Assessment of Columbia and Willamette River flood stage on the Columbia Corridor Levee System at Portland, Oregon, in a future climate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
First posted March 4, 2019 For additional information, contact: Director, Oregon Water Science CenterU.S. Geological Survey2130 SW 5th AvenuePortland, Oregon 97201 To support Levee Ready Columbia’s (LRC’s) effort to re-certify levees along the Columbia and Willamette Rivers and remain accredited, two 2-dimensional hydraulic models, Adaptive Hydraulics and Delft3D-Flexible Mesh, were used to simulate the effects of plausible extreme high water during the 2030 to 2059 period. The Columbia River was simulated from Bonneville Dam, situated at river mile (RM) 145, to the mouth of Columbia River, and the Willamette River was simulated from Willamette Falls, RM 26.2, to the Columbia River confluence. Inputs to the models included light detection and ranging (lidar) and bathymetric mapping data to determine bed level, and boundary conditions in the form of daily inflow hydrographs and water levels in the ocean offshore of the mouth of the Columbia River.Future conditions were based on climate science data developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and others. These conditions included future streamflow and coastal ocean water levels. The hypothetical, extreme but plausible, upstream boundary was based on scaling up the hydrographs from the 1996 flood. Scaling factors were determined by comparing the peak flow rankings determined from flood frequency analyses of historical unregulated periods and 2040s simulated unregulated winter streamflow. The comparison resulted in scaling up the Columbia River hydrograph by 40-percent and scaling up the Willamette River and Lower Columbia River tributaries hydrographs by 20-percent. The downstream ocean boundary was based on a combination of sea-level change, high tide, and storm surge.The models were calibrated for two historical periods: (1) from January 15 to February 28, 1996, and (2) from April 12 to July 12, 1997. The two models compared well to the measured water-surface elevation over the historical periods and had good performance statistics, with root-mean square error ranging from 0.085 to 0.32 meters, Nash-Sutcliffe values greater than 0.96, and bias ranging from -0.03 to 0.28 meters. The simulated peak stage in the Columbia River at Vancouver, Washington, for 1996 was 9.60 and 9.98 meters (31.5 and 32.7 feet) compared to the measured peak of 9.89 meters (32.5 feet). Future peak stage then was simulated with boundary conditions representing extreme but plausible future conditions at the inflow sites and the ocean boundary.The two calibrated models compared well in their simulations of extreme but plausible future conditions. For the 0-meter sea-level change scenario, the simulated peak stage in the Columbia River at Vancouver was 11.15 and 11.39 meters (36.6 and 37.4 feet); and for the 1-meter sea-level change scenario, the simulated peak stage in the Columbia River was 11.25 and 11.54 meters (36.9 and 37.9 feet). The total increase in stage as compared to the 1996 measured peak stage ranged from 1.26 to 1.65 meters (4.13 to 5.40 feet).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".