Lower Snake Modeling and Lower Snake Modeling and LGR MonitoringLGR Monitoring
Year 1 Report SummaryYear 1 Report Summary
Lower Snake Modeling and Lower Snake Modeling and LGR MonitoringLGR Monitoring
Year 1 Report SummaryYear 1 Report Summary
Christopher CookChristopher Cook
BPA Project 2002-027-00
2
Current Geographic Extent: Lower Granite Pool to Columbia R.
3
Note: USACE is reviewing data
4
2002 Temperature Monitoring Locations
5
Pressure sensorsat Sites 2, 3, 4, & 7 Spring/Summer 2002 =>
pool had little slope
6
Note: black lines indicate depths of loggers
Most downstream site.Approximately 9 miles from LGR.
Most downstream Clearwater R. site.Attached to railroad trestle.
Appendix A and provided to USACE
7
Water velocity (ADCP) measurements: 2 surveys of 52 ptsNote: Data provided to USACE
8
LGR Velocity and Thermal StructureLGR Velocity and Thermal StructureLGR Velocity and Thermal StructureLGR Velocity and Thermal StructureMode 1: Weak to No StratificationMode 2: Strong Stratification
Typical mode 1 pattern.
Rivers flow parallel to each other at the confluence.
Satellite Image 4/4/2002Temp delta = 1.5° C
9
18 Degree Isotherm 20 Degree Isotherm
14 Degree Isotherm2018 °C16 14
2018 °C16 14
2018 °C16 14
Typical mode 2 pattern.
Clearwater subducts under the Snake River.
Satellite Image 7/21/2002Temp delta = 10° C
Density Driven Flow
Colder Clearwater R flowcan migrate up the Snake R.
Migration halts when a balancebetween momentum and buoyancy is reached.
10
3-D Modeling of LGR3-D Modeling of LGR3-D Modeling of LGR3-D Modeling of LGR
Examples of the numerical grid, colored by bathymetry
11
Velocity ResultsVelocity Resultscompared to August 2002 ADCP surveycompared to August 2002 ADCP survey
Velocity ResultsVelocity Resultscompared to August 2002 ADCP surveycompared to August 2002 ADCP survey
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
-2.00 -1.50 -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
Field Measured Velocity (ft/s)
Sim
ula
ted
Vel
oci
ty (
ft/s
)
Vel. Mag.
Northing
Easting
1:1 Line
R2 avg. RMS MSE MAE bias
Easting velocity 0.878 0.158 0.025 0.116 -0.039
Northing velocity 0.918 0.131 0.017 0.100 0.106
Velocity Magnitude 0.707 0.187 0.035 0.149 0.087
12
3-D Model => a work in progress3-D Model => a work in progress3-D Model => a work in progress3-D Model => a work in progress
Ongoing model fixes Calculation error at downstream boundary Doesn’t impact results at PNNL sites…issues downriver
by the dam As of today, bug (appears) to be fixed and seems to be
working properly. Need to improve water balance. Will apply CE-QUAL-
W2 to calculate Q for synthetic tributary.
Temperature difference plots in report Could be better. Next steps are to adjust surface heat exchange
parameters for an improved fit – need to fix boundary 1st.
13
CE-QUAL-W2 Modeling of the CE-QUAL-W2 Modeling of the Lower Snake RiverLower Snake River
CE-QUAL-W2 Modeling of the CE-QUAL-W2 Modeling of the Lower Snake RiverLower Snake River
Year 1 applied CE-QUAL to LGS, LMN, and IHRBathymetry dataset is from MASS1 (0.5 mile dx, 1m dz)CE-QUAL volumes compared to Water Control Manual LGS & IHR < 5%; LMN < 10%
typical elevation range = 193 m (633 ft) to 194.5 m (638 ft)
170
175
180
185
190
195
200
0.00E+00 1.00E+08 2.00E+08 3.00E+08 4.00E+08 5.00E+08 6.00E+08 7.00E+08 8.00E+08 9.00E+08
volume (m3)
ele
va
tio
n (
m)
CE-QUAL VALUES Water Control Manual
LGS
typical elevation range = 133.2 m (437 ft) to 134.1 m (440 ft)
115
120
125
130
135
140
0.00E+00 1.00E+08 2.00E+08 3.00E+08 4.00E+08 5.00E+08 6.00E+08 7.00E+08
volume (m3)
ele
va
tio
n (
m)
CE-QUAL VALUES Water Control Manual
IHR
typical elevation range = 163.7 m (537 ft) to 164.6 m (540 ft)
140
145
150
155
160
165
170
175
0.00E+00 1.00E+08 2.00E+08 3.00E+08 4.00E+08 5.00E+08 6.00E+08
volume (m3)
ele
va
tio
n (
m)
CE-QUAL VALUES Water Control Manual
LMN
14
CE-QUAL-W2 Boundary ConditionsCE-QUAL-W2 Boundary ConditionsCE-QUAL-W2 Boundary ConditionsCE-QUAL-W2 Boundary ConditionsInflow discharge and temperature data Upstream data specified hourly Obtained from USACE database LMN => Tucannon and Palouse Rivers
Q (daily) from USGS. Temp (hourly) from USACE
Meteorology All reservoirs used Rice Bar AgriMet data (mid-LGS) IHR results may be improved by using closer station PAWS station
(Fishhook)
Downstream flow boundary Specified hourly & obtained from USACE database Distributed tributary used to achieve correct elevation at
downstream. Iterative process. Average adjustments were less than ±3% of river Q.
15
bias = -0.01 bias = -0.02MAE = 0.03 MAE = 0.23RMS = 0.04 RMS = 0.29
Downstream Elevation (m) Downstream Temperture (oC)
Little Goose Reservoir
16
bias = -0.02 bias = -0.20MAE = 0.07 MAE = 0.22RMS = 0.09 RMS = 0.27
Downstream Elevation (m) Downstream Temperture (oC)
Lower Monumental Reservoir
17
bias = 0.00 bias = 0.09MAE = 0.03 MAE = 0.22RMS = 0.04 RMS = 0.27
Downstream Elevation (m) Downstream Temperture (oC)
Ice Harbor Reservoir
18
Year 2 Data CollectionYear 2 Data CollectionYear 2 Data CollectionYear 2 Data CollectionTemperature Loggers Same 11 sites as last year 2 additional: Red Wolf (replace USGS) & US-12 Installed April 28 – May 1 Maintenance trips: weeks of June 16, July 21 Removed week of Sept 22
ADCP survey Increased coverage of confluence zone Survey trips
May 14-16. 15 cross-sections x 3 pts surveyed Aug 11-13, Aug 25-28
Increased monitoring of confluence zone Upstream migration of Clearwater Satellite and IR Camera monitoring to improve understanding
of mixing zone (shape, location, etc.).
19
Year 2 ModelingYear 2 ModelingYear 2 ModelingYear 2 Modeling
CE-QUAL-W2 Test sensitivity to met conditions
Cloud cover Fishhook data at IHR Wind variations (topographic steering issue)
Validate against mid-pool temperature time series Simulate LGR pool in support of 3-D modeling
3-D CFD of LGR Confirm working properly Adjust parameters for best fit Validate against Year 2 data