WORKING PAPER NO. 45
YAKIMA RIVER BASIN
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
DATA AND CALCULATIONS
August 1963
-------
WORKING PAPER No. 45
YAKIMA RIVER BASIN
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
DATA AND CALCULATIONS
August 1963
-------
YAK.IMA RIVER BASIN
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
DATA AND CALCULATIONS
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this working paper is to set forth the data and
information which has been collected in the Yakima Basin and to show
calculations and methods of analysis used in making the various
determinations appearing in Public Health Service reports on the
Basin.
II. SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
A. Flows
The main sources of hydrology data are the U. S. Geological
Survey Water Supply Papers. (1) Additional ' specific data were ob-
tained from references (2) and (3) and from discussions with the
U. S. Bureau of Reclamation in Yakima. Table 1 presents water right
information for the major .diversions in the Yakima Basin. Table 2
presents the average flows -in the Yakima River at Cle Elum and
Umtanum for the 1934-1960 period and at Parker and Kiona for the
1945-1960 period. This is the period of time following the develop-
ment of the last major irrigation diversion in the Basinthe Roza
Project. Table 3 presents information calculated by the Bureau of
Reclamation concerning flows which would have occurred in certain
reaches of the Yakima River with present development during
-------
2
.1925 through 1955 period both with and without the Bumping Lake
Enlargement Project. Table 4 presents flow information on Wapato
Irrigation Project drains for the water years 1961 and 1962. Com-
plete daily records for these water years are maintained in the
Columbia River Basin Project files. Table 4 also contains estimates
of flows in other drains discharging to the Lower Yakima Basin.
These estimates were basฃr^ on information obtained in references
(2) and (4) and from field observation and measurement.
By comparing Tables 2 and 3, it can be seen that historically
observed flows in the Yakima River at Parker do not correspond with
flows calculated for these years by the Bureau of Reclamation. This
situation arises because the major water users did not divert their
full water right and because the system was not operated in such a
manner as to minimize operational waste at Parker.
The beneficial flows accruing to water quality control from
the proposed Bumping Lake Enlargement were calculated on the basis of
information presented in Table 3. The difference between the calcu-
lated flow.with the project and the calculated flow without the pro-
ject were summed for each of the thirty-one years of record. Only
those flows which totaled less than.800 cfs, or 48.3 thousand acre-
feet per month, were considered beneficial for water quality control.
Table 3 also presents the calculated beneficial flows to water quality
control for each of the years 1925 through 1955. These data were
then arranged in ascending order and plotted on both normal probability
-------
3
paper arid "Gurabel paper, as shown in Figures 1 and 2. Both plots
show that the ona in ten year beneficial flow is approximately
43,000 acre-feet per year. This is the value for which alternate
cost benefits were obtained for the Bumping Lake Enlargement
Project for water quality control.
B. Travel Times.
Table 5 lists average velocity and time of flow by section
of the Yakima River from Easton to its confluence with the Columbia
River. It was the opinion of the writer that, for certain sections
of the Lower Yakima River, the average velocities were somewhat
higher than actually exist during low flow conditions. For this
reason, stream velocities at several points in the lower Yakima
Basin were measured during September of 1962. The procedure for
calculating velocities involved measurement of cross-section and
flows at Grandview Bridge, Sunnyside-Mabton Bridge, the Granger
Bridge and the Zillah-Toppenish Bridge. In addition, rudimentary
dye and float studies were conducted in the vicinity of the Wapato-
Donald Bridge and the Parker Bridge. The flows at Parker during
this study were in the neighborhood of 400 cfs. Table 6 presents
the estimated velocities and travel .times in the Yakima River
between Cle Elum and its confluence with the Columbia River. Travel
times in the reach between Yakima and Prosser were based on results
of the two-day Public Health Service study. Other travel times were
based on those taken from reference
I/ Table 5 .is taken from "An Investigation of Pollution in the
Yakima River Basin", Washington State Pollution Control.Commission,
Technical Bulletin No. 9, Summer, 1951. p. 23.
-------
4
C. . Calculation of Re-oxygenation Constant (kp)
Two methods of calculating ko were investigated before the
final selection of the O'Connor equation was made. The Churchill
equation--
5.026U-959
H1-673"
where U equals velocity and H equals stream depthwas found to give
uniformly higher kซ rates. It was decided to use the O'Connor equa-
tions on the basis of the fact that it provided the most consarvativa
values. O'Connor's equations are:
480 (DL)1/2S1/4
H5/4
for non-isotropic flow, and:
3/2
2.31H
.for isotropic flow, where DT is the diffusion coefficient, U is
' LI .
velocity, H is stream depth, and S is stream slope. The non-isotropic
equation was used where depth was less than five feet, and the iso-
tropic .equation was used when stream depth exceeded five feet.
Table 8 presents the calculated k- by reach for two different flow
assumptions.
-------
III. ORGANIC WASTE LOADING
A. Wastes
Information on the strength and quantity of municipal and
industrial wastes in the Yakima Basin was obtained from references
(4), (5), and (6), from the unpublished 1962 Inventory of Municipal
Waste Facilities, and from field measurement and observation.
Table 9 shows present, 1985 and 2010 municipal and industrial waste
.loadings both before and after treatment for each of the major com-
munities in the Basin. Projections of municipal and industrial waste
loading were made on the basis of the economic study prepared by the
Columbia River Basin Project Economic Studies Group. (7) The assump-
tion of 85 percent treatment of municipal wastes was used for all
communities and an assumption of 85 percent treatment of industrial
wastes in the cities of Yakima and Ellensburg was used. Ninety per-
cent treatment of industrial waste was used in all other communities .
in the Basin because of the availability of large land areas for
lagoon and spray irrigation treatment.
Calculation of individual industrial waste loads was as follows:
Yakima Industrial Waste Sewer:
Present Load: _ 240,000 P.E. (see p. Ill of reference (5).)
Growth rate: 3.5 percent (23 year factor = 2.20.)
1963-1985
Growth rate: 2.2 percent (25 year factor = 1.72.)
1985-2010
1985 Load: 2.2 x 240,000 = 530,000 PE
2010 Load: 530,000 x 1.72 = 910,000 P.E.
-------
6
Waste Load from Prelected Hardboard Mills;
Present Load: Zero.
1985 Load: Assume one 150 ton/day mill with waste loading of
15 pounds of BOD per ton of pulp = 2,250 pounds of
BOD/day; 2,250 divided .by .167 = 13,500 P.E.
2010 Load: Assume two 150 ton/day plants = 27,000 P.E.
Waste Load from Blue Ribbon Growers Company:
Present Load: From Washington Pollution Control Commission permit:
maximum monthly waste discharge = 24.67 million
gallons (0.8 MGD); and assume 1500 parts per million
five-day BOD, which is the same as the Yakima indus-
trial wastes sewer. Waste load = .1,500 x 0.8 x 8.34
.167
60,000 P.E.
1985- Load: (Growth factors same .as for industrial waste sewer)
60,000 x 2.2 = 132,000
2010 Load: 3.78 x 60,000 = 225,000 P.E.
Total Industrial Waste Loading for Yakima Area:
Present Load: 240,000 + 0 + 60,000 = 300,000
1985 Load: . 530,000 + 13,500 + 132,000 = 675,500 P.E.
2010 Load: 910,000 + 27,000 -f 225,000 = 1,162,000 P.E.
-------
7
The industrial wastes listed above"are for the late summer
months during the fruit and vegetable canning season and are the
maximum waste loads generated in the Yakima area during the year.
Other wastes in the Yakima area are considered Inconsequential for
long-term planning purposes and were neglected. '
Stokely-Van Carap of Ellensburg:
Present Load: .96 MGD (from WPCC permit; this includes cooling
water) and an assumed BOD 1,100 ppm = 50,000 P.E.
1985 Load: 50,000 x 2.2 = 110,000 P.E.
2010 Load: ' 110,000 x 1.72 = 190,000 P.S.
California Packing Company at Toppenish:
Present Load: 1 MGD (from WPCC permit data) and an assumed BOD of
1,500 ppm is a waste loading of 75,000 P.E.
1985 Load: 75,000 x 2.2 = 165,000 P.E.
2010 Load: 165,000 x 1.72 = 284,000 PE
Stokely-Van Camp at Zillah:
Present Load: 1.08 MGD (measured on October 10, 1962 by WPCC
personnel and is approximately twice the amount
allowed in the WPCC permit) and a BOD of 580 ppm
(highest of several BOD's measured by WPCC-and PHS
surveys) gives a waste loading of 32,000 P.E.
1985 Load: 2.2 x 32,000 = 70,500.
2010 Load: 70,500 x 1.72 = 121,000.
-------
8 '
Grandview Industrial Wastes:
Present Load: 1.45 HGD (from sura of WPCC industrial waste discharge
permits) and assumed strength of 1,500 ppm BOD, gives
a waste loading of 109,000 P.E.
1985 Load: 109,000 x 2.2 = 240,000 P.E.
2010 Load: 240,000 x 1.72 =413,000 P.E.
Prosser Industrial Wastes:
Present Load: 1.4 MGD (from measured flows by WPCC of the potato
processing plant and the Prosser Packers' Company)
and assumed BOD of 760 ppm from measurements made by
WPCC and PHS. Present load = 50,000 P.E. .
1985 Load: 50,000 x 2.2 = 110,000 P.S.
2010 Load: "' 110,000 x 1.72 = 189,000 P.E.
The waste loadings listed above are intended to represent
maximum rather than average conditions. In general, it was attempted
to use the.most conservative (highest) waste load expected from any
'particular location. The purpose of using these conservative esti-
mates was to obtain the worst possible organic loading situation,
recognizing that, even with this condition, dissolved oxygen problems
probably would not result in the Yakima Basin.
The BOD of tributary s.treams and irrigation return drains was
included in the dissolved oxygen calculations for the Yakima Basin.
-------
9
Table 10. lists the BOD's used in these calculations for each of the
major streams and drains. Values for this table were obtained from
reference (4) and field measurements made by the Public Health Ser-
vice and the Washington Pollution Control Commission. BOD of the
tributaries and drains was found to vary significantly with time of
day and also with time of year. The generalized figures listed in
Table 10 were generally conservative in that the higher, but not
necessarily the highest, BOD's were used. It is assumed that the
BOD measured in these tributaries and drains is from natural vege-
tation, fertilizers, etc.
B. Deoxy^enation Rate (k,)
In general, k-, rate for various wastes and for various reaches
of the river was calculated by the method established by Dr. E. C.
Tsivoglou of Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center. The sample-s
were collected, and placed in an ice chest, then shipped by air to
the Portland laboratory for analysis". In most cases, the BOD's were
set up in the lab the same day that they were collected in the field.
In many cases, erratic results were obtained and it was difficult
to arrive at a calculated k, rate. A common occurrence was an
apparent lag in the exertion of BOD of approximately one-half to
one day. In general, enough samples were taken so that the ki rates
were established with some degree of confidence.
-------
10
C. Oxygen Sag Computations
Trial l--The general assumptions used in Trial 1 were: a.warm
summer period during irrigation season but with low flow in the
Yakima River and present waste loads in the quantities at which
they presently reach the river. The assumption on waste loadings
does not assume a degree of treatment but, instead, is based as
nearly as possible on the actual amounts and strengths of waste
reaching the stream. As an example, no wastes were assumed to have
reached the river from non-overflow lagoons or from spray irrigation
disposal sites. .
Trial 2--This series of calculations was performed to test the
oxygen conditions which might occur during a November period such
as that which occurred in the year 1930--a very dry year and with
waste loads approximately equivalent to those expected in 1985.
It is assumed that the ground is frozen, thus making impossible
employment of sprinkler irrigation for cannery wastes and yet with
the canneries still in operation. Irrigation projects would.have
ceased diverting water during this hypothetical situation. Indus-
trial wastes in the Yakina vicinity wsre assumed to all be diverted
through the city's municipal sewage treatment plant as is planned
according to reference (5).
The assumed treatment efficiency of this badly overloaded
treatment plant was 40 percent BOD removal. During this period
-------
11
it was assumed- that the sugar refinery at Toppenish would have been
in operation and that a load of 16,000 pounds of ultimate BOD was
contributed by the refinery.
ป
Trial 3Trial 3^ was conducted to test dissolved oxygen condi-
tions in the Yakima Basin in the year 2010 with'waste loads and
treatment efficiencies predicted for that year. A dry year was
assumed, and the enlarged Bumping Lake Project was assumed to not
have been constructed. The time of year selected was August with its
correspondingly high temperatures and peak food processing and irri-
gation return flow loads.
.The three trial calculations described above presume the most
severe conditions which can reasonably be assumed to occur in the
future. The results indicate that, even with these severe condi-
tions, critical dissolved oxygen levels would not result. This
.situation can be attributed -ฃ<3 largely to two factors: first, the
fact that the large volume of high strength industrial wastes dis-
charged to the Yakima River at Yakima enters the stream at a point
where relatively large quantities of water remain in the stream; and
second, the fact that the river has an extremely high calculated
reaeration rate below the City of Yakima. Computations do not show
the dissolved oxygen concentration which would occur in the major
irrigation canals which originate immediately below Yakima. Trial 3,
however, indicates that the BOD concentration of slightly more than
five would result in the river and, hence, would be the BOD of the
-------
12
water di.verted into the canals. Even assuming no reaeration, it can
be seen that septic conditions would not result in the irrigation
canals.
The effects of algal photosynthesis and respiration on the
dissolved oxygen content were not included in the calculations shown
above. Surveys in the Yakima Basin have shown that there is a wide
diurnal fluctuation in the dissolved oxygen content of the river in
the reach between Yakima and the mouth. Dissolved oxygen values were
observed to range from approximately 60 percent to 120 percent of
saturation in the vicinity of Granger. As an indication of what may
be considered the most severe situation, a calculation was made
whereby the maximum observed deficit during a twenty-four hour
period at Granger, .presumably caused largely by algal respiration,
was added to the deficit obtained in the oxygen sag calculations.
This maximum situation showed a minimum dissolved oxygen of approxi-
mately 4.2 parts per million. It is'recognized that this is an
undesirably low dissolved oxygen concentration; however, there are
.several factors which tend to minimize the possibility of a serious
oxygen situation arising. First, such low dissolved oxygen levels
would last for only a matter of two to three hours out of each day;
second, the tendency should be toward a reduction in nutrient con-
centrations in the Yakima Riverhence, a reduction in algal
activity; and third, the most conservative conditions which are
reasonably practicable were applied to obtain the minimum dissolved
-------
13
oxygen conditions mentioned above. An excellent discussion of the
effects of algal activity on a stream which is at the same time
receiving organic wastes is contained in reference (8). It is felt,
*
however, that the complexity of multiple waste loads, highly variable
flows, and inadequate stream velocity data preclude such a detailed
analysis of the Yakima Basin. It is- felt that considerable amount
of additional data would be required to make such calculations
practicable. In view of the discussions set forth above, it has been
concluded that serious dissolved oxygen problems cannot be expected
to result in the Yakima Basin.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. .U. S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. Surface
Water Supply'of the United States. U. S. Government
Printing Office. Washington: 1961.
2. Hallard B. Kinnison. Evaluation of Streamflov; Records in Yakima
River Basin Washington. U. S. Department of the Interior,
Geological Survey. Circular 180. U. S. Government Printing
Office. Washington: 1952.
3. U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Region 1.
Yakima Project, Washington, Supplemental Storage. Boise,
Idaho. May 1956.
4. State of Washington, Pollution Control Commission. An Investi-
gation of Pollution in the Yakima River Basin. Technical
Bulletin No. 9. Olympia., Washington. Summer 1951.
5. Cornell, Rowland, Hayes & Merryfield. An Engineering Study of
Waste Treatment and Infiltration for the City of Yakima,
Washington. Seattle, Washington. February 26, 1963.
6. U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health
Service. 1957 Inventory of Municipal and Industrial Waste
Facilities. Volume 9. Washington, D. C.
7. U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare., Public Health
. Service. Yakima River Basin (Washington) Preliminary
Economic Reconnaissance and Estimate of Growth, 1960-2010.
Portland, Oregon. February 12, 1963. Draft report.
8. U. .S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health
Service. Report of Survey of the Truckeo River. July 1962.
9. U. S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey.' Water
quality publications.
10. State of Washington, Pollution Control Commission and Department
of Conservation and U. S. Department of the Interior,
Geological Survey. Quality of Surface Waters June 1959-
July 1960. 1961.
11. Fred Poe. Unpublished Master's Thesis.
-------
12. Robert. 0. Sylvester and Robert W. Seabloom, The University of
Washington. A Study on the Character and Significance of
Irrigation Return Flows in the Yakima River Basin. Seattle,
Washington. February 1962.
13. Robert 6. Sylvester, University of Washington for U. S. Depart-
ment of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Water
Quality Studies in the Columbia River Basin. January 20,
1957.
14. U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health
Service. Washington, D. C. National Water Quality Network
publications.
-------
Table 1 .--Rights of storage tirx-l rpv.'cr users diverting
Project V,Tashington,S
Unit - 1,OOC
1
; above Ilaches
i i i
a
o
p
o
H
r-4
(i .
O
& .
0
(aJ
Bง
H 4-
-fl; .0.
,O v
E-
Below Ilaches
" 1 !!..
A,
ft.
C.
D
r..
^
/.'
I...
j
K
l_
IA
f}
o
p
$
^
*s
r
y
BruiT, V.'ightraan, Murphy, Stone -breaker
Kittitas
Cascade
V.'cstside
Ellensburg Power
Terrace Heights
Roza
Selah-l'oxee plus Moxee Sub "A"
Department of Agriculture
Tie ton
Cauner-Muoth
Naches-Selah
V.'apatox Power
5 Canals between l.'apatpx^ Hd.worksfiffail-
Yakir\a Valley Canal ' race
City ox" Yakiraa
Union Gap Irrigation Disti-ibt
j
Small Warren Act Users below Union Gap
Broadway
Wapato Indian Irrigation
SunnyGide ' '
1
Type of Riijht
Storage (Disregaa'd in Studies)
Storage
Storage and Kat. Flow
Nab. Flow
Storage . .
Mat . Flow
Nat. Flow (300 ac.ft. Storage 'Capacit
Storage
Storage
Koteo on
Pro-Rating
Pro-rate
Pro-rate'.
Not pro- rate
Hot pro-rate
Pro-rate
Kot r/ro-rate
y)Kct pro-rate
Pro-rate
Pr.o-rute
i:ut.Flow(Selah-Mo)Cee has 2700 ac.ft. Not pro-rate
Storage . storage cap. )Pro-rate
Storage (Disregard in Studies)
Storage
St'orage
Storage Exchange (Disregard)
Nat. Flow
Storage
. Nat .Flow (based on J*50 cfs,can be cut
Nat .Flow to 300 cfo)
Mat . Flow (U300 ac . 1 1 . Storage Can . )
Hat. Flow
Storage
Storage and Wat. Flow
Storage
Storage (Disregard in Studies)
Storage Exchange
Met .Flow but must.be maintained by
Storage stor . release
Storage
Storage
TOTALS
Pro-rate
Hot pro-rate
Pro-rate
Total
Pro-rate
Not pro-rate
Pi-o-rate
Mot pro-rate I
Mot pro-rate
Hot pro-rate
r.'ot pro-rate
Pro-rate
Not pro-rate
Pro-rate
Pro-rate
Pro-rate
Hot pro-rate
Pro-rate
Total
Kot pro-rate
Pro-x-ate
Total
Hot Pro-rate
Pro-rate
Total '
Jan .
1.0
9.2
27-7
3ti.Y
->O r-f
.JO. f
Feb.
1.7
0.3
2^.0'
.
3^.0
35.0
Mar.
5.7
9.2
27-7
k2. v.
k2.C
-------
Storage
acre-feet
Apr.
6.0
9.0
'""O"
0.5
0.9
0.4
0.1
37-5
5.6
0.3
.
6.0
6.0
7-0
0.7
5-9
3.0
'1.2
' 0.3
3.2
0.6
0.1
42.0
31.5
7M
49.1
0.4
55.5
l-..;.5
m 3
_,.. .-j
or.--) T
' S J ' J
May
50.2
9-2
'^9
1.5
9.2
0.3
0.2
5". 2
5-9
0.3
15,4
'6.6
22.0
7-3
0.0
27. Y
6.2
3.9
1-3
o.i*
3.^
0.7
0.1
Mr. 3
73.5
117.0
' 40.6
20.5
77.1
loY.o
PPY.O
M>..C
June
71.0
9-0
4.8
1.5
0.9
0.4
0.2
71.2
5-6
0.5
1V9
7.1
22.0
7-1
0.9
2o.O
5-9
3.0
1.2
0.6
3.2
0.0
0.1
U2.8
70.0
112.8
1*7. i
32.0
79-1
lol.i;
Pc'.7
'., - . i
!ป-P..2-
July
71.8
9-2
4.9
1.6
9-2
o.i*
0.2
71-3
5.9
0.5
15J+
6.6
22.0
7-3
1.1
27-7
6.2
.3.9
1.3
0.5
3.i*
0.0
0.1
W.3
80.5
12**. 0
'l-O.U
31.0
CO.'*
1-47.7
P-V.3
!,('. I-
'lx-t . j
AUG.
?'2
4.9
1.6
9-2
0.4
0.2
71-3
5.9
' 0.5
15A
6.6
22.0
7-3
l.l
27-7
6.2
3.9
1-3
0.0
3-4
0.9
0.1
44.3
73-5
117.0
40.6
31.0
GO. 4
107-.7
?'.6...
! * ป ^
';',-i;;,
Sept.
44.5
2.9
^.7
1.5
0.9
0.2
0.2
45.0
4.5
0.3
14.9
5.1
20.0
6.0
26.0
4.4
2.5
0.8
0.4
, 2.3
- 0.6
O.-l
42.0
21.0
63.0
47.1
13-1
:o.2
i^.-j
131.0
3')1.4
Oct.
20.5
2.3
2.1
9-2
0.1
22.5
3-5
0.1
6.0
27.7
3.1
1.9
O.cT
. 0,2
1.0
. 0.2
0.1
44.3
44.3
20.5-
20.0
13'-i.0
l>>3-'
I'/ ::', .
Nov.
1.0
0.9
.26.0
4
37-5
3V. 5'
Dec.
1.8
9-2
27.7
30.7
30.7
0.5
20ac.ft.
3uic.ftJ
I43ac.ft
Total
342.0
^_ s
03 . o
31.1
8.2
100.3
2.2
1.1
375.0
3o.9
2.5
76.0
30.0
114.0
49.4
4.6
32,..l
37-9
23.7
7.7
3-0
20.7
4.6
0.7
305.6
350.0
655.6
315.9 '
145.6
461.5
1405.1
1P75.-5
2 To. 4
Irrig. ฃ Power
Apr. -Oct.
-
1212.6
1075 o
2^07.9 .
Irrig. Only
Apr . -Oct .
,,'
957-9
1 07^-3
J- 1 s J
223-?. 2
-------
TABLE 2
Average Flow In Yakima River
(cfs)
Station
Cle Elum3-'
Umtanum^-'
Parker^
Kiona^/
Oct.
815
1,247
1,241
2,743
Nov.
675
1,150
2,659
3,815
Dec.
1,278
1,957
3,822
4,770
Jan.
1,031
1,618
2,822
3,845
Feb.
858
1,566
3,025
4,158
Mar.
826
1,939'
3,023
4,426
Apr.
1,576
3,430
3,342
5,082
May
2,806
4,527
5,418
6,998
June
3,109
4,084
4,576
6,734
July
.2,643
2,864
1,022
2,418
Aug.
2,663
2,837
379
1,750
Sept.
1,9,22
2,280
394
2,021
a I 1934-1960.
b/ 1945-1960.
-------
TABLE 3
Yakima River Flow at Parker
(1, OOO's of acre-feet per month)
Year Jan. Feb.
1925 A
B
C
1926 A 92.8 108.5
B 84.2 100.3
C 8.6 8.2
1927 A 88.5 100.5
B 85.2 97.9
C 3.3 2.6
1928 A
B
C
1929 A 60.8 63.3
B 53.5 57.6
C 7.3 5.7
1930 A 52.0 98.1
B 46.2 90.8
C 5.8 7.3
1931 A 54.3 66.6
B 47.6 59.6
C 6.7 . 7.0
A - With Bumping Lake
Mar.
145.5
141.3
4.2
155.1
155.1
0 .
\
. 80.0
71.5
8.5
95.5
87.8
. 7.7
11.5
1.9
9.6
April
13.7
12.2
1.5
102.0
94.5
7.5
10.7
7.4
3.3
45.6
55.7
(10.1)
10.7
7.4
3.3
May.
11.1
7.7
3.4
50.4
84.2
(33,8)
470.5
482.9
(12.4)
11.1
7.7
3.4
11. -1
7.7
3.4
11.1
7.7
3.4
June
54.6
54.6
0
10.7
7.4
3.3
179.4
263.4
(84.0)
12.4
9.2
3.2'
10 .'7
7.4
3.3
10.7
7.4
3.3
10.7
7.4
3.3
Enlargement.
July
14.4
7.7
6.7 '
14.4
. 7.8
6.6
14.4
7.7
6.7
14.4
7.7
6.7
14.4
7.7
6.7
14.4
7.8
6.6
14.5
7.5
7.0
NOTE:
Aug.
14.4
7.7
6.7
14.5
7.0
7.5
14.4
7.7
6.7
14.4
7.7
6.7
14.4
7.7
6.7
14.4
7.4
7.0
14.4
6.8
7.6
Sept
14.0
7.4
6.6
14.0
7.4
6.6
14.0
18.4
. Oct.
15.4
7.7
7.7
15.4
7.7
7.7
72.6
74.8
Nov.
54.7
48.7
6.0
78.8.
78.9
(0.1)
(4.4) (2.2)
14.0
7.4
6.6
14.0
7.4
6.6
14.0
7.4
6.6
15.8
8.4
7.4
Figures in
15.4
7.7
7.7
15.4
7.7
7.7
15.2 .'
7.5
7.7
18.6
7.7
10.9
59.7
54.0
5.7
41.9
33.0
8.9
53.7
47.2
6.5
71.3
65.5
5.8
parentheses are
Dec. D
109.1
108.4
0.7 27.
147.7
155.2
,(7.5) 36.
9.
64.8
59.0
5.8 30.
60.5
54.7
5.8 37.
53.8
45.7
8.1 34.
64.9 *
59.0
5.9 52.
minus figu
7
6
0
9
7
6
5
in
B - Without Bumping Lake Enlargement.
C - Difference.
D - Annual beneficial
augmentation.
-------
TABLE'S (Continued)
Year
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
A - V
B - \
A.
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
lith
Jan. Feb. Mar. April
94.6 116.2 287.6 121.5
88.0 118.4 301.1 119.3
6.6 ' (2.2) (13.5) 2.2
185.0 94.3 100.3. 91.8
185.9 88.4 94.5 84.9
(0.9) 5.9 5.8 6.9
615.8 348.6 510.8 358.7
615.8 348.4 511.0 358.7.
0 0.2 (0.2) 0
300.6 249.5 129.2 10.7
300.9 254.5 127.7 7.4
(0.3) (5.0) 1.5 3.3
68.0. 51.9 141.3 232.7
59.4 43.8 132.8 230.4
8.6 8.1 8.5 2.3
62.4 54.9 110.0 69.8
56.6 49.6 101.5 61.4
5.8 5.3 8.5 8.4
Bumping Lake Enlargement.
May
104.5
158.7
(54.2)
197.6
231.9
(34.3)
108.0
108.0
0
224'. 2
230.5
(6.3)
318.4
385.2
(66.8)
14.7
12.3
2.4
June
81.3
152.7
(71.4)
468.4
544.2
(75.8)
10.7
7.4
3.3
222.1
222.9
(0.8)
242.4
242.4
0
189.8
268.5
(78.7)
201.8
201.8
0
July
14.4
7.7
6.7
43.3
92.5
(49.2)
14.4
7.7
6.7
14.4
7.7
6.7
14.4
7.7
6.7
14.4
7.7
6.7
14.4
7.7
6.7
NOTE:
Aup. .
14.4
7.7
6.7
14.4
7.7
6.7
14.4
7.7
6.7
14.4
7.7
6.7
14.4
7.7
6.7
14.4
7.7
6.7
14.4
7.7
6.7
Figures
Sept.
14.0
7.4
6.6
129.2
126.5
2.7
14.0
7.4
6.6
14.0
7.4
6.6
. 14.0
7.4
6.6
14.0
7.4
6.6
14.0
7.4
6.6
Oct.
15.4
7.7
7.7
200.7
215,0
(14.3)
15', 7
7,7
8.0
15,4
7.7
7.7
15.4
7.7 '
7.7
15.4
7.7
7.7
15.4
7.7
7.7
in parentheses
Nov.
283. 2
307.1
(23.9)
286,8
303.1
(16.3)
204.3
232.9
(28.6)
66.9
61.2
5.7
60,0
52.1
7.9
81.2
75.5
5.7
Dec.'
170.6
179.5
(8.9)
968.0
1015,2
(47.2)
153.1
149.1
4.0
58.4
. 52.6
5.8
74.4
68.6
5.8
94.7
88.8
5.9
D
27.7
6.7
31.3
27.7
27.7
30.1
'
27.7
are minus figures.
Jithout Bumping Lake Enlargement.
C - Difference.
D - Annual beneficial augmentation.
-------
TABLE 3 (Continued)
Year
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr.
A 121.0 75,5 121.7 10.7
B 112.4 68.8 113.1 8.3
C 8.6 6.7 8.6 2.4
A 64.2 105.2 159.6 . 21.9
B 55.9 97.4 161.7 39.3
C 8.3 7.8 (2.1) (17.4)
A 69.4 78.7 122.0 15.2
B 63.6 .72.2 114,4 14.3.
C 5.8 6,5 7.6 0.9
A . 72.-1 80,6 74.1 41.4
B 65.8 74.7 66.5 42.4
C 6.3 5.9 7.6 (1.0)
A 131.7- 106.5 144.8 351.2
B 126.2 102.8 146.3 360.4
C 5.5 . 3.7 (1.5) (9.2)
A 58.4 63.6 '69.1 10.7
B 52.4 58.3 62.0 7.4
C 6.0 5.3 ' 7.1 3.3
A 124.4 123.9 66.3 10.7
B 123.3 128.9 60.3 7.4
C 1.1 (5.0) 6.0 . 3.3
May
14.2
49.7
(35.5)
13.1
8.0
5.1
11.1
7.7
3.4
llil
7.7
3.4
15.7
47.2
(31.5)
11.1
7.7
3.4
17.0
7.7
9.3
A - With Gump ins Lake Enlargement.
June
10.7
7.4
3.3
10.7
. 7.4
' 3.3
10.7
7.5
3.2
10.7
7.4
3.3
188.4
260.0 .
(71.6)
10.7
7.4
3.3
10.7
7.4 .
3.3
July
14.4
7.7
6.7
14.4
7.7
6.7
14.4
7.7
6.7
14.4
7.7
6.7
14.4
7.7
6.7
14.4
7.8
6.6
14.4
7.7
6.7
NOTE:
. Aup,.
14.4
7.7
6.7
14.4
7.8
6.6
15.4
7.8
7.6
14.4
7.7
6.7
14.4
7.7
6.7
14/4
7.8
6.6
14.4
7.7
6.7
Figures
Sept.
14.0
7.4
6.6
14.0
7.5
6.5
14.8
7.4
7.4
14.0
7.4
6.6
23.5
27.6
(4.1)
14.0
7.5
6.5
14.0
7.4
6.6
Oct.
15.4
7.7
7.7
14.4
7.6
6.8
15J7
7.7
8.0
15.3
7.6
7.7
15.8
8.1 '
7.7
15.3
7.9
7.4
15.4
7.7
7.7
in parentheses
Nov.
59.9
54.2
5.7
68.0
62.2
5.8
89.4
86.7
2.7
99.5
103.1
(3.6)
74.1
69.4
4.7
65.9
60.1
5.8
89.0
83.3
5.7
Dec.' D
91
93
(2
104
99
4
137
145
(8
129
131
(1
106
91
14
69
63
5
91
85
5
are minus
.0
.1
.1) 33.
.1.
.2
.9 35.
.1
.7
.6) 37.
.8
.0
.2) 34.
.0 .
.4
.6 17.
.2
.3
.9 37.
.4
.6
.8 43.
figures
4
0
4
4
0
1
6
B - Without Bumping Lake Enlargement.
C - Difference.
D - Annual beneficial augmentation.
-------
TABLE 3 (Continued)
Year
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B.
Q
A
B
C
A
B
C
Jan.
109.6
105.0
4.6
163.5
162.7
0.8
106.9
104.1
2.3
60.6
54.8
5.3
77.3.
73.9
3.4
235.6
235.6
0
62.3
59.3
3.0
Feb.
75.6
70.3
5.3
212.1
220.5
(8.4)
111.0
112.7
(1,7)
87.8
83.7
4.1
122.9
124.9
. (2.0)
474.7
474.7
0
110.9
108.4
2.5
Mar.
141.1
139.7
1.4
224.2 .
234.1
(9.9)
86.3
90.7
(4.4)
222.7
225.0
(2.3)
213.7
220.1
(1.4)
208.3
207.3
1.5
113.6
110.1
3.5
Apr.
125.8
120.4
5.4
87.5
91.5
(4.0)
67.7
60.8'.
6.9
279.2
278.6
0.6
137.3
128.6
8.7
308.4
306.9
1.5
85.2
81.9
. 3.3
May
173.6
241.1
(67.5)
253.1
304.8
(51.7)
498.4
546.5
(48.1)
704. '2
774.4
(70.2)
460.2
468.3
(8.6)
613.7
616.7
(3.0)
164.4
210.2
(45.8)
June
166.8
241.0
(74.2)
1C. 7
.16.2
' 0.5
633.9
702.8
(68.9)
302.3
302.8
0
759.0
759.0 .
0
231.8
231.8
0
38.6
37.7
0.9
July .
14.4
7.7
6.7
14.4
7.7
6.7
14.4
7.7
- 6.7
14.4
7.7
6.7
138.3
138.3
0
14.4
7.7
'6.7
. 14.4
7.7
6.7
AUR.
14.4
7.7
6.7
14.4
7.7
6.7
14.4
7.7
6.7
14.4
7.7
6.7
14.4
7.7
6.7
14.4
7.7
6.7
14.4
7.7
6.7
Sept.
18.2
21.0
(2.8)
14.0
7.4
6.6
18.9
22.2
(3.3)
20.7
24.1
(3.4)
95.0
96.6
(1.6)
14.0
7.4
6.6
14.0
7.4
6.6
Oct.
18.0
10.3
7.7
58.9
72.0
(13.1)
:20.'2
12.5
7.7
29.5
21.8
7.7
137.0
141.9
(4.9)
43.1
35.4
7.7
15.4
7.7
7.7
Nov.
79.0
88.4
(9.4)
224.4
240.1
(15.7)
102.9
108.2
(5.3)
276.7
294.4
(17.7)
332.6
332.6
0
104.3
102.7
1.6
59.8
50.5
9.3
Dec. '
317.3
336.8
(19.5)
'133..0
135.7
(2.7)
82.8
77.1
5.7
157.7
157.7
0
404.3
404.3
0
93.6
89.2
4.4
60.2
51.8'
8.4
D
18.3
20.5
17.8
17.7
6.7
27.7
28.6
A - With Bumping Lake Enlargement.
B - Without Bumping Lake Enlargement.
C - Difference.
D - Annual beneficial augmentation.
NOTE: Figures in parentheses are minus figures,
-------
TABLE 3 (Continued)
Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr- .
1953
A 170.1 211.5 72.6 12.2
B 185.4 223.4 71.0 7.4
C (15.3) (11.9) 1.6 4.8.
1954 A 128.5 149.4 122.0 58.8
1955
A -
B -
C -
D -
B 128.8 147.8 124.3 50.0
C (0.3) 1.6 (2.3) 8.8
A* 86.9 106.1 47.3 10.7
. B 73.6 104.6 41.5 7.4
C 13.3 1.5 5.8 3.3
With Bumping Lake Enlargement.
Without Bumping Lake Enlargement.
Difference.
Annual beneficial augmentation.
May
194.2
219.7
(25.5)
516.2
533.1
(16.9)
25.6
21.2
4.4
June
192.
192.
(0.
365.
365.
0
490.
524.
(34.
8
9
D
1
1
1
5
D
July
14.4
7.7
6.7
140.0
140.0
0
17.3
' 17.3
0
NOTE:
AUR.
14.4
7.7
6.7
14.4
7.7 .
6.7
14.4
7.7
6.7
Figures
Sept.
26.3
29.4
(3.1)
137.5
138.8
(1.3)
59.3
61.0
(1.7)
Oct.
22.4
12.0
10.4
64.6
69.5
(4.9)
156.3
161.3
(5.0)
in parentheses
Nov.
100.6
101.6
(1.0)
191.6
192.2
(0.6)
402.6
Dec
204.
214.
(10.
90.
80.
9.
271.
>
are minus
D
5 '
9
4) 20.7
6 '
8
8 6.7
3
14.4
figures.
-------
TABLE 4
Average Flow by Month in Wapato Project Drains
(cfs)
Location
Satus Creetc neair Satus .....
Toppenish Creek near Alfalfa
Marion Drain near Alfalfa ..
East Toppenish Drain at
Wl 1 son Roa d ป
McDonald Drain (S. D. #35)
,"
Coulee Drain at North
Drain 302 at .Highway 3A ....
Drain 303 at Looney Road ...
Year
1961
1962
1961
1962
1961
1962
1961
1962
1961
1962
1961
1962
t
1961
1962
1961
1962
1961
1962.
Oct.
34
. 41
174
98
393
412
9.3
14
34
34
32
, 42
: 5.1
' 7.4
Nov.
168
44
54
50
289
282
13 '
8
17
16
24
25
2.2
Dec.
88
159
59
61
240
237
7.7
6.
14
10
21
21
Jan.
284
140
75
72
205
218
8
5
6
9
20
17
Feb.
1410
271
381
103
280
197
217
6
6.6
9.5
20
16
Mar.
609
292
365
127 .
286
195
27
12
11
10
20
16
Apr.
142
210
229
134
425
422
78
57
33
30
37
36
5.1
13
9
13
10
11
May
96
106
95
47
598
474
71
87
50
56
53
57
28
32
15
25
11
25
June
91
70
77
35
377
374
66
72
55
64
59
67-
32
25
25
25
16
19
July
78
86
15
19
107
76
74
75
47
54
62
71
31.5
26
22
22
6
9
AUK.
87
97
36
35
105
183
63
85
68
66
60
67
27
28.5
26
27
17
12
Sept.
114
164
54
30
124
64
104
84
58
62
60
63
15
24
27
25
10
16
-------
TABLE 6
Travel Times in the Yakltr.a Basin
during Summer Flow Conditions
Reach
Length Velocity
(miles) (mph)
Travel Time
(hours)
Cle Elum to mouth of Wilson Creek near Ellensburg ...... 35
Mouth of Wilson Creek to mouth of Nachea River ......... 31
Mouth of Naches River to Yakima STP outfall .... ........ 5
Yakima outfall to Union Gap Bridge ..................... 4
Union Gap Bridge to Sunnyside Dam ...... . ............... 4
Sunnyside Dam to Granger ............................... 19
(T.E.MC -K^ts (Granger to Satus (town) ......... . ...................... 10 .
, < :
toti'J )
/''
-------
TABLE 8
Reoxygenation Constants at 20ฐ C.
to the base 10)
Reach
Cle Elum-Ellensburg
Ellensburg-Naches River
Naches River-Yakima Outfall
Yakima Outfall-Sunnyside Dam
Sunnyside Dara-Zillah
Zillah-Granger
Granger-Satus
Satus-Grandview
Gr andvievj-Pros ser
Prosser-Chandler
Chandler-Kiona
Kiona-Richland
Approximate k2
Flow-- (cfs) (per day)
1500 - 2500 1.2
1500 - 2500 1.1
1500 - 2500 6.8
1500 - 2500 0.8
50 - 250 1.3
250 - 550 1.4
500 - 750 0.5
800 - 1300 0.2
950 - 1450 0.3
50 4.1
800 - 1300 1.0
750 - 1300 0.6
Approximate kฃ -:
Flow-- (cfs) (per day)
'x
500 - 600 1.0
650 - 700 1.0
-------
TABLE 9
Municipal and Industrial Waste Loads
Population Equivalents during the Late Summer
Present
Location
Roslyn-Cle Elum
Ellensburg
Kittitas
Naches
Selah, Yakima,
Union Gap
Mpxee City
Wapato
Toppenish
Zillah
Municipal
2,700
1,200
20,000
10,000
^
550
170
550
190....
60,000
44,100
500
350 -
2,400
480
5,100
1,270
1,100
240
Industrial
Negligible
Negligible
50,000
Tf~y\-pf~-~ *~~ - -
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
^egligible
300,000
' 45,000
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
75,000
5,000
32,000 .
2,000
1985
Municipal
5,000
750
. 25,000
.. 4,000..
600
150
800
200
i
97,000
15,000
600 '
150
3,600
550
6,400
1,250
1,500
300
Industrial
Negligible
Negligible
2010
Municipal
7,400
1,100
110,000 30,000
16 , 50.0 5 , 0.00__
Negligible 700
Negligible 150.
Negligible
Negligible^
675,000
101,000
Negligible
..Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
165,000
16,500
70,500
7,050
900
250
ซ ."" *^ ,-| ^\f
' 146,000
22,000 .
700
200._.
4,000
600
7,300
1,250
2,200
350
Industrial
Negligible
Negligible
190,000
_ 28,500
frZy <*."&
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible-
1,162,000'
'. 174,000
Negligible
. Negligible..
Negligible.
Negligible
284,000
28,400
121,000
12,100
Untreated
Treated
Untreated
Treated
Untreated
Treated
Untreated
Treated
Untreated
Treated
Untreated
...Tre.ate.d
Untreated
Treated
Untreated
Treated
Untreated
Treated
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 9 (Continued)
Present
1935
2010
Location
Municipal Industrial Municipal Industrial Municipal Industrial
Harrah
Granger
Sunnyside
Mabton
Grandview
Prosser
Benton City
280 Negligible
250 Negligible
1,350 Negligible
300 Negligible
6,600 City Plant
1,000 City Plant
1,000 Negligible
700 Negligible
3,400 109,000
500 1,000
300 Negligible
100 Negligible
2,000 Negligible
350 Negligible
Z7*;.S,->fl ' '
, 15,000 City Plant
3,800 City Plant
1,400 Negligible
210 Negligible
4,900 240,000
750 24,000.,...,.
2,700 50,000
500 500...
ฃ2,700
900. Negligible
360 Negligible
400 Negligible
100 Negligible
2,900 Negligible
450 Neg 1 i gi b l_e_
20,000 City Plant
5,000 City Plant
2,000 Negligible
300 Negligible
7,200 413,000
3,100. 110,000
500 . 11,000
"
1,700 Negligible
250 Negligible
3,500
550
2,300
350
18,900
"2/7,967) '
Negligible
Negligible
Untreated
Treated
Untreated'
JTreajted
Untreated
Treated
Untreated
Treated
Untreated
JTreated
Untreated
..Treated.,..,.
Untreated
Treated
-------
TABLE 10
Tributary BOD Loads
5-Day BOD Flow (cfs)
Stream
Roslyn Creek 4.0 4
Teanaway River 1.0 20
Wilson Creek 2.5 120
*
Selah Drain 10.0 5
Naches River 0.8 Use gage
Wide Hollow Creek 5.0 30
Ahtanura Creek 3.0 20
See gage
Moxee Drain 3.0 20
East Toppenish Drain . 5".0 Use gage
McDonald Drain 3.2 Use gage
Marion Drain 2.0 Use gage
Toppenish Creek '..... 3.0 Use gage
Satus Creek 2.0 Use gage
Coulee Drain .-.'..' " 3.0 Use gage
South Drain ' 3.0 Use gage
Ungage drains below Mabton 3.0 ... 18
Granger Drain 3.0 50
Sulfur Creek 5.0 200
Sprink Creek 1.5 35
Snipe Creek .ป 2.0 50
-------
LQpi /tit L
i
i
-z
1
L:.
i
. ... .|
_. .
t
\
-LL
|
.111
t
i-
T
_4i
f
1 i
i
in
i <
ll
i ii
l!
1
ji
i
j
t
1!!
Ill
! i
i
i
I
i
!
i~
i
iii
a
i
!;
il;
1 iii~~
- j
;x
ji
-
/
(Tj
-;.-'
;
/Jo. i?.o $atls&20
.. J- - i- -L-*
FT 7
T r !
1 j! i
1 T | ji t 11
::.:.::.:..: Hit..":. "I
t.n ;.!
[1 4
Tl J
.._ Ll i
i i
it
:
.. _ .44 1
. _. 4
1
I ,-!. -
.] .1 ..if
-t -I 1
i
i I
_.!.. i
\\
IL J "5 it i
i ILl_l it
1
" "t "f " "
t"
" *--j - --
--(--- ft
{ Tl til
y : jv- t
7| >f 1
[,'
L r M'n
^f;- IL
- ' J *
1 t
- ; 1 i
.; tt |
)
j::"T" "i
t t
I !
COI .OJO JJOO 30030ฎ. 50'* ffi
I? itiillL
: i'l?Vf , i
xx^r
1 1, i tit
-L L 1
T i i
1
1 '4- 4- -4-L-
]_ ill T
to
i
i
r
7*
*>
'
Return
\\ ii t<
^
X
_,>> i
.
X
Period
^x
^
X"
x
s
7^
i
x'
x
i
X*|
x
'
1
ll 111
XfX
!
x
Wi
r
i^1 **
,x
f^
L
-* . i ' N
> ^ ft
ij3>
*
T
V
X
Vi -t
V,
x
i'tl'El
1 1 r it
"^""iVl'i !'
1 1; [ i
_r jij IT
LI R,
t'ln
- - Ut.
^4- LR!
7 n i
+ h-
r" 4
^ !
J_ 1 1
ft
-
It
t" 71 ]
i M
i 1 i
i ijl
iii i
\~ T i ]
4 " "i
i j
T T 1
T j_ 1 r
i"
, i i T
I...L...
4M
]i
' ' i
I
!
j r
i i
T l! I
L _ i . . . 4
.....i,. i
ftol ,w
1 1
1
trr-f^
3+ tt
.
TT" "T "~~
I
1 i
....t....
4- _ i
V
\ 1
-
:-
-
-
-
-7ฐ
0o
72?
&&
50
so
i-^
1 .1 ' . 1 .
JOO .600 ! .300! .3^0 .970 .930 990 .995 .99J75 | SS$
1 FREQUENCY 1 i . | 1
aiJJjUJjLULIjJlJJLIJJJJ4JjJlJJUJJJj-U^
\D 2..0 a(J 4.0 5.0 6.0 70
Reduced Variate Ccurtesy cf EJ.-GUMBEL
-------
r-'3
99.99
99.9 97.8 97.S
Mve. CL
70 60 50 40
e>
I/?,/.1.,,.?-.5
0.2 0.1 ;0,OS
0.01
"'*"( *" ""
20 30 40 50 60 70
0.01 . 0.05 O.f 0.2
90 99 99.5 99.0 97.9
79.V
------- |