LiDAR technology was used to survey over 90,000 acres of the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuges to support water resource management. The high-accuracy LiDAR data provided detailed digital elevation models, contours, and orthophotos that documented current infrastructure and habitat conditions. This data allows water management alternatives to be thoroughly analyzed by facilitating calculations of areas, volumes, water storage capacities, and potential water reuse capabilities. The comprehensive survey results provide wildlife managers with long-term tools to identify and implement improvements that optimize the efficient use and storage of available water resources.

1. Water Distribution Assessment at Tule-Lake NWR: Using LiDAR Technology to Support Water Resource Management 2009 SAME Water Conference Sean Ragain – GeoEngineers, Inc.

2. Background on the LiDAR System

4. Features on the ground are “detected” from a reflection of light energy from an airborne source

6. Volume of data

7. Digital format/data quantification (volume calculations, cross sections, profiles, useable databases – GIS)

8. Access to difficult/inaccessible terrain

9. Cost – similar $/acre as conventional ground survey ($250 - $600/mi2)

10. Speed

12. Laser Detector

13. Scanning mechanism & controller

14. Computer timing circuits for emissions & reflections

15. Airborne Differential GPS (position)

16. Inertial Measurement Unit (attitude)

17. High Capacity Data Recorders

20. Using the constant speed of light, the time delay is converted into a slant-range distance

22. DEMs produced directly from the LiDAR Triangular Irregular Network (TIN) are not aesthetically pleasing

25. The CAD contours are edited to ensure proper cartographic standards

27. Combining DEMs and Photos

29. Vegetation Volume / Canopy Characteristics Analysis

30. Hydrologic and Watershed Modeling

31. Slope Stability

32. Habitat Classification

33. Property Management

36. The Refuges are dependent on water supplies from the Bureau of Reclamation’s Klamath Project

37. Drought in 2001 brought water resource issues to a head

38. Controversy made national news

41. Habitat Types

42. Permanent and Seasonal Open Water and Marsh

43. Lost River and Shortnose Suckers

44. Waterfowl

45. Permanent and Seasonal Wetlands

46. Leased Agricultural Lands (>15,000 acres)

49. Potentially diminishing volume from current sources

50. Significant water losses to evaporation and seepage

52. Recommend facility improvements and analyze management alternatives that:

53. Improve wetland productivity

54. Increase efficiency – decrease costs

55. Enhance water reuse capabilities

56. Increase water storage capacityProject Goals

58. Kuchel Act – Requires Refuge land dedicated to wildlife with consideration for optimum agricultural use

59. Funding limitations restrict improvement options

61. Confirming water flow directions

62. Calculating areas and volumes

63. Evaluating how water can be moved and reused more efficiently

64. Designing new structures

66. Accuracy in x,y,z of 15 to 30 cm required.

67. One x,y,z data point for every 2 m2 (approximately 114 million data points - both Refuges)

68. Creation of detailed DTMs

69. 3-Dimensional modeling necessary for volume/ capacity calculations

70. Fully GIS-compatibleRight Tool for the Job

72. Type and Condition

73. DimensionsSupplemental GIS Mapping

74. Survey Area

75. Klamath Data Index 44 kilometers Area of enlargement 28 kilometers 2000 meter block

76. Area of enlargement Orthophoto

77. Orthophoto Zoom

78. Digital Elevation Model

79. Shaded Elevation Model

80. Shaded Elevation Model

81. DEM with Contours

82. DEM with Contours

83. GIS Inundation Model Plan view of extent of flooding in five (~150A) management units at various water-level stages. Used to determine if installing structures to gravity flow water between the units would allow a large area to be periodically flooded.

84. Slopes in 3D

85. 3D-Rendering

87. Provided highly detailed GIS database supported by orthophotography

88. Facilitated analysis of water management alternatives by thoroughly documenting:

89. Infrastructure

90. Habitat

91. Management practices (water rights, etc.)Project Results

93. Estimating seepage and evaporation losses needed as part of calculating water-storage balances

94. Identifying the optimum use of water at the refuges