1. Klamath ADR Hydrology Report Modeling Results Historical Record and Instream Claims Model Accuracy Jonathan La Marche KADR Hydrologist3/11/2000

2. Klamath Distribution Model Preliminary Results

3. 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)

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

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

6. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. Yearly total of supply and delivery above and below Klamath Lake Lake Levels

15. 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).

16. 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.

17. 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).

21. Summary The lake level claim alone has a limited (if any) effect on 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.

22. 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.

26. Results above Klamath Lake vary dramatically by sub-basin.

30. 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 significant deliveries under the adjudicator’s preliminary findings. However, the simulated deliveries may be overstated due to the lack of simulated instream requirements below the project.

31. Historical Records

32. 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 Hydrologist3/11/2000

33. 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.

34. 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)

35. 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 Canal Diversions (61-98) LONG TERM GAGE LOCATIONS in the KLAMATH BASIN GAGE PERIOD OF OVERLAP (73-95)

53. Model Accuracy

54. Model Checks Diversions Simulated versus Measured Canal Data Depleted Flow Data Annual Net Demand Estimates Simulated versus Measured Average Yearly Trends Annual Crop ET Simulated versus “Agrimet” Data

55. Diversions Simulated versus Measured Canal Data Modoc Diversion Canal: Comparison of simulated monthly average versus miscellaneous daily measurements.

61. 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).

62. 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.)

63. 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.

68. Summary for monthly simulated versus measured flows 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.

69. Annual Net Demand Estimates Simulated average annual demand above Klamath Lake versus measured average annual demand in the Project. Demand is normalized by acreage (ac-ft/ac).

72. 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.

73. Annual Crop ET Simulated annual crop ET versus “Agrimet” data in Lakeview.

75. Summary for crop ET comparison. The ET estimate above Klamath Lake is comparable to ET values at Agrimet sites located in a similar climate.

76. 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.