Hydrology and Chemistry of Floodwaters in the Yolo Bypass, Sacramento River System, California, During 2000
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
HYDROLOGY AND CHEMISTRY OF FLOODWATERS IN THE YOLO BYPASS, SACRAMENTO RIVER SYSTEM, CALIFORNIA, DURING 2000. L.E. SCHEMEL, M.H. COX, S.W. HAGER, AND T.R. SOMMER U.S.GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS REPORT 02-4202 Prepared in Cooperation with the California Department of Water Resources SEPTEMBER 2002 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GALE A. NORTON, Secretary U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CHARLES GROAT, Director For additional information write to: U.S. Geological Survey, WRD 345 Middlefield Road Menlo Park, California 94025 ii CONTENTS ___________ Abstract..................................................1 Introduction..............................................2 Hydrology of the Yolo Bypass.........................3 Acknowledgments......................................5 Methods...................................................5 Results...................................................6 Results from Fixed-Location Sites....................7 Dissolved Metals....................................10 Samples collected by boat in the Yolo Bypass........11 Discussion...............................................12 Summary..................................................17 References cited.........................................18 Appendix A Filtration and sample preparation methods...........21 Appendix B: Illustrations ________________________ Fig. 1. Map showing the Sacramento River, Yolo Bypass, local streams, and locations of the fixed sampling sites.................................24 Fig. 2. Daily mean discharge in the Yolo Bypass (DAYFLOW value) for the 1956-2000 water years...........25 Fig. 3. Daily total precipitation and mean daily irradiance at Davis, California, January through May, 2000......................................26 Fig. 4. Daily mean wind speed and maximum daily air temperature at Davis, California, January through May, 2000......................................27 Fig. 5. Daily mean discharge in the Sacramento River at Freeport and in the Yolo Bypass (DAYFLOW value), January through May, 2000......................28 Fig. 6. Daily mean discharge in Cache Creek and Putah Creek, January through May, 2000...............29 iii Fig. 7. Water levels (gauge height) in the Sacramento River and Colusa Basin Drain at Knights Landing and the Yolo Bypass at HWY5 and in the Lower Bypass, January through May, 2000..............30 Fig. 8. Specific conductance in the local streams (upper panel) and at sites in the Yolo Bypass (lower panel), January through May, 2000..............31 Fig. 9. Chloride concentrations at sites in the local streams and at sites in the Yolo Bypass, January through May, 2000..............................32 Fig. 10. Sulfate concentrations at sites in the local streams and at sites in the Yolo Bypass, January through May, 2000..............................33 Fig. 11. Dissolved inorganic nitrogen concentrations at sites in the local streams and at sites in the Yolo Bypass, January through May, 2000.........34 Fig. 12. Ammonium nitrogen concentrations at sites in the local streams and at sites in the Yolo Bypass, January through May, 2000......................35 Fig. 13. Dissolved reactive phosphorus concentrations at sites in the local streams and at sites in the Yolo Bypass, January through May, 2000.........36 Fig. 14. Dissolved silica concentrations at sites in the local streams and at sites in the Yolo Bypass, January through May, 2000......................37 Fig. 15. Dissolved organic carbon concentrations at sites in the local streams and at sites in the Yolo Bypass, January through May, 2000..............38 Fig. 16. Specific ultra violet absorbance at 245nm at sites in the local streams and at sites in the Yolo Bypass, January through May, 2000.........39 Fig. 17. Suspended particle concentrations at sites in the local streams and at sites in the Yolo Bypass, January through May, 2000......................40 iv Fig. 18. Suspended particle percent carbon at sites in the local streams and at sites in the Yolo Bypass, January through May, 2000......................41 Fig. 19. Carbon to Nitrogen ratio by moles at sites in the local streams and at sites in the Yolo Bypass, January through May, 2000......................42 Fig. 20. Sodium concentrations at sites in the local streams and at sites in the Yolo Bypass, January through May, 2000..............................43 Fig. 21. Calcium concentrations at sites in the local streams and at sites in the Yolo Bypass, January through May, 2000..............................44 Fig. 22. Magnesium concentrations at sites in the local streams and at sites in the Yolo Bypass, January through May, 2000..............................45 Fig. 23. Strontium concentrations at sites in the local streams and at sites in the Yolo Bypass, January through May, 2000..............................46 Fig. 24. Sodium concentrations in Cache Creek and Ridge Cut (or Colusa Basin Drain) during the 1996-1998 NAWQA study and in 2000........................47 Fig. 25. Sulfate concentrations in Cache Creek and Ridge Cut (or Colusa Basin Drain) during the 1996-1998 NAWQA study and in 2000........................48 v Appendix C: Tables ____________________ Table 1. Analytical results from the Sacramento River at Fremont Weir................................49 Table 2. Specific conductance, chloride, and sulfate at fixed sites and from boat samples..............50 Table 3. Nitrite, nitrate plus nitrite, ammonium, dissolved reactive phosphorus, and dissolved silica at fixed sites and from boat samples...54 Table 4. Dissolved organic carbon, specific ultraviolet Absorbance, suspended particulate matter, Particulate carbon and particulate nitrogen at Fixed sites and from boat samples..............58 Table 5. Analytical results for selected metals at fixed sites and from boat samples....................62 _______________ CONVERSION FACTORS _______ Metric are used in this report. Conversion factors to other commonly used units are provided here for the measurements made in this study. Multiply By To obtain ________ __ _________ µM (micromolar) atomic weight µg/L kg (kilogram) 2.205 lb (pound) m3 (cubic meter) 35.3 ft3 (cubic feet) _______________ All gauge heights have been adjusted to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD of 1929). The use of brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. vi Hydrology and Chemistry of Floodwaters in the Yolo Bypass, Sacramento River System, California, during 2000. Laurence E. Schemel, Marisa H. Cox, Stephen W. Hager and Theodore R. Sommer U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 02-4202 ABSTRACT Discharges to and floodwaters in the Yolo Bypass were sampled during winter and spring, 2000. The primary purpose of the study was to link changes in water quality in the Yolo Bypass to inflows from the Sacramento River (over Fremont Weir) and from four local streams that discharge to the west side of the floodplain. Specific conductance, chloride, sulfate, dissolved inorganic nutrients, dissolved organic carbon, particulate carbon and nitrogen, suspended particulate matter (mass), and selected dissolved metals were measured in most of the samples. When the Sacramento River was spilling over Fremont Weir, the water chemistry in the Yolo Bypass was very similar to that in the river except along the western margin of the floodplain where influences of local stream inflow were evident. When flow over Fremont Weir stopped, floodwaters drained from the Yolo Bypass, and the local streams were the major discharges as the floodwaters receded eventually to the perennial channel along the eastern margin of the floodplain. After the initial draining of the floodplain, chemical concentrations at sites along the perennial channel showed strong influences of inflows from Cache Creek and Ridge Cut, which are sources of nutrients and contaminants that are potentially hazardous to wildlife. Runoff from spring storms increased flow in the perennial channel and flushed accumulated nutrients and organic matter to the tidal river. Releases of freshwater to the perennial channel might be beneficial in maintaining habitat quality for aquatic species during the dry seasons. 1 INTRODUCTION The Sacramento River is the largest source of fresh water to San Francisco Bay Estuary. Studies of this estuary by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) require increasingly detailed knowledge of the factors that influence river discharge and the transport of dissolved and particulate substances to the estuary. Over the last century and a half, major modifications of this river system have changed the patterns of discharge and constituent transport from their natural states (for examples see Nichols and others, 1986). Among these modifications are numerous reservoirs and an extensive system of levees and bypasses that provide flood protection in the Sacramento Valley. The Yolo Bypass is the largest flood-control bypass. It prevents flooding of farmlands and municipalities near the city of Sacramento by diverting floodwaters at Fremont Weir and routing them directly to the head of the San Francisco Bay Estuary near Rio Vista (Fig. 1). In years when floodwaters flow to the bypass system, the Yolo Bypass is often a greater discharger to the estuary than the main channel of the Sacramento River (see Schemel and others, 1995). In addition to the importance of the Yolo Bypass as a source of fresh water and riverine substances to the estuary, recent studies by the California Department