ESHMC Meeting Notes June 30Th, 2011

Final

ESHMC Meeting Notes June 30th, 2011

Item 1 -Introductions were made, and an attendance list was circulated. David Hoekema asked to join the committee, and Rick Raymondi agreed to his request. The following were present at the meeting:

- Rick Raymondi

- Allan Wylie

- Sean Vincent

- Mike McVay

- John Lindgren

- Jennifer Sukow

- Chuck Brockway

- Jennifer Johnson

- David Blew

- Randy MacMillan

- Jon Bowling

- Janak Timilsena

- David Hoekema

- Jaxon Higgs

- Brian Higgs

- Rich Rigby

- AmilAcharya

*Present at meeting but did not sign attendance sheet.

Bryce Contor, Hanna Sloan, Chuck Brendecke, Steve Hannula, Lyle Swank, Marx Hintze, Stacey Taylor, Jim Brannon, and Willem Schreuderjoined the meeting via polycom.

Item 2 –The committee was briefed on the status of the Final Report, the status of the water budget, the training on the model tools that had already been provided, model calibration targets, MODFLOW and MKMOD training that was being planned, and changes to the ESHMC web page. Bryce explained that the final versions of the components of the water budget were being prepared, and he mentioned that there were some formatting issues and problems with an exchange well and entity 1 diversions. He showed graphical representations (temporal and spatial) of water budget tables and figures.

Bryce then discussed changes in irrigated acres by source that was done by analyzing data from 1980, 1986, 1992, 2000, and 2002. In this review/study conducted by IWRRI, test samples of model grid cells were mapped to show acres that changed from one source to another between the years mentioned above. Bryce said the results showed more irrigated acres in 2000 than in 2002, and he attributed this to differences in representation of non-irrigated inclusions, changes in land use/land cover, changes in irrigated status, and differences in acreages of wetlands and urban inclusions. He concluded that some earlier representations were possibly not accurate because wetlands and urban areas were not masked out. Bryce recommended that since the difference was so small (<2%), that the existing irrigated acreage estimates be used for ESPAM version 2.0 and that a new urban mask be developed for the next dataset.

Marx Hintze then expressed to the committee that he did not believe that the boundary of the Area of Common Ground Water should be moved to coincide with the ESPA model boundary that is defined in the ENHANCED SNAKE PLAINAQUIFER MODELFINAL REPORT (July, 2006). He said that he felt that ground water users in the Big Lost River valley were singled out because many ground water users in other tributary valleys would not be within the new Area of Common Ground Water Supply. Marx also made the case that the ground water users in the Big Lost River valley do not draw from the Snake River Plain aquifer and that the connection between the two aquifers is very complex. Rick Raymondi responded to Marx by thanking him for his comments, and he said that his points would be documented in the meeting notes. Rick added that this issue is being considered in another forum [petition requesting the initiation of rulemaking to modify and amend Rule 50 of the Conjunctive Management Rules (IDAPA 37.03.11.50) to enlarge the area of common groundwater for the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer] and is not part of theESHMC meeting agenda.

Item 3 – Interim Director Spackman addressed the committee and first reflected that there has been a significant enhancement in the technical ability of the Department, and that the ESPA model is a large part of this increase in competence. He recognized the staying power of the committee with respect to working to improve and upgrade the model, and vocalized his appreciation and thanks to the committee. He welcomed questions, and he recognized differences in terminology in discussing model characteristics and use. Director Spackman then said that there is a level of uncertainty associated with model output, and the challenge is how to move the model and related information into the administrative arena. The Directorsaid that he has to make decisions on data and analyses, and he has to be very deliberate, and therefore the committee needs to be very cautious in its work. He said that ESPAM 2.0 must be run using factual inputs and additional hypothetical factual inputs, and simulations from these inputs must be compared with the outcomes of the previous model versions.

Chuck Brockway said that he is not sure what the Director meant by hypothetical vs. factual. Chuck added that what goes into the model is important, and the best science must be used. He thinks that the model product is the best available science, but it must be used with good guidance. Then Chuck said that he is not an advocate of the model trim line and that maybe his concern could be addressed when the committee talks about model uncertainty. He said that the way the trim line was previously used was not a good surrogate for uncertainty. Chuck talked briefly about the definition of model validation, and then he said that his contacts were asking a lot of questions about when the model would be released for use.

Bryce Contor said that the figures and tables would be completed when calibration was final. Chuck Brockway responded that he is anxious to have the final product so he could evaluate if there are significant differences in the various simulations of impacts. He said he wanted to know what the differences could do to existing mitigation plans. Marx Hintze asked what mitigation plans, and Chuck Brockway said the mitigation of delivery calls for the fish facilities. Marx asked if there will be an outside review of the new model product, and the Director said we could visit the question. Rick Raymondi said that the committee effort to develop the model was collaborative and that there was review by many different interests throughout the process. Chuck Brockway said that an outside review will add a year to the project. Marx said then we will have to live with the model. The Director said that this subject is worthy of discussion, and then he added that he did not say that the model is based on hypothetical inputs, but that there may be hypothetical tests to apply to the model, and there may be ways to stress the model through “what ifs” or scenarios. Chuck Brockway agreed saying that is why we develop the model.

Director Spackman reminded the committee that change to mitigation plans, such as the $1M pipeline, after ESPAM version 1.1 was developed, resulted in hurt feelings after the money had been spent. Chuck Brockway asked if IDWR will adopt the model, and the Director said yes. The Director added that he did not intend to surprise people with his June 9, 2011 letter, but he wanted to inform the committee that we need to perform our diligence before releasing the model. Chuck Brendecke said that he believed the committee was even handed and objective in the development of ESPAM version 2. Chuck made several points including that it is not a perfect model with some accurate, precise outputs and some coarse estimates. He said that there is always a level of uncertainty, but the model is the best tool available. Finally, Chuck said that it has been everyone’s goal to make a better model.

Steve Hannulaasked what was the time line and goal for release of the model and whether there was a mechanism in place for modifying the model. Allan responded that the model should be ready by next spring and that there would be new versions coming after (e.g., 2.1, 2.2, etc.) that would allow for revisions.

Chuck Brockway said that committee has had significant input on the model domain and it seems difficult to administer the area of common ground water as it exists in Rule 50. The Director asked if the committee wants to get immersed in the current petition regarding the Area of Common Ground Water Supply. Chuck Brockway said that the committee wants to offer the best science. Jon Bowling said he agrees with Chuck that the model boundary makes sense as the area of common ground water supply. Director Spackman said that he delegated that process to Rich Rigby and that he had not been briefed on the status. He said that he recognized that the boundary was from an old technical report, and he asked, on the other hand, if we should use a model boundary put together by a technical committee as an area for administration. The Director added that this question needs to be discussed and he would take input from the committee. Rich Rigby said that he wants to be careful about discussing the issue of the Area of Common Ground Water Supply before the end of the public meeting and comment period. He added that there is lots more work to do to ultimately address the issues. Rich went on to say that he knows the existing model boundary doesn’t treat all users fairly and that he is trying to work through the issues.

Director Spackman said that as he is deliberate in using ESPAM version 2, he hopes that lawsuits don’t materialize regarding differences. Bryce said that when the committee first debated, if we had thought that we were doing this just for administration, we might have done things differently. Jim Brannon said that he appreciates the Director attending the meeting, and he asked if the plan is to have validation done before using the model or done while using the model at the same time. The Director said he expects the model validation to be completed before it is used. Chuck Brockway asked if there is a formal time when the model will be adopted. Director Spackman said the delay is to make the model better and to say that it is not ready yet. Chuck Brockway said he wants a decision by the Department that indicates that the tool is ready. The Director responded that he wants dialogue.

Chuck Brockway said that when the committee began, it was stated that it was in an advisory capacity. He said that he used to feel that IWRRI and IDWR told the committee what was going to be done. He went on to say that the character of the committee has changed for the better, and he gave his support for delaying release of the model as the Director requested. Director Spackman thanked the committee for their time and attention. Jon Bowling said that access to the Director would be good as the committee gets close to releasing the model.

Item 4 -The committee returned to the discussion of business matters. Jennifer Sukow briefed the committee on the new model tools and showed the newest version of the ESPAM version 2.0 recharge tool. She also showed the location of the recharge tool test data on the ESHMC web site. Jennifer also said that a bug tracking system has been set up and urged the committee to send her any bugs that are detected during use of the model tools. She said that Zach Maillard will address the bugs. Jim Brannon asked if anyone has done a difference on the files sent vs. the files created after running them through the model tools. Jennifer responded yes, and she indicated that the differences were small. Allan Wylie said that the intent of IDWR is to run the tools and prepare the data after the final water budget is received. Bryce said that IDWR has the final water budget.

Rick Raymondi briefed the committee on the spring calibration targets and discussed the spreadsheets that are being updated to contain information pertinent to the model. The spreadsheets cover the A and B category spring targets. Several committee members provided comments on the spreadsheets.

Allan Wylie briefed the committee on the plans to provide training on MODFLOW and MKMOD relative to ESPAM version 2.0 and discussed potential dates for this activity. Chuck Brockway asked if changes are being made to either program, and Allan said no, we could have the training any time. Jon Bowling asked how long the training would take, and Allan said a half day. Bryce asked if IDWR will instruct attendees how to use the programs and how to extract fluxes and trends. Allan said that this will be done. Chuck Brockway asked if there is a need to wait for changes to the model programs, and Allan said no. He recommended either August 9 or 10 for the training. Allan said he would send out an email regarding the proposed date.

Item 5 -The committee began a discussion of the action items requested in the June 9, 2011 letter from Director Spackman. Allan began by briefing the committee on his thoughts for developing an analysis of the predictive uncertainty of ESPAM version 2.0. He said he wanted to focus on the irrigated lands in 8 water districts (including WD 01) overlying the ESPA, although this would not include all irrigated lands. Willem asked why we are doing this, and Allan said to determine the centroid of irrigated areas to apply a stress to the model. Willem then asked how this analysis will be used, and Allan said for the predictive uncertainty analysis. Willem commented that he was bothered by adding the Rexburg Bench to Water District 100 because it will change the centroid. Allan agreed. Chuck Brockway said that the Rexburg Bench should be done by itself. Bryce commented that the Rexburg Bench will add 59 analyses to Allan’s work load.

Chuck Brockway asked numerous questions about what would be done during the predictive uncertainty analysis, and Allan provided explanations. Allan said that from the predictive uncertainty analysis, we will know what our calibration datasets tell us about the transmissivity distribution, the ET adjustment factors, etc. He said that analysis of uncertainty for each spring and reach with respect to stress applied in each water district will require 59 reaches (54 springscells + 5 river reaches) x 2 (+/- stress) x 8 water districts = 944 runs. Chuck Brockway asked if after the IDWR begins using ESPAM2 that when a curtailment scenario is conducted, assuming the impact is 30 cfs for spring X, would the predictive uncertainty be 30 +/- some %? Allan said that one of the purposes of conducting a predictive uncertainty analysis is to determine the +/- for selected model predictions.

Bryce said that we should select a smaller suite and build a protocol to perform an uncertainty analyses for other springs/reaches in the future. Allan agreed that this is an awful lot of work and suggested that we could look at the three reaches that have delivery calls and this would reduce the number of analyses from the 59 reaches to 3 reaches. Bryce said we could look at the trim line, and Allan recommended that the committee avoid the trim line evaluation. Chuck Brockway summarized that we would essentially evaluate predictive uncertainty by looking at 3 scenarios. Allan agreed and added that we will use irrigated area centroids as to where to apply the stress.

Bryce asked if the committee wants to evaluate the South Fork or the Henry’s Fork. Allan said that four areas will take a lot of time. Jim Brannon expressed concern with putting a stress well in a high transmissivity area. Bryce recommended spreading the stress over the irrigated lands for each water district, rather than applying the stress at the centroid. Allan suggested spreading it out to the ground water and mixed irrigated land. Chuck Brockway said it should be the centroid of all irrigated land. Bryce said that the stress input is arbitrary and thought that it should be just strong enough to be “recognized”. Lyle Swank said that the centroid could be outside a water district and that a single point may not be a good representation. Then Lyle said that the timing and distribution of impacts are not the same for every water district.

Bryce said that he is not sure that we can be concerned about all possibilities in designing the stress for the predictive uncertainty. He added that doing a predictive uncertainty analysis for individual model runs is important. Chuck Brockway asked why we use a central point for the applied stress. Allan said it will help with transfer tool analyses and he added that he like the idea of a centroid inside the irrigated lands. Jim Brannon asked how you know that you are complete and satisfied with the results. Allan said that you will have to try some runs and evaluate the adjustments to the calibrated mode and make sure that the resulting model is not unrealistic. Chuck Brockway asked how you know that you are finished. Allan said that some criteria will have to be established for what is calibrated.