Project Hydrology and
Hydraulic Models Applied to
the Hells Canyon Reach of
the Snake River
Shaun K. Parkinson
Editor
Technical Report
Appendix E.1-4
Hells Canyon Complex
FERC No. 1971
September 2002
Revised July 2003
Copyright © 2003 by Idaho Power Company
Hells Canyon MIKE 11
Hydrodynamic Model
Morten Rungø, DHI
Chief Engineer
Technical Report
Appendix E.1-4
Project Hydrology and
Hydraulic Models Applied to the
Hells Canyon Reach of the
Snake River
Chapter 5
Hells Canyon Complex
FERC No. 1971
September 2001
Revised July 2003
Copyright © 2003 by Idaho Power Company
Idaho Power Company
Chapter 5: Hells Canyon MIKE 11 Hydrodynamic Model
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. i
List of Tables................................................................................................................................... ii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. ii
List of Appendices ......................................................................................................................... iv
List of Addenda.............................................................................................................................. iv
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
2. Model Input Data ....................................................................................................................... 1
2.1. Branch Definition.............................................................................................................. 1
2.2. Cross Sections ................................................................................................................... 1
2.3. Boundary Conditions ........................................................................................................ 2
2.4. Resistance Numbers .......................................................................................................... 2
3. Calibration.................................................................................................................................. 3
4. Validation ................................................................................................................................... 4
5. Error Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 5
5.1. Methods............................................................................................................................. 5
5.2. Results ............................................................................................................................... 6
5.3. Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 6
6. Summary and Conclusions......................................................................................................... 7
7. Literature Cited .......................................................................................................................... 8
Hells Canyon Complex
Page i
Project Hydrology and Hydraulic Models
Idaho Power Company
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.
Boundary conditions required for the MIKE 11 model of the Snake River. .......... 9
Table 2.
Summary of the discharge conditions from Hells Canyon Dam for each
period included in the error analysis. ...................................................................... 9
Table 3.
Results of the water level error analysis for the period between May 1998
and May 1999........................................................................................................ 10
Table 4.
Results of the water level error analysis for the period between August
2000 and December 2000...................................................................................... 11
Table 5.
Results of the water level error analysis for the period between January
1998 and January 2001.......................................................................................... 12
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.
MIKE 11 branch delineation. Horizontal and vertical axes are
geographical coordinates in meters. ...................................................................... 13
Figure 2.
Representative extraction of nine cross sections. The numbers indicate the
approximate chainage for each section. The horizontal axis is the station
in meters across the river, and the vertical axis is the elevation above the
reference level. ...................................................................................................... 14
Figure 3.
Longitudinal profile of the riverbed thalweg used in the MIKE 11 model
for the Snake River. The horizontal axis is river chainage in meters, and
the vertical axis is elevation in meters above the reference level. ........................ 15
Figure 4.
Locations of recording pressure transducers......................................................... 17
Figure 5.
Longitudinal variation of the average Manning’s n. ............................................. 19
Figure 6.
Vertical variation of Manning’s n. Each line represents the Manning’s n as
a function of discharge. The legend indicates the chainage of each line. ............. 20
Figure 7.
Comparison of measured (red) and simulated (blue) water levels at
chainages on the Snake River for the period 1998–2000 (Plot 1 of 11). .............. 21
Figure 8.
Comparison of measured (red) and simulated (blue) water levels at
chainages on the Snake River for the period 1998–2000 (Plot 2 of 11). .............. 22
Page ii
Hells Canyon Complex
Idaho Power Company
Chapter 5: Hells Canyon MIKE 11 Hydrodynamic Model
Figure 9.
Comparison of measured (red) and simulated (blue) water levels at
chainages on the Snake River for the period 1998–2000 (Plot 3 of 11). .............. 23
Figure 10.
Comparison of measured (red) and simulated (blue) water levels at
chainages on the Snake River for the period 1998–2000 (Plot 4 of 11). .............. 24
Figure 11.
Comparison of measured (red) and simulated (blue) water levels at
chainages on the Snake River for the period 1998–2000 (Plot 5 of 11). .............. 25
Figure 12.
Comparison of measured (red) and simulated (blue) water levels at
chainages on the Snake River for the period 1998–2000 (Plot 6 of 11). .............. 26
Figure 13.
Comparison of measured (red) and simulated (blue) water levels at
chainages on the Snake River for the period 1998−2000 (Plot 7 of 11). .............. 27
Figure 14.
Comparison of measured (red) and simulated (blue) water levels at
chainages on the Snake River for the period 1998–2000 (Plot 8 of 11). .............. 28
Figure 15.
Comparison of measured (red) and simulated (blue) water levels at
chainages on the Snake River for the period 1998–2000 (Plot 9 of 11). .............. 29
Figure 16.
Comparison of measured (red) and simulated (blue) water levels at
chainages on the Snake River for the period 1998–2000 (Plot 10 of 11). ............ 30
Figure 17.
Comparison of measured (red) and simulated (blue) water levels at
chainages on the Snake River for the period 1998–2000 (Plot 11 of 11). ............ 31
Figure 18.
Zoomed-in comparison of measured (red) and simulated (blue) water
levels at nine locations on a three-week time scale for a high-, medium-,
and low-flow period (Plot 1 of 9).......................................................................... 32
Figure 19.
Zoomed-in comparison of measured (red) and simulated (blue) water
levels at nine locations on a three-week time scale for a high-, medium-,
and low-flow period (Plot 2 of 9).......................................................................... 33
Figure 20.
Zoomed-in comparison of measured (red) and simulated (blue) water
levels at nine locations on a three-week time scale for a high-, medium-,
and low-flow period (Plot 3 of 9).......................................................................... 34
Figure 21.
Zoomed-in comparison of measured (red) and simulated (blue) water
levels at nine locations on a three-week time scale for a high-, medium-,
and low-flow period (Plot 4 of 9).......................................................................... 35
Figure 22.
Zoomed-in comparison of measured (red) and simulated (blue) water
levels at nine locations on a three-week time scale for a high-, medium-,
and low-flow period (Plot 5 of 9).......................................................................... 36
Hells Canyon Complex
Page iii
Project Hydrology and Hydraulic Models
Idaho Power Company
Figure 23.
Zoomed-in comparison of measured (red) and simulated (blue) water
levels at nine locations on a three-week time scale for a high-, medium-,
and low-flow period (Plot 6 of 9).......................................................................... 37
Figure 24.
Zoomed-in comparison of measured (red) and simulated (blue) water
levels at nine locations on a three-week time scale for a high-, medium-,
and low-flow period (Plot 7 of 9).......................................................................... 38
Figure 25.
Zoomed-in comparison of measured (red) and simulated (blue) water
levels at nine locations on a three-week time scale for a high-, medium-,
and low-flow period (Plot 8 of 9).......................................................................... 39
Figure 26.
Zoomed-in comparison of measured (red) and simulated (blue) water
levels at nine locations on a three-week time scale for a high-, medium-,
and low-flow period (Plot 9 of 9).......................................................................... 40
Figure 27.
Validation of simulated water levels against the surveyed water surface
profile. ................................................................................................................... 41
Figure 28.
Validation of normalized water levels against the surveyed water surface
profile (showing results with the average bed level subtracted from all data
sets)........................................................................................................................ 42
Figure 29.
Time series plot of discharge over the simulation period. .................................... 43
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A. Hells Canyon Pressure Transducer Installation, Operation, and Data
Quality Report. ...................................................................................................... 45
LIST OF ADDENDA
Addendum to Hells Canyon MIKE 11 Hydrodynamic Model. .................................................... 69
Page iv
Hells Canyon Complex
,GDKR3RZHU&RPSDQ\
&KDSWHU+HOOV&DQ\RQ0,.(+\GURG\QDPLF0RGHO
,1752'8&7,21
$RQHGLPHQVLRQDO'PDWKHPDWLFDOFRPSXWHUPRGHOKDVEHHQVHWXSFDSDEOHRIVLPXODWLQJ
WKHK\GURG\QDPLFV+'WUDQVLHQWZDWHUOHYHODQGGLVFKDUJHYDULDWLRQVIRUWKH6QDNH5LYHUIURP
+HOOV&DQ\RQ'DP50WRMXVWXSVWUHDPRIWKHFRQIOXHQFHZLWKWKH&OHDUZDWHU5LYHU
507KHPRGHOKDVEHHQVHWXSXVLQJWKHPRGHOLQJSDFNDJH0,.(ZKLFKLVD
SURIHVVLRQDOHQJLQHHULQJVRIWZDUHWRROIRUWKHVLPXODWLRQRIK\GURORJ\K\GUDXOLFVZDWHUTXDOLW\
DQGVHGLPHQWWUDQVSRUWLQHVWXDULHVULYHUVLUULJDWLRQV\VWHPVDQGRWKHULQODQGZDWHUV0,.(
ZDVGHYHORSHGE\'+,:DWHU(QYLURQPHQWDQGKDVEHHQDYDLODEOHVLQFH0RUHWKDQ
FRSLHVKDYHEHHQLQVWDOOHGDURXQGWKHZRUOGDQGWKLVPRGHOLVEHLQJXVHGZLGHO\E\
FRQVXOWDQWVDXWKRULWLHVDJHQFLHVUHVHDUFKRUJDQL]DWLRQVDQGXQLYHUVLWLHV0RUHLQIRUPDWLRQ
DERXW'+,DQG0,.(FDQEHIRXQGDWWKH:HEVLWHKWWSZZZGKLGN0,.(
9HUVLRQ%LQFOXGLQJ6HUYLFH3DFNZDVXVHGIRUWKHPRGHOLQJHIIRUWGHVFULEHGLQWKLV
FKDSWHU
02'(/,1387'$7$
6HWWLQJXSDQGFDOLEUDWLQJD0,.(+'PRGHOUHTXLUHLQSXWRIDQXPEHURIGDWDVHWV
DVVRFLDWHGZLWKEUDQFKGHILQLWLRQVFURVVVHFWLRQVERXQGDU\FRQGLWLRQVDQGUHVLVWDQFHQXPEHUV
)RUWKH6QDNH5LYHUPRGHOHDFKRIWKHVHGDWDVHWVLVH[SODLQHGLQWKLVVHFWLRQ
%UDQFK'HILQLWLRQ
7KHPRGHOLVDVLQJOHEUDQFKPRGHOZKLFKPHDQVWKDWRQO\WKH6QDNH5LYHULVPRGHOHGDQG
QRQHRIWKHWULEXWDULHVDUHLQFOXGHGLQWKHPRGHO0,.(UHTXLUHVGHILQLQJWKHEHJLQQLQJ
XSVWUHDPDQGHQGLQJGRZQVWUHDPSRLQWVRIWKHEUDQFKPRGHOHG)RUWKLVPRGHOWKHXSVWUHDP
FKDLQDJHLVDWPDQGWKHGRZQVWUHDPDWP&KDLQDJHLVWKHWHUPXVHGLQWKH
0,.(PRGHOWRGHILQHWKHOHQJWKRIWKHULYHUZLWKXQLWVLQPHWHUV,QWKH+HOOV&DQ\RQ
DSSOLFDWLRQRIWKH0,.(PRGHOFKDLQDJHEHJLQVDW+HOOV&DQ\RQ'DPDQGLQFUHDVHVLQWKH
GRZQVWUHDPGLUHFWLRQ7KLVRUGHULVRSSRVLWHWRULYHUPLOHVZKLFKLQFUHDVHLQWKHXSVWUHDP
GLUHFWLRQ)RUH[DPSOHWKHFKDLQDJHDW50LVPZKLOHWKHFKDLQDJHDWWKH
6DOPRQ5LYHUFRQIOXHQFH50LVP$OVRLPSRUWDQWEHFDXVHFKDLQDJHDQGULYHU
PLOHVDUHQRWEDVHGRQH[DFWO\WKHVDPHULYHUWKDOZHJDFFXUDWHO\FRPSXWLQJULYHUPLOHIURP
FKDLQDJHRUYLFHYHUVDLVLPSRVVLEOH7KHGHOLQHDWLRQRIWKHEUDQFKLVVKRZQLQ)LJXUH
&URVV6HFWLRQV
&URVVVHFWLRQVDUHUHTXLUHGDWFHUWDLQLQWHUYDOVDORQJWKHULYHU7KHGLVWDQFHEHWZHHQFURVV
VHFWLRQVQHHGVWREHVPDOOHQRXJKWRDOORZWKHPRGHOWRUHVROYHWKHORQJLWXGLQDOYDULDWLRQLQ
FURVVVHFWLRQVKDSHDQGHOHYDWLRQ2QWKHRWKHUKDQGWKHGLVWDQFHPD\EHFRPHWRRVPDOOIURPD
+HOOV&DQ\RQ&RPSOH[
3DJH
Project Hydrology and Hydraulic Models
Idaho Power Company
practical point of view since the computational time required to run the model for a particular
period of time is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between cross sections. In
particular, when applying the model for subsequent water quality simulations, the simulation
time becomes important. The following considerations were assessed when we selected locations
for extraction of cross sections:
1. Primarily the river morphology needs to be represented. However, as a 1-D model,
MIKE 11 is unable to accurately describe water level variation over rapids and through
eddies. Therefore, having several cross sections over the reach of each single rapid and
pool is unnecessary. Because the details of the hydrodynamics in such areas are too
complicated for a 1-D model to predict, adding a number of cross sections in these areas
would not improve accuracy but would add to the computational time.
2. Cross sections are required at locations with recording pressure transducers to allow for
comparison of measured and simulated water levels.
3. Cross sections are required at locations where other models, such as the 2-D MIKE 21C,
need water level information as a boundary condition.
4. Cross sections were included at locations requested by various investigators studying
botanical, aquatic, and other resources.
The cross sections have been extracted from the Triangular Irregular Network (TIN) model of
the riverbed and the banks (Butler 2002), a model based on a geographic information system
(GIS). There are 738 cross sections beginning at 400.4 m and ending at 166021.7 m, with an
average distance of 225 m between cross sections. Butler 2002 details how the TIN model was
established.
Figure 2 shows a representative extraction of nine cross sections, and Figure 3 shows a
longitudinal profile of the riverbed thalweg.
2.3. Boundary Conditions
The model requires inflow boundary conditions at the upstream end of the branch as well as
lateral inflows from the significant tributaries. The model also requires a Q/h (discharge/stage)
relation at the furthest downstream point.
Table 1 gives an overview of the boundary conditions.
2.4. Resistance Numbers
The model requires resistance numbers in terms of Manning’s number (n) to be specified for the
model as a global value or as local values for subreaches. Additionally, Manning’s n can locally
be specified to change with water level. Manning’s n, determined as part of the calibration
process, is a valuation of bed roughness, losses associated with channel form (expansions and
Page 2
Hells Canyon Complex
Idaho Power Company
Chapter 5: Hells Canyon MIKE 11 Hydrodynamic Model
contractions), secondary currents, rapids, and other such factors. All of these factors can vary
with discharge and stage (and do in the Hells Canyon reach of the Snake River), so it is
necessary to vary Manning’s n with discharge to maintain calibration with measured data over a
wide range of flows.
3. CALIBRATION
The MIKE 11 HD model has been calibrated on a very detailed level. Time series of water level
measurements were available at 36 locations, from chainage 11863 m to 159108 m. The water
level measurements were made using recording pressure transducers. The pressure transducer
locations are shown in Figure 4. At most locations, hourly values were available for periods
ranging from a few months (in 2000) to a three-year period (from 1998 to 2000). This
availability of hourly values provides an excellent opportunity for a detailed calibration of the
model.
We calibrated the model by adjusting Manning’s n to reduce the discrepancy between measured
and simulated water levels. However, in Hells Canyon, this process is not straightforward since
Manning’s n needs to be a function of both chainage and water depth. The Hells Canyon reach of
Snake River is characterized by abrupt changes in bed elevation, with water depth increasing
from less than 1 m to more than 10 m over very short reaches. Strong eddies and rapids with very
high flow velocities also exist. The cross sections are not extracted at such short distances that
every single rapid and pool is covered. This approach influences the variation of the calibrated
Manning’s n with discharge because the Manning’s n in the model has to account for more than
just bed resistance. For instance, when a rapid is not fully represented in the 1-D model, neither
is the minor backwater effect from the rapid unless it is included through the Manning’s n.
The calibration process proved that a variation of Manning’s n on a longitudinal scale only was
insufficient. Therefore, Manning’s n was calibrated in two steps:
•
The longitudinal variation was calibrated such that the average discrepancy between
simulated and measured water level at each location was approximately zero. Figure 5
shows the variation of the average Manning’s n on a longitudinal scale.
•
The local vertical variation (variation with discharge) was calibrated one location at a
time, starting downstream. In MIKE 11, the vertical variation needs to be specified at
each cross section, and there are several cross sections between each calibration point.
The vertical variation of Manning’s n at the calibration points needed to be distributed by
linear interpolation to the intermediate cross sections. As this process is laborious to do
manually, we developed a special tool, which received two types of input: 1) a Microsoft
Excel file with the vertical variation of Manning’s n and 2) a MIKE 11 cross section file.
The tool interpolates vertical Manning’s n variation at intermediate cross sections and
updates the cross section file. Figure 6 shows an example of the vertical (as a function of
discharge) variation.
Hells Canyon Complex
Page 3
Project Hydrology and Hydraulic Models
Idaho Power Company
Comparisons of simulated and measured water levels, in meters above mean sea level, after
calibration are shown as follows:
•
Figures 7−17. Comparisons at all locations at a three-year time scale and with a water
level scale covering the full variation.
•
Figures 18−26. Zoomed-in comparisons at nine locations at a three-week time scale.
At each location a high-, medium-, and low-flow period has been selected.
As can be seen from the figures, there is generally strong agreement between measured and
simulated water levels. The discrepancies, generally within ±15 cm, are as low as can be
expected. In some cases, discrepancies are greater but mostly because of inconsistencies in
measured data. For instance, measured water levels can be almost the same on two dates but
have flows (which in the actual model are completely controlled by the upstream boundary
condition) that differ significantly. At the Flying H site (chainage 73406 m), the maximum water
levels on May 23, 1998, and June 1, 1998, were within 5 cm of each other. However, the
maximum flows on these dates were 2,078 m3/s and 2,222 m3/s, for a 7% difference. These
differences may reflect that one or more of the minor tributaries excluded from the model
actually contributed significantly to the total flow during a short time period. This contribution is
generally not significant, occurring only for short periods during high spring runoff. Other
inconsistencies in calibration data from such periods of time were mostly disregarded in model
calibration.
4. VALIDATION
To validate the calibration, we simulated water levels for April 6, 1999. On this date,
longitudinal water levels had been surveyed, during which levels were measured at 359 locations
along the modeled reach of the Snake River. This survey included approximately 10 times as
many stations as the number of recording pressure transducers that were collected data.
Therefore, simulating the water levels on April 6, 1999, allowed us to validate the calibration at,
as well as between, the pressure transducer locations. Figure 27 shows simulated water levels
and the surveyed water level profile. Additionally, it shows water level measurements at the
pressure transducers and for the average bed level.
To visualize data in Figure 27 on a different vertical scale, we subtracted the average bed level
from all data sets. The results, shown in Figure 28, indicate that water levels at the pressure
transducer locations provide a good validation of the calibration. As would be expected, between
the pressure transducer locations, the discrepancies are greater. The model was not specifically
calibrated to data measured between the pressure transducers. However, the ability of the model
to simulate water levels in those reaches was generally quite good.
Page 4
Hells Canyon Complex
Idaho Power Company
Chapter 5: Hells Canyon MIKE 11 Hydrodynamic Model
5. ERROR ANALYSIS
Model calibration is the tuning of model parameters within acceptable limits to ensure that
results compare well against measured data. Subjectivity arises in this procedure when those
calibrating the model must decide which feature is (or features are) most important. For example,
in calibrations of a flood model, peak flood levels would be an important feature. However, in
calibrations of a water quality model, low-flow conditions would be an important feature. This
subjectivity can make quantitative assessment of the performance of a model difficult. Error
analysis should objectively show the errors associated with whichever features are judged to be
most important in the use of model data. In this case, we are primarily interested in accurate
water surface elevations throughout the range of flow (as opposed to, for example, timing of
peak flows, or only minimum or maximum elevations).
5.1. Methods
Two methods of error analysis are considered in this chapter. The first is the RMS, or root mean
square, analysis, and the second is the ABS, or absolute error, analysis. Both are described
below.
n
n
E RMS =
2
∑ (PMEASURE − PMODEL )
i =1
n
∑ (P
MEASURE
and E ABS =
i =1
− PMODEL )
n
where
ERMS = root mean square error
EABS = absolute error
PMEASURE = measured data set
PMODEL = modeled data set
n = number of entries in the data set
The error analysis was a raw analysis, meaning that no preprocessing of the data or model results
was done prior to analysis. Measured data were recorded at hourly intervals, and at each instance
of measurement, results were extracted from the model and compared with these data. The error
analysis compared absolute values, an approach that may not be entirely suitable in this case
since the errors are actually a combination of amplitude error and phase (or timing) error.
We selected 16 water level measurement stations to include in the error analysis. These stations,
the most reliable and consistent available, were part of the data set used to calibrate the model.
As such, there was particular emphasis during calibration to ensure a good fit to these data sets.
Further discussion on the installation, operation, and consistency of the water level recordings is
available in Appendix A.
Hells Canyon Complex
Page 5
Project Hydrology and Hydraulic Models
Idaho Power Company
The error analysis was performed over three simulation periods: May 1998 through May 1999,
August 2000 through December 2000, and January 1998 through January 2001. The calibration
period between May 1998 and May 1999 included a period of high runoff and water levels in the
spring, as well as a low-flow period. The second period between August 2000 and December
2000 included a low-flow period. And the third error analysis between January 1998 and
January 2001 included the entire simulation period. Table 2 summarizes the discharge conditions
from Hells Canyon Dam for each period. Also shown is a time series plot of discharge over the
simulation period (Figure 29).
For the third period, the error analysis included any coincidence of model results and
measurements. Depending on the station, 10,000 to 24,000 individual comparisons between
measured and predicted data were available per station. Although at some stations, data were not
available for all three analysis periods, data that were available at the selected sites during these
periods are considered to be of high quality. Appendix A includes more information on the
quality classification of the measurements.
5.2. Results
A summary of the water level error analysis is presented in Table 3 for the period between
May 1998 and May 1999. During this period, the discharge in the river varied between 200 m3/s
(7,063 cfs) and 2,674 m3/s (94,433 cfs). The last row in the table has the average RMS and
absolute errors of all sites. Note that the averages in the last row do not account for the difference
in the number of analysis points between each site.
A summary of the water level error analysis is presented in Table 4 for the period between
August 2000 and December 2000. During this period, the discharge in the river varied between
158 m3/s (5,574 cfs) and 861 m3/s (30,391 cfs).
A summary of the water level error analysis is presented in Table 5 for the entire period between
January 1998 and January 2001. During this period, the discharge in the river varied between
158 m3/s (5,574 cfs) and 2,674 m3/s (94,433 cfs).
5.3. Discussion
Considering the inaccuracies inherent in measurements and model formulation, the RMS and
absolute errors presented above are very low. The findings of the error analysis reflect the good
quality of measured data and the good correlation between measurements and model predictions
during the calibration process.
The raw analysis has demonstrated that the model is sufficiently accurate for this study. Both
amplitude and phase errors are most likely included in the errors that have been calculated.
Unfortunately, it is highly likely that this phase error is less than one hour, which is the time
interval for water level measurements. This situation means that it would be extremely difficult
to extract any phase error from the present analysis. Note that a phase error would likely appear
Page 6
Hells Canyon Complex
Idaho Power Company
Chapter 5: Hells Canyon MIKE 11 Hydrodynamic Model
as a change in error magnitude with increasing river chainage. However, the analysis shows no
evidence of error accumulating downstream.
The error analysis results from the three time periods do not differ significantly from each other.
Their similarity suggests that both measurements and model predictions are of a consistent
accuracy over the entire simulation period. In terms of model performance, this finding is
reassuring because it indicates that the model is capable of simulating all flow conditions
expected in the Snake River.
One objective of the hydraulic model was to provide a basis for the additional temperature and
total dissolved gas (TDG) modeling. Any problems with accuracy in the hydraulic model
predictions are likely to be reflected in the temperature and TDG model predictions. Further
error analysis of the temperature and TDG model is discussed in Chapter 6 (Madsen 2001),
which includes a quantitative comparison with similar projects.
6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
From a hydraulic perspective and a 1-D regional scale, Hells Canyon is a fairly simple system.
It can be regarded as a one-branch system with a dominating upstream discharge boundary and
only three significant inflows from tributaries along the modeled reach. Any flow contribution
from nonpoint catchment runoff along the river has been discussed but not included in the model.
The quality and quantity of data available for model development, calibration, and validation are
very good. This quality evaluation applies to cross section data, discharge boundary data, and
water level data for calibration and validation. The quality and quantity of data, together with the
model’s simplicity, have allowed for the development of a highly accurate MIKE 11 1-D
hydrodynamic model. In general, the accuracy of the model is ±15 cm or better on water surface
elevation.
Improving the model’s accuracy significantly would require that a very large amount of
additional data be collected and probably that the model be extended to include rainfall runoff
and snow melt processes from smaller subcatchments along the Snake River. Such data
collection and model extension would require a long-term measurement campaign covering at
least two to three years and including detailed (temporal and spatial) measurement of rainfall,
snow pack, and tributary flow. The accuracy of the 1-D model also has to be judged against the
accuracy of models applying results from the 1-D model. Such models include those for water
quality, sediment, and habitat. The accuracy of these models would probably not justify
significant effort into improving the 1-D model.
Hells Canyon Complex
Page 7
Project Hydrology and Hydraulic Models
Idaho Power Company
7. LITERATURE CITED
Butler, M., editor. 2002. Topographic integration for the Hells Canyon studies. In: Technical
appendices for new license application: Hells Canyon Hydroelectric Project. Idaho
Power, Boise, ID. Technical Report E.1-3.
Madsen, M. N. 2001. Hells Canyon MIKE 11 temperature and total dissolved gas. In:
S. K. Parkinson, editor. Chapter 6, Project hydrology and hydraulic models applied to the
Hells Canyon reach of the Snake River. Technical appendices for new license
application: Hells Canyon Hydroelectric Project. Idaho Power, Boise, ID. Technical
Report E.1-4.
Page 8
Hells Canyon Complex
Idaho Power Company
Table 1.
Chapter 5: Hells Canyon MIKE 11 Hydrodynamic Model
Boundary conditions required for the MIKE 11 model of the Snake River.
Chainage
[meter]
Boundary type
Data source
400.4
Upstream discharge boundary
Reservoir release from Hells Canyon Dam. Discharge time series data
from Idaho Power Company (USGS gauge 1329045)
90604.9
Lateral inflow
Confluence with Imnaha River. Discharge time series data from USGS
gauge at Imnaha, OR 13292000
96031.7
Lateral inflow
Confluence with Salmon River. Discharge time series data from USGS
gauge at White Bird, ID 13317000
128238.5
Lateral inflow
Confluence with Grande Ronde River. Discharge time series data from
USGS gauge at Troy, OR 13333000
166021.7
Downstream Q/h relation
boundary
Tabulated relation between discharge and water level. established based
on Manning’s equation.
Table 2.
Summary of the discharge conditions from Hells Canyon Dam for each
period included in the error analysis.
3
Discharge Conditions from Dam (m /s or cfs)
May 1998–May 1999
Aug 2000–Dec 2000
Jan 1998–Jan 2001
Average
830 or 29299
328 or 11598
646 or 22801
Minimum
200 or 7063
158 or 5574
158 or 5574
Maximum
2674 or 94433
861 or 30391
2674 or 94433
Hells Canyon Complex
Page 9
Project Hydrology and Hydraulic Models
Table 3.
Idaho Power Company
Results of the water level error analysis for the period between May 1998
and May 1999.
Measurements (m)
Avg
Min
Max
Points
Analysis
RMS Error
(m)
Absolute
Error (m)
Buffalo Eddy (RM 159.9)
239.70
238.68
240.36
1061
0.04
0.03
Garden Creek (RM 175)
260.80
260.11
261.79
1040
0.13
0.12
BSR (RM 187.36)
276.18
271.92
285.80
8761
0.18
0.14
Eureka Bar (RM 190.72)
284.50
282.17
291.34
8761
0.16
0.11
Dug Bar (RM 196.03)
258.05
257.53
304.43
8761
0.10
0.08
Location
Upper Robinson Gulch (RM 199.01)
—
—
—
0
—
—
High Range (RM 206.66)
282.54
281.97
328.40
8417
0.16
0.10
Upper Camp (RM 209.86)
331.61
329.64
335.61
8761
0.09
0.07
PV (RM 213.98)
340.87
339.60
344.25
5894
0.10
0.09
Tin Shed (RM 215.66)
—
—
—
0
—
—
Salt Creek (RM 222.45)
363.48
361.39
367.41
8761
0.09
0.08
Upper Pine Bar (RM 227.48)
376.89
375.22
380.35
8761
0.11
0.09
Upper Steep (RM 228.88)
Sluice (RM 231.79)
Upper Saddle Creek (RM 236.04)
Granite Creek (RM 240.26)
Average
Page 10
—
390.82
—
423.65
—
388.34
—
421.53
—
395.63
—
427.83
0
8761
0
8761
—
0.11
—
—
0.08
—
0.18
0.16
0.12
0.09
Hells Canyon Complex
Idaho Power Company
Table 4.
Chapter 5: Hells Canyon MIKE 11 Hydrodynamic Model
Results of the water level error analysis for the period between August 2000
and December 2000.
Measurements (m)
Avg
Min
Max
Points
Analysis
RMS Error
(m)
Absolute
Error (m)
Buffalo Eddy (RM 159.9)
237.10
236.68
237.89
2929
0.09
0.07
Garden Creek (RM 175)
258.05
257.53
259.21
2854
0.05
0.05
BSR (RM 187.36)
271.76
271.10
273.00
563
0.16
0.12
Eureka Bar (RM 190.72)
282.54
281.97
284.42
2929
0.09
0.07
Dug Bar (RM 196.03)
298.09
297.50
299.78
2929
0.07
0.04
Upper Robinson Gulch (RM 199.01)
303.19
302.42
305.61
2929
0.11
0.08
High Range (RM 206.66)
322.27
321.69
323.86
2634
0.09
0.07
Upper Camp (RM 209.86)
330.16
329.46
331.72
2929
0.10
0.07
PV (RM 213.98)
339.74
339.38
340.95
2929
0.13
0.12
Tin Shed (RM 215.66)
346.39
345.86
347.59
1817
0.10
0.05
Salt Creek (RM 222.45)
361.91
361.14
363.68
2929
0.07
0.06
Upper Pine Bar (RM 227.48)
375.62
374.99
377.04
2929
0.05
0.04
Upper Steep (RM 228.88)
378.79
378.01
380.59
2929
0.20
0.19
Sluice (RM 231.79)
388.92
387.96
391.03
2929
0.12
0.10
Upper Saddle Creek (RM 236.04)
406.54
405.70
408.55
2929
0.13
0.12
Granite Creek (RM 240.26)
422.03
421.20
423.83
2929
0.20
0.19
0.11
0.09
Location
Average
Hells Canyon Complex
Page 11
Project Hydrology and Hydraulic Models
Table 5.
Idaho Power Company
Results of the water level error analysis for the period between January
1998 and January 2001.
Measurements (m)
Avg
Min
Max
Points
Analysis
RMS Error
(m)
Absolute
Error (m)
Buffalo Eddy (RM 159.9)
238.02
236.68
242.02
14984
0.10
0.08
Garden Creek (RM 175)
259.15
257.53
263.59
14888
0.08
0.06
BSR (RM 187.36)
275.63
271.10
285.80
21956
0.32
0.21
Eureka Bar (RM 190.72)
283.84
281.97
291.34
24276
0.16
0.12
Dug Bar (RM 196.03)
299.18
297.50
304.44
24297
0.12
0.09
Upper Robinson Gulch (RM 199.01)
303.44
302.42
305.61
5072
0.13
0.10
High Range (RM 206.66)
323.26
321.67
328.40
23660
0.14
0.10
Upper Camp (RM 209.86)
331.14
329.46
335.61
24370
0.14
0.09
PV (RM 213.98)
340.38
339.38
344.25
19817
0.12
0.10
Tin Shed (RM 215.66)
346.75
345.86
347.82
10990
0.08
0.05
Salt Creek (RM 222.45)
362.99
361.14
367.41
24395
0.11
0.08
Upper Pine Bar (RM 227.48)
376.49
374.99
380.35
24375
0.11
0.08
Upper Steep (RM 228.88)
379.00
378.01
380.73
5136
0.18
0.16
Sluice (RM 231.79)
390.22
387.96
395.63
24344
0.14
0.10
Upper Saddle Creek (RM 236.04)
406.76
405.70
409.01
5135
0.20
0.11
Granite Creek (RM 240.26)
423.15
421.20
427.83
24286
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.10
Location
Average
Page 12
Hells Canyon Complex
Idaho Power Company
Chapter 5: Hells Canyon MIKE 11 Hydrodynamic Model
5130000
5120000
5110000
5100000
5090000
5080000
5070000
5060000
5050000
5040000
5030000
5020000
5010000
500000
Figure 1.
520000
540000
MIKE 11 branch delineation. Horizontal and vertical axes are geographical
coordinates in meters.
Hells Canyon Complex
Page 13
Project Hydrology and Hydraulic Models
Idaho Power Company
400
20,000
40,000
60,000
100,000
80,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
Figure 2.
Page 14
Representative extraction of nine cross sections. The numbers indicate the
approximate chainage for each section. The horizontal axis is the station
in meters across the river, and the vertical axis is the elevation above the
reference level.
Hells Canyon Complex
Idaho Power Company
Chapter 5: Hells Canyon MIKE 11 Hydrodynamic Model
[meter] Elevation above reference level
1-1-1980 00:00
600.0
550.0
500.0
450.0
400.0
350.0
300.0
250.0
200.0
0.0
Figure 3.
50000.0
100000.0
River Chainage
150000.0
[meter]
Longitudinal profile of the riverbed thalweg used in the MIKE 11 model for
the Snake River. The horizontal axis is river chainage in meters, and the
vertical axis is elevation in meters above the reference level.
Hells Canyon Complex
Page 15
Project Hydrology and Hydraulic Models
Idaho Power Company
This page left blank intentionally.
Page 16
Hells Canyon Complex
Theme: \\dallas\gis_rpm\hellscan\watermng\e14f04.mxd
D
D
D
D
DD
D
D
!
(
140
D
Lewiston
D
D
D
D 145
D
Asotin
(
!
D
D
D
Three Mile Island
!
(D 150
D
D
D
Red Bird
D
!
(
D
155
D
D
D
D
Buffalo Eddy
!
(D 160
D
D
D
Billy Creek
D
D 165
!
(
Anatone Gage
D
!
(D
D
Lime Point
DD
!
(D 170
D
D
D
River
D
D
Garden Creek
175
!
(D
Ri
D
v er
D
o
Cr
D
.
D
!
(D
Cougar Bar
on
H orse
Id a h
Washington
Oregon
D
S a lm
R on de
Gr a n d e
180
SNAK
D
Grangeville !(
D
E
D
D
Cr
D iv
D
D
e ek
Above The Salmon
D
!
(
China Bar
C re
Eureka Bar
!
(D
!
(
195
D
D
D
D
Dug Bar
D
!
(
D
Flying H
D
Creek
ek
D
D
!
( Wo
D
D
Lower Robinson
Gulch !
D
(!
D
(
200
D
D
Upper Robinson Gulch
G ett
205
Dee
p
D
w
Lower Camp Creek
ha
nin g
Co
Light
!
(
D
!
(
any
!
(D 210 Big C
D
D
Creek
na
D
Pleasant Valley
ee
Ku
D
!
(D
Creek
!
(D
!
(D Fish Trap Bar
VER
C
ari Pine Bar
Lower
bo
D
u C Bar
Upper
Pine
D
r.
!
(
!
(
RI
r an
Te
m
pe
ek
Ru
C r.
!
(
!
(D
D!
(
R iv e r
S a d d le
Three Creeks
!
(D
D
SNAKE
Granite Creek
D
Hells Canyon
Gage
D
D
245
t
Hells
!
(D Canyon
Dam
D
D
k
De
D
ee
Cr
S u mm i
ch
Ri
C re e k
Gr
ep
240
D
e
ou s
D
!
( h
r e e Cr.
D
Granit e
Cr.
S he
Joseph
Riggins !(
Lower Saddle Creek
Upper Saddle Creek
T
(
!
(
Creek!
!
(D!
(
!
(
D
Lower Hastings Bar
Upper Hastings Bar
Lower Steep Creek
Upper Steep Creek
Johnson Bar Gage
230
D
D
D
Suicide Point
D
D
Sluice Creek
D
!
(
D
!
(
D
D
235
Kirby Creek
!
(Kir
by
D
Cr
220
.
Kir
k
Cr.
c
r.
!
(
D
Enterprise
r
od
wo
C re
Cr ee k
eC
D
Cr.
Creek
r se
Salt Creek
sh
(
!
Features Legend
Tech. Report E.1-4 Figure 04
Vicinity Map
HELLS CANYON HYDROELECTRIC COMPLEX
Water Bodies
Washington
l Hells Canyon
Oxbow
l Brownlee
l
Streams
Montana
Locations of Recording Pressure Transducers
Primary Route
Oregon
Idaho
.
D
lt
Sa
Ho
Imnaha
Cr
FS Tin Shed
D
215
py
D
(
!
Creek
High Range
D
Upper Camp Creek
Sl
a
D
.
R iv
D
Im
lf
D
Cr
D
190
on
D
ry
C h e r ry
!
(D
ek
ok
D
er
Co
RI
Below The Salmon
DVE
R
id e
C re
D
185
Secondary Route
Wyoming
State Boundary
Nevada
Utah
D
245
River Mile
(
!
Cities
!
(
Pressure Transducers
Ê
0
2
4
8
12
Miles
Project Hydrology and Hydraulic Models
Idaho Power Company
This page left blank intentionally.
Page 18
Hells Canyon Complex
Idaho Power Company
Chapter 5: Hells Canyon MIKE 11 Hydrodynamic Model
0.09
Manning's n (s/m^1/3)
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
Chainage (meter)
Figure 5.
Longitudinal variation of the average Manning’s n.
Hells Canyon Complex
Page 19
Project Hydrology and Hydraulic Models
Idaho Power Company
0.100
0.090
Manning's n (s/m^1/3)
0.080
11,863
0.070
19,193
40,607
60,994
0.060
79,174
97,504
117,752
142,739
0.050
159,108
0.040
0.030
0.020
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Discharge (m^3/s)
Figure 6.
Page 20
Vertical variation of Manning’s n. Each line represents the Manning’s n as a
function of discharge. The legend indicates the chainage of each line.
Hells Canyon Complex
Idaho Power Company
Chapter 5: Hells Canyon MIKE 11 Hydrodynamic Model
C: \p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\011863.dfs0
C \ \IP\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\011 863 G it C k df 0
SNAKE RIVER 11863 [m]
011,863 - Granite Creek [m]
427.0
426.0
425.0
424.0
423.0
422.0
00:00
1998-01-01
00:00
07-20
00:00
1999-02-05
00:00
08-24
00:00
2000-03-11
00:00
09-27
00:00
1999-02-05
00:00
08-24
00:00
2000-03-11
00:00
09-27
00:00
1999-02-05
00:00
08-24
00:00
2000-03-11
00:00
09-27
C:\p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\015072.dfs0
C \ \I P\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\015 072 Th
C
k df 0
SNAKE RIVER 15072 [m]
015,072 - Three Creek [m]
419.0
418.0
417.0
416.0
415.0
414.0
00:00
1998-01-01
00:00
07-20
C: \p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\018604.dfs0
00\PT\018 604 S ddl C
kU
df 0
SNAKE RIVER 18604
[m]
018,604 - Saddle Creek Upper [m]
412.0
411.0
410.0
409.0
C \ \IP\ 11d t \HC D
408.0
407.0
406.0
00:00
1998-01-01
Figure 7.
00:00
07-20
Comparison of measured (red) and simulated (blue) water levels at
chainages on the Snake River for the period 1998–2000 (Plot 1 of 11).
Hells Canyon Complex
Page 21
Project Hydrology and Hydraulic Models
Idaho Power Company
C:\p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\019193.dfs0
00\PT\019 193 S ddl C
kL
df 0
SNAKE RIVER 19193
[m]
019,193 - Saddle Creek Lower [m]
409.0
408.0
407.0
C \ \IP\ 11d t \HC D
406.0
405.0
00:00
1998-07-20
00:00
1999-02-05
00:00
08-24
00:00
2000-03-11
00:00
09-27
C: \p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\025480.dfs0
C \ \I P\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\025 480 Sl i C
k df 0
SNAKE RIVER 25480 [m]
025,480 - Sluice Creek [m]
395.0
394.0
393.0
392.0
391.0
390.0
389.0
388.0
00:00
1998-01-01
00:00
07-20
00:00
1999-02-05
00:00
08-24
00:00
2000-03-11
00:00
09-27
C:\p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\030606.dfs0
00\PT\030 606 St
C
k (L
) df 0
SNAKE RIVER 30606
[m]
030,606 - Steep Creek (Lower) [m]
384.0
383.0
382.0
381.0
C \ \I P\ 11d t \HC D
380.0
379.0
378.0
00:00
1998-07-20
Figure 8.
Page 22
00:00
1999-02-05
00:00
08-24
00:00
2000-03-11
00:00
09-27
Comparison of measured (red) and simulated (blue) water levels at
chainages on the Snake River for the period 1998–2000 (Plot 2 of 11).
Hells Canyon Complex
Idaho Power Company
Chapter 5: Hells Canyon MIKE 11 Hydrodynamic Model
C:\p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\032527.dfs0
C \ \IP\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\032 527 Pi B (U
) df 0
SNAKE RIVER 32527
[m]
032,527 - Pine Bar (Upper) [m]
380.0
379.0
378.0
377.0
376.0
375.0
00:00
1998-07-20
00:00
1999-02-05
00:00
08-24
00:00
2000-03-11
00:00
09-27
C:\p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\032904.dfs0
C \ \IP\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\032 904 Pi B (L
) df 0
SNAKE RIVER 32904
[m]
032,904 - Pine Bar (Lower) [m]
379.0
378.5
378.0
377.5
377.0
376.5
376.0
375.5
375.0
00:00
1998-01-01
00:00
07-20
00:00
1999-02-05
00:00
08-24
00:00
2000-03-11
00:00
09-27
00:00
1999-02-05
00:00
08-24
00:00
2000-03-11
00:00
09-27
C: \p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\039816.dfs0
C \ \I P\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\039 816 S i id P i t df 0
SNAKE RIVER 39816
[m]
039,816 - Suicide Point.dfs0 [m]
368.0
367.0
366.0
365.0
364.0
363.0
362.0
00:00
1998-01-01
Figure 9.
00:00
07-20
Comparison of measured (red) and simulated (blue) water levels at
chainages on the Snake River for the period 1998–2000 (Plot 3 of 11).
Hells Canyon Complex
Page 23
Project Hydrology and Hydraulic Models
Idaho Power Company
C:\p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\040607.dfs0
C \ \IP\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\040 607 S lt C k df 0
SNAKE RIVER 40607 [m]
040,607 - Salt Creek [m]
367.0
366.0
365.0
364.0
363.0
362.0
00:00
1998-01-01
00:00
07-20
00:00
1999-02-05
00:00
08-24
00:00
2000-03-11
00:00
09-27
00:00
1999-02-05
00:00
08-24
00:00
2000-03-11
00:00
09-27
00:00
1999-02-05
00:00
08-24
00:00
2000-03-11
00:00
09-27
C: \p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\046645.dfs0
C \ \I P\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\046 645 Ki b C k df 0
SNAKE RIVER 46645 [m]
046,645 - Kirby Creek [m]
357.0
356.0
355.0
354.0
353.0
00:00
1998-01-01
00:00
07-20
SNAKE RIVER 50039 [m]
050,039 - Fish Trap [m]
C:\p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\050039.dfs0
C \ \I P\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\050 039 Fi h T
df 0
353.0
352.0
351.0
350.0
349.0
348.0
347.0
00:00
1998-01-01
Figure 10.
Page 24
00:00
07-20
Comparison of measured (red) and simulated (blue) water levels at
chainages on the Snake River for the period 1998–2000 (Plot 4 of 11).
Hells Canyon Complex
Idaho Power Company
Chapter 5: Hells Canyon MIKE 11 Hydrodynamic Model
C: \p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\051553.dfs0
C \ \I P\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\051 553 Ti Sh d df 0
SNAKE RIVER 51553 [m]
051,553 - Tin Shed
[m]
350.0
349.0
348.0
347.0
346.0
00:00
1998-01-01
00:00
07-20
00:00
1999-02-05
00:00
08-24
00:00
2000-03-11
00:00
09-27
00:00
1999-02-05
00:00
08-24
00:00
2000-03-11
00:00
09-27
00:00
1999-02-05
00:00
08-24
00:00
2000-03-11
00:00
09-27
C:\p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\054385.dfs0
C \ \IP\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\054 385 Pl
t V ll df 0
SNAKE RIVER 54385
[m]
054,385 - Pleasant Valley [m]
345.0
344.0
343.0
342.0
341.0
340.0
00:00
1998-01-01
00:00
07-20
C: \p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\060994.dfs0
00\PT\060 994 C
C k (U
) df 0
SNAKE RIVER 60994
[m]
060,994 - Camp Creek (Upper) [m]
335.0
334.0
333.0
C \ \IP\ 11d t \HC D
332.0
331.0
330.0
00:00
1998-01-01
Figure 11.
00:00
07-20
Comparison of measured (red) and simulated (blue) water levels at
chainages on the Snake River for the period 1998–2000 (Plot 5 of 11).
Hells Canyon Complex
Page 25
Project Hydrology and Hydraulic Models
Idaho Power Company
C:\p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\061860.dfs0
00\PT\061 860 C
C k (L
) df 0
SNAKE RIVER 61860
[m]
061,860 - Camp Creek (Lower) [m]
334.0
333.0
C \ \I P\ 11d t \HC D
332.0
331.0
330.0
00:00
1998-01-01
00:00
07-20
00:00
1999-02-05
00:00
08-24
00:00
2000-03-11
00:00
09-27
00:00
1999-02-05
00:00
08-24
00:00
2000-03-11
00:00
09-27
00:00
1999-02-05
00:00
08-24
00:00
2000-03-11
00:00
09-27
C: \p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\066182.dfs0
C \ \IP\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\066 182 Hi h R
df 0
SNAKE RIVER 66182 [m]
066,182 - High Range [m]
328.0
327.0
326.0
325.0
324.0
323.0
322.0
00:00
1998-01-01
00:00
07-20
C:\p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\073406.dfs0
C \ \I P\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\073 406 Fl i H df 0
SNAKE RIVER 73406 [m]
073,406 - Flying H
[m]
318.0
317.0
316.0
315.0
314.0
00:00
1998-01-01
Figure 12.
Page 26
00:00
07-20
Comparison of measured (red) and simulated (blue) water levels at
chainages on the Snake River for the period 1998–2000 (Plot 6 of 11).
Hells Canyon Complex
Idaho Power Company
Chapter 5: Hells Canyon MIKE 11 Hydrodynamic Model
SNAKE RIVER 78744
[m]
078,744 - Robinson Gulch (Upper) [m]
C: \p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\078744.dfs0
00\PT\078 744 R bi
G l h (U
) df 0
311.0
310.0
309.0
308.0
307.0
306.0
C \ \I P\ 11d t \HC D
305.0
304.0
303.0
00:00
1998-01-01
00:00
07-20
00:00
1999-02-05
00:00
08-24
00:00
2000-03-11
00:00
09-27
00:00
1999-02-05
00:00
08-24
00:00
2000-03-11
00:00
09-27
00:00
1999-02-05
00:00
08-24
00:00
2000-03-11
00:00
09-27
C:\p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\079174.dfs0
00\PT\079 17 4 R bi
G l h (L
) df 0
SNAKE RIVER 79174
[m]
079,174 - Robinson Gulch (Lower) [m]
310.0
308.0
306.0
C \ \IP\ 11d t \HC D
304.0
302.0
00:00
1998-01-01
00:00
07-20
C: \p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\083449.dfs0
C \ \IP\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\083 449 D B df 0
SNAKE RIVER 83449 [m]
083,449 - Dug Bar
[m]
304.0
303.0
302.0
301.0
300.0
299.0
298.0
00:00
1998-01-01
Figure 13.
00:00
07-20
Comparison of measured (red) and simulated (blue) water levels at
chainages on the Snake River for the period 1998−2000 (Plot 7 of 11).
Hells Canyon Complex
Page 27
Project Hydrology and Hydraulic Models
Idaho Power Company
SNAKE RIVER 89450 [m]
089,450 - China Bar [m]
C:\p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\089450.dfs0
C \ \IP\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\089 450 Chi B df 0
295.0
294.0
293.0
292.0
291.0
290.0
289.0
288.0
287.0
00:00
1998-01-01
00:00
07-20
00:00
1999-02-05
00:00
08-24
00:00
2000-03-11
00:00
09-27
00:00
1999-02-05
00:00
08-24
00:00
2000-03-11
00:00
09-27
00:00
08-24
00:00
2000-03-11
00:00
09-27
C: \p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\091982.dfs0
C \ \I P\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\091 982 E k B df 0
SNAKE RIVER 91982 [m]
091,982 - Eureka Bar [m]
290.0
288.0
286.0
284.0
282.0
00:00
1998-01-01
00:00
07-20
C:\p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\094562.dfs0
00\PT\094 562 Ab
S l
Ri
df 0
SNAKE RIVER 94562
[m]
094,562 - A bove Salmon River [m]
288
286
284
C \ \IP\ 11d t \HC D
282
280
278
00:00
1998-01-01
Figure 14.
Page 28
00:00
07-20
00:00
1999-02-05
Comparison of measured (red) and simulated (blue) water levels at
chainages on the Snake River for the period 1998–2000 (Plot 8 of 11).
Hells Canyon Complex
Idaho Power Company
Chapter 5: Hells Canyon MIKE 11 Hydrodynamic Model
SNAKE RIVER 109984 [m]
109,984 - Cougar Bar [m]
C:\p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\109984.dfs0
C \ \IP\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\109 98 4 C
B df 0
271.0
270.0
269.0
268.0
267.0
00:00
1998-01-01
00:00
07-20
00:00
1999-02-05
00:00
08-24
00:00
2000-03-11
00:00
09-27
00:00
1999-02-05
00:00
08-24
00:00
2000-03-11
00:00
09-27
00:00
1999-02-05
00:00
08-24
00:00
2000-03-11
00:00
09-27
C: \p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\117752.dfs0
C \ \I P\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\117 752 G d C
k df 0
SNAKE RIVER 117752 [m]
117,752 - Garden Creek [m]
263.0
262.0
261.0
260.0
259.0
258.0
00:00
1998-01-01
00:00
07-20
C:\p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\126221.dfs0
C \ \IP\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\126 221 Li
P i t df 0
SNAKE RIVER 126221 [m]
126,221 - Lime Point [m]
256.0
255.0
254.0
253.0
252.0
00:00
1998-01-01
Figure 15.
00:00
07-20
Comparison of measured (red) and simulated (blue) water levels at
chainages on the Snake River for the period 1998–2000 (Plot 9 of 11).
Hells Canyon Complex
Page 29
Project Hydrology and Hydraulic Models
Idaho Power Company
C:\p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\134070.dfs0
C \ \I P\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\134 070 Bill C k df 0
SNAKE RIVER 134070 [m]
134,070 - Billy Creek [m]
249.0
248.0
247.0
246.0
245.0
244.0
243.0
00:00
1998-01-01
00:00
07-20
00:00
1999-02-05
00:00
08-24
00:00
2000-03-11
00:00
09-27
00:00
1999-02-05
00:00
08-24
00:00
2000-03-11
00:00
09-27
00:00
1999-02-05
00:00
08-24
00:00
2000-03-11
00:00
09-27
C: \p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\142739.dfs0
C \ \I P\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\142 739 B ff l Edd df 0
SNAKE RIVER 142738 [m]
142,739 - Buffalo Eddy [m]
242.0
241.0
240.0
239.0
238.0
237.0
00:00
1998-01-01
00:00
07-20
SNAKE RIVER 150966 [m]
150,966 - Red Bird
[m]
C:\p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\150966.dfs0
C \ \IP\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\150 966 R d Bi d df 0
237.0
236.0
235.0
234.0
233.0
232.0
00:00
1998-01-01
Figure 16.
Page 30
00:00
07-20
Comparison of measured (red) and simulated (blue) water levels at
chainages on the Snake River for the period 1998–2000 (Plot 10 of 11).
Hells Canyon Complex
Idaho Power Company
Chapter 5: Hells Canyon MIKE 11 Hydrodynamic Model
SNAKE RIVER 159108
[m]
159,108 - Three Mile Island [m]
C: \p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\159108.dfs0
C \ \I P\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\159 108 Th
Mil I l d df 0
232.0
231.0
230.0
229.0
228.0
00:00
1998-01-01
Figure 17.
00:00
07-20
00:00
1999-02-05
00:00
08-24
00:00
2000-03-11
00:00
09-27
Comparison of measured (red) and simulated (blue) water levels at
chainages on the Snake River for the period 1998–2000 (Plot 11 of 11).
Hells Canyon Complex
Page 31
Project Hydrology and Hydraulic Models
Idaho Power Company
SNAKE RIVER 11863 [m]
011,863 - Granite Creek [m]
C: \p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\011863.dfs0
C \ \IP\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\011 863 G it C k df 0
428.0
427.5
427.0
426.5
426.0
00:00
1998-05-21
00:00
05-23
00:00
05-25
00:00
05-27
00:00
05-29
00:00
05-31
00:00
06-02
00:00
06-04
00:00
05-04
00:00
05-06
00:00
05-08
00:00
05-10
00:00
05-12
00:00
05-14
SNAKE RIVER 11863 [m]
011,863 - Granite Creek [m]
C: \p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\011863.dfs0
C \ \IP\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\011 863 G it C k df 0
424.0
423.5
423.0
422.5
422.0
00:00
2000-04-30
00:00
05-02
SNAKE RIVER 11863 [m]
011,863 - Granite Creek [m]
C: \p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\011863.dfs0
C \ \IP\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\011 863 G it C k df 0
423.0
422.5
422.0
421.5
421.0
Figure 18.
Page 32
00:00
2000-09-23
00:00
09-25
00:00
09-27
00:00
09-29
00:00
10-01
00:00
10-03
00:00
10-05
00:00
10-07
Zoomed-in comparison of measured (red) and simulated (blue) water levels
at nine locations on a three-week time scale for a high-, medium-, and lowflow period (Plot 1 of 9).
Hells Canyon Complex
Idaho Power Company
Chapter 5: Hells Canyon MIKE 11 Hydrodynamic Model
SNAKE RIVER 25480 [m]
025,480 - Sluice Creek [m]
C: \p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\025480.dfs0
C \ \I P\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\025 480 Sl i C
k df 0
396.0
395.5
395.0
394.5
394.0
00:00
1998-05-21
00:00
05-23
00:00
05-25
00:00
05-27
00:00
05-29
00:00
05-31
00:00
06-02
00:00
06-04
00:00
05-04
00:00
05-06
00:00
05-08
00:00
05-10
00:00
05-12
00:00
05-14
SNAKE RIVER 25480 [m]
025,480 - Sluice Creek [m]
C: \p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\025480.dfs0
C \ \I P\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\025 480 Sl i C
k df 0
391.0
390.5
390.0
389.5
389.0
00:00
2000-04-30
00:00
05-02
C: \p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\025480.dfs0
C \ \I P\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\025 480 Sl i C
k df 0
SNAKE RIVER 25480 [m]
025,480 - Sluice Creek [m]
389.5
389.0
388.5
388.0
00:00
2000-09-23
Figure 19.
00:00
09-25
00:00
09-27
00:00
09-29
00:00
10-01
00:00
10-03
00:00
10-05
00:00
10-07
Zoomed-in comparison of measured (red) and simulated (blue) water levels
at nine locations on a three-week time scale for a high-, medium-, and lowflow period (Plot 2 of 9).
Hells Canyon Complex
Page 33
Project Hydrology and Hydraulic Models
Idaho Power Company
SNAKE RIVER 32527
[m]
032,527 - Pine Bar (Upper) [m]
C: \p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\032527.dfs0
C \ \I P\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\032 527 Pi B (U
) df 0
380.5
380.0
379.5
379.0
378.5
00:00
1998-05-23
00:00
05-25
00:00
05-27
00:00
05-29
00:00
05-31
00:00
06-02
00:00
06-04
00:00
05-04
00:00
05-06
00:00
05-08
00:00
05-10
00:00
05-12
00:00
05-14
SNAKE RIVER 32527
[m]
032,527 - Pine Bar (Upper) [m]
C: \p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\032527.dfs0
C \ \I P\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\032 527 Pi B (U
) df 0
377.0
376.5
376.0
375.5
375.0
00:00
2000-05-02
C: \p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\032527.dfs0
C \ \I P\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\032 527 Pi B (U
) df 0
SNAKE RIVER 32527
[m]
032,527 - Pine Bar (Upper) [m]
376.5
376.0
375.5
375.0
00:00
2000-09-23
Figure 20.
Page 34
00:00
09-25
00:00
09-27
00:00
09-29
00:00
10-01
00:00
10-03
00:00
10-05
00:00
10-07
Zoomed-in comparison of measured (red) and simulated (blue) water levels
at nine locations on a three-week time scale for a high-, medium-, and lowflow period (Plot 3 of 9).
Hells Canyon Complex
Idaho Power Company
Chapter 5: Hells Canyon MIKE 11 Hydrodynamic Model
C:\p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\050039.dfs0
C \ \I P\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\050 039 Fi h T
df 0
SNAKE RIVER 50039 [m]
050,039 - Fish Trap [m]
353.0
352.5
352.0
351.5
00:00
1998-05-21
00:00
05-23
00:00
05-25
00:00
05-27
00:00
05-29
00:00
05-31
00:00
06-02
00:00
06-04
00:00
05-04
00:00
05-06
00:00
05-08
00:00
05-10
00:00
05-12
00:00
05-14
SNAKE RIVER 50039 [m]
050,039 - Fish Trap [m]
C:\p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\050039.dfs0
C \ \I P\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\050 039 Fi h T
df 0
349.0
348.5
348.0
347.5
347.0
00:00
2000-04-30
00:00
05-02
SNAKE RIVER 50039 [m]
050,039 - Fish Trap [m]
C:\p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\050039.dfs0
C \ \I P\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\050 039 Fi h T
df 0
348.0
347.5
347.0
346.5
346.0
00:00
2000-09-22
Figure 21.
00:00
09-27
00:00
10-02
00:00
10-07
00:00
10-12
00:00
10-17
Zoomed-in comparison of measured (red) and simulated (blue) water levels
at nine locations on a three-week time scale for a high-, medium-, and lowflow period (Plot 4 of 9).
Hells Canyon Complex
Page 35
Project Hydrology and Hydraulic Models
Idaho Power Company
C: \p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\060994.dfs0
00\PT\060 994 C
C k (U
) df 0
SNAKE RIVER 60994
[m]
060,994 - Camp Creek (Upper) [m]
335.5
335.0
C \ \IP\ 11d t \HC D
334.5
334.0
00:00
1998-05-21
00:00
05-23
00:00
05-25
00:00
05-27
00:00
05-29
00:00
05-31
00:00
06-02
00:00
06-04
00:00
05-04
00:00
05-06
00:00
05-08
00:00
05-10
00:00
05-12
00:00
05-14
SNAKE RIVER 60994
[m]
060,994 - Camp Creek (Upper) [m]
C: \p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\060994.dfs0
00\PT\060 994 C
C k (U
) df 0
332.0
331.5
C \ \IP\ 11d t \HC D
331.0
330.5
330.0
00:00
2000-04-30
00:00
05-02
C: \p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\060994.dfs0
00\PT\060 994 C
C k (U
) df 0
SNAKE RIVER 60994
[m]
060,994 - Camp Creek (Upper) [m]
331.0
330.5
C \ \IP\ 11d t \HC D
330.0
329.5
00:00
2000-09-23
Figure 22.
Page 36
00:00
09-25
00:00
09-27
00:00
09-29
00:00
10-01
00:00
10-03
00:00
10-05
00:00
10-07
Zoomed-in comparison of measured (red) and simulated (blue) water levels
at nine locations on a three-week time scale for a high-, medium-, and lowflow period (Plot 5 of 9).
Hells Canyon Complex
Idaho Power Company
Chapter 5: Hells Canyon MIKE 11 Hydrodynamic Model
SNAKE RIVER 73406 [m]
073,406 - Flying H
[m]
C:\p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\073406.dfs0
C \ \I P\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\073 406 Fl i H df 0
318.5
318.0
317.5
317.0
316.5
00:00
1998-05-21
00:00
05-23
00:00
05-25
00:00
05-27
00:00
05-29
00:00
05-31
00:00
06-02
00:00
06-04
00:00
05-04
00:00
05-06
00:00
05-08
00:00
05-10
00:00
05-12
00:00
05-14
SNAKE RIVER 73406 [m]
073,406 - Flying H
[m]
C:\p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\073406.dfs0
C \ \I P\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\073 406 Fl i H df 0
316.0
315.5
315.0
314.5
314.0
00:00
2000-04-30
00:00
05-02
C:\p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\073406.dfs0
C \ \I P\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\073 406 Fl i H df 0
SNAKE RIVER 73406 [m]
073,406 - Flying H
[m]
315.0
314.5
314.0
313.5
00:00
2000-09-23
Figure 23.
00:00
09-25
00:00
09-27
00:00
09-29
00:00
10-01
00:00
10-03
00:00
10-05
00:00
10-07
Zoomed-in comparison of measured (red) and simulated (blue) water levels
at nine locations on a three-week time scale for a high-, medium-, and lowflow period (Plot 6 of 9).
Hells Canyon Complex
Page 37
Project Hydrology and Hydraulic Models
Idaho Power Company
SNAKE RIVER 89450 [m]
089,450 - China Bar [m]
C:\p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\089450.dfs0
C \ \IP\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\089 450 Chi B df 0
295.0
294.5
294.0
293.5
293.0
00:00
1998-05-21
00:00
05-23
00:00
05-25
00:00
05-27
00:00
05-29
00:00
05-31
00:00
06-02
00:00
06-04
00:00
05-04
00:00
05-06
00:00
05-08
00:00
05-10
00:00
05-12
00:00
05-14
SNAKE RIVER 89450 [m]
089,450 - China Bar [m]
C:\p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\089450.dfs0
C \ \IP\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\089 450 Chi B df 0
289.5
289.0
288.5
288.0
287.5
00:00
2000-04-30
00:00
05-02
C:\p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\089450.dfs0
C \ \IP\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\089 450 Chi B df 0
SNAKE RIVER 89450 [m]
089,450 - China Bar [m]
288.0
287.5
287.0
286.5
00:00
2000-09-23
Figure 24.
Page 38
00:00
09-25
00:00
09-27
00:00
09-29
00:00
10-01
00:00
10-03
00:00
10-05
00:00
10-07
Zoomed-in comparison of measured (red) and simulated (blue) water levels
at nine locations on a three-week time scale for a high-, medium-, and lowflow period (Plot 7 of 9).
Hells Canyon Complex
Idaho Power Company
Chapter 5: Hells Canyon MIKE 11 Hydrodynamic Model
SNAKE RIVER 109984 [m]
109,984 - Cougar Bar [m]
C:\p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\109984.dfs0
C \ \IP\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\109 98 4 C
B df 0
271.0
270.5
270.0
269.5
269.0
00:00
1999-05-22
00:00
05-24
00:00
05-26
00:00
05-28
00:00
05-30
00:00
06-01
00:00
06-03
00:00
06-05
SNAKE RIVER 109984 [m]
109,984 - Cougar Bar [m]
C:\p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\109984.dfs0
C \ \IP\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\109 98 4 C
B df 0
269.0
268.5
268.0
267.5
267.0
00:00
2000-04-30
00:00
05-02
00:00
05-04
00:00
05-06
00:00
05-08
00:00
05-10
00:00
05-12
00:00
05-14
SNAKE RIVER 109984 [m]
109,984 - Cougar Bar [m]
C:\p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\109984.dfs0
C \ \IP\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\109 98 4 C
B df 0
268.0
267.5
267.0
266.5
266.0
Figure 25.
00:00
2000-08-04
00:00
08-06
00:00
08-08
00:00
08-10
00:00
08-12
00:00
08-14
00:00
08-16
00:00
08-18
Zoomed-in comparison of measured (red) and simulated (blue) water levels
at nine locations on a three-week time scale for a high-, medium-, and lowflow period (Plot 8 of 9).
Hells Canyon Complex
Page 39
Project Hydrology and Hydraulic Models
Idaho Power Company
C: \p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\142739.dfs0
C \ \I P\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\142 739 B ff l Edd df 0
SNAKE RIVER 142738 [m]
142,739 - Buffalo Eddy [m]
242.0
241.5
241.0
240.5
00:00
1999-05-22
00:00
05-24
00:00
05-26
00:00
05-28
00:00
05-30
00:00
06-01
00:00
06-03
00:00
06-05
SNAKE RIVER 142738 [m]
142,739 - Buffalo Eddy [m]
C: \p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\142739.dfs0
C \ \I P\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\142 739 B ff l Edd df 0
240.0
239.5
239.0
238.5
238.0
00:00
2000-04-30
00:00
05-02
00:00
05-04
00:00
05-06
00:00
05-08
00:00
05-10
00:00
05-12
00:00
05-14
SNAKE RIVER 142738 [m]
142,739 - Buffalo Eddy [m]
C: \p\IP\m11data\HC-Dec-00\PT\142739.dfs0
C \ \I P\ 11d t \HC D 00\PT\142 739 B ff l Edd df 0
238.0
237.5
237.0
236.5
236.0
Figure 26.
Page 40
00:00
2000-09-23
00:00
09-25
00:00
09-27
00:00
09-29
00:00
10-01
00:00
10-03
00:00
10-05
00:00
10-07
Zoomed-in comparison of measured (red) and simulated (blue) water levels
at nine locations on a three-week time scale for a high-, medium-, and lowflow period (Plot 9 of 9).
Hells Canyon Complex
Idaho Power Company
Chapter 5: Hells Canyon MIKE 11 Hydrodynamic Model
Survey
PT
Simulated
Avg bed
500
450
Level (meter)
400
350
300
250
200
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
Chainage (meter)
Figure 27.
Validation of simulated water levels against the surveyed water surface
profile.
Hells Canyon Complex
Page 41
Project Hydrology and Hydraulic Models
Idaho Power Company
Simulated - Avg. bed
Survey - Avg. bed
PT - Avg. bed
10
9
8
Normalized level (meter)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
Chainage (meter)
Figure 28.
Page 42
Validation of normalized water levels against the surveyed water surface
profile (showing results with the average bed level subtracted from all data
sets).
Hells Canyon Complex
Idaho Power Company
Chapter 5: Hells Canyon MIKE 11 Hydrodynamic Model
3000
100000
80000
2000
60000
1500
40000
1000
20000
500
0
0
16-11-1997
Figure 29.
Discharge (cfs)
Discharge (m^3/s)
2500
04-06-1998
21-12-1998
09-07-1999
25-01-2000
12-08-2000
28-02-2001
Time series plot of discharge over the simulation period.
Hells Canyon Complex
Page 43
Project Hydrology and Hydraulic Models
Idaho Power Company
This page left blank intentionally.
Page 44
Hells Canyon Complex
Idaho Power Company
Appendix A.
Chapter 5: Hells Canyon MIKE 11 Hydrodynamic Model
Hells Canyon Pressure Transducer Installation, Operation, and Data
Quality Report.
Introduction
Water surface elevation data were collected at 35 sites in the Hells Canyon study area (Hells
Canyon Dam, RM 247.6, to near Asotin, WA, RM 145.6) to calibrate hydraulic models
developed for the Hells Canyon reach of the Snake River. Of those 35 stations, 34 stations were
installed and operated by Idaho Power Company (IPC). The U.S. Forest Service operated the
other site (at the Tin Shed RM 215.66). This appendix does not discuss the collection of data by
the U.S. Forest Service. Sixteen IPC pressure transducers were initially deployed in February
1998, with an additional 16 sites added in March 1999 or May 2000. All of the pressure
transducers were maintained until November 2000. The two stations at the Hasting Bar
two-dimensional (2-D) site were installed in March 2001 and maintained for three months. This
appendix addresses the type of equipment (Table 1), its deployment, data collection, data quality,
and available data used in calibrating the Hells Canyon hydraulic models.
Equipment and Set Up
General setup included 150- or 200-ft data cable contained in 0.5-inch liquid tight flex electrical
conduit, 160- or 210-ft 0.25-inch galvanized steel cable, two to three 3 × 3 × 4-inch square
(~10-lb) lead weights, one 18-inch section of 1.25-inch (outside diameter) galvanized steel pipe
encased in 56-lb lead brick, along with a 5 × 0.25-in diameter eye bolt and 6-inch section of
galvanized steel pipe perforated with approximately twenty 0.125-inch holes. Two army
ammunition boxes were used to contain and protect the data logger and batteries. See Figures 1
through 3.
Figure 1.
Weight and sensor head protection.
Hells Canyon Complex
Page 45
Project Hydrology and Hydraulic Models
Idaho Power Company
Figure 2.
3 × 3 × 4-inch lead weight setup. Each of the three cable loops is spaced 25
ft apart, starting from the head of the sensor.
Figure 3.
Control box. The lower box, which is sealed, contained the data logger and
the upper box contained a parallel battery setup (control box in the
photograph is missing one battery) and pressure transducer vent tube.
Page 46
Hells Canyon Complex
Idaho Power Company
Chapter 5: Hells Canyon MIKE 11 Hydrodynamic Model
Different types of data loggers, sensors, and batteries were used:
•
Campbell Scientific CR500 and CR510 (newer models of CR500) data loggers
(Attachment 1—Data logger specifications).
•
Three types of pressure transducers: one DH 21, twenty INW 30 PSIG PS9105, and fifteen
INW 30 PS9800 with temperature data collection. Table 2, which shows site locations, also
shows which equipment was located at which site (Attachment 2—Pressure transducer
specifications).
•
Batteries: 12-volt 7.0 AH, Interstate # PC1270 Deep-cycle gel cell. Two per station.
Table 1.
Survey equipment used to measure the water surface elevation and
temporary benchmarks.
Equipment
Function
Owners
Date(s) Used
Lecia 530 (3 units)
12-channel, dualfrequency receivers
Sharp and Smith
1999–2001
Ski –Pro Version 1.1
Lecia software for post
processing GPS data
Sharp and Smith
1999–2001
Nikon Total Station
Model DTM-A5LG
Total Station
Sharp and Smith
July 2000
Carl Zeiss Level
Self-leveling level
Sharp and Smith
July 2000
Sokkisha Set 4A
Total Station
IPC
1998–2001
Carl Zeiss Level
Self-leveling level
IPC
1998–2001
Methods
Site Section
General criteria for the station locations included the following factors:
•
Approximately 5-mile intervals
•
Above and below major tributaries
•
Near specific study areas
•
Water depth not to exceed the sensors’ capabilities over the full range of expected flow
(i.e., not allow the sensor to “dry out” at low flows or get it too deep at high flows)
•
Away from drainages openings
•
Accessible by jet boat under most flow conditions but not normally accessed by
recreation users
IPC designated or installed a temporary benchmark (TBM) at each location. Depending on the
site location, TBMs consisted of one of the follow: 0.5-inch rebar, 0.25-inch aluminum rivet
Hells Canyon Complex
Page 47
Project Hydrology and Hydraulic Models
Idaho Power Company
drilled into a large rock, chisel mark on a rock, or a U.S. Geological Survey disk. For the TBMs,
a licensed land surveyor under contract to IPC (Sharp and Smith, Inc.) collected the elevation
data and coordinates using a survey-grade global positioning system (GPS). The elevation data
and coordinates were published in the North American Vertical Datum of 1929 (NAVD 1929)
and Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 11, respectively.
Deployment
IPC deployed each pressure transducer from a boat, as seen in Figure 4. The boat maneuvered
into position as the conduit was dispensed from the shore until the sensor head was positioned in
the area of interest. Then the head assembly was lowered into position using a rope tagline to
control its descent. After deployment, the sensor stage reading was checked against the boat’s
depth finder reading to ensure that the sensor was operational and providing reasonable readings.
To protect the instrument from vandalism, the cables and control boxes were covered with rocks
and debris.
Figure 4.
Page 48
Setup on the bow of the boat before deployment.
Hells Canyon Complex
Idaho Power Company
Chapter 5: Hells Canyon MIKE 11 Hydrodynamic Model
Data Collection
Data loggers collected data at two different rates, depending on whether the site was designated
for a 1-D or 2-D model. Data collection at each site included the following checks: measurement
of the water surface elevation, battery voltage, desiccant pack and general inspection of the
cable, data logger’s wiring, data logger connections and control boxes. Data loggers programmed
for 1-D sites were set to sample at 6-minute intervals, averaged by the hour and recorded. Data
loggers programmed for the 2-D modeling sites were set to sample at 5-minute intervals,
averaged every 15 minutes and recorded. Averaging several instantaneous readings limited the
“noise” in the data caused by waves or surges on the water surface. In Table 2, 2-D sites are
indicated by bold letters and the sensors that record temperature are indicated by italics and
underlining. Data were downloaded from the loggers to a laptop computer through an SDI-12
port at 6- to 10-week intervals. These collection intervals were chosen to prevent large gaps in
the data set if the station failed.
The water surface elevation was measured with standard survey equipment, either a total station
or a level, and referenced to a known TBM. This measured water surface elevation was
compared with the pressure transducer reading to ensure a data quality control point.
Table 2.
Site locations for pressure transducers.
River Mile
240.26
Location Name1
Date Installed (MM/YY)
Granite Creek
02/98
238.27
Three Creek
02/98
236.65
Upper Hasting Bar
03/01
236.36
Lower Hasting Bar
03/01
236.04
Upper Saddle Creek
05/00
235.67
Lower Saddle Creek
05/00
231.79
Sluice Creek
02/98
228.88
Upper Steep Creek
05/00
228.62
Lower Steep Creek
05/00
227.48
Upper Pine Bar
02/98
227.26
Lower Pine Bar
05/00
222.95
Suicide Point
02/98
222.45
Salt Creek
02/98
218.75
Kirby Creek
05/00
216.62
Fish Trap Bar
02/98
213.98
Pleasant Valley
02/98
209.86
Upper Camp Creek
02/98
209.31
Lower Camp Creek
05/00
206.26
High Range
02/98
202.26
Flying H
02/98
Hells Canyon Complex
Page 49
Project Hydrology and Hydraulic Models
Table 2.
Idaho Power Company
(Cont.)
River Mile
Location Name1
Date Installed (MM/YY)
199.01
Upper Robinson Gulch
05/00
198.72
Lower Robinson Gulch
05/00
196.03
Dug Bar
02/98
192.36
China Bar
02/98
190.72
Eureka Bar
02/98
189.15
Above the Salmon River
02/98
187.36
Below the Salmon River
02/98
179.76
Cougar Bar
03/99
175.0
Garden Creek
03/99
169.84
Lime Point
03/99
165.14
Billy Creek
03/99
159.9
Buffalo Eddy
03/99
154.73
Red Bird
03/99
149.90
Three Mile Island
03/99
1 Underlined and italics show stations that record stage and temperature data, while boldface shows 2-D stations.
Data Quality
The process of checking data quality was to identify the possible sources of errors so that means
for correcting those errors could be developed, if possible. Sources of data error were classified
as physical movement, sensor error (electrical drift or malfunction), or survey error (water
surface or TBM elevation error), each of which is described below.
•
Physical movement—the actual physical movement in elevation of the pressure
transducers head. There are several ways in which the pressure transducers head could be
physically moved. For example, during a high-flow event, the sensor head could be
moved from the top of a rock to between rocks or pushed downstream, resulting either in
an increase or decrease in elevation. In general, movement of the sensor head caused by
the river current usually occurred during the first high-water event. Another cause of
physical movement was vandalism, during which people pulled the sensor from the
water. Both types of physical movements were identified by an abrupt increase or
decrease in the stage data (based on comparisons with other sensors’ data), followed by
reasonable data at the new elevation.
•
Sensor error—an error that was classified either as electrical drift or sensor malfunction.
Electrical drift, the most difficult error to identify and correct, accounted for the errors in
the reading due to the decay of the sensor electronics (such as the change in resistance of
the wires). The slow change in the condition of the electronics also slowly changed either
the accuracy of stage measurements or the response time. In general, the INW sensors
were not susceptible to electronic drift; they were either working or not working.
Page 50
Hells Canyon Complex
Idaho Power Company
•
Chapter 5: Hells Canyon MIKE 11 Hydrodynamic Model
Survey errors—errors in the measurement of water surface elevation or TBM elevation.
Water surface measurement errors resulted from the incorrect placement of the survey
rod at the “true elevation” of the dynamic (waves and surges) water surface action. The
accuracy of the elevation readings was considered to be ±0.1 ft. Other sources of error
were in reading the survey instrument or recording the values. TBM elevation errors
resulted from a survey error in measuring or assigning the elevation to the TBM.
Plotting data from groups of sensors allowed us to identify errors from the first two sources of
error. These errors were then either corrected, if possible, or noted, if correction was impossible.
The TBM elevation errors were addressed by repetition of the survey.
In the process of verifying the accuracy of stage elevation data, these data were checked and
compared with survey data and data from other stage recorders. Because water surface survey
measurements are fundamental to data quality, traditional survey techniques (either through use
of levels or total stations) and known TBM elevations were used to calculate the sensor head
elevation to verify water surface elevations. In a river environment, the chances are high that the
sensor will move as a result of the river current, mobile bed, and/or human activity (people
hooking the cable with fishing line, using the cable as boat tie, or just trying to find the end of the
cable). Elevations of pressure transducer heads were calculated during each data collection to
check whether the sensor head had moved and sensors were operational. Minor deviations in the
pressure transducer head elevations were checked in the office, along with other possible errors,
through the following process:
•
•
Comparisons of stage data graphs
•
Graphs of sensors upstream and downstream of the site being checked
•
Consistency of discharge elevations through the period of record
•
Timing of data graphed
Maximum and minimum stage values
Additional water surface elevation data were collected at TBMs throughout Hells Canyon during
the 1999 and 2000 bathymetric surveys. Each survey collected water surface data at the pressure
transducer TBMs and the bathymetric TBMs. The water surface elevations at pressure transducer
locations were compared with elevations recorded by the pressure transducers, an approach that
provided additional verification data points. Both the 1999 and 2000 water survey data were
collected under the direction of a Sharp and Smith surveyor (Butler 2002).
Figure 5 shows an example of errors in data created by sensor error (malfunctioning) for the
Flying H site (RM 202.26). Also graphed were data from the sensor location at High Range
(RM 206.26) and Dug Bar (RM 196.03). As indicated by the graph, data from High Range were
tracking well with both those from Dug Bar and Flying H during the first part of the month. Note
that the stage values were adjusted for the three sites for the data check process. The graph of
adjusted values helped us in determining data errors such as those caused by physical movement
of the pressure transducer head that were seen in the Dug Bar data.
Hells Canyon Complex
Page 51
Project Hydrology and Hydraulic Models
Idaho Power Company
High Range, Flying H, Dug Bar (June 1998)
39.00
37.00
Dug bar sensor moved
35.00
Adj. Stage (ft)
33.00
Flying H: Bad data
31.00
29.00
27.00
25.00
23.00
5/31/1998 0:00
6/5/1998 0:00
6/10/1998 0:00
6/15/1998 0:00
High
Figure 5.
6/20/1998 0:00
Fly
6/25/1998 0:00
6/30/1998 0:00
Dug
Example of errors in data most likely created by sensor malfunction or
physical movement.
Results
The data collection effort resulted in measurements of water surface elevation that cover the full
range of Hells Canyon Dam’s daily average discharge operations from 5,699 to 93,400 cfs.
Elevation data were adjusted to correct for physical movement but not for sensor errors.
However, any sensor errors that affected data quality are noted in Table 3 and left in the data set
for researchers to use at their discretion. In general, the water surface elevation data represent the
water surface profile for the Snake River below Hells Canyon Dam with an accuracy of ±0.1 ft,
except as noted in Table 3.
Table 3 contains data quality and data availability on a monthly time step for the 34 sites. Also
included in Table 3 is the information about monthly discharges from Hells Canyon Dam
(maximum, minimum, and mean discharge) in both cubic feet per second and cubic meters per
second. Following Table 3 are definitions for quality valuations and colors used.
Page 52
Hells Canyon Complex
Table 3. QA/QC Sheet for Pressure Transducer Data in the Snake River of Hells Canyon.
HC Discharge
Mean (cfs)
Max(cfs):
Min(cfs):
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
27600
27980
32160
55980
44510
22620
14050
29200
31800
31800
93400
75600
29300
19300
25800
25200
29800
31800
27800
18900
8590
Mean (cms)
Max(cms):
Min(cms):
RM
149.9
154.73
159.9
165.14
169.84
175
179.76
187.36
189.15
190.72
192.36
196.03
198.72
199.01
202.26
202.26
206.66
209.31
209.86
213.98
216.62
216.62
218.75
222.45
222.95
227.26
227.48
228.62
228.88
231.79
235.67
236.04
236.36
236.65
238.27
240.26
Three Mile Island
Red Bird
Buffalo Eddy
Billy Creek
Lime Point
Garden Creek
Cougar Bar
Below The Salmon
Salmon River
Above The Salmon
Eureka Bar
China Bar
Dug Bar
Lower Robinson Gulch
Upper Robinson Gulch
Flying H
Flying H new PT
High Range
Lower Camp Creek
Upper Camp Creek
Pleasant Valley
Fish Trap Bar
Fish Trap Bar DH-21
Kirby Creek
Salt Creek
Suicide Point
Lower Pine Bar
Upper Pine Bar
Lower Steep Creek
Upper Steep Creek
Sluice Creek
Lower Saddle Creek
Upper Saddle Creek
Lower Hasting Bar
Upper Hasting Bar
Three Creeks
Granite Creek
781
826
730
792
900
713
910
900
843
1584
2643
900
1260
2139
787
640
829
535
398
546
243
Feb-98
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Good
NA
Good
Good
Good
Good
NA
NA
Good
NA
Good
NA
Good
NA
Good
NA
NA
Good
Good
NA
Good
NA
NA
Good
Good
Good
Mar-98
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Good
NA
Good
Good
Good
Good
NA
NA
Good
NA
Good
NA
Good
NA
Good
NA
NA
Good
Good
NA
Good
NA
NA
Good
Good
Good
Apr-98
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Good
NA
Good
Good
Good
Good
NA
NA
Good
NA
Good
NA
Good
NA
Good
NA
NA
Good
Good
NA
Good
NA
NA
Good
Good
Good
May-98
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Good
Jun-98
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Good
Jul-98
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Good
Aug-98
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
NA
NA
Good
NA
Good
NA
Good
NDA
Good
NA
NA
Good
Good
NA
Good
NA
NA
Good
Good
Good
NDA
Good
Good
Good
NA
NA
Good
NA
Good
NA
Good
NDA
Good
NA
NA
Good
Good
NA
Good
NA
NA
Good
NDA
Fair (+-0.1
Good
Good
Good
Fair (+-0.1
Fair (+-0.1 Fair (+-0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
bad data bad data
NA
NA
Good
Good
NA
NA
Good
Good
NDA
Good
Good
Good
NA
NA
NA
NA
Good
Good
Good
Good
NA
NA
Good
Good
NA
NA
NA
NA
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Fair
Good
Fair
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Page 1 of 6
Table 3. QA/QC Sheet for Pressure Transducer Data in the Snake River of Hells Canyon.
HC Discharge
Mean (cfs)
Max(cfs):
Min(cfs):
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
18580
15450
9590
19920
27240
29480
50200
23900
20300
9680
26600
30300
39500
63600
9630
9520
9530
9540
18700
25800
38600
Mean (cms)
Max(cms):
Min(cms):
RM
149.9
154.73
159.9
165.14
169.84
175
179.76
187.36
189.15
190.72
192.36
196.03
198.72
199.01
202.26
202.26
206.66
209.31
209.86
213.98
216.62
216.62
218.75
222.45
222.95
227.26
227.48
228.62
228.88
231.79
235.67
236.04
236.36
236.65
238.27
240.26
Three Mile Island
Red Bird
Buffalo Eddy
Billy Creek
Lime Point
Garden Creek
Cougar Bar
Below The Salmon
Salmon River
Above The Salmon
Eureka Bar
China Bar
Dug Bar
Lower Robinson Gulch
Upper Robinson Gulch
Flying H
Flying H new PT
High Range
Lower Camp Creek
Upper Camp Creek
Pleasant Valley
Fish Trap Bar
Fish Trap Bar DH-21
Kirby Creek
Salt Creek
Suicide Point
Lower Pine Bar
Upper Pine Bar
Lower Steep Creek
Upper Steep Creek
Sluice Creek
Lower Saddle Creek
Upper Saddle Creek
Lower Hasting Bar
Upper Hasting Bar
Three Creeks
Granite Creek
526
676
273
437
574
269
271
274
270
564
753
270
771
857
529
834
1118
730
Sep-98
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Good
Oct-98
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Good
Nov-98
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Good
Dec-98
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Good
Jan-99
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Good
Feb-99
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Good
1421
1800
1092
Mar-99
Sensor mo
Good
Good
Poor with b
Good
Sensor mo
Good
Good
Fair (+-0.1 Fair (+-0.1 Fair (+-0.1 Fair (+-0.1 Fair (+-0.1 Fair
Fair
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Fair (+-0.1 Fair (+-0.1 Fair (+-0.1 Fair (+-0.1 Fair (+-0.1 Fair (+-0.1 Fair (+-0.1
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
bad data Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Good
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
fair (timing seems off by hour) Good
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Fair
Good
Fair
Good
Fair
Good
Good
Page 2 of 6
Table 3. QA/QC Sheet for Pressure Transducer Data in the Snake River of Hells Canyon.
HC Discharge
Mean (cfs)
Max(cfs):
Min(cfs):
Mean (cms)
Max(cms):
Min(cms):
RM
149.9
154.73
159.9
165.14
169.84
175
179.76
187.36
189.15
190.72
192.36
196.03
198.72
199.01
202.26
202.26
206.66
209.31
209.86
213.98
216.62
216.62
218.75
222.45
222.95
227.26
227.48
228.62
228.88
231.79
235.67
236.04
236.36
236.65
238.27
240.26
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
IPCo
43920
32090
34640
19930
14280
14420
15807
53200
46000
46100
24400
18600
18000
20206
36300
15100
28200
17600
8290
8750
12900
1243
1506
1027
908
1302
427
980
1305
798
564
691
498
404
526
235
408
509
248
447
572
365
Apr-99
May-99
Jun-99
Jul-99
Aug-99
Sep-99
Oct-99
oving continuously
Three Mile Island
Good
Good
Good
Good
Fair
Good
Good
Red Bird
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Buffalo Eddy
bad data Poor with bPoor with bbad data bad data bad data bad data
Billy Creek
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Lime Point
oved
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Garden Creek
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Cougar Bar
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Poor with bGood
Below The Salmon
Salmon River
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Above The Salmon
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Eureka Bar
Fair (+-0.1 Fair (+-0.1 Fair (+-0.1 Fair (+-0.1 Fair (+-0.1 Fair (+-0.2 Poor+-0.30
China Bar
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Dug Bar
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Lower Robinson Gulch NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Upper Robinson Gulch NA
Good
Good
bad data bad data bad data bad data bad data
Flying H
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Flying H new PT
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
High Range
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Lower Camp Creek
Good
Good
Good
Good
Poor
Poor
Poor
Upper Camp Creek
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Pleasant Valley
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Fish Trap Bar
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Fish Trap Bar DH-21
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kirby Creek
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Salt Creek
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Suicide Point
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Lower Pine Bar
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Upper Pine Bar
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Lower Steep Creek
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Upper Steep Creek
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Sluice Creek
Lower Saddle Creek
Upper Saddle Creek
Lower Hasting Bar
Upper Hasting Bar
Fair
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Three Creeks
Good
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Good
Good
Granite Creek
Page 3 of 6
Table 3. QA/QC Sheet for Pressure Transducer Data in the Snake River of Hells Canyon.
HC Discharge
Mean (cfs)
Max(cfs):
Min(cfs):
IPCo
IPCo
IPCo
IPCo
IPCo
IPCo
IPCo
12579
13513
22220
22470
25319
29795
16538
13148
18010
25703
30387
30274
32429
25569
11044
11079
11478
12123
20917
24361
11354
Mean (cms)
Max(cms):
Min(cms):
RM
356
372
313
382
510
314
Nov-99
149.9
154.73
159.9
165.14
169.84
175
179.76
187.36
189.15
190.72
192.36
196.03
198.72
199.01
202.26
202.26
206.66
209.31
209.86
213.98
216.62
216.62
218.75
222.45
222.95
227.26
227.48
228.62
228.88
231.79
235.67
236.04
236.36
236.65
238.27
240.26
Three Mile Island
Red Bird
Buffalo Eddy
Billy Creek
Lime Point
Garden Creek
Cougar Bar
Below The Salmon
Salmon River
Above The Salmon
Eureka Bar
China Bar
Dug Bar
Lower Robinson Gulch
Upper Robinson Gulch
Flying H
Flying H new PT
High Range
Lower Camp Creek
Upper Camp Creek
Pleasant Valley
Fish Trap Bar
Fish Trap Bar DH-21
Kirby Creek
Salt Creek
Suicide Point
Lower Pine Bar
Upper Pine Bar
Lower Steep Creek
Upper Steep Creek
Sluice Creek
Lower Saddle Creek
Upper Saddle Creek
Lower Hasting Bar
Upper Hasting Bar
Three Creeks
Granite Creek
Dec-99
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
bad data bad data
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
629
727
325
636
860
343
717
857
592
843
918
689
468
724
321
Jan-00
Feb-00
Mar-00
Apr-00
May-00
Good
Good
Good
Good
Sensor mo
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Fair
Good
Poor with bPoor with bPoor with bPoor with bPoor with b
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good (moved sometime between Jan and MGood
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Poor+-0.30Poor+-0.30Poor+-0.30Poor+-0.30Poor+-0.30Poor+-0.30Poor+-0.30
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Good
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Poor+-0.30
bad data bad data bad data Fair
NA
NA
NA
NA
Good
Fair PT waFair
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Good
Poor
Poor
Poor
bad data bad data bad data bad data
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
bad data
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Fair (PT M
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
NA
NA
NA
NA
Good
Good
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Fair
Good
Fair
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Page 4 of 6
Table 3. QA/QC Sheet for Pressure Transducer Data in the Snake River of Hells Canyon.
HC Discharge
Mean (cfs)
Max(cfs):
Min(cfs):
Mean (cms)
Max(cms):
Min(cms):
RM
149.9
154.73
159.9
165.14
169.84
175
179.76
187.36
189.15
190.72
192.36
196.03
198.72
199.01
202.26
202.26
206.66
209.31
209.86
213.98
216.62
216.62
218.75
222.45
222.95
227.26
227.48
228.62
228.88
231.79
235.67
236.04
236.36
236.65
238.27
240.26
IPCo
IPCo
16265
14884
21322
22442
8630
6800
421
635
192
460
603
244
IPCo
9811
12015
8105
278
340
229
IPCo
IPCo
IPCo
IPCo
14997
11755
9877
11068
22147
21053
10034
17585
5699
9404
9706
8686
424
627
161
333
596
266
280
284
275
313
498
246
Jun-00
Jul-00
Aug-00
Sep-00
Oct-00
Nov-00
Dec-00
oved
bad data bad data bad data Good
Three Mile Island
Good
Good
bad data bad data Fair
Fair
Red Bird
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Buffalo Eddy
Poor with bPoor with bPoor with bPoor with bbad data bad data
Billy Creek
Fair
Good
Question aPoor with bPoor with bFair
Lime Point
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Garden Creek
Good
Good
Good
NA
NA
NA
Cougar Bar
Good
Good
Good
NA
NA
NA
Below The Salmon
Salmon River
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Above The Salmon
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Eureka Bar
Poor+-0.30Poor+-0.30Poor+-0.30Poor+-0.30Poor+-0.30Poor+-0.30 ft
China Bar
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Dug Bar
Fair (+-0.1 Poor+-0.30Poor+-0.30bad data bad data
Lower Robinson Gulch Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Upper Robinson Gulch Good
Flying H
Fair
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Flying H new PT
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
High Range
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Lower Camp Creek
bad data Poor
Fair
Fair
bad data Fair
Upper Camp Creek
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Pleasant Valley
bad data bad data bad data
Fish Trap Bar
Good
Good
Fair ( may have move
Fish Trap Bar DH-21
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Kirby Creek
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Salt Creek
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Suicide Point
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Lower Pine Bar
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Upper Pine Bar
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Lower Steep Creek
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Upper Steep Creek
Good
Good
Fair (+-1ft) Poor(+-2.0Poor(+-2.0Poor(+-2.0 ft)
Sluice Creek
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Lower Saddle Creek
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Upper Saddle Creek
Lower Hasting Bar
Upper Hasting Bar
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Three Creeks
Good
Good
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Granite Creek
Page 5 of 6
Table 3. QA/QC Sheet for Pressure Transducer Data in the Snake River of Hells Canyon.
HC Discharge
Mean (cfs)
Max(cfs):
Min(cfs):
Mean (cms)
Max(cms):
Min(cms):
RM
149.9
154.73
159.9
165.14
169.84
175
179.76
187.36
189.15
190.72
192.36
196.03
198.72
199.01
202.26
202.26
206.66
209.31
209.86
213.98
216.62
216.62
218.75
222.45
222.95
227.26
227.48
228.62
228.88
231.79
235.67
236.04
236.36
236.65
238.27
240.26
IPCo
11961
21318
8740
338
603
247
IPCo
11299
17723
8766
320
502
248
IPCo
12899
18587
8754
IPCo
12158
15900
7401
365
526
248
344
450
209
Jan-01
Feb-01
Mar-01
Three Mile Island
Red Bird
Buffalo Eddy
Billy Creek
Lime Point
Garden Creek
Cougar Bar
Below The Salmon
Salmon River
Above The Salmon
Eureka Bar
China Bar
Dug Bar
Lower Robinson Gulch
Upper Robinson Gulch
Flying H
Flying H new PT
High Range
Lower Camp Creek
Upper Camp Creek
Pleasant Valley
Fish Trap Bar
Fish Trap Bar DH-21 ed at the last of the month by 0.5 ft
Kirby Creek
Salt Creek
Suicide Point
Lower Pine Bar
Upper Pine Bar
Lower Steep Creek
Upper Steep Creek
Sluice Creek
Fair
Good
Good
Lower Saddle Creek
Good
Good
Good
Upper Saddle Creek
Good
Lower Hasting Bar
Good
Upper Hasting Bar
Three Creeks
Granite Creek
Apr-01
Good
Good
Good
Good
IPCo
na
na
na
May-01
Good
Good
Good
Good
Page 6 of 6
Idaho Power Company
Chapter 5: Hells Canyon MIKE 11 Hydrodynamic Model
Below are definitions, quality valuations, and colors used in Table 3.
Data valuation
Color data
•
Good—Water surface elevation is ±0.1 ft. There are no problems
with timing of the peaks. Overall, data are of high quality.
•
Fair—Water surface elevation is ±0.1 to 0.2 ft. In addition, data
may not be tracking peaks and lows in spots as well as they
should.
•
Poor—Raw data are poorly tracking peaks and lows. Data are
±0.2 to 0.4 ft. from the true value.
•
Bad—Data are not tracking at all or stage value should not be
used. Elevation error is consider greater than 0.5 ft.
•
NA—No available data either because no sensor was installed or
the sensor was inoperational during the time period.
•
Brown/Tan—Elevation data are estimated. There is no elevation
reference.
•
Green—Elevation data are good.
•
Yellow—Elevation data are fair and should be used with caution.
•
Orange—Elevation data are questionable in sections.
•
Red—Sensor is recording unusable data that cannot be used for
calibration.
Summary
For the period of record from February 1998 to November 2000, water surface elevation data
were collected at 35 sites in the Hells Canyon study area (Hells Canyon Dam, RM 247.6, to near
Asotin, WA, RM 145.6) to calibrate hydraulic models developed for the Hells Canyon reach of
the Snake River. Of those 35 stations, 34 stations were installed and operated by IPC. Data were
collected and adjusted to NAVD 1929 mean sea level elevations for use in IPC hydraulic
modeling efforts. These water surface elevation data correlate with Hells Canyon Dam
discharges of 5,699 through 93,400 cfs. Data were provided to DHI and Simons and Associates
with the understanding that the data set was complete (questionable data included). Future users
of the data set will need to consider the data quality, along with the data, for their end products to
be of the highest quality. Table 3 contains information on the available data and their quality
according to a monthly time step.
Literature Cited
Butler, M., editor. 2002. Topographic integration for the Hells Canyon studies. In: Technical
appendices for new license application: Hells Canyon Hydroelectric Project. Idaho
Power, Boise, ID. Technical Report E.1-3.
Hells Canyon Complex
Page 59
Project Hydrology and Hydraulic Models
Idaho Power Company
This page left blank intentionally.
Page 60
Hells Canyon Complex
CR510 Basic Datalogger
Research-grade performance in a small package
System Description
Storage Capacity
The CR510 provides precision channels that allow you to
accurately measure a variety of sensors:
Data and programs are stored either in non-volatile Flash
memory or battery-backed SRAM. The CR510 has two
Final Storage areas that store up to 62,000 data points.
Optional versions store up to 2 million data points.
• Two differential (four single-ended) analog channels
Operation in Harsh Environments
• Two pulse counting channels (an additional channel
[C2/P3] can also be configured to count switch
closures)
The standard operating temperature range is -25° to
+50°C; an extended range of -55° to +85°C is available.
A CR510 housed in an enclosure with desiccant is protected from humidity and most contaminants.
Input/Output Connections
• Two switched excitation channels
WARNING:
PS12 POWER SUPPLY
PERMANENT DAMAGE TO RECHARGEABLE
CELLS MAY RESULT IF DISCHARGED
BELOW 10.5 VOLTS
WITH 12V CHARGING REGULATOR
FUNCTION
BAT
INT
EXT
CHG
PS12 BATTERY
EXTERNAL BATTERY - DO NOT USE WITH
INTERNAL RECHARGEABLE BATTERY
CHARGE VOLTAGE PRESENT
ON
OFF
• Two digital I/O ports (both ports support SDI-12
sensors; control port C1 also supports output control
of external devices)
CHG
CHG
INPUT FROM CHARGER OR SOLAR PANEL
16-26 VDC OR AC RMS: POSITIVE TO
EITHER TERMINAL, NEGATIVE TO OTHER
+12
+12
MADE IN USA
POWER TO DATALOGGER OR
12V PERIPHERALS
CR510
SE
1
DIFF
H
2
3
1
4
2
L
AG E1
H
H
AG E2
G
P1
G
P2
G
P3
C1 C2 5V
12V G
G 12V
• 5 and 12 V power terminals
• 9-pin CS I/O port
12-Volt Powered
Any 12 VDC source can power the CR510; it typically
uses our BPALK or PS12LA power supply. The BPALK
consists of eight D-cell batteries and the PS12LA includes
a sealed rechargeable battery that can be float-charged
with a solar panel or AC power.
UNITED
DO NOT
UNI
DO101C
NOTHRISTINEDESICC EAT
101C TED DES
EAT , BELE ANT
HRIS
ICC
TINE
N, NOW S-GATE
, BELE ANT
MEX
N, NEW S-GATE
ICO S
8700
MEX
2
ICO S
8700
REA SPECIFICA
2
CTIV
ATIO TION MIL-D
REA SPECIFICA DES
CTIV
TIONICCANT N TIME
ATIO ACTI
DES
IN-BA -3464 TYPE
MIL-D
N TIME VATE
ICCA
BAG IN-BA D -3464 CONTENT G 16 HOU I &II
NT
ACTI
TYPE S
VATE
RS AT
G
CON GED FOR
BAG
TENT 16 HOU 4 I &II
250
GED D
PAC
RS AT
S
F
UNIT
FOR
KAG
4
S 250 O
E
F
AND USE
UNIT
KAG DEH
UNIS TED DOPACNOT
E USE UMID STAT
AND EAT
IFICA IC
UNI
DO101C
DES
NOTHRISTINEDEH
UMID STATIC
TION
101C TED DES
IFICA
EAT , BELEICC
ANT
HRIS
TION
ICC
TINE
N, NOW S-GATE
, BELE ANT
MEX
N, NEW S-GATE
ICO S
8700
MEX
2
ICO S
8700
REA SPECIFICA
2
CTIV
ATIO TION MIL-D
REA SPECIFICA DES
CTIV
TIONICCANT N TIME
ATIO ACTI
DES
IN-BA -3464 TYPE
MIL-D
N TIME VATE
ICCA
G
CON
BAG IN-BA D -3464 TYPE
NT
ACTI
TENT 16 HOU I &II
VATE
RS AT
G
S
CON GED FOR
BAG
TENT 16 HOU 4 I &II
250
GED D
PAC
RS AT
S
F
UNIT
FOR
KAG
O
4
E
PAC S 250 F
UNIT
KAG DEH AND STATUSE
S
E USE UMID
IFICA IC
DEH AND STAT
UMID
TION
IFICA IC
TION
DES DESI P
I PAK AK
DES DESI P
I PAK AK
Our weather-resistant enclosures (model 6447 10” x 12” shown),
rechargeable power supplies, and the CR510’s minimal power requirements allow extended field use.
Cover photos: At left: CR510. At right: A shaft encoder measures water level; the data is transmitted to a base
station via radio telemetry.
Telecommunications
Ease of Use
Telecommunication options
include multidrop (coaxial cable)
and short-haul modems, radios
(UHF, VHF, spread spectrum),
telephones (including cellular and
voice-synthesized), and satellite
transmitters.
Free software, shipped with the CR510 and also available
from our Web site, allows you to choose compatible sensors, select scan and data output intervals, and output a
wiring diagram to connect your sensors.
On-site Communications
Up to 254 sites can be
Data and program transfer and
interrogated over a UHF
storage capabilities are provided
or VHF frequency.
by our storage modules.
Direct communication to the
serial port of a computer, printer, or display is supported
via RS-232 interfaces. For simple on-site data review and
program changes, the CR10KD is recommended.
Battery-Backed SRAM and Clock
When the CR510 is disconnected from its 12 V power
source, a user-replaceable internal battery retains programming and data, and powers the clock.
Support Software
Our computer software simplifies the exchange of data,
programs, and commands between the CR510 and a PC.
Software that is compatible with the CR510 includes
Short Cut Program Builder, PC200W Starter Software,
PC208W Datalogger Support Software, and Real-Time
Data Monitor (RTDM). For more information, see our
software literature.
Transient Protected
Encased in metal with gas discharge tubes on the panel,
the CR510 has EMI filtering and ESD protection on all
input and output connections.
Small Package
Built with surface-mount technology, the CR510 is a
small (8.4” x 1.5” x 3.9”), lightweight (15 oz.) datalogger.
Sensors and Applications
The measurement precision, long-term reliability, and
economical price of the CR510 make it ideal for a variety
of applications that require a small number of sensors.
Compatible sensors include:
• SDI-12 sensors
• Tipping bucket and
weighing rain gages
• Pressure transducers
• Wind vanes
• Shaft encoders
• Anemometers
• Ultrasonic level sensors
• Flow meters
• Relative humidity
sensors
• Conductivity sensors
• Pyranometers
• pH sensors
• Leaf wetness sensors
• Thermistors
• Fuel moisture/temperature sensors
The CR510 supports many water resources, agricultural,
and meteorological applications including:
• Water level/stage
• SCADA/Modbus
• Well draw-down test
• Flood warning/ALERT
• Water quality
• Disease forecasting
• Alarm and pump
actuation
• Wind studies
The CR510 supports many applications including the monitoring of
fire conditions.
Note: The CR510 does not support multiplexers, SDM
devices, or thermocouples. If you need additional channels for future use, consider a CR10X.
CR510 Specifications
Electrical specifications are valid over a -25° to +50°C range unless otherwise specified; non-condensing environment
required. To maintain electrical specifications, yearly calibrations are recommended.
PROGRAM EXECUTION RATE
PERIOD AVERAGING MEASUREMENTS
SDI-12 INTERFACE STANDARD
System tasks initiated in sync with real-time up
to 64 Hz. One measurement with data transfer is
possible at this rate without interruption.
DEFINITION: The average period for a single cycle is
determined by measuring the duration of a specified number of cycles. Any of the 4 single-ended
analog input channels can be used. Signal attentuation and ac coupling is typically required.
DESCRIPTION: Digital I/O Ports C1-C2 support
SDI-12 asynchronous communication; up to ten
SDI-12 sensors can be connected to each port.
Meets SDI-12 standard Version 1.2 for datalogger
and sensor modes.
ANALOG INPUTS
NUMBER OF CHANNELS: 2 differential or 4
single-ended, individually configured.
RANGE AND RESOLUTION:
Full Scale
Input Range (mV)
±2500
±250
±25
±7.5
±2.5
Resolution (µV)
Differential Single-Ended
333
666
33.3
66.6
3.33
6.66
1.00
2.00
0.33
0.66
INPUT SAMPLE RATES: Includes the measurement
time and conversion to engineering units. The
fast and slow measurements integrate the signal
for 0.25 and 2.72 ms, respectively. Differential
measurements incorporate two integrations with
reversed input polarities to reduce thermal offset
and common mode errors.
Fast differential voltage:
4.2 ms
Slow differential voltage:
9.2 ms
Differential with 60 Hz rejection: 25.9 ms
ACCURACY: ±0.1% of FSR (-25° to 50°C);
±0.05% of FSR (0° to 40°C);
e.g., ±0.1% FSR = ±5.0 mV for ±2500
mV range
INPUT NOISE VOLTAGE (for ±2.5 mV range):
Fast differential: 0.82 µV rms
Slow differential: 0.25 µV rms
Differential with
60 Hz rejection: 0.18 µV rms
COMMON MODE RANGE: ±2.5 V
DC COMMON MODE REJECTION: > 140 dB
NORMAL MODE REJECTION: 70 dB (60 Hz with
slow differential measurement)
INPUT CURRENT: ±9 nA maximum
INPUT RESISTANCE: 20 Gohms typical
ANALOG OUTPUTS
DESCRIPTION: 2 switched excitations, active only
during measurement, one at a time.
RANGE: ±2.5 V
RESOLUTION: 0.67 mV
ACCURACY: ±2.5 mV (0° to 40°C);
±5 mV (-25° to 50°C)
CURRENT SOURCING: 25 mA
CURRENT SINKING: 25 mA
FREQUENCY SWEEP FUNCTION: The switched
outputs provide a programmable swept frequency,
0 to 2.5 V square wave for exciting vibrating wire
transducers.
RESISTANCE MEASUREMENTS
MEASUREMENT TYPES: The CR510 provides
ratiometric bridge measurements of 4- and 6-wire
full bridge, and 2-, 3-, and 4-wire half bridges.
Precise dual polarity excitation using any of the
switched outputs eliminates dc errors.
Conductivity measurements use a dual polarity
0.75 ms excitation to minimize polarization errors.
ACCURACY: ±0.02% of FSR plus bridge errors.
INPUT FREQUENCY RANGE:
Signal peak-to-peak1
Min.
Max.
Min.
Pulse w.
Max
Freq.2
500 mV
5.0 V
2.5 µs
200 kHz
10 mV
2.0 V
10 µs
50 kHz
5 mV
2.0 V
62 µs
8 kHz
2 mV
2.0 V
100 µs
5 kHz
RESOLUTION: 35 ns divided by the number of
cycles measured
ACCURACY: ±0.03% of reading
TIME REQUIRED FOR MEASUREMENT: Signal
period multiplied by the number of cycles
measured plus 1.5 cycles + 2 ms.
PULSE COUNTERS
EMI and ESD PROTECTION
The CR510 is encased in metal and incorporates EMI
filtering on all inputs and outputs. Gas discharge
tubes provide robust ESD protection on all terminal
block inputs and outputs. The following European
standards apply.
EMC tested and conforms to BS EN61326:1998.
Details of performance criteria applied are available
upon request.
CPU AND INTERFACE
PROCESSOR: Hitachi 6303.
PROGRAM STORAGE: Up to 16 kbytes for active
program; additional 16 kbytes for alternate
programs. Operating system stored in 128 kbytes
Flash memory.
NUMBER OF CHANNELS: 2 eight-bit or 1 sixteenbit; software selectable as switch closure, high
frequency pulse, or low-level ac modes. An additional channel (C2/P3) can be software configured
to read switch closures at rates up to 40 Hz.
DATA STORAGE: 128 kbytes SRAM standard
(approximately 62,000 values). Additional
2 Mbytes Flash available as an option.
MAXIMUM COUNT RATE: 16 kHz, eight-bit counter;
400 kHz, sixteen-bit counter. Channels are
scanned at 8 or 64 Hz (software selectable).
PERIPHERAL INTERFACE: 9 pin D-type
connector for keyboard display, storage module,
modem, printer, card storage module, and
RS-232 adapter.
SWITCH CLOSURE MODE:
Minimum Switch Closed Time: 5 ms
Minimum Switch Open Time: 6 ms
Maximum Bounce Time: 1 ms open
without being counted
HIGH FREQUENCY PULSE MODE:
Minimum Pulse Width: 1.2 µs
Maximum Input Frequency: 400 kHz
Maximum Input Voltage: ±20 V
Voltage Thresholds: Count upon transition
from below 1.5 V to above 3.5 V at low frequencies. Larger input transitions are required at high
frequencies because of input filter with 1.2 µs time
constant. Signals up to 400 kHz will be counted if
centered around +2.5 V with deviations ≥ ± 2.5 V
for ≥ 1.2 µs.
LOW LEVEL AC MODE:
(Typical of magnetic pulse flow transducers or
other low voltage, sine wave outputs.)
Input Hysteresis: 14 mV
Maximum ac Input Voltage: ±20 V
Minimum ac Input Voltage:
(Sine wave mV rms)*
Range (Hz)
20
1 to 1000
200
0.5 to 10,000
1000
0.3 to 16,000
OPTIONAL KEYBOARD DISPLAY: 8 digit LCD
(0.5" digits).
BAUD RATES: Selectable at 300, 1200, and 9600,
76,800 for certain synchronous devices. ASCII
communication protocol is one start bit, one stop
bit, eight data bits (no parity).
CLOCK ACCURACY: ±1 minute per month
SYSTEM POWER REQUIREMENTS
VOLTAGE: 9.6 to 16 Vdc
TYPICAL CURRENT DRAIN: 1.3 mA quiescent,
13 mA during processing, and 46 mA during
analog measurement.
BATTERIES: Any 12 V battery can be connected as
a primary power source. Several power supply
options are available from Campbell Scientific.
The model CR2430 lithium battery for clock and
SRAM backup has a capacity of 270 mAhr.
PHYSICAL SPECIFICATIONS
SIZE: 8.4" x 1.5" x 3.9" (21.3 cm x 3.8 cm x 9.9 cm).
Additional clearance required for serial cable and
sensor leads.
WEIGHT: 15 oz. (425 g)
*16-bit config. or 64 Hz scan req’d for freq. > 2048 Hz
WARRANTY
DIGITAL I/O PORTS
Three years against defects in materials
and workmanship.
DESCRIPTION: Port C1 is software selectable as a
binary input, control output, or as an SDI-12 port.
Port C2/P3 is input only and can be software configured as an SDI-12 port, a binary input, or as a
switch closure counter (40 Hz max).
OUTPUT VOLTAGES (no load): high 5.0 V ±0.1 V;
low < 0.1 V
OUTPUT RESISTANCE: 500 ohms
INPUT STATE: high 3.0 to 5.5 V; low -0.5 to 0.8 V
INPUT RESISTANCE: 100 kohms
We recommend that you confirm system
configuration and critical specifications with
Campbell Scientific before purchase.
Copyright © 1999, 2001
Campbell Scientific, Inc.
Printed September 2001
CR510 Specifications
Electrical specifications are valid over a -25° to +50°C range unless otherwise specified; non-condensing environment
required. To maintain electrical specifications, yearly calibrations are recommended.
PROGRAM EXECUTION RATE
PERIOD AVERAGING MEASUREMENTS
SDI-12 INTERFACE STANDARD
System tasks initiated in sync with real-time up
to 64 Hz. One measurement with data transfer is
possible at this rate without interruption.
DEFINITION: The average period for a single cycle is
determined by measuring the duration of a specified number of cycles. Any of the 4 single-ended
analog input channels can be used. Signal attentuation and ac coupling is typically required.
DESCRIPTION: Digital I/O Ports C1-C2 support
SDI-12 asynchronous communication; up to ten
SDI-12 sensors can be connected to each port.
Meets SDI-12 standard Version 1.2 for datalogger
and sensor modes.
ANALOG INPUTS
NUMBER OF CHANNELS: 2 differential or 4
single-ended, individually configured.
RANGE AND RESOLUTION:
Full Scale
Input Range (mV)
±2500
±250
±25
±7.5
±2.5
Resolution (µV)
Differential Single-Ended
333
666
33.3
66.6
3.33
6.66
1.00
2.00
0.33
0.66
INPUT SAMPLE RATES: Includes the measurement
time and conversion to engineering units. The
fast and slow measurements integrate the signal
for 0.25 and 2.72 ms, respectively. Differential
measurements incorporate two integrations with
reversed input polarities to reduce thermal offset
and common mode errors.
Fast differential voltage:
4.2 ms
Slow differential voltage:
9.2 ms
Differential with 60 Hz rejection: 25.9 ms
ACCURACY: ±0.1% of FSR (-25° to 50°C);
±0.05% of FSR (0° to 40°C);
e.g., ±0.1% FSR = ±5.0 mV for ±2500
mV range
INPUT NOISE VOLTAGE (for ±2.5 mV range):
Fast differential: 0.82 µV rms
Slow differential: 0.25 µV rms
Differential with
60 Hz rejection: 0.18 µV rms
COMMON MODE RANGE: ±2.5 V
DC COMMON MODE REJECTION: > 140 dB
NORMAL MODE REJECTION: 70 dB (60 Hz with
slow differential measurement)
INPUT CURRENT: ±9 nA maximum
INPUT RESISTANCE: 20 Gohms typical
ANALOG OUTPUTS
DESCRIPTION: 2 switched excitations, active only
during measurement, one at a time.
RANGE: ±2.5 V
RESOLUTION: 0.67 mV
ACCURACY: ±2.5 mV (0° to 40°C);
±5 mV (-25° to 50°C)
CURRENT SOURCING: 25 mA
CURRENT SINKING: 25 mA
FREQUENCY SWEEP FUNCTION: The switched
outputs provide a programmable swept frequency,
0 to 2.5 V square wave for exciting vibrating wire
transducers.
RESISTANCE MEASUREMENTS
MEASUREMENT TYPES: The CR510 provides
ratiometric bridge measurements of 4- and 6-wire
full bridge, and 2-, 3-, and 4-wire half bridges.
Precise dual polarity excitation using any of the
switched outputs eliminates dc errors.
Conductivity measurements use a dual polarity
0.75 ms excitation to minimize polarization errors.
ACCURACY: ±0.02% of FSR plus bridge errors.
INPUT FREQUENCY RANGE:
Signal peak-to-peak1
Min.
Max.
Min.
Pulse w.
Max
Freq.2
500 mV
5.0 V
2.5 µs
200 kHz
10 mV
2.0 V
10 µs
50 kHz
5 mV
2.0 V
62 µs
8 kHz
2 mV
2.0 V
100 µs
5 kHz
RESOLUTION: 35 ns divided by the number of
cycles measured
ACCURACY: ±0.03% of reading
TIME REQUIRED FOR MEASUREMENT: Signal
period multiplied by the number of cycles
measured plus 1.5 cycles + 2 ms.
PULSE COUNTERS
EMI and ESD PROTECTION
The CR510 is encased in metal and incorporates EMI
filtering on all inputs and outputs. Gas discharge
tubes provide robust ESD protection on all terminal
block inputs and outputs. The following European
standards apply.
EMC tested and conforms to BS EN61326:1998.
Details of performance criteria applied are available
upon request.
CPU AND INTERFACE
PROCESSOR: Hitachi 6303.
PROGRAM STORAGE: Up to 16 kbytes for active
program; additional 16 kbytes for alternate
programs. Operating system stored in 128 kbytes
Flash memory.
NUMBER OF CHANNELS: 2 eight-bit or 1 sixteenbit; software selectable as switch closure, high
frequency pulse, or low-level ac modes. An additional channel (C2/P3) can be software configured
to read switch closures at rates up to 40 Hz.
DATA STORAGE: 128 kbytes SRAM standard
(approximately 62,000 values). Additional
2 Mbytes Flash available as an option.
MAXIMUM COUNT RATE: 16 kHz, eight-bit counter;
400 kHz, sixteen-bit counter. Channels are
scanned at 8 or 64 Hz (software selectable).
PERIPHERAL INTERFACE: 9 pin D-type
connector for keyboard display, storage module,
modem, printer, card storage module, and
RS-232 adapter.
SWITCH CLOSURE MODE:
Minimum Switch Closed Time: 5 ms
Minimum Switch Open Time: 6 ms
Maximum Bounce Time: 1 ms open
without being counted
HIGH FREQUENCY PULSE MODE:
Minimum Pulse Width: 1.2 µs
Maximum Input Frequency: 400 kHz
Maximum Input Voltage: ±20 V
Voltage Thresholds: Count upon transition
from below 1.5 V to above 3.5 V at low frequencies. Larger input transitions are required at high
frequencies because of input filter with 1.2 µs time
constant. Signals up to 400 kHz will be counted if
centered around +2.5 V with deviations ≥ ± 2.5 V
for ≥ 1.2 µs.
LOW LEVEL AC MODE:
(Typical of magnetic pulse flow transducers or
other low voltage, sine wave outputs.)
Input Hysteresis: 14 mV
Maximum ac Input Voltage: ±20 V
Minimum ac Input Voltage:
(Sine wave mV rms)*
Range (Hz)
20
1 to 1000
200
0.5 to 10,000
1000
0.3 to 16,000
OPTIONAL KEYBOARD DISPLAY: 8 digit LCD
(0.5" digits).
BAUD RATES: Selectable at 300, 1200, and 9600,
76,800 for certain synchronous devices. ASCII
communication protocol is one start bit, one stop
bit, eight data bits (no parity).
CLOCK ACCURACY: ±1 minute per month
SYSTEM POWER REQUIREMENTS
VOLTAGE: 9.6 to 16 Vdc
TYPICAL CURRENT DRAIN: 1.3 mA quiescent,
13 mA during processing, and 46 mA during
analog measurement.
BATTERIES: Any 12 V battery can be connected as
a primary power source. Several power supply
options are available from Campbell Scientific.
The model CR2430 lithium battery for clock and
SRAM backup has a capacity of 270 mAhr.
PHYSICAL SPECIFICATIONS
SIZE: 8.4" x 1.5" x 3.9" (21.3 cm x 3.8 cm x 9.9 cm).
Additional clearance required for serial cable and
sensor leads.
WEIGHT: 15 oz. (425 g)
*16-bit config. or 64 Hz scan req’d for freq. > 2048 Hz
WARRANTY
DIGITAL I/O PORTS
Three years against defects in materials
and workmanship.
DESCRIPTION: Port C1 is software selectable as a
binary input, control output, or as an SDI-12 port.
Port C2/P3 is input only and can be software configured as an SDI-12 port, a binary input, or as a
switch closure counter (40 Hz max).
OUTPUT VOLTAGES (no load): high 5.0 V ±0.1 V;
low < 0.1 V
OUTPUT RESISTANCE: 500 ohms
INPUT STATE: high 3.0 to 5.5 V; low -0.5 to 0.8 V
INPUT RESISTANCE: 100 kohms
We recommend that you confirm system
configuration and critical specifications with
Campbell Scientific before purchase.
Copyright © 1999, 2001
Campbell Scientific, Inc.
Printed September 2001
PS9105 SUBMERSIBLE
PRESSURE TRANSDUCER
FEATURES
n
n
n
n
Low power, passive operation
Small diameter
Double-sealing
316 stainless steel, Viton®
and Teflon® construction
n Polyethylene, polyurethane
and FEP Teflon® cable options
n Competitive pricing,
immediate availability
DESCRIPTION
INW’s patented PS9105 submersible pressure transducer is designed to
provide accurate level measurement in most types of liquid environments.
The PS9105 features the latest in silicon, micro-machined, piezoresistive,
strain gauge technology, and is compatible with a wide range of
measurement and control equipment. A passive ratiometric device with
differential output voltage, its configuration includes low level excitation
(typically 0.8 VDC).
The updated cable harness design reduces the probability of leakage and
protects the cable jacket from damage by providing double-sealing; 316
stainless steel, Viton® and Teflon® construction increases corrosion
resistance. The transducer’s end cone is inter-changeable with a 1/4”
NPT inlet which allows for increased application use, easy hook-up and
field calibration. The modular-designed PS9105 may be easily factory
serviced and repaired.
OPERATION
The PS9105 pressure transducer requires a two-channel datalogger with
one differential and one single-ended or differential output. To obtain the
specified thermal performance, the output voltage is normalized to the
excitation current (I=VR/R). Data is processed within the datalogger and
the results are converted to the desired units of depth or pressure.
PS9105 cable harness design showing
double seal and strain relief.
APPLICATIONS
Due to its rugged construction and proven reliability, the PS9105 is used
successfully to monitor groundwater, well, tank and tidal levels, as well as
for pump testing and flow monitoring.
INSTRUMENTATION
NORTHWEST, INC.
1-800-776-9355
http://www.inwusa.com
PS9105 SUBMERSIBLE
PRESSURE TRANSDUCER
DIMENSIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS
Instrumentation Northwest, Inc.
PS9105
0-30 PSIG
MADE IN REDMOND, WA USA-PATENT# 5,033,297
MECHANICAL
HOW TO ORDER
TRANSDUCER
Body Material
Wire Seal Materials
Desiccant
• Choose the transducer with the required pressure range.
• Determine cable type and specify length.
• Pick the appropriate cable harness.
• For PSIG versions, select a high - or standard-capacity
desiccant chamber or a vent tube protector.
• Contact INW for a full list of accessories.
PS9105 SUBMERSIBLE PRESSURE TRANSDUCER RANGES
3C300
5 PSIG
3C303
50 PSIG
3C301
15 PSIG
3C304
100 PSIA
3C302
30 PSIG
316 stainless steel
Viton® and Teflon®
High- and standard
capacity packs available
Terminating Connector
Weight
Available
.75 pounds
CABLE
Conductor Type
6-conductor
Vent Tube
OD
Break Strength
Maximum Length
Weight
Nylon
0.28” maximum
138 pounds
2000 feet
4 lbs. per 100 feet
ELECTRICAL
PS9105 CABLE OPTIONS
6E499
Non-Vented, HDPE
6E503
Vented, HDPE
6E510
Vented PU
6E519
Vented FEP Teflon®
6E508
Non-Vented PU
PS9105 CABLE HARNESS
3C408
Vented
3C409
Non-Vented
MISCELLANEOUS
6E410
1/4” NPT Adapter Kit
6E457
6E455
Standard-Capacity
Desiccant Chamber
High-Capacity
Desiccant Chamber
6E465
Vent tube Protector
Information in this document is subject to change without notice.
INSTRUMENTATION NORTHWEST, INC.
Sales and Service Locations
14902 NE 31st Circle, Redmond • Washington 98052 USA
(425) 885-3729 • (425) 867-0404 FAX • [email protected]
4620 Northgate Boulevard, Suite 170 • Sacramento, California 95834
(916) 922-2900 • (916) 648-7766 FAX • [email protected]
Linearity/inearity/
Repeatability/
Hysteresis*
±0.25% FSO (maximum)
±0.1% FSO (typical)
Typical Output
15-16 mV/V
Voltage Sensitivity at 20° C
Maximum
Zero Offset at 20° C
3 mV
Common Mode Voltage
Bridge Resistance
at 20° C
Vi/2
4kohm (typical)
Maximum
Temperature Error
(Output normalized
to excitation current)
Thermal Hysteresis
±2.0% FSO
Output will typically return to within ±0.25% FSO of its initial
reading subsequent to one full cycle over the compensated
temperature range
Typical
Excitation Voltage
0.8 volts
Compensated
Temperature Range
0-40° C
Operating
Temperature Range
-5° to 70° C
Over Range Protection
2x Full Scale Range
*Best fit straight line
17423 Village Green Drive • Houston, TX 77040
(713) 983-7623 • (713) 983-7629 FAX • [email protected]
1-800-776-9355
http://www.inwusa.com
PS9800 SUBMERSIBLE
PRESSURE/TEMP. TRANSMITTER
FEATURES
n Industry standard, two-wire,
4-20mA configuration
n Small diameter
n Improved noise immunity
n Optional temperature channel
n 316 stainless steel, Viton®
and Teflon® construction
n Polyethylene, polyurethane
and FEP Teflon® cable options
n Enhanced transient protection
DESCRIPTION
INW’s patented PS9800 submersible pressure transmitter represents the
latest in state-of-the-art level measurement technology. Building on years of
successful experience, this industry standard two-wire, 4-20 mA device
offers improved noise immunity, thermal performance and transient
protection. In addition to reverse polarity protection, under-current and
over-current limitation is featured on both transmitter channels. An optional
4-20 mA temperature measurement is available as a second channel within
the device.
The updated cable harness design reduces the probability of leakage and
protects the cable jacket from damage by providing double-sealing; 316
stainless steel, Viton® and Teflon® construction increases corrosion
resistance. The transmitter’s end cone is interchangeable with a 1/4” NPT
inlet which allows for increased application use, easy hookup and field
calibration. The modular-designed PS9800 may be easily factory serviced
and repaired.
OPERATION
The PS9800 pressure transmitter is powered by a datalogger or control
system. The internal electronic circuit controls the amount of current flowing
through the loop based on the signal from the internal pressure sensor. An
above-surface probe will draw 4 mA and once submerged, the current flow
increases linearly with pressure (or depth). At full-scale pressure (depth),
the transmitter will draw 20 mA. A data acquisition/or control system then
measures this current and computes the pressure or level.
PS9800 cable harness design showing
double seal and strain relief.
APPLICATIONS
Due to its rugged construction and proven reliability, the PS9800 is used
successfully to monitor groundwater, well, tank and tidal levels, as well as
for pump testing and flow monitoring.
INSTRUMENTATION
NORTHWEST, INC.
1-800-776-9355
http://www.inwusa.com
PS9800 SUBMERSIBLE
PRESSURE/TEMP. TRANSMITTER
DIMENSIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS
Instrumentation Northwest, Inc.
PS9800
PS9000
0-30 PSIG
MADE IN REDMOND, WA USA-PATENT# 5,033,297
MECHANICAL
TRANSMITTER
HOW TO ORDER
Body Material
Wire Seal Materials
Desiccant
316 stainless steel
Viton® and Teflon®
High- and standardcapacity packs available
Terminating Connector
Weight
Available
.75 lbs.
• Choose the transmitter with the required pressure range.
• Determine cable type and specify length.
• Contact INW for a full list of accessories.
CABLE
PS9800 SUBMERSIBLE PRESSURE TRANSMITTER RANGES
3C251
5 PSIG
3C256
50 PSIA
3C252
15 PSIG
3C257
100 PSIG
3C253
30 PSIG
3C258
100 PSIA
3C254
30 PSIA
3C275
300 PSIG
3C255
50 PSIG
OD
Break Strength
Maximum Length
Weight
ELECTRICAL
Pressure
Static Accuracy
±0.25% FSO (maximum)
±0.1% FSO (typical)
0.1% available on request.
(B.F.S.L. 25° C)*
PS9800 CABLE OPTIONS
6E540
Vented PU INW Label
6E542
Vented HDPE
Thermal Error
(0-50° C, reference 25° C)
6E543
Vented FEP INW Label
PS9800 MISCELLANEOUS OPTIONS
3C280
Temperature Option
6E400
M6 Connector
Information in this document is subject to change without notice.
0.28” maximum
138 lbs.
2000 feet
4 lbs. per 100 feet
±2.0% FSO (maximum)
±0.8% FSO (typical)
Maximum
Zero Offset at 25° C
±0.5% FSO
Sensitivity Accuracy
at 25° C
±0.25% FSO (maximum)
±0.125% FSO (typical)
Maximum
Temperature Error
±2.0% FSO
Over Range
Protection
2x (except 300 PSIA)
Temperature
Transmitter Voltage
Accuracy
(100 ms warm-up)
INSTRUMENTATION NORTHWEST, INC.
Sales and Service Locations
14902 NE 31st Circle, Redmond • Washington 98052 USA
(425) 885-3729 • (425) 867-0404 FAX • [email protected]
4620 Northgate Boulevard, Suite 170 • Sacramento, California 95834
(916) 922-2900 • (916) 648-7766 FAX • [email protected]
9-24 VDC, 100 ms warm-up
0-50° C >> 4-20 mA
±0.75° C (maximum)
±0.3° C (typical)
Compensated
Temperature Range
0 - 50° C
Operating
Temperature Range
-5° C to 70° C
17423 Village Green Drive • Houston, TX 77040
(713) 983-7623 • (713) 983-7629 FAX • [email protected]
1998 Instrumentation Northwest, Inc. All rights reserved. Instrumentation Northwest and INW are trademark registered with the U.S.
Patent & Trademark Office. Viton  and Teflon  are registered trademarks of the DuPont Company Doc# 6D0009r1 11/98
1-800-776-9355
http://www.inwusa.com
Idaho Power Company
Chapter 5: Hells Canyon MIKE 11 Hydrodynamic Model
Addendum to Hells Canyon MIKE 11 Hydrodynamic Model.
Introduction
This addendum describes additional refinement and calibration of the Hells Canyon Mike 11
model downstream of the Salmon River where DHI’s two-dimensional Mike 21C model has
been applied to four additional study reaches (E.1-4 Chapter 7 Addendum). The Mike 11 model
provides water level and discharge data as input to the open boundaries of the Mike 21C models.
IPC collected water level data using recording pressure transducers (PT’s) from May 2002 to
October 2002 at 14 locations (4 previously existing and 10 additional locations) within these
study reaches to refine the calibration of the Mike 11 model in these areas.
Calibration
Additional water level data was collected and used to refine the Hells Canyon Mike 11 model
calibration in four specific reaches where the Mike 21C model has been applied. The calibration
procedure was conducted in the same manner as explained for the original 36 PT locations as
described in this report in Section 3.
Error Analysis
An error analysis using the procedure described in Section 5 is presented in Table 1 and Table 2.
Table 1 presents analysis results using data from 2002, which covers low to moderately high
discharges. Table 2 presents results from 1999, which had higher discharge conditions than 2002.
The average RMS error for the 14 locations in 2002 is 0.06 m, and the absolute error is 0.05 m.
The average RMS error for the 3 locations in 1999 is 0.10 m, and the absolute error is 0.08 m.
Hells Canyon Complex
Page 69
Project Hydrology and Hydraulic Models
Table 1.
Idaho Power Company
Results of water level error analysis - May 28, 2002 to October 7, 2002
(moderately high and low flow).
Measurements (m) -- Modeled Data
Location
Chainage
Points
RMS Error
Absolute
Avg
Min
Max
Analysis
(m)
Error (m)
CB (Upper)
109984.00
268.11
267.12
270.14
2877
0.07
0.06
CB (Up Mid)
111136.52
267.11
266.30
268.97
3169
0.05
0.04
CB (Low Mid)
111861.94
265.53
264.71
267.51
2717
0.05
0.04
CB (Lower)
113041.44
264.07
263.09
266.40
1330
0.05
0.04
BC (Upper)
132310.58
244.56
243.47
247.91
2683
0.05
0.04
BC (Up Mid)
133121.56
243.78
242.62
246.95
1294
0.08
0.06
BC (Low Mid)
133951.05
243.15
242.10
246.40
1281
0.07
0.06
BC (Lower)
134656.95
242.44
241.00
245.85
1422
0.07
0.05
BE (Upper)
140643.09
239.53
238.74
241.87
2933
0.05
0.05
BE (Mid)
141693.02
238.47
237.44
241.03
3075
0.11
0.10
BE (Lower)
142738.50
237.64
236.71
239.97
3169
0.06
0.05
RB (Upper)
149062.47
232.63
231.47
235.57
2814
0.05
0.04
RB (Mid)
150134.06
232.23
231.12
235.08
3073
0.06
0.05
RB (Lower)
150966.09
232.08
231.03
234.82
3072
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.05
Average
Table 2.
Results of water level error analysis - March 15, 1999 to August 18, 1999
(high flow).
Measurements (m) -- Modeled Data
Location
Points
RMS Error
Absolute
Chainage
Avg
Min
Max
Analysis
(m)
Error (m)
Cougar Bar (Upper)
109984.00
269.53
267.60
271.81
3656
0.06
0.05
Billy Creek*
134069.91
--
--
--
--
--
Buffalo Eddy (Lower)
142738.50
239.19
237.13
242.04
3679
0.08
0.07
Red Bird (Lower)
150966.09
233.91
231.47
236.93
3554
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.08
Average
--
* Billy Creek was not calibrated to the 1999 high flow data because the pressure transducer was not reliable, and was found to have
recorded bad data for an extended period of time. However, the 2002 flows do cover the majority of the elevation changes from
flows that pass by the site.)
Page 70
Hells Canyon Complex