Appendix B: Temperature Model Scenario Report

THIS DOCUMENT IS SUPPLEMENTAL TO THE ROGUE RIVER BASIN TEMPERATURE TMDL (CHAPTER 2)

Appendix B: Temperature Model Scenario Report December 2008

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY i Appendix B: Temperature Model Scenario Report December 2008

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...... 1 2. System Potential Vegetation ...... 1 3. Simulated Scenarios ...... 3 3.1 Rogue River ...... 3 3.2 Little Butte and North Fork Little Butte Creek ...... 17 3.3 South Fork Little Butte Creek ...... 19 3.4 Antelope Creek ...... 21 3.5 Elk Creek ...... 22 3.6 Evans Creek and West Fork Evans Creek ...... 24 4. Sensitivity Analysis ...... 25 5. Excess Solar Loads in Modeled Reaches ...... 28 6. References ...... 30

Tables

Table B1. Maximum predicted difference between current conditions and NTP and the location of the maximum difference (point of maximum impact)...... 1 Table B2. Summary of the system potential vegetation species compositions, heights, and densities for each Level IV Ecoregion. Ecoregions 9i and 78g were not included because they represent a small portion of the basin...... 3 Table B3. Simulated Scenario Definitions ...... 4 Table B4. Summary of adjustments made to tributaries for the representation of natural conditions...... 10 Table B5. Simulated Scenario Definitions ...... 18 Table B6. Simulated Scenario Definitions ...... 19 Table B7. Simulated Scenario Definitions ...... 21 Table B8. Simulated Scenario Definitions ...... 22 Table B9. Simulated Scenario Definitions ...... 24

Figures

Figure B1. EPA Level IV Ecoregions in the Rogue River Basin ...... 2 Figure B2. Pre-dam relationship (1970 – 1976) between flow upstream of Lost Creek Reservoir (Rogue River below Prospect) and downstream of Lost Creek Reservoir (Rogue River near Mcleod) ...... 5 Figure B3. Pre-dam relationship (1970 – 1976) between river temperature upstream of Lost Creek Reservoir (Rogue River below Prospect) and downstream of Lost Creek Reservoir (Rogue River near Mcleod) ...... 5 Figure B4. Pre-dam seasonal relationships by season between river temperature upstream of Lost Creek Reservoir (Rogue River below Prospect) and downstream of Lost Creek Reservoir (Rogue River near Mcleod) ...... 6 Figure B5. Comparison of measured daily average flow (2003) and predicted ‘no Lost Creek Reservoir’ flow at the headwaters of the model...... 7 Figure B6. Comparison of current hourly stream temperatures (2003) and predicted ‘no Lost Creek Reservoir’ temperatures at the headwaters of the model...... 7 Figure B7. Comparison of DEQ predicted flow without Lost Creek Reservoir and calculated inflows into Lost Creek Reservoir by the Army Corp...... 8 Figure B8. Comparison of current conditions (2003) to the “’No Lost Creek Reservoir’ scenario (current – ‘No Lost Creek Reservoir’) in space and time...... 9 Figure B9. Longitudinal profiles of predicted flows for scenarios which considered flow alterations...... 11 Figure B10. Comparison of NTP model flow for the Rogue River flow near at the mouth with estimated natural flows (OWRD 2002)...... 12 Figure B11. Predictions of Rogue River scenarios based on the July and August median 7 day average of the daily maximum (7-DADM) temperatures...... 13

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ii Appendix B: Temperature Model Scenario Report December 2008

Figure B12. Predictions of Rogue River scenarios based on the difference between ‘current’ and scenario median July-August 7-DADM temperatures...... 14 Figure B13. Comparison of ‘current’, natural thermal potential (NTP) and the biologically based criteria (grey line) at four locations in the Rogue River using the 7-DADM...... 15 Figure B14. Applicable criteria determination in space and time for 2003...... 16 Figure B15 Comparison of current conditions (2003) to the applicable criteria (current – applicable criteria) in space and time...... 17 Figure B16. Longitudinal profiles of predicted flows for scenarios which considered flow alterations on Little Butte / North Fork Little Butte Creek for 8/1/2001...... 18 Figure B17. Predictions of Little Butte / North Fork Little Butte Creek scenarios based on the maximum 7- DADM, July and August, 2003...... 19 Figure B18. Longitudinal profiles of predicted flows for scenarios which considered flow alterations on South Fork Little Butte Creek for 8/1/2003...... 20 Figure B19. Predictions for South Fork Little Butte Creek scenarios based on the maximum 7-DADM, July and August, 2003...... 20 Figure B20. Longitudinal profiles of predicted flows for scenarios which considered flow alterations on Antelope Creek for 8/1/2001...... 21 Figure B21. Simulated maximum 7-DADM, July and August, 2003 for Antelope Creek scenarios...... 22 Figure B22. Longitudinal profiles of predicted flows for scenarios which considered flow alterations on Elk Creek for 8/1/2001...... 23 Figure B23. Predictions for Elk Creek scenarios based on the maximum 7-DADM, July and August, 2003...... 23 Figure B24. Longitudinal profiles of predicted flows for scenarios which considered flow alterations on Evans Creek for 8/1/2003...... 24 Figure B25. Predictions for Evans Creek/West Fork Evans Creek scenarios based on the maximum 7- DADM, July and August, 2003 ...... 25 Figure B26. Sensitivity of the maximum 7-DADM of Rogue River NTP temperatures to various headwater temperatures...... 26 Figure B27. Sensitivity of the maximum 7-DADM of Rogue River NTP temperatures to various tributary temperatures...... 26 Figure B28. Sensitivity of the maximum 7-DADM of Rogue River current condition temperatures to various amounts of withdrawals...... 27 Figure B29. Sensitivity of the maximum 7-DADM of Rogue River ‘restored vegetation’ temperatures to various vegetation heights...... 27 Figure B30. Sensitivity of Elk Creek NTP to variations in headwater and tributary temperatures...... 28 Figure B31. Excess solar load for all of the impaired reaches...... 28

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY iii Appendix B: Temperature Model Scenario Report December 2008

1. INTRODUCTION

Once stream temperature models were calibrated (see Appendix A), several scenarios were simulated by changing one or more input parameters for each of the six calibrated models. The simulated scenarios focused largely on defined system potential vegetation and derived flow mass balances. The largest difference in temperature between current conditions and Natural Thermal Potential (NTP) model results are presented in Table B1. A basic sensitivity analysis was performed on selected waterbodies and parameters to assist in interpreting the uncertainty of the model predictions.

Table B1. Maximum predicted difference between current conditions and the applicable criteria and the location of the maximum difference (point of maximum impact). Greatest excursion from Point of applicable criteria Maximum (maximum 7- Impact (river Waterbody DADM, Δ °C) km) South Fork Little Butte Creek 16.5 0.95 Antelope Creek 14.1 8.3 Little Butte Creek 12.5 0.1 Elk Creek 11.0 2.5 Evans Creek 9.2 15.4 North Fork Little Butte Creek 6.4 0 Rogue River1 2.2 100.4 Rogue River2 -0.3 0 1Rogue River at the time of maximum excursion from the criteria (9/27/2003) 2Rogue River at the time of maximum river temperatures

2. SYSTEM POTENTIAL VEGETATION

System potential vegetation is essentially the mature species composition, height, and density of vegetation that would occur in the absence of human disturbances. System potential vegetation conditions were used in stream temperature modeling scenarios to quantify the impacts of nonpoint source solar radiation loads, and ultimately to develop nonpoint source load allocations for the TMDL.

The Rogue River Basin is large and consists of a variety of unique ecosystems. System potential vegetation height and density was based on EPA Level IV Ecoregions (Thorson et al. 2003), each capable of supporting different types of vegetation (Figure B1). Ecoregions are classified based on multiple parameters, including elevation, climate, soils, vegetative communities, geology, physiography, hydrology, land use, etc. System potential vegetation characteristics for each ecoregion were based on the following previously approved TMDLs with overlapping ecoregions: Lower and Upper Sucker Creek, Lobster Creek, Applegate Subbasin, Umpqua Basin and Bear Creek (Table B2) (see DEQ 1999, 2002a, 2002b, 2004, 2006, and 2007). For ecoregions that don’t overlap with a previously completed TMDL area, characteristics were informed by vegetation descriptions from the Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual (1999) and average of site potential tree heights by watershed provided by Bureau of Land Management (Laurie Lindell 2008, personal communication).

The methodology for applying system potential vegetation in the temperature models was based on the following general rules:

Existing stands of trees were assigned their system potential heights and densities. Existing mature trees were left as-is, while immature tree stands were assigned the appropriate system potential (mature) heights.

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY B-1 Appendix B: Temperature Model Scenario Report December 2008

Non-forested areas which are capable of supporting trees (i.e., clear cuts, fields, recently disturbed areas) were assigned the appropriate mature species composition type.

Areas that are naturally incapable of supporting trees or other shade producing vegetation were left as-is (i.e., barren steep rocky slopes, bedrock outcrops, etc.). Notably, this includes portions of the riparian area along the Rogue River in the “Wild and Scenic” reach identified by the TMDL technical committee which are currently identified as grasses and shrubs. These are areas that have not been actively managed and due to hillside slope, soil and other factors are not predicted to support forests.

Developed areas (i.e., roads, buildings, rail, dams, etc.) were assigned the appropriate mature species composition type.

Figure B1. EPA Level IV Ecoregions in the Rogue River Basin Ecoregion 78a - Rogue/Illinois Valleys 1b - Coastal Uplands 78b - Siskiyou Foothills 1h - Southern Oregon Coastal Mountains 78d - Serpentine Siskiyous 4d - Cascade Subalpine/Alpine 78e - Inland Siskiyous 4e - High Southern Cascades Montane Forest 78f - Coastal Siskiyous 4e 4g - Southern Cascades 78g - Klamath River Ridges 9i - Southern Cascade Slope

78d

78f 1h 4g 1b 4d 78b 78d 78e 78a 78d 78b

78b 78a 78d 9i Completed TMDL 78b 78a

Oregon 78d California 78g

08164Miles

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY B-2 Appendix B: Temperature Model Scenario Report December 2008

Table B2. Summary of the system potential vegetation species compositions, heights, and densities for each Level IV Ecoregion. Ecoregions 9i and 78g were not included because they represent a small portion of the basin. Examples from Oregon Watershed height Ecoregion Vegetation Type Assessment Manual (1999) (m) density 1b Conifer Spruce, Hemlock 41.1 80% Hardwood Alder dominant with maple 27.4 70% Mixed 30.5 75% 1h Mixed Western hemlock, western 48.8 70% redcedar, Port-Orford cedar, grand fir, tanoak, myrtle, red alder 4d Herbaceous plants Arrowleaf groundsel, red mountain 0.2 50% heath 4e Conifer True Fir, Mountain Hemlock and 42.7 70% Lodgepole Pine Mixed Mountain alder and some conifers 14.9 80% 4g Conifer Douglas Fir, true firs and incense 56.4 70% cedar Hardwood Mountain alder 14.9 80% Mixed 35.7 75% 78a Conifer Douglas Fir, Ponderosa pine 46.0 80% Hardwood Red Alder, Cottonwood 28.2 70% Mixed 37.1 75% 78b Conifer Douglas-fir, incense cedar 51.8 80% Hardwood Cottonwood, oak, madrone 29.3 85% Mixed 42.1 70% 78d Mixed Jeffery pine, tanoak, Doug-fir, 36.0 52% white fir Willows Willows, azalea, shrubs 4.6 90% 78e Conifer Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, 53.6 80% incense cedar, white fir Hardwood Oak, madrone 29.3 85% Mixed 42.1 70% 78f Conifer Sitka spruce, western hemlock, 57.0 70% Doug-fir, Port Orford cedar and Jeffery pine Hardwood Alder, myrtle and bigleaf maple 27.4 70% Mixed 42.2 70%

3. SIMULATED SCENARIOS

3.1 Rogue River Table B3 describes the different simulation scenarios for the Rogue River. A further discussion of several of the scenarios is provided below the table.

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY B-3 Appendix B: Temperature Model Scenario Report December 2008

Table B3. Simulated Scenario Definitions “Current” Current Calibrated Condition (see Appendix A for details) System Potential Vegetation (see effective shade figure, system potential “Restored vegetation table and summary of results in the main text of the TMDL Vegetation” document, Chapter 2) No points of diversion (see Appendix A for current representation and main text, Chapter 2 for a summary of the results). This just includes “No PODs” points of diversions determined for the Rogue River mainstem and Big Butte Creek. No Lost Creek Reservoir. Flow and temperature determined through using “No LCR” a regression of pre dam data (see below for discussion) “Restored Tributaries flow and temperature set to estimated natural thermal potential Tributaries” (see below for discussion) Representation without the four small mainstem dams (see below for “No Small Dams” discussion and summary of results in the main text, Chapter 2). Point source flow set to zero (summary of results in the main text, Chapter “No point sources” 2) Natural Thermal Potential: combining the inputs of system potential vegetation, natural flow (i.e. no withdrawals, no Lost Creek Reservoir), “NTP” natural channel form (i.e. no small dams), no point sources and tributaries, headwater discharging natural thermal potential temperatures (summary of results in the main text, Chapter 2)

‘No Lost Creek Reservoir’ Scenario In order to estimate what flow and temperature would have been in 2003 without Lost Creek Reservoir, regressions were developed using pre-dam data. USGS flow and temperature gages have been operating upstream (Rogue River below Prospect) and downstream (Rogue River near McLeod) of the reservoir site since at least 1970 (the dam was completed in 1977). Daily average flow data were used to calculate a regression (Figure B2). As only daily minimum and maximum temperatures were available, the linear regression used 2478 paired minimum and maximum temperature observations between 1970 and 1976 (Figure B3). Parsing the data and using seasonal regressions did not appear to provide better predictive capability (Figure B4). The regression for July – August appears to be heavily influenced by outliers. The non-parsed temperature data was used to derive the relationship for this scenario.

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY B-4 Appendix B: Temperature Model Scenario Report December 2008

Figure B2. Pre-dam relationship (1970 – 1976) between flow upstream of Lost Creek Reservoir (Rogue River below Prospect) and downstream of Lost Creek Reservoir (Rogue River near Mcleod)

1000

100

y = 0.37x1.3384 R2 = 0.9249

10 Rogue River near McLeod discharge (cms) 10 100 1000 Rogue River below Prospect dicharge (cms)

Figure B3. Pre-dam relationship (1970 – 1976) between river temperature upstream of Lost Creek Reservoir (Rogue River below Prospect) and downstream of Lost Creek Reservoir (Rogue River near Mcleod)

Daily Maximum and Minimum Temperatures

20 18 y = 0.9592x + 1.8508 R2 = 0.7074 16 14 12

C) 10 o ( 8 6 4 2 Rogue RiverRogue McLeod near temperature 0 0246810121416 Rogue River below Prospect temperature (oC)

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY B-5 Appendix B: Temperature Model Scenario Report December 2008

Figure B4. Pre-dam seasonal relationships by season between river temperature upstream of Lost Creek Reservoir (Rogue River below Prospect) and downstream of Lost Creek Reservoir (Rogue River near Mcleod)

20 July - August y = 0.3814x + 9.2263 18 R2 = 0.1255 C) o 16

14 March - June 12 y = 0.8318x + 2.4697 R2 = 0.5662 10

8

6 September - November y = 0.9131x + 1.6371 4 R2 = 0.8188 Rogue Rivernear McLeod temperature ( 2

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Rogue River below Prospect temperature (oC)

Using the derived temperature and flow relationships and data from Rogue River below Prospect, daily average flow and hourly stream temperatures for Rogue River at McLeod (the model headwaters) were predicted as if there was no Lost Creek Dam for the 2003 model period (Figure B5 & Figure B6).

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY B-6 Appendix B: Temperature Model Scenario Report December 2008

Figure B5. Comparison of measured daily average flow (2003) and predicted ‘no Lost Creek Reservoir’ flow at the headwaters of the model.

Rogue River near McLeod 7000 200 Measured Predicted 'no dam' 180 6000 160 5000 140 Flow (cms) 4000 120 100 3000

Flow (cfs)Flow 80

2000 60 40 1000 20 0 0 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 2003

Figure B6. Comparison of current hourly stream temperatures (2003) and predicted ‘no Lost Creek Reservoir’ temperatures at the headwaters of the model.

Rogue River near McLeod 20 Measured Predicted 'no dam' 18

16

14

12

10

Temperature (*C) 8

6

4 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 2003

The Army Corp of Engineers provided a second data set of calculated inflows into Lost Creek Reservoir for 2003 (Michael Schneider 2008, personal communication). Both methods of deriving flows predict similar results (Figure B7). The regression in Figure B2 was used for this TMDL because it uses a similar methodology that is used to derive stream temperature.

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY B-7 Appendix B: Temperature Model Scenario Report December 2008

Figure B7. Comparison of DEQ predicted flow without Lost Creek Reservoir and calculated inflows into Lost Creek Reservoir by the Army Corp.

180 Predicted 'no dam' (empirical relationship) 160 Flow into Lost Creek Reservoir 140 120 100 80

Flow (cfs) Flow 60 40 20 0 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 2003

The influence of Lost Creek Reservoir on 7-DADM temperature was further examined by subtracting the “Current” scenario temperatures from “No LCR” scenario temperatures (Figure B8). It appears that during most of the time when the Rogue River temperature exceeds the applicable criteria, operation of Lost Creek Reservoir is resulting in cooler river temperatures. This includes the period during the summer when river temperatures are expected to the warmest. However, it also appears that the operation of Lost Creek Reservoir is contributing to temperature exceedances of the applicable criteria during a portion of the spring and fall.

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY B-8 Appendix B: Temperature Model Scenario Report December 2008

Figure B8. Comparison of current conditions (2003) to the “’No Lost Creek Reservoir’ scenario (current – ‘No Lost Creek Reservoir’) in space and time. The areas shaded red represent times and places when the model predicts that operations of Lost Creek Reservoir are contributing to warmer temperatures and areas shaded blue when resulting in cooler temperatures. The areas designated with a hash pattern are when the model predicts that the current condition temperature exceeds the applicable criteria (Figure B14)

10/27

2 9/7 1.5 1 0.5 0 -0.5 -1 7/19 -1.5 -2 -2.5 -3 -3.5 -4 5/30 -4.5 -5 -5.5 -6 -6.5 -7 4/10 -7.5

0 50 100 150 200 “Restored Tributaries” Scenario In order to provide a better estimate of natural thermal potential, estimates of natural flow and temperature inputs to the Rogue River from the tributaries were derived using a variety of different methods shown in Table B4. Although the Big Butte Creek confluence is approximately 2 km upstream of the model headwaters (USGS gage near McLeod), the calculated amount of withdrawals from the creek was added as a tributary just downstream of the model headwaters.

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY B-9 Appendix B: Temperature Model Scenario Report December 2008

Table B4. Summary of adjustments made to tributaries for the representation of natural conditions.

Tributary Derived natural temperature and flow methodology Big Butte Creek Flow equal to the amount of withdrawals presented in the calibration section. adjustment Temperature equal to NTP headwaters condition

Elk Creek Used TMDL model based on 2001 data (this report) to develop a temperature regression between current and NTP daily average temperatures and residuals. Applied these relationships to 2003 model input when model input exceeded 17 °C; otherwise used 2003 inputs. Applied the average increase in flow at the mouth predicted by the 2001 Elk Creek model under NTP conditions (0.08 cms) to the 2003 input into the Rogue River model from May to October (assumed irrigation season) (Appendix A).

Trail Creek No temperature or flow model available. Decreased May through September temperatures by 2 °C from 2003 inputs based on professional judgment. Used the same flow relationship with Elk Creek as the based model.

Little Butte Creek Used same methodology as Elk Creek (see above) using a temperature model based on 2001 data (this report). Average flow increase is 1.32 cms.

Bear Creek TMDL previously completed using a temperature model based on data from 8/3/1999 (DEQ 2007). Applied the difference at the mouth between the daily maximum temperature under current conditions and under NTP (4.5 °C) to hourly data after May 1. Applied the flow difference from Bear Creek model (1.9 cms) to 2003 flow inputs after May 1. Did not adjust flows or temperature prior to May 1.

Derived flow (d/s of Did not adjust flow or temperature from 2003 inputs Bear Creek)

Evans Creek Used TMDL model based on 2003 data (this report) predictions for NTP and natural flow for available period (July – August). Used the same method as Elk Creek for other times.

Applegate River TMDL previously completed (DEQ 2003). Used the same methodology as Bear Creek for temperature. TMDL did not consider flow in computing NTP. Flow is based on 80th exceedance pertcentile estimated natural flow from Oregon Water Resources Department (2002). The monthly estimates from June – October were linearly interpolated. The minimum flow occurs in September at 1.30 cms.

Derived Flow (at Applied the difference between current and NTP daily average temperatures at Foster Creek) the mouth of Evans Creek (2.8 °C) to 2003 temperature inputs after May 1. No adjustment was made to flows.

Illinois River Applied the difference between the current and NTP daily maximum temperatures from the Applegate model (2.3 °C). No adjustment was made to flows.

Lobster Creek TMDL previously completed using a temperature model based on data from 7/22/1999. Used the same methodology as Bear Creek (a computed 0.9 °C adjustment). No adjustment was made to flows.

“No Low-Head Dams” Scenario There is a series of low-head dams on the mainstem Rogue River within the model reach. These dams have limited storage capabilities but change the hydrodynamics of the river and therefore temperature.

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY B-10 Appendix B: Temperature Model Scenario Report December 2008

Given the limitation of the model, these dams could not be physically represented. Hence, they were represented using a ‘hydraulically similar’ reach by increasing the roughness coefficient until the thermal pattern in the downstream reach was reproduced. The effect of these dams was removed in this scenario by reducing the roughness coefficient for these reaches to the immediate upstream value.

Scenario Results The flows predicted in the different scenarios are presented graphically in Figure B9. The flow predicted in the NTP scenario was corroborated via comparison with a second set of natural flow exceedance percentages estimated by Oregon Water Resources Department (WRD) (2002) (Figure B11). Direct comparison is difficult because WRD’s natural flow estimates are by month for two different flow year types. The mean 2003 August flow at the Rogue River below Prospect gage (which is upstream of Lost Creek Reservoir) corresponds to the 88% exceedance flow. The comparison between model results and WRD estimates of natural flow does not appear to warrant revision to the NTP methodology. The results of the scenarios are presented graphically in Figure B911 & Figure B12. Figure B9. Longitudinal profiles of predicted flows for scenarios which considered flow alterations.

70 8/1/2003 65 No PODs 60 55 Tribs 50 NTP 45 CCC 40 Flow (cms) Flow 35 No LCR 30 25 20 0 50 100 150 200 250 distance from mouth (km)

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY B-11 Appendix B: Temperature Model Scenario Report December 2008

Figure B10. Comparison of NTP model flow for the Rogue River flow near at the mouth with estimated natural flows (OWRD 2002). The estimated natural flows (pink and blue lines) represent the 50% and 80% exceedance stream flow.

10000

1000 NTP model (2003) 50th

Flow (cms) Flow 80th 100

10 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Date

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY B-12 Appendix B: Temperature Model Scenario Report December 2008

Figure B11. Predictions of Rogue River scenarios based on the July and August median 7 day average of the daily maximum (7-DADM) temperatures. The point source scenario is not shown because it is nearly indistinguishable from ‘current’ at the scale below.

27

25 Current No LCR NTP 23 C) o

21 Restored Tributaries No PODs 19 Temperature ( Temperature Restored 17 Vegetation

Low 15 head dams 13 0 50 100 150 200 250 river km

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY B-13 Appendix B: Temperature Model Scenario Report December 2008

Figure B12. Predictions of Rogue River scenarios based on the difference between ‘current’ and scenario median July-August 7-DADM temperatures.

6 C) o

5

No LCR 4

3

2 NTP 1

Low head dams 0

-1 No Point No PODs Restored Sources

Change in Temperature: Current Condition - Scenario ( Scenario - Condition Current ChangeTemperature: in Restored Tributaries Vegetation -2 0 50 100 150 200 250 river km

Comparison to Water Quality Standard The water quality standard for temperature is discussed in detail in Chapter 2. The standard has two criteria and both vary in time and space: the biologically based criteria and Natural Thermal Potential (NTP). Which ever calculated temperature is greater is the applicable criterion. Some simple longitudinal comparisons are presented in Chapter 2. Below, are some additional comparisons of time series (Figure B13) and in space and time (Figure B14 & Figure B15).

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY B-14 Appendix B: Temperature Model Scenario Report December 2008

Figure B13. Comparison of ‘current’, natural thermal potential (NTP) and the biologically based criteria (grey line) at four locations in the Rogue River using the 7-DADM.

Rogue River at Medford WWTP outfall (rkm 210.6) Rogue River downstream of Lost Creek Reservoir (rkm 249) 24 18 NTP 22 NTP

16 ) 20 ) 18 14 biocriteria 16 12 14 biocriteria 12 Current

10 Temperature (*C Current 10 Temperature (*C 8 8 6 6 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Mar A pr May Jun Jul A ug Sep Oc t 2003 2003

Rogue River downstream of Grants Pass (rkm 162.8) Rogue River near mouth (rkm 18)

26 NTP 24 26

22 )

) Current 20 21 18 biocriteria 16 16 14 biocriteria NTP

12 Current Temperature (*C

Temperature (*C 11 10 8 6 6 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Mar A pr May Jun Jul A ug Sep Oc t 2003 2003

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY B-15 Appendix B: Temperature Model Scenario Report December 2008

Figure B14. Applicable criteria determination in space and time for 2003. The thick black line designates application of the biologically based criteria instead of NTP.

10/27 13 18

9/7 Natural Thermal Potential

7/19

e

t

a D

16

5/30 Biologically Based Criterion

18 4/10 13

0 50 100 150 200

river km

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY B-16 Appendix B: Temperature Model Scenario Report December 2008

Figure B15 Comparison of current conditions (2003) to the applicable criteria (current – applicable criteria) in space and time. The areas shaded red represent times and places when the observed temperature is greater than the applicable water quality standard. The numbers within the chart refer to the biologically based criteria (°C).

10/27 13 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 9/7 0 -0.5 -1 -1.5 -2 -2.5 -3 -3.5 18 7/19 16 -4

e -4.5 t

a -5 D -5.5 -6 -6.5 -7 -7.5 5/30 -8 -8.5 -9 -9.5 -10

13 4/10 Rearing / Migration Spawing

0 50 100 150 200

river km 3.2 Little Butte and North Fork Little Butte Creek The Heat Source model was used to predict the influence of various factors on stream temperature (Table B5 and Figure B16 & Figure B17). As seen in Figure B17, the model predicts that at some portions of the stream, nearer the mouth, NTP is the applicable criterion, while closer to the headwaters, the biologically-based criterion applies.

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY B-17 Appendix B: Temperature Model Scenario Report December 2008

Table B5. Simulated Scenario Definitions “Current” Current Calibrated Condition (see Appendix A for details) System Potential Vegetation (see effective shade figure, system potential “Restored vegetation table Band summary of results in the main text of the TMDL Vegetation” document, Chapter 2). Left wetlands and lava flows near the headwaters as-is. No points of diversion or ditch inputs (see Appendix A for current “Flow 1” representation and main text, Chapter 2 for a summary of the results) Scenario “Flow 1” without Fish Lake reservoir. Natural flows were estimated by predicting spring flow into Fish Lake. This was done by subtracting lake outflow from the change in storage and inflow from Cascade Canal (trans-basin transfer via shallow groundwater), averaging “Flow 2” over July and August. This method predicts a natural flow of 0.51 cms (18 cfs). Stream temperature at Fish Lake outfall was assumed to be the same as spring temperatures (8 °C) because the lake is entirely fed by springs. This is likely a conservative estimate because some heating would have occurred between the springs inlet and the current lake outlet. Hyporheic flow percentage was increased based on estimates from Tetra “Hyporheic” Tech (2008) presented in Appendix C Natural Thermal Potential: combining the inputs of system potential vegetation, natural flow (ie Flow 2), natural hyporheic flow and results from “NTP” Antelope Creek NTP and South Fork NTP (summary of results in the main text, Chapter 2). No other adjustments were made to tributary inputs.

Figure B16. Longitudinal profiles of predicted flows for scenarios which considered flow alterations on Little Butte / North Fork Little Butte Creek for 8/1/2001.

3.5

3 Flow 1

2.5

2

1.5 NTP Flow (cms) Flow 2 1

0.5 Current 0 0 102030405060 distance from mouth (km)

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY B-18 Appendix B: Temperature Model Scenario Report December 2008

Figure B17. Predictions of Little Butte / North Fork Little Butte Creek scenarios based on the maximum 7-DADM, July and August, 2003.

28 Current

Hyporheic 23 Flow 1 C ) o

Restored Vegetation 18 biologically based criteron Temperature ( Temperature

Flow 2 13 NTP

8 0 1020304050 river kilometer

3.3 South Fork Little Butte Creek The Heat Source model was used to predict the influence of various factors on stream temperature (Table B6, Figure B18 & Figure B19). The model predicts that at some portions of the stream, nearer the mouth, NTP is the applicable criterion while closer to the headwaters, the biologically-based criterion applies. Table B6. Simulated Scenario Definitions

“Current” Current Calibrated Condition (see Appendix A for details) System Potential Vegetation (see effective shade figure, system potential “Restored vegetation table Band summary of results in the main text of the TMDL Vegetation” document, Chapter 2). Left wetlands and lava flows near the headwaters as-is. No points of diversion or ditch inputs (see Appendix A for current “Flow” representation and main text, Chapter 2 for a summary of the results) Hyporheic flow percentage was increased based on estimates from Tetra “Hyporheic” Tech (2008) presented in Appendix C. Natural Thermal Potential: combining the inputs of system potential vegetation, natural stream flow, and natural hyporheic flow (summary of “NTP” results in the main text, Chapter 2). No other adjustments were made to tributary inputs.

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY B-19 Appendix B: Temperature Model Scenario Report December 2008

Figure B18. Longitudinal profiles of predicted flows for scenarios which considered flow alterations on South Fork Little Butte Creek for 8/1/2003.

0.5

0.45

0.4 NTP 0.35

0.3

0.25

Flow (cms) 0.2 Current

0.15

0.1

0.05

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 distance from mouth (km)

Figure B19. Predictions for South Fork Little Butte Creek scenarios based on the maximum 7- DADM, July and August, 2003.

Current 35

Flow 30 C ) o

Hyporheic 25 Restored Vegetation NTP 20 Temperature ( biologically based criterion 15

10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 river kilometer

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY B-20 Appendix B: Temperature Model Scenario Report December 2008

3.4 Antelope Creek The Heat Source model was used to predict the influence of various factors on stream temperature (Table B7, Figure B20 & Figure B21). The model predicts that, along most of the analyzed portion, NTP is greater than the biologically based criterion of 16oC. In those portions, NTP is the applicable criterion.

Table B7. Simulated Scenario Definitions “Current” Current Calibrated Condition (see Appendix A for details) System Potential Vegetation (see effective shade figure, system potential “Restored vegetation table Band summary of results in the main text of the TMDL Vegetation” document, Chapter 2). No points of diversion (see Appendix A for current representation and “Flow” main text, Chapter 2 for a summary of the results) Natural Thermal Potential: combining the inputs of system potential vegetation and natural flow. Model headwater temperature was decreased because temperatures exceeded the biologically based criteria and there is “NTP” evidence of upstream riparian disturbance. The headwater temperature was set to measurements from South Fork Little Butte Creek (upstream of Beaver Dam Creek), an adjacent watershed, at a point minimum upstream disturbance. No other adjustments were made to tributary inputs.

Figure B20. Longitudinal profiles of predicted flows for scenarios which considered flow alterations on Antelope Creek for 8/1/2001.

0.35

0.3 Flow

0.25 Current

0.2

0.15 Flow (cms)

0.1

0.05

0 024681012 distance from mouth (km)

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY B-21 Appendix B: Temperature Model Scenario Report December 2008

Figure B21. Simulated maximum 7-DADM, July and August, 2003 for Antelope Creek scenarios.

30

Current

25

C ) Flow o

Restored Vegetation 20

Temperature ( NTP 15 biologically based criterion

10 0246810 river kilometer

3.5 Elk Creek The Heat Source model was used to predict the influence of various factors on stream temperature (Table B8; Figure B22 & Figure B23). The model predicts that NTP is the applicable criterion along the entire modeled reach.

Table B8. Simulated Scenario Definitions “Current” Current Calibrated Condition (see Appendix A for details) System Potential Vegetation (see effective shade figure, system potential “Restored vegetation table and summary of results in the main text of the TMDL Vegetation” document, Chapter 2). No points of diversion (see Appendix A for current representation and “Flow” main text, Chapter 2 for a summary of the results) Natural Thermal Potential: combining the inputs of system potential vegetation and natural flow. Model headwater temperature was decreased because temperatures exceeded the biologically base criteria and there is evidence of upstream riparian disturbance. Headwater temperature was “NTP” set to measurements from an upstream site with minimum disturbance (Elk Creek at Al Serena Buzzard Mine). For more discussion of the influence of headwater temperature assumptions, see sensitivity analysis below. No other adjustments were made to tributary inputs.

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY B-22 Appendix B: Temperature Model Scenario Report December 2008

Figure B22. Longitudinal profiles of predicted flows for scenarios which considered flow alterations on Elk Creek for 8/1/2001.

0.16 Flow

0.14

0.12

0.1

0.08 Current

Flow (cms) Flow 0.06

0.04

0.02

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 distance from mouth (km)

Figure B23. Predictions for Elk Creek scenarios based on the maximum 7-DADM, July and August, 2003.

31 Current 29

27 Flow

C ) 25 o

23 Restored Vegetation

21

Temperature ( NTP 19

17 biologically based criterion

15 0 5 10 15 20 25 river kilometer

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY B-23 Appendix B: Temperature Model Scenario Report December 2008

3.6 Evans Creek and West Fork Evans Creek The Heat Source model was used to predict the influence of various factors on stream temperature (Table B9; Figure B24 & Figure B25). The model predicts that at some portions of the stream, nearer the mouth, NTP is the applicable criterion while closer to the headwaters, the biologically-based criterion applies. Table B9. Simulated Scenario Definitions

“Current” Current Calibrated Condition (see Appendix A for details) System Potential Vegetation (see effective shade figure, system potential “Restored vegetation table and summary of results in the main text of the TMDL Vegetation” document, Chapter 2). No points of diversion (see Appendix A for current representation and “Flow” main text, Chapter 2 for a summary of the results) Natural Thermal Potential: combining the inputs of system potential “NTP” vegetation and natural flow. No other adjustments were made to tributary or headwater inputs.

Figure B24. Longitudinal profiles of predicted flows for scenarios which considered flow alterations on Evans Creek for 8/1/2003.

0.3

Restored Flow 0.25

0.2

0.15 Current Flow (cms) Flow 0.1

0.05

0 0 102030405060 distance from mouth (km)

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY B-24 Appendix B: Temperature Model Scenario Report December 2008

Figure B25. Predictions for Evans Creek/West Fork Evans Creek scenarios based on the maximum 7-DADM, July and August, 2003. The ‘Flow’ line is hidden behind the ‘Current’ line upstream of river km 35. Likewise, ‘Restored Vegetation’ is hidden behind ‘NTP’.

30 Current

Flow 25 C ) o

Restored 20 Vegetation biologically based criterion Temperature ( Temperature NTP 15

10 0 102030405060 river kilometer

4. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS The sensitivity of the Rogue River and Elk Creek model results was tested by varying individual parameters (Figure B26 -- Figure B30). The following different scenarios were suggested by the Rogue River TMDL technical committee.

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY B-25 Appendix B: Temperature Model Scenario Report December 2008

Figure B26. Sensitivity of the maximum 7-DADM of Rogue River NTP temperatures to various headwater temperatures.

Sensitivity to headwaters boundary condition Max of the 7-day average of the daily maximums 28

26

C ) 24 o o + 2 C 22

20

18 Temperature (

16 - 2 oC 14 0 50 100 150 200 250 river kilometer

Figure B27. Sensitivity of the maximum 7-DADM of Rogue River NTP temperatures to various tributary temperatures.

Sensitivity to tributary boundary condition Max of the 7-day average of the daily maximums

26

24 + 2 oC C ) o 22 - 2 oC

20

18 Temperature ( 16

14 0 50 100 150 200 250 river kilometer

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY B-26 Appendix B: Temperature Model Scenario Report December 2008

Figure B28. Sensitivity of the maximum 7-DADM of Rogue River current condition temperatures to various amounts of withdrawals. 28 Current condition 26 25% greater use than currnet

24

22 25% le ss use than current

20

Maximum 7-DADM (oC) 7-DADM Maximum 18

16

14 0 50 100 150 200 250 Rive r k m Note: The resulting flow at the mouth varied by ±3.2 cms (110 cfs).

Figure B29. Sensitivity of the maximum 7-DADM of Rogue River ‘restored vegetation’ temperatures to various vegetation heights. 28 Restored Vegetation 26

24

22 Vegetation heights minus 25%

20 Vegetation heights

Maximum 7-DADM (oC) 7-DADM Maximum 18 plus 25%

16

14 0 50 100 150 200 250 Rive r k m

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY B-27 Appendix B: Temperature Model Scenario Report December 2008

The Elk Creek model boundary conditions were changed to reflect a range of upstream temperatures (Figure B30). All sensitivity scenarios were based on the NTP scenario while varying tributary and headwater temperatures. “Current” refers to setting the boundary condition temperatures set at current temperatures. “Upstream” refers to setting the boundary condition temperature to temperatures observed at a site upstream of the model reach with a less disturbed riparian area (Elk Creek at Al Serena Buzzard Mine). “Numeric” refers to setting current temperatures as the boundary condition, however the scenario caps the maximum boundary condition temperature at 16 °C, the biologically based criteria. “Minus 5 °C” scenarios used boundary condition temperatures that were derived by subtracting 5 °C from current. “Springs” refers to setting boundary condition temperatures to 8 °C, equivalent to temperatures of springs in the basin. Although the upstream temperatures of the scenarios varied by 11 °C, the downstream temperatures converged to a smaller range.

Figure B30. Sensitivity of Elk Creek NTP to variations in headwater and tributary temperatures.

23

21 C )

o 19 Current

17 Upstream Numeric 15 Minus 5 o C

13

11 Max 7-DADM Temperature ( 9 Springs 7 0 5 10 15 20 25 river kilometer

5. EXCESS SOLAR LOADS IN MODELED REACHES Excess solar load (time-series and cumulative) is shown in Figure B31 for all of the impaired reaches. Figure B31. Excess solar load for all of the impaired reaches.

Antelope Creek by 100 m reach Antelope Creek, cummulative 8.0E+03 4.0E+05

6.0E+03 3.0E+05

4.0E+03 2.0E+05 kcal/day kcal/day 2.0E+03 1.0E+05

0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0510 0510 river km river km

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY B-28 Appendix B: Temperature Model Scenario Report December 2008

Elk Creek by reach Elk Creek, cummulative 5.0E+04 8.0E+05 7.0E+05 4.0E+04 6.0E+05 5.0E+05 3.0E+04 4.0E+05

2.0E+04 kcal/day 3.0E+05 kcal/day 2.0E+05 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 river km river km

Evans Creek by 100 m reach Evans Creek, cummulative 1.6E+06 1.4E+04 1.4E+06 1.2E+04 1.2E+06 1.0E+04 1.0E+06 8.0E+03 8.0E+05

6.0E+03 kcal/day 6.0E+05 kcal/day 4.0E+03 4.0E+05 2.0E+03 2.0E+05 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0204060 0204060 river km river km

Little Butte and North Fork Little Butte Creeks, Little Butte and North Fork Little Butte 1.4E+06 5.0E+04 Creeks by 200 m reach cummulative 1.2E+06

4.0E+04 1.0E+06 3.0E+04 8.0E+05 6.0E+05 2.0E+04 kcal/day kcal/day 4.0E+05 1.0E+04 2.0E+05 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0204060 0 102030405060 river km river km

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY B-29 Appendix B: Temperature Model Scenario Report December 2008

Rogue River by 200 m reach Rogue River, cummulative 1.0E+05 1.2E+07 1.0E+07 8.0E+04 8.0E+06 6.0E+04 6.0E+06

4.0E+04 kcal/day kcal/day 4.0E+06 2.0E+04 2.0E+06 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 river km river km

South Fork Little Butte Creek by 100 m South Fork Little Butte Creek Creek, cummulative 1.2E+06 1.6E+04 reach 1.4E+04 1.0E+06 1.2E+04 8.0E+05 1.0E+04 8.0E+03 6.0E+05 kcal/day

kcal/day 6.0E+03 4.0E+05 4.0E+03 2.0E+03 2.0E+05

0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0102030 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 river km river km

6. REFERENCES

Department of Environmental Quality (1999). Water Quality Management Plan, Rogue River Basin Illinois River Sub Basin.

Department of Environmental Quality (2002a). Total Maximum Daily Load and Water Quality Management Plan, Lower Sucker Creek, Illinois Subbasin.

Department of Environmental Quality (2002b). Total Maximum Daily Load and Water Quality Management Plan, Lobster Creek, Lower Rogue Subbasin.

Department of Environmental Quality (2003). Total Maximum Daily Load, Applegate Subbasin.

Department of Environmental Quality (2007). Total Maximum Daily Load, Bear Creek Watershed.

Oregon Water Resources Department (2002). Determining Surface Water Availability in Oregon, Open File Report SW 02-002, by Richard M Cooper, Salem, Oregon.

Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (1999). Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual, Appendix A – Ecoregion Descriptions, Salem, Oregon.

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY B-30