ESHMC Meeting Notes June 24 and 25th, 2010

vetinnocentSoftware and s/w Development

Nov 7, 2013 (4 years and 8 months ago)

120 views

1


ESHMC Meeting Notes June 24
th

and 25th, 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

-

Jim
Brannon

-

Mike McVay

-

Jennifer Johnson

-

Brian Patton

-

Jae Ryu

-

John Koreny

-

Harvey Walker

-

John Lindgren

-

Bill Kramber

-

Zach Maillard

-

Linda Davis






*Present but did not sign attendance sheet.



Chuck Brockway, Chuck Brendecke, Stacey Taylor,
Greg Sullivan, Roger
Warner, and Willem Schreuder joined the meeting via Polycom.


Item 2



Allan Wylie presented a water budget for the Twin Falls tract to estimate the south
side ground water contribution to reach gains that accrue between Milner Dam and
the King Hill gage. He began by summarizing previous calculations by Thomas
(1969), Kjelst
rom (1986), and Kjelstrom (1995). Notable in the report by Thomas
(1969) was that he estimated that two thirds of the south side gains are attributable to
return flows from Rock Creek, Cedar Draw, Deep Creek, Salmon Falls Creek, and
from above the Kimberl
y gage.


Allan indicated that Kjelstrom (1995) contained the most detailed information on this
subject, and he reported that between Kimberly to Buhl, 92% of the gains are from
the ESPA, and 8% is from the south side. From Buhl to Hagerman, only 5% of t
he
gains are from the south side, and from Hagerman to King Hill, virtually all of the
gains are from the north side.


Allan then reported on the 2010 effort performed by IDWR. For the TFCC tract, he
subtracted the ET (calculated using AgriMet ET data) fo
r the service area, the returns,
and the base flows (Mud Creek, Rock Creek, Cedar Draw, and Salmon Falls Creek)
from the diversions to determine the residual (south side ground water gains) for the
period from 2000 to 2008. He presented a table of finding
s
showing that
the average
2


residual for the period to range from 14% to 16% depending on the consumptive use
data applied to the calculation.


Rick Raymondi said that it looks like the IDWR calculations of the residual are a
little higher than what was de
termined by the previous investigators. Allan responded
that the previous investigators acknowledged that the residual could be as high as
13%, which is close to the IDWR range. Chuck Brendecke said that period of
calculation contains mostly dry years an
d asked if that could impact the water budget
calculations. Allan said that the residual for 2000 was a little higher and attributed it
to the prior wet years, but he also said that all numbers for wet or dry years were
close. Bryce said that the diversi
ons in Allan’s table do not appear to be correlated to
drought. Chuck Brockway stated that the dry years don’t appear to make muc
h

of a
difference. Then Chuck Brockway asked if the underflow coming in from the
Salmon Falls drainage area was included in t
he balance, and Allan said that it was not
included. Chuck Brockway requested that IDWR look at the underflow. IDWR
agreed to investigate the underflow from the Salmon Falls drainage area.

Chuck
Brockway recalled tha
t Crosthwaite published
a USGS report

on Salmon Falls Creek
,
and that it should include an estimate of underflow.


Greg Sullivan asked if the underflow would be subtracted from the base flow or
residual, and Allan said yes. Then Greg asked if a detailed spreadsheet could be
developed to show

all of the water budget parameters, assumptions, etc. Allan Wylie
said that IDWR would produce the spreadsheet. Chuck Brockway asked if IDWR
was certain that the measured return flows are a large percentage of the total. Sean
assured Chuck that well ov
er 90% of the returns are measured. Bryce Contor said
that between the Idaho Power study and the work done by Dick Lutz that well over
90% of return flows are measured.


Greg Sullivan asked how ET was derived. Allan said that he used AgriMet records of
p
otential ET, agricultural statistics to determine crop mixes, and then he computed ET
for various crops. Greg then asked what Allan used for irrigated area. Allan said that
the IDWR GIS section
determined
the irrigated area for the TFCC tract. Greg aske
d
what year was used, and Allan said the 2006 irrigated lands including ground water
irrigation. Greg asked if the difference between METRIC and AgriMet was a
concern, and Allan and Bryce said it was not. Bryce suggested that ET Idaho data
could be used
instead of AgriMet because the data go back farther in time. Greg
Sullivan asked if Allan had used the report by Rick Allen regarding METRIC ET data
for the Twin Falls tract. IDWR agreed to evaluate the report by Rick Allen and the
ET Idaho data for appl
icability to the water balance calculation.


The discussion continued, and Greg asked what % (ground water contribution from
the south side) will be used for model calibration. At the same time, Chuck Brockway
asked if Allan looked at correlating diversion
s vs. gains, and more specifically, how
the number will be used. Allan responded that the ground water contribution from
the south side will be subtracted from the reach gains determined from the river gages
in order to calibrate the model. Chuck Brockwa
y and Greg both suggested that
the
3


Department use
actual numbers instead of a % in the water balance calculation. Then
Greg recommended that since we have the TFCC total diversions, returns, and ET,
the calculation of ground water contribution from the so
uth side could be done every
year. Bryce recommended that a design document be prepared containing the
calculation spreadsheet. Chuck Brendecke agreed with using numbers instead of a
percentage. IDWR agreed to preparing a design document with spreadshee
ts and
using numbers to represent the south side ground water contribution on an annual
basis. Chuck Brockway said he was glad the committee discussed this subject and
arrived at a solution.


Greg Sullivan asked if the south side ground water contribution

was an annual
number or whether the calculation could be done on a monthly basis. Allan said that
he did not think that it could be done on a monthly basis, and Jim Brannon concurred.
Greg then asked
i
f the response functions developed by Donna Cosgrove

in her study
of the TFCC tract could be compared and used for monthly shaping. Allan was not
sure the response functions could be located. Chuck Brockway recommended that
IDWR check again to see if the response functions could be located. Bryce said th
at
he could not recall if Donna developed response functions but recalled that she came
up with the same number as Kjelstrom.


Chuck Brendecke asked how the base flow in the south side tributaries was
determined. Allan Wylie said that the winter flows a
re extended as a flat line through
the summer months of the hydrograph to determine base flows (ground water
discharge to the tributaries). Chuck Brockway thought that the transient response of
the south side ground water discharge could be considered the

same a
s

the north side
(ESPA aquifer discharge). Bryce agreed. Chuck Brendecke said that although the
aquifer transmissivity is not the same, it might be as good as could be achieved, but
he later recommended that since the geology is different, a flat
response should be
used.


Chuck Brockway offered that since we want a parameter to shape the south side
ground water discharge numbers, ground water levels could be used. He added that
seasonal fluctuations measured in wells near the south rim or measured
in a group of
wells would be fairly easy to use for shaping. Bryce thought that the gradient
between two south side wells could be used to shape the aquifer discharge. Chuck
Brockway said that the gradient would be representative of a flux and that there

are
USGS wells in the tract that would have data to calculate a gradient.


At this point Chuck Brendecke, Bryce, Allan, and Jim Brannon voted to use a
n

annual

distribution,
not adjusted monthly like for tributary underflow
and the
committee went along
with the vote. Dave Blew asked how the ground water
contribution from the south side would be distributed spatially in the reach. Allan
said that the distribution in Kjelstrom (1995) [Kimberly to Buhl (8%), Buhl to Lower
Salmon Falls (5%), and Lower Salm
on Falls to King Hill] could be used or a
distribution of approximately 2/3 to1/3 in the upper two reaches.


4


Note: there was a later discussion (Item
-

3
) where the committee recommended that
two river reaches be evaluated as model calibration targets (Ki
mberly to Lower
Salmon Falls and Kimberly to King Hill) in lieu of the three reaches as discussed
above. IDWR agreed to evaluate the elimination of the Buhl gage and the results of
calibration to two reaches instead of three. If this is implemented, the g
round water
contribution from the south side would be subtracted from the gains in the reach from
Kimberly to Lower Salmon Falls, and naturally the south side contribution would be
subtracted from the gains from Kimberly to King Hill when calibrating to th
at single
reach.


Item 3



Allan Wylie presented model calibration runs with a 1
-
month stress period. He made
use of the On
-
farm algorithm developed by Willem Schreuder
and Greg Sullivan
(MKMOD4.exe) and recharge file P100608A. There were no steady st
ate targets,
and the aquifer head data set extended from 1985 thought 2002. Bryce Contor asked
why he did not use head data through 2008, and Allan responded that he did not want
to incorporate the complete head dataset all at once
because

IDWR is experie
ncing a
database problem that impacts recent head data.

Allan added that for the reach gain
and spring discharge targets
, data up to 2008
were incorporated into the calibration
runs. Chuck Brockway asked if Allan will eventually use the head data up to 2
008,
and Allan said yes.



Allan reviewed
the calibration runs and provided the committee the range for
increasing/decreasing the adjustable parameters and noted which factors were fixed.
Chuck Brockway asked if PEST will be constrained on non
-
irrigated r
echarge by
precipitation, and Allan said that he was not sure and will check on that issue.




The results of the model calibration runs were presented, and a discussion followed.
Allan indicated that the runs show how the model responds to the data and
the
constraints applied and that the committee can learn what can be done to constrain
PEST. Allan recommended that for future runs, we should not let PEST stray as far as
we did. Bryce agreed th
at

PEST should be constrained, as did Willem, who
recommende
d that
PEST be constrained by a range. Chuck Brendecke said that from
the calibration runs, the committee is getting a sense of where PEST tries to put or
remove water. Chuck Brockway asked if the constraints are applied globally, by
entity, or by time s
tep. Allan responded that constraints can be global or by entity,
but not by time step in
the current version of PEST
. Chuck Brendecke then asked if
there is a flow chart for the On
-
farm budget, and Bryce said yes and that it was in the
presentation by W
illem and Greg Sullivan.



Allan continued with the presentation on the model calibration runs. He showed
results for runoff, recharge, and efficiency by entity, factors for perched river
seepage, and transient heads (measure and modeled). He
showed wher
e simulated
heads are high and low and noted a problem at Oakley. He attributed the problem to
the fact that the aquifer is stratified with both alluvi
um

and
Paleozoic rocks. Fault
systems bisect the aquifer. Allan indicated that
the model has difficulty

matching
5


heads at Oakley, and he showed where the model underestimates and overestimates
aquifer head in this area.




Allan then
discussed

a series of slides showing seasonal observations (observed vs.
matched) for trend wells, mass measurements, river gains and losses, gaged spring
reaches,
and
the
group A & B springs. For river gains and losses, he said the
predicted gains in the
Shelley
to Near Blackfoot reach
are
in phase

with observed
data
until

year 2000, and then
predicted gains are

out of phase

with the more recent data
.
The amplitude of the gains in Near Blackfoot to Neel
e
y reach is too high.

Allan
requested help from Chuck Brockw
ay
with the flow measurements at Crystal Springs.
Chuck agreed to look at the data and concurred that something appears incorrect with
the IDWR database. During the discussion of the Clear Lakes springs, it was
indicated that the total flow is a combinat
ion of spring discharge measurements and
flow derived from power rating curves. Both Allan Wylie and Chuck Brockway said
that they would like to get additional spring flow measurements and eliminate the
power rating at Clear Lakes.



Willem noted that t
he Thousand Springs model targets were switched and that there is
a large difference in the discharge data. Dave Blew said he would check the data.
Jim Brannon asked if meeting different targets poses a big problem for the model, and
Allan said no. Chu
ck Brockway asked what are the relative weights regarding reach
gain targets and spring targets. Allan Wylie responded by explaining how the
weights were assigned for the new model.
He said that t
he A & B
spring
categor
ies
receive

20% more weight that th
e C category springs and the river reach gains. Allan
also said that where there are good matches (observed vs predicted) such as at Rangen
and other C category spring from Covington and Weaver, then more weight is
assigned.



John Korney
commented that t
he Lower Salmon Falls measured data doesn’t make
sense. He then asked if the data could be discarded if it is not understood. Allan
responded that model runs could be made with the data, and the target could be given
lower weights or the data can be thro
wn away. When data
are

adopted, the difference
in the measured vs. predicted data is discussed, and it is hoped that with lighter
weights on targets with poor matches, the model is not compromised. Chuck
Brendecke said that the committee
has
already deci
ded to keep reach gain targets.
Allan said the
Kimberly to Buhl and Buhl to
Lower Salmon Falls targets
could be
given lighter weights than the
Kimberly to King Hill and
Kimberley to Lower Salmon
Falls target
s
. John Koreny asked if the data could be clean
ed up, and Allan said he
could not make it better.

Allan thought that he could develop an average for the time
period and have PEST match the average. John responded that bad data should not be
used in calibrating the model. Allan agreed and said that t
here is something
wrong
with the
Kimberly to Buhl and Buhl to Lower Salmon Falls
data sets, and they won’t
be used until the problems are solved.



John Koreny asked what Allan’s opinion was of incorporating a 1
-
month time step
into the model. Allan respo
nded that the 1
-
month time step is doable, and it will be
6


beneficial for river gains and losses to get them in phase. Willem asked

why the new
time step would not be beneficial for the springs. Allan responded that the monthly
time step allows irrigation

to start early in the southern portion of the model area and
end later. He added that there is a big benefit to the river simulation but changing the
stage in the river doesn’t affect the springs. Allan then concluded that the new model
is closer to pred
icting to the targets that version 1 was when the final data sets became
available.



Chuck Brockway asked why the model is still out of phase in the Shelley to Near
Blackfoot reach. Allan said that it is only out of phase for the last 8 years, and the
cause
may be
partly attributable to PEST using the On
-
farm tool box to match the
amplitude more than it should have. Bryce thought that it may be a problem with the
irrigated lands dataset. Allan said that that the On
-
farm tie to entities above
and
below

American Falls should be more tightly constrained. Bryce recommended that
Allan look at the starting parameters in the EFF file, and that the efficiencies should
be higher. Allan and Bryce recommended that there will be a conference call
regarding the O
n
-
farm water budget adjustable parameter constraints and that all
interested in joining should email Allan. The committee agreed.


Item 4
-


Mike McVay updated the committee on
his

effort to quantify recharge on non
-
irrigated lands. He discussed various
problems that he is encountering and noted that
he recently received input from Rick Allen and that consultation with Rick is
continuing. Mike suggested tabling the discussion until Dr. Allen was available to
discuss the problems.
The committee agreed.


Item 5
-


Mike McVay then updated the committe
e

on the synoptic ground water level
measurements

and the development of the water level change maps
. He said he
utilized work done by Nathan Erickson and that he is using the ESPAM version 2.0
model grid.

He

noted that there are few data on the Rexburg Bench and that he will
post spreadsheets on the website.


Item 6
-


Jim Brannon reported on the progress of his review of the On
-
farm water budget code
developed by Willem. The code was developed in the PERL p
rogramming language.
Willem noted that using the PERL code when running ESPAM version 2 takes
considerable time. He noted that he is considering rewriting the code in the
PYTHON programming language because it runs faster. Bryce asked if code written
in

the FORTRAN

language would not run faster, and Willem said that the
FORTRAN code is 10X longer and that there is a need to write in a more powerful
form of expression than FORTRAN. Chuck Brockway asked if having the code
written in PYTHON will affect mod
el users, and Willem said no.



A discussion of whether or not to utilize PYTHON followed. Bryce suggested that
the new code should anticipate all input data so they can be expressed appropriately.
Willem said that the inclination to use PYTHON is purely

from the performance
perspective. Allan agreed that making model runs faster is a big advantage. Chuck
Brockway asked how long it will take to develop the code in PYTHON, and Willem
7


said 2 or 3 days. Jim Brannon asked if Willem will be adding new featu
res, and
Willem said no, just making the code more efficient.

Chuck Brockway made a
motion to allow Willem to proceed with the code development in
PYTHON
, and the
committee voted in favor.

Jim Brannon asked if his review of the On
-
farm water
budget code
developed by Willem the PERL programming language should be
delayed, and Willem said no and that the review could be done in parallel with the
PYTHON development effort. Chuck Brendecke expressed a concern that paper
documentation of the PYTHON code would

be needed so that there would not be
disagreements, but he said he was in favor of the code re
-
write in PYTHON. Chuck
Brockway summarized that the committee was in agreement with Willem moving
forward with re
-
writing the code in PYTHON and reporting on t
he merit of the effort,
while the review of the code

written in PERL would continue.


Item 7
-


Jim Brannon also reported on his effort to quantify spring discharge at the National
Fish Hatchery.

He presented a schematic of the facility and the plumbing i
ncluding
25 locations where flow measurements have been taken. In his report, each
measurement location is described with photo documentation. Jim said R
iley, Bickel,
and Main Spring are the largest, and he show
ed

the percentage of the total discharge
th
at these springs a
s well as
for
Spring17
. He used Riley Spring flows as a proxy to
project total flows back to 1979. Chuck Brockway asked if the Brailsford Ditch
flows include the pump back volumes, and Jim said he was not sure. Chuck
Broc
k
way also aske
d if Jim noted any correlation to springs outside the complex
, and
Jim said no and that he wondered if there is a relationship with the springs and
Rangen. Chuck Brendecke asked if all measurements have been accounted for, and
Jim said all but a small amo
unt in a slough and that he intended to check with Brian
Kenworthy on that flow.


Item 8
-


Bryce Contor

announced that he has joined Rocky Mountain Environmental and will
continue work on the design documents, the water budget, and the final report as an
IWRRI employee.
Chuck Brendecke recommended that, in developing the final
report, that we retain the original ESPAM version 1.1 final report, retain a red line
copy of what was changed in the original report, and publish the new ESPAM version
2.0 report.

Bryce and the committee agreed with this approach.


Bryce

reviewed the ESPAM version 2.0 water budget development status and also
discussed some basic
auxiliary
tools that he use
s

in conjunction with the model.
Chuck Brockway asked if consultants will
need
these auxiliary
tools, and Bryce
responded that it depends on the consultant needs. For instance, a consultant
will
need the tools if
a fully

populated water budget is desired. Willem said that more
tools were needed on his Rio Grande project and th
at he created a tool to write
summary tables. Bryce then gave an example where a tool could be created to
produce data on a cell
-
by
-
cell basis and display results in a GIS format. Chuck
Brockway commented that it is difficult to anticipate all required t
ools.

Jim Brannon
indicated he would have his own independent approach to required tools.


8


Item 9
-


Bryce Contor briefed the committee on the training planned for users to become
familiar with the ESPAM 2.0 water budget. He provided the goals of the tra
ining and
indicated that the training would demonstrate

how to use the model. Bryce provided
the committee two choices: a live version utilizing GoToMeeting; and a recorded
version (audio and visual).
Chuck Brockway suggested that the training be broken

up
into modules; he favored a remote distribution such as GoToMeeting; and
recommended recording the training. Willem agreed with Chuck and suggested a
short introduction meeting in Boise. Jim Brannon said that after the introduction, the
users should i
ndicate to Bryce what they want to learn. The committee agreed that
GoToMeeting is the preferred method of remote instruction.


Item 10



Allan Wylie briefed the committee on the 2010
ESPA
POD file. The
ESPA
POD file
is a GIS shape file of ground water
irrigation wells
completed in the ESPA
, and the
file
is used in curtailment
analysis conducted by the Department
. The POD file
changes from year to year based on
transfers and the results of ongoing water right
s

adjudication.

Allan indicated that there has been some growth in the number of
points of diversion between 2006 and 2010, and he attributed this to “orphan” points
of diversion that have been discovered by review and use of the database. Chuck
Brendecke asked if the
transfers of agricultural rights to commercial rights result in a
reduction of the number of water rights and if this would result in not decreasing
consumptive use. Allan said that the transfers reduce the number of water rights but
don’t necessarily dec
rease consumptive use. Chuck Brendecke added that this makes
water use invisible, and Allan agreed adding the priority date vanishes

from the
irrigation POD file
.


Chuck Brockway asked how we account for the consumptive use of the dairies, and
Bryce sai
d it is ignored. Chuck Brockway said we should quantify consumptive use
by dairies. Allan Wylie said he noted a jum
p in enlargements in 2009
, however the
changes in the POD file did not significantly change the analysis Allan conducted to
test the POD fi
le and present to the ESHMC.


Item 11



Brian Patton briefed the committee on the status of the CAMP Implementation effort.
He began with an overview of the plan with the goal of 600,000 AF water budget
change at a cost of approximately $6
00 M
over a per
iod of 30 years. Phase I of the
plan was for 200,000 to 300
,
000
AF change at a cost of $100 M. Phase I included
a
goal of 100,000 AF for managed rech
a
rge.



Brian said that calendar year 2009 was the startup of implementation and
approximately 125,000 AF

of managed recharge was accomplished
. S
even canal
companies participated. At the time of the meeting (June 2010), Brian indicated that
the Board’s right for managed recharge was in priority and approximately 62,000 AF
could be accomplished before the en
d of the month. Brian then discussed weather
modification and indicated that the program is increasing precipitation by 1
-

2%,
while the goal is 8
-

10%. He said that IPCO is initiating weather modification in the
upper Snake and expect to have installe
d up to 9 generators by the end of 2010.
IPCO is currently evaluating the effect on precipitation and runoff in the upper Snake.

9




For the AWEP programs, funds are being spent to
convert 15 ground water irrigated
tracts totaling 4,300 acres to surface wat
er. Below the rim, the funds are being used
to increase the efficiency of facilities for approximately 18 spring users. He said that
the Federal Government provides approximately 75% of the funds for these projects
,
and that the 2010 projects include dem
and reductions, ground water to surface water
conversions, and installation of canal regulation ponds.



Brian reported that there has been a delay in the CAMP Implementation funding
mechanisms due to concerns about the legislation including who should be
assessed
for the costs. He said that at the March 2
nd

Governor’s meeting, the Governor
reaffirmed his commitment to CAMP
,

and there was unanimous consent to continue
to participate by the major water users. The Governor made $2M available for the
program

for 5 projects, and the funds would be re
-
appropriated from existing Idaho
Water Resource Board funds. There was also a commitment to work on funding
mechanisms. The Board and the Governor’s office will review projects to determine
which are eligible fo
r funding.



Jim Brannon asked how long will the AWEP program continue, and Brian indicated 5
years depending on year
-
to
-
year funding levels, although the program could go
beyond 5 years. Dave Blew asked if there was any hope for CREP
, and Brian said
th
at there was very little activity
,

and the CREP enhancement funding was stalled.

Chuck Brockway asked about Implementation committee facilitation, and Brian said
that the CDR contract had ended and that Rich Rigby will work for the Water
Resource Board on

an intergovernmental loan from the Bureau of Reclamation. Rich
will be housed at IDWR. Brian added that he is preparing a letter to the Board
explaining the changeover. Chuck Brendecke asked if the Bureau was an active
CAMP participant, and Brian said
yes that Rich Rigby was in fact an active
participant. Brian assured the committee that Rich won’t play dual role and that Matt
Howard will replace Rich as a Bureau participant. Greg Sullivan asked how long
Rich would be the facilitator, and Brian respo
nded 2 years.



Chuck Brockway asked Brian to explain the managed recharge approach, and Brian
said that during the early season, the recharge is primarily
an in
-
canal effort. Once
irrigation starts, the recharge is mainly off
-
canal and this has been done

at Freemont
-
Madison, Aberdeen
-
Springfield, and at Milner
-
Gooding. Chuck asked if there has
been any recharge on the Big Wood, and Brian said no
. He said that Bill Quinn was
working with the Watermaster
,

but the recharge right did not come
into priority.


Item 12
-


Bryce

Contor discussed the status of developing ESPAM version 3.0. He indicated
that IWRRI has been contracted by IDWR for data gathering and water budget
calculations. He indicated that it has not been decided as to who will oversee the
wat
er budget development and the refinement of methods. Chuck Brockway asked if
the current algorithms will be eliminated, and Bryce said that is where we are headed.
Then Chuck asked if we can limit the calculation of ET in the model to METRIC
processing.

Bryce responded that he could not think of a way to do that, and Allan
10


Wylie reminded the committee that one problem is that METRIC can only be utilized
on cloud
-
free days. John asked what is the plan for processing ET when METRIC is
not available, and B
ryce said a proposal for interpolation has been offered to the
Department. Chuck Brockway asked what
the purpose of interpolation is
, and Bryce
said to
develop values for days that are not cloud
-
free.

Chuck Brendecke voice
support for moving to METRIC fo
r as much of the ET data development at possible.


Comment by Rick Allen, Sept. 21, 2010
:

The METRIC energy balance process does
require cloud
-
free satellite imagery for processing ET for the day of the image.
However, the subsequent method for
interpolating daily ‘maps’ of ET for each day
between images utilizes gridded reference ET computed for each day. Many of these
days are cloudy. The impacts of those clouds (or wind, etc.) on any particular day
are treated via the Penman
-
Monteith
-
based e
stimate of daily reference ET. The
interpolation between images is done by interpolating the fraction of reference ET,
ETrF, (ETrF is synonymous with the crop coefficient, Kc) for each day and
multiplying by the ETr. Investigation of ETrF using the preci
sion
-
weighing
lysimeters of Dr. J.L. Wright, USDA
-
ARS (ret). at Kimberly, showed that the ETrF
derived from clear days (i.e., satellite images) represents subsequent cloudy days
quite well. This is illustrated in Figure 1 of Tasumi et al., (2005), availab
le at the
following web address:



http://www.kimberly.uidaho.edu/water/papers/remote/ASCE_JIDE_2005_Tasumi%20et%20al_p94.pdf


When portions of an im
age are cloudy, those portions are ‘masked’ out and ETrF
values are substituted in from adjacent (in time) ETrF images on both sides of the
clouded image. The result is a complete ETrF image. Accuracy of the filled areas is
reduced from the interpolation

due to possible changes in crop development or
phenology between image dates. Similarly, if large time periods occur between
Landsat images that have sufficient clear areas to process, then the splined
interpolation of ETrF between those images, during
the calculation of daily maps of
ET, will have reduced accuracy due to increased uncertainty in accurately capturing
the actual crop development trends over that period. In general, we wish to process
a Landsat image each 30 days. On some occasions the

time gap between images
stretches to 60 days. Nearly one
-
half of all years in the 1984
-
2010 Landsat archive
for the ESPA have gaps that exceed 60 days and are, at the present time, considered
to be inadequate for producing monthly and annual ET for those

years.



Item 13
-


Sean Vincent led a discussion of the ESPAM version 3.0 design components and
began by reviewing the objectives developed in previous meetings and the
incremental change approach
agreed upon by the committee. The following are
suggesti
ons and comments made during the discussion:




Bryce and Allan talked about the ability of the model to evaluate well
-
to
-
well interactions;



Chuck Brockway said

the committee needs to discuss how the model will be used in the
Administration of water rights;

11




Chuck Brockway added that in our use of the transfer tool, we essentially model well
-
to
-
well
interactions even though the committee said we wound not use the model in that way.



Chuck Brendecke said we need to poll the Board and the Director regarding how

they
will or
want to use the model.



Sean said that we can expect the Department’s needs to change, and Allan added we can’t
always see where policy is going.



Chuck Brockway said that in response to
delivery calls,
the model has been used for
mitigation re
quirements, credits, and impacts on springs or groups of springs. He went on to
say that he thought that the model could do better and make these analyses easier for IDWR.
Chuck completed his discussion by saying that the committee needs to discuss the q
uestions
that the Department will have to answer.



Allan Wylie said that the intent of updating the model at least every 5 years is to keep up
with changes.



Chuck Brockway agreed that keeping the model updated is good policy, but a framework for
design is s
till needed.



Jennifer Johnson said that she is working on a project using MODFLOW output with a GIS
-
based analytic element model, and the model does a good job predicting well
-
to
-
well
interactions.



Allan Wylie said that we should start from the beginning f
or ESPAM version 3.0 and
determine what
The Department
need
s

the model to do.



Chuck Brockway said that we need the model to estimate the impact to an individual spring
and that we should improve the
model capability to simulate an

individual spring.



Sean V
incent said that previous discussions included a multi
-
layer model, heat transport
calibration, sub
-
regional models, and improving tributary underflow. He recommended that
we brainstorm and prioritize model design features.



Chuck Brendecke responded sayin
g we should first define requirements for the model use.



Jim Brannon said that all requirements don’t have to be done by the model; it could be a tool
that performs certain analyses.



Allan Wylie said the first requirement of the model is to address calls i
nvolving aquifer
-
river
interactions.



Chuck Brockway agreed with Allan but noted that there is a problem or a disconnection
between natural flow rights and the ground water model. He went on to ask if there was a
potential to combine the ground water model

with a surface water
model
so that the impact of
ground water pumping on reach gains, reservoir storage, and carryover could be determined.



Sean agreed that this is an area for improvement.



Chuck Brendecke asked what the Department is doing with regard to

the accounting and
planning models.



Sean Vincent said that the Department is far along on the accounting re
-
write, and we are
currently testing the code on the Payette system. He added that the model has a GIS interface
and modular routines.



Chuck Brende
cke asked if there was any interaction between the accounting model and the
ground water model.



Sean said no, the accounting
program is after
-
the
-
fact. He conceded that IDWR uses the
planning model to look at alternatives, but there has not been progress
in combining it with
the ground water model.

12




Dave Blew said that IPCO is looking at RiverWare as a candidate for a new planning model.



Jennifer Johnson said the Bureau of Reclamation is looking at converting the upper Snake
MODSIM model to RiverWare plus a
dding an interface with the ground water model.



Chuck Brockway asked if RiverWare was proprietary soft ware, and Jim Brannon said yes
and to obtain a copy costs approximately $2K. Jim then asked if it has an accounting
module
,

and Je
nnifer Johnson said ye
s with water rights.



Greg Sullivan expressed caution with using a model that is strictly based on the Prior
Appropriation doctrine. He said the upper Snake has decrees, etc. that deviate from prior
appropriation.



Sean Vincent led the committee back to dis
cussing the merit of a multi
-
layer approach for
ESPAM version 3.0. Bryce said that there are many areas
within the model boundary
that
are data constrained such as along the Henry’s Fork.

There was a brief discussion of the
considerations involved with d
eveloping a multi
-
layer model.

Chuck Brockway said assume
we can build a multi
-
layer model and then asked how it would help. Allan Wylie said he is
not sure it would help. Greg Sullivan asked if the purpose of a multi
-
layer model was to help
with the spr
ings. Allan Wylie said the variable transmissivity would help with modeling the
springs since the springs are at the edge of the aquifer, and a change in head impacts a
change in transmissivity to a greater extent than at the middle of the plain.



Greg Sul
livan suggested that the model be designed to simulate an unconfined aquifer.
The
committee

agreed

to investigate the merit of this design component
. Greg asked if you could
construct multi
-
layers near the springs. Allan responded that it would be
better to
incorporate multiple layers around the Snake River and for the Oakley fan.




Sean Vincent brought up the subject of transport and suggested using temperature

as a means
of better quantifying tributary underflow. Chuck Brendecke said a thermal ca
libration might
help define transmissive zones that feed certain springs. He added that he believes there is
conduit flow near the rim that feed certain springs. Dave Blew said that the tracer tests
performed in the rim area indicate preferential flow pa
ths. Bryce agreed that thermal
calibration could improve the capability of the model to represent certain springs. Allan
Wylie said that temperature data could be collected and reviewed. Transducers are deployed
in the ESPA that could provide this infor
mation, but we need to look at data density to
determine if it is adequate. Dave Blew said that during the tracer tests he noted discrete
differences in temperature in individual springs.



Sean then raised the subject of sub
-
regional models. Jennifer Johnson said that analytic
element models are good for this purpose, except they are limited to steady state. Allan
asked about developing sub
-
regional models in the area of the springs. Jim
Brannon said that
sub
-
regional models can be beneficial, but he cautioned that you have to maintain 2 models.
Bryce added that it is difficult to propagate effects across the model boundary. Chuck
Brendecke said that the committee should keep sub
-
regiona
l models in mind as an option,
and the committee
ended the

discussion on this subject.



Sean opened up discussion on incorporating a finer grid into ESPAM version 3.0. Allan
Wylie said that it could be done with minimal effort, but it may not be productive
. He added
that with the current grid at 1 mile by 1 mile, it is hard to believe one could obtain better
resolution. Chuck Brockway said that the finer grid may provide better resolution, but it
gives a false sense of model capability. Chuck Brendecke s
aid that
the transport design
feature would be of greater priority.

13




Greg Sullivan said that how the surface water entities are represented could be improved.
Bryce agreed but said that it is a difficult task and would require interviewing canal
companies
and even farmers to
accomplish this. Bryce also said that there is a need to
develop a better link between diversions and returns.



Sean asked if the model time period should start earlier. Allan said he was worried about
data limitations. Chuck Brockway

said it is not a big priority. Greg said that there is an
interest in knowing conditions before ground water development, but there was a general
feeling by the committee that the data are not available.



Jim Brannon said that he agreed with Allan that in
corporating a variable transmissivity
distribution into the model would be beneficial. Allan said that there is a need to keep the
model cells, especially along the rim, from going dry. Bryce said that he agreed with the
benefits of variable transmissivi
ty and the Gary Johnson and Stacey Taylor have developed
response functions
from a model that incorporates variable transmissivity in an unconfined
aquifer. Chuck Brockway motioned that we would have Gary Johnson describe his work and
the committee agreed
.



Sean changed the subject to soil moisture. Bryce said that Willem’s On
-
farm water budget
has “crude” assumptions of soil moisture that are better than nothing. He added that if we go
to a strict representation ET using METRIC data, the data will consid
er soil moisture.



Sean

said that

horizontal anisotropy
should be a consideration for the next version of the
model
. Chuck Brendecke said this is related to transport calibration to get a better
understanding of where there may be preferential flow in th
e aquifer. Chuck Brockway had a
concern that it would be difficult to model preferential flow. Bryce said the committee
should
c
onsider the faults on the Rexburg Bench and Roger Warner would agree. Chuck
Brockway agreed.



Bryce said that
the updated hy
drography being developed by IDWR and the irrigation
districts would improve the canal seepage calculations and that it was important for the On
-
farm
water budget. The committee ag
r
eed.



The
final discussion covered non
-
irrigation pumping. Chuck Brendecke

asked how big non
-
irrigation pumping is, how much consumption is related, and how difficult would it be to
incorporate this into the model. Chuck Brockway asked if domestic use should be included
or if it is
de minimus
. The committee did not complete th
is discussion.




DECISION POINT SUMMARY


The following was agreed upon:


1)

IDWR agreed to investigate the underflow from the Salmon Falls drainage area for
inclusion in the water balance calculation.


2)

IDWR agreed to evaluate the report by Rick Allen regardi
ng METRIC ET on the TFCC
tract and the ET Idaho data for applicability to the water balance calculation.


3)

IDWR agreed to preparing a design document with spreadsheets showing the details of
the water balance calculations including using equal monthly numbe
rs (flat numerical
14


distribution), rather than a percentage, to represent the south side ground water
contribution.


4)

IDWR agreed to evaluate the elimination of the Buhl gage to determine the results of
calibration to two reaches instead of three. It
follows that the ground water contribution
from the south side will be subtracted from the gains in the reach from Kimberly to
Lower Salmon Falls, and naturally the south side ground water contribution would be
subtracted from the gains from Kimberly to Ki
ng Hill when ca
librating to that single
reach.


5)

Allan Wylie requested help from Chuck Brockway with the flow measurements at
Crystal Springs. Chuck agreed to look at the data and concurred that something appears
incorrect with the IDWR database.

Willem
Schreuder noted that the Thousand Springs
model targets were switched and that there is a large difference in the discharge data.
Dave Blew said he would check the data.

The committee agreed that these datasets
should not be used until the problems are r
ectified.


6)

At the recommendations of Allan, Bryce, and Willem, the committee agreed that for
future model calibration runs, PEST should be constrained by a range.
The committee
agreed

that there will be a conference call regarding the On
-
farm water budget

adjustable
parameter constraints and that all interested in joining should email Allan.


7)

Mike McVay suggested tabling the discussion regarding quantifying recharge on non
-
irrigated lands until Dr. Allen was available to discuss the problems. The committ
ee
agreed.


8)

Chuck Brockway made a motion to allow Willem
Schreuder
to proceed with the On
-
farm
water budget code development in the PYTHON programming language,
while Jim
Brannon performed an independent review of the PERL version. T
he committee voted in
f
avor of
t
his motion.


9)

Chuck Brendecke recommended that, in developing the final report for ESPAM version
2.0, that we retain the original ESPAM version 1.1 final report, retain a red line copy of
what was changed in the original report, and publish the ne
w ESPAM version 2.0 report.
T
he committee agreed with this approach.


10)

The committee agreed that GoToMeeting is the preferred method of remote instruction
for users to become familiar wi
th the ESPAM 2.0 water budget.


11)

Chuck
Brockway and
Chuck
Brendecke
s
aid that the committee

should first define
requirements for the model use.

The committee agreed that defining the use (i.e., what
the model will be used for) of ESPAM version 3.0 should be discussed before the details
of design components.


12)

The committe
e agreed that the first requirement of the model is to address calls involving
aquifer
-
river interactions.

15



13)

The committee agree to explore the potential to combine the ground water model with a
surface water program so that the impacts of ground water pump
ing on reach gains,
reservoir storage, and carryover could be determined.


14)

The committee agreed to investigate the merit of designing the model to simulate an
unconfined aquifer.
The committee also agreed to request Gary Johnson to present his
work where he developed response functions from a model that incorporates variable
transmissivity in an unconfined aquifer.


15)

The committee agreed to investigate the merit of incorporating t
emperature data to define
transmissive zones and calibrate the model (i.e., thermal calibration).


16)

The committee agreed to keep sub
-
regional models in mind as a design option for
ESPAM version 3.0.


17)

The committee agreed that the updated hydrography curren
tly being developed by IDWR
and the irrigation districts would improve the canal seepage calculations and that it was
important for the On
-
farm water budget, and that the hydrography should be incorporated
into ESPAM 3.0.