September 5, 2003

Klamath Basin Rangeland Trust

United States Department of the Interior

Geological Survey

Water Resources

Oregon District

10615 SE Cherry Blossom Drive

Portland, Oregon 97216-3159

http://oregon.usgs.gov

MEMORANDUM
July 8, 2003
 

To: John Rasmussen, US Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Falls, OR

From: John C. Risley, USGS, Portland, OR

Thank you for opportunity to review these reports. My review was limited to the surface-water elements in these reports. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions about any of my comments. I can be reached at: (503) 251-3279 or jrisley@usgs.gov.

This document provides a good overview of the project background and goals. I had no significant comments on it since its purpose was not to present monitoring data and results.

Overall, the surface-water data collection methods and analyses presented in the report appear technically sound and appropriate. Some errors and specific comments are discussed below.

Page vii. The second paragraph states that cattle herds were reduced to 15%. However, in the 2002 Preliminary Restoration Plan and the 2003 Pilot Project Monitoring Plan documents, it says they were reduced by 20%.

Page vii. In the first bullet item near the bottom of the page, it is stated: "Although WY2002 was drier than….flows were only in the 50 cfs range during irrigation periods." This sentence is misleading because it implies that flows during the irrigation periods (pre 2002) were on average around 50 cfs. However, according to information in section 3, the 50 cfs was a typical minimum flow during the irrigation season in those years and not the average flow.

Pages vii-viii. Numbers (or results) presented in the Executive Summary were not always the same numbers presented in section 3 and appendix A. They seem to be an average or approximation. As an example, in the top of page vii it states: "Preliminary estimates suggest that Crooked Creek flows in 2002 were 10-15 cfs higher." However, (in section 3) a wider range of numbers are presented and "10-15 cfs" is not specifically stated. As a suggestion, an author should present results in both the main report body and the executive summary as consistently as possible. Also, a summary section should never contain any new results that were not already presented in the body.

Table 3-3 does not show Sevenmile Creek system gage information as stated in the text on page 8.

Figure 3-1 states that the Wood River gage near the Annie Creek confluence is above the confluence. However, Figure 3-3 shows this gage below the confluence.

Figure 3-7. Does "MDQ" stand for mean daily discharge? This should be spelled out for the reader.

Figure 3-8. The header should be changed to "Crooked Creek at Root Ranch". In the 1960s, the USGS had a gage on Crooked Creek near the current gage at Root Branch. Officially it was called "Crooked Creek near Fort Klamath, Oregon". However, using that location description would be too general for this report. Information about the USGS gage should still be included in the figure, such as the USGS site number (in this case: 11504200) so the reader can always find out exactly where the data came from. The USGS location description "Crooked Creek near Fort Klamath, Oregon" could also be included in a figure footnote.

Page 9. Fourth paragraph. Text says: "…flows never drop below 64 cfs." This statement is not true according to figure 3-7. Flows were below 60 cfs in May 2002.

Figure 3-9 needs to include information on what the "mean" (horizontal black line) is based on. Assuming that it is the mean of water years 1965, 1966, and 1967, then that should be stated on the figure.

Page 10. First paragraph. To check the analysis presented, I downloaded the 3 years of USGS daily flow from Crooked Creek and put them into Excel. However, I computed departure sums (2, 9, and 3 cfs for the 3 years) that were different from the departure sums shown in the text. I contacted the report author, Graham Matthews, by phone. After rechecking, he acknowledged that the values in the text were in error. Not having the 2002 flow data, I could not check values for the two other methods (presented in the second and third paragraphs).

Section 5, Evapotranspiration Estimates. The methods presented in this chapter appear technically sound. I checked values in tables 5-2 and 5-3 with the tables in Cuenca and others (1992). I also checked the math in tables 5-4 and 5-5, and it appeared correct. However, for both tables 5-4 and 5-5, in the header--under "Net ET", instead of "(Volume/Depth)" it should be "(Volume/Surface Area)".

Estimates of water used for irrigation in the KBRT land presented in both sections 3 and 5 are consistent (roughly 10-15 cfs over the irrigation season). However, the report did not present estimates of return (tailwater) flows. If tailwater is significant then the estimated added inflow to Upper Klamath Lake in WY2002 (due to the cessation of irrigation) would actually be less than 10-15 cfs. While talking to the author, Graham Matthews, he told me that most of the Crooked Creek tailwater is returned to the creek at locations downstream of the Crooked Creek at Root Ranch gage. That piece of information should be included in the report since most of the analyses (which estimated "10-15 cfs") are based on flow data from that gage site (above the tailwater inflows).

Appendix A: Surface-water monitoring report. Methods described in this section are used in the USGS and appear sound. USGS recommended measuring equipment were used. Streamflow computations were made using "Western Hydro" software, which is comparable to USGS software.

Table A-4. The header does not identify the location on Crooked Creek. I assume it is Crooked Creek at Root Ranch?

Page A-14. The number of discharge measurements by within the Wood River system in 2002 are listed on table A-5, not table A-4 as stated in the text.

Section 2--Surface Water

The goals and objectives for surface-water quantity monitoring, outlined on pages 4 and 5, seem appropriate. These include: "1) to determine if reduced irrigation demand results in higher instream flows, (2) to quantify the amount of return (tailwater) flows reaching the main channel network, and (3) to develop streamflow accounting units." However, the document contains no specific information on how these objectives will be achieved. It basically is saying, a lot surface water flow data will be collected at various locations all over the Wood Valley. But, there is no way to determine if collecting data at these designated locations will be sufficient to answer the objectives. It is also possible that proposed data collection could be data collection "overkill". The current data collection network for the Crooked Creek seems appropriate since it is within most of the KBRT lands. Flow gages seem to be located at the most important upstream and downstream boundaries of the system. All systems (Crooked, Wood, and Sevenmile/Fourmile) have gages at their downstream locations, which is also appropriate. However, I sense that the Sevenmile/Fourmile system may have more gages then necessary.

Most of the remaining information in section 2 (pages 5 through 9) was already stated in the 2002 Pilot Project Monitoring Report

Section 4--Evapotranspiration Monitoring

The objective of the evapotranspiration monitoring is to quantify the difference in water use between irrigated and non-irrigated pasture. The proposed evapotranspiration monitoring (using the Bowen ratio method) appears technically sound, and should provide more accurate and robust estimates of crop consumptive use than the shorter analysis presented in the 2002 Pilot Project Monitoring Report (Section 5). Monitoring will be done at two stations—in irrigated and non-irrigated environments. Success in this monitoring effort will be dependent on finding locations that adequately represent these two environments.

We concur that proper site selection is essential to the success of this monitoring, and careful attention has been given to the selections.