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