Irrigation Efficiency

Salmonid Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation (RM&E)

Monitoring
Project ID2009-3-10
Recovery DomainsMiddle Columbia River
Start Date03/01/2010
End Date02/28/2013
Year2009
StatusCompleted
Last Edited01/14/2025
 
1 - 1

Description    


See Frinal Report under documents tab.

Two instruments were used to measure stream flow; a stationary FL16 Flow Logger (Global Water Inc.) and a hand held ADV Flow tracker (Son Tek.) Flows with the hand held devise were taken weekly and the logger measured stage height data hourly. The loggers were calibrated to fit the conditions in the ditches such as max height and temperature. This was an issue last year that was corrected to give us more accurate data. In addition staff gauges were placed at the POD and the POU of the ditches.
The design of the seepage meters was modified from last year. By using rubber stoppers in the tops of the meters and drilling a hole through them to attach the vent hose, a more permanent seal was obtained. These vent hose’s were then secured with a zip tie to a piece of rebar pounded into the ditch bottom adjacent to the meter (See Photo). This kept the hose from becoming submerged in the stream by wind or animal activity. A second modification was made to the meter based on information obtained last season. A more permanent pipe fitting was welded to the metal meter to attach the hoses and plastic bags. The meters were used to quantify seepage flux in each irrigation canal. They were constructed of either a plastic 5-gallon bucket and lid, with the bottom removed (15 x12); or 12 or 14 gauge steel pipe with a welded top. The steel meters were 8 inches in diameter and used when the substate of the ditch was difficult to place a plastic meter. They could be pounded down with a steel bar.
Data collection equipment was placed in the ditches prior to the water being turned in, this made placement of the seepage meters and staff gauges much easier. We were operational when the irrigation season began. Seepage meter were read twice a week in areas of great water loss a second meter was placed to validate data. The volume of data collected this season was considerably increased from last year, and more accurate. Preliminary information has been shared with the Rudio Creek Partners Group and the Monument Soil and Water Conservation District to help them evaluate the benefit to piping these ditches with the goal of water conservation in this area.
Two other short ditches were also studied this irrigation season Belshaw Creek ditch in Mt Vernon and the Reynolds Creek ditch in Prairie City. Seepage meters were only placed at the POD & POU due to the short distance between. The difficulty with these ditches was that they had leakage from cattle crossings and ditch structure which could have impacted the accuracy of the data. The season on the Reynolds creek ditch ended early and began later due to higher elevation and colder water temperatures. Seepage meters were difficult to place due to rocky conditions.
Data from all ditches was reviewed and evaluated with the conclusion of the irrigation season on October 1, 2012.

Project Benefit    


A critical technical recommendation of Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi-Wa-Kish-Wit is to protect and increase instream flows by limiting additional consumptive water withdrawals, using the most efficient irrigation methods… The majority of irrigation water in the Upper Mainstem John Day region is transported through unlined irrigation ditches, which lose large volumes of water to evaporation, transpiration and seepage. The objective of the proposed study is to quantify the amount of water lost between the point of diversion in the stream and the point of use at the field. The data collected in this study can be used to identify ditches where water loss is significant and potential benefits of laying irrigation pipe are high. As irrigators have historically survived on the volume of water delivered through the unlined ditch, the volume of water that once constituted ditch losses can be made available for lease or purchase and subsequent conversion to instream water rights. Increased streamflow will benefit habitat and water quality conditions for ESA-listed species summer steelhead and bull trout, found in the John Day Basin.

Accomplishments

Metric Completed Originally
Proposed
Research and Monitoring
  Stream Miles Monitored 5.00 5.00

Funding Details

SourceFunds
PCSRF$64,660
Report Total:$64,660


Project Map



Worksites

Upper Mainstem John Day Basin    


  • Worksite Identifier: Upper Mainstem John Day Basin
  • Start Date:
  • End Date:
Area Description

No Area Description data was found for this worksite.

Location Information

  • Basin: John Day (170702)
  • Subbasin: Upper John Day (17070201)
  • Watershed:
  • Subwatershed:
  • State: Oregon
  • Recovery Domain: Middle Columbia River
  • Latitude: 44.42542581435227
  • Longitude: -119.32172416943536

ESU

  • Mid-Columbia River Spring-run Chinook Salmon ESU
  • Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS

Map

Photos

Metrics

Metrics
  • E.0 Salmonid Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation (RM&E)Y (Y/N)
    •      . . E.0.a RM&E Funding 64,660.00
    •      . . E.0.b
      Complement habitat restoration project
      None
    •      . . E.0.c
      Project identified in a plan or watershed assessment.
      No
    •      . . E.0.d.1 Number of Cooperating Organizations 1
    •      . . E.0.d.2
      Name Of Cooperating Organizations.
      CTWSO
    •      . . E.0.e.1 Number of reports prepared 8
    •      . . E.0.e.2
      Name Of Report
      Semi-annual PCSRF Progress Reports Final Progress Report. See Documents Tab for actual report.
    •      . . E.1 MonitoringY (Y/N)
      •      . . . . E.1.a Monitoring funding 64,660.00
      •      . . . . E.1.b.1 Stream Miles Monitored 5.00
      •      . . . . E.1.b.2 Acres of Watershed Area Monitored 50.0
      •      . . . . E.1.c.9 Water quantity (flow) monitoringY (Y/N)
        •      . . . . . . E.1.c.9.a # miles (to nearest 0.01 mile) monitored for water quantity (flow) monitoring 5.00
        •      . . . . E.1.d
          Name Of Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy/Program
          Unknown
        •      . . . . E.1.e
          Description of monitoring
          Water Quality Monitoring