U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Update on 2009 Modeling 

recent workshop and nex

October 15, 2008

Technical Workgroup Meeting, Pho
Physical Modeling Goals

 Evaluate planned operations and “what if” 

dam operations

 Develop and apply predictive models discharge Develop and apply predictive models 

nearshore temperature dynamics

 Develop and apply predictive models 

sediment transport and sandbar dynamic

 Evaluate and improve (if needed) Lak

 Provide input to and support ecological m
Physical Modeling Program

 September workshop

 Modeling team received input from s

and discussed 2009 work plan

 The team felt that the interests and conc

consistent with the current modeling foc

 Outcome 

 Continue with 2009 work plan, but add d

addresses issues raised and workshop additional Science Advisor comments

 Convene additional workshops (next in  In 2009, develop a formal proposal for 2
Physical Modeling Research 

 U.S. Geological Survey

 Scott Wright, David Rubin, David To

Grams (Program Manager), Ted Meli

Academic Cooperators:Arizona State University – Mark SchmThe Johns Hopkins University – Peter Commercial Cooperators: Deltaris (Netherlands) – Kees Schloff
September Modeling Workshop

Synopsis of Stakeholder Input What type of scenarios should be 

 Limit modeling to operations within 

established constraints

 Do NOT limit modeling scenarios; m

that may be outside current constra

 Compare current variability to histor

(provide historical perspective when results)

 Evaluate sediment augmentations Evaluate trade-offs
September Modeling Workshop

Stakeholder Input Modeling different high flow scenarios

 What are the optimal conditions for:

 Sediment loading Flow peak magnitude and duration

 What frequency of high flows is needed?* What are the minimum requirements to (1) i

(2) to sustain bars in present condition?*

 Is the approach sustainable over the lo What is the role of different antecedent 

 Might there be an advantage to having high 

with LCR floods?

* Requires clarification and agreement on stakeholders.
September Modeling Workshop

Stakeholder Input Modeling for non-high flow condi

 What are the relative effects of differ

scenarios on sediment transport and storage?

 How do different down ramping rate

stability?

 What is the relation between habitat 

and monthly flow volumes under ML
September Modeling Workshop

Stakeholder Input Linkages with terrestrial environment

 What is the role of deposition in locations other 

bars (i.e. channel-margins, gravel bars, etc.)

 What is the stability of pre-dam deposits

 Linkages with aquatic environment

 Habitat formation and maintenance Turbidity Temperature

 Predict mainstem temperatures by river mile Predict near-shore temperatures Collect additional water surface temperature data 

 How do high flows affect archeological sites?

 How much sand is needed to fill archeological s Is there a linkage between preserved sites and s
September Modeling Workshop

Stakeholder Input Modeling scope

 Focus on certain reaches?* Downstream from Diamond Creek?* Glen Canyon*

 What is the desired condition?*

 Increase in bars? Increase in net sand storage? Decreasing rate of decline in bars or 

* Requires clarification and agreement on stakeholders.
Future of Modeling Project

 Modeling project should not be considered “over” o

model developments are finished (likely in the nex

 Development will result in an integrated “toolbox” o

“tools” require maintenance and updating, and stause them

 For example, as new monitoring and research flow 

available, models should incorporate improved unsystem dynamics

 Thus, modeling project should continue in a scaled 

alongside Long-Term Core Monitoring