Rueger Springs Monitoring Limitations

1. Rueger Springs Monitoring Limitations

2. Spring water is collected in a “French drain” complex. • Perforated collection pipes drain into a 36-inch culvert. • Culvert transfers water to hatchery. • Spring discharge is measured in the culvert prior to entering the hatchery.

3. Prior to 1983, spring water was impounded behind an earthen dam. • Water was transmitted via gravity overflow. • Measuring point prior to 1983 is unknown.

4. Two problems with calibrating to spring discharge at Rueger Springs Spring Capture Discharge Measurement

5. Capturing Spring Water • Springs emanate from American Falls Lake Beds, with the most probable source being fractures in the underlying volcanics (Stearns et al., 1938). • Results in a spring discharge area, not a discrete spring location.

6. Note the distribution of vegetation.

8. Capturing Spring Water • During excavation to install a new flow meter, a de-watering pipe was “discovered.” • This pipe is assumed to discharge to the settling pond.

9. An unknown amount of spring water is not captured, and is not measured. • Direct discharge of ground water. • De-watering pipe. • Abandoned raceway. • Flows appear to be seasonal.

10. Measuring Spring Discharge • Measuring device performance may be problematic. • The previous impeller meter was observed in various states of malfunction including nitrogen build-up and moss growth. • New meter installed in 2009 may not be functioning. • The measuring point location may be problematic. • A single access port necessitates the use of measuring devices that employ several assumptions (friction loss, average velocity, full pipe flow) - none of which are known.

12. Conclusions • All spring water is not captured. • Inability to capture all spring water may obscure seasonal discharge variation at the measuring point. • Meter performance may not be suitable for calibration data. • Measuring point location may not allow for better data collection.