Modeling surface water availability in southeast Kansas

1
Modeling surface water availability in southeast
Kansas

• Sam Perkins, Katherine A. Tietsort and Kelly
  Emmons
• Kansas Dept. of Agriculture, Division of Water
  Resources

Water Information Management Systems
Workshop Albuquerque, New Mexico Sept 12-16, 2006
2
Instream Flow Assessment of Verdigris and Neosho
River Basins

• Report completed January 2006 for Kansas Dept. of
  Wildlife and Parks
• Performed under contract for service by Kansas
  Dept of Agriculture, Division of Water Resources

3
Co-authors

• Katherine A. Tietsort, Commissioner, Topeka Field
  Office, Kansas Dept of Agriculture, Division of
  Water Resources
• Kelly Emmons, GIS Specialist, Kansas Dept of
  Agriculture

4
Project objectives

• Develop a method to evaluate surface water
  availability, and apply to Neosho and Verdigris
  River basins
• Consider additional management options available
  to the state for maintaining streamflow.

5
Study area Neosho, Verdigris basins
6
Previous work

• Kansas stream statistics and a navigable GIS
  coverage of streams (USGS Perry et al., 2004)
• Kansas water rights and reported use database
  (KDA-DWR WRIS, WIMAS)
• Surface water availability def., concepts
  (Oregon Cooper, 2002)
• Maps of likelihood of sufficient flow, or 1 -
  chance of insufficient flow (Texas, 2002).
• NHD water body GIS

7
Example stream segments above pd
8
Surface water availability

• Historical streamflow1 Natural Flow
  Reservoir Effect (Diversions Return
  Flow)2
• Compare Cooper (2002) Availability Natural
  Flow Storage Consumptive Use - Instream Use
• 1Based on historical period of USGS record.
• 2Diversions and return flow may occur in
  different stream segments and time periods.

9
Available gain

• Available gain Historical gain - Demand1
  Return flow2
• 1Available gain in each segment is reduced by
  contributions to meet downstream demands in order
  of water right priority.
• 2Available gain in each segment is increased by
  return flows from associated pds.

10
Approach to evaluation

• For each stream segment and season, evaluate
  10-90 percentile flows and gains
• For each point of diversion (pd), associate a
  neighboring stream segment and evaluate required
  gain and return flow
• For a given season and flow percentile, assign
  upstream gain to meet required gain at each pd in
  priority order.

11
Flow percentiles as cumulative distributions, P(Q
lt Q) E 1 - P
NCottonwood R bl Marion L 64-04
12
GIS tool to evaluate availability

• SWAMI1 a GIS-based procedure to evaluate
  available upstream gain to meet demands at each
  point of diversion in priority for a specified
  flow percentile and season.
• Results availability maps based on current
  demands
• As remaining available upstream gain (or deficit
  due to prior appropriation) in each stream
  segment for a given flow percentile (10-90) and
  season
• As risk (probability) of insufficient flow to
  meet demand in each season.
• 1 Surface Water Availability Mgmt Info system

13
Stream statistics (Perry et al., 2004)

• Developed GIS coverage of Kansas streams with
  topology that allows traversal of network.
• Evaluated 10, 25, 50, 75, 90 percentile and
  mean flows for 5,427 stream segments
• Based on gage records, interpolation from gages,
  and regression models derived from
  uncontrolled-flow gages and watershed
  characteristics.

14
Periods of record (Perry et al., 2004)

• Streamgage dataset is limited to gages with at
  least 10 full water years ending in WY2000.
• Controlled flow (18 gages below federal
  reservoirs in Verdigris and Neosho R basins)
  time periods are limited to WY 1960-2000
• Uncontrolled flow (27 gages in Verdigris,
  Neosho) includes gages below reservoirs for time
  periods predating dam closures.

15
Flow estimate cases (1-5)
2. gage on segment use gage estimates
3. Interpolate gage above or below segment
1. ungaged Use regression equations
5. Interpolate 2 gages above segment on separate
branches (added case)
4. Interpolate gages above AND below segment
16
Water rights and use

• Data appropriations and reported water use
  database (WRIS) and GIS tool (WIMAS)
• Expertise Topeka Field Office experience with
  water use by right holders and administration of
  rights
• Estimates of temporal distribution and return
  flow factor for each type of use
• Projected demands of existing and future rights

17
Assumptions

• Minimum desirable streamflows (MDS) at five gages
  are treated as nonconsumptive rights with
  priority date April 12, 1984.
• Water use by rights senior to MDS is incorporated
  into the historical stream record.

18
Demand

• Demand Upstream gain required to satisfy water
  rights
• Demand Authorized quantity Avg Use (Sr
  rights)
• ()Subtract average reported use by rights senior
  to MDS.
• (Rights senior to MDS account for 94 of average
  reported use 1990-2003.)

19
SWAMI Evaluate available gain to satisfy water
right requirements

• For each PD in order of water right priority
• Apply a preorder traversal find sufficient
  remaining upstream gain to meet demand at PD in
  each season
• Reduce available gain in upstream segments by the
  quantities assigned
• Increase available gain by quantity of return
  flow to stream segment associated with PD.
• Apply a postorder traversal to calculate
  remaining available upstream gain

20
Stream segment (node) traversals
G4
4
4
G4
3
2
2
3
G2
G3
G3
G2
G1
G1
V1 V2 V3 G1 Qi Vi / (c?t)
Point of diversion
1
Point of diversion
1
(a)
(b)
Search upstream for available gain using a
preorder traversal in ArcView Avenue (non-rec.)
Evaluate remaining available upstream gain using
a postorder traversal in Excel VBA (recursive)
21
Example pd and associated stream segments to be
traversed
22
SWAMI results (10-90 percentile)

• Assigned and required gain for each pd
• Remaining gain in each stream segment
• Details contribution from each stream segment to
  each downstream pd served
• Assigned and required gain for each File number
• Postprocessing
• Unsatisfied rights met by federal storage
• remaining available upstream gain
• risk of not meeting current and future water
  needs over range of evaluated percentiles

23
Post-analysis Link pds and stream segments based
on SWAMI results

• Show contributing upstream segments to required
  gain for specified pds
• Show downstream pds served by gain from specified
  stream segments

(a) Fpdiv_key
(a) Strm_id
Pd_gNN_contribs.dbf (gain contributions)
Pd_vn.dbf (pd shapefile table)
Streamsks.dbf (stream shapefile table)
(b) Fpdiv_key
(b) Strm_id
Q. Which pds are not satisfied? See maps of
remaining available gain and over-appropriation
at specified percentile for each season.
24
Example

• Map sequence showing upstream segments
  contributing gain to meet demand at each of five
  MDS pds as flow decreases from 90 to 10 percentile

25
Stream segments contributing gain to meet MDS
requirements at 90
26
Stream segments contributing gain to meet MDS
requirements at 80
27
Stream segments contributing gain to meet MDS
requirements at 75
28
Stream segments contributing gain to meet MDS
requirements at 60
29
Stream segments contributing gain to meet MDS
requirements at 50
30
Stream segments contributing gain to meet MDS
requirements at 40
31
Stream segments contributing gain to meet MDS
requirements at 25
32
Stream segments contributing gain to meet MDS
requirements at 20
33
Stream segments contributing gain to meet MDS
requirements at 10
34
Distance upstream to gain 40 Oct-Dec
35
Mean gain-weighted distance from pds to
contributed gain vs percentile
36
Availability and risk maps

• Volumetric Remaining available upstream gain or
  over-appropriation in each segment and season at
  a given flow percentile
• AF (10-90 percentile)
• cfs (30 percentile)
• Risk
• percent of time available water is insufficient
  to meet additional demand from streams without
  over-appropriation, or current demands at PDs
• Percent of time streamflow is zero

37
Remaining available gain and over-appropriation
at 20 percentile Jul-Sep
38
(No Transcript)
39
Remaining available gain and over-appropriation
at 20 percentile Oct-Dec
40
Pct time demands are not met for current and
additional appropriations Jul-Sep
41
Pct time demands are not met for current and
additional appropriations Jul-Sep
42
Pct time demands are not met for current and
additional appropriations Oct-Dec
43
Discussion of availability maps

• Volumetric availability maps and associated
  tables for each season might be used to assess
  availability for appropriations at a chosen flow
  percentile.
• Risk-based availability maps for each season may
  be a useful companion set in showing history of
  increased risk of insufficient water over time
  for PDs along a stream segment of interest.
• Uncertainty could also be mapped as estimated
  standard deviation of historical flow rate or
  gain along each stream segment in a season at a
  given flow percentile.

44
Conclusions

• SWAMI demonstrates a method of quantifying
  surface water availability based on streamflow
  percentile and season that is consistent with
  water right priority.
• Availability may be assessed by stream segment
  and season either as a volume at a given flow
  percentile or as an assumed risk, based on one of
  the two sets of maps.