ESHMC Meeting Notes September 13Th, 2011

Draft

ESHMC Meeting Notes September 13th, 2011

Item 1 - Introductions were made, and an attendance list was circulated. The following were present at the meeting:

- Rick Raymondi

- Allan Wylie

- Sean Vincent

- Mike McVay

- John Lindgren

- Jennifer Sukow*

- Chuck Brockway

- David Blew

- Janak Timilsena

- David Hoekema

- Willem Schreuder

- Harvey Walker

*Present at meeting but did not sign attendance sheet.

Bryce Contor, Chuck Brendecke, Lyle Swank, Greg Sullivan, Stacey Taylor, Jim Brannon, and John Koreny joined the meeting via polycom.

Item 2 – Bryce Contor briefed the committee on the status of the Final Report. He said the pre-PEST and pre-MKMOD figures were almost done. He showed a figure containing the time series with the pre-adjusted well term divided into stress periods. He asked the committee for input regarding how to best present the large amount of data components of the well term. Rick Raymondi suggested that calendar years be shown at selected intervals along the bottom of the figures for reference. Chuck Brendecke said that a summary figure with all the years be placed in the text, but the rest of the figures with more detail be place in the Appendix. Willem and Greg suggested bar charts with summary or average data to reduce the detail, and all committee members were in agreement. Chuck Brockway said the bar chart should have absolute values instead of relative values. Chuck Brendecke said familiar units such as acre-feet should be on the vertical axis.

Bryce then went through a table of report figures and indicated the status of each. Chuck Brockway asked why the report will contain the Garabedian (1992) water budget. Bryce said the Garabedian information is included to provide a context for the current water budget. Then Bryce said the irrigated lands figures are the same as the source maps and that he needs to eliminate one set. Willem made a recommendation for post-PEST, time-constant scaler adjustments to the figures. Bryce added that more than ½ of the figures are done, and there are 85 in total. He said that they would be delivered to IDWR for an initial review. Chuck Brockway asked what the plan was for the validation and uncertainty reports. Rick Raymondi and Jennifer Sukow suggested that they be separate from the Final Report. David Hoekema said that there should be a statement in the Final Report indicating that the validation and uncertainty reports would follow when they are completed. The committee agreed that the validation and uncertainty reports would be separate documents and that there would be a statement in the Final Report indicating that would follow and would be posted when completed. Jim Brannon, Willem, and Greg Sullivan indicated that they will complete the MKMOD section of the Final Report.

Item 3 – Jennifer Sukow presented information regarding Category C calibration targets to the committee. She began with an overview of the three categories of springs (Group A, B, and C) and refreshed the committee’s memory regarding how the value of Category C spring cell discharge is derived. Jennifer noted that the ratios of cell discharge for Group C cells were calculated from values assigned by Covington and Weaver (1990) per previous ESHMC discussions and added that the Group C targets are given lower weight for calibration than the Group A & B targets.

Then Jennifer indicated that Allan recently discovered that the Covington & Weaver (1990) values for the four springs in model cell 1041013 are quite low when compared to water uses supported by the spring sources. She showed that the reported Covington and Weaver (1990) spring discharge values coincident with Three Springs, Weatherby Springs, Hoagland Tunnel, and Spring Creek Spring are 1 cfs, 1 cfs, 1 cfs, and 0.1 cfs respectively. However, for Three Springs, Weatherby Springs, and the Hoagland Tunnel Complex, water is diverted for irrigation and a fish hatchery, and some irrigation diversions occur upstream of the hatchery. Jennifer added that on November 15, 1973, IDWR staff measured 73 cfs during a licensing exam at the Jones Hatchery, and she said that it is likely that this represented most or all of the total spring flow. Jennifer added that on August 26, 1993, IDWR staff measured a total spring flow of 50 cfs, including water diverted for irrigation use upstream of the hatchery.

For Spring Creek Spring, Jennifer indicated that water is diverted for irrigation, a fish hatchery, and residential use, and that the irrigation and residential pipelines divert upstream of the fish hatchery. She noted that peak spring discharge between 1995 and 2008, based on diversions reported to Water District 36A, was 6 cfs. Willem asked how good the IDWR records are, and Jennifer responded that IDWR staff measurements were made over check boards, and she considered the records a decent reflection of actual flow while conceding that there was some room for error.

Jennifer provided more detail regarding the information submitted in reports to Water District 36A. She indicated that between 1993 and 2006, the measurements at the Jones hatchery were made over checkboards within the raceways. Jennifer then said that in 2006, a new weir was installed so that the discharge to Billingsley Creek and the irrigation diversions are measured. Willem said it would be nice to have the IDWR measurements of 73 cfs and 50 cfs as part of the calibration. Chuck Brockway said that he may have additional data. Chuck then asked if Covington and Weaver (1990) are off by that total amount (referring to the 1 cfs, etc.), then how sound are the data. Jennifer said that she will address that later in the presentation.

Jennifer then reported to the committee that data for other Group C model cells were reviewed by comparing Covington & Weaver values to available diversion records, looking for similar issues of this scale. She said that Covington & Weaver values for Thousand Springs were approximately 1,000 cfs greater than data obtained from Idaho Power, and that this had already been addressed in ESPAM2 for the Thousand Springs model cell, and it was discussed in prior ESHMC meetings between June and November 2010. Jennifer added that other large differences, other than Thousand Springs, were not found. She informed the committee that the Covington and Weaver values for various springs in the model domain are based on the following:

–  Visual estimates made during the USGS SRP RASA project in approximately the 1980s

–  Nace and others (1958) which reported 1899-1947 data

–  Thomas (1968) which reported 1948-1967 data

–  USGS (1974) which reported 1966-1970 data

–  USGS (1982) which reported data from water year 1981

Jennifer then proposed replacement values to make cell 1041013 more representative of aquifer discharge including:

1)  Replacing the 3 cfs mapped by Covington and Weaver (1980) with 73 cfs measured at Three/Weatherby/Hoagland Complex in 1973;

2)  Replacing the 0.1 cfs mapped by Covington and Weaver with 6 cfs, based on peak reported diversions at Spring Creek Spring between 1995 and 2008.

3)  Developing a new ratio for ranking of cell 1041013 within the Buhl to Lower Salmon Falls reach that will be based on 79 cfs. She noted that this will make cell 1041013 the fourth largest Group C cell in this reach, instead of one of the smallest.

Jennifer finished by indicating that the updated Group C spring calculations are posted at:

www.idwr.idaho.gov/Browse/WaterInfo/ESPAM/monitoring_data/Springs/Current_Data/

Willem asked why the springs are being kept within Group C. Jennifer said she proposed Group C in order to save time and because of data issues. Willem responded that he would like to calibrate to target data and asked if getting the data is an issue. John Koreny asked what the implications of Group A, B, and C are, and this was explained to him. Jennifer said that with Group C, we would only match the ratio of flow to the largest spring in the complex. John Koreny asked if we have the data, and Jennifer said yes, but she is not sure how good the quality is. She added that it would be classified as a Group B Spring, not an A. Willem asked what data is available, and Jennifer said we have what has been reported to the Watermaster. She added that there is more information to sort out. John Koreny asked when we will have all of the data sorted out.

Willem asked John if he has already sorted out the data. John said no, adding that he is the technical representative for Jones and SeaPac. He added that this is all new to him and that he has read the Director’s decision to have experts perform the analysis. John then stated that everyone agrees that ESPAM version 1.1 can’t be used to perform this analysis. Jennifer said that she is not sure what Jones is reporting, and she wondered if it might have changed over time. John said he is meeting with his client in a week and a half, and this issue would be sorted out. John then said that Cindy Yenter should sort these issues out, and that she is the best one to know. Jennifer reminded John that Cindy Yenter is not the Watermaster for Water District 36A and that if there is double-counting of spring flow, it is not necessarily important to the Watermaster.

Willem asked if the data issues are a big deal. John Koreny asked if the Director was made aware of the data issues, and Rick Raymondi said yes. Then John said that all agree that ESPAM version 1.1 can’t be used in the delivery call. Rick Raymondi said that there would be opportunities to express which version of the model should be used for the Jones and SeaPac delivery calls during the formal proceedings and that it is not appropriate for it to be part of committee discussions. Then John recommended that extra time be spent so that version 2 can be used.

Chuck Brendecke asked with regard to the scaling of Group C cells, what the time frames of the flows are that are used. He went on to say that there are a lot of apples and oranges. Willem stated that we are talking about Covington and Weaver (1980). Chuck Brockway said that Covington and Weaver should be trashed when we move to ESPAM version 2.1. John Koreny agreed adding that the model should use the highest level of data. Willem responded that the goal has to be that springs are Grouped A, B, or C depending on the available data.

Chuck Brockway asked why the scaling is to 73 cfs, and Jennifer said it is closest to the time frame of other Covington and Weaver (1990) data. Then Jennifer said that what is used is the ratio of 79 cfs (73 cfs + 6 cfs) to the flow at Banburry Springs. Willem concluded from the discussion that fixing the Group C spring flow right now is better. John Koreny said that this problem doesn’t really affect the other areas of the ESPA, and he recommended that we spend time to put the data together to make it useable. Willem then said that Plan A should be to make the springs in model cell 1041013 Group B springs, and Plan B should be to fix the Group C spring flows.

Chuck Brendecke said when the ratios are built that consistent data should be used. He asked if Chuck Brockway has additional data. Chuck Brockway responded that he can’t commit the data to the committee until he finds it. He said that he performed measurements when Jones wanted to update their system, and he is not sure what data he has, but it is from approximately 2000. Willem said that fixing the Group C data is a stop gap measure, and a real fix could be accomplished if the data could be found. He added that this is a pretty important issue, and it should be made a priority. Chuck Brockway asked when Jones and SeaPac go to hearing with ESPAM version 1.1, whether the Covington and Weaver scheme will be used and whether 73, 79, or 3 cfs will be used. Willem said that the most realistic ratio should be used.

Jennifer reminded the committee that the current plan is to complete ESPAM version 2, calibrate the model, then go through the validation process, and complete the uncertainty analysis. She added that the committee would be able to look at the calibration results during the next meeting. John Koreny agreed with this process and suggested that the data be assembled in a week and sent out for committee comments. Chuck Brockway asked how long it would take to get records to see if we are in the ball park. Jennifer said the flows at the Jones hatchery are closer to 50 than 73 cfs now. The value of 73 cfs (+ 6 cfs for Spring Creek Spring) would be used in the Covington and Weaver ratio for scaling up the flow.

Willem motioned that IDWR approach cell 1041013 as a Group B target, and all committee members agreed. Chuck Brockway asked when the Magic Springs data will be sorted out. Jennifer responded that the Magic Springs location does not have the same problems and is not being compiled for the purposes of ESHMC. Chuck Brendecke requested that if IDWR plans to continue to classify cell 1041013 as a Group C target that the measurement date of the data used in the ratio be made available to the committee. IDWR agreed to supply the information in that case.

Item 4 - Willem Schreuder briefed the committee regarding updates to the MKMOD processing tool for ESPAM version 2 input data files or datasets for the On-farm water budget. Willem said he is working on MKMOD version 8 or MKMOD8, and there was a bug in the soil moisture accounting code that required a correction. He said he added columns for the output summary fields such as canal seepage, tributary underflow, and perched river seepage. He also added stress output options for command line parameters. Willem described the separate output files as: