ESHMC Meeting Notes March 14Th, 2011

FINAL

ESHMC Meeting Notes March 14th, 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

- Bryce Contor

- Janak Timilsena

- Jennifer Johnson

- Chuck Brendecke

- Jon Bowling

- Jennifer Cuhaciyan

- John Koreny

*Present at meeting but did not sign attendance sheet.

Greg Sullivan, Stacey Taylor, Jim Brannon, Gary Johnson, and Willem Schreuderjoined the meeting via polycom.

Item 2 –Janak Timilsena, an Idaho Power Company employee, was formally introduced to the committee. He is a new member that had previously studied the hydrology of the Colorado River and has worked on water resource planning and hydrologic modeling.

Item 3 – Bryce Contor briefed the committee on the status of the final report and showed who has commented thus far. Bryce said he expects to finish the final report in the June/July time frame. He showed the committee where to find the design documents on the IDWR and IWRRI web sites. Bryce indicated that the new crop mix data sets had been posted, and the irrigated lands data sets were finished for 1980, 1986, 1992, 2000, 2002, and 2006. Bryce said he had looked at the .iar file again, and he had increased the portion assigned to ground water and decreased the portion assigned to surface water. He made sure the hand assembly of the .iar file was OK. He also discussed changing the input data files from vector data sets to raster data sets and indicated that the new tools developed by Zach Maillard work directly with rasters.

Chuck Brendecke asked if the changes in the surface water area was a result of actual lands converted from ground water to surface water or just a result of data processing. Bryce said that the total acreage had not changed, but there are places where the acreage disappeared, and some places where the acreage appeared and were ground water only. Bryce said the water source template is static for all years. (The map of irrigated acres is different for each of 1980, 1986, 1992, etc.). He added that the mixed source lands are about 300,000 acres, and the surface water irrigated acreage declined from about 1 million acres to about 870,000 acres between 1980 and 2006. Jennifer Sukow asked if the mixed source acreage changed, and Bryce said no. Chuck Brendecke said that after 1992, the ground water acreage should not have gone up, and Bryce agreed. Bryce also noted a big drop in acreage in 2002. The committee asked IDWR to check the data.

Bryce then began to discuss deficit irrigation and the consumptive irrigation requirement (CIR). He said that the economic theory is that irrigated acres will shrink or adjust to fit typical supplies. Chuck Brockway said that if there is an alternate supply, there could be conversions. Bryce agreed but added that if ground water supports the acreage, then we don’t expect deficits. Bryce went on to say that ET adjustment factors should correct for the chronic condition, and the factors were obtained from 2006 and one other year that was neither dry nor wet. Bryce noted that local departures from the traditional assumption were influenced by crop mix, crop varieties, management intensities, irrigation methods, weather conditions, and soil conditions.

Bryce said that it was noted that during the last meeting (January 2011), that MID, Mud Lake, and Monteview irrigations entities showed deficits, and those three did not make sense. For MID, canal seepage was adjusted down to 20% based on information obtained from Greg Sullivan to solve the problem. For Monteview, Bryce found a mistake in the offsite pumping volumes which was corrected. Bryce was not sure about the reason for the deficit at Mud Lake. He thought that precipitation could be affecting the calculations. He noted that there are high Metric values at all three sites. Chuck Brockway questioned pushing canal seepage so low at Minidoka. Bryce said that it made sense to him because that irrigation district is underlain by lake sediments and he thought that, as a result, there is not a lot of canal seepage.

Bryce showed a map of Irrigation Deficits/CIR and said that it shows high values for Canyon Creek, AFRD2, the Little Lost,Mud Lake, and Reno Ditch. Bryce further discussed aspects of the Blaine County Canal Company, Mud Lake, and Reno Ditch. Chuck Brockway noted that a lined power canal would decrease losses, and Bryce said that there could be double counting if that were the case. Bryce said that Reno Ditch is a ground water use area with a small amount of mixed source use. He added that it appears that some new acres came in. Chuck Brockway asked what should be done, and Bryce said that since there is not a big impact from the Reno Ditch effects, we should ignore that area. No one from the committee objected. Allan noted that the difference between ET adjustment factors for Canyon Creek seemed much higer than normal with .8 for gravity and 1.1 for sprinkler irrigation. IWRRI agreed to investigate.

Stacey Taylor talked about the training agenda set for March 17th. Idaho Power Company asked to delay the training for 1 hour on that day, and there were no objections.

Item 4 -Jennifer Cuhaciyan presented the monitoring program at Blue Lakes Spring. She defined the points of measurement including the various diversions. Jennifer said that the McCollum diversion is now referred to as Silver Creek. She said that the Alpheus Creek diversions include Blue Lakes Country Club, Silver Creek (only in priority during the winter), and the Blue Lakes Trout weir. Jennifer indicated that the weir has maintenance issues and there is a 21% difference in the weir and ADCP measurements before cleaning.

Jennifer then showed a time series of the Alpheus Creek diversions. Chuck Brendecke asked if there were river discharge estimates. Jennifer said that there are no longer discharges to the river, and flows prior to 1980 are not presented. She said that the City of Twin Falls can pump up to 20 cfs without affecting the weir. Jennifer showed the total spring discharge between 1995 and 2009, and noted that the flow increased in 2005. Bryce asked if it is a broad crested weir. Chuck Brockway responded that the problem is at the USGS gage and that it is in a bad location. Chuck added that flows will vary +/- 25% of average, and that it is difficult to accurately tell what the flow is. He said that he is working on improving the stream channel, installing a broad-crested weir, maintaining the level of the lower lake within +/- 0.5 ft, and decreasing seepage from the lake. Chuck believes that water discharging into Alpheus Creek is not necessarily all from the upper springs.

Jennifer showed a hydrograph with two curves, a red line representing the USGS gage data, and a blue line representing the total spring discharge (COTF + BLCC + SlvCk + BLTweir). Allan asked which curve should be used as the model target. Chuck Brockway said the blue line should be used because it is more reflective of the aquifer. Chuck Brendecke said that all components of the blue curve represent physical flows. No objection was voiced, and the committee was unanimous that the blue line should be used representing total flows at Blue Lakes Spring and Alpheus Creek.

Sean Vincent asked if the period before 1995 should be left blank. Chuck Brockway responded that correlations could be performed to develop the data, but not using the USGS gage data. He added maybe the flows at Box Canyon or the Devil’s Washbowl Spring could be used in a correlation. Chuck Brendecke said correlations could be done with wells. Allan said there are wells closer to Blue Lakes Spring than the Devil’s Washbowl Spring. Chuck Brockway said there are wells upgradient of the Blue Lakes Spring that have not been measured consistently. He added that a continuous recorder was recently installed in the Morrison Marley well. Rick Raymondi asked if the Department should perform a correlation with wells and springs. Bryce Contor said he is not comfortable with that correlation and that the wells and springs are already in the model. Willem and Allan voiced support for using the partial record. Jim Brannon agreed. Thus, the committee was in agreement to use a partial record and not develop correlations to reconstruct earlier data prior to 1995.

Item 5 -Jennifer Sukow presented CrystalSprings data and discussed measurements at Crystal Springs Farms (Clear Springs Foods) and the Magic Valley Hatchery. She showed data from the Watermaster database from 1995 to 2009, the data (1978 – 2005) provided in the Clear Springs Foods delivery call and the July 8, 2005 Director’s Order, the USGS miscellaneous measurements, stage data provided by Brockway Engineering for 1978 – 2010 with rating curves for Crystal Main spring, and current meter measurements taken by IDWR, EHM, and Brockway Engineering.

Jennifer presented a graph comparing available data. She explained that differences in the data sets result from application of different rating curves to “Crystal Main” diversion. She added that the USGS measurements imply there may be additional springdischarge not diverted by the hatcheries. Jennifer said that she recently went into the field with the USGS to observe the miscellaneous measurements at Crystal Springs and to develop a better understanding of the various measurement locations.

She noted that the USGS performed an upstream/downstream measurement across the Snake River channel in the Crystal Springs reach and that data might be used in the future if measurements continue on an annual basis. Chuck Brendecke asked when the USGS performed the measurements, and Jennifer indicated in March. Jennifer added that there is no history to the upstream/downstream measurement, and this was the first year. She said that the USGS made 12 passes with the ADCP, and that measurement precision is within 2%.

Jennifer presented a graph of the Crystal Main current meter measurements, and the monthly average flow at the main diversion was calculated using various rating curves. Jennifer recommended applying these ratings to Crystal Main gage heightsprovided by Brockway Engineering:

Q=228.5x(H-0.2) -39.669 from 3/1995 to 3/2005

Q=246.3097*(1-(.30816)^H) from 4/2005 to 10/2008

She also recommended usingWatermaster records for other diversions.

Then Jennifer showed a hydrograph of the proposed calibration target. Chuck Brendecke and Chuck Brockway wanted to revisit the graph of the rating curves that support the data. Chuck Brendecke commented that 3 of the curves show strong seasonal amplitudes, but one curve did not demonstrate the same level of amplitude. He added that the later part of the curve that Jennifer recommended as the proposed calibration target shows a small seasonal amplitude. Chuck then asked if this lower amplitude was real. Chuck Brockway said that the later portion of the Box Canyon Springs discharge shows the same loss of amplitude along with a recent small recovery in flow.

Chuck Brendecke then added that all of the curves except the green curve (recommended) are linear representations of gage heights. Chuck Brockway said that it doesn’t make a big difference if the curve is a linear representation or not. Bryce said that he likes the lower curve on the graph because it has the correct calibration to Crystal Main. Bryce added that the curve with the lowest sum of squared residuals should be used. Mike McVay and Allan Wylie recommended using the green line with a linear equation (not exponential). Chuck Brendecke agreed that all points should be used in a linear representation.

Jennifer Sukow then said that she would develop the curve in a linear representation from 1995 to present. Chuck Brockway reminded the committee that Cindy Yenter (Watermaster) has accepted an exponential equation. Chuck Brendecke said the R2

is not good but agreed the green line is best. Jennifer reminded everyone that Tim Luke and Cindy Yenter have low confidence in the stage – discharge relationships. Jon Boling said he thinks that the river measurements are better than the stage – discharge relationship at the Crystal Main. Chuck Brockway said that if you were able to take the rocks out of the inlet at Crystal Main and perform selective lining of the canal, you still may not get better stage data from the stilling well. Chuck added that Clear Springs Foods contracted EHM to look at the data and come up with the best rating curve. He noted their results showed some discharge data fit the curve well but the curve lacks the expected amplitude.

Gary Johnson said that the green rating curve should show more amplitude. Jennifer expanded the graph to show the data in more detail and offered an action item. She will use the data from 1995 to 2008 to obtain the best fit curve to the Crystal Main stage – discharge data. She said it could be a linear relationship, but might be exponential. Jennifer mentioned that this approach will result in the ESHMC using a different data set in the aquifer model than the data submitted by the water user to IDWR and the Watermaster. Allan Wylie said that it is important for the committee to explain what was done and why it is different than the data listed in the 2005 Delivery Call and the Wastermaster database for Crystal Main. Jennifer will let Cindy Yenter know what rating curves the ESHMC decides to apply to Crystal Main for the model calibration data set. There was a question about whether or not the Watermaster records would be changed? Jennifer said she thinks it will be up to Cindy, as Watermaster, whether or not changes to the Watermaster database should be considered. Chuck Brendecke asked Jennifer to make additional slides for the committee to review. Jennifer agreed to present additional slides at the next committee meeting. Bryce asked Jennifer to post the gage heights, and she agreed.

Item 6 -Allan Wylie discussed ESPAM 2.0 model calibration runs. He introduced a discussion of model starting heads for the initial steady state simulation. Allan noted that the committee wanted the initial period to be from May 1981 to April 1984, but IDWR found that the modeled stating heads for that period to be too high. Allan instead used 1985 through 1988 for the starting stress periodto get starting heads more similar to the average for 1979.

Jennifer Sukow had suggested this alternative, and she gave a brief overview of her reasons. She said that the starting heads are too high for the model to overcomeduring the 5-year warm-up period, so PEST reducesrecharge and removes an excessive amount of water from storage between 1980 and 2000. She compared historical information and found that Kjelstrom’s estimated recharge in the years leading up to 1980 was low compared to the average annual recharge to the model domain between May 1981 and April 1984 (6.0 MAF in the 2/14/2011 calibration run). She selected water budget years from the model period with total recharge closer to Kjelstrom’saverage estimated recharge from 1976-1979 (5.4 MAF) with the goal of generating starting heads closer to actual May 1980 water levels. Jennifer found that during the period from May1985 to April 1988, the average annualMKMOD recharge from the 3/11/2011calibrationrun was 5.4 MAF. The starting heads better represent 1980 conditions. The decrease in aquifer storage (1980-2008)changed from 12 MAF (2/14/2011 calibration run) to 6 MAF (3/11/2001 calibration run).

Chuck Brockway asked if we are off on the starting heads, will that be reflected during the entire calibration period. Willem said yes, forever. He also commented on his concern with a declining trend during the May 1985 to April 1998 period. Jennifer said that the model doesn’t see the declining trend, just the average of the 3 years. Allan said the first stress period does not have to be at steady state. Bryce said the 6 M Acre/FT is close to Mike McVay’s calculation of the volume of storage in the aquifer. He added that it is also close to the input data to MKMOD without the PEST adjustment. Willem said this implies that PEST left things alone. John Koreny said that it is important and a major accomplishment since the starting heads can have effects during the model period. The discussion of starting heads ended, and the committee was satisfied with the change in the period for the model starting heads.