1 / 22

Ground Water Effects of Toppenish Creek Restoration

Explore the impacts of floodplain restoration on groundwater levels in Toppenish Creek on the Yakama Reservation, analyzing historical context, project goals, monitoring methods, and results. Learn how LiDAR, stream gauge, and well data were utilized to assess the restoration project's success.

sylviad
Download Presentation

Ground Water Effects of Toppenish Creek Restoration

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Ground Water Effects of Toppenish Creek Restoration • Tom Elliott Tom Elliott Yakama Nation Wildlife

  2. Project Area-Toppenish Creek on Yakama Reservation Toppenish Creek 1909

  3. Historical Context Drastic land use changes over last 200 years- • Beaver trapping • Cattle and sheep grazing • Railroad and road development • Irrigated Agriculture

  4. Floodplain Disconnection

  5. LiDAR Elevation Model 2005 channel

  6. Floodplain Restoration Using Grade Control • Goals: • Reconnect previously active channels and floodplain • Spread flood waters • Raise water table for riparian habitat improvement

  7. Monitoring Network Stream gage

  8. Study Approach Did the project raise the floodplain water table relative to creek flows? • Collect and reduce data • Characterize groundwater interactions • Select wells that show creek influence • Compare water levels before and after project completion for selected wells • Project was completed in fall of 2006

  9. Water table March 23 2009 Kriged using ArcMap Geostatistical Analyst

  10. Toppenish Creek vs. Marion Drain

  11. Well Data need to reduce!

  12. Creek Influence on Wells

  13. Stream Stage Data project completed

  14. Graphical analysis

  15. Water levels before and after Average water levels in selected wells Toppenish Creek at Unit 2 average difference = 1.81 ft average difference = 0.26 ft average difference = 0.82 ft average difference = -0.17 ft 1.81 ft – 0.26 ft = 1.5 ft

  16. Data Summary

  17. Channel effects?

  18. September 2005

  19. July 2008

  20. Conclusions Grade control structures appear to have raised water table relative to upstream flow by at least 1 foot at low flow Project effects vary by well location The biological significance is likely to be positive Better data collection is necessary for future monitoring efforts

  21. Questions?

  22. Works cited Reichmuth, D.R., Potter, A.S., and Reichmuth, M.G., 2007, Toppenish Basin Geomorphology, Geomax, P.C. Zar, J.H., 1999, Biostatistical Analysis, Fourth Edition: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 798 p.

More Related