. Mike Deas, Watercourse Engineering, Inc.
Copies:
Jim Tompkins, Rugraw, LLC Steve Cramer, Cramer Fish Sciences
Re:
South Fork Battle Creek W3T Modeling: 2015 Results
1.
Introduction
As part of the proposed Lassen Lodge Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 12496), which is located on upper South Fork (SF) Battle Creek, roughly between the Lassen Lodge and Mineral, California, Watercourse Engineering, Inc. (Watercourse), in cooperation with and Cramer Fish Sciences (CFS), and support from Rugraw, LLC conducted a modeling study assessing the performance of the existing water temperature model (Watercourse 2015) with the available measured data in March – June, 2015 period. Flow data was available at the upstream end of the study reach (above Old Highway 36 Bridge, ABS), and inflows from springs identified in previous surveys were applied (Rugraw 2014, Watercourse 2014). Water temperature data were available at several locations as listed in Table 1 and shown in Figure 1. Inflow water temperatures associated with springs were assumed the same as those measured in 2014. Available flow and temperature data from the Above Bridge Station (ABS) site were assumed to represent the headwater boundary (HW) conditions of the model near the intake site, and temperature data collected in 2015 from seven additional stations were used to validate the model. Table 1. SF Battle Creek water temperature stations. Year 2015. Station Name Above Bridge Station (ABS) Station No. 5 Station No. 4 Station No. 3 Station No. 2 Proposed Powerhouse(PH) Return Site Station No. 1 Ponderosa Way Bridge 1
Cumulative Distance, ft 2,640 6,507 8,226 10,166 12,078 12,671 12,906 24,131
1
Approximate/assumed distance from the HW boundary at the proposed Diversion/Intake Site.
1 1195 Battle Creek
Watercourse Engineering, Inc.
DRAFT
2
4
5
3 1
Figure 1. SF Battle Creek model project area with temperature stations and key locations.
2.
Model Results
The model was run from March 18th to May 23rd in weekly steps to produce a continuous time series. South Fork Battle Creek ceased to flow at stations 3, 4 and 5 in early June. Based on stage recorders placed in the creek, stream flows began to notably diminish starting after May 23, and thus the modeling analysis period was terminated on this date. Each week used the weekly average of the corresponding daily flows. Model performance was assessed both graphically and statistically. Model results are shown graphically in Figure 2 to Figure 8 for the locations/stations listed in Table 1. Statistical performance metrics are included in Table 2. No model parameter or coefficient values were modified from the previous calibration, i.e., the model was not re-calibrated, but rather simply applied with the new data to validate model performance with the latest (2015) data set. As the time series graphs and the statistical metrics suggested, the model performed well and captured the overall characteristics of temperature in the system. Mean bias ranged from 0.43 to 0.79oC and absolute error from 0.61 to 1.05oC. Root mean squared error ranged from 0.74 to 1.23oC. Diurnal range was largely replicated, but did deviate at times. These values are consistent with model performance for years 2007, 2013, and 2014 (Watercourse 2015). Where common locations were available, all four years were compared. As shown in Table 3, model performance in 2015 was consistent with the previous three simulation years.
2 1195 Battle Creek
Watercourse Engineering, Inc.
DRAFT
Sim.
60
Flow@Old Hwy.36 Br.
10
0
0
05/20/15
5
05/13/15
20
05/06/15
10
04/29/15
30
04/22/15
15
04/15/15
40
04/08/15
20
04/01/15
50
03/25/15
25
Flow Rate, cfs
Meas.
03/18/15
Water Temperature, oC
30
Figure 2. Simulated versus measured water temperature for SF Battle Creek at Station 5 site, and measured daily flow in SF Battle Creek at ABS.
Sim.
60
Flow@Old Hwy.36 Br.
10
0
0
05/20/15
5
05/13/15
20
05/06/15
10
04/29/15
30
04/22/15
15
04/15/15
40
04/08/15
20
04/01/15
50
03/25/15
25
Flow Rate, cfs
Meas.
03/18/15
Water Temperature, oC
30
Figure 3. Simulated versus measured water temperature for SF Battle Creek at Station 4 site, and measured daily flow in SF Battle Creek at ABS.
3 1195 Battle Creek
Watercourse Engineering, Inc.
DRAFT
Sim.
60
Flow@Old Hwy.36 Br.
10
0
0
05/20/15
5
05/13/15
20
05/06/15
10
04/29/15
30
04/22/15
15
04/15/15
40
04/08/15
20
04/01/15
50
03/25/15
25
Flow Rate, cfs
Meas.
03/18/15
Water Temperature, oC
30
Figure 4. Simulated versus measured water temperature for SF Battle Creek at Station 3 site, and measured daily flow in SF Battle Creek at ABS.
Sim.
60
Flow@Old Hwy.36 Br.
10
0
0
05/20/15
5
05/13/15
20
05/06/15
10
04/29/15
30
04/22/15
15
04/15/15
40
04/08/15
20
04/01/15
50
03/25/15
25
Flow Rate, cfs
Meas.
03/18/15
Water Temperature, oC
30
Figure 5. Simulated versus measured water temperature for SF Battle Creek at Station 2 site, and measured daily flow in SF Battle Creek at ABS.
4 1195 Battle Creek
Watercourse Engineering, Inc.
DRAFT
Sim.
60
Flow@Old Hwy.36 Br.
10
0
0
05/20/15
5
05/13/15
20
05/06/15
10
04/29/15
30
04/22/15
15
04/15/15
40
04/08/15
20
04/01/15
50
03/25/15
25
Flow Rate, cfs
Meas.
03/18/15
Water Temperature, oC
30
Figure 6. Simulated versus measured water temperature for SF Battle Creek at the proposed Powerhouse Return site, and measured daily flow in SF Battle Creek at ABS.
Sim.
60
Flow@Old Hwy.36 Br.
10
0
0
05/20/15
5
05/13/15
20
05/06/15
10
04/29/15
30
04/22/15
15
04/15/15
40
04/08/15
20
04/01/15
50
03/25/15
25
Flow Rate, cfs
Meas.
03/18/15
Water Temperature, oC
30
Figure 7. Simulated versus measured water temperature for SF Battle Creek at Station 1 site, and measured daily flow in SF Battle Creek at ABS.
5 1195 Battle Creek
Watercourse Engineering, Inc.
DRAFT
Sim.
60
Flow@Old Hwy.36 Br.
10
0
0
05/20/15
5
05/13/15
20
05/06/15
10
04/29/15
30
04/22/15
15
04/15/15
40
04/08/15
20
04/01/15
50
03/25/15
25
Flow Rate, cfs
Meas.
03/18/15
Water Temperature, oC
30
Figure 8. Simulated versus measured water temperature for SF Battle Creek at Ponderosa Way Bridge site, and measured daily flow in SF Battle Creek at ABS.
Table 2. Model temperature statistics for South Fork Battle Creek. Year 2015. Station 2
Proposed PH Return
Station 1
Ponderosa Way Bridge
0.79
0.71
0.77
0.43
0.94
1.02
1.05
0.96
0.97
1.01
0.61
Root mean squared error (RMSE), C
1.11
1.17
1.23
1.13
1.13
1.18
0.74
COUNT
1,551
1,547
1,521
1,526
1,552
1,525
1,588
Station 3 0.57
Station 4 0.47
Station 5 0.58
Location
(March 18th to May 22nd) o
Mean Bias (Sim. – Meas.), C o
Mean absolute error (MAE), C o
6 1195 Battle Creek
Watercourse Engineering, Inc.
DRAFT Table 3. Model temperature statistics for common monitoring locations in South Fork Battle Creek: Years 2007, 2013, 2014, and 2015. PH Tailrace Return Site
Location
th
Ponderosa Way Br.
th
Year 2007 ( Apr.29 to Jul. 15 ) - Dry o
Mean Bias (Sim. – Meas.), C
0.10
NA
o
0.79
NA
1.07
NA
1,849
NA
Mean absolute error (MAE), C o
Root mean squared error (RMSE), C COUNT th
st
Year 2013 (Sep.05 to Oct.31 ) – Below Normal o
Mean Bias (Sim. – Meas.), C o
Mean absolute error (MAE), C o
Root mean squared error (RMSE), C COUNT st
0.51
0.36
0.86
0.47
1.07
0.54
1,342
1,342
th
Year 2014 (Jul.21 to Oct.13 ) – Critically Dry o
Mean Bias (Sim. – Meas.), C
-0.26
0.18
0.93
0.35
Root mean squared error (RMSE), C
1.17
0.45
COUNT
1,355
1,336
o
Mean absolute error (MAE), C o
Year 2015 (March 18th to May 22nd) – Critically Dry o
Mean Bias (Sim. – Meas.), C
0.71
0.43
0.97
0.61
Root mean squared error (RMSE), C
1.13
0.74
COUNT
1,552
1,588
o
Mean absolute error (MAE), C o
References Rugraw, LLC (Rugraw). 2014. Stream Monitoring Project. Technical memorandum. September 30. Watercourse Engineering, Inc. (Watercourse). 2015. Water Temperature Model Development: South Fork Battle Creek, Lassen Lodge Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 12496) - Interim Report. Prepared for Rugraw LLC, Lassen Lodge Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 12496), South Fork Battle Creek, Tehama County, California. May 14. Watercourse Engineering, Inc. (Watercourse). 2014. South Fork Battle Creek Proposed Flow and Temperature Modeling – Study Plan. Prepared for Rugraw LLC, Lassen Lodge Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 12496), South Fork Battle Creek, Tehama County, California. December 1.
7 1195 Battle Creek
Watercourse Engineering, Inc.
