DOCSLIB.ORG

Estimates of Ground-Water Recharge, Base Flow, and Stream Reach Gains and Losses in the Willamette River Basin, Oregon

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Estimates of Ground-Water Recharge, Base Flow, and Stream Reach Gains and Losses in the Willamette River Basin, Oregon U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Estimates of Ground-Water Recharge, Base Flow, and Stream Reach Gains and Losses in the Willamette River Basin, Oregon By KARL K. LEE AND JOHN C. RISLEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 01–4215 Prepared in cooperation with the OREGON WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Portland, Oregon: 2002 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GALE A. NORTON, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CHARLES G. GROAT, Director The use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. For additional information contact: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey USGS Information Services 10615 S.E. Cherry Blossom Drive Box 25286, Federal Center Portland, OR 97216-3159 Denver, CO 80225-0046 E-mail: [email protected] Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Internet: http://oregon.usgs.gov Suggested citation: Lee, K.K., and Risley, J.C., 2002, Estimates of ground-water recharge, base flow, and stream reach gains and losses in the Willamette River Basin, Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 01–4215, 52 p. CONTENTS Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................1 Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................................................................2 Approach ...........................................................................................................................................................2 Study Area Description .....................................................................................................................................2 Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................................................4 Methods........................................................................................................................................................................4 Precipitation-Runoff Modeling .........................................................................................................................5 Model Description.................................................................................................................................5 Model Modifications.............................................................................................................................6 Hydrologic Response Unit Recharge ........................................................................................6 Irrigation....................................................................................................................................7 Delineation of Basin Physical Characteristics ......................................................................................8 Land Use....................................................................................................................................8 Slope and Aspect .......................................................................................................................9 Soils ...........................................................................................................................................9 Surficial Geology.......................................................................................................................9 Model Parameterization ........................................................................................................................9 Hydrologic Response Unit-Related Parameters 9 Basinwide Parameters .............................................................................................................10 Time-Series Input Data .......................................................................................................................11 Precipitation.............................................................................................................................11 Air Temperature ......................................................................................................................11 Verification .........................................................................................................................................11 Daily Time-Period Comparisons 14 Annual Time-Period Comparisons 14 Recharge and Base-Flow Estimates from Streamflow Records......................................................................16 Recharge Estimates.............................................................................................................................16 Base-Flow Estimates...........................................................................................................................16 Unregulated Streams ...............................................................................................................17 Unregulated Streams with Discontinued Streamflow-Gaging Stations 17 Regulated Streams 20 Accuracy 20 Stream Gain-Loss Field Investigations 20 Ground-Water Recharge Estimates.................................................................................................................23 Recharge Estimates From Precipitation-Runoff Model......................................................................23 Results........................................................................................................................................................................23 Recharge Estimates from Daily Streamflow Records 26 Recharge Estimates from Willamette Lowland Regional Aquifer-System Analysis 26 Comparison of Recharge Estimates ....................................................................................................29 Base-Flow Estimates.......................................................................................................................................29 Base-Flow-Separation Analysis..........................................................................................................29 Stream Reach Gain/Loss Estimates.................................................................................................................30 Middle Fork and Main-Stem Willamette River ..................................................................................31 South Yamhill River ...........................................................................................................................33 Pudding River .....................................................................................................................................33 South Santiam River ...........................................................................................................................35 Summary and Conclusions.........................................................................................................................................36 Selected References ...................................................................................................................................................38 Appendix 1. Recharge and base-flow estimates at streamflow-gaging-station locations in the Willamette River Basin..........................................................................................................................43 Appendix 2. Measurements used to define gains and losses in the Middle Fork Willamette, Willamette, South Yamhill, Pudding, and South Santiam Rivers .............................................................................47 PLATE 1. Map showing base flow as a percentage of total streamflow at selected sites in the Willamette River Basin, Oregon, water years 1995 and 1966–96. TABLES Table 1. Weekly irrigation application rates used in the Precipitation-Runoff Modeling for the Willamette River Basin, Oregon ...................................................................................7 Table 2. Hydrologic soil groups used in the study ...................................................................................................9 Table 3. Geologic assemblages grouped according to water-bearing characteristics ............................................10 Table 4. Basin spatial-coverage categories and corresponding code numbers ......................................................11 Table 5. Climate stations used to collect data for input to precipitation-runoff models of the Willamette River Basin, Oregon ..............................................................................................................13 Table 6. Comparison of observed and simulated 1995 water year runoff for nine unregulated small subbasins in the Willamette River Basin, Oregon....................................................................................16 Table 7. Comparison of observed and simulated mean annual flow at selected sites in the Willamette River Basin, Oregon ..............................................................................................................19 Table 8. Estimates of mean annual recharge on the basis of mean annual precipitation, generalized surficial geology, and land-use and land-cover
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Analysis of Streamflow Variability and Trends in the Meta River, Colombia
    water Article Analysis of Streamflow Variability and Trends in the Meta River, Colombia Marco Arrieta-Castro 1, Adriana Donado-Rodríguez 1, Guillermo J. Acuña 2,3,* , Fausto A. Canales 1,* , Ramesh S. V. Teegavarapu 4 and Bartosz Ka´zmierczak 5 1 Department of Civil and Environmental, Universidad de la Costa, Calle 58 #55-66, Barranquilla 080002, Atlántico, Colombia; [email protected] (M.A.-C.); [email protected] (A.D.-R.) 2 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Instituto de Estudios Hidráulicos y Ambientales, Universidad del Norte, Km.5 Vía Puerto Colombia, Barranquilla 081007, Colombia 3 Programa de Ingeniería Ambiental, Universidad Sergio Arboleda, Escuela de Ciencias Exactas e Ingeniería (ECEI), Calle 74 #14-14, Bogotá D.C. 110221, Colombia 4 Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatics Engineering, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL 33431, USA; [email protected] 5 Department of Water Supply and Sewerage Systems, Faculty of Environmental Engineering, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, 50-370 Wroclaw, Poland; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] (F.A.C.); [email protected] (G.J.A.); Tel.: +57-5-3362252 (F.A.C.) Received: 29 March 2020; Accepted: 13 May 2020; Published: 20 May 2020 Abstract: The aim of this research is the detection and analysis of existing trends in the Meta River, Colombia, based on the streamflow records from seven gauging stations in its main course, for the period between June 1983 to July 2019. The Meta River is one of the principal branches of the Orinoco River, and it has a high environmental and economic value for this South American country.
    [Show full text]
  • Stream Discharge (Streamflow)
    The Importance of Streamflow in California’s Southern Sierra Nevada Mountains Kings River Experimental Watersheds Because 55 to 65 percent of California’s developed water comes from small streams in the Sierra Nevada, it is important to under- stand the role the snowpack has in the distribution and quantity of stream discharge (streamflow). In the southern Sierra, more than 80 percent of precipitation falls December through April. However, owing to the delay in snowmelt, there is a lag in runoff until the spring. At higher elevation sites, the spring melt does not peak until May or even June. This makes mountain water available to California during the summer months. The Kings River Experi- mental Watersheds (KREW) sites demonstrate that precipitation in the form of snow generates greater yearly discharge in a given watershed. The difference in discharge between the KREW Provi- dence site and Bull site is as much as 20 percent per year. C. Hunsaker Research Area Figure 1—KREW’s double flume system. The large flume KREW is a watershed-level, integrated ecosystem project for (background) accurately captures high flows, and the small flume headwater streams in the Sierra Nevada. Eight watersheds at two is successful at measuring lower base flows. study sites are fully instrumented to monitor ecosystem changes. Stream discharge data, just one component of the project, have been collected since 2002 from the Providence site and since 2003 from the Bull site. What is Stream Discharge? Discharge is the amount of water leaving each watershed within the stream channel. It is represented as a rate of flow such as cubic feet per second (cfs), gallons per minute (gpm), or acre-feet per year.
    [Show full text]
  • Seasonal Flooding Affects Habitat and Landscape Dynamics of a Gravel
    Seasonal flooding affects habitat and landscape dynamics of a gravel-bed river floodplain Katelyn P. Driscoll1,2,5 and F. Richard Hauer1,3,4,6 1Systems Ecology Graduate Program, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana 59812 USA 2Rocky Mountain Research Station, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102 USA 3Flathead Lake Biological Station, University of Montana, Polson, Montana 59806 USA 4Montana Institute on Ecosystems, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana 59812 USA Abstract: Floodplains are comprised of aquatic and terrestrial habitats that are reshaped frequently by hydrologic processes that operate at multiple spatial and temporal scales. It is well established that hydrologic and geomorphic dynamics are the primary drivers of habitat change in river floodplains over extended time periods. However, the effect of fluctuating discharge on floodplain habitat structure during seasonal flooding is less well understood. We collected ultra-high resolution digital multispectral imagery of a gravel-bed river floodplain in western Montana on 6 dates during a typical seasonal flood pulse and used it to quantify changes in habitat abundance and diversity as- sociated with annual flooding. We observed significant changes in areal abundance of many habitat types, such as riffles, runs, shallow shorelines, and overbank flow. However, the relative abundance of some habitats, such as back- waters, springbrooks, pools, and ponds, changed very little. We also examined habitat transition patterns through- out the flood pulse. Few habitat transitions occurred in the main channel, which was dominated by riffle and run habitat. In contrast, in the near-channel, scoured habitats of the floodplain were dominated by cobble bars at low flows but transitioned to isolated flood channels at moderate discharge.
    [Show full text]
  • Modifying Wepp to Improve Streamflow Simulation in a Pacific Northwest Watershed
    MODIFYING WEPP TO IMPROVE STREAMFLOW SIMULATION IN A PACIFIC NORTHWEST WATERSHED A. Srivastava, M. Dobre, J. Q. Wu, W. J. Elliot, E. A. Bruner, S. Dun, E. S. Brooks, I. S. Miller ABSTRACT. The assessment of water yield from hillslopes into streams is critical in managing water supply and aquatic habitat. Streamflow is typically composed of surface runoff, subsurface lateral flow, and groundwater baseflow; baseflow sustains the stream during the dry season. The Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model simulates surface runoff, subsurface lateral flow, soil water, and deep percolation. However, to adequately simulate hydrologic conditions with significant quantities of groundwater flow into streams, a baseflow component for WEPP is needed. The objectives of this study were (1) to simulate streamflow in the Priest River Experimental Forest in the U.S. Pacific Northwest using the WEPP model and a baseflow routine, and (2) to compare the performance of the WEPP model with and without including the baseflow using observed streamflow data. The baseflow was determined using a linear reservoir model. The WEPP- simulated and observed streamflows were in reasonable agreement when baseflow was considered, with an overall Nash- Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) of 0.67 and deviation of runoff volume (Dv) of 7%. In contrast, the WEPP simulations without including baseflow resulted in an overall NSE of 0.57 and Dv of 47%. On average, the simulated baseflow accounted for 43% of the streamflow and 12% of precipitation annually. Integration of WEPP with a baseflow routine improved the model’s applicability to watersheds where groundwater contributes to streamflow. Keywords. Baseflow, Deep seepage, Forest watershed, Hydrologic modeling, Subsurface lateral flow, Surface runoff, WEPP.
    [Show full text]
  • From the River to You: USGS Real-Time Streamflow Information …From the National Streamflow Information Program
    From the River to You: USGS Real-Time Streamflow Information …from the National Streamflow Information Program This Fact Sheet is one in a series that highlights information or recent research findings from the USGS National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP). The investigations and scientific results reported in this series require a nationally consistent streamgaging network with stable long-term monitoring sites and a rigorous program of data, quality assurance, management, archiving, and synthesis. NSIP produces multipurpose, unbiased surface-water information that is readily accessible to all. Introduction Collecting and Transmitting data are stored in a data logger in Streamflow Information the gagehouse. As part of the National Stream- On a preset schedule, typically flow Information Program, the U.S. The streamflow information every 1 to 4 hours, the streamgage Geological Survey (USGS) operates collected at most streamgages transmits all the stage information more than 7,400 streamgages nation- is stream stage (also called gage recorded since the last transmission to wide to provide streamflow informa- height). This is the height of the a Geostationary Operational Envi- tion for a wide variety of uses. These water surface above a reference level ronmental Satellite (GOES). Many uses include prediction of floods, or datum. Stream stage is measured streamgages have predetermined management and allocation of water by a variety of methods including stage thresholds. When these thresh- resources, design and operation of floats, pressure transducers, and olds are exceeded, the time between engineering structures, scientific acoustic or optical sensors (fig. 1). transmissions to the satellite will research, operation of locks and Stage data are measured at the decrease from 1 to 4 hours to every dams, and for recreational safety and time interval necessary to monitor the 15 minutes to provide more timely enjoyment.
    [Show full text]
  • Distributed Hydrologic Modeling for Streamflow Prediction at Ungauged Basins
    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 5-2008 Distributed Hydrologic Modeling For Streamflow Prediction At Ungauged Basins Christina Bandaragoda Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd Part of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Bandaragoda, Christina, "Distributed Hydrologic Modeling For Streamflow Prediction At Ungauged Basins" (2008). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 62. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/62 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DISTRIBUTED HYDROLOGIC MODELING FOR STREAMFLOW PREDICTION AT UNGAUGED BASINS by Christina Bandaragoda A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Civil and Environmental Engineering UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Logan, UT 2007 ii ABSTRACT Distributed Hydrologic Modeling for Prediction of Streamflow at Ungauged Basins by Christina Bandaragoda, Doctor of Philosophy Utah State University, 2008 Major Professor: Dr. David G. Tarboton Department: Civil and Environmental Engineering Hydrologic modeling and streamflow prediction of ungauged basins is an unsolved scientific problem as well as a policy-relevant science theme emerging as a major
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction and Characteristics of Flow
    Introduction and Characteristics of Flow By James W. LaBaugh and Donald O. Rosenberry Chapter 1 of Field Techniques for Estimating Water Fluxes Between Surface Water and Ground Water Edited by Donald O. Rosenberry and James W. LaBaugh Techniques and Methods Chapter 4–D2 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Contents Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................5 Purpose and Scope .......................................................................................................................................6 Characteristics of Water Exchange Between Surface Water and Ground Water .............................7 Characteristics of Near-Shore Sediments .......................................................................................8 Temporal and Spatial Variability of Flow .........................................................................................10 Defining the Purpose for Measuring the Exchange of Water Between Surface Water and Ground Water ..........................................................................................................................12 Determining Locations of Water Exchange ....................................................................................12 Measuring Direction of Flow ............................................................................................................15 Measuring the Quantity of Flow .......................................................................................................15
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5 Streamflow Data
    Part 630 Hydrology National Engineering Handbook Chapter 5 Streamflow Data (210–VI–NEH, Amend. 76, November 2015) Chapter 5 Streamflow Data Part 630 National Engineering Handbook Issued November 2015 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, em- ployees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disabil- ity, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.) If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Pro- gram Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/com- plaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adju- dication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at [email protected] Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877- 8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish).
    [Show full text]
  • Biogeochemical and Metabolic Responses to the Flood Pulse in a Semi-Arid Floodplain
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by DigitalCommons@USU 1 Running Head: Semi-arid floodplain response to flood pulse 2 3 4 5 6 Biogeochemical and Metabolic Responses 7 to the Flood Pulse in a Semi-Arid Floodplain 8 9 10 11 with 7 Figures and 3 Tables 12 13 14 15 H. M. Valett1, M.A. Baker2, J.A. Morrice3, C.S. Crawford, 16 M.C. Molles, Jr., C.N. Dahm, D.L. Moyer4, J.R. Thibault, and Lisa M. Ellis 17 18 19 20 21 22 Department of Biology 23 University of New Mexico 24 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131 USA 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 present addresses: 32 33 1Department of Biology 2Department of Biology 3U.S. EPA 34 Virginia Tech Utah State University Mid-Continent Ecology Division 35 Blacksburg, Virginia 24061 USA Logan, Utah 84322 USA Duluth, Minnesota 55804 USA 36 540-231-2065, 540-231-9307 fax 37 [email protected] 38 4Water Resources Division 39 United States Geological Survey 40 Richmond, Virginia 23228 USA 41 1 1 Abstract: Flood pulse inundation of riparian forests alters rates of nutrient retention and 2 organic matter processing in the aquatic ecosystems formed in the forest interior. Along the 3 Middle Rio Grande (New Mexico, USA), impoundment and levee construction have created 4 riparian forests that differ in their inter-flood intervals (IFIs) because some floodplains are 5 still regularly inundated by the flood pulse (i.e., connected), while other floodplains remain 6 isolated from flooding (i.e., disconnected).
    [Show full text]
  • Estimation of the Base Flow Recession Constant Under Human Interference Brian F
    WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, VOL. 49, 7366–7379, doi:10.1002/wrcr.20532, 2013 Estimation of the base flow recession constant under human interference Brian F. Thomas,1 Richard M. Vogel,2 Charles N. Kroll,3 and James S. Famiglietti1,4,5 Received 28 January 2013; revised 27 August 2013; accepted 13 September 2013; published 15 November 2013. [1] The base flow recession constant, Kb, is used to characterize the interaction of groundwater and surface water systems. Estimation of Kb is critical in many studies including rainfall-runoff modeling, estimation of low flow statistics at ungaged locations, and base flow separation methods. The performance of several estimators of Kb are compared, including several new approaches which account for the impact of human withdrawals. A traditional semilog estimation approach adapted to incorporate the influence of human withdrawals was preferred over other derivative-based estimators. Human withdrawals are shown to have a significant impact on the estimation of base flow recessions, even when withdrawals are relatively small. Regional regression models are developed to relate seasonal estimates of Kb to physical, climatic, and anthropogenic characteristics of stream-aquifer systems. Among the factors considered for explaining the behavior of Kb, both drainage density and human withdrawals have significant and similar explanatory power. We document the importance of incorporating human withdrawals into models of the base flow recession response of a watershed and the systemic downward bias associated with estimates of Kb obtained without consideration of human withdrawals. Citation: Thomas, B. F., R. M. Vogel, C. N. Kroll, and J. S. Famiglietti (2013), Estimation of the base flow recession constant under human interference, Water Resour.
    [Show full text]
  • Geothermal Solute Flux Monitoring Using Electrical Conductivity in Major Rivers of Yellowstone National Park by R
    Geothermal solute flux monitoring using electrical conductivity in major rivers of Yellowstone National Park By R. Blaine McCleskey, Dan Mahoney, Jacob B. Lowenstern, Henry Heasler Yellowstone National Park Yellowstone National Park is well-known for its numerous geysers, hot springs, mud pots, and steam vents Yellowstone hosts close to 4 million visits each year The Yellowstone Supervolcano is located in YNP Monitoring the Geothermal System: 1. Management tool 2. Hazard assessment 3. Long-term changes Monitoring Geothermal Systems YNP – difficult to continuously monitor 10,000 thermal features YNP area = 9,000 km2 long cold winters Thermal output from Yellowstone can be estimated by monitoring the chloride flux downstream of thermal sources in major rivers draining the park River Chloride Flux The chloride flux (chloride concentration multiplied by discharge) in the major rivers has been used as a surrogate for estimating the heat flow in geothermal systems (Ellis and Wilson, 1955; Fournier, 1989) “Integrated flux” Convective heat discharge: 5300 to 6100 MW Monitoring changes over time Chloride concentrations in most YNP geothermal waters are elevated (100 - 900 mg/L Cl) Most of the water discharged from YNP geothermal features eventually enters a major river Madison R., Yellowstone R., Snake R., Falls River Firehole R., Gibbon R., Gardner R. Background Cl concentrations in rivers low < 1 mg/L Dilute Stream water -snowmelt -non-thermal baseflow -low EC (40 - 200 μS/cm) -Cl < 1 mg/L Geothermal Water -high EC (>~1000 μS/cm) -high Cl, SiO2, Na, B, As,… -Most solutes behave conservatively Mixture of dilute stream water with geothermal water Historical Cl Flux Monitoring • The U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond Binary Baseflow Separation: a Delayed-Flow Index for Multiple Streamflow Contributions
    Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 849–867, 2020 https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-849-2020 © Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Beyond binary baseflow separation: a delayed-flow index for multiple streamflow contributions Michael Stoelzle1,*, Tobias Schuetz2, Markus Weiler1, Kerstin Stahl1, and Lena M. Tallaksen3 1Faculty of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany 2Department of Hydrology, Faculty VI Regional and Environmental Sciences, University of Trier, Trier, Germany 3Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway *Invited contribution by Michael Stoelzle, recipient of the EGU Outstanding Student Poster Awards 2015. Correspondence: Michael Stoelzle ([email protected]) Received: 14 May 2019 – Discussion started: 28 May 2019 Revised: 18 November 2019 – Accepted: 20 January 2020 – Published: 25 February 2020 Abstract. Understanding components of the total streamflow the primary contribution, whereas below 800 m groundwa- is important to assess the ecological functioning of rivers. Bi- ter resources are most likely the major streamflow contri- nary or two-component separation of streamflow into a quick butions. Our analysis also indicates that dynamic storage in and a slow (often referred to as baseflow) component are of- high alpine catchments might be large and is overall not ten based on arbitrary choices of separation parameters and smaller than in lowland catchments. We conclude that the also merge different delayed components into one baseflow DFI can be used to assess the range of sources forming catch- component and one baseflow index (BFI). As streamflow ments’ storages and to judge the long-term sustainability of generation during dry weather often results from drainage streamflow.
    [Show full text]