time of travel and dispersion study in the …

TIME OF TRAVEL AND DISPERSION STUDY IN THE

ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER BASIN, MAINE

By Gene W. Parker, Gary S. Westerman,Gardner S. Hunt and Gloria L. Morrill

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Water-Resources Investigations Report 83 - 4232

Prepared in cooperation with the

MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Augusta, Maine 1983

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

WILLIAM P. CLARK, Secretary

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Dallas L. Peck, Director

For additional information write to:

U.S. Geological Survey, WRD 26 Canneston Drive Augusta, Maine 04330 (Telephone: (207) 622-8208)

Copies of this report can be purchased from:

Open-File Services Section Western Distribution Branch U.S. Geological Branch Box 25425, Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225 (Telephone: (303) 234-5888)

CONTENTS

Page

Abstract 1Introduction 2

Background 2Purpose and Scope 2Acknowledgments 2

Description of study reach 3Project design 8

Discharge data 8Dye selection and injection 8Dye sampling sites 8

Data collection 10Dye study runs 10

Subreach A 10Subreach B 10Subreach C 10

Sampling techniques 11Dye-concentration measurement 11Water-temperature measurement 12

Analytical techniques 13Concentration versus time 13Presentation of dye data 14

Gulf Island Pond 14Concentration-versus-time curves 14

Dye-curve characteristics 14Percent recovery 15Variance 15Skewness 16

Discharge versus time 16Distance versus time 16Longitudinal dispersion 17

Analysis and discussion 18Subreach A 18Subreach B 18

Mixing in Gulf Island Pond during June 1981 study 26Upper Narrows 26Lower Narrows 26Island section 26Gulf Island Dam section 30Summary 30

Mixing in Gulf Island Pond during September 1981 study 30Upper Narrows 31Lower Narrows 31Summary 31

Subreach C 31Distance versus time 38Longitudinal dispersion 38

Summary 46

111

CONTENTS (continued)Page

Ref er enc gs " "" "" 'h/Appendix A. Isopleths of dye concentration in Gulf Island Pond June 1981 49 Appendix B. Isotherms in Gulf Island Pond June 1981 69 Appendix C. Isopleths of dye concentration in Gulf Island Pond

September 1981 89 Appendix D. Isotherms in Gulf Island Pond September 1981 105 Appendix E. Discharge, dye concentration, and dye mass flow

versus time after injection 123

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figures 1-3 Maps showing:Figure 1. Drainage basin of the Androscoggin River 4

2. Androscoggin River study sites 53. Gulf Island Pond study area 7

Figures 4-13 Plots of:Figure 4. Traveltime versus discharge for

Rumford to East Peru, Maine 205. Traveltime versus discharge for

Rumford to Canton Bridge, Maine 206. Traveltime versus discharge for

Rumford to Riley Dam, Maine 217. Traveltime versus discharge for

Rumford to Jay Dam, Maine 218. Traveltime versus discharge for

Rumford to Livermore Falls, Maine 229. Traveltime versus discharge for

Rumford to Twin Bridges, Maine 2210. Traveltime versus discharge for

Livermore Falls to Twin Bridges, Maine 2411. Traveltime versus discharge for

Livermore Falls to Turner Bridge, Maine 2412. Traveltime versus discharge for

Livermore Falls to Gulf Island Dam, Maine 2513. Traveltime versus discharge for

Livermore Falls to Deer Rips Dam, Maine 25 Figures 14-17 Maps showing:

Figure 14. Upper Narrows section showing cell division 2715. Lower Narrows section showing cell division 2716. Island section showing cell division 2817. Gulf Island Dam section showing cell division 28

Figures 18-26 Plots of:Figure 18. Traveltime versus discharge for

Gulf Island Dam to Deer Rips Dam, Maine 3619. Traveltime versus discharge for

Gulf Island Dam to Survey gage near Auburn, Maine 3620. Traveltime versus discharge for

Gulf Island Dam to Lisbon Falls, Maine 37

IV

ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued)

Page

21. Traveltime versus discharge,Gulf Island Dam to Pejepscot Dam, Maine 37

22. Centroid traveltime versus distanceabove Brunswick, Maine 39

23. Determination of longitudinal dispersioncoefficient in subreach A, June 1980 40

24. Determination of longitudinal dispersioncoefficient in subreach A, September 1980 41

25. Determination of longitudinal dispersioncoefficient in subreach A, April 1981 42

26. Determination of longitudinal dispersioncoefficient in subreach C, April 1981 43

TABLES

Table 1. Physical characteristics of Gulf Island Pond 62. Injection and sample design for

Androscoggin River, Maine 93. Summary of traveltime data from the

Rumford injection site 194. Summary of traveltime data from the

Livermore Falls injection site 235. Time to centroid, Gulf Island Pond, June 1981- 296. Time to centroid, Gulf Island Pond, September 1981 327. Summary of traveltime data from the

Gulf Island Dam injection site 348. Summary of centroid traveltime from

Gulf Island Dam for subreach C 359. Longitudinal dispersion coefficient data 44

Factors for converting International System of Units (SI) to inch-pound units

Multiply SI units By To obtain inch-pound units

meter (m) kilometer (km)

square kilometer (km^)

cubic meter per second (mr/s)

meter per second (m/s)

degree Celsius (°C)

gram (g)

Length

3.2810.6214

Area

0.3861

Flow

35.32

Velocity

3.281

Temperature

°F=9/5°C+32

Mass

0.002205

foot (ft) mile (mi)

square mile

cubic foot per second (ft3 /s)

foot per second (ft/s)

degree Fahrenheit (°F)

pound (Ib)

National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929: A geodetic datum derived from a general adjustment of the first-order level nets of both the United States and Canada, formerly called mean sea level.

VI

ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

C^ - observed dye concentration of T^

CVT - concentration versus time

D - longitudinal dispersion coefficient

**D - Froude number

g - acceleration due to gravity

H - mean depth

L - reservoir length

^ini ~ mass °f dye injected

MVT - mass versus time

PR - percent recovery

Q - average discharge

Qi - discharge at T^

QVT - discharge versus time

r - correlation coefficient

T - time of centroid of a dye cloud

T£ - ith hour after injection

V - mean velocity

X - distance downstream of injection point

A£t - ith time interval (T^+i - T£_i)/2

e - average normalized vertical density gradient

K - skewness

2 - variance

VII

TIME-OF-TRAVEL AND DISPERSION STUDY

IN THE ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER BASIN, MAINE

By Gene W. Parker, Gary S. Westerman Gardner S. Hunt, and Gloria L. Morrill

ABSTRACT

In a series of dye tracer studies at discharges ranging from 45 to 212 cubic meters per second, time of travel and dispersion characteristics were determined at 12 sampling sites along 123 kilometers of the Androscoggin River, Maine (Rumford to Pejepscot Dam). Dye-cloud centroid traveltimes ranged from approximately 120 hours at high discharges to 410 hours at flows approaching 95 percentile duration. Longitudinal dispersion coefficients ranged from 21.3 to 76.7 square meters per second.

In the 37.2-kilometer reach of unsteady flow from Gulf Island Dam to Pejepscot Dam, the concept of mass flow versus time was applied to relate centroid traveltime to average discharge at five sites. This information was used to develop traveltime versus discharge relationships, traveltime versus distance relationships, and longitudinal dispersion coefficients.

In Gulf Island Pond, a 70.4 million-cubic-meter impoundment, three complete dye clouds were traced. The range of observed centroid traveltimes was 110 hours at a mean discharge of 84 cubic meters per second to 260 hours at 59 cubic meters per second. Traveltimes are dependent upon reservoir stratification and mixing as well as discharge. During 1981, inflowing dye-tagged water at 19.0 and 19.5 degrees Celsius was observed to seek its own temperature density level during movement along the thalweg.

INTRODUCTION

Background

The U.S. Geological Survey entered into a cooperative program with the Maine Department of Environmental Protection in October 1977 to:

1) Evaluate and describe traveltime and dispersion characteristics ofselected streams with known or potential water-quality problems; and

2) use the information gathered to calibrate and verify models thatsimulate the effects of waste loading to the stream.

The Androscoggin River was one of the streams selected as part of this program.

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this report is to describe the time of travel and dispersion in the reach of the Androscoggin River between Rumford and Pejepscot Dam, Maine. The report also describes the mixing patterns of inflow within Gulf Island Pond, Maine. Time of travel and dispersion were defined by:

1) time versus dye concentration curves in steady flow reaches;2) in reaches having unsteady flow, dye mass flow versus time curves;3) longitudinal dispersion coefficients; and4) stratification patterns in Gulf Island Pond.

Eight dye tracer studies were conducted through three subreaches (123 kilometers) of the Androscoggin River. The studies were conducted during the periods of no ice cover during 1980 and 1981. Four of the eight studies were conducted through Gulf Island Pond.

Acknowledgements

For their assistance in both the office and the field, at all stages of the project, the authors are indebted to several individuals from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Alfred C. Lavallee was an integral part of the planning and review process, James Jones provided expertise in field operations, and Carolyn Rand provided valuable secretarial services.

DESCRIPTION OF STUDY REACH

The Androscoggin River begins at the outlet of Umbagog Lake on the Maine-New Hampshire border and flows 259 km through New Hampshire and Maine to the tidal waters of Merrymeeting Bay at Brunswick, Maine (New England-New York Inter-Agency Committee, 1954) (fig. 1). Total drainage area is 9,127 km^ (Fontaine, 1979), and the drop in elevation from Umbagog Lake to Brunswick is 379 m.

The flow of the Androscoggin River is extensively regulated by numerous dams, both on the river itself and on its tributaries. The existing dams essentially control all but peak flows in the basin. Over 90 percent of the present storage capacity is in the headwaters of the basin above the outlet of Umbagog Lake at Errol, New Hampshire. Downstream from Errol, the largest storage source is Gulf Island Pond formed by Gulf Island Dam, built in 1928 near Lewiston, Maine. Gulf Island Pond accounts for 3.5 percent of the usable storage in the basin (New England-New York Inter-Agency Committee, 1954).

The section of the Androscoggin River under study extends from Rumford to Brunswick, Maine and includes nine impoundments (fig. 2). Low hills and broad valleys characterize the basin along this stretch of the river. The surficial geology is sand, gravel, and marine silts and clays overlying till and bedrock. The streambed is generally covered with a deposition of silt-sized organic matter, although there are some reaches with clean bedrock exposures. The climate in the study area is temperate with an average annual temperature around 5.5°C. The average annual precipitation is 1070 mm with snowfall averaging nearly 2030 mm.

The Geological Survey operates 11 gaging stations in the Androscoggin River basin. In addition, continuous water-quality data is collected at two sites in the basin. Location, flow, and water-quality data for these sites are published in the Survey annual data reports for Maine. Two gaging stations are located within the study area on the main stem of the Androscoggin River. The site in Rumford has an average flow of 105 TBT/B with 88 years of record. The site in Auburn has an average flow of 174 m^/s with 52 years of record.

Over the entire 130.8 km study reach, channel geometry and general hydrologic characteristics differ considerably. If dye clouds were passed through the entire reach, they would be irregularly dispersed, making data inconclusive and difficult to interpret. In addition, the logistics and manpower requirements for 130-km dye runs would be prohibitive. Therefore, the study reach was divided into three more homogeneous and manageable subreaches that would allow reasonable interpretation of dye-tracer data. The subreaches are: (A) Rumford to Twin Bridges, (B) Livermore Falls to Deer Rips Dam, and (C) Gulf Island Dam to Brunswick. See figure 2. The overlap between subreaches A and B (Livermore Falls to Twin Bridges) and B and C (Gulf Island Dam to Deer Rips Dam) enabled accumulation of traveltime data from adjacent subreaches.

45° 00'-

44°001 '

7I°00'

I70° 30' 70°00'

/ I/ MAINE ^

rf\ 1

>m^ f^'r*

/NEW V /HAMPSHIRE y LOCATION

' - X DIAGRAM

- 45»00'

.44° SO1

- Drainage boundary

- Area shown in figure 2

- - Area shown in figure 3

10 20 Kilometers

44° OO'

0 4 8 12 Miles

i n°oo' 70° 30' 70° 00'

Figure 1.--Drainage basin of the Androscoggin River

70° 30' 70° 19' 70° 00'

44° 30'-

44»00"~

01055000

RUMFORD OI054500K

Rumford Power Plant

Jay DamLIVERMORE FALLS

Livermore Falls Dam

Lower Narrows SectionIsland Section

Island ulf Island Dam Section

Deer Rips Dam

LISBON CENTER

LISBON FALLS

B

EXPLANATION

A\"" Stream Reach

010550000 Gaging Station and Numbe?

Sampling Site

Injection Site

O Gaging Site

!P 15 20

10

25 Kilometers 01059400

~\5 Miles 8RUNSWICK-BATH

-44»00'

70e W' 70° 00'

Figure 2.--Androscoggin River study sites

5

Subreach B is of particular interest because of the unique hydrologic aspects of Gulf Island Pond. The pond, formed by Gulf Island Dam (fig. 3), is used primarily for hydropower generation with depths in some sections of the pond exceeding 20 m. Gulf Island Pond has 3 m of usable head, but is usually operated in a manner such that weekly inflow equals outflow. Selected physical characteristics of the pond are given in table 1.

The flow conditions in subreach C are unique from those of the other subreaches because of the amount of regulation of Gulf Island Dam. Within subreach C, hourly changes in discharge of 57 m^/s, as measured at the Survey gage near Auburn, are not unusual during medium-and low-flow conditions.

Table 1. Physical characteristics of Gulf Island Pond

Normal pond elevation: 79.9 m*Length: 23.3 kmCapacity: 70,400,000 m3Surface area: 11.1 km2Drainage area: 7415 km2Mean width: 476 mMaximum depth: 22.9 mMean depth: 6.4 m Mean annual residence time: 5 days

* Above the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929

LIVERMORE /

EXPLANATION

Center «f Ch*nn*l

-- T*»n Boundary

Bcmpllne Bit*

01065600,(2) Qcglng Blttl

Q Ocging Bit

ion

123456

AUBURN

Quit Itlind Dim B«c

D««r Ript Dam

Figure 3.--Gulf Island Pond study area

PROJECT DESIGN

Discharge Data

Target discharges of 190, 120, and 50 m3 /s (25, 50 and greater-than- 90 percentile flow durations) were selected. These discharge values range from average annual discharge to mean 7-day, 10-year low flow at the Survey gage on the Androscoggin River near Auburn, Maine (01059000) 10.6 km downstream of Gulf Island Dam. Although this gage was selected as the principal reference or index gage for the study area, the regulation of flows at Gulf Island Dam required the use of the Survey gage at Rumford (01054500) as the index gage for subreach A and subreach B above Gulf Island Dam.

In addition to continuous discharge records from the permanent Survey gages, hourly discharges at Gulf Island Dam were provided by Central Maine Power Company. The records were supplemented with measurements at temporary sites as indicated in table 20. Discharge at each of the ungaged dye sampling sites (fig. 2) was estimated from discharges determined at nearby permanent and temporary gaging sites on the Androscoggin River with adjustments for intervening drainage area. Adjustments in discharge were based on runoff per square mile as computed from discharges determined at nearby gaged tributaries. River distance and drainage area for selected gaged and ungaged sites on the Androscoggin River and its major tributaries are also listed in table 2.

Dye Selection and Injection

Rhodamine WT* dye in 20-percent solution was used as the tracer. This dye was selected because of its miscibility in water, fluorescence, availability, conservancy, and detectability at very low concentrations. Once subreach boundaries were determined, the amount of dye required to produce a peak concentration of 5 yg/L at the end of the subreach was calculated according to methods outlined by Kilpatrick (1970).

Dye injection points were selected for each subreach: For subreach A, through the wastewater treatment diffuser of the Boise-Cascade paper mill in Rumford; for subreach B, through the active turbines of the Livermore Falls hydroelectric dam; for subreach C, at the outfall of Gulf Island Dam. It was anticipated that the turbulance created at these sites would contribute to quicker tranverse mixing of the dye before reaching the first downstream collection site.

Dye Sampling Sites

Fixed sites for dye data collection were selected and site suitability was confirmed by field reconnaissance. Sites selected are shown in figure 2 and are detailed in table 2.

1 Use of the brand name in the report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey.

Table

2.--

Inje

ctio

n an

d sample d

esig

n for An

dros

cogg

in R

iver

, Maine

Geological

Survey

Rive

rDrainage

Actual T

est

reaches

Dist

ance

" Area

Site N

ame

Stat

ion number

(km)

Survey G

age

at R

umfo

rd

0105

4500

Survey G

age

at Swift

River

near

Rox

bury

01

0550

00

Dixfield

Webb R

iver n

ear

Dixf

ield

East Peru

Cant

on B

ridge

Riley

Dam

Jay

Dam

Livermore

Falls

Dan

Twin

Bri

dges

Survey G

age

on N

ezinscot R

iver

at T

urne

r Center

01055500

Turn

er B

ridge

Uppe

r Narrows

Sect

ion

Lowe

r Na

rrow

s Se

ctio

nIsland S

ecti

onGulf Island Dam S

ecti

onGulf I

sland Dam

Deer R

ips

Dam

Survey G

age

on L

ittle An

dros

cogg

inRi

ver ne

ar Aub

urn

01058500

Survey g

age

near

Aub

urn

0105

9000

Saba

ttus

River ne

ar L

isbon

Cent

erLisbon F

alls

Pejepscot

Dam

Survey Water Q

uali

ty g

age

near B

runs

wick

01

0594

00

? Ri

ver

dist

ance

atove t

ide

effect (O.lkm below mo

st

130.

8

130. 5b

122.

8,

122.5°

111.

2 106.5

97.3

93.2

88.5

68.6

61. 5b

57.6

53.4

49.5

47.6

45.1

44.9

42.8

36. 9b

34.3

,17

.5°

13.2 7.7

0.1

downstream

!?4- AW*

(km-

)

5,356

251

5,70

8 300

6,38

7 6,

444

6,465

6,835

438

-- -- -- -- --7,415

7,420

850

8,45

118

88,759

8,860

8,894

1980

May

Aug.

Sept .

I S S S S S,I

I S S S SI

SS,S

S S

S S S S S S (1)da

m at

Brunswick,

rw«

Mi

S S S s S S (1)Maine.)

O/-£*1 QTlASYItC

/I"!

1981

Apr

. June

I S S (1) S S

IS

S S S S S SI

SS

S

S S

S S

S S

S S

c/-V

i*3Y

*rr£

i moo c*

Sept

.

I S S S S (2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

i TVOYnont* c

Remarks

Qr Qr,

Qr

Qr,

Qn

Qn Qr Qr,

L, L, L, L, L, OP Qr,

Qr,

Qr,

(3)

Qn

ma/lo

t

t t Qn V V V, (3)

V, (3)

t (3)

t

(1)

Samp

ler

failure

I Injection

site

(2)

Large

increase in

flo

w S

Sample s

ite

(3)

Site a

dded i

n 1981

Qr D

ischarge r

ated s

ite

V Vertical sa

mpli

ng

Qp

Disc

harg

e pr

ovid

edt

Tributary

L La

tera

l sampling

DATA COLLECTION

Dye Study Runs

Subreach A

Three dye injections were made in subreach A at 74, 45, and 204 nrVs in May 1980, September 1980, and April 1981, respectively. These flows are at 79, 91, and 24 percentile flow durations based on the survey gage at Rumford record. All three dye clouds were observed at Twin Bridges, thereby providing an overlap with subreach B. No data from the April 1981 run are available for Riley Dam due to sampler failure. All three clouds were observed at all the other sampling sites in the reach.

Subreach B

A total of four dye injections were made through subreach B. The first two dye studies were made in May and August 1980 at 113 and 57 m^/s, corresponding to 54 and 87 percent duration. The last two dye studies were made in June and September 1981. The June study was made during a flow of 127 m^/s (flow duration of 47 percentile), and dye was observed at all study sites in subreach C as well as subreach B. The flow was 85 nrVs when the September dye injection was made (a flow duration of 74 percentile). The entire dye cloud was observed at Twin Bridges, Turner Bridge, Upper Narrows, and Lower Narrows sites. A flood wave of peak 901 m^/s at the Survey gage near Auburn passed through the study reach on September 24, 1981 effectively flushing the dye cloud through the remainder of the reach. For this reason, data analysis was only done for the first two sites in subreach B.

Subreach C

Five dye clouds were followed through subreach C. Four of the clouds originated at Livermore Falls on May 1980, August 1980, June 1981, and September 1981. The fifth injection in April 1981 was made at Gulf Island Dam with a constant discharge of 190 nrVs at the 26 percentile flow duration based on the survey gage near Auburn record. Repeated equipment problems experienced at Brunswick, combined with major hydrologic changes due to redevelopment of a hydroelectric dam at Brunswick, rendered all data from the subreach downstream of Pejepscot of questionable value. Brunswick data are, therefore, not included. The leading edge of the September 1981 dye cloud injected in subreach B was observed at all sites in subreach C but a complete data set of information could not be collected due to the extreme increase in discharge that occurred as noted before.

10

Sampling Techniques

Water samples were collected at 17 sites in the entire reach to be analyzed for dye concentration (fig. 2). At East Peru, automatic syringe samplers which draw from the uppermost 0.1 m of the water column were used. During the 1980 study runs, samplers were placed at two evenly spaced points laterally in the channel; however, during the 1981 study run, the syringe samplers were placed approximately 5 m from the left shore as high flows prevented placement further into the mainstream. The other use of automatic syringe samplers at Turner Bridge, Upper Narrows, and Lower Narrows are detailed by Parker and Hunt (1983). In general, at bridge sampling sites (Canton Bridge, Twin Bridges, Turner Bridge) automatic pumping samplers were spaced evenly across the section and set to collect water at a depth of 1 m. At dam sampling sites, samples were collected by automatic pumping samplers at either the outfall (Jay Dam, Gulf Island Dam, and Deer Rips Dam) or at active intake points (Riley Dam, Livermore Falls Dam, Pejepscot Dam). At Auburn, Lisbon Falls, and Brunswick samples were collected at 3 to 9 m from shore, as necessitated by flow fluctuations, again by automatic pumping samplers. Sampling periods range from 15-minute intervals to 6-day intervals.

During the 1980 studies, movement of the dye cloud through Gulf Island Pond was determined from a boat moving generally along the thalweg (Parker and Hunt, 1983). This sampling scheme did not account for the lateral distribution of dye at specific sites. During the two 1981 study runs, a different approach was used for dye measurement as a result of the previous years experience. Sampling points were located laterally and vertically at four cross sections: Upper Narrows, Lower Narrows, Island, and Gulf Island Dam sections. Each sampling section was identified with an anchored marker buoy.

At each sampling location, water was pumped from specific depths through a fluorometer equipped for flow-through measurements. Concentration values were recorded once the fluorescence readings stabilized. Water temperature was also recorded for later correction of dye concentration to a base temperature.

"x Dye-Concentration Measurement \

Water samples were analyzed in the field for dye concentration using a fluorometer equipped with either a flow-through system or 40-ml discrete sample cuvette. The instrument was supplied with a constant voltage source. The fluorometer was calibrated at the beginning and end of each work shift. Due to the large volumes needed, different lots of dye were used in each injection. Dye-concentration standards were not made from composites of the various dye lots. However, variation in concentration of less than 10 percent was observed in the standards prepared throughout the study period. During the 1980 study run, no samples were retained for reanalysis. During the 1981 studies, a single sample was saved for each site, from each set collected during a sampling period, to be reanalyzed later in the laboratory. Of each set collected, water temperature was recorded of the first, middle, and last sample as well as the retained sample. The retained sample was reanalyzed at a base temperature to determine the correction needed to standardize field concentration readings.

11

Water-Temperature Measurement

Water temperature was measured at Turner Bridge, Upper Narrows section, Lower Narrows section, Island section, and Gulf Island Dam section. The data are summarized in appendixes B and D. At Turner Bridge, a monitor recorded water temperature at 2 and 6 m above the stream bed in the center of the channel from May 27 to October 8, 1981. The maximum recorded difference in temperature between the two levels was 1.5°C on August 2 and 3. In general, the difference was less than 0.5°C over the depth. The complete record for Turner Bridge is reported in U.S. Geological Survey (1982). At Upper Narrows, Lower Narrows, Island, and Gulf Island Dam sections, water temperature was measured at the same points and depths in the cross section as were the dye concentrations.

12

ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES

Concentration Versus Time

The primary analytical procedure selected to interpret dye concentration measurements was CVT (concentration versus time) curves. Dye concentrations were plotted against time since injection for a point on the river. A smooth curve was drawn through the plotted points, compensating for background fluorescence and occasional anomalies. From the curves, the elapsed time of each of three important features of the dye cloud was determined for each study site. The features are:

Leading edge - arrival of dye at the sampling point;Peak - maximum dye concentration at the sampling point; andTrailing edge - point on the dye cloud tail equal to 5 percent

of the peak concentration at the sampling point.

The elapsed time to a fourth feature was determined by one of two methods as discussed by Parker and Hunt (1983):

Centroid - the center of mass of the dye cloud between the leading and trailing edges.

In the first method used to describe centroid in reaches having steady flow, the CVT curve provides the necessary information. Integrating the curve according to equation 1 provides centroid arrival time (f ) :

/TE/ T.C.dt

* JLE 1 1T = (1)

where: T^ = the i fc^ hour since injection;G£ = observed dye concentration, in ug/L;dt = change of time between observations;LE = time of leading edge; andTE = time of trailing edge.

In the second method, used for unsteady flow conditions, observed concentrations must be weighted according to discharge to obtain an accurate dye mass flow representation. MVT (mass versus time) curves are thus created and, by integrating according to equation 2, enable determination of centroid arrival time of the mass for unsteady conditions 2 :

;TE"HE

(2)

where: Qf = instantaneous discharge in m^/s.

2 See Parker and Hunt (1983) for more detail.

13

Presentation of Dve Data

Gulf Island Pond

Isopleths of dye concentration depicting the data collected during the June and September 1981 studies are presented in appendixes A and C. The span of time after each injection for which samples were collected is given on each figure.

Concentration-Versus-Time Curves

Measured dye concentrations at each sampling site were plotted against time since injection for each dye study run. Background levels were determined from samples collected ahead of the arrival of the dye cloud and were generally less than 0.2 ug/L. All individual-site CVT curves are shown in Appendix E, figures E-l through E-6. In figures E-2 and E-3, the peak concentrations for East Peru are lower than those for the next downstream site, Canton Bridge. The lower concentrations are probably due to sampler location and malfunction problems rather than lack of complete transverse mixing. Comparison of CVT curves developed for two points at the East Peru cross-section indicated that mixing was complete. At sites where discharge is constant, the CVT and MVT curves are identical. However, at Gulf Island Dam, Deer Rips Dam, Survey gage near Auburn (01059000), Lisbon Falls, and Pejepscot Dam, where flow can be unsteady, differences between the CVT and MVT curves are apparent (figs. E-7 through E-12). In figures E-7 through E-12, computer-drawn segmented curves of discharge, dye concentration, and dye mass flow at discrete times are shown using a common time axis for ease of comparison. The 1980 dye runs for subreaches B and C are presented by Parker and Hunt (1983).

Dve Curve Characteristics

An important dye curve characteristic is the total dye mass observed having passed a fixed point. If the dye mass is not conserved along the length of the river, the assumption that river water is not exchanged with ground water and with dead zones in the streams may be in question. Therefore the simple techniques of analyzing the data would be too inaccurate to be used. Errors in discharge and dye measurements that may make it seem that dye is lost or gained are independent of non-conservancy due to hydrologic reasons.

14

Percent Recovery

One method to determine if dye is conserved is to compute the PR (percent recovery). PR is defined as the mass of dye in the dye cloud divided by the mass of dye injected. Computational equations, for unsteady and steady flow respectively, are as follows .

PR = 0.36 (3)M.

TE2 C.A. ti-LE 1 1 ( 4 )

and: PR = 0.36 - M . . mj

where: Aj.t = i th interval (T^+i ~ T£_i>/2;**ini = mass injected; and0.36 = constant necessary for PR to be non-dimensional.

Variance

Variance of a CVT or MVT curve is a measure of distribution of the dye concentration or mass about the centroid. The variance ( a ) i fi defined by:

Where flow is constant, equation 5 becomes:

E" (T -T)' C A t ^r : (5)

These are explained in more detail in Parker and Hunt (1983)

15

Skewness

The skewness (K) of a CVT or MVT curve is a measure of asymmetry of a dye cloud and is defined as:

K = (7)

Where flow is constant, equation 7 reduces to:_ 3

TE (T.-T) c .A. t \ ^ v i ' 11K = y (8)For a symmetrical curve, the peak concentration or dye mass arrives at the

same time as the centroid. Where the dye distribution is non-symmetrical (values of skewness other than zero), differences between centroid and peak arrival times will be observed.

Discharge Versus Time

Once a dye cloud is well mixed, observed traveltimes can be correlated with discharge to produce unique QVT (discharge versus time) relationships for each sampling site on a reach. Once developed, these relationships are useful for estimating times of travel at discharge levels other than those encountered during the dye studies. As with a CVT curve analysis, the steadiness of discharge during each study run is a factor in how reliable a QVT relationship would be. In the case of cyclic, unsteady flow, a QVT relationship between dye study runs can be made when the time period of the cloud is longer than that of the cyclic flow. In this instance, the mean discharge observed for a cycle period at any point on a reach would be representative of the whole reach. A reliable QVT relationship can then be developed from MVT centroid traveltimes although not for the other cloud characteristics. The combination of a storm event and a short period dye cloud would not be as simple to analyze. Considering these conditions, a centroid traveltime could be determined for the resulting MVT curve developed for a sampling site, but the mean discharge would not be representative of the whole reach.

Distance Versus Time

One method of summarizing time-of-travel data is to plot the traveltime of centroids versus the distance of each sampling point below the injection site at several discharges. From this relation, traveltimes can be estimated for any portion of a reach. Estimation of traveltime at flows other than for those measured can also be made by interpolation. Mean reach velocity estimates can be made by determining the inverse of the slope of the distance-versus-time plots.

16

Longitudinal Dispersion

When a tracer is injected into a reach, three-dimensional mixing begins. Vertical mixing is usually completed first with transverse mixing completed next some distance downstream from the injection site. Longitudinal mixing continues downstream reducing the peak concentration and lengthening dye cloud with ever increasing distance. After an initial period where advection dominates dispersion, the longitudinal dispersion coefficient (D) is a measure of this process (Taylor, 1954). Using Taylor's hypothesis, D may be determined empirically during the dispersive period by (Tsai and Holley 1979):

D =V 3 Aaj;

2AX(9)

where: X = distance downstream of the injection point; andV = mean subreach velocity determined by the slope of the least

squares regression time of T against X.

Numerically, D is the slope of the least square line formed by plotting V 3 a 2 /2 versus X for each sampling site.

17

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

Subreach A

This subreach is characterized by relatively steady flows and short traveltimes. Four run-of-river dams in this subreach provide very limited storage capacity. Because discharge is relatively steady, equation 1 was used to calculate the dye cloud centroid time. These calculations for subreach A are summarized in table 3. The measured dye curves are shown in appendix E, figures E-l through E-3.

QVT curves for the reach originating at Rumford are presented in figures 4 through 9. The apparently linear QVT relationship over a discharge range of 45 to 212 nr*/s for the entire subreach indicates that traveltime can be predicted with confidence. Similarly, the linear aspect of the individual curves indicates that the dye cloud disperses uniformly with changes of discharge.

Subreach B

The Gulf Island Pond has a considerable effect on dye movement through reach B. The dye-tagged water is slowed as it enters the reservoir and is diluted. Thermal stratification determines the path and speed of a dye cloud through the pond. The velocity is also affected by the discharge at the dam.

The regulation of flow at Gulf Island Dam requires that a MVT curve be developed for each study run at those sites downstream of Gulf Island Dam. See appendix E, figures E-7 through E-12. The time to centroid was determined using equation 2. Table 4 presents a summary of time-of-travel data for this subreach.

The QVT relationships for this subreach are presented in figures 10 through 13. Cloud characteristics versus discharges at two sites upstream of Gulf Island Dam are shown in the normal fashion in figures 10 and 11. Gulf Island Dam and Deer Rips Dam data are presented differently due to the following reasons:

(1) Because of daily and seasonal changes in water temperature, the dye cloud followed different routes through Gulf Island Pond staying in the upper layers during May 1980 and dropping to the bottom layers during the August 1980 and June 1981 study runs.

(2) Regulation at Gulf Island Dam produced unsteady discharge conditions at Gulf Island Dam and Deer Rips Dam.

In figures 12 and 13, MVT centroid times are shown. Other cloud characteristics cannot be related to discharge for reasons previously mentioned. Additionally, irregularities in traveltime through the pond (reason 1 above) create uncertainty in the QVT relationships as shown in figures 12 and 13. The relation represented by the data has been indicated with a solid line. Interpolation from the relationships developed for these sites downstream of Gulf Island Pond should be limited, with reliance primarily on centroid traveltimes as rough approximations.

18

Table

3.--

Summ

ary

of t

rave

l time d

ata

from t

he R

umford i

njection s

ite

Elap

sed

time

from

injection t

o:River

aSampling

Site

East P

eru

Canton B

ridg

eRiley

Dam

Jay

Dam

Livermore

Fall

sTwin B

ridg

es

distance

Disc

harge

(Km)

111.

2106.5

97.4

93.2

88.5

68.6

(m3/s)

74b

76b

76h

79b

79

Leading

edge

(h)

7.0

10.8

21.5

26.8

33.5

49.0

Peak

(h)

June

10.4

13.6

24.9

31.5

39.4

57.0

Centre id

(h)

1980

11.6

14.7

26.3

32.8

40.6

59.1

Trai

ling

Edoe

(h)

15.8

20.7

34.3

41.7

49.9

74.4

Perc

ent

reco

very

40 72 61 51 52 55

Variance

(h2)

2.3

3.2

6.8

6.1

11.5

25.4

Skewness

0.7 .6 .7 .6 .5 .7

Sept

embe

r 1980

East P

eru

Canton B

ridg

eRiley

Dam

Jay

Dam

Live

rmor

e Falls

Twin B

ridges

East P

eru

Canton B

ridge

Rile

y Dam

Jay

Dam

Livermore

Fall

sTwin B

ridg

es

111.

210

6.5

97.4

93.2

88.5

68.6

111.

210

6.5

97.4

93.2

88.5

68.6

a Ri

ver

dist

ance

above

45b

45h

45b

48h

48b

48 204b

204b

207.

207b

212

tide

eff

ect

9.0

14.2

25.7

34.5

46.2

63.0 3.8

6.4

13.2

16.4

24.5

11.2

19.0

34.8

42.1

54.0

81.9

Apri

l

5.0

7.5

15.2

19.0

28.5

14.1

20.6

36.0

44.0

56.0

82.6

1981

5.2

7.9

15.8

19.8

29.6

25.5

29.2

45.6

56.7

69.0

103.

5

6.8

10.2

19.5

24.7

36.3

68 62 58 63 49 71 28 47 44 49 46

9.9

8.9

13.2

19.6

20.1

60.6 .3 .6 1.6

2.8

5.4

.7 .5 .2 .5 .4 .4 .6 .7 .6 .6 .5

50

20

~ 10UJ5H-

EXPLANATION

Observed times of travel to;

O- LEADING EDGE

GJ - PEAK

- CENTROID

-TRAILING EDGE

20 50 10O 200 5OO 1000

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC METERS PER SECOND

Figure 4. --Traveltime versus discharge for Rumford to East Peru, Maine

50

or

I

UJ

5LJ

CC

20

20 50 XX) 200 500


Figure 5.--Traveltime versus discharge for Rumford to Canton Bridge, Maine

20

200

COa:

100

UJ5 50h-

aJ

20 -

10

EXPLANATION

Observed times of travel to:

O - LEADING EDGE

Q - PEAK

A - CENTRCHD

- TRAILING EDGE

0 50 100 200 500


Figure 6. Traveltime versus discharge for Rumford to Riley Dam, Maine

COtrD O X

uJ5

UJ

100

50

20

100

20 50 100 200 5OO


Figure 7;--Traveltime versus discharge for Rumford to Jay Dam, Maine

21

ITZ> O X

uJ ^

5UJ

§cr

200

100

50

20 -!

10

EXPLANATION

Observed times of travel to

O-LEADING EDGE

D - PEAK

A-CENTROID

V-TRAILING EDGE

_l______L___L- I__L._l 1.11 200 500 100020 50 OC


Figure 8.--Traveltime versus discharge for Rumford to Livermore Falls, Maine

200

COcr

100

50

5K-

I£ 20

10 i i J___L

20 50 100 200 500


Figure 9.--Traveltime versus discharge for Rumford to Twin Bridges, Maine

22

Tabl

e 4.--Su

mmary

of traveltime

data

from th

e Livermore

Falls

inje

ctio

n site

N3

OJ

Elap

sed

time

fr

om i

njection t

o:River

r Sa

mpling

dist

ance

Site

(Kn)

Disc

harg

e (m

3/s)

Lead

ing

edge

(h)

Peak

Cent

roid

(h

) (h

)

Trai

ling

Edge

(h)

Percent

Variance

reco

very

(h

2)Sk

ewne

ss

May

1980

Twin

Bri

dges

Turner B

ridge

Gulf I

slan

d Da

mDe

er R

ips

Damd

Lisbon F

alls

d

68 57 44 42 13

.6 .6 .9 .8 .2

130

136® 84 93a'

e92

a,e

13 25 52 55 82

.b .517

.029

.5107

148

146

18.2

31.8

132?

148b

196b

29.1

40.2

351

362

396

66 67c

59^

67C

61

6.2

8.6

3280^

3970^

4440

C

0.9 .6

1.3

1.1C .9C

August 1

980

Twin Bridges

Turn

er B

ridge

Gulf I

sland Da

mDe

er R

ips

Damd

Lisbon F

alls

d

63 57 44 42 13

.6 .6 .9 .8 .2

56e

55a

59 58a

'e69

a'e

16 49 105

132

190

.2 .721

.070.2

192

207

247

23.4

66.2

282?

299°

360b

33.8

89.9

623

636

692

62 59c

60^

63C

14.3

60.9

12,1

0<T

12,5

00C

14,0

00C

.8 .41.0 .9°

.7C

June 1

981

Twin Bridges

Turn

er Bridge

Gulf I

slan

d Da

mDe

er R

ips

Damd

Aubu

rn G

aged

, Lisbon F

alls

,

Pe j e

pscot

.Dar

n Brun

swic

k

68 57 44 42 34

13 7. 0

.6 .6 .9 .8 .3

.2 7 .1

129

127a O

A

115a

'e

123ae

119a

'e

122a

'e

122a

»e

III

24 74 80 98

105

119

122

.0 .411

.728

.992 94 112

124

143

146

13.8

31.1

155?

163b

170b

188b

199b

204b

20.6

41.6

354

365

375

395

397

402

59 50 61 63 59c

60c

54c

56C

5.4

11.«

.740

30^

4550^

3880

C

4670

C43

30C

4230

C

.8 .81.3

1'2c

l'lc :f

September

1981

Twin

Bridges

Turner B

ridge

68 57.6 .6

87e

85e

12 35.7 .3

15.4

45.6

18.1

47.6

27.9

64.0

68 5610.2

26.9

.9 .7

v Me

an d

isch

arge

whi

le d

ye c

loud i

s present

Time t

o centroid of MVT

curv

e Determined fro

m MVT

curv

e

Over

lap

sites

in S

ubre

ach C

r Es

timated based on i

nterve

ning

dra

inag

e area

Rive

r Di

stan

ce a

bove

tide

effect.

100

<ro

UJ5 20

bUJ

cr10

EXPLANATION


O-LEADING EDGE

D - PEAK

A-CENTROID

-TRAILING EDGE

20 50 100 200 500 1000


Figure 10.--Traveltime versus discharge for Livermore Falls to Twin Bridges, Maine

200

co 100

50UJ

cr20 I

10. i i20 50 OO 200


Figure 11.--Traveltime versus discharge for Livermore Falls to Turner Bridge, Maine

24

500

o:

u5 i-

i200

100

50

\

, - » i i i « n

EXPLANATION

Observed times of travel to: .A CENTROID

LIMITS OFUNCERTAINTY

20 50 100 200 500 1000


Figure 12.--Traveltime versus discharge for Livermore Falls to Gulf Island Dam, Maine

500

CO (TID O

z 200

uT

£ IOC

cr

50 50 100 200


Figure 13.--Traveltime versus discharge for Livermore Falls to Deer Rips Dam, Maine

25

Mixing In Gulf Island Pond During June 1981 Study

Detailed cross-sectional sampling was conducted at Upper Narrows, Lower Narrows, Island, and Gulf Island Dam sections (fig.3). To facilitate calculations, each cross section was divided into 3-m thick layers from the water surface downward. Each layer was also divided into cells. The lateral cell boundaries were mid-way between sample points as shown in figures 14 to 17. Dye concentrations at any time was the average of all measurements within a cell, including its boundaries. Centreid arrival times for each cell are presented in table 5.

During the June 1981 study, the following was observed at the indicated sites:

Upper Narrows

The time to centroid for each cell shows little variation in traveltimes in the cross-section. See table 5 and compare with figures A-3 through A-6 in appendix A. The centroid arrived first at cell 12,1 (45.6 h) and last at cell 13,1 (53.7 h), a difference of 8 hours. The average time to centroid for the entire cross-section is 50.3 hours. This small difference is a good indication that complete mixing in the section was approached (Yotsukura and Fiering, 1964).

Lower Narrows

The time to centroid for each cell in table 5 shows a wider range in arrival times than those observed at Upper Narrows. The earliest centroid arrival time is in cell 10,3 (98.3 h) and the latest centroid arrival is in cell 10,5 (144 h), a difference of 45 hours. A review of the times to centroid indicates that the cloud arrived between the 3- and 9-m levels at approximately the same time. The average time for two layers is 101.5 hours. The times to centroid are about 10 hours later in the 0- to 3-m layer and the 9- to 12-m layer. The centroid arrival time in the bottom layer is approximately 40 hours later. This pattern indicates that the major portion of the dye cloud passed through the cross-section in a stratified manner with fairly even horizontal distribution within the layers.

Island section

This section is complicated by an island between vertical 5 and the rest of the cross-section. See figure 16. A comparison of centroid arrival times indicates that the horizontal uniformity evident at Lower Narrows had broken up at this point in Lhe impoundment. See table 5. The earliest times to centroid occurred in cell 7,3 (120 h) and 7,4 (121 h). The latest centroid arrival time was near the bottom in cell 7,7 (186 h). The centroid arrival times increase with distance away from cell 7,3 and 7,4. Interestingly, the island does not seem to influence this pattern as the bulk of the cloud appears to be following the thalweg.

26

12,1 CELL NUMBER: VERTICAL, LAYER

3£- WATER SURFACE

0 50 150 250DISTANCE FROM LEFT EDGE

OF WATER, IN METERS

Figure 14.--Upper Narrows section showing cell division

0 50 150 250 DISTANCE FROM LEFT EDGE

OF WATER, IN METERS

Figure 15.--Lov:er Narrows section showing cell division

27

CELL NUMBER: VERTICAL. LAYER

25-W0 50 150 250 350 450 550 650

DISTANCE FROM LEFT EDGE OF WATER. IN METERS

Figure 16.--Island section showing cell division

750

APPROXIMATE AREA OF WITHDRAWAL

100 200 300 400 500 600 700

DISTANCE FROM LEFT EDGE OF WATER. IN METERS

Figure 17.--Gulf Island Dam section showing cell division

28

Table 5 . Times to centroid, Gulf Island Pond, June 1981

Cell Time to(vertical , centroidlayer)

Upper

13,113,213,312,112,212,3

Lower11,111,211,310,110,210,310,410,59,19,29,39,49,5

(h)

Narrows

53.750.250.845.649.552.2

Narrows

10910010310810198.3

116144108103104112138

Cell(verticallayer)

Island

8.18,27,17,27,37,47,5 7,67,76,16,26,36,46,56,65,15,25,35,4

Time to, centroid

(h)

Section

154146157134120121130 155186154143131132139155160161145133

Cell(verticallayer)

Gulf

Time to, centroid

(h)Island

Cam Section

4,14,23,13,23,33,43,5 3,63,72,12,22,32,42,52,62,71,11,21,3

187192178177170164162 171219177169155151155167206177172173

29

Gulf Island Dam section

This section has an island to the west of the main channel and is only 150 m upstream from Gulf Island Pond (fig. 17). Referring to table 5, the centroid arrives earliest in cell 2,4 (151 h) which is about 4 hours earlier than the centroid arrival time at Gulf Island Dam outfall site (table 4) for the same study run. The longest centroid travel time was in cell 3,7 (219 h) near the bottom. The centroid arrival times in the cells to the west of the island (4,1 and 4,2) are 10 and 15 hours slower than those at the same levels in the cells east of the island.

Selective withdrawal is said to have occurred when water withdrawn from a stratified impoundment comes only from the layer at the level of the intakes. According to Harleman (1982), selective withdrawal should occur at the level of the outlet of a reservoir when the densimetric Froude number (Fp) is less than the inverse of pi (0.318). The densimetric Froude number is defined as:

* U0)

where: L = reservoir length;Q = discharge;H = mean depth;V = volume;g = acceleration of gravity = 9.806 m/s , ande = average normalized vertical density gradient.

For Gulf Island Pond during June 1981, Q was equal to 117 m^/s and e ranged from 4.8xlO~5 /m to 1.6xlO~5 /m. Accordingly FD ranged from 0.28 to 0.45, indicating selective withdrawal may have occurred. In the case of Gulf Island Dam, withdrawal occurs at the turbine intakes in the east-center of the dam at a depth of 10-12 meters. The earliest centroid arrival time occurs at cell 2,4 corresponding to the location of the turbine intakes. The time-of-travel data for this cross section supports the theory that selective withdrawal did occur.

Summary

Reviewing the figures in appendix A confirms this pattern of mixing at each of the sites indicated. In addition, the cell and area of earliest centroid arrival time matches the cells observed to clear of dye the earliest. Referring to figures in appendix B, these areas also agree most closely with the 19.5°C cloud temperature observed passing Turner Bridge and Upper Narrows, again confirming the stratification-mixing patterns expected.

Mixing In Gulf Island Pond During September 1981 Study

In September 1981, complete clouds were observed at Upper Narrows and Lower Narrows before storm flows flushed the cloud from the impoundment. Centroid-time calculations for these two sections were conducted as before with the following results:

30

Upper Narrows

The mixing patterns are very similar to those observed in the June 1981 study run. Referring to table 6, the earliest arrival time is in cell 13,1 (67.4 h) and the latest is cell 12,3 (72.9 h), a difference of 5.5 hours. This again indicates near complete mixing at this site with the faster times for the elements near the surface.

Lower Narrows

Unlike the June 1981 study, the cloud does not seem to be well mixed laterally in the September 1981 study run. See table 6. The fastest times to centroid are in cells 10,3 and 10,4 (106 and 106 h) in the 6- to 12-m layers. The slowest time is in cell 9,1 (121 h). The centroid arrival times are consistently earlier in the center cells than in either of the side cells.

Summary

Dye concentration isopleths in appendix C show the mixing andstratification at Upper and Lower Narrows. The dye-tagged water passed through Upper Narrows fairly completely mixed. In passing through Lower Narrows section, it flowed through a stratified portion of the pond, moving first into the 6- to 12-m layers (figs. C-7 through C-10, appendix C) then going to the 9- to 15-m level at Island section. The cloud moved back into the 9- to 12-m level at Gulf Island Dam section. As discussed earlier, the dye cloud was washed out at this time and a complete picture of mixing patterns was unavailable. Comparison of appendixes C and D also confirms the mixing patterns due to temperature stratification as the cloud moved through the areas of the impoundment having a temperature near 19.0°C.

Subreach C

The most significant hydrologic characteristic of this 45-km subreach is the unsteady discharge from Gulf Island Dam. As the hydrographic information in appendix E (figs. E-7 through E-12) indicates, fluctuations of plus or minus 50 m^/s commonly occur. The impact of discharge irregularity on traveltimes is considerable. In the case of leading-edge, peak, and trailing-edge times, irregularity in dye concentration due to fluctuating discharge makes the development of smoothed CVT curves difficult. Under these conditions, the CVT curve cannot be used to determine arrival time for these three cloud features.

MVT curves were used to determine centroid time. As the examples in appendix E demonstrate, the centroid of a MVT curve can be different from that of a CVT curve. Integrating the MVT curve to determine the centroid yields a more meaningful and correct value of traveltime. However, other uncertainties in the QVT relation arise from changes in sampler location, equipment failure, and problems in determining the discharge most representative of a dye cloud centroid.

31

Table 6. Times to centrold, Gulf Island Pond, September 1981

Cell Time to Cell Time to(vertical, centroid (vertical, centroidlayer)____[hj layer) (h)

Upper Narrows Lower Narrows

67.4 11,1 11969.6 11,2 11272.4 11,3 11170.0 10,1 11370.7 10,2 10972.9 10,3 106

10.4 10610.5 1099.1 1219.2 1149.3 1139.4 1159.5 117

32

Following the 1980 field season, several changes were made in the subreach C sampling design. The two 1980 dye studies, which included subreach C, began at Livermore Falls and tracked the dye cloud beyond Gulf Island Dam to Brunswick. These studies focused on subreach B, and they were designed to provide overlap into subreach C for subsequent studies. For 1981 three dye runs were planned to include subreach C. To further subdivide the 45 km of subreach C into more hydrologically homogeneous subreaches, two new sampling sites were added: the Geological Survey gage near Auburn (01059000), just downstream of the Lewiston-Auburn wastewater treatment facility and the mouth of the Little Androscoggin River; and Pejepscot Dam downstream of the discharge from the Lisbon Falls wastewater treatment facility at the head of the impoundment to be created by the new dam at Brunswick. In addition, the sampling location at Lisbon Falls was shifted upstream to ensure a more consistent water level and reliable record.

The 1981 sampling plan resulted in improved traveltime information. Time-of-travel data for the April 1981 study run, originating at Gulf Island Dam under steady-flow conditions, is summarized in table 7.

The two other 1981 study runs made in June and September started at Livermore Falls and were tracked after passing through subreach B. As mentioned previously, the September 1981 study was washed out by a flood wave passing through the study reach after the dye injection had been made. Only Deer Rips Dam and Lisbon Falls had more than two valid data sets, due to these problems and changes.

The summary of subreach C centroid traveltime data is presented in table 8. Because the subreach begins below Gulf Island Dam, all elapsed times in table 8 are referenced to that point. Thus, data for three of the four study runs had to be adjusted by subtracting elapsed times from Livermore Falls, the injection site, to Gulf Island Dam. Cumulative elapsed times from Livermore Falls are presented in table 4 for those study runs when the dye cloud was tracked through subreaches B and C. Traveltime for leading edge, peak, and trailing edge are not included in table 8 because these measurements from a CVT curve were difficult to interpret for unsteady discharges except for the April 1981 run. For this run, dye injection was at Gulf Island Dam under high discharge conditions which remained steady during the 2 days required for dye passage. The hydrologic characteristics and discharge regulation of this subreach, which made the interpretation of CVT lines more complex, also greatly influenced the QVT lines. When dye was injected at Livermore Falls, the cloud arriving at Gulf Island Dam was extended more than 11 days at an average discharge of 115 nrVs. At 60 m^/s, the cloud passage time exceeded 3 weeks. Even without the discharge fluctuations associated with regulation, it would be unlikely to have constant discharge over such an extended passage time. These flow conditions render meaningless the use of mean discharge values in association with leading edge, peak, and trailing edge traveltimes. Thus, only centroid arrival times determined from MVT equations are useful for QVT analysis, which are presented in figures 18 through 21. The scatter of data in figure 18 is due to differences in the degree of mixing of the dye clouds measured at Deer Rips Dam. For three of the data points, the dye clouds had traveled through Gulf Island Pond with adequate time for complete mixing. In the fourth case, however, the dye was injected at Gulf Island Dam and the short distance to Deer Rips Dam (2.1 km) precluded complete mixing at the site.

33

Tabl

e 7

.--Summary o

f travel time

data f

rom

the

Gulf I

sland

Darn

inj

ecti

on site

Elapsed

time

from i

njec

tion

to:

Rive

r Sampling

dist

ance

Site

(Km)

Disc

harg

e (m

3/s)

Leading

edge

(h)

Peak

Centre id

(h)

(h)

Trai

ling

Ed

ge

(h)

Perc

ent

recovery

Variance

(h2)

Skewness

Apri

l 1981

Deer R

ips

Dam

Aubu

rn G

age

Lisbon Falls

Peje

psco

t Dam

Brunswick

42.8

34.3

13.2 7.7

0.1

167b

190,

189b

191b

193b

2.0

8.3

20.2

24.2

28.2

2.7

11.1

25.2

30.2

34.8

3.8

12.6

26.5

31.7

36.6

8.0

19.6

35.2

42.3

48.4

74 56 58 60 59

1.5

5.8

8.8

11.7

14.0

1.0 .8 .5 .6 .7

u>?

Rive

r di

stan

ce a

bove t

ide

effect.

Estima

ted

based

on in

terv

enin

g drainage area.

Table

8.--

Summ

ary

of c

entroid

trav

el time

from G

ulf

Isla

nd D

am f

or s

ubreach

C

Samp!

i ng

Site

Deep R

ips

Dam

Aubu

rn G

age

Lisbon F

alls

Peje

psco

t Da

mBrunswick

Ri ver

distance

(Km)

42.8

34.3

13.2 7.7 .1

August

Dis

charge

(m3/s)

58b

69b

1980 Cen

troid

(h)

17 78

May

Dis

char

ge(m

3/s)

93b

92b

1980 Cen

troi

d(h

)

16 64

Oune

Dis

char

ge(m /

s]

115b

123,

119b

122b

122

1981 Cen

troid

1 (h

) 13 20 38 49 54

April

1981

Dis-

Cen-

char

ge

troid

(m3/s)

(h)

167b

3.8

190,

12.6

189?

26

.519

1°

31.7

193

36.6

Rive

r di

stan

ce a

bove

tide

effe

ct

Esti

mate

d ba

sed

on i

ntervening d

rain

age

area

u> Ul

50

COo: 20

10

i<r

\\\

EXPLANATION


A - CENTR01D

\\ &\ A \\

\\

A

20 50 100 200 500 1000


Figure 18.-- Traveltime versus discharge forGulf Island Dam to Deer Rips Dam, Maine

50

COo:oi

~ 20of

LU

< 10

50 100 200 500


Figure 19. --Traveltime versus discharge forGulf Island Dam to survey gage near Auburn, Maine

36

100oX

- 53UJ5

UJ

CE

20

10.

EXPLANATION

Observed times of travel to:

A CENTR01D

1 1

20 50 100 200 500 DOG


Figure 20.--Traveltime versus discharge forGulf Island Dam to Lisbon Falls, Maine

100 . \

to ce

50-

UJ

1l-

20

\

IQJ I I i I I I I L_K) OO 200 50


Figure 21.--Traveltime versus discharge forGulf Island Dam to Pejepscot Dam , Maine

37

Distance Versus Time

A summary of time-of-travel data is given in figure 22 by plotting centroid traveltime versus distance between sampling points and injection site. The centroid traveltimes are determined from the appropriate QVT curve at each of the sites. Discharges shown in figure 22 are based at an appropriate index gage in the reach. Above Gulf Island Dam, the survey gage at Rumford was used as the index, and below Gulf Island Dam the survey gage near Auburn was used. From the relationships illustrated in figure 22, centroid traveltime can be estimated to any point in the reach. Centroid velocity can also be estimated by determining the inverse of the line's slope for the desired discharge level wanted. Dashed lines illustrate the centroid traveltime through the lower reach of Gulf Island Pond and are an approximation of traveltime versus distance. The velocity of a dye cloud in the pond is highly variable depending upon stratification and mixing patterns. Because of uncertainties in traveltime through the pond, the data are shown as a dashed line in figure 22.

The movement of dissolved waste materials would be very similar to that of a dye cloud. It would be expected that materials would move swiftly from Rumford to Twin Bridges. Its velocity would slow between Twin Bridges and Turner Bridge and would slow even more dramatically between Turner Bridge and Gulf Island Dam. Once through Gulf Island Pond, waste materials would move rapidly downstream to Pejepscot Dam though not as swiftly as upstream of the Twin Bridges. The larger the discharge, the smaller the impact the eight run-of-the-river impoundments have on centroid traveltimes. Pollutants may spend about as much time in Gulf Island Pond as in the rest of the study reach.

Longitudinal Dispersion

Longitudinal dispersion was determined from equation 9 (Tsai and Hoiley, 1979). For this study, the mean velocity in each subreach was calculated from the centroid traveltime of CVT curves. Likewise, variance was determined from CVT curves.

Dispersion coefficients were calculated for subreaches A and C. Subreach B was omitted because of the limited number of sampling locations and lack of complete mixing in Gulf Island Pond. Three complete dye runs through subreach A were observed: June and September 1980 and April 1981. In subreach C there were two complete dye runs: April and June 1981. A third run in September 1981 was lost due to heavy rains and flood-stage discharge. Plots of V 3 a^/2 against distance below injection are shown in figures 23 through 26. Dispersion coefficients were determined from the slope of the least-squared regression line. Results are summarized in table 9. No dispersion is reported for the subreach C dye cloud of June, 1981 because of the low correlation coefficient. Inconsistencies in variance data were observed during the run, possibly due to problems in defining the dye cloud's leading and trailing edges. Correlation coefficients ranging from 0.9279 to 0.9857 were observed for the other four runs.

38

480

460

440

4201-

400

380

360H

340

1 300

2280

zul 260

t3 240

C 220

Q 200

I I I

GULF ISLAND POND

INDEX DISCHARGE (SURVEY GAGE AT RUMFORD). IN M3/S

EXPLANATION

Estimated time to centroid from figures 4-13 and 18-21 after adjustments for drainage area

INDEX DISCHARGE {SURVEY GAGE NEAR AUBURN). IN

120 lib 100 do 8b TO eo sb 4bRIVER DISTANCE, ABOVE BRUNSWICK, IN KILOMETERS

3b

Figure 22.--Centroid traveltime versus distance above Brunswick, Maine

39

6x10*

5x106

§ 4x108OinCO

c 111Q.

CO QC UJ

003 O

3x1 0«

JtT 2x10*

1x10*

EXPLANATION

D- Dispersion Coefficient

r -Correlation Coefficient

O

10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000

DISTANCE BELOW INJECTION POINT, IN METERS

60,000

Figure 23.--Determination of the longitudinal dispersion coefficient in subreach A, June 1980

40

4x10

3x10

QZo oUl <0

QC IU Q.

<0

IU

o 5oz

tfIO

>

2x10e

1x106

O

EXPLANATION

D- Dispersion Coefficient

r -Correlation Coefficient

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000


60.000

Figure 24.--Determination of the longitudinal dispersion coefficient in subreach A, September 1980

41

15x10*

O O Ul CO

ocUlQ.

COocUl

Ul

O3Oz

10x10

5x10 !

EXPLANATION

D-Dispersion Coefficient

r-Correlation Coefficient

10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000


60,000

Figure 25.--Determination of the longitudinal dispersion coefficient in subreach A, April 1981

42

3x1 cr

Q

O 2x106 OUl CO

(C Ul Q.

CO (C Ulh- lil

OS3 O

1x10'

EXPLANATION

0-Dispersion Coefficient

r - Correlation Coefficient

O

O

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000


Figure 26.--Determination of the longitudinal dispersion coefficient in subreach C, April 1981

43

Tab

le 9

. Longitudin

al

dis

pe

rsio

n co

eff

icie

nt

data

Subreach

length

Subreach

(km)

A 60

.1

C 37.2

Date o

f study

(mon

th,

year

)

June

, Se

pt.

, Apr.,

Apr.

, June,

1980

1980

1981

1981

19

81

Mid-

subr

each

di

scha

rge

(m /

s)

74

45

204

190

Varied (123)

Long

itud

inal

dispersion

coefficient

(m /

s)

47.3

76.7

21.3

38.6

Correlation

coef

fici

ent

0.98

01

.927

9 .9

857

.9763

.0761

laylor (1954) states that the dispersion coefficient may be independent of discharge within certain bankfull flows. However, the data in table 9 show an inverse relation between dispersion coefficient and discharge through subreach A. Although the number of data points is limited (three), the high correlation of 0.93 suggests that the relation is a real one. More study would be necessary to determine the significance of the relation.

45

SUMMARY

Centroid traveltime versus distance relationships for the 123 km river reach from Rumford to Pejepscot Dam, Maine ranged from approximately 120 hours at 240 m^/s to 410 hours at 60 m^/s. As expected, the lowest velocities occurred in Gulf Island Pond in which traveltime estimates are only approximate. A concept of mass flow versus time, in the place of concentration versus time, was used to determine dye cloud centroid traveltime to five sites in the reach of the Androscoggin River below Gulf Island Dam having unsteady flow. In the steady flow reaches above Gulf Island Dam, mass flow versus time analyses are identical to concentration versus time methods. Traveltime versus discharge curves were developed for 12 sites in the study area. Two curves (figs. 12 and 13) were developed for a cloud passing through Gulf Island Pond and ending at Gulf Island Dam and Deer Rips Dam but they are not as reliable as other curves because the pathways through a stratified lake are variable. Longitudinal dispersion coefficients ranging from 21.3 m^/s to 76.7 m^/s were determined in four study runs. The dispersion coefficient in subreach A varies inversely with discharge.

Observed dye mixing patterns in Gulf Island Pond, during the 1981 study runs indicated stratification occurred when inflowing water, at 19.5°C in June and 19.0°C in September, sought its own density level. The reservoir had a temperature span (bottom to top) of 16°C to 22°C in June and 18.5°C to 20°C in September 1981. Densimetric Froude numbers ranging from 0.28 to 0.45 for Gulf Island Pond in June 1981 indicated that stratification and selective withdrawal may occur (Harleman, 1982) which was confirmed by observation. Comparison of centroid traveltimes with graphic representations of dye-concentration isopleths and isotherms over time in Gulf Island Pond indicates that the dye moved fastest at that level having a temperature nearest the temperature of the inflowing water.

46

REFERENCES

Fontaine, R. A., 1979, Drainage areas of surface water bodies ofthe Androscoggin River basin in southwestern Maine: U.S. Geological Survey open-file report, 42 p.

Harleman, D. R. F., 1982, Hydrothermal analysis of lakes andreservoirs: Journal of the Hydraulics Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, v. 108, no. HY3, p. 302-325.

Kilpatrick, F. A., 1970, Dosage requirements for slug injectionsof rhodamine BA and WT dyes: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 700-B, p. 250-253.

New England-New York Inter-Agency Committee, 1954,Androscoggin River basin, Maine-New Hampshire: The resources of the New England-New York region: Part two, chap. VII, 398 p.

Parker, G. W., and Hunt, G. S., 1983, Initial assessment of mixingthrough Gulf Island Pond and Androscoggin River, Maine: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 83-4020, 53 p.

Taylor, G. I., 1954, The dispersion of matter in turbulent flowthrough a pipe, London, England, Proceedings of the Royal Society, v. 233, p. 446-468.

Tsai, Y. H. and Hoiley, E. R., 1979, Temporal and spatial momentsfor longitudinal mixing in prismatic channels with storage in separation zones: Hydraulic Engineering Series Report no. 35, University of Illinois at Urbana - Champaign, Urbana, 253 p.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1982, Water resources data for Maine,water year 1981: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report ME-81-1, 212 p.

Yotsukura, Nobuhiro, and Fiering, M. B., 1964, Numerical solutionto a dispersion equation: Journal of the Hydraulics Division; American Society of Civil Engineers, Proceedings Paper 4046, 19 p.

47

APPENDIX A.--ISOPLETHS OF DYE CONCENTRATION IN GULF ISLAND POND

JUNE 1981

49

ID-

16

20

TIME AFTER INJECTION

14.0 hours

26 20 16 10 6

DISTANCE. IN KILOMETERS

I__L

Figure A-l.--Isopleths of dye concentration in Gulf Island Pond, June 12, 1981

EXPLANATION

Water surface

Lln« of estimated equal dye concentration. In mlcrograms p«r liter

Streambcd

Outflow dy» concentration, in micrograms per liter

A single uncontoured value indicates equal dye concentration for th« entire section in mlcrograms per liter

TIME AFTER INJECTION:

21.0 hours

26 16 10 5


Note: Peak between Twin Bridges and Turner Bridge

Figure A-2.--Isopleths of dye concentration in Gulf Island Pond, June 12, 1981

50

6

ID-

16

20


26.9-27.2 hours

i I,26 20 16 10 6

DISTANCE, IN KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

-?- Water turfcc*

__ Line of estimated equal dytconcentration, In mlcrograma per liter

^iflj Streambed

C^> Outflow dye concentration. In mlcrogramt per liter

A tingle uncontoured value Indicates equal dye concentration lor the entire aactlon in microgram* per liter

Upper Narrows Section

160

DISTANCE. IN METERS


51

10-

16X H

u 20O

1 T

0.0


38.0*39.5 hours

26 20 16 10 6


EXPLANATION

-?- Water surface

_ _ Line of estimated equal dyeconcentration, in mlcrograms per liter

^WJ Streambed

Cv Outflow dye concentration, in mlcrogram* per liter

A single uncontoured value Indicate* equal dye concentration for the ntlre section in mlcrogram* per liter

Note: Peak between Twin Bridges and Turner Bridge.

Lower Norrows Section Upper Morrows Section [39.4 h

136 276

0 90 180

DISTANCE. IN METERS

DISTANCE, IN METERS


52

10-

15-

20

TIME AFTER INJECTION:46.2-47.6 hours

26 20 16 10 6


13

EXPLANATION

-?- Water surface

Line of estimated equal dyeconcentration. In microgramt per liter

^30J Streambed

O Outflow dye concentration. In mlcrograms per liter

A tingle uncontoured value Indicates equal dye concentration for the entire section In micrograme per liter

Island Section

100 210 320 430 640 650 760

DISTANCE. IN METERS

Lower Narrows Section Upper Narrows Section

10-

15-

136 276

DISTANCE. IN METERS

160

DISTANCE. IN METERS


53

20


52.8-54.5 hours

_____,___________i____I I I26 20 16 10 6


EXPLANATION

-2- Watar aurfaca

_ _ Lina of aatimatad aqual dyaconcantration, in mlcrograms par lltar

'WJ Straambad

CC* Outflow dya concantration. in micrograma par lltar

A aingla uncontourad vaiua indlcataa aqual dya concantration for tha antira aaction in micrograma par lltar

Island Section

100 210 320 430 640 660 760

DISTANCE, IN METERS

Lower Narrows Section

136 276

DISTANCE, IN METERS

Upper Morrows Section

180

DISTANCE. IN METERS


54

10-

15-

20

I


62.0-64.1 hours

____,_______i___I20 16 10 6


0.0

Gulf Island Dam Section Island Section

100 206 310 415 520 625 730

DISTANCE. IN METERS

100 210 320 430 540

DISTANCE, IN METERS

650 760


0 135 275

DISTANCE. IN METERS

EXPLANATION

-? Water surface

__ Lino of estimated equal dyeconcentration, in micrograma per liter

'^J Streambed

C^> Outflow dye concentration. In mlcrograme per liter

A single uncontoured value Indicate* equal dye concentration for the entire section In mlcrograme per liter


55

i r

10

16

iu 20

25


70.5-72.2 hours

20 15 10 5


0.0


100 206 310 416 820 628 730

DISTANCE. IN METERS


136 276

DISTANCE. IN METERS

100 210 320 430 540 960

DISTANCE, m METERS

EXPLANATION

-?- Water surface

__ Line of estimated equal dyeconcentration, in miorograms per liter

^J Streambed

O Outflow dye concentration, in mlcrograms per liter

A single uncontoured value Indicates equal dye concentration for the entire section In mlcrograms per liter

760


56


81.0-82.3 hours

0.5



0 100 205 310 41S S20 82S 730

DISTANCE. IN METERS

100 210 320 430 S40

DISTANCE. IN METERS

SO ?SO


13S 27S

DISTANCE. IN METERS

EXPLANATION

-2- Water surface

Line of estimated equal dyeconcentration, In micrograma per liter

^5 Streambed

C^> Outflow dye concentration. In mlcrograms per liter

A sl.ngle uncontoured value Indicates equal dye concentration for the entire section In micrograma per liter

Figure A-9.- -Isopleths of dye concentration in Gulf Island Pond, June 14, 1981

57

10-

20


94.4-96.7 hours

20 15 10

0.6



0 100 205 310 415 520 625 730

DISTANCE. IN METERS

100 210 320 430 540

DISTANCE. IN METERS

650 760


0 135 275

DISTANCE. IN METERS

EXPLANATION

-?- Water surface

Line of eatlmatsd equal dyeconcentration, In mlcrograma per liter

^385 Streambed

O Outflow dye concentration. In micrograma per liter

A single uncontoured value indicatea qual dye concentration for the ntlre section In mlcrograma per liter


58

10-

16.

20 -


104.9-107.3 hours

___,_____-__i25 20 15 10 6


0.7


0 1OO 20$ 310 416 620 626 730

DISTANCE. IN METERS

EXPLANATION

-2- Water surtoco

__ Line at estlmeted equal dy*concentration. In mlcroarame per liter

T39S Streambed

C^> Outflow dye concentration. In mlcrograms per liter

A single uncontoured value Indicates equal dye concentration for the entire section In mlcrogram* per liter

10O 210 320 430 540

DISTANCE. IN METERS

Upper Norrows Section

0 90 ISO

DISTANCE. IN METERS

660 760

Figure A-ll.--Isopleths of dye concentration in Gulf Island Pond, June 15, 1981

59

ID-

20


119.2-121.0 hours

25 20 16 10

0.2

0.6


Gulf Island Dam Section Island Cross Section

100 205 310 418 520 «25 730

DISTANCE. IN METERS

100 210 320 430 540

DISTANCE. IN METERS

650 780

Lower Narrows Section [121

10-

18-

0 135 275

DISTANCE. IN METERS

EXPLANATION

-2- Water surface

-_ Line of estimated equel dyeeoneentretlon. In mlcrogrems per liter

^0S Streembed

L^ Outflow dye eoneentretlon. in mlerogrems per liter

A single uneontoured velue indleetes equel dye eoneentretlon for the entire section in microgreme per liter


60

10-

1..20


144.0-146.3 hours0.2

j__L20 18 10

0.4



0 100 206 310 415 520 625 730

DISTANCE, IN METERS

100 210 320 430 640

DISTANCE. IN METERS

660 760


136 275

DISTANCE. IN METERS

EXPLANATION

?- Water surface

__ Lln« of estimated equal dyeconcentration, in mlcrogrami per liter

"^9fc Streambed

rX> Outflow dye concentration, In microgramt per llt«r

A tingle uncontourcd valu« Indicate* qual dy« concentration for th« ntlr* section in mlcrogram* per liter

Figure A-13.- -Isopleths o£ dye concentration in Gulf Island Pond, June 17, 1981

61


166.2-168.3 hours

0.4



100 206 310 416 620 626 730

DISTANCE. IN METERS


100 210 320 430 640

DISTANCE. IN METERS

660 790

0 136 276

DISTANCE. IN METERS

EXPLANATION

-?- Water aurfaee

__ Line of eatlmated equal dyeconcentration, In mlcrograma per liter

^0£ Streambed

O Outflow dye concentration. In mlcrograma per liter

A tingle unoontoured value Indloatea equal dye concentration for the entire section In mfcrograma per liter


62


190.6-192.2 hours

0.3



0 100 205 310 415 520 625 730

DISTANCE. IN METERS

100 210 320 430 540

DISTANCE. IN METERS

660 760

Lower Narrows Secti'on

10-

15-

0 135 276

DISTANCE. IN METERS

EXPLANATION

-? Water surface

_ _ Line of estimated equal dyeconcentration, In mlcrogram* per liter

^Wfc Streambed

C^> Outflow dye concentration. In mlcrogram* per liter

A tingle uncontoured value Indicate* equal dye concentration for the entire section In mlcrograma per liter


63


262.8-264.1 hours

0.1

15 10 6



0 100 206 310 415 520 625 730

DISTANCE. IN METERS

100 210 320 430 540

DISTANCE. IN METERS

660 760


0 186 276

DISTANCE, IN METERS

EXPLANATION

-5Z. Water surface

__ Line of estimated equal dyeconcentration. In mlcrograma per lltar

^S Streambed

C^> Outflow dye concentration. In mlcrograma per liter

A aingle uncontoured value Indicate* qua! dye concentration for the entire aection In mlcrograma per liter


64


313.8-315.2 hours

0.1

10



100 206 310 416 620 926 730

DISTANCE, IN METERS

10O 210 320 430 640

DISTANCE, IN METERS

660 760


0 136 276

DISTANCE. IN METERS

EXPLANATION

-?- Water eurface

_ _ tin* of eatimated equal dyeconcentration, In micrograma par liter

^05 Streambed

C^> Outflow dye concentration. In mlcrograma per liter

A alngle uncontourad value indicates equal dye concentration for the entire section In mlcrograma per liter


65


358.0-359.0 hours

0.0



100 206 310 416 520 926 730

DISTANCE. IN METERS

100 210 320 430 840

DISTANCE. IN METERS

eso reo

EXPLANATION

-?- Water surface

_ _ Line of estimated equal dyeconcentration. In mlcrograms per liter

^55 Streambed


A single uncontoured value Indicates equal dye concentration for tne entire section In microgram* per liter


66


432.0-432.7 hours

20 16 10

0.0



100 206 310 416 S20 626 730

DISTANCE. IN METERS

EXPLANATION

-?- Water surface

__ Lin« of estimated qua) dyeconcentration, in micrograms per liter

^WJ Streambed

dt> Outflow dye concentration, in micrograms per liter

A single uncontoured value indicates equal dye concentration for the entire aection in microgram* per liter

100 210 320 430 640

DISTANCE. IN METERS

660 760

Figure A-19.--Isopleths of dye concentration in Gulf Island Pond, July 1, 1981

67

10-

15

20


478.8-479.0 hours

0.0

26 20 16 10 6


Gulf Island Dam Section

0 100 206 310 416 620 626 730

DISTANCE. IN METERS

EXPLANATION

-?. Water surface

__ Line of estimated equal dyeconcentration, In mlcrogfama per liter

^99$ Streambed

C^> Outflow dye concentration, in mlcrograma per liter

A aingle uncontoured value Indicate* equal dye eoneentratlon for the entire aection in mlcrograma per liter

Figure A-20.--Isopleths of dye concentration in Gulf Island Pond, July 1, 1981

68

APPENDIX B.--ISOTHERMS IN GULF ISLAND POND

JUNE 1981

69

16

20

ACTUAL TIME: 5:10 pm


30.0-30.2 hours

26 20 16 10

EXPLANATION

V Water surface

Estimated water temperature. In degree* Celsius

^J Streambed

C^ Outflow

A single uncontoured value Indicate* equal water temperature throughout entire section. In degrees Celsius



0 90 180

DISTANCE. IN METERS

Figure B-1.--Isotherms in Gulf Island Pond, June 12, 1981

70

CD Ks *IIIH« 10

z"". 18XH

uj 200

i

0a"0

ae*

^ wqu

, 1

i I

a *sT> ° o- to

rc ea a9 &H 3

^*"*i)^w

X^°ACTUAL TIME'- ^^\^jj

2:00 am


39.0-39.4 hours

i i i

1 l l

ii 9to '055 e5'

* 2*« 1° Z2 "!-* <8 O

19.5 *

\\\\A>TP\A

eD o

529av

b.

it in

EXPLANATION

^ Water surface

- Estimated water temperature,in degrees Celsius

^R Streambed

C^> Outflow

A single uncontourod value Indlcatea equal water temperature throughoutentire section, In degrees Celaius

20 16 10 6



0 90 1*0

DISTANCE. IN METERS


71

10-

16

20

ACTUAL TIME:

9:10-10:40 am


46.2-47.6 hours

z« =»i' aHIs

I-5 *£ O

26 20 16 10 6


EXPLANATION

JZ_ Water surface

Estimated water temperature. In degrees Celsiua

^f Strvambed

r~*} Outflow

A single uncontoured value indicates equal water temperature throughout entire section, in degreea Celsius

Island Section

100 210 320 430 640 060 700

DISTANCE, IN METERS


0 136 276

DISTANCE. IN METERS

0 00 100

DISTANCE. IN METERS


72

10-

16

20

ii .11

s o

ACTUAL TIME'

2:50-4:30 pm


52.8-54.5 hours

26 20I I

16 10

EXPLANATION

V Water surface

- Estimated water temperature, in degrees Celsius

^JJ Streambed

r~^> Outflow

A single uncontoured value indicates equal water temperature throughout entire section. In degrees Celsius


Island Section

100 210 320 430 640

DISTANCE, IN METERS

«60 reo


10-

15-

0 136 276

DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 00 ISO

DISTANCE, IN METERS


73

DE

PT

H.

M M

ET

ER

SD

EP

TH

. IN

M

ET

ER

S

H-

0Q C

^

CD W i un t/) O rf 3" CD ^ 3 W H-

3

CD CD M

-P^

OO

icla

nd

c

llo

nO

ulf

U

Un

dO

am

cllo

n

01

_ 3

a -

o a i

o ?

O

- -

"i

3

"

1

>

Zr

>

6-

tS-

20

ACTUAL TIME

9:30-1 1:10 am

TIME AFTER INJECTION:70.5-75.2 hours

26 20 16 10 6


EXPLANATION

JZ. Water surface

Estimated water temperature. In degrees Celsius

^7J£ Streambed

l^> Outflow

A single uncontoured value Indicates equal water temperature throughout entire section. In degrees Celsius


100 20S 310 418 620 626 730

DISTANCE. IN METERS

100 210 320 430 640 660 760

DISTANCE, IN METERS


10-

16-

136 278

DISTANCE. IN METERS


75

16

20

ACTUAL TIME:

7:50-9:20 pm


80.9-82.3 hours

26 20 16 10 6


EXPLANATION

_Z_ Water surfaoe


^J Streambed

O Outflow

A single uncontoured value Indicates equal water temperature throughout entire section, in degrees Celsius


100 200 310 410 620 626 730

DISTANCE. IN METERS

100 210 320 430 640

DISTANCE. IN METERS

60 760


10-

16-

136 276

DISTANCE. IN METERS


76

10-

16-

20

5

If III I

IIJf5* 3£ 9

21- -_,

ACTUAL TIME'-

9:20-11:40 am


94.4-96.7 hours

j_I,26 20 16 10 6


EXPLANATION

J2L Wit*r surfac*

Estimated w«t»r t*mp*ratur*. In

^J Str*imb*d

O Outflow

A slngl* uncontour*d vilu* indlc«t»« qua! wit*r t»mp«r«tur» throughout ntlr* ction. In d*gr**s Celsius


100 20S 310 4 IS S20 B25 730

DISTANCE. IN METERS

100 210 320 430 S40 660

DISTANCE. IN METERS

760


10-

16-

0 136 276

DISTANCE. IN METERS


77

8-

10-

20

5J '§23 25;: sgz z*

o^

.1l:3 a J_U

- -21.5'

ACTUAL TIME: 7:50-10:20 pm


104.9-107.3 hours

26 20 16 10 6


EXPLANATION

JZ. Watar surfaca

Estlmatad watar tamparatura. In dagraas Calsius

^9? Straafflbad

C^> Outflow

A singla uneontourad valua indicsta* aqual watar tamparatura throughout antlra aaction, in dagraas Calsius


0 100 206 310 416 620 626 730

DISTANCE. IN METERS

100 210 32O 430 640

DISTANCE, IN METERS

660 760


ISO

DISTANCE. IN METERS


78

16 10 6


EXPLANATION

_5ZL Water surface


Streambed

OutflowoA single uncontoured value Indicates equal water temperature throughout entire section. In degrees Celsius


0 100 206 310 416 620 626 730

DISTANCE. IN METERS

100 210 320 430 640 660

DISTANCE. IN METERS

760


136 276

DISTANCE. IN METERS


79

0

8

Ul

§ 10

Z ". 18X

ui 200

' ' i I I I e E c

S 2 2» 25 £»2 0 mm = S

5 ! ** 5-e e * c<>* a a o ah- H 3 -1 J» O

"Tj7\ V i it 23.5 i^*9sa^ ~ 22v. 23 "irl. -' x

'^^^ft^ ^». X*"^a^ ^*» . ^^ x__ - '-- ~-^_21 .5-- - -""'

ACTUAL TIME: ^^^WsA ~*2.1 /11:00 am- 1:20 pro \20<6</x /

\.^"^t\//TIME AFTER INJECTION: 18 * 5 \\ ^

144.0-146.3 hours VAT"9

I

TJ

5»e

-S V

"r^yT 13.1 . . 1,1 i , iii

EXPLANATION

_2_ Water surface

Estimated water temperatureIn degrees Celsius

^f Streambed

r^> Outflow

-

A single uncontoured value Indicatesequal water temperature throughoutentire section. In degrees Celsius

28 20 18 10 6



0 100 206 310 416 520 626 730

DISTANCE. IN METERS

100 210 320 430 640 660 760

DISTANCE, IN METERS


0 136 276

DISTANCE. IN METERS

Figure B-ll.--Isotherms in Gulf Island Pond, June 17, 1981

80

DE

PT

H.

IN M

ET

ER

S

DE

PT

H.

IN M

ET

ER

S

00

H-

CTQ c i M

N

) Hi

I I

(/) p o p- 0) CO

o -

*

a »

« HI » _.

c

o?

' »

c

=r o

O »

r *

" i"

3

-»

_

O

» li

oo

15t-

iu 20O

ACTUAL TIME'-

9:40-11:10 am


190.6-192.2 hours

20 15 10 5


EXPLANATION

y Water surface

- Estimated water temperature. In degree* Celsius

<3ftf Streambcd

r*> Outflow

A single uncontoured value indicate* equal water temperature throughout entire section. In degree* Celaiua


190.6 h

/ :100 206 310 416 620 626 730

DISTANCE. IN METERS

100 210 320 430 540 650 760

DISTANCE, IN METERS


10-S_

15-

0 135 276

DISTANCE. IN METERS


82

8-

10-

18

20

*I »§£2 2|

22.5

ACTUAL TIME'-

9:50-11:10 am


262.8-264.1 hours

51

J! 0

25 20 15 10 8


EXPLANATION

V Water surface


Streambed

OutflowOA single uncontoured value Indicates equal water temperature throughout entire section. In degrees Celsius


100 208 310 418 820 625 730

DISTANCE. IN METERS

100 210 320 430 840

DISTANCE. W4 METERS

880 780


138 276

DISTANCE. IN METERS


83

ACTUAL TIME:

12:25-2:10 pm


313.4-315.2 hours

EXPLANATION

V Water surface

Estimated wat«r temporaturo. In degrees Celsius

^SJ Streambad

C^ Outflow

A single uncontoured value indicatea equal water temperature throughout entire avctlon. In degrees Celsius

20 16 10



0 100 206 310 416 620 626 730

DISTANCE. IN METERS


0 100 210 320 430 640 660 760

DISTANCE, IM METERS


10-

16-

136 276

0 90 ISO

DISTANCE. IN METERS

DISTANCE. IN METERS


84

5-

10-

15

20

1 !

ACTUAL TIME1.

9:00-10:00 am


358.0-359.0 hours

26 20 15 10 5


EXPLANATION

V Water surface


^f Streambed

r~*> Outflow



0 100 205 310 415 520 «25 730

DISTANCE. IN METERS

100 210 320 430 640

DISTANCE, IN METERS

660 760


10-

16-

136 275

DISTANCE. IN METERS


85

ACTUAL TIME:

11:00-11:40 am


432.0-432.7 hours

26 20 16 10

EXPLANATION

JZ. Water surface

- Estimated wster temperature. In degrees Celsius

^JJ Streambed

C^ Outflow




100 206 310 416 620 626

DISTANCE. IN METERS

730 100 210 320 430 640

DISTANCE, IN METERS

<60 760


86

0

0 ftc 5Ul

£ 10

z ~. 18Xt-

ui 20 o

1

a

2oc ~9

-AUMRU^

Tk

. I

'

20t. 9H

1

""X^ ~ ~"SW

ACTUAL TIME' ^

9:50-10:00 am


478.8-479.0 hours

i

i

512«£ Z

a3

____ L.

ss** **^dCTK. ^^^W

1 J

1 »c25 >-«z: *o_J

L__^22-

21.

\ \20

\\:

I i

1 I

51P,ll"

l^£ 0

7 I I,

5"

.6-**"

L20--

e ove

JB

5r0

-^ -V

V ;̂17'

i ii

EXPLANATION

V Watar aurfaea

- Eatimated water tamperatura.In degraea Calalua

^J Straambed

r~|> outflow

A aingle uneontourad value Indlcatea equal water temperature throughoutentire aaetlon. In degreaa Celaiua

20 16 10


Gulf Island Dam Section

100 206 310 416 620 626 730

DISTANCE. IN METERS

Figure B-18.--Isotherms in Gulf Island Pond, July 1, 1981

87

APPENDIX C.--ISOPLETHS OF DYE CONCENTRATION IN GULF ISLAND POND

SEPTEMBER 1981

89


15.0 hours

16 10 5


Figure C-l.--Isopleths of dye concentration in Gulf Island Pond, September 14, 1981

EXPLANATION

Water aurfaca

Lln* of aatimatad equal dya concentration. In mlcrograme p»r llt*r

Streambed

Outflow dye concentration, in mierograme per liter

A alngl* uncontourad valu« Indicatsa qua! dya concentration for tha ntlra ctlon In mlcrograma par lltar


34.0 hours


Note: Peak between Twin Bridges and Turner Bridge

Figure C-2.--Isopleths of dye concentration in Gulf Island Pond, September 14, 1981

90

0 6oe in»-g 10

Z "". 16X

u 20O

1 ' 1 1 1 1

1 ? £e |f ' 2 a « « e

5 5 ! 5 ,53 1 | a 5 5S:* ' a e * :

__ h- H 3-1 5 C

'r01^ 7 -° ! \ ̂ \ JU^PJPM^H.0. 1

^F*"B^*J<<\

TIME AFTER INJECTION: ^W

44.0-45.0 hours ikA

, L . . Ill I i 11

1\

i t

E O 9

+m

0

i

> ii

-s V

EXPLANATION

-?- Water surface

Line of estimated equal dye concentration, in mlcr,ograme

^9$ Streambed

C^ Outflow dye concentration, in micrograme per liter

A single uncontoured value indicates equal dye concentration for the entire section in microgram* per liter

26 20 16 10 6



DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 00 180

DISTANCE. IN METERS


91

ID-

16

20

II1!


51.0-52.0 hours

EXPLANATION

-? Wat«r turfac*

Lin» of tlmct«d equal dy»concentration, in mlcrogrcmc p«r lit«r

^S^ Str»«mb«d

C^ Outflow dy« eencvntration, in microgramc p«r tlt»r

A *ingl« unconteured valu* indic«t«« qua! dye concentration for th« ntlr* ction in microgram* per lltvr

26 20 16 10



10-

16-

136 276

0 90 180

DISTANCE. IN METERS

DISTANCE. IN METERS


92

10-

20

1 1


59.0-60.0 hours

EXPLANATION

-? Water vurface

Line of estimated equal dyeconcentration. In mlcroQrams per liter

^355 Streambed

C^> Outflow dye concentration, in mlcrogram* per liter

A single uncontoured value indicate* equal dye concentration for the entire »*ctlon In mlcrogram» per liter

20 15 10



10-

15-

90 160

196 276 DISTANCE, IN METERS

DISTANCE. IN METERS


93

10-

20

0.0


68.0-69.0 hours

EXPLANATION

-?- Water aurface

__ Line of estimated equal dyeconcentration, In mlcrograma per liter

'^J Streambed

O Outflow dye concentration, in mlcrograma per liter

A single uncontoured value Indicates equal dye concentration for the entire aectlon In mlcrograma per liter

25 20 16 10



136 276

0 90 180

DISTANCE. IN METERS

DISTANCE. IN METERS


94

1ft.

20


73.5-75.0 hours

26 20 16 10

EXPLANATION

V Water surface

- Estimated water temperature, in degrees Celsius

^? Streambed

O Outflow

A single uncontoured value indicates equal water temperature throughout entire section. In degree* Celsius


Island Cross Section

100 210 320 430 640

DISTANCE, IN METERS

660 790


136 276

DISTANCE. IN METERS

0 90 ISO

DISTANCE. IN METERS

Figure C-7.- -Isopleths of dye concentration in Gulf Island Pond, September 16, 1981

95

10|-

15

20


83.0-84.0 hours

20 19 10 5


EXPLANATION

-? Watar aurfaca

_ _ Lina of aatlmatad aqua) dyaconcantratlon, In mlcrograma par lltar

"S95 Straambad

O Outflow dya concantratfon, in micrograma par lltar

A aingla uncontourad valua Indicate* aqua) dya concantratlon for tha antlra aactlon In mlcrograma par lltar

Island Section

100 210 320 430 S40

DISTANCE. IN METERS


690 760

10-

16-

0 135 27S

DISTANCE. IN METERS

Figure C-8.- -Isopleths of dye concentration in Gulf Island Pond, September 17, 1981

96

10-

15

20


92.0-93.5 hours

25 20 15 10

EXPLANATION

-?- Water surface

Line of estimated equal dyeconcentration. In mierograms per liter

^555 Stresmbed

CC> Outflow dye concentration, in mierograms per liter

A single uneontoured value indicates equal dye concentration for the entire section in mierograms per liter


Island Section

0 100 210 320 430 540 960 760

DISTANCE, IN METERS


135 275

DISTANCE. IN METERS

0 90 180

DISTANCE. IN METERS


97

I0h

16

20


99.0-101.0 hours

25 20 16 10 6


1 i

EXPLANATION

-? Water surface

Line of estimated equal dyeconcentration, In mlcrograms per liter

^5 Streambed


A single uncontoured value indicates equal dye concentration for the entire section in micrograme per liter


100 206 910 416 620 828 730

DISTANCE. IN METERS

100 210 320 430 640 850

DISTANCE. IN METERS

780


136 276

DISTANCE. IN METERS


98

5-

10-

16.

20

26


107.0-109.0 hours

20 16 10

EXPLANATION

-?- Watar aurface

Lina of estimated equal dyaconcentration. In miorograma par liter

^W5 Streambad

Outflow dya concentration. In mlcrograma par liter

0.0A (Ingle uneontourad value Indicate* equal dya eoneantration for the entire aaetlon in micrograma par liter


Gulf Island Dam Seel ion Island Section

100 206 310 416 620 626 730

DISTANCE. IN METERS

100 210 320 430 640 660 760

DISTANCE. IN METERS


10-

16-

136 276

DISTANCE. IN METERS

Figure C-ll.--Isopleths of dye concentration in Gulf Island Pond, September 18, 1981

99

10-

15-

20'


116.0-117.5 hours0.1

25 20 15 10

0.2



100 20« 310 416 520 626

DISTANCE, IN METERS


730 100 210 320 430 540

DISTANCE. IN METERS

650 760

135 2T5

EXPLANATION

-? Water surface

Una of aatlmatad equal dyeconcentration. In mlcrograma per liter

^39$ Streambed

C^ Outflow dye concentration. In mlcrograma par liter

A tingle uncontoured value Indicates equal dye concentration for the entire aectfon In mlcrograma per liter

DISTANCE, IN METERS


100


127.5-129.5 hours

0.8

26 16 10 6



100 206 310 416 620 626 730

DISTANCE. IN METERS


10-

16-

136 276

DISTANCE. IN METERS

100 210 320 430 640 660 760

DISTANCE, IN METERS

EXPLANATION

-2- Water surface

_ Line of estimated equal dyeconcentration, in mlcrograms p«r liter

^05 Streambed

dC> Outflow dye concentration. In micrograms per liter

A single uncontoured value indicates equal dye concentration for the entire section In mlcrograms per liter


101

15 10 6


0.8


100 208 310 415 520 625 730

DISTANCE, IN METERS


10-

16-

136 275

100 210 320 430 540 650 760

DISTANCE. IN METERS

EXPLANATION

-?- Wat«r turfac*

__ Lin* of *timat*d «quat dy«concentration, in microgram* p*r

DISTANCE. IN METERS

'Wf Str*amb«d

CX> Outflow dy* concentration. in microgram* p*r liter

A *ingl* uncontoured valu* Indicates qua! dy* concentration for the entire tection in mierogram* per liter


102


163.0-164.5 hours

10


Gulf Island Section Island Section

100 209 310 416 620 626 730

DISTANCE. IN METERS


0 136 276

DISTANCE. IN METERS

100 210 320 430 640 660 760

DISTANCE, IN METERS

EXPLANATION

-?- Water surface

__ Lln* of estimated equal dyeconcentration. In microarama per liter

^8$ Streambed

C^> Outflow dye concentration. In micrograms per liter

A single uncontoured value indicates equal dye concentration for the antire section in mlorogram* per liter


103

DEPTH. IN METERS

10 -» _

O 9 O 9 <

: 1 1 * e e c "J a

^""Sftw "~~~X


188.5-190.5 hours

.1 , ,i

* i i

!l if i!z" z« Ji

a o i« "33-1 0

i I VI, 1,0.0 1* 0.7

1 1 1

"^A o!i I /V v\o.'svg

E a

e

0

3

20 16 10 6


0.7


0 100 206 310 416 620 626 730

DISTANCE, IN METERS


136 276

100 210 320 430 540 650 760

DISTANCE, IN METERS

EXPLANATION

-?- Water surface

Line of estimated equal dyeconcentration. In micrograma per liter

^5 Streambed

(O Outflow dye concentration, in mlcrograms per liter

A single unoontoured value Indicates equal dye concentration for the entire section in micrograms per liter

DISTANCE. IN METERS


104

APPENDIX D.--ISOTHERMS IN GULF ISLAND POND

SEPTEMBER 1981

105


21.0 hours

EXPLANATION

Water surface


Streambed

Outflow

A single uncontoured v«lu« Indicates qua! water temperature throughout entire section. In degrees Celsius

25 15 10


Figure D-l.--Isotherms in Gulf Island Pond, September 14, 1981

106

10-

16-

20

U IoS 04

PiS O

18.8

ACTUAL TIME'-

10:00-11:50 am


44.0-45.9 hours

26 20 16 10 6


EXPLANATION

_2_ Water surface

- Estimated water temperature, In degrees Celsius

^9$ Streambed

[~*> Outflow

19.4

A single uncontoured value indicate* qual water temperature throughout entire ectlon, in degrees Celsius


46.0 h

/ i0 100 208 310 416 520 626 730

DISTANCE. IN METERS


0 13S 27S

DISTANCE. IN METERS

100 210 320 430 640

DISTANCE. IN METERS


650 780

0 «0 180

DISTANCE. IN METERS

Figure D-2.--Isotherms in Gulf Island Pond, September 15, 1981

107

19.2

EXPLANATION

Water surface

Estimated water tempersture, in degrees Celsius

Streambed

Outflow

16 10 S



Island Section

100 210 320 430 840 660 760

DISTANCE. IN METERS


10-

16-

0 136 276

DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 90 160

DISTANCE, IN METERS


108

15

20

ACTUAL TIME:

1:00 am

TIME AFTER INJECTION:59 hours

I I,

19.4

25 20 16 10 5



0 90 160

DISTANCE. IN METERS

EXPLANATION

T7 Water surface


^9? Stresmbed

O Outflow

A single uncontoured value indicates equal water temperature throughout entire section, in degreee Celsius


109

0

S Ul

§ 10

Z~. 16X H-

ui 20O

-e 9 *Se -o o oa Z £e5 o

i s * I i_ j- - a

-rotr^ ' 'r'X*... i9.s x --.^^*»K / ^

^S^pPT^X^iWX

ACTUAL TIME'- ^^^^

10:00-11:00 am


68.0-69.0 hours

.1 . i i i i

6 S>s ^1oi °ow 75 ' e5: eg-

e : "3-t £ a

i ^7 i 1s \ T

\ X19.5\ _

\ X v N\1 V18.?W

^*V<rf

EO

e

5

o\s

"^

1 1 111

EXPLANATION

V Water surface

Estimated water temperature.In degrees Celsius

^£ Streambed

C~^ Outflow

19.5

A single uncontoured value Indicates equal water temperature throughout entire section, in degrees Celsius

26 16 10 6



136 276

DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 90 180

DISTANCE. IN METERS


110

« 6C *Ul

i 10z

uJ 20O

£ 2O

2 o o 2e e» 5z^ :

ou """^V^. _

ACTUAL TIME'- **^

2:50-5:20 pm


72.8-75.3 hours

.1 . i i

i_ei-X*

a3

>

^

"C^

18

i

i i i E e

!i *ffeO ^

! ^i" '^ * ^ ^:i-* 5 e i ^720 3

^20 _ »s.

XX

\ "^ "" ^^^^1^^

E

O TIe

O

O

-S -V

1 1 111

EXPLANATION

V Water surface

Estimated water temperatureIn degreea Celsius

^8? Streambed

T~$ Outflow

19.3

.

A single unoontoured value Indlcatea equal water temperature throughoutentire section. In degrees Celalus

20 16 10 6



0 100 206 310 416 620 626 730

DISTANCE. IN METERS


10-

18-

0 136 276

DISTANCE. IN METERS

100 210 320 430 640

DISTANCE. IN METERS


660 760

0 80 160

DISTANCE. IN METERS


111


83.0 hours

19.4



0 136 275

DISTANCE. IN METERS

EXPLANATION

V Water surface


^JJ Streambed

LO Outflow

A slngl* uncontourcd valu* Indicates qua! water temperature throughout entire section. In degrees Celsius


112

EXPLANATION

_2_ Water surface

Estimated water temperature, in degrees Celsius

19.3

Outflow

A single uncontoured value indicates equal water temperature throughout entire section, in degrees Celsius

16 10 6


Island Section

0 100 210 320 430 S40 060 700

DISTANCE. IN METERS


0 13S 27S

DISTANCE. IN METERS

0 00 180

DISTANCE. IN METERS


113

10

15

20

ACTUAL TIME'

4:30-7:00 pm


98.5-101.0 hours

I18.8

25 20 16 10 6


19.1


100 20S 310 41ft 620 626 730

DISTANCE. IN METERS


0 136 276

DISTANCE. IN METERS

100 210 320 430 640 660 760

DISTANCE. IN METERS

EXPLANATION

V Water aurface

- Estimated water temperature. In degree* Celalua

<$9? Streambed

r~^> Outflow

A tingle unoontourad value Indicate* equal water temperature throughout entire aeetlon. In degree* Celalua


114

16

20

26

ACTUAL TIME'-

0:30-3:00 am


106.5-109.0 hours

20 16 10

19.1



100 20S 310 416 620 626 730

DISTANCE. IN METERS


0 136 276

DISTANCE. IN METERS

100 210 320 430 640 660 760

DISTANCE. IN METERS

EXPLANATION

_2_ Water surface

Estimated water temperature, in degrees Celsius

^9SJ Streambed

LO Outflow

A tingle uncontoured value indicate* equal water temperature throughout entire aectlon. in degreea Celsius


115

10}-

16

20

25

ACTUAL TIME'-

10:00-11:40 am


116.0-117.7 hours

20 16 10 ft


19.0


628 7300 100 208 310 415 520

DISTANCE. IN METERS


100

0 136 276

DISTANCE. IN METERS

210 320 430 640

DISTANCE. IN METERS

660 760

EXPLANATION

V Water surface

- Estimated water temperature. In degrees Celsius

^WS Streambed

n^> outflowA single unaantoured v«lu« indicates qual water temperature throughout entire section. In degrees Celsius


116

ACTUAL TIME:

9:10-11:40 pm


127.2-129.7 hours

19.0

15 10 5



100 206 310 416 620 626 780

DISTANCE. IN METERS


100 210 320 430 640

DISTANCE. IN METERS

50 780

10-

16-

186 276

EXPLANATION

JZ. W«t«r surface

- Estimated w«t«r temperature. In degrees Celslua

^Jf Streambed

C^ Outflow


DISTANCE. IN METERS


117

in 20o

10-

IS

ACTUAL TIME'

9:00-10:30 am


139.0-140.5 hours

26 20 18 10 S


19.1


0 100 205 310 418 S20 626 730

DISTANCE, IN METERS


10-

15-

100 210 320 430 640 660 760

DISTANCE. IN METERS

EXPLANATION

_2_ Water urfac*

E«tlmit*d w«t«r tvmpantur*, In d*gr*«i C«l*iui

136 2T5

^SJ Str«amb«d

C^ Outflow

A slngl* uncontour«d vilu* indloat*a qual water t*mp«ratur« throughout ntir* otion, In d*gr**« C«l*lu*

DISTANCE. IN METERS


118

ACTUAL TIME'-

8:50-10:30 am


162.8-164.5 hours

20 16 10 6


18.8


0 100 206 310 416 620 926 730

DISTANCE. >N METERS


136 276

100 210 320 430 640 660 760

DISTANCE. IN METERS

EXPLANATION

y Water surface

- Estimated water temperature. In degrees Celalus

<30$ Streambed

r~y Outflow


DISTANCE. IN METERS


119

10

16

20

25

ACTUAL TIME1

10:30 am-12:30 pm


188.5-190.5 hours

18.5

20 16 10 6



0 100 205 310 415 620 ««6 730

DISTANCE. IN METERS


100

0 136 275

DISTANCE. IN METERS

210 320 430 540

DISTANCE. IN METERS

660 760

EXPLANATION

_2L W*t«r turfic*

Estimated w«t«r temperature. In degree* Cel*lu*

^8? Streambed

r~y outflow

A *ingle uncontourcd v«lu« indicate* qu«l w«t«r t«mp«r«tur« throughout ntlr* ctlbn, in degree* Celelu*


120

DE

PT

H.

IN M

ET

ER

S

H«

OQ fl> a

DE

PT

H.

IN M

ET

ER

S

O

rt-

£r

CD

>-S 3 CO

CD >d rt-

CD 3 cr CD K)

lala

ndaa

otl

on

Qu

it l

alan

d D

am

aeo

tlo

n

<D0

1O

<o

e o

e *

5 z

:r >

o

Z~

Z

OO

*

Z

II

oo

APPENDIX E.--DISCHARGE, DYE CONCENTRATION, AND DYE MASS FLOW

VERSUS TIME AFTER INJECTION

123

ho

5 6 Q.

CO 5 o: ui

o

100

80

-

60-

40-

20-

10-

8-

6-

4-

2- I- .8-

.6 4-

.2-

.08-

.0

6-

.04-

.02

Riv

er

dist

ance

ab

ove

head

of

tid

ero

ol 1

CJ ol

*: tf)

u. Ul 8

Site

nam

e uj

o

I i

a> s en 2 I-

Inde

x di

scha

rge

=

/

\

\

\

\

\

\

\\

1020

507b

8030

4

0

50

60

TR

AV

EL

TIM

E

ffJE

R

INJE

CTI

ON

, IN

H

OU

RS

Figure E-l.--Traveltime versus dy

e concentration for

subreach A,

June 1980

o:

UJ oc

o

100

80-

60-

40

-

20

-

10-

8-

6-

4-

2-

1.0-

.8

- .6

-

.4-1

2H .1-

.08

.06-

.04

H

.02

Rive

rdi

ston

ce

E ab

ove

head

^

of

tid

e ^

Site

na

me

u I

I

8E

it: CM

I in

od 00

I I

Inde

x di

scha

rge

s 45 m

E 2£

(O

CD

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

id10

011

020

30

46

50

6O

70

80

SO

TR

AV

ELT

IME

AFT

ER

IN

JEC

TIO

N,

IN

HO

UR

S

Figure E-2.--Traveltime versus dye

concentration for

subreach A, September 19

80

a: UJ a:

tf

CO

- 80

- 6

0.

4O-J

2O-

IO

8 6 4-

2- I-

.8 .6 i o UJ

.2-

.1-

.08-

.06-

.04-

.02-

.Ol.

Riv

erdi

stan

ce

£

abov

e he

ad j

g of

tid

e =

8

Site

nam

e 5

o

I

I

1

UJ K.

CD

Inde

x di

scha

rge

= 2

04

m3/

s

"

5 10

15

2D

25

30

35

40

45

TIM

E

OF

TRA

VE

L A

FTER

IN

JEC

TIO

N,

IN

HO

UR

S

Figure E-3.--Traveltime versus dy

e concentration for

subreach A, April 1981

90

ro

Inde

x di

scha

rge

= 12

3 m

3/s

.01

SO

ZOO

250

TRA

VE

LTIM

E A

FTE

R

INJE

CTI

ON

, IN

HO

URS

300

350

400

Figu

re E-

4.--

Trav

elti

me ve

rsus

dy

e co

ncen

trat

ion

for

subreaches B

an

d C,

June 19

81

K3

OO

100-

8

0-

60

-

40

-

20

-

10

- 8-

6-

4- I- -2-J .1-

.08

.06-

.04-

.02

-

.01

Rive

r di

stan

ce

abov

e he

ad

of

tide

Site

na

me

Inde

x di

scho

rge

=

10

20

30

40

50

60

TR

AV

EL

TIM

E

AFT

ER

N

JEC

TIO

N,

IN

HO

UR

S

Figure E-5.--Traveltime ve

rsus

dy

e concentration for

subreach B,

September 1981

70

200

cc UJ 13

cc UJ o. UJ

Inde

x di

scha

rge

= 19

0 nr

r/s

.01

Fig

ure

E

-6.-

-

10

is

TRA

VE

LTIM

E A

FTER

INJE

CTI

ON

, IN

HO

URS

Traveltime versus dy

e concentration for

subreach C, April 19

81

o0200

CO

. ff UJ UJ

S'SsoCOff UJI-

2100 O5D O z 50

uj

0.8

ff UJ<

ff9 »* 5

0.6

UJ O

O 2 0.2

0.0

oUJ

as w soo cc-I UJ U. 0.

co co 60

2 40

20

T - TIME TO CENTROID

100 150 200 250 300 TRAVELTIME AFTER INJECTION. IN HOURS

350

Figure E-7.--Discharge, dye concentration, and dye mass flow versus time after injection for samples collected at Gulf Island Pond, June 1981

130

H

OQ c H

CD

DY

E

MA

SS

F

LO

W.

IN

MIL

LIG

RA

MS

P

ER

S

EC

ON

D

p

b

DY

E

CO

NC

EN

TR

AT

ION

,

IN

MIC

RO

QR

AM

S

PE

R

LIT

ER

o

o

p

pio

*

«

o01 o

DIS

CH

AR

GE

,IN

C

UB

IC

ME

TE

RS

P

ER

S

EC

ON

D10 o

oo

oen o

o z O200oUI 00

i £o !-

2iooCDa o

QCUI

. H

O J 0.6H QC< UIQC 0.

Z °°UI 2 0.4

0 i

g|o oQC

X 2 0.2 o 2

z

0.0

0 80

ui »

O QC-i uiu. o. eo00 00S s2 c 40

ui 2

20

T - TIME TO CENTROID

100 350 400150 200 250 300 TRAVELTIME AFTER INJECTION. IN HOURS

Figure E-9.--Discharge, dye concentration, and dye mass flow versus time after injection for samples collected at the Survey gage near Auburn, June 1981

132

§200UJ CO

. DCUJ UJ(3 OU~~ CO

DC

150< z o ^CO UJ Q 2

0 100

O

50

0.6UJK-

< UJ ff Q.

UJ 2O <Z ffo oo oUJ g 0.2

Q i

0.0

O 80UJ

.«UJ 60Q.

CO £ft< 52 K 40

20

T-TIME TO CENTROID

100 150 200 250 300 350 TRAVELTIME AFTER INJECTION, IN HOURS

400

Figure E-10.--Discharge, dye concentration, and dye mass flowversus time after injection for samples collected at Lisbon Falls, June 1981

133

o z§200UJ CO

. DC Uj UJ

52X UJU HCO UJ

ISO-

oiooOQ

50

£ 0.6

CO 0.4

O oO ffUJ O 0.2

o.o

080

UJ

aO

CO COco 2

40

20

100

T- TIME TO CENTROID

400150 200 250 300 350 TRAVELTIME AFTER INJECTION, IN HOURS

Figure E-11.--Discharge, dye concentration and dye mass flow versus time after injection for samples collected at Pejepscot Dam, June 1981

134

DY

E

MA

88

FL

OW

.

IN

MIL

LIG

RA

MS

PE

R

8E

CO

NO

0> tn ts) I I

P <

ort

0>

H

-

W

c/i

OH5

C

^

C

(f>

p3

H

^

H-

(DH.

3 »

o

n> ^

a.hh

n>

C CD

ofl> 00

n>

M

O O

H

- 3

O

P 3 a.

a> n>

H->

o

oa> a.

o o

PY

E

CO

NC

EN

TR

AT

ION

.

IN

MIC

RO

QR

AM

8

PE

R

LIT

ER

e

o

e

DIS

CH

AR

GE

. IN

C

U1IC

M

ET

ER

S

PE

R

8E

CO

ND

O e(M e

-I O

m H m M

9

<H. o

m

o H z o c

a 01 « 01 e

time of travel and dispersion study in the …

Documents