CRiSP1.6 Theory & Calibration Manual: List of Figures

List of Figures

• Fig. 1 CRiSP.1 map of an abbreviated Columbia Basin river system which includes about thirty fish release points and the major dams
• Fig. 2 Dam showing fish passage routes. Fish collected in bypass systems are returned to the tailrace or, in some situations, transported downstream.
• Fig. 3 Diagram of model elements
• Fig. 4 Reservoir mortality processes
• Fig. 5 Main objects for the Flow submodel
• Fig. 6 Hydroregulation model simulated input - Wells, 1981
• Fig. 7 Historic flows at Rocky Reach (next dam downstream from Wells), 1981
• Fig. 8 Spectrogram: eleven year time series
• Fig. 9 Points of flow modulation in system based on Fig. 5
• Fig. 10 Weekly shape pattern
• Fig. 11 O-U shape; r = 0.5, = 13
• Fig. 12 Flows at John Day Dam, 1981
• Fig. 13 January and July flows at John Day Dam, 1981
• Fig. 14 Diagram of reach structure for loss calculation
• Fig. 15 Inputs at Rocky Reach minus inputs at Wells, 1981
• Fig. 16 Random factor modulation at Rocky Reach, 1981
• Fig. 17 Region of regulated F_R and unregulated F_U rivers
• Fig. 18 Pool geometry for volume calculations showing perspectives of a pool and cross-sections; the pool bottom width remains constant while the surface widens in the downstream direction.
• Fig. 19 Reservoir with free flowing and pooled portions
• Fig. 20 Pool elevation vs. volume for Lower Granite and Wanapum pools
• Fig. 21 Water particle travel time vs. flow for CRiSP.1 (points) and Army Corps calculations (lines) at two elevations full pool (0) and 38 ft below full pool for Lower Granite Dam.
• Fig. 22 Movement along axis of segment vs. time. Shown are mean path, three paths, and 95% confidence intervals. For these simulations, r is set at 10 and is set at 20.
• Fig. 23 Plot of eq (44) for various values of t where r = 5, = 8, and L = 100.
• Fig. 24 Fish distribution, p (x, t), at t_j and t _j-1. Size of the shaded area represents probability of fish leaving the segment over the interval t_j - t _{j - 1}
• Fig. 25 Examples of the logistic equation (eq (49)) with various parameter values. In all four plots, the parameter values for the solid curves are: ₀ = 1.0, ₁ = 2.0, = 0.2, and T₀ = 20. In the upper left plot ₀ is varied, and ₁ is varied in the upper right. In the lower left plot, is varied, and T₀ is varied in the lower right.
• Fig. 26 Schematic diagram of a river system. Arrows represent the migration of release groups 1 and 2 through reaches. At the confluence, groups are combined for counting purposes only, i.e they still exhibit their unique migration characteristics.
• Fig. 27 Plots of a single iteration of the travel time algorithm through a single reach. 1000 fish released at the upstream node are distributed through time at the next downstream node. Parameter: r = 10, = 8, L = 100.
• Fig. 28 Elements in reservoir mortality algorithm
• Fig. 29 Equation (63) fit to data from Vigg and Burley (1991) with C_MAX = 8.0, T = 0.40, and T_INF = 16.7. Note that each point represents the mean from 11 to 22 replicates.
• Fig. 30 Predator concentration function at dam
• Fig. 31 Factors in gas bubble disease model
• Fig. 32 Illustration of eq (81), the dissolved gas mortality equation
• Fig. 33 Illustration of fish depth distribution of fish
• Fig. 34 Chinook and steelhead cumulative mortality from gas bubble disease at different levels of TDG supersaturation. Data points from Dawley et al. (1976).
• Fig. 35 Cumulative mortality vs. exposure time to TDG supersaturation for different fish lengths.
• Fig. 36 Mean mortality rate due to TDG supersaturation vs. fish length
• Fig. 37 Fits of mortality rate parameters to mortality rate data corrected for depth and fish length. Data points from Dawley et al. (1976); curve from fit of eq (67). There are extreme points not shown on the steelhead graph.
• Fig. 38 Representation of spillway and stilling basin.
• Fig. 39 Lower Granite (LWG) production values with and without entrainment and observed data (points) at Little Goose Forebay.
• Fig. 40 Little Goose (LGS) production values with and without entrainment and observed data (points) at Lower Monumental Forebay.
• Fig. 41 Rock Island (RIS) production values with and without entrainment and observed data (points) at Wanapum Forebay.
• Fig. 42 Wanapum (WAN) production values with and without entrainment and observed data (points) at Priest Rapids Forebay.
• Fig. 43 A Divided Reservoir
• Fig. 44 Reservoir Gas Dynamics
• Fig. 45 Map of Columbia Basin showing dams, USACE Gas Monitor Stations, and USGS Streamflow Gaging Stations
• Fig. 46 Dam processes showing passage routes and mortality. Forebay delay is further illuminated in Fig. 47.
• Fig. 47 Transfer of fish from reservoir to forebay to dam. Diagram shows allocation of fish from a reservoir time slice of 12 hours to dam time slices of 6 hours each. Mortality is associated with dam and spill passage as well as forebay transit and delay.
• Fig. 48 Cumulative passage versus dam delay in days at Little Goose Dam
• Fig. 49 Critical parameters in fish guidance are fish forebay depth z, screen depth D and elevation drop E. Only fish above z are bypassed. Bypass stops when the surface is below the bypass orifice depth.
• Fig. 50 FGE and fish depth over fish age
• Fig. 51 Multiple powerhouse configuration showing allocation of spill and powerhouse flows.
• Fig. 52 Flow allocation through two powerhouse projects.
• Fig. 53 Routing of fish for calculation of FPE
• Fig. 54 Probability function (pdf) and cumulative function of the broken-stick probability distribution
• Fig. 55 Example of optimization of k_entrain values for 1998 for Wanapum (WAN), Rock Island (RIS), Little Goose (LGS), and Lower Granite (LWG).
• Fig. 56 Spring chinook, modeled vs. observed (NMFS estimated) survivals. The LGR - MCN survivals for 1995 were singled out to highlight the poor behavior of the late season portion of that data.
• Fig. 57 Steelhead, modeled vs. observed (NMFS estimated) survival.
• Fig. 58 Fall chinook, modeled vs. observed (NMFS estimated) survivals. The late season releases have been singled out as have the 1997 releases.
• Fig. 59 Upper Columbia yearling fall chinook, modeled vs. observed (NMFS estimated) survivals. 1998 releases (RLS) are from Rock Island, Rocky Reach and Wells tailraces as well as Rocky Reach forebay. The dotted line is the one-to-one line, the solid line is the linear best fit to the modeled vs. observed plot.
• Fig. 60 Upper Columbia yearling fall chinook, modeled vs. observed (NMFS estimated) survivals from release to John Day Dam. 1998 releases are from Rocky Reach forebay, Rocky Reach, Rock Island, and Wells Dam tailraces.
• Fig. 61 Upper Columbia steelhead, modeled vs. observed (NMFS estimated) survivals. 1999 releases (RLS) are from Rock Island and Rocky Reach Dam tailraces.
• Fig. 62 Upper Columbia steelhead, modeled vs. observed (NMFS estimated) survivals from release to John Day Dam. 1999 releases are from Rocky Reach and Rock Island Dam tailraces.
• Fig. 63 Spring chinook, modeled vs. observed travel times
• Fig. 64 Steelhead, modeled vs. observed travel times
• Fig. 65 Fall chinook, modeled vs. observed travel times
• Fig. 66 Upper Columbia yearling fall chinook, modeled vs. observed travel times for 1997-1998 releases from Wells Dam tailrace.
• Fig. 67 Upper Columbia steelhead, modeled vs. observed travel times for 1989-1999 releases from Rock Island Dam tailrace
• Fig. 68 Systemic flow and temperature changes. Survival from SNAKER (upper Lower Granite Pool) to below Bonneville Dam as a function of increase in flow (kcfs) at the Columbia and Snake headwaters (left) or change in water temperature (°C) (right). The horizontal line shows the base case survival for the release in 1998.
• Fig. 69 Survival as a function of spill fraction held at fixed levels (left) and spill scaled by a fraction (right). The horizontal line shows the base case survival for the release in 1998.
• Fig. 70 FGE at fixed (left) and scaled levels (right). The horizontal line shows the base case survival for the release in 1998.

CRiSP1.6 Theory & Calibration Manual: List of Figures