Water Supply Capacity of a Small Stream, North Fork Yachats River

Location: The Yachats River is located in the Mid Coast of Oregon. The river flows southwest.
Description of Project: ssu!e that three water rights per!it applications are under review for a co!"ined # cfs
to "e issued to $%& the cit' of Yachats and $(& two private landowners. ssu!e that the cit' applicant is to
receive ) cfs while the two landowner applicants are to receive ( cfs each. *urther+ assu!e that there is a
!ini!u! ( cfs instrea! flow re,uire!ent for fish ha"itat and passage. The diversion for all three applicants is to
"e placed on the -orth *or. of the Yachats River two .ilo!eters north of the -orth *or./Mainste! confluence.
The Yachats is an ungaged river.
O"jectives: To deter!ine during what portion of the 'ear the diversion of # cfs can "e achieved while
!aintaining an instrea! flow of at least ( cfs.
Plan of ction: Co!pare near"' gaged s'ste!s to choose a data set to perfor! the h'drologic anal'ses for this
project. Deter!ine how !uch flow is passed per season using a !onthl' anal'sis. Develop a flow duration
curve "ased on !ean dail' discharge data to .now what percent of ti!e flow will "e at or "elow ( cfs $no water
availa"le for diversion&. scertain the nu!"er of !onths that have da's with flow at or "elow ( cfs using !ean
!onthl' discharge averaged over the entire period of record. Construct flow duration curves on a dail' "asis for
critical !onths to deter!ine the percent of ti!e flow can and cannot "e diverted during each critical period.
s 'ou read through this e0a!ple+ 'ou !a' wish to follow along with the anal'sis steps in an M1 20cel file. You
can download the data file by clicking here.
Step ! "elineate the watershed and determine the drainage area of the North Fork Yachats
River using topographic maps#
Topographic !aps used in this e0a!ple are pu"lished "' the 3.1. 4eologic 1urve' $3141& and were o"tained for
use here fro! the online !ap source+ topo$one#com. The watershed was delineated using identifia"le ridges
where possi"le. *or the areas of the watershed where the ridgetops are not clearl' identified+ headwaters of
strea!s in adjacent watersheds were used to deter!ine the correct location of the drainage divide. *or this
e0a!ple+ drainage area was calculated using an overla' grid of "o0es with .nown area. The "o0es were counted
and the nu!"er of "o0es within the watershed !ultiplied the area of an individual "o0. The watershed drainage
area was found to "e %5 !i
(
.
Step %! Review the preliminary estimations page to determine a rough estimate of streamflow
and precipitation values in this region#
The preli!inar' esti!ations for the -orth Coast will appear as follows:
&'" C()S* +)S'N
Range for )nnual ,recipitation
#5 6 %75 in
%##8 6 9579 !!
)nnual discharge per unit area
:.%# ft
)
/!i
(
5.5:# !
)
/.!
(
&onthly flow as a percent of )nnual Flow -./
(C* N(0 "1C 2)N F1+ &)R ),R &)Y 23N1 234Y )35 S1,*
7 () )# )8 ): (7 %# ; : ( % (
-ote that the values for !onthl' flow as a percentage of annual flow do not add up to %55<. This is due to
overlapping of drainage areas $i.e.+ nesting& of so!e or all gages used to calculate the percentages.
The preli!inar' esti!ations for this "asin show that 'ou can e0pect the annual rainfall to "e appro0i!atel' #5
inches. The lower value of the range was chosen "ecause the stud' site is at an elevation that would not "e
influenced "' orographic lift e0perienced higher in the !ountain range. =ad the stud' site "een located at or
near the headwaters of the strea!+ the upper value would have "een chosen. >ith a drainage area of %5 !i
(
+
the annual discharge is e0pected to "e appro0i!atel' :( cfs. The flow regi!e for a t'pical water 'ear is
anticipated to follow the general trend for west of the Cascades+ na!el'+ low flow during the su!!er !onths+
with pea. flows occurring during the winter !onths. *urther!ore+ the !ost da's of inundation are e0pected to
occur during the !onths of Dece!"er+ ?anuar'+ and *e"ruar'.
Step 6! 'dentify and list the characteristics of all nearby gages#
review of the *able of 3S5S gages for the mid coast of (regon shows three gages that !a' "e
appropriate choices for data in which to perfor! the h'drologic anal'sis of -orth *or. Yachats River: -orth *or.
lsea+ *ive Rivers+ and @ig Cree..
Statio
n
Numb
er Station Name From To
No.o
f
Wate
r
Year
s
Draina
ge
Area
(sq
mi)
Alt.(ft
above
sea
level)
Mean
Annu
al
Disch
arge
(cfs)
Discharge/
Unit Area
(cfs/sq mi)
768
988
N FK ALSEA R
AT ALSEA,
OREG.
1957-
10-01
1989-
09-30 31 63 272 276 4.38
768
9788
FIVE RIVERS
NR FISHER,
OREG.
1960-
10-01
1990-
09-30 30 114 130 539 4.73
768
9:88
BIG CREEK NR
ROOSEVELT
BEACH, OREG.
1972-
10-01
1991-
09-30 19 11.9 141 90.5 7.60

At is advantageous to select a gaged river that has a long period of record. The ta"le shows that the -orth *or.
lsea+ *ive Rivers+ and @ig Cree. have )%+ )5+ and %; 'ears in the period of record+ respectivel'. Thus far+ -orth
*or. lsea and *ive Rivers are potential candidates for sources of data. =owever+ drainage area is another vital
factor to consider. Af the drainage area of the gaged strea! is si!ilar to that of the stud' strea!+ then the
uncertaint' involved with scaling up or down can "e avoided. O"serving the ta"le+ -orth *or. lsea+ *ive Rivers+
and @ig Cree. have 7)+ %%9+ and %( !i
(
of drainage area+ respectivel'. Af all three rivers e0hi"it the sa!e flow
regi!e+ then the @ig Cree. gage is the one to choose since it has such a co!para"le drainage area to that for
the -orth *or. of the Yachats $%5 !i
(
&. The pro"le! with the shorter period of record can "e solved through a
validation procedure using nor!aliBed data fro! the long period of record of -orth *or. lsea. -evertheless+ it
is wise to perfor! further anal'ses co!paring the data sets for !ore than one gage "efore !a.ing a final
decision.
Step 7! ,erform simple statistics on data to choose the most appropriate gage#
The general pattern of strea!flow for each river can "e viewed "' plotting !ean !onthl' discharge versus ti!e
for the period of record. To co!pare the patterns of !ore than one s'ste!+ nor!aliBation of the data is done "'
dividing each value "' the drainage area of the respective s'ste!. s can "e seen in the figure+ the patterns for
all three s'ste!s are si!ilar. The drastic differences seen "etween @ig Cree. and the other two s'ste!s could
"e e0plained "' "asin geolog' $"edroc. t'pes&+ infiltration rates+ or differences in annual precipitation due to
topographical influence. The figure also e!phasiBes the su"stantial difference in the siBe of the drainage area of
@ig Cree. versus the two riversC nonetheless+ the i!portant ite! to note is the si!ilar pattern.
Plotting !ean !onthl' discharge nor!aliBed "' !ean annual discharge for a t'pical water 'ear+ shows that the
pattern still holds+ "ut in addition to this validation+ it also suggests slight dissi!ilarities "etween the three sets
of data. At appears that @ig Cree. and *ive Rivers pea. earl' while onl' @ig Cree. !aintains a higher "ase flow
during the dr' !onths. The discrepanc' could also have developed due to gaps $!issing 'ears& in the period of
record for one or all gages. =owever+ there are great ra!ifications for the gage selection process "ecause it
shows that the two large rivers+ even after scaling+ cannot accuratel' represent the "ehavior of a s!all strea!.
*or these reasons the @ig Cree. gage will "e used for the re!ainder of the anal'ses.
Step ;! +uilding confidence in flow estimates# <ow good are the data and analysis=
There will "e concern regarding the results of the h'drologic anal'sis using @ig Cree. due to the shorter length of
the period of record. >hen faced with this situation+ it is "eneficial to perfor! a validation e0ercise with a
s'ste! that has a longer period of record.
-orth *or. lsea with )% 'ears in the period of record was chosen for the anal'sis. @' nor!aliBing the !ean
annual discharge values for @ig Cree. and -orth *or. lsea and plotting discharge/drainage area versus water
'ear+ the user can once again see pattern si!ilarities. lthough+ the !ost useful infor!ation this graph displa's
is that @ig Cree. data does not occur in a particularl' dr' or wet c'cle. The line for the !ean annual discharge is
straddled "' the data for each s'ste!. This gives confidence that even with the shorter period of recordC the
li.elihood of overesti!ation or underesti!ation is s!all.
Step 9! "evelop a visual representation of the discharge associated with a typical year
3sing the !ean !onthl' discharge/!ean annual discharge for the period of record plotted vs. !onth for a t'pical
water 'ear was co!piled. *ro! the figure+ which follows+ it is concluded that if diversion will "e allowed+ it will
!ost li.el' "e allowed during the period of Dece!"er through March. pril through Octo"er all pass 8 < or less
of the !ean annual discharge+ therefore it is this period when diversion could "eco!e interrupted "' s!all flows
and the need to !aintain the ( cfs instrea! flow.
Step >! Construct a flow duration curve to determine the percent of time water is
available?unavailable for diversion#
The ( cfs !ini!u! instrea! water rights and ; cfs adjusted co!"ined water right $should applications "e
granted& were la"eled on the graph of the flow duration curve. At is noted that appro0i!atel' %( < of the ti!e
the flow in the river would "e too low to provide full suppl' to the diversion. ccording to the figure to follow+
!ini!u! instrea! flow of ( cfs is li.el' to "e availa"le %55 < of the ti!e for an average 'ear. =owever+ the
de!and of ; cfs will onl' "e availa"le 88 < of the ti!e. This i!plies that full suppl' will "e availa"le during a
portion of the water 'ear while a reduced suppl' will "e availa"le during other ti!es of the 'ear. To decide the
specific dates when full and partial supplies are li.el' to "e availa"le+ a !onthl' anal'sis and dail' anal'sis !ust
"e conducted.
Step @! ,erform monthly analysis to search for critical months where flow is insufficient for full
capacity#
Monthl' averages for the period of record were used to search for critical !onths. *ro! the following figures+ it
is noted that the period of ?ul' through Octo"er can "e considered critical !onths. Caution !ust "e ta.en when
allowing for diversion during this period. Therefore+ further anal'sis on a dail' ti!e step !ust "e conducted to
deter!ine how often if ever full diversion can ta.e place.
Step :! Construct flow duration curves based on mean daily values for each of the critical
months to determine what percent of time during each month flow cannot be fully diverted#
The results of the flow duration curves for each of the critical !onths were ta"ulated. The a!ount of ti!e flow is
insufficient is e,ual to %55 !inus the e0ceedence fre,uenc' of ; cfs. At !ust "e deter!ined if diversion will "e
per!itted at all during !onths such as 1epte!"er when flow is insufficient 9:< of the !onth.
Critical !onth !ount of ti!e flow is insufficient $<&
?ul' 7
ugust )7
1epte!"er 9:
Octo"er ((
Step 8! ,erform flood peak analysis to design protection of intake
*or an inta.e operating on such a s!all strea!+ the diverters !a' choose not to design protection against the
%55D'ear design flood usuall' used in such projects. Anstead+ assu!e that a flood with a return period of (5
'ears will "e used as a preli!inar' esti!ate for the design flow. Later+ during !ore detailed design+ a cost/ris.
anal'sis can "e !ade for a range of design flows and return periods. *or now+ a Log Pearson t'pe AAA flood
fre,uenc' anal'sis regionaliBed for the !id coast of Oregon was conducted using the !ethods outlined in
the )nalysis *echniAues section of this we" site was co!pleted. ccording to the flood fre,uenc' curve+ the
(5D'ear flood for -orth *or. Yachats is (+555 cfs. Re!e!"er+ this value was calculated using instantaneous
pea. values+ !a.ing it a "rief event and perhaps a conservative esti!ate.
Step ! Summary of analysis and conclusions
The anal'sis can "e su!!ariBed as follows:
-orth *or. Yachats watershed is %5 !i
(.
@ig Cree. is the gaged s'ste! that is used for the anal'ses.
%(< of the ti!e flow in the river is e0pected to "e too low to provide full suppl' to the cit' and landowner.
@ase flow is appro0i!atel' : cfs+ ) cfs a"ove the ( cfs !ini!u! instrea! re,uire!ent.
*ull suppl' cannot "e !et at all ti!es+ however+ reduced suppl' is possi"le during critical !onths.
The inta.e !ust have protection constructed for a design flood of (+555 cfs.