Hood River Basin Study Climate Change Impacts to Streamflow & Opportunities for a Sustainable Future Cindy Thieman Hood River Watershed Group Niklas Christensen Watershed Professionals Network
Overview of Water Planning Study Climate Change Models Water Use Assessment Water Conservation Assessment Water Storage Assessment Surface Water Model (DHSVM) Groundwater Model (MODFLOW) Fish Habitat Analysis (IFIM) Water Resources Alternatives Impacts & Recommendations
Water Use - Potable Water Use (CFS) 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Average Monthly Use (CFS) Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept City of Hood River Crystal Springs Ice Fountain Odell Parkdale The Dalles
Water Use - Irrigation Average Monthly Diversion Water Diversion (cfs) 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept DID EFID FID MFID MHID
Water Use - Hydropower
Water Use - Hydropower 60 MFID 50 Flow (CFS) 40 30 20 10 0 Plant 1 Plant 2 Plant 3 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept
Water Use - Instream East Fork above Middle Fork 500 Streamflow (cfs) 400 300 200 100 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Mean Flow Instream Right (1983)
Water Use - Instream 18000 East Fork- spring Chinook 16000 14000 12000 Spawning WDFW HSC Fry Rearing Juvenile Rearing Adult Holding 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Flow cfs
Projected Climate Change Projected Climate Change (2030-2060) Mt. Hood Glaciers Historic & Future Temperature Historic Future Projected Temperature Increase 2.3 F (range of 1.7 F - 3.0 F) Projected Precipitation Increase 2.4 % (range of -2.8% - 4.7%)
Streamflow 1,600 Hood River At Tucker Bridge, Monthly Mean Flows 1,400 1,200 Historic Future 1,000 Flow (cfs) 800 600 400 200 0 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Options to Increase Water Availability More groundwater use? (Need more groundwater data to calibrate model) Increasing Reservoir Storage- two existing reservoirs have potential to expand (most cost effective); one potential new site Potable Water Conservation- relatively small impact Irrigation Water Conservation
Water Conservation - Irrigation Impact sprinklers on handline Solid set micro sprinkler Open canal New pipe project
Water Conservation Irrigation Potential Water Savings (cfs) 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Sprinkler / Soil Moisture Sensor Pipe / Operational DID EFID FID MFID MHID
Water Use of Different Application Methods 40 Typical Application per Year (inches/season) 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Wheel line Impact Rotator Drip 11 36 range in study conducted by SWCD
Irrigation Management & Outreach to Orchardists Apply water at appropriate rate Exceeding soil absorption rate crops don t get all of it, soil erodes, wastes water Over-watering can compromise fruit quality & increase costs Using soil moisture sensors is key Micro-sprinklers allow more even application at an appropriate rate Micro-sprinklers & drip irrigation improve ability to adequately water in a low-water year Efficient watering systems are good for business
Alternative Management Scenarios under Median Climate Change Historic : 1980-2010 stream flows Future : Climate change only Increased Demand : Climate change + increased demand Increased Conservation : Climate change + increased demand + increased conservation Increase Storage : Climate change + increased demand + increased conservation + increased storage
Streamflow Response to Alternative Management Scenarios (Average Year/Median Climate Model) 600 East Fork Above Middle Fork, Monthly Mean Flows 500 400 Flow (cfs) 300 200 100 0 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Streamflow Response to Alternative Management Scenarios (Average Year/Median Climate Model) Flow (cfs) 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 East Fork Above Middle Fork, Monthly Mean Flows June July Aug Sept
Improved Fish Habitat 14,000 East Fork Chinook Spawning 12,000 Amount of Habitat 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 35 65 0 50 100 150 200 Streamflow (cfs)
Historic/Existing (WY 1980-2010)
No Change in Water Use or Conservation (WY 2031-2060)
Conservation (WY 2031-2060)
Conservation & Storage (WY 2031-2060)
Water Conservation Potential & Cost-effectiveness Potable Sprinkler Upgrade New Pipe Storage Type Savings (CFS) Cost ($M) Cost per CFS Notes Toilet Retrofit 0.4 $ 2.6 M $ 7.2M/cfs $225 rebate/home Shower Retrofit 0.2 $ 0.8 M $ 4.0 M/cfs $50 rebate/home Outdoor 0.5 n/a n/a -25% of current outdoor Change Rates 1.8 (1.0) n/a n/a 25% rate increase DID 0.5 $ 0.2 M $ 0.4 M/cfs Assumes ½ EFID 7.6 $2.7 M $ 0.4 M/cfs remaining landowners convert FID 1.3 $ 0.6 M $ 0.4 M/cfs to high efficiency MFID 6.0 $ 2.5 M $ 0.4 M/cfs irrigation equipment MHID 0.5 $ 0.2 M $ 0.4 M/cfs DID 1.5 $ 1.4 M $ 0.95 M/cfs EFID 21+ $28 M $ 1.3 M/cfs EFID (new) 14 $20 M $ 1.4 M/cfs 2,560 ac-ft FID (expand) 3 $1.8 M $ 0.6 M/cfs 560 ac-ft MFID (expand) 1.3 $ 0.3 M $ 0.22 M/cfs 270 ac-ft
Acknowledgements Les Perkins, Mike Benedict, Mattie Bossler, Hood River County Bureau of Reclamation Terrence Conlon, USGS Bob Wood & Josh Hackett, OWRD Niklas Christensen, Watershed Professionals Network Tom Gast, Normandeau & Associates Chris Brun, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Tim Hardin & Rod French, ODFW Craig DeHart, Middle Fork Irrigation District Jer Camarata, Farmers Irrigation District John Buckley, East Fork Irrigation District Hugh McMahon & Jason Keller, Watershed Residents