Report of the Physical Resource

Peer Review Panel

October 6, 2006

Presentation to GCDAMP Technical W

November 9, 2006
I. Overview

Design of the Monitoring Program• panel generally impressed with direction of GCMR

monitoring program

• panel commends individual scientists & program a

degree of communication & collaboration among 

• further efforts are necessary, however, to more 

core monitoring & research efforts

• specifically, fine sediment modeling needs to be 

coarse sediment work & with collection and ana

• clear articulation of a guiding framework would s

collaboration within physical resources prograamong three GCMRC programs, & facilitate tasreviewers
Design of the Monitoring Program (cont.)

• encourage bottom-up collaborations among resea

three core GCMRC program

• current adaptive management process, with AMW

prioritizing core monitoring information needs consensus, is cumbersome and likely inhibits se

goals and making decisions

• need more clearly articulated rationale for prio

monitoring information needs
II. Specific Charges to the Panel

Draft statements of work1) Integrated quality-of-water core monito• statement of work is reasonable• specific suggestions include greater attention to 

to distinguish extended baseline monitoring actrelatively short-term measurements; more focgrain size (bed sediment camera) & Paria inputs installed to measure discharge, stage, suspendebed sediment grain size, and bedload sediment 

2) Modeling support linked to monitoring (W• goals of modeling effort appropriate & reasonabl• need to ensure that modeling program is properly 

work of Topping
II. Specific Charges to the Panel (con

Draft statements of work3) Additional specific comments• emphasize need for long-term sediment transpor

used to demonstrate the potential results of scenarios

• panel recommends that the current 1d Colorado R

critically reviewed by a small group tasked witfurther development or re-development of th
II. Specific Charges to the Panel (con

Effectiveness of current or proposed sedime

monitoring in meeting identified core infoanswering strategic science questions

• Need for a comprehensive structured approach: ap

to prioritize information needs, define the flow will lead to a desired endpoint of understanding, level of detail needed to address driving questio

• e.g. panel uncertain how efforts to model fine sedi

integrate with efforts to model coarse sediment 
II. Specific Charges to the Panel (con

Effectiveness of current or proposed sedim

monitoring in meeting identified core infoanswering strategic science questions (co

• Fine sediment modeling: need more effective com

modelers and field scientists; need prioritizatiaddressed in simulations; need to improve treawithin eddies; model must be calibrated; fundaneeds to provide first-order estimates of the management scenarios

• Assessing thresholds: scientists need to ask how 

the parameters & trends being studied

• Core monitoring & analysis: panel suggests that m

studies, & modeling all be referred to as core manalysis
II. Specific Charges to the Panel (con

Effectiveness of current or proposed sedim

monitoring in meeting identified core infoanswering strategic science questions (co

• Experimental flows: experimental flow releases r

core monitoring & analysis program

• Sediment monitoring strategies: 3 complementary 

redundant approaches possible for sediment mrecommends combination of approaches that cevent-based ground monitoring of sand bars, & development of the sediment mass balance for also essential to continue funding existing rese

sufficient period of time to allow scientists to 
II. Specific Charges to the Panel (con

Potential for integration of sediment core m

protocols with other related program act

Degree of integration among 3 core GCMRC program

since 1999, but more effective integration req

• establish common frames of reference that facil

effects of changing flow & sediment regimes (

• evaluate trade-offs among different resources a

differing flow regimes

• scientists in other programs identify physical par

central to their understanding of the river eco

• joint annual research symposia & river trips
III. Summary

• panel commends physical resources program direc

scientists for progress made with respect to coanalysis since 1999 program review

• panel stresses need for more experimental flow r

assess the adequacy of models 

• panel emphasizes need for (i) clear articulation o

that guides core monitoring & analysis efforts, within physical resources program between modstudies, (iii) integration of frequent experimentmonitoring & analysis, and (iv) development of a reference & discussion of trade-offs among dif