ESHMC Meeting Notes September 21 and 22nd, 2010

vetinnocentΛογισμικό & κατασκευή λογ/κού

7 Νοε 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 7 μήνες)

75 εμφανίσεις

Final


1


ESHMC Meeting Notes
September 21
st

and 22nd
, 2010


Item 1
-


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







-

David Blew

-

Bryce Contor

-

Rick Raymondi

-

Allan Wylie

-

Sean Vincent

-

Mike
McVay

-

Jennifer Johnson

-

Harvey Walker

-

John Lindgren

-

Chuck Brockway

-

Willem Schreuder

-

Greg Sullivan

-
Hal Anderson

-
Lynn Tominaga

-
Rich Rigby*






*Present but did not sign attendance sheet.



John Koreny,
Chuck Brendecke,
Rick Allen, Lyle Swank, and Stacey Taylor
joined the meeting via Polycom.


Rick Allen offered comments on pages 9 and 10 (Item 12) in the minutes of the June
24
th

& 25
th

meeting.


Item 2



Mike McVay
summarized what has been done to update the calculation

of non
-
irrigated lands recharge

(NIR)

for ESPAM version 2.
Various problems and concerns
with the current approach were discussed, and Rick Allen provided explanations and
insight into the data and calculations. He suggested a quality control review of
the
precipitation data

and thought there may be some weakness in the ET Idaho
information. Rick and Mike agreed that the calculation of infiltration in dormant turf
may not be a good proxy for what is happening on the ESPA. They both
recommended that the

method used in ESPAM 1.1 to derive NIR also be used for
ESPAM 2, and that Mike and Rick would continue to work on developing a new
method. Rick added a concern that variable textures in lava rock could impact
residual moisture evaporation, and that new c
alculations would be needed to take this
into account.



Willem Schreuder wanted to know the significance of not being able to derive better
or more accurate numbers for NIR. Bryce Contor said that most NIR occurs on lava
rock, and he suggested
investig
ating BSU’s capacity to assist in the calculations using
the VIC model. Willem asked about the premise of the calculations in the VIC
Final


2


model, and Bryce was not sure. Willem asked the committee what is the amount of
recharge to be expected on lava rock. R
ick Allen responded that at least 50% of the
precipitation on lava rock percolates, and he recommended investigat
i
ng the
evaporation potential from lava rock. He went on to say that it is good to compare
independent methods such as the simulated time seri
es weather data that is an input to
the VIC model that BSU is using. He concluded that the same precipitation data that
is incorporated into the METRIC model be used for NIR calculations
s
o that the
two

systems are consistent.



Chuck Brockway asked what
the input volume is for NIR, and Bryce responded
approximately 700,000 AF. Willem expressed the concern that we are working with
a large recharge term in the center of the ESPA that PEST uses to adjust the
distribution of transmissivity and water levels.

Willem then asked how the NIR
calculations affect the temporal distribution of recharge, and Bryce responded that the
ESPAM
version
1.1 and the ET Idaho algorithms were about the same. Chuck
Brockway then said that he agreed the committee should go back
to the ESPAM
version 1.1 method for now. Bryce added that he thought there would be value in
pursuing a refined calculation
because of the way ET Idaho treats the timing of
precipitation.


Item 3



Mike McVay then presented work he had completed on the

synoptic ground water
level measurement
s
. He began by reviewing and refining the work done by Nathan
Erickson for 1980, 2001, and 2002.

He developed a refined database of wells
used in
development of the potentiometric surface maps from the synoptic wat
er level
measurements. Mike’s database is transparent so all users can see his approach. He
used survey data and the 10 meter National Elevation Dataset (NAD) to obtain
elevations. The database includes water level data, well logs, a set of data and log
s
used in the contouring, elevation logs, and a set of wells removed. He contoured the
data on 50 ft intervals, removed perched water levels, and pulled out other “bull

s
eyes” or anomalies.



Chuck Brockway asked
what the width of the band was for the

synoptic analysis
,

and
Mike responded 2 months, but that most data fall within a couple of weeks. Willem
asked if the wells removed for the maps were consistent, and Mike said yes. Hal
Anderson asked what the criteria were for the bull’s eyes. Mike said that it usually
w
as an anomaly created by one well
, but it could be several wells, and that he tried to
obtain the picture of regional ground water flow. Mike showed a PowerPoint of the
wells used to construct the contour maps. Willem asked if Mike incorporated a
“drift”

function in the construction, and Mike said no.
Willem then suggested that
Mike consider a first order drift function especially for the upper end of the aquifer.



Mike then showed the water level change maps and explained his methodology in
developing
them. Although he used filtering in the development of the
potentiometric surface maps, he did not carry the filtering into the change maps.
Bull’s eyes were shown including one in the Oakley fan and one near Wendell.
Chuck Brendecke asked what the caus
e was for the bull’s eye in Wendell, and Mike
Final


3


did not know. Chuck Brockway asked if Mike looked into the construction of the
well near Wendell, and Mike said he did not.
Willem suggested
that Mike look at the
construction and the hydrograph for that well
.

Mike said that he did look at the
hydrograph for the deep wells in the Oakley fan, and the data showed a long term
decline. Mike added that the fall synoptic and change maps were much more
complicated that the spring maps. Chuck Brockway asked if Mike

performed volume
calculations, and Mike indicated that he
w
ould. Bryce recommended that he use the
calibrated model storage coefficient, and Willem said use an approximation for this
term.
Chuck Brendecke recommended that IDWR perform volume changes for

all
increments when synoptic measurements were taken.



Lyle Swank asked why the water level change map for the period from fall 2001
through fall 2008 showed an increase, and Bryce responded that it could be from the
increase in precipitation in 2006 and

in 2008. Lyle indicated that a severe drought
was experienced in the fall of 2001, and that recent years were more stable. He
agreed with Bryce.
Chuck Brendecke asked if the fall of 2001 was not a good
starting point for a change map, and Lyle said tha
t severe drought was not a good
starting point. Bryce said that the data is limited by when the synoptic were funded.



Chuck Brendecke asked about the wells in the synoptic database. Mike said that the
measurements were performed by IDWR, the USGS, an
d consultants. There are all
types of wells in terms of use, and it is hard to determine ownership. Willem asked if
this well database is a superset of the National Water Information System database
(NWIS), and Allan Wylie responded yes plus other wells.

Bryce asked why the
Water Management District wells were not included, and Mike said that there was
redundancy in those wells.



Allan Wylie said that in ESPAM version 1.1, the wells that Nathan Erickson used for
the development of potentiometric surfa
ce maps

were
base
d

on the synoptic
measurements
and
were then used for model calibration. Willem commented that we
calibrate to the well data not the maps. Allan responded that for any well that Mike
includes, the data goes into calibration.

Pumping or
recently pumped wells are
excluded. Willem said that where there only a few wells that each measurement
makes a big difference in calibration. Chuck Brockway

commented on the
representation of the change in the Oakley fan area. Mike indicated it was
two

wells
that were creating the severe drawdown contours. Chuck questioned whether it is
representative of the change in this area. Mike conceded that it was very difficult to
contour the area. There are faults
,

and the geology is complex. Chuck Brockway

also pointed out that the southwest part of the A & B Irrigation District shows a large
decrease. Willem said that it is not as big as the negative change in other areas.
IDWR agreed to post the database that Mike used for the maps.


The ESHMC agreed
th
at the
water level calibration targets for ESPAM version 2 should come from the
wells used in the change maps.



Final


4


Item 4
-


Jim Brannon briefed the committee on his progress in reviewing the
MKMOD

proce
ssing tool for
ESPAM version 2
input data files or datasets. The programming
for
MKMOD

consists of approximately 1300 lines of code in the PERL programming
language. Jim believes the code is very reliable but different than other languages
that he is familiar with. Bryce pointed out

that
MKMOD

is being used for
the
first
time by the ESHMC in the calibration of ESPAM version 2. Jim went on to say that
he has been going through the programming logic with a high level of interest and has
been concentrating on the important parts and co
mponents. He is also creating
diagrams of what the tool is doing.

Finally, he is putting the datasets to tests to
ensure their accuracy and checking
the logic
to make sure all cases are handled. Jim
reported that his effort is in progress and that he ha
s seen no problems or anything
suspicious or unusual.
He had not performed any data testing yet. Finally, Jim
recommended that the committee allow him time to finish the high level diagram for
review and comparison to the conceptual model.



Allan Wylie

asked if Jim
was

able to look at soil moisture, and Jim said yes and there
is a block of code (about 20 lines) within the On
-
farm budget. The On
-
farm budget
will be

the

he
art of the high level diagram. Bryce pointed out that there are changes
in the NIR

component that should be considered during the comparison to the
conceptual model. Willem said there is not anything to compare the new code with
unless one performs hand calculations.


Willem went on to explain aspects of the PERL and PYTHON code
s

and

what can be
done to shorten PEST runs. He said the PYTHON programming may not result in
faster runs tha
n

PERL because there are lots of nested d
o
-
loops.
Willem added that
the output calculations and error trapping reduce memory usage. Willem asked Jim if
the core section of
MKMOD

was converted to PYTHON, would that help make it
easier to read the code. Jim said he was comfortable in PERL. Rick Raymondi
asked
Willem if
he will continue
his effort to write the code in PYTHON, and Willem said
yes. Willem said he is trying to solve the performance bottle neck. He said PYTHON
is less complex and easier to read than FORTRAN and that he hopes his work will
hel
p the overall effort.


Jim asked if a graphical diagram is agreeable to the committee even though his final
product is taking a little longer than he thought, and Allan and Rick Raymondi said
yes. Willem said the committee needs to understand the
algori
thms better and there
are lots of devils in the details. Jim said
it

doesn’t look like
that
there are significant
changes in
MKMOD

versions 3 and 4. Jim asked Allan if he will use PYTHON, and
Allan said yes if it is faster. Jim ended the conversation by
saying that he hopes the
flow chart will help anyone who wants to rewrite the code, and
Willem added that it
will be good for documentation.


Item
5

-


Jim Brannon also
updated the committee

on his effort to
complete the quantification
of
spring discharge
at the National Fish Hatchery

(NFH)
.

Chuck Brendecke had
made Jim aware of a data problem in 2005, and Jim said the errors resulted from a
construction bypass at Main Spring. Jim said that the
NFH
had collected data during
Final


5


the bypass effort
,

and the corr
ect data had been inserted to fix the database. He
showed the committee the web site and where the
new data had been updated and
assured the committee that all graphics had been updated. Rick Raymondi asked if
the discharge to the slough had been added t
o the database, and Jim said he had not
yet heard from the NFH regarding if the data exist.


Item
6

-


Mat Weaver

briefed the committee on gage installations completed at the Bridal Veil
spring and the ABC complex at the SeaPac facility. Mat show photogra
phs of Bridal
Veil springs, summarized the water rights, and discussed the historical flow data. The
springs discharge from 2 culverts into the hatchery raceways. Dop
p
ler flow meters
were installed at the outlets and the stage is read in one channel. Th
e flows are
combined. Mat reported that it is difficult to provide a QC check on the flows, but a
location above the falls
was

measured with good accuracy ( within 2


4.2%) and
shows good correlation with the combined flow meters. Mat said that more wor
k is
needed to
verify a good QC measurement location.



Mat also mentioned that the installation at the ABC spring complex is complete with
a broad crested weir installed last January. Installation braces were used to tie down
the weir. Mat showed raw an
d corrected flow measurements from the ABC
springs
and explained the correction used for the discrepancy between the weir and the flow
tracker measurements.


Item
7

-


Allan Wylie presented a discussion of the progress in calibrating model spring flow
targ
ets. He indicated
that in the NFH model cell
there are 17 springs
. Some are

NFH

springs (9 of 17),

and

some emerge at SeaPac. All
a
n showed the range in elevation
data for the springs from Covington and Weaver (USGS, 1990). I
n an adjacent model
cell
,

there are 8 springs in the Thousand Springs complex
,

and
two

are used by the
power plant with the addition of flow from Sand Springs which emerges in an
adjacent
model
cell.

The flows were not separated in the power consumption data
received from Idaho P
ower.

Allan also showed the range in elevation of these
springs.
Allan pointed out that in the ESPAM version 2 cell output, there are
three

drains available at different elevations, and the conductance for each one of the
three

is calibrated separately.

He added that
MODFLOW outputs

the total cell
discharge
of
for
the
three

drains added together
, thus, PEST calibrates total cell discharge, not
individual spring discharge
.
Allan proposed
three

options:


1)
Scale the data up to represent all the springs

in the

cell
;

2)
Modify MODFLOW to output drain discharge not

discharge
d

by model cell
; and
3)
Develop utility to compute discharge by drain cell in

selected model cells
.




A debate followed.
Willem asked if we have the resolution to distinguish between

low, medium, and high elevation springs. Allan indicated it becomes complicated
because the SeaPac springs discharge into 2 different model cells and we are scaling
up the discharge based on Covington and Weaver data to represent the output

from all
spri
ngs in the cell.
Chuck Brockway thought that the Covington and Weaver
measurements were “random” estimates and that we need to do better in calibrating
Final


6


spring discharge. Greg Sullivan said we have the steady state contribution from the
river gages for cal
ibration. Allan Wylie said we don’t have enough data to do a mass
balance in any reach because there is so much discharge into talus and directly to the
river. Allan then said

we need to scale up to account for additional springs
. Willem
suggested adding

the
three

drain elevation discharges to get the cell discharge. Chuck
Brendecke said take the
three

drains and apportion spring discharge by elevation, and
he indicated it could be a mixture of different springs from different complexes.


Jim Brannon a
sked Allan if option two was difficult. Allan said he did not want to
modify MODFOW, and that he liked option
three

better. Willem said that option
two
could be done
if we used the MODFLOW streamflow
routing package
. He then
asked Allan
if there are data for Majic Springs, and Allan said we have data for
Thousand Springs, the NFH, but not SeaPac.



John Koreny asked Allan to explain the first option. Allan said for example,
if
we
have

a transient target for the NFH
,

and Covington and W
eaver have
NFH
and
SeaPac discharging
each
at 50 cfs
,
the NFH discharge
represents half of all spring
discharge in a cell. Therefore we in
crease the
target
discharge
by a factor of 2
. Then
the total cell discharge is scaled up. Allan went on to say that
, in the end, PEST will
match both individual springs and the reach.



Allan asked the committee if everyone is comfortable with scaling up the cell
discharge. Willem said
that unless
we can distinguish between high and low
elevation springs in a cell,
he may not be totally comfortable. Allan briefly discussed
the A, B, and
C
spring categories and that the lowest weight is given to the C springs.

Chuck Brockway said that he still would like to see an emphasis for modeling to
individual springs, but bec
ause of data limitations, he suggested option 1 as the best.
He recommended further exploring option 2. Willem said that this appears to be a
data decision, not a model decision. Chuck Brockway asked if option 2 would work
on any cell. Allan responded
that he didn’t think we have the data
, but that he
could
perform a run to extract that information.

Chuck Brendecke recommended option 1,
and the committee was in agreement. Allan said that he will show the cells presented
and how they will be scaled up
in the next meeting. He said that in all other cells, the
complex is treated as
one

discharge so there is not an issue similar to these two cells.



Item
8




Allan Wylie presented the results of his most recent model calibration run

with the A,
B, and C
springs
as targets.

He provided
his assumptions, the data sets used, the
water budget
(P100827A)
and MKMOD version (MKMOD4.exe), and the On
-
farm
adjustable parameters incorporated. Allan then went through the results for
transmissivity, storage, riverbed

and drain conductance, perched river seepage,
tributary underflow, non
-
irrigated recharge, ET for lands irrigated by sprinkler and
gravity using surface water, the efficiencies for lands irrigated by sprinkler and
gravity using surface water, efficiencies

by surface water irrigated entities, canal
seepage,
DPin and DPex results, a comparison of measured vs. modeled results for
transient head calibration for wells throughout the ESPA, the modeled vs. measured
gains for Snake River reaches and spring rea
ches
, the modeled vs. measured
Final


7


discharge
comparison for 11 individual springs
,

and
finally the modeled vs. measured
discharge comparison for
the Group C springs combined.



Allan suggested taking out the model cell where Lower White Spring emerges since
that d
ischarge is likely related to a block of Quaternary basalt that is separate from the
ESPA. He mention
ed

that the tributary underflow for the Henry
’s Fork and the
Camas and Beaver Creek basin
s

bumped the upper limit

of allowable flow volume
,
and the
results for NIR did not make any sense.

The discussion then focused on ET
for lands irrigated by sprinkler and gravity using surface water
,

and the efficiencies
for lands irrigated by sprinkler and gravity using surface water
,

and what can be done
with PE
ST using regularization. Allan commented that is seemed that for a greater
amount of freedom that PEST was granted, the results seemed less believable. Greg
Sullivan suggested that the parameters should be set instead of giving PEST the
freedom. Chuck B
rockway and John Koreny said that they agreed with assigning
parameters.
Willem commented that what Allan did was a valid test

by letting PEST
set parameters,
but now the runs should be performed with PEST locked down.

Allan
then said that the efficiencies

for lands irrigated by sprinkler and gravity using surface
water did not come into play in the calibration runs and that the efficiencies should be
adjusting other factors.



Chuck Brockway made a general comment that the committee should zero in on
calib
rating the model. Bryce agreed. Mike McVay asked if PEST was finished in
terms of calibrating
, and Allan said he wasn’t sure where PEST was going. Willem
said either tell PEST not to change or tell PEST why we disagree. Allan said he
believed that the
adjustments by PEST were done because it did not have soil
moisture. The committee then agreed that IDWR should make a calibration run with
a fix on the On
-
farm algorithm for soil moisture. Chuck Brockway added that PEST
could be allowed to adjust parame
ters in June through August, and Willem said he
will check into it with John Doherty. Allan said he thought that in terms of
efficiency,
a soil moisture number should be selected and set for the calibration run,
then involve the soil moisture algorithm an
d let PEST run. Willem agreed because he
thought there was a need to determine what parameters have the largest impact.
Allan suggested that the parameters were transmissivity and river bed and drain
conductance. Willem asked how much surface water is

being applied through
sprinkler, and Bryce said a lot.
Bryce then said that ET is the greatest water budget
parameter, and canal seepage is the next largest
,

and it is fixed for the coalition.



Allan then commented that the model reach gains in the earl
y and late data period are
out of phase for the Near Blackfoot to Neeley reach. He added that the model is over
-
shooting the Blue Lakes spring discharge for the recent data. Allan pointed out that a
large portion of the Crystal spring discharge is unmeas
ured. Chuck Brockway said
there have been measurement problems at Crystal. Allan went on to say that the
discharge from most springs is over predicted for the last couple of years of the
dataset. Sean Vincent asked why

PEST is over estimating the season
al amplitude of
some springs. Allan said he observed that if PEST matches the head in wells, it over
estimates the springs, and that he thinks that it
the fixed transmissivity assumption is

Final


8


part of
the problem. Allen added that there is an excellent matc
h for the spring
discharge at Rangen. Chuck Brendecke asked if Rangen is the highest elevation
spring, and Allan said that he thought so and would check to make sure. Allan noted
that there are some unexplainable spikes in the Malad River discharge, and
Dave
agreed to look at the data.


Item
9




Allan Wylie

provided an On
-
farm subcommittee report. He said that the committee
decided to fix canal seepage for the coalition, and that there would be manual
adjustments for other surface water entities.

Bryc
e added that there is a design
document and
two

memos that discuss how canal seepage was developed for the
other entities. He said that in the On
-
farm budget, that there is no difference between
canal seepage and deep percolation. Greg Sullivan said that

canal seepage is a
knowable number for all canals and that the committee could obtain such data from
recharge efforts. Allan said that the scaling factor for canal seepage will be started at
1 and adjusted between .95 and 1.05
, but PEST would be told to
keep adjustable
scaling factors as similar as possible
. John Koreny said that letting PEST figure canal
seepage is dangerous
; he said it is a physical process
,

and it would be better to get
canal lengths and ask for seepage rates from canal managers. Chu
ck Brockway said a
best estimate should be made and canal seepage should be fixed at that number.
Chuck Brendecke said that there is not a big difference between the .95 and 1.05
scaling factor. Allan was asked how the canal seepage was calculated, and h
e said
Bryce determined how much water was required to satisfy crop consumptive use and
have some water left for deep percolation, the remainder was assigned to canal
seepage
. The committee agreed that the scaling factor should be
set
at 1
and

PEST
should

adjust between 0.95 and 1.05
.



The next subject discussed in the On
-
farm subcommittee report was irrigation
efficiency. Allan said that it is a function of crop mix
, irrigation method, and soil
type. He went on to say that
the quality of the crop from
alfalfa and grass are
not
sensitive to
drought
and
can be
grown by deficit irrigation,
potatoes
are sensitive to
drought and cannot be grown by deficit irrigation,
and grain is somewhere in
between. Allan added that Bryce has provided a spreadsheet with v
arious crops to
help determine irrigation efficiency. Allan said that the subcommittee debated letting
PEST adjust efficiency, starting a
t

.8 and allowing the adjustment to run between .75
and .9. Allan said that he thought efficiency should be fixed, and Willem agreed
except for Dietrich and Richfield. Bryce said the soil algorithm should take care of
those areas. Chuck Brockway asked wh
at if we fix efficiency for all area
s
, would it
be a big mistake. Willem said not a big mistake at first. Greg recommended that we
fix them all, but that it did not have to be the same number. Willem conceded that
these are small knobs, and we could adj
ust the values when calibration is fine tuned.
The committee decided to fix irrigation efficiency in model calibration but that it did
not have to be the same number for all entities
, as a starting place the committee
decided to fix gravity at 0.8 and spr
inklers at 0.85.



Allan then said that there is a disconnection between return flows calculated by the
On
-
farm water budget and the measured returns and gave the Heise to Shelley reach
Final


9


where returns are a significant percentage of the gains as an example.

Allan reported
that the subcommittee decided to tightly constrain the On
-
farm parameters (DPin and
DPex) so that calculated flows better reflect actual return flow measurement data

or
that returns needed to be a calibration target
.
The committee agreed
that returns need
to be a calibration target and Willem agreed to modify MKMOD to output returns.
Finally, Allan said that the subcommittee discussed the effects of soil moisture and
decided that the soil moisture algorithm should be included in the On
-
fa
rm budget
.

Item 1
0

-


Bryce

Contor
reported that the ESPAM version 2 water budget was
completed, and all required input to MKMOD had been prepared. He indicated that
there are 15 input files, and briefly discussed the files.


Item 11
-


Bryce provided the

committee an update on the water budget training that is being
planned for committee members and other interested parties. He first gave an
overview of the modeling process and showed how PEST modifies parameters to
calibrate the model and create calibra
ted parameters. Then he discussed the purpose
of the training was to provide full transparency of the water budget, show how to
build model input files, how to run MKMOD and MODFLOW, and how to
summarize output data.

Chuck Brendecke asked who would recei
ve the training.
Bryce responded the ESHMC, and Chuck Brockway added that consultants would
want the training.

Bryce added that a better format was needed for the input files, and
that a decision was needed on format before going forward with developing
new
professional tools.



Harvey Walker expressed his desire that the model and tools should be user friendly.
Bryce said that tools have been built for ESPAM version 1.1 and for CAMP, and that
he believe
d

useable tools can be built. Greg Sullivan expres
sed caution that tools
cannot be built for every potential use. Bryce concluded the discussion by saying that
two

levels of training are needed, one for the model, and one for tools.


Item 12
-


Rich Rigby provided an update on the ESPA CAMP Implementatio
n process.

He
said that the committee is trying to create areas of common interest with smaller
entities working together in a “grass roots” approach. Rich added that the next
meeting is scheduled for October 14, 2010 and that progress is necessary. He
said
that they have a few years to accomplish goals and that there is interim funding for
committee proposals. The Idaho Attorney General has indicated that any money
spent on projects is in the form of a loan. The projects being considered are the
NSCC
reuse, the Egin Lakes recharge, Idaho Irrigation District recharge, and AWEP
projects.



He indicated that model runs show that 49% of the NSCC reuse will benefit the Buhl
to Thousand Springs reach and 26% will benefit the Devil’s Washbowl to Buhl reach.
Next he said that the Egin Lakes recharge will be undertaken by the Freemont
-
Madison Irri
gation District and that engineering work is being done to expand
delivery capacity by 30,000 A
-
F/yr and to create additional canal system
improvements. The total cost is projected at $440,000, and
most of
the benefits
would accrue to the Ashton to Rexbur
g reach
, with 20% accruing to the Near
Final


10


Blackfoot to Neeley reach. The model predicts that 30% of the recharge will remain
in the aquifer after 5 years. Rich indicated that the projected costs for expanding and
improving the facilities in the Idaho Irriga
tion District to accommodate recharge
would be about $69,000. This would include improving the capability to monitor and
measure recharge which would primarily benefit the Shelley to Near Blackfoot and
Near Blackfoot to Neeley reaches. Finally, Rich discu
ssed the AWEP projects that
receive both Federal and IWRB financing and involve contracts with individual land
owners or spring users.



Rich then informed the ESHMC that the IWRB wants a modeling committee to
assist
in decision
-
making by providing a rigor
ous review of aquifer impacts by proposed
Board
actions. The committee will use ESPAM version 2 when completed, and Rich
noted that the monthly time step is a desirable aspect of the model. Rich commented
that since the Near Blackfoot to Neeley or the Ne
ar Blackfoot to Minidoka reaches
are implicated in the
Delivery
Call
, it is important to determine how much and the
timing of the benefit that accrues to those reaches. Rich said that the committee
would include Chuck Brockway, Chuck Brendecke, Roger Warn
er, Allan Wylie, and
an individual from Idaho Power Company and that committee consensus is not
always necessary.



Chuck Brockway asked what the Bureau’s capability is for modeling in the upper
Snake River basin, and Jennifer Johnson said that for ground
water it is ESPAM and
for surface water it is MODSIM, but there is an initiative to convert to RiverWare.
Rich Rigby said that IDWR is also looking at RiverWare. Chuck Brendecke asked
who will perform model runs, and Rich said that will be the responsibi
lity of the
Department.
Then Chuck Brendecke asked if the ESHMC would inform the “model
process” of the Board committee, and Rich said that has not been defined and that the
Board wants a comfort level that benefits are considered for projects. Chuck
Bro
ckway said that the ESHMC is technical, its function is to provide expertise and
determine impacts from modeling, and it has been chastised for delving into the
administrative aspects of issues. Chuck then added that this new committee cannot be
divorce
d

from administration. Bryce asked who will fund the committee, and Rich
said the constituents. Bryce then cautioned that he who has resources will benefit,
and Rich said he is aware of that potential.



Chuck Brockway then asked Rich to explain the issu
es with incidental recharge. Rich
said that the surface water users provide benefits by their operations via incidental
recharge.
Part of t
his group feels that the price of their participation in CAMP is
offset by th
eir

incidental recharge and that they
should be compensated for this
contribution to ground water. Other
surface and ground water entities disagree, and
the result is that a new funding approach needs to be developed.



The
ESHMC

set the next meeting dates for November 15
th

and 16
th
, 2010.
(Note


the dates were later changed to November 22
nd

and 23
rd
, 2010.)


Final


11


Item 13
-


Allan Wylie initiated a discussion on the
subject of model validation.
He presented
two

options:


1)

Leave a few years out of the calibration dataset to see how well the model

predicts those years.

2)

After a few years, conduct a scenario incorporating a few years not in the
dataset.


Allan added that in the past, the paradigm was that you leave some data out.

Now,
model validation sounds good but is almost never done. Chuck Bro
ckway said that it
is goo
d

to do,
and
seldom done, but if you undertake validation you have more
confidence in the model. Then Chuck said that the current model is calibrated 1980


2002 and asked what if we used 2003 to 2010 for verification to see how t
he model
predicts what actually happened. John Koreny asked what the time period is for the
new model, and Allan said 1985 through 2008 and asked Allan to explain the
difference

between calibration and validation
. Allan said that in calibration, the
actu
al dataset is compare
d

to model output
,

and parameters are tweaked to improve
the match;
whereas,

validation is done after calibration to compare output to recent
data, but you don’t adjust the model.


Willem thought that the model should be built with a
ll of the data to obtain the best
calibration. He added that for
verification
,

you could ask the model to
make a
predict
ion that we know the answer to and then observe if the model predicts
accurately. Chuck Brockway said that you could try to see if the

model predicts a
new stress it hasn’t seen. Greg Sullivan and Chuck Brockway agreed with Willem
that the committee should use the full dataset to calibrate the model, and Chuck added
that you then investigate whether the new model will simulate what happ
ened. Chuck
Brockway said that within the ESPA conditions are not the same because the USGS
data show declines, and when we attempted to validate the springs
,

the model did a
poor job of predicting the decline. Bryce Contor said that the spring dataset w
as
flawed.


Greg Sullivan said if we
performed

validation with the most recent dataset
,

and if it
goes poorly, we just calibrate to the new data. Greg concluded that we should just
calibrate the model and skip validation.

Willem again said use all the
data to calibrate
and find another way to
verify the model
. Chuck Brockway said people normally
don’t validate the model because it is like throwing out the data, but it would be nice
to validate the model in some way. Willem said that if the model calib
rates well to
spring flow, then it is good. Then you look at a totally new large stress to see how it
behaves.


Allan Wylie said that with ESPAM version 1.1, we have a calibrated model. We
asked the model what would happen if the drought continued. Th
e model results
made sense in our opinion. Then we asked the model what would happen if the
drought ended. The model said the aquifer would recover but it would take a long
time. The committee felt that it made sense, and we were able to tell constituen
ts that
Final


12


we like
d

the model. Chuck Brockway asked Allan if he compared 2008/2009 with
the drought scenario. Allan said no, what we decided to do is recalibrate the mode
l

with the recent data.


Willem said that through calibration, you try to determine i
f the model did the right
thing, then you formulate a question to see if the model behaves appropriately. Sean
Vincent said that we should try to maintain the status quo and see how the model
predicts. Willem said rather you need to impose change to see
how it behaves. Sean
then asked if we can check if we are at equilibrium with no change in stress. Willem
said equilibrium is whether inflows equal or balance outflows.


Chuck Brendecke aske
d

if we can go backwards where we were in the 1970’s, and
Willem agreed with the idea if spring flows and water levels are available. John
Lindgren asked if we can take the first 4 years of the model period out and see if we
simulate accurately
.
Allan sai
d then we could see what the 1970’s or 1960’s would
have looked like. Jim Brannon said he agreed with Chuck Brendecke, and he would
like to see if the mode reacts to stresses in the way we said it would. Dave Blew
asked if we can see if the model predict
s a 1% decline year after year. Willem went
back to his contention that the only way to validate the model is to make big changes
and see how it does. Chuck Brockway asked if we could see what would happen if
the
A & B
Irrigation District
wasn’t there.
Greg Sullivan said that the validation
results do not have to be 100% accurate because we still can learn

from the exercise.


Sean Vincent said that the issue is equilibrium, and the only way to verify it is at the
end. Chuck Brockway said we still have

residual impact from the past. Willem said
that the question is can we agree on what the stress should be. Chuck Brockway said
that the model says we are in equilibrium, and Greg said maybe with respect to
pumping. Chuck Brockway agreed with Greg and s
aid that maybe there are other
reasons besides pumping that result in non
-
equilibrium. Allan said that there were
people that didn’t understand what we meant by equilibrium. Harvey Walker said
there were people that don’t agree or don’t trust the model.


John Koreny said there is lots of work ahead and that a well planned out calibration is
the way to go. He added that we should not leave out anything in the effort. Greg
Sullivan said so the choice is whether to leave out or leave in any data.

Sean sai
d
maybe we should do both. Chuck Brockway said there is public relations work to do
regarding what the model can and can’t do. The committee agreed that no data
should be left out of calibration for later validation, although Sean Vincent had his
reserva
tions.



Sean Vincent cautioned that there could be problems with not doing validation. Allan
said we should do scenarios to accomplish validation. Sean said we should make
model runs without tweaking parameters. Willem said we have to give it a problem
not seen

before. Chuck Brendecke said we should only use data through 2000
exercising the model without the stress of drought. Dave Blew said a good test is to
see if the model predicts subtle changes because that is what we deal with regarding
Final


13


spring discharge.

Greg Sullivan thought that there is a problem with expectations
because the changes in ET and diversion
s

are large. Chuck Brockway said spring
users are getting into a risk analysis approach
,

and the owners need to know
confidence limits. Willem said t
he problem is that you tell spring owners that if
everything else is the same, you should have a 2% increase in flow, but everything
else is not the same.
Chuck Brendecke concluded the discussion saying that the
ability to predict is a function of knowing

all other influences, not the ability of the
model.



Item 14
-


Sean Vincent led a brainstorming
session
of the design features of ESPAM version 3.

He reviewed the previous brainstorming

meetings
, and then led t
he committee
in

a
listing of current model

uses
. B
ryce said that the model was also used as a predictor,
Sean said to run scenarios
, Rick Raymondi said to predict flow to spring reaches, and
Chuck Brockway said to perform multiple transfers.
Sean then showed a comparison
of ESPAM versions 1.1 an
d 2 attributes.
Willem made the point that we should not
refer to the ESPA as a confined system. Then Sean reviewed what was agreed upon
in previous meetings, and he indicated that stakeholders want predictions at a local
scale. Chuck Brockway asked the

question regarding a Class A spring target and
whether we feel that ESPAM version 2 can be used directly to determine impacts to
that spring. Allan said probably. Greg said we don’t have a completed ESPAM
version 2 yet, and Allan said that is why I said

probably. Sean summarized the point
by saying that it appears that the goal is at the scale of a spring.



Sean continued the discussion of model uses and said that one requirement is to
facilitate an uncertainty analysis

and provide additional tools for

certain uses. Bryce
said that more effort is needed in the conceptual model to include the geologic
underpinnings of the Rexburg Bench. Chuck Brockway said the connection between
the Bench and the South Fork of the Snake River may not be accurate becaus
e it
doesn’t reflect faulting that may impact that connection. Allan suggested that the new
model include the Menan gage. Lyle said the gage has been in operation from 2001
to the present. Allan said from the combination of the Heise and Menan gages cou
ld
help PEST in determining impacts to the South Fork. Chuck Brockway said the
geology should be reviewed.
Willem said that the model can always be improved to
represent the system better, but he asked where
we would

get the data. Allan said that
he rec
ommends that we find unused wells on either side of the suspected fault and
equip the wells with transducers. Chuck Brendecke said that there are numerous
places to improve the model representation of the system, and he recommended a
review of well logs a
nd preparation of fence diagrams. Chuck Brendecke went on to
say that there may be places where 2 model layers is appropriate

and recommended
that the committee look at
this for
ESPAM version 2 design components.



Jim Brannon suggested that the Departmen
t look at data management systems

and
develop a generic layer to make more data available to those who need it. He
suggested a web
-
based data distribution system. Chuck Brockway said that he would
like to query water rights along with the hydrology. A d
iscussion followed regarding
the deficiencies of the Department’s databases.

Final


14



Chuck Brendecke said
he would like to be able to select wells to retire based on
where th
ey

a
re rather than the priority date and gave diagrams of capture areas an
example. Se
an suggested that what Chuck Brendecke is requesting comes under the
area of model tools. Bryce said that tools to assess management actions that are
targeted to individual uses would be beneficial.


Sean began a discussion of model uncertainty. Greg s
aid that one number is not
always good and that it varies with location and type of effort. Chuck Brockway said
there should be an error bar on spring flow and that model simulations of the impact
to water levels is desirable. Allan that this type of simu
lation is doable and similar to
modeling the impact to a spring but not easy and requires a lot of CPU.
Bryce said
the water level response to a change in stress should be a model use requirement.
Dave Blew asked if the uncertainty will change with the ma
gnitude of stress. Allan
said that it depends

because with distance there is more uncertainty, but if you pump a
well harder, the impact will be more pronounced.

Jim Brannon said uncertainty has
to be at the resolution of the model, and Willem added that

uncertainty is also
determined by the resolution of the data.

Allan Wylie said that for predicting water
levels, we need to keep in mind that the model is 2D.


Chuck Brockway said that a problem in the CAMP process is defining all the
beneficiaries, an
d he gave the domestic water users as an e
xample. Chuck then asked
if we sh
ould consider contaminant transport in the new model. Finally, Chuck said
we need to look at the Oakley fan and asked if we are satisfied
with

the Shelle
y to
Near Blackfoot reach a
nd the changes in the hydraulic connection with water levels.
Willem said that river stage is a crude representation in the model and asked if we can
represent secondary effects of actions.


Sean then asked if the committee would consider tools for the
layman. Bryce said
that the committee might consider something like a version of the transfer tool for the
layman, perhaps a tool for the consultants, and
one

or
two

other tools for the public.
Dave Blew said the surface and ground water interactions dep
end on the tool that is
used.















Final


15


DECISION POINT SUMMARY


The following was agreed upon:


1)

T
he method used in ESPAM
version
1.1 to derive NIR
would
also be used for ESPAM
version
2
. The data set would be extended
,

and PEST would be allowed to adjust the
NIR input.
Mike McVay and Rick Allen

would continue to work on developing a new
method
, and when it is complete, it would be inserted into ESPAM version 2.

2)

IDWR will perform volume calculations for the change in wa
ter levels demonstrated by
the maps produced by Mike McVay.


IDWR will
also
perform the calculations for all
increments when synoptic measurements were taken.

3)

IDWR will
look at the construction and the hydrograph for the

well near Wendell that is
responsib
le for an anomaly in the water change maps.

4)

IDWR agreed to post the database that Mike McVay used for the potentiometric surface
and water level change maps that were based on synoptic ground water level
measurements.

5)

Jim Brannon will finish the high level

flow chart which will facilitate code review and
comparison to the conceptual model by other members of the committee, assist anyone
who wants to rewrite the code, provide documentation
MKMOD
.

6)

The committee agreed that IDWR should proceed
with Option 1
-

Scale the data up to
represent all the springs in the

cell
.

7)

IDWR agreed to show the t
hree

cells presented by Allan in the September 2010 meeting
and how they will be scaled up in the next meeting

(November 22
nd

& 23
rd
, 2010)
. Note
-

Idaho Power will take part in the presentation.

8)

The ESHMC agreed that the water level calibration targets for ESPAM version 2 should
come from the wells used in the change maps.

9)

The committee agreed that IDWR should make a calibration run with
a fix on the On
-
farm algorithm for soil moisture.

10)

Dave Blew agreed to look at the Malad River discharge to determine if the spikes in the
data could be explained.

11)

The committee agreed that the scaling factor used to adjust canal seepage should
start

at 1
and only be allowed to adjust between 0.95 and 1.05
.

12)

The committee decided to fix irrigation efficiency in model calibration but that it did not
have to be the same number for all entities.

Starting values are 0.8 for gravity and 0.85
for sprinkler.

13)

The c
ommittee set the next meeting dates for November 15
th

and 16
th
, 2010. (Note


the
dates were later changed to November 22
nd

and 23
rd
, 2010.)

14)

The committee agreed that no data should be left out of calibration for later validation,
although Sean Vincent ha
d his reservations.