klamath adr hydrology report modeling results historical record and instream claims

Klamath ADR Hydrology Report

• Modeling Results

• Historical Record and Instream Claims

• Model Accuracy

Jonathan La Marche KADR Hydrologist 3/11/2000

Klamath Distribution Model

Preliminary Results

Four New Model Runs

1) Basin separated into two areas - above Klamath Lake and Klamath Lake to Iron Gate (Run 5)

2) Instream claims turned off above Klamath Lake (Run 4)

3) All claims below Klamath Lake deferred to claims above Klamath Lake (Run 8)

4) Using adjudicators preliminary findings for instream claims (Run 6)

The first three runs isolate for the effects of lake levels and instream claims on claimants above Klamath Lake.

The last run shows the effects of instream claims as described in preliminary findings on claimants in upper Klamath basin.

Results with Basin Separated

•Compare results between separated (run D5) and integrated basin (D1) with all claims on.

•This isolates the effects of instream claims on users above Klamath Lake. (i.e. lake claims and project claims do not extend above lake).

•Results shown as yearly supply and deliveries above and below Klamath Lake.

Yearly Sum of all Irrigation Demands and Deliveries above Klamath Lake

020000400006000080000

100000120000140000160000180000

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

ac-f

t

-1864 1865-1904 1905 post 1905 D1 D5

Yearly Sum of all Irrigation Demands and Deliveries Below Klamath Lake

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

ac-f

t

1865-1904 1905 post 1905 none D1 D5

Summary

• Lake level claims and BOR Claims have a minimal effect on upstream diversions, given the level of instream claims (as filed) above Klamath Lake.

• Instream claims (as filed) control amount of irrigation above Klamath Lake.

Results with instream claims turned off above Klamath Lake

• Compare results with instream claims on and off above Klamath Lake (Run D1 and Run D4).

• Isolates effects of lake level claims and project claims on upper basin.

• Yearly total of supply and delivery above and below Klamath Lake

• Lake Levels


0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

18000019

74

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

ac-f

t

-1864 1865-1904 1905 post 1905 D1 D4


050000

100000150000200000250000300000350000400000450000500000

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

ac-f

t

1865-1904 1905 post 1905 none D1 D4

Simulated vs Claimed Monthly Klamath Lake LevelsWY 1986-1997

4136413741384139414041414142414341444145

10 1

991

2 19

91

6 19

91

10 1

992

2 19

92

6 19

92

10 1

993

2 19

93

6 19

93

10 1

994

2 19

94

6 19

94

Ele

vatio

n (M

SL

, ft)

Historical Lake Levels D1 D4

Summary

• With instream claims above Klamath Lake off, the lake level and BOR claims do have an effect of irrigation above Klamath Lake.

• However, lake level claims do not appear to have a substantial “direct” impact on upstream irrigation. Lake levels are kept high, therefore less water is needed to fill the lake (even during dry years).

Summary

• Lake levels do appear to have an “indirect” impact on upstream irrigation by creating shortages in the project. These project shortages may in turn create calls on water users above Klamath Lake with a post 1905 priority date.

• The stored water available for use by the project is substantially limited by the lake claims. This creates an increased reliance on live flows, which, during below average and dry years, creates shortages for the project.

Defer all claims below Klamath Lake to claims above Klamath Lake (Run 8).

• Isolates for effects of lake level claim on users above Klamath Lake.

• Compare results of D4 (integrated basin, instream claims off above Klamath Lake) with D8 (same as D4, except claims below lake defer to above Klamath Lake).


020000400006000080000

100000120000140000160000180000

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

ac-f

t

-1864 1865-1904 1905 post 1905 D4 D8


0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

ac-f

t

1865-1904 1905 post 1905 none D4 D8

Simulated vs Claimed Monthly Klamath Lake LevelsWY 1986-1997

4136

4137

4138

4139

41404141

4142

4143

4144

414510

199

1

10 1

992

10 1

993

10 1

994

Ele

vatio

n (M

SL

, ft)

Historical Lake Levels D4 D8

Summary

The lake level claim alone has a limited (if any) effecton irrigation above Klamath Lake. Lake levels are kept elevated, which reduces the amount of water necessary to fill the lake.

The lake level claim limits the storage capacity available for the project, and therefore reduces project irrigation especially during low water years.

Lake level claims have an indirect impact on irrigation above Klamath Lake by creating shortages in the project area. These shortages may create calls on water.

Results using adjudicator’s preliminary findings.

• Instream claim #672 below the project was denied, therefore FERC flows were used instead with a zero priority date.

• Comparison of two runs. Run 6 includes the preliminary findings with FERC flows. Run 7 is with claims as initially filed with FERC flows.


020000400006000080000

100000120000140000160000180000200000

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

ac-f

t

-1864 1865-1904 1905 post 1905 D7 D6


0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

ac-f

t

1865-1904 1905 post 1905 none D7 D6

Simulated vs Claimed Monthly Klamath Lake Levels WY 1974-1985

413641374138413941404141414241434144

10 1

974

10 1

975

10 1

976

10 1

977

10 1

978

10 1

979

10 1

980

10 1

981

10 1

982

10 1

983

10 1

984

10 1

985

Ele

vatio

n (M

SL

, ft)

Historical Flows D7 D6

Results above Klamath Lake vary dramatically bysub-basin.


020000400006000080000

100000120000140000160000180000200000

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

ac-f

t

-1864 1865-1904 1905 post 1905 D7 D6

Wood R. Average Monthly Irrigation Demands and Deliveries over POR

0

100

200

300

400

10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

cfs

Wood A Wood B Wood C

Wood D D7 D6

Upper Sycan Average Monthly Irrigation Demand and Deliveries over POR

0

4

812

16

20

10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

cfs

Sycan A Sycan D D7 D6

Summary

The adjudicators preliminary findings, have a lesser impact on irrigation in the basin when compared to the original claims.

However, the amount of water available for irrigation varies significantly between sub-basins.

Without ESA requirements, the project area would get significantdeliveries under the adjudicator’s preliminary findings.

However, the simulated deliveries may be overstated due to the lack of simulated instream requirements below the project.

Historical Records

Median flows at long term gages over simulation period (1974-1997)

Median flow is the amount of water flowing in the river at least 50% of the time.

Information Prepared for the Klamath Basin Alternative Dispute Resolution Process and is not admissible in legal proceedings, pursuant to ADR Operating Principle 7.2, without the consent of the affected participants, ADR Operating Principle 7.3.3(3).

Jonathan La Marche KADR Hydrologist 3/11/2000

By calculating the median flow at long term gage sites in the basin and comparing them to instream claims, the general effects of these claims on irrigation can be examined.

Long Term Gage Records

• Sycan near Beatty (Gage #11499100)

• Upper Sprague near Beatty (Gage #11497500)

• Lower Sprague near Chiloquin (Gage #11501000)

• Upper Williamson near Rocky Ford (Gage #11491400)

• Lower Williamson above Sprague Confluence (Gage #11502500 - Gage #11501000)

• Lower Williamson below Sprague Confluence (Gage #11502500)

• Klamath near Keno (Gage #11509500)

11491400 (73-98)

11499100 (73-97)

11497500 (53-97)

11493500 (54-95)

11501000 (21-97)

11502500 (17-97)

11507000 (22-98)

11507500 (61-97)

11509500 (29-97)

11510700 (60-97)

Project CanalDiversions (61-98)

LONG TERM GAGE LOCATIONS in the KLAMATH BASIN

GAGE PERIOD OF OVERLAP (73-95)

Median Historical Flows (74-97) Sycan River at Gage #11499100

26 35 39 4387

216

440

318

9331 20 23

0

100

200

300

400

500

OctNov Dec Ja

nFeb M

ar AprM

ay Jun Ju

lAug

Sept

cfs

74-97 median

Instream Claims/Permits vs Median Historical Flows (74-97) Sycan River at Gage #11499100

0

500

1000

1500

2000

OctNov Dec Ja

nFeb M

ar AprM

ay Jun Ju

lAug

Sept

cfs

Tribal Claim Preliminary ODFW 74-97 median

Instream Claims/Permits vs Median Historical Flows Sycan River at Mouth

050

100150200250300350400450

OctNov Dec Ja

nFeb M

ar AprM

ay Jun Ju

lAug

Sept

cfs


Median Historical Flows Upper Sprague River at Gage 11497500

141 157 168 182 233

426

599 568

274153 114 119

0

250

500

750

1000

OctNov Dec Ja

nFeb M

ar AprM

ay Jun Ju

lAug

Sept

cfs

74-97 Median

Instream Claims/Permits vs Median Historical Flows Upper Sprague River at Gage #11497500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

OctNov Dec Ja

nFeb M

ar AprM

ay Jun Ju

lAug

Sept

cfs

Tribal Claim Preliminary ODFW 74-97 Median

Instream Claims/Permits vs Median Historical Flows Upper Sprague River at Gage #11497500

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

OctNov Dec Ja

nFeb M

ar AprM

ay Jun Ju

lAug

Sept

cfs


Median Historical Flows Sprague River at Gage #11501000

287 337 392 379 488

887

1212985

472269 200 235

0

500

1000

1500

OctNov Dec Ja

nFeb M

ar AprM

ay Jun Ju

lAug

Sept

cfs

74-97 Median

Instream Claims/Permits vs Median Historical Flows Sprague River at Gage #11501000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

OctNov Dec Ja

nFeb M

ar AprM

ay Jun Ju

lAug

Sept

cfs


Instream Claims/Permits vs Median Historical Flows Sprague River at Gage #11501000

0200400600800

100012001400

OctNov Dec Ja

nFeb M

ar AprM

ay Jun Ju

lAug

Sept

cfs


Instream Claims/Permits vs Median Historical Flows Upper Williamson near Rocky Ford (Gage # 11491400)

54 59 60 63 66 7187

8069

52 47 49

0

20

40

60

80

100

OctNov Dec Ja

nFeb M

ar AprM

ay Jun Ju

lAug

Sept

cfs

74-97 median

Instream Claims/Permits vs Median Historical Flows Upper Williamson near Rocky Ford (Gage # 11491400)

0

50

100

150

200

OctNov Dec Ja

nFeb M

ar AprM

ay Jun Ju

lAug

Sept

cfs


Instream Claims/Permits vs Median Historical Flows Williamson River above Sprague Confluence (#11502500-

#11501500)

311 343476 501 562

682579

430320 285 288 287

0

500

1000

OctNov Dec Ja

nFeb M

ar AprM

ay Jun Ju

lAug

Sept

cfs

74-97 Median

Instream Claims/Permits vs Median Historical Flows Williamson River above Sprague Confluence (#11502500-

#11501500)

0

500

1000

1500

OctNov Dec Ja

nFeb M

ar AprM

ay Jun Ju

lAug

Sept

cfs

Tribal Claim ODFW Preliminary 74-97 Median

Instream Claims/Permits vs Median Historical Flows Williamson River at Sprague Confluence (#11502500)

608 723924 912

1095

16681950

1496

811542 484 538

0

1000

2000

3000

OctNov Dec Ja

nFeb M

ar AprM

ay Jun Ju

lAug

Sept

cfs

Preliminary 74-97 Median

Instream Claims/Permits vs Median Historical Flows Williamson River at Sprague Confluence (#11502500)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

OctNov Dec Ja

nFeb M

ar AprM

ay Jun Ju

lAug

Sept

cfs

Tribal Claim ODFW Preliminary 74-97 Median

Instream Claims/Permits vs Median Historical Flows Klamath River near Keno, Gage #11509500

999 1022

151316491952

23682092

1135

461 401698

940

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

OctNov Dec Ja

nFeb M

ar AprM

ay Jun Ju

lAug

Sept

cfs

74-97 Median

Instream Claims/Permits vs Median Historical Flows Klamath River near Keno, Gage #11509500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

OctNov Dec Ja

nFeb M

ar AprM

ay Jun Ju

lAug

Sept

cfs

Tribal Claim ODFW 74-97 Median

Model Accuracy

Model Checks•Diversions

Simulated versus Measured• Canal Data• Depleted Flow Data

• Annual Net Demand EstimatesSimulated versus Measured

•Average•Yearly Trends

•Annual Crop ETSimulated versus “Agrimet” Data

Diversions

•Simulated versus Measured Canal Data

Modoc Diversion Canal:Comparison of simulated monthly average versus miscellaneous daily measurements.

Average for Available Records

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

Div

ersi

on (

cfs)

Modoc Simulated

1987 Modoc Diversions

01020304050607080


(cfs

)

Predicted Monthly Actual Single Measurement


01020304050607080


(cfs

)



01020304050607080


(cfs

)



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


(cfs

)

Predicted (Monthly) Actual (Single Measurement)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


(cfs

)

Predicted (Monthly) Actual (Single Measurement)

Summary for monthly simulated versus daily measured diversions for Modoc Canal

• When looking at the average simulated diversions versus daily measurements for Modoc canal, the model results appear reasonable.

• However, when looking at particular months (e.g. Sept., 1980) the deviation from the daily measurements increases. This is to be expected and is probably typical for modeled areas. This is one reason why the model results are shown as averages over different year types (wet, average, dry).

Summary (continued)

• There are certain inherent limitations when comparing monthly average flows to a single discharge measurements (i.e., does the single measurement reflect average diversions for the month). These limitations lessen the certainty of the comparison.

• There are certain influences on irrigation that cannot be modeled. (i.e. connective rainstorms, headgate and ditch problems, etc.)

Diversions

•Simulated versus Measured Depleted Flows

Wood River 91-93:Inflows from tributaries calculated

from miscellaneous records.

Demands estimated using previously described method.

Outflows taken from BOR gage data.

Average Measured vs. Simulated Flows of Wood R (4/1991-12/1993)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Month

cfs

Simulated Flows Measured Flows

Wood River

0100200300400500600700

cfs

Simulated Flow Zero Demand Flow

Measured Flow

Wood River

0100200300400500600700

cfs

Simulated Flow Zero Demand Flow Measured Flow

Wood River

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

10 19

93

11 19

93

12 19

93

1 199

3

2 199

3

3 199

3

4 199

3

5 199

3

6 199

3

7 199

3

8 199

3

9 199

3

10 19

94

cfs

Simulated Flow Zero Demand Flow Measured Flow

Summary for monthly simulated versus measuredflows for Wood River.

• When looking at the average simulated versus measured flows, the model results appear reasonable.

• When looking at individual years, the model results appear reasonable

• As in the Modoc diversion check, the deviation between simulated and measured flows for a particular month is greater than the average.

Annual Net Demand Estimates

Simulated average annual demand above Klamath Lakeversus measured average annual demand in the Project.

• Demand is normalized by acreage (ac-ft/ac).

Annual Average Consumptive Demand (ac-ft/ac)

1.52

1.84

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

(ac-

ft/a

c)

Estimated Above Klamath Lake Historical Net Demand In Project

Annual Consumptive Demand (ac-ft/ac)

0

1

2

319

74

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

(ac-

ft/a

c)

Estimated Net Demand above Klamath Lake Historical Project Demand

Summary for net demand comparison above and below Klamath Lake.

• The net demand estimate above Klamath Lake is comparable to net demands from gage data in the project area.

• The net demands trends above Klamath Lake follow trends in the project and reflects usage in response to climate conditions.

Annual Crop ET

• Simulated annual crop ET versus “Agrimet” data in Lakeview.

Simulated Net ET above Klamath Lake vs ET from LakeView Agrimet Station

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Net

ET

(in

)

Simulated LakeView

Summary for crop ET comparison.

• The ET estimate above Klamath Lake is comparable to ET values at Agrimet sites located in a similar climate.

Additional Model Runs

1) Subordinate tribal claims to all pre 1905 claims.

2) Subordinate tribal claims to all existing uses.

3) Use ODFW instream values for all tribal claims.

3) Raise the lake capacity by a foot.

klamath adr hydrology report modeling results historical record and instream claims

Documents

lake claims

summary lake level claims

project claims

effects of lake levels

effects of instream

summary lake levels

bor claims

summarythe lake level