Transcript adr_6_2000
Klamath ADR Hydrology Report •Flow Estimation in the Wood River Basin •Consumptive Use Summary and Flow Statistics in three un-gauged sub-basins above Klamath Lake. • Accretions Investigation in the Middle Williamson Flow Estimation in the Wood River Basin Study Motivation • To estimate an historical record at the mouth of the Wood River. – Enables comparison of derived flows to instream claims at the mouth. – Allows for estimation of zero demand flows. – Enables derivation of probabilities associated with low flow (drought) conditions. Location Crater Lake Sun Creek Annie Creek Wood River Springs Fort Creek Crooked Creek Sevenmile Creek $$ Fourmile Creek Instream Claims Agency Lake Area Description • Inflows to the area are dominated by spring fed streams to the east, with snowmelt runoff driven streams to the north and west. • There are a limited number of discharge records. • The area has a complicated system of un-gauged diversions and return flows in the valley. • A substantial number of acres are below the lake levels and are subirrigated. Area Description • Instream claims exist on the Wood River and Crooked Creek. Major Streams in Wood River Valley Crater Lake Sun Creek Annie Creek Wood River Springs Sevenmile Creek Fort Creek Crooked Creek $$ Fourmile Creek Instream Claims Agency Lake Major Streams with Diversions in the Wood River Valley Crater Lake Sun Creek Annie Creek Wood River Springs Sevenmile Creek Fort Creek Crooked Creek $$ Fourmile Creek Instream Claims Agency Lake Irrigated and Sub-Irrigated Acreage in Wood River Valley Crater Lake Sun Creek Annie Creek Wood River Springs Irrigated Acreage Fort Creek Crooked Creek $$ Sub-Irrigated Acreage Instream Claims Agency Lake Study Approach • Study is limited to area supplied water by Wood River and its tributaries (including Crooked Creek). – Diversion system co-mingles water from different sources. – West side tributaries (Sevenmile, Fourmile, etc.) do not have instream claims on them. Study Approach • Mass balance approach is used to estimate flows inflows - net consumptive use = outflows Study Area Control Volume Crater Lake Sun Creek Annie Creek Wood River Springs Fort Creek Crooked Creek # Outlet Agency Lake Mass Balance Equation • Inflows - Change in Soil Moisture + Precip - ET = Outflows Mass Balance Schematic Annie Creek Sun Creek Evapotranspiration Precipitation Wood R. Springs Fort Creek Crooked Creek Change in Soil Moisture Net Outflows to 7-mile canal, K. Lake, etc. Outlet (Wood R + Crooked Cr) Results • Results are for the combined flows of the Wood River and Crooked Creek. • Estimated monthly flows were produced from 1974-1997. • Following graphs compare estimated flows to available discharge data near the mouth. Simulated Flow Zero Demand Flow Measured Flow 92 10 19 1 9 199 1 8 199 1 7 199 1 6 199 1 5 199 1 4 199 1 3 199 1 2 199 1 1 199 91 12 19 91 11 19 91 10 19 cfs 700 Wood River 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Wood River 700 600 500 cfs 400 300 200 100 Simulated Flow Zero Demand Flow Measured Flow 93 19 10 19 92 9 19 92 8 19 92 7 19 92 6 19 92 5 19 92 4 19 92 3 19 92 2 19 92 1 92 19 12 92 19 11 10 19 92 0 Wood River 700 600 500 cfs 400 300 200 100 Simulated Flow Zero Demand Flow Measured Flow 94 19 10 93 19 9 93 8 19 93 19 7 93 19 6 93 5 19 93 19 4 93 19 3 93 19 2 1 19 93 93 19 12 93 19 11 10 19 93 0 Simulated vs Measured Flows Wood River (4/91-12/94) 500 400 Simulated (cfs) y = 0.8771x + 19.757 2 R = 0.8829 300 200 100 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Measured (cfs) 300 350 400 450 500 Average Measured vs. Simulated Flows of Wood R (4/1991-12/1993) 450 400 350 cfs 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Month Simulated Flows Measured Flows 8 9 Conclusion • Estimated flows appear to be reasonable compared to available gage data. • Estimated flows were therefore used in the frequency analysis for the Wood River. Assumptions • Irrigation during spring months exceeds demand and the excess water is stored in the soil matrix. This stored moisture is utilized during summer months, thus reducing summer diversion requirements. • There is no carry over of soil moisture storage from year to year. • Diversions above net consumptive requirements will return to either Wood River or to Klamath Lake. (100% return flows) • Irrigation efficiency is 65 %. Assumptions • 80 % of precipitation is available to meet crop use requirements. • 80% of winter precipitation is stored in soil matrix and is available to meet crop use requirements. Consumptive Use Summary and Frequency Analysis in Three Un-gauged Sub-Basin above Klamath Lake • Generated at three un-gauged sub-basins above Klamath Lake Upp er W illiamson $ W oo d River W illiamson River at Mouth $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ Legend $ Long Term Gauges Sub-B asins Open W ater W et Lands Streams N 20 0 20 40 Miles Consumptive Use Summary • Table of consumptive requirements, estimated monthly flows, instream claim, zero demand flow, and paper demand for three regional basins without gauges (above Klamath Lake). How to read the table • Average Flow: This is the average estimated historical flow, near or at the lower end of the sub-basin. • Instream Claim: Tribal claim, adjusted to OWRD’s estimate of natural flow minus consumptive use as of 1979. • Net Consumptive Requirement: Estimate of the required water needed to satisfy claimed/permitted demand in the sub-basin. How to read the table • Paper Demand: The theoretical amount that the claimed/permitted irrigation could take. Example: Upper Williamson above Cholo Ditch Williamson River above Cholo Ditch (Klamath Marsh) Month Average Flow (cfs)* Instream Claim (Adj Prelim) Zero Demand Flow (cfs) Net Consumptive Use (cfs)** 10 62 68 66 2 11 67 67 67 0 12 73 69 73 0 1 76 67 76 0 2 82 82 82 0 3 99 93 99 0 4 116 125 127 7 5 113 120 155 26 6 79 97 136 36 7 52 67 86 21 8 44 60 69 16 9 50 62 66 10 * Estimated ** Consumptive use estimate between Cholo ditch and gauge near Rocky Ford. *** Based on rate of 1/40 cfs per acre. Annual Net CU (ac-ft/ac) = 1.2 Annual Duty (ac-ft/ac) = 4.0 Irrigated Acres = 6000 Net Consumptive Use (ac-ft/ac)** Paper Demand (cfs)*** 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.27 0.37 0.22 0.16 0.11 150 0 0 0 0 0 150 150 150 150 150 150 14 12 10 Example: Williamson Delta Williamson at Mouth Month Average Gauge Flow (cfs) *** Instream Claim (Adj Prelim) Zero Demand Flow (cfs) Consumptive Req (cfs) * Consumptive Req (ac-ft/ac)* Paper Demand (cfs)** 10 619 12 683 13 0.11 188 11 787 12 787 0 0.00 0 12 976 14 976 0 0.00 0 1 1157 15 1157 0 0.00 0 2 1380 14 1380 0 0.00 0 3 1866 16 1889 0 0.00 0 4 1858 16 2000 18 0.15 188 5 1516 16 1841 55 0.45 188 6 895 38 1256 61 0.50 188 7 491 32 902 89 0.73 188 8 423 18 766 76 0.62 188 9 490 12 734 50 0.41 188 * Estimate between Mouth and Sprague Confluence (excludes Modoc Canal, Return flows to Klamath Lake) ** Based on a rate of 1/40 cfs per acre *** Calculated from Williamson gauge at Chiloquin minus consumptive req of delta (excludes Modoc Diversion Canal). CU from Williamson R (ac-ft/ac) = 3.0 Net CU from Williamson R (ac-ft/ac) = 1.9 takes into account return flows into Klamath Lake Annual Duty (ac-ft/ac) = 3 Irrigated Acreage = 7500 Acres Flow Statistics • Generated at three un-gauge sites from estimates of monthly mean flows. • A statistical distribution fitted to the estimated flows generates probabilities. Monthly Mean Flows for Wood R. and Crooked Cr. at 10% probability. Mean Monthly Flow Estimate for all Months at 1/10 Probability, Wood and Crooked Creek at Mouth 450 400 350 384 365 300 379 374 375 289 284 284 375 293 291 277 Flow (cfs) 288 250 220 220 209 200 200 204 266 205 210 178 150 153 128 100 50 0 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Discharge Apr May Instream Claim (adj) Jun Jul Aug Sep Monthly Mean Flows for Wood R. and Crooked Cr. at 50% probability. Median Daily Flow for all Months at 5/10 Probability, Wood River and Crooked Creek at Mouth 500 450 437 449 443 435 439 445 384 400 367 339 350 283 Flow (cfs) 300 289 250 200 220 284 284 293 263 291 236 277 220 209 200 204 205 Jul Aug Sep 150 100 50 0 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Discharge Apr May Instream Claim (adj) Jun Monthly Mean Flows for Williamson Mouth at 10% probability. Monthly Mean Flow for all Months at 1/10 Probability, Williamson R at Mouth 1000 900 881 800 776 700 Flow (cfs) 600 556 500 579 610 627 573 497 400 405 363 300 289 276 38 32 18 12 Jun Jul Aug Sep 200 100 12 12 14 15 14 16 16 16 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 0 Discharge Instream Claim (adj) Summary • Flow statistics are available for three of the un-gauged sub-basins above Klamath Lake at the 10% probability. • Flow statistics can be produced for any probability or duration. Middle Williamson River Accretions Investigation Between Sheep Creek and Klamath Marsh Study Motivation • To investigate groundwater and surfacewater gains in a reach of the upper Williamson River. Location Upper W illiamson Riv er Klamath Marsh Crater Lake Yams ay Mtn. Taylor Butte Upper Klamath Lake Legend Open W ater W et Lands Streams Basin Boundary 20 0 20 40 Miles N Area Description • Reach is delineated by the Williamson gauge below Sheep Creek and Cholo canal above Klamath Marsh. • Flows are heavily dependent on groundwater. • Most tributaries are ephemeral. • Roughly 7000 acres of irrigated lands according to claims and permit database. Study Area Legend Forest R oads Streams Marsh/W etlands Open W ater # Measurement Site Jack Cr. Klamath Marsh Long Prarie Cr. # Rd 49 # Jackson Cr. Rd 76 # # # # Cholo Ditch Hoyt Cr. Dry Cr. # # Unamed Cr. Irving Cr. Modoc Cr. # # Unnamed Draw Sheep Cr. Williamson R. Yamsay Mtn. Approach • Measure all surface inflows into the reach. – Sum of tributary inflows equals the surface accretions into the reach. • Measure outflow from the reach at the Williamson above Cholo canal. – Difference between surface inflows and outflow equals groundwater accretions. Surface Inflow Results Jack = 0 Klamath Marsh Long Prarie = 0.72 # Rd 49 # Jackson = 1.77 Rd 76 # # # # Cholo Ditch Hoyt = 0 Dry = 0 # Irving = 1.3 # Modoc = 0 # Unnamed = 0 74.2 # Sheep Cr. Williamson R. Yamsay Mtn. Surface Inflow Results Table 1: Measurement Location and Discharge Measurement Location Discharge (cfs) Jack Creek Long Prairie Creek Jackson Creek Hoyt Creek Dry Creek Irving Creek Modoc Creek Unnamed Draw Total Surface Accretions 0 0.72 1.77 0 0 1.33 0 0 3.82 Surface Outflows Jack = 0 Klamath Marsh Long Prarie = 0.72 # Rd 49 Rd 76 # Jackson = 1.77 95.6 # # # # Cholo Ditch Hoyt = 0 Dry = 0 # Irving = 1.3 # Modoc = 0 # Unnamed = 0 74.2 # Williamson R. Yamsay Mtn. Groundwater Accretions Table 2: Measurement Location and Discharge Measurement Location Discharge (cfs) Jack Creek Long Prairie Creek Jackson Creek Hoyt Creek Dry Creek Irving Creek Modoc Creek Unnamed Draw Total Surface Accretions 0 0.72 1.77 0 0 1.33 0 0 3.82 Williamson below Sheep Creek Williamson above Cholo Ditch Total Reach Accretions 74.2 95.6 21.4 Derived Groundwater Accretions 17.6 Discussion • Does winter groundwater accretions represent typical summer groundwater accretions? – Both seasons groundwater accretions are derived from baseflows due to limited amounts of precipitation available to support streamflow. – Depends on the aquifer characteristic feeding the groundwater system. • Aquifer transmissivity and storage capacity. (spring creek example) • Well logs show a water bearing zone of sand, gravel, pumice, conglomerate, and basalt approximately 100 to 200 feet thick. – Based on this limited data, the winter and summer baseflows should be similar. Discussion • Does the limited data from the accretions study represent average baseflow conditions for the winter. – Baseflows during the measurement were slightly elevated by warm trend and accompanying snowmelt in February. 5/22/00 5/8/00 4/24/00 4/10/00 3/27/00 3/13/00 2/28/00 2/14/00 1/31/00 1/17/00 1/3/00 12/20/99 12/6/99 11/22/99 11/8/99 10/25/99 10/11/99 9/27/99 Discharge (cfs) Williamson River below Sheep Creek (#11491400) 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Conclusion • Limited data demonstrates that groundwater accretions make up a significant portion of the gains into the reach during winter. • Groundwater accretions were probably somewhat elevated from warm trend in February. • Groundwater probably contributes significant flows to the reach during the irrigation season. • Surface flows from tributaries are not a conclusive indicator of accretions in this particular reach. Recommendations • Install a continuous gage at the reach bottom (above Cholo ditch). • Take monthly miscellaneous measurements on the tributaries and diversion canals. • Perform pump tests to define aquifer characteristics. • Repeat the study during the summer, autumn and fall.