1 / 30

Return Flows Discussion Continued

Return Flows Discussion Continued. ESHMC Meeting 6 May 2008 Stacey Taylor. Why Return Flows are Important. Diversion. end of canal. Field. Field. Field. Field. Snake River. Wet lands. Return. Return Flows 101.

kellan
Télécharger la présentation

Return Flows Discussion Continued

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Return Flows Discussion Continued ESHMC Meeting 6 May 2008 Stacey Taylor

  2. Why Return Flows are Important Diversion end of canal Field Field Field Field Snake River Wet lands Return

  3. Return Flows 101 • Return flow - irrigation water returning to the surface water system (includes end of canal spills and surface run-off) • Irrigation diversions deplete and affect timing of flows in the river where some of diverted water returns to the river as surface or ground water return flows

  4. Importance of Return Flows in ESPAM1 • Along with ET, canal seepage, pumping, and crop mix, return flows are used to estimate aquifer recharge and discharge associated with irrigation. • Field Delivery = Diversions - Canal Leakage - Return Flows • Net Recharge (surface) = (Field Delivery + Precipitation) – (ET x Adjustment Factor) • For some entities, return flows are as big of a part of the water budget as ET

  5. Reach Gain/Loss Program (RGLP)

  6. Questions to Answer at the END Current status: • Returns = 0 + b1*Div (Recharge tool); where b1 = ∑ (RGLP lags) • Reach-Gain/Loss Program: • Do we change the above equation for recharge? • Do we change coefficients year-to-year? • If “YES” to previous question, do we rebuild the RGLP? Month: Lag Coefficient:

  7. Sample Calculations for Returns in RGLP Returns: RMay = 0.05 * 100 RJune = 0.05 * 200 + 0.03 * 100 RJuly = 0.05 * 300 + 0.03 * 200 + 0.02 * 100 Lag Coeff: Div: Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 ∑ (lag coefficients) = 0.05 + 0.03 + 0.02 = 0.10  Goes into water budget

  8. The Last Meeting on 3/6/2008 (1) Historical records of Big Wood and Richfield • Calculation methods • Rasters • Plots of returns vs. diversions Returns= -bo+b1*Diversions) Returns = b1 * Diversions Returns = exponential fct

  9. The Last Meeting on 3/6/2008 (cont) (2) Ongoing Snake River return data • “Group” data for 2002-2006 • Plotted returns vs. diversions • Plotted returns vs. normalized diversion • New idea from the March meeting: Plot indexed returns vs. normalized diversion

  10. Big Wood Entity (IESW007) 1977 1961

  11. Big Wood Entity (IESW007)

  12. Big Wood Entity (IESW007) P>>10% SLOPE Shared range: 0.014 to 0.023 (excludes p>10%) Average value: 0.019 (excludes p>10%) Y-INTERCEPT Shared range: -4.5 to -4.0 (excludes p>10%) Average value: -4.25 (excludes p>10%)

  13. Big Wood Entity (IESW007) • Proposed equation to use in the recharge tool for this entity: y = 0.019x – 4.25 • Assumed negative intercept because average y-intercept value is significant over the scale of plot returns vs. diversions. where: y = return in 1000 ac-ft X = diversion in 1000 ac-ft Average slope value Average intercept value

  14. Richfield Entity (IESW054)

  15. Richfield Entity (IESW054)

  16. Richfield Entity (IESW054)

  17. Richfield Entity (IESW054) P>>10% P>10% P>>10% SLOPE Shared range: 0.17 to 0.21 (excludes p>10%) Average value: 0.19 (excludes p>10%) Y-INTERCEPT Shared range: -9.8 to -2.8 (excludes p>10%) Average value: -6.3 (excludes p>10%)

  18. Richfield Entity (IESW054) • Proposed equation to use in the recharge tool for this entity: y = 0.19x - 6.3 • Assumed negative intercept instead of zero intercept since this value (-6.3) is relatively significant over the scale in the plot of returns vs. diversions (excluding abnormal points in the years 1928-1950) where: y = return in 1000 ac-ft x = diversion in 1000 ac-ft Average slope Average intercept

  19. Conclusion on the Historical Data • The Big Wood entity and the Richfield entity may agree on a similar form of an equation (linear line with negative intercept)

  20. Ongoing Snake River Return Data • Involves “group” data for 2002-2006 • At the last meeting, very few data points were available to determine an equation • Incorporated more data points using 80s data provided by Dick Lutz for groups 3, 4, 5 and 1/11 • Goal: determine general equation from the returns/diversions for the recharge tool

  21. Notice Scale on X-axis (0.5 to 1 to show points better)

  22. Appears to be no general trend between the 80s and 2000s OR is there just not enough data to tell??

  23. Note different X and Y scales

  24. 1980s 2000s Note different X and Y scales

  25. 2000s 1980s Note different X and Y scales

  26. 1980s 2000s Note different X and Y scales

  27. Conclusion on “Groups” Data • Few data points for the “groups” (recent data) do not allow for a distinct equation to compare to the historical data.

  28. Questions to Answer Today • Do we change the equation for recharge calculations? • YES, because a better equation may fit the lines • NO, because then there’s consistency with the RGLP • Do we change coefficients year-to-year? • YES, because the change in slopes between years we see must be real so we must change them. • NO, because we don’t have enough data to know • If “YES” to previous question, do we rebuild the RGLP? • YES, because it may be better in the long run • NO, because we can just run the RGLP in 3 sections (80s, 2000s, 2007)

More Related