Evaluating the Use of Artificial Recharge for Stream Habitat Enhancement USBOR, (2012)

Transcription

1 Evaluating the Use of Artificial Recharge for Stream Habitat Enhancement USBOR, (2012) Walter Burt Hydrogeologist Jason Melady Hydrogeologist

2 ESA and Listed Species Recovery 28 salmonid species listed on West Coast since early 1990s, 7 on the Columbia and Snake systems Tributary habitat degradation a primary category of limiting factors in species viability

3 Diminished Stream Flows Most rivers [in Oregon] were fully appropriated 100 years ago. (Bastasch, 1998)

4 Elevated Temperatures 303D List Temperature Limited

5 Protecting and Improving Tributary Habitat is a Priority for Recovery Stream complexity Floodplain function/connectivity Riparian conditions Increase summertime flows (transactional and storage) Reduce summertime temperatures

6 Improvements on a Watershed Scale Can Take a Long Time! Scale of problems Access and Participation Resource availability (funding)

7 Regional Setting

8 The Issues Upper Catherine Creek Reference: USBOR, 2012 Overappropriated stream Reduced channel complexity Degraded floodplain function Degraded riparian areas

9 Downstream of Diversions Reference: USBOR (2012)

10 The Issues Upper Grande Ronde River Riparian degradation Channel modification High summertime water temperatures Photo by J Ebersole, 1998 in Torgerson, et al, 2012

11 Upper Grande Ronde River Temperatures

12 Goal: Improve Flows 1 10 cfs

13 Goal: Mitigate Temperatures Average recharge water temperatures 2 4 C

14 Provide Thermal Refugia Localized hyporheic discharge provides cold water refugia for juveniles and migrating adults Photo by J Ebersole, 1994 (Torgerson, et al, 2012)

15 Two General Subsurface Storage Concepts Shallow Aquifer Recharge (SAR) Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR)

16 Shallow Aquifer Recharge (SAR) Use existing shallow alluvial aquifer to store and transmit cool water to stream

17 Aquifer Storage and Recovery Divert directly from stream or from infiltration gallery or well in alluvium Use confined aquifer to store cool water for later recovery and discharge to stream

18 Key Fatal Flaw Considerations Is water available for recharge and storage? Legal access (water rights) Physical availability (Probability water will be available during recharge season) Is an aquifer suitable for storing and recovering the water present? Can benefits be timed to coincide with need?

19 Key Fatal Flaw Considerations (con t) Water quality Is the quality of source water suitable for recharge? Need high quality, low turbidity recharge water Is the quality of recovered water suitable for putting in stream? Do infrastructure or access impose excessive limitations? Power, roads, land use and ownership Can water put in stream be protected from diversion by downstream users?

20 SAR Challenges Thin alluvial sequences full during recharge season Upper reaches snow-covered during recharge season Timing of Discharge (Narrow valleys with insufficient residence time Less certainty Photo: USBR (2009)

21 ASR Evaluation Results Suitable storage aquifer (CRBG) Alluvial sub-basins in connection with stream (RBF diversion) Water available for diversion and storage The water can be protected from diversion from downstream users Some infrastructure constraints power, winter access

22 Conclusions SAR likely not feasible in these settings, though shown to be beneficial in others (e.g., Walla Walla Basin) ASR is potentially feasible and beneficial to address stream flow and temperature limitations

23 Applications A Bridge: As an interim measure while habitat improvements and transactional solutions are implemented to improve natural system sufficiently Exchange Source: ASR could provide a long-term solution as an exchange substitute for irrigation diversions to keep water in-stream in the summer (Upper Catherine Creek and other highlyappropriated streams)

24 Some Considerations and Limitations Engineered systems requiring O&M, legal and figurative ownership, and commitment Infrastructure (primarily power) may be a significant constraining factor because of cost A recharge project is not a substitute for other habitat improvements

25 Some Considerations and Limitations Compatibility of recovered water quality with fish biology needs careful consideration Seasonally varying flow (formerly peak and ecological flows ) requirements may reduce the amount of winter time water available for diversion

26 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Jeff Oveson Executive Director, Grande Ronde Model Watershed Brett Moore, PE Anderson Perry & Associates THANK YOU

27 References Anderson Perry & Associates and GSI Water Solutions, Inc., 2010, Upper Catherine Creek Storage Feasibility Study, prepared for the Grande Ronde Model Watershed, p Anderson Perry & Associates and GSI Water Solutions, Inc., 2013, Upper Grande Ronde River Storage Feasibility Study, prepared for the Grande Ronde Model Watershed, 131 p. Torgersen, C.E., Ebersole, J.L., Keenan, D.M., 2012, Primer for Identifying Cold-Water Refuges to Protect and Restore Thermal Diversity in Riverine Landscapes: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA 910-C , p er_refuges.pdf U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 2012, Final The Catherine Creek Tributary Assessment, Grande Ronde River Basin Tributary Habitat Program, Oregon.